On being honest about the nature of men's sexuality.

[Kuznetzova]

uwot,

Natural selection could have evolved males to require a set of stimuli from a partner that are more commensurate with our ethics: mutuality, trust, safety, monogamy. There is nothing in chemistry, biology, nor physics that rules out natural selection from creating these mechanisms, and then embodying them in our physiology. The history of the evolution of our species took the low road.

In other words, all of us modern men could be the "concerned male" archetype, who would never cheat on his wife, and very much like Ned Flanders, when confronted with the topic of rape admit that "Wellll neighbor-ino, I could never do that!"



The Viking-Raider variant could have gone the way of extinct species around 700 thousand years ago, thus leaving only the Ned-Flanders variant of homo sapien males remaining. Unfortunately, this is not what happened to our species.

I present the following evidence in support of the above, http://www.economist.com/node/17900482

[saabisu]

It is the duty of philosophers to first of all, acknowledge the true nature of men's sexual biochemistry; and secondarily to compare and contrast the biology with various romantic ideals from the 19th century; and finally, to do so in an honest, objective manner.

We can imagine a world, a world different from ours, in which human males evolved in such a way as to require a set of abstract romantic stimuli in order to become sexually aroused and then to have their bodies complete a sex act. In this alternative world, men cannot become aroused unless their partner is mutually aroused, unless their partner is a friend whom they trust; and unless they feel safe around her and know she feels safe around him. In the best scenario, men's biochemical pathways would not become stimulated unless their partner is fully awake, laughing, and having a good time. For extra measure, we could add monogamy, although it would be difficult to see how biochemistry could affirm your partner is truly monogamous.

The above alternative world is a completely plausible scenario. There is nothing in it that is in violation of physics, chemistry, or even the theories of evolutionary biology.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, men's sexual circuitry is far different. Like a check list, we can cross out all the stimuli that are not required for a man to become aroused and complete a sex act.

• Trust
• Mutuality
• Friendship
• A feeling of safety
• Monogamy
• A partner who is even conscious at the time

Nothing from the above list is a requirement for the male body to become aroused and complete a sex act. The biochemical circuitry of men does not require trust, mutuality, safety, friendship, nor does it even require the woman to be conscious in order for him to use her body to complete a sex act. This is a fact of the human condition. We can try to deny it publicly. We can change the subject, avoid the subject, or otherwise try to pretend it is false in an attempt to be politically correct. None of those various skeptical tactics can erase the fact, however.

For the skeptics who would continue to deny these facts, I submit the following articles as evidence:

http://www.economist.com/node/17900482? ... d=17900482

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ ... 7S20130107

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/de ... error-mali

The skeptic would be pressed to explain how the men in the above articles were able to complete their rapes. It is the duty of philosophers to first of all, acknowledge the true nature of men's sexual biochemistry; and secondarily to compare and contrast the biology with various romantic ideals from the 19th century; and finally, to do so in an honest, objective manner.

What you have presented is not evidence. You're making some very general claims about the biochemistry of human beings, but offer no real substantiation for them. If you are going to fall back on "common sense" and "popular understandings," then you are likely to fall into the trap of presenting an argument that exists not based on any sort of tested evidence, but through blind repetition supported by a few randomly chosen anecdotes that support the theory while ignoring general patterns that might argue against it.

First of all, your argument proceeds from the idea that natural selection works according to late 19th century social darwinist views on the subject. According to these views, the strongest survive and the strongest are determined by physical strength and ruthlessness. These views were not developed through scientific analysis, but in accordance with a worldview seeking to justify its own actions. They arose not from science, but from culture.

It is very common for people to assume that genetics works simply on an individual level. DNA seeks its own reproduction and therefore encodes whatever behavior is necessary for a single individual to create progeny. The problem is that current creditable scientific theories on this subject reject this idea.

If altruism were simply a learned cultural behavior particular to humans, then why do we see it other non-human species? The ant is the classic example. I would highly recommend reading The Ant and the Peacock for a relatively accessible read on the subject.

It does not make for a particularly good argument if you try and bring up biological facts when you don't know that much about the science of human biology. I have not studied it at length, so I can't speak to it, except to say that all contemporary readings I've done on the subject describe a more complicated picture than the one you've presented.

Now let's bring in some other facts to problematize your narrative.

First of all, rape, is largely understood in our culture as an act that men commit against women. If this was encoded in genetics, then it would only make sense if it took place between sexually mature males and females. However, as is well known, rape and other forms of sexual assault are committed against children and post-menopausal women who cannot bear children. They are committed against men and boys. They are sometimes committed by women against children, men and other women.

Moreover, they most often occur in relationships that are monogamous and ones in which trust, mutuality and friendship are likely to exist already (dating and marriage). As for the feeling of safety, one would assume that a person who is doing the rape DOES feel safe. It is the person who is being raped who feels unsafe.

There is not sufficient evidence to support the idea that the reasons for rape arise from biological roots rather than culturally learned behavior. The fact that many rapists, both male and female, were raped themselves seems to suggest otherwise. So does the fact that rape does not necessarily have to involve genital sexual intercourse.

There is also plenty of cultural evidence that females of human or other animal species DO NOT require trust, mutuality, friendship, a feeling of safety, monogamy, or a conscious partner in order to derive satisfaction from and completion of the sex act. For example, in Patterns of Culture, Ruth Benedict provides several examples of cultures in which marriage is based around enmity and distrust. Also, you may want to look at contemporary hook-up culture in which things like trust, mutuality, friendship and monogamy are not considered particularly important by either partner involved.

And to counter your spurious anecdotal evidence, I present some spurious anecdotal evidence of my own:

http://www.cotwa.info/2013/02/woman-had ... s-man.html

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.d ... /909039996

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... g-his-home

If I were to present this as evidence that women are predisposed to rape men, it would be considered laughable. And I would agree. The notion that men or women are predisposed to engage in physical assaults involving some element of sexual arousal is a cultural, not a scientific idea. The idea that women can be raped (often coupled with the idea that they are incapable of raping) is a cultural notion. The idea that it matters is cultural and is not held to be true in all times and places and often, even in our own cultures which we consider to be enlightened, it is downplayed or mocked. Whether this is an exception or whether it was considered important in other historical periods in certain places is not something we can know for sure because much of history has left absolutely no record of such things. Assumptions we make about our forebears, especially those who've left no written records, are less based on any sort of evidence than on providing narratives that construct an identity for ourselves and the time periods in which we live. You can theorize about it, but you can't state facts that simply aren't there.

If you want to conduct this discussion properly, then I would suggest contrasting romantic ideals of the 19th century with social facts of the same time period or another era, if you prefer. If you would like to specifically bring human biochemistry into the philosophical discussion, then go and do research on the topic in creditable academic books and peer-reviewed scientific journals (popular science magazines often distort scientific findings in order to create a narrative that is likely to sell copies rather than give accurate information), providing your sources so that others can respond from an equally informed understanding of the subject. Otherwise, you're simply carrying out arguments in the realm of make-believe.

[uwot]

uwot,

Natural selection could have evolved males to require a set of stimuli from a partner that are more commensurate with our ethics: mutuality, trust, safety, monogamy. There is nothing in chemistry, biology, nor physics that rules out natural selection from creating these mechanisms, and then embodying them in our physiology. The history of the evolution of our species took the low road.

So you keep saying. This really isn't as clever as you think; you don't understand evolution. It is not teleological, it is not purpose led, it does not choose high or low ground. Genes mix and mingle in sexual reproduction and sometimes mutate spontaneously; new arrangements that confer the carrier with an advantage are more likely to be passed on. Some people are violent thugs, some people are simpering ninnies, but the degree to which human behaviour is genetic is moot; the wish to have sex with females that are too young to ovulate is a genetic dead end, for example, but apparently nature keeps trying it.
I am confident that statistics would show that, in fact, the majority of successful instances of genes being reproduced result from relationships that are based on exactly the characteristics you quite rightly say are not necessary for the physical act of a male impregnating a female. As artisticsolution points out, women do and always have had a say.

In other words, all of us modern men could be the "concerned male" archetype, who would never cheat on his wife, and very much like Ned Flanders, when confronted with the topic of rape admit that "Wellll neighbor-ino, I could never do that!"

Your logic is woeful, if every man were as you suggest, there wouldn't be a topic of rape.

The Viking-Raider variant could have gone the way of extinct species around 700 thousand years ago, thus leaving only the Ned-Flanders variant of homo sapien males remaining. Unfortunately, this is not what happened to our species.

Some people are violent and you don't have to buy a stiff chocolates to fuck it; I get it, do you have anything to add?

In a thread you claim is about honesty why have you failed to address the questions put to you?

[Arising_uk]

...
But I think for you to attain sophistication with this subject you would have to abandon the idea that because the animals do it, we should too. The entire ARCHITECTURE of that thinking must be abandoned, and I have made a thread about why (right on this forum). You, or someone in this thread is going to have to go deeper than this superficial reliance on justification of human action by pointing at animal behavior. It may have slipped your mind that this is an APPLIED ETHICS forum.

You miss the simple point, maybe your sophistication is getting in your way. You talked about biochemistry that is 'nature', you talked about nature condoning and promoting rape, even tho' you tried to be a bit slippery with this "congruent" it was clear that you were implying that rape is a natural state for a man as its in nature. I was pointing out that most animals in nature don't do this so 'congruence' or not yours was a false comparison.

Let's continue to extend your line of thinking and you will start to see holes in the reasoning. The majority of higher mammals do not engage in recreational sex. Therefore, (according to an application of your logic) recreational sex is un-natural. Do we then conclude that recreational sex is wrong?

Not really, as our closest relative in the Primates does it all the time so I see no issue with this primate naturally doing it either. What I don't see is rape in our cousins so maybe we're a bit special, although the dolphins do it so maybe its a factor of the number of brain connections.

[Kuznetzova]

What you have presented is not evidence. You're making some very general claims about the biochemistry of human beings, but offer no real substantiation for them. If you are going to fall back on "common sense" and "popular understandings," then you are likely to fall into the trap of presenting an argument that exists not based on any sort of tested evidence, but through blind repetition supported by a few randomly chosen anecdotes that support the theory while ignoring general patterns that might argue against it.

A "few randomly chosen anecdotes..." ???!

The proliferation of pornography, strip clubs, and prostitution on all continents of earth, in every small city, in every nation, stands as evidence! -- evidence that an unknown stranger is sufficient for sexual gratification. Is this safe? Absolutely not. "Safety" is a word covering far more than immediate physical harm. It also refers to HIV, and the host of sexually-transmitted diseases in ADDITION TO physical safety. In many cases, the prostitution has to be performed in high discretion, because it would ruin a man's reputation or his marriage, or both. That is not a picture of safety.

Did you even read the article from The Economist? Here is the title and subheading:

Violence against women
War's overlooked victims
Rape is horrifyingly widespread in conflicts all around the world

These are, in no shape or form, "randomly chosen anecdotes". Rape is a verified regularity and a statistical regularity of warfare seen through many eras of human history.





I present the evidence above to firstly counteract your blatantly trollish claim that I have cited "anecdotes". Secondarily, this information included here is meant to support and verify the following assertions:

• Men can obtain sexual gratification with an unknown stranger.
• Men can obtain sexual gratification even in a state of distrust and lack of safety.
• The word "safety" includes risk of HIV, STD, tarnished reputation, in addition to physical safety.
• No specialized training of soldiers is required to give them the capacity to rape.

I presented evidence for these, and evidence in every sense of the word.

First of all, your argument proceeds from the idea that natural selection works according to late 19th century social darwinist views on the subject. According to these views, the strongest survive and the strongest are determined by physical strength and ruthlessness. These views were not developed through scientific analysis, but in accordance with a worldview seeking to justify its own actions. They arose not from science, but from culture.

I have neither implied, assumed, nor leveraged any arguments on that tenet of Social Darwinism. I don't even personally believe it!
Does evolution have a geological tendency towards bigger, faster, stronger, smarter? No, it does not. I have written extensively against the argument, both on this forum and others. Furthermore, scientific evidence is contrary to this idea. I see absolutely nothing in this thread or others that would even suggest I am even implying this at all. Perhaps you can fill us in where I used that argument or even implied it, or even assumed it as a premise.

It is very common for people to assume that genetics works simply on an individual level. DNA seeks its own reproduction and therefore encodes whatever behavior is necessary for a single individual to create progeny. The problem is that current creditable scientific theories on this subject reject this idea.

If altruism were simply a learned cultural behavior particular to humans, then why do we see it other non-human species? The ant is the classic example. I would highly recommend reading The Ant and the Peacock for a relatively accessible read on the subject.

Altruism is seen all over nature in many species, alongside other things such as symbiosis and parasitism. Ants are bad example here, since through gene expression they lose the capacity to reproduce and become drones that work the colony. That's not exactly "choice" in the regular sense of the word. The ant does not reason out altruism from its emotions or its intellect. The ant is a terrible analogy. You have to imagine the whole majority of a city population of people suddenly going sterile. Imagine if this were a natural occurrence.

Altruism in humans also has a political connotation. I have left open the emotions behind altruism, as a viable answer as to why rape is not engaged in by the vast majority. Those emotions could very well have an evolutionary component. However, to discuss this subject with any true integrity, you have to leave open the very real possibility that altruism is truly culturally learned. The possibility still stands realistically on the table-of-discussion.

Despite our vastly complex human cortex, male sexual gratification is quite simplistic even today. The fact remains, that nearly all the males on this forum could go jump in a bed with a prostitute in Europe -- and possibly have a lot of fun doing it. And that fact is:

• .. very politically incorrect.
• .. not commensurate with modern society's ideals of monogamy, trust, and mutuality.
• .. completely true.
• .. much fit for an objective discussion in Applied Ethics.

Moreover, they most often occur in relationships that are monogamous and ones in which trust, mutuality and friendship are likely to exist already (dating and marriage). As for the feeling of safety, one would assume that a person who is doing the rape DOES feel safe. It is the person who is being raped who feels unsafe.

See above on the word "safety".

There is not sufficient evidence to support the idea that the reasons for rape arise from biological roots rather than culturally learned behavior. The fact that many rapists, both male and female, were raped themselves seems to suggest otherwise.

You are very well trained in talking in "normative language" about this subject. The quiet upper-middle class suburb of america is taken as "normative" and human behaviors not seen in white-picket-fence Mr. Roger's Neighborhood are pigeon-holed as "aberrant." You may be able to pull this intellectual trick among your latte-sipping cohorts, but not here, not on this forum. One gets the impression that you have never experienced warfare, or seen villages raided in central Africa by armed militias. You have never read or probably even heard about gang rapes in South Africa. (to make a long story short, it is pandemic and they even gave it name -- jack rolling.) You have never worked with women's rights groups in third world nations or the hospitals the victims find themselves within.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jack+rolling+south+africa

Read this article in The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/17900482 Read the whole thing. Respond to the points and the data of that article. Show me you have sophistication in history and the more horrific aspects of human life on this planet.

And to counter your spurious anecdotal evidence, I present some spurious anecdotal evidence of my own:

"Spurious anecdotal evidence" !!
(see above)

If you want to conduct this discussion properly,

I have no reason to consider your posts authoritative. I will conduct this thread however I see fit.

[Kuznetzova]

It is not teleological, it is not purpose led, it does not choose high or low ground. Genes mix and mingle in sexual reproduction and sometimes mutate spontaneously; new arrangements that confer the carrier with an advantage are more likely to be passed on. Some people are violent thugs, some people are simpering ninnies, but the degree to which human behaviour is genetic is moot; the wish to have sex with females that are too young to ovulate is a genetic dead end, for example, but apparently nature keeps trying it.

I agree with this completely. For these reasons, we should not refer to the behaviors of chimpanzees and gorillas as a justification for our own actions. I have expanded this thesis in a thread located here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10393

So now that wild nature is no longer evidence justifying human action, it is the job of the philosophers to describe the more mysterious origins of our ethics. So lets get to the task. Let's do this.

I am confident that statistics would show that, in fact, the majority of successful instances of genes being reproduced result from relationships that are based on exactly the characteristics you quite rightly say are not necessary for the physical act of a male impregnating a female.

I am also confident that statistics would show this to be true. Pair-bonding and monogamy work well for creating more instances of sex, and consequently, more chances of becoming pregnant.

[Arising_uk]

So what is your solution to this biochemical 'problem'?