MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Some Feminists Think Stopping Jokes Would Help Stop Rape, But 'Alcohol is Not the Problem'[*]

Brown BearAd Meskens / Wikimedia Commons[*Update: This headline was changed. For a full explanation, scroll to the bottom.]

Reason contributor Wendy McElroy and liberal feminist Jessica Valenti debated campus sexual assault, rape culture, and due process at Brown University on Tuesday afternoon. The debate preemptively generated student protests, alternative events, and even a statement from Brown President Christina Paxson.

These reactions had one thing in common: disdain for McElroy's perspective that rape is the work of a small number of serial predators, rather than a cultural phenomenon. Paxson lamented that view in her campus-wide email, writing, "I disagree. Although evidence suggests that a relatively small number of individuals perpetrate sexual assault, extensive research shows that culture and values do matter."

McElroy's contrarian perspective on rape was in fact so traumatizing for certain members of the campus that they felt they needed to create alternative events. Some students organized a "BWell Safe Space." According to The Brown Daily Herald:

Students who may feel attacked by the viewpoints expressed at the forum or feel the speakers will dismiss their experiences can find a safe space and separate discussion held at the same time in Salomon 203. This “BWell Safe Space” will have sexual assault peer educators, women peer counselors and staff from BWell on hand to provide support.

No student should feel the need to be protected from an opinion. But those who sought further insulation from McElroy's perspective were invited to attend another alternative event, which promised "The Research on Rape Culture." Samantha Miller of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education explained why this nonsense is insulting to students, as well as the debate participants:

Given the debate organizers’ prior arrangements to provide support to anyone who actually felt the need for it, Paxson’s choice to counterprogram the event makes little sense in terms of “emotional safety.” But it makes all the sense in the world if you assume the real goal is to provide an intellectual cocoon for students—an effort to create a ideological bubble on campus in which students’ beliefs will be free from challenge.

It's a miracle the debate even took place at all, considering how allergic Brown seems to be to constructive discussion of controversial topics, but McElroy and Valenti were able to make their points. McElroy's main argument, according to The Herald:

McElroy said rape culture exists in places like parts of Afghanistan where “women are married against their will” and “murdered for men’s honor” but not in North America, where “rape is a crime that’s severely punished.”

What’s more, those who politicize rape and assert the existence of rape culture imply that all men are guilty or that the accused do not deserve due process, McElroy said.

It is unacceptable that men can now be disciplined for rape through college hearings based on a preponderance of evidence rather than the traditional criminal justice standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “Let’s not build justice for women on injustice for men,” McElroy said, closing her talk.

And Valenti's:

Valenti never tackled the question of whether a preponderance of evidence or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt should be the standard for conviction of men in college hearings, but she did talk about other aspects of sexual assault as it relates to college campuses, such as the fact that alcohol plays a role in most sexual assault incidents.

“Alcohol is not the problem,” Valenti said, chuckling at the notion. “What we need to discuss is the way rapists use alcohol as a weapon to attack and then discredit their victims.” Rapists benefit from others’ insistence that a victim’s inebriation is to blame for his or her assault, she added.

Both speakers addressed how students might move forward in eliminating rape and sexual assault on campus.

“Stopping someone from telling a rape joke or saying they got ‘raped’ by a test” would be a start, Valenti said, but she also urged students to hold university administrators responsible for addressing rape on campus.

Since the college already saw fit to rebut McElroy, I will only deal with Valenti. I find her view on rape not only misguided, but positively deleterious to the cause of lessening sexual assault. The idea that stopping someone from telling a joke is "a start" to preventing rape is utter nonsense. People jokingly say, "you're killing me," when they don't get what they want; it doesn't mean they anticipate being murdered. When I say that I was beaten up in an argument, I don't mean that I suffered physical pain. Professing to have been "raped by a test" may be an off-color remark, but it has nothing to with actual sexual assault. Pretending otherwise is ludicrous.

Valenti's cavalier attitude about alcohol abuse is even worse. No one paying serious attention to the campus rape problem could conclude that "alcohol is not the problem." Binge drinking and alcohol-induced incapacitation are the conditions under which campus rape occurs. In fact, Valenti knows this, since she admits that alcohol is the rapist's weapon of choice. A teen culture of responsible alcohol consumption would be the best deterrent to sexual assault, and we should be discussing strategies for fostering that (like lowering the drinking age!). Telling students that dangerous drinking is just random some side effect is not merely dishonest, but actually dangerous.

Only in the warped world of the modern college campus—where protecting students' delicate feelings and upholding liberal orthodoxy is more important than giving them the truth about rape and alcohol abuse—could Valenti's views escape criticism while McElroy's earned an official condemnation.

Updated at 1:05 p.m. ET: Valenti tells me on Twitter that my headline is a distortion of her position and that she never asserted rape jokes cause rape. I based my headline on The Brown Daily Herald’s news story, which reported:

Both speakers addressed how students might move forward in eliminating rape and sexual assault on campus.

“Stopping someone from telling a rape joke or saying they got ‘raped’ by a test” would be a start, Valenti said, but she also urged students to hold university administrators responsible for addressing rape on campus.

It seemed to me that Valenti was saying that if we want to reduce sexual assault on campus, we should start with the rape jokes.

She declined to speak with me further about her piece, but did provide the text of her speech, which can be viewed here:

So “social license to operate is foundational to rape culture,” and “stopping someone when they are telling a rape joke,” weakens that social license.

To my eyes, that’s a confusing way of saying that abolishing rape jokes is what we should be doing to stop rape. But I have amended the headline to more perfectly encapsulate exactly what Valenti said, based on her prepared remarks rather than the news article.

Photo Credit: Ad Meskens / Wikimedia Commons

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.

  • On the Road to Mandalay.||

    First.

  • John Galt||

    Just think about it. Only five more birthdays and you'll be a whole twelve years old!

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    You could almost make that into Burma Shave signs!

  • ||

    Is this also another of your last ?

  • sarcasmic||

    Telling students that dangerous drinking is just random some side effect is not merely dishonest, but actually dangerous.

    Look. That would mean the victim bears some responsibility for getting passed out drunk around a bunch of horny young guys. That's blaming the victim. You can't blame the victim. The victim is absolutely not responsible for putting themselves into that situation. Women should be able to get crazy drunk, strip naked, pass out with their legs spread wide, and not have to even worry about some drunk guy taking advantage of the situation. Victim blaming is just wrong.

  • lap83||

    What gets me about the "victim blaming" bullshit the most is that it's an evil lie under the guise of compassion. Telling someone that they can't or shouldn't prevent bad things is the opposite of helpful.

  • Tony||

    Women should be able to get crazy drunk, strip naked, pass out with their legs spread wide, and not have to even worry about some drunk guy taking advantage of the situation.

    Yeah, women should not have to worry about that. What's with straight guys? Do you assume women want to fuck you until proven otherwise? If she's passed out drunk, that's a yes until she's conscious enough to say no? I'm all for talking about due process but you're not helping.

  • tarran||

    That false dichotomy was so huge that I think even Jezzie's would fat shame it!

  • Tony||

    Well the hypothetical was extreme. Even so, sarc seems to think there's some ambiguity about whether an unconscious naked woman wants to be fucked by a random guy.

  • sarcasmic||

    No, dipshit. It's the same idea as going into the store while leaving your running car in the lot with the door open and the keys in the ignition. You may not intend for your car to be stolen, but you shouldn't be surprised if it is.

  • Tony||

    And one might counter with what the fuck is your point? Does the car thief get more leniency because the theft was easy? Do we throw the car owner in jail for a bit too?

  • tarran||

    Please, the false dichotomy is crushing me!

    Ooof! Getting hard to breathe! Gasp!

  • sarcasmic||

    And one might counter with what the fuck is your point?

    In which case I will dismiss the person as an imbecile.

  • Unusual Dave||

    And one might counter with what the fuck is your point? Does the car thief get more leniency because the theft was easy? Do we throw the car owner in jail for a bit too?

    We are talking about preventing rape, are we not?

    Focus dude.

  • checkdempremises||

    The point would be that if there was a rash of car thefts and people were routinely leaving their cars out in the open, doors open and ignition running, someone would probably not go amiss saying 'dont fucking do that anymore' to the victims. It's a perfect example of progressives denying human nature; like if there weren't people making rape jokes on campus fuckers who rape women would all of a sudden stop doing it. Women should admit the dangers of getting sloshed around a bunch of horny despicable dudes and act accordingly. Recognizing the danger and taking steps to mitigate it would empower women, not banning speech and crucifying poor guys who had a drunken roll in the hay with some girl who later regretted it.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Your stupidity reeks.

    First, regardless of what the victim could have done to avoid the crime, the crime itself remains the same. The problem is that recovering from a crime is never easy; the victim can never be made whole again. Even if restitution for a stolen computer includes all the time spent buying a replacement and restoring lost files, even it that means thousands of hours and millions of dollars, the experience remains, and the time involved had a tremendous opportunity cost.

    Second, victims could always have done more to avoid a crime, like not leaving keys in a running car or not passing out drunk among a bunch of drunk and horny frat boys. Sure, the crime can be prosecuted, but it's always better to avoid the crime in the first place.

  • Mark22||

    Does the car thief get more leniency because the theft was easy?

    If the car owner was negligent, police will probably ignore the case and insurance may not pay.

    Society has little interest in protecting negligent people from the consequences of their negligence.

    Do we throw the car owner in jail for a bit too?

    Failing to lock your car doesn't create a public nuisance nor does it put the car owner at personal risk. Passing out from alcohol in public puts someone at personal risk and creates a nuisance. That's why we do lock up people for it.

  • ImanAzol||

    Don't tell kids to look both ways! That's blaming the victim.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    Which is not to say you're at fault for the crime of your car being stolen. Clearly the thief is the sole person morally culpable for the theft. In my opinion, you would bear some much smaller culpability for not taking basic precautionary measures to protect your property against theft, which is distinct from the culpability assigned to the act of theft.

    I had a big long argument with people who asserted adamantly that there is no distinction between actual perpetration of another person's rights (through theft, rape, and murder) and proposing a small moral duty to take reasonable measures to protect your rights against the criminals in the world.

  • R C Dean (fka Clown Hunter)||

    The point is, really, that anyone who leaves their car running with the doors open really doesn't deserve any sympathy when their car gets stolen. "What did they think would happen?" is a natural and appropriate response.

    If I were to march through one of your rougher inner city neighborhoods screaming racial epithets and waving a "Niggers go back to Africa" sign, people are going to have a different reaction when I get the shit kicked out of me, than if I get mugged in the same neighborhood taking a donation to the soup kitchen.

    People are responsible for acting responsibly. If you don't, like it or not, you have some, well, responsibility for the bad things that happen next.

  • Warren's Strapon||

    I know a guy who recently had a lot of stuff stolen from his car--including NFL tickets, cash and his laptop--while he ran into Starbucks. He'd left the car unlocked and running.

    Yes, I called him a dumbass. Yes, the thief is still a thief. It is entirely possible for both things to be true.

  • sarcasmic||

    Did you call him a dumbass for leaving his car unlocked and running, or for going to that overpriced and overrated hipster coffee shop?

  • Mark22||

    Yes, the thief is still a thief. But police and his insurance company will tell him he's a moron. And I certainly don't want to pay taxes or higher insurance rates to pay for such stupidity.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Actually, sarc, Tony is right on this particular point. If I leave my car unlocked with the keys in it, yes, I'm accepting a slightly higher risk that it might be stolen. That doesn't, however, mean the person taking my property is not a thief.

    Sex, without consent, is always a crime. I have no moral obligation to modify my behavior to ensure others don't commit crimes.

    My complaint with these feminist whack-jobs lies in the definition of consent and when and how it must be obtained.

  • sarcasmic||

    That doesn't, however, mean the person taking my property is not a thief.

    Please point out where I said someone who rapes a passed out woman is not a rapist, or where I said someone who steals a running car is not a thief.

  • ||

    Please point out where I said someone who rapes a passed out woman is not a rapist

    Rapist suppporter!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Please point out where I said someone who rapes a passed out woman is not a rapist, or where I said someone who steals a running car is not a thief.

    Your implication was clear. You sarcastically implied that you can't blame the victim (as if to say that you can). Right here:

    You can't blame the victim. The victim is absolutely not responsible for putting themselves into that situation. Women should be able to get crazy drunk, strip naked, pass out with their legs spread wide, and not have to even worry about some drunk guy taking advantage of the situation. Victim blaming is just wrong.

    Well, the bottom line is, that you can't blame the victim.

