Rape

Rape Numbers Rise Along With FBI's 'More Inclusive Definition' of Rape

Men can now be counted as victims and the crime turns not on force but consent.

|

AbigailGeiger/Flickr

According to new crime data from the FBI, U.S. crime in 2014 was down across almost all categories, including murder. But rape is one of two violent crimes (aggravated assault the other) for which states and local law enforcement agencies reported an increase last year, with the number rising 2.4 percent from 2013. What gives? 

First, it's important to note that the FBI changed its official definition of rape just a few years ago. Until 2013, the agency used a definition put in place in 1927 which categorized rape as "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will" (emphasis mine). Under the old federal definition, men could not be raped.

Neither did the old definition count it as rape if a victim was asleep, drugged, threatened, or in some other way compelled to have sex without the use of physical violence. And forced oral and anal penetration or penetration with an object were also excluded. Because of these omissions, federal statistics on rape—compiled from data submitted by states and law enforcement agencies—have been for many years incomplete.  

"Revising the definition of rape would result in a higher and more accurate number of rapes that are reported nationwide each year," Baltimore Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III said in 2011. And that's indeed true. Under what the FBI calls the "legacy" definition of rape, there were a total of 84,041 rapes reported in 2014. Under the revised definition, there were 116,645 instances of rape. 

The new definition, announced by the Department of Justice in 2012, is "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the the consent of the victim." As you can see, the primary element in the new definition isn't force but consent, putting the FBI's definition more in line with modern views of sexual violence

But not all entities reporting crime data to the FBI—which may be done directly by law enforcement agencies or may be compiled and submitted by a state agency, depending on the state—included rape info using the new definition, either in 2013 or 2014. How many did or if there was an increase last year over 2013 is not included in the new FBI crime data report. But because of the dual definitions, this year's report does include info based on both definitions. 

Under both definitions, there were more rapes reported last year than in 2013. Under the old definition, the number of rapes was up 2.4 percent in 2014. Under the new definition, the number of reported rapes rose from 113,695 to 116,645. The rape rate last year, using the new definition, was 36.6 per 100,000 Americans. 

Within the new definition, the FBI included both male and female victims and three separate state-reported sex offenses: rape (excluding statutory rape), sodomy, and sexual assault with an object. Still, "except where comparisons are made based on the same definitions of rape, readers are cautioned against assuming increases in rape numbers are due to an increase of violence or number of sexual assaults, but rather, the increase may simply be a reflection of the more inclusive definition," the FBI crime report states.

Using the pre-2013 definition, the number of rapes reported last year is down 10.9 percent from 2005 and still at one the lowest points in the past 20 years. The highest number of rapes reported during that period was 97,470, in 1995. With the exception of 1999, the number remained in the 90,000s until 2009, when it dropped to 89,241. Since then, it hovered between 82,102 and 85,593. 

NEXT: Carly Fiorina: The 'Outsider' for Establishment Conservatives?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Or as I like to call it, the “Hot Cosby.”

    1. I was going to go with “Position of power/dominance/SJW/BillyBobClinton rape”

  2. Clearly there’s an epidemic and we have to ‘do something’. We need a special new federal agency to fight the rape war. Let the spending commence.

    1. RAPE CZAR?

      1. STEVE SMITH MAKE GOOD RAPE CZAR. SHOW COUNTRY HOW TO RAPE THE RIGHT WAY.

        1. STEVE SMITH CALL THIS AN ASTERISK YEAR. RECORD NOT COUNT.

        2. STEVE SMITH INCLUSIVE! RAPE EVERYTHING!

          1. Ok, I hate to be “that guy” who has to ask the story behind every little meme that occurs on this site, but… Who is Steve Smith, and what’s the deal with his allegedly rape-prone tendencies?

            1. So, truly you are not the Akira of legend? I have a disappoint.

            2. The meme was firmly rooted before I started reading H&R back around 2010 or 2011, but from what I understand, STEVE SMITH is loosely based on a former contrarian commenter named Steve Smith who made the mistake of posting his picture; his barren head and low-sloped brow was compared to that a bald yeti. The bald yeti personae took on a life of its own, knowing only ball. And good. And rape. STEVE SMITH has since become the bane of hikers, campers, and anyone in possession of an un-raped orifice.

