FFS. Of course. Going off on this rant as if I'm defending people's "right" to abusive, nonconsensual sex is not only unnecessary but really insulting. It has no bearing on anything I posted.
Exactly this. THIS is the only remedy we have for now. In an otherwise insightful article, this is the message that the author completely missed.
I think the problem is that behaviours are on a continuum, and they don't fall into simple binary categories except, of course, that of legal vs illegal, and to my mind, it's really important to distinguish between behaviour of which I may disapprove and behaviour that I think needs controlling by law.
Abusive, non-consensual sex -- whether the victim is a child or an adult -- isn't about sexual desire particularly. Some men may very well have "urges they have difficulty in controlling," as the cliche would have it, but the "urges" are rooted in anger and the need to dominate, which are themselves based on fear, rather than in sexual desire.
So it seems to me perfectly reasonable to suppose that, in many cases, people can in fact be diverted away from abusive behaviour into more healthy and rewarding consensual relationships, possibly via BDSM, if they can be helped to understand that their fears of sex and sexual desire are unfounded -- that's what we try to tell angry incels, anyway.
If they can't understand this, or don't want to try, then they have to do without, of course, and that's why we need the criminal law, but that doesn't mean it's necessary in all cases.
Despite the existence of some clearly very evil and perverted people who present a very real danger to the general public, or at least some sections of it, many people, I think, can, in fact, be diverted into more positive and rewarding relationships.
www.aspern-seestadt.at
www.bbc.co.uk
www.buzzfeednews.com
