Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 9:13 PM
25 online now:
DrJones*, edge, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,170 Year: 9,206/19,786 Month: 1,628/2,119 Week: 388/576 Day: 63/128 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Rape and evolution
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5670
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 46 of 84 (368762)
12-10-2006 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by iceage
12-08-2006 5:29 PM


Re: Evolution and rape
quote:
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:

quote:
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

quote:
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?

What? I didn't misrepresent it. I was asked to show which evolutionists believe that rape is actually a biological function. That's what I did. What exactly is the problem? I know they aren't 'advocating' rape. They are saying that it is directly related to biology. So, how much easier is it for a defense attorney to use this book as a way to lessen the charge against the rapist by making the specious plea that, while rape is wrong, your honor, as you can see from the study, they simply were following their base instincts.

Its the same kind of argument made for the insanity plea. While slaughtering the family was wrong, your honor, clearly the defendant was incapable of making rational decisions.


"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-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by iceage, posted 12-08-2006 5:29 PM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by iceage, posted 12-10-2006 12:40 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2006 12:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1764 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 47 of 84 (368784)
12-10-2006 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Lithodid-Man
12-08-2006 6:51 PM


Re: Evolution and rape
It's a charactersitic pattern with things like this. When one seeks to understand some feared aspect of human behavior, the effort is quickly read as 'seeking to justify' or 'seeking to exonerate.'

__


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-08-2006 6:51 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Chiroptera, posted 12-10-2006 12:27 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6631
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 48 of 84 (368808)
12-10-2006 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Archer Opteryx
12-10-2006 9:12 AM


Re: Evolution and rape
quote:
When one seeks to understand some feared aspect of human behavior, the effort is quickly read as 'seeking to justify' or 'seeking to exonerate.'

Other reactions are possible, too. It has been interesting to read your reaction to scrafinator's attempts to understand rape.


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-10-2006 9:12 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4081 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 49 of 84 (368812)
12-10-2006 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
12-10-2006 12:03 AM


Re: Evolution and rape
nj writes:

What? I didn't misrepresent it. I was asked to show which evolutionists believe that rape is actually a biological function. That's what I did. What exactly is the problem?

This is disingenuous.

You were asked to back up your assertion that evolutionist have attempted to exonerate rape based on evolution.

The reference you provided, A Natural History of Rape sought to explain and understand rape from a evolutionary perspective and offer actions to prevent the behavior based on that understanding. They did not exonerate rape behavior.

They attempt to explain and underscore why the experience is so traumatic and devastating to young women. They view rape as a loathsome crime and very negative destructive behavior especially from the victims point of view.

The book recommends punishing the rape perpetrator more aggressively and more severely! not less as you alluded to.

How can you interpret this as exoneration as you did:

nj writes:

I've heard some evolutionists attempt to exonerate rape because they see it as a natural part of biology.

They recommend using the explanatory power of evolutionary biology to prevent destructive behavior and fix a societal ill.

Understanding != Exoneration.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-10-2006 12:03 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-10-2006 6:15 PM iceage has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 84 (368813)
12-10-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
12-10-2006 12:03 AM


Re: Evolution and rape
What? I didn't misrepresent it. I was asked to show which evolutionists believe that rape is actually a biological function.

This is not true. You were asked to show that "some evolutionists attempt to exonerate rape". Because you said:

I've heard some evolutionists attempt to exonerate rape because they see it as a natural part of biology.

So we asked you to justify the claim that "some evolutionists attempt to exonerate rape".

You have not done so.

If you can't substantiate this, then it's a particularly foul and disgusting smear, is it not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-10-2006 12:03 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 84 (368814)
12-10-2006 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
12-08-2006 12:33 PM


Re: Evolution and rape
But gravity wouldn't affect, ahem, one's disposition, but evolution would. That's the problem.

Let's try a more exact analogy. I believe that gravity causes planes to crash. I believe that plane crashes shouldn't happen, 'cos they kill people. I believe in gravity. Moreover, I believe that the theory of gravity, and gravity itself, are morally neutral. No contradiction is involved.

---

By the way, I don't think you've spelled out the connection between evolution and rape. How would rape evolve, in your opinion?

---

Finally, you seem to be committing the "naturalistic fallacy" on behalf of evolutionists. Just because I believe something is natural, and indeed that it evolved (e.g. polio) doesn't mean that I wouldn't also like to see it wiped from the face of the Earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2006 12:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 52 of 84 (368821)
12-10-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
12-08-2006 12:10 PM


Well, can you imagine the defense attorney paying thousands of dollars to get a geneticist to map out the specific locus in order to sway the jury.

But surely if such a gene exists the excuse "my genes made me do it" is equally valid (or invalid) whether the gene was produced by evolution or lovingly hand-crafted by a benevolent deity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2006 12:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Chiroptera, posted 12-10-2006 5:51 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 84 (368847)
12-10-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
12-09-2006 6:31 PM


There doesn't seem to be any rhyme of reason to it.

You mean, it appears to be... random chance?

Different organisms adapt to their environment in different ways. Evolution doesn't optimize or proceed towards a specific goal.

In any event, I don't see too much patterning that would allude to a nested heirarchy.

Behavior is a fuzzy thing, and it would be rare, I think, to use behavior to construct hierarchies of inheritance. We would expect similar or related behaviors between related species, so you see all the various species of penguin with really similar behavior.

But I don't think that Jane would disagree with me that there is a definite heirarchy amongst primates where males vie for dominance.

Sure, but that hierarchy isn't the sole determinant of mate choice, like it is in pride-structured felines, for instance - where females won't mate with anybody but the pride leader or his coalition.

We see much the same pattern in humans, of course - "dominant" males may have "better" or more mates, but everybody else gets some, too.

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.

Isn't it possible that you're simply misreading the situation? Call it the "why is daddy hurting mommy?" effect - eroticism and erotic pleasure may or may not be apparent to the unexperienced eye.

Clearly, in primates, female mate choice is occurring. (It's hard to imagine a sexual species where the females have absolutely no power to choose mates; the evolutionary cost to females would be unbearable.) Female primates regularly reject unsuitable suitors. So clearly rape isn't de rigeur as I think you're suggesting. Do animals have sex for fun? Primates are having way too much sex for it to be otherwise. That seems obvious to me. If the females aren't having a pleasureable experience, what motive do they have to allow males to mate with them? They don't have to, from what we can tell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-09-2006 6:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6631
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 54 of 84 (368850)
12-10-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dr Adequate
12-10-2006 2:03 PM


Good one.
That is an extremely good response. I am going to have to put that one in my tool box for future use.


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2006 2:03 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5670
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 55 of 84 (368858)
12-10-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by iceage
12-10-2006 12:40 PM


Re: Evolution and rape
You were asked to back up your assertion that evolutionist have attempted to exonerate rape based on evolution.

The reference you provided, A Natural History of Rape sought to explain and understand rape from a evolutionary perspective and offer actions to prevent the behavior based on that understanding. They did not exonerate rape behavior.

First of all, I did exactly what I was tasked to do. I provided two sources who believe that rape is a natural behavior. I agree, completely, that they aren't condoning rape. Indeed, their book seeks to strategize how to combat these natural inclinations. So, how can you not consider that exoneration? I didn't say that they think we should all rape people. You are trying to manipulate what I'm saying and derail my thread.

Think of it in these terms: A man is charged with homicide and is arraigned. His attorney gets him off with a temporary insanity plea, because he argues that temporary insanity is a perfectly natural phenomenon. He isn't excusing the murder, he is excusing the behavior, which is what this whole inquiry is about.

I know they aren't advocates for rape, but they are attempting to reduce the behavior back to some evolutionary step in reproduction.

Really, what is the problem?


"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-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by iceage, posted 12-10-2006 12:40 PM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2006 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 12-10-2006 7:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 58 by iceage, posted 12-10-2006 8:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2006 8:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 84 (368880)
12-10-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
12-10-2006 6:15 PM


Re: Evolution and rape
First of all, I did exactly what I was tasked to do. I provided two sources who believe that rape is a natural behavior.

But this is not true. You were not asked to show that rape is "a natural behavior". You were asked to show that:

some evolutionists attempt to exonerate rape

Please quote one "evolutionist" who "attempts to exonarate rape".

Thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-10-2006 6:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 84 (368881)
12-10-2006 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
12-10-2006 6:15 PM


Re: Evolution and rape
Indeed, their book seeks to strategize how to combat these natural inclinations. So, how can you not consider that exoneration?

None of us consider that exoneration, which should be more than clear by now. Can you explain how that's supposed to be exoneration?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-10-2006 6:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4081 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 58 of 84 (368882)
12-10-2006 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
12-10-2006 6:15 PM


Shameless equivocation
You must work from a different dictionary than the rest of us.

Exonerate:

1. To free from blame.
2. To free from a responsibility, obligation, or task.

At no point do they free the perpetrator of rape from blame, obligation or responsibility. They recommend specifically to increase sentencing for rape perpetrators. That goes against your proposed likely fanciful outcome.

Your imaginary court room scenario's where an attorney uses evolution as a scapegoat are exactly that imaginary.

Dr adequate nicely and quite adequately responded to your gene argument.

Along those same lines one could equally imagine that a defense attorney could argue that the crime was due to the fallen nature of man and a consequence of Eve's original deception. And then follow up with the statement that the prep now understands his fallen nature and has asked for forgiveness so how can the court hold him accountable.

Equally absurd and fictitious.

He isn't excusing the murder, he is excusing the behavior, which is what this whole inquiry is about.

Again I would reach for caps if it wasn't rude. The researchers in question did not exonerate individual behavior at any point!

You make it sound like trying to understand the underlying causes behind behavior is an automatic exoneration of the behavior. Hogwash.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-10-2006 6:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 84 (368883)
12-10-2006 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
12-10-2006 6:15 PM


Re: Evolution and rape
I know they aren't advocates for rape, but they are attempting to reduce the behavior back to some evolutionary step in reproduction.

Can you quote an attorney making that argument, or did you make that up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-10-2006 6:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4075 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 60 of 84 (391751)
03-27-2007 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Larni
12-08-2006 4:55 AM


Re: An important distinction.
Larni writes:

I think it is important to note that the act of rape is an act of agression and humiliation.

This is an interesting view Larni, and I've seen it espoused in most psychology works. However, I was recently challenged by reading The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker, who suggests this might be a common misconception.

Is there actually any significant evidence that rape is about power more than sex?


"And, lo, a great beast did stand before me, having seven heads, and on each head were there seven mouths, and in each mouth were there seventy times seven teeth. For truly there were seven times seven times seven times seventy teeth, meaning there were. . . okay, carry the three, adding twenty. . . plus that extra tooth on the third mouth of the sixth head. . . Well, there were indeed a great many teeth" - The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-Winded

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Larni, posted 12-08-2006 4:55 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 03-27-2007 8:28 AM Doddy has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Larni, posted 03-27-2007 8:58 AM Doddy has responded

    
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019