So I’m reading “Obviously, in an ideal world, men would not be sexual offenders … ” (“A Case for Feminist Self-Defence,” Thomas Nadelhoffer, The Philosophers’ Magazine 81) and I note the high bar: an ideal world. And well, we all know, we’ll never live in an ideal world, so, I guess that justifies, excuses, explains … men being sexual offenders.
Why didn’t Nadelhoffer say “in a civil world” or “in a world populated by mature people” or “in a world populated by psychologically health people” or “in a world without porn“? THOSE worlds we COULD attain.
That is to say, there ARE worlds, POSSIBLE worlds, in which men are NOT sexual offenders.
Why doesn’t Nadelhoffer–Thomas Nadelhoffer–want to consider those?
