Treblaine said:
It's the prostate, very sensitive to stimulation is directly adjacent to the rectum and when palpated can causes an AUTONOMOUS sexual response that one has diminished willpower to prevent.
As I bisexual man I have receptive anal sex. I know how the prostate works.
Thus I can say the following. Prostate stimulation and prostate milking (the process you're actually describing) are different. Prostate stimulation occurs during anal sex, yes. It is like any other form of arousal however, in that in order to trigger a sexual response cycle a person generally needs to be reasonably relaxed. I can tell you that if someone were to force a penis into your unrelaxed sphincter, any prostate stimulation you recieved would not be very pleasant and would probably not give you an erection.
Prostate milking (or prostate massage) is direct massage of the prostate in order to make someone secrete seminal fluid. This can be involuntary and indeed can be done medically, for example. It can be extremely pleasurable, especially when done in conjunction with other forms of stimulation, but is by no means the same thing. It's quite possible to ejaculate through prostate milking without having an orgasm.
Now, I'm not adverse to the idea that a small number of people might effectively be being 'milked' during anal rape, but the attacker would have to accidentally adopt exactly the right angle and position relative to his (or her) partner. It's difficult even when you
want to do it. Also, the experience would not be in any way comparable to a woman having an orgasm in rape.
Treblaine said:
No need to look into psychology, this is basic nerve mechanics things like "arousal" and ejaculation/orgasm don't come from emotions of your psyche, they are response to stimulus like shivering when you get cold you can try to will yourself to stop it but often you can't.
While I wish I could agree purely for the saking of putting this horrible argument away, a cursory glance at sexual behaviour shows this is obviously untrue.
I realize this is a difficult thing for most guys to grasp, but orgasms are not as immutable and uncontrollable as the tide. Many people, in fact most women full stop, have to actively concentrate or engage in particular excercises in order to have an orgasm. It's not something which just happens.
Some people require very specific forms of stimulation in order to achieve orgasm.
Some people can't orgasm in particular positions or when subject to particular stimuli.
I'll agree that an orgasm itself is an autonomic response. But arousal is not. Thinking about or being receptive to sex is an important trigger in that cycle. Heck, it's an extremely important part of controlling or influencing the conditions which allow you to orgasm (you think about sexy things, more blood pumps to your penis or clitoris, it becomes more sensitive.)
This does not mean accepting the utterly horrible argument that Guy Jackson put forward. I've just given an example of a way to physiologically sidetrack the response cycle. It may be there are others, I'm not adverse to that. What am incredibly averse to is someone claiming that all women subconsciously want to be raped. Assuming it is possible for a woman to orgasm during rape, that would still not be evidence of desire.
Treblaine said:
That doesn't mean they ACTUALLY want those to ACTUALLY happen, they may not even really want the fantasies themselves they just pop into their head and indulge in them because they are private as private as anything could possibly be inside their own head. It does NOT translate as representative of their true actual desires.
Again, you can't assume a link between 'rape fantasies' and rape.
Maybe you don't see how incredibly offensive it is to suggest that on a level women enjoy rape and get off on it because the
idea of being powerless during a sexual encounter turns them on in other situations, so I'm trying to keep my automatic desire to kick anyone who makes such an assertion until they stop moving in check and try and offer something constructive.
Freud already had an explanation ready for the prevalance of 'masochistic' desire in women nearly a hundred years ago. That it's part of the difficult process of shifting from the clitoral sexuality evidenced by female children to a vaginal sexuality marked by desire for penetration. Since an extremely large fraction of the population do not enjoy being penetrated, almost all women never find vaginal stimulation very pleasurable in its own right and little girls have no desire at all for it, Freud concluded that women were not innately born with the desire for vaginal stimulation. It is produced through the shame-based repression of clitorial sexuality.
The desire for a 'passive' or 'coerced' role in sexual encounters is therefore linked to the shame women are taught to derive from experiencing clitoral pleasure. This is not necessarily a consciously induced shame, but rather a product of self-realization as a woman. A little woman is eventually forced to realize that her clitoris doesn't carry the same social weight as a penis, which causes shameful realization of insufficiency. Freud is pretty damn offensive about this, but on a fundamental level it makes a degree of sense to the extent that it's not talking about essentials, but about social interpretation.
Rape fantasies can easily be read not as a desire to be raped, but as a response to the unacceptability of receiving clitoral pleasure and the need to project responsibility for that pleasure onto someone else. It probably has far more to do with the mechanisms which lead to sexually active women being called sluts than it does with some secret rape wish.
All I'm saying is that the worst, most dodgy psychologist in history could come up with a better theory than 'women fantasize about rape because they secretly want it'.
