Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Your Roots Are Showing Previous entry: Oh god, make it stop, why can’t it just stop?

From the annals of willful ignorance on sexual violence

CrimeFeminism

What’s most startling to me about this story of rape denialism coming from the University of the Pacific was not that a school official is trying to protect some male athletes by downplaying the reality of rape, but that he did so by actually using language so cliched that it’s like from the mouth of a cartoon sexist, drawn to illustrate a major rape fallacy.

“We would consider it date rape,” says University spokesman Richard Rojo, noting that he believes that “outright rape” only involves “a rapist jumping out of bushes and attacking people randomly.”

I can feel the auto-sympathy that our society generates for assailants over their victims that kicks in even in those of us who know better.  Surely the confusion stems from it being one of those situations you hear so much about, those “gray” rapes.  You know, where she lays there stiff and terrified, but she doesn’t say anything, and the doofus male only figures out that he raped her after waking up to find her quietly crying, and gosh, it’s her fault for not speaking up because men are daft, you know—-right?  Well, no, it wasn’t that situation at all.

A woman identified in court papers as Jane Doe claimed in a March lawsuit that two basketball players raped her at a May 2008 party at Townhouses, campus housing on Pershing Avenue, and that a third player came into the room where she was and assaulted her as the first two players were leaving.

Don’t let all that “claimed” language confuse you and give you an excuse to dodge the issue—-the school official acknowledge that this rape did happen.  So, it wasn’t a “jump out of the bushes” rape, but it’s the other kind that most people will, even if they don’t want to, admit is a brutal rape—-the drunken gang rape of a woman cornered in a room at a party.  Really, if you don’t think that’s a rape, you probably don’t think the jumping out of the bushes rape is a rape either. 

In other news on the WTF front, Susannah Breslin wants you to know that if you didn’t find Guy Cimbalo’s “hate fuck” screed that Jesse wrote about yesterday funny, it’s because you’re a humorless feminist bore.  I suppose now I’ll have to make fun of the victim in the University of the Pacific story to get my cred back, since if even a hint of sexual violence is so funny that it actually works as a substitute for having a proper wit.  Really, you don’t even need to attend to the joke part when making rape jokes.  Just say, “Boy, I really think about raping some ladies sometimes,” and we’re all contractually obligated to laugh indulgently, or else be tarred with the dread word “feminist” or, if male “pussy-whipped”. 


To be fair, I can’t actually say that Cimbalo’s article was a long rape fantasy that rode in under the term “hate fuck”—-since it’s being systematically wiped off the internet, and every cache and screenshot I try to find has been taken down, I’m shit out of luck on confirming for myself.  Conservative outrage over the article is unhelpful, since they aren’t in the habit of distinguishing between consensual sex and rape themselves, and often aggressively try to blur the distinction, which means they’re easily confused on the subject, even when they know they’re supposed to know the difference, because a cheap partisan gain is on the line. I didn’t see the piece when it came out, because I just wasn’t really in the mood, and less so when some wingnut on Twitter informed me that I needed to quit worrying about minor issues like murder and domestic terrorism, because someone said something nasty about Michelle Malkin, and since Michelle has helpfully tried to ruin my reputation and get me fired in the past, I need to drop everything I’m doing and attend to her defense immediately. In so many (140) characters.

Still, Salon’s Broadsheet is helpful, and it appears that Cimbalo may have toed the official consent line while merely borrowing the zazz and mandatory laughs that a hint of sexual violence can bring to the table.  Notably, he used the usually-popular-with-conservatives belief that having sex with a woman automatically degrades her, particularly if she likes it, and as more than one pornographic rape fantasy tells us, women—-being dirty, subhuman, disgusting things—-actually love it once you’ve used a little force to disabuse them of the pretense they erect of being a human with dignity and reduce them to a thing that is pronged.  (In this extremely conservative view of sex, being pronged automatically means being degraded, of course.)  So, you can officially avoid the outright rape joke while borrowing the cmonhaveasenseofhumorfeminists bullying technique into getting people to pretend it’s funny by merely hinting at violence with the term “hate fuck”.  I’ve been made to understand that a hate fuck is where two people who hate each other but have sexual chemistry throw all caution to the wind and get it on.  That’s the theory.  In practice, I usually hear it to mean something quite close to actually synonymous with “rape her until she gives in and likes it”, which is a sexual fantasy and not a reality, but then again, you only ever hear “hate fuck” used as a hypothetical anyway. 

It’s no coincidence that conservative punditry is full of women who give Cimbalo sort-of-guilty ideas about using sex as punishment. Nobody makes Michelle Malkin dress up in a cheerleader outfit. The style of conservatism she and her ilk espouse feeds directly off men who are unwilling to view them as equal citizens.

Which of course is why reading conservative reactions to it was so incoherent, because I don’t think they really quite understood why it was sexist, though they know that it is, because when they do it to women, feminists give them shit about it.  Sort of how you know that it’s a raincloud because it’s raining. 

This is the point where I have to carefully point out that I don’t think anything is off-limits for Teh Funny, and often, I get annoyed at feminists who are usually not survivors of sexual violence who try to defend the presumed sensitivities of those of us who are by declaring sexual violence completely off-limits for jokes.  They don’t do a humorectomy when they touch your ladyparts against your will.  But the problem with most rape jokes—-or “hate fuck” jokes that borrow its allure without technically crossing the line—-is that it’s all rape and no joke. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 05:27 PM • (64) Comments

“We would consider it date rape,” says University spokesman Richard Rojo, noting that he believes that “outright rape” only involves “a rapist jumping out of bushes and attacking people randomly.”

