"the most nefarious aspect of my own sorority initiation involved collecting rolls of toilet paper"

This is kind of old, but here's Naomi Wolf on Yale's response to her (two-decades-post-graduation) allegations of sexual misconduct from a professor. Harold Bloom, of all people (YECH!).

To be fair: that was an American dude's interpretation of consent in France. So it doesn't negate the OP's suggestion that American male sexuality is about domination. In fact it kind of proves it.

It's become a sign of dominance. Most women don't want anal, but if you can convince a girl to let you fuck her in the ass then it means she's been subordinated to your desires. Or so the logic goes.

Sounds like it's creating jobs. Green jobs, even.

The truth is definitely an absurdly liberal agenda. But that's only because the conservative agenda is absurd and fictional.

This is the best thing I've ever read on Jezebel. Ever.

I've never met an actual man-person who is mature/responsible/not a douche, who was uninterested in funny women. Of the men I'd consider my friends—which, granted, is a fairly low number—all are interested in funny women. Of the men I can stand to hang out with (but would not call my friends), all are interested in…

This is hilarious. You know that people can, actually, be arrested just for saying something? Like, if I got a bunch of 15 year old kids with guns together and told them that murdering the president is the best thing ever. I would probably get arrested for that, even if I didn't actually kill anyone. It's called…

Being "politically incorrect" (which is also called "being rude") isn't content. You can't read "political incorrectness."

Ah hahaha me too!

"in an area where the local men (some, not all) have dramatically different understanding of women and western women"

A difference between 1% and 3% may seem like nothing when it's a single couple—it is, after all, only a difference of 2%. But because it's a differential across gender lines on a large-scale, your own experience may either be contrary to the study, or you may not notice the subtle (but existent) difference.

Oh I know. I was just pointing out that there is definite gayness in Shakespeare.

I haven't read Measure for Measure recently enough to say much about it. I've just happened to have done tons of work on R&J so I know it very well, but I've never written about Measure for Measure so I'm not able to give an easy response.

Hah! My first paper ever for graduate school was a research paper on the history of both anti-feminism in Shrew criticism and feminist responses to the play. So I totally have half that paper written already.

Do it! Do it!

Andrea Dworkin has an amazing essay about WH and sadism. Brilliant.

Yeah but did you notice the part where Portia commits suicide by eating burning coals?!?!?!?!

Wha? There was all kinds of gay in Shakespeare. Not gay sex, but gayness. Or I suppose homoeroticism, which is about as close to sex as you got in any of his plays (there wasn't any real heterosexual sex either, at least not until the later plays).