    I normally agree with your opinions, sarc, but you are wrong on this. The only blame, lies with the aggressor. Same reason I don't attack Westboro Baptist Church protesters for being assholes. They have a right to free speech, bitchez have the right to act like sluts if they want to. That doesn't give leeway to aggress upon them.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's a fine line Fd'A. I'm not saying that a person is to blame when they put themselves into a compromising situation and bad things happen to them. A rapist is still a rapist and a thief is still a thief. However, telling people that they should be able to put themselves into these situations and not have to worry is just wrong. At some point commons sense needs to come into play. That's why I always lock my car and never leave it running. Likewise I would advise young women not to get passed out drunk around a bunch of horny guys. That doesn't take blame away from the rapist or thief, but at some point you've got to use common sense and not allow the situation to occur in the first place.

  • Tony||

    You're treating women as the only agents here. "A bunch of horny guys" are, like, probably just gonna rape; that's what they do. Nobody misunderstands the point about being vigilant, but it seems like you only expect women to be personally responsible. If men are one drunk chick and a good opportunity away from being a rapist, by nature, then I think that is the problem that needs to be solved, not the type of clothing women wear or how much they drink.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    You're treating women as the only agents here.

    That is complete and utter bullshit. Show me where anyone has said that the rapists do not bear responsibility for their actions.

  • sarcasmic||

    That is complete and utter bullshit.

    There are many adjectives I would use to describe Tony.

    Honest is not one of them.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    Another point feminist types raise that I think is valid is: how much time/effort/attention do you spend on the culpability of each party? A lot of people say "yeah obviously rapists are horrible and deserve criminal punishment, but...(4 plus paragraphs detailing the steps wymyns need to take to prevent being raped)"

    I'm all for prevention. I'm a gun nut survivalist type. But I think the point about it might be preferable for people to spend more mental energy on trying to devise ways to catch, punish, and otherwise deter rapists. Certainly, preventive measures by potential targets is a logical part of that strategy, but I don't think they are necessarily wrong in saying that many people's focus is disproportionately on what the rapee should have done, and not enough on what the raper did.

  • LynchPin1477||

    But I think the point about it might be preferable for people to spend more mental energy on trying to devise ways to catch, punish, and otherwise deter rapists.

    That's a valid point. And I guess that is why there is so much emphasis on "rape culture".

  • Loki||

    Another point feminist types raise that I think is valid...

    If they had any valid points, they wouldn't feel the need to automatically stifle discussion and shout down any and all dissenters as "rape apologists".

    Well, maybe they would still feel the need to do those things, after all it's pretty much their go to move.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    Why would I trust your reasoning, devious one? Will you try to deceive me into murdering another well-beloved god?

    One of the problems that I think creates people who think shouting down others who fail to adhere to Correct Thought is living in an echo chamber for too long. So I think it's good to examine other people's arguments critically and try to see what merit they have. You might exhaust yourself examining painfully dumb arguments, but at the end of the day you are more familiar with those dumb arguments and thus can more easily demonstrate their failings.

  • WTF||

    No one made that argument, you mendacious fuck.

  • sarcasmic||

    If men are one drunk chick and a good opportunity away from being a rapist, by nature, then I think that is the problem that needs to be solved

    Really? You're going to change human nature? That's pretty cool. Let me know how it works out.

    In the mean time, when my daughter gets old enough, I will advise her to avoid drinking too much around a bunch of horny guys so she isn't put into a situation where one may take advantage of her.

    I bet I will prevent more rapes than you.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Nobody misunderstands the point about being vigilant

    Really? So would you be willing to sign off on the following?

    It's a good idea for young women to stop themselves from drinking too much in situations where they may be at risk for assault or rape.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It's a good idea for young women to stop themselves from drinking too much in situations where they may be at risk for assault or rape.

    I think posing the question to actual rape victims of what they would recommend would be revealing.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    If men are one drunk chick and a good opportunity away from being a rapist, by nature, then I think that is the problem that needs to be solved,

    And this is the fallacy of the entire issue. It's quite simply not the case. There are no numbers that support this assertion.

    Here.

  • sarcasmic||

    And this is the fallacy of the entire issue. It's quite simply not the case. There are no numbers that support this assertion.

    It's Tony's assertion, so you can take it for granted that it is false.

    My point is that IF one of those drunk guys has it in him to be a rapist, AND some drunken female passes out, THEN she is now in a situation where she could be raped.

    She can't control whether or not any of those guys is a potential rapist. She can control how much she has to drink, and by doing so whether or not she becomes a potential target.

    I'm not saying that some girl deserved to be raped for getting passed out drunk at a frat house, but what the hell else do you think is going to happen?

  • DesigNate||

    Wait, they don't just put their hands in a bowl of warm water and laugh as they pee themselves?

    Everything I learned about college is a lie!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Who said anything about men in general? All you need is one man with utilitarian morality who thinks he can get away with it.

  • Brian||

    The thing that always strikes me in these conversations, is that men actually do rape other men.

    In fact, male rape has all the same problems as female rape: the victims don't report, even more so than women victims. After all, someone may question their sexuality, and wonder, why, on earth, did a man let another man rape him? Apparently, people victim blame male victims, too.

    SJW really don't seem to care about that though, because:
    1. They consider men expendable, and
    2. Homosexuals are supposed to be cultured hipsters, not drunken rapists. You know, like every black man is supposed to really be the equivalent of a Morgan Freeman character, once you get to know him. We can't have bad press and statistics tarnishing the reputation of a protected minority that enjoys positive stereotypes.

    So, we pretend that it never happens. While we go out of our way for the women. But, we have no sexist culture wrapped up in that. Oh, no. It's pure, progressive enlightenment.

  • ||

    The thing that always strikes me in these conversations, is that men actually do rape other men...So, we pretend that it never happens.

    To extend the point, men are also raped by women and women rape other women. I would imagine men raping women is a minority of rapes no matter how much we try to ignore it. The deliberate misuse of epidemic and rape culture serves no purpose whatsoever for the safety and welfare of women. It is, always has been and always will be about control.

  • Edwin||

    //You're treating women as the only agents here.

    Alright, that's the last straw right here. You've proven yourself to be a fucking retard and a liar.

    sarcasmic's comment LITERALLY EXACTLY SAYS that the victim isn't to blame and that the perpetrator is to blame.

    to wit:
    "I'm not saying that a person is to blame"
    and
    "That doesn't take blame away from the rapist or thief"

    So, you fucking lied as usual.
    The concept we're talking about is very simple. There are very few people who don't understand it or in practice ascribe to it. And it doesn't imply what you claim it implies.

    No one is going to respond to you or at all take you seriously until you admit you're fucking lying and being stupid on this one issue.

    By the way, consider yourself lucky you only post on the internet. Because if this were a conversation, if I knew you, this is the point I'd knock your fucking lights out for being a slanderous fucking liar.

  • VicRattlehead||

    I expect EVERYONE to be personally responsible for ALL of their behaviors.
    it sounds fucked up to say but sometimes "she was asking for it" is exactly what goes through my head when girls tell me their rape stories that involve them drinking to excess with random dudes in a remote location.
    its hard to sympathize with someone who creates an atmosphere perfect to become a victim.

  • Mark22||

    The only blame, lies with the aggressor

    Bullshit. The aggressor is the only person guilty of rape, but the person who voluntarily passes out from alcohol is guilty of negligence. And as a society, we shouldn't condone or protect that kind of negligence.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I have no moral obligation to modify my behavior to ensure others don't commit crimes.

    This is absolutely true. But just because you don't have a moral obligation to do so doesn't make it a bad idea.

  • VicRattlehead||

    you also have no moral obligation to prevent yourself from being robbed, but i am sure you lock up the house when you leave

  • Mark22||

    That doesn't, however, mean the person taking my property is not a thief.

    It does mean, however, that police and your insurance company can tell you to f*ck off, and that your friends can call you stupid.

    Sex, without consent, is always a crime.

    If you choose to get drunk and drive a car, the law presumes that you intended, or at least accepted, the consequences of your reckless behavior. Why should it be different for other consequences of getting drunk?

    In fact, people choose to consume alcohol in many cases to modify both their choices and their responsibility. That is, they drink to lower their inhibitions, and they drink in order to be able to say "oh, I didn't really want to have gay sex, I was just too drunk".

  • sarcasmic||

    That's a whole lot of stupid there, Tony. Even for you.

  • some guy||

    Imagine if we asked Tony what was up with gay guys and spreading around the HIV. Does he assume other guy's want the HIV until proven otherwise? If the other guy doesn't demand protection then you don't have to tell him you're infected?

  • some guy||

    Tony, this isn't about what's right and wrong. This is about accepting the fact that there are a few predators out there and you have to balance risk with reward in that context. People lock their doors as a deterrent, even though they shouldn't have to worry about theft. People password protect their accounts, even though they shouldn't have to worry about hackers.

    So, if I leave my doors unlocked and get robbed, it isn't because I deserved to get robbed. It's because I refused to protect myself. That's just the way the world works and anyone who denies that is going to have a bad time.

  • sarcasmic||

    Locks keep honest people honest. They don't stop thieves.

  • some guy||

    Locks absolutely deter thieves. They stop opportunistic thieves (your honest people), but they also cause career thieves to redirect their efforts at easier targets.

  • sarcasmic||

    More often than not, a thief already knows what they plan to steal. They generally don't pick some random house. Rather they pick a house they know to contain something they want. In that case all locks will do is slow them down.

  • some guy||

    More often than not, a thief already knows what they plan to steal

    I don't know about that. A lot of small time thieves just look for easy targets (houses, sheds and vehicles) in middle class areas. They know there will be something of value on hand, jewelry, cash, electronics, tools, etc.

  • Riven||

    Apparently you've never stolen anything. There's almost always an easier target with the same or similar loot.

  • sarcasmic||

    I've had things stolen from me, and in all cases the person knew what they were after.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I've had things stolen from me, and in all cases the person knew what they were after.

    Yes, thank you for those.

  • Curtisls87||

    While there are certainly target thefts, Much of the low level thievery is based on a need for immediate gratification of some kind - cash, drugs, etc. Individual that move in that realm are opportunistic, and thus look for easier targets. As an example, an opportunistic thief is much more likely to hit my neighbor's house with single pane windows and doorknob locks than my house with multi-pane windows and 3-point deadbolt locks.

  • VicRattlehead||

    "Apparently you've never stolen anything. There's almost always an easier target with the same or similar loot."

    wanna team up for the apocalypse?

  • Careless||

    With a name like sarcasmic, I can't tell if you're stupid or joking.

  • Tony||

    If there is an epidemic of apartment break-ins on campus, then I'd hope something would be done about that more than advising students to keep doors locked. Not that taking personal security measures is something anyone on earth is unaware of. People might ask why make such an obvious point if not to excuse rape/blame the victim to some degree?

  • WTF||

    "People have no responsibility to take measures for their own security, and saying they do is victim-blaming." Derpity derp derp derp

  • Unusual Dave||

    If there is an epidemic of apartment break-ins on campus, then I'd hope something would be done about that more than advising students to keep doors locked.

    You mean like holding college hearings for everyone accused? I mean, that's obviously the best idea...

    Not that taking personal security measures is something anyone on earth is unaware of.

    And yet, if some people don't take those measures, pointing that out is somehow victim blaming.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    That is what they would do at the u.S. Naval Academy, and the hearing would be run by midshipmen.

  • ||

    It's the Navy...

    They'd hang someone from the yard-arm, then... buggery on the high seas!

    Go Army! Beat Navy!

  • VicRattlehead||

    ahh the glories of NJP
    guilty of article 92 under all circumstances
    its the UCMJs equivalent of FYTW

  • Jordan||

    If there is an epidemic of apartment break-ins on campus, then I'd hope something would be done about that more than advising students to keep doors locked.

    Yes, I would hope the police would get involved instead of just having students setup Star Chambers that expel innocent students and leave actual burglars free to continue breaking into houses.

  • some guy||

    If there is an epidemic of apartment break-ins on campus, then I'd hope something would be done about that more than advising students to keep doors locked.

    First, to make this comparison, you're assuming there is a rape epidemic on campus. We all know that is not the case.

    Second, when we advise students to drink in moderation, that isn't the only advice we give. We also advocate for aggressively prosecuting rape in criminal courts, while respecting due process. You know this, so stop being disingenuous.

    People might ask why make such an obvious point if not to excuse rape/blame the victim to some degree?

    The point was to compare locks to not getting pass-out drunk. The point of the comparison was to point out there are protective measures students should take, which are apparently not so obvious to some people.

    People might ask why you make such points unless you are encouraging girls to get pass-out drunk at frat parties, consequences be damned.

  • some guy||

    You know what? I'm done Tony. For months.. maybe years I've tried to engage you honestly. I've tried to avoid name-calling and to give you the benefit of the doubt. But this conversation is too much. You're just too much of a mendacious ass. You know we are not victim-blaming here. We're actually advocating the one thing that would have the biggest impact on college sexual assault. And I think you're smart enough to know that, but you just don't care. You just want a reason to attack us, so fabricate this victim-blaming theory and throw it out there. Then you twist yourself into a logical pretzel trying to defend it. I'm done. Enjoy being mendacious. It appears that's all you have going for you.

