Xref: utzoo sci.bio:777 soc.men:2350 soc.women:8757 sci.misc:703
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!mmm!cipher
From: cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Rape a reproductive advantage?
Message-ID: <1548@mmm.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jan 88 15:03:19 GMT
References: <517@gtx.com> <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <616@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Reply-To: cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard)
Distribution: na
Organization: Software & Electronics Resource Center/3M
Lines: 28
Posted: Tue Jan 12 09:03:19 1988

In article <616@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>Monogamy ... implies the existence of bachelors, who will not
>reproduce at all, unless they rape... It would be presumptous of us to
>think that we stand apart from this pattern: "we aren't animals, after all!".

There are several assumptions in this argument I find disturbing in
someone supposedly capable of rational thought and observation.  Take
for instance the assumption that humans are wholly monogamous.  The
statement that bachelors cannot reproduce except by rape is
contradicted by experience.  Mr. Lindsay also seems to be assuming that
rape in humans is (A) a heriditary trait, and (B) an effective means of
reproduction.  It is possible that A is true.  I dispute B.  Many
(though not most) rapes in humans end in the death of the victim.  If
there were some reproductive advantage to be gained, the rapist would
have some interest in protecting the life of the victim.

I also feel that, even in the event that nature has designed men to be
rapists, we are (to some extent) rational creatures, and don't have to
give in to every impulse our genes urge us towards.  If Mr. Lindsay
desires not to be presumptuous, I am willing to exclude him from this
generalization.

We aren't JUST animals, after all!
-- 
    o							Andre Guirard
   < '	  The race is not always to the swift...	"Thai green beads"
   / >	  but it's a pretty safe bet.			ihnp4!mmm!cipher
  '