Xref: utzoo sci.bio:786 soc.men:2396 soc.women:8828 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!lazarus From: lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women Subject: Re: Rape: a genetic catastrophe (was Re: Rape a reproductive advantage?) Message-ID: <2288@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Date: 16 Jan 88 04:59:56 GMT References: <517@gtx.com> <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3755@aw.sei.cmu.edu> <361@rruxa.UUCP> <5159@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <263@vsi1.UUCP> Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Reply-To: lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) Distribution: na Organization: Murder Inc. Lines: 180 In article <263@vsi1.UUCP> steve@vsi1.UUCP (Steve Maurer) writes: > > Rape is a very difficult subject to discuss objectively, >however I will try: About time - most of the posters have been more interested in polemics than edification. > In biology, there has ... been discovered >a phenomenon called the "Selfish Gene", that is, genes which have >certain properties during reproduction which insure their survival >at the detriment to the organism as a whole. Of course, organisms >which have too many selfish genes die or are not survivable, and >so mechanisms have evolved in cells which tend to defeat selfish >genes. So that it is the case that almost all creatures have both >selfish, and "selfish-defeating" genes. Well not quite. I have read Richard Dawkin's definitive book "The Selfish Gene" about five times so I think I can feel confident about clarifying the issue. (Comments from a real geneticist would be appreciated). The thing that determines whether a gene is passed on is its effect on the individual that carries it, not its effect on the species. One of the examples Dawkins uses is a species, call them fnords, for the heck of it. Fnords suffer from a parasite that attaches to their backs If it is not removed the fnord eventually dies. Fnords cannot remove their own parasites, but can remove another fnord's parasite. There is a small but finite chance that a fnord will die if it removes a parasite from another fnord. Assume two types of fnords - nices and nasties. A nice will remove the parasite from the back of any other fnord it meets. A nasty will try to get its own fnord removed but will not remove parasites from other fnords. If the entire population is nices then everything is fine - parasites kill only a few fnords and the species is fine. If the entire populations is nasties parasites quickly kill all the fnords and the species becomes extinct. If the population is mixed the nasties have an advantage and soon dominate the population. The nices become extinct and the rest of the fnords follow. The key point here is that evolution works for the survival of the fittest organism, not the fittest species. In certain cases it can drive a species to extinction. The theory has nothing to do with individual cells within a larger organism. > Rape (at least for animals) is a mirror of this behavior on >the societal/species level. An individual member, undesirable for >any one of a number of reasons, will attempt to pass on its genes >during the reproductive cycle to the detrement of the species as >a whole. Against the evolutionary imperitive, each species has >developed some means to discourage this practice, generally by >making it difficult to accomplish in the first place. However, >if there are enough "successes", the tendency will be passed down. Well even any. I would be surprised if any species in which a reasonably risk-free child producing rape is even occasionally possible does not have rape. > There must be a number of prerequisites already present in a >species before a "rape behavior" has a chance of starting. First, >the species must be one in which the forcable passing of genetic >material is possible, and viable offspring must result (this >effectively restricts the behavior to males). Why should a female ever commit rape? She bears the major cost of producing offspring (the male does not need to stick around) therefore she can almost alway find a willing donor of genetic material. This passing male will take an almost 0-cost gamble that the inferior female may be able to produce viable children. As all the male risks is a couple of ounces of protein and sugars it is a great opportunity. A female should never need to commit rape. > Rape is a reproductive action >which promotes the genetic interests of the individual rapist against >the species (or society) as a whole. Expressly it has nothing to do >with the feelings or emotions of the victim, except as the society >permits itself to relate to them. You're definition would probably also include any reproductive action that had the potential to pass on any genetic deficiencies. Examples would include mental retardation, any congenital disease, and probably problems such as obesity and alcoholism. In think it is too wide and off the mark. The definition I would choose is any act that causes a female to have a reproductive action {This terminology stinks, but I can't think of anything better} with a male who she would not normally enter into such an action with due to percieved deficiencies. This would include violent rape and some cases of date rape (those which involve a woman who would not later have freely chosen to have sex with the rapist if he had not committed the crime). It would not include spouse rape because the woman previously chose to enter into sexual relations with the rapist. >[society, masking the genetic imperative, is acting in its own best >interest when it defines and punishes rape] Not quite. The traditional definition, definitely. That was directly passed down from what caveman Ugh thought unacceptable in 2,000,000 B.C. The new additions, such as spouse rape, for example, have been added for political, not genetic reasons. > In cultures with an imperitive on a "high" birth rate (high only >in relation to man, not other species), ... >Rape only really occurs when the rapist attacks an already married >woman. Any other situation is simply considered as a form of seduction, >with the "crime" only being the initiation of sex without approval. >In this case, the society usually punishes the pair by completing the >ceremony. Well, I don't have the sources on this, but I really wouldn't like to be apprehended after raping somebody's daughter in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran. Somehow I think that at the very least I would end up minus my cojones. You should remember that it is in my genetic interest to prevent a man from raping my daughter. After all, she is the only method I have of passing on my genes. I definitely do not want her to spend 9 months (and possibly die) bearing a child of doubtful genetic worth > Most of the increase in Rapes we have seen recently, I believe, >occur because of a misunderstanding of what is now permissable under >the new rules of society, and what once was permissible. ... >To the inexperienced, ignorant, juvenile male, the >difference between acceptable aggressiveness, and unacceptable, is >difficult to understand. To the unsensitive, unintelligent, overly >agressive male, it is almost impossible. Come on. To paraphrase a quote in Time magazine a while back, we all know the difference between "no", "NO", and "TAKE YOUR FILTHY HANDS OF MY BREASTS" The only case where lack of knowlege is a reasonable excuse for rape is when the female is moderately intoxicated. I also think it is unfair that when two equally intoxicated people have sex, if anyone is charged it is the male. > There are, of course, the other kind of rapists. Those who have >usually aquired an early education in violence, being abused children, >and with an healthy dose of testosterone turn into abusers themselves. >However, despite press sensationalism, such people are extrememly >rare, and have always existed in various societies. Source please? In my opinion the vast majority of rapists may not have the type of history you describe but they are an abusive type of person. They are not like you and me. To put it in a way that will probably get me in trouble on the net, they are slime who deserve to be punished in just about any way we can think of. I would not object to the death penalty for violent rape.. > Due to technology advances, much of the "genetic advantage" of >rape has been removed. I imagine that in a million or so years, >(or so :-}) it would probably fade out entirely. Doubtful - genetically I will always be better off if I have two or three illegitimate children floating around as a result of rapes as well as my wife and kids. The only technology with the potential to wipe out rape is simple safe abortions and methods to determine whether an embryo is the rapist's child or the child of a desired lover. One related point that noone has brought up is prostitution. The fact that virtually no women frequent prostitutes indicates that men have a desire (whether genetically programmed or socially inculcated) to have sex with less carefully chosen partners. Many men are willing to use a prostitute. Those who are less ethical are also willing to commit rape. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman