Below is an edited version of remarks that were originally delivered in Rochester on September 17th at the opening of the 2026 Women’s Convention. Angela Franks’s comments were delivered as part of a panel discussion with Louise Perry and Miriam Cates. We published Louise’s comments here, and Miriam’s here. You can watch the whole panel discussion here.
In this year’s US Open, tennis player Carlos Alcaraz changed his shirt on court. ESPN’s cameras caught several laughing women taking videos of the disrobing. Over on X, many men were scandalized. Some were outraged that one woman wore a wedding ring. Others complained of a double standard: “Why aren’t these women treated like the creeps they are? Imagine this is a female tennis player and the smiling, photographing weirdos are men.”
Into the fray rode sex columnist Dan Savage, whose X bio brags that the Daily Caller called him “a deviant of the highest order.” Mr. Savage was the unexpected voice of reason: “Female lust exists in a different context—it doesn’t come bundled with the threat (and reality) of sexual violence. It feels harmless in comparison to male lust because … it is harmless in comparison to male lust.”
I don’t normally agree with a man whose podcast is called “Savage Lovecast,” but on this point I think he put it well. Now, I’m a Catholic theologian; I’m not pro-lust for anyone. But it’s really true that male and female lusts aren’t equivalent in their frequency or in their effects.
I raise this point to agree with Louise’s contention that women are uniquely vulnerable because of who they are. But I also believe that male aggression in response to that vulnerability is a further reason why a women’s movement is needed. (I suspect Louise would agree with me.) I argue this not to demonize all men but rather to point out what I believe is an essential piece of the puzzle: desire that is disordered. I’ll say more on that shortly. First, let’s turn to a few other data points just from the last month or so to make my case that sometimes individual men are the problem, and then we’ll consider what we can learn from that.
The August 29 Guardian newspaper ran an article about sex dolls. In Australia recently, a sex doll complete with fake bruises was found mashed inside a suitcase. Police were called off when it became clear that it was not a human corpse. Exploration of sex-doll message boards (a pursuit not for the faint of heart) revealed to the journalist that the men on the boards often show an inclination to reenact sexual violence on their dolls, as the classifieds for used and damaged dolls reveal. I will spare you the details. Here’s a relevant point: At least 90 percent of sex dolls sold are female dolls, and out of the remaining male dolls, many are purchased by men.
Another incident recently emerged from Australia. (I’m not picking on that country! These realities exist in the entire developed world!) A sixteen-year-old girl was “choked”—in fact, strangled—during sex and died. This case, while extreme, represents a common reality. 57 percent of Australians ages 18—35 have been strangled during sex, according to a 2024 study. Similar percentages have been reported for the UK and Iceland. Women are more often on the receiving end of this behavior, and it is strongly correlated with pornography use, which is more prevalent among men. The risks of such strangulation are high, including fatal strokes up to ten days later.
I don’t mean for this to become a gross-out session. But it is important to make the differences between men and women concrete, in how they bear fruit. Male aggression is combined with a higher sexual drive, due both to hormonal differences and traceable to evolutionary reasons. This combination makes men much more dangerous to women in sexual situations than vice versa, as Dan Savage saw.
One response to this could be the second-wave feminist claim of labeling men a dangerous class who are to be mistrusted as a group. One can understand this instinct; for example, beyond what I’ve already laid out, most men look at pornography, around 78 percent (44 percent of women do too, which is also a problem). But many men still do not. How can we account both for this prevalence and also for these variations?
I don’t agree with condemning men as a class. Instead, I would argue that it is a fact that conforms to experience that people reliably tend toward selfish thoughts and behavior; in my tradition, we call that “sin.” And those who bear the brunt of this are more vulnerable people. But it is also the case that this tendency is not the same as a necessity.
This tendency is universal, so it applies to both men and women. But how it manifests itself among the sexes at the aggregate level is not the same. As noted, men on average are more sexually promiscuous and more physically aggressive than women on average. Men commit about 75 percent of all crimes. The Department of Justice states, “Male offending equals about 1 violent offender for every 9 males age 10 or older”—a stat I have questions about, but let’s grant at least that this is possible. Here’s a key point: While a high number, male criminals would still be outliers on the bell curve of male behavior.
Typical female crimes concern drugs and DUIs as well as property offenses, including fraud; think of Elizabeth Holmes. But these women are also outliers. In general, women’s bad behavior is less criminal than men’s; it’s usually about excessive concern for appearance and the weaponization of the higher female emotional intelligence for gossip, gain, and the humiliation of enemies.
As a theologian, I have plenty to say about how to be virtuous, but that would be a different essay, so I will just reiterate that human beings tend toward disordered desires of all kinds, these manifest in averages across the sexes, but bad behavior for any individual is not inevitable. The worst behaved people in both sexes are outliers.
Here, I want to emphasize the need for a women’s movement that works to penalize aggression against women, so that men who are more likely to commit it are restrained by the law, if not by their better angels. Given female vulnerability and male strength, we need a societal structure of legal and behavioral norms that protect against the violent outliers, as well as against the less immediately dangerous but still damaging sexual mores that demean women to the level of a mindless sex objects.
Laws and improved social norms are not the ultimate goal for me; I want personal conversion away from violence and toward love. I also want to see more understanding of the human person as male and female. The human being exists as sexed, yet the sexes share more than differentiates them. Both sexes are equally rational and free, even if the bell curves of average male and female tendencies and strengths differ. Both are called to excellences that might stretch them beyond their natural orientations; there are no male or female virtues, only human ones. Both sexes are embodied and made for generosity in relationships of all kinds.
A healthy women’s movement will promote intellectual and moral excellence in both sexes, while ensuring that the vulnerable are protected.
