« Joseph, Joseph, and biblical role models | Main | Last Thursday poem of the year: Milne's King's John's Christmas »

December 22, 2004


La Lubu

*cough! choke!*

"There is a 1:1 ratio of men to women AIDS sufferers. Obviously women are having as much sex as the men are." You are aware that women are more likely to contract AIDS from men, than vice-versa? Even for women who have not had FGM?

And by the way, it is worth mentioning that female rape survivors are not "having sex". They are being raped. It is extremely offensive to me that you are equating sex with rape. AIDS goes hand-in-hand with rape in Africa.

Keep talking about male circumcision, and keep ignoring that feminists have been questioning the practice a lot longer than anyone else, as part of the whole sex-negativity trip that patriarchy pushes. Feminists did not institute the practice, either here in the U.S. or historically anywhere in the world.

"women have not died in the millions in wars they did not start."

*cough! choke! hack!* Hmm....Mongols invading Europe didn't kill any women? the Burning Times/Inquisition? Middle Passage? Genocide against Native Americans? the Holocaust? Rape of Nanking? Stalin's purges? the Killing Fields? Rwanda? Are you claiming that women were not killed in any great numbers in these and other events, or are you claiming that women started these killings? Are you allergic to history books?!

Lynn Gazis-Sax

If FGM does not result in sexual dysfunction, then is it acceptable to circumcise girls for cosmetic purposes, like is done to boys now?

Since FGM does result in sexual dysfunction, I'm not sure why you're posing this question. But I'll play along, just as a hypothetical. If FGM didn't result in sexual dysfunction, and had no serious long-term risks, I'd still think it a bad idea to do it for cosmetic purposes, because it would still hurt like bloody hell.

And if you want to argue that male circumcision has no medical benefit, and that we shouldn't be doing something that hurts like bloody hell for cosmetic purposes, I'll raise no objection.

Just don't deny that women who have been infibulated suffer serious sexual dysfunction, and numerous other health risks, as a result; that's all I ask.

Sure, when you also admit that there are men all over the world far worse off than western women.

OK, fine, I have no problem with that. There are lots of places in the world where both men and women suffer things that are faced by neither western middle class men nor by western middle class women.

Neither sex is over all more oppressed than the other.

Well, no, I'm going to have to part company with you here. It's true that everywhere in the world the poor suffer in relation to the rich, only a few have power, etc. But it's also true that in many places in the world women do much more work than men, suffer many more restrictions on their movements, etc. A man in Iran is not free, but a woman in Iran is a whole lot less free. And women still get killed in wars, because not only soldier die in wars when you're actually in the place where the war is happening. When war comes to your neighborhood, women get killed and raped. In some situations, men really do suffer more than women, but overall, especially if I'm looking at the world as a whole, I'd have to say that women have it worse. (I personally, on the other hand, don't have it especially bad at all. I'm privileged compared to most of the world, and I know it.)

But, why do we need to say that the suffering of men and women is equal, for men's suffering to be real? I'd rather be La Lubu's real estate agent friend who was raped at gunpoint and not believed by the police than be a woman raped in some other country and threatened with an honor killing for being raped. Doesn't mean La Lubu's friend doesn't have reason to be radicalized.


As Hugo said, if you are not openly against it, you are for it.

Sorry, but this is such a load of crap; I'm not openly out campaigning against animal testing and making a hella noise about it, but I don't support it. I'm not out leafleting against the prison system, but I don't agree with it. Hell, I'm against I.D. cards in the UK but I haven't done any activism about it or even got in many internet discussions about it. There's only so much one person can care about, and one movement can cover! It's ridiculous to suggest everyone who isn't vocally anti-circumcision is pro-mutilated small children.

And besides, where is the evidence that feminists are a) pro-cicurmcision and b) all ignoring it?


La lubu said:
"rla: I'll give you a break since you're writing from the U.K.; here in the U.S. the vindication wouldn't be on page 17, it would be front-page news. Plus, he'd have ample opportunity to hit the talk-show circuit, and get a made-for-TV movie deal. Here, false accusations of rape are far less of a problem than actual rapes not being prosecuted."

So a false accusation doesn't really matter because the compensation is so generous and he'd soon be on TV... Hmmm....

I don't know what I've been complaining about! Bring on those false rape charges - who wants to work one's way up in the film industry the hard way! All an aspiring male actor needs is a Catholic girl who's feeling guilty about having sex, or a girl trying to explain to her parents why she was out so late, or a woman who was angry that a one-night-stand did not cuddle her in the morning - and his career is made.

Yep, I'll file that one away under "plans for a career change".

All of these types of false allegation happen. Regularly. Although, I am sure that this has nothing to do with our perception of alleged rape victims.

If I said before that the victims of false allegations are the falsely accused, I would like to amend that by adding that real rape victims are also victims of these liars.

The real fact is that so much of all this can be avoided with equal treatment of the relevant victims. It really is that simple. Yet, for some reason, women that I have discussed this with don't seem to want that to happen. Ever. Under any circumstances.

Rape is such a complex issue, with so many "rapes" asserted that turn out to be based on what a woman "feels" happened instead of the rightful assesment of what "actually" happened.

This is what I have found that a lot of women have great issue with. They, almost to a woman, resent the idea of being questioned about events surrounding an alleged rape (or even less serious sexual assault charge). It's like they are outraged that all their allegations are not taken as absolute truth.

An investigation is not an accusation against a victim. But an investigation may not agree with the victims assessment - or desire - and that's where the outrage comes from. I have lost court cases becasue I could not establish the facts in the same light as I saw them. That does not mean that I am a victim. It means that other people looked at the same facts as I did, and saw a different picture.

It our gender landscape, I understand how tempting it must be for women to claim sole rights to victimhood. That's why when I discuss things of this nature with women, I don't try and hold back the tide, as it were, by pointing out errors and fallacies.

Instead I just want to put forward the somewhat radical view that other people do exist, and some of these people have lives that have been destroyed by false allegations, and a lot of these other people are men.

It seems to be that last bit that is the biggest hurdle for some.


The real fact is that so much of all this can be avoided with equal treatment of the relevant victims. It really is that simple. Yet, for some reason, women that I have discussed this with don't seem to want that to happen. Ever. Under any circumstances.

Funny, most people I know, feminist and otherwise, think both the accused and the alleged victim should remain anonymous in rape cases. It's not feminism that goes round naming and shaming alleged rapists, but our hysterical media.

Rape is such a complex issue, with so many "rapes" asserted that turn out to be based on what a woman "feels" happened instead of the rightful assesment of what "actually" happened

The problem here, and with much of the MRA material I've read on the matter, is that a not-guilty verdict does not automatically mean the woman was lying. Nor does the difficulty surrounding prosecution of rape and date rape in particular mean that the woman in question's assessment of the events is based on emotion as opposed to rationality.


Thisgirl said:
"a not-guilty verdict does not automatically mean the woman was lying"

Agreed. Although she may have been lying. Often the cause of a not guilty verdict is due to, shall we say, *inconsistencies* in her version of events.

"Nor does the difficulty surrounding prosecution of rape and date rape in particular mean that the woman in question's assessment of the events is based on emotion as opposed to rationality."

Agreed. With a not-guilty verdict, the fact is that other people i.e. the jury, do not agree with her subjective experience - whatever it is based on. Basically, she thinks she's been raped, but in law, and in other peoples opinions, she hasn't.

So I intended to use the word *feels* to encompass *thinks* or even *calculates* - whatever word we use to describe one persons point of view.

"Funny, most people I know, feminist and otherwise, think both the accused and the alleged victim should remain anonymous in rape cases. It's not feminism that goes round naming and shaming alleged rapists, but our hysterical media."

