The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Rape: I’m Against It

Posted on | December 21, 2010 | 29 Comments

Also arson, armed robbery and extortion. Pretty much everything that’s illegal, I’m against it – fireworks and high-speed driving being the two (usually) victimless crimes of which I’m most fond.

However, nobody’s asked me today about why I hate Nanny State anti-fireworks laws (“Light Fuse, Get Away“), nor have I been asked to debate whether the 55-mph  urban freeway speed limit is the first step down the slippery slope to fascism (it is).

Instead, because Tommy Christopher decided to make a big deal of my argument about the Julian Assange rape case with feminist Jill Filipovic — who wouldn’t vote for a Republican if you put a gun to her head — a certain Republican communication strategist decided it’s time to play “Let’s Do a Beatdown on Stacy McCain,” and sent me these questions:

  • Do you believe that a woman, while asleep – whether from alcohol or rohypnol – is capable of providing consent?

Obviously not. Rohypnol is illegal. Alcohol is legal, but should be used in moderation. Friends don’t let friends get drunk and hook up with strangers.

  • Do you believe promiscuous women deserve to be raped, rgardless of their chosen partner’s proclivities?

No one “deserves” to be raped, just as no one deserves to be robbed or murdered. If I advise against parking your car in Southeast D.C. with the windows down, the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition, that doesn’t make me “pro-car theft.”

  • Do you believe that rapists of chaste women deserve a greater punishment, than those of promiscuous backgrounds?

No. Nor do I advocate greater punishment for (a) car thieves who smash the windows of locked cars and hot-wire the ignition, compared to (b) car thieves who opportunistically take advantage of idiots who leave their keys in the ignition.

The way the Grand Inquistor framed that particular question conflates different issues in a troubling way. There is the implicit accusation that I am in favor of something I’ve never advocated (leniency for rapists based on a moral judgment of their victims) so as to set me up either as pro-criminal or else as a moralitic prude who lacks sympathy for The Fallen Woman. But this is not at all the issue that got me arguing with Jill Filipovic over the Assange case, and I don’t like being put in the dock for a cross-examination full of deliberately leading questions.

My point is this: Promiscuity makes women vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and disease. This is not my opinion, but a statement of fact.

As to why this is so, I’ve been pondering an argument that involves selection effects (i.e., what kind of guys go trolling for random hook-ups?) and the law of large numbers (i.e., every additional hook-up increases your odds of experiencing The Tragic Hook-Up From Hell). But that would be a very long and difficult essay to write. Nobody’s offered to pay me for such an article and I don’t have time to write it anyway, because I’ve got to answer yet more accusatory questions from a Republican communications strategist.

  • Do you recognize a difference between cases where the rapist is unknown to the victim versus date rape?

As noted in a previous post, Assange’s (alleged) victims find themselves in a he-said/she-said situation, after consenting to sex with a guy they barely knew. This is a good example of the inherent risks of consenting to sex with guys you barely know. In a legal system where the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, the difficulty of proving a date-rape accusation is self-evident, as there is unlikely to be any incontrovertible evidence of coercion or force.

So that’s the legal reality, which cannot be wished away, and therefore women should be strongly cautioned against putting themselves into predicaments where they risk being victims of a crime where successful prosecution is so difficult.

  • are you speaking only to date rape, within a Western country, or does your view extend to victims in developing countries?

If you’re looking for someone to defend the brutality of thugs in Third World pestholes, you need to look elsewhere.

  • have you written anything, prior to this occurrance, about rape?

Interestingly enough, I wrote a column about a case a few years ago in Floyd County, Ga., where a star athlete was acquitted of raping a girl in a classroom at a high school. That column appeared in the Rome (Ga.) News-Tribune, but I don’t think it’s available online now. Strange as it may seem, the forces of organized liberalism all sided with the accused rapist in that case, while I argued on behalf of his alleged victim. I don’t know whatever happened to the girl, but the star athlete is now a defensive end for the New York Jets. Maybe he was truly innocent. Or maybe his encounter with the criminal-justice system caused him to straighten up and fly right.

  • Please point out any particularly important articles authored by you, or your quotes, defending women’s honor.

Let me ask that you talk to Wendy Shalit, author of A Return to Modesty, about the feature article I wrote about her when that book was first published. Ditto the feature articles I’ve written about Michelle Malkin, Phyllis Chesler, Tammy Bruce, etc. Does the name “Pamela Geller” ring a bell? I don’t suppose that any of the articles I’ve written about Sarah Palin (here, here, here, just for example) would meet your “particularly important” standard, since you obviously never read The American Spectator.

  • Are you aware of the sex trafficking and rape statistics within the US?

I could Google it. Are you blaming me personally for these statistics, or is this question just another non sequitur?

  • Have you done any mission, or other aid work in developing countries where sex trafficking & rape are pandemic?

Ma’am, I’m a journalist, trying to eke out a living on the Internet, and have neither the time nor money to engage in save-the-world crusades. But now that you mention it, I’ve been to Africa with a Christian missionary who carries an AK-47 and rescues victims of terrorism. So I’m familiar with the atrocities perpetrated by thugs in Third World pestholes, if that’s your question.

