Long time readers of my writings on sexual mores know that I make frequent, usually sarcastic remarks at the expense of conservative commentators who are pleased to denounce younger men as “predators.” Many writers use the term, and as a regular reader of Chronicles between 1997 and 2005 I saw it constantly—on almost every occasion the subject of sex arose, in fact. From time to time, I have heard particular men accused of being sexual predators as well, including men I have known personally.

But something has always disturbed me about the popular use of this term: I have never seen anyone attempt to define it. I like to have clarity about the words I use—and the words I hear used by others. Perhaps this is a matter of personal temperament, or perhaps due to my education in philosophy, but it seems to me that if you do not have a clear idea what your words men, you literally “do not know what you are talking about.” So today I wish to pose the question of what, exactly, a sexual predator is.

The first point to make seems to me that the expression is metaphorical. A literal predator is an animal that lives by feeding off other organisms. Professional biologists even speak of seed predators and egg predators, but the popular conception usually involves carnivorous animals that live by feeding on other animals: lions chasing down gazelles, hawks swooping down on mice, kingfishers diving for fish, etc. Sexual predators are not literal predators, with only one exception of which I am aware: Jeffrey Dahmer (1960-1994), the “Milwaukee Monster” who apparently got some sort of sexual pleasure out of eating the remains of the seventeen men and boys he murdered. But apart from this cannibal, when we speak of a sexual “predator,” we are employing metaphor.

Another point it seems safe to make is that only men get referred to as sexual predators. It is not entirely obvious why this should be the case. I once knew of a man who unexpectedly came into a good deal of money and, as sometimes happens in such circumstances, soon found himself popular with women. Like most men, he was naïve about the opposite sex, and it was not too long before he married some gold-digging bimbo. She was not easy to keep happy, and his fortune quickly eroded. Once it was gone, so was she. Such behavior might reasonably be described as predatory, but is not what people normally mean when they speak of sexual predators. Perhaps the woman I described might pass muster as a financial predator—but in the context of female sexuality, sex and finances are very closely related.

In short, and whether rightly or wrongly, “predators” in the metaphorical sense of the term are always men. But which men?

I have seen it stated somewhere—in an old essay by Irving Kristol, if I remember correctly—that all men are in some sense predators. Of course, it would be possible to use the term as a synonym for “man,” but this would render it less useful (except perhaps to Andrea Dworkin). As for Kristol, he may simply have meant that normal young men desire sexual intercourse with a woman, and thus usually try to find themselves one for this purpose—a common form of human behavior traditionally known as “courtship,” while the sexual relationship itself is traditionally known as a “marriage.” But predation does not seem a useful metaphor for either courtship or marital intimacy, and people who denounce men as predators will certainly deny that they are thinking of ordinary suitors and husbands.

So let us set it down that a sexual predator is some specific subset of men other than suitors and husbands. What distinguishes such men from non-predators?

To return to the term’s literal sense, we note that the relations between a lion and a gazelle are, let us say, rather lopsided: the lion chases down the gazelle, kills it, and eats it. This nourishes the lion, but provides no benefit at all to the gazelle, which simply dies. Now let us ask: is there any kind of human sexual transaction that can reasonably be likened to a lion devouring a gazelle?

It seems clear that there is, and it is just what we commonly refer to as “rape.” Since we are living in the twenty-first century, let me add that I am not thinking here of any of the new sorts of rape introduced to the world by feminism in recent decades, such as date rape, acquaintance rape, or marital rape. I am referring to good old-fashioned jumping-out-from-behind-the-bushes rape: the kind where a man waylays a woman in some location where she is vulnerable and satisfies his sexual urges with her body using physical force or threats. Most rapists then run away to avoid capture and punishment. Like the gazelle killed by a lion, the woman victimized by such a rape has no say in the matter and derives no benefit from it. So there is a real and valid analogy here between a form of human sexual behavior and the literal predation which occurs in the animal kingdom. I have no objection to characterizing rapists (of the traditional sort described) as sexual predators.

Now the question arises of whether there are any other types of sexual interaction between men and women which might also be validly, if metaphorically, characterized as predation. And this is where I become confused because, as mentioned above, I hear men being spoken of in this way without the term being defined or it being made clear precisely what they have done. Denunciation of such “predators” can be vehement and angry, but it is all heat and no light, so to speak.

There are many ways in which men can misbehave themselves sexually, after all. Some are highly adept at seeking out willing women, irresponsibly fornicating with them, and then quickly turning their attentions elsewhere. These are known as “cads,” and many of them are what psychologists call psychopaths: reckless, irresponsible, and without a conscience. Is the behavior in which cads engage predation? Perhaps one might make a convincing argument that it is, but I must note this objection from the outset: no naturalist has ever observed a gazelle seeking out a lion to offer itself to. And as I just explained, cads are men adept at seeking out willing women. If no women were willing to fornicate with them, how would the cads succeed in becoming cads? So in this case, the “predator” metaphor already appears to be breaking down.

And there are many other types of sexual misbehavior in which men can engage. How about a one-off act of fornication by a man who is not a habitual cad? How about a husband who is unfaithful to his wife? How about an unmarried man who is intimate with another man’s wife? How about a man who takes up with a slightly underage girl? How about one who takes up with a very underage girl?

It seems to me we could debate endlessly about each of these instances. A convincing case might well be made that we are justified in calling the men who engage in one or more of these behaviors “predators.” But then aren’t we really debating more about words than realities—about whether we ought to define the term “predator” to cover such behaviors or not?

For my own part, as already stated, I am content to see the predator metaphor employed in cases of forceable rape. But it also seems to me that it breaks down rather quickly as the behavior in question departs from that model. And if “predator” is a mere synonym for rapist, the term is not really necessary at all; we can just say “rapist” and dispense with the more ambiguous expression. In other cases as well, it seems better to name the specific sort of objectionable behavior at issue.

This is not merely a theoretical question. Any man described as a “sexual predator” is certainly being accused of serious wrongdoing. Such a man may be punished or lose friends without anyone bothering to state precisely what he has done. As noted above, I have heard men of my own acquaintance described as predators. In one case, a woman in the conversation quickly added that, well, after all, lots of men are predators. That old Irving Kristol essay instantly came to mind. Probably the woman herself did not know exactly what she meant.

So when I see that acquaintance of mine, I shake his hand. I have never once thought of breaking off ordinary social intercourse with him. I simply do not know what, if anything, he did wrong. But I do know that, while some men will misbehave themselves sexually, there are also people who will condemn men for the most innocent behavior, including what would properly be described as flirting. I do not say this by way of exaggeration: I have been simply floored by the trivialities for which I have heard and seen decent men criticized and even formally punished in this effeminate and feminist age. Such condemnation is properly known as sanctimony, it is widely found in both women and men, and if my observations are any guide, it is much more common than serious male sexual misbehavior.

https://counter-currents.com/2025/06/what-is-a-sexual-predator