The dimwits who push the female-on-male rape charade are unbelievably childish and naive. They seem to think defining rape is some sort of simplistic mathematical equation where you first accept the most radical feminist definition of rape as the obviously true one, and then you deny all sex differences, and finally use feminist “research” such as NISVS to arrive at some ridiculous prevalence. Never mind that most of the “raped” men hardly feel victimized at all, much less raped, and the sheer ridiculousness if the concept itself.

The imbeciles promulgating this line of supposed men’s rights activism remind me of a four-year-old who has just found out what murder is, and then tries to figure out what the prevalence is by childishly thinking that if murder is to cause someone’s death, then most doctors and anyone associated with hospice care are murderers because they administer palliative care which hastens people’s death rather than putting dying patients in intensive care to extend their agony as long as possible. The child would then logically conclude that oh gee, we need to imprison all doctors because they are all murderers! Of course, anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that you cannot simply apply banal definitions mechanically to learn about profoundly meaningful human concepts such as rape and murder. Grownups used to understand this. Throughout all of history before feminism, all humans had the common sense to understand that women forcing men to have sex does not belong in the category of rape. Even when female sexual coercion really occurs, it is such a qualitatively different, trifling experience for most men that it is ludicrous to call it rape and attempt to treat it exactly the same way. And needless to say, applying the most radical feminist definition of rape on top of all this nonsense can only do men more harm than good.