The Grand Inquistor’s point, of course, is that I am her moral inferior and that she is therefore entitled to interrogate me to prove her point.

None of this is going to mean a damn thing to the prosecution of Julian Assange, nor is it going to help any rape victim — not here in America, not in Sweden, not in “developing countries.” But doing a beatdown on the Designated Scapegoat makes people feel good about themselves, which I guess is far more important for them than anything else I might have done with the time it took to answer these questions.

Have a nice day! :)

UPDATE: Tabitha Hale would never date a scumbag like Julian Assange.

UPDATE II: Stixblog weighs in on the “culture of victimhood” aspect of the Assange case. Ann Coulter addressed this in her bestseller Guilty: LIberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America. Liberalism’s perpetual celebration of victimhood is one of those ideas that have consequences.

UPDATE III: Speaking of Ann Coulter, her latest column is about Julian Assange.

Bookmark and Share
Category: Crime, Feminism, Republicans, Uncategorized, WikiLeaks

Comments

  • Mike F.

    Part of my problem with these discussions go back to Semantics 101, define your terms. My initial response to your inquisitor would be to require her to provider her definition of rape. If the parties want to have sex with each other and one of the party asks a condition, say wear a condom, and the other party lies about meeting that condition but this is not discovered until all is done then that is not rape.(please excuse tortured sentence structure) If it is discovered during the event and a cessation is requested then the other party is obliged to comply or suffer the legitimate accusation of rape.

  • Anonymous

    -Who is this ‘certain Republican communication strategist’?

    -I’m glad you did take the time to respond to this fool, as it shows her idiocy. But, for the full effect, we need to know who she is, especially as she is within our tent. I’d rather have her pissing outside it.

  • DaveO

    Hmmm, a blog-rape, committed by the Grand Inquisitor on Mr. Other-McCain. But is it rape-by-authority, or rape-by-mouseclick?

  • Pingback: A Culture of Victimhood: Using Rape as a Weapon | Tabitha Hale

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000199471939 Brian Paasch

    Either this person has been living under a rock for the last decade and is unfamiliar with the phrase, “Google is your friend” or else she is beyond lazy and arrogant in her demands of you to do her basic research for her. (I assume she did not offer any compensation for demanding you do her homework for her, yes?)

  • Guest

    Please identify the “Republican communication strategist” so I will know to mentally append “insufferable arrogant prig” to every statement she ever makes in public. Thanks.

  • Anonymous

    Please identify the “Republican communication strategist”

    Not necessary. It would be overkill. There is a universe full of People Who Don’t Know Me From Adam’s House Cat, and it is not this person’s fault that Tommy Christopher decided to try to through me under his (not-very-influential) bus.

    My having gotten off on the wrong foot in this manner is not the fault of the Republican communication strategist. It’s mostly my own fault, but Tommy Christopher dogpiled on me and you see what happens when that kind of snowball is allowed to roll downhill too far.

    After about three posts Dec. 6-8 where I attempted to clarify my meaning, I realized I was violating the First Law of Holes, so I decided to stop digging — I ceased attempting to defend myself. And now here, two weeks later, this stuff comes flying around a corner to hit me square in the face, so that I am more or less compelled to return to a topic I had no interest in continuing to discuss.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    Tommy Christopher is a known lying propagandist for the far left – remember his pathetic attempts to keep the “n-word on Capitol Hill” meme going in face of direct video evidence – so his writing (if you can call it that) serves to reinforce the side he is against. But he can retreat to his cubicle in glee at the mention of his name . . .

    Speaking of names, NAME the “Republican communications strategist” who thought herself authorized to interrogate you. These sniveling whiners must be exposed; preserving their anonymity only enables them to persecute others in the name of their PC holy grail.

  • DaveO

    I agree that defining the term, and the metrics, of rape is important. Not important enough not to smear innocent folks, but still important. Therein is the problem: the definition, and the metrics used to determine whether the or the crime has been committed, need to be constant, consistent, and measurable.
    I find all too many of the professional Left’s women who are attacking folks on this Assange issue lack integrity. Had the rapist been former President Bill Clinton, they’d have said (as they said back in the 1990s) that the woman deserved to be raped, and that the woman was lying anyways.

    Constant, consistent, and measurable.

  • http://twitter.com/Jerry_Wilson Jerry Wilson

    I’m hazarding a guess the unnamed Republican communications strategist goes by the initials TH.

    That aside, while it’s true no means no, avoiding avoidable situations where the need to say no is likely to come about is simple common sense. We’re not talking about scenarios of force and/or violence, but the “you went trolling or allowed yourself to be trolled; what were you expecting – Prince Charming?” Certainly rape is inexcusable, reprehensible and I’d have no problem with castration being punishment for the crime. But stupidity should never be given a free pass.

  • Pingback: Rape Rape or just a mistake | Stix Blog ver 4.0

  • Anonymous

    I want to know who she is because any candidate who hires her after this is undeserving of my support. That candidate is a moron.

    And Stacy, you may want to reconsider your interest in this, because as long as her word is all the evidence needed, any hour of your life you don’t have an alibi for can be all the time needed for you to get Nifonged.