  • Tony||

    You don't think it's problematic that the main difference between the topic and the analogies is that we're expecting women to be extra vigilant just because they're female? I think being vigilant is a given, but it can't be the only response. I've said I favor abolishing Greek culture altogether. Lower the drinking age to 18 and encourage drinking in public. But you might at least empathize with those who think you're placing all the onus on women and taking a sort of "boys will be boys" attitude to men, which I think is patronizing to both and might make someone think you're letting men off the hook.

  • WTF||

    Mendacious to the core. Keep it up, dipshit.

  • Jordan||

    Mendacious to the core. Keep it up, dipshit.

    Arguing in bad faith is all he's got.

  • Unusual Dave||

    extra vigilant

    As defined by you I suppose.

    You know what I'm getting out of this whole debate? The convo starts out with how to stop rape. Stop, as in prevent, as in before it happens. When it is suggested that individuals can take steps to better protect themselves it's victim blaming or letting the perp off the hook. As in something that happens after, as in not the original topic. Yeah, that's not a bait and switch, no sir.

    might make someone think you're letting men off the hook.

    Collective guilt!

    “Let’s not build justice for women on injustice for men”

    RTFA man.

  • Tony||

    But you're telling women, collectively, that they are responsible for this problem (or maybe just the hot ones).

  • Unusual Dave||

    But you're telling women, collectively, that they are responsible for this problem (or maybe just the hot ones).

    You didn't read my second paragraph did you?

    No one is assigning responsibility. And, no, it's not a collective problem unless you're suggesting that women huddle together or take collective action.

  • WTF||

    He read your second paragraph, he is just a lying douche.

  • ||

    No. Nobody is saying don't do ANYTHING other than tell women to not get drunk.
    We just don't think that denying the presumption of innocence to men is the right thing to do.

    Also, I believe the main point of the article is that if rape jokes are part of the problem then surely we should be able to talk about the drinking culture too. You can't just wall off certain parts of campus culture from criticism.

  • Tony||

    I don't think anyone disagrees to much about anything here (except sarc, who thinks women who get drunk are to some degree asking for it).

  • tarran||

    (except sarc, who thinks women who get drunk are to some degree asking for it).

    Please stop projecting your sick fantasies on Sarcasmic.

  • VicRattlehead||

    and myself, and you have to admit if you go out with random people and you are the natural prey it would behoove you to not get wasted, if you do get wasted and end up not raped well your just a reckless idiot, but because you get raped it makes you not a reckless idiot?

  • Pulseguy||

    When I travel in Mexico I was warned about getting ripped off at gas stations. You give a guy a $500 peso bill, and his buddy distracts you ever so briefly. You look away, you look back, and the guy you gave the bill to has a $50 in his hands and is looking confused. 'Amigo, necesito mas dinero por favor.' I was warned about this, was very careful and got ripped off. I now carry $200 peso notes and always buy gas in increments of $200. I pay after the gas has been dispensed and I methodically count out the money not letting go until the attendant acknowledges he has been paid. My buddies cracked up when I told them I got ripped off for $500 pesos ($450 actually as I was credited with the $50). It is not blaming the victim to give very clear instructions on how not to get ripped off.

    But, you know this. You just want to attack those who think differently than you do.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    You don't think it's problematic that the main difference between the topic and the analogies is that we're expecting women to be extra vigilant just because they're female?

    Tony casually forgets that more men are raped in America than women.

    I think being vigilant is a given, but it can't be the only response.

    In certain jurisdiction, the penalty for forcible rape was execution. Yet forcible rape still occurred (until such a penalty was determined to be in violation of the Eighth Amendment). If death is insufficient to deter people from committing crimes, what more do you suggest be done?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    what more do you suggest be done?

    Oh, I think he's got some ideas.

  • Tony||

    I suppose the ticket is to alter the environments with an eye to prevention. I want to abolish frats and make our prisons more Scandanavian and less Shawshank.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I suppose the ticket is to alter the environments with an eye to prevention.

    This means nothing.

    I want to abolish frats and make our prisons more Scandanavian and less Shawshank.

    Ah yes, fraternaties are "rape factories". And now for the $60,000 question: What is the rate of recidivism for rapists in these wonderful Scandinavian countries?

  • Pulseguy||

    Tony...Shawshank as in innocent man gets convicted, makes friends with wise and gentle black man, but both are abused by cruel monsters who run the institution?

    Or, places filled with vicious, nasty people, many of whom are psychopaths or borderline psychopaths?

    And, what exactly are Scandinavian prisons like? Nice places where bad guys get rehab and come out and work for charities the rest of their lives?

    As far as 'altering the environment with an eye to prevention'...duh! That is what people are talking about when they suggest don't get rip roaring drunk, go to a guys apartment and strip and lie on the bed and say 'fuck me'. Is that not part of the 'environment'?

  • epsilon given||

    So you want to abolish frats. Have you ever heard of the 1st Amendment? It doesn't just cover speech and religion. It also covers something called "freedom of assembly" and "right of association", which means you could gather together with whoever you want, for whatever purposes you want.

  • ||

    You don't think it's problematic that the main difference between the topic and the analogies is that we're expecting women to be extra vigilant just because they're female?

    Aren't women supposed to be extra vigilant about Breast Cancer, just because they are female?

    There are some risks that go along with being female. I don't think it's bizarre or sexist to suggest that women be more vigilant about those risks.

    It would be fabulous if we lived in a world where rapists targeted men and women equally. Sadly, I doubt that such a world is biologically plausible.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    It would be fabulous if we lived in a world where rapists targeted men and women equally.


    Prison -- the great rapey equalizer.

  • ||

    Yes, well in an unconstrained environment, given a selection of targets of both genders, around 9 out of 10 rapists will go for the female.

    Don't know why. Must be some sort of sexist cultural thing.

  • Pulseguy||

    Hazel....a gay friend of mine had sex with a woman for the first time when he was about 40. He said 'It actually felt really, really good. It is almost like a vagina was made for a penis.' He said this as though it was an amazing revelation probably first noticed by him that evening. Dude, I said, it was made for a penis. 'Oh yeah', he said.

  • DesigNate||

    Hey, I thought that was Warty's title?

  • John C. Randolph||

    we're expecting women to be extra vigilant just because they're female?

    Nobody said any such thing and you know it, you Alinskyite asswipe.

    -jcr

  • Tony||

    As Hazel says just that.

  • Pulseguy||

    Tony...all people must be extra vigilant in the ways he or she is vulnerable. If you're investing money with people I would suggest you be extra vigilant about their past history. If you're traveling in the Paris airport I would suggest you keep your wallet in your front pocket, not your back pocket. If you're a woman in a Muslim country, wear a scarf. If you're a guy in a Muslim country don't sew a big American flag on your back pack. And, so on.

  • Mickey Rat||

    You need to need vigilant if you have something amoral people are willing to use force or fraud to obtain. That a woman has such a thing by virtue of being awoman is unfortunate but reality. The only way to change that is to rid the world of people with utilitarian moral outlooks, but civilization has been working that problem since the beginning of civilization.

  • Edwin||

    //we're expecting women to be extra vigilant just because they're female?

    not-getting blackout drunk isn't being extra-vigilant, it's common fucking sense

    // I've said I favor abolishing Greek culture altogether.

    Or just lower the drinking age like we said. No reason to take away something lots of people enjoy

  • Walter Peck||

    Is affirmative consent asking one gender to be more vigilant?

  • VicRattlehead||

    I have a new version of Affirmative consent; before i get down i always let em know
    you say red if you want to stop or yellow if your getting close to the edge of your comfort.
    otherwise you are consenting
    :-)

  • epsilon given||

    Tony, I find it amusing that you don't think it's natural to focus on women being extra vigilent, when it's natural to focus on that angle, since we're talking about women being raped.

    But, seriously, suppose you're a man at a bar, or a fraternity house, or at some wild college party. Do you really think it's a bright idea to drink until you pass out on the floor?

    Even if you don't get raped in such a situation (which is a possibility, by the way--because both men and women have been known to rape men), it's also a situation that's conducive to waking up in an alley with your wallet and even your pants missing.

    This is a dangerous world, for BOTH men AND women. People get raped, mugged, and killed; getting so drunk that you have no idea what's going on around you, in a public place, is a VERY STUPID IDEA, because you will be able to do nothing to defend yourself, even assuming that you are conscious enough to even be aware of what's happening.

    Your unwillingness to see drinking yourself into a stupor is dangerous is far more "problematic" than worrying that women need to be "extra" vigilant. (Everyone needs to be "extra" vigilent, not because "boys will be boys", but because "evil people do evil things", and we'll never fully be able to determine in advanced who is going to be evil.)

  • Adam330||

    "People might ask why make such an obvious point if not to excuse rape/blame the victim to some degree?"

    Probably because it's apparently not obvious to a lot of people, including Ms. Valenti and the entire Brown University administration.

  • ||

    "Tony|11.19.14 @ 10:11AM|#

    If there is an epidemic"

    That's the problem in your stance.

    There is no epidemic. Human nature and young male hormones haven't changed that much in recent times.

    Assuming that there is a "rape culture" is your first (among many ) mistake.

    When two young people get drunk and have sex, it is not the fault of one or the other, and neither should be allowed to change their mind the next day and have the powers that be punish their sex partner after the fact.

    Does a woman who doesn't reach a satisfactory levels of satisfaction have a stronger case of "RAPE" than one who does ?

    Let that be a warning to young men who may be somewhat selfish in their raping.

  • ||

    "Tony|11.19.14 @ 10:11AM|#

    If there is an epidemic"

    That's the problem in your stance.

    There is no epidemic. Human nature and young male hormones haven't changed that much in recent times.

    Assuming that there is a "rape culture" is your first (among many ) mistake.

    When two young people get drunk and have sex, it is not the fault of one or the other, and neither should be allowed to change their mind the next day and have the powers that be punish their sex partner after the fact.

    Does a woman who doesn't reach a satisfactory levels of satisfaction have a stronger case of "RAPE" than one who does ?

    Let that be a warning to young men who may be somewhat selfish in their raping.

  • Hicks||

    If there are a few thieves robbing a bunch of apartments, I want them caught, tried and jailed.

    I do not understand and the idea of having a college trial that ships him to next town to continue their crimes. Eventually, one of them is get cornered and innocent people get hurt.

    If there is rape, go to real police. I live near UNC, and a few years ago a drunk student went to another students apartment, and what started consensual turned into rape when friend joined in. Instead of going college court, they went to cops knowing it would make papers. As result, both rapists are currently in prison, in addition to being expelled.

    Forgot to mention that the rapists were female, and the victim was a big football player. He got freaked by the roommate and wanted to leave, but was told to perform unless he wanted a "little off the end".

    Should the football player have ignored cops and gone to gone to honor court?
    Does the reversal of sexes change anything?

    Should he have gone to the

  • VicRattlehead||

    Who doesn't want 2 chicks at the same time?
    why cant this shit happen to me, then no one goes to jail, and everyone ends up happy

  • Mark22||

    People might ask why make such an obvious point if not to excuse rape/blame the victim to some degree?

    If someone passes out from alcohol and becomes the victim of a crime, I very much blame the victim for their negligence. Why would you condone binge drinking and passing out from alcohol?

  • John Galt||

    Trying to explain anything to Tony, even things so simple as to be mere common sense, is like attempting to teach calculus to a gold fish.

  • DesigNate||

    Tony is only deserving of mockery and ridicule. He, or his sock master, have been on this website more than long enough to know the difference between his strawmen and the rest of us, and yet he feigns ignorance at every turn.

  • John Galt||

    *facepalm*

  • Pulseguy||

    I realize trying to get any reasonable response out of you is impossible, your job is to uphold the proggie party line, but here goes:

    If TWO people get drunk, they both are incapacitated, or they both aren't. Young men and women together spend most of their time trying to be attractive to the other and trying to either get laid, or decide whether they wish to get laid. If a woman gets drunk with a guy, touches him sexually all night, he gets drunk, she strips and lies on his bed and starts kissing him passionately when he gets on the bed with her, then any reasonable person would say, 'nah, that isn't rape'. If she changes her mind half way and tries to get up and leave, and the guy won't let her, then it is rape. But, if she complains the next day she was raped because at some point in the process she was unsure whether she wanted to continue and said nothing, that is not rape.

  • DesigNate||

    This shouldn't even be controversial.

  • ||

    But it is.

    It's a movement. A movement that left unchallenged will gravitate to other spheres.

    It needs to be stopped now while it is fledgling.

  • Brian Macker||

    Tony, because the idiot who does not take precautions in preventing crime shift the burden to others, and often generates more cost than if they took a cheap precaution. In addition, without precaution the costs in determining if a crime has been committed can go up and even become impossible. For example if you leave some cash out on a picnic table to go back into a fast food joint to get some napkins and someone swipes it while no one is looking then how is anyone supposed to be able to tell a crime has happened. Likewise if a girl gets drunk at a frat house withe the intention of fucking a bunch of drunk guys then how can I tell that from a girl who got drunk and was then taken advantage of by drunk guys? Heck, she may not even know what she did before she passed out. She may have fucked them while she was still conscious and later passed out. Or maybe she raped the drunk guy, and just assumed the next day that she got raped. Blackouts happen while drunk. Putting yourself in such a situation is just plain stupid. Not every crime is actionable because many we just can't tell whether they really happened or not, or who even did them.

  • some guy||

    No one should ever lock their car doors, either, especially in the "bad" part of town. That just promotes theft culture. Car owners should be able to leave their doors unlocked, windows open and a new laptop sitting on the front seat, and not have to worry about theft. If victim blaming is wrong, then it is always wrong. Right?

    /sarc @ sarc's sarc

  • WTF||

    ^This is what 'Tony' really believes.

  • sarcasmic||

    Pretty much.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It is not the responsibility of the owner to prevent crime from happening. It is a voluntary action that you choose to further protect yourself. It isn't mandatory.

    The expectation is and should ALWAYS be that he who infringes upon the rights of another is the sole guilty party.

  • some guy||

    We agree with you Franc. We're just saying that if you are interested in preventing crime, you should preach both incarceration AND deterrence. The feminists I the article were blatantly ignoring the deterrence part of the equation, which shows they are only interesting in punishing the guilty, not in reducing the frequency of the crime.

  • WTF||

    They are actually only interested in punishing the accused, not necessarily the guilty. This system is designed to provide a pre-determined guilty verdict based only on an accusation by a woman against a man. They believe any woman should have the power to ruin the life of any man based only on her word.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    They are actually only interested in punishing the accused, not necessarily the guilty. This system is designed to provide a pre-determined guilty verdict based only on an accusation by a woman against a man.

    And THIS is precisely my problem with this "issue".

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    We're just saying that if you are interested in preventing crime, you should preach both incarceration AND deterrence.

    Adding preemptive security, always infringes upon liberty. It is up to the individual to decide if that trade is worth it (personal responsibility).

    So longs as no one is claiming we need to force people to lock their doors or not dress like sluts, I'm good with your opinions concerning that trade-off.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Personal responsibility does not exist anymore. Everyone is a victim.

  • Hicks||

    Try leaving the keys in your running car, then trying to collect insurance when it gets stolen. Many policies consider that contributory negligence, and won't pay.

    If you leave bread in front of a starving man, don't you bear some blame when he steals a bite?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Similarly, why should not bank managers leave the bank's cash reserves on the floor in the lobby. Should they not trust people not to steal instead of having to go through the expense of having a vault and security?

  • WTF||

    Why not? Surely they are not responsible if some bad person decides to take it.

  • Brandybuck||

    Rape is sex without consent. If you are passed out it is impossible to give consent. No one plans to pass out. However, if you are merely inebriated you CAN give consent. You might have lower inhibitions to giving consent, but when you say yes you are saying yes. To many hyper-feminists even one drink is enough to turn a yes into a no.

    And let's not forget the males. If women are off the hook because they were drinking, why aren't the men as well? If being drunk means you're incapable of giving consent, then being drunk is enough for males not to be responsible for their actions. (Which is of course bullshit).

  • LynchPin1477||

    It is also possible to be conscious, responsive, and reasonably coherent and to not remember it after the fact. Black out drunk is not necessarily the same thing as passed out drunk.

  • WTF||

    No, only women cannot be responsible if they are drinking; men are responsible no matter what. Because equality.

  • Mark22||

    Rape is sex without consent. If you are passed out it is impossible to give consent.

    I disagree. If you make a choice to drink alcohol, you made a choice to accept the consequences. We apply that principle in many different legal contexts. In fact, people frequently choose to get drunk precisely so that their inhibitions are lowered.

    Unless someone else makes you pass out against your will, you ought to be responsible for the consequences of your choices.

  • ||

    Students who may feel attacked by the viewpoints expressed at the forum or feel the speakers will dismiss their experiences can find a safe space and separate discussion held at the same time in Salomon 203.

    This is such a great metaphor for everything wrong with the SJW approach to problem solving. Victims are now actively recruited to be part of a larger movement and deployed as human shields when the movement itself is legitimately criticized. These recruits would do well to understand they will eventually be discarded by the movement that has subsumed them. Just ask Cindy Sheehan.

  • ||

    ^This.

    Unless this changes, and soon, we are doomed as a society.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    This is such a great metaphor for everything wrong with the SJW approach to problem solving.

    It's a great metaphor for everything wrong with academia in particular, where most of this borderline insane behavior is not just enabled, but actively encouraged.

    After all, as Paxson notes, culture and values do matter, and when you have a culture that marinates in elevating victim groups as holy and unimpeachable, in an environment as intellectually inbred as modern academia, is it any surprise that these kinds of grotesque emotional behaviors become the norm?

  • Atanarjuat||

    Feminists don't think jokes cause rape. They just find the narrative convenient for advancing some policy goal and/or their own public prominence. Rational people should really quit taking them at their word.

  • lap83||

    I am not adverse to lowering the drinking age at all, but how exactly would that reduce alcohol abuse? Also, I'm not convinced that it's merely alcohol abuse that is at the root of the problem. It's a lack of personal responsibility. It would be great if tweaking a law could change the core of someone's values and philosophy, but I don't think that's possible.

  • ||

    Briefly, because it allows young people to start drinking at the age when most are presumably still living at home so they get to ease into it in a safe environment instead of the double-whammy of being on their own for the first time, and having access to alcohol.

    Many smart parents already do this, but they risk prosecution and visits from CPS.

  • lap83||

    In my experience, the propensity for alcohol abuse is at least as dependent on the individual as the circumstances in which they're drinking. I've known 40 year old alcoholics who can't drink one after 5 years of sobriety without their life subsequently being ruined. I've known people who go 6 months to one year between drinks. It's much more than just the level of safety in the environment.

  • Tony||

    I'm not sure about that particular argument. In countries with a drinking age of 18, binge drinking is if anything more common.

    BUT, a good argument for lowering the drinking age is that it gets college kids drinking in public instead of hiding it in their dorms.

    I studied in England for a time, and our college dean brought a basket of liquor to welcome all the freshmen. It was bizarre. But there were no frats. There were big parties with booze flowing or nights on the town. Everyone was shitfaced all the time, but it tended to be in public. I think that's the key.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm not sure about that particular argument. In countries with a drinking age of 18, binge drinking is if anything more common.

    That was not my experience living in Canada. There are larger cultural issues that contribute to binge drinking. It's silly to blame it all on the drinking age being too high or low.

  • Tony||

    Were you in the Frenchie part of Canada? I think binge drinking is a product of the British Isles.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Geographically, yes. Montreal is such a mixed culture that I'm not sure it really qualifies as French Canada.

    It's not that binge drinking didn't happen. But I definitely wouldn't say it happened more than in the U.S., and my impression is that it happened a bit less.

  • ||

    I'd be shocked if there was really a huge difference between Canadian and American drinking culture. It's really all just about what people see in the movies as an example of what "parties" are supposed to be like in Canada and the US. They are pretty much always universally portrayed as a bunch of kids binge drinking. People do it because that's what they are supposed to do if they are having "fun" in high school or college.
    It is the expected behavior.

  • Mark22||

    Im not sure about that particular argument. In countries with a drinking age of 18, binge drinking is if anything more common.

    Any actual facts to support that?

  • ||

    Also, a lot of college students are still drinking illegally, at Frat parties, in basements, etc. which adds to the binge culture of early college life.

  • ||

    People who aren't legally allowed to possessing alcohol tend to binge drink more.

    My 19 year old self- I've got a case of nati ice and I'm drinking all of them because gettin rid of all of them shortens the amount of time I can be arrested.

    My current self- I've had three sweet water porters, but I think I'll save the rest for tomorrow night since the only consequence of disposition of all my beer is I don't have anymore beer.

  • Laura in L. A.||

    I have two kids in college (girl and boy) and one more teen at home. The culture of parenting right now is: produce an over-achiever child who never drinks, takes drugs, has sex, or misbehaves. Parents now attempt to "protect" their kids from all the mistakes they made as a kid.They also try to protect their kids from failure and honest criticism too! They want their kid getting straight A's, engaging in a sport, and doing charity work. Instead of pairing off in high school, parents encourage 'group dating' to avoid the chance of their kid having sex, at the expense of your child learning the nuances of boy-girl relationships. Therefore, when the kid is finally free of their demanding and overprotective parent, they go crazy with alcohol and sex, and combined with their inexperience and lack of emotional intelligence, it's a disaster. Add that to the female victim mentality that so-called FEMINISTS are stoking, we now have to worry about sons being expelled from college because a girl has remorse about having consensual drunken sex with them.

  • Mark22||

    Pre-60's, consensual drunken sex used to get your kids expelled from college too.

  • Brandybuck||

    My first away-from-home drinking experience was a disaster. I drank way too much, got sick, threw up on friends, property damage, etc. I simply did not know my limit, or even understand that there was such a thing as a limit. I never drank that much again, not even close.

    A higher drinking age encourages the sort of partying and binging campuses are notorious for. You don't see this in countries with lower drinking ages. The higher drinking age turns alcohol into a desired forbidden fruit. Lowering the drinking age is only one small part of the solution, but it's the first step towards responsible drinking.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Robby, stop raping me with your penis-logic!

  • ColonelEngineer||

    Their logic astounds me... Who needs coercive force and violence when it all it takes is mere words to shatter their stability?

  • Mickey Rat||

    De do do do, de da da da.

  • Wlinden||

    What about Alan Moore asserting that he was "literally raped" by DC.

    I want to LITERALLY beat him over the head with a dictionary.

  • waffles||

    I think literally literally means figuratively per the latest edition.

  • ||

    One Definition: Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters.

    Maybe Alan Moore had letters shoved up his ass by DC?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Paxson is kind of right, in that by all accounts there *is* some kind of rape culture in all those frat parties. But Paxson shouldn't accuse the real world of what seems to be a campus problem.

    Do real-world people habitually put themselves into such situations?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Women are just as prominent leaders in the Greek societies on college campuses as men are.

    You're right. Normal societal morals and values go out the window at frat parties. But it's equal opportunity hedonism.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "And if there's that kind of climate in our enlightened, feminist campuses, imagine how bad it must be on the outside!" is probably how they reason.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Or maybe their ideology doesn't let them draw a link between hookup culture and rape culture. The former is good and sex-affirming, which is why they marched for it in the 60s, the latter is a patriarchal plot.

  • R C Dean (fka Clown Hunter)||

    Paxson is kind of right, in that by all accounts there *is* some kind of rape culture in all those frat parties.

    Oh, horseshit.

  • ||

    Raping kegs! YEAH!

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    OK, hookup culture, which leads in the same direction.

  • Unreconstructed||

    I haven't been on campus in a long time, but when I was, there wasn't a "rape culture" at our fraternity parties. There was a lot of "I wanna get laid" culture, and drunk women (note...we were generally as drunk as they were) were a lot more likely to say "Yes". I do know that on more than one occasion, a woman who was *way* out of control was escorted home rather than let anything happen to her. Maybe we were the only ones, but I really doubt it.

  • Warren's Strapon||

    “Stopping someone from telling a rape joke or saying they got ‘raped’ by a test” would be a start, Valenti said

    1984 was not intended as an instruction manual.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    It is a tragedy that alcohol confounds our conclusions of what may have happened during an alleged rape. Often times, rapists count on this to discredit their victims' claims.

    But guess what? Sometimes the world just sucks. We can't throw away due process and the assumption of innocence just because alcohol was involved.

    Feminists we claim that I am victim blaming. No. I am not blaming any victims for what may have happened to them. But it would be beneficial if we actually...I don't know...warned women about mixing alcohol with an unfamiliar environment and sex.

  • LynchPin1477||

    When you say that women shouldn't take steps to protect themselves, who exactly does that empower?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Seriously. Telling homeowners that putting locks on their doors deters crime is not victim blaming. It's just a common sense precaution that everyone should take.

  • waffles||

    who exactly does that empower?

    Actual rapists.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Exactly.

    Getting rapists off the street is a good way to reduce the occurrence of rape. My understanding is that rapists tend to be habitual offenders.

    But making it harder for rapists to rape is also a good way to reduce the occurrence of rape. My understanding is that a lot of rapists look for the easy targets.

    Those are both good things to pursue. Why the second is equated with victim blaming and actively argued *against* by people who claim they want to reduce the incidence of rape is beyond me.

