• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Evil emoticon   04/16/2016

      We now have a devil emoticon. Type colon, evil, colon, all together, then space. See an example by opening this message. Here's the example  .
9thdoctor

Peikoff on date rape

180 posts in this topic

Today LP is answering a question about sex by false pretenses, then he quickly moves into one of his more amazing recent statements. “A woman can give her consent by her presence in certain contexts, and that frees the man to have sex regardless of what she then says”. He cites the Kobe Bryant case as an illustration. Wowza.

http://www.peikoff.c...valent-of-rape/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today LP is answering a question about sex by false pretenses, then he quickly moves into one of his more amazing recent statements. “A woman can give her consent by her presence in certain contexts, and that frees the man to have sex regardless of what she then says”. He cites the Kobe Bryant case as an illustration. Wowza.

http://www.peikoff.c...valent-of-rape/

As in: "She asked for it"

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today LP is answering a question about sex by false pretenses, then he quickly moves into one of his more amazing recent statements. “A woman can give her consent by her presence in certain contexts, and that frees the man to have sex regardless of what she then says”. He cites the Kobe Bryant case as an illustration. Wowza.

http://www.peikoff.c...valent-of-rape/

A legal crime? As opposed to an illegal crime? Can't an intervention be done by his daughter?

So, let me get this straight, the man has absolutely no responsibility, nor control over his actions. The woman shows up, she is intoxicated and therefore the Objectivist rational man" just has to fuck her. Really?

Maybe he can next come out with a justification for slavery because the Africans gave indications that they wanted masters!

Incredible.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he can next come out with a justification for slavery because the Africans gave indications that they wanted masters!

Incredible.

Adam

And the Indians didn't really want to keep their land. If they did they would have developed a set of laws governing property rights.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That slippery phrase “in certain contexts” sure provides a convenient out. If the example he used was of a couple that likes to act out rape fantasies, and they’ve done it before, then I agree with him 100%. So don’t forget to specify a “safe word”, you pervs!

But for a first time sex encounter? I don’t know how to explain this without getting graphic, so let’s just say: what if the parts don’t fit together? Too bad honey! The ER’s down the road, don’t worry they’ll patch you up, now shut up and stop that screaming. The fact that he uses the Kobe case, and note the details he ascribes to it, I mean this is nutty.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today LP is answering a question about sex by false pretenses, then he quickly moves into one of his more amazing recent statements. “A woman can give her consent by her presence in certain contexts, and that frees the man to have sex regardless of what she then says”. He cites the Kobe Bryant case as an illustration. Wowza.

http://www.peikoff.c...valent-of-rape/

I listened to the podcast, hoping that Peikoff's remarks were not quite as bad as you indicated. They are actually worse. Here is a more complete transcription. Note the point about it being "too late" for a woman to change her mind:

A woman can give her consent by her presence, in certain contexts, and that frees the man to have sex regardless of what she then says. I'm thinking of that case of Kobe Bryant, where the woman came up sometime in the middle of the night, after some drinking, to his bedroom, and then when he purported to do something, she said, "No, I don't consent." You cannot do that. You have given every evidence that that is what you are going to do, and it's too late at that point to say, "Sorry but no."

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That slippery phrase “in certain contexts” sure provides a convenient out. If the example he used was of a couple that likes to act out rape fantasies, and they’ve done it before, then I agree with him 100%. So don’t forget to specify a “safe word”, you pervs!

But for a first time sex encounter? I don’t know how to explain this without getting graphic, so let’s just say: what if the parts don’t fit together? Too bad honey! The ER’s down the road, don’t worry they’ll patch you up, now shut up and stop that screaming. The fact that he uses the Kobe case, and note the details he ascribes to it, I mean this is nutty.

To make matters worse, Peikoff isn't even talking about a woman changing her mind after the actual sex act has begun. He speaks only of a woman going into a man's bedroom late at night, after some drinks, and of the man doing "something" (presumably making moves on her). At that point, according to Peikoff, it is "too late" for the woman to say "No, I don't consent." The fact that the woman is in the man's bedroom at a certain hour, and after some drinks, is the "context" by which she indicated her willingness to have sex, and she cannot change her mind later on, even via an explicit refusal to consent.

This is the most deplorable thing I have ever heard Peikoff say. If his podcast doesn't raise a hue and cry from his female listeners, then they have truly become the moral equivalent of Stepford Wives.

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today LP is answering a question about sex by false pretenses, then he quickly moves into one of his more amazing recent statements. “A woman can give her consent by her presence in certain contexts, and that frees the man to have sex regardless of what she then says”. He cites the Kobe Bryant case as an illustration. Wowza.

http://www.peikoff.c...valent-of-rape/

I listened to the podcast, hoping that Peikoff's remarks were not quite as bad as you indicated. They are actually worse. Here is a more complete transcription. Note the point about it being "too late" for a woman to change her mind:

A woman can give her consent by her presence, in certain contexts, and that frees the man to have sex regardless of what she then says. I'm thinking of that case of Kobe Bryant, where the woman came up sometime in the middle of the night, after some drinking, to his bedroom, and then when he purported to do something, she said, "No, I don't consent." You cannot do that. You have given every evidence that that is what you are going to do, and it's too late at that point to say, "Sorry but no."

