When men and women have consensual sex, who is responsible? If you said “both, because they both agreed to and participated in it,” you might be some sort of misandrist feminazi. Because, as W.F. Price explains in a recent Spearhead post, it’s really women who are responsible for consensual heterosexual sex.
If you’re wondering how that could be, well, keep reading. Price starts off by considering what he calls “the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society.”
If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists).
Why yes, Mr. Price, chances are that someone on my street has been raped recently. Indeed, I know numerous women who have been raped. I’m guessing most women don’t share the intensely personal fact that they’ve been raped with you, Mr. Price, because you’re the sort of person who likes to go around talking dismissively about “the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society.”
Let’s continue:
Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?
Well, that’s an interesting approach to logic: snidely dismiss the fact that rape is common, then go ahead and assume it’s true for the sake of the rest of your argument:
One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?
I cannot help but marvel at the twisted logic here. Women want the right to say no to sex they do not want to have. But getting this “no” to be taken seriously is such a problem that some women organize actual protests in the streets to declare that “no means no,” and this means that … they are the ones responsible for sex.
And if women are more responsible for sex than the men they have sex with, just who should bear the responsibility for the pregnancies that sometimes follow? I think you see where Price is going here, but let’s let him spell it out:
Let’s break it down:
Men have a higher sex drive than women
Men have less control over their sexual impulses
Women value the ability to deny sex
Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men
If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.
Since women sometimes say no to sex, they should bear all the costs of raising children?
It’s the strangest evo-psych argument I’ve seen so far: Since men are hardwired to be horndog sex-havers, they shouldn’t have to take responsibility for the consequences of this sexual activity, at least when it comes to contributing something to support the children that sometimes show up about nine months later. Ladies: think of the poor men, at the mercy of their boners! How dare you expect that they pay their share of the costs of raising a child?
In Price’s mind, child support is not only unfair to poor horndog men, it’s a cancer destroying civilization as we know it:
There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.
Raising a child as a single mom is apparently the easiest thing in the world. But making men pay for a portion of the costs for this child is tyranny!
Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.
Despite his own handwringing about the state of The Family, Price doesn’t’ spell out how married men fit into his sex-responsibility equation. Are married men considered as responsible for babies as their wives? Is this responsibility retroactively nullified if they get divorced? It’s all very complicated. Which is, I guess, inevitable, once you arbitrarily decide that two consenting adults who have sex with one another are somehow not equally responsible for this sex.
Naturally, the Spearhead peanut gallery provided many more nuggets of wisdom. WGMOW – apparently a woman herself – gave Price’s bizarre argument a big ditto:
I don’t even see anthing debatable here. It is entirely the females who make the decision when and where to get knocked up, and then get child support from a man with the means to provide her with a bank account and credit cards seemingly for life. It there is no such man available she gets handouts from Big Daddy Government in the form of welfare, Sec 8 housing, free utilities, food stamps, free health care, free college education, and in some states, even a car.
These are the females that feminists say are “strong, powerful, and smart.” Bullshit. They are just as dependant as the females of the Victorian age. Then, they went from the care of their fathers into the care of their husbands. Now, they go from the care of their welfare mothers into the care of the government. All courtesy of our tax dollars.
AfOR put it even more bluntly:
The law fucks men over because they can be made to bleed more than a wimminz, they make better hosts for the parasites of society than wimminz.
Who exactly are the parasites here? The babies?
Hf seemed annoyed that women are allowed any autonomy at all:
Women typically struggle with knowing what exactly it is that they want. The “No Means No” movement is just as much trying to convince themselves and each other as it is trying to convince men. Deception is very much a part of a woman’s autonomy.
Nehalem provided a new slogan for the no-male-responsibility-for-sex-or-babies movement:
To get the point across more easily I suggest we modify a common liberal slogan and say:
Her body, her choice, her responsibility.
This being The Spearhead, it sort of goes without saying that each of these comments got dozens of upvotes.
Apparently, then, the only responsible course of action for unmarried women today is to never ever have sex with men. No sex, no consequences, no responsibilities to share with force upon men! But somehow I suspect that the MRAs of the world wouldn’t be happy with this solution.
3) The comments on Jez were full of women complaining about how offensive they found the whole thing.
AntZ!!!! How you doing buddy? How’s that VR thing going?
And yes, that Jezebel article was in poor taste to start off with, but the kill thing was especially hypocritical and fucked up.
Jezebel is the center of the feminist community online? I thought it was a celeb gossip column aimed at women…oh wait
*gossip site
Antz – Jezebel is not a feminist site. It’s a women’s site, with a heavily feminist readership, which was largely offended by the article.
We even have a thread in the Manboobz forum about that very article: http://manboobz.forummotion.com/t737-jezebel-writes-a-fuck-marry-kill-piece-about-romney-s-sons-pisses-me-off
So, no, “Fuck Marry Kill” is not THE TRUE FACE OF FEMINISM, in fact, it’s something that pissed off feminists before you even heard about it.
AFOR’s blog is truly scary
http://wimminz.wordpress.com/
I was supposed to be learning feminism from Jezebel? Dammmn..
Also anthony, I could find plenty of articles from MRAs along the same lines as marry fuck kill . So what does your favorite word mean again?
Hypocrite.
I know it must be tough for you, Zarat. You want so badly for feminism to live up your expectations, to be a be mirror of your sad little hate movement. You’re grasping at straws, trying so very hard to show that “Look, they’re just as bad as I am! I’m not an asshole, ’cause look what they did!”
You got nothin’. Accept it.
Okay, so I’m learning that you, Zarat, like practically everybody here, don’t much like that Jezebel article. What do you think of the Spearhead piece in the OP? Do you like it?
I have to wonder WTF possessed them to change it from “Kill myself” to “Kill”. Like who looks at that and thinks that THAT’s what belongs on a site that purports to be part of a social movement?
AntZ, you really think Jezebel is heavy feminist reading? You probably do. Look, you’re not going to believe us when we say that article is offensive, so why don’t you fuck off and go perfect your VR wife replacement?
As for the OP, I fully support women not having sex with any guy who gives off so much as a whiff of MRA.
“For once, I agree with you. Feminist discussions about sex are SO MUCH more appropriate than assenine MRA discussionas about ridiculous things like equal rights”
Is that what you guys talk about? Equal rights? For some reason, I thought you were more concerned about arguing how female sufferage has destroyed Western civilization or gleefully declaring that fucking up feminists’ “shit” increases blood flow to your penises.
Yeah, I thought that Jezebel article was pretty bad too. I still think that feminism overall raises very important issues and I’m still going to support feminism over the MRM any day of the week.
@ Shadow
I think the original game actually was fuck/marry/kill, and you’re confusing it with another game – X/Y/or cyanide.
@CassandraSays
Huh, interesting. The version I’ve come across was actually Fuck/Wife/Suicide, part of my decidedly more dickish teenage years (although, come to think of it, i still make “I’d rather die” comments so not necessarily “decidedly more”)
I know, Mags. I should only pay attention to sensible, rational MRAs like Bernard Chapin.
It was introduced to me as “Shag, bag, or cliff” which I think is at least more euphonious than “fuck/marry/kill.” It’s fun to play with fictional characters*, tacky to play with real people, and awful to play in a public forum with real people who never chose to be in the public eye in the first place. It also need not be gendered.
One of the nice things about feminism is the rejection of the idea that women are monolithic. Which means that it’s just not all that effective to try to condemn all feminists based on the actions of some group somewhere that is related to feminism only tangentially, if at all.
*The hardest choice I was ever given was Jonathan Strange, Mr. Norrell, and the man with the thistledown hair.
Eh, I’m OK with the version of the game that has an “I’d rather die” option. It’s unkind, sure, and rather juvenile, but it’s not crossing the line into theoretically homicidal the way Fuck/Marry/Kill is. It’s the “if I don’t want to fuck X then zie should just die” bit that I find problematic, the “I’d rather die!” stuff is just hyperbole.
I love Chapin. He is hilarious as hell.
@Cassandra
Yeah, exactly. “I’d rather die” is a dickish thing to say (which gets less dickish when you have someone with views you find abhorrent or personal history) but the “I don’t want to fuck them so they should just die” is a bit too far for me. The thing is, even that would be something I can tolerate, or at least overlook. It’s taking something that you joke around with your friends and doing it to people on a mass read publication that I find unnecessarily cruel, and to intimate that these dudes should be killed (again, in a publication) because the author didn’t find them fuckable or marriage quality is just, to me, unconscionable. I mean, obviously it’s not literally calling for them to be killed, but still WTF.
Your attempts to derail grow ever more pathetic, Zarat.
How about this? In the last few days, David has given us two posts that highlight self-described members of the MRA who don’t believe that men want to be fathers. That men should not have to be responsible for children because children are the sole desire and, therefore, responsibility of women.
Your thoughts? Are these statements true? Should men be absolved of support, financial or otherwise, for children? Are men completely adverse to fatherhood and forced, coerced into it by women?
Honestly, the Fuck/Marry/Kill the Romney kids post mostly struck me as a rather obvious and pathetic attempt to boost readership. That’s been happening a lot lately, the Jex writers essentially trolling their own blog for hits.
AntZ’s post really made me laugh! It’s downright hilarious! It didn’t need anyone to comment on it, it destroys itself with its own idiocy.
This is what you are, AntZ:
http://manhattaninfidel.com/__oneclick_uploads/2011/05/bozo-the-clown.jpg
Bigot.
“I don’t even see anthing debatable here. It is entirely the females who make the decision when and where to get knocked up, and then get child support from a man with the means to provide her with a bank account and credit cards seemingly for life. It there is no such man available she gets handouts from Big Daddy Government in the form of welfare, Sec 8 housing, free utilities, food stamps, free health care, free college education, and in some states, even a car.”
Taking bets that WGMOW is actually NWO.
And STILL no talk of vasectomies. Can’t these dummies see that they have all the control over whether they impregnate someone? I’m beginning to suspect that they don’t actually want control. They just want to bitch about something… could that be? Could they just be feeling sorry for themselves? Heavy sarcasm, obviously.
@CassandraSays- I’m with you, the only thing of worth was the baby picture. So cute!
@BoggiDWurms There should be a trigger warning for clown pictures. Is it just me? They freak me the fuck out. It’s probably just me. 🙂