al@gtx.com (0732) (01/07/88)
>>>I expect there's an evolutionary advantage. Rapists probably reproduce >>>better than non-rapists. >>> >>>Keith Doyle >> >>Oh boy, I sure hope that was meant as a funny. How many out there think it >>was? Now, how many out there thought it was amuuusing? >> It is neither funny nor amuusing. It is a very distasteful idea. However, whether or not we like the idea has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. It probably is false, but not obviously false. I reject the attitude that certain ideas are too politically unpleasant to have a chance of being true, though. There are a lot of taboo ideas like this, most of them having to do with race, or heridity vs environment. Scientists* who study them will get viciously attacked if their data leads to the "wrong" conclusion. Both liberals and conservatives have their own set of "touchy" areas. Being "against rape" in the sense of not being able to tolerate any non-condemnatory statement about it is an understandable, though not rational reaction. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 2501 W. Dunlap, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA | | {ihnp4,cbosgd,decvax,hplabs,seismo}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- *in case I have left anyone unoffended, I should add that I do not necessarily lump "social scientists" with "scientists".
scm@gtx.com (Sue Miller) (01/08/88)
> >>>>I expect there's an evolutionary advantage. Rapists probably reproduce >>>>better than non-rapists. >>>> >>>>Keith Doyle >>> Not really. Not unless you intend "non-rapists" to mean ONLY those individuals who otherwise have no other way to pass on their DNA. Otherwise, if it were an advantage that increased one's fitness (a la Darwin, not Jack LaLanne ;-) ) I would certainly expect it to be exhibited more frequently. As it is, I am not sure that rape as we humans know it even exists in any other species - although the example of cricket sexual behavior comes close I guess. The "fittest" male crickets build little dens ("lovenests") and chirp in order to attract females for "dates". The less-fit cricket males don't build dens or chirp in a way that attracts females. Some of these (given the entertaining title of "sneaky fuckers" by a bio TA I had) will hang around hoping to waylay ( :-) ) a female on her way to a tryst. Since cricket females are bigger than the males the "sneaks" are not terribly successful -- but I guess it beats no chance at reproduction at all. This doesn't seem like a very good parallel to the aggressive power trip that human rapists seem to exhibit. Any social/behavioral biologists out there care to comment? I think that this has been somewhat of a hot topic with them recently. -- ------------------------------------------------------- | Sue Miller UUCP: ihnp4!sun!sunburn!gtx!scm | -------------------------------------------------------
palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) (01/09/88)
In article <517@gtx.com> scm@gtx.UUCP (Sue Miller) writes: > >> >>>>>I expect there's an evolutionary advantage. Rapists probably reproduce >>>>>better than non-rapists. >>>>> >>>>>Keith Doyle >>>> > Not really. Not unless you intend "non-rapists" to mean ONLY those >individuals who otherwise have no other way to pass on their DNA. >Otherwise, if it were an advantage that increased one's fitness (a la >Darwin, not Jack LaLanne ;-) ) I would certainly expect it to be exhibited >more frequently. > As it is, I am not sure that rape as we humans know it >even exists in any other species - although the example of cricket sexual >behavior comes close I guess.... [Prurient description of the sex life of crickets ommitted at the request of Ed Meese] Any statement which says "Humans (or Western Europeans etc.) are the only species (people etc.) which do [some evil thing]" are usually wrong. Rape among ducks is well documented. (The female duck does NOT want to be raped, the male duck uses force.) When this happens, the husband of the raped duck immediately rapes his wife, to reduce the chances of being genetically cuckolded. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer "Every day it's the same thing--variety. I want something different."
joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) (01/10/88)
In article <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (David Palmer) writes: >In article <517@gtx.com> scm@gtx.UUCP (Sue Miller) writes: >> As it is, I am not sure that rape as we humans know it >>even exists in any other species - although the example of cricket sexual >>behavior comes close I guess.... >[Prurient description of the sex life of crickets ommitted at the > request of Ed Meese] > >Any statement which says "Humans (or Western Europeans etc.) are the only >species (people etc.) which do [some evil thing]" are usually wrong. >Rape among ducks is well documented. (The female duck does NOT want to >be raped, the male duck uses force.) When this happens, the husband of the >raped duck immediately rapes his wife, to reduce the chances of being >genetically cuckolded. I have a very big problem with the use of the word "rape" (or "monogamy" and "polygamy" for that matter) in describing behavior in animals regardless of how close that behavior *appears* to resemble human behavior. Using "rape" to describe the behavior of crickets, ducks, and humans suggests that its cause is the same in each species. Humans DO NOT engage in forced copulation for the same reason ducks do. Forced copulation in humans and ducks are completely different phenomenon. -------------------------------- Joseph Wang (joe@athena.mit.edu) 450 Memorial Drive C-111 Cambridge, MA 02139
mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) (01/10/88)
In article <511@gtx.com>, Alan Filipski (al@gtx.com (0732)) writes: > > I reject the > attitude that certain ideas are too politically unpleasant to have > a chance of being true, though. There are a lot of taboo ideas like > this, most of them having to do with race, or heridity vs environment. > Scientists* who study them will get viciously attacked if their data leads > to the "wrong" conclusion. > Scientists have a choice in the methodology they employ. Some methodologies are biased. The biology-is-destiny methodologies are good examples of biased approaches. Behavior genetics statistical treatments tend to lump "environmental" effects in with "error" effects in partialling out variance due to different factors, with the result that "environment" is seldom systematically varied, while "heritable characteristics" are always systematically varied. Sociobiology _starts_ with the notion that complex social behaviors are biologically defined (i.e., chemically, genetically specifiable), and then goes on to study how this "fact" is demonstrated in the behavior of ants and humans. The resulting "findings" are then applied to women, minorities, and new "biologically (genetically)-defined" out-groups, such as people who commit crimes (an alleged heritable tendency -- no social impact on people's behavior here!) or people who are diagnosed as mentally ill (again, an alleged heritable tendency, with no social component). And _then_ these conclusions can have impact directly upon people's lives. Herrnstein proposed ending head start programs because of the alleged heritability of stupidity in blacks. A number of psychological conditions have been assumed to be heritable -- and therefore suitable for forced sterilization as well as indefinite confinement. Recent work has shown these "truths" to be in error -- why were people so willing to accept them for so long? And at such cost to the victims? If you believe that complex behaviors can be directly reduced to genetically-defined traits, then those traits can be linked to other genetically-defined traits, including sex. And if nature has linked those traits that way, then what can the poor behavioral geneticist or sociobiologist do about it? It's just the "natural order," that's all (they say). So they can conclude that complex behaviors are directly reducible to genetic traits, that these traits are linked to other traits that _just_happen_ to be associated with an out-group status in current society, that this is inevitable, and that therefore we must accept it. How strange, how coincidental that these conclusions never contradict the social order. And so they learn: _That's_ why women fare so poorly in employment: they're trying to do something for which they lack the right genes! Likewise blacks. I hope that my sarcasm makes clear that I do not agree with the conclusions described in this paragraph (and I hope that if you quote this paragraph, you will do so carefully, dividing my views from the views I am describing). The "scientific study" of the "heritability of IQ" (or of other behavioral "traits") is rife with suspicious or obviously-flawed methodologies, not to mention outright falsification on a massive scale -- Gould, Rose, Rose, Lewontin, and Kamin have made this case much better than I could, and in very accessible forms (go read them if you think that science in this area is unbiased). Gould and Kamin have been particularly strong on the point that the usual scientific standards are weakened or ignored when someone's allegedly scientific work supports a societal prejudice. They've documented this repeated trend in many many cases, for a total of hundreds of pages of clear, readable prose. I urge you to have a look. So I don't condemn scientists who investigate unpopular notions. I do consider that scientists choose their methodologies for a number of reasons, including how those methodologies support their views of culture, society, and so on (read Laudan on the topic of contributions to scientific thinking which come from areas _external_ to the scientist's own area of research). And I think it is fair to hold people responsible for the methodological models which they choose. Put differently: Many scientists claim that they are results-driven -- i.e., "the data made me do it" (where "it" can mean the sociobiologist's conclusion that certain behavioral traits are heritable, that they _have_been_ inherited differentially in western society, and that this "natural order" is the way things are meant to be -- therefore, it must be Good, or at least inevitable). But read Laudan, or Kuhn: scientific thought is influenced by a priori assumptions and contributions from other areas of science, culture, and so on. Scientists are as responsible as the rest of us for the choices they make -- in how they analyze certain problems, and in whether they choose to investigate certain questions at all. Those choices are fair topics for debate, I think, and for critical examination of social consequences. Michael Muller Bellcore I wish that my views were Bell Communications Research representative of those ..!bellcore!ctt!mjm of my employer.
lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) (01/10/88)
In article <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) writes: >Forced copulation in humans and ducks are completely different phenomenon. This simply isn't correct. Monogamy is a reasonable strategy for living and for child raising. Its wide presence in both birds and mammals demonstrates that it has a fundamental advantage. But, this implies the existence of bachelors, who will not reproduce at all, unless they rape. Now that we have this insight, field researchers have reexamined notes, and made new observations, and sure enough, rape is seen. It would be presumptous of us to think that we stand apart from this pattern: "we aren't animals, after all!". If it was just mallards, well, we do act very differently from mallards. But, if it's a broad observation about higher animals, with a reasonable logic going for it, then I think it does apply to us. Not as an overt thing, of course: the rapist does not think in these terms. But, the mallard didn't either. This is sad, and not too useful, until we notice the "rerape" that mallards do. (The husband has a quick shot at getting his genes in there before the invading ones have beat him to the egg.) Suddenly, we have an explanation for the way that rape victims are often treated, by police, by boyfriends, and by courts. -- Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science
g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) (01/10/88)
In article <616@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: >In article <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) writes: >>Forced copulation in humans and ducks are completely different phenomenon. > >This simply isn't correct. > >Monogamy is a reasonable strategy for living and for child raising. Its wide >presence in both birds and mammals demonstrates that it has a fundamental >advantage. But, this implies the existence of bachelors, who will not >reproduce at all, unless they rape. Now that we have this insight, field >researchers have reexamined notes, and made new observations, and sure >enough, rape is seen. It would be presumptous of us to think that we stand >apart from this pattern: "we aren't animals, after all!". This, and the entire line of [deleted] reasoning is dubious. It is true that some animals "rape". And it is equally true that there are good biological reasons for this. However the analogy is faulty. (1) Human females are almost unique among animals in not having estrus. They can and do breed at any time, regardless of whether they are fertile at the time. "Rape" in ducks, et al, has the immediate advantage of passing on the genes, if it is successful. The reproductive advantage of rape, in humans, is marginal because the chance that the female is fertile at the time is low. (2) Copulation, in humans, is a social activity. This is not confined to humans; the higher primates also use copulation as a social activity, albeit not to the extent that humans do. The higher primates tend to use copulation to confirm dominance relationships. (3) Humans, to an extent far beyond that of any other animal, act under conscious control, in the context of a learned and shared culture. A bachelor duck is, so to speak, operating on autopilot -- a human is not. -- In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
g451252772ea@deneb.ucdavis.edu (0040;0000009765;0;327;142;) (01/10/88)
"...as we know it...", rape exists only among humans. And in our case, fitness is among the least important aspects of rape, in contrast to social dominance or pathology. David Barash has popularized mallard-duck forced copulations as 'rape'. This earned an acerbic rebuke in the journal Animal Behaviour (UK&USA) about 1985-6 by either Felicity Huntingford (now an editor) or Linda Partridge, which I recommend reading. Because of the emotions which the term rape evokes, a discussion which aims at light rather than heat is well-advised to use 'force copulations' (abbreviate as desired 8-) -- Ron Goldthwaite / UC Davis, Psychology and Animal Behavior 'Economics is a branch of ethics, pretending to be a science; ethology is a science, pretending relevance to ethics.'
potency@violet.berkeley.edu (Tom Slone) (01/10/88)
In article <23111@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >In article <616@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: >>In article <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) writes: >>>Forced copulation in humans and ducks are completely different phenomenon. >>This simply isn't correct. >>Monogamy is a reasonable strategy for living and for child raising. Its wide >>presence in both birds and mammals demonstrates that it has a fundamental >>advantage. But, this implies the existence of bachelors, who will not >>reproduce at all, unless they rape. Now that we have this insight, field >>researchers have reexamined notes, and made new observations, and sure >>enough, rape is seen. It would be presumptous of us to think that we stand >>apart from this pattern: "we aren't animals, after all!". > This, and the entire line of [deleted] reasoning is dubious. It is >true that some animals "rape". And it is equally true that there are good >biological reasons for this. However the analogy is faulty. >(1) Human females are almost unique among animals in not having estrus. >They can and do breed at any time, regardless of whether they are fertile at >the time. "Rape" in ducks, et al, has the immediate advantage of passing >on the genes, if it is successful. The reproductive advantage of rape, in >humans, is marginal because the chance that the female is fertile at the >time is low. Subadult male orangutans have been know to force copulation on adult female orangutans. It is thought that the chance of pregnancy with one of these forced copulations is low (perhaps because off the male's immaturity), but useful to the species nonetheless, since the female may be travelling with an adult male that is infertile. Thus, since the subadult is an inferior choice of mate to the female (since he has not "proven" himself by fully reaching adulthood), the female usually resists copulation. >(2) Copulation, in humans, is a social activity. This is not confined >to humans; the higher primates also use copulation as a social activity, >albeit not to the extent that humans do. The higher primates tend to >use copulation to confirm dominance relationships. Although orangutans are generally a-social, I believe that there have also been isolated reports of forced copulations between the chimpanzees to which I presume you are referring. >(3) Humans, to an extent far beyond that of any other animal, act >under conscious control, in the context of a learned and shared culture. >A bachelor duck is, so to speak, operating on autopilot -- a human is not. For anyone who still has any doubts that the great apes are capable of having a complex social structure, or that they have a conscience, I recommend any of the books by Jane Goodall, Francine Patterson, or (the shocking) "Chimpanzee Politics" by Frans de Waal. This last book is about a study of a large colony of chimpanzees in a semi-natural setting at a European zoo. I was told that the author self-censored the ending to the book which was the end to one of the main power struggles in the colony. Two of the males were in competition for dominance of the colony and would not separate from each other for all of one day. When the zookeeper found them in the sleeping quarters the next day, blood was splattered all over the quarters, and one of the chimps had its testicles ripped out. potency@violet.berkeley.edu {decvax|hplabs|ihnp4|decwrl|nbires| \ sdcsvax|tektronix|ulysses}!ucbvax!violet!potency
g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) (01/10/88)
In article <6514@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> potency@violet.berkeley.edu (Tom Slone) writes: >In article <23111@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >copulation. > >>(2) Copulation, in humans, is a social activity. This is not confined >>to humans; the higher primates also use copulation as a social activity, >>albeit not to the extent that humans do. The higher primates tend to >>use copulation to confirm dominance relationships. > >Although orangutans are generally a-social, I believe that there have also been >isolated reports of forced copulations between the chimpanzees to which I >presume you are referring. Actually I wasn't thinking of forced copulation at all; I was thinking of propitiary presentation in chimpanzees and baboons. I have read the works you cite on chimpanzee behaviour and a bit on baboons and gorillas. I haven't seen much on orangutangs. If I recall correctly chimpanzees have an extended estrus. They have been known to go off on "honeymoons". Females will present them selves to dominant males as an act of propitiation. Weaker males sometimes do so also. The actual mounting may be nominal. [Or am I confusing them on this point with baboons?] In any case the sexual activities of the higher primates have social implications that are not confined to breeding per se. One of the things that intrigued me about chimpanzees is that they use the kow-tow as an act of submission to the chief (who is usually but not necessarily male.) In pre industrial times the single most reliable measure of the absolutism of political authority was the degree to which people bowed. In oriental despotisms people did the full kow-tow of abasement, as do chimpanzees. In a strong monarchy one went down on one knee; in weaker ones the courtly bow was sufficient. And the free man bowed to no one. -- In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
scm@gtx.com (Sue Miller) (01/11/88)