      2. Andrew Dice Clay?

        1. Mother Goose…

          …I fucked her.

        2. Everybody’s missing the obvious, considering who the likely Dem nominee is.

    2. I am sure they’re coming up with lots of new ideas for useless and creepy “studies” in light of the new stats. (sexting among virile young pool boys and the effect on climate change)

      1. That actually sounds like one of the less ridiculous studies that get funded.

        1. I am sure I could come up with something more ridiculous, I just need a grant…

          1. If your faculty status is sufficient and you agree that 97% of scientist say that AGW is a proven fact and the debate is over, you’ll probably get it.

            1. For instance:

              The effect of global warming on the breast size of pygmy goats.

              That sounds totally legit to me, consider yourself funded.

        2. Yeah, I could get behind that study.

  3. I blame global warming.

  4. Consent…which can be withdrawn retroactively.

    1. Of course. There are women who were raped 30 years ago and didn’t know it until now. It’s just that they weren’t edumencated on what ‘consent’ means.

      1. It took Jackie Fox 40 years to remember she was raped. 40 years and the tragic death of the man she waited to accuse after he was no longer alive to defend himself.

        1. She’s clearly a national hero. Can we put her face on some currency? It’s a matter of high importance.

        2. Your disingenuous description notwithstanding, did you even read what you linked? There are other people corroborating her version of the event in question. Why is that?

            1. Glad that I looked back here to see if you responded. According to the story you linked, there are three people who claim to have witnessed the rape: Krome, Roessler, Arguelles. Or am I misreading?

  5. “Under the old definition, the number of rapes was up 2.4 percent in 2014. Under the new definition, the number of reported rapes rose from 113,695 to 116,645.”

    Suspicious that you’d use a percentage for one and a count for the other.
    So under the new definition, it rose about 2.6%. Not a huge difference.

  6. So in other words rape is down, after all this. My judgment could be off after a couple of glasses of Vecchio Amaro.

    It’s all in the definition I guess.

    Speaking of which, does covering the mouth of your sexual partner/wife/victim/girlfriend/FWB constitute rape?

    I’m asking not for a friend but her friend.

      1. I was going to say hand but…whatever.

        The bag of empty Ruffles Sour Cream and Onions seemed delicious at the time though.

        1. *At least according to what the friend said?*

          1. Er…yes?

    1. All unsolicited touching by a member of the Patriarchy is rape. Have the SJW’s taught you nothing?

      1. Really?, seriously?, must I telegraph everything for you?

      2. Friend with…

          1. That’s the best kind

              1. If there is BBQ there will be beer. That’s a given. I thought you were from Florida.

                1. Plus it takes hours to BBQ, beer is just a trip to the carry out.

          1. Please don’t tell me you’re turned on by bunions.

            1. I will not tell you that. However, I will say that for a group of libertarian-minded people you all seem to frequently disapprove of the sexual proclivities that I quite frankly find necessary to share.

              1. I like bunions.

              2. I had bunion-reduction surgery. Don’t tell me, I know. I’m a monster. A sexy-hating monster.

                1. Butt, bud, and beaners.

  7. Under the old federal definition, men could not be raped.

    Ya can’t rape the willing.

    1. It’s hard to argue with that

    2. Actually, of the four people who I knew well enough to know they had once been raped, only three were women. The guy had been basically gang-raped by a group of coeds at a party in college. He described it as “not fun.” The ’70s were a different time….

        1. Those still exist?

          1. I don’t think so, any more. Not in the US, at least.

      1. The guy had been basically gang-raped by a group of coeds at a party in college.

        Poor bastard. I feel bad for him. I’m sure they got him drunk first, which makes it doubly bad.

        THE

        HORROR!

        1. I don’t think he was drunk. There might have been some pot involved.

          It was interesting to me because at first it sounded like a common male fantasy, but he’d didn’t enjoy it because it really was coerced. I wouldn’t say he was horribly traumatized, but his “not fun” comment and the way he said it made me believe him.

          1. Not all guys have rape fantasies. Why would that surprise you? Indeed, there’s is nothing “fun” about it, and you evidently don’t know how traumatizing it can be

        2. Think Nancy Pelosi, Rosie ODonnell, and Lena Dunham. Still interested?

    3. Only desperate guys who can’t normally get laid will ALWAYS be willing. That’s pretty pathetic

  8. When is this age of moral panic and microagressions freak out going to give way to a new enlightenment? Will there ever be a new enlightenment or are we truly stuck with these perpetually aggrieved luddites forever?

