Seduction, Harassment and Rape

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the differences between seduction, harassment and rape and how to articulate them clearly.

I think I’ve figured out a potential explanation based on the idea of the legitimacy of consent.

A seducer accepts their partner’s state of non-consent as legitimate, but attempts to entice them to change it.

A harasser attempts to make their partner believe they have no right not to consent.

A rapist ignores consent entirely or actively seeks out a lack of consent.

Discuss and if you don’t, you’re not a real man.

How To Stop Rape

Author’s note: Subsequent to a controversy regarding the final footnote, I added a word. I now realize that the passage can still be misconstrued. Further I believe that the controversy surrounding the last paragraph of this article is an exercise in controlling speech. People are free to misread this article however they wish–I will not recognize attempts to control speech as legitimate forms of criticism. This article was originally published on A Voice For Men.

I’ll tell you first how you don’t stop rape.

Seeing a poster that says “My strength is not for hurting” or “don’t be that guy” won’t do anything that a law doesn’t.

You see an anti-rape law is sorta like an anti-rape poster except with a punishment attached for not following what the poster says.

So how is saying “men, don’t rape” going to be more effective than saying “men, don’t rape” and then adding “if you do, you go to jail?”

Because this is what these feminist inspired posters essentially are. They are a law, against rape, but without the actual criminal punishment. If the law isn’t an effective deterrent, than how is a poster going to be an effective deterrent?

Men who rape are not raping because they’ve been told it’s cool or fun or awesome, or because they heard an off color joke, saw a naked ankle or watched porn… they rape because they have a powerful emotional compulsion to do so.

Let’s get something clear. Human beings—barring the congenitally emotionally disabled such as sociopaths—don’t want to rape. They don’t like rape. Rape is the exact opposite of what a human being wants when they engage in sex. Men, who happen to be human beings just like women, want to feel desirable.

Most men are devastated after being rejected by a woman. What makes anyone think that the average man is going to enjoy enduring the most profound rejection one human being can muster for another—which is exactly what the rapist endures in order to rape.

men-can-stop-rape-inc

If you saw someone eating broken glass, would you assume the glass is tasty or conclude there’s something seriously wrong with the person chowing down?

What the current crop of male targeted anti-rape posters will do is normalize rape. It won’t normalize rape for men who aren’t compelled to rape in the first place. Nope. It’ll just shame them. But it will normalize rape for men who are rapists.

Instead of seeing themselves as damaged individuals who are engaging not just in harm to others, but harm to themselves, rapists—male ones at least—will see themselves as the guys who do what every other guy really wants to do, but doesn’t have the balls.

They aren’t hurting, they’re edgy.

Rapists are in the business of rationalizing their compulsion to repeat, rationalizing their sense of powerlessness, and current anti-rape posters help them do just that. Rape is normal male behaviour, dontchaknow? Something men teach each other to do when feminists aren’t there to stop them.

But if jokes, naked ankles and porn don’t cause men to rape women, what does?

Being raped.

That’s right. In fact, having been sexually abused by a  woman[1] is a stronger risk factor for becoming a future sexual abuser in boys than having been sexually abused by a man.horzPosters_prod_r.inddThis is where the emotional compulsion to abuse comes from. This is the motivation. This is the manufacture process for adult male rapists.

Yet despite being sexually violated, only a fraction of these boys go on to abuse! That’s how resistant to raping the average male human is; even the most effective method of training a boy to become a rapist—by raping him–is only effective for one out of every ten boys.

The idea that a bad joke, a naked ankle or porn will cause men to rape is demonizing. The idea that there exists a “rape culture” teaching men to rape in any way but by raping them and then ignoring their subsequent emotional disorder is depraved.

And here’s the thing. Right now, in the US, there is an epidemic of  institutionalized sexual abuse that is being ignored in favor of manufactured statistics about sex trafficking of girls and other juicy sexualized and sensationalized threat narratives designed to push our buttons.

In fact this epidemic of sexual abuse makes the Catholic Church scandal pale in comparison.

Since the 1950s approximately 12,000 men have come forward to admit abuse in the Catholic Church sex scandal.

10,000 boys a year are being sexually abused by female staff in juvenile detention facilities in the US. A YEAR.

So here’s the equation. Boys learn to be rapists by having been raped(even if only a fraction of them go on to enact their abuse), and we’re turning a blind eye to women raping boys in juvenile facilities—better termed “boy rape camps”—and then we’re ignoring, denying and minimizing female-on-male sexual abuse in order to prop up a morally bankrupt feminist empire built on the backs of rape victims—both victims of actual rapists and victims terrorized by rape hysteria itself.

And then we normalize rape with posters that suggest rape is not the abnormal behavior of the emotionally damaged, but a manifestation of masculinity or male culture. Men will rape for trivial reasons because they saw a naked ankle, or porn or hear a rape joke. (Or are dope fiends or black or Jewish or…)

rapecultureBy normalizing rape, these posters do the opposite of what they intend. They empower rapists and disempower emotionally healthy men who would never rape. They promote a distorted, simplistic view of rape as an emergent property of maleness rather than an emergent property of sexual abuse.

As for male victims of female rapists, they never see themselves in these posters. They are never acknowledged at all. This forces the problem of female perpetrated sexual abuse underground; in fact we could see the existence of male-perpetuated sexual abuse as a symptom of our society’s absolute inability to recognize male victims and give them timely help.

So how do we stop rape?

We acknowledge female rapists. We acknowledge why boys grow up to be rapists. We provide services for male survivors of sexual abuse so they have a place to heal. Not just to stop the cycle of abuse but because men and boys who are sexual abuse survivors deserve as much compassion as women and girls. We kick the ideologs out of our institutions of healing because what matters is helping people, not perpetuating feminist pseudoscience.

We start by telling the feminists to shut the fuck up.

There is no ‘rape culture’ and if there is—if the idea of “rape culture” really is ‘a culture which enables rape’–you better start backpedaling because it’s looking like you’re the biggest purveyors of it.

[1] Salter D., McMillan D., Richards M., Talbot T., Hodges J., Bentovim A., Hastings R., Stevenson J., Skuse D., Development of sexually abusive behaviour in sexually victimized males: a longitudinal study, The Lancet, Vol. 361, February 8, 2003

(While we’re on the subject of female-perpetuated sexual abuse, most surveys that ask college age women about the sexual abuse they perpetrate find a shocking levels of female-perpetrated sexual abuse. Other surveys find that men who perpetuate sexual abuse are also sexually abused, suggesting a cycle of sexual abuse on college campuses. Perhaps rather than being victims of an indifferent system these silent female rape victims–who are part of a culture of cyclical sexual abuse–fail to come forward to the authorities about their abuse because it would mean admitting that they also are rapists? So the constant drumbeat of feminist agitprop about making these women “comfortable” never will, unless feminists invent a ray gun that neutralizes cognitive dissonance.)

Andrew Breitbart’s Message: Kurt Cobain and Feminism by Dani Pettas

On Thursday, Jezebel featured a piece by Tracy Moore called “What Do We Want From Male Feminists?”

The focus is on Kurt Cobain, who would have been 46. Cobain kind of had an androgynous look, called Axyl Rose a “homophobe” and identified as a feminist. Moore references Amanda Marcotte’s writing, “Nirvana’s Secret Feminism.” A parody of cheerleaders in a music video made a statement about women’s beauty standards. Anecdotes advising men towards feminism are given, with Kurt Cobain held up as an example.

March marks the one year anniversary of Andrew Breitbart’s death. He would have seen a 44th birthday in February–but would not have been playing “Smells Like Teen Spirit.”

There’s a climactic moment in Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World, where he desperately flips the dial from FM to AM and discovers conservative talk radio.

His music taste had been “a very specific type of angst-driven British alt-rock–the The, New Order… The Specials, The Cure, Depeche Mode.” About the likes of Nirvana, Breitbart said: “And my hatred of grunge was visceral. The forced thrift-shop flannel look belied Los Angeles’s temperate weather. Who were these whiny suicidal freaks? I didn’t want to know…”

In the book, Cobain (who I’m starting to feel bad for) personifies the slacker generation’s cynicism. “My generation had embraced Kurt Cobain and late-1980s stand-up comedy and Spy magazine–we’d embraced irony as our badge of hipness.”

A group of social theorists were influential in the 1930s and 40s, the Frankfurt School. Entering the US to escape Nazism, they apparently didn’t jibe with the cheery “vision of paradise” in SoCal. Their “ilk were the Kurt Cobains of their day: massively depressed, nihilistic people.”

Herbert Marcuse was the originator of the “New Left,” on a mission “to dismantle American society” by pitting different “victim groups” against each other. Feminism was part of post-structuralism (Wilhelm Reich is cited) and defined “sexual relationships” as “inherently relationships between the oppressor and the oppressed.” Breitbart uses the phrase Marxist/Feminist.

The grunge rock comparison concludes: “If only they had IKEA furniture, this would have made for a fantastic season of The Real World.”

Yes, I’m still talking about Andrew Breitbart–the Anthony Weiner guy. The Frankfurt Schoolers were the beginnings of what he called the Democrat-Media Complex, which he was “at war” with.

Breitbart observed collusion between Old–or mainstream–Media like CNN, in contrast with New Media, like the Drudge Report. For instance, Bill Clinton was given a free pass in reporting on Paula Jones’s sexual harassment charge. Newsweek had then subverted what would have been the first breaking news about Monica Lewinsky.

He likened MSNBC to the fictional naked emperor. In a video, he indicted Rachel Maddow as responsible for the “broken promise to the American People” in MSNBC’s “overselling” of Obama as “the greatest thing that ever walked the earth.”

Amanda Marcotte’s piece, as quoted in Jezebel, said embracing the feminism of the “Smells Like Tean Spirit” video was to “choose to be a badass.”

For me in 2013, the word feminism is now like a brand name. It conjures the MSNBC narrative that Breitbart criticized, with a hipster connotation–perhaps appearing along with Rosie the Riviter reprints in a Williamsburg loft on an episode of Girls.

Instead, watching videos from Girl Writes What or Typhonblue on Youtube feels rebellious–like something “they” don’t want me to do, something they don’t want me to think. Debating whether or not Susan Brownmiller’s views from 1975 are valid feels badass, like fighting the system.

For comparison, a Citizen Radio podcast last week was promoted as a tear-down of MRAs. For 10 minutes, Jamie Kilstein talked about an ironic t-shirt. That was it. That was the expression of “cool feminist anger.”

My personal outlook–in terms of smashing the gender binary–is in-line with Tracy Moore’s last paragraph, but my disdain for hipster feminsim is in-line with Andrew Breitbart’s. Also, his preference for New Order, The Cure and Depeche Mode.

But, hey! Fiona Apple and Alanis Morissette released new albums last year! (What were they called again? I forgot.)

So I Lied…

I took a gander at Manboobz’ article on “apexuality” and confirmed to myself that doing so was exactly as pointless as I thought it would be.

He essentially restates my argument and calls it “loopy”.

But here’s the thing. Patriarchy theory asserts, fundamentally, that men share a positive identity. Not just that men are in power, but that they share a positive, loving relationship with other men that would result in them benefiting other men with that power.

Where’s the evidence that this is so? If you’re going to assert something as a fundamental fact, you should have some evidence for its existence. And since feminism bills itself as “science” rather then belief, one would assume this evidence is a result of careful study into male identity and what it’s actually based on.

I have yet to see any evidence that male-bodied individuals in power share a positive social identity with male-bodied individuals not in power.

Do they campaign on platforms to benefit the male bodied? Do they promote the issues of the male bodied? Do they do anything other then shaming the male bodied into conforming to sets of behaviour that apexuals find useful?

Hell, you could say the relationship between the male-bodied and the label “man” is akin to the relationship between pigs and the label “pork”.

And as for the commentator who said, sarcastically, “that’s why male politicians are so concerned about trans women.”

Well, you know what they say about homophobes…

Correcting a Misunderstanding About Apexuality

I don’t go to Manboobz’s blog so I’m clearing this up for the sake of the people who read and comment on this blog. Also there’s no real point in posting this there since all it will do is inspire an endless round of “well what you really meant was [insert misrepresentation]” followed by “no, in fact if you read the actual quote, the immediate subject preceding ‘it’ was male politician, not trans woman. I used the plural ‘they’ to refer to trans women” followed by “well what you really meant was [insert misrepresentation].”

Anyway if I did appear to use “it” to trans woman then I apologize. That was definitely not my intent.

Why would I refer to a trans woman in that manner? She obviously takes her identity from being female. Nor are trans women truly “male-bodied”; they are identified as “male-bodied” by society, just like apexuals are identified as “male-bodied” by society. While neither take their identities from being presumptively “male-bodied”.

I assert this because I see zero evidence that male-bodied CEOs, politicians, generals, etc. share any positive social identity with other male-bodied individuals. Instead they identify with their role as politician, CEO or general.

Is politician a sex? No. So how do you refer to a male-bodied politician? Zie is gender neutral but male-bodied apexuals(politicians, generals, CEOs, all the presumptively “alpha” male bodied) aren’t gender neutral, they are gender-less.

“It” seems more appropriate.