Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Do humans have needed kno...
June 04, 2025, 11:58 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
June 03, 2025, 07:33 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
June 02, 2025, 09:31 PM

ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
by akay
June 02, 2025, 10:25 AM

What happens in these day...
June 02, 2025, 09:27 AM

New Britain
June 02, 2025, 09:20 AM

What's happened to the fo...
June 01, 2025, 10:43 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
May 26, 2025, 10:25 AM

Gaza assault
May 24, 2025, 11:55 AM

الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
May 19, 2025, 12:00 PM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
May 17, 2025, 09:44 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
May 10, 2025, 10:45 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Rape culture

 (Read 26323 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Rape culture
     Reply #60 - March 20, 2013, 10:56 AM

    What about Ishina's really good point about incestuous rape, granny rape, anal rape, rape with implements etc?

    Are these also about the evolved need to spread seed as far and wide as possible to net the most offspring and ensure the survival of your genes?

    You really need to bring evolution into this? Ok...
    If I HAD to evaluate whether a trait is a product of evolution or not, I'd look at statistics.

    How widespread are those through all cultures and all historical periods? (include/exclude cultural influence)
    Are individuals committing those crimes sexually repulsed by their rape victim? (include/exclude sexual drive)
    Do individuals committing those crimes have the possibility to rape a "more preferable" victim? (include/exclude sexual preference)

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #61 - March 20, 2013, 11:19 AM

    Did anybody else on this forum interpret this comment by Tlaloc as a dismissal of patriachy: This whole argument that rape MUST be a social construct otherwise men are justified to rape is completely nonsense. Along with the concept of "patriarchy". And it's exactly why I am unable to take most forms of feminism seriously.

    Ah, my bad, I worded it awfully, I apologize.
    I meant it as: along with the concept of "patrarchy having to be a social construct" otherwise people are justified in being sexist.

    When in doubt, insult a person.  The scientific method I take it?

    Irrationality is not an insult.
    I am also irrational about many things.

    I am trying to point out that you are letting some irrational preferences or fears or hopes of yours cloud your reasoning when it comes to this subject.

    Imagine how simple the world would be if you didn't play word games, that you simply replied "I don't believe 100% in either, but I lean more towards evolutionary explanations"

    Imagine how less insulting that would have been.

    Ok.

    Am I?  Or are you saying that for me?

    Neither, I was asking a question.

    Oh look, you managed to say what you believed, without implying a dismissal of and the irrationality of anyone who leaned the other way.

    That's not a "belief".
    If evolution were proved wrong I would not freak out. Except in amazement at one big step in human knowledge.

    In the nature vs nurture argument, I don't take either side. I don't see the sense in taking side in it.

    Is rape natural? Who cares. It's wrong and I want to fight it.
    Is homosexuality cultural? Who cares. Homophobia is wrong and I want to fight it.

    I don't need to make up silly pseudo-scientific theories to justify my moral stance when it comes to wanting everyone to be as free and as peaceful as possible.

    Very clever.  You state you didn't mention it, but you waded in dismissive of the alternative explanation being given at the time, in a very typical "oh you illogical irrational emotional practically religious people, why can't you be more sciency" way.

    Funny how you lean towards a position you are very clear you never once mentioned.   Afro

    How about this as advice, until you are able to prove that having a preference for the social construction approach is not scientific, you refrain from accusing people who do prefer it, from being unscientific?

    I'm of course failing to see how seeing rape in the animal world naturally equates to an explanation for human rape, and wouldn't really call that sort of theorising 'scientific' either. 

    I dismissed the idea that you brought forth that rape is NECESSARILY cultural.

    Compare to this:
    1) God MUST exist.
    2) God does not necessarily exist.
    3) God MUST not exist.

    (2) does not imply (3)

    The same way, my lack of belief that rape must be a social construct does not imply that I must believe that rape is natural.

    Also, besides that, rape being natural would not even automatically imply that rape is an evolved trait.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #62 - March 20, 2013, 11:41 AM

    You really need to bring evolution into this? Ok...
    If I HAD to evaluate whether a trait is a product of evolution or not, I'd look at statistics.

    How widespread are those through all cultures and all historical periods? (include/exclude cultural influence)
    Are individuals committing those crimes sexually repulsed by their rape victim? (include/exclude sexual drive)
    Do individuals committing those crimes have the possibility to rape a "more preferable" victim? (include/exclude sexual preference)


    I think the only response here is "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

    Rape in marriage for example, in which sexual access already exists, is not going to show up as well in the statistics since it's not reported as often, so any statistics you gather would already suffer from this lack of inclusion.

    Indeed not all rape is reported, reported doesn't = conviction, access to participants is going to be limited to convictions in general so what would this statistical search of yours uncover that could honestly be generalised to a grand theory?

    The evolutionary explanation for male rape actually feeds itself off of things they can't prove, since they have no access to anything other than a few histories to base a claim that rape across time since the dawning of man had a reproductive edge to it.  This is so unprovable it's a joke.

    Now that in depth studies on the reasons men rape can and are undertaken, and stretch back for some comparison, evolutionary rape theories discount them (the reasons), since the reasons run contrary to their explanation.

    They theorise that rape is about making babies, especially for men who have low status, which is specifically in their eyes seen as good looks and money.  Neither of these is true, since good looking wealthy athletes and celebrities with full access to adoring fans who are themselves youthful and good looking, STILL rape.

    This makes no sense to their theory, so it's summarily ignored.

    Interviews with rapists have shown that in comparison to non rapists, they have an anger towards women, and an underlying belief that the women are asking for it.  Rape has been found to have control, revenge, anger, and sadism aspects as motivators, and often from and by men who have ready access to willing sex from females in the proper reproductive category.

    But again, the evolutionary theory of rape needs to ignore this, since rape is only about reproduction.


    Just to make it clear though, I'm not saying rape is a product of patriarchy, I am saying that rape is not as simple as seeing animals rape and saying hey, that's where human rape comes from.

    *must go do work not waste time online

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #63 - March 20, 2013, 12:33 PM

    In the nature vs nurture argument, I don't take either side. I don't see the sense in taking side in it.

    What's your angle then?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #64 - March 20, 2013, 01:53 PM

    We also kill animals for food. I guess we should kill rapists for food as well.


    He was just making a point that rape may not be entirely a cultural artifact. He wasn't promoting it.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #65 - March 20, 2013, 02:03 PM

    ...The media defend rapists?  Huh? I never watch american news so I don't know.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #66 - March 20, 2013, 02:06 PM

    What's your angle then?


    Probably an agnostic I guess.

    "I'm standing here like an asshole holding my Charles Dickens"

    "No theory,No ready made system,no book that has ever been written to save the world. i cleave to no system.."-Bakunin
  • Rape culture
     Reply #67 - March 20, 2013, 03:46 PM

    He was just making a point that rape may not be entirely a cultural artifact. He wasn't promoting it.

    The way I see it is that morality comes as a result of agency: only agent beings can act morally, and I don't believe we are morally obligated to any being that cannot reciprocate moral action. Therefore, I don't think that we are morally obligated towards someone who gives up his own agency by acting like he is ruled by some primitive instinct.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #68 - March 20, 2013, 07:24 PM

    Agent beings include all sorts of conscious beings. To say that other animals cannot reciprocate moral action, is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Even though their moral instincts may not be advanced as our human ones, they are rudimentary enough to not ignore. That being said, I was just defending Tlaloc himself, and do not necessarily agree with his point.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #69 - March 20, 2013, 07:28 PM

    I wasn't attacking him; I was making a logical deduction from the point he made.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #70 - March 20, 2013, 07:44 PM

    The way I see it is that morality comes as a result of agency: only agent beings can act morally, and I don't believe we are morally obligated to any being that cannot reciprocate moral action. Therefore, I don't think that we are morally obligated towards someone who gives up his own agency by acting like he is ruled by some primitive instinct.


    So you think that satisfying some primal urge (to reproduce) equates to giving up agency?

