I like the discussion on turning the conversation into "legalism". For example, when I express my disgust that a certain popular masculinity influencer systematically used the lover boy technique to manipulate vulnerable young women into becoming porn stars I frequently get these knee jerk responses from other men:
"Oh are they not CONSENTING ADULTS? Is it a CRIME? Did he FORCE THEM AT GUNPOINT?"
Like bro, I'm allowed to personally not like something gross a man did to women without doing a Law and Order episode about it
Maurice Merleau-Ponty somewhere said that, for mediocre people, sex is the closest thing they have to encounter the mystery and exhilaration of being.
You rightfully point out the legalistic, black-and-white consent-based sexual ethic that predators and sexual autists exploit and gamify. The Gaimans, predators, and sexual autists become something even lower than mediocre as they reduce the sexual act into a mechanical, lifeless interaction with the other, no different than a breathing fleshlight. They annihilate the mystery entirely, reducing it to raw objectification. This is a cultural cancer that permeates every inch of our modern sexual ethic.
You say: “Having sex is viewed as more important than having good sex. On the right, this manifests with … religious puritans turning sex into a sterile act relegated to the confines of marriage.”
I agree completely when it comes to the Ned Flanders style religious puritan, the kind of person who sees sex less as a mutual self-gift and more as a duty existing within a pseudo-transactional framework of marriage. These puritans operate within the same spectrum of legalism that turns sex into a calculated exchange, not unlike the timid enthusiastic consent junkie awkwardly requesting "verbal consent at every juncture." The only difference is that the puritan’s sterility is limited to the confines of marriage. In other cases, we see this in practice with pathetic workarounds like the Mormon loopholes of “soaking” or using sodomy to sidestep perceived restrictions, treating the very idea of sex as some kind of obstacle course to navigate.
But I’d challenge you here because not all who maintain that sex belongs exclusively within marriage fall into the sterile framework of Ned Flanders level puritanism. In fact, there’s a religious alternative to the brokenness of both commodified, consent-driven sex and the grudging marital duty of puritanical legalists. The alternative I'm shilling for is the misrepresented Catholic intellectual tradition that offers a vision of sex which reclaims its mystery and affirms the dignity of both partners.
The Church teaches that sex is unitive and procreative. Far from being “sterile,” this understanding restores the fullness of eros and completes it with agape. It begins in the erotic but finds its culmination in mutual self-gift, a unity that becomes nothing less than a participation in creation itself. When the procreative and unitive aspects of sex are preserved, sex transcends the transactional. It no longer a sterile exchange of pleasure or a begrudging marital duty but a participatory life-creating act of communion. Indeed, at its best, it encompasses a proper intuition of, in your words, "body language and social cues, [where one is capable of] making inferences about another person’s emotional state" precisely because one views the beloved as a dignified partner in love, as opposed to another commodity to consume and dispose.
This is why the Catholic rejection of contraception is so critical—and I know, such rejection becomes scandalous to modern ears and I'd argue is now the counter-cultural position, even among Christians—not because the Church is hung up on rules for the sake of rules,but because contraception abstracts the sexual act, strips it of its mystery, and reduces it to consequence-free pleasure. It facilitates a shallow framework where sex becomes a negotiation between two autonomous “I”s seeking mutual gratification, even if that gratification is selfless in intention and coupled with romance. Without the openness to life, sex becomes less-than transcendent and short of its mystery precisely because the willfulness of the "I" detaches and abstracts sex from its teleology.
Good sex isn’t just about good technique, but instead an emotional culmination that enters into the mystery of the other as a co-creator in life, with all the risks and responsibilities it entails. The Catholic vision not only preserves the dignity of sex but elevates and redeems it. It refuses to reduce sex to a legalistic exchange or a tool of commodification and instead demands its integration into the fullness of human love.
So yes, the Gaimans, the puritans, and the consent-based legalists are all part of the same spectrum of brokenness. But the answer isn’t less restriction or “better consent.” The answer is to reclaim the profound mystery of sex as both a gift and a responsibility, grounded in love and open to life. Anything less reduces the act to a shadow of what it’s meant to be.
I don’t expect you or anyone reading this to agree entirely, but I hope it offers a counter-balance to the Flanders level puritanism that gets lumped in with every religious person that thinks sex is better and more fulfilling in marriage—not as a sterile duty, but as something more, something whose mysterious sense has been dulled and lost to the commodified sex-consent cultural ethos of our time.
