Rape Culture and male entitlement to sex

Share on Tumblr

Lauredhel of Hoyden About Town has posted the image of a t-shirt on her Dreamwidth. This t-shirt is available for sale, and some of the profits will be donated to Wikileaks, which of course really, really needs the money (in some other dimension). The shirt says quite simply:

Free Assange

Lock up your daughters

Lauredhel details why the slogan is not subversive humor. She also explains how “Lock up your daughters” is “not a warning between women, it’s an oh-so-hilarious homosocial catchcry between men “on the prowl”.” Read her article for more details on why those excuses/explanations won’t wash in this case.

Additionally, “Lock up your daughters” is an inherently problematic phrase because:

  • It implies a daughter’s sexuality is her father’s commodity to trade, as indeed it was throughout human history until just a few decades ago (and still is in many cultures). (This is why, quite frankly, men raping their daughters isn’t as rare as you’d like to believe.)
  • It implies that male sexuality mustn’t be locked up, because it’s so very, very important, you see, so women/girls and their guardians must hide themselves away if they don’t want to take part in male sexual rampages.
  • It suggests that men on the prowl must not be expected to exercise rational judgment, since that might get in the way of their sexual rampaging, therefore any woman not wanting to service them sexually should be kept well out of their way. This frees them up to assume any woman they encounter is theirs for the taking. Anyone who later claims she didn’t see it that way will be interrogated and humiliated on the subject of why she didn’t lock herself in a convent if she didn’t really want to service the men.

But combine this phrase with a call to free a charged rapist, and it sinks to a whole new level. Even when male “sexuality” is actually just a violent form of brutality that happens to resemble sex superficially, that important force must not be locked up. It must be allowed to roam free at any costs, so if you don’t want your daughters to be part of it, lock them up.

There are days when it seems to me our entire civilization was built for no reason other than to ensure that men feel entitled to unlimited indiscriminate sex with women, and that women not even feel entitled to the occasional orgasm from a long-time partner. Women are lectured to prevent their own potential rapes, and prevent their own pregnancies, and prevent their own stalkings and incidents of sexual harassment. We’re advised to take responsibility and manufacture our own orgasms instead of waiting for male partners to give a shit. We’re held entirely responsible for things that are so out of our control, it’s a bit like holding someone responsible for things that happened before he was born.

Meanwhile, men are taught such senseless levels of entitlement that it never even occurs to many man that the unwanted but natural consequences of sex were something he could’ve avoided by simply not having it or employing some precautions. No, if there’s an unwanted pregnancy, he has been mistreated! If there’s an abortion he doesn’t approve of, he has been mistreated! There was nothing he could do to prevent it! He couldn’t just be celibate, could he? Couldn’t bring a condom with him? Couldn’t avoid dating a woman he knew was after his money or wanted to hurt him in some way? Couldn’t get a vasectomy?

Oh, and let’s not forget the most tragic thing in the world: men who can’t get sex. Poor dears. All the rapes in the Congo pale next to the travesty that is not getting any if you’re a male, thirteen or older. He can’t possibly be expected to work on his looks or his charm. He just sits around whining about how he’s so nice and women don’t like nice guys. (Meanwhile, women who aren’t getting sex or dates are taught to question themselves and what they are doing wrong, until they are blue in the face. If they can’t find anything, they’re to assume it’s weight and go on a starvation diet. Yes, this applies even if they’re already 20 pounds underweight.)

No, men mustn’t pause to examine themselves, their motives or the likely consequences of their actions, ever, for if they do, it might distract them or even dissuade them from the quest society has handed them: the mindless screwing of everything in sight. Everything in the world, including the welfare of children (and even male happiness), must be sacrificed and is sacrificed daily to preserve the male entitlement (and requirement) to fuck the whole world. Hell, they don’t even limit themselves to human beings. They fuck animals, too. And metaphorically, they fuck the world over, because it would be so unhip to consider the well-being of some silly rain forest for five minutes when there’s fucking to be done!

And by “fucking”, what we really mean is consumption. The using, ruining and casting aside of everyone and everything. It’s just the manly thing to do!

Julian Assange’s entitlement to fuck everyone he’s ever met is more important than the rights of any woman in the world to decide who she will and will not have sex with. Also more important is his right to decide how to fuck them – say, without a condom. That’s what this t-shirt is saying.

That’s what rape culture has always been saying: neither a woman’s right to decide who she’ll have sex with nor her right not to be physically brutalized is as important as keeping the menz up to their chins in sexual access to everyone and everything. When this policy brings the human species to an end, I just hope it doesn’t take the rest of the planet with it.

Comments

  1. says

    When I first read the quote, I thought it was subversive. You know, if you free Assange women everywhere will live in fear. Obviously one person’s freedom is worth less than millions of womens’ victimization.

    But then I clicked through and read that profits from the sale are being donated to Wikileaks. *facepalm* What…I can’t even…NO! Can I call Poe’s Law on this shit? There is no comment so extreme that nobody will say it in earnest…

  2. Casey says

    THIS WHOLE POST should be in the necessary stuff box/some kinda “Hathor Legacy 101″ thingy, ‘cuz it’s AWESOME. I’ve been mulling rape culture/male entitlement about in my head off and on for a few weeks straight now, thinking of how to fully explain it and you’ve just done it SUCCINCTLY, as always. :D

    (I’m not gonna click on that link/read the comments…from what I gather, she’s apparently playing the “lock up your daughters” trope straight? Yeah, that’s just gonna piss me off)

    • says

      Thank you!

      The link is to Lauredhel’s post, and her comments are well moderated, so I’m not sure what your second paragraph means? Neither of us linked to the original site where you’d be likely to find icky comments.

  3. Dani says

    I’ve been thinking about the phrase “lock up your daughters” a bunch lately, and about how disturbing, but how common and accepted a statement it is. It’s depressing how much this idea that being a man = having sex with every woman possible – consent or no – and being a woman = being sexually available at all times (but heaven forbid she has her own sexual desires!) is considered perfectly right and normal.

    “We’re advised to take responsibility and manufacture our own orgasms instead of waiting for male partners to give a shit.”

    This reminds me of “advice” I’ve heard countless times about how women are supposed to fake orgasms when having sex, to make their partner feel better or something. It always struck me as odd, not only because I always remember it being given in the context of a “battle of the sexes” setup where both genders are expected to just manipulate each other, but because I’ve always thought of sex as something where *both* partners give and get pleasure from each other.

    • says

      You and me both! I cannot fathom any reason for faking an orgasm – even a bad one! First of all, there are so many reasons a partner, particularly a woman, might not have one. It’s not always a reflection of the man’s bed skills, so he should have nothing to feel bad about. And if it IS his skills, those skills can never improve if no one tells him how to do it better.

      And if it’s that he’s just completely selfish in bed, then why on earth assuage that already-inflated ego by faking ecstasy? I cannot imagine. I really don’t get it.

      • sbg says

        To me, it’s very much like laughing when a man says something “funny” that isn’t funny at all. Wouldn’t want to bruise his sense of comedic timing!

        Uh, no. I laugh when something is funny, I orgasm when all the buttons are pushed in the right order.

        • Genevieve says

          Ugh, I hate when guys expect women to laugh at every “joke” they make. Or even every joke that some comedian who they think is funny makes. If I have a different sense of humor, that doesn’t make me a bad person. It doesn’t mean I have “no” sense of humor. It means that I do not find certain things funny. Not necessarily even that I find them offensive (though I have known people who tell/make me watch jokes which they know will offend/discomfort me and then get pissed when I don’t laugh–no, I will not magically get over my belief that racism is bad just because someone is making racist jokes with puppets!). Just that different people find different things funny, period. Or they’ll get the idea into their head that I don’t like dirty jokes or don’t like jokes with profanity and show me some “clean” comedy where the comedian is still making offensive comments about “midgets” or women or whatever. No, please–say the word “fuck” as much as you want, just don’t be a dickwad.