    Have you heard the good news? There is no God!
  • Rape culture
     Reply #71 - March 20, 2013, 07:49 PM

    A man gives up agency if he rapes people on the premise that he can't control his primitive urges to reproduce. There's a difference between wanting to reproduce and acting like you have absolutely no control over that urge and therefore sticking your cock in every hole you come across.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #72 - March 20, 2013, 08:03 PM

    TRIGGER WARNING

    Steubenville: this is rape culture's Abu Ghraib moment
    Laurie Penny

    NewStatesman

    The pictures from Steubenville don’t just show a girl being raped. They show that rape being condoned, encouraged, celebrated. What type of culture could possibly produce such pictures?

    It lasted for hours. The pictures circulated online show the unconscious teenage girl hung like a shot steer between two laughing young men, Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond, who were convicted this week of driving her from party to party, raping her, assaulting her, and filming themselves doing so. Videos from the night include an extended tape of a friend of the attackers in drunken spasms of joy about just how ‘dead’ the girl looked as she was handed around. “She’s deader than OJ’s wife!” he giggles to himself as his mates film him. It was sadistic young men like this with whom the mainstream media expressed immediate sympathy following the guilty verdict.

    Here, there was no question that Mays and Richmond are guilty: there is enough film, photographic and text message evidence to make the case clear. The arguments in their defence, instead, revolve around the notion that these boys, beloved athletes in a town where football is everything, did nothing wrong when they assaulted their helpless victim. They are tragic heroes who were just having fun, like young men do, and the pictures prove it. Everyone looks so happy. High-profile rape cases have happened in American football towns many times before - remember the cheerleader who was forced to cheer for her rapist? - but Steubenville is different. The pictures make it different. What the Steubenville footage recalls most chillingly is the torture photographs from Abu Ghraib prison almost a decade earlier, showing American soldiers in Iraq smiling chummily around the prone bodies of political prisoners.

    Steubenville is rape culture's Abu Ghraib moment. It’s the moment when America and the world are being forced, despite ourselves, to confront the real human horror of the rapes and sexual assaults that take place in their thousands every day in our communities.

    Susan Sontag observed of the Abu Ghraib atrocities that "the horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken - with the perpetrators posing, gloating, over their helpless captives. If there is something comparable to what these pictures show it would be some of the photographs of black victims of lynching taken between the 1880's and 1930's, which show Americans grinning beneath the naked mutilated body of a black man or woman hanging behind them from a tree. The lynching photographs were souvenirs of a collective action whose participants felt perfectly justified in what they had done. So are the pictures from Abu Ghraib."

    The pictures from Steubenville don’t just show a girl being raped. They show that rape being condoned, encouraged, celebrated. What type of culture could possibly produce such pictures? Only one in which women's autonomy and right to safety counts for so little that these rapists, and those who held the cameras, felt themselves 'perfectly justified'. Only one in which rape and sexual humiliation of women and girls is so normalised that it does not register as a crime in the minds of the assailants. Only one in which victims are powerless, silenced, dismissed. It is impossible to imagine that in such a culture, assault and humiliation of this kind would not be routine - and indeed, the most conservative estimates suggest that ninety thousand women and ten thousand men are raped in the United States alone every year. That’s what makes the Steubenville case so very uncomfortable - and so important.

    Here we have incontrovertible evidence of happy young people not only hurting and humiliating others, but taking pleasure in it, posing with their victims. The Abu Ghraib torture pictures were trophies. The Steubenville rape photos are trophies. They're mementoes of what must have felt, at the time, like everyone was having the sort of fun they'd want to remember, the sort of fun they'd want to prove to themselves and others later. The Steubenville rapists had fun, and they broadcast that fun to the world. They were confident that nothing could touch them, so baffled by the idea of punishment that they wept like children in court.

    Pictures don't just record reality. They change it. They change us as we take them and consume them. It matters not just that we have photographic evidence of a girl being raped, but that someone took pictures of the assault happening to send to their friends as memories of a jolly night gone a bit hairy. The Ohio teenager who is now receiving death threats for reporting her rape is far from the only young woman to have her assault recorded for posterity. In the past five years, rapes and sexual assaults involving one or more attacker or involved bystander stepping back to pull out a smartphone have proliferated. What makes these men so sure of their inviolable right to stick their fingers and cocks into any part of any female they can hold down that they actually make and distribute images of each other doing so? Rape culture. That’s what rape culture is. The cultural acceptance of rape.

