I’m sure you’ve already heard about it, so I’m a little redundant to bring it up — Carl Zimmer has a spiffy article in the NY Times about duck phalluses. No, that’s not quite right; the most interesting part of the story was the bit about duck oviducts. Female ducks have been evolving increasingly convoluted oviducts to baffle the efforts of duck rapists to inseminate them, and male ducks have been evolving concomitantly long phalluses to thread the maze and deliver sperm to the ovaries.
I’d heard about these huge intromittent organs in ducks before, but this is another fascinating revelation: it took a woman scientist to suggest that maybe, just maybe, they also ought to look at what’s going on in the female ducks, and then the whole wonderful story of coevolution of these structures emerged. It’s actually a rather embarrassing instance of a scientific blind spot, where the biases of the investigators led them to overlook an important component of the story.
When I worked on the UC Davis campus, one of the signs of spring–as regular as flowers blooming in the Arboretum–was the return of the rapist ducks to campus.
It was quite disconcerting to try and enjoy a brown-bag lunch on the grass with all the plaintive squawking going on; sometimes we’d even hear it through the open window during staff meetings. But it had to be even worse for the hapless student tour guides who had to contend with the noise and spectacle of six-male one-female pilings-on while extolling the virtues of the campus to groups of restive high school seniors and their horrified parents.
Great article–it was already in the “Most E-mailed” list when I checked the NYT front page early this morning.
How timely a post this is as I watch a duck couple waddle past my window. They have made their home on the grounds of the apartment complex I rent in, and are a welcome sight when coming and going to do errands. I’ll make sure to let them be though if I see any bushes rustling…
Most guys just don’t like to think about … about …. you know …. duck penises and stuff.
Hey, speak for yourself.
Anywho, here’s the original paper for those interested.
I think Dawkins would call this a case of runaway sexual selection. Ow.
I’ve always wondered why ducks walk so weird.Who would have thunk giant duck dick.If you are hung like a duck will your girl waddle away?
You forgot to mention the classic study of nefarious duck sexuality.
What the duck?
My favorite revelation is the counter-clockwise twist of the vagina to thwart the clockwise twist of the duck penis.
It’s actually a rather embarrassing instance of a scientific blind spot, where the biases of the investigators led them to overlook an important component of the story.
I’m actually pretty surprised that it took a woman to suggest looking at the female ducks. From the many undergraduate courses in Invertebrate Zoology I took, I assumed (incorrectly, of course) that female researchers were obsessed with well-endowed males of various species, most notably among the barnacles. Both female professors I had for third- and fourth-year inverts classes were positively ecstatic when the course reached the crustaceans, since they then had the chance to show endless slides and movies of barnacle wangs. Not once were female barnacles mentioned, even in passing, except to note that the apparent reason for very long intromittent organs in male barnacles may be that females are often some distance away.
Shame on you PZ!!
It is NOT RAPE.
It’s forced copulation.
What happens to a duck is not the same as what happens to a woman or a man. I don’t know why people insist on equating these two. And by “people”, I’m afraid I usually mean Men :(
If you really want to read more, read my latest post at the bug blog.
Now, I’ll go back to tilting at my regular windmills…
This makes me wonder how corks reproduce.
Dictionaries: use them!
Caledonian, thanks for that non-helpful, snide remark.
My point is that rape has social, moral and other connotations in humans. None of those are appropriate for use in the natural world. I’m sure you’ve heard of the naturalistic fallacy.
Dictionaries have many, many errors. They are not written for a scientific audience.
If you want to use that as an authority, try looking up science. or hypothesis. or any other terms, which will be defined by current usage.
That point, while correct, is not the one you made.
What is the denotation of the word ‘rape’, bug_girl?
My point is that rape has social, moral and other connotations in humans. None of those are appropriate for use in the natural world.
And that’s why we never use words like courtship or parental care when talking about animals… oh wait, we do.
There can be good reasons to avoid an emotionally and politically charged word but why make up bogus reasons for doing so?
Cal: I think what she’s protesting is the anthropocentric bias implicit in the use of terms like “rape” with social, psychological, and legal connotations above and beyond the technical denotation, when applied to humans, to describe the behavior of nonsentient animals, and the corresponding implicit moral judgement.
Especially when the definition of the word precisely matches what we’re trying to describe.
Eating has social, moral, ethical, political, and religious connotations among humans. Does that mean that we can’t use the word ‘eat’ in the context of the natural world? Do we have to describe it as “solid nutrient consumption”?
Or does the word ‘consumption’ bring up too many associations of misspent resources and consumerism? Perhaps “solid nutrient digestive intake” would be more appropriate, eh?
(That is to say, I gather she sees this as akin to the stereotypical high school ditz who hears about, for instance, infanticide by males of certain mammal species and is horrified: “But! Don’t they know it’s wrong?!” Why she’s pushing the point, however, I’m not entirely sure.)
I didn’t say it was sensible, just that arguing over the technical denotation of the term was a bit tangential.
PS: Someone give me a number for “a short time before posting.”
I haven’t tested it rigorously, but thirty seconds seems to do the trick.
What? Didn’t Darwin look at a species of flower with a very deep well and predict that there must be a species of moth with a very long tongue? Hasn’t the coevolution of snail genitalia shown the same pattern? (Not to mention other features such as “fertility darts” in the sexual arms race in snails.) What surprises me is that biologists didn’t think of this sooner. Here’s what Carl Zimmer wrote over two years ago on snail genitalia coevolution (note: the ‘love darts’ are darts that snails shoot at each other to manipulate each other’s fertility with chemicals):
“That is, species with more blades on their love darts tend to have longer reproductive tracts and more elaborate hormone-producing glands and so on. Only by comparing dozens of species were they able to find this sort of a relationship.”
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/03/30/love_darts_in_the_backyard.php
I mean, how could you read about snails long reproductive tracts as a means of frustrating “cheaters”, and not think that long duck penises and female reproductive tracts are part of a sexual arms race?
I mean, how could you read about snails long reproductive tracts as a means of frustrating “cheaters”, and not think that long duck penises and female reproductive tracts are part of a sexual arms race?
Many researchers fail to read what’s been done on other organisms. Could be vertebrate bias instead of male bias?
I think many researchers would be unaware that ducks had penises in the first place.
RE: “Female ducks have been evolving increasingly convoluted oviducts to baffle the efforts of duck rapists to inseminate them, and male ducks have been evolving concomitantly long phalluses to thread the maze and deliver sperm to the ovaries.”
No, – I won’t go there. It was going to be a totally distasteful comment. Let your imagination run free and you may see where I am loath to go.
I’ll tell you what. You come down to the shelter with me for a week, and then we’ll have a semantic discussion about whether what men and women experience when they are raped is quantitatively different than what happens to a female duck.
The definition of the word does NOT match what happens in nonhumans.
Cripes.
and another thing:)
I’m making this point, and subjecting myself to your inane comments, because this is an important distinction.
This is important for lots of reasons.
As scientists, we should be precise in the use of our language, and avoid implying things that aren’t there.
We should remember that we are limited in what we can know about non-human cognition.
I already mentioned the natural fallacy of assuming that because something happens in nature, it’s ok for us to do it as humans. (Look at Civil War essays about slavery which reference “slave-making” ants for a rationalization of owning people, for example.) People have taken the occurrence of forced copulation as validating human rape as “natural.”
Lastly, we should remember that some of our colleagues and friends have been raped themselves. I remember very vividly my professors joking about ducks and scorpionflies, and their attitude that rape was a jolly, amusing oddity.
“Ha ha! Seems like a good idea!”
“Ho ho, yes indeed Dr. X! I can certainly understand why male might not to wait!”
Yeah, that really made me feel welcome as a female student of science.
Using this word in a non-human context lets us forget that it happens to real people. And it harms them deeply.
If we know that one word has huge amounts of baggage and harms, and we have an alternative word that is both more precise and less harmful, why in the world *wouldn’t* you want to have a distinction?
And -That- is why I am putting up with your crap, and made my comment, because I expect better from PZ.
The definition of the word
You are wrong in pretty much every way it is possible to be wrong. It’s people like you who taught the neocons the power of political correctness and social control over the use of language. Take your “privleged terminology” and shove it.
Point #1: Weren’t you just saying that ‘rape’ can’t be appplied to nonhumans? Their attitude was that forced intercourse was a jolly, amusing oddity.
Point #2: Rape can happen to a person who is unconscious, and they might never even realize that it happened – but despite the lack of mental trauma, it’s still rape. Sex with people who cannot legally give consent – that’s also still rape, no matter how absurd that can sometimes be, and even if the person sought it out and thoroughly enjoyed it.
The definition of the word does not involve psychological trauma. It is not human-specific. You are attempting to change the definition of the word in such a way that you gain social power from its altered use.
Science is a way of thinking, not a profession or a set of techniques. You have never been and will never be a scientist – you will always be a technician, no matter what job you hold or what titles you possess. Your contempt for language and clear meaning makes that plain.
I guess size does matter.
But the definition of rape has nothing to do with what the victim experiences. Coma victims and people drugged into unconsciousness have been raped. It’s simply forced copulation.
Humans probably experience something quite different from ducks when they’re killed, too, but that doesn’t mean we need a new word for “kill” as applied to ducks.
No one’s suggesting that ducks react to rape, or theft, or murder, or cannibalism, the way people do.
This is doubly off-topic, but I work in the IT business, and once saw some people complaining about the terms “Master/Slave hard drives” and such.
(When two hard drives are connected to a single controller, one becomes the master and takes precedence in the protocol.)
I thought they were completely nuts.
Yes, that’s a very ugly sentiment. But how would it be neutralized by the professors’ not using the word “rape?”
I find this claim a bit surprising, given that the research in question suggests that the ducks are deeply harmed by rape as well. There’s evidently a strong selective pressure to resist it any way they can, behaviorally and anatomically. I would think, if anything, the seriousness of rape is underscored by the discovery of how hard even nonhuman higher animals will fight to avoid it.
Oh? Can we see your scientific credentials? How about some original research? Or, like the creationists, do you think that you too can be a scientist because you like to sit around musing about semantics all day?
Dipshit troll.
Really…? I’d be greatly interested in citations for those; I’m not sure that’s an argument I’ve come across.
I think she’s actually saying that if people call what happens to animals rape, then that will minimize the human experience of rape.
However, I don’t think that it’s a particularly good argument. The minimization of women’s experience of rape isn’t stemming from biological conversations of duck rape, however jovial.
Fuck you, you pompous, condescending jackass. She has a problem with using the word “rape” in a way that dilutes its meaning for its human victims, and you descend from on high to tell her in the most paternalistic tones that she could never possibly be a scientist, because you, the lord high protector of science and gatekeeper of all knowledge, have determined that she has shown insufficient piety towards your pet conception of precision language use, or that she genuflected to the sacred right of men to joke about rape in the workplace with the wrong fucking knee, or whatever.
One wonders if you would have reacted in quite the same manner to her if she hadn’t posted under an identifiably female screen name.
To me the difference is: “rape” is to “forced copulation” as “murder” is to “kill.” In each case, the first is a social-cultural concept involving criminality with moral and legal implications, the second is purely descriptive. Calling what ducks do “rape” is like calling zebrafish eating their own larvae “murder” or “infanticide.” People will get what you’re talking about, but you are being imprecise and distracting. These terms have too much semiotic baggage.
In many places it is legally impossible for a man to rape his wife; as apalling as that is, it underscores to the contextual nature of this word.
Yes, scientists sometimes use loaded anthropomorphic terms to describe animal behavior, either positive or negative. It’s always unnecessary, sometimes it is funny or compelling, sometimes it is disturbing or alienating. I see no reason not to do away with the latter in most settings, particularly if it is perceived as hurtful or demeaning to some people. No explanatory power is lost, and some much-needed inclusiveness is gained.
Caledonian, attacking her like that serves no purpose unless you want to lose the moral high ground. And what does this even mean?
Azkyroth, why only infanticide by males?
And by “moral high ground”, you mean “the respect of stupid, shallow people whose opinions are determined through a process of conceptual association”.
I’m not particularly concerned about losing that, thanks.
We don’t care what the difference is to you.
You mean, with its general and formal definition? In other words, correctly?
There are a horde of equally technically correct but more effect-descriptive terms that could be used to refer to the effects of raping a human. How about she uses those, and stops trying to distort perfectly good technical terms?
Past cases on these boards strongly indicate that I criticize stupidity regardless of the gender of the stupid person in question.
Still no word on what you meant with that bizarre accusation, I see.
Well, it seems that you’re lashing out a lot. That makes me think that you have a long history of losing the respect of people whose opinions were actually very important to you.
Which was it? A string of teachers or your parents? In any case, I’m likely to side with whichever authority figure from your youth first called you “useless”.
You are such a piece of crap, Cal.
The definition of the word does NOT match what happens in nonhumans.
Only because we’re talking about ducks instead of humans – not because male ducks aren’t using strategies to circumvent female mate choice.
If ducks were as smart as humans, duck females would be affected exactly the same way. But there’s no requirement in the definition of “rape” that it happen to someone intelligent or self-aware – it’s entirely possible to rape the mentally handicapped, or the comatose – so “rape” is clearly an equally appropriate term. And it doesn’t in any way diminish the suffering of human rape victims, nor justify the acts of human rapists, just like it doesn’t diminish the skill of a chef to call what animals do “eating”.
hf, that is a truly amazing link. I’m off to try to confirm its claims, but if that’s truly the case… wow.
But as for the “bizarre accusation”: are you really telling me that you’re totally unaware of the history of ‘political correctness’?
I’m aware that someone used the term as a joke once and right-wingers picked it up because it sounded more threatening than “not being a dick”. Why, do you mean to accuse bug girl or thinking that if people use her terminology it will usher in a dictatorship of the proletariat?
The problem isn’t the term rape. The jokes about forced copulation could be just as noxious. The problem is the cultural attitudes around rape.
I think y’all are confusing the symbol with the actuality.
Just as an historical note, the “is it rape or Forced Copulation” controversy is very old, from the late 70’s or so. The wikipedia entry for Sociobiolgical Theories of Rape” reminded me of David Barash’s 1977 article, and then there was the Thornhill’s work from the early ’80’s, and the polemics in psychology and zoology departments and journals (notably Animal Behaviour) have continued since.
are you really telling me that you’re totally unaware of the history of ‘political correctness’?
Aren’t you aware that accusations of “political correctness” are usually leveled to stifle dialogue about how word choices can uphold or dismantle privilege?
It’s hard to take someone who uses “political correctness” and seriously means it, well, seriously.
orof.I think Dawkins would call this a case of runaway sexual selection.
No, they tried that, but running away did not work.
Not all that off-topic. I know a researcher on “slave-making ants” who got obscene phone calls and her door vandalized because she used the phrase. Their rationale was that it was racist.
n.b.: I think Bug Girl’s objection is way more reasonable than that one.
But we do call zebrafish eating their larvae infanticide; and lions killing cubs, and dolphins killing calves.
Actually, I was going to use exactly that as an example of why we should not limit “rape” to a legal sense. Men do rape their wives, whether or not their society happens to find that acceptable behavior. We shouldn’t avoid the most direct label for the act just because those who wish to excuse it use a different one.
Anton Mates:
I’m pretty sure my experience of being accused of “racism” for using the expression “the pot calling the kettle black” wins in that regard. O.o
That happened to you too? I had a philosophy professor jump on my case for that — it was as though she didn’t know that cookware used to be (and in some cases still is) made out of wrought iron, thus the addage.
See previous post, re “pompous, condescending jackass”.
Yes, your lack of concern for the opinions of others is readily apparent.
Let’s check, shall we:
“1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
[…]
1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent
[…]
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
[…]
the crime of forcing an unwilling or legally incompetent person to participate in sexual intercourse.”
You’re right, how could anyone come to the conclusion that the “general and formal definition” of rape refers to a crime commited against a human being?
Just how many people is he carrying around inside his head, anyway?
In any case, I’m not prepared to believe that he doesn’t care what we think of him. He does, after all, keep posting here. I wish he wouldn’t… the place gets covered in astroglide pretty quickly when he does.
I wonder, Caledonian, do you like to put bags over your head or belts around your throat to heighten your posting experience?
I just assumed that, as a royal pain in the ass, he was making use of the Pluralis jackasstatis.
I sympathize, but I’d call that a close second. At least you actually used a word often associated with a particular race. :-)
On the one hand, we don’t start arresting predators for murder. The naturalistic fallacy really is a fallacy; duck rapists (or whatever you want to call them) shouldn’t be imprisoned for their crimes. Judging animals by human standards and judging humans by animal standards are both foolish and pointless.
On the other hand, if it looks like a rape, and it walks like a rape… Regardless of whether or not we consider the duck morally competent, and regardless of the different effects on/reactions of a duck victim and a human one, there is a clear similarity between the acts themselves, which it would be absurd to ignore.
But we’re getting away from the real question: are they twisty little mazes of duck oviducts, all different, or are they twisty little mazes of duck oviducts, all alike? In the latter case we’re going to need a supply of different objects to drop on the floor to tell the rooms apart.
(Some people may consider the humor ill-placed, I guess, but there’s just something *funny* about ducks. Even when they’re acting dethpicable.)
Caledonian: “We don’t care what the difference is to you.”
Glad to hear your opinion is the only one that counts.
You’re pretty worked up on this topic, and a nice use of the royal “we.” A shrill asshole with delusions of grandeur is so much funnier than a coherent one.
Anton: “But we do call zebrafish eating their larvae infanticide; and lions killing cubs, and dolphins killing calves.”
Sometimes, but we don’t call it murder. And as the rest of my post pointed out, it’s not that anthropomorphizing animal behavior is inherently wrong.
Re: pot-kettle
I’ve run into this, too. I was stunned that a) the person had no idea what the phrase meant or how it originated, and b) that they thought I was capable of uttering such a casually racist remark.
Be that as it may, the wrought iron is optional. The phrase dates back to when people commonly cooked over an open flame. All but the newest cookware was surely blackened to some degree with soot.
If you think about how the phrase is used, this makes plenty of sense, because the phrase clearly has the connotation of “Here we have a fellah who’s not exactly squeaky clean himself calling another fellah to task for bein’ dirty!” and not just of “Here we have a fellah with neutral characteristic X calling another fellah to task for exhibiting neutral characteristic X!”
It’s about the soot, ladies and gentlemen. The pots and kettles themselves might have been made of any suitable material.
I think you’ve hit upon the reason why the phalluses are all counterclockwise. They’re just following the right-hand rule.
Does that mean that my piece is the cross-product of my legs? I’d be tempted to say that it’s my unit vector, but it has too great a magnitude for that.
I recall my art school days. My mom had a couple of ducks at her place and one day Chico the drake was sportin’ corkscrew wood for all to see. I was inspired and incorporated the potent symbol of the duckdick in several lithographs and etchings. And yes, ducks like their sex rough.
Screw your pots and kettles, we have duckdicks in the house.
Possibly NSFW. But not weird Japanese porn *glares at PZ*.
