Two weeks ago, the parody newspaper The Onion ran a story about a man who feared that his baby son was gay. I referenced it on the humor board at the time. What I didn't think about at the time was that the situation is tragically real in some households.
Now a Tampa, Florida man who beat his "sissy" three-year-old to death in what friendly witnesses claim was an attempt to toughen him up seems to be preparing to use a variation on the "Gay Panic" defense.
[I]t is possible that the father's "gay panic" defense might come into play, especially after witnesses tried to explain the father's motive. If Paris' lawyers try that, it would "bring the gay panic defense to a whole new level of absurdity," according to Brian Winfield, spokesman for Equality Florida.
"It is almost an impossibly that a 3-year-old toddler would be expressing sexuality," he told the PlanetOut Network. "It may have been that the child was not masculine enough. We've found that gender expression is more often the motive behind bashing (of gay adults)."
Sounds like an ideal "ripped from the headlines" story for Law & Order next season. Dick Wolf, are you listening?
Why don't we throw him a ticker tape parade?
As I recall the last big "gay panic" defense someone tried to use was Matthew Shepard's killers. They thought they might get off easier if they said they killed him over gay panic, but when they said that it made what they did a hate crime; now one of his killers is teying to appeal is conviction on the claim that he didn't even Shepard was gay.
I don't mean to sound naive, but how does one determine that a three year old is a "sissy". I'm not aware that 3 year olds are aware of their sexual orientation yet.
My guess would be that it wasn't "gay" in terms of sexual concern, but "gay" in terms of acting "effeminately." Maybe the kid was playing stereotypically "female" games or toys...which is what a lot of normal boys do at that young an age.
Another cockamamie, nonsensical garbage defense, IMHO, to cover up a child abuser. I hope he goes to jail for life, and gets what's coming to him. Whatever that will be, it will be a helluva lot better than that poor boy ever got.
Isn't Rick Santorum also using a version of "gay panic" fears. He said the liberalism of the Boston area was responsible for the Church child sexual-abuse scandal there. To many in the bible belt, he probably sounds very credible. The gay panic defense in any context is a joke. Especially men who attack gays claiming they were propositioned. Every woman has been propositioned by men they weren't interested in. Apparently, men can't say "I'm not interested" just like women always have done.
Rona: Men don't get hit on as much as women do. I mean, the average women gets hit on like what, every time a man talks to her? Men don't have that problem, so we really have no idea what to do.
Of course, I wonder how men know they've been hit on at all? I mean, most men aren't the most observant people in the world, esp. considering other people.
But then, many men think they're god's gift to humanity and womenkind, so they think that every woman is attracted to them.
So either men think they are hit on all the time, or they don't notice unless a woman jumps on them and says "Make sex with me!", right? 
many men think they're god's gift to humanity and womenkind,
You mean I'm not? 
I know exactly when I've been hit on. My wife tells me. :-)
ScottN,
You mean I'm not?
Would you believe me if I told you that you aren't? Then there's a chance you are... (well, not *the* ultimate gift, but a nice little present at least... )
I've worked with other guys who think that any gay guy who talks to them is hitting on them.
Brian F: Well, that's reasonable, if something of a logical fallacy. If they hit on every women they talk to, then it is reasonable to assume that gay men hit on every man they talk to.
Matt Pesti: Is it, in fact, reasonable, if it is based on the faulty premise that every man hits on every person of the sex to which he is attracted? I'm really not sure that fits the definition of "reason," and I'm really rather uncomfortable with the implicit condoning of the justification of homophobia because "it's icky when gay men hit on you."
Well he did say it was a logical fallacy. Which it definately is, not every guy hits on every woman he meets and not every homosexual guy hits on every guy he meets.
I'm really rather uncomfortable with the mere existence of homophobia whatever the reason given for it.
So how do these men know the other is gay in the first place? Before they draw the mistaken assumption they're being hit on. I guess they go by their rather warped power of observation: "Everybody who's not an ultimate macho (like Tim Taylor in Home Improvement, grunting, watching sports, drinking, stupid) must be gay, therefore he must be hitting on me." Please protect humankind from these guys and shoot them all to the moon
Don't you know, constanze? All guys have "gaydar". They can tell if another guy is gay
You know whats funny I used to work with a homosexual guy who was as butch as some of the biker's I work with now.