    The Steubenville rapists claim that, when they drove a passed-out girl from party to party, slinging her into and out-of cars like a deflated sex-dolly and sticking their fingers inside her, they didn't know they were doing anything wrong. That's plausible, although it's no defence. It's a plausible if, and only if, you have internalised the assumption that women are not real human beings, just bodies to be manipulated with or without consent, pieces of wet and willing meat there for you to use for your pleasure. There's a word for what happens when one group of people sees another as less than human and insists on its right to hurt and humiliate them for fun. It’s an everyday word that is often misused to refer to something outside of ourselves. The word is ‘evil’.

    This particular evil has been rotting at the fractious heart of Western culture for so long that it barely registers as abnormal, and the initial emotion when it is challenged is rage. Rage that anyone dare question the notion that men's 'bright futures' matter more than women's right not to be attacked and degraded. It's an evil that believes that men work and play sports and make an impact on the world and women are there to get fucked. America has been raised on that belief, and like any dogma it can turn ugly when challenged. Jane Doe, whose real name was revealed on Fox news yesterday, has been receiving death threats, and so have her family. After the verdict was handed down, the internet lit up with ugly messages of slut-shaming and solidarity with her attackers: “Remember, kids, if you’re drunk/slutty at a party and embarrassed later, just say you got raped!” wrote @jimmyontheradio. Another, @zJosiah, said: “I feel bad for the two young guys, Mays and Richmond, they did what most people in their situation would have done.”

    Yes, it is possible to feel a sick spasm of pity for these young men whose tears in the courtroom were described at such melodramatic length by major news outlets. It is possible to feel pity for those who do violent acts, who hurt and shame others simply because they know nobody’s going to stop them and it seems like fun. Young people can get carried away in times of war, and here I include what we must surely think of in these circumstances as a gender war, especially when they’re on the winning team - and these boys were used to winning. Young people get carried away. But not always. And that ‘not always’ is where pity stops like bile in the throat.

    In every situation where atrocity is normalised, in every death-camp and gulag and apartheid city, there are those who refuse to participate. The soldier who ignores the kill order. The prison guard who walks away. The families who risk their safety to shelter refugees. The men and boys who see rape and violence occurring and have the courage to say 'stop'.

    We have sympathy for those who lack that sort of courage only because we worry, even the best of us worry, that there might be circumstances in which we, too, would overlook evil. That’s the question facing every man and not a few women in America right now as the enormity of rape culture begins to dawn. It’s a question of cowardice, and of character. Something is going on - the casual rape and abuse and dehumanisation of women and girls, and some men -  that’s so monstrous that to take its magnitude seriously would implicate a great many of us. The question is whether we have the courage to face it - this time.

    Those attacking the Steubenville Jane Doe online, defending her rapists, lamenting the destruction of their ‘bright futures’, are cowards. They are cowards who are afraid of what will happen if systematic injustice is acknowledged, and human history is crawling with their kind. Right now that cowardice is being weaponised and used against women and girls, used to shame us into silence, to stop us from speaking out about rape culture as we have just begun to do in an organised fashion. So many of us wonder whether we would be brave enough to stand up in the face of evil. Whether we would allow it to continue or join in the rage. Well, this is the moment. This is our test. Anyone can be outspoken about Steubenville after the fact. The question is: who will stand up when the next Jane Doe is attacked, without expectation of thanks or acclaim, at risk of derision and ostracism or worse, and speak out about all the other Steubenvilles that are still taking place, and will continue to until enough people say ‘stop’?

    Well, this is the moment. This is our test. Before another Jane Doe gets hurt, before more young rapists can tearfully claim they "didn't know", it's on us all - men and boys and everyone who loves them - to stand and be counted.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #73 - March 20, 2013, 08:15 PM

    Quote
    Another, @zJosiah, said: “I feel bad for the two young guys, Mays and Richmond, they did what most people in their situation would have done.”


    Of course, most people see a passed out, 'dead like OJ's wife' 16 year old girl and think yay, gang rape and yay, lets take her to other places so more people will do it.

    Absolutely sickening.

    Good piece of writing though. 

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #74 - March 20, 2013, 08:28 PM

    Quote
    A man gives up agency if he rapes people on the premise that he can't control his primitive urges to reproduce.


    Interesting. So it would seem that, on your view, any failure of will/discipline to resist some urge strips one of agency and any moral consideration. If a person gives in to his urge to kill another person, he's no longer an agent.  If a kleptomaniac gives in to his urge to steal, he's no longer an agent. If an obese person gives in to his urge to eat another hamburger, he's no longer an agent.

    Failure to resist an urge to fuck someone who doesn't consent to it in no way absolves one of the crime of rape, but this idea that it somehow strips him of agency is ridiculous. People's will fails all the time, though usually the consequences are less serious.

    The CNN coverage of this case was completely disgraceful though, and it's good that they're being called out on it.

    Have you heard the good news? There is no God!
  • Rape culture
     Reply #75 - March 20, 2013, 08:41 PM

    TBH I think the article above, while generally very good, goes a bit far in bringing in lynchings, gulags and Nazi death camps. Those are crimes of another magnitude compared to what happened in Steubenville (really, they are), and attempting to conflate them all does come across as hyperbole. The required points could have been better made without those references.

    IMO, perhaps the most shocking thing about this whole debacle is that the victim and her family are receiving death threats from people in the same town. That is simply insane.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Rape culture
     Reply #76 - March 20, 2013, 08:44 PM

    What's your angle then?

    My angle is that when it comes to human behavior there is no appreciable difference in morality or results whether such behavior is caused by nature or nurture or anything in between.

    When it comes to individual responsibility, an individual has no choice over their nature just like they have no choice over the environmental input they received when growing up.
    And neither of that implies that an individual is not responsible for their actions.

    It does not matter whether your way of thinking is the result of genetics alone, or it's the result of conditioning. You ARE your way of thinking, therefore you (i.e. your way of thinking) are responsible for your behavior.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #77 - March 20, 2013, 08:58 PM

    The way I see it is that morality comes as a result of agency: only agent beings can act morally, and I don't believe we are morally obligated to any being that cannot reciprocate moral action. Therefore, I don't think that we are morally obligated towards someone who gives up his own agency by acting like he is ruled by some primitive instinct.

    I completely disagree with that.

    For example, I am unable to see how I can consider a 1 month old infant or a brain damaged adult as an agent or as a being that can reciprocate moral actions.

    Yet I feel like I have moral obligations towards them simply because I decide to label them as "humans".

    So I am unable to see just the inability to reciprocate moral actions as an excuse to give up my morals.

    I would say it's better to give up morality on somebody only if I know that they CAN reciprocate moral actions yet they willingly decide not to act morally.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #78 - March 20, 2013, 09:13 PM

    I think the only response here is "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

    Rape in marriage for example, in which sexual access already exists, is not going to show up as well in the statistics since it's not reported as often, so any statistics you gather would already suffer from this lack of inclusion.

    Indeed not all rape is reported, reported doesn't = conviction, access to participants is going to be limited to convictions in general so what would this statistical search of yours uncover that could honestly be generalised to a grand theory?

    The evolutionary explanation for male rape actually feeds itself off of things they can't prove, since they have no access to anything other than a few histories to base a claim that rape across time since the dawning of man had a reproductive edge to it.  This is so unprovable it's a joke.

    Now that in depth studies on the reasons men rape can and are undertaken, and stretch back for some comparison, evolutionary rape theories discount them (the reasons), since the reasons run contrary to their explanation.

    They theorise that rape is about making babies, especially for men who have low status, which is specifically in their eyes seen as good looks and money.  Neither of these is true, since good looking wealthy athletes and celebrities with full access to adoring fans who are themselves youthful and good looking, STILL rape.

    This makes no sense to their theory, so it's summarily ignored.

