Rape is natural?

Great Debates
21

A important thing to remember is that many rapes do not result in pregnancy and some do not even result in penetration.

I am not addressing the rape and pilage variety of war time, but the lone stalker type. Many of these men are sexually dysfunctional and cannot achieve an erection of significant duration. They dominate women with violence.

Perhaps the prevalence of pilage style rape which does cause genetic transmission explains the “natural” occurance of an urge to rape in some women.

Continuing to outlaw it would disfavorably affect the spread of this violent genetic type any more than occurs in normal breeding.

Anyone who conflats “natural” with “good” is mixing a morally valuless system with a moral based system. As the simplest reduction of Darwin’s theory is - “those who survive, survive.”

Thus if men are allowed and encouraged to rape and produce more offspring, that tendency (if genetic - and that is a BIG missing piece here) willbe passed on in large numbers.

The theory assumes tht this is genetic, and varies from one population to another. A big assumption, and easily manipulated, not just for getting out of a conviction, but targeting potential rapists as well. And we all know that the finger won’t be pointed historically at Romans…etc.

22

erratum - obviously “an urge to rape in some women.” is meant to be “an urge to rape in some men.”

23

[hijack] I vaguely remember a story from (TX?) about a woman that was about to be raped ( for some reason I remember it happening on her bathroom floor, but am not sure.) and she managed to ask the rapist if he would put on a condom. The guy, IIRC, was a stranger.And he did.
Flash forward:The guy is caught and charged.
AT the trial the defense tried to argue stating it was consensual because she asked him to wear a condom.

I never heard the outcome of the trial.

Does anyone recall this? It was about five years ago.

[/hijack]

24

I had a disagreement with some other posters about this subject on another thread some time ago, and wandered off to search the internet for more information, then couldn’t remember what thread the subject was mentioned in!

I think most people make the mistake of anthropomorphizing the actions of animals. I also hang out on a couple of ethology lists, and have heard several professional behaviorists complain about others using such human-associated, emotionally-laden terms as ‘prostitution’, ‘rape’, and ‘coercive sex’ in reference to animal behavior.

One factor that should be taken into consideration is that, to the best of my knowledge, humans are the only animal with a hidden estrous. All other female animals signal their readiness to mate by odor, physical changes, behavioral changes, etc. Females rarely have much of a voice in which males they mate with - their hormones are demanding copulation, and they will usually mate with whatever male is available and willing at the time. However, normal mating behavior often involves the ‘domination’ of the female by the male, possibly to prove his fitness as a mate. The violence of these encounters may certainly appear to be ‘rape’, but consideration must be given to fact that the female is basically ‘willing’ when she is in estrus.

Since male animals are capable of easily detecting when a female is in estrus and therefore physically ready for impregnation, the idea of rape in animals as a reproductive tactic is ridiculous. Why risk injury from an angry, unwilling female when you KNOW you are wasting your sperm? Just hang around until she comes into heat, and breed her as soon as she is receptive! I would really like to see some evidence from anyone that shows a male animal ‘raping’ a female that is not in estrus, as I’ve not been able to find any examples of such behavior.

This leaves sexual pleasure as the only motivation for ‘rape’ in animals, and again I believe we see a great deal of anthropomorphizing in this area. While the act is undoubtedly pleasurable to at least some degree in most animals, we have no way of knowing how intense this ‘pleasure’ is - it may simply be equivalent to the scratching of an itch. It seems to me that if the desire for the pleasures of copulation in animals was strong enough to drive the males to rape, then animal rape would be the norm and seen on a daily basis. After all, animals don’t have the moral inhibitions of humans - why shouldn’t the males just rape any female in reach whenever they feel like it?

But anyone who has spent any time observing animals can see that this doesn’t happen at all. Look at the behavior of any herd or pack animals - one dominant male breeds teh receptive females, while the junior males hang around the fringes and watch the action. The junior males must be terribly sexually frustrated by this - why aren’t they taking advantage of the senior male’s preoccupation with mating to attack and rape the non-receptive female members of the herd/pack?

Which brings me to my next point - just how the hell does one animal ‘rape’ another? They don’t have guns or knives, and beating the female senseless is certainly not much of an option, especially when the unwilling female is equivalent in size and weaponry. How does a 1500 pound stallion force a 1500 pound mare to stand still while he mounts and rapes her? He’s more likely to get kicked in the belly or genitals and severely injured.

However, it also makes sense that rape IS a viable reproductive tactic in a species such as humans that has a hidden estrous. Since the male has no way of knowing whether or not a female has, or is ready to, ovulate and is therefore receptive to impregnation, forcing copulation with any female available may be worthwhile, based on the chance that he MIGHT impregnate her and therefore pass on his genes.

I found mention of a book due to be published in April 2000 by MIT Press called “A Natural History of Rape: Biological Basis of Sexual Coercion”, by R. Thornhill and C. T. Palmer. Any chance these were the same scientists seen on TV discussing this? I very much want to read this book when it is published. I’ve been around animals all of my life, grew up on a farm, raised cows, dogs, chickens, etc., have worked in a vet clinic for years and am currently attending vet tech school, and have been breeding and raising pedigreed cats for years, and in my experience the whole ‘animal rape’ thing is a load of hooey.

Sacred cows make the best hamburgers. - Mark Twain

25

Shirley, I remember that one too, and my brain is frozen. I can’t remember how that one turned out. I do remember another one in Texas, though, where a woman was raped and severely beaten with a rock, and the man was let go, because the woman had dressed in provocative clothing and engaged in flirtatious behavior, and the judge & jury agreed that she was “asking for it.”

“The quickest way to a man’s heart is through his ribcage.” --anonymous redhead

26

coosa: “Females rarely have much of a voice in which males they mate with - their hormones are demanding copulation, and they will usually mate with whatever male is available and willing at the time.”

That’s just not right. Female choice in terms of who they mate with is quite common in the animal kingdom. An ovulating female is a scarce resource, and several males will generally show up to try to “acquire” it. In some species, this leads to an opportunity for the famale to choose. This is the entire premise behind “courtship displays” and such. Males compete with each other for the female, and the female often chooses which male to mate with.

There is no one “animal” behavior. Many animals, however, do exhibit female choice in mating. Humans are not unique in that regard. The concealed ovulation in humans has little to do with getting to choose a mate, it probably has much more to do with keeping a mate (and forcing him to be a useful parent). If the male doesn’t know when his mate is ovulating, then he doesn’t know when it is “safe” to try to impregnate other females (and leave his mate available to other opportunistic males).

27

Marc wrote:

Last year, I saw a news story in USA Today (but I never saw it anywhere else) about this. I seem to recall that the statistics were done by a rape-victim advocacy group. The study revealed that there were some very large number of rapes each year, but what I really remember is that the typical rape victim is raped several times each year (!).

I think what they were doing here was including some behavior that we don’t think of when we hear “rape”, such as a husband forcing himself on his wife. I guess that the word “rape” is descriptive for this offense, but it doesn’t get the same level of emotion for most people as their mental image of rape does.

28

I just found a link to the article - it says that there are 876,000 rapes per year in the US, and that one in seven women in the US has been raped. This is pretty close to the one-in-three lifetime number, if you consider that many women alive and not raped yet will be, at some point in their lives.

The article states that “The typical female rape victim is raped nearly three times a year”.

Here it is: http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/rape1.htm

29

I think this book’s title was meant to be an attention getter and gee, didn’t it work!

A book of this nature (academic & sex between bugs) wouldn’t be such a big seller with a typical University Press title.

Our whole development and evolution has run a different course than insects.

A group of primates - apes or chimps(?) was made of several females, their kiddies and a lead/alpha male. A fringe male came into the group and eventually killed the alpha male. He treated the females and kiddies so roughly that the females got together, killed/severely wounded (?) him and replaced him with a kinder and gentler fringe male.

No victims of rape or rapists were interviewed for this book.

Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

30

[quote]
The book A Natural History of Rape suggests all men are potential rapists.

The Albuquerque Rape Crisis Center and educators question the research and the theory.** “These are very interesting theories but as was pointed out there was no reference to people. **There are references to bugs and animals. In addition to not interviewing female victims, no males were interviewed,” said Dr. Joyce Lisbin of the UNM Health Education Department.

