The penis as a terrorism device

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Here's a good one: ("Seen On DU™")

Last edited Wed Oct 17, 2012, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)

"Some vocal men" (not talking about anyone in a particular, major fashion, she said, as she took the lens cap off her nikon, cough cough)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=11944

Well, wait a minute. People 'get furious at discussion of rape' (they do?) ... I haven't seen anyone get furious at discussion of rape. What I have seen, in this group at least, was unanimous condemnation of D. Tosh's rape "joke", and a universal agreement that rape is horrible and horrific and one rape is one too many.

But apparently, those men (wink wink nudge nudge) get furious at discussion of rape because- get this- "awareness of rape and speaking out against it might mean they can't put their penises in vaginas as often."

Yes, that's a direct quote.

It might? No, seriously. I want to know how that works. I mean, either someone is calling these "vocal men" rapists, point blank (although even in that extreme case, the precise mechanism of how discussion of rape might be preventing those from raping and as such causing the furiousity, is still unclear) or... hmmm, is someone arguing (again) that rape isn't just rape, that sex[font size=1]*1[/font] actually IS rape, or is sort-of-rape, or sort-of-like-rape, or carries a sort of rapeyness about it...

despite the multitudinous times we've heard protestations that "ANDREA NEVER SAID THAT (she did) and CATHERINE NEVER IMPLIED THAT (she did) and SHEILA DIDNT SAY IT EITHER (yeah, repeatedly, and she still does) and even if we link to Twisty who OKAY SHE DOES SAY THAT... NO ONE HERE BELIEVES IT!!!!!!!!!"

So how is it, then, that "discussion of rape" is preventing penises from entering vaginas or causing some sort of panic about the same not happening? If an argument over whether or not rape numbers are going down (they are) is affecting anyone's sex life, I haven't noticed. I did a nonscientific survey and noted that the frequency of said entry, personally, is slightly better than it was a couple years ago, due to logistical considerations being a bit easier, and certainly a bit better than the statistical average as I understand it to be for couples married the same length of time and age demographic as myself.

So if the 'rape discussions' on DU have had any impact on the frequency of



it's not here.

And why should they?

(Okay, full disclosure: When I am personally posting on DU, my Zinglarp is nowhere near Hoozhah-ville, at least at the exact moment of the composition of the post. There is a limit to how much even I can multi-task. So technically, yes, there may be an impact.)

The only people who would consider rape discussions having anything to do with consensual (i.e. non-rape) sex, are people who don't know, or deliberately want to muddy, the difference.

But apparently, these discussions cause problems[font size=1]*2[/font] because some of Teh Bad Menzz believe "women exist in a perpetual state of yes" and not because they feel obligated from a basic objective fact-based perspective, to to point out that rape numbers have declined in the past 15 years-- directly contradicting certain dire hyperbolic narratives about the state of the pornified objectified hypersexualized[font size=1]*3[/font] culture.

"Absolutely anything that challenges their cherished notion that women exist in a perpetual state of yes"

Well, shit. I don't like to toot my own horn too much, but I did alright in High School, and College. Of course, it was the era of free love, man... namely, the 80s. But still, you know. I never labored under the delusion that women exist in a "perpetual state of yes". I briefly dated a woman back in the day who I suppose might be considered, um.. well, let's just say she wanted to have sex ALL the time. I've had some enthusiastic partners, but never anything like this. To the point where after a couple days I'd be, like, hey I really gotta sit down and watch some tv or something, just chill. Please?



So I guess even *I* don't exist in a perpetual state of yes. I met someone who apparently did, but she was the one doing all the propositioning.

No, obviously, women don't exist in a perpetual state of yes. When men look at porn, do they want to see women who look sexually aroused and who want to have sex (i.e. in a state of "yes&quot Yes, I'd imagine most do. Same way when people go to see a rock and roll band, they like to watch people doing shit like playing guitars and drum kits, as opposed to, say, balancing their checkbooks and knitting hats up on stage. Go figure.

Let's cut to the chase- the whole "PIV critical" thing is more gibberish-laden ranting by people who like to dress up their peculiar authoritarian needs, like the entitled need to tell billions of other humans, (like lesbians who use dildos) how NOT to have sex, how they're doing it wrong, etc. in erudite-sounding word salad polemics. I fully support the right of anyone who doesn't want to have sex, not to have sex. It saddens me that some people, in their isolated corners of the blogosphere, have apparently had such shitty sex experiences that they have decided that no one must really be enjoying it or having a good time.

Sad.

[font size=1]*1"Under P!"
*2 Translation: People refuse to agree to the One True Truth™
*3 remember, sex isn't the same thing as rape. Really. But all the sex, sex, sex must have something to DO with rape. It must![/font]