Peikoff on date rape

[Dennis Hardin]

Peikoff’s response was poorly stated and misleading, but his key point is a valid one:

“You have to determine, before you talk about rape, what is the context?”

Peikoff leaves the impression that men should be able to coerce a woman to have sex in certain circumstances, and that is clearly abhorrent. But the question remains: should this situation typically be treated the same as when no implied consent exists? Should the same penalty be applied here as in the case of a victim who is dragged from her car at gunpoint?

A similar point was made by a female columnist, Kathleen Parker of Jewish World Review, in 2006:

She was drunk, he was confused. She said "stop," he didn't stop fast enough. Sometimes he's a brute justifiably accused of rape. But sometimes she's not the victim she claims to be. Sometimes, alas, morning-after remorse morphs into a defensive claim of rape that sends college boys to prison for an offense that falls somewhat short of what most of us think of as rape.

I opened the floodgates recently with a column about Rich Gorman, a former Florida State University student who is serving a five-year prison sentence for a "rape" that involved a 5- to 15-second sex act. He stopped immediately when she said "stop," and asked, "What's wrong?" — not the usual query of a rapist — and then gave his soon-to-be accuser a ride home.

. . .[T]he special circumstances of "date rape" — especially among college students immersed in a permissive culture of drinking, drugs and "casual" sex — raise concerns about how we label those accused and convicted. . .

The lack of objectivity in “he said/she said” situations is a crucial factor from a strictly legal perspective. In some cases, perhaps the charge of rape is a valid one and the perpetrator should go to prison. But the objective fact that she happened to be in the man’s bedroom makes the charge of “rape” highly questionable and calls for a higher standard of proof.

Talk show host Dennis Prager argues that the ubiquity of date rape cases has had the social and cultural effect of mitigating the seriousness of rape as a crime, and I agree with him.

[caroljane]

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 .... He is not in the bubble of our past experiences. They don't count anymore...

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

The coed culture at Duke University, and a two-year-old article in the Atlantic Monthly, do not describe the general behaviour of most individual young sexually active men, any more than a fifty-seven year old novel describes the state of transportation in the US today.

I was not observing merely from my own past, but from the attitudes of young men , collegians and not, whom I know today, and their observations about their peers . Most are jocks.

[anthony]

Peikoff’s response was poorly stated and misleading, but his key point is a valid one: “You have to determine, before you talk about rape, what is the context?” Peikoff leaves the impression that men should be able to coerce a woman to have sex in certain circumstances, and that is clearly abhorrent. But the question remains: should this situation typically be treated the same as when no implied consent exists? Should the same penalty be applied here as in the case of a victim who is dragged from her car at gunpoint? A similar point was made by a female columnist, Kathleen Parker of Jewish World Review, in 2006:

She was drunk, he was confused. She said "stop," he didn't stop fast enough. Sometimes he's a brute justifiably accused of rape. But sometimes she's not the victim she claims to be. Sometimes, alas, morning-after remorse morphs into a defensive claim of rape that sends college boys to prison for an offense that falls somewhat short of what most of us think of as rape. I opened the floodgates recently with a column about Rich Gorman, a former Florida State University student who is serving a five-year prison sentence for a "rape" that involved a 5- to 15-second sex act. He stopped immediately when she said "stop," and asked, "What's wrong?" — not the usual query of a rapist — and then gave his soon-to-be accuser a ride home. . . .[T]he special circumstances of "date rape" — especially among college students immersed in a permissive culture of drinking, drugs and "casual" sex — raise concerns about how we label those accused and convicted. . .

The lack of objectivity in “he said/she said” situations is a crucial factor from a strictly legal perspective. In some cases, perhaps the charge of rape is a valid one and the perpetrator should go to prison. But the objective fact that she happened to be in the man’s bedroom makes the charge of “rape” highly questionable and calls for a higher standard of proof. Talk show host Dennis Prager argues that the ubiquity of date rape cases has had the social and cultural effect of mitigating the seriousness of rape as a crime, and I agree with him.

