Because we all know that the point is to get men laid!

According to the threads, rape cannot be reduced by teaching men to respect women's refusal or indifference because this would be an inexcusable violation of men's need to GET LAID and men's balls all over the world will explode from the unrelenting buildup of pressure.

So if rape is a problem (and most of the men don't think it is, numbers be damned) then there are two solutions:

Overcome the refusal of women by teaching men how to seduce women more effectively. Hey, tricking/beguiling women into bed is surely a step above raping them. It doesn't sound to me like a big step, but honest to God that's what the men out there seem to think will help reduce rape.

Teach women that men have this insatiable evolutionary drive to pass on their genes and women should accept that and be having lots more promiscuous sex with men, NOT because they want to, but to satisfy this "evolved" male sex drive. Otherwise, why, men are left with no choice to but to rape them! Sort of a collective "just lay back and enjoy it" argument.

This is what the last 300 letters on this subject have revolved around. The voices that have been pointing out the problem with conflating rape with sexual frustration (i.e. rape is caused by aggression/hostility not sexual desire) have been drowned in the flood.

You might as well preach chastity to the women because I swear to God, it doesn't look like the men can be taught anything. I really hope time will prove me wrong. But no, we are never going to teach men to "look out for" so-called grey rape because the paradigm of grey rape serves them well; they loves them their rape myths.

They are afraid that if they have to wait for a woman to unmabiguously choose them they will never get any tail. Sad but true.

If you look on the threads, it hasn't been conservatives who have been fulminating against teaching men to get consent in all situations, even if it means zipping their pants sometimes. The resistance to asking men to take responsibility cuts across the spectrum.

I agree that men have a sex drive. I do not agree that I, or any other woman, should have to live in fear of it!

I refuse to believe that women have to organize/restrict their lives around the "danger" of the man's insatiable sex drive; I refuse to believe that this sex drive is violent in nature, that men are "hard-wired" to "take" sex like wolves pulling down a moose. I mean, "lions hunting down prey" is what you compare it to. Is it really? Really?

I think this is a myth. One of the most pervasive myths of all time, but a myth. Men are not predatory because they are men. They are predatory because they are taught that.

To believe anything else is an insult to men, especially to all the men who court and love women in all kinds of beautiful non-violent ways.

Camille Paglia once wrote that she could not visit the pyramids the way her male companions could because women have to live in fear of male violence. She said this was a fact of life because of male biology and she would just have to live with it. This set off an entirely appropriate shitstorm. Why, 20 years after she wrote that, are we still having this discussion? It's tiring and its sick and its sad.

Men have a sex drive. Why do you think that gives you a right to terrorize us? I for one do not accept that it does. I think its an excuse, and a lame one.

Trying to teach men not to be rapists is the same thing as trying to teach lions to be vegan.

Well, I guess that settles it.

We might as well close up shop now, instead of going through 200 posts of this. It's all been worked out.

Feminists don't know how to use science, but laymen quoting evo-psych theories that are routinely mocked in the scientific community DO. Very good.

Excuse me while I get back to the kitchen.

is here with his favorite straw man, despite the fact that it is getting very tattered around the edges.

So P.J., you think I should live in fear of men? Is that what you are saying?

You, and a couple of others here, have some sort of incredible bitterness towards women. You can't stand them. I don't want to think about what you would do to me if you had a magic wand.

I don't even really understand why you addressed your post to me. I wasn't discussing any of the issues you raised. The thread isn't about any of these issues. If you want to opine about the Mary Kay Turneau syndrome or whatever, this was covered on Broadsheet two days ago and that thread is still open. If you read it, you will find the original post and every single comment saying these women should be in jail. In other words, self-identified feminists agree with you. So what's your problem?

I just know I'm gonna be sorry I asked that.

People who have no argument and nothing to stand on resort to calling the other person "drugged", "crazy", or "both".

I'm none of the above, thanks.

I don't hate men. I think it's a huge insult to men to say they are controlled by their balls. I think it's an even huger insult to men to insist they are biologically programmed to be violent towards women. Lots of men I know aren't. I think the people who keep throwing that out there need to examine the misandry behind that assumption.

What's the real reason for it?