https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/responsive/cover/main/desktop/2016/06/19/636019530640724663422210308_o-RAPE-facebook.jpg

Firstly, calm your tits. It was a rhetorical question, not a middle finger to rape victims.
I must ask though: why not? What exactly is wrong with rape?

If women did not have sex with men, reproduction would end and the human race would go extinct. For society to continue, women must have sex with men. Contributing to our collective society is the obligation of every individual, therefore all women owe sex to all men, and should be forced into it when they refuse to.

No? Well why not?

I mean, after all, it is in the best interest of society for the majority to be in charge, right? If a woman is receiving the benefits of society's sex by having been conceived, born, and now being alive, then she must give her fair share of sex to society, as per society's demand and the social contract. People should be forced to pay tribute to the world around them, right?

You don't agree with that?

Surely you don't think that individuals should not be held accountable for the best interest of everybody else, right? It goes without saying that it is necessary and moral for the majority to force its will onto the individual. It is selfish and criminal for a woman to refuse to contribute her fair share of sex to the world around her. Of course. 
You cannot possibly think that it is wrong for society as a whole to be the arbiter of the personal rights of the individual. It cannot be immoral for the collective whole to take contribution from each of its members.

Still no? What is wrong with you?

You must just be selfish. Sex is the price we pay to live in a continuous society. In fact, there should be a group of people whose job is ensuring that all women are held accountable to their sexual obligations, by forcibly having sex with them. That group would represent the interests of the collective, and be chosen by the majority, therefore that particular group of men IS society as a whole. Women are not responsible enough to choose their own sexual partners, so they should should have men selected for them, by society, and be forced to have sex with those men. Hell, if it is society as a whole forcing a woman into sex, then it's not rape. It's compulsory reproductive tribute.

STILL shaking your head? You must be high.

I mean, what's the alternative to compulsory reproductive tribute?
What, do you honestly think women deserve the autonomy to choose their own partners? Do you think that we as a society are capable of evolving when people choose their own mates based on natural attraction, fueled by evolutionarily selected trait-seeking instincts designed to optimize our survival and reproductive capability? You're a crazy hippie if you think that. Nothing good could possibly happen without the use of force. Women and girls that refuse to have sex with whomever society appoints are criminals that belong in sex cages.

Oh, come on. Don't be childish, you know that rape is good.

People cannot do what is best for themselves, nor do they have the right to be the judge of that. People need to be told what to do by society as a whole. Nobody accomplishes anything peacefully. We cannot have a functioning society without society as a whole having coercive authority over the individual's vagina. There is no possible way to get people to have sex without society as a whole delegating certain people to force each individual woman to have sex with those particular men. Compulsory reproductive tribute - forcing women to have sex - is not really rape. That's absurd. It is sexual taxation.