I agree with this actually. I don’t subscribe to religious sexual morals as an atheist, but I generally don’t take issue with Catholicism’s sexual ethics as they are pretty logically consistent and don’t seem to be oppressive towards either sex
It’s retarded that you should even have to write this piece. People who hide behind the legalistic definition of things end exploit gray areas through manipulation are all too common, and their behavior contributes to the many ridiculous dynamics you describe.
I think Niel Gaiman is an evil human being. In fact, most self-proclaimed "male feminists" that I have met are usually covert narcissists to some degree, examples of "the lady doth protest too much". However, a big issue with the discourse is that we have let go of deep cultural archetypes that existed for a reason. Before the allegations came out, people did not blink an eye about Niel and Amanda's perverse "open" marriage. This is a clear symptom of a deeper problem. Books like "The Ethical Slut" sell a version of consensual non-monogamy that 50 years ago even a first-grader could have debunked. Polyamory is simply a way for mentally ill people to self-harm in a societally encouraged way. It is no different from two junkies who enable each other's self-destructive spirals of drug abuse. It should not be promoted or seen as socially acceptable.
I think there's people with genuine gender dysphoria. But it is an unfortunate psychological disorder. Also, in my experience it has a lot of correlation with other mental illnesses.
Oh, gosh, the “ENM” crowd that feels that it’s okay to lie and say they are single, and carry on what you think is a relationship, and then sabotage it when they’re done, is next level disgusting... Debating so much whether to report the military guys that do this, evidently with their pathetic wives consent. 🙄 Freaking disgusting, have some pride if no decency. If you have to lie, and put on a charade, it’s not actually consensual. It may not be rape, but it’s not consensual.
Who is this podcaster who doesn't like women enjoying sex? (Understand if you'd rather not say.) I genuinely can't wrap my head around why that would be a turnoff.
“The overreliance on consent in evaluating a sexual encounter has become a kind of thought-stopping technique completely inhibiting the ability of otherwise intelligent people to apply any ounce of emotional reasoning, empathy, social skills or critical thinking while determining whether they should behave in a certain way or not.” Brilliant.
Or, in the words of Richard Feynman, “human beings should treat human beings like human beings.”
When I think (as a dude of a certain age) of the gantlet people have to run now, it makes me glad I’m older. So much counterintuitive BS. “May I move my hand 0.75 inches up your leg?” “Consent is granted.” The legalism comes in and the empathy goes away because dueling choruses online are determined to teach both sexes that the opposite one consists entirely of ghouls. I don’t see a way out.
Lots of good nuance here. But I think there's a tension between what makes great discussion in a place like Substack and what makes for good policy out in the world.
I fully agree that we focus way too much on letter of the law type consent, and that this distracts from conversations about aggression, manipulation, and compulsion.
But if the objective is to convince average people and win a public argument, then allegations of aggression, manipulation, and compulsion are 1,000 times more slippery than yes or no consent, and you're going to get a lot of people who will dismiss such arguments.
We've all seen online conversations where people are screaming about fairly normal behavior and calling it violence for some convoluted reason, and we shouldn't let sexual assault be equated with this.
In short, the concept of consent draws a sort of line in the sand. My first reaction is not to remove that line, but I would be happy to add additional lines that are as concrete as, did you ask, and did she say yes?
We could add some sort of question like, did you really consent or just go along? But I don't think that gets us very far. The real problem is to get men to see women as fully human and fully equal, but there's no checklist for that that we can provide to young men who go on dates.
The problem with seeing women as fully equal to men, is that they are not and never will be fully equal to men. Seeing women as "fully equal to men" opens the door to a bunch of abuse, for example, the legions of men (15% of the Fed prison population apparently) who claim to be women so they can get into women's spaces and abuse them. That is bad because *women and men are not the same*.
Too many people (morons) will read my above statement and think that I am inferring that women are inferior to men. That is false. Difference is not inferiority or superiority. Difference is difference. That means as a society, we tailor our responses to circumstances to allow for that difference.
Women need to be protected. Feminists would have us believe that is false and that in order for women to have agency, men must stop insisting that they are weaker...except they are weaker, and they do need protecting, and because of that their agency must be somewhat limited.
Here's a male counterpoint to make the feminsts stop seething so much. The Red Pill is right about one thing - men are disposable. A huge number of us don't have the opportunity to pass on our genes (almost 100% of women are given this opportunity, an enormous privilege), we are fed into meat-grinder wars against our will with no discernible effect on population levels, we get no empathy from any person or institution in society, a fact so galling that boys have to internalize this sense of deep worthlessness at a very young age lest they only discover it when older and off themselves from the shock of it.
What the Red Pill gets wrong is that, *despite* the fact that men are essentially worthless, society and women still don't owe them anything. Part of being a man is accepting that (unlike women) we are essentially worthless and we have to work hard for decades to make ourselves worthwhile to society and women. We don't get handed our self-worth on a silver platter like women do.
This means that men don't really have full agency either, it just manifests so differently that most of us who have grown up in a society poisoned by The Enlightenmen can't even recognize it.
Excellent argument. I strongly agree with the analysis on weak men who use every ploy to technically wring consent out of women.
Have you read Becca Roth's essay Only Mercy: Sex After Consent for her book All Things Are Too Small ? In it, she also argues that there are hardly any rhetoric on 'good' sex.
A good dissection of the sub standard discourse we're used to regarding sex, and when it's right or wrong and good or bad. Looking forward to the follow up!
Really looking forward to how this unfolds in future articles. I’m narcissistic enough to wonder if it’s still possible to be a male feminist or is it forever tainted now. And I’m nerdy enough to also wonder, on the subject of recording nuances of consent: Is there an app for this?
Women are fully equal to men in terms of intellectual capacity, leadership, their rights and responsibilities as citizens, etc. Most small differences in capacity are functionally irrelevant, or false, like the claim that women are just bad at math.
Women are not fully equal to men in terms of physical size, upper body strength, and capacity for physical violence.
I'm deeply suspicious of the claim that women need protection. It's only true in the case of physical violence, and it enables all of the weaker vessel nonsense that is part of controlling and abusive psychology.
Certainly we don't tell gay men or non-muscular straight men that they're going to need protecting all their lives because there are other men out there who are physically stronger. And these groups grow up with less fear and sense of physical danger.
The prison example is a poor one. All people who are not predators themselves need protection when they're placed in a prison and consensual sex is not possible in a prison, so normal rules don't apply.
What has been framed as protection I would frame as, we all just need to look out for and support each other. The default in social situations should be the assumption that the woman is competent and can address any issues herself. When that fails, others in the friend group, or even non-friends should step in if they see abuse in progress.
Anyone who's out in the world where alcohol is on the table has an obligation to keep an eye out for potential violence and the mistreatment of women. They shouldn't go charging in like some white knight and savior, but the occasional intervention is warranted, probably starting with a quiet are you okay?
Male Feminists are some of the most opportunistic predatory men around.
“I’m not like those other men, I’m more highly evolved, morally superior and respect women’s rights and their bodies soooo much”.
And the whole time they are waiting for that time when they can try it on. Always with a gaslighting excuse when the woman rejects them/shows shock at their actions.
Did you notice, in all the Pro Pal University ‘encampments’ there were quite a few men, clearly too old for university (usually unwashed and carrying a guitar)?
What? A demonstration with disorganised, on the spot sleeping arrangements which encouraged hiding yourself (from the media)?
Impressionable young women, away from home for the first time, listening to tales of your tortured existence fighting oppression?
Ironically I bet they are the first one in any conversations to condemn mysoginistic behaviour……… like a few in the comments above. Not me you understand. I’m not like those other men etc.
This is a good post I enjoyed it.
I like the discussion on turning the conversation into "legalism". For example, when I express my disgust that a certain popular masculinity influencer systematically used the lover boy technique to manipulate vulnerable young women into becoming porn stars I frequently get these knee jerk responses from other men:
"Oh are they not CONSENTING ADULTS? Is it a CRIME? Did he FORCE THEM AT GUNPOINT?"
Like bro, I'm allowed to personally not like something gross a man did to women without doing a Law and Order episode about it
THISSS 👏🏻
Maurice Merleau-Ponty somewhere said that, for mediocre people, sex is the closest thing they have to encounter the mystery and exhilaration of being.
You rightfully point out the legalistic, black-and-white consent-based sexual ethic that predators and sexual autists exploit and gamify. The Gaimans, predators, and sexual autists become something even lower than mediocre as they reduce the sexual act into a mechanical, lifeless interaction with the other, no different than a breathing fleshlight. They annihilate the mystery entirely, reducing it to raw objectification. This is a cultural cancer that permeates every inch of our modern sexual ethic.
