|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2001 : 05:21:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Rape would not be rape if it were WITH CONSENT. Without consent, it is not very nice for the person being raped. Consensual sex is another thing. If it is consensual, then it is not rape.
I think we have here a classic case of categorical diphilia, an inordinate desire to lump some phenomena into two mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. In reality, though, human female attitudes towards sexual encounters run the gamut from completely willing to completely unwilling and include the entire gradient in between.
Consider the following:
1. Wife initiates sex and husband happily complies.
2. Husband initiates sex; wife is disinterested but quietly goes along with it to spare his feelings.
3. Husband requests sex; wife refuses. Husband threatens emotional sanctions to gain her compliance.
4. Boyfriend uses flattery, cajoling, emotional manipulation, threats of breakup, and alcohol to convince girlfriend to have sex for the first time.
5. Same as above, but the girlfriend actually repeats “no” aloud while they are engaged in foreplay, though she ceases resisting sometime before coitus occurs.
6. Same as above, but the girlfriend actually repeats “no” as penile-vaginal penetration occurs.
7. Same as above, but the boyfriend actually uses some degree of physical force to restrain the girl before and during the sex act.
8. A stranger on the street rapes a woman at knifepoint.
None of these examples is without ample real world precedent and case studies, and I think they should well-illustrate my point. Where would you draw the line and call it rape? Perhaps I should make this a survey.
quote:
No, I cannot call rapists true human beings. Forced sex is just really revolting. Men who cannot get sex any other way are forced to take it this way. There is absolutely no excuse for it. Perhaps it is a throwback to our evolutionary past. Animals do it all of the time. That does not make it all right for humans. I cannot think of any justification for this disgusting act. It happens to men, too. And it is very dangerous (bringing venereal diseases (etc.) which cannot be cured with antibiotics).
I agree that it is morally revolting but AFIAK that is not at issue since no one has contended otherwise.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
 |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 06:19:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I would say that we know that natural sex and aggression drives are in play here, the sticky question is whether evolution has conspired to facilitate their combination in human males.
That's my question. That's what would need to be proved.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 10:49:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I would say that we know that natural sex and aggression drives are in play here, the sticky question is whether evolution has conspired to facilitate their combination in human males.
That's my question. That's what would need to be proved.
Good question Greg. What do you think could constitute sound scientific evidence in support of either a positive or negative response to your question?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 05:29:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Good question Greg. What do you think could constitute sound scientific evidence in support of either a positive or negative response to your question?
Tergiversant,
This is blowing my mind here. I see where this is going finally. I would suggest a physiochemical connection between sexuality and aggression in males would be a good start. There is one chemical (testosterone) that fits the bill. By no means is this conclusive but it certainly is suggestive. To be more certain, one would look for other physiological/physiochemical connections. One would also want to look for other biomolecules that serve multiple purposes with respect to behavior and see if these behaviors can be connected.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2001 : 23:34:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
To attempt to justify the forcing of a sentient thinking, reasoning being is beyond the absurd.
Absolutely. Who suggested justification?
quote:
My problem with the notion of rape having an evolutionary function is that it *seems* like justification for thinking, reasoning beings to take no personal responsibility for their actions.
It only seems like a justification to those with a very poorly developed sense of moral reasoning. Why should scientists withhold information to protect such people?
quote:
There is no longer a sound reason to suggest an evolutionary causality for the sexual violation of an individual. That ceased to exist when humankind came to recognize in itself an amount of self-awareness.
Humans to this very day are driven by all manner of evolutionarily adapted appetites, including those for food and sex. Reason is merely a means to achieve such ends.
As to “sound reasons,” I've already given them. The correlation between rape victimization and female fertility is a prime example.
quote:
As humankind has evolved into a thinking and reasoning species capable of conceptual realization the requirement for rape as an effective means for propagation of the species is no longer an acceptable alternative.
Evolutionary drives and appetites have absolutely nothing to do with individual conceptual realization. It is not like we think to ourselves, “Being hungry (or horny) will increase my reproductive fitness.”
quote:
To suggest that a reasoning being requires justification of rape is to suggest that the reasoning being is incapable of reason. Thinking has taken a higher precedence in our society than random propagation.
I never suggested justification of any sort, you did. I have repeatedly vilified the idea that science yields any moral insights.
quote:
The suggestion that an individual can not find a willing partner and therefore must force themselves on another is, in the extreme, absurd.
Not at all -- ask any nerd. Regardless, this particular “suggestion” is not a premise in the evolutionary argument. The premise involves increasing one's reproductive fitness somehow, not necessarily from zero as implied above.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
Um, it was implied that the original document could be viewed by the general populace as justification for rape. That |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 02:52:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
To attempt to justify the forcing of a sentient thinking, reasoning being is beyond the absurd.
Absolutely. Who suggested justification?
My problem with the notion of rape having an evolutionary function is that it *seems* like justification for thinking, reasoning beings to take no personal responsibility for their actions.
It only seems like a justification to those with a very poorly developed sense of moral reasoning. Why should scientists withhold information to protect such people?
Um, it was implied that the original document could be viewed by the general populace as justification for rape. That is how it was first viewed when it came out.
Implied by who to whom? There is no such implication in the text.
quote:
I will take exception to your implication that I have a *poorly developed sense of moral reasoning*. My set of ethics are not involved here. Don't attempt to redirect the issue to me in that manner.
If anyone reasons that human evolutionary history morally justifies any given action, they have demonstrated a poorly developed sense of moral reasoning. I've not suggested that you are such a person, in fact I sincerely hope that you are not.
quote:
If someone wants to investigate causes behind rape, fine let them. However, as Greg points out there are other factors to be investigated here, to offer this as the ultimate cause without further investigation is a bit premature.
I'm all for more investigation. For example, I encourage people to read the book before criticizing it.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 23:46:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Um, it was implied that the original document could be viewed by the general populace as justification for rape. That is how it was first viewed when it came out.
Implied by who to whom? There is no such implication in the text.
I can't remember - this thing came out a couple years ago. I recall something about it being used in that manner. Legal issues - psuedoscience runs rampant in the courtroom. Judges, after all, are not scientists.
quote:
quote:
I will take exception to your implication that I have a *poorly developed sense of moral reasoning*. My set of ethics are not involved here. Don't attempt to redirect the issue to me in that manner.
If anyone reasons that human evolutionary history morally justifies any given action, they have demonstrated a poorly developed sense of moral reasoning. I've not suggested that you are such a person, in fact I sincerely hope that you are not.
My apologies, I misread this the last time. I reread your statement - blame it on sleep deprivation if you must. I think I had maybe 2 hours at the time.
quote:
quote:
If someone wants to investigate causes behind rape, fine let them. However, as Greg points out there are other factors to be investigated here, to offer this as the ultimate cause without further investigation is a bit premature.
I'm all for more investigation. For example, I encourage people to read the book before criticizing it.
Sorry, my personal emotions/past get in the way with this topic. I was furious with the book when it first came out. But something interesting here:
quote:
Human beings have something on the order of 100,000 genes, and human brains have more tha 1 trillion nerve cells, with about 100-1,000 trillion connections (synapses) between them. That's at least 1 billion synapses per gene, even if each and every gene did nothing but control the production of synapses (and it doesn't). Given that ratio, it would be quite a trick for genes typically to control more than the most general aspectios of human behavior. Statements such as "Understanding the genetic roots of personality will help you 'find yourself' and relate better to others" are, at today's level of knowledge, frankly nonsensical.
The notion that we are slaves to our genes is often combined with reliance on the idea that all problems can be solved by dissecting them into ever smaller components...
That combination of assumptions - that genes are destiny at a micro level and that reductioni |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
