While I read pretty much everything you write, the one issue that seems central, and I believe you actually stated this somewhere, to your “system” is that a man must get used to, indeed embrace, the idea of casual sex… And that consent from a woman involves way more than her just saying yes… Finally someone articulated my view somewhat in today’s NY Times: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/opinion/The basic idea is that there is no such thing as “casual” touch (let alone casual sex).
Emotional touch alters the heart and soul in ways that are mostly unconscious.
He starts out with logic, facts, and science (good), then proceeds to false Societal Programming (bad), then ends up completely insane (very bad).
This is the typical progression people follow when they discuss sex.
Over the past 100 years or so, advanced thinkers across the West have worked to take the shame out of sex, surely a good thing. As Elizabeth Bruenig wrote in The Washington Post this week, “One of the principal outcomes of the sexual revolution was to establish that sex is just like any other social interaction — nothing taboo or sacred about it.” Sex is seen as a shallow physical and social thing, not a heart and soul altering thing.
Okay, then here’s the question: If sex is not a purely physical thing, then what, specifically, is it?