AU: Patriarchal husbands enact a massive censorship and surveillance state apparatus to keep their wives from escaping or being corrupted. Everyone's movements must be monitored and tracked in case a wife tries to escape her husband. Media is censored of all potential eroticism, just in case women get too hormonal and horny, and potentially cheat on their husbands. Media is required to have explicitly pro-obedience themes, so women don't get any subversive ideas about rebelling against their husbands' authority. These policies are framed as "protecting women."
Many unmarried men object to this. Why should they be censored or surveilled for the sake of another man's wife? "Fuck them women!" is their rallying cry. "It's husbands' job to control their wives, not mine! Women are disgusting, anyway. Why should I give up my freedom for the sake of your gross, hysterical, hormonal, shrill, menstruating wife? I didn't choose to be saddled with that smelly, whiny bitch."
From a far corner, a lone voice expresses a fringe, extremist opinion: "I think you're both wrong, actually. What if women are just people? What if they actually should be able to read whatever they want, and even disobey or leave their husbands if they choose to, because they're people, not property? And if your only objection to women's oppression is that it affects you, or that they're 'disgusting' and you shouldn't have to be reminded of their existence, you're also part of the problem. Both of your factions should just stop being misogynistic."
The pro- and anti- surveillance factions turn to the fringe extremist and say, in unison, "Why do you want access to other men's wives? To rape them? You pervert!"