Now it has happened

[Dirt Man]

Dirt, it's only my personal opinion but your post is unecessarily prurient in tone. Your use of language above is gratuitous beyond the point and nature of this discussion. I don't know if it's just me but you consistently confuse or bother me (not that it matters to you or anyone but me).

Perdita

I really, really wish the men would speak up.

Perdita

Now I'm confused. You asked for a man's point of view, and when I give it, you say it is purient, and that the language I use is without cause, or unrequested? Sounds to me as though you don't want a man's point of view, but the view of a male with a more feminine viewpoint. Hey, if I'm wrong, that's okay, but the thing is you can't have it both ways, and backwards too. After all I only gave my point of view on the subject of this thread the way I see it. If however you wish to have the last word, then please explain what you were really looking for from us men.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Apparently, Norway has changed its laws (2000). Prio to that, what the woman did to this man would have been called "sexual harassment." Now, it's even harder.

Which I think is a good thing. I think that even slight forms of harassment should be punished severely. Hopefully, that would send out the signal that society will not accept non-consensual sexual advances.

There are prejudices in society today, that says that men should be horny dogs by nature, and women demure schoolgirls. Women getting molested should blame themselves for not dressing/acting demure enough, and men getting molested should be grateful for not having to waste energy on foreplay.

Intelligent people know that such thinking is cowdung.

Women should be able to dress sexy and flirt a lot, and still have the right to decide when and with whom they want to have sex. Men should be able to say "no, I don't feel like having sex (with you/right now/right here, etc)", without being regarded as unmanly.

Sex without mutual consent - and mutual eagerness! - is pointless, and to nag or force one's way into having any kind of sex with another person, is disrespectful not just to that person's will, but to Sexuality itself!

 

[oggbashan]

There was mention above of a notorious case in the UK.

A woman, with male assistance, kidnapped a man and chained him to her bed. She fed him with aphrodisiacs and fellated him.

She was tried and convicted of assault. The case made the headlines because of two features. One: he was a Mormon missionary who had taken a vow of chastity, and two: she claimed she loved him so much that she would have skied naked down Mount Everest with a rose between her teeth if that would win him for her.

He was unwilling from start to finish. The case damaged both of them.

Female abuse of males is rarer than the reverse but not uncommon. It is usually by older females on young males who are in a subordinate role: sons, schoolpupils, etc. Female abuse of very elderly males can be vicious and even fatal. Wives abusing husbands, like rape of any kind, is under-recorded.

Whoever does the abuse, to whom, it is very destructive. It is difficult for a male to admit that he has been assaulted by a female because of the condemnation of HIM by his peers. I appreciate that the same can apply to women. The statement "she deserved it" is never justified. Even a whore has the right to say no.

Abuse is abuse. The degradation of another human being for one's personal gratification or any reason is wrong. The effects on the victim can be life-long.

Og

 

[wishfulthinking]

I have to agree with Og about husband bashing being under-recorded. It probably only goes on the record when the men are hospitalised, if at all.

And it is a case like that of the morman that show there should be a change in law to reflect the reality that men can be raped too.

SF: Apparently, Norway has changed its laws (2000). Prio to that, what the woman did to this man would have been called "sexual harassment." Now, it's even harder.

I don't know if I like the idea of this - someone who fondles someone getting the same penalty range as someone raping (penetrating) another - just does not seem like incentive for someone inclined to fondle not to do more.

Edit - But just as a side trip, at least 1 woman a week was getting raped at my campus (it is a small one), but nothing really was done. It was only when a gang of guys in a panel van went around uni and raped males that action was taken. Security was tightened up, and from 6pm the gate-thing was lowered, and all cars entering the campus after that time had to state their reason why to the guard house.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

To me, one of the best parts about sex is the reciprocation.

Without that, I might as well just play with myself.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I don't know if I like the idea of this - someone who fondles someone getting the same penalty range as someone raping (penetrating) another - just does not seem like incentive for someone inclined to fondle not to do more.

I think the point was to discourage them from even doing that.

 

[wishfulthinking]

SF: I think the point was to discourage them from even doing that.

LOL

I hope it works! You just never know.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Or maybe we should switch screen-names, you and I...

 

[wishfulthinking]

Sounds like a raw deal - everyone will be calling me the boy!

 

[Guest]

Now I'm confused. You asked for a man's point of view, and when I give it, you say it is purient, and that the language I use is without cause, or unrequested? Sounds to me as though you don't want a man's point of view, but the view of a male with a more feminine viewpoint. Hey, if I'm wrong, that's okay, but the thing is you can't have it both ways, and backwards too. After all I only gave my point of view on the subject of this thread the way I see it. If however you wish to have the last word, then please explain what you were really looking for from us men.

Dirt, you make a good point, I did get what I requested. However, my criticism still stands. I don't want any particular type of male response, yours was prurient and gratuitious to my reading is all, especially compared to the only other male reply at the time.

Perdita

p.s. to other men: It is obvious we're all agreed on the fact that sexual harrassment is equally wrong to and by either gender. What I want to learn more about, esp. form the male pov, is the difference in sense of violation and wrongs.

 

[oggbashan]

p.s. to other men: It is obvious we're all agreed on the fact that sexual harrassment is equally wrong to and by either gender. What I want to learn more about, esp. form the male pov, is the difference in sense of violation and wrongs.

I don't think there is a difference between male and female rape in the sense of violation. Both affect the person violated in that their body has been invaded and their innermost persona has been degraded. Recovery from such an assault depends on the individual.

Whether male raping male is worse than female raping male or male raping female --- depends on the individual case. Raped males are less likely to receive sympathetic support from their peers. Yet do raped females get the support they need?

Rape is wrong. Rape is an attack on the whole person. I think it is usually wrong to equate sexual harassement with rape because it devalues the horror that we ought to feel when someone is raped. However there can be emotional rape and bullying that is so severe that the effects on the victim are indistinguishable from full penetrative rape with violence.

An individual's response will vary. What to one person would be an unwelcome advance to another might be a destruction of their personality.

To sum up: generalities don't help.

Og

 

[Guest]

I don't think there is a difference between male and female rape in the sense of violation. Both affect the person violated in the sense that their body has ben invaded and their innermost persona has been degraded. Recovery from such an assault depends on the individual.

Ogg, would you elaborate? It may sound simplistic, but I do not understand how a man can feel invaded in the same way a woman does if he cannot be penetrated (obviously I am not speaking of anal rape). I cannot see the penetration or even violation as merely metaphorical for men. It seems to me (only from my female pov) that a raped woman has a unique sense of self by nature of her genitalia, as do men, e.g., women get invaded, men do the invading (in general); rape as part of war is common but generally of women, women are the spoils of war, men are prisoners of war, etc. etc.

Still seriously curious,

Perdita

 

[Icingsugar]

p.s. to other men: It is obvious we're all agreed on the fact that sexual harrassment is equally wrong to and by either gender. What I want to learn more about, esp. form the male pov, is the difference in sense of violation and wrongs.

I decided to stay out of this thread as soon as voices were being raised to hear the male point of view. I was a little bit afraid that if I did speak up on the matter, I would be seen as a spokesperson for the male gender, which is not what I am. I am a spokesperson for me. Period.

I'm not sure that I can give you a typically male point of view. I have never been able to find that disctincion. There are, in my experience, so many more differencies in point of view from person to person than from demographic to demographic that a collective point of view becomes an oxymoron in my ears. You may feel differently, but I share and differ my points of views on all sorts of thing equally with men and women that I know.

Anyway, my opinion on this matter is quite simple: Anything done to a person's person without his or her consent is wrong. This might be sexual assault, rape (I don't judge these differently, just acknowledging that there is an juridical difference), violence, intrustion of privacy, limitation of physical freedom or freedom of expression and opinion, and so on.

There is never any excuse for any of this.

(except when limitation of physical freedom is appointed by law, and to protect others from further harm. i.e prison)

So, that's the basic moralic standpoint that I share with most people I know. But how does it work in real life?

The examples that DirtMan brought up does ask a viable question. If groping can be called rape, can any sexual advance be called that? The answer is simple: Nope. Sexual advance is one thing, ssexual abuse something entirely different.

Groping fully aware people would normally result in a well deserved slap. Or other signal that says, Back Off Dipshit.

If the gropee is in any way unable to defend herself against the groper, either by being unconsious, restrained or intimidated, then it is clearly sexualm abuse of some sort.

It all comes down to intent. Just like when it comes to violence or even murder. If someone intend to have sex not knowing if the other part wanted to or not (and finally does anyway), then it is rape. If someone makes sexual advances, however blunt (including the occational pinching) with the purpose of finding out if there is any interrest in the other part, that might be harassment, but clearly not a serious violation of the person. A sexist asshole does not make a criminal.

