…and this is a 
Twisty maze of duck oviducts
Category: Evolution • Science
Posted on: May 1, 2007 4:03 PM, by PZ Myers
I'm sure you've already heard about it, so I'm a little redundant to bring it up — Carl Zimmer has a spiffy article in the NY Times about duck phalluses. No, that's not quite right; the most interesting part of the story was the bit about duck oviducts. Female ducks have been evolving increasingly convoluted oviducts to baffle the efforts of duck rapists to inseminate them, and male ducks have been evolving concomitantly long phalluses to thread the maze and deliver sperm to the ovaries.
I'd heard about these huge intromittent organs in ducks before, but this is another fascinating revelation: it took a woman scientist to suggest that maybe, just maybe, they also ought to look at what's going on in the female ducks, and then the whole wonderful story of coevolution of these structures emerged. It's actually a rather embarrassing instance of a scientific blind spot, where the biases of the investigators led them to overlook an important component of the story.
Comments
When I worked on the UC Davis campus, one of the signs of spring--as regular as flowers blooming in the Arboretum--was the return of the rapist ducks to campus.
It was quite disconcerting to try and enjoy a brown-bag lunch on the grass with all the plaintive squawking going on; sometimes we'd even hear it through the open window during staff meetings. But it had to be even worse for the hapless student tour guides who had to contend with the noise and spectacle of six-male one-female pilings-on while extolling the virtues of the campus to groups of restive high school seniors and their horrified parents.
Great article--it was already in the "Most E-mailed" list when I checked the NYT front page early this morning.
Posted by: RedMolly | May 1, 2007 4:26 PM
How timely a post this is as I watch a duck couple waddle past my window. They have made their home on the grounds of the apartment complex I rent in, and are a welcome sight when coming and going to do errands. I'll make sure to let them be though if I see any bushes rustling...
Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 1, 2007 4:26 PM
Most guys just don't like to think about ... about .... you know .... duck penises and stuff.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 1, 2007 4:29 PM
Hey, speak for yourself.
Anywho, here's the original paper for those interested.
Posted by: Skemono | May 1, 2007 4:48 PM
I think Dawkins would call this a case of runaway sexual selection. Ow.
Posted by: Abbie | May 1, 2007 5:07 PM
I've always wondered why ducks walk so weird.Who would have thunk giant duck dick.If you are hung like a duck will your girl waddle away?
Posted by: spartanrider | May 1, 2007 5:20 PM
You forgot to mention the classic study of nefarious duck sexuality.
What the duck?
Posted by: MartinC | May 1, 2007 5:25 PM
My favorite revelation is the counter-clockwise twist of the vagina to thwart the clockwise twist of the duck penis.
Posted by: Kris | May 1, 2007 5:30 PM
It's actually a rather embarrassing instance of a scientific blind spot, where the biases of the investigators led them to overlook an important component of the story.
I'm actually pretty surprised that it took a woman to suggest looking at the female ducks. From the many undergraduate courses in Invertebrate Zoology I took, I assumed (incorrectly, of course) that female researchers were obsessed with well-endowed males of various species, most notably among the barnacles. Both female professors I had for third- and fourth-year inverts classes were positively ecstatic when the course reached the crustaceans, since they then had the chance to show endless slides and movies of barnacle wangs. Not once were female barnacles mentioned, even in passing, except to note that the apparent reason for very long intromittent organs in male barnacles may be that females are often some distance away.
Posted by: TheBrummell | May 1, 2007 5:38 PM
Shame on you PZ!!
It is NOT RAPE.
It's forced copulation.
What happens to a duck is not the same as what happens to a woman or a man. I don't know why people insist on equating these two. And by "people", I'm afraid I usually mean Men :(
If you really want to read more, read my latest post at the bug blog.
Now, I'll go back to tilting at my regular windmills...
