Xref: utzoo sci.bio:878 soc.men:2523 soc.women:9118
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!columbia!madonna!travis
From: travis@madonna (Travis Lee Winfrey)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Rape: a genetic catastrophe
Message-ID: <5266@columbia.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 88 03:45:24 GMT
References: <517@gtx.com> <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <1966@bsu-cs.UUCP> <373@rruxa.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@columbia.edu
Reply-To: travis@madonna.UUCP (Travis Lee Winfrey)
Organization: Columbia University CS Department
Lines: 57

>In article <1966@bsu-cs.UUCP>, Rahul Dhesi (dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP) writes:
>>                                                   [. . .]  Rape in the
>> absence of alternative mechanisms to propagate one's genes is equally
>> consistent with the selfish gene hypothesis.
>> 
>> What's interesting is the following question:  Why are some people so
>> opposed to the hypothesis that rape reflects our genetic make-up?  I
>> can understand people maintaining that this remains unproven, but I
>> can't understand their vehemently insisting that it's necessarily
>> false.

1.  Because it is justification for rape in the guise of science.  

2.  Because it is a mythology that draws attention to the "sexual" part of
rape, i.e., the use of the genitals, while drawing attention away from the
violent and dehumanizing effects of rape.  

3.  Because it is a hypothesis without facts, unverifiable, something to muse
over at a bar, while the tremendous prevalence of rape in the world is ignored,
lots of hard numbers are ignored, lots of in-depth studies on rapists and those
who have survived a rape are ignored.  Folk wisdom just dances us away from the
facts.

4.  Because about half of all rapists don't achieve a full erection; less than
half half of all rapes last until ejaculation, if it occurs at all.  Plus, as
Muller said, a large number of rapes could not possibly cause conception.
Hardly the biological inevitable event you may (or may not!) think it is.

5.  Because, apart from political correctness and all that, it doesn't bear
examination as science by scientists in the field.  See "Violence Against
Women", edited by Suzanne Sunday and Ethel Tobach, which is a book of essays
discussing precisely this topic: the alleged sociobiological purpose of rape.
They rip the theory apart.  (Scientists in a feeding frenzy.)  This is not to
say, of course, that we won't all be regaled by armchair theorists many times
on this topic in the future.

6.  We are not animals.  Human beings choose their behavior.  We are
responsible for what we do.

and finally, to repeat the end of an excellent article:
In article <373@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes:
>    If, on the other hand, we recognize rape for what I believe
>    it is -- a violent act based in social inequities and intended
>    to promote or maintain those inequities -- then we have rather
>    less sympathy for the rapist.  He (or she!) is not doing "what
>    comes naturally."  He (or she) is not doing something for which
>    Nature is ultimately responsible, which would in fact be of
>    "biological advantage" if the setting were only a little different.
>    Instead, we can see that the violence is in service of politics 
>    (the politics of sexual oppression) -- and is a type of terrorism.
>    And we can think about it as we do other hate-crimes.

t
--
Arpa:	travis@cunixc.columbia.edu 	Bitnet: travis@cu20b
Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
USMail:	483 Mudd, Columbia Univ., NYC 10025   Phone: 212-280-8091