Worst Rape Apologist Editorial Ever

[Taarkin]

He has a response column:

What have I learned from this experience? A great deal. A few highlights:
...
— Many women (and men) send out signals that they’d like to have sex. It doesn’t follow that they’d like to be raped.

He JUST NOW learned that people don't like to be raped?
Too dumb to breathe.

 

[JWideman]

He JUST NOW learned that people don't like to be raped?
Too dumb to breathe.

Wait until he visits a public pool and discovers that water is wet.

 

[3point14]

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).

Actually, I think you do. Otherwise you're just guessing. It may seem obvious, but without some sort of verification 'it's obvious' doesn't hold much weight at all.

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.

I agree. It doesn't really matter why someone's done something, it only matters that they've done it.


This pillock represents my gender very, very poorly. I really don't think there exists a man who is unable to control himself in the presence of exposed female flesh, there may, however, be men that don't want to. Of course, I'm just guessing at this point.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

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.

Interesting. So you agree that men have telepathic abilities and the fact that Lara Logan dressed in a revealing manner at an awards show was a contributing factor to her being raped while in a windbreaker and jeans by men who had never seen her in that dress?

So I'm assuming that you think because I wore a bikini last week, that means if I'm raped while wearing an overcoat next year, the fact that I wore a bikini at another time contributed to my late rape because of this amazing telepathy?


Also, do you have any actual evidence that male massage therapists rape women in such numbers that a woman who goes to one is inviting rape?


Lastly, the fact that you apparently agree that me even having male friends and especially hanging out with them at night means I'm irresponsibly putting myself at risk makes me wonder at your own mentality towards women.

 

[Eternal]

******* *******' the man who wrote wrote the article, and the views expressed are ******* **** *** ******** *******. The ****** should **** ****** **** *******.

And that's all I have to say on the matter.

 

[Aepervius]

So I'm assuming that you think because I wore a bikini last week, that means if I'm raped while wearing an overcoat next year, the fact that I wore a bikini at another time contributed to my late rape because of this amazing telepathy?

Amazingly if you extended the argument, since we all are born naked, it means we are all naive and are getting what we should have expected, decades later (that woman gettting raped in her 73 years ? She was on a nude beach in 1953). And if we wore jewels or anything expansive at some time, that means we should have expected to be robbed or murdered at another.

And chewbacca is a wokie on endor. it does not make sense , don't you see it ?

(that guy is either a troll , an idiot, and I will not commit a false dichotomy here he could also be both).

 

[Lamuella]

to be honest, this article offends me just as much for what it says about men as for what it says about women. Other people in this thread have covered the many ways in which this is offensive to women, and the whole idea that someone can "invite" rape by wearing a dress once is completely and totally ridiculous on every single level.

What it says about men is fairly horrible as well, though. It's saying that by having a Y chromosome, I can never be trusted, that those around me should essentially treat me at all times as a secual predator, a beast that can't be trusted, and that in all their dealings with me they should be prepared for the possibility that I'm about to snap and commit monstrous violations upon them. I'm fairly offended by that.

 

[Rasmus]

This pillock represents my gender very, very poorly. I really don't think there exists a man who is unable to control himself in the presence of exposed female flesh, there may, however, be men that don't want to. Of course, I'm just guessing at this point.

I am sure they exist. But neither is any form of excuse or justification. If a man cannot control himself around women he should be locked away just as much as a man who doesn't want to control himself around women.

And that rather begs the question if normal men really need to control themselves to a degree that justified mentioning in this context. How much self control would those making that point say is required for them not to relieve themselves publicly when they are in a restaurant and instead make a trip to the restrooms? How much self control does it take for these people to not rob a bank or kill their managers at work?

(Yes, all of this does take self control. So does not raping women. But it takes only a minimum amount of it, it is not worth mentioning, it doesn't require any special effort to exercise this level of self control. It just happens in the background. It is called "being civilized".)

 

[3point14]

I am sure they exist. But neither is any form of excuse or justification. If a man cannot control himself around women he should be locked away just as much as a man who doesn't want to control himself around women.

Oh, I agree. If there exists such a man who is not able to control himself, he's clearly mentally ill and should be locked up.

And that rather begs the question if normal men really need to control themselves to a degree that justified mentioning in this context. How much self control would those making that point say is required for them not to relieve themselves publicly when they are in a restaurant and instead make a trip to the restrooms? How much self control does it take for these people to not rob a bank or kill their managers at work?

(Yes, all of this does take self control. So does not raping women. But it takes only a minimum amount of it, it is not worth mentioning, it doesn't require any special effort to exercise this level of self control. It just happens in the background. It is called "being civilized".)

