Every person must have some natural violence pre disposition but that needs to be weighed by their ability to inflict it. I could be a super violent guy on a desert island and so never inflict violence. How physically strong you are must come into that which means opportunities for violence go down with physical size. Even if I want to be violent if I'm somewhat rational and don't want to get beat up.

It's not clear to me if women are less predisposed to violence or have on average less opportunity due to average smaller physical size specially compared to men. Though from experience I would say women also seem less pre disposed to violence in the first place.

Size doesn't matter all that much in the modern world. Even toddlers can murder people with a gun. Tiny people can kill very effectively with knives, poisons, cars, etc. The smaller you are the easier it can be to get away with it too.

The long tail of women's erotic novels is way worse because there's a lot less laws regulating what you can put in text vs film.

And yet, women dont create whole networks of sexual abuse and overall are less sexually violent.

And they are less likely to create whole ideologies, political parties and movements that rationalize and defend all that abuse.

> And yet, women dont create whole networks of sexual abuse

That explains why women like Ghislaine Maxwell or Kat Torres don't exist I guess.

Ghislaine Maxwell was a part od male run male dominanted abuse network. The one which was supported by powerful men in goverment and politicians. Adult women were minority there.

Nice try. But while some women were part of Epstein network, overall it was male network. And pretty ideologically misogynistic at that.

The fact the list ends at 2 women who were already named, when the men involved number in the hundreds and are still being protected, kind of ruins your point…

I've got plenty more if you want them. The fact that any exist at all is enough to prove that the statement "women dont create whole networks of sexual abuse" was a lie.

>And they are less likely to create whole ideologies, political parties and movements that rationalize and defend all that abuse.

Women are less likely to create whole ideologies, political parties and movements as a general baseline.

I'm not sure they do evil shit any less once you account for that.

The topic is specifically sexual abuse, porn vs erotic books.

The commenter tried to play the "erotic romance books are as bad as hard core porn and no one is treating it that way" bullshit.

Women do create political ideologies and movements. They do participate in them too. The topic is specifically who is building and defending sexual abuse networks, who is invested more in defending right to abuse.

I suspect erotic novels make it more likely for readers to become victims of abuse, if anything.

[citation needed] - lesbian relationships have the most domestic violence, and gay male relationships the least.

This is not true. IIRC this factoid comes from the results of surveys asking people whether they had ever been the victims of domestic violence (not necessarily in their current relationships), and it should come as no surprise that relationships comprised of two women have the highest reporting rates of having been subjected to violence over their lifetimes, and relationships of two men the lowest rates. Within-relationship rates of domestic violence for lesbian couples are not higher than for heterosexual couples!

The above stats actually align with the divorce rate:

https://www.them.us/story/lesbian-marriages-weddings-divorce...

Wow, that's really torturing the data to fit your worldview.