By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

Why do feminists lie about male rape victims

Feminists and feminist-led researchers choose to exclude from the definition of the term rape male victims who, instead of being forcibly penetrated, were "made to penetrate," or forcibly enveloped.

Part of their excuse for this exclusion is the claim the category "made to penetrate" includes incidents during which the perpetrator has forced the victim to use a body part other than his penis to penetrate the perpetrator's body part in order to sexually stimulate the perpetrator, and since the penetrating body parts aren't sexual in nature, the sexual violation of the victim is diminished.  
These are the same groups which define it as rape when a woman is forced to sexually stimulate a man's penis with her mouth, a body part which is also not sexual in nature. They also define it as rape when a female victim is forcibly penetrated by a perpetrator's fingers, even though fingers aren't sexually stimulated.   
They define a female victim as a victim of rape if the perpetrator engages her genitals in a sex act against her will, or if a male perpetrator engages her in a sex act with his genitals against her will. Excluded from this definition is when a female perpetrator engages her in a sex act with the perp's genitals against the victim's will.

They define a male victim as a victim of rape only if a male perpetrator engages the victim in a sex act with the perp's genitals that involves penetrating the victim against his will. Excluded from this is any traditional sex act that engages the victim's genitals, and when a female perpetrator engages him in a sex act with her genitals against his will.  
In other words, the definition isn't written to exclude behaviors that aren't significantly sexually imposing, invasive or traumatic, but specifically to minimize the number of female sex crime perpetrators who would be counted as rapists.

Another excuse feminists and their followers make for this discrepancy is the claim that including incidents of being forced to penetrate would make statistics inaccurate because that category would include males who were forced by a third party to penetrate other victims.   
Let's take another look at that idea.    
A third party forces two people to perform a sex act, and feminists only want to consider one of them a victim, because... ?    
There really isn't an answer to that question which justifies considering one victim's experience rape, but not the other victim's experience. In fact, even if you consider the female experience of sexual assault to be a greater violation of bodily autonomy by reason of penetration, in this type of scenario, the male victim has the added horror of being forced to subject the female victim to that violation. In addition to feeling dominated and violated because he has been raped, he'd also have added to that pain a sense of responsibility for his co-victim's suffering, and being forced to commit what, if he's like most males, would be an evil act representing a violation of his most basic nature, as offering protection is one of the most basic ways in which a male human nurtures other humans, and being forced to hurt someone (especially someone he perceives as more vulnerable than himself) would feel fundamentally and deeply wrong.    
It would be a horrifying experience.    
It's dishonest to suggest that the horrifying experience of being forced to perform a sex act against one's will is not rape simply because one is male, or simply because there's another victim upon whom the experience is also inflicted. Tailoring one's ideological approach to sex crimes to exclude male victims of female perpetrators isn't rational, but it does suit feminism's predatory exploitation of proxy victim status in women, and it does suit their equally predatory exploitation of presumed perpetrator status in men. Female victimhood is most exploitable if women are seen as wholly innocent. Male perpetration is most exploitable if men are seen as solely guilty. Show that females aren't universally innocent, and males aren't commonly guilty, and you lose the basis upon which feminist organizations like NOW have lobbied for law and policy that discriminates against men, purportedly for the protection of women. You lose the basis upon which these groups have demanded grants and other funds dedicated to feminist-led initiatives, organizations, and services dedicated to female victims. You lose the feminist ability to use accusations of rape apology to try to shut down discussion about false accusations, and other men's issues related to discrimination against men in criminal court.   
That's really where the bottom line is; it's not about the semantics feminists try to use to excuse their choice to exclude male victims of female perpetrators from the definition of the word "rape." It's about money, power, and influence, just as it is with every other area of feminist hypocrisy.

Calling bullshit on a recycled tone argument

This is in reference to recent discussion on a short statement by Paul Elam in which he points out that it's not hyperbole to say "I'm not going to give a damn about female rape victims any more" under the circumstances in which the statement was originally made. Unable to effectively criticize the video at face value and in an honest manner, some individuals have been ignoring nearly everything in it except that line. This has led to comments by feminists, reddit's againstmensrights trolls, and some others claiming that Mr. Elam has stated gender as a reason, and as his only reason, for choosing not to come to the defense of an individual in distress.

To do this, they've deliberately ignored the context provided by other parts of the statement, in which he points out that a lot of men have begun to decide that men are not the world's unpaid bodyguards, and they don't owe it to anybody to intervene when a crime is happening to a stranger, including female strangers.

Since he also pointed out that while MRAs are accused of misogyny and rape apology for refusing to adhere to the traditional male gender role of protector, feminists have actively worked to cover up male victimization and marginalize male victims, Mr. Elam's feminist critics are making the claim that the refusal he describes applies only to women, and that he's encouraging it exclusively in retaliation for feminist efforts to erase perception of male victims. Some have even gone so far as to state that they only want to debate those two parts of the video; the refusal, and the aside they're treating as the motive for it.

In other words, they're deliberately taking parts of the statement out of context for the purpose of making them fit the arguments they want to put forth.

The sentence with which they're stating offense is set within the context of a wider argument. It's not "I don't give a damn about female rape victims because feminists don't give a damn about male rape victims." It's "I'm not required to involve myself in other people's violent conflicts just because of my gender. I'm not required to advocate for female rape victims because they already have extensive advocacy, and I'm not required to make discussion about female rape victims a part of every dialogue on gender issues in which I participate.  Also, if you're concerned about marginalization, look at feminists; they've actively and willfully marginalized male victims."

Understanding the roots of the discussion helps.

Male victims of rape can't be discussed without feminists targeting the discussion for derailment with intent to impose their ideological narrative on the issue. According to that narrative, men and boys are perpetrators, and women and girls are victims. If it's ever acknowledged that men or boys are victims, it can't also be acknowledged that women or girls are perpetrators; either the perpetrator must also be male, or the responsible party must be the victim himself, other men, or other boys... or the victim has to be whining or lying. That's not the main thing the statement feminists are taking out of context speaks to, however. According to the feminist narrative, male victims can never, ever be the primary topic of a discussion about sex crimes, because to them, sex crimes in general are a societal attack on women. Because of that, feminists make a targeted effort to impose discussion of female victims on any and all discussion about sex crimes.

This is especially true of discussions on the lack of resources dedicated to preventing female on male sex crimes, and the lack of recourse available to male victims of female sexual predators.

The moment MRAs point out that male victims get thrown under the bus, feminists step forward with claims like "Well, the vast majority of victims are women, and the vast majority of perpetrators are men..." as if, even if it were true, that would excuse condoning and enabling any sexual victimization of men and boys by women and girls.

The moment MRAs point out that there are different standards in criminal court between accused men and boys, and accused women and girls, feminists attempt to derail with claims that, when the varnish is taken off of them, amount to the assertion that male perpetration is caused by masculinity, but female perpetration is imposed by male-perpetrated oppression.  Their conclusion is that women shouldn't be held as accountable for their crimes as men should be held for theirs.

The moment MRAs object to double standards on consent, bodily autonomy, and responsibility wherein male consent is assumed, male suffering is presumed less, and male agency is presumed higher, feminists attempt to enforce aspects of male and female gender roles that they find conducive to limiting to only women claims of victim status which rely on excluding from the putative victim's experience having had the agency to refuse the interaction, and male and female gender roles which they find conducive to widening the spectrum of scenarios in which they can apply that exclusion.

A prime example of this is discussion on when sex while drunk ceases to be consensual and becomes rape, as feminists scramble to define drunk rape to exclude male victims of female perpetrators while simultaneously maximizing the perception of female victims of male perpetrators. They ignore that consumption of alcohol is a choice. They ignore every shade of drunk between stone cold sober, and unconscious. They refuse to stick with a clear and concrete standard for what constitutes incapacitated, and to apply that term equally to both sexes, in an effort to ensure that the term "incapacitated" can be applied regardless of a woman's actual capability, but never to a man. They promote myths and stereotypes about men, alcohol, and the presumption of male consent.

The statement "I don't give a damn about female victims of rape" is an obvious response to the constant haranguing by feminists who will not let a discussion about male victims remain about male victims, and who use shaming language to try to shut down discussion of issues related to the sexual victimization of men and boys by women and girls. What makes that obvious is the context of the previous statements, beginning with the point that men are treated as responsible for women, continuing on with the point that feminists don't just fail to give a damn, but actively attempt to exclude male victims from the public discourse, and hammered home by the point that female victims have a shitload of dedicated advocacy and resources.

In singling out the one line and the point about feminists marginalizing male victims, commenters complaining about that statement are responding to a recent part of an existing argument as if that part exists independently of the argument;

MRAs: Discussion about male rape victims and the issues related to them.

