Koyaanisqatsi

Nor did I contend it was. Making it a crime is what I was alluding to and only that in comparatively recent history.

Yes, it has, when one is comparing the entire history of humanity, as I was in my post.

More than enough evidence has already been presented.

Gurdur

Wrong as statement put.
Depends which social context you're talking about.
Counter-example: the charming penal system of your country.

A couple of years ago, a Canadian judge refused a normal USA extradition request because the American state attourney boasted in the courtroom that the (male) accused would shortly be in an American prison and routinely raped.

I am just so glad not to live in The Land Of Freedom Fries.

Koyaanisqatsi

For all of those "partial" psychological reasons, perhaps? Just a thought.

Sex or procreation? They are not necessarily the same thing and no, I don't think humans are "evolved to find that sex feels good." Sex does feel good, but then so does eating ice cream. If I steal somebody else's ice cream, am I committing an act out of my biological makeup or out of my psychological makeup?

Bear in mind, of course, that ice cream is not a nutritionally necessary foodstuff, so the notion of my stealing somebody else's ice cream out of biological necessity cannot lie in a supposition of survival if I don't get that ice cream.

That is not true. Often they beat while they rape; more than often they just beat; more often still, they just go to a "men's only" country club or establish a "glass ceiling" to salary and benefits; etc., etc., etc.

Again, the differences would go to the psychological reasons behind the individual actions, yes?

Um...pleasure? Intimacy? A great way to spend a Tuesday afternoon?

Tell that to gay men and women .

Explain something to me, in regard to all of this so far. What is the procreative purpose to the clitoris? It serves none and does not need to be stimulated in the slightest for procreation to occur, or even for intercouse to be pleasurable for women (re: the "g" spot); i.e., so it does not serve as a pleasurable "trigger" for engaging in sex.

My ex, for example, has never had an orgasm due to intercourse (not just with me, either--or so she said :sad:; she or I had to always engage in manual manipulation of her clitoris for her to achieve orgasm), yet she loved having intercourse with me and found it pleasurable in other ways than a purely "orgasm" oriented goal.

Which means that, at least in her case, the clitoris served no purpose at all toward any kind of procreative or sexual drive; it was entirely separate from the act of intercourse.

Way too many things are being all too easily conflated into one overriding umbrella, so we need to stop that right now. A conquering army could very well (and probably was at various times in human ignominy) told to go out and rape as many of the enemy's women as possible in order to impregnate them.

But note the difference. In order to impregnate them. They were ordered to impregnate and the manner in which this was done was called "rape" (or forcible intercourse), but that is not necessarily what we're talking about in the case of a rapist.

Thus, it could very well be that there are "conquering armies" in the form of gangs in our society who likewise order their members to go out and rape (though, doubtful for the same reason) and what they would be doing would be the act of "rape," but this, too, is not the same set of circumstances necessarily as those of a rapist; i.e., one who acts on their own for their own psychological reasons (or lack thereof).

Do you see what I mean? Everyone keeps bringing up individual scenarios and then erroneously conflating them all under one huge umbrella, "rape." But it's not that simple.

Is there, however, one underriding link to it all? Yes, the lack of empathy toward the victims.

A lack of empathy, no matter how it is induced, is not a question for biologists or geneticists, yes? There is no "empathy" gene that I'm aware of, nor could there be, since it's an abstraction that comes from community and environment and/or the lack thereof.

If I were raised to consider black people "inferior" and/or that murdering them is perfectly acceptable, that still would not mean, necessarily, that I would act in that manner, of course, but that still does not strike me as part of a genetic design of any kind. It has more to do with several million different factors of inter-relational psychology, thus it's not possible to point to any one factor and say, "That's the smoking gun!"

I'm sure that among those hypothetical soldiers throughout history, there were also those who did not rape and possibly even those who stopped others from raping.

MORE LATER (sorry, I'm being called away into the real world) .

God Fearing Atheist

Koyaanisqatsi,

The clitoris facilitates female orgasm which:

1) presses the cervix downward, so as to better receive sperm..

2) prevents copious flowing which may force out the ejaculate; which is why we would expect female rape victims to fall well short of climax.

So, no...

I'll deal with the rest tomorrow.

-GFA

cricket

pz

The most successful strategy would be to rape and pillage as warriors but come home every weekend to the wives.

Wouldn't men who raped, plus raised families, be the most successful in evolutionary terms?

And aren't these traits heritable to some degree? Aren't children of criminals (such as rapists) more likely to be criminals themselves, even if adopted at birth?

Koyaanisqatsi

God Fearing Atheist,

Stimulation of the clitoris through penis-vagina intercourse does not necessarily always happen, nor always result in orgasm when it does (and, in the case of my ex, anyway, doesn't ever result in orgasm), which:

1) means that it is not necessarily linked to penis-vagina intercourse

2) has anything to do with procreation

So, yes...

cricket

I agree, but what caught my eye in this sentence is the word "hopes." I don't think anyone (even Pinker!) thinks rapists hope to breed. If a propensity for rape brings evolutionary success it's not because they planned it that way.

God Fearing Atheist

Can you read Koyaanisqatis? I said nothing about penile-vaginal intercourse, nor did you. You asked if the clit served a procreative purpose, and concluded it did not. I proved you incorrect.

Thanks, and for the last time, no.

Koyaanisqatsi

If you're going to play with stats, you're going to get burned....

Reported rape. Reported rape. Let me repeat that one more time, reported rape.

And what of a study done in a prison? How many females are raped in all male prisons? Not many I would guess. How many raped in an all female prison? Probably quite a lot.

Or do those not conern you?

So you have evidence that contradicts the sociobiological theory, regardless of how you've worded the question.

In fact, you've got strong evidence in the 29% (a third of those studied) who were younger than reproductive age to conclude that your theory is wrong.

And since rape is rape, no other factors are considered, right? Such as psychological reasons or availability or "covetousness" or the like? Or "date rape" as opposed to say, stalker rape?

I'm curious to find out what the percentages of penile-vaginal penetration are in that group. Have you got that as well? Was every victim in that group the victim of penile-vaginal penetration and if not, what does that say regarding your theory?

We already know that over a third of the victims studied who were not of reproductive age (35% total) were nonetheless raped, so we already know that your theory is demonstrated to be wrong on those levels, so could you also provide the breakdown of all of the various ways in which your "target" demographic were raped?

You mention penile-vaginal penetration as one way. May we assume there were also penile-anal rapes and acts of forced fellatio or perhaps even rapes involving inanimate objects conveniently missing from your analysis that would also demonstrate your theory to be incorrect?

I love how you present what the theory would predict and then offer tenuous evidence in support of it. Here's another good example. How many women (total) had ejaculation in their reproductive tracts? Did any of the other third have ejaculation in their reproductive tracts?

If an under 11 year old had ejaculation in her reproductive tract, would that validate or invalidate your theory? If any of the 11-29 year olds had ejaculation in their anal cavities, would that validate or invalidate your theory?

What would those be, exactly? Kicking? Not "dressing provocatively," or other cro-magnon thinking?

And, again, this is evidence of what, beside an unwarranted extrapolation and generalization from individual cases and the individual circumstances surrounding those cases? That younger women are more or less resilient to being raped? That married women are less vulnerable to psychological trauma from their rapes than unmarried women?



What is this supposed to demonstrate?

You needed four studies to conclude this?

If rape is sociobiological and it has been a "norm" for centuries, then why hasn't there been a corresponding acceptance of it from the females, or is that what all of this is supposed to be showing?

You are aware that it was largely female rape victims who first fought (and continue to fight) such things as "rape shield laws" and brought the notion that a husband has the right to forcibly have sex with his wife anytime he wishes is a crime ("rape"), yes?

The psychological theory predicts that, were rape psychological or a by-product of abnormal psychology, it would be common to all cultures.

