RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:00:41 AM)

Sorry, you have already been outted. You simply didnt wish to furnish the source because of the controversy and inaccuracy of the study itself.

quote:

Previous studies found that rates of pregnancy resulting from rape could be anything up to 30 per cent, compared to a two to four per cent chance of getting pregnant from a single act of consensual sex. This led some biologists, notably Randy Thornhill from the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque, to parade the figures as evidence that rape is a natural way for men to spread their genes (New Scientist, 19 February 2000, p 44).


That would seem to make your case, but the data is flawed.

quote:

But in the ensuing controversy, the studies were all roundly criticised. Some rely on crime statistics, which may skew the figures: rape victims who become pregnant may be more likely to report the crime than those who do not. Others fail to measure the influence of contraception - either preventive or post-coital, such as the morning after pill. And some include acts of oral and anal rape, which cannot result in pregnancy.


Proof of the flaws.




xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:04:06 AM)

quote:

To associate rape primarily with sex, or even penile-vaginal sex is inaccurate, as is shown above. The sexual component may be only one of many criminal components, or personal violations in a rape. Many rapists freely concede that the power and terror they exercise over their victims is their major gratification.

Adding all the above together, to assert that rape is a reproductive strategy verges on the cretinous. To insist on that assertion in the face of the evidence is not only cretinous but deeply offensive. Please please stop it.
"many rapists" not, "all rapists" - your insistence on cherry picking your examples, and attempting to refute the hypothesis I offered with ad hominem instead of argument is offensive to the spirit of empirical inquiry, please stop it.

You merely offer an alternative hypothesis, which I am not disputing, but it isn't a pre-emptive hypothesis, merely an alternative, and there is no reason that both cannot be correct.




xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:05:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Sorry, you have already been outted. You simply didnt wish to furnish the source because of the controversy and inaccuracy of the study itself.

quote:

Previous studies found that rates of pregnancy resulting from rape could be anything up to 30 per cent, compared to a two to four per cent chance of getting pregnant from a single act of consensual sex. This led some biologists, notably Randy Thornhill from the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque, to parade the figures as evidence that rape is a natural way for men to spread their genes (New Scientist, 19 February 2000, p 44).


That would seem to make your case, but the data is flawed.

quote:

But in the ensuing controversy, the studies were all roundly criticised. Some rely on crime statistics, which may skew the figures: rape victims who become pregnant may be more likely to report the crime than those who do not. Others fail to measure the influence of contraception - either preventive or post-coital, such as the morning after pill. And some include acts of oral and anal rape, which cannot result in pregnancy.


Proof of the flaws.
No, just more data - I hadn't even seen that, but all I see is that the data "has been criticized".

Do tell.




xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:11:33 AM)

Look, males, biologically, are much more expendable than females, by simple virtue of the fact that a single male can impregnate multiple females - I don't like that fact one little bit, doesn't make it any less true.




mnottertail -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:11:57 AM)

Well, whatever the fuckin thing is, it's obviously wholly fugazi, and that is prima facie.  

Look, if only 2-4 percent of sex acts with some portion of them folks trying result in a womans pregnancy, what would INCREASE that number to upwards to 30% let alone some goddamn 6% even?

NO TH IN GG..........it aint happenin.  There is no maybe, no theory, no magic of a woman's rape fantasy or violent sex fantasy that is gonna put that sort of number out there, PERIOD.

Junk from a punk. That's the most can be said for that 'study'. 




tazzygirl -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:13:43 AM)

Oh come on. Who do you think you are kidding? Every post you make on rape tells of your belief that its not the man's fault. And you expect me to believe you missed a so called piece of science, and a book, that states just what you believe?

quote:

rape victims who become pregnant may be more likely to report the crime than those who do not


Now, explain why old ladies get raped.

Explain why men get raped.

Explain why there are rapes involving only oral.

Explain why there are rapes involving only anal.

None of these match your hypothesis.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:19:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

To associate rape primarily with sex, or even penile-vaginal sex is inaccurate, as is shown above. The sexual component may be only one of many criminal components, or personal violations in a rape. Many rapists freely concede that the power and terror they exercise over their victims is their major gratification.

Adding all the above together, to assert that rape is a reproductive strategy verges on the cretinous. To insist on that assertion in the face of the evidence is not only cretinous but deeply offensive. Please please stop it.
"many rapists" not, "all rapists" - your insistence on cherry picking your examples, and attempting to refute the hypothesis I offered with ad hominem instead of argument is offensive to the spirit of empirical inquiry, please stop it.

You merely offer an alternative hypothesis, which I am not disputing, but it isn't a pre-emptive hypothesis, merely an alternative, and there is no reason that both cannot be correct.


Your claim of rape being a good evolutionary reproductive strategy has several holes in it.

For species that don't invest paternal care in the offspring, it might be correct. Ancient humans, on the other hand, required significant paternal care if the ofspring was to reach sexual maturity.
Remember, just creating offspring is NOT reproductive success. Those offspring must reach sexual maturity and reproduce themselves for you to have been successful. This is probably the reason that humans tended to live in multigenerational family groups with parental assistance raising the young.
For humans, sex is a bonding activity. It is one way for the female to make sure the male stays around and helps defend and feed the family unit.

An archaic rapist, on the other hand might be able to impregnate multiple females but, as he would not be assisting for several years to ensure their survival, his actual reproductive success would be low. He would also put himself at personal risk at the hand of the female's real or prospective mate. (Nothing says "I love you" more than bringing home the head of that SOB that hurt you.)

In that environment, single mothers died along with their offspring. It doesn't matter what "Clan of the Cave Bear" says. They died.

Given that, Rape is a very poor reproductive strategy for humans.

Cuckoldry is a whole nother story.

My graduate work was primarily Evolutionary Biology.




xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:21:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, whatever the fuckin thing is, it's obviously wholly fugazi, and that is prima facie.  

Look, if only 2-4 percent of sex acts with some portion of them folks trying result in a womans pregnancy, what would INCREASE that number to upwards to 30% let alone some goddamn 6% even?

NO TH IN GG..........it aint happenin.  There is no maybe, no theory, no magic of a woman's rape fantasy or violent sex fantasy that is gonna put that sort of number out there, PERIOD.

Junk from a punk. That's the most can be said for that 'study'. 
I don't understand what you're saying or what study you are referring to - the only way to increase the statistical probability of intercourse resulting in pregnancy is extremely good timing, given that the sperm has to be present before the egg even drops and the window of fertilization is a matter of hours, not days.

Even with the aid of science, temperature taking, etc., all the techniques recommended by fertility docs, it's still a crap shoot as a lot of couples trying to get pregnant can attest - with all other mammals, it's easy, the female gos into estrus and gets sperm donations, often from several sources - human females don't do this, but presumably the mechanism might still be buried in there somewhere under all the social encrustations.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:22:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Look, males, biologically, are much more expendable than females, by simple virtue of the fact that a single male can impregnate multiple females - I don't like that fact one little bit, doesn't make it any less true.


He could impregnate several but, in an archaic environment, he could not enjoy reproductive success because he would be unable to feed and defend them.

2, maybe. 3 or more, ain't happenin.

They're leopard food.




xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:24:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

To associate rape primarily with sex, or even penile-vaginal sex is inaccurate, as is shown above. The sexual component may be only one of many criminal components, or personal violations in a rape. Many rapists freely concede that the power and terror they exercise over their victims is their major gratification.

Adding all the above together, to assert that rape is a reproductive strategy verges on the cretinous. To insist on that assertion in the face of the evidence is not only cretinous but deeply offensive. Please please stop it.
"many rapists" not, "all rapists" - your insistence on cherry picking your examples, and attempting to refute the hypothesis I offered with ad hominem instead of argument is offensive to the spirit of empirical inquiry, please stop it.

You merely offer an alternative hypothesis, which I am not disputing, but it isn't a pre-emptive hypothesis, merely an alternative, and there is no reason that both cannot be correct.


Your claim of rape being a good evolutionary reproductive strategy has several holes in it.

For species that don't invest paternal care in the offspring, it might be correct. Ancient humans, on the other hand, required significant paternal care if the ofspring was to reach sexual maturity.
Remember, just creating offspring is NOT reproductive success. Those offspring must reach sexual maturity and reproduce themselves for you to have been successful. This is probably the reason that humans tended to live in multigenerational family groups with parental assistance raising the young.
For humans, sex is a bonding activity. It is one way for the female to make sure the male stays around and helps defend and feed the family unit.

An archaic rapist, on the other hand might be able to impregnate multiple females but, as he would not be assisting for several years to ensure their survival, his actual reproductive success would be low. He would also put himself at personal risk at the hand of the female's real or prospective mate. (Nothing says "I love you" more than bringing home the head of that SOB that hurt you.)

In that environment, single mothers died along with their offspring. It doesn't matter what "Clan of the Cave Bear" says. They died.

Given that, Rape is a very poor reproductive strategy for humans.

Cuckoldry is a whole nother story.

My graduate work was primarily Evolutionary Biology.
NEVER SAID IT WAS A "GOOD" STRATEGY, SAID IT WAS "A STRATEGY".

I hate to shout, but Jesus, it's complicated enough without making shit up.

quote:

Given that, Rape is a very poor reproductive strategy for humans.


Which I have said, REPEATEDLY.




mnottertail -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:25:48 AM)

Previous studies found that rates of pregnancy resulting from rape could be anything up to 30 per cent, compared to a two to four per cent chance of getting pregnant from a single act of consensual sex. This led some biologists, notably Randy Thornhill from the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque, to parade the figures as evidence that rape is a natural way for men to spread their genes (New Scientist, 19 February 2000, p 44).


I don't see most rapes as multiple acts of nonconsensual sec so we get a 4% * 4% * 4% .....to get 30% or even 6% 

Ja, raping 88 year old ladies is gonna lead to some barefoot pregnant girls alright.




xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:26:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Oh come on. Who do you think you are kidding? Every post you make on rape tells of your belief that its not the man's fault. And you expect me to believe you missed a so called piece of science, and a book, that states just what you believe?

quote:

rape victims who become pregnant may be more likely to report the crime than those who do not


Now, explain why old ladies get raped.

Explain why men get raped.

Explain why there are rapes involving only oral.

Explain why there are rapes involving only anal.

None of these match your hypothesis.
I didn't say that, you're quoting a study you quoted.

And, I've already answered the rest of that, couple of pages back.




tweakabelle -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:30:36 AM)

quote:

You merely offer an alternative hypothesis, which I am not disputing, but it isn't a pre-emptive hypothesis, merely an alternative, and there is no reason that both cannot be correct.


There is a very good reason your guesswork, which you have elevated falsely to the level of a 'hypothesis' cannot be correct. It doesn't describe reality.

I don't know what delusions you may have about your intellectual prowess - I could venture an opinion but it would probably get me moderated - but please apply such talents as you have to (a) a field where you have at least a rudimentary familiarity with current state of knowledge and (b) a field where the calamaties you continuously misrepresent to us as hypotheses are less offensive and outrageous.

It is very clear from your inane rants that you haven't the slightest familiarity with the field of rape or its consequences on those of us unfortunate enough to have been raped. Spare a thought for them if you can in fact see past your own nose.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:31:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Previous studies found that rates of pregnancy resulting from rape could be anything up to 30 per cent, compared to a two to four per cent chance of getting pregnant from a single act of consensual sex. This led some biologists, notably Randy Thornhill from the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque, to parade the figures as evidence that rape is a natural way for men to spread their genes (New Scientist, 19 February 2000, p 44).

Ja, raping 88 year old ladies is gonna lead to some barefoot pregnant girls alright.

Personally, I'd like to see the raw data on the 6-30% number.

Back in the olden days, was it unusual for a woman who was pregnant out of wedlock to say "I was raped" to replace social stigma with sympathy? That would definitely skew the numbers.
Another thing that would skew the numbers dramatically would be that rapes just aren't reported. If 90% of rapes that don't result in pregnancy go unreported (and a majority of the ones that do cause pregnancy get reported), that would throw off the "Rape induced pregnancy numbers off by an order of magnitude.

This isn't a claim. It's just a question.




xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:34:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Look, males, biologically, are much more expendable than females, by simple virtue of the fact that a single male can impregnate multiple females - I don't like that fact one little bit, doesn't make it any less true.


He could impregnate several but, in an archaic environment, he could not enjoy reproductive success because he would be unable to feed and defend them.

2, maybe. 3 or more, ain't happenin.

They're leopard food.
Be that as it may, optimal or no, the rule still holds.

It's called r strategy, have enough offspring and it increases the chances that at least a percentage of them will survive.

Thought you said you knew something about biology.

And yes, Humans, like most mammals, are K strategists, although among mammals, MPI is seldom as common as it is among humans, although herd behaviors tend to compensate for that to a degree - one is probably more likely to find higher incidences MPI in avian species where the female has to stay in the nest and warm the egg and can't go out looking for food.

But yes, it is also the reason that while rape is a strategy, it's usually a piss poor one, Genghis Khan notwithstanding.




mnottertail -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:34:21 AM)

But certainly that is more the issue, all the points you raised,  and that's why is is as fugazi and dismissable as twice used toilet paper.




tazzygirl -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:37:17 AM)

I would also like to include that biology has its own way of ensuring the survival of the species. Its not just by chance that a child looks like it's biological father.




xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:37:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

You merely offer an alternative hypothesis, which I am not disputing, but it isn't a pre-emptive hypothesis, merely an alternative, and there is no reason that both cannot be correct.


There is a very good reason your guesswork, which you have elevated falsely to the level of a 'hypothesis' cannot be correct. It doesn't describe reality.

I don't know what delusions you may have about your intellectual prowess - I could venture an opinion but it would probably get me moderated - but please apply such talents as you have to (a) a field where you have at least a rudimentary familiarity with current state of knowledge and (b) a field where the calamaties you continuously misrepresent to us as hypotheses are less offensive and outrageous.

It is very clear from your inane rants that you haven't the slightest familiarity with the field of rape or its consequences on those of us unfortunate enough to have been raped. Spare a thought for them if you can in fact see past your own nose.
Blah blah.

The current "state of knowledge" in sex research is rapidly changing, almost daily, it's a relatively new field of study, and the tools have improved greatly - there have been paradigm shifts in sex research in the last 12 months that you are apparently unaware of, so go preach to the choir.




mnottertail -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:39:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I would also like to include that biology has its own way of ensuring the survival of the species. Its not just by chance that a child looks like it's biological father.


Well, if its born with no hair, I guess we know who's it is, hah?




tazzygirl -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 10:41:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I would also like to include that biology has its own way of ensuring the survival of the species. Its not just by chance that a child looks like it's biological father.


Well, if its born with no hair, I guess we know who's it is, hah?


LOL

"Looks like he spit him out" takes on a whole new meaning. [;)]




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875