  • Anonymous

    This.
    Name and shame, Boss.

  • AnonymousDrivel

    Tommy Christopher: “…particularly important articles…”

    Now that made me laugh – the qualifiers “particularly” and “important” the most.

    But what if someone hadn’t met those fluffy thresholds? Say someone hadn’t made any comment regarding the defense of “women’s honor?”. An absence of public comment is Christopher’s damning evidence? Um, yeah.

    Case dismissed, Your Honor, because innuendo may work in your line of work, but serious professionals won’t suffer fools or their tactics.

  • AnonymousDrivel

    Oops. I misattributed the quote. Christopher didn’t say that. Some enlightened ethicist and better person of unknown origins did. My mistake, but I still stand by my laughter.

  • Tabitha

    No, the initials are NOT TH. and if you’re inferring that I’m a Republican Strategist you’re wrong.

  • Anonymous

    Jerry: I’m sorry if the post was sufficiently unclear as to cause such a drastic misunderstanding. Tabitha Hale is one of the Good Guys.

    Well, obviously not a guy, but you know what I mean!

  • http://www.goldfishandclowns.com Jerry Wilson/Goldfish & Clowns

    I apologize for the error, insinuation and how the only time you notice I’m alive is when you’re taking offense at something I’ve said, Tabitha.

    Oh, sorry, forgot you’re busy and all that.

  • Vermontaigne

    Please point out any particularly important articles authored by you, or your quotes, defending women’s honor.

    I sweah, Suh, your gross insinuations regahding my honorable friend Mr. Stacy McCain shall not be suffuhd! Many a time and oft Ah have seen (with mah own eyes, I might add) mah honorable friend act with the utmost–the utMOST–chivalry and solicitude towahd the fairuh sex.

    Suh, it is well for you that you are a woman, or we would be meeting at dawn–DAWN, Suh!–on the grounds of my manse on the banks of the Suwanee to solve this problem in the accepted way by means of the duello! But as you ARE a woman, Suh, it will not serve! NOT SERVE!

    Now, be a dear and fetch me a julep, please.

  • skatt

    All I get from this is the distinct impression that Mr. Christopher is trying waaay too hard to get laid by certain Feminists.

    That said, it’ll probably work.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think he swings that way. He speaks of “the process of ‘negotiating’ consent.” There are two kinds of people who use the phrase “the process of ‘negotiating’ consent.” One kind consists of psychotic feminists, quite a few of whom are interested in getting laid by other feminists. The other kind has no interest in sleeping with women, feminist or otherwise.

  • Anonymous

    Stacy, I just wasted over an hour looking up who Tommy Christopher is and what his connection is to you, and reading Jill Filipovic’s filipovic over at Feministe, as well as the first 30 or so comments.

    It quickly became apparent that Christopher is one of those denizens of sites like Gawker, which is similar to Mediaite. The requirements at such sites are that one be stupid, loud, dishonest and PC. Mediaite, however, is better than Gawker, because its editors don’t rig consensus by censoring (all?) critics in the comments section.

    Speaking of censorship, I am convinced that Feministe is guilty of that. The comments I read all slavishly agreed with Filipovic’s Antioch criterion of rape: If the woman does not explicitly, enthusiastically consent and more (see below), then the man is guilty of rape. Which makes me and most men guilty of rape.

    Then again, we’re dealing with psychos here. After devoting 990 words to a discussion about what Assange did, and whether he is a rapist, Filipovic closes with the following paragraph:

    “I’m not particularly interested in debating What Assange Did or Whether Assange Is A Rapist, and I’d appreciate it if we could steer clear of that in the comments section. Rather, I’m interested in pushing back on the primary media narrative about this case, which is that women lie and exaggerate about rape, and will call even the littlest thing — a broken condom! — rape if they’re permitted to under a too-liberal feminist legal system. In fact, there are lots of good reasons to support consent-based sexual assault laws, and to recognize that consent goes far beyond ‘yes you can put that in here now.’ It’s a shame that the shoddy, sensationalist reporting on this case have muddied those waters.”

    (So, ‘Yes you can put that in here now’ does not even meet her threshold for consent!)

    What “media narrative”? Where?

    Meanwhile, you’ve got a GOP “communications strategist” hounding you who sounds like a Feministe contributor, and the GOP is likewise blessed with bloggers who support the queering of the military.

    I need a good, stiff drink.

  • Pingback: Assorted thoughts as Christmas gets closer « Da Techguy's Blog

  • QFab

    Sorry so just be be clear, we should feel the same sympathy for rape victims as someone who’s car radio was stolen?

  • Alec Rawls

    Another question for Robert:

    Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

  • Pingback: dustbury.com » Refudiation of the week

  • Pingback: Nobody’s Fault But Mine : The Other McCain

  • Charles Pergiel

    “. . . and I don’t like being put in the dock for a cross-examination full of deliberately leading questions.” I’m not sure they are leading questions, I think they are something much worse, but the terminology escapes me. Bullshit, maybe?

  • Pingback: Unwatchable BloggingHeadsTV Episode in Which I’m Mentioned : The Other McCain

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE