This post was very well written, though it seems to me to be dominated by views that are perfectly aligned to a certain political opinion, which actually kind of disencourage me from commenting.

For instance, your first point about unwanted sex seems rather strawmanish to me; obviously "antifeminists" do not use the word rape in the literal sense of "unwanted sex". No one wants something that is unwanted, rather it is generally intended as something like "Women enjoy sex in ways they are unwilling to admit publicly, and to a lesser extent also privately".

There is another point that stuck to me:

“How could I have wronged her? She had five boyfriends before me who did the same thing I did!”

Well, no. You’re implicitly working on revealed preference theory here, when it isn’t warranted. “She must have wanted it, because it happened to her repeatedly” is just untrue. It could be bad luck, with no agency on her part at all.

Indeed, it could be bad luck, but if it is, based on my personal experience, women must have an unusual, almost magical amount of bad luck. Growing up, I witness the virtual totality of my female friends ending up in relationships with men that scored among the top of the distribution in traits like extrovertedness and aggressiveness, they were also considerably older and a lot more experienced, which easily put them in a position of relative advantage with respect of their partner.

Did you observe a similar pattern growing up?

I wonder whether Fifty Shades of Grey could be an example of exceptionally successful marketing. People buy it because they were told by media that it is hugely popular (so they are curious, and don't want to seem ignorant), and when they find out they don't like it, they go: "Well, if everyone else likes it, I better shut up or I will seem like a prude or worse" (the zeitgeist discourages saying anything negative about other people's sexuality, especially when it's weird). Anyway...

The problem with revealed preferences is that it kinda assumes that in any internal conflict, the side that won was the Truth, and the side that lost was Fake all along. Which assumes that people never make mistakes (or that they truly want to make exactly those mistakes they made), and that willpower is just a synonym for hypocrisy -- unless the willpower happens to prevail, in which case it turns out it was the true will all along (and if your first attempts failed but later you succeeded, that means you truly wanted to fail first and succeed later, duh).

And the usual mistake when discussing nature and evolution is ignoring the evolutionary-cognitive boundary, plus the fact that our environment differs from the one we are adapted for. Thus "in ancient past, X provided a reproductive advantage, on average" becomes "X provides an advantage (now and always)" becomes "you want X, and I am not listening to your lies, you hypocrite!". And it's hard to argue otherwise, when there is in fact a part of you that somehow pushes you towards X. But if we follow the same logic, then the True Will of humanity is to eat sugar, become fat, get diabetes, and die; because that's what keeps happening when we give it a chance. (So if the superhuman AI happens kill us, it just fulfilled our desires faster. Actually, the fact that we have built the AI that killed us, already makes our extinction our revealed preference.)

I see two big differences between our ancient evolutionary past and current civilization, with regard to the current topic:

1) Before agriculture, we spent all time together in tribes; today we live in families, often atomic ones. That means the connection between "who do you have sex with" and "who do you spend most time with" is relatively recent. Obviously, spending more time with an abusive asshole is a bad idea. But when the whole group lives together, having sex with someone doesn't mean spending more (non-sexual) time with them. Each member of the tribe is within reach of the fist of the alpha male, whether they have sex with him or not. Women used to choose which man's genes they want for their children, and that was the whole story. (And yes, it makes sense to choose a stronger one over a weaker one, and a winner over a loser.) This evolutionary calculation did not include the danger of spending a lot of time with him alone.

2) The ancient environment also put limits on the male aggression. The alphas often didn't win as individuals, but as coalitions. They had to beat challengers into submission, but when not challenged, they often acted as keepers of peace and justice. Being an asshole to everyone meant that the three or four guys you hurt recently will gang up against you, beat you, and probably kill you to protect themselves against possible revenge. To keep the throne, you needed allies. Ironically, it is the civilized society that allows some individuals to be assholes against everyone and survive. Many annoying people live only because no one considers it worth risking prison for killing them. In the past, being an asshole and remaining alive would be powerful counter-signaling. Today, pretty much any loser can do it, and many do. Of course it messes up our instincts.

anti-feminists often jump to believing that women are more attracted to men who are violent to them.

Then they are deeply ignorant of women's literature: the proper archetype is the guy who is violent to everyone else, but is mysteriously tamed by the charms of the heroine, i.e. Beauty and the Beast.

The women who date "bad guys" don't do it because they have a preference for being punched in the face. They do it because they have a fantasy where they (and they alone) will not get punched in the face. Which would actually make sense in a sufficiently ancient past, but makes much less sense in the recent millennia. Well, evolution sometimes updates slowly. (He who wants to throw a stone, first tell me how much sugar and salt did you eat this week. You realize that shit is killing you slowly, don't you?) Instead of a preference, this is more like a cognitive bias. From inside, the idea "he will punch everyone else, but not me, because he will love me" seems like a perfect reflection of reality. (And if he already punched her, that does not falsify the hypothesis. "Sometimes true love requires a lot of time, patience, and sacrifice. It will all turn out well at the end." Read the Harlequin novel where the man first hurts the heroine, but then he falls in love with her and deeply regrets it. Which one? A random choice will probably be the right one.)

The abuse isn’t being read as wish-fulfillment, but as verisimilitude.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the author and many of the fans have been in abusive relationships or grew up in abusive households. (...) Maybe abused people really do have a higher risk of seeking out a repetition of the harm they experienced and were taught to believe was normal.

Anecdote time: I met a woman who complained about how all her boyfriends were alcohol addicts. Yet, after breaking up, she was soon dating another one. When I tried to talk some reason into her, she told me that actually all men are alcohol addicts, only some of them are honest about it, and others are in denial; and those in denial are actually much worse. -- To me it seemed obvious how such belief is false and self-harming, but of course trying to argue otherwise would have merely put me in the "in denial" category.

I can imagine how having similar beliefs about male aggressiveness could arise as a consequence of abusive childhood (as a defense mechanism against admitting that your father just happened to be an exceptional asshole), and could be further reinforced by seeking out aggressive partners, because the non-aggressive ones are perceived as somehow weird or fake. -- And perhaps together with the Beauty and the Beast fantasy, this could result in a model where all men are aggressive and only true love can tame them. (Plus there are the Nice Guys who are too pathetic to be aggressive openly, but luckily our mindreading skills allow us to see that deep inside they are even worse.)

It probably doesn't help that the idea about all men being violent and evil is... zeitgeist-compatible.

It’s not that women want men to hurt them. It’s that men hurt women a lot.

Yep. Connotational sidenote: there is a difference between "men hurt women a lot" and "many men hurt women". It is possible that a disproportionally large amount of hurting comes from a small minority of men. (Pointing towards statistics about psychopaths having above average amounts of sexual partners, etc.)

Summary:

I agree with most of your article, I just believe it could be simultaneously true that (1) women who were previously abused, especially in their childhood, may seek out abusive partners because they perceive such behavior as "normal"; which does not excuse the next abuser, and the "revealed preference" answer is bullshit, because the woman is acting on her incorrect model of the world, and the friendly thing to do would be trying to fix that model instead of exploiting it; and (2) women in general have a systematic bias towards perceiving violent men as more attractive, and less dangerous than they actually are, because of evolutionary reasons which actually may not apply to our current environment. In my model, the "sane" women can use their reason to overcome the temptation and realize that the extra excitement is not worth getting punched in the face regularly (similarly how men attracted towards pathological women can decide to "not stick their dick in crazy"), but there are reasons that can make a woman either underestimate the danger or take it as inevitable, in which case dating the violent guy seems like a good choice.

If I understand it correctly, you used the former to explain away the latter, and that seems wrong to me. (I still approve bringing attention to the former.)

This topic touches a chord with me for various reasons, so I will try to comment as I read.

One of the most persistent arguments, often left implicit, that antifeminists have on their side is “Women want to be raped and abused.”

There is a problem with the definitions here. A significant fraction of women (and smaller but not insignificant fraction of men, and let's not forget about all other genders, too) have physical and/or sexual and/or emotional abuse fantasies in various degrees. Some of those want it to remain a fantasy, others want to experience it in actuality, but in a controlled and safe way, yet others want to feel helpless and out of control, yet be still OK afterwards (such as consensual non-consent), and a small minority really want to be hurt bad or even killed, the hell with the consequences. The "antifeminists" probably project this small minority onto the majority of women.

On one hand, this is an obvious logical contradiction if taken literally.  Rape is unwanted sex — how can you want something unwanted?

Humans are not monolithic agents! We have many contradictory drives, needs and values. A part of us may want to be abused, while another part is horrified by the idea.

Men are more violent than women. This is a human universal, and true in many of our mammalian relatives as well.

If you mean physical violence, then yes. If you mean emotional violence, then women are just as adept at it, of not more so, than men. Some mother/daughter relationships are of the worst and most toxic kind. "Will I ever be good enough?" is a classic example.

you might start to wonder whether at least some women might have a thing for men who use force on them

Uh. As you said, and as is universally acknowledged, "bad boys" have more success than nice guys. And I mean real nice guys, not the self-proclaiming ones. Scott Aaronson's famous comment 171 is a great example of it. And the reaction to it is also a great example of vicious emotional abuse, mostly by some self-proclaimed feminists.

And it’s a description of a woman in an abusive relationship with a rapist.

Seriously? Have you read the book? Sure, Christian is not the model of a healthy BDSM relationship with Ana, though he certainly appears to be in his previous BDSM relationships with more experienced partners. Absolutely, he crosses the consent line here and there, mostly unintentionally and out of anger, which is generally a hallmark of an abuser. He even once or twice blames Ana for it: "you make me do this", which is the excuse most abusers use. However, his overarching goal is a mutually happy and satisfying relationship. He doesn't try to gaslight her, he takes responsibility for his actions as the older and more experienced partner, and he tries as hard as he can to make it work. This is very impressive given his background of growing up in an abusive situation and having his sexuality shaped by a non-consensual submissive BDSM relationship with an older woman. As far as D/s (or even vanilla) relationship go, Christian and Ana's are definitely on the positive side of the Bell curve. They genuinely love each other and care for each other from the get go, and overcome a lot of obstacles to be happy together.

The question Pervocracy asks is — why are people into this? 

It's a good question, and worth researching without prejudice. FetLife.com is the site devoted to all legal kinks, and you will find a huge variety of them there.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the author and many of the fans have been in abusive relationships or grew up in abusive households.

There is definitely a correlation between kink and childhood trauma. Sometimes it is about reenactment, sometimes it is about self-hate, and sometimes it is about overcoming the external manifestations of the trauma by engaging in ostensibly similar roles, but in a safe and consensual setting. That said, it's just a correlation, and by no means a certainty. Plenty of people enjoy dominant or submissive roles despite growing up in a healthy and nurturing environment. Nurture has rather limited effect on one's upbringing.

A classic and maybe even defining feature of abuse is that the abused person is made to feel that it is normal or even right for them to be harmed. They’re told “You deserve it.” Or “this is just what relationships or families are like.”  Or “you aren’t being harmed, you’re fine.”  Over time, abused people may come to believe this.

Yep. During my years emotionally supporting people online I have seen plenty of that. When done by the parents or guardians during a child formative years, this form of abuse is extremely insidious, and nearly impossible to overcome later in life. As an aside, I wish the EA movement spent some time focusing on this hidden source of suffering that is all around us.

And people who deeply believe that it is normal or right for them to be harmed may expose themselves to harm again, in order to confirm or validate their model of the world.  This is what “self-harm” or “self-destructive behavior” is.  It’s not that the harm makes them happy.  It’s that it makes them right.

Sadly, that is indeed what happens. Once a part of you internalizes the abuser's message, abuse-seeking becomes a pattern, and often a blind spot. The more one gets abused growing up, the more split their personality becomes, C-PTSD tilting into DID in especially severe cases.

Maybe abused people really do have a higher risk of seeking out a repetition of the harm they experienced and were taught to believe was normal. 

That's not even a maybe. Abuse seeking and reenactment is a well-documented pattern.

So I think the antifeminist account is confusing cause and effect.  It’s not that women want men to hurt them. It’s that men hurt women a lot.

And men hurt men a lot. And women hurt men and women a lot, just in different ways. Reverse sexism is still sexism, just like reverse racism is still racism. No race, gender or ethnicity has a monopoly on being good or bad. The Bell curves are wide and very much overlapping. And yes, people often confuse cause and effect. And, as you had mentioned previously, the effect, once internalized becomes and perpetuates the cause. Also, another definitional question: "hurt" may mean many things. What you probably mean is the non-consensual hurt, and what the "antifeminists" mean is their projection of a minority of women wanting to get hurt in various ways onto all women, the majority of whom have no interest in being hurt in the way these particular men want to hurt them.

But even if there were agency on her part in seeking out abusers, people do not only optimize for their own well-being. People also, and in fact primarily, optimize for validation.

In other words, “Congratulations, asshole! Even if you’re right, you found someone who was hurting herself and decided you’d help her along.”

This is another real and common pattern. Predators are good at sniffing out their prey. Many childhood abuse survivors still give off this victim vibe years after the original abuse is over, often without realizing it. The two groups naturally gravitate toward each other, and, as a result, it is easy for an abuse victim to end up in another abusive relationship, and it is easy for an abuser to reenact the same role without ever realizing the harm they are doing to their partner.

In modern, colloquial language, I think the best word we have for the thing is healthy, as in, “make healthy choices,” and in close analogy with the concept of physical health.

Yes, that's the commonly used term.

But even if there were agency on her part in seeking out abusers, people do not only optimize for their own well-being.  People also, and in fact primarily, optimize for validation.

If by validation you mean acting to reconcile your view of self with your view of the world. Or the views of some part of you, since a human rarely has uniform and unchanging values.

You shouldn’t be (intentionally, avoidably) making people less healthy.  You shouldn’t fuck people up.

Yes, that's the idea. In reality, few people intend to make others less healthy. More often than not, we make someone miserable, "less healthy" while thinking that we are doing what is good for them. Sometimes because we think we know better than they do, sometimes to justify our own actions, sometimes just because we are careless. Ask an abuser, and most of them, save for true psychopaths, would find a perfectly good excuse for what they do, and why, in their opinion, they were actually doing what the other person needed or even wanted.

You can’t always fix one of those tangles from the outside, but it’s a good idea to stop it from spreading, interrupt it, get people out of it when they have a decent chance of recovery, and so on.

Uh. Sadly the situation tends to be far worse than that. Notice the "post-traumatic" part of PTSD and CPTSD. Paradoxically, the removal of trauma can have negative effects! I know quite a few people who ostensibly overcame shitty childhood and were on their way to live a healthy life, only to see it all crashing down a few years later, as the post-traumatic effects got out of control and became disabling. Like a kettle under pressure, when the external pressure is removed, it is far easier for it to crack. Constantly fighting for survival is actually the healthiest way to live for some people.

And, likewise, if you see someone who appears to be optimizing for the opposite of health and happiness, you shouldn’t help them with that goal on the grounds of “revealed preference.”  It’s probably not going to make you healthy and happy either.

Generally, that's a good advice. Unless you know what you are doing, hurting others because they seem to crave it is a slippery slope. And hurting those who don't want to get hurt because you think that deep inside they do, like those "antifeminist" claim, is definitely a bad idea.

The demand for sexual violence in fiction is easy to explain. It allows us to fantasize about behavior that would be prohibitively disadvantageous in practice, and it allows us to reflect on hypothetical situations that are relevant to our interests, such as how to deal with violent people.

My default model for abusive relationships *where the right to exit is not blocked* is indeed revealed preference. Not necessarily revealed preference for the abuse, but for the total package of goods and bads in the relationship.

The sex and romance market is a market after all, and different individuals have different market power. This is why some people pay for sex, and I'm sure some people accept abuse they would not tolerate from a partner with less market power.

Of course, this isn't true if someone breaks a promise unexpectedly, like ignoring an agreed-upon safe word. That's massive enemy action. But if it happens repeatedly, and the relationship is maintained for longer periods of time, even though the right to exit is not blocked and both partners could break it off, my default interpretation is still reveled preference for the total package.