SPEAKING of rape, how is it possible for a woman to rape a man? As far as I know, it is physically impossible. Nevertheless, Lisa M. Lavoie, a Massachusetts teacher, has been convicted of statutory rape and will serve a three- to five-year prison term.

                                                                  — Comments —

Mrs. P. writes:

In this case the teacher is guilty of statutory rape “also called illegal (sexual) intercourse with a child under 16.” Had the age difference between the woman and the minor boy been three years or less, she probably would not be guilty of statutory rape. It has to do with a so-called “Romeo and Juliet” exception.

Laura writes:

Yes, I realize the issue was the age of the boy. But it seems there should be another term for this phenomenon, not rape. 

Ilion T. writes:

“SPEAKING of rape, how is it possible for a woman to rape a man? As far as I know, it is physically impossible.” 

As you yourself have pointed out, the conviction was not “rape,” but “statutory rape.” In a “normal” statutory rape, that is, an adult man and a minor girl, it doesn’t matter that the girl was willing or even eager, nor does it matter whether the girl had actually seduced the adult. Likewise with these increasingly common “reverse” statutory rapes. 

But, “rape” isn’t really about physical force or violence, it’s about taking that to which one is not entitled. 

You ask in amazement how it is possible for a woman to rape a man. Obviously, mere overpowering force isn’t how it is accomplished; physical force is the male forte. Rather, if it is to be done, it must be by some means of which women tend to hold the advantage over men. I don’t know, psychological force or intimidation, perhaps? 

Do you really imagine that the academic/Hollywood/Roissy protrayal of male sexuality is really accurate? Do you really imagine that all men are really always joyfully ready to “jump” anything which moves? Do you really imagine that a man cannot engage in sexual activity and all the while his psyche is crying out its violation? 

Obviously, there are not only psychological factors, but also physiological factors involved in the possibility that a woman may rape a man. That is, the younger the man, the easier it is to rape him.

slwerner writes:

“…how is it possible for a woman to rape a man? As far as I know, it is physically impossible. Nevertheless, Lisa M. Lavoie, a Massachusetts teacher, has beenconvicted of statutory rape and will serve a three- to five-year prison term”

Do you not understand what statutory rape is?

Another thing that seems to trip you up is your misguided belief that feminism is about women seeking equality, manifest as equal treatment under the law, with men. Feminism has always been about special treatment for women – “equality” in areas where they feel they lag behind men (which really means artificial advancement via mechanism such as Affirmative Action and reduced qualifying requirements for women), while still retaining all special privileges that women have historically enjoyed (i.e. being consider essentially little children when it comes to their breaking the law).

[Laura writes: I have made the point from the very beginning that feminism seeks preferences for women and power for women, not equality. You are oblivious to what I have said in your determination to prove that I am feminist.] 

Lisa Lavoie’s conviction for statutory rape (and adult having sex with an under-aged person who is held to be unable to consent to sex) is not the designed goal of feminism. [Laura writes: I never said it was. My point in describing it as “the logical outcome of feminist absurdity” was that it was the logical outcome of the effort to deny sex differences. Yes, I realize what statutory rape is but the term still seems incorrect in relation to a woman having sex with a male minor. A term other than rape seems appropriate for criminal charges.] In fact, in other cases, the usual feminist suspects have spoken up for women who’ve had sex with under-aged boys, trying to portray the boys as “lucky”, if not themselves the ones who pushed sex on the poor woman (essentially “raping” her). That some women do get charged for their crimes is simply an unavoidable consequence of the feminist efforts to exceed men. And even when they are charged, they are STILL given preferential treatment relative to men committing the exact same crimes, and they will invariably receive much, much lighter sentences. [you’ll not like this, but around the “Manosphere” this is termed as the “P*ssy Pass”] Since they cannot spare all women from experiencing some consequence for criminality, they have fought long and hard to ensure that women will at least receive lighter punishments (in keeping with their view that men are inherently bad, and women inherently good – thus if a woman “falls”, it’s usually a man’s fault anyway. I guess that’s yet another area where the religious social conservative right is in lock-step with the gender-feminists on the left). 

In that one stated goal of some in the MRM is to restore balance and achieve equal rights and protections under the law for men and boys as are enjoyed by women and girls, you mis-characterize the MRM as the “mirror image” of feminism. This would only be true if feminism were also seeking truly equal rights. But, they are not – they never have, and they never intend to do so. [Laura writes: The effort to seek equality under the law is misguided unless it takes into consideration real differences between the sexes. The MRM is misguided in its belief in equality in the liberal sense, which denies differences. Men and women should not be treated the same under the law in all cases. That does not mean there should not be penalties for a woman who has had sex with an underage boy, especially a student. But they should be much less serious. Chastity is different for a woman than it is for a man. When a man takes a woman’s chastity away and has sex with a virgin, it is a much more serious thing that when a woman has sex with a boy who is a virgin. This has to do with the nature of female sexuality and the meaning of pregnancy, which is obviously different for a woman than for a man. In an era, when women can require paternity obligations from a man to whom she is not married, then sex with an innocent underage boy does become more serious. But in that case, the solution is for no man to be under legally-enforced paternity obligations to a woman unless he is married to her.] 

But, getting back to the “rape” issue, the Constitution of the United States of America calls for Equal Protection for all citizens. This would necessarily include that the genders not be treated differently, especially as it applies to criminal law. If we are to protect under-aged girls from older men (who they may very well believe that they are in love with, and are willing and eager sexual participants with) then we must also protect under-aged boys from predatory older women in the same way. So YES Lisa Lavoie is guilty of rape, no “if’s, ands, or but’s” about it. Straight-up rape under the legal statute. If men have to abide the law, then so do women.  [Laura writes: Again, men and women are different. The sex act with a boy can never involve violent force. I agree there should be  penalties for a woman who has had sex with an underage boy, but it seems a different term is in order.]  

And, frankly, women can and do rape men (although men are almost always adverse to reporting it, or even admitting it. Men normally experience erections when sound asleep, even when under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Many men relate accounts of waking up to find a woman on top of them, engaging in intercourse that she, and she alone, initiated. Technically, that is rape. If a woman woke up to find a man on top of her so engaged, would you not consider it rape? [Laura writes: No, I wouldn’t consider it rape. It is wrong for a woman to do this, but different from rape because it does not involve violent penetration.] 

You might have missed a story coming out of Russia last year in which a woman had drugged something like a dozen young men, with a drug cocktail that apparently included Viagra, and had had sex with them while they were unconscious. As I recall, all but one of the men did not even feel that they had been raped. Yet, we all know that if the genders were reversed. 

You may be dead-set against legal equality between men and woman, but given the great unlikelihood of “flipping” from the current system of female privilege, such equality is much more realistically achievable. That it may actually be achievable is in no small way the reason why the MRM tends to target that outcome.

Laura writes:

Seduction is the normal term for a woman who pressures a man to have sex with her, not rape.

I agree men should work to make laws more just. They should do this not with the misleading objective of creating “equality” in the liberal sense but with the aim of allowing both men and women to fulfill their duties to each other and to the next generation. Men cannot effectively work for legal changes within a movement that is contaminated with the spirit of revenge, that never ackowledges the duties and obligations of men toward women, that does not seek to reestablish male authority and preferences for men in hiring, and that tells men no women are worth marrying. Now if the men’s movement openly purged these elements from its ranks, that would be different. But it does not. 

Stephanie Murgas writes:

I was very moved by Ilion T.’s reaction to the statutory rape issue, and whether it is possible for a woman to rape a man. I believe that it is entirely possible, and of course it is a psychological rape more than physical one. [Laura writes: That’s called seduction, not rape, and it is a phenomenon that has been widely acknowledged in the vast literature of male and female interactions. Let’s not resort to the absurdity of calling it rape, thereby losing the unique meaning of that word.] The femme fatale archetype is present in most of Western history, and young men would definitely be most prone to falling victim to such women. This image is often used by those upholding feminism, probably because it exhibits the power that women are capable of wielding over men, the result of which is arousal by deceptive and immoral means (defrauding). Women like this are unfortunately glorified in the kingdom of media and entertainment right now, and for some reason it is tolerated for young ladies to aspire to become them. To me, this only reinforces the real value of the True Woman, who willingly puts aside this actual “super power” the female sex has, in favor of tasks and accomplishments that have very little “meaning” in the long run. Who can logically submit herself to domestic goodness and economic piety in the face of Babylon the Great and all she has in their thrall? Very few, and the reality may be that there are even fewer men who can put themselves outside of the tangled web of whoredom we find ourselves in today. We are a species near extinction.

Brendan writes:

I would agree in principle that violations of the age of consent laws by men and women alike should not be called “rape”, because they typically do not involve the use of any kind of force by the person charged with the offense. This is essentially seemingly consensual sex between adults and minors, rather than non-consensual sex which is classically considered to be “rape”.

I would not agree, however, that this offense should be considered to be “rape” when committed by an older man, but not “rape” when committed by an older woman. In *both* cases, it’s “seduction”, because the younger party freely consents to the sex. The argument that this is nevertheless “rape” due to other factors of “control” and relative “power”, such that free consent cannot ever be “meaningfully” given in such circumstances even if it is, in fact, freely gien, is the basis of treating these offenses as “rape” to begin with, and is one that is equally applicable to boys as well as it is to girls. The idea that a man should be guilty of rape under these facts, and not a woman, because the girl’s virginity is more “valuable” than the boys virginity is not only legally indefensible, but also theologically so — in the eyes of God surely a girl’s virginity and chastity is not of greater value than a boy’s, and males are not called to any lesser chastity than are females in the eyes of God. As for pregnancy, this risk goes both ways, for while an underage girl can become pregnant as a result of such a liaison, an underage boy can equally become liable for child support payments as a result of one as well — parenthood can be imposed on the underaged party whether they are male or female. So, no, I don’t agree that the law should characterize the same act differently when it is committed by a man as compared to when it is committed by a woman.

To sum up, either we keep the laws the way they are and treat these offenses as “statutory rape” regardless of the sexes, or we recast the offense for both men and women as something else. To treat the same act committed by a man as rape, and as a woman as something else, when in both cases there is no physical or other coercion, is not readily justifiable and likely not constitutional.

Laura writes:

In Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as in most cultures, a woman’s virginity has always been more meaningful. This has to do with the nature of sex differences and the fact that only through a woman’s chastity outside marriage can a man be assured of paternity. Surely, you see that? Psychologically, it has different meaning from a boy’s virginity too. There is a Christian theological argument for the greater sacredness of a woman’s virginity which does not deny the importance of male chastity. This argument does not lead to the conclusion that God somehow values a woman more. God is the author of sex differences and obviously recognizes their importance.

I will explore that theological argument in another post because I don’t have time to go into it today.

You are using the term “constitutional” in the sense in which advocates of same-sex marriage use the term “constitutional.” In other words, the Constitution should not recognize any social ideals or natural differences. 

As for what the charges and penalties should be for a woman who has sex with a minor now, given existing laws on paternity, that is a subject I would have to think about more. My initial impression is that if a woman does not become pregnant as a result of sex with a minor, the matter should never go to court. Men and women are different. A boy’s virginity has a different psychological and cultural meaning than that of a girl.

 Laura adds:

What would it say about our cultural definition of manhood if boys were raised to view themselves as potential rape victims of women? How could a culture possibly preserve manliness in such a context?

Josh F. writes:

I agree that some new terminology is needed to distinguish between the  act of violent rape of a female by a male and the “rape” of a young “consenting” teen male by a very wayward “adult” female. The  equivalence seems to produce a cognitive dissonance in me too.

Brendan writes:

To be frank, that’s just a typical excuse of why the law should treat men and women differently — because to do otherwise would demean male masculinity. 

As I said, I don’t think age-difference-related sexual encounters should be considered rape, when committed by men or women, unless a true lack of consent is shown (in which case it is garden-variety rape anyway, regardless of the age difference).  However, I do not agree at all in treating an act committed by women should not be a crime, while a man would be punished criminally for committing the same act.  It’s just silly.

Nevertheless this seeming side issue has proved to be a useful interlude.  It’s finally clarified for me how fundamentally useless traditionalists are for men in today’s culture, really.  I’ve tried dialoguing with and understanding you all for some time now and it always seems to come back to the same basic problem for me: traditionalists prefer nostalgia to real solutions for today’s men, and, as such, will support current legal inequalities and/or vote in favor of more legal inequalities (as you argue for here), as long as they fit into a nostalgic traditionalist social agenda — again, regardless of the actual social and legal fabric men live in today.  In other words, it’s basically saying the following:  look, we know that the world today revolves around individual rights, and it’s unlikely that this will change soon, but rather than working within that framework to prevent further harm from coming to individuals, we’d rather live in our own personally-constructed fantasia, because we disagree so fundamentally with the current social framework that any practical engagement in it in that way would be not only sullying our hands but would, by implicating itself in that social worldview (with which we disagree), further ends with which we disagree.  That’s more or less completely useless to most men in this culture, and frankly downright toxic to them.  

Laura writes:

You are ignoring the fact that I said in the current situation, with our existing paternity laws, some charges and penalties for women who have sex with minors are necessary. I don’t think rape should be the correct term and my initial impression is that it should only be an issue when paternity is involved.

slwerner writes:

Laura writes,  No, I wouldn’t consider it rape. It is wrong for a woman to do this, but different from rape because it does not involve violent penetration. 

Would it not be considered rape if a man proceeded to have sexual intercourse with a woman who was unconscious? While unconscious, she would not say “No”, she would not offer up any physical resistance, and there would be no need for any violence in order to “penetrate” her.  

The reason this would still be considered rape (under modern law) is that she would also be unable to give her “consent” to that sexual intercourse.  

As I’m sure you are aware, gender-feminists (acting as part of what might be best termed the Sexual Grievance Industry) have been trying to stir up all sorts of hysteria over so-called “date rape drugs” (even though scientifically determined evidence suggests that they are actually seldom utilized in that way), pointing out the “horror” for women to be used sexually without any knowledge of it occurring. Yet, a man may also be drugged, and used for sexual gratification (or simply to obtain his sperm for pregnancy), and we are supposed to believe that this is somehow LESS of a violation against him as a person/human being?

The goal of feminism has been to seek special treatment and consideration based on gender (to the advantage of women, exclusively). While you may argue that as a sociological consequence, the violate of men and boys may not be as great; you are never-the-less playing right into the designs of those feminists. They wish to have crimes committed by men against women viewed as worse than the same crimes with the genders reversed. Your ideological under-pinnings may be different, but your stated ends are the same as theirs. I’m not trying to portray you as a feminist, I’m simply pointing out that the foreseeable outcomes of what you argue for are the same as what the feminists on the left have been striving for – that “special consideration” for women.

Chances are, that if your argument to have female predation of boys termed “seduction” rather that ‘rape” were to be presented to feminists (on their forums), they would over-whelming agree (so long as they didn’t find out that the idea was proposed by a right-wing, anti-feminist, social conservative traditionalist and devotedly Catholic woman). 

Some time back I inadvertently offended you by using the term “gynocentric” to describe  a world-view and social (and legal) design based upon a system of such “special considerations” for women. But that is what both those on the social conservative right and those on the gender-feminist left are calling for. You “frame” them differently, but, as a matter of practice, they appear to be the same thing.  

For instance, you argue that it is worse for a woman’s virginity to be taken (or, more accurately “seduced” away) from her by an older man than the reverse situation for a boy. Yet, your argument goes back to considerations of pregnancy and paternity. The reality of today is that, under the law, boys will be no less impacted by having impregnated and older women than will a girl impregnated by and older man. In fact, the probability that by receiving a portion of the older man’s income as child-support, she is likely to fair better than the young man who will end up losing most (if not all) of his meager income to child support.  

Further, the consideration of paternity is more applicable to an argument that the infidelity of women is more harmful than that of men. But, no one would accept that a man’s infidelity should be seen as being less of a sin, nor that he should face lesser sanctions socially, or relationship-wise (of course, most gender-feminists and many on the social conservative right DO hold a woman less responsible for their infidelity than they do men – but, that’s another, lengthy discussion about the way’s in which both sides will still tend to try to shift the blame for female misbehavior back onto men).  

Laura writes: – I agree men should work to make laws more just. 

Yet, you still seem to fail to recognize that (at least as far as the USA is concerned), the design of laws is governed by the Constitutionally based call for “Equal Protection.” 

What this is going to mean for legal reforms is that any law which does treat the genders differently so that men can be perceived to be advantaged over women, are, without exception, going to be challenged, and ultimately over-turned. Just because the same isn’t applied to laws which can be perceived to advantage women over men should not be taken to mean that laws advantaging men will not be challenged.  

Perhaps the biggest difference between your views and those of many in the MRM, is that those in the MRM are faced with the reality of what can be realistically achieved. Most would likely agree with much of what you purpose as desirable reforms, but, they also realize that there is no chance of actually being able to achieve them – especially in the current legal climate that already seeks to consider the positions and protections of women over those of men. Shooting for “equity,” “equal application”, and “equal protection” under the law is much more realistic, as it only challenges the gynocentric desire for female advantage as opposed to arguing for male advantage. You and I will probably never agree on this, but, I’m going to keep on contributing to MRM-style organizations working for legal reform (Fathers & Families, for example); and you can keeping doing what ever it is you’re doing to try to effect reform – and will see who’s approach actually ends up resulting in anything getting done.

Laura writes:

Unfortunately, I have run out of time to continue this discussion today.

I will simply say, the more men and women focus on their rights, rather than on their duties to each other, the more society will become even more desolating and devoid of beauty and love. That is not to say there should be no focus on individual rights, but these should always be placed in their larger context and seen in light of the common good.

John E. writes:

It seems to me this discussion has become more complicated than Laura intended. It doesn’t really seem controversial to me that the sexual act performed by a man when the woman doesn’t consent to the act should be called rape, but that the sexual act performed by the woman (but right here it starts to become absurd–how does a woman perform the sexual act, when the essence of the act for her is to receive?) without the consent, or full consent of the man should be termed something different. But I suppose that for those who believe all things should be equal, such an idea is very controversial. 

Brendan said: 

I’ve tried dialoguing with and understanding you all for some time now and it always seems to come back to the same basic problem for me: traditionalists prefer nostalgia to real solutions for today’s men, and, as such, will support current legal inequalities and/or vote in favor of more legal inequalities (as you argue for here), as long as they fit into a nostalgic traditionalist social agenda — again, regardless of the actual social and legal fabric men live in today.

This is a short-sighted observation from Brendan, and fails in seeing only “nostalgia” in the assertions of those who love and venerate tradition, who deny that our ancestors were merely ignorant or doddering fools. I recognize the failings of our society in bringing harm to men in particular, as Brendan (and Laura Wood!!!) often articulates, and I recognize the need to change the ways of our society regarding this problem; but I would rather die than assent to something that works against the nature God has given me as a man, or to my wife as a woman, simply in order to keep peace on the ground. I recognize that there is something more transcendant than “real solutions for today’s men,” and I’ll be damned if I settle for anything less than the former.

Laura writes:

A preoccupation with rights tyrannizes the mind. It enters every crevice and corner of the imagination and leaves no room for admiration or love.  I too would rather die. I would rather die than think of my womanhood as matter of rights and legal entitlements. I tried to live that way as a young, naive and self-centered feminist. Everything withered before me. Life became pointless.

Please follow and like us: