OK, I'm back but I don't know for how long.

Over on Steven's blog he's wrestling with a big subject(s) poised by one of his readers. I've debated with myself and decided I'd like to get into the hot oil a little myself. However, I'm going to bystep the stickiest subject posed and go for the more general one.

The reader posed the following questions:

"...all the crimes and 'bad things that seem to happen. WHY do they happen? And WHY can't people just learn to get along? God gave us the freedom to make our own decisions, why do certain people make bad choices that cause pain to others? WHY?"

Good questions, ones that mankind has wrestled with since man has been wrestling with their collective consciences. My wife would answer this by saying, "Well, it all started in the Garden of Eden..." I put it more succinctly by saying, "People are just no good."

I would amend one part of the quote, however. Instead of asking "why do certain people," I would ask "why do people," because all of us are guilty of making bad choices that cause pain to others.

I've encountered a number of people who believe that we're born pure and the world corrupts us, makes us bad, to whatever extent we ARE bad. I can't believe that. From the Biblical viewpoint, we are born with the original sin of Adam and Eve. From an evolutionary viewpoint, we are born with a selfish nature, a will to survive.

Either way, we come predisposed to doing bad things, selfish things. Our environment just plucks those strings in our heart, some people more than others. I've found that a harsh environment while growing up creates a situation where our sin nature comes to the forefront more often than if we have a gentle environment to grow up in. But it's there regardless and will manifest in some way.

It's not the physical harshness, however, of which I speak. Many primitive societies, in which life is much harsher than ours, have almost no crime, no violence problems. In those societies, violence, from the earliest of ages, is not tolerated. And if someone does display extra violent tendencies, the punishment is most severe, usually death or banishment. At least that's my impression.

And the most degrading of upbringings can still produce an exemplary individual, the most loving of environments a serial killer. Statistics are a tricky thing, and the profile of violent people is only a "probability." Remember that the profile of the beltway sniper said he had to be a caucasian.

I was reading statistics on violent crime in the United States. From what I could see, in the last 10 years the incidents of rape went from slightly under 3% per year to under 1% (of the population of women > 12 years of age). If this is true, it's great news, but I got to thinking about how such a drastic change could happen in such a short time.

Simply less reporting? Given how the public is being hammered by appeals that women not sweep these things under the rug, I find this hard to believe. And why such a drastic change during these particular 10 years? No, I don't think this is the reason.

Interesting side note, there was a figure given that only 31% of rapes were reported. I know they must have some logical way to knowing this figure so exactly, but I can't figure out how it could be determined. Does anyone here know?

Women aren't going out as much at night? A lot of rapes occur at night. But I don't think women in the last 10 years have started cowering in their homes. Nor do I think we've got more cops out there making sure it doesn't happen. Better education? Hard to believe such a big change in such a short time.

But I did come up with a theory, and if it's true, it sheds some real light on something significant. Anyway, I think so. One thing that has come about in the last ten years is much better forensics. Although shows like CSI are unrealistic in their showing of the application of scientific techniques, the use of DNA analysis has taken giant strides in the last ten years.

So, at the hospitals we have a much better procedure for detecting rapes and collecting necessary information and samples. This is true of rape victims and rape/murder victims. If we can determine who might be perpetrators, it's easy to either eliminate suspects or convict the rapist. Honestly, I believe we're catching more of the rapists and putting them behind bars.

You know, people say that the death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent to others committing murders. Maybe so. But if it's true, then I doubt that the arrest of one rapist will act as a deterrent for another, either. Rape just isn't that kind of a crime.

So if the arrests aren't deterring other rapists, what is happening to cause just a drastic drop in rape statistics? I think rapists in general come in two categories, the criminal serial rapist, who concentrates on strangers, and the "stud" who feels a need to dominate women, concentrating on those he knows.

Regardless of which of these two you look at, they are usually involved in multiple rapes. They are not examples of a guy who rapes a girl and then never does it again. Because of its nature, the rapist repeats his act over and over.

I do not believe that the general male population is out there raping every day to produce the 250,000 - 300,000 rapes per year in this country. I believe that we have a very small subsection of the male population that is perpetrating this crime.

And I believe we've made a very big dent in that subsection, incarcerating them over the last ten years. It will be interesting to see what the statistics do when those arrested in the last ten years start getting out of prison.

One last thing, in defense of men, those men who aren't rapists, who do treat women in the way they deserve. It is so easy, looking at these, the worst of the jerks of the world, to condemn all men for their lack of feeling for women. It is so easy to extend that condemnation because of similarities between the jerks and all other men.

My wife asked me why, at my age, happily married, that I was watching a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit show on TV. OK, so she didn't ask, because she's a smart lady and already knew the answer. That answer is that I, like most men, have a genetic disposition to want to look at naked (or near-naked) women. No, I mean it, really.

I find women's bodies gorgeous, fascinating, much like looking at an old-master canvas, only with sexual overtones. It arouses feelings in me which God put there, not ones of lust, but ones of appreciation of beauty.

To ask men not to look, not to desire, is the equivalent of asking them not to salivate when the smell of food drifts from the kitchen. It's part of us, it isn't something we can turn off and on, even if we wanted to. And women should be grateful it's there, or all us men would be with mates called Bruce, Adam, Joshua, etc.

Basically my contention is that men are scared of women, afraid of the difference that exists, unable to understand or deal with the level of emotion that exists in every woman. Add to that the effects of a mother's dominance over the boy growing up, the position of power she held, and it seems obvious that something is needed to make us seek feminine companionship.

This inborn desire for the feminine form keeps us coming back despite rejection after rejection, despite our fears. Just my theory, but I've seen little in life among men to contraindicate it.

Unfortunately, if that desire is warped by something in our life, we can wind up being one of those whose DNA becomes of prime interest. We have to be able to express our basic sexuality. Too often, the blame which should be reserved for the actions of a few is visited upon all of us because of our natural inclinations.

A small defense of the majority of men. One day someone more brave than me will have to do a blog on who really has the sexual power, men or women.

Anyway, your comments? I'm sure there are people out there who know more about this whole subject than I do.