I guess that's the sexual liberation men need. They need to realize, that they are in control of their own sexual desires.
I had a completely serious conversation with my stepbrother about male rape after I wrote a paper about it a few months ago and he looked at me like I was insane. He actually asked me how it was possible for a man to be raped in a heterosexual context. Needless to say, my mind was blown.
It's really sad to me how many men don't understand themselves as having the right to refuse sex. I mean, think about it. Even if you do have a ridiculously high sex drive, do you really want to have sex with every person you meet? Of course not. Even if you're the kind of person who is willing to lower their standards once in a while, I'm sure there are still people out there that you don't want anywhere near you in a sexual context. Even if you do want sex six times a day, every day, I'm relatively certain that you also want to be able to do other things. You know, like brush your teeth, eat, and sleep.
I think that another aspect of why it can be so difficult for people to take male rape seriously is because we have this assumption that rape is always and necessarily a penetrative act and we generally don't understand men's bodies (heterosexual ones, because to be penetrated voluntarily in a homosexual context is always, socially, to be feminised and denigrated) as penetrable. Never mind the fact that there are actually lots of ways that women can penetrate men's bodies, penetration is not actually the determinant of rape -- lack of consent is. Forcefully performing oral sex on someone or forcing someone to perform oral sex on you is legally rape to the exact same extent that penetrating someone is -- at least in a Canadian context. I know that there have been changes to the definition of rape in the US but I'm unfamiliar with what they are because reading up on American consent law causes me existential angst and I'm not familiar with anything outside of those two countries.
The flip side of this is that a lot of people assume that an erection = consent. It doesn't. An erection is a physiological response. It is entirely possible to stimulate someone to erection without their consent simply by touching them in the right way. Furthermore, men get erections for all kinds of reasons (morning wood, anyone?) and there have been many studies which have found that it is not uncommon for men get erections when they are experiencing the kind of extreme fear or anxiety that they likely would be when someone is assaulting them.
Unfortunately, most people don't understand these things and when you couple that with this idea that men want sex all the time (to the point where we often excuse their behaviour because "that's just how men are"), what emerges is this really nasty situation where: men can't be raped; or if men can be raped, it's not a big deal; or if men are raped, it's funny because it's just. so. outrageous.
Yeah, obviously I can't prove it but I get the feeling the people making those sorts of comments are the same ones who would make a "well she shouldn't have been wearing that/gotten drunk/etc" in other rape cases. Both sentiments are inexcusable of course, but it seems the double standard is coming from the same people and isn't really a double standard, because both ideas come from the same patriarchal foundation: A woman getting raped isn't a serious issue because women exist for sex with men, and a man getting raped by a woman is absurd because how can a woman have sexual agency?
Got it in one. I agree completely.