I suggest we would not feel as much pity for a man who was dying of kidney failure and tore into another person and removed one of his kidneys to put in himself (even if it resulted in both men surviving) as we would for the food thief.

The other thing to keep in mind is marginality – a starving person is very very near death and has no option but to eat immediately or die. Someone who cannot get a woman to consent to reproduce likely has many more years of fertility in which to attempt it, and there are options besides the use of force to spread his genes (sperm banks, artificial insemination, etc.).

I don’t know about everyone else, but in my moral universe, judgments are based on the tangible cost inflicted, not on the hypothetical advantage gained. I dispute the idea that we heap uniformly more condemnation on crimes against the person than on crimes against property. I’d let someone punch me in the face if it would keep him from stealing my laptop. I’m not sure where the line is– would I let someone break my finger?– but rape is quite obviously not your everyday crime against the person. Like others, I’m having a very difficult time imagining a property crime that inflicts the same type of injury– from physical, emotional, AND evolutionary standpoints.

In addition, I think it’s important to consider that the person who steals food knows that he will satisfy his biological need immediately by consuming it. The person who commits rape does not, however, know that his genes will be continued (not that his crime would be excusable, either, if he were certain to produce offspring). Would anyone make a serious argument that there is a moral difference between raping a fertile woman and raping an infertile one?

While I have nothing but my own speculation, I also agree with the poster who suggested that institutionalizing an “inalienable right to have sex” by creating a sex-charity program would entitle people to make inappropriate sexual demands of others and consequently would create a more hostile, sexually aggressive environment, particularly for women. It follows that an inalienable right to have sex should include an inalienable right to REFUSE sex (which I like to think we already have). So where is the redress if the right to have sex is violated? By violating someone else’s right to refuse sex? “Honey, I have a headache.” “Do me, or I’m going to take you to court!”

The discussion (with a few notable exceptions) has also been rife with the assumption that men suffer the effects of sexual deprivation more than women do. Give me a break. Women enjoy and crave sex just as much as men do.

Well, it sounds logical, doesn’t it? But, let’s go to the video tapes: see this. These devices became very reliable in the late ’80’s. Sensation is unchanged, orgasm unchanged, female sensation unchanged, and for the most part, appearance unchanged, and Medicare pays for them. And yes indeed, it is quite possible for a woman (or a group of women) to rape a man, and to continue for as long as they choose. The kinder ones will offer the occasional bread and water to the victim. I have performed this operation thousands of times, and when it comes to sex, it’s difficult to imagine all the things people will do. I do know of a patient whose girlfriend started out with what she represented as “bondage”, but then invited several of her friends to take part without his consent. On the other hand, I know of quite a few men (usually much older than the woman) who eventually fell asleep, while the partner continued for another hour or more. Who says this isn’t a sophisticated blog?

Of course they are viewed differently. Women aren’t property or goods to be bargained with or to sedate men’s sexual desires.

The implication that not having sex is the same as starvation is disgusting too. Unfortunately for us, if you never have sex again you’ll still live.

Keep in mind the header graphic of male Odysseus being tormented by female sirens makes quite a statement on the view of women by the author to newcomers when combined with the original post.

I think it much more likely that it never crossed their minds that it could be taken as saying something about women. It certainly never occurred to me until now. Male privilege, maybe, but still there’s a HUGE difference between not realizing someone might take you to mean X, and actually meaning X.

True, but it remains the case that there’s a general tendency for people to find the best potential breeding partners more attractive. But I grant that there are significant exceptions.