C'mon, truthfully now. How many of you thought George Takei, Mr. Sulu, was gay? I met the man at a convention back in '85 and I never would have suspected it.
"First, we kill all the lawyers."
Constanze and Scott N: Yeah, Gaydar. And also The Force. Or confirmation bias, either way.
Other Matt P: The logical fallacy in question is mirror imaging, which is a kind of false analogy. The fallacy is in assuming Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same tactics.
No, I am assuming that one of the things that defines the male of the species is a unceasing desire to copulate, during heat, and that it exists independently of "sexual orientation" whatever that might be.
BS by any other name still stinks.
Matt Pesti,
No, I am assuming that one of the things that defines the male of the species is a unceasing desire to copulate, during heat, and that it exists independently of "sexual orientation" whatever that might be.
Wow. You really have an even lower opinion of males than me...
Or do you distinguish between "males" who fit your definition above, and "men" who are humans?
(FYI, humans aren't in "heat": they can both reproduce and have sex the whole year round, even when the woman is already pregnant. This indicates to many non-puritans that sex is for more than just procreation.)
Constanze: Since when do I have a high opinion of that failed experiment in corporeal sentience called humanity? Anyone?
Humans are indeed in "heat", it just happens to occur on a more regular basis. The correct reading of this is that humans originated from a local where a continous breeding cycle either carried no negative weight or served as an advantage, not that "sex is for more than procreation."
This indicates to many non-puritans that sex is for more than just procreation
Puritans? Weren't you condemning soft drinks a few weeks ago?
Humans are indeed in "heat", it just happens to occur on a more regular basis. The correct reading of this is that humans originated from a local where a continous breeding cycle either carried no negative weight or served as an advantage, not that "sex is for more than procreation."
Apparently you have a different definition of "being in heat" than me. I was using the biological one, where animals are "in heat" only during a certain time of the year - and they can only become pregnant at this time - and are then concerned only about reproduction, while the rest of the year, they don't even snuggle up to each other.
If humans are "in heat" the whole time, then it's not a narrow window of time. And human females can't signal when they're receptive, and when their monthly cycle is just over and all those little buggers will go to waste without fertilising.
As for the "continuous breeding cycle" - you do know that not everytime people have sex they make a baby? And that people don't have sex because they want a baby? (Why do the males, who are usually more sex-driven than the females, get panic when the women mention the wish to have a baby and start a family?) The most obvious indication of this is that humans have sex even when the female is pregnant or lactacting, which prevents a conception.
As for the purpose of sex: Humans have fun having sex (unless they're puritan or otherwise have been taught to feel guilty). Animals who are in heat don't have fun, they're following a need. Together with the fact that people can and do have sex outside the reproductive cycle, most biologists/anthropologists etc. conclude that sex serves to bind humans together, to form lasting relationships. (And before you tell me that people cheat: the mechanism doesn't need to be perfect to still have an advantage).
This is because humans don't have a "continous breeding cycle" aka the rabbit strategy, but follow the elephant strategy of one baby, long gestation, long infancy. Because infancy and childhood are esp. long in humans compared to animals, humans need more stable families then some animals, where the little ones can walk after a few hours, and are grown up enough to care for themselves after a year or two.
If you look at our closest relatives, the chimps, they're quite aggressive when establishing their social hierarchy. In contrast, the Bonobos are peaceful, because they use sex to defuse situations. (Which is why everybody jumps everybody, often, all the time, though not for very long). In normal chimps, the social interaction is done by "grooming". Humans have snuggling, petting etc. to show affection.
This indicates to many non-puritans that sex is for more than just procreation
Puritans? Weren't you condemning soft drinks a few weeks ago?
You had me lost there for several minutes, until I realized what you were talking about. I did not condemn soft drinks because of a religious thing, or because they're too much pleasure. I said they're very bad for your health (too much sugar, caffeeine, artifical taste) compared to water or fruit juices. This is based on scientific data. Too much sugar, fat, salt, alcohol, stress, monotony or too little sport, challenges are bad for your health, too.
That doesn't mean I condem these things and claim that people will go to hell for eating/drinking them. Their health will suffer, which can be observed. If they want to care for their health, they can change their behaviour, and reverse the effects somewhat. No hell, no saviour, no guilt necessary.
