why do so few rape victims bite their attacker's penis off?



in order to assert his sexual power, a man actually needs to do far more than assert his bruter strength. he has to persuade his victim that his 'weapon' is, literally, overpowering - this in the face of the manifest evidence to the contrary, namely, that the penis is in fact a highly vulnerable appendage, susceptible, together with the testicles, to debilitating damage under the feeblest of counter-attacks. located as they are - low, frontally, and, what is most significant, externally - protruding out through the protective body-shell of the abdomen - the male genitalia, this repository of machismo, are ludicrously exposed, for organs that contain so many tightly-packed, excruciatingly sensitive nerve-endings. in an erect condition, the cock and its suspended balls are actually about as threatening as a rubber chicken, and no more serious a 'weapon' than a small leek and a couple of brussels sprouts in a hairnet. the intended victim need do no more than take either the penis or one of the testicles between her teeth and bite hard - seriously hard, as if chomping into an overdone steak - and the attacker would (this is absolutely guaranteed) immediately crumple into a screaming, writhing, weeping heap. the mere thought of this happening is enough to have all men metaphorically curling into a shivering protective ball.
so why does this hardly ever happen?
the committing of serious violence on another person is actually (mercifully) a rare event, despite what the media - organs of an authoritarian state which recognises the virtue of a permanently fearful populace - would have us believe. violent activity is a manifestation of failed social conditioning: fantasised about a great deal, it is nevertheless generally recognised as being a sort of sickness. even amongst drunken adolescent males, the ratio of noise and posturing to actual violence is still quite high. the downside to this is that, when faced with the inevitability of violence - when the possibility of escape has been erased - this strong social taboo has to be broken. the truth is that, when confronted with such a situation, the majority of us - male and female - are effectively paralysed by the conflicting imperatives between our instincts - urging us to defend ourselves with the greatest possible force - and our socialised senses - which are neither capable of grasping the actuality of the event ("this can't be happening to me") nor able to break the taboo of the last resort. the casual mugger would require the reflexes of a snake to dodge a determined counter-assault on his eyes, for example: out of nowhere, completely unexpectedly, two hands grab at his face and, before he can blink, both eyes have been gouged out by two pairs of middle fingers. end of assault. but how many of us would be capable of inflicting that sort of damage on another person, even in an extreme situation, where our very lives might be at stake? soldiers have to be trained - through a protracted process of brutalisation - to regard 'the enemy' as a dehumanised object, a 'target', merely. and in the case of the psychopath or the drug dealer's minder, the brutalisation happened, somehow, in the course of their previous lives - this is part of the job description.
for the time being, the pathetic rapists' pathetic packages are safe.
sadly, nothing can prevent their having to spend their next ninety-nine lives as a hermaphroditic mollusc's bitch.