The battle over this young woman continues for quite some time, and the whole time I consider if I should be involved. I am here to study these people, not to interfere. Yet a rape is, at least according to my cultural norms, a bad thing. I am capable of rape any more than I believe I am capable of beating my wife in Houston or shooting someone because I disagree with them. Which will require a personal injury attorney.

Please note: In the original spam,the stolen quote was not block-quoted. I added that formatting.

-pissedblogowner

:-p Fix’d.

Women are more or less as capable of rape, most of them just are in environments where they do not realize it since female rape of men or women is usually treated like a joke.

Which is freaking infuriating if you know victims of rape, including rape by females.

BZZZZTTTT!!!

That was the Naturalistic Fallacy Buzzer going off.

OK, you may be right. Or you may be wrong. But in order to make the statement that the urge to rape or the urge to submit to it has a fitness advantage you have to back it up with more data and a more explicit model.

This, of course, is the main subject of Thornhill and Thornhill’s book, which I think I’ll post a review of in a day or two.

Nature does not have a conscience. The urge to rape would constitute an evolutionary advantage. So would an urge to submit to rape.

There are cases, such as in the Congo, in which people were forced to rape family members. Presumably there are ‘soldiers’ in some conflicts who wouldn’t even be there (much less commit rape) if they weren’t conscripted. What do you think would happen if four soldiers raped a woman and Number 5 refused?

So…what should be done? Personally, I’d try indoctrinating men to consider themselves incapable of rape. Or teaching them that they have free will and can fight such an urge. If that’s not the case, then humans aren’t sentient beings and it doesn’t matter what happens to anyone anyway.

It’s like saying ” I assume she was asking for it.” How rude, and invalid on its face…

The issue is that a person was raped, and another person who could have intervened chose not to.

If his excuse had been “I am in a wheelchair and I couldn’t do anything” I’d ask why he didn’t go for help.

This researcher needs to recognize that these “subjects” are not animals. They are people. He watched a person come to harm, and made excuses for it. He is unapologetic.

How many who read this could sleep at night if they’d seen this event, and known another human had been hurt and violated in a primal way that, if they live, will affect them for the rest of their lives.

This person did not deserve to be raped, based on living in a geographic region where it is “commonplace.” It is commonplace here, where 1/3 of women will go through it at some point in their lives.

It is utterly ridiculous to focus on anything other than the plight of another person in danger. If you watched a person get dragged into the bushes by four others here, or alternately, if you saw a person who was drunk at a party and passing out being brought into a room by one or 4 or any number of people, would you watch? And tell yourself it’s wrong to get involved?

If you watch it happen and say nothing, you are guilty. It’s inhuman.