  • widget||

    Telling students that dangerous drinking is just random some side effect is not merely dishonest, but actually dangerous.

    Don't write like me, Robby. I'm stuck in the comment section for a reason.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    The last time I said this, I got raped by the comments, but...

    so long as residential colleges are a thing, have rules against cohabitation and fornication. If some guy gets in trouble, he'll have "parietal rule violation" on his record, not "rape." Much easier to explain to an employer.

  • lap83||

    "The last time I said this, I got raped by the comments"

    Yes, but how much had you been drinking?

  • John||

    You should have seen how he was dressed that day. The little whore was asking for it.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Notorious is right there in his name! Totally asking for it.

  • DesigNate||

    You are all horrible monster rape apologists.

  • Agent Cupcake||

    By using the university as a judicial body, doesn't that only let the so-called rapists get away with his crime? A university can't lock a rapist up in prison. They can just kick you out of school. For that reason alone, I think any person who calls a school administrator instead of the police to complain about rape is lying.

    Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how this whole thing is supposed to work.

    Additionally, BWell is not a word. Of that I am positive.

  • ColonelEngineer||

    +1

    Replace "rape" with any other tangible crime and suggest a University Judiciary Committee. People would flip their shit.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    The idea would be to bring in borderline or unprovable cases were accusers can be comforted and given the justice they want but would not get in the formal criminal justice world and without those nasty things like being confronted by the accused. Solid rape cases would be turned over to the DA.

    Unless it brings discredit to the university or it's administrators and then it would be swept under the rug.

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^

    The point is that these cases are not "rape" or the DAs would be taking them and putting the perpetrators in prison.

    I have never heard Valenti or anyone else say a single word about the problem of rape cases not being taken seriously enough by DAs in college towns. It is because they know it is not true and if they tried to lie and say it was true the DAs would quickly defend themselves by showing otherwise.

    The point behind this movement is to punish men for things that are not crimes and constitutionally can't be crimes but feminists want to be crimes nonetheless.

  • tarran||

    Speaking of which, John, did you read the latest bit of poetry on Popehat?

    Then out spake prim Horatius,
    The Censor of the Gate:
    "To every persyn upon this earth
    Butthurt cometh soon or late.
    And how can we do better
    When facing fearful speech,
    Than shut down all discussion,
    And stop the crimethink's reach?

    I think it's three verses of genius.

  • ||

    "Butthurt cometh"

    Great band name.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    And university graduates who read this will think, who's Lord Macaulay, and what does he have to do with these lyrics?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Every english-speaking schoolchild (outside Quaker schools) ought to memorize this:

    "Then out spake brave Horatius,
    The Captain of the gate:
    “To every man upon this earth
    Death cometh soon or late.
    And how can man die better
    Than facing fearful odds
    For the ashes of his fathers
    And the temples of his gods"

  • LynchPin1477||

    Solid rape cases would be turned over to the DA.

    I'm not sure this is the case. If the accuser doesn't want to cooperate with a formal legal investigation, then there won't be an investigation.

    I guess the argument is that accusers were not comfortable coming forward anyway, so campus judicial proceedings give them an easier way of going after the accused. Which basically explicitly admits that they are extrajudicial end-arounds the legal protections that I was always taught are at the core of a just system of criminal punishment.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Students who may feel attacked by the viewpoints expressed at the forum or feel the speakers will dismiss their experiences can find a safe space and separate discussion

    I do hope they had an adequate supply of fainting couches.

  • Deli-bro||

    “Alcohol is not the problem,” Valenti said, chuckling at the notion. “What we need to discuss is the way rapists use alcohol as a weapon to attack and then discredit their victims.”

    This is pretty much the exact same thing as saying "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Which is true. We have laws against murder which protect society from murderers (whether or not they decide to use a gun or not is irrelevant). We also have laws against rape which protect society from rapists (whether or not they decide to use alcohol to incapacitate their victim is irrelevant).

    Also, how does one put things in quoty boxes? Long time lurker here, but I rarely post.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Great minds, Deli-bro.

    You wrap things in the html blockquote tag, which is
    [blockquote] stuff you want to quote [/blockquote]

    Only with angle brackets instead of square brackets.

  • Deli-bro||

    like this?
  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    html gold star

    [i]stuff[/i] for italics
    [b]stuff[/b] for bold
    [s]stuff[/s] for strikethrough

    Again again, angle brackets in all cases.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    like this?
  • Almanian!||

    like this?
  • Mock-star||

    like this?
  • ||

  • ||

    like this

  • ||

    Now if only Bo Cara, esq, could master that simple trick.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    “Alcohol is not the problem,” Valenti said, chuckling at the notion. “What we need to discuss is the way rapists use alcohol as a weapon

    Wait, now the weapon itself isn't the problem? Valenti supports having guns on campus, right?

  • ||

    weaponized alcohol? These kids these days.

  • ColonelEngineer||

    weaponized alcohol

    HIGH CAPACITY ASSAULT KEGZ!!!!1!!

  • John||

    The problem is that Valenti is an overgrown child who is both too immature and too stupid to understand the complexities of due process and fact finding. All Valenti knows is what she wants.

    Alcohol is very much the problem because women drinking to excess and becoming amorous with strange men makes it impossible to prove what exactly happened should the woman later get cold feet and the guy not take no for an answer.

    This is what people like Valenti refuse to understand. It is not that a woman who gets drunk and makes out with some guy at a party in full view of the other guests deserves to get raped later when they are alone in his room. It is that a women who does that and is later raped is going to play hell proving that is what happened. That sucks but that is life.

    Women need to understand that yes being raped is a danger they face and that they need to not put themselves in situations where they are vulnerable. Valenti, being a spoiled, overgrown child, can't accept that and thinks the solution is to destroy due process so she and other women don't have to take any responsibility for their actions.

  • Tony||

    You feel the same about terrorism and terrorists, I presume?

  • John||

    If you plan to try them in civilian criminal courts, yes. Indeed, due process concerns are one of the reasons why trying terrorists in civilian courts instead of military tribunals is so problematic.

    The issue of due process and terrorism and whether it is a crime or an act of war is a difficult and subtle one. Its too bad you are so blindly stupid and partisan you are unable to consider the issue.

  • Michael Ejercito||


    If you plan to try them in civilian criminal courts, yes. Indeed, due process concerns are one of the reasons why trying terrorists in civilian courts instead of military tribunals is so problematic.


    Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) establishes that foreign terrorists may be tried by military tribunals under some circumstances. I do not believe that the Quirin exception to civilian trials would apply to Americans accused of aiding and abetting al Qaeda, Hamas, or ISIS.

  • John||

    It is a complex issue because as I say below terrorism is sometimes an act of war. Rape, however, is always a crime like any other serious crime. Whatever you think of the issue of trying terrorism cases by tribunal versus regular criminal process, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

    Tony's point was "you think it is okay to try terrorists by tribunal why not rapists?". And that is a profoundly stupid and irrelevant point.

  • tarran||

    Rape can be an act of war too, though.

    The Russians treatment of German women and the Japanese treatment of everyone who wasn't Japanese leap immediately to mind.

  • John||

    Rape can be a war crime sure. But that is not what we are talking about here. Murder can be a war crime too. But that doesn't mean that someone in Baltimore killing their wife raises the same issues as a Taliban soldier in Afghanistan intentionally shooting a child.

  • WTF||

    And that is a profoundly stupid and irrelevant point.

    Of course, it's Tony.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    People in the U.S. military accused of rape can be tried by a military tribunal, regardless of whether or not a state prosecutor choose to file charges.

  • John||

    Micheal Ejectito.

    No. They are tried by military courts martial. The rules for courts martial are nearly identical to the federal rules of criminal procedure and evidence. Further, every military trial is reviewable by the Supreme Court and every military member entitled to the same due process protections as anyone else.

    They are not tribunals, They are full trials in every sense of the word. The point of having a military tribunal in terrorism or war crimes cases is to deal with a situation where justice cannot be done while still following the due process protections given in ordinary criminal trials. Understand, it is not that there is no due process or any form of fact finding. There is. It is that the rules for evidence and such are relaxed and the emphasis is on fact finding over formal due process.

    For example, the Nuremberg trials admitted evidence that would never have been admitted in a US criminal court and tried people for violations of international law that didn't exist at the time the acts were committed.

  • ||

    You feel the same about terrorism and terrorists, I presume?

    I wasn't aware of a binge drinking epidemic amongst terrorists.

  • John||

    Tony's point is so stupid and simplistic it is actually difficult to respond to. How do you respond to a statement that is that stupid and not germane to the topic?

    The sad fact is that Tony actually thinks he made a clever point. And there is no way to debase him of than knowledge without giving him a lecture on the legal system that he would be unlikely to listen to or understand even if he did.

  • ||

    I'm guessing you didn't have siblings to torment or be tormented by when you were young?

  • John||

    I had older siblings. Was the youngest of six. So I know torment.

  • tarran||

    Actually, you know who I would bet had it worse than you?

    Sibling number 5. The youngest is the baby and gets a pass on some stuff. Child n-1 misses out on even that... ;)

  • Tony||

    A woman in college is about a million times more likely to be raped than you are likely to be the victim of terrorism. Criminal courts not only are able to successfully prosecute terrorism with full due process afforded, the alternatives that we've tried have been a disaster for both due process and prosecutions. It's not that difficult or subtle.

  • John||

    No it is not difficult and nothing you say is ever subtle. It is just fucking stupid. Terrorism becomes problematic because it can sometimes be an act of war. And we don't give due process in war.

    Rape in contrast is always a crime. Therefore the due process concerns are always there. Young black men have a much higher chance of being murdered than rich white college girls have of being raped. Yet, no one claims to want to get rid of the due process requirements in murder cases.

    It amazes me how profoundly simple minded you are sometimes.

  • Tony||

    Acts of war occur between two countries. I realize Bush and Cheney decided it would be useful to confuse that issue, but it seems to have turned out to be a ridiculously stupid move.

    What exactly makes people accused of terrorism less deserving of protection from government tyranny than people accused of rape? The former are likely to be even more heavily punished. You either believe in due process and the principle behind it or you don't.

  • tarran||

    Acts of war occur between two countries.

    What the fuck was bleeding Kansas, Tony?

  • John||

    What exactly makes people accused of terrorism less deserving of protection from government tyranny than people accused of rape?

    If they are not on US soil or an agent of a foreign power making war against the US, nothing. And they should be and are tried in criminal court. Bill Ayers was tried in criminal court.

    The issue becomes problematic when you find someone in another country committing acts of terrorism as part of a war. We don't give people due process when we bomb them and we don't give POWs due process when we imprison them. So what do we do with terrorists making war? What countries have traditionally done is try them by military tribunal and punish them for their crimes. It is an issue of international law not criminal law.

    Again Tony, you are just a half wit. You don't even know enough about these issues to be wrong. You just spew out a bunch of buzzwords. Rape is not and never has been an issue of international law or armed conflict. It is a domestic crime and the issues raised by someone in America accused rape bear no resemblance to the issues raised by someone captured on a battlefield pretending to be a civilian and making mischief. The issues on the battlefield concern if the person should be treated like a criminal. In the case of rape, we already know it is a crime and what due process protections attach.

  • Tony||

    I'm talking about terrorism on US soil. Rape is much more of a problem. If there's an argument for denying due process to people because of the type of crime they commit, surely we should look at rape before terrorism, which is a minor threat in this country.

  • WTF||

    If there's an argument for denying due process to people because of the type of crime they commit, surely we should look at rape before terrorism, which is a minor threat in this country.

    Holy fuck. Tony, everyone! It's TONY!!

  • ||

    IDK, he hasn't stumbled into saying we should make these people work in forced labor camps.

    Yet.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    If there's an argument for denying due process to people because of the type of crime they commit

    Tony, your problem is that you were born 230 years too late to be a member of the Committee of Public Safety.

  • John||

    I'm talking about terrorism on US soil.

    So what? I have only said those cases should be handled in criminal court absent the accused being an agent of a foreign power. Unless you can show me drunken college guys are working for the Chinese making war on America by raping our women, your point is stupid and irrelevant.

    Not even Dick Cheney thinks Bill Ayers should not have been accorded a full trial in federal court. Again, Tony, you are a fucking moron who can't get past buzz words.

  • Tony||

    What foreign power is al Qaeda working on behalf of?

  • WTF||

    So Al Qaeda is a domestic organization? You really are an idiot.

  • ||

    Al Queda is an international non-state actor of its own.

    Who is also being propped up and supported by a number of foriegn powers.

    Asshat.

  • DesigNate||

    We should totally just line accused rapist against the wall like the damn climate deniers and fucking capitalist pigs.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Criminal courts not only are able to successfully prosecute terrorism with full due process afforded, the alternatives that we've tried have been a disaster for both due process and prosecutions. It's not that difficult or subtle.


    Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) allows the use of military tribunals in at least some circumstances.

  • Tony||

    But not the denial of due process.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Quirin-type military tribunals have due process.

  • Tony||

    That's what I said.

  • DesigNate||

    I'm glad to see you DO understand that accused rapists deserve due process. Thanks for coming to the rational side of the debate Tony.

  • ||

    "Criminal courts not only are able to successfully prosecute terrorism with full due process afforded, the alternatives that we've tried have been a disaster for both due process and prosecutions. It's not that difficult or subtle."

    Then why did Obama and Holder try the terrorists in NY ?

    He wanted to shutdown GitMo ?

    Why did he "evolve" ?

  • ||

    If I had a pussy I would guard it jeasously as it is a very desireable commidity in the world.

    That is why my beautiful young wife is well armed and well trained to protect hers.

  • Sharon Presley||

    Blaming the victim; another aspect of rape culture. Why not tell guys not to rape or not take advantage of women in these positions. The women didn't get raped by themselves.

  • ||

    "..attacked by the viewpoints..."

    I don't think that these liberal feminists are anything more than useful idiots. Fostering this mentality is part of advancing an agenda that has nothing to do with rape, women, feminism etc. It is part of tearing down society by making rational discussion impossible.

  • John||

    Its that and also destroying the legal system and the protections of the innocent. Rape is just the wedge to get the crowbar in the door. If they ever succeed in doing away with due process for rape it will be that much easier to do away with it altogether.

  • ||

    "..attacked by the viewpoints..."

    This by 10.

  • ||

    Let’s not build justice for women on injustice for men,

    Just to reinforce the notion the above sentence conveys;

    Justice for women cannot be built on injustice for men.

    Most people above the age of about 8 have at least some notion of this. I would think that even the most ardent pro-gender nazi could understand that preforming an injustice to achieve justice is really better defined as vengeance and that that path to justice begins by taking one step backward.

  • WTF||

    They know it's vengeance. It's what they actually want, but can't say out loud. Yet.

  • ||

    Since the overwhelming majority aren't victims, it's not vengeance. It's a power grab and it's being done in some of the most behaviorally stupid of ways.

    I don't think there is a "yet" to it either. Universities will lie in ruins before boys will be subjugated.

    It will be like pushing the climate change agenda to grade schoolers; less than a generation from now Ms. Valenti and her ilk will have cried wolf enough that even if a wolf did show up to eat them, she'll have to cry out to a whole generation of college students and post grads who automatically tune her out.

  • WTF||

    I mean a sick notion of generalized vengeance against men collectively because of the sins of "the Patriarchy". But yeah, I think I mostly agree with the rest of your comment.

  • ||

    "mad.casual|11.19.14 @ 11:10AM|#

    Since the overwhelming majority aren't victims, "

    Bullshit. They are victims.

    Just ask them. That is the problem. They have been educated to believe they are victims. They believe what they have been taught.

    It is all vengance. Women who think about men this way are evil. They share some kind of hatred for some man, or men , and feel justified to take it out on all men. Any man. Usually those who feel this way are fat and or ugly to modern styles of beauty.

  • ||

    "mad.casual|11.19.14 @ 11:10AM|#

    Since the overwhelming majority aren't victims, "

    Bullshit. They are victims.

    Just ask them. That is the problem. They have been educated to believe they are victims. They believe what they have been taught.

    It is all vengance. Women who think about men this way are evil. They share some kind of hatred for some man, or men , and feel justified to take it out on all men. Any man. Usually those who feel this way are fat and or ugly to modern styles of beauty.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If you feel the need to be shielded from intellectual discussions, you probably have no place in higher education.

  • John||

    It is remarkable how much Progressives have retreated into the hive in the last ten or fifteen years. When I was in college, a good number of my friends were pretty far left. And they all loved to argue about politics. Indeed, arguing about politics all of the time was one of the social signals that you were liberal.

    Now I have a few friends I would describe as being pretty far left. And all of them just refuse to discuss politics. If you start making points, no matter how obvious and reasonable, that go against their narrative and they just shut you off and refuse to continue the conversation.

    My old college friends are still willing to argue but they seem to be less far left than they were when they were young. The far leftists I meet will not entertain debate under any circumstances.

  • sarcasmic||

    If you go against the narrative then you are a bad person, so it doesn't matter what your point is. You are a bad person, therefore your point doesn't matter. Ad hominem for the win!

  • Charles Easterly||

    "If you go against the narrative then you are a bad person, so it doesnt matter what your point is. You are a bad person, therefore your point doesn't matter. Ad hominem for the win!"

    You've just described the majority of the "debates" I've ever had with classmates, co-workers, certain family members, and some individuals/groups that I don't want to take the time to think about at the moment.

  • ||

    The far left of today are drooling morons compared to previous generations. Old Marxists(of all flavors) were generally well read and could make cogent arguments for their position( their arguments all had critical and sometimes glaring flaws, but at least they could articulate them). Three generations of imbeciles later, their arguments have been thoroughly destroyed by debate and history. All they have left are the feelz. The results are idiots shreeking at random causes like half trained monkeys.

  • John||

    They really are. The old Marxists at least understood their own ideology and tried to create an internally coherent if utterly unrealistic and evil system of beliefs. The new left doesn't even do that. They don't even embrace rational consistency.

  • ||

    It is remarkable how much Progressives have retreated into the hive in the last ten or fifteen years.

    I could not agree more. The left used to be bleeding heart and ideoligical. I thought many of their views were stupid and impractical but I could at least agree with the underlying notions of goodness, reciprocity, and justice.

    The last couple decades or so, the semblance of benefiting people, inidividuals or on the whole, has worn thin if not rubbed away entirely under the constant pressure of power and control-seeking.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    I think any person who calls a school administrator instead of the police to complain about rape is lying.

    Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how this whole thing is supposed to work.

    No. You understand perfectly.

  • Deli-bro||

    It was only 3 years ago that I graduated college, and I don't remember victim mentality being this ridiculous. And I went to school in Boston for chrissakes.

  • John||

    I think Brown is a different level of DERP than even the other Ivies or big east coast schools. Brown was bat shit insane as far back as the 1980s. It is basically Oberlin in a big crappy city.

  • SimonJester||

    DERP? How dare you!

    Abelist!

    Take yourself to prison and presend your brain and ass for reeducation.

    /thoughtpolice

  • BigT||

    Favorite cheer:

    What color is shit?

    Brown! Brown! Brown!

  • WTF||

    Well, that explains Cleveland's football team.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    I imagine the program you're in and the social circles you run in probably has a fair bit of bearing on that as well. I didn't encounter too many gender studies students while getting through the engineering program.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    One time I posted in response to a blog post, sarcastically, that suggesting it is wise to take precautionary measures to protect ones' self from rape is the EXACT SAME THING as blaming the victim. Dozens of social justice warriors jumped in to agree with me vehemently.

    Since then, whenever I'm being sarcastic on anything concerning rape culture, feminism, or Correct Thought, I put a Poe's Law disclaimer at the bottom that I am being sarcastic.

  • SimonJester||

    NB: Ths is, of course, Facetious. Feel free to run with it.

    I want to start an all men's school, but let me be clear: Male-bodied and male-identity are both necessary requirements. Sexuality would not ben an issue as long as the students self-identify as male and are male-bodied.

    Why? To give men a safe place where they can be men, take positions of authority in a world ruled by feminists, advance in classes that are largely dominated by women, and be able to live without the fear of feminist agression.

    We would hold male-focused events, eating contests, pro-wrestling, fight night, and have a robust "Men's Studies" department, and have trigger warnings like "This class is taught by a human (?) female. Enter at your own risk. It is entierly possible that nothing she says will make any sense, but just agree and hope she takes her clothes off."

    All classes would be taght by men or women who believe that men have at least as much to bring to any discussion as men. We will not have any sister schools. However, we may have a few "Friends with benefits" schools.

    All dorms would be male-only, no females alowed, but there will be at least three rooms on every floor that have video and audio feed into the common room. Aside from being fun, this is to keep the men from being abused by the women who get them drunk and preassure them to perform sexual favors.

    We could even have a motto: "Bitches be Crazy."

  • John||

    You kid but when you look at how men are actually treated on college campuses, your idea makes sense. These rules make it such that any woman can ruin the academic career and do serious harm to any man's life at any time on her word alone. This makes women very dangerous creatures for college age men to be around. So, it would make sense to start a college that allowed men to study away from that danger.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Google translate:Furerem canes

    But the Latin to English comes out as raging dogs. Which would be a great name for the sports team.

  • SimonJester||

    Raging Dogs is pretty cool. But it sounds more like a nickname for the "Cultural Events" symposium that import a handful of women from the community to try and answer questions to today's young men. Topics like "What the hell did I do wrong this time?!" and "Fine. No, really, I'm fine."

    But an all male school would have to have teams like "Bullmoose" or "Robot Overlords." Then again, we could also make everyone cringe with a name like "Beowolves" or "Penetrators."

    And yes, John, I do kid. But I also have four little boys. And I am afraid to send them to public school or, worse, eventually, college. I have to save all my money to send them to Hillsdale (Go Chargers!") just to feel safe.

  • kayledysonmul||

    my buddy's sister makes $79 an hour on the computer . She has been out of work for 10 months but last month her income was $17508 just working on the computer for a few hours. this website...

    ➜➜➜➜➜➜ www.payinsider.com

  • american socialist||

    There's not a Jonathan gruber article up yet so I'll just comment on this one until it arrives.

    In my experience the people that rival the self-absorption of some overwrought feminists are the Camille paglia wannabes of the world who complain that their message is being suppressed. Yes, Wendy, radical anarcho-capitalist sex positivism (bleech!) is an idea that no one has ever heard of. Now that we know you are being oppressed--seemingly again and again-- by Gloria Steinem can you stop screaming it from the rafters? We hear ya, trust me.

    The feelings of people who go around to college campuses to challenge the experiences of women who have been raped are the real victims here. My sympathies-- decidedly with women who have been the victim of sexual crime-- are grotesquely misplaced.

  • Jordan||

    Commie kid bringing the derp as usual. You sure showed that strawman!

  • John||

    We don't know they were raped you fucking half wit. That is the entire issue. No one thinks rape is good. The problem is since only two people were there, we have a fact finding problem.

    We know that at least 8% of all rape allegations are later proven to be false. So no just system is going to convict absolutely on the word of the alleged victim absent further proof or circumstances. And that is indeed the problem here is that if you are a woman and you create the circumstances such that your work alone will not be sufficient to convict and you are raped, you are going to face the prospect of never obtaining justice.

    It is for this reason that it is incumbent upon women to not create such circumstances. Only someone who is just profoundly stupid and incapable of understanding anything but crude results could think otherwise.

    Since you claim to be a socialist, it is not surprising that you are not big on subtle thinking or anything crude results oriented logic.

  • tarran||

    We know that at least 8% of all rape allegations are later proven to be false.

    In college I was aware of something like 6 allegations of some form of indecent assault/rape.

    The breakdown for them is:

    Number where I know for a fact that the allegation was true: 1
    Number where I don't know if true or not: 1
    Number where I know it was false: 4

    Now the punishment gets interesting:

    Where the allegation was true: nothing happened, she was a student who was close to graduation, he was adjunct faculty, and she decided that privately warning people not to accept the prof's invitation to meet alone in his office was how she wanted to handle it.

    Where the allegation might or might not be false: No idea, but there was a formal academic investigation in progress. I thought it unlikely that the alleged date-rape occured because, date-rape requires one first be out on a date and the dude was so loathsome that the prerequisite couldn't be met.

    The 4 allegations where I know the incident didn't happen:
    2 were investigated by the university, and found to be unsupported (this included my roommate who was succumbing to the drunken advances of a girl but didn't get anywhere before she passed out in his bed after peeing on him, 1.5 minutes after I left to give them some privacy)

    2 were the subject of whispering campaigns, but were able to produce witnesses that exonerated them as far as my social circle was concerned.

    I don't think my experience is unusual.

  • ||

    Thank you for providing an excellent example of what I said above. See, absolutely no rational thought. You hit a topic its been trained to have certain feelz about and it lashes out incoherently on pure instinct.

  • John||

    Lets not forget that most of the rapes that occur in this country happen to men in jails. I have never once hear Valenti express any concern about that. She is so concerned about rape, you would think she might. Of course she doesn't care about "rape" she cares about her own sense of entitlement and the sense of entitlement of upper class white women everywhere.

    And I would give anything to have someone ask her how Bill Clinton would do answering to Juanita Broderick before one of these tribunals.

  • I Callahan||

    Dear God, are these children stupid (the students). If that's the next generation to go out and lead the country, we are well and truly screwed.

