Home / General / RAPENADO!

RAPENADO!

Comments
/
/
/
155 Views

(Post title impishly and guiltlessly stolen from LGM regular, Shakezula)

So I just wanted to point out that if we’re going to tackle the scourge of rape by “do”ing and “don’t”ing women to death, there must be a second part to this agenda, and that is demonizing men and making women scared to death of them.

I notice it’s the part that gets left out when people instruct women on how not to get raped. It’s a sad sigh, a head-shake and helpful tip that will lessen our chances of getting raped (often in a form that will lessen our enjoyment of life). But missing from the advice is the unspoken warning that rapists are lurking everywhere. Which means that a fairly significant portion of men are rapists or potential rapists.

Now, you may be thinking that there are too many men who rape as it stands, and you’d be right. But the fact is that most women manage to navigate a world in which men rape a.) without getting raped and b.) thinking a sizable chunk of men are rapists.

Drinking is fun. Alcohol is a social lubricant. And many folks enjoy going out, loosening up a bit, partying with friends and occasionally flirting with strangers. It’s just something that happens, and 99% of the time, it’s gonna work out OK for everyone. Frankly, when you ask women not to drink and party, you ‘re asking them to live less enjoyable lives.

But, fine, let’s  go the route of party-pooping. If we do this, we must also fearmonger. It’s only fair. We must drill into the heads of women and the public at large that men are raping beasts. It must be a constant drumbeat of fear and the demonization of men.

And I think if we do this, we must also wonder whether men should a.) be able to drink (since drinking can impair judgement) b.) be allowed in drinking establishments where women also congregate c.) be alone with women, period.

Perhaps we need chaperones to accompany men wherever they mix with women. Raperones, if you will.

Perhaps we need to have a Rape Czar, who warns women of the rape threat level depending on where she is. These warnings can be posted in bars and other places nice women shouldn’t hang out:

Threat Level:

White: Oprah Book Club

Yellow: A Little Rapey in Here

Orange: Frat House Rager

Red: RAPENADO!!

Do you want to live in  world like this? Yeah, me neither.

And, trolls, please don’t whine about wanting to lessen risk for your daughters. I don’t give a shit if you want to explain to your kids that drinking a lot can impair judgement and get you into all sorts of trouble. So don’t even clog up the comment thread with that shit.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • greennotGreen

    The Rape Czar lives in Islamic fundamentalism. Women, cover yourself from head to toe lest ye make men rape you! Many of our local Christianists are the same.

  • ironic irony

    Rapenado: The Sequel to Sharknado. Starring Todd Akin.

    • Karate Bearfighter

      If it’s a legitimate rapenado, the atmosphere has ways of shutting that whole thing down.

    • Halloween Jack

      Directed by Roman Polanski.

      • Manju

        starring whoopi goldberg

  • rm

    And if men are all beasts, then that small percentage who are happy to commit rape take this message as permission. They think all men are secretly like that, so they can rationalize what they’ve done.

    That’s what’s wrong with advice like Yoffe’s, which says “it’s just common sense, I’m not excusing the perpetrators but let’s be practical,” besides the fact that it’s old news: it gives permission to the perpetrators.

  • Cheap Wino

    Of course, the rape czar would have to be a man. We certainly don’t need anybody in an important position getting hysterical about things.

  • Richard Hershberger

    “And, trolls, please don’t whine about wanting to lessen risk for your daughters. I don’t give a shit if you want to explain to your kids that drinking a lot can impair judgement and get you into all sorts of trouble. So don’t even clog up the comment thread with that shit.”

    I have a younger female relative who was sexually assaulted in college by an adjunct faculty member. The universal automatic response throughout the extended family was “Oh, dear. What did she do to him?” Understand that no one meant “What did she do to provoke the assault?” We all meant “Did she leave his testicles intact?” I want my daughters to grow up like that.

    • runsinbackground

      That was not how I expected that thought to end when you started it, thanks for clarifying!

  • I think this makes perfectly good sense (tho I am apparently a troll from the other thread, too). It is a good idea to remind young women that in any large group of guys, there will likely be at least one “rapist of opportunity,” much more likely than being raped by a complete stranger. If (some) men weren’t assholes, there wouldn’t be any rapes.

    • Czar it is.

    • ironic irony

      “So remember young ladies, never leave the house, because you could find yourself in a large group of men. One of those men is probably a rapist, and if you don’t listen to me, you will get raped (even if you have a black belt in karate, been awarded the Medal of Honor, and are stone cold sober), and you didn’t make yourself a hard target. Stay home.”

      Sowwy, laaideez, still your fault.

      /snark

    • sibusisodan

      It is a good idea to remind young women that in any large group of guys

      Why is it a good idea?

      Why do you assume that (i) young women don’t already know this and/or need reminding and, (ii) reminding them will make a significant difference across the population?

      • Okay, obviously everyone knows everything already, and no one needs reminding of anything?

        Tobacco awareness campaigns took what “everyone knew” and conveyed it to the public, which, I regret to inform you, is not entirely made up of savvy liberals who comment on smart blogs.

        I think “rape awareness” should be all over the damn TV, because I kinda hate this whole “women getting raped” thing – y’know? – and the more conscious *everyone* is that fucking passed-out women, for instance, (1) does indeed happen and (2) is indeed rape, the better off we are. You are free to disagree.

        • Hogan

          If women are telling you they hear this kind of thing all the damn time, then you might want to consider the possibility that that channel is already saturated.

          • Sherm

            But this post arises out of comments from a post involving the rape of 13 and 15 year old girls, one of whom was passed out drunk with a blood alcohol content high enough to kill her. That the experienced and educated women of LGM have heard this message ad nauseum does not mean that young girls understand the very real risks involved in binge drinking, whether death by asphyxiation, rape or something else. Its a disgrace that those little pricks in Missouri weren’t prosecuted, but its also regrettable that a 15 year old girl drank so much, so quickly, that her BAC was over .3. She is not to be blamed for the rapist’s criminal conduct, of course, and anyone who blames her or rationalizes the rapist’s conduct due to her behavior is a piece of shit. But it is not victim blaming to note that even without the rape factor, the girl could have gotten herself killed that night, and the same goes for a boy who gets that drunk.

            Its not party pooping to warn against binge drinking and I think that the erstwhile vacummslayer has conflated regular partying with binge drinking. I may be mistaken and I apologize in advance if I am, but I do not recall any commenters opining that women shouldn’t party and drink just like men. And personally, I’m all for it!

            • Orpho

              I hate making comparison of X to rape, because honestly rape culture means that nothing in the culture is comparable to rape.

              But imagine if, instead of being passed out drunk, they were unconscious because they had had a car accident and hit a railing, catapulting them into the windshield (they had their seat belts on. Both unconscious, though!). They are in danger at this point, with potentially serious medical problems (or perhaps ‘just’ unconscious). Someone stops at the scene of the wreck and rapes them, then drives off (or, perhaps, helpfully brings them to a hospital. What a /guy/!).

              Should they have hit that railing and crashed their car? Telling them not to get into car wrecks is a rather similar response to talking to these kids about drinking in this particular situation.

              (If I need to spell it out, no – car wrecks are bad! getting drunk to the passing-out point is bad! But great Cthuluoid tentacle-monster-of-doom-on-a-stick, and holy fuck, that is not the point here!)

              • Leo

                People do not voluntarily get into car wrecks at any significant rate. People do get voluntarily hammered quite often.

                • Oh my god will we never, ever, get rid of these fucking lectures? There are no girls in this society who have not been warned over and over and over again that every time they leave the house they are in danger of being raped and losing their virginity and therefore their worth in the eyes of the world. Every movie, every tv show, every minute in church, every older woman EVER has been telling them that since they were born.

                  While its true that young people–say 0-19–may not fully understand the impact of alcohol on their bodies, anymore than they understand the impact of a bullet when it is accidentally fired–being drunk, even passed out drunk–is not the cause of being raped.

                  As has been pointed out dozens of times on the previous thread people can be incapacitated in any number of ways. Famously a woman here was raped and murdered when her car broke down and the guy from the AAA service decided to take advantage of a dark night and a lonely situation and rape and murder her. Women (and men) get raped in nursing homes. People are going to be vulnerable sometimes. They are going to not be armed. They are going to be in a situation where they can’t fight back. This does not cause them to be raped. Being in the presence of a rapist causes people to be raped.

                  We are arguing against treating the problem of rape symptomatically, like its rain and all you can do is put up your umbrella and wait it out.

                  Our daughters deserve better than to draw the cage more and more tightly around themselves for the benefit of DRUNKEN ADOLESCENT MALES.

                • Orpho

                  Ah, interesting! So the key point here really _is_ that the girls meant to be passed out at a party, on purpose. The sluts!

                  Wait, they didn’t mean to pass out? They just wanted to have a good time at a party?

                  Well, I suppose [example women] didn’t _mean_ to get into a car wreck. I mean, sure, maybe the driver checked her email while she was driving, or looked behind her, or got stung by a bee, or did some other unsafe behavior. That’s clearly what led to being raped while unconscious and probably medically compromised in the car.

                  No? That drive-by was just a crazy fucker? Hmmm… Perhaps we did a little deeper here. Can you see how it’s a tad of victim-blaming? if the analogy gets in your way, feel free to discard it, but not that disgusting, uncomfortable feeling you get when you think about someone deciding that an unconscious, possibly hurt woman is a delicious target.

                • Leo

                  Read my post and yours again and tell me which is the lecture.

                  There are no girls in this society who have not been warned over and over and over . . .

                  Of course there are. Everyone learns something for the first time at some point.

                • Sherm

                  Aimai — I do not disagree with you at all, but I do not understand the vehement objections to practical advice in face of real world problems, which are not going to just disappear any time soon, unfortunately.

                • Leo

                  So the key point here really _is_ that the girls meant to be passed out at a party, on purpose. The sluts!

                  No, the point I made (key or otherwise) is the one I stated.

                  Telling people not to get in car accidents is a mostly useless act. Telling people not to get drunk in certain circumstances may be a useless act (that is aimai’s argument when she says everyone’s heard it) but it is not so immediately obvious that it is.

                • Orpho

                  There is no chance that we can actually have a conversation about telling rapists not to rape, without also pointing out how those girls should be told not to drink, is there.

                  Just once. Just once! One whole post where it’s just all about the rapists for once.

                • Look, Leo, you and some of your cohort seem to have a major twist in your undies about feeling the need to DO SOMETHING about rape and the thing you think you can do is lecture 13 year old girls about getting hammered while near another human being. Ok. Do it. Go ahead. I’ll wait. Have you done it now?

                  And, by the way, here is a clue: I have a 14 year old daughter and a 17 year old daughter and as I pointed out in the previous thread I have in fact explained to them because they would not otherwise know that drinking to excess is quite dangerous for a variety of reasons.

                  The poitn that everyone is trying to make to you here is that a lecture about personal responsibility to protect one’s valuable vagina is LITERALLY THE LEAST you could do, as an adult, in this world, to protect all our daughters and our sons. Its so little that its like flying the american flag on your car to show that you don’t like the falling of the twin towers.

                  Its a gesture that is so meaningless, so rote, so lame that it goes without saying for all the rest of us. Do you want a cookie for telling your daughter not to get drunk? Here. Have a cookie! But for the rest of us its just the start of the work that women and men have been doing for centuries to create safe public and private spaces for our daughters. Its not that we don’t give our daughters these lectures. Its just that being a good citizen, being an activist, and giving a fuck about the lives our daughters lead forces us to actually do a little more than bloviate windily about drinking.

                • Leo

                  Aimai, read what I wrote in the thread again and try to figure out where you got your ideas about my thoughts and motive from. I assure you it is not there.

                  I think your side of this debate probably has the better of this overall argument. The Slate piece was probably a net detriment to our total social dialogue on rape. But your approach to discussing the topic is awful.

                • giving a fuck about the lives our daughters lead forces us to actually do a little more than bloviate windily about drinking.

                  But bloviating windily about drinking is so easy and satisfying.

                  [/every fucking mansplainer in these last two threads]

                • This is in response to Sherm. Because the “give a girl a lecture” crowd seems to think that putting a bandaid on a severed limb is somehow both unusual and praiseworthy. Its not. As has been pointed out over and over and over again:

                  Not getting drunk or drugged is not a universal specific against being raped. Despite the current hysteria over some high profile cases of women who are raped while they are drunk there is zero evidence that most rapes happen when women are drunk or because women are drunk. People don’t have access to the stats about the number of drinking incidents which don’t result in rape, rape is underreported, and etc..etc..etc…

                  Telling individual girls not to drink and be out in public with men is telling them to retreat to a world that they are not going to retreat to–and why should they? Drinking and being in public with men is apparently such an important part of our American society that it causes a perfect storm of hysteria when women suggest that it is male college students who should be lectured for drinking in the presence of women. God forbid that tailgating and frat parties go without alcohol or drunkeness.

                  I’m losing interest in arguing with you guys because, well, despite or because of your good intentions its so very dumb. You just keep repeating “why is it wrong to tell girls not to drink” when we are all pointing out its not wrong its just not USEFUL. Maybe it makes you feel useful but the discussion about rape in society isnt’ about making you feel useful for your lack of insight anymore than we are all obligated to stand around and praise the tits on a bull.

                • Oh, boo hoo! Leo has a sad because his brilliant insights have not won the day.

                • Leo

                  Not a response, aimai.

                • Sherm

                  You just keep repeating “why is it wrong to tell girls not to drink”

                  To be clear, I have never said that, and I am not part of the crowd that has been saying that. In point of fact, I encourage my daughter to drink, and I routinely offer her beer, wine and mixed drinks at home, with the hope that she learns to drink responsibly, and I will do the same with my son when he reaches her age. Nor do I want my daughter to grow up fearful of men. You have not been arguing with me, but perhaps with others and a few strawmen as well.

                  Not getting drunk or drugged is not a universal specific against being raped.

                  Understood and agreed. And no one here as suggested otherwise as far as I can recall.

                • sibusisodan

                  objections to practical advice

                  Sherm, I think that bolded word is the key one. The advice isn’t practical. Not as far as ‘reducing instances of rape across our society’ goes.

                  It’s the equivalent of trying to respond to malicious hacking with ‘have you tried turning it off and on again?’.

                • Leo says:
                  October 18, 2013 at 11:40 am
                  Not a response, aimai.

                  As with Nick in the prior thread, not only is it a response but it is fairly measured and appropriate. Your failure to understand and learn from it is, in fact, your own problem, and not a flattering one.

                • Nick

                  Hey, good to see my preference for discussion instead of one-line dismissal, and support for discussing the risks of drinking with my kids, are remembered!

                • Rigby Reardon

                  I read it as Bijan saying that you and Leo were playing more or less the same role here. But perhaps I am wrong.

                • Nick

                  No, I think you’re right — this discussion went sterile very fast, in the same way the one I started the other day did. I didn’t see any point in weighing in, people who agree with me don’t need my support, and my insight isn’t so great that people who disagree need to hear it. But, I thought I’d say hello when my name came up, nothing else.

                • Leo

                  Bijan, I will quote the response in full, and you can tell me the substantive learning that I am supposed to derive from it:

                  Oh, boo hoo! Leo has a sad because his brilliant insights have not won the day.

                • Nick

                  This is funny, though — the other day, the comment that I failed to learn from, and that provoked several profound and serious expressions of sorrow, went like this:

                  “Yes, you should be sorry.”

                • I read it as Bijan saying that you and Leo were playing more or less the same role here. But perhaps I am wrong.

                  It’s not just the role, but the same pattern of actions. Something clueless, response, more cluelessness, repeat until someone gets exasperated and then go “tut tut! you call that a response!” To anyone with a tiny modicum of social understanding and the ability to follow a discourse, the exasperated response makes perfect sense, is reasonable and responsive and appropriate. It’s not endlessly nice, but what did either do to deserve endless patience and tolerance? I *offered* Nick a way out and he completely failed to take me up on it.

                  The idea that you can look at the surface form of one comment and determine its meaning, appropriateness, etc. in context is obviously risible. And they aren’t even trying. It’s just obtuse abuse.

                  If you look at the prior thread all the way through, it’s very very easy to see which commenters are providing meaning, substance, grace, and beauty and which are not. That should inform your interpretation.

                  This, too, is super elementary social awareness. You are culpable if you don’t know this or fail to exercise it.

                  Nick, below you respond to me with a comment that you then realise echoes MRAness. To your credit, you recognized that case and retracted. But, when I make such a blunder I get concerned that I’m making similar blunders and not detecting them. It prompts me to reflect and get reality checks from other folks. Here, you’re blundering around like you did before. I’m sorry you still don’t see it, but it is there and you could easily do better.

