in which I say something unpleasant, incendiary and triggery about those opposed to DADT repeal

[rm]

I'm following the hearings a bit and the usual chestnut of "there will be more male-on-male rape if we allow homosexuals in the military" keeps getting dragged out.

1. There are already gay people in the military.
2. If they were going to commit rape, a change in the DADT laws wouldn't stop them.
3. Gay women exist.
4. Why do you think all gay men are rapists?

And then I go "Ooooooooooooooooooh."

Because for me, the only reasonable explanation I can find for the "all gay men want to do is rape other men" bullshit isn't the "homophobia comes from latent homosexuality" argument.

Nope, I hear this shit and I think to myself that these straight men arguing this want to rape every woman they see (whether they ever would or not). And knowing their own desires, they assume that their rape impulses are normal, and that all men, including all gay men, must harbour them too.

It completely creeps me out.

Because let's be clear: the desire to rape, regardless of gender or orientation, is not a default state, and most men aren't rapists and don't desire to be rapists.

But I am completely creeped the fuck out by our politicians that keep arguing the damn gay rape angle.

Comments

[xtricks.livejournal.com]

No it suggests that the person *fears* innapropriate desire towards them leads to rape. It's not quite the same thing -- it's more like the idea of someone (a man) desiring them even if they don't act on it is itself harassment/assault/intrusive and frightening.

To me it seems ... an exaggeration of my understanding of 'the gaze' -- that a look itself is intrusive or means the person behind the gaze is automatically and always objectifying the person they're looking at.