RSS Feed MenuOver the past week, I’ve been thrust into a media storm over a column I penned for the American University Eagle attacking our ever-broadening concepts of what constitutes rape. As has been pointed out countless times by now, it is a provocative argument — and one that hasn’t really been touched since Camille Paglia and Katie Roiphe were in the spotlight in the 90’s. But it’s proven that the uncomfortable questions that feminists thought were dead and buried actually still have life. Outside of the establishment’s bubble, personal responsibility still retains some of its popularity.
The outpouring of support that I have received from Middle America has been heartening and reassuring. The essence of my argument — don’t engage in volatile, risky situations unless you’re prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions — is a common sense, mainstream argument among everyday Americans. Indeed, the backlash seems mainly to be coming from pampered, upper class white people from the coasts who don’t want to admit that ours is a world filled with risk and imperfections. The media discourse surrounding this event has mainly revolved around the latter’s interpretation of the world. Is it any wonder that the mainstream media is losing the trust of Americans?
The ABC News coverage of my column, for instance, was nothing less than a hit piece. The original title of the article, penned by Susan Donaldson James, was “American University Erupts Over Date Rape: Girls Who Drink and Go to Frat Parties Deserve Date Rape, Says Student Newspaper Columnist.” Deserve. The same word was also included in the first paragraph, as well as a discourse-poisoning remark that this month is Sexual Abuse Awareness Month and a description of my piece as a “diatribe.” After an angry e-mail exchange with the reporter, she changed the two instances of ‘deserved’ to ‘invite’ and ‘responsible for’ — neither of which are particularly accurate descriptors of my point, either, but are certainly a step up from the outright libel of “deserving to be date-raped.”
The CBS News experience, which occurred 24 hours after the ABC piece hit the web, was designed to intimidate. The producer assigned to my story went out of her way to put me ill-at-ease, barking orders at me (“Come on — get in the car!”) and sarcastically snipping “I’ll bet your mom is going to enjoy this,” in the sort of tone that asked “Don’t you just hate women, you misogynist bastard?” (My mother, in fact, has been extremely supportive of me and is most responsible for my embrace of adult responsibility.) Originally, I was to appear live from the American University campus, but our reception — notoriously spotty — failed us and we hurried to the CBS bureau in a mad rush, racing up stairs and through the studio with two minutes until airtime. My throat was dry by the time I sat down in my seat, barely giving me time to get a cup of water.
If one has never appeared on national television, it’s difficult to imagine how strange the situation is: it’s designed to be intimidating. You don’t look at a screen and respond to your opponent: instead, you stare into a big black box that operates as the camera while listening to mid-quality audio coming from a microphone connected to your ear. It’s all very impersonal, and it almost seems surreal as it’s going on.
Maggie Rodriguez’ questions were somewhat patronizing, both of them asking me, in essence, if I “really believed it” or “wanted to take something back.” (I felt like Ann Coulter or something; another television interview ran the headline: “Did He Go Too Far?”) Colleagues have told me that they suspect that these interviews, in part, occurred because they expected me to issue mealy-mouthed apologies, giving the news organizations an opportunity to look like Good Guys who put the college douche in his place.
All of the television interviewers — all of whom have been hostile to or at least uncomfortable with my column — have conspicuously omitted the fact of my homosexuality. The lingering assumption that they want people to take away is that I’m a privileged frat boy trying to justify his bad behavior — and many comments on national websites prove as much. It’s maddeningly dumb that this should actually make a difference, of course, but with the narrative being as it is, it softens the blow of the argument. It truly seems that the media has so embraced the feminist date-rape propaganda that the only people who can even vaguely “get away” with telling straight men’s side of the narrative are women — such as Paglia and Roiphe — and gay men.
The radio format has given me insight as to why conservatives have fled to that venue, though: only when I appeared on the radio did I feel completely confident that I’d fully have a chance to flesh out my ideas, explain myself in context, and not have to worry about being subject to a hit piece. The mainstream media deals in soundbites; radio actually deals in discussion of the issues. I have appeared on radio shows all over the country now, and every one of the hosts, whether on my side or not, has given me a chance to engage in a vigorous debate.
Sometimes, we end up being surprised by the lessons that we learn from events. Entering the belly of the media beast has given me a new-found appreciation for Middle America’s ability to move beyond soundbites and embrace common-sense dialogue. That the media keeps spitting on their values is testament to the fact that it has willingly embraced suicide.
