How to End Rape: Deuce’s Law

11 Jun

Boy, was I conciliatory when I was younger. Either that or I was a realist. Or maybe I just wrote what I had to write to get an A. Whatever. I’m not conciliatory, realistic, or seeking a grade anymore, so I can now feel free to lay out a theoretical and hypothetical solution to the rape epidemic. If I had my choice, we’d do away with rape by changing our cultural attitudes toward gender, toward sex, toward power, toward everything, thereby creating a world in which rape could not possibly occur. That would most certainly be ideal, and I believe it’s possible, but I think it might take an awfully long time, and I’m ready for rape to stop right now. Rape and other forms of sexual violence are hate crimes and are among the most heinous manifestations of the misogyny that characterizes our culture. As such, eradicating rape, in my opinion, is one of the most pressing feminist issues. Our current laws are woefully ill-equipped to deal with rape, and I’ve devised a little thought experiment to illustrate that point and get people to thinking about possible solutions:

Deuce’s Law of 2008

  • Section 1: The presumption of innocence, as it is not specifically iterated anywhere in the Constitution, will not attach to sex crimes. Instead, all individuals will be presumed to exist in a state of non-consent, as per Twisty Faster v. Patriarchy, which will replace Coffin v. United States as precedent in determining burden of proof for sex crime cases. As such, defendants accused of sex crimes will bear the burden of proof, and will have to prove their innocence. There is a danger inherent in such a system that a few innocent men will be punished, and this is quite unfortunate. It is not, however, more unfortunate than men raping with impunity in epidemic proportions simply because their victims are unable to prove to a room full of misogynists that, despite the ridiculous presumption of a default state of consent, they did not consent to a sex act. Victims will decide whether a crime has occurred, and defendants will not. This might frighten men, some of whom will claim that women will use the law to punish men out of vengeance. That might happen once in awhile, but our job is to protect the largest number of people possible, and false rape accusations are about a hundredth as common as rapes that go unpunished.
  • Section 2: Rape will be broadly defined as intentionally taking advantage of a person’s physical or emotional vulnerabilities for sexual purposes, including creating fear in order to coerce a victim into performing or submitting to a sex act against her/his will. That includes fear of any kind, not just of violence. That’s right. Men will have to learn to have sex only with women who want to have sex with them, and will have to eschew high-pressure tactics, emotional and financial manipulation, as well as physical force if they want to avoid rape charges.
  • Section 3: Any defendant convicted of rape will be assumed to have proven he is incapable of responsibly exercising his sexuality in society. As such, the penalty for rape will be immediate and irreversible castration. If a weapon is used in the commission of the crime, or if the victim at any time during the crime feels that her/his life was in danger, the added penalty of life in prison without parole will attach. Prison sentences are to be served at specially-constructed facilities at which offenders will perform uncompensated labor in service of women and children. What such labor will consist of will be decided by the administrators of individual facilities, but the result of the offenders’ labor must meet two criteria: 1) it must provide tangible benefits for women and/or children, but 2) offenders shall not come into direct contact with any women or children at any time.
  • Section 4: Offenders may appeal their sentences one time only. Appeals must be made on grounds other than “women are emotional and unreasonable and so we shouldn’t let them define rape and decide who’s guilty.” Women, who have much less incentive to use sex as a weapon than men do, are much less likely to violate men’s rights through rape accusations than men are to violate women’s and children’s rights through rape. This is not up for debate, and is thus not sufficient grounds for appeal.

I’m pretty sure Deuce’s Law would bring us a dramatic reduction in rape, and most likely destroy the pornography industry and drastically curb sexual harassment (more on this later). Too bad men, even those with women and children under their care, will never submit to any sort of limits being placed on their sexuality (or, rather, their prerogative to use their sexuality as a weapon for controlling women), because this law would really work. It’s a shame they’re allowed to vote. They’re so hysterical and irrational about this sort of thing. Snarf snarf.

* Note: False rape charges are MUCH less common than rapes that go unpunished. Let’s say 1 in 100 rape charges is false (which is a VERY high estimate). Well, as it stands now, only 6% of rape cases ends in conviction. That means that of 100 rapes, 1 is false, 6 of the rapists are (often lightly) punished, and 93 go free. On balance, it seems that 1 innocent dude suffering is less of a problem than 93 rapists getting away with sexually abusing innocent women and children. Remember, I’m not talking about the death penalty here. Also, don’t you think, in the case of a false accusation, that almost anyone would recant before allowing an innocent person to be castrated? As it stands now, the legal system is asking us to trust men not to rape us, and they’re doing it anyway. If the legal system asked men to trust women not to have them castrated, I think it’d be more reasonable. Women are simply not as violent as men are. I know there are exceptions, but it’s a fact.

** Another note: credit is due to Davetavius for being one of the few dudes reasonable enough to think section 3 is a good idea, and for the conversations from which this post derived (though he would strenuously disagree with Section 1).

*** A final note: I’m not surprised or anything, but I’m getting some seriously gnarly comments about this. I suppose men don’t like to hear someone discuss treating them the way they’ve treated women throughout history. I wonder why? Anyway, if you’re thinking about commenting on this, have something to say or fuck off. I’m not posting bullshit insults, so if that’s what you’re planning to write, do one. Also, please read this before commenting as I’d rather not have to explain it.

**** And an even finaler note: Go look up the definition of satire. This post is meant to serve as a foil to our current legal system. I admit that it doesn’t provide men with safeguards against castration, but nor does our current system provide women with any against rape. Neither one is a satisfactory system. Stop bitching about this hypothetical and start coming up with a solution or go ahead and admit to being a rape apologist.

Bookmark and Share

266 Responses to “How to End Rape: Deuce’s Law”

  1. L June 12, 2008 at 2:07 AM #

    Excellent. Thank you.

  2. Windstorm June 12, 2008 at 6:35 AM #

    I love it, N.D., and yes it would definitely work. I especially like Section 2, and “Men will have to learn to have sex only with women who want to have sex with them…”

  3. syndicalist702 June 12, 2008 at 1:48 PM #

    Talk about evening the playing field. I want this to be a ballot issue here in Nevada (fat chance) for November’s election.

    Our governor would be the first one convicted. That guy’s a sicko.

  4. syndicalist702 June 12, 2008 at 1:50 PM #

    I especially like Section 3. Now that’s justice!

  5. Nine Deuce June 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM #

    702 – I am surprised how many dudes I know think it’s a good idea. I think I’ll propose my new law to the state of California. They seem to be pretty forward thinking these days, or at least the courts are.

    I don’t actually know a whole lot about your governor, but he is the governor of Nevada, so I assumed he was probably a pervert of one stripe or another. I mean, isn’t that part of the job? I think it’s in the official job description in California and New York.

  6. syndicalist702 June 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM #

    I think you nailed it. Governor Gibbons is even less competent than the shrub as far as leadership goes. He’s a complete moron. He’s also a philanderer with no sense of self control, which is the reason his wife, which for a republican first lady resembles less of a doormat than we’ve seen in a long time, is leaving his ass.

  7. Derp June 13, 2008 at 10:51 PM #

    Yeah! And those female teachers who have sex with their 12 year old male students? We should rip out their ovaries and sew their vaginas shut. amirite?

  8. Nine Deuce June 13, 2008 at 11:03 PM #

    What an idiot. First of all, the argument that rape laws aren’t fair because one woman takes advantage of someone sexually for every like 250,000 men who do so is stupid. Know why Mary Kay La Tourneau is a household name? Because that shit NEVER HAPPENS and so it’s noteworthy. We never hear about the zillions of cases in which adult men take advantage of young people sexually because, if we did, there’d be no room for coverage of anything else.

    But fine, if I must answer such a dumb question, I’d say we put the women who sexually abuse children in jail for life, to serve sentences comprised of uncompensated labor in the service of children. But we’d have to determine whether what they were doing was predatory first in the same way I outlined above: the boy would have to bring a complaint. We’ll see how many times that happens.

    We needn’t remove their ovaries because ovaries are not equivalent to testicles. Men cannot have sex without their testicles, women can have sex without their ovaries. We needn’t sew up their vaginas because you can’t penetrate someone against their will with a vagina, so it can’t be used as a weapon. Duh.

  9. deeznutz June 13, 2008 at 11:06 PM #

    Section 4 is a straw man. Can you cite examples of that quote coming from appeals? Appeals are accepted on the merit of the claim, or in the case of murder, automatic. Please don’t let your emotions run away with your logic. Oh, wait was that sexist? brb cutting off my penis for daring to challenge your views.

  10. Nine Deuce June 13, 2008 at 11:07 PM #

    You are a fucking fool. Do you even know what a straw man is? This whole thing is hypothetical, and I said that an appeal would not be accepted on those grounds because they are bullshit claims that idiots like you use when they are out of real arguments. Get the fuck off my blog.

  11. Kurasuke June 13, 2008 at 11:31 PM #

    My biggest problem comes from section 1. The Bill of Rights takes huge precedence. And there is no way that this would be an amendment. Are you some kind of fascist? There are a lot more false rape claims than you seem to think there are. This would make it easy for someone to get revenge on a person that they don’t like- Consensual sex occurs, girl doesn’t like it. Suddenly, the burden of proof is on the guy to prove that it was consensual. That is bullshit and this law would facilitate childish crap like that.

  12. Nine Deuce June 13, 2008 at 11:34 PM #

    False rape charges are MUCH less common than rapes that go unpunished. Let’s say 1 in 100 rape charges is false (which is a VERY high estimate since very few women would go through the trauma involved in reporting and prosecuting a rape case just for vengeance). Well, as it stands now, only 6% or rape cases ends in conviction. That means that of 100 rapes, 1 is false, 6 of the rapists are punished, and 93 go free. On balance, it seems that 1 innocent dude suffering is less of a problem than 93 rapists getting away with sexually violating women and children. Remember, I’m not talking about the death penalty.

  13. Herp June 14, 2008 at 12:11 AM #

    Only 1 in 100 rape cases are false – right now.

    If this law was passed, there would be a dramatic rise in false charges, as the law would make such a crime (falsely accusing someone of rape) much easier to pull off.

    Section 1 is bullshit. In any reasonable society, people are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof should always lie with the accuser.

  14. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 12:14 AM #

    I highly doubt that people would be accusing people of rape in huge numbers just because they could, especially when the consequences are so dire. Come on.

    In any reasonable society? How is it reasonable that our legal system completely FAILS to protect 94 out of 100 women and children who are raped and allows 94 out of 100 rapists go free to continue to rape?

  15. Jiminy June 14, 2008 at 12:14 AM #

    Is this…are you for real?

  16. Okinawa June 14, 2008 at 12:15 AM #

    Section 1 criticism: You can’t just slap the burden of proof on the defendant; that goes against the entirety of the legal system. If you attempt to place the burden on the defense for rape, then it follows that for all crimes, the defense is responsible for proving his innocence. It’s a complete reversal of “innocent until proven guilty,” and quite disturbing.

    Section 2 criticism: I’m with you here, for the most part. A broader definition is required; not to widen the net to catch more rapists, but to tighten the noose so that the ones we do capture can be held accountable.

    Section 3 criticism: Completely and irrevocably unnecessary. Immediate castration is what’s called “cruel and unusual punishment,” which as I’m sure you know, is against the law. You’re not allowed to go around, chopping off dangley bits. Stricter punishment in the form of jail time? Yes. Mutilation? No, we’re not in the Dark Ages anymore.

    Section 4 criticism: Once again, intolerable. Being able to appeal is one of many sacred pillars in our justice system. It’s also how you let the innocent have another chance, a chance to be let free. Limiting it to one per prisoner is insanity.

    Overall criticism: You’ll hate me for this, but it reeks of a double standard most foul. Every example you set forth uses men as the offender; WHILE TRUE that men rape more, that is no excuse to completely disregard how men should be treated as victims. The only worthwhile section was #2. Please revise your “law,” discarding your bias, and rewrite it to be FAIR AND JUST.

  17. Herp June 14, 2008 at 12:15 AM #

    Oh yeah, because only men are capable of doing wrong, amirite?

  18. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 12:18 AM #

    Jiminy – It’s intended to make people think. As of right now, we live in a society in which our laws fail completely to protect women and children from rape. When the law says that you are innocent until proven guilty, and when most rape cases come down to an accusation and a denial, the perpetrator wins, which is why our conviction rates are so low. That’s a colossal problem. It means, basically, that rape is allowed. I am offering an alternative model, which I admit is radical and even seemingly bizarre, but is it more so than a system in which rape goes unpunished?

  19. Jean Laffite June 14, 2008 at 12:20 AM #

    Herp is right, the reason we don’t see as much false accusations is the fact that there are safeguards within the legal system.
    And theres other more creative ways this can be abused,
    if a company wants to get rid of its competitors it can go out and pay women to accuse the competitors employees ,excutives, owners ect…

  20. Jiminy June 14, 2008 at 12:20 AM #

    What about protecting men from rape?

  21. Derp June 14, 2008 at 12:23 AM #

    Zillions of cases? I think not, there’s not even that many people on the planet. Obviously you’re using hyperbole (and I think you abuse it), but I think it’s a sign of how weak your argument is. Reporting of any crime exaggerates the public perception of it’s rate of occurance. Look at school shootings for example, or something as “mundane” as murder. One would think it happens 20 times a day in every city in America. Ovaries are comparable to testicles because they are the gonads, the primary sex characteristic and produce the hormones that create secondary sex characteristics and makes WOMEN GO CRAZY ON THEIR PERIODS HYUK HYUK. Ahem. Anyway, when you said castration I thought you meant removal of testes and penis as is the common definition. Either way it is arguably a violation of the US Constitution’s provision against cruel and unusual punishment. There are some cases where chemical castration has been used in the US, but if I recall correctly that is voluntary. The principle of the American justice system is equity. That is one reason why the BLIND Justice carries a scale. Men and women are not Equal (it’s capitalized for a reason), but I believe that we should treat them as such when it comes to matters of government and law. “All men [and women] are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain and inalienable rights.” What you want is seemingly special treatment, and that is what I see as the typical feminist line these days.

  22. Okinawa June 14, 2008 at 12:24 AM #

    “I am offering an alternative model, which I admit is radical and even seemingly bizarre, but is it more so than a system in which rape goes unpunished?”

    You absolutely cannot think that a law full of holes can possibly be better than the current system? The problem of false accusation needs to be addressed, as in your scenario any woman would be able to walk into court, accuse a man, “break down” crying on the witness stand, and send an innocent man to jail and the clippers, JUST BECAUSE men are the primary offenders and it’s the man’s job to prove he’s innocent.

    It pains me to think about.

  23. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 12:24 AM #

    No, Herp, but men do rape in much higher numbers than women do, and men are, on the whole, much more likely to use physical violence than women are.

    Okinawa – No, it does not do away with the whole legal system. Burden of proof in our legal system shifts around depending on the circumstances. And “innocent until proven guilty” does not work in rape cases because it always comes down to an accusation and a denial, in which case the rapist walks.

    Castration is not cruel and unusual punishment, it fits the crime. When a man uses his sexuality as a weapon, he ought to have that weapon taken from him. It’s only cruel and unusual to men who are frightened at the prospect of having limits placed on their sexuality, something women have always faced.

    Appeal is allowed, but not on the specious grounds I outlined. I might even be willing to allow multiple appeals, but not on those grounds.

    You might claim my law is biased, but how is current law not biased in favor of men and against women in the case of rape?

  24. Jiminy June 14, 2008 at 12:26 AM #

    This…this is just silly!

  25. deeznutz June 14, 2008 at 12:30 AM #

    Thanks for the ad hominem attack.

  26. Okinawa June 14, 2008 at 12:31 AM #

    “And “innocent until proven guilty” does not work in rape cases because it always comes down to an accusation and a denial, in which case the rapist walks.”

    Clearly, it works now, because we still have people going to prison for rape.

    “Castration is not cruel and unusual punishment, it fits the crime.”

    We no longer live in an age where “an eye for an eye” is an acceptable means of rendering judgment. Do not think for one second that murdering a man who accidentally lost control of his car and killed a pedestrian will solve the problem of vehicular manslaughter.

    “You might claim my law is biased, but how is current law not biased in favor of men and against women in the case of rape?”

    Perhaps it’s due to the fact that an overwhelming majority of rape cases are men on women. There are also plenty of cases where women will attempt to cry wolf in order to send a man she doesn’t like to jail. Suspension of belief, objective seeing of the facts, and most important, innocence until proven guilt are what our counts and legal systems work on.

    Your law is as corrupt as you claim the current one is.

  27. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 12:33 AM #

    Jiminy – The law applies when men are raped as well.

    Jean Lafitte – The accused would have the opportunity to defend himself in that case.

    Derp – Hyperbole is a style convention, come on. Our legal system does not treat men and women equally. You need to do some research. And anyway, for crimes like rape it might not ever be able to. Our current system is a total failure on this issue. You are right about one thing: false rape accusations seem more common than they are because the media makes so much of the rare cases in which they are discovered. But how many actual rapes are committed that go unpunished that we never hear of?

    To all – Because of the presumption of innocence, women are presumed to exist in a constant state of consent and they have to prove otherwise, which means rape is allowed. How is that more fair than making men prove that they did not commit a rape?

  28. Jiminy June 14, 2008 at 12:33 AM #

    Nine Deuce, you are silly! You are being silly, Nine Deuce!

  29. Jiminy June 14, 2008 at 12:35 AM #

    How can someone prove they didn’t rape a person? Wouldn’t they need recorded evidence? Or some kind of contract that both parties would sign?

  30. Derp June 14, 2008 at 12:38 AM #

    The low conviction rate is more due to lack of evidence. For whatever reason women may wait a while to report the attack(s) until it becomes too much for them to handle or someone finds out. At this point physical evidence like semen and hair are washed down the drain. Maybe the solution would be to have CSI required viewing in middle school? Seriously though, young women should be educated and we should work to create a society (not through legislation) where women can feel comfortable reporting crimes after they happen and not hold it in and let it fester. Also, for GOD’S sake can we admit that women need to learn about risk prevention? Sure rape is wrong and we shouldn’t blame the victim, but the choices you make affect what will happen down the line. Drinking so much you black out at a party isn’t the safest thing in the world, for women OR men.

  31. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 12:39 AM #

    deeznuts – Are you reading a Wikipedia article entitled “types of logical fallacies in argument” right now or something? Anyway, you are out of your element.

    No, Okinawa, it doesn’t work, because our conviction rate for rape is below 10%. Are you claiming that 90 of 100 rapes reported are false accusations? Also, I did not refer to castration as revenge, I said it was akin to removing a weapon from a violent criminal’s possession. It’s the same as not allowing felons to buy guns. It wouldn’t be painful, all it would do is create a situation in which the offender would no longer be able to use his sexuality as a weapon.

    Jiminy – I am not being silly, I am asking people to consider that the accepted state of things might not be the best way.

  32. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 12:42 AM #

    Derp – I KNOW that the low conviction rate is due to lack of evidence. That’s the problem, the victim is required to provide evidence that she did not consent. Why would we live in a default state of consent? Isn’t that just as bad (I say worse) than saying men are guilty until proven innocent? A default state of consent means rape is allowed!

    As to risk prevention, how about we ask men TO STOP HAVING SEX WITH PEOPLE WHO DON’T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM? Why do I have to curb my behavior because a dude can’t keep himself from raping me? That’s fucking ridiculous.

  33. Herp June 14, 2008 at 12:43 AM #

    Just because men commit more rapes and violent crimes does not mean that men in general are more likely to break people’s human rights.

    This law would allow any woman to claim a man had raped her, and he would have virtually no defence against it.

    Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that everyone should have equality before the law. Therefore, everyone should be considered innocent until they have been proven guilty. Someone being treated as guilty without proof being given is a breach of this. It also goes against Articles 9 and 10 , as well as directly against Article 11.1

    I do agree with article 2 of your proposal, however.

  34. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 12:47 AM #

    Yes, it does. Violent crime is a violation of human rights.

    You have to remember that as it stands now, the law asks women to trust men not to rape them. Under this version, it would ask men to trust women not to castrate them. Men, being more prone to violence than women, are more likely to rape than women are to castrate, even if it was just a matter of making the accusation. You have such a huge problem with the idea of innocent men being castrated, but what about innocent women being raped?

    Article 7 says everyone should have equality before the law, and I agree. If a woman were to commit a sex crime, I’d vote for her to receive life in the same kind of prison I outlined for the male rapists. But equality before the law has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. There are plenty of legal systems in which that is not the way things work.

  35. Herp June 14, 2008 at 12:51 AM #

    I still do not see how being more prone to violence makes someone more prone to lie.

  36. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 12:52 AM #

    Uh, how many people do you know who would admit to a crime? Men accused of rape would lie.

  37. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 12:54 AM #

    To the idiot who asked me what about the “slut” who accused her boyfriend of rape to blackmail him:

    1) What the fuck are you talking about?
    2) Learn how to present an argument if you want to discuss something like an adult.
    3) Fuck off.

    To all the people who have called me a cunt in comments:

    1) Read my comment policy.
    2) Good job on the well-reasoned arguments.
    3) Fuck off.

  38. Herp June 14, 2008 at 12:55 AM #

    Yes, and women who wanted revenge on someone can lie.

    Under your system it would mean life in jail and castration, with effectively no appeal.

    Also, if someone is getting life in jail, is there any point in the castration?

  39. Jiminy June 14, 2008 at 12:57 AM #

    “You have such a huge problem with the idea of innocent men being castrated, but what about innocent women being raped?”

    You are being silly, Nine Deuce. Stop being so silly.
    Castration would be the punishment for a man that raped someone. Rape is not a punishment for anyone. Rape is just a bad thing that happens to people.

  40. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 12:58 AM #

    I already asked you, do you really think people would pursue false charges if they were to mean someone would be castrated? There are VERY few people who would do so, much fewer than there are rapists.

    You get castration no jail unless you threatened someone’s life, in which case you go to jail. If you weren’t imprisoned but commit a second offense, you go to jail. There is a point to castration for men in jail. Castration would mean they could not use their sexuality as a weapon to dominate and victimize other people in jail.

  41. pisaquari June 14, 2008 at 1:05 AM #

    Nine Deuce–from **where** are you pulling this level of patience?

  42. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 1:05 AM #

    Jiminy – Rape is a punishment for being a woman. Men take out their anger on women through rape, which is a form of punishment.

  43. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 1:06 AM #

    pisaquari – I’m gonna be a teacher. I have to practice somewhere. I’m about to let all these dunces go in a minute, though.

  44. Herp-a-durp June 14, 2008 at 1:06 AM #


    There, you have been accused, and as such under your law are automatically guilty. Prove me wrong etc.

  45. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 1:07 AM #

    Here’s the problem, Herp: You’re a dude. You’re more likely to use violence or the threat of it to get your way than I am. I wouldn’t accuse you of rape if I knew it meant you’d go to prison or get castrated, even though you keep changing your screen name.

  46. Jiminy June 14, 2008 at 1:08 AM #

    “Rape is a punishment for being a woman.”

    Oh my God…
    You…you’re horrible!

  47. Herp June 14, 2008 at 1:09 AM #

    First of all, how do you know I’m a guy.

    Secondly, I keep posting under the same name.

    So what you are saying is that you honestly think men are more likely to be ‘evil’ than woman are? That is sexist bullshit.

  48. Konservo June 14, 2008 at 1:10 AM #

    So… hypothetically, a man could accuse his ex-girlfriend of rape and she would be forced to prove that he consented. If she could not produce evidence that proved the man gave consent for the particular act in question, she would be convicted.


  49. Herp-a-durp June 14, 2008 at 1:12 AM #

    No relation to Herp or Derp :D, and there is no provisions in your law against me wildly accusing you. What’s to stop those horrible horrible men from running to the police station before the women we all raping even as we type this and accusing them first? Those women have to prove they didn’t rape the men before they can do anything. And if they can’t, which is the whole point of your law, that the accused wouldn’t be able to wiggle free, then they get mutilated and sent to jail for the rest of their lives for getting raped. Sounds perfect! No abuse possible. Ever.

  50. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 1:23 AM #

    Listen to me, motherfuckers: I am not claiming that my law would be a perfect replacement for the current ones, just that the current ones DON’T WORK and that it is unjust to operate under the assumption that women are in a constant state of consent. I know this might come as a surprise to all of you self-appointed legal scholars, but I have studied the law of the United States as well as several other countries extensively. I anticipated all of your objections, and they were all answered in the original post, which I think you’ll find if you look at it. My law was intended to highlight the injustice of our current system for dealing with sex crimes.

    Accuse me of sexism, accuse me of double standards, accuse me of injustice, but all of those accusations can be made against the current state of things.

    At least you gave it some thought, which is what I hoped.

    Good DAY to the lot of you.

  51. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 1:36 AM #

    Konservo – Yes.

  52. Darling June 14, 2008 at 1:40 AM #

    Well, what CAN be said about the current system is that it’s been designed to avoid making the situation worse any way possible, while still trying to help.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right.

  53. asdsda June 14, 2008 at 1:48 AM #

    “The presumption of innocence, as it is not specifically iterated anywhere in the Constitution”

    Sometimes I wonder if countries without a constitution are better off but then I remember it’s just that America is retarded.

  54. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 1:48 AM #

    Darling – What effort is being made to help? The laws have existed in this fucked up state for centuries.

  55. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 1:49 AM #

    The Constitution is definitely a problem. People seem to think it’s a divine revelation rather than the work of mortals, and so it has proven very inflexible and ill-suited to modern problems.

  56. Darling June 14, 2008 at 2:02 AM #

    Nine Deuce: That it’s forbidden, and heck, that false convictions actually happen. That shows that significant leniency is shown to those who cannot procure adeaquate evidence.

    Also, The Constitution being inflexible and ill-suited? It’s, still, one of the best crafted documents ever made. It skillfully still shows insights into human nature a vast majority of the people today cannot even comprehend – even if it is frequently misread by Americans.

    But, overall, as a continental male European (everyone not understanding that reference read ), I say, keep on. I want to see you somehow making yourself less worthy of respect intellectually.

    I think we should praise whatever deity we believe in (or the state of existence for atheists) that you don’t represent anything except an extreme fringe woman viewpoint. If all women were like you, I, for one, would be violently opposed to the right of women to vote.

  57. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 2:14 AM #

    Your deeming me unworthy of intellectual respect amounts to nothing (especially since you can’t even detect a joke when you see one) unless you can explain why, which you can’t. You can say that you think my positions are crazy and not intellectually respectable, but that’s because they don’t jibe with your conception of how the world ought to work, not because they’re actually illogical. I’m willing to bet that I am much more educated than you are, and I’ve thought long and hard about all of these issues. That you don’t like my conclusions matters nil.

    The reason your reaction is so strident is that you can detect the threat of the loss of your own privilege in the kinds of things I’m talking about. That’s why men don’t like radical feminists for the most part.

    Leniency is offered to those who can’t provide evidence? As opposed to what? Punishing rape victims who can’t PROVE that they weren’t in a constant state of consent? Unbelievable.

    I have a thorough understanding of the Constitution, as well as the problems America faces that it can’t cope with. Guns, anyone? As a continental European, you should understand that.

  58. chlorophyll June 14, 2008 at 2:18 AM #

    This next comment is for Derp, in response to this statement:

    “Seriously though, young women should be educated and we should work to create a society (not through legislation) where women can feel comfortable reporting crimes after they happen and not hold it in and let it fester. Also, for GOD’S sake can we admit that women need to learn about risk prevention? Sure rape is wrong and we shouldn’t blame the victim, but the choices you make affect what will happen down the line. Drinking so much you black out at a party isn’t the safest thing in the world, for women OR men.”

    Do you know what’s wrong with this statement? Most simply, it states that women need to take extraneous measures, more measures than any man would need to take or even think about, in order to be granted the basic human need for safety and security. What you are saying and doing is placing the burden of rape prevention and penalization on women. The entire point of anti-rape laws is to equal the playing field so that women will not *need* to be held in this invisible fear and/or build their nightlives around sexual safety issues. By forcing more social responsibility and obligations on women in response to the imbalance in the sex of rape victims, it’s not solving the basic need that anti-rape arguments are targeting — the basic need being, simply, the right to exist without fear. There’s no doubt that the judicial system is heavily patriarchal insofar as rape offenses are often taken relatively lightly. Child predators and rapists are most often convicted, sentenced, then released before they commit the same crimes again.

    Anyway, you’re a fucking dimwit for suggesting an idea like the one you just did. Good luck in life to you.

  59. Eye June 14, 2008 at 2:31 AM #

    Plenty of women would use the reversal in burden of proof to get back at their boyfriends, or to have it hang over their boyfriend’s head as a threat. This cannot work unmodified, because all it would take is for a male to have sex with his female partner and the female partner would be able to, if she wished, get the male imprisoned for rape. Not all rape leaves physical damage, and there are plenty of good actors out there who could fudge the emotional trauma.

    Want to end rape? Change our education system, not our laws, and work to clean out the ignorance and bigotry that exists in the minds of some of our males. We don’t need a, frankly, unfair legal system to deal with rape (guilty until proven innocent is NOT a fair system, except perhaps in the US’ current administration), we need to deal with the problem at it’s source.

    I don’t understand how a rapeless society would lead to utopia either.

    If you want to crusade against the big picture, try taking on human trafficking. There are MILLIONS of women who are sold into permanent sexual slavery for the duration of their natural lives (or in some cases until they “pay a substantial debt” incurred by their captives). The international community does little to try and stop that.

    But to summarize, I’d contend that rape is caused by ignorance and bigotry, not “lax laws.”

  60. entr0py June 14, 2008 at 2:38 AM #

    I admire your idealism. But it is perhaps more useful to think of ways you can be of help within the world that exists. Fantasizing about a better world is a necessary beginning. But unless you follow it up with real action it’s all just escapism.

  61. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 2:44 AM #

    Eye – I agree. Like I said, in an ideal situation rape would be eradicated through a revolution in values. This was meant to illustrate the failings of the current system more than anything.

    Entropy – Every post on this blog is about finding ways to work within the situation we live in. That I take time out to discuss alternatives (feasible or not) is not escapism, but rather an attempt to make people think about things that they take for granted.

  62. chlorophyll June 14, 2008 at 2:45 AM #

    Oh, and also, to “Darling” (trashy username, btw) —

    Why are you here? European men are shit, every smart American woman knows that. I find them to be lecherous creepers with very odd facial features and a deeply ingrained sense of male entitlement that is manifested through a rich cultural and genetic history of misogyny as well as certain languages that are brimming with linguistic sexism. They’re prone to premature aging, and dress like either queers or ragdolls. Please, stick to your own continental feminist blogs. Historical American gender roles are slightly different from European ones, so save your misplaced smugness for someplace else — I definitely don’t come here to have to read shit like your last comment.

  63. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 2:53 AM #

    I love chlorophyll.

    And I just thought of something that I’d like to address to all commenters aside from pisaquari and chlorophyll: Would you ever dream of being so patronizing toward someone in person? Would you go on a man’s blog and tell him how he ought to present his ideas? Do you really all think you are smarter than I am, that you understand these issues better than I do, and that you are justified in talking to me like you’re my fucking dad? Don’t kid yourself. Seriously, fuck the lot of you.

  64. Eye June 14, 2008 at 3:11 AM #

    I completely agree with entropy, in that inaction on behalf of women is contributing to the problem as much as the bad choices men in policy and at home are making.

    But I want to challenge you, 9-2, to reconsider for a moment what seems to be your view of the world today and how it got there.

    Now before anything else I drop the disclaimer that I haven’t spent more than a collective 20 minutes reading through your about/how to get banned, and so I make these statements out of partial ignorance and somewhat unfairly.

    And maybe that’s when I should take the common sense path and stop right now.

    But it just seems to me that you have this world view wherein you ascribe all of today’s societal problems to men, because we live in a patriarchal society, and because our past societies have been patriarchal. Without an example of a modern society governed largely by women to compare to, how can you make the distinction between problems caused by tradition-based ignorance, problems caused by patterns of thinking that have been maintained in leadership for a very long time, and problems caused by the leader’s male gender.

    Or put another way, if the world had been ruled primarily by women for the last few thousand years, would you honestly expect gender equality?

    I think where some men feel threatened by feminism is that they have the perception, founded in reality or not, that feminists by and large blame the gender and not the traditions (in perspective, knowledge/ignorance and in attitudes) that were established long ago.

    So I may be entirely wrong about the way you see things, which I probably am. But in return for my foolishness I promise the reward (or maybe in time you’ll find it to be just more punishment :P) of me spending some more time here, hearing what you have to say, and commenting.

    Maybe a little about myself.

    I’m a *gasp* male college student enrolled in an undergraduate program at a community college with plans of becoming an engineer and working in the budding field of nanoscience/molecular nanotechnology. I grew up in a liberal Christian household, and by the time I reached college I became essentially agnostic and have remained such since. I’ve been in a relationship with a wonderful woman for just over two years now, and we both have had plenty of talks/debates about feminism. I had the great fortune of growing up alongside a male friend of mine who himself has become involved with a girl who has opened all of our minds to more progressive ideas about gender identity, feminism, and the differing psychologies between men and women (she was president of a local Gay Straight Alliance chapter when he met her, and we’ve all learned a lot together).

    Myself, I am a nihilist, futurist, altruist, agnostic who wants to participate in planting the seeds for a better future society. I feel the internet has opened up new avenues for the individual’s quest for knowledge and wisdom, and recently I’ve decided to use that opportunity to lurk around forums and blogs to gain insight on world problems and the human experience that frankly no academia is capable of teaching.

    I hope to learn a lot here, and I hope you will too ;)

  65. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 3:17 AM #

    Eye – I’ve stated in several places that I don’t believe all men are unregenerate assholes, and that most of them are tools of, rather than architects of, the patriarchal system in which we live. If you do read through things, you’ll see that in most posts I take a much more charitable attitude toward men than I do in this one. Still, I don’t back away from my central argument in this post that our legal system is heavily influenced by the patriarchy and that it doesn’t serve women’s needs.

  66. Eye June 14, 2008 at 3:24 AM #

    Duece, I wouldn’t necessarily blame people’s disagreement or even outright hostility on unconscious (or even bias) gender bias. Having been involved in heated discussions about women’s rights for so long, do you think perhaps maybe you’re just a little “jumpy” or “trigger happy” when it comes to assuming a gender bias in others? “Well if I was a man…” is not a fair assessment of someone else’s disagreement/hostility. Just a thought.

    Consider also that you’ve proposed her a legal amendment that reverses the “innocent until proven guilty” pretext that defines modern judicial thought, and that you’ve also proposed mutilation as a desirable punishment for first time offenders. I agree that there needs to be a change in approach to rape punishment, but it needs to come in the form of education, not more imprisonment or even human rights violations against men. Otherwise, why do we even bother imprisoning/attempt to instate capital punishment for murderers? We should just lobotomize them. A law like this would only serve to further cause hostilities between women’s rights groups and mainstream males, and would, I’d predict, actually hurt the women’s rights movement, which as you know isn’t just about rape, but about fair pay, fair treatment, societal attitudes and perceptions, media perceptions etc. And so on those grounds I think it would hurt a lot more and many more things than it would help, at least in its current state.

    I would suggest a program where rapists have to spend at least a year regularly attending classes where they are educated about women’s rights, are given presentations by rape victims, and are counseled in a psychiatric way. In order to properly design such a program, you’d need to take into account studies of the demographics behind rape, studies behind the “common attitudes” and beliefs among men who commit the crime as well as studies of women who face spousal abuse (which obviously in this context would include rape) and how their beliefs/common attitudes appear statistically; all data which in the course of your studies I’m sure you’ve come across. I think ideally this would do a lot to reverse the repeat offense trend, and I think once these ideas are proven tested and true in the prison system we could then take the information and lobby for inclusion in public education programs.

    Just my bantering.

  67. Eye June 14, 2008 at 3:31 AM #

    I’m considering you an expert here, so maybe you can help me out.

    I’m not sure how legit the information here is:
    But according to that site, only 16% of rapes are ever reported to the police. How is it that we know this if the other 84% are never reported? Is it based on hospital rape-kit statistics, or is it inferred from polls?

  68. Eye June 14, 2008 at 3:40 AM #

    “Another note: credit is due to Davetavius for being one of the few dudes reasonable enough to think this is a good idea”

    That could be one reason why people are a bit hostile about this post; you present the context as “this is the way things should be to be fair, and any man who disagrees is not reasonable.” From your comments however I get the perception that what you are really trying to express is an example of a law that would be equally as unjust as our current system, just on the opposite side of the coin. In the main post you don’t seem to make this notion clear, and instead at least to me the tone seems to suggest “you either agree with this law or you have male bias.”

    I could be wrong.

  69. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 4:31 AM #

    I don’t actually think I’m trigger happy. I think that there are a lot of people who have come onto my blog and behaved in a patronizing manner because that’s how a lot of men interact with a lot of women. Honestly, you’re doing a little of it, but I don’t think you’re doing it intentionally, so I don’t really care.

    I’ve already stated that I’d like to see rape eradicated through a change in attitudes, but that doesn’t change the fact that I would like to express my disdain for a legal system in which women are considered, legally, to be in a default state of consent unless they can prove otherwise. That, in my book, is absurd. It means that anyone can do whatever they want to me, and that I have to prove I didn’t want them to lest they get away with it. Castration might seem like a human rights violation under the system (national and international) that we live in right now, but I don’t think of it that way. Sentiments aside, it is a logical solution to an epidemic in human rights violations in the form of rape. Let’s say, as a joke, that I was OK with the presumption of innocence. What would you think about castration of rapists then?

    My job as a feminist isn’t to make feminism palatable to men. I realize that we need men’s help to succeed, but it’s men’s job to change their attitudes toward women. That my desire for equality makes men uncomfortable is not my problem.

    As for the stats on reported rapes, they collect information from polls, from stats at rape crisis centers, etc. It depends on the study, but that number of 16% is pretty close to what most studies come up with, although I still think there are more rapes that go unreported, especially the kinds of rape that are hard to identify as rape for the victim (when the victim is unconscious, for example, see my War on Terr’r 6 post).

    That bit about Davetavius was a joke. This site has a lot of facetiousness on it, I think you’ll find, and I often get people who don’t pick it up getting all worked up. But, I must say, all of the people who have argued with the post have exhibited at least mild (and usually strong) senses of male entitlement to the free exercise of male sexuality even to the detriment of women.

  70. Eye June 14, 2008 at 5:13 AM #

    I apologize if I’ve seemed patronizing anywhere, and I want to ask, where?

    However, what if I had made all these statements to you with you perceiving them with the pretext that I’m female? Would that change your opinion of my tone or intent?

    The only thing that I’ve really said here is that the law you suggested has flaws that render it unfair and unjust, legally and morally, and that if your intention was to demonstrate an equally unfair law that sits on the opposite side of the coin, you didn’t make that very clear in the original post. My disagreement with you is not rooted in my perception of our gender relationship.

    “My job as a feminist isn’t to make feminism palatable to men. I realize that we need men’s help to succeed, but it’s men’s job to change their attitudes toward women. That my desire for equality makes men uncomfortable is not my problem.”

    You can’t succeed without men. Period. And men can’t succeed without you. Period. You may have idealistic views about progressive feminism (sounds much better than radical feminism to me at least, consider that spin, since “progressive” is more colloquially positive and agreeable to all than “radical.” Otherwise, the conservatives will stop reading and start sputtering), but you wont be able to see them implemented without getting the men to participate in their implementation, and all changes require some compromise, so on those grounds I would say while it’s not your job to make feminism palatable to men, what good will it do to not? And palatable doesn’t mean you compromise the most important and irrevocable tenants of your belief, it simply means guide the horse to water rather than tell the horse to go drink or fuck off. If you want to make change in the world, and if you want males to be that change, you have to diplomatically get them to see your point, because as you very well know, many men won’t agree with what you have to say off the bat because of their own perceptions of you and their own biases, even though many many of the things you have to say here ring true.

    But what I was getting at with the statistic, is how can we be sure that 16% is accurate? What data is that 16% based off of, and using that data, what kind of statistical margin of error might we have? That 16% statistic is actually the most important one on that page, because it alone defines how many women are “thought to be raped every year.” The amount of reported rapes becomes irrelevant if our statistical model for “how many rapes go unreported” is more significant than the amount of reported rapes themselves. So in the interest of having accurate data to work with, I want to know how exactly we get this 16%. I see these kind of estimates all the time, and it’s never been explained to me how we arrive at them, even though they are the most important statistics of all.

    Consider the UFO phenomenon, of all things. Few actual studies have been done on the prevalence of UFO sightings/alien abductions in society, even though the UFO community by and large wholeheartedly believes that millions, literally millions have had these experiences. Of the few studies, the famous Roper poll was analyzed and the estimate of total people who’ve seen a UFO was based on the assumption that “only 5% of UFO witnesses actually report seeing a UFO, fearing social repercussions, threat to career, harassment, ridicule, and not wanting to go through the process of reporting, which itself is perceived negatively.” (note this is paraphrased). That’s quite a statistic right there! But if we had “real” data, say in the form of a huge study to try and determine how many people would actually hide something like this, and let’s say it deflated the numbers of UFO sightings quite dramatically, how many people would still believe in UFOs?

    Now I am NOT saying at all that rape statistics may be deflated in this way, or that deflated rape statistics should at all change our attitudes about rape prevention, but I do think it’s a relevant issue that we have more accurate statistics to work with. It could be that this 16% was based on a nationwide anonymous poll “have you ever been raped,” and if so, it would then pretty accurately give us an idea of how many total rapes occur in the US annually. However if that 16% is based on speculation on behalf of the researchers as to “how many women probably wouldn’t say anything” then our data is pretty skewed. If quite seriously 1/300 women become rape victims annually (assuming about a 50/50 divide between men and women, though of course there will be slightly more women, with 500,000 raped), then we have a huge issue on our hands, clearly. And that number doesn’t sound very exaggerated to me either. Imagine a university undergrad class filled predominantly with women that’s told at the beginning of the semester “oh, by the way, at least one of you girls WILL be raped this year, period,” that might raise some brows. But that 16% is the foundation of the whole statistic, and so I can’t help to ponder its origins.

    I don’t see why a date rape would cause a woman not to report. She may not have a perp to implicate, but she would know she was taken advantage of, and would probably have signs of having participated in intercourse on her body. I could be wrong though, it just seems strange to me.

    And the right to have your penis isn’t about “free exercise of male sexuality,” it’s a cruel and unusual punishment issue. The penis in some contexts has become objectified as the embodiment of male oppression, and so I would play devil’s advocate here and prodingly jest with you that perhaps there was more to this inclusion than meets the eye ;)

  71. Eye June 14, 2008 at 5:28 AM #

    Something else I just realized too, there’s many ways of looking at an issue, and I just thought of another.

    In your original post you claim that the current standard is that of the “default state of consent.” I would suggest however that the “default” here has to do with the person on trial, and not with the testifying witnesses/prosecuting party. So from that perspective, it is “default state of innocence.”

    The problem with rape is the unique difficulties it presents in the judicial environment, and I think reducing the problems to a presumption that a woman statistically won’t lie about being raped, and therefore we should assume the defendant is lying from the get-go, is an oversimplification of the real issue that proof is sometimes hard to validate in these cases, and that many times there won’t be anything to use as evidence other than testimony and evidence in the form of emotional distress. Otherwise, if we just assume women won’t lie most of the time, we might as well start using lie detector tests in criminal cases as damning evidence; after all, most of the time lie detector tests are accurate.

    Future advances in technology may offer new solutions to this problem. If changing societal viewpoints and largely purging the ignorance that causes this phenomenon doesn’t happen first, consider this zany idea I just made up:

    – A device a woman can insert deep inside herself, like an IUD, that acts as a “rape detector.” Basically, it would simultaneously keep track of penetration as well as fear/anger/anxiety hormones released by the female. If the female is under duress while being penetrated, it records this data and could then be used in a court case. Women could have it installed upon puberty, and it could actually function as a real IUD, serving as a simultaneous birth control and rape detector. As I understand it, you don’t really “feel” an IUD given how deep it’s placed inside. If this is not the case, then obviously this technology is flawed. Another flaw would be the consideration that not all rapes are restricted to/involve intercourse.

  72. threemilechild June 14, 2008 at 5:49 AM #

    The idea that people exist in a state of non-consent to sex does not necessarily countervene presumption of an accused’s innocence in criminal court.(1)

    For example, if someone punches me in the face, it is assumed that I did not consent (2); yet if the state were to press assault charges against my assailant, that person would still be presumed innocent.

    Also, ninedeuce says: “Leniency is offered to those who can’t provide evidence? As opposed to what? Punishing rape victims who can’t PROVE that they weren’t in a constant state of consent? Unbelievable.”
    It IS unbelievable, and of course, our government does it. Remember the cases of women punished by the military after being gang-raped?

    Lastly, I think that silly Jiminy is sitting there, being silly, going through some (not so silly) list of the obnoxious things misogynist say when speaking to women, and seeing how many he can check off. Silly, huh?

    (1) It does, however, contravene the idea that womens’ bodies, and therefore women, are owned by their fathers, their husbands, or whoever can take them first; it’s not likely to pass into law.

    (2) There are some crimes in which consent is not a defense — murder, in most cases — but I specifically chose that one both because there are plenty of legal ways to punch people in the face (become a pro or an amateur fighter) and also because many friends do roughhouse, with consent, and without getting the law involved at all.

  73. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 7:28 AM #

    Look, Eye, I’ve got to sleep, but you really ought to realize how patronizing you sound. Are you actually telling me how to be a feminist? And what to call myself? The cheek! But I’ll address all that tomorrow or Sunday.

  74. Eye June 14, 2008 at 7:52 AM #

    I did think about it. And then I looked up the definition of Patronize. In every case I find, to Patronize means to Condescend. In turn, to Condescend means to:
    – Treat with an air of haughtiness
    – To descend to a less formal or dignified level
    – To assume an air of superiority

    In all cases, the implication is that I would be treating you as an inferior, treating your reasoning skills as inferior, or otherwise using weasel words to place you in a lower social context or suggest your ideas have less priority/weight/value than mine.

    So if you want, and I would like, please show me where I have been Patronizing.

    From my perception, I have merely criticized a few of your ideas and challenged a few of the stereotypes you seem to carry with you. I agree with most of what you have to say elsewhere so far (just not necessarily this legislature idea), but I feel like you are interpreting any disagreement/debate as an male opposition rather than the logical discourse I perceive it as.

    As far as “telling you how to be a feminist” or “telling you what to call yourself” I was merely pointing out that if you want males to change you’re going to have to engage them rather than write your opinions and expect them to agree or otherwise brand them as stupid failures for not agreeing. And I was pointing out that “progressive feminism” seems more along the lines of what you want, colloquially, because people perceive “radical feminism” as, and pardon the expression, feminazis, who want gender inequality and who believe males are inferior. I’m not telling you that’s how it is, that’s just my opinion. I’m sorry if I didn’t properly frame it that way.

