Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

Shez (
Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:14:15 +0100

In article <50i423$>, Bryant <> writes
In article <50hvd4$>, Susan <>
> (Bryant) wrote:

>>For women, whose fear and/or experience of being raped can be
>>overwhelming, ANY implication that it is a perfectly reasonable
>>evolutionary strategy is insensitive, to say the least.
>This notion that the evolutionary term "adaptive" has some kind of positive
>meaning has got to be confronted and erased from the public psyche!
>Now, having read his paper, I think a lot remains to be studied in terms
>of rape being a specific mating adaptation in humans instead of a
>behavioral side-effect of coercive and sex-seeking modules. But the way
>to get at whether this null hypothesis is viable is to first rigorously

>I understand. But look: we're not nice creatures. Rape is a nasty
>business. Does anybody really expect a nice, "acceptable" explanation
>for it occuring? Or murder? Or infanticide? Or warfare?
>Objectivity is a leap for all of us. Personal pain and ideology or
>religion exasperate the situation, absolutely. That doesn't mean it's
>wrong to try, though. If nobody tries to understand these things, we
>sure as hell aren't going to learn how to *stop* them from happening.

Perhaps my memory is slipping ,but I do seem to recall, statistics
showing that many rapists, do not eject, and do not leave semen in the
vagina, Surely that is not a evoulutionary adaption, its just a need to
control, to be powerfull, how can you fit your general theory that rape
is ok, because it is a natural adaption into those statistics.
to me those who rape a woman or a man, are the lowest form of life.
it may not be a scientific theory , but it is mine.
I am sure you will adapt and come up with an answer.

The 'Old Craft' lady