Talk:Sociobiological theories of rape

Untitled

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.

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)

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)

What about the argument that rape leads to few pregnancies so it's unlikely it evolved as a reproductive strategy? Surely this is relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.191.214 (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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:

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.

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)

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)

Yes. Triggered reactionaries attempting to fillet an article about a topic that harbors their scholarly opposed views is not appropriate for wikipedia. Indeed it would be inappropriate to present an article about a posited theory presented in a book by a pair of scholars as a comparative study of its opposition or a treatise on how thoroughly it is opposed by this general cloud of a "mainstream scientific/scholarly community" and presenting wikipedia as supportive of those positions. The opposing views may deserve a mention but these belong as they appear as of today in sections like "criticism". The opposing views should not appear by way of edits forming a point by point in-line counter analyses in the wikipedia article dedicated to the theory. Also a theory and all of its specific conceptual points aren't automatically debunked as "pseudoscience" by the mere fact of its having attracted "mainstream opposition." IF that were true then any new research or papers would begin life as pseudo-science or fringe. IS pseudoscience a reference to any thesis that is debunked by further research or a terminology to challenge the validity of the theorists lack or misuse of the scientific method? Does each theory in any given subject begin life as fringe or is fringe a result of qualified review and debunking and the resultant marginalization? Are ideas considered fringe by their non-notable status in popular opinion or by their antithesis to widely accepted ideas among scholars in the field they are presented toward. As far as I'm concerned wikipedia itself is not a place for editors to have their way in challenging theories and calling them fringe, pseudoscience,etc. Thats not what this is about. If you want the article to find a way to expose a theory as pseudoscience then I say you need to cite a valid source that establishes that "mainstream" scientific community of the field it was presented to has concluded and defined the theory as such. And no, in case anyone's tempted, it won't warrant that tag on wikipedia just because an individual with a degree simply called it that offhand because they don't like the social panic they fear implications of even exploring the concepts will cause in the world...or just don't like it..unless the person is just that notable to make it worth citation of even just their invalidated opinion. As to the style of the article wikipedia isn't made only for professional and scholarly users. If you are a student or scholar of the subject and object to the article not having the quality of a research paper or to the restatement/presentation of information that "every student of the sciences knows" you need to chill and respect the reality that not all who goggle wikipedia are doing so to earn their degree. Quite frankly slapping the article as a footnote into a rape article would be inappropriate because this is a THEORY or concept ABOUT rape not an established fact about the phenomenon itself. Doing that would actually be an implication of wider established credibility for the theory toward the phenomenon and would only be appropriate if further research demanded it be listed in a set of "causes" or such. The article as of this date seems to reflect the idea that it is a fledgling theory and lists quite a few of the reasons why. particularly it is specifically referencing criticism by other scholars in the same or related fields of study. There's really not much more that wikipedia can be expected to do without suppressing the topic altogether which would be counter encyclopedic. If you don't like this obviously sensible inquiry because you don't like the slippery slopes and nightmares it gives you or ANY other reason then write a book or conduct some research that you think will find conclusive evidence to debunk it like the other rational scientists have been trying..don't try to use wikipedia to oppose it like some extremist wiki vandal nut job. and yes I came to the talk page to troll the fact that there is a feminist researcher/author named Smuts but this is actually a more interesting discussion just not as funny or crass.SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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. 1 "crap"/"stupidity" is rude, please review wikipedia:civility.
2. 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. 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)

How do you know? You tried it? How about you try this. Get incarcerated for about 72 hours, maybe a little more. You will sing another tune, possibly a few octaves higher, on the sociobiology of rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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

how did you manage to avoid signing or autosigning your talk edit(I'd like to know how to do this lol) I you glance at the talk page you will quickly see why there is little refinement of the information on rape. There is a knee jerk impulse to suppress research and inquiry on it as an actual phenomenon in any way that suggests it could be anything more than just isolated deranged unnatural individuals/monsters/mutants and their helpless innocent victims(ever heard of rape-bait kinks?) The bury the head in the and approach has held sway in any topic related to sex deviance and persists in the modern era. That being said you should look to other articles for questions related to victimology of rape because this one is about a specific theory related to a specific and debated kind of causation for the phenomenon/behavior of the perpetrators across species. I'd suspect that if the inquiry continues it probably will expand to study human "rape baiter" psychology/sociology as well which would involve victim response/trauma research but that doesn't appear relevant to this line of theory as of yet. Though I imagine there may be some literature,testimonials, and forums, perhaps beyond scientific research, available on those subjects. I know for sure there is plenty of literature and resources for victim therapy and counseling and some may be available in any given local community..but if not you may need to search in communities such as those in the more "developed" parts of the world where women's advocacy movements have made significant progress.SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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.

