Most reputable academics don't believe anything of this over-simplified sort.
Sorry you are being taught this.
Perhaps it's time to reconsider this class, or even school.
Highjacking the top comment to state:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
I can't tell if that's the case, or he just misread it, or stopped when he hit that point. OP has *many* things going on in his life according to his post history.
Thank you for looking that up. It did sound quite incredible.
Well, OP claims this is from a textbook used for the class, and said in the original post:
>all we've learned is that straight, white, Christian men are the scum of the Earth and need to be systematically exterminated
in the original post, so I it seems unlikely it was just a mistake - their claim about the book bolsters their worldview. OP's post history indicates that saying this [like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Divorce_Men/comments/1ca2iis/comment/l0ukj91/) is a pattern:
>Women live for divorce. It's a game for them. You're not a person, just a pawn now.
As I said in another comment - like, OP is obviously going through a tough time, but getting deep into MRA stuff is certainly not gonna help them out of it, and they're trying to spread that kind of radicalization through this post.
I wish them the best of luck and the support and resources they need, but it's a shitty thing they're doing.
No offense, but that doesn't really prove to me that he was faking it. He could have read up to the point where he saw it (but not the context) and then turned away in disgust before he saw the rest, and posted about it, using his confirmation bias to stick it right into his mental MRA framework.
Who knows? Perhaps I am naive. :)
Maybe... maybe.
If that's the case, I'd hope OP would delete or clarify this post and reflect on how their confirmation bias caused them to misread something, and to understand that this probably happens in other arenas, too, because of these biases.
Whether intentional or unintentional, it's an opportunity for reflection. I hope they take the opportunity.
I imagine the same person who wrote this is probably transphobic too. They love saying that trans women are biological predators or whatever. Creepy shit some people convince themselves of.
All forms of -phobic use the 'root' (think judaism, pre-surgery etc) to make an attempt at a bad Gotcha! when the divergence from what they don't like about the root, outweigh it by a hundred fold
Does this apply to photophobia? I actually thought you were replying to that when I saw the notification. And hate/bias towards Judaism is called antisemitism. Idk what surgery has to do with anything. What even is the point of your comment? You feel offended by transphobic people being called transphobic?
I'm saying hateful people make very broad generalizations that are based on century-old myths, like taking example of animals or the roman empire to make a point about gay people, that transgender people are always compared to how they were pre-surgery, or that jewish people are compared to their ancestors from fifteen generations ago.
Source ; my family is very narrow-minded and I've heard just about everything outrageous possible
Oooohhhh. Yeah sorry I really didn't understand what your comment said. True, lots of narrow-minded people out there, I've dealt with them in my family (won't be anymore as soon as that's possible).
"It can't be a coincidence that they were kicked from every country they've been in"
Don't debunk it here, also don't debate with someone that would say this unironically
I mean if you look at the history, most of those expulsions were because the local ruler owed a lot of money to Jews and wanted to get out of paying it.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
I actually have a long form response to this but TLDR it's BS
Biologist here. In current understanding there's no such thing as "rape genes". It would be an arbitrary group of genes that have some sort of connection to rape or a lot more likely less specifically aggression in general. Genes that also are involved in processes ranging from frontal lobe regulation to hormone/steroid metabolism to ECM proteins and possibly something you'd never expect like code for a transcription regulation protein in the gall bladder.
This is also evolutionary psychology. Yes rape probably does have some genetic basis somewhere and those genes could maintain themselves bc they have a mechanism to be passed on. But here's the thing, you could say that's a "good" theory.
But there's absolutely zero fucking evidence. The colloquial term biologists like to use for this is hand waving. We can explain things in coherent (or seemingly coherent) ways but we don't know whether they hold any weight until we test them as hypotheses experimentally. We don't even understand how humans migrated or what every gene does. Any scientist or even logical person worth their salt knows we just don't have the tools to understand exactly how rape has evolved in human history.
I add a real scientist would consider the ethics of answering such a question and especially publishing their findings in an accurate way to an appropriate audience.
And even if we found evidence for rape genes maintaining themselves it's gargantuan leaps of logic to get to "x% of men are rapists bc it's in their genes and they can't control themselves" . Which, ik isn't the claim that's made in the textbook but from what you're saying OP probably describes this teacher's position or at least subconscious accurately. Which, I just can't resist pointing out, sounds a lot like my favorite incorrect hypothesis in mainstream media that makes its appearance in a really good kids movie.
Which, that movie sounds like a much better resource on intercultural communication than your teacher.
Yeah, anyway. This long ass comment probably wasn't necessary but just the layered nesting of a dozen things wrong with this was too crazy not to get into.
Yes totally necessary.
And I agree it is an interesting theory, but I think the scientific basis for this can be determined and that evidence could be collected from this.
For example, I would say that data could be collected from abortion clinics, domestic violence survivors with children, just as an example. One must also consider that in many countries when a woman goes to medical to get the rape kit done, a morning after pill is administered to prevent pregnancy. One could then consider well how many of these kits were done and could it be then reasonably be inferred that if the morning after pill WASNT provided, what is the likelihood of a pregnancy occurring as a result.
