In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
Redwood Dragon
IMAO
The Invisible Hand
ScrappleFace
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Campuses and Rapes | Main | Harley Weekenders »

February 27, 2008

Your Opinion Wanted

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Everyone --

As a followup to my previous posting: Rape? Or just messy college sex?

(Link thanks to Cheryl Miller, who comments on Heather Mac Donald's piece here.)

Best,

Michael


posted by Michael at February 27, 2008




Comments

The rape and sexual abuse hysteria is the proof that there is no difference between extreme left and extreme right.

If the left wants to accuse President Bush of using the tactics of the Reichstag fire to justify the Iraq War, then the rape and sexual abuse hysteria is the left's Reichstag fire... an invented crisis designed to pour money into the extreme left's most cherished causes.

Why was this manufactured hysteria so effective? Because feminists played deliberately into men's chivalry. Leftist men are absolute fools for these tactics... and they get to wear a halo within their communities for denouncing other men... a perfect result!

I live in an extremist leftist community. The rape and sexual abuse hysteria has been a vile, disgusting and demented display of demagoguery. I was raised in a conservative community, and I once believed that only a conservative community could engage in these horrific, sick tactics. I've been disabused of that notion.

Now, we're faced with the task of driving the monsters who created this hysteria out of public office, out of the schools and out of the mental health institutions. I'm no longer a political animal, so I'm not going to set off on this crusade. I am a loss as to how we will defeat these monsters.

I am especially fed up with the men who've been sucked into being apologists for the awful, vicious women who created this hysteria. In some ways, these men are even more evil than those women.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on February 27, 2008 11:40 AM



...when she impulsively sent Shaw-Fox a text message.

What made the Journalist insert the word "impulsively"? Is that a quote? Why not just say that she sent the guy a text message?

... and they decided to do something that was both thoroughly modern and rooted in a long history of radical feminist tactics ...

Is this Journalism? What is Beth trying to accomplish with adding that to the story?

“I was wearing a tube top. He just, like, pulled it down, and I kissed him.”

This a**hole sees this chick and just pulls down her tube top. Sexual Harassment? Assault? Nope, she kisses him. Then she takes off his clothes and then she gets naked herself.

He starts pushing on her head. He then says, ‘You know, I’m not interested in any relationship.’. After he says that to her, she blows him.

But I actually got a little confused by the description that then followed that. I could not figure out the description.

Either way, this guy is an asshole. Like so many girls, she was attracted to that. (I wonder how many Applied Mathematics majors she has blown?)

After being mistreated byt this guy. Not just in language, but in actions, she decides to get back in touch. A guy, of course, does not mix words: "Don’t go, he’s an asshole." Spoken like a real man. Direct and to the point.

Her response, "No, it’s OK, I know he’s an asshole."

So, is that why she wanted to go voer there. Because he is an asshole. And, then, she got pissed, because, you know, he acted like an asshole.

I wish I could say that this is unbelievable. Unfortunately, it seems all too common.

p.s. I know that people will want to hang me for saying this, "But, what the hell was she doing wearing a Tube Top?" I firmly believe that you should wear whatever you want, but why taunt the animals?

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 27, 2008 1:33 PM



What comes across to me in this story is that this particular young woman (and many other young women, I would assume) are no longer taught that there is both great power and great danger in their sexual allure. To be specific: just before the young man forces her to perform oral sex - and I didn't put scare quotes around forces because maybe he did and maybe he didn't - she has disrobed, she is naked and alone with him in his dorm room. And yet she seems to express surprise at what followed. I put it to you that until quite recently young women were schooled in at least a degree of modesty to avoid these very situations. What has happened to the accumulated wisdom of the race or the species about the explosive nature of desire, especially male desire when it is aroused by young women who flaunt? Really, modesty is a woman's best protection. But it has to be taught.

Posted by: ricpic on February 27, 2008 6:49 PM



I'd file this under "bad college sex with a known asshole."

I do like the shaming-by-Facebook though.

Posted by: Steve on February 27, 2008 8:41 PM



Michael, thanks for the link!

Ian and ripic, so you agree with radical feminism that men are animals who can't control themselves when faced with a scantily-clad or naked woman? What about schooling men too? Shouldn't they be taught about honor and respect? And since we all agree that women are vulnerable in a way that men are not, don't men have a responsibility to protect them, even if they are acting foolishly?

Posted by: Cheryl on February 27, 2008 10:44 PM



Cheryl,

The guy made it clear to the girl that he wanted only sex and not a relationship.

Then, she gets naked with him in a private room.

What in the world are you talking about? We're not talking here about whether people should respect one another's feelings. We're talking about whether the school should take legal action again a young man.

I read your weblog posting as well. You are very confused. As well you should be, given the loony era in which you've grown up.

Michael, I've noticed that you completely omitted any mention of the other half of Mac Donald's article. I can understand why... because you are interested in healthy sex play. When a college takes it upon itself to indoctrinate young people in promiscuity and sex-as-play, that's a different issue altogether.

What becomes of sexuality when the women's studies center is hosting sex fairs? Have you read the latest about the Duke lacrosse case? Duke hosted a sex workers show that featured strippers, after banning stripping on campus in the wake of the Duke lacrosse fiasco. Duke's financing of the sex workers show has become an issue in the new lawsuit filed by Duke lacrosse players.

Apparently, there is a PC prescribed method of stripping that is educational. Hiring a stripper in the privacy of one's frat house is a form of sexual assault.

I'm in favor of people having fun and adventure with their sex lives... if that's what they want. What is happening here is that Duke University (and all liberal colleges) are indoctrinating students in their notion of PC approved sexual behavior.

Something very strange is happening here. Promiscuous sexuality, gay sexuality... these are no longer "transgressions," in the dumb vocabulary of the PC propagandists. Colleges are indoctrinating students in how to be properly promiscuous and gay. It's mind numbing. The kids graduating and moving to NYC these days pretend to be rebels when they engage in their supposedly wild sexual behavior. In fact, they were indoctrinated in those behaviors by the authority figures in their lives.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on February 27, 2008 11:29 PM



Ian and ripic, so you agree with radical feminism that men are animals who can't control themselves when faced with a scantily-clad or naked woman?

I never said that. I think that it is amazingly hard for a man with raging testosterone to control himself around scantily clad girls who come to your room at night, but, sure, he can do it.

What I said is that this guy was a complete asshole. His friends knew it. He advertised on his MySpace profile. She knew it. She wanted him (anyway, or because of, I am not sure).

What about schooling men too? Shouldn't they be taught about honor and respect?

It wasn't that long ago that a man without honor and respect could not get a wife and, therefore, regular sex.

Now, the animals seem to do much better than the gentlemen.

And since we all agree that women are vulnerable in a way that men are not, don't men have a responsibility to protect them, even if they are acting foolishly?

We don't all agree. I agree with that. I think that Ric and you do as well. But not the Leftists. Remember, anything a Man can do a Woman can do (if not better).

If a woman needs to rely on a man for security or finances or, well, anything, then that simply shows that she is different, and inferior, in some ways. Which is obviously not true since gender is simply a social construct and we are equal in all ways.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 27, 2008 11:49 PM



She's an aspiring writer and the sex tell-all is a hot book commodity -- or a way into journalism.

