saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (11/27/84)
I cam across an interesting figure the other day. It was unfortunately
not fully documented, so if anybody knows the exact source, I would very
much appreciate more details.
The figure was in this month's Harper's Index, and was the following:
Percentage of college men who say they might commit rape if there were
no chance of being caught: 35
If this is not a sham, and the studies done were serious, this is a pretty
scary figure. It is a good disclaimer to the idea that has been expressed
here quite often that rape is an act committed by a few crazy men, and not
representative of men's attitudes towards women in general.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigleygadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (11/29/84)
-- >> The figure was in this month's Harper's Index, and was the >> following: Percentage of college men who say they might commit >> rape if there were no chance of being caught: 35 I've wondered for a while about this. There's a big difference between thinking and acting, and it may be that a lot of these college guys hadn't worked that through yet. Male sexual fantasies often involve domination and control, which poor horny guys may think means they'd like to rape someone. But that's not the same. Does anyone know how the questions were worded and how the interviews were performed? -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 28 Nov 84 [8 Frimaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
mstaveley@watmath.UUCP (Marc Staveley) (11/29/84)
>> The figure was in this month's Harper's Index, and was the >> following: Percentage of college men who say they might commit >> rape if there were no chance of being caught: 35 >I've wondered for a while about this. There's a big difference >between thinking and acting, and it may be that a lot of these >college guys hadn't worked that through yet. Male sexual fantasies >often involve domination and control, which poor horny guys may >think means they'd like to rape someone. But that's not the same. I don't remember the figures but a study very similar to this one (it may even be the same one) was done about 7 years ago. But this is only one of the findings, a large (15%?) of the people (there were both women and men in the study (and for a workable design you almost have to have equal numbers in both cells)) said they would commit MURDER if there were no chance of being caught.
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (11/30/84)
I don't believe that "only a few nuts" rape, but, the falseness of that statement does not mean rapaciousness is the general attitude of men toward women, as Sophie seems to imply. There is a middle ground (aw, I'm no fun, I know). If 35% of men *might* rape if they could get away with it, 65% of men (assuming they all have an opinion) *absolutely would not* rape, even if they could get away with it. Which is (much) bigger, 35% or 65%? Just to confuse things further, how many of the 35% would find they couldn't do it after all? And how many of the 65% would find the temptation (sexual or not) irresistible after all? Don't ask me and don't ask psychologists. In the 1969 People's Park riots in Berkeley, 10,000 students took part. But 20,000 didn't. Don't get hypnotized by a single number. Peace... Jeff Winslow
molefeuvre@watarts.UUCP (Michael O LeFeuvre) (11/30/84)
That 35% figure means nothing without the exact wording.
Personally, I consider rape to be an act of violence second only to
maiming (of the crippling-for-life variety) and murder. But I do think
that, under the right cicumstances I would be capable of murder. Thus
I might be capable of rape.
What I do not know is if I could ever achieve that peculiar state of mind
required to commit an act of extreme violence and maintain an erection at
the same time. In my mind, this is the mystery of rape. To eliminate
rape, you must create a society in which sexual arousal and violence are
mutually exclusive.
In our society this is not the case. It never has been. Why?
Sometimes I think that it is built in genetically. It might have value
from an evolutionary viewpoint.
