(January 3, 2015 at 4:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'm putting no words in your mouth, but requesting you to express enough words that I can answer your question. No you have, so I will try to comment.
If you didn't mean to impute a view to me, you should have chosen your words more carefully. And I provided all the information you need the first time out.
Quote:I don't know what percent "X" represents. You can google as well as I can; here are a couple random links.
http://amptoons.com/blog/2004/05/05/how-...e-rapists/
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/200...predators/
You had to google to support your point with "random links"? Have you read them for yourself?
Quote:However, I know that "X" is non-zero, and that demonizing rapists after the fact will do little to reduce rape in the future-- because the demon is in the DNA. Humans are animals, no less brute than gorillas or chimpanzees, but with a more presentable veneer. But that veneer is only skin deep, and it doesn't take much for that monkey brain to escape its bounds.
Real steps CAN be taken-- through better sex education, through the elimination of sexual repression, and through women not taking unnecessary chances in the name of trust, or with the false sense that the social mores that people proclaim so loudly in the daylight will provide them a non-zero amount of protection in the darkness of night.
So long as PC is seen as a shining shield against reality, that X% will continue to get, and take, their chances.
I don't think you understood me. I was asking you to support the claim that at least some men are genetically inclined to commit rape.
