Thanks for sharing. I’m all for open discussion, which is while I’ll publish your comment even though I disagree with it.

Your 3-pronged analysis, in which all options revolve around reducing women to sexual availability or lack thereof, is a power move that won't stick around as an effective tactic. This perspective will start to really limit men who can't engage with women as humans, especially as more women achieve substantial roles in government and business. Hiding behind an "it's just the way we're built" excuse won't matter. We're already seeing it happen now as men who belittle women (and other men) slip from power and from popular approval.

But I'm actually more worried about what your comment says about and does to men, especially men who don't fit your narrative. Your comment is longhand for "men don't think with their brains." While it does apply to some men, especially those with limited female influences or sexist upbringings, calling it a biological imperative rather than a societal condition is a toxic myth. It dehumanizes men, too.

You're right, all forms of relationships including friendship should be consensual. But limiting a woman to someone you can either 1) access sexually, 2) think about sexually, or 3) avoid altogether warrants some introspection. There's a lot to be gained by allowing room for a fourth option and breaking down your own barriers to one, including better and less spiteful relationships with women.