Monday, August 20, 2012

The feminist argument for Todd Akin's position that pregnancy from rape is rare

***APPROPRIATENESS ALERT--READ AT YOUR OWN PERIL***

When Missouri Republican U. S. Senate nominee Todd Akin said that pregnancy from rape is "really rare," he was hammered from all sides, attracting the condemnation of the presidential nominees from both political parties. Part of the criticism was leveled at his reason for saying this, which was a cockamamie theory he probably got off the internet that a woman's body has some kind of defense mechanism against male sperm in such cases. However, a good part of it seemed to be that he was minimizing the changes of pregnancy resulting from rape.

But the congressman might just well have relied on what feminists have been saying for years about rape to bolster his position. As it turns out, feminists have been minimizing the chance of pregnancy from rape for years.

In my first week of college many years ago, we had (as students still do) to go through various forms of indoctrination about a number of things. One of the reeducation seminars we had to sit through was "rape awareness." It was conducted by a few of the grim feminist types who then only had partial control of colleges, but who, since then, have taken full control of them. In the case of this class, we had to learn why rape happens.

The first thing we were told--and we were told it again, and again, and again, and again--was that rape was more about power and dominance that it was about sex. This is part of feminist ideology. In fact, they not only believe that: many of them believe even voluntary sex during marriage constitutes rape. Anyhow, as evidence of this theory of rape as male dominance, we were told (this too was repeated multiple times, which is probably why I remember it now, some 35 years later), in most cases the rapist does not ejaculate during the crime.

They got the idea of rape as being about male control and dominance from books like Susan Brownmiller's 1975 Against our Will, in which Brownmiller stated that rape "is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear." "Rape is a crime not of lust," she asserts, "but of power." Her book is a systematic expression of contempt for the idea that rape is about gratification of sexual desire.

And just in case you think this is some marginal book, just consider that, in 1995, the New York Public Library listed it among the 100 most important books of the 20th century.

But they were just saying it then: They continue to say it--and they have now armed themselves with data.

In her 2003 book, Evolution, Gender, and Rape, Cheryl Brown Travis, the chair of "Women's Studies" at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, argues against a famous study done by Craig Thornhill and Randy Palmer in 2001 was flawed in its argument that rape has evolutionary origins. Travis thought it was, intentionally or unintentionally, a way to morally excuse male rapists.

One of Thornhill and Palmer's arguments was that rape was part of an evolutionary strategy to increase reproduction. Travis argued that if this were true, it "must result in pregnancies." But she calls this into question. Why?
Data indicate that rapists often do not have erections, fail to penetrate the vagina, or do not ejaculate. Medical studies report that these problems occur in 30 to 40 percent of cases (Bownes and O'Gorman 1991, Hook, Elliot, and Harbison 1992). During medical examination, traces of sperm may be found in only 50 percent of rape cases (Ferris and Sandercock 1998). Case reports note that rapists often have one or more of sexual dysfunctions and that these dysfunctions may precipitate additional violence, degradation, and brutalization of the victim (Groth and Burgess 1977). [p. 214]
In other words, Travis, a feminist, is downplaying the changes of pregnancy from rape. Travis isn't the only one saying this:

  • "...studies have long shown that many rapists do not ejaculate." Wendy Murphy, WeNews
  • "Research states that some men do not ejaculate during rape," Feminist Issues

Where is the outrage? Where is the condemnation from the media? Where are the Tolerance Police to put these women in their place?

Oh, wait. They're feminists. We can't do that.

Nevermind.

14 comments:

Art said...

So The Family Foundation agrees with Akin, that a woman who is truly raped cannot become pregnant.

OK. I guess readers of this blog should not be surprised.

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

Reading this blog does require basic reading skills. Maybe, as you try to employ those, you could tell me how you derive that from what I said.

If you're not careful, someone is going to send you to Russia for trial.

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

This post really plumbs a new low for VR. It starts out with a blatant, obvious lie: Todd Akin is not being criticized primarily for his statement that pregnancy from rape is 'really rare', he is being critized first and foremost for his statement that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”.

First of all, what that statement suggests is that Akin believes that women who are raped but then get pregnant were not really raped at all. That's stomach-churning misogynist ghoulishness on the level of the Taliban.

Second, this scientifically untenable statement exposes Mr Akin for the complete and utter ignorant he is. If you want uneducated, uninformed, proudly ignorant people running your country, then elect people like Mr Akin.

But that lie is not even the worst part, Martin. You - the supposed paragon of logic - then proceed to throw up a smokescreen argument that is obviously fallacious: you spend considerable effort trying to convince us that rape-related pregnancies are really so rare by citing studies on male penetration and ejaculation during rape.

Why?

Why do that when you could very simply just look up studies on the *actual* number of rape-related pregnanices in the US? (a study that shows that only 50 % of men ejaculate during a rape tells us *nothing* of the actual number of rape-related pregnancies - as even the most logically illiterate person should immediately recognize).

Like this study (took me 10 seconds to Google, maybe too much effort for some folks?):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248

"The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator.

[...]

CONCLUSIONS:

Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence."

Do you really want to argue that 1 in 20 pregnanices per rape is 'rare'? So 'rare' that we needn't even consider it when discussing abortion laws?

As I said - a new low for this blog on every single level. So where is the apology for this blatant nonsense? Where is the apology for this appaling attempt at obfuscating the issue using shoddy logic?

Oh wait. It's a Catholic conservative.

Nevermind.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

you spend considerable effort trying to convince us that rape-related pregnancies are really so rare by citing studies on male penetration and ejaculation during rape.

I think both you and Art need a reading coach, since both your arguments assumes that this is my position. But this is not my position. This is the position spouted by feminists, one of the special interest groups which are part of the very alliance that is criticizing Akin.

Somehow you managed to miss the whole point of the post, which is that one of the very groups that is now so indignant has been spouting one Akin's chief point for years.

Go Singring.

Singring said...

So you just completely choose to ignore the study I linked to?

As usual.

I quote again (on the off chance that your eagle-eyed reading capabilities missed it):

"The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator.

[...]

CONCLUSIONS:

Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence."

'This is the position spouted by feminists, one of the special interest groups which are part of the very alliance that is criticizing Akin.'

Could you please cite where these feminists say that rape-related pregnancy is rare? You only cite them saying that many rapists do not ejaculate. One as competent in reading as yourself should clearly know the difference between the words 'ejaculation' and 'pregnancy', right?

'Somehow you managed to miss the whole point of the post, which is that one of the very groups that is now so indignant has been spouting one Akin's chief point for years.'

But Akin was not making the 'chief point' that most rapists don't ejaculate, Martin. His 'chief point' was that rape-related pregnancies are 'rare' and that in cases of 'legitimate rape' , the female body has ways of 'shutting that down'. I think you need to get your hearing checked, never mind your reading skills.

Martin, with your profound understanding and pedantic adherence to logical syllogism, please enlighten us as to the chain of logical argument that leads from a statement like 'Research states that some men do not ejaculate during rape,...' to 'rape-related pregnancy is really rare'.

Let's see you do it.

Come on.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

So you just completely choose to ignore the study I linked to?

I'm trying to think of a symbol system that would fully communicate to you what I have already said, but I cant think of one. Maybe capital letters will help:

I'M NOT THE ONE WHO IS MINIMIZING THE CHANCE OF GETTING PREGNANT. THAT IS THE FEMINIST POSITION THAT, IF YOU READ MY POST, I AM CLEARLY MAKING FUN OF AND POINTING OUT IS JUST AS LUDICROUS AS WHAT AKIN SAID.

So, this being the case, why do I need to respond to your statistics? I don't have any problem with them.

Let me know if you comprehend this message. If not, maybe I can send you a video with hand signals or put a written message in a bottle or something.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Could you please cite where these feminists say that rape-related pregnancy is rare? You only cite them saying that many rapists do not ejaculate. One as competent in reading as yourself should clearly know the difference between the words 'ejaculation' and 'pregnancy', right?

Um, let me quote what I said in the post, since you apparently overlooked it:

"One of Thornhill and Palmer's arguments was that rape was part of an evolutionary strategy to increase reproduction. Travis argued that if this were true, it 'must result in pregnancies.' But she calls this into question."

The reason Travis uses the statistics she does in the passage I quoted (which is taken from a section called, interestingly enough, "Pregnancy rates") is that she is contesting Thornhill and Palmer's thesis that rape is result of an evolutionary "reproductive strategy."

In other words, the tendency to rape is passed along by natural selection as a survival mechanism--precisely because it contributes to reproduction.

Now if I need to explain to you the connection between reproduction and pregnancy, just let me know.

"If rape is a reproductive strategy," says Travis, "it must result in pregnancies. This requires the consistent and successful operation of some basic mechanics. These include penile-vaginal penetration, and the ejaculation of viable sperm in sufficient numbers to offer a better than average likelihood of insemination and conception."

Again, if you need me to explain to you the connection between penile-vaginal penetration and ejaculation on the one hand, and pregnancy and pregnancy on the other, just let me know.

Her whole argument is against this position--the position that rape, consistently and successfully results in pregnancy. And the reason she gives is that listed in the quote I gave.

In fact, the quote I gave bears the same relationship to the minimization of pregnancy as Akin's statement, "women who are victims of ‘legitimate rape’ rarely get pregnant." bears to it.

Are you going to deny that too?

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't want to have sex with a hard core feminist, but if she was really attractive, and I was really intoxicated, I might let her "legitimately" rape me. I would promise to not get pregnant.

Singring said...

'I'M NOT THE ONE WHO IS MINIMIZING THE CHANCE OF GETTING PREGNANT.'

I never said you were. I said you were confusing the issue of rape-related pregnancy with that of ejaculation/penetration during rape, thereby trying to equate Akin's horrendous comments with those select quotes from supposed feminists you provided (your motives were not explicit, but should be clear to anyone reading this blog on a regular basis).

I asked you, very simply, to illustrate us the logical argument connecting the statement 'rape-related pregnancy is rare' to the statement 'ejaculation/penetration during rape is rare'.

I got no response, instead I got you pretending not to understand the issue again (in an all-caps, no less).

If this is too complicated for you, let me make it very simple:

Let's say that, for the sake of argument, there are 1,000,000 rapes in any given year in a country. Let's say further to that that a feminist then says 'Only in 50 % of those rape cases is there actual ejaculation by the rapist.' Is that feminist implying that rape-related pregnancy is 'really rare'? No, of course not. Because, given 1,000,000 rapes, even if there is ejaculation in only 50 % of cases, and even if only, say 10 % of those ejaculations lead to pregnancy, that would still mean that there are a whopping 50,000 rape-related pregnancies in a year.

So it is completely, utterly fallacious to come on here and pretend that when anyone says 'ejaculation during rape is rare' they actually mean 'rape-related pregnancy is really rare'.

And if anyone should be able to see that, it is a logic teacher, for crying out loud!

'So, this being the case, why do I need to respond to your statistics? I don't have any problem with them.'

So then can we agree that 1 in 20 rapes ending in pregnancy for a total of 30,000 rape-related pregnancies a year is, in fact, not 'really rare' and therefore Mr Akin was completely out of line making those awful statements? I'm glad to hear it.

Singring said...

'The reason Travis uses the statistics she does in the passage I quoted (which is taken from a section called, interestingly enough, "Pregnancy rates") is that she is contesting Thornhill and Palmer's thesis that rape is result of an evolutionary "reproductive strategy." '

See, Martin, this is where I get really confused as to whether you really don't understand evolutionary principles enough to realize that what you are saying is nonsense, or if you know better and just hope people won't figure it out.

To whit, here is what you quote Travis as saying:

'"If rape is a reproductive strategy," says Travis, "it must result in pregnancies. This requires the consistent and successful operation of some basic mechanics. These include penile-vaginal penetration, and the ejaculation of viable sperm in sufficient numbers to offer a better than average likelihood of insemination and conception."'
(emphasis mine)

What Travis is saying here is that, (in simplified terms) for evolution to favor the trait of rape over consensual reproduction this trait must confer a selective advantage - i.e. rape must have 9as she puts it) a 'better than average' likelihood of insemination and conception.

I quote her from page 212, just a few short pages after your choice quote:

'Additionally, if rape is a specific adaptation that adds to inclusive fitness (...) there must be different reproductive success for individuals with a genetic propensity to rape.'

Travis is NOT saying that rape does not lead to pregancies or even that rape-related pregnancies are 'really rare' - she is just stating that rape is a less successful reproductive strategy than consensual sex and therefore is not favored by natural selection.

In fact, Travis *agrees* with the rape-related pregnancy figures I posted earlier. I quote 9page 126):

'Thornhill and Palmer themselves propose that the rate of pregnancy after rape is probabaly 2 percent, far below the rate of pregnancy resulting from planned and consensual copulation. (...) the median [of rape-related pregnancies found in previous studies] is 2 to 4 percent.'

So clearly Travis is NOT saying rape-related pregnancies do not occur, she is NOT saying that they are 'really rare', she is just saying that rape will, on average, be less likely to result in successful pregnancies than consensual sex, which is why rape seems hard to explain using evolutionary models based on genetic inheritance of traits.

In this scenario, rape-related pregnancies may still be very common, depending on how much rape is occurring in a population.

'Again, if you need me to explain to you the connection between penile-vaginal penetration and ejaculation on the one hand, and pregnancy and pregnancy on the other, just let me know.'

So instead of looking up that *actual* rape-related pregnancy stats Travis has in her book just a couple pages from the spot you cite her, you again try to obfuscate the issue by referring to stats on ejaculation and penetration - which tells us nothing about actual pregnancies.

Maybe you think we are stupid enough not to notice when you try to pull this stuff, or maybe you just don't have a the most rudimentary reading skills, or maybe you honestly don;t know enough about evolution to figure out what Travis is arguing.

Whatever it may be, you really have to try harder if you want to square this circle, Martin.

Ioannes Augustus said...

'I asked you, very simply, to illustrate us the logical argument connecting the statement 'rape-related pregnancy is rare' to the statement 'ejaculation/penetration during rape is rare'.'

Perhaps because one is the inviolable biological precondition of the other??? Or maybe you could explain to me the logical connection between using your lungs to breathe and air?

Singring said...

'Perhaps because one is the inviolable biological precondition of the other??? Or maybe you could explain to me the logical connection between using your lungs to breathe and air?'

Ioannes, you are, like Martin, confusing the issue of whether ejaculation during rape is rare with the question of whether rape-related pregnancies in a population overall are rare. Reading my comments will help.

Let me ask you directly: Do you that, with 30,000 rapes resulting in pregnancy a year, rape-related pregnancy is 'really rare'?

Ioannes Augustus said...

Singring, I am not impressed. If one can say "ejaculation during rape is rare" then you can say "pregnancy resulting from rape is rare" in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons, because one is the precondition of the other. If air is not possible in a room, neither is breathing. Your attempt to distract from the issue by using the vaguer expression "rare in a population" falls flat.

The 30,000 figure is also problematic: http://americanvision.org/6278/legitimate-political-gang-rape/#.UD3zncFlRtg