Continuing the discussion from Do sexual preferences make one a bigot?:
Here’s a sick hypothetical. In the aftermath of global thermonuclear war, everybody is dead except you and one other person who is of the opposite sex. You are both fertile. The other person absolutely refuses to consent to sex. Let’s say they are ideologically opposed to continuing the human species, but not a suicide threat, and get along pretty well with you.
Do you rape him/her?
~Max
I would not. The only rationale in favor of rape in this instance is propagation of the human species. But more than the singular act of rape is necessary for that.
~Max
What part of “Don’t rape anybody, ever, under any circumstances” would be difficult to understand?
Also: Why populations can’t be saved by a single breeding pair
If she says no, then it is no. Anyway 2 people is a bottleneck that humanity does not recover from.
I wouldn’t, but I would be trying my absolute best to convince her of why it would be good for humanity to continue - counterproductive though such efforts may be.
I would also point out that if she were to change her mind later on down the road when her fertility window had already closed, that that would be a pretty bad regret to have.
Sure, but the hypothetical could still apply anyway, just expanded.
Suppose you have 10,000 men and 10,000 women - a large enough breeding population. But it just so happens that all of the men - or all of the women - steadfastly refuse to have sex, thus guaranteeing eventual extinction. Still fit’s the OP’s criteria.
So, you’re going to rape a woman to have kids that need to engage in incest to propagate the species? Yeah, time to give the cockroaches a chance.
Sometimes a hypothetical is better left in your brain.
I don’t think two people is enough to continue the human species. But what if there was a group of survivors with lots of fertile women, who are willing to reproduce, but only one fertile man, who isn’t? Do you force him to give a sperm sample (or many, depending on available level of technology)?
I’m inclining to say yes. It hardly compares to being forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth, and maybe the extreme situation justifies it.
I say no, no raping or coercive sexual activity under any circumstances. Besides, if you’ve really got a sustainable breeding population of many hundreds or thousands of individuals, you’ve probably got enough infrastructure left that there’s a source of viable frozen sperm around somewhere.
What it comes down to, IMO, is that any situation where there is literally only one individual on whom the survival of the whole human species depends is a situation that’s too precarious for the species to last more than a couple reproductive cycles anyway.
If the apocalypse has left thousands of fertile females and a sufficiently robust social system to sustain them in living and reproducing, then I guarantee you it’s also left at least a few males willing to reproduce.
Definitely not. Among other things, if the human species gets reduced like that, I’m not all onboard with the notion that we need to preserve it at all costs. I’m reminded of Joanna Russ in We Who Are About To who decides that the stranded little group should perish and NOT persevere.
But even bracketing all that aside, hell no.
I guess my question is what would that be? I see no point in continuing humanity given the scenario.
I want to … simultaneously … un-read… this topic… and echo the “gee, maybe some ideas should stay inside the head” comment above 
But then I wouldn’t need to have sex (consensual or otherwise) with anyone. We’d have 9,999 other men to wrestle with that choice.
Plus I don’t know how devoted I am to the continuation of the human race. I mean, I want a good world for my kids and all but if everyone was dead except for a handful of rapists and a handful of involuntary breeders who want the human race to die out, I guess it’s not something for me to try and make happen.
This might be a question that the crew of a multi-generational starship would have to face. A common solution to the very long travel time in space travel is to have a ship where subsequent generations continue the mission. But then that brings up this question. What happens if someone on the crew doesn’t want to procreate?
In these kinds of situations, it seems like it would be much better to have a good relationship with the remaining people rather than greatly anger them by forcing them to continue the mission or the human race. Just live out your remaining years as best as you can.
Or on-screen.
[recent movie title blurred in case you want to avoid the fact that this is a major plot point]
I’m a woman and I would BE that person refusing to have sex and I guarantee if you tried to rape me I’d fuckin’ kill you in a hot second. Pretty much just like I’d do now if I had the means readily at hand when you tried it.
One man one woman, no way. The human race is fucked anyway, the last thing that I want to do is to destroy any hope of civility between myself and my only other human being in the world.
1,000 men, and 1,000 women, I would probably not oppose a coercive breeding program. Ethics has always been a luxury when pitted against survival. Future generations judge us harshly for our actions, but there will at least be future generations.
4 Billion Women, 1 man. I fully accept spending my remaining years, strapped down to a table and injected with all sorts of drugs in my role as IVF sperm producer.
The fact that some religions have forced child marriage leads me to believe that those types of people would rape the last woman. They are essentially doing the same thing now even though there are many other women and, in fact, they may currently have multiple wives already.
Adding to this list:
And my personal vote is that I wouldn’t rape somebody under any circumstances.