Categories
crackpottery evil women facepalm imaginary backwards land it's science! misogyny rape

GOP congressman and Senate nominee Todd Akin: Rape is an effective form of birth control

Not a doctor, but plays one on TV.

Our completely incorrect biology lesson today comes not from Chateau Heartiste or The Spearhead or EvoPsychBullshitBeliever997 on Reddit but from an actual elected official with influence in the real world:  Republican Congressman Todd Akin of Missouri, currently his party’s nominee for Senate.

In a recent interview with KTVI-TV, the Fox affiliate in St. Louis, he explained that the ladies just don’t get pregnant from rape — well, “legitimate rape” anyway. As he put it:

From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

As The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake notes, this whole “rape as birth control” thing is not actually, you know, true:

Akin’s claim is one that pops up occasionally in social conservative circles. A federal judge nominated by President Bush in the early 2000s had said similar things, as have state lawmakers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. …

According to a 1996 study, approximately 32,000 pregnancies result from rape annually in the United States, and about 5 percent of rape victims are impregnated.

Talking Points Memo notes that this isn’t the first time Akin has suggested that

some types of rape are more worthy of protections than others. As a state legislator, Akin voted in 1991 for an anti-marital-rape law, but only after questioning whether it might be misused “in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband,” according to … the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Akin: making up shit to deny rape victims their rights since 1991!

Currently, Akin has a big lead in the polls over his Democratic rival, sitting Sen. Claire McCaskill.

Here’s the relevant portion of Akin’s interview; you can find the whole thing at the Talking Points Memo link above.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

242 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Snowy
Snowy
8 years ago

Eww

katz
8 years ago

FiveThirtyEight predicts a 10+ point drop for Akin because of his comments 😀

(NYT, so it’ll use up one of your free articles for the month)

amandajane5
amandajane5
8 years ago

Just had to add in a story re: door-to-door canvassing. A couple of years back I got a knock on the door by someone canvassing, wanting to know if she could put up a sign for a specific candidate in my front yard. I’m a registered Democrat, and lived on a pretty heavily traveled street at the time. When I said that yes, I’d probably end up voting for the guy in question, but I didn’t really consider myself a supporter because of his stance on abortion. She then brightly told me, “Yes! He’s pro-life!” “Yes, I answered, that’s the problem.”

Kudos to y’all doing the hard work, I hope it’ll end up being successful!

drst
drst
8 years ago

katz – here’s hoping.

indifferentsky
8 years ago

@ Moose

wow, et tu Helen Freaking Mirren? Didn’t see that one coming. Wow.
I mean wow. What a stab. Ouch.

sunshinemary
8 years ago

Congressman Akin voted for the anti-marital “rape” law. I would assume that most of you favor such laws, although in my opinion the idea of marital “rape” is ludicrous, so why do you have such a big issue with him? Is it because he is not pro-abortion?

Snowy
Snowy
8 years ago

Oh look, sunshinepassiveaggressive is back. Goody!

ithiliana
ithiliana
8 years ago

MaryTroll: Read the OP more carefully: it includes this quote:

some types of rape are more worthy of protections than others. As a state legislator, Akin voted in 1991 for an anti-marital-rape law, but only after questioning whether it might be misused “in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband,” according to … the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

We know he voted for it, but did the same kind of messy doubting that you pulled with the use of quotations in rape.

Your opinion is hateful shit: a woman has the right to say NO to sex with anybody, married to him or not.

He is spouting junk science (i.e. what he said is FUCKING FAKE AND FAKING FUCKED UP), he wants to deny women CHOICE of health care and medical decisions that are their right to make: he is ANTI CHOICE.

And I’m sure you are as well, Ms. Sunny Troll.

sunshinemary
8 years ago

I read the Helen Mirren article. She is entirely correct on this issue. Apparently women no longer believe they need to have any common sense whatsoever; in fact, it often seems like they don’t even have to actually say no because the onus is on the man to obtain explicit consent at every step. That is incredibly silly. How does a man even know when he has obtained consent? What if she says yes and then later claims she said no? You do realize that any of you who are men could have such a thing happen to you, right? Just because you think of yourselves as feminists will not protect you from out-of-control “rape” laws.

cloudiah
8 years ago

Ah, so once a woman marries a man her body belongs to him. Ergo, rape — that’s unpossible!

See item #7:

cloudiah
8 years ago

Consent: it’s SO difficult to discern. It’s better to just let men make that judgment call, because women are flighty and don’t know our own minds, you know.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Do fuck off, Sunshine.

Snowy
Snowy
8 years ago

You do realize that any of you who are men could have such a thing happen to you, right?

Actually no, I don’t think that will happen because I don’t go around raping people. It’s not actually that hard to avoid. You must have a very poor opinion of men that you think we all go around doing this.

sunshinemary
8 years ago

@cloudiah
In fact, each spouse’s body belongs to the other in a Christian marriage per 1 Corinthians 7:4-5

The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.

Neither spouse has the right to refuse sexual relations unless the other agrees to abstain, too. For Christians, there can be no such thing as marital rape.

I guess non-Christians can handle their relations however they want, but it makes no sense to have a marriage in which the partners cannot reasonably expect sexual expression to occur. That reduces them from husband and wife to room-mates.

Noadi
Noadi
8 years ago

I have to wonder about the people someone like sunshinemary surrounds themselves with that they think people routinely have people charged with crimes they didn’t commit. I mean, do you never ask to borrow anything out of fear that you’ll be charged with theft?

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Oh, Smugly Disingenuous is back. Look, Mary, if you want to declare your body to be the property of your husband that he can do with as he wishes, that’s your call, but that doesn’t mean that other women are obliged to make the same decision.

ithiliana
ithiliana
8 years ago

And, yeah, putting rape in quotation marks is right up there with other signals of assholery in language.

sunshinemary
8 years ago

@ Snowy,
But you cannot prove that you did not rape her if she says you did. In prior times, reasonable people would look at the whole situation to determine whether how likely it was that consent was obtained. Now the standard is “if she says it was rape, then it was rape.”

Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

What if she says yes and then later claims she said no?

The possibility that someone might lie about a crime happening is a pretty fucking stupid reason to make said crime legal.

cloudiah
8 years ago

@PassiveAggressiveSunshine, And exactly why do you think you get to impose your brand of christianity on people who don’t practice it?

Noadi
Noadi
8 years ago

sunshinemary: It’s okay to expect to have a sexual relationship with your spouse, but that’s different than thinking it’s okay to force your spouse to have sex when they don’t want to. Do you think that forcing your spouse to do things against their will is a healthy relationship? Something a loving spouse would do? In my opinion treating your spouse with that level of disrespect and disregard for their wishes and emotional health is not what a good spouse does, it’s something an abusive asshole who has no business being married does.

Snowy
Snowy
8 years ago

@ Snowy,
But you cannot prove that you did not rape her if she says you did. In prior times, reasonable people would look at the whole situation to determine whether how likely it was that consent was obtained. Now the standard is “if she says it was rape, then it was rape.”

Yeah no, this is not actually true. Maybe that’s how it works in imaginationland but not here. I am not worried. But thanks for sharing, acid trips are fun!

drst
drst
8 years ago

Now the standard is “if she says it was rape, then it was rape.”

Jesus wept, if only that were really true.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Mary – you’re aware that this is not a fundamentalist Christian blog, yes? If so, and if you admit that people who do not practise your faith have the right to arrange our own affairs to suit us rather than following what you think your faith demands, then why do you keep coming here and making general declarative statements that ignore the fact that the majority of the people here do not believe in your brand of Christianity? By your own admission your faith-based beliefs are irrelevant to us.

drst
drst
8 years ago

How does a man even know when he has obtained consent?

…ask?

(Also, CC: everyone else. Consent is something we all need to ask for!)

Myoo
Myoo
8 years ago

@sunshinemary

What if she says yes and then later claims she said no?

What if someone gives you a Christmas present and then tells the police you stole it?

What if someone offers to help you clean the church and then claims that you forced them?

What if one of your neighbours asks you to go to their house to pick up something they forgot and bring it to them and them they say you were trespassing?

All of these scenarios are, while technically possible, incredibly unlikely, and I’m guessing you don’t lose too much sleep over them. But a woman saying yes and then claiming she said no? Totally plausible because women are all liars, right?

Go polish your graven idols.

sunshinemary
8 years ago

Snowy, the Community of the Wrongly Accused documents false rape charges. It’s not as uncommon as you might think.
http://www.cotwa.info/

tasblacksmith
tasblacksmith
8 years ago

Being relatively new here I was not familiar with sunshinemary, so I followed her name to her blog.
Self hate the christian way.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

I really wish she wouldn’t use the word Christian to mean her specific brand of Christian only. My grandmother is very Christian (Episcopalian), and she would be horrified to be associated with most of the stuff Mary says.

sunshinemary
8 years ago

I don’t think it’s hateful to say that our narrative around rape has exceeded rational bounds. I have seen a definition of sexual assault (written by a pastor no less) that said even saying sexual things to someone online can be considered sexual assault.

sunshinemary
8 years ago

@ Snowy,
I tried to post a link to the Community of the Wrongly Accused, but was prevented from doing so. False rape accusations have very serious consequences.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

You still haven’t answered the question I posed at 10:16, Mary. You should really do so.

cloudiah
8 years ago

@CassandraSays, My mother (lutheran, and then presbyterian) too would be horrified and appalled.

clairedammit
clairedammit
8 years ago

I don’t think it’s hateful to say that our narrative around rape has exceeded rational bounds. I have seen a definition of sexual assault (written by a pastor no less) that said even saying sexual things to someone online can be considered sexual assault.

Link please?

Myoo
Myoo
8 years ago

@sunshinemary

I guess non-Christians can handle their relations however they want, but it makes no sense to have a marriage in which the partners cannot reasonably expect sexual expression to occur. That reduces them from husband and wife to room-mates.

It’s just one nugget of wrong after another with you, isn’t it? So if one of the partners is travelling, or becomes physically unable to have sex due to an illness or stress, or they just don’t feel like it at the time, then that nullifies the marriage?
I though marriage was supposed to be this sacred bond between two people that was decreed by God, but a lack of sex and it all comes tumbling down, huh? Doesn’t seem like it’s all that it’s cracked up to be, if that’s the case.

WordSpinner
WordSpinner
8 years ago

I wonder if Sunshinemary can’t tell the difference between sexual assault and sexual harassment (though there is a continuum)–since saying sexual things over the internet could definitely be sexual harassment.

Snowy
Snowy
8 years ago

@ Snowy,
I tried to post a link to the Community of the Wrongly Accused, but was prevented from doing so. False rape accusations have very serious consequences.

Maybe it was god who prevented you, if so I thank him.

Myoo
Myoo
8 years ago

I have seen a definition of sexual assault (written by a pastor no less) that said even saying sexual things to someone online can be considered sexual assault.

I don’t think it’s sexual assault exactly, but it certainly can be considered sexual harassment. Are you saying it’s okay for people to just blurt out sexual things to strangers uninvited, whether it be on-line or off-line?

Myoo
Myoo
8 years ago

Dang, ninja’d.

cloudiah
8 years ago

I guess non-Christians can handle their relations however they want,

and all christians must handle their relations the way my tiny sect says they should.

sunshinemary
8 years ago

@ Claire:

Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, in his sermon entitled Disgrace and Grace, said that rape is “Any type of sexual behavior or contact where consent is not freely given or obtained and is accomplished through force, intimidation, violence, coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, or abuse of authority…And it manifests itself in three ways: “The ‘acts’ can be physical, verbal, or psychological.” In the age of bullying and the Internet, in the age of certain inappropriate speech and conduct, it just, it can be physical contact that connotes sexual assault, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. It also can be verbal and/or psychological.”

clairedammit
clairedammit
8 years ago

I found the passage and you’re misquoting.That is their definition of “sexual assault,” which is a broader term than rape. All rape is sexual assault, but not all sexual assault is rape. And yes, that sounds like a valid definition of sexual assault to me.

cloudiah
8 years ago

So you admit that not all Christians share your views. Well, that’s a first step.

Pam
Pam
8 years ago

I really wish she wouldn’t use the word Christian to mean her specific brand of Christian only.

Ditto!!

My grandmother is very Christian (Episcopalian), and she would be horrified to be associated with most of the stuff Mary says.

I am a Christian (non-denominational), and I find the stuff that Mary spews quite appalling. All it is to me is utter bullshit fashioned into a bulwark for the “righteousness” of male supremacy.

Pam
Pam
8 years ago

@cloudiah
In fact, each spouse’s body belongs to the other in a Christian marriage per 1 Corinthians 7:4-5

“The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.”

Neither spouse has the right to refuse sexual relations unless the other agrees to abstain, too. For Christians, there can be no such thing as marital rape.

self-righteousmary, you left out a portion of 1 Corinthians 7:5 and all of 1 Corinthians 7:6

“Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command.”
(bold emphasis added by me)

Paul was NOT saying in that passage that neither spouse has the right to refuse sexual relations unless the other agrees to abstain, too, and he was NOT concerned with denying such a thing as marital rape in that passage. He was concerned with the amount of immorality that was taking place in Corinth, and was urging (remember, he stated that he said this as a concession, not as a command) spouses not to deny each other sexual relations, except by mutual consent, lest they be tempted to fornicate due to the withholding of sexual relations.

1 Corinthians 7:1-3

“Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.”

And before you respond with some inanity about why Paul said that it is good for a man not marry, it was because Paul thought it better to devote one’s attention and focus to God and not have one’s attention divided between spouse and God.

Pam
Pam
8 years ago

Aaaaaaaaaaand blockquote fail. The embedded blockquote is my response

drst
drst
8 years ago

Yeah that sounds like an excellent definition of sexual assault and harassment to me. You’d have to be willfully misreading to think that definition in that context was only of rape.

Oh wait.

Pam
Pam
8 years ago

self-righteousmary willfully misreading something? Say it ain’t so!!