Posted by: bug_girl | May 1, 2007 5:55 PM
This makes me wonder how corks reproduce.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 1, 2007 6:20 PM
Dictionaries: use them!
Posted by: Caledonian | May 1, 2007 6:40 PM
Caledonian, thanks for that non-helpful, snide remark.
My point is that rape has social, moral and other connotations in humans. None of those are appropriate for use in the natural world. I'm sure you've heard of the naturalistic fallacy.
Dictionaries have many, many errors. They are not written for a scientific audience.
If you want to use that as an authority, try looking up science. or hypothesis. or any other terms, which will be defined by current usage.
Posted by: bug_girl | May 1, 2007 7:34 PM
That point, while correct, is not the one you made.
What is the denotation of the word 'rape', bug_girl?
Posted by: Caledonian | May 1, 2007 7:55 PM
My point is that rape has social, moral and other connotations in humans. None of those are appropriate for use in the natural world.
And that's why we never use words like courtship or parental care when talking about animals... oh wait, we do.
There can be good reasons to avoid an emotionally and politically charged word but why make up bogus reasons for doing so?
Posted by: windy | May 1, 2007 7:55 PM
Cal: I think what she's protesting is the anthropocentric bias implicit in the use of terms like "rape" with social, psychological, and legal connotations above and beyond the technical denotation, when applied to humans, to describe the behavior of nonsentient animals, and the corresponding implicit moral judgement.
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 1, 2007 7:58 PM
Especially when the definition of the word precisely matches what we're trying to describe.
Eating has social, moral, ethical, political, and religious connotations among humans. Does that mean that we can't use the word 'eat' in the context of the natural world? Do we have to describe it as "solid nutrient consumption"?
Or does the word 'consumption' bring up too many associations of misspent resources and consumerism? Perhaps "solid nutrient digestive intake" would be more appropriate, eh?
Posted by: Caledonian | May 1, 2007 7:59 PM
(That is to say, I gather she sees this as akin to the stereotypical high school ditz who hears about, for instance, infanticide by males of certain mammal species and is horrified: "But! Don't they know it's wrong?!" Why she's pushing the point, however, I'm not entirely sure.)
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 1, 2007 8:00 PM
I didn't say it was sensible, just that arguing over the technical denotation of the term was a bit tangential.
PS: Someone give me a number for "a short time before posting."
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 1, 2007 8:01 PM
I haven't tested it rigorously, but thirty seconds seems to do the trick.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 1, 2007 8:07 PM
What? Didn't Darwin look at a species of flower with a very deep well and predict that there must be a species of moth with a very long tongue? Hasn't the coevolution of snail genitalia shown the same pattern? (Not to mention other features such as "fertility darts" in the sexual arms race in snails.) What surprises me is that biologists didn't think of this sooner. Here's what Carl Zimmer wrote over two years ago on snail genitalia coevolution (note: the 'love darts' are darts that snails shoot at each other to manipulate each other's fertility with chemicals):
"That is, species with more blades on their love darts tend to have longer reproductive tracts and more elaborate hormone-producing glands and so on. Only by comparing dozens of species were they able to find this sort of a relationship."
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/03/30/love_darts_in_the_backyard.php
I mean, how could you read about snails long reproductive tracts as a means of frustrating "cheaters", and not think that long duck penises and female reproductive tracts are part of a sexual arms race?
Posted by: BC | May 1, 2007 8:18 PM
I mean, how could you read about snails long reproductive tracts as a means of frustrating "cheaters", and not think that long duck penises and female reproductive tracts are part of a sexual arms race?
Many researchers fail to read what's been done on other organisms. Could be vertebrate bias instead of male bias?
Posted by: windy | May 1, 2007 8:29 PM
I think many researchers would be unaware that ducks had penises in the first place.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 1, 2007 8:46 PM
RE: "Female ducks have been evolving increasingly convoluted oviducts to baffle the efforts of duck rapists to inseminate them, and male ducks have been evolving concomitantly long phalluses to thread the maze and deliver sperm to the ovaries."
No, - I won't go there. It was going to be a totally distasteful comment. Let your imagination run free and you may see where I am loath to go.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | May 1, 2007 8:55 PM
"Especially when the definition of the word precisely matches what we're trying to describe."
I'll tell you what. You come down to the shelter with me for a week, and then we'll have a semantic discussion about whether what men and women experience when they are raped is quantitatively different than what happens to a female duck.
The definition of the word does NOT match what happens in nonhumans.
Cripes.
Posted by: bug_girl | May 1, 2007 9:03 PM
and another thing:)
I'm making this point, and subjecting myself to your inane comments, because this is an important distinction.
This is important for lots of reasons.
As scientists, we should be precise in the use of our language, and avoid implying things that aren't there.
We should remember that we are limited in what we can know about non-human cognition.
I already mentioned the natural fallacy of assuming that because something happens in nature, it's ok for us to do it as humans. (Look at Civil War essays about slavery which reference "slave-making" ants for a rationalization of owning people, for example.) People have taken the occurrence of forced copulation as validating human rape as "natural."
Lastly, we should remember that some of our colleagues and friends have been raped themselves. I remember very vividly my professors joking about ducks and scorpionflies, and their attitude that rape was a jolly, amusing oddity.
"Ha ha! Seems like a good idea!"
"Ho ho, yes indeed Dr. X! I can certainly understand why male might not to wait!"
Yeah, that really made me feel welcome as a female student of science.
Using this word in a non-human context lets us forget that it happens to real people. And it harms them deeply.
If we know that one word has huge amounts of baggage and harms, and we have an alternative word that is both more precise and less harmful, why in the world *wouldn't* you want to have a distinction?
And -That- is why I am putting up with your crap, and made my comment, because I expect better from PZ.
Posted by: bug_girl | May 1, 2007 9:22 PM
The definition of the word
You are wrong in pretty much every way it is possible to be wrong. It's people like you who taught the neocons the power of political correctness and social control over the use of language. Take your "privleged terminology" and shove it.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 1, 2007 9:22 PM
Point #1: Weren't you just saying that 'rape' can't be appplied to nonhumans? Their attitude was that forced intercourse was a jolly, amusing oddity.
Point #2: Rape can happen to a person who is unconscious, and they might never even realize that it happened - but despite the lack of mental trauma, it's still rape. Sex with people who cannot legally give consent - that's also still rape, no matter how absurd that can sometimes be, and even if the person sought it out and thoroughly enjoyed it.
The definition of the word does not involve psychological trauma. It is not human-specific. You are attempting to change the definition of the word in such a way that you gain social power from its altered use.
Science is a way of thinking, not a profession or a set of techniques. You have never been and will never be a scientist - you will always be a technician, no matter what job you hold or what titles you possess. Your contempt for language and clear meaning makes that plain.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 1, 2007 9:30 PM
I guess size does matter.
Posted by: ckerst | May 1, 2007 9:33 PM
But the definition of rape has nothing to do with what the victim experiences. Coma victims and people drugged into unconsciousness have been raped. It's simply forced copulation.
Humans probably experience something quite different from ducks when they're killed, too, but that doesn't mean we need a new word for "kill" as applied to ducks.
No one's suggesting that ducks react to rape, or theft, or murder, or cannibalism, the way people do.
Posted by: Anton Mates | May 1, 2007 9:37 PM
This is doubly off-topic, but I work in the IT business, and once saw some people complaining about the terms "Master/Slave hard drives" and such.
(When two hard drives are connected to a single controller, one becomes the master and takes precedence in the protocol.)
I thought they were completely nuts.
Posted by: Jick | May 1, 2007 9:55 PM
Yes, that's a very ugly sentiment. But how would it be neutralized by the professors' not using the word "rape?"
I find this claim a bit surprising, given that the research in question suggests that the ducks are deeply harmed by rape as well. There's evidently a strong selective pressure to resist it any way they can, behaviorally and anatomically. I would think, if anything, the seriousness of rape is underscored by the discovery of how hard even nonhuman higher animals will fight to avoid it.
Posted by: Anton Mates | May 1, 2007 10:00 PM
Oh? Can we see your scientific credentials? How about some original research? Or, like the creationists, do you think that you too can be a scientist because you like to sit around musing about semantics all day?
Dipshit troll.
Posted by: Dustin | May 1, 2007 10:11 PM
Really...? I'd be greatly interested in citations for those; I'm not sure that's an argument I've come across.
Posted by: Skemono | May 1, 2007 10:14 PM
I think she's actually saying that if people call what happens to animals rape, then that will minimize the human experience of rape.
However, I don't think that it's a particularly good argument. The minimization of women's experience of rape isn't stemming from biological conversations of duck rape, however jovial.
Posted by: Mandolin | May 1, 2007 10:17 PM
Fuck you, you pompous, condescending jackass. She has a problem with using the word "rape" in a way that dilutes its meaning for its human victims, and you descend from on high to tell her in the most paternalistic tones that she could never possibly be a scientist, because you, the lord high protector of science and gatekeeper of all knowledge, have determined that she has shown insufficient piety towards your pet conception of precision language use, or that she genuflected to the sacred right of men to joke about rape in the workplace with the wrong fucking knee, or whatever.
One wonders if you would have reacted in quite the same manner to her if she hadn't posted under an identifiably female screen name.
Posted by: Sophist | May 1, 2007 10:31 PM
To me the difference is: "rape" is to "forced copulation" as "murder" is to "kill." In each case, the first is a social-cultural concept involving criminality with moral and legal implications, the second is purely descriptive. Calling what ducks do "rape" is like calling zebrafish eating their own larvae "murder" or "infanticide." People will get what you're talking about, but you are being imprecise and distracting. These terms have too much semiotic baggage.
In many places it is legally impossible for a man to rape his wife; as apalling as that is, it underscores to the contextual nature of this word.
Yes, scientists sometimes use loaded anthropomorphic terms to describe animal behavior, either positive or negative. It's always unnecessary, sometimes it is funny or compelling, sometimes it is disturbing or alienating. I see no reason not to do away with the latter in most settings, particularly if it is perceived as hurtful or demeaning to some people. No explanatory power is lost, and some much-needed inclusiveness is gained.
Posted by: miko | May 1, 2007 10:31 PM
Caledonian, attacking her like that serves no purpose unless you want to lose the moral high ground. And what does this even mean?
Azkyroth, why only infanticide by males?
Posted by: hf | May 1, 2007 10:32 PM
And by "moral high ground", you mean "the respect of stupid, shallow people whose opinions are determined through a process of conceptual association".
I'm not particularly concerned about losing that, thanks.
We don't care what the difference is to you.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 1, 2007 10:34 PM
You mean, with its general and formal definition? In other words, correctly?
There are a horde of equally technically correct but more effect-descriptive terms that could be used to refer to the effects of raping a human. How about she uses those, and stops trying to distort perfectly good technical terms?
Past cases on these boards strongly indicate that I criticize stupidity regardless of the gender of the stupid person in question.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 1, 2007 10:40 PM
Still no word on what you meant with that bizarre accusation, I see.
Posted by: hf | May 1, 2007 10:40 PM
Well, it seems that you're lashing out a lot. That makes me think that you have a long history of losing the respect of people whose opinions were actually very important to you.
Which was it? A string of teachers or your parents? In any case, I'm likely to side with whichever authority figure from your youth first called you "useless".
You are such a piece of crap, Cal.
Posted by: Dustin | May 1, 2007 10:44 PM
The definition of the word does NOT match what happens in nonhumans.
Only because we're talking about ducks instead of humans - not because male ducks aren't using strategies to circumvent female mate choice.
If ducks were as smart as humans, duck females would be affected exactly the same way. But there's no requirement in the definition of "rape" that it happen to someone intelligent or self-aware - it's entirely possible to rape the mentally handicapped, or the comatose - so "rape" is clearly an equally appropriate term. And it doesn't in any way diminish the suffering of human rape victims, nor justify the acts of human rapists, just like it doesn't diminish the skill of a chef to call what animals do "eating".
Posted by: Chet | May 1, 2007 10:47 PM
hf, that is a truly amazing link. I'm off to try to confirm its claims, but if that's truly the case... wow.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 1, 2007 10:50 PM
But as for the "bizarre accusation": are you really telling me that you're totally unaware of the history of 'political correctness'?
Posted by: Caledonian | May 1, 2007 10:54 PM
I'm aware that someone used the term as a joke once and right-wingers picked it up because it sounded more threatening than "not being a dick". Why, do you mean to accuse bug girl or thinking that if people use her terminology it will usher in a dictatorship of the proletariat?
Posted by: hf | May 1, 2007 11:00 PM
The problem isn't the term rape. The jokes about forced copulation could be just as noxious. The problem is the cultural attitudes around rape.
I think y'all are confusing the symbol with the actuality.
Posted by: Mandolin | May 1, 2007 11:00 PM
Just as an historical note, the "is it rape or Forced Copulation" controversy is very old, from the late 70's or so. The wikipedia entry for Sociobiolgical Theories of Rape" reminded me of David Barash's 1977 article, and then there was the Thornhill's work from the early '80's, and the polemics in psychology and zoology departments and journals (notably Animal Behaviour) have continued since.
Posted by: thwaite | May 1, 2007 11:00 PM
are you really telling me that you're totally unaware of the history of 'political correctness'?
Aren't you aware that accusations of "political correctness" are usually leveled to stifle dialogue about how word choices can uphold or dismantle privilege?
It's hard to take someone who uses "political correctness" and seriously means it, well, seriously.
Posted by: Chet | May 1, 2007 11:01 PM
orof.Posted by: hf | May 1, 2007 11:01 PM
I think Dawkins would call this a case of runaway sexual selection.
No, they tried that, but running away did not work.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 1, 2007 11:05 PM
Not all that off-topic. I know a researcher on "slave-making ants" who got obscene phone calls and her door vandalized because she used the phrase. Their rationale was that it was racist.
n.b.: I think Bug Girl's objection is way more reasonable than that one.
Posted by: Anton Mates | May 1, 2007 11:07 PM
But we do call zebrafish eating their larvae infanticide; and lions killing cubs, and dolphins killing calves.
Actually, I was going to use exactly that as an example of why we should not limit "rape" to a legal sense. Men do rape their wives, whether or not their society happens to find that acceptable behavior. We shouldn't avoid the most direct label for the act just because those who wish to excuse it use a different one.
Posted by: Anton Mates | May 1, 2007 11:24 PM
Anton Mates:
I'm pretty sure my experience of being accused of "racism" for using the expression "the pot calling the kettle black" wins in that regard. O.o
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 1, 2007 11:24 PM
That happened to you too? I had a philosophy professor jump on my case for that -- it was as though she didn't know that cookware used to be (and in some cases still is) made out of wrought iron, thus the addage.
Posted by: Dustin | May 1, 2007 11:29 PM
See previous post, re "pompous, condescending jackass".
Yes, your lack of concern for the opinions of others is readily apparent.
Let's check, shall we:
"1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
[...]
1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent
[...]
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
[...]
the crime of forcing an unwilling or legally incompetent person to participate in sexual intercourse."
You're right, how could anyone come to the conclusion that the "general and formal definition" of rape refers to a crime commited against a human being?
Posted by: Sophist | May 1, 2007 11:39 PM
Just how many people is he carrying around inside his head, anyway?
