consent, incapacity, and mens rea are not as simple and bright line as you’re implying. If it was these cases wouldn’t give such fits to jurors.

1) If a culture denies the deeper aspects of reality (e.g., female sexuality), then its women may develop personalities that are highly sterile and materialistic, and likely to be in denial about the more primal aspects of their nature – they will actually BELIEVE in their higher moral virtue. But it is a brittle, fragile morality that splinters into pieces in certain situations, and that denied primal beast can unexpectedly come to the fore, beyond a woman’s control. But as for that minority of women who do not subscribe to such a morality and who do step over the line, they flip to the opposite extreme/ behaviour/ psychology, perhaps nymphomania. I’ve travelled to enough countries to observe patterns in how this duality evolves, in all its shades of grey. The bottom line, if you deny something primal, it leaps back at you tenfold.

2) Nothing in a culture materializes magically from a vacuum. If there is something culturally unsavoury about men, then as sure as the laws of mathematics and physics, there will be something equally as unsavoury about that culture’s women. It’s as reliable as a mathematical formula.

A question… can we really accept that masculine perversions arise in a vacuum? Has it not occurred to anyone that the masculine perversions that are so routinely mocked have their feminine counterpoint?

It is my belief that some of the most valuable secrets of the universe might begin to unveil themselves once we crack this code.

Your article is a good start to a very interesting subject that deserves close attention.

However, one thing that stood out to me: You talk a lot about “rape fantasies,” but you don’t explain WHO is doing the rape in those fantasies.

I would wager that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the rapist is their husband, boyfriend, a guy they have a crush on, or some archetype of the “perfect guy.” In other words, women fantasize about being raped – but only by a guy who they would normally – in real life – have sex with.

This is an important distinction. If we assume that women want to be raped by “anyone, anytime,” then women do seem depraved, and the casual attitude found by many men toward raping women (especially in foreign countries, as you mentioned) might be understandable. But if the situation is the way *I see it,* raping a woman you don’t know or hardly know is a hideous crime of the first order.

If anyone has any facts to either back me up, or disprove my theory, let me know.

WEIRD. What if BOTH the man and the woman are intoxicated and NEITHER “ask” the other – they just screw. Does that mean they “raped” each other? In almost ALL of these situations, EVEN IF the man is also intoxicated the man is expected to somehow shoulder more of the responsibility for , well, basically everything. Sorry, but we are ALL still responsible for our actions when intoxicated. Only if the woman is unconscious would what you say hold true. She still has the responsibility to clearly tell the man NO and attempt to extricate herself from the situation. DUH! Simply “asking” may not be good enough anyway. After all her inhibitions were down due to the alcohol. Maybe a written consent form?

If you follow what defines consent, then you will not have that problem. Drunkeness means that the woman is not able to give consent. Ask your partner if they feel comfortable with what is going on–if they yes, and are in their right minds (not high or drunk), you have consent. If they say no even in jest, STOP.