Peikoff on date rape


9thdoctor

Recommended Posts

To be fair about that site, I've never seriously gone there and evaluated it, primarily because I cannot stand moderation or active moderators. I can tolerate a thread lock down or Michael tossing stuff into the Garbage Pile.

--Brant

What you said,

Reading OO and Solo and Noodles can be entertaining though, The solemnity of the newbies is touching and frequently hilarious. There is a thread on OO that roughly translates as "I am a boring workaholic, why can't my friends see that they should be just like me?"

Where did you get this?

--Brant

OOnet

"My purpose and productiveness is the essence of my being, my main identity....this makes for very few friends."

The thread title is "How to encourage purpose and productiveness in friends".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

I haven't looked at the comments yet. Did any of the men reply "Hubba-hubba"?

Ghs

Link to comment
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

Adam this is not up to your usual excellence nor my expectations.

Link to comment
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

Very nice reply! The Indians had dreams and prophecies that golden haired gods were to come to them. At least the Aztecs did. Not sure about Nrth American Indian culture on this.

But your reply is sort of like my mother's: If god wanted you to drive a car you would have been born with one. So I told her if god wanted you to have a dishwasher, you would have been born with one.

About masturbation: Well if I couldn't have the real thing I wouldn't want anything.

Well if I couldn't have steak, I wouldn't eat hamburger. I'd rather starve to death.

Even then I was uppity.

Link to comment
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

Here's Lacan on the marriage contract:

A legal contract whereby each person has exclusive rights to the other's sexual organs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can all you wizards of smart provide a complete list of "sexual organs?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we go with Norman O Brown then it's Love's Body. No exceptions, the polymorphous perverse body.

Interesting endorsement by Camille, who I like:

It’s time for a recovery and reassessment of North American thinkers. Marshall McLuhan, Leslie Fiedler and Norman O. Brown are the linked triad I would substitute for Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, whose work belongs to ravaged postwar Europe and whose ideas transfer poorly into the Anglo-American tradition. McLuhan, Fiedler and Brown were steeped in literature, classical to modern. They understood the creative imagination, and they extended their insights into speculation about history and society. Their influence was positive and fruitful: They did not impose their system on acolytes but liberated a whole generation of students to think freely and to discover their own voices…. My argument is that the North American intellectuals,typified by McLuhan, Fiedler and Brown, achieved a new fusion of ideas—a sensory pragmatism or engagement with concrete experience, rooted in the body , and at the same time a visionary celebration of artistic metaspace—that is, the fictive realm of art, fantasy and belief projected by great poetry and prefiguring or own cyberspace.

Camille Paglia, February 17, 2000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SB wrote:

Here's Lacan on the marriage contract:

A legal contract whereby each person has exclusive rights to the other's sexual organs.

end quote

I liked his “Star Wars” movies but what does George Lacan know about marriage? However, the contractual approach sounds reasonable and legal, since cheating is a grounds for divorce. I would also think female monogamy may have an evolutionary advantage. The father must know they are his kids she is having and that he is supporting. A bonding does occur between parent and child that is not simply volitional. There are evolutionary exceptions as in Polynesia when an island group was too genetically similar and outside males were welcome to add variety to the gene pool. How did they know to do that?

Lyrics from “Sweet Leilani:”

Sweet Leilani, heavenly flower

Tropic skies are jealous as they shine

I think they're jealous of your blue eyes

Jealous because you're mine.

end quote

Rule Brittania! Those blue eyes mentioned in the song were undoubtedly from a passing blue eyed sailor.

Life is sweet, Leilani.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the contractual approach sounds reasonable and legal, since cheating is a grounds for divorce.

FYI Mr. Taylor:

Adultery [cheating] is only a ground for divorce in a "grounds state."

In a no fault state, grounds are not required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam wrote:

In a no fault state, grounds are not required.

end quote

I know California is the San Andreas “fault state,” so I would guess New Jersey is a no fault state. In Joisey a cheating spouse gets a boom boom in the eye. But every state requires grounds to make a good cup of coffee.

Joe Joe Starbucks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't looked at the comments yet. Did any of the men reply "Hubba-hubba"?

Not yet. Stay tuned.

If you like watching Peikoff cultists get skewered, you’ll enjoy the thread. I know you have some odd tastes in entertainment, you’ve said you enjoy unmasking phonies like…nah, I’ll spare the names, they’re not around any more, anyway this ought to serve as a tasty snack until the next full meal comes along. Check out Prometheus, the Rational [Re]programmer, the force is strong with this one.

