>
Well, this is interesting. Last night, idly perusing the latest posts by blogs on my Enemies List I noticed a new post by Paul Elam. It was a doozy, and I don’t mean that in a good way. Under the seemingly innocuous title “Challenging the Etiology of Rape,” the post mocked and blamed rape victims for the crime of getting raped. I copied the most obnoxious bits onto my computer, planning to write a post about it.
Now it appears Elam has deleted the post, and the comments associated with it. [NOTE: Apparently the vanishing post was actually the result of an issue with the web host. It’s now up again. On to the content of his post.]
Here, minus a little of his rhetorical huffing and puffing, is the basic thesis of his post:
I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get shit faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes … these women end up being the “victims” of rape.
But are these women asking to get raped?…
They are freaking begging for it.
Damn near demanding it. …
[T]here are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.
What’s there to say to that? It’s odious, simply odious. Anyone who makes such an argument thereby destroys whatever tiny bit of credibility, whatever moral authority, they once might have had to speak about rape, domestic violence, or, really any violence at all against women or men. Anyone who makes such an argument forfeits the right to be taken seriously on the issue of rape, or, really, on any issue at all.
By Elam’s logic, any man who gets drunk and hooks up with a woman he’s only recently met is “damn near demanding” to be falsely accused of rape, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [ACCUSE] ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who gets himself sent to prison through an act of his own is “damn near demanding” to be raped, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who works in a profession where occupational injuries are relatively more common is “damn near demanding” to be injured or killed, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH … neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who joins the Armed Forces is “damn near demanding” to be killed, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [KILL ME] neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who crosses a busy street without waiting for the “walk” sign is “damn near demanding” to be hit by a car, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [RUN ME OVER] neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who does anything at all that might possibly increase the odds of anything bad happening to him is “damn near demanding” to face horrific consequences, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [HARM] ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
By Elam’s logic, neither men nor women should ever leave the house.
Oh, but wait, most accidents happen at home (just as most rapes involve people already known to the victim, not random strangers at bars). So anyone staying at home is “damn near demanding” to trip and fall down the stairs, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [INJURE] ME neon sign glowing above [his or her] empty little narcissistic head.”
I guess we’re all empty-headed conniving bitches. Each and every one of us on planet earth. But the only people Elam thinks to apply his logic to are female rape victims. That says a lot, and none of it good.
NOTE: Elam has (among other things) banned me from commenting on his site, and relagates all critical comments on his website to a special board for “feminists and manginas,” so any comments he makes here will be deleted.
NOTE #2: Just to forestall what could become an endless and pointless debate in the comments: Elam is not saying, as he puts it, that women “are literally asking men to rape them” — that is, walking up and saying “rape me please.” That would be absurd. He is speaking more colloquially, as am I.
>I think that some of the most odious statements can come from some of the most seemingly sensitive and well-meaning people. For example, it might improve the long-term safety of a potential victim if he or she behaved more modestly and showed better judgment and discretion. But because no one wants to be accused of being a victim-blamer, because they want to seem sensitive, they refrain from making such a common-sense statement, elevating their love of their own reputation above and beyond their concern for a potential victim's safety. Instead, they self-servingly state (under the pretext of sensitivity to victims) that a potential victim should live it up, sex it up, drink up, party hard and damn the consequences. The victims will then have a perpetrator to blame after the fact, but a victim's moral superiority after the fact is a small comfort (if any) compared to the prospect of not being victimized in the first place.The politically correct crowd wants to portray every act of sexual violence as a matter of pure chance. In terms of security, they equate the utility of being modest with that of being lascivious. But in fact, there really is a correlation between less reckless behavior and a lower likelihood of being victimized. A libertine, self-focused and politically-correct society doesn't want to acknowledge that fact. The result is a pervasive and harmful attitude of recklessness that puts every potential victim at a far greater risk than otherwise.
>And the other side of the coin, John, is that men get angry at the knowledge that there are women who DO treat potentially dangerous situations as exactly that and caution other women about it, and they lay the blame upon women and "our misandrist society that treats all men as potential rapists". Seems there's a very fine line between being considered modest, showing better judgment and discretion, and being considered misandrist.Perhaps my choosing not to get falling down drunk, making out with a guy all night long and then going to his apartment at 2:00 am would be considered as showing good judgment, but my choosing not to go to a guy's apartment for dinner or after dinner on a first date for the same reasons that I choose not to do the former would be considered misandrist because I would be treating him as a potential rapist.So it's damned if you do and damned if you don't…you get blamed either way.