    1. True enlightenment shall find you once peak derp has crushed us all.

    2. microaggression: when the SJW just said “eh, fuck it”, went ahead, and defined their complaints down, making it completely obvious to everyone that they are reduced to maximizing their bitching about the smallest of grievances.

    3. Nothing is forever. Peak derp on the other hand…

  9. “modern views of sexual violence.”

    Sexual Violence, CDC style =

    Things like having sex when your partner has been….

    – telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue,
    – threatening to end your relationship, or threatening to spread rumors about you
    – wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy

    Or, ‘Stalking Violence’, which includes people you don’t want to have sex with…


    – approaching you or showed up in places, such as your home, workplace, or school when you didn’t want them to be there?
    – left you unwanted messages? This includes text or voice messages.
    – made unwanted phone calls to you? This includes hang-up calls.
    – sent you unwanted emails, instant messages, or sent messages through websites like MySpace
    or Facebook…

    The abandonment of “Force” as the necessary factor in coercion isn’t just some minor detail that brings “Rape” into the modern era…. so much as it opens the door for a far broader definition of “violence” that can pathologize behaviors traditionally never previously considered ‘Criminal’

    1. “showing up in places”

      god, the nerve of some people…thinking they are allowed to go places

    2. CDC – what does rape have to do with disease outbreaks and bio-terror? Looks like somebody needs a budget cut.

      1. “Wait! We might need another gun study to support common sense laws!!1!”

        /derp

    3. This reminds me of what Ray Bradbury said sometime in the ’90s, something along the lines of: “‘Sexual harassment?’ I sexually harassed my wife until she married me!”

  10. So all those roadside stops in Texas, along the side of the freeway, now officially count as rapes?

    1. EDIT: So all those roadside stops in Texas, along the side of the freeway, now officially count as rapes?

      Heh. Don’t give ME an edit button, will you …

  11. “approaching you or showed up in places, such as your home, workplace, or school when you didn’t want them to be there?
    – left you unwanted messages? This includes text or voice messages.
    – made unwanted phone calls to you? This includes hang-up calls.
    – sent you unwanted emails, instant messages, or sent messages through websites like MySpace
    or Facebook…”

    Dammit Mom!

    1. you win the internet today

    2. “Unwanted messages”? OMG, my boss is stalking me!!!

      1. No no no! See! We’ll put in a subjective arbitrator to determine what you want and don’t want!

  12. Isn’t this like the Autism freak-out? When you lower the bar and are surprised there is more of it?

    1 in 5 = unwanted kissing

  13. (1) OK, the old definition seems too narrow.

    (2) The new definition doesn’t sound too bad, actually. Not as bad as the CDC definition, that’s for sure.

    (3) Looks like the increase under the old definition is 2.4%, the new one 2.6%

    (4) For purposes of allowing longitudinal studies, they need to run and report on both definitions for, call it three years.

  14. This is more interesting:

    What is consciousness

    The question I always think of is this: So if the mind is just a computer running a sophisticated program, and that is the totality of consciousness and self awareness, if I upload that program into a machine that can replicate the workings of a human brain and then my physical body dies, is the machine then conscious and is it me? How can it be proven that it’s actually me?

    1. If it says it’s you I have no reason to assume otherwise.

      1. Well, there’s the problem. It would, if it had all of my programming and memory and complete brain functionality, it would obviously say that it’s me. The problem here is to prove that it’s me.

        I think I have come up with the unsolvable problem.

        1. Prove that you’re you now.

          1. I could be him for all you know

          2. That’s easy. Self awareness. I’m sure that I’m me. But again, the problem is that I cannot prove this to you. For all you know, I’m fake Hyperion.

            1. Your cells are entirely replaced by new ones every seven years to a decade, how are you sure that Current You is Real You and not a Copy You of the Real You? Or a Copy You of a Copy You?

              1. Good question. I can’t be sure. I just know that I’m me, not sure who me is. I have all the memories of those other me’s though.

              2. Not your brain cells.

                1. Ah, but neurons in the brain die off and are not replaced, which still creates a Different You from the Original You that didn’t lack them.

      2. Personally, I think the uploaded “you” would be you in the sense that your consciousness wakes up in the new location and says: “It worked! Here I am!” But that’s not the “you” in your old meat body.

        In other words, you have made a copy of yourself, and that copy lives and feels like it’s you, but the original you still dies.

        1. This is the problem. How does one upload and preserve the original. And how do we prove it’s the original?

          1. “How” is a huge issue. There may well be no non-destructive way to do it. But assuming you can do it, you get a copy.

            OK, so how to prove the copy is “the same”? That is very difficult. For one thing, your brain on silicon would operate much faster than your meat brain. The speed difference alone will throw off many psychological tests.

    2. In Star Trek, when they are beamed to the surface, how do we know the process didn’t kill the original and the copy just thinks it’s the same person?

      Huh? Answer that one smart guy.

      1. Well, again, that’s the problem. Only me can know that it’s me. How can this be solved?

        1. Please step onto the transporter pad.

          1. +1 buffer collapse

      2. In Star Trek, when they are beamed to the surface, how do we know the process didn’t kill the original and the copy just thinks it’s the same person?

        Think like a dinosaur.

    3. What about the chemical side. Hormones etc. If a computer isn’t thinking about sex most all of the time, it’s not me.

      1. Can it get hungry, does it crave beer, does it need to watch football? Does it hate?

      2. But the computer simulation of you would think about sex all of the time. It would think exactly like you do. So again, there’s no proof. How do we know it’s actually the sex pervert, AJB?

        1. But some aspect of oir thoughts and behaviours are controlled by our chemistry. Can you replicate that?

          1. Will it simulate testosterone. For girls will it get all bitchy that time of the month?

            1. We obviously can make women better. Men will be hard to improve upon. Let the SJW freakout begin.

              1. Yeah. They could have four tits.

          2. I think that’s a different question. If we were uploaded into a machine, we might lose the desires of the flesh. But the question is, would it still be us? Is consciousness and self awareness just a computer program? Because if it is, then uploading the program to a machine would make the machine conscious and it would still be us and we would be aware of that.

            1. “we might lose the desires of the flesh”

              Then it would not be us.

              1. Bear with me here. It would be you if you were conscious of being you. I myself would prefer a new body that still craved all of that stuff. But that’s not the question. The question is, can you, if the scientific theory of human consciousness being nothing more than a machine (the brain) and it’s storage capacity (memories, etc) be transferred to another medium and still be conscious?

                1. What would be your purpose? It sounds like fake afterlife. I don’t really buy it. There are too many missing pieces.

                  1. “What would be your purpose? ”

                    There’s no purpose, it’s just a question, that cannot be answered. Yet.

            2. And what if it was you? Technically you could live forever. But what if you didn’t want to? What if you begged and begged to be deleted and no one would do it? What if they enslaved your brain and used your neurons as a processor 24/7.

              1. Maybe we don’t have a choice, who knows. We’re barely above the level of monkeys now, we don’t know shit.

        2. Watch Ex Machina for the answer to all you’re questions.

          And to see naked Asian sex robots.

          1. I watched it. The movie is not so great. Chappie is much better. And it didn’t answer my question because at this point, no one can answer it.

            1. What we have is a way of identifying bodies, really. We have no way of identifying personalities.

              Now, how could you do that? I suspect that the science of personality transfer will give us an answer, once it is sufficiently developed to actually start transferring personalities.

              The quality control for the personality transfer itself will be where we discover the unique markers of each personality, would be my guess.

            2. Thanks. I will watch it.

    4. They’re working on it…

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/tech/mci-lego-worm/

      Called the Open Worm Project, the research brings together scientists and programmers from around the world with the aim of recreating the behavior of the common roundworm (Caenorhabditis elegans) in a machine.

      The open source project recently had its first major breakthrough when its software — modeled on the neurons of the worm’s nervous system — independently controlled a Lego robot.

      1. Did it crawl out into the street after it rained to get run over by a car?

        1. Tests so far have been inconclusive.

          1. I still want one

      2. Yes, they’re working on that. But that’s a long ways from proving that a mind uploaded to a man made machine is actually conscious and self aware, and finally the difficult problem, that it’s actually the person whose mind was uploaded.

        I have an idea about this, just haven’t revealed it yet, waiting for others to give their ideas.

        1. You might be interested in this: ageofem.com
          The author is sort of libertarian too.

          1. Thanks, I’ll check it out.

        2. Has anyone figures out what self-awareness really is?

          1. No, that’s what I’m talking about. Sure, it’s the act of being aware of one’s own existence. But what exactly does that mean? If it’s only some hardware and programming, we should be able to easily replicate it with some future technology advancements in hardware and software. I guess we will see.

            1. public void wakeUp()

              1. printf(“Time to die.”);

        3. To rephrase what I said above: if it can be done, what you get is a copy of you, not a transfer. Subjectively, it would think it was you. To an outsider conversing and sharing old memories, it would be you. But the old meat-body you, now dead, is still dead.

      1. (I would be interested in what someone more familiar with the literature on the subject thinks about this article. I read it several years ago and it stuck with me. The author speculates that language and learned behaviors are the foundation of consciousness, and that consciousness as such does not exist as a domain separate from verbal communication. We learn from our parents to describe our environment and then we internalize that habit as an ongoing internal monologue. Without those descriptions and the context they provides we cannot exercise the awareness and self-awareness that defines what we call consciousness.)

        1. Well, if that’s true, then a machine that can learn like a human and acquires speech and language will become conscious, yes?

          1. Well, his point is that we’re still grappling with a proper definition of consciousness. Consciousness is something of a misnomer: it’s not a thing or a process but a description of behaviors, namely, talk and self-talk. The silly thing about teaching computers consciousness is that we’re trying to replicate in silicon what, if he’s right, we do constantly and unconsciously (heh) in the flesh: giving children verbal cues until they possess a sophisticated enough vocabulary and syntax to carry on internal monologues.

            1. I’m having a difficult time believing that consciousness is dependent upon speech.

              1. I don’t really know what to think. It’s an interesting essay, though.

            2. If it’s “social science” its most likely bullshit.

          2. But to answer your question, I have no idea. Schlinger answers the philosophical question of what it’s like to be a bat with an affirmative “nothing”: there is no verbal context in a bat’s experience and thus there is no consciousness, or behaviors-defining-consciousness. A computer brain might be the opposite: so sophisticated and instantaneous that it possesses nothing humans would understand as being conscious.

        2. The author speculates that language and learned behaviors are the foundation of consciousness, and that consciousness as such does not exist as a domain separate from verbal communication

          Bullshit old-school grumpy Behavorialism that was thoroughly debunked by neuroscientist Jill Bolte Talyor’s documentation of her experience after a stroke.

          Long story short, she lost all of her language ability, she couldn’t even “think” in words…yet she didn’t lose consciousness.

          1. This is fascinating stuff. Thank you.

            One issue I’m having: she lost the ability to recognize words and numbers from sensory input but retains a clear picture of them in memory. Fair enough. More to the point she seems obviously capable of narrating the ordeal. So she can’t have lost a conscious monologue entirely, but when she did she describes it as la-la land. And she’s able to describe it well enough after the fact, collating all that sensory input into a fascinating account, but if you had arrested her cognitive functionality during one of her la-la episodes, would she be a conscious individual as we understand it? Not just aware and responsive but cognitive in a way she is while giving a TED talk?

            1. (after finishing the video one thing is pretty clear: AC is somehow self-administering controlled strokes.)

            2. Her “la-la land” matches up quite nicely with descriptions of the altered states of consciousness those experienced in meditation can enter. Is someone in the 2nd state of jhana or beyond conscious? Certainly so. Are they capable of discursive thought in such a state? Certainly not.

              1. Yeah, but here’s the issue I’m taking with all this: sensory input imprinted in memory is one thing, contextualizing it for mass consumption after the fact is quite another. Isn’t it saying something that she is putting all this into words afterward, when they’ve gotten back the ability to contextualize reality? And that, as rehearsed in retelling it as she is, the account ends up being very poetic and surreal? As you’d expect of something you really can’t explain well at all because you lack a first-hand account of it, only perturbations when your faculties reasserted themselves.

                1. I’m speculating extemporaneously talking out of my ass now, but I don’t think the author of the article I linked meant to suggest that consciousness as a state of being perceptive and aware and reacting to stimuli is all attributable to language, just that what we think of as human self-awareness is a product of being able to contextualize and reify our existences through language and monologue. The Helen Keller piece seems like a serious bid in that direction: having no moment to moment comparison, no means of contextualization, nothing to talk about!

