> I was specifically thinking about rape accompanying
> conquest. Lets
> simplify it. Take a system with thousands of
> tribes. There are attacks
> from time to time. The variables are such that each
> is as likely to wind
> the conquest as the other.
I was also thinking about rape wrt conquest as well.
The point I was making is that the gene being passed
on isn't one that favors rape as a means of
reproduction, but rather one that favors promiscuity.
Rape is simply the means of passing on that gene
amongst a host of other means (harems, consentual
relationships, etc). Since rape is not as well defined
as we would like I think (bear with me and think in
the context of primitive cultural groups), what we
might consider rape today may have merely been "taking
care of business" in primitive cultures. Therefore,
the females might submit because "that's the way
things are done" as well as possibly being suitably
impressed with the big burly warrior as well to allow
him to impregnate her. How often do you hear about
this today? Much more common than it would seem I
think.
> I'd argue that after a number of generations, the
> gene to take the women of
> the other tribe as concubines will dominate.
That's logical IF you think there's a genetic
predisposition to rape. Rather, my reasoning is that
there would not neccessarily be one because the gene
that promotes promiscuity is already in place and
serves the same function. Rather, the tendency to rape
is not genetic but a decision ("free will" if you
will) of behavior in order to satisfy that urge. Human
beings (as well as animals, I would assume) will tend
to find the easiest most efficient way to do things
given time, trial and error. It's simply easier to
find your neighbouring tribe and club all the men to
take their women, rather than try to woo them to form
a harem. Wooing might work for a small number of
women, but to maintain a large harem would require a
more efficient and less time consuming method (threat
of violence, either against the women or against
possible suitors).
> If you look at descriptions of very ancient
> civilizations, based on
> families and tribes, you will see that this was
> taken for granted....the
> head of the house had a right to have children with
> the handmaidens of his
> wives.
But the question is, is that actually rape? Or was
that a cultural more?
Damon.
=====
------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building:
------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
