It’s not that sexual harassment of men by women never gets depicted, it’s that it isn’t seen as a problem.
Shakespeare’s “Venus and Adonis” is what would now be seen as a textbook case of sexual harassment, but I had to do some searches to eventually find a critic (a contemporary woman, probably not by coincidence) who saw it that way. Instead, I was running into other interpretations… was it supposed to be funny? Was Adonis’ refusal of Venus an example of virtuous chastity?
It’s not that sexual harassment of men by women never gets depicted, it’s that it isn’t seen as a problem.
One possible cause of this:
Just as society (the “patriarchal” one, a feminist might say) brainwashes girls and women into thinking sex should only be done out of love for their partner, sexual things are services to men, and too many other related things to list here, men also get programmed by social expectations, the most relevant here probably being:
All men enjoy sex (at least that “given” or “obtained” from women) in any form, and always do, and are always ready and willing and desiring of it. Thus, no man can possibly logically ever be sexually harassed or raped by a woman, because all men will always in all circumstances be willing unless there’s a complication factor directly attached (e.g. life threatening situations).
And even when there’s a complication attached, it isn’t “rape” or “sexual harassment” of any sort, it’s dereliction of duty or willful distraction endangering others or some other thing directly about increasing the risk or causing whatever complication factor was attached.
The above is the most common answer I’ve seen; “Men can’t be raped because men always want sex.”
Arguably, the only form seen as a “problem” (and a very insignificant one, at that) is prison inmates bending over to pick up the soap and getting a surprise present. Just the imagery and terminology used should be representative of how little people take this seriously as a “problem”—it’s usually only seen as an anecdotal deterrent against doing less-morally-damaging crimes that might still get you in jail (e.g. bank cracking or money laundering).
Out of six women with whom I tried this, all six responded by the social equivalent of laughing in my face. It just seems too ridiculously absurd: If a man doesn’t want sex, he won’t be turned on, if he’s not turned on, he won’t be erect, if he’s not erect, no sex can ensue. In all cases, the man is (apparently) turned on and erect, therefore willing, therefore no rape.
So they assume the explanation is that some men have weird preferences and enjoy sex with ugly/elderly/morbidly obese women, which is true on its own but completely irrelevant and completely ADBOC-stuff, and that this man was one of them and is just seeking to abuse society or the legal system to get free money or attention (or both).
I tried. And then something happened where I realized I had to explain stuff about arousal. And then I had to explain some biology. And then some psychology. And then they went back and destroyed 3⁄4 of all of that based on something a priest once told their father, sixty years ago. I gave up that approach and tried telling them “You’re wrong, read this on why arousal doesn’t work that way” instead. Predictably, they didn’t read it.
There’s so much inferential distance to cross in most cases that I think this is a reasonably serious social problem.
Edit: Also, one of them had already read quite a bit of PUA material “for fun”. Which kind of explicitly includes: “Arousal is separate from wanting sex.” Then again, PUA is specific towards men seducing women, and I shouldn’t expect the average person to infer that this also happens to be a humanwide universal.
I wish I remembered that example clearly enough to be reasonably confident my brain isn’t just making up stuff, so I’ll instead point in the general direction of what the bible says and “explains” about human reproductive biology. IIRC, she didn’t actually believe the bible was reliable, but she had always accepted that particular thing as “making too much sense to be false” among other tidbits of compartmentalizing most people do.
It’s not that sexual harassment of men by women never gets depicted, it’s that it isn’t seen as a problem.
Shakespeare’s “Venus and Adonis” is what would now be seen as a textbook case of sexual harassment, but I had to do some searches to eventually find a critic (a contemporary woman, probably not by coincidence) who saw it that way. Instead, I was running into other interpretations… was it supposed to be funny? Was Adonis’ refusal of Venus an example of virtuous chastity?
One possible cause of this:
Just as society (the “patriarchal” one, a feminist might say) brainwashes girls and women into thinking sex should only be done out of love for their partner, sexual things are services to men, and too many other related things to list here, men also get programmed by social expectations, the most relevant here probably being:
All men enjoy sex (at least that “given” or “obtained” from women) in any form, and always do, and are always ready and willing and desiring of it. Thus, no man can possibly logically ever be sexually harassed or raped by a woman, because all men will always in all circumstances be willing unless there’s a complication factor directly attached (e.g. life threatening situations).
And even when there’s a complication attached, it isn’t “rape” or “sexual harassment” of any sort, it’s dereliction of duty or willful distraction endangering others or some other thing directly about increasing the risk or causing whatever complication factor was attached.
The above is the most common answer I’ve seen; “Men can’t be raped because men always want sex.”
Arguably, the only form seen as a “problem” (and a very insignificant one, at that) is prison inmates bending over to pick up the soap and getting a surprise present. Just the imagery and terminology used should be representative of how little people take this seriously as a “problem”—it’s usually only seen as an anecdotal deterrent against doing less-morally-damaging crimes that might still get you in jail (e.g. bank cracking or money laundering).
The way this is usually handled is asking the men stating that to imagine a very ugly/elderly/morbidly obese woman stripping them using force.
Out of six women with whom I tried this, all six responded by the social equivalent of laughing in my face. It just seems too ridiculously absurd: If a man doesn’t want sex, he won’t be turned on, if he’s not turned on, he won’t be erect, if he’s not erect, no sex can ensue. In all cases, the man is (apparently) turned on and erect, therefore willing, therefore no rape.
So they assume the explanation is that some men have weird preferences and enjoy sex with ugly/elderly/morbidly obese women, which is true on its own but completely irrelevant and completely ADBOC-stuff, and that this man was one of them and is just seeking to abuse society or the legal system to get free money or attention (or both).
That’s … not how arousal works. At all. Did you tell them this?
I tried. And then something happened where I realized I had to explain stuff about arousal. And then I had to explain some biology. And then some psychology. And then they went back and destroyed 3⁄4 of all of that based on something a priest once told their father, sixty years ago. I gave up that approach and tried telling them “You’re wrong, read this on why arousal doesn’t work that way” instead. Predictably, they didn’t read it.
There’s so much inferential distance to cross in most cases that I think this is a reasonably serious social problem.
Edit: Also, one of them had already read quite a bit of PUA material “for fun”. Which kind of explicitly includes: “Arousal is separate from wanting sex.” Then again, PUA is specific towards men seducing women, and I shouldn’t expect the average person to infer that this also happens to be a humanwide universal.
Like what?
I wish I remembered that example clearly enough to be reasonably confident my brain isn’t just making up stuff, so I’ll instead point in the general direction of what the bible says and “explains” about human reproductive biology. IIRC, she didn’t actually believe the bible was reliable, but she had always accepted that particular thing as “making too much sense to be false” among other tidbits of compartmentalizing most people do.
I have found better luck by telling them to imagine the woman has toys.