As a literature scholar (and the eighteenth-century wasn’t exactly woman-kind), the Love the Art Despite the Artist rationale cannot be overstated enough, and I always smile when Pandagon gets on my hobby-horse (even indirectly).  So, thanks.

Do people really think that rapists rape because they’re hard up?

There are certain unusual cases where it could be argued that they do: undisciplined soldiers in the field during wartime and prison inmates. In both cases, though, the ugly underlying power dynamic is still there—the situation of forced sexual deprivation just makes rape more commonplace and increases the pool of perpetrators when compared to other “normal” situations.

Your point remains valid despite that: even in those “normal” situations of peace and order, there are still some arseholes motivated soley by that power dynamic when it comes to sexual matters. I don’t know if you could even call them Sadists given the sexual context—they’re psychopathic thugs who feel they’re entitled to anything they want, and excercise their power to take it.

Thank you for this post! I had the stupidest online fight a while ago in the wilds of the Internet where a woman tried to explain to me as she would to a small child that rape is just an issue of supply and demand. Her argument was basically, “When they don’t have easy access to women, of course men will turn to rape! How else would they get sex?!” I gave a standard rebuttal (rape is not about sex, it’s about power, if men just wanted sex there are plenty prostitutes and promiscuous women out there for them to turn to) and then exited the conversation, because I could see it was going nowhere.

In retrospect, though, I wish I had asked her what she thought about slutty women. Rape apologists tend to slut-shame worse than anyone, but isn’t the logical conclusion of that world view that the more easy women there are, the lower rape rates would be?

To me, that line is like the #1 reason that I’d take the allegation seriously.

I mean, not that I wouldn’t take allegations seriously, but really, if he could have sex with anyone, why have sex with someone who didn’t want to, aside from RAPE?

Actually, didn’t that recent study (the one that got press for being so wholly misrepresented) actually say that more promiscuous men were more likely to rape than less-promiscuous men?

The NFL, Big Ben aside, has become disgustingly accepting of thuggery of all shapes.  Even if he’s convicted he’ll be accepted back because he’s “done his time.”  What happened to a higher standard for people who are supposed to be rôle models?

“Wrongsideofthetracks” shows up and starts flinging around rape-apologist talking points in 5, 4, 3…

Gracchus,

actually, I would argue that the prison-rape and war-rape are even *more obviously* about power, dominance and control!  and much less about being “hard-up” (ooky phraseology here!)

PS: that’s what masturbation was invented for!

Crissa says: if he could have sex with anyone, why have sex with someone who didn’t want to, aside from RAPE?

I think we have to understand that when the sexual assault is “opportunistic” - woman is drunk, passed out, or “just needed more convincing”, etc.  some people (wrongly) don’t consider that to be rape.  They view rape to be an attack by a stranger, or a creepy/undesirable man; or an attack on a child or other “innocent”. 
Unfortunately, too many people - men and women - have this view.

If the NFL and media took rape and domestic abuse seriously, they’d end up alienating one of what they think are their core fanbases: furious, embittered, and misogynist men who just love seeing them bitches get what’s coming to them and the guy getting off scot free. ESPN and Sports Illustrated won’t run articles about the epidemic of violence against women because it’s not what the angry men want to read.

As a literature scholar (and the eighteenth-century wasn’t exactly woman-kind), the Love the Art Despite the Artist rationale cannot be overstated enough, and I always smile when Pandagon gets on my hobby-horse (even indirectly).

Well, that gets back to what it means to “love” an artist or a sports team.  It’s clearer in the latter that we’re talking about identification - the Steelers are tough, strong and manly, therefore I am tough, strong and manly for supporting them.  The All Blacks are feared by all, therefore I am feared by all as a supporter. (*)

So of course there’s going to be additional rationalisation when this happens - what Player X is accused of is felt by the team’s supporters as an accusation directed at them, so therefore he didn’t do it.  It’s a lie.  She was asking for it, and went running to the papers afterwards. She’s a nutjob.

I think that’s a factor worth keeping in mind.  You can like Polanski’s films without identifying with Polanski, but it’s more difficult with a singer, and I don’t see hoe you can be a supporter of a team without some degree of identification.

(*) The Chicago Cubs are obviously the team of choice for masochists.

Not redirecting here, but I think Amanda’s question is why people have such a hard time accepting rape from celebrities.

There is a very strong male fear of accusation, and since the incident involves a male and a female, I think alot of males identify with the “rapist”, and immediately imagine themselves wrongly accused. Plus, on top of that, we imagine celebrities to be people like us. We see them as regular guys, like ourselves, getting into regular situations, like ourselves, except that they have millions of dollars.

Most sexually active guys have been in situations of mixed signals, where you get “No”, so you stop. Then you get “you don’t have to completely stop”, so then you start again. You get another “No”, so you really stop, and decide this is too confusing and frustrating. You’re then accused of being selfish for only being in it for what you want. It isn’t much of a leap to fear that if he were to go back, and go too far, he’d be accused of “rape”.

I’m not making a defense of rape. Just trying to explain the identification with the accused male.

Loving the art despite the artist is an odd thing.  I still like “Chinatown” and even “Frantic”, though I generally avoid other (new) works by Roman Polanski b/c he’s a convicted child rapist. 

Woody Allen, on the other hand, still creeps me the fuck out.  It was because he’d been with Mia about the same amount of time my stepfather had been with my mom, and the age difference between me and my stepdad was the same as that between Woody and Soon-Yi.

Imagining running off with my stepfather tripped some major incest taboos.  I mean, really gross.  I cannot fully enjoy anything by Woody anymore b/c I can’t forget about it.  Being married to Soon-Yi hasn’t changed it.  I’m just grateful the man’s been in therapy forever, b/c without that he’d probably be a monster.

As for sports heroes raping?  First off, because they have massive egos and because so many women will sleep with them, they probably feel entitled to sleep with any woman they want to.  They don’t believe her “no” or simply feel entitled to override it.

Secondly, b/c so many groupies throw themselves at them, they might get a perverse kick from rape.  It’s different from the usual offerings.

No, they don’t need to rape.  But then NO MAN needs to rape.  Rape is something rapists do b/c they want to rape.

Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes says: As for sports heroes raping?  First off, because they have massive egos and because so many women will sleep with them, they probably feel entitled to sleep with any woman they want to.  They don’t believe her “no” or simply feel entitled to override it.

Bingo!  And this applies to other male celebrities - musicians, actors, etc.  They may not get a kick from violence, it just the assumption that he has a physical need to be satisfied and figures pretty much any woman in his vicinity is there to satisfy it.

Given that it’s about power, and the thrill of just taking what you want, how could someone whose approach is in search of that have any interest in a willing partner?

If the thrill of just taking is the point, then it is NOT a situation of “Why rape, he can have anyone?” because, to paraphrase whoever it was, “Anyone willing to submit to me is not worth dominating.”

So, I think a line into this that some people don’t use is that this isn’t about nonconsensual sex so much as it is about nonconsensual BDSM.

I can see why men might be quick to identify with the rapist, John, but I’ve noticed those who are the quickest to identify also have the lowest opinion of women.

If you’re getting mixed signals, stop, and if she really wanted it, then she’ll learn her lesson about being more enthusiastic about her consent.  Men should never settle for anything less that “OMFG STICK IT IN NOW I WANT IT SO BADLY.”  I’m serious.

Of course, as Crissa points out, athletes get women begging them for sex all the time, so that’s all the more reason to think that an athlete raping someone couldn’t be a matter of him getting mixed signals and deciding to push his luck because he’s hard up.

Sex and rape are the same, or similar, to people who think like those you’ve identified before, Amanda: people who think that sex is something a woman gives to a man, or a man takes from a woman.  People who think of sex as something people give to each other could never confuse the two.

Why do I get the feeling that the same kind of person that confuses taxation with theft would confuse sex with rape?

Good post.  With what has been happening for decades in Washington, politics is also a sanctuary for misogynists.  A number of Republicans have certainly been smacked in the face by their “family values” plank. 

BAC

WHY in the HELL would somebody photoshop Dominic Monaghan’s head on Big Ben’s body?

Men should never settle for anything less that “OMFG STICK IT IN NOW I WANT IT SO BADLY.” I’m serious.

Destined for the college health handbook any day now, I’m sure.

I don’t understand rape. Viscerally, I mean, and it isn’t just because I am a man. As a male I should presumably be able to, in some manner, find common kin with men who commit the crime (especially famous men, whom I may admire for other qualities, like football prowess, or whatever). I should be able to say “well, I guess under X or Y circumstances, I can see how it could happen, even if it is wrong.” But I don’t. I can’t. It is alien to me. I don’t understand the impulses or thinking involved.*

But I understand it for what it is - a foul expression of power, violence, and control.

I’ve no idea if Roethlisberger is guilty or not. If he is, I cannot say that I’ll ever comprehend why he did it.

*Please don’t mistake my inability to internally comprehend what makes men rape with an otherwise solid understanding of the fact of rape as a major crime against women, and the culture that has made it possible for it to remain, on some squalid level, a nearly acceptable occurrence. That many first reactions are something akin to ambivalence that a crime was even committed here even if the allegations prove true illustrates there is a very long way to go.

There are certain unusual cases where it could be argued that they do: undisciplined soldiers in the field during wartime

I would argue that the prison-rape and war-rape are even *more obviously* about power, dominance and control!  and much less about being “hard-up”

In wartime, soldiers are often of a mind to punish the other side for putting them in danger and killing their friends.  At least part of the reason why Stephen Green et al raped Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi was to punish Iraqis for the deaths of U.S. soldiers.  The same thing happened at My Lai.  Rape has long been used as a way to collectively punish and demoralize the other side.  And why not?  Women have long been considered the property of men, so why not seize, abuse, and destroy that property in war?

While a few sociopaths, like Green, can influence soldiers to act out in ways they wouldn’t on their own, I’m certain that many soldiers, even today, who rape women in wartime still on some level believe that women are the property of men and are to be used and abused as men see fit.

I think another reason for believing that guys rape for lack of other action is just that a reasonable number of people have friends who are accused rapists. They’d rather believe that some woman they don’t know is a nutball, or that their friend is sort of hard up and naive about consent signals, than believe that a person they like gets off on illegal power trips. I’ve had guys explain to me how their buddy was just accused of this thing by some crazy loose woman who just hates him for no reason. And I don’t really hold that sort of case-by-case whitewashing against them, but the narrative it builds is pretty vile.

And that effect might be balanced out by stories of sexual assaults that went unprosecuted, but I think the story of the crazy bitch out to ruin some dude’s life has legs that the story of a rape victim unsupported doesn’t. I’ve only heard stories of sexual assault directly from the victims, and I’ve only heard the “he’s such a good guy that he couldn’t be a rapist” from third-hand sources. I assume that’s mostly about the shame around talking about rape from the victim’s end and a sort of preemptive strike against (a false notion of) false prosecution.

I think part of the reason is this: it’s not just that you enjoy the celebrity’s work, but in order to enjoy the work of athletes, film makers, actors, etc. you have to buy tickets to games or movies. In other words, you have to give these people your money. I can understand how it would make some people uncomfortable to know that their money is indirectly supporting a rapist (and keeping that rapist in power, thus enabling the entitled attitude that people have been mentioning).

Magis, PiatoR, and Caren got near this point, but there’s another layer that is often, athletes will be handled differently from other celebrities.  There’s very much this ingrained idea that the dumb stuff and the downright sadistic shit that athletes can do to other people is excused by the fact that they have to be aggressive at work and can’t turn it off, boys will be boys, there’s too much testosterone, etc.  It’s not the woman’s fault because she’s a tease or whatever slur is being used, but it’s her fault because she dared get trapped in the orbit of such a star.

On a side note, ol’ dude looks like Junior Gorg.

Okay, this is a nitpick, but it’s one that bugs the hell out of me.

Why does Amanda Hess not use a single person who’s actually been convicted of rape or sexual assault?  Not a single person who even went to trial?  I get that she’s talking about excuse-making for rape, but there are actual celebrities who have actually been convicted and people who still make excuses for them—until they bite an ear off a man, like Mike Tyson.  I especially dislike the inclusion of Kobe Bryant, given that it was a cinch that he’d win his assaut trial if it had gone further, and he was abnormally sensible during the whole process.

Wait… You have to go on trial for claiming you’ve been raped before the incident can be recalled by others in the press?

WTF?

Can’t just take a payout and decide that’s better than being smeared in court?

I suspect that there being “plenty of willing participants” makes rape MORE likely, not less likely.  That is because rape is not about having sex - it is about power.  If women are throwing themselves your way, some of these idiots are bound to feel less manly about that, not more, because they aren’t in complete dominating control over the situation.  Moreover, they get completely unused to what the word NO means, and may feel compelled to take what they feel they are entitled to.

Crissa, well…
well, all of these incidents happened years ago, so the issue is dead and swept under the rug, so I don’t mind Hess talking about them…but beyond the pernicious habit of dismissing sexual abuse charges against famous people, there are actually plenty of really stupid celebrities who actually do get caught and convicted.  I just think that going with all of these dismissed cases stuff is being lazy and relying on a “malign air of guilt”.

I really, really, hate just how hard it is to convict someone of sexual assault though, when you know there are so many unreported assaults.

Amanda says -

so that’s all the more reason to think that an athlete raping someone couldn’t be a matter of him getting mixed signals and deciding to push his luck because he’s hard up.

Of course, what does occur to me is that we are guessing at the motivations of possible sociopaths with different issues that would lead them to rape.

I’m going with the “doesn’t get turned down alot, and doesn’t know how to stop and walk away” explanation.

But remember, they compete for a living. They’re bred to ignore all pain, obsticles, opponents, and imminent danger. They live in a fantasy land of overcompensated riches and glory for muscling through all adversity to get what they want. A woman saying no is quite possibly just another opponent.

But remember, they compete for a living. They’re bred to ignore all pain, obsticles, opponents, and imminent danger. They live in a fantasy land of overcompensated riches and glory for muscling through all adversity to get what they want. A woman saying no is quite possibly just another opponent.

They also live in a world full of rules. Rules of the games they play, team and league behavior rules, rules about how to behave in public and with the media, sometimes quite intricate and not always logical. And failure to comply with those rules, in and out of the games they play come with consequences. You could argue that those omnipresent rules and their ability to follow them quite closely indicates that just sheer “getting what you want despite any obstacles” is not explanation enough for sexually assaulting women. This view would also necessitate a far higher incidence of rape and sexual assault attributable to pro athletes than apparently exists.

There is something that separates men who rape from those who do not. The vast majority of men in professional sports of all types do not rape. A percentage, in exactly the same circumstances of fame, wealth, opportunity and the culture of male athletics, do it. That space, the difference between those who do and do not, is where the motivation must arise. I admit I don’t know what that place looks like, but I suggest it has little to do with fame and money. If anything, were this a crime committed by wholly rational people, the mere fact of money, status and fame would be a limiting factor. They, in some senses, have more to lose than the rest of us, yet do it anyway.  Why?

the Love the Art Despite the Artist rationale cannot be overstated enough,

There is, however, a difference between Love the Artist and Continue To Support The Artist With Your Hard-Earned Money, as Lenina pointed out. Boycotting Shakespeare for being anti-Semitic doesn’t do a darn thing to Shakespeare, who is dead. Boycotting Chris Brown’s music affects the bottom line of Chris Brown and those who benefit financially from him.

The “but he can sleep with anyone” argument actually supports the accusation. If you’re Bigly McStuddberry, used to women everywhere dropping and rolling whenever you snap your fingers, a woman saying “no” is an affront. Who does she think she is, trying to tell you she’s too good for you? Women don’t say no, they only say yes, and a woman who refuses the Studdberry is clearly just playing hard to get and needs to be taken down a peg.

People never want to believe anyone they identify with as having a side different from the public persona.  It’s a sad identity thing, whether it is Bill Clinton, Kobe Bryant, Paul Reubens, Time Cruise, what’s his name from Judas Priest, Michael Jackson, whatever Congresscritter did the latest filthy thing, Gerard Depardieu, Phil Spector, Dick Cheney, or even OJ Simpson.  It really takes a lot to convince some people that maybe something happened and maybe something less than total innocence or accidental happenstance explains things.  It gets even worse when it’s a family member.  And much harder than that when it is one’s very own self that didn’t act in exactly a “proper” manner.

Denial is pretty understandable as a phenomenon when it is applied to one’s self, but when it is applied to a celebrity it’s pretty damn weird.  Pretty damn common, but weird.

As for rape, part of the problem is that it’s always presented as something a lot like the “Stranger” person we were all warned against as children.  That guy in the trenchcoat, greasy hair, driving a van, offering drugs or candy, lurking in alleys, and all the rest just isn’t likely to be the one that does whatever it is we won’t go into detail with our children about.  It’s more likely to be the nice guy who paid for dinner, is willing to babysit, is good with children, works a steady job, volunteers to be a leader of children, doesn’t seem to be a psychopathic stalker, and all the other traits that aren’t that “Stranger” person.  Which isn’t to say that getting in that van to help the guy find his puppy is a great idea, but still….

shah, rape convictions being as hard as they are to get, Amanda might not have many options.  Perhaps you could suggest someone whose fame and wealth didn’t shield him?

John, I wouldn’t call them sociopaths.  That discounts our culture’s responsibility for the problem.  Research shows about 5% of men will admit to having raped someone—-if you avoid the word and just give them the definition—-so we’re talking about a systemic problem, and not a result of a tiny minority of men with personality disorders.  The culture at large, and the sports culture in particular, breeds this belief that women are disposable, and that’s going to result in a large number of men taking that belief to its logical conclusion.

PiatoR, you must not be a film buff, to suggest one can ID with a singer but not a film director; Polanski as a person is as “real” to me as Chris Brown probably is to his fans.  I agree (and wasn’t suggesting otherwise) that sports fans ID in more personal ways (the heterosexual/masculine performance aspect being a huge element), but I always ID with artists (writers, directors, in my case) whose work hits me in sublime ways and shapes the way I think or see the world because of their product (and Polanski happens to be one of them because of his early body of work, so great choice of name to bring up). After all, people use all kinds of cultural phenom to “badge” themselves, which makes up part of “who they are”, or at least “who they think they are” on superficial social levels, and in some cases much deeper ones. It’s practically code at social events. So we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one, at least in terms of degree.

But in any event, whether we call it identification or just love, it still all comes down to whether we’re willing to defend our fandom for the work or the skills of cruel people, which was ultimately what I was getting in tune with, in the first paragraph of Amanda’s post (she’s written about it before, and those are the debates I was referring to).  Lenina’s well-known point about whether to financially support these individuals is I think really where the ethics comes in for me, personally—not before.

They also live in a world full of rules. Rules of the games they play, team and league behavior rules, rules about how to behave in public and with the media, sometimes quite intricate and not always logical. And failure to comply with those rules, in and out of the games they play come with consequences. You could argue that those omnipresent rules and their ability to follow them quite closely indicates that just sheer “getting what you want despite any obstacles” is not explanation enough for sexually assaulting women. This view would also necessitate a far higher incidence of rape and sexual assault attributable to pro athletes than apparently exists.

Oh, but think how many players get adulation for breaking the rules of their game, either subtly or in “bad-boy” (ahem) fashion. And think about how the whole point of the he-man professional sports like football, hockey or basketball is physically overriding your opponents’ resistance, just as long as you can get away with it. And often not just overriding but dominating and humiliating them (at least as the announcers tell it).

Which brings me to another thing that may explain the close melding of ugly misogyny and certain kinds of sports fandom: deeply unresolved tensions about the homoeroticism of the sports themselves and of being a passionate sports fan. I mean, really, you’ve got all these men with beautiful bodies acting out stylized violence and violent embraces, non-violent embraces with their teammates, rampant psychodrama and so forth, all in a culture that supposedly prizes men as models of calm rationality with bodies whose only significance is as well-tuned machines (ahem again). So some of that tension gets relieved by the notion that the winning team is turning their opponents into a bunch of women, and actual women barely even make it onto the gamut. So no real surprise that all the standard partriarchal-loser resentments against those women and their incredibly counterproducitve superpower of being attractive to men…

I think another reason for believing that guys rape for lack of other action is just that a reasonable number of people have friends who are accused rapists.

When I first read that, I thought WTF?

Then I realized how many women I know that were raped or otherwise sexually assaulted.  It’s so damn common that of course we should know men “accused” of rape.

I’ve mentioned Mike Tyson, and wiki’s list of sports athletes mentioned reuben patterson and hollywood hayes.  There is Mark Chmura, Lawrence Phillips, Mell Hall Jr, Noah Smith, Nigel Clay and Bernard Hall, Linwood Hamilton…

But of the really famous people, heh, guess not.  I still object to Bryant because he actually can point to the accuser’s reliability in testimony—which wasn’t typical of most of these swept under the rug cases.

Rape really isn’t appropriate for criminal trials, I think.  Not that I think there are viable alternatives.  However, race and class are so intrinsic to whether charges are brought and whether there is a conviction, that I think it is way too much like witchcraft charges.  Just a way to hit or evict someone.

Then, Amanda, would you liken this to a discussion a few days ago about racism, where somebody posted a link to a video about calling out racist things people do, and not labeling them racist?

Let’s face it, our society, run by men, is pretty resentful of women, especially women making accusations of rape. Rape is a loaded word. Rape is used to describe everything from a violent, brutal attack to going to bed with a woman who’s had too much to drink, regardless of whom the aggressor was.

“Rape” might be more admitted to or understood if the word that describes kidnapping at knifepoint, raping and beating up a woman didn’t also describe not immediately pulling out when a previously consenting woman suddenly decides she wants out. People generally don’t (and most men certainly don’t) equate the latter, which might be called asshole behavior that can be apologized for, with the former, which is an indisputable violent crime.

Shah8:
witchcraft is a fantasy. Rape is a real crime. See the difference?

Perhaps you could suggest someone whose fame and wealth didn’t shield him

Andrew Luster wasn’t famous, but he was wealthy, and it didn’t help him:

Andrew Stuart Luster (born December 15, 1963) is the great-grandson of cosmetics giant Max Factor, Sr. and an heir to the Max Factor cosmetics fortune. He grew up in Malibu, California and attended Windward School in Santa Monica. Convicted of a series of rapes in 2003, Luster had been supported by a $3.1 million trust fund as he traveled and surfed at various beaches.

AJones, I have my doubts, due to the paper trail that prostitution services can create that mere relationships that don’t require payment don’t create.  As Eliot Spitzer could tell you.

There is something that separates men who rape from those who do not.

Again, people should be reading this.

PiatoR, you must not be a film buff, to suggest one can ID with a singer but not a film director; Polanski as a person is as “real” to me as Chris Brown probably is to his fans.  I agree (and wasn’t suggesting otherwise) that sports fans ID in more personal ways (the heterosexual/masculine performance aspect being a huge element), but I always ID with artists (writers, directors, in my case) whose work hits me in sublime ways and shapes the way I think or see the world because of their product (and Polanski happens to be one of them because of his early body of work, so great choice of name to bring up).

I would claim that you are exceptional, then.  The primary difference between a director and a performer is that the director is “transparent”.  You actually have to be trained and to make yourself consciously aware of the craft in his/her art.  Another difference is that you are actually invited to identify with performers (and we include sports stars here).

I wonder if there’s a difference in sports fans reactions if the coach or manager of a team is accused of something shitty as opposed to a player?

“To me, that line is like the #1 reason that I’d take the allegation seriously.”

I agree but not for this reason

I mean, not that I wouldn’t take allegations seriously, but really, if he could have sex with anyone, why have sex with someone who didn’t want to, aside from RAPE?”

or this one

“If the thrill of just taking is the point, then it is NOT a situation of “Why rape, he can have anyone?” because, to paraphrase whoever it was, “Anyone willing to submit to me is not worth dominating.”

Instead I think it goes more like this:  “Everybody knows that I can have any woman I want.  How’s it going to look to my buddies if I walk out and say that she said no?”

didn’t also describe not immediately pulling out when a previously consenting woman suddenly decides she wants out

Fuck this shit.

When you’re having sex, and your partner says “stop, you’re hurting me” do you just keep pumping away till you come?  Regardless of any pain you inflict?

Or do you stop immediately say “what’s wrong?” and fix the problem?  Maybe she’s got a cramp or a charley horse, and after stretching it out you’ll be having sex for hours.  Leg cramps have happened to me and to my partners.  Never have either they or I insisted that we continue in pain.  When someone says “ouch” you stop.

The “didn’t pull out immediately” case is especially egregious, since the woman in question was being raped a second time, and the jury was unhappy about following a very old statute.

——

As for the problematic defniition of “rape”—it’s not rape that’s improperly defined.  It’s sex.  Sex is not something a woman allows a man to do to her.  Sex is something that people do together.  If one partner is not consenting, it’s NOT SEX.

Seriously.  We all deserve better than to have women lying back and thinking of England.

JohnGor0,

Like, I’m sorry if some rapes aren’t brutal enough for you not to be confused by their existence.

um, I don’t hear you arguing that the term “assault” is too vague to use as a criminal term, or that there are too many trivial assault charges brought against innocent people. After all, people who have been *spit on* have brought charges of assault! Maybe you have a double standard? Why is rape so. damned. confusing. to you?

My advice to you is: date only v. confident, v. decisive women, and always tell them that they’ll need a safe word around you, so’s it’s not so confusing, you know, that part about women having their own minds and wills and agencies.

There is something that separates men who rape from those who do not. The vast majority of men in professional sports of all types do not rape. A percentage, in exactly the same circumstances of fame, wealth, opportunity and the culture of male athletics, do it. That space, the difference between those who do and do not, is where the motivation must arise. I admit I don’t know what that place looks like, but I suggest it has little to do with fame and money. If anything, were this a crime committed by wholly rational people, the mere fact of money, status and fame would be a limiting factor. They, in some senses, have more to lose than the rest of us, yet do it anyway.  Why?

That, right there, bears some consideration: I don’t know if you can say that rape is any more common among pro athletes (or even amateur athletes) than it is among any other group of men because there’s a serious selection bias going on.  You are far more likely to hear about some NFL linebacker doing something bad, even with active measures carried out by his handlers, team and sometimes even the league, to keep things quiet than you are.

Everything is magnified when it’s a singer or a director or an athlete or an actor or a politician.  More people are going to hear about it.  More people think they know the person, so the “He’d never do anything like that” crowd is going to be much larger, as would the crowd making excuses.  And because he belongs to a readily identifiable group, more people are likely to have a pre-existing bias one way or the other about how “those” people are.

I think you are making that mistake, thinking that what happens in the minds and motivations of athletes is somehow significantly different than it is for the non-famous, and the fact of it is…it isn’t.  There’s no more mysterious difference between the athlete or the actor who rapes compared to his peers who don’t than there is between their fans who rape and those who do not.  The fame and wealth is a distraction.  Oh, like I always say given the wide range of human behaviour there are probably some for whom the situation does affect the outcome, but I don’t think it’s necessarily that significant in terms of numbers.

@paul:

Oh, but think how many players get adulation for breaking the rules of their game, either subtly or in “bad-boy” (ahem) fashion. And think about how the whole point of the he-man professional sports like football, hockey or basketball is physically overriding your opponents’ resistance, just as long as you can get away with it. And often not just overriding but dominating and humiliating them (at least as the announcers tell it).

Spot on. More to think about.

The rest of your post is also quite good.

ou are far more likely to hear about some NFL linebacker doing something bad, even with active measures carried out by his handlers, team and sometimes even the league, to keep things quiet than you are.

To finish that sentence properly, “than you are if the same situation involves a local factory worker.”

Roethlisberger is and always has been a meathead.  This sort of behavior does not surprise me at all.

*longs for the days of Terry Bradshaw and Franco Harris*

I think you are making that mistake, thinking that what happens in the minds and motivations of athletes is somehow significantly different than it is for the non-famous, and the fact of it is…it isn’t.  There’s no more mysterious difference between the athlete or the actor who rapes compared to his peers who don’t than there is between their fans who rape and those who do not.  The fame and wealth is a distraction.  Oh, like I always say given the wide range of human behaviour there are probably some for whom the situation does affect the outcome, but I don’t think it’s necessarily that significant in terms of numbers.

That’s actually what I was getting at, responding to the notion that athletic culture creates or produces rapists in and of itself. My further point was that if rape is a crime done by completely rational people, then wealth, etc., would be some manner of restraining parameter. As we agree,, it isn’t.

What separates men who rape from those who don’t is pretty complicated.  It wasn’t that long ago that rape was normalized completely to the point where I imagine that, by our definition, a whole lot more men raped than do now.  Forcing a woman on prom night or your wedding night was not just tolerated, but joked about and accepted.  Now that it’s been defined and exposed, the rape rates are cascading down, but the messages men get about what’s acceptable really vary from subculture to subculture, and sports is unfortunately an area where cavalier attitudes about women’s humanity are considered an entry point.  Even men who strongly disagree with misogyny find that they have to pick their battles, and have to let most dehumanizing comments and depictions of women go.

Caren-Sun etc,

exactly! There is a range of bodily injury possible for any violent crime. You don’t have to be bleeding out your eyes (to use the sarcastic Ferris Bueller line) to have it qualify as rape. The word is perfectly fine. what is wrong with these people.

Instead I think it goes more like this:  “Everybody knows that I can have any woman I want.  How’s it going to look to my buddies if I walk out and say that she said no?”

Ding ding ding!  As painful as it is to say this, a lot of masculinity is constructed precisely in a way where violence and disdain for women proves your bona fides.  It’s the “bros before hos” mentality, where men are actually expected to prove themselves by resisting the temptation to love women too much, which is seen as softening and just a tad too tempting, at least for straight men.  This encourages rape, precisely because backing down off an unwilling woman is giving into her pleas to be treated in a way that could, under the cruel constructs of masculinity, be seen as giving her too much respect.

That’s actually what I was getting at, responding to the notion that athletic culture creates or produces rapists in and of itself.

Damn, I hate it when I’m getting warmed up and find out someone is in violent agreement with me.

Damn, I hate it when I’m getting warmed up and find out someone is in violent agreement with me.

Hehe. You were building up a good head of steam, though. You made the point more clearly than I did.

There are certain unusual cases where it could be argued that they do: undisciplined soldiers in the field during wartime and prison inmates. In both cases, though, the ugly underlying power dynamic is still there—the situation of forced sexual deprivation just makes rape more commonplace and increases the pool of perpetrators when compared to other “normal” situations.

I don’t agree with this. Rape has probably been a part of war from the beginning of mankind. Rape is a psychological tool against the enemy (however that group is defined) and of genocide.  Recent examples are the actions of soldiers in Bosnia, Rwanda and Bangladesh. I remember reading articles during the fighting in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) of women committing suicide because they had been raped by (West) Pakistani soldiers and were being shunned by their families following tribal traditions. A good article on rape in war can be found in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape).

This is just sickening—I’m glad you’re calling it for the bullshit that it is, Amanda.

For these douches, it’s way easier to blame the girl than to admit that the entire culture is based on a myth, that sex is done to women by men.

John GoR0? Um…actually if I decide I want out of sex—for any reason—if my partner continues, that is actually rape. If he goes about his business when I’m asleep/unconscious? That’s rape too. Spread the word.

I wonder if the ubiquitous, scantily-clad cheerleaders are part of the cause or part of the effect of the sports culture. I was profoundly disappointed when the local soccer team decided it needed “dancers” this season: like most squads, they don’t even keep up the pretense of “cheering” for the team anymore.  To me, it seems like just one more way to exclude (or ignore) female fans and keep sports all about being “one of the guys”.

I know it’s all about marketing, but the fact that every sports marketing professional in America is convinced that “more hot chicks” = “more butts in seats” seems to confirm Amanda’s point about sports culture being misogynistic at heart: everyone knows you’re not a “serious” sports team unless you provide hot young women for your fans to ogle.

I didn’t say so at the time, but I do agree with Fallsroad and KeithM.  I do not think athletes rape at higher rates, especially after you control for income.  I have no idea if that assertion is correct, but I’m not sure if there *is* an athletic culture causes rape phenomenon.  I suspect prediliction for rape (above and below norms) has more to do with your head than with culture.

I suspect prediliction for rape (above and below norms) has more to do with your head than with culture.

Athletic culture, however, does have a long sad history of protecting rapists or, at the least, minimizing their crimes.

Rape is a loaded word. Rape is used to describe everything from a violent, brutal attack to going to bed with a woman who’s had too much to drink, regardless of whom the aggressor was.

Murder is a loaded word. Murder is used to describe everything from a brutal, violent attack that involves flaying someone alive to jokingly shoving someone, who then trips and falls down a flight of stairs.

Rape is used to describe “everything from __ to __” because the specifics of the instance are irrelevant, and anything is rape if it involves a sexual act with a non-consenting participant. it doesn’t matter what specific set of circumstances makes it nonconsensual (actual protest, blackmail, comatose) nor what specific set of circumstances are involved in the sexual act (pick one. or more than one), nor does it state what prior relationship the victim and perpetrator had.

everyone knows you’re not a “serious” sports team unless you provide hot young women for your fans to ogle.

The entirety of baseball (the finest team sport ever conceived) objects to your qualification of “serious” sports team.

Why, yes, yes, athletic culture does have a long history of protecting rapists and minimizing their crimes.  Thing though is, what male-dominated culture doesn’t.  Floor managers in sweatshops are, if anything, have more protections than do athletes, because their victims do not have even minimal capacity to get away.  How about stock brokers?  Professors?  Police Officers?

Isn’t about the only thing that differentiates athletes from most other occupations is that it is one of the most perfectly meritocratic system in social life, and as a result is much more diverse in original social status than most other occupations?  That, plus the whole celebrity angle that makes a person’s crime more interesting to the public at large?  Plenty of athletes rape, but if you don’t have enough mojo, people won’t brush the incident under the rug for you.  And so a whole lotta nobodies go to jail uncommented.

Didn’t Kobe Bryant say in an interview after the charges were dismissed that he could see why she might have thought it was rape? Or is that memory a figment of my imagination?

Here it is:

“First, I want to apologize directly to the young woman involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year. Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to apologize to her parents and family members, and to my family and friends and supporters, and to the citizens of Eagle, Colo.

“I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.

“I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part of this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado.”

everyone knows you’re not a “serious” sports team unless you provide hot young women for your fans to ogle.

The entirety of baseball (the finest team sport ever conceived) objects to your qualification of “serious” sports team.

Well, I don’t know about it being the finest, but hockey is in agreement.  As is soccer (getting beyond North America).  While pro basketball has them, I don’t see them get anywhere near the attention that football cheerleaders do.

So when you get right down to it, it’s really just North American football with basketball as a junior partner.

So when you get right down to it, it’s really just North American football with basketball as a junior partner.

Of course, the comedy here is that attending an actual football game almost guarantees you won’t see the cheerleaders (skimpily clad or otherwise) at all from almost anywhere in the stadium.

They’ve become completely a made for TV thing, and the networks that air the games oblige.

Isn’t about the only thing that differentiates athletes from most other occupations is that it is one of the most perfectly meritocratic system in social life, and as a result is much more diverse in original social status than most other occupations?

Depends on the sport.  Basketball, baseball and football, definitively, since the entry requirements in terms of personal equipment are so low, (in football most of the equipment is provided by a team).  Hockey is more a middle class sport because the equipment purchase is a personal expense, and there’s a lot more of it needed.  Low income kids are at a definite disadvantage, so much so that various groups in Canada run programs to provide equipment for kids who can’t afford it.

Track and field and gymnastics, on the amateur side, have pretty low entry bars as well.

For other sports, there is a definite social/economic class entry level that’s pretty much a requirement.  Downhill skiers and snowboarders, for instance, pretty much have to live on the hill when they’re young, and not everyone can do that.  You’re either living in a community at the base of the hill and grow up as a ski bum, or your family has sufficient coin that you travel to a hill regularly.  Bicycling, same thing: you have to be able to purchase good equipment to make you competative early so you can then win/get sponsorship which allows you better equipment.

Even men who strongly disagree with misogyny find that they have to pick their battles, and have to let most dehumanizing comments and depictions of women go.

Amen. I have found myself compromised many times on this. Particularly where misogynistic comments are framed as jokes.

Rape has probably been a part of war from the beginning of mankind.

In Woman: An Intimate Geography, Natalie Angier theorizes that war was a major factor in the dehumanization of women in early settled cultures.  In a war situation, it’s acceptable, even encouraged, to rape enemy women and abduct them as sex slaves.  A society that routinely goes to war will build up a class of foreign-born concubines with no rights, no property, and no family to protect them, women who can be treated like possessions.  Eventually the native women start getting the same treatment.

War has a history of brutality against the losers of both sexes.  Men (whether soldiers or peasants)were commonly raped, enslaved, castrated by the victor’s women, or just killed.  Women were commonly raped, enslaved, forced to endure a life or rape, or just killed.  A losing royal man would probably have it not so bad before getting beheaded, while a losing royal woman would be pretty much sold to the highest bidder and then become some minor winner’s wife.  What happened in Bosnia and Rawanda was, historically, pretty mild stuff as the history of warfare goes.  That shows we’ve come a long way, but it also shows we’re pretty naive about what war used to mean to the losing side.

And maybe it’s only me, but I find it pretty fucking funny/ironic that someone with “Gor” in his name is commenting about rape.  Look it up on wikipedia sometime.

“castrated by the victor’s women”

...the victor’s women? Maybe sometimes, but certainly not exclusively.

Rape is to sex as lynching is to justice. No excuses, no mitigating circumstances – it is, and it shall forever remain, the basest exercise of the will to power. It is the ruthless subjugation of the individual to satisfy the aberrant needs of a maniacal ego.

Yeah I don’t buy the stuff about war and soldiers either.  Being in the peace movement I have always worked a lot with vets for peace and iraq vets against the war.  I have had many of them tell me that the reason why there is so much sexual assault within our own military, and though we do not bother to even attempt to keep figures of sexual assaults against Iraqi and Afghani women we can presume they are occurring at the same rate or higher, is because back in Vietnam “we had hookers”.  So it was all about sexual frustration.  Of course, if this were true, they would just masturbate.  This idea masturbation does not relieve sexual frustration you need to pound it into someone is bs.

Anyway, a few of the really honest vietnam vets i know have told me it’s a load of shit, because they were raping Vietnamese women left and right too.  The only difference is probably that with many more women now serving in our own military, the sexual assault rates against the US soldier have sky-rocketed.

The type of personality attracted to the military in the first place?  It could play some role, but it can’t really fully explain it.  Because in Vietnam most of them were not attracted to the military, they were drafted.  The brainwashing they receive upon entering that dehumanizes “the enemy”?  There I thinkw we’d be getting somewhere, but that wouldn’t explain the sexual assaults agains American soldiers.  Our rape culture?  A mixture of all three? 

I think so, but whichever, it’s not because they are “undisciplined” whatever that means in this context.

I don’t know if this was addressed further down, but i have to take issue with this, sorry:

“At least part of the reason why Stephen Green et al raped Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi was to punish Iraqis for the deaths of U.S. soldiers.  The same thing happened at My Lai.”

Bullfuckingshit.  I think you really believe that, but it’s bs.  Stephen Green et el, did not rape this 15 year old girl.  They stalked her, they terrorized her, they eventually broke into her home, murdered her entire family in front of her including her six year old sister, then they gang raped this 15 year old girl who know knew her entire family was dead, then they murdered her, then they set her body on fire.

They didn’t do it to get back at anybody.  They did it because they were fucking sociopaths, should never have gotten past any kind of screening process, and they did because they could do it.  Because Green wanted to torture a 15 year old girl who he wasn’t torturing enough by sexually harrassing her as she passed him, terrified, every day.

Oh how I hate the military apologist story of, well, it’s really wrong, but you know, these guys, they saw their buddies get killed and they just snapped and wanted revenge, and so instead of taking on a FUCKING MAN, they murdered a six year old girl and gang raped, beat, murdered, and set her sister on fire.

You want revenge on the MEN who killed your buddy, you take on a fucking man.

“Rape” might be more admitted to or understood if the word that describes kidnapping at knifepoint, raping and beating up a woman didn’t also describe not immediately pulling out when a previously consenting woman suddenly decides she wants out. People generally don’t (and most men certainly don’t) equate the latter, which might be called asshole behavior that can be apologized for, with the former, which is an indisputable violent crime.

Oh man.  I just hardly can believe there are men out there like this anymore.  This is really scary.  It’s things like this that make me really hope i never end up going back to dating.

“Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.”

Wow, seriously? “She totally consented, only I can kind of see why she might have thought she hadn’t actually consented.”? If it weren’t for the damage to his nice-guy reputation and the threat of civil suit, this wouldn’t have even been a blip on the radar for him, would it?

PiatoR: perhaps IDing with a film director is less common, but the Kevin Smith and Joss Whedon phenoms suggest I’m not entirely alone. But we agree—one has to know the director’s “face” through interviews, memoirs, publications, etc before it can have any such effect.

“Rape is to sex as lynching is to justice. No excuses, no mitigating circumstances – it is, and it shall forever remain, the basest exercise of the will to power. It is the ruthless subjugation of the individual to satisfy the aberrant needs of a maniacal ego.”—BobbyV

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but I think killing someone is worse.  The victims of rape can go on with their lives, but I’ve never heard of anyone who was killed getting over it even with the best therapy.

To add to the deserving pile on Goro:

Imagine you and I are fooling around, in some crazy alternate universe.  Imagine, in the course of playing around, I suggest to you how much fun it would be for me to slide this big 2x4 up your bunghole.  Imagine you consenting to that, and me proceeding to shove said 2x4 up your bunghole.  Now imagine that you are uncomfortable, nee, in pain, and you no longer want me shoving this 2x4 up your bunghole.  Imagine turning to me and saying, “That’s enough.  Stop.” 

Imagine me saying, “Hey, babe, I’ve already got in there.  You said ‘yes’ two minutes ago.  Can’t change your mind now!”  And I chuckle and chuck you on your chin and tell you to turn back around and just take it for a few more minutes until I’m done, there’s a dear.

You fucking sociopath.

Caton:

Oh man.  I just hardly can believe there are men out there like this anymore.  This is really scary.  It’s things like this that make me really hope i never end up going back to dating.

I stopped dating at all long ago.  It’s disturbing how many men have just that attitude.

“The victims of rape can go on with their lives, but I’ve never heard of anyone who was killed getting over it even with the best therapy,” wrote 3letterjon.

well, dickhead jon, plenty of people end up committing suicide because they will ultimately decide it feels preferable to living with having been raped - despite “the best therapy”.  Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes before you share your ill-considered and shallow opinions in a thread that easily sees through your transparent ignorance and lack of human empathy.

“it’s not just about the sex, it’s about the act of paying for it that’s important to them.”

For most men, it’s so they won’t risk getting caught.  Yes, sometimes they get caught, but a lot less than guys who have affairs.

Some of the people who visit prostitutes aren’t paying for the sex; they are paying for sex with no ties.  In other words, they aren’t paying for the company, but so the company will leave when they say.  So no woman/man calling the house and getting the spouse; no woman/man deciding to have it out with the spouse and take his/her place, etc.
Yeah, I live in MA, so need to say spouse and be non-specific.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but I think killing someone is worse.  The victims of rape can go on with their lives, but I’ve never heard of anyone who was killed getting over it even with the best therapy.

But it has the same effect of creating fear and terror in the target population.  You don’t have to be lynched or raped to fear being lynched or raped, even if it’s not prevalent.  If the message is “You can be lynched/raped and the perpetrators will get away with it”, everyone else will not only get that message, but be in fear of it happening to them.

jon:  Unfortunately, your analysis misses a major point of Bobby’s statement.  Murder is not about power and domination, except in very rare circumstances.  Usually murder is about revenge, money, or jealousy.

And let’s not get into the sympathy Olympics.  A violent crime affects the victim regardless of their prognosis.

helen:  I would disagree.  It’s plenty easy to have sex and make sure the company leaves and never bothers you, not least of which is picking someone up at a bar, taking them to your car, banging them, and dropping them back off at the bar without having asked for names or numbers.  I’ve had plenty of sex wherein neither I nor the guy involved were interested in anything beyond that single night.

No, the men who visit prostitutes are doing so because they get off on the idea that no matter what, for the next however many minutes, they own this person and the person cannot deny them anything they want.  They may have to pay extra, but for the trouble they get someone feigning enthusiasm, and the feigning is part of the fun for the payer.

Well, .... News Hag, I did say I agreed with the sentiment that rape is “the basest exercise of the will to power. It is the ruthless subjugation of the individual to satisfy the aberrant needs of a maniacal ego.”  I just said that killing someone for such purposes is worse.  I’d also say that slavery can be worse than rape, but not in all cases.  Maybe I don’t understand your logic-fu, but I wasn’t saying rape is no big deal or a big laugh riot or whatever it was you read in my words that I didn’t type.

And it is a fact that some people kill themselves after getting raped.  Some also live in denial.  Some get over it, some are very damaged, some aren’t that damaged, some do this, some do that, some do whatever it is that some do.  But dead people tend to stay dead.  If that’s an offensive statement of “transparent ignorance and a lack of human empathy”, I guess I’ll have to live with that.

karpad -

Murder is a loaded word. Murder is used to describe everything from a brutal, violent attack that involves flaying someone alive to jokingly shoving someone, who then trips and falls down a flight of stairs.

Actually, karpad, there are varying defined degrees of murder, then of manslaughter, based on intent. Your second example is not murder. There is only one word that gets used to define rape intent from stalking to a misunderstanding. It is similar to assault.

Again, I believe the question of the post was why do fans rally around celebrities when accused of rape. I see some, like SPEEDBUDGET are playing the game of “Unless I agree with everything you write, you’re anything I call you”. Seriously, speedbudget, you have a problem.

My point is that people generally view rape as a violent occurance, or at least one of clear non-consent. One generally doesn’t view going to bed with an aggressive drunk woman as rape. Some here do. In this example, no, I don’t view that as rape. If I read a news story in which some football guy was accused of raping a woman, because she had 5 drinks in her, and he didn’t call the police when she suggested going to her room, I would call bullshit, as would most people.

I do believe that not pulling out when asked to is technically rape. But should an asshole guy stand for 5 - 10 years in prison because he’s a selfish asshole? Should a guy who was hit on by a drunk woman and went to bed with her go to jail for 5 - 10 years because we don’t think she has any responsibility in that matter?

I don’t agree with this. Rape has probably been a part of war from the beginning of mankind.

I’m not sure where the disagreement is—I didn’t claim that rape isn’t a regular aspect of war. Quite the opposite: it doesn’t take a Wikipedia entry to understand that a lack of discipline in these matters has often been encouraged by commanders and wardens—the same commanders and wardens who create an atmosphere of enforced sexual desperation to begin with.

Amanda asked “are there situations where men rape because they’re ‘hard up’?” I gave two examples of cases where men who would not normally engage in rape would do so in part because they’re sexually desperate. Being “hard up” (i.e. being in situations where one is prevented and discouraged from engaging in consensual sex) is a contributing factor here—a case of extreme desperation exacerbated by peer pressure (especially that of true psychopath arseholes in the unit/gang) and the license granted by essentially lawless situations. Relieve the desperation (e.g. through conjugal visits, leave/furlough, or even brothels) and the pool of men likely to participate in something as abhorent as rape in these situations is reduced.

In the end, as I noted, these are unusual situations, where a culture of rape is indeed built in and where being “hard up” is as well. The vast majority of men (at least in more secular countries during peacetime) don’t have their sexual deprivation forced upon them by commanders or wardens—least of all pro athletes and celebrities.

actually, I would argue that the prison-rape and war-rape are even *more obviously* about power, dominance and control!  and much less about being “hard-up” (ooky phraseology here!)

I think “sexually desperate” is a better term, but I took Amanda’s use of the term to be colloquial.

Anyhow, obvious or not, it doesn’t matter—as far as I’m concerned all rape incorporates that power dynamic to one degree or another. The situations I mentioned increase the pool of men who’d indulge in it by deliberately depriving them of access to consensual sex.

It’s a matter of scale. I recently read that there were 20,000 births resulting from the rape of German women by Red Army soldiers at the end of WWII. That number implies a staggering amount of rapes in a short period and limited geographic location, and makes it difficult to argue that it was just the usual entitled psychopath rapist at work. So we have to look at the other factors, among them a lack of discipline (compared to the invading/occupying armies on the western front) and, yes, enforced sexual desperation (common to all armies).

I read the point that JohnGor0 was making differently.

We say, and agree, that there is a rape culture, that it is systemic, and that it is too easily denied.

I think a part of that culture and system, is that for whatever historical reasons, the WORD rape has become in most people’s mind the violent stranger attack, and we have, for very valid and important reasons, added adjectives to try to get people to understand that there is a hell of a lot more going on.

In general, if you say to most people “She was raped,” their reaction is not going to be “you mean the guy she was dating did not take stop for an answer when they were making out?”

NOT TO JUSTIFY IT, but it would be better if the adjectives went the other way. Instead of the required qualifiers being things like “date rape” and “grey rape” and such, if the required qualifiers were “violent rape” or “armed rape” or “stranger rape” because things were such that people just assume that you mean someone violating consent rather than violently attacking unless you said otherwise.

A word should reflect its most common meaning, with adjectives needed for special cases.

I think that is what he was trying to say. Given the fact that this is hardly a new idea for regular readers and given his previous comments, I think it got lost. Piling on him for his earlier comments, absolutely, but I think he made a valid (if in context, obvious) point on this specific issue.

“jon:  Unfortunately, your analysis misses a major point of Bobby’s statement.  Murder is not about power and domination, except in very rare circumstances.  Usually murder is about revenge, money, or jealousy.”—Speedbudget

Maybe it’s because I work in a prison, but I’ve found that revenge and money and jealousy are pretty much the same same thing as power and domination.  Then again, maybe I didn’t have to work at a prison to figure that out.  Murder not about power?  Tell that to the guy with the gun as he threatens to kill you.  Murder can be impulsive or planned, but it always is an attempt to control someone else.  I’d say that rape can pretty much work in that same way.

I think that listening to a guy with “Gor” in his name talk about sexual relationships is a lot like listening to a guy in a Nazi uniform talk about Judaism.

I do think it could be helpful, as Lymis suggests, to use words that have better-regulated meaning.  Maybe it would be good to stop saying “rape” and just call it “sexual assault”.  “Rape” conjures images of the guy lurking in the bushes, as that college spokesman put it so not eloquently some months back.  “Sexual assault” has sex, which is well-understood, and assault, which makes people more likely to “get it” without immediately going to the apology reflex the word “rape” seems to bring up.  Then again, it’s the behavior that matters, and the apologists don’t give a shit since any and everything can be justified.

I wouldn’t play the Oppression Olympics here, jon.  Way too touchy a subject.

That it may be, but I think putting rape on the highest pedastal of Things to Abhor is sometimes a disservice toward actually dealing with it.  It allows people to just nod their heads, agree that it is horrible, and never actually think about it.  As crimes go, it’s awful.  But I think putting it into a framework of other crimes is a better way to reach people who immediately respond with apologist thinking than just asking for everyone to put on the ribbon, so to speak.  Agreeing that OJ was a bad husband and ex-husband sure ended spousal abuse, right?  And I’m not playing Oppression Olympics to point out that something with a zero getting-over-it percentage just might be worse than another crime that has a higher percentage of people who go on to have decent lives.

But now I’ll shut up and go to work.

John, men who have your concerns also tend to believe all women are consenting unless they say no to a
a man’s satisfaction. Smarter is to assume that the answer is no unless you get an explicit yes.

Even men who strongly disagree with misogyny find that they have to pick their battles, and have to let most dehumanizing comments and depictions of women go.

I really hate this part.

Bullfuckingshit.  I think you really believe that, but it’s bs.  Stephen Green et el, did not rape this 15 year old girl.  They stalked her, they terrorized her, they eventually broke into her home, murdered her entire family in front of her including her six year old sister, then they gang raped this 15 year old girl who know knew her entire family was dead, then they murdered her, then they set her body on fire.

They did it, Caton, because they wanted to, because they could, and, crucially, because the peer group they were in said it was acceptable.

This always raises people’s hackles when I say it, but much of what we consider “our” morality is situational - a large number of us simply go with the crowd.  If the people around you say rape is an unacceptable violation of women’s integrity, then you will be righteous and consider yourself moral in condemning rape.  And if the people around you say that those sorts of people deserve it, and the rules don’t apply to the friggin’ hajiis, then a large number of us, perhaps the majority, will go along with it - condoning or even, God help us, participating.  Think for a minute - there must be significant numbers of women in the American military actually covering up or helping their male comrades assault Iraqi women.