Puritans are the extreme that first comes to my mind when talking about an uneasy attitude towards sex - like thinking a movie is "adult" (harmful to children) if a naked breast can be seen, but not if bad guys are killed with extreme violence.
Normal christians aren't that repressed towards sex, because normal churches have arrived in this century and recognized that people shall love another and show this in their marriage, instead of heaping guilt on people for normal feelings.
Dude I grew up on a farm and can tell you humans do not go into "heat" the way animals do. We have sexual relations for any reason or no reason with very few biological constraints such as fertility or season. Also just because one partner is in the mood does not mean that the other partner can be or will be, in heat both partners are driven by the physical biological need to mate. Think PonFarr with Vulcans, that is an example of "heat". Huamns have sex for pleasure, recreation, procreation, boredom, just about any reason can be found besides just procreation.
About the only other creatures on the planet that appear to have sex for pleasure the way humans do are dolphins.
So if a person rapes someone can they use the I was in "heat" defense?
Constanze:
Quote:The puritan hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.
Thomas B. Macaulay
But humans don't have sex for just procreative reasons or even get into the mood for procreation. The right music, perfume, clothes and or setting can all cause a person to get randy not just some biological imperative. And some erotic or sexual pleasure can be had without even involving the genitals compleately or entangling them at least.
And the Puritans and the Victorians would get along reasonably well on many subjects. Especially concerning uptight prudish morals concerning sex and sexuality. During victorian times it was considered lewd behavior for a woman to expose her ankles in public. And since the puritans believed lewd behavior to be evil of course they'd both wanna ban it.
and yes while humanity does share many traits with animals we also are one of the few animals with a higher sense of reasoning and capacity for cognitive thought. So using animal heat or hunger or whatever would not do you much good as we would call you an animal and put you away.
I really think you are confusing Puritan with Victorians. The Puritans were more concerned with the effects of all vice on society. ..
Okay, give me your definition of those two, then. I define Puritans as a certain POV towards life (an ethical/moral standpoint), which heavily influenced morals during Victorian times (which is a certain period in history, for me).
Sex: Okay, let's use syllogism;
If one of the things that defines the male of the species is a unceasing desire to copulate, during heat
And Humans are indeed in "heat", it just happens to occur on a more regular basis.
Then Human males have an unceasing desire for copulation on a regular basis.
For this syllogism to work, you have to prove your first two assumptions, which you didn't. You just stated them, and I gave you the biological definition of heat instead.
If you like, I can also give you the biological definition of "male" (that would take some time, because I'd have to look it up in it's entirety), but it doesn't say anything about "the desire to copulate". More along the lines of having at least one Y chromosome.
My understanding of natural selection is that in order to survive, organisms must reproduce faster than they can be killed off, and the survivors are better suited for survival than the dead are. Species that have more sex are more likely to reproduce faster, giving a darwinian advantage to more sex.
That's a skewed definition of natural selection you have. Yes, sexual reproduction is a favour over asexual reproduction - which is why all higher animals have it. The question isn't whether sex is better than no sex, or more sex is better than less sex. The question is: why do almost all higher animals (vertrebrates and mammals) have sex only when they are in heat (and able to procreate), thus wasting no energy, but humans (and bonobos and dolphins) have sex even when they can't reproduce? Therefore, scientists assume that sex fulfills other functions for humans beside simple procreation - because humans get a warm, fuzzy feeling from sex, it may help to bind the partnership.
And "species that have more sex are more likely to reproduce faster" - no. Animals don't think: gee, too many of our litter this time have been eaten, why don't we procreate sooner? They have certain times when they go into heat because then the eggs and sperma are produced. And the rabbit strategy (having a lot of offspring, but not caring much about them) works for some species, but not for all. Other mammals follow the elephant strategy (having one offspring at a time, which takes a long time to mature), and it works for them, too.
Now, the reason I said "Heat" is because for many species, sex and child rearing are resource and time expensive. So for many species, the environment shaped them to limit reproduction to a short process. Humans, Elephants and others faced no such pressure. When animal males do go into heat, they are very willing to kill over sex. Humans are just like that all the time.
Umm, child rearing has nothing to do with being "in heat". Almost all animals are "in heat" at a specific time, but their child-rearing ranges from non-existent with fishes to youngsters running around (horses etc.) to extensive care for several years (chimps etc.)
And when animals go into heat, the males most often don't kill each other. That would be wasteful for the species. They battle for show, taking care not to inflict wounds to each other.
And humans aren't ready to kill at the drop of a hat because they're in heat (or not). Just where do you live that you think that's normal?
Of course, feel free to believe your own definition that humans are in heat, and all males are driven only by the need to reproduce. Just don't claim it's the offical biolgical viewpoint.
R: Humans have a large capacity for learned behavior, and .
Constanze: The Puritans were a group of Radical Calvinist Englishmen with a desire to destroy evil, rather than tolerate. Their goal was revolution and to create a model Christian Society along the lines of Geneva or Knox's Scotland, in which vice was eliminated. Several sects settled in the New World, gave us the New England states, amoung other things. If asked to define what a "Puritan" would be, it would be someone with an unhealthy desire to eliminate vice.
The Victorians get an unfair shake. Their obsession with sex had to to do with the Industrial Revolution. Due to the economic upheaval, many women were forced to enter into prositution. The prudishness we associate with the Victorian age, was a backlash to this. You too would be obbessed with the dark side of sex if cheap prositution was undermining the moral underpinnings of your society. You have to understand the experiance of women who were often 18 and virgins were getting married to men whose sexual experiance for the often last five to ten years of their lives consisted of prositutes, bad sexual habits, veneral disease, and married life would consist of constant adultery, you would have a different outlook. So, if looking for a ahistorial insult, I would define "Victorian" as someone with an unhealthy obessession on the dark side of sex.
Of course, the problem is, neither Victorians nor Puritans liked violence anymore than they liked sex. Men who beat their prositutes, would often go on to beat their wives, so the Victorians saw it as one and the same, and also spawned Prohibition, which again argued the Demon Rum was the cause of much human violence. Puritans, while they enjoyed killing the devil and his servants, belived violence corrupted the soul, and outlawed blood sport.
Sigh, I still don't have an answer. Just say "Prudish."
Males: According to Wikipedia, which I argue stands until demolished by a more scholarly source, as male produces sperm. That's it.
While I fail to see your objections (I mean, my argument is that heterosexuals and homosexuals should have the same sex drive based on common )
I shall seek to answer you.
Male agression is linked to high levels of the hormone testosterone. link, which is where we get the expression in English of "neutered." If you mutilate the genitals of a male animal, it loses most of it's agressive tendencies. In fact, that will be my first piece of evidence. The differences in behavior between an fixed animal and an animal with intact genitals.
Now, as for humans always being in heat. I will use every male on this board. Those of you who are active abstain for a few days. Compare and contrast how you feel before and after. Basically, from what it was explained to me, men do have a period, but it is a daily cycle, not monthly. Any male mood swings over the course of a day can be attributed to it. Second, let's use the female mensual cycle. Do I even have to explain how that effects female behavior?
My theory well explains the sex lives of Dolphins, Humans and Pygmy Chimps, namely the lack of seasonal change as part of their environment. Most animals that go into heat once a year do so because they descended from species whose evolutionary success derives from reproducing at the time of spring or the rainy season. The species that breed like bonobos and gave birth at the end of fall failed. Reproducing only when the most food existed increased the number of offspring that survived.
Of course animals don't think about their survival strategies. Thay just happen to be using the one that causes their species to survive the best. But don't take my word for it.
Again, the reason why most animals don't kill each other in mating rituals is because the ones that did died out.
The number of murders in the US in 2004 was 16,137. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
So I say again, why is it illogical to assume common male behaviors that occur in both heterosexual and homosexual males?
Ok so lets say you are right about men being horny or rather "scientifically" in "heat" all the time. This is a natural biological process that needs release at some point or another either alone or with a partner. So why does the catholic church (and a few other relgions) 1: condemn this behavior, and 2: expect their priests to be able to withstand the biological process and remain totally and utterly celibate with no exception.
Why is it illogical. Well for example not every man is after every woman that he speaks to. For the most part there has to be some kind of attraction there even if it is totally shallowly physical. SO to say that every guy is chasing every tail that he comes near is just plain illogical.
Also why react so violently just because a guy did say somethign nice about you or otherwise do the same thing you do to every woman. Is it because of fear of your own sexuality? or a fear of the reflection of your own behavior towards women?
Matt Pesti,
...If asked to define what a "Puritan" would be, it would be someone with an unhealthy desire to eliminate vice.
As oposed to those who tolerate vice? I'd associate Puritans more with the idea that all fun was forbidden, because I don't consider forbidding gambling a desire to eliminate vice.
The Victorians get an unfair shake. Their obsession with sex had to to do with the Industrial Revolution. Due to the economic upheaval, many women were forced to enter into prositution. ...
Interesting alternate history theory you have there. I'm sure the Catholics who first introduced the uptight attitude towards sex in Europe are relived to get off the hook, because it was the Industrial Revolution really.
Of course, the problem is, neither Victorians nor Puritans liked violence anymore than they liked sex. Men who beat their prositutes, would often go on to beat their wives, so the Victorians saw it as one and the same, and also spawned Prohibition, which again argued the Demon Rum was the cause of much human violence.
You are mixing things a bit here, I'd say. And I'm a bit surprised that the Victorians with all their corporeal punishment didn't like violence. Maybe you meant: they didn't like extreme violence against wifes, which resulted in broken bones or the like, but a not-excessive beating was normal?
Males: According to Wikipedia, which I argue stands until demolished by a more scholarly source, as male produces sperm. That's it.
But that doesn't fit with your earlier definition that males are driven by the desire to copulate.
While I fail to see your objections (I mean, my argument is that heterosexuals and homosexuals should have the same sex drive based on common )
My objection is that you've only stated, not proven, that
Human males are "in heat", i.e. driven by a desire to reproduce
that this biological need is imperative
that this desire/need is related to the production of sperm (or the Y-chromosome?), and not to personal character.
If you prove all this, then yes, homos are driven by the same desire to copulate as hetero males.
Male agression is linked to high levels of the hormone testosterone. link, which is where we get the expression in English of "neutered." ...
No, this article didn't prove it. It says that the cause of aggression is still unknown, that there are contributing factors (it even mentions the debunked notion of YY-males being more aggressive, which should be the case if testosteron is the only cause).
Aggression is a multi-causal phenomen, so there is no single-cause cure. It's also not an imperative, because most males (and most humans) don't kill each other daily because their need makes them kill their rivals for females, or similar.
Now, as for humans always being in heat. I will use every male on this board. ...
I'm waiting for the voices of disagreement... I'm sure there are some guys on this board who aren't controlled by their hormones.
After all, everybody must eat. So, I call all the nitpickers to stop eating for a few days. Do you notice a change? Yes? Did you go out and kill the next person you saw to satisfy your hunger? No? Gee, I wonder why... Maybe the biological drive isn't the only thing that makes humans do something...
My theory well explains the sex lives of Dolphins, Humans and Pygmy Chimps, namely the lack of seasonal change as part of their environment. Most animals that go into heat once a year do so because they descended from species whose evolutionary success derives from reproducing at the time of spring or the rainy season.
Or like bears, who give birth in the mid-winter. And dolphins don't get children continuously, they have sex when they feel like it. They travel to different parts according to the seasons (temperature), and have places where they give birth (nurseries).
The number of murders in the US in 2004 was 16,137.
Okay, and what does that number prove in relation to hormone-driven /biological-controlled human males?
So I say again, why is it illogical to assume common male behaviors that occur in both heterosexual and homosexual males?
Because human hetero males aren't robots driven by biological needs, all clones with no difference. The behaviour in normal hetero males is too complex and broad to limit to one or two "normal" behaviours.
Puritan: Somebody who is worried that someone, somewhere, is enjoying himself.
Or: "If you're having fun, it must be a sin".
...Basically, from what it was explained to me, men do have a period, but it is a daily cycle, not monthly....
I forgot to answer this, but ... do you know what the female period is? I haven't heard of any males who go through any kind of that cycle. Just because the pharma industry invented "Male menopause" to sell pills doesn't mean it really exists, just as "Mid-life-crisis" was invented by people who wanted to sell books.
R: The short answer is that 1. Humans have to curb their desires, or as Plato would call them, passions, and Sex has a number of bad consequences if treated as an unchecked passion. 2. the Catholic Church expects it's celebrates to pray, attend mass daily and work a lot. In other words, discipline. 3. And it should be noted most historical cultures had women get married at 13 and men at 18, not this late 30's nonsense we do today.
Constanze: I said, "unhealthy desire." Trying to eliminate all evil from society is foolish, and always fails. A prudent ruler accepts that a small amount is going to exist, and focuses on the larger problems.
