> This is not a good argument against rape as a product of evolution.
>A trait does not need to be necessary for survival to be a product of
>evolution. In fact, it does not even need to be helpful to the species (an
>appendix) and can even be harmful (wisdom teeth). As for rape, an
>evolutionarily-determined trait certainly does not have to be moral, either.
>
but that wasn't yoshie's concern was it. even though this isn't exactly where she went with it, i suspect she felt as i did: smacked upside the head with the callousness of the remark. utterly no thought went into the ramifications of what was being said. making an analogy, as ian did, to suggest that attributing "rape" to insects and dolphins and the like is no more anthropomorphic than describing insects and dolphins as eating or breathing is a bit troublesome and callous, to say the least. rape carries with it a whole slew of assumptions and meanings that are a bit more problematic than the word eating seems to. that's not to say that the word eating doesn't carry cultural baggage. but, compared to other possible words--"dining," "chowing down,"...hmmm..."wolfing down," "devouring" or "feasting"--eating seems quite a bit more neutral.
i'm not particularly concerned about the anthropomorphism but it would be wise to attend to the metaphors that get used, as i suggested with regard to emily martin's work on the anthropology of science. they contain pressupositions that shape the direction researchers take theoretical development and empirical testing. so it does matter. that said, i'm not of the belief that we can develop a neutral observation language either.
but let me ask, what's the difference between bribing a female spider with an ossified gob of spit and raping as reproductive strategies? any difference? no. they just are. they're just, among spiders, different reproductive strategies. so why call it rape? why suggest one is somehow more coercive than the other when it appears that, in either case, a female of the species is being plied to the nuptial scene with the bribe of gifts or via force because she is, according to the authors, otherwise reluctant in general.
the article doesn't actually say that evopscyh must only explain rape in term of the drive to pass on a genetic heritage in any direct way. rather, they also suggest that evopsych can be used to explain rape as the secondary effect of a confluence of male traits that, they claim, are incontrovertibly the result of the drive for reproductive fitness: rape isn't about reproduction, but is a secondary behavior that "naturally" results from "the fact" [their claim] that human males are, relative to women, more aggressive in their pursuit of partners, more promiscuous, and more easily aroused [presumably this could mean aroused by whatever is the cultural norm of attractiveness and even whatever happens to be attractive to that particular male]. these traits can, under certain conditiosn, encourage in men the propensity to rape when they are overpowered by agressiveness and horniness. however, despite this qualification that at least one of the authors leans toward this theory, the article's entire focus is on evidence that suggests that it IS about the drive to genetic reproduction. in that sense, the article is rhetorically slimey because they bury you in an avalanche of sentences which incessantly address and attempt to support the claim that rape is a reproductive strategy.
nothing about their conclusions are new. we can and have reached the same conclusions when examining rape as a peculiarly human event.
i don't think it's a bad idea to discuss this research in these contexts. we are here to learn, to hone our arguments, to test ours against others, to work out inchoate ideas, etc. the article is all over the place in the media thanks to well-, if transparently, orchestrated media blitzes. i guess we'd be better off talking about it and figuring out how to criticize it in solid ways when the need arises. and there are different levels we can address in our criticisms depending on who our audience is elsewhere. but this is the kind of stuff that manages to shape peoples' thinking such that they end up in our classrooms or on listservs or at gatherings or in our offices certain that such stuff simply is right and undeniably so because these authors have no qualms about making such bald-faced unsubstantiated claims. it will be common sense just like it's common sense to also believe that 40 yr women have a better chance of enduring a terrorist bomb than marrying. and believe me, i had to subscribe to a bunch of "non-academic" lists a short while ago and just skimming the digests this topic has been circulating for about two weeks now and it's pretty amazing just how easily people just swallow the theory because it's in _Science_ after all.