Peikoff’s response was poorly stated and misleading, but his key point is a valid one: “You have to determine, before you talk about rape, what is the context?” Peikoff leaves the impression that men should be able to coerce a woman to have sex in certain circumstances, and that is clearly abhorrent. But the question remains: should this situation typically be treated the same as when no implied consent exists? Should the same penalty be applied here as in the case of a victim who is dragged from her car at gunpoint? A similar point was made by a female columnist, Kathleen Parker of Jewish World Review, in 2006:

She was drunk, he was confused. She said "stop," he didn't stop fast enough. Sometimes he's a brute justifiably accused of rape. But sometimes she's not the victim she claims to be. Sometimes, alas, morning-after remorse morphs into a defensive claim of rape that sends college boys to prison for an offense that falls somewhat short of what most of us think of as rape. I opened the floodgates recently with a column about Rich Gorman, a former Florida State University student who is serving a five-year prison sentence for a "rape" that involved a 5- to 15-second sex act. He stopped immediately when she said "stop," and asked, "What's wrong?" — not the usual query of a rapist — and then gave his soon-to-be accuser a ride home. . . .[T]he special circumstances of "date rape" — especially among college students immersed in a permissive culture of drinking, drugs and "casual" sex — raise concerns about how we label those accused and convicted. . .

The lack of objectivity in “he said/she said” situations is a crucial factor from a strictly legal perspective. In some cases, perhaps the charge of rape is a valid one and the perpetrator should go to prison. But the objective fact that she happened to be in the man’s bedroom makes the charge of “rape” highly questionable and calls for a higher standard of proof. Talk show host Dennis Prager argues that the ubiquity of date rape cases has had the social and cultural effect of mitigating the seriousness of rape as a crime, and I agree with him.

Dennis: I largely agree, certainly that we should not allow accepted perceptions to rule our thinking. I don't agree that LP only stated it poorly, though.

Consent always stays with the woman. I only hesitate to add "at any stage", because the lapsed time between "no!" and cessation by the man could be seconds - at an advanced state of love-making.

Does that justify a charge of date rape? That IS highly questionable. How many seconds?

But being in his bedroom, taking off her clothes, etc. does not - should not - mean she is irrevocably commited to a complete act of sex.

Her refusal, for any, or no, reason to continue, should be respected, surely?

It's why I object to LP's "context" argument. Any of us has the moral right to back out of anything, including a contract, at any time, without necessarily having 'good' cause.

Legally-speaking, there should certainly be a distinction between "No! Stop!" at an advanced stage of sex, and 'crime rape' (in which no consent was ever implied or given, therefore forced).

Somewhere in the middle is willingly being in the man's bedroom; legally, then, I see more of a sliding-scale of mutual responsibility and consent.

Morally, (which is what we and Peikoff are talking about, aren't we?) there isn't any "context" that I can tell.

No is No: If (as Oi'sts) we respect reality and volition.

[9thdoctor]

Here's another one from OO, I'm a little worried it'll get deleted, though I feel I'm just matching the tone of the bozo I'm replying to:

Ninth Doctor, I'm getting sick of you.

Try Dramamine. I always keep the TARDIS well stocked.

It isn't an argument from authority. An argument from authority would have been if I'd simply said "Peikoff says this, and he's an authority, therefore it's right." Citing Peikoff's intellectual achievements as evidence that his judgment is sound is just referring to the facts of reality.

The little boy in The Emperor’s New Clothes referred to the facts of reality. You need to bone up on what the argument from authority is.

http://www.don-linds...nts.html#expert

Plus I offered an argument in support of what he said.

Where? When? What? I’m ready to be convinced, are you?

Someone who has created such huge amounts of value for us Objectivists deserves at minimum the benefit of the doubt. But you have a track record of jumping on the anti-Peikoff bandwagon every time he says something controversial.

Jumping on the bandwagon? I made this damn bandwagon.

Alright, I confess! The first post on the thread is loaded with NLP trickery. NLP being neuro-linguistic programming, it’s kind of like the Jedi mind trick from the Star Wars movies. But, like in the movies, it only works on the weak-minded, and now I’ve been caught! And I’d have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you meddling kids! And your little dog too! Wait, that’s Toto, not Scooby…aw hell.

But look at how many people I tricked! Ha!!

I've seen you do it over and over again. So excuse me for trusting his judgment over yours. He's earned it at least. He has never demonstrated to me that his judgment can't be trusted, like you have.

You’re not going to tell us when I demonstrated to you that my “judgment can’t be trusted”? Actually, I’m only concerned that people trust my facts, meaning, am I an honest reporter? Did I transcribe Peikoff correctly, or did I maybe insert ellipses improperly, do unacknowledged editing, or otherwise obscure/alter his meaning? I expect that readers can make up their own minds, do their own evaluating; in fact I insist that they do. I fear that the attitude you’re evincing here is what Ayn Rand called, I believe it was in her Apollo and Dionysus lecture, a “mentality that’s ready for a Führer”. And Peikoff is one very odd choice for Führer, hate to say it but he’s never been charismatic in the least. Then again, neither was Hitler.

Physically, he was a toad, he had a shrill voice. How could such a man whip crowds into a frenzy? He must have possessed psychic powers. Perhaps, instructed by some Druid from his hometown, he knew how to establish contact with the subterranean currents. Perhaps he was a living valve, a biological menhir transmitting the currents to the faithful in the Nuremberg stadium.

Foucault’s Pendulum

, Chapter 99

And you know damned well what I meant by "masters of this field." Or at least you should. I think you pointing to Kant as a "master" is a way to evade what I was pointing out.

No, it’s a way to mock the form of your arguments. They’re just so laughable, and the fact that you seem blind to it makes this all the funnier. And all the more disgusting. Given the option of puking or laughing, when possible I choose laughter. If you were standing in front of me talking such cultist drivel, good chance I’d puke on you. Involuntarily, of course.

I think I’ll close by letting Richard Dawkins speak to the value and function of ridicule:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23082&view=findpost&p=288526

[seymourblogger]

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 .... He is not in the bubble of our past experiences. They don't count anymore...

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

The coed culture at Duke University, and a two-year-old article in the Atlantic Monthly, do not describe the general behaviour of most individual young sexually active men, any more than a fifty-seven year old novel describes the state of transportation in the US today.

I was not observing merely from my own past, but from the attitudes of young men , collegians and not, whom I know today, and their observations about their peers . Most are jocks.

ONE YEAR OLD article in the long and prestigious Atlantic Monthly by two WOMEN writers of published books on this subject. JOCKS was the example Peikoff used as Kobe is indeed a jock. Women who flirt in a sexually suggestive way with them, show up drunk at their hotel doors at 3 AM have put themselves in a dangerous situation.

Wendy McElroy said a few years back when she had been young and influenced by Rand, that she was homeless, it was night, she had no place to go and slept all night inside a church. And it was then she knew she could be responsible for her self and depend upon herself.

And as Vargas-Cooper says in the AM porno article, when that girl dead drunk, led by a predator into the bathroom, who locked the door and raped her, she had many more legal protections than we did, but they were of no use to her that night in that bathroom. And I am not sure if that guy was a jock or not. But Vargas-Cooper does not limit her conclusions to jocks but to the huge percentage of young men and women who have experienced anal intercourse in leaping stats over a few years, and who search the internet for porn in huge numbers. They are becoming interfaced mentally and emotionally with visual internet porn.

This is today. Now. Not even 5 or 10 years ago. Women have legal protections, but the social protections we depended upon are in shreds. You really only have yourself now. So women need to be more careful and at the same time they are signaled that the guy will come to them, at that party, only if they are drunk in a way young coeds get drunk that has never been seen before either.

And this interface is a running theme throughout Cosmopolis. Oh, I forgot, you just like simple straight foward writing not anything with layers and layers to play with.

[seymourblogger]

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 .... He is not in the bubble of our past experiences. They don't count anymore...

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

The coed culture at Duke University, and a two-year-old article in the Atlantic Monthly, do not describe the general behaviour of most individual young sexually active men, any more than a fifty-seven year old novel describes the state of transportation in the US today.

I was not observing merely from my own past, but from the attitudes of young men , collegians and not, whom I know today, and their observations about their peers . Most are jocks.

ONE YEAR OLD article in the long and prestigious Atlantic Monthly by two WOMEN writers of published books on this subject. JOCKS was the example Peikoff used as Kobe is indeed a jock. Women who flirt in a sexually suggestive way with them, show up drunk at their hotel doors at 3 AM have put themselves in a dangerous situation.

Wendy McElroy said a few years back when she had been young and influenced by Rand, that she was homeless, it was night, she had no place to go and slept all night inside a church. And it was then she knew she could be responsible for her self and depend upon herself.

And as Vargas-Cooper says in the AM porno article, when that girl dead drunk, led by a predator into the bathroom, who locked the door and raped her, she had many more legal protections than we did, but they were of no use to her that night in that bathroom. And I am not sure if that guy was a jock or not. But Vargas-Cooper does not limit her conclusions to jocks but to the huge percentage of young men and women who have experienced anal intercourse in leaping stats over a few years, and who search the internet for porn in huge numbers. They are becoming interfaced mentally and emotionally with visual internet porn.

This is today. Now. Not even 5 or 10 years ago. Women have legal protections, but the social protections we depended upon are in shreds. You really only have yourself now. So women need to be more careful and at the same time they are signaled that the guy will come to them, at that party, only if they are drunk in a way young coeds get drunk that has never been seen before either.

