What’s the difference between a lad mag and a rapist? Aside from one being a magazine and the other a person, albeit an reprehensible one, apparently not very much.
In a study soon to be published in the British Journal of Psychology, researchers at Middlesex University and the University of Surrey showed people quotes about women from British lad mags (FHM, Loaded, Nuts and Zoo) and from convicted rapists. Most survey respondents – men and women both – could not tell the difference between the quotes from the magazines and the quotes from the rapists. And most of the male respondents identified more with the quotes from the rapists than from the lad mags.
Here are some of the quotes the survey respondents were asked to react to. (You can find more at Jezebel.) Can you tell which of these are from rapists or lad mags?
Mascara running down the cheeks means they’ve just been crying, and it was probably your fault . . . but you can cheer up the miserable beauty with a bit of the old in and out.
You’ll find most girls will be reluctant about going to bed with somebody or crawling in the back seat of a car . . . But you can usually seduce them, and they’ll do it willingly.
Some girls walk around in short-shorts . . . showing their body off . . . It just starts a man thinking that if he gets something like that, what can he do with it?
I think girls are like plasticine, if you warm them up you can do anything you want with them.
In case you’re wondering, the correct answers are: Lad mag, Rapist, Rapist, Lad Mag.
Creepy, eh?
Lead researcher Miranda Horvath of Middlesex University explains why she feels this is so troubling:
Rapists try to justify their actions, suggesting that women lead men on, or want sex even when they say no, and there is clearly something wrong when people feel the sort of language used in a lads’ mag could have come from a convicted rapist.
I would say so.
And so, you might wonder, how did the regulars on the Men’s Rights subreddit react this this research? Take a look.
The comment with the most upvotes offered some nice juicy denial:
The comment with the second-highest number of upvotes completely missed the point:
And then there was this hot mess:
In case anyone is wondering, that quote from French is actually a quote from a character in one of her novels. And it’s pretty easy to distinguish it from things posted on Jezebel, because none of the writers on Jezebel ever say anything even remotely like that.
The Men’s Rights subreddit, responding to evidence of rape culture by going “la la la I can’t hear you” since March 2008.
@hellkell
“NWO, you’re an idiot. If you bothered to read what you posted, the definition is being changed to reflect what police departments ALREADY USE.”
The article said already use. Is that the case? If the definition at the moment is forcible, no police department could possibly already use another definition.
Someone is unaware of the difference between state and federal law.
lj4adotcomdan: This example’s a tad out of date, I admit, but it’s not more than a generation old, so should still have some relevance. In the mainstream, popular movie Revenge of the Nerds, there’s a scene near the film’s apex where one of the “nerds” tricks one of the upstart “Pi” sorority girls into sex, by pretending to be her boyfriend (he borrows the boyfriend’s Darth Vader mask before they slip into the moonwalk for some bouncing).
And when she discovers, after the deed, that he is in fact one of the guys she finds utterly repulsive, she meekly compliments him on his sexual prowess, and decides to go out with him from that point forward.
Now, no one claims this is a great movie, and was generally panned by the critics. But it was also never called out that the ‘hero’ of the film is a filthy rapist scumbag, either.
This was not, and probably still IS not, an uncommon theme in Hollywood films–that it’s not rape ‘if you’re good at it’. That, sir, is “rape culture”.
FTFY.
Honestly, milkslave, I’m having trouble believing that anyone this dumb can operate a computerbox. You drunk again?
Yes.
@Bee:
I really wish that was just a typo… I really really wish it were…
Then I could do something like this:
1) Forced sex. – no consent
2) Sex with an unconscious woman. – no consent
3) Unforced non-consensual sex. – no consent.
As it is, I’m gonna have to go back to mocking. One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just isn’t the same.
@Bee
Non-consent constitutes force.
Consent constitutes no force.
If I offered you a $100.00 bill. I hand it to you and said here take this. I consented. Could I call the police and have you arrested for theft? There was no force used so no crime of theft took place. Not so with women where sex is concerned. No force is neccesary.
I just gave you a link of a woman who cried rape, (luckily no actual man was charged) for a house in the burbs. Are you telling me there won’t be boatloads of women abusing this fine re-definition? This was a woman with a degree in psychology, one of feminists finest.
PfkE, thank you. He obviously doesn’t know the difference between state and federal law. To him, it’s all Vagina Law.
Are the boys over tonight, NWO, yucking it up with you about rape?