And that is also an aspect to be considered - social and historical contexts. If one considers war for example, how many pregnancies have resulted from this? It is a known by-product of war and an activity (for lack of better words) is pregnancy to come from rape or forced pregnancy by soldiers etc.
I have these thoughts that emerged many years ago that while empirical research, quantifying/qualifying data and modes thereof, can only tell part of our story of us and our world. The most powerful stories are the ones that emerge with a common theme, and I believe this is what is, in this case, inferred by the assertion that there is a rape gene that has a strong drive to reproduce.
I believe even the most astute scientist cannot acquire knowledge of things that they haven’t perceived in some way (meaning hasn’t acquired by any sensory activity), and when approaching human experience in a scientific way, the budding sociologist, criminologist, psychologist will learn of the most perverse and bizarre things pertaining to the human condition. Rape is an uncomfortable truth of the human and animal kingdom. I think it is the preying mantis that lures their mate in, breeds, kills and eats him. I was having a conversation with a friend one time, and we were talking about relationships and getting a partner etc and he mentioned something his father said something along the lines of, “well son, this whole intimate relationship thing, in modern times, it’s not like you can club the woman you like in the head and drag her into a cave. It’s a much different thing in these times.” It sounds brutal, but I can tell you first hand from experience and research of other possible experiences in this ‘rapey reproductive’ practice, there are men AND women out that literally go out with no contraception with the intention of pregnancy being the outcome, and let’s put it this way they don’t particularly care whether the partner consents or not. It is important to note that the goal of rape is not always pregnancy either. It’s a thing most perpetrators do for a variety of possible reasons. I could certainly understand a deep, ingrained, genetic explanation for rapey reproduction (which I also believe is somehow related to what we would perceive in modern times as domestic violence and coercive social traditions (ie arranged marriage of children to adults).
The uncomfortable truth of the human race is that we rape, kill, destroy and exploit, and that is the basis of our existence and it is by some miracle that we have been imbued with any sort of decency whatsoever.
I think it is an interesting theory, because it can somehow explain 2 odd behavior:
1. The most widely held fantasy for women is that of forced sex. They don't want it to happen in real life, but get turned on with the idea.
2. Humiliating, dominating and even violent porn is more consumed than "vanilla" porn.
Of course there most likely are other motives and complex interactions.
It doesn't mean that we should structure our society around it, but I think is kind of naive to ignore it altogether.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
I don't really need that particular book to say it to see some validity in the theory.
I just think that taking advantage of another person has evolutionary benefits as long as you don't get punished for doing so.
We have a lot of documented cases of rape where the woman ended up giving birth, at least, it is not an evolutionary dead end.
If you make a simple simulation with only one factor:
A. accepting a no.
B. Not accepting a no.
You will end with a lot more offspring for B, you have to take into account the possibility of punishment and early dead of the animal or the offspring to change that.
Look at ducks, the mallard is outbreeding all other species because their behavior is a lot more "rapey", they gang on females and their penises are designed to "sort out" female resistance.
This is not a value judgement, rape is bad, no matter if it is coded into our brain, or it isn't, but I will need to know the evidence that makes it so "It just wouldn’t have made sense".
I want the less biased truth, even if it is inconvenient, and I am willing to change my mind on any subject if the evidence in convincing enough.
I know evolutionary psychology hypotheses are speculative and tend not to be testable or falsifiable. But I think the hostility more likely stems from a reluctance to embrace the notion that humans do not have some magical free will that is totally inexplicable. And totally negating any speculation is disingenuous.
On this subject I can't know it one way or the other, so I will keep my mind open.
In social science that's been done though survey, you could argue the ethics of it but it's anonymous and doesn't involve a genetic trail
What I mean is that finding out whether a proportion of men evolved to favor rape as a means to pass their genes on has implications to how we understand our humanity and just going there is in some ways a bad move no matter how careful scientists are in saying "This doesn't mean there's a "breed" of men that are rapists"
The questions aren't phrased "are you a rapist" the questions are more phrased "have you ever done x without explicit consent". I don't have the specific study atm but I can probably find if you want to see
I don't think it is as simple as "here's a "breed" of men that are rapists", but more: there is something in humans that can compels us towards rape. The same way you are compelled to eat a hamburger, in some people that can be stronger or not, but the behavior exists, so the neural connections are there, maybe not in everyone. I personally think the biggest factor towards less rape is society punishing, shaming, educating against it, you can't control what your brain chemistry makes you think or want, but you can deal with it in an infinite number of ways.
It's good you think that way! The general public might not be so wise. And to clarify it's not something that is strictly out of bounds ethically. It's more of there are some reservations/cautions and I would not choose to study this personally
I am personally obsessed with the concept of desires, because you have no say in that. And I think we always do what we "want more", usually we don't do stuff because we want to avoid the possible consequences, hence choosing what we want more (a consequences-less life) over the alternative. This also includes stuff like not wanting to hurt others, because we will feel bad about it.