She went looking for this and then got publicity out of it. She didn't report it to the police -- that alone makes it questionable as to what happened. This is a bid for fame.

I hope he's guilty. It would be pretty horrific to have a woman do this to an innocent guy.

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on February 28, 2008 7:55 AM



I have a hard time wrapping my head around (no pun intended) defining this as "just messy college sex," at least if you're going by the girl's description of the encounter (which I don't think the guy denies, though I could be wrong.) If a girl and a guy are having sex and the guy gets rough so that the girl decides to call it off, but the guy decides to take her signals for "stop this shit now," to be his cue to say, "yeah, that's right, choke on it," I personally don't have problem calling the rest of the encounter a rape.

I don't think the guy gets a pass because of the circumstances that got them into that situation.

Posted by: i, squub on February 28, 2008 10:13 AM



squub. that is not what happened.

After he acted like a complete asshole to her (and she got confirmation from friends and confirmed it herself) she put on some skimpy clothes and text message the guy.

She decides to go this assholes dorm room where the drunk bastard rips off her Tube Top. Her reaction, to get them both naked.

After he pushes her head down to his crotch and tells here that he does not want a relationship, she blows him.

Then this Asshole decides to act un-gentlemanly and starts pursuing a "rougher" blowjob. I know, shocking, right? That this obvious asshole likes rough sex.

After she was done blowing him, she left.

So, yeah, he is a rapist.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 28, 2008 12:09 PM



Ian,

How is that not what I said? Girl and guy start having sex, guy gets rough, girl decides to call it off, guy decides that'd be inconvenient and goes ahead and finishes anyway.

Let's change the scenario a little. Two professional boxers get in a ring. Both are planning to box the shit out of each other. Halfway through the bout, one of them pulls off a glove and there's a knife there. The other guy says, "hey, shit, I didn't sign up for that..." Guy with the knife slashes anyway, cuts a hole in the guy's gut.

But that's fine, the guy with the knife didn't assault the other. The guy with the knife hole in his gut knew from the start that there was going to be a fight.

It just doesn't hold up. For me, anyway. Because a girl agrees to have sex with a guy, that doesn't give the guy the right to do whatever he wants to do to her.

Posted by: i, squub on February 28, 2008 12:56 PM



I edited the newsletter of one of the major men's organizations for less than a year.

I quit because I realized that men are too stupid to deal with the tactics of the feminazis.

Every hetero man hates the way every other hetero man fucks. That's just a fact. That makes men dead meat when the feminazis start manipulating the rape hysteria, as you can see from the discussion above.

Men are too stupid to understand just how easily they are manipulated by their sexual hatred of other men. This stupidity leaves them wide open.

I no longer care. I just take care of myself, and watch with dismay and awe as men repeat the same fucking stupidity again and again. The feminazis have men by the balls, and I don't see men becoming smart enough to fight back in any organized way.

It's every man for himself. I'm resigned to men acting like morons and tearing each other apart while the feminazis laugh at us.

Men are too dumb to get it. Well, the homos do get it. They are laughing at us heteros for being so damned stupid.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on February 28, 2008 2:29 PM



"Ian and ripic, so you agree with radical feminism that men are animals who can't control themselves when faced with a scantily-clad or naked woman? What about schooling men too? Shouldn't they be taught about honor and respect? And since we all agree that women are vulnerable in a way that men are not, don't men have a responsibility to protect them, even if they are acting foolishly?"

Cheryl, let me respond, both to you, and some of the other commenters here. Before I do let me state my prejudices - I'm generally conservative, and oppose some significant fraction of the sexual revolution. As such, I find the aggregate refusal to place any responsibility on the man's shoulders abhorrent. The man should hold responsibility for what he did. It seems to me that there are two possible reasons why he didn't do the right thing:

1) He doesn't know what the right thing to do is. Of course, I suspect that I have a different idea of what the right thing to do is than most. I think that consenting hookups are wrong, much less the sort described in the article. As such, I'd place part of the blame on his misshaped moral sense on the teachings produced by his university about the proper role of sex.

2) He knows what the right thing to do is, but he doesn't want to do it. In this case, I think the blame lies squarely on his shoulders.

I'd suspect his reasons are a mixture of both.

What the young lady did was both foolish and imprudent. But, as you say, that doesn't absolve the man of responsibility in the matter. Of course men have a responsibility to protect women, more so when they are acting in such a way as to place them in danger.

I can't help but think that some of the problems we're seeing lie from a lack of intermediate distinctions between rape and acceptable sexual behaviour. Simplifying grossly, when we see a sexual situation, we get to choose to categorize it as either rape or OK. One group responds by noting that there are all of these other bad behaviours that need to be punished as well, therefore, we should expand the definition of rape to encompass them. And they're right that these other behaviours are deserving of sanction. The other group notes that this incurs disproportionate sanction on these other behaviours, and tries to reverse the expansion. But the whole thing could be simplified by reinstating other degrees. In this particular case, for example, I'm uncomfortable calling it rape, in part because, as usually happens, this is a fight between different accounts of the situation, and I'm leery to instituting severe criminal penalties on the basis of such evidence. I have no problems at all endorsing the sort of social shunning that this girl's friends have done with the aid of Facebook.

Posted by: Brett on February 28, 2008 2:37 PM



"It's every man for himself."

Suit yourself. I have a wife to protect, and I'd like to know that there's some sort of social sanctions to encourage other men to protect her to.

Posted by: Brett on February 28, 2008 2:39 PM



girl decides to call it off

I can only go by what the article said. She never said that. She never called it off. She didn't like that he was getting rough, but, that is far different than calling it off.

Let's change the scenario a little. Two professional boxers get in a ring. Both are planning to box the shit out of each other. Halfway through the bout, one of them pulls off a glove and there's a knife there. The other guy says, "hey, shit, I didn't sign up for that..." Guy with the knife slashes anyway, cuts a hole in the guy's gut.

That is one hell of a scenario. When the Liberal Arts Actor wannabe does something like that, I will definitely respond.

What he did do was pursue a more agressive sex than she preferred. However, she never said, "Stop", "Don't", "I don't want to do this", "I am leaving", "Get off of me"...she said, "You are choking me".

The asshole, being an asshole, proabbly thought that she was into it. I am in no way excusing his behaviour. But, like I said, she seemed to be attracted to his assholeness. Why would he stop in the middle of a Blowjob?

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 28, 2008 2:46 PM



I will respond, Mr Lewis, with the obvious fact that it is difficult to talk with certain objects in one's mouth, especially if someone is holding one's head in place to make certain that one does not remove them.

I agree that it would be going too far to call this scenario rape, mainly because I think the young man may have believed his partner was consenting. But - he ought to have been more sure. I would like to see us drop the "all men are potential rapists" canard, but I don't think we can afford a situation in which many men are convinced that only violent assaults by a stranger are wrong and that anything is permitted once the woman has consented to take part in a sexual act.

The point that the "boxer" analogy was supposed to make is that it is possible in certain encounters to consent to some level of roughness without consenting to everything else. How about putting it this way: when you invite a guest to stay over night at your house, you do not give him a right to steal the silverware, even if you never explicitly tell him not to do so.

