One last post about @NiceGuyBrianG’s justifications for rape. This time we will tackle victim blaming and natural law, but let’s start with this one:
@NiceGuyBrianG: “sex is a basic right ‘within a relationship’ is what i said.”
Not really, no. A basic right within a relationship (or without) is to live without violence or the threat of violence. All humans have the right to live their lives free of abuse. Rape, forced sex, whatever you call it, is abuse. The right to live without being subjected to abuse is a basic human right and it trumps other people’s sexual needs. Therefore, sex is not a “basic right”. It’s enjoyable and it’s important but it’s not a basic right. Either you get laid or you don’t. You’re not entitled to it.
Now we come to the natural law hypothesis, and it’s so staggeringly stupid that it’s difficult to reply intelligently:
@NiceGuyBrianG: “I’ll say it. In a heterosexual relationship it is the moral duty of the FEMALE to satisfy the sexual desires of the MALE.”
Brian uses the word “moral” like he doesn’t know what it means, but why he thinks women are “morally” obliged to satisfy men is anybody’s guess, and it’s equally hard to explain why he is wrong about this, and why his opinion is actually immoral, but I will try.
Okay, get this: it would be just as absurd to claim that it’s the moral(!) duty of the MALE to satisfy the sexual desires of the FEMALE. Why is it absurd? Because the desires of women and men are equally important, and neither are morally obliged to satisfy the other. It’s a give and take, a tit for tat. It’s supposed to be fun and satisfying for both. If it’s only fun and satisfying for one participant, it’s not sex. Sex between two human beings requires interaction and mutual consent, otherwise it’s rape.
The term grey rape is sometimes used to describe a situation where the perpetrator doesn’t use physical force but still manages to coerce the victim into a sexual act against his or her will, or a situation where the victim is unable to resist, or fears for the consequences of resisting. An example of such a consequence could be that it will hurt more if you resist, as Brian implicitly threatened in one the tweets discussed earlier: “Sometimes wives/gf’s just need to lie down and let the man do it. It doesn’t hurt if they don’t resist.”
I quote from rapeinfo’s excellent post Oops, I raped you:
When a normal man (that is, a non-rapist) has sex, he notices if his partner is silent, stiff, unresponsive, crying, frozen in fear, pushing him away — he notices a negative response. A guy looking for “Oh yeah!” is going to instantly notice “I just want to go home. Can I go home now?” or anything said with fear. A normal guy would be very unlikely to even reach that point, because he cares what his partner is feeling. Most men would be horrified to literally push themselves on a partner that so obviously didn’t want to have sex with them.
If Brian is reading this, that last sentence should really sting. “Most men would be horrified to literally push themselves on a partner that so obviously didn’t want to have sex with them,” and I would like to point out, even if the negative response was less obvious than panicking and crying.
This is not just a question of morality, although it is undeniably immoral to hurt someone, whether the pain inflicted is physical or emotional, or as is usually the case with sexual violence, both. But morality aside, it’s also a question of pride. You wouldn’t want to impose yourself on someone who doesn’t want you around, even in non-sexual situations. When it comes to sex, it’s usually a matter of pride for both men and women to be skillful lovers who are able to satisfy their partners.
What kind of person would not be discouraged after getting a negative response? The answer to that is: the kind of person who doesn’t care about the feelings of other people and doesn’t shrink from hurting others to get satisfaction. That is a common trait in psychopaths, you know.
But I don’t think Brian is a psychopath. After all, he repeatedly says he would never rape or even “finish sex forcefully.” It seems he does have the normal person’s aversion to rape, so his rape apologist views are perhaps mere unthinkingness rather than a symptom of psychopathy.
Okay, I think that settles the moral obligation argument. Let’s continue with the natural order of things:
@NiceGuyBrianG: “because, like it or not the natural order in a straight relationship is that the female submits to the male . . . male dominance in sexual matters pre dates the church/religion. male sexual dominance is a… product of nature”
This is just too preposterous. Brian is happy to forgo thousands of years of cultural and social evolution to justify why he should have his way. Animals are subject to “natural order”. Humans are not.
According to the natural order, or the law of the jungle, the strong defeat the weak. Hence, a strong man is able to beat a weaker one to pulp and take all his money. Also, a pack of weaker men can successfully defeat a lone man in combat, and take all his money. Just because something is possible, doesn’t mean it’s right.
@NiceGuyBrianG: “If we had a sensible law, in which wives/gf’s understood that they should not refuse, then force would not be necc.”
No, you see, the law is there to protect the weak from assholes who would do anything just because they can.
@NiceGuyBrianG: “i mean that the law says taking what u want from your partner is rape. i don’t agree, but obey the law.”
Well, at least he obeys the law, even if he doesn’t understand it! Phew! But if he is reading, perhaps by now he has come to understand why the law is the way it is? We can only hope!
Next, Brian takes a stance on victim blaming:
@NiceGuyBrianG: “because u knew, deep down, that getting in that position was on u. u drink, u take your chances – it’s putting yourself in a vulnerable position though. u can’t blame anyone else for that.”
So drunk, flirty women dressed for a night out are fair game? Oh please. Rape is violence, and you don’t blame the victim for it. I’m sure Brian thinks it’s wrong to mug a drunk man? A drunk man with his wallet hanging out may be an easy victim who won’t fight back effectively, and he has put himself in a vulnerable position by getting drunk – but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to beat him and take his money! Okay? The same applies to drunk women and rape. There’s no excuse.
@NiceGuyBrianG: “OK. women who go out, with the express intention of getting drunk an having sex. do they exist?”
Of course. But going out to get drunk and have sex doesn’t mean the women are up for grabs, willing to have sex with anyone. A woman might find someone who is okay for making out with, but not for taking home for the night. That someone has no right to force the issue. Vice versa, men are not obliged to have sex with a woman after making out. People have the right to test a partner. Making out is a way of testing sexual compatibility. Sometimes one participant may be less impressed than the other. It’s frustrating and it’s hurtful, but that’s just how life is. No one is obliged to have sex with you.
- Oops, I Raped You – Sorry About That (rapeinfo.wordpress.com)
- ‘It’s time to stop blaming victims of rape’: TV presenter Pips Taylor tells how she narrowly avoided sexual assault (mirror.co.uk)