Female sexuality

[Monkeytrousers]

hello and welcome

What do you think the argument is that "men rape because of evolution" apart from biological determinism?

Are you an EP yourself?

Also are you going to address anything I've said there?

Oh FGS Elizabetth, don't be ridiculous. Read the bloody books, you might actually learn something

I'm going to ask you again MT, do you actualy understand what you are arguing? Thornill and Palmer are arguing that rape is an evolutionary adaptation - that is biological determinism.

You can tell me to "read the bloody books" all you like, but you haven't addressed anything substantial here and secondly I think "read the bloody books" is probably more appropriate advice for you because the longer this thread goes on the more certain I am that you haven't read the feminists you are criticising.

I think the same about Griet Vandermassen, and Thornhill and Palmer BTW.

That is not what they are arguing - do you always define complex arguments by the limits of your own ignorance?

How can you be certain of anything? Really? When you are mouthing the words of othes and criticise me for asking you to actually go read the data for yourself. Something is serioulsy amiss in your logical faculites if you think that is somehow proof of yoour argument.

Tell me what you think they are arguing then MT. You're the one writing a thesis on this. You should be able to explain it. In other words you're making the claims - back them up.

And I'm not mouthing the words of others. I posted Coyne's criticisms because you seem so bloody impressed by SCIENCE that I thought maybe a scientist in a field related to yours might carry more weight. Apparently not.

I notice you're still avoiding the issue of the feminists you think you're criticising. You haven't read them have you? The difference between you and me of course is that I'm not writing a thesis on it.

E, in answer to your question, I rather think that the argument that "men rape because of evolution" is a gross distortion of the ep position and displays a lack of understanding about the interplay between genetic and environmental/cultural factors which we have discussed previously on this thread.

I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, but have done a reasonable amount of reading around the subject and been convinced by a lot of Etin's and Monkeytrouser's posts on this thread as well as by the Griet Vandermassen article that you posted. I've yet to be convinced by those who have argued against ep here, but I wouldn't be shocked to discover that there are some good arguments against (there usually are for most things). Was hoping to eke them out by my questions.

I think I tend towards agreeing with Elizabetth - although with slightly less vigour...

EP is theoretical, and I suppose I tend to raise an eyebrow at non-experimental approaches to science.

It is also based on a number of assumptions, which may or may not be valid. And making such firm assertions on the basis of hypothesses based on assumptions also makes me raise an eyebrow.

I am reminded of a joke about an engineer, a chemist and an economist on a desert island with a tin of food but no tin opener. I forget the whole thing , but the engineer and chemist did something suitably appropriate to their training to open the tin. The economist said "lets assume a tin opener..."

OBM, we can only guide you towards the data. It is there for you to make your own minds up. If someo one were to pay me to do this here on MN, then I would gladly do it.

Just because we have a life and cannot transcribe books and books worth of data, but instead provide accurate sources and beg you to read them for yoursleves before making your judgements, we are being told that is stil not enbough. Wel I fear nothing will ever be enough - but that is Elizabetth's problem.

I am not going to engage with Elizabetth anymore, as her position becomes ever more obsurd, reactionary and illogical.

OBM, you say you have been startled by some assertions on this thread - maybe we can get back to some reasonable debate if you assert them to us/me?

"I rather think that the argument that "men rape because of evolution" is a gross distortion of the ep position and displays a lack of understanding about the interplay between genetic and environmental/cultural factors which we have discussed previously on this thread."

What does it grossly distort, could you be specific. What environmental factors did Thornhill and Palmer take into account when they were constructing their arguments?

TUM, I think you too should read teh books before coming to the conclusion that EP is mearly "assumption".

I think you aren't engaging with me because you haven't read the books of the people you are planning to criticise in your thesis Monkeytrousers. I hope you do because it will make for a more substantial piece of work, although I guess your EP teachers probably won't notice. I think you're also having a problem because I've raised issues like Thornhill's and Palmer's distortion on the data about the age of rape victims that there simply isn't an answer to. What it shows is the data doesn't support their thesis.

My position isn't reactionary, I just remain completely unconvinced by EP's claims to be a science, a science that feminism is apparently supposed to bow down to.

"The economist said "lets assume a tin opener..."

Hee.

Going back to the original subject of female sexuality, there is always Shere Hite, who has probably done the most substantial research on this subject in the past thirty odd years:

www.hite-research.com/

There are quite a few articles over there which might be worth reading. I'm certainly going to take a look.

Hey MT - is it time for a Christopher Hitchins moment?
Thanks for this ovate-worthy thread, hope you and etin can keep up the excellent work.

