The Donnas vs. Feminism, and Control Issues

Tantalizing Question: If a woman “can’t say no”, when (and why) does this constitute rape?

You’d think this has an obvious answer. Well if you are using the philosophy of predominating modern-day feminist perspectives, you’d be wrong. See the “obvious” answer would be something like “of course it’s rape, when she is unable to give consent!”

But in the context in which I came up with this question, equating “unable to give consent” with “can’t say no”, is essentially saying that men in such situations have magical powers over women, with which they are able to render women unable to think clearly, appropriately inhibit their thoughts and/or behaviours, and subconsciously coerce them into consenting to something they otherwise would not. And this is assuming both parties in the scenario are completely sober.

Considering the context, though, it is likely there was some amount of alcohol involved, which makes answering this question even more unclear!

The Donnas, who people probably would sooner identify with feminism than “versus” it, have a song by the title “Like An Animal.” Repeatedly this song makes mention of someone (a female) who “can’t say no” and “lose[s] control.” The question of whether alcohol was involved is not yet relevant here. What is important is the fact the song as a whole has got absolutely NOTHING to do with regrettable, let alone nonconsensual, sexual encounters. Quite the opposite!

So what I’ve deduced from this information, with my tiny, sex-obsessed, useless man-brain… ;) is that the hypothetical female narrative in this scenario would not think the “inability” to “say no”, nor the loss of control, to be negative on her part. The entire theme of the song in fact seems to be essentially celebrating a situation (a sexual one) involving lowered inhibitions, a lack of self-control, heightened impulsivity and, of course, primal thought processes (oh, hey, kind of like a man’s!) :)

This is what leads me to think that the idea of “a woman having lowered inhibitions = rape, regardless of whether or not the man also had lowered inhibitions”, is pretty much total bullshit. And the “pretty much” is really only in there to account for things like unconsciousness. In cases of consciousness/coherence on the part of the woman, it is simply total bullshit. Further, it leads me to think that the reason intoxication of the woman (whether by a man, or by herself) in a sexual encounter came to be, by its very nature, definitive of rape, is because of feminists who have control issues. Or, to be more specific, they may have a more submissive side to their sexuality than they deem acceptable, and feel effectively victimized by this—by their own sexuality! Tsk tsk… that’s “female empowerment” for ya.

It’s funny, because the way men are often demonized by these very same control freak-types, is by characterizing them in the same way: impulsive, with no self-control, unable to say no, etc., in sexual scenarios. In fact, I’d argue that one of the foundations of feminist theory, at least as it is today, is about controlling this aspect of male sexuality. This would explain why in situations where a man has (god forbid!) a decent amount of self-control, inhibition, etc., feminist “types” (i.e., anyone of this mentality, whether they self-identify as a feminist or not) will ultimately have to resort to guilt-tripping (“you must not love me”; “you aren’t attracted to me anymore”/”you think I’m fat!”;”why, what did I do wrong?”, etc.); ad-hominem attacks, often aimed at the infamous “male ego” (“hey, not my problem you can’t get it up!”); or the gay card (“I should’ve known any man who wasn’t a total creeper only appears that way because he’s focusing his creeping on huge cock!”)

It’s the same insecurity at play as with (speaking of gay men…) homophobes who keep themselves distracted from their own homosexuality by making fun of it in others (often, where it likely is nonexistent, or something exaggerated upon to seem quasi-existent.) By ridiculing the man’s poor impulse control or ability to “say no” to sex (again, often nonexistent faults anyway), the control freak feminist-minded won’t have to face their own insecurities with such “faults” in themselves. And I am using quotes for a reason – somehow these sort of characteristics of submissiveness are by definition faulty, because feminism has no place for a submissive woman! (And, by extension, a dominant man, because “dominant man” is obviously just a friendly euphemism for “rapist.”)

And this is the crux of it all; this is why The Donnas are blatantly anti-feminist, why potentially ANY woman who has written lyrical content of a similar nature is blatantly anti-feminist; this is why there are clearly huge problems with conflating “can’t say no” with rape: feminism by its nature does not allow for submissiveness and empowerment to co-exist. At least, in this variation of “submissiveness”, i.e., concession of most inhibition and/or higher rational thought to lust. The difference here is that unlike men (and unlike the Donnas, and many other female musicians/singers/music groups), women who have this sort of view of course end up feeling victimized by their own desires…so of course they’ve got to find a scapegoat, an explanation for why they feel victimized, that is a source outside themselves. Admitting the explanation is their own inability to “say no” that led to the transpiring events, would be like admitting a horrible weakness for someone whose entire view of sex is that only the man can lose any self-control in the situation, “giving in” means submissiveness (that much is perhaps true, and likely a reason for the type of guy considered “pussy-whipped”…), and being sexually submissive indicates weakness.

Obviously, this is certainly not the case, if women who are commonly seen as “empowered” are using a situation of loss of control in seemingly a very “dominant” way. To me that is more what empowerment is about – embracing what is there (whatever you want to call it..loss of control for the sake of consistency here); not denying its existence, projecting it onto someone else, blaming them for your behavior, and convicting them of serious crime in the process.

Then again, what does it matter what a simple-minded, sex-obsessed, misogynistic man thinks anyway? I mean, obviously the only reason I bothered to write all this - and actually made it sound somewhat intelligent! :O – is so that I don’t feel guilty for contributing to rape culture, and for my own rapist mindset towards sex!                                    

(^ sarcasm, for all you morons who can’t read between the lines.)