Re: Most rapists are women



"But all women aren't doing that to men."

Women are expecting men to do protecting and providing for them though.
It's all very well saying that couples have a healthy sharing
relationship, but reality doesn't show the same thing. I've seen
research showing that in 85% of relationships, the female usually
starts the arguments, and also is more willing to escalate the
argument. Women walk off with a man's entire life possessions, and
future earnings. It's called divorce. Women have possessions too, but
men don't.

Where do you think this entire idea of males having to protect and
provide for females came from? Just because we felt like it? Because
somehow having balls makes us want to do that? Normally being expected
to protect and provide for someone else (that isn't your child) while
they don't do the same for you, is seen as slavery. You think suddenly
one day all the men in the world woke up and thought "you know what? I
feel like treating women as my King and masters, so I'll protect and
provide for them"

More like that in reality, males had no choice but to protect and
provide, or else she wouldn't choose him as a partner. Soon enough the
"protect and provide" expectation became embedded into society so much
so that it became an unchallenged assumption. Any guy who wouldn't
would be rejected by women and scorned by the male slaves of women.

"Rape is non-consensual sex. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a
reproductive assault. All you are doing is seeking an equivalent* to
rape, something cruel that women do to men. Whether it's true or not,
it will never make it rape, since rape is already defined as a
non-consensual act of sexual intercourse."

OK. Well said. I'll give you that. (Which is better than how you've
responded because you haven't acknowledged anything I've said no matter
how clear and well-reasoned it is.)

Except that I'm not seeking for an equivalent to rape, you've got it
the other way around. I'm seeking an end to the harm that females have
done to us males. The fact that rape is a pretty exact parallell... is
handy, but the primary focus is ending this abusive use of reproductive
differences. Today's status of "Rape" is just a handy weapon to pick up
that happens to be there...

It's a parallell to rape. And because it has the same results as
rape... wouldn't it make sense to redefine rape to include this?

Think of it this way. If there is a crime of cutting off someone's left
hand, maybe it's done commonly in some places. Now if I cut someone's
right hand off, you could say "no it's not the same thing as cutting
off their left hand"... And it's not. But the effect is the same!

In both "Rape" and "Parallell Rape" (females abusing their higher
reproductive costs), the effects are:

1) Someone who is less resiliant to abuse is more likely to reproduce.
Those who fight off the abuser better or don't give in, are less likely
to reproduce! This will harm the future generations by breeding in lack
of resiliance.

2) An abusive person makes themself more likely to reproduce.

Those are the effects, the results. And the method is similar, in that
the victim can't do much about it due to reproductive differences.

If rape is important, surely this "paralell to rape" is just as
important? Think about that sentance.

Yes, I read the entire article on sexual selection.

"That said, the aspect of sexual selection to which you refer appears
to involve choices to create the best offspring. That doesn't seem so
bad."

Now, I hate to tell you this, but I really do not think that a dumb
animal is going to be as good as knownig what is best for it's own
species, than "the ultimate test", which is whether the animal dies or
survives. Animals do plenty of dumb things. They step their muddy feet
on the food or water they want to eat... They shit in the places they
live in, they'll eat their own children even. Animals cannibalise each
other quite often, or terrorise others for no reason. Heck they can't
even look both ways before crossing a road!

I hate to tell you this, but animals are no more likely to be good than
humans. Humans do nasty pointless unnecessary things sometimes SIMPLY
because they like to see others suffer. Do you think animals are any
different?

Some woman I know told me a story about how her female cat, was jealous
of her, that she had children but this cat was unable to. The cat
became spiteful, attacked the children when alone, or growled and
became miserable when the babies were breast fed. It started to throw
it's food around and shit in the house, just as a protest.

Do you really think that such a stupid creature, as an animal, can make
the best decision for what kind of features is good in it's partner?
Sure sometimes it can... if you think about things like smelling clean
or not having a broken leg... or a diseased face, but beyond that I
would not trust the animal instinct.

The same page in fact says that many sexual selections are in fact BAD
for the species. They try to explain it away by saying that it's a sort
of "runaway" effect.

Now if it were truely good for the species always, we'd expect that
sexual selection would be done onto females just as often. So how comes
it's not? Do you think that female animals are really missing out on a
great thing? If you are thinking of those ugly bottlenose sealions, in
which the females look normal but the males all have deformed ugly huge
noses that have some odd "blow up" function merely for aggressive
display purposes.... then I think no, the females AREN'T missing out on
something.

If the females are missing out on something good, then why is it that
males tend to have shorter lifespans? Surely if males were getting
something good that females don't, the males would have longer
lifespans?

Perhaps the females simply do this out of selfish purposes, to make
sexual selections that harm the males, and force them into a harder
life. That would explain why the males have shorter lifespans despite
having less things to go wrong with them, and less energy expenditure
required of them. (pregnancy is of course energy expensive).

Look at humans! If *any* species were able to make sexual selection in
a positive way that is not subject to "runaway effects", it would be
humans. We can change our thoughts and decisions in an instant,
override any instinct, reprogram ourselves in anyway we like. We are
not trapped by our DNA.

And yet, human males have still ended up with the same sexual selection
situation, in which the males are forced into lifestyles which makes
them live harder more unfair and shorter lives. Human males, unlike
many birds, are considered LESS attractive than the females!

In fact, many people go to say how ugly males are, and how beautiful
women are. And no this isn't just feminist rhetoric. It's part of our
very society. The female body is considered much more valuable, female
models on average make 5x more money than a male model, the female body
is used to sell everything, and even women consider each other more
beautiful than males.

Just think about that for a second. You make it sound like females are
missing out on something special something that would make them better,
and yet... how comes then that males aren't considered vastly more
beautiful by society? Seems like your idea that this sexual selection
is always a good thing, is wrong.

And guess what? All of that "female beauty difference" mostly comes
from two causes. 1) The male beard on the face, and hair across the
body. 2) The skull disfiguration, that females don't get.

So basically, we have two negative, anti-aesthetic losses, that males
get when they become sexually mature. Changes to us, that are exactly
there for sexual selection, and no real purpose.

Does having a beard really help me survive in any way? I can tell you
from personal experience that it does not, and if it did it would be
far more beneficial for the weaker children (even girls) than for an
adult! Does this beard make me even a better protector and providor?
Then why do professional armies expect their men to SHAVE everyday? The
armies say that it's to keep a clean and professional appearance, which
fosters a professional conduct meaning they are less likely to get
themselves killed by making mistakes.

So what purpose DOES it have then? Perhaps it is simply there for it's
only effect, which is to make us seem less attractive.

You might wonder, why would females make a change to use, to make us
less attractive? The answer is simple. Females did this, out of a
sadistic desire to harm other beings.

Remember the 85% statistic I mentioned above? How females are
psychologically abusive to their partners?

Do you think a good looking guy, with lots of self respect, who thinks
"well I can get better than you if you are going to bitch at me like
this" and just then leave when she is abusive, is going to stay with
her? No, he'll just leave.

Now, a less good looking guy, who considers himself less valuable,
because everytime he looks in the mirror he sees someone who "doesn't
look fully human, in fact partly monster-like" (unlike the females who
get to keep the natural looks that children have), this guy isn't going
to react in the same way to psychlogical abuse.

He knows that he isn't so valuable. He sees it in the mirror. People
treat him as less valuable even, at least for his looks. They might
respect what he does, but his visual worth isn't so high. He'll put up
with psychlogical abuse from women, because he knows he can't get
better.

So this less good looking guy reproduces, and the not hairy guy who has
a more beautiful child-like skull instead a cavemanly skull, doesn't
reproduce.

There you go, I've explained the reason why we have this gender
difference in humans.

.