9thdoctor

Peikoff on date rape

180 posts in this topic

“Putting in?” You are inviting Groucho Marx jokes here but I am not falling for it. A sexist corollary to this thread is, “Why do men joke sexually about women?” When I read Ninth’s phrase I immediately starting inventing sex jokes about Diana, who I do find attractive: “I bet I could get her to stop talking by . . .” Do women do this as routinely as men? They may just be more private with the sexual jokes.

In this case no double entendre was intended.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Comrade Sonia’s little asides in her discussion is that she approves of giving a man permission to have sex with a partner who’s asleep. She chuckles about liking to be woken up this way. She chuckles about everything.

I asked a non-Objectivist friend of mine to check out a few of Comrade Sonia's video clips, and, after doing so, he asked me it I thought she was nervous, what with all of her chuckling about everything. I said that I don't think so. I think that she's just trying to portray what she imagines is a properly joyous, Objectivist "sense of life." She's trying to embody daringly heroic Objectivist benevolence and the childlike innocence of a self-flaunting, radiantly sunlit kitten who was born untouched by suffering and who can't conceive of ugliness and evil. She just really really really really really sucks at it -- her own naturally droopy-faced scowl inevitably returns when she gets deep into a subject and forgets about the character of the radiantly sunlit kitten that she's supposed to be playing.

J

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Comrade Sonia’s little asides in her discussion is that she approves of giving a man permission to have sex with a partner who’s asleep. She chuckles about liking to be woken up this way. She chuckles about everything.

I asked a non-Objectivist friend of mine to check out a few of Comrade Sonia's video clips, and, after doing so, he asked me it I thought she was nervous, what with all of her chuckling about everything. I said that I don't think so. I think that she's just trying to portray what she imagines is a properly joyous, Objectivist "sense of life." She's trying to embody daringly heroic Objectivist benevolence and the childlike innocence of a self-flaunting, radiantly sunlit kitten who was born untouched by suffering and who can't conceive of ugliness and evil. She just really really really really really sucks at it -- her own naturally droopy-faced scowl inevitably returns when she gets deep into a subject and forgets about the character of the radiantly sunlit kitten that she's supposed to be playing.

J

That, and the baby-backed ribs sitting in her gut like a couple of hand grenades about to go off.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ninth Doctor wrote:

And she constantly chuckles, even while talking about deadly serious issues. It was pretty nauseating, I can’t recommend putting in the time.

end quote

“Putting in?” You are inviting Groucho Marx jokes here but I am not falling for it. A sexist corollary to this thread is, “Why do men joke sexually about women?” When I read Ninth’s phrase I immediately starting inventing sex jokes about Diana, who I do find attractive: “I bet I could get her to stop talking by . . .” Do women do this as routinely as men? They may just be more private with the sexual jokes.

Isn’t that Peikoff’s unspoken premise also? That men are machines manufactured with a mix of the volitional and the innate? Female faces, curves, boobs, butts, and body parts ring our bells and it is not our fault. I literally cannot stop looking if my bell is rung, until I get an elbow to the ribs by my better half.

Leonard can’t stop himself once he is, oh, ah, Je ne sais quoi, immersed in a subject. I am always like that even though I am a grandfather. Isn’t Doctor Peikoff modifying Objectivism to match the scientific reality

Peter Taylor

You look but presumably you do not touch. To stop oneself from looking is not the same as to stop oneself from raping.

Not to frivolize a serious subject, but there was a totally priceless "looking" incident recently caught on video, at a state dinner. The husband of Finland's president ogled the cleavage of the Crown Princess of Denmark and when she became aware of it he cast his eyes heavenwards and she raised a protective hand over her Star and Garter. wish I could show it, it is like a movie scene.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to frivolize a serious subject, but there was a totally priceless "looking" incident recently caught on video, at a state dinner. The husband of Finland's president ogled the cleavage of the Crown Princess of Denmark and when she became aware of it he cast his eyes heavenwards and she raised a protective hand over her Star and Garter. wish I could show it, it is like a movie scene.

Genie's already given you your three wishes. Time for you to set him free!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to frivolize a serious subject, but there was a totally priceless "looking" incident recently caught on video, at a state dinner. The husband of Finland's president ogled the cleavage of the Crown Princess of Denmark and when she became aware of it he cast his eyes heavenwards and she raised a protective hand over her Star and Garter. wish I could show it, it is like a movie scene.

Genie's already given you your three wishes. Time for you to set him free!

Well, if you love someone you must let him go, sob, sob. However the three wishes were in 1960s barter currency anyway, and allowing for inflation, I don't have to follow that bloody stupid precept for a good long time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we also see here, at a glance as it were, how Mary Donaldson of Tasmania became the future Queen of Denmark.

Safe bet she will wear better hats than her mother-in-law.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just One Look" - great song.

What song's that? On YouTube there's The Hollies, Linda Ronstadt, and Nomi doing the same tune, so I guess that's the one. Dan Ust posted some Nomi on a thread quite a while ago (before he got ticked off at MSK and took his leave), so I've picked this one.

But I still don't get the connection to whatever, at this point, we're talking about on this thread.

Why don't we debate at what point Laurey gives Curley irrevocable implied consent to take her to the barn and have his way? I think it's somewhere in this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAYLCXXCfUY

But I'm not sure which verse. Bet you didn't know Wolverine could sing. He dances, too!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?

You think the Hollies did it also...WINNER

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?

You think the Hollies did it also...WINNER

Winner. Was there ever a greater time to be adolescent?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. With all the upheaval, I would not have wanted to be a teenager in any other decade...

except maybe in 2160

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff’s reply is out, and guess what? It’s a retraction. A pretty good one too; I would prefer something closer to Henry II under the lash, but you can’t have everything.

It’s 15 minutes long, the entire podcast is dedicated to it.

http://www.peikoff.c...ity-and-to-law/

He acknowledges that he didn’t know anything about the Kobe Bryant case, beyond that some people he hates were on one side of it. He went “by feeling”.

He does seem to leave open, by implication, that there are contexts were a man can force himself on a woman, but the examples he gives are all to the contrary. Then, near the end, he says once you have “penile penetration”, “I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid”. He then talks about some code at Dartmouth requiring written permission for sexual activities, in detail to the point of absurdity. It gets pretty confusing, it sounds like he means ‘no’ when he says ‘yes’ in this section, and that in itself is quite ironic. His view on withdrawal of consent is still not entirely clear, or it’s still wrong, I’m not sure which. I need to listen again. There was a phrase or two where I literally couldn't understand what he was saying. There was the case of the 5 second delay resulting in a rape conviction, and everyone I’ve read agrees that sounds ridiculous (of course I wasn't on the jury, and, further, can't say whether 5, 10, or 60 seconds is the right figure). If he used that example, I think we’d be ok. But he doesn’t and I’m left wondering if he thinks it’s ok to keep pounding away for 30 minutes while the woman is saying ‘no’ and ‘stop’. But I doubt he means that, and doubt we'll be hearing further clarifications.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ninth,

Only going by your synopsis so far, it bears out that Peikoff caught himself between

the two stools of morality and legality - and ended up nowhere, losing all common

sense, too.

It's what happens when you try to squeeze the facts (or simple humanity) of a situation into rights and moral principles, losing contact with reality - dontcha think?

Obviously the heat got to him, and I wonder how, and who turned it up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Ninth Doctor for the link.

Peikoff correctly splits the moral from the legal and admits his original error was emotional and partially based on his distrust and disagreement with leftist feminists. He did not know the whole story in the Kobe Bryant case.

He agrees that any reasonable “no” is permissible legally if not always morally. But the moral issue is “he said, she said.” She expected this, he expected that, but they did not receive the expected, almost like a business arrangement. He thinks age is a factor as is a girl saying yes but chickening out because of virginity. A woman can back out at any time because of something she disagrees with like whips and chains on a guy’s apartment walls. I was reminded of teenage romance. At a certain point a younger unattached “me” would have expected “release,” but if she says no after going most of the way, that is the girl’s legal right. A person cannot force themselves upon another person.