                • Leo buffoons:

                  Bijan, I will quote the response in full, and you can tell me the substantive learning that I am supposed to derive from it:

                  Oh, boo hoo! Leo has a sad because his brilliant insights have not won the day.

                  Nick echoes:

                  This is funny, though — the other day, the comment that I failed to learn from, and that provoked several profound and serious expressions of sorrow, went like this:

                  “Yes, you should be sorry.”

                  I’m sorry that neither of you have elementary discourse skills or think that you can successfully pretend that the only aspect of a bit of speech is a sort of direct propositional content in your ridiculous commentary. Obviously, shearing the comments from the context helps with that, which is why it’s a faux clever move to do The Dramatic Quotation. But, given that I actually read both threads and participated this sort of sophistry just does nothing except make you look even worse.

                  I genuinely am puzzled why you would make such a silly move even as trolling. Do you really think that’s effective? Is there some audience you’re playing to that validates you making intellectual fart jokes that aren’t even well timed?

                  Mysterious.

                  The interpretive stance that yields my assessment of aimai’s comments is not particularly esoteric, it’s straightforward, elementary, common understanding of an interaction. The only way it yields your accounts is by short circuiting the respect for your interlocutor and the communicative context to privilege yourself endlessly entirely against your merit. That this follows a gendered line is, shall we say, not surprising. The little tactics that you’re using to dissemble these facts aren’t particularly novel or effective. You may not even been fully aware of them, but, as I pointed out before, when they trip you into MRAishness, that’s a good sign that your whole approach is broken and needs examination.

                • Leo

                  OK, I’ll bite Bijan. Context.

                  Aimai:

                  Look, Leo, you and some of your cohort seem to have a major twist in your undies about feeling the need to DO SOMETHING about rape and the thing you think you can do is lecture 13 year old girls about getting hammered while near another human being.

                  Leo:

                  Aimai, read what I wrote in the thread again and try to figure out where you got your ideas about my thoughts and motives from. I assure you it is not there.

                  Aimai:

                  Oh, boo hoo! Leo has a sad because his brilliant insights have not won the day.

                  In what possible way is that a response with any substantive value?

                • Gregor Sansa

                  And I, too, will bite. Leo’s first comment:

                  People do not voluntarily get into car wrecks at any significant rate. People do get voluntarily hammered quite often.

                  Possible motives for posting this truism:

                  1. He just realized it.
                  2. He thinks others here haven’t realized it.
                  3. He thinks that changing this fact would be the best strategy for preventing rape.

                  If it’s 1, he’s a moron. If it’s 2, he thinks everyone who isn’t him (or at least, everyone who isn’t a “him”) is a moron. And if it’s 3, he’s incredibly thick and missing the points of this discussion (which are that a world where no-one ever got drunk would be a whole lot less fun and just about as rapey as the one we live in, and that people like him who persistently refuse to see that are annoying).

                  Then, he starts pedantically analyzing whether the responses he provokes accord him due respect, and generously sharing the insights he gains thereby. Oh, happy day.

                • Leo

                  Gregor, my purpose was to further discussion of an interesting analogy that it seemed to me showed less than its author initially suggested.

                • Nick

                  Well, here’s my take on it. In the earlier thread I participated in, things went nasty pretty quickly, and I probably contributed to it; but I never felt that it was entirely my fault. I also found Aimai to be snippy and dismissive, and when you suggested that I apologize, I did and I tried to explain myself also. I figured that would be the end of it. It wasn’t, you found my apology/explanation even more provoking, and damning, than my earlier arguments. For me that was the end of the discussion, It’s been a long time since I’ve been interested in talking with people who find reasons to ignore a sincere apology; it reminds me too much of the time I wasted arguing with idiots in my freshman year of college. I didn’t email you since I’m not interested in that either, a comment thread is a discussion, and I don’t see any reason to take that to email with a stranger.

                  You’ll notice I didn’t really participate in this thread — that’s because I’m not actually a troll, I figured out in the earlier one that I have a different perspective than the people who comment here, and my perspective isn’t wanted in the discussion. However, when I saw that Leo and Aimai and you had gone through the exact same interaction (he makes some point, she dismisses it fairly rudely, and you chime in afterwards with your sorrow that he missed the deep meaning in her dismissal), I thought I’d point it out. It’s normal for people to talk past each other on these threads, but you seem to see your role as the one who, reasonably but sadly and at some cost to yourself, tells one side that they are wrong and they need to go back and re-evaluate their stance when confronted by an everyday, and basically meaningless, response. It’s a free world, some argue, some dismiss, some sigh and lecture, some laugh.

                • Sorry, been down all day.

                  Leo, slightly more cherry picking doesn’t really establish context, but it’s interesting that your selected comment is contentless (i.e., it’s not quite a denial because it’s not actually directly responsive to amiai’s description of her impression of you; that you didn’t literally write those words is just a dodge).

                  I do appreciate you shifting the goalposts to “substantive value” which I presume you mean having specific propositional content about the first order subject matter under discussion, wherein you get to determine what the germane subject matter is. But this isn’t interpretation, but misinterpretation. My claim was that “As with Nick in the prior thread, not only is it a response but it is fairly measured and appropriate.” I stand by that. Not every measured and appropriate response needs to be of the first order propositional sort, and substantive responses are not exhaustively such.

                  Part of what is simply communicated by her comment is that you are being super exasperating, conversationally inept, unpleasant, and obtuse. In particular, you are completely ignoring the valances of your ridiculous truistic bromides the issues with which have been explicated extensively and repeatedly over two threads and in countless other places. (And Gregor even fisked it all out for you and your response is “I meant well!” which is, obviously, non responsive to all the points Gregor made.)

                  Let’s just finish with:

                  There are no girls in this society who have not been warned over and over and over . . .

                  Of course there are. Everyone learns something for the first time at some point.

                  There’s no reading of your comment, Leo, that saves you substantively or in any other mode. This is equivalent to saying “No I don’t want to” when someone asks “Do you want to take out the garbage”. The fact that there is an initial hearing for every person says nothing about saturation, or the efficacy of the warnings, or the burden of those warnings, or even the onset of effects of such warnings, or really anything. The “counterpoint” you establish can at best make the “no girls” line the mildest of hyperboles. Your reply is not germane, interesting, helpful, conversation provoking. It’s a bit of pure hostility (however you might think you covered it) mobilized in no other way than aggressive (since you completely ignored the rest of the comment, the point of the comment, the expression of the comment, the surrounding context in order to be seen to score a point, and you didn’t even score).

                  In normal conversation, that you didn’t get a “Fuck you” after that is all charity to you. That’s what you earned in the conversation and since your congnative contribution was nil, there’s no loss to the substance either.

                  Hence my believe that aimai’s comment was measured and appropriate.

                • Ronan

                  Im not sure how I missed this thread
                  But some of aimai’s comments above should be set in stone
                  hilarious
                  Leo youre an idiot
                  Honestly, try tell the girls I grew up with to give up boozing
                  They probably should
                  But why would they?
                  tsk tsk tsk tsk

                • Oh nick. I guess it really doesn’t matter whether you are in earnest or not.

                  Well, here’s my take on it. In the earlier thread I participated in, things went nasty pretty quickly, and I probably contributed to it; but I never felt that it was entirely my fault.

                  This is not news, Nick. This is why I offered to explain how it was your fault off line. So you could learn.

                  I also found Aimai to be snippy and dismissive, and when you suggested that I apologize, I did and I tried to explain myself also.

                  Yes Nick, that’s called “Fucking up the apology”. I suggested that you apologize and talk with me. Not apologize and defend yourself.

                  I figured that would be the end of it.

                  You thought that not learning what you did wrong and fucking up the apology would save the day? Isn’t that obviously stupid?

                  It wasn’t, you found my apology/explanation even more provoking, and damning, than my earlier arguments. For me that was the end of the discussion, It’s been a long time since I’ve been interested in talking with people who find reasons to ignore a sincere apology;

                  First, and of course, sincerity isn’t the measure of an apology, success is. Your apology was not remotely successful as an apology. In fact, it was unsuccessful because it failed to demonstrate sincerity as you admit above.

                  it reminds me too much of the time I wasted arguing with idiots in my freshman year of college. I didn’t email you since I’m not interested in that either, a comment thread is a discussion, and I don’t see any reason to take that to email with a stranger.

                  The point was that you were being awful and your awfullness was disrupting a thread. Your choices were to shut up, to talk with me in another forum to get it right without further disruption, or to continue being disruptive. You picked the last.

                  And, of course, I offered to open a public discussion thread in another forum (my blog) if you found email uncomfortable. Convenient how that dropped out of your narrative.

                  Sorry, dude, you aren’t the put upon, but the put uponer.

                  You’ll notice I didn’t really participate in this thread

                  11 comments over several threads including starting a completely new one constitutes as “not participating”? Not usually.

                  The canonical form of not participating is not to post comments instead of your novel strategy of posting comments.

                  that’s because I’m not actually a troll,

                  Getting closer, actually. Trolling doesn’t have to be intentional, you know.

                  However, when I saw that Leo and Aimai and you had gone through the exact same interaction (he makes some point, she dismisses it fairly rudely, and you chime in afterwards with your sorrow that he missed the deep meaning in her dismissal), I thought I’d point it out.

                  Oo, you should actually read Leo’s “points” which are not points. See my reply to him.

                  Also, where’s the sorrow in:

                  As with Nick in the prior thread, not only is it a response but it is fairly measured and appropriate. Your failure to understand and learn from it is, in fact, your own problem, and not a flattering one.

                  It’s just observation. And, dude, I already pointed back to you, so you aren’t adding that bit.

                  It’s normal for people to talk past each other on these threads, but you seem to see your role as the one who, reasonably but sadly and at some cost to yourself, tells one side that they are wrong and they need to go back and re-evaluate their stance when confronted by an everyday, and basically meaningless, response.

                  Yes, I do it twice to essentially exactly the same event (but, y’know, in the second event I don’t offer to help out) and that makes it my self perceived “role”? Astute analysis!

                  I believe I explained adequately to Leo (as did many other people) what’s wrong with the sorts of comments you’ve made (over and over) and I also explained why I think a sharp response is perfectly appropriate. That you persistently refuse to even try to get it means that you won’t get it, but that’s ok.

                  Again, there’s ample evidence that you don’t know how to conduct yourself in these sorts of conversation. (See your gendered insult comment below for one that you at least recognised.) This should provoke reflection, not retrenchment.

                  And, let me add, that you are commenting under a male identified id and lots of the people who’ve had the strongest reactions to you are identified as female and we’re talking about rape, rape culture, and rape “prevention” (as well as rape prevention). The prior probability of it being fuck up on your part rather than overreaction is rather high, just by general considerations. You and Leo are basically working, afaict, on a “Whatever I say must be reasonable” model, which is obviously going to one into tons of trouble no matter what, but is esp. prone to fail in these contexts.

                • Nick

                  Well, to me it seems obvious that if you see a comment thread as a place where you explain (your verb) to different people that they’re wrong, you’ll probably find most participants who don’t agree with you unsatisfactory. Most likely, they came to discuss things. Have a nice day!

                • Getting neither better at reading, nor more coherent, nor more clueful, Nick.

                  Well, to me it seems obvious that if you see a comment thread as a place where you explain (your verb) to different people that they’re wrong

                  You keep imputing motivations to me, in particular, stable dispositions. This is part of you dismissive strategy of course.

                  Plus, if you did a cursory read of my comments *in these threads* you’ll see that that’s most obviously not my self perception or my action.

                  , you’ll probably find most participants who don’t agree with you unsatisfactory.

                  Actually, I don’t mind disagreement at all. Bad behavior is different, which is what you’ve been called out on (as well as being wrong).

                  Most likely, they came to discuss things. Have a nice day!

                  And discussion neither involved disagreement, demonstration or discussion of error, explanations or the like?

                  The heart my dear nicky is that you, and leo, afaict, want to be treated as if you are reasonable, sensible, good heartened and well meaning commentators regardless of what you say or how you say it. Whether you think it’s because you’re awesome, because you are “contributing”, or because you’re behaving well, this is how you act. This entitlement is resilient in the fact of explanation, sharp retorts, friendly offers, self recognized error, and the entire weight of the conversation in all it’s dimensions.

                  So, you continue to fail utterly and miserably and to be perplexed by it.

                • Leo

                  Bijan:
                  [blockquote][I]t’s interesting that your selected comment is contentless (i.e., it’s not quite a denial because it’s not actually directly responsive to amiai’s description of her impression of you; that you didn’t literally write those words is just a dodge).[/blockquote]
                  Oh, OK, let me be more declarative. The claim was: [blockquote] “Leo, you and some of your cohort seem to have a major twist in your undies about feeling the need to DO SOMETHING about rape and the thing you think you can do is lecture 13 year old girls about getting hammered while near another human being.” [/blockquote]
                  This statement is incorrect: I do not think that the thing I can do about rape is lecture 13-year-old girls about getting hammered while near another human being. In fact, I’ll go further and say that I do not think that lecturing 13-year-old girls about getting hammered is generally very productive toward anything.
                  Is that sufficiently clear?
                  Now my question for you: Do you agree that aimai was making things up in the above-quoted comment?

                • Leo

                  Reposted because I derped the block quote.

                  Bijan:

                  [I]t’s interesting that your selected comment is contentless (i.e., it’s not quite a denial because it’s not actually directly responsive to amiai’s description of her impression of you; that you didn’t literally write those words is just a dodge).

                  Oh, OK, let me be more declarative. The claim was:

                  “Leo, you and some of your cohort seem to have a major twist in your undies about feeling the need to DO SOMETHING about rape and the thing you think you can do is lecture 13 year old girls about getting hammered while near another human being.”

                  This statement is incorrect: I do not think that the thing I can do about rape is lecture 13-year-old girls about getting hammered while near another human being. In fact, I’ll go further and say that I do not think that lecturing 13-year-old girls about getting hammered is generally very productive toward anything.

                  Is that sufficiently clear?

                  Now my question for you: Do you agree that aimai was making things up in the above-quoted comment?

            • Karate Bearfighter

              It’s a great idea to warn kids about binge drinking, but the Coleman case illustrates the problem with doing this as a rape prevention tactic. One of the kids was passed out, and was raped. Her friend was not passed out, and was also raped. So was the friend careful enough? Does it depend on what her BAC was? If it turns out the friend had one beer, would she have benefited from being warned? Two beers?

              I understand that you made your comment above in good faith, and I’m not trying to be snarky. But as L2P pointed out yesterday, “getting drunk” is not a single thing — it encompasses the person at .05 who keeps grabbing her friend, falling over and laughing, and the person at .15 who is passed out on the couch. How drunk are we supposed to be warning women not to get?

              The idea of “don’t get drunk” doesn’t create any clear standards, and it doesn’t provide women any advice they can act on, unless, (as many women commenters have pointed out,) you’re telling women not to drink at all. It therefore can’t be useful to women in advance — it can only serve as an ex post facto explanation of how the rape was perpetrated.

              • Sherm

                I don’t see the problem in warning young girls of all dangers associated with binge drinking, but such warnings should not constitute the only rape prevention tactics utilized by our society and should not be used to rationalize rape or otherwise blame or shame the victim. More needs to be done, of course.

                • flamingolingo

                  Right. Like teaching boys not to rape passed out girls. Or to ply them with alcohol until their judgment seems impaired. Or that the absence of ‘no’ is not a ‘yes’. Or that they themselves should not drink to the point where their judgment is impaired.

                  There are a lot of parents out there who will endlessly warn their girls to restrict their lives in all kinds of ways, big and small. But they neglect to do the same for their boys. Despite aeons of this well meaning and one-sided advice, rape is still a problem. What is the essence of insanity?

                  Talk to your boys, not just your girls.

            • Its a disgrace that those little pricks in Missouri weren’t prosecuted, but its also regrettable that a 15 year old girl drank so much, so quickly, that her BAC was over .3.

              The accounts that have read all say that a lot of the alcohol in her system was, in effect, foisted on her with intent.

              I have been seriously drunk four times in my life, once each on beer (aged 17), gin (aged 19), wine (aged 21), and Bourbon (aged 31); beer and wine were entirely due to my own agency, but both gin and wine were (also) because someone was deliberately enjoying getting me drunk (not even with intent to take any sort of advantage of me, just to see how much I could consume and still keep talking somewhat coherently, I guess). I was lucky enough in each case to learn from it how to calibrate my consumption of the particular alcoholic beverage involved (and also lucky enough in each case not to have to travel far, or at all, to my night’s accomodation; and that on foot), and have never gotten (nearly) that drunk on any of them again. But if—as the accounts I’ve read at least suggest—the girls were being maliciously and deliberately plied with alcohol in a form (or at a proof) they had had no prior experience with, then “so much, so quickly” is especially malapropos.

