Since rape(criminal act of unwanted sex on another) is a concept brought up only by humans since the dawn of human civilization, isn't it technically a social construct( that is universal). Or does the fact that it is universal in pretty much all human societies make it naturally evil( i.e. like killing)?
>>510627
Shark attacks are natural, lightning strikes are natural. There is no 'good & evil' in nature.
>muh naturalistic fallacy
>is a concept brought up only by humans
That's not entirely what rape is though.
It's a phenomena apparent in more species than humans.
We're not the only ones who rape.
There are two sides to rape: the physical act, which is in no way a social construct, and the reaction to it.
> isn't it technically a social construct
Yes.
>>510651
But can an animal feel psychologically violated when forcefully penetrated in one of their holes and how can you tell?
Tbh, I'm only against bestiality for the very small possibility that there could be an animal that might not like it. Though we may never know for sure. Also, in my view it's just weird and technically like cucking the human race as /pol/ would say.
>>510627
The immorality of rape is grounded in the same thing as the immorality of murder: our capacity to reason.
>>510651
Also I forgot to mention...rape is specifically designed as non consensual sex; not forceful penetration. You can have rough sex with a girl or guy who likes it but it won't be rape if they...well consent to it. It's just aggressive sex.
So again, we never know for sure when a animal is consenting or not.
>>510668
you can tell because it's trying to get away or fight the one that's trying to mate with it. There are many species where you very clearly have consensual sex where female is on board and rape where the female is mated by force, for example orangutans where non dominant males who normally arent allowed to mate by the females and the alpha male will when the alpha isnt around attack females and rape them.
Remember that the word rape can also mean kidnap
>>510627
Everyone and their mother have a way to use "social construct". You need to define what you mean by something being a social construct in this case.
Why is everyone on /his/ of all places so shitty at being clear? A clear language is the best we can do when we grunt at each other yet I read people who rather are pretentious than clear. On a fucking history and humanities board. The one place, if any, on 4chan, where you will be called out on it.
>>511275
yea abduct for the purpose of illicit sex.
What of it?
>>511291
I said something uniquely defined in human society that developed due to the concepts of sentient beings(humans). I recall an anthropology professor telling me that social constructs can still be universal but doesn't mean they are innate human features. For example, if almost every country at one specific time in history was some kind of centralized government, that doesn't mean centralized government formation is human nature Since most countries now arent centralized, it simply means that human societies at that time all had centralized government.
Of course, he is a cultural anthropology professor so he could also be full of shit.
