Koyaanisqatsi

Why not? Since we're freely speculating on the manner in which animals behave toward one another, showing cleavage and/or wearing a short skirt, for example, would be clear signs of an invitation of rape, right?

After all, if it's about sex and not power/control, then any female of the species who wears a thong on the beach is freely advertising to all males her desire to procreate in the same manner that animals "in the wild" do, yes?

In fact, according to the sociobiologic theory, every time a woman puts on makeup and wears clothing that accents her body, she is telling the male population that she is available and amenable to being raped, right?

I mean, since it's all about sex.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, first of all, the evidence presented in this thread proves conclusively that rape is not about procreation. If a full third of rape victims are not of reproductive age, then that effectively rules it out as a possible cuase.

Secondly, are you then saying that rape is not ok? How so, if it is just about our biology? That would make it a normal, natural thing, right?

Ahhh...I see. So you're saying it is more of a socio-psychological problem than biological, though I still fail to see the "biological urge" of raping a woman, especially since we've effectively ruled out procreation as a motivation.

Perhaps that's because there is a huge difference between raping someone and engaging in aggressive consensual sex (i.e., "ravaging" for lack of a better term).

This is why linking sex and rape is not just dangerous, but false, since the "biological urge" you're talking about does not attain in rape.

And/or they have decided to oppose that or, for psychological reasons, they view rape as sex; i.e., they confuse the assertion of their power over another as a sexual act.

Why would it be, if indeed it is just the result of "biological urges?"

Remember, that there is a distinction in adaptive theories of evolution between that which is an abheration and therefore detrimental and results in extinction and that which is beneficial and results in adaptation for survival. How would rape (that is, non-consensual forced submission having nothing to do with procreation) be any part of an adaptive benefit to society?

Aggressive consensual mating rituals may certainly serve an adaptive purpose, but rape has nothing to do with that and that's the distinction that isn't being factored in here, IMO.

The mentality to rape has nothing to do with genetic transferrence. It is a psychological malfunction of some manner that the individual with the affliction does not pass on to their offspring that I have ever seen any evidence of. Even if such evidence did exist, certainly the correlation would be more along the lines of learned abherrant behavior than of anything intrinsically biological; a misguided attempt to exonerate the parent who raped by becoming that which was feared and/or role modelled.

Psychological. Not biological.

Koyaanisqatsi

I would argue precisely the opposite. That factual questions about the psychology and sociology of rape dictates which legal standards we ought to have.

Because women were not considered equal in Western society, the notion that a woman could be raped was considered her own fault in our jurisprudence.

The facts, however, discovered due to a socio-psychological application to the event revealed that this was not the case; that indeed a common failure to understand what is at the heart of rape was at fault and needed to be corrected in the courts. Those who aren't rapists commonly saw rape as God Fearing seems to here; that it was all just some sort of misunderstanding; that aggressive consensual sex went "awry" due to the pre-conditional prejudice that stated a woman always consents to sex whenever the man wants to have it.

The man owns the woman. Therefore, whatever the man wants, the man gets. Thus, the focus was placed on the victim with the prejudice being in favor of the rapist; the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Well, how do you prove that a man is a rapist, when society at that time considered women to be the property of men, or, at the very least, subordinate to men? The misconception being that women didn't have the right to say "no" to a man's advances as well as (and more importantly) a lack of the psychological basis for rape.

See what I'm getting at? The courts viewed rape as a woman refusing the advances of a man; a right she did not possess. Until a psychological context was applied, "rape" didn't even necessarily mean what we know it as today; it simply meant a woman overstepped her authority by refusing to consent to sex, a right she did not have.

It was this misnomer that was and has been corrected in the form of "rape shield laws," (as well as decades of suffragette movments), that, unfortunately still don't effectively weed out the prejudice in the defense of rapists, because one who isn't a rapist (i.e., the defense attorney, the judge, the jury) didn't see "rape" as rape, they saw it merely as a woman asserting an authority they did not have and/or, worse the ridiculous notion that one who "plays with fire" shouldn't complain about it if they get burned.

cricket

koy!

No.

You’ll note I never said “it’s all about sex.”

I argued with the notion that it is NOT about sex.

In fact it is about sex and it is about violence.

Others are the ones who have boxed themselves into one corner or the other, such as (quote): “And no, rape is not about sex!"

OTOH *I* never said “rape is not about violence!”

Of course, rape could be *about* anything and its targets still have the right to say NO, and our legal system still has a right to jail perpetrators, regardless of what the rape was “about.” What difference does it make? It’s wrong, it’s a violation, it’s illegal – regardless of why or how it happens.

The female in the thong may be avoiding tan lines, or may be advertising for a long-term mate, or may be a tease who will titillate and then say no to the guy she attracts... it doesn’t matter! She has a right to say no to sex no matter what she is wearing (or not wearing.)

And what difference would it make if she WAS doing what animals “in the wild” do? If she went around stark naked just like animals “in the wild” do, can’t she nonetheless be arrested for indecent exposure? Of course she can! Why? Because we say so! And likewise it’s right for rapists to be arrested for their actions no matter what their reasons; regardless of how “natural” it may be for them to respond sexually to a female, even one who dresses or acts in a suggestive manner.