              TL;DR: I beg you, sir, in the bowels of Christ, think that you may be mistaken. Else you may yourself be taken to be the distal end of a bowel.

              • Njorl

                It took me a while to get this. It doesn’t make you a bad person if you don’t understand right away.

                I think I never understood until it was compared to “the talk” young black men have with their parents about cops. When their parents tell them “You can’t give a cop any reason, no matter how bad, to shoot you” it’s advice. When society at large tells young black men that they have to suck up to cops, it’s oppression.

                How would it look if colleges or high schools started holding “bigoted cop awareness” sessions in which they instructed young black men on how to properly say “Yes sir” and “No sir” to policemen?

                • Nick

                  Hey, this is the first comparison that I totally agree with, and I’m going to remember it and think about it. At the same time, you bring it up in the context of something parents discuss with their children; would you agree that this is a message that can be given out at different levels, depending on the relationships and status of the parties involved?

                • Medicine Man

                  Thank you.

                  This comparison, particularly the third paragraph, is *very* illuminating.

              • delurking

                This.

                The one time I was seriously in danger of being sexually assaulted while drunk it was because a shit of a man deliberately slipped tequila into the very mild rum and coke I had made for myself.

                At 20, as a young drinker, I was too young to tell the difference. I rapidly became too drunk to know what I was doing, and the guy I was with at the time, a very decent man, took me home and made sure I was okay.

                When he confronted the other guy, asking why he’d done it, the guy said, and I quote, “I just wanted you to get some pussy.”

                This was at a friendly party, surrounded, as I thought, by my friends.

                • That reminds me of something a friend of mine said when we were in tenth grade. She went to a party and was offered some drugs and the guy who offered them said to her “come on, you are among friends!” to which she answered “Am I?”

          • Leo

            Individual experiences as to whether a message is saturated or not are of little value. Not everyone consumes the same media and has the same experiences. It may be that in order to reach a desirable level of saturation in society at large the message needs to be cranked up to levels that annoy some people.

            Of course, the same reasoning applies to all messages, not just the one we’re discussing. So, for example, claims by some that there is no need to tell men not to rape because all men know that are subject to the exact same argument.

            • sibusisodan

              claims by some that there is no need to tell men not to rape because all men know that are subject to the exact same argument.

              No they aren’t.

              There’s a difference in agency between putting yourself in a position of increased vulnerability of something gut-wrenchingly awful happening to you, and putting yourself in a position of enacting that gut-wrenchingly awful thing to someone else.

              • Leo

                Wait, do you understand what you’re disagreeing with here?

                Let’s say that I were a man who claimed that “everyone in the world has heard that rape is wrong — its been beaten to death.” I’m not making that claim, but let’s posit it for discussion. And let’s say you wanted to respond: “Just because you’ve heard it doesn’t mean everyone has.”

                Are you saying you can’t make that response? Seems to me you can. But you are disagreeing?

                • sibusisodan

                  Wait, do you understand what you’re disagreeing with here?

                  Yup. Disagreeing with you on two points:

                  1. While in abstract men saying ‘hey, we’ve heard enough of this don’t rape people thing’ could be just as dispositive as women saying ‘hey, we’ve heard enough of this don’t get drunk thing’ – nobody is making that argument, at least not in this thread. Quite the opposite. So the comparison is spurious.

                  2. Even if men were making that argument today, the fact that men would have to be making it in the face of plenty of data and recent stories of actual rapes by men should give you pause as to the weight you assign to it.

                  This is not the case for the argument women are actually making on this thread, because of the difference in agency between what we would be asking men to do and what we would be asking women to do.

                  The most useful question is: how do we get to a stage where men do say “everyone in the world has heard that rape is wrong — its been beaten to death.”? Because I bet that would be a safer world to live in than the one we currently inhabit.

                • Leo

                  While in abstract men saying ‘hey, we’ve heard enough of this don’t rape people thing’ could be just as dispositive as women saying ‘hey, we’ve heard enough of this don’t get drunk thing’ – nobody is making that argument, at least not in this thread.

                  Perhaps not in this thread. Many, many people make that claim though. If you want me to pull quotes I will. And I think you would agree that that argument isn’t “dispositive” of anything.

                  As to your point 2, I agree, the data would be the response. Which is my point. Anecdote is not the singular of data. One person’s experience does not show much of anything about the experience of the population as a whole.

                • sibusisodan

                  One person’s experience does not show much of anything about the experience of the population as a whole.

                  But a whole passel of female experience in this very thread as to the non-viability of yet another ‘ladies, don’t get drunk’ campaign after yet another egregious rape should be giving you pause as to whether your current position that enough women haven’t heard it yet is correct.

                  You’re taking refuge from a number of data points counting against you in an abstract appeal to the insufficiency of anecdote. Well, what’s your reason to doubt the general applicability of these anecdotes?

                • Leo

                  I don’t doubt it. I made a very basic and I would think uncontroversial analytical point about relying on data rather than individual experience. I honestly was shocked to be argued with over it.

                • Gregor Sansa

                  I honestly was shocked to be argued with over it.

                  Verdict: yup, moron.

              • Leo

                Grade A post quality there Gregor.

            • pseudalicious

              that annoy some people.

              that annoy some people.

              that annoy some people.

              lolololol “annoy.” Male privilege is pretty special.

              • Leo

                Where in my comment is gender referenced? The point was generic to all messages and genders.

          • BH

            Stop all first year orientation talk about rape awareness, and concentrate on prosecution.

        • Fine, we’ll have a bunch of PSAs directed at guys telling them that sexual assault is a crime and list the different things that constitute sexual assault. (It is, by the way more than just fucking.)

          • Tyto

            Absolutely. The “Don’t be that guy” campaign linked in the other thread (by Origami I.?) is a brilliant start, and should be posted in every high school hallway and in regular intervals at every college campus. Make federal funding dependent on it.

            • Yes, I’ve heard that has had an actual impact on crime. I also like that it acknowledges that a random guy could easily be “that guy.” (Rather than the imaginary lurker in the bushes or some sort of sociopath who thinks of harming women all of the time.)

              • Tyto

                Yes. And more specifically, it suggests that anyone reading the poster is or could become that guy, and a way you can avoid it.

              • Emily

                I’d like to extend it to, “That guy isn’t cool,” and, “It’s not funny when your friend is That Guy,” and “That guy needs to be shut down.”

                I’d like to think we’ll get there eventually.

        • megan

          If your original comment had been advocating a rape awareness campaign for *everyone* you would not be getting this kind of pushback. But that’s not what you said.

          • Exactly!

            One of the amazing things to me about the cluelessbros parachuting in with their “I’m just trying to help? What’s wrong with that?!” is that they exhibit the qualities in these threads that should make one extremely wary of believing anything they say about education, public awareness, etc.

            Dudes, if you can’t read a comment thread audience, don’t pontificate about PSAs.

            And you can’t.

            • Nick

              Out of curiosity, are ‘dudes’ and ‘bros’ gendered insults?

              • They’re about on the level of ‘cracker’.

                • Nick

                  Fair enough, I was just being snarky off the top of my head. After I wrote that I thought it sounded like something an MRA would write, apologies.

                • Not to mention, Nick, that I went out of my way, while sick, to reach out to you in the last thread, and you blew it off. I actually got email from other commenters thanking me for trying to help you get it.

                  Now, obviously, it wasn’t something I looked forward to or would have enjoyed, so in some sense I’m just as happy. But, again, these are not actions of someone who found themselves not understanding what went wrong with the conversation and wanting to understand and fix it.

                  Do you really think snarking at me would advance the cause? And then it sounds MRAish (which I agree with, albeit a mild opening gambit)?

                  At some point, your failure to try to figure it out becomes a decision to embrace.

    • Orpho

      Here’s a suggestion: find that rapist of opportunity. Surf the crowd for him. Stalk around looking for him. Throw. him. out.*

      *This suggestion brought to you as one more helpful suggestion for how to blame the rapist for raping. There are about a million more. Try one on! It’s not so bad. Just don’t end it with, “so you better be careful ladies!!”

      • Anna in PDX

        Yeah, go all Golda Meir on this and there will not be an issue. Rape is a problem? Committed by men? Curfew for men.

        • This makes perfect sense to me. It’s clearly men whose choices need to be limited.

    • Katya

      So you think it’s a great idea to teach young women to fear all men as potential rapists? Because if every group of men contains or may contain a “rapist of opportunity” (does that even exist? The evidence is that most rapes are committed by serial rapists and are fairly intentional) and you can’t tell who that guy is just by looking at him, then you have to live your life assuming that every guy could be a rapist given the chance. So you shouldn’t drink with your friends or co-workers, or go to parties, or hang out with guys, really, because one of them could be a rapist. He might ply you with drinks, or slip you a roofie, or just isolate you from the group and then wham! Rapenado.

      Don’t like that? Well then, what the hell else are women supposed to do with that advice? “Being aware” generally isn’t going to help anything.

      And in my experience, men don’t especially like being treated like potential rapists–they get all offended and pissy that you don’t know that they are one of the Good Guys and would never do that. So women are supposed to be alert and avoid rapists without hurting the precious fee-fees of non-rapists. A fine line, indeed.

      • Anna in PDX

        This is indeed a lose/lose for women. As has also been pointed out ad nauseum in the other thread. Basically you are setting women up to be somehow blamed and to fail, no matter what happens. Either they are going to have to (for their own protection!) be standoffish and nasty to men in which case the men will proclaim that women are jerks, or they will “attract the predators,” which also entails blame to them (should have avoided it! By not doing this or not doing that!)…

        Sure, no one should binge drink to the point of blacking out, because it is a dangerous thing to do in any case, mostly just for your health. But that is a gender neutral issue. If the conversation had been about the evils of binge drinking it would have been a different conversation and it would have had nothing to do with whether the person you are giving the advice to is male or female.

      • When I was at Yale one of the all white frats had the brilliant idea of helping us women “take back the night” by offering to have some nice big white boys escort women back from late night studying or partying. The image they chose was an african savage with a bone through his nose but the tag line was something charming like “not all savages look like this.” It really cracked us up, not in a good way. We knew we were more likely to be assaulted by the white guy in the suit than the mystery african with the bone through his nose–in fact the very notion that there was a dispensary of well intentioned white dudes who would escort us through life’s difficulties was kind of hard to swallow.

  • Oh vacuumy i COULD NOT LOVE YOU MORE. That is all.

    • Hogan

      +1 rapicane

    • DrDick

      Ditto. This really gets to the heart of my comment in the last thread.

    • ChrisTS

      Multiply by a zillion.

    • Barry Freed

      I probably shouldn’t write this comment but screw it, here goes. And I’m doubly hesitant and want to check myself finding I disagree on this with women whose writing here I really like and generally admire (aimai, VS, many others) or dudes like Hogan and DrDick of whom ditto, but what the hell…

      First, I agree 100% with the sentiments expressed in the OP here and the reason for the post which just shouldn’t have to be said again and again and again.

      But my initial reaction is that it’s not funny. Or it shouldn’t be funny. Or, rather I shouldn’t be laughing. Or most precisely, I don’t want to laugh. Now don’t get me wrong, RAPENADO! is funny as hell but I’m just very uncomfortable with it. I’m angry as all hell about this and I want to stay that way. Maybe too angry, I’ve avoided these threads until now because they’re just so depressing but when I think about that 14 year old girl in Montana who committed suicide (not to mention that pitiful excuse for a human that that judge is) or this 14 year old girl in Missouri and how her life has been forever altered by some asshole who raped her and now she feels such mental anguish and pain that she’s tried to kill herself twice now and how brave she is to go public like that and have her picture all over the news at her age and…I just feel such outrage – such red hot anger that I want to smash things – starting with the rapist’s faces and I just don’t want to laugh because laughter is release and relief and it doesn’t feel right to me in this context.

      I’m not saying I think you’re making light of it. But I feel that lightening when I read it nevertheless. I know black humor helps in absurd situations like this, after all we live in a culture that produces leaders who say shit like “legitimate rape” and crap like that and I’m a big fan of gallows humor myself but I’m just so damned angry at this point. The anger needs to burn.

      • Hogan

        Too soon is too soon, and it doesn’t end at the same time for everyone.

      • I think Hogan captures a key aspect but I also want to add a bit, if you don’t mind.

        I totally understand your reaction. But I think the “heart of wrongness” is the crime itself and the devastation it wrought. In some sense, no reaction is “right” because no reaction removes it from the world. The anger that burns, the laughter that relieves, the sadness that weighs us down, none of these solve the problem. (Forms of each can make the problem worse or new problems, e.g., rage that destroys us, laughter than mocks or diminishes, sadness that paralyses into despair).

        So, we need to pick our way through a world where the blinking light of unthinkable injustice…of profound wrongness…holds our gaze and exposes our actions and reactions as largely meaningless. We’re not situated to stand directly with these girls.

        But we can live in charity and solidarity. We can share our reactions and our longings for right in the world in the various futile feeling forms that come to us and the awkwardness that comes from them bumping up against each other (or the relief when they mesh).

        That’s still not repair, though it might lead to other actions. But it is community, however scattered and ephemeral.

        Daisy herself wrote an article well worth reading. It put me in a better space.

        • Mikey

          She is an incredible young woman. That was amazing.

        • Barry Freed

          Thanks for the link to that article. What Mikey said.

      • It was me playing off a comment made yesterday to the effect that sexual assault is frequently treated as this unstoppable force that we can’t hope to control or stop.

        It wasn’t in response to these particular cases, but more the fact that some of us grow up feeling that no matter what we do, we might be the victim of a particular crime and if we are, it will be partially due to the fact that people regard erect dicks as some sort of potent (har) and irresistible force.

      • I have issues with mild depression and anxiety. When I get depressed or angry about things like rape, I often make jokes about them. Crude ones. Well, I’m not joking about rape. Hell, the title is not even my “joke.” It’s Shakezula’s. (Which I admit to finding darkly hilarious.) But this is absolutely a laugh to keep from crying thing.

        I absolutely don’t want to hurt or offend anyone. But…I apologize in advance if I have.This is a tricky topic…but I’m really dealing with rape apologias here, more than I am rape itself.

        • I think that jokes and discussions about rape have become the N word of certain conversations–some people really can’t stand that women can want to have one kind of conversation about rape, because its an issue that closely concerns every aspect of their lives, while other people are just tourists in a distant land. Maybe thats the comparison I’m looking for? Its annoying to have tourists parachute in and start lecturing us locals about how we don’t appreciate our scenic beauty, or we are doing the wrong thing with our assets, or we are misremembering our own history. We.Live.Here.Every.Day. Theres a difference.

          • I think that jokes and discussions about rape have become the N word of certain conversations

            I have never taken part in a mixed-gender discussion about sexual assault – in real life or online – that didn’t quickly (as in instantaneously) attract people who really don’t want the conversation to take place. And rather than ignore the conversation they flap about trying to redirect or stop it. This in and of itself is really bizarre because if the topic were any other form of crime, even violent crime, you would not have the same dynamic. Huh.

            For the record, I joke about such things because I know it pisses off the sort of people who want me to take the threat of being the victim of one specific sort of crime (already happened, thanks!) very, very, very, very, seriously. So seriously in fact, that it controls my entire life. Eh. No.

            Also, it seemed a shame to pass up a perfect set up for a joke.

            • See also: people who say that talking about abortion is unproductive, when what they really mean is ‘I don’t want to have to talk about abortion.’

              • ‘I don’t want anyone to have to talk about abortion.’

                If plain old Joe Shmoe doesn’t want to talk about abortion or assault or the new Tesla, he should not talk about those things.

                It’s entirely different when someone enters the room where a conversation about (for example) cats is taking place and starts talking about the new Tesla or the evolution of the hippopotamus.

            • Barry Freed

              I have never taken part in a mixed-gender discussion about sexual assault – in real life or online – that didn’t quickly (as in instantaneously) attract people who really don’t want the conversation to take place. And rather than ignore the conversation they flap about trying to redirect or stop it.

              I hope my comments were not taken in that spirit and it was not my intention to redirect it and certainly not stop it because I actually think that more and more discussion about this needs to take place and is the best way we have of fighting this. And the more victims like Daisy Coleman go public the better.

          • Anonymous

            This x 1000!!!!eleventy!

        • Barry Freed

          I understand. And I take Aimai’s point below and was hesitant to comment lest I be misunderstood for policing the level of acceptable conversation when it’s not my place as it does not affect me in the same way as it affects women. The whole thing is enraging and just needs to stop, the crime itself and all the bullshit that surrounds it.

          • I don’t think anyone could interpret your comments as attempting to do police the conversation.

            • Barry Freed

              Just saw this before I posted again, thanks.

              • Barry Freed

                I meant “after” d’oh.

