Right-wing Women

kind of distinction can be made because that would require a repudiation of force as a part of normal sex. Since the nearly universal acceptance of forced intercourse in marriage is a kind of universal callousness—an agreement as to

the disposition of married women’s bodies, thereby annihilating

any conception of their civil or sexual rights or any sensitivity to

force in sex as a violation of those women’s rights—it is easy to

extend the callous acceptance of men’s civilly guaranteed right to

use force to get sex to broader categories of women, also to girls,

and this has happened. There is the belief that men use force because they are men. There is the belief that women like force and respond to it sexually. There is the belief that force is intrinsically

sexy. There is the conceit that the married woman is the most

protected of all women: if force is right with her, with whom can it

be wrong? if a man does to another woman what he does to his

wife, it may be adultery but how can it be rape when in fact it is

simply—from his point of view— plain old sex? There is the definition of when a girl becomes a woman: a girl may be considered

adult because she has menstruated (at the age of ten, for instance)

or because she has a so-called provocative quality, which means

that a man wants to fuck her and that therefore she is presumed to

be a woman and to have adult knowledge of what sex is and what a

woman is. There is the definition of the female in terms of her

function, which is to be fucked; so it may be unfortunate that she

is fucked too early, but once fucked she has fulfilled a preordained

function as a woman and therefore is a woman and therefore can

legitim ately be fucked.

With respect to pregnancy, if a woman can be forced to bear a

child conceived by force in marriage, there is no logic in differentiating pregnancy as a result of rape or incestuous rape. Force is the norm; pregnancy is the result; the woman has no claim to a respected identity not predicated on forced intercourse— that is, at best her dignity inheres in being a wife, subject to forced intercourse and therefore to forced pregnancy; w hy would any woman’s body be entitled to more respect than the married woman’s? Rape,

rarely credited as such by men unless the display of force has been

brutal almost beyond imagining, is in fact an exaggerated expression of a fully accepted sexual relation between men and women; and incestuous rape adds a new element of exaggeration, but the

essential sexual relation— the relation of force to female— remains

the same. Therefore, men—especially men responsible for maintaining the right and role of sexual force in marriage (lawmakers and theologians)— cannot consider pregnancy resulting from rape

or incestuous rape as significantly different from pregnancy that results from the normal use of a married woman; and in their frame of reference regarding intercourse, it is not. The woman’s function

is to be fucked— and if she is pregnant, then she was fucked, no

matter what the circumstance or the means. Being fucked did not

violate her integrity as a woman because being fucked is her integrity as a woman. Force is intrinsic to fucking, and the state cannot allow women to determine when they have been raped (forced),

because rape (force) in marriage is supported by the state. The

willingness to consider rape or incestuous rape exceptions at all

comes from the male recognition that a man might not want to

accept the offspring of another man’s rape as his own; a father may

not want to be both father and grandfather to the daughter of his

daughter. These exceptions, to the extent that they are or will be

honored in legislation forbidding abortion, exist to protect men.