This is the buzzphrase for the scientific theory that men are wired to rape women as an evolutionary survival tactic. Going down this road is bad for so many reasons that it strikes me as quite possibly the most iresponsible thing I've ever heard. The buzzphrase "all men are potential rapists" is sometimes used as an insult (albeit infrequently) by militantly chauvinistic women in order to make men feel cowed and ashamed of their supposed nature.
Though there may be a little or a lot of truth behind it, the victory celebration of having science confirm this to the masses will last only as long as it takes for the frequency of rapes to skyrocket because of it. Telling a man having an internal struggle with his rape fantasies that it's not just Ok but normal to rape women is quite a fucking stupid idea; don't you think? How spreading this trash around is going to help anyone is beyond me as it is certainly no form of prevention; it's a catalyst.
Let us also remember the nature of women toward those whom they feel threaten their young. Does that mean all women are potential killers? If so, how would my running around naming them that enlighten or help anyone?
If there is a goal of preventative education, it is only wisdom to teach prudence and caution but labling men "potential rapists" amounts to nothing more than childish, vindictive slander and nothing less than a whole slew of psychologically sanctioned, good ol' fashioned genetically healthy (yup, you guessed it) rape.

Sleep tight.
Let's not get get the "militantly chauvinistic women" like Andrea Dworkin mixed up with the boneheads who dreamed up the "evolutionary psychology" pseudoscience.

There was a book published recently about this: A Natural History of Rape: The Biological Basis of Sexual Coercion, by Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer. One of their conclusions seems to be (roughly speaking) that men can't help raping women who wear revealing clothes, so women should dress more modestly. Blaming women for being raped isn't exactly feminism, is it? The difference is between "men can't help it so they should be locked up" on the one hand, and on the other hand "men can't help it so women should be locked up", to put it crudely. Both are a bit goofy if you ask me.

Yes, there is an odd parallel with Dworkin here, but here's a line from the Salon review URL'd below: "The authors are aware of the parallel and it seems to unsettle them, feminists in general being a group they despise." (Emphasis mine).

Here's a woman in Salon discussing the above book:

One should probably read the book before reaching any conclusions about it. The "evolutionary psychology" book, I mean. Obviously, nobody's going to read Dworkin before criticizing her.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.