      • Anonymous

        I would like to thank you for writing this. For me, as a woman in this culture, I need to hear about men being passionately angry at this shit too. It helps me to feel less alone and gives me a glimmer of hope because I believe that for us to make substantial progress on reducing rape that it has to stop being seen as a “women’s issue.”

        (The preceding is not intended to erase male victims of rape. I know they exist. My point is that right now society basically equates being a victim of sexual assault with being female.)

    • o.m.g. me. too. but you knew that already…

  • rvman

    “Men” are not beasts. Somewhere in the range of 3-5% of men are “beasts” in the sense of being somewhere on a spectrum of sociopathy. That is a plenty large enough pool to account for many/most of the 1 in 4/5 or so of women who get sexually assaulted in their lifetime.

    And yes, they are ‘everywhere’. 3-5% is roughly the same proportion of the population as men 6’2″ or greater. If a group is large enough that you expect a guy 6’2″ or greater to be in it, it is large enough to expect a sociopath.

    • LeftWingFox

      All the more reason to police the behaviour of sociopaths, not the behaviour of victims.

    • flamingolingo

      Of course not. But that small percentage of rapists are able to operate, largely with impunity, because of the enabling silence, non-condemnation, cooperation, or cover-ups of their non-rapist buddies, male relatives, and the culture at large. That’s why anti-sexual violence activists have turned toward identifying and critiquing and dismantling rape culture rather than focusing just on the individual rapists.

      • Katya

        I agree-there are a small percentage of men who are or will be rapists, but there is a fairly large percentage of men who just can’t believe that their friend would do that so the girl must be lying, or who think that she was drunk/drinking/wearing sexy clothes so she must have wanted it, or who think that she went back to his room so what was she expecting, or think that you bought her dinner so she kind of owes you, or who listen to the guys around them making rape jokes or speaking disrepectfully of women and say nothing or maybe even laugh, or who seriously say things like “bros before hos” . . . . the list goes on, and it all facilitates the rapist getting away with it over and over again.

  • DrDick

    I would observe, based on many of the preceding comments here, that a number of readers are not familiar with the art form known as sarcasm.

  • scott

    I’m totally down with this system. If women have to be lectured endlessly about The Sex, then men should have to deal with the the stigma, every day, of being A Possible Rapist. Of course, we could always solve the problem a little less indirectly by making our focus telling guys not to rape. Or making sex without consent not an oh-so-fucking-funny joke about no means yes and yes means anal but something that gets you ostracized, like other kinds of violence. Occam’s Razor in action, really: If the guys are doing the raping, then deal with them by discouraging and punishing and stigmatizing.

    • Hogan

      And cutting them with razors.

      OK, maybe not.

  • Joey Maloney

    Which means that a fairly significant portion of men are rapists or potentential rapists.

    Bad enough they’re rapists, but they’re also rulers of rapists?

  • MacK

    One of the issues in the debate that men (and to a lesser degree the women) commenting need to consider is that the vast majority of men do not rape – that rapists are a small group, and that they tend statistically to have committed multiple rapes. This presents the issue that most men really do not understand rapists – certainly to me why anyone would want to have forcible sex with a woman, or sex with a woman who is very drunk is simply incomprehensible – to be crude, the concept does not turn me on – it disgusts me.

    That most men are not sexually programmed, or psychologically inclined to want to rape makes it difficult to address the behaviours of rapists – they just cannot get into the head of such a person. So in some respects the debate involves people trying to imagine the motivations of persons they really don’t understand.

    • I am honored to have contributed to the discussion of sexual assault, including rape, in a way that spoofs on the best movie ever.

      I note the thread is already starting to fill up with the response to many discussions about rape (even if you don’t come out and say men should be held guilty of performing ): “That’s not fair! It’s only a tiny portion of the population (site not provided)! Hey, look at these irrelevant stats about a relatively rare mental illness!”

      What the people making these arguments refuse to acknowledge is they are all ways of changing the topic and even shutting down the conversation all together. Please. Stop.

      • MacK

        And your point is…..

        My point, which is a simple one, is that in trying to work out what makes rapists want to rape, the calculus, risk/reward analysis, most men and women are fundamentally handicapped by the detail that they don’t want to rape anyone – they place no value on forcible sex.

        It is not to shut down the debate as you put it – it is to say that in the debate it is a mistake to base arguments on a motivation that you don’t have and don’t understand.

        • No, you’re trying to derail it. “Wait! We can’t talk about crime because we can’t understand the motives of criminals!”

          • Leo

            Um . . . what? Of course we can talk about crime without understanding the motives of criminals. Who said otherwise? Certainly not the poster you’re responding to.

            • “Fuck you, MacK, if men don’t know about a topic they should shut up about it. Asshole.”

              Au contraire. His gender has nothing to do with the fact he’s full of shit. Stop being such a sexist.

              • Leo

                Aimai spoke to men particularly in her response that I was paraphrasing.

          • MacK

            Shakezula –

            Are you smoking something. I am not trying to derail the discussion – you are reading things into people statements that are simply not there.

            Most criminals are opportunistic and engage in a risk/reward calculus. They see something they value and consider the risk involved in the criminal act that they intend to secure it. In most instances the thing may be something most people value – a car, a smartphone, money…. The inherent difficulty for most people in understanding rapists is that they are seeking something that few men (or women) value – forcible sex.

            What I was saying is that in having the discussion, most men are making a category error – they think that rapists are normal – that rapists are looking at the world the same way. Therefore, to HAVE A SENSIBLE DISCUSSION – you have to recognise that a rapists motivations are different from a normal persons and probably impossible for such a normal person to understand. A discussion that is predicated on rapists being normal men, with normal motivations is based on a mistaken premise –

            SO WHAT I MEAN IS CORRECT THE PREMISE WHEN HAVING THE DISCUSSION

            And by the way, not only are you not clairvoyant, you seem utterly obtuse and a little dense!

            • Hogan

              most men are making a category error – they think that rapists are normal

              Or maybe they think rapists look normal. Which they do, until you learn to recognize characteristic rapist behavior patterns and distinguish them from courtship/flirtation/etc. Which would be more to the point for men AND women than “don’t go out drinking” or “stay home after dark.”

              • I guess I just don’t understand why Mark is acting like rape is some huge, socipathic mystery that is performed only by a very small number of men and that we don’t have any insight (as a society) into the way they think. Rape is and always has been incredibly common and committed by all kinds of men against all kinds of people and animals too: children, women, men, slaves, etc… Until very, very, recently in historic terms there was no such thing as the crime of rape when committed against a wife. Rape in many cultures is a crime that is understood as committed primarily against the honor of the men in the family, not even against the woman herself.

                This is really not all that new. Women (and men) have been talking and writing about rape for a really fucking long time. It is not any harder to get into the head of a rapist than it is to get into the head of anyone else in society. People’s heads are opaque visually but they explain themselves to anyone who wants to listen. Really. This is not rocket science.

                We can tackle rape as a societal problem only when we admit that its incredibly common and that it has fairly well worn tracks. Its not like a lightning strike, its quite predictable. And its motives don’t have much to do with how we might think about controlling it.

                • Leo

                  [M]otives don’t have much to do with how we might think about controlling it.

                  Exactly. Shakezula is way off in left field here.

                • No–Mark was. Shakezula was responding to Mark’s dopey “category error” and “we can’t understand their motives” because we are good people and they are bad people. For christ’s sake interviews with guys who have raped women show that they very seldom identify themselves as rapists or see the act as at all problematic until its pointed out to them.

                • Leo

                  Shakezula seems to assume that we can’t debate rape without discussing motives. You, correctly, disagree.

            • Also, can I just say that I stand with my jaw on the ground at the idea that a discussion about an incredibly common act of violence perpetrated against 1 in four women can be derailed by some guy pleading ignorance, on behalf of his entire sex, of the nature and history of the crime. Really, men make a “category error” in evaluating Rape? I’m sure thats true but its not our problem as women describing and analyzing our lived reality that you and your friends have not bothered to do a little research on the topic before pontificating about it.

              Actually, I don’t believe for one minute that most men “make a category error” because they simply can’t understand what motivates a rapist. I don’t know any guys that dumb. But ignorance of social reality is not praiseworthy. If you think you and your friends don’t know enough about the subject to talk about it you might consider shutting up and listening to people who have thought about it, a lot, because we have to.

              • Leo

                What in your comment disagrees with anything MacK said? It’s like you didn’t even read. You’re telling men to shut up to if they don’t know what they’re talking about. And he is saying exactly the same thing. Sheesh.

                • I’d like to thank the Wonder Twins for proving my point. Maybe JenKnob here will give you some pancakes.

                • Leo

                  If we strip away belligerent tone and insults is there any actual disagreement going on in this thread? I can’t tell.

                  MacK: “Some people, mostly men, need to watch out about commenting on topics they know little about.”

                  Aimai and Shakezula: “Fuck you, MacK, if men don’t know about a topic they should shut up about it. Asshole.”

                  Seriously.

                • Except this is a topic where for men, our default setting should be ‘shut and listen,’ because more often than not it turns out the perceived slight exists only in your head.

                • Leo

                  Ok, so agreement again, right?

              • Disinterested

                Actually, I don’t believe for one minute that most men “make a category error” because they simply can’t understand what motivates a rapist. I don’t know any guys that dumb. But ignorance of social reality is not praiseworthy. If you think you and your friends don’t know enough about the subject to talk about it you might consider shutting up and listening to people who have thought about it, a lot, because we have to.

                This goes against the premise of the joke in the post. If rapists are not rare, sociopathic monsters, then it *is* true that any man could be a rapist and women should be constantly on guard around any men they do not know intimately.

                It’s also terrible hypocritical to say, “you can’t possibly understand what it’s like to live in a world where you’re constantly told to fear rape, because you’re a man”, and not even remotely accept that the idea that you can’t understand the motives of a rapist, because you’re not a rapist.

                • It’s also terrible hypocritical to say, “you can’t possibly understand what it’s like to live in a world where you’re constantly told to fear rape, because you’re a man”, and not even remotely accept that the idea that you can’t understand the motives of a rapist, because you’re not a rapist.

                  I’m a simple man with simple tastes. I like my equivalencies false and my rapists as cackling cartoon villains.

                • I

                  t’s also terrible hypocritical to say, “you can’t possibly understand what it’s like to live in a world where you’re constantly told to fear rape, because you’re a man”, and not even remotely accept that the idea that you can’t understand the motives of a rapist, because you’re not a rapist.

                  Oh. No.

                  I don’t think that men don’t understand what its like to live in a woman’s world I think that some guys on this thread pretend that its normative and praiseworthy to be ignorant of the reality of women’s lives which is that, compared to men’s lives, they are quite constrained by a constant barrage of fear mongering about sex and rape and even about appearing without makeup in public and harshing the pleasure quotient for random men.

                  I also don’t agree with the highly confused arguments that (some) of the men on this thread have been presenting which rocket between “any man could rape you if you appeared incapacitated” and “all rapes are committed by a predatory, sociopathic, subset of men.” People rape and don’t define themselves as rapists. And they are not necessarily sociopaths either. The actual history of rape in this world is not stranger rapes at all but rapes of women within particular relationships where consent is deemed to have already occured, or not to be relevant. And those rapes are committed by guys who don’t consider them rapes or don’t consider them problematic or criminal, if that is clearer.

                • Orpho

                  It’s also terrible hypocritical to say, “you can’t possibly understand what it’s like to live in a world where you’re constantly told to fear rape, because you’re a man”, and not even remotely accept that the idea that you can’t understand the motives of a rapist, because you’re not a rapist.

                  So, I would suggest this is a rape culture/patriarchy problem. It’s hard, historically speaking, for men/[privileged group] to know what women’s/[underrepresented group] experience or life is like, because life is set up with one set of expectations/experiences in mind. And not just in everyday life, but also in books, historical accounts, TV when it came around, etc.

                  So everybody is very familiar with one perspective, but not the other.

                  Note! this is very feminism 101. This and other feminist notions can be found throughout your local worldwide web.

                • Disinterested

                  Nah, I’m pretty sure that’s a good analogy. At the very least, you should accept the premise that the men in this thread have more insight into the motives of rapists, since we share genitals and everything. When we say, “yeah, this makes no sense to me; these dudes are *different*”, maybe you should consider that a) we may have a semblance of a point, and b) we have thought about it a lot, because we never ever ever want to make a woman scared of our intentions. We’ve seen the same movies and PSAs. We know that approaching a woman alone in an elevator at 4am is really really bad. We know that it’s worth the potential of a real fight to stop the scary guy at the bar from giving your extremely intoxicated friend yet another shot.

                • At the very least, you should accept the premise that the men in this thread have more insight into the motives of rapists, since we share genitals and everything.

                  What? Um, no, this is nonsense, extremely stupid nonsense, and as a fellow penis-haver* I would appreciate if you not assume your weird gender essentialist mumbo jumbo in any way speaks for me.

                  *Statement in no way intended to imply that penis-having=male, just riffing of Disinterested’s dumb ‘share the same genitals’ shtick.

                • Disinterested

                  The actual history of rape in this world is not stranger rapes at all but rapes of women within particular relationships where consent is deemed to have already occured, or not to be relevant.

                  I agree with all of that, but I don’t think anyone has been talking about stranger rape at all.

                  And those rapes are committed by guys who don’t consider them rapes or don’t consider them problematic or criminal, if that is clearer.

                  Yeah, I read that study, but I also got the sense that *telling* these men that what they had done was rape didn’t necessarily cause them to change their behavior. I would be happy to be wrong about that.

                • Disinterested

                  What? Um, no, this is nonsense, extremely stupid nonsense, and as a fellow penis-haver* I would appreciate if you not assume your weird gender essentialist mumbo jumbo in any way speaks for me.

                  Intentional nonsense, as I am fully aware of the fallacy of gender essentialism. This is, in fact, the point.

                • Also, too:

                  We know that it’s worth the potential of a real fight to stop the scary guy at the bar from giving your extremely intoxicated friend yet another shot.

                  I do so fucking love it when dudebros like Disinterested telegraph that they see being anti-rape as an opportunity for he-man posturing rather than y’know, doing anything constructive to prevent rape.

                • Intentional nonsense, as I am fully aware of the fallacy of gender essentialism. This is, in fact, the point.

                  Clearly you didn’t get your point across, so maybe stop trying to be so clever if it leads you to communicating in impenetrable mush.

                • Disinterested

                  I do so fucking love it when dudebros like Disinterested telegraph that they see being anti-rape as an opportunity for he-man posturing rather than y’know, doing anything constructive to prevent rape.

                  I would suggest that’s an actual instance of doing something “constructive” to prevent rape. Should I have sat that one out just so I didn’t look like a dudebro?

                • sibusisodan

                  We know that approaching a woman alone in an elevator at 4am is really really bad.

                  That’s an interesting choice of example, because my recent internet memory is of a lot of men not, in fact, knowing that, and going out of their way not to know that, and talking loudly and at length about how they didn’t know that and they shouldn’t have to know that.

                  I would be much more satisfied if we leapt to the ‘we need to ensure men do, in fact, know and follow this kind of stuff’ angle for this subject than the one that is, in fact, being leapt to.

                • I too believe in solving society wide problems by focusing on individual incidences that allow me to brag about what a tough guy I am. Because I’m an emotional toddler.

                • Disinterested

                  I too believe in solving society wide problems by focusing on individual incidences that allow me to brag about what a tough guy I am. Because I’m an emotional toddler.

                  At least my friend didn’t get raped. I couldn’t give less of a shit what you think about this.

                • Clearly you do, since you keep trying to impress us with it.

                  You must be in the wrong place, because this is neither the site where you apply for your official One of the Good Ones certification, nor the one where you redeem it for backpats.

                • flamingolingo

                  What’s fascinating is that the men in these comment threads are suggesting all men who are not evil rapist scum already know how to avoid raping women and scaring them in elevators late at night, etc. Yet they are simultaneously arguing that all women need to be educated, over and over again, about how to avoid rape by not getting drunk or not being alone with frat boys late at night, etc.

                  So, implicitly , all men (including boys) understand how not to rape (and intimidate women) but no woman (because inexperienced girls) understands how to avoid rape. Thus men don’t need lectures about rape culture and women’s lived experiences, but women constantly need lectures about advice men think are pertinent to our lives.

                  And if we ladies just follow the men’s rational, practical, objective advice, then we will surely lower our risk of rape. Because following men’s dictates about rape has been an incredibly successful anti-rape strategy so far in history. I don’t even know why we’re having this conversation since so few women are raped these days thanks to the amazing “don’t drink” and “stranger danger!” advice that’s been handed down to women over the centuries.

                  Patriarchy in action there.

                • anthrofred

                  At the very least, you should accept the premise that the men in this thread have more insight into the motives of rapists, since we share genitals and everything.

