I have a question regarding female perpetraters...

I have a question regarding female perpetraters...
It certainly wasn't me who used the word "raped" originally, it was my mum. I suppose the signs were there, ----- after all most 17 year olds don't panic at being seen without a shirt or have as strong an aversion to the entire subject of S as I did. My parents knew I'dexperienced some fairly serious bullying at secondary school, ---- though not the full extent.

For me, I hve no care or feeling for what they felt, ---- in fact trying to face the idea tat at least one of them was possibly attracted to me was one of the first and nastiest things I had to deal with, but in general I don't think they'd even remember what they did to me, ---- or reguard it as that bad.
 
I think I've realized what it was that I was trying to get at with my original question, and I think I've sussed out the difference between male and female perp's:

Male perp's are more likely to know that they are doing something wrong, and therefore their sense of denial is not as deep as it would be in women, because it's normal to think of males as perpetrators and females as victims of male perp's.

Female perpetrators have been taught their whole lives that men, and even boys, are responsible for whatever happens to themselves. From the sound of what I'm hearing, female perp's see their victims as little men, who are in complete control of what's happening (of course, these boys are not.) Therefore, a female's sense of denial is much more deeper than a man's, and is constantly perpetuated by the gender roles defined by our society.

But none of us were ever in control. We were victims, and these women are monsters, no matter what happened to them in their childhoods.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, especially amongst feminist, boys and men can experience re-victimization even though they can't get pregnant; many men are re-victimized every time they become aroused. I know this is exactly what's happening to me. For twenty five years I've been experiencing this everyday. It's torture. If that isn't re-victimization, then I don't know what is.
 
Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, especially amongst feminist, boys and men can experience re-victimization even though they can't get pregnant; many men are re-victimized every time they become aroused. I know this is exactly what's happening to me. For twenty five years I've been experiencing this everyday. It's torture. If that isn't re-victimization, then I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

Your accuracy to the way I feel everytime my body reacts, to the sense of fear I get when I hear any humour related to the S word, or anyone touches me is really quite frightening.

Combine this with the hole social sterriotype surrounding genda and relationships, and there's a huuuuuuuge mass of trouble if your male.

In my case as well, as I remember saying in an earlier thread, there is a sense that things which it would be unthinkable for a crowd of teenagers to do to a girl are quite okay to do to a boy.

To expose a boy in public in front of crowd for laughter? well that's just funny! Someone on this forum pointed out that had I been a girl, that would've never happened, sinse someone would've stopped it.

Boys are supposed to cope with, and indeed participate in s//ual jokes, ----- evne when such jokes are nothing but victimization.

I can't in any way explain how agonizing it feels that the closest anyone has been to me was while spitting in my fact and insulting me verbally, ---- but of course sinse I'm male this doesn't doesn't matter.

sorry, this went slightly too far, lets just say I take your point.
 
BTW, I'm in no way implying that women should be let off the hook, or that there is any difference in the degree of damage done by either men or women. I do think that the patterns of denial, and rationalization are quite different between the sexes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That does indeed make sense, and as I said earlier in this topic reguarding my experiences with said evil feminist, I do think there is a huge gender bias and a lac of perception that females can be just as much abusers and males and cause just as horrific amounts of harm.

this certainly isn't to deny the fact that women have been abused, or the fact that men can abuse, --- personally, as withmany things I think it'd be better if Abuse was just seen as a gender neutral issue with victims and abusers who could be of either gender.

I'm sorry about the previous reply, ----- having my exact issue of S--ual phobia and my problem with my own physical reactions stated so boldly was slightly shocking.
 
My masters thesis considered to what extent society is able to form the possibility of female-on-male sexual abuse. I assert that it is an impossible construction with normative Western culture. If anyone would like to read it, I would be happy to make it available.

My thesis readers are staunch feminists - one a soft-butch lesbian - and they agreed with the premise.

Please remember that "feminism" is a very broad label. There are many branches, like there are in Christianity (pardon the analogy).
 
Cement said:
Please remember that "feminism" is a very broad label. There are many branches, like there are in Christianity (pardon the analogy).
Click to expand...