Well, not really yucking it up. Very seriously and sincerely arguing that it’s a goddamn travesty that people still get arrested for it.
NWO, the definition has already been in use, and there haven’t been women taking advantage of it. Are you huffing the model airplane glue again?
Hey everyone? Just wanted to say. I love google. Here’s what turned up for “the difference between force and consent.” PDF Ahoy!
NWO, that one’s for you.
@kirbywarp
#3 should read… unforced consensual sex = rape.
No force is needed for rape. Consent = rape.
@NWOSlave
Wow. Are you seriously that dense?
@hellkell
“NWO, the definition has already been in use, and there haven’t been women taking advantage of it.”
“No” women falsely cry rape? That’s a fine statistic. Where’d you hear that one?
<BlockquoteNon-consent constitutes force.
Consent constitutes no force.
If I offered you a $100.00 bill. I hand it to you and said here take this. I consented. Could I call the police and have you arrested for theft? There was no force used so no crime of theft took place. Not so with women where sex is concerned. No force is neccesary.
Okay, how about if I imply I’ll beat the shit out of you if you don’t pay me? I don’t make a threat, I just tell you I have a gun and I’ve always been curious what it would do to a person and hey I could use some cash–is that a gift?
What if I put my hand on the bill while you’re holding it, and you fail to say “hey let go of that,” so I snatch it away?
What if I threaten to fire you or kick you out of the house if you don’t pay me?
What if I scream at you to give me the money and tell you that you’re a horrible worthless person if you don’t? Is that a gift?
@NWO:
And again I ask, what makes consensual sex rape?
stupid html.
Okay, how about if I imply I’ll beat the shit out of you if you don’t pay me? I don’t make a threat, I just tell you I have a gun and I’ve always been curious what it would do to a person and hey I could use some cash–is that a gift?
What if I put my hand on the bill while you’re holding it, and you fail to say “hey let go of that,” so I snatch it away?
What if I threaten to fire you or kick you out of the house if you don’t pay me?
What if I scream at you to give me the money and tell you that you’re a horrible worthless person if you don’t? Is that a gift?
Sigh. It’s hard to explain intimidation and blackmail, much less emotional abuse, to people who have no empathy.
They always go “Well, I’m a wall of fucking stone and I have no emotional needs and I always know that I’m right and don’t need any friends and can walk away from any lover at any time, so I’d never fall for that.” They think feelings are girly and thus illegitimate and therefore there can be no such thing as harming a person via their feelings, ever.
(Despite the fact that the crime of theft is as much about feelings as rape is. If I feel you shouldn’t have taken my money, that differentiates theft from a gift–the rest is technicalities. But somehow feeling you have a right to your money isn’t silly girl nonsense like feeling you have a right to your body.)
@Holly Pervocracy
No I’m actually home for a change, although I’m working locally for a few days.
I’m not sure if this new nationwide definition by the beloved FBI has been initiated yet, but if not yet it soon will be. Lukily for men, all women are paragons of virtue. If not for that fact, we’d need to build entire colonies of prisons for men if even 1% of women are like that. Dontcha think? Particularly since in rape cases ya can’t bring up a womans past history. Otherwise a buncha meanie woman, ya know the bad feminists type, not the good feminist type. Why they could be slappin men in prison all over the place. Or even just mentally unstable women. Or vindictive women. Or jealous women. Or for any old reason women.
I came in this conversation a bit late, but has anyone explained to NWO that the FBI definition was changed in part to protect male victims of rape, who are now covered by it and weren’t before?
@NWO:
Cool story bro. By the way, how is consensual sex rape, by anybody’s definition? Even the new FBI definition states that non-consent is necessary for rape, which by definition doesn’t include consensual sex.
Is this about the time that you’ve been asked the same question too many times, and haven’t gotten the answer you like from us, and declare yourself too XYZ to continue?
@Molly:
Not explicitly, but I did mention that the change removed the gender-specific language that was present originally. No response from NWO sadly.
huh… That would of course be directed at Holly… dang brain fingers.
@Holly Pervocracy
Well all those examples imply force, or coercion which is force, or threat of force which is force. No force is neccesary. Let’s be 100% clear. No force at all.
@NWO:
Alright, new question, since you seem to not want to answer the other one. In your mind, does non-consent equal force? If so, then why are you so uptight over a change in semantics (from force to non-consent)? If not, then what the hell have you been blathering about for the past number of posts?