    Interviews with rapists have shown that in comparison to non rapists, they have an anger towards women, and an underlying belief that the women are asking for it.  Rape has been found to have control, revenge, anger, and sadism aspects as motivators, and often from and by men who have ready access to willing sex from females in the proper reproductive category.

    But again, the evolutionary theory of rape needs to ignore this, since rape is only about reproduction.


    Just to make it clear though, I'm not saying rape is a product of patriarchy, I am saying that rape is not as simple as seeing animals rape and saying hey, that's where human rape comes from.

    *must go do work not waste time online

    I think you are misunderstanding evolution.
    Or ignoring how it works on purpose.

    From an evolutionary point of view, if some combination of genes corresponded to a trait that brings a survival or reproductive advantage, they are more likely to be spread on than other combinations of genes.

    That in no way implies that such trait cannot have effects that do not pertain survival or reproduction.

    Therefore, you cannot exclude that a given behavior has no genetic causes by pointing out particular cases in which such behavior does not give an advantage.

    Evolution works statistically.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #79 - March 20, 2013, 09:16 PM

    My angle is that when it comes to human behavior there is no appreciable difference in morality or results whether such behavior is caused by nature or nurture or anything in between.

    Yup. In practice it makes no difference.

    Culture is seen as more malleable than "hard-wired" genetic programming, and therefore some people want to believe that anything undesirable is cultural rather than genetic. It makes it seem easier to deal with. I'm not sure that it would actually be easier to deal with though, because we also know that culturally ingrained tendencies can be extremely stubborn and destructive anyway. Just because something is cultural, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will be an easier problem to tackle than something that is genetic.

    I don't think it's proven that rape is hard-wired in as a human reproductive strategy. I'm not even sure how you would prove it, even if it were true. However, if it could be proven, I would see no reason to deny it, nor would I regard it as justification for rape.

    I know where these evolution-based theories started. It's incontrovertible, IMO, that under some circumstances rape can provide the rapist with a reproductive advantage. I personally am aware of some examples where this has happened. All it requires is that the rape result in pregnancy and the resulting child, or at least one of the resulting children, then grows up to have kids of their own. This is not that uncommon, and in evolutionary terms counts as a reproductive advantage for the rapist, because he has managed to successfully propagate his genes.

    Knowing this, it's natural that some biologists/anthropologists would then start wondering about it, and trying to fit it into various explanations for human behaviour. Given that sperm are cheap and easy to produce, and given that fucking is so easy, it's obvious that someone is going to point out that rape is potentially an effective reproductive strategy. Even if the number of adult offspring that result is low, the investment is so low that this may not matter. So yes, it's possible and perhaps even plausible that rape could be genetically coded for as an irregular and opportunistic reproductive strategy.

    As soon as someone wants to go beyond that, and claim that this is definitely the case, they've reached the point where possibility and even plausibility are not enough. They'll need solid and convincing evidence, and they'll need an explanation that takes into account all the examples where rape provides no reproductive advantage at all (see Ishina's list).

    As far as I'm aware, it's a totally unsupportable claim.

    Even if it were supportable, it still wouldn't provide any basis for a legal or moral defence against rape charges.

    If it were true that male humans carry genes that code for rape as an irregular and opportunistic reproductive strategy, then it seems exceedingly likely that they would also carry genes that code for inhibiting such behaviour when it will not be advantageous. In other words, they will also be genetically programmed to have a choice as to how they act in any situation.

    This totally kills any chance of using an argument like "Oh it's natural, therefore I had to do it".

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Rape culture
     Reply #80 - March 20, 2013, 09:18 PM

    Anyway, trying to analyze human behavior from the evolutive point of view is almost an exercise in futility because the only good experiments would involve raising many different groups of humans in artificial isolation and record their behavior.

    And that's human rights violation.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #81 - March 20, 2013, 09:32 PM

    Culture is seen as more malleable than "hard-wired" genetic programming, and therefore some people want to believe that anything undesirable is cultural rather than genetic.

    Precisely.

    And those people seem to fail to consider that culture CAN overcome instincts.
    And SHOULD overcome instincts, in a functional society.

