August 17, 2014

"Once the definition of rape was expanded to include more than just penetration..."

"... it became clear that men and women were equally likely to be raped, and more importantly, equally likely to be rapists."

So much for expanding definitions.

95 comments:

james conrad said...

So much for expanding definitions.

Kinda like the definition of marriage?

David said...

Good luck with that one. I do not think it's going to be the focus of the enforcers.

EDH said...

If rape were legal... for women.

rhhardin said...

I don't recall any unwanted sexual experiences in college.

We had better looking females.

rhhardin said...

I can't figure out what the complaint is. It's not rape-rape if it's not penetration.

But it relies on penetration outrage as the right handle for the newly expanded non-rape rape.

How is outrage so fickle? Who falls for the trick.

Rape is a violation of feminine modesty, an idea today coming mostly from the fathers of daughters, who are fine with her dating once she's old enough, say 26.

Clyde said...

I saw this over at Instapundit and I have to say that it sounds like baloney to me. Around 40% of high-school- and college-aged men report unwanted sexual experiences with a female aggressor? Seriously? I find it hard to believe that there are that many fugly women out there or that percentage of gay guys.

rhhardin said...

Ah, here's what it's about 1953 Cat Women of the Moon trailer.

h/t Iowahawk

William said...

Dictionary.com says (definition #3):

Rape: an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation

Pretty clear to me.

James Pawlak said...

It appears that changing "Rape" to "Sexual Assault" has cheapened the horror of the former.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Any given word is just an arbitrary sound that everyone has agreed will stand-in for a certain understood 'concept'. Apple. Run. Torture.

The Left has become the despicable masters of the technique of hijacking fully loaded word/concepts pairs, to mislead.

They count on the original word/concept retaining its correct meaning, then they use it to willfully deceive.

For example, they say that 'deportations' are UP, under Obama, which may be technically true.

But what is the 'concept' that is supposed to be denoted by the word/sound 'deportation'?

Well, it covers the 'concept' that some person(s) has been removed, permanently, from the country. That is what I and most people actually think of when reading or hearing the word 'deportation'.

But we know that Obama's 'deportations' are not serious, and many of the 'deported' turn around and come right back in - multiple times.

So the word 'deportation' is being used to purposely mislead.

The proper word(s) to use to describe an Obama deportation would be something like "temporarily geographically inconvenienced'.

THAT would describe the actual circumstance that the word 'deportation' is hiding.

They need to be called out on this despicable tactic, every time they use it.

Sons of bitches, all.

Original Mike said...

Why do people do this? Rape expanded to include more than just penetration, English professors are scientists too. Redefining words muddles our ability to have meaningful discussions.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

The rape story linked at Instapundit is pretty appalling. When I was 15, I was too clumsy and inhibited to respond to an advance by an older women. At 13, it would not have occurred to me. That boy was really assaulted and the fact that the woman's daughter was a friend is really appalling.

I'm not terribly surprised by the connection with the baby beauty pageants either. The Jon Benet Ramsey story probably involved the mother. Those mothers are weird.

Ann Althouse said...

"I saw this over at Instapundit and I have to say that it sounds like baloney to me. Around 40% of high-school- and college-aged men report unwanted sexual experiences with a female aggressor? Seriously? I find it hard to believe that there are that many fugly women out there or that percentage of gay guys."

So, you're relying on the stereotype that males are always open to sexual contact and that as long as a female is attractive, she can assume the man is consenting to her groping him or kissing him or fondling him? An attractive woman is free to walk up to any man she likes and just touch him anywhere, grab him and do what she likes?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

...and this would be meaningful and important if it wasn't for, you know, Fen's law...

EDH said...

So, you're relying on the stereotype that males are always open to sexual contact and that as long as a female is attractive, she can assume the man is consenting to her groping him or kissing him or fondling him? An attractive woman is free to walk up to any man she likes and just touch him anywhere, grab him and do what she likes?

Can you continue your description of that scenario in a little more detail? It's starting to turn me on.

Now I know why women read those bodice-rippers.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

So, you're relying on the stereotype that males are always open to sexual contact and that as long as a female is attractive, she can assume the man is consenting to her groping him or kissing him or fondling him? An attractive woman is free to walk up to any man she likes and just touch him anywhere, grab him and do what she likes?