Confirmation: Rape exists in all known cultures (Pamler, 1989; Jones, 1999; Rozee, 1993).

See how easy it is to make it seem as if you're directly supporting a theory when you're actually not, simply by wording your questions in a certain way prior to providing tenuous evidence?

Almost all is not all. "At least in part" is not conclusive. Asking a rapist why he or she raped is ludicrous. That's like asking a shizophrenic why he or she likes to smoke.

Regadless, we now have even more evidence that contradicts your theory. 84%, in fact, means that 16% of all rapists in that study did not report sexual desire as a motivation!

Less of a threat? How so? It would make them appear less of a threat to whom? They're convicted rapists. To the doctors? To the parole board?

"Did you find anything sexual in your actions?"
"No, I did not."
"Well, good, then, you're free to go, because the fact that brutally raped someone isn't relevant unless you got some sort of sexual thrill out of it. Next!"

Scathing satire aside, what if every one of those rapists had reported a sexual motivation to their rape? Does their reporting it make it so? Do they have otherwise "normal" sexual drives that this is being compared to? Wouldn't it follow that an aggressive, predatory mentality would confuse "sex" with "rape" to begin with?

How so? Why would it predict this?

Your numbers don't add up. From what I can see, this states that 59% involved more than just "instrumental force" (slapping, beating and choking) and it also implies that there is a missing percentage that did indeed employ excessive force.

Please explain the break down of these numbers.

That it would exist?

Why? Do all rapists think alike? No. Do all rapists target the same age group? No. Are all rapists provided with an equal distribution of age groups when they commit their act? No.

You've presented statistics, not individual case studies, and then taken those averages to try and piece together a statistical analysis of something that cannot be determined by charts. Why have you done this?

Not to mention the fact that your age groups span almost the entire spectrum of age groups! You have a majority of victims in a certain age group. So what? Who were the victims and what were the circumstances of their rape? Who were the rapists and what were their circumstances that found them where and who they raped? Date rapists? Stalker rapists? Husbands? Wives?

There are literally millions of subtle factors involved in each and every case. What possible good would it do to remove those factors and base a conclusion on only the general mean?

A full third of your age group was not of reproductive age. That alone proves your theory incorrect, for if it were merely sociobiological then we would "expect" to find almost every single instance to be in the reproductive age group, yes?

What do you mean? Penis-vaginal penetration or did you mean to actually include gender in any of this?

Not if it were control/power based! Where is the control or power over a physically vulnerable victim? They are already vulnerable, so forcing them to do something against their will wouldn't exactly be any kind of assertion of power or control, now would it?

Which we do, just not as statistically weighted as you presented, except in the "excessive violence" section, where the numbers aren't clear.

And how does one measure "excessive violence" in this regard anyway? Wouldn't just the threat of excessive violence constitute just as much fear and control and power?

Nothing you've posted so far. According to your own evidence, 35% of victims studied were not of reproductive age, thereby conclusively ruling that out as a factor. 59% of the rapists used "excessive force" in the form of slapping, beating or choking and we don't know yet how many used more extreme violence.

84% used the threat of violence alone to achieve their power/control over their victims.

At least 16% of the inmates studied said that sexual motivation was not a factor in their rapes and the other 84% said it was, but we have no way of knowing from what you presented what a rapist considers "sexual," other than his or her act.

Curious that none of the rapists mentioned procreation as their primary motive.

The only consistency in any of this is that issues of power and/or control are replete throughout everything you've posted and, again, a complete lack of empathy for their victims.

Koyaanisqatsi

Far better, apparently, than can you.

Yes, I did.

Re-read what I wrote (it's above in case you still can't find it) and factor in the context in which I asked that question (it's also right there). There you will find your mistake.

No, you did not. You asserted that female orgasm may serve a procreative purpose, not whether or not the clitoris, necessarily, serves a procreative purpose. Women are capable of having an orgasm with or without direct (or even indirect) stimulation of the clitoris.

You're welcome and for the last time, yes.