[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

This is a tangent that might deserve it's own thread, but I'm skeptical when I read a history book that says that when soldiers capture a city, lots of rape follows.

I think historians get this wrong because, being nerdy bookish types, they lack personal experience with female psychology. If jocks wrote the history books we would know what actually happens when a city is sacked. Think about it:

You're a a rough, tough go-getter who just won a fight. You're rich (thanks to loot) you're confident, you're pumping high-octane testosterone (It's been proven with winning boosts testosterone). And you're surrounded by excited women whose men are either dead or humbled by defeat.

You don't need to rape anyone. The women are throwing themselves at you.

But then the excitement dies down, the conquerors move on, and in the cold light of day the women are regretting what they did.

So what do they do? Well, they do what all women do whenever they have sex and then regret it - they accuse the men of rape.

Their cuckolded husbands go ahead with it because they have to - what are they going to to, stone every woman for sluttery? There would be no women left.

And the conquerors go along with it because of how propaganda worked in the olden days. Back then to you didn't pretend to be a good guy, you just focused on scaring the snot out of everybody*. Think "Mafia" rather than "Madison Avenue". And rape stories are scarier than "hey, remember that time in Nanking when we all got lucky?"



*You know, like what I'm doing in this thread. Our goal is to turn everyone into God-FEARING Christians, after all.