A Man Is a Rape-Supporter If….

Chances are that if you’re reading this, you’ve been linked from someplace which isn’t a feminist website, and you’ve probably been told that this blog post posits OMG ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS.

That is because you were linked to this website by somebody who cannot read.

“Rape-supporter” may, but usually does not, equal “rapist.” A rape-supporter is somebody whose actions lend support to a culture in which rape is ubiquitous. This post is about how many “feminist-allied” men seem to believe that there are bad men who commit rape and every other guy has no responsibility in the creation and maintenance of a culture which defends sexual assault (against women in this context, specifically, but also in a broader sense).

Every time a man tells a rape joke, he is participating in and adding to a global ideology which states that sexual violence (and sexualizing violence) is normal, biological, acceptable, funny, or not that big of a deal. Every time a man hears a rape joke and says nothing, he is complicit – he is lending support to that culture.

You are not just a recipient of culture handed down from some unseen and unknown entity. You create and affect culture, daily, through your individual actions. Men who commit the actions on this list do not get a free pass as “not responsible” simply because they have never committed acts which fit the legal definition of rape. Every single item on this list contributes; for some the connection is painfully obvious, others perhaps less so depending on how much you’ve thought about the role of sexism in our society. A man cannot legitimately call himself “anti-rape” and still engage in actions which support rape.

The original post follows.

—–

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.

So, let’s see how many women reading this know at least one male over the age of 18 who does not fit this list. Anybody?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to A Man Is a Rape-Supporter If….

  1. kelly says:

    Virtually every man I have ever know in my entire life fits this entire list to a “T”. Every last one of them.

    This is a great post! It should be read to every male on every college campus on the first day of school before they even get through the front door.

  2. John says:

    Nope. Still don’t support or condone rape. You seem to have your heart set on hating men though.

    • First off, it’s more than a little ridiculous that you would claim you don’t fit anything on this list; coming from an explicitly anti-feminist/”MRA” link makes it pretty hard to argue that you don’t promote a philosophical view which puts men’s well-being before women’s, even if you’d never done anything else on the list. Besides, even in this comment, you arguably are mocking a woman who is pointing out sexual objectification. I don’t even know why you’d bother to come here and lie, to a person who you and your pals are saying is delusional and who you probably assume wouldn’t credit a single thing you say. Guess it’s better than having to engage in any self-analysis though, right?

      I do have some days where I hate men; it’s easy to do when physical and psychological torture of women is one of the most popular and highest-grossing forms of entertainment among men. But what all you “MRA” folks don’t seem to understand is that you hate yourselves far more than I could ever hate you. Of all the comments I’ve gotten on that old post that got your danders up (https://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/a-rant/) none of them have commented on anything substantive, because the substance of the post is that men have created hierarchies of power and abuse which damage them, and that you engage in it willingly. If women behaved towards men as men do towards women, we would be hunting you down and killing you, torturing you while we said we loved you, raping you and calling it intimacy. None of you have addressed any of that – it’s all froth-mouthed insults, and people saying that my little post on the internet is “just as bad” as pimps or snuff films and is “the real reason” why men simply can’t be bothered to stop buying little girls in Thailand.

      Here’s the difference between me and you boys: I don’t think any of the cruel or terrible shit which men engage in or defend is innate or biologically driven. I think you were taught to treat us in this way since you were kneehigh to a grasshopper, and that those behaviors and attitudes have been reinforced and encouraged daily, and the ruts worn so thick in your brains that you think it’s how you “really are.” I think that you’re in a society in which this stuff is treated as so normal that you have difficulty envisioning things any differently, and when you do get a glimpse of an alternate way of life it’s just easier to forget it and go back to watching yet another pretty dead woman’s corpse on CSI.

      I just spammed yet another comment saying men do have sexual “needs” and that (while he doesn’t “condone rape” of course) it will create wide-spread social problems if women don’t “accept” those “needs.” Here is a male who has been told that sexual access to another’s body is a reward, and is part of healthy living – those associations are pushed all the way through puberty, with advertising, novels, movies, stories that boys tell each other, stories told by their fathers and uncles. Now he, like many other men, actually seems to think that if he does not engage sexually with another creature then he will have psychological or physical problems. By the terms of masculine culture itself, that would be a pathetic weakness, but since the “need” is in the form of a harm to women (as even such behavior in a male-male relationship harms women, as men see it as justification/vindication/a reflection of how to treat women), it gets a pass.

      I have other spammed comments talking about how it’s just “the way men are” to use pornography or procure prostitutes. Yet others go on and on about how if it wasn’t for men’s inherent “aggressiveness” we wouldn’t have nuclear power plants or computers. Others persist in telling me that all women (including myself) would be ever so much happier if we just let men take over our bodies, minds, and tasks, and settled down to have “their” babies.

      It pains me to no end to see what little boys grow up to become. I would love to be able to love men, fully and with no reservations. But men as a class are dangerous people, I have met precious few who did not seek to preserve this illusion about male-ness that you are all engaged in, and of those few they still found themselves struggling daily with how to live in cultures which tells men they should revel in being violent, worthless scum.

      Most radical feminists are simply done with trying to help all of you, which is seen as male-hating. That frustration with men’s unwillingness to act human is the genesis of the comments in other posts that society seems capable of handling a maximum of 30% men before it starts to break down. If you’re all so convinced that you need to hurt yourselves and each other, the thought goes, we can at least try to limit the damage by refusing to bear as many male offspring. But male commenters see that, too, as violence. And when we talk amongst ourselves in frustration over how you all seem utterly dedicated to cruelty and malice, about the irony of what would happen when the tables were turned, then that’s the most terrible of things – “I don’t do that, I am not like that,” every single one of you claim, even as in the SAME COMMENT you try to insult my physical appearance (without any knowledge of how I look, bizarrely enough), call me a “cunt,” say I need to be “raped” or “get laid,” and say that pornography is nowhere near as bad as I make it out and sex trafficking statistics are exaggerated.

      Are you even hearing yourselves?

      Nope, you aren’t. And you don’t want to.

  3. Samuel says:

    Hello -

    By the above metric, I am a rape supporter. I have two questions:
    i) Does having sex while underage, with an underage partner, make one a rape supporter?
    ii) Is this list applicable for women as well?

    Thank you for a very thought-provoking read.

    • I addressed the post to women, but you’re welcome nonetheless.

      I) I don’t seen “consent” as being the end-all-be-all of sexual relationships, as is common in most “third wave” feminist circles. With that having been said, I indicated I was applying the list to males above the age of 18, by which time the age of consent for males has passed in all jurisdictions (at least, of which I am aware). That is not intended to imply a “pass” for all behavior engaged in before that point, certainly, but it does make your question moot.

      II) I’m answering your question with a question: Whether it is or isn’t, how is that relevant to you? How does that relate to your own behavior?

      • Samuel says:

        In response to your response to my first question: I’m sorry, I didn’t read (and continue to not see) the age qualifier.

        As for the second: I feel it important to gain knowledge beyond what is directly applicable and relevent for me directly. Sorry if this causes offense.

        Do you not want men to read your posts?

      • Men are welcome to read my posts. However, my target audience is female. I don’t typically approve comments from men, since past experience suggests that male posters attempt to dominate/intimidate/harass other commenters and (on more than one occasion) send me death threats. Plus, I don’t usually take the time to explain a lot of underlying concepts, and since I assume familiarity with those concepts on the part of the readership it can be difficult for readers who haven’t experienced the things we discuss to understand the conversation.

        I’ve chosen to relax this policy because of the amount of hits I’ve gotten over the past few days, and the number of comments from people who haven’t take the time to read other posts or understand even the most basic of facts (for instance, I’ve been getting a number of comments from people who are saying that only a “small minority” of men would commit rape, yet if they’d looked a few posts away from the one they were commenting on they’d see a discussion of one college’s study indicating that as many as ~40% of incoming male freshmen admitted they would force/coerce a woman into having sex against her will if they thought they could get away with it; the number who admitted they would “rape” a woman if they could get away with it was significantly lower). It’s a lot easier for me to address them here by responding to themes I’ve seen in the comments, so I’ve been picking some of the more politely phrased ones and using them to respond to a slew of others. This makes two comments for you, Samuel – a record so far.

        As for why men shouldn’t be focused on whether I would apply the list to women? Because what I am saying is that, if individual men are serious about fixing these issues then they should be considering the part they play in this mess, rather than spending their time trying to play gotcha with whatever “crazy” feminist has come across their path. It’s not at all intellectually dishonest for me to refuse to play that game – if a man considers my post to be a legitimate social critique, then it shouldn’t matter to him whether I, personally, would apply it to women. That simply isn’t relevant and, again, it’s placing the onus for fixing his problems on women. That isn’t what this blog is about. And if a man does not consider my post to be a legitimate social critique, then, again, it shouldn’t matter to him whether I apply it to women, because he doesn’t consider it to have merit in the first place.

  4. CK says:

    That seems like something that sexist people do, but isn’t it consistent with not being a rape-supporter?

    To be honest, I, as a man, found it a very thought provoking list, but it seems to me some of the points, whilst undoubtedly indicative of sexist attitudes, are not obviously connected to rape supporting.

    Perhaps you just meant that they’re attitudes that tend to go with rape-supporting? Or is the entailment meant to be deductive (such that it is logically impossible for someone to have any one of those attitudes and not be a rape-supporter) – is it possible, in a wide sense of the word, for a subject to both (a) have one of those attitudes, and (b) not be a ‘rape-supporter’, as you are understanding the word?

    Sorry if that sounds a little concern troll-ey.

    • It’s not either of the above, actually. They’re all actions/attitudes which depend on or support the legitimacy of rape.

      Rape is based in part on the idea that women are objects which exist for male sexual pleasure or use, or that women exist as a class to be sexually dominated. Many of the actions/positions I listed do so by implying that rape or sexual “use” of women as objects is inherent to the human species (the idea that people have sexual “needs,” for instance, which taken to its logical conclusion implies women are cruel for not sexually engaging with some men or that rape is an adaptive trait for men to meet their “needs”; same thing with the idea that women “should” have children, ie., “should” engage in sexual intercourse with men and become pregnant). Others do so by placing all the emphasis in a situation on the woman’s “consent” without addressing any underlying social/psychological/economic factors involved and without giving the man any responsibility (ie, people who speak of Thomas Jefferson having an “affair” with a woman he kept enslaved, or women “consensually” involved in prostitution or BDSM who are suffering from PTSD). Some of them directly reference women being treated as, literally, objects (“I like women with small breasts,” “I like blondes,” “I love curvy women,” “I like tough girls,” all reduce women to [often physical] traits or “types,” like picking a favorite ice cream flavor; pornography, even aside from the rampant trafficking problems, depends upon objectification of the women involved to cause arousal). Treating a population as “X-population men” and subordinating women to their interests hides sexual violence towards minority women, so when minority women attempt to combat sexual violence against them they have to shout twice as loudly because their issues are not seen civil rights concerns.

      Perhaps each individual item is not immediately “obvious” at first glance, but when you start to examine these actions I listed all as a pattern of mutually-reinforcing concepts, it becomes clear that they are all focused on sexual subordination of women (and of course, some men, assuming “men’s rights” supporters are interested in combating sexual abuse of men at any point OTHER than when they think they can score points on feminists).

      Some people are responding to this and saying, “No, this can’t be right, because then almost every man would support rape!” To which I respond: Yep, got it in one, because PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY supports rape. The concepts of masculinity and femininity, the treatment of women, the systems of hierarchies of power and domination, all depend on support of rape. If you support those ideas, you support rape.

      • CK says:

        Ooops – this is a bit long. I’m not trying to be overly critical – I think there’s a lot right in what you said, but it looks a bit broad brush to me…

        Take a claim like:

        C1: It is good for women to have children.

        You say that believing this claim makes one rape supporting. Now, I certainly dont’ believe C1, but I can’t see how you get to rape-supporting from it.

        Your argument seems to be something like this:

        If S believes that it is good for women to have children, then S believes women should, by their nature, have sex with men, and this is tantamount to supporting rape.

        But that implication just doesn’t follow. For example, someone might believe both

        C2 It is good for women to have children.
        C3: Women should never have sex with men.

        Those two beliefs are not inconsistent.

        Further, even if the first belief did entail the second, that doesn’t get to thinking that women should be raped. One could believe:

        C4: It is good for women to have sex with men, and
        C5: It is not good for women to have non-consexual sex with men.

        I take it that something like the denial of C5 is required for rape supporting (or perhaps something more minimal).

        Really, it looks like you’ve identified a cluster of views, many of which are sexist. I agree 100% that these views are going to be indicative of being a rape supporter. But I just don’t see why they entail it.

        As they don’t entail it, someone could have *some* of those views, and not be a rape supporter.

        >Yep, got it in one, because PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY supports rape. … If you support those ideas, you support rape.

        You’re making another illegitimate move here. You’re relying on this principle:

        If A supports B, and B supports C, then A supports C.

        A philosopher would say that you are assuming the ‘supports’ relation is transitive. But it isn’t. Suppose Alice supports Barack Obama, and Barack Obama supports keeping troops in Afghanistan. It doesn’t follow that Alice supports keeping troops in Afghanistan!

        Applied to the current context, one could, for example, ‘support’ pornography featuring women, and it may well be true that pornography featuring women supports rape and violence against women. But that doesn’t mean the pornography support ipso facto supports rape and violence against women.

      • If Alice campaigned or voted for Obama, or paid US taxes, or sent USO care packages, then yes, she supported US military presence in Afghanistan. That is to say, she lent support to even if she is not in favor of keeping troops in Afghanistan.

        Other feminists refer to this as “rape culture” – a culture which protects rapists and allows for or encourages sexual assault. I think that term is limited, because it removes personal accountability and turns it into something more vague and abstract (“society”). It also hides that these actions are systemic and reinforce a hierarchy based on gender. It isn’t just that the violent act of rape is bad, but that rape is a large part of a broader oppression of women.

  5. Eevee says:

    What’s the intended reaction to this list? You say men are not your target audience, so it mustn’t be for mere shock value. For women to read it and end friendships with men? Distrust men in general?

    I’m fascinated that lists of this sort always have several items that make no mention of sex or gender at all. It’s easy to take a sentence like “He defends the physical abuse of women” and swap the sexes to get a parallel behavior for a woman. But some of your choices don’t actually specify women: e.g., procuring a prostitute, going to a strip club, defending pornography. Are you merely implying that the prostitutes, strippers, etc. are necessarily women? Would these actions be equally damning if the other parties were men? Or is the problem with the general attitude surrounding women in such positions, and you wouldn’t care if we lived in a hypothetical society without equality issues?

    • My readership has primarily been a relatively small community of radical feminists. To those folks, none of the things on this list will be a surprise, because most of them have spent years researching and discussing things like the interplay between the conceit of “woman as semi-human sex item” and rape. All the normal readership already has all their gym badges. This was a list to condense some of those ideas on how the oppression of women through sexual violence is maintained by men even if they are adamant that they utterly oppose rape, to help us better articulate how the oppression is reinforced, and why/how men who do rape feel encouraged/protected through the actions of other men. It is nearly all men who are involved, and a woman is probably lucky if she knows even one or two men who are not. I also had recently gotten some traffic from an “MRA” site at a post of mine from sometime last year, which was an angry rant about the violence towards women by men, men’s responses (or lack thereof) to such violence, and about how almost all men are rapists, would be rapists, have assisted a rapist, or are “rape supporters.” If it happened again, I wanted something I could link to and say, in essence, “When I’m talking about supporting rape, I mean this.”

      With regards to prostitution/strip clubs/etc. I’m not implying that folks in those positions are always women. I think sexual objectification as a whole harms women, even if it’s a man who is turned into a “toy” (since women remain the “sex class,” and objectification of individual men serves to justify objectification of women). My perspective is that if we lived in a society without gender-based oppression, prostitution/stripping/pornography wouldn’t exist. Those things do not (by themselves) cause gender-based oppression, but they are big symptoms of it. I didn’t add male/male pornography which doesn’t focus on power/control, because I don’t know whether there is human trafficking in that industry and I don’t personally know of any studies which show whether men or women who view such pornography think of those men as objects (the issue about the part of the brain set up for “tool use” as I mentioned in another comment); so I’m of the opinion that’s something men will need to sort out for themselves.

      Imagine a server where one class of people could break all the clauses. Members of this class could run a team full of Chain Chomps and Arceuses, spam Dark Void left and right, run egg moves in Luxury Balls, whatever. It would still be against the rules, but they could do it because everyone – including those not in this class of people – would expect them to do it, would shrug and say “SAVers will be SAVers”, and if non-members complain, they get banned. Did I mention it’s the only server? And that it’s a Nuzlocke server to boot?

  6. gentleman-perv says:

    you dont think regulation prostitution is a good idea? it’s like alcohol. prohibition doesnt work. if it is regulated and taxed the governments can make sure the prostitutes are not mistreated and make sure they are healthy and stop some of the human trafficing, etc

    abd that bit up there about “underage”… what is underage? does it depend on what country you are in? or is it based on science? biologically, most(not all though) humans are ready for intercourse around the age of 13.
    Not that I see the appeal, mind you. I dont like teenagers much…

    • Putting aside for the moment the underlying concepts regarding sex, power, economic class hierarchies, and other issues which make prostitution deeply problematic and strongly tied to reinforcement of rape culture….

      Regulation of prostitution does not eliminate sex trafficking (I know you only mentioned it would stop “some” trafficking, but I want to emphasize this point). Brothels in some counties in Nevada, in the US, are heavily regulated; in order to prevent assaults and pimping the women remain at the brothel during their shifts. Yet there have been a number of reports of women in those brothels being forced to work there by pimps. Besides which, many aspects of prostitution would remain illegal regardless of whether it was legalized and regulated. For instance, the average entry into prostitution in the US is around 13-15 for both males and females; if the “appetites” of johns remain the same, would the legalization of prostitution improve anything for young teens who are being pimped out? Or would the black market continue and simply be harder to combat (“Here’s a driver’s license for the girl, officer.” “Well…this says she’s 18, so, carry on.”)?

      There are many things which cause social harm which we haven’t eliminated but also do not “regulate” in the sense you’re discussing. Most of our criminal laws prohibit activities which could be addressed differently, and which we haven’t even begun to eliminate. When people say “prohibition doesn’t work,” they usually don’t explain themselves. Does it never reduce harm? Or does it reduce some harm while increasing other forms of it? Is it prohibition itself, or is it how it’s sold to the public that makes a difference?

      If you want to talk about immediate harm reduction to people currently in prostitution, then I suggest decriminalizing prostitution but enhancing the penalties for purchasing or procuring a prostitute (being a client/john or a pimp/trafficker). That model seems to be working well in Sweden.