Nice group of straw men!

So, you're relying on the stereotype that males are always open to sexual contact . . .

Not 'always', but 'way more open than women are'. And it's not a stereotype, it is biological fact. Should we prepare the fainting couch?

. . . and that as long as a female is attractive, she can assume the man is consenting to her groping him or kissing him or fondling him?

If she did assume that, she would be correct only most of the time, not all of the time.

An attractive woman is free to walk up to any man she likes and just touch him anywhere, grab him and do what she likes?

Well, it would be nice if she bought coffee first.

rhhardin said...

In my day, it was very polite. If a lady was interested, she stood by you and ran a breast into your arm.

SteveR said...

An attractive woman is free to walk up to any man she likes and just touch him anywhere, grab him and do what she likes?

Its possible, yes, As an earlier commenter stated, rape implies to me, anyway, something more than that. And it should.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Male victim of statutory rape = splooge stooge.
Better pay that child support, lil' man, because the interests of the child (obviously).

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said... An attractive woman is free to...do what she likes?

In most people's experience, yes ma'am, pretty much.

sane_voter said...

I always thought unwanted sexual advances was defined as sexual harassment.

sane_voter said...

So now sexual harassment is glancing at a low cut blouse?

madAsHell said...

So, you're relying on the stereotype that males are always open to sexual contact and that as long as a female is attractive, she can assume the man is consenting to her groping him or kissing him or fondling him? An attractive woman is free to walk up to any man she likes and just touch him anywhere, grab him and do what she likes?

Well.......YEAH!!.....and I promise not to ask your name!!

virgil xenophon said...

LOL! rhhardin and/or IowaHawk @10:24 win the thread!

Birkel said...

Next thing you know, 6 year olds will be suspended from school for kissing classmates because 6 year olds commit sexual harassment.

*eye roll*

exhelodrvr1 said...

A very large percentage of males not in a committed relationship would be fine with that. And a significant percentage of males in a committed relationship would be OK with it, as well.

Michael K said...

"An attractive woman is free to walk up to any man she likes and just touch him anywhere, grab him and do what she likes?"

If he is a 16 year old boy. Absolutely but she has to wear a pin that indicates her tubes are tied :)

A friend of mine was a Marine F 18 pilot when Top Gun came out and he said the officers' club on Friday night got pretty weird. He was married happily and once he was having a beer before going home when a good looking woman walked up to him and grabbed his crotch. He didn't faint but he did go home to his wife. Probably horny but I didn't ask.

Mark O said...

I'm shocked, shocked that sex is being used as power over another!

Of course, if we can just criminalize it, we can make it exponentially more powerful.

Don't touch me there.

Ann Althouse said...

Try imagining a screenplay that proceeds on the theory that attractive women are free in the way I described above. And I don't mean a porno movie. I mean something serious that examines what life would really be like in this situation, with real people and real human feeling. Where would you take this story?

And, seriously, how are you picturing married men and other men with serious partners? They just would appreciatively accept the physical, sexual assault of random women (if the women are attractive)?

Either you are not men of character, you are not men who are even remotely marriageable, or you are so unattractive that this is an utterly unthreatening fantasy.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Either you are not men of character, you are not men who are even remotely marriageable, or you are so unattractive that this is an utterly unthreatening fantasy.

Or possibly they're not taking the scenario seriously and are responding in a joking manner? Maybe?
The actual problem under discussion is a real one. Using an exaggerated example and then insisting that the discussion be about that example (or otherwise the commenters are unattractive scumbags who aren't worthy of marriage) sure seems like a distraction to me. I'm sure this is just laughing in their angry, scrunched up faces, you know, but I don't think the people to whom you're responding are actually angry here.

furious_a said...

An attractive woman is free to walk up to any man she likes and just touch him anywhere, grab him and do what she likes?

It is more likely (absent the victim being armed) that a man would be better able to physically resist such an assault than a woman would.

The man would be at a disadvantage, however, if he were (hopefully) hesitant about striking a woman.

traditionalguy said...

Rape is an act of violence. The winning Army uses rape to violate the conquered losers. A feminist is ipso facto a rape suspect until proven otherwise. Especially the ones with cute breasts.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

furious_a said...The man would be at a disadvantage, however, if he were (hopefully) hesitant about striking a woman.
Let's say he did physically resist, though, and law enforcement was subsequently involved--how do we think that would go for him? Would knowledge of the likely outcome play a role in his hesitancy?

Joe said...

Your inability to imagine such a screen play doesn't mean it isn't real (and I can assure you from my 60 years of experience on this planet as a male, it is). Man are generally trained from boyhood to accept whatever comes from a female.

sane_voter asked...

"So now sexual harassment is glancing at a low cut blouse?"

It isn't but it's considered to be by some. The truth may be that wearing a low cut blouse is the aggressive act of harassment.

Birkel said...

I agree with Althouse.

15 year old boys are not marriageable.

I'm not sure how she knows almost all 15 year old boys are unattractive, however. But she appears to be an expert.

It's almost like we men know more about what it's like to be a boy and/or young man than does a female law professor.

Meanwhile, I find the hetero-normative nature of this discussion to be a micro-aggression. What about the other 1.7% of the population?

Ann Althouse said...

"Or possibly they're not taking the scenario seriously and are responding in a joking manner? Maybe?"

My statement "Either you are not men of character, you are not men who are even remotely marriageable, or you are so unattractive that this is an utterly unthreatening fantasy" referred implicitly to those who would answer the preceding question "yes." The question was: "They just would appreciatively accept the physical, sexual assault of random women (if the women are attractive)?"

As for those who made jokes upthread, I'm not saying they are either "not men of character… not men who are even remotely marriageable, or… so unattractive." I didn't express an opinion on that. I am only trying to redirect the subject into something I would find interesting and productive.

But if you want my opinion, I think joking about rape is usually a bad idea. I concede that my post essentially made a joke, though not directly about rape, more about law and language.

Anyway, I think joking is an epiphenomenon of anxiety. The notion that men can be sexual victims is something that many people keep submerged.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

From the same writer blog & author as the linked post:

5 Legal Rights Women Have that Men Don't

Birkel said...

"They just would appreciatively accept the physical, sexual assault of random women (if the women are attractive)?"

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. You have concluded that an assault has happened. And what many are saying is that there is no fear nor apprehension of harm in the hypothetical Althouse poses.

That you as a woman are unable to see what young men (focusing specifically on high school / college age) would view as an assault is giving we men a giggle.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...The notion that men can be sexual victims is something that many people keep submerged.
I agree. Why do you think that is? Does the fact that people who try to discuss the inequality of treatment (both legally and socially) are labeled beta whiners, etc, has anything to do with it?
I mean, if for instance someone told men who had been the rough equivalent of rape victims that they need to "keep track of their genetic material one way or the other" do you think that could give people the idea that "blaming the victim" was ok as long as that victim is male?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Anyway, I think joking is an epiphenomenon of anxiety As an aside, I don't think this is necessarily wrong but it's worth asking what types of responses (not just to this issue, of course) won't be dismissed (or read into, etc). If someone's angry we can conclude they're too emotionally connected to the issue to be rational, or they know they're wrong, so no need to listen. If they don't address the issue directly then we know they're failing to engage because their case is weak. If they discuss just the facts or don't give credence to our interpretive gloss then they're ignoring the "unsaid things" and aren't sophisticated enough to take seriously. If they're making a joke then clearly they are anxious about the underlying subject and the response says more about them than the issue.
I'm not sure the instant psychoanalysis (even when likely correct!) gets us very far, ultimately, if the idea is to learn and persuade. Anyway sometimes thing are just funny [Obligitory Louis CK clip]

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...My statement "Either you are not men of character, you are not men who are even remotely marriageable, or you are so unattractive that this is an utterly unthreatening fantasy" referred implicitly to those who would answer the preceding question "yes." Entirely off topic, but the use of the word "you" instead of "they" in that second sentence makes the question (explicitly) about the people imagining the screenplay/scenario and not the men who would answer yes in the scenario. The "you" subject in each of the three paragraphs is the commenters you're asking to use their imaginations. I didn't get the implicit reference but then again I haven't been to law school.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Ann Althouse said...

. . .

And, seriously, how are you picturing married men and other men with serious partners? They just would appreciatively accept the physical, sexual assault of random women (if the women are attractive)?

Either you are not men of character, you are not men who are even remotely marriageable, or you are so unattractive that this is an utterly unthreatening fantasy.


Oh Ann, your naiveté is actually kind of charming.

Just add the phrase "with the metaphysical certainty that you would not be caught" and you would be astounded at the number of men who would 'go for it'.

Just accept that women just can't understand this.

I'd say you could ask Meade, if you don't believe me, but I cannot imagine the tightrope he must already be walking, to not be frequently banished to the couch by you, so - don't ask him.

Fernandinande said...

Original Mike said...
Why do people do this? ...
Redefining words muddles our ability to have meaningful discussions.


I think you answered your own question.

Birkel said...

It is my firm belief that most of the men here would say that some sexualized relationship they had was regrettable upon reflection. Many men through the years have been susceptible to persuasion by, for example, ex-girlfriends who promise easy sexual access. Ex-husbands and ex-wives may be susceptible to such offers.

However, if we include those individuals in the group who might be "sexually assaulted" then we are making a mistake as to temporality. If we are the victims of sexualized crimes -- both men and women -- we must take full responsibility for our choices. We cannot, ex post, redefine what happened as some sort of crime. Later regret does not create a crime.

In this, I note, we men are consistent. Neither women nor men can ex post withdraw consent. Consent can be withdrawn at any time before conclusion of an activity, of course.

Original Mike said...

"Neither women nor men can ex post withdraw consent. "

It sure looks to me like women can.

Birkel said...

Original Mike:

I concede your point, so far as women try to do that. However in a court of law that sort of regret is not enough to return a guilty verdict. That is precisely why the Obama Administration wishes schools conduct the sort of extra-legal procedures discussed these last few weeks/months.

This post is about definitions. And I'm suggesting that what the researchers have likely done is to expand the definition of rape (or sexual assault) to include ex post regret. And that is wrong.

bbkingfish said...

Prof. Althouse said...

"So, you're relying on the stereotype that males are always open to sexual contact...?"

Yes, the Instapundit piece reeks of stale baloney, and male stereotypes have nothing to do with it.

The blog post cherry picks two stats from a "study" to which it provides no links (red flag). Instapundit does link two different blog posts (are they supposed to be "sources"?) Those blog posts also cherry pick the same two statistics, bur neither of them link the "study" either. In fact, none of the blog posts even name the title of the study, or its author...we are told the study emanated from something called "the University of Missouri," which I don't believe is specific enough to qualify as attribution.

Not Instapundit, nor its two linked sources (each of which discusses exactly ONE case of pedophilia by females) comes close to proving the assertion that

"... it became clear that men and women were equally likely to be raped, and more importantly, equally likely to be rapists."

About the only thing this post indicates is that our hostess has a high threshold for embarrassment, which is obvious to anyone who examined her treatment the other day of the New Yorker piece on Nina Simone.

Intellectual dishonesty never is attractive, but it is especially loathsome when it is employed as clickbait for bottom feeders.

Saint Croix said...

I think joking about rape is usually a bad idea.

Yes.

I concede that my post essentially made a joke, though not directly about rape, more about law and language.

Expanding the definition of rape so that women are rapists makes a joke out of rape.

Men are not afraid of being raped by women. The whole idea is absurd and ridiculous.

You want to talk about what makes men afraid? A false rape claim is what is scary. Being demonized as a rapist when I am innocent. That is scary.

What good does it do to tell women they are rapists? Or to define more and more sexual activities as rape? Who are you helping? If you think you're helping men, you've lost your minds.

Original Mike said...

Agree with both your points, Birkel.

traditionalguy said...

Looks like we are headed into mandatory licensing of sex like we license concealed carry of guns.

A double background check, a six hour training course in birth control, and at least a 10 day cooling off period.

Or we could just restrict sex to married couples. Now where have I heard that before?

Saint Croix said...

