rising@utzoo.uucp (Jim Rising) (02/10/88)
I promised myself that I would not post on this overworked subject again,
but I just can't keep away.
1. To repeat what has already been said on the net several times, forced
copulations do occur in a wide variety of "higher animals."
2. Re Michael Muller's first 7 points. Regardless of the non-sexual nature
of much human rape, people nonetheless do become pregnant as a consequence of
rape. Therefore, if the behaviour is genetically mediated (which I personally
doubt), it could be influenced by natural selection. Clearly, selection
would operate to reduce the frequency of "rape" if it were non-adaptive
and genetically mediated.
It is adaptively advantageous to copulate, and to the extent that human rape
involves copulation (and I realize that it often doesn't) it could enhance
male fitness. In some situations (but not present North American society)
the risk to and investment of the male are very low. Probably little to
gain, but also little to lose. Note (unfortunately) this is true regardless
of whether or not rape benefits the group or females.
3. As many have made clear, the word "rape" means many different things
to many different people. Some netters use the term so broadly that it
would cover auto accidents. Thus, I've used the term forced copulation
to describe what occurs in non-human animals, because of the implication
that rape is more of a violent act than a sexual one in humans--which it
might generally be. The term is like "laryngitis." It does not indicate
ultimate causes. You go to the Dr. with a sore throat, and she says,
"You have laryngitis. Perhaps this is caused by a bacterium. Let's
send a sample to the lab." She doesn't say, that because bacterial
infections occur widely in nature they are thus natural and good, and
therefore you shouldn't try to do anything about your throat. Yet
this is analogous to the way that many are arguing about rape. No
scientist has ever said, or even implied that because forced copulations
occur widely in nature that it is ok for them to occur in human societies.
What many of you seem to be saying is that "Because humans are so special
and different it is inappropriate to extrapolate from other organisms to
human biology, psychology, or sociology." What I want to know is where
do you erect the little white picket fence? Lewontin and Gould erect
it around human behaviour. Both are, at best, good scientists, but when
they do this, they are not. They are motivated by a fear of the abuse
of science which I think we all share. I personally think that as dangerous
as science might be that advocacy and antiintellectualism is even more
dangerous. Obviously many of you disagree--or you wouldn't post statements
such as "at least creationism isn't dangerous." I couldn't disagree more!
--Jim Rising
--
Name: Jim Rising
Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1
UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!rising