“Men and women who get drunk and have sex are kinda equally responsible” – RAPE APOLOGIST KILL HIM!!!!

Posted: February 13, 2014 in Uncategorized

*Before I get into this article I just wanted to point out that, at the time of writing this, for the second time in two days, the admin at Exposing Feminism and I are serving 12 hour bans. As you should know by now, Bretto made me a content creator at Exposing Feminism to allow me to post these articles directly to their page, which I’m hugely grateful for. Unfortunately, with that role comes the stark realisation that anti-feminist pages on Facebook are constantly under scrutiny. While the feminist machine decides that Facebook is decidedly misogynistic for its ‘refusal’ to remove certain anti-women pages, it seems to stay quiet on the amount of pages and posts that removed for ‘contravening’ Facebook policy, despite the fact Facebook’s official guidelines state they are all for debate and discussion. Anyway, on to the entry*

Seriously, now, this is getting ridiculous. This is like my 4th or 5th blog in a row that talks about rape. I remember when I wrote ‘Rape Culture? yeah let’s talk about it’ (http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/02/james-taranto-will-tell-you-when-youve-been-raped-ladies/357953/#disqus_thread) way back in October that I was a little unsure about publishing it. Not because I didn’t believe what I was writing, I was 100% behind it and still am, just that I was unsure about the reaction I would have to it. It was still early in the life of this blog and it was the longest blog I’d written at that point (now it seems positively mini at only 4 pages) so I was unsure as to how it would be received. As it turned out it promoted a lot of healthy discussion, particularly around the subject of educational rape (that of female teachers and male students)

That was in October, to be honest I didn’t think I’d be revisiting the subject of rape for a while. However, that was before I realised the topic of rape was raised on an almost daily basis. It’s unreal how many times I open up Facebook or, God forbid, read a newspaper and see some story about someone making a comment that is absolutely ripped to shreds for being misogynistic and enforcing ‘rape culture’. What I do find interesting is that whenever someone makes a stupid comment about rape, it’s always taken as an insult against women. Even if the comment is not about the actual act of rape, or if there is no mention of the gender of the victim, feminists automatically get up in arms about ‘rape culture’ and how it’s offensive and misogynistic to mention the word as a verb or some other such descriptive manner.

Most of the time I just roll my eyes, the recent article about PIV always being rape, and the subsequent hissy fit the author threw, being a prime example. But every so often, and perhaps recently more often than not, a story appears that is so massively blown out of proportion and so massively misinterpreted that I think society wants the idea of rape to be all consuming. Sometimes, I think that some facets of society, particularly feminists and feminist sympathiser, want to be outraged because someone dared to mention the word rape and, perhaps, suggest that, in some cases, women aren’t the perfect little angels we are told they are. They make mistakes, they have regrets, they do stupid things that, with the benefit of hindsight, they would have done differently. Instead of feminists promoting this idea, instead of them saying ‘actually, women can make stupid mistakes, perhaps we should just move on’ they seem to artificially create something to be outraged at.

As ever, the problem with that is the brainwashed majority that just drink all the bullshit up. It doesn’t matter how far removed from the original article the comments may be, or how pathetically minor the outrage is, the baying crowd of morons will prick up their ears and say ‘what’s that, misogyny on the internet, I must register my disdain immediately, even if I haven’t read the original ‘offending’ article.’

So, which hilarious feminism hissy-fit-overreaction is the focus of this particular barrage of condemnation? Well, this article recently surfaced in the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304558804579374844067975558

I can’t say I’ve ever read the Wall Street Journal, or even claim to know who James Taranto is, but he’s receiving an absolute barrel-load of abuse for this, and typically it’s from people who are completely misreading what he’s put.

You see, people are collectively losing their shit over this particular section:

“If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex,” Taranto argued. “But when two drunken college students ‘collide,’ the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.”

To me, that sounds perfectly reasonable. If there’s one case that absolutely proves that he is making a completely valid statement it’s the Athens, Ohio ‘rape’ case:

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/10/18/athens-prosecutor-to-consider-charges-in-ohio-university-rape-case.html

In that article it states the police are ‘increasing foot patrols’ in order to ensure the safety of students on a night out. Does that not count as a massive waste of police time when you consider the ‘rapist’ was found not guilty, something that was quite apparent from the available photos and videos of the incident.