Posted by: alias clio on February 28, 2008 4:05 PM



First, I want to be clear for the sake of what Brett said up there: if I were in a jury and this is all the evidence given, there's no way I'd vote to convict this guy of rape. The question I'm answering is whether the story told, if it's what happened, is a story of rape. To me it is.

So, second, Ian: she didn't say "you are choking me," according to the article I read. The article says that after she started "gagging and choking," "she says she started pushing on Shaw-Fox’s abdomen to tell him to stop. “And he was like, ‘Yeah, that’s right, choke on it.’”"

So I guess your argument is that trying to push the guy off isn't saying stop. In which case I'll concede at least so far as to say it's a gray area. Maybe the guy really is that stupid.

And finally, Shouting Thomas says:
Every hetero man hates the way every other hetero man fucks. That's just a fact. That makes men dead meat when the feminazis start manipulating the rape hysteria, as you can see from the discussion above.

Men are too stupid to understand just how easily they are manipulated by their sexual hatred of other men. This stupidity leaves them wide open.

That's the dumbest, least supported offering of a "fact" that I've ever read. (No, not really, but I don't think I've seen you write anything but hyperbole here, ever, so I'll just play along.) I'd love to know how you know this applies to all men. I certainly see where it applies to YOU, who seem to hate homo sex and casual sex and lots of different kinds of sex. But I sure don't think it applies to all men.

And I'd also like to know what my stupidity is leaving me open for, exactly.

Posted by: i, squub on February 28, 2008 4:27 PM



Hmm, can we take as accurate the word of a woman allegedly performing her first oral sex? How does she know if what transpired was in fact out of the "norm", or just something she never experienced before?

I've been intimate over the years with 4 women who claimed to have been raped. The first 2 were in college. Both engaged in the full gamut of sexual activity after a couple dates, with one, to use the porn vernacular, was a "three-input" woman. The third was a minor dallience in my mid-twenties that started with a first-date Lewinsky!
None exhibited the sort of sexual behaviors (reluctance, avoidance) one expects from a rape victim.

The fourth is my current girlfriend. She was taken advantage of by a 19-year old neighbor when she was 15. She never spoke of it to anyone but her mother, who warned her with all the horror stories always here about testifying in court about being raped. I wonder about this scumbag and how many other girls he molested, not to mention the permanent disfigurement he has in store if our paths ever cross!

But I already had a feeling about her, because she DID exhibit the classic symptoms of a rape victim. It affects her to this day, and I wonder if people like the college girl in question here realize that phony accusers like them have created an atmosphere where women who HAVE been raped are put through an honesty wringer because of the Sisterhood's agenda.

Posted by: Brutus on February 28, 2008 4:40 PM



If she wanted him to stop why didn't she just use her teeth?

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on February 28, 2008 6:16 PM



I will respond, Mr Lewis, with the obvious fact that it is difficult to talk with certain objects in one's mouth, especially if someone is holding one's head in place to make certain that one does not remove them.

Oohh, ouch.

But - he ought to have been more sure.

I completely agree. But, then again, I think that "you should always be yourself" and "you should never be ashamed of who you are". Also, "you can not rely on someone else for your happiness" and "never care what anyone else thinks".

I am in no way excusing his behaviour. And, like Brutus, I think this kid should get educated the old-fashioned way.

I would like to see us drop the "all men are potential rapists" canard...

Again, I agree. But I can't speak for budding actors and wanna-be NPR Journalists at elite Liberal Arts schools. I am assuming that they, and their professors, would find your opinion just a little too conservative.

...but I don't think we can afford a situation in which many men are convinced that only violent assaults by a stranger are wrong and that anything is permitted once the woman has consented to take part in a sexual act.

No doubt.

The point that the "boxer" analogy was...

I got the analogy. However, I think a better one would be this:
A boxer getting into the ring a SECOND time with a pugilist that had already pulled a knife in the first bout. Then, after the drunken fighter pulled the knife, she got naked and blew him.

This guy had already proven what an asshole he was. She then pursued him. He f*cking ripped off her Tube Top. You might think that she would be outraged and file charges then, no, she...well, you know the story.

Also, would you invite that silverware stealing guest a second time?

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 28, 2008 6:49 PM



So, second, Ian: she didn't say "you are choking me," according to the article I read. The article says that after she started "gagging and choking," "she says she started pushing on Shaw-Fox’s abdomen to tell him to stop. “And he was like, ‘Yeah, that’s right, choke on it.’”"

Yeah, I got that part wrong. I did mis-quote.

I still think that she had to know what kind of asshole she was dealing with. He had already tried this once before with her. He basically advertises that he is an asshole on his MySpace profile. A guy that know him tells her point blank, "Don't go, he is an asshole". She says that she knows that. She decides to Text Message Him and decides to go over to his dorm room. The f*cker rips off her Tube Top and, after that show of gentlemanly behaviour, she decides to get naked.

And, I would be less willing to bet that he is stupid (when she was hitting him, attempting to get him to stop choking her) and more willing to bet that he has had rough sex a few times. And he likes it.

If he keeps up his reading of places like Jezebel.com, he probably thinks that most of them like it too.

But, with all that said, what should the charges be against this guy, if any?

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 28, 2008 7:01 PM



So, Brutus, just so I understand your point, are you saying that because some of the women you know who claim to have been raped engaged in a wide variety of consensual sex with you that they must not have been raped? Does that mean any woman who has at any time engaged in rough consensual sex must never have been and cannot now become a rape victim? If you've ever willingly engaged in a fistfight does that mean it is impossible for you to be mugged? If it was your first fistfight and you began to realize that there was a good chance you were going to get beaten to a bloody pulp would you try to call it off? If, when you did try to call it off, your opponent just laughed and kept pounding your face, would that be okay because you originally agreed to the fight or would it become assault?

Posted by: Chris White on February 28, 2008 7:06 PM



Since opinions are being solicited on the matter I thought I would offer my 2 cents.

Firstly the facts of the case are:
1) She had previous experience of the fellow and was fully aware that he was an "asshole"
2) After a period of time she initiated contact with the said "asshole"
3) She found the "asshole" drunk and proceeded to enter his room.
4) She consensually agreed to undress.
5) The said "asshole" while in an intoxicated asked if she would perform oral sex on him. She agreed and the said "asshole" proceeded after her explicit agreement.
6) During the act of fellatio, the experience became unpleasant and the intoxicated "asshole" continued with the sexual act until he had to leave to vomit.
7) She felt bad about her first experience of fellatio.

The bottom line is she initiated contact with the inebriated male and agreed to the sexual act the article did not mention that she wanted to stop the act rather she did not want him to be so rough. This is a bad sexual experience but this is not rape.

What I imagine happened is that post event, she was probably embarrassed upon reflection by her own actions and stupidity and wanted someone to blame for it. The campus machinery provided the ideological justification for blaming Mr Shaw-Fox.

Several years ago I had a patient whose husband was unfaithful to her, she then proceed to an act of infidelity and got pregnant to another man. Subsequently she had an abortion and suffered depression. She blamed the abortion on her husband. When I explained to her that her husband was blameless as he didn't even know that she was pregnant, she disagreed stating that his infidelity caused her to be unfaithful, get pregnant and hence have an abortion. A lot of feminist rape thinking is along this line. Girl consents to have a sexual act and afterwards regrets it, blames man for sexual act by saying she was powerless in the situation. Indeed there appears to be a type of girl who tries to engineer a coercive/non responsible situation so that she can keep her reputation/self image intact while doing something she is probably embarrassed about.

