Tree of Finches

Little birds chirping about big things

  • Daily Chirping

    September 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Jul    
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Chirps

  • Blog Stats

    • 8,121 hits

Archive for the ‘Rape’ Category

On trusting men

Posted by A birch tree on July 16, 2008

When I logged on today, the finches said to me “Tree, don’t get sidetracked. We’ve got a huge post on transgenderism/transphobia to research, and we’ll probably have enough grist left afterwards for another Fact Dump. You’ve got three hours, use them wisely!”

Then, just as I got started, I ran into the furor surrounding Kyle Payne. A self-proclaimed radical pro-feminist blogger and sexual assault advocate is arrested for raping and photographing an unconcious student at Buena Vista University, where he is a Resident Advisor.

I read that post and my stomach churned. I read some of the other links back, and did a quick google on the situation, and my stomach positively flipped over.

You know how they say child molestors will try to find jobs or homes where they have easy access to children? That’s exactly the kind of thing this man did; he had a rape fetish and put himself into a position to be close to the kinds of victims he fantasized about. He listened to, and probably got off on, stories of women’s nightmares from the mouths of the victims themselves, who had no idea that they were being re-victimized right there in his presence. He was finally caught acting on his deviant fantasies by the university and the police when they found his homemade rape porn on his computer (some comments in this blog claim that his computers were originally siezed in a search for child pornography, and that it is stated in the search warrant records. I haven’t looked up that information myself, but, you know what? It wouldn’t surprise me at all).

How many women poured their stories of trauma and terror to this man, only to have him masturbate about them? How many women will be afraid to take advantage of services for rape victims due to the harm this man has caused so many women? And, most importantly, how many women did he rape that he didn’t videotape?

This is exactly why men should not be working with rape victims in an advocate or crisis-counselor capacity: men cannot be trusted. Maybe, if I’m feeling generous, I might allow for the idea that “not all men” do this, and there are some loving, caring, wonderfully fuzzy happy men who work in this field for the sense of personal fulfillment blah blah blah. I can’t for the life of me figure out how someone could justify forcing the vulnerable, traumatized women who call these centers to take such a significant risk of re-victimization just because there might be a dude somewhere who has bucked his sociosexual training enough not to take advantage of every perceived position of power over women to fulfill his own sense of entitlement to, among other things, feelings of control and sexual titillation. Is a man’s desire, innocently and helpfully motivated as it may be, to work in this specific field really worth more than women’s desires not to have to worry about being re-victimized? Is this issue really so important for men that it’s worth making rape victims add an extra set of anxieties on top of the ones resulting from the rape itself, for example: “will/is/did my rape crisis counsellor get/getting off on the story of my brutal rape? Was/is that exciting for him? Does he want to rape me too?”

The only people that the whole “Women shouldn’t automatically distrust men, because we’re not ALL rapists!” meme benefits are rapists. Any man who gives a shit about women and their daily struggles wouldn’t be offended by distrust or suspicion. Any man who is trying to toss his load of priviledge and entitlement would welcome the opportunity to prove his general good-ness via a slow progression of time over which he demonstrates in all his behaviors, large and small, in all social and private contexts, that he is not a dickwad, rather than simply having the assumption made that because he has a penis he is the embodiment of all that is upstanding and trustworthy in spite of the intense rate at which crimes against women are perpetrated by penis-wielders in this society.

As far as this specific case is concerned, the ripples from this man’s actions continue to spread. Some blogs go so far as to take his actions as an indictment of the anti-pornography movement (paraphrase: “See? People who don’t use porn are the REALLY dangerous, repressed ones with scary dark sides! This guy proves it!”). Some people say the radical feminist movement should have to answer for this dude, since he claimed to be among their number and linked to a bunch of their blogs. Lots of people are really quick to blame women for either this man’s actions, or for trusting him to begin with. Fingers point. Fur flies. This man’s crimes are used to futher unrelated personal vendettas at the expense of his victims. Women who had no idea this man even existed are called to task for not denouncing him.

We live in Patriarchy, after all; everything bad a man ever does can, eventually, be used to shame, blame or discredit a woman or two. The status quo marches on.

-a birch tree

*How do I make this, and some of the above, assumptions? Pretty simple, actually: he’s a rapist, he committed rape, and he presumably got off on rape. Ergo, this man gets off on rape, ergo, he probably got off on accounts of rape his victims gave him, turning it into an even sicker form of pornography.

Advertisements

Posted in Feminism, Liberal Men, Rape, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

The Superbowl

Posted by A birch tree on May 26, 2008

So I had an argument with my wife, Ari, recently about the Superbowl, or, more specifically, American Football (and, thematically, professional sports in general). She refuses to watch it, and told me that supporting it was supporting a misogynist industry and therefore was an un-feminist act due to the way the players treat women, and the way the league treats said players.

I disagreed (ok, that’s putting a certain spin on it… I suppose I actually got pissed off and defensive and turned what could have been a genteel discussion into an absurd argument), mostly on the grounds of “But I like it!” backed up with “I have no knowledge of any of the things of which you speak”.

And men consider themselves to be the “logical” gender. Riiiiight.

Well, ignorance is no excuse. I was wrong. And, as is the right and proper thing to do when one does something hideously stupid and realizes one was wrong about it, I’m making a public apology. I’m sorry, Ari.

Beyond that, I’m sharing with others exactly what I was wrong about, and how I was wrong about it, so maybe they can avoid doing or saying the same stupid shit that I did.

***

So, guys, here’s what I found out.

I typed “NFL Rape” into google, and, in a turn of events that will probably shock no one, came up with some 470k hits. I’ve compiled a few facts here, with citations. Note that while I’m still using endnotes, the HTML format that the Fact Dump is in, with linked superscript numbers referring down to the specific footnote at the bottom of the page, was way, way too cumbersome for me to ever want to repeat.

21 percent of NFL players — more than one in five — have been charged with at least one serious crime. The docket begins with assault, rape, and domestic violence and keeps spiraling out of control.1

Atlanta Falcons defensive back Patrick Bates was charged with assaulting his pregnant girlfriend and, three weeks after the baby was born, kidnapping the child and beating the mother with a gun. Bates finally was let go by the Falcons, pleaded guilty to reduced charges and was signed by the Oakland Raiders.1

Falcons all-pro linebacker Cornelius Bennett was charged with rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and unlawful imprisonment. Bennett pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct and was sentenced to 60 days in jail. He was neither released by the Falcons nor fined by the NFL.1

Forty-four cheerleaders formerly employed by the Philadelphia Eagles have filed suit in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court claiming opposing teams spied upon them while the women changed and showered in the cheerleaders’ locker room.2

In July 2003, Dwayne Carswell, a Denver Broncos football player, was arrested in Atlanta for assaulting his girlfriend, Nkeiruka Anyamone, reported the Associated Press. Carswell was charged with simple battery, domestic violence and obstruction of an officer.4

That athletes are treated differently in the criminal-justice system doesn’t help, notes [Ed Tapscott, vice president of the New York Knicks]. “When Joe Sixpack abuses his wife, he must go through the criminal-justice system,” he says. “But when Joe Athlete does, he is treated royally. Not only that, when he goes out and scores three touchdowns or 32 points, the acclaim of his accomplishments restores very quickly any self-esteem he lost by beating the woman.”4

(Got to love that last little bit, don’t ya? This guy believes men who beat their wives lose self-esteem from it? And then refers to said victims as “the woman”? Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.)

The list goes on and on. But, hey, a spot of light! My team, the team that I’ve been a fan of since I was a child, apparently has a better policy:

So far, only New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft has taken a stand against employing players with criminal records. In the fifth round of the 1996 NFL draft, the Patriots picked Nebraska defensive lineman Christian Peter, who had been arrested eight times (and convicted four times) during college for a variety of offenses, including the assault of a former Miss Nebraska and the rape of another woman. When Peter’s past came to light, Kraft cut the player before he was even offered a contract. “We concluded this behavior is incompatible with our organization’s standards of acceptable conduct” said Kraft. 1

Great! So I can still watch when New England plays and not be engaging in the support of misogyny…. well, if they’re the only team on the field, anyway. Tip: The advertisers and the players whose salary I am helping to pay don’t give two shits who I’m rooting for.

Oh, and also only if they’re not playing in the Superbowl:

Workers at women’s shelters, and some journalists, have long reported that Super Bowl Sunday is one of the year’s worst days for violence against women in the home.3

“Well, there’s always college football…” I thought while googling, desperately trying to hold on to an entertainment venue that I knew, inside, would turn out to be pretty much irredeemable once I scratched the surface.

