I think the point was, compared to consensual sexual encounters, things like child rape are extremely rare.
If our goal is to understand rape and how it facilitates procreation, it makes zero sense to compare the frequency of consensual adult sex with the frequency of child rape. Obviously, consensual sex is not rape.
What? You’re all over the place. What exactly are you trying to argue?
The argument was that a better starting point to studying sexuality is probably plain, vanilla, consensual sex. Studying something like child rape, which is much rarer, won’t provide as much useful information.
I’m defending EP, not people on this forum or a specific paper.
For any science you can find junk papers.
You are repeating this misconception, and the discussion is really not going to get any further while you are still seeing things like this.
When someone describes something as a reproductive strategy, it doesn’t mean that the individual is consciously (or subconsciously) trying to reproduce.
Nor, in fact, does it mean that each specific action will have a good chance of reproduction. If I have unprotected sex with everyone I ever meet, then reproduction is a likely result, even though some of those sexual encounters will have 0% chance of reproduction.
There are certainly hypotheses explaining various kinds of non-reproductive sex, but I don’t think we should go into that until you appreciate what is being described by “reproductive strategy”.
Yes, thank you.
I have made no claim about rape, and feel EP is best supported by looking at common, everyday behaviours.
How did you get that interpretation from this:
Child rape is not a “rare form of rape”. It is actually very common, especially when compared to other rapes.
I’m sorry, but it’s asinine to counter this point with “But compared to consensual sex, child rape is rare!” . We’re not analyzing consensual sex; we’re talking about how rape supposedly evolved as a reproductive strategy.
Please try to follow the along with the discussion before you accuse me of being all over the place.
So someone else with your username must have wrote that about rare forms of rape. Because the words are clearly there.
So then it’s an ineffective argument against the assertion that rape is driven by the rapists desire to dominate his victim. You’re only making my point for me.
No, Trom correctly interpreted what I was saying.
I would consider child rape to be more rare than rape of women, I’m sure the data would bear this out. But anyway, in general, rape is less common than consensual sex.
I made no claim about rape. Read again, and genuinely read this time before firing off a retort.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
So then it’s an ineffective argument against the assertion that rape is driven by the rapists desire to dominate his victim. You’re only making my point for me.
[/quote]
Your conclusion here is a complete non sequitur. I wouldn’t even call it flawed logic, it’s non-logic.
I got that interpretation by reading exactly what was written. When I repeated it, in my own words, the original author then affirmed my interpretation was correct. Your interpretation is incorrect.
Irrelevant. It’s still extremely rare compared to all the consensual sexual encounters going on.
Is that what you’re talking about? Here’s the only point I’ve argued again:
**A better starting point to studying sexuality is probably plain, vanilla, consensual sex. Studying something like child rape, which is much rarer, won’t provide as much useful information. **
I’ll do my best.
Good luck with that, Mijin. ywtf has not made a single citation to support her claims, and she’s absolutely misinterpreted both what others have said and the cites that have been offered [edit: to be fair, she did make a single citation–it just wasn’t one that supported her claims]. I’m not sure what there is to argue with, there. Darwin’s Finch is offering a reasonable critique of EP, and I’m happy to continue discussing with the bird. Not seeing that the back-and-forth with ywtf is remotely illuminating.
I wouldn’t be so confident of that. It’s much easier to overpower a child than an adult woman. A man can also rape his own children without consequence, because he “owns” them. In contrast, by raping another man’s woman, he at least takes on the risk of getting beat up. Maybe even killed.
Do you think anyone has argued otherwise? Seriously, I can’t understand what this has to do with anything. It is quite random and hilarious.
This is clearly true, but it’s something you should endeavor to fix, because everyone else seems to understand exactly how it’s relevant.
You misinterpreted a comment by **Mijin **and commenced tilting at windmills. Attempts were made to clarify. Now we are all soberly assessing the situation.
Yeah, I can see now how crazy it was of me to interpret “rare forms of rape” as a claim about rape. My face is aflame with embarrassment.
All this denial over what Mijin posted is such a bizarre way of forfeiting the debate. I can’t even get mad at you, that’s how lame it is.
Maybe you can explain to me how the statement “rape is a reproductive strategy” worked its way in this discussion, if consensual sex is such a superior starting point to understanding sexuality.
This is the kind of wild speculation in place of data you’re accusing EP of doing.
Note the argument is apparently based on the assumption that a man will rape “another man’s” woman, but apparently his own child. Because otherwise the danger of being beaten up is analogous.
Anyway, I have no interest in this subject. In fact it was saying I had no interest, and don’t think it’s a particularly good area for EP to study, that prompted you to try to drag me into this tangent.
No. I was stating the obvious to hopefully clarify my point for you.
Yes. I haven’t been through some of that earlier discussion but I was certainly starting to come to this realization.
DF pointed out some the same flaws I did. The main one being that it’s implausible that a blue-eyed preference would be impart a fitness advantage.
By your reaction in this thread, I can only assume that you put a lot of stock in EP. Sorry if my critiques have upset you so, but you really need to calm that down. I’ve said nothing to you that warrants your little potshots.
If there’s any apology necessary from you, it’s not this GladOS-style apology; what you’ve offered doesn’t really rise to the level of a critique.
You just said that you’d consider child rape much rare than woman rape, and I told you a good reason why I wouldn’t be so sure of that. How is that wild speculation? If you think I’m wrong, offer up a cite or two. If you can’t, then don’t accuse me of doing something that you yourself haven’t engaged in.
I just found an historical review on the topic of child rape, by the way. I doubt you can read this and still walk away confident that historically children have less often been victims of rape than women.
You challenged me with a half-cocked statement about rare forms of rape. I dragged you into nothing.
Here’s another interesting study. It found that 8.5% of U.S. women reported being raped as children, with 11 being the average age of victimization.
According to this cite, 17% of women in the U.S. have been raped either as children or adults.
So where is the basis for saying that child rape is rarer than adult rape? Do the math.