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=288413

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am afraid to look at Noodlefood for Doctor Comrade Diana's possible comment on Peikoff's latest and greatest howler.

Has anyone peeked? When our Ninth posted the link to the OOnline Men-Only Whoop-up on papal infallibility, I had a long gander. So, apparently, did the OO member dianahsieh.

If she is not torturing herself and her personal cult members with news of her latest tuber recipe or her latest physical torture (exercise till you fall down) regime, perhaps she will find the time to comment ... but I expect this would first necessitate a loooooong think (followed by more tubers, more torture). She would need to calculate the benefit of criticism. She would need to understand that Manswers are perhaps most appropriate in all discussion of Rape or sexual assault in the Objectivish worlds.

Personally, without giving details, I should mention that men have extra weight. There has been at least one time I have left the tangled duvets after only a preliminary attempt at a shag, rolling off or from under the suddenly-loathsome lothario ... and answering the question posed with an "I am putting my clothes on and going to watch TV, that's what I am doing."

If a lady/woman/damsel/devul temptress/slut/girl/sex object should find yet another panting, pushy, lamprey-mouthed hulk on top of her, ploughing her nether field like a drunken farmer on a tractor ... I think her "Get off me, you need practice, and you aren't gonna practice on me" should be respected. The penis has no particular rights in this or any other case, to my mind.

The gloriously socially-retarded papal nuncios at OO, of course, may be correct to defend what seems to many of us a declining Grandpa ranting once again. They may be right, and we here wrong, and we the stupefied-by-dogma cultists.

That the discussion at OO has had (correct me, please!) zero female interlocutors ... does that tell us anything?

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't looked at the comments yet. Did any of the men reply "Hubba-hubba"?

Not yet. Stay tuned.

If you like watching Peikoff cultists get skewered, you’ll enjoy the thread. I know you have some odd tastes in entertainment, you’ve said you enjoy unmasking phonies like…nah, I’ll spare the names, they’re not around any more, anyway this ought to serve as a tasty snack until the next full meal comes along. Check out Prometheus, the Rational [Re]programmer, the force is strong with this one.

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=288413

I haven't looked at the comments yet. Did any of the men reply "Hubba-hubba"?

Not yet. Stay tuned.

If you like watching Peikoff cultists get skewered, you’ll enjoy the thread. I know you have some odd tastes in entertainment, you’ve said you enjoy unmasking phonies like…nah, I’ll spare the names, they’re not around any more, anyway this ought to serve as a tasty snack until the next full meal comes along. Check out Prometheus, the Rational [Re]programmer, the force is strong with this one.

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=288413

I have looked again, and see that out of 96 comments so far, exactly one was from a female. She said she would wait a couple weeks for Peikoff to clarify his statement. And not a peep from Ethel yet.

It seems you were right George, Stepford is a real Gals Gulch.

Link to comment
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

Very nice reply! The Indians had dreams and prophecies that golden haired gods were to come to them. At least the Aztecs did. Not sure about Nrth American Indian culture on this.

But your reply is sort of like my mother's: If god wanted you to drive a car you would have been born with one. So I told her if god wanted you to have a dishwasher, you would have been born with one.

About masturbation: Well if I couldn't have the real thing I wouldn't want anything.

Well if I couldn't have steak, I wouldn't eat hamburger. I'd rather starve to death.

Even then I was uppity.

"If God did not want us to masturbate, he would not have given us hands." -- Old Polish Proverb

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Synchronicity seems to be the order of the day here. I said earlier in the thread that the issue is about men, and what they do and can do, so it is for them to think about and discuss that; yet the fact that they do it more often to women (because as WSS pointed out, they can, more easily than they can to a man or strong youth) allows the observations of women to have a place. Nobody on the one Osite where it is being discussed, has been a woman so I will have to do.

I will say first that this is not a theoretical issue such as "What if I was Mike McQueary?" It is about a situation in which most adults have actually been, including presumably Leonard Peikoff. And maybe more than once. The situation in which a flirtatious meeting becomes physical at close quarters. The man wants to continue and the woman does not.

I've been that woman, and I bet nearly every man reading has been that man. I merely record my own observations from experience.

At some point, and some points were further than others, I pulled back and said "No, stop" or such words.To be blunt, I was not aroused and did not wish to become aroused, with this guy. Usually I had to repeat it, push, etc. But the man stopped. usually in fury, cursing me to deepest hell, but he stopped. Somehow he was able to stop.

Of course these were just ordinary men, regular guys really. Not basketball superstars, or Heirs to Estates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am afraid to look at Noodlefood for Doctor Comrade Diana's possible comment on Peikoff's latest and greatest howler.

Has anyone peeked? When our Ninth posted the link to the OOnline Men-Only Whoop-up on papal infallibility, I had a long gander. So, apparently, did the OO member dianahsieh.

If she is not torturing herself and her personal cult members with news of her latest tuber recipe or her latest physical torture (exercise till you fall down) regime, perhaps she will find the time to comment ... but I expect this would first necessitate a loooooong think (followed by more tubers, more torture)...

That the discussion at OO has had (correct me, please!) zero female interlocutors ... does that tell us anything?

Her post for today was a "Humorous Update" on a previous post about the crucial subject of Tattoos.

Female voices on the topic at OO stand at 1 (one). And she didn't tell us anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ninth Doctor wrote:

Check out Prometheus, the Rational [Re]programmer, the force is strong with this one.

end quote

I hope everyone will follow this link and then keep scrolling down to see the responses from re-programmer. That is a why I eventually stopped talking to the cult members there. Yes, mother, I may be psychologizing, or am I just being rational? But, isn’t than brainwashed irrationality at its worst? No, Ayn, I am not exaggerating. You created this! It is your fault, Mother! Goddammit!

Norman Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we go with Norman O Brown then it's Love's Body. No exceptions, the polymorphous perverse body.

Interesting endorsement by Camille, who I like:

It’s time for a recovery and reassessment of North American thinkers. Marshall McLuhan, Leslie Fiedler and Norman O. Brown are the linked triad I would substitute for Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, whose work belongs to ravaged postwar Europe and whose ideas transfer poorly into the Anglo-American tradition. McLuhan, Fiedler and Brown were steeped in literature, classical to modern. They understood the creative imagination, and they extended their insights into speculation about history and society. Their influence was positive and fruitful: They did not impose their system on acolytes but liberated a whole generation of students to think freely and to discover their own voices…. My argument is that the North American intellectuals,typified by McLuhan, Fiedler and Brown, achieved a new fusion of ideas—a sensory pragmatism or engagement with concrete experience, rooted in the body , and at the same time a visionary celebration of artistic metaspace—that is, the fictive realm of art, fantasy and belief projected by great poetry and prefiguring or own cyberspace.

Camille Paglia, February 17, 2000

I used to like Paglia. More then than now. Why does she feel a choice is necessary? Go for Diane Rubenstein. She taufht me huge chunks of what I know from her book This Is Not A President. Paglia is yesterday. Everyone gets eaten up so fast these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am afraid to look at Noodlefood for Doctor Comrade Diana's possible comment on Peikoff's latest and greatest howler.

Has anyone peeked? When our Ninth posted the link to the OOnline Men-Only Whoop-up on papal infallibility, I had a long gander. So, apparently, did the OO member dianahsieh.

If she is not torturing herself and her personal cult members with news of her latest tuber recipe or her latest physical torture (exercise till you fall down) regime, perhaps she will find the time to comment ... but I expect this would first necessitate a loooooong think (followed by more tubers, more torture). She would need to calculate the benefit of criticism. She would need to understand that Manswers are perhaps most appropriate in all discussion of Rape or sexual assault in the Objectivish worlds.

Personally, without giving details, I should mention that men have extra weight. There has been at least one time I have left the tangled duvets after only a preliminary attempt at a shag, rolling off or from under the suddenly-loathsome lothario ... and answering the question posed with an "I am putting my clothes on and going to watch TV, that's what I am doing."

If a lady/woman/damsel/devul temptress/slut/girl/sex object should find yet another panting, pushy, lamprey-mouthed hulk on top of her, ploughing her nether field like a drunken farmer on a tractor ... I think her "Get off me, you need practice, and you aren't gonna practice on me" should be respected. The penis has no particular rights in this or any other case, to my mind.

The gloriously socially-retarded papal nuncios at OO, of course, may be correct to defend what seems to many of us a declining Grandpa ranting once again. They may be right, and we here wrong, and we the stupefied-by-dogma cultists.