And I was right:

At least one recent study reinforced the connection between athletes and domestic violence. Researchers at Northeastern and the University of Massachusetts reviewed 107 cases of sexual assault at 30 Division I schools between 1991 and 1993. They found that male student-athletes, compared with the rest of the male student population, “are responsible for a significantly higher percentage of assaults reported on the campuses of Division I institutions.” Although male athletes at 10 of those schools made up only 3.3 percent of the population, they were involved in 19 percent of the reported assaults.4

An appeals court revived a lawsuit by two women who claim they were gang raped at a University of Colorado recruiting party in 2001, ruling there is evidence the alleged assaults were caused by the university’s failure to adequately supervise players. The ruling by the 10th United States Circuit Court of Appeals, which sends the case back to the trial court, said there was evidence the university had an official policy of showing high school recruits a “good time” and that it showed a “deliberate indifference” to any known sexual harassment.5

There are coverups and criminals aplenty in the college atheletics scene, which makes sense, really, given that it’s the same place pro teams get their players from.

Of course, an argument can always be made that out of the many thousands of men who have played professional football, only a handful have committed horrible crimes, and why am I still watching anything else on TV, or buying Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, or whatever, if someone can show that a few people associated have raped or beaten women? Mostly, I think, it’s a combination of factors.

  1. A guy who works for Ben & Jerry’s isn’t making a 5-7 figure salary
  2. The NFL and all of its teams has turned a blind eye to the entire affair, since these players can make them a ton of money

It’d be a different thing if the NFL was busy firing people who had been convincted of violent crimes, like just about any other occupation in the world would do. If the Ben & Jerry’s CEO was convicted of rape or domestic violence, I’m fairly sure his resignation would follow shortly. While the individual action is the same, the theme presented by how the NFL responds to those actions seems to be one of coverup and general apathy. And that is why I can no longer support that industry, and that is why I encourage all men who care about women to change the channel away from NFL games, or NBA games, or MLB games, because all the major sports in America seem to grok to the same theme: “We don’t care how our players treat women, because they make us money.”

It gets especially rotten when you get to hear what the owners think:

Ed Tapscott, New York Knicks vice president of administration and scouting, says that some athletes have difficulty making the transition from field to home. “An interesting comparison is to Vietnam vets who one day were in this survival mode, then the next day were given their walking papers,” he says. “What are athletic games if not war?[…]”4

I don’t even know how to respond to that, as a member of the US Military. I cannot even begin to imagine how being in war is in any way comparable to playing in a competitive athletic event, and furthermore, I can even less begin to imagine how either war or sporting events somehow make rape and domestic abuse acceptable or even remotely understandable. They aren’t out there punching and raping other men, dudes. Apparently, in their adrenaline-fueled fury, they are still cognizant enough to focus that rage only onto a target that can’t or won’t hurt them back. That doesn’t sound like “heat of the moment”, even if “heat of the moment” can in any possible way be mangled into an excuse; it sounds like premeditation.

And then there’s a heavy dose of victim blaming, in this case under the guise of “It’s all womens’ fault anyway, for expecting us to take responsibility for our actions”:

Violence also might be a backlash against the women’s movement, which has made great strides in promoting female independence during the past 25 years. “Men need sports in order to bolster a dying form of masculinity,” writes Mariah Burton Nelson in her 1994 book, The Stronger Women Get, the More Men Love Football. “Men are very emotional about sports. They are cheering for a type of violence.”4

That last line is what really got me though. When I watch football, I am cheering for violence. Not only on the field, but off the field, against their wives, girlfriends, mothers, sisters, and random strangers they’ve never met before. Isn’t there enough violence out there without me supporting more of it?

So guys, let’s do this together. Write the NFL, tell them why you can no longer support their product, and let’s change the channel to something less thematically nasty against women. I mean, hell, most of us probably only ever got into it to start with just so we could feel masculine and “with it” when standing around the water cooler at the office or in the warehouse. When you really think about it, the whole concept is pretty dumb, especially when enjoying it involves ignoring the very real danger and pain supporting that industry can help put very real women into.

-a birch tree

References

  1. NFL’s Tarnished Heroes – Don Yaeger, in his book ‘Pros andCons: The Criminals Who Play in the NFL,’ claims that 21% of the players in the National Football League have been charged with one or more serious crimes – Brief Article
  2. Former Eagles Cheerleaders Expand Lawsuit Against NFL Teams; Players, Coaches and Owners of 29 Teams May be Deposed to Determine If They Watched Cheerleaders Change and Shower.
  3. Does Domestic Violence Increase on Super Bowl Sunday?
  4. Illegal hits off the field – athletes and domestic violence
  5. College Football: Colorado Rape Lawsuit Is Revived

Posted in Feminism, Media, Rape, Studies | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Lie?

Posted by A birch tree on April 17, 2008

…the patriarchy wants us to believe it’s because women are cunningly evil and yet dumb as posts.*

Evil, first, because only a truly evil person would try to frame some wonderful, upstanding, flawless example of a perfect citizen of our society for a heinous crime. Stupid, second, because it doesn’t seem to actually do anything positive from a woman’s perspective, and in fact, does a lot of negative things. Let’s examine:

Patriarchy expects us to believe:

  1. In spite of the fact that “women lie” and “it was her own damn fault” are the most common themes expressed in the opening remarks of nearly everyone, male and female, who hears about a rape, somehow men are convicted just by the accusation alone.
  2. In spite of the fact that every single action and thought that is even remotely sexual that this woman has ever had will be revealed, dissected, and examined by a lawyer more ruthless than the most cold-hearted and sadistic dentist in front of the entire nation, it’s men’s lives that are ruined forever before they even get a verdict.
  3. In spite of the fact that accused rapists never have to take the stand and present their side of the story, or in any way defend their actions, and who never have to worry about any past accusations or even convictions coming back to haunt them during a trial, rape shield laws make the process unfair against them.
  4. In spite of the fact that one 6% of rapists ever see a day in jail, rape accusations are an effective revenge tool for jilted or otherwise angered women.
  5. In spite of the fact that men are making lots of money from having been accused of brutal rapes, a man will forever be a community pariah even if accquitted, and will forever be socially and professionally crippled by the whole boondoggle.

Someone tell me how reality and popular conception can differ so radically from one another to the point that they’re actually diametric opposites?

And I have to leave it at that, since I only get 30 minutes of computer time at the library until my internet is back up. This is a bit frustrating.

Until tomorrow!

-a birch tree

*[I point, once again, to psychological projection.]

Posted in Feminism, Rape, Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

No Shades of Gray

Posted by A birch tree on April 9, 2008

So late last year, this article about a panel on “Gray Rape” came out in the New York Times. Actually, it’s an article about what a panel of experts said about another article, but I digress. I was pointed to it, and found, much to my great consternation, a blog post that will pretty much write itself.

The article, aside from the lousy nickname given to a class of acts that, as far as I can tell, are pretty clearly rape with no gray attached, was pretty good. The panel they had discussing the topic was very bright and articulate. Some excerpts, with my comments:

He said that intentionally or not, the article might have the effect of suggesting that “you can be a woman in charge of your own sexuality … but not too much because these are the consequences that will happen to you.”

The article didn’t just “suggest” that; basically, all of western society has been outright screaming that at women for decades now. It’s a great disincentive for women to take the proffered control of their own sexual pleasure, because doing so involves intense risks which the woman must bear alone, and if any of those risks manifest themselves, it was her own fault for not being careful enough. It is nice, however, to see a paper like the NYT acknowledge that message, even if it does so from the roots of a big hedge.

Ms. Banfield maintained that gray areas remained one of the most fraught areas in discussions of sexual violence, especially on college campuses. She cited the case of Adam Lack, a Brown University student who in 1996 was accused by a fellow student of sexual misconduct. The accuser said she could not remember the events of the evening but said she was too intoxicated to be able to consciously consent to sex. Mr. Lack maintained that the student had initiated the sexual encounter and that he was not aware she was drunk. No criminal charges were brought, but Mr. Lack was subjected to academic discipline.

This is just one example of how we try to use patented Male Logic(tm). Under this model, it is far more probable that men in these situations, who have every possible reason to lie their fool heads off, are inherently trustworthy while the women in these situations, who have every possible disincentive in the world to ever tell anyone the truth about what happened, are assumed to be lying bitches.

We are making the assumption that when it comes to a man’s story and a woman’s uncertainty, or even her certainty to the contrary in many cases, the obvious choice for our benefit of the doubt is the dude. Even when said dude’s story is obviously suspect. Case in point: “he was not aware she was drunk”. Oh, come on. How stupid are we expected to pretend to be in order to give these guys a pass? If she was so inebriated that she can’t remember events except for a fuzzy impression and the distinct emotional feeling of violation (thus, why she said anything at all about it), how can anyone, from an adult male to a small child to a half-braindead Jack Russel Terrier, not notice any level of intoxication about her? Is this girl such an intense alcoholic that she doesn’t even appear tipsy or carry the scent of alcohol when so drunk as to succumb to backouts?

