I need to rage against this asshole and his comments on rape

[lyssbobiss, Command, B613]

So there's this blogger, Matt Walsh, and he is a smug little fuck.  I was reading one of his articles on divorce that was copied and pasted on SO, and saw that he had a new post about rape culture.

"Miss Nevada, as you may have heard, recently made an extraordinarily controversial remark about the sexual assault epidemic on college campuses. Shocking liberal feminists everywhere, she cruelly and maliciously encouraged young women to protect themselves and practice self-defense.

The nerve of that woman.

I mentioned something on Twitter about all of this absurdity, and I’ve now spent the last day or so fielding helpful emails informing me why self-defense is not an acceptable way to curb rape. I agree, of course, that it isn’t the only solution. I just disagree with the idea that anything at all can be accomplished by writing ‘Don’t Rape’ on a sign and posting it in the hallway.

But I’m told my understanding of the issue is woefully shallow and one-dimensional. Here’s one message from a woman who tried to set me straight:

“Matt, I don’t blame you for misunderstanding the rape epidemic. You’ve never had to live through it so you can’t be expected to really get it. Rape is not just something that happens in dark alleys. There isn’t always a scary stranger with a knife or a gun involved. Sexual assaults on college campuses frequently happen when women go out to parties to have a good time, have some drinks, and wake up the next morning to find out that they had sex the night before. These women are every bit the victims of rape. They were too intoxicated to consent (or maybe they were passed out completely) and the man took advantage. Rapes on college campuses usually happen in this environment. The woman CAN’T defend herself. She’s barely even conscience [sic]. This is where MEN have to be taught that it’s only OK to have sex with a woman when she can consent. She CAN’T consent when she’s too inebriated to even know which way is up. ”

I’ve heard this line of reasoning quite a bit. Anti-rape activists have gone to great lengths to illustrate and define the precise moment when a drunk person passes the threshold from drunk-person-consenting-to-sex to drunk-person-unable-to-consent-to-sex-even-if-they-consent-to-sex.

Safer Campus (Students Active For Ending Rape) tried to spell this out on their website, explaining that there is a “spectrum of intoxication” and that consent must not only be affirmative, but “enthusiastic.”

Most rational people understand and agree that it is definitely rape when a conscious person decides to have sex with an unconscious person, but now we’re calling something rape if it doesn’t have the appropriate level of enthusiasm?

An article on the Huffington Post takes it a step further. In bold italics it exclaims: “Drunk people cannot give consent.” By this logic, of course, all drunk sex is rape. Only this particular article, like most articles on the subject, places the ‘rapist’ label squarely on the shoulders of the man.

The obvious question: if both are drunk, and both are unable to consent, but then both have sex, why is the man the only rapist in the transaction?

And if drunk consent is not consent, then what is consent? You might tell me that consent is affirmative, enthusiastic, and sober, but how do you account for the other exigent circumstances that might lead someone to give sober, affirmative, enthusiastic consent despite their internal hesitations?

What about the woman who has sex with her boyfriend because she believes (perhaps accurately) that he’ll leave if she doesn’t? What about the man who has sex with a woman, thinking that this will be the beginning of a long and meaningful relationship, only to find out that he’s just a rebound from her last fling? What about the woman who goes out looking for sex with a man, but only to fill the void left inside her after years of abuse and abandonment at home? What about the man who has sex with a woman because he believes it will make her love him, or the woman who has sex with a man under the same mistaken belief? What about the woman who is guilted into sex? What about the man having sex with a woman who only wants him for his money? What about a person, man or woman, who has sex with any other person, but wouldn’t have done it had they known the other’s intentions and motivations?

Are these people all victims of rape? They are either consenting under duress or consenting to a particular kind of sex, or to sex for a certain reason, not realizing that the other person has different designs. All of these people end up feeling lost, confused, hurt, broken.

If drunk sex is rape, then these must fit the bill as well. They are all quite different from the image of a woman being physically attacked and manhandled by a violent assailant, but under the broader definition of rape, these examples (and many more) must be included.

And maybe they should be. Maybe rape is even more common than the most radical progressive feminist could possibly imagine.

Or maybe it doesn’t matter what word you use to describe it. There’s something wrong with it. It isn’t good. It isn’t healthy. We can all see that.



We seem to realize that it can be hazardous when men and women get together in frat houses and dorm rooms and purposefully drink until their judgment is several stages beyond impaired. We seem to realize that sex in the ‘hookup culture’ comes with a lot of heartache and regret. Despite our best efforts to pretend otherwise, we know that sex is something serious and profound. It’s also joyful and pleasurable, but in a way much deeper than the joy and pleasure you derive from playing video games or watching NetFlix.

We know that sex should be treated with a certain level of respect, only we’re afraid to fully embrace what that means. We know that the hypersexual environment on a college campus is extremely problematic, only we refuse to really inspect the problem.

The only rule, the only standard, that we’re allowed to place on sex these days is ‘consent.’ But we find that ‘consent’ is not enough. A woman can consent on some level and still be left feeling used and exploited. That’s not her imagination. She was used and exploited. And contrary to popular belief, men can and often do feel the same way after a one night ‘hook up.’

There was consent, at least to some degree, but it wasn’t enough. Consent is not enough. Telling a man to ‘get consent’ before he has sex is not enough. If he is to have sex with a woman, and have it in a way that respects her humanity and protects her dignity and his own, he needs to look for more than permission. If we really want to stop the hurt and pain that many of these people feel — whether you want to call them rape victims or not — we must have the courage to deal with all of the dimensions of sex.

“Do what you want, as long as you have consent.” This is not good enough. This is not a code to live by; it’s a compromise, half-baked and watered down. If this is all we teach our kids when it comes to sexuality, we can be sure that they will still wield sex like a weapon. They will still be predators. They might get their consent, or they might not, but the results will often be the same either way.

If we really want to fight rape, if we really want to protect our kids, if we really want to beat back the ‘rape culture,’ then we have to come up with a standard that goes beyond consent. We have to introduce some other guidelines: love, commitment, marriage, openness to life.

There is no grey area here. If your sex is an act of love and commitment; and if it is taking place within sacrament of marriage; and if both parties are prepared to embrace the life that may very well be created as a result of the act, then you can be sure that no rape is happening. You can be sure that there will be no regret. You can be sure that the sex is healthy and beautiful.

Now, that isn’t to say that rape can’t happen in marriage. But if ALL of these parameters are met — especially the first one, love – then we need not call in a team of scientists to formulate a precise consent-spectrum. Rape is never an act of love and commitment. Therefore, sex that is both loving and committed is never rape.

I don’t know much, but I know that.

So why isn’t this our message? Rather than fight over the exact equation whereby a person can determine whether their nameless inebriated partner is consenting consensually or consenting non-consensually, why don’t we make it easier on both of them? If you do not love this person, and if you are not committed to them, and if you are not married, then don’t have sex with them.

Simple.

I believe anyone who says they want to fight against rape. It’s a worthy cause, and I certainly am not looking to discourage anyone from joining the struggle. But I think many of them are too invested in their progressive hedonistic dogma to take these convictions to their logical conclusions. They want to ‘end rape,’ but then they make sure to stipulate: “Hey, it’s still totally cool to go out, get plastered, and hook up with random strangers! Give yourself to people who have no regard for you, and treat them with no regard in return! It’s all good! You’ll have a blast! Just make sure to get consent!”

That last sentence loses much of its weight when contrasted against the first part of the message, doesn’t it? Your ‘consent’ speech is futile if it isn’t grounded in anything. If we tell men that it’s OK to use women like they’re nothing more than masturbatory aides — and that is indeed all that’s happening in the hook-up culture – then we will end up with men who do just that.

I don’t mock or deride anyone who urges men (and women) to ‘get consent,’ but many of them would mock and deride me for urging people to have sex only with the one they love. It doesn’t make sense. I am talking about a standard that always includes consent, but then goes beyond it and reaches for something even better. The ‘get consent’ crowd asks only for the bare minimum, and then rejects those who come up with a strategy that more effectively achieves their desired results.

The fight against rape has to involve more than some paltry little sermon about consent. We need to use words like ‘love’ and ‘commitment’ and ‘marriage.’ This won’t end rape entirely, but it’s the only message that will make a difference.

A long time ago St. Augustine said: “Love, and do what you will.” If you want a slogan that will teach people not to rape, that’s it. And it’s certainly more powerful than today’s version: “Get consent, and have sex with whoever.”



I'm so fucking annoyed with this dude.  First of all, don't "otherize" yourself from "anti-rape activists."  If you don't align yourself with someone who is actively anti-rape, I don't want to know you.  You are part of the problem.

Also, yes.  Consent needs to be enthusiastic.  Who wants to have sex with a partner who is all "I guess we can do it?"

I'm irritated that he thinks that if I consent to a hook-up, or a one night stand, I'm just allowing myself to be a masturbatory aid for a man.  Maybe that's my fetish.  Maybe I'm using him.  Maybe it's a symbiotic relationship where we use each other for a night.  Who cares.  Rape is about violence, not sex.  He seems to have forgotten that fact.

I'm pissed because I know people who take what he says as gospel, and this is all perpetuating the problem.

[secretlyevil]

It is exhausting fighting against this mentality on a daily basis.

[pixy0stix]

Stop reading Matt Walsh. All he does is write click bait.

[wrathofkuus]

This fucking guy again. Why does this kid even have a forum for his privileged, youthful drivel, let alone an audience?

[sushi]

Reading Matt Walsh is your #1 problem, not the bile he spews

[pixy0stix]

Jun 13, 2014 11:43:02 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

This fucking guy again. Why does this kid even have a forum for his privileged, youthful drivel, let alone an audience?

Because he writes shit like this that gets people all mad, (or they love it cause they're assholes) and it gets passed around since everyone just has to respond to give their 2 cents. I've come to the point where I don't even read the post if it's Matt Walsh. I do.not.care. what he says. 

[wrathofkuus]

I always forget who he is, because he has just about the most generic white guy name ever, and then I open the thread and am sorry.

[pixy0stix]

Jun 13, 2014 11:59:02 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

I always forget who he is, because he has just about the most generic white guy name ever, and then I open the thread and am sorry.

That's because he IS the most generic white guy peckerhead out there. Proof:

[blink]

I guess rape didn't happen before the sexual revolution. Hmm, that's good to know.

[IIOY]

Jun 13, 2014 11:59:02 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

I always forget who he is, because he has just about the most generic white guy name ever, and then I open the thread and am sorry.

LOL

[decemberwedding07]

Jun 13, 2014 11:37:56 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Stop reading Matt Walsh. All he does is write click bait.

Yes. And I'm willing to bet that 90% of the conversations he claims to have had never happened, especially those that supposedly took place in target when he was spotted by fans.

[decemberwedding07]

And after his rant about divorce, I kind of hope he gets divorced.

[lyssbobiss, Command, B613]

I have friends who will repost his stuff on FB and talk about how much they love him, and I click the links and always regret it.

[jeaniebueller]

Hate this guy.

[wrathofkuus]

Jun 13, 2014 12:17:57 GMT -5 decemberwedding07 said:

Jun 13, 2014 11:37:56 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Stop reading Matt Walsh. All he does is write click bait.

Yes. And I'm willing to bet that 90% of the conversations he claims to have had never happened, especially those that supposedly took place in target when he was spotted by fans.

How on earth did they spot him? He is indistinguishable from 80% of twentysomething white guys. I swear I just passed about ten of him walking back from lunch.

[decemberwedding07]

Jun 13, 2014 13:36:41 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Jun 13, 2014 12:17:57 GMT -5 decemberwedding07 said:

Yes. And I'm willing to bet that 90% of the conversations he claims to have had never happened, especially those that supposedly took place in target when he was spotted by fans.

How on earth did they spot him? He is indistinguishable from 80% of twentysomething white guys. I swear I just passed about ten of him walking back from lunch.

The answer is that they didn't. He makes stuff up to suit his story line.