    Despite what you may have seen written between the lines of my earlier comments, I’m telling you right now that I don’t think any less of your opinions, or you, than of myself or my opinions, and I don’t believe I have any more “authority” on any such manners than you do (to the contrary I ‘believe’ I’m younger than you, and you seem to have spent a substantial amount of time doing research in this area, so I would say you are more qualified than I am, and have more authority on the subject than I do).

    I hope that clears things up.

  75. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 4:41 PM #

    Eye – I’m glad you are here thinking about these things, and I am glad you’re reading my posts. My only issue would be with your telling me how to make my platform palatable to men. I do know that reaching equality will require men to get on board with feminism, but I’m on the fence about whether that’s what I really want. Debs has written a post on the subject that you can find in the carnival I just hosted.

    Even if equality does turn out to be my goal, I don’t know that watering down my message is going to do any good. I realize that men think of combat boots when they think of radical feminism, but radical feminism actually means something. It’s a much different thing than progressive feminism or any other kind of feminism. It means that I think our entire social structure is patriarchal, and that fundamental change will be required to liberate women. That might even mean the complete restructuring of our socio-economic system.

    Radical feminism does not, however, hold that men are inferior. That men take it to mean so means they don’t understand it. I do attempt to break feminist thought down to easily digestible bits on this blog, but that’s as much as I’m going to do. It truly isn’t my job to make men comfortable. What I’m talking about should make them uncomfortable, because it entails a drastic reduction in their privilege and social superiority over women.

    Anyway, keep commenting. I am glad you’re thinking about these things.

    threemildchild – No one is assumed to have consented to an assault. When a victim goes to court for a robbery, they don’t have to prove they didn’t want to be robbed.

  76. pitorp June 14, 2008 at 6:14 PM #

    im just curious, how would you punish men who got raped by fags?

  77. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 6:18 PM #

    pitorp – With the death penalty, definitely. Nice.

  78. pitorp June 14, 2008 at 6:30 PM #

    you are going to be a teacher? good luck with that.

    no really, obvious trolling here people, move along.

  79. Eye June 14, 2008 at 10:10 PM #

    Formerly I didn’t realize that “radical feminism” was actually the name of a subset of feminist “channels” and so I apologize as I was running under the assumption that you had created the title of “radical feminist” for yourself.

    I read Debs’ post, and I must say again here is an example of associating two ideas that may actually be mutually exclusive to each other. On one hand you have an oppressive social and cultural system that does tend to keep women out of executive positions, it does tend to make women feel their self worth is based on her “beauty hierarchy” in society, and it does work to give women a whole additional bag of insecurities about themselves that works firmly against self empowerment. On the other hand you have problems in the world, conflict, that are being perpetrated by our leaders in part, by our media in part, and by the inaction/submission of the individual dissident, in part. However, to claim that war, management structure, hatred, conflict and any form of aggression at all is “inherent to men” or “is a man thing” I think is a greatly flawed perspective. While men may be more instinctually (and culturally) aggressive on the average, there is no reason to believe that matriarchal societies by and large would “be smarter than that” and make logical, rational, cooperative decisions all the time.

    Now I recognize that maybe the spirit of the message is “we want equality, but we want better than what the status quo is anyway because it’s destructive, inefficient, inhuman and counterproductive in many cases.” But Debs really makes it sound like “men” are the cause of all the worlds problems, and that “women” wouldn’t cause these problems, which is not fair.

    I agree the world needs a lot of change though. As much as women need to reinvent the world, it should not be in their own image, because frankly, it’s not “their turn” to fuck up all the ways we did. It’s time to recreate the world in the image of a human, have values and rights and a sense of justice that is global, isn’t tied to metaphysics, and is immutable, and have a global unity that would enable us to solve global problems. But it seems like the presumption here is that all world problems could be solved by empowering women and then destroying the current social structure. Maybe it could work that way, but if you want everything to change suddenly and for the best, you have to be able to make it possible, and so I ask, where is the action plan?

  80. Nine Deuce June 14, 2008 at 10:24 PM #

    That’s my problem with almost any label being attached to feminism (at least to my feminism), as I’ve stated on my about page. I don’t know what the alternative is to our current situation because we’ve yet to try anything else.

    I don’t believe that men inherently tend toward war and violence, because those phenomena are products of warrior cultures, of our own culture’s brand of masculinity. China, up until the 20th century, serves as a fairly good counterexample in which military valor was not prized and in which violence and war were frowned upon (of course, that’s a very general statement and can be complicated, but the general trajectory in China has been much different than in the west on this count).

    I don’t think the answer to patriarchy is matriarchy, but I do know that men currently run the world to the detriment of women, so that needs to change. I don’t agree 100% with Debs, or with any other feminist/women’s liberationist, which is why I have my own blog. I’ve said a few times that I think the best bet is to work from within the system we have, because revolutions beget violence and rarely yield any real change, and because it’s the only realistic option.

    That does not mean, however, that I am going to temper my viewpoints to appease men. I know full well that an opinionated and harsh feminist critique of the status quo will threaten men, and thus make them angry. I don’t care. My position is an ethical and a moral one, and not only that, but a reasonable and logical one. Thoughtful people who are willing to examine the things we hold to be self-evident will pick up what I’m laying down, and the kinds of people who will never admit that women might have cause for complaint won’t. I’m not here for those people, because they’re not rational. I’m here for people like most of my commenters (though not the ones on this post) and people such as yourself who are willing and able to discuss things without resorting to stupid, misogynistic insults. I am here for young feminists and feminist sympathizers. I think there’s a real lack on the internet of feminist thought in the vernacular, so that’s what I am trying to provide.

  81. BUTTKICKER 69 June 14, 2008 at 11:23 PM #


  82. Eye June 15, 2008 at 12:02 AM #

    Good points Deuce

    A question though, must I necessarily be labeled as a “feminist sympathizer” rather than a “feminist” solely on the grounds that I happen to be male? I mean, can’t I be part of the feminist cause, rather than just “sympathizing” with it?

    Maybe I should just let semantics be semantics :P

  83. crankosaur June 15, 2008 at 12:50 AM #

    I read like, three asshole comments and that’s enough. Your plan is more than a little unconstitutional, but boy oh boy, I wish it weren’t. It seems that in a court of law (and life in general, sometime) women are automatically assumed to give consent to anyone at any time. I mean, plaintiffs in assault cases aren’t assumed to be in fight club, plaintiffs in robbery cases aren’t assumed to have leant their high end stereo equipment to the defendent, so why should it be different in rape cases?

  84. Jane June 15, 2008 at 1:34 AM #

    I’m still not sure if buttkicker is a joke. It’s so outrageous (as in just inane and weird). Is this supposed to be ironic or facetious or are the doctors not watching him close enough and allowing him to slip away to the computer?
    It’s so poorly written that I’ve ruled out Deuce writing this to make us all laugh.
    Well, that’s all for now. I have to go report to my communist handler.

  85. Nine Deuce June 15, 2008 at 2:37 AM #

    crankosaur – Good one. I might use the “assault victims aren’t assumed to be in fight club” bit next time someone brings that shit up about people supposedly having to prove they’ve been assaulted.

  86. BUTTKICKER 69 June 15, 2008 at 2:55 AM #


  87. Eye June 15, 2008 at 3:48 AM #

    I’m going to assume you’re being serious, if not, jokes on me I guess. First of all, if you want to talk about ad hominims, I suggest you stop starting every sentence with “you liberals.” I’m sorry you’ve become the butt of polarized politics, but this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, and if you want to make it about stupid party politics, that’s your right, but we’re not going to humor you. That kind of crap belongs to the older generations.

    If not, then good job, whoever, at representing a closed minded hick.

    As I’ve said before, rape represents unique problems in the court of law, because it doesn’t always leave verifiable proof, and because women don’t always file a report. If someone punches you in the face, then you call the police and the police can see for themselves your injury. With a rape, there may not be verifiable injuries, and if there are you must report the rape in order to have them verified, and so many times the court won’t have verifiable evidence of a rape. Even then, sometimes during rough sex injury can happen, so evidence of some physical damage isn’t always indicative of forced sex.

    If a woman is raped and doesn’t file a report/get herself checked out/doesn’t get her injuries on record, she would be relying solely on her “word” that he really raped her. Imagine if someone accuses you of punching them in the face, but they have no pictures to prove they’ve been punched, no witnesses, etc. Would it be right for the court to assume they are telling the truth?

    Frankly, giving the woman the “benefit of the doubt” if she can’t offer substantial evidence is sexist. It assumes women “wouldn’t lie about something like this” and that men would.

  88. Jane June 15, 2008 at 3:59 AM #

    Buttlicker, a straw man argument is where the weakest idea of an opponent is taken and expanded to its most ludicrous extent, then shot down. By attacking your (lack of) character I was engaging in an ad hominem attack. If you want a discussion of ideas, then try typing in small letters, using punctuation, and expounding on ideas that make an iota of sense. If you are unable to fulfill these basic requirements, your ideas remain beneath discussion.

  89. Blind Achilles June 15, 2008 at 5:00 AM #

    I love your blog. You have an excellent writing style and you have a lot to say that needs to be said – and heard.

    However, I take issue with just a couple of points in this particular post. Presumption of innocence is so important, so intrinsic to our system of justice that removing it from any type of case would be a lethal blow to our legal system.

    Rather than remove presumption of innocence, why not institute legislation (as long as we are already so far from reality) requiring prosecutors to much more aggressively pursue sexual assault cases. Additionally, just as in cases where a defendant’s crimes as a minor are inadmissible, the court should disallow a rape victims sexual history from being a part of the defense. There are several ways in which prosecution of rape could be promoted and made easier without tearing apart fundamental principles.

    Now, once a defendant has been convicted there are several problems with castration. First – rape is about power, not sex. A rapist will not be stopped simply by removing their testicles (though perhaps you meant the whole package). The rapist’s “problem” is not in their dick, it is in their head. Which is why the most appropriate punishment would be to blow their brains out. Particularly for violent sexual assault (all sexual assault is violent, but there are gradations) , the only appropriate punishment would be death. And not a neat, clean, painless white room death, but a dragged into a filthy room with a brick wall studded with bullet holes and crusted in dried blood kind of death.

    I also have a question – Exactly what kind of work or services could convicted sex offenders be put to for the benefit of women? You say that the nature of said work will be decided by the institutions, but that just sort of leaves that problem for later. I think you should address this. In particular, I would wonder if any woman, particularly a victim of sexual assault, would want any product or service that they knew came from a scumbag. Rather than atoning for the crime, it seems that any product resulting from the work of a sex offender would simply be a constant reminder of their heinous actions.

  90. BUTTKICKER 69 June 15, 2008 at 5:03 AM #


  91. Nine Deuce June 15, 2008 at 5:11 AM #

    Blind Achilles – Those are all worthy ideas. I know my law is ridiculously unfeasible, but I wanted to put it out there and make people consider the reality of the principle of default consent inherent in our current law. Realistically, forcing prosecutors to actually pursue rapists and not allowing defense attorneys to bring up victims’ sexual histories would be a good start.

    As for the castration, removing the testicles removes both the ability to get an erection and the main source of testosterone, the hormone behind aggression. I’d say that if someone commits a second sex crime or violent crime after castration, they’d get a life sentence.

    I am against the death penalty in all cases, but I do think about it at times in regard to sex offenders. I guess if we’re going to have the death penalty, though, we ought to expand it to include these creeps, especially repeat offenders.

    The work I was thinking of was more like construction, maybe for housing for low income women with children. I don’t think I’d have a problem with taking a free house built by enslaved rapists.

  92. Eye June 15, 2008 at 5:21 AM #

    And so while we castrate men who commit sex crimes, let’s chop off the hands of thieves, cut off the tongues of slanderers, and kill every single murderer rather than bothering with the prison system.

    Castration has been proven to be ineffective at curbing sex crimes as far as I’m aware. I know at least studies have shown it doesn’t stop child molesters.

  93. Eye June 15, 2008 at 5:30 AM #

    Buttkicker, stop trying to start fights. Nobody appreciates your slandering, liberal or conservative or libertarian or whatever. Speaking in caps (which is a subtle way of suggesting yelling or a raised voice on the net) doesn’t make your statements any more “true” or more important than anyone else’s. Maybe to you it does, but to the rest of us it makes you look less intelligent because you refuse to use good grammar and speak in coherent sentences. Think we’re all wrong for appreciating good grammar? Go back to school.

    Just for your information, I don’t subscribe to any political party. Political parties work to narrow your mind, since groupthink takes over and you tend to believe in irrational ideas that get shoved in with the rest. So if you’re going to start throwing around stupid party labels, leave me out of it.

    None of your ideas have been “academic” so far. Academic ideas are founded in facts backed by citeable evidence and studies. There’s nothing academic about slandering people and accusing them of having a “liberal bias.”

  94. Jane June 15, 2008 at 5:33 AM #

    I wouldn’t want to live in a house built by enslaved rapists. I think we should make them work in sewers and plant trees.

  95. Eye June 15, 2008 at 7:11 AM #

    Why not Jane? Would be nice if we used our prison system to clean up New Orleans.

  96. Blind Achilles June 15, 2008 at 3:23 PM #

    Eye – you are right, castration is ineffectual in combating sexual assault. Perps who have been castrated, chemical or otherwise, have frequently re-offended, because, like I said, the problem is in their head. So no, we should not castrate them. But for violent offenders who pose a continuing risk to society? The only reasonable consequence is death.
    You lump in the ridiculous (thieves hands chopped off, slanderers tongues cut out) to make your position seem more reasonable, but murderers, in certain cases, and sex offenders, in certain cases, absolutely should be put to death. The only argument against the death penalty is the fallibility of the justice system and the possibility of innocents being killed. This is a significant concern. But under certain circumstances, such as when the genetic evidence is strong, or the crime is videotaped, and there is no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of an offender, why on earth should they be kept alive, at a cost of thousands per year, to languish in jail and provide nothing for society?
    I don’t know your beliefs , and I won’t presume to tell you what you think, but if your opposition to the death penalty comes from some feel-good “sanctity of life” sentiment, then I say open your eyes. The asshole who sneaks in through a window at night to rape a women doesn’t have any such notions of sanctity of life. The robber who is willing to kill during his crime doesn’t give a shit about your life. A reasonable society will not kill a person if there is any doubt as to whether they committed the crime, but a reasonable society should not hesitate to remove a threat if it is clear, present and beyond doubt.

  97. Nine Deuce June 15, 2008 at 4:25 PM #

    Blind Achilles – I don’t oppose the death penalty on the basis of the sanctity of life, I oppose it because it’s not applied properly. But as to the cost, it costs the justice system more to put someone to death than keep them in prison for life. I think that prisoners ought to have to work, too, which would further offset the cost to society of imprisoning them.

  98. Blind Achilles June 15, 2008 at 5:53 PM #

    Eye – I think Jane would not want to live in a house built by a rapist because of the emotional aspect. A victim of a violent sex crime is likely to suffer from PTSD or some form of trauma. To live in a house built by a violent offender would be a constant reminder of the horrendous act of violence that the victim lived through.

    Nine Deuce – as long as we are re-imagining the justice system, why should the death penalty cost any more than the price of one appeal and a bullet?

  99. david June 15, 2008 at 10:07 PM #

    @Blind Achilles

    …The robber who is willing to kill during his crime doesn’t give a shit about your life…

    yes, that is why we (by which i obviously dont mean you) are better than they are.

  100. Blind Achilles June 15, 2008 at 10:45 PM #

    David – I think that’s uncalled for. I am not advocating lynch mobs, I am saying that someone convicted in criminal court of a capital crime (theft/murder, rape/murder and, I personally feel, any kind of violent rape) should be sentenced to death. Some people cannot be rehabilitated, and some crimes are too heinous to forgive. Why am I no better than a murderer for making the statement that a murderer should be removed from society permanently?

  101. Eye June 15, 2008 at 11:20 PM #

    It’s not about “better” or “worse.” Most robberies are made out of desperation. Most desperate robbers are ignorant, undereducated etc.

    Good example of why legal repercussions for rapists should not be in the hands (solely) of rape victims. As you say, many rape victims have PTSD, and rapists on the whole are in many cases going to represent overwhelmingly the greatest evil they can fathom. Would you want the spouses and children of murder victims alone writing legislation about what should be done about murderers?

  102. Eye June 15, 2008 at 11:34 PM #

    My comments about cutting off hands and tongues had nothing to do with capital punishment at all and were solely used as a basis of comparison for castrating rapists. As you said, they’re ridiculous. I didn’t “lump them in,” I simply rebalanced the way other crimes would be handled in relation to how rape would be handled in this legislation.

    I do believe that human beings have a right to live, and as a society we should try to do everything in our power to allow for this. That does not mean, however, that I’m against capital punishment. Rather, I’m for more research in criminal psychology, because I’d rather we figure out ways to “cure” criminals. It would get rid of prison cost issues as well as death penalty issues. I think as a society we owe it to ourselves and to criminals to figure out how and why people “get to” the stage in their lives where they are able to commit the heinous crimes they commit. And of course, sticking them in prison for 20 years in many cases isn’t going to change them; why would it? If there’s something psychologically wrong with them, what would the society equivalent of “time out” alongside a bunch of other criminals do to fix it?

    Most rapists are people the victim knows or is acquainted with, so the “robber who breaks in and rapes” is a pretty rare occurrence. Rather than looking at this as “what do we do with these bad people” why don’t we try to look at this as “what do we do about these people’s problems?”

  103. Eye June 16, 2008 at 1:05 AM #

    “I am saying that someone convicted in criminal court of a capital crime (theft/murder, rape/murder and, I personally feel, any kind of violent rape) should be sentenced to death.”

    “and some crimes are too heinous to forgive.”

    People change, and people make mistakes. Some mistakes are bigger than others. Most mistakes are due to ignorance.

    “If the rapist was someone the victim knew or cared about, she may express concern about what will happen if she reports the attack to the police. She may have very negative attitudes toward the criminal justice system or feel guilty reporting the crime. Some survivors want counseling for the rapist rather than jail time. It is human to show concern for another human, especially one in trouble. However, she must not let this feeling obscure the fact that he did attack her. Feeling sorry for him does not mean she needs to deny or repress anger.”

    Even some rape victims feel counseling is the better solution than long jail sentences/capital punishment.

    I’d be curious to find out how many rapists feel guilt after the fact. I cannot seem to find this statistic.

  104. Eye June 16, 2008 at 2:11 AM #

    Although decades old, there’s a very interesting study of rapists.

    Note that we have data from other links I’ve posted that suggests rapists who are convicted, imprisoned, and let out tend to be brought back into prison for non-rape offenses rather than additional rapes. That seems to correspond with one of the common “trends” among rapists, the archetype of the rapist who commits impulsive crimes in general. It seems the majority of rapists either are suffering from depression, are under psychological duress, or otherwise are having antisocial thoughts or are angry at women.

    Why is this important? Why do I care about the rapist and his rights? Because society at large does a good job of dehumanizing the rapist, to a larger degree than we dehumanize other criminals save murderers. In fact even suggesting compassion for rapists leaves an aftertaste of absurdity or even sexism. The rapist is demoted, from the viewpoint of society, to that of the “monster,” that human whose social standing in society now falls below the definition of human and instead lies somewhere between sick animal and inanimate object.

    However if we support this type of thought, are we really doing justice here? After all, the most disgusting aspect of rape is the lack of compassion for human life on behalf of the rapist. Should we respond to that crime by showing our own lack of compassion for the rapist himself, treating him as an object which we use to take out our anger and frustration for the crime of rape the same way he used the woman to fulfill his emotional need? It’s not the rapist you hate, it’s the rape. So rather than destroying the rapist, destroy the rape. By better understanding the mind of the rapist, we may learn ways to prevent the man from becoming the rapist, and we’d better learn how to deal with rapists and how to return them to normalcy.

    Truly the only unforgivable crime is murder, because the victim can never heal. But even then, while we may not forgive, does that stand as justification to not try and heal the murderer as well?

    Please don’t dehumanize rapists. Rape is sick and disgusting, the damage it causes to the woman is most often scarring for life, and the lack of compassion on behalf of the rapists is truly appalling. But so too is the lack of compassion for those who make mistakes.

    Anyway, since the spirit of this blog post is about balancing justice more in favor for rape victims, here’s an interesting brief study about perception of rape:

    Using that data, as someone here said before, maybe we should promote legislature to omit sexual history of the victim from rape cases.

  105. Nine Deuce June 16, 2008 at 2:22 AM #

    Rapists may end up back in jail for crimes other than rape, but it isn’t because they haven’t raped anybody else, it’s because they haven’t been caught. Recidivism rates for rape cannot reflect the fact that most rapes go unreported, so they are a poor indicator of whether rapists are “curable.” See my background post.

    Rape, studies have shown, stems from a deep-seated hatred of women. Rape stems from a lack of empathy. A man raping a woman is not a “mistake,” but rather the logical expression of their attitudes toward women.

    I do not believe that men who rape ought to ever be let out of prison. I am serious when I say that rapists have proven their inability to exercise their sexuality responsibly in society. The simple fact of the matter is that if a man does not wish to forfeit his freedom, he ought to respect the freedom and bodily sovereignty of others. It’s the same thing we ask with regard to murder. You may be opposed to castration, but I don’t see why we owe a rapist a second chance to prove that he can live in open society without destroying innocent people’s lives. They should think about that before they do so in the first place.

    Rape, in my book, is an unforgivable crime. It isn’t like robbery or other poverty-driven crimes. Men don’t rape to avoid starving or to feed a drug habit. It is a hate crime, and it should be treated as such.

  106. Eye June 16, 2008 at 2:48 AM #

    “Rape, studies have shown, stems from a deep-seated hatred of women. Rape stems from a lack of empathy. A man raping a woman is not a “mistake,” but rather the logical expression of their attitudes toward women.”

    Rape is a mistake seated in their ignorance of the reality of the equality of men and women.

    “You may be opposed to castration, but I don’t see why we owe a rapist a second chance to prove that he can live in open society without destroying innocent people’s lives.”

    For the same reason you don’t kill your kid when he hits another kid. People make stupid, selfish mistakes. You punish them, but the intent is to change them so that they don’t do it again. Your approach doesn’t seem at all concerned with whether we can change rapists or if we even want to.

    “Rape, in my book, is an unforgivable crime. It isn’t like robbery or other poverty-driven crimes. Men don’t rape to avoid starving or to feed a drug habit. It is a hate crime, and it should be treated as such.”

    And the hate comes from ignorance, which is the real source of the problem. In some ways you could even say a perpetrator of a hate crime is him/herself a victim of their own ignorance. They created a hugely negative thing out of their own ignorance, and now they are having to have their lives taken from them, either through long prison sentence or literal death, because of that negative thing they created.

    Just because you turn 18 doesn’t mean you’ve been given all the tools and knowledge necessary to do all the right things and avoid all the wrong choices in society, and yet 18 is that magical number when we decide to start punishing people really hard (with the exception of trying minors as adults, which usually only happens with rape and murder). I remember watching a video of the sentencing of a young man who raped (and killed? I can’t remember) a woman. The judge told him “I’m sorry that society has failed you.” before then giving him a life sentence.

    You may feel rape is an unforgivable crime, but so is lack of mercy and forgiveness, in my book.

  107. Nine Deuce June 16, 2008 at 2:52 AM #

    I understand all that you’ve said and don’t dispute the source of rape, but I don’t agree that I need to take responsibility for society failing a rapist. I do my part, and I expect people to behave like human beings and to treat me like one. If they can’t, or won’t, I need to be protected from them.

