I’m not sure you’re wrong. I think if you and Gary read the chapter on rape in the Pinker book that I mentioned you’d both come away feeling vindicated actually.

Yes, I mean no potential to rape. I suspect that’s true across all cultures - despite media horror stories about weird native customs. They don’t usually report the full emotional panoply, political power plays and general cultural opinion behind their gross simplifications.

I am not stating my life on this - I think I could be wrong.

I mostly agree with you - except on the potential rapist thing. For men to not be potential rapists they have to have two things: no sex drive and no potential innate violence. They actually have both. In the ‘right’ circumstances the two can combine…

Do you really mean that men are unlikely to rape - rather than have no potential to rape? If you were to say that then, so far as this country is concerned, I’d agree. There are sufficient constraints here that rape is regarded for the abhorent act that it really is.

And, yes, you’re right: nobody is good enough for my daughter..!

I meant evolutionary benefit for that behavior - how it can help the spread of the genes of that subset of males who have those genes.

The potential to rape does exist in those males who have those genes, just not in all males. It does not exist in most men.

Fantasising about some kind of non-consensual sex or playing sex games that involve that is not the same as a potential to rape. Most men don’t fantasise about the terror and pain involved in a rape.

So yeah, the potential to rape does not exist in most men.

I totally agree about daughters - but would you be so concerned about her going out just dressed to thrill to a secure place? Apart from any ‘nobody is good enough for my daughter’ thoughts?:-) And woud you be equally concerned at her going out not so dressed up but still intending to get blind drunk in an insecure palce.

It’s a woman’s actions - blind drunkenness, walking down dark alleys alone etc. - that can put her in danger. Where it is easier for a rapist to pounce. Blind drunkenness actually decreases the sexual allure of a woman to a lot of men - to most, I would venture.

We are so bombarded with messages to males that sex is about the physical only, with minmal emotional content, that we forget to realise that sex and sexual allure does not work (only or mainly) that way for most of us men - even when young.

Gary Monro, in the middle of an excellent post on responsibility and rape, tossed out “Blair and his neocon friends” as the culprits behind the recent repressive anti-terror legislation.

“Roughly speaking, an American neocon is som…

Evolutionary benefits of rape - I am afraid that you are in a very small minority here by claiming that evolution works for the benefit of the species. Doesn’t mean you are wrong…

Well, it probably does actually.

I didn’t write what I actually meant. I was referring to a sentence of yours in which you say, ‘I find the explanation of the evolutionary benefits of rape to a very small section of males to be convincing enough.’

My point was supposed to be that a behavioural trait is either general - so not restricted to a few members of a species - or else it is an abberation, a mutation (but one which might one day become general). In the latter case it probably doesn’t qualify for being an evolutionary ‘benefit’ - not, at least, until it has spread. That, hopefully, isn’t likely.

I don’t know that there is actually a propensity to rape as such. More, there is the propensity to want to have sex and then there are norms and cultural beliefs which determine (generally) how that desire may be fulfilled.

If rape was a potential in all men’s behavior then I think we would see much more of it.

Well, we don’t know how much there actually is and, as Frank reminds us, much rape isn’t stranger rape so I wonder if more occurs without the victim reporting it.

Are you saying that the potential to rape does not exist at all in some men?

In England I think most of us regard rape from the victim’s point of view and understand it to be the violation and humiliation that it undoubtedly is. Evidence from Afghanistan - and other countries - suggests people regard virginity to be a commodity which, if lost to rape, shames the family and degrades the girl herself. The victim can actually be the subject of anger, violence and worse for ‘allowing’ that loss.

All in all, if my daughter were to go out at night dressed to thrill and determiined to drink herself silly I would have something to say about it. My reasons would be various but the fear that she would become the target of a predatory male would loom large in my mind. Of course, Ms Baird would be scandalised by my advice - the Labour Party is, after all, the only fit institution to raise our children. But I imagine a number of fathers of girls would feel similarly.

Yes, that sounds like political correctness, but questioning the link between dress and rape is not.

Evolutionary benefits of rape - I am afraid that you are in a very small minority here by claiming that evolution works for the benefit of the species. Doesn’t mean you are wrong, I know, but nearly all recent evolutionary theory interprets the evidence as genes mutating in the individual to be the evolutionary powerhouse. If the mutation increases the chances of the individual’s genes being reproduced then it the mutation hangs around.

So rape is judged on the evolutionary benefits to the individual.

Psychopaths make up approximately 5% of the population, it does not mean that we all have psychopathic tendencies.

If rape is an evolved behavior for some individuals which is not dependent on sexual desire as the primary diving force for seeking sex then one would expect rape to occur opportunistically and not be dependent on sexual allure, within some limits.

This seems to be the case. I would venture most rapists don’t have an ambition to rape an attractive woman.

Maybe my analogy with burglary does not stand up, as burglars get more skilful while rapists don’t in a similar sense.

Looking at rape statistics around the world, I can not see any obvious correlations, with Australia, Zimbabwe and Iceland all in the top ten, and Hong Kong, Greece and Azerbaijan in the bottom 10. I suspect the reporting and definitions of each country make the statistics pretty unreliable.

Yes, there are more rapes in times of war and civil breakdown - which can just be easily explained as there being more opportunities for those genetically inclined to rape. Soldiers especially are not recruited from society’s norms.

If rape was a potential in all men’s behavior then I think we would see much more of it.

I think Gary is probably right when he says that (say) dressing provocatively matters. But you’re probably also right when you say it doesn’t matter much. I’d speculate that alcohol is a far bigger risk factor, since it would make victims less careful and perpetrators less inhibited. Also, the discussion seems to fixated on the image of the rapist as stranger down a dark alley, when many (most?) rapists are not strangers but people already known to the victim, or introduced socially.

I understand that it is your fear that you would essentially be tarred with the same brush if rape is seen as a ‘male crime’. However that a conclusion is not palatable is not a reason to avoid that conclusion if it is true (I’m not saying it is). Of course it is only some men who would be predisposed to rape if it were genetic - but even if it was all or most men, so what? We really are predisposed to have consensual sex; but we manage to check that predisposition in many circumstances, don’t we? Genes are not destiny.

And if rape were some kind of genetic disorder, wouldn’t that be a good thing? Maybe then we could treat it. Maybe then we could show compassion for both victim and perpetrator. I would certainly rather see rape treated in hospitals if it were possible, or in some manner that works, rather than in the criminal justice system which seems totally ill-equipped to deal with it.

In any case I think this is all losing sight of the fact that women aren’t infants and know themselves what is a risky behaviour and what is not. They can figure this out themselves. Also losing sight of the message of the survey, which is that people aren’t blaming men. They’re blaming the victim.
Lastly don’t forget that rape started out pretty much as a property crime, against the woman’s husband or father. It’s not as if women don’t have something major to be grieved about here.

It is political correctness which has the likes of Vera Baird, MP, demanding that a judge needs ‘retraining’ because the prosecution case against a man accused of rape collapsed.

Would she have opened her mouth if it had been the trial of a woman using her feminine wiles to deprive a man of his wallet? She would have if the man was saying he wasn’t even sure that a crime had been committed - which is what the woman in the rape case is saying.

There is no ‘different perception’ here. The law is the law and it is only because the crime plays a part in the men vs women ender war that people like Baird want different rules applied - to the detriment, perhaps, of a man who is legally totally innocent.

That’s political correctness in my book.

Your analogy with burglars and rapists is quite the analogy you imagine it to be. Burglars raid poorer houses because they have less security and so are easier to enter. More sophisticated burglars raid better protected - but more lucrative - homes. The choice is based on professional ability not on relative attractiveness. I am sure all burglars would like to raid mansions in Belgravia but many have to put up with council flats in Peckham.

With regards to evolutionary benefits of rape these things do not apply to some males but to the species as a whole. Sexual desire is nature’s way of producing babies. If the desire is strong enough and the restraints - both the man’s own internal ones plus society’s external ones - are weak enough rape will happen. The looser the restraints the more prevalent will be rape.

This accounts for different rape statistics around the world - you will find correlating differences in attitude to women, risk of being arrested and severity of penalties for abusing them. It also accounts for increased rape during civil unrest or societal breakdown in ‘civilised’ countries. Men don’t see women and want to rape, they see women and want to have sex. Rape is a method - an appalling one, of course - of getting that sex.

I am quite comfortable with the idea that men are potential rapists because men are also potential murderers, thieves, torturers, nurturers, teachers, carers and so on. Cultural norms and the existence of order will determine which of these potentials men (and women) tend towards.

Thanks for the reality check!
I am not yet crazy enough to claim that rape doesn’t involve sex, however I feel after getting my latest tax demand.

And there are for sure some areas of behavior that could place victims in a position of vulnerability where they could be attacked.

I think what we are discussing is whether rape is a continuation of sexual desire which is not controlled (this would put most men in the class of potential rapists) or whether it is a ‘perversion’ - a behavior that a certain set of genes bias the perpetrator towards. In which case what a woman wears might not be important, as the initial action is not ruled by sexual desire as we understand it, but a more warped view of sex and violence combined. See woman, want to rape to put it crudely.

Pinker seems to be saying the latter (without the value judgments). Evolutionary psychology can help understand why behaviors persist, but does not say that behaviors that have evolved are common to everybody.

The danger of the first point of view is that it is saying the same as some diehard feminists and others - that rape is a male crime - all males are capable of it as it is just a continuation of sexual desire, Women’s dress can inflame male desire increase the possibility of rape. That is not blaming the woman at all, but it is putting the onus on males.

I find the explanation of the evolutionary benefits of rape to a very small section of males to be convincing enough. Same as the explanation of the evolutionary benefits of psychosis to a very small section of humans. Psychotics operate as : see human, be horrible and rapists operate as above. They ain’t no brothers of mine, and lots of sexual stimuli does not increase the incidence of rape.

Happy to stand corrected on this one, if there’s anything to show me wrong(ish).

Rape is a violent crime, however there is pretty convincing evidence that it also has a sexual element. See Steven Pinker’s book, “The Blank Slate” for a good explanation of this. Some data points:

- Rape is predominantly directed at women of childbearing age
- Rape appears in all societies
- Rape appears in other species
- Rapists generally apply as much force as is needed to coerce their victims into sex, and rarely inflict any injury that would prevent conception and birth
- Rapists are overwhelmingly young men
- About 5% of rapes (of women of childbearing age) result in pregnancy
- Before the existence of long-term contraception, i.e. in pre-history, that figure would be even higher.

Therefore it’s reasonable to suppose that anything that would tend to attract a normal male would also tend to attract a rapist, other things being equal. Although you could still be right that wearing a short skirt and so on may have minimal effect compared to other factors (e.g. opportunism, as you say).

Pc or not pc, that seems totally irrelevant and a cheap shot to denigrate a different perception.

What you suggest about attire or behavior might seem intuitively true, but there does need to be some confirmation. Do more rapes happen when the woman is blind drunk or very sexily dressed? I have my doubts - though it will always be the perpetrator bleating ’she made me do it’.

In one sense you are right, all our behavior contributes to our life, but how does that help? The woman who sleeps with her window open on a summer’s night, the woman who takes a lift home with an acquaintance? the man who fails to offer a woman lift home leaving her to walk back alone?

If we follow the line that people’s (legal) behavior contributes to whatever happens to them, then an owner of an expensive house contributes to the burglary by advertising his/her wealth. True in one way - if the owner was poor then they would not be burgled of so much - but irrevelant. And there might be direct correlation there - as the bank robber said when asked why he robbed banks ‘because that’s where the money is’.

But as we know, most burglaries happen in poorer areas and are opportunistic. Most burglars don’t go for the fancy houses. Isn’t rape more likely to be the same?

So all I am saying is prove (in some way) that there is a correlation between attire/behavior and rape. Intuitively, we would probably guess that there is a correlation between expensive attractive houses and burglary - but there isn’t.

As I blame a mugger for mugging I blame a rapist for raping. Both are fulfilling urges. Neither had to do it that way.

A woman’s attire or behaviour could move an individual’s potential to rape into a fact - or, if he’s already intent on doing it, it could render her a more likely target. That’s why it’s important not to fall for this pc nonsense that says you can’t suggest the woman’s behaviour contributed towards the final outcome.

But responsibility for the rape rests solely with the rapist. Her dress, drunkedness or behaviour offer no mitigating circumstances.

In the same way, even if I walk down the street with my wallet hanging out of my back pocket, the chap who steals it is solely responsible for his crime. I invited it, maybe, but he didn’t have to do it.

Equating rape (in part at least) with strong sexual desire that is not controlled puts most men under the banner of potential rapists (apart from you and me who are obviously masters of self-control!).

To say that rape is about violence and terror is not to say that there must be physical use of the two - terror is about the threat and chance of violence, which in this case satisfies the rapist in some way.

It is not a male sexual urge - women commit rape too. Most men are not potential rapists because most men (and women) are not inherently violent in normal society. Those who are are criminals.

I would wonder that all rape is about violence. I think some of it is about men with strong sexual desire which they choose not to expend in non-criminal ways. In other words, some men force themselves on a woman because they’re aroused.

If rape were always about violence then, of course, the male student mentioned in the post is obviously innocent since no evidence of violence against the girl was reported as being found. Actually, if he did rape her it was probably more likely a case of male hormones, lack of restraint and the presentation of opportunity combining to create ‘ideal’ conditions for the crime.

I can’t of course prove that rapists are more likely to target scantily clad women; I am suggesting that since humans respond to visual stimuli a predatory male will, all other things being equal, find his attention drawn to somebody who he finds sexy. This will not always mean that she be scantily clad - maybe he has a burka fixation - but I would suggest that revealing clothing is, to some degree, a sexual stimulant to many men - predatory or otherwise.

I do not beleive that ‘rape is committed by over-inflamed men who can not control their desires’. It might be that some are but I prefer to believe it’s committed by men who simply don’t choose to control their actions.

It seems you’ve decided I am blaming women for being raped. A more careful reading of my post will, hopefully, correct that misunderstanding.

Please let me know when you do - I’d like to read it.

I am considering posting a more thorough discussion on this at some point today after I’ve had a think and checked my sources.

I think neo-cons took us into a war with Iraq to impose deomocracy by the gun. Neo-cons believe Guantanamo - where most decent western values have been replaced by a version of the systems our enemies use (and which we rightly despise) - is perfectly excusable because some of the people held there - although nobody necessarily knows which ones - are undoubtedly killers.

Neo-cons are, largely, ex-Marxists so the idea of oppression, ‘democracy’ at the barrel of a gun, 90 day detention without trial and imprisoning a man for ideological reasons fits the authoritarian thought patterns of such people.

My use of the term was probably a bit blase - feel free to correct my interpretation if you think that needs doing.

Better still - blog it and I’ll link to it.

Frank,

It was early… I did mix you and DE up. Apologies to both of you.

Yes, consent can be implied. But if a girl wakes up the next day and thinks, oops - I think I’ll cry rape about this one, suddenly consent becomes a concrete thing.

Remember that in this particular case the girl isn’t suggesting she refused consent. She’s just saying she doesn’t remember either way.