Carlo @ the U of Waterloodwight@timeb.UUCP (Dwight Ernest) (11/30/84)
> I cam across an interesting figure the other day. It was unfortunately > not fully documented, so if anybody knows the exact source, I would very > much appreciate more details. > > The figure was in this month's Harper's Index, and was the following: > Percentage of college men who say they might commit rape if there were > no chance of being caught: 35 > > If this is not a sham, and the studies done were serious, this is a pretty > scary figure. It is a good disclaimer to the idea that has been expressed > here quite often that rape is an act committed by a few crazy men, and not > representative of men's attitudes towards women in general. The figures could indeed be correct; if so, that'd be more than a little scary. Not to excuse the possibility that it may be correct--but note that in psychological surveys it's frequent for those under study to give expression to fantasies as though they were realities... and many men, I think--as has been shown in other similar studies--have rape FANTASIES. (Not something we ought to be proud of...) -- --Dwight Ernest KA2CNN \ Usenet:...vax135!timeinc!dwight Time Inc. Editorial Technology Group, New York City Voice: (212) 554-5061 \ Compuserve: 70210,523 Telemail: DERNEST/TIMECOMDIV/TIMEINC \ MCI: DERNEST "The opinions expressed above are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Time Incorporated, its management, or stockholders." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
holt@convex.UUCP (12/01/84)
> I cam across an interesting figure the other day. It was unfortunately > not fully documented, so if anybody knows the exact source, I would very > much appreciate more details. > > The figure was in this month's Harper's Index, and was the following: > Percentage of college men who say they might commit rape if there were > no chance of being caught: 35 > > If this is not a sham, and the studies done were serious, this is a pretty > scary figure. It is a good disclaimer to the idea that has been expressed > here quite often that rape is an act committed by a few crazy men, and not > representative of men's attitudes towards women in general. > > Sophie Quigley This figure (if you believe it) agrees with my assertion that rape is not necessarily motivated by desire to inflict violence upon women. If as Ken Perlow says, this 35% is composed primarily of "horny guys", then their motivation is sexual. They want to have sex. They don't want to hurt another human being. There are many rapists motivated by a desire to do violence against their victim. But, if the definition of rape is: "sexual activity forced upon an unwilling partner" then most of these potential rapists are motivated by sexual desire. Let's hope that the males of the world can be educated to understand that women are people, not sexual objects to be used against their will. (35% IS scary!) I think that this education will drastically reduce the incidence of rape. As for what you do about people oriented toward violence, well, I have no answers. Dave Holt Convex Computer Corp. {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!holt
dwight@timeinc.UUCP (Dwight Ernest) (12/02/84)
> Personally, I consider rape to be an act of violence second only to > maiming (of the crippling-for-life variety) and murder. But I do think > that, under the right cicumstances I would be capable of murder. Thus > I might be capable of rape. That's a curious assumption... that if one thought oneself to be capable of murder, one might also be capable of rape. The nefarious aspect of both crimes is, of course, similar (as it is for maiming, as your point out-- and certainly rape has is psychological aspects of maiming, at least). But I assume that when you admit you might be capable of murder, you might be agreeing with me; I think I might be capable of it if I were pushed hard enough, or if someone had done evil enough to me or to someone else to make it worthwhile. But rape? I cannot see myself using this crime of violence as a means of expressing anger or retribution, or as a means of protecting others from a particularly vile or cruel or senseless person, which are the circum- stances under which I see myself capable of committing murder. So "...if I can murder, then I might rape" just doesn't connect. > What I do not know is if I could ever achieve that peculiar state of mind > required to commit an act of extreme violence and maintain an erection at > the same time. In my mind, this is the mystery of rape. To eliminate > rape, you must create a society in which sexual arousal and violence are > mutually exclusive. Ahhh... yes. Part of my point, too! "Creating a society," however, is as much a matter of modifying individual consciousness as it is a matter of genetics and environment. And our environment is constantly stressing the so-called "connection" between violence and sex. (Advertising, television and cinema programming choices, etc...) > In our society this is not the case. It never has been. Why? > > Sometimes I think that it is built in genetically. It might have value > from an evolutionary viewpoint. Bullsh*t, I hope. Genetically? That assumption removes blame from each and every one of us, whether we're offenders or not. I don't believe it. I hope it isn't true. How could it possibly have had value in our dim beginnings? > Carlo @ the U of Waterloo -- --Dwight Ernest KA2CNN \ Usenet:...vax135!timeinc!dwight Time Inc. Editorial Technology Group, New York City Voice: (212) 554-5061 \ Compuserve: 70210,523 \ EIES: 1228 Telemail: EDPISG/TIMEINC \ MCI: DERNEST
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (12/02/84)
