Rape and evolution

By how high they spike their hair?

did you not read Crash's post?You are talking about the difference between a group of social animals that use sexual intercourse for non-reproductive reasons as compared to animals that do it solely for reproduction.Humans aren't "just animals". There is no "just animals". You can't generalize so broadly. Keep in mind, animals also include sponges, corals, crustaceans, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and a quite a few more. somewhere around 38 phyla for the animal kingdom alone. The only generalization that works is that we have some things in common that no other kingdom has. Try this definition on for size:

quote:

---

A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure

---

Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions.Those are the only generalizations that work. Notice the lack of what sex is used for in the definition.were it not for the multi-cellular part, many bacteria and protists would be animals, I'd wager. No tell me, what does the sex life of a water flea (Daphnia) have to do with the sex life of primate?The argument "just animals" doesn't hold any water.As to your cow and bull--why the hell is a bull attemting to copulate if the cow isn't fertile? waste of time, energy, and a garunteed failure.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

While I generally agree with your statement, the prof in me has to point out an error or two... First, the clitoris is found in all female mammals not just primates. There is evidence that many non-human (and non primate) females experience somethin akin to orgasm from clitoral stimulation. At the very least they are probably capable of such given the associated nerve structures. Also, most primate females advertise estrus. The groups that do not are the exception and are, (IIRC across the board) socially and/or sexually monogamous. Given this it is likely that cryptic ovulation evolves to reinforce the social system (and, IIRC, there are at least 6 good hypotheses about this).

---

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
"A Fish Called Wanda"

Thank you for the corrections.

From the very first line in the first paragraph of the link you provided is: and further down They are not are attempting to "exonerate" rape but instead explain and understand and even make recommendation to make it less common.Why did you misrepresent your own source?

NJ isn't the first to do this with Thornhill's works. Years ago on public radio I listened to Randy Thornhill discussing this book . The show also featured a sociobiologist who was heavily critical of it. She kept making the same error as we see often here, that evolutionary terms such as successful imply moral rightness. I can not imagine how frustrating the exchange must have been for Dr. Thornhill. All he could do was repeat, "But that is not what I say..." in various combinations. His adversary seemed to have not read (or at least not understood) the book at all. She also seemed completely unaware that this wasn't some out of the blue idea, it predates Thornhill plus he has published about the biology of rape for 20 years before the book in question!On top of that the mediator ended the discussion with something like "We have been talking with Randy Thornhill who claims that rape is normal and natural and can be beneficial" or some such garbage (badly paraphrased but the gist is the same). Implying that he believes that rape is good because there are selective advantages to rapists. Just really sad, ignorance runs deep in all circles!

---

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
"A Fish Called Wanda"

Hi, nemesis.From the looks of your reply, you seem to have no objection to my first and third point. I don't see how your response to my third point is relevant. Forgive me if I am misreading your post.But I am going to ignore all that, because it appears that your main point is

quote:

---

If this is esteemed so highly, then what is wrong with rape from an evolutionary perspective? If sex and procreation are such a high virtues in the natural order of things, then why are controversial topics, like abortion, homosexuality, and rape an issue of either support or contention?

---

so I am going to just focus on this.-First, a point that I consider minor. If the important thing is procreation, then rape can be counterproductive. Remember, the key to evolutionary success is not having sex or even producing children. The key to evolutionary success is producing children who will grow up and successfully reproduce themselves. It does no one any good (in an evolutionary sense) to have sex if no children are produced. It does no one any good to have children if the children die before adulthood, or fail to reproduce themselves. And, in the long range success strategy of evolution, the same holds if one does produce surviving, procreating children but the numbers of procreating children are fewer than someone who does not rape.It is pretty easy to see that as a reproductive strategy, rape may not be all that successful. It takes work to capture someone and force sex on her. Especially when it becomes known among the circle of acquaintences that the person is a rapist; then people start avoiding the person, and the person has to put more effort into hunting new victims. It may very well be far more efficient to maintain a nice reputation and attract mates who voluntarily make themselves available on a regular basis.Also, in our society women have the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and even to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Sex with an unwilling partner is not guaranteed to produce progeny.In fact, in most traditional societies, there is often a stigma attached to the offspring of rapists. They experience more neglect, the experience more abuse, and so it is far more likely that they will not survive childhood, and it is often the case that if they do grow up, they occupy a lower caste limiting their reproductive success.The rapist, if he is caught, may experience some sort of punishment, even death. So, he may have very limited opportunities to practice this particular reproductive strategy.Finally, this makes people unhappy. Unhappy people make other people unhappy. The overall cohesion of society is undermined, making the society less stable and less able to provide the necessities of life to its people.All in all, it isn't obvious that rape is a particularly successful reproductive strategy. The only way that this can be answered is to actually find out whether rapists have more children who have their own children.-But the main point, as I have stated, is that the theory of evolution is a description of how the world works and why we see the things that we see around us. It is not a prescription about how we should live. Like the analogy that I used earlier, it is exacly like the theory of gravity. It simply explains a phenomenon that exists. But it in no way implies any morality of any actions whatsoever.The theory of evolution does not say that people should reproduce. It simply says that if some people successfully reproduce and other people do not, and if the difference in success is due to inherited characterisitics, then you will see a change in the human population over time - humans will evolve. That is all there is to the theory of evolution.-

quote:

---

Where, then, does this sense of violation come from?

---

What difference does it make? This sense of violation and the sense of outrage exist.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

quote:

---

Now, some people, through years of dehumanizing themselves, seem to become sexually aroused at the thought of subjecting someone else to their power by humiliating them.

