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.
States are gonna have their own rape statutes. Mine actually defines rape and sexual assault in a way that precludes coercion to be an element, so a DA would have to argue that coercion is force, and the judge and jury would have to buy that. Typically, though, the law doesn’t just make shit up. There are canons of construction, analogies between (frex) contract law, and case law (possibly even statutory definitions) that could be used to determine whether coercion in one situation is an element of rape.
Your fear that a judge is going to hear that a man “begged for some” and throw him in jail seems a bit overdramatic, Brandon.
God, I can’t fucking wait for NWO’s fantasy world to become real.
/taps foot
Hey, yeah! No gendered language in the new definition (although, as has been pointed out, not adequate protection for men). Couldn’t men just start falsely accusing women of penetrating them left, right and centre and getting the women sent to prison, NWO? Because that’s how it works?
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
” Actually I think there is more to the story then “I just said she was cute” because I know little boys that age and that is not what they actually say. A VP will not suspend someone for saying “I think she is cute.”
Ohhh, a sweeping statement. Are all boys like that? I bit de-humanizing. Don’t you see boys as human?
NWO – So how will whether or not she was raped be determined?
Also, Right now I am listening to the audiobook version of Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century by Thomas E. Woods Jr., while you are probably doing absolutely nothing to multitask and fight off the effects of the low-level persistent illuminati liberal federal new world order broadcast signal.
NWO: For the fiftieth fucking time, I am not a princess. I have no desire to be one, because that means I’d have to be queen and deal with politics and awards and be all nice to everyone and wear a heavy ass coronet for hours at a time. No thanks, there are people who like being sovereigns. Since I’m not and never have been one in any sense of the word, please stop calling me a princess. Kathleen, or B, or KathleenB are all good. Even KB, since we abbreviate your full name.
NWO, how would you define rape, and what evidence would you accept?
While deciding this, please contemplate a scenario in which a man holds a gun to your head and tells you to suck his dick. (No, you can’t just say “I’d die!”, tough guy. Some people wouldn’t and I think that’s a reasonable decision.) He leaves and you have no marks on you, no DNA is successfully recovered at the hospital, and there’s no tangible record that you even met this man.
What definition of rape would still allow you to prosecute him?
Little boys being rotten little stinkers? How is that dehumanizing? They are. So are little girls.
@Viscaria
“Couldn’t men just start falsely accusing women of penetrating them left, right and centre and getting the women sent to prison, NWO? Because that’s how it works?”
So far men falsely accusing women of anything doesn’t seem to be a problem. The reverse however is epidemic and endemic.
@Holly: But even in those scenarios you brought up, you are still allowed to make a choice.
Let’s take the worst one:
“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?”
Do you really care if he thinks you are a stupid bitch and that he hates you? It would only be coercive or manipulative if you actually gave a shit about him or his opinion of you.
Telling friends that you are a bitch is the only one that is even remotely damaging. And even here, you can just say “He told me he would say that if I didn’t sleep with him” Thus making him look like a dickhead.
And honestly, hasn’t every women been called a bitch? Just like every man has probably been called a wimp/loser or pussy.
Do I think that him asking you (well, telling you) that is appropriate? No. Do I think he has the right to do it? No. Do I think we should label him a rapist? No. A shithead? Yes. A manipulator? Yes. A loser? Yes.
In regards to the link. It wasn’t about law vs school faculty. I was pointing out that it is stupid that this is even an issue. The very fact that this is “news” or a “school case” is absurd.
And the conversation would go:
“I was raped!”
“Did you consent to sex?”
“No!”
“We’ll look into it.”
Because there’s this whole process that you have to go through before you can just toss someone in jail. There’s an investigation, then charges are brought, then a person might have to wait in jail for their trial if the judge sets bail they can’t meet, then there’s a trial, then sentencing, then appeals… I can’t just walk into the police station and have someone tossed into supermax forever and ever. It doesn’t work like that, and if you think it does, you’re dumber than i could have EVER imagined.
“And how should consent be determined? Evidence!”
Voilent sex of course. Ya know, an actual rape.
So, to be clear, NWO, you consider the following acts NOT to be rape, then?
– Having sex with a toddler
– Having sex with an unconscious person
– Drugging someone, then having sex with them when they are physically incapable of fighting back
– Having sex with someone who is crying and saying, “No, please stop, please, you’re hurting me.”
Is it indeed your position that the above acts are not rape and should be legal?
NWO, if you think women are falsely claiming rape, then changing the law to say “only force is rape” won’t help; women can just falsely claim force. So why harp on the law? Changing it wouldn’t help your supposed problem.
Unless you mean “only something that leaves marks is rape,” but in that case, that gun-to-head scenario I outlined above is 100% legal.
NWO – Did you see where I said I’d been an alibi in a false rape accusation incident? Scroll above. It happens. But it’s on you to prove that it’s epidemic.
Now you have to tell me what evidence should be needed to prosecute rape.
@Holly Pervocracy
“NWO, how would you define rape, and what evidence would you accept?”
I already gave that answer to one of your fellow zie creatures.
I got real paperwork to do so I gotta run.
Just remember, everyone one of you are raped everytime you have sex with a man. Penetration = rape. No force is neccesary. It’s law!
Didn’t one of your greats say all sex with a man was rape? If she’s alive today, she’d be right!
Cya.
Brandon, if one partner begs for sex, and the other says “sure” but consents, the other partner is probably not going to accuse them of rape. That’s the protection they have there.
Oh dear god NWO I didn’t realize you could get THAT STUPID.
Btw, I’m not joking when I say they took the old definition from the old testament. The “knowledge” bit, it is used back from the beginning “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived”. And the “forcible” NWO care so much about, it sounds a lot like Deuteronomy’s laws on rape which says that the female victim is guilty if she didn’t defended herself enough.
“you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife.”
Thanks zinkxy. So, once again, a MRA could have a valid point in criticizing the sexism of this definition (No PIV rape with a male victim). But instead, he decides to go screaming “EVERY SEX IS RAPE NOW!!!!one!!11!!”
…
NWO, are you high again?
Rape doesn’t mean “sex that the victim possibly could have avoided.” It means “sex that the victim didn’t want.”
Also, last I checked giving a shit about others (i.e., being a fucking human, prone to forming attachments to other humans) wasn’t consent to sex. It may be a sign of being weaker than Super Strong Brandon, but it’s not consent to sex.
And… NWO has no answer so he gets nasty sarcastic and runs away.
What a little coward. The man has absolutely no courage at all, no desire to defend his convictions, no ability to even talk about his beliefs.
This is why I don’t worry so much about a Gender War.
NWO: Officially the thickest thickety-thick face person ever to fall off the thick truck from Thickville, Thickania.
I know Alas a Blog said otherwise, but I would actually argue that the new definition is nonspecific enough that it does include male victims of PIV rape. It says that there must be penetration, but it doesn’t say whether the penetration is by the victim or by the assailant. I’d want to look into the history behind the change, I guess, but it seems from what I’ve read that these changes were made in part as a response to criticisms that the old definition didn’t include male victims.
I think the definition is only used in collecting data from local law officials, so maybe we’ll keep an eye on it and see if male rapes reported in FBI data increase.
I already gave that answer to one of your fellow zie creatures.
head desk.
Okay, I admit it, I actually giggled at that cause I thought of sea creatures and thought of this
@Brandon
“Do you really care if he thinks you are a stupid bitch and that he hates you? It would only be coercive or manipulative if you actually gave a shit about him or his opinion of you.”
My friend was blackmailed into having sex (the guy had a sex tape of her). Its not the same thing as saying “you need to have sex with me or I’ll tell everyone what a bitch you are”, but its still blackmail. Its coercive.
Would you not consider that rape?