                  If rape was actually determined in some ways by ones body rather than how one inhabits it, maybe, but you’re confusing sex, gender, and a huge, huge bundle of confounding factors here. If this isn’t essentialist nonsense I’d love to know what it is.

                  At any rate, “we”, as men, apparently don’t know how to recognize consent, since rape happens and perpetrators are routinely confused by that characterization. If there’s a pathology here, it’s a social pathology.

                • You must be in the wrong place, because this is neither the site where you apply for your official One of the Good Ones certification, nor the one where you redeem it for backpats.

                  Backpats??? I was told there’d be handjobs!!!

              • DrDick

                Speaking as a heterosexual man, may I say that I enthusiastically endorse and second this comment.

              • MacK

                The answers are multiple.

                First, Shakezula is a sexist idiot who tries to make everyone fit her pre-conceived notions of who they are, and is clairvoyantly claiming to know what they think. Probably studies psych.

                There is a lot of evidence that most rapes are being committed by a small subset of the male population – and that rapists repeat their crimes.

                When men – other than rapists talk about what may encourage rapists or discourage them, they are making assumptions that rapists think the same way as they do.

                To take an example, many “normal” men think that a woman’s decision to wear “sexy” clothing may be a factor in her being raped, because the normal man finds such clothing “sexy” and it arouses their sexual interest. But is this a correct conclusion? If the mind, motivations and desires of a rapist is different, why does how a woman was dressed have anything to do with why he chose to rape her?

                The point I am trying to make (which Shakezula is simply to agenda-driven to remotely understand) is that many men are reaching conclusions about why rapists behave the way they do, based on what motivates normal men. They are also suggesting things that might make a woman safer based on what they as normal men think would have an impact on someone who is normal – i.e., not a rapist.

                And Shakezula – perhaps you might want to give the whole thing some thought – but frankly at this point I am caught between trying to work out if you are a moron, or just rather dense.

            • Orpho

              Most criminals are opportunistic and engage in a risk/reward calculus. They see something they value and consider the risk involved in the criminal act that they intend to secure it. In most instances the thing may be something most people value – a car, a smartphone, money…. The inherent difficulty for most people in understanding rapists is that they are seeking something that few men (or women) value – forcible sex.

              So, I think this is incorrect. I would like to call up the old chestnut of Scully and Marolla.

              Look at what rapists who have been caught and convicted actually say. Most of them don’t see what they did as wrong, and they don’t think it was necessarily forcible.

              • MacK

                Many criminals do not see what they did as wrong either.

                The motivations of criminals have been studied a lot – and they are surprisingly simple. They see something they value, they consider how to get it, if it is illegal they consider the likelihood of being caught, the consider the meaningfulness of the punishment as compared to the value, and engage in a risk reward calculus.

                The hard part about looking at rape is that for most men forcible sex has no value. But looking at the other side of the equation a lot of things decrease the risk of being caught or convicted- that the victim was drunk can cloud the question of consent is one item that it seems a lot of rapists rely upon. That society is also unwilling to think that a clean cut guy, otherwise polite and popular is a rapist also decreases the risk of being convicted. Given some of the statistics there is at least some reason to believe that rapists are looking at the other side of the risk/reward analysis and looking to decrease their risks.

                • anthrofred

                  The hard part about looking at rape is that for most men forcible sex has no value

                  Begging the question, and beyond that, you’re relying on the ability of men to differentiate forcible sex from consensual sex. That problem is at the absolute center.

            • A discussion that is predicated on rapists being normal men, with normal motivations is based on a mistaken premise

              Because … you say so? Um. No.

              Therefore, to HAVE A SENSIBLE DISCUSSION – you have to recognise that a rapists motivations are different from a normal persons and probably impossible for such a normal person to understand.

              And yet you can’t provide anything in the form of why understanding the motives is essential to the exercise. You just keep screaming we have to acknowledge the motives of this group of people who commit this type of violent crime are different! And not normal! So people can’t understand them!

              Which I move is bullshit, unless you treat rape as some special category of violent crime because it is (usually) a crime perpetrated by men, against women, which would be further bullshit.

          • CaptBackslap

            Here’s the thing, though. Because I don’t get the rapist mindset, my mental model of acquaintance/date rape was just plain wrong until I read some of the studies referenced in the other thread. As a result, I might have been unaware of a situation where a rape could potentially happen and I could have done something. I hope not, but it’s a possibility. Multiply that by tens of millions of unaware men, and you get a society that’s much less vigilant than it might be.

            • Because I don’t get the rapist mindset, my mental model of acquaintance/date rape was just plain wrong until I read some of the studies referenced in the other thread.

              If you mean you didn’t understand that sexual assault could occur between people who knew each other, then your misunderstanding was about what constitutes rape, not the mindset of the criminal.

              • CaptBackslap

                No, I meant that I thought rapists at frat parties or whatever targeted a specific woman, and that date rape mostly happened after consensual sex was refused as opposed to being the goal. I was just completely incorrect about both those things.

                • Well they do target specific women, actually. And sometimes rape happens after consent is refused, and sometimes rape happens because dissent is actually preferred. Are you referring to the “joke” I learned from Amanda Marcotte “Men don’t rape because they can’t get the kind of sex they want. Rape is the kind of sex they want?”

                  At any rate its no crime to be ignorant of some of the world’s horrors, or how they function. I don’t think any of the women on this thread are arguing that everyone has to know everything, even Feminism 101, to partake in a discussion about one of the most basic issues in women’s lives. Speaking as a married woman and a mother I have to have discussions like this all the time–the educative function of being the parent includes a whole lot of pretty basic discussions of sociology, history, linguistics, gender studies.
                  What is getting our goat is the appearance of what feels like an endless stream of longwinded guys explaining to us that although they don’t seem to know the most basic facts about the phenomenon they are talking about that their opinions about how to handle the crisis should be respected and honored. I can’t even get into the absurdity of “Disinterested” bragging to us that his opinions matter because he “protected a girl from getting raped.” Jezus fuck dude you complained in the previous thread that this girl was bringing it on herself by getting into situations where men were predatory to her and she needed your protection. You abandoned her as your friend as soon as you realized that her bad conduct at going to bars was dangerous to you. I haven’t got the faintest idea what lesson you think we should all draw from that other than “bitchez be crazy, man and users to boot.”

                • Disinterested

                  Jezus fuck dude you complained in the previous thread that this girl was bringing it on herself by getting into situations where men were predatory to her and she needed your protection. You abandoned her as your friend as soon as you realized that her bad conduct at going to bars was dangerous to you. I haven’t got the faintest idea what lesson you think we should all draw from that other than “bitchez be crazy, man and users to boot.”

                  You invented this. I never said anything remotely like this.

                • Jezus fuck dude you complained in the previous thread that this girl was bringing it on herself by getting into situations where men were predatory to her and she needed your protection. You abandoned her as your friend as soon as you realized that her bad conduct at going to bars was dangerous to you. I haven’t got the faintest idea what lesson you think we should all draw from that other than “bitchez be crazy, man and users to boot.”

                  The only way to stop a bad guy high on a toxic mix of patriarchy and entitlement is with a good guy high on a toxic mix of patriarchy and entitlement.

                  Wait, I think I just figured out the appeal of Hugo Schwyzer.

                • Disinterested

                  You’ve certainly been treating me like a person who said that.

                • Really, I’m sorry. WAsn’t that a component part of your story? Do I have you confused with another posters? I do apologize. However, the way I remember the story it went like this:

                  I had a friend who was a girl
                  although I didn’t know it she liked to go to bars and get into dangerous situations
                  once I was almost injured fighting off dudes who wanted to attack her
                  later I found out this was her practice and I took the advice of my female friends and dropped her like a hot potato.

                  wasn’t that you?

                • Disinterested

                  Jesus, no! Whoever said that is truly a piece of shit. I promise you, I’ve never commented on this site with any other nick.

                • Well I do apologize. I misremembered the poster, then.

                • sibusisodan

                  It was a poster by the name of MacK.

                • CaptBackslap

                  I was referring to one of the studies from the other thread that indicated there were a shocking number of guys who had acquaintance rape as their main M.O., but the Marcotte line sums it up. That’s so alien to me that I still can’t get my head around it emotionally, but there it is.

                  So yeah, thanks to you and others for helping educate this cat and some others.

                • Nick

                  And though I had a bit of an argument with some of you a few days ago, I certainly never wrote that either.

                • MacK

                  Actualy, Captain Backslap I think she is referring to me as a the person who:

                  Jezus fuck dude you complained in the previous thread that this girl was bringing it on herself by getting into situations where men were predatory to her and she needed your protection. You abandoned her as your friend as soon as you realized that her bad conduct at going to bars was dangerous to you. I haven’t got the faintest idea what lesson you think we should all draw from that other than “bitchez be crazy, man and users to boot.”

                  So here for the record is the story that Shakazula and Disinterested have decided to lie about to make their point (your really are quite a pair of liars).

                  Around 30 odd years ago I was asked to escort the daughter of a friend of my fathers to a nigh-club in a medium sized city. It was large, loud, in the top of a converted cinema – up 3 floors of stairs. When we got there she immediately headed towards a group of what one would describe as “hard men,” roughnecks who were all fairly drunk. After a while it was time to go home – and I was driving – and yes she wanted to be driven home. No big deal – except that as we headed out she engineered a situation with one of the men – who confronted me in the stairwell demanding I leave her – and thrust a broken bottle in my face. I tripped him and threw him down the stairs.

                  Initially, I concluded that she had just been monumentally stupid in having anything to do with the group she had latched into – they were a rough crowd and obviously wanted to end the evening with a fight. Subsequently, I found out when talking to cousins in the same town (female and male) that what happened to me was a normal part of her nights out, which was why virtually no-one wanted to go places with her. She was prone to starting these situations and a few people had ended up being badly injured. She continued in future to do this through her college years. It was her party trick.

                  When asked to escort her on two subsequent occasions I refused. According to Shakazula and Disinterested that makes me someone who abandoned her. May I make a proposal to both of you – go break a bottle and push it into your own face…. go ahead.

                  Meanwhile, now that you see the story I told that was misrepresented by these two, I think anyone can understand how dishonest they are.

                • So revisit the blockquote and let us know what you take issue with.

                • I think MacK is in the wrong thread. I honestly have no idea what he’s yammering on about.

                • Look, MacK, you brought that point into the earlier thread on rape. Its not me who made that up and no one else is “lying” about the fact that you introduced this story into a discussion of women, bars, and rape. At the time it seemed weird and I had to try to figure out what the import of it was. I can’t say I understand what *you* thought you were arguing but as I understand it your point was “some girls are really stupid and get into dangerous situations and need men to bail them out.” This, obviously, is so sideways to the conversation we were having as to be almost dada but I made a good faith effort to connect it to a discussion of warning girls not to drink.

                • MacK

                  The problem is not the wrong thread – it is that Sakezula – who is remarkably dishonest, brought up something from another thread.

                  There the point I was making is that this persons taste for creating violent situations was her doing, not the guys who ended up injured, but once I found out that this was her “party trick” it was wise to decline to escort her again inter aliaI was asked to escort her because she wanted to go out, but her parents were concerned that there had been trouble a couple of times before where she had been, and would not let her go out without a group of friends (of which there were strangely none willing to accompany her that night) – my parents suggested I escort her to keep her safe. Little did I know (out of towner) the full story.

                  But here another way of looking at the question – this is the only person I ever knew who was into creating these situations – so it is a pretty unusual behaviour for a woman. Can any of the women here put themselves in her head … know her mind and motivations properly? You might make guesses, but do you really know? The same issue with respect to rape is the point I was making – for a man who does not rape, who has no desire to rape, they need to be cautious about reaching conclusions based on a mindset they don’t really understand.

                • It really is impossible to fathom the kind of rationalization it takes to do something awful IF you’re really swell. For instance some people type out weird rambling misdirecting complaints instead of donating money to cancer research. And then you think AHA that person does doesn’t give a shit about kids with leukemia! But really, how could you know? Maybe he’s just greedy or working on newer and more deadly forms of cancer or something. I wouldn’t know, because I am wonderful.

    • No seriously, what about teh menz!!

      • Tyto

        Right. This is like a rehash of every comment on the Schroedinger’s Rapist post.

    • pseudalicious

      I know about the Lisak and Miller study, but — and this will probably sound idiotic, but fuck it — I really think the “most rapes are committed by a tiny percentage of serial predators” doesn’t explain Tailhook, or rape as a war crime in Vietnam or the Congo, or the rape epidemic happening in various parts of India. And I honestly don’t see that much difference between the rapist in this awful story from Missouri, the US soldiers who rape their comrades at jaw-dropping rates, and the LRA raping women as an act of war. It’s all the same thing.

      So this idea that it’s just a few sociopaths and rape culture just gives them cover, that most men would never, ever, ever even think of such a thing… Bullshit. Just, bullshit.

      • Exactly. This.

      • Disinterested

        The India example is bad, because India has so so many people. If we take the figures quoted earlier about sociopaths in society, which was somewhere around 3%, there are 36,000,000 people in India who would qualify. As much as there is a huge problem with rape in India, there were not 36 million rapes in India this year, so we cannot use this as the example to support your point. The reason for bringing up sociopaths was actually that there are more people who fit that diagnosis than you might think.

        All of your other examples can be read as “what happens when sociopaths are at the top of military command structures”. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that you’re not necessarily right.

        • Of course you know absolutely nothing about the incidence of rape in India but I can assure you that if you paid the slightest attention to reality you would know that there could easily be thousands of rapes in India, all of them committed by different men at different times in their lives–women can get raped multiple times (obviously) by gangs of men, for example while the crime of raping your wife is, as far as I know, not recognized under Indian personal law. Jeebus they had to introduce laws specifically defining marriage with underage girls illegal and we are talking about girls as young as 9. By western definitions all of those girls are raped, multiple times a week, within the context of marriage.

          • anthrofred

            the crime of raping your wife is, as far as I know, not recognized under Indian personal law

            This is unfortunately still true. It also illustrates a broader point: going about this whole thing mathematically is bone-headed, because what constitutes rape legally varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So does “sociopathy”, for that matter, both legally and within the discourses of professional and popular psychology. I’ll just say it: for the purposes of this discussion, rape is sexual violence. Rapists are perpetrators of sexual violence. If I have to define sexual violence for the purpose of this thread, I swear I’m going to scream.

            • anthrofred

              (err, I know you more or less said this, aimai, I’m just underlining it for the purpose of my own frustration with folks in this thread. I knew there was a reason I stayed away from this post most of the morning…)

      • flamingolingo

        I agree. I am starting to think many men are resistant to these conversations about informed consent and rape culture because such conversations unsettle their notions of Big Bad Rapists. They’re scared some past incident or ongoing behavior may indict them. There are many more rapists out there than are accounted for by official crime stats and many of them are unaware that they are, indeed, rapists.

      • Exactly.

        It’s a remix of the Guy in the Bushes lie with the hilarious addition that there’s a tiny portion of the population giving us a 25% sexual assault rate. Gee, how do guys hold down jobs?

        I would LOVE to live on a planet where only male sociopaths committed sexual assaults. Because that would create a planet where the violent crime rate is unimaginably low.

        • Is it wrong of me to have started laughing out loud at this? Because isn’t it the inverse of that old joke “A woman is raped every 25 minutes?” In this case “A man rapes 1 in 4 women–how does he have time to get anything else done?”

  • CaptBackslap

    Great post. I would add that (relating to the chaperone joke) it’s important, in any situation where a lot of folks are drinking hardcore, to have some people around who are not wasted, whether women are present or not. Drunk people are a lot less likely to notice the guy dragging the stumbling woman up the stairs, or the four guys whose voices and body language are getting overheated, or the freshman laying in the kitchen and not looking so good. Or, for that matter, someone stumbling out the door and fumbling for her car keys.

    This seems like it should go without saying, but it’s very often ignored.

    • Yes, this is a point I tried to make in an earlier thread and its one of the reasons I really detest the blanket ban on alcohol for younger people. You really need to have a designated sober chaperone for teen parties–like parents and adults–but the laws against serving alcohol to teens make that impossible. So not only do kids not learn good drinking behavior from the adults around them but the adults (and in a recent case the designated driver) are forbidden from coming to the rescue of kids who have overindulged.

      • The adult could call the police (since the kids are breaking the law) and in the event of a person who is seriously intoxicated – EMTs for a possible overdose.

        • Yeah but if you let it happen in your house, where you would be in a position to call the cops, you’d get arrested too for letting it happen. In the case of the vollyball captain who drove to get her friend from a party where drinking was happening she got punished, thanks to zero tolerance school rules, for showing up to give the friend a ride. The punishments for parents are actually quite draconian, as well.

