Mainstream News Outlet Confuses Sex, Rape in Jaycee Dugard Case

by FCM

this probably comes as no surprise to anyone who does know the difference (ie. women) but the mainstream media often confuses “sex” and “rape” when reporting on the horrific sexualized torture women routinely suffer at the hands of men.  in the case of jaycee dugard, the woman who was kidnapped as a child and held captive by a “serial sex-offender” for 20 years (sex?  really?) msnbc.com reports that she was subjected to “long, drug-fueled sex-sessions” during her imprisonment.  sex?  really?  yep.

from the article:

Without going into many details, Dugard talked about the long, drug-fueled sex sessions Garrido would put her through, and said that to her great confusion he would cry afterward.

“He would tell me what an awful man he was,” Dugard said. She said she would think that despite her own terrible pain, “I have to comfort him?”

Dugard told of her strange relationship with Nancy Garrido, who she said was “very jealous of me for some reason, like I wanted her husband to rape me, very jealous, and sick.”

indeed, while dugard herself is repeatedly quoted using the word “rape” the author of the msnbc article, when not directly quoting her, seems to use the word “rape” and “sex” interchangeably.  and if dugard herself ever used the terms interchangeably, at least she would have an excuse wouldnt she?  dissociation and downplaying her trauma, for example.  but whats msnbc’s excuse?  and whats their excuse for the fact this happens all the time in their alleged “news reporting”, and that they seem incapable of using the word “rape” voluntarily and consistently, when thats obviously and exactly what they are talking about?

another article on msnbc.com’s front page right this minute is an article on “sex slavery” describing how undocumented “victims of human trafficking” can work with US law enforcement to prosecute their captors, (for human trafficking) without risking being deported themselves.  not one time is the word “rape” used in this article, but the word “sex” is used repeatedly.  to describe the situation of “forced prostitution” and “sexual slaves” being held against their will and forced to “have sex with” multiple “johns” every day (one victim reports being used by 103 in one day, and describes it as the worst day of her life).

she doesnt use the word “rape” either, but again, she has an excuse: she can say whatever the hell she wants about her own experience of being a victim of human trafficking and a sexual slave who was raped by dozens of men every day…but what excuse does any news outlet have for not using the word “rape” when they are talking about “forced penile-vaginal intercourse” even under extreme conditions clearly amounting to slavery, conditions of captivity and degradation and abuse so obvious and extreme that even the united states government agrees it is slavery and is willing to send men to federal prison for profiting from it?

seems to me that msnbc is working very diligently and consistently to avoid hurting some peoples feelings, (ie. protecting their interests) by calling these kinds of sexual abuses of women “rape” even when thats obviously the case.  doesnt it?  whose feelings (interests) are they protecting, and why, are questions that need asking.

could it be that powerful men who regularly engage in coercive PIV, including raping women, and including raping prostituted women, and including obviously raping obviously enslaved women, are uncomfortable opening up the days paper and reading such an ugly word about the activities that they enjoy, and feel entitled to, and dont want to be deprived of ever?

could it be that most men or all men are these “powerful” men that msnbc wants to protect, and doesnt want to offend by telling the fucking truth, when reporting the news, about what even “normal” men do to women every minute of every day, across time and place?  yes, i think thats it.  i think thats clearly the case, when anyone can say the words “sex” and “forced, trafficked, enslaved” and “against her will” in the same fucking sentence, without ever one time using the word “rape.”  its such an ugly word, afterall.  the word is ugly, not the deed, when you are the rapist, and are speaking to and trying to protect and placate rapists, rather than the raped.

33 Responses to “Mainstream News Outlet Confuses Sex, Rape in Jaycee Dugard Case”

  1. It’s really very easy to define what these men do to women and that is they all commit male sexual violence against women and girls. There not too hard was it? Except of course men must never ever be held accountable for committing sexualised violence against women must they?

    Yes it is ‘sex’ to those men who commit sexualised violence against women but for the innumerable women and girls it is deliberate, cold-blooded sexualised violence these men commit, wherein the men achieve sexual pleasure by subjecting women and girls to sadistic sexualised torture. For the women and girls it is the fact their bodily autonomy and sexual rights are violated because men’s pseudo right of sexual access to women and girls must always supercede a woman’s/girl’s right of bodily and sexual autonomy.

