> Of course I meant to add (in capitals)
>
> >Kitcher goes on to make the same point AS KELLY that such a theory
> >cannot without special pleading explain rape on juveniles, on women
> >past the age of menopause, and on members of the same sex. Indeed
> >such acts may radically detract from fitness as these evo biologists
> >have defined it.
i have only a foggy sense of kelly's position on this, but i'd think she'd argue--along the lines of what she said about argu- ing with ken about lacan--that these developmental distinctions, which are both empirical and cultural, might be too precise to govern behavior in specific situations. it depends on how one defines 'strategy,' i suppose; the paper treats it as a suprain- dividual drive, which would suggest that the 'function' of rape occurs on a general rather than a specific level--so this rebut- tal, which situates 'strategy' on a specific level, might not apply.
alternatively, i'd just say that out instead of attributing it to kelly, if only hypothetically. but i'll also note that i take a pretty dim view of this pseudo-biologization of rape, so fine distinctions within its precincts are irrelevant, imo.
however, i'm just as suspicious of the rather strong drive to argue that rape is purely human, purely cultural, purely (as carrol put it) 'civilized,' to oppose 'anthropomorphization.' it's the same problem, really: the pros and cons are distinctions within a larger framework that's not really necessary. even if, by some automagical process, one could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that rape *does* occur in the animal world, so what? it hardly follows that this parellel (or identity or whatever you want to call it) justifies it in the human world.
but maybe someone can explain to me why any of this talk--of what- ever political stripe--about what animals do or don't do, think, feel, believe, etc. is any better than the capitalist blather im- posed on animals by mutual of omaha and its ilk.
cheers, t