Monday, June 23, 2014

WapitiMail: Women Raping Men is Feminist BS

Eivind Berge, a staunch anti-feminist who blogs at the self-titled site Eivind Berge, had this to say in response to the recent post "Men Are Victims of Sexual Assault Nearly As Much As Women":
[W]omen "raping" men is gibberish. It all rests on the feminist lie that the sexes are equal. Please, let's be intellectually honest and admit that women cannot rape men. The female equivalent to rape is not forced sex at all but rather cuckoldry, which robs men of real reproductive resources. Pretending sperm itself of sex with a man has some great value or traumatizing power simply isn't honest, and it is a great red herring for the feminists to deflect attention from issues that really hurt men.

It is also a very foolish tactic to go along with the feminists on this in the hope that it will backfire on them, since it only legitimizes their redefinition of rape and provides the illusion that men need these new sex laws too, which is exactly what the feminists want. Haven't you noticed how feminists are the first to promote this charade at every opportunity? You are a useful idiot for the feminists while I am trying to preserve some sanity by resisting the feminist lie that women raping men is a huge problem. We can't fight feminist sex law reform by amplifying their bullshit. Instead we need to make it perfectly clear that the traditional definition of rape is the correct one, which required not just lack of consent but real violence or serious threats, and it sure did not include women raping men. Don't you think men would have thought of it at some point in history before feminists invented the concept in the late 20th century if men really needed legal protection from women "raping" them? Are feminists your greatest heroes since you feel the need to defer to them like that?
In a perfect world, I would agree with Mr. Berge. The idea of a woman raping a man would be non-sensical in a socio-legal environment where rape is defined as a penis forcibly entering a vagina to which the owner is not married; unfortunately, this environment no longer exists.

Moreover, socially the trend is toward androgyny in manner of dress and in customs and away from distinct gender roles of masculine and feminine. Whereas in the past women may have engaged in domestic violence at rates far less than men, today, the evidence argues for parity in IPV and in some cases points toward women as the primary aggressor sex.  Similarly, the sex responsible for initiating sex has changed; while men are still expected to be the initiator in relationships, women are sexually more assertive, even aggressive, than in times past.

Further, I think Mr. Berge would agree with me that the crime of "rape" is itself being replaced by the far more general "sexual assault", to account for the trend of expanding the concept of rape to encompass a wide range of sexual acts performed without the consent of the alleged victim.  Even so-called "marital rape", an act that itself used to be an oxymoron in the Christian west, is in post-Christian jurisprudence a crime as well.  Chief among these changes is the introduction of consent as the acid test of rape, as opposed to the "property rights" model, where carnal knowledge of a woman is a violation of a husband's (if married) or father's (if a minor) or woman's (if unmarried and not living under her father's covering, in other words, a fem sole) property rights. For certain, enforcement was much easier under the former regime--knotty questions of consent would give way to simple "did you go there without right?"--but such a paradigm went bye-bye when the millennia-old principle of coverture fell out of fashion. Again, clearly we do not live under a legal regime where these principles apply, and rape now means more (and less) than it used to.

Where Mr. Berge and I differ, however, is what to do about this shift and expansion in definition.  He appears to advocate fighting the social trends of the last couple of hundred years tooth-and-claw, to reverse the machinations of the post-Enlightenment liberalist Cathedral's institutional capture, and restore the concept of rape to its more diminutive form.  Again, I agree with him that this is a noble and worthy and desirable goal.  Yet I witness the moral and legal momentum of liberalism, of which feminism is but one head of the Hydra, and conclude that a small minority of MRAs, trads, neo-trads, reactionaries, neo-reactionaries, or whatever label applies, is unlikely to succeed in a head-on assault on the hegemony of the majority and their cultural and legal jurisprudence.