  • kayledysonmul||

    my buddy's sister makes $79 an hour on the computer . She has been out of work for 10 months but last month her income was $17508 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit this website...

    ➜➜➜➜➜➜ www.payinsider.com

  • checkdempremises||

    I think part of what is driving this campus-rape bushwah is progressives doing the same thing with rape (and therefore, women) that they did with racism (and favorite minorities): change the definition to use it as a cudgel.
    In a progressive's mind, racism doesn't mean judging or mistreating a person based on inherent racial characteristics, it means WHITE people being mean or not being nice enough to any race, ethnicity, religion (other than christianity or judaism) or most importantly, culture (which are chosen behaviors, not inherent traits). Therefore, black on white racism is no longer racism, critiquing the dysfunctions of Mexican culture is racism, a boss demanding his employees speak English is racism, pointing out the disgusting and violent aspects of Islam is a particular kind of racism called 'islamophobia.'
    They are doing the same thing with rape. Rape no longer means a sex act committed through force or coercion, it means a sex act that the woman later regrets, or a sex act that took place when both parties were drunk (but only the man raped the woman, it wasn't mutual rape). By changing the definition progressives have gained a new tool to beat up people who disagree with them and reinforce their view of the world. If they really thought that the rape they are talking about is the rape that the word still conjures in peoples minds, they wouldn't be okay with these cases being handled by college administrators.

  • John||

    All of that and more. It is perverting the language in order to use it as a tool of control. Progs want to neuter and control men and want to use the charge of Rape as a means to do so.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Why do progs hate men?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Since the college already saw fit to rebut McElroy, I will only deal with Valenti.


    This would imply that there is some flaw in McElroy's argument or character. Would you like to state what it is? I would like to see something less anemic than this from a magazine ostensibly dedicated to both academic freedom and due process (both of which McElroy was defending against severe opposition).

  • John||

    I think he was being sarcastic. I bitch and moan about Reason as much as anyone. Even I, however, think that Soave agrees with McElroy here. How could you not?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Ah, went over my head.

  • Roger Knights||

    Rebut doesn't imply refute.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Students who may feel attacked by the viewpoints expressed at the forum or feel the speakers will dismiss their experiences can find a safe space and separate discussion held at the same time in Salomon 203.

    One of the reasons more women don't come forward when raped is that the trial is difficult, right? It is painful to relive a traumatic experience, to be called a liar or worse by the defense, to have your integrity publicly questioned, all that.

    Well, shielding people who may not have even been the victims of rape from an intellectual discussion of how to combat rape because it might upset only makes that worse. It reinforces the view that rape, in the abstract, is too traumatic to critically examine in public. How does that give rape victims the courage and strength to come forward?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Of course culture is important. and to fight rape, we must reinforce God-based morals and ethics. the Lord God JEHOVAH, after all, was the one who, by Divine fiat, decreed rape to be evil.

  • John||

    Whatever you think about Judeo Christian ethics, they are rational, consistent and generally just. They have worked pretty well over the centuries.

    The ethics of people like Valenti are irrational, identity based and completely inconsistent, and just by blind luck alone and nearly always unjust. So if our concern is morality and rules, Valenti and her ilk are the last people we want to listen to.

  • Tony||

    Oh please. The Abrahamic religions have bequeathed us with century after century of stupid nonsense bloodshed, the subjugation of women and minorities, and a bunch of other oppressive nonsense up to and including the tinge of guilt you feel when you masturbate. Maybe it all would have happened in the name of a different deity, but Yahweh is the god holding the bag.

  • GILMORE||

    " The Abrahamic religions have bequeathed us with century after century of stupid nonsense bloodshed, the subjugation of women and minorities, and a bunch of other oppressive nonsense "

    And amazingly, athiestic communism outdid them all in Less than 100 years!! FTW!! In yer face, Abraham!

  • ||

    TBH, I don't feel any guilt whatsoever when I masturbate. Except maybe that I don't always let my boyfriend watch.

  • Tony||

    I had a friend who was atheist from the time he was a toddler yet who felt guilty jerking off. Now that is a crime against humanity perpetrated by religions.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Won't anyone think of the masturbating atheist toddlers?!"

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    "The fabrication, circulation, and advertising of writings of a pornographic character, printed editions, illustrations and other articles, as well as commerce with these objects, or their storage in hopes of selling or circulation, entails deprivation of liberty for a period of up to five years with obligatory confiscation of the pornographic objects and the instruments of their fabrication."

    Nevermind Article 121 of the Soviet Criminal Code which made homosexuality an imprisonable offense.

  • epsilon given||

    Because feeling guilty jerking off is a far greater crime against humanity than being sent to the Gulags to slave, and perhaps even die, in the cold, because you went out to buy some smokes without your "papers".

    Perhaps Stalin's signing off on deaths at a rate of about 5,000 per signature might almost reach the level of "feeling guilty jerking off"...

    That's an...interesting...priority for crimes against humanity you have there, Tony...

  • LynchPin1477||

    Libertarian women on the best.

  • SimonJester||

    I dunno.

    Libertine women give them a run for their money.

  • ||

    SimonJester|11.19.14 @ 2:02PM|#

    You read that as "are the best".

    I read it as "on the beast".

  • John||

    Tony, you are so stupid you are beyond help. That ethical system gave us the enlightenment and is what ended slavery and helped stopped despotism wherever it went. Our entire civilization is built on it.

    Of course things didn't last forever and in around 1789 we started to reject all that and we got fascism and communism and people like you.

    Tony your entire way of thinking is based on hate and collective guilt. Just think to yourself all of the people you hate, white men, middle class people, religious people, Republicans, just to name a few. Your entire identity is based on hating a selected other and working to eliminate that other from society as a way of achieving justice.

    What is funny about it is that you are so far gone, you don't even realize it. You think you are tolerant and judge everyone individually. You are like some kind of case study; a real live murderous idiot in captivity. There needs to be a team of specialists studying you in hopes of finding a way to make sure there are not anymore like you.

  • Tony||

    That ethical system gave us the enlightenment

    So the movement characterized by skepticism of such institutions as religions required this religion to initiate it? Guess it does help to have something to compare to. Yes I am aware of the role some historians think the Protestant Reformation played in initiating the era called the Enlightenment. But that's just acknowledging that religion was embedded in culture. I don't think it gets to take credit. The values you're talking about are explicitly about rejecting authoritarian dogmatism.

    And John your entire political worldview consists of bitching about how evil progressives are. I don't hate anyone. I see people as victims of circumstance. All you ever talk about is the progressive menace.

  • John Galt||

    You "don't hate anyone." You just deeply despise anyone who doesn't share your bizarre opinions. Your so darn clever.

  • WTF||

    Don't waste your time. 'Tony' is beyond help.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    So the movement characterized by skepticism of such institutions as religions required this religion to initiate it?


    John Locke's philosophy was based on skepticism of religion? Adam Smith? Montesquieu? The physiocrats? Francis Bacon? Newton? Pierre Bayle? Hutcheson? Pascal? Descartes?

    You would have to get a whole lot smarter to qualify as stupid.

  • John||

    So the movement characterized by skepticism of such institutions as religions required this religion to initiate it?

    Yes. It grew out of it. And the heart of the enlightenment, that thing that people like you spend your lives rejecting, is the sanctity and equality of the individual. That is at the heart of the enlightenment and judeo Christian ethics.

    All you and your ilk have ever been was a rejection of that and a return to the Pegan ideal that no, some people are special and that everyone should be judged collectively by whatever standards you find objectionable rather than by their individual worth.

    Again, you are so stupid and uninformed that it is hard to know where to even begin explaining things to you. But lets start at this; everything you believe in started with the French Revolution and the French Revolution was first and foremost the Enlightenment turning on itself and rejecting its original ethics. It was all done using the language of the enlightenment but it was in reality a complete rejection of it. And only became more so as the world moved on to fascism and its evil twin your beloved socialism.

  • Tony||

    Funny, liberal Christians emphasize how deeply socialistic its ethics is. I don't think modern American radical individualism/anarcho-capitalism has its roots in Christianity at all, but I'll give you Locke and Thoreau and such as one strain of thought that came out of classical liberalism and the Enlightenment. I see progressivism as a continuation of the Enlightenment with modern individualism branching from a reactionary strain.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    progressivism as a continuation of the Enlightenment

    I see it more as a continuation of the Jacobin Club.

  • DesigNate||

    You see that because you are profoundly retarded.

  • GILMORE||

    " liberal Christians emphasize how deeply socialistic its ethics is"

    I am shocked that liberals would see socialism in everything. Shocked!

  • DesigNate||

    What I love about that, and even some of my conservative/athiest friends comment on it, is that everything about Christianity is VOLUNTARY. It doesn't mean dick if you're forced to do it.

  • SimonJester||

    In fact, one of the earliest examples (biblical scholars believe) of a small commune comes from Acts. In Jerusalem the followers of "The Way" (as it was called then) held everything in common.

    Most liberal Christians know this, and many many other liberals grab on to it with all their might.

    What people don't realize is that a good portion of Paul's ministry is actually raising material support for the Christians in Jerusalem.

    So, yes, the Bible records the first example of a small commune. It also records that it was an abject failure and ended up relying on the support of the other churches.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Valenti now Twittering, demanding Soave change the article.

  • WTF||

    She feels attacked and raped by Robby's patriarchal 'facts'.

  • John||

    Why is that? Did it hurt her delicate feelings?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    She's pissed about the title. Thinks it mischaracterizes her position since she's just commenting about "rape culture" and not about rape.

    Nevermind that "rape culture" is just a semantic method to collectively blame large groups for individual actions.

  • GILMORE||

    "" change the article.""

    how does that work? Change all the pronouns to 'Its'?

  • Anonymous Coward||

  • Citizen Nothing||

    “Stopping someone from telling a rape joke or saying they got ‘raped’ by a test” would be a start.


    So maybe that was a joke?

  • GILMORE||

    Why should we care?

    Rape and sexual assault has been in secular decline for more than 2 decades

    Let the liberal feminists freak out and advocate whatever kind of extremist campus political-dictatorship they please. They will be undone by their own stupidity running afoul of reality.

    There is no need to take them at face value as participants in an honest debate, and there is no reason to even give their ideas the slightest bit of credence. Ignore them. Like any screeching narcissist desperate for attention, you are simply rewarding them by even taking their argument seriously.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I think you're right about their current fact-light stridency being their ultimate undoing. However, I also think it important to consistently point out their errors, -- or just lard on the ridicule, when appropriate or effective.

  • GILMORE||

    "' I also think it important to... just lard on the ridicule, when appropriate or effective."

    One of my personal crowning achievements for which i will never stop congratulating myself =

    I was asked to DJ an 'office party' for the left-wing newspaper The Indypendent. I had a friend who worked there. About an hour before getting started, some very 'conscious' woman in management decided to pull me aside and remind me to 'focus on positive messages'.

    2 reasons "that's a problem".

    One = Real DJ's don't take requests.
    Two = WTF. i didn't organize my record-bag by 'ideology'. I hardly knew how i was supposed to filter out potentially inflammatory material on the fly.

    So, being me, I did what came naturally = FUCK EM. I then played a 3 hour set of the most vile, racist, sexist and homophobic material I could find. I started with 2 live crew (in fact, the Atlanta Booty, 'bend over and work that pussy' medley was something of an hour-long theme) followed with Geto Boys / a whole sequence of gangster rap, worked in some Buju Banton and other Dancehall referencing things like 'shooting homosexuals', had an interlude from a '1960s self-help spoken word record about curing Homosexuals' (*what luck I had it!), and closed up with with Run DMC's 'Shut Up, You Talk To Much'.

    It was priceless.

  • GILMORE||

    and by 'priceless' i mean - no, they didn't pay me. Worth every penny.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That story is the Sistine Chapel of dickishness. I'm speechless and in awe

  • GILMORE||

    You'd think so, but i discovered that night by serendipity that a lot of the better 'party music' in my crates of records were ALSO in fact pretty insensitive and offensive. One might even argue that the 'scandalous' aspect was precisely what made it more entertaining.

    I think musicians have known this forever.

  • Loki||

    This might be the best example of meat-space trolling I've ever heard/ read. Impressive. Next time someone accuses me of being a dick, I think I'll just tell them about this story.

  • Robert||

  • GILMORE||

    There is a great difference between mere "vulgarity", which is easy and cheap, and the more elusive "politically and morally offensive"

    I could go into detail what this entails, but far easier to simply provide you a few more examples.

    Also = if you can't dance to it, what's the point? If its just 'offensive' with no actual redeeming beat, then its boring. i mean, "Just don't bite it" is actually a funky tune aside from the dicksucking part.

