“#Intersectionalism” this is not intersectionalism, nor feminist theory. ‘The aggregate power is with men as a class, therefor fucking forget about helping men’. There is no such thing as a man’s individual rights being violated, in feminist epistemology, there is only systemic sexism, and so you arguing there is something wrong with raping a man -or that a man could be definitionally raped- implies men face systemic sexism in a zero sum game where men are the oppressors in a patriarchy -this is feminist theory. I agree with yout post, but you wouldnt attribute a concept from capitalism to marxism, would you? Because this is the exact social politics equivalent of that.
idk if you’re reading too far into it or nitpicking because you’re against feminism or just if this reply doesn’t make sense to me, but all it’s saying is that you shouldn’t assume a someone wants to have sex just because they have an erection. because people with penises are raped too, and rape isn’t okay in any circumstance (get consent y’all)
thats literally all its meant to mean. I don’t know where this capitalism and Marxism and “feminist theory” stuff is coming from.
sorry if I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying, but when I posted this, it was meant to be viewed at face value
I can be physically aroused and still on an emotional level not want sex with a person. ‘Feminists against Feminism’ have mislabelled themselves. They are misandrysts with little idea that men can be vulnerable and be raped, sexually abused, and forced into sexual situations that they’re not comfortable with.
plus (correct me if I’m wrong), but aren’t like, random boners a thing? morning wood, for example??