Sorry I got lazy. I meant, "there isn't centuries of history of men being sexually harassed by women based on and valued almost entirely by their appearance".

Sorry I got lazy. I meant, "there isn't centuries of history of men being sexually harassed by women based on and valued almost entirely by their appearance". There are a lot of qualifiers and I get tired of typing them all out. Louis CK puts it pretty well in one of his bits when he's talking about being called a cracker: "Oh no, you're taking me back to the days where I owned land and people". There's a big difference between white racial slurs and slurs regarding other races. White racial slurs invoke our privileged history. Slurs against other races invoke their oppressed history. The same thing goes for harassment based on appearance. Certainly men can be harassed in this way, but it's nothing like when women are, because the history is totally different. > Questions as to consent, or mistake of fact regarding consent, are always raised at trial by competent defense. These are different for men than they are for women. Men have to face the "can men really be raped?" argument, where as women have to face the "was she asking for it?" argument. You can see how men's appearance doesn't factor into this; it's the gender stereotype of men being willing to have sex with anything that's at play. But we agree that both are pretty fucked up. > I'm just stating legal fact here to debunk your claim, not endorsing anything. Haha, things are getting a little hot in here I guess. I don't think you're defending rapists or anything :).