          In fact we just had to sign a paper for our 9th graders new school that we would be present for every party and make sure there was no alcohol if the party happened in our house. I appreciate it, in one way, because it makes it clear that if my child is at someone else’s house there needs to be an adult chaperone there. On the other hand, there is zero chance that I can supervise a party at which alcohol is served, even to kids who are 17 or 18–or even a dinner party–because not only is that illegal but I’ve just signed a paper saying I won’t do it.

        • chris

          Without presuming to speak for anyone else, I think what aimai means is that anyone planning a teen drinking event has to hide it from adults because they would be compelled to put a stop to it. By being hidden, the event is necessarily also unsupervised, which makes it more dangerous than it needs to be.

          It’s not really that different than the logic behind abolishing Prohibition: driving an activity underground can make it more dangerous than the same activity conducted openly, and this effect can predominate over the reduction (if any) in the commonness of the activity itself.

  • My pre-Homecoming and pre-Spring Break PSA for my survey class is:

    Alcohol Makes You Stupid. That’s what it’s for: it’s a central nervous system depressant, and it’s fun. But if you remember that alcohol makes you stupid, you can avoid making decisions that require a functional intelligence.

    No feedback on how effective it is, but at least it’s honest.

    • Vance Maverick

      Not totally sure where you’re headed with this thought, but I would add that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too. Men drink to become stupid, where stupidity includes violence.

      • It’s addressed to the whole population, male and female. The point is to try to instill a modicum of caution into the proceedings, which might keep people from harming themselves or others.

        Lectures don’t really work to change ethical and social behavior: this is a very brief comment. But I’m trying to introduce a meme that might have an effect, at least at the margins.

    • You do get, presumably, that small modicum of feedback consisting of having all your students come back alive. (I assume you’d have mentioned if it has ever happened that one of them didn’t.)

  • Sly

    The following is sound advice:

    “If you wish to avoid being mauled by a hippo, it is best to steer clear of areas where hippos are known to make their habitat.”

    It is not, however, applicable to rape for reasons that should be plainly obvious.

    • MacK

      Indeed – have you looked at the yearbook photos of the two alleged rapists from Maryville – they don’t have devil horns or rapist on their foreheads. They look perfectly normal.

    • chris

      On the other hand, if squirrels were as dangerous as hippos, the usefulness of the advice would be substantially reduced by the sheer pervasiveness of squirrel habitats.

  • So glad to see someone talking about the problem of persistent terror as a quality of life issue. I usually see it framed as being problematic because it might hurt men’s feelings.

    • Yes, I think that it’s so easy to say ” Don’t drink, don’t party.” You’re limiting women’s freedom and FUN when you do that. Lets be frank about that.

      • Disinterested

        I think everyone recognizes this (with one obvious exception above). But at the same time, I’m only a few years out from college, and have friends/younger siblings who are there now, and the stories they tell are not encouraging from a “drink to have fun but not too much to seriously harm yourself perspective”. All anecdotal, of course, but it’s why I have the impression that too much alcohol is a huge contributor to the problem of rape on campus. I mean, shit, we all read the “rapebait” letter. One of the solutions has to be “be on the lookout for this!”. I’m sure I’m missing a subtly about messaging here, and I’m trying to grasp it.

        • As someone who is about to send a 17 year old girl off to college I think it would be much, much, much more effective if the college were to expel the sociopaths and the violent drunks rather than ask the studious students to work around them. Especially since the drinking is, in most cases, illegal. How about we turn our attention to a zero tolerance policy for Princeton’s Eating Clubs? Or for Skull and Bones parties? Or for any person, male or female, whose grades dip because of drinking and partying? That would cut down on the circumstances where alcohol consumption intersects with my tee totaling daughter and protect her from the violent, sociopathic, drunken behavior of the men you assume are everywhere at college. Or isn’t that what you meant?

          • Disinterested

            I think it would be much, much, much more effective if the college were to expel the sociopaths and the violent drunks rather than ask the studious students to work around them

            You know it’s not that easy. Duke is trying to do this very thing, and no one’s happy about it, because it’s going make the already-too-low reporting rate even lower.

            • No one is happy about it? Who cares? What you mean is that people who want to drink prize drinking to excess over the safety of their fellow students. And the college prizes alumni donations over the safety of the students. Suddenly the very serious problem of women drinking to excess and getting themselves raped at college parties turns out not to be a problem when the costs are going to be born by the partying men? Doesn’t this give you the tiniest pause as to whether what is really happening when men warn women “not to drink” is that women are being protected, or that drunken frat parties and a culture of drinking to excess are being protected?

              • Disinterested

                Sorry, I should have been clearer. I mean that the concern (sorry for the passive voice here) is that in the face of a zero-tolerance policy, reporting of rape and assault will go down, because as you’ve argued, women are socialized not to make waves. *Especially* when alcohol is involved, you might decide not to trust your memories about what happened last night when the result will be an immediate expulsion of that guy who seems really nice, and besides he’s a friend of a friend. I don’t think “who cares?” is a good enough answer for this.

                • But the underreporting thing happens *now* precisely because of the slut shaming and drink shaming that people are enduring–for one reason because there is no zero tolerance for drinking and partying in the dorms. This is in fact the story that Ella from New Mexico told on the previous thread. The problem wasn’t that some girl got drunk, its that she got drunk in the safety of her own room/dorm but the dorm had been allowed to be invaded by a drunk guy who was squatting there and the girls were too polite and the college too poorly run to evict him before he could assault someone.

                  Everything can be dangerous done in the wrong setting and with the wrong people, and everything can be safe done with the right people in a controlled setting. What we are seeing here in the pairing of drinking and assault is that some people are treating some zones as safe while others are treating them as places to act out violently and agressively. You can control the zones or you can control the ones who want to party or the ones who want to be violent/dangerous. Those are three areas for social control. The point that the women are making here is that we would prefer, based on our experience, that we make more spaces and activities safe for women rather than leave certain spaces and activities to degenerate into a scene from lord of the flies. The fact that this happens around drinking and sex doesn’t make it any different from any other kind of college problem that involves drinking and partying and disruption/violence/property damage.

                  In fact colleges deal with this fairly directly when they police tailgating parties etc…

                • for one reason because there is no zero tolerance for drinking and partying in the dorms.

                  I don’t remember if I already reported this. It seems apposite here, even if I did.

                  A couple of days ago I was listening to a presentation by an undergraduate psychology major on a research project into what “party” means (on the campus of Small Private University X). The presentation included transcripts of interviews. I was shocked to learn (from one of the transcripts; but another undergraduate, female, at the presentation, confirmed it independently) that because off-campus parties at SPUX rarely have “very much” alcohol available, it is the custom at SPUX for (many? some?) partygoers to prepare for a party by drinking a lot at the dorm first.

                  I have no idea what kind of tolerance is presently built into SPUX’s policies. (Several years ago I was privileged to read a private report on actual [self-reported] alcohol-consuming behavior at SPUX, which was furnished by the researcher—a pretty big name in the field, who’s been doing longitudinal studies across many Northeastern campuses for years—in return for having allowed him to gather data on the SPUX campus. SPUX was pretty much plumb in the middle of the mode on most of his dimensions, and I’d assume it still is. But I also have no idea what kind of tolerance is modal these days.)

              • Disinterested

                And I certainly want to go on record as stating that I have no interest in protecting frat culture or drinking to excess as standard party fare.

        • anthrofred

          This is already done, ad nauseum. It isn’t a “solution” to anything.

          Telling someone they have a target on their back does not in any way remove the target from their back, and it’s even less useful if they’ve been aware of it their whole lives.

          • This is very important:

            even less useful if they’ve been aware of it their whole lives.

            This seems to act almost like a red flag to a bull since it sets off the Leos and others to insist that girls are not taught how to protect themselves at all but girls are lectured to about protecting their sex and their image as pure and perfect, desirable and untouchable, from pretty much the moment their parents lift them up off the birthing table and go “she’s so beautiful!”

            With the exception of people coming from massively dysfunctional families, and even then this can very much not be true, girls are expected to watch what they say, what they wear, where they walk, how they walk, how they sit, how they comb their hair, how they smile, and guard their eyes from the moment their cute little girl flirtations are ended at puberty. The amount of sex hysteria that is foisted on girls of all classes, races, and ranks in this society can simply not be overestimated.

            The focus on the 13 year old girl who got blackout drunk assumes that her absent family did the wrong thing and didn’t lecture her about her sexuality and how to protect it. That’s probably entirely false if she’s like any other girl in the US. Maybe she wanted to drink a bit to be more grownup or to let down her guard for five seconds after a lifetime of pressure to be perfect. Who knows. But at any rate it probably wasn’t because she didn’t know that bad things happen to good girls who stray away from the well lit path like, say, little red riding hood.

            • Leo

              [I]t sets off the Leos . . . to insist that girls are not taught how to protect themselves

              Complete fabrication. A false statement.

              • No, its not a false statement. You have been arguing that a 13 year old girl needs to hear not to drink to excess because there is a “first time for everything.” I agree with that, on one level and have pointed out to you ad nauseum that I have of course had some serious, age appropriate, talks with my 14 and 17 year old about drinking and drugging and everything else. But my point is that caution about dealing with strangers, stranger danger, and extreme (amounting to paranoia and a kind of prison) attention to controlling and protecting your sexual value/vagina starts basically at birth for girls. In fact parents are considered quite negligent if they haven’t spent tons of time policing their daughters appearance, behavior, and location and/or use of public space almost from the very beginning.

                There’s a very powerful comedy routine by Wanda Sykes which is all about what it would feel like if you could detach your vagina and leave it at home and go out and run around like a man,w ithout people querying you about where you left it and whats being done with it. You should watch it. It might give you some insight into why my perspective, as a woman and a mother of daughters, is different from your perspective about exactly what women learn and when.

                • anthrofred

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv5pjSRSLGQ

                  It’s a great routine, like most of Sykes’ routines.

                • Leo

                  You have been arguing that a 13 year old girl needs to hear not to drink to excess because there is a “first time for everything.”

                  I’ll quote the relevant passages:

                  Aimai:

                  There are no girls in this society who have not been warned over and over and over again that every time they leave the house they are in danger of being raped . . .

                  Leo:

                  Of course there are. Everyone learns something for the first time at some point.

                  Where does that reference 13 year old girls? Where do the words you put in quotes come from? Where do I argue that anything needs to be done.

                  This exchange was simple. You made an obviously incorrect statement, and I pointed out that it was obviously incorrect.

                • Leo

                  I wasn’t left waiting for it, it came hours ago. But thanks for reprise. And work on your reading comprehension.

              • Here’s the ad hominem you ‘ve been waiting for: you are a tedious bore.

                • Leo

                  Misplaced this comment above:

                  I wasn’t left waiting for it, it came hours ago. But thanks for reprise. And work on your reading comprehension.

                • Looks to me more like

                  Here’s the ad hominem you‘ve been waitorking for

  • No, 99 percent of the time drinking is not OK. And certainly not the level of drinking at college.

    I’m sorry, we’d have less rape, less domestic violence, less highway deaths, less infidelity, less gambling, less lost jobs, less child abuse, and less of a whole bunch of other social problems if people drank less, of both genders.

    A lot of this is alcohol addiction glossed as feminism. You should not need to take a potent and dangerous drug to be able to socialize.

    • The amount of stupidity and strawmanning in this post is ridiculous.

      • The prohibition era propaganda was cool and retro but I thought this was especially precious:

        A lot of this is alcohol addiction glossed as feminism.

        I guess AA should include questions about feminism on its questionnaire.

        Do you find yourself discussing issues of bodily autonomy, gender discrimination and/or violence against women

        Never

        Rarely

        Frequently

        Always

        • I respect women’s, and men’s, autonomy to drink. Prohibition settled that debate. Indeed, I tend to think a lot of other drugs should be legalized.

          But that doesn’t mean drinking is GOOD, or that bspencer’s statement that “99% of the time, it’s gonna work out OK for everyone” is a true statement about drinking.

          As I said, drinking is associated with a host of social pathologies (I could have added unplanned pregancies to the list, by the way). It’s NOT a harmless social lubricant.

          And I really do think that while Yoffe’s original piece was inappropriately gendered (I want young college age men to stop drinking so much too), the reason why everyone came down on her like a ton of bricks has a lot to do with a sort of misplaced idea that standing up for women’s rights to engage in problem drinking with no criticism is a feminist position. No– NOBODY should be getting hammered. Really. It’s bad to get hammered, and we’d have a lot less of all sorts of things that feminists don’t like if people thought of getting hammered as something to avoid rather than something harmless and fun to do.

          • Hogan

            As I said, drinking is associated with a host of social pathologies

            So is sex. But sex can be good, and so can drinking. If you want to bitch about all this drinking going on, wail away; no one’s going to stop you. Just don’t use rape as your excuse, which is what you’re doing when you wade into a rape discussion with a temperance lecture.

            • Consensual sex is not associated with nearly as many bad outcomes as drinking. It’s basically STD’s, unwanted pregnancy, and broken hearts, and that’s it.

              (And in fact, many of the bad outcomes related to sex are ALSO correlated with problem drinking. If people didn’t drink so much, sex wouldn’t have so many bad externalities.)

              There’s basically nothing like drinking in terms of bad outcomes. And in terms of good? Is it really that GOOD to be hammered? I can respect it as a matter of personal choice, but nothing GOOD comes out of getting drunk. Indeed, it masks social problems.

              • Hogan

                You really don’t think there’s a difference between drinking and problem drinking, do you?

                • He does appear to have drunken the spiked Kool-Aid on this point, doesn’t he?

                • I do think there’s a difference. However, since the article that started this topic was about mostly underage college students getting plastered at parties, I sort of think that’s the issue.

                  If alcohol were not addictive and very few people got drunk while lots of people stopped at 1, we would not be having this conversation. Which is exactly my point.

                • Hogan

                  And yet you treat every defense of drinking as a defense of problem drinking or “getting hammered.”

                • If alcohol were not addictive and very few people got drunk while lots of people stopped at 1, we would not be having this conversation.

                  I’m pretty sure we’d be discussing some other boundary the ladies shouldn’t cross.

                • Bloomers!

              • Consensual sex is not associated with nearly as many bad outcomes as drinking. It’s basically STD’s, unwanted pregnancy, and broken hearts, and that’s it.

                really? unwanted pregnacies are not nearly as bad an outcome? how so?

                • etv13

                  Unwanted pregnancy is curable. Last I heard, death isn’t.

          • I respect women’s, and men’s, autonomy to drink. […]
            But that doesn’t mean drinking is GOOD, or that bspencer’s statement that “99% of the time, it’s gonna work out OK for everyone” is a true statement about drinking.

            As I said, drinking is associated with a host of social pathologies (I could have added unplanned pregancies to the list, by the way). It’s NOT a harmless social lubricant. […]

            […] a sort of misplaced idea that standing up for women’s rights to engage in problem drinking with no criticism is a feminist position.

            Do I detect the Fallacy of Equivocation? Why, yes. Yes, I do.

            More or less by definition, “problem drinking” is problematic. (That different individuals, some with base motives, some ignorant, others veritable paragons, will have different criteria by which to judge someone’s drinking as “problem drinking” is not relevant here: at a given moment, any given judge with minimal linguistic competence, who is not trolling, presumably believes that what s/he is at that moment calling “problem drinking” is, in fact, a “problem”.) HOWEVER, after several paragraphs (which I have only excerpted) talking about “drinking”, you have suddenly written “problem drinking” in such a way as to suggest (to this reader) that, for you, all “drinking” is “problem drinking”. Maybe it is. But by begging the question in such (as it seems to me) an underhanded way, you have destroyed whatever persuasive force your preceding text may have had: and you have certainly belied your very first sentence (if you mean to use “respect” in a manner I can recognize as sincere).

            bspencer’s “99%” is clearly wrong, and equally clearly (to me) meant to be hyperbolic. I think, though, that a number not much smaller than 99 would turn her sentence into one I could agree with. What number do you think would make it a sentence you could agree with?

            • I don’t know exactly what number I would agree with, and I agree that having one drink is not the same as problem drinking. Indeed, I would totally not be writing screeds about alcohol consumption if people just had a drink or two at frat parties, even if they were underage.

              However, wasn’t YOFFE talking about problem drinking? She wasn’t saying “go to a party, have 1 1/2 drinks, and someone will rape you”.

              So the whole subject matter here is getting hammered, not having a drink. And with respect to getting hammered, I think that the number of times that it leads to bad outcomes is high enough that we ought to be trying to stop people of both genders from getting hammered.

              • Indeed, I would totally not be writing screeds about alcohol consumption if people just had a drink or two at frat parties,

                Frat parties (and Princeton Eating Club parties, and presumably whatever kind of parties Skull and Bones has when they aren’t performing unspeakable rites or planning world domination) are ultra-problematic (in my highly prejudiced opinion) quite aside from the associated intoxication (on alcohol or whatever).