Keith Doyle wrote: >>>I expect there's an evolutionary advantage. Rapists probably reproduce >>>better than non-rapists. >>> >>>Keith Doyle I responded: >> Not really. Not unless you intend "non-rapists" to mean ONLY those >>individuals who otherwise have no other way to pass on their DNA. >>Otherwise, if it were an advantage that increased one's fitness (a la >>Darwin, not Jack LaLanne ;-) ) I would certainly expect it to be exhibited >>more frequently. >> As it is, I am not sure that rape as we humans know it >>even exists in any other species - although the example of cricket sexual >>behavior comes close I guess.... David Palmer rejoins: >[Prurient description of the sex life of crickets ommitted at the > request of Ed Meese] > >Any statement which says "Humans (or Western Europeans etc.) are the only >species (people etc.) which do [some evil thing]" are usually wrong. >Rape among ducks is well documented. (The female duck does NOT want to >be raped, the male duck uses force.) When this happens, the husband of the >raped duck immediately rapes his wife, to reduce the chances of being >genetically cuckolded. Now I reply: No, this is not exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned rape in the human community. BTW, in spite of your implication to the contrary - I did not say that "humans are the only species which rape". That is quite clear from the text of my earlier message. In any case, your "duck" example could be completely explained in the context of fitness && competition. It is to the female duck's advantage to choose her mates, and to her chosen mate's advantage to try to repair the "genetic damage" that has been done by an interloper. Incidentally, you seemed to use the term "rape" as synonymous with "intercourse". In the human community, it is easy to show plus beaucoup instances where a male has sexually violated a female WHERE THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF THIS UNION BEING FERTILE. This is what I'm getting at when I say that rape seems to be confined to humans (although I am not completely certain). So, now I ask --- can anyone give me a documented example of rape (other than by a human) in the animal kingdom. I am looking for an example where the sexual act is intended solely for the infliction of pain, harassment, to terrorize the victim, etc. Note that it would be extremely interesting if said act was perpetrated on an individual that was not capable of reproduction (eg. infant, small child, individual past reproductive age). Something like that might help convince me that rape exists elsewhere besides among members of H. sapiens. -- ------------------------------------------------------- | Sue Miller UUCP: ihnp4!sun!sunburn!gtx!scm | -------------------------------------------------------
joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) (01/11/88)
In article <616@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: >In article <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) writes: >>Forced copulation in humans and ducks are completely different phenomenon. > >This simply isn't correct. > >If it was just mallards, well, we do act very differently from mallards. >But, if it's a broad observation about higher animals, with a reasonable >logic going for it, then I think it does apply to us. [lines deleted] >This is sad, and not too useful, until we notice the "rerape" that mallards >do. (The husband has a quick shot at getting his genes in there before the >invading ones have beat him to the egg.) Suddenly, we have *an* explanation >for the way that rape victims are often treated, by police, by boyfriends, >and by court. [highlighting mine] We have *an* explanation; the problem I have with the word rape is the it suggests that this is *the* explanation for such human behavior. I have a good reason for doubting this. Humans are the only animals that are always in heat, and during most of this time the female is infertile. That suggests that copulation in humans primarily serves another purpose. That opens up a lot of explanations for rape in humans that don't exist with other animals. -------------------------------- Joseph Wang (joe@athena.mit.edu) 450 Memorial Drive C-111 Cambridge, MA 02139
mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) (01/11/88)
I wrote on the topic of the misuse of scientific approaches to support the status quo (e.g., sociobiology) in an earlier posting. I did not expect to see two such fine illustrations of my point appear so soon: In article <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> David Palmer (palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP) writes: > Rape among ducks is well documented. (The female duck does NOT want to > be raped, the male duck uses force.) When this happens, the husband of the > raped duck immediately rapes his wife, to reduce the chances of being > genetically cuckolded. Joseph Wang (joe@athena.mit.edu.UUCP) sensibly replies in article <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>: > > I have a very big problem with the use of the word "rape" (or "monogamy" > > and "polygamy" for that matter) in describing behavior in animals > > regardless of how close that behavior *appears* to resemble human behavior. > > Using "rape" to describe the behavior of crickets, ducks, and humans > > suggests that its cause is the same in each species. Humans DO NOT > > engage in forced copulation for the same reason ducks do. Forced > > copulation in humans and ducks are completely different phenomenon. So what's wrong with David's picture? 1. He is confusing forced copulation among one species of animal with forced copulation among another. 2. He is confusing sex-for-reproductive-fitness (ducks) with sexually-expressed _violence_ (humans). Rapists don't know that their targets will conceive, or are even fecund (see earlier discussions in soc.women regarding sexual violence targeted on elderly women). Some rapists don't rape vaginally: where is the reproductive fitness in violently coerced oral or anal sex?). 3. He is confusing what might be biologically useful behavior (ducks) with human power dynamics. 4. He is certainly confusing temporary pair-formation (ducks) with a statistically more stable pair-_bonding_ (humans) in his use of words like "husband" and "wife." 5. He is attributing purposiveness -- and a very specific, motivated, thought-out goal-orientation -- to the rape- by-"husband" behavior he describes in animals. 6. Taken all together, David's position can appear to support some alleged "biological necessity" of rape among humans, because of its superficial resemblance to what David chooses to call rape in ducks. David's position can even appear to support further sexually-expressed violence within a human "marriage" (the rape-by-"husband" goal-attribution of avoiding "genetic cuckolding"). I'm _not_ saying that David himself favors rape either inside or outside of marriage. I'm saying that his position can be used to make pseudo-biological justifications for this type of violence (see below). And I hope that David will think about where his line of argument can lead. Unhappily, Don (Lindsay?) (lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU.UUCP) follows just this scenario in article <616@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, in rebutting Joseph's statement: > > > This simply isn't correct. > > > > Monogamy is a reasonable strategy for living and for child raising. Its > > > wide presence in both birds and mammals demonstrates that it has a > > > fundamental advantage. But, this implies the existence of bachelors, > > > who will not reproduce at all, unless they rape. Now that we have > > > this insight, field researchers have reexamined notes, and made new > > > observations, and sure enough, rape is seen. (But note that no one saw rape until it was socially convenient -- until people had a socially-motivated reason -- to label the superficially similar behaviors by the same term.) (Note also that Don has made a new -- and in this case quite inaccurate -- association of behaviors by his use of the word "monogamy." Ducks aren't, particularly. And does Don really believe that the complex of human social and religious values around the concept of monogamy is analogous to the by-constrast rather simplistic mating behaviors of ducks?) > > > It would be presumptous of us to think that we > > > stand apart from this pattern: "we aren't animals, after all!". (Sure, we're animals. But we do some things that animals don't do, too. You're doing one of them right now: you're reading my words on a computer terminal, and you're interpreting them in terms of their human social significance. If you write back to me, I think you're doing more than quacking.) > > > This is sad, and not too useful, until we notice the "rerape" that > > > mallards do. (The husband has a quick shot at getting his genes > > > in there before the invading ones have beat him to the egg.) > > > Suddenly, we have an explanation for the way that rape victims > > > are often treated, by police, by boyfriends, and by courts. And Don completes the biological justification for certain human behaviors with his "rerape" scenario. The human behaviors which have just been spuriously justified include rape by strangers, rape within marriage, and the further victimization of a woman who has been raped by society at large. Not a bad day's work for sociobiological analysis. I think it's important to examine the language in Don's last paragraph, especially in its third line. Where exactly is "in there"? By whose criteria are "the invading" genes considered to be "invading"? Is the "wife" duck present at all in that paragraph, except as object and battleground? So I begin to conclude that Don's interpretations are not exactly data-driven. Don's "science" appears to serve his world view: women are objects at men's disposal -- see, even ducks do it. (Don, please show me I'm wrong about this.) In an earlier posting, I tried to argue that certain scientific analyses are by their natures biased -- that they tend to support the current power relationships in society, and to continue the oppression of women, minorities, and other socially disenfranchised groups. Their approaches -- summarized in the expression "biology is destiny" -- tend to use the type of flawed analogical reasoning that David and Don used in their postings (a second, popular technique is to locate some claimed genetic inferiority in the out-group, and then to blame the victim for "having" this non-existent genetic trait). My point was that scientists choose their methodologies and analytical approaches on the basis of _concepts_, not just data, and that their choices reflect the social beliefs as well as their scientific beliefs. And my point was that scientists, like the rest of us, are responsible for the choices they make. The analytical choices made by David and Don have direct impact upon people's attitudes toward certain types of violence against women. These choices -- of theory, of analytical framework, of methodolgy -- matter. They have relevance to people's lives. They can affect people's attitudes regarding sexual violence against women. They can affect how people are educated, how laws are written. They can affect women's safety. They can affect women's rights. These choices are important. I am, in a manner of speaking, "indebted" to David and Don for illustrating my point so much better than I ever could have done. And I'm genuinely grateful to Joseph Wang for taking them to task over it. Michael Muller Bellcore I wish that my views were Bell Communications Research representative of those ..!bellcore!ctt!mjm of my employer.