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

No he did NOT say that. Unbelievable. I am officially (starrting now) speechless.

Comment #1: Mark  on  06/02  at  06:46 PM

That’s just extra classy.  I mean, he made the happy distinction between “real rape” where the woman is just physically attacked and “date rape” where she is… I don’t know… given candy and flowers before she is attacked.  Does that work with any other crimes?  “Yeah, I’m jacking your car at gunpoint, but not before I buy you dinner.”  If this had been his daughter, or his sister, or his wife, or his mother, I wonder if he’d still be drawing the same line in the sand.

Comment #2: Zifnab25  on  06/02  at  06:53 PM

“We would consider it date murder,” says University spokesman Richard Rojo, noting that he believes that “outright murder” only involves “a murderer jumping out of bushes and attacking people randomly.”

It’s a whole new paradigm of law!

“We would consider it date grand larceny,” says University spokesman Richard Rojo, noting that he believes that “outright grand larceny” only involves “a thief jumping out of bushes and robbing people randomly.”

“We would consider it employment related embezzlement,” says University spokesman Richard Rojo, noting that he believes that “outright embezzlement” only involves “an embezzler jumping out of bushes and embezzling from companies randomly.”

See?  As long as you aren’t committing crimes randomly, it’s much less serious.  When the following happens, it’s okay in Rojo’s mind.  Lucky students…

“We would consider it education related plagiarism,” says University spokesman Richard Rojo, noting that he believes that “outright plagiarism” only involves “an plagiarist jumping out of bushes and plagiarizing authors randomly.”

How does this man have a job at a university?

Comment #3: Jake Squid  on  06/02  at  06:57 PM

A thought experiment:

“We would consider it date murder,” says University spokesman Richard Rojo, noting that he believes that “outright murder” only involves “a murderer jumping out of bushes and killing people randomly.”

No, I don’t think it would work as a defense…

Comment #4: Captain Bathrobe  on  06/02  at  06:58 PM

Oh, looks like Jake Squid covered exactly the same point one minute before I did.  Damn you sir!  smile

Comment #5: Captain Bathrobe  on  06/02  at  06:59 PM

My beautiful, devoted dog died on Memorial Day. My family and I always wondered why he seemed to have this inborn hostility towards most men and was so protective of me, and to a lesser extent, my mom and sister-in-law. The events of the past few days are beginning to convince me that he was in fact absolutely right, and simply possessed an especially keen ability to size people up on sight.

Comment #6: Liz212  on  06/02  at  07:04 PM

Wow. Just…wow.

If they want every potential female student in America not to go to their school, they just succeeded in that goal. Certainly in 11 years, should my daughter be thinking about attending Pacific, I’ll strongly recommend she look for a different school that doesn’t think rape is a trivial offense.

Comment #7: Jeff Fecke  on  06/02  at  07:05 PM

Are you paying attention, guidance counselors of America?  Parents?  This is the school that you discourage your kids from applying to.  This is the one that when they send you glossy promotional materials for the college fair, or ask to come and sell their school to your kids, you politely decline, saying that you really don’t think your students, male or female, are interested in attending a university that downplays sexual violence.

Comment #8: MadLibrarian  on  06/02  at  07:06 PM

I can’t believe that I wanted to go to UoP when I was a senior.  Boy am I glad that my parents couldn’t afford to help me pay for college, because somehow I don’t miss the obligatory date-rape-as-coming-of-age-college-experience. 

That comment revealed so much about the speaker’s own sexual life and how rape culture works.

Comment #9: history_mom  on  06/02  at  07:21 PM

Hey liz:
my dog seems to have hatred of children. My guess is a little person was mean to him at some point in his life and he is not letting it go. I thought about trying to get hom over it. Instead I got a. Vasectomy.

Comment #10: John Rove  on  06/02  at  07:33 PM

A “gray” rape defense of gang rape.  Classy.

Comment #11: keshmeshi  on  06/02  at  07:49 PM

I wonder how Richard Rojo would interpret The Accused.

Comment #12: keshmeshi  on  06/02  at  07:51 PM

If there’s an appropriate use of ‘hate fuck,’ it really can’t come in the context of total strangers, like a playboy author and a conservative pundit. 

It’s the kind of thing that sort of works on TV shows and movies, when the participants you know, have obvious sexual chemistry, and then have passionate, consensual sex, during which the hatred is gone, even if it returns afterwards.  And even then, it’s rare that the situation is ‘hatred’ as much as it is ‘mild annoyance’

Comment #13: Billingham  on  06/02  at  08:05 PM

I used to work in public relations and wouldn’t mind getting back into the business. But Richard Rojo, along with the other catastrophic PR failures in recent months (AmazonFail and the “SyFy” Channel), are starting to convince me that I’m the only person in the universe who thinks that PR professionals are supposed to know how to improve public relations for their organizations, not make them worse…

Comment #14: Scott  on  06/02  at  08:30 PM

@ Jake Squid & Captain Bathrobe: Exactly. In Bizarro World, rape is to murder as abortion is to private medical procedure. Ie, contextualizable and always, always open to public interpretation. If there’s a vagina involved reality doesn’t matter.

Comment #15: mir  on  06/02  at  08:33 PM

I wonder if these chuckleheads ever think for a minute that “just date rape” might be worse than “bushes-rape”?  That this was someone you know, someone you trusted?  Probably not.

I saw the t-shirt displays as part of Domestic Violence Awareness month, it powerfully affected me.  People like this should see those shirts.  Of course, people being who they are, it probably wouldn’t make a difference.

Comment #16: John  on  06/02  at  09:33 PM

I’m going to concern-troll U of P and point out to them that unless they discipline Rojo severely and disavow his remarks, they have pretty much handed the university checkbook to anyone who might be in a position to file a hostile-environment claim against them.

Which would of course bring more wingnuts out of the woodwork, and probably lead Rojo to claim that he felt the public examination of his misogyny felt like being raped.

Comment #17: paul  on  06/02  at  10:05 PM

I’ve been made to understand that a hate fuck is where two people who hate each other but have sexual chemistry throw all caution to the wind and get it on.  That’s the theory.

Oh, that’s why I didn’t get the original article at all. Because this is what I thought “hate fuck” meant, with the added idea that the hate turns into something like grudging respect after the fuck. And really, that’s kind of fun and makes the world a better place. But even if I were to be in a situation where the possibility of, say, close proximity and (‘god” forbid!) sexual attraction to a conservative were anything other than astronomically unlikely, I wouldn’t be able to follow up because there’s no way I could respect someone like that, even grudgingly. After all, they are eager servants of our shadowy corporate overlords.

So I thought Cimbalo was a stupid douche even over and above what a horrible misogynist he was, because a basic grasp of reality precludes the very existence of hate fucks with such people, and therefore I didn’t understand quite why he was being treated as if he were sentient. But now I understand: he really just means “some kind of brutal and degrading rape”. Great.

Comment #18: felagund  on  06/02  at  10:16 PM

I’ve always hated the term “date rape” with a passion.  It is a term which is appalling no matter which way you take it. 

First, it minimizes a sexual assault, making a rape seem less serious with such a benign word attached to it.  If there’s no consent, it’s a rape.  If the man breezes right past an indicator of lack of consent, then it’s a rape.  If the man isn’t clear about consent, it’s a rape.  (Call it what it is: a brutal crime.  If anything the know-the-victim component can be morally argued to be an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one in light of sentencing guidelines which speak of positions of trust.)

Second, I confess that I can’t get past some of the intellectual debates in the late 1980s when I was in law school and the term was first coming into use.  Some “push the envelope types” went arguing for “date rape” to be extended to circumstances of consenting sex where there had been no indicator of any lack of consent at the time of sex but there had been a change of mind the next day.  (No, I’m not repeating that tired MRA, rape-apologist trope; I’m repeating what some campus feminists were asserting at the time.)  Thankfully, that position disappeared rapidly in the shifting campus ideological sound-and-furies-signifying-nothings of the time.

The term serves no-one.  It throws fog into what is a clear crime and no sane person should mess about with it.

Comment #19: seeker6079  on  06/02  at  10:27 PM

Though I believe “gray area” rapes certainly exist, they’re still rape and very wrong.  Where the university spokesman is insane, evil, and stupid is in declaring that that distinction was even relevant to the discussion.

My belief about rape is that it is a crime because of a lack of consent, and that there are different kinds of rapists based on that criteria.  There are rapists who don’t give a crap about consent.  There are rapists who completely misunderstand consent to a degree where they shouldn’t be allowed to be unsupervised around anyone.  There are rapists who are stupid and act that way.  There are rapists who are unaware that they didn’t act have a go-ahead for that even though something else was okay.  And there are rapists who are barely on the side of illegality but certainly crossed a line when they shouldn’t have.  Consent certainly can be a gray area thing, because communication isn’t always clear.  The mere fact that some women don’t admit they were raped when they in fact were isn’t just because of denial but also because there is a sliding scale of illegality based on a sliding scale of consent in sexual situations.  This is why there are different punishments for different levels of a lack of consent.  There are kidnapping rapes that generally get lots of time if not life in prison ranging all the way to sexual assaults that are barely categorized above misdemeanors when pled to by men who realize that they fucked up in a big way and are truly sorry about what they did and not just because they got caught.

Still, when three men have sex with someone who claims that it wasn’t agreed to, that’s no time to say it’s all okay because they didn’t jump out of the bushes.  Why any college official other than a police spokesman would have anything to say about a reported criminal act is beyond me, but I guess it’s all a prelude before the demonization of the victim starts.  Why “No comment” didn’t enter the man’s head and leave his mouth is a matter that will require and get some examination, and may even lead to some heads rolling in the University of Pacific’s administration.  At least I hope so.  No matter what happened in that bedroom, what happened in any boardroom where those comments were okayed should lead to some firings.

Comment #20: 3letterjon  on  06/02  at  10:34 PM

3letterjon:

Though I believe “gray area” rapes certainly exist, they’re still rape and very wrong.  Where the university spokesman is insane, evil, and stupid is in declaring that that distinction was even relevant to the discussion.

Ding ding ding.  The “gray area” is the question of evidence and certainty when viewed by third parties: did the alleged crime happen, or not?  It’s not, as you point out, a distinction as to type.