And this interface is a running theme throughout Cosmopolis. Oh, I forgot, you just like simple straight foward writing not anything with layers and layers to play with.

And sexual and transportation analogies are well....very Freudian of you, eh.

The coed culture at Duke University, and a two-year-old article in the Atlantic Monthly, do not describe the general behaviour of most individual young sexually active men, any more than a fifty-seven year old novel describes the state of transportation in the US today.

You are just wrong. Unless the Twilight culture has changed the girls as it has in huge numbers, much to the chagrin of PC Feminists. But go read the robsessed fan site say one year ago where all they did was drool over him, fantasize wehre they would like to have his fingers, how they wanted to "jump" him, how they fantasized about him in bed with their husbands, how they got their husbands to hold the headboard of their bed so he could "thrust" deeper, and so on as Vonnegut says.

Thee are the kinds of girls/women that one can easily imagine in the place of Karen Owen. Or the examples Vargas-cooper uses. You cannot expect guys now to control themselves or act like gentlemen when you tease. In simulated reality, where you are interfaced with the media, there are only "floating signs" . No can easily mean yes. The legal protections in place have taken the place of social restrictions. This is the main problem with all this government intervention.

I think Peikoff was trying to get that across. Hey! don't do stupid things! As in the Kobe incident. But I think she had a different agenda than just getting laid. IMHO.

[caroljane]

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 .... He is not in the bubble of our past experiences. They don't count anymore...

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

The coed culture at Duke University, and a two-year-old article in the Atlantic Monthly, do not describe the general behaviour of most individual young sexually active men, any more than a fifty-seven year old novel describes the state of transportation in the US today.

I was not observing merely from my own past, but from the attitudes of young men , collegians and not, whom I know today, and their observations about their peers . Most are jocks.

ONE YEAR OLD article in the long and prestigious Atlantic Monthly by two WOMEN writers of published books on this subject. JOCKS was the example Peikoff used as Kobe is indeed a jock. Women who flirt in a sexually suggestive way with them, show up drunk at their hotel doors at 3 AM have put themselves in a dangerous situation.

Wendy McElroy said a few years back when she had been young and influenced by Rand, that she was homeless, it was night, she had no place to go and slept all night inside a church. And it was then she knew she could be responsible for her self and depend upon herself.

And as Vargas-Cooper says in the AM porno article, when that girl dead drunk, led by a predator into the bathroom, who locked the door and raped her, she had many more legal protections than we did, but they were of no use to her that night in that bathroom. And I am not sure if that guy was a jock or not. But Vargas-Cooper does not limit her conclusions to jocks but to the huge percentage of young men and women who have experienced anal intercourse in leaping stats over a few years, and who search the internet for porn in huge numbers. They are becoming interfaced mentally and emotionally with visual internet porn.

This is today. Now. Not even 5 or 10 years ago. Women have legal protections, but the social protections we depended upon are in shreds. You really only have yourself now. So women need to be more careful and at the same time they are signaled that the guy will come to them, at that party, only if they are drunk in a way young coeds get drunk that has never been seen before either.

And this interface is a running theme throughout Cosmopolis. Oh, I forgot, you just like simple straight foward writing not anything with layers and layers to play with.

And sexual and transportation analogies are well....very Freudian of you, eh.

The coed culture at Duke University, and a two-year-old article in the Atlantic Monthly, do not describe the general behaviour of most individual young sexually active men, any more than a fifty-seven year old novel describes the state of transportation in the US today.

You are just wrong. Unless the Twilight culture has changed the girls as it has in huge numbers, much to the chagrin of PC Feminists. But go read the robsessed fan site say one year ago where all they did was drool over him, fantasize wehre they would like to have his fingers, how they wanted to "jump" him, how they fantasized about him in bed with their husbands, how they got their husbands to hold the headboard of their bed so he could "thrust" deeper, and so on as Vonnegut says.

Thee are the kinds of girls/women that one can easily imagine in the place of Karen Owen. Or the examples Vargas-cooper uses. You cannot expect guys now to control themselves or act like gentlemen when you tease. In simulated reality, where you are interfaced with the media, there are only "floating signs" . No can easily mean yes. The legal protections in place have taken the place of social restrictions. This is the main problem with all this government intervention.

I think Peikoff was trying to get that across. Hey! don't do stupid things! As in the Kobe incident. But I think she had a different agenda than just getting laid. IMHO.

The shreds of the onion - McElroy - are you sure you made up all this yourself?

For your information, McElroy is a well-known plagiarist who had "layers and layers of meaning" to play with, and she played with them to her own profit. But they belonged to somebody else. I provide this info which is well known to readers of this site, not just for years, but for only one. I browsed it for a couple months before I joined. In that time of reading I noticed things like the McElroy issue, the Kelley split and various other things people were talking about, most of which you seemed to have missed. I believe by the way that you did read OL "for years" ( that is quicker and dirtier by the way, than "for (exact number) years". But you do not seem to have retained much of what you read.

[Dennis Hardin]

It's why I object to LP's "context" argument. Any of us has the moral right to back out of anything, including a contract, at any time, without necessarily having 'good' cause.

Legally-speaking, there should certainly be a distinction between "No! Stop!" at an advanced stage of sex, and 'crime rape' (in which no consent was ever implied or given, therefore forced).

Somewhere in the middle is willingly being in the man's bedroom; legally, then, I see more of a sliding-scale of mutual responsibility and consent.

Morally, (which is what we and Peikoff are talking about, aren't we?) there isn't any "context" that I can tell.

No is No: If (as Oi'sts) we respect reality and volition.

As I see it, the important issue for Peikoff was to define what qualifies as rape, and he states that, once the woman has given consent by her actions, the term ‘rape’ no longer applies. So from a legal standpoint, context is obviously crucial. This is a point worth making, but Peikoff omits other vital aspects that have to be addressed.

Things get a lot murkier when we begin evaluating the man’s actions morally as opposed to legally, and Peikoff ignores that side of it altogether. There could be any number of situations where, seeing the man naked, the woman might change her mind. An apparent lack of hygiene, for instance. Or perhaps the man’s penis is either abnormally small or abnormally large. The woman would certainly have every moral right to back out of the deal if she was frightened or turned off by his naked appearance. If the man refused to consider her wishes, he would definitely be immoral, but would the situation qualify as rape in a legal sense? I question that.

At the risk of turning the discussion in a semi-pornographic direction, there is another possible scenario which complicates matters even further. Some women do, in fact, sometimes say ‘no’ when they do not mean ‘no.’ Female resistance can be a turn-on for many women as well as men. It is simply naive to evade this fact. It can be very difficult for a man in the throes of lust to decipher her cues.

On the other hand, there are situations where, despite apparent consent, some new issue might well create a context of rape. Suppose that, once he was naked, the woman clearly saw evidence that the man had an STD like herpes. Or suppose the man told her, seconds before intercourse, that he had recently tested positive for HIV. I would agree that, in either case, a man who refused to take ‘no’ for an answer was guilty of rape.

Whether from a legal or a moral standpoint, context is everything. Peikoff drastically oversimplifies the various issues involved. But I think his main concern was just to clarify that consent, once given, makes the legal charge of rape highly questionable. Because he did such a lousy job of clarifying this, he deserves all the criticism coming his way.

[seymourblogger]

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 .... He is not in the bubble of our past experiences. They don't count anymore...

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

The coed culture at Duke University, and a two-year-old article in the Atlantic Monthly, do not describe the general behaviour of most individual young sexually active men, any more than a fifty-seven year old novel describes the state of transportation in the US today.

I was not observing merely from my own past, but from the attitudes of young men , collegians and not, whom I know today, and their observations about their peers . Most are jocks.

ONE YEAR OLD article in the long and prestigious Atlantic Monthly by two WOMEN writers of published books on this subject. JOCKS was the example Peikoff used as Kobe is indeed a jock. Women who flirt in a sexually suggestive way with them, show up drunk at their hotel doors at 3 AM have put themselves in a dangerous situation.

Wendy McElroy said a few years back when she had been young and influenced by Rand, that she was homeless, it was night, she had no place to go and slept all night inside a church. And it was then she knew she could be responsible for her self and depend upon herself.

And as Vargas-Cooper says in the AM porno article, when that girl dead drunk, led by a predator into the bathroom, who locked the door and raped her, she had many more legal protections than we did, but they were of no use to her that night in that bathroom. And I am not sure if that guy was a jock or not. But Vargas-Cooper does not limit her conclusions to jocks but to the huge percentage of young men and women who have experienced anal intercourse in leaping stats over a few years, and who search the internet for porn in huge numbers. They are becoming interfaced mentally and emotionally with visual internet porn.

This is today. Now. Not even 5 or 10 years ago. Women have legal protections, but the social protections we depended upon are in shreds. You really only have yourself now. So women need to be more careful and at the same time they are signaled that the guy will come to them, at that party, only if they are drunk in a way young coeds get drunk that has never been seen before either.

And this interface is a running theme throughout Cosmopolis. Oh, I forgot, you just like simple straight foward writing not anything with layers and layers to play with.

And sexual and transportation analogies are well....very Freudian of you, eh.

The coed culture at Duke University, and a two-year-old article in the Atlantic Monthly, do not describe the general behaviour of most individual young sexually active men, any more than a fifty-seven year old novel describes the state of transportation in the US today.

You are just wrong. Unless the Twilight culture has changed the girls as it has in huge numbers, much to the chagrin of PC Feminists. But go read the robsessed fan site say one year ago where all they did was drool over him, fantasize wehre they would like to have his fingers, how they wanted to "jump" him, how they fantasized about him in bed with their husbands, how they got their husbands to hold the headboard of their bed so he could "thrust" deeper, and so on as Vonnegut says.

Thee are the kinds of girls/women that one can easily imagine in the place of Karen Owen. Or the examples Vargas-cooper uses. You cannot expect guys now to control themselves or act like gentlemen when you tease. In simulated reality, where you are interfaced with the media, there are only "floating signs" . No can easily mean yes. The legal protections in place have taken the place of social restrictions. This is the main problem with all this government intervention.

I think Peikoff was trying to get that across. Hey! don't do stupid things! As in the Kobe incident. But I think she had a different agenda than just getting laid. IMHO.

The shreds of the onion - McElroy - are you sure you made up all this yourself?

For your information, McElroy is a well-known plagiarist who had "layers and layers of meaning" to play with, and she played with them to her own profit. But they belonged to somebody else. I provide this info which is well known to readers of this site, not just for years, but for only one. I browsed it for a couple months before I joined. In that time of reading I noticed things like the McElroy issue, the Kelley split and various other things people were talking about, most of which you seemed to have missed. I believe by the way that you did read OL "for years" ( that is quicker and dirtier by the way, than "for (exact number) years". But you do not seem to have retained much of what you read.

Trivial Pursuit is not my forte. I try very hard to forget the unessentials in life. Thank god I missed all that with Wendy. What a bessing!

[caroljane]

Shall I pursue the trivia? Oh no! the trivia is not my forte. and so

The proofreading of useless yesterday'

With all of old dead winter, has to go.

Tis not for me to proofread, or remember

In February's glow, the thoughtless gems

I dropped in old forgotten grey November

(it was unworthy of my winsome whims)

Ah no! My task is only to exhort

You all to say it "Fortay" or just "Fort"

[william.scherk]

There could be any number of situations where, seeing the man naked, the woman might change her mind. An apparent lack of hygiene, for instance. Or perhaps the man’s penis is either abnormally small or abnormally large. The woman would certainly have every moral right to back out of the deal if she was frightened or turned off by his naked appearance. If the man refused to consider her wishes, he would definitely be immoral, but would the situation qualify as rape in a legal sense? I question that.

Then it seems you side with Peikoff. He cannot imagine that when a woman says, "Kobe, please stop that!" or our fair Carol Jane in a clinch said, "Um, how about we go watch TV. Don't do that anymore, Seymour. I don't like it. I'm not ready. Just get off me, okay" -- Peikoff can barely get his aged head around the issue from a woman's point of view.

Which is the whole fucking problem. The law in my country is pretty clear. Assault is charged when someone touches you or holds you or strikes you or grabs you without your will. The body is inviolate. Assault can also be charged when someone howls in your face in public.

Sexual assault is one of the charges up here, one of the crimes, that cover what used to be rape.

So, all one has to do when asked a question, as Dr Uncle Grandpa Kookiepants was asked, was -- do NOT just jump into the pool without your waterwings. Look. Check.

Do NOT use the Kobe Bryant case to re-litigate for the defence, especially if you cannot remember the frigging details.

Manswers it is, Manswers it remains, and men write the book on rape. Until it gets to court, where the men who do not respect women's autonomy over their body learn the new reality.

The sexual being Seymour (the blogger) presumably has not been in a position to defend another woman from a horny drunken fratman in at least a few years, even though Seymour spent some fifty years at school, going to school, going back to school and hanging around the school.

But I think his main concern was just to clarify that consent, once given, makes the legal charge of rape highly questionable.

Right. Questionable. You mentioned all that already. So, Uncle Grandpa the law arbiter questions and answers and you like what he said. Manswers! Let the ancient penis rule in all its withered majesty. Law and morality depend on skimming past the concept of 'get off me, please,' so that the rational-but-with-a-raging-hardon does not have to control his wang.

The ick factor of Objectivism. Brought to you in so many fresh ways ...

Edited February 8, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Well according to the Peikoff ruler as applied to Kobe...the first five (5) inches was consensual?

[Brant Gaede]

Just let the woman be on top. No need for this "intellectual" folderol.

--Brant

[caroljane]

It seems that for men, in sex "ready, willing and able" are synonymous,

physiologically, but for women "willing" is not physiological, physical or psychological

[9thdoctor]

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

Her High Comradeship has announced the topics for her next message to the world. Nothing about Lenny's latest on the list.

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=22698&view=findpost&p=288534

[Selene]

It seems that for men, in sex "ready, willing and able" are synonymous,

physiologically, but for women "willing" is not physiological, physical or psychological

Carol:

Actually, with the hyper pornographic internet glut, many young men have developed what I call a "visual impotency." They are requiring pornography to engage in sexual activity which is not really the kind of four or five play that most women expect.

In that Atlantic article that our semi resident of OL cited above, there is one testimonial story from the authoress wherein she relates the following regarding that "ready willing and able" myth:

"...during a one-night stand with a man I had actually known for quite a while. A polite, educated fellow with a beautiful

Lower East Side apartment invited me to a perfunctory dinner right after his long-term girlfriend had left him. We

quickly progressed to his bed, and things did not go well. He couldn’t stay aroused. Over the course of the tryst, I

trotted out every parlor trick and sexual persona I knew. I was coquettish then submissive, vocal then silent,

aggressive then downright commandeering; in a moment of exasperation, he asked if we could have anal sex.

I asked why, seeing

as how any straight man who has had experience with anal sex knows that it’s a big production

and usually has a lot of false starts and abrupt stops*.

He answered, almost without thought,

“Because that’s the

only thing that will make you uncomfortable.*”

This was, perhaps, the greatest moment of sexual honesty I’ve ever

experienced—and without hesitation, I complied. This encounter proves an unpleasant fact that does not fit the

feminist script on sexuality: pleasure and displeasure wrap around each other like two snakes."

*Now there is a boy that has issues!

*not when you know what you are doing I might add!

[Selene]

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

Her High Comradeship has announced the topics for her next message to the world. Nothing about Lenny's latest on the list.

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=288534

Do you think Sister Hissy-fits chose Sunday morning for its parallels with church?

[George H. Smith]

I think I’ll close by letting Richard Dawkins speak to the value and function of ridicule: [video deleted]

In "Deism and the Assault on Revealed Religion" (Chapter 7 of Atheism, Ayn Rand and Other Heresies), I quoted the following passage by Thomas Woolston (1669-1733), whose mockery of the Gospel accounts of Jesus scandalized generations of Christians. Woolston was convicted of blasphemy in 1729, fined, and imprisoned for around 4 years.

I am resolved to give the Letter of the Scripture no Rest, so long as God gives me Life and Abilities to attack it....And how then is such a Work to be performed to best Advantage? Is it to be done in a grave, sedate, and serious Manner? No, I think Ridicule should here take the Place of sober Reasoning, as the more proper and effectual means to cure men of their foolish Faith and absurd Notions. As no wise Man hardly ever reprehends a Blunderbuss for his Bull, any other way, than by laughing at him; so the Assertors of nonsensical Notions in Theology should, if possible, be satirised and jested upon, or they'll never...desert their absurd Doctrines.

Ghs

[caroljane]

It seems that for men, in sex "ready, willing and able" are synonymous,

physiologically, but for women "willing" is not physiological, physical or psychological

Carol:

Actually, with the hyper pornographic internet glut, many young men have developed what I call a "visual impotency." They are requiring pornography to engage in sexual activity which is not really the kind of four or five play that most women expect.

In that Atlantic article that our semi resident of OL cited above, there is one testimonial story from the authoress wherein she relates the following regarding that "ready willing and able" myth:

"...during a one-night stand with a man I had actually known for quite a while. A polite, educated fellow with a beautiful

Lower East Side apartment invited me to a perfunctory dinner right after his long-term girlfriend had left him. We

quickly progressed to his bed, and things did not go well. He couldn’t stay aroused. Over the course of the tryst, I

trotted out every parlor trick and sexual persona I knew. I was coquettish then submissive, vocal then silent,

aggressive then downright commandeering; in a moment of exasperation, he asked if we could have anal sex.

I asked why, seeing

as how any straight man who has had experience with anal sex knows that it’s a big production

and usually has a lot of false starts and abrupt stops*.

