Following up: Rape apologists first, then homosexuality

In response to George Will’s theory that liberals make being a rape victim look cool, we have Defeating the Dragons and a fine piece from Amy Davidson (“If Will thinks that being known as someone who reported a sexual assault causes one to be greeted with general awe, he is mistaken; the looks one gets, and the gossip, are likely quite different, particularly in the situations involving students in the same social circle.”).
In the same vein, we have W. Bradford Wilcox mansplaining that if women would only get married, they’d have a big strong man to take care of them, wouldn’t go out with strangers and so wouldn’t get raped so much. This post points out that the data Wilcox uses doesn’t say what he wants to because the only thing it focuses is on is marriage/unmarriage. Which leaves questions such as whether married women being slightly older than the average single women plays a factor (as older people don’t lead the same lifestyle). Wilcox is also a religious conservatives who believes women are happier when the husband is the breadwinner. Echidne adds more. And this Defeating the Dragons post is a reminder that no, leaving your fate in men’s hands doesn’t automatically guarantee your safety (my apologies if that’s a misinterpretation).
Moving on to Dixon (whom I wrote about yesterday), this post from some years back quotes him saying that comics are “not the forum to be informing children of homosexuality, heterosexuality, or sexually transmitted diseases.” Elsewhere he’s said that when he had a Nightwing/Oracle romance in Birds of Prey he deliberately left in vague whether they were knocking boots or saving themselves.
The things is, that’s still “informing” kids about heterosexuality, just by showing them a heterosexual relationship, whether or not it’s in the sack. Almost every comic informs readers about heterosexuality because most comics have some sort of romance element.
Simply showing a homosexual relationship in that fashion is not some kind of filthy gay propaganda, it’s just showing a romance. One that for growing number of Americans isn’t really different from a straight romance. It’s not flinging it in people’s faces, it’s not brainwashing children, it’s just a relationship.
This, in turn, reminds me of a post from John C. Wright I ran across recently (not a direct link) in which the author says he broke with the sexual revolution when “someone tried to convince me that two lesbians licking each other in the crotch was the same in all ways, just as sacred, just as romantic, just as normal, just as beautiful as Romeo and Juliet, Tristan and Iseult, Micky and Minnie, Adam and Eve, Jove and Juno, Father Sky and Mother Earth, me and my wife.”
Well, yes. Other than the mechanics, two lesbians in love can be just as romantic as Romeo and Juliet or Tristan and Iseult or Wright and Mrs. Wright. Unless you believe penis-in-vagina sex is the only form romance can take (maybe Wright, as a devout Catholic, does), saying lesbians have oral sex no more proves anything about their relationship than happy heterosexual couples who employ oral sex. Or bondage.
As Brad DeLong puts it at the link, “yes, the premises fall apart in your hand when you gingerly try to pick them up.”

1 Comment

Filed under Comics, Politics, Undead sexist cliches

One response to “Following up: Rape apologists first, then homosexuality

  1. Pingback: Airboy, hero of the indie comics skies! | Fraser Sherman's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.