Rape & Human Evolution

@JEELEN. I fail to see how you showed Narz to be incorrect when he said "Rape is sex without consent", and here is what you 'countered' it with. I'll highlight the times it actually agrees with what Narz said.
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms sexual penetration initiated against one or more individuals without the consent of those individuals. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent.[1][2][3][4] The term rape is sometimes used interchangeably with the term sexual assault.[5]

The definition of rape varies both in different parts of the world and at different times in history.[25] It is defined in many jurisdictions as sexual intercourse, or other forms of sexual penetration, initiated by a person against another person without the consent of that person.[25] The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime defines it as "sexual intercourse without valid consent,"[6][26] and the World Health Organization defined it in 2002 as "physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object".[27]

The elements that form the definition of rape under the ICC Statute are that:[28][29]

"The perpetrator invaded the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body."

"The invasion was committed by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment, or the invasion was committed against a person incapable of giving genuine consent."
Basically what you quoted reinforced what Narz said, that rape is sex without consent.
 
The nonresistance advocacy/rationale isn't the issue. The problem for me was the poster's insulting mischaracterization of rape (i.e. Rape is only dangerous/violent if the victim fights back; Rapists just want sex, etc), trotting the tripe that women can only use sex appeal when threatened and nonsense about male sexuality in general, etc. Most disturbing for me was the info that the 9-year old younger sister has presumably been "mentally prepared" (or scarred?) by being taught such nonsense and was apparently given very bad counterproductive advice on top of it all.

Interesting that the only mischaracterization I see here is your account of her rationale.

What would your counter-counterproductive advice be ?
 
You know, anatomically modern humans evolved long before we had stuff like tribes or villages.
Indeed. One of my pet peeves is how evolution is so frequently used to describe something other than a biological process which hasn't occurred in a major way in Homo sapiens for perhaps 500,000 years and in Homo sapiens sapiens for nearly 200,000 years.
 
Indeed. One of my pet peeves is how evolution is so frequently used to describe something other than a biological process which hasn't occurred in a major way in Homo sapiens for perhaps 500,000 years and in Homo sapiens sapiens for nearly 200,000 years.

Well it depends what you mean by major. I'd assert that the smallpox resistance in European populations has been a form of evolution. A change in gene frequencies occurred over time.
 
While it involves both violence and a sexual element, its a true form of violence and a false form of sex. Looks much more like its under column A than column B.

If you define sex, the verb, as an intentional activity rather than a specific state of anatomical affairs, sure? But people can and do get pregnant from this ''false'' form of sex. This heavyhanded redefining(I've heard it elsewhere, I know it's not just you and Jeelen) makes no sense. It's the sort of hoop jumping that makes people start using terms like ''sex sex'' and ''rape rape.''

I still don't see how molestation is the opposite of sex without a significant redefinition. The opposite of sex is celibate, or something like that.
 
If you define sex, the verb, as an intentional activity rather than a specific state of anatomical affairs, sure? But people can and do get pregnant from this ''false'' form of sex. This heavyhanded redefining(I've heard it elsewhere, I know it's not just you and Jeelen) makes no sense. It's the sort of hoop jumping that makes people start using terms like ''sex sex'' and ''rape rape.''

I still don't see how molestation is the opposite of sex without a significant redefinition. The opposite of sex is celibate, or something like that.

White conservative male asserts essential characteristic of sex to be be possibility of conception, blathers about heavy handed redefinitions

Tough lucks gays and contraception users, you've in fact been doing a different verb all this time!
 
A semantic war isn't really necessary. There's legal consent, there's violence, there's threat, there's sexual touching, and there's sex-with-orgasm. Might as well just move forwards. Arguing what Venn Diagram a specific word falls into shouldn't take more than a couple sentence before a consensus on what word means what is reached. If you need to invent a cromulent word, do so, but it's likely unnecessary.

Narz has failed to show the heritability of the raping behaviour.

Is this this least bit necessary? I mean, it leaps out as being in the 'obvious' category.
 
White conservative male asserts essential characteristic of sex to be be possibility of conception, blathers about heavy handed redefinitions

Tough lucks gays and contraception users, you've in fact been doing a different verb all this time!

And I'm a conservative now again, sure. Whatever. Bearing has what here again? As if the possibility of conception is exhaustive rather than indicative. Sorry, you don't have a sexually transmitted disease from rape, you didn't have sex. Maybe you have an innate bodily defense against it in case of rape, eh? Heard that one before. Not better when it's implied by your definitions rather than spelled out by a dipshat Republican representative.
 
Is this this least bit necessary? I mean, it leaps out as being in the 'obvious' category.

I'm extremely distrustful about making up evolutionary fables because they are "obvious". The textbooks of last century asserted all kinds of dumb things "must" have happened because they were "obvious".

To step away from biology into economics, their fairy story is that currency evolved out of a barter economy despite no barter economies ever being observed in the wild. Noone ever paid in fish for a roof on their house, the closest that is usually seen is trading for big favours and small favours which are called in later.
 
And I'm a conservative now again, sure. Whatever. Bearing has what here again? As if the possibility of conception is exhaustive rather than indicative. Sorry, you don't have a sexually transmitted disease from rape, you didn't have sex. Maybe you have an innate bodily defense against it in case of rape, eh? Heard that one before. Not better when it's implied by your definitions rather than spelled out by a dipshat Republican representative.

The obsession with conception is a religious/conservative one.

And I don't follow what the rest of your post is about. I was just saying that its dumb to pick a silly criteria and then complain about other people being bad at redefining things.
 
Well it depends what you mean by major. I'd assert that the smallpox resistance in European populations has been a form of evolution. A change in gene frequencies occurred over time.

The presence of sickle cell anemia in the populations of humans traditionally occupying low-lying and riverine regions of Western and Central Africa is another good example
 
I guess you've never heard of BDSM.
Ah, now.

You're talking about quite a niche interest here.

I'm honestly no expert on the subject - but you'll soon put me right, I'm sure.

To the best of my understanding the "violence" in BDSM isn't actually what most people think of as violence. To take an extreme example (and most BDSM doesn't actually involve it - but is more a kind of stylized role-playing business), the whipping involved is not so much intended to give pain but is really more a kind of caress - albeit a rather vigorous caress.

Still, it's never been my bag. Well... not much.
 
I'm extremely distrustful about making up evolutionary fables because they are "obvious". The textbooks of last century asserted all kinds of dumb things "must" have happened because they were "obvious".

There's obvious, and then there's obvious. That rape is both (a) genetically heritable and (b) leads to a reproductive advantage in some ways is wildly clear.
 
It just is.
(a) the urge to rut is genetically heritable
(b) willingness to use violence is genetically heritable

What else is there?

Come on man, you've got some kind of biological/scientific qualification if I remember correctly, this is way beneath your level.

What gene or gene complex was responsible for ignoring whatever social construction of consent they used in paleolithic cultures?
 
Top Bottom