"Rape" in conversation

[ZetaBladeX13]

[zamisk]

There's a forum I used to visit with very heavy censorship filters, but when that one shut down and we all moved to a different forum without filters, we realized that most people rarely swore there anyways.

Except me.

[Shousa]

To me, words are just what they are: words. They can have lots of different meanings. I don't get angry when people use words with a meaning I wasn't familiar before, though.

But speaking of rape,.. I recently stumbled upon an article related to that. It roughly says that rape still happens, because prevention efforts all misunderstand the roots of rape and therefore are impossible to do any good. From my point of view it makes sense.

If you are interested: http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm

Same issue, different topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ

[noodles]

i think women dressing in more revealing clothes absolutely leads to a rise in rape but that is completely irrelevant

if a guy has sex with a woman against her will, he raped that woman. he did it. a conscious, calculated action. It's the guy's fault. And the messages we send shouldnt be focusing on telling girls how to defend themselves. they should be focusing on getting the guys to chill the fuck out and not do horrible things. the standards set for dudes should be about being not a shitty person instead of being able to get what they want or whatever.

heres a cool video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx8RRIiP53Q

[Shousa]

[PLA]

[noodles]

:/ I'll concede that I'm wrong, but I'd like to see studies done in America. I've heard the total opposite from women who went to religious or otherwise special schools.

Also, Shousa, 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted in their life. I simply do not believe that it's dude nature to rape women, or that most dudes who rape women are doing it because they can't control themselves. Evolutionary psychology is based around things we assume might have made sense in a time in which there were no historians to begin with. Hell, we KNOW that a ton of hunter-gatherer societies were run by women. You think men having a tendency for rape would have flown in those places? After generations, if those tendencies were biological, they would have been snuffed out. Hell, a lot of recent research shows that testosterone actually makes dudes MORE considerate towards the feelings of others.

It's a societal thing, not an evolved thing.

[Shousa]

[PLA]

^ Leaping from "biological" to "sneeze-class reflex"?

[Reynard-Miri]

[PLA]

^ Tribalism and territorial behaviour could be fertile ground for racism.

[Reynard-Miri]

Which is environmental (one could argue political), not biological.

[PLA]

^ Or that's an oversimplified distinction.

[Reynard-Miri]

Or it's not and it's a very important distinction that should not be ignored.

[PLA]

^ Who said otherwise? Oversimplifying important things is stupid.

Of course it's environmental; territory is completely about environment. And most animal competition is "arguably political".
Does culture influence behaviours? Do politics?
Does culture spring from nowhere? Do politics fall from the sky?

But that's sub-tangent. Some aphids are territorial, and try to chase eachother away from better leaves. Territorial acts inherently relate to any local environments and politics, but are simple and common. They are exhibited by solitary creatures, as asocial as can be, such as the shy tigers, but we also have the history to show that those behaviours can be encouraged by peer-pressure and enforced by authority.
Aphids and tigers both are relatively peaceful, so round off the examples with warlike, eusocial ants.