Do you have the faintest idea what I've written? How about a little test? Let's see if you can synthesize the following:
The available evidence in humans, and that in other species, implies a more heterogenous - or properly, heterogenously-thresholded basis with minor loading from biological triggers, the majority being on a scale of social interaction (that has clearly gone horribly wrong). 'Biological' triggers' - by which one should mean not only genetic triggers, but also environmental ones - are likely, but do not form the entirety, majority or even plurality within the influence of all available causes.
Rephrase in your own words. I'll score your work out of 5.
I'm sorry, who are you to be scoring anyone?
What? Because I and just about everyone who isn't a rape apologist disagrees that rape and sexual violence is not set off or caused (fully or in part) by biological triggers, that you think you are somehow superior to everyone who disagrees with your personal opinion?
Oh, if it had only reached your brain.
No, seriously though, nausea is not a normal reaction to reading something that's over your head.
It is when you read something that is wholly and completely utter drivel.
You have not the faintest idea in what way that's offensive, because it isn't, counsellor.
Oh believe me, man who has taken on the mantle of defending rape, I do.
Excuse me? Which environmental triggers? Why in the hell do you now think rape is the victim's fault? What is wrong with you?
You tell me..
You are the one who brought it up in the first place. You know, in the post where you were trying to downplay the issues of power and dominance in rape because you felt it needed to be downplayed so that you could argue the alternate model..
Normally I would bow to your greater expertise in sociopathy.
Just as everyone will now see you as the guy who just told a rape victim that when her rapist broke into her home, pinned her down and raped her while asking her how she liked it now and calling her a bitch, slut and whore was really caused by biological triggers and not his desire to dominate, terrify and abuse me in the worst way possible. That, sir is why you are a sociopath.
Explain the biological triggers for that, smart guy? Go on, I dare you.
Jesus, I just gave several primate examples. Read once in a while.
Read the question, smart guy.
I asked, now pay attention..
"
Which animal species uses sex as a weapon or tool to terrorise and harm others?"
Would you like me to use smaller words? The primate examples you provided do not use sex as a tool or weapon to terrorise and harm others. I'll word it this way.. Which animal species, aside from humans, use sex and the mere threat of sex, to terrorise and harm others? I'll make it easier for you. I'll ask the question in terms of warfare and war. Which animal species, aside from humans, use sex to cause fear, to cause harm as a tool and weapon of war?
Is that clear enough for you?
Let's have James come and give his opinion rather than you making assertions. As for the research: okay, in what way do these pieces of research exclude minor biological triggers? Let's see the disbar-list lawyer try and dissect an actual study, and not something she pulled out of a newspaper editorial. And as far as the research goes, my sources indicate forcible copulations in the remainder of the animal kingdom.
See, I have an unfair advantage here. Or more to the point, your attempt to make rape into being about just sex is not something that will go down well here.
As for the research.. Hundreds of pages of research was provided in the rape thread. Now, certainly, why would you bother reading it when your version of research is to refer to a much discredited book..
"Rape - The price of coercive sexuality" by LMG Clark and DJ Lewis.
"Behavioural characteristics of rapists" by Marita P. McCabea & Michelle Wauchope.
"Rape as a Weapon of Genocide" by Allison Ruby Reid-Cunningham
"Case Study of Rape in Contemporary China - A Cultural-Historical Analysis of Gender and Power Differentials" by Vincent E. Gil and Allen F. Anderson
"Why Do Soldiers Rape? Masculinity, Violence, and Sexuality in the Armed Forces in the Congo (DRC)" by Maria Eriksson Baaz and Maria Stern
I could go on and on.
What you provided in regards to the animal kingdom was certain primates that use violence and a couple that use forcible sex to breed - usually seen in primates that lead a very solitary existence. You have then tried to relate this to the human species as proof of biological triggers to have sex or rape. Which completely disregards the very simple fact that rape is not to breed, and the very simple fact that the majority of rape victims are incapable of having children. In regards to rape in war zones, in Bosnia for example, where soldiers were encouraged to rape to impregnate the captive Bosnian women to make babies, it was not out of the desire to breed, but it was used as a tool of war to dominate and humiliate the opposing side and most of all, it was used as a form of genocide, one that the opposition could not control, but instead, had to live with the humiliation of how these soliders owned and raped their women and soiled them forever. This is about power, domination and humiliation.
If you were literate, this would be insulting. As it is, it's just childish nonsense.
Sadly, it is not. But nice try.
Very good: Bells found a fact. But even your sources indicate a group ethnic dynamic against oppressed populations, which undermines your argument.
The whole premise of rape caused by biology as you and your ilk try to argue is that you distinctly and repeatedly refuse and cannot account for the facts of child rape, elderly rape, same sex rape. Which is why you and people who believe like you are often laughed at and completely discredited.