---

Actually, this is rather common among young american college-aged men. This implies that it doesn't take "many years of dehumanizing themselves", but fewer than 20 years living in a culture where they learn to dehumanize others, especially women:http://www.dianarussell.com/menrape.html

The point being, if there is no such thing as objective morality, then it isn't morally wrong to commit rape. If it is perceived as being morally wrong, then either nature or man's concepts of morals are screwed up. Indeed. This empathetic/sympathetic response is where our laws derive from-- from a moral framework, which I've fought tooth and nail on other threads. I agree.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

I don't think I'd find Bonobo sex erotic, but your point is noted. I can't really agree or disagree because I've never seen Bonobos mating. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme of reason to it. I mean, you look at Penguins, and they mate for life, if I'm not mistaken. But if you look at other avian, its not that way. In any event, I don't see too much patterning that would allude to a nested heirarchy. I used to work closely with some Rhesus Macaques and another primate (the name is currently alluding me), on Diabetes research and I have to concur that they are very expressive. I'm just going by my limited knowledge and from what I have personally witnessed. I would certainly lend more credence to someone like Jane Goodall who spent her life's devotion working with primates. But I don't think that Jane would disagree with me that there is a definite heirarchy amongst primates where males vie for dominance. When I worked with the Macaques I misconstrued their body language for about a month before I figured out that they didn't dislike me. They seemed to be pretty hostile towards me until several more highly trained people told me that they were actually just happy to see me. After a while, I began to understand their nature and could see it for myself. I think that primates mate when they get an urge like all other animals do. I don't think its something they ponder or fantasize about. I think pheramones are released into the air and biology takes over. And again, as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem like a pleasurable experience, it appears to be something that they just do. Eating, however, seems to give them immense pleasure. I guess that's a sociological question, not a biological one. I was actually agreeing with you that "nice" guys commit rape. I mean, Ted Bundy, from what I understand was a pretty likable guy-- that is, while he wasn't stalking, raping, and butchering his victims.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

NJ you have not answered why you misrepresented your quoted sources on Rape Message 35You provided that reference as proof of scientists who used evolution to "exonerate rape".However you continue to blunder along and make whopper statements like.... You are suffering under a number of implied assumptions.

Evolutionist must be Atheist. Wrong! There are many Christian and Muslim that believe in evolution.

​

People you understand and accept evolution cannot have objective morals they must be amoral. That if some behavior exists in the wild and is natural, evilutionist have to admit that it cannot be unethical. Hogwash, grab a book on ethics.

​

Further, belief in the Christian faith is not an indicator of superior or objective morality.

​

I will provide my own references but will not engage in misrepresentation...

​

In this study Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

​

conducted by the Journal of Religion and Society they tested the hypothesis of if religiosity correlated with public health and social stability. They compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy using data from the International Social Survey Program, Gallup and other research bodies.

​

The author starts off with:

​

Gregory Paul writes:

​

The continuing popularity of creationism in America indicates that it is in reality a theistic social-political movement partly driven by concerns over the societal consequences of disbelief in a creator

​

Sound familiar? And then goes on to show that:

​

Gregory Paul writes:

​

rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies

​

And

​

Gregory Paul writes:

​

Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S.

​

and

​

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies

​

Unfortunately they did not collect statistics on rape but I would guess that they would follow along similar lines. Nevertheless it demolishes your assumption that evolutions have looser morals with respect to sexual behavior.

​

Perhaps I should package this as a topic.

actually, it's exactly the opposite. it turns out that not only is morality largely objective (or at least subjective but not in dispute) specifically because of evolution. it appears to be an evolutionary adaptation in all higher primates, and is a strictly biological process within the brain.because our primate ancestors faired a better chance at survival in an organized society, and by helping their fellow members of the species, certain "morals" have become integral to the functioning of our brains.morality is not something handed down from god, but handed up from chimps.

---

If you don't, I will. Please feel free to include spousal and child abuse.My research also indicates strong correlations between fundamentalism and authoritarianism, which is often expressed not only as intolerance of other religions but also of racism and sexism along with a desire for violent rather than diplomatic solutions to percieved conflict due to cultural differences. So please try and keep the OP broad enough to encompass these findings as well.Let the games begin!Edited by anglagard, : speling and subtitle change

Actually, we're discussing how one could correlate rape as a natural affinity in human beings and that presents a problem from an evolutionary viewpoint juxtaposed by relative morality. Okay, I'll limit the argument to mammalia. I kind of thought that everyone would sort of intrinsically know that I wasn't referring to sponges being that we're speaking about sexual reproduction. If I'm not mistaken I was referring to humans being viewed by evolutionists as if we're "just animals," meaning our lives our reduced to its simplest categorization. Because I doubt the the bull knows any better. I doubt he has the intellect to understand what a waste of time is, which would explain why most animalia seem incapable of understanding things like boredom. They just don't seem to think like that.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

I confess I'm still not seeing the problem. If morals are relative and arbitrary then we don't need any reason to say that something is immoral besides the fact that we agree that we want it to be immoral.People who try to attack relative morality don't understand that their attacks work both ways. Sure, there's no objective basis for asserting that such-and-such a behavior is "immoral"; but there's also no objective basis to conclude that we can't say that things are immoral without an objective basis. In other words - maybe there's no objective reason for me to say that rape is immoral, but nobody else has an objective basis to stop me from saying that, either.Ultimately morality comes down to what we decide to enforce. The fact that rape may or may not be a successful strategy for circumventing female mate choice isn't relevant to that. We could be programmed for rape, but that's not relevant to us as a society saying that we don't want people to rape.