I have yet to see anyone on this board assert this. Instead, every respondent to this subject has sought to marginalise a falsely accused man's experience, and concentrate fully on the experience of an *alleged* rape victim. My point being that this discussion is about the consequences of false allegations of rape, not the consequences of rape itself.

One respondent has even suggested it's a bonus for a man to be falsely accused due to TV deals and talk show appearances after the truth comes out. I beg to disagree.

Sometimes the truth never comes out. Sometimes the truth takes 17 years to come out. Sometimes the accused has committed suicide before the truth comes out. Sometimes the falsely accused is imprisoned, genuinely raped, beaten, sacked, ostracised and/or homeless before the truth comes out. Sometimes the truth is squeaked after the lie has been roared.

And because I have yet to hear a woman assert that men and women should be treated equally in this issue, I would think it misguided of me to just blame the media for the status quo.


1. If FGM does not result in sexual dysfunction, then is it acceptable to circumcise girls for cosmetic purposes, like is done to boys now?

2. What is the reason for the one must be worse than the other?

Jen, do you even know what happens with FGM? The clitoral hood, and often the clitoris itself is removed. The labia are removed, and then the two sides are stitched closed, leaving only two small holes for the escape of urine and menstrual fluids.

The analogous male procedure would be if the penis was removed, the scrotum opened up and cut away, and then stitched closed over the stump of the penis, with a small hole left for urine to escape. Can you better understand now why this would interfere with sexual function, not to mention daily elimination?

The closest analog to the foreskin on a woman is the clitoral hood. Removal of the clitoral hood, like removal of the foreskin, would be painful and unnecessary, but would not interfere with basic sexual function. It might change the quality of sexual enjoyment, but it would not eliminate it.


"Hey, other men's rights fellas -- I take your silence in response to this Hugo as support for his tactics. No doubt you will let me know if that is fair or not"

I take the lack of assertation on this thread that all circumcision is immoral and should be banned as support for the procedure.

La Lubu

rla, you're missing the point. The reason a man imprisoned for a false accusation of rape would be able to hit the talk-show circuit or get a movie deal would be because of the extreme rarity of that situation. I agree that it would be a horrible experience for that man, and that he should be entitled to restitution, just like anyone else convicted of a crime they did not commit. However, when the truth comes out, he will not be remembered for being a rapist. He will be remembered for his false imprisonment. Remember Richard Jewell? Here in the U.S., people remember him as the man falsely accused of the Olympic bombings, not as the Olympic bomber!

False allegations of rape are rare. Convictions on those false allegations are even rarer. Rape is far more common. Rape survivors not being believed is very common. Rape convictions are not very common.

There is a baggage attached to rape that is not present with other crimes. If you were victimized by a mugging or pickpocketing, and you went to report it at the police station, it would be business-as-usual. You wouldn't be asked why you were carrying a wallet, or why you had x amount of dollars in it. If the police found someone trying to use your identification, or your credit cards, he or she would not be able to say, "but rla gave that to me to buy this! He specifically handed over his wallet!" No one would buy that.

It is a different scenario for a person who is raped. The real estate agent I spoke of "felt" that she had been raped. She "felt" that way, because a strange man put a gun to her head and forced his penis into her vagina and her anus, very roughly, and against her will. Her person was violated. You would say that she "thinks" she's been raped, but in the minds of other people, she hasn't been. Other people who feel that it was her fault, because she "put herself in that position", i.e., by assuming that this man was a legitimate client looking for a house, and entering the house alone with him.

Do you know why some people would feel that way? It's a distancing technique. They want to believe that rape is something that will not, cannot happen to them. Paradoxically, older male jurors are more likely to convict a rapist; they identify with the husband or father of the victim. Female jurors are less likely to convict, because they identify with the rape victim. They want to believe that if they had been in that position, that they would have done "something" different, something that would have allowed them to escape. They want to believe that they would have been able to successfully fight off the rapist, or pick up on his "bad vibes" and thus avoid the situation entirely.

