quote:

ORIGINAL: StrongSpirit

quote:

Assuming the most strict and narrow use of the biological term to be as you claim, why is that one particular definition to be held as ruling over any and all other considerations of the term 'success'? Allow me to grant, for sake of argument, that one specific meaning; given that, the total of survival of a species involves all aspects of the environment and of the actions of the animals within a species, within that environment. If survival occurs after some particular action, this may count as success in your very limited definition, but does not imply much less necessarily translate to survival, or success, of that species.

You are incorrect. The entire definition of species is at heart a genetic definition. If you pass on your genes or those related to you (i.e. an ant ensuring that his queen's genes survive) you are a success by the definition of genetic success, which is how the term was being used.
<p>
Rape, by the biological definition of genetic success, works. Or at least it does unless abortion is reasonably easily available and culturally encouraged as a response to rape.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

I think xssve is more interested in being right than noticing that he is hurting the women on the thread who are being reminded of sexual abuse trauma. I think those women, and their defenders, are too upset to realize that further discussion only draws more responses from xssve.
In any case, I don't think this discussion will change any minds or lead to any new understandings. Perhaps it is time to stop pummeling the reddened hamburger that was once a dead horse?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Can someone tell me why this has descended into some piss-poor discussion about biology? Why are we getting into the low sciences here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Trotta doubles down......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/fox-news-liz-trotta-rape-military_n_1288769.html

"Fox News pundit Liz Trotta responded to the barrage of criticism that was unleashed after she made a series incendiary statements regarding rape in the military.

Trotta appeared on Fox News on Sunday. Fox News host Eric Shawn said Trotta "indicated that women who put their lives on the line for their country in close proximity to men are courting sexual assault.Some people understood [Trotta] to be saying that because of this, they are less deserving of protection from violent crime from their male counterparts, particularly because [she] criticize the Pentagon's sex abuse programs that are put in place to protect them."

Trotta referred to prepared remarks and said she felt very misunderstood. She responded, "This is a subject that has never gotten a fair and open hearing either in the national media or in Congress." Trotta alleged that "the main objective" of "hardline feminists" is to "force the Pentagon to lift the ban on women in combat. Accordingly, the political correctness infecting the Pentagon has resulted in silly and dishonest fairytales about female heroism."

Trotta recalled the story of Pfc. Jessica Lynch, and said there were "countless other stories of fake heroism or exaggerated prowess in which women are the stars, many of them tailored for the New York Times and its agenda to promote militant feminism, no matter what the truth."

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Can someone tell me why this has descended into some piss-poor discussion about biology? Why are we getting into the low sciences here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrongSpirit

quote:

Assuming the most strict and narrow use of the biological term to be as you claim, why is that one particular definition to be held as ruling over any and all other considerations of the term 'success'? Allow me to grant, for sake of argument, that one specific meaning; given that, the total of survival of a species involves all aspects of the environment and of the actions of the animals within a species, within that environment. If survival occurs after some particular action, this may count as success in your very limited definition, but does not imply much less necessarily translate to survival, or success, of that species.

You are incorrect. The entire definition of species is at heart a genetic definition. If you pass on your genes or those related to you (i.e. an ant ensuring that his queen's genes survive) you are a success by the definition of genetic success, which is how the term was being used.
<p>
Rape, by the biological definition of genetic success, works. Or at least it does unless abortion is reasonably easily available and culturally encouraged as a response to rape..

Except no one has demonstrated a causal link between biology and rape. And there are compelling reasons, many of them listed above, why rape is not considered primarily a sexual act any more. To insist on a causal connection between rape and biology therefore, demonstrates only the abysmal ignorance of the asserter of the person asserting the connection. Rape is no more a biologically-driven behaviour than going to the cinema is.

If you insist on advancing this cretinous claim, demonstrate precisely the connection between biology and rape. Tell us the precise biological origin of this behaviour, and how this origin specifically causes a person to rape. Then please advice us of the specific biological mechanism whereby child-rape advances reproductive success. If you can't then STFU, because the assertion is not only utterly unproven, and therefore a wild guess at best, but grossly deeply offensive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Can someone tell me why this has descended into some piss-poor discussion about biology? Why are we getting into the low sciences here?

Why, yes I can!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNO72aCnVr0&feature=fvst:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


Rape is a survival strategy of genes, then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
There is nothing in any study of survival of species that points to rape being a successful strategy of long term survival of any species. Quite the opposite is in evidence, actually.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Again, there is distinction and difference between immediate survival and long term success. Humans have survived brief and limited episodes of incest, and we therefore can call it a success in the -short term- genetic sense. But even if remaining in the genetic realm, we have much evidence that prolongation of this particular short term genetic success will result in these same genes eventually being wiped out, after enough anomalous mutations occur to the point where ability to successfully reproduce ceases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Can someone tell me why this has descended into some piss-poor discussion about biology? Why are we getting into the low sciences here?