    I agree that the ideal situation would be one in which our cultural environment would discourage rape (as I said in the original post), but what would you do in the meantime to prevent rape and to protect people from it? What would you do with repeat offenders?

  108. Eye June 16, 2008 at 3:19 AM #

    Well if you want to talk progressive social structure change, what’s so wrong about the idea of a taxpayer supported system where we make a huge effort in trying to understand and rehabilitate rapists? I’m not saying you individually need to lobby for rapists rights alongside better rights for rape victims, but is it too much to ask to at least be open minded to the idea of supporting programs geared toward society fixing its fuckups?

    I think “in the meantime” we need to get the ball rolling on understanding how a rapist becomes a rapist and how to make sure a rapist never repeats his crimes. Largely our education system is at fault; we make no effort to bring to a head womens rights. There needs to be a women’s rights classroom (Buttkicker, shut the fuck up), where we teach both men and women about the history of women’s rights and why it’s important. But women’s rights isn’t the only cause, so I’d suggesting throwing that into a full year class about human rights in general. Explaining minority rights, womens rights, religious rights, Geneva convention rulings etc. It needs to be a standard in all class rooms, from private schools all the way to underfunded schools in the deep south. We live in a country where we support equal opportunity and rights for all, officially, but then we turn around and leave education and awareness about these issues in the hands of parents. We *hope* that parents educate their children about these things. What kind of responsibility is that?
    Imagine how different the public would have reacted to the laws passed enabling us to torture foreign citizens if every high schooler had to take a class that included a unit on human rights violations and the Geneva conventions? Imagine how many rapes there would be if every high school student had to watch a video of rape victims giving their testimony alongside a unit which focused on introducing students to research and studies done on the phenomenon of rape, spousal abuse, and the persistence of anti-women thought in modern religions and social institutions.

    I graduated from high school class of 2006. My total exposure to these issues included some outside-of-textbook comments from my history teacher, vague mentioning from my government teacher, and an assembly visit geared toward educating students about rape and how to make safe choices at parties (don’t leave your drink unattended, here’s a young woman who’s been raped to tell you why not). Frankly, there are many other holes in the education system as well. I wasn’t taught how to do my taxes or do an oil change. Yet, having graduated, I’m expected to know all these things and be a responsible contributing citizen. As a society, we expect our parents to fill in the gaps. As a society, we fail as a result to fill the gaps.

    • Imaginary September 28, 2009 at 9:26 AM #

      “Largely our education system is at fault; we make no effort to bring to a head womens rights. There needs to be a women’s rights classroom….where we teach both men and women about the history of women’s rights and why it’s important.”

      Having gone to a school like that, I know they don’t work. Teachers will always bring their own opinions, no matter how misguided or sexist to the table, and will subsequently teach the class with stupid faulty information. But what do I know? It might work a bit. I’m still largely in favor of cutting off the balls though. Rapist balls are the best Christmas ornaments.

      • James September 29, 2009 at 12:31 AM #

        You seem to have gone off at the deep end.

  109. psych June 16, 2008 at 3:36 AM #

    Can’t say I agree with this at all, but it seems that it’s been written as a thought experiment rather than a literal proposal, so that’s okay.

    However, what I find absolutely fascinating is that after reading about one half of the 104 comments, I see that pretty much all of them are expressing shock that men could suffer from false accusation. Yet not a single one even mentions for a second that women would be equally in danger of false accusation.

    Well, look at that. A system that doesn’t protect men is horrific, but if women don’t get protected, they couldn’t care in the least. Colour me surprised.

  110. Jane June 16, 2008 at 4:46 AM #

    Rape is an unforgiviable crime. It is completely emotionally devastating to the victim. Yes, the rapist was once a hurt child and I have compassion for that child. The adult that that child grew up into needs to be held accountable. Taxpayer money should not be used to attempt to rehabilitate rapists. Eye, you said more research should be done in criminal psychology, fine. Make it private research because there is no evidence supporting that rehabilitation efforts for rapists are successful. None. Taxpayer money would be better spent on rehabilitation for the victim. You mentioned sexual assault prevention education.
    There are organizations, such as MESA, that do sexual assault prevention education. Organizations such as these are constantly battling for funding. Why is that? Sexual assault isn’t taken seriously. Rape is about power. It’s a hate crime against women. Efforts should be focused on how to heal victims of rape so they can move on with their lives and changing a culture where women are grossly undervalued. Why the hell are we focusing on rapists rights?
    Oh, and in regards to my comment earlier, I wouldn’t want to live in a home built by a rapist because it would be a constant reminder of the event. I would never be able to move on. That’s why I would rather them do something gross, like clean up peoples shit, because they left me with a load of shit to clean up. Then, I want them to plant trees because it’s a positive life affirming act and it truly benefits everyone. See, there’s balance. They spend the rest of their lives in jail (unless they get out through appeals by demonstrating remorse or whatever) and give back to the community.

  111. Eye June 16, 2008 at 7:32 AM #

    Rape’s unforgiveability is a subjective thing, Jane. Some victims do come to forgive their victimizers. You can say rape is unforgivable “for me” but it may not be for everyone. And as I said before, murder truly is unforgivable, because the victim CANT forgive the murderer. If you don’t want taxpayer money to rehabilitate rapists, that’s fine, but if it’s just because you don’t think rape is forgivable, then stop for a moment and realize that it would:
    1) Save money
    2) Redeem members of society who otherwise just rot in prison, suffering themselves, taking up your tax dollars. You think rape is bad? Try spending 20 years in prison with the constant threat of getting gang raped all the time. Trust me, they “get theirs” and it doesn’t help them become any better of people going through this experience.
    3) Give them a second chance

    “Make it private research because there is no evidence supporting that rehabilitation efforts for rapists are successful.”

    When’s the last time this kind of research was done, anyway? The 50s? I’m suggesting research exactly along those lines; attempt to find effective ways to help rapists change so that they won’t commit rape or other crimes any longer. We shouldn’t avoid research just because past research has been unsuccessful. That’s a cop out.

    Why am I focusing on rapist’s rights? To balance the discussion. While I agree that a lot needs to be done as far as rape prevention and helping victims, and especially in education about this, a lot of people here seem to have a very dehumanizing view of criminals and especially rapists. Hence some people applaud to “castrate them and lock them up forever” kind of legislation.

    I’m very sorry you were raped. But remember, this isn’t about whether YOU would forgive rapists, which in your unique position you have every right not to, but about whether society at large should. As I said before, if the victims of every type of crime were left alone to establish the punishments for each respective crime, imagine how our justice system would look. How many crimes would entail capital punishment or life sentencing?

    I brought this issue up because it’s easily forgotten that once somebody has committed a heinous crime that alienates them from society, they are still human beings with rights. It’s very easy just to think of them as corrupted, bad, unredeemable monsters that we should lock up forever or just flat out kill because they should never be trusted in society again, and their lives are no longer even of value to sacrifice the tax dollars necessary to try and help them. But often times in life, the easy choice is not the correct one.

  112. psych June 16, 2008 at 9:15 AM #

    Jane, most male rapists don’t rape because they were hurt as a child, or otherwise suffer from some mental illness. They rape because they believe rape myths: that wearing certain clothing is consent, getting drunk is consent, accepting an offer to come up for a cup of coffee is consent, freezing in fear instead of saying “no” is consent, and so forth. Not only do these rape myths cause rapes to happen, they also invalidate victims and lead them to believe it was their own fault they were raped.

    Most rapes don’t come in the form of a man with a knife dragging a woman into a dark alley at night. A typical rape looks like the one described here in “Confessions of a Date Rapist”:

  113. Goat June 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM #

    Your argument would be stronger if you had any statistics or valid estimates on false rape accusations. When you say that 1 in 100 would be a very large number, what you’re really saying is “I think that one in one-hundred is huge” even though you don’t seem to have any first-hand experience with our legal system, so I’m forced to completely disregard that statistic.

    I would also like to point out that your “utopian” legal system places extreme emphasis on rape. Yes, rape is a tough issue to tackle, and nobody wants to understate its negative effects, but your proposed legislation (particularly the first and third sections) operates under the assumption that rape is such a unique crime that it warrants an entirely different concept of justice. Every crime is, in its own right, unique. Commonality does not influence uniqueness, nor does the damage that the crime causes. Rape is not deserving of its own justice system, no matter how intolerable the act is.

    One point in your argument that disturbs me personally is that the system we have in place now is failing (again under a completely unqualified estimate) and so we need a drastic paradigm shift. Chiefly, I have a problem with eliminating the presumption of innocence merely on the grounds that it can protect criminals. Such presumptions have aided criminals throughout the entire history of the American legal system, and to eradicate it in the case of rape is unwarranted. Your argument that it is our responsibility to rightly convict one hundred even if it means wrongfully convicting several innocent people, however we live in a society that does not share your view. It is always of primary concern to protect the innocent (which you seem to agree with when that person is female), and as such it would be unjust to eliminate the most important safeguard against wrongful conviction that exists in our legal system. I can imagine, now, you asking “What about the innocent women who were raped?” and this is a valid question. The answer is that it is worse to wrongfully convict a man of rape than to let a man who is a rapist go free, because the first is an aggressive action against an innocent, while non-conviction is a passive wrongdoing. While it certainly is difficult to watch a criminal set free, it is not even comparable to the horror of wrongful imprisonment and punishment. I would like to know, for instance, whether or not you would be proposing similar legislation if you saw most murder trials as failures. If most murderers were set free under our system, would it be just to take away the presumption of innocence? Your problem is that you don’t outline specific contributors to the failure of our system. We don’t fail to imprison rapists because we assume they are innocent, we fail because we lack evidence that can eliminate any reasonable doubt. It would be best to address the issue of scarce evidence, whereas your method is more of a blind attack on the system. Fixing outcomes and solving problems are completely different.

    I would also like to point out that the reason that only 6% (or whatever percentage it is) of rape trials end in convictions is in part because of the severity of the sentence for rape. Your legislation only makes the punishment more severe, all the while making it near impossible to be acquitted (imagine how difficult it is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are innocent of a crime).

    Your bias against and distrust for men is elucidated by your suggestion that male genitalia is a weapon that should be removed in the event of conviction. Reading your post I get a strong sense that you are very afraid of men and what they can do to women. Regardless, no human body part is legally a weapon. I do not deny that humans can cause one another great pain without the use of tools, but it is grossly unjust to treat humans, or parts of humans, as weapons. Your suggestion is akin to cutting out the tongue of an individual convicted of libel. Perhaps you don’t see the problem with this, but to call a human a weapon is to erase human qualities. All people, without exception, are endowed with inalienable human rights, and to take away someone’s humanness is to violate such a right. You’ll probably argue that rape violates human rights, which it does, but the difference between rape and castration as punishment is that the latter is an institutionalized violation of human rights. We cannot control a free individual, but we can control a free government, and so it is our responsibility never to trade human rights for any desired result.

    Ultimately, I hope you see that your legislation, while letting fewer rapists walk, would only mark a disconnect from utopian ideals.

  114. ololo June 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM #

    nice troll

  115. Jane June 16, 2008 at 3:58 PM #

    What? How is that off topic?

  116. Nine Deuce June 16, 2008 at 4:45 PM #

    I didn’t know it was necessary to explain why our system is failing, but if you must know, read my blog on MRAs and my War on Terr’r Part 6 post.

  117. Jane June 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM #

    To clarify my position, I agree our justice system is failing. Also, our prison system in it’s current form does nothing for society, so why not force criminals to pay back their debts with community service.
    Goat, sexual assault crimes are not taken seriously and the punishments for sexual assault are ridiculous. Sexual assault crimes need more extreme punishment, not less.
    A friend of mine was raped by a man one year ago. He is a teacher and sexually assaulted a number of his students. Several male students witnessed the attacks- which under the law amount to sexual harrassment. These people came forward and pressed charges. His punishment? He can’t instruct minors, he must register as a sex offender and he needs to do one year of court mandated therapy. He has assaulted people a number of times in his fifty years and that’s all he gets. I am outraged that you would say punishment is to strict.

  118. Aoife June 16, 2008 at 6:21 PM #

    Yo Goatdude. Stop pissing on the parade. Either you think people advocating for this are stupid children who believe in the actualisation of the minutae of the Law and thus need to be teacht how it’s not gud, or you’re genuinely afraid of it. I don’t think anyone’s *actually* going to introduce capital punishment so your mickey is safe, ok?

    Oh, and, by the way: the presumption of innocence or protection of ‘innocence’ is a big fat middle class white people’s red herring. Where I am from, the presumption of innocence has been eroded by a barrage of legislation that allows police to hold innocent people in custody and use intrusive methods of evidence collection, allows courts condemn innocent people to jail without bail, permits assets bureaus seize property without convictions and allows the criminal justice system to impose criminal records on young people who violate civil orders. I wouldn’t argue for the further erosion of civil liberties, but don’t flaunt some illusion of an equitable justice system in the face of people who are fucked over by it (raped women, or women at risk of rape) in order to win your argument.

  119. Nine Deuce June 16, 2008 at 7:10 PM #

    Right on, Aoife. I disabled those links.

  120. Eye June 16, 2008 at 9:16 PM #

    “the presumption of innocence or protection of ‘innocence’ is a big fat middle class white people’s red herring”
    Just… wow.

  121. Goat June 16, 2008 at 9:53 PM #

    Aoife, I’m not afraid that this legislation will ever be enacted, and I’m not sure why you came to that conclusion. Nevertheless, your arguments about the failure of the system to uphold the right of some to innocence until otherwise proven is non-topical. This legislation was presented under the premise that it could “dramatically hasten our progress toward [a] future utopia.” Anyone truly focused on the argument of this article, then, must primarily address the issue of utopia. It follows then that disproving the link between the suggested legislation and future utopia discredits the author’s argument. I am arguing that Deuce’s Law would not guide our justice system towards utopia. I would be quick to point out that in your rebuttal you didn’t address the result of enacting such a law. In fact, the majority of arguments for the legislation are mired in blind emotion, unwilling to believe that the law is not the best option.

    The truth is that Deuce’s Law does not make a legal system more just, it only makes it more difficult.

    And to end this I would like to bring up a quote from a while back that I was just digesting:

    “Because of the presumption of innocence, women are presumed to exist in a constant state of consent and they have to prove otherwise, which means rape is allowed. How is that more fair than making men prove that they did not commit a rape?”

    The answer is ridiculously simple: consenting to sexual intercourse is not a crime, rape is a crime punishable by life in prison. To assume someone is a rapist is in no way comparable to a presumption that an individual is consenting to a sexual encounter.

  122. Eye June 16, 2008 at 10:47 PM #

    I think in terms of viewing the legislation in literal context, Goat has it spot on, but I’m not sure that Deuce had that intention in mind; I got the impression she was using this legislature idea as an example to show the “polar opposite” of today’s imbalanced system. I could be wrong?

  123. psych June 16, 2008 at 11:43 PM #


    Personally, I think that Deuce is mixing up default state of consent with innocent until proven guilty. And all the commenters seem to be continuing to mix them up themselves. They are two very different things with very different purposes and consequences, but it seems to me that Deuce laid out Section 1 on the assumption that they are the same.

    The default state of consent is about how so many people, including those sitting on juries, have the attitude that it is a victim’s responsibility to get through to the rapist that she has not consented. If he doesn’t know if she has consented, or he’d like to try and convince himself that she has consented because she wore a short skirt, for example, then a rape did not occur in their view. Because it was not his responsibility to check for consent.

    Having worked with rape victims, the vast majority of those who told their stories described having frozen in fear and started trembling and perhaps whimpering, which he responded to by raping her. Juries hear stories like these and think to themselves “Well, that’s not actually saying no, so she didn’t fulfill her responsibility of convincing him that she hadn’t consented.” So reacting to a traumatic situation in the manner that is natural for people to react to traumatic situations equals consent, in the jury’s eyes. Even when the victims do say no, and the rapist convinces himself that “no means yes,” or that it was too late because she already consented by going up to his apartment, then it is still considered to be the victim’s responsibility to convince him that she actually had not consented.

    This is a very real and serious and horrible problem, and I am right with Deuce when she says that this problem is responsible for millions of rapists walking free. Perhaps the biggest change that most feminists would like to see to the legal system is that it should be a person’s responsibility to find out if they have consent before having sex with them.

    In my view, much of the confusion here is due to Deuce taking the default state of consent (a very bad and horrible thing that needs to be done away with ASAP) and getting it mixed up with innocent until proven guilty (a good thing, which I do indeed believe is necessary in any civilization).

    I’m not addressing this to Deuce because, as I said before, I think this is meant as a thought experiment but people are discussing it as if it’s a serious proposal. But if you think I’m completely misunderstanding this, Deuce, then please let me know.

  124. Nine Deuce June 16, 2008 at 11:53 PM #

    psych – I am not mixing anything up. I am saying that because of the presumption of innocence, victims are required to prove that they did not consent to a sex act. That means victims are assumed to exist in a default state of consent.

    But you are right about this post being a thought experiment.

  125. psych June 17, 2008 at 12:29 AM #

    Quote Eye: “I got the impression she was using this legislature idea as an example to show the “polar opposite” of today’s imbalanced system.”

    Yep, I’m pretty sure she is sitting their giggling at the people who respond with outrage to a person on a blog suggesting a system that would hurt men, while the same people couldn’t care less that they actually live in a system that hurts women.

  126. Nine Deuce June 17, 2008 at 12:30 AM #

    I wouldn’t necessarily say giggling, but there is some head shaking going on.

  127. Eye June 17, 2008 at 1:02 AM #

    “Having worked with rape victims, the vast majority of those who told their stories described having frozen in fear and started trembling and perhaps whimpering, which he responded to by raping her.”

    Hey Psych

    From your experience, which do you think is more at work here at the cause of this response on the woman’s behalf: nature or nurture? Do you think women’s perception of rape is more the reason why they have this lock down or do you think it’s instinctual?

  128. Eye June 17, 2008 at 1:04 AM #

    “This is a very real and serious and horrible problem, and I am right with Deuce when she says that this problem is responsible for millions of rapists walking free. Perhaps the biggest change that most feminists would like to see to the legal system is that it should be a person’s responsibility to find out if they have consent before having sex with them.This is a very real and serious and horrible problem, and I am right with Deuce when she says that this problem is responsible for millions of rapists walking free. Perhaps the biggest change that most feminists would like to see to the legal system is that it should be a person’s responsibility to find out if they have consent before having sex with them.”

    I agree with this entirely.

  129. Nine Deuce June 17, 2008 at 1:39 AM #

    I just got a pretty sweet comment from some asshole who thinks we should cut off women’s breasts and remove their ovaries when they fraudulently sue for paternity. You know, because fraudulently suing for paternity is akin to rape. And women use their ovaries and breasts to sue for paternity.

  130. psych June 17, 2008 at 1:55 AM #

    Eye, I do work in science and I have seen that every time someone suggests that a sex difference is due to nature, science sits down on that idea and squashes it.

    I am not familiar with any sex-focused research specifically about immediate reactions to traumatic situations. However, considering that science has shown again and again and again that when men and women do something differently, it’s because of social conditioning, I do think that we need to take the hint and put research funding into other projects.

  131. Konservo June 17, 2008 at 2:31 AM #

    Hmmm… ’92,

    Are you saying that because women don’t use those parts to sue for paternity, the asshole who made that comment is a “retard” ?

    If this is the case wouldn’t it be retarded for a man to be castrated if he did not commit a rape with his penis? Or is a penis necessarily involved when a man rapes a woman?

    By your own definition, it seems not:

    Rape will be broadly defined as intentionally taking advantage of a person’s physical or emotional vulnerabilities for sexual purposes, including creating fear in order to coerce a victim into performing or submitting to a sex act against her/his will.

    I think that that asshole’s idea is spectacular. In fact, the asshole is paying homage to you, imho.

    The more Draconian the law, the better! That’s what I say, fwiw. :P

  132. Nine Deuce June 17, 2008 at 2:43 AM #

    Konservo – I guess I think the guy’s stupid because he didn’t understand that the post was satirical, because he doesn’t see the difference between rape and paternity suits (really easy to prove these false or legit, no?), and because he was writing his comment out of obvious anger rather than reason (which is why I decided to delete it).

  133. A Man June 17, 2008 at 3:54 AM #

    There are some absurd outcomes to Deuce’s law.

    For example, while I was at a Beer Garden, a very busty hottie rubbed her breasts up against my beer-holding forearm that was holding my beer. I called her on it and she was noticeably embarrassed.

    What kind of prison time should she have done for this sexual assault? Should she have had the offending breasts removed as punishment? Would knowing the seriousness of the punishment make me hesitant to report the crime? And what if she was drunk? Is she just as guilty?

  134. A Man June 17, 2008 at 4:26 AM #

    I have never raped anyone and I have never been raped.

    But then again, I have never passed out dead drunk in the bed of a horny gay man after dancing into the wee hours. However, I have had at least one woman do just that with me, a horny straight man.

    Obviously, I would never put myself in the position in which this young woman put herself. I resent her for it, too. By doing what she did, I was made to be responsible for her. But, shouldn’t she have taken responsibility for herself?

    Just as I don’t get drunk with horny gay men, maybe women shouldn’t get drunk with horny straight men. If that’s too difficult, women should be much more selective about where and with whom they get drunk.

    I suggest severely limiting your social interactions with untrustworthy men (all men, I guess). Women-only gyms, lounges, golf courses, and so forth. Of course, we straight men will want exclusive clubs of our own. I look forward to a nice glass of port, a fine cigar, and a comfortable leather chair. Ah, to be able to talk politics and economics without any women around! I’ll finally be able to exhale.

  135. Nine Deuce June 17, 2008 at 4:31 AM #

    Brilliant satire.

  136. A Man June 17, 2008 at 4:54 AM #

    Thanks, but I’m only half-way joking. I really do think women should take more responsibility for their actions.

  137. Nine Deuce June 17, 2008 at 5:09 AM #

    So should men. No matter how drunk a woman gets, she still has a right not to be raped.

  138. psych June 17, 2008 at 6:22 AM #

    Wow, I really think we need to listen to this “A Man.” His ideas are truly revolutionary. Women get raped all because of their own fault and rapists are just innocent victims of circumstance. What a pioneering new concept! I’ve never heard anything like it! Not ever. Not in every single discussion about rape at all. No sirree.

  139. A Man June 17, 2008 at 5:31 PM #


    Thank you for missing the point.

    I did take responsibility for my own actions. The girl in my (true) story did not. She abdicated responsibility for her own safety by getting drunk and passing out. It actually made me feel really uncomfortable.

    She could have asphyxiated in her sleep, or even alleged that I drugged her or grabbed her breast or something. My reputation could have been ruined very easily.

    Obviously, I learned from the experience. I am more careful about the women with whom I socialize. Women should be more careful, too.

  140. Nine Deuce June 17, 2008 at 5:48 PM #

    It’s funny. I have a lot of male friends. Sometimes we go out and get drunk. Sometimes we stay at each others’ houses. No one ever worries about rape or rape accusations. I wonder why?

  141. A Man June 17, 2008 at 6:02 PM #

    Nine Deuce:

    “No matter how drunk a woman gets, she still has a right not to be raped.”

    This statement is impossible to argue with, who would ever say that women don’t have the right not to be raped? That would be absurd.

    My only comment is that men don’t think like this, and that was the whole point of my gay bar analogy above. Men think, “I don’t want someone to take advantage of me, so I won’t put myself in that position.”

    The difference between the male experience and the female experience, is one of scope. As long as men stay away from men who have sex with men (prisoners and so forth), they’re very unlikely to be raped. Women, on the other hand, are surrounded by men who have sex with women all the time. I see your dilemma. How can a woman fully participate in society if she is living in a state of fear?

