Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Thornhill, Randy
• Thornhill, Nancy Wilmsen

Titel

The Evolutionary Psychology of Men's Coercive Sexuality

Ist Teil von

• The Behavioral and brain sciences, 1992-06, Vol.15 (2), p.363-375

Erscheinungsjahr

1992

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Sociological Abstracts

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• After reviewing theories that rape represents either a specific manifestation or a side-effect of a more general psychological adaptation by males (Ms), six hypotheses are tested against currently available data from laboratory research & historical evidence on human sexual behavior: (1) both coercive & noncoercive sex are associated with high levels of M sexual arousal & performance; (2) achieving physical control of a sexually unwilling female (F) is arousing to Ms; (3) young Ms are more sexually coercive than older Ms; (4) Ms of low socioeconomic status (SES) are more sexually coercive; (5) motivation to use sexual coercion is influenced by a M's perception of its effects on his social image; & (6) Ms will be motivated, even in long-term relationships, to use coercion in response to a F partner's lack of response or resistance to sex, interpreting these as signs of infidelity. The data support all six hypotheses, consistent with the rape-specific theory, but also support the side-effect theory. Suggestions for further research are offered, followed by an open peer commentary from: Kathleen A. Akins (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Calif) & Mary E. Windham; Elizabeth Rice Allgeier (Bowling Green State U, Ohio) & Michael W. Wiederman; John Archer (Lancashire Polytechnic, Preston PR1 2TQ, England); Betty M. Bayer (Wesleyan U, Middletown, Conn) & Robert S. Steele; Ray H. Bixler (U of Louisville, Ky); Susan Brownmiller (61 Jane St, New York, NY) & Barbara Mehrhof; John Dupre (Stanford U, Calif); Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt (Max-Planck Instit Verhaltensphysiologie, Andechs, Federal Republic of Germany); Aurelio J. Figueredo (U of Arizona, Tucson); Jennifer J. Freyd (U of Oregon, Eugene) & J. Q. Johnson; Andrew Futterman (Coll of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Mass) & Sabrina Zirkel; Nicola J. Gavey (U of Auckland, New Zealand) & Russell D. Gray; Michael T. Ghiselin (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco); Brian A. Gladue (North Dakota State U, Fargo); Patricia Adair Gowaty (Clemson U, SC); John Hartung (State U of New York, Brooklyn); Philip Kitcher (U of California San Diego, La Jolla); Travis Langley (Tulane U, New Orleans, La); Neil M. Malamuth (U of Michigan, Ann Arbor); Allan Mazur (Maxwell School, Syracuse U, NY); Linda Mealey (Coll of Saint Benedict, Saint Joseph, Minn); Craig T. Palmer (Instit of Social & Economic Research, Memorial U of Newfoundland, Saint John's A1C 5S7); Daniel Perusse (Medical Coll of Virginia, Richmond); Vernon L. Quinsey (Queen's U, Kingston Ontario K7L 3N6); P. A. Russell (King's Coll, U of Aberdeen, AB9 2UB Scotland); Barbara Smuts (Center for Human Growth & Development, U of Michigan, Ann Arbor); Eckart Voland (Instit Anthropologie, U Goettingen, D-3400 Federal Republic of Germany); & Margo Wilson (McMaster U, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1) & Martin Daly. In The Study of Men's Coercive Sexuality: What Course Should It Take?, Thornhill & Thornhill dismiss certain comments as not legitimately disputable, & address issues surrounding: (A) the appropriateness of evolutionary psychology for the analysis of rape; (B) the role of sociocultural or environmental factors in shaping the psychological mechanisms underlying sexual coercion; (C) the naturalist fallacy; (D) the notion of general vs specific biological adaptation; (E) rape in nonhuman animals; (F) the sexual coercion/noncoercion continuum; & (G) the utility of alternative models of coerciveness. 314 References. K. Hyatt