cricket

I don't agree that that would be the conclusion of a sociobiological analysis. Why would sociobiologists assume a girl who wears lipstick and a thong is wanting to be raped? The assumption would be that she is advertising for a long-term mate or a short-term consensual relationship.

That's what the sociobiologists think.

Who cares what the rapists think? They could think they are carrying out the gods' orders for all we care; they will be and should be punished nonetheless.

Tara

woah you're right... a combination? an amalgamation?

this whole rape thing is making less sense the further this thread progresses... I think i'm going conclude that no one has a clue... at least there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to prove either way.

Monkeybot

Or, the evidence would seem to indicate that a wide variety of factors are at work, and that evolutionary forces may play a muted role in rape.

In reported rape, at any rate.

Which brings me to another thought: How useful is it to poll rapists in prison? Given the extremely low rape report rate, and then on top of that a low conviction rate, it makes me wonder if and how the data might be skewed. I'm not criticizing its inclusion in the discussion -- after all, you've got to start somewhere -- but, I dunno, food for thought.

Dr Rick

It could make a huge difference; understanding the motives and drives behind any abnormal behavour such as rape may give us insights into how to prevent it.

Measures to prevent and deal with a crime motivated by sexual drives and poor impulse control, such as pedophilia, are much different from those employed for a crime motivated by a desire to dominate a victim.

Rick

God Fearing Atheist

This is going to be my last post on this thread. The discussion is going absolutely nowhere, and with the exception of Rick, no one on the other side has bothered to cite any evidence (and even then, those studies do much less than he thinks they do, as I pointed out above). I'll restrict myself to some general observations, and responses to some of the less hystertical replies coming out of Koyaanisqatsi and pz's corner.

-Far from being anamolious, marital-rape may be just another subset of sperm competition (Thornhill & Palmer, 2000). We know, for example, that sperm count is closely related to the time pair-bonded mates have physically spent apart, but only weakly releated to the length of time since last copulation. Its hypothesized that this is related to male "fears" about siring other men's kin. Similarly, Bachman & Salzman (1995) report that women seperated from their mates suffer much higher rates of victiminzation from their male counterparts. There are also strong relationships between fears of female infidelity on the males part and rape, battery and rape, and so forth.

-That 13% of the population (11-29 year old females) experience more than 60% of rapes is no mere trifle; this is powerful evidence that demands an explaination. Pz's suggestion that "young women get raped because most rapists are young men, and that's who they associate with" seems odd, given that nearly half of all rapists are middle-aged (above 30; Greenfield, 1997.

Explaining away the fact that the vast majority are commited against women as a result of the stigma associated with homosexuality (!) without a hint of evidence is even more improbable. To me it would seem that there is *at least* as strong a stigma attached to *violating a woman*!

- Nor do i see male on male rape as any more of a theoretical problem than the sexual explaination of masturbation and bestiality. Certainly, sexual desires often manifest themselves in unreproductive ways.

It would be interesting to see if, for example, the biological correlates of homosexuality were present in men who rape other men. It may suggest that rape against people of boths sexes is essentially the same phenomena, only manifested differently due to differences in the offenders biology. Also, scientists might look at the age distribution of male rape trauma. I suspect its strength would be even across the spectrum. Researchers have already noted that this trauma, however distributed among victims according to age, seems to depend almost entirely on a loss of social status, real or imagined (Ellis, 2002; Rentoul & Appleboom, 1997).

-The predictions for the rape-as-power theory i presented are not "straw men". Although you may disagree about their applicability, these claims are explicitly made by its defenders. See Groth (1979), Brownmiller (1975), Harding (1985), and so forth.

-That cross-species compairisons offer conclusive proof of the ultimately sexual nature of rape isnt true; that it makes a good prima facie case, i think, is. Given the prevalence of rape in the animal kingdom, and given the probably that these animals are not driven by sadistic desires to dominate, that similar sexual causes exist in humans isnt too far of a stretch.

-The numbers on excessive violence didnt add up because there is *overlap*; rapists who are slapping their victims are also holding them down, and so forth. That only 4% of victims sustain serious injury (Pinker, 2002), though, is not in question and demands an explaination.

And obviously, pz, "excessive" is not a normative judgment. That you would even *suggest* that when I *defined* the word is not only dishonest, but offensive.

- Koyaanisqatsi asks: "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..."

Why, Koyaanisqatsi? Because *rape decreases female reproductive fitness*!

-Why would there be selection pressures against seriously harming or killing the woman you have just raped, if rape increase male reproductive fitness?

Sheesh, I dont know Koyaanisqatsi, but it is pretty hard for dead women to have babies, isnt it?

-Koyaanisqatsi also said: "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"

Why is this is being debating?

1) female orgasm serves a reproductive purpose

2) 90% of women need some sort of clitoral stimulation to reach orgasm.

Therefore, what can we safely conclude about the clitoris?

Thanks, and good night.

-GFA

Koyaanisqatsi

:banghead:

Umm, excuse me, but I presented evidence. Your own and it demonstrates that the sociobiological theory is incorrect. If a full third of the victims were not of reproductive age, then one can easily conclude that procreation is not a factor.



How about addressing the arguments presented and leave off the ad hominen, yes?

In other words, and again, marital-rape would then appear to be the result of power/control over their wives, based on the fear that they have been unfaithful to them? And how would "battery and rape" have anything to do with "fears about siring other men's kin?"

Not nearly as much as the 40% that aren't of reproductive age. Remember, you had posted that as evidence of procreation being the primary sociobiological factor of rape! Do you even apply any critical analysis or just regurgitate?

Sorry, was my pointing out this glaring ommission part of my "hysterics?"

"Nearly" half? And the other over half are? Seems odd to me that you keep posting evidence that provides no causal links and, quite to the contrary, continues to argue against your theory.

If "nearly half" are above 30, then that means that over half are below 30, yes? Do you have any kind of specific breakdown as to how many of the "nearly half" that are over 30 raped 11-29 year olds? Any breakdown as to how many of the over half that are under 30 raped 11-29 year olds? Under 11 year olds? Over 29 year olds?

Again, your evidence does not provide coherent analysis or cogent evidence to support your theory.

Sorry. I guess the "bold" is what you would call my "hysterics," but there doesn't appear to be any other way to get through to you that your evidence is spurious at best and at worst proves that there is no causal link to any of this.

Since that was, I presume, Pz's point, I'll leave that for him to address.

But your theory concludes that "rape" is a product of the biological need of procreation! Male on male rape proves this is not tenable.

What "biological correlates of homosexuality?" Again, your theory regarding rape is about procreation. What biological correlate is there?

Or, far more logically, that rape isn't a biological concern so much as it is a psychological concern!

Why are you so intent to cling to a theory that your own evidence does not support?

Not to mention that they have been raped; forced against their will into either performing degrading acts or having degrading acts forced upon them.

Acts that cannot be the result of a biological need to procreate!

At least stay consistent.

Well, not having a textbook on hand, it's difficult at best for any of us to address your claim, so instead I'll rely on showing how your evidence you've quoted does not correspond to the claims you are making.

Yes, well that's why we've all gone deeper than the surface to argue against it, but why address any of our arguments directly when you can just wave your hand by calling it our "hysterics?"

Perhaps if you'd actually apply some form of consistent, cogent critical analysis to what your own evidence demonstrates, there wouldn't be any need for "hysterics" as you see it.

Really? What animals do you know that drug their victims or use broken beer bottles as penetration devices or even have the complex psychological makeup to determine such things as "right" and "wrong" self-awareness?

Yeah, you're right. We're identical to scorpionfish. We're just like Cane Toads. Except for the fact that according to your own evidence, now it's 40% of female victims who are not of reproductive age and that anal-rape won't achieve procreation and "battery and rape" do not correlate to a biological need to procreate and male-on-male rape and rape and female-on-female rape won't achieve procreation, I'd say we're identical to other animals.

Serious physical injury! It is the psychological impact of rape that causes the most damagin trauma. Regardless and yet again, you own evidence of overlapping physical abuse (56% combined, as I recall, using slapping, beating and choking in order to achieve their goal) demands an even more conclusive explanation if you are going to continue to argue that rape is not primarily about power/control issues of psychology and is instead born out of the need to procreate!

Your theory is about procreation being the primary (indeed, only, it seems) reason why "rape" exists in our culture. Your evidence, however, proves this is not the case. If between 35% and 40% ("nearly half" one might even say) of the female victims are not of reproductive age, then your theory does not attain.

Again, I'll defer that to Pz.

So it could hardly be a beneficial adaptive evolutionary trait, now could it? Or does a female's reproductive fitness not count in your theory?

I didn't make this point, so I'm not sure why you're addressing it to me, but just apply what you had argued previously; that rape reduces female reproductive fitness! How then would rape be a beneficial, adaptive trait if this is the case?

It isn't. It was in response to your glib and fallacious post. I had pointed out that the clitoris serves no procreative purpose and you fallaciously stated that it did, because it facilitates orgasm and then went on to declare the purpose of famale orgasm in procreation. This is why I pointed out that a female can acheive orgasm without clitoral stimulation, necessarily.

Source on that one please? Regardless and again, that still leaves ten percent of the female population on this planet without the need for direct clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm, which means that the clitoris is not directly linked to procreation. You know, the point I was making and you have now confirmed?

That you have no clue about how to critically assess somebody else's argument?

WHOA there horsey! Care to actually address all of the arguments I presented that directly showed your evidence to prove conclusively that rape cannot be the result of a biological need to procreate?

No, I guess not. You're far more intent on posting tenuous evidence that does not correlate with your theory; indeed it argues conclusively against it.

I'm glad this was your last post. I couldn't handle another slipshod, piecemeal polemic that is almost completely devoid of any critical analysis being applied to one's own evidence.

But I guess that's just more of my "hysterics," for you. I guess it was just too much to ask of you to present a cogent rebuttal that addresses all of one's arguments, not just a few of the more ancillary ones.

Start with this, once you come lurking back: 40% of female victims--according to your own sources--were not of reproductive age. What then does that say regarding your theory that rape is the result of a biological need to procreate?

Once you're done with that, then perhaps you'd kindly address all of the other cogent arguments I and others presented, yes? Instead of trying to illegitimatley dismiss them all to my "hysterics."

Dr Rick

In other words, the evolutionary rape hypothesis explains human rape, except when it doesn't. A characteristic of human rape is observed, and it is the job of the sociobiologist to think up a way it could have been adaptive. If the story seems plausible, it is accepted and the evolutionary basis for rape is now that much stronger. Those aspects of rape that don't offer any reproductive advantage are either deemed to be "environmental" or simply ignored. If a sociobiologic explanation seems to explain "most" of human rape, that's more than adequate.

Except that it's not. Scientific theories are supposed to be predictive, testable, and perhaps most important of all, potentially falsifiable; the adaptive rape hypothesis fails these criteria. If some aspect of rape corresponds to the adaptation story (ie reproductive age women are the most frequent vicitms of rape), the theory is confirmed. If not (ie. lots of non-reproductive-age women are raped, some men are raped, and many reproductive-age women are raped in manners not likely to result in conception), it’s because the environment and culture have played a role, or it's not "any more of a theoretical problem" than something else."

There is no set of observations or experments that could disprove the adaptive rape hypothesis. In the end, a belief that offers explanations with no potential falsifiability isn't really explanatory at all. A theory that only works when it works isn't particulary useful or predictive, and it isn't good science.


Rick

Koyaanisqatsi

Thank you Dr. Rick.

:notworthy

Tara

Rick's post makes a lot of sense as to why the adaptive hypothesis is flawed, or at least unverifiable, but help me see the whole picture...

::The following I understand to be true::

Every aspect of an organism's phenotype is the joint product of its genes and its environment.Ergo, it's meaningless to ask whether a characteristic "is a result of genetics or environment" because both HAVE to be partially responsible.


::So our genotypic characteristics (is that a valid phrase at all?) can be designated as one of the below::
a) adaptations which are present because they were selected for
b) by-products which are present because they are causally coupled to traits that were selected for
c) non-functional, non-adaptive random traits that are none-the-less still a result of evolution

As I see it there is definitely a genetic component in rape because there is a genetic component in EVERYTHING, it's just not necessarily an adaptive or heritable trait. So by denying that rape is adaptive... what are we saying rape is? How did it manifest in our species behavior?

i.e. What are the other hypotheses?
- environment joint with person's genes (which maybe predisposed the person to violence) are what makes a person a rapist?

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, at least you've asked the right question, since it is indeed a problem of behavior; i.e., psychological malfunction of some kind.

If psychology (or self-awareness) is to be found in the genes, I'm all for seeing corroborative evidence. Theories of consciousness generally consider it to be an emergent quality and not necessarily genetic; i.e., it's a question of software, not hardware.