When I was still in college, I borrowed a book on ethology from a teacher. This book also had a sociobiology chapter. I no longer retain the author, he was American anyway, the book was written by 88 (for some time). Then, in that terrible poverty, and how they were (and I am) equipped university libraries, that book seemed extremely precious to me. There was no money for food, and about money from online books, like now, what more can I say?
I know that many things related to sociobiology outraged me terribly. I was a feminist even then, as I am from childhood. One such idea was that women preferred men with money, resources, even if they don't have who knows what genes, but only because a father with money gives his offspring more chances of survival, even if these, like their father, they don't have who knows what genes. Indeed, how smart you are, beautiful, a good athlete in childhood, if you starve, mori si gata. If you're an idiot, vein, immoral, but your parents have something to raise you, you have a better chance of survival and passing on your genes. Until the end, this sociobiology thesis, a science that tries to apply Darwinism, evolution by natural selection, and in explaining the behavior, it seemed like damn logic. But surely those who came to this conclusion are men, because any woman (if she is not frigid or lesbian) he knows that such a choice simply denies the nature of female sexuality. It's like consensual rape. To maintain sexual relations (not to mention conceiving children) with a man you don't like represents the denial of your own sexuality. But this often happens, which shows that behavioral control in humans is absolutely extraordinary. There would be a lot to say here, why is it happening. But little is said about the size of the sacrifice when this happens.
In this book on ethology they were treated 3 assumptions related to the origin of the rape. A confusion that many make is that rape is treated as a sexual act that is related to sexual attraction. Not, rapists are not attracted to victims, rape is an act of aggression. A short skirt does not invite rape, but to sexual harassment, possibly. The first hypothesis referred to the fact that rape is an act of aggression and that's it. The second, issued by a woman, he said that it is also a form of punishment for women. But the counter-argument in this regard was the fact that not older women, with money and positions, are the predominant victims. But from the point of view of sociobiology, being a fairly widespread behavior, it had to have a purpose now or come from something that had a purpose in the past. And here came the third hypothesis, that actually rape is an act of aggression, but it would have a point, in the sense that it would offer young men, poor and marginalized, sansa plays. Because most rape victims are young women. At that time, it was probably not known how many raped girls were registered in Romania, which would have disproved this hypothesis.
If we follow the news and reports about the continent of rape, Africa, we see clear confessions of some self-declared rapists, something like "the woman must submit to the man.", it is also written in the Bible". The utility of rape: terrorizing women who are forced to leave certain areas. That's where raped women come in 1 and 90 years, in addition very many times, rape in these areas is totally disconnected from the sexual part. Because all kinds of objects are used for this purpose, which causes very serious injuries. My opinion, without having claims to be very scientific (in this sense studies are needed), it's like rape is an act of aggression, a possibly very perverted one. The physical weakness of women invites aggression, and attacking the very essence of femininity is like attacking a vulnerable area, it's like looking for Achilles' heel.
But there are other situations, also in male dominated societies. If in fundamentalist Muslim countries, raped women are the ones punished, it seems sinister to us, but I think that for them it is something very logical. If you consider how the sexual life of a normal woman is developed in these cultures, where choosing a partner for pleasure is unthinkable (she is not allowed to choose her seat), and, staying alone with a man means exposing yourself to rape. Because she has no words to say, in the field of sex, her will does not exist. From our point of view, rape is what he does at home. Communism seems not to be the only ideology that denies human nature...
