Xref: utzoo sci.bio:866 soc.men:2509 soc.women:9103
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!udel!gatech!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw
From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Rape: a genetic catastrophe
Message-ID: <587@xyzzy.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jan 88 17:45:27 GMT
References: <517@gtx.com> <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3755@aw.sei.cmu.edu> <361@rruxa.UUCP> <5159@c <1932@bsu-cs.UUCP> <574@xyzzy.UUCP> <1966@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Data General, RTP NC.
Lines: 31

> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
> Cannibalism in the absence of alternative mechanisms to feed oneself in
> is perfectly consistent with the selfish gene hypothesis.  Rape in the
> absence of alternative mechanisms to propagate one's genes is equally
> consistent with the selfish gene hypothesis.

Of course this is true, but you seem to miss the point I was making, and
that is that in each case, the explanation of the behavior is remarkably
poor, since the actual behaviors we see are not well adapted to the
hypothesized desired result.

> What's interesting is the following question:  Why are some people so
> opposed to the hypothesis that rape reflects our genetic make-up?  

I don't doubt this for a minute.  *Everything* humans do "reflects our
genetic make-up" to some degree.  I just doubt that things are as simple
as "rape increases reproductive fitness... there, we understand it now."

> I can understand people maintaining that this remains unproven, but I
> can't understand their vehemently insisting that it's necessarily
> false.

Well, I haven't been "vehemently insisting" on anything.  I just think
that the proposed, oversimplified hypothesis is a remarkably poor one.

--
"You think this is a trap, then?" the Count asked.
"I think everything is a trap until proven otherwise," the Prince
answered.  "Which is why I'm still alive."
                        --- from "The Princess Bride" by William Goldman
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw