----- Original Message ----- From: "Damon Agretto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 6:53 PM Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
> > > 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). I understand that; but I think its more than promiscuity. Its having the conquerers have highly preferred, if not exclusive acess to the nubile women. They bear the conquers' children, not those of the men of their original tribe...even if they had had a long standing relationship with them before. 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 won't argue with that. I'm sure that the right of conquest was considered natural many years ago. But, when that right of conquest was exercised in the Balkins, it was condemned as an atrocity. > > 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. I was trying to set up a simplified model to make my point. Rape was a short hand for using force to have as many sexual partners as possible, limiting their contact with other males, and forcing others to work to support your offspring. I don't actually believe we will find "the rape gene". I was just trying to streamline my point to accentuate a key feature. Your more complicated explanation still supports my original point: we cannot reduce morality to that which we have a natural predisposition to do....as some have argued. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
