Rape
 

I had an interesting discussion with Gender studies students today and we discussed how rape has been researched to be something biological which is inbred into men since the caveman days. It was a way of them insuring survival as a human race. Animals are not different today. Obviously it's highly inappropriate in todays society but I just wanted to see your views on this. It goes along with the idea that humans are not meant to be monogamous.

Do we fight against these biological conditions to be what is morally right? Is this because we are highly intelligent beings?

rape doesn't violate any biological rules, only cultural rules. but the same can be said of all crimes.

many of the behaviors that are punishable in modern society occur naturally in the animal world. rape, murder, cannibalism, etc.

not sure about the idea that our cultural rules point to intelligence though. if we actually stopped and thought about things, we would base our moral values would on individual biological imperatives. "good" would be attributed to anything that promotes the propagation of an individual's genes, and "evil" would be attributed to anything that hinders it. in this system, monogamy and abstinence would be evil, and sexual promiscuity would be good...

Monogamy is cleary a human invention.

I do think it's wrong though to assume that rapists are just doing something natural, sexual assaulters tend to be mentally ubstable and often have a background of abuse and sexual repression or rejection.

I can definitely get behind the idea that monogamy goes against human biology. I mean, we all know how rarely monogamous relationships suceed.

That argument is really perplexing, and kind of hurtful. I think most people (including myself) have been taught that rape was a learned behavior influenced by societal factors and could be prevented.

This... just makes me lose a little faith in humanity.

"Highly intelligent beings" is a bit of a stretch for the most part. In the words of the late George Carlin,
"We are merely partly-civilized beasts with baseball caps and automatic weapons."

I must say, I never really expected to see a thread with the title "Rape". But since I came in here to check it out, and you actually posed an interesting question regarding it, here goes.

It's not cool. I understand the propagation of the species aspect, but that was a long time ago. If anything, we need to be stemming the growth of the population. In other words, we're not rebuilding after the flood, here. There's too many people.

But even on a social level, to take somebody's humanity in such a way as to force them to have sex, to that the point that sometimes they can't even bare to be around men anymore. I think that speaks for itself. We've been in need of a dose of evolution for quite some time now.

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."
-Albert Einstein

And with that, I'm off to work.

I'm in no way condoning it. I am just curious to how our biological processes can still penetrate through modern life.

rape is not learned. it's not a social disorder. it makes perfect biological sense. the only purpose in life is the propogation of genetic matter. we are evolved from a non-biological self-replicating molecular system, and human beings along with the rest of life on earth are no more than complex machines that continue along the same path.

it is in male organism's best interest (biologically) to impregnate as many females as possible and spread his seed anywhere he can. of course from a female organism's perspective, it is in her best interest (biologically) to be extremely selective, since she has but one chance every 9 months to produce healthy offspring. so in this sense, rape is good for males, and not so good for females (biologically speaking). perhaps this explains why most rapists are men...

Exactly, biological conditions change and we adapt to new environments, new standards of living. We are supposedly civilized now and know a lot more, are lot less ignorant than we were many years (and centuries) before. To move forward and improve as a race, insure our ultimate survival we have to be smart, we have to make change.

It's like man's way of getting around this selectiveness, to ensure his seed is spread whether the woman selects him or not. However, we are not primitive anymore.

No, I got that from what you were saying. You explained everything pretty well. Sorry if you got the impression that that was directed at you, I'm not so eloquent right now.

The information in the first paragraph just left a really bitter taste in my mouth.

the very fact that you call the natural world primitive says quite a lot.

what exactly is the connection between intelligence/self-awareness and overcoming "primitive" biological urges? the first does not logically lead to the second.

just because most people are not capable of removing the cultural lenses that are foggying their vision of the world does not mean they are seeing clearly :)

I didn't really understand that last sentence. Humans are constantly developing though, whether it's right or wrong we make changes. I agree with the cultural lense idea though, everything is based on what we know from before. We still live in the past. It shows how imperfect we are.

All good hun :love:

This doesn't surprise me in the least. I never thought too much about rape before other than if it has happened to someone. If I'd thought about it a little more indepth, then I'd probably come up with this conclusion. Because at the end of the day, as Humans. We ARE animals. Maybe smarter than the rest, but still.. Animals.

In behaviour, we sometimes talk of proximate and ultimate reasons where proximate means the closest to and ultimate is the underlying reason with ties to our evolution. I think I mentioned an example before where we explain why a reindeer runs away from a bear. The proximate reason is that the bear scares the reindeer. The ultimate reason is that reindeers have evolved to avoid potential predators.

In arguments about behaviour, it's often useful to remember to not mix ultimates and proximates.

As for ultimate reasons for rape, from what I can remember, there are two leading schools of thought. One is that rape is a valid strategy. Noise has explained it quite well already and it does seem to make some sense. Sorry if this sounds awful, but for the sake of argument, the pros to raping someone is that you can potentially have a child with someone with very little expense - whatever effort you spend performing the rape. Also, you can have a child with someone who would not select you as their partner. Perhaps noone would, then rape could become the only valid strategy to ensuring the survival of your genes.

