|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rape and evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How would you measure assholeness? By how high they spike their hair?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2541 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Of course, they are just animals and that's how they do things
Humans are referred to as animals, no different from our amphibious brothers and reptilian sisters, right? 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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2959 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
While I generally agree with your statement, the prof in me has to point out an error or two...
Crash writes: I don't think you're largely wrong about most of the mammal world, but primates, including humans, have to be understood to be the exception, here, for a number of reasons. Primate females have clitorises, for instance, and experience the same pleasurable sensation of orgasm that males do, which they can achieve at any time, even during their non-fertile period. 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.
Crash writes: Primates are the only mammals that do not experience estrous; rather, primates ovulate cryptically 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Thank you for the corrections.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
nj writes: I've heard some evolutionists attempt to exonerate rape because they see it as a natural part of biology. From the very first line in the first paragraph of the link you provided is:
nj link writes: In this sure-to-be-controversial book, Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer use evolutionary biology to explain the causes of rape and to recommend new approaches to its prevention. and further down
nj link writes: rape circumvents a central feature of women's reproductive strategy: mate choice. This is a primary reason why rape is devastating to its victims, especially young women. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2959 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
iceage writes: 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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
Research indicates that 25% to 30% of male college students in the United States and Canada admit that there is some likelihood they would rape a woman if they could get away with it [6]. In the first study of males' self-reported likelihood to rape that was conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles, the word rape was not used; instead, an account of rape (described below) was read to the male subjects, of whom 53% said there was some likelihood that they would behave in the same fashion as the man described in the story, if they could be sure of getting away with it (Malamuth, Haber, and Feshbach, 1980). Without this assurance, only 17% said they might emulate the rapist's behavior. It is helpful to know exactly what behavior these students said they might emulate:
Bill soon caught up with Susan and offered to escort her to her car. Susan politely refused him. Bill was enraged by the rejection. "Who the hell does this bitch think she is, turning me down," Bill thought to himself as he reached into his pocket and took out a Swiss army knife. With his left hand he placed the knife at ther throat. "If you try to get away, I'll cut you," said Bill. Susan nodded her head, her eyes wild with terror. The story then depicted the rape. There was a description of sexual acts with the victim continuously portrayed as clearly opposing the assault (Malamuth, Haber, and Feshbach, 1980, p. 124). In another study, 356 male students were asked: "If you could be assured that no one would know and that you could in no way be punished for engaging in the following acts, how likely, if at all, would you be to commit such acts?" (Briere and Malamuth, 1983). Among the sexual acts listed were the two of interest to these researchers: "forcing a female to do something she really didn't want to do" and "rape" (Briere and Malamuth, 1983). Sixty percent of the sample indicated that under the right circumstances, there was some likelihood that they would rape, use force, or do both. In a study of high school males, 50% of those interviewed believed it acceptable "for a guy to hold a girl down and force her to have sexual intercourse in instances such as when 'she gets him sexually excited' or 'she says she's going to have sex with him and then changes her mind'" (Goodchilds and Zellman, 1984). Some people dismiss the findings from these studies as "merely attitudinal." But this conclusion is incorrect. Malamuth has found that male subjects' self-reported likelihood of raping is correlated with physiological measures of sexual arousal by rape depictions. Clearly, erections cannot be considered attitudes. More specifically, the male students who say they might rape a woman if they could get away with it are significantly more likely than other male students to be sexually aroused by portrayals of rape. Indeed, these males were more sexually aroused by depictions of rape than by mutually consenting depictions. And when asked if they would find committing a rape sexually arousing, they said yes (Donnerstein, 1983, p. 7). They were also more likely than the other male subjects to admit to having used actual physical force to obtain sex with a woman. These latter data were self-reported, but because they refer to actual behavior they too cannot be dismissed as merely attitudinal. Looking at sexual arousal data alone (as measured by penile tumescence), not its correlation with self-reported likelihood to rape, Malamuth reports that: About 10% of the population of male students are sexually aroused by "very extreme violence" with "a great deal of blood and gore" that "has very little of the sexual element"(1985, p.95)About 20% to 30% show substantial sexual arousal by depictions of rape in which the woman never shows signs of arousal, only abhorrence (1985, p.95). About 50% to 60% show some degree of sexual arousal by a rape depiction in which the victim is portrayed as becoming sexually aroused at the end (personal communication, August 18, 1986).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Rape exists in all human cultures to some extent or other. Can we therefore say that rape is natural? Probably we can. However being natural does not necessarily make it good or right and I would argue, as an atheist and firm advocate of evolution, that rape is in fact morally wrong and that rapists should be punished by society. 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.
As well as complex sexual urges we also have evolved the intellect and unique ability to empathise with others. This allows us to understand anothers suffering and to appreciate the consequences of our actions on others. 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.
That will not stop rape occurring, especially in dehumanising situations such as war, but it does mean we can morally condemn those who commit it regardless of any reference to some sort of natural or evolutionary based argument for it's proliferation. 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-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Bonobos, my friend. Seriously. You won't be able to watch the clips in mixed company, let's just say that. 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.
Yeah, but they're not using sex to enforce social contracts or to promote pair-bonding and unity. In fact relatively few animals pair-bond at all, or have any use for the male as parent after 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.
Primates are social in a much more complex way than other mammals. Part of that is sex. Another part of it is our expressive faces 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 not saying you don't know what you're talking about, or that you're lying - simply that you're not approaching these matters with the trained eye of a primate anthropologist. 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.
It can be difficult to really understand the social structure of a species from the observations of a layperson. 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 mean, if somebody came to your job, wouldn't they see that there's an alpha male who tells everybody what to do, when to eat, and has his pick of secretaries to mate with? Would it be accurate to extend from that fact that you and your wife don't have consensual, mutually pleasurable sex? 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'm wary about accepting this assumption as true with no corroborating evidence. I certainly wouldn't attempt to derive some kind of universal truth from it. I mean, what's the scientific definition of a guy who's an asshole? How would you measure assholeness? I guess that's a sociological question, not a biological one.
Moreover - what makes you think you have to be an asshole to commit rape? The nice guys can be rapists too - in fact I'd say that happens more often. 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-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
NJ you have not answered why you misrepresented your quoted sources on Rape Message 35
You provided that reference as proof of scientists who used evolution to "exonerate rape". However you continue to blunder along and make whopper statements like....
nj writes: 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. You are suffering under a number of implied assumptions.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
People [who] understand and accept evolution cannot have objective morals they must be amoral. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Perhaps I should package this as a topic. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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. 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.
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. 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.
The argument "just animals" doesn't hold any water. 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.
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. 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-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024