Im reading a 1934 pulp novel where the heroine is locked in a cell next to a lustful orangutan and the vile Red Mandarin is telling our hero (the Spider) that if he doesnt cooperate, the ape will be allowed to have his way with the lovely Nita.
My first thought was, No! Come on, orangs are peaceful, gentle creaatures that you see on the Discovery channel placidly smiling for the camera. This is another pulp fallacy, like the man-eating octopus you often find in these stories.
But a little Google searching has unsettled me with the conclusion that in fact orangutans do frequently rape their females (that is, mating despite the victims` struggles) and even other males. There are reported cases of orangs raised in human households who commit sexual aggression again human females. And of course, the people who actually have lived in the same areas with these apes have always claimed that sure, it happens every now and then.
Ill never be able to watch EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE again without giving that Clyde a suspicious eye. Whats the verdict among our anthropology or zoology experts out there? Is this a foul slander of those redheaded primates or is this in fact just another example of animals being themselves?
Basically, it was thought that the dominant male orangutan in a population would mature sexually (developing those huge cheek flares, among other things) and do all the mating, while the other males would remain sexually immature. Recent observations indicate that some of the non-dominant males may become sexually mature, but without developing secondary characteristics (large size, cheek flares, etc.). Females, however, are typically only receptive to developed males, so the only way for these undeveloped males to mate is by force.
These are fairly recent discoveries, I think that at the time your book was written, it was just folklore (or the writer was pulling it out of his, er… hat).
In her book, Reflections of Eden, Professor Birute Galdikas, who has spent the last thirty years studying orang-utans in Borneo, discusses this problem with anecdotes from the educated middle class native population. The claim is that this certainly occurs, but it is felt to be no big deal, and no more horrible than a dog humping one’s leg.
Well, in the story, the assault proved fatal to the young woman involved. But then, the writer Norvell Page also seemed to think hypnosis was some sort of telepathic communication and that if the hypnotist died, instantly everyone under his spell would be freed, no matter where they were. So I dont put much stock in his research. The funny thing about dogs humping your leg is that the owners seem to think you should be flattered. (He doesnt do that with everyone.) Imagine the scene in Sumatra. (And where have you been?Oh, an orangutan has a crush on me, luckily Im wearing denim jeans…`)
[rant]I fail to see what is so “disturbing” about rape by orangutans. They are animals. They exhibit animal behaviour. Their actions are devoid of an ethical basis and hence cannot be disturbing.
Those who are disturbed by this behavior may argue (well, one academic did, anyway) that it is disturbing because some other people may argue that since rape is observed in higher primates, it becomes acceptable for us; or, at least, less unacceptable. I don’t buy it: to accept that being disturbed by this behaviour is logical is to accept the premises of the anticipated argument: that animal behaviour is relevant to ours. This is sheer lunacy.[/rant]
I think it’s disturbing not because of the fact that the orangutans would rape humans. It’s the idea. I suppose if beastiality doesn’t bother you, then this wouldn’t bother you either, but the fact is that it bugs me, and therefore this does.
Huh? Are we not animals? Is human behavior not a subset of animal behavior?
I don’t know what your talking about.
To the OP: The question doesn’t seem logical, in that it begs an anthropomorphic assumption that may not be valid. The closest definition of rape I can find in my dictionary that seems to fit your context is:
It seems to me that any way you slice it, attributing rape to primates is a stretch of the definition of “person” or even “consent”. Even if we just define it as sexual intercourse by force, it would have to imply a lack of consent, and consent for a primate is a bit difficult to ascertain.
Nonetheless, I would love for jiHymas to provide a cite for an academic who suggests that the existence of “rape” in the nature of orangutan somehow makes rape in humans acceptable. Expected, perhaps.
Even in orangutan societies, rape by the non-alpha male is hardly considered acceptable behavior. In fact, the alpha male has been known to beat to the death such an aggressor.
It should also be noted that sexual aggression is practically non-existant in our closest primate relatives - the bonobos. The bonobo society is not hierarchical, as with many primate species, btw.
Well, I don’t think I’d want to be raped by an orangutan!!! No, perhaps an orangutan is not a human being-it’s not as “evil”, per se, as a human rapist. But it still would disturb me. And at the very least, it would be an attack-I was pretty freaked out when I was almost attacked by someone dog last year while walking to the bus stop.
Consent for a primate is easy to determine if the victim is kicking, screaming, biting the assailant and obviously resisting the act.
And it may not fit the exact dictionary definition, but I would use the term rape to include males on males and females on females (as in prisons, where fingers and tongues and blunt objects are forced where theyre not wanted). I suppose sexual molestation` might be more accurate but it also seems vaguer.
My original surprise was simply because I had always thought of orangutans as being such sweet, lovable goofballs. But all living things are capable of aggression in various ways. I saw two hummingbirds battling it out this summer like mean little fighter jets and my illusions about those charming little critters were also diminished.
I fail to see anything “disturbing” about rape by orangutans. I do not choose to model my behaviour on higher primates; for Sapolsky & Maggioncalda to use the word “disturbing” in describing orangutan behaviour when in fact they are disturbed by the potential for humans to make arguments based on that behaviour is rather muddled thinking.
Well, of course. Where I take issue is your statement that it’s not as “evil”, per se, as a human rapist. I claim that rape by an orangutan, whether of human or orangutan females, is not evil at all. It is absolutely devoid of moral content. Morals and ethics are a solely human province.
Have the vicious orangutan or dog destroyed, certainly. But don’t be “disturbed” at its behaviour.
At a certain point, this becomes a matter of playing with definitions. Any definition of human behaviour as a subset of animal behaviour that does not account for humans’ unique ability to reason and to make moral and ethical choices and judgements is unacceptable.
Well, sure, with that we can agree. Your original statement was that one academic justified (human) rape as acceptable in society due to these findings in the animal kingdom. That’s a far cry from “unstoppable”. Suggesting that acts such as rape are in our nature is hardly controversial. That it is somehow acceptable would be downright lunacy.
The potential of human behavior, not limited by environmental factors (such as moral and ethical choices), spans a very wide range of behavior, much of which is relevent to the study of primate behavior. And that is not lunacy at all.