Open letter to David Futrelle

I left the following question (currently in moderation at Man boobz it has now been approved – possibly because I made a typo in an HTML anchor tag I now remembered that I was put on moderation for discussing Mary P Koss’ paper where she argues that it’s inappropriate to call it rape when a man has unwanted sex with a woman) on a thread on Man boobz after seeing this comment by the blog owner David Futrelle:

David Futrelle:

I actually think it makes sense to categorize made-to-penetrate as a form of sexual violence other than rape, and to use the term rape for sexual acts in which the victim is penetrated. In any case, it is sexual violence and needs to be taken seriously.

David, a woman decided to put my penis inside her vagina without prior consent while I was asleep. I call and refer to what happened to me as rape. Are you telling me I am mistaken? That I should stop calling that rape?

James Landrith who has courageously publicly spoke about being a male rape survivor on CNN, HuffingtonPost and other places (at great personal cost and attacks from people like this who also don’t think that “rape-by-envelopment” is rape.). Is he mistaken in his self-identification? Should he stop referring to himself as a rape survivor?

I’ll check in on that Man boobz thread a couple of times the next few days and update this post if there is any reply by David Futrelle.

David Futrelle have in a comment of his own replied to the comment I posted at his blog, here is his reply in its entirety:

Tamen, you were sexually assaulted. What happened to you was a violation of your bodily autonomy. I take that seriously. No, I would not classify that as rape, but I’m not going to tell you what you should call it, because it’s your experience.

Calling something a sexual assault, or “sexual violence other than rape” does not diminish it or erase the experience of the person who suffered it. Sexual assaults other than rapes deserve to be taken seriously just as rapes do.


Update: After quite a discussion on that thread where also several of the “regulars” stated that made to penetrate ought to be categorized as rape David Futrell have posted a comment where he states that he has changed his mind. Here is an excerpt of that comment:

But I’ve been convinced by the comments here that this is probably overoptimistic on my part. If made-to-penetrate needs to be called rape to be taken as seriously as what has traditionally been called rape, then it should be called rape.

So, yes, I have changed my mind on this. Made-to-penetrate should be classified as rape.



9 thoughts on “Open letter to David Futrelle

  1. Welcome ballgame!

    I did post one comment and the subsequent comments were replies to either direct questions or direct accusations so I was a bit surprised that he put me on moderation for derailing considering how just about every thread I’ve seen (admittedly a pretty small subset) over there ends in a flurry of furry comments about cats. I noticed that my comment with my questions has been approved at Man boobz – we’ll see if an answer is forthcoming.

  2. Glad to see David has finally opened his eyes to one injustice perpetrated in the name of feminism. Of course, I expect him to minimize the problem, or even go in full backpedalling mode if his feminist doms decide to bust his balls about it. But hey, every little step counts.

  3. “Made to have sexual intercourse”, in whatever form that occurs, should be classified as rape.

    To NOT classify it as rape, would be to skew the “official” “rape” numbers such that rape of non-females would be statistically erased. That would certainly be a great help to feminism, in terms of maintaining the feminist rape narrative. It is crucial for feminism to inflate those rape numbers as much as possible.

  4. It’s not rape but it should be taken as seriously as rape? What a cowardly bag of dog shit. He’s just trying to save face, like Jezebel’s “Chris Brown was raped” article that came four days too late.

  5. I still have a small problem with this bit:

    If made-to-penetrate needs to be called rape to be taken as seriously as what has traditionally been called rape, then it should be called rape.
    This sounds like he’s not changing his mind on the grounds that “made to penetrate” is a form of sexual activity against one’s will but rather an, “Okay fine. If you think it needs to be called rape in order to help the victims then so be it.” Like rather than reevalute the situation he’s just giving in to the demands of others.

  6. Oh, I certainly believe that his reversal was a result of too many of his commentariat disagreeing with him and the comment where he stated he had changed his mind had a certain ‘Fine, …’ vibe to it.

Leave a Reply (first comment by first time commenters are auto-moderated - this might change when I get the hang of this and if the spam issue doesn't overwhelm me)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s