          Come to think of it, the comedians who I dislike are often the ones most likely to make “lock up your daughter”-esque jokes. Jokes about scaring their teenage daughters’ boyfriends with shotguns, “you’re not dating until you’re thirty” jokes, squeemishness around the very concept of periods…and my ex-boyfriend expected me to laugh at that? When I was eighteen, nineteen, twenty and dating him. Oy, with the cognitive dissonance already!

          • Elee says

            Somewhat off topic, but I find it incredibly hard to watch comedians lately. Probably a case of cognitive dissonance, as you’ve said, because their style certainly hasn’t changed very much since I last found them incredibly funny, but now I am mostly disgusted and compelled to switch to anything at the first “women are so complicated, men just want to have sex”-jokes. Though I am pretty sure we think of different comedians, the point still stands.

  4. says

    Don’t you love it how if a boy has slept with many girls, he’s a ‘player,’ but if a girl’s slept with more than one guy, she’s ‘easy’ or a ‘slut?’

    And if a girl has a reputation for dating many guys (let’s not even get into the others she could be dating), she’s ‘manipulative,’ ‘high-maintenance,’ aka something’s wrong with her/she caused the break-ups. But if a guy’s dated many girls, he’s, again, a player. Don’t you just love that, too?

    At least female pedophiles don’t exist. So glad that my kid was lying/exaggerating when she told me Ms. N told her to take off her pants. Doesn’t she have such an interesting imagination?

    By the way, my teenager told me he scored with his teacher. Sure she’s a bit old for him, but that just means he’s got more game, am I right? He’ll learn by manipulating her into staying with him (as if it’s the other way around!), then move on and find himself a pretty little trophy to cook and clean for him and keep him company at night.

    Oops- gotta go, you know how the wife is when you miss dinner. (Guess I’ll go pretend she’s important to placate her.) Anyway, let’s all celebrate the fact that we have double standards! Bye!

    • Casey says

      “Don’t you love it how if a boy has slept with many girls, he’s a ‘player,’ but if a girl’s slept with more than one guy, she’s ‘easy’ or a ‘slut?’

      And if a girl has a reputation for dating many guys (let’s not even get into the others she could be dating), she’s ‘manipulative,’ ‘high-maintenance,’ aka something’s wrong with her/she caused the break-ups. But if a guy’s dated many girls, he’s, again, a player. Don’t you just love that, too?”

      Ugh, I’ve seen this trope played the straightest/most blatantly on Jersey Shore of all places. Everybody REALLY HATES Angelina for acting just like The Situation/Pauly D/Every other guy on the show. Also, everyone constantly espouses/reeks of gender essentialism when it comes to divvying up chores like cooking and cleaning (although more often than not the guys end up cooking and grouse about it, LOL).

  5. M.C. says

    Meanwhile, men are taught such senseless levels of entitlement that it never even occurs to many man that the unwanted but natural consequences of sex were something he could’ve avoided by simply not having it

    But not having sex is never an option for a real man, right? \sarcasm

    I’m wondering: are any of you watching the BBC show ‘Being Human’? It’s basically a fantasy drama about the friendship between a vampire, a ghost and two werewolves. (It’s better than it sounds.) And while so many modern vampire stories turn them into tragically romantic heroes, this show tells the viewer again and again that Mitchell (the vampire) is a serial murderer and rapist and that there’s no excuse for his crimes.

    But what I like best is that Mitchell himself doesn’t defend his actions. At the end of the series 3 premiere he openly admitted that he’s a monster and should be punished. In a recent story line Mitchell fell in love with Annie, a ghost. They decided to start a relationship, but there’s one problem: they can never have sex because she’s a ghost and doesn’t have a physical body. At least this was a problem for Annie, but when Mitchell realized it he said, “Thank God” and then he explained that “for me sex was always a weapon, it was never about love or even lust”.

