Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the most odious misogynist bullshit I have seen thus far on the topic of the Slutwalks: a post on The Third Edge of the Sword, a blog that seems to go out of its way to be offensive and “edgy,” that takes victim blaming to a whole new level. Here’s the basic, er, argument of the post, which the author has put in giant pink letters so we won’t miss it:
Every woman marching in the Edmonton Slut Walk is publicly declaring herself a slut. This means every woman there desires sex with any and all partners. Any sexual activity you initiate with them comes with implied consent. They cannot say no, and if they do understand all their ‘no’s mean yes. They are all asking for it. They want it bad. Now. From you. Go get ’em!
Some other highlights:
[I]f you … dress slutty, men are going to stare at you. We’re going to catcall. We are going to tell you all sorts of sexual things we want to do to your body. And if you dress slutty and wave your ass in our face, we will do them. The organizers of this event are not oblivious to this point: what they want is a fake sexual revolution. They want to be able to impersonate sluts without actually being sluts, and that’s unacceptable. If you don’t want to be treated as a piece of meat, don’t marinate and grill yourself and sit perched on a piece of garlic toast. You dress slutty, you show off the goods, you try to get a reaction, you will get one. Hint: it’s not always going to be the one you want. …
The “reaction” he has in mind is rape. By calling rape a “reaction” instead of what it is — a criminal assault on someone, an act of sexual violence, a violation — he of course is attempting to switch the blame to the victim. He spells out his “logic” in more detail:
[W]hen you impersonate a slut we don’t fine you, and we don’t throw you in jail. There’s really only one punishment for dressing like a streetwalker when you aren’t one: you do have to endure the occasional rape. You should really suffer it in silence. Accept the character flaw within you that caused this, and move on. Police and court resources are already busy enough with real criminals: like actual rapists who do nasty things to their niece or the homeless native chick passed out under the bridge, or a conservatively dressed urban professional walking to her car, or a girl out jogging in a track suit. To equate the act of actually violating and raping one of these people with having sex with a girl who’s every square millimetre of public persona screams anybody who wants to can screw me right now is ridiculous.
Once again, this brand of misogyny leads to some conclusions that are pretty misandrist – namely, the notion that men are at heart rapists who can’t control their violent urges:
If you go out on the street in an outfit that would make Britney Spears feel uncomfortable, you do so knowing that your ultimate aim is to make men want you. Well, they want you now. Congrats. Oh, wait, you mean you didn’t understand what that implied? That in the great Bell curve of sexual congress you’ve just pushed everybody on the right-hand side of the -2 std devs line past that imaginary barrier that says “there is no power in the universe powerful enough to stop me from sliding my finger inside your panties”? I call bullshit. You do know. But you want to be a virginal slut, to dress in ways that makes men helpless to their urges but still leaves you fully in restrictive control.
The blogger concludes by arguing that the Slutwalkers are all “lying bitches” because they dress like they wasn’t to be raped, but do not actually want to be raped. Then he makes this lovely suggestion:
If your wife is one of them, I’m very very sorry. Maybe a good rape might make her a little more manageable around the house.
Now this post is an atmittedly extreme example of a misogynistic response to the Slutwalks. But the basic “logic” of this blogger’s would-be argument is essentially identical to that of many MRA and other “manosphere” pieces I’ve seen on the subject, the main difference between them being that this guy embraces the logical conclusion of his argument — that Slutwalkers deserve to be raped — while the MRAs who make essentially the same argument (and fling the same sorts of insults at the Slutwalkers) make a show of saying that they don’t really think the Slutwalkers “deserve” it. And maybe they’ve convinced themselves that this caveat means something . But in that case the extreme reaction that manosphere misogynists have had to the Slutwalks – the insults thrown at the Slutwalkers, the “jokey” references to rape, the prurient sneering – makes little sense. If you argue that women are “asking for it” when they dress like “sluts,” you’re essentially saying they deserve it. You’re making the same argument this guy is making, but pretending you aren’t.
NOTE: The graphic above is taken from the official web site for the Edmonton SlutWalk 2011, which took place a week ago. Here are some pictures of the march.
So go and do that then instead of derailing this and the “Men’s Rights Reddit explains it all to you” article with the same complaint about the same Hugo Schwyzer article.
The only connection is that it’s another article that’s not totally focused on MRAL’s problems.
Ion: question – why would I get so drunk and dizzy that I was unable to defend myself?
I have no idea. For all you know someone slipped something into your drink. Maybe there was more alcohol then you are used to. Maybe you misjudged how much you could have. Maybe the peak happened just as he entered the room so you were at your drunkest point. The end result? You were unable to fight him off. Ergo, according to you, you bear responsibility for being there in the first place and that makes it your fault.
And why would this girl’s boyfriend want to have sex with me? Is he bisexual?
Why is it relevant? Maybe he just was mad you had sex with his girlfriend in his bed so it is your turn to get fucked.
What if I’m into it?
Then it is not rape-if you are sober enough to consent. Which you are not in this situation.
And then his friends come in – where am I, Amsterdam? Sounds like a hell of a night. 😛
Yes, the night that the random stranger came over, was too drunk and was gang raped. I know *I* would not want to be there. But apparently you think that drunk=consent.