I think people are generally better than we give them credit for, but I also think the significant majority of us are capable of drifting into serious evil without giving it much thought. I think the proportion of people capable of sticking to a coherent morality in the face of peer pressure is lower than we want to imagine, and it is precisely people who deny this possibility who are most likely to be involved in this moral drift. I believe we have to consciously build the structures of society to reward people being moral and discourage immorality.

(There’s an application of that to Amanda’s points about sports cuture too)

I believe an occupying army, under stress and fear of attack, that sees the surrounding population as the enemy will easily justify atrocity. War is the root of many evils, which is why starting an unnecessary war should be considered one of the worst crimes possible.

Just to get back to what I was saying about the Oppression Olympics, to be more clear: I don’t disagree that there’s a troubling tendency to justify outrage over rape by implying that rape victims are all so broken that it’s worse than being murdered and therefore dead forever.  I understand the urge—-so few people take rape seriously that you want to drive home that it’s serious, and that can cause overreach that harms victims like me, who want the right to heal without being judged for it. 

But it’s really nearly impossible to make actual comparisons of the severity of crimes without creating the impression that you’re minimizing, particularly in these kinds of threads.

This always raises people’s hackles when I say it, but much of what we consider “our” morality is situational - a large number of us simply go with the crowd.

Also repeatedly demonstrated with research.

You could watch Chinatown without ever knowing that Polanski had anything to do with it.

Except for the fact that he appears onscreen in the film as an actor. 

I understand the point you are making, Pesto (as most directors don’t act in their own films), but I also think that’s true only for more superficial or so-called everyday contact with the products of filmmakers or authors.  Yes, technically, you can watch a film/read a book without knowing the artist behind it, but I argue that’s hardly always the case, and that’s exactly the site where “defending” begins to take place. At some point of familiarity with a text or oeuvre, it becomes harder for people not to “hear” the author’s voice/personality/chronic anxieties (e.g. Polanski and suspicion of neighbours, which is one place I ID with him) coming through in some way, whether directly or through artistic device.  As a literary theorist, I’m not comfortable making absolutist statements that suggest otherwise.

If we assume that the apologists’ take on this incident is correct it immediately raises some important questions.  Did Roethlisberger behave in a way that lead his accuser to believe he was an easy target?  What was he wearing?  Perhaps a big gold ring and a fancy suit that sent the message “I have a lot of money and am an easy target for golddiggers?”  He must have known about the possibility when he had sex with her, and he didn’t take any kind of precautions to ensure she wasn’t going to golddig him.  Why did he let himself be alone under circumstances that clearly invite golddigging?  It’s hard to avoid the conclusion he was asking for it.

3letterjon at 9:23am

I think that listening to a guy with “Gor” in his name talk about sexual relationships is a lot like listening to a guy in a Nazi uniform talk about Judaism.

As I was saying, 3letterjon wins the “I don’t agree with you, so you’re a Nazi” game.

Amanda -

John, men who have your concerns also tend to believe all women are consenting unless they say no to a man’s satisfaction. Smarter is to assume that the answer is no unless you get an explicit yes.

I am married to a rape victim, Amanda, so I think I have at least a smidgen of understanding of the issue, being a man, and all. It is my belief that somebody pretending that having sex with a consenting drunk woman is rape does not take rape seriously in the least bit. Playing games with the word rape cheapens it, and calls any accusation into question. And, I’m sorry, but you’re not dragging drunken fucks up to the serious level of an unprovoked attack. You are dragging the seriousness of an unprovoked attack down to the level of regret. Societally.

Rape is a horrible act that does take years, oftentimes forever to recover from. I’m sure I’m not telling anyone anything they don’t already know, here. I make sure I telegraph my entry into a room so I don’t startle my wife. This is 35 years later. By all means, 3letterjon, tell us how rape has affected intimacy in your marriage, dumbfuck.

Lymis gets my point. People recoil from charges of rape because in most people’s minds, rape doesn’t mean that somebody, 4 days later, regrets a drunken fuck they completely initiated, and decides they were raped. Rape means non-consentual sex. Continuing when consent is withdrawn may technically be rape, but somebody isn’t a “Nazi” (God, what a stupid asshole…) for suggesting that it’s a different level of rape as somebody initiating rape without any consent whatsoever.

With regards the identification part of the thread, actors play characters. Authors write stories. Painters and photographer create images.

Pick someone known for a particular role rather than an accomplished character actor, such as Joihn Denver with Gilligan, or perhaps more striking, Jaleel White playing Steve Urkel. Who is it we are identifying with? Megan Mullally played an amazing character as Karen in Will & Grace, but by all accounts is an entirely different kind of person.

Do we judge, say, Orson Scott Card for the flaws in his writing or the blind spots in his themes, or because we find out that his is a right-wing wingnut serving on the board of an organization dedicated to bigotry?

Those are issues that aren’t there to the same degree with other types of public figures. While a sports figure does have a life on and off the field, and being a crappy husband doesn’t prevent someone from throwing a ball accurately, their “work” doesn’t really stand alone the same way a film, novel, or character portrayal does.

That said, I can’t watch Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise movies any more, even their earlier work that I thoroughly enjoyed before they turned into (or I found out about) wingnuts.

I recently read that there were 20,000 births resulting from the rape of German women by Red Army soldiers at the end of WWII. That number implies a staggering amount of rapes in a short period and limited geographic location, and makes it difficult to argue that it was just the usual entitled psychopath rapist at work. So we have to look at the other factors, among them a lack of discipline (compared to the invading/occupying armies on the western front) and, yes, enforced sexual desperation (common to all armies).

Well, there was also a fair amount of rage against everything German after four years of the most brutal war and occupation imaginable. Plus a shitload of looted German alchohol, virulently revenge-oriented propaganda, and the encouragement of their officers. I think sexual desperation was the least of it in this case.

JohnGor0, and my mother often hit and bruised my father, so all domestic voilence must be inflicted by women…. not everything is a one-size, and violence and the PTSD that often goes along with it is in no way something that has a one-size answer. Assuming that all violence must leave scars at least as damaging as your wife’s to be valid is, sorry to say, ridiculous. Many people move on, many people don’t jump when someone sneaks up on them unexpectedly.

Making a statement that “Rape is a horrible act that does take years, oftentimes forever to recover from.” (emphasis mine) is absurd. Go back and read other threads on this very blog in which rape-survivors have said that while damaging, it’s something that they got over relatively quickly. It doesn’t always take years, it doesn’t always require countless hours of professional help. You’re taking a person you know and substituting her for the “every-woman” in your idea of how the world works. It falls back to you to educate yourself on the issue, because I, like others who post here, can tell you, as a rape-surviour, that you are 100% incorrect in your sweeping statement.

JohnGor0 ,

So you’re saying that most people, when they think of rape, picture stranger rape? And that’s upsetting and confusing somehow?

What’s your point? I thought everyone knew by now that one is FAR FAR more likely to be raped by someone they know.

If people still don’t understand that basic fact, then why don’t you help get the word out to the ignorant, instead of trying to argue that the word is too vague in the first place. If most people are imagining stranger rape, then most people are WRONG. It’s pretty simple. Stranger rape happens, but it’s much less common. duh.

And yes, even if someone is raped by someone they’re on a date with, you should still “recoil” - it is STILL a vile crime. Stop defending hypothetical ignorant assumptions.

Er, re-reading, and to clarify my remarks, it doesn’t always take years to get over, or even a year, but conversely, it isn’t always something you can walk away from in a year or two… many people, many injuries, many reactions. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution.

Well, there was also a fair amount of rage against everything German after four years of the most brutal war and occupation imaginable. Plus a shitload of looted German alchohol, virulently revenge-oriented propaganda, and the encouragement of their officers. I think sexual desperation was the least of it in this case.

My point is that it was still a significant “last straw” factor that pushed an unusually large number of soldiers over the edge in the greater context you describe.

Take a typical 20-year-old farm-boy who isn’t an entitled psychopath. Will revenge propaganda turn him into a stranger-rapist? Probably not. Add in superior officers releasing him from discipline. It’ll make him feel entitled to take pot-shots at civilians, or more likely loot. But stranger-rape? Ok, add in some of that looted booze—less inhibition, but lots of men get roaring drunk in all sorts of crazy circumstances and don’t rape women.

Now let’s add in some egging-on by the platoon’s resident psychopathic arsehole, and accompanying peer pressure from battle buddies. Now we’re getting closer to stranger rape. But there’s still a chance some small sober part of his brain will remember that the resident psychopathic arsehole is just that—especially if our 20-year-old has paid a visit to that crappy solution to a crappy situation, the licensed military brothel.

Add in months or years of enforced sexual desperation and deprivation, and you’re gonna get a lot more of those 20-year-olds turning off that last bit of reason in a chaotic and lawless situation.

I don’t get your point, Kodiak. I’m not assuming that all violence must leave scars… It’s ridiculous and absurd for you to draw that from my posts. Many of you, here, seem to be having some kind of argument going on in your heads that has nothing to do with anything I’ve posted. I’m happy to contribute to your fifteen minute hate.

kodiak -

rape-survivors have said that while damaging, it’s something that they got over relatively quickly.

A good bunch of you are screwing your heads back on and replacing the ceiling tiles they knocked out because I had the gaul to suggest that people perceive a gradiation of severity in the many instances that the word “rape” covers. I’ll leave this absurd generalization for you to ponder, and I won’t assume that, generally, rape can be gotten over in a fortnight.

I’m sure that getting to the point of actually posting freely about it represents a level of acceptance and healing, and that level would be over-represented on the message board of a post on rape by people writing about their own rape experiences, wouldn’t it? Now fall over yourself posting that I’m wrong.

Why yes, yes, we DO judge Orson Scott Card, or Werner Von Braun, or any of that ilk.  Much of their capabilities come *directly* from their pathology.

chingona, there is no way that I, or anyone else, should take that civil settlement statement completely on face.  It could reflect a truth anywheres from “I sorta did it” to “I’m saying this so that the woman could save face”.  I cannot but understand that there is a level of coercion in producing that statement.  Kobe Bryant’s chances were much less assured in a civil suit, and both parties were essentially looking at MAD.  I am NOT trying to deny that Kobe Bryant was a rapist.  I AM saying that Kobe Bryant would have won his criminal trial pretty easily, and he is, in fact, a poor example of a famous person who has a rape victim swept under the rug.  I am saying that I resent people bringing up what are essentially rumors with the assumption of guilt, especially when there is no judgement on who might *actually* be guilty.  I didn’t make the comparison to witchcraft charges lightly.

Will revenge propaganda turn him into a stranger-rapist?

Yes.  The psychological barriers to committing rape vary greatly from person to person and culture to culture, but one way to drop them as low as an individual’s personal makeup will allow is to completely dehumanize the victim.  If she just doesn’t matter as a person, and hurting her is a virtuous act of justified retribution against the oppressor, you might as well get your rocks off along the way.

Dehumanizing the enemy is a fundamental element of war.  Dehumanizing the victim is an essential element of rape.

liviaclaudia -

So you’re saying that most people, when they think of rape, picture stranger rape? And that’s upsetting and confusing somehow?

Uh, no, actually, Lymis wrote that sentence. Really, I’m surprized you’re merely sticking to this blog for quotes to misattribute to me. I applaud you for your focus. My argument, which you’ll misrepresent anyway, is that people generally think of something that is purely non-consentual. You do understand that “non-consentual” and “violent” don’t imply “stranger”, don’t you?

There’s really nothing else in your post to respond to, since you seem to assume I wrote everything on the internet that makes you sad. I truly apologize.

And pardon me for not taking my walking orders for “educating the world” from somebody who has the attention span of a ... what were we talking about?

JohnGor0
I wasn’t quoting anyone, I was referring back to your original stupid comment (talk about attention span probs):
“Rape” might be more admitted to or understood if the word that describes kidnapping at knifepoint, raping and beating up a woman didn’t also describe not immediately pulling out when a previously consenting woman suddenly decides she wants out. People generally don’t (and most men certainly don’t) equate the latter, which might be called asshole behavior that can be apologized for, with the former, which is an indisputable violent crime.”

In which you suggest that the word “rape” itself is confusing, because there are degrees of bodily harm one can sustain.

You’ve been backtracking since then, that’s true. But you’re still not making any kind of point.

Dehumanizing the enemy is a fundamental element of war.  Dehumanizing the victim is an essential element of rape.

Agreed. Again, my point is that the dehumanisation is more effective coming from one’s peers than from a poster or radio broadcast, or from a release from discipline (as opposed to direct orders) by a superior officer.

Even in a misogynist culture, stranger-rape is a major “switch” for the vast majority of men to pull—more than dangerous behaviour (e.g. pot-shots), more than theft (e.g. looting), more I’d argue than cold-blooded murder or even acquaintance/familial rape. That’s why stranger-rape is rare compared to all of those behaviours.

The factors which have the most leverage in pulling that switch are the most personal—the ones which exacerbate the nasty power dynamic of entitlement underlying rape, and the ones which deny the perpetrator that to which he thinks he’s entitled. The other factors create a toxic atmosphere in which those factors thrive and are normalised.

The word “rape” is not confusing to me. And I have not been backtracking. And I still say that people generally don’t equate asshole behavior with an attack. Please explain what’s “stupid” in that.

Let me write this again for you, and maybe it will stick this time:

The original question of the post was why fans rally behind celebrities when accused of rape. In giving an answer to the question, I wrote that guys probably sympathize with the celebrity/rapist because of their own experiences.

Generally, online, if you’re referencing a sentence, refer to that sentence in your post. Were I to say, “So you’re saying that I murder people for fun”, you would be correct in your expectation that I would at least highlight where you said that.

The original question of the post was why fans rally behind celebrities when accused of rape. In giving an answer to the question, I wrote that guys probably sympathize with the celebrity/rapist because of their own experiences.

Clearly put. Why, then, would the guy not sympathise with the non-celebrity rapist? After all, the guy’s own rape-y experience remains the same.

Gracchus - I don’t think the normal guy cares about the non-celebrity rapist. We see the celebrity as part of our extended sphere of influence. As someone we like.

@Gracchus

That morals-clause situation changed for a number of reasons, with both positive and negative results. We see here illustrated one of the negative results, and Vick’s re-admission into the NFL says more about the league than it does about Vick.

You couldn’t be more wrong about so-called morals clauses. The NFL head office actually has unprecedented control over player conduct and behavior outside league activities, more so than any other sport management apparatus. Anything a player does outside the league, even if it does not involve legal action or sanction, can be fodder for suspension, fines, or removal from the league altogether. The strict terms of Vick’s reinstatement are proof of this. In what everyday profession does an ex-convict have to provide for approval plans governing every aspect of their life, violation of which even a single one means an automatic lifetime ban froms said place of employment?

This is not to whine on Vick’s behalf. I rely on an assistance dog 24/7 and Vick’s crimes were horrifying and revolting to me, but he did the sentence, is conforming to all of the requirements thrown at him by both the league and the court, and the NFL is a cut throat enough business that someone will be willing to pay Vick to find out if he still has the talent to succeed in the league.

As for whether or not the league shows as much concern for players who abuse or rape women, I’d say absolutely not (Mike Wilbon’s column in the Washington Post made this very point today). But that failing on the league’s part shouldn’t be taken out on Vick. To be honest, I suspect his 2nd stint in the NFL will be a short one, which has everything to do with how his performance was trending when he was arrested and nothing to do with murdering dogs or recidivism.

The NFL is also aware of the PR problem. Notice Vick can sign right away, participate in practices and play in the last two preseason games, but then has to serve a 6 game suspension. The latter is not to further punish Vick, but to keep him out of sight as the season opens, which, other than the playoffs, is when NFL ratings are highest, and they don’t want the story of the dog killer front and center on opening day.

I don’t think the normal guy cares about the non-celebrity rapist. We see the celebrity as part of our extended sphere of influence. As someone we like.

Come on, John ... we’re aware of rapists (alleged and actual) in our immediate sphere of influence all the time. There are rather alarmist Web and smartphone apps devoted to pointing them out in our immediate vicinity. There are TV shows that encourage us to look out for warning signs of their activity. Sometimes, they’re in our acquaintanceship circles, or even our own families. They may not be celebrities, but they have a lot more potential impact on our lives. That goes for guys with and without rape-y experiences of their own.

Given that, why does the former kind of guy with rape-y experience not sympathise with the sort of non-celebrity rapist I described, but does when it comes to the celebrity he’s a fan of?

You couldn’t be more wrong about so-called morals clauses. The NFL head office actually has unprecedented control over player conduct and behavior outside league activities, more so than any other sport management apparatus

Wrong thread. If you can repost over there, I’ll reply there.

I agree Phoenician and that’s a very well stated post.  I understand what you are saying.  I really just depise when people start insinuating that it’s somehow understandable that the poor guys are under so much pressure and seeing their friends killed etc.  I went to see that movie redacted with two vets and it was horrible.  They were crying because the soldier who comes home after having witnessed the horrible gang rape and mass murder, and who had an automatic weapon but did nothing to stop it, was suffering from ptsd.  It took me so long to be able to even talk to them again.  I sometimes still can’t deal with it.

Wrong thread. If you can repost over there, I’ll reply there.

Shit, sorry. Open tabs fail.

Well, Gracchus, are we talking about non-celebs we know, or people we read about in the paper?

Yeah, from time to time, I get on the County site to look for registered child abusers in the neighborhood. They all get lumped in together, and there’s really no explanation, so a guy who, at 19 had sex with a 16 year old comes up with child predator, but are notated the same.

I think a guy would sympathize with both the celeb and non-celeb. It would depend on the situation, I suppose. Again, what looks like a mistake (we were both drunk, I don’t know what happened…) would probably elicit alot more sympathy than (bitch had it coming) in one’s circle of friends.

I don’t sympathize with Ben Roethensburgher(?).

There is an entire apparatus built to assemble brands around these people, though. There is no such apparatus to make Billy your co-worker seem larger than life. Billy the co-worker doesn’t do charity work, or appear in United Way commercials. You talk to Billy and get the feeling that he has a creepy attitude towards women. There’s nothing to chip away at the Brand of Ben Roethensburgher. It has been hammered into your head that BEN ROETHENSBURGHER IS GOOD!!

I know I’m mispelling his name. I previewed, and can’t go back.

Well, Gracchus, are we talking about non-celebs we know, or people we read about in the paper?

Both—non-celebs who are, as you put it, “part of our extended sphere of influence.”

Yeah, from time to time, I get on the County site to look for registered child abusers in the neighborhood. They all get lumped in together, and there’s really no explanation, so a guy who, at 19 had sex with a 16 year old comes up with child predator, but are notated the same.

Yes, the public databases they’re built on are unfair and vague. None-the-less guys with and without their own rape-y experiences check just like you do—and not to find the injustice of the 19-year-old guy who had sex with a 16-year-old girl.

I think a guy would sympathize with both the celeb and non-celeb. It would depend on the situation, I suppose.

Exactly. And in a different situation, he might not sympathize with both the celeb and non-celeb. So why make a distinction between celeb and non-celeb? You say:

There is an entire apparatus built to assemble brands around these people, though.

And that’s the crux of this issue: people actually placing celebs within their “extended spheres of influence,” and automatically making excuses for them that they might hesitate to make for people they know or who live nearby. Unfortunately for our society, that situation transcends the guy who’s had a rape-y experience himself.

Gracchus -

Unfortunately for our society, that situation transcends the guy who’s had a rape-y experience himself.

Yeah, but isn’t it human nature to do this? Assuming that we already weed the “bitch had it coming” jerks out of our lives by the time we can legally drive, we assume ourselves to be a good judge of character, both women and men do. Therefore, it would be a surprize if a friend were accused of rape, and we would go into denial, probably as much about our own ability to judge character as our friend’s good name. We wouldn’t go through this process over a stranger non-celeb, as we never had to evaluate them as a friend.

Yeah, but isn’t it human nature to do this?

No “buts” about it—we’re a celebrity-obsessed culture, and project our experiences on them. Fortunately, not all men sympathise with rape-y behaviour by celebs or non-celebs, or live in fear that we’ll be accused of rape.

In fact, it seems a lot of men love sports precisely because it’s a venue where they can just indulge some of their uglier views with the secure realization that no one will call bullshit.

Hear, hear.  Like racism, too.  I have a hunch that Marge Schott got a lot of heads nodding in agreement with her “million-dollar nigger” comment.  While many white, male sports fans won’t use such honest language in polite company, I doubt if they’ll be in as much of a hurry to condemn and disown Big Ben as they probably did Kobe Bryant.

Hear, hear.  Like racism, too.

Better believe it. I just watched the HBO documentary on the integration of college football, Breaking the Huddle last night. Really worth seeing.

It is my belief that somebody pretending that having sex with a consenting drunk woman is rape does not take rape seriously in the least bit.

I don’t know where you are, but in my state, it’s not rape unless a) the alcohol was given to the victim without her consent or b) she was too drunk to speak or move. So no, I don’t think anyone has much to fear from consenting drunk women.

Playing games with the word rape cheapens it, and calls any accusation into question. And, I’m sorry, but you’re not dragging drunken fucks up to the serious level of an unprovoked attack. You are dragging the seriousness of an unprovoked attack down to the level of regret. Societally.

If you do not acknowledge that having sex with a person without her consent is rape, you are a rape apologist. Give your wife my best wishes; I hope she finds another partner who doesn’t think that the majority of rapes are just men being selfish assholes.

Rape is a horrible act that does take years, oftentimes forever to recover from.

Even if it’s not committed by a stranger in a dark alley! Imagine that. (Other commenters have already made the point about people responding to rape in different ways - has it ever even occurred to you, the psychological issues that can result from being raped by someone you know and trust?)

I do believe that not pulling out when asked to is technically rape. But should an asshole guy stand for 5 - 10 years in prison because he’s a selfish asshole? Should a guy who was hit on by a drunk woman and went to bed with her go to jail for 5 - 10 years because we don’t think she has any responsibility in that matter?

If by “selfish asshole” you mean “criminal,” yes, absolutely he should go to jail.

Wow. I wouldn’t have pegged you for a closet submissive!!! You are entitled to you fantasies, but its not the male societal responsibility to make women beg for it even if that’s what you personally crave. Keep your one sided advice.

Given the nonverbal way most non BD/DS sex unfolds, your recommendation is extremely unrealistic. And what equivalent sex advice are you giving to women? Don’t have sex with a man unless he screams “OMFG I WANT TO STICK IT IN NOW SO BADLY? That is equitable advice right and the only way you’ll get intimate with your boyfriend is if he says that phrase.

Putting aside the failure to understand synecdoche, I’m increasingly worried about the number of women you’ve raped in your lifetime as well as the quality of your relationships with them, since your partner’s enjoyment so clearly means nothing to you.

Given the nonverbal way most non BD/DS sex unfolds

Sex: Ur doin it wrung.

Rebecca @ 5:22pm,
How did you discern that wrongsideofthetracks does not understand synecdoche? Or were you refering to a general audience’s failure, or your own?

I’ve read and reread trying to understand what you’re saying there and am failing. Just curious…

How did you discern that wrongsideofthetracks does not understand synecdoche? Or were you refering to a general audience’s failure, or your own?

By Wrong’s comment about needing that exact phrase, rather than what everyone else here understands as that or an equivalent demonstration of enthusiasm. (I wonder, would the person have to use the letters? “oh em eff gee”?)

Thanks for your response, Rebecca.

Rebecca -

Give your wife my best wishes; I hope she finds another partner who doesn’t think that the majority of rapes are just men being selfish assholes.

Yeah, maybe she could hook up with the person in your head you’re having this argument with. I really don’t know where all this “stranger” stuff is coming from. I guess when you need to pile on somebody who isn’t saying anything offensive, you need to make shit up. BTW, I’m not putting invisible bugs on you.

I should stop and post, now, because I’m sure that with the looseness of the definitions we’re dealing with here, not typing stuff you agree with is, in your book, rape.

You sound like a fun date.

By the way, Eliot Spitzer paid for sex because he thought it would make cheating easier.  And buying consent was a whole hell of a lot easier than the time/effort/work required to coax a ““OMFG STICK IT IN NOW I WANT IT SO BADLY.” out of some random one night stand.

No no girls, I saw him first.

You sound like a fun date.

Yeah girls who insist that if they don’t cleary consent to sex it’s rape are really sucky dates.

Speaking as a submissive in the BDSM world- there may not be verbal consent to every act. But you have pages and pages of checklists about what behavior you are willing to participate in and CLEAR safe words to stop the action -immediately- if you choose. Safe, Sane, CONSENTUAL. Always.

How did you discern that wrongsideofthetracks does not understand synecdoche?

He was focused on the concept of a woman craving the part (the penis) instead of the whole Amanda intended it to represent (the man). I’ll leave it to others to consider why this idea is so disturbing to him.

JohnGor:

Rape is a loaded word. Rape is used to describe everything from a violent, brutal attack to going to bed with a woman who’s had too much to drink, regardless of whom the aggressor was.

“Rape” might be more admitted to or understood if the word that describes kidnapping at knifepoint, raping and beating up a woman didn’t also describe not immediately pulling out when a previously consenting woman suddenly decides she wants out.

One generally doesn’t view going to bed with an aggressive drunk woman as rape. Some here do. In this example, no, I don’t view that as rape.

Your original quotes. Forgive me if you sounded so exactly like every other rape apologist asshole that I assumed you were talking about stranger rape. Not that it makes a substantive difference to the argument - it’s equally traumatizing whether or not there’s a knife or gun or fists involved.

If you’d stop using the “sleeping with a woman who’s tipsy” strawperson, you might get a bit more out of this argument. (Anyone from other states/countries know off the top of their heads what’s the deal with alcohol and rape there? I’m in NY.)

I’ll repeat it for you: If you do not acknowledge that having sex with a person without her consent is rape, you are a rape apologist.

Wrong:

And you can’t recognize sarcasm, either. The list goes on…

If you’re getting mixed signals, stop, and if she really wanted it, then she’ll learn her lesson about being more enthusiastic about her consent.  Men should never settle for anything less that “OMFG STICK IT IN NOW I WANT IT SO BADLY.” I’m serious.

This is Amanda’s original quote. I don’t see anything about the law here. I only see a comment about how a person should act in order to meet the bare minimum standards of decency and respect. Yes, I think it’s a problem that the law makes consent the default state instead of lack of consent, but that’s not what we’re discussing here.

[blockquotes]What I always loved about BD & DS was the detail and frankness. The verbal/written explicitness required of the female is awesome. The expression of intent requirements that it placed on the male is awesome.

BDSM: You’re doing it wrong.

(trying again without typos!)

What I always loved about BD & DS was the detail and frankness. The verbal/written explicitness required of the female is awesome. The expression of intent requirements that it placed on the male is awesome.

BDSM: You’re doing it wrong.

BDSM: You’re doing it wrong.

In so many ways—I’m pretty vanilla, but even I know that the female isn’t necessarily the sub and that the trust relationship is less about a formal contract than it is about mutual respect and pleasure. Also, the point of the safe-word is to allow the sub to say “no,” not to ensure 1000 “yes-es” (a RealDoll with an MP3 player might better, and probably does, suit his needs there).

Then again, what blackbloc said. We can’t expect him to do BDSM right if he’s still having trouble with basic sex.

JohnGor0:

My point is that people generally view rape as a violent occurance, or at least one of clear non-consent. One generally doesn’t view going to bed with an aggressive drunk woman as rape. Some here do. In this example, no, I don’t view that as rape. If I read a news story in which some football guy was accused of raping a woman, because she had 5 drinks in her, and he didn’t call the police when she suggested going to her room, I would call bullshit, as would most people.

I don’t understand this scenario, Zero from the land of Gor.

A football guy is approached by a woman who has had five drinks and she suggests they go to her room.  He doesn’t call the police.

Later she says she was raped. 

1.  You think we think he should call the police?  Why?  To help him control himself?  To arrest her for being an attractive nuisance or something?

2.  If I invite you to my room, am I required to have sex with you?  If I thought I wanted to but changed my mind, and you put your dick in me anyway, would you claim it’s not rape and everyone should call bullshit on me?

I’m still astounded that you can’t understand that “stop now” means “stop now.”  Consent doesn’t last any longer than the consenter wants it to.  Fucking someone who doesn’t want it is rape, it’s not just an asshole thing to do.

Amanda:

Men should never settle for anything less that “OMFG STICK IT IN NOW I WANT IT SO BADLY.” I’m serious.

wrongsideofthetracks:

Wow. I wouldn’t have pegged you for a closet submissive!!!

Oh, you missed it!  You were supposed to say you knew ALL ALONG that she’s a closet subbie, that her being a strident libber and all, she must just be acting out, trying to get daddy to give her a spanking.

Back to the stroke books for you, young man, until you better understand female psychology.  Yes means yes, no means yes please, take it from me.

Amanda wrote:

Men should never settle for anything less that “OMFG STICK IT IN NOW I WANT IT SO BADLY.” I’m serious.

Thin walls and children in the house for the last 21 years; kind of dampens the noise level!  Can we accept whispered endearments?

But… since for you the “advice” is only about civility not legality, what about sending frustrating mixed signals, playing with someone’s emotions, being a shitty communicator and leading someone on meets minimum standards of decency and respect?

If it’s such a huge problem, then the appropriate solution is to break up with her, not to rape her. (As a side note for anyone else reading, in wingnut world “mixed signals” = “not consenting” and “leading someone on” = “a woman thinking she has a right to talk to a guy or even kiss him without being obligated to let him rape her.”)

Am I that much in your head that you start foaming at the keyboard to attack me?

Typos can happen to anyone. You have to make an effort to be a douchebag.

[blockquotes]BDSM is alphabet soup… (BD/DS/SM). I was never drawn to that last activity, hence my deliberate specificity.

Would you prefer “BD/DS: You’re doing it wrong”? Because you are doing it very, very wrong.

Damn, again.

BDSM is alphabet soup… (BD/DS/SM). I was never drawn to that last activity, hence my deliberate specificity.

Would you prefer “BD/DS: You’re doing it wrong”? Because you are doing it very, very wrong.

Men like wrongside of the tracks are why I got out of the scene.  For every decent guy that just wants to have a good time, there are 5 or 6 douchenozzles who’s dicks go limp when they think of women as human beings.

That’s right wrongsideofthe tracks, you can dismiss my argument as ad hominem, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are a colossal asswipe.

Rebecca, put your ear close to the screen -

YOU. ARE. A. MORON.

Nothing your little sausage fingers could pound out could possibly be worthy of my reading.

Really.

Go misinterpret and froth at someone else.

oldfeminist -

I’m still astounded that you can’t understand that “stop now” means “stop now.” Consent doesn’t last any longer than the consenter wants it to.  Fucking someone who doesn’t want it is rape, it’s not just an asshole thing to do.

I’m still astounded that there are a bunch of angry idiots here that can’t read. I’m astounded that you dopes are attributing things to me that I didn’t write. But I guess that goes with the territory. I don’t know where you get where “stop now” doesn’t mean “stop now” to me.

Here’s what’s going on:

Somebody: Why did the Nazis kill so many Jews?

Me: The nazis thought the Jews were morally inferior.

Everybody: YOU’RE A NAZI!!! JEWS ARE NOT INFERIOR!!!

This is really the game you all are playing here. If the point is to drive away any viewpoint that doesn’t exactly mirror your own, you win.

CParis @ 6:22pm Monday -

I think we have to understand that when the sexual assault is “opportunistic” - woman is drunk, passed out, or “just needed more convincing”, etc.  some people (wrongly) don’t consider that to be rape.  They view rape to be an attack by a stranger, or a creepy/undesirable man; or an attack on a child or other “innocent”.  Unfortunately, too many people - men and women - have this view.

No, not a strawman, an idiotic post by someone pretending that, pretty much, most sex is rape, even if consentual, because CParis doesn’t want it to happen ... for some reason.

Oh, boo hoo hoo.

I may never have felt as sorry for straight women as I do now.

Rebecca, put your ear close to the screen -

YOU. ARE. A. MORON.

Nothing your little sausage fingers could pound out could possibly be worthy of my reading.

Really.

Go misinterpret and froth at someone else.

Why thank you for rebutting the accusations made against you. Now I can go on my merry way.

I’m still astounded that there are a bunch of angry idiots here that can’t read. I’m astounded that you dopes are attributing things to me that I didn’t write. But I guess that goes with the territory. I don’t know where you get where “stop now” doesn’t mean “stop now” to me.

You mean, besides the part where we directly quoted you saying that rape is not rape if the victim is drunk, or where you described men who continue having sex with a woman after she withdraws her consent as “selfish assholes” and expressed reluctance to send them to jail?

Here’s what’s going on:

Somebody: Why did the Nazis kill so many Jews?

Me: The nazis thought the Jews were morally inferior.

Everybody: YOU’RE A NAZI!!! JEWS ARE NOT INFERIOR!!!

Actually, it’s more like:

Somebody: Why did the Nazis kill so many Jews?

You: The Nazis thought Jews were biologically inferior, and, you know, there might not be all this confusion if some people didn’t think murdering a Jew was equivalent to murdering an Aryan.

Everybody: etc.

No, not a strawman, an idiotic post by someone pretending that, pretty much, most sex is rape, even if consentual, because CParis doesn’t want it to happen ... for some reason.

You are deliberately conflating “tipsy” with “too drunk to consent,” and, as I said earlier, you might want to stop doing that if you intend to get anywhere in this discussion.

Rebecca -

Forgive me if you sounded so exactly like every other rape apologist asshole that I assumed you were talking about stranger rape. Not that it makes a substantive difference to the argument - it’s equally traumatizing whether or not there’s a knife or gun or fists involved.

No, you are not forgiven. But I suppose that, no, facts and actual things people wrote don’t make a substantive difference to the argument. I mean, why let reality get in the way of a good idiot rant.

Perhaps you should talk to Kodiak. I mean, she’s under the impression that rape is so horrible, that all it really takes for any woman is 2 weeks and a pint of ice cream to get over it. What a monster, huh?

Here’s a situation: You’re with your husband, or boyfriend, or sperm-donor, or whatever, of 25 years. You say, “get off”, and he doesn’t immediately get off, for whatever reason, didn’t hear, had 2 seconds left, his wrist gave out.

Do you, as soon as humanly possible, walk over to the phone and call the police, get him arrested, and testify that you were raped? If not, if you think he shouldn’t immediately start a 15 year sentence in prison, are you an enabler?

Can you just answer that one question honestly without freaking out and calling me a rape apologist?

1.  I feel sorry for your wife.

I do, because I am certain that if you have not already raped her, you will.

2.  You can’t get laid.

For someone as openly misogynistic as you, I hope that’s the case, but I don’t think so, unfortunately.

3.  You are a sexist.

No, really?

Perhaps you should talk to Kodiak. I mean, she’s under the impression that rape is so horrible, that all it really takes for any woman is 2 weeks and a pint of ice cream to get over it. What a monster, huh?

Try actually reading kodiak’s post this time.

Here’s a situation: You’re with your husband, or boyfriend, or sperm-donor, or whatever, of 25 years. You say, “get off”, and he doesn’t immediately get off, for whatever reason, didn’t hear, had 2 seconds left, his wrist gave out.

