|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2001 : 07:24:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Even so, prior sexual abuse is not an excuse for not enacting control over yourself.
I agree. It is not an excuse but it may be a reason. As I've said, I don't know much about this topic. Trish, I don't mean to come across sounding like I'm trying to justify criminal behavior because that is not my intent. Sometimes I have trouble expressing myself.
Greg.
|
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2001 : 08:23:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Trish, I don't mean to come across sounding like I'm trying to justify criminal behavior because that is not my intent. Sometimes I have trouble expressing myself.
I was worried about that too, so I put that big DISCLAIMER on my post! 
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 16:23:54 [Permalink]
|
FYI, I've read the book in question, and I've sat in classes taught by Thornhill and even spoke with him on occasion. He is indeed a bit of an insensitive prick, but he is also a top research scientist in the field of sexual selection. I'd prefer to address his arguments rather than insult his character, such circumstantial ad hominem fallacy ought to be beneath those who call themselves skeptics.
quote:
If memory serves me correctly, not a word is spoken regarding those species of the animal kingdom in which the males should have the same genetic imperative toward rape yet do not exhibit this behavior.
Can you be more specific? Of which species do you speak?
quote:
Also, nothing is said (as far as I recall) regarding the number of male-on-male rapes, instances where females force males to copulate, the times when males rape then kill their victims, or the vast number of events in which males rape females out of child-bearing age (either the very young or post-menopausal women). All of these would play against the authors' contention that rape is a vehicle for procreation.
Indeed they would, but only in an inductive argument. If fertile young women are very disproportionally victimized that would weigh in the authors favor despite the existence of the various counterexamples you mention above.
quote:
The two things which I found most objectionable about this book were the supposition that all human males have a biological imperative to rape and the victim-blaming that the authors engage in.
Imperative is such a normative word, and I'm not sure what you imply thereby, but I know that the authors do not intend such a meaning.
As to victim blaming, can you provide any examples? The proposition that dressing demurely decreases the risk of rape is a factual and scientific claim, not a moral or normative one. Indeed, it is explicitly intended to be helpful towards potential victims, rather than blameful of former ones.
quote:
I was unconvinced by the 'scientific' reasoning that the authors used to bolster their contentions. The Times Literary Supplement is quoted on B&N's site: "... causes cannot be inferred from consequences. It is one thing to say that the end product of rape can be biological, it is quite another to infer from this that the motive is biological."
Evidently they missed the author's logic and arguments entirely, which clearly do not take such an approach. I wonder what would you consider a valid way to infer biologically driven motives? Is our urge for sex biological and if so how could we validly infer this? Do counterexamples like homosexuality and bestiality militate against the evolutionary/biological nature of the human sex drive?
quote:
I think this is a dangerous book, because there's just enough scientific language that the general public may believe the premises in it. Another factor is the authors' reliance on their form of sociobiology, which is an approach to an analy |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 16:39:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Rape, race (I prefer the term 'ethnicity' myself), other gender issues, etc., are so inflammatory, that any attempt to look at other angles is met with anger and outrage (sometimes even violence). I think we must work hard at trying to control our emotional biases, and give people a more fair hearing before jumping to conclusions.
I second your whole missive, especially the above. Skeptics must be able to confront the evidence for any theory, no matter how outlandish or unseemly it might seem to us. Otherwise, we're falling into the same "see no evil" mentality as the creationists.
Take out the cork, indeed.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 16:47:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
FYI, I've read the book in question, and I've sat in classes taught by Thornhill and even spoke with him on occasion. He is indeed a bit of an insensitive prick, but he is also a top research scientist in the field of sexual selection.
tergiversant,
Okay, what is his argument, and what work is it based upon. You do realize that by releasing a book written for the lay audience with such a provacative title and subject, that the authors should have expected controversy. Perhaps they thought that the controversy would help sales. Is there any historical or anthropological analysis of rape? Different cultures, different times, different sexual attitudes. Put the argument to rest.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 17:21:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I find the insect argument laughable. Are there any anthropologists out there who can give us some real insight by comparing rape in different cultures?
I find your argument from personal incredulity laughable, but humor aside, if you want some leads on the comparative anthropology of rape behavior, I'd start with the works of one anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday who claims that rape is culturally conditioned, as she does in her book Beyond the Second Sex : New Directions in the Anthropology of Gender (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812213033/shoppinathighst" target="_blank"> br / http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812213033/shoppinathighst).
