If you check out evolutionary biologists like Nick Lane, there are much more sensible stories than this "unwanted over-powering" scenario of yours.

For instance, sex had to develop for life to become multicellular complex. It permitted the systematic recombination of genes that meant each gene was exposed to selective pressure individually. Selection could see and tune individual traits rather than having to judge a complex organism on its whole genome. The good didn't have to be thrown away with the bad.

This was such an advantage it easily paid for the disadvantage of half the population not being breeders. And it was likely even an essential step to weed out actual parasites - introns - which would otherwise have infested DNA strands to the point of replicational extinction.

The asymmetry of egg vs sperm - the reason for two actual sexes - is an extension of this logic. It separated stemline variance (the egg with its essential metabolic kit) from germline variance (the sperm with its inactive DNA package). So the egg could preserve the essentials of the successful system of living while the sperm could become the freely disposable experiment.

The commonly taught idea is that sexual reproduction developed because it gave a greater amount of diversity to a gene pool, which in turn helps keep the species healthy by preventing unfit genes from replicating. This is probably at least part of the story... — darthbarracuda

Or the whole of the story, generally speaking...

But if you are talking about Homo sap specifically, what might appeal to your anti-natalism is the incredible violence foisted on the human female body by having to give birth to a monstrously brained infant through an inadequately designed bipedal birth canal.

Babies. There's your real parasites, eh?

males developed as a biological parasite of sorts. — darthbarracuda

This is hilariously awful, DB. I recall an article a couple of years back about the dangers of zoos reinforcing gender stereotypes in visiting children.

If you check out evolutionary biologists like Nick Lane, there are much more sensible stories than this "unwanted over-powering" scenario of yours. — apokrisis

Not mine, don't kill the messenger!

But if you are talking about Homo sap specifically, what might appeal to your anti-natalism is the incredible violence foisted on the human female body by having to give birth to a monstrously brained infant through an inadequately designed bipedal birth canal. — apokrisis

No, please don't start this. I want scientific theories (which you graciously provided), not a debate about antinatalism.

This is hilariously awful, DB. I recall an article a couple of years back about the dangers of zoos reinforcing gender stereotypes in visiting children. — Wayfarer

lmao

So, I came across this series of essays (I guess you could call them that) — darthbarracuda

You could call them screeds, rants, diatribes, tirades, harangues, attacks, fulminations, or just plain shit.
There are alternatives.

written by a belligerent feminist (or something) — darthbarracuda

Or something... Maybe she was a harridan -- a belligerent old woman. Or an ugly old hag. A witch. I don't know what she was,. Just pointing out there are other words available. Maybe she was a, gasp, bitter crank. (Lots of feminists are.)

that basically claims that the chemicals in males' semen influences the behavior of females and that this is at least partially responsible for the patriarchy. — darthbarracuda

If only there were chemicals in semen that could influence their behavior. It's probably the enzyme patriarcase. It breaks down matriarcose.

I would put this in the same category as a feminist's claim that an erect penis is tantamount to rape. Or a picture of an erect penis is an advertisement for rape. (You know, like the large billboards displaying a huge erect penis on wheels chasing screaming women through the streets.)

The argument doesn't work. An organism that can asexually reproduce doesn't have gender. So, women can't claim to be the ones who were reproducing asexually. Both men AND women can claim that territory.

Another thing is that specialization is an obvious fact in biology. Molecules to cells to organs to animals, to social units, all, display this trait. So, gender is just another instance of specialization - the male has certain traits and the female has another set - that increase the survival probability of the species.

This is hilariously awful, DB. I recall an article a couple of years back about the dangers of zoos reinforcing gender stereotypes in visiting children. — Wayfarer

What were the animals doing that reinforced gender stereotypes? Was a female rhino doing the dishes while the male rhino worked on a car?

I can't remember exactly. The one snippet I can now find:

First, adults attribute gender to zoo animals by projecting onto them human characteristics associated with feminine and masculine stereotypes.”

These are the behavior differences in gender that are pretty apparent in animals – those same gender differences that feminist theorists insist are merely the result of human socialization.

“Second, adults mobilize zoo exhibits as props for modeling their own normative gender displays in the presence of children.”

This is where we see the male chimpanzee flinging his feces at people and the father justifies it by flinging his own feces at people… or something.

“Third, adults discipline boys and girls differently in the context of the zoo’s built environment, and in doing so, they communicate socialization messages to children regarding how to behave in conventionally gendered ways.”

The parts not in quotes were the remarks by the editor that reproduced the quotes. But plainly it is about undermining the biological nature of gender, which is a real no-no amongst the gender mafia.

The original paper came out of a Sociology department, but it seems to have disappeared (or dropped out of google searches, which is about the same).

Mind you, I am probably fascist when it comes to my opinion about 'gender identity'. (It's probably because of my age, although that's an age-ist thing to say. :-*

Thanks. I was reading an essay by a sociologist who said that sociologists urgently need to get reacquainted with biology. "Sociology’s Stagnation Part II: Genetic Confounding"

Sociology can be an important science, and sometimes it gives us valuable insights. But all too often sociologists and other social scientists are blind to anything other than social causes of social outcomes. Professionals in these fields continue to act as if we were blank slates waiting for social forces to mold us into the people we become. More to the point, many social scientists ignore the fact that genetic predispositions can explain social trends, and that individual differences in heritable personality traits can explain important social outcomes.