Sorry about this but the phrase above triggered me in a bad way. :(

I've had too many experiences where feminists dismissed my concerns towards the whole "Men are privledged so their experiences don't compare to what women go through in abuse" sect that permeates feminism alongside the more insidious ones who believe that "Men cannot be abused" and "Women can't abuse" with this line. So it sours my taste buds to the point of vomiting in my mouth whenever I hear it or see it typed up.

If feminists cared about male victims, they'd speak out against this kind of inflammatory slander. And "Men are priveledged" would go the way of the dodo bird.

Yet, these "Extreme" feminists are still given free reign to peddle their bigotry unhindered, without consequence. All because they're "Not Feminists" or "They don't speak for feminism", or "There are different branches of feminism".

I quote the graphic novel "V For Vendetta":


"We've had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars, and lunatics making a string of catastrophic decisions. This is plain fact. But who elected them? It was YOU! YOU who appointed these people! YOU who gave them the power to make your decisions for you! While I admit that anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me nothing short of deliberate."


Somebody is giving these "Extreme" feminists a soapbox to perch on. Somebody is accepting their theories as valuable contributions to the "Movement". And it's not solely the responsability of the media.

Okay, that's enough from me. But that's what I think now. Again, I've had really negative experiences with feminists to the point where I can't trust the whole "They're not feminists" argument.
 
As a species I think we still have a long evolution to get to the point where we can genuinely conceive of the idea that something can be two opposing things at the same time. A man penetrates, a woman is penetrated (unless of course one is using sex toys, but let's keep it simple), therefore man = strong and woman = weak...strong = bad and weak = good.

It's precisely this particular paradigm of something being two things at once with myself and my abuser that is so difficult to reconcile. It wasn't as if every second was horrible...I learned a lot of valuable things from this man, in addition to the more overwhelming terrible things I learned and experienced from him...not all bad, just mostly bad.

So we all get that here, whether we've been abused by women or men or both. Anybody can be an abuser...mom, dad, slightly older friend, slightly younger friend, way older teacher or other adult, grandpa, grandma, sister, brother, coach, priest...we all know it's a pretty endless list and ANYBODY can be on it. It's just like the survivors of war zone have a much clearer picture of what that really means, that somebody who's merely read a book or newspaper story about it. One would think that feminists would get it, but I guess they have their dedicated constituent group for whom to advocate and everything for them will be viewed through that prism.

Unfortunately for us in the time in which we live, the world at large still has many, many centuries of female persecution to make up for...not to mention the things which go on every minutes of every day in every part of the globe where women are concerned, so it's only natural that in terms of something like this topic they would be given great latitude if not outright freedom to say whatever they like.

Everybody can't, won't and doesn't need to understand us I think. If I can get to the point where I understand myself with the help of some of my wife, the great guys here, my T, a few close special friends then that's good.

It is odd though, the inappropriate stuff (abuse seems such a strong word to use-see there I go doing it myself) with the female members of my family is perhaps even more difficult to wrap my head around than the stuff with my perp which was certainly more "abusive" by most measures I understand. Does that make them worse?

Just thoughts...

sono
 
sono said:
Unfortunately for us in the time in which we live, the world at large still has many, many centuries of female persecution to make up for...not to mention the things which go on every minutes of every day in every part of the globe where women are concerned, so it's only natural that in terms of something like this topic they would be given great latitude if not outright freedom to say whatever they like.
Click to expand...


This is the most disgusting argument for justifying the condemenation male victims experience ever.

So it's okay to allow men who are victims of such hardships no say in the matter of abuse since women went through the same thing so it's only justice to apply the "Eye For An Eye" approach while dealing with them.

Every brother, son, father, and decent male are collatoral damage in making up for years of persecution of "Females". Even those who have been abused terribly should suck it up and think about how women were treated before spouting off their feelings.

Sorry, that's a sick argument. Anyone, including any feminist, who makes it either implicitly or subtly isn't worthy of the label "Human Being".
 
Hi Eyes1111,

Just for clarity's sake, I was merely trying to present a current reality as I see it, certainly not arguing FOR this position or saying it's a viable standpoint. I'm sorry if my presenting it here was upsetting to you in any way...I genuinely did not feel I would be presenting a particularly "new" or radical concept.

Clearly two wrongs do not make a right.

And yes, it is another reality that the sons often have to pay for the sins of the fathers.

I'm reminded of a comment I read someplace about this recent news story of a teenage boy who had sex with his birth mother, but didn't know she was his mother, or some such sad abuse story. A doctor had commented that this would be a man's worst nightmare scenario...there were immediately comments from women about how this is so unfair to say that this incest is worse than incest is for a woman. Well that wasn't the point of the doctor's comment at all and the ladies totally missed the point, I assume because they were so bound up in their own militantism they just couldn't see what they were reading or hearing. Unfortunate but it happens.

I'm hoping you are understanding me better now and don't think I subscribe to this point of view.

sono
 
sono said:
Hi Eyes1111,

Just for clarity's sake, I was merely trying to present a current reality as I see it, certainly not arguing FOR this position or saying it's a viable standpoint. I'm sorry if my presenting it here was upsetting to you in any way...I genuinely did not feel I would be presenting a particularly "new" or radical concept.

Clearly two wrongs do not make a right.

And yes, it is another reality that the sons often have to pay for the sins of the fathers.

I'm reminded of a comment I read someplace about this recent news story of a teenage boy who had sex with his birth mother, but didn't know she was his mother, or some such sad abuse story. A doctor had commented that this would be a man's worst nightmare scenario...there were immediately comments from women about how this is so unfair to say that this incest is worse than incest is for a woman. Well that wasn't the point of the doctor's comment at all and the ladies totally missed the point, I assume because they were so bound up in their own militantism they just couldn't see what they were reading or hearing. Unfortunate but it happens.

I'm hoping you are understanding me better now and don't think I subscribe to this point of view.

sono
Click to expand...


Then reality is no different from vain fantasy. Sometimes I don't know which is worse. At least in fantasy, the exaggeratted elements can be eliminated with exagerrated good deeds. At least you don't see the exaggerrated elements having say in government policy (Two words: Harriet Harmen. And the Swedish feminist movement) since they're rightfully called out on their bull. If they have say, karma pays them back.

That these exageratted theories and feminist movements hold sway without repercussion tells me reality has no business saying it's more attractive than fantasy.

At least you don't subscribe to the whole "Eye for an eye" mentality. That's a comfort. Small one, but it's better than nothing.
 
Our society does, indeed, have blinders on about female sexual abuse, especially of adult males. Or of male children. There's the "sainted motherhood" construct that is so pervasive - yet it ignores that (much like the statistics for men, but less noticed) 1 out of every 5 females in the society is sexually abused as children. The society thinks nothing of pointing out when men are perpetrators of sexual abuse (even while denying the prevalence of their sexual abuse as children), but is quite backward about discussing the ways in which females who were abused as children have an equal likelihood of being perpetrators as adults.

I - who love to read - would suggest two books to you on this subject. "Sexually Aggressive Women: Current Perspectives and Controversies", by Peter B. Anderson & Cindy Stuckman-Johnson; and "Female Sexual Abuse of Children", by Michelle Elliott. In the first study, the researchers decided to challenge their own 'cultural blinders' which encouraged studies to ONLY give questionnaires about perpetration to males and questionnaires about being a victim to females. They reversed that, and gave perpetrator questionnaires to females and victims questionnaires to males - and, lo and behold, they found out that there are plenty of females who have been sexually abusive toward men and plenty of men who felt they had been sexually abused by women. In the second study, Michelle Elliot confronts that "sainted motherhood" construct head-on and points out that while the first studies of sexual abuse stated that males were 90% of the perpetrators of sexual abuse of children, more recent studies point to the real possibility that females represent 20 - 40% of the perpetrators.

If you ask different questions, you get different results. If you remove your 'cultural blinders' and allow yourself to ask the same questions about women that you've always asked about men (and vice versa), you get different and startling results, which changes your worldview.

Back in 1993, I conducted a workshop on "The Female Sexual Abuse of Males" at the annual men's wellness conference in New Mexico. It was an experience that I, as a male survivor of incest, had experienced rather often at the hands of women. At first, the men looked rather doubtful and there was a high degree of skepticism, but as I explained what I meant and what my experience had been, the positive and thoughtful responses from the audience increased exponentially. Afterward, I offered to facilitate a support group at the conference on this subject, and somewhat cautiously, 5 other men joined the group. I say 'cautiously', because in American society the prevailing construct is that "in order to be 'men', males can't be seen as victims". And yet men ARE victims of sexual abuse (as those of us on this forum know only too well) and they can be victims of molestation and even rape at the hands of women, as children and as adults. The males who attended the support group talked about how, because of that strong cultural injunctive about male victims, they at first questioned their sense of being sexually abused by their female partners, but the preponderance of their sexual experience was finally too overwhelming for them to ignore the facts.

So, to respond to Eyes1111, yes, women are victims of sexual abuse and yes, men are victims also. Don't let the narrowness of some feminists (though surely not all) crush your sense of your own survivor experience. While it may be true - and enough of us have had this experience, especially with 'academic feminists' - some sectors of the feminist movement only advance the agenda of females at the expense of males, and are apt to see males as the ONLY perpetrators of sexual abuse (and as, a priori, the "oppressors" in the culture). But thankfully their are enough healthy and progressive females 'out in the world' who know, only too well, that men can also be victims of female sexual abuse, not less than the reverse.

Donald
 
I saw a statistic once in the doctoral thesis of a psychologist that said of the 1 in 6 boys or teenagers who are sexually abused 43% of them are abused by females. Of course being a doctoral thesis every thing in it was well documented but at that time I paid no attention to the documentation of the statistics.

If that statistic is true that is a staggering amount of female perpetrators. Much higher than what many people have believed or could conceive.
 
mariposaman said:
So, to respond to Eyes1111, yes, women are victims of sexual abuse and yes, men are victims also. Don't let the narrowness of some feminists (though surely not all) crush your sense of your own survivor experience. While it may be true - and enough of us have had this experience, especially with 'academic feminists' - some sectors of the feminist movement only advance the agenda of females at the expense of males, and are apt to see males as the ONLY perpetrators of sexual abuse (and as, a priori, the "oppressors" in the culture). But thankfully their are enough healthy and progressive females 'out in the world' who know, only too well, that men can also be victims of female sexual abuse, not less than the reverse.

Donald
Click to expand...



I'd love to believe you fully, Donald. Because nothing would please me more than to have a feminist acknowledge male victims.

But here's my problem:

Feminists who believe in male victims are still hesitant to even accept it. Moderate feminists, though well intentioned, hold on to the belife that it's the patriarchy that keeps male victims from speaking out. Since Patrirachy is a "Male" thing according to them, it's males who do the damage. Thusly, the whole sympathy they express is done from a very narrow view without consideration of the fact that women do this kind of thing and we shouldn't use excuses like "Patriarchal influence" or whatever. Some women are scum, just like some men are scum. Human faults. That's what it is: Humans with the capacity to hurt. However, even moderate feminists fall into the trap of making women unaccountable for their faults while still admonishing men for their own, even victims. It's not overt, of course.

Think about it: Why are theories like "Men are priveledged so they're experiences don't compare to womens", "Men can't be abused", "Women abuse because of patrarichy", and such harmful, toxic waste still allowed a voicebox? If feminists, ALL of them, truly cared about male victims, why do these faulty theories still exist?

Well, let me quote the graphic novel V For Vendetta again:


"We've had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars, and lunatics making a string of catastrophic decisions. This is plain fact. But who elected them? It was YOU! YOU who appointed these people! YOU who gave them the power to make your decisions for you! While I admit that anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me nothing short of deliberate."

Like I said, no one in the feminist community is truly speaking out against those theories. Otherwise, extremists like Andrea Dworkin wouldn't still have a home in Women's Studies departments, influencuing venerable minds.