Comment #21: seeker6079  on  06/02  at  10:39 PM

Oh, that’s why I didn’t get the original article at all. Because this is what I thought “hate fuck” meant, with the added idea that the hate turns into something like grudging respect after the fuck.

Yeah, me too, but when I thought about it, I realized I’d a) never heard a woman say it and b) when I have heard men say it, it was inevitably a cleaned-up rape fantasy.  I’ve got more than a few colorful friends that tell me their crazy sex stories, and I’m not blushing virgin, so there’s not much in terms of what you hear about in theory that I haven’t heard from someone who did it personally.  Except “hate fuck”.  I’ve heard people talk about sex with hot people that bother or annoy them, but it tends to go into the “crazy people are crazy in bed” category.  FWIW.

Comment #22: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/02  at  10:49 PM

“We would consider it date rape,” says University spokesman Richard Rojo,

yeah, it’s the money quote, and I’ve been beaten to it, but I just can’t get past it.

He calls it ‘date rape’, and then acts like it’s perfectly fine. 

As for Breslin, holy shit.

Apparently, free speech is so over when the masses rule the media: “It’s only OK if I think it’s funny. It’s only OK if it fits my politics. It’s only OK if I say it is.” I wish Playboy hadn’t pulled it. Censoring the piece doesn’t make it any less real, any less politically incorrect, any less true. Attempting to police human nature is the real joke here.

Playboy pulled its own article.  The government didn’t censor them.  They censored themselves when they saw the deserved reaction.

Free speech doesn’t mean you get to say anything without response.  There are consequences, and when Playboy saw the reaction, they pulled the article out of self-interest.

No one censored Playboy.  No one curtailed their speech rights.  They simply got a response to their article, and didn’t like that response.

As for ‘attempting to police human nature’ being a joke?  She’s telling us to shut the fuck up b/c it was just a JOKE.

Comment #23: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  06/02  at  10:51 PM

I can’t believe that a woman wrote that.  And that she and some of her commenters are pushing that BS story that hate fucking refers to two people who hate each other but find each other hot having consensual sex.  That is such crap.  When have you ever heard a woman say she wants to hate fuck someone?  That’s a male term, and though I guess you can’t say it implies rape, it definitely is about rough and degrading sex.  Again ,the most infamous example of this in my opinion is that “I fucked ann coulter in the ass hard” blog that some liberal guy put up several years ago now, and that went around the blogsphere like wildfire, and got plenty of applause.  Meanwhile it was nothign more than an excuse for a man to publically jerk off to the violent sex fantasy of fucking some bitch in the ass hard until she learned what’s what. 

You know what, that double x place is starting to stink up the damned internet.

Comment #24: Lady Vader  on  06/03  at  12:12 AM

“We would consider it date rape,” says University spokesman Richard Rojo, noting that he believes that “outright rape” only involves “a rapist jumping out of bushes and attacking people randomly.”


And don’t even get me started on this.  This fucking guy should be fired immediately for being a dumbshit.  Sorry but dumb shits shouldn’t be spokespeople for Universities.  I can only hope that the students on this campus are going to organize and run his dumbass off the campus.  Which is probably what will happen.  And don’t give me any free speech shit.  His job is spokesperson.  As a spokesperson you are supposed to be presenting your organization in the best possible light. Total fail.

Comment #25: Lady Vader  on  06/03  at  12:17 AM

One thing that caught my attention was the rapist attacking *people* at random in Rojo’s scenario. Not women at random.
Apparently, to him it isn’t rape unless the guys are in danger, too.

Comment #26: Samantha Vimes  on  06/03  at  12:18 AM

“Oh, that’s why I didn’t get the original article at all. Because this is what I thought “hate fuck” meant, with the added idea that the hate turns into something like grudging respect after the fuck. “

No, that’s the “oh, he’s sooo obnoxious” thing from romance novels, movies and tv series.  Two people constantly agitating each other, and claiming that the other one is obnoxious to cover up their sexual attraction in an adult version of pigtail pulling. Pretty harmless and who knows, maybe it even happens in real life sometimes.  If I think about it, I guess maybe I have engaged in that on some small level at times.

But hate fucking is all about some man teaching some bitch a lesson with his big, powerful, dick.

Comment #27: Lady Vader  on  06/03  at  12:23 AM

the added idea that the hate turns into something like grudging respect after the fuck.

No, I think how it goes—repulsive fantasy-wise—is that after the fuck the hater gets to smirk about how he took the hate-ee down a peg, which she deserved, because of being a bitch.  It’s rape as Dantean symbolic retribution.

Comment #28: FlipYrWhig  on  06/03  at  01:57 AM

Ok, as a woman who actually did engage in “hate fucking” or as we always called it “grudge fucking” with someone she couldn’t actually stand but had hot, hot sex with one night, it does exist, it does happen. 

BUT other commenters are right, it is not described as often to mean what I engaged in, as it is just dressed up rape fantasies for a lot of guys. 

What I did was fuck someone who I thought was a complete dick, (and I believe the words, “Don’t talk.  You’ll just ruin the moment” actually passed my lips) because for some bizarre reason I had some weird sexual chemistry with him.

That said, that is one University President who had better begin some serious spin control, because that sort of crap tends to cut down on alumni dollars from female alumns, and they can’t afford that in this economic climate.

