pz

Not. Consider lipid bilayers, for instance: they spontaneously and easily form. This is an example of a natural property that is not evolutionary in nature.

You are also throwing this term "Darwinian mechanism" rather liberally. It means something specific, and is not a catch-all for all non-supernatural mechanisms.

God Fearing Atheist

Unless you're suggesting we can get human rape by mixing people, lipids and water and shaking the whole thing up, I dont see how this is a problem.

Im not. We are the result of drift, mutation, selection and gene flow, or some by-product of these mechanisms. Thats all im saying.

-GFA

God Fearing Atheist

Koyaanisqatsi,

Note that rape is common to all known cultures and exists in our historical records. It is not a new phenomena; it is not a "Western" phenomena.

Note that some forms of rape are punished in all known societies. It has not just recently become taboo.

While your effusions are, um, interesting...it would be nice to see some evidence for them.

-GFA

pz

It's an example. We are in part products of intrinsic properties of the material world.

For another example that you might find more relevant, look into Kauffman's work on the emergence of patterns in random networks of regulatory genes...which has also used to model patterns of connectivity in the CNS.Then stop calling these things "Darwinian mechanisms". It's misleading, and makes you look foolish.

I'll also give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your list was not intended to be complete.

Monkeybot

I'd always learned that among humans and certain other primates, environment, biology, and behaviour are all separate factors.

Behaviour is, to a degree, determined by biology, in the sense that we have certain physical limits we cannot transcend. However, primate studies have shown that there are numerous behaviours that must be learned and taught, and that are not instictive or inherent. For example, a famous study of Japanese macaques in Kyushu found that after one macaque started washing her sweet potatoes in the sea, the rest of the group followed suit; today, almost all macaques of this particular group wash their sweet potatoes in the sea. It's just become a part of the "culture" of this group -- other macaques in different parts of Japan don't exhibit this behaviour. Another group of macaques in Minou park (near Osaka) figured out how to steal money from park visitors, put it in vending machines, and buy sodas. Neither of these behaviours have particular survival advantage -- in fact, I should think that monkeys who drink soda are at more of a disadvantage than their less sweet-toothed friends! But these behaviours have arisen as a consequence of the brain power and social nature of the macaques. I don't think it's "instinct" for macaques to buy sodas... it's a social, cultural behaviour that has only a small relation to biology and genetics.

In the same way, I would say that rape has arisen in our species as a consequence of sexual dimorphism, the plumbing issues pz mentioned, and certain social factors, such as the ones Koy mentioned. I think biology does influence rape, but I think there are a lot of social factors to consider as well.

Dr Rick

...but that doesn't mean that we should just abandon the scientific method

There has been no scientific evidence presented on this thread that supports the notion that human rape is either a heritable trait or the product of random mutation and natural selection, nor am I aware of any. Simply citing the history or pillaging armies does not provide any insight into the motivating drives behind their actions, nor does it in anyway seperate genetic factors from environmental influences.

On the other hand, just a fraction of the large body of studies demonstrating the non-reproductive issues underlying the motives of human rapists has been posted, and there have been no studies presented to refute those findings.

In the absence of supportive data, there is no good reason to accept a hunch that contradicts an evidence-based theory

It's easy to draw inferences about human behavour based upon speculation, anecdotes, and intuition, but adding terms such as "adaption" and "evolution" to those inferences or citing examples from non-human data does not make them any less unscientific and unsubstantiated.

If there is any scientific data supporting the speculation that human rape is a heritable trait or the product of random mutation and natural selection, posting it here would be more productive than rationalizations and guesswork.

Rick

Tara

I see your point that many psychological "problems" can be attributed the partial reason that males rape; expression of aggression and dominance must be part of an act of rape, but why would men choose RAPE as a means to assert their dominance? Isn't it because humans are evolved to find that sex feels good and are programmed to want to have it? Men could just beat up women to assert their dominance, but often they rape. I'd think that any act of sex goes back to our biological hard wiring that says "REPRODUCE!". What other reason is there for sex? The only reason any sexual behavior is ever expressed is because of the biological imperative for success of the species.

Again, why would you be told to rape women in the first place when there are other ways to assert dominance?

Yet again, just because the outcome of reproduction wasn't achieved and the slave master had no intention of making more slaves, isn't the fact that he would want to have intercourse at all a sign of sexual drive (ie reproductive drive) which has been programmed in all of us?
Isn't the "socio-psychological malfunction" that such sexual offenders do not have empathy and therefore allow their evolutionarily endowed sexual urges, coupled with violent/dominant urges to be expressed as rape? While most people, would a) not have the violent urges that most be coupled with want for sex to have rape occur and would b) use their human ability to suppress or ignore such biological urges… for moral and social reasons.

In the example of war where men are told to rape, the moral and social obstructions that would normally prevent someone from raping are removed. If wasn’t for moral/social constructs, psychological phenomena like "shyness", the human taught practice of empathizing, and the ability to look down the road at the consequences of an act wouldn't we all do whatever we felt like at the present moment?

And with some people, what they want to do at the present moment is have sex. Wanting sex is normal, what isn't normal is the willingness to force it on another person. That is where psychological factors come in, no?

I don't think we can say rape isn't sexual, I think it's a collusion of sexual desires, psychological conditioning, aggression, and more. But it remains that the drive for sex is VERY biological. I’m not at all sure that rape is a good reproductive strategy, I only think that ONE of the reasons for it is the biological imperative to reproduce.

Dr Rick

And often they "just beat up women to assert their dominance" instead of rape. The science of psychology has provided us with evidence that men rape/beat/murder women for reasons related to anger, dominace, and power; studies, some of them posted here on this thread, have demonstrated that "violent [non-sexual offenders do] not differ significantly from rapists in any aspect of the sexual history" and that "There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs."

Your thoughts on the matter are provocative, but neither scientific nor objective, just as my thoughts are of and by themselves neither one, as well. You've already been provided with evidence that contradicts your speculation about "the only reason any sexual behavior is ever expressed...;" where's your evidence to support it?

Of course, you are entitled to reject the evidence and go with your thoughts, just as anyone else is, but that won't mitigate against the data that refutes your pov, nor will it mitigate against the lack of scientific evidence to support your speculation.

Merely asking a question is not objective evidence, either. If you have an answer to the question that you pose, please provide the evidence to support it, and the evidence to explain why some men violently assert their dominance without rape.

And the evidence to support this assertion is...?

Maybe, or maybe not; the correct answer lies with the evidence. There is scientific evidence that indicates human rape is committed for reasons of anger, dominance, and power; do you have any scientific evidence that it is conducted for purposes of reproduction?


Once again, your thoughts are provocative, but...well, you can probably guess what I'm going to ask for next.

Rick

johngalt

I would probably have to go with number 1. It seems more logical than the second one. Although i could be wrong because i don't rape people.

Jesse

GFA:
As I already pointed out, pz, rape seems to require certain environmental triggers.

Why is it that the relation between low male SES and rape is both negative and linear?

Why is there some evidence that men subject to more frequenct sexual rejection are more often rapists?

Why is there a correlation between a fatherless household and rape in men?

Its precisely *because* these men are *unable* to copulate consentually, or would have in the past, that they go into rape-mode. The male scorpionfly, for example, perfers to give its potential mate a gift, to which she almost always responds favorably. Its only when they lack this gift that they force sex.

Is this the type of evidence you're using to support the idea that rape was actively selected for, rather than just being a by-product of other traits like the human desire for sex and capacity for violence? This seems pretty weak to me. Two of the things you mention, low socioeconomic status and fatherless households, are also correlated with violent crimes in general, which would be compatible with the "rape is partially a byproduct of the capacity for violence" view. And I bet you would also find a correlation between more frequent sexual rejection and masturbation, another probable "spandrel" I mentioned earlier, which would support the "rape is partially a byproduct of the desire for sex" view.

Also, I thought I read in some pop science book that sex and violence are partly linked in terms of the parts of the brain responsible for these drives--does anyone know if this is true? It's interesting that in many species males signal their place on the dominance hierarchy by mimicking sex acts, like briefly mounting another male and pretending to thrust. I don't know if there are any theories that try to explain this connection between sex and dominance/violence, but perhaps it would shed light on the rape issue (again, rape might just be a byproduct of this connection, which might have evolved for other reasons or might itself be a 'spandrel' of how the brain is laid out).