'Jekyll And Hyde' Explanations

of predatory male sexual behavior don't work for me.
I recognise there are many who kid themselves
that consent in sex is cheap, worth taking
more than bargaining over, then the self respect
of other peoples free will is a technicality,
something that it becomes their life's mission
to dodge their way past as part of a wider contrariness.
The more often this strange dodge happens
the easier the avoidance of consent becomes.
These secret sex acts become 'merely' a series
of small thefts of moments of intimacy and trust.
Moments which once gained they must forever
deny having taken-particularly to themselves.
Hence the repetitions of their actions.

The way the media use 'Jekyll and Hyde',
as a cliche for a deeply split nature
further shrinks us from explaining predatoryness,
as if the deeds done came from a dissociation
in depths unique to the offenders character,
beyond everyday comprehension. Dissociation
is actually part of the corporate media agenda.

The Jekyll and Hyde theory goes some way
to opening up old sexual taboos, as if with hindsight
we see how they they were general misrepresentations
of sexuality-as if through language society
always produces some faulty divide between sex
and anger which can only be fathomed by looking back.
Combine taboo with what we know now
about our fight/flight/freeze responses
and this might explain why so many victims
have such delayed reactions in reporting deeds
done against them when they were young.

But nothing absolves any of us
from digging deeper for a clarity that lasts
about the animus that destroys.