Sanday did some ground-breaking work in cultural anthropology in which she surveys 156 distinct societies and concludes that nearly half of those societies were rape-free or nearly so. Her thesis is that those societies which deal with instability in natural resources, migration, predators, and warfare tend to glorify male physical prowess and violence and are thus rape-prone, whereas societies which enjoy abundance and stability and no danger from various predatory enemies do not need nor condone violence and are therefore rape-free. I can scan in a copy of a 1982 Science article which details these studies, in which the Mbuti pygmies of central Africa and the Ashanti of west Africa are lauded as model violence- and rape-free societies if you are interested. Also, you may be interested in reading Sanday's more recent article, "Rape-Prone Versus Rape-Free Campus Cultures" which may be found at http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday/rapea.html in which she extends this analysis to the college campus environment.
quote:
Again, I could be wrong. I have not read the book and don't see myself doing so any time soon. I just wanted to know what kind of argument they could have possibly made that rape was evolutionary in nature.
What kind of arguments might one make that any ordinary human urges (hunger, sex, companionship, etc.) are biologically rooted, that is, nature rather than nurture? How could we test such hypotheses? I think these are valid methodological questions with straightforward scientific answers.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 20:22:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I find your argument from personal incredulity laughable
Fair enough. We all have our personal demons and one of mine is the tendency to shoot off my mouth sometimes. I should have seen that one a mile away.
I have read the Sanday article dealing with college campuses. The fraternity environments that she speaks of I was not involved in and had no real knowlege of. I think that her analysis of the issue is right on. I had always believed that there were two psychological issues that caused men to become rapists:
1. Feelings of inadequecy. Abuse and/or neglect as a child is what I felt would be enought to reach this level of self-loathing. I could see that being a particularly group-oriented young man, leaving home for the first time and having to impress other strange young men could lead to this type of stress.
2. Hatred of women or the attitude that women were inferior to and overly dependent on men. I always felt that the former was acheived by the mother being an abuser and the latter in cases where the father (figure) commited spouse abuse and degraded females in general. In Sanday's analysis, it is clear that, in the fraternity setting and with large homogeneous agroup exhibiting the above stressor (#1), denegration of women is a possible result of the desire to impress.
It is obvious that human activities like sex and agression are biological in nature and are a product of our evolution. The way in which these traits are directed though seem to me to be socio-culturally conditioned. If you have any insight on how the directing of agression into sexually based acts could be conditioned by evolutionary development, let us in on it.
This is a forum for intellegent discourse. I am interested in learning something here.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 21:33:32 [Permalink]
|
I must set forth the standard disclaimers. I have not read the book, nor do I intend to: I haven't the time, and the issues seem to be adequately discussed here. I also admire the frankness of most of these posts. I must, also, add my opinion here:
quote:
...those societies which deal with instability in natural resources, migration, predators, and warfare tend to glorify male physical prowess and violence and are thus rape-prone, whereas societies which enjoy abundance and stability and no danger from various predatory enemies do not need nor condone violence and are therefore rape-free.
This seems to indicate that rape is, in fact, an issue of dominance and aggression and sociology, rather than an issue of procreation and biology. It was my understanding the controversy of this book is that it claims evolutionary (biological) causes for rape. If this is not the case, please correct me.
I am afraid I'm not clever enough to come up with a good signature, eh? |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 22:57:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
(me) If memory serves me correctly, not a word is spoken regarding those species of the animal kingdom in which the males should have the same genetic imperative toward rape yet do not exhibit this behavior.
Can you be more specific? Of which species do you speak?
My understanding of Thornhill/Palmer's thesis is that males of any species that propogates sexually should have the same sort of biological tendency toward rape that they postulate in human males.quote:
quote:
(me) Also, nothing is said (as far as I recall) regarding the number of male-on-male rapes, instances where females force males to copulate, the times when males rape then kill their victims, or the vast number of events in which males rape females out of child-bearing age (either the very young or post-menopausal women). All of these would play against the authors' contention that rape is a vehicle for procreation.
Indeed they would, but only in an inductive argument. If fertile young women are very disproportionally victimized that would weigh in the authors favor despite the existence of the various counterexamples you mention above.
Inductive vs deductive? I don't follow why you're making that distinction here.
I don't have time to look up numbers now, but I recall reading some study somewhere that prepubescent females, postmenopausal females, males and animals make up something like 45% of victims of rape. I'm not prepared to run statistics on (possibly) misremembered numbers, but this strikes me as disproportionate.quote:
quote:
(me) The two things which I found most objectionable about this book were the supposition that all human males have a biological imperative to rape and the victim-blaming that the authors engage in.
Imperative is such a normative word, and I'm not sure what you imply thereby, but I know that the authors do not intend such a meaning.
As to victim blaming, can you provide any examples? The proposition that dressing demurely decreases the risk of rape is a factual and scientific claim, not a moral or normative one. Indeed, it is explicitly intended to be helpful towards potential victims, rather than blameful of former ones.
OK, I'll agree to your disapproval of "imperative"...I should have used something like "tendency". But they do say that all men are potential rapists.
I specifically stated that I realize that victim-blaming was not the authors' intent. But for me at least, the subtextual feeling was there.quote:
Evolutionary psychology has been repeatedly vindicated in the confirma |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 23:09:25 [Permalink]
|
Hey Greg,
I was (mostly) kidding about the personal incredulity thing, I admire your good humored response.
As to the psychological motivations you mentioned, I admit I know little about such matters.
quote:
It is obvious that human activities like sex and aggression are biological in nature and are a product of our evolution. The way in which these traits are directed though seem to me to be socio-culturally conditioned.
]
I agree completely. The key to understanding human behavior, whether deviant or otherwise, is to understand how social conditioning acts upon latent urges and predispositions hardwired into the human brain. To reject either nature or nurture entirely is to toss out a crucial aspect of the reality at hand.
quote:
If you have any insight on how the directing of aggression into sexually based acts could be conditioned by evolutionary development, let us in on it.
]
Indeed the question at hand here is not merely whether rape behavior is in fact motivated by our biological programming, as we already know that aggression behavior is in fact largely influenced by genetic factors (the Y chromosome, for example), and rape behavior is but a subset of aggression behavior. Rather, the question is whether some humans are in fact genetically predisposed to rape behavior in particular. This is a difficult issue to address, since many people (especially since Aquinas) mistakenly confound what is moral with what is natural. Nevertheless, we must address it to come to a better understanding of the human nature and condition. That said, I think that there are a few arguments to be made in favor of a strong predispositional component in this case.
According to the theory of evolution by natural selection, any behaviors "pre-programmed" into animal brains would show a strong statistical propensity towards increasing fitness (propagation of like genes) when practiced under similar conditions to those under which the behavior was originally naturally selected.
If crime statistics drawn from a normal human population (ideally more primitive cultures though modern ones will do) demonstrate that the preponderance of rape victims are in fact drawn from the more fertile segments of the female population (relatively few males, pre-pubescent or post-menopausal females) then rape behavior would thus be demonstrably directed at increasing fitness and is thus a plausible candidate for an evolved behavior. More specifically, we would expect the probability density function (y axis) vs. specified demographics such as age (x axis) of both rape victimization and female fertility to closely mirror one another, if indeed it evolved as a reproductive strategy.
If rape behavior is observed in other species and follows a similar pattern of increasing fitness, then we know that it is an unlearned, instinctual behavior in those species. It would thus more plausibly be such a behavior in humans as well, especially if it is observed in mammals and primates in particular.
Such arguments hinge upon empirical questions of fact that we may readily address, if anyone cares to delve into such matters.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 23:17:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
...those societies which deal with instability in natural resources, migration, predators, and warfare tend to glorify male physical prowess and violence and are thus rape-prone, whereas societies which enjoy abundance and stability and no danger from various predatory enemies do not need nor condone violence and are therefore rape-free.
This seems to indicate that rape is, in fact, an issue of dominance and aggression and sociology, rather than an issue of procreation and biology. It was my understanding the controversy of this book is that it claims evolutionary (biological) causes for rape. If this is not the case, please correct me.
Certainly this *seems* to be the indication prima facie, but such dichotomies are invalid to begin with. Few if any adult human behaviors are result of either social training *or* biological disposition alone. Aggression, for example, is so highly correlated with the Y chromosome cross-culturally that it makes little sense to lump it in entirely with sociology as you do above. For that matter, procreation may be strongly culturally influenced, such as in the Roman Catholic and Mormon faiths, and hence it should not be placed entirely in the biology category.