That was part II. Here's Part I.

How many students were taught that human beings evolved about around 150,000 years ago in Africa? How many know what a gene is? How many can describe Mendel’s laws, or sexual selection? The answer is very few. And, what is worse, many sociologists do not think this ignorance matters.

In the minds of many sociologists, it is a great sin to “biologize” human affairs.

why do you think it's a 'great sin?' What's driving that?

I am probably fascist — Wayfarer

And this guy accuses me of being a fascist :-}

like humor, irony is also impossible to explain.

like humor, irony is also impossible to explain. — Wayfarer

>:)

There are some theories that sex purges deleterious genetic information with each generation. This combined with the Red Queen Hypothesis might be the biggest reason. The Red Queen Hypothesis has to do, at the microscopic level, with the arms race between host and parasite. Parasites try to find the best way to bind to proteins in the host's cell to infiltrate the cell. Asexual species have less defenses when a parasite finds the "key" of the right binding protein and can die out more easily. Sexual species can easily "change the key" and make it harder for parasites to infiltrate the host's cell.

It depends on the species. For most species, the female is the one that carries the burden of carrying the offspring to term and then caring for them until they can fend for themselves. This takes a lot of effort and energy. Natural selection has developed a strategy for females to limit the work they have to do by giving them the power to chose mates. This is how mating rituals and the like developed and picking healthy males. It shows the female that the male is willing to hang around and devote time and energy and his offspring will generally be more healthy. In some species, males have to fight each other and the winner is the one that gets the females.

Females are generally picky when choosing their mate. This is obvious when the female is the one that has to use most of the energy to raise the children. Males, on the other hand, are motivated to spread their genes around as much as possible and to minimize their time with a specific female. Males are therefore, the ones that have to develop tactics for winning over the females. This is why the male peacocks have the large decorative feathers. So it doesn't seem that males have all the power and influence over the females as one might expect. You don't see a male peacock raping a female because the female can just outrun the male with those large feathers weighing it down.

The opposite is true for seahorses. The males are the ones that bear the children and raise them and it is the females that compete for the males.

To add a bit, one of the better explanations for the differences in gametes specifically is the The Hurst-Hamilton Hypothesis which explains that when the two gametes combine, there has to be a deciding factor of which organelles are going to be passed down to the new organism. Bigger gamete evolved to combine with a smaller one so that there was no "battle" between the two gametes as to whose organelle was passed down. The bigger gamete kept the ability to pass down the organelles while smaller one did not contribute their organelles. Hence, for example, females pass on their mitochondrial DNA to their children but males do not.

The opposite is true for seahorses. The males are the ones that bear the children and raise them and it is the females that compete for the males. — Harry Hindu

Very true, good point.

Interesting points, thank you.

The argument doesn't work. An organism that can asexually reproduce doesn't have gender. So, women can't claim to be the ones who were reproducing asexually. Both men AND women can claim that territory. — TheMadFool

It's not really about gender more than it is about biological sex. If we define biological sex as whatever chromosomes you have or sex organs, then females were at least in the past able to reproduce asexually.

What do we know about the development of sexual organs? Did the male and female sexual organs develop concurrently, or was one organ around before the other developed, i.e. the "vagina" existing before the "penis" developed, which would have formed as an instrument of vaginal penetration?

All this is interesting but also quite confusing for me. I like to think I have a decent understanding of the basics of biology. I suspect the essays have been intentionally cherry-picked in some places.

The basic idea of the essays before seems to be that males developed as a biological parasite of sorts, taking advantage of the now-females by trying to replicate their Y-chromosome, so that it's not about the survival of the "species" but the survival of the chromosome. I'm not a biology expert so I'm not sure if this is plausible. But what does seem to be plausible, thanks to the many provided examples, is how sexual reproduction is oftentimes "rape" - the males want sex and the females don't. The males have to pin the females down, or inject them with paralyzing toxins, mimic behavior in order to sneak into female "harems", even spray chemicals that break down the tissue of females.

Now of course we can take an objective stance on this is adhere to some fact/value distinction and see this "rape" as simply a mechanism, with no evil or immoral intentions on behalf of males. But biology is not so dependent on only this efficient causation. Whether we like to admit it or not it does seem to be the case that sexual reproduction via rape is a prevalent phenomenon. Males might not be "intrinsically rapists" as the essays annoyingly imply, but I don't think it's implausible to say males' physiology evolved as to maximize the chances of spreading genes, which oftentimes means rape. The essay linked here says:

"Males of many species have evolved specialized appendages to seize and hold down females. This seemingly infinite diversity of “organs of prehension in males” was noted by Darwin. (Dude can call them “organs of prehension,” – but what they are are rape-arms)."

Yes, it's obnoxious and irritating that the author keeps calling things by these weird neologisms. Perhaps its a defensive mechanism on the part of males to call something "organs of prehension" instead of "rape-arms", but I hardly think only male biologists are responsible for this nomenclature. But the description stands - they are instruments of domination to manipulate a female into sex, whether we call them objects of prehension or rape-arms.

Now of course there can be sexual reproduction that is far less intrusive and "rapey", maybe even consensual. But it's also true that rape is an efficient way of getting your genes passed on (especially if there's no contraceptives available). The crux of all this is thus that rape is not simply a morally repugnant action done by sick and twisted individuals but that rape has been a common and efficient way of reproducing for millennia. Evolution has no intrinsic need for consensual sex. Whatever gets the genes passed on - specifically the organism's genes.

This all seems like a highly skewed "just so" story that bolsters a victimization stance that the author clearly wants to be the case. The Hurst-Hamilton Hypothesis, is a very plausible hypothesis that proposes that the female gamete (the bigger one) does not have a suppressor gene and the male gamete (the small one) did develop a suppressor gene to prevent it from passing on its organelle DNA and cytoplasm. The suppressor gene always mates the non-suppressor gene gamete through chooser-type genes. At the end of the day, the non-suppressed gamete (the female) can pass on the mitochondrial and cytoplasmic DNA necessary for the zygote to survive.

Many animals have different mating strategies. Humans are too plastic due to cultural preferences to be "pinned" to one kind of strategy. Generally, conflict is not great for a thriving society for a species with self-reflection as ours, thus my guess is the sex which involves the least conflict would be the dominant form with the aggressive forms being the outliers.

As Schop says, a general reply is that nature is a balance of competition and co-operation. So rather than reducing the issue to a debate where cooperation = good vs competition = bad, the informed question is what is the appropriate balance, and is that being met?

Also, humans are different from animals in having another evolutionary level of behaviour - the sociocultural level brought about by having speech to structure our biological relations. That raises the question of whether a social construct like "rape" can really apply in a strictly biological setting. It may. But that is still a part of the argument that needs to be made properly. Can an animal be immoral or have evil intentions?

Males might not be "intrinsically rapists" as the essays annoyingly imply, but I don't think it's implausible to say males' physiology evolved as to maximize the chances of spreading genes, which oftentimes means rape. — darthbarracuda

In a general sense, male animals would seem to have an interest in spreading their genes. But biology also sees that there are two possible strategies - r vs K.

In ecology, r/K selection theory relates to the selection of combinations of traits in an organism that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring. The focus upon either increased quantity of offspring at the expense of individual parental investment of r-strategists, or reduced quantity of offspring with a corresponding increased parental investment of K-strategists, varies widely, seemingly to promote success in particular environments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

So either males and females can spread their seed to the winds, or they can focus on fewer offspring more likely to survive. And note this is a cooperative story as it is a reproductive choice being made at the species level.

Of course you might then see a secondary competitive story within this general species strategy. It might be in the interests of males - or females - to game the system to their personal advantage.

If the reproductive strategy is based on quality - parental investment - then wouldn't you expect the selective pressure to be on just that? And while cheaters would exist, there would be selective pressure to prevent it?

Humans of course, more than any other species, rely on heavy parental investment. Or rather, communal investment - it takes a village, etc. And social structures have developed to support that. The prediction would be that "rape" would be rare in a stable, well-balanced, social situation. Or rather, that rape would be construed differently. So socially accepted if a child resulted and the man was forced to marry and support the girl, for instance in Olde Englande.

I am not defending any particular behaviour. I'm just answering in terms of evolutionary logic. Rape becomes a definite thing in modern culture because that culture so clearly makes a violent ignoring of consent a big issue. We want a world where nothing is done to us against our wishes. It is a general mindset that applies to both sexes. And as a cultural mindset, it is also either going to prove adaptive or not in the longer run. A naturalistic view doesn't presume that there is some moral absolute position here.

So in general, all this talk about biological parasites, sexual violence and rape as a reproductive strategy is too obviously over-wrought to be taken seriously as actual biological hypotheses. Rape is obviously a social and cultural problem. If you want to fix it, turning it into a cod evolutionary debate is hardly sensible.

Do you think people rape people because their aim is making babies? It is not to do with sexual gratification? Or more probably, power and humiliation?

Turn it around. Imagine women had a dick, men had a hole. But men - or a subset with social issues - still had a rage to humiliate. Would the shape of the biological equipment make a difference?

Do you have a background in biology? You seem to know more about this than the average person like me. I most exposure I had to biology was my high school freshman class and a bit of independent research on my own time. Anyway:

This all seems like a highly skewed "just so" story that bolsters a victimization stance that the author clearly wants to be the case. The Hurst-Hamilton Hypothesis, is a very plausible hypothesis that proposes that the female gamete (the bigger one) does not have a suppressor gene and the male gamete (the small one) did develop a suppressor gene to prevent it from passing on its organelle DNA and cytoplasm. — schopenhauer1

I agree that the essays are literally dripping with rhetoric and irritating neologisms (the author insists on calling males "dudes", sexual intercourse as "fucking", male sex organs as "goddamn hellacious satanic shit" and semen "dudegoo", lmao at that last one), and that the essays are definitely written in a way that victimizes females and prosecutes males.

I'm not too familiar with the H-H Hypothesis. What does a suppressor gene do exactly? Why would it be a "good" thing to have a suppressor gene to prevent the passing on of genes?

As Schop says, a general reply is that nature is a balance of competition and co-operation. So rather than reducing the issue to a debate where cooperation = good vs competition = bad, the informed question is what is the appropriate balance, and is that being met? — apokrisis

One of the problems as I see it is that it's actually a choice to call certain things a certain way. So we can call an instance of a diving beetle reproduction (in which the female dives into the water to escape and the male pursues her), or an instance of blue shark (in which the male actually has to physically restrain the female by biting her neck) as "sexual prehension", or we can call it "rape". It's not wrong to call it "rape" - it just carries this normative baggage that scientists maybe don't want to include.

The semen males produce in sexual climax includes chemicals that keep sperm alive, not only in the vaginal environment of the female but in the overall "bonding" of females to males (despite the fact that the cause of death for women is disproportionately men), as well as inclusion of "sub-lethal" pathogens that keep a female alive but in a non-reproductive state. We can call this a neutral adaptation, a positive reproductive reinforcement, or we can call this brainwashing, mind-control. Once again it's not wrong to call it mind-control, but it goes against the desire for a neutral description of phenomena. When you say:

A naturalistic view doesn't presume that there is some moral absolute position here. — apokrisis

The question, then, is why a neutral "naturalistic" description is desirable, or why a neutral description is seen as superior to a description with normative undertones. Is it purely on the basis of scientific "objectivity", or is it also perhaps a psychological defense mechanism of sorts? Is it not easier to "deal" with an apparently savage reality by construing it as blind, purposeless, unintentional and amoral?

It's similar to the popular way of approaching the environment (but this time it has positive normative undertones): the ecosystem "is what it is", humans shouldn't "play God" and get involved, nature exists on its own, "separate from morality" and we shouldn't try to impose our moral will onto it. The conclusion being that, even if we see nature as morally repugnant, it nevertheless is "wrong" to try to correct this, because the preservation of a morally-repugnant nature is actually good. Human civilization exists "over here", and the rest of nature exists "over there".

Humans of course, more than any other species, rely on heavy parental investment. Or rather, communal investment - it takes a village, etc. And social structures have developed to support that. The prediction would be that "rape" would be rare in a stable, well-balanced, social situation. Or rather, that rape would be construed differently. So socially accepted if a child resulted and the man was forced to marry and support the girl, for instance in Olde Englande. — apokrisis

Sure, I mean one of the things I thought about the essays linked is that, although males do seem to subjugate females disproportionately in the world, it seems like it could be a lot worse. What that means is that it's not very plausible to say males are "waging a war" against females, for it they were, then why isn't it the very worst it could possibly be? One of the essays concludes:

"The problem with males is not that they are too lecherous or that women aren’t lecherous enough. The problem with males is biology. Feminist-leaning women fail to spend what would be far-more-productive brain-time deliberating on this fact: Being a human male is a genetic condition, a genetic condition wielding a proprietary biochemistry, a proprietary biochemistry for warmongering against females – and every other fucking thing. – Men have always warred against women. — And always will. — Men must – to keep us making them. [...] men’s war against women is in fact, ultimately, men’s war for control of the genome."

The annoying part of the essay series is how it repetitively ascribes intentions to an unintentional process. It blames males, rather than masculinity, male-ness, for all this. It's obnoxious and narrow-minded to paint the picture of males being these "sex-crazed maniacs" who would like nothing more than to go around raping and pillaging and killing everything they could. Generally speaking when people, male or female, get sexually aroused, the mechanism isn't "let's make more of me!", it's "let me release some stress!" or "let's have some fun!" or, in the case of rape, "let's humiliate/dominate!". It is through this thought-process that genes are passed along. But it's definitely not this conspiratorial scheme intentionally performed by males. This is why I think that even if someone like the original author is talking about legitimate things, they don't really care about the liberation of women so much as they care about having a good ol' time fighting an internet crusade. It's fun to be a mean person on the internet.

But I have to say that (as a male) my decision to try to see this "objectively" is not entirely for the sake of "truth" but because I feel the need to absolve myself of blame. So even if I technically don't have any guilt in this, especially since I don't have sex and don't really plan on doing so, the motivation for adopting such an "objective" stance is not a pure and uncorrupted pursuit for the truth. The evolution of sexual reproduction and the male type is in fact based largely around what we would call, if we were not trying to be passionless objective scientists, "rape", "mind-control", "parasitism". Just as we could call the evolution of life a "gladiator arena", a "failure factory", or a "red, tooth and claw massacre".

I don't particularly like being associated with parasites, just as I don't particularly like seeing my very existence as dependent on unimaginable violence and brutality. I can choose not to act in such a terrible manner but the reality is that I exist because my ancestors killed, raped and destroyed, and my physical body and psychological thinking patterns are made in such a way that doing these things is easier, perhaps even in my "nature".

If you want to fix it, turning it into a cod evolutionary debate is hardly sensible. — apokrisis

The position presented in the essays is that we can't absolve patriarchal problems within the patriarchy itself. It's radical feminism. Fixing these issues can only happen if the patriarchy itself is dismantled. And in this case the patriarchy is traced back in time through millennia of biological evolution. Rape, battery, violence, etc can not be solved though conventional means but only through the eradication of the patriarchy (which is oftentimes theorized to be connected to capitalism and religion).

