|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| This is a good post and I want to come back to it when I have more time, but let me address this quickly: |
 Bloody hell! Is this the Current Events Forum to which I am accustomed? Far more civility than I am able to handle! 
I've got a bit more time today, so I'll try to respond to your posts.
| SNK wrote: |
| and the incidence of rape is by far the highest in precisely the circumstances where it isn't an option. (For example: in wartime, or when the man in question is socially or economically marginalized.) |
But those circumstances would also fit with the theory that it's as much about power and domination, or acting in anger.
For example, if you were a soldier you might feel a lot of hate and anger toward your enemy, and raping would be one way to express it. Also, those on the margins of society might be on the margins because they are unable to socialise properly and might harbour resentment toward other members of society. I'm just coming up with alternative explanations from a lay persons viewpoint here, but showing you that that argument is not particularly convincing.
I'll come back and address your other post in a couple of hours or so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
OK... I wanted to come back and defend Thornhill & Palmer a bit more.
| Quote: |
| The authors base their argument partly on statistics showing that in the United States, most rape victims are of childbearing age. But disturbingly large numbers of rapes of children, elderly women, and other men are never adequately explained. And the actual reproductive success of rape is not clear. |
That's a pretty dramatic shortchanging of the T&P argument. Their evidence is basically as follows:
1. Rapists are mostly young men who are not in a position to have long-term relationships, either because they are undesirable to women or because there are few opportunities for consensual sex.
2. Rape victims are mostly women of childbearing age, i.e. women that would be sexually attractive to the average man.
3. Rapists are much less likely than perpetrators of other violent crimes to inflict death or serious physical harm.
4. Women's aversion to being raped is disproportionate to the physical trauma; the trauma of rape is primarily emotional and is distinct from other kinds of violent injury.
5. Shame often attaches to the victim of rape as well as the perpetrator.
Now, focusing on 1 and 2 for the moment, what does this tell us? It tells us that rapists choose their victims along the same lines that non-rapists choose voluntary sex partners, and that men are most likely to rape when voluntary sex is not feasible. This is the death knell for the gender-feminist theory of rape, which is essentially that men use rape as a tool of control. If men raped in order to control, why would they mostly rape young, attractive women rather than older ones, who are more likely to be in a position of social influence? Why wouldn't rapists be powerful, established men, rather than the socially marginalized (or grunts in enemy territory, or in situations where access to women is limited)?
The gender-feminist theory predicts exactly the opposite of the actual data on these points. T&P are simply pointing out that men rape for the same reason they seek out consensual sex partners, and using most of the same criteria. What's amazing is that this contention is controversial at all. Of course young, attractive women are at the greatest risk for rape. Of course rapists tend to be men who aren't likely to obtain consent from a woman. These things are common sense. But they aren't gender feminism.
The reasons for 3-5 are less obvious, but T&P argue that they follow logically from the idea that rape is a biological adaptation, a reproductive strategy of last resort. If rape even occasionally results in conception, then by the logic of natural selection, certain things should be true: men should experience an urge to rape when consensual sex is not feasible; rapists should have an interest in keeping their victims alive to bear the child; women should feel an aversion to being raped that is out of proportion to the immediate physical trauma (because the rape may result in an unwanted pregnancy); and other men should feel averse to rape victims, just as they do to female adulterers, because the man runs the risk of raising another man's child as his own.
Evolutionary psychology explains these odd facts about rape very elegantly. Gender feminism really can't explain them at all. If rape is a tool of social control, why is it more emotionally traumatic than beating? Why don't rapists more often resort to murder, the ultimate means of control? And why would other men look askance at a rape victim, once she's been "put in her place"? If rape makes women pliable, domineering men should prefer rape victims as spouses, but in fact -- and this is especially noticeable in traditional societies -- the exact opposite is true. In extreme cases, a woman may be liable for "honor killing" by her husband or family if she is raped.
I will grant that T&P's policy prescriptions are a little ivory-tower-ish, and they've been justly criticized on that score. But that's not the meat of their thesis. They've diagnosed the problem accurately; the solutions are up to society to figure out.