The real evolutionary question at hand is whether aggressive behaviors of any sort (sexual or otherwise) are provide increased fitness in the violence-free resource abundant cultures that Sanday describes, and whether such behaviors may be readily suppressed. In short, merely because we have certain natural tendencies does not imply that we necessarily act upon them.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 23:21:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My understanding of Thornhill/Palmer's thesis is that males of any species that propagates sexually should have the same sort of biological tendency toward rape that they postulate in human males.
I would think that only males in specific circumstances would find a violation of female mate choice reproductively adaptive. I'll think upon this further, but it seems that emperor penguins and any other species in which the males are crucial to child-rearing could not possibly benefit from such behavior, since they require male/female cooperation to reproduce effectively. Also, any species in which the females are as physically formidable than males (or more so) would find forced reproduction a rather risky behavior.
quote:
quote:
quote:
(me) Also, nothing is said (as far as I recall) regarding the number of male-on-male rapes, instances where females force males to copulate, the times when males rape then kill their victims, or the vast number of events in which males rape females out of child-bearing age (either the very young or post-menopausal women). All of these would play against the authors' contention that rape is a vehicle for procreation.
Indeed they would, but only in an inductive argument. If fertile young women are very disproportionally victimized that would weigh in the authors favor despite the existence of the various counterexamples you mention above.
Inductive vs deductive? I don't follow why you're making that distinction here.
In a deductive argument a single counterexample would invalidate a premise, not so in an inductive or probabilistic argument. It is the difference between saying "men have a strong tendency towards aggression" and "all men are aggressive."
quote:
I specifically stated that I realize that victim-blaming was not the authors' intent. But for me at least, the subtextual feeling was there.
I do not think "subtextual feelings" are a valid objective criticism of a scientific work. However, if the authors said anything particularly offensive, I'd certainly like to see it -- seems to me they went out of their way to avoid it.
quote:
quote:
Evolutionary psychology has been repeatedly vindicated in the confirmation of its predictive hypothesis. Care to talk specifics?
I would like to hear/read your 'specifics', definitely. I've done some reading in sociobiology, but not enough to feel that I have a great handle on it...so I *would* like to hear about these vindications.
For the sake of dialectic, then, let us then speculate on what sort of testable predictions evolutionary psychology might make, before addressing the data themselves.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 22:32:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The real evolutionary question at hand is whether aggressive behaviors of any sort (sexual or otherwise) are provide increased fitness in the violence-free resource abundant cultures that Sanday describes, and whether such behaviors may be readily suppressed. In short, merely because we have certain natural tendencies does not imply that we necessarily act upon them.
Agression is a positive trait only in certain circumstances like when you are being threatened or there are sparse resources on which to survive. Otherwise, agression is frowned upon by others in peaceful society and is probably suppressed.
quote:
If crime statistics drawn from a normal human population (ideally more primitive cultures though modern ones will do) demonstrate that the preponderance of rape victims are in fact drawn from the more fertile segments of the female population (relatively few males, pre-pubescent or post-menopausal females) then rape behavior would thus be demonstrably directed at increasing fitness and is thus a plausible candidate for an evolved behavior. More specifically, we would expect the probability density function (y axis) vs. specified demographics such as age (x axis) of both rape victimization and female fertility to closely mirror one another, if indeed it evolved as a reproductive strategy.
I think one needs to keep in mind that women of child-bearing age (~12 to ~50 years) are likely the majority of the female population and any analysis performed would have to be analyzed with respect to the probability of any randomly chosen woman being of this age. I think that it would also be instructive to compare the demographics of female and (non-incarcerated) male rape victims. Directing agressive behavior, when there is a choice, is generally toward the least threatening. One doesn't generally walk up an punch someone twice their size. If the statistics were to show for example that the propensity of female victims were 25 years and the male victims 12 years, that may provide some evidence of purely agressive/dominance behavior.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 09:13:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
If crime statistics drawn from a normal human population (ideally more primitive cultures though modern ones will do) demonstrate that the preponderance of rape victims are in fact drawn from the more fertile segments of the female population (relatively few males, pre-pubescent or post-menopausal females) then rape behavior would thus be demonstrably directed at increasing fitness and is thus a plausible candidate for an evolved behavior. More specifically, we would expect the probability density function (y axis) vs. specified demographics such as age (x axis) of both rape victimization and female fertility to closely mirror one another, if indeed it evolved as a reproductive strategy.
quote:
I think one needs to keep in mind that women of child-bearing age (~12 to ~50 years) are likely the majority of the female population and any analysis performed would have to be analyzed with respect to the probability of any randomly chosen woman being of this age.