*** REPLACE THIS species WITH YOUR petri-dish *** > -- Ken Perlow says: > >> The figure was in this month's Harper's Index, and was the > >> following: Percentage of college men who say they might commit > >> rape if there were no chance of being caught: 35 > > I've wondered for a while about this. > There's a big difference between thinking and acting, and > it may be that a lot of these college guys hadn't worked that through yet. > Male sexual fantasies often involve domination and control, ... > ...which poor horny guys may think means they'd like to rape someone. > But that's not the same. And so it is that women's sexual fantasies often involved being ravished, but that's a lot different than being raped. Both involve "being taken", but one is by force of ecstatic enjoyment of what one is being distracted with, and the other is by force of violence without consent. Would you prefer I manicure your nails with this file, or shall I just rip them out with this pair of pliers? The fact that the question involved "getting caught" implies we're talking about the use of force of violence, rather than "friendly persuasion" of true enjoyment. Thus we can say that 1/3 of the male population of a certain age category ( a snapshot of the better (college) crosssection of "society") has no moral compunction (only fear of retribution) about forcibly dominating a woman and using her sexually. If that isn't a sad statement about the state of human rights in the country who's main claim to fame "above" other countries is it's support of human rights, then I can only conclude that women are not considered human, but merely chattel, by "society". We freed the slaves and gave equality to every racial and religious interest and variation, yet society refuses to ratify the same for women (ERA). Why? Why does anyone feel they have the right to control another? Slavery is out! And that means rape, too. Rape is "merely" violent sexual slavery! It's not constitutional, not moral, not sane, yet is condoned by "society". Would anyone care to produce a poll of the percentage of women who condone rape? Is society composed only of men? Are women only chattel? Why? Why? Why? What gives you the right? This is WAR! Women Against Rape. Have you done your part to discourage men you know who evidence attitudes which do not indicate disapproval of rape? Women are people, human, have rights. Don't they? Oh... Hmmm.... ....we have met the enemy, and he is social attitudes ....which are no more than the collection of individual attitudes ....which are modeled on the social attitudes, which... -- mail ucbvax\!sun\!sunny decvax\!sun\!sunny ihnp4\!sun\!sunny<<EOF EOF
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (12/03/84)
In article <1830@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >Have you done your part to discourage men you know who evidence >attitudes which do not indicate disapproval of rape? Shortly before the election I heard a talk by Sonia Johnson entitled "Why I'm Running for President". The reason was that no other candidate reflected her point of view: all of the world's major problems arise from the basic concept of "having power over". Our acceptance of this concept as fundamental to all relationships from interpersonal to inter- national grows out our society's promotion of the power of men over women. The principal tool for enforcing the power of men over women is terror -- the fear of rape being just one example. Thus, all men benefit from the fact that women fear rape (benefit in a narrow sense), and the man who would not consider raping a woman benefits just as much as the rapist. So Sonia's point, similar to Sunny's above, was that it isn't enough not to contribute directly to the terror that keeps women "in their place". Everyone has a moral obligation to act positively to eradicate rape, domestic violence, violent or degrading pornography, and the like. She had many other good things to say, and if you get a chance to hear her talk, don't miss it. -- Richard Mateosian {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
rene@tove.UUCP (Rene Steiner) (12/03/84)
> > Sometimes I think that [desire to rape] is built in genetically. >It might have value > > from an evolutionary viewpoint. > > Bullsh*t, I hope. Genetically? That assumption removes blame from each > and every one of us, whether we're offenders or not. I don't believe > it. I hope it isn't true. How could it possibly have had value in our > dim beginnings? > While I don't believe this is appropriate to apply to humans, it is true that there is evidence that there might be evolutionary benefit IN SOME SPECIES of animals (the ones I read about were deer and ducks). It works this way: some males are not allowed to mate in the normal cycle (one stag to a herd, I'm not sure how ducks work). It may be of personal evolutionary benefit for the loner to rape a female while the male who won the right to mate her isn't looking (perhaps mating with some other female); after all, he may get her pregnant, whereas otherwise, he wouldn't have any chance to pass on his genes. Now, as I said above, I don't think this can be applied to humans: I doubt that the purpose of rape is to make babies (although it sometimes has that result), humans are NOT deer or ducks, and it is not only "loners" who rape. This may be an explanation for the capacity to rape. This does NOT in any way "excuse" rape. I firmly believe that people are responsible for their own actions, whatever component is contributed by evolution (yes, there are many types of mental illness with physical causes, but that's a different subject). To paraphrase (since I don't remember the exact wording) a (relatively) well-known philosopher: we still have teeth and nails, but we don't bite and scratch much these days. - rene -- rene@tove My opinions are my own, and no one can take them away from me!!!