This is hilarious. What if the man was drunk too? Did they rape each other? Can they have two separate trials in which both are convicted?
MRAL-are you here to make a point or just trying to derail again? Because frankly, I am starting to edge into Kirby’s camp on your being banned.
Also, even if the other man was drunk, if he had sex with a person who was passed out or too intoxicated to give consent, then he raped that person.
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth,
Yeah, seems it’s all fun and games and hur hur hur, ’til a man stands accused of rape……. THEN it’s not so funny anymore, ‘cuz a MAN might be convicted and sentenced.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662562153#!/photo.php?fbid=222051491157368&set=o.142636719135896&type=1&theater
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth but what if they were both passed out and a spirit possessed them? O: What if you’re a hermit who never leaves his house? What if you’re like Rogue and touching you saps their energy? What if the world exploded 5 days earlier!?????
If she’s too intoxicated to give consent, and he’s too intoxicated to give consent, again, did they rape each other?
Or, I mean, is it only rape when a man does it? (This is feminism at its core).
Good point Ami-what if could take all day. How about we just stick to what is possible and can happen instead. In fact, it has. This young man was charged with the sexual assault.
He later plead guilty.
In this case, the victim’s sister asked them to stay there instead of possibly getting hurt by driving drunk. So I guess according to Ion and the other rape apologists, it was her fault for trying to keep her brother (the victim) safe and the victim’s for getting drunk in the first place.
Rape only happens to men! In prison! This is the MRA at it’s core.
No MRAL it is not only rape if a man does it. It is rape if someone refuses or does not give consent. And that was not the question you were asking.
MRAL: If you study actual statutes and cases, you’ll see that being so intoxicated as to be legally incapable of consent means that you are pretty much passed out. If you still have the presence of mind to undress yourself, the other person, lock the door, get an erection and proceed with the act (Governor LePetomane from “Blazing Saddles” comes to mind), then you are still capable of consent. Now, if you get so drunk that you pass out and fall down (while maintaining an erection mind you), and while falling down, you accidentally stick your dick into a woman’s vagina, then I suppose under those extremely unlikely circumstances, you can claim you were raped. But then again, no — rape is a crime that requires intent. If the woman you’ve accidentally stumbled into is also incapable of consent, stands to reason she’s incapable of forming criminal intent, either.
MRAL:
Here’s a couple concrete examples involving person A and B, everyone please correct me if I get some wrong.
A is drunk and consents to sex with B: not rape
A is drunk, consents to sex with B, but regrets it when A is sober again: not rape
A and B are both drunk, both consent to sex: not rape
A is drunk, does not consent to sex with B: rape
A is drunk, cannot consent to sex with B (ie passed out or incapacitated): rape
A and B are drunk, neither can or do consent to sex: nothing, sex doesn’t happen
Its really not what you think it is.
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth did you see my other comment to you btw? :]
Thanks so much for defining feminism for us, Mr. Al. Quite helpful! Let me try! “Wah wah wah. I’m a whiny little baby. My life’s not perfect all the time, and I blame women! I’m a stupid hate-filled pus-bubble!” This is the MRM at its core.
Oh, anyway. The answer to your first question is that it would depend on the fact pattern (if you’re asking about the legal aspect, anyway). What we know right now from your hypo is that two very drunk people had sexual contact. Based on that alone, there’s no way of answering who raped who. But if two people are both so drunk that they could not consent, it’s a little unlikely that they’d actually be able to do anything sexual, which takes some amount of coordination, energy, and continuity from at least one party.
Which thread? I just checked the last couple and did not see it. 🙁
http://manboobz.com/2011/06/11/blogger-slutwalkers-deserve-to-be-raped/comment-page-7/#comment-26588
*Sigh* I guess we are “privileged” not only by virtue of having uteri, but also because we are generally smaller than men and thus more likely to pass out from drinking and get fucked while unconscious. Not fair!!
/end sarcasm
Oh that post-I did read it but I was unfamiliar with the situation but I can believe it depressingly enough.
I disagree Kirby, but that is because the term “drunk” means more than “has been drinking”. Some people can have a few drinks and still be fairly sober, but someone who is drunk is in an impaired state.
@Mral, if both were drunk (as in drunk, not as in “has been drinking lightly but is not drunk”), you could charge both. I fail to see why this is a problem. You can charge two people with assault for fighting each other. Why couldn’t you charge two people with rape for raping each other?
@darksidecat:
Alright, well, for definitional purpose I was using the “has been drinking but not incapacitated.” I understand and agree with your point though, and thats why I specifically said “incapacitated” in one of the scenarios.
Lesson learned: Don’t include links. That way my posts won’t be buried on previous pages when they get out of moderation. 🙂
Here’s Tabby’s comment, which did indeed get buried many pages back b/c I only just freed it from moderation:
http://manboobz.com/2011/06/11/blogger-slutwalkers-deserve-to-be-raped/comment-page-6/#comment-26531
What links cause things to get moderated? o: I thought it was just LOTS of links.. but Tabby’s just had one 😐