Skip to main content

"Rape" and "sexual assault" mean nothing anymore

In their misguided eagerness to... I don't even know exactly what... perhaps take some kind of odd "revenge" against men, I suppose... feminism has diluted in an ever-increasing manner the concepts of "rape" and "sexual assault" to the point that they mean almost nothing anymore.

To give an illustrative example, consider these two cases:

1) A man brutally rapes a woman completely against her will, beating her almost to death, and repeatedly forcing himself onto her, leaving long-lasting physical and psychological trauma that will severely impair her life for years to come.

2) Somebody feels a bit nervous and uncomfortable the first time they have a sexual encounter. They are willing at first, but get a bit nervous as the thing progresses, but go with it anyway. Weeks/months/years later they think back at that first-time, and they slightly regret it.

To progressive feminists, both are "sexual assault". I'm not kidding. And I didn't actually make up that second example: It's from an actual feminist video (incidentally, a male feminist, who claims he's the "victim" of "sexual assault" because his first time sexual act was like that. You know, because never in the history of humanity have virgin men been a bit nervous when they have sex for the first time.)

Almost anything is "rape" and "sexual assault" to feminists. Some drunkard briefly touched their butt in a bar and then went away? Sexual assault. Some guy approached them in the bar and proposed sex, and did not immediately back off when denied, but continued for a minute or two before eventually going away? Sexual assault. Somebody shouted something suggestive at them on the street? Sexual assault. And I'm not even making these up.

The problem with this is that feminists are trivializing rape and sexual assault. They are lumping everything into the the same category. Brutal physical rape, or uncomfortable situations involving some sexual innuendo... it's all the same.

Trivializing sexual assault in this manner is only detrimental. When somebody, especially a feminist, says that she's the victim of sexual assault, you have no way of knowing if it's just one of those cases where somebody just remarked something slightly inappropriate to them, or if they just slightly regretted a consensual sexual act afterwards, or whether they indeed were brutally raped against their will. (Invariably if you ask for details, they will refuse to answer, which only makes the suspicions worse.)

This has a "crying wolf" effect. When more and more feminists are claiming that they are "victims" of sexual assault, and it turns out to have been one of those rather innocuous cases completely overblown by the feminist rhetoric, it removes credibility from all people who make such claims, especially including those who are actual victims of real rape.

Ironically, this is exactly the opposite effect of what feminist claim they want. They want victims of rape to be taken more seriously, not less. But with their complete diluting of these terms they are getting the opposite of what they (claim they) want.

Doubly ironically, in fact this is however exactly what they want, even if they don't themselves fully realize it. Deep inside they want to deliberately "cry wolf" in order to make society more suspicious of all rape claims, because this way they justify their own activism. They can point their finger to society and say "see? See? People are disbelieving rape victims. Our activism is needed!"

Comments