Leonard then goes into too much detail about marriage. Marriage is a commitment to sleep with your spouse, so in that context it is not rape without corroborating evidence. If a spouse says no too often then divorce them. Penile penetration is the threshold. If it has begun then a “no” cannot be associated with rape. That is ridiculous, per Leonard.

whNOT wrote:

Only going by your synopsis so far, it bears out that Peikoff caught himself between the two stools of morality and legality - and ended up nowhere, losing all common sense, too. It's what happens when you try to squeeze the facts (or simple humanity) of a situation into rights and moral principles, losing contact with reality - dontcha think?

Obviously the heat got to him, and I wonder how, and who turned it up.

end quote

A young girl named “Amy.” Her letter convinced him he was wrong. I don’t think Leonard can be browbeaten but he can be convinced. I am OK with his explanation, but it does show he is advancing in years and losing his edge.

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Doctor is taking some heat over on OO. After 900+ years in time and space, people are still telling me to "grow up". Here's my latest:

Alrightee, I did some transcribing. Start at 12:40 on the mp3 download version (the one without the standard introduction).

[T]hen the question becomes: what does she have to say ‘no’ to in order to make it rape? If she says yes, kisses, but that’s all. If she then says ‘no’ when he says ‘French kiss’, and he gives her a French kiss, is that rape? Or she agrees to take off the shirt, and he goes to touch her breast and she says ‘no’. Is that ok, is that rape? Is that a case where he’s wrong? Maybe he just thinks she’s shy at the moment, maybe she wants something else, maybe he knows they have a loving relationship and many times she’s felt skittish at the beginning and then fallen into it? If you go by the way some of these people on the internet talk, if ‘Aunt O’ (????) comes out of the woman’s mouth then it’s a monstrous evil, is positively ridiculous.

I mean, I think that the rational line should be genital connection. If there’s a relationship involving the genitals by choice that is the point at which the woman no longer can say ‘yes’ (??????). I mean otherwise it amounts to, in the midst of penile penetration, and before the climax she says ‘no, I don’t want this I’ve changed my mind’. I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid. So, in this sense I do not agree that every time a woman says ‘no’, in any context, no matter whether her husband, no matter what the minor nature of the change, that must be respected. That is simply ridiculous, and can’t be enforced.

At this point he begins to talk about Dartmouth. The material immediately preceding has him advising that in the case of a married couple, where there’s too many ‘no’s’ in bed, that the person being refused ought to get out of the marriage. I think the quoted material contains enough context to analyze on it’s own.

This is pretty messy, but I think I’m on firm footing when I say he’s still wrong, and it’s particularly the phrase “I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid” that tips the scales. How is the man to know that a particular ‘no’ is not valid? What’s strange is that much earlier in the podcast he acknowledged that “cramps” are among the moral reasons a woman can say no before the sex starts, you’d think he would allow that something like that can happen in the middle of coitus too. Or, as I suggested may have happened in the Kobe case*, the “parts don’t fit”, though I note that at this point he has established, fairly well, that he’s no longer talking about a first-time encounter.

I’ve had the experience of a partner telling me, during the hot and heavy bit, that she wants me to finish. Not to stop, but to, y’know, take a shortcut to the homestretch, as in, let’s not run the full marathon this time. Then, there have been cases of a clear ‘stop’, and indeed it takes some number of seconds for that to register with the rational faculty; however, reason having returned to it’s throne, alas the business must cease.

Now, I’m trying to apply Peikoff’s formulation to my own experience, and it’s still not working. He sets up the “loving relationship” context, and ok, I’ve been there and done that, and it’s either she says ‘hurry up and finish’ (which, BTW, can be such a turnoff), or she says ‘stop’. If she says ‘stop’, that’s it, thou shalt stop. If you’ve set up that ‘stop’ doesn’t mean stop, then we’re back to S&M and safe words, so for now let’s assume ‘stop’ means stop.

Can a woman unambiguously say ‘stop’ in the middle of coitus and expect it to be respected, whether she communicates a sufficient (according to whom?) reason, or no reason at all? I say yes, morally speaking. On the legal side, it’s still going to be ‘he says she says’, and whether a prosecutor ought to get involved is going to play out on a case by case basis. Is Peikoff saying that if the woman acknowledges that genital contact began consensually, then the prosecution can’t pursue a case on that basis? I don’t hear him offering any such strictly legal opinion here, but if he were, I completely disagree with that view also.

*BTW, another possibility the evidence suggested in the Kobe case is that the sex started consensually, then she was turned off by his trash talk during the act, and he kept going over her protests. If so, it bears on Peikoff’s new position, his “rational line” of “genital connection”.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the heat got to him, and I wonder how, and who turned it up.

Not heat, sound. I borrowed Captain Jack Harkness's Sonic Cannon; no way my Sonic Screwdriver was going to get the job done.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look forward to the climb down from all of the people defending his original position.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PDS wrote:

I look forward to the climb down from all of the people defending his original position.

end quote

A brilliant thought, P. They defended Leonardo out of religious devotion, but will they now say he is right because of his reasoned explanation or because Pope Leo said it?

Peter

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, I think that the rational line should be genital connection. If there’s a relationship involving the genitals by choice that is the point at which the woman no longer can say ‘yes’ (??????). I mean otherwise it amounts to, in the midst of penile penetration, and before the climax she says ‘no, I don’t want this I’ve changed my mind’. I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid. So, in this sense I do not agree that every time a woman says ‘no’, in any context, no matter whether her husband, no matter what the minor nature of the change, that must be respected. That is simply ridiculous, and can’t be enforced.

At this point he begins to talk about Dartmouth. The material immediately preceding has him advising that in the case of a married couple, where there’s too many ‘no’s’ in bed, that the person being refused ought to get out of the marriage. I think the quoted material contains enough context to analyze on it’s own.

This is pretty messy, but I think I’m on firm footing when I say he’s still wrong, and it’s particularly the phrase “I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid” that tips the scales.

Wow. Thanks for the transcription and cutting to the bone. As with his first blunder, Peikoff does not appreciate the woman's point of view, and he has certainly never trained himself to put his own notions to severe empirical test.

On the face of it, an assault occurs when the woman says "get off me" and the man does not, but continues to jam his penis in and out of the woman. Distinctions come after, findings of law come after. Peikoff has leapt to the conclusion and reasoned backwards. Sexual assault is basic, not difficult to understand or instantiate as principle. Lay your hands on my body with my permission, enter my mont of venus and penetrate my portal of paradise with my permission, and when I tell you to pull out your throbbing manhood and get off me, get off me, okay?

It seems to me that it has been a long long time since the good doctor P last had full-contact sex, and he is in no particular position to have his opinions sealed as correct.

In a nutshell, Peikoff cannot imagine the situation that calls for the man to withdraw and stop what he is doing once he is "In" ... and since Peikoff cannot imagine it, has not sought just such a situation to test his conclusions, he is self-blinding himself, and refusing to calculate the perceptions of the subject most at issue: the woman.

His disempathic responses indicate Manswers: Lord Penis to me. It is just so disappointing that he cannot cross the bubble line of Self to consult the Other.

Damn shame that Objective-ish people have to deal with a nutty old uncle who retains the throne and scepter and royal jewels of Rand. In his earlier uninformed answers on sexual reassignment surgery he fell victim to the same self-limiting confirmatory deception, avoided challenge to his assumptions: missed consideration of borderline conditions where plastic surgery is performed to help settle a gender identity on folks with ambiguous genitals; failed to note difficult conditions like adrenal hyperplasia or XXY women/other ambiguities that concern parents, patients, and ethicists in surgical medicine. Peikoff not only failed to include these in his moral calculus but appears to be unaware and thus ignorant).

