Elam is correct, and I disagree with the commentary that followed him. There is nothing useful in simply diffusing this phenomenon into a 'lust for darkness and cruelty'. There is nothing inherently sexually stimulating in that, and what we're attempting to understand here is a sexual dynamic. The second commentator adds nothing. Elam focuses on the heart of the matter, which is the feminine need to *receive*, fundamentally. It's very interesting to me that several of the main religious traditions of the east and west have understood this fact of feminine nature for millennia, and yet there is still a need for commentary like Elam's in culture today. For unattractive feminists, all of this amounts to a LARP that serves a couple of purposes. The one Elam points out correctly is that they get to participate in a narrative where insatiable male desire is *assumed for them*, not directly, but indirectly by the validating sympathy of other women within the movement. That sympathy stands in as the apophatic confirmation that a broad, diffuse male desire to rape them must exist. Not only that, but it also serves basic human social needs by liberating these women from what would otherwise amount to total social isolation. They get a kind of gross comradery from other women as they participate in their clubhouses of victimhood. But this is all very complex, because women use sexuality in circuitous ways to influence their social status. Once the categories they are issuing come to be accepted by the culture, and begin to enter the cultural hot topics of conversation, they take on a new life in which a woman can use rape narratives (or whatever kind of objectification) to gain opportunities in the world. Perhaps that means 15 minutes of fame, or perhaps that means keeping a job they shouldn't have, or further, getting one they shouldn't have. So there's one level of analysis where we try to understand these things in terms of their origins, but there's another level where we consider them in terms of their true functions. And that only happens when you bring the entire dynamic between male and female into the fore. The woman - as collective - is always working to effectively become the Great Mother, or the consuming goddess. This structure feminism is currently building is nothing less than the reversal of order in a society to swing things in favor of her becoming the sexual consumer - the object of all desire, to maximally *receive*. It's equally important to realize that her desires are schismatic and two-faced. She has the simultaneous desire to both be in control, and to be controlled, and *the former is subordinate to the latter* - the true attraction of the rape fantasy is the *power* she wields over men, *combined* with the fact it causes him to respond by controlling her (rape is a sexual cognate for what she truly wants society to *be*). The expression of her fantasies of being controlled reflect that the social function of all of this is to attract the very men who will subordinate her. To the extent that she 'wins', and men *don't* subordinate her, she'll go on consuming and setting fire to everything. If men are like iron that shape each other, then she is like paper that tests how sharp the blade is and how precise he can be. This is all a shit test writ large. She attracts the strongest male because those are the males that will kill the intruder that wants to slit her children's throats. Women become monsters when men aren't being men. Reverse the clock of history and watch as society unwinds itself, how the cults of cthonic mother goddesses start to predominate when we are most primitive. Ancient people weren't stupid. They just had a different way of describing the collective behavior of women.