Two years ago Naomi Wolf wrote an essay for CNN.com headlined: "Is pornography driving men crazy?" She declared that men are making poorer decisions about sex than they did in the past – supported only by the assertion that many "highly visible men in recent years (indeed, months) have behaved in sexually self-destructive ways" – and then invoked the impact of pornography on our dopamine system to explain this anecdata.

Vaughan Bell was among many neuroscience writers who dismantled her claims at the time, observing that "Wolf clearly does not understand either the function or the relevance of the dopamine system to this process," and she had reached her conclusions, "despite clearly not understanding how pornography could affect the brain and providing nothing but anecdotes about the effect on male sexual function."

A year later, Wolf moved on to the brain-vagina link. I didn't bother reviewing Vagina at the time, as others – Laurie Penny and Suzanne Moore for example – did a far better job; but one thing that struck me was just how dehumanising and demeaning Wolf's understanding of the world was for all involved. One chapter appeared to suggest that men should learn how to "activate the Goddess array" in exchange for sex, as if female sexuality were a whip with which to tame the male beast. If your partner only treats you nicely because they want to have sex, then the only use you have for a book like Wolf's is as a handy projectile.

I was reminded of Wolf's work when I read Nick Ross and Amanda Platell in the Daily Mail this weekend. In their respective opinion pieces, the two plunged into the ongoing debate about crime and sexuality with the subtlety of Brian Blessed on Christmas Eve, finding out his local Argos just sold the last Furby. Platell described her alleged experiences watching child porn, while Ross let loose with some "truths" about rape learned from his career as a television presenter.

Platell's needlessly gratuitous article, was the most spectacular misfire yet in the Daily Mail's war on porn. I'm not going to get into the merits of what she did, except to note that much of her story suffers from a plausibility deficit. The opening paragraph neglects to mention that she added the word "porn" to her search, while the results of a Google search for "cute pussies" – a search that supposedly traumatised her anonymous friend's children – are only disturbing if you have a cat allergy, or you've deliberately disabled Google's default "safe search" filter.

Platell paints a picture worthy of Baroness Greenfield, in which vulnerable minds are corrupted by an ill-defined online menace. "Many paedophiles start off like Hazell, dabbling in adult online porn. In the same way marijuana can lead to heroin, it's a gateway drug. Before they know it, they become addicted." I'd love to discuss the research that Platell uses to arrive at this theory, but none is cited. What I can say is that the concept of "addiction" to sex and porn is given far more credence in media offices and Hollywood clinics than it is in the halls of academia.

There are many things to pick apart in that article, but what really struck me was Platell's description of pornography (the article variously conflates child porn, violent porn and porn in general) as "an evil that is rousing men like Stuart Hazell to commit murder". Suddenly we're back to helpless man-beasts at the mercy of their penises, and it's not a long line between the idea that pornography drives men to sexually abuse and murder children, and the belief that a short skirt can incite rape.

Nick Ross's article – hacked from a chapter of Crime, his latest book – sits at the other end of that line. It runs into problems early on with his clumsy use of statistics to suggest that men are equal victims of domestic violence, but his comments on rape were the most troubling.

In the book chapter Ross references a 2005 survey suggesting that a quarter of people believe rape victims who dress "provocatively" are "at least partly responsible if they are raped". He follows that with a suggestion: "In any other crime we take account of provocation and contributory factors. Even in murder. Why not with sex?" The icing on his cake is his complaint that, "for some it is heresy to suggest that victims should ever be held responsible at all." God forbid.

The "provocative clothing" myth is complete nonsense, as Dr David Lisak's comprehensive review of the topic makes clear. The average rapist is not a stranger in a ski mask, hiding in the bushes. The average rapist is acquainted with the victim. He is motivated more by power, anger and a desire to control, than by sexual impulse. His attacks – and he is likely to be a serial offender – are often premeditated. He uses sophisticated strategies and psychological manipulation to identify, groom and isolate victims. He is likely to have committed other violent crimes, such as the abuse of children or partners.

Lisak's research, backed up by many others over the last forty years, blows apart the idea that rape is typically a "mishap", the mistake of a "basically 'decent' young man who, were it not for too much alcohol and too little communication, would never do such a thing." On the campuses Lisak has studied, "the vast majority of rapes are committed by serial, violent predators."

It's this that makes Ross's views not just misguided, but downright dangerous. "It is sacrilege to suggest that there can be any gradation: rape is rape. Yet the real experts, the victims, know otherwise," he claims. "Half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not think they were raped and this proportion rises strongly when the assault involves a boyfriend, or if the woman is drunk or high on drugs: they led him on, they went too far, it wasn't forcible, they didn't make themselves clear."

Ross uses this to question, "whether a formal prosecution process is always the most rational way to deal with rape." Given what we know about predatory behaviour, the grooming and manipulation of victims, and the ability of serial rapists to remain undetected, it's one of the most stupid questions you could possibly ask.

It makes a lot more sense though if, like Ross, Wolf, Platell, and a thousand other hacks, you believe the myth of the self-guiding penis. It allows offenders to abdicate responsibility for their actions, and transfer it to seductive women; it leads people to assume that rape is a crime of passion rather than a cold, premeditated act of psychological manipulation and physical oppression; it reinforces the victim-playing notion among misogynists that female sexuality is a dangerous weapon; and it reduces men to the role of a barely sentient bag of hormones clinging desperately to the back of a rampaging penis.

The myth is as offensive to men as it's dangerous for women. Perhaps the worst part of it is the subliminal message repeated across the media each and every day of the week: whether it's porn driving men crazy or short skirts inviting rape, female sexuality is dangerous, and it must be controlled to protect men. How bizarre to be confronted with the world the way it is, and come to that conclusion.