The Socialist Dream Crumbles in Venezuela

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

Your evidence is the same f**k study we just disproved?

...

Holy shit.

[exploited]

The 2003 book Evolution, Gender, and Rape, written in response to A Natural History of Rape, compiles the views of twenty-eight scholars in opposition to sociobiological theories of rape. One contributor, Michael Kimmel, criticizes Thornhill and Palmer's argument that female rape victims tend to be sexually attractive young women, rather than children or older women, contrary to what would be expected if rapists selected victims based on inability to resist. Kimmel argues that younger women are the least likely to be married and the most likely to be out on dates with men, and therefore are the most likely to be raped because of opportunity arising from social exposure and marital status.[9] Palmer and Thornhill responded to these critics in an article in the journal Evolutionary Psychology.[1]

Smith et al. (2001) have criticized the scientific accuracy of Thornhill and Palmer's rape adaptation claim. In a study on the Aché in Paraguay, they found that the disadvantages of rape outweighed the reproductive advantages by a 10 to one margin. The study suggests that this would make it very unlikely that rape would be an adaptive behavior for increased reproduction.[11][12]

While defending the evolutionary psychology theory of rape against its more vehement critics, Vandermassen (2010) provides a critique of some aspects of the view. She characterises the view of Thornhill and Palmer as "extreme" (p. 736), as they fail to allow for the influence of any non-sexual motivations in the crime of rape. Vandermassen also notes two problems with the data cited by Thornhill and Palmer regarding the psychological trauma caused by the violence associated with rape: firstly, this data is inaccurately and confusingly presented in the book, often obscuring the fact that it does not support Thornhill and Palmer's "counterintuitive hypothesis" (p. 744) that more physical violence during rape is associated with less psychological pain. Secondly, more recent research has failed to support this hypothesis. A more moderate position, integrating the evolutionary psychology and feminist theories on rape, is presented by Vandermassen, based in part on the work of feminist evolutionary researcher Barbara Smuts.[13]

Hamilton (2008) has criticized Thornhill and Palmer's definition of rape as the coerced vaginal penetration of women of reproductive age. He has suggested that the exclusion of male rape, rape on women outside the reproductive age range, murderous rape, and non-vaginal forms of rape virtually guaranteed the confirmation of their hypothesis that rape is an evolved reproductive strategy and not a crime of violence. Hamilton has argued that evolutionary psychology fails to explain rape because, by evolutionary psychology's own criteria, an adaptation to rape children or men, or non-vaginal rape, would have been eliminated in the course of evolution because it did not confer reproductive advantage on our ancestors.

[The Dharma Bum]

You didn't disprove it, you presented an opposing view. This issue hasn't been decided. lol

Anyway Hills argument is that rape doesn't increase genetic fitness. This is an invalid argument as fitness has nothing to do with evolution, being a subjective judgement based on human criteria.

Sexual coercion is a strategy that evolved in the manner i described at the bottom of the previous page. The fact that rape even exists as a behavior proves that it has been passed down from previous generations that used it successfully to reproduce.

After all it is inarguable that rape results in multiple inseminations, which is the entire point of a reproductive strategy.

[exploited]

It has been decided, actually. The study uses evidence that directly disproves their own hypothesis, it's conclusions don't match with more recent research, and it deliberately excluded non-vaginal rape, rape accompanied by murder, rape done to those unable to reproduce (and this last category accounts for one-third of all rapes). It also is directly contradicted by the fact that the typical sex offender has access to consensual sex.

You're done, Dharma. Your argument is total nonsense and simply not supported by the scientific establishment.

[The Dharma Bum]

Let me try another angle.

Sexual coercion exists in the animal kingdom. My explanation for this is that this behavior evolved as a reproductive strategy.

What is your explanation for how and why this behavior evolved in animals?

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

So your argument is that rape done by humans is the result of biological processes because that is the case with other animals?

That is f**k dumb.

For one, that completely ignores the fact that we have developed consciousness far beyond the abilities of any other animal, whether dolphins or primates or whatever.

For two, it doesn't account for rape committed by women, homosexual rape, murderous rape or rape done to those unable to reproduce... which taken together is, in fact, the majority of all rape cases.

For three, as has been pointed out again and again, there is no advantage to rape. It does not result in better reproductive prospects... and all the evidence suggests it actually hinders those prospects by a factor of 10:1. Meaning that those who rape are drastically more likely to NOT have an impact on the gene pool, as they are more likely to starve or be killed.

Finally, there is no actual evidence to back up the hypothesis. Seriously. None at all.

[The Dharma Bum]

No, humans are animals. Rape exists in the animal kingdom for the same reason it exists in human society. All behavior has a strictly materialistic basis and a sociobiological function which evolved as a survival strategy.

Sexual coercion results in a lot of insemination. Also, physical dominance results in a lot of insemination. Clearly these traits have evolved as a reproductive strategy in many different animals, specifically because of the advantages a larger number of inseminations gives in regard to reproduction.

All human behavior has a sociobiological function, whether we like the ramifications of that function or not.

[exploited]

Yeah but that's just unsupported nonsense with no scientific basis whatsoever.

Where's the rape gene, Dharma? How many people have it?

If it is, in fact, biological, then why has the incidence of rape also happened to have plummeted in recent decades?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00610.html

The number of rapes per capita in the United States has plunged by more than 85 percent since the 1970s, and reported rape fell last year even while other violent offenses increased, according to federal crime data.

This seemingly stunning reduction in sexual violence has been so consistent over the past two decades that some experts say they have started to believe it is accurate, even if they cannot fully explain why it is occurring.

In 1979, according to a Justice Department estimate based on a wide-ranging public survey, there were 2.8 rapes for every 1,000 people. In 2004, the same survey found that the rate had decreased to 0.4 per thousand.

...

This directly contradicts so many of your arguments it's not even funny.