The point is that in reality no real Human that isn't on crystal meth would be happy about being raped, noone, ever, ever. The fact that the idea that a rape victim should be happy is as popular as it happens to be is sickening, you sicken me, fuck you.
I've never seen rape in anime before. If you've seen the series, you'd understand the picture is a troll.
Im damn sure a man wouldn't object to being attacked by a (true) women(not a guy). Notice... I didn't say rape since a women raping a man is imposible. Men want sex always. if they don't they are totally messed up and darwins law should apply to them.
or they are homosexual and don't like women but are forced to have sex with the woman because she has a gun or something and she force fed him viagra. gawd open your minds people we live in a new world now.
homosexual = crosswired = defective = not fit to continue there genetics. To clarify im not hating, I just don't want them to spread or try to convert me. I used to work with a lesbo... she always hung around me and my other buddies at work(she like to do the same things guys do)... pissed me off that she was untouchable. talk about giving others frustration... she always talked about her "encounters" with other lesbos. I mean if she was to muscle up a little bit you couldn't even tell she was a guy... she was kinda flat chested and her voice was almost male.
Or, you know, they think that just possibly sticking your dick in someone should be something with a little more meaning behind it than taking a shit.
I do hope you realise that social darwinism and natural selection are quite, quite different. I don't suppose you do, or that you care, but it is an important distinction to make, so I'm going to make it for all of the people who may be interested in having it phrased clearly. The thing about natural selection is that it is not a conscious process, there is no question of 'intent' or 'should' or 'deserve'. Natural selection simply happens. If a species dies out, it isn't because it didn't 'deserve' to live, it simply means it was not well suited to surviving in its environment. A species which replaces it is not 'better' in any sort of ethical sense, or in any sort of quantifiable sense of value, both of those being abstract human concepts which don't actually exist. It is simply that one species works, while the other does not. Of course applying this to humanity, if we take the evolutionary approach, almost anybody can survive in modern first world society, we have places for everyone and we try to find ways to utilise everyone's capabilities, people with physical disabilities can find ways to use their minds to our advantage, people who are a bit thick can do manual work, utilising the extraordinary human physical versatility which we still cannot replicate with robotics, and people who are gay certainly aren't useless, they can do everything straight people can do, including raise children as we have plenty of children without parents who could use a family. Reproduction is not really an important thing in modern society, in fact in some places it's a real problem, we have the means to propogate the species as much as we need to, we aren't fighting massive infant mortality rates. Amusingly in fact, applying the social darwinistic approach, in modern first world human society, increased levels of homosexuality is actually advantageous to the species as it provides a means of levelling out population growth. Just as ants produce multiple different varieties of ant which all fill specific roles, so it is advantageous to humanity that we occasionally produce people who are less likely to reproduce uncontrollably. Thus, according to social darwinism, homosexuality should be revered and encouraged to develop because it could do with being quite a bit more common. Or you could just stop trying to lend the weight of science to your retarded xenophobia, whichever.
Yes, because people don't reproduce... That's the point. Society producing people who, for one reason or another, don't produce huge numbers of children is beneficial in first world countries.