    So MSBN should have stated this ‘ Dugard talked about the long, drug fueled sadistic sexual torture Garrido put her through and said that …….etc.’ This details exactly what Garrido did to Ms. Dugard not ‘drug fueled sex sessions’ which immediately implies all parties were socio-economic equals and all parties freely agreed to such activity.

    Many male rapists consistently claim they are the ‘real victims; and Garrido by crying crocodile tears was deliberately attempting to confuse Ms. Garrido and minimalise his accountability and blame. Garrido each time he committed serial sexualised torture against Ms. Dugard made a choice and no one coerced or forced him to commit sexual violence against Ms. Dugard. But of course we must always focus on men and their pseudo rights and needs because whenever Johns make the decision to purchase a woman/girl for the purpose of using these women’s/girls/ bodies as masturbatory aids the Johns are not engaging in ‘sex’ – they are raping the women/girls.

    So what Johns are doing is buying women and girls in order to rape them – there not so difficult to write was it? Except of course this puts the focus on men and their accountability – which feminists and non-feminists alike must never, ever speak or write about. Instead Johns just buy ‘sex’ do they not – because they are just purchasing a female body not a living breathing female human. Therefore Johns commit rape every time they purchase a woman/girl and furthermore ‘human trafficking’ is another male-centric term used to hide fact it is females not males who are the ones being sold into sexual slavery not men. How many men are sold into sexual slavery? I continue to wait to read real evidence of the numbers of adult men sold into sexual slavery and reason there isn’t any is because men are not the ones being sold and then raped by Johns – it is women and girls.

    The only reason malestream media consistently claims men’s sexual violence against is ‘sex’ is because men as a group and individually continue to cling tightly to their pseudo right and pseudo demand that women’s and girls’ bodies belong to them 24/7 and any male has the right if he chooses to have sexual access to any female. That is why female sexual autonomy does not exist because if it did it would mean the end of male supremacist/patriarchal systems.

  2. It bothers me very much to realize that if the press won’t use the rape-word in jaycee dugards case, or in the context of prosecuting trafficking..they aren’t willing to call ANYTHING rape. Or, if they won’t under these circumstances, under what circumstances would they use it? It makes my skin crawl, and they really couldn’t be more obvious: the mainstream press does not seem to believe that rape exists. Which means they believe that men are entitled to use women as they will, and that women aren’t human beings, or alternatively that we exist in a perpetual state of consent, and this presumption is impossible to rebut.

    And that this is the context in which the “news” is reported, and consumed both.

  3. I mean, it was pretty obvious before, but they are so brazen about it in both these cases, and these are “hot topics” and highly publicized, and they know they’re being watched, and they don’t even pay lip service to the notion that rape happens at all.

  4. This story is so sad. You can’t help but notice that she is an exceptionally good looking woman, I wonder how long he watched her before he kidnapped her. Cute is privileged I read somewhere recently. But the truth is that good looks can get punished as harshly as bad looks. A few attractive women make money, but they are at high risk and oversubscribed. Many more of them end up in the sex trade, and they are targets for romantic baiting at school.
    Often ending up unable to focus on their educational goals.

    Men and women just don’t seem to share a concept of what sex is. Sex pozzies pretend to see it men’s way, share all their urges and inclinations (even declare that they have rape fantasies, which is not possible because fantasy is total control, and rape total loss of control) but all women, and most men, know they are lying. Some men pretend to see it our way, when it suits them. As a woman once said to me, either we are faking it or they are!

    Men just don’t care what happens to women, they see rape and sex as indistinguishable, feminism has forced them, grudgingly, to concede that there is an issue of consent, but in their minds it is only a matter of did we consent to the rape or not. Because it’s all rape to them! Or, even worse, none of it is rape.

  5. It’s so true that it doesn’t matter what you look like when you are female, and pretty is NOT a privilege! As if being a target for male attention and abuse is a good thing…Sheesh.

