Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Almost every female and male college student has engaged in consensual but unwanted sex - why is it 'rape' only when it happens to her?

In answer to the title of this post: it isn't rape in either situation, but extreme feminism wrongly insists it is rape when it happens to her.

Let's look at the facts: "The odds a female college student has ever engaged in consensual but unwanted sexual activity are 1 in 1.03, or 97%, and for men the odds are similarly high: 1 in 1.07, or 93%. Reasons for consensual but unwanted sex run the gamut from enticement, to inexperience to, believe it or not, altruism. In other words, obligation, or pity sex." See here

According to this source, college men are about equally as likely to engage in unwanted but consensual sex as college women, yet you would have to look long and hard to find a single instance of a college guy attempting to transmogrify such experience into rape.

In contrast, extreme feminism outright urges college women to classify such experiences as rape.

Ever hear feminists urge college men to cry rape for unwanted sex? Of course not. Because they wouldn't buy the stats listed above. They would never accept the notion that men are "raped," under their definition, at the same pace as women are "raped." But the stats have the ring of plausibility. To suggest that men always want to have sex is to equate them with rutting beasts of the field. (Given the average feminist's view of men, this probably explains why they think males are largely incapable of being "raped.")

The fact is, feminists are right about the men -- it is not rape -- and wrong about the women, it's not rape for them, either. To classify consensual but unwanted sex as "rape" trivializes actual rape, which is an intrusive bodily invasion where one human being strips another human being of his or her dignity by using the latter as a sexual plaything.


Actual rape has nothing to do with a voluntary sexual act. One of the running pet peeves of this site is extreme feminism's wild constriction and rewriting of the definition of "consent" when it comes to rape. Extreme feminism seeks to render non-consensual certain sexual relations voluntarily entered into. We are not referring to the situation where the woman was so drunk that she was incapable of rationally deciding to have sex. That's rape. We are not referring to the situation where the woman says "yes" only because the man has a gun to her head, or is threatening to harm her child. That's rape.

We are referring to situations where the woman has a real choice as to whether she can have sex, and she voluntarily assents to do so. Extreme feminism would make it "rape" any time a woman's choice to refuse sex is even mildly unpleasant. Reread that sentence again, because this is what we've come to in the gender wars.

If the female voluntarily agrees to have sex after initially being unwilling to do so, it is a good bet extreme feminism would classify that as rape. Thus, young women are being wrongly taught that sex induced by a male's verbal cajoling without physical threat is rape. They are being wrongly taught that rape occurs in the absence of a woman's "enthusiastic" consent, as if "enthusiasm" can be measured in any objective sense, and as if otherwise perfectly lawful but not necessarily "enthusiastic" consent is somehow legally inoperative. They are being wrongly taught that sex after a woman takes any alcohol or drugs invariably negates the woman's ability to validly consent, regardless of whether the alcohol or drugs rendered her unable to make a rational decision.

The fact is, men and women in a committed relationship do things for each other with regularity out of love and sometimes, perhaps often, without all that much enthusiasm (some people rarely express "enthusiasm" about anything, you know). And, yes, sometimes they do it only after some cajoling. When a woman is trying to get pregnant, her partner often has sex out of obligation even when it's not convenient and often when he is not especially "enthusiastic." Despite the male gender's reputation for wanting sex 24/7, sometimes it takes some cajoling. Has he been "raped" since he gave into her cajoling without being "enthusiastic"? No sane person would say he has. And it has to work the same when the genders are reversed.

A woman sometimes fakes both "enthusiasm" and orgasms -- oh, horrors! -- often because a couple's sex drives are not in sync and because she's more interested in fostering their long-term relationship than insuring that her every sexual experience is gratifying. And believe it or not, sometimes men fake it for the same reason.

"Consent" does not lend itself to a rigid definition, because human relationships in the area of romance and sexuality are often complex with literally a limitless number of possible scenarios that defy tying everything up in a nice, neat package. The only valid test is that a person in the position of the defendant (almost always the male) would reasonably understand that there was actual consent. When a woman embraces her partner and prepares for intercourse in the absence of threat of physical force, consent is present, regardless of whether every radical feminist stomps her foot and insists it isn't.

Most extreme, young women are sometimes being taught that statutory definitions of rape must yield to a woman's own experience -- thus, men somehow must mold their conduct to fit an amorphous, free-floating, moving target of a subjective and secret whim of a woman's "experience," including, presumably, her after-the-fact, ex-post facto, false and belated hissy fits of regret about having engaged in intercourse. The fact that such a standard, with all it Star Chamber ramifications, furnishes no guidance to the male as to what constitutes "rape" prior to the act is not at all troubling to the enlightened feminists proffering this standard. Due process be damned. Rape occurs when they say it does, regardless of whether it actually did. And that draconian, viciously misandric standard is really what some of them are after.

If feminists wanted to assist young women, instead of feeding them misinformation in an attempt to have them invent rape from whole cloth, they would teach them that it has now been proven by objective evidence that women experience greater after-the-fact remorse than men about one-night stands. This would encourage young women to think twice before engaging in such encounters and about falsely crying rape afterwards. But, of course, the feminists accuse anyone of making suggestions that might hold young women responsible for their actions as "victim blaming" -- a magic incantation they blithely toss off in an attempt to keep young women in a state of perpetual infancy, freed of any responsibility for their actions when it comes to sex. Young women need not be free moral agents when it is acceptable to place all the responsibility on the male.

So, you want to constrict the definition of consent, ladies? Fine. Open the women's jail cells because under your definition, men are being "raped" with abandon. Sounds ridiculous? Now you know how we feel when you say it.