I remember being a 16-year-old boy, and I remember wanting to have sex with women. If some 24-year-old had said yes, I would have been grateful. Perhaps with indoctrination and "counseling" you could have turned me into a rape victim and screwed up my life. But if you left me alone I'm pretty sure I would have been happy that I got laid.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

Saint Croix:

From what you've written here, I doubt seriously you could have been "educated" into victimhood. I know there's no chance whatever that I would.

"Regrets, I've had a few; But then again, too few to mention." -- Sinatra

And none of them made me a victim of anything except my own poor judgment.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"And, seriously, how are you picturing married men and other men with serious partners? They just would appreciatively accept the physical, sexual assault of random women (if the women are attractive)?"

Yes - a lot of them would.

n.n said...

It's more likely that a man will be raped (i.e. subject to involuntary exploitation) by another man, than by a woman, simply as a matter of natural principle. Men do not perceive women to pose the same threat to their dignity as homosexual males, and, in fact, are likely to welcome physical relationships with women. Again, this is nature, separate from moral temperance related to marriage, friendship, peering, etc. This is also why the extra-legal and moral right of abortion is so critical to liberal female identity.

Lydia said...

Defining rape down is sickening. Go to Amazon and read the "look inside" selection from Alice Sebold's Lucky about how she was raped as a college student. I can't imagine how a person who survived something like that must feel listening to the easy talk about teaching women not to rape.

Revenant said...

I'm amused that so many people who normally call themselves good Christian conservatives think that "I'm horny, and she wants to have sex with me" is all the thinking any man does when consenting to sex.

No wonder Christians divorce more often than atheists.

madAsHell said...

Either you are not men of character, you are not men who are even remotely marriageable, or you are so unattractive that this is an utterly unthreatening fantasy.

I'm 3 for 3!! Do I win a prize??

Michael K said...

"They just would appreciatively accept the physical, sexual assault of random women (if the women are attractive)?"

My friend told the woman , "no thanks" and went home to his wife, who is very attractive even 20 years later and with three grown boys. He did tell his sister, which whom I had a long relationship (now over) that she was NOT to go to the officers' club on Friday nights (guest night) anymore ever. He did not want her to be considered one of the "Friday night girls" that pilots joked about and sometimes screwed.

buwaya puti said...

Used to happen to me fairly regularly, when I was younger and better looking. Sometimes at work, occasionally in bars or restaurants, out dancing, etc.
And to other fellows also. A little alcohol can make some women misbehave in surprising ways. I was never threatened by this, though a bit embarassed. I was mainly concerned with coming up with a way of turning the girl down that avoided hurting her feelings while also avoiding social awkwardness, if it was happening in public.

I don't know that men should get indignant about this. Such a reaction I think would itself be shameful. A man should be thinking above all about the woman's welfare.

Drago said...

Revenant: "I'm amused that so many people who normally call themselves good Christian conservatives think that "I'm horny, and she wants to have sex with me" is all the thinking any man does when consenting to sex."

Could you provide a definition for "so many"?

Revanant: "No wonder Christians divorce more often than atheists."

This sounds a bit like mistaking correlation (assuming that correlation exists) for causation.

Or are you simply being provocative?

Do more self-identified Christians get married compared to Atheists?

Do you (can you/should you) account for differences in Christian denominations in determining divorce rates?

I only have about 50 more questions related to sub-grouping that would be relevant.

rhhardin said...

You might have a policy against one-night stands, because it makes a mess, and it's overrated, and you'd rather look forward to hanging around with somebody you like.

It's not a rape problem, though.

Men's modesty is to avoid anybody seeing what they don't want to see, not to conceal something.

That doesn't apply to women.

Ann Althouse said...

"Men are not afraid of being raped by women. The whole idea is absurd and ridiculous."

Who put fear into the equation? If "rape" were defined to include any sexual touching (hugging, kissing, fondling) that did not have prior express consent, there would be as many female "rapists" as male. That's not absurd once you get past the expansion of the meaning. Why would you want to expand the meaning? It dilutes the significance of rape to make a big category that contains things that are minor and often not even disliked.

Birkel said...

Revenant:

You'll please point to the Christians discussing this. Thanks in advance.