    Dworkin wrote about “toothless bawds” doing the elephants share of the fucking across time and place, and she was talking about unattractive or haggard women being prostituted throughout history. It’s true, they have been. What this shows is that men who rhapsodize about female beauty are lying: men don’t care if women are beautiful or not. Beauty seems like its a justification for raping beautiful women, but in reality they rape all women don’t they?

  6. “What this shows is that men who rhapsodize about female beauty are lying: men don’t care if women are beautiful or not. Beauty seems like its a justification for raping beautiful women, but in reality they rape all women don’t they?”

    I think men like to be seen with what is considered beauty, if they have long term ambitions, even kidnapping ambitions, they may prefer looks. But for quick sex/rape they don’t care, they don’t really see the female form as beautiful, quite the reverse, but they are capable of discerning a better or worse specimen, and prefer to invest time and effort in the acceptable specimens. Men and women really see each other as rather ugly, but we both think we are impressing the opposite sex because we see our own sex as beautiful. That is, if women have managed to retain their own vision of themselves, in a world that hates them.

  7. the fact that he cried is just evidence to me that porn brainwashes people into doing shit that’s against their nature. this patriarchal culture is so sick and fucked up. it’s unnatural, and even men know it’s cruel. porn is horrible. I totally blame it for Dugard’s experience. ugh.

  8. Other theories are that he was manipulating her to emotionally caretake him (as she seems to believe) or that he was deliberately trying to cause an emotional bonding response in her, or that the “sex” was cathartic for him, or that he was insane. I would sooner believe practically anything than that what he did was against his “nature” especially since he was a repeat offender. But we are all free to speculate aren’t we?

  9. Seriously though, men have been raping and torturing women for a long long time, and they’re the ones who created porn as we know it today…isn’t it entirely likely that they created porn in their own image because that’s what they like, rather than that porn has made men into something they’re not?

  10. I hate the way they exchange the word “sex” for “rape.” I suppose they can’t help it, we live in a rape culture and there isn’t much to distinguish the two words. Our F word is either the greatest insult ever or else a declaration of desire. It’s pretty screwed up. “Screwed” is another word, it’s either a very bad situation or it’s a term for somebody that just had sex.

    Yes indeed, they do avoid using the word “rape” to protect their own interests. If nothing else it hits a little too close to home, a little too close for comfort, I think. I bet men, those with some awareness, are probably confused by the whole thing, too. If I were in their situation, I’d feel uncomfortable about using the term “rape”. It’s not that women think all men are rapists, it’s that our culture equates sex with rape and does a lousy job of distinguishing between the two.

  11. why would a news article pretend rape was sex?It makes my blood boil that men play innocent when they say a woman consented to sex, but are “shocked” to discover she didn’t actually want it after all… . when articles like that prove that *Men* *don’t* *know* *the* *difference* ; they can’t tease the two apart, most of the time.

    Yes, Dworkin mentioned that men pretend there is a correlation between the women they fuck and beauty in order to dignify themselves and their behaviour. Women fall for it.. In reality there is no such correlation.

  12. It’s all just sex to them, which is what makes all mainstream discourse about rape so problematic…but even this notion of “just sex” is so male centric, woman hating and biased, considering how dangerous even “wanted” piv is, for women. That’s the thing noone will ever say: even in the absence of rape, women would still be dying around the world from piv and it would be men inflicting the harm. To start from that baseline dangerousness of all piv under all circumstances would make rape discourse meaningful: why would women be presumed by rational people to live in a state of perpetual consent to something unilaterally dangerous to them?

    But that’s exactly the thing we will not do. We start from a baseline of “its harmless” or its all good fun, which is a decidedly male perspective of piv, and we end up where we are today, where rape discourse is meaningless (it doesn’t include most rapes, or even any rapes as these articles show) and confusing, which is always what happens when your theories are based on half truths and flat out lies.

  13. Yesterday I watched the streaming video of Diane Sawyer’s interview with JayCee. JayCee said rape every time. In a perfectly calm, even, tone of voice.

    That video is very triggering. I slipped into a dissociative trance after watching it, and had nightmares. Be careful.

  14. I wonder how she got to that place of calling it rape, every time, or if it took any work for her to get there? It’s really interesting, and thanks for reporting back on the video Mary, I didn’t watch it.

  15. I have read a lot about rape recently. It is fun fems who spread the lie that rape is violence and not sex. Reasonable feminists like Susan Brownmiller (Against our will) wrote that rape is the outcome of desire + [!] hatred. But her writtings are always distorted. And male sexuality is desire + hatred under patriarchy. Well, sociobiologists [men] say that they are born that way. This should tell us enough about male sexuality at the moment (I no longer wonder whether they are right or wrong about the cause). But fun fems refuse to listen… And you can tell right away when you read an academic book by a fun fem. Men even have a higher level of testosterone [!] (which has to do with aggression among other things) when they have piv, but not when they masturbate (Goldstein: War and Gender)!! It is a lie that men know a sexuality that is not about dominance and violence. See what Freud has written. It’s the disgusting truth about men but not about women. Although projections tell you a lot, too. Men get off on dominance not instead of sexuality but BECAUSE it is their sexuality. Period. They can’t tell them apart within their feelings/desire. It’s all a matter of the degree of violence/sexuality. It may be more or less cruel.

    “isn’t it entirely likely that they created porn in their own image because that’s what they like, rather than that porn has made men into something they’re not?”

    I also think so. Porn is probably only about increase of violence. Rape existed long before porn as we know it.

    PIV is about dominance and conquering because of the transgression [!!!!!] of bodily integrity. Dworkin said it is the corelate of patriarchy. That’s why it’s most probably the corelate for rape, too. Without piv women would have a bith passage and that’s it.

    Brownmiller was not piv critical at the time she wrote that book but it’s still worth reading because back then men lied even less about their thoughts. She would have agreed that we live in a rape culture. She showed that much but named it differently.

  16. Btw. Many men get erections when they are aggressive and soldiers often talk about how they are strong because of their penises. There is a vast amount of literature about how men compare penises to wheapons and vice versa… That’s what it means to have “balls” (but not strong muscules although it’s ridiculous). Enemies are feminized… To fuck s.o. = to win against them. Why would that be?! And not only in English.
    This usually goes unnoticed because most scientists don’t examine war. But this is wrong. The same tendencies are at work in “peace” and in war, although in war they are much stronger. In war up to 70% of men rape, in “peace” it’s much less (Pohl: Feindbild Frau – very worth reading)
    But to be fair: one single army in the world does not rape: Israelis. Except for them there are only a few (communist) militias (e.g. Vietcong) who did not commit war crimes or really punished them when they were commited by very few men.

  17. i dont believe that there are any armies who dont rape. i just dont believe it. BUT if that is the case, what makes them so different? do we know? and the ones that actually punish wartime rapists, why do they punish them when the norm is not to? thats really interesting.

  18. “Cute is privileged I read somewhere recently. But the truth is that good looks can get punished as harshly as bad looks. A few attractive women make money, but they are at high risk and oversubscribed. Many more of them end up in the sex trade, and they are targets for romantic baiting at school. Often ending up unable to focus on their educational goals. ”

    I used to wish myself ugly. And oh Goddess has given me two seriously beautiful llittle girls……..

  19. @FCM. In “Against Our Will” Brownmiller has argued that the Vietcong didn’t rape because of several reasons. 1. There were quite some women combattants in the Vietcong. (paramilitia usually has a higher percentage of female fighters than regular military) 2. The Vietcong were so engulfed in their goal that they forgot about sex for some time. 3. and most impostant: They needed the support of the population. The people would have hated them if they had commited war crimes. 4. They had a military tradition of trying to be on good terms with the population. Their leaders really cared about this.
    Israel even has a person per squad or unit who it responsible for the safety of civilians. They get so much slander from islamist and leftists antisemits that they don’t need to commit actual war crimes. Such accusations are made up anyway. They can’t afford to do what others do. But Israeli soldiers are men, too. Rape exists in Israel. They just don’t commit war crimes.
    Men can be forced into not fulfilling their wishes. After all, they are not animals but creepy human beings. They can restrain themselves if they really have to. But they don’t feel like it most of the time in war where they can get away with it easily. Why would they care?
    There is research about rape fantasies in women but not in men. This is mostly projection bias. Men want to rape and therefore claim that women want to be raped. I guess many men feel the urge to rape or fantazise about it more or less often but don’t always act on it because they know it is bad or because they are afraid of destroying relationships or whatever. In “Feindbild Frau” the author talks about a study on male psychology students. They were asked whether they would force a womon to do sexual things if they knew with certainty that they could get away with it. 50% said yes. Because of this shocking result the study was repeated several times. The persentage varied from 50-75% but never dropped below 50%. This number is similar to the 70% war rapists. Well, I guess some men only have fantasies about women on their knees being fucked by them voluntarily instead of rape fantasies. It’s a matter of the degree of domination after all. Maybe some even have less degrading fantasies? I don’t know.

    I just read an article about Strauss-Kahn. The woman who wrote it explained that rape is about sadism and domination and not about sex but men refuse to see the difference. As far as the victim is concerned, she is right. But to say that sadism combined with erection and orgasm for the rapist is not about sex (most of the time), is naiv and stupid. A non-sexual sadism which is magically accompanied by an erection? Women just don’t want to face the truth about men. Instead of saying that Kahn did not have sexual interests she should say that men’s sexual urges don’t trump women’s right to safety and dignity. Without androcentrism it’s not sex when only one party wanted it. It’s rape.

  20. “A non-sexual sadism which is magically accompanied by an erection? Women just don’t want to face the truth about men. Instead of saying that Kahn did not have sexual interests she should say that men’s sexual urges don’t trump women’s right to safety and dignity.”

    The ‘rape is about power not sex’ idea, has always been more about defending mens reputation and the possibility of their redemption, than it has been about defending women. It is one of the few areas where I disagree with Dworkin. Rape is about reproduction and power and sex. For men sex is about power, the power to impregnate, the power to dominate another male so that you will be the one to impregnate. Men use homosexual sex to ratify their power relationships. Sex started out as a means of reproduction, but it gets used indirectly to achieve reproduction, as well as directly. The road to the vagina is paved with many assholes!
    The ‘rape is about power’ argument, does distract focus from women’s fight not to be raped. There is common institutionalised rape done in brothels by johns, and in the home by male relatives, and there is the much rarer anti establishment rape which is done by strangers. Men think of both as sex without consent. Women think of both as rape. The sexes do not have a shared concept of sex.

    I don’t know how we could prove that the Israeli army does not rape, because it would probably be more than a Palestinian woman’s life is worth, to admit that it happened to her.

  21. Men have the power to name words, women don”t have that power. In court rooms where a woman is testifying about rape she is required to say, “and that is when we had sex.” They will not allow her to say, “and that is when he raped me.” I do believe men are killing the word rape.

  22. Yes, it is stunning how the perspectives are different and are projected mutually at the other party. Womyn experience it as violence and therefore wrongly asume that it’s not about sex for the rapists either. All of this helps to protect the image of men and their sexuality from general criticism. It is apologetic. A huge lie. And victims like to themselves like this, too, in order not to give up on men.

    trigger warning.

    zeph, a lot of rapes are not about repoduction: rape of children and womyn after menopause, rape of a girlfriend when the perpetrator knows that she takes the pill, oral and anal rape, rape with objects, gang rape (which is horribly frequent) when it is uncertain who would be the impregnator, if at all; and when the victim is killed afterwards anyway. All of this is about men’s concept of sex and domination though. And male bonding in the case of gang rape and war rape. (see Brownmiller who made a quantitaive and qualitative study and see Pohl) Dworkin would have agreed to this, too, I think.
    One would asume that womyn think it’s about repoduction for men because it is – among other things – about reproduction for womyn. So it would be a confusion of perspectives again. But it still, surely is deliberate, like FCM has pointed out, when the victim is impregnatable at all. Also the evo psych folks say it is about reproduction, so it probably is true to some degree, since lot’s of men agree with their theories that is recognize themselves in them. Although it could be an apologetic lie, too.