Watch: “Let’s Talk Live” (Thursday, April 1st)
Listen: “The Gil Gross Show” (Segment begins at 8:30)
Kevin B // Apr 5, 2010 at 1:57 am
gregb, Is there *any* context in which a discussion of how a particular rape (real or imaginary) could have been avoided will not come across to *some* as apologetics for rape?
I think if someone walking alone in a park at night gets raped, it’s a good opportunity to say to your teenaged children, “don’t walk alone in the park at night”.
I think the original post in this *specific* discussion was about taking the responsibility not to be a victim. The discussion got hijacked.
rbottoms // Apr 5, 2010 at 3:42 am
But if you don’t walk on the railroad tracks, the train will probably never hit you.
Women, don’t go to parties and don’t drink beer. And keep your knees together. And don’t wear red dresses. Cleavage, uh uh. Let’s loose the lipstick too. Perfume, nah. No heels, and better yet tennis shoes. Or combat boots. Not wild about the hair either. Maybe a veil, or a burhka. In fact just stay home unless you have a male relative with you. And no driving after dark. No, no driving at all.
ottovbvs // Apr 5, 2010 at 4:39 am
kevin47 // Apr 4, 2010 at 10:27 pm
“you never said teenage girls had to be “trained?””
I was responding to Jess. That’s why I cut and paste quotes.
I also said that boys need to be trained. I don’t understand why the use of this word bothers you. Dictionary.com even uses children as an example in their definition of the verb for of the word. It means to direct or teach. ”
……this whole topic is not about boys it’s about girls putting themselves in a compromising situation and thereby inviting assault……It doesn’t surprise me in the least that you can’t understand why applying the word “train” to 15 year old girls betrays an obliviousness to both nuance and reality, since you don’t seem to have much idea of how most things work
Kevin B // Apr 5, 2010 at 5:06 am
Women, don’t go to parties and don’t drink beer. And keep your knees together. And don’t wear red dresses. Cleavage, uh uh. Let’s loose the lipstick too. Perfume, nah. No heels, and better yet tennis shoes. Or combat boots. Not wild about the hair either. Maybe a veil, or a burhka. In fact just stay home unless you have a male relative with you. And no driving after dark. No, no driving at all.Is that your advice? It sure isn’t mine. Mine would be more practical. And it wouldn’t be limited to women. Things like: arrange for a ride home from the party before you start to drink.
jabbermule // Apr 5, 2010 at 7:55 am
Kevin B // Apr 5, 2010 at 5:06 am: “Women, don’t go to parties and don’t drink beer. And keep your knees together. And don’t wear red dresses. Cleavage, uh uh. Let’s loose the lipstick too. Perfume, nah. No heels, and better yet tennis shoes. Or combat boots. Not wild about the hair either. Maybe a veil, or a burhka. In fact just stay home unless you have a male relative with you. And no driving after dark. No, no driving at all.”
rbottoms // Apr 5, 2010 at 3:42 am: “Is that your advice? It sure isn’t mine. Mine would be more practical. And it wouldn’t be limited to women. Things like: arrange for a ride home from the party before you start to drink.”
Er, Kevin, rbottoms was using sarcasm and irony to make a point.
Kevin B // Apr 5, 2010 at 8:54 am
Jabbermule, you forgot hyperbole.
Carney // Apr 5, 2010 at 9:16 am
The Knepper column in question is perfectly reasonable and in a sane world ought to have passed with a nod of approval and then forgotten.
What SHOULD be causing an uproar is such facts, first widely exposed by Richard Spencer, as Knepper’s posing in “gender-bending” outfits for online pictures, his having posted such things as “F### Christianity!”, his dabbling in Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan, and his use of Satanic iconography to represent himself. When challenged, Knepper has been utterly unrepentant. Why on Earth is Frum associating himself with this credibility-ruining character?
jess // Apr 5, 2010 at 10:00 am
Carney,
so what your saying is a topic that you do not view as protecting you should have passed with a nod of approval (no less) and then forgotten, but only the topics which you do find offensive should have been challenged, but only those topics. We’ll all keep that in mind.
jess // Apr 5, 2010 at 10:15 am
Otto,
So glad you are posting on here so I’m not the only one besides greg and brian, arguing with overt misogynists. I am on my way to go get my nails done, I’d invite you but perhaps you are going to stay in today and draw the blinds thus “avoiding” being raped. Who knew that all women had to do to protect themselves was “avoid” it. Men certainly won’t be able to rape us, if we just avoid it. Brilliant.