Keep in mind that rape and murder often go hand in hand. Mutilation too. Some rapists really get off on torturing their victims before killing them. Rape victims need to keep survival foremost in their minds. For the real estate agent, that meant not attempting to strike her attacker. She would have been shot. Her rapist's next victim was carjacked and taken to a remote location. She was shot repeatedly, then her body was dumped in a different location. Yet many people still continue to believe that if the rape victim didn't "fight back", that the sex was consensual. Some victims were unable to say the word "no" because their rapists strangled them throught the rape. They "felt" they were raped. Their rapist felt entitled to their body. Their rapist felt entitled to treat that person as a piece of meat. And in some instances, that rapist felt entitled to kill that person to cover up the crime, and thus avoid punishment. Now, do you see what is repugnant about your claims of "thoughts" or "feelings"? No. Rape is about the action.

Meanwhile, the definition of rape: one person says "no", and the other person continues. Or, one person is unable to give consent due to unconsciousness, disability, or age, and the other person goes ahead with the rape. It has nothing to do with "feelings". What is so painfully difficult to understand about no meaning no?


Let Jen spout off about sex-crazed darkies elsewhere. Might I suggest the White Citizens' Council website?


Boy, where to start, La Lubu?

First my one and only point in all of this, which still fails to find purchase (are you with us thisgirl? See what I mean?) was that the falsely accused are victims as well as those who are raped. Due to that, they are worthy of the small protection of anonymity until proven otherwise.

That everyone on this thread has disagreed with, sidetracked, dodged and rebutted this tiny provision is indicative of a narrowed point of view that can be justly described as... disturbing.

That aside, the commonality and seriousness of any rape is not at issue. The commonality and seriousness of false accusations is also not at issue - although "rare", as you put it, is right up there with "driving a truck is more dangerous in Iraq these days than being in a combat unit" that someone else said a while ago. Fantastic.

The issue I have been striving to describe to you, is that in the case of rape, anonymity granted to the complainant and not the defendant is not justified because it is open to abuse. The consequences of said abuse, can be severe, but are not central to the point anymore than the details of a particular rape are not relevant.

How about this? Terrorist attacks are very rare. Therefore we should take no steps to protect our citizens against attack. What do you think?

If we can turn "rare" into "never" with the stroke of a pen - then why not?

As for the thoughts and feelings of the victims of genuine rape, I freely admit to my inability to understand how that must be. It is a terrible event to endure.

And so I am somewhat disappointed that my comments have been taken so far out of the realms of feasability. It is... *unworthy* in comparison to some of the debate held thus far. Oh well.

Real rapes are terrible. Regretted sex is not rape - although, for numerous reasons, she might like to feel that it was. Reinterpretation of a sexual encounter is not rape. Claiming rape and then having consensual sex with someone else later that evening, puts the lie to rape. Claiming a rape took place in the past with the same partner you are having consensual sex with now puts the lie to rape. Claiming to have withdrawn consent during sex, but not getting around to mentioning it to the alleged rapist is not rape. An invented sexual encounter is not rape. Consenting sex that becomes rape when he doesn't call her the next day is not rape. Yet all of these gems have reached jury trial in the UK and USA...

Basically, any "rape" that can comfortably exist only in the mind of one person is highly unlikely to be a genuine rape.

La Lubu said:
"Now, do you see what is repugnant about your claims of "thoughts" or "feelings"? No. Rape is about the action."

It is precisely because rape is about the action that it is repugnant when yet another false allegation is brought to light, dreamt up by a woman who *feels* wronged.

I said it before and here it is again: the victims of false accusations are the falsely accused AND the *real* victims of rape.


Many "false accusations" are made by women who were really raped, but who decide that the cost of going through with the prosecution is just too high.

Lawrence Krubner

"As for feminists, they are supporting gay rights, but in supporting them, they are destroying the homo-social(homosexual behavior) cultures of men by forcing men to take sides."

I can't agree with the idea that feminism is the force destroying the assumption of bi-sexuality among men. That change happened in Western culture in the early 1700s, before feminism was much of a force. Will and Ariel Durant, in their History of Civilization, remark that a number of women opened salons around the time of the South Sea Bubble (1719-1721), and some of these salons were understood to be meeting places for men who wanted to have sex with other men. A few years later, I think it was 1726, the sherrif of London cracked down on the growing problem of soddomy, and these salons were raided. About 750 soddomites were put to death. I take this incident to be indicative of the new view of male sexuality, where men having sex with men were understood as some kind of political threat to the definition of being male. This was a significant change from the view that prevailed 60 years before when Milton wrote Paradise Lost. For Milton, and his contempories, it seemed perfectly obvious that when Satan went to tempt Jesus on the cross then Satan would offer Jesus both the most beautiful women and also the most beautiful young boys. But after 1700 it becomes obvious, common sense, accepted fact that Jesus must have been heterosexual in the modern sense and therefore Satan would not have bothered to offer him beautiful boys.

The assumption of bi-sexuality among men clearly disappears during the period 1700-1750, an era when feminism was quiet.

Talking in Circles

Give me the self administered, lm my own boss, can put my feet up regularly, fill an 8 hr day with 2 hrs of work, home-maker job any day. Hell, l can even get on the poota a rack up $50k+ pa speculating in financial securities too. And drop the kid off with the grannies and creches 2-4 working daze a week. A (male) friend of mine has been doing just that... and its a breeze.


Hm, a (male) friend of mine does that too, and it's exactly the opposite of a breeze. Of course, he doesn't rely on women to do his work for him (cf. "grannies and creches"), preferring to be an actual *involved* dad and isn't willing to risk our money speculating on the Internet.

I work 60+ hours a week as a wage slave. I consider myself to be the one with the cushy gig.

Talking in Circles

er, last l heard, the grannies also consist of grandads, who seeing as the're retired are also doing the free baby sitting. At least the women in creches doing the work are getting paid. So what's the problem with someone providing a paid service? Be they men, women, black, white, hispanic, asian, tall, short, fat skinny, blue eyes or brown eyes?

Your prospensity to twist everything as a slight on men is getting rather tiring. Being an 'actual involved parent' in your words doesn't reflect to favourable on the side you bat for. My point is that people make their choices and some whine about it and others just get on with it. Which are you?


last l heard, the grannies also consist of grandads

"Granny" (plural, "grannies") has always referred to females as far as I've ever heard. Perhaps this is some regional language difference?

Amused as I am that an anti-feminist is complaining that I am defending men's involvement with their children, no, that's not what your post depicted. You were nattering about how keeping a house and rearing children is a creampuff job. Hey, go for it. Just don't complain when you find out just how little time you get to "put your feet up." (You might want to keep your opinions about your innate June Cleaver tendencies away from your high-powered executive wife, so she keeps being your meal ticket uncomplainingly.)

As I've told people who now pat me on the back for "working so hard," my secretary never bangs on the bathroom door to ask me to sign a document, and I don't have to make my co-workers' lunch.

Talking in Circles

Keeping house and raising kids, from first hand observaion of a male friend who done did it... well it is a cream puff job, in his opinion. He had plenty time to put his feet up. Enough time for me to visit couple of times week and play with his son. If you got 2 or 3 kids, then that is a whole other matter. Im not anti, nor pro, this, that or the other. lm just nattering on about accountability. Whilst a few of you (on both sides of the debate) may embrace it without reservation, most spend their time rationalsing double standards. Constantly dancing about avoiding the central issues and engaging in argumentative deflections.

Moncler Pas Cher

La doudoune Moncler sont gilets coupe-vent et résistant à l'eau consomment que l'essentiel n'ont pas l'intérieur de l'isolation

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004