>Also, his little extras, which I have bolded, "…so they can get shit faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass", leads me to the conclusion that he's not just trying to make a 'well-intentioned though not politically correct' public service announcement.
>"But in fact, there really is a correlation between less reckless behavior and a lower likelihood of being victimized. "No, there isn't. It would be nice if there were. But there isn't. It would be nice to be able to go through life and lower my chances of being raped through practicing "less reckless" behaviour. But there isn't. There just isn't any such behaviour that will incredibly lower my chances. Why? The problem is that – ding, ding, ding, women already do that. A lot. And, it doesn't matter because "stranger danger" is pure bullshit when it comes to rape. Rape is more likely to occur by friends, bfs/husbands and/or family of the victim, and in the victim's "safe" places e.g. their own home. By your logic, women should never ever go home or interact with family or have friends since this would effectively "prevent" rape through the victim's behaviour. As Melissa from Shakesville says about her own rape (debunking several of the rape prevention):"Left to my own devices, I never would have been raped. The rapist was really the key component to the whole thing. I was sober; hardly scantily clad (another phrase appearing once in the article), I was wearing sweatpants and an oversized t-shirt; I was at home; my sexual history was, literally, nonexistent—I was a virgin; I struggled; I said no. There have been times since when I have been walking home, alone, after a few drinks, wearing something that might have shown a bit of leg or cleavage, and I wasn't raped. The difference was not in what I was doing. The difference was the presence of a rapist."http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/01/dear-ladies-please-stop-getting.htmlMost rapes are this situation than the "stranger" rape. The difference is not what the victim was doing but the presence of a rapist. My big question to you John is if a man gets raped, is it also his fault?
>…..women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes … these women end up being the "victims" of rape.A woman who says YES and agrees to go with her new boyfriend to his private rooms at 2:00 AM the same night cannot be considered to be a victim of 'rape', if she regrets it a few weeks later suddenly out of whatever reason.We know, she was drunk, but he was drunk too. Of course this does not count by the laws of 'equality' of any feminist country and there is the real possibility for a man to become a victim of a false rape allegation under such circumstances.My advice as MRA to all men is to prevent such a situation from the beginning on. Stay away from such questionable places like bars full with drunk women inside and do not join strange parties full with drugs.Do not socialize with drunk and crazy psycho-girls and never invite them to your own private rooms.It's a good idea to spend your money you earn with your hard work for something else.Keep always in your mind, whatever happens, only the man will be kept responsible and never the woman. That's not fair, but this is the law, biased against men.If she says YES, say NO.
>"A woman who says YES and agrees to go with her new boyfriend to his private rooms at 2:00 AM the same night cannot be considered to be a victim of 'rape', if she regrets it a few weeks later suddenly out of whatever reason."No, Yohan. A person does not consent to be forced to have intercourse by accepting a drink, going home with someone, or by consenting to any other activity other than sex.
>@SandyShe said YES, and after some weeks she regrets and says she said YES only because she was drunk or because she took some drugs.She now says, she should have said NO but she does not even remember anymore exactly what happened… the usual date-rape story of a typical psycho crybaby. She says, he says…And what do you expect now police investigators and judges to do? To believe her or to believe him?—–As I said already in my posting above, the responsibility in any case due to single-sided feminist laws in Western countries is with the man. Always. Under any circumstances. Feminist laws treat women like children considering them unable to make a clear and final decision. On the other side, feminist laws expect men to act sober under any circumstances and to investigate almost like psychiatrists or judges, if the given consent – YES – of a woman could mean MAYBE 'not really' and is not a YES beyond reasonable doubts.I don't think, that's fair.Even judges and bar associations have frequent questions about how to understand such 'rape' laws. Arguments are coming up about voice recording and consent forms.My advice as MRA for all men is to stay on the 'safe side'. Avoid any contact with such drunk/drug abusing women in bars and parties from the beginning on. Don't go there. Do not socialize with them. And of course, never bring such a girl to your private rooms. PREVENT such a risky situation for you by avoiding any personal contact with such females -this will reducing your risk of being falsely accused considerable. You have not been there – not a bad argument for your defense. ——Of course, as man, anytime, you still might become a victim of a false rape allegation solely out of the bad mood of a crazy female. The problem is that such crimes remain unpunished or – sometimes only – the female offender is getting away with a ridiculous lenient sentence.Feminism is very protective to female offenders even in case of serious wrongdoing against a totally innocent man. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-450374/Two-months-girl-rape-lie-ruined-cabbies-life.htmlhttp://www.nerve.com/archived/blogs/teenage-girl-gets-2-month-sentence-for-false-rape-allegation
>Are you referring to the Nov. 13th post? If so, it wasn't Paul who deleted it. It seems to be a computer error by his hosting company.Here's the post, since feminists – as you've proven – are better at speculating than learning:"I can’t believe this shit. I wrote the web hosting company and told them everything after the 10th was missing. They didn’t even check out a back up from the 13th, they just wrote me back after taking what I imagine was a 10 second look at the site and told me everything was fine.I have asked them to pull a copy from the 13th and restore the site up to that point.Let’s see what happens."- http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/11/10/shameless/#comment-6300Perhaps if you thought things through, you wouldn't be in this embarrassing situation now, would you? See how helpful thinking before speaking is, feminist?Remember, before you open your yap:"Think, then speak." There's a mantra for you that's easy and concise – even you should master it in no time flat!