Birkel said...

Thankfully, Althouse, the definition of rape has not been so expanded.

That a number of social scientists wish to expand it so does not make it so. That the Obama Administration wishes to make the 1 in 5 argument also does not make it so.

We should ask ourselves, therefore, what are the motivations of the various actors who wish to dilute the language. Why would the Obama Administration wish to expand the definition of rape beyond logic? The answer, as always with this crowd, is the consolidation of power within the federal government for the purpose of controlling We, the people.

rhhardin said...

Controling us the people.

It's an apposition. Both take the same case.

SGT Ted said...

I remember being a 16-year-old boy, and I remember wanting to have sex with women. If some 24-year-old had said yes, I would have been grateful.

That sort of sexual relationship doesn't happen in a vacuum, like some Penthouse Letters fantasy. 24 YO women shagging 16 YO boys are fucked up in the head. Or, they are digging on the power they have over the hormone stricken 16 YO.

"She/He liked it" is never much of a defense for inappropriate sexual aggression.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The unnecessary hypothetical upthread has encouraged a lot of point-missing.
The larger issue is debasing the currency. When the definition of sexual assault is inflated to include otherwise-consensual encounters where one party is drunk it means many men are therefore victims of sexual assault. The fact that people seem unwilling to accept that men in large numbers are victims certainly says something about that definition, but if the def. is a given the conclusion must follow.
When you debase a currency you might get a short term gain, but the long term.consequences are almost universally bad. The Left is happy to use a ginned-up campus sexual assault epidemic for political gain (another volley in the War on Women I guess). But what are the larger effects? Might people actually take sexual assault as an issue less seriously, or discount claims of actual harm from sexual assault? If so, the primary victims will likely be women, in addition of course to our political process as a whole.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

By now someone else should have linked the idea if men using "sexual assault victim status" to their advantage (which they can do under the expanded definitions now in use) to George Will's argument regarding victimhood as desirable on campus.

The Godfather said...

When I saw this piece on Instapundit this morning, I thought it was an Onionesque gag. Now that I've read the discussion here at Althouse, I suppose I must take it seriously, right?

But the only "serious" lesson one can draw from this discussion is that rape is rape (or, for viewers of The View, rape-rape is rape-rape), and other actions aren't. Copping a feel is not rape, whether the feelee is male or female. Stealing a kiss is not rape, whether the kissee is male or female. These may or may not be abhorrent acts, but they are not rape. Even on a college campus.

Anonymous said...

Re: Althouse: "Anyway, I think joking is an epiphenomenon of anxiety."

Back to Robin Williams, then.

It is not that there is a loop but that the loop is so small, it almost looks like a noose.

Anonymous said...

I think that was my best non-character comment ever. I might need to quit the Internet.

Anonymous said...

People who have never considered suicide have the worst comic timing.

Anonymous said...

Suicide is like rape: one person knows what is going to happen next.

Anonymous said...

Sorry. Betamax is on the beach with a metal detector, looking for the coin that would've went into the payphone for the phone call that would have alerted police.

Anonymous said...

"Either you are not men of character, you are not men who are even remotely marriageable, or you are so unattractive that this is an utterly unthreatening fantasy."

There is a very good reason that we look at Hollywood and say, "Man, these people can't stay married for more than a few months!" But it's wrong of us to look and laugh.

Because they are no different than the rest of us. If we had wealth, fame, fortune, etc, like they do in Hollywood, then we'd be surrounded by attractive people.

What's a man of character?

I'll tell you who a man of character is. It's a guy who has never had Scarlett Johansson throw herself at him.

Men are sexual creatures. We think about sex a lot. We want lot's and lot's of sex. The reason we don't cheat on our spouses or our girlfriends, etc, is because the opportunity isn't there. It's because, as you said, we're unattractive in some way. We're poor, or ugly, or smelly, or just insignificant in some manner.

So, that makes it really tough to believe the statistics. We are men. We laugh at this statistic. Because in order for it to be believed, we have to think there are a bunch of Rosie O'Donnell's out there coming on to men and pushing themselves onto guys.

Cry at human nature if you like, believe all of us men are pigs, whatever you'd like, but the facts are, we men like sex. You can't rape the willing.

Saint Croix said...

Who put fear into the equation?

Rape puts fear into the equation. Rape is a horrific crime of violence. If we're talking about rape, we're talking about fear of rape. One implies the other.

For instance, men going into prison are aware that rape is a possibility. And they are afraid, which is nature's way of making us hyper-vigilant. This is why prison is an awful and stressful place.

To me the emotion, fear, is self-evident from the violent atrocity. Nobody is afraid of kisses or hugs. We don't learn judo to protect ourselves from kisses and hugs.

Saint Croix said...

Anyway, I think joking is an epiphenomenon of anxiety.

It can be, but joking is also what we do to mock stupid ideas. Expanding rape to cover hugs and kisses is a stupid idea. And identifying our fears is what helps us see this.

Rape is something men do. Nobody is afraid of being raped by lesbians with dildos. When we're afraid of rapists, we're afraid of men. This seems like sexism to well-meaning liberals. Their ideology takes them into stupid places. They want to say that women are just as likely to be rapists as men.

Nobody is afraid of being raped by women. Of course it's possible, anything is possible. But when I read that article I am not afraid.

The threat to men is the false rape claim. Read wikipedia on false rape claims. You will see sympathy for women who are engaging in horrific crimes. Crystal Mangum did not spend a day in jail for her false rape claim. (She's in prison now for murder). The danger to men is not that a woman rapes you. The danger to men is that a woman accuses you falsely of rape, and she is believed.

Difference feminists are notorious for saying things like "all men are potential rapists" or saying that "no woman lies about rape." Apparently equality feminists have decided to respond by prosecuting as many women as possible for rape. And they do that by expanding the definitions of rape to include more and more sexual acts.

This is a case where both difference feminists and equality feminists are awful and unhelpful. Difference feminists do not care about innocent men going to prison, because they hate men and view us all as potential rapists anyway. And equality feminists are off in some fairy land where women are out on the streets raping men.

Tarrou said...

Well if someone sober having sex with you while you are drunk is rape, then I'm basically Patient Zero of the rape epidemic. Can I report all my exes to the FBI?

Matthew Sablan said...

I think men would be OK with the idea of pretty women openly approaching them in a sexual way, but the actual experience would not be as open to.

Sort of like I like the idea of cake for breakfast, but I don't like the execution. Men want to feel attractive, just like women do, but I think it would get old being randomly grabbed on the street.

damikesc said...

An attractive woman is free to walk up to any man she likes and just touch him anywhere, grab him and do what she likes?

This is about as common an occurence as a man walking to a woman he doesn't know and motor boating her boobs.

And, if it did happen, then yes, she'd be immune from any criticism. Guys couldn't complain because everybody, men AND women, would mock them for doing so.

Hey, it's reality. If a guy smacked her hand away, guess who's the villain in that scenario?

Try imagining a screenplay that proceeds on the theory that attractive women are free in the way I described above.

Professor, it's life. If, say, Kate Upton walked up to me and grabbed my junk, what...precisely could be done about that?

Arrest her? Because, sure, the cops will buy that story. They'd buy that real easily.

Smack her hand away and have ME be guilty of assault?

Yell about it? Because, surely, I wouldn't be the crazy dude yelling about Kate Upton fondling him.

The notion that men can be sexual victims is something that many people keep submerged.

As a man, I don't feel we commonly are. However, as a fan of equal protection, we CLEARLY are based on a basic reading of law.

And, let's be honest -- your history of treating men's criticism of unfair and unequal treatment wouldn't encourage many men to discuss this in any truly geniune way. You're on the record thinking most of the complaints are hokum.

Michael McNeil said...

Either you are not men of character, you are not men who are even remotely marriageable, or you are so unattractive that this is an utterly unthreatening fantasy.

Someone posted this here a few years back, but it's clearly time to repeat it (it was pre-moderation time to boot, so possibly Althouse didn't even see it):

“The libidos of perfectly ordinary men, when fully understood by women, seem deformed and disreputable to them. Many women strongly resist an accurate presentation of male sexuality because they believe it ‘degrades men.’”