Not to mention, dude gives away his knowledge with his choice of weasel words. I’ll probably make a post about weasel words sometime, but take it for now that I am an expert, having made liberal use of weasel words in my less-than-illustrious past as a nasty predatory fuckstain. Specifically, look at the phrase “was not aware she was drunk”. I can only assume that means he said something to the effect of “I didn’t know she was drunk!”, because if he maintained she was not drunk, he would have said “she wasn’t drunk!” and the article would have said “Mr. Lack maintained that the student… was not drunk.”

A natural reaction to being told “That girl you fucked was drunk as a skunk” when you had no evidence to that effect, so much so that you believe having sex with her to be a perfectly ethical act, would be to say something to the effect of “No she wasn’t; she was sober!” Because if you don’t know she’s drunk, you’ll perceive her as sober, and thus your reality will conflict with what you are being told. And, as a male, our reality is always right, so we endeavor, as a first instinct, to correct the person who is presenting an untrue version of reality by providing the real one. Imagine:

A: “Dude, that car is stolen.”
B: “No way! I bought that car from Joe, and I’ve known him since I was 4!

vs.

A: “Dude, that car is stolen.”
B: “I didn’t know this car was stolen!”

vs.

A: “Dude, that car is stolen.”
B: “I had no way to know that car was stolen!”

Which, dear readers, is the more believable response? The one where a man corrects an obviously incorrect version of reality by contesting it with his own, or the ones in which a man immediately accepts the opposing reality as true and moves right into denial of responsibility?

To my experienced ears, the weasel words “I didn’t know she was drunk” are a strong indicator that he did, in fact, know she was drunk and is simply playing the “plausible deniability” (which, in this case, is not even plausible) card too early in the hand.

Many studies have shown that rapes often do not involve physical violence or coercion, because the mere threat or potential for physical harm is enough to make victims submit,

I can’t express how happy I am to see this statement in print in a major mainstream news publication like the NYT, even though I wish they had given a cite or two for the studies. This is the absolute truth; a simple, pseudo-threatening display can turn the tide of an argument or otherwise get a man what he wants out of a woman, even if he is incapable by lack of physical or mental means to actually hurt the woman, for the simple reason that other men will hurt her, she knows it, and doesn’t want to find out if you’re one of them.

So, dudes, when you “get so angry” that you “have to” turn and punch the wall, or throw an object across the room, or pull your shoulders back, run your hand through your hair in a choppy aggrivated motion, narrow your eyebrows, drop your voice a couple of octaves until it’s a deep gravelly growl, and say something nasty and quasi-threatening, you’re using the fact that she knows other men will hurt her, and is uncertain whether or not you will, to get whatever you’re going for, be it sex, silence, or whatever.

So, again, it makes me really happy to see this kind of statement made so openly in the mainstream news media.

…studies have shown that women’s sexual interactions do not change appreciably if they have been drinking and that serial rapists maintain (inaccurately, of course) that their victims did not resist and in fact wanted to be raped. She said that the discussion of alcohol “is endemic of how we blame women,”

More goodness I completely agree with. Rapists always contend that their victim was consenting. And yet somehow, we always make the determination that the guy we’re specifically speaking to must be telling the truth, because, duh, why would men lie about rape?

“Men use alcohol all the time to ply their dates, whether they are drunk or not,” Dr. Gentile said. “It is the way in which they get their dates to be submissive enough to get raped.”

Yes, yes, yes! Alcohol makes women submissive, incommunicative, and unable to resist even the smallest amount of physical force. Men are very familiar with this property of alcohol, and frequently express it in the common “humorous” rhyme: “Candy is dandy, buy liquor is quicker”.

Dr. Gentile said that rape is one of the crimes least likely to be falsely reported and one of the crimes for which prosecutors find it most difficult to secure a conviction. “I see on average two women a week for what is obviously a rape,” she said, and yet in five years, none of the students has ever decided to press charges and bring a case in the law-enforcement system — even at a college that is dedicated to studying criminal justice.

I have nothing to say about this sad, disturbing fact, except that it needs as much exposure as possible.

Mr. Laurino said that Dr. Lisak’s research showed that even the “nice guy next door” will use alcohol strategically. “The predator uses alcohol because they know it’s going it impair the credibility of the victim, which is extremely important,” he said.

