The Religious Right DEFENDS The Rapist’s Right To RAPE

of many religions. This guy is saying what many believe. Most religions blame the woman for "failings" of men.

non religious are playing these drums.

does not help us at all, pretending it is only one group... like religion

at the least, lets be honest

have basic tenets that blame women for tempting men into evil. Chritianity, Judaism, Islam - no dishonestly there.

:eyes:

Give me a break. One, the 'shift to evolutionary biology' is doing no such thing, and two, the truth is the truth. You don't get to modify it just because you don't like the effect you think it has on people. If knowing the Earth is round made people steal packages off the backs of UPS trucks, would that somehow invalidate the truth of the Earth's roundness?

No.

is not evolutionary behavioral science

You must have made a typo in your other post.

And it is pseudoscience, filled with unfalsifiable hypotheses based on biased assumptions. Stephen J. Gould warned about this Evo Psych nonsense till the day he died.

not your comment, but the reality that men like this do exist... they are pathetic and need to have their junk ripped right off.

that this evolutionary behavior existed and what it was about. i had to prove to hubby that there was a cult like group and it was growing. that was a couple years ago. he sees it now. but absolutely not ALL men.

i dont get htis in real life. i read posters on interent. otherwise, i wouldnt believe it either

a discussion on 'evolutionary' anything?

not only does religion create this, but evolutionary behavior is creating exactly the same thing. it has become more popular. and it needs to be challenged. as easily as we challenge this religious bullshit

..."boys will be boys" excuses.

:thumbsup:

not make that clarification, and we get in trouble on du, if you are a woman, and you dont make that clarification. i dont need to with any other subject but this. and i forget....

the VAST majority of men don't rape, and don't make excuses for those who do.

Just because a few take twisted spins on poorly understood, or deliberately misunderstood, theories (or religious texts) that doesn't mean it is the "new male cry".

Try finding a narrower brush.

then everything else is thrown away to hear the woman say... it is not all men.

no

it is not all men

it is not a majority of men

it is not a strong minority of men

it is a minority of men

and it is growing in popularity, hence why i address it. always.

bottomline... i am happy i can say and recognize that a lot of men do not believe this crap. it works for me. and as i have said in other posts... it is not in my RL. my men thought i was making this up. my men, that are highly educated. i have more men on du in the scientific world challenging this when we hear it, than women. but, it is being fed to us, regularly now, and people are buying into it.

From an evolutionary perspective, we are the only species that commits forceful rape. I know of *NO* published scientists (meaning real scientists, not graduates of Bob Jones with an Intelligent Design degree) that suggest that rape is explained by biological needs.

If you do, I'd like citations, please. That's a loon I want to be aware of.

Do not apologize away the responsibility of religious leaders, or the J/C/M holy books (primarily the OT, in promoting rape.

Why, then, have the editors of scholarly journals refused to publish papers that treat rape from a Darwinian perspective? Why have pickets and audience protesters caused public lectures on the evolutionary basis of rape to be canceled or terminated? Why have investigators working to discover the evolutionary causes of rape been denied positions at universities?

The reason is the deep schism between many social scientists and investigators such as ourselves who are proponents of what is variously called sociobiology or evolutionary psychology. Social scientists regard culture. everything from eating habits to language. as an entirely human invention, one that develops arbitrarily. According to that view, the desires of men and women are learned behaviors. Rape takes place only when men learn to rape, and it can be eradicated simply by substituting new lessons. Sociobiologists, by contrast, emphasize that learned behavior, and indeed all culture, is the result of psychological adaptations that have evolved over long periods of time. Those adaptations, like all traits of individual human beings, have both genetic and environmental components. We fervently believe that, just as the leopard. s spots and the giraffe. s elongated neck are the result of aeons of past Darwinian selection, so also is rape.

That conclusion has profound and immediate practical consequences. The rape-prevention measures that are being taught to police officers, lawyers, parents, college students and potential rapists are based on the prevailing social-science view, and are therefore doomed to fail. The Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection is the most powerful scientific theory that applies to living things. As long as efforts to prevent rape remain uninformed by that theory, they will continue to be handicapped by ideas about human nature that are fundamentally inadequate. We believe that only by acknowledging the evolutionary roots of rape can prevention tactics be devised that really work.

http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm
http://books.google.com/books/about/A_Natural_History_of_Rape.html?id=xH6v-nB6EegC

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.

I think that really misrepresents the feminist objections to evolutionary psychology. I don’t believe that studying rape—from any perspective—automatically legitimizes it. And if I thought that evolutionary psychologists had a chance in hell of uncovering the “causes” of rape, I’d be all for it.