"They made me have a threesome". But didn't you drink heavily and then went to their room to watch porn beforehand? Didn't they try this before?
"I'm sure the drink was spiked". The toxicology report came back negative.
"He forced me to do it". So why did you keep going out with him for another six months?

Feminist ideology provides an intellectual system by which any unpleasant sexual experiences can be classified as rape. Had fun having sex with your drunken boyfriend? Good. His breath was really bad and you wished he stopped because you couldn't stand the stench: rape.

Finally who is Koss to decide what is rape and what isn't? I think S+M is pretty degrading and exploitative but is it rape? By my criteria it is, yet others love it. A lot of partners do things things for the sake of the other even though they personally wouldn't do it if they had the choice. Is that rape?

Rape by it's nature is an unintended injury, not an unanticipated one. Most normal girls can tell the difference. If I don't want to have sex and someone forces me to do it then that is rape, if I choose to have sex with someone and it isn't as nice as I thought it would be or I feel bad about it afterwards, its tough luck. Koss can't tell the difference.

Shaw-Fox is an asshole, but he has been thoroughly screwed by Hunter. He certainly did not anticipate the turn of events that his tryst would lead to. By Koss's definition, Shaw-Fox has been raped.

Sorry for the long post.

Posted by: Slumlord on February 28, 2008 7:36 PM



The guy was a jerk who mistreated a girl sexually but didn't commit the crime of raping her. He wasn't sent to jail, he was shamed publicly, and then expelled from university.

No crime, no criminal punishment. Socially unacceptable behaviour, socially unaccepted. Seems to me that the bad deed received an appropriate punishment.

And the cops and the courts didn't have to get involved. Question: Isn't this how a healthy society handles behaviour it wants to discourage without criminalizing it? Social stigma, thy name is Facebook!

I'm generally on the opposite side of Chris W and squub on many things, but as far as I can tell, if they climb down from direct assertions of criminality, I think they're with the angels on this one.

Posted by: PatrickH on February 28, 2008 7:42 PM



PathrickH - Good point, but only if the girl got her appropriate dose of public humiliation in the bargain. Rather, I get the impression she's regarded as a hero by some.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on February 28, 2008 8:53 PM



Question: Isn't this how a healthy society handles behaviour it wants to discourage without criminalizing it? Social stigma, thy name is Facebook!

Yes, but there is a huge difference between making him where the Scarlet 'A' for Asshole instead of the Scarlet 'R' for 'Rapist'.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 28, 2008 9:10 PM



PatrickH: I agree with you. From what the story in the article, there's no way to hold the guy criminally responsible. I assume by "direct assertions of criminality" you mean that I'm calling it a rape. I don't equate the word "rape" with "against the law" so much as "ejaculating into holes you've been asked not to ejaculate into."

Posted by: i, squub on February 28, 2008 9:20 PM



Patrick H. Count me in. She was an idiot and I would need a lot better evidence than the story related in the article to turn this into a legal rape case. She was, at best, hopelessly naive and at worst a vindictive fool. He was, at best and worst, an egtistical a******. I suspect they'll both find the repercussions of the way this has taken on an internet life of its own will haunt them for a loooooong time. It is unclear to me whether that is a pitiful tragedy or a mixed blessing.

Posted by: Chris White on February 28, 2008 10:17 PM



Slumlord, you appear to be saying that once a woman has consented to a sexual act, she has consented to any sexual act. That's a dangerous way to look at consensual sex.

The facts of this particular case are murky, so I'm not calling it rape, but if what the young woman says about her experience is true, then what happened to her is rather worse than simply not liking the smell of a man's breath.

Here's a case that might make what I mean a little clearer: a woman consents to some form of sex that does not involve actual intercourse, because she and her partner have no contraceptives available. Carried away by "passion", the man forces intercourse upon her. Would you then still insist that she was the one who had done something wrong?

Todd Fletcher, why do you think that the fact that this woman might be regarded as a "hero" by some people means that she isn't getting any share of public humiliation? I don't doubt that some people regard her as a skank, as you appear to do. And I don't doubt that some people regard the young man as an innocent victim, if the responses here are any indication.

I am deeply conservative in sexual matters, but that doesn't mean that I think that a woman who has consented to sex thereby gives up all her rights to be consulted about how sex should proceed. This woman was foolish and reckless; the man with whom she had sex was reckless and brutal.

Posted by: alias clio on February 28, 2008 10:18 PM



Clio, I am curious, who here thinks that he was an innocent victim? (note: I did not read Shouting Thomas's comments.)

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 29, 2008 12:19 AM



I'm with Slumlord. I see the whole story as a comedy with contemporary America as the butt of the joke. Girl chases guy, forces herself on him, disrobes him and herself, decides she has second thoughts when she already has his dick in her mouth -- and as a consequence the guy winds up getting kicked out of school?

Puh-leeze. Is there another culture in the entire world that wouldn't double over in disbelief and laughter?

The misbehavior here, as far as I'm concerned, is entirely on the part of the girl. Not so much chasing the guy, stripping, going down on him, etc -- that's all kinda cute. But the act of bringing some kind of charges against the guy? She really, really needs to have her stupid, spoiled wrists slapped.

As far as I'm concerned, 1) no one should have gotten kicked out of school, 2) if the girl wanted to call the guy a jerk to her friends or on Facebook, why not? 3) Someone somewhere really ought to tell this child to grow up, and introduce her to the fact that the real world doesn't have a Dean's Office where you get to run and complain when your schemes don't turn out the way you hoped they would.

I mean seriously. College sex is often messy. Drunken sex is often messy. Drunken college sex is often an appalling mess. So what? (Unless things get genuinely violent, of course.) If we can't make mistakes (boys and girls both) how do we ever get to learn? People really need to be a lot more forgiving, IMHO. Life is life. People make mistakes. A lot of them are a lot more fun than doing the correct thing, at least in retrospect.

And this particular case is soooooo far from what I consider to be any real case of rape that it's laughable.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 29, 2008 1:58 AM



Slumlord, you appear to be saying that once a woman has consented to a sexual act, she has consented to any sexual act. That's a dangerous way to look at consensual sex.

Alias Clio, it may appear that way to you, but that isn't what I'm saying. People don't usually sit down and enumerate the rules of engagement prior to sexual activity, the fact that a naked woman has a man's genitals in her mouth would imply to the average male that she consents to general sexual activity. I imagine that the average male would limit his behaviour by the signals she sends out during the act. However what if she sends out ambiguous signals? Stop, stop, stop.......: no don't.
Or what if she consents to sexual activity with a person whose prior track record shows disregard for her feelings and is intoxicated so that his judgment is impaired? Doesn't she bear part of the responsibility?
To get run over by a drunk driver is a tragedy. To knowingly jump into a car with a drunk driver and get killed is culpable stupidity, something Ms Hunter demonstrated lots of.

