No, but as a general rule in society we think that explosives are dangerous things, yet we happily sell them to teenagers who blow out stuff or light them horizontally pointed at other people.
I don’t like fireworks, but when it’s done by professionals I at least know that no one will be intentionally hurt by it. I don’t think they should be entirely banned, but I think that they should be regulated, anything even remotely as dangerous as most fireworks already is.
There are a few misconceptions in your logic.
Both of them are easy to disprove, but not obvious at first sight.
For 1 consider any case where a woman might have power (not physical) over a man, e.g. blackmail, teacher, parole officer, boss, etc. Another possibility to remember are weapons or physical threats to a third party. Also you should remember that humans have a fight/flight/freeze response, so a third of humans would just freeze regardless of being able to overpower their attacker. Finally there’s also the possibility of even without any threat, even being able to think properly, and knowing that he could physically overpower a female attacker, a man might not do it for fear of legal or moral repercussions, e.g. being thought not to hit girls or believing that no one would believe that he was defending himself. In fact lots of women who get raped don’t try to fight back or escape, believing (sometimes accurately) that their attacker would worsen the offense if they did that, e.g. by killing them (even if no threat was made), it’s not uncommon for rape victims to feel ashamed and guilt about not having fought back, and by saying that men can’t get raped because they could theoretically overpower their attacker you’re indirectly saying that any woman who doesn’t fight back with all her might is not being raped either, because they could have overpowered their attacker of they tried.
For 2, erections (and even ejaculation) are physical responses, in fact you can make a corpse get a hard on and cum (some wives do it to preserve their husbands sperm). This is no different from women getting wet or having orgasms while being raped (both of which are common), it means nothing, it’s just a physical reaction to a physical stimulus. In fact lots of victims (both men and women), especially those in abusive relationships think they deserve that because of those physiological reactions. To put it in simpler terms, saying a men can’t be raped because if they got an erection it means they wanted it is like saying that people can’t be stabbed because if they bled is because they wanted the knife.
You are correct, but missed one important point, or actually made an important wrong assumption. You don’t simulate a 1:1 version of your universe.
It’s impossible to simulate a universe the size of your own universe, but you can simulate smaller universes, or to be more accurately, simpler universes. Think on videogames, you don’t need to simulate everything, you just simulate some things, while the rest is just a static image until you get close. The cool thing about this hypothetical scenario is that you can think of how a simulated universe might be different from a real one, i.e. what shortcuts could we take to make our computers be able to simulate a complex universe (even if smaller than ours).
For starters you don’t simulate everything, instead of every particle being a particle, which would be prohibitively expensive, particles smaller than a certain size don’t really exist, and instead you have a function that tells you where they are when you need them. For example simulating every electron would be a lot of work, but if instead of simulating them you can run a function that tells you where they are at a given frame of the simulation you can act accordingly without having to actually simulate them. This would cause weird behaviors inside the simulation, such as electrons popping in and out of existence and teleporting over gaps smaller than the radius of your spawn_electron function, which in turn would impose a limit to the size of transistors inside that universe. It would also cause it so that when you fire electrons through a double slit they would interact with one another, because they’re just a function until they hit anything, but if you try to measure which slit they go through then they’re forced to collapse before that and so they don’t interact with one another. But that’s all okay, because you care about macro stuff (otherwise you wouldn’t be simulating an entire universe).
Another interesting thing is that you probably have several computers working on it, and you don’t really want loading screens or anything like that, so instead you impose a maximum speed inside the simulation, that way whenever something goes from one area of the simulation to the next it will take enough time for everything to be “ready”. It helps if you simulate a universe where gravity is not strong enough to cause a crunch (or your computers will all freeze trying to process it). So your simulated universe might have large empty spaces that don’t need that much computational power, and because traveling through them takes long enough it’s easy to synch the transition from one server to the next. If on the other hand maximum speed was infinite you could have objects teleporting from one server to the next causing a freeze on those two which would leave them out of synch with the rest.
And that’s the cool thing about thinking how a simulated universe would work, our universe is weird as fuck, and a lot of those weirdness looks like the type of weirdness that would be introduced by someone trying to run their simulation cheaper.