Do you, as soon as humanly possible, walk over to the phone and call the police, get him arrested, and testify that you were raped? If not, if you think he shouldn’t immediately start a 15 year sentence in prison, are you an enabler?

Can you just answer that one question honestly without freaking out and calling me a rape apologist?

In this hypothetical where I am straight or bisexual, no, I wouldn’t call the police. It’s not exactly the best question to ask, since most women who (by your standards) are raped “for real” don’t report either, because the system won’t convict the attacker. I would, on the other hand, be angry at this partner and would undoubtedly refrain from sex with him until he had explained, to my satisfaction, why he had not respected my wishes about my bodily liberty.

rebecca -

Try actually reading kodiak’s post this time.

Oh, so now we’re actually reading people’s posts before we fire off hateful BS. Now novel.

You mean, besides the part where we directly quoted you saying that rape is not rape if the victim is drunk, or where you described men who continue having sex with a woman after she withdraws her consent as “selfish assholes” and expressed reluctance to send them to jail

You don’t even recognize that you guys are reading 3 words, and are jumping to conclusions about my motivations.

By all means, please tell me where I wrote that rape is not rape if a woman is drunk. Now I apologize, because perhaps I’m rounding previous drunk/rape arguments together, but I have often read the sentence “A woman cannot give consent if drunk”, which I don’t agree with. Yes, if a woman is blotto, or passed out, duh, of course she can’t give consent. Legally drunk starts about half way through the 2nd drink for most women. It’s a silly ducking of responsibility to suggest that a woman is not responsible for what she initiates after 2 drinks. (Meaning: that if she initiates sex, and gives consent throughout the entire affair) But we’re probably having different discussions on this.

As far as the selfish asshole part, you just expressed a reluctance to call the police in that scenario I posed. Let’s pretend that not pulling out was a prosecutorial offense, and there was a discernable success ratio to prosecution. Would you call the police?

Again, Amanda posed the question in the original post. If it was rhetorical, and all anyone’s looking for is “Because all white men are evil”, then I should just shut up. I thought I gave an honest appraisal of why alot of guys sympathized with a celebrity in the case of rape accusal.

Rape is rape. And I do agree that once consent is withdrawn, continuance is “rape”. But, again, I believe that people maintain differing degrees of what constitutes rape, and thus sympathy for the rapist until further evidence is available. I’m not saying that’s the way it should be. I was answering the question.

We all agree that a murder of passion is different from planning for 6 months to murder one’s parents to inherit their money. The law also agrees, and there’s different degrees of murder, manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. And now I’m curious of your answer to my last question.

rebecca -

I do, because I am certain that if you have not already raped her, you will.

I’m beginning to believe that either you don’t know what this word really means, you’re appaulingly sheltered, or just naive, or all of the above.

Seriously, you’re just throwing around this word as if it’s a weapon. Like, “If you don’t agree with me, you’re a rapist.” Rebecca, it’s entirely possible that there are people in this world who doesn’t agree with every single word you type, and are also NOT rapists.

People who probably agree with you on 98% of issues, but have a difference of opinion on the breadth of one issue aren’t sub-human.

Well, that’s a sweet speech, wsott. I guess when you say things like this

Oh I know enough. We may have invented the microwave and washing machine, but we still need you for sex… at least for the time being. Guys mostly just pretend we don’t have a clue about your psychology cause it makes for easy jokes… at your expense. Plus it helps us keep the honey-do list to a minimum. And we know it gets your goat.

you’re just being cute and honest (or making a joke, depending on who’s asking), not a hateful, witless douche. I’m happy your wife has orgasms, and I’m glad she doesn’t expect you to have brains. Well met, sir, and I wish you well.

By all means, please tell me where I wrote that rape is not rape if a woman is drunk. Now I apologize, because perhaps I’m rounding previous drunk/rape arguments together, but I have often read the sentence “A woman cannot give consent if drunk”, which I don’t agree with. Yes, if a woman is blotto, or passed out, duh, of course she can’t give consent. Legally drunk starts about half way through the 2nd drink for most women. It’s a silly ducking of responsibility to suggest that a woman is not responsible for what she initiates after 2 drinks. (Meaning: that if she initiates sex, and gives consent throughout the entire affair) But we’re probably having different discussions on this.

In that case, I’m not really sure where the issue is. A woman who initiates sex and continues to consent throughout the encounter is not going to be bringing rape charges.

As far as the selfish asshole part, you just expressed a reluctance to call the police in that scenario I posed. Let’s pretend that not pulling out was a prosecutorial offense, and there was a discernable success ratio to prosecution. Would you call the police?

In the scenario you proposed, the guy has been my partner for 25 years. I have reason to believe that he’s not a selfish asshole and respects me, so, while I’d be angry, I’d give him a chance to explain himself. If you change the scenario to one where I don’t know the guy too well and he continues having sex with me after I ask him to stop, yeah, I’d call the police on him.

I’m beginning to believe that either you don’t know what this word really means, you’re appaulingly sheltered, or just naive, or all of the above.

Rape = having sex with a person without her consent. Even if it’s not violent.

Seriously, you’re just throwing around this word as if it’s a weapon. Like, “If you don’t agree with me, you’re a rapist.” Rebecca, it’s entirely possible that there are people in this world who doesn’t agree with every single word you type, and are also NOT rapists.

People who probably agree with you on 98% of issues, but have a difference of opinion on the breadth of one issue aren’t sub-human.

I don’t call someone a rapist because they disagree with me about, say, economics. Your opinion on the flat tax is not a predictor of your behavior with your partner. On the other hand, if you decide for yourself that certain rapes aren’t “real rape” because he’s not violent enough or she’s not sober enough, you are setting yourself up to rape someone and wave it off as “everyone’s a jerk sometimes” or “she was giving me mixed signals.”

(That particular comment was directed at Wrong, who has just shared far more information about his sex life than any of us cared to hear while utterly failing to prove that he’s not a misogynist asshole. I just think you’re a rape apologist.)

Not happening… I don’t have impulse control issues.

Have you just not been paying attention? It’s not about “impulse control.” It’s about men thinking, for whatever reason, that they have a right to do with women’s bodies what they will.

Contrary to your assessment, I am not a misogynist…
Yup. I am in the non political sense of the word. Nature made us a 2 sex species for a reason. Difference rarely means inferior or less valuable in my brain. I’m a sexist, not a chauvinist/feminist. I don’t act like either sex is better.

...except for the parts where you’ve said that women want to be raped, that they exist to give you sex and do household chores, and are always the submissive in BD/DS relationships. (Feminist = in favor of equality of the sexes. Spread it around.)

Rebecca - We’re not talking about economics, Rebecca, we’re talking about use of the word “rape”.

Moving on -

Rape = having sex with a person without her consent. Even if it’s not violent.

if you decide for yourself that certain rapes aren’t “real rape” because he’s not violent enough or she’s not sober enough, you are setting yourself up to rape someone and wave it off as “everyone’s a jerk sometimes” or “she was giving me mixed signals.”

Again, do you even know wtf you’re talking about? You sound like your just trying to not give in and contradict yourself. If rape is rape, and there’s no varying levels of rape, why not call the police on your husband of 25 years because he just shrugged and said, “I was 2 seconds away, and you always get a cramp in your thigh”. You want to keep preaching that there is a black and white definition of rape which is unambiguous, yet you understand that people in a relationship can have a misunderstanding that can be talked through, which is what I was saying all along, but I was called a Nazi over. Welcome to the party. Heil Hitler.

As far as wrongsideofhtetracks is concerned, it sounds like he has a great relationship with his wife. I really don’t know how you ascertain that he’s probably going to “rape” his wife. Sounds like they’re in complete communication, understand each other’s needs, and try to be there for each other as much as possible, even when they’re not into it. Sounds like a successful relationship to me. I’m sure he apologizes for not living up to your ideal of marriage.

Again, I don’t know where you get this, “you’re setting yourself up to rape someone…” bullshit. You really sound like some dumbass 22 year old kid who took a class, and now knows EVERYTHING about sex and humanity. Yeah, I’m an asshole. I’m 45 and know I don’t know alot about anything. I have a dad in his 80’s who’s pretty racist. I know you’d probably judge me for not hating him for that, but I can weigh his background, respect him for what he experienced in his life, and understand where his racism comes from, without sharing those racist feelings (although I would probably be piled on by the idiots here for not clinging to the correct terminology), and love and respect him all the same.

Conversely, I can understand how some dumbass guy might read about his stupid NASCAR hero being accused of rape, and, based on the fact that he’s probably had experiences where he thought he was with Sybil, decides to withold judgement, or worse yet, decides the accusor was lying. Do I think he’s right? How the fuck do I know? I wasn’t there. And guess what? I really don’t care about Ben Roethlensburgher, and I didn’t even read about it. Just like I don’t Google search all the day’s rape stories from around the country and read about them for 2 hours every morning.

It is funny, because I probably sounded like this 25 years ago. Somebody who came to work hung-over was an alcoholic. Somebody who didn’t seethe with hatred towards somebody who was racist was, himself, racist. Somebody who didn’t work every waking second to make his girlfriend happy was a misogynist.

And then I grew up. You might try a little bit of that.

Again, do you even know wtf you’re talking about? You sound like your just trying to not give in and contradict yourself. If rape is rape, and there’s no varying levels of rape, why not call the police on your husband of 25 years because he just shrugged and said, “I was 2 seconds away, and you always get a cramp in your thigh”. You want to keep preaching that there is a black and white definition of rape which is unambiguous, yet you understand that people in a relationship can have a misunderstanding that can be talked through, which is what I was saying all along, but I was called a Nazi over. Welcome to the party. Heil Hitler.

Theft is a crime. We can agree on that, yes? Is it less of a crime because a mother chooses not to call the police when her son steals $500 from her wallet, when she’d do so in a heartbeat if it were some random guy on the street? (For the record, that answer is not one I would consider acceptable and I would think long and hard before going to bed with this partner again.)

As far as wrongsideofhtetracks is concerned, it sounds like he has a great relationship with his wife. I really don’t know how you ascertain that he’s probably going to “rape” his wife. Sounds like they’re in complete communication, understand each other’s needs, and try to be there for each other as much as possible, even when they’re not into it. Sounds like a successful relationship to me. I’m sure he apologizes for not living up to your ideal of marriage.

In this thread and others, he’s spewed the most disgusting misogynistic garbage. If he and his wife are happy, great. But I’m always suspicious of someone who thinks women want to be raped.

Again, I don’t know where you get this, “you’re setting yourself up to rape someone…” bullshit. You really sound like some dumbass 22 year old kid who took a class, and now knows EVERYTHING about sex and humanity. Yeah, I’m an asshole. I’m 45 and know I don’t know alot about anything.

I have a dad in his 80’s who’s pretty racist. I know you’d probably judge me for not hating him for that, but I can weigh his background, respect him for what he experienced in his life, and understand where his racism comes from, without sharing those racist feelings (although I would probably be piled on by the idiots here for not clinging to the correct terminology), and love and respect him all the same.

You didn’t just try to explain why people sympathize with rapists. You made comments that indicate that you are a rape apologist. The analogy with racism would be weighing your dad’s background, respecting him for what he experienced in his life, understanding where his racism comes from, and thinking that black people are disproportionately poor because of some innate moral or cultural failing.

dogcat -

If you just fuck her without her consent, and there’s no evidence of serious physical injury, it’s just sex.

...And docgcat is playing the same idiotic game. “JohnGor0 wrote something about rape that I wasn’t thinking in my own head, therefore, he’s a rapist.” I’ve written, about 9 times, now, the opposite of what you just wrote.

Go talk to Kodiak, dogcat. She’s under the impression that because she was over her trauma so quickly, all woman have that experience, and those who don’t are whiners.

rebecca - Well, I’m kind of at a loss. I’m both arguing against 6 people who have posted responses, and arguing with you on your points, so it’s kind of moot to make you answer for CParis’ stupid drunk comment, for example.

made comments that indicate that you are a rape apologist.

No, I’ve made comments in the spirit of the question of the original post answering why guys might immediately sympathize with the male celeb in a rape accusation, and you guys (ladies?) are proving why. My point is that people, in general, don’t look at failing to pull out when requested as the same crime as starting and finishing rape without consent. Courts uphold this view. There’s no confusion about whether no means no at any point. I would bet that the bloggers at this site have written entire columns with this same viewpoint. I agree with you and have written multiple times that I think that continuing when requested to stop is “rape”.

My obstinance is in trying to get you to admit that point. I’m not saying that “Hey, you gotta feel for a guy who ...” I’m saying that you, yourself, don’t view one as the same as the other. On top of that, we’re arguing about a single type of incident that does not occur in a vacuum. I doubt that a guy who is a perfect, empithetic partner in the rest of his live would turn abusive in the bedroom, and only in the middle of sex. (BTW, in my entire life, I may have had it happen once where somebody wanted to stop in the middle of sex) - it seems like we’re splitting hairs to make a right point. If someone was abusive during sex, I think abuse would be manifest in other parts of a relationship.  In that single incident of a guy holding you down when you tried to get a drink of water because he wasn’t through yet, that might just be the crime to prosecute an abusive partner. Guys have been prosecuted under sodomy laws because he got a blow job from his wife. I’m sure those weren’t single incidents where a woman innocently turned her husband in to the cops because that single act was a crime.

But then you make comments like this:

But I’m always suspicious of someone who thinks women want to be raped.

Well, yeah, if somebody posted “I don’t even know what the problem is. All the gals I know like it!” I’d be all over them, too. I think that’s what you, yourself, would call a strawman. I never posted anything like this. This is the first time, really, I have paid attention to WSOTT’s posts colectively, and he’s not saying that.

Again, my point is, and always has been, that PEOPLE (society) don’t see failing to pull out as the same thing as beginning-to-end non-consentual sex. Yes, technically, the same word describes both. It’s unfair to make you argue other people’s comments that a guy should go to jail if he fails to pull out when requested, and that’s really what I’m doing.

Women are perfect and men are not human. Women should do whatever the hell they want.

I don’t think a woman should be allowed to rape you, wsott. I don’t think she should be allowed to keep going when you tell her to stop because you’re not enjoying yourself, or not feeling it anymore. If she does keep going, she’s an asshole and possibly a rapist. I absolutely think you have the right to control what happens to your body, and to expect it not to be violated or have things done to it without your consent.

I also think women have the exact same rights I outlined above. That’s what we mean by equality.

No, I’ve made comments in the spirit of the question of the original post answering why guys might immediately sympathize with the male celeb in a rape accusation, and you guys (ladies?) are proving why. My point is that people, in general, don’t look at failing to pull out when requested as the same crime as starting and finishing rape without consent. Courts uphold this view. There’s no confusion about whether no means no at any point. I would bet that the bloggers at this site have written entire columns with this same viewpoint. I agree with you and have written multiple times that I think that continuing when requested to stop is “rape”.

I’m still having a problem getting over the misunderstanding (let’s call it that) over drunk sex. You’ve said outright that you don’t think regret is equivalent to rape, and I agree, but no one is arguing that. If someone accuses a man of raping her when she was drunk, chances are pretty good that that is what happened. Rape is the only crime where the accusation itself is not a point in favor of the prosecution - can you imagine hearing this in court?:

“The defendant is accused of stealing Mr. Z’s television…”
“I didn’t do it.”
“The television was found in the defendant’s home…”
“He gave it to me!”
“Oh, all right then, you’re free to go.”

Discounting rape accusations as “regret” is obscuring real cases of rape where the victim is too drunk to give consent.

I doubt that a guy who is a perfect, empithetic partner in the rest of his live would turn abusive in the bedroom, and only in the middle of sex.

Which is why I’d initially give a partner of 25 years the benefit of the doubt while still remaining angry at him for not respecting my wishes about my body, while not extending the same tolerance to a one-night stand.

Well, yeah, if somebody posted “I don’t even know what the problem is. All the gals I know like it!” I’d be all over them, too. I think that’s what you, yourself, would call a strawman. I never posted anything like this. This is the first time, really, I have paid attention to WSOTT’s posts colectively, and he’s not saying that.

In another post, Wrong commented that a woman’s lack of consent doesn’t matter unless she actually says “no,” as well as saying that women use dress and behavior to send signals to men indicating that they want sex, which somehow outweighs lack of actual desire for sex or any verbal or overt physical indication. People in the fifteenth century knew that was bullshit.

Next time YOU steal some lady’s parking spot at the mall and she keys your vehicle. Remember, it’s not about “impulse control.” It’s about ladies thinking, for whatever reason, that they have a right to do with women’s cars what they will.

Next time YOU treat the restaurant works poorly and they decides to spit in your meal. Remember it’s not about “impulse control” It’s about the wait staff thinking, for whatever reason, that they have a right to do with women’s food what they will.

Next time YOU let your barking dog wake the neighbor, and your neighbor decides to open the gate and let your dog runaway. Remember it’s not about “impulse control” It’s about your neighbor thinking, for whatever reason, that they have a right to do with women’s pets what they will.

Basically, yes. It’s about people thinking that, because they were hurt a little, they are entitled to hurt others a lot.

I cannot believe I need to tell this to a woman, but people don’t act in a void Rebecca. They respond, move, feel, and emote in a complex way to other people and events. Unfortunately and regardless of legality, their response can often be bad. This means that either right or wrong; both individuals are ALWAYS involved in the shaping of an outcome.

Yes, more than one individual is involved in a rape. That’s kind of part of the essential nature of it. So tell me: What is the rape victim doing that makes the rapist attack her? Drinking? Sober women are raped too. Walking alone at night? Women are raped during the day, or at home. Wearing sexy clothes? Modestly dressed women are raped too.

Hmm, I don’t see any deciding factor here. Except - oh! - the fact that there’s a rapist who thinks that he is entitled to use her body.

Women are perfect and men are not human. Women should do whatever the hell they want. Anyone that says differently is a wingnut. I mean why should women care about any feelings and emotions they stir up? Every woman’s actions, motivations and desires are pure so they couldn’t possibly cause anyone harm, or misgivings, or misunderstandings. Could they?

And besides men’s feelings aren’t worth consideration anyway! It is men that have the problem. They feel entitled. Women don’t do anything to frustrate them, piss them off, or set false expectations… especially sexually.  I mean women are saints. It’s just all in men’s head.

Here’s an idea: How about we codify that? Make a law against negatively affecting people emotionally, with rape as the punishment. It’s what you’re already advocating, anyway, only now we’ll apply it to both sexes equally. Bend over.

Your bullshit shows you are not really interested in reducing rapes… You just NEED to have your way. If tomorrow you discovered that an effective way for a woman to get the man on top of her, out of her bedroom, was to give him a crisp $100 bill, do you think you would broadcast that advice to women everywhere?

Nope!

Because… Damn it! Women shouldn’t have to pay a man not to rape them. Who gives a fuck that the money works! It’ our body and they have no right to it.…. Blah. Blah. Blah.  Now I know why the war on rape is failing!!!

Fuck no they shouldn’t have to pay men not to rape them. What kind of protection racket world do you want to live in?

PS: You called me a future rapist and I gave you thorough reasons why you are out of your tree. Don’t play coy with the TMI accusations. Especially since you know you read the whole post. You set a new low for women when you falsely accused a man of being a potential rapist… solely from some internet posts. I don’t know what the internet slander/harassment laws are where you live are, but I could sure as hell make you spend a lot of money defending yourself.

Every man is a potential rapist. You just have a lot more potential than others.

Good luck with that libel case. Perhaps I’ll mount a counter-suit. Anyone want to sign on to my class-action suit against Wrong, for saying that women want to be raped? As for harassment, you have no case for harassment coming onto someone else’s website, making misogynistic comments, and describing your sexual practices in detail.

(the rest of that: And some women who drink, or walk alone, or wear sexy clothes are not raped. This is because of the absence of a rapist.)

Rebecca - You have no argument from me that prosecuting rape is an uphill battle, the victim is on trial as much as the rapist, and many people don’t even persue charges because of the trauma involved.

The drunk thing - I referenced CParis’ post, which I probably over-reacted based on previous discussions, where a person blurts out, “A woman cannot give consent while legally drunk, period.”

The discussion going on OUTSIDE of my head, here, does not say that. So therefore, you are correct to wonder wtf I’m talking about. Rape is rape. If somebody accuses a man of raping her, then, I agree with you, giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, that probably happened. Whether she was drunk or not doesn’t change the facts.

I also agree with you that flirtatious behavior does not justify rape. This is all stuff that is important to teach in high school, and all, because, I agree, alot of people still don’t know what’s acceptable or not, society and pop culture gives everyone mixed messages on what’s allowable. I do find Amanda’s grandmotherly advice laughable, but I guess it would make sense to a 14 year old.

I think this discussion takes leaps from point to point, however, and I think there’s alot going on in all the posters’ heads while their banging out an angry retort, or a wry aside. I think WRONG is probably a little right of center, and likes to tweak you guys a bit. I think you would agree that the discussion we had really can’t be conveyed in about 3 quickly type-written sentences, and we expect it to be. You know women who would jump up and defend the rapist celeb, out of self-hate, or societal teaching, or whatever. I know women who thought Anita Hill was a flat out liar and looking for a place in the limelight when she stepped up and made her accusations against Clarence Thomas.

I think it was Gloria Steinem who said the most frustrating thing about her work was that the women who fought her the hardest would benefit the greatest from what she won.

JohnGor0, I’d like you to please leave me out of your delusions. If I said anything about you at all I said that women aren’t always as a rule broken forever by rape, despite your anecdata to the contrart, and that some of us can indeed heal and be fine within a relatively short period of time (short when compared to forever, long when you’re living it. I mentioned years, not days or weeks or months).

I said nothing about a pint of icecream. I said nothing about other survivors being whiners. I said nothing about two weeks. I said “relatively”.

quoting myself:

...to clarify my remarks, it doesn’t always take years to get over, or even a year, but conversely, it isn’t always something you can walk away from in a year or two… many people, many injuries, many reactions. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution.

You’re deliberately misrepresenting me, possibly believing I’m not reading anymore, possibly just because you can. Please stop. If you are going to reference what I have said, then reference what I have said and don’t toss in condescending bullshit mysoginistic cliche’s (please try to explain that pint of icecream remark without sounding ridiculous…).

Rebecca, thanks for sticking with this and for sticking up for me earlier.

Kodiak, I wrote:

Rape is a horrible act that does take years, oftentimes forever to recover from.

You then wrote:

you are 100% incorrect in your sweeping statement.

To which, I guess, I can surmize you meant that rape is not a horrible act that does not take years, and certainly never “forever” to recover from.

Then, realizing, perhaps, that in your zeal to try to twist anything I wrote into being “wrong”, that maybe you blabbered out garbage just to pile on somebody without really considering their remarks, you backed off your statements with:

Er, re-reading, and to clarify my remarks, it doesn’t always take years to get over, or even a year, but conversely, it isn’t always something you can walk away from in a year or two… many people, many injuries, many reactions. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution.

So, I truly apologize for suggesting that rape takes years to fully get over. How dare I suggest that rape is horrible, because I can’t possibly perceive that from, like, living with a survivor. I’m sure you would openly welcome your own experience ridiculed like you’re some kind of drama-queen freak.

You, and the rest of the pilers-on sound ridiculous by misrepresenting or taking idiotic potshots (in your case) at what I was saying, which I’ve re-written about 12 times, now. I suppose I should just fall in, and post like a troll, calling you guys feminazis, and all, since that seems to be what you guys expect from somebody who doesn’t miraculously post something that was exactly, word for word, what you already believe.

Yes, I was exagerating your comments. It took something equally as stupid (pint of ice cream) for you to respond. Would you like to revisit your ludicrous “100% incorrect” statement?

And Kodiak, I said a pint of ice cream because eating ice cream makes one happy. I didn’t mean anything disgusting.

Rebecca, I just saw this -

Every man is a potential rapist. You just have a lot more potential than others.

I guess it’s also true that every single person is a potential terrorist, or serial killer, or baby kidnapper and eater. I don’t believe I have it in me to blurt out that every woman is a potential gold digging bitch. I consider this to be unnecessarily mean and provocative.

Why do you have this seething anger towards men? I understand that society does have sexist overtones, it’s built by men for men, and that we do live in a rape culture (I can’t stand to sit through most horror movies, as I see them as a cheap excuse to depict rape and/or dismemberment of women), but you seem a little angrier than most.

All the women you correspond with here are potential boyfriend stealers, potential lesbian kidnappers, or heck, even potential soul-sucking, shape-morphing ETs, but I imagine you don’t point this out to them. I do understand the theme of this blog site, and the “cut them some slack” attitude, but you do see how pointing out, in a discussion, that all men are potential rapists is pointlessly provocative, don’t you?

And, again with throwing the accusation around. I do not take the word lightly, like, “Yeah, Tabatha and I went to the vegetarian restaurant, then I raped her, but told her, ‘Hey, my bad’, and then we smoked some pot, made up and watched a documentary about Proust.” I take the word, like the accusation, seriously. You ... not so much.

Nope you don’t want to be raped. Anymore than you want your car keyed, your food spat in, or your dog let loose. But don’t be surprised when it happens though. Bad things surely happen to good people, but way more bad things happen to bad people.

Please, Amanda, ban him.  He’s not fun, or funny, his debate isn’t intelligent, and that statement is implicitly a threat of rape, even if the rapist wouldn’t be him.  I would think that is sufficient grounds, and I am not generally in support of banning people for simple disagreement.  This crossed the line, in my opinion.

I agree with INTPagan. The constant hate and mocking is starting to make me a bit sick, which I guess means he succeeded.

WSOTT:

The INTP is for INTP.  Look it up yourself.

You were called a probable rapist because you demonstrated a complete lack of cognizance of what rape is - I’ve read through the whole thread.  You then proceeded to threaten someone with rape because they are a bad person.

I do not owe your wife an apology.  You are two separate people.

You are not thick-skinned if you think that being called a probable rapist is the equivalent to saying that someone will get raped and deserve it.

Please die.

I don’t know what the internet slander/harassment laws are where you live are, but I could sure as hell make you spend a lot of money defending yourself.

You are out of control.

Also, am I the only one who is very, very creeped out by the whole, “You’re out of control and I’m going to find a way to control you” vibe of that one?  He can’t control her by talking to her here, so he threatens to sue her (even if his threat is just basically mental masturbation for everyone here to see).  This dude has serious control problems.

Is “rapist” liberals’ “socialist”? It seems to be used with the same witless abandon.

No one said you are a rapist.  No one said WSOTT is a rapist.  It was said that both of you are potential rapists since you do not seem to understand what rape is.  You can construe the potential to be potential to have done it or potential to do it in the future, or both.  Your call.

You need to learn the difference between “is” and “could be”.

Wrong:

Hurt? But no one did anything physical to your person. Oh you mean hurt in another way. Are you sure that “hurt” is possible without contact? And what makes their “hurt” little and your “hurt” a lot?

I don’t know, why don’t you tell me? Do you think that vandalizing someone’s car is less than or equal to stealing someone’s parking space? Do you think that contaminating someone’s food is less than or equal to being rude? Do you think that stealing someone’s dog is less than or equal to letting it bark? (If you’d prefer a legal term, “damage” works too.)

Um nooo. That deciding factor would be no impulse control. Fat people don’t eat too much because they feel ENTITLED to food…

And against whom, pray tell, is eating too much food an attack? (Anyone else like to have a go re: inaccurate fat-shaming?)

Anyways, aren’t entitled people more likely to where crowns than masks?

They could just be “wearing” penises.

Punishment? Not what I was going for…I was just hoping for a little consideration. Maybe an offer of some “russian” if you weren’t willing to go all the way. At least then I’d know you cared.

If “you” (general/hypothetical you, as there is no sum of money anyone could pay me to enter a relationship with specific you) cared, you wouldn’t have sex with me when I didn’t want to. It’s not a difficult concept. In any case, everything you’ve said in this thread has suggested that rape is an appropriate tit-for-tat when women don’t consent - so really we’re fucked either way, aren’t we?

I’d even settle for a little political favor instead. How about adding withholding sex, right next to spot where withholding money currently is on the domestic abuse list? I’ll even give you top billing. Come on be fair. That’s all I’m asking.

Yes, because withholding sex is exactly like depriving one’s spouse of the means to feed and clothe herself or he children, or, often even more importantly, to leave the relationship.

Ok then. And rape is so much better than extortion… why? Like I said before you ain’t really worried about reduction.

Sure I am. That’s why I favor teaching men not to rape, since the presence or absence of a rapist is the only significant variable in any incident of rape. Teaching them, mind you, that only “yes” means “yes,” and that if a woman is flirting, drinking, or wearing sexy clothing, it doesn’t give them license to rape her. You could stand to learn that yourself.

This is another instance where I think you’re really not actually thinking about what you’re saying. Do you think living in a protection racket the size of the Earth would be a good thing? No police, no fire department, no protection from crime if you’re too poor to pay off the criminals, no legal rights for anyone. Sounds brilliant!

Isn’t that suppose to be “person” is a potential rapist… Feminist = in favor of equality of the sexes. Right? Right?

I’m paraphrasing you: “You set a new low for women when you falsely accused a man of being a potential rapist.” Why didn’t you say “person”? Is it worse to accuse a man?

Nope you don’t want to be raped. Anymore than you want your car keyed, your food spat in, or your dog let loose. But don’t be surprised when it happens though. Bad things surely happen to good people, but way more bad things happen to bad people.

The only conclusion it is possible to draw from this is that women are bad people because they exist.

(Evidently good things happen to bad people, too. Look at you.)

JohnGor0:

I guess it’s also true that every single person is a potential terrorist, or serial killer, or baby kidnapper and eater. I don’t believe I have it in me to blurt out that every woman is a potential gold digging bitch. I consider this to be unnecessarily mean and provocative…

All the women you correspond with here are potential boyfriend stealers, potential lesbian kidnappers, or heck, even potential soul-sucking, shape-morphing ETs, but I imagine you don’t point this out to them. I do understand the theme of this blog site, and the “cut them some slack” attitude, but you do see how pointing out, in a discussion, that all men are potential rapists is pointlessly provocative, don’t you?

It’s absolutely true that every single person has the potential to be a terrorist, serial killer, etc. I don’t see any problem pointing this out. Wrong, however, seems to think he can get a lot of money out of me in a libel suit if he sues me for saying he’s a potential rapist. Nor does society, as a whole, tend to excuse the actions of terrorists or serial killers, or, for that matter, boyfriend stealers.

Why do you have this seething anger towards men? I understand that society does have sexist overtones, it’s built by men for men, and that we do live in a rape culture (I can’t stand to sit through most horror movies, as I see them as a cheap excuse to depict rape and/or dismemberment of women), but you seem a little angrier than most.

On the contrary, I get on quite well with men who don’t think I’m less than. (See, now that we’ve cleared up our misunderstanding somewhat, we’re getting on much better than Wrong and I are getting on.)

Well, then, INTP, I guess you’re a potential rapist, too.

By all means, Doctor, please explain to me what “rape” is, since we can’t seem to grasp what it means. Really. Or perhaps you guys can’t seem to read my posts beyond what you want to construe. Funny that everyone who has responded to me (except Lymis and Gracchus) has grossly misquoted what I wrote. But really, take a crack at it.

It’s like we’re playing a video game, and you guys are dead set on winning at all costs. What is it we’re playing for, Mr. INTP?

Rape is sex without consent.  WSOTT does not comprehend what consent is.  You clarified sufficiently to demonstrate a comprehension of consent, if I recall correctly, after going back and forth for quite a while because you seemed more determined to be right than to actually let people know that you know what consent is and is not.  I would be far more worried about WSOTT than you, at any rate, because the vitriol that oozes from his posts is far worse than the irritation that oozes from yours.

Why do you assume that I am a man?

rebecca -

Wrong, however, seems to think he can get a lot of money out of me in a libel suit if he sues me for saying he’s a potential rapist.

Defamation of avatar? ...Moving on.

we’re getting on much better than Wrong and I are getting on.

You’re right. You’re in two discussions, and I’m kind of jumping on your other conversation. I just feel like the accusation is getting thrown around a little quickly. Thanks for hanging in there and discussing this.

Interesting blog, BTW.

INTPagan -

Why do you assume that I am a man?

It must be the forceful CAPS. Irritation oozing from my posts. That’s funny. I think my feelings just get hurt from being totally misinterpreted, and I am an idiot, so I’ll be here six days posting the same thing over and over and over until somebody admits that I’m not advocating mandatory raping of everybody, always.

I’m getting tired of looking at Ben Roethlinsburgher’s stupid face.

Ooh, things went down while I was writing that comment.

was called a probable rapist and future one and where were you? Did publicly you ask for Rebecca to be banned to? Now you come out for a lynching? I’m thick skinned, but you surely owe my wife an apology!

I see you’re offended. But look at it this way:

People don’t act in a void, Wrong. They respond, move, feel, and emote in a complex way to other people and events. Unfortunately, their response can often be bad. This means that either right or wrong; both individuals are ALWAYS involved in the shaping of an outcome.

You made comments that indicate that you do not know the meaning of consent and do not care. We responded by calling you an actual or future rapist.

But you have no reason to be hurt. This is what you have been advocating for the entire time. This is actually a much milder version of what you have been advocating for the entire time, since we’re responding to your words with more words, and you’re advocating responding to words or lack of them with violence.

John, as I said, I think you demonstrated better understanding later on.  I really don’t feel like going back and scanning the whole thing over again, and I remember you saying some stuff that set off some alarms, but nowhere near WSOTT’s level.  If you think the word is being thrown around quickly at him, maybe you should reread the whole “Well, no one wants bad things to happen to them, but bad things happen to be people, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if you were raped” comment from earlier.  It’s an implicit threat that she will be raped someday because she has it coming to her.

I could be a potential rapist, but I doubt it because I’m a feminist, a rape survivor, and a straight female, which means that both attitude and physiology make this much more unlikely than it would be for a random dude. 

The INTP is for INTP, and it’s capitalized because it means something.  I don’t feel like expanding on type theory here because I’ve threadjacked before with it; you can look it up.  The caps aren’t forceful; they’re for a reason.

I’ll be here six days posting the same thing over and over and over until somebody admits that I’m not advocating mandatory raping of everybody, always.

Well, damn. You might want to start thinking about something else for a while, if it’s getting to you that hard.

Yes, because withholding sex is exactly like depriving one’s spouse of the means to feed and clothe herself or he children, or, often even more importantly, to leave the relationship.

It’s also as bad as rape. This guy has been saying, over and over, that hurting a man’s feelings by denying him sex is morally comparable to raping a woman, and certainly makes rape understandable, if wrong. Also, calling a man a rapist is worse than telling a woman she deserves to be raped. Because men’s feelings really are the most important thing in the world.

Yeah, I’m over this thread. It’s making me sadder than I need to be.

Sorry, not a rapist, a potential rapist. Even saying that such a person has incredibly fucked up ideas about rape is enough to make you a “bad person” who deserves to be raped.

INTP -

I really don’t feel like going back and scanning the whole thing over again

Please, don’t. I think this thread is pretty well talked to death.

It’s an implicit threat that she will be raped someday because she has it coming to her.

I get my feelings hurt, and I type some pretty mean stuff, and I proof it, and rewrite it. If WSOTT doesn’t mean for someone to take it that way, he should clarify his statement. I don’t know what it means, and I’m not about to delve into it.

I kind of got my anger out of my system, and I’ll admit that I’m not the most articulate guy in the world, and appreciate Rebecca chatting about it. I’m here because I’m interested in the viewpoint, and want to contribute in comments. Even an inane viewpoint is a viewpoint represented in X percentage of the population. I don’t expect to change anyone, and I’m not at war.

I was joking about forceful caps. Forceful = male. Nevermind. Take care, and thanks.

1.  Don’t practice bad sexual behavior in the 1st place.
2.  Don’t respond to bad sexual behavior with bad sexual behavior.

Except in your world, “bad sexual behavior” for women is not consenting, and “bad sexual behavior” for men is raping. See the difference? One is legal, legitimate, and should not be condemned, and the other is a criminal and not infrequently violent attack on someone’s person.

I can’t believe I’m still doing this, but I just have to say this once more.

Nope. what I’m advocating is this…. For men AND women

Your strategy obviously isn’t working.

You cannot lump “refusing someone sex” and “raping someone” together as “bad sexual behavior.” It is appalling and sociopathic. Choosing not to allow someone access to your body is fundamentally different from forcing yourself on them. And you’re absolutely wrong that anyone is suggesting only men should follow your second rule. If a man changes his mind during sex with a woman and decides he wants to stop, she has absolutely no right to disrespect his wishes and his bodily integrity, and he has absolutely every right to exert control over his own body by stopping sex with her.

This is not difficult. You have every right in the world to control your own body, not anyone else’s. Not wanting sex with someone is not morally equivalent in any way to forcing them to have sex with you, and judging them in any way comparable is morally indefensible.

I know there are many, many men who think like you, and it’s horrifying to see that mindset up close, so after this I think I’m going to stop for the sake of my own health.

Rebecca -

Except in your world, “bad sexual behavior” for women is not consenting, and “bad sexual behavior” for men is raping.

Or BSB1 is being a slut, and BSB2 is rape.

Really, BSB1 could be having a vagina (since the crimes are either granting or not granting access, and you have to do one or the other) and BSB2 could be rape.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You wanna think that because it keeps you all snuggly in your comfort zone, but it ain’t the truth.

Don’t bother playing games. You’ve described the emotional hurt inflicted upon men by women who give “mixed signals” as sufficient justification for rape, and it’s eminently clear that “mixed signals” = “signals of not consenting.”

Most sexually active guys have been in situations of mixed signals, where you get “No”, so you stop. Then you get “you don’t have to completely stop”, so then you start again. You get another “No”, so you really stop, and decide this is too confusing and frustrating. You’re then accused of being selfish for only being in it for what you want. It isn’t much of a leap to fear that if he were to go back, and go too far, he’d be accused of “rape”.

If you’re getting mixed signals, stop, and if she really wanted it, then she’ll learn her lesson about being more enthusiastic about her consent.  Men should never settle for anything less that “OMFG STICK IT IN NOW I WANT IT SO BADLY.” I’m serious.

Given the nonverbal way most non BD/DS sex unfolds, your recommendation is extremely unrealistic.

^ in order, JohnGor0, Amanda, you. You are arguing that, because of “mixed signals,” a guy should just go ahead and have sex with a woman who is asking him to stop.

“ as there is no sum of money anyone could pay me to enter a relationship with specific you“
Translation: I wouldn’t fuck you for all the cash in the world.

It’s an example of bad Female Sexual Behavior #3: Attempted humiliation through ostracism.

Is there a worse example you could have chosen to disprove my argument? I am refusing to fuck you under any and all circumstances. You call that bad sexual behavior.

Why the need to bring money into it? Couldn’t you have just said “I wouldn’t enter a relationship with you?” Do you feel “entitled” to money to be in a relationship with a man?

It’s a common expression; have you not heard it before?

How do you think men read this insult? How do you think it makes us feel? What do we then think about you as a person or women as a group?

If men are as sickeningly misogynistic as you, they can feel that the same applies to them. Maybe it will inspire them to change their ways. For men who can behave like decent human beings, I don’t see the problem. You do not speak for all men, Wrong.

And does bad sexual behavior really need to be “criminal” to have serious impact?
I know how to promote, enforce and use the double standard.
I can creep a girl out if I was inclined.
I can break a heart with the best of them.
I can deflate your body image.
I can push the limits of the law.
I can prey on women who don’t have my understanding or who don’t have the skills to handle themselves compared to me.

Every damn one of them is legal, but I try hard to commit none of them.

You’re obviously not trying hard enough, given some of the comments in this thread.

So where is the effort on your part?

I see no reason to make an “effort” to like men who would prefer that I be raped and beaten up to punish me for thinking I have a right to my own body. I think the burden is on those men to stop being dickheads.

I’ve no idea what you’re trying to get across in the last couple of paragraphs.

I’ve no idea what you’re trying to get across in the last couple of paragraphs.

Sure, rape is bad, but women hurt men’s feelings all the time, and we’re just not paying enough attention to men’s feelings, because men men men. That’s really what happens to these guys in a thread about rape. wsott in his own mind is generously not exerting his male superiority over us at every turn, (he could have made us cry or hurt if he really wanted to, we deserve to be raped and he’s exerting a lot of control in not raping us, shaming us, suing us, and so on). Look at that list of threats he makes against our body image and “pushing the limits of the law.” He’s practically got our self-esteem entirely in his hands. He’s nice enough not to rape us, beat us up, or call us fat, so why can’t we be nice and not hurt his feelings by calling him a disgusting waste of space? That’s really how guys like this think. We exist at their mercy, and we owe it to them to be nice, or we’ll be sorry.

Rebecca (or whoever’s still around), A couple of things that occur to me:

If you spent a weekend on the Manson Family ranch and were killed by Charles Manson, nobody would have been rooting for you to be murdered because you went (I guess some would), nobody would suggest that it wasn’t really murder because you know people get murdered there, but we would all wonder wtf were you thinking when you went, and it’s not the fault of society that you were murdered at a murder’s ranch that you freely went to.

I think the “wtf” part manifests itself in different beliefs and prejudices for everyone. One might think wft are you doing having sex before marriage? One might think wft are you doing with a known rapist. Or whatever.

Coming back to WSOTT’s comment, yesterday, I don’t take it as a threat, but a somewhat jaded view that if you keep sleeping with ex-NFL stars, you may find that one of them won’t let you get up to get a drink of water during sex, because he’s 5 seconds away from finishing.

Just a guess.

If you spent a weekend on the Manson Family ranch and were killed by Charles Manson, nobody would have been rooting for you to be murdered because you went (I guess some would), nobody would suggest that it wasn’t really murder because you know people get murdered there, but we would all wonder wtf were you thinking when you went, and it’s not the fault of society that you were murdered at a murder’s ranch that you freely went to.

Applying this logic to women who go out and do jobs where they might encounter men is rape apology to the extreme.

I think the “wtf” part manifests itself in different beliefs and prejudices for everyone. One might think wft are you doing having sex before marriage? One might think wft are you doing with a known rapist. Or whatever.

Having sex before marriage does not make you more likely to be raped unless the person you are sleeping with happens to be a rapist - just like how being married doesn’t make you more likely to be raped unless you happen to be married to a rapist.  This is just completely logically bogus.

Coming back to WSOTT’s comment, yesterday, I don’t take it as a threat, but a somewhat jaded view that if you keep sleeping with ex-NFL stars, you may find that one of them won’t let you get up to get a drink of water during sex, because he’s 5 seconds away from finishing.

This assessment of his statement is completely void of context - the context of the possible assault (which was on an employee doing her job, not someone who was fucking an NFL star) AND the context of the comment, which was:

“Anyone want to sign on to my class-action suit against Wrong, for saying that women want to be raped? - Rebecca

Nope you don’t want to be raped. Anymore than you want your car keyed, your food spat in, or your dog let loose. But don’t be surprised when it happens though. Bad things surely happen to good people, but way more bad things happen to bad people.

He was talking to her specifically as well as to women in general, and the statement had nothing to do with the article.  It had nothing to do with NFL stars.  It was a statement that she, and women in general, need to be nice, good people or it would be a pity if something bad - like rape - happened to them.

To the mods, if they’re still reading - is he banned yet?

You know what, INTP? I don’t know why people rally to the defense of celebs accused of rape. I understand your confusion at my 1st paragraph.

McNulty’s story seems entirely plausible in print. I don’t know where she goes. I completely understand her frustration, and why she didn’t report it to the police right away.

Atrios regularly muses about comments sections in daily newspapers, and they all get pretty racist, sexist, homophobic, and certainly tack right. (Comments for this story are conspicuous in their absence.)

I don’t know why fans explode at this stuff. I consider myself a sports fan. I find it sad when somebody throws away their life through violent behavior that they certainly have the money to get treated. ex-Cub, Mell Hall is going to spend most of the rest of his life in prison for “seducing” 14 year olds. I understand the phenomenom called pedophilia, but I don’t get it. I don’t get vehemently getting behind them.

Though a sports fan, I did not play sports in HS or college, and had to deal with jocks in my day to day life. I saw them as pampered prima donnas who pretty much got their way in any situation, be it class, bullying, or breaking the rules. I would imagine that messes them up inside, and creates an expectation that life is a video game they always get to win. This is a gross generalization, but this is my attitude when I read B-Roth’s story.

I guess that for young men (and immature older men, and tag-a-long females), that the reverse of power for a woman who gets to dictate what is consent and what isn’t is pretty unsettling. And that’s why they push back so hard.

If you spent a weekend on the Manson Family ranch and were killed by Charles Manson, nobody would have been rooting for you to be murdered because you went (I guess some would), nobody would suggest that it wasn’t really murder because you know people get murdered there, but we would all wonder wtf were you thinking when you went, and it’s not the fault of society that you were murdered at a murder’s ranch that you freely went to.

1. People, on the whole, wouldn’t argue “she was so tempting, he just had to murder her!”
2. What INTPagan said. Your analogy is about a known murderer. In the analogous situation, every man is a known rapist. People can’t really live like that.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If you yell the “N” word at a group of black people, one of them may punch you in the face. I’m not justifying your behavior or theirs, but I am telling you a very possible outcome.

If you’re trying to argue that you didn’t say that not consenting was bad sexual behavior, you’re doing a very poor job. Right now, you are paralleling saying “stop” to one’s partner with shouting a racial slur at someone.

So how many times have you waited for a man to scream OMFG I WANT TO STICK IT IN SO BADLY before engaging in intercourse? I would bet zero?  So that makes you a rapist right?

Most sexual consent is non verbal. The majority of women assume that a man is ready just from an erection. And they don’t ask before they unzip a fly!!! Amanda’s rule is absurd.

Not applicable in my case, but moving on…whatever the verbal or non-verbal nature of sexual consent, “stop,” pushing one’s partner away, etc. are very, very clear verbal and non-verbal signs of lack of consent. You are advocating proceeding under these circumstances, you are on record as doing so, and it is useless to deny it.

Wow. I generally only hear bullshit lies like that from politicians. Everybody knows what you really meant by that “no amount of money” comment. It was a put down.

Make up your mind: Either it’s a put-down, in which case it is not a sexual behavior and does not fit into your model, or it is a refusal, in which case it is a sexual behavior and fits into your model where rape is punishment for not consenting.

What a high school retort. Exactly how much sexual and exactly how much behavior is in any of my comments that would make them qualify as bad sexual behavior?

You are promoting and enforcing the double standard. You are creeping women out. You are advocating the other behaviors in your list, up to and including raping people who disagree with you.

So what efforts on your part are going out to the all men that Wrong doesn’t speak for?

Evidently whatever I’ve been doing is enough, since I have even more close male friends than female. No special “efforts” are necessary to reach out to men who already view women as full human beings.

Ok. I’ll make it simple. I think you are too selfish to be able to list even 3 examples of bad sexual behavior on the part of women.

1. Taking advantage of a person who is too drunk to consent.
2. Badgering a person for sex who does not want it.
3. Continuing with sex after a partner asks to stop.

I’ve never paid for sex (in the sense in which normal humans use the phrase when they’re not splitting hairs to make a point). If I were to, though, the advantage would be not so much power as the security of knowing exactly where I stand. I’m not saying there aren’t those for whom the thrill is in the most intimate ownership of someone’s body or whatever, just noting that there are other reasons even without the “hard-up” excuse.

JohnGor0:

There is a very strong male fear of accusation, and since the incident involves a male and a female, I think alot of males identify with the “rapist”, and immediately imagine themselves wrongly accused.

There’s a strong male fear of accusation? Really? I don’t get that vibe from the single men I interact with, or have in the past.

Most sexually active guys have been in situations of mixed signals, where you get “No”, so you stop. Then you get “you don’t have to completely stop”, so then you start again. You get another “No”, so you really stop, and decide this is too confusing and frustrating. You’re then accused of being selfish for only being in it for what you want.

I don’t know, dude with “Gor” in his handle (and you can’t tell me your finger slipped), this sounds a lot more like a stereotype of women than like actual female behavior many men are familiar with. “We can’t let women meaningfully say ‘no,’ or they’ll stop having sex with men entirely!”

KeithM:

Well, I don’t know about it being the finest, but hockey is in agreement.  As is soccer (getting beyond North America).

Cherleading at a hockey game would seem to defeat the purpose.

speedbudget:

Murder is not about power and domination, except in very rare circumstances.

Since there’s no point if the person you’ve just overpowered is too dead to realize it.

John0

I really don’t know where all this “stranger” stuff is coming from.

You might have meant “kidnapped at knifepoint by a close personal friend,” after all.

wrong:
[TMI description of his sex life]
I think the point is not that your sexual activity doesn’t fit some imaginary universal rape template, but that your idiosyncratic limitations on what constitutes nonconsent will almost inevitably lead you to see nonconsent, decide it doesn’t count, and go ahead regardless, if you haven’t already.

Rebecca

In the analogous situation, every man is a known rapist. People can’t really live like that.

What hypocrisy! That’s exactly the opposite of what wrong says you believe!

wrong:

“If you’re trying to argue that you didn’t say that not consenting was bad sexual behavior, you’re doing a very poor job. Right now, you are paralleling saying “stop” to one’s partner with shouting a racial slur at someone. “ - Rebecca

Nope. It’s plenty comparable. What isn’t parallel about “get off me” to the dude on top of you at 1am in the morning, and “get off me” to the crowd that is holding you down while they kick you?

You only encounter black people in unruly violent mobs?

Nope. It’s plenty comparable. What isn’t parallel about “get off me” to the dude on top of you at 1am in the morning, and “get off me” to the crowd that is holding you down while they kick you?

Those are comparable. “Get off me” and “N——-” are not comparable. I see you’ve just given up on trying to deny that you think all women are the property of all men all the time.

2.  One of the reasons you are getting your ass beat is because something you said/did something that provoked it.

Analogy translation: “You are being raped because you exist and are female.”

In your world there is no such thing as a provoked ass beating. It’s never about what both of you did wrong, but about why these black people didn’t respect your first amendment rights. Nothing you do increases your chance of an attack. It was random and they did this to you because Black people just hate you. They feel “entitled”. You had nothing to do with it.

Except what you are repeatedly and deliberately failing to understand is that yelling a racial slur at someone, while within your rights, is bad, and refusing sex to someone is both within your rights and not bad.

You avoid the issue. The majority of people do not give a verbal “yes” before they engage in most sexual activity. And yet somehow that same majority doesn’t view this sexual activity as rape. Amanda’s rule is absurd.

And I thought you said you were being sarcastic about the whole synecdoche thing. I can see we’ve got farther to go than I thought.

How do you know what I advocating? You don’t even know what rape is. Kissing someone before asking is not rape. Rape has a legal definition. That definition will reference specifics. If those specifics aren’t met, then it is NOT rape. Most states require, in addition to penetration, a definite “No”. That “No” is defined as a clear verbal or non verbal action. In other words…

The absence of “no“ IS “yes”. That is the LAW.

Not true. Rape is never defined on the basis of what the victim is doing or not doing. Some state laws even explicitly state that the victim does not have to be resisting.

If you have to lie to get your point across, you don’t have a point.

Nope a put-down is a behavior and so is a refusal. But let’s not pretend that you are refusing anything by that “there is no sum of money” comment. That’s not how people use those kinds of statements and that is not how you were using it either.

Is all behavior sexual, then? That is the only way it fits into your model where rape is punishment for “bad sexual behavior.”

I don’t have the double standard problem. You do!  Random, unprovoked bad shit happens to men all the time. And non random, provoked bad shit happens to men all the time. The same applies to women. But… the accused is always named, and the accuser gets to remain anonymous. So now we have Ben and whom???
What other criminal proceedings follow that convention. Please don’t preach to me about double standards.

Why, I don’t know. For what other crimes does the public cry out not only that the crime was provoked, but that there was, in fact, no crime at all? For what other crimes is the accusation itself not a point in the accuser’s favor?

As for creepy… that’s a subjective thing. But I do find it suspicious that you wait until now to use that word.

Oh, please. Are you going to say you’re not being creepy because you weren’t trying to? You are creeping people out. People have left this thread because you are just that creepy.

Ok. so it’s enough in your estimation. Can you detail “enough”? Cat seems to have your tongue on this issue.

No real reason to. Treating men the same way I treat women seems to work. Maybe you could try the same strategy to reach out to women.

Oh you mean like when a girl goes out drinking and her date foots the bill. Since he’s legally too drunk to drive, he’s obviously too drunk to “give” her his money. Right? And so that makes her a robber. Right? This woman is a criminal and belongs in jail with all the other thieves!

And if the man is so drunk that she has to take the money herself from his wallet to pay the bill, that might be the case.