Jump to content






Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Peikoff on date rape


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#1 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,012 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 06 February 2012 - 07:53 AM

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/
Prandium gratis non est

#2 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 06 February 2012 - 08:45 AM

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
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#3 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 06 February 2012 - 08:51 AM

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
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#4 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 06 February 2012 - 08:58 AM


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
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#5 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,012 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:02 AM

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.
Prandium gratis non est

#6 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,724 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:03 AM

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

#7 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,724 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:15 AM

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

#8 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,383 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:16 AM


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

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#9 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,383 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:25 AM

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?

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#10 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,012 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:27 AM

Someone should record his statement before he takes it down.

It's easy enough to download it. See the "Download" button?
Prandium gratis non est

#11 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,383 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:30 AM


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

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#12 whYNOT

whYNOT

    tony garland

  • Members
  • 3,474 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Republic of South Africa

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:30 AM

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.
"To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge". Nicolaus Copernicus (An original objectivist) 1473-1543 ***No man may be smaller than his philosophy...***

#13 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,411 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:21 AM

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
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#14 Reidy

Reidy

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,614 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CA
  • Interests:Architecture, cooking, music, philosophy

Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:43 AM

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?

#15 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,411 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:00 AM

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
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#16 PDS

PDS

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,613 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:06 AM

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.

#17 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,638 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 06 February 2012 - 12:50 PM

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.

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#18 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,715 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 February 2012 - 01:01 PM

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

Know thyself...


#19 PDS

PDS

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,613 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 February 2012 - 03:37 PM

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.

#20 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,077 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 06 February 2012 - 03:48 PM


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 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users