RSS Feed Menu
Over 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)
and one other thing JeninCT, you’re talking about personal insults as something that offends you? Then clearly you are a man as this entire subject is a personal insult to women.
LiberalHottie:
You are comparing vehicular manslaughter to rape? Unbelievable. This view doesn’t make you unpopular with rape activists, it makes you an idiot. All rape is motivated by malice. Rape without malice, wow.
JeninCT, wanna’ fight again over my use of the word idiot here instead of LH’s idiotic comparison of a DUI to rape?
I’m off to enjoy this beautiful day and I’m not going to continue to argue with those on here that hate women. My final comment is that any rapist would be lucky to have Knepper, Kevin, JeninCT, Liberal Hottie as a juror (if it even made it to court).
I think most people on this site would heartily endorse the proposition that we need more personal responsibility in society, but it’s disengenuous for Alex to claim that his initial article was nothing more than a good-natured plea for personal responsibility. His piece was a general lament for the “feminization” of sex on college campuses, and the views he expressed on date rape formed but one part of the critique. This is the sentence that I personally found to be the most surprising:
“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?”
In reading his response on this site and listening to his posted radio interview, I learned that Alex is gay and that he doesn’t drink. So I wonder what gave him the wherewithal to pronounce so authoritatively on the unspoken, drunken hook up signals that are sent between men and women considering that his personal experience with a) being drunk and b) hooking up with women is either limited or nil. A drunken girl who follows you back to your room is indicating one thing and one thing only: that she is drunk. Men have the biological equipment to initiate sex with or without the consent of our partner, so its up to men to use that equipment responsibly (and yes, getting it up is a male perogative. Any man whose ever felt embarassed over a bout of impotence will confirm that).
I’m in my 20s, so my first undergrad sexual experience was less than a decade ago. We kissed for a while, and when it became clear that we wanted to more than that, I asked “is this ok”? She said yes, and what followed was fun and passionate and all of the things that Alex says feminists don’t want sex to be. No contracts were signed. Asking for consent is really no big deal, and to imply that it is evokes some Hugh Hefner fantasy that, in 2010, is as pointlessly idyllic as the notion that the world is a place without risk or harm.
Just to clarify, I did not mention a DUI. I cited vehicular manslaughter, which is not intrinsically associated with drinking. I chose vehicular manslaughter because it causes harm without a person making a deliberate choice to do so. I do believe some date rape cases fall in a gray area where a person should have had better judgment and is morally liable, but at the same time it is a different level of offense than premeditated rape, just as there is a difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder. They are all wrong, but the consequences should be different.
“One of my best friends is a gay man whose first sexual experience, unfortunately, was being raped. And not by a woman, either. And no, he was not drunk.”
I did not mean to suggest that men do not ever rape other men.
“What did you call it: “Toilet teaching?” “Toilet education?” “Toilet seminars?””
Pee Studies?
“It’s Kevin’s way of poorly dissecting a response in order to weakly address it.”
No. It’s my way of making it clear what I am responding to. Some of these posts notch over a hundred comments.
However, since you prefer I respond to your comments in aggregate, I will do so thusly:
Calm the hell down and quit making stuff up.
“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?”
If you believe that, then you believe it’s remorse for a bad decision to claim rape. I think I’ve heard the same argument about provocative dress, sexy dancing and casual flirting, once or twice. “She was asking for it”. This ignores the demonstrable fact that thousands of girls every year get drunk, go to a boy’s dorm room, and *don’t get raped*. Or even have sex.
If that was really a signal with the commonly accepted meaning “let’s get it on”, we would see far more of it. It really has very little to do with “personal responsibility”on the victim’s part, and it quite a bit to do with expectations of reasonable behavior. Since most drunken visits to dorm rooms do not lead to rape, it is reasonable to assume that it won’t.
If we accept the “she was asking for it” argument, we’re forced through the same logic to assume that every altar boy is “asking for it” – because, yanno, becoming an altar boy yields a non-trivial chance of being raped or molested.
kevin47 // Apr 4, 2010 at 2:26 pm
“Calm the hell down and quit making stuff up.”
…..you never said teenage girls had to be “trained?”…..one wonders if you were part of the Steele crowd at that LA bondage club
Nicely said Greg.
Kevin, Telling women to calm down might work in your household, it doesn’t work with me. I’m not trainable like them. I can also assure you that I am calm, but I suppose to someone like you, a woman defending women against male (and female) misogynists is perceived as hysteria.
Liberal, rape is rape and men that commit this crime are all vile, will engage in it again, and enjoy it. It is not random.
oh and thank you Otto
jess // Apr 4, 2010 at 8:21 pm
…..Console yourself with the thought that Kevin is a constant source of entertainment for his elders …….his ear is not tin…….but genuine cast iron
Rape is rape in the same way that stealing is stealing, whether it’s embezzling millions or taking pension checks out of mailboxes, or copying a DVD for a friend, or connecting to a WiFi signal without permission.
All of that is stealing, but it differs in scope and situation. The various kinds of rape are rape (it’s redundant to say) but they also differ in scope and situation.
Statutory rape is rape (because–for example, depending on the age of consent–the sixteen-year-old is not legally able to consent to his seventeen year-old girlfriend). Does the 17-year-old who commits this crime deserve a lifetime of being a registered sex offender?
Look everyone can keep putting pretty words in front of rape to make it something else, it’s still rape. Comparisons of a rapist to a someone that steals is a ridiculous comparison.
Rapists enjoy raping women, they do not enjoy engaging in consentual acts. They don’t enjoy consent, it defeats their purpose. We’re not talking about statutory rape of 17 year old boys to 16 year old girls.
Being a predator is different than other crimes. Stealing when you are hungry versus stealing for greed is different, sure. Rape however is rape. The enjoyment of the predator is a shared predatory act.
“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.
“I can also assure you that I am calm, but I suppose to someone like you, a woman defending women against male (and female) misogynists is perceived as hysteria. ”
It is hysterical to suggest that a typical gay man hates women to the degree that he finds rape to be a valid expression toward women. You also posted like 15 comments in a row on Easter morning, which is the opposite of calm.
it is not a hysterical suggestion that many gay men hate women … and Knepper is not suggesting that it’s a valid expression, he’s suggesting that women ask for and deserve it …
there were about 4 posts, not 15 and you read them … you’ve also posted as much as I …
stop being such a queen.
jess, in my experience, the percentage of gay men who hate (have contempt for, view as inferior) women is around the same as the percentage of straight men who hate women, and for that matter the percentage of women who hate women. It is true that there seem to be some gay men who are demeaning toward women and appear to be using it in a self-justifying way — perhaps because they are struggling with their sexuality. I observed this in my brother as he was coming to terms with being gay (we grew up in a conservative religious household where homosexuality was unacceptable).
Liberal, I appreciate your viewpiont, but I strongly disagree with it.
Look everyone can keep putting pretty words in front of rape to make it something else, it’s still rape. Comparisons of a rapist to a someone that steals is a ridiculous comparison.
Rapists enjoy raping women, they do not enjoy engaging in consentual acts. Are you saying that someone who enjoys consensual acts cannot be a rapist? Would that be a valid defense? If the rapist is more turned on sexually than by some predatory urge, is that a valid defense?
I think it’s short-sighted (and wrong) to see only one kind of rapist.
If a couple is in the middle of consensual intercourse, and one asks the other to stop, and the other replies “I’m almost done”, is that rape? Is that predatory? Or just very bad manners? Is the aggressor a rapist, and would you try to cram him (probably him) into your profile?
Kevin,
Your arguement that rape occurs in the middle of consentual intercourse is brilliant and relevant. You never get lost in semantics. Rapists are unique and colorful individuals, you should have some over for dinner so you can explore this further.
Does the 17-year-old who commits this crime deserve a lifetime of being a registered sex offender?
No.
But we’re not talking about that.
We’re talking about taking advantage of someone in an incapacitated state who likely cannot give consent and suggesting fathers should inculcate in their sons the common sense idea that bedding a drunk woman is a crapshoot. Most especially if you are strangers to one another.
As usual a reasonable, if you must liberal, suggestion is received through the filter of conservative anger to come out as: all men are vile beasts, rather than, son if she’s drunk you better be damn sure she won’t think it’s rape in he morning before you whip it out.
That is some kind of intolerable burden a, Marxist oppression of virile American manhood!!
The OP apparently said to women if your dress is too short and you’ve had a drink or two, what happens next is on you. And not that gay men can;t have opinions, but what exactly does he know about what women do or do not want? I’m straight and I damn sure don’t quite a lot of he time, but I do know they don’t want to be raped.
No, thank you, Jess.
Kevin,
You are an advocate for rapists, you should open a bed and breakfast for them.
rbottoms (and some others, Brian and Greg) made a great post,do you only take on women? Try taking them on and stop responding to me.
My position is that the responsibility of a rapist and the responsibility of a potential victim do not subtract from each other.
I think parents should inculcate their daughters (as they have for generations) AND their sons to the fact that there are situations to be avoided.
To train the sons not to be rapists and neglect to educate the daughters (and sons) not to be victims is shameful.
The rapist’s guilt doesn’t depend on whether the victim “asked for it” (unless she or he literally did). If you think that’s what I’m saying, then you’re 100% wrong.
But if you don’t walk on the railroad tracks, the train will probably never hit you.
Jess, I am not an advocate for rapists. That is a lie. I am an advocate for teaching people not to be victims.
Kevin, I suspect the issue is a perceived false equivalency of responsibility in your argument. That part of Alex’s original post I quoted is the basis of this particular discussion. While teaching people to “not be victims” is essential in general, in this *specific* discussion it comes across as apologetics for rape.
Make any sense to you?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Jabbermule, you forgot hyperbole.
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?
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.
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.
Jess, you are a liar.
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.
Can’t really call me a misogynist if I support reinstating the death penalty as a routine punishment for rape.
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?
Jess, I’m done with you and your lies.
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.
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.
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
Otto, my nails are done ..
…
“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?
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.
*legitimate
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.