Kevin B // Apr 5, 2010 at 10:51 am
Jess, you are a liar.
rbottoms // Apr 5, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Er, Kevin, rbottoms was using sarcasm and irony to make a point.
You forgot sharp tongue and wit. Wasted on most of the posters around here of course.
Carney // Apr 5, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Can’t really call me a misogynist if I support reinstating the death penalty as a routine punishment for rape.
jess // Apr 5, 2010 at 5:05 pm
rbottoms, I’ll add clever and articulate.
Carney, I can call you whatever I want and based on your comments about Knepper receiving a nod of approval, I’ll stick with misogynist.
Kevin, I’m rubber and you’re glue, is that something you can absorb or shall I repeat it five different ways to help you understand as every other posts seems forced to do?
Kevin B // Apr 5, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Jess, I’m done with you and your lies.
jess // Apr 5, 2010 at 5:37 pm
kevin,
ok me too, do you let those with pesky vagina’s get the last word? Or will you be forced to reply again, my guess is that you will.
ktward // Apr 5, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Criminy. I’m immediately reminded why I do not waste my time watching network/cable TV News. Barnum & Bailey has nothing on them.
Sorry about your experience in that ratings circus, Alex. But seriously, what did you expect?
A link to Alex’s source of controversy is handy, so I googled:
http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinion/story/dealing-with-aus-anti-sex-brigade/
First: what BrianK said. Great perspective. Reality check at its best.
Alex, I genuinely appreciate your eagerness to tackle controversial topics. (Dirty job, someone’s gotta do it, and college is certainly the place to fine tune one’s ideological chops. Have at it.)
I am, however, left completely confused by this AU column’s disconnected, virtually incoherent rant lamenting mythic evils of feminist ‘religious dogma’, sexual repression and, evidently, gay activism. None of which have anything inherently in common. I suspect Alex is simply a card-carrying firebrand with some kind of emotional baggage. Hopefully college will offer a lesson or two in empathy, tolerance and, ahem, the law.
Since I’ve read none of your previous columns, Alex, I admit I don’t understand the level of victimization you feel you’ve endured via your ‘pro-sex’ views. As far as I’m aware, every adult–hetero or LGBT–not purposely celibate is pro-sex on some level. How is it, specifically, that your ‘pro-sex’ inclinations are distinct from the rest of us? Just throwing out ideas here … you are exclusively pro-anonymous sex? Pro-kinky sex? Pro-roleplay sex? What is it about your pro-sex stance that marks you as a uniquely controversial voice, as you’ve described?
It’s impossible to speak to most of your column’s sophomoric rant, but the part that’s got everyone’s panties in a twist is this:
Let’s get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK? To cry “date rape” after you sober up the next morning and regret the incident is the equivalent of pulling a gun to someone’s head and then later claiming that you didn’t ever actually intend to pull the trigger.
“Date rape” is an incoherent concept. There’s rape and there’s not-rape, and we need a line of demarcation. It’s not clear enough to merely speak of consent, because the lines of consent in sex — especially anonymous sex — can become very blurry. If that bothers you, then stick with Pat Robertson and his brigade of anti-sex cavemen! Don’t jump into the sexual arena if you can’t handle the volatility of its practice!
No doubt there are, right now, meat-headed frat boys genuflecting to your holy opinion (if not your sexual orientation), but let’s stick with reality and examine the law …
The crime of rape is strictly defined by every state, but most go something like this: Rape is defined as non-consensual sexual penetration. The ‘consent’ part is of particular importance: minors cannot give consent, nor a person who is impaired, intoxicated, drugged, mentally challenged, unconscious, or asleep.
Equally important subtext: an erect penis is not a prerequisite to the crime of rape, though it is arguably the most common tool of assault. What IS a prerequisite: the perp must be able to overpower the victim’s will. An impaired victim is, we can agree, easier to overpower. Slice and dice that any way you like, but if someone takes advantage of an impaired victim’s will, well, it’s not likely to turn out well for the perp. Legally speaking.
Enter, the date-rape phenomenon. Personal responsibility? I completely agree. Those drunk frat boys ought to remember that taking that little drunk girl up to their room may not turn out so well for the the next day. Perhaps they ought to ‘avoid’ that potentially problematic situation. Of course, they’re drunk, so it’s entirely possible they’ll behave irresponsibly.
Irresponsible behavior. Wasn’t that your point, Alex, but directed at the frat party girls?
Equally of note is the fact that consensual sex, no matter how kinky, is not rape. (except, perhaps, in a few southern states.) Sometimes kinky sex goes wrong and someone gets their eye poked out (dammit, mom knew!), but it’s still not rape.
On personal responsibility: that means that one is responsible for their own actions, not the actions of another nor subjectively opined complicity. Only the perpetrator is responsible for the crime. According to the law.
Despite your personal opinion, Alex, the law places personal responsibility for a crime completely at the feet of the perp. Period.
That said, minimizing one’s own risk for potential harm (e.g. wearing your seatbelt, avoiding dope-dealer hangouts) is prudent. Smart, even. But neglecting to divine risk (not atypical behavior for intoxicated people of all age and either gender) does not render one accountable for crimes perpetrated by another.
franco2 et al: A man who uses any variant of the ‘it’s her fault/she teased me’ argument is a man admitting he ultimately cannot control himself; he is asserting that, in the sometimes messy mix of physical exploration, only his expectations matter.
That said, I understand why the old Limbaughs of the world spout such nonsense. But Alex? Young gay dude?
I can’t help but suspect that some kind of deep s**t happened to this young man.
ottovbvs // Apr 5, 2010 at 8:49 pm
jess // Apr 5, 2010 at 10:15 am
“So glad you are posting on here so I’m not the only one besides greg and brian, arguing with overt misogynists. ”
……..Well you see Jess I rather like girls….always have…..and on the whole I’ve found honey to be more effective in communicating with them than vinegar…..something these wankers have yet to learn……it’s an interesting commentary though isn’t it on the overweening prattishness of the typical young American male…..give me a call after you’ve had your nails done hohoho
jess // Apr 6, 2010 at 12:30 am
Otto, my nails are done ..
…
kevin47 // Apr 6, 2010 at 12:57 am
“ok me too, do you let those with pesky vagina’s get the last word? Or will you be forced to reply again, my guess is that you will.”
You weren’t talking to me, but this an egregious grasp at the high ground. You could apply this to any sort of back and forth
George: Cats should be neutered or spayed.
Marie: It’s like you to think that, because you hate genitalia.
George: But I made a common sense assertion, I…
Marie: Whatever, you obviously hate women, so I don’t need to say anything else. If you don’t let me have the last word, you are sexist.
George: How?What?
Me: (allegory)
Jess,
You don’t know what the hell I just did there, do you?
jess // Apr 6, 2010 at 1:47 am
Otto:
Funny thing, I got drunk tonight, I talked to guys and nobody raped me. I even flirted!! I was a horror just begging for it. It was a miracle nothing happened as in the Kevin’s world I’d have been beheaded for drinking in the first place, would be sitting in agonizing pain due to my mutilated clitoris, begging for forgiveness for having gotten drunk in the first place, and only defending myself if 4 guys bore witness to a “legimate” rape.
Phew, close call.
jess // Apr 6, 2010 at 1:48 am
*legitimate
jess // Apr 6, 2010 at 8:18 am
Kevin47,
No I was not talking to you, but I might as well have been b/c the two of you are exactly the same. I almost didn’t get what you did there cause you are so gosh darn smart, its fascinating. What you did was engage in a theoretical conversation where you render yourself profound. You so smart, I might get drunk and pass out in your room, but I secretly want it – ignore that I’m not conscious. I don’t have to tell you that though b/c you got the signal.
What you acutally proved was that you are in fact exactly what I accuse you of, a misogynist. In order to try to prove that you aren’t however, you beat your chest at the women on this site in a disgusting way. There are plenty of people making brilliant posts, but you are responding to me b/c I annoy you, which all women do and I exemplify that. The two Kevins should open a bed and breakfast for rapists and begin each day filled with apologies about how women are nothing but teases that deserve it.
The other Kevin just kept writing to me and my point to him was that he couldn’t let me get the last word, I don’t think you can either. Let’s see.