Advice columnist: Trump raped me in a fitting room

[QuickSilver]

@Scylla

Is it that the sins uncovered by MeToo might have their origin in the sexual revolution?

What does that even mean? Do you actually know? Or, as in true JP fashion, his rhetoric is meant to inspire listeners to interpret whatever they are inclined to hear? A sort of dog whistle only certain men can hear.

@Scylla

Is it that he says you can’t separate sex from emotion or power?

I don’t find this problematic.

@Scylla

What?

You’ve worked quite hard at avoiding commenting on what I already quoted he said:

“What are women? We don’t know!” - JP

Is that a serious question? Are we expected to believe him when he says men simply don’t know what to make of women anymore? That they have, almost overnight, become some sort of new and inscrutable species?

How is that dangerous? Well, for one it gives predatory men a veil of (im)plausible deniability as to their actions. They can claim - disingenuously - that they suddenly can’t understand what women want (ever since they got on the pill, apparently) and therefore can’t be held responsible for their bad actions towards them.

If you say to me: But QS, that’s a silly argument! I would agree. But I’m not the one saying these absurd things. JP is.

[Scylla]

@Czarcasm

I believe I mentioned taking into mind the difference between the time of the reported incidence and the time of its reveal, but all of your suggestions ignore this.

I referred you to the list I wrote. It is on the list. It’s not ignored. Recap; the length of time on this case would make it much much harder to reasonably prove. That does not mean we lower the standards of proof.

Security footage is probably gone, witnesses unfindable. Forensic evidence gone. We don’t have a good approximation for the date, even. If the reporting were contemporaneous we might be able to get some of these things. The fact that we probably can’t Doesn’t change the standards of proof.

edited to add: Wishful thinking? Are you actually suggesting that some of us wish she had been raped just to put the screws to Trump?

No. The incident either happened, or didn’t. You are not causing her to be raped by believing she was, and not saving her by believing she wasn’t. There are no consequences to your belief or disbelief. Therefore you are free to be influenced by your predispositions to believe what you want. The phrase I should have used was confirmation bias.

[Scylla]

@iiandyiiii

This would appear to conflict with your earlier assertions that you believe Carroll is lying.

Whee, I made an inconsistency, and you caught it.

[Czarcasm]

@Scylla

I referred you to the list I wrote. It is on the list. It’s not ignored. Recap; the length of time on this case would make it much much harder to reasonably prove. That does not mean we lower the standards of proof.

Security footage is probably gone, witnesses unfindable. Forensic evidence gone. We don’t have a good approximation for the date, even. If the reporting were contemporaneous we might be able to get some of these things. The fact that we probably can’t Doesn’t change the standards of proof.

Wouldn’t it be easier to say something like “Given the delay in reporting nothing would convince me”?

Also: Whee?? That is a major inconsistency on your part. Do you just not care about that?

[Scylla]

@QuickSilver

What does that even mean? Do you actually know? Or, as in true JP fashion, his rhetoric is meant to inspire listeners to interpret whatever they are inclined to hear? A sort of dog whistle only certain men can hear.

I think it means that the easing of sexual mores made it much easier for predators to operate. Seems pretty straightforward to me. What do you think it means?

You’ve worked quite hard at avoiding commenting on what I already quoted he said:

“What are women? We don’t know!” - JP

Is that a serious question? Are we expected to believe him when he says men simply don’t know what to make of women anymore? That they have, almost overnight, become some sort of new and inscrutable species?

I think he is engaging in a bit of hyperbole to suggest that the advent of birth control gave such a radical and hitherto unknown freedom to women that their new potential roles bore so little resemblance to their past ones as to be unrecognizable. Hence “what are they?” That seems pretty clear and straightforward from context. The women he was talking to seemed to understand. I understood right away, and honestly couldn’t and still can’t figure out what you are getting at.

How is that dangerous? Well, for one it gives predatory men a veil of (im)plausible deniability as to their actions. They can claim - disingenuously - that they suddenly can’t understand what women want (ever since they got on the pill, apparently) and therefore can’t be held responsible for their bad actions towards them.

If you say to me: But QS, that’s a silly argument! I would agree. But I’m not the one saying these absurd things. JP is.

Oh jeez. Let me get this straight. JP says that nobody knew what women were (meaning their new potential and roles,) because of birth control and the sexual revolution and you think he is creating a retroactive defense for predators who can claim something like “I did not know that was a women. I don’t know their new roles. How was I supposed to know I shouldn’t rape it?”
Really?

That is a bizarre hypothesis.

[Scylla]

@Czarcasm

Wouldn’t it be easier to say something like “Given the delay in reporting nothing would convince me”?

No.

Also: Whee?? That is a major inconsistency on your part. Do you just not care about that?

Apparently not.

Do you have something interesting to say or ask me? Some idea worth discussing?

If not, forgive me if I move on.

[elucidator]

@Scylla

…He makes a strong case for what I call the “meat puppet thesis.” Which is that we’re just a bundle of preprogrammed behaviors that thinks it is making choices…

Aside:

Sapolsky! cried my son, the Err Apparent! Sapolsky! Set aside your tiresome lectures on history, Ancient of Daze, and receive the light of Sapolsky! I harrumphed, that’s what Dad’s do, we harrumph.

“Sell me” I parried.

“Evolutionary neurobiology!” he replied.

Sold!

YouTube publishes a series of Stanford lectures, and it includes a series of twenty odd lectures from Sapolsky, building a breathtaking expanse of evolutionary science as regards to how us monkeys think. Amygdala! Medulla! Medusa! (Wait, this is no time to get stoned…)

His research does indeed offer a lot of support to a dismally conservative worldview. Indeed, he goes into the instinctual basis for competition, as reflecting the “tournament” form of sexual selection, for instance.

But he also outlines the instinctual basis for cooperation within groups. The conflicts that naturally arise from such contradiction is settled by the neuro-Supreme Court, located in the frontal lobes. (Which may not be the capstone of human evolution, but I think so anyway…) In a word doomed to be overused, emergence.

Sapolsky lectures at a college level, a good solid workout and probably better than fish as brain food. But enthusiastically recommended as a worthy successor to Steven Jay Gould. Go, and drink deeply, then go back, and drink again.

(Read the books, too, but the lectures are denser, stout mead for intellects of the first water, like ours.)
[/rave]

[elucidator]

nm

[elucidator]

nm

[Scylla]

I had a gummy bear in Vegas once that Did something similar to me.

[Czarcasm]

@Scylla

No.

Apparently not.

Do you have something interesting to say or ask me? Some idea worth discussing?

If not, forgive me if I move on.

Please do.

[QuickSilver]

@Scylla

I think it means that the easing of sexual mores made it much easier for predators to operate. Seems pretty straightforward to me. What do you think it means?

I think he is engaging in a bit of hyperbole to suggest that the advent of birth control gave such a radical and hitherto unknown freedom to women that their new potential roles bore so little resemblance to their past ones as to be unrecognizable. Hence “what are they?” That seems pretty clear and straightforward from context. The women he was talking to seemed to understand. I understood right away, and honestly couldn’t and still can’t figure out what you are getting at.

Oh jeez. Let me get this straight. JP says that nobody knew what women were (meaning their new potential and roles,) because of birth control and the sexual revolution and you think he is creating a retroactive defense for predators who can claim something like “I did not know that was a women. I don’t know their new roles. How was I supposed to know I shouldn’t rape it?”
Really?

That is a bizarre hypothesis.

I think we’re two people separated by different world view and a common language.

[Scylla]

@QuickSilver

I think we’re two people separated by different world view and a common language.

Yes, but just for shits and giggles let’s see if we can’t determine if one of us is being reasonable, so let’s review. You said JP was do pernicious in his worldview that you were disappointed I would even paraphrase one of his arguments (contaminated by perniciousness, I guess.)

I asked what he had said that so terrible as to disqualify his entire body of work, and you suggested that he was somewhat weaselly. Having searched the entire web for the most damning piece of evidence of harmful and dangerous arguments that you could find, you came back with this video as the best example of perniciousness that you could find.

This was a video so damning in its odiousness, that I legitimately could not figure out what you found objectionable. When you pointed it out it looked to me like you had engaged in a rather tortuous twisting of his words to try to impute some meaning that was somehow nefarious.

But I still couldn’t figure out what it was that bothered you, unless of course you think that he was being literal when he said that nobody knew what woman were in the wake of the sexual revolution. “Hey Jake is that a fork?” “No, Fred, it’s a woman.” “Well shit Jake, who can tell? Let’s just rape it.” Or something like that.

You pointed out that our two world views were different for reconciliation or something.
So what I did was looked at the video you linked to which has been watched 1.3 million times. It has been liked 22,000 times and disliked 800. There are 2,599 comments or so. I scrolled through most of them. I could not find a single comment that even remotely resembled your sentiments. The average comment says something like “that was a nice smart interview and I liked the interviewer but she looks like the lady who designs the costumes in The Incredibles.

For comparison, some cat videos get a worse like/dislike ratio, and most of them have nastier comments.

For a YouTube video you would be hard pressed to find s more mild reaction.

And this mind you is the worst thing he said that you could find to show me.

Yeah, I would say your worldview is a bit different.
I other news, Raven withers beneath my blistering mastery of gender relations as seen through the Breakfast Club.
elucidator is tripping balls on behavioral neurologists.

Last and least Czarcasm and Iandy are convinced they have me dead to rights for contradicting myself by pretending to be ignorant of the concept of homonyms of “believe.”
Good thread.
Thanks everyone!

F

[Banquet_Bear]

@Scylla

Yes, but just for shits and giggles let’s see if we can’t determine if one of us is being reasonable, so let’s review. You said JP was do pernicious in his worldview that you were disappointed I would even paraphrase one of his arguments (contaminated by perniciousness, I guess.)

I asked what he had said that so terrible as to disqualify his entire body of work, and you suggested that he was somewhat weaselly. Having searched the entire web for the most damning piece of evidence of harmful and dangerous arguments that you could find, you came back with this video as the best example of perniciousness that you could find.

This was a video so damning in its odiousness, that I legitimately could not figure out what you found objectionable. When you pointed it out it looked to me like you had engaged in a rather tortuous twisting of his words to try to impute some meaning that was somehow nefarious.

But I still couldn’t figure out what it was that bothered you, unless of course you think that he was being literal when he said that nobody knew what woman were in the wake of the sexual revolution. “Hey Jake is that a fork?” “No, Fred, it’s a woman.” “Well shit Jake, who can tell? Let’s just rape it.” Or something like that.

You pointed out that our two world views were different for reconciliation or something.
So what I did was looked at the video you linked to which has been watched 1.3 million times. It has been liked 22,000 times and disliked 800. There are 2,599 comments or so. I scrolled through most of them. I could not find a single comment that even remotely resembled your sentiments. The average comment says something like “that was a nice smart interview and I liked the interviewer but she looks like the lady who designs the costumes in The Incredibles.

For comparison, some cat videos get a worse like/dislike ratio, and most of them have nastier comments.

For a YouTube video you would be hard pressed to find s more mild reaction.

And this mind you is the worst thing he said that you could find to show me.

Yeah, I would say your worldview is a bit different.
I other news, Raven withers beneath my blistering mastery of gender relations as seen through the Breakfast Club.
elucidator is tripping balls on behavioral neurologists.

Last and least Czarcasm and Iandy are convinced they have me dead to rights for contradicting myself by pretending to be ignorant of the concept of homonyms of “believe.”
Good thread.
Thanks everyone!

F

…can anybody parse what Scylla is trying to actually say here, and how it relates to the OP? 1.3 million views on youtube? Psy has acouple more viewsthan that…does that make him inherently more trustworthy as a cite for something completely out-of-his expertise?

[Czarcasm]

Well, he sure told us off.

Back to the subject-Back when the rape was reported to have happened, I don’t believe there was the public support for rape victims that exists today(which in my opinion still isn’t half as powerful and supportive as it needs to be), so if it boiled down to “he said vs. she said” the female would, more often then not, be labeled at the very least as “promiscuous”…which allowed others to place at least partial blame on her. She was in the wrong place. She wore the wrong clothes. She said the wrong things to the wrong people. Any excuse to put as much of the blame on her as was possible.
And the male equivalent of “promiscuous”, a word that shames a man for being sexually forward, adventurous, or horny? There isn’t one.

