[dejb]

"This encounter proves an unpleasant fact that does not fit the feminist script on sexuality"

The fact that the author chooses to generalise a 'proof' from a single personal encounter shows what sort of low standard she has for evidence.

[hackerblues]

The feminist script she describes is 1990's notion that a couple can obtain a satisfactory sex life through a process in which the woman overcomes the mans negative sexist conditioning by using a verbal contract to stipulate her limits. There some provisions made about people with no respect for women like date rapists and people with the "frat boy" mentality.

The example she gives is of a man who is by external measures an enlightened guy - wealthy, polite, and educated. We are given no reason to believe he is disrespectful of women generally speaking. But when it comes to sex he is unable to get it up unless he is explicitly pushing a woman beyond what she feels comfortable doing. For emphasis: this is a part of his sexual experience and not a part of his general attitude to women.

The fact that this single event occurred is sufficient to demonstrate that the 'How to have a mutually enjoyable sex life' script does not work universally and so requires revision for a full explanation of the world. It proves the unpleasant fact that dominance beyond enthusiastic consent can form an integral part of a mans sexual identity.

In this section she establishes that a breach in this perception of sex has occurred. In the rest of her article she uses online pornography to argue the size of the breach.

tldr; lolz bitches hate logic right bro?

[dejb]

> The fact that this single event occurred is sufficient to demonstrate that the 'How to have a mutually enjoyable sex life' script does not work universally

I'm sure there are wealthy, polite, and educated necrophiliacs also and single instances of sexual fetishes and requirements so strange as to be unimaginable by most of us. Does his mean that we need to adjust our entire model of human sexuality for each of these? Maybe for people so limited of thinking as to believe that any one model of sex could achieve 100% coverage, this could actually be useful information. But to automatically assume anything about 'ordinary' sexuality is ridiculous.

[Eliezer]

This shows that all female authors secretly want to set a low standard for evidence!