Steven E. Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, p. 115.

Original Mike said...

"Try imagining a screenplay that proceeds on the theory that attractive women are free in the way I described above."

Contemplating ridiculous hypotheticals does not lead to greater understanding.

Saint Croix said...

Over at Instapundit, Glenn links to this. What an ugly nightmare. I have no idea who is telling the truth and who is lying. But the violations of due process, the inability to get a lawyer or to cross-examine the witness against you? Insanity.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Saint Croix said...Rape puts fear into the equation. Rape is a horrific crime of violence
If rape is sexual activity without consent (as defined now) that your statement is obviously not always true. If someone willingly engages in sexual activity while, say, too drunk to consent according to the law, a rape has occurred. There need be no fear nor violence. That is how rape has been defined in the laws and policies that matter. One's disagreement with that definition will do little good before the tribunal!
A consequence of the expanded definition is that many women are rapists and many men are raped. How are institutions responding to that fact? They're not examining or questioning the current definition. They're not trying to punish female rapists nor prevent women from raping (at least not to the degree they're doing the same to/against men). What can we conclude from this? Do they not take rape seriously? Do they not believe their own definition? Do they just not care about men even when they are so frequently victimized? The answers, remember, could have important consequences (Title IX lawsuits, etc).

Todd said...

So, according to some posters here the following is true?

Case A: 28 year old man has sex with willing 14 year old girl. Rape. Legally, 14 year old girls can NOT give consent.

Case B: 28 year old woman has sex with willing 14 year old boy. Not rape because the male of the species can't be the victim of female rape as women can't be rapists.

Additionally, it does not happen as frequently as male on female rape but if a man is forced to have sex with a woman, that is rape. If a man is too drunk to give consent and is taken advantage of by a women, that is rape.

What about this is so hard to understand?

Mike said...

@ Althouse (10:48)

God yes!

Birkel said...

Todd:

Your comment is so hetero-normative that I am offended. This micro-aggression cannot be allowed to stand. You, sir, are a disgrace!

Also, nobody is advocating pedophilia. I am advocating a time machine back into my 14 year old body to test my theory that I would not have been mentally scarred by having sex with a small number of my teachers.

tim in vermont said...

"Either you are not men of character, you are not men who are even remotely marriageable, or you are so unattractive that this is an utterly unthreatening fantasy."

Chris Rock seems like he is reasonably attractive, has character, and seems marriageable. What he said on the subject was that the difference between a faithful man and an unfaithful one was opportunity.

The scenario is as ridiculous because the beautiful woman has millions of years of accrued instinct that her sexual troth is of enormous value, value which is best extracted by its careful management.

Maybe conditions have changed in the past century, but character does not respond so quickly to evolutionary pressures, or lack of them, as hypotheticals.

Like it or not, the men you are surrounded by are exclusively descended of the ones best at getting laid.

damikesc said...

I'm impressed with the sheer volume of straw men slain by Todd.

If you're too drunk, sorry, it isn't rape. It's a poor choice.

If you're forced to have sex against your will, it is rape.

The point is that the Left has defined rape down so far as to make it meaningless.

Kirk Parker said...

"Either you are not men of character, you are not men who are even remotely marriageable, or you are so unattractive that this is an utterly unthreatening fantasy. "

There are more things in heaven and earth, my dear Althouse, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I'm sure I am far from alone in being a male who has been (entirely) faithful to his wife, but for whom getting married did not magically abolish the general attractiveness of women. Yes, of course there are men of character, but I imagine for the majority, perhaps even for the great majority, maintaining that character is not an automatic or effortless endeavor.

Ann Althouse said...

@Kirk Parker

You misread my statements. I'm talking about an inference of consent to be touched, not whether attraction is felt. Character isn't about not having feelings but about controlling your behavior when you have them. The inference of consent from a correct belief that the man is attracted to you deprives the man of the test of his character.

Kirk Parker said...

Althouse,

Go ahead and elaborate on your (brief!) 12:24 PM statement, and describe some scenarios and how you think they might play out under various levels of "character" or the lack thereof.

Kirk Parker said...

Yeah... so I guess when a student tries to give the professor an assignment, it doesn't usually work?