                  1. Is it really as settled as all that? I quite like this train of thought I’m on. Am I the equivalent of a creationist or global warming denier? Because the idea of language mediating conscious thought as we know it is fascinating and really fun to play around with.

                    1. If or when you become fully bilingual, particularly in languages which have very little in common, it becomes rather clear where your abstract mind starts and your verbal mind ends.

    5. When you say ‘uploading’ do you mean somehow getting your consciousness shuffled from your brain into a computer, or just developing a copy of your brain through data and uploading it to a computer (in reality, more likely than the former)?

      I played Soma this weekend, and it deals with a lot of these themes. There’s some nasty implications.

      1. No, not exactly, I’m really not expressing a desire for anything like that. I’d actually prefer to stay in this body and have it repaired back to a more youthful state. But a backup is never a bad thing.

        My question is really about consciousness, what is it? If it’s only a program running on a super sophisticated computer, then it should definitely be possible to upload the programming onto another computer, equally sophisticated as to be able to run the program and then that machine should be conscious and self aware. If it’s not, then obviously consciousness is something more. If it is, then the ‘simulation’ we just created may actually mimic being self aware, but is it really? And even if it is, is it the same entity that it was uploaded from, IOW, does it share the same consciousness?

        1. “And even if it is, is it the same entity that it was uploaded from, IOW, does it share the same consciousness?”

          I’d say no, because of the divergence of experience. As soon as the ‘Copy’ consciousness is created and installed into a separate entity, its consciousness is separate of that of the Original. They both exist, but become different entities due to the immediate shift in experience. Said ‘Copy’ becomes its own consciousness merely by existing and interacting with reality in a divergent way in comparison to the Original.

          1. So, you’re saying that it’s impossible to replicate a conscious being?

            1. Oh, it’s possible. And quite fun, at least for the first several minutes.

            2. Well, that’s the thing. We’d need to spend about an hour defining consciousness and even the concept of ‘replication’. I mean, technically speaking, since nothing shares the same atoms, a perfect replication of anything, not just consciousness, is impossible. A perfect replication of a consciousness, should it somehow come into being, would have to exist in a vacuum where it shared the exact same sensory input and experiences of its original to stay a ‘replication’. Any variation would distort it into a new consciousness.

              Since we can’t even really substantially define consciousness yet, I’d say it’s unlikely?

              1. “Since we can’t even really substantially define consciousness yet, I’d say it’s unlikely?”

                I’d change that to ‘It’s unknown’.

    6. This thought exercise gets even more fun if you copy/paste your brain rather than upload and delete the original.

      1. I would like to have a word with myself.

    7. “”What is consciousness””

      Duh, its that period of time when i’m not blackout-drunk

  15. They should publish numbers for convictions alongside “reported”

  16. Until 2013, the agency used a definition put in place in 1927 which categorized rape as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will” (emphasis mine). Under the old federal definition, men could not be raped.

    Ex*cuse* me!

    /Caitlin

  17. Holy crap. Gas is 1.99. I never thought I’d see it under 2 bucks

    1. It was 2.32 here last time I filled up, on Saturday.

      1. 2.17 here in NY this morning.

    2. Cripes, the cheapest SF gas today is $2.69.

      1. Naturally. Those of you in SanFran want to pay more. Your wish has been granted.

        1. They never listen to me….

  18. Men can’t be raped. C’mon, they think about sex every 36.5 seconds. That’s worse than wearing a miniskirt and stilettos.

    1. Ask someone in prison

      1. Doesn’t count. The male anus isn’t oppressed.

    2. So, if I think about sex without my affirmative consent, have a I raped* myself?

      *Using the CDC definition, I think you could answer yes.

      1. Perpetrator, Victim, and Victim Blamer all in one.

      2. If you’re obsessive compulsive, yes.

        1. We’re talking about men, thinking about sex?

          I think the obsessive-compulsive goes without saying.

    3. Dude, grow up. Are there really people ignorant enough to think every guy will screw everything with a vag? Maybe your desperate and have no standards, but some of us do

  19. In the AM links I joked about whether a time where we’d be first to date someone of the same gender lest we be branded racist or intolerant.

    I wonder, one day, if University/Colleges will one day force students to date someone from each of the four main race/color groups while presenting proof of it: Black, Brown, White, Yellow.

    I’d be fine because I managed to hit all of those but I did it voluntarily….well according to the standards of the day. Who knows today?

    But what about those who aren’t so lucky? How do we help them?

    These are the things I think about.

    1. I can’t say that I would be opposed to some on assisting me on my primary goals in life. Just sayin

      1. No, it’s my class project seriously

    2. Just yellow, brown, and black. Whites will, of course, be assumed to be overrepresented in the dating pool.

      1. Maybe someone should pass a law that forces white people to go to their own schools and live in their own neighborhoods so they don’t pollute everyone else with their privilege. We can call it segregation.

        1. We should do it for cis men and women, and call it cisgregation.

          1. call it cisgregation.

            Greg is a man’s name cislord.

    3. I recently read someone claiming that refusing to date someone you weren’t attracted to is “discrimination.”

      Yeah, it was probably a fat and ugly feminist.

  20. “Tom Brady is NFL’s quickest draw and it’s paying off for the 3-0 Patriots”

    I hope for his sake it stays that way on the field.

    http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/e…..0-patriots

    1. I do not blame him as she kinda looks like a dude.

    2. The Patriots are the whitest team in the NFL. RACISTS!!! They’re trying to build an aryan football master race!

      1. And you are trying to create new Silicone based beings. Why do you hate Carbon so much? Cause it’s black?

        1. No, I’m not. I’m trying to identify what is consciousness. But I will welcome our new robot overlords.

          1. I look forward to the sex bots fo sho.

            1. I’ll be an early buyer of the fully customizable and programmable fembot 3000 model.

              Fully customizable body based on more than 175,000 prototypes, and upgradable for installing your own mods!

              Fully modifiable sexual behavior.

              Off and mute switch!

              Early buyers get a free remote control and all the alcohol you can consume for one year!

              It doesn’t get no better than this.

              / why there are no female libertarians

            2. Foolish mammal, they’re all sex bots…just not the sex you are seeking!!!!

      2. The Packers are pretty white. I mean, an entire OL that’s white?

        Rrrrrrrrracist!

    3. Well, another name for a Patriot is a Minuteman.

  21. At Radio Derb, John Derbyshire unleashed his musings this past Friday on boy rape. It’s even worse than the ‘The Talk’ that got him discontinued from his gig at National Review.

    He makes a distinction between Western clergymen and school-masters fiddling with adolescent boys and Pushtan tribesman tying them to a tree and buggering them until they scream while US servicemen are told to stay quiet.

    There’s rape, and there’s rape-rape.

    1. Is this the same guy that often contributes at takimag.com?

    2. He left Takimag for Vdare a couple of months ago. That’s a joke he offers in his opening.

      Like it or not, you don’t have to guess:

      http://www.vdare.com/radios/ra…..n-vain-etc

      1. Fuck… what is a vdare? Never heard of it until just now.

        1. Depending on who you talk to, VDARE is either a brave group unafraid to talk about the interplay of ethnicity with intelligence and Western culture, or a bunch of racists.

          “The Talk” was a play on “The Talk” that black parents give their kids about racism. It was edgy, but I don’t think it was any more “racist” than what it was riffing off of.

          1. They’re racists dressing their racism up in junk science and polite phrasing. Taki and VDARE are both alt-right toilets.

            1. The science is not “junk” just because it discovers things you don’t like.

        2. You’ve never heard of the heavily moderated ‘Gates of Vienna’ either.

          http://gatesofvienna.net/

          Push or shove, how do you browse?

    3. Western clergyman rape is like being touched by God. Hello.

  22. ContraKrugman

    Krugman’s weekly column refuted.

    1. Fucken Krugman.

  23. For my Canadian compatriots:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/trendin…..-1.3247838

    Justin is gonna leverage the Dad card.

    1. So, for your Murikan compatriots. Wife and I just got back from our first venture into the great white north known as Canada. We were just in Niagara and we thought about driving to Toronto, but we really didn’t have time.

      So we’re thinking about flying up to Toronto and driving to Ottawa, maybe to see the ‘real’ Canada.

      Any suggestions?

