He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.
Huh. I've had sex with a man while we were both drunk. Also, when only I was drunk. Also, when I was sober and he was drunk. Also, with a woman while I was drunk and she was less drunk.
He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense.
I vigorously protest the watering-down of the legal definition of rape. Rape is serious, and it should be considered serious, and no one's gonna do that if 90% of human sexual interactions can be classified as rape.
He has accused a rape victim of having “buyer’s remorse” or wanting to get money from the man.
I am aware of several cases of "buyer's remorse" rape--usually based on things women have done while under the influence of alcohol or drugs that they would not have done otherwise, or things women have done while in relationships that they regretted, or things women have done thinking it "meant more" than it did to a guy.
He has blamed a woman for “putting herself in a situation” where she “could be” attacked.
I held myself partly responsible for my own sexual assault, and would prefer it if other women held themselves accountable for their own choices, decisions and actions, no matter what the outcome. This does not mean blaming a victim or saying she deserved it. It just means that, yeah, there were things she could have done that would have prevented her assault. Duh.
He has procured a prostitute.
Okay, I haven't procured a prostitute. But I wouldn't demure from doing so, or from being the recipient of a lap-dance performed by a female stripper. You know, if any of you all were interested in buying, since money's pretty tight for me right now. Just sayin'...
He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes.
I feel sex work is a legitimate job choice. Sure, it isn't the career I'd want for my daughter, but women have every fucking right to decide what to do with their own bodies. Don't they? Even if that means selling or renting out the use of them.
He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional.
Sex IS transactional. At its most basic biological level, it's an exchange of necessary male genetic material (sperm) in return for a man getting a shot at reproducing (9 month lease on a woman's uterus for his kid). Outside of that, it is pleasure in exchange for pleasure. It is also sometimes regular blowjobs in exchange for resources--like a nice big credit card, a roof over one's head, a diamond ring, etc.
He has gone to a strip club.
I've been to strip clubs. Been on ladies' night (never again), on men's night at a gay club (better than ladies' night in many ways), and typical strip clubs where women dance for men (frickin' awesome).
He is anti-abortion.
I am not anti-abortion, but I do feel kind of icky when I see the "abortions for everyone!" mentality that seems to be the norm in some feminist circles, as if it's just not a big deal. It should be a big deal. Apparently, even thinking that is somehow considered by some to be "against women", but it's how I feel.
He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.
I am pro-choice. Not because I think women would want to have sex with more men (or with me), but because I'm a realist.
He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.”
I write porn. Just because what I write is aimed mainly at a female readership doesn't mean men haven't read it, enjoyed it, or gotten off on it. In fact, the emails I get from male readers are the ones that tickle me most. According to this woman, I have no right to write what I choose to, because freedom of speech is no defence.
He watches pornography in which women are depicted.
I watch porn. A lot of porn. Most--not all--of it depicts women.
He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present.
Oh shit, the gay porn I like best is a little rough and tumble, usually involves someone getting pinned down and...well, never mind. You all don't need to know the details.
He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women’s desire to “get” a man.
Good grief, what else is it? It's to either get or keep a man, ffs. The barest reading of any anthropological or evolutionary theory would tell her this. If I'm running out to the store for smokes, I barely get myself presentable. If I'm "going out", with or without a man, I put in a little more effort. If I'm looking to meet men, I want to look my best. If I'm with a man who's important to me, I also want to look my best.
He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually “hoodwinked,” or sexually harassed.
Um...I have a sense of humor. A while back, someone used the term Rapey McRaperson ("men don't wear name tags that say Rapey McRaperson, you can't tell who's a rapist just by looking" or whatever) in an online debate on rape, and it became my pet name for my boyfriend. Yes, I'm that sick.
He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects
Okay, the Real Housewives...nope. Baywatch...oh hell no. Chicago...also bad. Flashdance...shield your virgin eyes. The Oscar Awards pre-show with red carpet interviews? NO. Um...is it okay for me to think Angelina Jolie is hot? Is it? IS IT!!???
He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification.
I've mocked women who've been offended by ridiculous, petty, trivial shit. A whistle? A guy who keeps looking at those boobs you've got all pushed up and on display even though, "My eyes are up here, asshole!"? Seriously? And I do mock women for hating the way women are "objectified" in the media--not because objectification is wrong, but because the real problem in objectifying women like Pamela Anderson or Tara Reid or whoever, sends the message that those women are the valuable ones, the ones men should seek out and pursue, when a princess who spends $1000/month on her appearance generally has nothing but her appearance and her burdens to offer anyone in a relationship.
He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them.
I wish women would be less sexually liberated, because frankly, 95% of them can't handle the implications of it. Or rather, I'd like to see women liberated differently--equal measures of freedom and accountability. And if more of them ended up wanting to bonk me as a result, that's awesome!
