Men, In Case You Missed It, We Are ALL Rapists

As I mentioned in my previous new year post, this is a sign of societal devolution, but according to Radical Wind, aka Witch Wind, we male of the human species are ALL rapists.
In the link, Miss Witch Wind starts off with the obvious:

Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.

Uh, what is PIV you asked?
OK I think its actually safe for work.
Penis in vagina.
Until I read the blog post last week, I sort of heard about this way, way, way over at the beyond fever swamps. And yet, thanks to Miss Witch Wind, its has moved just to the way over beyond the fever swamp.
Oh, how am I certain to refer to her as Miss Witch Wind? Come on, you really have to ask?
But she actually does raise some interesting thoughts.
Do we men really coerce a girl from the earliest of ages possible that having sexual relations with a male is wonderful? Well, according to Miss Witch Wind, why that is exactly what us eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll men do:

There's a reason men need to groom us into it: and why this grooming takes so long-because it is grossly violating an traumitising that we would otherwise never submit to intercourse. The only reason we may now not feel or have the impression that we desired or initiated PIV, is because men broke down our barriers very skillfully and progressively from birth, breaking down our natural defences to pain and invasion, our confidence in our own perceptions and sensations of fear and disgust that tell us male sexual invasion painful, harmful and traumatic.

I suspect that Miss Witch Wind is English judging by her use of the Queen's English in the above.
Yes, we eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll men have from the beginning of time have essentially lied to women to get our rocks off, to be blunt.
There is a lot to ask here.
So, Miss Witch Wind, how should a woman engage in sex? I am to assume that only with each other. Because there is absolutely no way that a woman-to-woman relationship would be painful, harmful and or traumatic, right?
Sorry for the graphicness, but a question for Miss Witch Wind and her followers.
Is there never any insertion into the vagina in woman-to-woman sex? Do women not use hands, fingers, sexual toys? And if there is, well does it not cause pain? Is not potentially harmful? And if it is with the wrong woman, can it not be traumatic?
Let me backup and let Miss Witch Wind explain why it is awful, just awful for women to engage in sex with men:

First, well sex is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the the unilateral penetration of the penis in the woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not - which is the definition of rape: that he will do it anyway and that he uses as a recepticle, in all circumstances - it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments of penetration, and women are dehumanized by this act. It is an act of violence.

UGH! Where, where to begin?
My serious thought is that Miss Witch Wind was really raped and that traumatized her about sex for the rest of her life. But I do not know for she does not state anything like that in this piece. So I guess I can't write that with certainty.
So let me try some other things to figure this out.
Miss Witch Wind clearly does not grasp real rape. Yes, sex is not rape as Miss Witch Wind describes it.
Here is the Oxford dictionary definition of rape (as a verb):

(especially of a man) force (another person) with the offender against their will.

Note a couple of things.
While it does define rape as especially done by men, it is not limited to men. It is not limited to gender. It against the other person's will.
Sorry Miss Witch Wind, whether it is through the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll men "grooming" from a young age women or just the natural reality of something along the lines of procreation and or yes, sexual gratification, most women, heterosexual, homosexual, trannies, like and enjoy sex so long as they are not forced to do any act that they do not want to. The blanket statement in the beginning, that all penis-in-vagina sex is rape is kind of, no totally, stupid. Does Miss Witch Wind not realize that men in prison rape other men? And it is almost always rape. It is not sexual in so much as it is about power. The big guys in the prison need to continue their aggressive behavior and they look for what they suspect is a weak link. Once they figure it out, they get their mark and, against that man's will, forcibly penetrate him. Oh, and women can do the same thing to other women and yes, men.
Miss Witch Wind goes on to realize, grudgingly, that some women want that penis to penetrate them. Yet those women are just not aware that, well no matter what they are being raped. The women, that claims to enjoy it, well if you only knew.
Here is something for Miss Witch Wind.
Let's see, I will assume that you were conceived in the traditional way. A man raped penetration a woman and the sperm hit the egg and nine months later, you came into this world. Well, we are mammals. As mammals, the only way, until about 30 years ago, to procreate the species was to have sex. A penis had to penetrate a vagina and, well you know the rest. Only the human mammal has the ability to control whether or no children are the result of sex. There is birth control. There is abortion. There is now artificial insemination. If we followed Miss Witch Wind's logic, it would not take long for the human species, woman and men, go the way of the dinosaur.
But wait! Miss Witch Wind does have a suggestion for that icky penis penetration for pregnancy.
Unfortunately, you have to read in the sycophantic comments to find her solution, but I'll save you the trouble:

For instance, putting sperm on the vulva is enough to become pregnant.

And this is just funny:

Women, if they wanted to become pregnant, could just ask a man for sperm and apply it herself. 

Yeah, I'm sure a woman is just gonna go to some guy, maybe a close friend, and ask, "Say,
So, she seems to be down with artificial insemination. But again, she's not down with being pregnant. And I think you just need to read that yourselves in the comments.
Oh, darn! Once this post exploded on the conservative blogosphere, Miss Witch Wind decided to close the comments. But go ahead and read em anyhow. They are as mind bending as the post itself.
Miss Witch Wind defines herself as a radical feminist or radfem. No, really?!
To me, this is the end result of what radfem leads to. The total hatred of men. The thought that the male of the species is so conspiratorial that we could have pulled this off. Of course there is the ignorance of the mammal aspect that allowed her to be a part of this world in the first place.
What is totally missing from this screed is what I believe is important in all relationships to one degree or another.
Love.
Sure, Miss Witch Wind talks about the mechanics only. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yet as a Christian, this biblical verse explains the meaning of love between a man and a woman.
In the gospel of Mark (10:8), Jesus Christ explains that a man will leave his family, marry a woman and that the two become one. There is no differences of gender. While historically, men have abused this, through studying of the Holy Bible we come to realize that men and women are equal. Genetically, they are not. But if a man and woman is in a mutually loving relationship, ideally marriage, then sexual relations are not some act of violence but a man and a woman showing true to to each other. If it is a mutually loving relationship, if a woman does not want a man to do something in the sexual act, the man will not do so.
What I fear is that many women who attend college will be influenced by such quackery. Do not think it does not happen. It is not serious thinking but fear-mongering. Fear-mongering that can not be totally dealt with by men but by women. Thus I appeal to thinking women to counter this quackery.
For I speak for most men. We are not rapists!

Todd Akin To Take That One Back

This post may be old before it gets published, but if Missouri Republican congressman Todd Akin is still the official Republican nominee for the senate seat against incumbent Democrat Clare McCaskill at this time tomorrow night, the dude has a real death wish.
You see, Mr. Akin is an absolutist on the issue of abortion. Mr. Akin opposes all abortion no matter the circumstance. Mr. Akin opposes any abortion even when the life of the mother is threatened. If an incesteous relationship was involved. And in the case of rape.
It was this question from a St. Louis reporter, Charles Jaco, that Mr. Akin, unbelievably answered this way:

“Well, you know, uh, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, ‘Well, how do you – how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

