Xref: utzoo soc.men:2428 soc.women:8898 sci.misc:726
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!umd5!mimsy!oddjob!hao!noao!mcdsun!sunburn!gtx!al
From: al@gtx.com (0732)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,sci.misc
Subject: Rape a reproductive advantage?
Message-ID: <511@gtx.com>
Date: 6 Jan 88 19:54:30 GMT
Reply-To: al@gtx.UUCP (Al Filipski)
Organization: GTX Corporation, Phoenix
Lines: 29


>>>I expect there's an evolutionary advantage.  Rapists probably reproduce
>>>better than non-rapists.
>>>
>>>Keith Doyle
>>
>>Oh boy, I sure hope that was meant as a funny. How many out there think it
>>was? Now, how many out there thought it was amuuusing?
>>

It is neither funny nor amuusing.  It is a very distasteful idea. However,
whether or not we like the idea has nothing to do with whether it is true 
or not. It probably is false, but not obviously false.  I reject the
attitude that certain ideas are too politically unpleasant to have
a chance of being true, though.  There are a lot of taboo ideas like
this, most of them having to do with race, or heridity vs environment.
Scientists*  who study them will get viciously attacked if their data leads
to the "wrong" conclusion. Both liberals and conservatives have their
own set of "touchy" areas. Being "against rape" in the sense of not
being able to tolerate any non-condemnatory statement about it
is an understandable, though not rational reaction.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   | Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 2501 W. Dunlap, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA |
   | {ihnp4,cbosgd,decvax,hplabs,seismo}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*in case I have left anyone unoffended, I should add that I do not necessarily
lump "social scientists" with "scientists".