Our Guest Connaisseur writes:

Sex. That is the answer, has been the answer, will be the answer. Sex. It is what it is, and that is the part women have the hardest time dealing with, they think there has to be more to it.

I covered crime as a journalist for many years, and I was always struck by the fact that of all the hundreds of rape cases I covered involved only one non-handsome rapist (he was also charged separately with murder and arson -- all around bad guy). The rest were good-looking men, and then it dawned on me one day these were the bad boys women gravitate to -- as their genes express -- and the bad boys committed rape -- as their genes express.

This is not to condone rape, but it is to say it is not the crime feminists make it out to be -- anger towards woman. I think there is a large sexual component at work, on both sides of the aisle. I think the "anger" tact is to intentionally exclude her behavior from the equation, thus creating artificial reasons why.

There might be some men who are disturbed angry, but to be honest, I think the entire approach that rape is just violence and using sex as a weapon is more fiction than fact. I think sexism, egoism, and plain old desire are -- individually or collectively -- more the cause of rape than disturbed anger.

The serial rapists -- the Ted Bundys -- yep, those guys are at the end of the spectrum and we can agree they are motivated by violence. But the situation rapist -- the ones who end up in court -- usually aren't "disturbed" or "angry" or have a history of violence per se. How do we explain them, the majority?

Then there are the cold facts-- most rapists are young men and most rape victims are young women...prime reproductive age each. Not too many 44-year old men rape nor are many 44-year old women raped. But as the young woman is looking for the bad boy and finds him and he is a bad boy which causes the rape. As I said, I am not condoning rape, but I seriously doubt it is as feminists have positioned it -- just an act of violence motivated by anger against women. I mean that is almost a caricature.

Let me be so frank as to say almost every man has been in the position to be a rapist many times in his life. Both furnaces are stoked to red hot and she at the last possible second decides no and only verbally.... and all it would have taken was one momentary push to cross the line from heavy petter knocking at the gate to rapist in the garden -- and no anger involved at all, just the intensity of the moment. Rape is wrong, but I don't think it is always and pervasively the debased act of violence feminists style it as.

In fact, in a celebrated California case he and she were petting heavily. They are naked and wet and ready - then she says she should go home. But, she keeps petting and stimulating -- as does he -- and a second time she says she should go home, and they continue to rub naughty bits et cetera and then have sex. He was convicted of rape and is serving a double digit sentence. The court decided her saying she should go home meant "stop" and regardless of her continued stimulation and participation in the events that led up to sex - she was raped. I think it is indeed time we redefine just what is rape.

My SOP (standard operating procedure) is tell women nothing of any substance, either emotional or informational until they get off their ego-ride of dating and start to get serious about a relationship in an mature manner. Of course, serious relationships cannot happen with American women, and to a large extent Anglosphere women elsewhere, because the feminist culture has them in arrested developed as perpetual victims, so as a man, you're always the perpetrator.