[iiandyiiii]

@Czarcasm

Well, he sure told us off.

Back to the subject-Back when the rape was reported to have happened, I don’t believe there was the public support for rape victims that exists today(which in my opinion still isn’t half as powerful and supportive as it needs to be), so if it boiled down to “he said vs. she said” the female would, more often then not, be labeled at the very least as “promiscuous”…which allowed others to place at least partial blame on her. She was in the wrong place. She wore the wrong clothes. She said the wrong things to the wrong people. Any excuse to put as much of the blame on her as was possible.
And the male equivalent of “promiscuous”, a word that shames a man for being sexually forward, adventurous, or horny? There isn’t one.

There was also the widespread (and incorrect) belief, which unfortunately is still held today by folks like Scylla, that rape is about desiring sex, such that men who could easily get consensual partners would never rape, and that men would never rape someone they don’t find sexually attractive.

[Scylla]

@Czarcasm

Well, he sure told us off.

Back to the subject-Back when the rape was reported to have happened, I don’t believe there was the public support for rape victims that exists today(which in my opinion still isn’t half as powerful and supportive as it needs to be), so if it boiled down to “he said vs. she said” the female would, more often then not, be labeled at the very least as “promiscuous”…which allowed others to place at least partial blame on her. She was in the wrong place. She wore the wrong clothes. She said the wrong things to the wrong people. Any excuse to put as much of the blame on her…

I know, right? The Central Park 5, they were portrayed as just some boys out having some fun, right?

Brawley got no support, none whatsoever, nothing in the news, no one believing her.

I bet you could find dozens and dozens examples of news stories from ye olden day’s of the 1980s blaming the victim for getting raped.

[Scylla]

@iiandyiiii

There was also the widespread (and incorrect) belief, which unfortunately is still held today by folks like Scylla, that rape is about desiring sex, such that men who could easily get consensual partners would never rape, and that men would never rape someone they don’t find sexually attractive.

You should ask me about my beliefs and quote me rather than falsely attributing to me viewpoints I don’t hold. The context from which you have falsely derived this misattribution is from when earlier you said that rape had nothing to do with sex and I replied incredulously, “nothing? Really? Are you sure?” Or words to that effect. This is not a sound basis for you to take this false, evil and insulting viewpoint and attribute it to me. Doing so is pretty vile.

Perhaps I should not expect better from somebody who claims he went to rape school in suburban NOLA, but I do.

[iiandyiiii]

@Scylla

You should ask me about my beliefs and quote me rather than falsely attributing to me viewpoints I don’t hold. The context from which you have falsely derived this misattribution is from when earlier you said that rape had nothing to do with sex and I replied incredulously, “nothing? Really? Are you sure?” Or words to that effect. This is not a sound basis for you to take this false, evil and insulting viewpoint and attribute it to me. Doing so is pretty vile.

Perhaps I should not expect better from somebody who claims he went to rape school in suburban NOLA, but I do.

If I was wrong about your opinion, I’ll gladly apologize. If you don’t believe this things about rape, and no longer believe that “not being his type” (according to Trump) tells us anything about whether or not Carroll’s account is accurate, then good for you and my apologies.

[Scylla]

@Scylla

I know, right? The Central Park 5, they were portrayed as just some boys out having some fun, right?

Brawley got no support, none whatsoever, nothing in the news, no one believing her.

I bet you could find dozens and dozens examples of news stories from ye olden day’s of the 1980s blaming the victim for getting raped.

To be clear: Blaming the victim is wrong. It does happen. It happens now, it happened in the 1980s.

The purpose of my sarcasm is to suggest that the idea that we are so much more evolved and better in our attitudes toward rape than we were in the 1980s is bullshit. It seems to me that it is about the same as it was then. We are not better now. If anything, I think we are worse. The advent of the internet has allowed us as a society to fragment into groups of like minds, and reinforce our thinking. Victim blamers have an easier time finding a sympathetic community. This plays out not just with rape but with a lot of fringe and toxic thought. It is the unfortunate consequence of the greater good the internet has created in giving minorities a voice. Some of those minority viewpoints really suck.

The end result is, I think, that if anything we have gone backwards, not forwards.