    I think "Batty Boy Bye Bye" is probably the creme-de-la-creme of the category, given that it was an actual hit-song which extolled the virtues of *murdering homosexuals*

    "Heads High" by Mr Vegas should get an honorable mention, not for its offensiveness, but rather that no one really understood that the song was about encouraging women to refuse oral sex to maintain their self-respect. Which i think would/should also be offensive to progs = Males dictating sexual mores to women.

  • Loki||

    I would agree excpet that their idiotic argument is influencing policy. The Dept. of Ed's insistence that colleges adopt a proponderance of the evidence standard, the "yes means yes" law in CA, etc. I wish they could just be ignored.

  • Loki||

    Students who may feel attacked by the viewpoints expressed at the forum...

    How exactly does a viewpoint "attack" someone?

    ...can find a safe space and separate discussion held at the same time in Salomon 203.

    Because college is all about never having to hear anything that might be contrary to the accepted Progressive narrative. In this cas, that all heterosexual men are deep down sexual preadators, and all hetero sex is really rape. Because PARTRIARCHY, RAPE KULTURE, etc. etc.

    What the fuck happened to this world?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    This is the real travesty of the whole situation. That a goddamned university feels that a discussion/debate can mentally damage someone.

    We're through the looking glass here people.

  • GILMORE||

    "That a goddamned university feels that a discussion/debate can mentally damage someone."

    Weren't we talking about 'Brown'?

    Isnt their whole raison d'etre to 'mentally damage' their students? I've never met a Brownie who wasn't in need of diapers and prozac after receiving their 'degree'

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'm trying to raise my daughter (and my sons) to be tough, independent and rational. I feel sorry for all these young women who seem to feel so threatened by opinions that they have to cocoon themselves within protective ideological bubbles. Yeah -- what the fuck happened?

  • Outlaw||

    Valenti is whining about this on Twitter. She claims that this article says that she said jokes cause rape.

    https://twitter.com/ nickgillespie/status/535107199673323520

    Her tears are so delicious.

  • John Galt||

    "Her tears are so delicious." --The Crow?

  • WTF||

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    True, Valenti didn't say that rape jokes cause rape, nor did RS's article imply such. But Valenti did argue that eliminating rape jokes is a better method at preventing rape that suggesting that young ladies refrain from drinking themselves into oblivion at a frat party. If you twitter, please point that out to her for me..

  • Outlaw||

    Done

  • Loki||

    Rapists benefit from others’ insistence that a victim’s inebriation is to blame for his or her assault, she added.

    Bullshit. If two people have a drunken hookup, more often than not the man can be accused of rape even if the womean consented at the time, with the argument being that the alcohol impaired her judgement to the point that she was unable to really consent. The fact that the same argument can be applied to the man is always just swept aside as rape apologia, because as "everyone knows", all men want sex all the time and therefore are all rapists in waiting, or some such shit.

  • DesigNate||

    I love the flip side of that argument too: No woman wants sex ever.

    It's just so much bullshit.

  • Robert||

    And yet out of the other side of their mouths (but I'll concede it may be different people's mouths), they'll say rape is a crime not of sexual desire but of aggression for the hell of it, as evidenced by broomstick-handle rapes and rapes by heterosexual men of other males.

  • John Galt||

    There are lady libertarians. There just doesn't appear to be any here, in this place, today.

  • Rhywun||

    I never thought it would come to this but I am sooooooooo glad I don't have to deal with any of this rape kulture bullshit.

    /skips gaily to the next thread

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Students who may feel attacked by the viewpoints expressed at the forum or feel the speakers will dismiss their experiences can find a safe space and separate discussion held at the same time in Salomon 203.

    Holy fuck.

    Parody is dead.

  • GILMORE||

    They even set up a Piniata of a "Rape Apologist!" They beat it with their safety-nerf-bats, and it rained pink Prozac on them while the soothing sounds of John Tesh were wafted over the hi-fi at sensible sound-levels.

  • Loki||

    In a saner time I'd recognize this as sarcasm and parody, but these days I'm not so sure anymore.

  • Pulseguy||

    I was thinking the same thing. Gilmore was being completely over the top, and that is completely believable now.

  • userve32||

    Dude is like totally rocking and rolling.

    www.Safe-Anon.tk

  • kbolino||

    The funny thing about this is that the two sides of the narrative: "women getting raped because they get drunk and passed out around horny guys" and "anyone who is accused of rape should be subject to academic discipline without any standard of evidence" are talking past each other.

    The former are not likely going to have any fucking clue who raped them. By definition, if you are passed out you are experiencing sensory deprivation and memory loss. People bring up the theft analogy which is quite good but don't examine this aspect of it. Many thieves get away with theft because they do it when people aren't paying attention.

    If you know who raped you, then you can take your testimony (and other evidence) to the police. Unless your rapist was a cop or politician himself, you can generally expect the police to take it pretty seriously. Actual honest to God rapists go to jail all the time because the women (and occasionally men) who they rape can identify them.

    Really, the strongest argument here for why women (and men) should not get passed out drunk (in general and especially in certain cases) is because the system requires your testimony to function effectively in prosecution. Feminists are screaming "men shouldn't rape!" but then encouraging (or at least not discouraging) women to undermine the very system that enforces that proscription.

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^

    The problem is not that anyone thinks a passed out woman deserves to be raped or that raping her is not wrong. The problem is that proving that a passed out woman was raped and by whom is very difficult if not impossible.

  • Robert||

    "the strongest argument here for why women (and men) should not get passed out drunk (in general and especially in certain cases) is because the system requires your testimony to function effectively in prosecution."

  • epsilon given||

    There's another issue that bothers me about this. If that group of horny men see the woman passed out, and decided that they should be nice, get her a blanket and put her on a bed in an empty room, and lock the door so that she could safely sleep off her alcohol...the very men who sought to help her might find themselves charged with rape for their acts of kindness, even if there is no other evidence to support the claims.

    I don't see how passing out in a room full of strangers could be good for *anyone*.

  • Pulseguy||

    I'm assuming Valenti is a pro gun advocate. Because since alcohol doesn't cause the problem, then surely guns, which are more neutral than alcohol, don't kill people, people do.

    Alcohol doesn't rape anyone, men do. Therefore, guns don't kill anyone, people do.

  • GILMORE||

    How can we ignore reality while maintaining our political sense of self-righteousness? PROGRESSIVE DEBATE ENSUES

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "Before we start, I'm going to ask you to give us a specific definition of what you consider RAPE, so we can make a reasoned assessment of your argument, okay?"

  • GILMORE||

    "Sexual Violence" is quickly becoming the new standard, and 'Rape' is almost now a catch-all concept that encompasses the very *idea* of anything RadFems find 'un-safe' (i.e. politically-incorrect)

    Hence their obsession with 'jokes' and 'media' and cultural insouciance with 'catcalls'

    The actual CRIME of 'rape' seems completely missing from their concept. Especially so, since as frequently noted - it is a crime in 30+ year secular decline. No one seems the slightest bit interested in researching "why rape has become significantly less prevalent even as a proportion of overall violent crime, *without* any actual external cultural controls like 'joke police' or 'affirmative consent laws?"

  • Pulseguy||

    I can come up with a few ideas:

    1. Aging population. More men getting past their testosterone surge years.

    2. Internet porn. I mean, come on, who hasn't been on the verge of raping someone, but instead you stay home and whack off and then think better of your previous plan.

    3. Yoga girls. Seriously...no one wants that.

    4. Lena Dunham.

  • Robert||

    So which is it: Rape is a horrible mean thing that 1 person does to another but that fortunately few do, or rape is an action that people don't even think about that just comes naturally to men?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    In all of these stories about the "rape epidemic" there seems to be a noticeable absence of actual dragged-into-the-bushes forcible rape. That NYT piece last weekend made some fairly sensational assertions with no evidence to back them up aside from allusions to "some studies show" style references.

    Nonconsensual sex, as defined by the law, should be vigorously prosecuted, in a courtroom.

  • GILMORE||

    Your notions of sexual violence are hideously antiquated and limiting

  • GILMORE||

    Inevitable "last ditch rhetorical strategy of the progtards" in reference to this story
    (most likely to be employed by someone @ Gawker or something like that) =

    "OMG Look at this! Libertarians fulminating about something... oh, what could it be? Big Government? How much they hate the poor? No! This time they're upset *anyone is worried about Rape* Why, they're absolutely 'FREAKING OUT' attempting to 'attack and smear' someone who simply suggests we need to take the issue more seriously? And what could be more telling of people who feel their *patriarchy is being threatened* than a ridiculously disproportionate 'over-reaction' to people suggesting...um, Rape is Bad? Crazy talk!"

    I.e. the idea is always to pretend that the other person is the one 'freaking out' and 'over-reacting', and downplay your own comments as 'sensible suggestions' and 'concerned'.

    This is one of their standard post-hoc methods when they (always) lose actual arguments on 'merit' - attack the 'attitude' of the opponent as being 'overly emotional and 'angry' (Oh, they LOVE calling other people "angry", as they casually accuse everyone of being Rape Enablers)

    I guarantee we will see something like this within a day or 2.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Just as anyone who questions the need for the government to provide some service is branded as being opposed to that service being provided at all, anyone who questions the need for these "extrajudicial" academic inquests will inevitably be branded as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Rape Culture, and an active rape enthusiast.

  • ||

    Do female sexual assault victims laugh at nut shots?

    I mean, if you want to talk about a cultural fixation on violent sexual acts.

  • avocats||

    "Students who may feel attacked by the viewpoints expressed at the forum or feel the speakers will dismiss their experiences can find a safe space and separate discussion held at the same time in Salomon 203. This “BWell Safe Space” will have sexual assault peer educators, women peer counselors and staff from BWell on hand to provide support."

    Would any of you HIRE someone who went to school at a place like this? Talk about infantilizing. News flash: employers do not generally provide trigger warnings for the adversities that you may encounter in daily life. (In this case, I don't mean rape; I mean differing opinions!!! Contradictions!!!! Thinking!!!)

  • houdustin||

    I just got paid $6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that's cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    == === ==== ==== ­­W­W­W.W­O­R­K­4­H­O­U­R.C­O­M­

  • kayledysonmul||

    my best friend's step-aunt makes $78 every hour on the internet . She has been laid off for ten months but last month her pay was $13879 just working on the internet for a few hours. try this web-site....

    ➜➜➜➜➜➜ www.payinsider.com

  • Weygand||

    Why is it assumed males in the Panhellenic Fraternity system are presumed to be sleep-rapists waiting for booze to wake the rapist inside?

  • ||

    Hazing.

  • Sharon Presley||

    This headline belittles what was actually said.That is not what feminists believe. You make light of it but the pervasiveness of taking rape lightly is part of the problem. To quote another feminist "Rape culture is a concept that examines a culture in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality." Rape jokes are only a small part of the problem. Rape culture is pop music telling women they like rape, police ignoring rape reports or giving women who report it a hard time and not believing them. It is athletics whining about how their career was destroyed just because they raped someone. It's the schools siding with the athletes. To borrow from anothe feminist, it's "Politicians distinguishing “legitimate rape” and stating that rape is “something that God intended to happen,” among other horrendous claims." It's colleges that sweep rape under the rug. This is only the beginning of the list. It is a sense that permeates a culture that rape is no big deal and it's ok to make fun of it or anyone who complains about it.

    And just to make one more thing clear. Wendy McElroy does not represent libertarian feminism. She is too far to the right of mainsteam libertarian feminists. The mainstream can be seen at the Facebook page of the Association of Libertarian Feminists.

  • Migrant Log Picker||

    You are grasping at straws sharon, give it up

  • Migrant Log Picker||

    Piss off Sharon, you have no interest in anyone's freedom, you are an apologist for further statism. Piss off.

  • epsilon given||

    Intersectionalism prevents us from addressing at least some of this: after all, how much is pop music and athletics dominated by minorities?

    Can we really tell minority pop stars and athletes that they shouldn't rape, when they are victims of Oppressive Society? Particularly when minority women (who are doubly oppressed, for being minorities and women) are complicit in such things?

    And then you make the claim that "politicians distinguishing 'legitimate rape'" is an example of our "rape culture" is laughable, at best, for two reasons: First, both Democrats and Republicans cringed at the statement, and Democrats used it to their great political advantage (which would have been impossible if people thought the statement was plain aweful), and Second, having put the statement in context, the politician was doing a very lousy job of trying to distinguish between forcible rape and statutory rape (and was using a seriously flawed study to make outlandish claims).

    It is for reasons such as these that I have a hard time treating feminism as a serious school of thought.

  • Migrant Log Picker||

    You are pissing against the wind ENB, thanks for trying.

    These fucking SJW twats will target you forever. I appreciate your sensible opinions and logic when you are under attack from these pricks

    Hats off from me.

  • ||

    Getting shitfaced isn't a defense to drunk driving or murder. Not sure why being a drunk whore obviates all moral responsibility.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online