      • Evidently you need to have another level between white and yellow: “Green: Mostly non-rapey — OK to have one Coors Light, as long as Dilan says it’s ok, but you should still feel really, really guilty about it.”

        • Yeah, but if you have even one Coor’s Light expect the full wrath of Loomis to descend upon you.

          • Well, yeah, and me too on general principles. It was just the only low-alcohol beer I could think of off the top of my head.

            • you keep your low-alcohol beer on the top of your head?

              Better than drinking it, I guess.

            • anthrofred

              Sort of off topic, but I bring this up because zrm has made his appearance: there’s a bar in Santa Cruz, CA, called “99 Bottles” that has beer from across the world. 99, as you would imagine. Their selection from Milwaukee?

              Miller Lite.

              I could just-

              • I would attribute that to Hipster Irony, were Santa Cruz not where I once was served a “Reuben” with the role of sauerkraut played by alfalfa sprouts, and no side order of irony at all.

                • anthrofred

                  Yeah, Santa Cruz does many things, but with the exception of one solitary coffeshop/bar, it doesn’t really do hipster.

              • Only 99 beers? Pfft, weak.

        • It depends on what you mean by “OK”.

          Should it be legal to do it? Should you have a right to do it (if you are over 21– and remember, a lot of the people in these stories are NOT 21)? Yes and yes.

          Is it a good idea to get drunk? No. It’s never a good idea to get drunk.

          And does America’s incredibly bad alcohol problem contribute to a bunch of other social pathologies, including both the sexual assault rate AND the rate of guys getting away with sexual assault (because drinking makes the crime harder to prove)? Yes, it does.

          • Is it a good idea to get drunk? No. It’s never a good idea to get drunk.

            It depends on what you mean by drunk.

            I think your idea of what “drunk” is and what my idea of it is are vastly different.

      • here’s what i don’t get: females drinking is part of that icky thing called feminism…is it? is that one of the tenets of being a feminist? did all those feminazis of yore espouse that to be considered fully autonamous human beings that had to drink like the big boys?

        • No one has said it directly yet but this whole manic panic about women drinking too much is just another version of “women are wearing bloomers and smoking and jazzing.” You know? Its really not new.

          No: feminism does not mean that you get as drunk as the stupid frat boy and vomit in the corridor. But on the other hand feminism means that if you do the same things a guy does like walk to the library late at night, or become an engineer, or go to a party and get tiddly with your friends, that NO ONE RAPES YOU.

          • No: feminism does not mean that you get as drunk as the stupid frat boy and vomit in the corridor. But on the other hand feminism means that if you do the same things a guy does like walk to the library late at night, or become an engineer, or go to a party and get tiddly with your friends, that NO ONE RAPES YOU.

            oh, this is definite…i just hadn’t heard the ‘women getting drunk is because of feminism!’ thing before…i just can’t believe that is a thing that some people believe in…i bet rush limbaugh believes it…women getting drunk=feminazi, women staying at home popping pills to get through the day=noble and totally becoming…

            • Oh yes! Mother’s little helper!

          • I agree that feminism means that nobody rapes you.

            But does being a feminist exclude any sort of social criticism of anything that increases the rate of violence against women?

            For instance, drunkenness also contributes to the domestic violence rate. Do you also think it’s inappropriate to talk about the role alcohol plays in increasing domestic violence? Because I think it would be a really good thing to try to reduce the rate of drunk husbands and boyfriends beating their partners.

            Eliminating Prohibition doesn’t mean that alcohol consumption isn’t harmful. If anything, it makes social criticism of drinking all the more important.

            • But when you talk about eliminating drinking so that men don’t have their inhibitions lowered and become violent you are simply making the same argument we are which is that if anyone is going to be lectured to about drunknness it should be men, not women.

              • I think everyone should be lectured on drunkenness, men and women.

                As I said, the one, and only, valid criticism of the Yoffe piece is that she gendered the issue. She did.

                What I don’t like is all the riffing on alcohol consumption as if this issue is “why can’t women get drunk and have a bunch of harmless fun?”. This stuff isn’t harmless, for either gender, for all sorts of reasons, and the sexual assault issue is a small part of the puzzle (but a real one).

                • Anna in PDX

                  But that is not a small criticism, it is the entire focus of her article. Yes, an article about binge drinking being bad for everyone, in terms of health, and other outcomes, would have been better, but it would also hve been a completely different column and would not have engendered a discussion about drinking as it intersects with rape, at all.

            • For instance, drunkenness also contributes to the domestic violence rate.

              Wrong. People who think it is OK to assault their partners and children contribute to the domestic violence rate. Booze doesn’t knock the good angel off your shoulder and make you do things you wouldn’t do while sober.

              • I’m sorry to go ad hominem, but that’s just stupid reasoning. That’s “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” reasoning. Do you really believe that about anything other than alcohol?

                In the end, ALL intentional crimes are the result of bad people doing bad things. But we have a bunch of societal conditions that make things worse.

                And heavy alcohol consumption is one of them. It does two things– it increases the likelihood of the crime, and it decreases the likelihood of a successful prosecution of the crime.

                • If alcohol’s only use was as a weapon, you would have a point.

                  Fortunately, potential weaponization is only only one of alcohol’s many properties.

                • You think that guns are only used as a weapon of crime?

                  They are never used for self-defense, or target practice, or hunting, or various recreational uses?

                  Especially when you get out of the realm of assault weapons (which really do have no legitimate civilian usage) and into the realm of handguns and shotguns, these things are both tools and recreation devices, as well as being weapons of crime.

                • anthrofred

                  I drink to forget people’s horrendous arguments, for example.

                  I drink because of you, Dilan.

                • You think that guns are only used as a weapon of crime?

                  I didn’t say that so, no.

                  Using a weapon in self-defense, or against a non-human target, does not make it not a weapon. If you want people to take your claims that you’re not forcing things they didn’t say on them seriously, you’re going to have to not do the overly-restricted-to-the-point-of-meaningless pedantry word game thing.

                • other than that a lot of people with drinking problems don’t want their choices questioned and feminism is a convenient way to avoid that.

                  When a guy who claims feminism is used to mask alcoholism calls my argument stupid, I know it is a damn good argument.

                  Has anyone here actually met a feminist who uses feminism as a reason to avoid a discussion about how much she drinks?

                • When a guy who claims feminism is used to mask alcoholism, and previously complained about getting called a mansplainer for no better reason than he tried to lecture a group of women on the proper feminist attitude towards breastfeeding, calls my argument stupid, I know it is a damn good argument.

                • Meant to add, supplemented that for you.

                • anthrofred

                  tried to lecture a group of women on the proper feminist attitude towards breastfeeding

                  I missed that one – what was the “proper feminist attitude”?

                • I link because I don’t drink!

                  1. I was called a mansplainer by some breastfeeding mothers for pointing out that breastfeeding advocacy had an anti-feminist aspects to it in that it promoted the idea that mothers always had to be near their babies and should make any sacrifice that resulted in a minor health benefit.

                  He has a list! He keeps getting called out for mansplaining when he knows he wasn’t, thus, mansplaining is overused! But check out his statistical arguments earlier in the thread!

                  (And wow, the echoes. Nonsense comments followed by big whines about the mocking replies as if the nonsense comments deserved talmudic respect. It’s a Substantive Argument Because I Say So!!!!)

              • I can’t remember, but I think ‘con because it makes women slaves to their bodies.’

                It stood out because he was trying to make the argument that ‘mainsplain’ was overused and that was his first example.

                • Whoops. Meant as a reply to anthrofred:

                  I missed that one – what was the “proper feminist attitude”?

                  above.

                • anthrofred

                  Dilan really should be writing for Slate.

      • BH

        That’s kind of the point of Part Deux…

      • Rigby Reardon

        Considering the source, are you really surprised?

    • L2P

      I’m sorry, we’d have less rape, less domestic violence, less highway deaths, less infidelity, less gambling, less lost jobs, less child abuse, and less of a whole bunch of other social problems if people drank less, of both genders.

      And if people would just live in small, padded rooms where healthy, nutritious food was given to them several times a day, with moderate exercise at healthy intervals, we’d eliminate almost EVERY social problem.

      But I don’t really want to live that way.

      • That’s fine if you don’t, but having more of those things is not exactly a feminist outcome.

        And that’s the point of my post. I think a lot of this commentary really has a subtext of “I had / have a lot of fun getting drunk, and wouldn’t really want to decrease the college drinking rate because it would make college a lot less fun”. And I’d rather that be the text, if that is what people believe, rather than the subtext. Because I actually do think a society with a lot of drunks in it and a lot of social pressures to drink is really, really worse for women.

        • I think a lot of this commentary really has a subtext of “I had / have a lot of fun getting drunk, and wouldn’t really want to decrease the college drinking rate because it would make college a lot less fun”. And I’d rather that be the text, if that is what people believe, rather than the subtext.

          Guy’s why aren’t we not having the conversation Dilan imagines we’re having instead of the one Dilan imagines we should be think-having.

          Or have-thinking. I guess I need someone to explain the subtext to me.

          • Snark is fun. But that’s the second really stupid post you have made here while trying to be snarky. I suggest you just try to make your arguments; you aren’t skilled enough to pull off snark.

            I’m saying that a lot of the criticism of Yoffe is either confused or not honest. It’s taking for granted a proposition– that getting hammered in college is this great thing that is lots of fun and that women should have the right to do just like men do– that is very much contested. Once you grant that proposition, I would agree that it follows that people shouldn’t be talking about the relationship between alcohol and campus sexual assault.

            But I don’t grant that proposition. And therefore, yes, I am trying to bring the proposition out of the unstated premises of the argument because I contest it.

            You can do all the snark you want about that, but it’s a perfectly valid form of argumentation.

            • But I don’t grant that proposition.

              Therefore all of you are WRONG WRONG WRONG!

              • As I understand it, one may be much more inclined to “grant that proposition” after a few spiked drinks!

                Well, or at least not resist it.

            • Loudly proclaiming to be the only person arguing in good faith and that you understand your opponents’ motivations is not, in fact, a form of argument at all. It is, however, a perfectly cromulent form of pompous douchebaggery.

              Snark is fun. But that’s the second really stupid post you have made here while trying to be snarky. I suggest you just try to make your arguments; you aren’t skilled enough to pull off snark.

              I suspect you stop your Sergeant Condescension of the Discourse Police routine right about now. It is only going to get you laughed at.

              • *suggest

              • Hogan

                Sergeant Condescension of the Discourse Police

                Consider that stolen.

                • Oh well done. Masking your kleptomania with feminism.

                • Tiny Hermaphrodite, Esq.

                  Were I not more than happy with my current username I would adopt this fortwith.

            • Anonymous

              Look, I know that mixing breathtakingly condescending and clueless attitudes with tone-policing can be a hell of a good time, but we need to face facts and soberly confront the truth: this kind of stuff increases the probability of snarky replies by eleventy-billion percent. Time to take some responsibility for yourself here, Dilan.

    • Karate Bearfighter

      I’m sorry, we’d have less rape, less domestic violence, less highway deaths, less infidelity, less gambling, less lost jobs, less child abuse, and less of a whole bunch of other social problems if people drank less, of both genders.

      I’m curious: are you suggesting that we’d have less child abuse if kids would stop getting drunk? Would we have less infidelity if cuckolded spouses stopped getting drunk? Would fewer people lose their jobs if their co-worker didn’t get drunk? Less domestic violence if victims didn’t drink so much?

      In all of your other examples, there is a (presumed) causal link between drinking and committing a bad act. I drink too much, I have a hangover every day and can’t do my job, I get fired. You drink too much, you become disinhibited and hit your kid. She drinks too much … and someone else rapes her. Can you really not see why this becomes victim blaming when you apply it to rape victims?

      • Actually, while in the main you are right, that’s not totally true.

        For instance, a drunk driver isn’t only dangerous because he or she causes accidents, but also because he or she has a more difficult time driving defensively and avoiding accidents that other people can cause.

        And if the victim of domestic violence is drunk, that creates the same sorts of reporting and proof issues that occur when the rape victim is drunk.

        Also, drunkeness increases the rate of unprotected consensual sex, which means more STD transmission and more unplanned pregnancies. That’s a situation where you don’t have a perpetrator whose bad behavior is a result of alcohol– you just have two people who act recklessly engaging in consensual activity as a result of it.

        So no, certainly not all of the social harms of alcohol involve people who are perpetrators whose acts are fueled by alcohol, although many of them do.

        And at any rate, even with respect to perpetrators, isn’t this the argument most of us make on gun control– you have a class of perpetrators and guns make it easier to perpetrate?

        As I said, I don’t see any reason we shouldn’t have a non-gendered version of this conversation (I concede Yoffe was wrong to focus on women), other than that a lot of people with drinking problems don’t want their choices questioned and feminism is a convenient way to avoid that.

        • a lot of people with drinking problems don’t want their choices questioned and feminism is a convenient way to avoid that.

          When I wake up with a hangover I always blame it on feminism.

        • As I said, I don’t see any reason we shouldn’t have a non-gendered version of this conversation

          Oh I see the problem. You didn’t notice that the topic is rape and rape culture, not Esper on the evils of drinking.

          Glad we cleared that up.

    • Ronan

      What could possibly be the 1% of times it is okay then?
      For heat while stuck in a snowstorm?

      • Ronan

        And when Im at it

        Go fuck yourself Dilan

        You prohibitionist motherf…..

  • brad

    Dear wimminz,

    When life gives you a rapenado, make rapenade.

    Sorry.

    • I was gonna title the thread that, but “rapenado” is funnier.

      • brad

        As if girls understand comedy.
        /mra>

        I had one of these convos recently. A geek guy was trying to explain to me how women don’t understand the risk of rape they put themselves at when going out. I asked him if he also tells soldiers how to perform their guard duties, but he didn’t answer.
        Naturally, it really meant that he’s jealous of getting free drinks and having sexual options once it all got boiled down.

        • Was he bothered enough by the risk to do something about it?

          • brad

            If you mean would he mansplain to any women he knew, if he really knew any, about how though he’s not victim blaming they’re still asking for it by being sexually attractive in public?
            He would, but he’s not likely to get the chance anytime soon.

            • brad

              Put it this way, I kept trying to explain to him that women know the things he’s saying better than he does because they’re things you have to actually be aware of and care about, and his response kept coming back to, and I’m directly quoting, “so why do they keep getting raped?”.
              The hurrdurr was strong, indeed. The obvious answer, which I gave, repeatedly, was unacceptable for wee Mr. Man.

      • Rapenado was really very, very, funny. Sometimes you have to laugh so you don’t cry.

        • NBarnes

          I’d compare it to Lenny Bruce, if I wanted to intellectualize it. Most people that compare themselves to Lenny Bruce in order to get away with unfunny ‘jokes’ that reinforce status hierarchies make me want to set them on fire. But this post delivers the real goods; the Rape Threat Meter is comedy gold.

  • rea

    The problem is not simply that there is a handful of sociopthic rapist guys out there; the problem is also that our society encourages guys not to take “no” for an answer, and formerly did this much more than today.

    • This is so important. I really don’t get the total re-virginization (if I can put it that way) or the social amnesia that informs so many comments about rape on this thread. Is it because I’m 53? Or because I’m a woman and was paying attention? The role of refusal and violence in seduction right up through the 90s was considered a very important part of romance from both a male and a female perspective. Of course it was acknowledged that women could get rape-raped but a little insistence, force, and manipulation within the context of a socially acceptable potential marital relationship was considered absolutely normative. There’s a Tony Curtis/Natalie Wood movie which revolves entirely around the Tony Curtis character deliberately getting Natalie Wood drunk so he can seduce her and this is represented as entirely praiseworthy and normal because they are going to end up being married. Sexual harrassment as between Professors and female students was also routinely dismissed because some famous professors married their students so trying it on with them was seen as just part of the testing/mating process. Perfectly normal.

      Here’s an interesting example of rape that was perfectly, well, normative by a guy who only some of us would call a sociopath:

      KELLEY CLAIMS: Reagan met starlet Selene Walters in a Hollywood nightclub in
      the early 1950s. “Although I was on a date,” she quotes Walters as saying,
      “Ronnie kept whispering in my ear, ‘I’d like to call you. How can I get in touch with you?’
      “Hoping that Reagan, then president of the Screen Actors Guild, could boost her career,
      Walters gave him her address and was surprised when he came calling at 3 A.M.
      “He pushed his way inside and said he just had to see me. He forced me on the couch
      . . . and said, ‘Let’s just get to know each other.’ It was the most pitched battle I’ve
      ever had, and suddenly in a matter of seconds I lost. . . . They call it date rape today. . . .”

      SELENE WALTERS SAYS: Kelley’s account of his late-night visit is essentially accurate, although he
      never forced his way into her apartment. “I opened the door. Then it was the battle of the couch. I was
      fighting him. I didn’t want him to make love to me. He’s a very big man, and he just had his way.
      Date rape? No, God, no, that’s [Kelley’s] phrase. I didn’t have a chance
      to have a date with him.” Walters says she bears Reagan no ill will, and has even voted for him:
      “I don’t think he meant to harm me.”

      • this made me sick when i first read about it because how many of us have been through it? but i think the part that really sickens me is the ‘i don’t think he meant to harm me.’ that she tries to put him in a better light and disregard herself is a big part of what is wrong and will continue to be wrong until women are seen as more than sexay playthings…

    • anthrofred

      Nailed it.

    • This is the nail that really needs hammering, to me. (I mean, you also have to do all the other things; but I think teaching guys that “no means no” is so very necessary.I know that there’s already some progress being made on it, but not enough for my liking.

      When I was a teenager, given what I’d consumed in terms of media and art and so on, I literally thought that a girl I liked had to play hard-to-get and you were just supposed to roll with it. No one challenged that or pushed back against it and in fact several people of both genders encouraged it. Looking back on that, I think at the time if someone had just straight-up said, “Look, guy, if a girl says no, to anything, she means no,” it might have worked, even through all the T.H.-white inspired ideas about chivalry and confused machismo.

      (Mind you, I didn’t mean this for sex – I already kind of knew that if a woman said no to anything physical, she meant no. But for the romancing and so on? Yeah, that still horrifies me.)

      I continued thinking that right up until college, where I was quickly disabused of such idiotic notions, thank God. But then I’m the first to admit I was a manchild longer than I should’ve been.

      • anthrofred

        When I was a teenager, given what I’d consumed in terms of media and art and so on, I literally thought that a girl I liked had to play hard-to-get and you were just supposed to roll with it. No one challenged that or pushed back against it and in fact several people of both genders encouraged it.

        The Onion covered this well.

        And yes, it’s so much less about teaching men that rape is bad – men know that “rape” is bad! – than teaching men what consent is.

        • Oddly, despite having been ten in 1999 and unaware of what The Onion was, I think I’ve read that article.

          But yes, agreed, I think that is part of any successful effort. People rationalize and relate by nature. It’s necessary to teach a standard that is less – I don’t know – easily mutable? Or subjective?

  • ac

    Except people advocate harm avoidance for all sorts of situations. We advise children not to talk to strangers or take candy from strange people. We tell travelers to use special wallets to carry money to avoid pickpockets. We tell people not to go into certain neighbors to avoid getting mugged. We tell people not to respond to emails by Nigerian princes. And we don’t consider any of those instances as “victim-blaming” but rather as common sense. It would be great if we lived in a world where people didn’t abduct children or travelers didn’t get pick-pocketed, but unfortunately, in the world we live in, people can’t depend on the kindness of strangers and we all have to take steps to protect ourselves.

    • Rigby Reardon

      And we don’t consider any of those instances as “victim-blaming” but rather as common sense.

      I have absolutely heard “well, it’s too bad about the mugging but what did they expect being in that part of town at that hour” more times than I can count. Which is victim-blaming, is it not?

      • ac

        Sure, your example is victim-blaming, but I think that comes back to the ultimate issue of a distinction between:

        “Don’t walk into X neighborhood at night, it’s not safe”

        and

        “If you get mugged in X neighborhood at night it’s your fault”

        I maintain that there’s a distinction between those two statements, but you seem to disagree.

        • Hogan

          How about “Were you walking in Neighborhood X when you were mugged? I told you not to do that.” What would that be?

          • ac

            I’d say it’s more like the second. And certainly, regardless, the legal and moral responsibility lies with the perpetrator. But I still believe that one can advocate steps to better protect oneself without constituting victim-blaming. Obviously, people use the first statement to justify the second, which is wrong, but it doesn’t obviate the advice of the first statement.

            There’s a further question, as brought up by some commentators, as to whether that advice is superfluous and commonly known in this case. The advice might be common knowledge (though given the overall statistics for teenage and college drinking, generally ignored), but then that doesn’t really explain the moral opprobrium directed towards said advice.

            • Hogan

              I think the opprobrium is directed less at the advice than at the insistence on offering the advice at every opportunity to every audience.

      • Hell, growing up in San Juan, my father drilled into my head that if I walked around with any valuables after a certain time, regardless of what neighborhood I was in, I was asking to get mugged.

    • I like how in the only one of your examples where you’re not comparing women to things you’re comparing them to children.

      • Rigby Reardon

        They do seem to keep walking right into that one, don’t they?

      • ac

        Sorry, but this comment makes no sense given that the victim in these scenarios is a generic child, a generic tourist, a generic person wandering into a neighborhood, and a generic computer user. Grammatically, the object being acted upon in all of these examples is a person.

        • You can lead a horse to water….

          • anthrofred

            I’m starting to see a certain kind of defensive argumentation in this thread in which people completely ignore the point and go straight for nitpicking technical details. This is obvious here as well as above where you’re taking Leo to task and below re: Yoffe and Disinterested. It’s really, really frustrating.

            Stop doing this, people.

            • Disinterested

              I already replied to you and said that I misunderstood your point, so that’s kind of unfair.

              • anthrofred

                You’re right, you did catch it that time.

            • Leo

              When someone completely manufatures a set of beliefs for you and then argues with those beliefs, that isn’t technical argumentation.

              • Leo

                Sorry, pointing that out isn’t technical argumentation.

                • yeah, I’m pretty sure the technical term is ‘whining’

                • Leo

                  Call it what you like, at this point I’m willing to let the record in the thread speak for itself.

  • megan

    Yoffe has a response up in which she thoughtfully engages with her critics . . . oh no wait, actually she gives herself a big pat on the back for being so much more reasonable than those feminists with their made-up “rape culture.” She found one rape crisis advocate who says she’s afraid to talk to girls about drinking, so clearly all the people saying girls get this message all the time are wrong.

    • Rigby Reardon

      She’s worse than useless. She and Cary Tennis should just elope to a wild uninhabited island somewhere.

      • Karate Bearfighter

        You are so wrong. The island should be inhabited by crocodiles.

        • anthrofred

          As part of an experiment to see if they really do produce tears?

    • Oh FFS!

      I couldn’t even get past the first paragraph, if I go any further I’ll peg my rage-meter and it’s been near redline for a couple of days. Probably unhealthy.

      • ugh…i did and yes, you would peg out the rage-meter…

      • anthrofred

        Damn, you beat me. I think “FFS” is the only appropriate response.

        • “Great minds” and all that.

        • Gregor Sansa

          final fantasy seven?

    • I do believe it is time to post my favorite comment of all time, from Both Sides Do It posting over at whiskey fire:

      I swear on the friendship of Jeff Dowd and John Milius that there was a Dear Prudence column about three years ago that had a couple of the normal yuppie twit questions. And then the third one was something like “I am worried that my brother’s mental problems are becoming too problematic for him to live by himself. We notice frequently that when we go over to see him he is in a state of disrepair and seems disoriented. We are also concerned that he may have killed a hobo and buried the corpse in a brown patch that has recently sprung up in his garden.”

      And the answer was completely straight. “Well it is certainly worrying and stressful when a relative develops severe mental issues. It is often hard for families to understand . . .” Etc. “You should also be concerned about homicidal behavior, as there is a clear link between mental illness and psychotic homicide. I would confront your brother immediately about the hobo corpse that may or may not be in his backyard. But do it in a non-confrontational way, as you may be mistaken as to what is actually there, and you don’t want to endanger yourself by setting your brother off in the process.”

      Glib advice about confronting a possible psychotic killer was not the most incongruous part of that column. It was followed by another question and answer. About the right kind of cake to serve at a baby shower. As if questions about hobo murder were all in a days work and part of the regular patchwork of nutty situations we humans get ourselves into that Prudence helps to guide us through.

      In its complete disregard for the reader and its sociopathic view of the human community it thought it was serving, that piece was the most perfect Slate thing I’ve ever read, or ever will read, or that ever can be read.

      http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2012/10/tell-my-folks-im-dead.html#comment-6a00d8341c579653ef017d3cd27f47970c

      • Now that, children, is what we used to call “trolling”.

        Apparently there were still giants in the earth a mere four years ago or so. Truly a wonder.

        • anthrofred

          Nothing like the days of Usenet, though. I imagine internet trolls as being like the skulls of the dragons in the throne room on Game of Thrones.

      • Anna in PDX

        Augh, I really love that but it is too weird for words! Is everything really reducible this way to sage confucian advice from the common sense police? “And if you’re out biking late at night, wear white.”

        • anthrofred

          How does one get these jobs, I wonder? “Cocktail parties for bloggers”?

        • Is everything really reducible this way to sage confucian advice from the common sense police? “And if you’re out biking late at night, wear white.”

          yes…unless michelle obama says it…

    • anthrofred

      . I never said in my piece that women shouldn’t drink, only that they shouldn’t get drunk to the point of incapacitation.

      Oh for FUCK’S SAKE Yoffe.

      • Disinterested

        I don’t know, as much as Yoffe knew what she was opening herself up to with the article, I do think this is what she actually said. YMMV as to whether you believe her, since she is a noted teetotaler, but it’s certainly how I took the piece.

        • And here’s the part where you miss the entire fucking point. Again.

        • anthrofred

          I say “FOR FUCK’S SAKE” not because I don’t think that’s what she was saying, but because it’s an incredibly picky piece of misdirection. She’s quibbling over common-sense readings of the word “drink” as if this is really the objection to what she wrote, completely missing the point and in fact doubling-down.

          • Disinterested

            Ah, gotcha. To be fair, lots of people *have* characterized her argument, as it were, that way. It’s a sign of the weakness of her position that’s she’s only engaging those arguments and not the good ones, but I’m not surprised there. I fully regret giving her the benefit of the doubt initially.

    • CaptBackslap

      She got clowned by The Daily Mail. That’s like getting your ass kicked by Verne Troyer.

      • I don’t even know who verne troyer is but the name is so wonderful this line made me laugh. And I needed that.

        • CaptBackslap

          Best known as Mini-Me.

  • Anonymous

    I mean, it is the case that a substantial proportion of men are potential rapists. Rapists aren’t a different kind of person – some are, sure – but rapists only have in common that they’e raped someone. All you have to do to rape someone and thus become a rapist is rape someone; you don’t need to start out as a different kind of person. So, in some sense, everyon is potential rapist, though I’d be willing to grant that some people literally are so unlikely to do that crime that we can pretty much regard them as not potential rapists (but i could see argung that, no, truly everyone is apotential rapist. And it seems almost indsputable to me that drinking heavily makes a poential rapist much more likely to become an actual rapist compared to sobriety.

    The point is that the reductio here doesn’t lead to an absurdum. Maybe we shouldn’t tell women not to drink to excess in order to lower their chances of being raped, I can totally accept that. But a reason not to do that is NOT that, if we did, then fairness would dictate that we should regard many men as potential rapsits, and all the more so when they drink to excess, and that if we tell women that, then we should tell men not to drink in excess, especially if they might be hanging around women, because doing so will make them more likely to go from being a potential rapist to an actual rapists. Whatever reasons we may have for not telling the other thing to women, independently of fairness considerations stemming from if we did tell women that, actually on balance, independent of all that, now that I think about it, I actually think we should be telling men those things (basically, not to drink to excess. NOT, btw not to drink. None of these discussions have involved telling anyone not to drink at all, even if Yoffe herself is in fact a teetotaler. She said we should tell women not to drink to excess.).

  • Karate Bear’s Name-Stealing Troll

    At this moment, sharculese has posted 17 comments in this thread alone…

    • Karate Bearfighter

      Seriously, troll, pick your own name.

    • Hogan

      That’s, like, .08 percent.

    • At this moment, Jennfier is straight up stalking me.

      • Medicine Man

        Because you’re a gender fraud or something.

        • aaaaaah I forgot about gender fraud!

          • HOW COULD YOU FORGET THAT!!!

            “Dude”, I bring it up every chance I get!!!!

    • Which would be a bummer if shareculese weren’t awesome.

      • ‘shareculese’ of course being my alter-ego who actually is a Marxist

        • Heh. I’m not correcting that typo!

          • Gregor Sansa

            Oh, yeah. Rub our noses in it, why don’t you. I mean, fixing typos… can’t EVERYONE do that? Everyone who matters, anyway?

            :)

    • Tiny Hermaphrodite, Esq.

      And none of of them was about the US government defaulting or the democrats capitulating. Why is that?

  • Nick

    I have a question, it might sound provoking but I don’t mean it that way: are any of the world’s cultures not rape cultures?

    • I don’t know. Do any matriarchies exist?

      • anthrofred

        Yes, rarely, in a sense, but also no. It’s complicated.

        As to the original question, I don’t think mapping “cultures” on to societies works particularly well when “rape culture” is a concept being used. In other words, there isn’t a one-to-one match between a group of actual people out there and the beliefs, structures, and general atmosphere that encourages rape.

        • Nick

          So what are the places or people that lack the beliefs, structures, and general atmosphere that encourage rape?

          • Gregor Sansa

            LGM?

            But seriously. Think of the N word. 50 years ago in white Southern culture, it was commonplace. In fact, if you’d used any other word for black people, people would probably have looked at you funny. That was a racist culture.

            Nowadays, pretty much every white person in the US knows that you can’t get away with using that word in public. Well, at least every white person under 40 in a town bigger than 100K people.

            Do we now have a racism-free culture? Of course not. But it’s a lot better than it was, and that’s great.

            Today, there are plenty of places where you can’t get away with talking about “girls asking for it” or approvingly refer to men using alcohol to “score”. There are also places where people actively defend their privilege of saying these things. More of the former, and fewer of the latter, would be progress.

            (And yes, I know Nick’s just a troll who will now proceed to move the goalposts, but I think it’s worth saying this anyway.)

            • May I propose the portmanteau neologism “trollposts”?

              • sibusisodan

                portmanteau neologism

                portologism? neolanteau?

            • Anonymous

              That’s not the point of my question — I’m not certain if I accept the term rape culture, but I believe it describes an idea that is worth discussing. My question is whether there are any parts of the world or ways of living — e.g. Norway, Thailand, Japan, etc. — that are considered by theorists to not be a rape culture. The reason I think it’s a worthwhile question is that it’s a way of assessing how utopian the idea of changing America’s culture in the way that’s described above is: i.e. are there any models?

            • Nick

              Sorry, that comment above this was from Nick.

          • anthrofred

            I think you are missing the point of what I was saying, which could be summed up as “that’s not actually a coherent question”. “Culture” does not mean the same thing in both of your usages, and is a slippery, protean thing regardless.

            From my perspective, “American culture is a rape culture” is a flawed assertion because it treats “American culture” as some whole, consistent thing. Saying that a given event or utterance “is a reflection of rape culture”, sans article, is using the term in a different way.

  • Orpho

    I challenge any other LGM front pager to get this much fail in their comments. I _dare_ you.

    …maybe post about drones or something? Or Greenwald? I don’t know, I can’t actually conceive of what you’d need to do. But consider the gauntlet thrown.

    • And I haven’t even been trolled in this thread. One guy called me a worthless cunt.

      To be fair, pretty much every post Scott L. does on similar topics gets just as many baffling responses.

      • You also got left off Jennfier’s list of noted LGM Marxists.

        • She’s probably on J.’s s00p3r s3kr1t list of infantile anarchists.

          • anthrofred

            I thought Loomis kept that list.

        • Welp, you can win ’em all.

    • This is a really interesting question. My subjective impression is that you get as much fail but less consistently and there are spikes of particular nasty that are very bspenser specific (e.g., that challenge her presence itself in contrast to the other posters).

      It is on my sabbatical list to do a proper analysis to check this impression. Of course, one thing we do know that many comments don’t make it through, so the crap that we see is a biased view wherein this is better than the reality.

      Recognising increases my gratitude that she keeps delivering the awesome.

  • etv13

    Having waded through all the vitriol in this and the last thread, I’m almost afraid to comment, but here goes:

    Mixing up opinions about “college women” and what they should or shouldn’t be told about drinking (or getting hammered, or whatever) with talk about the Steubenville and Maryville (Marysville?) cases is a really bad idea. Girls in their early teens are not women, they’re children. They shouldn’t be told not to go to parties and get drunk — they should be prevented from doing so. Not by locking them in the house, but by enforcing the laws against giving alcohol to minors. The people who created a situation in which teenage boys were left alone to give copious amounts of alcohol to even younger girls should be prosecuted.

    And what the hell was that prosecutor on saying “they both did what they wanted” and there was no crime to prosecute? Is the age of consent in Missouri 12 or something?

It is main inner container footer text