GeoffP said:
Thank you; I would note that this is what happens when we decide to take a break from our ego fight.
More to the subject, I would point out that what we're dealing with is one of six untested hypotheses listed in a 1994 paper.
Furthermore, you've just put more effort into comprehending this particular hypothesis than our neighbor who presented the paper to us has demonstrated. In terms of this community's discourse, that actually seems significant.
But I would suggest that one of the challenges facing sociobiological explanations or justifications—the difference often being how one receives, translates, and further communicates the information—is that we tend to focus too much on the specific issue instead of a more general classification.
Much like the mythical "gay gene", we're not going to find a "rape gene", for instance. But as with biological factors increasing outcomes represented by homosexuality, any fundamental, inherent biological contribution to the rape phenomenon will include rape among diverse results, as opposed to generating a specific rape outcome.
The idea of a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality can make an effective analog here. While there is no gay gene, genetics are a factor in such outcomes. Think of what has to happen, say, in comparison to the outcomes that you experience—unless, of course, you're a closet case—for a man to feel comfortable being gay, and that does not yet include social conditioning. Maybe if someone digitally penetrates you it doesn't hurt per se, but my general understanding at this point is that it would make you uncomfortable to have a couple fingers sliding in and out of your ass. If we start with the basic signal that transmits up to the brain, yes, genes will have some effect on generation, transmission, reception, and translation of the signal itself. Furthermore, genes play a role in brain structure, even down to the arrangement and specific attributes of individual cells. That is to say, even without social conditioning, you, as a heterosexual, will experience a different set of impulses than I would. Even between two gay men, those impulses are different insofar as it is not entirely a matter of conditioning whether one likes a long slowburn, a rabbit-quickie, or simply having the largest phallus possible pound one's ass insensate.
Rape is a social definition. If you ever want a good belly-chuckle at the expense of anthropologists—and, hey, who doesn't enjoy that from time to time?—try reading through the literature that tries to describe rape among ducks or fruit flies. It is not without merit, but there is only so much credibility we can give to describing brain activity in Drosphila as generating a "rape" phenomenon.
And if humans were still primitive hunter-gatherers wandering the savanna in small groups, the idea of "rape" would still be inchoate. To wit, Stephanie Coontz, in her examination of marriage through history, came to reject the idea of possessing women. This is not for a lack of data supporting such attitudes; they appear in various forms rather quite consistently throughout history. But even more consistent than that is the proposition that marriage is a form of networking; its purpose by this outlook would be to acquire in-laws. The long history of treating women as commodities to be traded and possessed would be symptomatic of the networking function. Observed in the networking framework, this objectification of women can be asserted to serve a function, regardless of how crudely fashioned or otherwise repugnant we might find that function in the twenty-first century.
Where the politics of such functional objectification get hung up is in presuming that either the behavior itself or our ability to observe and comprehend it are static. Nothing about evolution reasonably suggests such stasis. And, generally speaking, when it comes down to whether or not a discussion of such potentials is offensive or not abides by the long-recognized axiom that it's all in how you say it.
We might consider an excerpt of our neighbors:
Kittamaru: So... if the big stink is over men wanting power over women... and using rape as a method to get it...
What about men raping other men? Or women raping men? Or men/women raping animals? Or children?
Trooper: Every time you eat, is it to stay alive, or because it taste good? Every time you have sex, is it to reproduce, or because it feels good?
Male bonding isn't just a way to get together in order to oppress females. Men create hierarchies and rankings among themselves. Sex, power, and control feel good.
What about men raping other men? Or women raping men? Or men/women raping animals? Or children?
Trooper: Every time you eat, is it to stay alive, or because it taste good? Every time you have sex, is it to reproduce, or because it feels good?
Male bonding isn't just a way to get together in order to oppress females. Men create hierarchies and rankings among themselves. Sex, power, and control feel good.
Think about the implications of the latter's response. Evolutionary feelgood. Arguments like that remind me of the infamous "grenade" bit, and the response is similar: Aren't we elevating the argument from 'seek help' to 'Men should be locked up'? That is to say, if one's urges are stronger than they are capable of controlling, and would result in harm to others if acted upon, one needs to seek help. But if one's uncontrollable urges to harm others are so inherent to the XY outcome, men need to be locked up for the good of society. This is why explanations of the rape phenomenon that tread into biological determinism are so problematic. We can erase the problem while doing nothing about the harmful behavior simply by calling off civilization.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. In myth, Thelemites were apparently incapable of comprehending the idea of practical boundaries; it is impossible to do what one will if one is dead. You know, maybe someone wants to have sex with that person over there, but that will be the end of doing what he will if either the object of desire or the competition beats him to death in response. And, in the societal context, it is rather quite hard to do what one will if doing what one will lands one in a prison cell. It's kind of the joke about the Rede—"An thou harm none, do what thou will"—insofar as apparently, yes, one must necessarily state the obvious.
As Hawthorne noted in his famous novel, the graveyard and the jail are two prerequisites of any civilized society. Without an assertion of society, there is no rape. We're just ducks or fruit flies or whatever else following our instinctive drive to deposit seed.
The idea of a Thelemic explanation for rape would seem to face observable and obvious practical challenges. Not only does the response noted above appear non sequitur to begin with, it also runs squarely up against the curse of Thelema. And it could be that such arguments are simply the result of overly sharp focus on the rape phenomenon to begin with, which is why I find greater functional value in outlooks that view such behavior as symptomatic of a larger framework.
A practical analogy: Humans have evolved in a way that not only allows but also encourages technological development. To that end, consider our computer data networks. Most of the best networking technology has survived marketplace implementation in the porn and spam industries. And while we might argue over the psychosocial aspects of pornography, or the marketplace value of spam, what such massive internet traffic provides, in a coldly objective view intended to consider the efficacy of network tools, is one of the best field tests anyone could ask for. One might suggest that the internet is an evolutionary outcome according to our inclination toward tool use, and online pornography is symptomatic of that larger framework. It is a much harder argument to suggest that our inclination toward tool use is a specific adaptation to create and distribute pornography. Certes, we did not crawl out of the oceans specifically to become spammers.
Two points about Aldous Huxley's Brave New World worth considering in this context:
• If human reproduction ever becomes so industrialized as we see in speculative fiction, what effect will that have on how people perceive the utility of sexual congress?
• If we somehow practically eliminate fears of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, how would that reduce the intimacy of the offense of rape?
• If we somehow practically eliminate fears of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, how would that reduce the intimacy of the offense of rape?
The question of whether or not you enjoy sticking your penis into anyone's rectum can remain an abstraction; it seems unlikely that if we suddenly had a "Bokanovsky process" or a "wombsys" (pictured above), you would automatically change your feelings about whether you want anyone else's penis, fingers, fist, &c. inserted into your own. How many generations might we speculate would be required before rape really does become just another assault in the minds of the victims? That is, even if women generally become so "pneumatic" as we hear Lenina Crowne is supposed to be, does that mean she will be okay with some random guy deciding to force her? That is, it's one thing to enjoy fucking, quite another to abandon the concept of selection criteria entirely; she may be pneumatic, but there is no guarantee she wants to fuck you.
As long as civilized society exists among sexually-reproducing organisms, there will be a rape phenomenon. And even in a Brave New World, there will still be a difference between being a bad lay and going out of one's way to provide bad service.