There are some obvious cons. Women may be able to protect themselves, a child growing up without a father (although perhaps a rapist could become a caring father) could have worse chances, the act may be avenged by the mother and her closest or even society etc. In a way, it is a gamble and it doesn't make sense if there are better ways of ensuring your genes survival. It should make sense that it's a losers strategy, one most often employed by people who are not able to find partners for sex by consent, for example because they are plain unattractive, society's losers, sick in the head - something which keeps them from getting laid. It makes sense that rapists should be a minority in a society, although this depends strongly on that society's structure. Some societies unfortunately take a lot of power away from women.


The other leading idea is that it's a byproduct of selection of other traits. Essential to evolution is variation. People are not the same. Many men have strong sex drives and a capacity for violence. This has, to some extent, been selected for in the past. However, you will find people with more of this and less. The idea is, then, that if it becomes too much, the chances of someone committing rape is much higher. This hypothesis differs in that rapists shouldn't necessarily be something which is done largely by society's losers (those who can't get sex by consent), but rather by people who have these personality traits .. whoever they are. Thus, men rape more often because of a general higher capacity for violence and a higher sex drive.

I don't think one hypotheses has to exclude the other. Possibly, if one knew something about the kind of person the average rapist is, one could use some simple stats to find support for one of these hypotheses. I believe most rapists are losers, but I'm in no way sure about it. Maybe if you differentiate between violent rape and raping someone who's passed out from alcohol, you'd find support that violent rape is a strategy employed by losers while the other kind could be done by more average sort of people.

By race, I assume you mean species?

I don't think evolutionary change should be about smarts. It has to do with who manages to perpetuate their genes and who doesn't. I don't think you can tell people who have a capacity for rape that they should be smart and stop having sex for the common good. Or, you can tell them, but they won't listen. They don't have sex for the human species, they do it for themselves .. and that goes for all of us, I think.

The only immediate "smart" way I could think of waging an evolutionary war on rape would be to enforce a policy where women who have gotten pregnant from rape get abortions. I'm sure the idea would make many here wince.

Don't forget that women too are capable of rape and sexual assault. It's a lot less common, obviously, but it does happen.

Also, homosexual rape doesn't serve a reproductive purpose, and in some species, the female gender gets complete and utter control of who she mates with, and when. Be careful not to make rash generalizations.

You're my new favorite poster here.

When you (generalized) argue, always make sure that what is mutually agreed upon by glossing over A to get to B is actually mutually agreed upon. I think a lot of us have agreed that "yes, this is biologically ingrained" and I'd like to challenge that idea.

I hope you don't take this as an attack on you, but this is horse****.

For one thing, its been researched. All social sciences are victims of their own sample size. And as someone (noise maybe) has already pointed out, Rape is a social construct. There's not really any biological basis for rape. When cavemen were "raping" people, that was just business as usual; Like it, don't like it - that's what it was.

Also, as far as the "spread your seed" argument - its got very little to do with breeding. I think a rapist 9 times out of 10 would prefer not to have a child. If it was kids he were after there would always be sperm donation, and with the internet out there now anyone who simply wanted to get married has far greater options.

But this assumes there's rational thought in a Rapist. First of all, I think the statistics coming back from rapes indicate that 90% are of known relation. That is to say that a solid majority aren't unknown strangers in dark alleyways. A child in this situation is verifiable proof that a rape has occurred. No rapist wants to be a rapist, they just want to ****/torture/get "close" with (in their own dementia) a particular person.

In fact almost every case of pedophilia is rape. There is little possibility that those children are of child bearing age, and furthermore they are children themselves. If you were searching for a link, and its a long shot, you'd have to conclude that this only had to do with breeding because the carrot in this carrot-and-stick operation is the driving force (i.e. sexual pleasure). But there isn't, in my estimation, a strong desire to carry on your breeding cycle.

Ehf, the argument has it's basis in modern biology, not social sciences. You seem to be confident in a different idea that explains what rape is and where the behaviour comes from, but there is sound biological consistent theory which can explain perfectly well why rape could be a strategy. Your post makes it painfully clear you don't know/understand any of the arguments based on that theory.

When, in biology, people write stuff like a want to reproduce, what they mean is usually not a conscious desire to make babies. Evolution doesn't necessarily work with a desire for offspring, a want to have sexual gratification may produce the same end result.

If you read my last post, you will see me mention at first proximate and ultimate reasons. Here you are referring to a proximate reason for rape, but the thread is really about ultimate reasons.

Carrot at the end of a stick motivation works just fine in evolution. Also, although not really relevant to the discussion, I think most sex between adults and minors is consensual in the way that the adult manipulates the minor to agree to have sex. Possibly, a definition of or differentiations between different kinds of "rape" would be useful to the discussion, f.ex "violent rape" or "date rape".

It's probably in our instincts, but society deems it to be wrong and rightfully so. I believe if there wasn't a law against it, so many people I know would be rapists.