    Your point is well taken. I see two (maybe three) possibilities: One, limit your exposure to heterosexual men. If this is successful, men will start to miss your feminine presence and reform their behavior to encourage your return. Although, I suspect that many men would be happy to have the office and the public square all to themselves.

    Two, carry a firearm and know how to use it. There’s a reason that the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Constitution. They understood that rights need to be backed up with the ability to enforce said rights.

    Three, (re-)create the conditions under which women will not be raped. If there is no historical precedent for this kind of society, perform a thought-experiment to discover the necessary conditions. However, the logical outcome of this course may be a society entirely without men. Please consider carefully both the positive and negative features of such a society. Would a majority of women choose to live in such a society?

    Just some thoughts.

  142. A Man June 17, 2008 at 6:03 PM #

    “It’s funny. I have a lot of male friends. Sometimes we go out and get drunk. Sometimes we stay at each others’ houses. No one ever worries about rape or rape accusations. I wonder why?”

    You have chosen your friends well.

  143. Nine Deuce June 17, 2008 at 6:06 PM #

    How about a society in which men respect women’s right to sovereignty over their own bodies? Why are women supposed to be responsible for their actions but men can’t be held responsible for theirs?

  144. Aoife June 17, 2008 at 6:22 PM #

    Goat- the rope of sand, it won’t strangle you. Nobody’s trying to create a feminist legal system in doing this, but having a laff/joke/look at how ridiculous it all is when we sorta switch places. I do appreciate what you’re trying to do, I think. I wasn’t side-tracking, but simply adding to the argument that the criminal justice system favours middle class white men in other ways too, not just against women but against, say, poor people via public order/drugs laws and police powers (excuse me while I try to close this can of worms!).
    A Man: I agree! People should take more responsibility and not have DOORS in their HOUSES because it makes it hard for me not to GO IN THEM and TAKE STUFF. People should take more responsibility for their houses.
    Actually, why don’t we just even it up by making yes the default for all them ‘crimes’ that hurt people or deprive them of stuff. Prove that you didn’t want that punch in the face! You didn’t say NO so the burglar presumed he was allowed come into your house and take your stuff! etc.

  145. A Man June 17, 2008 at 6:40 PM #

    Your point is well taken.

    Unfortunately, men don’t respect men’s sovereignty over their own bodies, either. So, women, don’t take it personally. Men are being abused, too.

    I’ll give you two examples. One, prison. Neither the guards nor the prisoners respect the sovereignty of the individual over his own body. Two, the draft. Neither politicians nor civil servants respect a man’s sovereignty over his own body.

    Please also consider the necessary characteristics of a society in which both men and women had absolute sovereignty over their own bodies. What would such a society look like? Would such a society survive?

  146. A Man June 18, 2008 at 2:48 AM #


    Please don’t try to bait me with your silly analogy. No one is suggesting that women start sewing up their vaginas to prevent rape. But if you’d like to try it, I’m sure we’d all be interested to see how that works out for you.

    The correct analogy is to think about what a reasonable person would do to protect their home and valuables. Would you lock your doors and latch your windows? What about an alarm system or bars on the windows? Maybe you would move to a better neighborhood?

    Would a reasonable person leave a house full of valuables unlocked? I don’t think so. Reasonable people look at the situation and take reasonable precautions to prevent crime.

    Is it a shame that you have to take precautions to prevent rape? Yes, it is. But better to be realistic and safe, than unrealistic and vulnerable.

  147. Konservo June 18, 2008 at 3:36 AM #

    Prove that you didn’t want that punch in the face!

    Heh. That’s funny.

    No one is suggesting that women start sewing up their vaginas to prevent rape.

    Actually, that’s precisely what’s done in some areas of sub-Saharan Africa. It’s a people’s way of ensuring that “their” women aren’t promiscuous and are virgins when they are sold/married off.

  148. L June 18, 2008 at 5:13 AM #

    Unfortunately, men don’t respect men’s sovereignty over their own bodies, either. So, women, don’t take it personally. Men are being abused, too.[…]

    Is it a shame that you have to take precautions to prevent rape? Yes, it is. But better to be realistic and safe, than unrealistic and vulnerable.

    And, yet, I don’t see you going around this blog talking about how men should wear spiked clothing to protect themselves from physical assaults in public or how men should find ways to avoid the draft so as to protect themselves from the abuses of the government. Nope, instead you’ve got the whole “too bad so sad” rebuttal going on, which is effectively and efficiently missing the point. The point has been and remains that the lack of control women have over their bodies, as evidenced by scores of unreported rapes and unconvicted rapists, is a problem.

    If you think that the draft or other male-generated violence against men is a problem, why don’t you fucking do something about it instead of implying/claiming that if you have to go through it, women should also? Rape is a problem. Assault is a problem. Violence is a problem. The focus here is on the problem of rape, and the solution is not that women should take more (yes, MORE) precautions to protect themselves. The solution is to hold men accountable for the acts of violence, including rape, that they commit.

  149. L June 18, 2008 at 5:16 AM #

    Actually, that’s precisely what’s done in some areas of sub-Saharan Africa. It’s a people’s way of ensuring that “their” women aren’t promiscuous and are virgins when they are sold/married off.

    Um, female genital mutilation in the name of “preventing” “promiscuity” and “ensuring” “virginity” is definitely not the same as preventing rape (not that sewing up a vagina would prevent rape anyway). You’re still an idiot, Konservo. Good to know stuff hasn’t changed since my last reading of this blog.

  150. A Man June 18, 2008 at 5:31 AM #


    “Actually, that’s precisely what’s done in some areas of sub-Saharan Africa. It’s a people’s way of ensuring that “their” women aren’t promiscuous and are virgins when they are sold/married off.”

    I don’t really feel like looking it up, but I think you’re geography is inaccurate. Also, it’s worth mentioning that Female Genital Mutilation is performed on little girls by women. These women somehow think that preserving a girl’s genitals for her future husband (rapist, really) does her some service.

    And we’re not talking about Female Genital Mutilation. I was suggesting that another commenter take her absurd analogy about a house with no doors to its logical conclusion.

    In any event, if any women living in Western Civilization had their vaginas sewn shut, I’m quite sure that it would be voluntary. Now that I think about it, I’m surprised that some woman hasn’t done exactly that as a protest. I remember when a young woman at my University had her mouth sewn shut to protest censorship. It was covered by the campus paper.

  151. Konservo June 18, 2008 at 7:01 AM #

    I don’t really feel like looking it up, but I think you’re geography is inaccurate.

    Damn… can’t really argue with that, can you? If you got a gut feelin’, then it’s settled, I’m wrong.

    In any event, if any women living in Western Civilization had their vaginas sewn shut, I’m quite sure that it would be voluntary.

    A friend of mine lives in Minnesota and she’s been hearing from friends who work in hospitals about daughters of Somalian refugees and FGM that goes on in America. I’m pretty sure that these are not voluntary.

    BTW, where does your gut feeling tell you Somalia is? (just curious)

  152. Konservo June 18, 2008 at 7:07 AM #

    Um, female genital mutilation in the name of “preventing” “promiscuity” and “ensuring” “virginity” is definitely not the same as preventing rape (not that sewing up a vagina would prevent rape anyway). You’re still an idiot, Konservo. Good to know stuff hasn’t changed since my last reading of this blog.

    LOL, L!

    I didn’t see your comment up there. I wasn’t claiming that FGM was a viable alternative to preventing rape. I’m saying, in response to “A Man,” that it is a fact that this does occur and the logic behind it is the same as the logic behind a chastity belt.

  153. Aoife June 18, 2008 at 2:56 PM #

    A Man.
    You are deliberately belittling my argument (‘silly analogy’), and using intrusive language (talking about my vagina) in order to distract from the substance of what I said. I was comparing the rapist to the burglar, not the house to the woman. (in fact, I was ridiculing the comparison of a woman to a house).

    If you look at it from that perspective, you’ll accept that it was entirely your responsibility not to assault or rape the woman in your story. That was your only responsibility. Why you resented that is beyond me.

    You/the world keeps saying ‘here’s what you women need to do to stop being raped’. We have heard this over, and over, and over, and over. Enough already. It just doesn’t apply in most situations. It doesn’t make any sense. Most men rape women they know, at home or in places or situations the women would otherwise have felt secure. Some men rape strangers or acquaintances at parties and in bars, but most men rape or assault their partners, family, friends or neighbours. It is entirely the responsibility of all men to analyse situations they are in, to consider the agency of the other person in the situation and to choose not to act in a sexual manner with them- be that flirt, try to convince, touch, or have sex. Despite what you think, some men I know, in fact, do think like this. If they have ANY doubt about consent, they just don’t do it.
    Your mind, your actions, your body, your control, your choice.

  154. zombie z June 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM #

    If a false paternity suit was all it took to get rid of the stuff that makes me attractive to dudez (and those pesky ovaries/uterus/etc that put me in pain every month), I would totally pull that shit. I don’t even have a kid, but I’d accuse every dude I know of being the father of my non-kid until a doctor agreed to move my lady parts so then DUDEZ WOULD LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE and, you know, not rape me. Because I wouldn’t be “asking for it” anymore by being a woman.

    I have been raped. There was no dark alley — he was my boyfriend. How dare I climb in bed for a midday nap with my boyfriend?! I mean, what about my safety?! What am I doing making myself so vulnerable in front of the menz?! Perhaps I was even wearing a miniskirt! (No, I wasn’t. Does that mean I didn’t ask for it after all?)

    It was three years ago. Do I think he has committed assault with a weapon (his penis) again since then? Absolutely. Absofuckinglutely. I don’t speak to him anymore and I’m lucky he’s almost 700 miles away. But I worry about the women he’s met since me, and how many of them trusted him because he was their friend or boyfriend, and maybe they even had a drink in his presense–the HORROR! Who EVER drinks with their friends, seriously?! That’s just dangerous!

    If I had reported it, no one would’ve believed me. Sure, there was semen and blood (I was a virgin, hey!)–but he was also my boyfriend. I chose to go home with him. I chose to get in bed with him. I chose to kiss him. It’s his word against mine and what point I said “hey, stop it” and how many times I pushed his hands away and said “no” and tried to get OUT of the bed and OUT of the house….

    Should someone cut his dick off? Man, I wish I had.

  155. A Man June 18, 2008 at 4:01 PM #


    A given: no one (man or woman) should be raped.

    Now, please describe the characteristics of the society in which this given situation would exist.

    And if you have time, please describe the characteristics of the society in which all persons have absolute sovereignty over their own persons.

  156. Nine Deuce June 18, 2008 at 4:35 PM #

    zombie z – These comments are pretty shitty, eh? I only posted the least egregious ones, and this is still how it came out.

  157. A Man June 18, 2008 at 4:36 PM #


    Okay, your were right. FGM does take place in Sub-Saharan Africa. However, in my defense, Egypt is the worst offender and it is not sub-Saharan.

    Further, I am truly appalled that this takes place in the U.S. or any Western country. Worst parents ever.

  158. A Man June 18, 2008 at 4:59 PM #


    “If you look at it from that perspective, you’ll accept that it was entirely your responsibility not to assault or rape the woman in your story.”

    Maybe I wasn’t clear, enough. I wasn’t uncomfortable because I had to resist the temptation to rape an unconscious woman. It did not even enter my mind to do so.

    “That was your only responsibility.”

    No, that was not my only responsibility. If that was true, I could have just put her out in the hallway, locked the door, and gone to bed. Whatever happened to her after that is her problem, right? Wrong. I had a duty to take care of her until she was able to take care of herself. Do you disagree?

    “Why you resented that is beyond me.”

    What I resented was that she drank so much that she became unable to care for herself. Now, it’s one thing if your buddy drinks too much as passes out on your bathroom floor, you’ll do the basics to make sure he doesn’t die in his sleep. You might even shave a body part or get out the marker. All in good fun.

    But if a woman you barely know passes out in your apartment, she could blame you for “getting her drunk” or allege that you drugged her or just generally freak out. In my case, I was lucky. She was embarrassed and we didn’t go out again.

  159. A Man June 18, 2008 at 5:16 PM #

    I grow weary of posting my shitty comments.

    I am disappointed that no one has taken up my challenge to describe what a society without rape or patriarchy would look like. I’d like to know what would be the characteristics of a society in which the individual had absolute sovereignty over the person.

  160. L June 18, 2008 at 7:16 PM #

    Now, please describe the characteristics of the society in which this given situation would exist.

    Can you be a little more specific? What situation are you talking about here?

    And if you have time, please describe the characteristics of the society in which all persons have absolute sovereignty over their own persons.

    Of course absolute sovereignty wouldn’t work without everyone (including authority figures and legislators) having and applying the basic respect required to recognize that everyone else also has absolute sovereignty over their lives, bodies, possessions, etc. Which is why this is a radical feminist blog — it would take a revolution for this to happen. Otherwise, I think this would be a pretty awesome society: when children are being tickled and they say “stop” or “no,” their parents or adult caregivers stop accordingly. When a woman wants to stop having sex with a man, he stops and doesn’t pressure her or otherwise coerce her. Again, the respect for human dignity and sovereignty is a vital element for this sort of society to work, and since we pretty much lack that respect anyway — as individuals and as a society — we have this crime-ridden society we have now. Men and women see themselves and each other not as humans but as opportunities, weapons, sex toys, pets, objects of desire, lust, affection, revenge, etc. and so on. So, yeah — the problem isn’t the desire for absolute sovereignty, it’s that we don’t think anyone else deserves absolute sovereignty, because no one else is human, right?

  161. Nine Deuce June 18, 2008 at 7:21 PM #

    A Man – That’s what this whole blog is about. You’re asking a lot, by the way. You’re asking me, or one of my readers, to come up with a more comprehensive social theory than that of Adam Smith or Karl Marx. I realize that those who would change the current system are responsible for offering alternatives, but that doesn’t mean that we have no right to make people aware of what we’d like to see change until we can come up with a grand social theory, does it? One feminist thinker, Catharine MacKinnon, has actually worked on this issue. If you really want to see what an alternative to patriarchy might look like (rather than just feel like you’ve won an argument by telling us we don’t have an alternative), read her book Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.

  162. Nine Deuce June 18, 2008 at 8:59 PM #

    A Man – You could put her out in the hallway and wash your hands of the whole thing if we lived in a society in which men didn’t think that an unconscious woman is available for raping. That you were worried she’d accuse you of something is strange. How often does that sort of thing really happen? If I get so wasted that I pass out, I don’t blame anyone but myself (luckily I don’t do much of that). If you aren’t drugging people, then why would you worry about such a thing? Would you really be afraid that she’d claim you did something to her? If so, rest assured. Our legal system assumes that she was in a constant state of consent, and so she’d bear the burden of proof, meaning she’d have to prove that she did not consent even though she was passed out. Lucky for you, eh?

  163. gwallan June 19, 2008 at 4:04 AM #

    Nine Deuce said…
    “What an idiot. First of all, the argument that rape laws aren’t fair because one woman takes advantage of someone sexually for every like 250,000 men who do so is retarded.”

    Men commit three quarters of child sex offences. Half the victims of child sexual abuse overall are males who are abused as often by women as by men. Male victims have the same long term problems faced by female victims. In addition between two thirds and three quarters of the men imprisoned for seriously violent rapes of women or girls were molested by a woman during their childhood or adolescence. Treating the offences committed by women with the same gravity as those committed by men may actually serve to prevent rapes of women and girls. The male victim often grows up angry at worst or utterly confused at best. They live in a culture that tells them that sexual abuse is a fate worse than death(vis…this blog piece). Apart from their experience of it of course. They are refused help. None of the advocacy speaks to them. Offenders aren’t punished at all. Victims are ridiculed if they dare speak up. They are invisible to an extent you would never understand.

    “You might claim my law is biased, but how is current law not biased in favor of men and against women in the case of rape?”

    Try getting justice for a male victim of a female abuser and find out for yourself. In the western world there are boys as young as thirteen who have been forced to pay child support to their rapists. I reckon that tells us fairly explicitly where the genders stand on both sexual assault and reproductive rights. In my country we have never imprisoned a woman for raping a boy even though dozens have been charged since it was made illegal a few years ago. In fact when it happened to me as a child it was legal.

    Try something a little different…stop seeing the words “rapist” and “man” as interchangeable. You have “gendered” an issue that is not gendered. Particularly where child victims are concerned.

    Nine Deuce you have made several statements about female offenders and male victims here none of which actually have much validity. You are not qualified to speak to that specific issue and I would thank you to discontinue your marginalisation of male victims of female rapists.

    If you actually care about victims at all you would see this.

    “Here’s the problem, Herp: You’re a dude. You’re more likely to use violence or the threat of it to get your way than I am. I wouldn’t accuse you of rape if I knew it meant you’d go to prison or get castrated, even though you keep changing your screen name.”

    Here’s the problem Nine Deuce. Rape isn’t about violence. It is about coercion and/or consent. Violence MAY be the means of coercion but there are many ways of forcing others to do things against their will. Many of those are things women are quite adept at.

    I find your argument that female consent is the default state quite amusing. I wonder if you’ve applied the same thinking to male consent? Assuming you recognise such a thing of course. Most folk don’t in reality. After all some places have formally removed male consent. Mexico will go so far as to imprison men who say no to their partners.

    A little advice Nine Deuce. Stop seeing sexual abuse as something men do to women and girls and nothing else. There is far more to it than that.

  164. Nine Deuce June 19, 2008 at 4:29 AM #

    I qualify my statements. I don’t believe all sex crimes are committed by men. But I think your stats are wildly inflated. Sources?

    I do see that I’ve used gendered language in the comments, but I made sure to use “victim” and he/she in the post. I never denied that men are victimized, and I would say that the implied state of consent applies to them as well.

    I have never limited my discussion of sex abuse to man as perpetrator, women and children as victim, but I stick by the argument that in the vast majority of cases men are the perpetrators.

    I’ll gladly discuss this issue with you, but do try to be a little less patronizing. It’s rude.

  165. zombie z June 20, 2008 at 4:05 PM #

    Has gwallan just dropped by from another universe? There are just as many female rapists as male ones? Rape isn’t about violence? Mexico imprisons men who don’t want to have sex?

    Whatever gwallan is on, I want some. That’s some good shit.

  166. Evo June 20, 2008 at 7:04 PM #

    I think some of your trolls are coming from this douchetruck’s website:

    Awesome post, btw.

  167. L June 20, 2008 at 7:53 PM #

    Ahahaha, thanks for the link, Evo. My new favorite internet thing ever is the first comment on that asshat’s post: “No man would want to have sex with a woman if this law were passed.”

    Because that is truly the worst thing ever: not getting to rape anyone you want without consequences have sex. OH NOEZ. THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH.

    Seriously, I would choose to never have sex again if it meant no woman would ever be raped again. I guess that’s why I’m not a sex-pozzer. Sex is not the only thing that matters.

    The level of stupidity on that post is actually sort of hurting my brain. Is it really that fucking difficult to differentiate between rape and consensual sex? Is it that taxing to see that, in the current system, men can rape women and backpedal to make, yes, misogynist juries believe that the “sex” was consensual?

    I guess it might be. Criminy, I fear for future generations.

  168. gwallan June 21, 2008 at 5:53 AM #

    @zombie z…
    “Has gwallan just dropped by from another universe? There are just as many female rapists as male ones?”

    I was refering to child sexual abuse. Between adults men are indeed the primary perpetrators.

    Men commit about three quarters of the child sex offences. Male offenders average four to five offences. Female offenders average just over one. Do the math yourself.

    The female ones we hear about mostly are school teachers, possibly because this is the only environment where women are under any real scrutiny. If a teacher molests a student it is three times more likely to be a female teacher than a male. Bear in mind that there are six times as many female teachers as there are male. However among female offenders teachers account for only about eight to ten percent.

    Sometimes we need to step beyond our gender preconceptions. Women commit a significant majority of all child abuse. This is not because they are more likely to abuse than men but simply a consequence of much greater time spent with children. The same factor is at play with sexual abuse. Simply assuming women don’t or won’t do it is not only foolish it is dangerous for children.

    The dynamics of child sexual abuse is much different to that between adults. There are also clear cycles of victimisation and offending within the strata of events, particularly with male victims, although some of it carries across to adults. I’m into prevention rather than retribution. I couldn’t care less what punishments are dished out as long as all victims are treated with the same consideration. If we are only focussed on one part of those cycles, or if we are wholly focussed only on punishment and retribution, we seriously hinder our chances of finding preventative solutions. The victims should matter more than the offenders. As you have just demonstrated we’re a little selective about which victims we deem worthy of consideration. I’m sure you would deny that gender has anything to do with that.

    “Rape isn’t about violence?”
    Rape is not defined by violence. Violence is sometimes the method of coercion. Thirty years ago a woman could rarely successfully charge a rapist in the absence of violence. Those days have gone thank goodness. Put it this way. I view a violent rape as TWO crimes. It is both a physical AND a sexual abuse. Both aspects have implications for the victim. Rape can exist in circumstances where no physical force is applied. I can invisage situations where rape exists even in the face of a verbalised consent. For example an individual who is blackmailed into sexual activity could arguably be said to have consented. It’s still rape, however, because of the coercive aspect of it.

    Actually most child sex abuse could be spun to make it seem consensual. It’s very easy for adults to talk kids into just about anything. It’s a good part of the reason we have laws against it.

    “Mexico imprisons men who don’t want to have sex? ”

    Yep. Domestic violence laws introduced in Feb 2007. Refusing to have sex with his partner – and it is gender specific – means a man has committed the crime of “indifference”. It’s punishable by up to five years in prison. Have you ever seen some of the US or British or Australian DV literature. A male demanding sex when his partner doesn’t want it is acting abusively. A male refusing sex when his partner demands it is also acting abusively. As I have tried to explain male consent is not taken seriously. Men, particularly, need to start taking it seriously. If they don’t then, like Mexico’s men, they may lose it altogether.

    “Whatever gwallan is on, I want some. That’s some good shit.”

    It’s only coffee and nicotine I’m afraid. Maybe the Aussie coffee is more lively than yours. It’s helped keep me awake through several years of extremely mundane, often very boring, reading and study.

    Could I suggest you try THC or alcohol instead. Much more relaxing. You really don’t want to end up old, cynical and decrepit like me. Not without enjoying the process anyway.


    re “No man would want to have sex with a woman if this law were passed.”

    I actually encourage men to say no and to do it frequently. A man can learn a great deal about a woman in this way. If you are male, which I suspect to be the case, you may find it very illuminating. Don’t initiate sex yourself for a while. When your partner tries say “no”. Do it a couple of times and you might be very surprised at your partner’s reaction. Women are not used to being refused sex and it comes as a real shock if and when it happens. Be prepared to face a full arsenal of shaming and emotional blackmail or even worse. What you will find, at least, is that women want sex as much as do men if not more so.

    “Is it really that fucking difficult to differentiate between rape and consensual sex?”

    Certainly our judicial systems are having difficulty.

    @Nine Deuce….

    I presume I’m now being censored. That’s par for the course. As a male victim I’ve been told to shut up my entire life. I’m used to it. Female victims confront scepticism, or greatly fear it, all the time. It is one of the primary inhibitors to their reporting. But just for a moment consider the scepticism male victims confront particularly when abused by women. This is reflected in the reporting patterns. The female victim is more than twenty five times more likely to report than the male victim.

    Do have a look at “The Invisible Boy”. It is available to read on several web sites and summarises a reasonable range of research efforts. Seriously ten years ago I was a very radical feminist – during my school years I was advocating the extermination of all men – and would have agreed with you on everything you say(maybe would have gone further actually).

    Nevertheless thankyou for at least allowing some light through. Unlike some feminists you didn’t resort to calling me a rapist or rape apologist. That’s much better than I’m used to.

    Where we differ in terms of your original posting is that you seem to want the existing system made harsher whereas my preference is to recognise that that existing judicial/legal system doesn’t work for victims at all and that we should be seeking a different way altogether when it comes to sex crimes. I’d be ditching the whole thing and starting again with something different. Unfortunately I haven’t yet seen or developed an alternative model to promote. Seems we’re stuck with the old one for the time being.

  169. Nine Deuce June 21, 2008 at 5:57 AM #

    You were being censored because of your condescending tone. If you want to discuss things here, treat people (myself included) with respect.

  170. L June 21, 2008 at 3:51 PM #

    @L: I actually encourage men to say no and to do it frequently. A man can learn a great deal about a woman in this way. If you are male, which I suspect to be the case, you may find it very illuminating. Don’t initiate sex yourself for a while. When your partner tries say “no”. Do it a couple of times and you might be very surprised at your partner’s reaction. Women are not used to being refused sex and it comes as a real shock if and when it happens. Be prepared to face a full arsenal of shaming and emotional blackmail or even worse. What you will find, at least, is that women want sex as much as do men if not more so.

    Yeah, I wasn’t talking to you, gwallan. I’m a woman, by the way, which you could have easily found out by clicking on the link in my name. And I’m quite used to my partner refusing to have sex with me, actually. I kind of get a little shiver of glee when he refuses because it means he’s a human being whose only concern is not getting into my pants, unlike previous boyfriends. Seriously, you are not winning any points by assuming that 1) I’m male, 2) I’m a heterosexual dude, and 3) women faced with a refusal of sex will resort to “emotional blackmail” and shaming. Especially on a feminist forum. Do you think women are all hypocrites, too? My point in my previous post was that I think it’s hilarious that the only thing MRAs and other dudes can think about is whether or not they’ll get to have “sex” again, not whether or not they are currently rapists.

    On another note, I’d like to know how exactly we got from discussing the problem of male-on-female rape, which even gwallan admits is the majority of rapes, reported or not, to talking about the problem of female-on-male rapes. gwallan, I am very sorry for what you went through, and I agree that viewing men and women through the lens of gender essentialism is not a good idea ever, and especially when it comes to sexual abuse. As we live in a patriarchal society, we have all necessarily internalized patriarchy’s need to dominate others to ensure our own power and pleasure. However, I don’t know whether this particular blog is the right place for you to discuss the invisibility of male consent, considering the myriad other ways that male consent is the only consent that matters. (The invisibility of child consent is yet another issue, and I don’t think this post is meant to touch on it.)

    Your comments so far, gwallan, have smacked of “what about the menz??!” since the first one. Yes, the sexual abuse/assault of men is a problem — I’m not disputing that. But that is not what is being discussed on this thread, and I find your comments to be off-topic and rather domineering. If you have something to say, by golly, write your own dang blog. I’d be happy to read more on your opinions regarding male consent and male victimhood, because I do think that male victims of sexual abuse are evidence of the patriarchy at work, but I don’t want to read about it to the detriment of this blog and this post’s goal.

    But these are my opinions, and I don’t own this blog. Just sayin’.

  171. zombie z June 22, 2008 at 9:35 PM #

    L sez:

    Seriously, I would choose to never have sex again if it meant no woman would ever be raped again. I guess that’s why I’m not a sex-pozzer. Sex is not the only thing that matters.

    Not to take this furthur off-topic, but this is why I’m gay now. I’ve been dating a woman for three weeks (? I think) now, and while there has been plenty of cuddly-type goodness, we only just shared our first kiss and she hasn’t even been trying to trick me into inviting her into my bedroom, or some other bizarre method men [boys] have for getting women to have sex with them. It’s like–and I know this is crazy talk–learning to know my self and not my body is the priority in this budding relationship!

  172. SAAM June 23, 2008 at 4:53 AM #

    Are you ever going to run for President? I’d vote for you!

  173. Nine Deuce June 23, 2008 at 5:15 AM #

    I think I might have to run for Emperor to get this law passed.

  174. SAAM June 23, 2008 at 1:31 PM #

    Great idea!!! I would vote for you!!! I’d even help with the campaign!!

  175. jerry June 24, 2008 at 6:07 AM #

    “The presumption of innocence, as it is not specifically iterated anywhere in the Constitution, will not attach to sex crimes.”

    Well at least you’re honest about not being a progressive liberal, or interested in equality.

    By the way, even Susan Brownmiller in her much debunked bogus statistic claimed the rate of false claims was 2%, not 1%. But as her claim is debunked, the rates from the FBI of 8% and of studies of up to 40% must be considered.

    You have no evidence that woman will not make a false claim because of the trauma to them of making that claim. In fact, from Duke on down, we have incident after incident of women lying about sex, and why not? Women and men are just as good and just as bad and just as much liars. Equality. We as humans lie about anything we can that we think will get us ahead.

    Women don’t lie about false accusations of rape? Then why do we have books like “Queenbees and wannabes” or “Odd Girl Out” written by women, feminists, that describe the evils women do in high school.

    What is it that you think allows girls and women and boys and men to lie about so much, and yet keeps women from lying about false accusations of rape?

  176. gare June 24, 2008 at 1:18 PM #

    am i banned, how do you know if you are banned, when i hit submit will my screen blowup, or do i have to come back and see i was posting into nada.. who knows.. i only post here once in awhile but ive been following deuces blog progress faithfully. after reading this stuff, i have to admire deuce for taking on the BIG issues, we need deuces law, the series .. really… stop whining about problems yall and propose some sort of outlandish solution .. discussion rarely leads to concussion.. though dis and con aint good prefixes. i just think you know… punishments never erradicate crimes.. did burning at the stake prevent heresy? nope.. my real problem here is i dont want law enforcement getting into the surgery business.. let the cops alter bodies and soon we’ll all have bar codes implanted in our buttes you know? and whos gonna pay for law enforcement surgery, not blue cross! and sending a man with no balls into prison to ‘protect’ the other inmates might not be a good idea, he’d have to be kept in solitary for his OWN protection dude… and in gareworld all punishments would be equally applicable, no boy punishments or girl punishments, just people punishments. true theres boy and girl specific crimes, but we cant help THAT.. if the law enforcers cant even get executions right, i dont trust them to be cutting off bodily parts either! what would gare do? im a frontend man all the way.. WHO is tila tequila by the way.. to all those who would argue with deuce, beware.. you can NEVER win an argument with a law student… thats what they DO… win arguments! gare at large.. well .. medium

  177. zombie z June 24, 2008 at 1:19 PM #

    I don’t remember “Odd Girl Out” having anything to do with false rape accusations…

  178. Nine Deuce June 24, 2008 at 3:44 PM #

    gare – I wouldn’t ban you.

    zombie z – I was kind of wondering about that connection, too.

  179. jerry June 24, 2008 at 5:25 PM #

    The connection between “Odd Girl Out” and false accusation of rape: both reflect the hidden aggression of girls and women, especially in the context of relationships.

    While so many feminists agree that women can do horrible things, acts they know are wrong, just like men can and do, I have never understood why the I hear so many feminists claim that women would never make a false accusation of rape. That claim flies in the face of what we know about men and women, mainly so many of us will lie about anything we can that we think will get us ahead, and the evidence we have is that women join gangs, women commit murder, women lie, women bully, women commit many activities that earn them social condemnation or even prison time, so what is it about making a false claim of rape that makes it unthinkable a women would commit it?

    It also flies in the face of evidence which shows in the newspapers accounts of women making false accusations of rape much of the time.

    Please note: I am not claiming women are any more evil or bad or anything than men.

    My question is, apart from your belief that women would not make false allegations of rape or other crimes, what evidence do you have that that is true?

    To answer a question of yours that I think you may have posted in the wrong thread, I think rapes are horrendous, and we should do as much as we can to stop them. But I also believe is is immoral and unethical to make any cost benefit analysis that says “some rapes are unpunished and so therefore it is okay to ignore the problem of false accusations and ruin innocent lives in order to ensure we punish more rapes.”

    One doesn’t have to be a rapist or pro-rape to find that attitude abhorrent. This is the attitude of civil libertarians and of much of Western Civilization: “it is better that ten guilty go free than to jail one innocent.”

    Rapes are atrocious and should be stopped. You do not make your argument to stop rape stronger by claiming that false accusations do not exist or can be ignored.

  180. Dan Holzman-Tweed June 25, 2008 at 6:39 AM #

    Your proposal is incomplete. What penalty attaches to a woman who rapes?

  181. Nine Deuce June 25, 2008 at 9:49 PM #

    Dan – Prison. When are you people going to realize that I’m asking you to consider the faults of our current system by posing this law as a foil by which to view it?

    Jerry – You are making the assumption that I think that the legal culture of western civilization is the best option. There are serious problems with our legal system, there are serious holes in the way it operates. It works much better to protect the people it was designed to protect, the people that its predecessor legal systems protected: men (preferably white ones who have money). If we start discussing this issue without presumptions, meaning without assuming that the western legal tradition is the best we can hope for, this thought exercise (for that is what this is) might be more fruitful and interesting.

  182. Dan Holzman-Tweed June 26, 2008 at 5:31 AM #

    I realized it from the start: this entry has “modest proposal” written all over it. The fact remains that holes like that limit the value of your proposal as a foil.

  183. Nine Deuce June 26, 2008 at 5:34 AM #

    I’m not really doing satire, so it doesn’t compare to “A Modest Proposal.” I’m offering an admittedly incomplete alternative in the hopes that people might reconsider their assumption that the current system is the best we can do. So maybe it isn’t a perfect foil, but rather a prompt?

  184. Not a Whisper June 26, 2008 at 2:00 PM #


    What do all these malicious women get out of false rape accusations, is what I’d like to know? The benefits of joining a gang, stealing, bullying etc. are pretty apparent. But what most women get out of making rape accusations – having themselves dragged through a torturous procedure, having everyone question their motives and their sexual mores and their sanity – doesn’t look very attractive. Even if they “succeed” and the alleged rapist is convicted, what’s the upside for anyone who isn’t motivated entirely by senseless, irrational vindictiveness?

    Most people who misbehave are not driven by senseless, irrational vindictiveness.

    So if there’s no incentive, why should you expect false rape accusations to happen any more frequently than, say, someone poking out their own eyeballs? Which happens, I’m sure. But not much.

  185. Alex June 27, 2008 at 8:23 PM #

    I’m a woman, but the idea of reversing the burden of proof is horrifying to me, and wouldn’t exactly prevent or deter rapists.

    It is pretty safe to say criminals, from murderers to rapists, know what they are doing is wrong. Even the threat of capital punishment rarely decreases violent crime–I doubt having the burden of truth reversed will dissuade potential rapists, especially since most sexual crimes are not one-time, specific acts of hate (like most murders); they are sick, chronic compulsions.

    Secondly, if something can be abused, you can bet it will be. I can certainly forsee unscrupulous women taking advantage of this law. Especially for the money. Greed and revenge make great motivators, and most people planning on making false accusations will either A) be too callous to care about the scrutiny and trauma of going through a (faux) rape trial or B) will not think this through. Especially, what I am thinking about is the rise in sex-abuse accusations brought against teachers… many just brought by disgruntled students, these can destroy a teacher’s career, even if acquitted.

    With the advent of forensic science, if a woman goes to the police in time and the evidence is collected promptly, most cases are open and shut…DNA doesn’t lie, after all. And I think most juries are more inclined to sympathize with the (alleged) victim anyway; there is already enough to tilt the scales in favor of women!

    I did like the idea of castration, though. Should also be mandated for pedophilia. ;) BUT we should remember that our country was founded on the principle that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail. And I sincerely believe that.

  186. Nine Deuce June 27, 2008 at 8:43 PM #

    Alex – I agree that the law does not dissuade rapists, which is why I think the threat they pose ought to be neutralized.

    As for evidence, even with DNA, it often comes down to an accusation and a denial. The burden of proof falls onto the victim; she has to prove that she did not consent to the sex act. That means our laws say women are always in a state of consent. That is unjust.

    Juries might sympathize with a victim, or they might not. So many people seem to think that rape accusations are often false that I wouldn’t want to rely on a jury to be fair. Actually, I think the jury system is stupid in general. As is the “better for 100 to go free” concept, because when 100 go free, they tend to commit 100 more crimes, especially sex offenders.

  187. Dana July 12, 2008 at 11:05 PM #

    I am going to take a wild guess that women who give false accusations of rape are not traumatized much by the outcome, because they weren’t raped in the first place. At most they might feel some outrage that their own sexuality has been questioned. They might feel somewhat violated by that, but by definition there was no original rape upon which to pile the other outrages. So, by definition, a woman who goes through a lot of trauma surrounding a rape trial and the aftermath was 99.9 percent likely to be telling the truth in the first damn place. And the fact that rape victims have to go through additional trauma to attain justice tells me that MOST of them don’t ever report it. Which would make the false report rate infinitesimally tiny.

  188. cheese on toast August 10, 2008 at 4:59 PM #

    Bravo, for the most part. But, I have a problem with the rapists only having to do work that benefits women and children. What about the vast majority of innocent men? I believe the labor of criminals should go to helping them, too. Men and women who rape are doing a disservice to their own sex as well as the opposite sex and children.

  189. Am_I_Here? August 29, 2008 at 2:07 AM #

    I understand that this was meant to have men think critically about what it would feel like to live in the constant fear of rape that women are forced to live with, and I while I find it interesting, I’m still in quite a bit of a tiff by the idea of something this obscene becoming an actual law.

    Men sent to prison for false rape allegations face horrors far worse than a woman who’s raped once or twice. Considering that they’ll be subjected to crimes of the state for years, well, it’s magnitudes worse than rape. So I had a question:

    What is the punishment for women found guilty of falsely accusing a man of rape?

    Assuming this law has passed, that man has been castrated (As a woman, you cannot imagine just how horrifying a prospect this is to most men. Many would rather be killed on the spot.), sent to a forced labor camp (I’ll assume Auschwitz), separated from his friends and family, and a fair chance that he has been beaten or subjected to some other unspeakable horror.

    What punishment do this justify for the woman that falsely accused him? Considering your attitude about rape, I assume you’ll want an extremely terrible punishment, as she has effectively killed this man.

    That thought runs through the mind of every man that sits on a jury to convict a rapist. What if this man didn’t do it? What am I sending him into? Is it worth taking the chance?

    In the strict sense of numbers your system works. A fair number of men who deserve it will suffer. Good.

    But who are you to say that the innocent men who will inevitably suffer were ‘acceptable losses’? After all, you won’t have to suffer these losses. Maybe a little guilt, otherwise you’ll sleep warmly thinking of all the women who won’t endure a night of terror, and all it took was enslaving half the population to fear of a fate worse than death.

    Acceptable losses indeed.

    As a caveat, I’d like to say your piece did spark my mind to think of how the current system subjects women to much the same thing. It’s quite arrogant of me to assume that the women who are raped without justice are ‘acceptable losses’ just so I could personally have the peace of mind that I’m unlikely to find myself in hell, but I’d say you went of bit overboard with the comparison. I was raped when I was eight years old, and while I can’t say I understand fully what women go through (the thought of a woman forced to endure a pregnancy from a rapist certainly chills me), I would say that this law is still absurd even if the man that raped me was apprehended and punished. While I might personally castrate him, as a state mandated punishment, it’s absolutely absurd.

    Sorry for rambling there.

  190. Ayngel O August 29, 2008 at 6:20 AM #

    You tend to view things differently when you have actually been raped. It’s really hard to worry about the rights of a rapist when you have had your rights ripped away. Rape is the ONLY crime where the victim is guilty until proven innocent.

    Then you go to the cops and they say stupid things like “It’s your word against his” and you have to wonder why his word is more valuable than yours.

    Then guys get all upset when someone says that rapists should be held accountable for their actions. That will strip OUR rights away. Welcome to the world of a rape victim. When we say no, we mean no… and if you don’t understand that then you deserve to be held responsible for you actions. Because trust me, we are being held responsible for ours.

  191. B August 29, 2008 at 6:25 AM #

    I am actually really intrigued by the idea of Section 1. I’d never thought about the presumption of innocence in rape cases as being a presumption of consent. Now that you say it, though, it makes perfect sense.

    Typically, I’m a huge fan of letting the guilty go rather than locking up the innocent. But you’re right — we’re letting shitloads of guilty people go and subjecting a whole lot of victims to torment. Placing the burden of proof on proving consent seems like it would begin to alleviate the power imbalance happening now.

    I don’t agree with your medieval punishments (sorry), but I think Section 1 is a legit, good idea. And a completely new one, to me. You made me think. :-)

  192. Marcus August 29, 2008 at 9:03 AM #

    “I’m getting some seriously gnarly comments about this. I suppose men don’t like to hear someone discuss treating them the way they’ve treated women throughout history.”

    Ah, so you’re just trying to turn the tables on men? That’s good to hear. You really won me over there.

    “There is a danger inherent in such a system that a few innocent men will be punished, and this is quite unfortunate.”

    I want to believe you, but I can’t. I don’t think you care a rats arse about those innocent men. Sorry.

  193. Nine Deuce August 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM #

    Well, I don’t think you care a rat’s arse about the 94 of 100 innocent women whose rapists go free.

  194. Thomas September 19, 2008 at 4:01 AM #

    This seems like a pretty good idea. Hell, I can think of a few non-rapists who could stand to have their balls knocked off. Imagine the wars we could stop. I think you’re onto something.

  195. isme September 20, 2008 at 2:08 AM #

    “Ah, so you’re just trying to turn the tables on men?”

    Isn’t that the point? To draw attention to a terrible inequality by proposing a very different inequality?

    Nevermind the legal or technical details, how many men objected because it was leave them in a position they didn’t want to be? Though, that is understandable…I mean, I don’t expect a proposal that the United States of Africa become a mighty first world country superpower, while North America is reduced to a collection of warring third world country hell holes to be terribly popular to citizens of the USA.

    Actually, is anyone game to admit that they reason they objected to this was because they felt “it’s the woman’s fault”? Swap “woman” with various gender based obscenities, if you prefer.

  196. Odium October 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM #

    Nice idea…but it doesn’t go far enough. A really effective solution would be to execute all rapists and leave their bodies in…well…rather exposed positions in public areas as a warning. No appeal, no chance at phony redemption, nothing.

    If that smacks a bit too much of medievalism…how about mandatory circumsision of every male child…except instead of ‘circumcision’, have ‘total genital removal’ instead. If nothing else, it would be funny to imagine the parents trying to explain how the kid got the plastic tube they pee out of in the first place. All this nonsense about natural reproduction is bollocks, I say…science is taking the place of religion, surely it’s up to the task of spawning the next generation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens? And it removes the thorny issue of heterosexual relationships once and for all, which might even allow some of us to, you know, spend our time on worthwhile things?

    And no, I’m not a troll, just self-deprecatory, misanthropic and rambling…too rambling in fact. Back to the topic…rape = bad. Peace out.

  197. Irritated November 8, 2008 at 1:19 AM #

    Here is an equally ludicrous law suggesting a penalty for false accusation.

    1. The burden of proof rests on the defendant to assert his/her own innocence.

    2. False Accusations shall be broadly defined as any statement which is untrue, even in passing as a joke.

    3. The punishment shall be immediate and irreversible surgical removal of the offending tongue teeth, and vocal cords. If said accusation was maintained on the stand during a trial, the offender will also be convicted of Defamation of Character, with a minimum compensation to the victim of fifty thousand dollars, and a job referral before sentence is carried out.

    4. The offender may appeal the removal of his/her tongue, teeth and vocal cords once, but will be forced to make the public apology on national TV, as well as making the reparations listed above.

    I don’t advocate for this, because we live in America, not Iran. Note: I used no gender specific language in the above comment.

  198. Nine Deuce November 8, 2008 at 2:10 AM #

    What part of “thought exercise” do you people not understand?

  199. Lindsay November 10, 2008 at 8:37 PM #

    This was a really thought-provoking post, thanks for taking the time to write it! I agree with all of it and hope that some day some of these are enacted. “Irritated,” seriously? You’re comparing a joke to RAPE? Jesus christ.

  200. Tom January 12, 2009 at 2:47 AM #

    Deuce, as a man I can understand why you think this would work, but I feel obliged to point out a few flaws.

    You mention that men rape indiscriminately and rarely face punishment for their crime.

    You’re right. I agree.

    But how can you claim the solution is a law that allows women to indiscriminately have men castrated, imprisoned and enslaved?

    Sure, women are less violent than men. I’ll give you that.

    But does the generally far less violent nature of women warrant giving this much power over men to almost all women?

    Any woman could make an accusation that fit the definition of rape, including fear, that could not be disproven.

    So any woman willing to have sex with a man could have this inflicted upon him at any time from a couple of weeks after onwards, when the physical evidence would be irrelevant.

    Do I even need to mention the potential for blackmail, or a jealous divorcee who wants sole custody making up a story to take her husband out of the picture for the next three decades.

    Having said the above, I hope you can understand why I think you’re trying to replace a system that’s unfair to women with a system that’s unfair to men.

    Second, I think it fairly arrogant to title this article “how to end rape”.

    I won’t try to deny for a second that the overlwhelming majority of rapists are male, but you know very well you can’t deny that a significant proportion of the victims of rape are male.

    Is this law supposed to end rape of men, including in prisons, in some inexplicable way I’m not seeing?

    Or should this article been titled “how to end rape of women?

  201. Nine Deuce January 12, 2009 at 4:36 AM #

    Gee, those are novel objections. Did you bother to read the disclaimers in the post? Or any of the other comments?

  202. L January 12, 2009 at 7:10 AM #

    How can any dude possibly be bothered to read and comprehend basic sentences when his balls are being hypothetically threatened by some random blogger without any actual legal or political power on the ‘nets???!!! You simply expect too much, ND. ;)

  203. James February 10, 2009 at 8:59 PM #

    This post epitomises why radfems do more damage than good.

    • Nine Deuce February 10, 2009 at 9:01 PM #

      What part of “thought experiment” did you not understand? The post was meant to highlight via reversal how unfair the current legal system is to women.

  204. James February 10, 2009 at 9:03 PM #

    ““Irritated,” seriously? You’re comparing a joke to RAPE? Jesus christ.”

    When a false accusation can get someone castrated it seems about fair.

    • Nine Deuce February 10, 2009 at 9:10 PM #

      Again, it was a facetious post meant to highlight the problems in the current system, which was made clear in the post and in comments.

  205. James February 10, 2009 at 9:14 PM #

    What part of “thought experiment” did you not understand?

    I understand it’s a thought experiment.

    The post was meant to highlight via reversal how unfair the current legal system is to women.

    Well it failed. The justice system is structured in a fashion which makes it difficult to prove anything, which is exactly as it should be since otherwise you’d have a thoroughly most blood-stained state within an hour. The justice system exists to try and create justice, not inflict punishments.

    If you have some alternative principle which can supersede”Innocent until proven guilty” then please do present it. I’ve all respect for legal radicals (I’m a mad Bentham fanboy, for instance) but until you can back up your desired outcome with feasible process, don’t expect to get anywhere.

    And yes, this is the epitome of why radfems do more harm than good. You opted for being provocative instead of being constructive, created an intentionally inflammatory post that you knew would alienate a lot of people and have failed even to realise that it constitutes nothing save an aimless fidget, being as it is the sort of thing the hopeless strain of radical gets up to in lieu of generating some actual substance to their passionate vigours.

    This isn’t “highlighting”. This is procrastination.

    • Nine Deuce February 10, 2009 at 9:23 PM #

      I love that argument. Because I haven’t come up with an ENTIRE new social system equal to that of Locke or Marx, I’ve got no right to point out the fact that ours doesn’t work well to protect women. Great.

  206. James February 10, 2009 at 9:34 PM #

    Well well pointed. Do you have any actual solutions?

    I’m afraid that you are obliged to suggest a new structure for our legal system if you are intent on tearing up the core of the existing one. Either that or be an Anarchist arguing about the plasticity of the human mind (which at least would be something).

    If you don’t have a viable alternative to the core plank of the existing institution the only response can be “Well that’s terrible, what a pity.” And if that’s all you want then by all means have it. Here goes:

    I’m very sorry that the legal system is structured so that a lot of rapists get away with it. I’m filled with indignation over this sad but inevitable aspect of life whenever I think about it.

    Is that what you were after? It’s the useless truth, for what it’s worth. Just don’t expect us to get anywhere with it.

  207. Imaginary September 28, 2009 at 10:09 AM #

    I cannot possibly comprehend the shear amount of stupid in these comments. Good Goddess, worrying about the men’s rights? Seriously? As though this has been a big issue like ever.

    I have an idea for every dumbass who posted that castration was unfair to the men accused of rape and it goes thus: How about YOU make the world safer for womin? This was merely role reversal and as you got so vehement over it, why don’t you go out and try and stop rape once and for all hmm? I mean, getting all bent out of shape over a blogger writing about a law that would actually make sense, I mean, you must be a regular Batman in your private life. I bet you’ve helped thousands, nay, MILLIONS! with your combat against womin being raped. Otherwise there is no reason for you to get pissed off about this blog and should shut the fuck up, you lousy hypocrite!

  208. GXB January 23, 2010 at 7:10 AM #

    A rambling thought: it occurs to me that somehow a lot of people have been convinced that “feminist” is a word for “man-hater” and that we already have “enough” equality. As a kid, I once qualified a statement “I’m not a feminist or anything, but…” and my mother surprised me with “A feminist is anyone who thinks women are equal to men.” Somehow, people still seem to be afraid or embarrassed to say that they are feminists. (Based on my own experience I hypothesize thoughts like “the men here will think I don’t like them” or “everyone will think I’m making a big deal over nothing”, or “I don’t know why this makes me so uncomfortable”.)

    On the other hand, women are quite happy to joke about cutting off men’s testicles, and I bet that if you asked a lot of women “should castration be the punishment for rape?” most answers would range from “only violent rape or child rape” to “obviously!”

  209. fidelbogen March 12, 2010 at 4:08 AM #

    Buttkicker69 is long gone, but(t) I can’t help pointing out to him that TYPING IN ALL UPPERCASE LETTERS CREATES EYESTRAIN AND IS VERY DIFFICULT TO READ. If he is so dang proud of his proud words, and wants all the world to know what he thinks, then he has chosen a very self-defeating manner of self-promotion. Indeed, he has made it four or five-fold more probable that his proud words will be completely ignored or glossed over by the average reader.

  210. Immir March 14, 2010 at 6:01 AM #

    I’m all for this castrating business.

    You know they had a chemical castration option for sex offenders, but even when some offenders agreed to have it done to them, it was denied on the grounds of being ‘Inhumane’. Apparently it’s ‘inhumane’ to take away a man’s sexual sensitivity.

    Inhumane, huh? Now let’s think about Vaginioplasty (spelling?) and breast implants and all that shit NUMBING womens sexual sensitivity. Oh wait, I forgot. We’re not human….

  211. Tim March 20, 2010 at 8:21 PM #

    The fact that this idea was based on faulty information (it’s more like 58% of rape trials result in conviction, not 6%) and its focus on punishment rather than addressing the root causes shows it to be no better than the system that is now in place. We need some rationality here people! I hate rapists and find them just as disgusting as you do, but lets not turn this into a witch hunt. Since when have those ever been effective at getting anything done? False rape convictions may be low right now, but can you honestly say that people would not take advantage of such a far-reaching law? For this to work in the real world, EVERY woman would have to be TOTALLY honest at ALL times. Since men and women both lie in probably equal proportions, I don’t see how instituting a draconian set of regulations would help anyone. While it may catch rapists, it won’t be any better than the system we have in place now and it will destroy far more innocent lives than it would protect. What we need to focus on is prevention and detection. Technology is improving everyday, and we can use this in the fight against rape AND the smaller but burgeoning problem of false reporting of rape which, despite what many would want to believe, IS on the rise however slowly. The act of rape is a disgusting animalistic-emotional urge; why do you think responding in kind will help to eliminate it?

    Our culture seems to be bloodthirsty when it comes to these areas. Shouldn’t we be focuses on trying to find an effective way to stop them from happening in the first place? If the crime never happens then isn’t that the best solution? Harsh punishments never achieve this no matter what they are meted out for doing. Sometimes they even encourage them to happen. Just think about it; what kind of person would it take to commit a rape in the first place? If control is their motivation, wouldn’t this simply encourage them to find a loophole? And believe me, there are ALWAYS loopholes, at least in the deranged minds of such people that would commit these crimes in the first place. We have to stop them at the source, and that will take time and careful scientific study to find a permanent solution. Until then our justice system will be imperfect, but it is just as far from being the misogynistic nightmare that some make it out to be as it is from being perfectly just. When dealing with abstracts it is important to set aside your own emotions here to allow you to deal with the issue effectively. Otherwise you are bound to make mistakes and end up making things worse than they already are.

    Having said all that, I do believe that chemical castration is a good deterrent in certain cases, but to expand its coverage under the law proposed above would turn its use into a modern-day Spanish Inquisition. We need to move forward here, not backwards. If feminists and masculinists(sp?) really would like equality and for the sexes to get along, wouldn’t you prefer a peaceful and just method that actually works for preventing and dealing with the aftermath these crimes? If you simply have an unreasoning hatred of the opposite sex then you are part of the problem, not the solution. I realize that women have a lot to be angry about, especially when it comes to the actions of the past, but how does responding in kind make you any better?

  212. isme March 22, 2010 at 4:37 AM #

    Tim, I think you are missing the point somewhat.

    • Nine Deuce March 22, 2010 at 5:06 AM #

      Isme wins the terseness contest of the day.

  213. Tim March 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM #

    Possibly, but I think my position might be getting
    misconstrued. Tell me… since when has just changing the punishment ever really made any problem disappear? If a house is built on a faulty foundation then changing the curtains isn’t going to stop it from eventually collapsing to the ground. The focus should be on the root causes and how to fundamentally alter society to remove them. It is certainly possible as we have learned from the past that society is constantly evolving. We’re intelligent enough now to recognize that fact, ergo we should also be intelligent enough to consciously guide the evolution ourselves to some degree. It won’t be easy and it may not be quick but it will achieve a lasting and practically irreversible improvement in everyone’s existence. It would make it a lot harder for someone to be a rapist if the concept of rape itself was destroyed.

  214. Laurelin March 22, 2010 at 4:30 PM #

    I love it when men use the term ‘witch hunt’ when they are speaking of some imaginary persecution of males….

    Points also for accusing women of being irrational (no, you didn’t use the exact words, but your meaning was loud and clear).

    And on this…

    ‘I hate rapists and find them just as disgusting as you do’

    I sincerely doubt that Timmy.

  215. Laurelin March 22, 2010 at 4:34 PM #

    oh, further bonus points for:

    – assertions that false reporting of rape is going up without proof (after asking everyone else to be rational)

    – the use of ‘people’ where you clearly meant ‘women’ (think about it….)

    – mischaracterising rape as an ‘animalistic’ act, as if it were instinctual and not planned and deliberate

    – insinuating that rape is somehow women’s responsibility

    Okay, I’m done with him now. Please send in the next candidate!

  216. Saurs March 22, 2010 at 9:40 PM #

    The focus should be on the root causes and how to fundamentally alter society to remove them.

    That’s feminism’s raison d’être. You may want to investigate it further.

    Also, there is no such thing as a masculinist.

  217. Tim April 1, 2010 at 4:57 PM #

    Why are so many people being so hostile? “Bonus points” and denigrating my intelligence by implying I don’t know what feminism means. Are you interested in having a conversation or just making sarcastic comments? If you’re not mature enough to handle a frank discussion then perhaps you’re not mature enough to offer a useful opinion on this matter either.

    Just to clear up confusion, I’ll try to explain what I was saying. I meant “animalistic” as in disgusting, unthinking, and uncaring. I wasn’t trying to imply it was instinctual. Please don’t put words into my mouth. I also said the amount of false rape reports is low *right now* but it may go up under the proposed system. I’m not sure what you meant by changing “people” to “women”, but I assume it is because you automatically think I hate women because I happen to not agree that this idea would actually help in the long run. Last time I checked people (men and women) are allowed to disagree on one point but agree on the larger picture. And how exactly did I imply that rape is a woman’s responsibility? That is quite puzzling to say the least. Please explain what you meant and tell me what I said that made you think that is what I believe, because it is most definitely NOT.

    The thing is that I am in complete agreement with the sentiment behind this idea; I just don’t think it will work. Until the mindset of men that rape is fundamentally altered, NO laws will stop women from getting raped, and besides that the ideas presented in this blog have no chance of being adopted as law.

    Now here is what I propose (obviously not all original ideas, but its what I agree with): proper education about equality and respect for others from the beginning of a male’s life and the restructuring of society to remove the triggers for and the depictions of rape (such as the objectification of women in pornography, mainstream films, etc. and a dismantling of the current patriarchal structure of society). Intensive research into the mental defects or other psychological factors that cause men to rape needs to be done to improve our ability to detect a rapist before he has a chance to harm women, and individual psychological profiles to determine any aberrations in personality that might lead to sociopathic behavior need to be mandatory at a very young age; perhaps 5 or 6 years old. Once we have a firm grasp of the physiological and psychological causes we can then find ways to prevent them in future generations. Again we have to go to the root of the problem, not just deal with the aftermath. Isn’t it better to prevent the rapes from happening in the first place? If we were completely successful with all of what I suggested, which is possible if enough of an effort is made, then laws such as the one proposed in this article would be unnecessary because the entire CONCEPT of rape would be destroyed.

    Now if you think men are just inherently and irredeemably evil then I can understand why you think this law is the best option, but if you really think that is true then why not just kill us all now instead of waiting for us to rape someone?

  218. GXB April 1, 2010 at 8:12 PM #

    OK, I’ll bite, I’m sure people are tired.

    Nine Deuce has already answered other people asking some of the same questions on this very thread: 1 and 2 and more. You could also read some other posts.

    You’re wondering about hostility? You need to read more before you write; otherwise you’re just adding redundant traffic.

  219. Saurs April 1, 2010 at 9:40 PM #

    Tim, I don’t know about Nine Deuce or her many diverse readers, but I disbelieve wholly in and have a great deal of contempt for theories which “medicalize” rapists as though they were suffering from a psychological problem requiring treatment. Therefore, some of the solutions you suggest in your third paragraph, including monitoring and profiling children who appear at an early age to be “aberrant” sounds incredibly sinister, not to mention misguided, to me. Rape is not in any way an exceptional behavior committed only by sociopaths or by men (women rape, too!) who have pathological defects or who are predisposed to sexual violence and thus must be kept from witnessing “triggers” which may cause them to become possessed by some kind of rape-y internal demon.

    I can understand why non-feminist and anti-feminist men might find your explanation for rape attractive and, in some manner, comforting. Firstly, it means that the vast majority of men will never commit rape because they aren’t “wired,” physiologically, to do so. Secondly, it solves (or, rather, ignores) the problem of rape and its prevalence in culture as fantasy and entertainment in one fell swoop. These men, these would-be rapists, need protection from themselves, and when they are under control, we as a culture are therefore protected from them, from their sick fantasies and violent tendencies, as though rape is some kind of serum rapists have poisoned the collective well with. Your theory also conveniently sweeps under the rug all feminist arguments about the prevalence of rape culture, the banal misogyny of every-day life, the existence of male privilege (as it is enshrined in law and religion, and as it exists socially), all other forms of male violence against women, and the binary paradigm which informs our entire social organization — consisting of domination and subordination.

  220. Saurs April 1, 2010 at 9:55 PM #

    By the by, while I don’t think this is an all-encompassing solution, and certainly isn’t an antidote to misogyny as whole, I think some rape, not all, but some incidents of rape, would be prevented if we weren’t living in a culture that holds such prudish, old-fashioned, scandalized views about sex. For instance, we’d have to acknowledge that women and women’s bodies do not equal sex. That women like sex. That women do not, per se, enjoy pain or are naturally passive or masochistic. That sex, particularly heterosexual p-i-v isn’t necessarily supposed to be painful for women. Women who like sex aren’t the exception, and women who do like sex, especially casual sex, are not wanton sluts who therefore will accept any physical abuse thrown her way. Women who like sex are not masochists; enjoying sex does not mean they enjoy torture. If women enjoy such sex “as much as” men, women have the agency to decide if and when and where and how they should engage in it and with whom. Sex is not a favor, not something that is earned, not something that can’t be taken back. Sex is not power. By being desirable, women do not possess “sexual power,” such that they can humiliate men and other women with rejection. Women’s bodies are not receptacles for men’s fantasies or their body parts. Men’s bodies are visually exciting to heterosexual women and homosexual men. Men’s bodies have the capacity to be fetishized in as much as women’s bodies are (but they shouldn’t be). Sex isn’t dirty. If sex isn’t dirty, then it doesn’t have to depicted as something that is violent, dispassionate, or cruel. People who engage in it are not animals and don’t have to act like ones. Sex is not humiliating. Sex should not be a taboo. Sex should not be a punishment. Rape should not be used (should not exist, period) as a punishment, an aggressive, violent act designed to humiliate its recipient, designed to make the rapist feel powerful, successful, masculine, heroic, triumphant.

  221. Grafton April 1, 2010 at 11:22 PM #

    Oh, the trouble with those answers is that they are not implicit in the original post. Jonathan Swift you are not, 9-2, and this is not satire, and does not even reveal itself to be a ‘thought experiment’ until you clarify.

    It’s not even really a very good analogy.

    Okay, women end up monitoring themselves all the time to avoid situations where they could be raped and end up in a scenario where the rapist will go unpunished because it’s a your-word-against-mine court case.

    “Deuce’s Law” proposes a ‘solution’ that would involve men having to, well, have third-party surveillance teams constantly monitor them so that if they are ever accused of rape they can prove a negative. Locking the door and staying home alone does not protect you from accusations, and actually makes defending yourself from them harder, what with this lack of alibi. For this to be a good analogy, rapists would have to have passkeys to every lock in the world.

    I would have lost my balls and freedom by whatever age your theoretical law considers a boy old enough to rape. I’m am autistic and people just don’t like me, and in school they followed me around, got me alone and hurt me. Boys and girls. Considering what people of both sexes did to me, I have absolutely no doubt that if all it took was to say, “He raped me,” to get me tortured and imprisoned, that would have happened, and a lot of people would have thought it was funny.

    The original post supposes that false rape charges where the burden of proof is on the accuser accurately reflect what would happen if women had no obligation to do anything but say three words to ruin a man’s life. It’s possible that women may be somewhat less nasty than men, but you are giving them far too much credit there.

    It also says that this injustice would be ‘unfortunate’ but better than the rape epidemic. That may be true, but it doesn’t work for ethical systems that suppose that creating a legal system that perpetuates an injustice on purpose and calls it worth doing is also wrong in itself. Rape is terrorism against women, and it’s wrong, and our legal system sucks at stopping it, but at least it acknowledges it as a fucking crime. This proposal makes a terrorism against men legal and proper, and causes authorities to enact it on behalf of women, who don’t even have to break a sweat, or indeed, even show up in court.

    It is a hateful little web document. A proposal for maiming innocent people and calling it ‘unfortunate, but worth it because the ends are good,’ and making no provision to even try to prevent it is hateful.

    Insignificantly, it also seems to suppose that men who can’t get it up don’t rape, but actually, raping people with objects is kinda popular, among rapists.

  222. Grafton April 1, 2010 at 11:48 PM #

    some of the solutions you suggest in your third paragraph, including monitoring and profiling children who appear at an early age to be “aberrant” sounds incredibly sinister, not to mention misguided, to me


  223. joy April 2, 2010 at 12:52 AM #

    Well, Grafton, I’ve seen you around the blog before, but here’s where I see your male privelege for the first time.

    Guess what. Boys and girls liked to get -me- alone at school and ”hurt me”, too.

    The girls spat in my face and lit my hair on fire, although they got in trouble for that.
    The boys hit me and called me a ”fat slut”, although I was neither. A bunch of them got me under the bleachers one time, and you don’t want to know what they did to me there. The main difference being, they never got in trouble.

    So, you think THAT’S okay? Given that I’m not a man?

    I’m only asking here.

  224. Grafton April 2, 2010 at 1:42 AM #

    Of course I don’t think that’s okay.

    (Whyever do you suppose that I would? Obviously, being male I have male privilege, but you seem to be saying that my maleness means I think injustice to women is somehow less bad than injustice to men, and I don’t think that and I don’t think I said it either.)

    And I would not, not as satire, not ‘to make you think’ not seriously, not at all, suggest that it is acceptable, much less a desirable ‘solution’ to enable people to further abuse you, even if it hypothetically fixed s0me problem that both of us agree is worse than you being abused and hurt.

  225. GXB April 2, 2010 at 1:52 AM #

    The post horrified me too until I realized (thanks to comments) it was a deliberate contrast to make us think, and I second the wish that you had made this clear, ND. But then, we really *should* be half so horrified by the status quo as it is for women, except even if you are you can’t maintain that everyday horror, you cope, get used to it. This post serves to remind us (me at least) of how awful it really is.

    Joy: wow, that–seriously, thank you for courageously sharing your pain once again, people need to know how real it all is. I just, well, don’t think it’s possible to compare the traumatic effects of sexual slurs+assault/rape with the traumatic effects of overloading+attack on an autistic person (both are huge, especially when repeated). I suppose Miss Andrist might correct me. (I’m overcommenting again, after a strenuous week, off to corner again now.)

  226. Grafton April 2, 2010 at 2:52 AM #

    I’m not sure that it’s meaningful to compare them. I didn’t mention that to compare it to anything. I meant only to demonstrate that being female doesn’t mean that a person is unable (or even all that unlikely) to hurt somebody for no reason but malice.

    As satire and deliberate contrast, the essay would actually if it didn’t pretend that women wouldn’t just abuse “Deuce’s Law” all the time, hideously curtailing men’s freedom and causing great numbers of innocent men to be maimed for petty reasons. This is significantly more analogous to rape culture.

  227. Grafton April 2, 2010 at 2:53 AM #

    I’m not sure that it’s meaningful to compare them. I didn’t mention that to compare it to anything. I meant only to demonstrate that being female doesn’t mean that a person is unable (or even all that unlikely) to hurt somebody for no reason but malice.

    As satire and deliberate contrast, the essay would actually work if it didn’t pretend that women wouldn’t just abuse “Deuce’s Law” all the time, hideously curtailing men’s freedom and causing great numbers of innocent men to be maimed for petty reasons. This is significantly more analogous to rape culture.

  228. GXB April 2, 2010 at 3:26 AM #

    Oops: “serves to remind us” probably sounds way more pompous than I intended, and also as if I’m claiming it is the reason ND posted this. Sorry.

  229. James April 2, 2010 at 6:14 AM #

    Joy – I’m sorry for how much you suffered. But your suffering doesn’t make Grafton’s treatment mean anything less, or allow you to dismiss his point with a cute structuralist catchphrase.

    What happened to you sounds terrible, what happens to him sounds terrible.

  230. Laurelin April 2, 2010 at 7:18 AM #

    Tim- I responded with hostility because you said some horribly hurtful things in your comment. I used humour because it is a shield.

    Please re-read your comment and consider why you have received ‘hostile’ responses, instead of launching a self-justification. Only you know what you *meant* by your words, but we all know what you *said*. Feel free to peruse my blog if that would help.

    Just don’t call me immature. Thing is, I’m really not. I wish I could afford to be immature. I don’t have that privilege.

  231. Saurs April 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM #

    But your suffering doesn’t make Grafton’s treatment mean anything less, or allow you to dismiss his point with a cute structuralist catchphrase.

    Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.

    Isn’t it helpful, joy, how James is thoughtfully “educating” you in sensitivity? Next time you won’t be so quick to compare your actual, lived experience of sexual abuse with Grafton’s flimsy hypothetical about being accused of rape. Now sit in the corner and think nice thoughts about men.

    Please refrain from quoting from my comments without further comment, Grafton, or affixing to parts of them points, as though snippets of my ideas support your opinions. We’re not on the same side of the argument here. Apart from that, unlike some of the anti-feminists on this thread, I’m not interested in (literal or figurative) point-scoring. Thanks.

  232. James April 2, 2010 at 12:23 PM #

    I wasn’t referring to his hypothetical.

  233. Saurs April 2, 2010 at 12:35 PM #

    Everything beyond his hypothetical is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    The fact that Grafton is autistic is irrelevant in a discussion about rape. The fact that children used to bully and abuse Grafton because he’s autistic is irrelevant in a discussion about rape. The only portion of his comment that kept on topic in this discussion about rape was his fear of being falsely accused of rape. Which is generally the only contribution any man ever makes to a discussion about rape — false accusations and lying bitches.* Grafton also, incidentally, has the habit of elsewhere discussing lying, conniving strippers he has known in his life. Hence, Grafton has a habit of making feminist discussions about himself, while reminding other commenters, surprise! women are sometimes unethical and act poorly. Why this is ever relevant, ever not a derailing tactic, remains to be seen.

    *I also have to wonder about men who are strident about false accusations of rape. Do they also form support groups for people who have been falsely accused of petty thievery, burglary, murder? Unless lying bitches are somehow involved or can be blamed, I sincerely doubt it.

  234. James April 2, 2010 at 12:41 PM #

    Because “sometimes” is often enough if you’re fucking with burden of proof.

  235. Grafton April 2, 2010 at 12:55 PM #

    Saurs, the “+1” is shorthand for ‘I agree and believe this is so well worthy of emphasis that it ought to be repeated.’ I was not making an attempt to say you supported my opinions, but rather was expressing my agreement with yours. It is not keeping score.

    I still don’t see why my hypothetical of being accused of rape, or my actual lived experience of being stalked and beaten is being compared to joy’s lived experience of sexual abuse. I didn’t say that to keep score either. That’s grotesque. One is not the other anyway.

    By calling my hypothetical ‘flimsy’ do you really mean to say, “Women who stalked Grafton, kicked Grafton, threw things at Grafton, slandered Grafton, encouraged men to beat Grafton and drove as if to hit Grafton with cars, would, of course, obviously, draw the line at telling the lie that he’d raped them! They’d never do that!”

    Damn, your faith, it is fucking touching. I imagine you figured that a man who sexually harasses women who are walking down the street would rape one if he got the chance (and you’re probably right) but women who spent years actively verbally harassing a man and trying to seriously injure or kill him would never tell lies about rape.

    Christ on a crutch, I expected someone would explain why most would understand 9-2’s essay as a ‘think peice’ and not a real proposal, and at the worst an argument for a particular form of consequentialism, not this absurdity. But whatever. It’s nice to know that the ‘sugar and spice and everything nice’ theory of gender difference still has a place in modern feminism.

