Charcot, Janet, and Freud all noted that fragmented memories of traumatic events dominated the mental life of many of their patient and built their theories about the nature and treatment of psychopathology on this recognition. Janet 75 thought that traumatic memories of traumatic events persist as unassimilated fixed ideas that act as foci for the development of alternate states of consciousness, including dissociative phenomena, such as fugue states, amnesias, and chronic states of helplessness and depression. Unbidden memories of the trauma may return as physical sensations, horrific images or nightmares, behavioral reenactments, or a combination of these.
He considered the biological components of its authors' theories arguable, but the "ideological side" of the theory questionable.
He criticized Thornhill and Palmer's proposals for rape prevention, writing that they could be considered offensive. He argued that it could be considered either "a blessing because it democratizes access to cutting edge ideas " or "a curse because authors can have a tremendous impact while side-stepping peer review ".
He considered its authors' "general argument" reasonable, and rejected the suggestion that their view that rape is either an adaptation or a by-product is trivial. He argued that while they pointed out that rape victims Victims of rape essay include females of reproductive age", there were many that did not fit this description, such as very young or old individuals or persons of the same sex, and that a "social-psychological explanation" better explained such cases.
He also argued that critics were correct to point out that the evidence the book was based on was limited, and that its authors ignored the fact that selection was not the only evolutionary force that could potentially influence culture and provided insufficient discussion of rape among non-human animals.
However, he considered some reviews unfair. Although he considered its authors honest and careful not to condone rape, he criticized them for providing few "real-life descriptions of rape" and for dismissing women as ideological while presenting scientists as objective.
He argued that their view that rape is "primarily sexual" was, like the opposite position that rape is primarily about power, biased. He argued that they failed to support their view that rape is a product of natural selection with evidence showing that men who rape differ genetically from men who do not rape and sire more children than they could without committing rape, employed questionable comparisons between humans and non-human animals such as insects, attached undue importance to men's ability to detect female vulnerability and to premature ejaculationignored the fact that even common forms of behavior are not necessarily adaptive, and failed to distinguish between different kinds of rape.
He considered their view that rape is "about reproduction" open to objection on grounds such as that one-third of rape victims are young children and the elderly, that men rape women with whom they also have consensual sex, and that the majority of men do not rape.
He considered the book potentially offensive, and suggested that its authors made insufficient use of psychology and evidence from primate behavior. He criticized their proposals for rape prevention, writing that they wrongly saw the United States as a typical country rather than one especially rape-prone, and ignored "cross-cultural information".
He wrote that while some evolutionary psychologists had responded to it positively, its authors had clashed with feminists.
He considered their claim that "rape is at least partially a sexual act" correct but not novel. He argued that their hypothesis that rape is a byproduct of evolved human traits could not be falsified and was thus not scientific and was compatible with both the idea that rape results from male sexuality and aggression and the feminist view that rape is about male domination.
He questioned their comparisons between humans and non-human animals. He found their attempt to argue for the adaptation hypothesis using contemporary statistics inconsistent with other views they expressed.
He argued that evidence shows that rape often involves violence beyond that necessary to force copulation, and that many rapes are gang rapes or involve homosexual acts, but does not show that rape increases reproduction. He accused the book's authors of misrepresenting scholarly literature, including Thornhill's earlier publications, of ignoring positive contributions by feminists to legal and cultural change, and of attempting to use evolutionary psychology to control social science and social policy.
He considered their proposals for preventing rape obvious in some cases, and foolish, harmful, or unsupported by evidence, in others. He concluded that A Natural History of Rape was "advocacy" rather than science, and compared evolutionary psychology to psychoanalysis, arguing that both used manipulation to fit "every possible explanation of human behavior" into their framework.
He believed that it had received more attention than it deserved because of its controversial subject matter. He noted that it had "enraged those who consider rape to be first and foremost a violent act against women", though in his view it had received a "fairly positive reaction" from its authors' colleagues.
Though he considered it reasonable to hypothesize that rape might have a biological foundation, he believed that Thornhill and Palmer's argument was based on inadequate evidence. He accused them of making "sweeping species-wide statements about male-female mating preferences", such as that humans are "mildly polygynous", based on superseded sociobiological predictions, of basing their claims on "pop books", and of engaging in "an impassioned and rambling bashing of the social sciences", and of wrongly considering an "any trait that seems well designed" to be an adaptation.
He criticized their use of The Evolution of Human Sexuality, describing it as "an early think piece". He maintained that their data actually showed that rape has more reproductive costs than benefits and therefore cannot be a mating adaptation, and concluded that A Natural History of Rape was oversimplified, "the worst that evolutionary psychology has to offer", and damaged "both the cause of rape prevention and that of evolutionary psychology.
It questioned Thornhill's suggestion that rape victims of reproductive age "feel worse afterward than older and younger victims", observing, "One wonders how he measured young girls' or older women's pain.
She concluded that its authors should be ashamed of themselves.Essay Male Victim Rape Words | 8 Pages. Male Victim Rape Abstract This research paper is based on individual case study related to “Male Rape Victims.” Male rape is a crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse (LongMan Dictionary, p).
Among scientists at the university of New Mexico that spring, rape was in the air. One of the professors, biologist Randy Thornhill, had just coauthored A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases.
A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion is a book by the biologist Randy Thornhill and the anthropologist Craig T. Palmer, in which the authors criticize the idea, popularized by the feminist author Susan Brownmiller in Against Our Will (), that rape is an expression of male domination that is not sexually motivated and argue that it should instead be understood.
The Root of All Cruelty? Perpetrators of violence, we’re told, dehumanize their victims. The truth is worse. As a feminist and the author of a book on rape culture, I could reasonably be expected to lead the calls for Al Franken to step down, following allegations that he forced his tongue down a woman.
Essay on Case Study on Rape Victims - Case Study on Rape Victims Introduction Concerning philosophies of morality, rape is no doubt abhorred.
However, what is debatable is whether or not it is one’s duty to ensure that a rape is reported.