      1. Expect at least a 3 1/2 hour drive to Ottawa from Toronto.

        I don’t know Southern Ontario like Ontarians do but my excursions into Toronto have always been nice. Ottawa is your typical capital town; museums, bureaucrats and attractions like the Rideau Canal.

        When are you planning on going?

        1. Not even sure. We just want to see Canada that is not so touristy. My wife’s son worked in Toronto for a couple of years and thought we should go. But I don’t really care, just want to see what’s best and Ontario is closest for us.

      2. Tons to see in Toronto–great museums, restaurants, shopping. My home town, so I’m a little biased, mind you…
        Ottawa’s fun too. Worth a visit. Also has great museums.

        1. Toronto gets unfairly knocked in my view.

    2. Oh cripes that guy is NEVER going to be PM. If he found himself in a minority government he’d pull a Joe Clark harder than Joe Clark. I’m going to call the election now: Harper gets re-elected with a minority government. Mulcair’s numbers are going bad fast in Quebec, and that’s the death-touch for him. Forgot there was a debate tonight. Like Canada needs a foreign policy debate.

      “The comments followed NDP Leader Tom Mulcair’s comparison of anti-terror Bill C-51 to Pierre Trudeau’s invocation of the War Measures Act during the 1970 October Crisis.”

      That’s actually a damn good comparison. Both awful and senseless invasions of privacy.

      “I know that he wouldn’t want us to be fighting the battles of the past. He’d want us squarely focused on the future, and how we’re going to respond to Canadians’ needs.”

      OH GOD THE IRONY THE LACK OF AWARENESS

      1. I pretty much agree with this.

        1. When are Canadians going to realize the world doesn’t revolve around them?

          /”real” american grins

  24. OT: I was driving with my wife yesterday when we encountered some pokey bastard taking his sweet time crossing the street, my wife said, “why’s this guy gamboling in the middle of the street.” I was nearly triggered.

    1. For some reason, reasonable doesn’t like the word “gambol.”

      1. computer PTSD, it was nearly scalped by White Indian once.

    1. See? People don’t believe me when I say that Cleveland grows on you.

  25. OT: Saudi Arabia is going to run out of money at this rate (another article said that would happen in a decade)

    http://business.financialpost……mates-show

    Somewhat interesting: “Saudi Arabia has withdrawn as much as US$70 billion from global asset managers as OPEC’s largest oil producer seeks to plug its budget deficit, according to financial services market intelligence company Insight Discovery.”

    More interesting: “With income from oil accounting for about 80 per cent of revenue, Saudi Arabia’s budget deficit may widen to 20 per cent of gross domestic product this year, according to the International Monetary Fund. ”

    TWENTY PERCENT

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of medieval savages.

  26. if i did nothing else as president, i’d make a point to go thru all the statistics we keep, and make sure the models are, at the very least, not outdated by anymore than a decade. a 1927 definition of rape? did they even have rape then?

  27. Peep Show update: “Maybe this is what it’ll be like after the apocalypse: wandering around depressed, shooting children for fun.”

    1. Last season (series) is in just a few months!

      1. Oh thank Christ I’m not alone. I keep putting out bait and nobody seems interested. And then I turn around and fucking Broke Girls or BBT or whatever is the numberest onest television showest in the country and I mourn for good comedy.

        1. “Why do you insist on seeing the anus as some sort of human USB port just waiting to have all kinds of hardware plugged into it?”

          1. Jeremy: Look, I’ve just bought so much, I’ve got to offload it somewhere. Just because I’m dealing a little bit of drugs does not make a drug dealer.

            Mark: Well, yes it does.

            Jeremy: Oh, God, come Mr. Taliban, tally my bananas!

            1. “How did this happen? Okay, the truth is, I lied. I said I was having a baby because I wanted to impress you. You’re beautiful and intelligent and sexy and cool, and I wanted to seem proper, because, and I probably shouldn’t be telling you this, but I know I may look like a real person, but I’m not actually a real person.” Amen, brother.

              1. “Why do you have to bring worry and doubt into everything? You’re like some kind of mad evangelist for anxiety.”

        2. Pretty much everything Mitchell and Webb are involved in is fantastic.

          I seriously want to try the Stalingrad pickup line out sometime. I’ll either get shot down in flames coming off like a total weirdo or find a keeper.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.