Since it seems to escape you, all that is nonsense given that there is no "rape gene".
Do we have a rape gene?
- Thread starter Cheapjack
- Start date
- Status
You don't know that. Are you working in genetics? They're working on it. Maybe I've stated something else they should look into. I'd be happy to roll up my sleeve.
Actually , Meredith may be right, it may be a combination of genes, and they all might come together in certain individuals, and be higher in certain populations. with more chance of them all coming together.
Last edited:
Cheapjack,
You're response to my post clearly shows that you completely missed the point...
You're response to my post clearly shows that you completely missed the point...
I'm not a geneticist, but I know a thing or two about science. And, as we understand it, complex behaviours in humans are not regulated by the expression of a single gene, and not even by the combination of more genes. There may be some genetic basis for aggressive behaviour, but even so it's more an issue of nature-vs-nurture. And that is not even going into the matter of personal responsibility and free will.
You don't know that. Are you working in genetics? They're working on it. Maybe I've stated something else they should look into. I'd be happy to roll up my sleeve.
I'm sorry, but it's very hard to take you seriously when it's clear that you have very little understand about how genetics and evolution work, and you have little to offer other than half-baked thoughts and funny faces.
I'm not a geneticist, but I know a thing or two about science. And, as we understand it, complex behaviours in humans are not regulated by the expression of a single gene, and not even by the combination of more genes. There may be some genetic basis for aggressive behaviour, but even so it's more an issue of nature-vs-nurture. And that is not even going into the matter of personal responsibility and free will.
You don't know that. Are you working in genetics? They're working on it. Maybe I've stated something else they should look into. I'd be happy to roll up my sleeve.
I'm sorry, but it's very hard to take you seriously when it's clear that you have very little understand about how genetics and evolution work, and you have little to offer other than half-baked thoughts and funny faces.
Iguana,
If you read the article I linked to, you will see that this is mooted to, that it is a very complex subject and there is nature vs nurture. Some people agree, some people disagree, but it is being thought about by scientists.
It wouldn't surprise me, if there was a collection of rape orientated genes and they are higher in some people than in others. It would also depend on the environment too, and when you get a lot of people in one area, with a high percentage of these genes, rape practically becomes part of the culture, and women with a high percentage of these genes sponsor and encourage it. It becomes so socially acceptable, that a relationship without rape and sexual humiliation is so strange it is almost illegal.
That's my experience, in some of my travels.
You really ought to explain yourself better because I don't think you want to go where it seems you are going.
Are you really telling us that in some places in the world rape is more widespread and accepted because of genetic factors instead of cultural conditioning and social expectations? That some humans groups are genetically inclined to engage is rape? What about theft? Murder? Fashion bad taste?
Because that's as close to "scientific" racism as you can get.
Are you really telling us that in some places in the world rape is more widespread and accepted because of genetic factors instead of cultural conditioning and social expectations? That some humans groups are genetically inclined to engage is rape? What about theft? Murder? Fashion bad taste?
Because that's as close to "scientific" racism as you can get.
Iguana,
If you look at the article, and read what I've written, you will see that I have said that it is a combination of culture and genes, that create those sorts of places, and they exist, or at least one of them does, cos I've been there. I think the article itself studied certain cultures where it was more prevalent, and they weren't accused of racism.
My big theory, is that some women have a high percentage of these genes, and if put into the wrong place, can sponsor and encourage rape, culturally and by selection of partners.
It can happen.
If you look at the article, and read what I've written, you will see that I have said that it is a combination of culture and genes, that create those sorts of places, and they exist, or at least one of them does, cos I've been there. I think the article itself studied certain cultures where it was more prevalent, and they weren't accused of racism.
My big theory, is that some women have a high percentage of these genes, and if put into the wrong place, can sponsor and encourage rape, culturally and by selection of partners.
It can happen.
Dude, your big theory is based on nothing else than weird assertions about genetics (that the article you cite dismiss as disproved or at least very debatable) and vague statements of personal experience. So I'm not really sure where are you going with all that jazz.
Iguana,
The article is written by someone quite respected, and has not yet been disproved.
As to my weird assertions, they are based on the fact that I have drunk with a man who told me that they have raped ten times in a relationship, and that once he broke a prospective girlfriend's jaw, and she fell in love with him, as a result! They are based on hearing women worried about going home, in case their boyfriend rapes them and receiving no sympathy from fellow drinkers! They are bassed on hearing one man in a bar,threatening to pull his girlfriends teeth out, with pliers, so no-one would fancy her, anymore, more than half-seriously, and being regarded by the rest of the bar as the life and soul of the party! It happens alright, and not just in undeveloped countries! Mainly in relationships and a lot of courtship goes under the threat of a woman losing her looks, if she refuses.