      As for “underage,” I’m talking specifically about people who say, “I know the kid couldn’t’ve have consented legally, but really, they did consent.” Recall the recent and repeated gang rape of that 13 year old in Texas, and the community response?

  7. Van says:

    I found this list eye-opening, I suppose, because it expressed a viewpoint and life experience very different from any that I have ever known.

    I believe I understand you insofar as that the “Patriarchal Society” that reigns in most of the world induces and perpetuates attitudes about the relationship between the sexes that lead to the general marginalization of women, and potentially, on an individual level, the tendency to justify rape.

    Although my first, gut reaction to this list is to call it “extreme” or “an exaggeration,” I believe I have an inkling of the role it plays in your larger point: Whether or not a behavior actually constitutes “rape” on its own, the behaviors you have enumerated are indicative of a larger overall social problem. Even though I have not experienced many of the problems you discuss, I’ve realized, reading this, that one simply could not call our society peaceful, if there are subsets that have such “warlike” opinions. What I’m trying to say is that the presence of this post itself is evidence of a social problem (and the simplest explanation is that the post evidences the very problem it describes).

    So, so far, I’ve affirmed my willingness to follow your logic, although I’m still confused about the aspects beyond that: Namely, what do you propose the relationship between men and women be? You clearly take the position that women are abused by men on an almost universal basis, while at the same time, there are certainly men who believe that in general, women abuse and manipulate them!

    I haven’t read your entire blog (I hope this is not an unforgivable offence), but I’m worried that you seem to be hinting at a preference for the general isolation of men and women. If you choose not to associate with men, society should defend your right of choice, and if I choose not to associate with women, society should do the same, certainly. But, I am certain that any society or moral system that condemned contact (particularly, sexual contact) between men and women would be just as oppressive and flawed as one that oppressed either group directly.

    For a healthy, peaceful society of men and women to flourish, on what footing do you believe they must meet? Many activists speak of “equality.” Is that what you strive for? What does it mean for men and women to be equal? You’ve already pointed out that individual men should consider the relevance of the list to themselves, personally, but, at the simplest level, if a male-dominated society is unacceptable, an exact and perfect reversal of that situation would be intolerable as well (although, before you get the wrong idea, I understand perfectly well that feminism does not pose a “threat” to anyones natural rights). That being the case, it seems to me than an “equal society” is the only fully tolerable balance that can be struck.

    Sexual equality poses no clear question in any issues intellectual (women and men are inherently capable of the same levels of thought as each other), but in certain physical issues, there are obvious differences. Men and women serve different roles in the reproductive process. Many people choose not to participate in reproduction or sexuality of any kind, but by the same token, many do choose to (and would choose to, I believe, in an equal society). If sexuality is to be practiced, this hypothetical equal society must coexist with these differing roles, without compromising itself (and some would argue that the present “situation” has descended from the process of reproduction to begin with). Can you propose any “ideal form” for a society that handles this issue and more in stride, while maintaining true peace and harmony between people of any sex or sexuality?

    Thank you for your thoughts, of course, and thank you for providing me with something to think about.

    • Thoughtful comment.

      I don’t argue women are assaulted by men “almost universally” (I try to avoid the term “abuse” – ab use, or mis-use, see?). But I do argue that men as a class use rape (among other things) to subordinate women as a class, and that the vast majority of men (more or less consciously) participate in that even if they have not themselves committed rape.

      I addressed the problems with advocating for “equality” a couple of weeks ago (and in a more indirect way in this post from last year). I argue the problem is rooted in the systemic creation and reinforcement of hierarchies, of which gender is one (and likely the oldest, and the one which informs how we perceive of hierarchies across the board). Imagine a society in which a baby is born, and it only occurs to people to ask about the baby’s genitalia/reproductive capacity (if at all) some time after asking about the baby’s hair color and whether the baby is done passing meconium yet.

  8. Stu says:

    Interesting list- it’s good that your comments at the bottom flesh your ideas out more, although I can’t say I agree with them. I do have one suggestion- that you follow this with ‘A woman is a rape-supporter if…’. After all, many of the points in your list could equally apply to women (opposing abortion, watching or defending porn, saying women should have children, claiming that there are sexual ‘needs’, etc). I’m not defending these actions as per your last point, I’m just saying it seems that this version of a rape-supporting patriarchy would logically include the idea that (unawakened, or unconscious, or however you would put it) women also acquiesce in their own domination.

    • “I’m just saying it seems that this version of a rape-supporting patriarchy would logically include the idea that (unawakened, or unconscious, or however you would put it) women also acquiesce in their own domination.”

      Many members of oppressed groups internalize their own oppression. That’s the nature of the beast.

      But, should members of the oppressor class criticize the oppressed for that internalization? No, it’s not their place. So, no, I’m not going to criticize women’s behavior simply because commenters here want me to do so, or they think it would be “fair” or they say that doing otherwise creates a double-standard. You all should be grown up enough to take responsibility for your own actions without whining to me, “How come Suzie doesn’t hafta do it?”

      • Penny says:

        “But, should members of the oppressor class criticize the oppressed for that internalization? No, it’s not their place.”

        As a member of the oppressed class, can I criticize others of the oppressed for that internalization?

      • It’d be awfully counter-productive and likely hypocritical, wouldn’t you think?

      • Penny says:

        …No? Having people point out to me how I’d internalized patriarchy was pretty damned effective for getting me to stop spreading these poisonous ideas.

      • You and I must have different definitions of the word “criticize,” then.

  9. Joe says:

    Question:
    Can women be rapists too?
    If so then why aren’t all women rapists?
    And if not, what is it called when a woman takes advantage of a man (Don’t be naive and say that it doesn’t happen because it does happen)
    Thanks!

    • Of course women can commit rape; I never stated or implied otherwise.

      Nor did I state or imply that all men commit rape. I said in a separate post that nearly 100% of men either are rapists, would be, would assist a rapist, or are rape supporters, and most commenters who have critiqued this post have agreed that, yes, nearly all (or “all”) men support rape according to this list.

      A man does not have to commit rape in order to engage in behaviors which support rape, any more than someone has to be a rich investor who subscribes to Forbes to support a capitalist economy. But if somebody owns mutual funds, they support capitalist enterprise, even if they claim to be a Marxist. Similarly, a man can vehemently oppose rape and yet still support it through his actions. See how that works?

      • Seriously? Owning mutual funds makes you a capitalist? (or makes you support capitalist enterprise, but I take it you mean these two are the same) Why can’t someone be a marxist, who, knowing he lives in a capitalist society, decides to invest to maximize his happiness in a situation he takes to be unfortunate? You could use the same logic to say that because someone puts his money in a bank (banks make loans which perpetuate the capitalist machine…lol) he must be a capitalist as well. Do you keep your cash under your mattress? If not, you’re a capitalist pig too.

      • No, someone who supports capitalist enterprise might not be ideologically a capitalist. You’re confusing the results of actions with consciously held beliefs. Okay? Think about the difference between result and purpose.

  10. Dan says:

    “# 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.”

    I do not find women sexually appealing because I am a homosexual. That does not mean that I am a rape supporter. This generalization hurts my feelings a little. Are all gay men rape supporters, then, because they do not find women sexually appealing?

    • If you’re not “attempting to demean women” by saying you’re not sexually attracted to us, then no, obviously this does not apply.

      That list item was in reference to men who attempt to corral female behavior or threaten women by saying such things as, “You’re fat,” “You’re hairy,” “You’re ugly,” etc. One particularly creative comment I got today called me something along the lines of a “500+ pound landwhale who needs a bag of dildos shoved up her cunt.” How does that type of thing lend support to rapists? By implying that the best measure of a woman – or at least the best way to insult her – is based upon her sexual attractiveness. Ergo, women as sexual objects, and the idea that rape is somehow a compliment (check out the comments on CNN articles regarding recent rape allegations, which often express disbelief that a woman was raped if she was “ugly”/overweight). This protects rapists and reinforces the idea of rape as simply an outlier or exaggeration of healthy sexual expression.

  11. Melvin Ystery says:

    So, uh, I’m reading this list. I would not have said I was a “rape-supporter”, but apparently, I am, by watching… well… straight porn. Among other things. *cough*
    Now, I would challenge that very point; how does porn mean that you are a rape supporter? The women consent to the sex, and usually the camera. They both put on a show, people lose it, everybody goes home, happy ending.

    Is my participation in this process somehow influencing the fabric of causality to manipulate fate to get one woman raped? Or perhaps potential rapists recieve visions of tempting, otherworldly power if they impose themselves on a woman because of me? Is this a process akin to “every time you jack off, God kills a kitten”?

    Please, do tell me how watching porn makes me a rape supporter, I feel the point has been lost on me and I would not be able to sleep if I knew there was something which I could, but do not, understand completely.

    • Willful blindness to the relationship between pornography and sex trafficking is endemic, notwithstanding the efforts of many to raise awareness on this issue.

      First, women filmed in pornography are sometimes victims of sex trafficking – in other words, they are forced to be filmed by a pimp or other procurer. This has been true of both professional and amateur pornography (and “amateur” pornography is occasionally women who are filmed non-consensually in order to aide the pimp/trafficker in forcing her into prostitution – there are several instances I’ve known in which a woman who was raped later discovered that the video of the rape was posted online as amateur pornography). As a viewer, you have no way to know whether the people on screen are there consensually, or if you are watching participants who are acting under threats of physical violence. By purchasing pornography, or by viewing free pornography, you may well be lining a sex trafficker’s pockets or helping a sex trafficker or rapist intimidate or harass a victim.

