The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity

No.

Do you completely disagree with Jerry Coyne then?

"It is true that in recent decades the discussion of rape has been dominated by such notions, though one must remember that they originated not as scientific propositions but as political slogans deemed necessary to reverse popular misconceptions about rape."—Jerry Coyne

Why can't you just admit that the popular feminist slogan that 'rape is not about sex, but power' is only partially true? You don’t think that there are plenty rapists who use violence as a tool to force a non-consenting person to have sex?

Elliot Rodger was a misogynist but is that all he was?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have my apologies - I missed that

Of course there is a sexual motive in many cases of rape... if it was purely about abuse or control or power, they'd just beat the hell out of them instead and it'd be called assault and battery. The point is, though, that the comments being made in this thread about rape being all about having sex (such as by GeoffP) are absolute bupkis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where did GeoffP say that rape was only about having sex? Link, please.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I already answered that.

Because Coyne is right, it’s painfully obvious.

No, the underlying theme is your abusive and dishonest behavior.

Groth is a psychologist.

Did this hypothetical person of yours state that he hated and wanted to kill Christians, as well?

Elliot Rodgers admitted to hating men and women. He fantasized about killing both men and women. He was not only a misogynist, but a misanthropist, and mentally ill.

 

(Insert Title Here)

You don't understand ownership culture, do you?

He wasn't rewarded with a woman; the women he wanted "willing love and respect" from were prizes to him. Something to be won for his performance and perfection. This is a symptom of ownership culture.

Basically, ownership culture is a widely-practiced set of ideas and behaviors tacitly or explicitly expressed, in which one person or group of people assert ownership or other fundamental governance over other people.

In the Gay Fray, ownership culture emerged in such statements as, "No daughter/son of mine ....!" And, in truth, this isn't much different from the statistically normal from the more traditional, heterosexual version that so many from my generation remember: "No daughter of mine is gonna marry a nigger/kike/wetback/dago/&c."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

A modern expression celebrated among some social conservatives is the "Purity Ball", in which fathers pledge to "cover" their daughters sexually. Or, as I put it in 2008:

The unregulated sexual property: It seems incomparably creepy to me to imagine ever saying to my daughter, “You will only have sex with people whom I approve of!”​

Social differentiation includes a pretty straightforward result: It is not healthy to integrate sexual socialization between generations within a family unit.

Generally speaking, it is not healthy for adults to pursue children for sexual purposes, nor vice versa. However, when that adult-child orbit occurs within a family unit, the harm potential increases by orders of magnitude.

And we see in the conservative outlook even more ownership of women tacitly asserted. What takes place inside her body is apparently subject to all sorts of other people's approval, be it the state, a parent, a spouse or partner, or some random church down the road.

Furthermore, as we are periodically reminded, there are plenty who still think of women in a context derived from coverture, such as Dick Black, the former military prosecutor who thinks rape is natural, and has publicly argued that a man cannot rape his wife. Underpinning both of those arguments is ownership culture that manifests in a man's claim to sexual rights over a woman's body.

I am sometimes puzzled by such propositions as, "He never expressed the desire to own women, only to have their willing love and respect". You might as well try to tell me it's not rape if he told her how much he loves her because her eyes said yes.

Think of what our world would be like if human beings were so straightforward and explicit as your proposition demands.

Indeed, things would never have gone so far as they have.

 

His continued quotation of Thornhill and Palmers study, which seem to indicate rape is primarily sexually motivated, implies such a statement. As for him actually saying it outright, I will re-read through the thread and get back to you on that; if I am mistaken, then I do apologize.

 

I should think you damn well should, Kitta. Are you usually in the habit of believing something because Bells said it? And the continued quotation of Thornhill and Palmers is from Bells, not me. Not once have I ever said that I accept the position that sexual assault is entirely genetic or biological. I'm a statistical geneticist. It is inimical to suggest a single source for any effect, and it is ridiculous of Sarkoja up there - backed up firmly by the likes of Tal Hajus - to claim I said or thought anything of the kind. It's even more ridiculous when the idiot can convince other people on the basis of invective. In fact, I don't even know that Thornhill and Palmer suggested that it was entirely genetic; again, it's an inimical statement to a statistical geneticist. Jesus Christ. I triple give up. I dare you, Bells, and Tiassa to locate this statement of mine; tell you what - if you can find it, I'll happily resign permanently from the forum. If you can't, how about whoever takes the challenge just step down?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That seems fair, in the case of such an obvious faux-pas of mine, doesn't it? Of course... I understand if you're all too scared to try me on this. Discretion the better part and all that. (But really: Tsk tsk. No courage of ill convictions?)

