Re: Rape as reproduction

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Klaus Riede: "other lists?"
• Previous message: Norman Buchignani: "positions in sociocultural"

In regards to rape being part of "primitive/animalistic/etc" part of
men that must be resorted to by those men who do not have a
reasonable number of reproductive opportunites, I would like to
point out that a rather small percentage of rapes actually result
in pregnancy for a number of reasons. 1) Unlike other primates
women do not have visible signs of estrus, so the rapist would
not know if the woman being raped was even capable of becoming
pregnant at the time; 2) Given this, how could a "reproductive
motivated rapist" choose a victim successfully?; 3) The violence,
distress, etc experienced by raped women is not conducive to zygotes
(presuming an egg is even fertilized) from becoming successfully
implanted in the next 4-6 weeks. The theory is that the
phsycial/emothional stress is far too great, making implantation
virtually impossible (note I said virtually. Obviously there are
some pregnancies documented somewhere); 4) At least 1 medical study that I
read (probably in the American Journal of Public Health, but I am
not sure) has shown that the proportion of rape victims that become
pregnant from the rape is _very_ small, and no where near what
would be expected from the same number of consensual acts of
f
intercouse in a female population. Basically, I think that there are
plenty of biologically based reasons to reject rape as way for
otherwise less reporductively fit males to pass their genes on to
the next generation and rape (in humans) really cannot be deemed a
successful reproductive strategy.

At any rate, I think that these types of biological issues must be
considered when one starts arguing that it is part of the inherent,
biological nature of "man" to reproduce.
Sarah Donelson

• Next message: Klaus Riede: "other lists?"
• Previous message: Norman Buchignani: "positions in sociocultural"