I MAN

MAN WANT SEX

MAN GET SEX

That type of thing... but that's just a guess. It could be in our nature, and society makes sure it doesn't come out. But I'd like to think differently. I'd like to think human nature is a lot nicer than that.

I think musicbanter needs to read this :

http://infraljud.files.wordpress.com...lfishgene1.jpg

;)

Tore my friend, its fine to say whats invalid in my arguments, but don't assume you've got me pegged. You might have your bases covered in biology but I don't quite think you've got people locked down.

There could be a strategy to rape of biological motives? I think your post makes it painfully clear you're too many feet in the biological grave. Not everything is as clear cut as the laws of gravity.



And this would position my argument very clearly. You tread dangerous waters to assert that there is anything consensual about an adult (usually 40+) raping a child or to suggest as glibly as you have that date rape is different than violent rape.

If you don't like my argument, that's fine. But lets not get into who knows what about what.

Thank you! I find myself liking a lot of your posts too.

Yes, ummm, well a theory is speculative in nature, so I don't get why you're taking the more knowledgeable than thou high-horse here?

And date rape involves drugging a person, not manipulation. You're probably mixing it up with statutory rape, which is consensual, but one party is underage. Like those schoolteachers who sleep with fourteen year old boys. I guess those teachers can be proud, knowing they're contributing towards EVOLUTION. Now if only she hadn't used a condom. :laughing:

Big3, nice reply. Doesn't debunk, provide support against or really comment on any of the points I brought up. In other words : :rolleyes:

I tread dangerous waters? What are you on about? If you use violence to subdue someone and forcefully have sex with them, that is a different behaviour from sneaky ****ing someone who's so drunk they've basically passed out. It seems logical to assume that some might be likely to do the latter, but not the first, so when talking about these behaviours and the people who do them, it should make sense to differentiate between different kinds/define what we mean by rape in the context we apply it to.

edit :

Don't wanna sound smarmy, but I have a degree in biology so that should count for a little at least. If you are a cobbler and act more knowledgable than me in a thread about shoes, should I complain about it? Also, be careful that you don't mix the scientific terms hypothesis and theory. There's a theory of gravity, but that doesn't mean people in general speculate on whether or not a rock will fall to to the ground if they pick it up and drop it.

When something is not certain (aside from the general uncertainness we have about anything) - or if my knowledge is lacking - then I try to mention that in my posts.

Edit: Forget it. I'm all set.

So, do people here believe that sex for pleasure is a bad thing? Because of the consequences?

Well I think we can count on technology to make a breakthrough sometime in the future that will allow us to f*ck as much as we want without overpopulating the planet.

If all men care about is some inherent desire to spread their genes but can't get laid, than how about sperm doning?

Some men just plain shouldn't spread their genes though.

We just like f*cking a lot. But I disagree with those who think it's purely natural to want to rape. I've been denied sex my whole life and I've never had this desire, and why would I lie when I'm so honest about all the other things that creep people out?

Rapists of the sexual assault variety tend to be emotionally and/or mentally unstable in some way or another. Sociopaths, Psychopaths, Narcissists, Sadists. People with a history of repression, abuse and bitterness towards the opposite sex. Something is psychologically out of order thus it is not biologically normal.

With date rape, well that's just an example of what happens when you combine horniness with inebriation and stupidity.

Exactly.

Men think of any excuse to make being a disgusting scumbag expectable.

"Don't worry baby let me rape you, IT'S SCIENCE!"

Give me a break.

What's wrong with that statement?

It's obnoxious and sexist. Pretty obvious really.

I think he was talking about specific kinds of men rather than men as an overall demographic.

I have a pretty strong hatred for radical feminists who spew hatred towards men for their lifestyle and preferences. Yeah we like big boobs and shaved legs get over it.

But on the other hand, I personally (as in I know I'm not being objective here) find loathsome personalities to be more prominent in men. More than anything I think that has to do with the differences in how each gender is brought up. Men tend to be more spoiled and narcissistic I think.

Doesn't seem that way to me. Though if they said "Some men" then I'd agree with you. It does seem pretty sexist and moronic.

That there be a challenge.

Vegan. PLEASE DON'T! I'M SORRY FOR BRINGING IT UP. TAKE THIS ELSEWHERE!!!

If that's the case, it was really badly phrased.

Ah yes, men, always wanting to be wined and dined, expecting expensive jewelry and whatnot.

I know, and the worst part is I'm actually straight. I just deal with the facts that every man is a perv to some degree. As are women. Maybe it was sexist but it's true. I have sympathy for rapists actually - but still the point is it's not good to try and sugarcoat such a violent act.

I think it was, a radical feminist that likes Aerosmith? That would be weird.


Not saying women aren't spoiled. But men run the world, and so men expect to get away with more and think they are entitled to more things.

I definitely don't think women who like to eat fancy are worse than or equal to men who think using women like disposable sex objects is ok.

I'm sorry your right, ''some men''.