And I've got a little experiment for you. You get yourself (however you wanna do it, maybe let's say by raping a woman) locked up in state prison. Actually, it might not even take that long, it could happen in county jail, but you just get yourself locked up. You wait a few days; it won't take long, my friend, it won't take long. And you will find out everything there is to know, in exquisite detail, about rape. Then when you get out, (providing you're not by this time a cringing psychological bowl of human jelly) you can write a book about the "evolutionary advantage" of rape. That is, if you still haven't changed your mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

I accept that I may be missing something but "evolutionarily desireable" is a logical fallacy. Evolution has no desires. While desire(often despite ideal and regardless of what perhaps more ideal conditions could exist) is filtered by individual responses to stimulation. "Evolution" is a word attributed to a phenomenon of study by a field of observers and theorists. Its also not actually a very predictable kind of observation but typically a more retrospective one so "desires" encountered in the observation may be the result of evolutionary factors but are unlikely to be (prior to human idealizations at least) developed for the sake of "evolution" itself.

Perhaps because I'm quirky...I accept the notion "evolutionary desire" as POSSIBLE given what little is understood about the "instinctual/intrinsic "nature" driving the overall process of life/living(as opposed to being connected to the non-living states) itself BUT probably is still UNLIKELY even if the overall existence of living process is in some unknown way collective and or "self aware" enough to have preferences moving toward a redetermined ideal...because the experience of being alive is still in many species despite some preferring to live in communities, individualized as far as I know of what has been observed. The few hive mind examples that exist are limited to specific groups within specific kinds of species(eg bees don't seem to normally communicate collectively between different hive groups),Though I acknowledge "swarm intelligence has been observed to be a real natural phenomenon beyond insects. Imo its unlikely there is actually any sort've "evolution" instinct that goes beyond the biochemical responses influenced by biological conditions created by dna molecules. I'm not trying to just quibble over words but i think its important to highlight this misconception because it has gotten to far into the argument structure on these subjects..this regarding evolution as a preordained set of values and instinctual drives. As a matter of opinion I would think that if it is somehow collective instinct then it would actually disfavor selection and favor a chimera effect. Moving ever toward a decrease of sexual selectivity while simultaneously promoting an in crease in phenotype variety. Of course that could be exactly whats happening but it doesn't, as an evolutionary rule, really strike me as apparent.(NO PUN INTENDED..but enjoyed) My contribution to the debate would be that I believe instinct only outlines and reinforces limited mating conditions(hump the leg.) and relies more heavily on opportunistic strategies(like socialization and response to environmental fitness markers) as organisms become more increasingly complex. My cherished but unqualified opinion on the entire subjectSoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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.

above is unsigned --SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC) While its soundly true that a large proportion of rape cases don't seem to involve a purposefully seductive element from the victims...There is quite a movement of rape-baiters" kink groups easily found online who may beg to differ. Also don't you think its a bit counter-intuitive/in-genuine to assume provocation(or perceived by a perpetrator) plays no role in rapist psychology considering that its well accepted that provocation plays a role in normal/general attraction behaviors? Your worried about the slippery slope implication of complicit victim bias which is understandably important to maintain a solid nonconsensual basis for prosecuting them in crimes..but noone seems to be concerned with the ongoing campaign to dehumanize the perpetrators of this crime by indiscriminate and wholesale removal of all traces of normal sexual behaviors,stimulus and, responses involved in rape assaults and perpetrators' inevitably human psychology. Since one general theme of the field is studying the potential human behavioral implications of the fact that rape as we humans define it is frequently observed as common reproductive process both outside of socialized human cultures and within them it seems reasonable to discuss how sexual cues and triggers such as wardrobe, and mannerism might also be connected to rape behaviors since they are not even disputed to be a part of other mating behaviors considered normal and sociable. As someone who is a researcher in the field it seems to me your task should be to provide evidence that rape is NOT a natural part of reproductive psychology and therefore NOT similarly subject to influence by breeding cues,mating behaviors,instinct etc. Just because the legalist tradition is to deny there is or could be a connection, doesn't make it scientific way of thinking. IF ANY assumptions are to be upheld as givens in any research then the weight given to behaviors assumed to influence "normal" mating patterns should also be considered potentially defaults in "abnormal" mating/sexual activities as well especially since sex(though it may be initiated unilaterally ) is a component. I'm not saying these factors cannot be typically ruled out as driving impetus in any given rapists overall psychology or motivations but to deny they are ever or generally a factor is to deny the reality that sex and arousal(even when unilateral in scope) is a component in rapes..do you really have evidence to preclude that logical assumption as well? Can you honestly or empirically say that its uncommon for rapists to be "sexually" aroused by or during their actions? To clarify, my point is that if there is a sexual component in rape at all then it shouldn't be the default to assume that there are no other frequently sexual components such as, visual and behavioral stimulation, that are already understood to be influential in sexual activities...and, more pertinently, that the only reason not to mention them in the article would be if they are not considered of any notable interest or reference to the theories being described.SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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, 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)

Women's rape fantasies

Studies show that many women fantasize about certain kinds of rape. Is there a possible evolutionary reason for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.8 (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not just "fantasies" there are aggressive(and successful) activities and behaviors intended to attract real rape,simulate rape scenarios, and lure actual predators as well. I think anything can have an "evolutionary" cause when you think in certain terms..the challenge is drawing clear lines between inherent behaviors and socially or inventively inspired/reinforced behaviors/ideas..and where social behaviors are no longer considered inherent or "natural" ie if social behavior is natural to "social species" why aren't the specific social behaviors also considered "natural"/inherent by extension..I really think that all mostly comes down to terminology and its usefulness to create understanding and make fields of study distinct enough to investigate and quantify, so I'm not really trying to make a revolutionary point there and digress..there are other potential causes for that behavior as well such as traumatic mechanisms(though it seems clear that these fantasies and "rape bating" behaviors are not limited to rape victims),and as I kind've alluded above: social adaptations (eg repression inspired fantasy/behavior). SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

BDSM

Perhaps one might mention BDSM in humans as being a possible extension etc. to Sociobiological theories of rape#Animal coercive sex. Jidanni (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Fallacious appeal to nature

In the "Naturalistic fallacy" section it must be made clear that what the researchers are referring to is in fact the FALLACIOUS APPEAL TO NATURE. NOT the "naturalistic fallacy" which is known as the "is-ought problem" in philosophy. Although the researchers may apply the term "naturalistic fallacy" to their opponents' arguments, it must be made clear that they ARE DOING SO INCORRECTLY. Their opponents' arguments are more correctly described by the phrase: fallacious appeal to nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6B50:BA00:4D1E:7659:2FA8:DBF8 (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Validity of the argument in "Criticism"

The last sentence of the "Criticism" section doesn't make sense at all. Here is what is said: " Hamilton has argued that evolutionary psychology fails to explain rape because, by evolutionary psychology's own criteria, an adaptation to rape children or men, or non-vaginal rape, would have been eliminated in the course of evolution because it did not confer reproductive advantage on our ancestors"

Hamilton totally fails at understanding how evolution works. Evolution is all about perpetuating all sorts of behaviors regardless of their purpose. In evolution, every action is a test to see if it improves the chances of survival of that individual. The reason why rape is still around even though it has a negative impact on the victim is that life doesn't consist of only one parameter. Rape doesn't affect a person enough to kill him/her or to have its chances of survival reduced to zero. You do not have to be the absolute best to survive, a group of winners reproduce, not just the absolute best fitted individual.

Is there anything that can be done to remove this sentence because it is not a legitimate criticism, it's basically a misunderstanding of how evolution works.

--Ṗḯƥỡȵẘẩ (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If its a passage that refers to Hamilton's criticism and if it correctly states his criticism (whether it makes any sense to you and I or not) then there is no cause to remove it from the article..unless there is cause to remove the entire reference to Hamilton and his criticism.SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Dubious source

A statement in this article uses www.heretical.com as a reference. This is a white supremicist site run by convicted Holocaust-denier Simon_Sheppard_(activist), which among other things blames Jews and feminism for just about everything wrong with western society. I've recently removed a large chunk of text from the Suffragette article that made wild claims and was sourced solely to this site. In this article, there are other references as well, so I recommend someone who knows more about the subject have a look and make sure the claims are supported by more reliable sources. This applies to Sociobiological_theories_of_rape, Evolutionary_psychology and New_Orphan_Houses,_Ashley_Down,_Bristol. Iapetus (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well if the source is illegitimate and unreliable to the topic (eg these are not notable researchers or peer reviewers in the related fields of study who are being cited) then the citations and any quotes should be removed as they are not valid, credible/accredited peers of the theorists. Unless its a section devoted to non peer or otherwise fringe reception of the topic/theories.(eg pop cultural references to the theories) The fact that the site where the citations are reference is run by a particular person with particular and unpopular ideals might not by itself be a legitimate factor in whether or not the citation is invalid. What I mean is if the website: is not notable, or is reputed to be a host for outright disinformation, inaccurate journalism,wikipedia vandalism campaigns,etc and so perhaps wikipedia has a specific policy regarding that particular or other such websites(I don't know about) then I imagine it would not be usable in any way meant to suggest its a reliable source of encyclopedic information. But I might suggest..Perhaps if the citation itself is valid like as say..from a credible review of the topic and is cited accurately, but the source(publication itself is of ill repute and is not necessarily associated with the topic and should not be associated with wikipedia in ways that suggest it is generally a valid source then perhaps I'd suggest finding a more reasonable/credible source with the same information and replace both the citation and source with the one from the more generally reliable publication. What_counts_as_a_reliable_source SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Length of talk sections as a metric

Off-topic comment not related to improving the article.
Someone removed it from the talk section, a certain crossroads, said it was vandalism --51.9.225.192 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed IP comment per WP:TALK#USE and WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)