      Additionally, brain scans of men engaged in viewing pornography reveal that the act of viewing pornography (not usually live naked women, but visual depictions of naked women) light up the part of the brain associated with utilizing an object. You are literally training your brain to conceive of women as sexual objects.

      Finally, the use and defense of pornography furthers the idea that women exist for sexual use by men.

      Those are the primary ways in which the use of pornography depicting women supports rape.

      • daniel says:

        The problems and crimes being commited by some people in the pornography industry are accurate, i dont deny that. but i do wonder to what extent. If say the pornagraphic item (a playboy for example) is produced in a way that a reasonable person could assume is totally consentual for both the model and the publisher, would you still consider it condoning rape?
        couldn’t your arguement be similar for say textile industries (well known to have a large amount of child labourers) does everyone who buys nikes support child labour?

        brain scans dont lie, But i wonder again how that translates to realworld? i often see films in which there is alot of violence and im sure if you scanned my (male) brain during those scenes you would see the violent fighting areas of my brain lighting up. doesn’t mean i look at violence in any sort of reverance in reality or seek out to fight.

        I also need clarification about how you say any man who says he has sexual needs is a rapist or rape supporter.
        I honestly think i have strong biological urges to mate (not to hate women or force them to have sex with me). Am i incorrect in assuming this is natural? Do you consider any heterosexual sex to be consentual? or have the women i have been with in my life just been somehow dubed by me unbeknownst to either of us?

      • Yes, if you buy a product made with child labor (or from a company which utilizes child labor but may not have used it to make that particular product) then you are supporting child labor. Similarly, if you say you are aware of an ongoing problem with child labor in an industry, but say that you don’t care or think that the risk/harm is insufficient for you to stop buying products from the industry, then that is also supporting child labor by providing social imprimatur for the industry to continue without addressing the problem. Does that mean that you approve of child labor? No – you may approve, or you may not, and we have no way to know. But are you supporting child labor? Yes.

        As to your comment regarding “how it translates”, I’ll use the response of someone more eloquent:

        “Graphic violence in the media. Does it glamorize violence? Sure. Does it desensitize us to violence? Of course. Does it help us tolerate violence? You bet. Does it stunt our empathy for our fellow beings? Heck yes. Does it cause violence? That’s hard to prove. The trick is to ask the right question.” Calvin and Hobbes (Watterson)

        As to your final point regarding sexual urges. I’m not disputing that most people have sexual urges. I’m taking issue with the characterization of those urges as needs or the idea that women (or men) as a class should, if we’re physically/psychologically healthy, inherently desire sexual intercourse. A desire for intercourse may be biological, it may be social, it may be both, but as we cannot separate ourselves from social conditioning we have no way to prove the cause of those desires either way. Anybody suggesting otherwise is just rehashing “common sense,” without any shred of evidence. I’ve been really amused by the number of people telling me they learned that sexual desire is biological and an evolutionary adaptation in their seventh grade sexuality/health class; yeah, my seventh grade sex ed class was totally and one hundred percent accurate with absolutely no shred of bias or personal judgment by the teacher whatsoever.

  12. James says:

    As far as I’ve been taught, rape is sexual activity in which one of the participants is NOT willing. Which is something that I most certainly do not support or condone: to me, sexual intercourse or sexual activity in general should not be a forceful thing, should not represent any kind of power struggle or whatever. It’s gotta be something that both of the participants want. I’m very much against rape. I’m very much against people taking advantage of one another in general, be it sexually or otherwise. But that can go for any form of sexual activity with an unwilling participant, surely? Be it a male-on-male, female-on-female, female-on-male, male-on-female or any situation with anyone who falls under a different gender identity. If you try to get it on with somebody who doesn’t get it on with you, that’s rape, right, regardless of their or your gender?

    Admittedly, I fall slightly outside the age barrier this post mentions, being only 17 myself. And I’m often described as naive by my peers, having not had much experience myself either with relationships or with sexual activity. I get asked from time to time by said peers things like “What girls are your type then?” and I just think it’s a fucking idiotic question because people don’t come in “types”. People are people. People are all different. People aren’t flavours of crisps. People aren’t gauges of guitar strings. People are fuckin’ people. We live, we grow up, some of us fall in love and some of us don’t, some of us are assholes and some of us are alright, and eventually we all die. There’s no “type” of girls I like just like there’s no “type” of friends I have. It should never be a relevant question. I don’t even know why I get judged for not being especially sexually experienced. Should I be? Does it change who I am as a person that I have never had intercourse? Am I meant to have a crush on somebody at all times? No, I don’t think I am. That whole playground mentality seems pretty objectifying to me, that whole “who’s your latest crush?” thing. It doesn’t matter. I don’t have “types” and I don’t have “crushes” and I don’t understand these concepts or their origins or why they need to exist, and to me, the only thing that matters is if I feel what I think is “love” towards somebody.

    Yes, there is a girl who I am attracted to. Not gonna deny that. I don’t like her because of specific traits about her appearance or whatever. She’s not a “type”. She’s a person. She’s herself. She’s my friend. I’m her friend. We trust each other. We love each other. We see each other as equals. We ARE equals. We may be in different positions in terms of money or in terms of social position or whatever, all stupid pointless mitigating factors. Doesn’t make any important difference. We’re both people. I’m a boy, she’s a girl. Take it down to the genetic level and the only difference between us is an X or a Y chromosome.

    I know society is in general slanted towards a patriarchal system. I know there’s always been a MASSIVE gender bias. I don’t know where it originated, I don’t know why society still seems to struggle so much to shake it off. I try my best, where I can and where I know how to, to not conform to that. I’m just one person, I know I can’t make a grand difference, but I do what I can on a local scale.

    Love is all there is to me. Love’s the thing that matters. Mutual respect, care, affection and kindness. Equality. I can’t change the world but I can change the area I live in, and by heck, I will do what I can.

    And I may not know what you see as being rape or being a rape supporter, but I know that if rape is what I think it is (sexual activity with an unwilling participant) then I will never ever condone or support it, and I believe anybody who performs it should be punished. That shit’s psychologically damaging, y’know.

    • I’m posting this comment because I think it’s awesome.

      • Matt says:

        given your comments about the difference between what people say, and do, in regards to supporting of but no approving of rape, how do you think that applies to this young man’s comment. he may believe the things he is saying, but are they necessarily true? how does he know that he doesnt have a type? he even admits he is only 17 and not sexually experienced. when he decided to initiate with, or accept contact from, this girl, how could he decide whether he liked her as a person without really knowing her? also his use of expletives is just as much a support for rape culture as many of the other things you had in your list. i get the feeling from his post that he doesnt approve of rape, but its clear he supports it, passively, in the same way as every other male and in fact female, on earth. because your list defines every conscious being as a rape supporter. even little kids.

      • “Every conscious being”? Oh, please.

        But yeah, I’m sure he probably does support rape in one sense or another. But consciousness raising is the first step, and he’s already leaps and bounds beyond 99% of the people who have commented here (for what it’s worth, I definitely think you missed his point about not having “types”). It’s heart-warming to see people trying, and really starting to get it.

        And good show on catching the use of sex-focused obscenities, and applying what I’ve said!

    • Joe says:

      James I wish that when I was 17 I was that mature. From your post it seems like you likely meet less of the criterion on this list then I do. However, I am actively working on changing my thoughts and practices to eliminate those rape-supporting behaviors that I do still engage in, and I find this whole post extraordinarily helpful so I am able to be cognizant of those behaviors specifically. Acknowledgement is the first step to addressing the problem after all.

      Eve I will certainly be adding your blog to the few blogs follow. Thank you for posting this.

      ~A man striving to be feminist/pro-feminist.

  13. Andrea says:

    I’d like to say that, while most of the men – and women – that I know qualify as rape-supporters based on this rubric, that many of the men among my family and close friends do not, on any level. I just wanted you to know that they exist.

    As a woman who has been sexually abused as a child and objectified as an adult, I take comfort and joy in knowing them, and I have hope that we can continue to change our society into one that values humans as humans, irrespective of gender or anything else. I don’t pretend to expect to see it in my lifetime, but I hope. And it’s what I work for.

    • Thanks, Andrea. I know they exist, too; as I said in another thread that is also receiving a lot of attention, I don’t think this behavior is innate or inherent to males, but is culturally induced. I’m glad to hear you have so much support and love in your life. Cheers.

  14. Dawn N says:

    Couple thoughts, from a scientific perspective.
    Getting a PhD in neuropharmacology and couldn’t help but take a little issue with a couple of comments.

    1. You seem to be implying that women do not have a biological drive to reproduce, that the only reason that women reproduce are when offspring is forced or coerced on them. This seems counterintuitive to evolutionary drive, i.e. if women had evolved with a lack of sexual urge to reproduce, they would not have evolved because they would not reproduce. Are you saying that outside of the pressure of society women lack an evolutionary drive?

    2. When men watch pornography it is not a “tool using” part of the brain which “lights up” but the mirror neurons that are associated with sexual reward. This is analogus to areas studied in monkeys that show activity when they see another primate use a tool. Essentially, the reason that people get turned on by pornography is that the portion of the brain that allows us to empathize gets stimulated by seeing someone else experiencing sexual reward. This is why severe autistics draw no enjoyment from pornography, and also thought to be why they cannot function fully in a society (autistics have a severe deficit in the activity of mirror neurons).

    • For your first point, is there any evidence of a “drive” to reproduce in women outside of social pressure? No, obviously not. We can’t separate people from their social conditioning. In the meantime, though, telling women (and men) that they experience innate biological pressures like a “need” to sexually engage with others or an “urge” to reproduce is used to justify (and encourage) sexual objectification and exploitation, as I previously discussed.

      As to your second point, I’m referencing in particular a study that was done in 2009. There are cotemporaneous secondary sources discussing it at National Geographic’s website and Scientific American’s podcast (script). Not only were the active areas of the brain “tool use” areas as I describe, but the scans showed no activity in empathy centers, so it wasn’t the “sexual reward” type of response you’re describing. Are you referencing a study which had contrasting results? Fiske’s sample size was 21 men, which isn’t all that small for studies of this sort, but there could well be contrasting studies out there.

      • Drovidi Review says:

        Your response to the first point is factually incorrect. From a biological / behaviorist perspective, there are countless ways one can separate biological and social factors to phenomena, including various brain scans and cross-cultural studies. (The female brain is shown to respond like the man’s to pornographic material / Women in China respond similarly to sex-related tests to women in America.) It has been well established that, in both males and females, sex yields a neurological reward as reinforcement. There is no similarly valid scientific evidence supporting the assertion that sex – least of all in females but not males – is a purely social phenomenon.

      • First: Brain plasticity, yo. Learn it.

        Second: Cross-cultural studies don’t mean much when rape is used on a global scale to subjugate women, and when media from the Global North/West is ubiquitous.

        Third: So what if sex yields reward in the form of oxytocin and other “feel happy” chemicals. So does using certain kinds of narcotics. Do we have a “need” for that, too?

      • House says:

        To your third point it is generally believed the body uses chemicals, hormones, as positive reinforcement towards behaviors that are considered evolutionary advantageous sex being a prime example of this. Exercise is another this leads to the release of endorphins. Comparing these natural chemicals of our endocrine system to synthetic chemicals designed to mimic and trick our body is ridiculous. The reason individuals develop these addictions is by offsetting the body’s natural homeostatic controls.

        Let’s not use the word “need” because there’s a variety of interpretations of what that strictly defines. However humans have evolved to contain these feedback loops to promote these behaviors.

      • I agree with your points. The vast majority of people do experience sexual urges, sexual desires, and sexual enjoyment. It’s very likely that is an adapted trait. But that doesn’t make any kind of sex a “need” – it may make sexual contact a “want” or a “fun thing to do” or a “gee I’d probably be happier if” for many people, but none of those are a “need.”

      • nha says:

        I’m not sure which of the two of you to believe about which brain centres are activated, but since porn tends to be extremely un-erotic and mechanic, I wouldn’t be too surprised about the “tool use” response.

        So I’d be curious to know what you think about the PorYes movement, which is essentially some women porn producers deciding to create the kind of porn they would like to watch. I read about this in a newspaper about two years ago, and I got curious and checked out one of their films. As a heterosexual man I found it orders of magnitude better than any other porn film I have ever seen.

        As you wrote somewhere else, the creation of porn happens because of the demand for it, so I’m sure you’re aware that trying to “end porn” is futile. Moving it into a direction that portrays a more healthy approach to sex certainly seems like a better approach to me.

      • Your last two sentences seem in conflict.

        You say that pornography and prostitution are demand-driven industries, but then say that the creation of “good” pornography will give people “a more healthy approach to sex” at the same time that you argue you can’t stop people from wanting pornography.

        Either people’s attitudes towards sexuality can be altered, or they can’t. I agree that attitudes can be altered, but then why accept objectification of women as unproblematic?

        And again, regardless of whether women are producing pornography, why are men watching it? That’s the question I would like men to focus on.

  15. Dave says:

    As the brother of a girl who was sexually assaulted by a close friend at a young age, I have to say I am insulted by your post.
    What you are defining…is not rape. What happened to my sister was rape, and you are belittling the horrific crime that is rape, and the plight of rape victims, when you broaden the definition of rape in such a ludicrous manner.

    (snip)

    • I didn’t define “rape” anywhere in the post, or in the comments. The most I implied was that I believe consent should be a defense to rape, as opposed to the current legal definition in most places which requires that a lack of consent be proven by the prosecution.

      • Melvin Ystery says:

        Hold on, what’s that?
        (snip)?
        What are you hiding, Eve’s Daughter?
        If your argument is as absolute as you say, you shouldn’t need to (snip), the (snip)ped section should be invalidated fully by your comprehensive arguments.
        I don’t mind debating the semantics of rape-support, myself, but it’s pretty hard to argue the point when participants are hobbled and/or intermittently muted.

      • Just to make clear (again) to everybody: I am not approving all comments. The vast majority are going into spam because they contain words which auto-spam them. Of the remainder, I can barely keep up – I have over 200 in moderation which I haven’t even read. I spam most of those which are remaining, because they meander a lot or don’t stick to one point, because they aren’t written well enough to understand what their point IS, and for a host of other reasons. I publish and respond to occasional comments which are concise, decently written, and part of a pattern of similar comments.

        I snipped one comment that generally fit those criteria, but wandered into a tangent further down the comment. I didn’t want to post the whole thing, as most of it was not relevant to the posting theme I wanted to address.

        I haven’t had a chance to check any of the 4chan, reddit, tumblr, or other posts which are linking to this blog, but I presume that if you all want to tear me apart, you’re all more than capable of doing it in those places. You don’t need the comment section of my blog to see what other people are saying about this post. Go, have fun, enjoy the internet.

  16. James says:

    If my understanding is correct, you consider many forms of female sexual expression (e.g. masochism, submission, exhibitionism) to be representations of patriarchal oppression rather than legitimate preference. I struggle to relate such a perspective to my own sexuality.

    I am a gay man and highly sexually submissive. Although I still take great pleasure in playing an active role sexually, my preference is very much to play a passive role. My daily life requires me to manage people at a high level and make very serious decisions. I find great release in being sexually pleasured by a dominant partner and feel uniquely safe and comfortable in such a situation. A great deal of pressure lies on my shoulders and many people rely on me to make life-or-death decisions, but when having sex I can simply relax and enjoy the sensations I experience, safe in the knowledge that my partner is taking care of me. Neither I nor my partner take a dominant role in our relationship in general, nor do we conform to any sort of heterodox model.

    Are my own sexual preferences a product of patriarchy? Is my sex life tantamount to rape? If so, does it not disempower me to say that my preferences are not my own, but an internalised form of oppression? If not, what justifies my sexual preferences being viewed differently based solely on my gender?

    • First, I’m not saying that submissive/masochistic/sadistic sex is automatically rape – I’m saying that when men engage in it with women or defend it wholly on the grounds of “consent” then it supports rape.

      As to the relationship between some women and sexual submissiveness/masochism, I wrote about that last October. It is a complicated issue, but I do not agree with the philosophy that “just because it feels good, it is good.” I think people should examine why they have the sexual preferences they do, and to what extent our sexual preferences – which we treat as if they are inherent parts of some “true” identity – reflect and reinforce ideas about gender, sex, domination, and violence. Some of the points I raised in the October 2010 post probably don’t directly translate to your situation, but how about you read it through and tell me what you think?

      Does this perspective “disempower” you? Ah, the language of third wave feminism can reveal so much. What’s power got to do with it?

  17. blackbluesky says:

    Hi.

    I don’t feel as if I know enough to say for sure if everything on your list is right or wrong with a certainty. There are many I agree with and some that I feel are too broadly worded.

    I just wanted to comment that I feel a lot of men are victimized by patriarchy as well. Every time one of us is dismissed for “not being manly” or is told to “man up” or “grow a pair” our individuality is eroded. We are expected to meet certain standards of “manliness” and if we fail to do so? We suffer for it.

    I have always been gender neutral in appearance and demeanor, and this made me feel confused about my gender during my teen years and early twenties. I’ve since overcome that and am happy with a male identity, but even now I am not like most men my age. It’s just now in my late twenties that it seems testosterone has finally caught up with me and I’ve really started to look more like a male. I do wonder if I have suffered from some sort of hormonal problem all this time, but I’m happy the way I am now regardless.

    I’m starting to drag on, so I’ll just finish up by saying I feel that many men are trapped in the patriarchy and suffering for it. In different ways, of course, but suffering all the same. Males need to be freed of the patriarchy too, and many of them have been forced to adapt to protect themselves.

    I don’t know if you’ve touched on this subject before in your writings. I admit I was linked here from a website that could be called the sewer of the internet. I just felt compelled to post.

    • Yes, I have posted on this.

      First, the nature of patriarchal society is to create systems of hierarchy. Very few men will ever be at the top of every hierarchy, so obviously men do suffer in that respect. Second, men suffer when they attempt to subvert masculine ideals or attempt to undermine patriarchal control over women, which is mostly what you referenced in your post. I don’t think either situation is completely analogous to what women suffer, and men are not the focus of my efforts, but you’re right in that elimination of patriarchal hierarchies would help men immensely.

  18. thisblogsucks says:

    I have a great personal friend who is a prostitute. She loves the money and loves sex. She makes a great living and honestly isnt smart enough to do anything else and succeed as well as she is right now. Do you really think she supports rape?

    • The list does not discuss prostitutes, strippers, people in pornography, or people engaged in anything else which might be classified as “sex work.” It only references the “consumers.”

      • Two to tango? says:

        So then let’s discuss discuss prostitutes, strippers, people in pornography, or people engaged in anything else which might be classified as “sex work.” Certainly they are required for such acts to exist in the first place. If the consuming party is supporting rape by participating, is the providing party guilt free?