Why, yes I can!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNO72aCnVr0&feature=fvst:

You know, there's this very, very peculiar thing about North American thinking, that I've noticed. Most Europeans find it really weird, actually. This is that there's a clear hierarchy of expertise, your side of the pond. Mathematicians, physicists and biologists are the Gods. Next below are the Business Studies experts. Then, various levels . . . but right at the bottom are the social scientists.

Why? So many times, I see some cretinous Yank quoting Darwin when he's talking about a social-scientific matter. Darwin wasn't an expert on human society, he was a biologist. Or, I'll some quack business expert, quoted as a sage on human psychology. Why this hierarchy?

Could I gently remind all participants of this thread that we humans aren't amoebas, nor even chipmunks, or even orang utans. We humans don't do things the same way as those other species. This is because we are different species _ and the most complex, by far, on this planet.

Jesus Christ, could we now stop talking about X-mytochondria, or whatever the fuck it is? And start talking about moral philosophy, for instance? That is, human thinking, designed and focused on the way humans live and act? I mean, it's all very interesting, the way baboons hump each other, and all that, but we're not baboons, are we? I don't expect women to go around with bare arses that go all red and livid when they want to be humped. I don't expect this on account of I'm a human who wants to hump women, not female baboons.

Can we move on from Biology, in short? It really does have only a thimble-full of knowledge worth anything in this debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Trotta doubles down......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/fox-news-liz-trotta-rape-military_n_1288769.html

"Fox News pundit Liz Trotta responded to the barrage of criticism that was unleashed after she made a series incendiary statements regarding rape in the military.

Trotta appeared on Fox News on Sunday. Fox News host Eric Shawn said Trotta "indicated that women who put their lives on the line for their country in close proximity to men are courting sexual assault.Some people understood [Trotta] to be saying that because of this, they are less deserving of protection from violent crime from their male counterparts, particularly because [she] criticize the Pentagon's sex abuse programs that are put in place to protect them."

Trotta referred to prepared remarks and said she felt very misunderstood. She responded, "This is a subject that has never gotten a fair and open hearing either in the national media or in Congress." Trotta alleged that "the main objective" of "hardline feminists" is to "force the Pentagon to lift the ban on women in combat. Accordingly, the political correctness infecting the Pentagon has resulted in silly and dishonest fairytales about female heroism."

Trotta recalled the story of Pfc. Jessica Lynch, and said there were "countless other stories of fake heroism or exaggerated prowess in which women are the stars, many of them tailored for the New York Times and its agenda to promote militant feminism, no matter what the truth."

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrongSpirit

quote:

Assuming the most strict and narrow use of the biological term to be as you claim, why is that one particular definition to be held as ruling over any and all other considerations of the term 'success'? Allow me to grant, for sake of argument, that one specific meaning; given that, the total of survival of a species involves all aspects of the environment and of the actions of the animals within a species, within that environment. If survival occurs after some particular action, this may count as success in your very limited definition, but does not imply much less necessarily translate to survival, or success, of that species.

You are incorrect. The entire definition of species is at heart a genetic definition. If you pass on your genes or those related to you (i.e. an ant ensuring that his queen's genes survive) you are a success by the definition of genetic success, which is how the term was being used.
<p>
Rape, by the biological definition of genetic success, works. Or at least it does unless abortion is reasonably easily available and culturally encouraged as a response to rape.

Biological success means the offspring can reproduce... the achievement is counted among the grandchildren.

quote:



Rape is a survival strategy of genes, then.

quote:

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


What was pointed out in the post was that genetic success in the short term or in the immediate sense is not one and the same as long term genetic success, much less long term species success.

In any other study, long term success is what is being referred to when the single unqualified term 'success' is used, and in any event is the much more appropriate and germane use of the term in this discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:



Rape is a survival strategy of genes, then.

quote:

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

No, rape isn't a 'survival strategy of genes'. What rape is, is an evil crime. What you're saying makes about as much sense as my calling a tiger a fascist because it chases and eats gibbons.

It doesn't make sense to talk of rape as a 'survival strategy of genes' because that is to apply unbelievably weak and useless terms, drawn from the inappropriate study of biology, onto human life. Rape is a department of morals and ethics, and of the way society works, the study of which is called 'sociology'. The ethical debates surrounding the matter of rape are a department of philosophy.

Biology has fuck all that's useful to say about the matter. Sorry, but there it is. You have researched into the wrong subject.

quote:

What Tazzy said, again, the children themselves are just children, and the mileage may vary depending on the environment - in the case of Genghis Khan, pretty well apparently, in the case of Japanese children fathered by American soldiers, maybe not so much  - although I'm fairly certain there is a second generation of Eurasian children running around somewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


Obviously, there is genetic success in the immediate term, which I referred to in the first part of the post. What I said after that is that genetic success and long term species success are not necessarily one and the same thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
What is implicated by that is that genetic success alone is a poor choice as point of primary consideration in the discussion of rape or any other social anomaly when considering success of a species.