My conversation with a female rape apologist

**TW for minimizing female-on-male rape, description of non-consent by perpetrator, and denial of realities of rape**

I didn’t think I’d ever end up having to have this conversation with anyone on my FB. But it happened. not only was the OP already not a good thing, implying that women sexually forcing themselves on men isn’t rape because erect and ejaculating penises are involved; a few comments down a woman joins with a comment describing a situation in which she proceeded to sexually touch a man despite lack of positive signals and some negative non-verbal signals, using the word rape in scarequotes. It didn’t get any better from there:
screenshot of a facebook conversation (transcript at bottom of post)
I should have left that conversation at that point (well, I should have left when I said I would). I didn’t, and it went on and got worse; at one point, she decided to interpret my second-to-last comment visible above as me asking a rape victim out of the blue whether they orgasmed during their rape, and tried to accuse me of being turned on by other people’s rapes (and when I corrected the admittedly badly phrased comment to say I meant I had listened to survivors talk about this, she accused me of lying). I did finally leave (and I’m sure the thread is still going on) after being told “Go find a rape victim to drill. Pun intended”.

I don’t know why I’m posting this, other than I guess to document this surreal experience. Because seriously, WTF.

– – – – – – – – – –

Person1: I still suffer a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance over the use of the term “rape” for the act of a woman forcing a grown man to have sex with her — with him becoming aroused, having intercourse and reaching orgasm.
To most young men, tales of the situation probably provoke laughter more than empathy. I have to wonder if that doesn’t cheapen the word.
That it happens, and that the men it happens to are emotionally affected, I have few doubts. But we definitely need some different terminology.

Person2: That is part of the difficulty in men reporting rape. No one believes them.

Person2: I don’t know of a better word for it. Sex without consent.

Jade Hawk: sex without consent is rape. doesn’t matter whether it’s men raping women or women raping men, it’s still rape. it’s the violation of bodily autonomy. Why should we not use the correct term for it?

Jade Hawk: oh and btw, the thing about arousal and orgasms is a common denialist trope targeted at women; because sometimes women, when they’re raped, have orgasms. That doesn’t make it not rape.
Same thing applies to men: eliciting a physical reaction from your nether parts does not constitute consent.

Person3: Yeah, I agree that it’s still rape. It is basically the same violation, even if viewed differently by most men.

Person4: I “raped” my ex at the time. We had just broken up and I was devastated. We rested in bed together after a long fight, sort of cuddling but very cautiously so. I started touching his hair and skin. Trying to be romantic, trying love and change the course. He didn’t move or respond at all.
I somehow found myself giving him.head. he told me I shouldn’t and didn’t respond much other then a moan… half pleasure, half. “Stop it.” He came really hard and curled up in a ball. Moments later he cuddled me tighter and asked why he can’t ever say no to me. The power I felt was very strong and feminine, and very erotic. We stayed apart for about another year, occasionally sleeping together. I brought it up a few months later unsure if I.should feel guilty. He said at the time it felt good but.he didn’t want it, but at present it didn’t bother him. The conversation a segway for some sex and roleplay.
It was wrong of me to ignore his signs even if he didn’t explicitly day no, but we’re back together now and to this day his oral rape is a fond and sexy memory for both of us. It’s the only.time I’ve done that.

Person4:file that more under poor decision making.than.actual rape.. that’s what.he meant when he said I shouldn’t.
And I.don’t.know about ant of you but I have been made very sexually uncomfortable by men and women alike. I.can’t imagine anyone, male or female being relaxed enough to orgasm during a sexual assault. Ever.

Jade Hawk: your failure to imagine something doesn’t constitute a fact or even a valid argument

Person4: I didn’t say it did. I’m speaking personally. Jeez.

Jade Hawk no, “i can’t imagine anyone” is not speaking personally, it’s projecting.
I’m done with this. rape apologia is more than I can deal with today

Person4: No. Its saying.that infant imagine something.

Person4: I can’t

Person4: And who are you to say I condone or sympathize with rape or rapiats?
Because I’m not so much of an animal that even if I’m emotionally distraught if someone touches my.junk I cant help but be turned on? Earth is not some hentai film. We are not ruled by sexual urges.

Person4: We don’t.scream in pleasure during rape. We.scream blue.girl or.some.shit. crazy woman.

Jade Hawk: victims of rape who experience involuntary orgasms are animals ruled by their sexual urges?
“yeah, you’re totes not a rape apologist. and ableist, to boot

Person4: There is no such involuntary orgasm. Orgasms are a result.of.sexual pleasure.

Person4: She needs that simple. If it were that easy to.orgasm then.women.wouldn’t complain that they can’t.relax enough in bed to

Jade Hawk: ypou’re a rape apologist and science denialist:

Person4: Jade implying a rape victim enjoys her rape enough to.orgasm is fucking offensive as hell.

Person4: Yup’re a cunt. There. All your feminist dreams about me.have.come.true.
Now.why don’ if.she.came or not. Insensitive Fuck. Shit .

Jade Hawk I have that’s how I know that this happens. Denialist asshole

Person4: Wow. That’s really insensitive. And your link directed me to a page about pesticides…

Jade Hawk you’re right. me listening to rape victims is super insensitive. [/sarc]
also, if a link to sciencedirect gives you a page on pesitcides, you have a virus problem


A rape culture link roundup

Despite evidence for rape, police forces raped teen to take back her accusation; her rapists then goes on to rape other women: Police allow serial rapist to continue predating after charging teen for falsely reporting rape

Teen who was impregnated during rape is being slutshamed by her neighbors: Indiana Town Shames Rape Victim, Speculates About Her ‘Promiscuous Behavior’

A victim of rape recounts her attempts of dealing with the trauma,and how she was doubted by both counselors and doctors and ended up being re-victimized over and over by her university: An Account Of Sexual Assault At Amherst College

Female workers in South Korea exhausted by constant vigilance against sexual aggression and harassment: Sexual harassment in Korea: 24 hours on constant lookout tire women

Allen West and Michael Savage have decided that sexual assault in the military isn’t actually a problem because of redefinitions of “sexual assault” to include invitations for beer; and anyway, these women are probably just making it up anyway. As far as West and Savage are concerned, this is just an attempt by the “Khmer Rouge Feminists” to “take over the military” in a “coup”: Fox’s Allen West Uses Military Sexual Assault Epidemic To Attack Democrats And Decry Women In Combat Units

Forbes is lying about a study to promote AGW denialism

So there’s this Op/Ed piece titled “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis” in Forbes right now. It refers to this paper in Organizational Studies, a journal largely focusing on the sociology of organizations.

The Op/Ed piece is blatantly lying about the paper.

Let’s start with the title. For one, the paper is not a survey. Surveys are quantitative, and therefore strive for large and representative samples; this paper was a qualitative study, with a sample selected on the basis of usefulness to the topic, not because it’s representative. Secondly, the author of that Op/Ed piece, James Taylor, claims that a “majority of scientists” is skeptical of AGW. Except that the paper doesn’t study “scientists”; it studies “professional experts in petroleum and related industries”*, and refers to them collectively as “professionals”, not “scientists” like Taylor does. Plus, right in the introduction the paper explains that “there is a broad consensus among climate scientists” about AGW being real. Which is not a group of scientists the paper studies, because its focus is not what the scientists doing research on climate issues conclude from their research. The abstract of the paper (emphases mine):

This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

In the paper the authors state the purpose of the paper as follows:

Our aim is to examine the construction and disputation of expertise in a contested issue field and the consequences this has for the mobilization for or against regulation.


How do professional experts frame the reality of climate change and themselves as experts, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?

It’s a sociology paper; about social construction of “expertise” on AGW which justifies in the minds of professionals “defensive institutional work, i.e., the maintenance of institutions against disruptions” caused by demands for climate-action. It wouldn’t make sense to study research scientists in climatology for this.
Plus, studying specifically professionals working for oil companies and oil-related industries (in Alberta, no less!) is going to severely skew the proportion of professionals studied who are denialists. Which the authors of the study are quite upfront about**, but which Taylor completely ignores in favor of claims like:

the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

Taylor then quotes parts of the paper where the oil-industry professionals are classified into 5 groups of positions about AGW. Mostly the quotes are ok, but they are trimmed to look less like the “social construction of climate change” categories that they actually are in the paper.

Lastly, Taylor takes a swipe at the authors of the paper (where he once again calls it a survey. dude, no.) for being “alarmists”, because they use accurate terms (“deniers”, etc.); he then claims that because of the obvious pro-AGW-bias of the authors, “alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’”. Which is silly, since of course the study is connected to the denial machine; it’s about the denial machine, sampling a group of people who have every reason in the world to deny that their institution (the oil industry) is fucking with the climate.

And then another blatant lie:

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists.

Again, this is neither a survey, nor does it study scientists. It confirms that among climate scientists, there is a consensus that AGW is real and a problem. But these folks are not the subject of the study; it’s a study about denialist self-rationalization, so of course it’s full of deniers. Also, it’s of course not “bureaucrats” that publish consensus reports on AGW; unlike the subjects of this study, the IPCC is actually a body of actual climate scientists doing actual research on our climate.

The Forbes article concludes thusly:

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

1)”hard surveys of scientists”, my ass. 2)1/3 of people even within the oil industry agreeing that AGW is a thing and a serious problem, plus another 17% basically answering “I don’t know, and neither do you” cannot in any way be construed as a “consensus” against AGW even among the group studied.

Lastly, and slightly OT, I’ll also note that the denialist goalposts have moved so thoroughly that even in the oil industry, “virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing”. Now it’s all about whether to do anything about it.

The paper itself is quite interesting, since the concepts they’re analyzing apply to other debates about what is or isn’t scientific and who is or isn’t a legitimate authority on any given topic is relevant to many other areas***, especially where “defensive institutional work” is being done****. Really though, the most amazing thing about it is that a paper examining the ways in which denialists frame their denialism by defining experts as those who agree with them in order to justify defensive responses to attacks on the oil industry ends up being used to define experts (i.e. “scientists”) in such a way that it agrees with denialists and justifies their defensive, anti-regulatory reactions. It’s so very meta.
– – – – – – – –
* specifically, members of The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA); no research scientists.
**they definitely don’t claim they have a representative sample of “scientists” or “experts on AGW”, since that’s not the point of the study. Quite the opposite, since this is not a quantitative study, but one using qualitative methodology. They’re not interested in how many people believe what, but in the content and diversity of these positions and the methods of justifying them.
**(examples: defining Rebecca Watson as an illegitimate authority in skepticism, because she has a communications degree rather than a science degree; shifting boundaries of what is or isn’t True ScienceTM to exclude many social sciences; hyperskepticism; etc.
****any claim of “you’re harming The Movement”, and “I like this community the way it is, stop trying to change it”, ever.