You say: “Having sex is viewed as more important than having good sex. On the right, this manifests with … religious puritans turning sex into a sterile act relegated to the confines of marriage.”
I agree completely when it comes to the Ned Flanders style religious puritan, the kind of person who sees sex less as a mutual self-gift and more as a duty existing within a pseudo-transactional framework of marriage. These puritans operate within the same spectrum of legalism that turns sex into a calculated exchange, not unlike the timid enthusiastic consent junkie awkwardly requesting "verbal consent at every juncture." The only difference is that the puritan’s sterility is limited to the confines of marriage. In other cases, we see this in practice with pathetic workarounds like the Mormon loopholes of “soaking” or using sodomy to sidestep perceived restrictions, treating the very idea of sex as some kind of obstacle course to navigate.
But I’d challenge you here because not all who maintain that sex belongs exclusively within marriage fall into the sterile framework of Ned Flanders level puritanism. In fact, there’s a religious alternative to the brokenness of both commodified, consent-driven sex and the grudging marital duty of puritanical legalists. The alternative I'm shilling for is the misrepresented Catholic intellectual tradition that offers a vision of sex which reclaims its mystery and affirms the dignity of both partners.
The Church teaches that sex is unitive and procreative. Far from being “sterile,” this understanding restores the fullness of eros and completes it with agape. It begins in the erotic but finds its culmination in mutual self-gift, a unity that becomes nothing less than a participation in creation itself. When the procreative and unitive aspects of sex are preserved, sex transcends the transactional. It no longer a sterile exchange of pleasure or a begrudging marital duty but a participatory life-creating act of communion. Indeed, at its best, it encompasses a proper intuition of, in your words, "body language and social cues, [where one is capable of] making inferences about another person’s emotional state" precisely because one views the beloved as a dignified partner in love, as opposed to another commodity to consume and dispose.
This is why the Catholic rejection of contraception is so critical—and I know, such rejection becomes scandalous to modern ears and I'd argue is now the counter-cultural position, even among Christians—not because the Church is hung up on rules for the sake of rules,but because contraception abstracts the sexual act, strips it of its mystery, and reduces it to consequence-free pleasure. It facilitates a shallow framework where sex becomes a negotiation between two autonomous “I”s seeking mutual gratification, even if that gratification is selfless in intention and coupled with romance. Without the openness to life, sex becomes less-than transcendent and short of its mystery precisely because the willfulness of the "I" detaches and abstracts sex from its teleology.
Good sex isn’t just about good technique, but instead an emotional culmination that enters into the mystery of the other as a co-creator in life, with all the risks and responsibilities it entails. The Catholic vision not only preserves the dignity of sex but elevates and redeems it. It refuses to reduce sex to a legalistic exchange or a tool of commodification and instead demands its integration into the fullness of human love.
So yes, the Gaimans, the puritans, and the consent-based legalists are all part of the same spectrum of brokenness. But the answer isn’t less restriction or “better consent.” The answer is to reclaim the profound mystery of sex as both a gift and a responsibility, grounded in love and open to life. Anything less reduces the act to a shadow of what it’s meant to be.
I don’t expect you or anyone reading this to agree entirely, but I hope it offers a counter-balance to the Flanders level puritanism that gets lumped in with every religious person that thinks sex is better and more fulfilling in marriage—not as a sterile duty, but as something more, something whose mysterious sense has been dulled and lost to the commodified sex-consent cultural ethos of our time.
I agree with this actually. I don’t subscribe to religious sexual morals as an atheist, but I generally don’t take issue with Catholicism’s sexual ethics as they are pretty logically consistent and don’t seem to be oppressive towards either sex
David, this is a fantastic comment. I'm Catholic, and my marriage and all the affections that come with it are to bring us closer together.
the ethereal beautiful mystery of not being able to afford an unplanned pregnancy
It's telling that your knee-jerk reaction was to assess human life with an economic mindset. Everything is reducible to the dollar isn't it?
experiencing the numinous presence of Being as my family of 10 is thrown out of the apartment
Just keep it in your pants lolz
most advanced christian theologian
Sex has always been mechanical bullshittery. Death to the Sex Havers. Titanium Iron Burkhas.
It’s retarded that you should even have to write this piece. People who hide behind the legalistic definition of things end exploit gray areas through manipulation are all too common, and their behavior contributes to the many ridiculous dynamics you describe.
