Why do humans with testicles commit so much crime?

Page 1 of 4 [ 61 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Jun 2012, 7:42 pm

Most of the humans who commit crimes have testicles. Why is that?

ruveyn



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

16 Jun 2012, 8:11 pm

Well, if they are holding other people's testicles, that's a crime.


_________________
.


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

16 Jun 2012, 8:35 pm

We're the expendable sex. Most desperate, risky and dangerous acts are dominated by men for this reason - our deaths, even en masse, are not as expensive, there is not much loss of the ability to reproduce. That is likely to change for us as a species, because reproduction isn't much of a challenge for us anymore; the selective pressures to enforce this difference no longer exist.



VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

16 Jun 2012, 8:45 pm

Why would a woman commit a dangerous crime if she can persuade a male to do it?



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

16 Jun 2012, 8:57 pm

My theory is that humans acquire testicles by theft, thus meaning that a human has committed at least as many crimes as the number of testicles it has.

I will submit my abstract to the upcoming Conference for Human Studies at the University of Mars.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

16 Jun 2012, 9:32 pm

It is obviously a liberal media conspiracy, ovaries are proven to cause much more violence


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 766

16 Jun 2012, 9:36 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:
Why would a woman commit a dangerous crime if she can persuade a male to do it?


:lmao:



Apple_in_my_Eye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: in my brain

16 Jun 2012, 9:46 pm

It's probably due to a propensity to take direct action to solve problems. In some contexts that leads to heroism (running into a burning building to save someone), and in others it leads to armed robbery.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

16 Jun 2012, 10:25 pm

Maybe a lack of sex.



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

16 Jun 2012, 10:45 pm

Because women are more intelligent, so they don't get caught.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

16 Jun 2012, 11:32 pm

edgewaters wrote:
We're the expendable sex. Most desperate, risky and dangerous acts are dominated by men for this reason - our deaths, even en masse, are not as expensive, there is not much loss of the ability to reproduce. That is likely to change for us as a species, because reproduction isn't much of a challenge for us anymore; the selective pressures to enforce this difference no longer exist.

There's still selective pressure because there's still a very wide difference in number of grandkids per individual. Selection = differential reproductive success, and there's still differential reproductive success.
However, I agree that it's going to change in Western societies because, with the advent of deadbeat-father laws and genetic testing, men can no longer reproduce without consequences to their ability to support future offspring. After birth, men now have to contribute closer to as significantly to their offspring as women do, and this greater cost will eventually mean that men become more selective in choosing mates.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

16 Jun 2012, 11:42 pm

Maybe because they have more vim? Why do people commit crimes to being with?

How do children from fatherless homes compare to motherless homes?


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

17 Jun 2012, 1:05 am

LKL wrote:
There's still selective pressure because there's still a very wide difference in number of grandkids per individual. Selection = differential reproductive success, and there's still differential reproductive success.


Still exists yes but it has changed. Also numbers do not define success. Else tadpoles would rule the world. Success is defined through genetic longevity alone.



pete1061
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: Portland, OR

17 Jun 2012, 2:32 am

Maybe because one of the primary hormones produced by testicles has tendency to make one behave aggressively.
Just a theory.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

17 Jun 2012, 2:40 am

edgewaters wrote:
LKL wrote:
There's still selective pressure because there's still a very wide difference in number of grandkids per individual. Selection = differential reproductive success, and there's still differential reproductive success.


Still exists yes but it has changed. Also numbers do not define success. Else tadpoles would rule the world. Success is defined through genetic longevity alone.
Tadpoles do not have grandchildren. As far as individual selection goes, the one(s) with the most grandchildren win(s). If you want to talk longer term, you have to talk individual genes, not genomes, because they segregate over time.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

17 Jun 2012, 4:29 am

Arrested, Convicted, Charged, yes definitely. Committed, questionable, per the full range of what is identified as crime per society.

More aggressive, yes per androgen influence it is an empirically testable hypothesis, but there are many crimes, defined as such in society, that do not require a tremendous amount of aggression or strength. Intelligence, and minimal physical effort, is all that is required, in some cases.

Physical violence, man against women and women against man per domestic abuse in the US, is cause for arrest of either individual, but the cultural norm, well before "Gone with the Wind" and the famous slap across the face, has been somewhat socially acceptable for a women to assault a man given culturally appropriate circumstances, in the US.

And, generally speaking, it's not part of the cultural norm for a male to call the cops when assaulted by a women. So even in this area, where biology would provide evidence that a male would likely be more aggressive than a female, in committing the crime in question, there are cultural penalties for assaulting a women or complaining about being assaulted by a women that move well beyond biology and enforcement of laws as they exist, defining the behavior as a crime.

Testicles get a vote in the issue from birth, but culture has a voice in the issue as well, that speaks louder than the testicles in some cases.

Cultural comments on teachers having sex with their underage male students, are often presented by the male majority as a good thing rather than a bad thing, whereas if the genders are changed, there is not only legal penalties to pay, but strong cultural penalties as well per society as a whole.

The question becomes one of how often the crime goes unreported, if aspects of culture provide a medal of honor for the first behavior for the role of the victim, that has the same legal penalties as the second behavior.

Domestic violence and sexual abuse, are two stereotypical crimes attributed by most, as a male gender specific crime, but there is no measure for the crimes that go unreported, per cultural factors that keep people silent.

The premise that humans with testicles commit the most crimes, at least in the US per the complex legal code that exists, is speculative at best. People commit crimes on a daily basis that have no idea that legal code exists that define the behavior as a crime. Yet, they are still held responsible for the crimes, if arrested and convicted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_and_crime

Quote:
Attempts in various fields have tried to explore a possible relation between gender and crime. Violence is being measured by imprisonment statistics. This fails to account violence that goes unreported and men have an overwhelming heuristical bias to not report being victimized. Such studies may belong to criminology, sociobiology (which attempts to demonstrate a causal relationship between biological factors, in this case sex, and human behaviors), etc. Despite the difficulty to interpret them, crime statistics may provide a way to investigate such a relationship, whose possible existence would be interesting from a gender differences perspective. An observable difference might be due to social and cultural factors, crimes against men going unreported or to biological factors (as sociobiological theories claim). Furthermore, the nature of the crime itself must be considered.

Studies find that males are incarcerated for crimes more often than females. This is particularly true for violent crimes.



Quote:
In the United States
Further information: Crime in the United States

In the United States, men are much more likely to be incarcerated than women yet women are just as likely to commit a crime as men.


Apparently Wiki doesn't agree with the premise of the Op. At least not in the US.

It appears they have overstepped their boundaries in this statement, though, since they clearly indicate in the previous paragraph that the hypothesis has yet to be successfully proven, that overall, men commit more crimes than women. It also hasn't been empirically proven, overall, that the likely-hood is the same or less.

There are some women whom are convicted of hundreds of crimes in their lives and many men that are convicted of none during the course of their entire life, some who likely have fairly large testicles, and are smart enough not to break the law and/or to get caught.

There is a pretty good overall incentive not to break it, when there is a good chance of getting in trouble. Per that factor the odds aren't always the same between the genders, given the entire spectrum of crimes per legal code, in a country like the US.