He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are “inhibited,” “prudes,” “stuck-up,” “man-haters,” or psychologically ill.
Women who don't want to have sex with men are 1) lesbians, 2) asexual, or 3) married to him. Pretty much.
He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are “cultural” and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention.
Holding open doors for women is a cultural behavior. Giving up a seat on the bus to a woman is a cultural behavior. So is a lot of other gender relations stuff. Sheesh. And while cultural norms are under the purview of feminism, feminism does not have a lock on legitimacy. Other ways of thinking, behaving and viewing the world can be just as valid.
He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men.
Okay, so feminism is okay for subordinating the interests of men to the interests of women. That's cool. Women should be women's first priority, just like I and my kids should be my first priority. But dudes? You should NEVER be your own first priority. Never ever ever--especially in a conversation with a woman--present your own feelings or PoV on the given topic. Never mind that your own feelings as yourself and as a man are the only ones you have direct and clear understanding of--if you speak to your own experience, you're subordinating the interests of women. And for god sake, DO NOT say anything like, "Hey, we're all people, right? We all have the same basic wants--to be safe, happy and successful and shit." So don't speak for yourselves, guys. Also, don't presume to speak for anyone else. Actually, you should probably just shut up completely. Got it?
He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a woman’s physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a man’s.
In my experience, it's almost always the other way around. Men go without sex in their marriages for years, because they consider their wife's lack of sexual desire to be more deserving of respect than their own desire for sex. Same goes for all the other shit, too. Most marriages revolve around putting a wife's emotional, physical, psychological and sexual needs first. Same with general behaviors that are gender based.
He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women.
Huh. Sexual terminology. I'll make sure to let my editor know there will be no penetration in my books, no mention of staffs, shafts, and the like from now on. And HOLES? OMG, no. Never ever ever mention anything about holes. You sick fuck.
He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.”
Annnnnddd...pretty much all the sex I actually enjoy is now categorized as supporting of rape. Pinning, dominating, spanking, struggle for dominance, consensual roleplaying. All of it, abuse, no matter how much I say I like and want it, no matter that I consider it not just enjoyable but a requirement in any long term relationship I will ever have, how hard I get off on it, or how much the tender "rock me gently" stuff bores the fuck out of me. Any man I would want to be with is by default a rape supporter.
He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of “consent” or “willingness.”
I lost my virginity when I was 15. I wanted it--I was kind of on a mission, actually--and don't regret anything about how it went down. But hey, apparently that guy raped me, and is a rape supporter. For doing what I asked him to do.
He promotes the idea that women as a class are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they “should” have children.
Humans, like every other species, have a biological drive to procreate. Not every member will have this drive to the same degree--and the ones who don't will get selected out of the species, won't they? Moreover, not every woman should have children. I certainly hope the woman who compiled this list doesn't. That being said, I couldn't imagine a life without my own kids. I know a lot of women who feel the same--probably the majority.
He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.”
I have sexual needs. Beyond perpetuation of the species--which is a fucking need, right? Every man I've been with has had sexual needs. Every woman I've been with has sexual needs. That people don't drop dead if their sexual needs aren't met doesn't make them any less of a biological and psychological drive. I mean, hey, technically I don't need a house, or an education, or a phone, I could survive without any of them, but they're still considered basic needs, important for my happiness and ability to function as a healthy individual. And so is sex.
He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing.
I don't really have a "type" when it comes to men, but I sure do when it comes to women. They're generally petite, curvy but with small breasts, youngish, and have hair long enough for me to pull. But that's not to say I'm only attracted to those "types" of women, or that I'll continue to be attracted to all who fit the "type" once they've opened their mouths, either. I don't go out of my way to inform people I'm not attracted to them, though. I leave that to the 80% of the women in the bar who take joy in doing it to men.
He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity.
Oooh! Lesbians! Lesbian porn. Mmmmmm....
He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them.
I defend these actions by saying almost all people, male or female, will hit at least a few items on this list. Most of us, male or female, will hit several. With the exception of Mother Teresa, Jesus, and brain-injured individuals hooked up to life support. And the fact that she is unconcerned with how many women fit this list, shows how bigoted she really is.
This woman compiled this list as a way of proving "all men are evil," by designing it in such a way that even my 8 year old son would fail (he's constantly telling the girls who "like" him that they're gross, after all). There is not a man alive who wouldn't fail, and she knows it. She demonstrates this by claiming:
So, let’s see how many women reading this know at least one male over the age of 18who does not fit this list. Anybody?
Of course, there's no one who can. That's the point. And if every man in the world is a rape supporter, I'd like to join them in solidarity by proclaiming: According to Evebitfirst, I'm a rape supporter, and I'm proud. To be otherwise is to deny everything that makes me human, everything that gets me wet, everything that pleases or fulfills me about life. My kids, my sexuality, my purpose, my relationships, my body and my mind.