Sexual activity is in many ways like fighting, powerful emotions frequently override rationality. That why you don't pick a fight with someone bigger than you, or the village psychopath or the man who fights dirty and is high on crack. Things get out of hand real fast. It's one thing to be attacked by the psycho out of the blue, but it's another to provoke him and then get the shit kicked out of you. In the second instance you bear part of the blame for your misfortune. Likewise, if a girl chooses to have sex with an intoxicated asshole, it's quite likely that the act will not go according to her plans and that during sex intoxicated assholes are liable to do the things that intoxicated assholes do. This is common sense, not Feminism.

Consensual sex is dangerous. The male grinding and thrusting away is usually bigger and stronger, the woman is frequently at a disadvantageous position and the man is more focused on primary sexual gratification than the woman. Sex is not about consent, but about trust and respect. You have got to trust that that partly irrational mass of boiling testosterone is going to do what you ask him to do when every physical signal in his head is telling him to do the opposite. Trust is only established with time and a relationship, when you impulse buy your likely to get a dud, so choose wisely and dabble slowly.

Rape is when a woman bears no responsibility for an unwanted sexual act. Rape does not occur when the sexual act is consented to but turns out to be unpleasant. I'm right and feminism is wrong.

Posted by: Slumlord on February 29, 2008 6:59 AM



The misbehavior here, as far as I'm concerned, is entirely on the part of the girl.

You can't be serious.

“It started happening, and then he, like, twisted his fingers around my hair and started pulling it and being just kind of violent. I started choking because he was just, like, pushing my head.… I started gagging and choking, and I couldn’t really breathe.”

She says she started pushing on Shaw-Fox’s abdomen to tell him to stop. “And he was like, ‘Yeah, that’s right, choke on it.’”

Eventually, Hunter was able to get up and put her clothes on, she says, because Shaw-Fox had to leave the room to vomit.

Putting aside the question of whether this is rape--you don't even think it's misbehavior? What's wrong with you?

Like the commenters above, I think the details here are too unclear to say it's rape. But I would second alias clio's question--do you believe that "once a woman has consented to a sexual act, she has consented to any sexual act"?

Posted by: BP on February 29, 2008 7:35 AM



Neatly sidestepping any of the genuine reservations people - me? - have brought up. Typical.

Of course there were features about this particular case that made it impossible to think of it as rape. But it was some of the responses here that concerned me, for the reasons I described above.

I'm not certain that I don't feel rather like a man-hater this morning, after all.

Posted by: alias clio on February 29, 2008 7:35 AM



And, to be clear, when I say I wouldn't call it rape, I mean it in the way squub does--I wouldn't vote to convict him if I were on a jury based on the evidence in the article.

But if the girl's story as told is 100% true of course it's rape. She said he forced her perform a sexual act against her will. That is the definition of rape.

Posted by: BP on February 29, 2008 7:42 AM



Maybe I wasn't clear, Mr. White, so let me try again and use small words...

I have a problem with young women, and the ones in question here are all under 25 except the last, blithly throwing around the R-word. Why these women felt it necessary to tell me that they were raped I don't know, but I do know that it didn't ring true. When a 19-year old tells you she was raped after you've had sexual congress involving various orifices, you suspect the story and the motives. Maybe I totally misunderstand what rape does psychologically to a woman, and, to paraphrase William Gibson, the experience turns her into a "total bone-addict slut". What I've read about rape victims, though, is at odds with this sort of behavior. Women hold all the power here, with the accusation alone having the potential to ruin lives, and I think we can all agree that there are people without the maturity and intelligence to use this power wisely (just as there are immature assholes out there preying on women). Slumlord hits the nail on the head; how many college girls wake up in the morning after their first frat party, where they were drinking and flirting and otherwise acting "out of character", regretting what they did or who they did it with, only knowing that she feels terrible and violated. Someone obviously has to pay for her feeling bad.

I can't quite understand what point you're trying to make with the fistfight analogy. I've been involved in more fistfights than I care to remember, having worked as a bouncer while in college. As the Patrick Swayze character says in the movie Road House, nobody wins a fight, especially at a club. As was also said in the movie, it's not personal. Here your analogy holds up; when it came to a fight at the club, once you went far enough in bothering other patrons or staff and were asked to leave, and once you throw the first punch, the world was going to fall down on you. My reaction to this girl, kissing and undressing and blowing the guy in this story, reminded me of the way I used to laugh at the violent drunks, talking smack and starting shit, being all shocked and amazed when they got the crap beat out of them, first by us and then by the cops on duty at the door.

Be careful what you want, as you will assuredly get it!

Clio, I have to say that I don't think anyone here thinks of the peckerhead in question as any sort of admirable character. He's a little asshole, like most college kids I know today (I do some volunteer weight training instruction at the Y). The rampant narcissism of this generation is breathtaking.

Posted by: Brutus on February 29, 2008 9:17 AM



Slumlord, I've already said that I didn't consider this to be a case of rape, both because the details are so murky and because, as I believe I said above, the man might legitimately claim confusion about what his partner wanted.

What if a man accidentally chokes (and kills) a woman during sex, as the result of not paying any attention to her protests that she can't breathe? Surely that would be similar (except for the unfortunate result) to the kind of situation you describe: a man, carried away by desire, stops paying any attention to his partner's signals that something is wrong, and inadvertently offends or injures her.

It's not primarily this case that concerns me. It's the implication I read in some of these comments that, well, I'll say it again: that once a woman has agreed to, or even initiated, as here, a sexual act, she surrenders any further say in the proceedings.

Fellows, if you want to keep casual sex available and friendly, you've got to encourage better manners among your cohorts than this, or you'll find that the source dries up. (There's a growing abstinence movement not only among teenagers but among adults. Dawn Eden's book, The Thrill of the Chaste, is in its 6th English-language printing.) It's not the fault of feminism alone that relations between the sexes have become so angry and spiteful.

Posted by: alias clio on February 29, 2008 11:25 AM



Slumlord makes the general case far better than I can. Sex is playing with nitro. It just is. That's in its nature and being. It isn't (and never has been) a reasonable business-agreement-type transaction in the midst of which all parties remain completely cool and rational. Treating it as though it should be that, and judging individual acts of sexual congress (love that term) according to those standards is (to me anyway) applying totally inappropriate terms. It's like judging "how good a meal is" according to "how many horsepower it puts out." Besides, do you even want sex to be rationalized? Let alone have a rulebook drawn up about sex by bureaucrats?

In this specific case, to push my point a little further: I'm not sure why so many of us are content to judge the guy as an out-and-out asshole. I mean, maybe he is. But in this act specifically?

Look, this chick threw herself at him, over and over again. She gave off about ten different "we're gonna have sex tonight, and you can do with me as you will" signs. FWIW, during my single years I did a lot of dating around. And I don't think I *ever* had a girl throw herself at me as determinedly as this chick throws herself at this guy.

So the case against the guy seems to consist entirely of "Well, as she was blowing him, she pushed her hands against his stomach, and he responded by holding her hair and telling her eat it good, bitch, or something like that." I'm giggling as I type these words, btw. Anyway,

1) we're assuming that "pushing her hands against his stomach" was such a clear sign of "help! I'm not into this!" that any man would have recognized it as "seriously, no, this is bad." I dunno. It seems to me completely possible that the guy -- in fact any guy -- might reasonably have interpreted her hands-against-his-stomach gesture as a hot demonstration that she was into it. Chicks exhibit all kinds of straining, whimpering, arching, stretching, push-pulling kinds of behaviors in the midst of sex. A fair number of them look like protests but actually (sometimes) seem to mean: More, please.

Plus we're once again assuming that this guy should, at that moment, have had a lot of discriminating finesse at his command. People, please: He was in the midst of getting blown by a girl who had thrown herself at him. He was blind with lust and arousal. It seems completely unfair to me to expect any guy at such a moment to be a reasonable creature. It seems completely reasonable for us to expect any guy at such a moment to be centered 150% on getting further and further into his own sensations.

And why was he beyond-judgement blind with lust? Because this girl threw herself at him!

So, as far as I'm concerned, as far as the hands-against-the-stomach thing goes he's completely innocent. He was behaving as 9 out of 10 perfectly-decent guys would. She was blowing him,; he was into it. Incidentally, by my standards the truly ungentlemanly thing to do during a blowjob is NOT to be into it.

Did she bite his dick? Did she scratch his stomach so hard that the pain got through to his inebriated and hyper-aroused mind. Apparently not. So, tough luck, girlie. Manage your affairs a little better in the future.

2) I guess some are appalled that he grabbed her hair and said "Choke on it, bitch," or some such. Does this really make him anything other than a contempo collegedude who has watched a little porn?

Are there many guys who have been on the receiving end of a little oral lovin' who haven't enjoyed holding onto a handful of their gal's hair? Are there many guys (or girls, in my experience) who haven't uttered some absurd porno-esque lines out in the midst of passion? C'mon. It's one of the funnier things about sex, the noises people make. Where on earth do they come from? Yet they leap out of us as though they were lying in wait ready to come out. Bizarre. "Choke on it, bitch" isn't one of the lines that tends to come out of me, but I wasn't raised on the same generation of porn that today's kids are. In any case: Where's your sense of recognition and humor?

Anyway, like I say, the guy may well be an asshole. But nothing I see in the girl's account of the incident -- even if I completely accept her word (and I can't see any reason to do so, but what the hell) -- makes this guy anything other than a lucky collegedude enjoying the oral attentions of a horny, stupid girl who threw herself at him.

Are the rest of you really maintaining that it's possible to remain a discerning gentleman even in the heat of drunken sexual congress? And that anyone who can't do that deserves public punishment?

Over the years I certainly developed a little more poise and presence of mind during sex than I had as a kid. But 1) it's a special kind of "race car driver driving at 200 mph kind of poise." And 2) what reason is there to expect that a couple of drunken college kids should show anything at all in the way of experience and poise?

I see nothing in the sex act that these kids had that I feel needs condemning. They had drunken college sex, and why should I have anything against drunken college sex?

The only thing the whole incident makes me feel like getting all judgmental about is the girl running to the Dean and getting the guy thrown out of school. Oh, and I'm happy to get all judgmental about a system that doesn't just enable a girl to run to the Dean but apparently encourages her to do it.

But drunken college sex? Even if it doesn't work out exactly as planned? (Does sex ever work out exactly as planned?) Nothing wrong with it that I can see, even if one of the partners (poor, poor thing!) goes home unhappy.

A. Clio -- I think some of your points are fine in the abstract-debate sense. But they all seem academic to me. In this particular case ... Well, she didn't get physically hurt. *She put herself* in a position where she couldn't talk. She didn't make any -- and let's put that in caps: ANY -- gestures that even a hyper-suave man of the world like me (small joke) could have interpreted unambiguously as Serious Protest. The gurgling and hand-against-stomach stuff that she describes could easily have been interpreted by any guy as "Hey, she's really into it." But if afterwards she wants to smear him as an unfeeling cad on Facebook, why not? Of course, if he wants to smear her as a naive idiot on Facebook, that's fair too.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 29, 2008 11:46 AM



Michael, the fact that a woman has not been physically hurt isn't really relevant to determining whether any particular sex act is or is not rape. A woman might not be injured because she decided to give in rather than risk making her assailant angry; or she might be coerced into sex in some other way; or she might be unconscious (with alcohol or sleep), and unable to resist, so that there was no need for the rapist to use serious force.

Posted by: alias clio on February 29, 2008 12:30 PM



I don't know why I just can't believe what I'm reading here, still. As far as I know I get just as much out of a good blowjob as the next guy; hell, as far as I know I get more out of it than the next guy. But if a girl I've never had sex with starts shoving on my abdomen while I've got her head against a wall with her mouth full (whether I'm drunk or not,) I'm AT LEAST going to pause long enough to take my dick out of her mouth and make sure she's not trying to stop me. Maybe I just suck at getting blowjobs, I dunno.

Posted by: i, squub on February 29, 2008 1:57 PM



It's not primarily this case that concerns me. It's the implication I read in some of these comments that, well, I'll say it again: that once a woman has agreed to, or even initiated, as here, a sexual act, she surrenders any further say in the proceedings.

I can't speak for all men, but, a girl consenting to sex does NOT mean that she consents to anything. And, at any point she says "Stop" then, he should always stop.

The problem here is that the drunk bastard thought that she was into rough sex. Drunk enough that he needed to vomit after a BJ.

What I would love to know is, after she starting pushing on his abdomen, and he said "Yeah, choke on it", did she keep pushing? Did she hit him? Did he continue for another minute? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? Was she pushing the whole time?

I know that in my last relationship, I inadvertantly hurt my girlfriend, well, she stopped it immediately in no uncertain terms. Granted, we were in love and the fooling around continued about 20 seconds later, but, there was no confusing the matter.

I hope that the questions I am asking (5 mins, 10 mins???) are not leading anyone to believe that what he did was right. It wasn't. And she did not "get what she was asking for", but, she was playing with fire. And my bet is that she liked that.

Fellows, if you want to keep casual sex available and friendly, you've got to encourage better manners among your cohorts than this, or you'll find that the source dries up.

You may be right, but encouragement, IMO, would accomplish little. We are dealing with basic primal urges and wants/needs.

And, if you are a young man, you, by now, think that the assholes are getting the girls and the nice guys are being left behind. If that is true, it creates some bad incentives.

It's not the fault of feminism alone that relations between the sexes have become so angry and spiteful.

Again, you may be right, but...

Look at the places in North America where Feminism and Leftism have had the greatest hold and look at the places where they have had the least hold.

You go to places like North Dakota and, trust me, the culture there is one where Men are supposed to act like Men. And Women are supposed to act like Women.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 29, 2008 2:00 PM



clio:
Fellows, if you want to keep casual sex available and friendly, you've got to encourage better manners among your cohorts than this, or you'll find that the source dries up.

Which strikes me as getting (at last!) to the heart of the matter. We’re in a world where the old system(s) of courtesy, sexual taboos, expectations no longer apply. And what we are trying to develop, clumsily, ignorantly, but trying nonetheless, is a new system of courtesy, of politesse, of simple manners about how to treat one another in the new world of sexual freedom. Not just in the lead-up to sex, but when it’s actually happening. And after.

So what are some of the rules a-borning we can detect in this incident?

