Women longing for a baby advised to opt for ugly men

Loretta K. ,

Please don't include all men in that description of rapists .

Not me who did the study, so I'm not responsible for what they published:

In A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, scheduled for release by MIT Press in March, authors Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer state that until society accepts science as the basis for sexual crimes, prevention programs are "doomed to failure."

"Rape is, in its very essence, a sexual act ... which has evolved over millennia of human history along with courtship, sexual attraction and other behaviors related to the production of offspring," writes Thornhill, a professor at the University of New Mexico and Palmer, an instructor at the University of Colorado.

The essence of that study is that all men are born rapists and should be educated about their biology so they learn not to rape. The authors wanted young women to be taught that the way they dress endangers them. Just another case of "researchers" trying to impose "science" on what society already preaches.

And then there is

Previous studies found that rates of pregnancy resulting from rape could be anything up to 30 percent, compared to a two to four percent chance of getting pregnant from a single act of consensual sex. This led some biologists, notably Randy Thornhill from the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque, to parade the figures as evidence that rape is a natural way for men to spread their genes.

Jon Gottschall, a researcher at St Lawrence University in Canton, New York, says the studies failed to answer the crucial question: "What is the evolutionary success of rapists?" To find out, he and his wife Tiffany Gottschall examined the results of National Violence Against Women Survey, a study by the US National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The women studied were phoned at random and interviewed about their experiences.

The Gottschalls focused on 405 women who had suffered a single incidence of penile-vaginal rape at some point between the ages of 12 and 45. Of these, 6.4 per cent became pregnant. But that figure jumped to nearly eight per cent when the researchers allowed for the women who'd been using birth control.

It really does seem, according to the study's authors, that rape really does result in more pregnancies.

Bottom line: I think it is junk science meant to re-enforce society's rape culture while blaming it on women -- like society already does. Amazing how these "scientific studies" confirm what patriarchy has always preached.

I expect all men to know if they are rapists or not, so I don't see any reason to put in excessive qualifiers when speaking about rape and rapists. If a man isn't a rapist, he can remove himself from the group called "rapists." If he is, then he is exactly who we're talking about.

There are so many variables. What if the guy has a low sperm count, or is carrying his cell phone in his pocket?

Is any woman so desperate to get pregnant she'd hop into bed with just any guy -- including an ugly guy who doesn't appeal to her at all?

If we're going to start choosing the guy just for the purpose of getting pregnant, then why not go to a sperm bank and have those genes thoroughly checked out? That way, we can bed who we desire and still get pregnant with the confidence that the sperm donor was good looking, intelligent, etc.

Loretta: Agreed on all points.

If one's only intent is to get pg, it would seem to me that a sperm bank would make much more sense than just sleeping around. Isn't that one of the reasons why sperm banks were set up to begin with? No muss. No fuss. No guess work. No guy you were hoping never to see again showing up at the door with legal papers asking for shared custody.

Also, using men as unwitting sperm donors strikes me as personally unethical.

Also, using men as unwitting sperm donors strikes me as personally unethical.

So true -- plus who wants to plan on an ugly baby? Why saddle a child you supposedly love with that? I'm not saying ugly people aren't worth loving. They certainly are, but we all know the disadvantages a child who is not considered attractive would have.

The entire idea of planning to mate with an ugly person goes against what evolution is supposedly about. Per the scientists, we're attracted to faces with symmetry because they represent symmetry throughout the body, which means greater health, strength, coordination, etc. Symmetry is what makes a man or woman attractive.

So now we're supposed to ignore what they've been preaching for decades? And treat men as unwitting sperm donors besides.

The entire idea is illogical and trapping men into becoming fathers is unethical.

Loretta: Here! Here! I can't think of a thing to add to that. And so very well-said.

It nice to see a man who's willing to sacrifice himself to science. Doesn't happen too often. Of course, you should only take part in a study that keeps things on the up and up.

LOL @ Loretta and Ruthlessmoose. :-)

It nice to see a man who's willing to sacrifice himself to science.

It's a dirty job, but someone has got to do it.

should only take part in a study that keeps things on the up and up.

I'm always in favor of keeping "things" on the "up" LOL hey-oooh!