The book was co-authored by UNM Professor Randy Thornhill.[/qoute]

Opps, it did mention animals, didn’t say which ones.

Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

31

Well, I disagree with the part of Amazon’s review of Thornhill and Palmer’s book, when it says the book is sure to stir up “discussion” of the causes of rape. It will not. It will stir up blind rage and visciousness.

Thornhill and Palmer could say 500 times, “We are not trying to justify rape, we are trying to properly explain its causes so it can be prevented.” And countless people hearing them would say, “Thornhill and Palmer are trying to justify rape because they are evil.”

The contents of the book don’t matter much to most people. I think I’ll get a copy of the book, and read it, but it’s certainly not going to help me in any arguments. I hear bumper-sticker slogans like “Rape is not about sex” all the time. It doesn’t help understand it; doesn’t properly distinguish a rape from a punch in the face; doesn’t tell us anything about how to prevent it.

I don’t know how good Thornhill and Palmer’s evidence is. I listened to an NPR interview with Thornhill and an academic critic of his, and she said his science was very weak, and that he only studied insects. Thornhill said he studied primates and had statistics on humans as well.

I guess I am most discouraged by the opinions of some that it is wrong even to discuss Thornhill and Palmer’s work. These guys shouldn’t be on Nightline because you’re not sure that their science is any good?

Any similarity in the above text to an English word or phrase is purely coincidental.

32

Erratum, I must not have expressed my point clearly.

Exactly - she may choose from the AVAILABLE males, but she will not refuse ALL of them because her ideal mate isn’t present. She won’t refuse copulation entirely and travel 50 miles across the jungle to find a male she likes better. She won’t spend years searching for her ‘dream mate’ - she’ll accept whatever’s available. And the fact that the female pretty much automatically accepts the dominant male doesn’t say much for her ‘choice’ options. As a matter of fact, in many species where several males compete for the same female, the ‘defeated’ males will hang around and wait their chance - if the dominant male exhausts himself and can no longer drive the other males away, the female will accept them also! The more varied the sperm she receives, the more likely that she is going to produce at least one strong, healthy offspring.

Hmm, again I must not have expressed myself clearly. Concealed estrus is not just hidden from the male, but from the female also - human females don’t know when they are going to ovulate, either. Other female animals have definite receptive periods (although these might be quite extended, as appears to be the case in bonobos and dolphins) during which they are driven by their hormones and/or instincts to copulate. Human females do not experience this, and are able exercise their ‘choice’ option by refraining from sexual intercourse until they DO find a male they approve of. While the human sexual drive is pretty strong, it is NOTHING compared to what most female animals experience during estrus. (If you’ve ever seen a female cat in heat, you have some idea of what I’m talking about.)

I certainly don’t deny that concealed estrus contributes to the formation and maintenance of the pairbond. The human female is sexually receptive ALL of the time, not just when she is in estrus. This diminishes the male’s interest in other sexual opportunities, and of course he has no way of knowing whether or not he has successfully impregnated the female for quite some time, so he doesn’t just ‘wham, bam, thank you ma’am’ and then go on his merry way. However, the pairbond is not just about sexual activity - I think the general idea is that the continuous sexual receptivity keeps the male close to the female until she is obviously pregnant, by which time an emotional attachment has been formed that encourages the male to hang around and look after mom and baby instead of heading for greener pastures.

I don’t quite understand what you are saying here. Males have plenty of sperm - there is no reason why a man shouldn’t try to impregnate as many females as possible while he is also trying to impregnate his bonded mate. No reason why he should have to leave her in order to do so - humans live in social groups, and the girl next door isn’t very far away! If he can provide for more than one female and her offspring, he can even have a little harem of his own - this has been perfectly acceptable behavior in many cultures, at least until recently.

Actually, my understanding of the pairbond is that is restrictive on both parties. Since pregnant females and those with young children are not in a position to go out hunting mammoths, the males must leave the home in order to provide for them. If the female is bonded to the male, he can leave her alone with the assurance that she will not accept sexual overtures from other males, and the offspring he will be working hard to provide for are his, not some other guy’s. On the male side, his bonding with his mate means that he’ll return from his hunting trip (or the office) with the provisions, rather than taking off and leaving a pregnant woman with no care provider.

However, there is no reason why a man should not decide to spread a little sperm around in single encounters if the opportunity arises. Suppose the man is off on a hunting trip and comes across a single, strange female digging roots in the woods? Here’s a chance to possibly impregnate another female and spread his genes a little further. An emotional pairbond is not going to develop from a single encounter. If she doesn’t get pregnant, all he has done is waste a few of his plentiful supply of sperm and had a good time. If she does get pregnant, maybe she’ll manage to raise the child without his help, and his genes will survive in her offspring. It’s a win-win situation for him.

Now, if the female was equipped with visible signs of estrus, he might take one sniff/look and know if copulation is advisable. However, with hidden estrus, neither he or the female know whether or not copulation is likely to result in pregnancy - since he’s the big winner whatever the outcome, he might as well go ahead and do the deed. And no harm at all to his bonded mate waiting for him back at the cave.

Sacred cows make the best hamburgers. - Mark Twain

33

The most interesting aspect of the book would NOT be the conclusion as to the urge to rape (after all, any half-intelligent person could connect the agressiveness of male humans and the basic drive to procreate). Nor would it be the inevitable discussion over what constitutes a ‘rape’ and how that plays into the assessments. The most interesting aspect would be the conclusions by the authors on how to prevent rape (what should be done about these agressive sexually driven men?). If a typical conclusion is their suggestion that women not wear ‘provocative clothing’, then I have to say that, whatever their science regarding the main hypothesis, they fall into the rape apologists who place the burden of avoiding the crime on females who are potential victims.

Would we say the same about potential murder victims (don’t be vulnerable)?

34

First off, it sounds to me like the research itself is suspect.

But the above isn’t absurd as it sounds. This isn’t a matter of placing blame, it is a matter of self defense.

One of the most critical elements of self defense is recognition & avoidance. This is the ability to recognize the signs of a potentially dangerous situation or person, and then avoiding it or them.

For example, a woman is packing grocery bags into her car in a somewhat deserted parking lot at night. A man approaches and offers to help. The woman refuses.

Now a reasonable man understands why a woman might be somewhat concerned about being with a man alone at night in a somewhat deserted parking lot. A reasonable man says “No problem” and walks away.

A semi-reasonable man doesn’t fully understand and is offended by the refusal but leaves it at that. He might say “What the **** is your problem *****? I was just trying to help out. **** you.” and walks away in disgust.

An unreasonable man is the one who continues to try to force his help upon you. This is the one to be wary of. He might say “Come on, I am only trying to help out. Are you too proud to accept help from a man? (classic of projecting guilt onto a potential victim)”. He might even grab a bag and just start helping. A woman in this case should immediately assume that the man is not reasonable and should take approriate action, like loudly telling him to “Go away, I DON’T want your help.” and/or possibly protectively fleeing (don’t turn your back). If you start to flee and he follows, then you definitely no something is absolutely wrong.

Also, in self defense, it is a fact that most random acts of violence are not random at all. The victims are, instinctively, selected by the assailants from their characteristics. Wolves do not want to fight a bear, they want to fight a nice helpless rabbit. If you look like a rabbit to a wolf, then you look tasty. This is not a good thing. This is why, in self defense, we teach people to look, walk and talk with confidence. During the “interview” (this is the first phase of most “random” fights), it is critical that you don’t seem weak, but also not disgrace the interviewer and force his hand (a very fine line to walk).

Similarly, a woman who is raped is not to blame, but if (and I just don’t know if it is true) most woman who were raped wore provocative clothing (again, I AM NOT saying this is true, just if), then a reasonable precautionary step might be to minimize provocative clothing when you know you will be in a situation where an attack is reasonably possible. So, again, if wearing provocative clothing makes you look like a rabbit to a wolf, then although you shouldn’t have to, it makes sense to minimize the times you wear provocative clothing.

Personally, I have never seen anything that suggest provocative clothing = higher chance of rape. Studies, I have seen, suggest that rapes seem to be either the acquaintance/date rape variety or during break-ins. Clearly, break-ins have nothing to do with provocative clothing. With acquaintance/date rape, it could be a factor, but again, I have never seen anything that suggested it. So, if it means anything, not wearing provocative clothing is not something I teach at my dojo. I don’t know of any of fellow instructors who teaches this either.

35

Wait a minute. These numbers don’t make sense to me. The population of the US is around 250,000,000 (actually more than that, but that’s a nice round number.) About half of those are women = 125,000,000. My calculator says that 876,000/125,000,000 = 0.007, that is, about 7/1000 women are raped each year. Assuming one rape per woman per year, that is.
Where does the figure 1/7 come from?

Now if those 876,000 rapes are actually 3/victim, then we’re looking at only about 2/1000 women are actually raped each year.

There are three types of deception in the world: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Felice

“There’s always a bigger fish.”

36

Why does everyone accept at face value the Donahue-Psychologist assertion that “Rape is about power”?

If rape were just about power, and not about sex - then wouldn’t people be just as likely to demonstrate power over complete strangers in other ways? I for instance, might tie down some lovely little girl (wearing shorts that were too tight!) and read her Dickens for an hour (I’d need a bracer or two, to get through it myself). This would be at least as painful, and to some perhaps as humiliating (in that way that you hate talking about something very odd that was done to you, because it makes you come off sounding odd)as an actual rape. Ok, it wouldn’t be.

The only example of this that I can think of though, is the infamous Illinois Enema bandit - and enemas, while odd, are still a bit sexual (and also he was robbing the girls’ apartments, so he had other motivation). I guess all I’m saying that sex is a motivation in and of itself, and this obvious to all men which is why you so rarely hear us say that rape is about power (unless we are selling a book on Geraldo).

As for whether or not you should wear hot clothes - well, just look at it as practical advice. If a rapist has decided he is going to get some tonight, who do you think he is going to pick, the girl in the tight skirt or the girl in over-sized cardigan? Which would you rather be? Don’t get all indignant with me, I’m not telling you that rapists have a right to anything, or that what you do can justify what they do. I’m just saying you have choices.

37

Ooh, can I quote this in the “free will” thread? ::ducking and running::

http://www.elnet.com/~sburch/sjbgrin.gif

38

DSYoung:
“Would we say the same about potential murder victims (don’t be vulnerable)?”

Of course. People learn self defence. People carry mace. We tell people not to carry large amounts of cash, we tell them to make a lot of noise if they are accosted.

We teach people how to help prevent crimes being committed against them all the time. Nobody ever says that this is an example of “blaming the victim”. So why do people think that it is blaming the rape victim when precautionary measures are suggested?

Felice:
“These numbers don’t make sense to me… 876,000 (rapes/year) / 125,000,000 (women in USA) = 0.007. That is, about 7/1000 women are raped each year. Where does the figure 1/7 come from?”

1/7 women total, not per year, is the statistic given.

7/1000 women per year times 20 years would equal about 1/7 women.

You go on to question the number further by mentioning that “the typical rape victim is raped nearly three times a year.” I agree with this, and would further question what is really meant by “typical rape victim”.

It should also be noted that the 876,000 rapes per year include rapes against men, which is given as 111,000 per year.

–
Marc Fleury.

39

This assumes that he sees both girls at the same time. The rapist isn’t looking for a hot girl, he is looking for a rabbit to eat. The first rabbit he sees is the rabbit that gets eaten. What she is wearing just doesn’t matter. At least, to date, no study of mugger/rapists has show this to be the case. Again, the characteristics of a rabbit is ,amongst other things, meekness, perceived inability to defend themselves, “lost in the clouds” look, and failing the “interview” (people have written entire books on this last, so I hope you understand if I don’t delve into excessive detail).

Again, date rape is a different matter. As is burglarly/rape. In the latter, it is trivial to see why appearance doesn’t matter. This form is rape is a matter of convience (as long as I am here). The former, I can see some justification possibly, but here the proper defense is:

a) Get to know the person you are dating as best as you can
b) Don’t pick up random men in bars and go to secluded places with them
c) Carry a weapon (at least, mace/pepper spray … and learn HOW to use it … and practice!).

40

You may be right Glitch - I don’t have any studies to show otherwise. But I believe rape is fueled by the male sex drive, and my sex drive is fueled by girls who are dressed with my sex drive in mind. Maybe the rapists isn’t.