Xref: utzoo sci.bio:814 soc.men:2448 soc.women:8946 sci.misc:745 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!gatech!rutgers!bellcore!faline!sabre!gamma!pyuxp!rruxa!mjm From: mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women,sci.misc Subject: Re: Rape a reproductive advantage? Message-ID: <361@rruxa.UUCP> Date: 12 Jan 88 13:54:46 GMT References: <517@gtx.com> <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3755@aw.sei.cmu.edu> Distribution: na Organization: Bell Communications Research Lines: 94 Summary: existence of a trait does not prove its necessity, or even its utility In article <3755@aw.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu.UUCP writes: > In article <358@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: > > [ on the topic of "rape" among "lower" animals ] Actually, I don't think I said "lower." I don't particularly see the sense in the scala naturae argument that puts humans at the pinnacle of evolution: we have our niche, just like other critters, and we're all more or less adapted to our niches. My complaint is not that human behavior is being compared with "lower" animals, but that the analyses mix apples and oranges. Perhaps "apples and rocks" would be a better example -- drawing an analogy between sexual behavior ("rape") in ducks or crickets and complex socially-motivated violence (rape) in humans is a little like biting a rock instead of an apple. > I think there is a deeper flaw than that. Several posters have been > viewing rape among animals merely as a way for the rapist to propagate > his genes. This may be part of the explanation, but it is not the > whole explanation. > > For example, among birds rape occurs when conception would be a positive > disadvantage to the female - eg shortly before migration - and not only > give no chance to the offspring but, by threatening the femal's life, > reduce any subsequent chance of using that female to produce offspring. > > Also, among many species of mammal, rape is clearly used as a means to > exert dominence. Among primate colonies, for instance, anal rape of > both males and females, bu the more dominent males, is not uncommon. > > Accordingly, we should perhaps see rape among animals also as a means > to establish and enforce a certain social dynamic. The problem is, > that however much we may deprecate the means, the end itself - a social > collective based on dominance relationships - is a very powerful pro > survival agency. Had our ancestors lived by our scruples, we might > well be extinct. Why is "a social collective based on dominance relationships . . . a very powerful pro survival agency"? I know of no other reason than that things seem to have turned out this way. The simple form of this argument is: "if it has occurred biologically, it must be Right." This is the nub of the biology-is-destiny analysis. In its most offensive form, a person locates a behavior in an animal species which is vaguely analogous to a human behavior, and then justifies that human behavior on the basis of its "biological necessity." This is a flawed argument for a number of reasons: 1. Human behaviors and animal behaviors are not necessarily homologous. 2. Demonstrating the existence of a trait is not the same as demonstrating the necessity of that trait. 3. Many physiological and structural traits can be shown to be sub-optimal, yet existing. The current forms and functions of animals (including us) are _not_ optimal, they are merely the best that could be done with the available materials. Better things could have been done with other materials. We humans have somewhat more plasticity in our materials and in how we choose to use them -- at least, behaviorally speaking. The distinction is this: evolution has worked to solve near-term problems, but we can think about our behaviors in long-term contexts, and come up with different solutions based on those longer term analyses. So I don't agree that "a social collective based on dominance relationships . . . is a very powerful pro survival agency". Some organisms that have survived have these dynamics. Some that have survived don't have these dynamics. Some that haven't survived may have had these dynamics. The existence of the dominance relationships proves nothing about their necessity, or even about their utility. And so I have to disagree strongly with the statement, "Had our ancestors lived by our scruples, we might well be extinct." Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that, for different species, behaviors which are in some ways _superficially_ the same may have _different_ "functions" or "meanings"? Ducks are, I suspect, not very good at understanding power relationships. I myself am pretty poor at eating weeds off the bottom of a pond, and I don't remember imprinting on an adult immediately after birth, either. Human behavior is different from duck behavior in lots of ways -- why assume that the sexual aspects are analogous? Rape, as we understand it, is a violent social event which is very much mixed up with oppression, including racial, sexual, and economic oppression. Claiming that there is an analogous event in animals is at best spurious and confusing, and at worst dangerous to people who are in danger of rape. Michael Muller Bellcore I wish that my views were Bell Communications Research representative of those ..!bellcore!ctt!mjm of my employer.