(Incidentally, pots and kettles were more likely to be made of cast iron than of wrought iron.)
As for the rape debate, I hardly know what to say. There’s an old adage that comes to mind, though, having something to do with the quoting of Webster as a sign of already having lost the argument. If there’s any truth to that, then it’s possible that everyone engaged in this debate has already lost.
Well, never mind that. In this case, I’m seeing people haul out the definitions that best suit their agenda. What does that prove? I don’t know. But because the core controversy was sparked by Caledonian’s objection to Bug_Girl’s objection, I’m looking at the definition Caledonian linked to. This is what I see:
rape: … 6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
Well! That certainly seems to open the door for all kinds of non-human rape, doesn’t it. Or does it? I guess that depends on the definition of “intercourse.” Ok then. Onward.
intercourse: … 3. sexual relations or a sexual coupling, esp. coitus.
Ah-hah! Again, no mention of human beings! But what about this coitus thing? Hmmm, better check it out.
coitus: sexual intercourse, esp. between a man and a woman.
The meaning of this series of dependent definitions is pretty clear: Rape generally applies to forced intercourse between a man and a woman. But not absolutely; there is ambiguity. This weakens, but does not destroy, the foundation of Caledonian’s argument.
In my (unsolicited) opinion, it weakens Caledonian’s argument to a degree that prompts my re-characterization of his treatment of his opponents from “inexcusable” all the way over to “contemptible.” Sorry, Cal, as you may have noticed, I’ve supported you on more than one occasion here, but not this time – and not because you’re flat-out wrong. You’re not. It’s because your argument has failed to even begin to justify your attitudes towards the people with whom you disagree.
I have a suggestion for you: As long as you’re examining and criticizing the power-seeking motives of others, why don’t you examine your own motives for your sometimes atrocious rudeness in here. What’s the payoff, Cal? What do you get out of it? That’s a conversation you can have with yourself, if you’re so inclined. I’m not going to play therapist and pretend I know the answers.
As for the core controversy… I take it back. I do know what to say. Language is fluid. Words are born. Words die out. Meanings change, sometimes radically, over time, according to pressures placed upon the language by those who use it. Perhaps the common usage of “rape” is pushing it towards a more anthropocentric definition. But why? Because society needs its members to recognize that rape is more than simply forced intercourse between two living creatures, and is specifically a very serious crime committed by one human being against another?
True, but “murder” is an unusually specific term even when applied to humans killing other humans. Likewise I think it’d be reasonable to describe a frigatebird (say) as stealing from a booby, but I can’t think of a nonhuman animal act I’d describe as “embezzlement.”
Understood; I just don’t think this is a particularly blatant case of such. But certainly if it offends a lot of people, that makes it less useful as a lay description.
Yeah, dude is always going on and on about how argument isn’t to establish truth, but a method of working out a social pecking order. Then, oddly enough, he completely loses his shit whenever I call him an intellectual relativist. Worse, he always comes in here with the intent of finding even the most trivial shit to pick a fight over — does that mean he’s trying to work out some kind of social station for himself on the internet? Because that’s really pathetic.
I hope haggis-for-brains doesn’t have any kids, since I would imagine that morning conversations would go like this:
aaaand so on.
The problem with using rape terminology to describe mating behavior
in other animals is that using “rape” to describe the situation
is to imply “Something Needs To Be Done” about the situation.
We don’t need to “Do Something” about the duck sex “problem”.
I suspect that your basis for saying that is insecurity over your own nilpotence and lack of normality, but it could just be projection. I’ve long bewailed my own tendency to skew when things get tensor.
Well… maybe someone could have argued that the term “rape” is avoidable, and may bring back painful memories to some people, and we could all be a little nicer toward each other and use a term that is less likely to emotionally hurt others.
Why, there could even be some avian researcher who was a rape victim. Who knows?
It would be difficult to argue against that.
But, of course, harassing others for not using vocabulary The Correct Way (= “as I do”) is always more fun. In a sick way. :(
Best. Burn. Ever.
“True, but ‘murder’ is an unusually specific term even when applied to humans killing other humans.”
I think that’s my point… murder implies criminality, and rape does as well, along with an entire host of issues related violence, power, social subjugation and control, that have nothing to do with procreation or dictionary definitions (Kseniya is right on). I’ll submit (at the risk of inviting a flood of clever posts about Scrooge McDuck) that ducks cannot commit crimes, and hazard a guess that forced intercourse is solely about trying to get your genes into the next generation.
Anyway, to me it is easy to see that to call a mountain jay a “camp robber” is innocuous while calling what ducks due “rape” is not. Semiotic baggage, as mentioned above. A bit of social intelligence and empathy is all it takes to see why it might be worth avoiding. And of course, it doesn’t cost anyone anything.
I can’t believe anyone still whines about “political correctness,” except as a disingenuous defense for being a boor; it’s like fighting over which is the best Duran Duran album.
In the latter case we’re going to need a supply of different objects to drop on the floor to tell the rooms apart.
Just watch out for the pirate.
(And how did 60 posts go by without someone taking the bait?)
At the very least, I’m glad you aren’t in my neighborhood. I can only stand so much subnormality and degeneracy, and you’ll just perturb things and cause instability. But, I’m afraid that I’m getting a little irrational, and it’s time we came to a closure.
Believe it or not, this 22 year old GETS the Adventure reference. My dad told me all about it after I discovered Gemstone III waaaay back when I was about 15 yrs old. I thought a “text-based fantasy RPG” was a new thing… LOL.
I know about the two mazes, and how to figure out the all-alike maze. And the bird. The snake. The dragon. And the ashes. Heh. And not to waste my money on batteries if I can help it. Dad did say there was one puzzle he never figured out – something about a gem the size of a plover’s egg, and a really narrow passage. I guess you had to drop everything, including your flashlight, just to get the thing – so of course you fell into a pit and died before you could get back to the main passage.
Dad never said nuthin ’bout no PIRATE, though. Hmmmph.
The original version of the game was written by one of the IMP guys. He wrote it one weekend, for his kids. One of my dad’s friends works (or worked) with the guy at Cisco. I don’t remember his name, though. There’s a lot more about the IMP guys in a very interesting book about the birth of the DARPANET called Where Wizards Stay Up Late. Sorry, too tired to provide linx. :-)
Miko, no duck even knows that genes exist, whereas they can probably grasp social power to some extent. You’re talking about the evolutionary cause and not the motive of the animal involved.
Well…purely from an ethical standpoint, I’d say that it really is a problem. I mean, all other things being equal, I’d prefer happy ducks to unhappy ducks. It’s not a problem I can resolve, inasmuch as I have no idea how to genetically engineer mallard males to be more understanding lovers, then render this new trait evolutionarily stable, then make sure they’re not overtaken by some other duck species evolving to fill the nasty-mating-habits vacancy. But it is another nugget of evidence in favor of the universe not being essentially good.
Likewise, the grisly and painful deaths suffered by billions of reasonably intelligent animals are mostly a fact of life–we can’t rid the world of unmerciful carnivores and parasites and pathogens, nor could we compensate for the negative side-effects if we did so. But we can still acknowledge that it’s a lousy state of affairs, and help where we can.
No kidding–I need a cigarette after that.
hf,
i don’t think we know that ducks know that anything exists at all, let alone genes. it’s about the purpose of the behavior, not the duck’s subjective motivation.
many animals do use sex as a social instrument (most notoriously humans and those wacky bonobos), my point is that i don’t think ducks fall into that category. i could be wrong, but i don’t think forced copulation serves the purpose of creating or maintaing dominance hierarchies, alliances, etc.
Is it just me or does anyone else feel somewhat confused by this whole argument? As was pointed out earlier, ‘rape’ in dictionary terms can mean forced copulation so it is not unreasonable to apply it to the animal world, but that is a far cry from saying that we can or should equate it to the human situation. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and even rapes like a duck it is still a duck. Not a human being. The term ‘rape’ is obviously loaded for some people, as are different words for others, but I can’t really see an easy solution to avoiding the occasional personal faux pas in a widely read public forum that doesn’t involve an inordinate degree of censorship.
The problem isn’t the faux pas. The problem is the posts filled with “HOW DAER U ACUSE ME OF MAKING A FOE PAS!!!” and “STOP CENSOREING ME YOU PC COMMIE NAZI THUGG!!!” and “ITS NOT MY PROBLEM IF YOU GOT OFENDED DEAL WITH IT LOOSER!!” that always seem to follow the faux pas.
Ok, really dumb question. Is there no hint anywhere in primate evolution that forced copulation may at some point have conferred some reproductive advantage to the males that were practicing it? Or is the discussion taboo because primates might be too close to humans? Fuck a duck.
Fernando, forced copulation is said to be common in orangutans. It would seem that now and then it must “confer reproductive advantage”, ie. result in offspring. It is a different question whether this specific behaviour has been selected for – but it seems possible.
I have trouble taking people who misuse the word ‘privilege’ when they really mean ‘advantage’ or ‘respect differential’ seriously.
Like ‘hermeneutics’, the term isn’t necessarily indicative of shoddy thinking, but it’s a fairly reliable symptom.
It says especially between a man and a woman, not only. The term does not have a human-specific meaning, nor does it carry the requirements of emotional distress.
Well aware of the possibility that I may be wrong, I venture to suggest that part of bug_girl’s complaint is that the term “rape” has been misused a lot in the last ten years or so.
I have heard men (and it’s always, always men, I assure you) complain that they felt raped when someone stole their wallet, or when they signed a contract that was on the harsh side. This bothers a lot of women, including me. I’m sick of this casual “off-label” usage too, so I can understand bug_girl’s reaction. I’m not sure she’s 100% right, in this case, but there was no need for the over the top reaction from caledonian.
Caledonian: If you need to vent frustration, get a physical punching bag. It’s more effective, and it doesn’t intrude on the rest of us.
The correct term in that case would be ‘violated’. And I find it amusing that you suggest that usage was only prevalent in the last ten years.
Indeed. She is in fact 100% wrong. I am disappointed (but not surprised) that you didn’t recognize an example of verbal social coercion when you saw it.
Indeed. She is in fact 100% wrong. I am disappointed (but not surprised) that you didn’t recognize an example of verbal social coercion when you saw it.
Wow, you know me so well — enough not to be surprised by my response. Since this is the first time I’ve ever posted here about anything remotely related to politically correct speech, you must be a stalker — following me around from site to site. In fact, I’m pretty sure you are my ex-husband. Stay away, you know what the court order says. /snippiness
Get a grip. This is the internet. I’m sure bug_girl knew she was howling in the face of a hurricane. She’s entitled to her opinion, and you’re entitled to ignore it, and even attempt to refute it. But you don’t need to insult and belittle. Save that for the creationist trolls, who actually enjoy the attention.
P.S. — It’s only in the last ten years or so that I’ve heard the term rape used by men that way. If you heard it earlier, good for you. It doesn’t change anything.
Xebecs,
I have heard men (and it’s always, always men, I assure you).
Get off your high moral woman’s point of view once and for all. As a young boy I was raped by an adult male (not some namby pamby pedophile of a catholic priest who was gropping around under his robes touching private parts,BTW)
I’m talking extreme violence resulting in copious flow of blood. So I don’t *need* some woman to tell me what it is like. The problem with your and some other woman’s assumptions about men is that they are not necessarily true. Case in point is the recent post on this blog about the guy in Michigan who went through hell having to make a decision about his wife’s abortion. I too could say I’m sick and tired of snarky comments comming from cluless women like you about what it’s like being a man, guess what were human too. So get over yourself. And in case you are wondering I happen to be in a happy relationship with a perfectly wonderful woman, I’m a father, a son and I have a sister too so It’s not like I’m unaware of what women are like. Sorry for the rant but you just touched a very raw nerve.
You are in a twisty maze of duck oviducts, all alike. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I’m not on any high horse. I’m very aware that men get raped, and I’m sorry for your pain. My comment wasn’t about you. It’s about the men who trivialize rape — including yours.
The reason I wrote “and it’s always, always men” is because it always is, in my experience. I’ve heard men do this hundreds of times, and never once a woman. Have you ever heard a woman refer to having her purse stolen as being raped? If you have, then I will stipulate that I was wrong to imply that my experience was generalizable, but it does not change either my intent or my point.
I don’t think we have any quarrel, but if I’m still not getting your point, let me know. Peace.
“Why, there could even be some avian researcher who was a rape victim. Who knows?”
I was sexually molested as a boy, and that’s part of the reason I have PTSD. But it has never occurred to me to pay any attention to how people use the word rape, or molest, or anything. I can watch britcoms and not get upset when people make jokes about priests “buggering” boys.
Young boys are sexually victimized much more often than most people realize. as much as rape of women is underreported, it’s possible that rape of men (or at least boys) is even more underreported.
There’s the whole issue of masculinity, not being able to defend yourself, having people think you’re “gay,” etc. that goes on with young males that prevents them from telling people. That’s in addition to the whole blaming yourself thing that all victims go through.
Along with myself, I know several other men who were raped or molested, none of whom told a soul until well into adulthood – usually middle-age.
Yes, there are issues of dominance and sexism and patriarchy involved in the victimization of women, but to suggest that men can’t understand or have no experience of the victim’s side of rape is insensitive in itself.
There it is again – the idea that every thought expressed on the Internet is an ‘opinion’.
People are only entitled to their judgements on completely unobjective matters. If reality enters into the equation, even a little, it’s a question of fact.
In any case, bug_girl wasn’t merely stating her belief, she was establishing a social norm. Or trying to. Poorly. Her norm isn’t based on reality at all, but merely her personal emotional associations, but she repeatedly made truth claims that were blatantly wrong about that fact.
Another example of people confusing human crimes with non-human behaviours from the IT world is a discussion I saw on Usenet, c.1995, about the term “kill”–specifically in the context of a parent killing its child. In context, that is nothing more than a program (the parent) which started another program (the child) now causing the child to terminate (kills it). Nothing whatsoever to do with human crimes, albeit the terms themselves presumably were inspired by animal and human relationships and acts.
Some person, who as I recall was far more reasonable and mild-mannered than far too many of the preceeding comments, very clearly said he was disturbed by this usage, blah, blah, blah. The concensus was there was nothing wrong with the terminology, provided you realized humans (at least) weren’t either of the actors. The actors are processes (programs).
Male ducks gang up on females, and try to inseminate the females. That’s the way the duckworld works. The evolutionary warfare here is interesting.
Caledonian: Thank you for toning down the rhetoric.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. bug_girl’s comments were opinions. You believe they were dumb opinions, and you believe that you have proved your case. I’ll stipulate your belief to that effect and agree to disagree.
I actually hate taking posts like this one (you know, the duck thing) and going down a blind alley as we have, so this will be my last post on the subject. You may post whatever you like and we’ll leave it for posterity to judge, or more likely, ignore.
Toned it down? I toned it up. It’s just that the implications are now left to the imagination rather than explicitly stated.
I can understand the female ducks not wanting to be raped, but I don’t understand what evolutionary advantage the female oviducts offer. If anything, making fertilization harder should result in fewer offspring, which should lead to the extinction of the trait. Can somebody explain this to me?
If anything, making fertilization harder should result in fewer offspring, which should lead to the extinction of the trait.
Not if it ensures that you get the cream of the crop (pardon the pun).
Brandon:
“I don’t understand what evolutionary advantage the female oviducts offer.”
Second this request.
The only thing that I can think of is that it’s like antlers or peacock tails: the male proves his reproductive fitness by carrying around an otherwise unnecessarily cumbersome appendage. A male duck who successfully impregnates a female either has whatever it takes to obtain the female’s cooperation, or the healthy strength, agility, and aggressiveness to overcome her resistance.
(Um, it’s been a long time since I read up on antlers and peacock tails; feel free to correct me if this argument has been abandoned. Like you need my permission….)
The complex-coiled oviduct apparently allows the female to either expel the semen of an unwanted male, or prevent the semen of an unwanted male from reaching her eggs.
…
It’s just my own opinion, but, given as how there have been numerous observed instances of female ducks drowning from being repeatedly sexually assaulted by gangs of horny male ducks while swimming, the term “rape” can be applied to this.
Caledonian,
Gah. It seems your desire to be absolutely right has undermined either your willingness to read what I wrote or your ability to understand it. I doubt very much it’s the latter, so it must be the former. Tsk. Does the word “generally” not imply “usually but not exclusively?” How is that markedly different from “especially but not only?” Sure, we could pick apart the differences between “especially” and “generally,” but why bother? Though I could be wrong, I don’t think the distinction is significant here.
You’re also ignoring a fact that has already been pointed out by others: According to the definition you supplied, rape (n) can only be inflicted upon “a women” or “a person.”
Can a duck be a person? In fiction, perhaps, but not according to our favorite online dictionary:
Person: 1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
True, but neither does it explicitly exclude the likelihood of emotional distress. I admit that’s a weak point in and of itself, but it leads us here:
Given that a) according to the definition you supplied, rape (v) applies especially to humans, and b) human rape victims commonly suffer from Rape Trauma Syndrome or similar effects, we must conclude that rape is typically accompanied by emotional distress.
Typically. Not always. Not without exception. Typically. I’ll leave it to others to argue whether or not “typically” means “virtually always” in the case of rape.
So while you are technically correct that the verb “to rape” does not apply exclusively to humans, the above conclusion does lend some credibilty and support to Bug_Girl’s complaints – as does the nounal definition of rape.
This isn’t the tightest argument I’ve ever made, but you know how I am before noon. (Sluggish.)
Speaking of Rape Trauma Syndrome, would that be one of the “horde of equally technically correct but more effect-descriptive terms that could be used to refer to the effects of raping a human” to which you referred?
OT – http://www.shortpacked.com/
in response to “I’m not sure what you mean by that. bug_girl’s comments were opinions.”
Er, going back to the original article, what struck me is that, if this explanation is correct, then it must demonstrate that female ducks really CAN choose better-than-average mates. Yeah, that might seem obvious, but I thought it was interesting. Just because female ducks TRY to choose the best mates, that doesn’t necessarily mean they can really do so. That’s not so easy, even for humans. But increasingly elaborate oviducts would seem to imply that females who are more successful at mating with their preferred mates leave more offspring than those victimized by random males. So, whatever they’re using to pick their mates, it must work fairly well.
OK, I’m just a layman, so I suppose this is elementary. But I thought it was interesting that there’s such good evidence that female ducks really can identify above-average mates.
I’m pretty sure I don’t understand this, because it looks almost like you’re saying that a social norm can be a statement of fact with a truth value. And that doesn’t make any sense at all.
Duck rape (or whatever) has a certain set of similarities to human rape, and a certain set of differences. Those similarities and differences are factual. Whether we choose to apply the *word* “rape” to both of those acts or only one of them is a social norm; it can’t be true or false. It’s just one arbitrary definition of the word or another equally arbitrary definition. I don’t have much patience with euphemisms, but I’m not going to try to claim that as anything more than personal taste.
I don’t see how the sides of this discussion differ on any question of fact. There’s no One True Definition of “rape” that someone can factually prove they’re adhering to.
I know the idea that X is a social construct has been overused to the point of well-earned discrediting, but some things really *are* social constructs; and language is high on the list.
P.S. Anyone who tries to use the naturalistic fallacy to justify or excuse human rape on the grounds of duck or any other animal behavior should immediately be presented with the counterexample of the preying mantis. Decapitating and eating your partner after mating is perfectly natural – for some species. We, fortunately, aren’t one of them.
As I recall, the blow-up about the duck “rape” studies was because an analogy *was* drawn between duck behavior and human behavior, such that rapists (human, and for the analogists’ purpose, male) were argued to be lower class losers whose only hope of passing on genetic material was to sexually assault women who would otherwise have chosen nice, upper class, respectable men to mate with. This then might suggest that higher class men just wouldn’t rape women because they’d presumably have ready “access” to them. It’s not hard to see why such a simplistic interpretation of rape would be infuriating to critics. Fausto-Sterling discussed the case at some length; another commenter may be able to say where the debate went after that.
Ignoring the ongoing English class, I thought it was funny Greg.
Funny (to us) as it applies to ducks, but not as it applies to humans. And there we have it: the root of this semantics argument in a nutshell.
Can a root fit in a nutshell? I don’t know. Roots have a tendency to grow out of nutshells. Hmmm. This is more complicated than I thought.
….Aaaaaand as expected, this post brings out rape apologists by the truckload.
Scientists don’t use the term rape for forced copulations the same way they don’t use the terms marriage, adultery, and divorce for social monogamy and extra-pair copulations. These are concepts that have legal value and don’t mean the same thing in human civilization as they do in nature. These terms don’t belong in technical journals. PZ saying that a duck was raped by another duck, or two song birds divorced is completely fine in a non-technical setting…imho.
Interesting that in 109 comments every single one of them uses the definition “rape = forcible intercourse.” Human rape also encompasses situations where no force is used, but where consent cannot be given, eg, sex with a minor. The ethical basis for outlawing human-animal sex is that animals are not capable of giving consent. Nor, I would posit, are animals capable of asking consent. If duck sex is rape, so is cat sex, dog sex, squid sex, bonobo sex, etc.
Completely and utterly off-topic, but in regards to “the pot calling the kettle black,” the truth is more interesting. The pot is black, the kettle is shiny and reflective. The pot looks at the kettle, sees its cast iron, black reflection, and says the kettle is also black. It’s seeing its own characteristics in the kettle, even though the kettle is in fact merely reflecting the kettle’s characteristics back to it.
Source: Brewer’s dictionary of phrase and fable (1870)
I don’t know why that link didn’t work. Here’s the page online, although they don’t give the complete text: http://www.bartleby.com/81/13550.html
Don’t you mean duckload?
…
I commented on the duck phallus article yesterday, but it was in an old post, so I’m going to reproduce (an edited version of) the comment here … not that it’s worthy of duplication. Inspired by the phrase “duck dick” (yeah, I’m crude – so sue me), I said, approximately:
… that bit of alliteration prompted more, which I felt (probably misguidedly) I should share:
The female equivalent is her oviduct; it would be terribly politically incorrect merely to think of it as a duck dick dock.
Would it be more correct to use that phrase – homophonically – to refer to an anatine urologist? You know: a duck dick doc.
‘Cause if you did, and said specialist had a wooden patio on his house, that would be a …
wait for it …
duck dick doc deck!
(Of course, you could go overboard on this sort of thing – what, for instance, if the doc were overlooking a dyke, or was a dork, or carrying a dirk or…? But I would never do that.)
Ah, here’s the exact quote:
“The pot calling the kettle black: Said of someone accusing another of faults similar to those committed by the accuser. The allusion is to the old household in which the copper kettle would be kept polished, while the iron pot would remain black. The kettle’s bright side would reflect the pot. The pot, seeing its reflection, would thus see black, which would appear to be on the side of the kettle. The pot could then accuse the kettle of a fault it did not have.”
Source: Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, 1870, revised by Adrian Room (foreword by Terry Pratchett!)
Why do you assume it is quantitatively different? Do we know that? Where does all this talk about “nonsentient animals” come from — how much of that has ever been tested? Surely female ducks don’t exactly like being gang-raped to death?
I also don’t see what your unfunny professors have to do with the use of the word. If “rape” were commonly accepted as being restricted to humans, your professors would still have seen the obvious similarities and made the same stupid jokes. I’m not defending Caledonian’s completely unnecessary and counterproductive behavior here, but some of his arguments — what he says, not how he says it — are not without merit.
Scrooge McDuck has a heart of gold!
Why do you assume it is quantitatively different? Do we know that? Where does all this talk about “nonsentient animals” come from — how much of that has ever been tested? Surely female ducks don’t exactly like being gang-raped to death?
I also don’t see what your unfunny professors have to do with the use of the word. If “rape” were commonly accepted as being restricted to humans, your professors would still have seen the obvious similarities and made the same stupid jokes. I’m not defending Caledonian’s completely unnecessary and counterproductive behavior here, but some of his arguments — what he says, not how he says it — are not without merit.
Scrooge McDuck has a heart of gold!
…….Aaaaaaaaand as expected, this post brings out the ignorant sky is falling comments.
Well, ForC a duck, this discussion’s still going.
Baroque oviducts as adaptations? Even in the human female reproductive tract, sperm is not especially welcome – the mammalian vagina is generally acidic and has immunological defenses targeted at sperm. Ejaculate contains components like zinc which function to disable these defenses. The whole picture suggests a snapshot of chemical warfare between males and females.
Males and females of all species lead differing lives often in conflict, starting from the unequal investments and costs for eggs and sperm (this non-equality defines male and female biologically). “One can, in effect, treat the sexes as if they were different species, the opposite sex being a resource relevant to producing maximum surviving offspring” (from Robert Trivers’ 1972 paper on parental investment).
Well-studied species (it ain’t easy nor well-funded) include S. B. Hrdy’s langurs which show infanticide and rape; Le Boeuf’s elephant seals; Arnqvist’s water striders, and others. There is continuing disputation:
“Male-female conflict and genitalia: failure to confirm predictions in insects and spiders.” Eberhard, W.G., 2004, Biological Reviews (79) 121-186.
This overview book seems promising:
SEXUAL CONFLICT by Göran Arnqvist and Locke Rowe. Princeton University Press, 2005.
Excerpts are online courtesy of Google’s Book Search. Its chapter 3 is “Sexual Conflit Prior to Mating”, including “Costs of Resisting Mating”.
Arnqvist’s site links to a TREE review whose author notes: “… I personally
remember a discussion with Arnqvist in 1994, during
which I took a long time to grasp that, when female
waterstriders try vigorously to shake males off their
backs, it is not to test which male has the best genes for
her children. The authors comprehensively trounce this
idea that sexual conflict is a bitter pill with a good-genes
sweetener, hopefully for good. ”
R. Brooks, TREE, TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.20 No.6 June 2005
http://www.ebc.uu.se/zooeko/GoranA/review.pdf
And FWIW the human situation is surveyed here, by biologists who aren’t new to the field:
Thornhill, R. and Palmer, C. (2000), A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-20125-9
These comments have confirmed that the only blog I should be reading is Pandagon. I feel like I need a shower.
Whom for example? I haven’t seen one who fits this outrageous accusation.
Many are capable of giving unmistakable signals in that direction. I just can’t imagine it happens often, certainly not as often as mentally ill humans, erm, just go ahead.
By far not every instance of duck sex is rape.
Whom for example? I haven’t seen one who fits this outrageous accusation.
Many are capable of giving unmistakable signals in that direction. I just can’t imagine it happens often, certainly not as often as mentally ill humans, erm, just go ahead.
By far not every instance of duck sex is rape.
Catch-phrase etymology is far from an exact science; unless Shakespears made it up it’s always a battle of arguments from (often dubious) authority.
THWaite:
“Even in the human female reproductive tract, sperm is not especially welcome – the mammalian vagina is generally acidic and has immunological defenses targeted at sperm.”
So, is the advantage conferred here that (on average) the female needs to repeatedly accept the male’s advances for the male to reliably reproduce, or does it have to do with the fact that humans use sex far more often for social reasons than for reproduction?
Or both? I think I’m going to have to get one or both of the books you pointed to.
I just want to know why the female ducks didn’t simply evolve Tampon Tasers.
Seconding Anton Mates:
If, for whatever reason, copulation without female cooperation is so disadvantageous that a wide variety of animals, down to water-striders, develop behavioral or even anatomical defenses against it, “rape” seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable term for it, particularly on a popular, non-technical venue such as this, and when the technical alternatives are so cumbersome.
I think that:
1) bug_girl was oversensitive in arguing that you can’t ever use the term “rape” to mean anything other than a specific crime. The word has a meaning of “Forced/nonconsensual intercourse” which seems perfectly applicable here.
2) Caledonian has managed to destroy a correct linguistic position by being a complete asshole, to the point that I now feel uncomfortable supporting (1). Thanks, you idiot.
This book is IMHO fairly technical. For starters, I would recommend another book that looks at the same process from a different perspective: Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition by Tim Birkhead. It’s cheaper and more engaging, but more serious than “Dr Tatianas sex advice” or similar books.
I have some reservations here since if it didn’t matter which male fertilizes a female, females should only shake off males if they already have enough sperm (or if the guy is taking too long to finish :) But what many animals actually do seems to be a bit more complicated than that, even in species where there are no social considerations.
Also, I think it’s hard to explain why female reproductive tracts should evolve to be hostile to sperm without some sort of ‘good genes’ rationale.
