Talk:Sociobiological theories of rape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

	This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology .
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

See: Talk:Sociobiological theories of rape/delete1 for the first time this article was nominated for deletion. This page was nominated again in July 2004; view discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Evolutionary psychology of rape.

[edit] Crap

Uh... why do we have this page? This stuff is pseudo-scientific crap, and at best it should be a footnote in the rape article. These authors have NOT established the evolutionary basis of rape, only speculated about it - their conclusions are not well-supported enough to merit a full article descriptive of their work. The evidence they cite is piss-poor and confounded by hundreds of factors that they don't (and can't) correct for. Graft 14:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia aren't supposed to be original research. Authors don't have to establish proof before writing an article that simply describes a theory. It's possible that this article needs some tempering. Maybe an NPOV warning or cleanup, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be deleted. Rhobite 14:42, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Almost every proposition made in this article is dubious and deserves to be qualified. Shall I insert such a remark after every sentence here? I'd rather delete it and stick a single sentence about it in the rape article. Graft 14:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This was on VFD and made it through, although I'm not sure whether the decision was to merge it with rape or keep it. Anyway the information here deserves to be presented, despite the fact that you believe it's pseudo-scientific crap. We don't delete articles like Eugenics, so we don't delete this one. Rhobite 15:22, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but it should be presented as pseudo-scientific crap, like Eugenics. Sentences like this:

Aside from the father's fear for his daughter's safety, he may be acting on an instinct to ensure the quality of his genetic descendents.

are absolute junk. The article treats the entire subject as sound theory, whereas in fact it is a fringe idea, and is nearly universally panned by people who actually study the psychology of rape. Graft 15:35, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, first thing, I'm going to rename this to "Sociobiological theories of rape", to reflect the fact that these interpretations are theory rather than an established consensus. Then the rewrite can start. -- The Anome 15:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This now needs:

trimming of purple prose
attribution of views
noting that these are not mainstream scientific views
putting the opposing case, also with attribution

-- The Anome 15:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've now made a start on trimming and attribution. I've also removed a lot of stuff that was just gabble. This is truly a dreadful article, but this is a controversy where the right thing to do is to forcefully put forward the evidence against these theories, rather than simply nuke the article. -- The Anome 16:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Anne Fausto-Sterling's "Putting Woman in Her (Evolutionary) Place" for a detailed criticism of these sociobiological theories. -- The Anome 17:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Although I haven't read it, I've read critiques of her critique that say it isn't based in science. Graft 17:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments against sociobiological theories of rape

This section appears to be slapped together, and is extremely poorly written. Can you please provide some specific references of who posseses these opinions, and what sort of credentials they might have? Sam [Spade] 18:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

Is this page still on VfD? I can't find it. How did the vote go? Sam [Spade] 18:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted text

Sam - the text you're reintroducing is totally unnecessary. The article doesn't need to include discussions of sexual selection and other such texts. E.g.:

Next to staying alive, living things want most to reproduce. They compete with one another in order to continue their bloodline. This competition exists both within species and between species. In species that reproduce through sexual intercourse, both sexes compete in order to select a mate.

Every article doesn't need to reintroduce every topic it covers. These ideas, if unfamiliar, are adequately covered in other articles in this encyclopedia. Graft 18:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are dead wrong. Wiki is not paper, and this info is useful here. Try addressing my questions above, while I revert your removal of useful info from the article. Thanks, Sam [Spade] 18:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You even reverted to the old format and spelling errors? WTF?!?! Read some phreaking policy on wikipedia:revert or Wikipedia:How to edit a page, wikiquette, etc... will ya? Sam [Spade] 18:49, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, the stuff you are restoring is nonsense, and needs to be chopped out. Organisms "want" to reproduce, do they? This is the pathetic fallacy, right at the start. The restored text then gets worse from there on in, using the fabulously inappropriate term "bloodline" (think about it -- what's special about red blood cells?), confusing mate selection with rape, and so on. I did my best to keep as much of the original POV as possible, whilst removing non sequiturs. Please rewrite, rather than restore. -- The Anome 21:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please rewrite as needed, but do not delete large blocks of text without concensus in the talk page. Sam [Spade] 21:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wiki is not paper, but the article should still be readable - "Wiki is not paper" is not justification for writing a book where a sentence will do. Furthermore you're describing subject matter that is NOT the subject of this article. If someone is reading about sociobiological theories of rape, we should presume that they know what rape is and what sociobiology is.