    I appreciate that the writers had the guts to let a male character state openly that his sexuality is dangerous and hurtful to others and himself. The show itself doesn’t portray sexuality as bad; George and Nina, the werewolves, have a healthy sex life. But Mitchell’s sexual desires are entangled with cruelty and blood thurst and he can’t seperate it, so the only way for him to be a decent person is to stay celibate.

    I’ll admit that I feel a bit torn about Mitchell’s character. While he is indeed interesting, rooting for him means rooting for the rapist and murderer. But then again he is the rapist and murderer who stoped. And it’s quite refreshing that this show never blames the victims (like so many other shows/films do). The victims are victims, we see their torn bodies, we know that Mitchell enjoyed doing this and we are promised that he will one day pay for it.

  6. JMS says

    Yes, clearly it is so important for this one man to be free that every woman he might potentially decide to sexually assault should lose their freedom.

    You know who “lock up your daughters” was originally said about? Julius Caesar. Not exactly a noble exemplar of freedom. Way to go, Assange fans! Make that equivalent between your hero and a violent tyrant!

  7. Lika says

    I thought the “lock your daughters up” phrase was at first saying that crap, he’s free and no one is safe, but the fact that it’s mean to imply that he’s some kind of casanova? God.

    One of my university professors was talking about human psychology and basic needs and he said that the only real needs human beings have are food and sex, and everything else is psychological luxuries that we think we need. Food and sex are our only true needs. Which made me go WTF because I lived in Ottawa at the time and it’s like -30 in winter and trust me, warm clothing and shelter isn’t a psychological luxury. Neither is getting your medical needs met when you need them. Neither is sleep.

    I can easily name a thousands things I need to survive and thrive before sex is on the list. No one has died from a lack of sex. Lack of food, yes, lack of sex, no. I don’t get any of the thinking that sex is such a basic need.

    • Casey says

      Don’t we also NEED to evacuate our bowels/urinate?
      So yeah, I can do fine with no sex. I have been for about…EVER.[/virgin]

      • Genevieve says

        I guess in a “propogating the species” sense, we do need sex, sure. At least some people do at some point. But considering that 95% or something of people are using birth control anyway, it’s not like most people have that in mind in their everyday ugly-bumping, or and most people’s sexual fantasies are based oh “damn, zie’s hot,” not “I would love to have a child with this person.” Y’know? So yes, sleep, food, warm clothes, shelter, urination–all that before sex. And it’s really hard to even think about sex if you’re deficient in real necessities.

    • sbg says

      I think the “lock your daughters up” suggests more that it’s the job of women (or in this case men/women controlling a younger set of girls) to protect themselves and not at all the responsibility of asshole rapists to not rape. It’s not his fault if you don’t keep the goods away from him. It has nothing to do with him being a casanova a girl might “succumb” to (which is problematic in and of itself).

      I’m not sure that came across as clearly as I wanted it to, but I’ll be darned if I can figure out how else to say it.

      As for the second bit, I would have been dead long ago if sex were a basic need. For real.

    • says

      OMG, some people just don’t get the difference between needing and wanting. I cannot believe it when educated people claim sex is a “need.” It is for the species in a way (not that any particular species needs to live forever – extinction is part of the cycle), but for individuals? A car comes closer to being a true necessity, particularly in cities where public transportation is non-existent or too unreliable to get you to work on time more than twice a month. An education comes closer to being a true necessity. There are a LOT of things which you don’t absolutely have to have that are much closer to “need” than sex.

      • says

        Even sillier is that what most people mean when they say they “need” sex is the release of orgasm. Which you can give yourself every day if you want to. ;)

        • FM says

          I think that anyone who makes that argument is coming from a position of extreme privilege. Anyone who thinks sex is a “need” has probably never been in doubt of being able to attain food, safety, and shelter. Live without those things for a while and suddenly sex doesn’t seem so important.