Pardon me, but I think I have some field experience in the subject and have some reason to believe the hypothesis could be true.
There you go. It's a funny world. Maybe I watch too much Star Trek and should get out a bit more!!
The article is written by someone quite respected, and has not yet been disproved.
As to my weird assertions, they are based on the fact that I have drunk with a man who told me that they have raped ten times in a relationship, and that once he broke a prospective girlfriend's jaw, and she fell in love with him, as a result! They are based on hearing women worried about going home, in case their boyfriend rapes them and receiving no sympathy from fellow drinkers! They are bassed on hearing one man in a bar,threatening to pull his girlfriends teeth out, with pliers, so no-one would fancy her, anymore, more than half-seriously, and being regarded by the rest of the bar as the life and soul of the party! It happens alright, and not just in undeveloped countries! Mainly in relationships and a lot of courtship goes under the threat of a woman losing her looks, if she refuses.
Pardon me, but I think I have some field experience in the subject and have some reason to believe the hypothesis could be true.
There you go. It's a funny world. Maybe I watch too much Star Trek and should get out a bit more!!
Last edited:
From the source of the article you cited:
Maybe you should patron better business.
Iguana,
There are more views on the subject further down, and more views on the internet, too:
http://www.anusha.com/rapeevol.htm
And, I would ask you to take some of my accounts in hand. The sort of behaviour I have heard, takes place over an entire area, a few hundred square miles, in bars upwardly mobile people visit.
It's a bit like the Deep South was, or is, in Texas, or at least the depiction giving in the media. It's very insular genetically and very insular socially. It's a hard place to get out of, educationally the people are below average and the women are of lower standing. Very few people want to go in and very few get out. The people who do go in are low acheivers on the scale of life, just getting on the first rung and want to go to a place where they will be of relatively high status. The people who get out never return. It results in a spiral of low acheivement and the denizens develop a peculiar form of arrogance combined with a lot of low esteem, in a sort of weird combination. They convince themselves that they are better, cos no-one goes to see them!
Another thing that happens, is that low acheiving men impregnate women with careers, and force them to give them up ,and look after their low acheiving offspring. High acheiving men are attracted to low acheiving women, as they, curiously, have high status, and give birth to low acheiving offspring. Everything tends towards a below the average!
I admit, they haven't found a rape gene yet, and as other people have said, it's probably a combination of traits, linked to power and control and so on.
I'm willing to bet they all come together, a lot ,in certain men AND women in this area, and the culture intensifies it. I think it happens in other rundown areas in the western and eastern world too, but they are not spread out over a wide area and with a strong cultural identity and reputation. More mobility would be the answer, I think, combined wih cultural change and enlightenment.
We'll find out, hopefully,what genes do what, and this area of research will not be closed off or pooh-poohed.
I don't think that it should result in eugenics or letting people off, cos, they are genetically pre-disposed. It should just result in enlightenment and control. I dread to think it would result in letting people off, cos there's enough people playing the game, educationally, by claiming attention deficit order and so on.
Iguana, maybe there isn;t a rape gene, or a collection of rape orientated genes. But you don't know for sure yet.
Also, I would say, in the Star Trek world, they know a hell of a lot more about this than we do and what makes us tick. But they are proud of their traits, not ashamed.
There are more views on the subject further down, and more views on the internet, too:
http://www.anusha.com/rapeevol.htm
And, I would ask you to take some of my accounts in hand. The sort of behaviour I have heard, takes place over an entire area, a few hundred square miles, in bars upwardly mobile people visit.
It's a bit like the Deep South was, or is, in Texas, or at least the depiction giving in the media. It's very insular genetically and very insular socially. It's a hard place to get out of, educationally the people are below average and the women are of lower standing. Very few people want to go in and very few get out. The people who do go in are low acheivers on the scale of life, just getting on the first rung and want to go to a place where they will be of relatively high status. The people who get out never return. It results in a spiral of low acheivement and the denizens develop a peculiar form of arrogance combined with a lot of low esteem, in a sort of weird combination. They convince themselves that they are better, cos no-one goes to see them!
Another thing that happens, is that low acheiving men impregnate women with careers, and force them to give them up ,and look after their low acheiving offspring. High acheiving men are attracted to low acheiving women, as they, curiously, have high status, and give birth to low acheiving offspring. Everything tends towards a below the average!
I admit, they haven't found a rape gene yet, and as other people have said, it's probably a combination of traits, linked to power and control and so on.
I'm willing to bet they all come together, a lot ,in certain men AND women in this area, and the culture intensifies it. I think it happens in other rundown areas in the western and eastern world too, but they are not spread out over a wide area and with a strong cultural identity and reputation. More mobility would be the answer, I think, combined wih cultural change and enlightenment.
We'll find out, hopefully,what genes do what, and this area of research will not be closed off or pooh-poohed.
I don't think that it should result in eugenics or letting people off, cos, they are genetically pre-disposed. It should just result in enlightenment and control. I dread to think it would result in letting people off, cos there's enough people playing the game, educationally, by claiming attention deficit order and so on.
Iguana, maybe there isn;t a rape gene, or a collection of rape orientated genes. But you don't know for sure yet.
Also, I would say, in the Star Trek world, they know a hell of a lot more about this than we do and what makes us tick. But they are proud of their traits, not ashamed.
Last edited:
Basically, you have a preconceived conclusion you've already drawn despite insufficient evidence, to fit a worldview that's more in line with your personal beliefs.
That's not science, it's religion--maybe philosophy.
In other words, not something that belongs in this forum.
I suggest you start using some real science to back up your position, Cheapjack, and not a bunch of assumptions and anecdotes.
All the stuff you just mentioned has nothing to do with any kind of supposed "rape gene." It's more socioeconomic factors that have very little to do with genetics. It's not like the South is some kind of genetic sandbox, different from the rest of the US. The disparities there are cultural and economic, not genetic. You're confusing sociology with genetics.
I think you need to go take an entry-level genetics course or at least do some reading on the subject that uses legitimate sources. You have some pretty wacky ideas about how genes work and what they can do.
That's not science, it's religion--maybe philosophy.
In other words, not something that belongs in this forum.
I suggest you start using some real science to back up your position, Cheapjack, and not a bunch of assumptions and anecdotes.
All the stuff you just mentioned has nothing to do with any kind of supposed "rape gene." It's more socioeconomic factors that have very little to do with genetics. It's not like the South is some kind of genetic sandbox, different from the rest of the US. The disparities there are cultural and economic, not genetic. You're confusing sociology with genetics.
I think you need to go take an entry-level genetics course or at least do some reading on the subject that uses legitimate sources. You have some pretty wacky ideas about how genes work and what they can do.
Robert, the original point of this post, was that there was a study, by an evolutionary psychologist, and I believe that they are scientists, and this is a science board, that says that there may be a rape gene, or collection of genes.
I'm interested in this cos I read SF and New Scientist and Sci am and I am qualified in the sciences.
This has not been verified by geneticists yet and the article does give some opposing views, some of which, like you, say the whole area of research is a no-no.
I also posted this scientific evidence:
http://www.anusha.com/rapeevol.htm
I did say that culture and genetics play a part equally in my theory.
I do remember reading that the deep south was a little homogenous, genetically, but I do not remember where and I cannot find the quote.
My view is not a world view, and I was not born with it, not did it develop through my formative years. It is based on 43 years of experience. Darwin was not a geneticist, he could not analyse DNA and he came up with a theory based on observation.
I do see, though.that culture probably has a lot to do with areas of low acheivement and those areas do sometimes have low status women and that may trigger something. I think I read somewhere that low acheiving men can be more inclined to rape and low acheivement is cultural in some places. I can see that a genetic study would make some a bit nervous, though. Maybe it should occur, but just be kept in the national archives until we have the maturity or standard of living to open it! Maybe we would be better off not knowing!
I'm interested in this cos I read SF and New Scientist and Sci am and I am qualified in the sciences.
This has not been verified by geneticists yet and the article does give some opposing views, some of which, like you, say the whole area of research is a no-no.
I also posted this scientific evidence:
http://www.anusha.com/rapeevol.htm
I did say that culture and genetics play a part equally in my theory.
I do remember reading that the deep south was a little homogenous, genetically, but I do not remember where and I cannot find the quote.
My view is not a world view, and I was not born with it, not did it develop through my formative years. It is based on 43 years of experience. Darwin was not a geneticist, he could not analyse DNA and he came up with a theory based on observation.
I do see, though.that culture probably has a lot to do with areas of low acheivement and those areas do sometimes have low status women and that may trigger something. I think I read somewhere that low acheiving men can be more inclined to rape and low acheivement is cultural in some places. I can see that a genetic study would make some a bit nervous, though. Maybe it should occur, but just be kept in the national archives until we have the maturity or standard of living to open it! Maybe we would be better off not knowing!
Last edited:
To be honest, Cheapjack, I'm having real trouble working out what your argument is at this point. I'm not sure what you're going for at all.
I'm not especially well-versed in genetic theory myself. However, I will say that there's also a great deal of work that's been done in sociology, psychology and criminology about the social factors which influence rape, from which your argument would also stand to benefit. I'm sure it's not intentional, but some of the conclusions you're drawing about a rape gene 'manifesting' itself in different behaviours smack of rape apologism.
The 'rape gene' theory leads ultimately to the same crappy POV that rape is just something that happens, like bad weather, in the face of which we can do little but throw our hands up in despair. It isn't. Rape is a crime of opportunity committed within social and cultural systems. Blaming it on a "rape gene" ignores decades of studies into the social and environamental factors behind rape.