1. Don’t have sex when you’re so drunk you need to vomit. You’re already so out of control that you shouldn’t be f*cking any more than you should be driving.

2. Don’t grab girls by the head and force them down onto your penis. I’ve had that done to me, (in my youth I experimented freely) and it is very painful, a deep choke much worse to experience than even having someone put their hands around your throat and squeezing. Just don’t do it, fellas! Same applies to thrusting too deep into her cervix…that hurts. I’ve done it to a few women, and now specifically avoid heavy thrusting until I’m sure she’s built to stand it. And for rear entry…be sensitive to the fact that going in can be cramp-inducing to the go-inee. It’s the outstroke where the fun happens for the receptive partner, but the in-stroke can be problematic. Take it easy, guys! Take it easy, any girls into pegging their men! It’s tender back there! In general, slow down, be gentle, and spend some time exploring instead of conquering. This isn’t about planting flags.

3. The word “a-hole” has developing a good, firm, specific meaning. You know EVERYTHING you need to know when someone describes someone else as an a-hole. If you want to have sex with said a-hole, then you should know exactly what to expect. Especially if said a-hole is sh*t-faced drunk.

These, and other rules for the modern era, are now beginning to bite because they’re finally being enforced, and by the means they should be: social stigma. Ruining of reputations. Think about it: a lot of the hurt on the brute in this story is his being publically labelled as a lousy lover. A lot of the hurt on the girl is EVERYBODY knows she was a stupid, foolish naïve and ignorant fool. (She knows it too.)

I just feel thankful that they’ve volunteered for the teaching role on this. Bad examples can be very instructive, and these two losers are having their social behinds getting tarred and feathered something fierce. Boys and girls of all ages have just received a Master Class in how not to have casual sex. Internalize the lessons, everybody, and maybe we can recover some sense of amity and mutual pleasure between men and women. And become better lovers in the process.

What’s not to be grateful for?

Posted by: PatrickH on February 29, 2008 2:06 PM



Sorry, Clio, the supply is NEVER going to dry up. The behavior of the woman here shows why--I know he's bad but I can't stay away! Better that you educate your sisters to exhibit more consistent behaviors involving men and sex. We gentlemen are the same about the subject all the time-we've got hard ons and want to use them. If you don't want to have sex (or you're not sure) then LEAVE. Don't undress him, just LEAVE. If he won't let you leave, then yell. But if you've behaved honorably, and in turn picked an honorable partner, none of this occurs.

Funny you should bring up the choking to death during sex scenario. The was just a court case up here in MA concerning a dominatrix on trial for the death of one of her clients during an S&M session! Of course, he was asking for the abuse, right?

Dan Jenkins once wrote "I don't know why women give it away. We've got the market on pussy cornered!"

The risk/reward balance equation that we all do in our heads concerning potential partners for sexual activity is such that anyone promulgating abstinence (at least for the 30+ age group) is probably a lousy partner anyway.

MB-The ripped-off tube top, if true, makes this guy an asshole. I'm not bothered by anything he said, as you've amply covered.

Posted by: Brutus on February 29, 2008 2:29 PM



Ian Lewis, I hope it's true that relations between the sexes are better in places like North Dakota, but I don't know. The poison seems to be rather far-reaching.

PatrickH, thanks for the affirmation. You clearly get my point here.

Brutus, about the source drying up: the world is changing. I feel it in the air. The sexual experimenters will probably be socially dominant for another generation or two, but after that it's anyone's guess what will happen. After all, it's only sexual conservatives who are having many children nowadays, and children tend to fall in with their parents' expectations in such matters. I really won't mind if this happens, but I figure some of the people posting here might, which is why I mention it.

And it isn't true that the only people practising chastity are those who are undesirable or unwanted.

Posted by: alias clio on February 29, 2008 6:47 PM



Ian Lewis, I hope it's true that relations between the sexes are better in places like North Dakota, but I don't know. The poison seems to be rather far-reaching.

That poison has a name: Leftist PC Dogma.

And the Hip and Fashionable are almost always swayed by that simple Religion. Preaching "Free Love" and "Everyone just be cool and excellent to one another" always appeals to the young and hip.

Understanding that Ideas Have Consequences is an old and stodgy idea.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 29, 2008 10:46 PM



A. Clio -- None of which has anything to do with this particular case. A reminder of this particular case: Drunk chick threw herself at a drunk guy. Chick stripped; chick stripped him; chick went down on him. Halfway through blowjob chick decided she wasn't into it and pushed on dude's stomach a few times. Chick spends remainder of b.j. experiencing some discomfort and goes home feeling like the evening didn't go as well as she'd hoped it would. A few weeks later, chick is gotten hold of by the Womyn's Center. As a consequence of all this, he gets demonized on the internet and then gets booted from college.

I, Squub -- But you and your girlfriend have a nice rapport and know each other. There's a good vibe between you (presumably that's why you're together) already, and you've nurtured lines of communication. These two were drunken college idiots who'd never made it together before. It didn't work out well. No rapport, no effective lines of communication. They had an evening of bad sex. It happens. Actually it happens a lot. We can't -- and shouldn't even want to -- pass laws (or kick kids out of college) against bad sex, should we?

PatrickH -- It's an interesting time, isn't it? Bewildering too.

General note: No one has mentioned a key fact -- the girl was giving her first blowjob. She had nothing to compare her experience to. So her reactions to it have no context. She isn't telling us, "look, I've given dozens of blowjobs and this one was insanely brutal." She's just saying that it seemed brutal to her, someone who had no basis for comparison. But maybe it was just a routine blowjob, and it *felt* brutal to her because, well, that's what a blowjob can feel like to someone who's never given one before.

Once again: a kid actually got smeared on the web as a rapist and booted from school based on this.

Hey, I just noticed a (to my mind) sensible response to the article from the commentsthread on the article. It's from a female:

No where in that article did Hunter tell him to actually stop during the oral sex encounter. She pushed on his stomach, which in a guy's mind, probably didn't mean much. If a guy is drunk and in a sexual haze, do you really expect him to register that a shove to the stomach means stop? Hell no.

To me, this is pushing the definition of sexual assault. She went over there willingly, knowing that he was an asshole. What did she expect to happen? That they would have a nice conversation about the weather? Let's be realistic here people. She took her clothes off. She agreed, albeit reluctantly, to perform oral sex on him. If she really had been uncomfortable, she could have done more to stop him. But she didn't. She took it all with minimal resistance. She could have bit his dick or punched him in the balls. She had easy access. Shit like this makes me want to strangle people. This sucks for her, yes, but it is NOT as bad as it seems. She made a stupid decision to go over there and be a willing party up until he was a little rough. And then she turns around and cries assault? I'm all for women standing up for themselves but let's take some responsibility for our actions.

Oh, and another one:

He's and ass and she's twit, so what! Sounds like every drunked up, horny co-ed couple on campus. I especially like her notion of maintaining her "virginity" by being drunk, naked and having a mouthful of penis? Who hasn't had their hair pulled while chocking down some head? Not sure if the womyn were angry, or jealous. I'd bet Britney Lohan-Hilton wouldn't have given up so fast.

