Because you haven't got it right so far. I want to see if you're capable. Let's see how far you get in this next part, for example:
Fail. It took you just thirteen words to go off the rails.
Once again, who and what are you again? Just some halfwit who thinks that rape is caused by biological triggers and that it's really just down to being about sex..
Unfortunately, others disagree with them also, which I note you avoid like the plague. But you think biology cannot inform psychology at all? This constant duality in thinking of yours is fascinating. Tell me more.
Because once again, the biological trigger model does not explain child rape, male victims of rape or elderly rape victims. And I know, you tried to explain it as being "inappropriate breeding attempts or hybridization", because really.. My god, how could you?.. But it has been proven time and again that rape is not just about sex or because they are horny (as you tried to argue that soldiers are just always horny apparently).
If your male ancestors had evolved to rape, or more to the point, to rape because it was beneficial for them to do so, then we would not be here. Because while it may benefit the male, it certainly never benefited the female to be raped. The result would be a corresponding reaction to prevent being raped. And no, the stronger gripping hands, being racist towards black people (because apparently only white women have this reaction, there is no such reaction for anyone who isn't white) and wanting to be alone but not really alone would not be it. There are some, like that dolt, who believe that women can actually stop their reproductive cycle if they are raped. Why does he think this? Because in part, he believes that rape is caused by biological triggers, so in his mind, he thinks that women have the innate ability to simply "shut it down" if they get pregnant from a rape, so in his mind, exemptions for rape victims in abortion legislation is not necessary.
Then of course, we come to the whole 'if it is caused by a biological trigger, how do women stop it?'.. In short, it once again places the onus on the victim to not be raped. I get why this is hard for you to understand, I get that you act like a 'belligerent arsehole' (wow, that does feel good!) because it doesn't fit into your theory so you just want to ignore it altogether and downplay it, but do try. When a rapist beats his or her victim and jams anything into their vagina, anus, mouth, not even their penis, some use bottles, some even use broken bottles in the vagina and anus especially, broom handles, their fingers or fists, a stick that was lying on the ground, a crowbar - I could go on and on - it's not because it's sexual, nor does it have a biological trigger. It is because that rapist wants to humiliate and completely control and over power his or her victim. It is about complete dominance over that victim.
General Pinochet’s regime carried out many gruesome and horrific acts of sexual abuse against the victims. In fact, several detention sites were solely instituted for the purpose of sexually tormenting and humiliating the prisoners. Discothèque (La Venda Sexy) was another one of DINA’s main secret detention centers. Many of those who “disappeared” were initially held in this prison. The prison guards often raped both men and women. It was at this prison where internal repression operations were centralized. Militants anally raped male prisoners, while insulting them, in an attempt to embarrass them to their core.[23]
Women were the primary targets of gruesome acts of sexual abuse. According to the Valech Commission, almost every single female prisoner was a victim of repeated rape. Not only would military men rape women, they would also use foreign objects and even animals to inflict more pain and suffering. Women (and occasionally men) reported that spiders and live rats were often implanted on their genitals. One woman testified that she had been “raped and sexually assaulted with trained dogs and with live rats.” She was forced to have sex with her father and brother—who were also detained
Where is the sexual impetus here?
You have repeatedly argued that rape has to have a sexual impetus, a biological trigger. Can you please explain where that is the case in the quoted text above?
Hey, I wasn't the one who said he was a "man who had taken up the mantle of defending rape" or whatever it was.
Well you do. When you claim it is just about sex, that it is caused by biological triggers (without proof mind you and in the face of a virtual mountain of contradictory evidence), you are excusing it. Because if it is biological, then it is not something that can always be controlled by the rapist. Then we have the issue of where the victim can set it off, apparently at any time.
Bells, for all I know, you're a dude living in his parents' basement. I don't know what happened to you, ultimately, and it has no place on here. Being attacked, whether you were or not, has nothing to do with this discussion. If it occurred, normally I'd presume that you'd take yourself out of such a discussion, as you have sometimes in the past when you describe yourself as being too close to an issue. Your experiences and background, whatever they may be, have nothing to do with this.
See, you could try and get away with that excuse, but you can't. Because you know that I am not a dude living in his parents basement. Just as you knew that I had sons when you made the ridiculous comments about how you hoped I didn't have sons in a previous post. Just like I know how many children you have when I did not bring your children in this discussion..
Are you suggesting that in a discussion about rape, my rape has no place in it? How bizarre.. Is that because what happened to me does not fit into your sexual component or have a biological trigger, so you wish to downplay it?
Why should I remove myself from the discussion? What's the matter GeoffP? Are you trying to silence me entirely? See, that's the thing with people like you. You're quick fling spurious comments about rape, but you can't really support it when faced with actual rape victims.
Well, if so, I could only have learned it from you.
Oh is that what you call it now? What are you? 5?
Well, the two-bit biologist already answered the one-bit lawyer. Does the one-bit lawyer not really understand? Or is s/he pretending not to?
No, you did not answer it at all.
You referred to links that do not even touch on the subject, at all.
So here is the question again.
"Which animal species uses sex as a weapon or tool to terrorise and harm others?"
Mmm well that's a lie. Not unusual. Next!
I'm sorry, are you now denying when you edited your quotes of your own posts and tried to declare it was for context?
Then I'll ask again: which ones? Hmmmm? Which species use rape and "lead a very solitary existence". I provided several that do rape, among other sexual violence, and which don't "lead a very solitary existence". So support your argument... oh wait, you were just trolling again, weren't you? You don't actually have any evidence, as usual. (Sigh.) Next.
"Next"? Do you click your fingers in a 'Z' shape when you say that?
Male Japanese monkeys, the loris, orangutans, the galagos are also known to lead solitary lives, with some social interaction, the same with the aye-aye - all lead a solitary existence.
Also, "rape" does not exist in the animal kingdom. It is a human construct. I find it strange that you, a supposed biologist, would keep claiming that animals rape.
As a biologist, this should be something you should know already, shouldn't it?
You provided absolutely nothing whatsoever to answer the question of which animal species that uses sex as a weapon or tool to terrorise and harm others. None whatsoever.
There's a variety of putative statistical (that means "the relative weight of numbers", essentially, just to help you out) problems here: how many of each? Would such densities actually detect minor 'biological' impulses? What kind of power exists for such detection? And on, and on. I have no doubt - as I've said several times already - that various human psychological systems are responsible for the vast majority of such crime. Any basal biological triggers would form a remnant of behaviour, and would not - which you've lied about several times already - form a unitary control, or even a small plurality. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt "social science" - to all appearances as biased a philosophy as "Christian science" - has the power, comprehension or political asperity to conduct any assay of it: witness the wild reactions from some pseudo-lawyers and/or people involved with social apparatus.
See, there you go again, dismissing what other fields you deem to be beneath you have found after years of research.. And the complete dismissal and disregard for the mountain of evidence that completely contradicts you.
And that goes to the heart of your intellectual dishonesty. You argue for biological triggers and you bring it down to just being about sex, but you are incapable of supporting it, nor are you even capable of explaining it when faced with actual rape situations and with the experiences of rape victims. In doing so, you create excuses for rape, or why men rape, while openly ignoring that children, men and the elderly are also raped. That is dismissed because it does not fit into the model you are trying your best to argue. If it was about sex, then rapists would not be using objects to rape, generals would not be giving their soldiers viagra to force them to be able to rape to cause fear and terror and to control the enemy. If it was just about sex, male prisoners would not be controlling parts of the prison population by becoming virtual pimps and selling other male prisoners to garner favours while in prison, while terrorising the rest of the male prison population with threats of rape, to ensure their superiority within the population itself.
Another English failing. Or... well, I notice you didn't dare repost that quote of yours that I used to puncture your own proposition about wartime sexual assault being about power alone. I suspect this is 'diagnostic', shall we say.
What? The article from the BBC? It's already been quoted and posted around 3 times now. How many times do I need to post it?
I forget, you think that the forced rapes of women in warzones, was not used as a tool to control and subjugate the enemy, was not used to destabilise the enemy. No, to you, it all came down to sex and probably what you envision the desire to procreate. The procreation was encouraged to destroy the enemy - hence why mass rapes in war zones are deemed forms of genocide. It's not because of a biological trigger, nor does it have a sexual component to it.
When women were mass raped in Bangladesh, some were hung from trees, with their breasts chopped off and mutilated, others were kept in rape camps, where a very large portion of them died from the rapes they were forced to endure by the Pakistani soldiers. Do you think that was just about sex?