That the discussion at OO has had (correct me, please!) zero female interlocutors ... does that tell us anything?

Yes it does. Anything involving Diana Hissssssss is to be avoided at all costs. Why anyone cares about anything she says is not something I understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul tells Piers Morgan only ‘honest rape’ merits abortion

By David Ferguson

Saturday, February 4, 2012 18:02 EST

RonPaul-615x345.png

In an interview from Las Vegas on Piers Morgan Tonight, Morgan asked whether as a man with daughters and granddaughters, Rep. Paul (R-TX) thinks that abortion is warranted if a woman has been impregnated by a rapist.

“If it’s an honest rape,” Paul replied, “that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.” He claimed, however, that if a woman is “seven months pregnant” and says that she was raped, “It’s a little bit of a different story.”

http://www.rawstory....erits-abortion/

Why does anyone even ask these questions or talk about it. "Honest rape" WTF is that! In terms of an operational definition, going to the emergency room to get swabs, pay for your own rape test etc Well depending on the severity and circumstances I can see why many women just decide to forget about it and move on. Since living in the Ozarks I think differently about these things than when I lived in Philadelphia. Much different. A hospital can be almost an hour away. How do you gt there? Who do you tell who will take you? It gets complicated very quickly and seems like the best choice is to go get the morning after pill, check for transmitted STD's etc which is still a lot to deal with under the circumstances.

Thee politicians sound like stupid old men for the most part and when women run they sound the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Synchronicity seems to be the order of the day here. I said earlier in the thread that the issue is about men, and what they do and can do, so it is for them to think about and discuss that; yet the fact that they do it more often to women (because as WSS pointed out, they can, more easily than they can to a man or strong youth) allows the observations of women to have a place. Nobody on the one Osite where it is being discussed, has been a woman so I will have to do.

I will say first that this is not a theoretical issue such as "What if I was Mike McQueary?" It is about a situation in which most adults have actually been, including presumably Leonard Peikoff. And maybe more than once. The situation in which a flirtatious meeting becomes physical at close quarters. The man wants to continue and the woman does not.

I've been that woman, and I bet nearly every man reading has been that man. I merely record my own observations from experience.

At some point, and some points were further than others, I pulled back and said "No, stop" or such words.To be blunt, I was not aroused and did not wish to become aroused, with this guy. Usually I had to repeat it, push, etc. But the man stopped. usually in fury, cursing me to deepest hell, but he stopped. Somehow he was able to stop.

Of course these were just ordinary men, regular guys really. Not basketball superstars, or Heirs to Estates.

Then Karen Owens' Power Point Fuck List is in order here. From Duke U with jocks. And Vargas on porn in the same 2011 Atlantic Monthly jan/feb.Tthings have changed a great deal since hard porn became mainstream on the internet. Peikoff is talking about right now. He is not in the bubble of our past experiences. They don't count anymore. Now fast time is so much different. I'm trying to get there to write about it, but everything is happening so fast. If you are a coed at Duke, where we have some first hand evidence, being stinking drunk is how you get the guy at the frat party. That is what attracts him. You are reinforced for being drunk out of anything any of us experienced when young, in order to get laid. Our problem was avoiding it without commitment. The modern coed is in competition with many others offering sex, so how to ensure you will be chosen. Pure reinforcement theory. Get black out drunk, get laid by the jock of choice. Reinforced for being drunk increases the possibility that you will repeat the behavior next time. Skinnarian operant conditioning. The rat will go down the alley that offers the cheese.

I'm not saying I like what Peikoff said, but he is correct. any woman flirting, suggesting she wants sex, showing up drunk at a man's hotel room at 3 am has already said yes. Even in my day. Except in my day you had a good chance of not putting out and not getting raped in that situation.

Any modern girl/woman in 2012 who does this is probably going to gt laid or raped. To say a guy needs to control himself? Forget it. They don't and they won't. And jocks are the worst ones to play around with in this situation. don't do it.

Truly it's horrible. But it is the way it is. It is the reality. Deal with it. Watch your back because no one else is going to. Berating guys isn't going to change a damn thing. Condemning them isn't going to change their behavior. No use. Too late. Porno is here to stay. It makes vast amounts of money. It is capitalism at its finest example. You can't want one and not want the other. Catch-22.

Link to comment
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