Ghs

After he dies are they going to start a "Leonard Peikoff Institute"?

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should record his statement before he takes it down. He doesn't know what happened with Kobe and that woman, even. Two people know. LP wasn't there. He even implies it's not rape if it can't be legally demonstrated--adjudicated.

--Brant

could he have been drinking?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should record his statement before he takes it down.

It's easy enough to download it. See the "Download" button?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should record his statement before he takes it down.

It's easy enough to download it. See the "Download" button?

I'm afraid of viruses. Let me update my protection. The presence of his statement on my computer might mean I've given permission for him to fuck it.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That slippery phrase “in certain contexts” sure provides a convenient out.

ND,

When Objectivists sometimes use 'context' as an open-ended justification, divorced from principle, or in this case, simple awareness, I get very twitchy.

Please LP, stay away from the concrete applications - you're giving us a bad name.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ghs wrote:

This is the most deplorable thing I have ever heard Peikoff say.

end quote

Interesting. Telling a woman you love her when you don’t, just to obtain a piece, is morally wrong, but understandable? It is minimally fraud, but not legally rape. The fraud could not be objectively proven so the case should be thrown out of court.

The other scenario where Peikoff postulates what if a woman goes up to someone’s room at three in the morning with the stated or reasonable assumption that they are going to have sex, then she has ALREADY CONSENTED to having sex, is more of a problem to my thinking. I agree with George.

What if she sobers up and doesn’t like you? What if she sees something in your room that scares her? What if the room looks ransacked? What if it is painful to her once you penetrate? I think a human being should legally and morally be able to say NO at any time. The man can sue her for breach of contract.

The moral principle is the same for men and women. Between the lines, Leonard is saying a man is “driven” to sex and he must not be denied. That is very Nietzschean and not Randian.

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the guy sobers up and decides he's not interested? Is he obligated to put out anyway, given the context of their mutual understandings?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Reidy wrote:

What if the guy sobers up and decides he's not interested? Is he obligated to put out anyway, given the context of their mutual understandings?

end quote

Is a kiss as binding as a handshake to an Objectivist?

To put the situation into a male parallel is a perfect way to illustrate the immoral position of Leonard. What if Leonard was tipsy and in an immoral position, but sobered up and realized, “I cannot do this.” Does the fact that his thinking was impaired when he gave consent make the implied contract void?

Or is the very fact that he changed his mind and said, NO,” sufficient to void the implied contract? What if Leonard were on the receiving end of penetration, would he change his mind? The most sordid but readily available example might be a man put in jail. His cell partner, Bubba says, “I will protect you, Little Man. But you must do something for Bubba.” But Little Man upon seeing Bubba in the nude, says, “I will kill you, if you try and put that in me!” According to Peikoff, a deal is a deal.

Does a marriage contract give one partner the right to sex? This question has me stumped. So, I will say yes, but under certain circumstances, no. I invoke the special privelges rule.

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think LP should focus on some realistic scenarios for financing government in a free society. No references to lotteries, please.

Then, and only then, I would suggest that he move on to the important subject of what to do when a drunken hottie shows up at your hotel door at 3:00 a.m., only to be spooked by the presence of domesticated farm animals, that regrettable tatoo from a weekend on liberty in Quantico in 1983, and/or the bright pink poka dots on your bathrobe.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all pretty much agree... I do want to point out that the word "date" never applies to arson or larceny. A crime is a crime. "Yes, my grandfather carried this Zippo at Normandy... Woops! Burned your house down!" See, it doesn't work that way.

How would Dr. Peikoff's theory of "too late" apply in business. In the remake of The Thomas Crowne Affair, they are all sitting around waiting for him to sign the contract. It seems like that was the very purpose of the meeting. They were not chasing him down the street waving papers. Can he change his mind? One can only hope... Tourists to non-literate cultures are warned to guard their statements. "I'll come back later" is taken literally. Again, Dr. Peikoff's theory applied to Walmart would be fascinating. You could never put anything back on the shelf before you got to the check-out ... and forget about returns: won't

happen.

Perhaps he thinks that he is so smart that he can talk off the top of his head, but this is just one example of several. He should write this stuff down and sleep on it. On the other hand, these spontaneous errors do show us his philosophy unfiltered and unedited.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Peikoff is preemptively defending against attacks on Rand's rape by engraved invitation in The Fountainhead.

Roark did it, so it has to be morally correct, Even for drunk basketball players if the lady's tease seems vaguely similar.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Peikoff is preemptively defending against attacks on Rand's rape by engraved invitation in The Fountainhead.

Roark did it, so it has to be morally correct, Even for drunk basketball players if the lady's tease seems vaguely similar.

Michael

MSK: once again, your essentially benevolent outlook is getting the best of you. Put another way, you are giving LP way too much credit, I am afraid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That slippery phrase “in certain contexts” sure provides a convenient out. If the example he used was of a couple that likes to act out rape fantasies, and they’ve done it before, then I agree with him 100%. So don’t forget to specify a “safe word”, you pervs!

But for a first time sex encounter? I don’t know how to explain this without getting graphic, so let’s just say: what if the parts don’t fit together? Too bad honey! The ER’s down the road, don’t worry they’ll patch you up, now shut up and stop that screaming. The fact that he uses the Kobe case, and note the details he ascribes to it, I mean this is nutty.

To make matters worse, Peikoff isn't even talking about a woman changing her mind after the actual sex act has begun. He speaks only of a woman going into a man's bedroom late at night, after some drinks, and of the man doing "something" (presumably making moves on her). At that point, according to Peikoff, it is "too late" for the woman to say "No, I don't consent." The fact that the woman is in the man's bedroom at a certain hour, and after some drinks, is the "context" by which she indicated her willingness to have sex, and she cannot change her mind later on, even via an explicit refusal to consent.

This is the most deplorable thing I have ever heard Peikoff say. If his podcast doesn't raise a hue and cry from his female listeners, then they have truly become the moral equivalent of Stepford Wives.

Ghs

I just looked at Oonline. So far 18 people have commented. They were all males.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the most deplorable thing I have ever heard Peikoff say. If his podcast doesn't raise a hue and cry from his female listeners, then they have truly become the moral equivalent of Stepford Wives.

Ghs

I just looked at Oonline. So far 18 people have commented. They were all males.

Did they agree or voice disagreement?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PDS wrote to Michael:

Once again, your essentially benevolent outlook is getting the best of you. Put another way, you are giving LP way too much credit, I am afraid.

end quote

I am not so sure. Above all else, Doctor Peikoff is speaking for Ayn Rand. His psychology is molded from her works. He would defend the “rape scene” in “The Fountainhead” and defend the principle that he, Ayn, or Roark, would know what the Dominique’s of the world want, though they protest too much. Rand’s intellectual heir would extrapolate from that conviction, broader laws and rules of conduct.

I do think Leonard’s view was poorly thought through, and may reflect encroaching senility. What can we do about that? He did not impose his view on us. We went to him. But when he insists he is speaking for Objectivism, then we have a legitimate criticism.

Daunce wrote:

I just looked at Oonline. So far 18 people have commented. They were all males.

end quote

Would you paraphrase the general opinion there? I would go look but I was told to piss off and not come back. Sigh. They don’t like me. Why is that?

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the most deplorable thing I have ever heard Peikoff say. If his podcast doesn't raise a hue and cry from his female listeners, then they have truly become the moral equivalent of Stepford Wives.

Ghs

I just looked at Oonline. So far 18 people have commented. They were all males.

Did they agree or voice disagreement?

I just skimmed, but they appear to be as appalled as we are, with a minority trying to justify Dr Demento through tortuous rationalizations. ND would be more up on it, he started the thread, and good on him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should record his statement before he takes it down.

It's easy enough to download it. See the "Download" button?

I'm afraid of viruses. Let me update my protection. The presence of his statement on my computer might mean I've given permission for him to fuck it.

--Brant

Don't pretend you didn't enjoy it, Toshiba BG2000!

-Dell LP1982

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ND would be more up on it, he started the thread, and good on him.

Aw shucks. Actually there's only one person coming out in favor, and here's my answer to him:

Ninth Doctor/brian, notice that you completely changed the context by supposing examples where the woman was physically harmed. Physical abuse of that kind is illegal regardless of whether or not rape occurred.

I say non-consensual sex = physical harm. Does there need to be vaginal tearing, and does she need to leave blood stains on the guy’s shirt, as happened in the Kobe Bryant case? Hell no. I can twist your arm behind your back, causing you immediate pain, but without causing physical harm, in the sense that you won’t have an injury, and will be fine once I let go.

Or do you think non-consensual sex doesn’t hurt? Tell you what, I have it on good authority that with sufficient lubrication in place, non-consensual anal sex doesn’t result in injury. Imagine a scenario where you find yourself bent over a chair, you’re saying no, but your rapist is a highly regarded Objectivist authority (and judo master), and he quotes chapter and verse at you from Peikoff podcasts as he gets busy. Maybe he threw some code words at you earlier; it’s a break during OCON, and you were drinking together at the bar, talking meta-ethics, and you unknowingly communicated “yes, I’m game for a buggering”, when you thought you were affirming the primacy of existence. Remember, once you’ve gone up to his room, whatever you say from that point on is too late, taking Peikoff literally.

As to this moral vs. legal issue, there’s always going to be a he says she says aspect to rape allegations, and I don’t see how Peikoff is shedding any light on the matter. What I do see is him giving moral license to men to force themselves on women, and I think it’s horrifying.

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23082&view=findpost&p=288375

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now