>>298I find this a contentious issue. For one thing, it is abundantly clear that women fantasize about rape with incredibly frequency, so much that it can be called ubiquitous. This can only be a natural impulse as it shows women admiring and pursuing those mates most able to control them.
That said, if we want this to be a philosophy that's more than fetishistic, there needs to be an argument against sexual assault per se. No successful society on the face of the earth permits the open rape of its own women, and the male impulse to protect women is more natural and more useful than the impulse to abuse women.
Objects exist to be used for a purpose. Sex objects exist to be used for sex. Since women are sex objects, their entire purpose is to be used sexually. That said, while women aren't people, there are still human, and as humans have a claim to at least one right: the right to fuck, along with the ancillary conditions that make fucking possible. One of the conditions of this is that, as sex objects, the taste of women must at times be considered in mate selection, and that abject declared refusal of a mate is not always a bad thing.
What's more important than protecting women's feelz, though, is for men to become so self-sufficient that they don't feel the need to rape. Rape is a product of a scarcity mentality, only men who have been apart from sex or the kind of sex they desire feel the need to commit rape. Rape is debasing to both parties, as it reduces the woman to a poorly used object, and the man into a slave to sex.
A man shouldn't torture a woman by raping her. He should torture her by being such a self-contained paragon of virtue and masculinity that she would beg him to rape her, that she would get wet at the thought of him laying her out and doing as he pleased. This is far more useful, far more defensible, and far more sexy than straight sexual assault.