  236. Grafton April 2, 2010 at 1:10 PM #

    Heh. Saurs, you misrepresent me. And that particular stripper. She did what she needed to do to get out. It was right of her to take that asshole’s car and I am pleased about it.

    The fact that women sometimes act unethically is dead fucking relevant when you are talking about a proposal to leave other people defenseless in the face of a woman’s accusation. It’s not important that it’s rape accusations. If you say that any woman may accuse any man of selling cocaine to her and he must prove that he did not do it while she need do nothing to prove her case, it creates a grotesquely uneven power dynamic and supports injustice.

    Back to rape, yes, it’s fucking terrorism and it creates a grotesquely uneven power dynamic that curtails the freedom of women and makes them live in fear and is unjust, but there is not a law that does this overtly and deliberately. It may be that the oversight is deliberately left in place, but that’s still not the same. And I, for one, am not saying that this injustice is okay. The original post says it would be okay, and a good idea to set up an unjust system that works against men.

  237. Saurs April 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM #

    It’s nice to know that the ’sugar and spice and everything nice’ theory of gender difference still has a place in modern feminism.

    Right. Pointing out that your hypothetical is based on a false premise — Deuce’s Law doesn’t exist! It’s a thought experiment! Dudes don’t have to worry about the harsh consequences of false accusations of rape in this reality because accusations of rape are rarely taken seriously, anyway, and can always be explained away! — is equivalent to claiming that women are incapable of behaving badly. Whatever, dude.

  238. Saurs April 2, 2010 at 1:55 PM #

    Also, dudes who lack reading comprehension, please continue to pretend that Nine Deuce didn’t introduce this post with the following paragraph, of which I’ve helpfully highlighted portions:

    Boy, was I conciliatory when I was younger. Either that or I was a realist. Or maybe I just wrote what I had to write to get an A. Whatever. I’m not conciliatory, realistic, or seeking a grade anymore, so I can now feel free to lay out a theoretical and hypothetical solution to the rape epidemic. If I had my choice, we’d do away with rape by changing our cultural attitudes toward gender, toward sex, toward power, toward everything, thereby creating a world in which rape could not possibly occur. That would most certainly be ideal, and I believe it’s possible, but I think it might take an awfully long time, and I’m ready for rape to stop right now. Rape and other forms of sexual violence are hate crimes and are among the most heinous manifestations of the misogyny that characterizes our culture. As such, eradicating rape, in my opinion, is one of the most pressing feminist issues. Our current laws are woefully ill-equipped to deal with rape, and I’ve devised a little thought experiment to illustrate that point and get people to thinking about possible solutions:

    You may now resume acting scandalized by Nine Deuce’s horrific, brutal, gleefully sadistic campaign to castrate innocent men.

  239. GXB April 2, 2010 at 1:57 PM #

    It’s odd, ND, reading the post over for the nth time: you specified this as a thought experiment, yet somehow I could not keep that in mind when reading the provisions of the hypothetical law. The idea is that it should work well when enforced on our rape culture(s), where it will be a force to level the playing field against all social expectations, right? I keep imagining Deuce’s Law applied in the absence of patriarchy, and then it would be horrifying. I guess that’s my sheltered-privilege showing.

    • Nine Deuce April 2, 2010 at 2:06 PM #

      It’s just supposed to serve as a foil for the current situation. As of now, we’re being asked to tolerate a system just about as horrifying as this one could be in the worst of circumstances.

  240. joy April 2, 2010 at 3:05 PM #

    Yeah, thanks for being sorry, folks, but that wasn’t what I was going for.
    I do use myself as an object lesson a lot, though — I wish I could make a sign to hang on myself that says, ”THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU RAPE YOUR CHILDREN.”

    Childhood molestation – leads to vulnerability towards adolescent sexual abuse – leads to adult tendency towards situations with abusive partners – leads to dissociation – leads to self-prostitution – leads to continued sexual dysfunction – and so on, in a huge loop.
    I had thought I was just super-awful as a human being and that I perpetrated my own abuse/was an unwitting masochist, until a counselor told me that it is an all too common behavioral pattern among former abused children and at least I was self-aware about it.

    Back to topic.
    Women fear getting raped. Men fear women accusing them of rape.
    Women get raped. The reality of many women’s lives is not unlike the vicious cycle I described above.
    How often, even under ND’s hypothetical law, do men get accused of rape? And on what downward spiral does this hypothetically lead them, and to where?

    Grafton, if these people really were out to get you, they could have accused you of rape NOW. I’m not trying to be an asshole, as you have clearly been through things and are also autistic, but … it seems you are overly worried about something that seems kinda … well …

    I don’t want to ”get hostile” with you because you seem like a decent fellow in most regards — but again, one of these things is not like the other. Rape, accusations of rape.

    Honestly, I take ND’s hypothetical situation very seriously and wish it was an actual law. It would be lovely to sit back in my nice rape-free, abuse-proof body and enjoy my civil rights while the other ”guy” suffered for a while.
    Ideally, no one should suffer, but perhaps we are beyond the point of utopia right now.

  241. Tim April 2, 2010 at 3:07 PM #

    I find it interesting that my statement regarding the restructuring of society to remove its patriarchal nature and to eliminate pornography of all forms was conveniently ignored to focus on the second part of my statement regarding those who are simply sociopathic. As you can see I did NOT say that rape was simply a psychological defect. But in some cases (certainly some of the worst and most prolific cases) there is a psychological component that could very possibly be identified beforehand and treated. But the statement I made first touched on the fact that our society is geared towards the acceptance of rape and therefore it is subconsciously (and consciously on some levels) encouraged. That is the most important step. Without it nothing else would be effective, including Deuce’s Law. And why are psychological tests when we have a firm grasp of the cause considered “sinister”? I said we need to do more research first so we know exactly what to look for. With the current level of technological advance I don’t think that is an impossible goal. I wasn’t suggesting some sort of witch hunt, nor was I suggesting that anyone falling under that category be simply done away with. Besides that, why is it any more sinister than the way society treats rape now?

    Apparently either nobody is actually reading what I’m saying or they are applying a preset mindset towards it due to the source. I have done my best to explain pretty succinctly what I was proposing, so I’m not sure what else I could do. I didn’t intend to offend anyone, nor deliberately hurt anyone’s feelings. I was just trying to take a logical and rational approach to dealing with the problem effectively, and trying to explain that while Deuce’s Law may seem good on the surface it does not address the fundamental cause of rape, which should be our focus. Also, as much as many of you may hate to hear this, the law contravenes too many basic rights and has too much of a chance of being abused under our current cultural mindset to have any chance of becoming a reality. I’m not trying to defend rapists, nor am I saying that Deuce’s Law would not reduce the amount of rapes, but there are better and more effective ways to deal with the problem and that is where our focus should lie.

    Again, to put it simply, if we eliminated the root cause of rape then Deuce’s Law would be unnecessary. Think of it this way: cannibalism is no longer a big problem in most cultures, so why can’t we do the same with rape?

    • Nine Deuce April 2, 2010 at 3:21 PM #

      Stop it with the patronizing “you ladies are so irrational” bullshit, Tim. State your case and leave out the passive aggressive wangery.

  242. Saurs April 2, 2010 at 3:47 PM #

    Tim, I’m not ignoring what you wrote. I addressed your main points and explained why I personally disagreed them. There’s no need to reiterate, because I got the gist of your case the first time.

  243. Grafton April 2, 2010 at 3:59 PM #

    Joy — I’m not really afraid of it. Nobody is going to accuse me of rape, because they’d have to support that claim and the claim is unsupportable. If ‘Deuce’s Law’ were real, they wouldn’t have to support the claim and I would have been dead a long time ago. What worries me is not the possibility of being accused of rape, but the suggestion that letting somebody destroy me on a whim would be okay.

    I know it says ‘thought experiment’ etc, but it reads to me like “Yeah, this would end rape, think about that!” not as “Here is an hypothetical injustice placed on men to illustrate how unjust the system is to women.”

    In reality, it is awfully hard to prove a negative, and this is probably very much the problem with rape trials. If the defense is, “It wasn’t really rape, she wanted it!” then the victim must prove a negative, that she did not consent. This is nigh impossible. It is also not something that is asked of victims of lesser crimes — you don’t hear thieves being taken seriously when they say, “Naw, he gave me that mountain bike.” The court would make them prove consent. If a rape defendant wants to use the “it was really consentual” defense he should have to prove consent. (And not with ‘she agreed before’ or ‘she was wearing…’ or ‘she flirted’ or other such BS.)

    But sheesh. If a rape defendant uses the “WTF, I was home alone all weekend watching Star Trek and making cheesecakes,” defense, the prosecution ought to at least have to prove that the guy was present at the scene of the rape.

  244. Grafton April 2, 2010 at 7:07 PM #

    Honestly, I take ND’s hypothetical situation very seriously and wish it was an actual law. It would be lovely to sit back in my nice rape-free, abuse-proof body and enjoy my civil rights while the other ”guy” suffered for a while.

    I sympathize with your feeling and wish you were indeed abuse-proof. But thinking about this statement for a bit I just feel ill. I am not entirely unfamiliar with the sensation of relief that accompanies escaping abuse because abusers happen to be targeting somebody else at the time. It’s not really a good feeling. I think I’d rather be under the bleachers getting hurt with you than slink on by feeling glad it’s not me. That’s a horrible place to be, and I’m sorry if you’re there, and angry at those who put you there.

  245. Faith April 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM #

    “Back to rape, yes, it’s fucking terrorism and it creates a grotesquely uneven power dynamic that curtails the freedom of women and makes them live in fear and is unjust, but there is not a law that does this overtly and deliberately.”


    I don’t know of any law still left in the U.S. that does this deliberately. But it very much used to be the case that the law absolutely did support certain forms of rape. Marital rape, for instance, was fully legal in the early ’90’s in the U.S. It is also still very much the case that certain forms of rape are still very much legal in other countries. And while I can’t support N.D’s option (although I’ve damn sure considered similar possibilities), it is very true that the legal system is still grossly skewed towards men when it comes to rape and sexual abuse…even if the law does not implicitly support the bullshit that judges and attorneys pull during a trail.

  246. joy April 3, 2010 at 11:41 AM #

    I meant ”worrying about” not in the sense that I think it’s haunting your regular thoughts or keeping you up at night, but rather in the sense that — these are the concerns you are airing? These?

    That in a hypothetical situation such as this, all you can think about is how someone who doesn’t like you could have -accused you of rape-?

    It’s still ringing hollow. I get it, in theory, I understand what you mean, but dude. Again. Fear of rape vs. fear of rape accusation. One of these things … not like the other.

    And again, as crass and brutal as it sounds — at this point, if someone HAS to suffer, and in this post-capitalist oligarchic patriarchy, it seems like someone has to suffer … I’d really just rather it not be me, or other women. Because we’ve been there, done that.

  247. Grafton April 3, 2010 at 7:01 PM #

    Joy —

    That in a hypothetical situation such as this, all you can think about is how someone who doesn’t like you could have -accused you of rape-?

    What am I supposed to think of? I am not airing concerns about rape. That’d be a different post. I am airing concerns about this post. I thought it was a proposal to create justice. I find that it does not, at all. The opposite — it is, in fact, a proposal to create a deliberate injustice.

    Justice does not consist of trading off on who gets to abuse whom. Certainly, yes, women have been abused far too long, but that doesn’t mean abusing somebody else will make the world better.

    (I can’t imagine how it could possibly be hard for men, or anyone, to stop being abusive. I think the culture just needs to stop making so much fucking effort to demean women, and stop raping them. I can’t fathom why this is supposed to be hard. Not raping people is a total snap. Leaving other people the fuck alone is the easiest thing in the world. But I am, of course, cognitively disabled and childishly naive. )

    I get it, in theory, I understand what you mean, but dude. Again. Fear of rape vs. fear of rape accusation. One of these things … not like the other.

    Why do you think I said that they were like each other? As far as I know, rape isn’t like anything. Probably the rapes you experienced aren’t even like the rapes that people I know have experienced.

    If you’ll read back, you’ll find that I haven’t compared rape to anything. I have been told that the original post is implicitly comparing rape (or men’s power to commit rape with impunity) to a hypothetical situation where women can maim men with impunity by accusing them of rape. This ‘reversal,’ I am told, is how this proposal is a ‘thought experiment’ that’s supposed to illustrate how bad the current situation is for women (ND wrote, “As of now, we’re being asked to tolerate a system just about as horrifying as this one could be in the worst of circumstances,” and previous, and etc. from various others.) Since rape isn’t like anything else I’m sure you can understand why I didn’t get the supposedly intended meaning of the post and in spite of this being said in various I still don’t fucking think it says that. Maybe I seem to have made that comparison, but if I did, it’s only because I was kinda trying to play along with what I was told the post really means. I did say it’s a crappy analogy.

  248. Grafton April 4, 2010 at 1:03 AM #

    Also, uh. “Fear of rape accusation” dismisses the consequences of the rape accusation in ND’s hypothetical. It’s fear of genital mutilation I’ve talked about. Which isn’t the same as the fear of rape either.

  249. Faith April 4, 2010 at 5:43 AM #

    “it’s fear of genital mutilation I’ve talked about. Which isn’t the same as the fear of rape either.”

    Rape can and often does involve serious trauma to a woman’s, or child’s, genitals. There are females who are left sterile as a result of being raped. For some women, the trauma done to their reproductive organs is so severe that they -die-.

    So, yea, “genital mutilation” is part of the fear of rape, Grafton.

  250. Grafton April 4, 2010 at 11:48 AM #

    Yes. Nevertheless, punishment-by-castration genital mutilation is not the same as rape, with or without serious genital injury.

  251. John K Fallwood April 4, 2010 at 11:59 AM #

    I am a 23-year old male. According to many surveys I am on the brink of getting less and less sexually active. I am not, however, because women have stolen it from me.

    Now, don’t think I am some sort of chauvinist. Because I am not. Neither am I ugly, nor stupid. I was a very intelligent child. I learned to read and write fluently at the age of 4, and I learned English when I was 6 years old (I’m from a completely different country than most of you). I’ve always gotten high grades with minimal studying and minimal work.

    When I was 8, I met my aunt for the first time. I loved my aunt, and I stayed over at her place at least twice a month during the weekends. When I had recently been bullied, I went to her house and cried out…

    On my 10th birthday, my aunt said she had a present waiting for me at her house. Naive as I was, I went over to her 2-story villa. She was very wealthy, and had two daughters. When I opened the door, I was instantly put to sleep with some sort of drug. She tied me up on her bed and went all the way. I was terribly scarred and ashamed, and I had no idea what had happened. It hurt a lot, and the fact that my aunt, who I had loved for so many years, had violated me was beyond my belief, and I refused to accept it.

    During my teenage years, I, much like other males in my age, was very sexually fixated. I had a girlfriend who I slept with every now and then, and that did it for me. I had not forgotten what had happened previously, though. You don’t forget being raped that easily.

    Well, my girlfriend was thinking that I was cheating on her, and decided to do the same thing back to me. So she called me up one Monday and asked me to come over. When I got to her house I saw her and one of my closest friends having intercourse in the living room. This was one of the hardest moments in my life. She had betrayed me, and it hurt so much that I did not show up in school for weeks. After she had found out the truth behind the rumors about me being unfaithful, she tried winning me back, but failed.

    Having a hard time accepting this, she went to her friends (one of them a very strong girl… 6′ tall and built like a man) and told them to make my life hell. The girls decided to go to my house a Friday after school and under the disguise of classmates got in. My mother also showed them to my room. As soon as my mother had closed the door, I asked them what they were here for. Their reply was “brace yourself”. The tall girl took out a pocket-knife and threatened to “cut my throat open” if I did not take off all my clothes. I hesitated at first, but realized that I was not in a position to refuse. They made me swallow erection pills and covered my mouth so that I would not be able to make any sound. I was raped for 3 hours, and it was brutal. They stroked my penis with the blade and also tried shaving my pubes. My genital area was a mess after this incident.

    A year later, I took it up with the police as well as taking up my aunt violating me, but neither case was ever brought up again, because a woman raping a man isn’t as usual as a man raping a woman, right? What was even worse was that three months ago I got a call from my lawyer, telling me that a girl had recently filed a lawsuit against me. “For what?” I asked. Rape. I, who have been abused sexually since the age of 10, was accused of raping a woman. The woman who filed the lawsuit was none other than my previous girlfriend.

    Do you think I deserve the punishment you brought up? I cannot prove myself innocent, because I have no alibi. Neither can she prove me guilty, but considering your logic, she doesn’t need to.

    Thanks for reading my story.

  252. Faith April 4, 2010 at 12:51 PM #

    “Yes. Nevertheless, punishment-by-castration genital mutilation is not the same as rape, with or without serious genital injury.”


    I think you missed my point. While they are not exactly the same thing, they are very similar in nature. Rapists rape because they want to punish women and females for simply existing or being female. They want to hurt us. They want to hurt our genitals. They want to hurt our bodies. In many cases, they do want to cause irreparable and devastating damage to the female body. In many cases, that is exactly what they do. So, yes, the fear that females have of being raped is quite similar to your fear of being castrated.

    What you are feeling right now is just a teeny, tiny, miniscule amount of the dread of having your body severely violated that women deal with every day. That is what every woman must live with. The knowledge that at any time a man could decide to do hideous damage to our genitals and the rest of our body. That you are so severely horrified by the prospect of having your genitals mutilated yet do not seem to fully acknowledge that women deal with that threat every day shows a great deal of privilege. And I suspect that was part of the point of this post: To show men what women deal with every damn day of the week…all over the world.

  253. joy April 4, 2010 at 1:16 PM #

    Oh, I dunno, John. Your tale was just so HEARTBREAKING, so here we go.

    Did I deserve to get molested by two different people before I was five years old? Did I deserve to have a bunch of adolescents wank onto my face because I was ”too ugly to rape”? Did I deserve to get raped my not one but two of my male friends, on two separate occasions?

    It sucks that you could go to jail for something -you say- you didn’t do (although rapists are notorious for not knowing, much less thinking and admitting, that they are rapists; the guy who fucked me when I was so drunk I couldn’t walk and was weeping and slurring, ”No, please, let’s wait until later” still claims he didn’t rape me, it was just ”bad sex”).
    It would suck if Grafton ever went to jail for something he didn’t do too.

    Hey, if it makes you feel better, right now, in real life, I might go to jail for something I didn’t do but can’t prove I didn’t do. It involves money, not sex, but it’s the same deal. And it would suck too.

    But it sucks to get raped. It really sucks to get raped. And NOBODY DESERVES THAT EITHER, you fucking wanker. So think about that for a little bit and crack out your empathy machine, if you will.

    It sucks for all of us. For some of us, it sucks in tangible ways. For example, even with counseling, I have intense PTSD flashbacks and often feel an overwhelming pull towards self-destructive situations and decisions. It’s gonna suck a little bit for me whenever I try to have sex with anyone, for the rest of my life, and I will never completely trust my body in any situation. Those are very real, very common effects of rape, especially child rape, upon the human psyche. It’s like I’m in jail because of something I didn’t do, except the sentence is life and the prison is my self.

    Let’s work towards making life not suck for anyone. Changing attitudes towards women would be a good start; it would change attitudes towards rape, therefore leading to less rape. That sounds great to me.

  254. Tim April 4, 2010 at 1:23 PM #

    Ok, Nine Deuce, why are you accusing me of saying “ladies are irrational” when I said no such thing? You don’t have to like me or what I am saying, but please do not be dishonest in your responses or make assumptions based on my position when it is obvious that you haven’t even listened to what I have been saying. A person can be irrational, and that includes women. There were men on here who supported the law as well, but I guess in your mind they are apparently women too. If you’re just going to assume that I hate women or think they are less important than men because I don’t think your law is going to help anyone (women or men) and is an unrealistic solution to a real problem, then please don’t bother replying. I already understand your position and I’m sure everyone else does as well. You seem to be hell-bent on finding a way to discredit me simply because I don’t think this law will solve the problem of rape. It doesn’t matter to you that I do think rape is one of the biggest (if not the worst) problems in our society. It doesn’t matter that my main point wasn’t that men would be falsely accused but rather that the law WILL NOT WORK IN OUR SOCIETY in its current state. It is just a false band-aid for society when real surgery is needed. It might even lead to LESS reporting of rape due to misplaced concern by the victims for the perpetrators since many rapes are committed by “friends” or acquaintances and family members. We already have that problem despite the relatively lax laws currently in place and the low conviction rates. Deuce’s Law sounds great in theory but does not hold up under scrutiny. I fully support the concept and feelings behind it but it is not the best or most realistic solution. You just have to look at the statistics in the US to see what I mean. We have the second largest ratio of prisoners to population in the world. Are we therefore the second safest country in the world? No, of course we aren’t. Punishment-based strategies, no matter how altruistic the motives, DO NOT WORK. My main goal isn’t to protect men from false accusation. My main goal is to offer a solution that will actually work in the real world.

    And to those who feel that this law would actually work, or has a chance in hell of becoming reality, or if it did that it doesn’t matter if innocent men got caught by this law, or think that ALL women would refrain from abuse of this law, please get real. The world doesn’t work that way. Why not put our energies into changing the fundamentals of society in a proactive and positive way? Deuce’s Law may reduce rape in theory, and as I said I agree with the sentiment behind it, but it won’t eliminate rape, it won’t eliminate corruption in the system, and it certainly has no hope of becoming reality under our current system. It is a dreamer’s solution to the problem, but it will not work in the real world until we change the real world. Wouldn’t elimination of rape in the first place be a better goal? After that you could enact Deuce’s Law but at that point it wouldn’t matter. It would be irrelevant because it would address a problem that, for all intents and purposes, would no longer exist. For better or worse, society in its current state is not going to accept Deuce’s Law.

    I would just like to say that I respect everyone here and would like to reintegrate that I meant no disrespect and did not intend to be hurtful with my words. This is a difficult and complex topic; I’m sure we can all agree with that. I may be a man but I have enough female friends and acquaintances to know just how widespread and damaging the crime of rape really is since it is rare to meet a woman who hasn’t been raped in one form or another. I have no love lost for those that commit rapes, and am in no way suggesting they be protected. I understand that false reporting is a miniscule fraction of reported cases, and it is not my primary goal to eliminate that. We have a society right now that encourages rape. We have a society that is still firmly patriarchal in nature despite the token advances made in the past century. Until we do something about those problems NO law will protect women fully. If you want to enact it after society has been altered then fine, but at that point it wouldn’t be necessary anyway. But I feel that to pour energy into something that will not eliminate the problem and has no chance of becoming reality is a waste of time and does feminism no favors in the end.

    Thank you for reading my opinion. I respect the fact that you may not agree with it, but I hope you have at least taken the time to analyze what I’ve said before jumping to conclusions. Its time to fix society from the ground up, and if we all do our part it is possible. It may seem like a utopian dream, but just remember that societies have changed before just as drastically, so history has shown it to be possible if we work hard enough.

  255. isme April 4, 2010 at 10:52 PM #

    Tim, I think you are still missing the point somewhat.


  1. On Rape « Patriarchal Load - July 5, 2008

    […] Deuce recently followed up with her own take on it, which kept the same basic premise but made the penalties more cruel and […]

  2. The 16th Carnival of the Radical Feminists « Gorgon Poisons - July 18, 2008

    […] Deuce again with How to End Rape: Deuce’s Law. If I had my choice, we’d do away with rape by changing our cultural attitudes toward gender, […]

  3. Rape and the Legal System - Imagining Equality « Bones Without a Sense of Direction - January 6, 2009

    […] there have already been some very serious, well-thought-out proposals by feminist bloggers about how to make the system work properly against rape. With […]

Comments are closed.