web@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Wendy) (01/11/88)
In article <2222@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) writes: > >Humans are the only animals that are always in heat, and during most >of this time the female is infertile. That suggests that copulation in >humans primarily serves another purpose. That opens up a lot of explanations >for rape in humans that don't exist with other animals. > Bad choice of words. Humans are not always "in heat", anymore than women are "always recpetive". We are capable of having sex anytime - doesn't mean we always want to, or always will. (Talking about men as well as women, here.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ web@ssyx.ucsc.edu Wendy ssyx!web@ucscc.BITNET We're all in this together... ...!ucbvax!ssyx!web
crovella@sunybcs.uucp (Mark Crovella) (01/11/88)
In article <517@gtx.com> scm@gtx.UUCP (Sue Miller) writes: > >> >>>>>I expect there's an evolutionary advantage. Rapists probably reproduce >>>>>better than non-rapists. >>>>> >>>>>Keith Doyle >>>> > Not really. Not unless you intend "non-rapists" to mean ONLY those >individuals who otherwise have no other way to pass on their DNA. >Otherwise, if it were an advantage that increased one's fitness (a la >Darwin, not Jack LaLanne ;-) ) I would certainly expect it to be exhibited >more frequently. I believe that behavior such as this is fairly common among species that do not develop lasting pair bonds. If one parent has no requirement to invest energy in the offspring (in the form of feeding, nurturing), it is to that parent's advantage to attempt to reproduce as often as possible. Since females cannot do this in the limit, so-called "rape" behavior occurs only in males. > As it is, I am not sure that rape as we humans know it >even exists in any other species - although the example of cricket sexual >behavior comes close I guess. Mallards (_Anas_ sp. -- ahem! :-) exhibit behavior which is termed by ornithologists as "rape" or "gang rape". Late in the season, after young have hatched, males will encircle a lone female and some of them will copulate with her. I don't think that these unions generally lead to successfully fledged young -- it is too close to migration, the females are really not physiologically prepared to raise another clutch. I think there are really quite a few other examples out there among all that diversity. Note that non-pair bonding species generally exhibit much greater sexual dimorphism (colorful males, larger males, etc.) because a new pair bond is formed every year. In this case, a distiguishing feature make help a female "make up her mind" to select a given male, and this feature becomes a reproductive advantage. This makes me think that the cricket example is an example of a non-pair bonder, also. >Any social/behavioral biologists out there care to comment? Where there is an advantage to a behavior, directly accruing from differential reproduction (= "fitness"), that behavior will usually be exhibited. I'm not a social or behavioral biologist, but I think this is a central tenet of ethology (behavioral biology). > ------------------------------------------------------- > | Sue Miller UUCP: ihnp4!sun!sunburn!gtx!scm | > ------------------------------------------------------- Mark Crovella Mark Crovella uucp: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!crovella internet: crovella@cs.buffalo.edu bitnet: crovella@sunybcs.bitnet
firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) (01/12/88)
In article <358@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: [ on the topic of "rape" among "lower" animals ] >I wrote on the topic of the misuse of scientific approaches to support >the status quo (e.g., sociobiology) in an earlier posting. I did not expect >to see two such fine illustrations of my point appear so soon: ... > 2. He is confusing sex-for-reproductive-fitness (ducks) with > sexually-expressed _violence_ (humans). Rapists don't know > that their targets will conceive, or are even fecund (see > earlier discussions in soc.women regarding sexual violence > targeted on elderly women). Some rapists don't rape > vaginally: where is the reproductive fitness in violently > coerced oral or anal sex?). > > 3. He is confusing what might be biologically useful behavior > (ducks) with human power dynamics. I think there is a deeper flaw than that. Several posters have been viewing rape among animals merely as a way for the rapist to propagate his genes. This may be part of the explanation, but it is not the whole explanation. For example, among birds rape occurs when conception would be a positive disadvantage to the female - eg shortly before migration - and not only give no chance to the offspring but, by threatening the femal's life, reduce any subsequent chance of using that female to produce offspring. Also, among many species of mammal, rape is clearly used as a means to exert dominence. Among primate colonies, for instance, anal rape of both males and females, bu the more dominent males, is not uncommon. Accordingly, we should perhaps see rape among animals also as a means to establish and enforce a certain social dynamic. The problem is, that however much we may deprecate the means, the end itself - a social collective based on dominance relationships - is a very powerful pro survival agency. Had our ancestors lived by our scruples, we might well be extinct.