Comment #29: GeekGirlsRule  on  06/03  at  02:19 AM

the man isn’t clear about consent, it’s a rape.

Ding! Ding! Ding! winner! Just as ties go to the baserunner, confusion about consent favors the woman.

Is there such a thing as consensual sex with three guys? I led a sheltered life.

Comment #30: Hector B.  on  06/03  at  02:50 AM

Ugh. There’s breaking news of a rape here in Phoenix that was broadcast live on the Internet - I watched the video interview and what does the cop say? That “we” need to watch who we associate with and how well we know them and who we’re “free” with. Always the victim’s fault. The asshole who raped her while unconscious and broadcast it online doesn’t even get a mention. If rape apologists can’t turn it into a he said/she said, then they just fall back on blaming the woman for not being psychic.

It isn’t startling to me that the University spokesperson would believe in such an archaic gray rape/real rape dichotomy, only that he actually has had some presumable PR training.

Comment #31: Veronica  on  06/03  at  03:01 AM

So when did U of P start contracting out its PR duties to The Onion?

As for “hate fucks”:

there’s not much in terms of what you hear about in theory that I haven’t heard from someone who did it personally.  Except “hate fuck”.

GeekGirlsRule beat me to it, but I’ll share anyway:  1996, we’d been dating for a month.  I’d just told her that I didn’t consider her long-term dating material, which was defintely not what she wanted to hear.  Nevertheless, we ended up having what I can only describe as a “hate fuck”, and it was the last time we ever had sex.  It was also the best sex we had (and I assure you, it was definitely consensual), so take that for what you will.

But, as the Coulter stuff reveals, the rest of GGR’s comment applies as well:  It’s usually a rape fantasy.

Comment #32: NY Expat  on  06/03  at  03:26 AM

A friend of mine described hallway sex as two angry spouses, sleeping separately, muttering “fuck you” as they pass each other.

It’s nice that someone thinks rape is somehow less heinous if you’ve already been introduced and shared drinks or dinner, no matter how many people participate, because it’s just among friends, after all, everyone on the same social level, not just an uninvited lowlife.

Comment #33: bad Jim  on  06/03  at  05:48 AM

Thanks, Bad Jim: you made me realise a class aspect to this that I’d never seen before. As so often happens, it’s blindingly obvious after it’s been pointed out.  The “real” fruticolous* rapist is the one who’s attacking a woman Above His Station, one of “our women”. Date rape: well, he’s the same social class! She’s supposed to be available to him! Ugh.

*fruticolous: shrub-dwelling

Comment #34: MissPrism  on  06/03  at  07:34 AM

I really doubt there was any “date” involved in this case, personally.  This sounds more like “we lured this person to a private location and proceeded to systematically harm her for our sexual gratification.”

Sort of like a serial killer or a psychopathic sadist.

Comment #35: Ape Man  on  06/03  at  08:25 AM

Date rape: well, he’s the same social class! She’s supposed to be available to him! Ugh.

Comment #36: prescription drugs  on  06/03  at  08:56 AM

I was going to mention that, Veronica, thanks!

Seems someone decided to act out that outrageous scene in “Observe and Report”, by setting up a webcam to stream himself raping an unconcious girl. The victim didn’t even realize it happened until a friend pointed it out to her on the net.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/06/02/20090602abrk-webassault0602.html

Really nice shot of the suspect there, huh? /bleagh…

Comment #37: KMac  on  06/03  at  09:07 AM

Which would of course bring more wingnuts out of the woodwork, and probably lead Rojo to claim that he felt the public examination of his misogyny felt like being raped.

paul on 06/02 at 09:05 PM

But if you emailed him first, then it wouldn’t have been just like rape, it would have been more like date rape, because you hadn’t just jumped out of the Internet bushes.

Comment #38: phylosopher  on  06/03  at  10:09 AM

I think it’s that empathy thing again - some people simply cannot understand how certain things could possibly be so bad until and unless it happens to them.

I think it starts with a fundamental lack of imagination.

Comment #39: Ms Kate  on  06/03  at  10:20 AM

My family and I always wondered why he seemed to have this inborn hostility towards most men and was so protective of me, and to a lesser extent, my mom and sister-in-law. The events of the past few days are beginning to convince me that he was in fact absolutely right, and simply possessed an especially keen ability to size people up on sight.

Well, that’s kind of a shitty thing to think.

Comment #40: spence-bob  on  06/03  at  10:59 AM

Wow. Just…wow.

If they want every potential female student in America not to go to their school, they just succeeded in that goal. Certainly in 11 years, should my daughter be thinking about attending Pacific, I’ll strongly recommend she look for a different school that doesn’t think rape is a trivial offense.

Sadly, all colleges think that rape is trivial.  When I was in college, one of my male classmates raped one of my friends (who later became my best friend because we went through it together).  I was the first person she told and I was there with her when she went to the school counseling center, the hospital, and the police.  We had a school advocate who did everything she could, and the guy got away with it completely.  I know it’s hard to prove, but the police didn’t even bother investigating, even though they could have questioned witnesses and demanded phone records.  The school waited over 4 months to have some silly peer-trial and nothing came of it.  Then I saw a documentary about a woman who was a rape victim at college before I was even born, and it’s eerie that her story sounded exactly like my friend’s story.  Nothing has changed in the last 30 years.  It’s all a bunch of nice-sounding PR but no one actually cares.

