he told me that he didnt want to live in a country of streisands and baldwins.

i told him i could say the same about a country where law makers say women can shut down the body in legitimate rape so they dont get preg and vaginal probes to hurt girls for no other reason but because someone disagrees with their choice.

he then took it to evo psych crap and i took it to a rant, stfu, not going to listen to the garbage (i hear it enough on du, the stupid) and he really has no place to tell me about rape.

he was smart enough to agree, that this one subject, he really had no place to argue, it being unknown to him. but, it is something i no longer have any desire what so ever to discuss with certain men. because, their conditioned beliefs of today are so fabricated and connected to their manliness that it is an absolutely waste of time. over the last decade and a half, they have so tied up masculinity with dominance, that it is a huge good luck untangling this mess we genders sit in today.

between brother, in laws rw jabs, that by the time i got to my father last night with his rant about the buy out of car industry, i was no longer nice.

and then people wonder why i am an isolationist.

three or four times i have had a picture hidden by jury. threads where people are the b word is not offensive. in the threads, putting the picture of the woman beat up, .... and a comment about the b didnt know when to shut up. (or something like that).

that was too offensive. but hey, lets argue how we own the word and it is not sexist. like the pm of australia argues being a "man's b" is not sexist. oh wait.... she spoke out to the misogyny of that comment.

Let's not look at what the use of the word contributes to.

Besides, they say it on tv, and women say it, so it's ok!

So gendered rape is part of the cultural hegemony, perpetuated by normative performance. I went to a Catholic wedding yesterday. The whole act of the father giving away the bride to the husband is a pretty thinly disguised act of male dominance of female sexual objectivity. I'm sure people don't think of it explicitly in those term, but on some level society still acts as if that paradigm were true. The homily and the reads can be summed up as a directive to make Catholic babies. There was no suggestion that maybe they might not want to reproduce, that the bride might have other priorities, or that said children would be free to decide their own religious views.

The male victims of rape is an interesting aspect of rape culture. It seems like a lot of "male bonding" rituals are not only homoerotic, but soda-masochistic. I wonder if war is an extension of that cultural. We are all aware of weapons as phallic symbols. Taken a step further, the penetration of another male body with a weapon has real homoerotic overtones. And of course the rape of females by the victors has long been seen as part of the spoils of war.

It's a great book. I'm still taken aback at all the hostility on the Internet such as sites as DU when rape is a topic, when statistics are discussed, when the term "Rape Culture" is used. There are so many male allies, men who fight rape the same way they'd fight poverty, by educating themselves, becoming part of the solution
Then again, there seems to be many men (I'm assuming) rather than own any part of rape culture would instead defend their position as 'I'm not a rapist, this doesn't apply so why should it be my problem'. Here again, in my life at least, if discussed face to face instead of the comfort of anonymity of the Internet discussion goes smoother, definitions clarified, stories come out of how rape has affected individual lives, how it victimizes more than the rape victim.

The rats in the walls of the Internet make a lot of noise--it's certainly a dangerous infestation--and of course, Republican hate for women doesn't help, but I still see signs of hope and commonality in the fight against rape. Good men despise rapists, not so good men despise rapists; they might not 'get' rape culture, but they don't always argue to the point of incoherence to protect their own entitlement.

Last edited Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:58 PM - Edit history (2)

I notice it gets amplified by anything that makes some very vocal men think their access to women's vaginas might somehow be restricted.

They get furious at discussion of rape because (OMG) awareness of rape and speaking out against it might mean they can't put their penises in vaginas as often.

They freak out over any feminist discussions about how PIV sex might not be be be-all, end-all, crowning glory of human sexuality for all women all the time, and mock these perspectives relentlessly.

They lose it over any criticism about porn. Porn shows women in a perpetual state of yes (or women whose "no" doesn't matter and can be conveniently ignored).

Absolutely anything that challenges their cherished notion that women exist in a perpetual state of yes -- a perpetual state of being ready, willing, able, and eager to be penetrated by their penises -- makes them go off the deep end and explode with wrath and fury.

*To people who police this group, please note I said "some very vocal men" in the first sentence and I am in no way trying to paint all men with a broad brush here.

having access to a woman.

interesting points.

I keep using the word 'strange' to describe these persons, but I suppose it's not so strange when put in that context--male sexual privilege denied or threatened.

I'd add prostitution to that list.

the mens RIGHTS, NEED of the prostitute to not be lonely. i guess it matters not if a woman is handicapped, ugly or unable to get a man to have sex with. no consideration about her NEED to buy a man. but the total ugliness and desprect, the dehumanizing of the woman as they chat.... on the FUCKIN RADIO and what a norm is has become, for listeners everywhere.

then to read all the massive respect our feminist men have for prostitutes, fuckin respect for these women and the job they do, here on du, in defending the using of women and dismissing the realities of legalized prostitution so they do not have to consider anyone but their right.... NEED.

There is a need for touch. There is no need for sexual access to someone else's body.

It's a no brainer, really.

Another thing no one wants to talk about is the incredible amount of suffering from PTSD that prostitutes and porn workers experience.

That matters so little as to be all but completely ignored.

I have been thinking about that one a lot lately.

Besides prostitutes... what about the men who think that marriage means they have an absolute, unarguable right to satisfy their need for sex with their wife at any time?

As far as I am concerned the only time anyone "needs" to have PIV sex is if they want to make a baby the old fashioned way. Otherwise that "need" is a complete myth.

There are a myriad of ways to satisfy human needs for physical closeness and touch (and orgasm, if that is a need, it sure can be fun but I don't know about it being a "need" but whatever) that don't involve PIV sex.

Yet most of us grow up in a culture that mythologizes it to be the epitome of sex.

Lately I started looking at it from a new angle and suddenly I'm like: "Wait, wut? Hey, hold on... nobody NEEDS to have PIV sex unless they are trying to make a baby."

Yet our whole culture revolves around it... and it really suddenly looks like bizarro-world from where I am sitting now.

Now if two people think it is fun and they both truly WANT to do it, have at it. No probs. But this idea that PIV sex-for-fun is somehow compulsory or you're defective is just poppycock.

I am probably opening myself up for much abuse and mockery elsewhere on DU for this one, but frankly I don't give a flying fuck.

i felt that shift in my world when i realized how much awesome, all inspiring, godlike male sexuality is and women, meh... all about providing for the man. male worth is only in their sexuality. and womens worth only in providing for male sexuality. if we have not bottomlined this to stupid, i do not know how we could do it any better, as a culture as a whole.

once i realized that is the world we have created today, over the last decade and a half, i too see everything way different. so i get what you are saying.

Yet the "12 Year Old S***" thing is OK-fine.

We live in a strange world.