Turn it around. Imagine women had a dick, men had a hole. But men - or a subset with social issues - still had a rage to humiliate. Would the shape of the biological equipment make a difference? — apokrisis

It's hard for me to imagine a male with a vagina that is actually a male. Male-ness seems to be inherently tied to the capacity to penetrate, flood, neutralize and dominate.

The question, then, is why a neutral "naturalistic" description is desirable, or why a neutral description is seen as superior to a description with normative undertones. Is it purely on the basis of scientific "objectivity", or is it also perhaps a psychological defense mechanism of sorts? Is it not easier to "deal" with an apparently savage reality by construing it as blind, purposeless, unintentional and amoral? — darthbarracuda

Scientific objectivity is a bit more than "construing". It is the evidence based approach. And it is metaphysically systematic in assigning causality. If you ask a question, it splits things into immediate and distant causes. It has a hierarchical approach to explanation.

So you suggest that science would merely neutralise our feelings here. Somehow your belief in "savage reality" can be presumed to be correct - because you feel that way - and any other view, no matter how differently founded on a system of reason and evidence, must be an ego defence mechanism.

Sure, it is possible to use selective facts to explain away something unpleasant. But the argument is that you (and your cite) are employing selective facts to make that unpleasant case in the first place. You are referencing observations like female diving beetles burying themselves in the mud. So it becomes rather contradictory to both cite science and decry science in bolstering a position.

My argument is that a naturalistic approach would put rape in its full objective context. Being "scientific" here means already being alert to the probability that causality is complex - a hierarchy that runs from general constraints to particular triggers. So that is metaphysically normative - a way we all ought to handle important questions. And that is an established norm your essay fails.

And then your characterisation of "scientific reality" as "blind, purposeless, unintentional and amoral" is also a view that biology - the science of life and mind - would challenge. Sure, that is a view that became socially popular following Newtonian mechanics. But plenty of my friends in theoretical biology see purpose and intentionality - some grade of telos - even in the laws of thermodynamics. It is not impossible that the facts should cause a revision of a now 500 year old view of nature as a blind machine.

Then don't forget that my actual reply was not that nature is neutral. I said a biological/sociological view would be that what is natural is a dichotomy of competition vs cooperation. With a balance that is then "fit" in terms of long-run survival. So for example, one expects both a general species-typical reproductive strategy and also localised opportunistic cheating. Each pole of action is equally necessary and natural. You have to have constraints. You have to have degrees of freedom. The evolutionary judgement is then on the balance of these contrasting impulses across a time horizon. Does the overall dynamic work in an adaptive sense?

So you are adopting a catastrophising metaphysics were things are either right or wrong. If rape is wrong, then rapish looking behaviour is just as wrong. And in the end, anything in the remotest construable as rapey is wrong. There just is no smallest degree of rape that isn't wrong because you have no demarcation line where rapey behaviour becomes either instead a positive - as in a shift from globally cooperative reproductive strategies to locally competitive reproductive strategies. Or indeed, it just becomes background noise - so insignificant that it doesn't count as action of either kind.

And again, I also question the way you frame rape as an issue of biological reproductive strategy. Making babies never seems the point. At most, you could point to sexual gratification - a desire to copulate which is biology's way of making babies without you, the male, having much say. So yes, there is an element of causality there. But then scientifically you would want to put that in the context of all the evidence. Don't men also have an instinct to father, nurture and protect? And doesn't actual rape have more to do with biological strategies of submission and dominance? Humiliation rather than breeding may be the prime cause to analyse. And so - if you are being a radical feminist pretending to present a biological case - you would look to what nature says about dominance~submission as evolved behaviour.

There is a lot to say about how to think about these issues properly. But it is clear that the essay just doesn't.

The position presented in the essays is that we can't absolve patriarchal problems within the patriarchy itself. It's radical feminism. Fixing these issues can only happen if the patriarchy itself is dismantled. And in this case the patriarchy is traced back in time through millennia of biological evolution. Rape, battery, violence, etc can not be solved though conventional means but only through the eradication of the patriarchy (which is oftentimes theorized to be connected to capitalism and religion). — darthbarracuda

Again, there are two stories here. Either it is the case that A is good, B is bad - a simple-minded monochrome tale of causality - or it is the case that A and B are the necessary complementary extremes of being that are the foundation of a complex adaptive balancing act.

So perhaps patriarchy and feminism are two poles of a fruitful social order? It is only the balance that is at issue as "the West" transitions from an agricultural social economy to a techno-democratic one?

You are suggesting that there is no end to guilt because no lines can be drawn on history. Yesterday's ways have to be either right or wrong. They can't just be different. This is catastrophising. And it leaves you unable to analyse as you are not accepting the metaphysical principle that reality is irreducibly complex. It always takes two to tango.

It's hard for me to imagine a male with a vagina that is actually a male. Male-ness seems to be inherently tied to the capacity to penetrate, flood, neutralize and dominate. — darthbarracuda

You have an image and can't get beyond it. But is that inflexibility of thought reasonable?

I will reply to you when I get around to it, I'm fairly busy.