However, the responsibility for making sure that actual sex is consentual must be with the one taking the initiative. If a slap and a Back Off Dipshit isn't enough for some to get the point, they need to have that much sense slapped into them, one way or another.

Last, but not least, my view on the semantics of rape:
Sex is not limited to fucking. Niether is rape, or whatever word should be used. If someone is forced to be the subject of, or to preform, a sexual act, then the crime is just as vile with or without penetration of orifices. If I was to tell a girl that she should "strip and to a lapdance, or I'll beat the shit outta you", I would never had touched her. But by all accounts, I think that is just as bad as actual rape.

 

[RenzaJones]

I think in this case we might be talking about apples and oranges.
Yes I agree that both males and females would feel violated over any unwanted sexual advance from fondling to rape, however I don't believe that a man (sorry to generalize) is going to be able to fully empathize with or understand the violation that comes with unwanted vaginal penetration anymore than a female will be able to fully understand what a swift kick to the testicles feels like.

What I am interested in knowing the "depth" of violation a man would feel though. Maybe it's not even something that can be put into words but if anyone is willing to share please try.

 

[Wills]

You want a male view of sexual assault.

When I was sixteen, I was fondled by a man at Waterloo Station in London. He moved up to me stood in front of me and fondled my balls. My mistake was to be waiting around under the clock to meet with someone. His mistake was to assume I was the person he had arranged to meet under the clock.

When I was nineteen I was fondled by a mature woman (she was only early 30's but to me she was m a t u r e) in a store in Copenhagen. She came up behind me and affectionately squeezed my bottom, not once but several times. My mistake was to wiggle back at her, her mistake was not to speak English.

Now how did this come about and how did I feel and react. As a sixteen year old innocent looking boy I guess I was asking for trouble hanging around in a railway station. However the look of horror on my face was enough to convince him that HE had made a terrible mistake. He was the one who turned pale and took off like the wind leaving me standing there trying to work out what had happened. Did I call a policeman - no. Did I ever have an urge to follow up on his fondling - no (not with a male). How do I feel - well that is kind of difficult, you had to see his face, he had obviously made a terrible mistake and I believe to this day that he had arranged to meet someone there at that time for just such a fondling. Of course I know that I should have called the police. At the time I was simply too shocked.

The Copenhagen experience would have made for a farce. I thought it was my girlfriend that had come up behind me and was having a quite grope and wriggled back into her hand. The woman, who I guessed was a 'working girl', probably thought she had just paid for lunch. This time the look of horror was all from my side as I turned to face my girlfriend only to be confronted by a complete stranger. She could see I was panicked and didn't speak Danish and just moved smoothly away from me before I caused trouble, turning her head and winking just as she left the store.

In hindsight I almost wish I had gone with her just for the experience. At the time I was too shocked even to move. My girlfriend thought it hilarious.

So what did I learn, bearing in mind that in both cases there was no coerscion or liquor to blame:
1. Each was titilating for different reasons.
2. In MY circumstance (and mine alone) I needed time to recover from the shock to decide how to proceed.
3. Both experiences are as real to me today as they were more than 30 years ago.

For the latter reason, more than any other, any unsolicited violation should merit judicial investigation.

Will's

PS My bum is still as firmly moulded as it was when I was nineteen, you can't really blame the woman. (Just joking (about the blame - not my bum))

 

[oggbashan]

Ogg, would you elaborate? It may sound simplistic, but I do not understand how a man can feel invaded in the same way a woman does if he cannot be penetrated (obviously I am not speaking of anal rape). I cannot see the penetration or even violation as merely metaphorical for men. It seems to me (only from my female pov) that a raped woman has a unique sense of self by nature of her genitalia, as do men, e.g., women get invaded, men do the invading (in general); rape as part of war is common but generally of women, women are the spoils of war, men are prisoners of war, etc. etc.

Still seriously curious,

Perdita

It depends on the definition of rape.

What is classed by lawyers as rape of females by males does not necessarily include penetration in all cultures.

What is common is that the person is forced into an intimate act that is done without consent. The reaction of the victim to the forced attack could be as severe whatever sex. What proportion of the indignity relates to the penetration is almost impossible to assign.

A male's external genitalia can be violently abused and there are many pictures on the net showing such abuse. Whether a man's penis is more sensitive than a woman's vagina is another argument.

Anal rape of prisoners is unfortunately common in prisons and happens even to prisoners of war, Geneva Convention or not.

An Egyptian soldier was taken prisoner by female Israeli soldiers during the Six-Day (I think) war and raped for several days by a number of them. He required hospital treatment. Was his experience different from that of a woman gang-banged for several days? I don't know except that his ordeal was considered as a source of amusement by many commentators.

I think your discussion is solely about the forcible insertion of something into a woman's body. A penis can be forcibly inserted into things but a flaccid penis is difficult to use either as a tool for a male raping or a female raping a male. The case involving the Mormon missionary was before the invention of viagra. It was alleged that Spanish Fly was used. I don't know whether it was proven but its use is ulcerating and can ultimately be fatal even if one effect is priapism. Would that be rape enough to compare with a forcible insertion of a penis into a female that leaves no physical abrasion?

It still comes back to individual cases. The forcible insertion of a knife into a vagina or the removal of a penis with a knife - which is worse? Acid poured into a vagina or alkali on to a penis? A red hot poker up the backside or one in a vagina?

I don't think that whether genitalia are inside or outside is more than one factor in considering the impact on an individual of a specific act of abuse.

If you have a man's balls in your hand and you have sharp fingernails you have his complete attention. If you have your fingers in a woman's vagina and you have sharp fingernails you have her complete attention. What more attention do you want?

Og

 

[Guest]

I have questions for Wills based on his post but I won't ask here. Otherwise I am still mostly unenlightened w/re. to my very specific questions. I won't quote myself or repeat or reiterate my query. Thank you all for your attempts.

adios, Perdita

 

[Icingsugar]

What I am interested in knowing the "depth" of violation a man would feel though. Maybe it's not even something that can be put into words but if anyone is willing to share please try.

I have no first hand experience of either rape or other sexual abuse, so I can only try to empathise with those I know that have, and that I know close enough to open up to me about it. (Those are both women and men.) Still, I can only retell what they tell me, because there is no way for me to even begin to imagine the things they feel.

From what I can tell there, there seems to be no real difference. At least for those people I coldn't find the difference in how or why they felt violated, depending on the technicality of the crime (man or woman, penetration or no penetration)

The reason that I know those people is due to me working with abuse victims as a part of my pacifist "military service". I was just the clerk to a therapist, but I got to know some of the patients. The people that chose to share their experiences with me were two men and three women. Two of the women and one of the men had been forced to intercourse. Their thoughts and difficulties were exactly the same as the other two. At least they seemed that way to my uneducated eye.

 

[janus40s]

... It may sound simplistic, but I do not understand how a man can feel invaded in the same way a woman does if he cannot be penetrated (obviously I am not speaking of anal rape).

First of all, Perdita, thank you for being a voice of reason, empathy and acceptance on this issue. I appreciate the fact that you start from a view that men and women don't understand the other's perspective. Your questions make it possible to find an approach that meets half way.

Now, I descend from my soapbox and address the point...

First of all, talking about the rape of a man without talking about anal rape is like talking about battery and not mentioning fists. A large portion of rapes on men are anal. In addition to the internal violation, there is a forced-homosexual aspect (even if the attacker is female).

... not that homosexuality is wrong in any way but taking a heterosexual man down that path against his will is a devastating psychological invasion. Yes, the same might be said for lesbians raped by men or other people raped by someone from a different sexual orientation but I am not competent to address those issues.

So what about non-anal rape?

Let me start with an area that is difficult to convey to a woman (because it is so strongly gender related). I think that men have a stronger sense of (and need for) autonomy than women. (You might want to read the book "You Just Don't Understand." by Deborah Tannen for some perspective on this.) When a man is "forced into something", sexual or otherwise, it is a violation of his sense of integrity, self reliance, personhood and manhood.


Women are socialized to act as part of a community, to be interdependent, whereas men are strongly socialized to be independent. The sense of responsibility is different. Forcing a man into unwanted "mingling" with a woman (or man), especially up close, face to face, is akin to isolating a woman and stripping her of her protective "shell" and violating her.

As a metaphor, consider the Bar Mitzvah. A boy becomes a man by taking responsibility for himself. "I now claim the right to do right". (Yes, it's much more than that but this is a metaphor). Taking that "right to do..." away from a man is to make him less than a man.

A case in point: A catholic friend of mine was date-raped by a woman two years his senior when they were in their mid twenties. She was on top, they were naked, he had made it clear that he did not want to "go all the way" and she pushed herself down on him. (She was on top kissing him under the pretense of working toward oral sex).

He felt that he had lost his virginity and committed mortal sin. (He was OK with venial sin but it had crossed a line he did not want to cross). Now one might easily argue that sex without consent does not end virginity but would we say that to a woman? Also, it was probably only a venial sin since there was no "intent" but I'm not catholic and certainly not a priest.

The point is, in his mind he was violated and something sacred was taken from him.

Now, for a more tangible aspect: When a woman is raped, it is possible that she may become pregnant. As evil as that is (especially when she is left with a choice of carrying or aborting a fetus) at least she has a way of stopping the pregnancy. It is an awful and terrible choice but it is *hers* to make (in the part of the world where I live anyway).

For a man, once his semen is stolen from him and inside a woman, there is no choice. He cannot force a female rapist to have an abortion. He theoretically might not even know what happened to the semen (collected and inseminated in someone else perhaps).

His child may come into the world and live a life that he did not intend. He may be on the hook for child support (if it was an acquaintance and he is too ashamed to admit that he was raped). In short, he may have a responsibility created for him that he cannot morally or even legally abdicate.

Is this a frequent and real occurrence? Possibly not in "forcible" rapes but certainly in the case of "Hey! Get off me! No! I *don't* want to... oops... too late."

Now all of this is a lot less tangible and definable than the physical violation of female rape, *but* that is part of the problem. A man does not have the recourse that a woman has. He has little *realistic* hope that society and/or the legal system will catch and punish the offender. It just doesn't happen.

I cannot see the penetration or even violation as merely metaphorical for men. It seems to me (only from my female pov) that a raped woman has a unique sense of self by nature of her genitalia, as do men,

Yes. It is apples and oranges. We each "don't get it" about the other.

e.g., women get invaded, men do the invading (in general);

OK, I know you did not intend it, but that statement is fairly close to "all men are rapists". Again, not your intent, but it resonates that way.

rape as part of war is common but generally of women, women are the spoils of war, men are prisoners of war, etc. etc.

I think this was addressed elsewhere, but anal rape is a too-common method of torture to get information out of men or just to abuse them. It happens because it is effective.

Still seriously curious, Perdita

A couple of closing thoughts:

1. If all of this sounds less horrific than the experience of a woman being raped, please consider that my writing skills are not adequate to the task. Perhaps Stephen King will write an article on the subject some day. Also, remember to discount for the notion that “you can’t possibly understand what a man goes through”. Well, I don’t accept that statement in whole cloth any more than I accept that men cannot empathize with women, but… you are not thinking nor feeling with a male brain.

2. Somewhere in this thread, it was implied that one cannot force a man to have an erection except by exciting him. This simply is not true. If you talk to some of the folks in the BDSM forum, you may learn of some techniques for creating an erection via partial asphyxiation, vacuum pumps combined with other implements and other such things. Once a man is tied down, getting an erection from him without sexually arousing him is not all that difficult.

3. There is a lot more “date rape” of men than is reported. It happens all the time. Women are not taught that “no” means “no” when it comes from a man and some routinely cross the line. The idea is that “he just needed a little persuasion (i.e. hold him down, they like it that way.”). Some women think they are doing a man a favor by “making the decision for him”. A lot of women don’t even know that they raped a man, because they don’t think of physical force as impermissible when used on a man. “Hey, he was in bed with me. Of course he wanted it.” Once it’s over, he may not even tell her that he really meant “no” and that holding him down while he struggled was not a pleasant experience for him.

All of the issues of “implied consent” apply to men as well as women.

If a woman is forcing a man into sex and there is no safeword (or other consent mechanism) involved, it is rape.

 

[Guest]

Janus, I (and hopefully others) am in your debt. That was an exceptionally well expressed response, more than I imagined possible (solely because I was feeling nearly utterly ignorant) but obvious now that is what I was seeking.

The example of your Catholic friend was excellent (as I am Catholic). What a brilliant way of showing what you mean. Please forgive the 'invasion' comment, I hesitated, yet should have rephrased that.