Instead, I think it would be a more successful tactic to use the feminist redefinition of rape against them, by agreeing and amplifying. Yes, it does lend additional legitimacy to the feminist notion of all sexual contact without expressed uncoerced consent  is rape. Unfortunately, it already is legitimate, and men's buy-in to this reality or lack thereof doesn't make it any less real. It already is the law. In this environment; I just do not envision success in standing athwart soon-to-be-history yelling "go back!" In fact, I see doing so as actually making things worse for men, not better.  For if we were to follow Mr. Berge's advice, and insist that rape is something that men do to women and women can't do to men by virtue that they don't own a penis, "victims" would enjoy ever more more potent weapons to punish "offenders" as the definition of sexual assault continues to widen, the definition of consent continues to narrow, and the procedural assumption of innocence steadily erodes.  All this while men continue to be kept in the proverbial Victorian box as the dirty, assumed aggressor, who is "always on", "is lucky to get any action", and is by nature dishonorable in thought and deed.  I fear that doing as Mr. Berge advises would do nothing but force men further between the rock of rape culture hysteria and the hard place of received Victorian concepts of pure femininity and seedy masculinity.

With respect to liberalism, I'm of the general opinion that the only way out is through, and the topic of sexual assault is no exception.  By forcing liberalists to adhere to their own rules--and by not allowing them to weasel out by crying "backlash" as they are wont to do when women are increasingly arrested for IPV--feminism's expansion of rape into sexual assault will rightly be seen as contrary to the interests of  women as well as men.  It is thus an attack on equalitarianism itself, by using its own weapons against it.

In this I suppose I am "go[ing] along with the feminists on this in the hope that it will backfire on them" as Mr. Berge asserts; I just judge the long-term outcomes for men will be better compared to the tactics he advises.


Elusive Wapiti said...

This thread is a continuation of the discussion here.

Emma said...

” I don't think I can square with this. Rape is, or isn't, based on the actions of those involved. Or at least it was, and should be.

Making rape a function of the feelings of the accuser strikes me as very dangerous, especially since women tend to have much more powerful post-coital "regret" than men.”
You’re right – and I never meant to say that actions are not important. What I’m saying is, actions AND feelings are both essential to a real rape, and one of them doesn’t cut it. If someone FEELS raped, but the “perpetrator’s” actions were not according to a “physically forced nonconsensual sex” definition of rape, it’s not rape. If the “perpetrator’s” actions fit the description, but the “victim” is happy, slightly inconvenienced and doesn’t feel raped, it’s not rape.
The reason feelings matter is because without them, the crime of rape wouldn’t exist in the first place. What’s so special about having a man forcefully banging a woman against her will (or a man, for that matter)? If there is no physical harm, STDs or pregnancy, why should she care? If men and women didn’t feel raped by male rapists, being raped would be as big of a crime as having someone stick a finger in your ear, or having your head dunked in the toilet. And I guess this is why men didn’t feel the need to protect themselves from female rapists in pre-feminist times. Because even if the woman did the actions, most men wouldn’t have the same feelings.

Elusive Wapiti said...

" If the “perpetrator’s” actions fit the description, but the “victim” is happy, slightly inconvenienced and doesn’t feel raped, it’s not rape....The reason feelings matter is because without them, the crime of rape wouldn’t exist in the first place."

Perhaps I'm slow on the uptake...I'm trying to understand what you're driving at here. Are you saying that, if a victim doesn't feel raped, regardless of the actual facts of the incident, he/she wouldn't consider him/herself raped and wouldn't report it? Therefore the authorities wouldn't have anything to prosecute?

Basically, are you arguing along the lines of "if a tree falls over in the forest, and nobody hears it, it didn't happen"?

"And I guess this is why men didn’t feel the need to protect themselves from female rapists in pre-feminist times."

Also I'm thinking that because rape, by definition, required physical coercion in the old days, and men as a general rule are larger and stronger than women, it would be difficult for a woman to physically overpower a man and therefore rape him.

Emma said...

To your first paragraph, yes. To the second, no. The whole damage of rape is in the mind, even though it's caused by physical actions.

Eivind Berge said...

I think what Emma is trying to say is that if something is going to be treated as a heinous crime, then not necessarily every victim, but certainly the typical victim must be very traumatized by it. It is called the reasonable man standard, and this is the test which female-on-male rape fails. Your average, reasonable man simply does not consider female sexual coercion anything more than a trivial insult at worst. Therefore it is not fair to pretend it is the same as rape, which when properly defined is very harmful to the typical woman. Female sexual coercion does not fit in the category of rape and does not deserve much punishment, because being sexually violated by women is not something men have evolved to make a big deal of (if any punishment is warranted, then it should be considered as simple assault or whatever crime fits the level of violence used -- the sexual aspect is not an aggravating factor). The whole idea of trying to equate female sexual coercion with rape is so contrived it hurts my sense of logic and integrity. You are absolutely right that feminists have changed the law to enable draconian punishments for trivial sexual insults against them also, but more of the same is not going to solve it. Two wrongs do not make a right. If we support the feminist definition of rape when women are accused, then we can't consistently oppose the same definition when men are accused, which is the most important thing we need to do. For example via jury nullification, which means we need to make it perfectly clear that the law is wrong and promulgate this message to potential jurors. This means we can't support bad laws when it suits us if we are to retain any credibility.

The force of feminist sex law reform is so strong, it hardly matters much what the tiny MRA movement says anyway. I would rather be upright and honest than act like a clown and still not make a difference. At least we can preserve our honesty and credibility.

Eivind Berge said...

Secondly, even if you tell boys and men that women raping them is an extremely serious threat they need to be hyper-vigilant about and to be sure to call the police as soon as any girl does anything sexual with them without obtaining prior enthusiastic consent, I doubt many men would come forward and accuse women.

The buffoons at AVfM do this already. Yet even the top propagandists for female-on-male rape themselves don't seem to take it seriously beyond parroting the political correctness. Did the professional male victim James Landrith file a police report yet? I don't think so, and actual statistics tell me men don't want to accuse women of rape even if the environment is extremely conducive to it. There is an enormous amount of propaganda to this effect here in Norway (feminists put out publications and conduct workshops and lectures on female rapists, and study the subject in their women's studies programs, where they write masters theses about it and so on -- they even write obviously fake letter to newspapers where they impersonate male "victims" in order to bolster their legal reforms), and still only one man has made a formal rape complaint against a woman in Norwegian history. That was ten years ago, and since then 10,000 men have been accused but no women. It is hard to imagine what kind of propaganda and oversocialization of boys would be needed to actually produce rape accusations against women to any significant degree when it doesn't work in this absurdly feminist society.

Julian said...

I get a fair bit of traffic to this post. I wonder if Rachael is a cinematic case of Emma's description of a woman who is physically raped but does not "feel" raped.

CM said...

Emma's recent comments and Eivind's from the previous thread on 9 months of uterine use and the easy availability of sperm prompt some thoughts.

First, as we see in much of OT law, laws were put in place to deal with violations. If having sex with an unmarried virgin violated no one, there wouldn't be so many laws concerning it... so the very fact we HAVE laws is because someone felt violated.

And reasons for violation specifically with women WAS do to the nature of their reproductive system. Violation of virginhead makes future offspring of any union suspect with regards to paternity and a potential of 9 months carrying a child for a man who didn't do what was necessary to procure the rights for his issue to take up residence. This is just a detailing of the physical facts.

These limitation on female reproduction fuels the feelings of violation. Rape, when I was young, was my biggest fear. The very idea felt like a violation to me largely for the physical reasons. As a virgin, I wanted to be one for marriage. Children were "marriage incarnate" for me - a true uniting of two into one, an outpouring of love, wax poetic as much as you like here. My emotional response was driven by the physical facts.

For a while (socially, at least), I know claims of rape that didn't result in pregnancy weren't really considered rape if the woman wasn't a virgin (I'm not discussing rightness or wrongness here) because there was no actual physical violation of contract... however the emotional violation persisted and we as a society adjusted our thinking to take into consideration of feelings.

So, I think this is where Emma is coming from (kind of) and for this reason, I understand Eivind's point on sexual product value.

However... for Eivind... my example was not cuckholdery. Cuckholdery is passing off one man's offspring as someone else's. There is a mechanism in place in our laws to protect men from that. There isn't any when it concerns theft of sexual product, because the resulting child is actually HIS.

In the past, this wasn't such a big deal because men had a right to their resulting offspring to do with as they chose. Sperm deposits were cheap because a man could choose or choose not to recognize and financially support his bastards (not discussing right or wrong here). It cost him nothing if he didn't care and his caring was his perogative.

With changing timez comes changing values. For many women, their uteri have the right to evict at will, men have no rights to their bastards, and women can sue for financial support or government handouts if they decide to let biological byproduct take up permanent residence in their lives. Now, all the reproductive power is in the hands of women. This has changed many men's views on sowing their oats. Once a right of passage for a young man, now it is a death knell if your sperm knocks up the wrong woman. This makes selection of your offspring's mother far more critical for men than it has in the past and has made offspring much more valuable to men...either too valuable to afford or of such high value that the father wants them in HIS life, taking an active interest in their development.

For all reading this, I'm sorry to boil this down to such a cold notion that sexual rights are all about the children, but from a purely clinical perspective, a human's only biological perogative is to continue the human race by producing the next generation and much of what I see in sexual conduct in OT law was about securing stable environments in which to raise the next gen. I find it a purely modern (and disgusting) concept that children are not the "most important" when it comes to sex. I see them as the ONLY thing that gives sexual product ANY value.

Emma said...


I would also mention Dominique from the Fountainhead :) A lot of people initially think she is raped by Roark, but Ayn Rand made it clear that the heroine did everything in her power to invite him to it. He was spontaneous exactly when she desired it, although in real life, it's a terribly risky strategy.

CM said...

Btw, Eivind - I'm the "C" comment on your blog. I have worked to limit my reading to here and one other blog, so my drive bys at other blogs usually don't get follow ups. I'm glad to have the opportunity to actually engage in this discussion with you.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Julian, thanks for your visit and your comment.

" I wonder if Rachael is a cinematic case of Emma's description of a woman who is physically raped but does not "feel" raped."

It would seem so. Yet I am having difficulty applying the presumed victim's (in this case, Rachael) perception of non-rape to the actual act that was rape. So she welcomed it. So what?

We already have an entire body of case law--sexual harassment--where the "feelings" of the accuser are pivotal, and the actual acts in question are secondary, if they matter at all. With laws such as these, individual acts a priori are impossible to know if illicit or no; rather, that the status of the alleged offender is the metric in question.

If he is hot enough, dominant enough, wealthy enough, desirable enough, alpha enough, he's innocent. If he's a beta, delta, or gamma, he's guilty.

This isn't equal justice before the law. This is the tyranny of the vagina tingle. This is the restoration, nay the re-imposition, of an aristocracy, on in this case, by the Sisterhood, where the peasants (i.e., delta providers) are held to a higher standard, whilst the nobility (alphas and high betas) get off (pun not intended) with nary a slap on the wrist for the same deeds.

Emma said...

Sexual harassment laws shouldn't exist precisely because the actions part of the "actions AND feelings" requirement isn't in place. It's insane to persecute based only on feelings, but I also think it's insane to persecute someone for rape even though the "victim" doesn't feel raped or want police involvement. The law should, in this case, stay out of people's personal relationships. I'm not keen on the idea of the state commanding someone to be a victim if they don't feel like one.

Eric said...

"...since it only reinforces their {the feminists'} redefinition of rape and provides the illusion that men need these new sex laws too."

That's where I was going on the previous thread, though Eivind said it better.

Accepting male victimhood runs logically into a vicious circle: if we accept the feminist definition of rape laws, and apply them to men, we necessarily have to criminalize ALL male sexuality. It leads to 'all sex is rape' no matter how you slice it.

Eric said...

You mentioned 'marriage rape' in the post as an example of one the feminist legal redefinitions, but later add...'They are already law.'

Question: In a traditional marriage how could a husband---even by the feminist redefinitions---ever be a 'rape victim' of his wife?

Emma said...

And I think we're getting confused with talk of women who don't feel raped by actions corresponding to rape. The only good example I can think of is Dominique, and she's a fictional character in a story full of unrealistic characters. Most REAL cases I heard of, where the woman didn't feel raped, were not even rape according to the action definition. In those cases, he used strength and she resisted, but not to the best of her ability. She could have stuck a finger in his eye, but didn't. The situations were often about a hubby who had too much to drink, or an insistent boyfriend, and she wasn't willing to use her teeth and nails to push him off because yeah, he's her man and she doesn't want to maim him. But sure, she was made to have sex she didn't want, with force. A lot of that stuff doesn't even have a hot alpha involved. Instead, the "rapist" is just a guy she was with for a quite a while, got really used to him, and thus doesn't feel sexually violated by.

Dominique is, IMO, not normal. She liked forced, nonconsensual sex while resisting to the best of her ability. Normal people still know that normal women are hurt by forced, nonconsensual sex where she is resisting to the best of her ability. It's the reasonable man standard Eivind is talking about. It ignores outliers for a good reason.

Julian said...

I have not read The Fountainhead, but it seems from Atlas Shrugged and the character of Dagny Taggert that Ayn Rand was no feminist and believed that the best kind of woman was happy to take her place in a man's world. I seem to remember her turning Dagny into a housewife at one stage to make some point. And her non-fiction work is full of gibes at feminists.

I think, on balance, that Deckard does not rape Rachael in Blade Runner. He is forceful, but she does consent. The problem with the whole area is that it almost requires a Socrates to work out the truth. For example, perhaps Deckard turned Rachael on by forcing her so that she eventually wanted to submit? Is that rape?

Would spanking a woman so hard that she got turned on and wanted sex be rape?

The Blade Runner case is even less real than Emma's Dominique example because of course Rachael is an android not a real woman, and she lacks some normal feelings. So in a sense, at worst Deckard was raping a kind of doll.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"...if we accept the feminist definition of rape laws, and apply them to men, we necessarily have to criminalize ALL male sexuality"

Not trying to defend feminism or their expansion of rape to include gray rape and non-rape, but I'm having trouble following the line of argument that the feminist definition of rape laws necessarily criminalizes male sexuality.

Granted, it's meant to be that way, but I assert that men and/or Black Knights can use these very same laws to significant effect vs women. Thus to me its not criminalizing male sexuality, as it is delta and lower sexuality (if male) and HB6 and lower sexuality (if female).

Again, not saying I support the feminist definition of rape (I think it's a criminally insane power-grab), but rather that (a) it's pretty much already the operative definition in the West, whether we like it or not, (b) fighting it merely preserves men in their present state of being held accountable for female choice, and (c) there is an opportunity to wreck the feminist system by taking it to its absurd fullest and forcing the fembots to live under the rule set they seek to impose on the rest of us.

Elusive Wapiti said...

" In a traditional marriage how could a husband---even by the feminist redefinitions---ever be a 'rape victim' of his wife?"

Depending on how far back you go in defining "traditional"...I prefer Donal Graeme's "classical" marriage...I would say no. The husband owns his wife's sexuality, she his, and neither can rape the other. To claim otherwise is to assert than one could rape him/herself, which is ridiculous or really mental. Or both.

Telescoping forward in time, when rape was defined as forcible penis-in-orifice, then still it is impossible for women to rape men as (most of them) do no possess penises.

Nowadays, however, where consent interacts with hotness and horny feelings to yield various amounts of post-coital "regret"--which is really the criteria that defines rape these days--then it is certainly possible for a wife to rape a husband. He just has to free his mind from the slander that "he wants it all the time, anytime, anywhere", to consider how he felt pre, during, and after, and reward and/or punish the woman accordingly. If he didn't like some/all of it in any way, if he regretted any of it, and she cajoled, touched him in any way without his expressed verbal consent, whether or not he physically resisted, or made him feel used, or if he can gain some sort of good/prize/reward from levelling a rape charge, it was rape. According to the feminist definition.

If women see how vulnerable this makes them, then my point has been made. Welcome to the world of men. But not before large quantities of mid- to lower-ranking women find themselves on the receiving end of a sexual assault allegation with them stamped with the "offender" label.

As I've stated before, the way out is through. Time to point the guns at them. When sufficient numbers of otherwise legally unimpeachable women start finding themselves on the same business end of feminist rules that men do, we'll have change. And not a moment before.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Julian wrote:

"For example, perhaps Deckard turned Rachael on by forcing her so that she eventually wanted to submit? Is that rape?"

Yep. If Rachael wanted to make it rape. No matter if she enjoyed it later.

That's where we're at, sad to say.

Eric said...

Even to extreme degrees that feminists have re-defined rape laws, it is legally implied that the man gives consent. Expanding those definitions to men takes away male consent.

Feminists already argue that the male sex drive is nothing but a blind impulse and that femihag rape laws are necessary to contain it. The logical extension of this that men would be incapable of giving consent any circumstances. IOW, implied consent of the male is one of the few legal/social sexual protections men still retain.

If men forfeit implied consent, the feminists would simply deny male consent ever existed and that any sexual act perpetrated by a man is rape.

Eric said...


Another link worth checking out on this subject:

ClarenceComments said...

Ahh, apparently male sexuality still has SOME value:

ray said...

"As I've stated before, the way out is through. Time to point the guns at them. When sufficient numbers of otherwise legally unimpeachable women start finding themselves on the same business end of feminist rules that men do, we'll have change. And not a moment before."

Never happen EW. The matriarchy is NOT going to use the instruments of the matriarchy to hold females accountable (whether concerning sexuality, crime, or any other issue) at any level even vaguely equivalent to males.

And there is ZERO political and/or legal push to "equalize" responsibility before the "law" for males and females in America. Instead, all the U.S. political, legal, and propagandistic muscle is used to deepen male apartheid and de-facto inequality between female and male.

WHAT "guns" are going to be pointed at the gynarchy? WHO exactly is going to hold women accountable for their sexual (or other) predations, lies, false accusations, manipulations? Individual Blacknighting males? LOL!

Try that and there will be four sheriffs cars parked on your front lawn the next morning, and you will be Processed-In rudely for attempting to actually live out "equality" ... including any attempt, however just, to hold even ONE female accountable for her actions.

There will never be a system, political or otherwise, that equalizes male vs female outcomes, especially legal outcomes. When Christ's Kingdom finally is established here on Planet Mam, then and only then will individual females, and the matriarchies, be held accountable for their actions. And be certain that they WILL be held to answer, along with the "men" that enabled and enforced this collectivist evil.


Retrenched said...

The cognitive dissonance of the feminists is mind blowing. On the one hand they encourage young women to go party and have lots of sex with men they barely know because it's so empowering and all, but then they want to charge the men who helped them do that with 'rape' or 'sexual assault' when the women feel the least bit of regret about it after the fact. So it's a wonderful, amazing and empowering experience that we absolutely must encourage young women to have, and yet still rape when they feel bad about it later.

Retrenched said...

Actual rape – as in what everyone understood to be 'rape' until 1960 or so – is a truly horrible crime. Which makes the feminists' attempts to redefine it all the more grotesque.

Devlin got it right – 'redefining rape' means falsely accusing men who did nothing of the sort. Not to mention that it pisses all over victims of actual rape.