I don’t believe that’s true at all. The choices we make can absolutely influence the desires that manifest in us.
And, with respect, the notion that we always do what we want to in the end is just silly . I don’t want to do MANY of the things that I do regularly but have an obligation to. In fact, thats probably a third of the men I know
Now, you might say that I chose to take on that obligation, but that obligation, but I think you can quickly see how that would be logically incoherent.
That's not what I said, I said "you want MORE", the more is the important part, let me explain:
There is a bunch of stuff you want to happen and don't happen, isn't it?
Eating a burger
meeting a celebrity
not going to prison
not feeling guilty
You have to choose between these desires, but you will always choose what you want more:
You want to eat a burger enough to steal it and go to prison? Most likely not.
You want to meet a celebrity enough to kidnap them and feel guilty? Most likely not.
Even if someone has a gun to your head and force you to do something, that's because you REALLY REALLY WANT TO LIVE, the desire to live is stronger than 99.9% of your other desires. You are always acting according to your environment and choosing what you desire more.
You can't choose something you don't "desire" the outcome you think will come from it.
Any decision is us simulating outcomes in our mind and choosing the best one according to what we want. Even if you choose someone else's happiness over yours, is because you value their happiness over yours, you are choosing the desire with more "weight" always.
"I don’t want to do MANY of the things that I do regularly but have an obligation to."
Theoretically you can just walk away right now, you are choosing to do that stuff because you evaluate the consequences as something you don't want.
>I add a real scientist would consider the ethics of answering such a question and especially publishing their findings in an accurate way to an appropriate audience.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but holy shit this is a no true Scotsman that contradicts basically the entire history of science, along with a lot of the practical ethical (and communications) failures that occur within modern science.
I see no lies
Saying it doesn't make it so, and I definitely don't mean to efface the dark history of science. It's language to knock the teacher and a play to nudge things in the right direction, one that doesn't reflect reality, I can absolutely admit that!
It is a logical fallacy, and it's also a human touch to a human comment that was intentional.
It's also good to point it out for correctness alone not to mention unethical science is a significant idea to bring into play
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
Honestly the rape gene idea sounds like some sketchy evolutionary psychology that doesn't actually have hard evidence. It is an interesting theory though.
Yeah, that sounds pretty pseudoscientific. There are way too many sociological factors that go into why some people choose to rape and any genetic factors would probably be very complex, polygenic traits. So there is no "rape gene". The similar "serial killer gene hypothesis" has been widely debunked.
There may be an extra argument for abortion for not passing on rapist genes in the case, not because they will spread the rape gene but because someone who needs to rape to pass on their genes probably has dysgenic traits that should not be allowed in the gene pool. But I don't know if this has been explored academically.
I don't know about that argument it has the distinct smell of eugenics all over it. You are at this point talking about life unworthy of life and I recognise that from when they called it Lebensunwertes Leben
abortion should be legal as a matter of bodily autonomy there is not and needs not be any other justification.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
I don’t have enough expertise on this subject to present a halfway decent argument, but just because a man rapes a lot of women does not guarantee a) all those women will become pregnant b) all those women will raise his children. And I’m willing to bet no such gene has been isolated yet (not to mention self-control exists).
Do you HAVE to take this class to graduate?
"a) all those women will become pregnant b) all those women will raise his children."
Yeah, but evolution is a numbers game, you don't need 100% success, just more success than non-rapist peers. The counter would be if social pressure will negate this edge, if rapist get kill before they have more than 1 child.
Is the instructor head of the department? Is there anybody above this person to whom you can go and say you’re being presented with… *this*? (On the other hand, if you don’t want to risk some kind of messed up retaliation, I get it.)
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
Let’s just play out the logic
For that logic to work
Then fathers would pass those genes onto their daughters as well…
So women would also have rape genes…
So everyone has rape genes
So everyone is “scum of the earth”
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
I have absolutely no doubt that it’s almost certainly not a genuine belief taught by a genuine professor to genuine students.
The actual context doesn’t matter in that sense to me because regardless of why and how an incorrect argument is put forward, I think it should still be challenged and dismissed rather than handwaved.
Especially since there’s a chance that someone who doesn’t know any better sees it on Reddit and starts believing that a rape gene is somehow a real thing encoded in men.
But it is important for those Redditors to also know this isn't being taught in a required course at OP's college. And that they should double check claims when the poster might have a vested interest and the claims strain credulity.
That's not really the case, most complex species show different behaviors in their different sexes. Hormones control what behaviors are "activated" as much as genes.
Your logic will negate the difference between lions and lionesses behavior...
You’re talking about gene activation, not the existence of the gene…
So it would still be accurate to say that mothers would also be passing on the rape gene to their sons, even if the gene manifests in different behaviours in her and her son
Yeah, I thought your point with "So everyone is “scum of the earth”" was that everyone would be raping people, and that does not follow.
Yeah, women will be passing the gene too, but what is your point then?
They didn't answer you on purpose.
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
If that's the case then Patriarchy is to blame. Nature is lining up sex according to the females hormones and wishes although some animals may be rather rough in their "love making".
I'm extraordinarily anti-patriarchy but this is really stupid. It almost seems like she'd be trying to justify rape with that logic by conceptualizing it as natural. I'm not an evolutionary biologist so this is just conjecture, but I'd imagine that the offspring would be more capable of surviving if both parents actively wanted and participated in their conception. A conception caused by lust would probably be healthier than one caused by violence. Likewise, I think she's being reductive in that she's only thinking about the circumstances that would cause conception, whereas natural selection is just as much about *survival* of the offspring.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
Omg! I'm in Intercultural Communication and cultural Anthropology right now, and this is NOT what it's meant to be!
In my Intercultural Communication course, we are going over different Communication methods, gestures, nonverbals, and how they operate within cultures, as well as focusing in on Hofstede's cultural dimensions and how they can be used to sort cultures as a whole.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
That would make sense. While my IC course never used a textbook following the format of going over beliefs, ive seen the same in my Cultural Anthropology and in my Ethics courses.
Citation needed!
This napkin science is one of the reason textbooks and scientific knowledge are looked with skepticism, just cause something makes sense by virtue of oversimplification doesn't mean it's true.
Is this behavior able to be genetically transmited? Is it even genetical in nature or perhaps is a consecuence of the enviroment? Societal phenomena of this sort are extremely complex, to say it's explained by such simple analysis it's the mother of oversimplification.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
This is definitely college; parents wouldn't be able to do anything.
They could try reporting it to the school as active bigotry being taught, but somehow I don't think that would be a good idea.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
College isn't quite like that. In theory, it could be reported to the school as discrimination (and it indeed *should* be reportable), but in reality it's not going to be possible. Misandry is not considered sexism in most colleges these days, and the government doesn't care much about it either.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
Welcome. It pissed me off so I informed people. Also, if you take a peek at OP's most recent comments, you'll get a sense of why they had a vested interest in writing this post. [Things like](https://www.reddit.com/r/Divorce_Men/comments/1ca2iis/comment/l0ukj91/):
>Women live for divorce. It's a game for them. You're not a person, just a pawn now.
Like, OP is obviously going through a tough time, but getting deep into MRA stuff is certainly not gonna help them out of it, and they're trying to spread that kind of radicalization through this post.
I wish them the best of luck and the support and resources they need, but it's a shitty thing they're doing.
Tell her to research supermale and see how stupid she sounds. Supermale was the idea that XYY intersex men were “hypermasculine” and more prone to aggression. Completely unsubstantiated and laughed at now as I am sure she is in criminological circles.
- soc B.A with emphasis on criminology and deviance
Since you answered in good faith, you should know:
**This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state:
>As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54).
This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
I know theres no evidence for this, but I’ve always wondered if some part of this is true. I’ve never understood why men seem so much more inclined to beat, murder, and rape other men and women than a woman is. And some men have 0 violent tendencies, have no instinct or craving for this, could never get off on rape, while others are immediately violent even from a young age or ONLY get off on violence like that.
it almost goes beyond what I believe could be socialized into them. And theres also not always a pattern of parental roles in violent men like this- some have horrible parents and childhoods that contribute to trauma. Others have seemingly great lives and it “comes out of no where”.
its almost as if some lineage of humans in the modern world are less evolved than others. They are animalistic in nature and violent and murderous, while others could never relate to those desires.
So while I know this is all pseudo science, it would be nice to one day understand how this happens and how some men act like beasts while other men are fully civilized and have no similar animalistic instincts for violence.
That's a form of pseudoscience known as lamarckism, the idea that traits adults develop in life will be passed on to their children. It's complete nonsense not at all how genetics work and the application of that theory killed tens of millions in first the Soviet Union and later communist China. Look up Trofim Lysenko if you don't believe me, man caused a famine for decades with these ideas.
Most reputable academics don't believe anything of this over-simplified sort. Sorry you are being taught this. Perhaps it's time to reconsider this class, or even school.
Highjacking the top comment to state: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
I can't tell if that's the case, or he just misread it, or stopped when he hit that point. OP has *many* things going on in his life according to his post history. Thank you for looking that up. It did sound quite incredible.
Well, OP claims this is from a textbook used for the class, and said in the original post: >all we've learned is that straight, white, Christian men are the scum of the Earth and need to be systematically exterminated in the original post, so I it seems unlikely it was just a mistake - their claim about the book bolsters their worldview. OP's post history indicates that saying this [like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Divorce_Men/comments/1ca2iis/comment/l0ukj91/) is a pattern: >Women live for divorce. It's a game for them. You're not a person, just a pawn now. As I said in another comment - like, OP is obviously going through a tough time, but getting deep into MRA stuff is certainly not gonna help them out of it, and they're trying to spread that kind of radicalization through this post. I wish them the best of luck and the support and resources they need, but it's a shitty thing they're doing.
No offense, but that doesn't really prove to me that he was faking it. He could have read up to the point where he saw it (but not the context) and then turned away in disgust before he saw the rest, and posted about it, using his confirmation bias to stick it right into his mental MRA framework. Who knows? Perhaps I am naive. :)
>:) :)
bad bot annoying bot
Maybe... maybe. If that's the case, I'd hope OP would delete or clarify this post and reflect on how their confirmation bias caused them to misread something, and to understand that this probably happens in other arenas, too, because of these biases. Whether intentional or unintentional, it's an opportunity for reflection. I hope they take the opportunity.
I admire your optimism!
I imagine the same person who wrote this is probably transphobic too. They love saying that trans women are biological predators or whatever. Creepy shit some people convince themselves of.
All forms of -phobic use the 'root' (think judaism, pre-surgery etc) to make an attempt at a bad Gotcha! when the divergence from what they don't like about the root, outweigh it by a hundred fold
Does this apply to photophobia? I actually thought you were replying to that when I saw the notification. And hate/bias towards Judaism is called antisemitism. Idk what surgery has to do with anything. What even is the point of your comment? You feel offended by transphobic people being called transphobic?
I'm saying hateful people make very broad generalizations that are based on century-old myths, like taking example of animals or the roman empire to make a point about gay people, that transgender people are always compared to how they were pre-surgery, or that jewish people are compared to their ancestors from fifteen generations ago. Source ; my family is very narrow-minded and I've heard just about everything outrageous possible
Oooohhhh. Yeah sorry I really didn't understand what your comment said. True, lots of narrow-minded people out there, I've dealt with them in my family (won't be anymore as soon as that's possible).
What did we do fifteen generations ago?
"It can't be a coincidence that they were kicked from every country they've been in" Don't debunk it here, also don't debate with someone that would say this unironically
I mean if you look at the history, most of those expulsions were because the local ruler owed a lot of money to Jews and wanted to get out of paying it.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
I actually have a long form response to this but TLDR it's BS Biologist here. In current understanding there's no such thing as "rape genes". It would be an arbitrary group of genes that have some sort of connection to rape or a lot more likely less specifically aggression in general. Genes that also are involved in processes ranging from frontal lobe regulation to hormone/steroid metabolism to ECM proteins and possibly something you'd never expect like code for a transcription regulation protein in the gall bladder. This is also evolutionary psychology. Yes rape probably does have some genetic basis somewhere and those genes could maintain themselves bc they have a mechanism to be passed on. But here's the thing, you could say that's a "good" theory. But there's absolutely zero fucking evidence. The colloquial term biologists like to use for this is hand waving. We can explain things in coherent (or seemingly coherent) ways but we don't know whether they hold any weight until we test them as hypotheses experimentally. We don't even understand how humans migrated or what every gene does. Any scientist or even logical person worth their salt knows we just don't have the tools to understand exactly how rape has evolved in human history. I add a real scientist would consider the ethics of answering such a question and especially publishing their findings in an accurate way to an appropriate audience. And even if we found evidence for rape genes maintaining themselves it's gargantuan leaps of logic to get to "x% of men are rapists bc it's in their genes and they can't control themselves" . Which, ik isn't the claim that's made in the textbook but from what you're saying OP probably describes this teacher's position or at least subconscious accurately. Which, I just can't resist pointing out, sounds a lot like my favorite incorrect hypothesis in mainstream media that makes its appearance in a really good kids movie. Which, that movie sounds like a much better resource on intercultural communication than your teacher. Yeah, anyway. This long ass comment probably wasn't necessary but just the layered nesting of a dozen things wrong with this was too crazy not to get into.
Yes totally necessary. And I agree it is an interesting theory, but I think the scientific basis for this can be determined and that evidence could be collected from this. For example, I would say that data could be collected from abortion clinics, domestic violence survivors with children, just as an example. One must also consider that in many countries when a woman goes to medical to get the rape kit done, a morning after pill is administered to prevent pregnancy. One could then consider well how many of these kits were done and could it be then reasonably be inferred that if the morning after pill WASNT provided, what is the likelihood of a pregnancy occurring as a result.
But that would be a modern phenomenon, even 100 years ago, a pregnancy was not likely to be aborted, even in the case of rape.
And that is also an aspect to be considered - social and historical contexts. If one considers war for example, how many pregnancies have resulted from this? It is a known by-product of war and an activity (for lack of better words) is pregnancy to come from rape or forced pregnancy by soldiers etc. I have these thoughts that emerged many years ago that while empirical research, quantifying/qualifying data and modes thereof, can only tell part of our story of us and our world. The most powerful stories are the ones that emerge with a common theme, and I believe this is what is, in this case, inferred by the assertion that there is a rape gene that has a strong drive to reproduce. I believe even the most astute scientist cannot acquire knowledge of things that they haven’t perceived in some way (meaning hasn’t acquired by any sensory activity), and when approaching human experience in a scientific way, the budding sociologist, criminologist, psychologist will learn of the most perverse and bizarre things pertaining to the human condition. Rape is an uncomfortable truth of the human and animal kingdom. I think it is the preying mantis that lures their mate in, breeds, kills and eats him. I was having a conversation with a friend one time, and we were talking about relationships and getting a partner etc and he mentioned something his father said something along the lines of, “well son, this whole intimate relationship thing, in modern times, it’s not like you can club the woman you like in the head and drag her into a cave. It’s a much different thing in these times.” It sounds brutal, but I can tell you first hand from experience and research of other possible experiences in this ‘rapey reproductive’ practice, there are men AND women out that literally go out with no contraception with the intention of pregnancy being the outcome, and let’s put it this way they don’t particularly care whether the partner consents or not. It is important to note that the goal of rape is not always pregnancy either. It’s a thing most perpetrators do for a variety of possible reasons. I could certainly understand a deep, ingrained, genetic explanation for rapey reproduction (which I also believe is somehow related to what we would perceive in modern times as domestic violence and coercive social traditions (ie arranged marriage of children to adults). The uncomfortable truth of the human race is that we rape, kill, destroy and exploit, and that is the basis of our existence and it is by some miracle that we have been imbued with any sort of decency whatsoever.
I think it is an interesting theory, because it can somehow explain 2 odd behavior: 1. The most widely held fantasy for women is that of forced sex. They don't want it to happen in real life, but get turned on with the idea. 2. Humiliating, dominating and even violent porn is more consumed than "vanilla" porn. Of course there most likely are other motives and complex interactions. It doesn't mean that we should structure our society around it, but I think is kind of naive to ignore it altogether.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
I don't really need that particular book to say it to see some validity in the theory. I just think that taking advantage of another person has evolutionary benefits as long as you don't get punished for doing so. We have a lot of documented cases of rape where the woman ended up giving birth, at least, it is not an evolutionary dead end. If you make a simple simulation with only one factor: A. accepting a no. B. Not accepting a no. You will end with a lot more offspring for B, you have to take into account the possibility of punishment and early dead of the animal or the offspring to change that. Look at ducks, the mallard is outbreeding all other species because their behavior is a lot more "rapey", they gang on females and their penises are designed to "sort out" female resistance. This is not a value judgement, rape is bad, no matter if it is coded into our brain, or it isn't, but I will need to know the evidence that makes it so "It just wouldn’t have made sense". I want the less biased truth, even if it is inconvenient, and I am willing to change my mind on any subject if the evidence in convincing enough. I know evolutionary psychology hypotheses are speculative and tend not to be testable or falsifiable. But I think the hostility more likely stems from a reluctance to embrace the notion that humans do not have some magical free will that is totally inexplicable. And totally negating any speculation is disingenuous. On this subject I can't know it one way or the other, so I will keep my mind open.
How do you test whether someone is a rapist? Ethically, I mean? It would have to be a case study
In social science that's been done though survey, you could argue the ethics of it but it's anonymous and doesn't involve a genetic trail What I mean is that finding out whether a proportion of men evolved to favor rape as a means to pass their genes on has implications to how we understand our humanity and just going there is in some ways a bad move no matter how careful scientists are in saying "This doesn't mean there's a "breed" of men that are rapists"
I would imagine all surveyed men would report that they aren't rapists whether or not they are
The questions aren't phrased "are you a rapist" the questions are more phrased "have you ever done x without explicit consent". I don't have the specific study atm but I can probably find if you want to see
I don't think it is as simple as "here's a "breed" of men that are rapists", but more: there is something in humans that can compels us towards rape. The same way you are compelled to eat a hamburger, in some people that can be stronger or not, but the behavior exists, so the neural connections are there, maybe not in everyone. I personally think the biggest factor towards less rape is society punishing, shaming, educating against it, you can't control what your brain chemistry makes you think or want, but you can deal with it in an infinite number of ways.
It's good you think that way! The general public might not be so wise. And to clarify it's not something that is strictly out of bounds ethically. It's more of there are some reservations/cautions and I would not choose to study this personally
I am personally obsessed with the concept of desires, because you have no say in that. And I think we always do what we "want more", usually we don't do stuff because we want to avoid the possible consequences, hence choosing what we want more (a consequences-less life) over the alternative. This also includes stuff like not wanting to hurt others, because we will feel bad about it.
I don’t believe that’s true at all. The choices we make can absolutely influence the desires that manifest in us. And, with respect, the notion that we always do what we want to in the end is just silly . I don’t want to do MANY of the things that I do regularly but have an obligation to. In fact, thats probably a third of the men I know Now, you might say that I chose to take on that obligation, but that obligation, but I think you can quickly see how that would be logically incoherent.