This is something I haven’t heard discussed enough, even among feminist circles: that whether or not alcohol is used in sufficient quantities to cause impairment, its presence in even the smallest amounts dramatically topedoes a woman’s credibility. If booze is present, and a woman claims she was raped, it was either her fault for drinking (“what did she expect?”) or else she just got drunk, had a bad hookup, and is crying rape now. And men, since they hang out with the “what did she expect?” crowd, and occasionally watch the news, know this. So they use it.

Mr. Irvin spoke of a “culture of masculinity that says we take advantage of women’s bodies because we’re men,” while Mr. Samalin said, “The majority of men who aren’t committing violence are still benefiting from a society that’s based on male privilege, power and entitlement.”

This is yet another nugget that needs to be said more often in national mainstream news. Privilege and entitlement are subjects that must must must be discussed on a far broader level than they actually are.

Now, of course, we have to balance out the good with the stupid. That’s right, folks, the comments to the article. I’ve chosen a few select examples to pick apart or praise, as the case warrants, but the overall tone decreased my IQ points by about 20. I hope I’ll recover before tomorrow morning.

Um, just don’t get drunk. Then you can know when you say no.

— Posted by JRM

Why don’t we tell men to not get drunk, so they always know how intoxicated a woman is and don’t get caught by false rape claims? Oh, right, because we’re implicitly admitting that men do, in fact, rape drunk women and a woman’s only defense is to stay sober and voluntarily deny herself liberties that men take for granted and can use with little consequence.

There needs to be (if not already in place) a legal definition (and associated penalties) for women ‘raping’ men.

— Posted by Adam

Because we can’t have a discussion about rape if we’re not devoting 50% of our time and energy to 0.0003% of the problem.

(I had the actual number lying around on my harddrive somewhere, if I can fish it out I’ll stick it up here)

And this one’s really scary: “Many studies have shown that rapes often do not involve physical violence or coercion, because the mere threat or potential for physical harm is enough to make victims submit, she said.” What if the perceived threat isn’t real? Can a man be raping a woman and not even know it?

— Posted by AJNY

Most of the time, I’d be willing to bet, the pervceived threat isn’t “real” as men define “real”, which is to say the dude doesn’t believe he’s even making a threat. Men are often pretty ignorant of how often they engage in all the non-verbal cues of dominance and threat display, like moving into another person’s space, enlarging the visual perception of the chest, leaning foward, giving a “smile” that bears one of the canine teeth (as opposed to the incisors), making direct eye contact, putting a hand on her hand (dominance position) or her arm or shoulder (leverage position) and saying in an even, quiet tone (the primate equivalent of a growl) “But I thought you liked me.”

Talk about using a fear-up harsh technique to put a poor woman into the limbic state, where blood rushes away from the higher cognitive brain or rational thought and into the sympathetic nervous system of instinctive self-protection by the safest means! Even if a woman doesn’t consciously recognize those indicators as threat signals, her lizard brain has been evolving in the human “carnivorous pack primate” dynamic for a couple million years now, and it will most definitely respond by hitting the little button labelled “Red Alert” and hitting the hillariously mis-named “fight-or-flight” mode.

Why is it mis-named? Because it was named from a male perspective. There are actually several ways the mind can react to danger on an instinctive level; it will take what it perceives to be the least-dangerous path out of that danger. Men like to assume they they are faced with the choice to either evade the danger, or kick the danger’s ass. Of course, “play dead” is also an option. When we hit the limbic state, we do whatever it is we’ve been trained over and over and over to do, which is why things like self-defense classes emphasize reptition and muscle memory. That way, the proper actions and reactions will be taken automatically, without you having to think about it cognitively… since, well, you can’t.

Men are trained, by society and culture and media, to respond to unfamiliar situations with agression and violence. Often that agression and violence ends up looking pretty humorous to bystandars, for instance, watching a fist fight between two untrained drunk dudes. Not exactly cirque du soleil there, let me tell you.

Women, by contrast, are told over and over again from childhood, by parents, culture, and media, that they’re expected to submit, obey, and quietly do what they’re told. Thus, when faced with danger, especially from human threat display, that’s the path most womens’ limbic brains will take to remove the danger. It’s not a free-will choice made with the cognitive brain, but an instinctive reaction to overt signs of agressive threat, coupled with societal training.