Incidentally, reading around from some of your links, looks like the original book being discussed isn't actually arguing for a 'rape gene' as a scientifically discoverable biological fact. It's drawing conclusions about rape arguing from a premise that all behaviour can be traced back to the one true principle of individual genetic propagation above all else.
Like most evo-psych, Palmer and Thornhill are reductivist in making broad generalisations about how past genetic adaptation influences current behaviour.
Frankly, it makes theoretical cloud castles out of an issue which is brutally and painfully real to millions of people. Also, it's always worth being aware in a public forum that when you talk about rape there are people whose "field experience" is that they've been raped. Or have loved ones who are survivors. Or who've worked in advocacy or crisis. They have good reason to be distrustful of this sort of reductivism.
I'm not especially well-versed in genetic theory myself. However, I will say that there's also a great deal of work that's been done in sociology, psychology and criminology about the social factors which influence rape, from which your argument would also stand to benefit. I'm sure it's not intentional, but some of the conclusions you're drawing about a rape gene 'manifesting' itself in different behaviours smack of rape apologism.
The 'rape gene' theory leads ultimately to the same crappy POV that rape is just something that happens, like bad weather, in the face of which we can do little but throw our hands up in despair. It isn't. Rape is a crime of opportunity committed within social and cultural systems. Blaming it on a "rape gene" ignores decades of studies into the social and environamental factors behind rape.
Incidentally, reading around from some of your links, looks like the original book being discussed isn't actually arguing for a 'rape gene' as a scientifically discoverable biological fact. It's drawing conclusions about rape arguing from a premise that all behaviour can be traced back to the one true principle of individual genetic propagation above all else.
Like most evo-psych, Palmer and Thornhill are reductivist in making broad generalisations about how past genetic adaptation influences current behaviour.
Frankly, it makes theoretical cloud castles out of an issue which is brutally and painfully real to millions of people. Also, it's always worth being aware in a public forum that when you talk about rape there are people whose "field experience" is that they've been raped. Or have loved ones who are survivors. Or who've worked in advocacy or crisis. They have good reason to be distrustful of this sort of reductivism.
Last edited:
From your link:
Yeah, right. Scientific method at its best.
High scientific standards all around, I see.
Care to offer any link for that?
Relationship to the issue of the thread is critically approaching zero here.
Evolutionary psychologists (a branch of social studies that have been hit recently with a plethora of criticism regarding their methodology) are not geneticists. You seem to conflate a whole lotta studies in just one big pot of "science-y stuff". It doesn't work this way.
Given your positions and arguments, I am forced to doubt that statement.
Try the American Journal of Humbugs. "A little" homogeneous? When an issue about "partially pregnant" women?
Uh?
It's not the research I'm criticizing, but your somehow hollow understanding of it.
Your article prove nothing, there's no scientific datas - I mean, real genetic studies - to back those specualtions.
Next question.
Sciorx,
Really, I think it's a mixture of genes and culture. But so are some diseases, we know that, now, and we can avoid them with a healthier lifestyle, and education!!?? Maybe we can do the same with this area, or maybe not?
In some ways, I wish I'd never said anything!
But I've heard some bad things, you know.
Really, I think it's a mixture of genes and culture. But so are some diseases, we know that, now, and we can avoid them with a healthier lifestyle, and education!!?? Maybe we can do the same with this area, or maybe not?
In some ways, I wish I'd never said anything!
But I've heard some bad things, you know.
From your link:
Yeah, right. Scientific method at its best.
High scientific standards all around, I see.
Care to offer any link for that?
Relationship to the issue of the thread is critically approaching zero here.
Evolutionary psychologists (a branch of social studies that have been hit recently with a plethora of criticism regarding their methodology) are not geneticists. You seem to conflate a whole lotta studies in just one big pot of "science-y stuff". It doesn't work this way.
Given your positions and arguments, I am forced to doubt that statement.
Try the American Journal of Humbugs. "A little" homogeneous? When an issue about "partially pregnant" women?
Uh?
It's not the research I'm criticizing, but your somehow hollow understanding of it.
Iguana, I CAN read, you know. I've been doing it since I was five. The very original link posted the idea. There are a lot of opposing views too. There is no proof yet, cos they haven't totally analysed the genes. I've given some quite good anecdotes and they are not scientifically backed up, and may never be. But, as I said, I think it's a matter of genes and culture, like some diseases, and we may be able to avoid it, or lessen it, or maybe not, as it's a touchy subject, a bit like impotence. And, things like breast cancer, which I think they've found has some genetic component, only affects the carrier and no one else and isn't illegal to have.
- Status
Similar threads
