:dubious: Don’t look at me like that. I suppose the thought’s never crossed your mind.
But which part is more wrong? The necro- or the pedo- part of the pedonecrophilia? And can even a Zombie over 18 be said to be capable of consent?
And since the brain is the ultimate erogenous zone is it oral sex when a Zombie eats your brain?
That’s what I learned in Animal Behaviour class (2nd year psych), however the terms rape/sexual assault wasn’t used, but “sneak mating.” Just remember that anthropomorphism is a much hated bane of Animal Behaviourists, it routinely leads to shallow, misleading and naive interpretations.
I can understand that, but are “rape” or “sexual assault” really “anthropomorphic” terms? Sounds like they would fit right into the terminology of natural history, along with “thief ants” and so on, despite both “thief” and “rape” being concepts originally drawn from human social/legal relations.
's not pedo ! That thread is over 70 in dog years !
What?! I have an alibi.
Before this zombie thread gets closed, there is a story you all should read.
The online world of 2001 was a place of poverty, before Cracked came along. Duck rape? Read all about it!
The opposite error of refusing to use the same terms for both humans and animal behavior is at least as bad, however. Trying to enforce some imaginary bright line between human behavior and animal behavior is just as self indulgent and illogical as the people who want to treat animals like people in costumes. And often extremely immoral, like trying to pretend no animal can suffer.
Either you are misremembering what you were taught, or you were taught by someone who has no idea what they were talking about.
Sneak mating is the term used to describe a male mating with a female that has been claimed by another male. For example, a roaming lion mating with a lioness in the pride of another lion, or a male frog depositing sperm into the water around a pair of frogs that is copulating.
While sneak mating certainly *can *be rape, the vast majority of sneak mating is not rape, and the vast majority of rape is not sneak mating. You can not use the terms interchangeably, and if someone taught you that you could… well.
Who is anthropomorphising? When I say that an animal eats, that is not anthropomorphising, it is stating afact. And when I say that an animal prefers one food over another, that is not anthropomorphising. And when I say that an animal is aggressive, that is not anthropomorphising. And when i say that an animal is involved in rape, that is anthropomorphising.
Those terms all apply equally well to all animals. There isn’t even a suggestion of anthropomorphisation in the use of the terms. The fact that your teacher thought that there was, and wanted to rename it “sneak mating” is very telling.
Isn’t ‘Sneaky’ itself an anthropomorphism?
Yes animals can suffer, I know of no academic says different. In fact this is such a well recognized principal that there are strict ethical rules and guidelines that all academics must follow if they to work with animals in any matter.
The Canadian Council on Animal Care (our “national peer review agency responsible for setting and maintaining the standards for the care and use of animals in research, teaching and testing”) lays out some of the concerns that must be routinely considered in their CCAC policy statement on: ethics of animal investigation. For a more complete picture there’s the GUIDE TO THE CARE AND USE OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS(PDF).
I can’t see how the word “Sneak” (to act stealthy) can be an anthropomorphism.
The term you guys are looking for is ‘forced copulation’. Rape is inappropriate (but used) because rape is a crime. The concept of crime does not apply to the behavior of nonhuman animals.
Calling a sort of mating behaviour that animals do “rape” is very controversial.
When you observe animal mating behaviour they are many reasons why one partner might be unwilling/resistant/adverse to copulating. Off the top of my head…
-
The reluctant partner might have no idea that the willing partner is after sex. For animals (whether they are social or anti-social) mating often resembles predation or aggression. What you are observing is not one partner’s reluctance toward sex, but an automatic response toward fear of injury, harm or death.
-
The reluctance to mate might just be the normal process of courtship for that species. For example, Wolfs go through a long (sometimes many weeks) cycle of solicitations and chases. You might call this “flirtatious,” but that’s simply how they mate. On another scale many laypeople call the mating behaviour of mallards “duck rape” (look it up); but it’s simply how they mate too.
It’s not good practice to attribute human reasoning to the beaviour of animals.
Many of the senses of 'sneak imply behaviour that belies intent. Intent in humans is something you can interview them about, and it is widely known and understood that humans have a hidden inner thought-life. Intent in animals is largely inferred from behaviour, so can’t simultaneously be contrary to that behaviour.
That was my thought process when I asked the question, anyway, but I can see one or two potential flaws in it.
[emphasis mine—DHMO]
I am certain you have inadvertently confirmed orcenio’s thesis.
I feel, however, that I must agree with orcenio on this issue. The term, “rape” implies a level of volition which lower animals (i.e. less-than-human intelligence) cannot have. Their behavior may be aberrant, or non-standard for the species, but rape is a very emotionally-charged word which is predicated on intent. Animals are usually taken to be incapable of that level of sentience.
It’s possible I’m misremembering (I’m only human), but I don’t think so. Also I can assure you that my professor knows exactly what he’s talking about, he’s a very accomplished animal behaviouralist (and a cool guy).
I can easily see how that can be called “sneak mating” too.
My professor didn’t tell us to use the terms interchangeably, he just told us (as an ethologist) that the term “rape” wasn’t valid for animal behaviour. In class he used the term “sneak mating” in times where someone would possibly use “rape”(if talking about humans). He also told us (as a psychologist) that it’s folly to do the inverse and attribute some perceived evolutionary/animalistic reasoning to human behaviour (claiming that rape is “natural,” etc). Which explains my Evo-psych joke in post 43
I assure you, he’s not renaming anything. He, like many others, simply used the term “sneak mating” to describe an instance where one partner (who incidentally couldn’t attract a mate) stealthy caught another partner and mated with them. If you say that the term “sneak mating” covers much more then that, fine. My professor never told me it didn’t.
In reality, you are in agreement with my professor’s use of the term “sneak mating.” The contentiousness issue is the use of the term “rape.”
Blake’s examples are what is referred to as ‘sneak mating’.
Once again, your professor should have used the term ‘forced copulation’ in place of the term rape. Compare the types of behavior described in the abstracts of those articles versus ‘sneak mating’. Professors often have to teach outside their specific subfield and may get confused; you ought to ask him/her why ‘sneak mating’ replaced rape.