>Oh, would you look at that, my comment displaying Paul's complaint accidentally went missing. Don't worry, we'll rectify that situation in no time flat!"I can’t believe this shit. I wrote the web hosting company and told them everything after the 10th was missing. They didn’t even check out a back up from the 13th, they just wrote me back after taking what I imagine was a 10 second look at the site and told me everything was fine.I have asked them to pull a copy from the 13th and restore the site up to that point.Let’s see what happens."- http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/11/10/shameless/#comment-6300Poor David, he must be very embarrassed right now.
>Uh, I didn't suggest I knew whether the vanishing post was deleted or a computer glitch. That hardly changes the point of my post, which was devoted to the content of the post. I'll edit the post accordingly. As for your comment, it was caught in the spam filter. As I note in the comment policy here, this happens a lot. I can't turn the filter off, but I unfilter them as soon as I see them.
>Speaking of vanishing, I could have sword that yesterday the end of this post said that, with regard to deleting Paul Elam's comments, you would make an exception here for any comments explaining himself.Oh yeah, nice job totally misrepresenting that article.
>I said I would make a exception for any comment from him that explained where his post had gone. Now that we know, there's no need for him to explain.
>Im not sure that women using the promise of sex to scam drinks/free nights out is all that much of a predictor of rape anyway, I've never heard it brought up by an official source. It does stand to reason that if a person is routinely pretending to offer something and takes payment up front only to renege that from time to time the scam will back fire on the scam artist because there are crazy people out there, but men are often scammed by women, its happening in every bar and club, and a violent outcome is very rare. The politically correct position on rape infantalises women IMO. The story that Spearhead recently covered in which a group of women all became convinced that they had been mass spiked, the investigation as is usual with spiking claims, the investigation turned up with nothing but the alcohol that the women had chosen to drink themselves and the upshot was the state banning the drink itself. Not a word about personal responsibility or feminisms role in creating the drink spiking mass hysteria in the first place.
>Here are three typical rapes, Im going to quote "The thinking Police Man" from his blog."…the last three rape allegations that have occurred in my area. The last one came from a young woman of 20 who met a 17 year old boy in a pub. They had been drinking and had been acquainted for an hour when they went outside into the pub car park to have consensual sex. The young woman wanted the boy to use a condom but he didn't have one and they had sex without. She then reported the rape. I fully understand that at any point this woman can say no and she was quite sensible insisting that he wore a condom. The problem is that what jury is going to convict a 17 year old boy of rape in these circumstances?The second case was a University student who got very drunk at a University function and woke up in bed with another student in the morning. She believed that she had had sex with him but could not remember. She reported this two days later. The boy was arrested and claimed consensual sex had taken place. He was by no means a sexual predator and was in fact pretty meek and mild.The third case was an estranged husband and wife. The husband would come round the house to visit the children and then the couple regularly had a drink and smoked cannabis. They also regularly had sex. On one occasion the woman claimed that she was raped as they had had sex and she had not consented to it on that occasion. The husband was arrested and claimed they had had consensual sex with his wife at least 20 times since he had left the marital home and he had never had sex with her against her will."http://thethinkingpoliceman.blogspot.com/2010/03/rape-debate.htmlIf anyone has a good source about using the promise of sex to scam free drinks resulting in rape can they link it? Because Ive never heard of one.
>Hello again, Mr. Futrelle. Pardon me for popping back here–you may remember me as Wanderer–but I was struck by a pique of nostalgia and I've been wandering back to a few places I hung out at a little while ago.Thus, I apologize for hoppin' back here, but I am curious, are there any other parts of Mr. Elam's article you saved, or just that one snippet? I don't mean to impugn your honesty, but for all I know the article could have been meant as satire/not to be taken literally (as was the "Bash a Violent Bitch" thing a while ago). As with the other example, it may be little defense, but I'd think it would be nice to know for sure. Besides, it couldn't hurt to have an original comment on hand–if Mr. Elam ever reposts it if it's not recovered by his hosting service, you'll be able to note any differences in the versions.Secondly, although this is your blog, and far be it from me to tell you have to run it, I must respectfully disagree with your refusal to allow Mr. Elam to comment here. As the old saying goes, 'two wrongs don't make a right'–and I say this not to be pious or preachy, but simply as a piece of advice. Sinking down to your opponent's level won't help you convince anyone, but rising above them can win you many friends. If you allow Mr. Elam to comment here even while he prevents you from commenting openly on his site, you might find yourself making much more convincing arguments for the many people on the outskirts of the MRM who nonetheless don't identify with it fully–as I said on another site, folks like me, who are uncomfortable with both feminism AND the MRM.Still, this is your blog, and I apologize for buttin' in. Thanks for having me.
>Wanderer, glad to see you back. I don't have any more of Elam's post than the bit I quoted. The stuff I left out (see the ellipses) wasn't substantive. His post wasn't satire, and neither, really, was "bash a violent bitch" — the only reason he said he wasn't "serious" about that one was b/c it would get guys arrested if they did it. If Elam had merely banned me, I'd let him post. But he went way beyond that, so he'll have to post on his own blog. He's the only person I've "banned." (I put it in quotes b/c blogger doesn't let you ban anyone; I'll just delete whatever he posts here.)
>Thats not what he was saying at all Christine, I read the thing, he pointed to the fact that only a minority of men will rape and claimed that women that that use the promise of sex to scam men are taking a chance because of a minority of men that are out there.
>Which is a valid point, if anyone makes a habit of scamming people in bars the chances are that they going to run into trouble. It will backfire in men a lot sooner and much more often, more rarely would it lead to some negative consequence for a woman. Women use sex, children and gender stereotypes to scam men, in bars, clubs and courts. Occasionally it backfires and you see murders, murder suicides and perhaps rapes.
>Eoghan, that sounds like a fairly substantive difference. Pardon me for asking, but would you have a copy of the article itself on hand? I don't mean to impugn your honesty either, but with this sort of thing it's important to let what was actually said to speak for itself.
>Er, and in reference to what you said, Mr. Futrelle, I would say Mr. Elam's behavior would make it even more convincing were you to let him post here. After all, if he has committed such grievous offenses against you, proving yourself above that would make you look all the more magnaminous.Still, like I said, it's not my business, and pardon me for double-posting as well (we can't edit comments, can we?). Besides, have you even received any comments from Mr. Elam? I don't think he comes here anymore, so I suppose it's not actually a problem–no harm, no foul and all that.
>VagrantsvoiceI don't have a copy. Perhaps Paul will repost it. The piece does use hyperbole and language that I think is designed to bait the politically correct into responding exactly as David and others here has done, but the core of the message and logic was as I describe above.I think the point of the piece was to shock and shake up certain politically correct speech and thought codes that restrict us from pointing out certain truths about rape.
>Christine: "In Elam's article, there wasn't a question of whether the woman said yes or no. He is saying that if you buy her drinks, she gets drunk, makes out with you, and goes back to your room with you, then take what you want from her as she deserves it." Actually, that's not what he said. He was saying that women who do that are so stupid they "deserve" to be raped — and mocked, evidently. Still, it was about as close to a rape apologia as you can get without literally being a rape apologia. Yohan in one of his comments seemed to imply something more along the lines of what you're saying. I think he was trying to say something about women changing their minds afterwards, but he seemed to suggest that if a woman goes home with a guy she's essentially consented to sex. I think the fact that he sort of "forgot" to mention consent speaks volumes.
>Eoghan, if you think I've misinterpreted Elam's piece, how exactly have I done that?
>Well, I think that we shouldn't be representing or misrepresenting the piece until its back up, as someone else has pointed out David, that your depiction of Paul Elam's piece on Jezebele's pro domestic violence stance was at odds with the intended meaning of the actual piece.
>Hi DavidI posted my interpretation of the meaning of the piece in two or three posts above. It was supposed to shock but the logic, that of you are repeatedly using sex to scam people, or any means for that matter, chances are that it will eventually backfire because there are all kinds of people out there.Like with murder suicides, every one in 100,000 or whatever times a woman uses children and the courts as a weapon, it might backfire. Thats not blaming thats just common sense.