Koyaanisqatsi

I think you're missing my point, cricket (while, ironically, at the same time affirming it).

The girl in the thong could very well hate tan lines and that's the only reason she's wearing a thong. So for a male to see her in a thong and think, "She must want it, look what she's wearing" is wrong, but a sociobiological analysis of the situation would say that he is right and that she does want to be raped because of what she's wearing; like a peacock spreading their tale (although, in that scenario, it's the male who "struts his stuff," so to speak).

That's the problem with reducing anything (let alone human behavior), to generalizations and taking the average or majority from a set of statistics and then basing conclusions on generalized, removed criterion.

The sociobiologic theory (that I'm arguing against, just to be clear) would not look at the individual motives, but instead extrapolate from the set of "females wearing thongs" to the biological notion of "signaling to males sexual availability." And, according to that theory, the male would respond to that signal with the urge to forcibly copulate with her in order to proliferate the species.

But that's not what rape is about. It's not about seeing a sexy woman and wanting to have sex with her. It's about forcibly exerting power/control over somebody (female or male) for many different psychological reasons and therefore cannot necessarily be reduced to "the majority from the set of males who..." and "the majority from the set of females that...," etc.

Thus I was using those examples to demonstrate the fallacy of thinking in generalized, sociobiological terms when analyzing the psychological motivations for why one rapes.

The reason it's important to separate sex from rape is precisely due to these misunderstandings from people (like us) who are not rapists, yet we're the ones trying to figure out where rape comes from. Because the violence and exertion of power/control is done typically (buy by no means always) with the use of a penis and a vagina, we non rapists think, "Oh, it's a sex thing." This is what lay at the basis of American jurisprudence for decades and it's why so many women (and men) did not report their rapes; because they would be judged as "wanting" it and/or "playing with fire" and just got scared at the last minute, so it's understandable that the guy forced her to have sex.

See the distinction I'm going for? The guy (or girl) didn't force anybody to "have sex." "Having sex" is a consensual thing. The rapist may certainly have gross confusion (for any number of psychological reasons) about what "having sex" is, certainly, but their actions--however they may appear on the surface--are actually much more serious and much more complex (as we both agree). Lack of empathy; viewing somebody--even a whole gender--as threatening; in order to exonerate one's own abuse; etc.

The common theme (and therefore the one generalization that should be examined, and has been) is the exertion of power/control over another. As I mentioned before, what weapon is used is largely irrelevant; just as guns don't kill people, people do; peni (if you'll excuse it) don't rape, rapists do.

The reason it is so difficult for any of us non-rapists to understand is primarily because of a confusion of aggressive consensual sex ("ravaging") and exerting power/control over somebody using the body as a weapon ("rape"). Desiring to have sex with somebody does not result in rape; desiring to overpower and control somebody against their will results in rape.

The other problem, of course, as I and others have pointed out, there is a sliding scale involved, so that there are actually categories to the psychology of rape (such as "date rape" as opposed to "stalker rape"), thus, and finally, to simply take a prison full of rapists and ask them why they raped and then breakdown the statistics into "a majority said or did this, therefore the conclusion is" is an erroeneous method.

It literally is always a condition of the individual cases and cannot be generalized in order to draw conclusions based on those generalizations, thus it is not possible to say, "This is why people rape," as the sociobiological theory attempts (and fails), only, "This may be why this particular person raped."

Theli

Rape?

Well, not to oversimplify the matter but we all have needs and desires and will do what is in our power to fulfill them. Any distinction between methods seems subjective to me. They are all means to common end.

Monkeybot

Here's what I'm having trouble understanding:

Even if rape is an advantageous behaviour, evolution-wise (and I don't see that it necessarily is), it still does not follow that this has a genetic component. Or rather, it does not follow that rape is per se a genetic tendency. I'd be more likely to cite factors like increased aggressivness (which could manifest itself in *numerous* ways) or maybe weird hormone levels or something like that as a biological factor -- although not necessarily a biological cause. But a purely biological disposition to rape? Without factoring social, environmental and behavioural (which yes, IS different from biological) influences?

I'm just not getting it.

And I'm honestly not trying to misrepresent anyone's position here... I'm just truly confused.

Tara

I think what I was trying to get at, similar to what monkeybot has said, is that the idea of a gene for rape seems silly. We don't consider there to be a gene for other deviant behaviors, that could be viewed as bestowing greater fitness on the exhibiter of the behavior- like stealing.

Rape seems a result of sexual desire combined with abnormal aggression and possibly psychological dysfunction.

I think to say it's all a result of a violent tendency, a need to exert dominance, or all a result of an innate biological urge to procreate is wrong... Can’t it be a collusion of factors that causes men to rape?

Theli

"Collusion"?
I don't think the urges, abnormalities or whatever you wich to call them are conspiring and plotting.

Theli

*sigh*
Under the same premise shouldn't we also arrest people for being homosexuals if the law says so?
Even if they were born with their sexual preference they should be arrested! Why? Because the holy law says so!