Some interesting opinions from the Uganda Rape crisis posted by Oneshot

Poca

Registered User
his is very sad and I truly pity these victims of rape, the inability of people's psyches to accept that men are raped is shocking but to me but not surprising.
I do think a lot of the equation is the fact that people feel that to humilate demean and truly destroy a man is to in effect assume the female position. Setting those things together exposes that in a way that is hard to explain away.
Although some on this thread have suggested a way round, turn it into a fight against misandry.
Maybe that's what its going to take.
It is odd the way that women's rising status, has seen this collusion between women and men who just don't want to go there.
A lot of things are hidden behind equality movements of all kinds.




I understand that although rape occurs it UK prisons it's occurrence has been vastly reduced, whereas in US jails it is commonplace. Is this not connected to societal attitudes to homosexuality?

With regard to the US and Africa, I do wonder also whether the fact that both, to a differing degree, are more macho societies (apols for lumping Africa together but I think it is justified in this limited sense) is relevant.
Someone upthread wondered why, if homosexuality is so reviled, men were so prepared to rape other men - I would answer that the reason homosexuality is reviled is because of the culture of male dominance - gays are seen as degrading themselves by allowing themselves to be treated as women by being penetrated. The act of penetration is considered to be an assertion of male dominance, therefore laudable, and penetrating a man is seen as taking away his manhood. It's a vile, vile act and apart from this, it has a political/social effect that is completely intentional.
In societies where homosexuality is not considered an aberration and to be female is not to be inferior and lesser, the kind of man who wishes to utterly destroy another man is, I think, slightly less likely to reach for rape as the means of doing it.



Much needed insight and well written article. Thankyou. What I dont understand is that in Africa, where 38 nations consider homosexuality a crime and the victim is ostracised, how do men who commit these sexually based crimes view it? how can they physically bring themsleves to rape another man...its seems like some hideous hyprocrisy, that the victim is viewed as being possibly gay, but the perpetrator isnt? Surely this is something that needs to be investigated too?
I suspect that this has something to do with active and passive roles. While I am not well versed in sexual attitudes in Africe I do that than in many cultures, both ancient and modern, a man is not considered to be homosexual if he only rakes the active role, but if he is passive and penetrated is considered to be so,
While homosexual relationships were common and accepted in ancient Greece there were still social rules and expectations governing that behaviour. While it was considered acceptable for an adult male to penetrate a youth it was frowned on for an adult male to be penetrated.
Penetrating another make was not, and in various societies is not, considered to compromise a man's masculine status while being penetrated was immasculating.
For the ancient greeks it was OK for the youth to be penetrated as he had not yet achieved adult male status.
As i say, I am not well versed in the attitudes and beliefs of Africans on this subject but I suspect that this is at least part of the answer.


Mr. Storr makes the familiar "not a zero sum game" argument when he features this answer, "There's a fear among them that this is a zero-sum game; that there's a pre-defined cake and if you start talking about men, you're going to somehow eat a chunk of this cake that's taken them a long time to bake."
And yet, the whole tenor of his article is indeed to play male victims *against* the advocates who generally *do* advocate for *all* rape victims (the 70-30 ratio seems reasonable), and against feminists for exposing the gendered nature of this crime.
To turn this attitude around, does anyone believe that it is *not* shameful for women to come forward and disclose that they have been sexually assaulted, that they do not suffer the genital and anal wounds this article dwells on, a condition aggravated in their case in childbirth and sex?
I am afraid that this article is shot through with the too traditional masculinist suggestion that rape is "worse for men", a stereotype that contributes to obscuring women's experience, silencing male victims, and, indeed, taking a big chunk out of efforts to alleviate their common condition, since the primary targets are victims' advocates.





Masculinity and manliness are the problem. Masculinity drives rapists and explains why the perpetrators of rape are overwhelmingly men immersed in macho culture. Masculinity is why rape victims are silenced. Masculinity and misogynist culture are what create the delusion of male invulnerablity which males cling to and fear they have to lose if they come forward with being victimised, or identify with rape victims. Masculinity and misogyny are why male rape victims are shunned and abandoned, as some people here have understood, because they are considered to have been "like women" - defined by machistas as the rapeable class. Masculinity explains why aid workers won't touch or publicise male victims of rape - it would subvert their own belief in their own invulnerability to it, their "unrapeability", a privilege they cling to terrified.
The delusion of male invulnerability (which is what masculinity is all about) will have to be subverted or the goal of equality will remain an utter farce (as it is now) and the suffering of all people on account of this noxious gender ideology will continue. That seems to be the point of the article to me and I couldn't agree more. This article is very good and there are even some good comments, aside from the obvious attempts at appropriation by certain dogmatic ideologues more concerned with their theories and dialectics than people's lived reality. Anyone who is defending macho culture and masculinisation of males and "invulnerability" of men in any way, shape or form is being reactionary. We would not have wars or rape or violence or revictimisation of victims without macho culture. Macho culture is a sadistic, cruel and violent culture revolving around the idea of objectifying, victimising and hurting people and the destruction of empathy. This is obvious to anyone. Gender ideology is a mortal plague. I do agree that we have feminism and feminist struggle for human rights to thank for this being brought out into the light at all. Thanks to all of you here who are supportive and have the humanity to be outraged.



