The controversy is basically this. If we argue for a "natural" inclination, for any psychological or behavioral inclination, this has the potential to reduce moral culpability. This is the materialistic version of the religious "the devil made me do it." But in this case, it's not the devil, it's evolutionary history. Your biology, your brain chemistry, your genetics caused you to act a certain way. Darwin made you do it.
In moral philosophy this is often called "the naturalistic fallacy" or "the appeal to nature," which is related to Hume's dictum that you can't get an ought from an is. That is to say, there is a temptation to think that if something is "natural" then that something is "good." But as we know, natural things aren't always good. Think of food. Rocks are natural, but it's not good to eat rocks. In the world of social psychology you can make a strong argument that our fear of strangers is natural, wired into our psychology through genetics and evolutionary history. But xenophobia, while natural, is not a virtue. Our natural wariness toward difference is, rather, a moral obstacle that we have to do a lot of work to overcome.
All this is background to set up the second half of Chapter 2 in The Case Against the Sexual Revolution when Perry turns to the issue of sexual assault and rape. Specifically, Perry describes how, as a feminist, she encountered the book A Natural History of Rape by Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, a book, not surprisingly, that held a lot of interest for a woman working, as Perry was, in a rape counseling center.
A Natural History of Rape is a controversial book in the way it extends the evolutionary account of male sexual psychology I sketched out in last week's post. If you missed that post, I encourage you to read it. But the basic argument of A Natural History of Rape goes like this. If the sexual strategy of males, from an evolutionary standpoint, is to have as many sexual encounters as possible, and thereby pass on their genetic material in potential offspring, then some males may resort to pressure, force, coercion and violence to secure those sexual encounters. In short, the controversial conclusion of A Natural History of Rape--and this is a very, very dark conclusion to state out loud--is that rape is pursued by some men as a sexual/adaptive strategy to secure genetic offspring.
At this point, alarm bells go off. Some might object that this is an argument that "all men are potential rapists." But that's not what the argument is saying. The argument is that some men might opt for this strategy. And, in fact, some men do.
The common objection from feminists regarding A Natural History of Rape is that, in feminist discourse, rape is about "power" rather than sex. That is, rape is used to perpetuate and enforce the patriarchy. A Natural History of Rape argues against that view, saying that rape is really about sex (as an evolutionary sexual strategy).
Now, I know many of you read this blog in the morning. So I expect you're not thrilled to be reading about sexual assault over your morning coffee. My apologies. But I do want to follow the thread of Perry's argument to reach the point she wants to make about the sexual revolution.
Before we get to the controversies about A Natural History of Rape, what I think we can all agree on is that our free and liberated sexual culture is haunted by darkness. Bluntly stated, it's not safe out there. There are sexual predators who seek out victims, men who head out into the night with plans to use drugs or violence to secure sex. And there are other men who will seize an opportunity for sex should that opportunity ever present itself (e.g., being alone with an intoxicated women).
Perry's appeal to evolutionary psychology is to make the point that this dark aspect of male sexuality is a durable feature of the species that can't be eradicated through "teach men not to rape" or "seek consent" curriculum. This observation is not an excuse that absolves men from responsibility. Nor is it the claim that we give up teaching men about seeking and securing consent. It's just the claim that, for women, sex is always going to be haunted by risk, and that women need to take this risk seriously.
Now, speaking as a Christian, we have names for all this. Evil. Wickedness. Depravity. Sin. No serious Christian denies the blackness that exists the heart of man. Jesus knew it, and withheld his trust of men accordingly.
But what does this pessimism about human nature, male sexuality in particular, have to do with Louise Perry's case against the sexual revolution?
Simply this: The darkness that haunts male sexual psychology blows up the naive, progressive utopianism that tends to characterize feminist discourse about sexual freedom and liberation. The sexual revolution sends young women out into the world of hook up culture, a world of bars, parties, and clubs where alcohol is flowing freely and drugs are widely shared, with the impression that these are pleasure-filled playgrounds. Enjoy yourself, young women, because everyone will be playing by the enlightened rules of the sexual revolution in seeking your consent. Our workplace and campus sexual harassment trainings will keep everyone safe.
Only they don't.
Perry's point is that while we all wish that the world was otherwise, that the risks of the sexual revolution fell equally upon both men and women, they don't. The risks are asymmetrical, and durably so. Feel free to blame either Darwin or the Devil, but our educational and resocialization efforts will not eliminate these risks entirely. And if that's the case, Louise Perry wants young women to hear about, face, and internalize those risks so they can take appropriate action in keeping themselves and their friends safe. Which dampens the "Girls Gone Wild" party vibe, of course, but grim realism might help keep more women from harm. Perry summing up her argument at the end of Chapter 2:
If we accept the evidence from evolutionary biology and move beyond the Brownmiller model [that rape is always about power and not about sex], then we can understand that rapists are really just men who are aroused by violence, have poor impulse control, and are presented with a suitable victim and a suitable set of circumstances. Those circumstances can include a victim who is drunk, high, or otherwise vulnerable, the absence of witnesses, and no fear of any legal or social repercussions...
If you wanted to design the perfect environment for the would-be rapist, then you couldn't do much better than a party or a nightclub filled with young women who are wearing high heels (limiting mobility) and drinking or taking drugs (limiting awareness). Is it appalling for a person even to contemplate assaulting these women? Yes. Does that moral statement provide any protection to these women whatsoever? No. I made this mistake many, many times as a young woman, and I understand the cultural pressure. But, while young women should feel free to get hammered with their girlfriends or highly trusted men, doing so among strange men will always be risky.
I think we all know this, just as we all know that it's risky for young women to hitch-hike, travel alone, or go back to a strange man's house. The sorry truth is that something in the region of 10 per cent of men pose a risk, and those men aren't always identifiable at first sight, or even after long acquaintance. So my advice to young women has to be this: avoid putting yourself in a situation where you are alone with a man you don't know or a man who gives you bad feelings in your gut...
Other feminists can gnash their teeth all they like, accuse me of victim blaming, and insist that the burden should be on rapists, not their victims, to prevent rape. But they have no other solutions to offer, since feeble efforts at resocialisation don't actually work...
Is all this profoundly and infuriatingly unfair and inegalitarian? Yes. Does facing the dangers of the sexual revolution dampen the progressive, utopian hopes for a free, liberated sexual future for women? Yes. But according to Louise Perry, facing these facts and taking appropriate caution is the only reliable way women can protect themselves. The alternative is to trust in the consistent and guaranteed virtue of men. But even Jesus knew better than that.