So, two drunk people have sex, in this case a man performing oral sex on a clearly consenting woman, and he gets arrested the next morning after she claims rape. Tell me what about that situation doesn’t match 100% what Taranto is describing in the quote above? He’s absolutely correct, if two people who are drunk ‘collide’, in this case have sex or perform some kind of sexual act upon each other, why do we automatically apportion blame to the man and see the woman as the victim? If two people are drunk, why do we place the mantle of responsibility on the man automatically? What does that say about women? If we are trying to create a society that respects women, that tells us they are as capable as men, that we shouldn’t degrade them by treating them as weaklings or inferior, what on earth are we trying to say when we claim they cannot be held responsible for their own actions?

Yes, the issue of alcohol and consent does come in to it and, as Stubenville showed, if a drunk girl is assaulted, while unconscious, by a man, or men, who are not as intoxicated, that is a massively different situation from two drunk people consenting with each other and having sex, no matter what the feelings the next morning. Generally speaking, that point of view, while not massively controversial in my eyes, is enough to get me labelled as a victim blamer or rape apologist because, apparently, a girl being drunk and consenting is nowhere near the same as a man getting drunk and consenting.

Dr. Phil got in trouble last year for approaching the subject in a similar way (https://johnsalmonsworld.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/dr-phils-sexual-abuse-tweet/), yet nothing about that tweet, or this article, is controversial if we weren’t so blinded by rape hysteria.

But of course, that’s asking quite a lot, and it wasn’t long before the ridiculous counter-articles started to appear. Far from actually approaching the subject in a mature way, most of them exhibited some of the most delicious examples of piousness I’ve come to expect in journalism on these types of issues. Much like the initial response to the Ohio case, these articles think they know what they’ve read, but are so wilfully wrong that it becomes embarrassing to read.

Let’s have a look at that venerable pillar of artistic truth first shall we, The Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/james-taranto-rape-wall-street-journal_n_4766064.html

Straight away we can see the headline is somewhat skewed. Taranto is not talking about rape specifically, but rather the double standards surrounding alcohol consumption and rape between men and women at college. Automatically the Huff has set out its stall on this piece, it knows what it wants to say and it doesn’t care if it has to outright lie to say it.

Taranto suggested the female college students are as guilty as their aggressors if they are sexually assaulted while intoxicated.’

Yep, they quote the same quote I’ve highlighted above yet completely twist what has been said. At no point does Taranto ever try and claim that female college students who get sexually assaulted are just as blameworthy as their attacker. Never does he suggest that. The wording in no way implies one is more intoxicated than the other. Let’s have a look at exactly what Taranto said:

‘when two drunken college students ‘collide,’’

‘collide’ in this context comes from the previous car crash analogy, simply meaning ‘to have sex’. Can you point me to the part where he says the woman is in a worse state of intoxication than the man? Nope, didn’t think so. Can you point me to the part where he makes any suggestion of sexual assault taking place? Nope, didn’t think so.

They also pick out this quote from Taranto’s article:

‘As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser’s having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt … In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that “if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.” In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.’

And go on to state that:

‘It should be noted that in most states, laws stipulate that someone who is intoxicated cannot legally consent to sex

Again, they deliberately misread what Taranto says and make him out to have said something he didn’t. Taranto’s point is very simple, in some cases, the accuser having one drink is enough to consider them impaired and unable to consent, despite the fact that having one alcoholic drink is not likely to leave you impaired enough that you aren’t fully aware of your surroundings. Hell, in this country it’s perfectly legal to drive after having one drink. Why do we assume people are capable enough to drive after having one drink, yet aren’t capable of consenting to sex? The fact the Huff take Taranto’s statement to mean the woman is ‘intoxicated’ is unfair and hyperbolic and is not a true reflection of what Taranto said.

However, that’s not the worst example of the generally hissy-fit thrown by the media in regards to this situation. That honour goes to a major buffoon called Philip Bump, who decided to pen this piece full of outrageous lies:

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/02/james-taranto-will-tell-you-when-youve-been-raped-ladies/357953/#disqus_thread

Yep, apparently by advocating the notion that women who get drunk and have sex with drunk men Taranto is apparently ‘telling’ women ‘when you’ve been raped’. How manipulative and untrue is that heading? Immediately he has written a headline that is likely to get people outraged before they even read the article. Without even quoting anything from Taranto’s article he’s already created a sense of bad blood, so much that he can outright lie in his following article and he knows people will believe it, because that’s exactly what they want to do. There’s no reason for this article to exist other than to shame Taranto and try to claim he’s something he’s not, it’s sickening, unprofessional and speaks volumes about why I despise the notion of ‘rape culture’ and feminism’s insistence on its pervasiveness.

