I’m sorry to hear about these things, and hope all of the best for you. My thoughts about the evolutionary angle are…
I have ever read that rape is an evolutionary adaptation to mating.
I’ve read little bits about that as well, but I know that evo-psych is in its early stages of development, and a lot of material in established soft sciences is considered to be just a view of reality through a specific lens. While it could indeed have some merit to it, there are doubtless many other factors involved.
If this is true then it really does mean that 1. I am truly NOT to blame
Nobody is to blame for being physically assaulted in any manner. That is the case whether the article is true or not. People are responsible for their own actions, not the actions of those around them.
2. I am not a "victim" of violence.
I’d say this depends on how much you’re reading into the word ’victim’. On one level, if (A) physically assaults (B), then (A) = perpetrator, and (B) = victim. Some people read more into some type of a role as victim, and attribute qualities to them as a ‘type‘. I disregard all of that. It is up to each individual whether they choose to play a victim role.
in a twisted sort of way it gives me my power back
That is external locus of control thinking. Nothing and no one can give somebody power. Power is taken.
Locus of control is a term associated with agency. If you have a high internal locus of control, it means you are of a mind that you have a high level of effect on what goes on in your life. If you have a high external locus of control, it means you are of a mind that you have very little effect on what goes on in your life.
Where power dynamics are concerned, power is taken. People exercise power. People utilize things and concepts towards the end of exercising power. Things and concepts cannot give power, because they have no agency. If a person ‘gives’ you power, they really haven’t given you power. You are simply the agent that they exercise power through, and you are beholden to them until they decide to take it away.
Power dynamics are driven from within, and those with a high internal locus of control tend to be very good at it. Ask any psychopath.
You described domination and submission clearly, Obfus. Thanks.
However, when psychopaths reply, you might not know if you were lied to.
The smart ones lie well. They excel in sales, and in emptying the bank accounts of people who seek love externally.
Nothing and no one can give somebody power. Power is taken.
Belle, you might be applying Frederick Douglas too generally. He was wanting to reach people whose religions had taught them humility.
Electing people to public offices from which the law does not allow recall -- Congress, for instance -- and the electors have to wait until the next election to take their power back ... and give it to someone else. Assuming, of course, that you turn down the assassination option.
Hm-mm, a new contradiction in terms: a humble politician.
Power is taken.
Not always. I can delegate a power that I have. Power of attorney, for example.
As mentioned above, they only exercise that power until you decide to revoke it.
But when you say "Power is taken" it implies that it can only be taken, not given.
I have never seen an example where power is truly given. Power is allowed to be exercised through a proxy. Once the proxy is no longer of use, then the power is revoked.
Now, if the proxy decides to try to leverage the situation to where she/he keeps that power, then that person is making a play to take the power.
There may indeed be an exception to the rule, but that is the general dynamic of power.
I think our sticking point is how you're looking at the word 'give'. I don't include 'loan' to be part of the definition of 'give'.
I've heard of irrevocable trusts and just googled the term.
Ask.com says it's a legal arrangement that, once created, cannot be terminated or otherwise altered by the creator.
Look at the reasons why you would set up an irrevocable trust.
You interpret everything so that it conforms with your belief, which actually makes your view vacuous.
Unless you can describe what facts, if true, would prove you wrong, you aren't really asserting anything. Your view is detached from the world of fact.
I've run into people who similarly argue that everything people do is due to self interest and that there really is no such thing as selflessness and or generosity. If you give them the story of a father jumping into a raging river to save his child, they will say that the father did it to avoid feeling guilty, not out of love for the child.
You are doing much the same sort of thing here.
describe what facts, if true, would prove you wrong,
Easy. Somebody giving up authority and control over over an actively significant part of their life, free of coercion, and with no reciprocity or other strings attached.
I would like to think that it happens, because that would say a great deal about the positive aspects of humanity. However, I have never seen it.