Tweet
Originally posted by Caligastia
Did I say they were the most victimized?
Did I say they were the most victimized?
You have to say something for it to be a fact?
No. I said they were the most vulnerable - i.e. women and children are generally less able to protect themselves than men.
That may be true, but it's also true that woman and children are the most victimized segments of our population and they are most likely to be victimized by the significant men in their lives.
The desire to protect your women and children has a rather obvious evolutionary advantage, which is probably one of the reasons why sex offenses are singled out.
I'm guessing you could come up with an idea like this because you have no notion of evolutionary biology or anthopology.
Pair bondings that we know of today, i.e., male/female mates pairing off and raising children is an extremely recent even in human history, dating back roughly to the neolithic. Before that, the role of sex in procreation was not understood, except that it was necessary to "open" a woman to the possibility or pregnancy. It would not have been possible for us to evolve to protect "our" women and children, simply because we would have no notion of who they were (as men, women tended to know who their kids were). If anything, we should be far more protective of our sisters and our sisters children than we are, if that notion had naything close to a resemblence of truth in it.
No, the truth is, women and their children are much more likely to be killed, beaten, raped, molested, etc., by the woman's mate than anyone else. This has been constant for as long as we can remember (and as far as children go, it crosses species too).
These laws and desires for retribution and a legitimate scapegoat have more to do with our morality than instinct.
Che
But this morality is only a little more than 100 years old. Some aspects of it are less than 30 years old. I dare say that's hardly time to influence our evolution.
Comment