"A Natural History of Rape: The Biological Basis of Sexual Coercion" sets out a strictly Darwinian view. Writing recently in the Sciences, the authors, biologist Randy Thornhill and anthropologist Craig Palmer, state their position bluntly: "We fervently believe that, just as the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck are the results of aeons of past Darwinian selection, so is rape." Elsewhere they proclaim: "There is no doubt that rape has evolutionary -- and hence genetic -- origins."
Why? Because rape "is a built-in adaption that has evolved naturally because it confers a reproductive advantage on the men who do it."
Obviously this is an outrageous claim to make, very anti-male and very offensive. But then it occurred to me: isn’t the recently fashionable theory that male infidelity is a natural result of evolutionary competition to spread your genes essentially the same argument, only soft-pedaled?
And for men who support the whole "I can't be monogomous, it isn't natural" claim, can you basically cherry-pick these studies to legitimize the argument against monogamy, without simultaneously supporting the idea of an innate propensity for rape? Or do you need to take the good with the bad?
Just stray thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment