Do you think the carrot of female sexual access is an important motivator for men to fight in war?

[MatureDJ]

I was reading this article about how Playboy magazine was a very integral part of the morale-boosting for the men fighting in Viet Nam, and it got me thinking:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/opinion/how-playboy-explains-vietnam.html

It seems to me that fighting in war is simply the rutting of males writ large across fighting entities (e.g., nation-states, or warlord gangs, etc.) so as to impress women - either the ones back home, or the ones of the enemy they wish to defeat - that they are worthy of sexual access. Soldiers in Viet Nam reading Playboy were in essence getting signals that they were fighting for the right to be able to bang those Playboy models. Heck, extraordinarily sexually frustrated Muslim men were seduced into thinking that they were fighting to access women in the afterlife (i.e., the "72 virgins"); similarly, Japanese kamikaze pilots were similarly given strong validation by young, fertile women in their "going away" ceremony to help them make the decision to sacrifice their lives.

 

[wifehunter]

It's BS, either way.

 

[Milano]

Sure, rape has always been a reward. Stalin had nothing against the rape of millions of Germans after WW2 to which he replied " people should understand if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle." On youtube you find Russian veterans talking about "sleeping with" German girls even grinning while they talk about the rapes. It was completely normal.

Americans used food to get sex from starved German girls after the war. Men do EVERYTHING to fvck when there is no law, might be hard to imagine at first but we are animals when given the opportunity. If we could look at a pretty womans facebook we would see how pathetic we are.