He answered, almost without thought,

“Because that’s the

only thing that will make you uncomfortable.*”

This was, perhaps, the greatest moment of sexual honesty I’ve ever

experienced—and without hesitation, I complied. This encounter proves an unpleasant fact that does not fit the

feminist script on sexuality: pleasure and displeasure wrap around each other like two snakes."

*Now there is a boy that has issues!

*not when you know what you are doing I might add!

What does this anecdote have to do with the reality of most young men and women today? Jaded overprivileged Americans in the tiny circle of northeastern who-cares-what-they-think chattering classes, and their hangers-on with their outdated tattered copies of the Atlantic Monthly? Please, this is today, it's tomorrow.

[Selene]

Fair enough as to the elite story.

However, the prior point is not about that elite, it is about the "...reality of most young men and women today" and there internet porn addiction which is having a devastating impotency amongst young men.

[9thdoctor]

Do you think Sister Hissy-fits chose Sunday morning for its parallels with church?

In a sense, yes. Monday to Friday is out, so between Saturday and Sunday, which would you pick?

Thomas Woolston (1669-1733), whose mockery of the Gospel accounts of Jesus scandalized generations of Christians. Woolston was convicted of blasphemy in 1729, fined, and imprisoned for around 4 years.

Pshaw! He got off easy! So did this guy:

http://en.wikipedia....homas_aikenhead

A mere hanging!

Back in the good ole days, they’d start by tearing the flesh with red hot pincers, then came the really rough stuff. I’m going to spare the full description for the sake of any squeamish Canadian socialists who might be reading this.

[Selene]

Do you think Sister Hissy-fits chose Sunday morning for its parallels with church?

In a sense, yes. Monday to Friday is out, so between Saturday and Sunday, which would you pick?

Thomas Woolston (1669-1733), whose mockery of the Gospel accounts of Jesus scandalized generations of Christians. Woolston was convicted of blasphemy in 1729, fined, and imprisoned for around 4 years.

Pshaw! He got off easy! So did this guy:

http://en.wikipedia....homas_aikenhead

A mere hanging!

Back in the good ole days, they’d start by tearing the flesh with red hot pincers, then came the really rough stuff. I’m going to spare the full description for the sake of any squeamish Canadian socialists who might be reading this.

We all saw Braveheart!

[caroljane]

Do you think Sister Hissy-fits chose Sunday morning for its parallels with church?

In a sense, yes. Monday to Friday is out, so between Saturday and Sunday, which would you pick?

Thomas Woolston (1669-1733), whose mockery of the Gospel accounts of Jesus scandalized generations of Christians. Woolston was convicted of blasphemy in 1729, fined, and imprisoned for around 4 years.

Pshaw! He got off easy! So did this guy:

http://en.wikipedia....homas_aikenhead

A mere hanging!

Back in the good ole days, they’d start by tearing the flesh with red hot pincers, then came the really rough stuff. I’m going to spare the full description for the sake of any squeamish Canadian socialists who might be reading this.

We all saw Braveheart!

Och, ye can take away ma sense of decorum, but ye can never take away ma freedom!

[anthony]

Thing is, I think Peikoff reversed cause and effect, by arguing - rather like a defense attorney in a rape trial - for the 'rights' of his client, the accused rapist. ("A woman can give her consent by her presence, in certain contexts"...)

Even as lawyer, he fails abysmally.

From the legal, he attempts to back-derive the moral. ( "...it frees the man to have sex regardless of what she then says.")

"it frees":- i.e. he is morally correct in going ahead, is LP's rationalization.

Rights follow morals, which he knows better than most.

Yes, there are legal contexts. 'Play rape' is obviously not one of them, since it is by definition consensual sex.

Context exists in morality, too.

For example, one's ethics would preclude ever taking another person's life. Still, there will always be that .001% probability that a situation arises when it is right and proper to do so. An important context, an exception.

However, I can't come up with a single moral context for continuing to coerce sex beyond a woman's explicit refusal.

Conversely, there are a host of human and Objectivist (one and the same, in reality), moral standards which utterly reject such a wrongly, invasive action.

(William, I was thinking of you here ("the ick factor of Objectivism" ) - to try to show that misimplementation and misinterpretation of the principles by we O'ists at times - people errors - should be viewed as distinct from the principles themselves.

We all push too far sometimes; Peikoff, particularly, is ludicrous in matters sexual.)

[caroljane]

Fair enough as to the elite story.

However, the prior point is not about that elite, it is about the "...reality of most young men and women today" and there internet porn addiction which is having a devastating impotency amongst young men.

Well, the impotent ones can hardly go around raping, can they. Guess it's up to the geriatrics like Lennie.