In any case, I'm not prepared to believe that he doesn't care what we think of him. He does, after all, keep posting here. I wish he wouldn't... the place gets covered in astroglide pretty quickly when he does.
I wonder, Caledonian, do you like to put bags over your head or belts around your throat to heighten your posting experience?
Posted by: Dustin | May 1, 2007 11:47 PM
I just assumed that, as a royal pain in the ass, he was making use of the Pluralis jackasstatis.
Posted by: Sophist | May 1, 2007 11:55 PM
Posted by: Anton Mates | May 2, 2007 12:04 AM
On the one hand, we don't start arresting predators for murder. The naturalistic fallacy really is a fallacy; duck rapists (or whatever you want to call them) shouldn't be imprisoned for their crimes. Judging animals by human standards and judging humans by animal standards are both foolish and pointless.
On the other hand, if it looks like a rape, and it walks like a rape... Regardless of whether or not we consider the duck morally competent, and regardless of the different effects on/reactions of a duck victim and a human one, there is a clear similarity between the acts themselves, which it would be absurd to ignore.
But we're getting away from the real question: are they twisty little mazes of duck oviducts, all different, or are they twisty little mazes of duck oviducts, all alike? In the latter case we're going to need a supply of different objects to drop on the floor to tell the rooms apart.
(Some people may consider the humor ill-placed, I guess, but there's just something *funny* about ducks. Even when they're acting dethpicable.)
Posted by: Chris | May 2, 2007 12:12 AM
Caledonian: "We don't care what the difference is to you."
Glad to hear your opinion is the only one that counts.
You're pretty worked up on this topic, and a nice use of the royal "we." A shrill asshole with delusions of grandeur is so much funnier than a coherent one.
Posted by: miko | May 2, 2007 12:23 AM
Anton: "But we do call zebrafish eating their larvae infanticide; and lions killing cubs, and dolphins killing calves."
Sometimes, but we don't call it murder. And as the rest of my post pointed out, it's not that anthropomorphizing animal behavior is inherently wrong.
Posted by: miko | May 2, 2007 12:27 AM
Re: pot-kettle
I've run into this, too. I was stunned that a) the person had no idea what the phrase meant or how it originated, and b) that they thought I was capable of uttering such a casually racist remark.
Be that as it may, the wrought iron is optional. The phrase dates back to when people commonly cooked over an open flame. All but the newest cookware was surely blackened to some degree with soot.
If you think about how the phrase is used, this makes plenty of sense, because the phrase clearly has the connotation of "Here we have a fellah who's not exactly squeaky clean himself calling another fellah to task for bein' dirty!" and not just of "Here we have a fellah with neutral characteristic X calling another fellah to task for exhibiting neutral characteristic X!"
It's about the soot, ladies and gentlemen. The pots and kettles themselves might have been made of any suitable material.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 2, 2007 12:36 AM
Posted by: Anton Mates | May 2, 2007 12:45 AM
Does that mean that my piece is the cross-product of my legs? I'd be tempted to say that it's my unit vector, but it has too great a magnitude for that.
Posted by: Dustin | May 2, 2007 12:50 AM
I recall my art school days. My mom had a couple of ducks at her place and one day Chico the drake was sportin' corkscrew wood for all to see. I was inspired and incorporated the potent symbol of the duckdick in several lithographs and etchings. And yes, ducks like their sex rough.
Screw your pots and kettles, we have duckdicks in the house.
Posted by: BJN | May 2, 2007 12:55 AM
Posted by: Dustin | May 2, 2007 1:00 AM
(Incidentally, pots and kettles were more likely to be made of cast iron than of wrought iron.)
As for the rape debate, I hardly know what to say. There's an old adage that comes to mind, though, having something to do with the quoting of Webster as a sign of already having lost the argument. If there's any truth to that, then it's possible that everyone engaged in this debate has already lost.
Well, never mind that. In this case, I'm seeing people haul out the definitions that best suit their agenda. What does that prove? I don't know. But because the core controversy was sparked by Caledonian's objection to Bug_Girl's objection, I'm looking at the definition Caledonian linked to. This is what I see:
rape: ... 6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
Well! That certainly seems to open the door for all kinds of non-human rape, doesn't it. Or does it? I guess that depends on the definition of "intercourse." Ok then. Onward.
intercourse: ... 3. sexual relations or a sexual coupling, esp. coitus.
Ah-hah! Again, no mention of human beings! But what about this coitus thing? Hmmm, better check it out.
coitus: sexual intercourse, esp. between a man and a woman.
The meaning of this series of dependent definitions is pretty clear: Rape generally applies to forced intercourse between a man and a woman. But not absolutely; there is ambiguity. This weakens, but does not destroy, the foundation of Caledonian's argument.
In my (unsolicited) opinion, it weakens Caledonian's argument to a degree that prompts my re-characterization of his treatment of his opponents from "inexcusable" all the way over to "contemptible." Sorry, Cal, as you may have noticed, I've supported you on more than one occasion here, but not this time - and not because you're flat-out wrong. You're not. It's because your argument has failed to even begin to justify your attitudes towards the people with whom you disagree.
I have a suggestion for you: As long as you're examining and criticizing the power-seeking motives of others, why don't you examine your own motives for your sometimes atrocious rudeness in here. What's the payoff, Cal? What do you get out of it? That's a conversation you can have with yourself, if you're so inclined. I'm not going to play therapist and pretend I know the answers.
As for the core controversy... I take it back. I do know what to say. Language is fluid. Words are born. Words die out. Meanings change, sometimes radically, over time, according to pressures placed upon the language by those who use it. Perhaps the common usage of "rape" is pushing it towards a more anthropocentric definition. But why? Because society needs its members to recognize that rape is more than simply forced intercourse between two living creatures, and is specifically a very serious crime committed by one human being against another?
Posted by: Kseniya | May 2, 2007 1:11 AM
True, but "murder" is an unusually specific term even when applied to humans killing other humans. Likewise I think it'd be reasonable to describe a frigatebird (say) as stealing from a booby, but I can't think of a nonhuman animal act I'd describe as "embezzlement."
Understood; I just don't think this is a particularly blatant case of such. But certainly if it offends a lot of people, that makes it less useful as a lay description.Posted by: Anton Mates | May 2, 2007 1:23 AM
Yeah, dude is always going on and on about how argument isn't to establish truth, but a method of working out a social pecking order. Then, oddly enough, he completely loses his shit whenever I call him an intellectual relativist. Worse, he always comes in here with the intent of finding even the most trivial shit to pick a fight over -- does that mean he's trying to work out some kind of social station for himself on the internet? Because that's really pathetic.
I hope haggis-for-brains doesn't have any kids, since I would imagine that morning conversations would go like this:
aaaand so on.
Posted by: Dustin | May 2, 2007 1:28 AM
The problem with using rape terminology to describe mating behavior
in other animals is that using "rape" to describe the situation
is to imply "Something Needs To Be Done" about the situation.
We don't need to "Do Something" about the duck sex "problem".
Posted by: Dark Matter | May 2, 2007 1:29 AM
I suspect that your basis for saying that is insecurity over your own nilpotence and lack of normality, but it could just be projection. I've long bewailed my own tendency to skew when things get tensor.
Posted by: Anton Mates | May 2, 2007 1:44 AM
Well... maybe someone could have argued that the term "rape" is avoidable, and may bring back painful memories to some people, and we could all be a little nicer toward each other and use a term that is less likely to emotionally hurt others.
Why, there could even be some avian researcher who was a rape victim. Who knows?
It would be difficult to argue against that.
But, of course, harassing others for not using vocabulary The Correct Way (= "as I do") is always more fun. In a sick way. :(
Posted by: Jick | May 2, 2007 1:48 AM
Best. Burn. Ever.
Posted by: Dustin | May 2, 2007 1:48 AM
"True, but 'murder' is an unusually specific term even when applied to humans killing other humans."
I think that's my point... murder implies criminality, and rape does as well, along with an entire host of issues related violence, power, social subjugation and control, that have nothing to do with procreation or dictionary definitions (Kseniya is right on). I'll submit (at the risk of inviting a flood of clever posts about Scrooge McDuck) that ducks cannot commit crimes, and hazard a guess that forced intercourse is solely about trying to get your genes into the next generation.
Anyway, to me it is easy to see that to call a mountain jay a "camp robber" is innocuous while calling what ducks due "rape" is not. Semiotic baggage, as mentioned above. A bit of social intelligence and empathy is all it takes to see why it might be worth avoiding. And of course, it doesn't cost anyone anything.
I can't believe anyone still whines about "political correctness," except as a disingenuous defense for being a boor; it's like fighting over which is the best Duran Duran album.
Posted by: miko | May 2, 2007 1:48 AM
In the latter case we're going to need a supply of different objects to drop on the floor to tell the rooms apart.
Just watch out for the pirate.
(And how did 60 posts go by without someone taking the bait?)
Posted by: Graculus | May 2, 2007 1:56 AM
At the very least, I'm glad you aren't in my neighborhood. I can only stand so much subnormality and degeneracy, and you'll just perturb things and cause instability. But, I'm afraid that I'm getting a little irrational, and it's time we came to a closure.
Posted by: Dustin | May 2, 2007 2:08 AM
Believe it or not, this 22 year old GETS the Adventure reference. My dad told me all about it after I discovered Gemstone III waaaay back when I was about 15 yrs old. I thought a "text-based fantasy RPG" was a new thing... LOL.
I know about the two mazes, and how to figure out the all-alike maze. And the bird. The snake. The dragon. And the ashes. Heh. And not to waste my money on batteries if I can help it. Dad did say there was one puzzle he never figured out - something about a gem the size of a plover's egg, and a really narrow passage. I guess you had to drop everything, including your flashlight, just to get the thing - so of course you fell into a pit and died before you could get back to the main passage.
Dad never said nuthin 'bout no PIRATE, though. Hmmmph.
The original version of the game was written by one of the IMP guys. He wrote it one weekend, for his kids. One of my dad's friends works (or worked) with the guy at Cisco. I don't remember his name, though. There's a lot more about the IMP guys in a very interesting book about the birth of the DARPANET called Where Wizards Stay Up Late. Sorry, too tired to provide linx. :-)
Posted by: Kseniya | May 2, 2007 2:12 AM
Miko, no duck even knows that genes exist, whereas they can probably grasp social power to some extent. You're talking about the evolutionary cause and not the motive of the animal involved.
Posted by: hf | May 2, 2007 2:13 AM
Well...purely from an ethical standpoint, I'd say that it really is a problem. I mean, all other things being equal, I'd prefer happy ducks to unhappy ducks. It's not a problem I can resolve, inasmuch as I have no idea how to genetically engineer mallard males to be more understanding lovers, then render this new trait evolutionarily stable, then make sure they're not overtaken by some other duck species evolving to fill the nasty-mating-habits vacancy. But it is another nugget of evidence in favor of the universe not being essentially good.
Likewise, the grisly and painful deaths suffered by billions of reasonably intelligent animals are mostly a fact of life--we can't rid the world of unmerciful carnivores and parasites and pathogens, nor could we compensate for the negative side-effects if we did so. But we can still acknowledge that it's a lousy state of affairs, and help where we can.
Posted by: Anton Mates | May 2, 2007 2:13 AM
No kidding--I need a cigarette after that.
Posted by: Cleo | May 2, 2007 2:30 AM