An erroneous excuse for sexual assault that is among the most popular is that of the victim having too much of their body exposed or being too physically beautiful for the perpetrator to "resist," as if beauty is sexual, as if clothing is sexual, and as if genuinely sexual situations or feelings override rationality and freedom of the will. Though this kind of invalid justification--as if there is a valid one--might be more frequently directed at women than men, others could be appealed to by defensive sexual predators in general or more specifically if men are the victim (thanks to the common errors of gender stereotypes).
Among these more general excuses is one that confuses the physical body and the conscious mind. Erections in men and vaginal lubrication in women are not proof of mental willingness to have sex or engage in other sexual activities, though they of course can be experienced when the minds is willing or eager to do so. The mere presence of physiological arousal can come about randomly without any mental concentration on sexual matters or any sensory stimuli to prompt it. Even in the case of sexual stimuli, though, having one's genitals become aroused is not tied by necessity to mental arousal, and thus someone could be physiologically aroused and be unwilling to have any sexual interaction.
For men, an erection is more outwardly apparent than vaginal wetness is for women, the latter of which being produced within the folds of female genitalia and the former of which protrudes from the rest of the male body. Both men and women can be victimized under the delusion that bodily arousal proves mental consent, however, despite men being far more culturally vulnerable in general to being mistreated due to this fallacy. There are more than just this one kind of pathetic excuse for sexual assault, of course. Other supposed justifications include the idea that if someone does something for another person, such as pay for their meal on a romantic outing, the other must make it up by responding with sexual "repayment." Idiotic stereotypes pressuring men to pay for women to do things mean that women can be more likely to face this excuse for sexual assault.
Then, there is the notion, whether it is held to in a misandrist, misogynistic, or gender neutral manner, that someone's whims simply entitle them to perform sexual acts with whoever they want regardless of whether the other person reciprocates. With or without the sexism against either men or women that can accompany this, this sheer egoism or emotionalism is in some ways even more asinine than the excuse that someone's genitals were or became aroused, perhaps even during a nonconsensual sexual encounter. It encompasses the outright belief in the impossibility of someone's preferences and desires literally shaping morality. In truth, even if moral nihilism is/was true, there would be no such thing as someone deserving to have others tend to their sexual desires unwillingly because no one would deserve anything.
Whatever the excuse for sexual assault and whatever the perpetrator's gender, worldview, motivations, or culture, there is nothing more for them to stand on than self-serving assumptions about morality and other minds. There is no reason a person would do such a thing, including to people who have sexually assaulted others (hypocrites sometimes endorse this for the sake of imagined "justice"), unless they were an egoistic, emotionalistic, morally apathetic, or another kind of irrationalistic person. Anyone at all who would sexually assault someone else knowing that they perceive indicators the other party is not willing is irrational even if there are cultural or personal factors that make the opposite of this truth seem appealing to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment