This was an attempt to clarify some points - useful thinking.
I never knew you were a “Plato Guy / Bloke”, fact is tricky here due to the evolution in thought and the “mash up” that is modern perception – whatever happened, history is only as useful as the future it makes – we are both agreed on what the future should be.
The semantics related to the term “platonic” in contemporary context I believe supports my use of the term to communicate non-sexual association. It may be the case that Plato argued in defense of women’s equality, there is a degree of linearity in “platonic” relations and stoicism, in so much as one manages the relations – what is relevant is the contemporary expression of “celibacy” and it being held as a “value”; if you’re advocating for Plato as a feminist, I’ll let history speak. Celibacy exercised as a life choice is a “platonic” value, humans are innately “a” platonic, our default state is to engage in sexual relations. The fact that religious organizations hold celibacy as a value, puts us at odds with our “innate” state of being and has in it inherent conflict. Christian doctrines tend to hold a negative bias toward women in the management of sexual relations, that is to say, women are given the responsibility of virtuosity to a greater extent than man – this is certainly true tacitly in society – the double standard that exists which to a degree gives men a tacit pat on the back at sexual conquest and has the same action by women garner a unfavorable social outcome. THIS IS WRONG TO BE CLEAR. While I appreciate your knowledge, what is relevant is how the complex of contributing factors – contemporary culture and the meams that have traveled to us out of past western teaching land on the minds of people to an actuate proper treatment of women or not – presently women are the recipients of a disturbing degree of sexual violence.
“Self - Control” as delivered by Stoicism is of course a good thing, the challenge with “self-control” and Stoicism is that many people, in an effort to exercise Self-control of emotion often end up suppressing emotion – Stoicism practiced “healthfully” permits the choice to access emotion or to leave it, but emotion is present. To some extent “stoicism” is more actively expressed in the male population – women often describe men as “emotionally unavailable” – it maybe that the attempt to detach one’s self from overriding attachment effects a degree of conflict in relations with women. It has been my observation that when natural and healthy inclinations are suppressed – ugliness and violence ensue. Violence first in the suppressing in many cases and violence in circumventing the suppression and violence again in the punishing of the for the second.
God is a divine – humans’ response to god is a human construct – this is evidenced by the multitude accepting there is a God, and yet having many different ways of attending to metaphysical contemplation. I am saying, violence is a part of the human condition, as you point out, dominance is an inclination of humans – male and female. The inclination to violence as a means to dominate is primal, perhaps archetypical; it resides in us individually and tribally – the realities of manliness & womanliness historically permitted male dominance – no man has ever been barefoot and pregnant. England is a country founded on religion generally, yet it holds dear stoic values – stiff upper lip – in the US the Abrahamic adherents have found much common cause, the channel has been stoicism’s primary carrier. Jesus was a tender, gentle, tolerant – beautiful – entity, as you point out his actions on earth sullied no one – yet the institutions that have emerged in his name have – at the confluence of social reality and narrative marginalized and sullied female sexuality to an even greater degree than sexual relations generally.
I take your point with respect to physical harm; it is my assertion that the greatest affect is mental - more so spiritually. I think much of the “frat boy” or “date rape” hinges on attraction. It may be the case there are numbers to support attraction is a smaller player than I assert. This in no way negates the capacity for women to manage risk – where you are, how you conduct yourself, who you associate with, where you place your faith – all play a role in self-protection. It is the total assault on one’s being, regardless of physical pain, it is the breach all things sacred, defenselessness – the failure of structure to effect safety – the illusion of order is attacked. It would be my assertion to say mental trauma occurs, and that physical trauma only serves to contribute to it.
It is clearly the responsibility of parents to firstly council against sexually violent material and secondly, to curb viewing via electronic media. There should be no coercive elements permitted to play on the inclinations of young women, in a healthy setting there is a forum to discuss these influences. As you say “make it essential for her to unequivocally say yes”.