Do you have a background in biology? You seem to know more about this than the average person like me. I most exposure I had to biology was my high school freshman class and a bit of independent research on my own time. — darthbarracuda

Thanks, but not really, I was just reading up on some plausible theories in evolutionary biology and those stood out. I am also generally interested in evolutionary biology. It seems that for evo-bio one can probably never get at the exact cause for a population's adaptation, but hypotheses can be tested for plausibility through reconstructions such as a) mathematical models and b) tests using present day populations. So for example, perhaps you have one set of population of cells that has no parasites, and this population reproduces at a fairly fast rate, but once a parasite is introduced, it becomes evident that the healthier population becomes the cells that can reproduce sexually through recombination of genes (and thus frequent changing of protein keys). It becomes plausible that the Red Queen Hypothesis is a match for why sexual reproduction became a fixed adaptation.

I'm not too familiar with the H-H Hypothesis. What does a suppressor gene do exactly? Why would it be a "good" thing to have a suppressor gene to prevent the passing on of genes? — darthbarracuda

It is a predictive model with evidence from experiments done on Chlamydomonas (type of green algae) that fusion of organelles from both parents cause major problems as it leads to more parasites and conflict between the two competing organelle types. So, gametes that are able to suppress the ability to pass on organelles (by remaining much smaller) would be a strategy for optimal genetic exchange. Thus, the two mating types happened in a few steps. First, there was a cytoplasmic mutation during the zygote stage, that destroys the cytoplasmic genome from its mating partner. This becomes fixed in the population. Then, comes the suppressor mutation which suppresses the cell's cytoplasmic genomes ability to destroy the other cell and leaves its own genome vulnerable for attack. Finally, a chooser mutation occurs where the cells with the suppressor mutation choose the cells with the non-suppressor mutations. Thus, with these broad three stages in place, the most stable and optimal mating strategy of two-sex types come into play.

I am not sure about whether it is a "good" thing to have a suppressor mutation or not, but it is good for the organism as there gets to be a sort of specialization of the gametes such that one provides the cytoplasmic environment and information for the zygote to grow. So in a way, if we are thinking in terms of value, the female gamete has evolved to pass on its genes more completely, being that it is the one which specialized on passing on its organelle information. The smaller gamete has to settle for only passing on its nuclear DNA.

Now, on a different note, if you wanted to talk about the aggression of sex, there is in a way, an aggression involved that has little to do with the politicized version referenced in the OP. Sex is unequally distributed. It is one of the most vicious sources of desire-seeking dissatisfaction in the world. Whether it is sex in general, or sex with the most ideal mating partner, the unequal distribution of either one makes it on the balance, rather negative in a general population sense.

I am guessing sex was also more socially visible/audible back in prehistory (and up to probably the 1800s even in "modern" society). Remnants of this can be seen in apartments with thin walls. You can hear the couple next door having sex- the woman making many audibly loud and continuous noises of satisfaction. She wants the guy to keep going as long as he can, harder, longer, etc. etc. . This is not trying to be a soft porn here, but meant to direct you back to the third-party listener. That person listening to this, is not getting sex, is not providing (or being provided) the pleasure. Now, what does this mean for the individual? Perhaps he/she isn't trying hard enough, isn't doing the right thing, isn't at the right places, etc. etc. This causes more misery. Again, unequal distribution.

What results? People inclined towards the intellectual pursuits may overcompensate and indulge even further in this direction. Look at Immanual Kant.. No sex, but certainly lived in his own mind much of the time (resulting in amazing philosophy). Look at Schopenhauer, he probably had his affairs as a younger man, but the one he was truly interested in, turned him away and again retreated, perhaps strengthening his anti-women and sex views (though I think this interpretation too reductionist for such a nuanced system that he was proposing and is to divert attention away from his philosophy itself). Then there are people who may just settle for very little, slowly purging the sexual impulses with age, accepting that solo life with friends may be acceptable in their golden years without being encumbered.

Either way, there is this primal thing that some people have more frequently, more qualitatively, etc. etc. while others do not. This puts double burden on the have-nots as not being adequate enough. This also engenders competition, which causes even more aggression, and keeps the whole cycle going. In this way, sex is aggressively negative and causes more pain, if seen on the whole and not in particular cases.

So you suggest that science would merely neutralise our feelings here. Somehow your belief in "savage reality" can be presumed to be correct - because you feel that way - and any other view, no matter how differently founded on a system of reason and evidence, must be an ego defence mechanism.

Sure, it is possible to use selective facts to explain away something unpleasant. But the argument is that you (and your cite) are employing selective facts to make that unpleasant case in the first place. You are referencing observations like female diving beetles burying themselves in the mud. So it becomes rather contradictory to both cite science and decry science in bolstering a position. — apokrisis

I don't see how this follows. Anyone can go out and observe the mating ritual of diving beetles. Anyone can see how the female beetle frantically tries to escape the male beetle.

The hesitation to call this an instance of "rape" is from a general belief that morality is a "human construct" that is not suited to be applied to descriptions of reality. It is not scientifically accurate to call the chemicals in male semen "evil" (as the essay does), as this carries normative connotations that aren't found "in nature". However it is just as accurate to call the male diving beetle's appendages "rape arms" as it is "objects of prehension". There is a choice to favor the latter over the former - but because the latter gives us a bit of shielding or padding, "it is what it is".