Again, I very much appreciate your efforts and personal sensibilities, and hope it was worth it to you also.

much regard,

Perdita

 

[Icingsugar]

2. Somewhere in this thread, it was implied that one cannot force a man to have an erection except by exciting him. This simply is not true. If you talk to some of the folks in the BDSM forum, you may learn of some techniques for creating an erection via partial asphyxiation, vacuum pumps combined with other implements and other such things. Once a man is tied down, getting an erection from him without sexually arousing him is not all that difficult.

Excellent post, Janus, you managed to express many things that I didn't find the right words for.

There was one thing that I'd like to add, I may have missed this mentioned earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating. One thing that you did go into, without saying it out loud:

Being sexually aroused does not equal consenting to intercourse.

Just that. "But he had a boner" or "But she was all wet" are not, and should not be viable excuses for going further than both parties are prepared to.

Say it with me, kids.

"Being sexually..."

There you go.

 

[Wills]

Janus

Thanks for putting into perspective my latent feelings when I described the 'assaults' I experienced as a young man.

I treated the experiences I went through as simply part of 'growing up' in many ways, though the final part of my earlier post was meant to convey the long term effect of the treatment I received, mild though it was in comparisum to a 'forced' act.

The truth is that any unwanted sexual advance, on either sex, will rarely be forgotten, and sets in train a level of conditioning that can have severe implications in later life. The fact that I can still remember the man's face and smell his aftershave 38 years later is evidence enough for me. It is possibly a reason why as an adult I have grown to have few male friends though I could not say that for certain.

Will's

PS One of the great things about AH is the way it forces you to confront your innermost thoughts, even secrets. The anonymity offered by the 'board' allows the opportunity to express yourself without the need to hold a mask. Topics are explored that rarely are discussed in social groups - I am thinking here particularly of men.

Thanks.

 

[minsue]

Dirt Man, Icingsugar, Wills, Oggbashan, and Janus40s -

Thank you all for your thoughtful & insightful posts. While I did not agree with some of the explanations (mainly that women as a whole aren't as independant as men & therefore it is a different violation), I also very much appreciate that you made the effort to explain your own points of view.

I also want to say that I hope I did not come across as unfeeling by saying that the incident which started this thread seems to me as being more of a 'groping' than a 'rape'. I certainly wasn't referring to a simple pinch on the ass when I said most women have probably been groped without their permission (myself included). Regardless of whether the victim is male or female, I personally view being groped, fondled, touched, etc as a definite violation, but not the same as rape. Even though I do not consider it rape, I do consider it a violation & I do believe she should be tried for her crime.

- Mindy

PS - Icingsugar, I think every single person on earth should have to repeat your mantra (Being sexually aroused does not equal consenting to intercourse.) on a daily basis until that is no longer an issue in any society.

 

[janus40s]

... While I did not agree with some of the explanations (mainly that women as a whole aren't as independant as men & therefore it is a different violation), ...

That was the weakest part of my post and the most difficult to express. I'm reasonably sure that I didn't make the point I was trying to make.

First of all, independance is not quite the right word. "Self reliance" or "self sustaining" might be better.

Also note my use of a lot of qualifiers in the original post, "... are socialized to..." etc.

The point was not that men are more independant, it was that men are *judged* by their independance. Independance is a "value", a measure of moral worth, more for men than for women.

Hence, when a man is robbed of his independance, he is robbed of something more than a right or a freedom. He is robbed of a part of his moral value in the eyes of his peers.

Women are allowed to be dependant or independant. Men are (usually) required to be independant (i.e. self-sustaining and sustaining of others, not sustained *by* others).

When was the last time you heard a derisive sneer about a woman "living off of her husband" and "not paying her own way"? Now reverse it. A man who does not provide the primary support for himself and his family is "worthless".

Imagine a parent saying, "That worthless woman he married! Why can't she get a real job and make something of herself instead of staying at home and raising children?"

Now, back on the original point...

When a woman is raped, she is (wrongly) accused of "asking for it" or *inviting* the attack.

A man who is raped has a different (and equally wrong) charge to face. He has "failed to defend himself" i.e. failed to *repel* the attack.

The degradation is intense for both but it is different in form.

Again, Deborah Tannen makes the point much better than I do. In fact literally "wrote the book" on the subject of the difference in perception between men and women. If I had a copy of the book handy, I would quote from it, but I don't.

 

[janus40s]

By the way, I have really enjoyed the quality of discussion on this thread.

My fetish has been well satisfied... Thank you...