Yes, absolutely
Please don't use the R-slur, it's gross
I think Niel Gaiman is an evil human being. In fact, most self-proclaimed "male feminists" that I have met are usually covert narcissists to some degree, examples of "the lady doth protest too much". However, a big issue with the discourse is that we have let go of deep cultural archetypes that existed for a reason. Before the allegations came out, people did not blink an eye about Niel and Amanda's perverse "open" marriage. This is a clear symptom of a deeper problem. Books like "The Ethical Slut" sell a version of consensual non-monogamy that 50 years ago even a first-grader could have debunked. Polyamory is simply a way for mentally ill people to self-harm in a societally encouraged way. It is no different from two junkies who enable each other's self-destructive spirals of drug abuse. It should not be promoted or seen as socially acceptable.
There are some rare people who can be poly in a healthy way but yeah I think most people are not equipped for it
I've never seen it. I think those people must be extremely emotionally avoidant or lying to themselves in order to make it work.
Do you also think there are no people with genuine gender dysphoria? There's a lot of variation in human sexuality.
I think there's people with genuine gender dysphoria. But it is an unfortunate psychological disorder. Also, in my experience it has a lot of correlation with other mental illnesses.
Oh, gosh, the “ENM” crowd that feels that it’s okay to lie and say they are single, and carry on what you think is a relationship, and then sabotage it when they’re done, is next level disgusting... Debating so much whether to report the military guys that do this, evidently with their pathetic wives consent. 🙄 Freaking disgusting, have some pride if no decency. If you have to lie, and put on a charade, it’s not actually consensual. It may not be rape, but it’s not consensual.
Giacomo, you seem to live in a black and white world . Mine is at least fifty shades of grey . Do you see what I did there ?
*fifty shades of gay
Who is this podcaster who doesn't like women enjoying sex? (Understand if you'd rather not say.) I genuinely can't wrap my head around why that would be a turnoff.
Walt Bismarck, he’s disgusting and I regret going on his podcast and being nice to him lol
Lol, I thought you liked him? He's being set up to to be the new Work From Home BAP. Doesn't he hang out with those Red Scare Whores?
Im trying to figure out if this is serious or trolling him.
serious lol
“The overreliance on consent in evaluating a sexual encounter has become a kind of thought-stopping technique completely inhibiting the ability of otherwise intelligent people to apply any ounce of emotional reasoning, empathy, social skills or critical thinking while determining whether they should behave in a certain way or not.” Brilliant.
Or, in the words of Richard Feynman, “human beings should treat human beings like human beings.”
When I think (as a dude of a certain age) of the gantlet people have to run now, it makes me glad I’m older. So much counterintuitive BS. “May I move my hand 0.75 inches up your leg?” “Consent is granted.” The legalism comes in and the empathy goes away because dueling choruses online are determined to teach both sexes that the opposite one consists entirely of ghouls. I don’t see a way out.
Thanks Jeff! I’m still hopeful there’s a way out :)
Hopefully. But the ubiquity of online porn is inculcating guys with a lot of wrong beliefs about women. Cindy Gallop has a good Ted talk on this.
You might also be interested in this article about how consent is necessary but also inadequate as a framing:
https://aeon.co/essays/consent-and-refusal-are-not-the-only-talking-points-in-sex
Not commenting as I’m part of the 10% of people for which all this stage four sexual autism was designed (autistic)
Lots of good nuance here. But I think there's a tension between what makes great discussion in a place like Substack and what makes for good policy out in the world.
I fully agree that we focus way too much on letter of the law type consent, and that this distracts from conversations about aggression, manipulation, and compulsion.
But if the objective is to convince average people and win a public argument, then allegations of aggression, manipulation, and compulsion are 1,000 times more slippery than yes or no consent, and you're going to get a lot of people who will dismiss such arguments.
We've all seen online conversations where people are screaming about fairly normal behavior and calling it violence for some convoluted reason, and we shouldn't let sexual assault be equated with this.
In short, the concept of consent draws a sort of line in the sand. My first reaction is not to remove that line, but I would be happy to add additional lines that are as concrete as, did you ask, and did she say yes?
We could add some sort of question like, did you really consent or just go along? But I don't think that gets us very far. The real problem is to get men to see women as fully human and fully equal, but there's no checklist for that that we can provide to young men who go on dates.
Great points!
The problem with seeing women as fully equal to men, is that they are not and never will be fully equal to men. Seeing women as "fully equal to men" opens the door to a bunch of abuse, for example, the legions of men (15% of the Fed prison population apparently) who claim to be women so they can get into women's spaces and abuse them. That is bad because *women and men are not the same*.
Too many people (morons) will read my above statement and think that I am inferring that women are inferior to men. That is false. Difference is not inferiority or superiority. Difference is difference. That means as a society, we tailor our responses to circumstances to allow for that difference.
Women need to be protected. Feminists would have us believe that is false and that in order for women to have agency, men must stop insisting that they are weaker...except they are weaker, and they do need protecting, and because of that their agency must be somewhat limited.
Here's a male counterpoint to make the feminsts stop seething so much. The Red Pill is right about one thing - men are disposable. A huge number of us don't have the opportunity to pass on our genes (almost 100% of women are given this opportunity, an enormous privilege), we are fed into meat-grinder wars against our will with no discernible effect on population levels, we get no empathy from any person or institution in society, a fact so galling that boys have to internalize this sense of deep worthlessness at a very young age lest they only discover it when older and off themselves from the shock of it.
What the Red Pill gets wrong is that, *despite* the fact that men are essentially worthless, society and women still don't owe them anything. Part of being a man is accepting that (unlike women) we are essentially worthless and we have to work hard for decades to make ourselves worthwhile to society and women. We don't get handed our self-worth on a silver platter like women do.
This means that men don't really have full agency either, it just manifests so differently that most of us who have grown up in a society poisoned by The Enlightenmen can't even recognize it.
DELETE! Goodby. I'm sorry I subscribed to you.
Hate to see you leave but I love to watch you go
Really intersting post! I've followed, hope to read more of your work :))
Thank you so much!
Excellent argument. I strongly agree with the analysis on weak men who use every ploy to technically wring consent out of women.
Have you read Becca Roth's essay Only Mercy: Sex After Consent for her book All Things Are Too Small ? In it, she also argues that there are hardly any rhetoric on 'good' sex.
I look forward to your upcoming essays.
Thank you! No I haven’t read that one, but I’ll add it to my list
A good dissection of the sub standard discourse we're used to regarding sex, and when it's right or wrong and good or bad. Looking forward to the follow up!
Thank you!!
Really looking forward to how this unfolds in future articles. I’m narcissistic enough to wonder if it’s still possible to be a male feminist or is it forever tainted now. And I’m nerdy enough to also wonder, on the subject of recording nuances of consent: Is there an app for this?
this is great
Thank you! 🙏
Women are fully equal to men in terms of intellectual capacity, leadership, their rights and responsibilities as citizens, etc. Most small differences in capacity are functionally irrelevant, or false, like the claim that women are just bad at math.
Women are not fully equal to men in terms of physical size, upper body strength, and capacity for physical violence.
I'm deeply suspicious of the claim that women need protection. It's only true in the case of physical violence, and it enables all of the weaker vessel nonsense that is part of controlling and abusive psychology.
Certainly we don't tell gay men or non-muscular straight men that they're going to need protecting all their lives because there are other men out there who are physically stronger. And these groups grow up with less fear and sense of physical danger.
The prison example is a poor one. All people who are not predators themselves need protection when they're placed in a prison and consensual sex is not possible in a prison, so normal rules don't apply.
What has been framed as protection I would frame as, we all just need to look out for and support each other. The default in social situations should be the assumption that the woman is competent and can address any issues herself. When that fails, others in the friend group, or even non-friends should step in if they see abuse in progress.
Anyone who's out in the world where alcohol is on the table has an obligation to keep an eye out for potential violence and the mistreatment of women. They shouldn't go charging in like some white knight and savior, but the occasional intervention is warranted, probably starting with a quiet are you okay?
Male Feminists are some of the most opportunistic predatory men around.
“I’m not like those other men, I’m more highly evolved, morally superior and respect women’s rights and their bodies soooo much”.
And the whole time they are waiting for that time when they can try it on. Always with a gaslighting excuse when the woman rejects them/shows shock at their actions.
Did you notice, in all the Pro Pal University ‘encampments’ there were quite a few men, clearly too old for university (usually unwashed and carrying a guitar)?
What? A demonstration with disorganised, on the spot sleeping arrangements which encouraged hiding yourself (from the media)?
Impressionable young women, away from home for the first time, listening to tales of your tortured existence fighting oppression?
Ironically I bet they are the first one in any conversations to condemn mysoginistic behaviour……… like a few in the comments above. Not me you understand. I’m not like those other men etc.