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (12/04/84)
-- [Sunny Kirsten, replying to my wondering if the "35% who would rape if they knew they wouldn't get caught" were confusing traditional male "rape fantasies" with the opportunity to do true violence] >> The fact that the question involved "getting caught" implies we're >> talking about the use of force of violence, rather than "friendly >> persuasion" of true enjoyment. Thus we can say that 1/3 of the male >> population of a certain age category ( a snapshot of the better >> (college) crosssection of "society") has no moral compunction (only >> fear of retribution) about forcibly dominating a woman and using her >> sexually. If that isn't a sad statement about the state of human >> rights in the country who's main claim to fame "above" other countries >> is it's support of human rights, then I can only conclude that women >> are not considered human, but merely chattel, by "society". It's worse than that. It's not a matter of committing an act that, save for the sex of the victim, would be morally wrong. Men somehow learn "she says 'no', but she means 'yes'", or even worse, that women really want to be raped and actually enjoy it. It's not hypocrisy, it's dementia. Where do these attitudes come from? There's an interesting analysis in "The Mermaid and the Minotaur, Sexual Arrangements and Human Malaise" by Dorothy Dinnerstein. She contends that they are inevitable in a society where children are brought up exclusively by women, and maintains that they won't disappear until the task is performed equally by parents of both sexes. Good reading, albeit dry. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 03 Dec 84 [13 Frimaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (12/04/84)
> This figure (if you believe it) agrees with my assertion that rape is > not necessarily motivated by desire to inflict violence upon women. If as > Ken Perlow says, this 35% is composed primarily of "horny guys", then their > motivation is sexual. They want to have sex. They don't want to hurt another > human being. There are many rapists motivated by a desire to do > violence against their victim. But, if the definition of rape is: > > "sexual activity forced upon an unwilling partner" > > then most of these potential rapists are motivated by sexual desire. Let's > hope that the males of the world can be educated to understand that women are > people, not sexual objects to be used against their will. (35% IS scary!) > I think that this education will drastically reduce the incidence of rape. > As for what you do about people oriented toward violence, well, I have no > answers. > Dave Holt Violence, my friend, is still violence, no matter what the reason why. Anyone who rapes *does* want to ``hurt another human being''! Would my denying I want to hurt you make my pushing a knife into your chest any less of a crime? Would it make my knifing you non-violent? How insane would I actually have to be to ``not want to hurt another human being'' and still knife you? Yet you seem to feel that the male attitude you talk about is simply misguided. But rape doesn't cause physical injury the way knifing does, you say. That's not necessarily true, even when you restrict yourself to physical injuries. But the emotional injury from rape can be absolutely life- shattering, with psychological wounds that never heal. I'll admit that sex is a part of rape, as you claim it is. But I think there is a key facet you are ignoring: the rapist is SEXUALLY AROUSED BY VIOLENCE. He isn't just a guy who got a bit too horny and let things get out of control. If he can't think of any non-violent ways of relieving sexual tension, even alone, then maybe he IS out of his mind. As it stands, the rapist is sick, but in a society where his sickness is considered somehow ``normal''. I think you have a bit of insight into the problem: having ``males of the world...understand that woman are people'' certainly would reduce rape as well as injustices of all kind. A first step is eliminating the mythology about rape, letting it be seen for the violence it is. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
molefeuvre@watarts.UUCP (Michael O LeFeuvre) (12/04/84)
>> In our society this is not the case. It never has been. Why? >> >> Sometimes I think that it is built in genetically. It might have value >> from an evolutionary viewpoint. > >Bullsh*t, I hope. Genetically? That assumption removes blame from each >and every one of us, whether we're offenders or not. I don't believe >it. I hope it isn't true. How could it possibly have had value in our >dim beginnings? > >> Carlo @ the U of Waterloo > >-- > --Dwight Ernest KA2CNN \ Usenet:...vax135!timeinc!dwight Bullshit, YOU HOPE. It seems to me that men who raped would have spread more genes around than others. Bullshit, I hope, but not I believe. Carlo @ the U of Waterloo
ma155acq@sdcc7.UUCP ({|stu) (12/05/84)
In article <10011@watmath.UUCP> saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: >I cam across an interesting figure the other day. It was unfortunately... >The figure was in this month's Harper's Index, and was the following: >Percentage of college men who say they might commit rape if there were >no chance of being caught: 35 > >If this is not a sham, and the studies done were serious, this is a pretty >scary figure. ... >Sophie Quigley It is hard to say whether the study was conducted in a valid way, because you didn't mention how it was conducted. I know from experience that sometimes men get angry at women because of the constant rejection (I'm sure that women feel the same thing sometimes, too). I must admit that when I am angry, I might *say* that I would rape, but I really know that I am incapable of such an act, and I am usually in control of myself when I am angry. (This is of course concluding that rape is a way to vent anger, and not a sexual desire. I believe this is so). Thus, the question would have to worded "*Would* you commit rape...?", not "*Might* you commit rape...?" Also, the test would have to be conducted in a manner that would not "sort out" the few men. For example, if this test were conducted on the network, the respondants might only be those who, for some reason, wanted to express their anger on the polls. The other men, who would *not* commit such an act, just might not respond (how many of you have noticed that you only respond to polls where you feel you are directly involved or interested? That really screws up statistics). Victor Romano ------------------------------------- But that's not right. Oh no! What's the story? There's you and there's me. (That couldn't be right) -ST
ma155acq@sdcc7.UUCP ({|stu) (12/05/84)
In article <1949@nsc.UUCP> srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) writes: > >Shortly before the election I heard a talk by Sonia Johnson entitled >"Why I'm Running for President". The reason was that no other candidate >reflected her point of view: all of the world's major problems arise >from the basic concept of "having power over". Our acceptance of this >concept as fundamental to all relationships from interpersonal to inter- >national grows out our society's promotion of the power of men over women. > >The principal tool for enforcing the power of men over women is terror -- >the fear of rape being just one example. Thus, all men benefit from the >fact that women fear rape (benefit in a narrow sense), and the man >who would not consider raping a woman benefits just as much as the rapist. "Benefit in a narrow sense": That's an understatement! I do not believe that average man (the non-rapist) benefits *at all* from the woman's fear of rape. The fear of rape is a disadvantage for both sides. Men have not gained their "power over women" by the use of rape (how they did it, I don't know. But I will deny that it was rape). If anything, this fear seems to be a disadvantage for men, because they can always be accused of being a "potential rapist." Especially when it comes to relationships between the two sexes. I usually find that women are more hesitant to become involved with another man because she has to decide whether he is a "potential rapist", and this is hard on the man, as well. Victor Romano ------------------------------ Who are these men of lust, greed, and glory? Rip off the mask and let's see. -SuperTramp
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/06/84)
> > >> In our society this is not the case. It never has been. Why? > >> > >> Sometimes I think that it is built in genetically. It might have value > >> from an evolutionary viewpoint. > > > >Bullsh*t, I hope. Genetically? That assumption removes blame from each > >and every one of us, whether we're offenders or not. I don't believe > >it. I hope it isn't true. How could it possibly have had value in our > >dim beginnings? > > > >> Carlo @ the U of Waterloo > > > >-- > > --Dwight Ernest KA2CNN \ Usenet:...vax135!timeinc!dwight > > > Bullshit, YOU HOPE. It seems to me that men who raped would have > spread more genes around than others. Bullshit, I hope, but not > I believe. > > Carlo @ the U of Waterloo Who cares? I am sure murder is built in genetically too: those who kill more probably survived longer. So what? it doesn't excuse murder. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (12/06/84)
In article <1830@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >The fact that the question involved "getting caught" implies we're >talking about the use of force of violence, rather than "friendly >persuasion" of true enjoyment. Thus we can say that 1/3 of the male >population of a certain age category ( a snapshot of the better >(college) crosssection of "society") has no moral compunction (only >fear of retribution) about forcibly dominating a woman and using her... >mail ucbvax\!sun\!sunny decvax\!sun\!sunny ihnp4\!sun\!sunny<<EOF > No, we can't say that. What we can say is that in some fairly unrealistic experiments (conducted just across the street from here), some college sophomore males give answers that are exactly what Ed Donnerstein is looking for (at least, I assume Sophie's original posting was referring to his work, since he's a big name for this sort of study). Any study like this has great demand characteristics. First they are shown pornography; often violent pornography depicting rape. Then they get to fill out forms about their attitudes. What do these forms mean? Not very much. Most people, if questioned properly, can be induced to answer that it is POSSIBLE they could commit awful crimes that in fact they are totally incapable of in real life. They even know what answer the experimenter is looking for, since they just saw films of sexual violence. "Hmmm, I did have some small sexual response when I saw her with her clothes off....maybe I could do this horrible thing....besides, he's a psychologist, he must know what he's doing, and it is pretty clear that he expects people to answer yes, otherwise why is he asking... I know I've had violent thoughts...oh my GOD, I'd better answer yes... it's a good thing these experiments are anonymous." The relevance of these studies to the real world is tenuous indeed; they get published only because of the difficulty of getting anything better for answers. (Oh, someone says, another barbarian computer jock sneering at all social science research). Not so. My M.S. is in psychology; I've taught experimental psychology; and I've published twice in refereed journals (Behavior Research and Therapy; Animal Learning and Behavior). I'm sneering from an informed perspective. Too many journalists pick up on Donnerstein's work and write sensationalist articles about what beasts men are. It's about time this research got the benevolent neglect it deserves. -- TV got it right for once: "Bob, it's all a crock." -- from the Bob Newhart show. Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (12/06/84)
> Bullshit, YOU HOPE. It seems to me that men who raped would have > spread more genes around than others. Bullshit, I hope, but not > I believe. > > Carlo @ the U of Waterloo This is a very simplistic and naive view of evolution. Reproduction is the easy part; the key to natural selection is the ability for ones offspring to survive. Early man formed groups, much like what modern man does on a larger scale. Natural selection would work towards modes of behavior that increase group cohesion, and NOT just towards brute-force reproduction. A group that practiced violent behavior against some of its members would likely demoralize and splinter, and its chances for survival would be reduced. It all gets a lot more complicated. I've heard the theory that the advent of organized force (i.e. armies), in which one group overcomes another, meant that the successful invaders would rape and pillage and the children of those rapes would continue the violent tendencies of their fathers. There is a falacy here; such warrior-children would be more likely to get themselves killed in similar exploits, while the real advantage goes to the more peaceful members of the invading group who are more likely to survive and settle the conquered territory. I'm certainly no expert in prehistoric anthropology, or evolutionary biology. But I think I know enough to see that there is little reason to believe that sexual violence would bestow an evolutionary advantage. On the other hand, a certain amount of sexual aggressiveness would definitely be advantageous--in both sexes. And if you don't know why aggressiveness is NOT the same as violence, there is little hope for you... but I'll try explaining it anyway. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
jfh@browngr.UUCP (John "Spike" Hughes) (12/06/84)
I worry about attributing anything to genetics--it's too easy. I think of
Katherine Hepburn in "The African Queen" saying "Nature is what we are put on
earth to rise above", and suddenly I find myself agreeing with her.
Saying "genetics made me do it" is a little like the famous "Determinism
made me do it" defense used by Clarence Darrow. This approach was stifled
by a judge who said "Determinism makes me sentence you to life in prison".
-John Hughessaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/07/84)
> In article <10011@watmath.UUCP> saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: > >I cam across an interesting figure the other day. It was unfortunately... > > >The figure was in this month's Harper's Index, and was the following: > >Percentage of college men who say they might commit rape if there were > >no chance of being caught: 35 > > > >If this is not a sham, and the studies done were serious, this is a pretty > >scary figure. ... > > It is hard to say whether the study was conducted in a valid way, because > you didn't mention how it was conducted. I know from experience that The reason I didn't mention anything was that the only information I had was the line I quoted directly from the Harper's Index, which is a one page collection of statistics that comes up every month in Harper's. I did ask in my original article whether people had more details on the study. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (12/07/84)
>> Bullsh*t, I hope. Genetically? That assumption removes blame from each >> and every one of us, whether we're offenders or not. I don't believe >> it. I hope it isn't true. How could it possibly have had value in our >> dim beginnings? If you will delve a bit into history you will find that even in the crusades the practice of rape was not only allowed but in some instances (recruiting) advertised as an inducement to travel to war. Not that I have any great love for war either but sex and forcible sex (rape today) were more than tolerated by most governments as recently as 200 years. What existed then is today coverd by a thin verneer of civility which is held in place only by force of law in many areas. I am not implying that all men are rapists only that our so called society is not as selfadhesive as we would like to believe. Jeanette zobjeck
jfh@browngr.UUCP (John "Spike" Hughes) (12/08/84)
carlo suggests that men who rape will spread their genes around, thus presumably spreading around the 'tendency to rape'. This is fine, if you believe that rape is genetically programmed rather than socially programmed. There is little evidence for genetic programming of complex social behaviour in higher organisms (R. Dawkins and the selfish gene notwithstanding) -- in fact this is a complex issue which is the crux of the current argument in sociobiology Even if you believe that 'tendency to rape' is genetically programmed, that doesn't excuse rape. Some people appear to be angrier than others "by nature", but that doesn't mean it's ok for them to murder...