The women who fell pregnant and gave birth to Pakistani children were either killed or ostracised by their husbands or families, others were killed by the very children they gave birth to. Do you think all of this happened because the Pakistani soldiers were horny? That it was just sexual? That it was a biological trigger to spread the seed, so to speak? No GeoffP. It was used to bring down the enemy and to humiliate them and to control and exert power over them. Rape as a tool of war, is completely about dominance, subjugation, power, humiliation, control.. It's not just sex. I know you tried to argue that you know that soldiers are just horny all the time, and frankly, that you put it down to that says more about you than you may realise, but the reality of rape as a tool of war is much more horrific than just horny soldiers.
That was so badly constructed it's almost anti-English. "Heaven forbid it's used to subjugate and terrorise the population"? Are you off your nut?
I am not the one arguing that it is just down to sex and being sexual. You are.
So are you off your nut?
Glad you agree that it's a possibility. But before you agree: what does that mean? Hmm? What's Geoff mean by that?
Oh I don't agree that it is a possibility.
I think it is just yet another example of you trying to find an excuse for why men rape (while disregarding the simple fact that women and children also rape). And in this case, it is yet another excuse from you for why children, men and the elderly are raped. Frankly, not only do I disagree, I also think you are a sick and twisted man.
I should follow their work like some kind of Christopher Hitchens fanboy? Please. I like Fraggle but Tiassa drags on for ages without saying anything concrete.
Yet another excuse for your behaviour? Yet more lies? I shouldn't be surprised.
Not let's try thinking again, shall we? What specifically did he say, and what specifically did I defend? (By the by, make this what I actually said and not what your agenda demands you represent it as.) Did I defend darkside as darkside, or point out that it is possible for darkside to say something that might be factual from time to time? Should I go back and search your posts and see if there's any point at which you agreed with him about anything so much as the time of day? Under your definition, you see, that would make you a defender of rapists.
Go back and read it, GeoffP. It has only been mentioned and discussed enough that you are now just trolling by demanding more and more evidence, when it has already been provided. Plus, considering how you whine that everyone is putting things out of context when it's quoted, why don't you go back and read it to make sure that if I quote it, it's not out of context?
Yup. I ridiculed what is rapidly becoming serial verbal abuse from you. I don't deny it at all. I might keep doing it. I guess in Bells’ world, only Bells exists. Hell, Schrodinger only had the one cat, right?
Interesting. After repeated denials that you had done it, now you claim that you don't deny it. You do realise just how dishonest you sound, yes? You should go into politics. I bet you'd give Ken Buck a run for his money.
Awww, so now Bells thinks that dragging people's families into an argument is wrong... again. It's the damnedest thing how this just keeps happening, isn't it? We argue, and you drag my family into it. And then I back you off, and you rope-a-dope. So here's some ideas: stop painting me into your sick fantasies and stop bringing my family into the discussion. Oh and regarding your supposed "colleague": would you mind telling the cunt to not get involved in discussion he doesn't understand? Maybe he could concentrate on abusing his own family, say, instead of drawing idiotic assertions about someone else's. By the by: that's more libel at the end there.
Firstly, you are the one who dragged my sons into this, not I. You are also the one who abused my family, my parenting style, you inferred that I was abusing my children..
Did I even mention your family? No. I did comment that it's probably for the best that you did not have daughters, because really, imagine if she is ever raped and having to come to you for some kind of support or understanding, or if she ever needs an abortion? Because you are hardly a compassionate or understanding human being. Perhaps your dragging my actual sons into it, inferring that I was a bad and abusive parent is your response to that, then so be it. But don't try to claim that when you make such comments, that I was the one abusing your family. You know I have two sons. We have traded enough parenting PM's for you to be lying if you are going to claim that you did not know. Just as I know how many children you have by those very PM's.
So when you make comments that infer that I am actually abusing my sons, don't try to then claim that I am abusing or dragging your family into it. Since you were the one who did that repeatedly. But nice try. Too bad it failed for you, huh?
Another fail. Only eleven words this time. Which people, Bells?
Well the ones mentioned in this thread so far, aside from you, Thornhill, Palmer, Pinker..
No, no, Bells: this is evidence of something that cannot be. And so it must be dismissed. It's disgusting that they should even suggest such a thing. Do you think they should be shot, or only tarred and feathered?
Well of course it is, because it is downright stupid.
Unless of course you are going to claim that a study that looked at how tightly a woman gripped a steering wheel at different times of the month is indicative of a biological reaction to the possibility of rape? Good luck with that one!
Hah. Well, your admission comes late, but it is timely: your stance is political. There was no need for you to gripe about my position on this, but you did. And, using your criteria, this is what you don't like about what I've written - it has the tinge of something else. Done and done.
Ah, so my contention that rape is about power, domination, control, subjugation, to instill fear is based solely on a political stance?
See, you aren't really helping your cause here at all.
Because once again, your gripe that you feel it is simply politics, is usually the gripe that rape apologists often have against rape laws, because to such individuals, rape is natural and simply biological. Like Pinker who whined that rape is now so political, that having sex with a woman who is too drunk to be able to consent is now legally classified as rape. Do you agree with this contention also?
Do you? I bet you don’t, really.
And you are still doing it.
I'm impressed. That was a lot more words before you went off the rails. If you'd bothered to read, you'd have noticed that I've described it as a remnant effect, not a primary one and not one that was directionally selected to increase but rather decrease in frequency. So in fact, that means men are specifically evolving away from rape, presuming that the species had such a disposition in the first place, which means you proposed that absolutely backwards. Absolute fail.
Ah, so in arguing that it is a remnant effect, you are claiming that men are evolving away from rape. How do you figure that? Because of declining rape numbers?
And how does this factor for female rapists?
You see GeoffP, your argument falls flat on its face repeatedly.. Because you are only looking at male rapists who rape women or sometimes, other men. But what about female rapists, who rape men, women and children? Can you please provide the biological impetus for that in human evolution? What is the biological impetus for a woman to rape a woman or a child? Or a man to rape another man or a child? Or are you going to claim that it's just another case of "inappropriate breeding attempts or hybridization"? Because so far, you have ignored this altogether. Are you ignoring it because it does not fit into your "alternate model"?
Well, Bells… then wouldn’t that still be you? You’re the one arguing that if biological it must be natural, and therefore not bad. I would never make such an idiotic leap of judgement, logic or morality, and so, like a fart, if it wasn’t me that dealt it, that leaves you. Is this what you want to say? What do you perceive of as ‘natural’? Do you really consider all things ‘natural’ to be ‘good’?
I'm not the one arguing that, GeoffP. I get that you are enough of a dishonest hack to try and claim that, but I am not actually the one arguing that. Rape apologists are the ones who argue this all the time.
They do? Which side is this? Who has argued that rape is biological in toto?
Going to deny your own argument?
Whoa whoa – who’s arguing that, aside from you?
Once again, intellectual dishonesty.. Really not looking too good for you now..
Who are “that creationist(s)”? I thought the argument for partial biological impulses came from biologists, not creationists. Now you think they’re both? Okay, Bells: just step back for a minute and try to decide what it is you want to argue. Think about what you’re trying to say, and what kind of evidence suggests that. Form a hypothesis about the phenomenon. By the book, okay, counsellor?
Wow, talk about continued misrepresentation and trolling. Keep it up.
Well, there’s no doubt you fit somewhere in that latter category, but is this very Christian politician now meant to be a biologist too? I’m sorry, but if he’s that committed to the social inequalities of formalised theism religion, then it’s my suspicion that he’d be as biased in his expectations and interpretations of science as, say, a ‘social scientist’ might be.
More lying, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. You're on a roll.
… ‘those like me’? Atheists? Tall people? The educated? North Americans? Males? The grammar is a bit occluded as well: “argued for rape is biological”. What do you mean by “rape is biological”? Specify.
As above.
“Arguing against rape is biological”? Grammar again. Did you notice the other scientists suggesting there might be some kind of ESS-like influences on sexual assault? You brought them up earlier to tut-tut at them (ex: “Well that is what a couple biologists claim it has to be”) but there wasn’t really anything one could call a rebuttal. Now you're pretending this other side brings nothing to the table. It’s like sometimes you know that they exist and sometimes you don’t. I’m sure that’s not suspicious or deceptive or anything.
I would say a book with dozens of scientists offering rebuttals would classify? And the numerous books, articles and studies to show how Thornhill and Palmer, for example, are wrong would qualify.
But what do they know? I mean, here you are, GeoffP, supposed biologist who has spent a few pages whining that classifying rape to be about power, dominance, control, subjugation, used as a tool of war, prison rapes being about power and control and dominance and fear is a political reaction to rape.. That it's too political. You are conceited enough to assume that you are the best. Continue to live with that fantasy.
(That’s sarcasm, by the way: that’s how it’s done. Take some notes.)
Once again, why do I want to take notes from the guy who is doing his best to create excuses for rape in the most repugnant ways imaginable?