But, as Bering himself goes on to note, we are not ruled solely by our biology, what’s “natural” isn’t necessarily acceptable, and we have a little thing called free will. And to me that sounds a little bit like an admission that we humans are not, in fact, cavemen anymore, that we’ve actually got quite a few millennia of culture under our belts, that we’ve evolved into pretty sophisticated creatures who live in complex societies. And call me crazy—but maybe all that matters.

http://feministing.com/2011/01/20/evolutionary-psychologists-women-are-less-like-to-get-themselves-raped-when-theyre-ovulating/

because it was their crowning glory
If they did not then it would incite men to lust after them

this is why elovutionary biology fails....

it is on the same side of the religious of male dominance.

and it is as factual as the bible.

I'm sure your scientific credentials are impeccable, but on this matter, you're... uh, what's the word?

wrong.

to speak to any of this.

please tells us more about the weekly man-cult meetings where they read Skinner or EO Wilson!

but that would mean you would have to take the initiative and do your research on the subject and maybe think outside the box, just a tad. you know, not be lead by the nose, just cause it sounds good

on edit... forgot post #19

It's kind of telling that you're desperate to turn it into something, anything, else.

the intent.

there is no frantic. nor desperate.

you have no evidence.

you have no clue what you are talking about. These are topics I've done research on. And trust me, honey, Evolutionary Behaviorists and rapists dont run in the same circles.

So, please, enlighten us, how does EO Wilson's work influence the theoretical mileau from which rape culture emerges?

The argument over the evolutionary "appropriateness" of rape Begley outlines is important because many self-proclaimed EP realists argue that human nature leads us to wage war on our neighbors, deceive our spouses, and abuse our stepchildren. Rape, they say, is just a reproductive strategy, marriage a no-win struggle of mutually-assured disappointment, and romantic love a chemical reaction luring us into reproductive traps parental love keeps us from escaping. Theirs is an all-encompassing narrative that claims to explain it all.

But evolutionary psychology’s narrative contains many glaring contradictions. Women, for example, are said to be the choosy, reserved sex. Men spend their energies trying to impress women – flaunting expensive watches, driving shiny new sports-cars, clawing their way to positions of fame and status – all in order to convince the coy females to part with their closely-guarded sexual favors. For women, we’re told, sex is all about the security of the relationship, not the physical pleasure. (See Natalie Angier's spirited spanking of EP for gender generalizing here.)
And yet, despite repeated assurances that women aren’t particularly sexual creatures, in cultures around the world, men go to extraordinary lengths to control female libido: female genital mutilation, head-to-toe chadors, medieval witch burnings, chastity belts, muttered insults about “insatiable” whores, pathologizing, paternalistic medical diagnoses, the debilitating scorn heaped on any female who chooses to be generous with her sexuality… all obvious elements of a brutal campaign to keep the supposedly low-key female libido under wraps. Why the electrified razor-wire high-security fence around a kitty-cat?

While EP offers a valuable way of thinking about psychological development and life in the preshistoric environments, many of the most prominent voices in the field are less scientists than political philosophers. They choose some aspect of modern life and construct elaborate justifications located in an inaccessible ancient environment. Often, the fact that their story seems to make sense is the only evidence they offer. For them, it may be enough, but it isn't enough if you're aspiring to be taken seriously as a science.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/200906/evolutionary-psychology-deserves-criticism

too lazy to go to post 19? i gave you three different sources disgusting the issue with EP. but you chose to ignore. this is what i am talking about, unless you just chose to be lead by nose cause it sounds good. you know.... honey.... going outside your comfy box.

it doesn't say what you want to..

Part of the controversy has consisted in each side accusing the other of holding or supporting extreme political viewpoints. Critics view evolutionary psychology as a form of genetic reductionism and determinism,<1> a common critique being that evolutionary psychology does not address the complexity of individual development and experience and fails to explain the influence of genes on behavior in individual cases.<2>

A frequent critique of the discipline is that the hypotheses of evolutionary psychology are difficult or impossible to adequately test, thus questioning its status as an actual scientific discipline, for example because many current traits probably evolved to serve different functions than they do now.<3> While evolutionary psychology hypotheses are difficult to test, evolutionary psychologists assert that is not impossible.<4> Part of the critique of the scientific base of evolutionary psychology includes a critique of the concept of the Ancestral Adaptive Environment. Some critics have argued that EP assumes that human evolution occurred in a uniform environment, and suggest that we know so little about the environment, or probably multiple environments, in which homo sapiens evolved that explaining specific traits as an adaption to that environment becomes highly speculative.<5>

Another frequent critique against the narrowly defined discipline of evolutionary psychlogy comes even from other psychologists who work within evolutionary frameworks. This is a critique of the computational and specifically the modular theory of mind, which according to several groups of critics is not well supported, or necessary in order to explain psychological traits as having adapted. Proponents of other models of the mind argue that the computational theory of mind does not fit with our biological reality any more than does a mind shaped entirely by the environment. Even within evolutionary psychology there is discussion about whether to conceptualize the level of modularity of the mind, either as a few generalist modules or as many highly specific modules.<6><7>

Also the basic theoretical assumptions of the discipline are challenged by its critics. Some theoreticians argue that evolutionary psychology leans on misconceptions of biological and evolutionary theory which affects its claims to scientific validity.<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

However, this way of thinking is also widely condemned as “psychobiological extremism”, because once you start attributing common behaviors to brain biology without having indisputable evidence to support your claims, it is not long before you start to blame every type of human behavior on some as-yet-undiscovered “mental organ of convenience”.