g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) (01/12/88)
Sue Miller writes: > So, now I ask --- can anyone give me a documented example of rape >(other than by a human) in the animal kingdom. I am looking for an >example where the sexual act is intended solely for the infliction of >pain, harassment, to terrorize the victim, etc. Note that it would be >extremely interesting if said act was perpetrated on an individual that >was not capable of reproduction (eg. infant, small child, individual past >reproductive age). Something like that might help convince me that >rape exists elsewhere besides among members of H. sapiens. Let me first praise your articles, which I think have been well written and well informed. Having done that ... The language " where the sexual act is intended solely for the infliction of pain, harassment, to terrorize the victim, etc." is loaded. (1) Rape, in humans, is not necessarily for the purpose of... Rape (from the rapists side) can be socially sanctioned and principally sexual -- the conqueror takes his pleasure in the women of his enemies because he can, because it is pleasant, and because it is his right to do so. (2) The use of the word "intended" is dubious when applied to animals. Whether any of the other animals (including primates) can be said to have intents and purposes is debatable. (3) Few species even have the sexual act available for these malign purposes, even supposing they had intents. (4) No species that I know of is anywhere as nasty to its own species as humans -- intraspecies violence is usually carefully limited, although chimpanzees (our closest relative) can be quite human like (read, not nearly as nice as lower animals) in their behaviour. Torture, war, genocide, gas chambers, rape and pillage, and the like are uniquely human. Essentially what you have done is defined rape in a way that can only be applied to human beings and implicitly excluded classes of forced copulation that I, and I think you, would count as rape. The glib formulation, "rape is not a sexual act, it is an act of violence" is political and misleading. As to your request, I believe baboons use anal mounting and copulation for dominance and that this mounting may be forced. Both males and females may be mounted. I don't think that this really meets your requirements -- what it does indicate is that the higher primates display in potential the social behaviour of humans, such as it is. -- In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev) (01/12/88)
In article <616@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: >Monogamy is a reasonable strategy for living and for child raising. Its wide >presence in both birds and mammals demonstrates that it has a fundamental >advantage. But, this implies the existence of bachelors, who will not >reproduce at all, unless they rape. Hmmm... That presumes that males outnumber females -- which certainly is not true in either human societies, or in most mammals. Unless, that is, you mean "polygeny" when you speak of "monogamy". I suggest you read the recent research of behaviours of large groups of chimps (In a recent National Geographic or Discovery, I believe), which, along with the observations of chimp warfare, proposes a rationale for a role of "bachelor" in the survival of the family's genes. -- Oleg Kiselev -- oleg@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg HASA, "A" Division DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for my employers.
cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) (01/12/88)
In article <616@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: >Monogamy ... implies the existence of bachelors, who will not >reproduce at all, unless they rape... It would be presumptous of us to >think that we stand apart from this pattern: "we aren't animals, after all!". There are several assumptions in this argument I find disturbing in someone supposedly capable of rational thought and observation. Take for instance the assumption that humans are wholly monogamous. The statement that bachelors cannot reproduce except by rape is contradicted by experience. Mr. Lindsay also seems to be assuming that rape in humans is (A) a heriditary trait, and (B) an effective means of reproduction. It is possible that A is true. I dispute B. Many (though not most) rapes in humans end in the death of the victim. If there were some reproductive advantage to be gained, the rapist would have some interest in protecting the life of the victim. I also feel that, even in the event that nature has designed men to be rapists, we are (to some extent) rational creatures, and don't have to give in to every impulse our genes urge us towards. If Mr. Lindsay desires not to be presumptuous, I am willing to exclude him from this generalization. We aren't JUST animals, after all! -- o Andre Guirard < ' The race is not always to the swift... "Thai green beads" / > but it's a pretty safe bet. ihnp4!mmm!cipher '
mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) (01/12/88)
In article <3755@aw.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu.UUCP writes: > In article <358@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: > > [ on the topic of "rape" among "lower" animals ] Actually, I don't think I said "lower." I don't particularly see the sense in the scala naturae argument that puts humans at the pinnacle of evolution: we have our niche, just like other critters, and we're all more or less adapted to our niches. My complaint is not that human behavior is being compared with "lower" animals, but that the analyses mix apples and oranges. Perhaps "apples and rocks" would be a better example -- drawing an analogy between sexual behavior ("rape") in ducks or crickets and complex socially-motivated violence (rape) in humans is a little like biting a rock instead of an apple. > I think there is a deeper flaw than that. Several posters have been > viewing rape among animals merely as a way for the rapist to propagate > his genes. This may be part of the explanation, but it is not the > whole explanation. > > For example, among birds rape occurs when conception would be a positive > disadvantage to the female - eg shortly before migration - and not only > give no chance to the offspring but, by threatening the femal's life, > reduce any subsequent chance of using that female to produce offspring. > > Also, among many species of mammal, rape is clearly used as a means to > exert dominence. Among primate colonies, for instance, anal rape of > both males and females, bu the more dominent males, is not uncommon. > > Accordingly, we should perhaps see rape among animals also as a means > to establish and enforce a certain social dynamic. The problem is, > that however much we may deprecate the means, the end itself - a social > collective based on dominance relationships - is a very powerful pro > survival agency. Had our ancestors lived by our scruples, we might > well be extinct. Why is "a social collective based on dominance relationships . . . a very powerful pro survival agency"? I know of no other reason than that things seem to have turned out this way. The simple form of this argument is: "if it has occurred biologically, it must be Right." This is the nub of the biology-is-destiny analysis. In its most offensive form, a person locates a behavior in an animal species which is vaguely analogous to a human behavior, and then justifies that human behavior on the basis of its "biological necessity." This is a flawed argument for a number of reasons: 1. Human behaviors and animal behaviors are not necessarily homologous. 2. Demonstrating the existence of a trait is not the same as demonstrating the necessity of that trait. 3. Many physiological and structural traits can be shown to be sub-optimal, yet existing. The current forms and functions of animals (including us) are _not_ optimal, they are merely the best that could be done with the available materials. Better things could have been done with other materials. We humans have somewhat more plasticity in our materials and in how we choose to use them -- at least, behaviorally speaking. The distinction is this: evolution has worked to solve near-term problems, but we can think about our behaviors in long-term contexts, and come up with different solutions based on those longer term analyses. So I don't agree that "a social collective based on dominance relationships . . . is a very powerful pro survival agency". Some organisms that have survived have these dynamics. Some that have survived don't have these dynamics. Some that haven't survived may have had these dynamics. The existence of the dominance relationships proves nothing about their necessity, or even about their utility. And so I have to disagree strongly with the statement, "Had our ancestors lived by our scruples, we might well be extinct." Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that, for different species, behaviors which are in some ways _superficially_ the same may have _different_ "functions" or "meanings"? Ducks are, I suspect, not very good at understanding power relationships. I myself am pretty poor at eating weeds off the bottom of a pond, and I don't remember imprinting on an adult immediately after birth, either. Human behavior is different from duck behavior in lots of ways -- why assume that the sexual aspects are analogous? Rape, as we understand it, is a violent social event which is very much mixed up with oppression, including racial, sexual, and economic oppression. Claiming that there is an analogous event in animals is at best spurious and confusing, and at worst dangerous to people who are in danger of rape. Michael Muller Bellcore I wish that my views were Bell Communications Research representative of those ..!bellcore!ctt!mjm of my employer.
straney@msudoc.ee.mich-state.edu (Ronald W. DeBry) (01/13/88)
>I expect there's an evolutionary advantage. Rapists probably reproduce >better than non-rapists. > >Keith Doyle This posting certainly generated a lot of activity on a relatively quiet newsgroup, didn't it? (meaning sci.bio) Most of it about the definition and frequency of rape in non-human animals. I would like to comment about the first question - why doesn't this trait increase in frequency. Natural selection on a single trait isn't magic, it's just a mathematical consequence of differential reproduction. BUT, before we can talk about natural selection being responsible for maintaining or affecting the frequency of a trait in a population, several criteria must be met: 1. There must be variation in the population 2. The trait must cause a variation in reproductive success, either positive or negative 3. The trait must be heritable The first is usually obvious, it's the second that everyone gets excited about. Regardless of the trait, people like to start making arguments about how it either increases or decreases fitness. Often there are equal numbers of arguments for both conditions for a single trait :-). Actually measuring fitness is a REAL problem. See both John Endler's recent book and a rather sobering essay by Lewontin in the (I think) 1985 edition of "Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology." The last criterion is the easiest to forget in all the hupla over fitness values, and this is the one that human rape clearly fails. Rape is a social, not a genetic problem; so the question of reproductive success is moot. Ron DeBry Dept. of Zoology MSU
hilda@kaos.UUCP (Hilda Marshall) (01/13/88)
In article <23162@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: > >The language " where the sexual act is intended solely for the >infliction of pain, harassment, to terrorize the victim, etc." >is loaded. (1) Rape, in humans, is not necessarily for the purpose >of... Rape (from the rapists side) can be socially sanctioned and >principally sexual -- the conqueror takes his pleasure in the women >of his enemies because he can, because it is pleasant, and because it >is his right to do so. It's pleasant in the conqueror's case because they are enemy women. If he went home and treated _nice_ women like that, he might be thought of as crass (or even unable to find a willing piece!) by his own battlefield buddies. I forget who it was that swore up and down that a cup of still- warm Dane's blood, drunk from said Dane's skull, tastes better than any wine. When not into conquering, most people stick to wine. >...The glib >formulation, "rape is not a sexual act, it is an act of violence" >is political and misleading. Only if you equate "political" with "misleading". That statement is political in that it expresses what would otherwise be considered an isolated incident as an expression of a pattern. Even if the primary intent of a rapist is to feel pleasure, it is necessary for him to inflict pain and/or terror, or to dominate through use of some existing advantage, to enjoy that pleasure. Whether that need is a part of the rapist's full-time personality or something that comes and goes, it makes rape, not sex per se, the object of the rapist's actions. -Hilda
turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) (01/14/88)
In article <1422@quad1.quad.com>, oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev) writes: > In article <616@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: > >Monogamy ... implies the existence of bachelors, who will not > >reproduce at all, unless ... > > Hmmm... That presumes that males outnumber females -- which certainly is not > true in either human societies, or in most mammals. Unless, that is, you > mean "polygeny" when you speak of "monogamy". In fact, women outnumber men, despite the fact that more men are born than women. But this does not mean that the total number of single women looking for a sexual partner equals the total number of men looking for same. Despite the so-called "man shortage", bars, singles clubs, and personal classifieds all show a heavy male bias. Of course, some of these men may not be single, and others may not be "marriageable", and there are a variety of other explanations. But the point is that issues about marriage and partnership demographics are more complicated than simply tallying two head counts. Russell
palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) (01/14/88)
I think this failed to make it out when I tried to post it, my apologies if you have seen it before. In article <358@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: >I wrote on the topic of the misuse of scientific approaches to support >the status quo (e.g., sociobiology) in an earlier posting. I did not expect >to see two such fine illustrations of my point appear so soon: > >In article <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> David Palmer >(palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP) writes: > >> Rape among ducks is well documented. (The female duck does NOT want to >> be raped, the male duck uses force.) When this happens, the husband of the >> raped duck immediately rapes his wife, to reduce the chances of being >> genetically cuckolded. > >Joseph Wang (joe@athena.mit.edu.UUCP) sensibly replies in article ><2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>: > >> > I have a very big problem with the use of the word "rape" (or "monogamy" >> > and "polygamy" for that matter) in describing behavior in animals >> > regardless of how close that behavior *appears* to resemble human behavior. >> > Using "rape" to describe the behavior of crickets, ducks, and humans >> > suggests that its cause is the same in each species. Humans DO NOT >> > engage in forced copulation for the same reason ducks do. Forced >> > copulation in humans and ducks are completely different phenomenon. > >So what's wrong with David's picture? > > 1. He is confusing forced copulation among one species of animal > with forced copulation among another. Yes, I don't know how I could have been confused. After all, forced copulation is not the same as forced copulation. Next thing you know I'll be confusing spouse-rape with date-rape with stranger-rape, which of course are completely different things. > 2. He is confusing sex-for-reproductive-fitness (ducks) with > sexually-expressed _violence_ (humans). Rapists don't know > that their targets will conceive, or are even fecund (see > earlier discussions in soc.women regarding sexual violence > targeted on elderly women). Some rapists don't rape > vaginally: where is the reproductive fitness in violently > coerced oral or anal sex?). Of course there is no similarity. The 'human' rapist is taking control of a woman's body for his own ends (feeling of power) without regards to the resulting effect on the female (psychological distress, possible physical damage) while the duck rapist, on the other hand, is taking control of the female duck's body for his own ends (genetic propagation) without regards to the resulting effect on the female (decreased genetic fitness to the offspring (after all, there must be some reason why she paired with the way she did, probably genetic fitness), possible physical damage. Some people have decided that rape is fundamentally different in ducks from in humans because in ducks the "goal" (in the non-volitional sense mentioned below in 5) is to propagate genes, rather than to do whatever feminists think is the only reason men rape (to dominate women and keep them oppressed). Still, if a man raped because god told him to "be fruitful and multiply", choosing only fertile women who were unlikely to have abortions, I doubt that many people would claim that it was therefore not rape. > 3. He is confusing what might be biologically useful behavior > (ducks) with human power dynamics. Are you saying that human power dynamics is not biologically useful? (In moderation at least). "La droit de Seigneur" (sp? you know what I mean) if it existed (there are people who say it didn't, same as tooth fairies and the moon landing) is a part of human power dynamics which would have been biologically useful to the Seigneur (sp?) > 4. He is certainly confusing temporary pair-formation (ducks) > with a statistically more stable pair-_bonding_ (humans) > in his use of words like "husband" and "wife." I assumed that ducks, like swans, were monogamous. And of course humans always pair-bond, just ask any mormon or arab, ask Solomon himself (apart from his tendancy to cut babies in half, he was considered to be pretty wise. He wouldn't steer you wrong.) > 5. He is attributing purposiveness -- and a very specific, > motivated, thought-out goal-orientation -- to the rape- > by-"husband" behavior he describes in animals. I am attributing a cause to the development of rape-by-husband. No more purposiveness is implied than if I said that a river ran downstream to reduce its potential energy. > 6. Taken all together, David's position can appear to support > some alleged "biological necessity" of rape among humans, > because of its superficial resemblance to what David chooses > to call rape in ducks. David's position can even appear > to support further sexually-expressed violence within a human > "marriage" (the rape-by-"husband" goal-attribution of avoiding > "genetic cuckolding"). > > I'm _not_ saying that David himself favors rape either inside > or outside of marriage. I'm saying that his position can be > used to make pseudo-biological justifications for this type > of violence (see below). And I hope that David will think > about where his line of argument can lead. What I am saying is that if you think that Humans are the only beings which do nasty things, you should think again. If a duck practices rape, should we? If a chimp practices cannibalism, should we? If ants fight wars, should we? If christians burn witches, should we? If a person says "It's natural, there's nothing wrong with doing it", should we? There is sarcasm in this article, so don't be fooled by the absence of smiley's :-) David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer "Every day it's the same thing--variety. I want something different."
ruffwork@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU (Ritchey Ruff) (01/14/88)
In article <616@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: >In article <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) writes: >>Forced copulation in humans and ducks are completely different phenomenon. > [...] >Monogamy is a reasonable strategy for living and for child raising. Its wide >presence in both birds and mammals demonstrates that it has a fundamental >advantage. But, this implies the existence of bachelors, who will not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >reproduce at all, unless they rape. [...] There is a logical flaw here - you assume that there are fewer females then males, but in almost all cases (at least mamailian) there are fewer males then females. This implies (using your argument) that the *females* would be "raping" the males... --ritchey ruff ruffwork@cs.orst.edu or {hp-pcd,tektronix}!orstcs!ruffwork PS/2: half a computer. OS/2: half an operating system for half a computer.
