God Fearing Atheist

Of course im not refering to "Darwinism" as "that which was written by Charles Darwin".

And no, there *is* nothing but our genes and their interaction with the environment. Again, if there is something im missing, i'd love for you to point it out to me.

Maybe magic influences biology? Or God! Or some crazy metaphysical property called "culture" or "society" that exists independently of these genes and environment....

-GFA

God Fearing Atheist

I remember a piece from The Nation a few years ago that labeled the "its culture, not biology" school of thought "secular creationism".

Its a perfectly apt title.

Dr Rick

Thanks; here's the abstract: "Mental pain is hypothesized to manifest an adaptation for analyzing and coping with social problems that would have reduced inclusive fitness in human (Homo sapiens) evolutionary history. We examined this hypothesis in the psychological pain of 790 rape victims. Reproductive-aged and postreproductive-aged victims were more likely than prereproductive-aged victims to have experienced vaginal intercourse and to have had sperm present in the reproductive tract. As predicted, vaginal intercourse constituted the most psychologically devastating form of sexual assault for reproductive-aged women. Nonreproductive-aged victims were not more traumatized by vaginal rapes. When rapes included ejaculation in the victim's reproductive tract, reproductive-aged victims may have been more traumatized. These results suggest that the psychology that regulates mental pain processes information about the nature of the sexual act in the event of a woman's rape."

What does this study have to do with evidence either "that rape increases male reproductive fitness, and thus is an adaptation in and of itself, or...[t]hat rape is a by-product of the differences in male sexuality, in particular, our strong sex drive."?

Do the other references you cited offer any insight along these lines?

Culture and society are not "crazy metaphysical properties," nor are they considered "Darwinian" afaik. They profoundly influence human behavour, but not independently of other environmental factors or genes.

Rick

God Fearing Atheist

Whats interesting about that study (and why I mentioned it) is that female counter-rape mechanisms exist in precisely the sort of female population that the sociobiological account would predict; namely, in reproductive-aged females according to type of rape (penile-vaginal being the most traumatic), pair-bonding status (being stronger with married than single women), and so forth.

Get it?

I was being facetious Rick. The point is that there is nothing biological beyond our genes and the environment in which they express themselves; even culture. Period.

-GFA

Tara

I have a very hard time considering rape a successful reproductive strategy. Rape intrinsically, has to adversely affect the female being raped, either psychologically or physically. How can a traumatized or physically injured female be very fit for reproduction? Also the male being injured is not an impossibility in such a violent act. So obviously the scenario is not an optimal one as far as genetic success. Is the questionable notion that a male who rapes is more reproductively fit than one that does not copulate at all really strong enough basis for an evolutionary trend? I'd tend to think not.

I view rape as an event far more comparable to other forms of violence than to a successful reproduction strategy. Do we view other aggressive/violent behaviors as a result of evolution? Aggressive behaviors, after all, often help an organism survive (and therefore go on to copulate). Are stealing (it could possibly aid in survival) and other deviant behavior regarded as possibly evolutionary? I fail to see why rape is different. Granted, with rape, the ramifications are more direct, rape is a direct way of passing down one's genes. But even though an aggressive individual may have a better chance to obtain food, mates, etc., we don't usually consider all manifestations of aggression to be evolutionary.... because a more key feature to genetic success is ability to fit into the social order (? not sure about this).

Tara

okay, so more thought and I think I'm looking at it the wrong way.

Maybe rape is a reproductively fit behavior. But why is the evolution of rape the question, isn't rape just another "selfish" behavior? So might what's really in question be the passing down of a selfish gene...?

Do male animals rape whenever there is a vulnerable female? Certainly not. So what prevents them from doing so? Genetic hardwiring that leads to general peaceful behavior maybe, for whatever reason. So when males rape it's because their selfishness overrides whatever is hardwired into them that generally leads to nonviolent conduct.

Sound at all feasible?

Koyaanisqatsi

Forgive me, but I find this discussion both appalling and childishly simplistic if not outright facetious on God Fearing Atheist's part.

The OP is really discussing a biologically instinctive desire and erroneously conflating it with "rape," IMO.

