It makes me sad to that you suspect me of resisting persuasion for ideological reasons. I’m sad because many people do argue that way and I have to admit your suspicions are reasonable. Although, I’m engaging in more online debate than I would if I wasn’t confined to bed, I am sincerely interested in the issues we’ve been discussing. There are many men and women who hold the opinions expressed in the McPhail paper and disagree with Brownmiller. All of us could benefit from a clear answer to the questions you’ve been addressing. The effort you’ve put into explaining your perspective has not been wasted and I’m sure it will be of use to many people other than myself.

I appreciate you taking the time to do this because I’m learning a lot. I think we have been working with different ideas of what a “sexual impulse” is. When I say “sexual impulse” I’m talking about a morally neutral urge that demands to be relieved. People that don’t want to associate evil acts with sex seem to look at natural sexuality as something positive, and understandably don’t want to think of something positive as the cause or justification for something evil. My impression is that although extremely evil, knocking someones teeth out to facilitate oral sex is a utilitarian step intended to facilitate the satisfaction of a natural urge. It’s very evil and exploitative, but it’s like a mugger stealing money. The mugger’s goal is to obtain money, even if he or she is sufficiently cruel to also enjoy the look on my face as they push me to the pavement and walk away. This is the explanation of prison rape which seems most intuitive to me.

Perhaps the fact that we are unable to convince each other, is a reflection of the fact that we don’t actually disagree. In my opinion that’s the case with most disagreements about free will, and other stereo-typically intractable debates fueled by differing usage of words.