As I said above, a sound analysis ought to take into account the probability of both rape and fertility across all ages, lumping certain age groups in 30-year bins would cause a loss of valuable data. If the probability functions match each other to some degree, that would be strong prima facie evidence that rape behavior is (unconsciously) directed at reproduction. I've little idea where to dig up the raw data for the crime stats, though.
quote:
I think that it would also be instructive to compare the demographics of female and (non-incarcerated) male rape victims. Directing aggressive behavior, when there is a choice, is generally toward the least threatening. One doesn't generally walk up and punch someone twice their size. If the statistics were to show for example that the propensity of female victims were 25 years and the male victims 12 years that may provide some evidence of purely aggressive/dominance behavior.
It is easy to say at whom human males would direct reproductive behavior -- fertile females. It is much more difficult to say at whom dominance behavior “ought” to be directed. What is the end goal of such behavior? In primitive humans and other predatory pack mammals, it is usually to exert control over the group. In those situations where the males compete for leadership of the pack, they usually attempt to dominate each other for the sake of reproductive advantage. I imagine if we were to carefully examine humans and similar predatory pack mammals we would see a consistent pattern of male dominance over other males, but I am uncertain.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 21:37:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
My understanding of Thornhill/Palmer's thesis is that males of any species that propagates sexually should have the same sort of biological tendency toward rape that they postulate in human males.
I would think that only males in specific circumstances would find a violation of female mate choice reproductively adaptive. I'll think upon this further, but it seems that emperor penguins and any other species in which the males are crucial to child-rearing could not possibly benefit from such behavior, since they require male/female cooperation to reproduce effectively. Also, any species in which the females are as physically formidable than males (or more so) would find forced reproduction a rather risky behavior.
I would tend to agree with you, tergiversant..."in specific circumstances"...yet Thornhill/Palmer suggest (and remember, I read this book 18 months ago and don't have a copy to refer to) that all men are potential rapists, not just in special circumstances. But they don't seem to feel the same way wrt other species.quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
(me) Also, nothing is said (as far as I recall) regarding the number of male-on-male rapes, instances where females force males to copulate, the times when males rape then kill their victims, or the vast number of events in which males rape females out of child-bearing age (either the very young or post-menopausal women). All of these would play against the authors' contention that rape is a vehicle for procreation.
Indeed they would, but only in an inductive argument. If fertile young women are very disproportionally victimized that would weigh in the authors favor despite the existence of the various counterexamples you mention above.
Inductive vs deductive? I don't follow why you're making that distinction here.
In a deductive argument a single counterexample would invalidate a premise, not so in an inductive or probabilistic argument. It is the difference between saying "men have a strong tendency towards aggression" and "all men are aggressive."
chuckle...yes I understand 'inductive vs deductive' and methods for proof/rebuttal...what I don't understand is why you're bringing that distinction in here. (Probably because I have only a dim memory of how they structured their argument.)quote:
quote:
I specifically stated that I realize that victim-blaming was not the authors' intent. But for me at least, the subtextual feeling was there.
I do not think "subtextual feelings" are a valid objective criticism of a scientific work. However, if the authors said anything particularly offensive, I'd certainly like to see it -- seems to me they went out of their way to avoid it.
I disagree here, not with what you said but with its application to this book. Subtext is not a valid perspective for a work of science...but this book is intended for a popular audience (too)...and as a general reader approaching this text, that subtext is a concern. As to being offensive, all I have are feelings left over from reading the book...can't quote specific passages.quote:
quote:
quote:
Evolutionary psychology has been repeatedly vindicated in the confirmation of its predictive hypothesis. Care to talk specifics?
I would like to hear/read your 'specifics', definitely. I've done some reading in sociobiology, but not enough to feel that I have a great handle on it...so I *would* like to hear about these vindications.
For the sake of dialectic, then, let us then speculate on what sort of testable predictions evolutionary psychology might make, before addressing the data themselves.
That's the rub...I'm not at all certain that evolutionary psychology *can* generate testable predictions, since the time scale is so vast. Either we know enough about present circumstances to make future predictions, but the time factor does not allow us to examine effects...or we have only speculations about prior circumstances, and effects we see today can't be tested based on (relatively) flimsy information about the past. (Does that make sense?) So I would definitely like to see some of the specifics you mentioned.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
