I read a baffling article at Feministe yesterday entitled In the Margins: A Perspective on Sexual Assault Conversations. You really have to read it to believe it, but here are a few excerpts:
I’m not the typical survivor you hear about in the news or hear described in the vast majority of public conversations about assault. I wasn’t at a party. I wasn’t drunk. I wasn’t drugged. I wasn’t in a dark alley. It wasn’t a violent attack. I have no scars or bruises. And I wasn’t penetrated.
…what started as a consensual act suddenly turned nonconsensual for an extended period, and then back again before the encounter quickly ended.
It’s hard to tell what happened because as is always the case with these kinds of stories, she’s very coy with the details, but it would appear that she was engaging in some kind of consensual fooling around with a man and didn’t like something he was doing to her, something which apparently involved no form of penetration or oral stimulation, which he then stopped doing and then went back to doing something else that was consensual and it’s all rather vague but we should just take her word for it: it was definitely assault. I can’t even understand what might have been going on, let alone how it could have been that scarring. So, what is sexual assault, exactly, then? She explains (highlighting mine):
…nonconsensual sexual touching is sexual assault. Whether one is touching another with or without clothing, whether one is touching another’s genitals or any other part of their body—in any and every circumstance, it will never not be sexual assault.
So, by this definition, touching someone’s clothed arm while engaging in a consensual kiss could in fact be sexual assault if he didn’t ask first to touch her arm. Does anyone else find this ludicrous? This takes enthusiastic consent to the point of total absurdity. It begs the question: is there anything that isn’t sexual assault? Really, if a man taps a woman on the shoulder in line at Starbucks to let her know that she should look up from her phone because it’s her turn to order, that would “never not be sexual assault” by the above definition. What would motivate a woman to write an article like this? Actually, she explains that:
It takes effort to extend dialogue to include as many people as possible. But we need to make that effort, in order to make it clear that penetrative sexual assault is not the only kind of sexual assault, and that one is not objectively less traumatizing than another. And not just as an addendum; this needs to be an important part of the conversation. People like me need to be important parts of these conversations, just like rape survivors are. Not getting the attention and support that others get is daunting.
Ah, other women are getting attention, but she is not getting any attention. Hell hath no fury like a woman who isn’t getting any attention. She just wants to enjoy the status of victim, with all the murmured You poor thing and You are so strong affirmations from the rest of the female herd.
You know, I actually do believe that she feels traumatized by the sexual activity she engaged in with the man. I have no doubt that she is being honest about that, and my heart goes out to her and all women who keep trying to have sex with men they aren’t married to and keep feeling violated by it. They don’t understand why they feel that way – after all, we’re all sex positive now! – so they believe that they are feeling violated because they were assaulted. That is what they are taught by feminist propaganda, but the truth is they are feeling violated because women were not designed to be used like communal toilets for multiple men’s semen. It doesn’t matter if you are a Christian or a Darwinist because under neither model is female promiscuity the norm. There was no time in the pre-Christian past when females were mating with large numbers of males.
And for the men – you think hard monogamy doesn’t benefit you? Well, how about a rape charge; would that benefit you? When I wrote a post on campus sexual assault, I had more than one man come forward and describe being falsely accused of rape or sexual assault. One man ended up spending tens of thousands of dollars to fight the charges. If you have sex with a woman to whom you are not married, you are risking an assault charge. It’s as simple as that.
Women can continue being serially promiscuous, but they’re going to continue feeling violated if they do. Men can continue being uncommitted and promiscuous, but they’re going to continue being accused of sexual assault if they do. Don’t kid yourself that the laws on this are going to change; they are not, and it’s not even clear that it would benefit society if they did.
Lifetime hard monogamy with no divorce for women, and lifetime fidelity and commitment (under either a monogamous or polygynous system) with no divorce for men: this is the only system that protects both men and women.
- Why do so many women believe they have been raped?
- Do campus sexual assault centers and programs create the so-called “rape culture”
- Sexual bonding, microbiomes, and the physical nature of the one-flesh union.
- Consent is meaningless in the feminist dialect.
- Are all men obligated to protect all women from sexual assault?