Also, paragraphs like this:

Males are considered more desperate to mate, and one result of this desperation could be endemic misinterpretation of a female's signals. This could illustrate why many rapists justify their actions with "she said no but meant yes". Variations of this theme are common. For example, there is no clear dilineation between sexual touch and non-sexual touch. Holding hands may be considered by one side to be a sexual touch whereas the other considers it completely platonic. Human sexual behavior and Date Rape describe these issues further.

really don't do - you use 'could' and 'may' and don't attribute that speculation to anybody. Is this your essay on the subject or an encyclopedia article describing some actual research?

As far as your "not deleting" idiosyncrasy - can I fill the page up with total nonsense, and then tell you to "not delete" it because there isn't consensus, i.e., I don't want you to? Graft 21:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Trimmed the following:

In species where a disparity exists in the selection process, that is, one sex must compete more than the other in order to find a mate, some will attempt to override their mate's decision process through force. This is seen to be rape.

Ugh. "Seen to be rape"? I think that rather reflects the author's POV here. Remind me not to go out on a date with them, lest they "attempt to override" my "decision process" -- The Anome 21:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"In species where a disparity exists in the selection process, that is, one sex must compete more than the other in order to find a mate"? Oh really? What "disparity" is this? Last time I looked, women outnumbered men by a small margin. -- The Anome 21:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's true as written... just irrelevant to the argument. I'm not sure where exactly the argument is coming from, though... I'm going to borrow the Thornhill book from my friend and try to get that written out clearly. Graft 21:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It ment a sociological and biological disparity, not a disparity of numbers, you silly :P Sam [Spade] 22:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Assumptions

I'd like it if you guys cooled down a bit. I didn't write this article, and my POV (as a married non-rapist w kids) is anti-rape. I just don't like the way you have been hacking info out of the article. So what if some of this is covered elsewhere? It’s perfectly valid to briefly reiterate important concepts. We should not assume the reader has read anything in particular on the subject ahead of time. Regardless of their expertise, a brief (were talking about a paragraph or 2) refresher is a good thing. Lets try to keep it clear we are discussing a concept, not the idea of some specific person going out and raping somebody. Sam [Spade] 21:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would have no problem with this if (1) the text weren't so shitty and WRONG, and (2) if there weren't so much unattributed speculation and (3) the text didn't cover extremely basic concepts, like SELECTION, for god's sake. Text should be short - information is better conveyed if it's to-the-point, and conveying information is our purpose. Brevity is the soul of wit. Long text is boring text, and I don't want to have to read through pages of unrelated explanation before I get to the actual subject at hand. The REASON we have wikilinks is so that we don't have to duplicate redundant information (except in overview articles, which this is NOT). I don't think either side of this argument should be construed as "pro-rape", incidentally. Graft 22:15, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alrightey then! (a brief overview of the basics is handy in EVERY article, BTW ;) Sam [Spade] 22:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Good edit

' Even the distinguished proponent of evolutionary psychology Edward H. Hagen states that there is no clear evidence for the hypothesis that rape is adaptive. [1] '

This was a very good edit. I appreciate citations, they are pro-wiki :D Sam [Spade] 21:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome, Sam. -- The Anome 22:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution?

ARGH! I can't take this! I have a hard time believing ANYONE would advance this claim:

Proponents of sociobiologcal theories of rape argue that humans are a species where the males must compete with other males in order to win the acceptance of the female they wish to mate with (females compete too, but to a lesser degree). Due to this, they believe, males are larger than females and have more developed upper bodies in order to physically compete with other males.

Male body size is the result of sexual selection - when was that shown? Females compete too, but to a lesser degree? Why do they compete to a lesser degree? Did the male/female ratio change while I wasn't looking?

Sam, if you're going to keep reverting to this crap, you should at LEAST hold to the standards you are holding The_Anome to, and provide attribution for this stupidity. Graft 22:35, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see any women's magazine for how desperately women are willing to compete for even half-way-normal men. The article at the moment smacks of male desperation. Cite: Cosmopolitan magazine, any issue. -- The Anome 22:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1 "crap"/"stupidity" is rude, please review wikipedia:civility.
2 I didn't write any of this, nor any of the books cited. I didn't create this article, and am only trying to keep it NPOV.
3 Citations have been made, review them yourself, I'm no expert on any of this.

Sam [Spade] 22:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Suppose you post two "casual encounters" ads on, say, Craigslist. One as a male advertising an interest in casual sex with a female. The other as a female advertising an interest in casual sex with a male. The first ad will receive approximately zero responses. The second ad will receive approximately infinity more (at least a hundred, any city, guaranteed). Hypothesis: females have greater freedom of sexual selection, put males in a position where they must compete more against their gender for sex, and as a result, males in the human species are more desperate to mate with females. This desperation leads males to coerce sex with females. So the theory goes. Think it's BS? Fine. But the article is about the theory, not about why you should accept it as the objective truth. Excluding it because it's offensive to some people's sensibilities is not valid. Mbac 15:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mating strategy

Is the argument that all males attempt wide dispersal of their genes, or that there's a subset of males that employ this strategy? I seem to remember Steven Pinker (who goes in for these theories) saying the latter in his lectures. Graft 23:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to Pinker "Geneticists have found that the diversity of the DNA in the mitochondria of different people (which men and women inherit from their mothers) is far greater than the diversity of the DNA in Y chromosomes (which men inherit from their fathers). This suggests that for tens of millennia men had greater variation in their reproductive success than women. Some men had many descendants and others had none (leaving us with a small number of distinct Y chromosomes), whereas a larger number of women had a more evenly distributed number of descendants (leaving us with a larger number of distinct mitochondrial genomes). These are precisely the conditions that cause sexual selection, in which males compete for opportunities to mate and females choose the best quality mates," (The Blank Slate, pg 347). Matt Gozel 23:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "This cage, this menagerie..."

I can see this is a highly controversial page, so I didn't want to contribute without discussion on the talk page first. The section on forced animal sex mentions geese and ducks, which is interesting, but I think that the observed occurances of rape, near-rape, and gang-rape in higher intelligence species, (like non-human primates and in dolphins), are more interesting and would be more pertinent to the article... but then again, maybe using geese and ducks helps to avoid POV. Any thoughts? AdmN 16:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] needs to be more refined

I have been reading through yur conversations about rape. The one most specific I was looking for is long term effects of rape. I, personally am a victim of marrital rape. I have since been divorced from the man for 6 years now but I still suffer from long term affects of what happen to me. I'm sure that there are other women and men out there that are too afraid to talk about these things that still go on in our heads; bad relatonship, loss of libito, having trust issues, ect. I know that there are outward signs to, ones that we don't even recogize. That have to be pointed out to us by a doctor. No where have I ever found a listing or even suggested listing of what all these outward signs might be. I'm sure that other women and men of rape would be of interest to these obscure facts. What I would like to see is something about the long term affects fo rape, how it can obsure the mind and think that the person can easily become a victum again. Forget about argueing about, people like me want to know these things so that maby we can help ourselve. Epiphany

[edit] Usage of terms

We have a style manual. Read it sometime, fellow editors! One of the major problems with this article could have been avoided if a clear explanation of the phrase "biopsychological theories of rape" was given at the beginning, as the style manual dictates. Most of this article seems to be treating the phrase like it's a standardized complete ideology. Various soc-bio theories of rape contradict eachother. We can't lump advocates of every possible soc-bio theory of rape into one big group and imply they all believe foo, bar, and baz. Is it so hard to say "some"? Or, if you think it's an especially common view, how about "many"?

Or even better, find an actual person who believes in the thing you're typing and quote him. Virtually everyone in the ev-psych loop has said something about this, so qualified opinions aren't that scarce. I'll try to mop this up as best I can, but I fear this will eventually boil down to wiping out most of the unattributed claims present now and adding in new opinions and quotes from qualified researchers. The authors of the unattributed material in "Arguments for..." that's on there now should go back and provide sources for what they wrote if at all possible. -- Schaefer 10:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Joan Roughgarden

I'm removing the lengthy Roughgarden quote and the POV criticism that follows it. Joan Roughgarden may have arguments against sociobiological theories of rape, but they are not mentioned in this rant against evolutionary psychology in general and its practitioners personally. She only claims that EPists have 'corrupted and misused' biology and that Buss's writings 'distort sexual selection theory' before going off on a rant that A Natural History of Rape is homophobic, and that right-wing institutes agree with EP theories. She's arguing from ad hominem in the first case and guilt-by-association in the second.

Furthermore, Joan Roughgarden's disagreement isn't just with sociobiological theories of rape, but with EP in general. This article is about a specific topic in the field of evolutionary psychology. If she thinks that EP is bunk, her criticisms belong in a more general article than this one. -- Schaefer 05:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "From an evolutionary perspective"

I just came across this text, the bulk of which was added in this edit:

"Supporters of sociobiological theories of rape argue that this is consistent with rape being considered a high crime in almost all cultures, second only to murder, as this is consistent with the interests of living things. From an evolutionary perspective, the only thing more undesirable than forcing an organism's reproductive destiny is ending its life."

This does not appear to make any sense whatever in the context. From a personal perspective, yes, the worst thing to happen to an individual short of its life ending may be having its evolutionary destiny forcibly dictated by another. But from an evolutionary perspective, it is not even necessarily a bad thing, let alone the second-worst possible thing that could happen. Anyone clinging to the idea that evolutionary interests are likely to be "consistent with the interests of living things" is exhibiting either a profound misunderstanding or a willful misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.

Let us remember that the male insect who mates with a genetically-fit female, has his head bitten off in the middle of the act, and who is then eaten in order to provide nutrients to the children he just sired, is extremely evolutionarily successful -- even if from the personal perspective, the worst possible thing just happened to him, or so we would anthropomorphize. In the same vein, a female is extremely evolutionarily successful if she bears the children of a genetically-fit, well-adapted male. There is no general argument with the principle that a male's adaptation and fitness are tested by his competition against the environment; if a male has survived to mating age despite predators, famines, diseases and other hazards, it serves as inductive evidence that he was probably better, in those qualities required to survive in his environment, than the males who did not survive to mating age. It is also fairly accepted that males may engage in fairly direct competition with other males for mating rights; we do not deny the obvious that if a male proves himself to be stronger or faster than other males, that these traits may make him "fitter" than the others, even if the others were still fit enough to survive until mating.

However, too many people mistakenly or willfully attribute our personal repugnance for the act of rape to the unthinking, amoral engine of evolution, and they refuse to consider the simple fact that if a male's qualities can be tested by physical competition with other males, so too can they be tested by physical competition with the female he is trying to mate with. Evolution does not care whether the experience is traumatic for the female, any more than it cares about the life of a male spider whose life is snuffed out for following his desire to mate. If a female is unselective about the father of her children, she will most likely have children with a mediocre father. If she is selective about the father of her children, she will most likely have children with a far more successful father. If she is even more selective about the father of her children, such that she does not choose him but he instead chooses her despite all the resistance she can provide, she will most likely have children with a father whose physical prowess is not only proven, but which exceeds hers. Anyone still thinking that this must be evolutionarily undesirable because it is personally undesirable for her is misrepresenting evolutionary theory.

If the person who added the text would care to provide any sort of explanation or citation for the claim, we would all appreciate the clarification. Otherwise, it should be removed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If a rapist declines to offer support for his ill-begotten children, then it would not be as evolutionarily desirable. That rape is a minor part of human mating rituals speaks for itself. Pendragon39 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False statement

I think it is a fine article but as someone who is a researcher in the field I feel that there is one glaringly false statement that is harmful to keep and should immediately be deleted.

"Females that draw attention are more likely to be raped. For example: dressing attractively."

There is no evidence to support that statement. It is a myth. And just anecdotally, I have been to enough hospitals and police stations to support women who had just been sexually assaulted to argue the opposite. I'd say 90% of the time the women were wearing jeans and t-shirts. The statement that a women is bringing attention to herself and getting raped is blaming the survivor and reducing the malicious behavior of the perpetrator.

[edit] The entire article is lacking specific citations

It's great to have a bibliography at the end, but not one of the amazing and specific claims made in this article is linked to a source. Therefore, the article is unverifiable. BTW, I was not aware that the reproductive act among ducks and geese involved penetration. I thought they were biologically unable to penetrate. Long story short: This article is long overdue for a severe prune-down, if no effort is made at substantiation. NuclearWinner 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adaptation vs. By-Product

The article states that Thornhill and Palmer "note that since the human brain itself, and thus all capacities for any kind of action whatsoever, evolved from natural selection, the only point of dispute is whether rape is only a by-product of some other unrelated adaptation (such as a desire for aggression, domination, etc.) or if rape itself is an adaptation favored because it increases the number of descendants of rapists. They argue that the latter case is true."

The last sentence is wrong. They do not argue that the latter case is true. They are, in fact, in disagreement about whether rape is an adaptation or by-product. In their own words "We will now examine the evidence concerning whether human rape is a product of adaptations designed specifically to increase a male's reproductive success or whether it is a by-product of adaptations designed for attaining sexual access to consenting partners. Although we two authors disagree as to which of these two ultimate explanations of rape we expect to be confirmed by evidence, we are now in agreement with the statement that 'whether their exist psychological adaptations specifically for sexual coercion [or rape], adaptations that entail something more than the simultaneous arousal of sexual and coercive inclinations, has yet to be elucidated' (Wilson et al. 1997, p453)." That is from Thornhill and Palmer's A Natural History of Rape, pg 60-61. In light of this fact I am editing the sentence to reflect the authors' actual views on the subject. Matt Gozel 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

Thornhill and Palmer argue that it is possible that the underlying motivations of rapists evolved because they were at one time conducive to reproduction.

Do they give an estimate as to when this was? 5000 years ago? When humans were living as hunter-gatherers? Pre-history? Pendragon39 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed content

The following content has been in the article without attribution for over a year. I believe at least some of it is not original research, but in fact arguments presented in A Natural History of Rape, though I can't be certain what's what. I'm moving it here in case anyone else can identify sources for the content presented.

[edit] Other sociobiological theories of rape

Other proponents of various sociobiological theories of rape have expressed the views described here, which may or may not represent Thornhill and Palmer's.

Viviparous females, and human females in particular, whose offspring remain dependent upon their parents for many years, must invest significant time and bodily resources in pregnancy in order to reproduce and raise their offspring, whereas males can biologically father considerably more offspring with much less of a bodily investment (see Bateman's principle). Many sociobiologists argue that this causes females to be more likely to scrutinize their mates, whereas males are more likely to be motivated simply to have many mates. (This theory is contested by many biologists who claim that humans are a pair-bonding species, and that other situations are deviations.) These strategies are known as K-selection and r-selection, respectively. Proponents of the view that rape is genetically adaptive see rape as a male attempt to violently remove the female's decision making power regarding reproduction. Occasionally there is a deliberate attempt to impregnate the female victim; this is thought to have often been the case when hundreds or thousands of Darfur women were raped during the last eruption of the Sudanese Civil War in 2003-2004.

Proponents of this theory have also stated that during the most fertile part of the female menstrual cycle, women are more likely to pursue potential mates while simultaneously avoiding situations conducive to the possibility of rape. Reports appear to show a higher incidence of rape occurring during the less fertile points in the menstrual cycle of the victim with one exception: those on birth control medication (such as "the pill") do not report rape with any bias towards a specific period of their cycles--birth control inhibits ovulation on some level.

According to these theories, males who attempt rape are considered more desperate to mate, and one result of this desperation could be endemic misinterpretation of a female's signals. This could illustrate why many rapists justify their actions with "she said no but meant yes". Variations of this theme are common. For example, there is no clear, objective delineation between sexual touch and non-sexual touch. Holding hands may be considered by one side to be a sexual touch whereas the other considers it completely platonic. Human sexual behavior and Date Rape describe these issues further.

[edit] Human behaviour regarding rape

Some supporters of these theories argue that many common attitudes and practices regarding sexuality and rape have origins as rape-preventative measures.

Females tend to be more cautious about rape in young adulthood. They are also more likely to resist rape, or resist more forcefully, during young adulthood, although this is explicable somewhat in that younger women may be quantitatively stronger and more able to resist forcefully than older women.

Proponents of these theories have also claimed that fathers' protectiveness of their daughters is caused by an instinct, not only to protect their genes in the form of their offspring, but to ensure the genetic "quality" of future grandchildren by protecting the daughter from rape.

Public showers, public restrooms, locker rooms, and fitting rooms often have separate male and female sections in many countries. This gender segregation, according to some sociobiologists, ^[who?] reduces the likelihood that a woman will find herself alone with a man (to wit, a potential rapist) in an environment that is sexually suggestive and/or in which she is especially vulnerable, such as being unclothed and in a small room (note also the typical warmth and humidity of such places; such conditions in the weather lead to increased reports of rape). Dormitory arrangements are often gender segregated as well. In some countries, more privacy tends to be afforded for females than for males in gender-segregated areas such as showers and fitting rooms. There may be more curtains, visibility screens, etc. in the women's sections.

Also, in some countries, women are forbidden to leave the house with any amount of skin showing (see for example Hijab). Some sociobiologists see this as a way to reduce the female's likelihood of attracting attention and (by extension) rape. However, since it is usually the woman's husband who does not allow her to leave without being completely covered, it is more likely that the custom's function is simply to prevent her from attracting sexual attention from other men.

[End of removed material.] -- Schaefer (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)