act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis) (12/09/84)
I heard that figure somewhere before and I believe that it was cited in a Psychology Today article last year, although I don't remember the month. The article in PT went on to talk about the men's attitudes towards women who paid their own way versus women who expected their dates to pay--apparently many (50%) men view sex as "payment" for a date that they are "entitled to." The article implied that one way for women to cut down on the incidence of date rape was to pay their own way. submitted by A. Tselis for C. Elizabeth Jackson ...ihnp4!lznv!cja
holt@convex.UUCP (12/10/84)
Ahem, let me clear the air a bit here... from Ed Hall > > Violence, my friend, is still violence, no matter what the reason why. Agreed. > Anyone who rapes *does* want to ``hurt another human being''! Would > my denying I want to hurt you make my pushing a knife into your chest > any less of a crime? Would it make my knifing you non-violent? How > insane would I actually have to be to ``not want to hurt another human > being'' and still knife you? Yet you seem to feel that the male attitude > you talk about is simply misguided. I was discussing motivation. My point was that the motivation for rape can be sexual in nature. I don't think that motivation affects the seriousness of this crime. Rather, by trying to understand motivations behind rape, we can work on decreasing its occurance. I do feel that a male attitude which condones rape is misguided. Don't you? I don't believe that the primary goal of all rapists is to hurt other human beings. > But rape doesn't cause physical injury the way knifing does, you say. > That's not necessarily true, even when you restrict yourself to physical > injuries. But the emotional injury from rape can be absolutely life- > shattering, with psychological wounds that never heal. I didn't say anything about "knifing", and whether rape causes physical injury. I would suppose that the vast majority of rapes do cause physical injury, no matter what the motivation of the rapist. Rape is bad news. I would like for it to vanish from existance. I know for a fact that rape can cause psychological wounds. I won't go into detail on that account. > I'll admit that sex is a part of rape, as you claim it is. But I think > there is a key facet you are ignoring: the rapist is SEXUALLY AROUSED > BY VIOLENCE. He isn't just a guy who got a bit too horny and let things > get out of control. If he can't think of any non-violent ways of > relieving sexual tension, even alone, then maybe he IS out of his mind. > As it stands, the rapist is sick, but in a society where his sickness is > considered somehow ``normal''. Are you saying that a "guy who got a bit too horny and let things get out of control" is not a rapist if he forces sex on another person????? My point was that SOME rapists are motivated by sexual desire. I believe that this class of rapists is the easiest to eliminate, through better education and a more enlightened socialization process. We need to learn to treat other humans with respect. > I think you have a bit of insight into the problem: having ``males of > the world...understand that woman are people'' certainly would reduce > rape as well as injustices of all kind. A first step is eliminating > the mythology about rape, letting it be seen for the violence it is. > > -Ed Hall > decvax!randvax!edhall Yes, that's my point. Let's educate people, and try and change our socialization process so that men and women are considered equal. People should not want to force their will on other people. What Sophie's original posting said to me was that there are still lots of men out there who don't believe this. As a famous person once said "there's still a lot to be done". Dave Holt Convex Computer Corp. {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!holt
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (12/11/84)
In article <10163@watmath.UUCP> version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP eosp1!fisher!astrovax!princeton!allegra!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!saquigley saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: >> >> >> In our society this is not the case. It never has been. Why? >> >> >> >> Sometimes I think that it is built in genetically. It might have value >> >> from an evolutionary viewpoint. >> > >> >Bullsh*t, I hope. Genetically? That assumption removes blame from each >> >and every one of us, whether we're offenders or not. I don't believe >> >it. I hope it isn't true. How could it possibly have had value in our >> >dim beginnings? I'd like to remind everyone that: anybody who feels that human beings should be routinely allowed to follow their genetic proclivities must, to be consistent, encourage everyone to dispense with toilet training. This is one of the strongest examples of society agreeing that, even at great emotional cost to the individual, we should impose civilized behaviour on top of our genetic inclinations. Logically there is no middle ground here. You either believe: (a) It is natural and acceptable to follow genetic proclivities, or (b) Society rightfully decides in each case whether to suppress geentic inclinations. If (as I believe) the latter is true, than identifying genetic inclinations is IRRELEVANT to determining whether behaviour is acceptable. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) {allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison