on 4/3/00 8:55 PM, Robert G. Grimes at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Anyway, it certainly is no excuse for such
> behavior but I have no doubt that the road to the present was paved with
> violent and
> aggressive conquests that today would be called rape.  I even remember a
> friend in
> high school who wore thick glasses and, because of his habits, was nicknamed
> "the
> blind raper."
Bob: That's interesting, because from what I've read (which is entirely
secondhand) their focus is on the selective advantages of rape for nerds,
basically: How do disadvantaged males perpetuate their genes? Your blind
raper would presumably be a classic case in point. I wonder how Bundy and
Chambers would fit in?

Certainly testosterone is a direct cause of sexual aggression, but without
more, that would suggest that the best strategy for all men would be one  of
unbridled conquest, but that is certainly not how it has played out. One
countervailing force, at least, according to Pinker (citing research) is
that it's evolutionarily counterproductive to raise children that aren't
yours. So although men wouldn't mind--indeed, they might benefit--from some
other male unwittingly raising their kids (a male verion of the cuckoo's
egg) they don't benefit at all when it's the other way around. Thus the male
obsession, in highly chauvinistic cultures especially, with establishing
paternity.

Of course, the female spouse who has wandered is hardly a cooperative
witness in this regard. Somewhere in Pinker he cites the finding, made
entirely by accident in the course of gathering data for some mundane
purpose, that 1 in 10 children, from a fairly large sample of residents in a
Southern California town, could not possibly be the offspring of their
putative father!

But this is topid drift, is it not? I must confess that my Calvin has not
been opened since last week, so I have nothing to contribute on that subject
for now. Do feel free to reply to this if you feel like it, though.


--
Tresy Kilbourne
Seattle WA