by Kate » Fri Jan 30, 2015 6:09 pm
I'm surprised that they ran this. And not all that surprised that the comments are turned off of it.
I'm really glad that they're drawing attention to this, because it is a real problem. And I think it's a problem that is very easy to ignore. I know I've met women who think nothing of pressuring men into sex in ways that would be very...questionable if the genders were reversed, and I think this guy hits the nail on the head. In our culture, we accept (incorrectly) that men always want sex, no matter what, and it's the highest priority to them.
It does a disservice to men, and a disservice to women. And...this all leads to a difficult situation. Anyone who argues that, "if he had an erection, he wanted it," would have to acknowledge that if a female victim was wet, she wanted it. Anyone who argues that "if he came, he wanted it," would have to acknowledge the same for a female. "If he really wanted to, he could have used force," equally applies to female victims, especially female victims with access to weapons or who are orally raped, or female victims who are particularly strong. There is no argument that you can make for why a man can't be raped by a woman that can't be turned around.
And that's uncomfortable.
I wish we had the comments up on this article, but I'm glad we can discuss it here.
On hiatus at the moment. If you PM me, I will read it! But I won't really be around in other capacities. There is a good chance if you're reading this, I think you're awesome, and I miss you.
"Can we talk about hotdog insemination?" - Strant