Great post, Vera! You mentioned a lot of the points my business partner and I have been discussing as well. I do think @sean-king may be taking his views of evolutionary psychology a bit far, comparing it to more grounded disciplines and well-accepted theories like evolution itself. From what I understand, evolutionary psychology does have quite a few critics.

This line is golden:

Hell no was she elected because she’s sexy--she’s just as butt ugly as Trump.

That had me laughing out loud. :)

I don't mean to derail the discussion too much, but I wonder how much of our personal views (as they do in every opinion or discussion) cloud our thinking on this topic. For example, if someone has an incredible sexual relationship with their partner, and they are both in a safe place to fully embrace their "lizard brain" urges, it stands to reason they would both appreciate the power of sexuality and, in that context, depending on the preferences of the couple in question, I don't see it as too much of a stretch to imagine (on average) the woman being in a powerful position. I guess I could point to the pornography industry as a market example of how men are more interested than woman (again, in a very general, stereotypical sense, not a specific one) in visual, audio stimuli. The classic case I hear often made is that men are more into the physical nature of sex while women are more into the emotional, intimacy aspect of the relationship. Again, I know I'm generalizing here, but when we're talking about topics as broad as human sexuality, I think it's still valuable to talk about large groups and the probabilities they contain. It's also possible that this "reality" as it may be today is purely culturally driven and may not be reliant on physical male/female traits at all. If that's the case, does it change the discussion and if so, how?

The counter example to the point I'm making would be someone who has a terrible sex life. For them, it is not at all safe to engage or even acknowledge those urges. In fact, it might even be beneficial to suppress them.

How do we escape our own personal experiences when discussing this topic in a general sense?

Just this morning I was thinking of an analogy that may or may not be helpful. Let's imagine I really, really love good food. I mean, I fully geek out on the very best lobster, chocolate, wine and the like. When I see and smell these foods, my body responds with salivation and a deep desire to consume them. Does that mean I've lost all control or am "powerless" as @sean-king implied? No, certainly not. Does it mean I'd have less power than the chef who was preparing the meal and deciding whether or not to eat it for themselves or offer it to me? Yes, in that case, I would I have less power, unless I chose to engage in immoral behavior and take it from them.

That, to me, is the key to this whole discussion which hasn't been brought up. Any justification for immoral behavior is immediately invalid in my personal non-aggression principle-based morale framework. There is no excuse. Just as I control myself to not steal the food off of someone's plate who might be dinning next to me, I also can control myself not to aggress against other humans, male or female. All that said, to deny the joy and, I'd argue, beauty of giving in to those evolutionary core desires like food and sex would be, to me, a travesty. Done within a proper moral framework, giving in to these desires in a safe, loving relationship can be some of the most fulfilling experiences humanity can enjoy.

Again though, I recognize I'm coming at this discussion from my own experiences while in a safe, loving relationship. It's not only possible, but I'd say extremely likely, I'd feel differently if I had terrible sexual experiences involving immoral behavior. I think you bring up an important point that (outside of prison rape, which is really a completely separate subject when discussing normal human sexual behavior in society at large) women are, by a very far amount, subjected to more negative, immoral aggression against them than men.