Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think there is a lot of truth in your comment. But I also noticed that are drawing connections between things and presenting them as evident and exclusive, apparently without thinking about other effects. For example you say

> danger is highly correlated with sexual arousal for evolutionary reasons - hence the epidemic of rape during wartime

I doubt the premise. But more than that, doubt that the epidemic of rape is really dominantly caused by fear-induced sexual arousal. The much more likely explanation is that in war, traumatized men with weapons who haven't had sex in a long time meet women that hold no power against them. On top of that, rape often goes unpunished or is expected.

All of these are better explanations than yours.

This is just an example for the issue I have with your way of reasoning.




Thanks for the feedback. I feel we're making the same point in different ways - I suppose I opted for a stylistic flourish at the expense of clarity. I don't men that men (most soldiers being men) are sexually aroused by imminent fear and autonomically assault the nearest convenient victim, but rather than that sense of present and ongoing trauma promotes violent opportunism against vulnerable persons.

I mention the evolutionary basis because it seems obvious to me that if your future survival is in constant jeopardy and your priority was to pass on your genome at all costs then you'd try to have sex any time the opportunity arose just in case it was the last time. But yeah I'm making some sweeping assumptions and stating them a bit arrogantly too.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: