Although Lee Crocker Daniel makes some sense in his last post, I must
address one point:
>That kind of evidence would be difficult to find, and I don't
>know of any either. What I was trying to do is posit a reason
>for the evidence I did offer--that female victims of sexual
>abuse suffer more damage that males.
I would not call that evidence, but more speculation. Male rape victims suffer physical injury, just as female victims do. They suffer the same type of psychological effects. Rape crisis centers do not tell the male victims, well, at least you weren't a woman, this would have been so much worse! Pregnancy is a corollary to rape, but not an inevitable one. Also, perhaps early woman was as big and strong as her male counterpart--perhaps rape was not a huge threat for her to begin with. Rape isn't a huge threat to modern-day women who learn to defend themselves from it.
>I'll also admit to a data point for the counterargument: the same
>pressures should exist for Bonobos, who have obviously not fallen
>upon the same solution (Bonobo females screw as often as they eat;
>including with inanimate objects and other females).
In Franz de Waal's excellent book, _Peacemaking Among Primates_, he reports that he and his ethological staff have observed that sex among the bonobos serves many purposes: establishing and maintaining the social order, peacemaking, and procreation. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to consider that sex among humans might serve the same purposes. Why assume that early man only had sex for procreation?