Here he fails to include in his rational calculations a live female, a person like his wives and daughter, like his mother, with a vagina ostensibly under her control. Again his moral calculus is incomplete.

In a situation that Peikoff cannot imagine, himself as the penetrated, he feels discomfort, disquiet, a hint of repulsion, disgust, a smidge of fear, a slackening of desire, and a persistent and unpleasant grinding and bumping tending to painful scraping ... his partner plunging away aggressively has forgotten the supine Leonard's pleasure and so cannot recognize his groans and shrieks and whimpers and banging on the headboard.

Someone says, get off me, Nathan, but Nathan does not stop. Not until Nathan is fully satisfied. Sometimes get off me means keep going, Leonard my sweet ...

Pound pound pound, shriek shriek shriek

Edited by william.scherk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They defended Leonardo out of religious devotion, but will they now say he is right because of his reasoned explanation or because Pope Leo said it?

Peter

By way of rebuttal of the thesis of Peikoff's talk A Picture is Not an Argument, here's a little something that provides the answer.

Peikoffparrotsandmyna.jpg

Credit where due: the original idea was mine and Jonathan executed it, though in this case he substantially improved on the idea, so, the credit's about 99% his. I call it Pope Peikoff Preens with Parrots. The one at the top is supposed to be a "Norwegian Blue", for all you fellow Python fans out there. Beautiful plumage!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transvaginal Express podcast with WSS, 9th, and Peikoff ... via audioboo http://audioboo.fm/boos/698387-transvaginal-express-with-peikoff-wss-and-9th.

<object data="http://abfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/swf/fullsize_player.swf" height="129" id="boo_embed_698387" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400"><param name="movie" value="http://abfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/swf/fullsize_player.swf" /><param name="scale" value="noscale" /><param name="salign" value="lt" /><param name="bgColor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="window" /><param name="FlashVars" value="mp3=http%3A%2F%2Faudioboo.fm%2Fboos%2F698387-transvaginal-express-with-peikoff-wss-and-9th.mp3%3Fkeyed%3Dtrue%26source%3Dembed&mp3Title=Transvaginal+Express%2C+with+Peikoff%2C+WSS%2C+and+9th&mp3Time=07.42pm+05+Mar+2012&mp3LinkURL=http%3A%2F%2Faudioboo.fm%2Fboos%2F698387-transvaginal-express-with-peikoff-wss-and-9th&mp3Author=williamsscherk&rootID=boo_embed_698387" /><a href="http://audioboo.fm/boos/698387-transvaginal-express-with-peikoff-wss-and-9th.mp3?keyed=true&source=embed">Transvaginal Express, with Peikoff, WSS, and 9th (mp3)</a></object>

Edited by william.scherk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They defended Leonardo out of religious devotion, but will they now say he is right because of his reasoned explanation or because Pope Leo said it?

Peter

By way of rebuttal of the thesis of Peikoff's talk A Picture is Not an Argument, here's a little something that provides the answer.

Peikoffparrotsandmyna.jpg

Credit where due: the original idea was mine and Jonathan executed it, though in this case he substantially improved on the idea, so, the credit's about 99% his. I call it Pope Peikoff Preens with Parrots. The one at the top is supposed to be a "Norwegian Blue", for all you fellow Python fans out there. Beautiful plumage!

Would the Norwegian Blue be nailed to its perch by any chance? Kudos to J and you for a masterwork. You keep making me get pleasure* out of visual art where I never previously knew there was any to be had,

The most striking thing to me about LP's comedown on rape, was his explanation that his whole original spiel was based entirely on his feelings. He hated the people whoever they were who criticized Kobe, a rich successful person, so knowing zero about the rape case, he expressed those feelings as we saw.

Words fail me.

Rush Limbaugh could take lessons from him. or maybe he has.

*Consensually!

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