      • Those industries are demand-driven, not supply-driven. Most people in prostitution are there because of lack of other viable options – two of the main factors are coercion or force in the form of pimps/traffickers, and economic pressure because of entrenched racism/classism, a history of mental illness, dependent children, homelessness, arrest records, a drug addiction, or lack of other opportunities. Several studies have suggested the vast majority of people in prostitution voluntarily would prefer other employment if they could get it.

        There are no similar forces at work which cause men to purchase prostitutes, go to strip clubs, or watch pornography. You’re comparing apples and coat-racks.

  19. bcg says:

    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.

    This is the only one I can’t follow the logic of. Can you connect the dots more explicitly between this and the sexual subordination of women by men?

    • Sure.

      Here, I’m not concerned about why individual women are engaging in self-sexualizing behavior. There are many reasons why women do so, including direct social pressure, a desire to feel “liberated” or rebelling against other forms of dress being dictated, displaying wealth, perceived requirements of their profession (see http://www.corporette.com for many examples of this), the lack of other available attire in their size/price range, or other reasons which have nothing to do with attracting men whatsoever. Specifically attempting to attract male attention may be a woman’s purpose in self-sexualizing, but it’s certainly not the only one, and I would be surprised if it was even at play the majority of the time.

      As many “MRA” types have pointed out, men are sometimes surprised by allegations that they committed rape or engaged in unwanted sexual contact. Their writings tend to imply women are sending “mixed messages,” don’t know what they want until after the fact, or are deliberately misleading men. I argue that most men assume they are getting a green light when they are not, and sexualized clothing is part of this. When men say that sexualized clothing constitutes a message of sexual availability, they are putting their own interpretation of the clothing onto women, and not just a single woman who is wearing it but women as a whole. Numerous commenters have referenced things like push-up bras and “sexy” make-up to be evidence that women as a class have a desire to attract men through visual messages of sexual availability (they usually throw in some armchair evolutionary psychology in there, too, often about bird plumage or men being the “aggressive” sex who has to court and woo). So it sets up this idea that women signal sexual availability, and men go in to act on the women’s sexual signals. Quite a lot of rape apologism is scurrying around in that muck.

  20. Jesse says:

    “Rape is based in part on the idea that women are objects which exist for male sexual pleasure or use, or that women exist as a class to be sexually dominated.”

    Isn’t this directly contradicted by men raping men, women raping women, or women raping men? I think you are making false connections between your ideas about what constitutes sexism against women and rape in order to strengthen your argument by incurring an emotional response from your readers.

    It’s a strong tactic, however it utilizes logical fallacies. I can write a logical proof to explain if you would be interested, however I didn’t know if anyone would feel like reading through that.

    Regards,
    Jesse

    • There’s no contradiction at all. If rape is used as a tool for dominance, and is used in a meta sense to subordinate women as a class, then you would also expect it to be utilized in other (often more individual) contexts in order to achieve power or dominance. The important thing to understand is that rape is both a tactic for gaining dominance (on an individual level between the rapist and the victim) and a strategy for gaining dominance (used cross-culturally to subordinate women as a class and, in certain contexts, a few “classes” of men).

      If you’d like to write out a logical proof, then by all means do so. If I still have comments turned off here, feel free to email it to me (my address isn’t hard to figure out if you check my About page).

  21. Megan says:

    I’d like to preface this by saying that I completely agree with almost all of the qualifiers on this list. It’s shocking how some people can’t see the real repercussions of their actions.

    This being said, I am a straight feminist girl with a boyfriend with whom I’m completely in love. He doesn’t meet any of the parts of the list in any way, except for the first one. Looking at the wording of that

    you’d probably think my boyfriend was a serial rapist or something. But he’s not. We’ve just gotten drunk or high and had (completely consensual and amazing) sex together.

    My question is: Can it be agreed that the wording of this first qualifier is a bit too broad? I really just don’t understand how someone like my boyfriend could be labelled as a rape supporter just because he and I fooled around after a little partying together.

    • A lot of commenters are asking questions more-or-less along the lines of, “What if the woman wanted it? Then is it supportive of rape ideology?”

      My focus here is on the initiator, or on a man who defends sex with a person who is drunk/high/etc on the grounds that there was “consent.” Most adults know people have wide limits of tolerance for alcohol and other drugs; it’s difficult to pin-down for oneself when the capacity for meaningful consent is fading, and it’s impossible to tell for someone else unless they are literally unconscious. So if someone is defending the action for engaging sexually with someone who may not be in full possession of their faculties, what’s the rationale for defending the sex? Some people have discussed agreeing to sex before the drinking began – ie, “Let’s get drunk and screw” – but that thinks of consent as a single blanket permission rather than an ongoing matter, which may be modified or be highly situational.

      You alone can say whether everything that happened was consensual on your part. He can’t. He has to rely on your after-the-fact reassurance.

      Several other people have said something along the lines of, “So I asked my boyfriend/girlfriend to tie me up and we were drunk and we had sex, so did we rape each other?” Whether a particular situation qualifies as “rape” or not isn’t relevant to my point, and the definition is inherently subjective anyway – I’m asking, what does it say about our social mentality towards sex and other people which makes that unproblematic? If we are saying that sex is perfectly okay unless somebody complains afterwards – which is essentially what people are saying in these comments, “no harm no foul” – then yes, that supports a culture of rape and rape apologism.

  22. cosanostra71 says:

    -He is anti-abortion.
    -He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.

    WHAT DO I DO?

    • You learn to read.

      He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.

      As for those commenters who are questioning how being anti-abortion is supportive of rape…. It’s predicated the idea that they have a right to control her body, and to utilize her reproductive capacity for the benefit of another (or “the state” or “society” or “the human species because we would all die out otherwise omg”). Again, it’s reducing women to a tool which can be used or dominated for a specific purpose (in this case, procreation). And you can’t ignore the fact that males occupy the majority of policy-making governmental positions, at almost every level, in every country on the planet; so you’re looking at male control over female bodies. That perspective is the root of rape and rape apology, or what third wavers call “rape culture.” QED.

      • Ryan says:

        ” It’s predicated the idea that they have a right to control her body, and to utilize her reproductive capacity for the benefit of another (or “the state” or “society” or “the human species because we would all die out otherwise omg”). Again, it’s reducing women to a tool which can be used or dominated for a specific purpose (in this case, procreation).”

        Abortion debate concerns a moral dilemma that is based around a determination of when an individual actually becomes an individual. According to your logic, because our system of reproduction is biologically unfair to a specific gender (Only women go through gestation and child birth), the way to rectify this is by instead ending or preventing the life of another . Is it fair to retain the rights of one person by violating the rights of another ? This system doesn’t actually add any equitable value it just defers the inequality from one person to another. Where is the logic in that ? If I lost my kidney in an unpreventable accident, many may consider this “an inequality of life” would it then be OK for me to demand the kidney of another person in the name of equal rights ?

        Keep in mind this is coming from a person who follows no religious dogma.

      • Exactly, you can’t demand the kidney of another person in order to sustain your life. I see no reason not to apply that in a reproductive context, so that society can’t demand a woman give up her physical well-being for the sake of another, even if we consider the embryo/blastocyst/fetus to be a “person” or an “individual.”

  23. Okay, I’ve finally caught up with the comments, so I’m turning commenting back on.

  24. Michael says:

    I think this list is a great concept, and put a good frame around the problem of the attitude towards rape, especially in certain countries, but I find one flaw with it. As a student of Psychology it troubles me that “He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.”” is one indicatator, considering that according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs sexual love and belonging is a step to self-actualization, and says that all people male, and female “need to love and be loved (sexually and non-sexually) by others. ” also it is mentioned that intimacy is vital to one’s mental health “In the absence of these elements, many people become susceptible to loneliness, social anxiety, and clinical depression. “

    • I have a prior post discussing how sex is (falsely) connoted with “intimacy” and “love”: What is Love? (Baby Don’t Hurt Me)

      I think it’s very likely that people may be confusing a need for emotional connection with a “need” for sex, or a need for physical contact with a need for sex. But those aren’t the same thing, and it doesn’t do people any good to confuse them.

  25. Kate says:

    Love the list but I have a few questions.

    May I firstly ask what your definition of Rape is?

    Secondly do you apply the same standards to women as you do to men?

    • Right now there remain many different legal definitions of “rape” depending on where you are. Many still require vaginal penetration (other things, such as forced fellatio or anal penetration, are typically prosecuted if at all under other statutes and are not considered “rape”). Other jurisdictions still say that rape can only be done against a woman “not [the perpetrator's] wife” or have special proof burdens if a wife claims her husband raped her. To the best of my knowledge, all rape statutes the world over still require that the prosecution prove a lack of consent or an affirmative “no.” Now, keep in mind that many sodomy statutes (which in the US at least can’t be used to prosecute voluntary sexual activity, but are used to prosecute non-consensual male-male sexual activity) don’t have lack of consent as an element of the crime, so that consent is treated as an affirmative defense. In short, no matter where you are, a woman is presumed to consent to sexual intercourse at all times, with any man. She (through the prosecution) essentially must prove she did not consent to THAT man at THAT time.

      Cue the people screaming, “She thinks all sex is rape.” No, I don’t think all sex is rape. But I do think it’s a little bizarre that I’m presumed to want to be sexually penetrated by all men all the time, but I’m not presumed to want to be punched in the arm by any one at any time, even though the former has far more likelihood to result in serious physical problems. Yes, people consent to sexual intercourse all the time, but most people also do not want intercourse with far more partners (and perhaps more often) than they the partners(/times) they do.

      Personally, I conceive of rape as any assault which has an element of sexual subjugation or includes an attack of a “sexual” nature.

      As for applying the “same standards,” I genuinely am not sure what you mean. I made a list pointing out the most obvious ways that men tend to support rape; obviously if I was going to make a list talking about the main ways in which women perpetuate their own subjugation, it would be a different list. And frankly, those lists have pretty much been done to death – even many feminists have historically put the bulk of the burden on women to change and “empower” ourselves out of subjugation, in lieu of pointing out that men should step up to the plate; it’s all well and good to say, “Hey men, don’t beat your wifes,” or start up groups like Men Can Stop Rape, but it isn’t just the acts of violence themselves which lead to female oppression. There’s a lot more going on there.

  26. Realta says:

    1.Rape is wrong.
    2.Supporting Rape is wrong.
    3.Rape should be heavily punished and there should be laws that punish rapists.

    Most people would agree with these 3 statements, while reading similar things to this and others opinions on rape I came across a major issue which made me think there should be a very important 4th statement.

    This is : women should not falsely accuse men of rape

    Whenever I see this get mentioned it’s usually trolled heavily and I was wondering your point of view on it because it’s an issue just as serious as rape support.

    When a woman shouts rape as a weapon to punish an innocent man it becomes a serious issue, even if she later admits she lied and he is proven innocent the tag “rapist” stains him for the rest of his life.

    It can and does frequently destroy innocent men’s life’s it is especially serious in countries like Japan where the legal system assumes you are guilty until proven innocent and women’s words are taken over men’s and male witness’s accounts are ignored simply because they are male.

    This of course leads to innocent men going to jail, I am of course Clearly not saying all men accused of rape are innocent but it is becoming a more and more frequent occurrence.

    This has lead to many male friends of mine becoming scared to be alone with any girls they are not going out with or very close friends, It has become a very real fear for many people as the use of crying rape has spread and become well known.

    • I don’t think Japan is a very good example. The problems with the Japanese criminal justice system are the stuff of legend.

      I’m not saying no woman has ever claimed she was raped by a man when that never happened. But the only people who can say whether or not it occurred in that situation are the woman, the man, and whoever else is alleged to have been present (and even they could well not know the full story about what was going on). As a general rule, rape allegations are difficult to prosecute, and it’s even harder to acquire a conviction; all evidence suggests that most rapes aren’t even reported to the police. Most women who have been raped have enough going on without the peanut gallery presuming she has unsavory motives. There’s no good evidence that there’s any sort of epidemic of false rape accusations. Usually people point to cases where the victim recanted, but that’s not evidence that the accusation was false, since a recantation could easily result from social pressure, unwanted media attention, a desire to put the episode aside and get on with her life, bribes, or a host of other reasons.

      As for this:

      This has lead to many male friends of mine becoming scared to be alone with any girls they are not going out with or very close friends.

      This is a joke, right? You realize that the vast majority of women are apprehensive about being alone with men they don’t know because there’s a real chance they could be violently attacked?

      Let me break it down for you – if the rape rates were reduced, false rape accusations would be more difficult to make, and your problem would go away.

      • James says:

        Women are apprehensive about being alone with men they don’t know, some men are apprehensive about being alone with women they don’t know. If this is a joke, I don’t get it. I’d say it’s an ironic tragedy of our current culture. Women and men distrust each other and separate themselves accordingly. This lack of exposure to the opposite sex likely breeds more distrust, turning the whole affair into a vicious cycle.

      • No, I was asking if the poster was joking because he was making the same ridiculous comparison you are.

        To suggest that a man being “apprehensive” about being around a woman because of the virtually insignificant possibility that the woman may falsely accuse him of rape is NOT THE SAME as a woman being terrified of being around a man because there is a statistically significant possibility that he may rape and/or kill her. In the case of women being afraid of men, I don’t think “lack of exposure” is causing the problem. Most women are raped by men they know, including friends, co-workers, neighbors, classmates, and so forth. And the fact of the matter is that most women structure their lives to avoid being raped, to avoid being alone in areas where they could be easily assaulted (a street at night, a dark bathroom in a crowded club/bar, etc) or to be alone with men. Comparing men’s “apprehension” with women’s very real, very rational fear of violence, is patently ridiculous and offensive.

        Please go read Schrodinger’s Rapist: Or, A Guy’s Guide to Approaching Strange Women Without Being Maced.

  27. Levi says:

    Even though i find it rather far fetched, I suppose the list is accurate in a way. That being the same way that, if you dont always in minute detail research the entire manufacturing process of every item you purchase, you support child labour.

    So I guess I support rape, and you support child labour.

    Excuse my grammar, Im not English.

  28. Mike says:

    You overreact and remind me of my ex.
    While you have extremely long posts and a good control of language, this does not make your points any more radical and an attempt to do so is merely an appeal to ignorance.

    Prostitution is a legitimate occupation and should have the outlaw lifted as the objectification of women and dangers and domination comes from the idea that what she is doing is wrong and she is doing anything to get by, and thus will consent to everything.

    You do not buy women when you pay a prostitute, just like you don’t buy a pool boy for having him clean your pool. It is a service. If radical feminists like you would just accept sex as a part of our lives, maybe male prostitutes would be more common.

    Another interesting point is the fact that women can control men VERY easily through sexual actions and behavior. Hence the term “pussy whipped”. If men did not have a release they would be completely dependent of manipulating women that would have them sign away their car for a goddamn blowjob! This seems radical in and of itself, but it is no more radical than saying any trait describing how a guy thinks makes him in favor of rape. That is just unfounded and hype driven

    • Y’know, I’m amazed at how many people think they’re experts in prostitution/pornography because they’ve known somebody who stripped in college or saw an interview with Jenna Jameson. The realities of prostitution are a lot more complicated than you seem willing to face (or maybe it’s just too simple, but in a way you don’t like).

      So, a man needs “release” because otherwise he’d be a mindless slathering beast who would do anything for the sake of a woman deigning to touch his penis? See, this is what I mean when I say that your opinion of yourself is probably lower than my opinion of you.

  29. jack says:

    To be succinct I would like you to justify categorically justify why you believe that each of the characteristics you listed are indicative that a man “supports rape”. Many of the items on your list were valid and obvious, although others, such as describing the “emptiness” of the female genitalia, are vague and seem to lack substance. So please, flesh out your thoughts.

    • Basically doing that in the comments, and I have done it in other posts.

      Regarding the specific one you’ve brought up, I’m going to direct you to Women = Holes at MsCitrus’s blog, who goes into some detail about this.

  30. My challenge still stands. Let’s see if you can defend your points in the public forum, with no censorship, and unbiased judges. I will argue each of the points I see arguments for, and it will be your responsibility to defend them. (They will probably be similar to the arguments in the several page, point by point critique of your argument, mainly consisting of reasons, not why these don’t make a person a rapist, but why some are generally justified or, while unjustified, have no established link to sexual abuse.) Pop me an email if you’d like to do it, and let the comment through and reply accepting if you’d like. I’ll post a link to the debate so the people here can watch.

    I would ask the readers of the blog – critics and suppoters alike – not to vote on the outcome of the debate once it’s over, and to let the debate.org audience decide.

    …otherwise, if you don’t think you can handle a debate, feel free to delete my comment and run away, tail between your legs.

    • “Still” stands? Sorry. Must’ve not noticed the first one.

      o, when the entire basis of my post my blog radical feminism is that people are socially indoctrinated into believing various things about biology, sex, violence, the nature of gender oppression and the form it takes, and related issues…you say you want me to “debate” my position so that the general public – who will probably have no backing in knowledge of this type of thing other than whatever limited information I can cram into the posts – can “vote” on whether they think it’s true that they have been indoctrinated.

      Riiiight. That’s totally going to prove your points are valid.

      Hey, I know. Let’s go have a debate in a charimastic/evangelist church about the meaning of the Establishment Clause! Or, we could host a five minute debate on Fox News about whether intensive light therapy is an appropriate treatment for jaundice in babies with a family history of bipolar disorder, and let the viewers decide the proper course of medical treatment!

      • Josh says:

        This comment right here says everything. Any legitimacy your comments or opinions have are completely negated when you make comments like this and I have noticed several in these postings. You have been invited to defend your position and have refused to do so. You also find excuses and justifications for your position that are just vague enough to make any counterpoint exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. I have also seen at least three people reference edited posts, and you yourself have admitted to doing so. Why have comments then? If you are going to edit what comments come in and therefore stifle any debate on your point, what is the purpose of having comments? The only reason I can see is to reinforce a sense of self-justification by allowing those who support your views and off-handedly dismissing those who do not with comments that seem logical but are in fact specifically designed to not allow refutation.

        In all, this reduces any credibility you have to almost zero, other than to those who are predisposed to your views anyway, which again, negates the need for allowing comments.

      • Three people referencing edited posts? I’ve only edited one comment, and I made it obvious I was doing so. I can’t think of what else you could be talking about.

        And I don’t think you really want comments to come through without any moderation. If I did that, there would be well over a thousand comments, and most of them would be calls for me to be raped and/or killed.

        I don’t particularly care what you think about my credibility. I’m responding to comments because some people have what I consider perfectly reasonable questions about this post. As I said to Eevee, when I put up this post I expected the limited readership would have a grounding in experience/theory which most people reading this obviously don’t have. That doesn’t mean I have to give anybody a platform to make whatever asinine comments they want. And seriously, if you want to debate these points, go do it wherever you found the link to the website. Your problem isn’t that I’m “not defending” my statements, it’s that I’m not engaging in this discussion on your terms. Deal.

  31. Alfar says:

    First and foremost, I would like to say that radical feminism has done an awful lot of good in the world. It has increased awareness and reduced (albeit by not nearly enough) the abuse that takes place. I applaud that.

    Personally, I have come to dislike checklists (there’s a risk of false positives but there’s also a risk of false negatives). I’m also wary of the risk of mixing symptoms and causes, which has led in the past to illusory progress because the complained-of symptoms were dealt with but the issues causing them were not. The problems merely surfaced in other forms. However, what your research shows is what your research shows. It’s near enough to a lot of my own observations that I won’t question your results. I absolutely agree with your conclusion that the behaviour is learned rather than inherent. What can be learned, however, can be unlearned – at least in some cases – and I’m not seeing how you factor this in or how you would incorporate it.

    • In this post, I don’t say anything about helping men who are interested in “unlearning” their conditioning. The focus of my blog has been primarily on women, and that was how this list was intended – as a synthesis of other discussions and a jump-off point for further reflections on the interactions between individual behavior and systemic oppression.

  32. Brendan says:

    Hi. Just for clarification, did you actually write this list or just post it? I don’t see you claiming to have written it, so I’m not implying plagiarism or anything, but people are saying “look what this (fill in the blank with your insult or compliment here) Eve’s Daughter wrote!”, which may not be entirely accurate.

    I thought it was strange that people are getting so worked up over a list in May 2011 that I could swear I’ve seen posted and e-mailed in one form or another several times over the past 5 years or so – I was pretty sure this list had already been debated to death several times over.

    If you aren’t the original author, do you happen to know who is? I’d be interested to know how it was originally received.

    Thanks.

    • I wrote this list, but it’s essentially a compilation of radical feminist ideas from myriad people. I haven’t seen a list like this floating around, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there was.

  33. Matt says:

    Hmm, while your arguments have brought up good points that I will not deny, you seem to be putting absolutely all blame on men. While I agree that they are a part of the problem, women are too. You say that discussing a “Preferred” type of women is supporting rape, but what about women gossiping about that “Hot” gardener, or that they like men with certain physical attributes, is this not supporting the subjectification of men, and the thoughts of them being sex objects, brutes, and for use to “Serve” women. Is this not the female equivalent of women supporting rape? What about a male asking a female out on a date, and her saying derogatory comments about his appearance, just for the purpose of hurting the man’s self confidence? And what about gossip amongst women on the topic of men, which I know for an absolute fact happens all the time, is this not rape supporting?

    • Commenters are consistently saying, “But women do this, too,” “Don’t women share some of the blame,” “You’re hypocritical because you’re not talking about what women do,” etc.

      Let me explain this one more time by way of analogy:

      Bobby and Jimmy are friends. Bobby and Jimmy skip school. Bobby is caught by a truant officer, who takes him to the principal’s office. The principal says, “Bobby, you shouldn’t skip school.” And Bobby replies, “No, because you see, Jimmy skipped school, too.”

      There is a long-standing pattern of men pointing to women’s sexual behavior as justification for their own actions. By saying, “women also watch porn” or “women also say they have ‘types,’” nobody is saying that their actions are not sexist, are not objectifying, do not further reinforce the gender hierarchy, and do not support rape. Instead, they’re setting up women-as-a-class as the preeminent sexual gatekeepers (again) – the idea that if some women do it, it’s okay. That makes about as much sense as saying that the Catholic Church isn’t sexist because some women are nuns.

      The question of why an individual man chooses to watch pornography, and why he thinks the behavior is unproblematic, is an entirely different issue than why some women watch pornography or why some women are in pornography. Individual men should accept their own complicity in the gender hierarchy, which uses rape as a weapon against women. If you want to claim to be in favor of female “equality,” then you can’t justify your own behavior by pointing to some women who also engage in it. That approach is inherently sexist.

  34. In the time it took to sit down with my kids to watch Wall-E this blog, once again, got more comments than I can manage within a reasonable time. So I’m turning comments off again. I might go back to a system where people can only comment on new posts. I’ll try to get through this newest group of comments by the end of the work day tomorrow.

  35. Will says:

    https://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/freed-pen-fridays-anne-sexton/

    You give a rapist time here. Don’t you find that hypocritical? Or is rape only OK if it’s kept in the family and there are no penis’ involved?

    • Did I not clearly point that out and submit it as a valid consideration when approaching her work? Since when are radical feminists expected to simply ignore the work of rapists, as opposed to pointing it out, treating the work accordingly, and analyzing any issues it raises? Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse, for instance, analyzes the portrayals of women, sex, and violence in the work of male authors, some of whom had “colorful” sexual histories. Do you think we should just pretend that rapists do not exist, and their work is not cited/addressed/celebrated by other people?

  36. Trisha Baptie says:

    YAY!! Happy to say I know a few men over 18 that make the cut, and know many more who with proper education and a place to voice their questions and work through their “stuff” now see things clearer :)

  37. I know I may even be responded to here but I will attempt to do so anyway before I engage in any kind of discussion there in, firstly this.

    “a discussion of one college’s study indicating that as many as ~40% of incoming male freshmen admitted they would force/coerce a woman into having sex against her will if they thought they could get away with it; the number who admitted they would “rape” a woman if they could get away with it”

    Could you please cite the sources that you are using to argue so that I can read the information for myself. I don’t mean make this point to finely but I am an anthropologist and we cite everything, in fact I cited my breakfast three times before I had coffee this morning. I hope you understand that I do not wish to comment on something until I know its source, and it has been my experience that the more radical a position the more suspect the information being used can be.

    thank you

  38. Pingback: “But But But…LESBIANS!”: Debunking a Few More Mansplaining Favorites « bunnika's blog

  39. Charsier says:

    My boyfriend loosely does three of the points on the list, but he’s a one of a kind. He respects women, and he respects men, does not objectify anyone and is amazing and supportive.

    And he’s not the only man I know like that, I have a good friend who also respects women and women’s rights, and my FATHER is like that as well.

    I do, however, know a lot of men who fit that list, but my boyfriend’s friend I am discovering does not, and several other men I have met are not like that.

    I’m well aware they’re few and far between, and according to this, I have been raped at 14 all the way through until last year when I met my boyfriend.

    I just want to let you know there are men out there who hold these beliefs against their own gender, and support feminism, knowing full well it’s for everyone.
    :)

    But I thank you for amplifying my respect for my boyfriend by proving he is NOT the list. And not a rape supporter.

  40. Catherine says:

    When I fundraise for charity, I fundraise for the local rape crisis centre. I have walked on an anti-rape protest, and plan to walk on other similar protests. I try to get people’s heads straight around the issues of consent and rape in day to day life. I meet many of the critera on your list, with the expeption that I’m not a ‘he’. Am I a rape supporter?

    • I think I discussed in a previous comment about how it’s not really conducive to spend all one’s time examining how members of an oppressed class “further” their own oppression. Many people try to place the blame for sex oppression on women, and focus on women’s actions, when really the focus should be on how the members of the oppressor class are encouraged to operate.

  41. thirdxlucky says:

    > So, let’s see how many women reading this know at least one male over the age of 18 who
    > does not fit this list. Anybody?

    I know one. Just one. And, because he is a male person who categorically refuses to participate in or condone rape culture, he has often been viciously ostracized by other men (including men who claim to be feminists or “anti-rape”) and by non-feminist women alike; meanwhile, most women who share his politics are understandably separatists, so they often want little to do with him due to the fact that he is a man. As you can imagine, he is very, very lonely.

    One of the things that makes it so unlikely that men will be “anti-rape” is that, because there are so few of them and they are so isolated, there is no community support for those few who are authentically doing the work. People of any gender who are fighting patriarchy need human community to survive. I worry about my friend a lot. And I worry about trying to live in the kind of world that men like him can’t survive in — because that means all we’re left with is rapists.

  42. thirdxlucky says:

    Incidentally, I didn’t mean that to be a critique of your piece. Just a comment on it. My friend’s situation is something I feel a lot of grief about because, for the sake of the women in my life who want to have intimate relationships with men, I wish there were more men in the world like him. But there aren’t. I really appreciate you writing this and I categorically agree that complicity in rape culture is supportive of rape and that rape culture is so ubiquitous that the majority of people in our culture are complicit in it regardless of our politics. Thank you.

  43. Anonymous says:

    >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.
    Care to explain how telling someone that you don’t personally find them sexually appealing is in any way related to the willful subversion of free will?

    • Because one of the primary measures of social worth (if not the ONLY measure of worth) placed on women in society is dependent on our perceived sexual attractiveness to men. If a man is utilizing a woman’s appearance or perceived attractiveness to demean her, the insult is dependent on the idea that the woman’s primary role is to be sexually attractive to men, and that since she has failed in sexually attracting that specific man she should be subjected to derision and scorn. Insults of that nature are not just meant to insult the person as an individual, but to put her “in her place” as a member of a class which is sexually objectified and sexually oppressed, and implicitly to remind her of the difference in power between the male (consumer) and the object of the insult (the female member of the sex class). The insult depends on the conceit that women exist for the sexual pleasure of men, which is the same idea which underlies cultural support of rape.

  44. Kate says:

    Is courtship not a form of psychological, emotional and physical coercion?

    • Are we talking courtship in the sense of two parties getting to know each other and seeing if they want to establish a romantic relationship, or “courtship” in the sense of someone using social engineering and various forms of social pressure to deliberately break down somebody’s boundaries a la “pick up artists”?

Comments are closed.