Worst Rape Apologist Editorial Ever

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I have to say, that this article, is without a doubt, the single worst rape apologist editorial I have ever read:

http://www.broadstreetreview.com/index.php/main/article/male_sex_abuse_and_female_naivete/

Dan Rottenberg, Editor of the Broad Street Review, makes the following argument:

Lara Logan once wore a low cut dress to an awards show.

She was then gang raped while dressed in jeans and a windbreaker by a group of men who had no idea who she was and had never seen her in the aforementioned dress. But the fact that she had worn this dress was the reason she had raped and she was victimized for failing to take, in his words, "sensible precautions."

So there you have it. A woman wore a revealing dress, and while wearing it was not raped. Said woman was then raped while wearing a windbreaker and jeans by men who had never seen her in the revealing dress. Dan Rottenberg uses this to "prove" that Lara Logan wearing a low cut dress resulted in her rape.

When you boil this argument down, it essentially states that all women in the world deserve to be raped. After all, apparently men have fascinating telepathic abilities and if you have ever dressed in a revealing manner in your life, all men will be aware of it, forever, and this can cause them to rape you. And hey, we all have to shower and change our clothes sometime.

Some other gems from his article:

For example: Don’t trust your male friends. Don’t go to a man’s home at night unless you’re prepared to have sex with him.

the male animal craves drama as much as food, shelter and clothing. Conquering an unwilling sex partner is about as much drama as a man can find without shooting a gun.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Wow, he needs to be reemed from both ends of the field. He is basically saying that men are animals that can't control themselves if they see a pretty woman, and that women need to lock themselves away so that they don't get attacked by those animals.

While there is some validity that women do need to make sure to take care with their own personal protection while these sort of animals are out there (just as we take care to lock our houses and cars to prevent crime and don't wave wads of cash about in bars) the major issue is that some men need to have it beaten into them that they have to stop behaving like neanderthals and start being respectful; that they shouldn't touch anything without the owner's permission, and a woman dressing a certain way, or even not dressing at all, does not imply permission, any more than leaving the windows open imply's permission to crawl in and rob the place. In the end any man that can't control himself just because he sees a woman looking attactive needs to be dealt with just like you do to a bull to make it a steer.

 

[Piscivore]

Wow, he needs to be reemed from both ends of the field. He is basically saying that men are animals that can't control themselves if they see a pretty woman, and that women need to lock themselves away so that they don't get attacked by those animals.

Isn't that the thinking behind the burqua?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Isn't that the thinking behind the burqua?

I believe so, yes. I think that it's time for the world's justice system to start investing in rusty and blunt hedge clippers.

 

[shandyjan]

Isn't that the thinking behind the burqua?

Exactly. This man belongs in the dark ages, outrageous!
Don't studies show rape of strangers is usually more about power and other things rather than attraction? I mean, not all women who get raped are young, attractive or dressed skimpily!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Exactly. This man belongs in the dark ages, outrageous!
Don't studies show rape of strangers is usually more about power and other things rather than attraction? I mean, not all women who get raped are young, attractive or dressed skimpily!

I think that you'll find that 99% of rape is about power, stranger and non-stranger. The answer to 100% of rapes are these....

http://www.artfire.com/modules.php?name=Shop&op=listing&product_id=3131581

and just $10.00 too, a steal....

 

[Koudelka]

That's the number one excuse used by people who have a pretty misogynist mindset. Even though that's not the point. Rape is rape. No woman, even if she were to be as so bold as to walk the streets naked, deserves to be raped. Dressing provocatively does not give anyone the right to her body. That's "blaming the victim" definitely.

Another excuse that goes hand-in-hand with that is that men can't control themselves sexually, which is a big pile of ********.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The one lesson I take away from that editorial?

I am not leaving my daughter alone with Dan Rottenberg.

 

[Ron Webb]

The column certainly could have been written more sensitively, as I think the author himself implies in his followup column (here). However, I think maybe the point of the article is valid and has been lost amid the justifiable outrage at the tone.

Is there a logical fallacy based on the failure to recognize that things have multiple causes? Because I'm seeing that mistake over and over again, and this is one such case. Saying that the way a woman dresses is a contributing cause of rape in no way condones the rape or shifts the blame or implies that there are also other (and possibly more significant) contributing causes to rape.

It's just an evident fact, which I'm sure could easily be supported by statistics if anyone bothered to do a study, that women who dress provocatively are more likely than others to provoke a rape. That's no different than saying that men who conspicuously carry huge wads of cash in rough neighbourhoods are more likely than others to get mugged. It's not a matter of blaming the victim, it's just good advice on how to avoid being a victim. Whether you choose to take the advice, or take the risk, is up to you.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

the male animal craves drama as much as food, shelter and clothing.

Whereas the female animal tends to sit knitting in the kitchen all day, not indulging in intrigues ever.

Another excuse that goes hand-in-hand with that is that men can't control themselves sexually, which is a big pile of ********.

What's the most... bizarre about the "I was provoked to the point where I couldn't control myself" is that people for some reason view it as a mitigating factor. As if we shouldn't lock up people who can't keep themselves from ruining other peoples' lives.

Let's say that I run someone down with a truck. I plead not guilty to manslaughter because I don't have a driver's license and thus can't be expected to drive a truck responsibly. I expect that this means I'll get to walk free and keep driving my truck.

Utterly bizarre.

It's just an evident fact, which I'm sure could easily be supported by statistics if anyone bothered to do a study, that women who dress provocatively are more likely than others to provoke a rape.

Show me such a study and I'll get back to you.

There is a grain of truth in it, I suppose, given that most rapes occur in or after party settings, where both men and women are known to dress up, which for women often means revealing clothing. This means any serious study would keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.

That's no different than saying that men who conspicuously carry huge wads of cash in rough neighbourhoods are more likely than others to get mugged.

Whereas wealthy people who are mugged in well-off neighbourhoods are not to blame?

 

[Taarkin]

I think there is some sort of law or something that any discussion about rape must include an analogy wherein women are analogized to property (unlocked car door, bulging wallet).

 

[Ron Webb]

Show me such a study and I'll get back to you.

I don't really need a formal study to tell me that people who dress to attract attention are more likely to attract attention (both wanted and unwanted). There may be such studies, and I imagine you could find them among the lists of self-evident "sky is blue" type research that is regularly ridiculed. Personally I don't think it's worth my while to look for them.

Whereas wealthy people who are mugged in well-off neighbourhoods are not to blame?

Did I not just mention that things have multiple causes? Can we not blame the mugger for his criminal intent, regardless of whatever other factors may have contributed to his decision to commit the crime?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I think there is some sort of law or something that any discussion about rape must include an analogy wherein women are analogized to property (unlocked car door, bulging wallet).

In a sad way it is about property. Rape is about a man, and I use that word very loosey in the biological sense only, exerting power over a woman by taking and infringing her property, that being her body, in an attempt to make it his. Because of that it does have similar characterists to a mugger or thief exerting power over another person by stealing their wallet or watch, except that when it is the woman's body that is being "stolen" it's a heck of a lot more trumatic, personal, and downright evil, which is why I suggest the punishment is a lot more medevial too.

Getting mugged or burgled is tramatising but in the end the things stolen from you are just items, they can be replaced. The difference with rape is that your body can't be replaced after some vile excuse of dog crap has stolen and violated it so the trauma is made that much greater for both it being your body that it was done to, and that you can't throw away the very thing that was violated.

That said, I would suggest that the vast majority of, if not all crime, is at its base, the criminal exerting power over their victim to take something from them.

 

[sputnik]

Dan Rottenberg IS Jack Chick.

I can't wait to see his latest tract!

 

[Loss Leader]

It was strange. I initially thought this was just some fringe idiot. But he's been a respected journalist/essayist/editor for forty years. This is a serious blunder. I hope they rip him to shreds.

 

[leftysergeant]

Dan Rottenberg isn't much of a man. Catstrating him would be a nice symbolic expression of what I feel about his swill, but id would probably not matter much, long term.

I am getting a mental image of him as some nebbish who doesn't get laid as much as he thinkshe should, and thinks that the women who brush him off are the problem.

It probably would be better if he not breed. I do not want someone teaching his son the kind of crap he believes.

 

[PopeTom]

There is a grain of truth in it, I suppose, given that most rapes occur in or after party settings, where both men and women are known to dress up, which for women often means revealing clothing.

Assuming it is true that 'most rapes occur in or after party settings' I would think the likely cause isn't how women are dressed but that there is alcohol involved. A drunk person is a significantly easier target than a sober one.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I don't really need a formal study to tell me...

Yes, you do. "It's obvious!" is a very poor basis for stating anything.

Assuming it is true that 'most rapes occur in or after party settings' I would think the likely cause isn't how women are dressed but that there is alcohol involved. A drunk person is a significantly easier target than a sober one.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[fuelair]

I believe so, yes. I think that it's time for the world's justice system to start investing in rusty and blunt hedge clippers.

I really do like the way you think.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He has a response column:

My recent column on female responses to male sexual abuse unleashed a firestorm of angry mail and demands for my dismissal and worse. Since my role at BSR is to provoke discussion and educate myself, you may well ask: What have I learned from this experience?