Legitimate rape? A way to shut down that whole thing?
Oh, where the devil to start?
So, let me back up a bit.
Let me make the obvious political observation.
Mr. Akin should not have been suckered into to going down this road. It is what reporters, and I do not know Mr. Jaco's credentials other than here on Wikipedia, love to do to social conservatives, or from here on out this post, So Cons. They love to take them over the cliff. Mr. Akin went off in a rather spectacular manner if I do say so myself.
Now, here is the whole transcript in regards to the abortion question. Had I been Mr. Akin, I would have affirmed my pro-life credentials and when Mr. Jaco wanted to go down the specific road, on the issue of rape, I would have answered something like this.
"Mr. Jaco, I have affirmed my pro-life credentials and will be a voice for the unborn if I am fortunate enough to be elected senator. But the over-arching issues in this election is the massive federal deficit and debt. It is the federal government and implementing Obamacare. It is the over reach of the federal government. It is to return to actually reading and legislating constitutionally. It is to restore our rightful place respected and feared around the world."
But, nooooooo. Mr. Akin went head first into that pool.
So let dissect the comment itself because while being totally heartless and cold, it is pretty much not even factual.
Notice how Mr. Akin uses and interesting word. That word is slice. I may read way more than it is, but slice could be a subliminal message about the abortion proceedure itself.
What does he mean by "legitimate rape"?
Last I checked, when a gal says NO to wanting sexual relations and the dude she is with thinks that is a "hell yeah" but reverse psychology on him and forces himself on her, and her continuing to at this point scream NO, that is rape. Period. Are there situations in which women claim to be raped and in fact were not? Yes, that does happen. And sometimes, it is to cover a consenual encounter that produces a child. A child that is not wanted by a mother and father. But most women, the overwhelming majority, who have been raped do know the difference. Again NO means NO. And I am wondering the names of these doctors that he has spoken with that told him about "legitimate" rapes and this theory, one I have never heard of, shutting the whole thing down. Maybe what Mr. Akin really means is that the rape victim ends up taking the advice of former Texas Republican gubenitorial candidate Clayton Williams,  "If it is inevitable, just relax and enjoy it." Oh yeah, Mr. Williams did not win that race. One Ann Richards went on to win.
Even the way that Mr. Akin ended the comment is bizarre.
To state the obvious, that the rapist should be punished. And that it would not be right to "attack" the child.
Ahh, but it should be some punishment on the rapist. What does that mean? Some punishment? Hey, how about hardcore punishment? You know, real prison time?
The problem is that judgeing by the previous comment, Mr. Akin generally has a hard to time believing a woman to be raped in the first place.
And that is a serious problem.
There are some really bad dudes out there. They do horrible things to women. Some beat 'em. Some trash-talk 'em. Some rape 'em.
Again, for Mr. Akin's benefit, when a man forces himself on a woman sexually and she says NO and he keeps going, it is  R  A  P  E. Period. No qualifiers.
Now, while I would have answered the question differently, what if Mr. Akin had simply said what he really meant to say? That he makes no exception in the case of rape? Would he be on the way to being forced out of this senate race? Probably not. It would have crystalized his position, one that I do not agree with.
Anyone that has read this blog with any regularity know that I am pro-life.
But I am pro-life with these three exceptions.
Threat to the life of the mother.
Incest.
Rape.
It is a legitimate position. One of the reasons that I am pro-life is seeing the effects that abortion does have on all involved. But when a mother's life is threatened, with no hope of survival for either the baby or mother, and she can make that decision, she should have that oppertunity. If a mother was involved in an incesteous relationship, I would not expect her to bring a child to full term. There are a lot of reason why that should not be expected. And the same for rape.
If one does not think I am absolutist on the issue, I am not.
In the perfect world, Roe vs. Wade would be overturned, abortion laws would return to the states and guess what?
Some states would ban abortions.
Some states would allow abortion with very strong restrictions.
Some states would allow abortion with little restriction.
Some states would allow abortion in any circumstance.
Federalism, which delineates power to the states, is not perfect. Why some think that it is a messy thing. But it had worked well until the statists twisted it around to give the central government more power.
But back to Mr. Akin.
Why should he get out of this race? I mean, the majority of Missouri Republicans voted to have him be the candidate for the senate, right? In fact. polls showed Mr. Akin pretty far ahead of Sen. McCaskill until this kerfuffle.
Because this man is not only a loose cannon, but uninformed to make such an assertion that he had to know would potentially come back to haunt him. He made this such an issue of his campaign that he gave a convoluted answer that showed a window on a man that, well he is so out there on a position that made him come off totally with no heart and or compassion.
Abortion is a serious issue. It is important to have serious people on the side of life. Mr. Akin comes off as a buffoon. And one that can not be trusted. And one that could very much cost the Republican party potential control of the senate. And give the Democrats ammo that they should not have.
For the sake of the Missouri Republican party and the national Republican party, Congressman Todd Akin must withdraw from the race.