It doesn’t surprise me at all that a woman wrote this hateful stuff.  Women are raised to fear the stranger jumping out of the bushes but not to fear people they know, even though date rape is much more common than stranger rape.  It’s easy for other women to blame the victim or pretend it’s not a real problem, because they would rather believe that a woman made some silly mistake than realize that the men they trust could be rapists.  That’s a really scary thought to have, and many women would rather just deny it than face reality.  It’s scary to realize that it could have been you. 

All rape is horrifying and none is any less severe than any other.  Date rape is certainly as traumatizing as stranger rape, considering that the victim initially trusted the rapist, the victim is more likely to face victim-blaming, it’s much harder to prove in court, and often the victim has to face her attacker on a regular basis.  In my friend’s case, she had nearly all her classes with her attacker.  I was in classes with him too, and it was bad enough that I had to look at him every day.  I can’t imagine how bad it was for her.  My prediction is that these rapists will get away with it and continue to rape.  I’m amazed that the media even cared about it.  My only hope is that their publicity will warn women to stay away from them.

Comment #41: bananacat  on  06/03  at  11:01 AM

Sorry but dumb shits shouldn’t be spokespeople for Universities.

Yeah. If anything, even if the University *does* think rape is trivial, the dumb shit should be fired for being so inconsiderate as to make this fact apparent to the public at large. If you’re a spokesperson, you’re supposedly hired to spin things *in favor* of your employer.

Comment #42: BlackBloc  on  06/03  at  11:16 AM

Read the whole article, but it’s just even more confusing. After differentiating date rape and “outright” (wtf?) rape, he says that date rape is a “social” issue / problem, which seems to indicate that he thinks it’s not a crime… until he goes on to say that it’s still “sexual assault”.

So… apparently it’s sexual assault, but not bad enough to ban the men from campus… because it did happen (they punished them) but it *didn’t* happen (because she was being totally slutty and it was consensual with “at least” two of them)... and she was totally happy with the way they were handling the situation, you know, until they decided that they wouldn’t handle it beyond a slap of the wrist and then she flipped out. What’s her problem, anyway? We admitted it was sexual assault, we said we were sorry, and we gave them a time out. What more do you want?

It’s like she thinks it was a CRIME or something. Women are weird.

Comment #43: Essie Elephant  on  06/03  at  11:20 AM

Oh, and if anyone wants to make an outraged phone call:

Richard Rojo, Executive Director
209.946.2746
http://web.pacific.edu/x732.xml

How is this guy the executive director? I was going to call his boss, but I’m not sure he HAS one.

Comment #44: Essie Elephant  on  06/03  at  11:30 AM

As people have said above, when I’ve heard “hate fuck” referred to in the context of someone saying they’d actually done it, the situation was normally something like an ex-girlfriend who dumped them but who kept coming back into the picture anytime the guy tried to move on.  “I told her I wanted her to stop calling me, she was back in town and texted me at 2 in the morning saying she had to see me, we had a hate fuck.”  Maybe creepy, but who am I to judge.  The important part is it’s definitely consensual.  In fact, consent is kind of inherent to it.  You don’t hate fuck someone you’ve pursued.  You hate fuck someone you can’t get to take no for an answer.

But I don’t think that applies when you’re saying you want to hate fuck Ann Coulter or Michele Malkin.  The idea is definitely hostile, violent and degrading.  It’s practically saying you want to rape them, and purely out of sadism rather than anything related to sexual interest.  Sounds to me like saying you really want to show her her place, in the most degrading way possible.

Comment #45: Wallace  on  06/03  at  11:31 AM

“Is there such a thing as consensual sex with three guys? I led a sheltered life.”

Of course there is. And there is consensual sex with 20 guys. This wasn’t it.

You can consent to whatever you consent to.

The point isn’t the number, the point is the consent. Regardless of whether there was consent with the first two - she could have issued a press release in advance and given written, notarized permission - that doesn’t grant permission for the third guy. Or even for a second round with the first two.

Neither does getting drunk, or having the temerity to fall asleep, or to forgetting to lock her door when she goes home, or how she was dressed, or anything else.

Comment #46: Lymis  on  06/03  at  11:48 AM

Oh, and I’ll be the first one to toss in as the humorless-feminist-who-has-been-sexually-assaulted and say that I do think that certain subjects are “off limits for Teh Funny”. For me, anyway, I cannot imagine a joke that could make me laugh at rape.

For that matter, I can’t really think of too many knee-slapping jokes about genocide or baby murdering, either, but maybe I just have a shitty imagination. The closest I can think of is the Jesse joke about the mac-n-cheese pogrom, but to me that was funny not because of the mass murder aspect but rather because of the “no one takes man-n-cheese that seriously” aspect. IOW, it would have been just as funny if it was the “mac-n-cheese self-exile” or the “mac-n-cheese migration” or even the “rise of the mac-n-cheese political party”. Presumably, it’s possible that there’s some kind of comparable rape joke out there that would be equally funny, but I doubt it. I certainly doubt that *I* would find it funny.

Which is kind of the point. Humor varies according to personality and culture and a hundred other variables. Of course, people are free to laugh at rape jokes. And I’m free to chose not to associate with those people. Which is how I usually respond to people who laugh at rape jokes.

