Thanks for taking the time to post thoughtful, thorough replies. I read all of them with great interest. I don't find much to disagree with, really.

Amerigo, thanks also for sharing more details of the studies, including some I didn't know about.

I do think the conclusion that rapists could not be differentiatied from non-rapists based on their arousal is important....but your general point, that the studies aren't perfect, is well taken.

The emotional overload and sloppy thinking on the rest of the thread is really too bad. We started out with a snide opening statement that the progressive belief that sex was only a ancillary goal of rape was wrong--leaving us with the argument that sex was the primary goal of rape. I contested this vigorously.

We then got more sloppy thinking (including a poster who said that the desire for sex and the desire to dominate could not be separated--whoooa Nelly) and some nastiness, including the accusation that I thought people were "defending rapists"--something I never said, rather I said that people were defending popular misconceptions about rape--but whatever.

The Salon and BagNewsNotes threads are the only discussions I ever participate in, thanks to the quality of the replies. Have you ever tried to even read, much less comment on, the threads in other online forums? It's a complete waste of time.

I rarely get that experience at Salon, but lately, with being called a troll and all whenever I disagree, I'm starting to wonder. There's a lot more of that internet habit of just showing up to diss people and leave, etc. It's very discouraging.

It used to be more like a real conversation here.

But symbol guy is still a blast :)

you didn't make a mistake, I did say that someone was defending rapists when she wrote, "It is a fact that Rapists have Needs", followed by some muttering about how puritanical America is.

Yes, that sent me into orbit and inspired the reply about defending rapists, but it was only meant as a reply to that specific previous post. I know full well the rest of you aren't.

Needs, capitalized! Okay, I feel myself getting upset again....

I don't agree with your ideas about prostitutes, but that's okay, we are all here to learn something new. Mostly your posts and Smith's have been very educational. Sorry if I sometimes come across as hard-headed. Germaine Greer (I know, I know)once wrote that men's "need" for sex is very overemphasized in society to excuse all kinds of things, including the existence of prostitutes. Now she's not a man, and doesn't know whether or not "celibacy is the easiest thing in the world", as she writes (I don't even think it's that easy for women...!) but her viewpoint, that men just HAVE to have sex, to the extent that women have to order their lives around that need, is worth considering if only for its contrariness.

I don't get the notion that some women, somewhere, owe the most dysfunctional lowlifes in the community some 'tang.

I think that positive female role models would be a great idea in preventing this crime, but it would have to be much earlier than you say, like in childhood, and the goal should be to develop respect, and teaching that doesn't have to be sexual in nature and doesn't have to be done by prostitutes.

Your vision of prostitutes working with sex offenders, with guards and locks....sorry, from the prostitute's point of view, a john she may have to barricade herself against....well, it just goes in a circle...who would choose to have sex with such men, even for money? Probably not women who would be as emotionally secure, intelligent, and empathetic as they would need to be.

What about sexual alternatives, such as cyber sex? Wouldn't these guys be ideal candidates for RealDolls? Just asking. Maybe they need to get off but I don't think it follows that they need to actually touch living women..*shudder*.

Sex isn't like an inborn right of men, you know. It's something men have to earn (NO! Before you all pile on me I don't mean money although of course some men do earn it that way). I would say that women have to earn it also by being good partner material, in the same way. Having sexual intimacy with another person is a privelege, not a right.

I think rapists at the very least have forfeited that privelege.

I think they do need to be socialized to respect women but that needs to start, like, in the cradle.

Her painting isn't bad. If you view her photo, she is a very heavy featured woman, something that is not in vogue in this age of rhinoplasties.

Oh, I too think she's gorgeous, but she is no longer the dominant paradigm--waif thin, button-nosed, and fair haired. By that I don't mean simply blonde but thin, very fine hair that hangs very straight or is wispy--like little girls have. Has anyone else noticed that abundant thick hair, a beauty "must" of yesteryear (think "Little Women"), is no longer all that desirable?

Our beauty ideal is becoming increasingly childlike.

I don't really think men are necessarily sexually programmed to want children, since children are not fertile and adult women are. So why is this argued? I don't know, but I do know I believe it's wrong.

The shifting of the standard of what is sexually desirable to what looks like an immature child may represent some kind of societal pathology. That's much more likely. The whats and the whys I can't really say. Maybe someone else has some ideas.