        • Elee says

          If I NEEDED sex (with another person, mind you, because sex doesn’t always need another person), I would probably be dead for good 10 years. I’m very much alive. But what I really need is meaningful connection with other people, not limited to, but also consisting of physical touch. I need to have someone to hug, to hold hands, to give a backrub and to receive one. It has nothing to do with sex. It is just a way to reassert ones humanity, and I NEED to feel like a human being from time to time.

      • The Other Anne says

        The way I see it, you need something you will die without. So, our atmosphere, food, water, certain vitamins and minerals, and a relatively safe place to live. (Though the last thing has so many variables I can’t even begin to get into it–because plenty of people survive in conditions that are incredibly poor.)

        To the extent of my knowledge more people die because of having sex than not having sex. In fact, I’d guess that no person has ever died because they didn’t have sex. I mean directly from not having sex. I am sure somewhere in history someone was KILLED by other for not having sex, but that kind of…is a check mark in the humanity kind of fails sometimes column.

  8. Shaun says

    I’m wondering if this would be any better (aside from in the most practical capacity) if the proceeds for this were going to, say, domestic violence shelters or rape crisis lines, which is what I really wanted the post to say instead of “wikileaks.” At least then it’d be kinda ironic and probably intended to be subversive.

    BTW, it amazes me how Wikileaks supporters seem unable to comprehend why supporting leakers like Bradley Manning from being tortured is more important than some fucking douche’s “right” to have sex with whoever he wants however he wants, both from a realistic and a moral sense.

    • The Other Anne says

      I know! Manning is having his rights violated and being slapped with so many charges I don’t even.

      I don’t support Assange (racist, sexist, rapist that he is), I support this kid who tried to expose the wrongs his country was doing. HE’S the liberal hero of truth. HE had and has a LOT to lose for his actions, which I fully support. Assange? Not so much. I support Wikileaks as a supporter of truth and Bradley Manning because he got the truth out there. i need to go donate to his fund. But I has no monies :(

      • Shaun says

        I was reserving judgment on Assange until he admitted he had “sex” with a woman who was sleeping, what’s the big deal. Even not knowing that though, seriously? What is more important to the cause here?

  9. Alara Rogers says

    To be fair, I think the expression “lock up your daughters” *usually* comes from the patriarchal attitude of “young girls need to be protected from their own sexuality, so lock them up so they cannot run off with handsome seductive young men who are just using them, as you, the grownup, know what they need better than they do.” Which is asinine, but not, typically, an expression that women need to be protected from rape by being locked away. It’s not rape the expression suggests girls need to be protected from, it’s their own desires for “inappropriate” men.

    (Why people do not figure out, from the existence of this expression, that women like to have sex with hot guys, is beyond me.)

    But, on the other hand, the concept of female agency and that women may want to have sex with seductive men is often used as a way to blame women for being raped, and often, no distinction is drawn in the patriarchal mentality between the woman who willingly had sex with a seducer, and the woman who was raped, and both are considered to be somehow soiled. *And*, the fact that this is being used in the same phrase as “Free Assange” *does* imply that in this context, it does mean rape.

    • says

      You actually just bombed your own logic there, Alara. People still have trouble comprehending that women have lust. Therefore, how COULD an old saying, popular with the patriarchy, reflect that women should be protected from their own lust? Rape was an acceptable way to get a wife up until, oh, a century ago? Maybe two? Because once you broke the goods, you had to pay for them, but that made everything okay! Women ran off with attractive men not, it was believed, because they were consumed with lust, but because they were silly little fools who’d fallen for the man’s “sweet nothings.” Now, as you also say, a lot of people had trouble distinguishing “seduction” from “rape”, but at no point before the 20th century did the idea penetrate mainstream culture that women could actually feel lust – as opposed to being fooled by men into capitulating to sex.

      I’ve never seen the phrase used in a context of girls pursuing sex. I have only seen in contexts where men are behaving rapaciously – right along with “boys will be boys”.

      • says

        Actually, until pretty recently (historically speaking) women WERE thought to be the lustful, wanton ones that need to be reigned in. This attitude is still found in other parts of the world, and is one of the reasons female genital mutilation is practiced. Girls are “oversexed” and need to be tamed.
        This idea of “pure virginal woman with no sexual desire” mostly comes from the Victorians. Such a heartwarming bunch they were.

        • says

          Okay, that’s… definitely not what I learned in school, but I’ll accept that as accurate.

          Still not sure it lends any credence to the interpretation of “lock up your daughters” as being about daughter wantonness rather than unbridled male sexuality. And I think the UMS is baked in, regardless of whether someone has the daughters’ lust in mind, too.

          • The Other Anne says

            I learned a definite contradicting mixture of the two. It seems like some men can’t make up their minds between wanting to believe that women are sexless creatures who withhold what teh men “need” or can’t control themselves from taking and being lustful, wanton whores who corrupt every pure, righteous and good man they find.

            The mind. It boggles.

              • Attackfish says

                This. Whatever women are thought of at any given time in any given culture, it must be the inferior, unhealthy, strange pole of the two.

              • The Other Anne says

                Well of COURSE it’s the womenz fault! Didn’t you know? Everything bad in the world is because of women. Women are why we can’t have nice things!

                D:

                And, of course, everything GOOD in the world is because of men…it’s just really depressing to see how much of this sort of mentality I get all the time, seriously or flippantly, from everywhere.

          • Attackfish says

            It is accurate, which is part of what makes our gender narratives so confusing. Some of them are “lustless, love craving” which we get from the Victorians, where as others are “uncontrollable, lust filled” narratives that we get from before them. For example, both are used to justify rape: if women don’t want sex, then men have to fight for it, and overcome their objections, whether by trickery, persuasion, pressure, or force. If women want sex constantly, they can’t be raped, because they’re always secretly willing (also used to dismiss male rape victims, of course). This locking up the daughters one is probably a blend of the two ideas. The idea of locking up girls to control their wanton ways was pre-Victorian, whereas locking them up to protect them from the lustful advances (read rape) of a specific man was primarily Victorian. i do know a lot of people who say “oh lock up your daughters” when some guy dresses up and makes an effort to look nice, with the implication that women will be throwing themselves at him, which hearkens back to the older narrative, but this shirt clearly means it differently.

        • says

          There’s the ancient Greek play Lysistrata, in which all the women hole up in the temple and refuse to come home (read: sex strike) until their husbands stop fighting. The play was a comedy because of course all women are desperate for sex and how could they possibly manage to hold out? (They do, but with great difficulty.)

          Men’s ideas about women’s attitudes about sex vary across time and culture, but the general theme is that women must be unhealthy about it. *eyeroll*

          • Casey says

            Wasn’t the belief of the day that women needed their wombs to be “moistened” by hot jizz daily or else it would dry up and attack their other organs?

        • Casey says

          The first civilization I can think of off the top of my head who thought this were the Romans, I think. Since the men would have teenaged brides they naturally assumed ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE were stupid and horny.[/ageism and misogyny everywhere]

    • says

      I think you might be on to something there, if only from the phrasing of it. Lock up is not usually used to mean “protect” but to mean “control/limit freedom”. If I lock the chickens up it’s to corral them in; if I lock them in it’s to lock the fox out.

          • Maria says

            Do you think that phrasing might be left over from the Latin? I think valuable’s root is valoir, which is like… the feminine pluperfect in French?

            I… play a lot of Scrabble.

          • says

            I did some research. No hint of the origin of the phrase online, but some interesting cultural trivia:

            A Naval trivia page says this letter began being used in 1982 to announce to loved ones a sailor was coming home. It begins:

            LOCK UP YOUR DAUGHTERS:-FILL THE FRIDGE WITH BEER:- GET HIS CIVVIES OUT OF MOTHBALLS’

            Then it lists several things to be aware of about your sailor:

            “For the first few weeks (until he has been house trained) be particularly watchful when he is in the company of women, especially the young and beautiful ones. After seeing women wooed by handsome men on the video screen, he thinks himself the master of the art himself. His intentions will be sincere although dishonourable, but keep in mind that beneath his rugged frostbitten exterior, there lies a heart of gold. ”

            The ever-delightful Yahoo!Answers reports:

            “It means put them in a safe place because I’m comin’ to tear that pu$$y up!”

            And then there’s the musical:

            Lock Up Your Daughters is a musical based on an 18th century comedy, Rape Upon Rape… Plot Summary: In London, 1735, naive young Hilaret leaves over-protective walls of her father’s house resolved to elope with her beloved Captain Constant. She charges Ramble with rape, and her maid Cloris charges Constant with rape. The cases are tried by the corrupt justice, Mr. Squeezum.

  10. BetterUserName says

    So I changed my user name because my last one was awful and if you don’t publish my comment, I understand. Had to get it out…

    Anyway, once I personally noticed the rape culture (which took almost a decade after being raped myself), it caused me to totally lose interest in sex. I was raised by my dad, so I wasn’t as inundated by “your purpose on Earth is to please men” messages as my female classmates, whose role models were their moms, were. I used to roll my eyes at the advice in Seventeen and Sassy.

    But nowadays…woah. I see the culture for what it is. Women are responsible for every aspect of the human dating and mating game, from start to finish. We’re raised almost from birth to function primarily as objects of men’s desire. We’re responsible for looking pretty and acting appropriately feminine. We’re responsible for maintenance of our relationships, and gauging them, and adjusting them whenever they’re off. We’re responsible for preventing pregnancy. Now, men have “Game” and the “Pick-Up Arts” which teach them how to harass and put down women so they can sleep with them, but those books are a tiny fraction of the bookstore shelves when compared to all the self-help books aimed at women.

    My rape, so I’ve been told, was my fault. I shouldn’t have drank. I shouldn’t have gone to bed at my friend’s house, even though I did so alone, in baggy clothing. I should have been aware that drinking and staying over at a friend’s house gave him carte blanche to rape me, even though I never indicated interest, and we’d never been involved. This is what my other friends tell me. Told me, I mean. I don’t have friends anymore. That experience taught me trusting people is not the right choice for me. (It was my fault for trusting the wrong people, of course, too.)

    Oddly enough, I’m not even straight. In fact, I lean closer to the lesbian side of the Kinsey scale, so you’d think being inundated with man-pleasing messages would have no effect on me, but au contraire. Because even though I “pass” for straight, I also get extra-special queer-hating messages, including that I’m hairy, man-hating, masculine, and so on. Men have every right to feel angry and violent toward me when they pick me up at bars and I turn them down, I’ve recently been told. That’s because I am the “sexual gatekeeper,” and get to have sex with anyone I want, any time I want (this is not actually true), so it’s only natural men should hate me when they’ve been denied permission to “take” what’s “rightfully theirs.”

    I laugh at the immense numbers of advice columns in which married men bemoan their lack of a sex life. Change the culture, and maybe that trend will reverse. ‘Till then, blue balls for all. (Of course, even those are blood-boiling, because a wife with no sex drive is Defective and must be Fixed or traded in for a Better Model.)

  11. Nereverine says

    Wow. Quite a powerful article. I am inclined to say, out of a self-conceived notion of affectionate equality, that there are women in the world that have the same ‘fuck it’ attitude, but that would sound dangerously like the (as you say ‘entitled’) anti-gynarchy bastards who whine about how feminism is victimizing their spweshial wittle lives (and imply how clearly the solution is to victimize those ‘heartless feminazis’ right back).
    The point, therefore, is while this article lacks a bit of tact, I as a male who is fueled by my passion to put those misogynistic fucks in their place, applaud the author with all available zeal. Well done!

    ~From Russia with Love

  12. Maria says

    Just a reminder: peeps need to read the Discussion Guidelines, linked above the comment box, before posting. There’s no need to be rude or to condescend to one another in what’s supposed to be a safe space.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.