No guy ever really

No guy ever really "loses control" when they sexually assault a woman. What they really mean is that she couldn't defend herself and they thought they could get away with it. No potential rapist will ever say "I lost control even though the woman was well protected".

“He Lost Control” – Why that’s a Bullshit Excuse

Underlying most of the victim blaming that goes on when a woman is assaulted, is a scary and rather offensive assumption. That men “can’t control themselves”. Apparently not a tiny number of people think that we are these slavering, foaming at the mouth, dangerous animals who need to be kept unstimulated and that a woman’s body language, her clothes, shape of her pinkie finger or whatever is like waving a red flag to a bull. “They can’t help it!”. The mother of one of the rapists in the Mumbai photojournalist gang rape case said “What was her son supposed to do? He lost control!”

Oh really? I mean seriously?

Would these guys still have assaulted the girl had they thought that:

  1. She carried a gun, or
  2. Had a deadly Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD), or
  3. Had a couple of professional bodyguards around the corner?

“Lost control” literally means “Unable to do anything else”. So little details like the above wouldn’t have stopped the guys from raping her right? Oh they would have?

But…but…they lost control. How could they have acted differently?

Oh I see! These guys “lost control” only when it was safe to do so. Right, right. I get it now. “Lost control”. *Wink wink*!

I can guarantee you that if a beautiful naked woman were to walk down the most crime infested area in Delhi at 3:00 AM with adequate protection, no one would lose control. Even the most dangerous insane maniac will keep his dick in his pants. Because they know better. They weigh the odds. They calculate.

And this is the very opposite of “losing control”. Truth be told, no one loses control. The same applies to losers who beat their wives and later justify it by saying “I lost control”. These jerkoffs are used to beating on people without getting the worst end of the deal, and so they “lose control”.

Of course, not all men even require the threat of violence to keep it down. I can confidently state that I can easily and with only a bare minimum of effort keep my hands off a woman if she just says “No” regardless of the situation, her dress, her attitude, her way of standing, the time of the night and so on and so forth.

Because I’m not an animal. Actually, why should I insult all animals here? Dogs for example are fully capable of controlling themselves if consequences are made clear. Ever seen a dog just standing in front of a tasty treat waiting for permission to gobble it? Even they have sufficient control.

So the next time you hear someone say or imply that “He lost control”, you know that it’s one of the biggest bullshit lies ever manufactured to deflect blame. In truth, they’re only condemning themselves.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (3)
  • You\'re an asshole (0)
  • Don\'t Agree but Interesting (0)
1 2

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    *Also, with regard to “the manslaughter of rape,” that didn’t even make sense!!! You can punch someone in the face and not intend to kill them (maybe you are in a bar fight and trying to defend yourself and you throw a wild punch and accidentally kill someone because they fall and hit their head or because you’re really strong).

    How do you “accidentally rape” someone? It is the job of both parties to know they have consent (particularly the initiating party, though the one who didn’t initiate also needs consent for anything not agreed upon before hand–i.e., suddenly adding something to the mix that needs to be asked about, etc.; initiating a separate sexual act). You can’t “accidentally” not know you have consent. And if you rape someone while drunk, it is a form of rape like killing someone while driving drunk is a form of murder; you take responsibility for any actions you commit while drunk, because you chose to drink (and the same does not go for a drunk woman who is raped as she is not, of course, the one who did the raping! People always seem to get confused about this for some reason: “She needs to take responsibility for her actions”–what, getting drunk and *being* raped? That makes no sense). Some people say, “If they are both equally drunk, does that mean they raped each other?” It is the responsibility of the initiating party to make sure they have consent; or, in the case where they are more sober, to say no to a very drunk person, even if that person is initiating (if they are clearly too incapacitated to give informed consent). To use alcohol as a get-out-of-rape free card just means that men are given a free pass to use alcohol as a date rape drug and excuse their behavior (as they so often do; it is the favorite MO of date and acquaintance rapists).

    So my analogy never even made SENSE! There is no way to “accidentally” rape someone. Not if you believe in getting consent first. Men KNOW when their partner is protesting, reluctant, doesn’t want to, etc.; they use lack of a strong “no” or the woman freezing up in fear as a justification (“oh, I didn’t know”) when actually it’s what they are counting on, so they can make excuses; they need to be sure it’s a “yes” (is she responding? Participating? If not, ask her if she wants to! Simple enough!!!) Enthusiastic consent is a tautological concept that shouldn’t even need explaining in the first place. Common sense, people!

    Again, thank you.

    Reply

1 2

Speak Your Mind

*