There are more myths about rape than just those related to basic evangelical modesty teachings [1] or the denial that women can rape men [2]. The latter myth, which only survives because of asinine ideas about gender-specific personality traits, is often accompanied by several other grave falsities. One such deplorable lie interferes with general public willingness to accept that women can sexually victimize men: the lie holds that if a man has an erection, he consents to whatever sexual acts a woman imposes upon him.
An erection does not mean that a man wants sex, just as vaginal wetness or a clitoral erection alone does not mean that a woman wants to have sex. The human body can be manipulated into reaching a state of physiological arousal even when the mind inhabiting the body does not wish for his or her genitalia to become aroused, and the body can experience genital arousal even without being sexually stimulated by the mind or by the senses. This is true of both genders. Hell, even asexuals like me can experience physiological arousal (thank God [3]!)--there is no logical connection between arousal of the genitalia and arousal of the mind. Either one can exist on its own, meaning that the presence of one does not prove the presence of the other.
The genitalia of both men and women, as many people know, can respond to various sexual and nonsexual stimuli. Even a lack of consent to be exposed to such stimuli does not guarantee that a person will not become physically aroused. For instance, unwanted tactile stimulation could stimulate an erection. A person's body could be touched, even against their will, in ways that elicits a sexual bodily response, and the gender of the person is entirely irrelevant. Thus, that a man has an erection in a given situation does not prove or even necessarily imply that he wants a woman to touch or have sex with him.
When women are sexually assaulted by men, those around them are expected to acknowledge the cruelty of the acts they endure. When men are sexually assaulted by women, the same people might trivialize the abuse by treating it as something humorous, unimportant, or less immoral than male-female sexual assault. Anyone who would discriminate against men like this deserves the full hostility of logicians and ethicists. The gender of a victim has absolutely nothing to do with the depravity of an evil behavior.
As a basic logical analysis easily demonstrates, the presence of an erection does not mean that a man consents to whatever a woman wants to do to him. Anyone who pretends otherwise relies on nothing but a blatant, destructive use of the non sequitur fallacy. It is because of moral inconsistency and the prevalence of untrue stereotypes that some deem it socially acceptable to take female-male rape lightly. It enrages me that there are those who do not take female sexual harassment or assault of men seriously, when it is no less evil than assault of a woman. Whether it is dismissed entirely, mocked, or described using myths about female-male rape, the response is often heinous and irrational. The Bible condemns all nonconsensual sexual activities, regardless of the gender of the victimized person [4].
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/bikinis-are-not-sinful.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/when-women-rape-men.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/can-asexuals-masturbate.html
[4]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/misunderstanding-bible-on-rape.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/sexuality-in-marriage-part-1-mutuality.html
No comments:
Post a Comment