I agree. I've always wondered why it's supposedly so much more difficult to resist sexual urges than any other urge. I suspect the answer is that it's quite simply not.

 

[sphenisc]

Seemed like a pretty reasonable article to me. Most of the "So what he's really saying.." points made here don't appear to bear much relation to what he actually said.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What a steaming pile of ****. Fortunately, society seems to be able to recognise how revolting this blame-the-victim mentality is, at least where I live.

I found this bit rather ironic:

Ann, you see, saw crime as a personal issue to be solved through her own ingenuity. Sarah perceived it as a political issue to be solved by changing the world. And surely political solutions can be valuable over the long run. In the short run, I would suggest, it’s usually easier to change your own behavior than to change someone else’s.

So let's suppose, hypothetically, an angry mob goes to Dan Rottenberg's house and smashes all his windows because they find his opinions objectionable. Should he demand that the police give him protection from such illegal acts (seeing it as a political issue to be solved by changing the world), or should he refrain in future from expressing opinions that other people might find objectionable (seeing it as a personal issue to be solved by his own ingenuity)? It seems to me that, by writing this editorial, he's engaging in very similar behaviour to that he's advising women not to undertake.

Dave

 

[Ocelot]

Actually, I think you do. Otherwise you're just guessing. It may seem obvious, but without some sort of verification 'it's obvious' doesn't hold much weight at all.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/776945.html

Has anyone done ony studies on the proportion of things that seem obvious but are in fact dead wrong?

 

[timhau]

The one lesson I take away from that editorial?

I am not leaving my daughter alone with Dan Rottenberg.

Dan is the man who put the Rotten in Rottenberg.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

This pillock represents my gender very, very poorly. I really don't think there exists a man who is unable to control himself in the presence of exposed female flesh, there may, however, be men that don't want to. Of course, I'm just guessing at this point.

It does seem that this is a common view i.e. that men can't control themselves, we see such restrictions being placed on women in many, many different cultures, often as part of a religious code of behaviour.

I wonder if it is something to do with people somehow being brought up to feel that certain emotions and responses to stimuli are wrong and they should feel guilty? I would say a pretty much "hard coded" behaviour in humans is to find people sexually attractive; if you are then brought up to think such thoughts/feelings are wrong or inappropriate but you can't stop them happening then it seems just a step away to externalise this as a fault in the object of your desire. (Never realised what that common phrase says!) So it may not be so much that they think men can't control themselves as it is a view on the morality of having (the wrong) sexual desires.

The more I think about it the more I like that spoil of speculation - it would also explain such things as legislating against certain sexual acts.

 

[lemurien]

I take the OP as an example of the Internet Neoilliteracy which is characterized by getting offended by default, never mind if there is a reason or not.

 

[HansMustermann]

Jesus Haploid Christ... I'm used to hearing canned apologetics, but that guy takes the cake in trotting out some stupid red-herrings that don't even apply to the situation at hand. Even on top of the... topic at hand, it's grating just to hear someone spew canned talking point after canned talking point, without any sign that they even engaged the brain at all. Just from one paragraph:

Don’t trust your male friends.

I don't think there was much friendship or trust involved there at all. She was filming a demonstration. Unless he can document anything else, the baseline assumption should be that she didn't know anyone there.

Don’t go to a man’s home at night unless you’re prepared to have sex with him.

She didn't go to anyone's home, it happened outside and in fact in a frikken square.

Don’t disrobe in front of a male masseur.

She didn't disrobe in front of anyone. They ripped her clothes off.

If you take a job as a masseuse, don’t be shocked if your male customers think you’re a prostitute.

Now all rub me the wrong way, but this most of all.

1. Any job that isn't exactly prostitute, doesn't give anyone an excuse to think you are a prostitute.

2. It's still not any excuse for rape or any kind of sexual assault. Even if someone IS a prostitute, it's a job, not some communal resource. If you can agree on a service and price, and pay for some service, you get it, if not not. Same as with plumbers, tattoo artists, accountants, lawyers, or any other job that's providing a service. If it's not acceptable to assault a plumber to make them fix a toilet for free -- and it ain't -- then it's not acceptable to assault a prostitute for free sex.

And if you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, don’t pose for pictures that emphasize your cleavage.

Wait, what? Considering that that's not what she was wearing at the time, nor why she was raped, WTH does that have to do with it? It's surrealistic to hear rape excuses based on what someone was wearing at the time, but it's even more surrealistic to hear that it's some kind of lifetime sentence to be free-for-all because someone on one occasion didn't wear her burqa.

Then comes stuff like...

But in practice, rape and the notion of sexual conquest persist for the same reason that warfare persists: because the human animal— especially 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— and, of course, guns haven’t disappeared either.