    Why do you doubt Israelis but not Vietcong? One of the authors (a man) argued that Israeli soldiers just don’t rape because they don’t stay away from home for too long but everyone else is and therefore everyone else rapes. I consider this to be manshit (and not everyone else is far away from home…). Especially because no other army that I know about has soldiers in every unit who are solely responsible for civilians and because of reasons already stated above, I do not doubt that they really don’t rape. I am graduating about genocide and the sexes right now, so I shared some information with you.

  23. my point about men raping almost exclusively women and not other men is that women, as a sexual class, *are* impregnable, and men arent. so raping WOMEN, specifically, *is* about causing female-specific harm, (pregnancy and related complications) and is not just about dom/sub. if it were, dom men would be sticking their dicks into sub men (or men they wanted to dominate) with the astonishing frequency with which men rape women, but they dont. this is not what we see, and i believe its because men deliberately use pregnancy and the threat of pregnancy against women, and use rape to accomplish this. PIV-centric sexuality is another way to accomplish the same thing, and in fact rape and PIV are nearly indistinguishable many times, especially from the womans perspective. theres a reason for that, and its because they arent that different, either in intent or in effect.

    http://scumorama.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-female-specific-harm-of-rape/

  24. “my point about men raping almost exclusively women and not other men is that women, as a sexual class, *are* impregnable, and men arent. so raping WOMEN, specifically, *is* about causing female-specific harm, (pregnancy and related complications) and is not just about dom/sub. if it were, dom men would be sticking their dicks into sub men (or men they wanted to dominate) with the astonishing frequency with which men rape women, but they dont.”

    They still need to bond together against women. As far as I know the male body is considered to be not “penetratable”,
    solid and the man’s own. Men who let other men fuck them would be considered somewhat low, therefore the disgust with gay men (in almost all societies in time and space). And Dworkin herself has written that invading the female body or a man’s body is already an act of power in men’s creepy minds. And there is no distinction in language. Both is called: fuck.

    Dworkin also wrote about concentration on piv as a means for men not to “overdo it” and therefore preserve their power in society. The last one is true for conservative men in the West and not all men in general. Anthropologists can tell.

    “PIV-centric sexuality is another way to accomplish the same thing, and in fact rape and PIV are nearly indistinguishable many times, especially from the womans perspective. ”

    I don’t think that they give a damn about women’s perspective or even understand it completely. They have their own perspective that motivates them to do things the way they do them. In order to reject something that is done to us, we need to have our perspective not polluted with men’s perspective. But in order to understand WHY they do certain things our perspective does not explain everything. Just now I did not deny any harm done to women. What I say is that the fact that women asume that rape is about reproduction for men [!] is projection bias by women. Period. Because pregnancies are a concern to us.

    Men with erective disfunctions are called “impotent” (men are kidding themselves that an erection = power because they are obsessed with their dicks. And fun fems adopt this androcentric point of view. In fact men identify themselves as dicks and project their own image at women). I couldn’t insult men more than they insult themselves. Anyway, infertile men are not called impotent. Why? If being able to impregnate was so important in order to be in the class of oppressors, infertile men would be called powerless, wouldn’t they? I think that in order to belong to the class of oppressors someone needs to be able to invade others (needs an intact penis or rather a penis at all). Here is where colonialism comes from. Pregnancies are about sexual dimorphism and they way bodies are (reproductive organs) ist also about sexual dimorphism. But rape is not necessarily about pregnancies. It is about men’s enjoyment of their sadistic sexuality. Sadism = dominance + harm.

    Of course, I can see that men have created pron about pregnancies, I have read Dworkin. But it’s a niche. Most pron is not about “sex” that causes pregnancies which is why they do not ejaculate during piv. In relationships [!] on the other hand, pregnancies are a big issue, I agree. Rape is about psychological harm (and they know it), invasion, humiliation and men’s sexuality. And therefore rape is usually accompanied by more violence than is necessary to simply achieve their goal. This is the truth, see Brownmiller. Empiric facts. Her work is still considered as very good by my university lecturer and I think so, too. I have not diminished the harm of pregnancies by saying all this.

  25. And for men it is not necessary to have children in order to be recognized by society. Therefore to cause pregnancies should be less of a concern to them. Their concern is to invade and to enjoy themselves.

    The word orgy is used to describe a sexual orgy and a violent frenzy/orgy of violence. The same thing is true for more than one language. This is about men enjoying themselves and not always about pregnancies.

  26. feuerwerferin, male power is also relative isnt it? they dont necessarily rape women to increase their own manly power through making babies/causing pregnancy. pregnancy decreases female power by harming us physically and (as they have set it up) also socially and legally too. rape decreases female power by harming us as only women can be harmed by men. which increases ALL mens power in relation to us, even gay men, and even men who have been raped by other men.

    you dont have to accept this, but i think its demonstrably true. so you arent going to convince me otherwise, unless you have something equally demonstrably true, that rape is ONLY or even primarily about dom/sub and men “enjoying themselves.” if this were the case, they would rape everything and everyone they wanted to dominate, and they would do it just for the orgasm without regard for the biological sex of the recipient. but thats not what we see.

  27. “Rape is about reproduction and power and sex.”

    Here is what I said, Feuerwerferin. What I took issue with was the idea that it was only about power. Women don’t assume rape is about reproduction, quite the reverse. What women find hardest to bear is that they are often, just a means to an end, rather that an end in themselves. I read Brownmiller when I was in my teens and twenties!

    I don’t believe there are any armies that don’t rape, and no way to prove they don’t either, because women suffer enforced silence. They used to say the Germans did not rape the Jewish women until the Jewish women finally felt able to speak out.

    Men rape each other all the time, especially younger versions of themselves. But much more often engage in mutually sought sex. Have you ever been around large groups of young males? It is constant from dawn to dusk, frenetic sexual activity. From vanishing into cupboards and boys bathrooms for mutual masturbation, to dressing up in nighties and bending over for each other. Then it’s a hurried hair brushing, and down in the evening to hold hands with girls and more if the can get it, or manage it with girls. Then back upstairs for some more boy on boy group action.

    The way that boys sexual activity is presented on TV and in film and books is so far away from the truth. It’s like only telling 5% of the story of their sex lives, and spinning even that.

  28. zeph thats an excellent point isnt it: women DONT believe that men rape us in order to impregnate us. mostly we want to believe that men arent trying to harm us, IN GENERAL, but the actual truth belies that doesnt it? women also dont believe that this is what PIV-centric sexuality is all about either: most women seem to think that all the unwanted pregnancies are just an unfortunate side-effect, instead of the WHOLE FUCKING POINT. which isnt womens fault. its what we are told, and we believe it, instead of believing our own fucking eyes, and the FACT that we spend so much of our time, energy AND MONEY trying not to become impregnated when we dont want to be.

  29. “most women seem to think that all the unwanted pregnancies are just an unfortunate side-effect, instead of the WHOLE FUCKING POINT. which isnt womens fault. its what we are told, and we believe it,”

    I once knew a guy who was glad to of got his girlfriend pregnant, even though she would have to go through an abortion. Because at least he knew he could do it! I looked it up, at that time in the UK 500 women died of abortion complications each year, still far less than died in actual childbirth, but all he cared about was knowing he was a real man.

  30. zeph, that is so common it hurts! just the other day i was watching a seinfeld episode where george runs out of jerrys apartment screaming “i did it! my boys can swim!” upon hearing the news that his one night stand/short term gf (elaines friend) had missed her period. the woman, of course, was horrified and elaine comisserated with her over the “missed period” because only women know AND CARE how HORRIFYING this is. none of them, of course, EVER said anything about “well maybe i just wont have the PIV anymore” of course, even though they did a WHOLE SHOW about the sponge being taken off the market, and regularly discussed birth control (and of course SEX) on the show. another big seinfeldian theme was the PIV-entitlement of the guys….so are you getting any yet, har har…but thats on every show isnt it?

Trackbacks

%d bloggers like this: