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.
@NWO:
The best part is that the quote from my comment was really just a word-for-word quote from the FBI definition you linked to. Meaning that ultimately I was linking to your own source. Meaning that you didn’t read your own damn source. Meaning that all of this is just a wayst… WAIST… goshdurnit WASTE of time.
Yes. Is this difficult?
NWO seems to believe that if a woman goes to the cops and say “please arrest this man, I just want you to, that’s all” they’ll do it without asking questions, and there will be no trial. Everything else he argues is just an elaboration on that core belief.
Since he persists to hold that belief in flagrant disregard of reality, it’s not really helpful to get into the minor details surrounding it.
“Yeah, this whole ‘opt out’ thing we have going in the legal system for sex is… wrong, wrong, wrong. Women don’t walk around in a state of consent, yet under most laws, you actually have to explicitly say no or otherwise show you don’t consent to sex. Why not assume that no one wants to have sex unless they say yes? That seems to make more legal and ethical sense.”
Watch it, kathleenb! You might start making it seem like there’s a rape culture or something!!!
kirbywarp: I sometimes think I can hear my brain cells screaming as they jump out of my ears, desperate to escape the swirling vortex of stupid and bad reading comprehension NWO creates. But I’m probably imagining it. Right?
Shaenon! Can we have “genderqueer people are called zies, have multiple sets of genitalia and worship moon lesbians” in the Book of Learning?
HOW YOU CAN HAVE SEX WITHOUT FORCE OR CONSENT
BY OZY AGE NINETEEN AND 103/104
–A man doesn’t want sex. His boss threatens to fire him if he doesn’t have sex with her.
–A man is developmentally disabled and not able to consent to sex. A man has sex with him anyway.
–A woman is passed out. A man has sex with her anyway.
–A woman doesn’t want sex. Her abusive girlfriend screams insults at her until she agrees just to get it over with.
–A man is six years old and not able to consent to sex. His teacher has sex with him.
–A woman believes her rapist will murder her if she doesn’t stop fighting back, so the rapist doesn’t have to use force.
Oh, noez! We can’t have that!
@Bee
Fine schpeil there, except the word “consent” is not listed in the FBI definition. Consent now has nothing to do with rape. Removal of the word force means even sex that is consented to can be considered rape on the say-so of a woman. Oddly enough all women really aren;t paragons of virtue.
Say 1/10th of 1% of women are screwed up enough, vengeful enough, or just need some sort of excuse to take advantage of this new definition. In a nation of 190 million women that means in a year as many as 190,000 men could possibly be falsely accused, lose their jobs, be ostracized by society, some beat up or killed by white knights, and so on. Every year. I know they’re only men but what the hell? Toss in a little preponderance of evidence and we got us one serious problem.
““penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the CONSENT of the victim.”
““penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the CONSENT of the victim.”
““penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the CONSENT of the victim.”
““penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the CONSENT of the victim.”
NWO, I know somebody that was falsely accused of rape. Really. Truly. Hand to god, it’s like the MRA dream of a false rape accusation. I know he didn’t do it. And not just because “he was a nice guy,” but because I WAS THERE when he was supposedly raping his ex, who was an unstable, vindictive woman. So here’s what happened. He got called in for questioning. Not arrested, not charged, just questioned. We all made our statements to the police. No charges were filed (I actually don’t know whether or not she got charged with filing a false report).
But that’s what happened. No RUINED LIFE AND REPUTATION. No feminist legal system crushing him under their heels. It’s terrible what happened to him, but it’s not common. And actually, this may be crazy, but I think if MRA’s and others didn’t spread the trope that it’s so easy for an unstable, vindictive woman to cry rape and get a guy hurt, unstable woman wouldn’t think that crying rape was an effective tactic and easy way to get the guy hurt.
“some beat up or killed by white knights”
I couldn’t help it, I laughed. Brandon is a white knight!
Wow.
NWOSlave, this is ridiculous. Your statements have no basis. You should go get yourself screened for paranoid personality disorder/paranoid schizophrenia.
@NWO:
“Fine schpeil there, except the word “consent” is not listed in the FBI definition.”
Yes it is. Stop being dumb, please please please stop being dumb.
“he new definition, which will more closely match the ones that police departments around the country already use, will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
Rape will now include sex attacks by relatives, and include non-traditional penetration.
According to the FBI’s website, the proposed new definition is “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the (PAY ATTENTION BECAUSE HERE COMES THE WORD) consent (THERE IT WAS DID YOU MISS IT?!?)of the victim.””
@Holly: Coercion is a pretty big net and may include things like a woman having sex because her husband begged for it. While gut wrenching (husband is a big wimp), I wouldn’t classify it as rape.
Whenever laws get put into place, advocates of the law always say it is needed for a very specific thing. Take sexual harassment laws. They were put into place to keep men from groping and other lewd behavior (e.g Business meetings at strip clubs ). But now we live in a world where shit like this happens:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-boy-suspended-sexual-harassment-calling-teaching-cute-054548755.html
Pretty damn stupid.
The word coercion is just too vague and subjective to define into law. Now if you want to have the “Anti-Husband Begging For Some” Act. Then I can get behind you on that one.
Oh god, it’s like talking to a jello mold.
No, drooler. The word “consent” is in the FBI definition.
The defense would have to explain to a judge how it is relevant to the case at bar.
If the defense is just doing it because “come on, we all know sluts consent by being sluts” the relevance is not there.
If the defense is saying “but your honor, zie once consented to sex” the relevance is not there.
If the defense is saying “your honor, the alleged victim in this case was a prostitute” the relevance is not there.
If the defense is saying “your honor, the details of the sex life of the alleged victim are super titillating” the relevance is definitely not there.
In fact, I cannot see where the sex life of the victim is ever relevant but I am sure somewhere, somehow there is someone who can figure out how it is relevant.
So Brandon said:
which leads me to believe that he doesn’t, himself, think coerced sex is rape. Whereas NWO said, in response to the same comment of Holly’s mentioning coerced sex:
which leads me to think NWO actually does consider coerced sex rape. So, in this particular instance, is Brandon actually being more of a rape apologist than NWO? Dude, reevaluate.
White Knights, yo!
NWO, you dumbfuck, the word consent is in the new definition of rape on the fbi website: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/advisory-policy-board
This definition was passed by the advisory board and will be implemented in 2012. Nowhere in any statute on criminal rape are the words ‘preponderance of evidence’ used. Everyone and their fucking godmother has told you where those words come from and what they’re really used for, it’s hardly their fault that you only see and hear what you want to.
@Holly Pervocracy
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
————
By FBI definition. Is any force neccesary for a rape?
Oh jesus fucking god, we just need DKM here and the entire internet will collapse into a black hole of asshattery and stupidity.
@Holly Pervocracy
I want a yes or no answer.
@NWO:
By the FBI definition, force is not necessary. Consent is necessary. I defy you to come up with an example where consent is given, but it should be considered rape. And I defy you to come up with an instance where consent is definitely not given, but the act is not rape.
It is his method of getting out of a “false” rape accusation. That and unconsented to videotaping of the sex act.
NWOslave thinks consent doesn’t matter in sex! FORCE IS ALL! It doesn’t matter if you’ve been raped by someone multiple times and no longer have it in you to resist!
Ha ha, I like how you had to assert your SUPER MANLINESS SUPERIORITY while still supporting the rights of lesser men to commit rape.
But no, I don’t think begging is necessarily rape (although it is a recipe for super shitty unenthusiastic sex that will be worse than jerking off). But badgering is. Saying “please let me fuck you” isn’t rape; saying “let me fuck you or you don’t know what I might do,” is.
How about saying “if you don’t let me fuck you you’re a stupid bitch and I’ll hate you and tell all your friends what a bitch you are?” I’d say that’s rape. But yeah, you do have to exercise subjective judgement and respect for stupid girly feelings to understand that. Sorry I can’t draw a hard line, but I don’t like the idea of a hard line that makes the thing I quoted above okay.
That’s nothing to do with law. That’s just internal discipline at a school. An overreacting vice principal is not a law enforcement officer.