You are a fool, and a ridiculous one at that. Is this how you practice your career also? Character assassination, flawed inference, runaway arguments?
What's the matter? Can't cope with someone who doesn't fawn over your greatness?
Wait, are you saying you think deploring murder, theft and rape is a bad thing? Exactly what kind of lawyer are you?
One of the most disgusting traits that you have on this site is your intellectual dishonesty.
Cite or retract. You know, like adult debaters do. I mean, are you so unutterably stupid that you don't actually know what ad hominem means? How is that a defense? For fuck's sake.
Cite or retract what? That you defended a guy's view of rape.. A guy who claimed that the only women he knew are sluts and who then recommended to a fellow member that his son should just drug and rape his ex-girlfriend?
Dude, you openly did it, even after you saw Fraggle, Tiassa and my response to this individual. You jumped in with eyes wide open. Don't start whining that you and your sick perverted attempts to redefine rape has been caught out.
Now you're defending your own straw man. Sad.
No, what is sad is your dishonesty. But not unusual.
No: when I say stick to the law, counsellor, it means don't comment on things you're not qualified to understand. Do you need me to explain libel to you also? I can't do your alleged job and mine also, Bells.
What is your area of expertise again?
See, I have over 15 years of working with rape victims, cases of rape and I am a victim of rape. What qualifications do you have again? I mean you can try and explain libel to me, but you are also the one trying to convince everyone that rape has biological triggers and is kind of about sex, because if it was about power and dominance, that can be achieved in other ways.. And in doing so, you have cited a work that has been greatly and widely discredited and panned by all.. I don't really see you getting far with that argument right now.. At all.
In the minds of the imprecise and sloppy, possibly. But why would the rest of us think so, Bells? Here's an interesting question: do you get the difference between all-or-nothing and partial correlation? No? Then why are you arguing, Bells? I mean, I know you're going to pretend you never read this later on, but it's good to highlight it.
Once again, the moment you start using the excuses you have provided for rape in this thread, you have provided a reason for rape. A validation and an attempt to redefine it the very language used to define and explain it. In short, you are darksidZz. The only difference is that while he explains biological triggers using common terms, you use scientific terms and think that makes it more palatable and acceptable.
You certainly seemed to think that the proposition of my rape was amusing. That's kind of a dead giveaway for a deviant personality.
No actually. I did not. You are the one who embellished and turned it into something sick and funny, even after it was pointed out to you, you kept doing it. Which leads me to question what it is about you that would lead you to do that?
Given your command of the English language, I bet that's literally true. But you don't get to cry wolf after your behaviour. At all. You're sadly deluded and rabid in your constant attention- and agenda-seeking, let alone harassment.
I want you to sit down and actually think about that statement and consider just how and why you might be wrong.
Gee, I never would have guessed that previously probably a dozen times. So instead of carrying on in a debate you don't seem to comprehend, why not go and learn something? I'm not responsible for your inadequacies, Bells, careerwise, in language or comprehension.
Just as you are the only one responsible for your argument in this thread and in the rape thread where you defended a rape apologist in the hope that you would get a fight out of it.
See, what makes you a hack is that you consistently fail to acknowledge or recognise the years of research that has gone into understanding rape. Instead, out of the blue and after having admitted that you have no knowledge of it, you demand that it has to simply be about sex. You then try to deny this while re-affirming the exact same argument as your defense. As I said, there are no words to express my disgust at you right now, for a variety of reasons.
And there's that sexism. Blissful. Good Jesus, I really hope you don't have any sons. I can't imagine how messed up they might be after a couple 'advocacy sessions' with you. Can you imagine what you might do if they dared to disagree with you about an intellectual matter that you thought was somehow related to an agenda of yours?
I actually do have two sons. And you can be certain that they will not be brought up to believe that rape, that having sex with someone without consent is caused by biological (and environmental) triggers. In other words, I am not bringing my sons up to believe that their sex and thus, their hereditary biology, means that they can feel entitled to rape. But I can see how you would have a problem with that. And that's fine.
Corruptisima republica plurimae legates, if I may paraphrase. Tell your colleague he's a sad example of why the fate of nations doesn't belong in the hands of the disciples of lawyers, and of the near-absolute intellectual corruption of said 'profession'. Remind him of the meaning of nuance, rationality and reason. Or better get, if he has any real guts, invite him on. I do love to dissect idiots.
I mean, assuming he, like the rest of your fantasies, even exists.
That's okay. See, the response to that is that you're just the guy who downplayed rape and all that it entails because it doesn't advance your 'alternate model'.
And what an 'alternate model' it is..