Feminists: You're not paying proper homage to female victims. You can't have a discussion about rape without talking about female victims. If you do that you're marginalizing them. And men are bad, because men rape women. Male victims don't matter because patriarchy.

MRAs: Female victims get discussed all the time. Discussion of male victims doesn't take anything away from discussion about female victims. Men are not bad. Rapists are bad. Not all males are rapists. Not all rapists are male. Not all men have power. Not all people with power are men, therefore not patriarchy. Further attempts to discuss male rape victims and the issues related to them.

Feminists: Female victims have it worse! Implication that women having it worse means male victims don't deserve any support or recourse. Talking about male victims is whining and an attempt to derail discussion about female victims. Talking about female perpetrators is misogyny. Saying it's not okay for feminists to say that all men are rapists is rape apology. Tone argument. Shaming language. Patriarchy. Let's be friends. You should let us take over the dialogue on this issue. You're not doing it right.

MRAs: Females don't have it worse. (Evidence.) Even if female victims did have it worse, that wouldn't excuse condoning victimization of males, or discriminating against them. Discussion of male victims still doesn't take anything away from discussion about female victims. Re: talking about female perpetrators... What's misogyny to the goose is misandry to the gander. We talk about perpetrators. You generalize perpetrator behavior to the entire male population. Who does that make more hateful? Tone argument is a derailing tactic. Shaming language is only a statement of opinion. Not all men have power. Not all people with power are men, therefore not patriarchy. Laws and policies that define rape to exclude male victims and due process to exclude accused men were lobbied for and celebrated by feminists. You're not helping. Further attempts to discuss male rape victims and the issues related to them.

Feminists: NAFALT! Further comments that very often prove otherwise. FEMALE VICTIMS! Mocking language. STFU! PATRIARCHY!

It's after years of this type of exchange that MRAs are starting to respond to "You're not allowed to have a discussion about male victims of anything without paying proper homage to female victims and the feminist narrative on victimization that says you're responsible for preventing female suffering" with "I'm not your bodyguard. I don't care about female victims. Female victims already have plenty of discussion and support. I'm here to talk about male experiences and issues, a discussion which your movement has deliberately attempted to silence."

To which multiple people have responded "Tone argument!"

Which, in the context of the larger conversation, is more of the same bullshit that some of us have been dealing with from feminists for decades. It doesn't get any fresher with age.

On how some women are never satisfied

One of feminism's main complaints about society's treatment of women is a phenomenon they refer to as objectification, a notion central to feminist theory. The dictionary definition of the term "objectification" is the act of representing an abstraction as a physical thing. The feminist use of the term objectification makes this specific to people; objectification is the act of treating or seeing a person as an object. The focus of feminist complaint regarding this is sexual objectification, or the treatment of specifically women as sex objects.

Among other claims related to the concept of sexual objectification is the assertion that display of women in sexually suggestive clothing and portrayals by media outlets like fashion magazines contributes to people's tendency to sexually objectify women in everyday life. They complain that this specific type of sexual objectification hurts all women by normalizing a focus on women as sex objects.

Complaints related to objectification have become pretty mainstream in the female population, even when women aren't actually being objectified. For instance, some women fail to differentiate between noticing a woman's appearance, and treating her as a sex object.

There is also the complaint that these magazines communicate unhealthy standards for beauty, requiring models to maintain a physique that is unrealistic and dangerous for women to attempt to maintain. Many women have made their voices heard on this - they want to see popular media using models of different physiques, representing more of the female population.

Elle Magazine's November cover model should have satisfied both of these interests; she's not a thin woman, and though she looks quite lovely in the image, that appeal is not achieved by placing her in revealing clothing and a sexually suggestive pose.

Instead, some women saw the cover as another opportunity to complain: OMG! Elle Magazine didn't sexually objectify Melissa McCarthy because she's fat! How dare they!

Seriously. That is the complaint, boiled down from an article-length rant to its basic nature. McCarthy was wearing a coat. It's not tight-fitting. She wasn't showing any skin. She wasn't showing any tits and ass. The pose she's in isn't suggestive... therefore the cover is bad.

So in addition to the rules "Don't show women in revealing clothing and sexually suggestive poses" and "Use models who aren't skinny" there is now also "If you follow both rules at the same time, we're going to complain about that, too."

And we wonder why we have a reputation for being unable to make up our minds?

google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html