Per your strange logic then, being asleep and eating should also be closely reserved. That's the funniest explanation I've been given to justify the sex taboo in our civilization
And sleeping often is
'closely reserved'. Animals tend not to sleep where they don't feel safe. They also tend to maintain a high level of alert while eating. Watch even semi-feral dogs or cats sometime, and you'll see it.
You probably missed all the posts in this thread about animals having sex not for a reproductive purpose. Also the higher on the food chain a mammal is, the longer and more frequents are their ruts, compare the matting duration of a rabbit and a lion. Oh, and BTW, the human being is on the top of the food chain ...
Nope, didn't miss a one. And it doesn't change anything, either. You'll note I didn't say that drive for safety only occurred when rutting for procreative purposes. It's always there, because the act is always one involving vulnerability.
As if the driver for sex in our societies was still linked to the urge of reproduction, or people having sex were relating to it
! You seem to have forgotten the "mind complexity" you were speaking about earlier. Between your reptile brain
and the homo sapiens mind there are heaps of cultural sophistication, memes, traditions, education, etc ... How could you seriously think that this reptile brain
would trump the social stigma about rape on the victim ?
a)the "reptile brain" underlies everything you do. It is a functioning, strong, and often dominant
part of the decision-making process that takes place in the human mind - a decision-making process, I should note, that seems to happen before
you consciously make a decision. (see Libet, Benjamin). It is a very large part of why, as rational as we like to pretend to be, we are still very much creatures of emotional knee-jerk response before reasoned decision unless we make not insignificant efforts to train ourselves otherwise.
b)Sorry, society itself is merely a means to increase the chances for reproduction - it is a means of seeking communal security against the vagaries of fate, whether you're talking about securing a steady food supply, protection from enemies/predators/disease, or the availability of suitable mates. As such, all of the complexities we have developed in advancing our society's ability to function under ever-increasing population loads are all, in the end, refinements to keep the system working for its ultimate goal: to increase our chances of continuing our genetic lineage.
The continuation of life is Life's purpose. Everything that we do, as individuals, as groups, as a species, is tied directly or indirectly to the need to breed.
In any case, if you stick to your logic you will probably at least agree with me that rape is not specifically different from any other kind of abuse in Erfworld since it is not related to reproduction.
I'd say we don't actually have enough information to draw those kinds of conclusions. We don't know a)to what extent thinkamancy/loyalty/duty combine to form an underlying precondition (NOT brainwashing; this precondition would exist from the moment a unit is popped - it would be part of the fundamental make-up of the unit's mind) that recludes the possibility of actual rape - it's potentially not even 'you can't refuse' or even 'you can't object', but potentially all the way to 'if the Warlord/Overlord/Ruler wants it, you
want it'. In such a situation, it wouldn't be traumatic at all to the unit involved - but it would also mean the unit involved isn't
a partner. They're basically an animated sex toy. There's also b)we don't know to what degree units with
some measure of self-determination (warlords, casters, etc) place value on intimacy, for exactly the reasons you mention: there's no biological necessity that we know of, so we have no way to know if the 'rules' that govern Erf generate a simulated imperative that would give rise to similar tendencies or not.
So no, I don't agree: you draw a conclusion. I say we don't know enough yet to do so.