Wow, that was one hell of a digression. Anyway…

My complaint is that I spent so much time reading this article to the end. Are there really so many parents who don’t tell their daughters facts which have been around for a million years or more?

— Posted by paul st pierre

I’d like to hear this man actually articulate these mysterious facts. My suspicion is that they include “men will rape you if you let your guard down”.

Another thing everyone forgets is that young adults, including women, think they can take care of themselves. However, honest women have been overpowered, assaulted, and in some cases killed while stone cold sober. Amazingly enough, if and when the perpetrator is caught, it always was “consentual sex.’

— Posted by Joan

Hooyah, Joan!

As far as men using alcohol to “ply their dates” it seems to me that I rarely see men, at least in a college environment, not drink as well. Why is it that it is always the men who are viewed as the rapists in these cases, even when their judgment has been equally impaired too.

— Posted by Pedro

I will say this: It requires a lot more agency, that is to say, more conciousness, more decision-making ability, and less physical impairment, to stick a penis into someone than it does to lay there and have a penis stuck into you. If you have the cognitive ability to remove your clothes, take your dick out, and manuver it into a woman, you are probably sober enough to consent to sex. On the other hand, there’s no way to tell how much more or less sober a woman may be when she’s just laying there naked. Thus why men have the greater responsibility in cases of inebriation: if they’re sober enough to get it up, get it out, and get it in, they’re probably more sober than the other party, even if they claim blackouts are involved.

Unfortunately, that’s not worded as cleanly as I’d like it to be, but it will kind of have to do for now.

I think what is being recommended is in an extension of the statutory rape law- ie you cannot have sex with someone who’s blood alcohol level is great than ‘x’.

— Posted by John T

That’s an excellent idea, and I think it should be implemented immediately.

According to those quoted in this article, men should take responsibility to superhuman levels of mind-reading and telepathic blood-alcohol analysis.

— Posted by Jeff Weiss

No, although you’d like to think that so it gets you out of having to change your behavior. All men should really take responsibility for is keeping their collective dicks in their collective pants until they can ask consent from a sober woman. If she wants to have sex with you drunk, she’ll probably want to have sex with you when she’s sober too. If not, do you really think it’s your right to have sex with her anyway?

If someone can’t remember what they said the night before, and can’t remember the sexual act… then that falls under the category of “morning after remorse.” If it was truly rape, there wouldn’t be any “gray area” about it, as anyone who has been raped will surely tell you.

— Posted by Shawn

Weasel word alert: the last line indicates very clearly that this man has had no experiences with rape or rape victims whatsoever, regardless of what he says after being called out on it. If he had any credibility to establish, he would have lost no time establishing it rather than waiting for someone to ask.

As for the rest of it, perhaps he should be pointed to the studies that show how the brain fails to properly encode experiences into memory when flooded with cortisol during the limbic state. These are called “shadowy memories”. To quote Army interrogator Gregory Hartley:

“If you aren’t trained to think under stress and, for example, you’re raped or captured, your brain has the capacity to create shadowy memories. The limbic system transfers information into memory – that’s normal – but, if that happens in a highly emotional state, then the way you recall the memory could happen in unpredictable ways.” – Hartley and Karinch, How to Spot a Liar, Career Press, 2005, p.39

Which means that an inability to clearly remember events may not even be due to the alcohol, but to the DHEA, cortisol, adrenaline, and other hormones that drench the brain during highly charged danger situations.

Ok, maybe this whole issue has been confused by using the term “rape” when a better one would be “unconsentual sex.”

— Posted by T in NOLA

Wow. Just wow. Talk about a cognitive disconnect.

Mentioned time and again is the idea that a woman will “cry rape” merely because she had consensual sex and had “regrets.”

Does that really make any sense at all? Given that it is almost impossible to get a rape conviction in this country, why would anyone frivolously accuse somebody of rape? Especially a stranger.

“Ew, you’ve got a lot of moles. My friends will make fun of me forever if I don’t do something. I know! I’ll simply accuse you of rape and open myself to intense and unfair scrutiny of my sexual history so that you can walk away scot-free anyway!”

— Posted by Elizabeth

Good call, Elizabeth!

I saved this next quote for last, because it properly sums up everything in a single, succint, beautiful sentence:

Just to clarify — by “Gray Rape” we just mean that we don’t believe the woman, right?

— Posted by Deborah

And that’s exactly the truth.

Posted in Feminism, Rape | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »