Xref: utzoo sci.bio:870 soc.men:2515 soc.women:9109
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!husc6!hao!boulder!pell
From: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Rape: a genetic catastrophe
Message-ID: <4090@sigi.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 31 Jan 88 21:59:41 GMT
References: <517@gtx.com> <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <1966@bsu-cs.UUCP> <373@rruxa.UUCP>
Sender: news@sigi.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 110


>In article <1966@bsu-cs.UUCP>, Rahul Dhesi (dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP) writes:
>
>> 
>> What's interesting is the following question:  Why are some people so
>> opposed to the hypothesis that rape reflects our genetic make-up?  I
>
In article <373@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes:

>Okay, here are my reasons for being opposed to the hypothesis (and I
>
>1.  I don't agree that social behaviors have a direct one-to-one -- 
>    or even many-to-one -- relationship to genotypes.  Behaviors are
>    not phenotypes.
>
You may not believe it; and there will be alot of people refusing to believe
the evidence because it is politically incorrect to talk about the causal
relationship between genotype and phenotype where personality is concerned.
Such discussion comes in and out of vogue depending on the political climate.
Usually, someone abuses the notions for his/her own power gains which
ultimately puts the notions out of vogue.  But, like it or not, the
causal relationship does exist.
The best study of which I am aware was done on "Old Order Amish" and the
appearance of manic depression in rare individuals.
There are a number of reasons why this group is suited to the study.
Among these is the fact that wide variations in social environment, which
certainly have a great effect in the development of such traits, do not exist.
In other words, it keeps the background low.
The result is that this particular "bipolar disorder" is the result of
a single gene, which is autosomal dominant and maps to the
short arm of chromosome 11 between the genes for insulin and ras (Egeland
et al. 1987.  Nature Vol. 325 pp 783 ff.).
Before you dismiss it as politically motivated, racist, or whatever, read
the data...they are quite rigorous and quite compelling.

>2.  I don't agree with the analogy between animal coerced copulation
>    and human rape.

Ok, personally I don't think rape exists for reproduction in either the
"duck example" or in humans.  You make points below that rape in humans
is to reinforce power roles: men over women; men over subordinate men etc.
I think you are right.  Why are you sure that the male ducks don't do it
for the same reason?
It is not immediatly obvious to me how this could be selected, though
I can think of a few models.  But it seems to be common in animal behaviour.
That I don't understand the "advantage" of such power assertion will not
cause me to rule out that an advantage exists, especially when confronted
with so many examples of it.
>
>3.  Human rape is often destructive of the victim;  it therefore
>    reduces the viability of the possible issue of the rape.  If
>    Please tell me how this provides a biological advantage.

Why is it that reinforcing power positions by forcing humiliating acts is so
common? I don't know for sure, but it certainly a common thing...ever seen
a Frat "hazing?"
>
>4.  Human rape is often committed in a way that can not produce
>    children . . .  rape of children, rape of post-menopausal women, 

no argument.

>5.  Human rape occurs within a power structure.  In western culture,
>    it generally correlates with a power differential between rapist
>    and victim.  It is perceived by all parties as a humiliating
>    experience on the part of the victim. 
>
I think you are on the right track.
(I have deleted a bit of that with which I basically aggree.)
>
>7.  Therefore, it seems to me that there is little in the data to
>    support the genetic hypothesis. 

I disaggree.  I think there are good data supporting the causal relationship
between genotype and personality.  I am a Biochemist/molecular biologist
myself, so I am not up on all the literature.  But I have read some.
Read the paper I referenced above and see if you think it is "laughable"
evidence.
>
>    As I tried to show in a previous posting, the same style of
>    sloppy social/biological argumentation could be used to state
>    a "biological advantage to child abuse."  Briefly:  infanticide
>    in some animals can be argued to be consistent with selfish
>    genes.  Child abuse is like infanticide.  Ergo . . .  But no
>    one wants to argue that infanticide is "natural" or "genetically
>    based" or a "heritable tendency."
On the contrary, the replies I saw argued that child abuse is not infantcide.
They argued further that examples of infantcide are common in human history
and it probably occurs for the very same reasons in both humans and other
animals.  In that sense, infantcide is "natural."  Nature is not kind and
gentle.  "Heaven and Earth are not "Humane-hearted" (jen), they regard
all things as straw dogs." -Lao T'zu
>
>
>8.  My main reason for arguing against the genetic-basis-of-rape
>    position is that it can be used to excuse the existing violence
>    against women in western culture.
>
Yes, knowlege can be missused.  It is potentially true that Asian Americans
could missuse the fact that they have higher I.Q.s than whites on average.
They could use this to foster "all whites are genetically inferior" views
and oppress whites.  Other groups (mostly "whites") have missused similar
information before.  But, that the Asian-American population could missuse
the facts does not make them false.  I aggree with you that we must be
careful not to use it as an "excuse" ("He couldn't help himself").
I hope you will aggree that understanding the root causes is important
in preventing dangerous behaviour.
>
>Michael Muller

-tony