And another:

I'm sorry, but the only times I end up drunk and naked in a guy's bedroom are when I WANT a mouthful of cock. I don't hang out drunk and naked in the bedrooms of people I am "just friends" with, nor do I choose to tease guys I KNOW are assholes. I also KNOW that when a guy's cock is in my mouth, it's probably too late to say "Hmm, never mind, let's go back to watching some Danny DeVito." And to think all this time I thought that the stupid, innocent chick act was just a game or something. But no, apparently some girls really are that stupid.

And another:

Women are the sexual gatekeepers for their own bodies and as such we should take some responsiblity for our own actions. When Hunter voluntarliy opened her mouth and inserted his cock into it she opened that gate herself.

Without being there how can we be certain her actions were clear when she wanted to stop? Plenty of men and women enjoy oral sex with the man grabbing the hair, talking dirty and the woman doing her best to keep up - so with a cock already in her mouth how can you or I or Morgan know for sure what she was trying to communicate? If she didn't want to do it she shouldn't have opened her mouth.

Her descriptions of his violence don't sound violent to me, sounds like a reasonably typical oral sex encounter with an enthusiastic sexually agressive man. Hunter appears to me to be an inexperienced girl who got in over her head and now regrets it.

And another:

I was sexually assaulted as a child and I am well aware of how much it can effect a person throughout their life. I have also read many books about rape, feminism and the like. With that said, I would never, ever get myself into a situation like that. I would not agree to come over drunk, kiss, get naked and have an open communication about oral right before performing it, if I was not 100% sure I wanted to be there.

I agree, this is a huge gray area. But I can't help but thing this girl was being very naive.

But a lot of the comments are amazingly childish, hysterical and scolding. When did college kids become such moral martinets?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 1, 2008 1:23 AM



The question here is what exactly is Rape?
The Feminist answer is anything you want it to be.

There is a world of moral difference between the girl, who after rebuffing sexual advances, is forced into sexual activity against her own will and a girl who has consented to sexual activity and found it unpleasant. Most people would be mighty indignant with the first case and feel that the woman has been violated while in the second instance, the degree of sympathy we have with the woman is contingent on the actual events: it is not automatic. What the feminists have done is created a moral equivalence of two totally different species of acts.

Rape is a violation of one's conjugal rites. i.e the choice of whom I wish to have sexual activity with.
It is not rape when one chooses to have sex with one person and the experience ends up being unpleasant.
Here's one for you Clio; Suppose Mr Shaw had pressured her to put on high heels--which were very uncomfortable--on during the act, would that have constituted rape?

No Clio, I don't believe that when a woman consents to sex she consents to anything, but I also believe that as a responsible adult, a woman should be quite clear about what she will or will not do and that she will choose a partner that is capable of respecting her wishes. Most normal people would consider a drunken libidinous male with a past history of treating you badly is a bad choice of sexual bed fellow, especially as he is highly unlikely to be concerned about your feelings when a significant portion of his cerebral blood supply has shifted to his dick. Furthermore a significant portion of our society believe that people are responsible for the choices they make and that they have to wear the consequences of their bad decisions. The law has long recognised that that the victim in a crime may have contributed to their own injury thereby lessening the deserts of the criminal. No woman chooses to be raped, but a hell of a lot of women choose to go to bed with near certain rapists. If you choose to go to bed with a psychopath, rapist or thug then count me unmoved if things don't go according to plan. Choice implies you had other options and could have avoided the injury.

While were talking about implication, what sort of message do you think Ms Hunters actions sent to Mr Shaw? I treat her like dirt and shes begging me for sex, ergo Ms Hunter likes the rough stuff.

This is what I speculate happened. Mr Shaw-Fox was your typical alpha male and Ms Hunter had the hots for him even after he rebuffed her for failing to give him sexual satisfaction. I imagine she wanted to be loved by him but wanted to stay sexually chaste. I imagine it would have played on her mind that they didn't have a relationship because she failed to give him head. After having a few beers she felt that if she gave him sex he would give her love. The thing that really injured her was not the penis in her throat rather this comment from the article:

But I said to him, ‘I’m still a virgin, and I want to keep it that way.’ And he said ‘OK,’ and he was like, ‘You know, I’m not interested in any relationship.’”

That would have cut deep. The vomit after the act was the piece de resistance. If I were a girl in love with the guy, I too would have felt not quite right.

The sisterhood ensured payback.

Posted by: Slumlord on March 1, 2008 4:08 AM



Americans have a reputation as being lousy lovers. They're still such puritans that despite the sexual revolution, they still have to drink to have sex. If people get shamed for being such lousy f*cks, then maybe some genuine improvement in technique can happen. Pain is a better teacher than The Joy of Sex. Or pr*n videos, a large number of which feature horse-schlonged anencephalic 'roidheads choking girls with their equipment and saying things to them just like the eloquent Mr. Faw-Shox. The fact remains that the girl has been shamed as thoroughly as the cad, and everybody knows it. When this kind of social action happens, the first targets can always proclaim that what they did has been considered okay...and they'd be right! But if better quality f*cking and s*cking comes out of this debacle, then the sacrifice of a Faw-Shox or two is more than worth the price.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 1, 2008 10:34 AM



My god, Clio, come down to the college campuses in the US, where I have nephews and sons of friends bringing back reports of all the no-strings sex I ever dreamt of in my youth. And you're talking to a guy who, after arriving at her place after a night of boozing during my college years, had a woman break out the jar of lube because "I'm too drunk to put my diaphram in!"

You're looking at the "angry and spiteful" relations between the sexes from the wrong angle. It's actually the abundance of willing young things that causes young men to treat them like, to again use the porn vernacular, "cum dumpsters". Do you think this girl is the first this little punk has throat fucked?

I'm not sure what you mean by the chastity movement. How long are they chaste, until marriage or forever? If until marriage, I think, on average, fine, whatever works for you, though I like to test drive a car before I buy it. If forever, I think that's a good thing, too. Anyone so screwed up that they willingly take themselves out of the reproductive and relationship sweepstakes (excusing gay people, though a lot of them want children, too)they serve society well by NOT passing on their genes!

Posted by: Brutus on March 3, 2008 10:34 AM



FWIW, I can't see the point of blaming this situation on either girls or boys. They didn't really create this state of affairs, they're all just trying to wade their way thru it, do OK for themselves, and have some fun along the way. Seems to me that the state of affairs has come about mainly because of a cross between post-'70s feminism, a general ethos that it's far more important to Express Yourself than it is to negotiate and co-exist sensibly, and a popular culture that exploits all the above in effective and even occasionally. Ie., a general atmosphere that makes caution, restraint, tradition (and even semi-trad sex roles), and/or "inhibitions" look not just square but evil. Nothing should ever get in the way of Being Ourselves! It seems to leave young people flailing, and with no idea how to interact sexually except by getting blasted and acting out Spring Break-like scenarios. Then, when feelings get hurt or misunderstandings occur, blammo, people get political and crazy. Seems like an awful pattern to me. Finding a little human meaning and emotional satisfaction in the midst of it seems semi-impossible. It's all grab-grab-grab. On the other hand, it's not as if (realistically speaking) the genie is about to go back into the bottle. So: How to contend? Beats me (though I do think that having yakfests like this one is a nice start ...).

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 3, 2008 11:45 AM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?