This Web site does not link to hate sites that deal in supposed self-evident truths that men are evil. But it is well to keep an eye on them to know what inanity they are preaching to their young female readership.
Ever wonder where some young women are taught to regard obviously consensual sex as rape?
Excerpted below is a portion of a confusing post on rape (confusing is what passes for good writing in most of these radical feminist blogs) from a Web site that is so incredibly warped, and that hates anything male so rabidly, that its inanity would be amusing if its message weren't potentially inflammatory. Its views on "consent" and "rape" are so twisted that it can only help engender more false claims.
It preaches that there really is no such thing as meaningful "consent" in heterosexual sex. Any form of male cajoling is a form of rape on this horrid person's "rape culture" continuum.
This view, of course, is breathtaking in its stupidity.
Civil dialogue with the author of the post excerpted below would be as likely as civil dialogue with a cesspool. For normal people, however, her argument is quickly disposed of: When a young woman cajoles her fiance to buy an engagement ring he can't afford, or to visit her mother halfway across the Continental U.S., or to change his schedule to have sex when he doesn't have time because she wants a baby and they've been told that's how you do it -- are those things rape because one partner cajoled the other?
The question scarcely survives its statement.
For the morons who stumble on this site looking to pick a fight, get it straight (I know, "straight" may not be a word some of you would understand): persons in a committed relationship do things for each other all the time without necessarily being enthusiastic about it. Heterosexual sex is one of them.
Anyway the following is the convoluted prose from the hate site espousing a "continuum of rape culture":
"On one end of the spectrum in this splendid tableau of violent misogyny is the Nigel who cajoles ‘consent’ with guilt and low-level duress (“come on, just a little longer, I’m almost there.”). On the other, the jewel in the crown of patriarchal dominion: physical assault under threat of injury or death, or what is popularly thought of as rape."
Then the coupe de grace:
"I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: this condition of oppression absolutely precludes the contingency of a woman’s genuine consent to anything. Therefore it does a disservice to all women if we reserve the concept of coerced sex for its most sensationally violent incarnation."
And, of course, you can go to hell, madam.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I'm afraid I googled a distinctive phrase and found the blog it came from, and gave them a hit they didn't deserve, but hey. Found this absolutely priceless quote in the comments:
"There is no negotiating with the oppressor/ aggressors in patriarchy– men understand simple commands, very much like dogs- sit, stay, play dead!"
Somehow this woman lives in a world where men are her oppressors, but at the same time take orders from her! That's some pretty industrial-strength cognitive dissonance.
And then a commenter calling "him"self "Fred" pipes up:
"Nprmal male arousal is created by the absence of consent. We are taught from birth to hunt down and fuck what we desire. Men have internalized this to an unbelievable extent. We like to call it romance and seduction in order to convince ourselves we are not engaging in an essentially violent activity.
"The strong addictive pleasures of orgasm mask this sickness. It could be very different."
That has to be the least convincing impression of a male feminist I've ever read.
Patrick, excellent points. These sick and twisted women (and "Fred" can't possibly own a pair of testicles) have turned one of the most basic, fundamental, natural human interactions on its head and made it a presumptive crime. Words fail me to describe how sick this is. There is no such thing as mutual sexual relations to these cretins. It is rape, a manifestation of male oppression. Because . . . men enjoy it too much?
Their take on this has as much in common with objective reality as if they declared that the sex act is a ham sandwich.
It would be comical if some young women weren't buying into it and mischaracterizing consensual sex as "rape." We see this happen -- because in some after-the-fact, ex post facto, false and belated hissy fit of regret the young woman decides that she shouldn't have had sex -- and since she wasn't "enthusiastic" about it -- it MUST have been rape. So she hangs some innocent young man by the balls and destroys his life because he had the audacity to ejaculate after she went along him. Such a charge is perfectly justified for women who've been taught that consent must be enthusiastic and that a woman's subjective whims, even after-the-fact, trump her objective manifestations of assent at the time of the act.
And, ahem, those are the same wingnuts who bellyache about the low conviction rate for rape. Damn right it's low -- juries are made up of normal people, not radical feminist freaks.
There is a special place in hell for lesbian radical gender feminists whose misandry teaches that all male sex is inherently evil and oppressive and that encourages young women to destroy young men with lies.
The laws on sexual harassment have led to this. When harassment can be judged to have happened, not because the supposed harasser has done anything culpable, but because the supposed harassee feels harassed, and it's impossible to make an advance knowing 100% that the advance will be welcome, then you've got arbitrary, subjective law, where the same action can be legal or illegal depending on the unknown and unknowable state of a woman's mind when the action is carried out.
It used to be both sexes were entitled to their desires, although neither sex has the obligation to reciprocate. The ideological feminists have now made it that a msn only have the right to desire a woman if she desires him back, and since men have to initiate that can only be judged by the woman in retrospect. The other way round, well, I have a friend who was disciplined for sexual harassment at work because he asked a woman to stop flirting with him, so it seems they want to deny us the right not to reciprocate as well.
The goal of feminism is power. I'd go so far as to say the goal of ideological feminism of the stripe of the blog quoted is tyranny.
paddybrown is right. The feminist goal is to dictate every aspect of male sexuality.
Post a Comment