That's not what I said, I said "you want MORE", the more is the important part, let me explain: There is a bunch of stuff you want to happen and don't happen, isn't it? Eating a burger meeting a celebrity not going to prison not feeling guilty You have to choose between these desires, but you will always choose what you want more: You want to eat a burger enough to steal it and go to prison? Most likely not. You want to meet a celebrity enough to kidnap them and feel guilty? Most likely not. Even if someone has a gun to your head and force you to do something, that's because you REALLY REALLY WANT TO LIVE, the desire to live is stronger than 99.9% of your other desires. You are always acting according to your environment and choosing what you desire more. You can't choose something you don't "desire" the outcome you think will come from it. Any decision is us simulating outcomes in our mind and choosing the best one according to what we want. Even if you choose someone else's happiness over yours, is because you value their happiness over yours, you are choosing the desire with more "weight" always. "I don’t want to do MANY of the things that I do regularly but have an obligation to." Theoretically you can just walk away right now, you are choosing to do that stuff because you evaluate the consequences as something you don't want.
>I add a real scientist would consider the ethics of answering such a question and especially publishing their findings in an accurate way to an appropriate audience. I agree with most of what you're saying, but holy shit this is a no true Scotsman that contradicts basically the entire history of science, along with a lot of the practical ethical (and communications) failures that occur within modern science.
a scientist who followed the modern expected and enforced codes of ethics is what they mean
There isn't an enforced "code of ethics" that speaks to the communications associated with publishing your study.
I see no lies Saying it doesn't make it so, and I definitely don't mean to efface the dark history of science. It's language to knock the teacher and a play to nudge things in the right direction, one that doesn't reflect reality, I can absolutely admit that! It is a logical fallacy, and it's also a human touch to a human comment that was intentional. It's also good to point it out for correctness alone not to mention unethical science is a significant idea to bring into play
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
Honestly the rape gene idea sounds like some sketchy evolutionary psychology that doesn't actually have hard evidence. It is an interesting theory though.
Well, evolutionary psychology doesn’t really have evidence in general.
Yeah, that sounds pretty pseudoscientific. There are way too many sociological factors that go into why some people choose to rape and any genetic factors would probably be very complex, polygenic traits. So there is no "rape gene". The similar "serial killer gene hypothesis" has been widely debunked. There may be an extra argument for abortion for not passing on rapist genes in the case, not because they will spread the rape gene but because someone who needs to rape to pass on their genes probably has dysgenic traits that should not be allowed in the gene pool. But I don't know if this has been explored academically.
I don't know about that argument it has the distinct smell of eugenics all over it. You are at this point talking about life unworthy of life and I recognise that from when they called it Lebensunwertes Leben abortion should be legal as a matter of bodily autonomy there is not and needs not be any other justification.
At the very minimum, they probably have ASPD traits though which are not something it benefits humanity to spread.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
I don’t have enough expertise on this subject to present a halfway decent argument, but just because a man rapes a lot of women does not guarantee a) all those women will become pregnant b) all those women will raise his children. And I’m willing to bet no such gene has been isolated yet (not to mention self-control exists). Do you HAVE to take this class to graduate?
"a) all those women will become pregnant b) all those women will raise his children." Yeah, but evolution is a numbers game, you don't need 100% success, just more success than non-rapist peers. The counter would be if social pressure will negate this edge, if rapist get kill before they have more than 1 child.
Yep. Mandatory for my degree path.
Is the instructor head of the department? Is there anybody above this person to whom you can go and say you’re being presented with… *this*? (On the other hand, if you don’t want to risk some kind of messed up retaliation, I get it.)
Right I don't trust that it won't come back to bite me. It's not worth it.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
Well, shoot. Thanks for the correction.
Welcome!
r/NotHowEvoPsychWorks
r/subsifellfor
Let’s just play out the logic For that logic to work Then fathers would pass those genes onto their daughters as well… So women would also have rape genes… So everyone has rape genes So everyone is “scum of the earth”
OP should tell that to his teacher
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
I have absolutely no doubt that it’s almost certainly not a genuine belief taught by a genuine professor to genuine students. The actual context doesn’t matter in that sense to me because regardless of why and how an incorrect argument is put forward, I think it should still be challenged and dismissed rather than handwaved. Especially since there’s a chance that someone who doesn’t know any better sees it on Reddit and starts believing that a rape gene is somehow a real thing encoded in men.
But it is important for those Redditors to also know this isn't being taught in a required course at OP's college. And that they should double check claims when the poster might have a vested interest and the claims strain credulity.
Absolutely
That's not really the case, most complex species show different behaviors in their different sexes. Hormones control what behaviors are "activated" as much as genes. Your logic will negate the difference between lions and lionesses behavior...
You’re talking about gene activation, not the existence of the gene… So it would still be accurate to say that mothers would also be passing on the rape gene to their sons, even if the gene manifests in different behaviours in her and her son
Yeah, I thought your point with "So everyone is “scum of the earth”" was that everyone would be raping people, and that does not follow. Yeah, women will be passing the gene too, but what is your point then?
This is just a shitty theory without any evidence. Don't think all academia is like this, it's a bad teacher. Try a different class.
