You think it would be more difficult for a human with HIV to rape a woman, than a regular human? Doubtedly.
or an animal with such, for that matter.
Or a giraffe with a short neck who can't reach the taller trees, vs a long necked one.... you get the point.

You know that's not what he meant. Quit trolling.
I won't warn you again.

Obviously he meant to debunk my stance, so I debunked it back. Ain't trolling, it's logic. He tried to use the straw man fallacy.

I WAS WONDERING WHERE YOU WERE IN THIS THREAD, PAL, I WAS WAITING FOR YOUR INPUT. :pimp: Check out the religion thread, I put my two-cents in there two. And perhaps one other, but I can't really recall at this moment.

Are you saying that if you are a sickly, ill creature, you would not have a sexual urge? That instead, you would feel an inclination towards abstaining from sex for the betterment of everyone else but yourself? ;)

If you do, explain again how that could evolve if you can.

Urge and rape are entirely different. There's natural order. Otherwise, why would a hungry mother animal give her food to her offspring, even though she has the URGE to eat it? I don't think rape is natural, is all I'm saying. I think that sexual urge is natural, obviously, but not rape.

So sexual urge has nothing to do with rape and the two are completely independent?

Err, yes. I have the urge to have sex loads, that doesn't mean I have the urge to rape someone. Clearly those who want to rape people have sexual urge, but I don't think it goes both ways.

But if rape has nothing to do with sexual urge and that doesn't factor into rape, then can you explain why castration - which removes biological sexual urge among other things - is an effective way of changing the behaviour of repeated sex offenders?

I said that people who rape have sexual urge. I denied that all who have sexual urge have desire to rape.

Actually, you claimed sexual urge had nothing to do with rape and now you think it does, but alright .. let's call that water under the bridge.

It's clear you don't really know how evolution works.

Let's say you are an ugly creature and noone wants to have sex with you. Could you start to biologically evolve a behaviour where you choose to abstain from sex? The simple answer is no because you wouldn't pass on your genes which are the basis for the behaviour. Evolution wouldn't have anything to work on.

Now, let's say you are a sickly creature which noone wants to have sex with. But this time, let's say you have a gene which makes you commit rape when in this situation. Could this evolve in nature? Without analyzing it too much, the answer should be yes because the rapist is able to reproduce and pass on the rape-gene to his offspring. If you add that there are potential benefits to this strategy - for example the rapist doesn't spend much energy raising the offspring and he could choose the partner rather than relying on them choosing him, then you can start to see how it might make sense as a strategy. You obviously fail to recognize this inherent selfishness which really is key to much of how evolution works.

That doesn't mean biology says it is a strategy, but it's one hypothesis and it would be interesting to discuss them. That's really what the thread should be about, not whether or not rape is biological. Of course it is. As far as we know, every behaviour and everything we are has it's roots in biology and unless an existence of you independent of your body really exists, you can't escape it.