Two things:

1) "This Paglia person" is Camille Paglia, who is in the same cohort as Gloria Steinem, Sandra Bernhardt and Helen Gurley Brown. She's been a leading feminist intellectual since the Reagan '80s. She's been answering this question since Murphy Brown was a thing. Here she is on C-SPAN.. Our author didn't stand a chance in that interview. She was destined to be chum the minute she opened the door.

2) Our author, further down the page, conflates rape and murder ("I would like instead to see national, televised debates and full episodes of morning radio shows and several long-form podcasts and a portion of the next State of the Union address dedicated to determining whether men should be allowed to keep their dicks. Guns, however, should be given to girls at age ten"). Okay, "dick culture." But at the most basic level, rape is what happens when a consensual act becomes non-consensual. "Consent" is a tricky damn thing to measure and it's driven by "judgement" which is something we have a really hard time quantifying. Murder, on the other hand, rarely involves a spectrum of "judgement" and "consent." With murder, it's all about intent.

Did you INTEND to kill him? Yes? It's murder. Did you INTEND to have sex with her? Well, did she intend to have sex with you? Did you do anything to alter that intent? Did she mind? Did she mind then? Does she mind now? Is there a difference between "consent" and "regret?" It becomes a complicated discussion.

The article, by my read, is an attempt to explore some of those complexities. I'm not sure it fully succeeds. It's kind of going for a "only assholes rape, but assholes don't know they're assholes" kind of paradox.

Problem is, rape is against the law. Being an asshole isn't. Thus does the issue remain unsolved.