A

askaradfem:

The definition of rape seems to be subjective these days. I personally do not believe it is possible for a woman to rape a man, since I define rape as sexual male violence done to females, involving penile penetration orally,vaginally,or anally. Since women don’t have penises, by this definition they cannot rape…unless you’d go out of your way to use a foreign object. But even then I am conflicted, because the term rape also carries a historical context, in which rape has been, as is still largely used a tool by men to keep women subordinate, take away their autonomy, dehumanize them, impregnate, spread disease etc. Rape is used as a weapon during times of war, in which historically more women are killed during the organized mass rapes then the men who die in combat. I cannot apply a vise versa analysis to a highly gendered issue. Sexual assault would be a more appropriate term in my opinion. That would still be considered wrong and unacceptable. -Ana

Considering statutory rape is a thing, and erections being involuntary it’s entirely possible for women to rape men under the influence too. It doesn’t happen nearly as much but to effectively erase male survivors of female abuse assumes there are no women out there with bad intentions or that women are incapable of doing bad things. Although it is heavily gendered we still have to respect male victims of female violence and abuse on an individual level and treat perps the same, or else what we have been saying about our desire to eradicate rape by making it some lesser offense just seems shady to me. My two cents.