By the way, the idea that a biological explanation of rape somehow "excuses" men who rape, or makes all men "potential rapists", is absurd. Men are only "potential rapists" in the same sense that they are potential thieves and murderers -- and their potential to be loving, stable spouses is obviously much greater than their potential to rape. Biology may be a reason, but it can never be an excuse. If anything, the temptation of men to rape invites the imposition of greater social and criminal sanction, not less. |
Damn it! I just spent more than an hour replying to this - and it was wiped.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
OK... I wanted to come back and defend Thornhill & Palmer a bit more.
| Quote: |
| The authors base their argument partly on statistics showing that in the United States, most rape victims are of childbearing age. But disturbingly large numbers of rapes of children, elderly women, and other men are never adequately explained. And the actual reproductive success of rape is not clear. |
That's a pretty dramatic shortchanging of the T&P argument. Their evidence is basically as follows:
1. Rapists are mostly young men who are not in a position to have long-term relationships, either because they are undesirable to women or because there are few opportunities for consensual sex. |
But wouldn't the kind of person most likely to commit any violent crime also fall into this category? I don't know, but I rather suspect the answer is yes. Secondly, a significant subset of rapists are married or in long term relationships. I think I recall the figure being something like 1 in 3.
| Quote: |
| 2. Rape victims are mostly women of childbearing age, i.e. women that would be sexually attractive to the average man. |
But this group subset of people are more attractive to jsut about everyone! Men women and children probably prefer the physical appearance of young women over all other subsets. Take women's magazines. Are they generally graced with pictures of toddlers or children, or octegenarians? The fact is, they aren't usally even graced with pictures of attractive men! Look at the women's magazines in the news agents. Almost every cover will have a photo of an attractive young woman. The fact is, even straight heterosexual women prefer the physical charms of a beautiful woman over that of anyone else. You don't frequently see Brad Pitt or George Clooney as the covershot on a women's magazine. It's usually Catherine Zeta Jones or some beautiful starlet or supermodel. Women want to look at other women, usually fertile women, though of course they don't mind an occasional older woman so long as she is still attractive and well attired. I freely admit that I find more pleasure in gazing at Julia Roberts than I would Orlando Bloom. So can your evolutionary psychologists explain why heterosexual women prefer photos of 'hot babes' on their magazine covers than any other subset, even though they don't wish to impregnate or be impregnated by Michelle Pfifer or Katie Holmes?
Secondly, this subset of women are the ones a man would often have more social access to. Old women and toddlers don't often hang out by themselves in bars, for example.
Thirdly, a rapist acting alone would have more success overpowering a woman than a man. I once saw a documentary of rapists being shown footage of different women walking down a dark alley. They were asked which ones they would select. They didn't select the most beautiful, or the most sexily dressed. They chose the ones who looked nervous and vulnerable. Less likely to put up a fight.
Fourthly, a rapist might more easily be able to justify to himself raping a young woman than a child or frail pensioner. "She wanted it - was dressed like a *beep* - etc" It's more socially acceptable for him to engage in intercourse with a woman of fertile age, than any other subset - whether the sex be forced or consensual.
Fifthly, why does domination and sexual gratification have to be mutually exclusive? Killing 2 birds with one stone, so to speak.
These are things that come to mind right off the top of my head. Reasons other than a rapist choosing his victim solely because she is of reproductive value to him.
| Quote: |
| 3. Rapists are much less likely than perpetrators of other violent crimes to inflict death or serious physical harm. |
But rape is far more likely to lead to murder than consensual sex. And war rapes are often horribly brutal. In the Congo as I am typing women are being raped and then having their reproductive organs cut and mutilated in horrible ways. Someone forgot to tell these guys that the whole purpose of raping these unfortunate women was to try and get them pregnant. My friend from East Germany recounted to me how she once enquired about an old lady in her town whose body was twisted and deformed and who could not walk upright. It turned out she had been normal until she was 17, when she was then gang raped by Russian soldiers who raped her so violently that they smashed up some of her bones, including her pelvis. As you can imagine, she wasn't able to have ANYONE's baby after that!
| Quote: |
| 4. Women's aversion to being raped is disproportionate to the physical trauma; the trauma of rape is primarily emotional and is distinct from other kinds of violent injury. |
But so is a man's! If a man is intimidated into sucking another man's p3nis (oral rape) he may emerge from the experience with his teeth, tongue and larynx intact, with not even the slightest physical trauma, but he may be terrible damaged psychologically. The distress he may feel may be enough to ruin his life even. Yet, he has not been physically harmed. How many men reading this post of mine have an extreme aversion to being forced to suck another man's 'John-Thomas' and then swallow the resulting ejaculate, even though it may not involve physical pain? Nobody wants to be raped. Nobody is going to say "he forced me to suck his nob, but hey, at least he didn't pull my hair or punch me in the eye. Now that would have been horrible...."
| Quote: |
| 5. Shame often attaches to the victim of rape as well as the perpetrator. |
And victims of all ages and gender feel this shame. Men probably even more so. Man on man rape is a horredously under-reported crime. Men are so desperately ashamed of what has happened to them. In fact, they are more likely to commit suicide than female victims.
| Quote: |
| Now, focusing on 1 and 2 for the moment, what does this tell us? It tells us that rapists choose their victims along the same lines that non-rapists choose voluntary sex partners, and that men are most likely to rape when voluntary sex is not feasible. |
It tells us that rapist choose their victims the way that women's magazine editors choose the month's cover shot? In fact, a rapist is even less likely to choose a fertile woman than a magazine editor!
| Quote: |
| This is the death knell for the gender-feminist theory of rape, which is essentially that men use rape as a tool of control. If men raped in order to control, why would they mostly rape young, attractive women rather than older ones, who are more likely to be in a position of social influence? Why wouldn't rapists be powerful, established men, rather than the socially marginalized (or grunts in enemy territory, or in situations where access to women is limited)? |
I do not see how you can so easily come to this conclusion. Why is it then that something like only 50% of rapes (of females) result in the rapist ejaculating? [I apologize for not providing a source - that's a figure from my dim dark memory - but a quick google brought me no joy and I don't want to spend an exorbitant amount of time writing this]. Rapist don't always feel compelled to ejaculate, even when they have the opportunity - so how does this then assist as a reproductive tool? Why do rapists sometimes choose to ejaculate on another part of a woman - her face for example? Or her rectum? Why do gangs of heterosexual men gang rape gay guys in acts of anti-gay violence. To enhance their chances of passing on their DNA? Why do rapists sometimes urinate on their victims? Why do they use humiliating language - like 'bitch' for example. Does this further enhance the rapists fertility? It seems clear to me that so many components of rape involve hurting and humiliating the victim.
Sure, there are probably sociopathic opportunists, who having drugged a woman or found a situation where they can rape without consequence (to themselves), merely indulge themselves in the physical reward of an orgasm without regard to the woman's feelings. I'm quite willing to entertain that there are rapists that rape primarily for the pleasure of getting off. But, so many millions of rapes appear to focus on domination and humiliation. You can't so easily dismiss this, SNK.
What are the motives for the rapes of victims who do not fall into the subset of fertile women? The motive in these cases is clearly not a desire to reproduce. Do they regularly involve components of aggression, domination, deliberate inflicting of pain and humiliation, revenge etc. Why is not likely the the same sorts of motives involved in these rapes are also present in rapes that involve fertile women?
BTW, powerful established men rape too. The former President of Israel and Musolini were both reputed to be rapists.
| Quote: |
| The gender-feminist theory predicts exactly the opposite of the actual data on these points. |
Could you specify?
| Quote: |
| T&P are simply pointing out that men rape for the same reason they seek out consensual sex partners, and using most of the same criteria. |
The same criteria that women's magazine editors use to choose suitable cover shots to entice their female customers?
| Quote: |
| What's amazing is that this contention is controversial at all. |
What surprising is that anyone can ignore the deliberate component of humiliation and hurt that regularly go hand in hand with rape.
| Quote: |
| Of course young, attractive women are at the greatest risk for rape. Of course rapists tend to be men who aren't likely to obtain consent from a woman. These things are common sense. But they aren't gender feminism. |
Young women may be more likely to be raped - but people of any age or gender are at risk of being raped. So what is the motive for these rapes? And why would the same motive not be a factor in many of the rapes involving men on young women?