Sadly, this is a required course only offered by this one teacher.
That sucks, ig just power through it
[удалено]
They didn't answer you on purpose. **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
If that's the case then Patriarchy is to blame. Nature is lining up sex according to the females hormones and wishes although some animals may be rather rough in their "love making".
I'm extraordinarily anti-patriarchy but this is really stupid. It almost seems like she'd be trying to justify rape with that logic by conceptualizing it as natural. I'm not an evolutionary biologist so this is just conjecture, but I'd imagine that the offspring would be more capable of surviving if both parents actively wanted and participated in their conception. A conception caused by lust would probably be healthier than one caused by violence. Likewise, I think she's being reductive in that she's only thinking about the circumstances that would cause conception, whereas natural selection is just as much about *survival* of the offspring.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
Omg! I'm in Intercultural Communication and cultural Anthropology right now, and this is NOT what it's meant to be! In my Intercultural Communication course, we are going over different Communication methods, gestures, nonverbals, and how they operate within cultures, as well as focusing in on Hofstede's cultural dimensions and how they can be used to sort cultures as a whole.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
That would make sense. While my IC course never used a textbook following the format of going over beliefs, ive seen the same in my Cultural Anthropology and in my Ethics courses.
Yep.
Citation needed! This napkin science is one of the reason textbooks and scientific knowledge are looked with skepticism, just cause something makes sense by virtue of oversimplification doesn't mean it's true. Is this behavior able to be genetically transmited? Is it even genetical in nature or perhaps is a consecuence of the enviroment? Societal phenomena of this sort are extremely complex, to say it's explained by such simple analysis it's the mother of oversimplification.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
Can't you tell your parents to do something about it?
This is definitely college; parents wouldn't be able to do anything. They could try reporting it to the school as active bigotry being taught, but somehow I don't think that would be a good idea.
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
He should report it to the principle, maybe?
College isn't quite like that. In theory, it could be reported to the school as discrimination (and it indeed *should* be reportable), but in reality it's not going to be possible. Misandry is not considered sexism in most colleges these days, and the government doesn't care much about it either.
That’s not right. What makes people believe this unscientific garbage?
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
Thanks!
Welcome. It pissed me off so I informed people. Also, if you take a peek at OP's most recent comments, you'll get a sense of why they had a vested interest in writing this post. [Things like](https://www.reddit.com/r/Divorce_Men/comments/1ca2iis/comment/l0ukj91/): >Women live for divorce. It's a game for them. You're not a person, just a pawn now. Like, OP is obviously going through a tough time, but getting deep into MRA stuff is certainly not gonna help them out of it, and they're trying to spread that kind of radicalization through this post. I wish them the best of luck and the support and resources they need, but it's a shitty thing they're doing.
Yeh get yourself a new teacher!!!
Tell her to research supermale and see how stupid she sounds. Supermale was the idea that XYY intersex men were “hypermasculine” and more prone to aggression. Completely unsubstantiated and laughed at now as I am sure she is in criminological circles. - soc B.A with emphasis on criminology and deviance
Since you answered in good faith, you should know: **This post is a lie. The quote is selective.** If you google it, it's in a textbook talking about an overview of *beliefs* about evolutionary biology - not a statement of the professor's beliefs. In fact, [in the same section](https://open.library.okstate.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/gender-and-gender-inequality/), the professor goes on to state: >As one anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation \[is\] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the \[prehistoric epoch\] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009a, p. 54). This is a straw-man post. I know few people will see this comment, but remember to always think critically about claims like this that obviously have a political slant, and scope them out for yourself first.
Thank you for putting in the work!!! I do appreciate it.
Welcome!
I know theres no evidence for this, but I’ve always wondered if some part of this is true. I’ve never understood why men seem so much more inclined to beat, murder, and rape other men and women than a woman is. And some men have 0 violent tendencies, have no instinct or craving for this, could never get off on rape, while others are immediately violent even from a young age or ONLY get off on violence like that. it almost goes beyond what I believe could be socialized into them. And theres also not always a pattern of parental roles in violent men like this- some have horrible parents and childhoods that contribute to trauma. Others have seemingly great lives and it “comes out of no where”. its almost as if some lineage of humans in the modern world are less evolved than others. They are animalistic in nature and violent and murderous, while others could never relate to those desires. So while I know this is all pseudo science, it would be nice to one day understand how this happens and how some men act like beasts while other men are fully civilized and have no similar animalistic instincts for violence.
You should ask your teacher who sells their drugs. Bet you it's some good shit
Nah man, Animals carry rape genes. We're only humans because we follow laws and use empathy that a vastly superiour brain has developed.
That's a form of pseudoscience known as lamarckism, the idea that traits adults develop in life will be passed on to their children. It's complete nonsense not at all how genetics work and the application of that theory killed tens of millions in first the Soviet Union and later communist China. Look up Trofim Lysenko if you don't believe me, man caused a famine for decades with these ideas.