The fact is, however, that a disturbingly high proportion of sex acts in organisms that, if these organisms were moral agents, we would call rape. It is also the same thing with R-selection. A sea turtle may lay hundreds of eggs but only a few survive. It's not technically genocide ... but it kinda is. At least, from the perspective of those harmed, i.e. the victims of nature.

you are adopting a catastrophising metaphysics were things are either right or wrong. If rape is wrong, then rapish looking behaviour is just as wrong. And in the end, anything in the remotest construable as rapey is wrong. There just is no smallest degree of rape that isn't wrong because you have no demarcation line where rapey behaviour becomes either instead a positive - as in a shift from globally cooperative reproductive strategies to locally competitive reproductive strategies. Or indeed, it just becomes background noise - so insignificant that it doesn't count as action of either kind. — apokrisis

I'm not necessarily saying anything about the "wrongness" of rape - although I obviously see rape as wrong. All I'm saying really is that a common form of sexual reproduction is in fact rape, no quotation marks, and scientific terminology disguises this, softens the blow. It's a great big universe with a great big story and the little itty bitty details like the rape of countless female organism isn't important. It's not rape, it's simply how things are.

But this "how things are" is consciously decided to be described in a certain way.

Anyone can go out and observe the mating ritual of diving beetles. Anyone can see how the female beetle frantically tries to escape the male beetle. — darthbarracuda

But who is to say miss diving beetle isn't just being coy, discovering which male is tough and fit enough to overpower her?

And if you find that framing of the situation objectionable, it is only the reverse of claiming instead it is a case of male rape. We shouldn't anthropomorphise in either direction.

The hesitation to call this an instance of "rape" is from a general belief that morality is a "human construct" that is not suited to be applied to descriptions of reali — darthbarracuda

Exactly. Rape is to do with human sociocultural capacities for choice and consent. It describes a circumstance framed by cultural expectations about how sexual connections ought to be negotiated.

The funniest defence heard from child rapists is that they just happened to have an unfortunately erect penis when they tripped and fell on the child. No one believes that. But the point is that if it were true - there was no conscious intent - then it would be a reason to say it can't have actually been an act of rape.

So diving beetles may evolve sucker arms to clasp the females. And the females counter-evolve ridges and pits on their shells to make grasping harder. But where is the intent here? Where is the choice in the biological design? Are you arguing that the lady beetles do give willing consent to some males that take their fancy?l

All I'm saying really is that a common form of sexual reproduction is in fact rape, no quotation marks, and scientific terminology disguises this, softens the blow. — darthbarracuda

It's not correct to call it rape unless you have redefined rape so that it does not involve matters of choice and consent. There has to be the ability to act otherwise to claim there is a moral choice.

If you really think diving beetles are a bunch of psychopathic rapists, then I expect to see you down at the local pond fishing out all the males and punishing them according to whatever is your society's penal code.

I don't think that man is a biological parasite that has wormed its way into self-replicating women's lives, simply because they wouldn't have been women. They would have been some hybrid self-pollinating creature that at best diverged into men and women.

They say, as you said, that sexual reproduction evolved to share the gene pool. Monoclones are incredibly susceptible to disease. One cold could wipe out an entire population - like the potato famine in that happened in Ireland in the 1940s.

A genetics professor also pointed out, and this is an aside, that it is impossible to sustain the perfect person or race of people, because one you have the perfect person, you would have to mate them with someone else genetically different and so on to avoid imbreeding and you end up with just another mixed gene pool. So it works both ways, I guess.

Sex is unequally distributed. — schopenhauer1

Why is this a problem?

It is one of the most vicious sources of desire-seeking dissatisfaction in the world. — schopenhauer1

Nope, I wouldn't go that far. This would be to presuppose sex is some sort of "god" that we all must have to live a fulfilled life, and that's just not the case. I wouldn't complain about the unequal distribution of steak for example. Sure, steak is great, some people never eat it their entire lives though. Many are stopped by their religion. Or by their culture which doesn't permit eating beef. So what?

Whether it is sex in general, or sex with the most ideal mating partner, the unequal distribution of either one makes it on the balance, rather negative in a general population sense. — schopenhauer1

It does make a difference though, because sex in general isn't a good. The Epicureans realised this, and one of the things advocated by Epicurus to achieve the good life, even though he was an atheistic hedonist, was sexual abstinence.

She wants the guy to keep going as long as he can, harder, longer, etc. etc. . This is not trying to be a soft porn here — schopenhauer1

>:O >:O

That person listening to this, is not getting sex, is not providing (or being provided) the pleasure. — schopenhauer1

Well, if that person really wants to give AND to receive sexual pleasure, he does have two hands you know... >:O Jokes aside, I don't see why they would salivate for the pleasure of those other people in the first place :s - it's not like I go around salivating on the street when I see a person eating an ice cream. Indeed, if I was to salivate when seeing another person eat an icecream you'd say there's something wrong with me, and would probably recommend a trip to the psychologist. Likewise, there is something very wrong with our culture given our attitudes towards sex.