Actually, it is the taboo nature of homosexuality that makes rape against men such an effective weapon of war in a number of countries. Just as it is the blame and shame that female victims suffer that make it effective. Both men and women are ostracised from families and communities when they have suffered rape, and it is often this aim to destroy communities that motivates sexual violence (because it isn't just rape, forced castration, the removal of breasts, forced incest between families and various other forms of sexual violence take place and have devastating effects)


we are fortunate indeed - both as men and as women - that there have been brave women who have stood up and demanded that female rape be taken seriously. These women endured much scorn and derision, were sidelined and discounted and had to - and still do, looking at some threads here - put up with the callous insensitivities of men (and some women, unfortunately) who would blame the victim, tell them they were responsible because of what they wore, how they acted, for getting drunk, etc. For male rape to be taken seriously, it will take men to "man up" and have courage to confront this issue, the perpetrators and to put this on the map of the ever growing list of human atrocities that need to be eradicated. Rape is a man's issue - it is a man's issue when it comes to the rape of women, and it is a man's issue when it comes to the rape of other men. Men - as bearers of masculinization - are steeped in the sociodynamics of power-over and hierarchisation, expressed in myriad forms of dominance and one-upmanship. This enculturation needs to stop too, and again, only men will be able to challenge that from within the castle walls.




Masculinity and femininity are two sides of the same coin, both defined by the beneficiaries - men. Feminism is an on-going attempt to dislodge the hegemony of male voices defining reality for all people so as to allow different voices to enunciate different realities. Masculinization of men is a rigid prescription in many parts of the world that is geared as much as keeping women in "their place" as it is to keeping men as unreflective participants. Again, however, it is a power structure - a strict hierarchy based on the currency of power. For you to say that
 

Poca

Registered User
I hope you don't mean me when talking about blaming feminists rather than perpetrators. I regard myself as a feminist and have enormous sympathy with the feminist cause. I don't deny the damage done to women over millenia by patriarchal society and its power structures. However, I believe that there is a new wave of gender theorists who recognise that, to a lesser degree, men are also disadvantaged by binary notions of gender and would also benefit from the dismantling of these binaries. Not all men are rapists; not all women are victims rather than perpetrators; not all men are boorish, insensitive and sexually aggressive; not all women are soft and nurturing. The problem is with the view that masculine and feminine behaviours are codified and describe men, in the case of masculine, and women, in the case of feminine, rather than people or, even better, that there are behavioural descriptors that can apply just as equally to men and women. I don't deny for one minute that feminism as a discourse has brought about much of this change and realisation. However, I take issues with the old school feminists who refuse to acknowledge the damage done to men by binary notions of gender. I disagree with the poster who said men need to "man up" and take control of this issue themselves; it is up to all of us has compassionate humans to do more on this issue. It doesn't mean ignoring the horrific plight of female rape victims, but opening our eyes to the horror done to men as well.

In practical terms, what does this mean essentially? Some psychologists "treat" male rape victims by simply telling them to "man up". Pretend it never happened, mate. Go on with being a "man", oh and never tell anyone about it because they'll see you as "less of a man". It's all about getting back in that man box, getting back to feeling like a "man", to feeding that macho ego till its nice and plump again, feeding the invulnerability delusion, supressing the feeling of violation, the despair, the fear, the emotions, all of it. The "man up" ideology which incidentally seems to be behind lad culture which makes society dangerous and hostile for women - why, oh WHY would it be a good thing to perpetuate it? Is this what "gendered" treatment would look like?
The reaction and interpretation of what has happened is "gendered" because society is sexist. We are not treated the same, we are treated differently depending on our sex. We are not allowed to be equals. This is all one big system - machismo. "Manning up" is an integral part of it. We will not have any kind of peace or equality while males are still being shouted at to "man up" or be "real men". This vile admonition needs to disappear at the very least from the lexicon of people claiming to be for equality. Treatment and support should be the same for everyone. We are vulnerable, we need help, we need support and protection. It's not shameful to have been raped. It's shameful to rape. It's not shameful to be assaulted. It's shameful to assault.
One thing is arguing for separate spaces. Personally I'm not sure, but if mixed spaces will mean male rape victims are terrifying female rape victims by their presence this seems like a horrific way to traumatise both. -_- It is a special kind of horrifying to be raped and go for help only see someone look at you with terror in their eyes like you are a rapist yourself. That is a nightmare. Maybe an option between female only spaces and mixed spaces would be a compromise everyone could agree on. But the same services and support should be offered to everyone, there is absolutely no possible excuse for denying services to rape victims who are male.
Another thing is "different", "gendered" treatment to men. That is sexist. Psychologists telling male rape victims "no worries, you're no less of a man, just be sure to shut up about it and never tell anyone, and pretend it didn't happen" are abusers. They are abusing rape victims with their macho ideology. They should be ashamed of themselves. As these ideas of gender are socially constructed stop pushing them on us. I loathe everyone who's ever told me to "be a man" when I've asked for help and that is a LOT of people.
I agree it does seem the most practical thing to do probably is to support these shelters which do exist, volunteer, get training, donate, and publicise them much more than they are. Some of the feminists here seem to be knowledgable about how to get funding for services and wanting to help. Thank you. These ideas and advice could really help from people with experience in these things. You are lucky, here in Madrid as far as I know there are no such things as rape crisis shelters. For anyone. All we have is a hotline
 

Poca

Registered User
Feeling like men cannot be trusted to "control themselves" seems to be the main differentiating issue here. The consequences of males associating other males with rape or feeling they are inherently potential rapists is pathological self-directed hatred - which I have seen out there. There is no safe space from yourself if you come to believe you are a monster. In that context contact with supportive, nurturing, caring male counsellors seems like it would be a very positive self-esteem building thing. When I was little I gobbled up every tiny, fleeting show of affection and warmth from the odd sensitive male like it was my last meal since I had everyone else telling me to just man up.
But most male counsellors I've known though were not this way and were all about "macho" themselves and approach me only with the "man up" philosophy.
There is a gendered ideology which is that men have something to control to begin with. Supposedly we are all raging, barely contained volcanos of unbridled hormonally fuelled sexual desire ready to leap on top of any "attractive woman" at any time. We are only "safe" to the extent we "control ourselves". This idea permeates all mainstream eroticism around male sexuality. It also permeates female heterosexuality and a great deal of heterosexual fantasies about men, doesn't it? The "uncontrolled" desire, the underlying fear and tension, is what is eroticised about male sexuality. Any romance novel, erotic story, pornography, you name it - this is the central theme. Some "tasteful" people put a nice, pretty little bow on it and dress it up with florid language about pounding desires and whatnot, but it is still the same old thing, we are "barely" controlling our "primordial urges". This is rape culture. It is also bullshit. It is pure theatre.
I have nothing to control, no barely contained unbridled desire or "urges". I grew up living with women, frequently naked around the house. It doesn't matter to me. What makes me turned on is very emotional and intellectual stuff, not seeing people's bits or anything. I'm quite male and sexual with females and males. If I feel very sexually excited I can just quietly relieve the tension masturbating. I don't ever feel like jumping anyone. Maybe I'm just "broken", but my impression is men are generally acting out a script and so, for that matter, are women.

This noxious ideology - which is pushed on us from all sides - is weilded by rapists to try to exonerate themselves. And it works. Believers will actually acquit them arguing that they really cannot control their supposed "urges" and rape victims will actually believe the same thing - that they had no control or were somehow "provoked". It is a deadly and dangerous ideology which obfuscates the profound cruelty and sadism of rapists.
But in practical terms I understand you. I have PTSD also I know how irrational it is. For a very long time I would get panic attacks whenever I heard a loud booming voice anywhere in any context only because of the association. I couldn't help it. It is good to have a place you feel is safe, for anyone who could have access to such a space, more power to you. It's not a good idea to trigger people. Furthermore male rape victims being reacted to like potential rapists would only traumatise them further also. What would that accomplish? That would be awful for everyone involved.
But there should be mixed spaces too. There can be both female only spaces and mixed spaces. There just can't be NO spaces, no services, no options, nothing for male victims of rape.


Both women and men are immersed in the same culture where rape is associated with men and with penises. You can't run away from your own body if you have the same body part you were raped with. But you can develop a pathological hatred of it to the point of wanting to cut it off and some do. What preference can you express anyway? You'll be equally vulnerable anywhere. It's inescapable.