I'll accept their empathy but only with a grain of salt. And by the way, I'm also a believer in what feminism used to be: Women's rights but with accountability. I see feminism as it is now as Women's rights AT THE EXPENSE of accountability. How else to explain the continued abbetting of "Men are privledged, their experiences don't compare to women"


Darn, this whole thing brought up another negative experience with feminists I had. In a writing class no doubt. I wrote a story based on Dancer In The Dark, where Selma is given a chance to soar before her inevitable capture and execution (which is something I found lacking in the movie itself). I thought they'd enjoy it, so I read the results. As I was doing the voice of Selma, the teacher stopped me and said that my portrayal of Selma is problematic as the voice is to weak, making her sound weak.

I was so shocked! Firstly because I was trying to reproduce what she was like in the movie. If they had a problem with the voice, they should've directed it at the movie itself and not me. Though they've never seen it, so that's where their reaction came from.

Secondly, the character of Selma was FAR FROM WEAK! She's very strong on the inside and sacrifices a lot for her son to have a healthy life! HOW IN THE HELL IS THAT WEAK?!?
(By the way, you should check out the movie. It stars Bjork.)

I didn't say anything back, though I should've defended myself. Would've been counterproductive as I was the only male there in a sea of female "Women's Rights Supporters" who had their eyes all trained on me after the teacher pointed out how my portrayal of Selma is considered offensive. Now I'm stuck with this complex to the point where one of my latest one-man plays I'm working on, though abundant in female characters, won't have any portrayal of women characters by me anymore lest I'm accused of being a pimple on women's rights. I've taken a more narrative approach where the main character will just react and describe what others are saying to him.

Since that day, I've grown very suspicious of trusting feminists. Oh yeah, being told that it's not my job to defend patriarchy because I dared to say that masculanity isn't all bad added to the suspicion as well.

Okay, deep breath.

Now you know why I don't trust feminists nowadays anymore. I've had my creativity put on the spot by them and been told not to defend patriarchy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Piglet said:
It's revolting how a boy is supposed to feel "lucky" to be abused.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is revolting. The minimization, snickering and excuse making that some people do when the predator has a vagina is UNBELIEVABLE and disgusting on a level I cannot possibly express.

My own personal favorite is "the patriarchy is responsible" or minimizing statements like "more women are raped than men" etc. It is not a competition. We don't need a hierarchy of rape and survivorhood.

The "patriarchy" didn't drug me, rape me for 7 hours, blackmail me and demand I pretend to be its boyfriend afterward. A woman did that.

The patriarchy was on vacation.
 
When I was in my early twenties, I used to joke about "Hey, if them school teacher-wimin gotta get laid, come over to my place and leave them kids alone!" and "Damn! Where the hell was she when I was in school?". After all, back then, to me, it was funny. And to my friends as well. But as I found not long after, damn near every one of them broads is FUGLY. We're talking so ugly, they can run around Easy Colfax in Denver in the middle of the night NAKED, and they can't get raped. We're talking so FUGLY that they can't even PAY a rapist to have sex with them. So they go after little boys. Boys that know no better.

We're talking about wimin that give sheep a new name.
 
Revolting indeed.

I think I've finally come to narrow down what it was that I was originally trying to say when I first wrote the posting that started this thread. And many of you might be disturbed, disgusted, or in down right disagreement with me, but I'm going to say it, here, anyway:

I can't help but feel that when a women sexually abuses a boy, it may in fact be an extension of her misandry. That abusing a boy is the only way for her to feel control and dominance over her male counterparts, the male of the species that she blames for all the worlds, and her own problems. Perhaps she's convinced herself that she's some kind of heroine, scoring points for man-hating women everywhere. Perhaps she has even convinced herself that it's about time that males started experiencing what she thinks has been a uniquely female experience. All of this, of course, is denial and rationalization. But, I just can't shake this notion that man-haters would be far more likely to do such evil things to boys, in particular, because they think they are perfectly, and completely justified in the act.

Misandry has always seemed, to me, to be a way for women who resent men, to forego taking responsibility for their own mistakes and trespasses when they find themselves in positions of power.
 
Society doesn't want to recognise the fact that women, the central caregivers of most families can be capable of destroying their own children's innocence.
The blame is pushed onto us, it really pisses me off, I didn't want her to touch me, and it still took my innocence, and I lost a lot of being a child because of what she did.
Female perpetrators are just as culpable!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top