As a guy, I find that highly insulting. I'm pretty sure that most of us don't crave to harm someone else. You know, mirror neurons and all that. In fact, even soldiers in a war, most of them don't actually shoot at an enemy, even when they're supposed to. I'm pretty sure that craving to use and harm others is a sociopath fantasy, not a normal human mode of operation, male or otherwise. Much as at least in the USA it seems to be increasingly fashionable for sociopaths to try to present themselves as the normal people and everyone else as defective, which is really what the article is all about.

Second, wait a minute. "Drama" is one thing, victimizing someone for personal enjoyment is a much narrower subset. And it's a subset of something entirely different, at that. "Drama" as a genre mostly works based on empathising with someone's predicament, you know, with the victim. Sociopathic power games at someone else's expense are an entirely different genre altogether.

Third, I don't see what that has anything to do with. We punish those who shoot other people too, don't we?

Fourth, humans are good at controlling their cravings. There are actual needs like hunger, thirst, etc, that we control every day. We don't just grab a hotdog from someone's stand without paying just because we were hungry. So I'm pretty sure that such "cravings" to get "drama" by victimizing someone can be expected to be controlled too.

Earth to liberated women: When you display legs, thighs or cleavage, some liberated men will see it as a sign that you feel good about yourself and your sexuality. But most men will see it as a sign that you want to get laid.

Maybe. But not with anyone, and not on any terms. I mean, similarly I could believe that someone is thirsty, but that doesn't mean they'd be a-ok with a waterboarding. (Hey, it works wonders for hydrating someone) I'd think most people, guys or otherwise, can understand that.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

I don't think there was much friendship or trust involved there at all. She was filming a demonstration. Unless he can document anything else, the baseline assumption should be that she didn't know anyone there.

She didn't go to anyone's home, it happened outside and in fact in a frikken square.



She didn't disrobe in front of anyone. They ripped her clothes off.

To be fair, he wasn't referring to Logan with those, he was referring to a girl who got raped by a friend who invited her to his room to chat some more and a girl who was sexually assaulted while having a massage.

 

[BStrong]

to be honest, this article offends me just as much for what it says about men as for what it says about women. Other people in this thread have covered the many ways in which this is offensive to women, and the whole idea that someone can "invite" rape by wearing a dress once is completely and totally ridiculous on every single level.

What it says about men is fairly horrible as well, though. It's saying that by having a Y chromosome, I can never be trusted, that those around me should essentially treat me at all times as a secual predator, a beast that can't be trusted, and that in all their dealings with me they should be prepared for the possibility that I'm about to snap and commit monstrous violations upon them. I'm fairly offended by that.

Thank you - that was my immpression as well.

The author of the piece (as in piece of ****) doesn't have much of a grasp of the subject matter.

 

[HansMustermann]

To be fair, he wasn't referring to Logan with those, he was referring to a girl who got raped by a friend who invited her to his room to chat some more and a girl who was sexually assaulted while having a massage.

Yes, I've actually read it. But what's the point of mixing them all up into one big pot where the only common thread is his blaming the victim? He could even do them as separate case studies, but he actually discusses those mixed with the case of someone whose only "fault" was that once, in a completely different time, situation, place and even country, wore a light dress, and whose assault details would actually give the lie to his idea that it's somehow about being sexually provocative or anything. That reporter's assault started when someone in the crowd shouted that she's a Jew. I don't think everyone there got sexually turned on at that idea, but rather it was a way to dish out some humiliating punishment.

That kind of juxtaposing that one actual case with stuff that's actually not similar at all, is creating an impression of some common factor that actually is simply not there.

 

[Rasmus]

Yes, I've actually read it. But what's the point of mixing them all up into one big pot where the only common thread is his blaming the victim?

Just that: They are all rape victims and, by inference, women that must have done something wrong. Since they all had roughly the same type of thing coming chances are their mistakes must have been similar. It follows that the solution in one of the cases will work in the other cases as well.

He could even do them as separate case studies, but he actually discusses those mixed with the case of someone whose only "fault" was that once, in a completely different time, situation, place and even country, wore a light dress, and whose assault details would actually give the lie to his idea that it's somehow about being sexually provocative or anything. That reporter's assault started when someone in the crowd shouted that she's a Jew. I don't think everyone there got sexually turned on at that idea, but rather it was a way to dish out some humiliating punishment.

Sure! Just taint the discussion with facts and being all reasonable why don't you?

That kind of juxtaposing that one actual case with stuff that's actually not similar at all, is creating an impression of some common factor that actually is simply not there.

They were all women! What more could you possibly want?