Part of the activism around women's rights is: 'Let's prove that women are as good as men.' But the other side is you should look at the fact that men can be weak and vulnerable
I'm not keen on this tbh. It still exists within the male/female binary. What does it mean to be 'as good as men'? Are men inherently good or better than women, that women have to work at it? And why is value placed on male orientated activities like sports, the army and office careers. Surely, as well as giving women equal opportunity to achieve in these areas, other areas considered feminine, like raising a family should be held in higher asteem and men encouraged to take on these responsibilities. The other statement of 'men can be weak and vulnerable' is also problematic. It still suggests a binary that women's natural state is weak and vulnerable and that men can be reduced to this state through acts such as being raped.
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
very good tred poca
it was after reading oneshots post I understood a bit better
in jahmayca there was a big badman who they came to find out was rayping men and keeling them
same thing in merca in the prisons and blk men
then you have the harabs and the lil boys
then you have the Spartans/greeks who considered themselves warriors
there is something about war/captive situations and mentalities that turn men to animals it seems
 

Poca

Registered User
I may be biased but I think it's because, unknowingly, to many sexual acts are things that are "imposed" to someone deemed as weaker. Performing a sexual act on others against their will is the strongest way to assert authority over them, specially in societies where men are deemed the summum of authority.
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
that's the main issue, bias and interests
way I view it same way a woman can be 300 pounds and strong
same way a man can be as such
and both can be evil or good
"strength/weakness" needs to be redefined
 

Oneshot

where de crix
I may be biased but I think it's because, unknowingly, to many sexual acts are things that are "imposed" to someone deemed as weaker. Performing a sexual act on others against their will is the strongest way to assert authority over them, specially in societies where men are deemed the summum of authority.
i dont think it is because the person is deemed as weaker. but in order to establish the hierarchy, rape establishes you are the weaker one.
 

Oneshot

where de crix
very good tred poca
it was after reading oneshots post I understood a bit better
in jahmayca there was a big badman who they came to find out was rayping men and keeling them
same thing in merca in the prisons and blk men
then you have the harabs and the lil boys
then you have the Spartans/greeks who considered themselves warriors
there is something about war/captive situations and mentalities that turn men to animals it seems
the spartans and the greeks were lovers though not clear rape. there are other "homosexual" relationships where the men patronize young boys, with rape it is clearly to use sex as a weapon and destroy the individual mentally and physically, there were some rape cases in the congo, where it seems the soldiers raping the women was less for sex but more for destroying an ethnic group. they would rape the women with spare parts, tree trunks, guns, anything. initially destroying the woman's womb. no womb, the lineage stops there.
 

Poca

Registered User
There is also the "Basha Bazi" situation that is / was present in many societies where homosexuality is strongly frown upon and is punishable. But just like the Greeks, there is also a paedophilia current in there too.


Collective rapes happen in warfare not because soldiers' need for sex but because they know that rape not only destroy the person being taped but also the community in general. In communities where women are reduced to their sexual organ, raping them ( even without using foreign objects) ostracize them from society because even their own cannot accept that intrusion. Long after the war is over, the fact of rape still remains a open wound ouzing shame for the victims and for the communities where those victims are from. No matter who won the war or fight on paper, the rapists most often win the mental war.

I disagree with your notion that people are raped because they are / appear weaker. IMO, it's giving reason to the rapist by putting it on the victims. Rapists rape because they want to show and prove their power. Anyone can end up being a rape victim no matter their strength.
 

Oneshot

where de crix
I disagree with your notion that people are raped because they are / appear weaker. IMO, it's giving reason to the rapist by putting it on the victims. Rapists rape because they want to show and prove their power. Anyone can end up being a rape victim no matter their strength.
i agree with you,
i think the confusion is because my punctuation is wrongly placed.
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
the spartans and the greeks were lovers though not clear rape. there are other "homosexual" relationships where the men patronize young boys, with rape it is clearly to use sex as a weapon and destroy the individual mentally and physically, there were some rape cases in the congo, where it seems the soldiers raping the women was less for sex but more for destroying an ethnic group. they would rape the women with spare parts, tree trunks, guns, anything. initially destroying the woman's womb. no womb, the lineage stops there.
men beat their chests all the time saying they have many women
question becomes is the women theirs by choice
as in did he slickly get her pregnant or did she not have an education etc etcetc

so maybe if given a choice those women would not have been in that relationship

extends to every other sexual relationship

the levels of force or psycalagical manipulation

yet yes I remember reading bout what they did to the women with the trunks n branches

I have come to find out that usually folks who have no BORDERS, especially in relation to violence or sexwality, they are capable of anything

we can lose or chip away at our humanity
 
Top