It would be fantastic if you could at least
afford us a glimpse of this data but I do
appreciate the effort involved.

I have read about EP MT.

AMongst other things, it assumes that psychological traits are discrete, heritable and have been subject to natural selection.

These may well be valid assumptions, but assumptions they are.

Do I have read some data where it suits your argument, but not others when it doesn't. You have magical capabilites obvioulsy. My history on MN is long, as is my development from a tradional feminist to a Darwinian one. If you wish to track that, and my reading inspirations, you have a few years of posts to go though. I was even at one point called the Dworkin of MN.

I have no need to ptove myslef to you, someone who does not know me yet feels quite secure calling me a liar and a fraud - which is what you are saying isn;t it?

I am glad you fidn it funny. I think you are quite mad and am sorry I defended your ignorance so robustly in the porn thread.

I meant Griet's book TUM - soz for confusion.

Maybe DaddyJ!

I cannot do justice to the data by posting tiny bits of it - i wil then be accused of selectively posting only for my own agenda.

Really, these books are available on Amazon and are very reasonably priced.

The most authoriative one is from Anne Campbell and is called A Mind of Her Own: The evolutioanry psychologty of women, but this is less so reasonably priced, but if money is no object, it's the one to have!

I have never said that feminism must bow down to science, just that it can be improved by it. Your weasil words are really quite dispicable.

I have no doubt that youw will remain unconvinced about EP's scientific standing regardless of evidence Elizabetth, whioch is why there is no point debating this with you any more.

I am sure people will make the effort to read some of these books
and make up their own minds. I shall - and I will post you some feedback, too!

Thanks to this thread at least I know which books to go for.

Have yourself a break, Monkeytrousers. You deserve it!

You're writing a thesis on marrying feminism with EP aren't you? Surely you will be referring to specific feminists and what you object to about their arguments in that work? That's what I'm trying to get at.

I'm not calling you a liar and a fraud. I'm just saying, like most people who criticise feminists and feminism you appear to be less acquainted with the arguments than you think you are. The fact that you think Thornhill, Dawkins, Palmer and Paglia are feminists is further demonstration of that.

And once again the difference is that I am not stomping up to EP and demanding that feminism gives them their "ultimate" explanations, but EPs are definitely doing it to feminists.

I'm not mad, I can just spot a political agenda when I see one.

"Do I have read some data where it suits your argument, but not others when it doesn't. You have magical capabilites obvioulsy."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but the point is that Thornhill and Palmer argue that rape is a evolutionary adaptation developed as a reproductive strategy, which they think is supported by their claim that women of reproductive age are overreperesented as victims. However it turns out that their data is incorrect and girls under twelve are overrepresented. They also appear to ignore male rape, gang rape, rape of women past child-bearing years etc, etc. You argued that the Home Office report supported their thesis, then I think you admitted that it only studied rapes of women over 16, once again ignoring children and also male victims. If someone is going to make claim about rape then they have to examine all rapes that men commit, not just the ones that suit their argument.

Here is a books worth of stuff - it is on the syllabus at the LSE. Pulished from the Demos (left leaning) think tank

Matters of Life and Death

"I have never said that feminism must bow down to science, just that it can be improved by it. Your weasil words are really quite dispicable."

And speaking of weasel words, I never just said it was just your argument that feminism should bow down to EP, quite a few EPs share that view. However I'll just repeat what you've said about feminism. You certainly don't have much respect for it:

"I think feminism has simply been raging about it for so long now it will feel like a humilation to change the rhetoric or see how much things have changed (ironically helped very much by feminism enabling women to enter the sciences). But the longe it digs it's heels in the longer it risks becoming irrelevent."

"Those type of criticisms just don?t hold sway anymore, and feminism needs to stop mouthing them, putting those words into the mouths of very intelligent women as it disempowers women, feminists and feminism in fact. "

"evolutionary science has been edified by the women in it, women with feminist consciousnesses, but also with the capacity to look beyond ideology if that seems to be hindering female progression rather than helping it"

"Evolutionary theory then provides ultimate explanations for these phenomena."

"I think it is very dangerous and, even more, unconscionable for feminism to take the irrational stand it does with evolutionary theory. To close your eyes to the truth is to turn your back on millions of women who need the help of a biologically and psychologically robust and intellectually sound feminism."

"feminist dogma on rape"

"unfortunatlry shows how unprogressive traditional feminism has become. "

ffs

www.demos.co.uk/files/mattersoflifeandddeath.pfd

That one doesn't work either MT, sorry...

right, paste

matters of life and death demos

into google

click on first link

click to download full text as pfd