Tags

, ,

Not even those who demonize such women as “rapists” believe they have penises with which to anally penetrate their mythical and theoretical “victims.” And, to my knowledge, no teachers have been accused and convicted of using violence/force or threats of same -e.g., weapons such as knives or guns or their superior size and strength- to compel their “victims” to engage in sex-acts “against their will,” e.g., to penetrate the women who “raped” them. If so, they’d be more infamous than Mary Letourneau.

So what do they mean when they call such women “rapists”? They mean that the sex is nonconsensual. Like prepubertal children, pubescent teenage males under age 16 or even 18 are now seen as too young and innocent to consent to sex in a meaningful and comprehending sense.

First, even if this were true, describing such women as “rapists,” or even “statutory rapists,” would still be absurd given the realities of penile-vaginal penetration.

Secondly, in many if not most of these “crimes,” the woman isn’t even guilty of seduction. Either the “victim” was the aggressor and initiator or their sexual union could be described as a mutual coming together. So not only is she not a “rapist,” which is true in all such liaisons; she isn’t even a “sexual predator,” another epithet used to brand such women as perverse and dangerous, irrespective of the facts and circumstances.

And given the nature of young men under age 18 who are absurdly defined as “children” or, far less often but even more ludicrously, “little boys,” it’s reasonable to assume that in many if not most of these affairs the “victims” are the aggressors, the initiators, the predators. So, in many if not most intrigues, the “victims” do not assent (i.e., appear to consent since, according to CSA victimologists, they’re too young to actually consent) to sex with their “victimizers.” The “victimizers” consent to sex with their “victims.” Or, in some if not many instances, acquiesce out of fear. The issue of consent or assent relates to the passive and receptive actor.

And, in  some instances, the “victims” are the rapists and molesters. I’m aware of at least 5 cases in which I know or suspect (as probable or possible) that the woman was raped and/or molested by the “child” and “victim” she “raped” and/or “sexually assaulted” by engaging or allegedly engaging in acts of factually consensual intercourse or “sexual contact.” The paramount irony is that in these cases -and who knows how many others of which I know little or nothing- the only rapes, accurately defined, were committed by the “victims” of “rape” and “sexual assault.” The women were raped, in fact, by the “victims” they “raped” in theory and by definition.

 

Advertisements