Women, gather round, read carefully, because this gay man—who once, long ago, feigned sexual interest in your bodies—is about to shine a spotlight on some hidden truths about your natural design. It's by no means a perfect system, but evolution has endowed you with some extraordinary, almost preternatural abilities to prevent your own sexual assault. And these abilities are especially pronounced when you're ovulating.
Although it can certainly take other forms, rape will be defined throughout this article as the use of force, or threat of force, to achieve penile-vaginal penetration of a woman without her consent. Whether or not human males evolved to rape women is, to put it mildly, a controversial topic. The flames were fanned especially with the publication, about a decade ago, of Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer's A Natural History of Rape, which presented evidence of what appear to be biological adaptations in human males (as well as males of many other species) specialized for forcibly coercing females into copulation. They argued that rape is an adaptive behavior in certain contexts; for example, when consensual partners are unavailable. There is some evidence that convicted rapists are physically unattractive, at least as judged by women on the basis of their mug shots. And spousal rape is most likely to occur when the husband finds out (or suspects) his wife has been unfaithful, suggesting that he is attempting to supplant another man's seed. (In fact, the distinctive, mushroom-capped shape of the human penis is designed to perform the specialized function of removing competitors' sperm, which indicates an ancestral history of females having sex with multiple males within a 24-hr period.) Furthermore, UCLA psychologist Neil Malamuth and his colleagues found that one-third of men admit that they would engage in some type of sexual coercion if they could be assured they would suffer no negative consequences, and many report having related masturbatory fantasies.
Their findings were, to be honest, hysterical.. Now, while most are laughing hysterically, oh sorry, digesting with all seriousness at the biological reasons for rape detailed by the very authors and the book you so proudly brought up earlier, using the same arguments for biological triggers for rape that you have been arguing for with your "alternate theory", let's carry on, shall we? Because this gets better..
Thornhill and Palmer, Malamuth, and the many other investigators studying rape through an evolutionary lens, take great pains to point out that "adaptive" does not mean "justifiable," but rather only mechanistically viable. Yet dilettante followers may still be inclined to detect a misogyny in these investigations that simply is not there. As University of Michigan psychologist William McKibbin and his colleagues write in a 2008 piece for the Review of General Psychology, "No sensible person would argue that a scientist researching the causes of cancer is thereby justifying or promoting cancer. Yet some people argue that investigating rape from an evolutionary perspective justifies or legitimizes rape."
The unfortunate demonization of this brand of inquiry is rooted in the fallacy of biological determinism (according to which men are programmed by their genes to rape and have no free will to do otherwise) and the naturalistic fallacy (that because rape is natural it must be acceptable). These are resoundingly false assumptions that reveal a profound ignorance of evolutionary biology. Yet the purpose of the remaining article is not to belabor that tired ideological dispute, but to look at things from the female genetic point of view. We've heard the argument that men may have evolved to sexually assault women. Have women evolved to protect themselves from men?
Sound familiar,
smart one?
While it's debatable that a rape module lurks in the male brain, there is absolutely no question that rape is a distressingly common occurrence in our species. One study from 1992 found that about 13 percent of American women are raped; the real number is almost certainly higher since so many sexual assaults go unreported. And aside from its self-evident harms, there is no question that rape seriously impairs a woman's reproductive interests. To say that rape pregnancies are costly to a woman's genetic success would be an enormous understatement. Not only do such conceptions completely undermine the female's mate selection—and so the quality of her offsprings' genes—but rapists are unlikely to stick around and help raise children, putting such children at a significant disadvantage. In short, it's a catastrophic mess from the vantage point of the mother's genes.
Given the enormity of this adaptive problem for ancestral women, it is plausible that human females would have evolved a set of counter-adaptations to protect them from being raped, and that these anti-rape adaptations would be activated, specifically, during the woman's most fertile period, the periovulatory phase of her reproductive cycle. So with the foregoing theoretical sketch in mind, I now present to you an up-to-date list of four empirically validated "phase dependent female rape-avoidance mechanisms:"
Well it's only natural, is it not? After all, if men evolved to rape as per those who argue the 'biology' argument, or your "alternate theory", it is only natural that women will have developed defense mechanisms to prevent and thwart their would be rapists.. This, I assume, would also apply to marital rape which the authors who support your contention have advised, would only happen if the husband thought his wife was having sex with another man and so, his raping her with his penis shaped to remove the other's semen from her vagina is only ensuring the continuation of his familial line. Because this is biology after all and biology is the need and expectation of ensuring that you breed.. Now, onto women and how we evolved to prevent and avoid rape as prescribed by the likes of you..
1. When threatened by sexual assault, ovulating women display a measurable increase in physical strength. In 2002, SUNY-Albany psychologists Sandra Petralia and Gordon Gallup had 192 female undergraduate students read a story about either a female character being stalked by a suspicious male stranger in a parking lot (ending with: "As she inserts the key into her car door she feels his cold hand on her shoulder …") or a similar story in which the female character is surrounded by happy people on a warm summer's day (ending with: "She starts her car, adjusts the stereo, and as she pulls out of the parking lot those nearby can hear her music blasting"). The researchers measured the handgrip strength of each participant before and after she read the story, and compared the scores. Petralia and Gallup also knew from the results of a urine-based ovulation test kit where in their reproductive cycles each participant was, so the researchers could differentiate among women in the menstrual, follicular, ovulatory, and luteal phases. A fifth group consisted of those women who were on contraceptives at the time of the study. The results were unambiguous: Only the ovulating women who read the sexual assault scenario exhibited an increase in handgrip strength. Ovulating women who read the control passage and nonovulatory women who read the sexual assault material grasped with the same intensity as before.
2. Ovulating women overestimate strange males' probability of being rapists. Add this one to a growing list of adaptive cognitive biases—evolved psychological distortions that orient people toward strategic decision-making. These findings come from a 2007 report by Christine Garver-Apgar and her colleagues. "When the costs of being sexually victimized are highest," reason these investigators, "women should shift their perceptions to decrease false negative errors at the expense of making more false positive errors. Thus, we predicted that women perceive men as more sexually coercive at fertile points of their cycle than at non-fertile points." The researchers showed 169 normally ovulating women videotaped interviews with various men and asked them to rate the men on several dimensions, including their tendencies toward sexual aggression, kindness, or faithfulness. The more fertile the woman was at the time of her judging, the more likely she was to describe the men as "sexually coercive." Ovulating women didn't see these men as being less kind, faithful, or likely to commit—only more inclined to rape them.
3. Ovulating women play it safe by avoiding situations that place them at increased risk of being raped. Fending off would-be rapists and pigeonholing strange men as potential sex fiends sounds exhausting—wouldn't it make more sense to avoid dangerous places and unknown males altogether? That is exactly what ovulating women tend to do. At least two studies have demonstrated that women at the peak of their fertility are less likely than their peers to have engaged in high-risk activities such as walking alone in a park or forest, letting a stranger into the house, or stopping their cars in a remote place over the preceding 24 hours. Importantly, as German investigators Arndt Bröder and Natalia Hohmann established, ovulating women are not less active in general—they're still busy shopping, going to church, visiting friends, and so on—but they avoid doing those things that make them sexually vulnerable.
4. Women become more racist when they're ovulating. At least white American ovulating women do when it comes to thinking about black American men. Those are the jaw-dropping, politically incorrect findings of Michigan State University's Carlos Navarrete and colleagues. White, undergraduate females were evaluated for race bias using several variants of an implicit association test, which asks participants to perform a word-matching task that indicates the relative accessibility of certain stereotypes. The women who happened to be ovulating scored especially high when it came to fear of black (as opposed to white) men, a fact that the authors interpret as reflecting an evolved disposition to avoid so-called "out-group males," who "may not have been subject to the same social controls as in-group members and would have constituted a threat in antagonistic situations." In this case, skin color serves as a convenient marker of group identity. (The authors concede that people of different skin colors came into contact with one another only in recent times, evolutionarily speaking, but propose that any physical trait that serves to demarcate an out-group member would be processed by ovulating females as a sort of "hazard heuristic.") Stereotypes about the particular out-group being prone to violence may also play a role, so, at least in American society, cultural transmission works alongside evolutionary biology in promoting racism. It remains unclear if the same race bias occurs in ovulating women from other races: Do black women show heightened fear of white men?
I guess the 1 in 6 women who are raped, not to mention the countless men and children who are raped, simply did not evolve to have a better hand grip, simply view all men as being rapists when ovulating (again, this just disregards children, males and the elderly who fall outside of this group), who avoid being alone and who are less active while ovulating (yeah, I know, men, children and the elderly and women who cannot ovulate, for example, just fall outside of this group and so just don't count) and are not racist towards black men (this also discounts people of other races and people who are not ovulating women)...
Well I must say, I feel somewhat let down by my genetic heritage..
Your biological trigger argument is what the anti-rape crowd, as the author goes on to describe such nonsense, often resort to. Stand proud, smart man. Stand proud.
And you should. Because
even politicians are using the biology and the fact that men evolved to be stronger than women to excuse rape, and he even used abortion as a reason -
a cause that goes right to your heart, does it not? Then of course we have the politician
who declared that women are able to shut down their reproductive cycle if they are raped.. The ways in which people use biology to further their cause is truly astounding. And I am not even touching on the one who declared that a pregnancy that results from rape - you know, the biological reason that men rape is to spread their seed -
is because it's what God intended..
Enjoy what you sow, GeoffP.. Reap it well. Because this is the ideology you support when you try to alter the actual reality of rape to fit into your "alternative theory".