I thought it was so hilarious that I had to go down the list and respond to each of her assumptions (it's long and I covered multiple subjects with a single answer if appropiate):
He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.
For the most part, I agree with this one. However, there are some things about this one I disagree with. If the girl is underage but she lied about her age and did a good job convincing him she was at least 18 I don't think he supports rape (even though nine times out of ten he's still going to jail for statutory rape depending on the state). As for being drunk, that depends. If only the girl is drunk and she is pursed by a sober male he's no better than somebody who puts ruffies in a woman's glass when she isn't looking. On the other hand, if both of them get wasted, or if she gets wasted and literally attacks the guy to the point he loses the power to resist he shouldn't be blamed. After all, if the table was turned and a drunk guy is all over a sober woman he's at risk of going to jail. Also, if said girl got wasted, got in a car, and killed a pedestrian she can't say "I was drunk, so it's not my fault" to get out of manslaughter charges.
He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense.
This varies based on the situation. There isn't really anything you can change about it. Consent being a defense depends on the situation. If you get started and sometime during the act she changes his mind and says stop then yes, you have to stop and if you don't you are committing rape. But it should work both ways, it shouldn't be exculsive to one sex while the other gets off scot-free.
He has accused a rape victim of having "buyer's remorse" or wanting to get money from the man.
Obviously this varies based on the situation. I've seen on more than one occasion where this really happened. I've seen situations where a woman accused somebody of rape because the man didn't want to put out or to threatened to accuse somebody of rape to get their way out of punishment. Yes, there are legitimate situations.
He has blamed a woman for "putting herself in a situation" where she "could be" attacked.
There is no excuse for raping a person. But at the same time, you need to use common sense. If you walk through a bad neighborhood with a hundred dollar bill hanging out of your pocket you're probably going to be attacked. Doesn't make it right but you're putting yourself in the situation where you are making yourself a target. Same thing with leaving keys in the ignition of a luxury car and walking away, stealing is wrong but you just made it easier for the crook.
He has procured a prostitute.
He characterizes prostitution as a "legitimate" "job" "choice" or defends men who purchase prostitutes.
Getting a prostitute may not be the best idea in the world, but it's better than committing rape. As for wanting it legalized, that's a whole different story I'm going to leave alone.
He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional.
I've met women who feel the same way. Doesn't mean they want to rape people.
He has gone to a strip club.
You might as well say over half of men support rape with that one. I've been to a few before I got married.
He is anti-abortion.
Seems like she's forgetting about men who have religious objections to it. I really fail to see how being against abortion means you support rape. And what about women who are anti-abortion, last time I checked Sarah Palin is anti-abortion and she was on the Vice Presidental ticket. So, does that mean a possible Vice President supported rape? Or does it only apply to men?
He is pro-"choice" because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.
I don't even know where to go with that one. Some women are just going to be slutty no matter what, and access to abortions isn't going to change that especially with how easy it is to get birth control or demand the use of condoms.
He frames discussions of pornography in terms of "freedom of speech."
Guess freedom of speech shouldn't apply if it offends some women. If you don't care that it may offend some women you must be a rapist.
He watches pornography in which women are depicted.
He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present.
So what she's really saying is that if you look at porn, either you look at gay porn or you support rape. But even if you do look exclusively at gay porn you support rape if there is any violence in there. I would be lying if I said I never looked at porn. But it disgusts me to even watch a fictional rape on TV and I would just fast forward through it. But I must support rape because I looked at straight porn before and not gay porn.
He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women's desire to "get" a man.
It is what it is. You should visit some of the clubs outside of military bases, it's ridiculous how many girls there dress slutty just to bag themselves a service member for the benefits. Obviously not all women are like this.
He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually "hoodwinked," or sexually harassed.
Immature, yes. Supportive of rape, no.
He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects.
Some things are funny and some things cross the line. Which is which is up to personal preference. But that doesn't men somebody supports rape. People who play GTA usually don't support shooting police officers for real.
He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification.
I can agree with that one for the most part. Shouldn't make fun of a legitimate victim.
He supports sexual "liberation" and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not "inhibit" them.
That's not a support of rape, that's just a support of taking advantage of slutty women for personal gain.
He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are "inhibited," "prudes," "stuck-up," "man-haters," or psychologically ill.
That's probably more of ignorance than support of rape.
He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are "cultural" and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention.
Wrong is wrong, it doesn't matter if it was acceptable in the past. Domestic violence used to be considered normal, even The Honeymooners joked about it. Didn't make it right. But its still doesn't mean you support rape.
He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men.
He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a woman's physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a man's.
He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed "emptiness" of female anatomy when describing women.
He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of "consent."
He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of "consent" or "willingness."
He promotes the idea that women as a c 1ass are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they "should" have children.
He argues that people (or just "men") have sexual "needs."
Arrogance or ignorance, but not support of rape.
He discusses the "types" of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing.
Not everybody likes the same type of partner. Some people like big women, some like small women, etc. Doesn't men you should insult somebody to their face, though.
He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity.
Most men can't help what gives them a woody. Doesn't mean they support rape. I can name a lot of guys who love the idea of that particular thing but would be quick to beat up anybody who rapes or even hits a woman.
He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them.
The ultimate cop-out to try and make it look like only men can be the bad guys.
Basically, she hates men and doesn't want to fully admit it. Wouldn't surprise me if she's for just rounding up all men and locking them up, only using them as sperm donors and for manual labor just to keep the human race going while women are in charge.
Log in to comment