The drive to procreate is easily curtailed in the human animal, as has been evidenced for at least five thousand years. Why then contend that its biological genesis is still relevant or even prevalent? The very existence of homosexual members of our species already betrays an evolution away from purely procreative drives of human sexuality, so why attempt to conflate the two against the evidence?

We have determined that a forceful invasion upon another is not allowable behavior. Are you arguing that this is somehow contrary to nature, because if you are, then kindly explain how anything we do can be "contrary" to nature?

We are nature. Just because we think in different ways than other animals does not make us above other animals!

Mating rituals are replete throughout the "animal kingdom" and few if any mirror the kind of violence and degradation that is inflicted by one among our own species who "rapes." You see violent shows of prowess, certainly and even violent couplings, but rarely if ever do you see the use of broken beer bottles as penetration instruments or the use of heavy narcotics in order to induce unconsciousness in the female.

Nor do I see any correlation at all with a rapist and a procreator; indeed, the procreative element seems to play no part in any of the act, IMO, since it is about frustrated sexuality and dominance and exoneration in most of the psychological theories I've read.

Even the "date rapist" is seemingly motivated out of his own sexual frustration than anything to do with procreation!

Sorry, but I see nothing of any kind of biological procreative drive in the act of rape; indeed, I see just the opposite, but that's still an unfortunate, IMO, natural progression since it's what's happened.

Or do you think you're somehow separate from nature and nothing you do falls under that umbrella?

Arbogast

I always thought it seemed pretty obvious from reading between the lines in human history that rape and warfare were very significant reproductive strategies in the past.

It seems pretty obvious in the past, that one of the major reasons for human warfare was to steal the other communities possessions, and force their women to have your babies.

In a more barbaric age, being what we would call a psychotic criminal, a strong man with a knife of ax, was a viable lifestyle. Before the gun, a group of athletic men who got together to commit crimes were referred to as kings, knights, clan leaders, etc.

In ancient times, if the ancestors of an NFL or Rugby team picked up long knives, moved into a fortified building in your community, and started commiting what we call crimes, what would you call them. The King and His Men.

Rape clearly is related to reproduction, and because it is so ingrained in the human race, we fail to do enough to crack down on rapists. We also fail in another less obvious way. It would be very useful to do much more to encourage (not force) women to always abort a child from rape, to work towards eliminating this horrible trait from the gene pool. Males who rape are connected to a whole series of traits that need to be removed from the gene pool.

It is a horrible thing to bring up with an already abused woman, really no nice way to do it I suppose.



Consider an era in the past. Before good communication technology, when there were no guns to empower the weaker man, when there was little or no law as we know it.

Now consider a man such as Mike Tyson. Now give him a razor sharp 2 foot long knife. Forget the platitudes, find me a man in the community with the abilty to confront him. Plain and simple.

Now consider his behavior, and how many children such a man WOULD have in such a society. Now, rape as human behavior begins to make more sense.

Dr Rick

Studies of male rape perpetrators have consistently shown that human rape is related to issues of control, power, anger, and dominance. There is no good clinical, epidemiologic, or scientific evidence that human rape behavour is an evolved adaptation or product of natural selection any more than anyother illegal activity, nor is there any good evidence that it is an effective reproductive strategy or even related to reproduction. The demonstrated similarities between rapists and other violent criminals indicate that rape is an act of violence carried out in a sexual manner rather than a sexual act violently expressed.

Rick

Arbogast

I confess, Dr Rick, what you say makes little sense to me...

Please show me a study demonstrating where a bunch of thugs with knives, in an era before telphones, guns, or effective law enforcement, is NOT a viable reproduction strategy.

I have never heard of such a study...


Forget the study, how about a quick use of imagination...

It is 350 BC, and you live in a small farming village with your family...

There is no police department, there is no centralized state with laws, there are no telephones or radios.

This man, Ray Lewis,
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/player...e?statsId=3542
appears in your community with 6 or 8 male relatives with knives, and starts having sex with every woman they can find in the community.

Explain how this is not a viable reproduction strategy...

I propose this is the root of rape, and this historical component is important to understanding modern behavior. What we might call a destructive criminal lifestyle might be a successful reproduction strategy in another era.


PS, using the example of Tyson and Lewis was not a racial statement, I just came up with the first examples that came to mind as an American sports fan.