Now, I didn't know about the Slate article before I started reading the column, but I had read the article in _The_Sciences_ (shoot me, I usually prefer paper).

I have a deep mistrust of evolutionary psychology and of sociobiology in general. I do not believe that the nature crowd has thoroughly won the nature vs. nurture debate. Sociobiologists tend to regard evolution as a design engineer, rather than recognizing the rather crufty hacks left in all organisms; they tend to downplay the importance of socialization, of training, of environment. (There's room here for a tangential discussion about whether this represents an instance of a general abdication of responsibility in our society.)

To their credit, Thornhill and Palmer actually point out that although the human organism is capable of rape, it is not predetermined that it will. And in fact, some of their observations are quite sound. I don't agree that their prescriptions are,
however.

Are Thornhill and Palmer correct in saying that any course of action is doomed to failure unless it takes into account the evolutionary pressures that created us? I doubt it; we overcome our evolutionary pressures every day. (As Scott Peck, of all people, has remarked somewhere, the natural state of man is to shit in his pants. Why would we want to preserve that?)

I agree with Todd that it can't hurt to remind young boys that Rape Is Wrong.

Unlike Judith Shulevitz, when I thought about a required course, I didn't picture A Clockwork Orange. I pictured a classroom with a gym teacher at the front of the room and a bunch of teenage guys sitting in various states of distraction, and the teacher up front saying something like, "Okay, so she's not saying no, but she's not saying yes, and you're thinking, 'Let's go for it.' And maybe millions of years of evolution are suggesting you can get away with it. Don't. It's rape, and it's wrong. If she wants to have sex with you, she'll make it clear."

However, I'm frequently a naif. Maybe gym teachers don't talk that way any more.

I do agree with Ms. Shulevitch that "if we teach our children to see themselves strictly as beasts, they're bound to act like them." I disagree with her that the course proposed by Thornhill and Palmer is teaching the children to see themselves strictly as beasts.

Would it reduce to that in practice? Perhaps; it would depend upon the course and the teacher.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't let Thornhill and Palmer design the course.

John McMullen
jhmcmullen@yahoo.com
2/24/00 6:41 AM

the jelousy-free sex was...wow!!!
micki trent

2/23/00 2:30 PM

I really think that a story about a Jewish character probably would have been met the same way. When I first started publishing, a few Indians wrote me, very upset because I had written stories in which Indian women dated white people -- they thought I was encouraging/misrepresenting what women did in their culture. And not long afterwards, when I wrote "Chantal", several lesbians wrote to me, upset because my lesbian protagonist was somewhat psychotic. In both cases, I had no intention of making any sort of grand statements about those respective cultures, or contributing towards any stereotypes -- those were simply the way the individual characters were.

This is, of course, a tricky subject, and I think authors need to be careful about whether they are contributing to stereotypes (being blind to their own stereotypes). But at the same time, I think authors need freedom to write their individual stories with characters as difficult as necessary (and yes, they will sometimes have stereotypical traits -- some individuals do).

I think the real problem comes when there is a trend (whether it's with one author, or with a publication) of ongoing portrayals of groups in stereotypical ways. If we published a series of stories in which pagans were pictured that way, or if Sephera wrote a series of such stories, then I think you'd have a legitimate cause for concern. We can only try to avoid such actions, remembering always that we too have our blind spots.

I'm very sorry that the piece caused you and others distress, but I do still think that the author meant no harm by it. I'm glad you raised the issue, though -- perhaps this discussion will raise some awareness overall (for staff, authors, readers, etc...)

Mary Anne Mohanraj
editor@cleansheets.com
2/16/00 4:13 AM

You know, I often wondered if she, Amelia, was a high class "working girl" that wanted some free time with a male to perfect her techniques. I will never know, but if it was I was the lucky pupil! That's what made it so GREAT!

How your imagination, - or was it experience - reminded me of that highly charged excitement.......
Ric

2/14/00 7:16 AM

Thanks
Chris

2/6/00 6:45 AM

Brian Peters
Managing Editor.
Brian Peters

2/3/00 9:11 PM