This is a handy guide for women who involve themselves with men. I’ve recently received a bunch of comments from men who say that they aren’t rape supporters because they (1) have never “raped” a woman and/or (2) are gay. If you are around a man who claims to be anti-rape, see how he stacks up.
A man is a rape-supporter if…
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.
He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense.
He has accused a rape victim of having “buyer’s remorse” or wanting to get money from the man.
He has blamed a woman for “putting herself in a situation” where she “could be” attacked.
He has procured a prostitute.
He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes.
He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional.
He has gone to a strip club.
He is anti-abortion.
He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.
He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.”
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.
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.
He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually “hoodwinked,” or sexually harassed.
He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects
He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification.
He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them.
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.
He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are “cultural” and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention.
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 class 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.”
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.
He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity.
He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
This list is kind of stupid.
I found this list on a message board. I don't know where it comes from originally or who wrote it. Some of the items on it seem pretty common sense, and others seem to be anti-kink/sex negative/separatist. Moreover, it oversimplifies a lot of situations that oughtn't be seen in such black and white perspectives. What say you?
Posted by Chuck Damage at 6:37 AM