Oh, and that study Bells cited with a total n = 20 would have nowhere near the power to pick up any atavistic impulses like the ones I'm describing. It's a pilot study at best. Twenty people might pick up the majority effect - social power issues - but not some residual biological promoter in a threshold system. Come on. If you don't understand the concepts, stay out.

 

Ironically, this is true.

And that's Bells making that assertion about the counterproposal. When she's not cooking up rapey scenarios about me herself, mind. But, on SF, that's all okay.

 

Coyne's warning is between the lines in that paragraph: people do talk about evolutionary psychology, and we've all heard the imprecations about it in lecture, ages ago. And he's right - stay away, because it's perilous, because of the rabid types, and because psychology itself is a cloud over animal impulse, as it should be. (That being said, it seems more likely that human psychology has selected against those impulses - and not for them, as Bells thinks - as the 'genes of our better natures'.) But are all the promoting factors completely gone? That's what I wonder, and what I've been trying to get across to the dunderheads.

 

¡How Dare You Not Be Meek!

Remember that in the nineties the caveman theory of masculinity was raised as an attempted justification for a husband's infidelity. And while there is certainly an arguable biological component, that justifcation aimed to overcome history by ignoring it. That is, perhaps it is well enough to argue that men are biolgically impelled to infidelity, but the question necessarily arises, then, why they enter legally-binding monogamous contracts.

In the present, it is obvious that some are trying to ignore history. The biological is the biological is the biological. Great. If one wants to argue and believe this, they can, but no amount of "proof" can stand if it requires the absence of history, and no amount of justifying human males as rapey savages will stand as long as it necessarily excludes the observable fact of society.

There is a news item circulating right now about a baby requiring organ reconstruction following a rape.

So ... he just fucked an eight month old baby into critical condition. Biological explanations ... go. And do be sure to explain why that primal, reproductive urge would have caused the accused, Julio Iturralde, to desire the baby instead of the twenty-five year-old woman he was with.
____________________

Notes:

Hansen, Hilary. "Baby Needs Organ Reconstruction After Alleged Rape". The Huffington Post June 16, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. June 17, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/julio-iturralde-jasmin-davis-baby-rape_n_5500530.html

 

Who in the hell would continue a conversation with a dishonest twisting troll? Not I.

 

Body Counts, Culinary Expression, and Other Notes

It is a disconnection occurring between science and social policy. If the science supports this biological trigger argument, then the U.S. is in terrible trouble, because we have no device in place to deal with it. That is to say, sure, maybe men need to be locked up, but the law doesn't allow it.

Indeed, in the biological trigger argument, it seems the onus should not be so much on the women as the men. After all, as Billvon argued:

However, a woman should use common sense and not marry violent, irresponsible and/or criminal men. Fortunately most make such sensible decisions - which is why that particular bit of sense is, in fact, common. This, of course, does not excuse rape."​

Now, setting aside that his argument of "common sense" translates to "adherence to unfounded myth" instead of "obvious course according to reliable outcomes", we might then consider the men's selection of rape targets.

If this is about men being fundamentally inclined toward rape, then we might say that instead of putting the onus on women to select better men, it is up to the rapey men to find the women who will allow them to conduct themselves as such.

But no. In this argument, it is simply unfair to put that burden on men.

These advocatesmight think they're smart, but in the end they are simply disgusting and, more importantly, dangerous.

Here, I think, is an aspect our neighbors are overlooking: If it's ever, say, Trooper's turn to be fucked and beaten into a bloody pulp in an alley, should we treat her with the same cruel hatred she shows rape survivors today?

The thing is that as much as we might think such a moment would bring us satisfaction, it doesn't. Poetic justice that ends up with the class asshole finding a Slurpee poured down his shorts is one thing, but there is no justice, poetic or otherwise, in the idea of Trooper being fucked and beaten into code blue. It is always easy to dispense self-righteous, hateful advice if one entertains the notion that they are somehow immune. But I sincerely doubt that, should it ever be Trooper's turn, or perhaps someone close to her, that she will cling to this misogyny she's undertaken for the sake of how she does or doesn't like someone else.

When I think of the rape survivors I've known over the years, two tragedies stick out in my mind, and one is relatively recent.

The recent one is the realization that women's expectation of sexual violence is real enough that it's true, some women stop considering rape by its name. And, it's also true that, whatever psychological disruptions rape may cause are frequently masked within that social context. That is to say, as I've gotten older, the damage expressed by rape survivors generally seems to lessen with age, barring extraordinary circumstances.

And, yes, one can say what he or she will about the suggestion of "extraordinary circumstances" in rape. That is, one might say, "So, this happened, and I can't sleep, and it's tearing me up", but age and guile, or perhaps, as morbid as it sounds, practice, generally means I'm not sitting up all night, back to back with a rape survivor, guarding against Satan itself emerging from the shadows in the corner of the room.

But the longer knowledge is the more important one, and, for me, stems from a tale that involves sitting back to back all night in a room with a delusional rape survivor fearing the Devil would emerge from the shadows. Look, it might sound coldly analytical from the outside perspective, but the survivors I've known who have recovered most strongly are the ones who had genuine, loving support, people who would give their lives if necessary to create a safe realm for their wounded friends and family to heal.

And those who faltered? Those who didn't make it through? Those we can no longer call rape survivors?

You know the punch line, and it's not funny at all. Trooper? Geoff? Billvon? It's enough to give a person religion, if only so they might pray, "God help the rape survivor in their company."

The ones who didn't make it through drowned in the flood of blame and hatred against the victim, and asphyxiated in the toxic justifications awarded the rapist.

Body counts are one thing. This is life and we are human. But the idea of body counts just because some men want to improve their chances of getting some tail?

If I cut your throat with a kitchen knife, is it murder, or culinary expression? Maybe I could stomp your head in with futból spikes; it's not murder, but a sports celebration. Shoot you with a rifle? It's not murder, but a successful hunt.

 

Nor I.
Let us depart this unseemly thread.

 

So the whole peacock routine that most men in our culture engage in at various times in their lives is somehow not a competition for the prize of female affection and its associated bonuses? Even Elliot Rodger with his compromised social IQ had sense enough to figure that one out.

Or pick some legitimate reason for parental angst such as drug addiction, gang affiliation or criminal enterprise that would negatively impact the family’s reputation. Most families feel they have a stake in the performance of its members, that some irrationally substantiate that concern does not delegitimize the real sense of familial investment.

But that description of ER’s motives fits his stated intentions. There is no documented case of him ever attempting to sexually or emotionally dominate the women he desired. From his perspective it was women who were dominant, it was women who had the power to reward or punish the men they evaluate. In his eyes they were akin to corrupt leaders doling out favors to undeserving cronies, and this continued injustice for him was too much to endure.

 

I think, what kills me more than anything in this thread... is that there seems to be some idea that women are, somehow, both entirely responsible for getting raped (they wanted it, they did something to provoke it, they dressed provocatively, et al) and that men are simply "acting as biology demands to ensure the future of the species"...

I just... what? I'm sorry, when did we, as Homo Sapiens, become a bunch of knuckle-dragging, group-orgy, beings of pure biological urge? I thought we were supposed to be intellectual and sentient beings capable of recognizing basal desires and finding socially proper and functionally equitable ways to satisfy them...

When did that supposedly change?

 

Bringing up the extreme case is not the same as continued quotation of Thornhill and Palmers study. Are you going to blame this on your English too?

Then responded to Trooper's question as to whether he agreed with Thornhill and Palmer, regardless of all evidence to the contrary and no genetic evidence to support this:

Bringing up the extreme case is not the same as continued quotation of Thornhill and Palmers study. You cite them every other post. And have done so again.

Yes, I could be more insulting to Kittamaru. This is what you want?

So cite the multivariate statistics behind it. But again, 133 is not a huge sample size and in this case it's all offenders. No out-group.

Sorry, but as an expert, a different size and sampling system is needed to completely exclude the possibility of atavistic impulse. Moreover, I haven't seen the relative significance of means relating to the alternate hypothesis. I can't rely on you for this, seemingly.

I very much doubt any of them have proposed my point as such.

Well, this is presently unknown. If I took the abstracts you're reporting as absolutely representative, and if I were being a little short-sighted about power, I'd say there is no support. But based on the above, the proper way to describe is not effectively tested. If you have more studies, I would say "present them" but the discussion is clearly done.

Well, yes, when you try to characterise me as an apologist for rape, that's about what you earn.

So don't demonise others in a discussion. Simple.

The fucking WHAT NOW? Who the hell is arguing that? Ah, I get it: unsubstantiated and misread generalisation. Yeah, I've seen that before. Nice one. Out.

Oh, and someone explain statistics to Tiassa.