Let’s have a look at what Bump thinks he’s read in Taranto’s article:

‘The Wall Street Journal‘s James Taranto would like society to spend a little more time holding young women accountable for having been sexually assaulted, ‘

The first outright lie. Taranto’s article is not about being sexually assaulted for fuck’s sake, it’s about not automatically blaming the man when two drunken people consent to drunken sex. Why is that so difficult for people to understand? Is it any wonder we live in a ‘rape culture’ when people deliberately misrepresent what people say for the sole reason of perpetuating ‘rape culture’?

Here’s some more:

‘Taranto is a foot soldier in the nonexistent “war on men,” standing outside the well-fortified walls of male power, a little dagger in his hand, railing against the women walking past on the horizon’

Again, find me a piece of Taranto’s article where he claims anything of the sort, where he seems to be aggressive towards women, or nonchalant about the existence of rape as a crime?

More:

‘He’s defended a reduced sentence for a man convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious coworker. He’s blamed women for not following 1950s-era guidelines for sexual relationships. He thinks birth control has been a net negative. And there’s more.’

You never know, he might be right on these particular counts, to be fair to Bump there are links to each of those examples. I haven’t read any of them because this is a simple diversionary tactic – refer to so of the author’s past articles that perhaps contain more controversial views to stoke up more hatred of the author before getting to the main point of your own article.

Then we get the quote that the Huff quoted, the ‘collide’ allegory. It’s at this point Bump becomes callous and defamatory in his lies:

‘In other words, if a man and a woman are both drinking, and the man sexually assaults the woman, if he rapes her, they’re kind of both at fault, really. That’s Taranto’s argument.’

Philip Bump, you are so utterly wrong in your reading of that quote that you embarrass yourself. How can you possibly take that assertion from the actual quote? I’ll tell you, you can’t. What Bump has done has read something pretty innocuous and accurate and deliberately misread it in order to further his own agenda. He wants Taranto to be discredited, he doesn’t agree with Taranto’s view so is willing to outright lie about what he’s said.

Where in that quote by Taranto does he say, in any way, that a woman who a man ‘sexually assaults’ or ‘rapes’ is as much ‘at fault’ as he is? Nope. The only word he uses to suggest any physical contact is ‘collides’. If you can take the word ‘collide’ and extrapolate that to mean ‘rape’ that says more about your views on rape, and your desire to read rape in to everything that could possibly constitute sexual contact between two people.

He then tales that willful misreading and continues unabated:

‘His analogy is flawed. It is more like there are two drunk drivers, one going 90 the wrong way down a one-way street, the other sleeping it off in the garage of her own home. When the cars collide, the two are not equally at fault; the one who is breaking the law is the one to blame.’

His analogy is not flawed, your analogy is flawed based on the fact that you’ve created it on a lie that you yourself have presented. The above car crash analogy is not synonymous with Taranto’s because it is not comparable. What Bump has done is lie about the original quote, then create an analogy based on that lie, making it completely irrelevant to the original topic.

Wait, there’s more (a lot more):

‘Taranto lives in a world in which women who are drunk to the point of near-unconsciousness should be presumed to be granting willing consent to whatever behaviors men engage in.’

No, he doesn’t, he lives in a world where he advocates equal responsibility applied to drunken college students. At no point does Taranto suggest the woman in his car crash analogy is in a state of ‘near-unconsciousness’, that’s another exaggeration that Bump gifts us with. His word use is actually ‘drunken’, that, to me, suggest an equal level of drunkenness, not in any way does it suggest that the woman is at a state of near-unconsciousness. Bump, you’re just digging your own grave now, throw the shovel away!

Oh, but no, he carries on:

‘He calls Stanford University’s rules around legal consent “self-evidently unjust,” since it grants to women who claim that they were assaulted when drunk the presumption that this is indeed the case. This is an injustice, in James Taranto’s eyes.’

Taranto is right, it’s an injustice that two ‘drunken’ students who have sex are so diametrically opposed on the ‘consent’ scale that we can automatically assign victim status to the woman and perpetrator status to the man. What Bump does is becoming pretty self explanatory.