Now, what does this mean for the individual? — schopenhauer1

Well hearing that happened to me a few times, but it's really no more annoying than hearing loud music and the like. What it means for the individual, is that he or she should go to the people in question and tell them to be quieter.

This causes more misery. Again, unequal distribution. — schopenhauer1

It's not the unequal distribution that causes misery. See, when you say that, you presuppose that if sex of the usual kind that goes on in the world was equally distributed, people would be happier. But that's not true. Most of the sex that goes on in the world actually leads to more pain than actual abstinence. Those few instances of sex that are truly fulfilling involve special circumstances that are often hard to come by, such as being married to the right person. Most people don't marry the right person because they're forced into marrying someone (usually the wrong person) by social pressure or they're just not patient enough to wait for the right person. Or if they do marry the right person they screw it up because they don't have the right values/beliefs that can make it work.

As for those who have premartial sex, well that is for losers - who would like to have sex with a person only to eventually go through the pain of losing them? That is like telling me to invest in a business that I will certainly lose in 5 years.

So personally I take sex as a very good thing if you're having it in a married and loving relationship with the person you love (with whom you eventually intend to have children, which are also part of the joys of sex). But outside of those circumstances, it causes more problems than benefits to those who engage in it, and therefore it is absolutely irrational to feel "jealous" about it or to envy other people for having it as you suggest here.

Either way, there is this primal thing that some people have more frequently, more qualitatively, etc. etc. while others do not. — schopenhauer1

:s - and some people eat steak more frequently than me, do they lead better lives?

Why is this a problem? — Agustino

I'm not sure why that is not self evident. So there is this pleasure which some get more of and others less. Assuming (excepting the rare asexual) there are people who like the pleasure of sex equally, it is not as equally distributed. That is not to discount how other goods in life are also unequally distributed, but the topic happens to be sex, so there ya go.

Nope, I wouldn't go that far. This would be to presuppose sex is some sort of "god" that we all must have to live a fulfilled life, and that's just not the case. I wouldn't complain about the unequal distribution of steak for example. Sure, steak is great, some people never eat it their entire lives though. Many are stopped by their religion. Or by their culture which doesn't permit eating beef. So what? — Agustino

Ugh, this sounds horribly repressed and self-righteous to boot. Some things are more pleasurable and desirable than others. I don't know, but I've heard sex feels really good. Perhaps, even more pleasurable than eating a steak. If you do not think that sex causes distress or dissatisfaction, then why is it so prominent in most religions? Social commentary? Social media? Discussions? Books? Articles? News? Comedy? It's everywhere and desired by many- if not almost everyone. Along with sex, we can add a nurturing romantic relationships, but this is just focusing on the pleasure had between two (or more I guess) people (which also often are accompanied by more long-term relationships of some sort). Some things are more pleasurable than others.

It does make a difference though, because sex in general isn't a good. The Epicureans realised this, and one of the things advocated by Epicurus to achieve the good life, even though he was an atheistic hedonist, was sexual abstinence. — Agustino

I'm not opposed to asceticism- I'm a Schopenhauer fan for Christ's sake. However, I don't see many ascetics in the general population. I did say GENERAL POPULATION and "as a whole" and not in particular cases right? Also, what is the reason why asceticism is a struggle for many? Oh, right because desires, especially ones like sexual intercourse, seem to be a pretty tough one to overcome for many (except you, because you are an asexual god who puts his energies in all these productive and godly things, unlike that nasty sex stuff that the rabble-bachus-lovers are bitching on about :-} ).

Well, if that person really wants to give AND to receive sexual pleasure, he does have two hands you know... >:O Jokes aside, I don't see why they would salivate for the pleasure of those other people in the first place :s - it's not like I go around salivating on the street when I see a person eating an ice cream. Indeed, if I was to salivate when seeing another person eat an icecream you'd say there's something wrong with me, and would probably recommend a trip to the psychologist. Likewise, there is something very wrong with our culture given our attitudes towards sex. — Agustino

I don't know if you ever heard people having some good sex before (if they are not faking) but, I hear it can be titillating (for the depraved that is, not the asexual godly-types such as yourself ;)). Anyways, the point was really a metaphor for the fact that THEY are getting some, and the listener is not. Maybe the listener is not interested at that point in time, but really it is the idea of some people are getting their preferences met, and others are not. I know that is hard for you to believe, being that you are far superior than the depraved rabble.

Most people don't marry the right person because they're forced into marrying someone (usually the wrong person) by social pressure or they're just not patient enough to wait for the right person. Or if they do marry the right person they screw it up because they don't have the right values/beliefs that can make it work. — Agustino

But then you bring up an even stronger case for what I am saying. If average throw-away sex is only just so good, the limited amount of good relationship-sex (if your theory is correct) is even that much more limited, as good relationships themselves between two romantic lovers is even harder to find. Thus, it is that much more unequally distributed.

- and some people eat steak more frequently than me, do they lead better lives? — Agustino

Yep.

AND, the whole point of the argument was that desires (such as sex) are AGGRESSIVELY negative for JUST SOME OF THE REASONS YOU MENTIONED.. So thanks for making my point, even if you didn't realize it :D!

*wearing my smartass hat*
Some posts are referring to "the good of the species." There is no such concept in biology....everything is driven at the gene level.