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (01/14/88)
In article <358@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: >And Don completes the biological justification for certain human behaviors >with his "rerape" scenario. > >The human behaviors which have just been spuriously justified include >rape by strangers, rape within marriage, and the further victimization >of a woman who has been raped by society at large. Not a bad day's work >for sociobiological analysis. No, I really don't think such scenarios "justify" rape. If science were to actually "prove" perhaps that blonde, blue-eyed men had a much higher tendency towards rape, and that some gene present in them was the cause, or that it was a product of some evolutionary circumstance, I'd hardly say that would "justify" rape (Hey, man, it's in my Genes (Jordache)). While it might work as a legal defense (ala Twinkies), would you rather not know of the existance of possible contributing biological effects for fear of rape becoming "normal" and "status quo" due to subsequent societal "justification"? Such studies could conceivably however, provide better understanding of the reasons behind rape and possibly suggest new means to combat such behavior. If there are biological roots, perhaps they can be approached biologically, instead of emotionally. You seem to be recommending: "I haven't looked so I don't know for sure, but I don't want there to be any biological factors, so we're just going to pretend there aren't any". >Don's "science" appears to serve his world view: >women are objects at men's disposal -- see, even ducks do it. (Don, >please show me I'm wrong about this.) Seems like you read it into his statements to me. Even if ducks DO do it, and even if humans do it due to some semi-"natural" (evolutionary advantage) reason, that doesn't mean it's de-facto OK. >In an earlier posting, I tried to argue that certain scientific analyses >are by their natures biased -- that they tend to support the current >power relationships in society, and to continue the oppression of women, >minorities, and other socially disenfranchised groups. In this case, only if you read things into it that aren't there, if you find what you are "looking" for even if YOU put it there. >Their approaches >-- summarized in the expression "biology is destiny" -- tend to use the >type of flawed analogical reasoning that David and Don used in their postings >(a second, popular technique is to locate some claimed genetic inferiority >in the out-group, and then to blame the victim for "having" this non-existent >genetic trait). My point was that scientists choose their methodologies >and analytical approaches on the basis of _concepts_, not just data, and >that their choices reflect the social beliefs as well as their scientific >beliefs. And my point was that scientists, like the rest of us, are >responsible for the choices they make. Sounds like YOU are interpreting the data on the basis of YOUR concepts, I did not see David "summarize" with a statment of the sort: "it must be ok, because there's a biological basis". YOU are the one that drew that conclusion. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170
gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) (01/14/88)
In article <511@gtx.com>, al@gtx.com (0732) writes: > > It [the idea that rape may be a reproductive advantage] is > neither funny nor amuusing. It is a very distasteful idea. However, > whether or not we like the idea has nothing to do with whether it is true > or not. It probably is false, but not obviously false. I reject the > attitude that certain ideas are too politically unpleasant to have > a chance of being true, though. But Science is a collection of theories about phenomena, not "Truth". For example, the Copernican theory of celestial mechanics isn't "true", but it's better than the Ptolmaic theory (because to most people it's prettier and makes calculation easier.) Scientific theories are evolved with some attitude or purpose in mind, and any scientific theory which seems to legitimate oppression will be promptly used for that purpose. The Nazis used theories of racial difference to justify killing ten or twelve million people and start a war which brought ruin and infamy on Germany. Later the theories were shown to be false, but the dead did not come back to life. A few years ago, Herrnstein's(sp?) theories about racial difference were used by the Mayor of New York to justify a continuation of the conditions under which certain racial minorities live here: "they don't do any better because they can't do any better, so we don't have to worry about it." In the modern world, theories of racial difference and the like will probably lead to civil war. What happens to Science then? An additional point in reference to this discussion: in primates, especially humans, sex (voluntary) is supposed to be used to bring about the social cohesion required to support, among other things, the very long process of bringing up the young. The offspring of rapists would presumably have a poorer chance of survival during childhood. I wonder if this has ever been studied. -- G Fitch {uunet}!mstan\ The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/
baxter@navajo.UUCP (Ray Baxter) (01/15/88)
In article <248@nancy.UUCP> straney@msudoc.UUCP (Ronald W. DeBry) writes: >The last criterion (The trait must be heritable) >is the easiest to forget in all the hupla over >fitness values, and this is the one that human rape clearly >fails. Rape is a social, not a genetic problem; so the question >of reproductive success is moot. (Parentheses added). I would like to see one shred of data which shows that human rape is not heritable. It is fine for you to say that it is a social problem, but you certainly do not know that is not a genetic problem.
web@ssyx.UUCP (01/16/88)
In article <2544@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) writes: > >An additional point in reference to this discussion: in primates, >especially humans, sex (voluntary) is supposed to be used to bring >about the social cohesion required to support, among other things, >the very long process of bringing up the young. The offspring of >rapists would presumably have a poorer chance of survival during >childhood. I wonder if this has ever been studied. No one so far seems to have mentioned the fact that pregnancies caused by rape are very likely to be aborted. I don't want to start an abortion discussion here, since it's inappropriate, but it seems very unlikely that most women would be willing to give birth to the child of a rape - therefore, it's not a reproductive advantage, except in marital rape. According to the head of the rape prevention program here, there have been societies where rape didn't occur at all, as well as socities in which it's quite high (such as ours.) This suggests that social forces are pretty important. Someone asked if there was any evidence AGAINST it being a genetic trait - I'd say there's probably much more evidence against it than for it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ web@ssyx.ucsc.edu Wendy ssyx!web@ucscc.BITNET We're all in this together... ...!ucbvax!ssyx!web
oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev) (01/16/88)
David Palmer drips sarcasm: >Of course there is no similarity. The 'human' rapist is taking control >of a woman's body for his own ends (feeling of power) >... while the duck rapist ... is taking control >of the female duck's body for his own ends (genetic propagation) So where is the reproductive advantage of rape in humans? I see the duck rape being driven by a procreation imperative, while human rape is a social power (domination) trip. How does that translate into a reproductive advantage? >Are you saying that human power dynamics is not biologically useful? (In >moderation at least). "La droit de Seigneur" (sp? you know what I mean) >if it existed (there are people who say it didn't, same as tooth fairies >and the moon landing) is a part of human power dynamics which would have >been biologically useful to the Seigneur (sp?) That's highly unlikely. Women are fertile only 3-4 days a month. The chance of conception even during the fertility period is well less than 100% (someone had posted the odds of conception just recently -- care to repeat them?). Hardly seems like a REPRODUCTIVE act, more like a SOCIAL one -- assertion of power and control. >What I am saying is that if you think that Humans are the only beings >which do nasty things, you should think again. Sure they are not, but what does that prove or justify? What WAS the point of this whole series of articles? -- Oleg Kiselev -- oleg@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg HASA, "A" Division DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for my employers.
krista@ihlpa.ATT.COM (K.J.Anderson) (01/16/88)
There really is a line eater bug.
There really is a line eater bug.
Ok, I really would not use the word "rape" to describe something
animals are capable of doing any more than I would say that they are
capable of "making love". Humans are so much more influenced by
their learned responses, that instinct does not count for much in
human social or sexual behavior.
Second, I'm sorry to be a poor sport, but I am kind of skeptical
of coercive duck mating behavior. Where was this documented?
How hard did the female fight? If it were a violent fight resulting
in broken feathers, it would hardly be an evolutionary advantage.
Also, if the female did not have a male to help raise the nestlings,
they probably would not survive. Hence, I would suspect that
copulation without the mated bond is a deviant behavior. It seems
likely to me that the male that did the act did not inherit his
instincts properly, or maybe he lost one or both parents and failed
to learn something essential to "proper" social behavior.
Now, when it comes to humans, rape is also a deviant behavior.
I doubt that the tendency to rape is an inheritable trait, although
I have read that many rapists were sexually or physically abused as
children. Aggression, however, probably is an inheritable trait,
probably related to certain hormone levels. And aggressive
tendencies may play a role in the act of rape.
