This Is What It Looks Like v7

I have written before about the callous attitudes male survivors face. Some people believe I lie about how bad it is, that I take benign comments out of context and exaggerate what people actually said. I could certainly do that, but unfortunately I do not have to. It is quite easy to find idiotic comments mocking and humiliating male survivors. For example, the Lesbian Mafia decided to take James Landrith to task for talking about his rape. And by take him to task I mean spending several hundred words mocking James and accusing him of lying about his abuse:

Since we’ve been discussing how feminist, trans activist and liberal agenda-makers have been pushing the idea that women rape men, we decided to go gallivanting through the internets for any examples of women raping men. They are hard to find but we DID find this one gem from back in December and we loved it.

“Former U.S. Marine James Landrith joined HuffPost Live, to tell his story of being raped by a pregnant woman decades ago.”

The fun actually starts right in the title of the article: “Women Raping Men: A Survivor Tells His Story To HuffPost Live.”

Did you SURVIVE??!!! Did you narrowly escape the brutality of her penis-envelopment? Were you afraid for your very life? Did you just barely get away from the pregnant brute and her savage treatment? Thank God you escaped!

A lot could be said, however, I just want to note that the above comments were written by people who think they are doing comedy or satire:

The Lesbian Mafia is a secret society of sexual terrorists and a very violent gang of fun native New Yorkers producing a FREE monthly International Radio Podcast based in NYC.

Our program is listener supported and commercial free.

Rants, fun, foul language, hijinks, political incorrectness, chaos, seriousness, special guests.. rarely because we think most celebrities are a-holes. This isn’t NPR, b*tches!

DISCLAIMER #1 – We don’t take ourselves too seriously. If you offend easily, you may want to seek programming elsewhere. There are many worthy forms of PC entertainment on the web, this is not one of them.

Disclaimer #2 – Just because you are lesbian, feminist, or queer does not mean our program will, or should, reinforce your world view. If you like what you hear, great, keep listening. If you stop enjoying what you are hearing you can tune in to a different episode or you can choose to stop listening and find another program that will suit your tastes.

We create content because we have something to say and to share some laughs. If you find it refreshing to hear Lesbian/women say something different for a change, then tune in and stick around because we love good company. And our listeners are some damn fine company.

So that explains the pathetic attempt at Daily Show-esque humor. However, it does not explain this:

For everyone who has been “educated” consistently by misinformation peddlers like this, take a look at the updated definition of rape that the FBI came out with last year: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” It finally includes men and that’s a good thing but what isn’t new and hasn’t changed is that rape is penetration. So this bullshit they push not only takes a giant shit on rape victims, it does the male victims of sexual assault a disservice. It forces us to compare and reduce women’s experiences by elevating sexual assault to rape instead of acknowledging that all people can have levels of non-consensual sex.

Let us stop there. The issue with the FBI definition was that it did not count acts that were counted by the states, therein skewing the FBI’s report on the rate of rape. Feminists petitioned a change to the defintiion from “forcible rape” to “penetration no matter how slight” to include types of sexual violence against women that were not counted as rape by the FBI. The inclusion of male victims was incidental, not intentional. However, the exclusion of female rapists was indeed intentional. All 50 states recognize that women can commit rape, and typically charge women who commit such acts under existing rape statutes. Yet the feminists who pushed for the change in the FBI definition ignored that, meaning that the FBI still does not count acts of female-on-male sexual violence as rape even when states have charged the acts as such.

Excluding the most common way men are raped does male survivors a disservice, as does claiming that counting their assaults as rape means reducing women’s experiences. If one breaks down the FBI definition, performing oral sex on a woman or girl without her consent counts as rape, but performing oral sex on a man or boy without his consent does not. To put it another way, according to the FBI’s current definition, Jerry Sandusky did not rape any of the boys he performed oral sex on.

The Lesbians tried to weasel out of their argument by stating:

Levels of consent and coercion are something that can be addressed but it is NOT the same as rape. And the constant need to make it the SAME will only highlight the difference unless you’re so far off the rails that only the Universe People can save you.

That depends on how one defines rape. If one goes with the older definition, then only a person who is penetrated can be raped. That definition excludes most male victims since most sexual violence against male victims does not include them being penetrated. They are often forced to penetrate, either by being forced to have vaginal or anal intercourse with the rapist, by having oral sex performed on them, or by being forced to perform cunnilingus or analingus.

Of course, such exclusions would lead to situations like the one I noted above. Several of the boys Jerry Sandusky abused only had Sandusky perform acts on them, mostly oral sex. Does it make sense to claim that the boys were not raped because Sandusky put his mouth around their penises instead of making them put their mouths around his?

The better and currently used definition of rape is any non-consensual sex act that involves intercourse. That definition allows for the possibility that the penetrating person may be the victim. Yes, that definition annoys many feminists because it recognizes women as potential rapists. Yet it is the fairest and most accurate definition to go with, especially if acts like fondling a woman’s vagina can count as rape.

The Lesbians seem to really have a problem understanding how James was raped:

This guy is OUT of his fucking mind and they should be ASHAMED for giving this attention seeking douche-bag a forum. And they have the BALLS to call him a SURVIVOR. He was drugged and incapable of resisting BUT contradicts himself in the same SECOND and says he didn’t want to hurt her or the baby and was forced to submit. Which is it? Were you roofied by a serial penis-enveloping rapist or were you afraid to hurt her and therefore in between a rock and a hard place?

That argument would make more sense if the Lesbians did not argue in the next paragraph that roofied women sometimes have spotty memories. It also does not help that “the most common effects [of Rohypnol] include; disinhibition and amnesia, excitability or aggressive behavior, decreased blood pressure, memory impairment, drowsiness, visual disturbances, semi-consciousness, dizziness, confusion, stomach disturbances, and urinary retention.” In other words, it includes the very things James described.

The Lesbians then went into basic victim blaming:

Did you say “I don’t want to have sex with you?” “Get off me?” (anything?) “You didn’t give me a hard-on, I think you’re gross, the waitress is why my dick is hard, not you” did he TRY ANYTHING to stop this calculated rape attack? Because women are grilled by EEEEEVERYONE when they report SURVIVING a rape. They are always asked if they said no. But some dude has nothing but a story, literally a story, and it’s presented as fact…because…he said it on the internet. Because he’s just SAYING it, it’s PROOF.

If the Lesbians had bothered to check James’ initial recounting of the rape years ago, they would have found people asking those stupid questions. But more odd is the notion that because some women are not believed, James should not be believed. How does that help anyone?

Like many feminists who take issue with anyone writing or talking about female-on-male violence, that topic is not the real issue. The real issue is that those feminists think people should be talking about women, and that is the Lesbians’ real point:

There is a devastating rape problem in the U.S. military that desperately needs to be addressed but instead the controlled left-wing media, online and off, uses their platform to draw attention to bullshit stories like this one where a marine says he was roofied and raped by a sick penis-enveloping bitch. We used to think only Fox News worked this tirelessly against women, apparently we were wrong, apparently Fox News could learn a thing or two about working against women from self-described feminists.

Oddly enough, men make up the majority of victims of military sexual trauma (as the military calls it), and female-on-male assaults are the least likely to be reported because of the military culture and because of the potential responses from secular groups. It makes more sense to highlight a case like James because it reveals to us that these types of assaults happen than to bury it or disbelieve it because it does not fit into one’s warped ideological worldview.

Plenty of men in James’ situation might write off the assault as a joke. While they may feel bothered by it on a personal level, if they tell others about it, they will likely poke fun at it, not because they were not traumatized, but because of responses like the one from the Lesbian Mafia.

Those responses are the reason male survivors remain silent. Those responses are the reason why feminists decided not to include women as potential rapists in their rewrite of the FBI definition. Those responses are the reason why most rape centers do not provide outreach or services to male survivors.

This is what it looks like for men and boys who were raped, and it is not a pretty sight.

17 thoughts on “This Is What It Looks Like v7

  1. A note about terminology, in anticipation to an objection about Toy Soldier’s post that might be raised:: On their “Manifesto” page, the authors of Lesbian Mafia reject the label “feminist.” However, this is because, in their view, feminism is excessively accomodating to men and too concerned about men’s interests and feelings, and so is insufficiently focused on women in general and lesbians in particular.

    Whatever their choice of terms, however, their Manifesto suggests nothing to separate them from standard-issue radfems in their actual views. I’m a libertarian, politically. If I decided that I didn’t want to identify with libertarianism any more but still held all of the same views I do now, calling me a “libertarian” would still be perfectly accurate, whether I applied the term myself or not; same applies to calling Lesbian Mafia a feminist site.

  2. @John…

    They’re not even typical lesbians. They are more akin to the separatist lesbians I used to encounter in inner Melbourne during the seventies and eighties. Basically they hate everybody who is not them. As a general rule I get on quite well with lesbians. Not these ones however.

  3. Did you say “I don’t want to have sex with you?” “Get off me?” (anything?) “You didn’t give me a hard-on, I think you’re gross, the waitress is why my dick is hard, not you” did he TRY ANYTHING to stop this calculated rape attack? Because women are grilled by EEEEEVERYONE when they report SURVIVING a rape. They are always asked if they said no. But some dude has nothing but a story, literally a story, and it’s presented as fact…because…he said it on the internet. Because he’s just SAYING it, it’s PROOF.

    This happens because they WANT to ask those questions to the male victim, they are unable to believe that he has been raped if he didn’t TRY ANYTHING to stop the rape. They understand that this mindset is a fucked up thing when it happens to female victims and so they have to find a way to say this to the male victim without saying it about any female victims – hence we get such a paragraph. They hide behind accusation of a double standard in order to perpetrate their own double standard.

    A similar thing could be witnessed was when a woman after reading a harrowing story a man told about violent rape attempt against him by a female friend made this comment (it’s the best rated one):

    The sad part is, no one will ever ask you what you were wearing and how much you had to drink.

    How complete devoid of empathy must one be to think that’s the sad part of that story?

  4. I note his original story has him being drunk. Matter of fact he was so smashed he said he feared to drive.
    If he is now claiming she used some other drug on him, I say that is extremely unlikely. I think I’ve even posted links here to studies claiming that the vast majority of people who think they have been roofied or had beer or whatever spiked with something other than alcohol are mistaken.

    I’m sorry to bring this up, but it seems his story has changed considerably and in an unlikely manner. People will now be more skeptical of it, not less.

    I fully agree that this Lesbian Mafia piece is disgusting. But had they carefully checked his original story and compared it to now and written a skeptical article about it (instead of male rape in general) they’d have been well within their rights, and thanks to sort of thing even I’m having doubts about the rape now. However I view it more probable that the original story occurred but that his therapist has convinced him that more “must” have happened and his mind is adding details that simply didn’t occur.

  5. Clarence, if you watch James’ interview, he says that the last drink did him in. He goes on to say that it was unusual for him to end up that drunk after a couple of drinks, and the following symptoms he felt the next day were atypical as well. That is not a major change in his story. It may have been a connection he never made until he thought about it. That happens all the time, particularly with sex abuse cases, and especially when alcohol is involved.

    You are right that James could be mistaken and thinks that he was drugged when it was just the effects of the alcohol. Yet that is a different situation than flat out lying or being convinced by someone else. It also does not explain why the rest of his interview matches his initial comments to Dr. Helen.

  6. “The sad part is, no one will ever ask you what you were wearing and how much you had to drink. ”

    No, the sad part is no one asks because they don’t think a man can be raped regardless of what he is wearing or how he looks. They never get that far. That’s what sad.

    “How complete devoid of empathy must one be to think that’s the sad part of that story?”

    Tamen, a lot of people present as human who really just are not. That’s all i cna tell you.

  7. Tamen,

    Most men have it drilled into them from birth that it is utterly shameful to strike or otherwise injure a a member of the opposite sex even when she is carrying out violent aggression against him. As a woman, the author of the article almost certainly has no experience with anything like that (were I a feminist, this is where I’d demand that she “check her privilege”), and thinking of the problems of people who aren’t like her as actually real.seems to be beyond her skills.

    “”This happens because they WANT to ask those questions to the male victim, they are unable to believe that he has been raped if he didn’t TRY ANYTHING to stop the rape.”

    It really is flabbergasting how ignorant “radical” women like this are about how the other half lives. It’s like listening to someone who can’t understand why someone who doesn’t have enough to eat doesn’t just send his manservant to the store to buy more.

  8. Clarence,

    I was there. You weren’t. I told myself that I must have been drunk in order to have had the fogginess and inability to drive. Dealing with the memories again for the first time was raw and I was having trouble piecing it all together clearly. I cannot possibly describe how that felt when I first disclosed it. I had to do several edits to get it out of my head. I never went out and got smashed at a club. That was not who I was then or now. Why would that night have been different for me? My usual SOP was a few drinks early on and then Diet Coke the rest of the night. I went to that club for the music and the DJ as it was the only place around that I could hear The Smiths, Depeche Mode, New Order, etc. for several hours. I didn’t go for the the liquor. I didn’t want a DUI or to hurt anyone on the road driving drunk. A close friend of mine at that time was nearly killed when a drunk driver struck him. I originally believed that I must have been drunk in order to have had the disorientation, etc. because nothing else could have made sense. You can disbelieve all you want. She bought the drinks just before wanting to leave, after I had been drinking Diet Coke for several hours, per the norm for me. She drank nothing alcoholic all night long. I’m so tired of this “he’s lying” game. No matter what I say, someone has to call me a liar.

  9. TS: ” It may have been a connection he never made until he thought about it. That happens all the time, particularly with sex abuse cases, and especially when alcohol is involved.”

    Exactly. It took a while to get everything in order and to stop blaming myself. It was easy to take some of the blame if I thought I was drunk. Why would I get “smashed” as Clarence put it, that night when I never did that on other nights? That would be really out of character given that I don’t like being drunk in public and I came by myself. I really wasn’t looking to blow some of my limited cash on a motel room when I had a bunk at the BEQ on base. It took a while for everything to click into place. Either way, I’m beyond tired of having my experiences questioned by people who weren’t there. I’m done with that. PERIOD.

  10. Clarence, what is with you trying to find holes in stories like this? This isn’t the first time. You’re especially spotty when it comes to sexual assault of teenage boys. It’s become such a pattern with you.

    Now you’re disbeliving James Landrith of all people?

  11. Eagle:
    What the heck?!! If you change a story and do so in a way in which you DECREASE the likelihood of your story being true, then people will notice and look askance at you. Do you want me to post studies about how rarely “date rape” drugs are found when tested for? And this was a pregnant woman. Gee, wonder how many other men this brilliant evil genius of a pregnant woman did this to.

    I even said I still believed his story, but it wasn’t enough for you. Anyway, don’t whine about my opinions on other things that have nothing to do with this.

    Now to James, I’ll say this: I believe your initial story, I do not believe it was likely you were drugged. Since you can’t prove it and have nothing to go on but ‘recovered memories’ over a decade old, forgive me my skepticism. Recovered ‘memories’ have ruined many innocent lives, and if anyone on this blog thinks uncritical acceptance of stories involving them is the only way in which to support sexual abuse survivors then I say they are sadly mistaken.

  12. Clarence, I never once claimed “recovered memories.” I assumed I had to have been drunk based on the symptoms, even though I only remembered having a few drinks. There is a gigantic world of difference between the two concepts. Thanks for your explanation though. I’ve never disclosed the name of my rapist so I’m pretty sure I haven’t ruined anyone’s life. That was a bit dramatic and not accurate with regard to my own experience.

  13. I’ve had this accusation thrown at me too – ‘the legal definition of rape is penetration BY A PENIS. I don’t make the law. What happened to you was bad, but it wasn’t rape and therefore not as bad as if the perpetrator was male’.

    I get to decide how bad it was, no one else. They have no right to minimise what happened and it is the law which needs to change, not me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s