Eve Ensler thinks female rapists are "good", but Todd Akin is very bad ...

"In light of this vilified portrayal of heterosexual men, the simultaneous glorification of lesbianism in "The Vagina Monologues" is especially disconcerting. This point is not a moral judgment against homosexuality. Rather, it is an objection to such a misguided use of idealized lesbianism in a production that is intended to empower a movement of both genders to end sexual violence. Such an objection is most vividly epitomized in the narrative, "The Little Coochi Snorcher that Could."

In this episode, Eve Ensler's positive portrayal of the statutory rape of a drunken 16-year-old girl and survivor of sexual abuse (who was thirteen in the original version of the play) by a 24-year-old woman is inexcusable and contemptible beyond the confines of reason. The fact that a narrative based in glorified pedophilia is included in a performance intended to end sexual violence boggles my mind. Regardless of what Eve Ensler might say about the matter, there was no acceptable reason to include such hypocrisy and depravity in "The Vagina Monologues."

Beyond the blatant rape of a minor, the undertones of the "Coochi Snorcher" episode are manifestly hostile towards men and heterosexuality. At one point, the "beautiful and successful" older woman takes great delight in the virginal nature of the teenage girl, stating, "Your vagina, untouched by man, smells so nice, so fresh, wish I could keep it that way forever," and directs her tutelage to ensure that the girl would never have to "rely on a man" for sexual pleasure. Ensler did not have to include such a glaringly hostile characterization of men in her play, perhaps realizing that it would be detrimental to the reactions of otherwise supportive male viewers. Thus, by its very inclusion, this narrative can only be seen as a deliberate attack on the heterosexual male and an injurious detraction of the V-Day mission."

http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/article.php?date=2008-02-29&id=3&section=2

http://cathyyoung.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/feminist-male-hatred-and-the-vagina-monologues/

This is quite different from the authors mentioned. Not a fan, Ensler's hateful ideology drips from the material.

Fuck Akin, too.

[–]Froolow 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cthulufunk 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Froolow 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cthulufunk 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rottingchrist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lecks 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Irrel_M 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NWOslave 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gingor -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sob_ri_quet -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

How is rape after being drugged any less horrific? Please define for me which kind of rape you think is ok?

Is it the kind where I go on a date and kiss the guy when he leaves and he forces himself on me? That's fine right, because I was keen to kiss him? Or the kind where the elderly grandfather leads a little girl back to his place and tells her it's a game and she should relax and have fun? Or maybe it's the kind where it's my friend's dad, and I'm 12 years old, and the whole house is full and he tells me that if I scream he'll tell my mommy what I made him do?

How about the kind where I go out with some friends and someone decides that because my skirt is an inch too short I'm just gagging for it, and so when he drags me into an alley and fucks me while I'm screaming no, "I really meant yes"?

I'm so glad you and the rest of the people agreeing with the right wingers are so eminently qualified to tell me when I've been legitimately raped. I'll sleep so much better at night knowing that because my drink was spiked it doesn't count, or that if I get pregnant, that really it wasn't rape, because otherwise the "juices wouldn't flow".

These people are in positions of power. The statements that they make and the opinions that they hold are having an impact, because people like you allow them to. You give them credibility and think it's ok, because of those "feminists". Some people get it wrong, and make false accusations, but a) this kind of statement does nothing to correct that, and b) that does not mean that you or any other man or women gets to decide whether or not what someone else does to my body is ok. This kind of thing undermines EVERY single women's choices and rights.

You make me sick.

[–]mean0dean0 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]sob_ri_quet 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I understand that there are degrees of murder. I understand that there are (technically) different kinds of rape as well. However, ALL types of murder are illegal and legitimate. No one has ever suggested that because someone was killed in the heat of the moment that their death doesn't count.

I also don't see how rape can be unintentional. If someone rapes me because they were in the heat of the moment, or because they are a serial rapist it makes no difference to the end result.

It's not ok just because they felt like it at the time and now they are repentant.

Manslaughter is still a crime. The person committing the act of rape, if found guilty, may get a sentence that is graded based on the degree of violence or other factors, but the victim still experienced a LEGITIMATE rape.

I am not talking about the definitions of statutory rape (between e.g. a 16 year old and an 18 year old where both are willing etc.), or arguing that there should be no debate about those definitions and the consequences meted out by society. I'm also not talking about Woman-on-Man or vice versa definitions.

The comment made by Akin essentially suggests that if it was really rape, then the victims body won't allow her to become pregnant-so if she does, then her rape doesn't count. He is not contributing to an intelligent debate about legal definitions. He is being an uneducated asshole.

[–]mean0dean0 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

However, ALL types of murder are illegal and legitimate. No one has ever suggested that because someone was killed in the heat of the moment that their death doesn't count.

I think you're forgetting involuntary manslaughter here. Say you're walking down the street, looking at a pretty sunset, when suddenly you hit a jaywalker whom you couldn't see because of the glare. Did you mean to hit them? No. Should you be treated as somebody who willfully and pre-meditatively killed a random jaywalker? No.

I also don't see how rape can be unintentional.

Say you're at a party, and you're drunk. You have sex with someone else who is drunk. Neither of you can consent to sex, because you're both drunk. But both of you consent to sex. Which one of you is the rapist? Which one of you is the rape victim?
Say that you're with a partner for several years. You're a fan of sleepy sex, so oftentimes in the middle of the night one or the other of you will initiate sex with the other because it feels good. You initiate sex with your partner while sleepy, and the partner seems to enjoy it. Only later do you realize that the partner did not want to have sex, but did not stop you. Are you a rapist?
Say even further that you are with a partner who is controlling, and you love every minute of it. They are a dom, you are a sub, and being ordered to do humiliating, degrading sexual things gets you off. Your dom partner orders you to do something when you don't want to, but you love them, so you do the thing they ask even though it is against your wishes. Did they rape you? (Perhaps even more screwed up--did you like it that they raped you?)

The reason why intent is important in discussions of rape is because the range and fluidity of human sexuality needs to be taken into account when determining whether a crime has been perpetrated. (Notice how none of my scenarios above implies gender--gay and lesbian individuals report just as many rapes and sexual assaults, as well as domestic violence incidents, as straight couples.) A crime is different than an offending behavior--if you are offended by an action or a person, you can leave their company. A crime implies a violation of your will by another, and that usually has to be premeditated. To lump premeditated violation of another's will and/or body with unintentional mixed signals (or just plain drunkenness) is to make rape an illegible category. It would be like saying you were a murderer because a jaywalker walked out in front of your speeding car. You never intended to kill anyone, and had you known the person was there, you wouldn't have killed the jaywalker.

Manslaughter is still a crime.

Not necessarily. Defending oneself against an assault with a deadly weapon, getting into a vehicular accident, or being party to a work-related death are all technically manslaughter, but may not involve anything approaching malice aforethought, which is required for a criminal conviction in the US. Similarly, in my drunk example above, neither party is capable of consenting to sex because they are both drunk; technically, they would both be guilty of rape and also both be victims of rape, under a strict interpretation of the law. But because they both "consent" with their wills, and without malice aforethought, no crime has thus been perpetrated. Things certainly get hairy when one drunk partner accuses the other drunk partner of a crime; would that be like driving under the influence, guilty of a lesser version of the same crime?

The comment made by Akin essentially suggests that if it was really rape, then the victims body won't allow her to become pregnant-so if she does, then her rape doesn't count. He is not contributing to an intelligent debate about legal definitions. He is being an uneducated asshole.

You'll get no argument from me on this point--but when you go into pathos-laden invective about kiddie-fucking, short skirts, and what "we people" must by necessity think about you personally, it's hard to take you seriously. It kind of makes you an uneducated asshole for the other team, if you don't mind me saying. I'm trying to bring in some clear-headed debate to the discussion.

[–]sob_ri_quet 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Alright-fair enough. I have very little argument with any of the statements that you have made, and nor do I have any argument against engaging in a reasoned debate.

I'm not going to say that there are not instances when the issue of rape is a confusing one, or that scenarios like those you described above do not occur. They do, and clear-headed debate is welcome.

However, people seem to be confusing Akin's remarks-the man was not discussing rape legislation or intent or in fact engaging with any of the issues that people seem to be using as justification for his comments. Blind agreement, or agreement because "of what feminists are calling rape these days" does not help in any way-there is no accompanying explanation that "I agree with the assumed and unexpressed sentiment that rape is a confusing and contentious issue and the legislation should be carefully examined and worded" etc. There are just statements that appear to back him up, which in my opinion, only serve to worsen the situation, because they lend credibility to the remarks that were actually said.

My vitriolic response may make me an uneducated asshole for the other team, but I was not debating the legality of various rape definitions or scenarios, but rather responding to yet another person that does not seem to see the far reaching consequences of someone like Akin making these kind of statements, or their expressed agreement with him.

These are the kind of opinions that I am angry about, and that make me so very defensive: http://www.thevine.com.au/life/news/the-many-types-of-rape-as-defined-by-the-worlds-politicians-and-celebrities/

[–]sob_ri_quet 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mean0dean0 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not sure anybody actually believes in the credibility of the Republican party anymore. They just passed their most insane party platform a while ago, and it's ridiculous. Traditional conservatism (think Barry Goldwater) is dead, replaced by what I can only deem fundamentalist Christiofascism, like Islamofascism in the Middle East. Not only do Republican leaders no longer need to listen to reason anymore, they don't need to listen to anyone; their particular brand of crazy, like any cult, has achieved critical mass, and no matter what they say, some group of crazies out there will believe it and support them. Therefore, they have no impetus to contain or restrain their crazy--in fact, the further they go down the rabbit hole, the more they "differentiate" themselves from the other party. I'm of the mind that they actually want to make themselves look crazy, like Saudis building a whole town for women to live in so that men don't drive themselves crazy just being around women. That level of crazy approaches clarity--the clarity of paranoid schizophrenics and madmen, but clarity nonetheless. There's no reasoning with them; there's no benefit to fighting them (which just legitimizes their victimology and empowers further insanity in response); the only way to combat such crazy is to refuse to follow the same path--to privilege evidence, rational discussion, and basic common sense (in the idea of sensus--perception, and commun, shared, communal--the ability to see through another's eyes, and recognize another's viewpoints as inherently valid) over dead doctrine, vitriolic dogma, and fear-mongering. We can't control what Akin or any of the other idiots in this new Conservacult believe; but we can control what we believe, and we must not reduce ourselves to playing their game, lest we become what we hate.

[–]sob_ri_quet 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gingor -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Eve Ensler thinks female rapists are "good", but Todd Akin is very bad ...
Author	AnthonyZarat
Upvotes	33
Comments	41
Date	August 22, 2012 6:18 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/yneeh/eve_ensler_thinks_female_rapists_are_good_but/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/eve-ensler-thinks-female-rapists-are-good-but-todd.1015258 https://theredarchive.com/post/1015258

Comments