The Catholics introduced an uptight attitude towards sex? Sorry, my statue of limitations on fake greivences ended around the eight century. If you think Christianity's doctrine of Chasity is too strict, well, that's your problem.
Yes, many socieites don't like violence yet are themselves violent. It's called the gap between the ideal and reality.
Males:
I assumed everyone knew the biological components of masculine identity.
Testosterone and Agression: The Female Hyena is the dominant member of the social group. It also has the highest level of testosterone in a female animal.
I didn't say humans are controlled by their hormones or that males are. That's like claiming you are controled by your period. Our hormones affect our behavior.
If bears give birth in mid-winter, then the cubs should be weaned and ready to go by spring.
I meant Period, as the monthly menstrual cycle. When a male becomes unusally irritable, for no reason, every single day, it's because of hormones. (Please spare me the "Worse than the Holocaust and Crufication combined" speech. We get it, it's bad.)
Sorry, my statue of limitations on fake greivences ended around the eight century.
Sorry, my English is getting lost. Can you explain that in simpler words?
If you think Christianity's doctrine of Chasity is too strict, well, that's your problem.
It's not the chastity in Christianity I have a problem with, but the attitude that started with Augustinus (but is really the Manichäist doctrine snuck in by the back door) that sex and everything else to do with the flesh is bad, and sex is only allowed for making babies. I consider that an unhealthy and demeaning attitude towards something that can be very nice.
Males:
I assumed everyone knew the biological components of masculine identity.
Yes. Males produces sperm, and Human Males have at least one Y chromosome. So why did do you define Males as having a desire to copulate/procreate?
Testosterone and Agression: The Female Hyena is the dominant member of the social group. It also has the highest level of testosterone in a female animal.
I thought we were talking about human males here, not hyenas?
And did you read the article you linked to? It cited several factors, including hypoglycemia. So everybody who doesn't eat enough sugar is aggressive? (Too much sugar is the Twinkies defense, though.)
I didn't say humans are controlled by their hormones or that males are. That's like claiming you are controled by your period. Our hormones affect our behavior.
Okay, so males aren't controlled but affected by their hormones. Can you please define the difference?
If human (hetero) males aren't controlled by their hormones to jump every female in sight, why should homo males be controlled to jump every male in sight? If self-control, discipline and the like are stronger than the hormonal inclinations, doesn't that collapse your earlier chain of syllogism?
I meant Period, as the monthly menstrual cycle. When a male becomes unusally irritable, for no reason, every single day, it's because of hormones. (Please spare me the "Worse than the Holocaust and Crufication combined" speech. We get it, it's bad.)
So human males have a daily hormonal cycle that makes them act like jerks because they're irritated. That must be news to most andrologists.
(And what speech should I spare you?? Huh? I'm a bit lost there.)
As for "Getting it": once you establish that males get anything, you still have to prove that's the reason they're "irritable". I've heard that some males blame every time a woman is angry at men for being jerks on PMS... but that doesn't mean that's true. (If it were, some women would have PMS every other day.) Rather, it's because there are so many jerks running around making women's life difficult.
(If you are speaking from personal experience about being irritated every day and getting it which makes you feel bad, I'd recommend seeing a doctor - not an andrologist, but a neurologist or psychologist, because while it may well be caused by a hormononal or neurotransmitter imbalance, I don't believe these originate in the testicles, but in the brain. Neurotransmitter imbalancies can be better diagnosed and treated chemically today then in the past.)
I am sorry but as a male I do not get any different emotionally when i go for a period without any. My emoitions are affected some by my hormones but as a higher reasoning being I am able to ignore and control them for the most part.
However sexual repression is never a healthy behavior, especially when performed in the way the church does. In some ways the catholic repression of sexulaity probably led to a lot of the priest molestation since they are not permitted a healthy release.
As for everythign else I thing Constanze already beat me to most of it.
Maybe the gay panic men are scared because sometimes when a woman says no thank you it ends in a violent r@pe? I'm not justifying it. Just saying the man who uses this reasoning probably thinks saying no is a reason for r@pe.
I mean, hell, I've heard a non-insignificant amount of women talk about how their man doesn't wash their ass because that'd be too gay. That's the level of insane toxic masculinity we're talking here. ••••••• nuts. We need to figure something out.
And, on that note, I'm closing this thread until further notice.