Theory of Rape Demeans Men as Well as Women

I am disturbed by Martin Miller’s Feb. 20 article on rape in which he reviews “A Natural History of Rape,” by Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer. As a psychologist who works with rape survivors, I decry what will be taken as justification for rape by men already looking for further excuses to act out their rages.

The Thornhill-Palmer book is inadequately researched and reasoned. Further, I believe these men have no experience themselves with rape survivors. Theories are a poor substitute for practice.

Miller notes that “women’s advocates are outraged” by the book. In fact, all human beings should be outraged by distortions of fact that debase men as well as women. To say that rape is sexual (and therefore normal) because most victims are of childbearing age is like saying all men are violent because most violent crimes are committed by men. If rape is a genetic program to spread a man’s seed, how do we explain the recent rapes of a 2-year-old and a 77-year-old?

Both cases occurred in my neighborhood, as well as another involving the brutal sodomizing of a woman. Thornhill and Palmer say rapists usually use no more force than is necessary to complete the rape. This view is contradicted by hospital records of injuries, and trivializes the violence, both physical and psychological, by claiming it is sex and therefore not so bad.

How do these men explain the high frequency of rape in prisons? No prison authority believes this is procreative behavior. It is domination.

Even in rape-prone societies such as ours, only a minority of men rape. Saying how a woman dresses is a causal factor detracts attention from the characteristics of those felons who violate women (and men) against their will. To determine who rapes is a necessary step in holding rapists and society accountable.

--DORIS C. KAGIN

Long Beach

*

Never in my entire lifetime of reading The Times have I been more incensed as to actually put pen to paper to voice an opinion that I hope many share. In the article headlined “Rape,” the views of the co-authors of this new book are at best misguided and at worst downright ignorant.

The fact that they have the view that the victim in a rape is absolved of any responsibility is very generous of them. The fact that they have the gall to say that women provoke rape and can prevent it by “dressing demurely and taking chaperons on dates” is ludicrous.

If men have no control over impulses to attack scantily clad women, why not furnish them with electrified dog collars when they go to the beach? How about changing the dress code for women at the beach to include long pants and neck-high collars to avoid the “uncontrollable males.” Not only is this view completely absurd, but how long until they give serial killers excuses for murdering because of the hunter instinct bred into them from prehistoric ages?

My final question to these two authors would be that if these instincts are for procreating, then why do so many rapists wear condoms? Did you gather the information on those statistics? Or does that just not help your theories any? The next time I have to have a business lunch with a male colleague, I will be sure to ask for a chaperon from my company. I am sure that they would be more than willing to provide one for me. I hope that people who read that article or actually wasted money to purchase the book take it for what it’s worth, which is obviously not much.

--JENNIFER M. AMADOR

Monrovia