Newsgroups: sci.bio
Path: utzoo!rising
From: rising@utzoo.uucp (Jim Rising)
Subject: Comments on rape, and biology.
Message-ID: <1988Jan14.105712.26089@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Thu, 14-Jan-88 10:57:07 EST


A few unconnected comments on rape, etc., and esp. Michael Muller's posting.

I think that it is mistaken and dangerous to say that biologists or
sociobiologists pursue research "...to support the status quo...".
I think that they are trying to learn about the universe.  What they
do or do not learn about human behaviour, conservation, or anything else
does not determine social or political practice.  It may help society to 
make intelligent decisions about such things, but I know of no scientist
that says what may be "facts" of nature must be canonized into law or 
social practice.  To the contrary, they may help us understand problems
that are at least in part of a biological nature so we can deal with them
intelligently.

I have grown to concur with you that it is unwise to use the word "rape"
as a synonym of "forced copulation."  I think that scientists who have
used the word "rape" in talking of non-human animals have simply been 
referring to instances of forced copulation--in an hypothesis-free way,
but obviously there is unnecessary confusion on this point. 

I note that many on the net seem to use the word specifically to refer to
aggression (or quasi-sexual aggression?) of human males toward human females.
Although that may frequently be the case, I think that that is a narrow view
that underscores the need to use a different term in the biological
literature.  I do not know much about human rape, but I have the impression
that males can rape females, or other males, and that females can rape males
or other females.  The first is, of course, by far the commonest, but why 
a priori turn the phenomenon (or better phenomena--because I'm certain 
that many different things are ultimately involved) into a male against
female thing?

I don't think that David confused forced copulation in one species with
forced copulation in another--although other netters have.

Wang writes that "Humans DO NOT engage in forced copulations for the same
reason ducks do."  How does he know?  I suspect that in both there are many
different ultimate reasons why some individuals engage in forced copulation.
In some instances in both duck and people a rapist may increase his/her
Darwinian fitness, although that may or may not have anything to do with
"why" the individual "rapes."

I not see why David's view can be taken to support "some alleged 'biological
necessity' of rape among humans" or any other animals, for that matter.

I do agree that it would be terribly wrong to make "pseudo-biological
justifications for this type of violence."  This is to be avoided.  But
can we not talk rationally about the phenomenon in the animal kingdom
(without using the word rape)?  I think that is it important to understand
the environmental context in which f.c. takes place in ducks, Anolis,
baboons, chimps, geese, ostriches....  It just might help us understand
f.c. in humans in at least a few contexts, and perhaps we could then do 
what we can as concerned members of the species to see if there is something
that is socially acceptable that can be done to change those environmental
conditions.  As responsible humans and scientists we are not going to 
say that "Rape is ok because is occurs in many other species!"  There is
absolutely NOTHING that a scientist could learn that would make f.c. in
humans socially acceptable!

And, lastly, I'd like to take issue with Richard Harter's comment that
"No species that I know of is anywhere as nasty to its own species as
humans," at least if you mean in a premeditated way (I mean, we're likely
to annihilate ourselves and every other organism as well, but we're not
really consciously trying to do that).  I suspect that if an objective
observer from another planet were to study human behavior and that of
many other species it would conclude that humans are among the most 
placid, kind, and altruistic of all species.  This observer would say
that in part because it would fail to understand a lot of the subtle
aggression that was going on (as we do when we watch of bunch of ducks
or lizards), but also because of the millions of interactions that take
place among human individuals every day, most are non-aggressive!
Torture, war, genocide, rape and pillage are not uniquely human (I'll
concede "gas chambers", and I suspect that torture in the usual sense
is not common in other species).  You don't have to be an animal 
behaviorist (and I'm not) to know that that's a bunch of malarkey.
Territorial rivals of most species will try to kill each other--and
sometimes do.   But please note, I am not in favor of torture, war,
genocide, rape, etc. just because I realize that it is a commonly a
part of animals behaviour!

What's wrong with using the words "monogamy" of "polygamy" is reference
to animal mating systems.  In birds, we usually use those terms only 
with reference to a single mating season, but what's the problem?
American Robins are "monogamous" because one male and one female form 
a pair bond for a single season.  What's wrong with that?  It doesn't
imply that "monogamous" humans build nests and feed their young earthworms.

--Jim Rising
-- 
Name:   Jim Rising
Mail:   Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto
        Toronto, Ontario, Canada    M5S 1A1
UUCP:   {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!rising