But I *am* disturbed at how socially acceptable these jokes are. Witness Ar-nauld joking that he’ll miss slamming women’s heads into toilets as governor (Terminator 3 reference). If he’d said he would miss murdering babies, I kind of think people would have been a tad more outraged.

Comment #47: Essie Elephant  on  06/03  at  11:54 AM

Ah, but Lymis, if she was willing to have sex AT ALL, let alone with two guys, she’s just a slut and what difference is one more guy going to make to her?

At least, that seems to be the implacation.

Why is the university highlighting that the sex with the first two COULD have been consensual, after the university has already punished the men? That seems like a lawsuit in the making. It seems like the punishment isn’t really for assault but rather for “poor judgment” or “gross conduct” or something… which would explain why the punishment is just a slap on the wrist.

Comment #48: Essie Elephant  on  06/03  at  11:56 AM

The problem in our society is that people (both men and women) seem to have a tough time realizing that some men are less sexually desirable than others.  It’s not just about physical appearance, but that’s a part of it.  Women are put into a few groups: women who have sex only when married, women who have sex only with a long-term boyfriend with a chance of marriage, and women who just have sex.  People just can not wrap their heads around the idea that I might willingly have sex with 2 or 200 without hoping for a long-term legally binding contract because these men meet other standards that I have.  Because these men meet certain standards, that means some men won’t meet those standards, therefore I will not want to have sex with those men.  It’s my choice alone to decide which standards are important to me, and they can be as frivolous as hair color or as serious as being single.  But there are other standards besides just wanting marriage/commitment/love and just because I don’t want those things right now doesn’t mean I have absolutely no standards at all.  The same goes for the rape victim.  If she really did consent to sex with the first two guys, that still doesn’t mean she would have wanted to have sex with the third guy.

Comment #49: bananacat  on  06/03  at  12:12 PM

Well, it’s also another one of those, “Oh, gee, golly, who can say?” cop-outs, where people want to hedge off by saying that, well, if she was willing to have sex at all, then she MIGHT have been willing to have sex with the third guy. And who can say, only god can judge, can we just go back to thinking of these boys as nice wholesome kids?

It would be better, in my opinion, to ask what reason she has to lie about this being rape? If she DID have consensual sex with the first two, then why would she lie about having sex with the third? I mean, once you’ve had sex with two guys at the same party, it’s not like the third one is going to push you over the edge, reputation-wise.

Except, of course, the univeristy has already ADMITTED that it wasn’t consensual for ANY of the men. So all this “she was asking for it” crap is just an attempt to smear her as a money-grubbing slut.

Comment #50: Essie Elephant  on  06/03  at  01:01 PM

I know plenty of women who have used the term “hate fuck” but I’ve never understood it to mean “we loathe each other but we are really sexually attracted at the same time, so let’s just get it out of the way and have carnal pleasure without actually needing to like each other.” Actually, it’s more like only half of that—I’ve never heard it used to describe a “mutual experience” of that sort, which pushes it a little further away from the boundaries of consent, right? “I can’t stand that guy, but I would hate fuck him” means that yes, there’s some sexual chemistry there but mixed with revulsion. In fact, maybe those two things are mixed up together—it’s not like revulsion is really the opposite of sexual attraction, after all. And yes, there’s another kind too, as someone mentioned—I have hate fucked someone who wouldn’t really take no for an answer, so I consented to having sex but was thinking, wow I really don’t like this person. That also wasn’t mutual.

None of this is good, and it is really gross to make a list of women who you would want to do that to. I don’t think there was any mutuality implied in the original article, from what I can remember.

Comment #51: Holly  on  06/03  at  01:28 PM

spence-bob, I’m not happy about it. But after the (non)reaction to Dr Tiller’s death, the Playboy article, this idiot at U of P, I think it’s abundantly clear that our culture desensitizes men in a way that is so profound, and yet it’s become mundane and accepted. It’s not that I blame men as individuals, but I think, unfortunately, that most men are at least in some sense culturally programmed to be a threat to women.

Comment #52: Liz212  on  06/03  at  03:01 PM

It’s not that I blame men as individuals, but I think, unfortunately, that most men are at least in some sense culturally programmed to be a threat to women.

May I quote oldfeminist on this recurring issue? Because it was just the best comment ever and I think it bears repeating.

You may have difficulty with it because it is a part of your persona, not a part of the external trappings of patriarchy.  You can’t take it off. 

You can kinda opt yourself out of playing an active role in the superstructure by treating others fairly in social contexts and the workplace and such, and you can always claim you’re powerless to change the superstructure.

So you think everything’s comfy and women should appreciate you for who you are.

It doesn’t work that way.

It’s hard to accept that you are still a threat precisely because you can’t opt out of it just by saying “I abjure thee.” I see a man, I see an oppressor.  No matter how fair or loving he seems to be, I can’t fully trust him.  Not to say they’re equal, but imagine being an escaped slave and trying to trust a White man in the south, knowing there’s a price on your head.  It can’t be total, it has to be by degrees.

Your privilege will never be revoked, it’s always available.  There’s no telling when you will be pushed to a point when you feel you need to pick up your privilege again and use it against me.  Keeping women afraid of the exercise of that privilege even from men who rarely or never express it keeps them in line. 