    And, with technology, genetic traits might end up not being as hard-wired as they want to believe.
    Which means that people who use the whole "homosexuality is natural cause it's genetic" argument as their main point against homophobia might one day meet crazy fanatics who will want to use eugenics to eradicate homosexuals.

    I guess I seem hostile about this whole subject, but I think people (especially those who campaign against inequalities) should REALLY give up on any nature vs nurture crusade because it's energy spent on alienating people over a belief that is actually irrelevant to the inequalities that need to be addressed.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #82 - March 20, 2013, 09:43 PM

    and they'll need an explanation that takes into account all the examples where rape provides no reproductive advantage at all (see Ishina's list).

    Actually, like I said in the other post, that is not true.

    Cases of a trait bringing no advantage are not proof of such trait not being caused by evolution, as long as that trait brings a statistical advantage.

    Consider a very similar example: sex drive.
    It's pretty much evident that sex drive is an evolutive advantage in most sexual animals.
    Yet, there are many cases of humans whose sex drive is, for example, towards animals, or old people, or kids, or inanimate objects. Such cases are obviously not an advantage for the reproduction of that individual.
    Does that in any way imply that sex drive in human is NOT the result of evolution?

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #83 - March 20, 2013, 09:47 PM

    Yes, I am well aware of all that. You would still want to account for the other cases though, if you were contemplating providing an explanation for rape. Ignoring a large percentage of cases would be rather poor form, and I'm quite sure that if you tried to submit a paper that ignored a large percentage of cases the editors would not be all that impressed.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Rape culture
     Reply #84 - March 20, 2013, 09:52 PM

    If it makes you feel better, I also doubt evolution. I can say that I doubt it LESS, tho. Mainly because evolution has been successfully applied to practical problem solving in information technology.

    By the way, if your main reason for thinking evolution plausible is information technology, I suggest you learn a bit more about biology.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Rape culture
     Reply #85 - March 20, 2013, 09:56 PM

    My angle is that when it comes to human behavior there is no appreciable difference in morality or results whether such behavior is caused by nature or nurture or anything in between.

    Whether the thing is moral or not isn't really the point of contention. Whether or not it is a product of evolution or has any evolutionary advantage is.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #86 - March 20, 2013, 10:03 PM

    Actually, like I said in the other post, that is not true.

    Cases of a trait bringing no advantage are not proof of such trait not being caused by evolution, as long as that trait brings a statistical advantage.

    Consider a very similar example: sex drive.
    It's pretty much evident that sex drive is an evolutive advantage in most sexual animals.
    Yet, there are many cases of humans whose sex drive is, for example, towards animals, or old people, or kids, or inanimate objects. Such cases are obviously not an advantage for the reproduction of that individual.
    Does that in any way imply that sex drive in human is NOT the result of evolution?

    That's not a similar example, though. Rape is not a trait, it is an action/conduct. A fair analogy would be between the act of rape and the act of bestiality or sex with toys. Not rape and sex drive, which are not analogous. Does having sex with a horse have any evolutionary benefit? Does having sex with a vibrator have any evolutionary benefit? Does rape have any evolutionary benefit?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #87 - March 20, 2013, 10:15 PM

    That's not a similar example, though. Rape is not a trait, it is an action/conduct.

    Are the two really that different? If someone is likely to perform certain actions, how would that not be a trait? I don't see the distinction.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Rape culture
     Reply #88 - March 20, 2013, 10:27 PM

    Because the trait wouldn't be "rape". I'd be "dysfunctional brain" or "emotional imbalance" or "extreme anger issues", or other 'traits' that compel someone to seek an extreme outlet such as humiliating or brutalising another person.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Rape culture
     Reply #89 - March 20, 2013, 10:30 PM

    TBH I think the article above, while generally very good, goes a bit far in bringing in lynchings, gulags and Nazi death camps. Those are crimes of another magnitude compared to what happened in Steubenville (really, they are)

    No they're not. The point she's making is that rape is part of our culture and what happened in Steubenville is only a snapshot of what happens on a daily basis.

    There's no moral difference between lynching tens of thousands of people or raping them. They are both pure and utter evil actions that treat people as less than human.
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »