A Genetic/Evolutionary Basis for ?  

tamethytension 54M
1659 posts
9/19/2005 12:55 am

Last Read:
2/16/2007 8:25 pm

A Genetic/Evolutionary Basis for ?


In 2001, a couple of reports generated headlines regarding the apparent genetic basis for . Something for which evolutionary scenarios were discussed that would have been conducive at some point in human history for this genetic profile to maintain itself within the population, if only a small number. Support for a scenario that would provide for greater survivability of a genetic predisposition was seen in the independent finding that victims are at least twice as likely to get pregnant as through consensual sex where birth control was not practiced.

NOW, the National Organization for Women, among others, immediately denounced these findings fearing (rightly) that they could be mis-interpreted to justify the act.

Without going into all the whys and wherefores, I simply wish to point out, that no matter how strong a case may exist for an EVOLUTIONARY history, this in no way conveys justification for the perverted act that today is nothing but a brutal attack against both men and women (according to ABC News more men are in the US than women).

Indeed, as an evolutionary biologist, I am here to state, that AT BEST, assuming these findings are correctly interpreted, that the genetic residue of our evolutionary past is nothing more than the sexual equivalent of the appendix. The appendix is an organ that no longer serves a significant physiological function in humans. It is vestigial, long past it's evolutionary usefulness. Indeed, it is a source of potentially fatal outcomes should it become infected and diseased. At which point, there is nothing to do but cut it out.

And so to, do I view any argument for an evolutionary basis for . Even IF there is substantiating evidence for this in the distant past, I submit that the appropriate interpretation in modern times is that this is a vestige of that past, one that occasionally becomes diseased, and needs to be cut out of society (or cut off were it up to me).

Bottomline, the evolutionary debate is irrelevant to society. In my professional opinion, there is NO FUCKING JUSTIFICATION for .

TTT

mm0206 68F
7767 posts
1/5/2007 9:12 pm

Sooo TTT have you ever been ?

uhhhh....
would you like to be a test subject?
I am available if you think it might be in the name of scientific premise and investigation and finding the basis for such theories...

you know I am kidding... ?right?...

tender hugs...m.
and you thought you had a twisted sense of humor

please dont kick me off your blog for that.....
I am just teasing you, Sir


wetNtight1974 42F

11/16/2005 12:15 am

I have a friend who is a social worker, and somehow we were discussing mental illness and violence, and she told me something I always think about" My dear a great majority of people who commit violent crimes are mentally ill, that does not in itself make them innocent" So will the predisposition to violence may well be there I think it is ultimately a choice. I also wanted to put out, discussing something is not justifying it, and it is alot more productive than ignoring an idea or opinion.


wetNtight1974 42F

11/10/2005 12:27 am

no of course it's not , if someone is a murder , they come from a murderous family, it can be imagined their DNA is a little aggressive, however they don't get out jail for.


tamethytension 54M
2320 posts
9/22/2005 1:09 pm

MissAnnThrope

I don't wish to defend a hypothesis, I don't particularly agree with, only intended to describe it in brief. And while yes, the violence was no doubt there ... Genghis Kkan murderered an entire district of what is now Afghanistan out of a public humiliation that the ruler bestowed upon him when the Khan treated with him as an emmissary. That he may have done so individually for the expressed purpose of domination is ... and my very point. But as a matter of conquest, this was not practiced by Genghis Khan who walked into most cities unopposed ... it was his successor the Khan Tamerlane that was the real bastard ... the hitler of his day solely bent on destruction.

But as to being pure and simple, nothing is so cut and dry. When the Portuguese first explored the globe, rather than the conquering creed of the Spanish, they were under express orders to mingle with the populace. However, mingling is a rarity. In the modern day, during the Bosnian conflict, the Serbs slaughtered all muslim men that had reached pubity and (brutally) the women ... but they were quoted in their deeds by their victims as saying "now you will make slav babies". That is the other side of the coin behind genocide. Even Hitler has his breeding programs pairing off idealized manifestations of his "super race". So you cannot tell me that this has not been a part of recent history.

And that is why, I wish to point to a different interpretation, that any evidence (whether or nor it has any credence) for a gene for , that this does not impart any justification/excuse for (on any scale) as was the very public concern voiced by the National Organization for Women.


MissAnnThrope 56F
11488 posts
9/22/2005 12:20 pm

Well, Genghis Khan was said to have over 500 wives and concubines when he died. Not to mention, he had a thing about loyalty. If a man in his ranks betrayed him, as he was actually physicially timid according to various histories, he would their wives and daughters as revenge. And it was considered back then too. It was done to humiliate the person who wronged him. In other words, it was an act of violence then, just as it is now.

Even with other conquering forces, who , pillaged and plundered, the was to let the people know who was in charge. An act of power, pure and simple. It has always been an act of violence. So screw this shit about it being an act to spread your genes. Perhaps in caveman time, but not in any time of written history. Even in the Bible, it was an act of dominance and intimidation. They just used the excuse, "God told me to" in that book.

I'm not being catty or anything as I say this, but it would be interesting to see in 700 years how many people have genetic markers linking them as direct descendants of Wilt Chamberlain or Screaming Jay Hawkins. When the latter died, the move was on to find all his children, as he claimed to father at least 78.


tamethytension 54M
2320 posts
9/22/2005 5:59 am

no there was no suggestion on the part of the researchers to suggest a justification. The fear was that, given the distortions of just about every scientific report associated with genetics and evolutionary explanation (from my personal experience), that some in today's society may latch onto it as a justification. Certainly, NOW came out lambasting the report as they themselves so interpreted it.

As to the report, one can google the subject, but the original study came out of the University of Arizona. There is a number of corroborating data sets that suggest that , in temrs of forced copulation expressly to spread one's genes, did take place in ancient history. For example, a genetic study of the peoples of Asia Minor found a marker within 25% of the populace that could be traced to Genghis Khan's lineage ... the notion being this is a direct consequence of his rampage through the area. In other words, there was a time when this mass 'socialization' was practiced as a means to flooding a region with your genetic material. This may have involved instances of what we see as today but generally was a matter of killing off all the men (removing their gene pool) and taking the women as wives/slaves). It is important to recognize this is a hypothesis in search of more data for support. It is also important distinction to be made between mass forced copulation and individual stalking and attacking someone for the purposes of brutal violence that today we recognize as . In the former, the express purpose was to impregnate the woman and while against their will would have not been a matter of perpetrating violence as that would defeat the purpose of bringing one's lineage into being. today has nothing to do with that, and so as an evolutionary biologist I cringe to see a legitimate hypothesis used to defend a violent act.

cheers

TTT


tamethytension 54M
2320 posts
9/22/2005 5:58 am

MissAnnThrope,

no there was no suggestion on the part of the researchers to suggest a justification. The fear was that, given the distortions of just about every scientific report associated with genetics and evolutionary exaplanation (from my personal experience), that soem in today's society may latch onto it as a justification. Certainly, NOW came out lambasting the report as they themselves so interpreted it.

As to the report, one can google the subject, but the original study came out of the University of Arizona. There is a number of corroborating data sets that suggest that , in temrs of forced copulation expressly to spread one's genes, did take place in ancient history. For example, a genetic study of the peoples of Asia Minor found a marker within 25% of the populace that could be traced to Genghis Khan's lineage ... the notion being this is a direct consequence of his rampage through the area. In other words, there was a time when this mass 'socialization' was practiced as a means to flooding a region with your genetic material. This may have involved instances of what we see as today but generally was a matter of killing off all the men (removing their gene pool) and taking the women as wives/slaves). It is important to recognize this is a hypothesis in search of more data for support. It is also important distinction to be made between mass forced copulation and individual stalking and attacking someone for the purposes of brutal violence that today we recognize as . In the former, the express purpose was to impregnate the woman and while against their will would have not been a matter of perpetrating violence as that would defeat the purpose of bringing one's lineage into being. today has nothing to do with that, and so as an evolutionary biologist I cringe to see a legitimate hypothesis used to defend a violent act.

cheers

TTT


MissAnnThrope 56F
11488 posts
9/21/2005 2:40 pm

Was this report trying to justify ?

I agree, there is no justification for . is NOT sexual, it's a violent act and an act of power, usually committed by those who feel powerless.

Was this a report by some drug company looking for a gene have that the rest of the human population doesn't have, so they could create a drug? I really do want to read this report.


frbnkslady 48F
6183 posts
9/19/2005 11:12 am

It is in my opinion a persons base urge to dominate another.. I think they should all be castrated and branded...T

T




rm_saintlianna 45F
15466 posts
9/19/2005 8:39 am

Well, I suppose that maybe nature thought it as important at one point to continue the species, my female cat has had her ears ripped off from tomcats while mating, but to evolve past animals is what we are doing here, so there is no longer any excuse what so ever for it.
I wish they knew what it felt like mentally, even if it was only just for one day.


tamethytension 54M
2320 posts
9/19/2005 6:52 am

For sticklers of detail. The original suggestion of a gene for was made around 1991, but any explanation for mechanism behind its propogation did not come along for 10 years.


Become a member to create a blog