Oh, and Thornhill and Palmer are nutters when it comes to humans but their book might have some good material on insects. That book wouldn’t be my first choice though. (I do not a priori denounce evolutionary explanations of human rape but many of their arguments are just really convoluted and silly.)
I posted on this stuff. I had a problem though, too many one liners jammed my brain all at once when I wrote the post.
Like ‘hermeneutics’, the term isn’t necessarily indicative of shoddy thinking, but it’s a fairly reliable symptom.
Is there an argument in there? All I see is the same old cranky attempt to poison the well you usually resort to when faced with a difficult argument.
I’m going to have things thrown at me for this, but …
Anybody remember what the name of the Chinese transfer student in the movie “Sixteen Candles?’
Windy, thanks for the comments on Arnqvist. I’ve not yet read his whole book, nor Birkhead’s. They’re at least representative of the good and active discussion these topics are finally getting. The questions are difficult (Thornhill might say ‘thorny’). And there are several notable authors, both men and women.
djmoore: good questions all. Simple persistence by males despite female reluctance is demonstrably pertinent to increased reproduction for male baboons at least, per a 1995 study by F. Bercovitch in Animal Behaviour cited in Alcock’s text (below). Note that mammals in general have chemically complex vaginas. It’s not just women, so neither our specific mating system or cyptic ovulation seem linked. The hypothesis that this complex chemistry interacts with orgasms to favor prefered mates is still unresolved.
FWIW the extraordinarily influential textbook ANIMAL BEHAVIOR by John Alcock uses the two terms ‘Forced Copulation’ and ‘rape’ distinctly in the way bug-girl suggests. (It’s in its 8th edition, 2005 – I have only the 6th ed at hand and have used several earlier for teaching.) His discussion of rape emphasises evolutionary hypotheses for its origin and maintenance but concludes that studies aren’t yet conclusive. He discusses both FC and rape as “alternative strategies” which suit a minority of resource-impoverished humans and other males in specific mating systems. It’s not always males – the relative parental investment is what’s key, and in species with very high male investment such as jacanas (wading birds), females will compete for males to the point of commiting infanticide on a male’s eggs to free up his attentions (rape seems unstudied here).
Alcock knows how to keep undergraduates interested – he also discusses the evolution of orgasms, per the well-known (yet unproven) “pole-ax” and “upsuck” hypotheses, details of which I leave to your investigation. (He also discusses the brighter side of behavior, such as foster parenting and human blood donors.)
Thanks for the reference, thwaite. Alcock would appear to be aptly (or semi-aptly) named.
If you pick your positions by whether you like the people arguing them, your judgement is worthless. You’re welcome, you moron.
hmmm… who said when you start quoting Webster, the argument is lost? I mean, how many people here consider the dictionary a valid reference in discussions about words?
I guess I can sympathize a lot with bug_girl’s argument. One reason is that words carry meanings according to public use… that is to say that the meanings change. Sure, we have guys saying they felt like they were raped when their wallets get stolen. Sure, the commonly used word was “violated” but now that word is being replaced in common usage. and yes, whoever mentioned it, I’ve also heard a woman say they felt like they were raped when their credit cards were stolen… and as a matter of fact the woman who said it was also a rape victim.
I can also see that it may be important to keep a certain definition unsullied by common use as a way to keep a clear and specific meaning assigned to the word. In this case, keeping the word “rape” to a specific legal definition in order to NOT belittle the plight of victims. The word has a particularly ugly connotation that isn’t present in the term “forced copulation”.
Obviously, whether we agree or disagree on the use of the word, we also have to acknowledge that there is VALID reason for people to NOT use the word lightly, and also to acknowledge that there will be those who are offended by any light use of the word. I’m a little surprised to see people going after those who have concerns about rights, stigma, and personal suffering relating to rape victims with the same rabid blood lust they do those who profess stupid or socially damaging ideas. I guess they forgot that even in math and science you can have more than one right answer.
Caledonian, you’re wrong per the dictionary about it being not human specific. The very nature of the word and current usage BY THE DICTIONARY is human specific. From Old English, to Middle English, to Latin and current English usage, rape, meaning to seize, plunder, despoil, to take with force has been in reference to humans. Since dictionaries are a collection of language usage, you ought to cite an unabridged dictionary such as the OED, Merriam-Webster, etc. that shows USAGE not the deficient abridged Dictionary.com!
Humans rape the Earth, rape the forests, rape a person of their dignity, rape justice, rape people. If we extend rape to its current meanings, apart from artistic license, then moths rape trees, the locusts rape the cornfields, fish rape the seas, and so on. But there is a moral element to that – it’s not simply to take force; if that were so it would be used more often throughout language and it’s not. And the danger in anthropomorphizing terms among scientists is that they carry a human moral element that can work against explaining animal behavior. Who wants to save those male ducks – they’re rapists! Those evil sharks! Values of bad and good can get dicey with animals, and Bug girl has a very valid point in that respect. Do locusts rape the fields, or do they simply decimate them?
Now, I see on Wikipedia that they have an entry on animal rape. If PZ used it to mean the female duck resisted, tried to get away, did not like it – OK we see the point in how we can relate that to human rape, but it has not been common practice, at least not when I look at all my animal books, for scientists to use that term in any way. And my dictionary specifically says ‘person’ and ‘woman.’ If the usage becomes so common in reference to animals, it may make the dictionary (I don’t have access to the OED to check there and their online free one is deficient), but I’d really like to know how a majority of scientists feel about SCIENTISTS anthropomorphizing human-related terms. I don’t see it as a good thing to use human terms that have negative connotations (as I said, apart from literary purposes or loosely speaking), especially when forced will do.
And, your second comment quoted above is really snobby, especially being that Bug_girl cares about these things! And the ironic thing is, by my standards, you are exhibiting comtempt for language in this case. You are using the suckiest dictionary, no less, and not even exploring rape’s usage. And science is not a way of thinking – science IS what you get when you think in terms of evidence, esperiment, observation – you get science knowledge. I think you owe Bug_girl an apology for that smart-ass remark, Caledonian. Really, if you care about language then you will see the slippery slopes that you’re sliding down. Geesh.
I’d really like to know how a majority of scientists feel about SCIENTISTS anthropomorphizing human-related terms.
84.7% of scientists discourage anthropomorphising non-human animals. (And computers). It’s because the animals (and computers) really hate it.
Perhaps more helpfully: I noted above that a prominent textbook in animal behavior sustains the distinction between rape and FC, including separate entries in its index. I’ve taught using this text. But in reviewing my own post I see I conflated the terms. Which suggests my own approach: it’s not a difference which makes a difference, given that the context of discussion always disambiguates. That is: if we’re talking about ducks, it’s unlikely we’ll see a taxing need for rape counseling centers. And any direct extrapolation from non-human to human behavior is (should be) subject to discussion.
Another perspective: in the bad old days of behaviorism in psychology (Skinner and Pavlov in the 1920’s-1960’s), it was absolutely verboten to compare animal behaviors to seemingly similar human behaviors. Anthropomorphism was explicitly prohibited, in classrooms and journals. This prohibition has largely vanished, although there is still no support for casual anthrophorphizing, as a glance at any article in the journal Animal Behaviour will demonstrate. And it turns out that understanding animal behaviors as motivated in ways analogous to human behavior is a productive heuristic, not only because the behaviors are in fact often homologous. (It’s quite startling and sometimes funny when the heuristic fails. When we see that a nesting gull will retrieve an errant egg which has rolled out, using a characteristic reaching out with its bill, we intuit an intelligent appraisal of its parental duties. Then we see that it will just as reliably retrieve an empty beer can placed near the nest. Well, that may be an equally intelligent appraisal (!), but it’s more likely an instinctive response: retrieve any round object near the nest where you’re brooding. Bird brains most likely use the latter. So the anthropomorphic heuristic can’t be applied uncritically, either here or in less instinctual behaviors.)
Back to ForC-ing ducks: Patricia Gowaty is the name you want to google, for her ‘constrained female’ analysis applied to the extreme situation faced by most female ducks, whose specific social ecology has led to evolutionary responses in both anatomy (as per PZ’s target article) and behavior. I won’t attempt to summarize her hypothesis, which is detailed and sophisticated. Two links (both are .pdf files) and an abstract:
AMER. ZOOL., 38:207-225 (1998)
Ultimate Causation of Aggressive and Forced Copulation in Birds
PATRICIA ADAIR GOWATY AND NANCY BUSCHHAUS
SYNOPSIS. Except in ducks and geese (Anseriforms), aggressive or forced copu- lation in birds is rare. The rarity of forced copulation in birds theoretically is due to morphological and physiological mechanisms of female resistance that place fertilization most often under female control. Traits theoretically associated with resistance by females include: digestive epithelium lining the section of the cloaca receiving sperm and powerful doacal musculature used to eject contents, including waste material and sperm. These traits suggest that the Immediate Fertilization Enhancement Hypothesis may be an inadequate ultimate explanation for forced copulation when it occurs. Ideas in Heinroth (1911) and Brownmiller (1975) sug- gested an alternative, the CODE Hypothesis, which says that aggressive copulation creates a dangerous environment for females. This, in turn, fosters male mating advantage via social monogamy, because selection sometimes favors females who trade sexual and social access for protection from male aggression. Thus, theoretically, “trades” of protection for copulation favor the evolution of social monog- amy even in species with little or no paternal care. Individual males may accrue selective advantages through direct benefits, kin-selected benefits, or reciprocal altruism. The CODE hypothesis for social monogamy predicts variation in extra- pair paternity from preferred mates, variation in male reproductive success, and variation among females’ post-insemination resistance mechanisms as functions of variation among females’ vulnerabilities (ecological and intrinsic) to aggressive copulation. Observers will base intraspecific tests on variation among females in their vulnerabilities to male aggression against them.
ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 2004, 68, 977-983
Social constraints on female mate preferences in mallards, Anas platyrhynchos, decrease offspring viability and mother productivity
CYNTHIA K. BLUHM* & PATRICIA ADAIR GOWATY†
*Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Station
Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia
I’m finished grading finals, and have rounded up some online and off line references.
There is a fairly deep literature on the rape/forced copulation debate. Enough, in fact, that it isn’t much of a debate in the behavior community. For example:
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1641%2FB570203
“More than 20 years ago, the scientific community explored the rhetorical power of emotionally laden words for describing animal reproductive behavior. In particular, the use of “rape” was challenged in favor of the alternative term “forced copulation” (Hilton 1982). My search of titles in Animal Behaviour, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, and Behavioral Ecology yielded only one article since 1982 that referred to rape in animals; Evolution published three articles with “rape” in the title–all referring to mustard plants. Clearly, scientists were persuaded and changed their jargon (Zuk 1993).”
There is also a long history of women scientists seeing both the language and the symbolism of animal behavior different than men.
The book “Feminism and Evolutionary Biology”, edited by Gowaty, has many essays on specifically this topic. I especially recommend “the Mask of Theory and the Face of Nature”.
I’ve been trying to find my paper about how female animals are often described by what they lack, compared to males, but can’t seem to unearth it. The title is something like “The female of the species is duller”. I’d appreciate the reference if any one has it at hand.
Also, BTW: excellent review of Thornhill’s latest book on Rape:
http://www.feminista.com/archives/v3n9/brownmiller.html
Thornhill did some great work on scorpionflies, back in the day. Now he’s just a nutter with a creepy obsession.
Found it!
“‘The Female is Somewhat Duller’: The Construction of the Sexes in Ornithological Literature,” Environmental Ethics, Vol 20 (Spring 1998), 23-39.
Margaret Van de Pitte
Thanks bug_girl for rejoining the discussion.
I’d not known of Gawaty’s more general publications. Not that they (should) influence my appraisal of her scientific work with non-humans.
There’s been significant success recommending use of FC rather than rape when discussing non-humans, as I noted upthread. But I think Herber’s claim (in your link to bioone.com) overstates any consensus in “the behavior community”. Just a moment’s search at scholar.google.com for ‘rape non-human’ returned many papers discussing various aspects. If I’ve time I’ll focus the search to the three core journals mentioned and include the time since 1993.
And the first google page included Thornhill’s 2001 “Reply to critics” regarding his (& Palmer’s) NATURAL HISTORY OF RAPE. Two excerpts from that seem somewhat pertinent here:
The pervasiveness of the naturalistic fallacy is evident, for example, in Nancy Pearcey’s suggestion in a recent congressional hearing that A Natural History of Rape threatens the moral fabric of the United States. (Ms. Pearcey is with the Discovery Institute, which promotes the teaching of divine creation mythology in U.S. schools as a scientific alternative to Darwinism.) On his radio show, the ultra- conservative Rush Limbaugh implied that we wrote A Natural History of Rape to morally justify President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. Limbaugh suggested that the book was part of a Democratic effort to improve Clinton’s reputation. (Clinton’s behavior should be excused because his biology motivated it.) Henry Gee, an editor of the web site of the journal Nature, committed the naturalistic fallacy in his comment (July 6, 2000) that “to propose that [rape] serves some evolutionary function is distasteful.” Gee apparently doesn’t understand that the falsity of a scientific hypothesis can be determined only by scientific methodology, not by whether it is politically incorrect.
Another common objection to A Natural History of Rape is that it is based only on evidence from insects. Readers who have heard this objection and who are interested in insects will be disappointed at how few of our hundreds of references concern insects. We do discuss research on scorpionflies that has identified a clamp on the top of the male’s abdomen as an adaptation specifically for rape. This illustrates what an adaptation for rape is. It does not follow that, because scorpionfly males (and males of other non-human species) have adaptation for rape, men do too. This is erroneous extrapolation of the sort that modern biologists don’t engage in. The significance of rape’s occurrence in many non-human species is that it scientifically falsifies the social-constructionist theory of rape, which claims that rape is solely the result of human-specific learning experiences that are capricious.
“Adaptation specifically for rape” seems to follow from Gowaty’s analysis also.
I’m not in any way affiliated with Thornhill, personally or professionally. Never met the guy.
OT: Nor am I familiar with Van de Pitte or “The Female is Somewhat Duller”. I presume this survey of ornithological lit goes back to the original controversy between Darwin and Wallace regarding ‘duller females’? Recall Wallace argued that female bird and insect ‘dullness’ was often an adaptive trait (think crypticity) for their reproductive life histories, so different than males’. This has been largely born out – leaving the problem of males’ extravagant colors and patterns to Darwin (whose analysis, per Cronin’s history THE ANT AND THE PEACOCK, was confusing). In any event: not every dull lack is a deficiency, nor seen as such historically. But I digress…
Only anseriforms, galliforms and paleognaths have a penis…
Only anseriforms, galliforms and paleognaths have a penis…
the “duller” paper is more complex than it sounds :)
Exhibit A: the Red Winged Blackbird singing out in my swamp.
The male I can identify right away. The female is neither red winged or black. If you look at the descriptions, often you just read that the female is cryptic, or duller than the male.
In other words, not worth describing.
This is really common in animals with elaborate courtship displays as well–reams of papers on what the males are doing, not much on the more subtle, but equally (more?) important females and their behavior.
But the word doesn’t specify humans. That’s just the context in which it’s been most commonly used.
It has a perfectly good definition, which applies perfectly well to the case at hand. We aren’t writing formal papers, we’re conversing on a webforum, and complaining that using the word in a proper manner is insensitive to victims of rape is both petty and foolish.
Ok, read Thornhill’s reply.
He’s replying to a different set of critics than Brownmiller, (person I cited above) who has written several important books on rape.
Thornhill, who is an entomologist/behavioralist, wrote a book about human rape. He hasn’t done any original research on human rape. He’s throwing out theories (and grossly misinterpreting social science research data, IMO.)
In some ways, he makes my case by arguing -against- the naturalistic fallacy. I think using rape in a non-human context conflates human/non human behaviors.
Yet above you use the word ‘courtship’ of animal behaviour. This word is totally steeped in human meanings yet somehow we manage to keep the differences straight.
Why not just say that you think we should avoid the word outside a specific human behaviour because it is emotionally unsettling? There are plenty of words we use of both humans and animals without complaints, and it doesn’t look like the list boils down to words without legal or social connotations. Take ‘mother’, for instance.
Caledonian, my dictionary does specify humans, and not only that, the whole “rape, pillage and plunder” goes back to humans (mainly soldiers) seizing goods and property – and despoiling the women and thus humiliating the men. The other usage of rape, as in ‘raping the forests’, rather than simply felling them, has that added sense of violence and moral overtones. It’s not a matter of “commonly used” it’s actually a matter of both historic and common usage. (For fun, because I don’t want to be accused of arguing from etymology, you can go back to OE: rǽpling [] m (-es/-as) one bound, captive, prisoner, criminal; [rǽpan]
Then raping is related to ME and Latin’s rapid: Etymology: Latin rapidus seizing, tearing, hurrying, rapid, from rapere to seize, rob, kidnap, ravish; akin to Old English refsan, repsan to reprove, blame, Old Saxon respian to reprove
Then current per Merriam-Webster:
Bug_Girl had a valid point speaking to a biologist about his use of “duck rapists.” And now she has since backed it up with more information that it is really not the preferred way of speaking about it. But we knew that – you just have to look around. If PZ disagrees, fine, but the anthropomorphizing of human terms is not “petty.” Further, even if PZ disagrees and said so, he would have never have come back with the snooty, snarky comment that you did. And now you’re trying to backpedal from your dictionary citing, but you know, you’re just wrong about that. Too you know, it used to be said, “He forced himself upon her,” but it didn’t quite carry the viciousness of rape, and it became, “He raped her”. Is the duck in the same situation? Is the duck despoiled and humiliated? We don’t know that.
And then to say, too, that “science is a way of thinking.” Thank you, fellow atheist, for feeding into the science-as-worldview-scientism whiner club. Critical thinking is a way of thinking, skepticism is a way of thinking, reasoning is a way of thinking – science is a way of doing. It is a collection of knowledge, and the best way of getting that is using the scientific method. So, I don’t know why you are saying it’s a way of thinking…much too murky…science is a way of doing is more appropriate in my book because thinking is conceptual, and that’s all the IDers have – concept.
Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that you were a total boob to Bug_Girl? This is someone who blogs about science, not one of the disinterested people of the world. I’m starting to think back to that Markos/sexual-harassment post…hmm.
No. It’s a way of thinking that requires doing things a certain way. Action necessarily follows thought.
(Incidentally, if you’re going to argue that your dictionary’s use of ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in the definition means that the word only refers to humans, you’d better think of a new term that refers to the sexual violation of a male. Perhaps male forcible intercourse victims would have something to say about your refusing to designate their experience as ‘rape’, no?)
Caledonian, why do you persist in arguing against yourself? Once again, according to the dictionary reference you supplied:
Rape (noun) 2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
Person (noun) 1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
There’s something odd about the dictionary.com definitions of rape, which may be telling us something about their reliability. The nounal definitions that address the ForC meaning are human-specific. The transitive verb is not, though it does apply especially to humans, as we have seen. The intransitive simply refers back to the noun: “to commit rape.”
What’s odd about it? The definitions allow for a non-human “to rape” but do not allow that action, if perpetrated against a non-human, to be called “rape.” No nounal definition is provided that does NOT specifically refer to humans.
According to these definitions, then, a duck can rape a duck, but the act cannot be called rape. The definitions are broken. (Or perhaps the “especially” is meant to be interpreted as “virtually without exception.”)
Either way, the question remains: Under these definitions, can a duck be a rapist?
Rapist (n) One who commits rape.
Given the absence of a nounal definition of “rape” that a) refers to forced sexual activity, and b) is not human-specific, I must conclude that no, a duck cannot be a rapist. Stated more precisely, a female duck cannot be a rape victim.
I only mention it because we seem to be relying so very, very heavily on dictionary definitions here. The dictionary.com definitions are inconsistent. (So are The American Hertiage Dictionary definitions.) Perhaps we should not rely on them.
Let’s not forget that a dictionary reflects usage, and in that sense its authority is only as good as its accuracy. Usage is the ultimate arbiter. If this blog is any indication, I’d say that “rape” is well on its way to being an inarguably human-specific term. But clearly the jury is still out.
I think there’s even more evidence than that. Apparently–so Google tells me–as birds go. female ducks are exceptionally uninterested in extrapair copulation (even with less violent males). Whereas most monogamous female songbirds, say, will mate with a particularly buff-looking stranger while their mate’s not looking, ducks don’t do that.
And–most interesting to me–female ducks have an “incitement display,” a behavior that induces their bonded male to pick a fight with whoever’s nearby. Armed with that, it’s likely that they can be unusually confident about their mate having good genes–they’ve sent him into lots of fights and he’s come back victorious!
Oh, and most male ducks in the temperate Northern Hemisphere provide very little parental care or other behavioral “favors” to the female–the mallard drake, for instance, incubates the eggs for a week and then bails. Which would give the female good reason to select on the basis of genes and not on resources, in contrast to the average female songbird.
“Courtship’s” a great example. Another is “learning”. There’s also “altruism,” “deception,” “honest,” “punishment of cheaters,” “infanticide,” “promiscuous,” “harassment,” “mobbing…” Heck, Bug Girl mentioned “harem” on her blog, and from what I can see on Google Scholar that’s still quite popular in the scientific literature.
There’s any number of words which are emotionally-loaded when they’re applied to human behavior, but get regularly used in animal behavior papers without–AFAIK–causing great confusion or offense.
And of course there are words that no one thinks appropriate or useful to use, or words which scientists have tried to use and didn’t turn out too well. If you want an example of a phrase which was a reallybad idea, I’d nominate John Maynard Smith’s “sneaky fuckers” label for sneaker males. That definitely told you which mating strategy he approved of. “Sneaker male” itself still pisses off a few people, e.g. Joan Roughgarden, but most biologists I’ve read seem to be happy with it.
So where does “rape” fit in? Bug Girl and thwaite seem to have differing impressions of its popularity in recent literature; I have no idea whose is more accurate. But of course this is a slightly different issue from the question of whether it’s appropriate to use the word in lay discussions, like the one we’re having now. There the question is how the public will react. I’m still unconvinced that many people take offense to using the word in a nonhuman context, but Bug Girl’s own reaction is a point in favor of that claim. And if it’s offensive, then sure, no point making people needlessly angry or sad or ashamed when they should be listening to your awesome duck trivia.
(Although I personally think it’s a good idea to piss people off a little in the area of anthropomorphism. Most laymen go way too far the other way, I think, bending over backwards to deny nonhuman species any mental commmonalities with humans regardless of behavioral similarities. I’d like to shift the Overton window on that a bit. But, uh, not starting with “rape.”)
Oh, another ill-chosen pair of words, and relevant to Bug Girl’s comments above about “dull females:” “gynomorph” vs. “andromorph” males, e.g. in coenagrionid damselflies. Obviously, the literal meaning is “males that look like females”, vs. “males that look like males.”
But a damselfly researcher pointed out at an OSU talk a couple years back–wish I could remember her name–that they’re actually used to describe brightly-colored males versus dull-colored males. Even though the dull-colored males don’t particularly resemble females in any other way–in fact, some times they’re even a distinctly different dull color from the females. And, significantly, there’s not indication that other damselflies treat them as females rather than males. They’re not sneaking past the bright males by posing as females or anything like that.
So here you have a pretty clear case of someone deciding that males ought to be gaudy and females ought to be dull…so if males aren’t dull, it must be because they’re girly!
er, aren’t -> are in the above.
That’s nice. Look at the verb forms instead.
Your hedging on philosophy of science, which to me is akin to the dude wildly waving his sword in Indiana Jones and them Indiana Jones rolls his eyes, pulls out his gun and shoots him (he being symbolic of modern science). “Science is a way of thinking” is an aphorism that’s as murky as a methane-filled swamp – one can argue about the thinking part ad nauseam. The doing and how it’s done is much more concrete. And one can argue that thought necessarily follows action, just as well.
More bluster off the point. My statement was that rape is and has been a human specific term that is being anthropomorphized. Woman is human, right? But so you, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary does say:
Now, they might add #2 to their Unabridged, but this is a function of editions, which they explain on their site (I don’t know about the free site). The Collegiate edition may be, and I believe so, more recent than the Unabridged. That is how it works. It may be that if enough sources, especially scientific articles, use rape in references to animals, then they may add it. I might add that Black’s Law Dictionary states that under common law rape refers to women, under new statutes it relates to any person.
Once again, the point about scientists using anthropomorphic terms is not petty. And the issue comes up again and again in many ways. You might also want to consider the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and how language and thought are interwined. Again, this concerns me with respect to wildlife conservation, but also in these types of arguments:
There is same sex copulation in nature > We’re not animals!
Some animals kill their young > We’re not animals!
Some animals force themselves on other animals, even animals of other species > We’re not animals!
…and so on. Homosexuality, rape, murder, infanticide, and the like are human specific terms with negative and moral connotations. As Anton Mates points out, it’s nice to use the positive words to illustrate that animals do have memory of trauma, caring, tool making, mourn, etc. but unfortunately not all people know how to separate these things in their brain. You know that. I’ll give you an example and be done with this – it’s Friday after all!
Years ago I came home and my mother told me that my poor little kitten who was about 8 months old was “gangbanged” by three male cats and literally dragged herself into the door (she was spayed). She felt so terrible for the cat as if it was some awful thing like rape. The next day the cat was howling to go outside, sticking her butt in the air – she was not the least bit traumatized. Cats do recall trauma, as one of mine fell out the window and wouldn’t go closer than 3 feet to the window for months on end and still will not lean against the screen.
The female duck has this nifty way of preventing unchosen males to produce offspring. So do we humans through contraception, but the psychological/trauma effects remain regardless and we are well aware of those effects. One can understand that a rape victim would not want to be associated with that of what happened to my cat – my cat wasn’t bothered by it. The line between animals and humans is a fine one, indeed: we are animals with a whole bunch of mental baggage, and we have to deal with that.
And what about your condescending comments? #27,28,96. I’m “un-Mollying” you from my list. :-)
No, you have it backwards. The thinking is quite clear – precisely how we should behave is the murky part. To pick a particularly simple example, establishing just how unlikely a statistical difference must be before we can consider it ‘significant’ is problem that no amount of thinking can resolve. It’s essentially an arbitrary convention, but a very important one, especially when people apply different standards.
No, no more than ‘infanticide’ or ‘mother’ are anthropomorphized. It’s unwilling sexual intercourse being forced on a subject. That fits the general-English sexual definition of ‘rape’ to a tee.
That fits ducks. So I’m not sure why you think this works against my argument.
Legal sources are unlikely to use the term ‘rape’ when discussing animals, primarily because animals have traditionally not been considered to have rights that can be violated, which is precisely what those sources were concerned with. A human raping an animal was/is thought to be sinning against society, not the animal.
1) bug_girl wasn’t objecting to scientists, professional or otherwise, she was just objecting to us. 2) It’s not an anthropomorphic term, which is the petty part.
Poor anthropology. Sapir-Whorf simply doesn’t hold, as has been demonstrated time after time – not that it stops “soft scientists” from using the hypothesis to try to establish linguistic norms that lend them sociopolitical power.
No, they’re not!
I can understand that a rape victim would likely not want to be associated with anything involving the concept of rape. Nevertheless, reality does not change to accomodate our preferences.
If nominated, I will not accept. If awarded, I will not serve.
The point isn’t to win popularity contests. If you don’t hate me, or at least strongly dislike me, I’m doing something wrong. The point is for you to be able to hate a person while at the same time accepting that their arguments are valid.
You’re doing something wrong. :-p
Or perhaps you’re failing to comprehend just how loathesome I truly am. Further work is necessary.
Regardless, bug_girl’s position is utterly wrong on multiple levels, and redefining the word ‘rape’ to match the meaning she’s trying to shoehorn it into would be like renaming French fries “freedom fries”: not only inaccurate but abominable.
And a person who’s that oblivious to reality simply isn’t going to be a competent scientist. The primary obligation of the scientist is to see first, explain later – ignore reality not at all.
Caledonian, those last two posts of yours are a riot. Really, you’re all over the place. But the last word is yours, however bizarro-worldish it sounds. :-)
Do you need a hug? Some electricity? Your arguments are weak, but I will work on loathing you. Doesn’t it make you want to sing The Doors song:
Loathe me two times, baby
Loathe me twice today
Loathe me two times, girl
I’m goin away
Loathe me two times, girl
One for tomorrow
One just for today
Loathe me two times
I’m goin away