In another thread, Crashfrog is discussing rape with a few members of EvC. His discussion prompted me to think about the sociology of rape and how it would apply in an evolutionary sense.
Crashfrog writes:
I don't understand why this is so hard for you all to accept. Actually, I guess I do - it's fashionable to consider rape such a monstrous crime that one comes to believe that only a monster is capable of it (and certainly, one's friends are certainly not to be considered monsters.)
I agree with his sentiments that even "good guys" are capable of heinous crimes against humanity. But I have another question, which is what prompted to split the topic.
I've heard some evolutionists attempt to exonerate rape because they see it as a natural part of biology. Now, if we can separate ourselves for a moment from our emotive response for how we view rape, strictly speaking, they are possibly right if evolution is true-- and even more so if there is no actual purpose to life.
When you look at the animal kingdom, but especially in mammalia, you will notice that sex is not a very desirable thing. Lets look at cats for a moment, since my un-neutered cat is trying to molest the other cats in the house. The male bites at the neck, forcibly pinning the female while he does his thing. (I'm sure I don't need to go into great detail about cat sex).
The female never seems thrilled about his sexual conquest. In fact, when you hear yowls and growls coming from the female, those aren't moans of pleasure. She's in pain, and probably because the male has a barb on the tip of its penis that some would say evolved in order to anchor the penis securely inside the vagina to aid in the insemination process.
Now, when we look at most mammals, this seems to be the case-- an almost violent altercation. Its a very impersonal, biological urge to procreate that is particularly not fun for the female.
Since people like to point out common ancestry, how do these biological urges play out in an evolutionary sense for humans? Could someone make the argument that males are merely victims of their hormones and are acting in the very way nature has cued them to be, or are humans more "evolved" than their animal counterparts? I realize that some people object to evolution in the sense of it having a general direction from least to greatest, or from less to more, but surely on some level we recognize that there is something vastly different about humans.
Can an evolutionist make moral pronouncements, such as "rape is bad," while still clinging to his or her beliefs in evolution? Does it leave them in an indefensible position or can any of you reconcile this?
"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-
™ Version 4.2