Your language is western language, and very judgemental–biased, as you have been trained to accept such terminology at the expense of objectivity.

I have consistently–and you can hunt me down elsewhere on the internet for that fact–consistently asked for data, suggested a need for alternative hypothesis, and been routinely dismissed in my quest.

A “conspiracy” as you suggest, is not my own suggestion, but rather a collusion of biased reporters, and biased ppl who know better, but more often than not refuse to divulge data.

Most importantly, my hypothesis is not laden with judgmental or necessarily ‘blaming’ terminology. The thesis is simple: I suggest over and over and over that perhaps maternal socio-genital practices contribute to later violence in males,for which males alone are blamed, and also, I sugest, that this contributes to a culture of violence, and also the lack of males reporting their own rapes, or other violations against them.

Is that so hard to “get”? I would imagine that yourself, a self-reported survivor of FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS MIGHT FIND THAT INTERESTING IN THE VERY LEAST, and much in the interest of your potential male progeny to know. False allegations, my friend, are womens violence *in lieu of physical size* with which they can otherwise violate males; that violence manifesting itself in the pardigms of power that uphold false rape allegations at your, and other mens expense.

That same physical size–and I also suggest psychological control over males–is present in childhood, and weilded quite effectively by women who create rapists, and soldiers who rape.

Aceptable? Who am I to attempt to lay down rules? Although the rules are clear: always frame discussions in terms of males as rapists, wait for the sparks to fly, watch the blog hit-counter, and rake in the pennies–but just don’t mention the other side of the coin, which is women as likely pedophiles.

No, I really don’t think either is acceptable, but in the rhetoric, it is as likely.

The really preposterous thing is that saying there is a rape switch in war is like saying there is a prostitution switch any and every time there is a wallet or some financial or emotional security around, or that their is a fuck-any-and-all-comers-for-food security mechanism in *all women*. You just can’t generalize.

But suggesting that every male rapist, or even a preponderance of male rapists, is the result of a woman touching him or licking his ass and genitals when he was a boy, is acceptable?

DC –

You’re actually coming close to where I am, with:

What I’m suggesting is that there’s no need to postulate a specific “rape switch.” Rather, a “feral response set” encompassing rape and other short-term asocial strategies, often of a brute non-thinking nature, seems to account for a lot.

I think that as long as you aren’t claiming some absolute set of variables would cause this response in enough individuals that it becomes a generalized “rule” I completely agree. I am not sure that I don’t agree even if you are specifying a rule like generalization, because it is clear that people raised in a certain social and cultural context are extremely prone to rape in war – enough that it can be generalized. I think that it may be reasonable to postulate that there is a particular response that variables usually created by war will produce, the expression of which is dependent on social and cultural conditioning.

I am going to ponder this while I am removing some caulk and will probably be quoting you and using it in my next post on this – which will be responding more clearly to Greg’s exhaustive comment on my blog, than I did in comments.