Review of The Causes of Rape: Understanding Individual Differences in Male Propensity for Sexual Aggression.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MARTIN L. LALUMIERE, GRANT T. HARRIS, VERNON L. QUINSEX and MARNIE E. RICE The Causes of Rape: Understanding Individual Differences in Male Propensity for Sexual Aggression Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2005, 304 pages (ISBN 1-59147-186-9, US$59.95 Hardcover) The book presents an evolutionary explanation for rape, closely related to the writings of people like Wilson and Ellis, with which many readers will be familiar. develops an argument that rape is a closely associated with antisociality. The book is divided into three parts, in addition to the brief introduction and the appendix. The first part, general background, is organized into two chapters. Chapter one reviews a selection of texts that discuss a series of topics, including rape, male aggression, customary sanctioning of rape, and murders of women. These selections range from biblical excerpts to rates of rape, as reported by Statistics Canada and U.S. National Crime Victimization Surveys. As the authors acknowledge, most of this coverage is based on secondary references and interpretations, but they offer little explanation regarding the inclusion of this particular selection of texts at the exclusion of others. The second chapter surveys some of the biological research on forced copulation as a reproductive strategy in certain animal species. The species discussed include those for which this type of behaviour has been documented; however, no discussion is presented regarding species where this has not been observed. Part one prepares the reader for the evolutionary thesis that rape has occurred throughout history and across species because it is an adaptive reproduction strategy for some men. The review is intended to prepare the audience to think only in evolutionary terms (e.g., individual variations and selection) to explain not only traits, but all social behaviours. Periodic comments, and especially in the footnotes, remind us that it is not the authors' intent to trivialize the reality of rape for its victims, and that alternative interpretations of the data reported are possible. These comments do not exactly fit the thesis, and seem to have been added almost as an afterthought to calm the reader who might take offence to the psychobiological approach. The second part of the book is where the authors formally introduce the thesis that antisocial behaviour is closely linked with the proclivity to rape, and that rape must be understood as an effort to mate: It seems safe to conclude that sexually coercive men engage in high mating efforts (p. 75). To build their argument, numerous correlational studies are presented. According to the authors, these studies strongly suggest that sexual aggression, like consenting sexual activities, is fundamentally a reproductive behavior (p. 82). The reviewed literature focuses on the relationships between antisocial personality and the rape represents. Various pathways (rapist profiles) are proposed to explain why certain groups of men use a rape mating strategy. In this section, they also venture into the controversial area of women's resistance to sexual advances as a strategy to select a male partner with certain characteristics (e.g., willingness to date rape). Throughout Chapter 4, the reader is encouraged to follow the evolutionary argument not only to explain rape in its various forms, but also to explain economic inequality, seatbelt use, homicide rates, etc. In Chapter 5, the authors review the literature on phallometry as a tool for differentiating rapists from child molesters, nonrapists, and men. They attempt to settle an ongoing debate regarding whether it is possible to differentiate between the profile of a rapist and that of a normal man. This is not totally convincing, however, and the argument fizzles especially when reporting certain statistical findings. Take for example the following quote: [they] studied 87 rapists and found that arousal to rape stories [. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".