re: #29 Quoth the raven, Covfefe.

Whereas I do. My question was mostly rhetorical - in wingnut-land, a woman is property, a trophy to be showcased. The idea of consent never enters into their head; the woman does what the man wants, when he wants it. It’s ingrained in their twisted Biblical interpretation of, “Wives, submit to your husbands,” that has been taken so far out of context that part of me wants to (sacrilege!) rip that page out of the Bible and burn it. In that line of thinking, a woman who says “no” clearly means, “Yes, but only if you force me, because I like it when you exercise your Biblical authority over me,” rather than meaning, “Seriously, no, fuck off, you creep.” Because there’s no way a proper conservative woman would ever dare to actually mean “no” when she says it to a man… he’s the head of the household.

Part of this same story is the horrible idea that rape of a woman is not a crime of violence against the woman — it is a property crime and the real victim is the woman’s male owner. RWNJ blather about purity, rape etc. often shows traces of this vile view.