There’s an anti-feminist claim that feminist women are “hysterical” and afraid of men because they think they’re demons.  I know they’re not, we know they’re not.  They’re human beings.  All this happens not because men are inherently bad people, but because they’re in a structure that indelibly corrupts them.  It must be horrifying in some senses to be a mother and watch boys you love turn into men of this society.  I cry for my male friends, relatives, yes, even husband, all of whom I feel sure weren’t born to be corrupted this way, whose inherent nature peeks through in a hundred different sweet ways.  But they are corrupted, and I can’t let myself forget it.

Yes, to answer the unasked question, it is very sad and very lonely. 

You don’t have to worry about trusting women, because you can probably get them over a barrel any time you like.  Trust for you is not as big a leap as it is for me.

I can be afraid of you despite your being a nice guy.  Your estimation of your place and your power in a relationship can’t be accurate if you don’t acnowledge that fear.  You don’t think of yourself as the enforcer, the scary possibly violent presence, the storm cloud with a handy lightning bolt, but archetypically, that’s what the husband and father, the patriarch, *is*.  Think of the Christian god, think of Zeus/Jupiter.  You are a male in this culture, you have that in you.  Whether you wanted it in you or not, there it is.

This is unacknowledged privilege.  Please try to acknowledge it.

Comment #53: Essie Elephant  on  06/03  at  03:29 PM

Hmmmm…..

Is this a bad thread to admit that, having clicked through, I am non-violently smitten with GeekGirlsRule??

Probably.

Comment #54: seeker6079  on  06/03  at  03:31 PM

Thank you, Seeker, for finding yet another blog to become addicted to. Jerk. smile

Comment #55: Essie Elephant  on  06/03  at  04:03 PM

(And for everyone who doesn’t know that Seeker and I are friends, that was a joke.

One question though: How did I not know that blog existed? It’s fraking awesome.)

Comment #56: Essie Elephant  on  06/03  at  04:04 PM

Thanks for the quote Essie. Apparently my recently departed canine companion had it figured out before I did, though he wasn’t as eloquent about it as oldfeminist.

Comment #57: Liz212  on  06/03  at  05:18 PM

Thank you, Seeker, for finding yet another blog to become addicted to.

*Sigh* Essie, real Girl Geeks do not rule.

REAL Girl Geeks use laser collimators.

Comment #58: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/03  at  05:21 PM

Eh, I don’t know, Piator. I think after a long hard day of decimation, a stretch of ruling could be nice. smile

I just love the rip into the new-Sherlock-Holmes-Movie-that-sounds-like-an-abomination-and-which-Essie-did-not-know-even-existed.

Comment #59: Essie Elephant  on  06/03  at  05:54 PM

Wow, the frisson of pleasure resulting from Essie calling me a jerk has clued me into a Sub side I didn’t know I had!

And it’s off to the races!  HaHA!

Comment #60: seeker6079  on  06/03  at  08:33 PM

Is there such a thing as consensual sex with three guys? I led a sheltered life.

Presumably, but it sure raises some red flags for me.

The problem in our society is that people (both men and women) seem to have a tough time realizing that some men are less sexually desirable than others.

You really think women believe this?  I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s sure not my experience.  I think it’s mostly men who believe as wishful thinking.  Some men desperately want to believe that women don’t or shouldn’t have standards, and that’s been a major part of romantic love since time immemorial.

Comment #61: keshmeshi  on  06/03  at  08:57 PM

A woman can consent to have sex with a football team, thirty men with handlebar moustaches, a guy with an overbite and one leg, or a nerd who happened to be somewhat charming and a little gay-looking.  A woman can consent to sex with another woman or a whole field hockey team, a Catholic priest, the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, six construction workers, and two Mormon missionaries as part of a long weekend in DC.  Hell, a woman can consent to having sex with all of these and more.  Of fucking course a woman can consent to sex with three guys!  Women are able to choose to be slutty and silly and sexual and demure, depraved and devoted and domineering and monogamous, married or maid-like or matronly or chaste, or whatever place they want to be sexually.  Women can fuck those they choose to fuck.  If a woman can’t say Yes, then no wonder so many don’t take No seriously.

Seriously.

Comment #62: 3letterjon  on  06/03  at  10:24 PM

Agreed that a woman can consent to anything she wants, but also seconding that it raises a mental red flag.

Because just because something can happen, doesn’t mean that it often does happen.

Or, to put it another way: statistically, women seem to get gang-raped more often than they have consensual one-woman orgies. At least, seems to me like they do. I don’t have any actual statistics to back that up, so I may be completely off on that.

Comment #63: Essie Elephant  on  06/04  at  10:40 AM

A woman can consent to have sex with a football team, thirty men with handlebar moustaches, a guy with an overbite and one leg, or a nerd who happened to be somewhat charming and a little gay-looking.  A woman can consent to sex with another woman or a whole field hockey team, a Catholic priest, the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, six construction workers, and two Mormon missionaries as part of a long weekend in DC.  Hell, a woman can consent to having sex with all of these and more.  Of fucking course a woman can consent to sex with three guys!  Women are able to choose to be slutty and silly and sexual and demure, depraved and devoted and domineering and monogamous, married or maid-like or matronly or chaste, or whatever place they want to be sexually.  Women can fuck those they choose to fuck. 

Christ - more porn channel spam…

Comment #64: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/04  at  07:18 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.