Koyaanisqatsi

There is a significant difference between the behavior of a species in general and the specific behavior of certain individuals within that species, as well as a significant difference between behavior that is based on instinct ("passive" behavior, for lack of a better term) and that which is based on self-determination (i.e., the "will" of the individual, or "active" behavior).

Factor in that rape is not indicative of a biological instinct to procreate (as has been demonstrated by God Fearing's own evidence) and you are no longer dealing with behavior that is based on "passive" behavior (i.e., instinct). What we are dealing with in rape is "active" behavior based on self-determination and is therefore a question of psychology as formed (or malformed) by environment.

God Fearing has implied that it is correct to analyze rapists and the act of rape as if it is all a part of the species behavior in general (i.e., "passive" instinctual behavior) and not an abherration of individual actions. He has then taken that sub-section of our species and extrapolated out a majority amagalmation of specific "active" behavior (that does not correlate) in order to support an erroneous conclusion that is then incorrectly applied back to the species as a whole.

Rapists do not comprise a significant portion of our species. Their actions do not correlate to a biological need to procreate. Therefore, it is improper to analyze rape behavior from a "passive," instinctually based point of view.

The only field that analyzes behavior from an "active," self-determined basis to my knowledge, is psychology and that on a case-by-case basis, the only legitimate manner in which this topic can be studied, IMO.

ps418

Hello Koy,

I reject that dichotomy as over-simplistic. For instance, is normal human sex-seeking behavior passive behavior based on 'instinct,' or is it self-determined?

Though I have no opinion one way or the other on the topic discussed in this thread, the motivation of individual acts of rape is not really relevant to whether it is an adaptive behavior. For instance, most people have no explicit desire to procreate when they have typical consensual sex -- they are seeking pleasure. But a strong sex drive is obviously adaptive nonetheless.

I see that as an example of "bad" reductionism, because any behavioral phenomena can be studied at several different levels of analysis, indeed must be studied at multiple levels if it is to be understood.

For instance, a given behavior may be analysed in terms of its social function, its evolutionary history and adaptive function (if any!), its biochemical and (when applicable) genetic basis, and its psychological function. Again I have normal sex in mind. Sex has a biochemical aspect, a social aspect, a genetic and an evolutionary aspect, a psychological aspect, and so on, and each one of these can tell us something interesting about why we have sex.

Surely you'd reject the idea that psychology (or biochemistry, or sociology) is the only "legimate" field for the study of normal sex-related behavior. And, again, though I haven't read all of this thread and do not have enough facts to decide whether rape is adaptive or not (though I would doubt that it is), I do not think it a priori illegitimate to analyze rape at a level other than the psychological.

Patrick

Koyaanisqatsi

Ok. Note I did use the qualifier "for lack of a better term."

Self determined (i.e., "active"). Ever heard of "celibacy?" For it to be based on what I call "passive" (or instinct) it would have to be procreative based. Obvioulsy not all sex-seeking by humans is based on a biological need to procreate, or homosexuals and lesbians, for example, wouldn't seek out sex.

That is a confusing and contradictory declaration.

How so? "Adaptive" implies there is a biological necessity to having a "strong sex drive." Yet you just concurred that a "strong sex drive" does not necessarily correlate to a drive to procreate.

Yes, and in this instance, we have already ruled out the biological need to procreate as a motivation for rape, so, beside psychology, what other "level" do you wish to contribute to the discussion? Sociology? Fine, since, again, in this instance, that "level" would only fall under the larger umbrella of "psychology," ultimately, anyway, since the motivations of rapists are varried and must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, IMO.

Hey, what do you know? I just addressed that.

Ummm....which this entire thread has already been dedicated to and we've demonstrated to not be the case...



Which, again, has already been addressed.

Did you read this whole thread, by any chance, before posting?

Why? "Normal" sex isn't rape. The two have almost nothing in common, as, again, has been repeatedly demonstrated here.

Fantastic. And this relates to rape in what way? Other than the socio-psychological (to recoin a phrase)? Before you answer that, please read the entire thread so that we don't just end up repeating the same things already posted.

Yes, I would. Unfortunately, we're not discussing "normal sex-related behavior" in the slightest.



Then you do, indeed, need to read the whole thread. Advice I would respectfully keep in mind in the future, before you post in any thread.

We've been over all of this already, which is what lead me to the statements made in the post you did read and responded to. I appreciate your comments, but, and I don't mean to be rude, all of this has been addressed previously.

ps418

You may be confused because you don't know what adaptation means, but there is no contradiction. Its very simple: an adaptive behavior is a behavior that increases the representation of one's genes in the next generation relative to conspecifics lacking that behavior. It has absolutely nothing to do with conscious motivation.

Thank you for making my point about the simplistic dichotomy. The desire to have sex has obvious adaptive value, is clearly based to a large extent in biology, and yet individuals can also determine their own sex behavior, even refusing to engage in it altgother.

How is a strong sex drive adaptive? The answer is completely obvious: it leads you to devote more resources to having sex, which makes it likely that you will get more of your genes into the next generation than a conspecific with a weaker sex drive-- the very definition of adaptive behavior.

Yes, I did. Again, the conscious motivation has nothing at all to do with whether a behavior is adaptive.

I made it clear that I was not simply referring to "this instance," but to your general premise that certain behaviors are the province of psychology and can not be analysed on other levels. My point was and is that it is simple bad reductionism is say that any behavior should only be analysed in terms of individual psychology. And there is nothing at all wrong or "illegitimate" about analyzing human rape as a putative adaptation in exactly the same way that you'd analyze forced copulation in any other animal.


No, I think you should read what I wrote a bit more carefully. Nothing at all in this thread shows that it is a priori illegitimate to analyze rape or any other behavior at a level other than the psychological, only that rape is not likely to be an adaptive behavior, which is an entirely different point and does not contradict anything Ive said.


Which again is exactly my point! Again, I am not asserting that rape is or is not adaptive, only that is not a priori illegitimate to ask the question, as you seemed to imply.



Which, again, is precisely my point. I did not and am not asserting that rape has a biochemical or genetic basis, only that is not a priori illegitimate to ask the question, as you seemed to imply.


Patrick

Koyaanisqatsi

While informative, your response is largely irrelevant, IMO. The post of mine you responded to was merely a summarization of what had been argued throughout this thread.

I did not "imply" this at all, regardless of how it may have seemed to you. It was the conclusion from the totality of argumentation and analysis and counter-analysis, etc., posted in this thread that rape is more a matter of "socio-psychological" considerations than it is a consideration of socio-biology (i.e., God Fearing's theory).

That was all my post was meant to do; summarize what had already been argued. Are you positing a new argument, re: sex-drive? Or did you just mean to point out that my summary was just a summary?