Furthermore, aggression does have survival value, which is just
a cold fact of nature. However, healthy humans are able to control
and direct their behaviors. So, while the tendency to be aggressive
is a motivating factor and helps us to be ruthless, struggles for
dominance can be clever and well organized. If a less intelligent
creature had the strength of aggressive emotions that humans have,
it would probably destroy others and itself indiscriminately. Maybe
it is because of our self-directed will and intelligence that our
species can tolerate such a high level of aggression.
Some humans do not have the ability to control their
actions; the aggression that they feel is deadly. Someone who has
been sexually abused as a child, and is aggressive, and is unable to
control his/her behavior could in turn rape others. This would be
the classic rape-as-a-violent-act-motivated-by-hatred-of-women.
But I don't think that is the only kind of rape that can occur,
even though that is what current literature is saying. I don't
think all rapes are motivated by hatred of women, nor do I think
that rape is always unrelated to sex. I think some men are so
selfish that they will not take no for an answer - but they do
not take no for an answer in any aspect of their lives, not just
sex. I also think some men are so damn stupid that they don't
understand that kicking and biting really means no! And some men
are so aggressive, that their ability to control their behavior is
undermined when they are aroused by anger or desire.
I'm not defending rape; all rapists deserve to be arrested and
convicted and all need counseling to learn better social skills.
Also, *most* men prefer mutually enjoyable sexual relations.
There is no way human rape behavior could be an evolutionary
advantage, even if it were hereditary. Look at the consequences of rape:
1. female can die of infection due to open wounds resulting from
forced entry
2. if female becomes pregnant, she must care for the baby herself
3. female may become so timid as to avoid males and reproduction
4. female may become so hostile, she may try to kill males
5. family of female may try to kill rapist
6. family of female may try to kill female
7. female may be considered too unclean for future mating with
someone else
8. spread of diseases
See what I mean? It is very destabilizing to society, as it would
be for other animals, too.
One more thing. Rape should not be confused with coercive sex
which goes on all the time. There's a subtle difference which is
that the rape victim is fighting it every step of the way whereas
the coercive sex victim at some point accepts the treatment she is
getting. Coercive sex was the accepted form of reproduction in
humans for a long time. Even now, how many women have intercourse
with their husbands just because it's faster and easier to submit
and get it over with, than to try to explain to the guy that it would
be a lot more enjoyable if he could just wait a few more days?
There is a fine line between rape and other kinds of coitus such as
seduction and coercion. Unfortunately, the only way to define which
one it is, is by the behavior of the *victim*.
One last note. Whenever discussing survivability of traits, we
must remember that the trait does not have to be a perfect solution
or even the best solution. It certainly does not have to be a
morally righteous solution. It just has to work.
Ok, sorry I can't shut up once I get started. I just also
wanted to point out that when it comes to humans, we can talk about
the survival value or harm of social behaviors whether or not they
are inheritable. The mechanics of behavioral characteristics and of
biological characteristics are similar; both are measurable by
statistical methods and both can be judged in terms of survivability.
We can and do control social behavior, but biological control is a
whole different discussion!
K.J.Anderson
--
ihnp4!ihlpa!kristalazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (01/17/88)
In article <6852@ihlpa.ATT.COM> krista@ihlpa.ATT.COM (K.J.Anderson) writes: >There is no way human rape behavior could be an evolutionary >advantage, even if it were hereditary. Look at the consequences of rape: > >1. female can die of infection due to open wounds resulting from >forced entry >2. if female becomes pregnant, she must care for the baby herself >3. female may become so timid as to avoid males and reproduction >4. female may become so hostile, she may try to kill males >5. family of female may try to kill rapist >6. family of female may try to kill female >7. female may be considered too unclean for future mating with >someone else >8. spread of diseases > >See what I mean? It is very destabilizing to society, as it would >be for other animals, too. You are making a very common mistake. You are assuming that evolution works to produce the fittest species. It doesn't, except that unfit species become extinct. In actuality evolution works to produce the fittest individuals. The effect of rape on society is irrelevant to a discussion about the evolutionary status of rape. The only points that you make that still apply are 5 and 8. All of the others are bad for the species but do not affect the actual rapist. 5 is a good point. It is one of the best arguments around for some form of sterilization as a punishment for rape. My personal preference would be castration or the death penalty. In human society, however, 5 just doesn't happen enough. In most animals it doesn't happen at all. 8 is important, but unless the disease is fatal at least to the reproductive abilities of the animal it won't have an affect. Why should a rapist care if his victim gets VD as long as she still bears his child? (Note, when I say 'the rapist cares' I am using shorthand for 'this has some bearing upon the question of whether or not the rapist's genes will be propagated') > One last note. Whenever discussing survivability of traits, we >must remember that the trait does not have to be a perfect solution >or even the best solution. It certainly does not have to be a >morally righteous solution. It just has to work. Flamers, please remember the above. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jolly C. Pancakes) (01/20/88)
In article <6852@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, krista@ihlpa.ATT.COM (K.J.Anderson) writes: > Also, if the female did not have a male to help raise the nestlings, > they probably would not survive. Hence, I would suspect that > copulation without the mated bond is a deviant behavior. I'd just like to point out here what every farmer knows - ducks make *terrible* mothers (this goes for domestic ducks and mallards - other wild types might be better). Duck fathers have nothing to do with raising the offspring (nothing positive, anyway) and duck mothers do barely better. They lose ducklings all the time - a clutch of 14 new nestlings might be reduced to 8 in just a few weeks time, due to the mother duck's carelessness. This can be contrasted with the behavior of geese, who are fiercely protective parents, both males and females. (It's a barnyard trick to slip extra duck eggs under a goose, who will make a big fuss over them and ensure their survival, whereas if left to the mother duck, they might be lost)
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (01/20/88)
In article ... joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) writes: > Humans are the only animals that are always in heat, and during most I've heard this before. It's a popular idea (probably born of a lingering trace of anthropocentrism), but I'm not sure it's supportable. For example, dolphins seem to be willing and able to engage in sexual activity at any time. That's one side. As a corollary, there is evidence that humans do go into something like a heat. It's not as extreme as in most species, but it's there. There just aren't that many qualitative differences between humans and other species... most of the differences are in degree rather than kind. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
fullmer@dover.uucp (Glen Fullmer) (01/22/88)
Isn't talking about rape in a reproductive sense like talking about a knife fight in a surgical sense?
jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (01/24/88)
> >If it was just mallards, well, we do act very differently from mallards. Um, anyone who thinks the "gang rapes" in mallards are comparable with rape in humans is simply not a good observer of mallards. I've seen this behavior on many occasions, and it is always quite obvious that if the female really wanted to get away from the gang of males, all she would have to do is take to the air. She is very clearly not trying very hard; she is just having a little fun with the boys (as well as sorting out the really virile ones from the wimps who fall behind :-). > Humans are the only animals that are always in heat, ... Why do people keep saying things like this? It just exposes your ignorance of animal bahavior. There are many other species known in which the females are sexually receptive all or most of the time. And let's not have any quibbles about being "in heat"; by the most straighforward definitions, human females never come into heat. They are just sexually receptive for their entire adult lives. Some years back, I lived with a female cat who one day came back from the vet without her ovaries. She thereafter never came into heat, but she was permanently sexually receptive (much like female humans). She was quite popular with the local toms. It's interesting to contemplate. -- John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
oliver@retina.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) (01/25/88)
In article <113@dover.uucp> fullmer@dover.UUCP (Glen Fullmer) writes: > >Isn't talking about rape in a reproductive sense > like talking about a knife fight in a surgical sense? Well, no. But each viewpoint is appropriate for its specific purpose. The first is anthropologic. The second is forensic. Bill Oliver, MD Medical Examiner Orange County, North Carolina