| Quote: |
| The reasons for 3-5 are less obvious, but T&P argue that they follow logically from the idea that rape is a biological adaptation, a reproductive strategy of last resort. If rape even occasionally results in conception, then by the logic of natural selection, certain things should be true: men should experience an urge to rape when consensual sex is not feasible; rapists should have an interest in keeping their victims alive to bear the child; women should feel an aversion to being raped that is out of proportion to the immediate physical trauma (because the rape may result in an unwanted pregnancy); and other men should feel averse to rape victims, just as they do to female adulterers, because the man runs the risk of raising another man's child as his own. |
I've already addressed much of this earlier in my post.
| Quote: |
| Evolutionary psychology explains these odd facts about rape very elegantly. |
Except it doesn't.
| Quote: |
| Gender feminism really can't explain them at all. |
Is it just gender feminism that is of the opinion that rape is primarily an act of agression? What about other social scientists or experts in psychology?
| Quote: |
| If rape is a tool of social control, why is it more emotionally traumatic than beating? |
Turn it around. If rape is so traumatic (to both men and women) then it is an excellent tool of social control.
| Quote: |
| Why don't rapists more often resort to murder, the ultimate means of control? |
This is too simplistic. There could be many reasons for that. The one that immediately comes to mind is that murder is extremely difficult to get away with! But why do you necessarily want to murder just because you want to control? My 3 year old loves to control my 14 month old. He wrestles him to the ground, takes toys off him to make him cry, pins him under him and clearly enjoys making baby_bird helpless - but he has not tried to drown him or beat him with a heavy object. Pinning him down and stealing his toys is joy enough! Why do things necessarily have to be taken to an extreme to be enjoyed? I would imagine the pleasure of rape might also involve knowing that the victim will remember what you have done to her.
| Quote: |
| And why would other men look askance at a rape victim, once she's been "put in her place"? If rape makes women pliable, domineering men should prefer rape victims as spouses, but in fact -- and this is especially noticeable in traditional societies -- the exact opposite is true. In extreme cases, a woman may be liable for "honor killing" by her husband or family if she is raped. |
But women are raped in marriages. Often repeatedly over many years. And why do men look askance at male victims of rape? Male victims with whom men have no inclination to mate and reproduce with. Why are male victims lessened and shamed in the eyes of other men. Perhaps this is evidence of the shame of letting another man dominate and degrade him. Perhaps this is evidence that rape is more complicated than a mere reproductive act.
I made some other points in my earlier post (that was wiped) that I can't remember. Perhaps I'll add them to thread later, if they come back to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
The reasons for 3-5 are less obvious, but T&P argue that they follow logically from the idea that rape is a biological adaptation, a reproductive strategy of last resort. If rape even occasionally results in conception, then by the logic of natural selection, certain things should be true: men should experience an urge to rape when consensual sex is not feasible; rapists should have an interest in keeping their victims alive to bear the child; women should feel an aversion to being raped that is out of proportion to the immediate physical trauma (because the rape may result in an unwanted pregnancy); and other men should feel averse to rape victims, just as they do to female adulterers, because the man runs the risk of raising another man's child as his own.
Evolutionary psychology explains these odd facts about rape very elegantly. Gender feminism really can't explain them at all. If rape is a tool of social control, why is it more emotionally traumatic than beating? Why don't rapists more often resort to murder, the ultimate means of control? And why would other men look askance at a rape victim, once she's been "put in her place"? If rape makes women pliable, domineering men should prefer rape victims as spouses, but in fact -- and this is especially noticeable in traditional societies -- the exact opposite is true. In extreme cases, a woman may be liable for "honor killing" by her husband or family if she is raped. |
Evolutionary psychology may "explain" these aspects of rape, but the theory - however elaborate it may be - remains to be proven. And I can't help but note that some evolutionary psychologists seem so caught up in elaborating their theory(ies) that they neglect to offer compelling proof for their theory. As a result, it can't be concluded that this is the only explanation - THE explanation - for rape. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