Some extremists have even gone so far as to suggest that there is a mental organ responsible for religious belief, the so-called ‘god module’, the instructions for which are genetically encoded in our ‘god gene’. Such ideas are easily discreditable because they try to oversimplify social phenomena that are so complex that they seem to be almost impossible for the average person to comprehend.

These kinds of unsubstantiable speculations have become so pervasive, because of their sensationalist potential, that even otherwise reputable scientific publications cannot help themselves but to cash in on the controversy by printing articles about every nutcase behavioral gene theory that crawls out of the academic trashcan.

Not only is there no evidence for almost any of these claims, the circumstantial evidence weighs heavily against them. For example, the development of functionally specific mental organs would be an evolutionary dead-end. The evolution of animal faces might have slowed down to a halt if corresponding changes were also needed in a specialized face recognition brain module.

http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/psychology.html

The argument over the evolutionary "appropriateness" of rape Begley outlines is important because many self-proclaimed EP realists argue that human nature leads us to wage war on our neighbors, deceive our spouses, and abuse our stepchildren. Rape, they say, is just a reproductive strategy, marriage a no-win struggle of mutually-assured disappointment, and romantic love a chemical reaction luring us into reproductive traps parental love keeps us from escaping. Theirs is an all-encompassing narrative that claims to explain it all.

But evolutionary psychology’s narrative contains many glaring contradictions. Women, for example, are said to be the choosy, reserved sex. Men spend their energies trying to impress women – flaunting expensive watches, driving shiny new sports-cars, clawing their way to positions of fame and status – all in order to convince the coy females to part with their closely-guarded sexual favors. For women, we’re told, sex is all about the security of the relationship, not the physical pleasure. (See Natalie Angier's spirited spanking of EP for gender generalizing here.)

And yet, despite repeated assurances that women aren’t particularly sexual creatures, in cultures around the world, men go to extraordinary lengths to control female libido: female genital mutilation, head-to-toe chadors, medieval witch burnings, chastity belts, muttered insults about “insatiable” whores, pathologizing, paternalistic medical diagnoses, the debilitating scorn heaped on any female who chooses to be generous with her sexuality… all obvious elements of a brutal campaign to keep the supposedly low-key female libido under wraps. Why the electrified razor-wire high-security fence around a kitty-cat?

While EP offers a valuable way of thinking about psychological development and life in the preshistoric environments, many of the most prominent voices in the field are less scientists than political philosophers. They choose some aspect of modern life and construct elaborate justifications located in an inaccessible ancient environment. Often, the fact that their story seems to make sense is the only evidence they offer. For them, it may be enough, but it isn't enough if you're aspiring to be taken seriously as a science.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/200906/evolutionary-psychology-deserves-criticism

That's a direct quote.

Maybe you meant something other than evolutionary (sans typo) biology.

"While EP offers a valuable way of thinking about psychological development and life in the preshistoric environments, many of the most prominent voices in the field are less scientists than political philosophers."



So please, inform me on the SCIENTIFIC conclusion that rapists use evolutionary behaviorism as a justification for rape.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

can't really go any further if you think this little sentence out of all that affirms what you believe.

Sometimes stupid excuses released under religious guise can still have a profound cultural thus societal effect. Dominant christian sects continue to flaunt their bias towards women. However, as opposed to Islam, in their dogma we are given free will to choose whether to wear the western equivalent of burka (ie pooh sweatshirt and momjeans) or dress like a slut and be raped by a man who simply cannot control his urges. This man is simply repeating our culture's story of what happens when women 'go too far'. In the US there are cults and sects (some with political power, see 'The Family' by Jeff Sharlet) who would like nothing better to see us give up our freedoms to enforce cultural codes not very much different than the codes of other Abrahamic fundies.

One poster at that site recommended guns for women, and for once I am in agreement.

I dress how I want. Granted as I age, I am more strategic in the flesh revealed, but women should not have to fear 'enticing' men. Grown men should be able to keep it in their goddamn pants.

I am also aware that rape has no upper age limit. I am not concerned. As a part of my employment I carry scary sharp kitchen knives. Woe to the man who meets Mr. Wusthof and Mr. Dick. I can guarantee they are bigger than he is.

What a shit. What a misogynist asshole. Anything to excuse men from taking responsibility for themselves.

I've been raped before. If any man ever attempts it again, he's probably gonna get hurt, even if I get raped anyway.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...wait, what?

.......what?

Please elaborate. I would love to understand what you are saying...

Except for condemning themselves for being rapists.

:sarcasm:

Fuck this asshole.