Oh, I wish that was it, but it’s not:

‘The grossest thing about Taranto’s gentle request that we stop to consider the feelings of drunk guys who jam their clumsy hands into nearly-unconscious women’s pants is that it serves only to encourage that behavior’

Do I even need to comment on this one? Apparently, broaching the topic of men and women taking responsibility for their actions, or as bump puts it – letting sober men rape intoxicated and unconscious women – is actively letting men get away with this kind of behaviour. What he fails to consider, on the flip side, is that by telling women they don’t require to be repsonsbile  in any way for their actions when drunk, it actively encourages that kind of behaviour, the kind of behaviour that leads to an innocent man being arrested, as we’ve seen in the Ohio rape case.

Bump goes on to spout some more rubbish, but I don’t want to give any more attention to that vacuous waste of column inches. What I do want to talk about is the reach and power that this article has. Despite the fact it’s full of lies, hyperbole, misrepresentations and exaggerations it’ll probably be accepted by the masses as a truthful deconstruction of Taranto’s original post and held up as an example of ‘rape culture’.

The main reason I’m writing this article, the main reason I’m even wasting my energy on such a dishonest article, is because this is symptomatic of the way we address rape in our culture. Yes, Taranto’s article is dealing with American colleges, but I can imagine the exact same situation happening over here, too. What Bump’s article does is contribute to the artificially created sense of hysteria about rape. The fact that Bump’s views are shared by a number of other online rebuttals is a good indicator of exactly why we can’t engage in serious debate about rape and sexual assault. As is clear from Taranto’s article, as soon as someone dares to approach the subject from a stance of ‘alcohol muddies the waters somewhat, it’s not black and white’ they are automatically bombarded with the typical ‘victim blamer’, ‘rape-apologiser’, ‘rape-denier’ claims from the more outspoken groups of society.

This is not about victim blaming or rape apologising, it’s dealing with the radical idea that drunken sex does not automatically make a man a rapist! It’s dealing with the idea that, far from protecting women, the idea that they are not to held responsible for the  decisions they make while drunk actually implies they are weak are incapable of looking after themselves! By exaggerating, lying and manipulating what is actually a fairly common-sense statement Bump is furthering the idea that the crime of rape is black and white, that there are no grey areas, no instances in which two equally drunk people engage in a sexual act that one of them may later regret.

This is why we can’t have serious discussions about rape and sexual assault, because people are unwilling to accept the idea that drunken sex is not rape, people are not willing to accept the idea that women can be responsible for their actions. People are unwilling to accept the idea that, even if we did consider drunken sex to be rape, it’s sexist that we automatically place blame with the man.

I stand with James Taranto. Regardless of what his other articles might say, despite what other opinions he may hold, I stand with him. The fact that James Taranto may have written another article that I vehemently disagree with is irrelevant, in this case he’s written something that is not derogatory, not sexist, not demeaning, is actually logical and thoughtful. What Philip Bump has done is taken that logic, deliberately misread it, exaggerated it and then presented it as truth.

Unfortunately, Bump’s article is likely to fan the flames of outrage and cause more controversy than is needed. By immediately painting Taranto as a misogynist from his misleading headline, he is further perpetuating an artificially created sense of hysteria surrounding college rape, playing on the outrage caused by college cases like Stubenville, Maryville and Duke. Despite the fact that only the Stubenville accused were actually found guilty of rape, those are still three of the go-to cases when feminists talk about college rape and alcohol.

That’s why Bump’s article is dangerous, because people who are already blinkered to one set of views are unlikely to actually go and read Taranto’s article with any degree of objectivity. Instead, they will read it from the perspective that Bump has already filled their mind with, no matter how logical or truthful Taranto’s post may be; he can’t compete with that level of manipulation.

Outright lies; much more appealing to feminism than the truth. But then, what’s new?!

Comments
  1. ayamsirias says:

    “What Philip Bump has done is taken that logic, deliberately misread it, exaggerated it and then presented it as truth.” This is called a Red Herring. And is it really a surprise? Make sure Mr. Bumb gets to read this blog post.

    • johnsalmon86 says:

      Thanks, I’m still learning what all the different fallacies are, there are quite a few of them. It’s not a surprise no, but that doesn’t mean others aren’t completely fooled by it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s