Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..

We're not meant to be addressing each other.

The point was that, as a concept, this philosophy certainly exists. I'm uncertain how it jives with elements of classical culture, excepting in certain cases. Where do we draw its boundaries? Are we postulating a Venn diagram in order to identify and combat it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's Rush Limbaugh... he's an idiot on the scale of Peter Griffin. For that matter, why hasn't he moved to Costa Rica yet, like he said he would do if "Obamacare" was passed?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I dont know if he knew who he was shootin or not... but in any case... ther bein no immediate threat an shootin anyway shoud get him in a big heap of trouble.!!!

 

I thought the same about shooting someone behind a locked door, though I imagine he said something along the lines that he didn't check the door latch. The judge made the point that he generally wasn't truthful.

I've heard that such misogyny is a significant cultural aspect down there. Sorry to those there not like that, who get a bad rap from the ones who treat women badly.

 

Prolly lots of misogyny is religious based in other countries... here... it often seems to be sports based... but in the end i guess it mostly comes down to money/power.!!!

 

This and That

Oh, you hadn't heard?

Q: Why did the chicken not cross the road?

A: Because the dirty-scoundrel Mexicans in Costa Rica° have what "may be one of Latin America's longest-standing state-run programs".​

Besides, he has another year to fulfill his promise. He said five years; it's been four.

• • •​

Honestly, Geoff, the second sentence in there? Just like you might prefer a bit more precise a definition of rape culture, the phrase "how it jives with elements of classical culture" is a bit vague.

However, consider two differences:

• The difference between intention and outcome.

• The difference between blindness and sight.​

On a parallel track, I sometimes make a joke about social conservatives in the United States, that they are a self-perpetuating bunch expressing certain concerns and values, but then support public policy that augments the circumstances leading to those concerns while actually making those values harder to fulfill.

It's like that bit I sometimes do about Pam Stenzel, the abstinence educator who will not simply admit, but actually boast that her abstinence education platform isn't about what works, but, rather, is about getting her ticket to Heaven punched.

But think about the ways in which many social conservative neighbors raise their own stumbling blocks.

My American generation remembers the scandals of unmarried cohabitation; there was even a pop song from 1976°° about a guy looking forward to his girlfriend moving in with him. Yet across the board, for a time, social conservatives pretty much uniformly supported not just social policies encouraging more unplanned pregnancies and unmarried births, but also economic policies that actually encouraged cohabitation; a one-bedroom place with one's lover is less expensive than a two-bedroom place with anyone else. And listen to them today as many tout the great societal benefits of lower labor compensation benefits. A Revolutionary question you and I might acknowledge is whether or not a worker can, on wages and benefits accrued from full-time labor, afford to live independently within the community he or she works. Such a question is not on social conservatives radar; it may not be anywhere in their lexicon. They've never crafted a sound bite addressing the relationship, and as you know, conservatives in general are quick to ward off such questions by crying wolf commie.

In the question of rape culture, the same thing happens. One need not contest the Wikipedia definition, though it's hardly a consideration on par with some of the more objective results of the natural sciences; social sciences are tricky that way.

But consider that, while rape culture, manifests variably according to broader cultural diversity, its components are generally consistent. Psychologically speaking, the difference between Simon Lokodo and Uganda's post-Christian misogyny and homophobia to the one and what we see in many Islamic communities around the world is like the difference between two shades of purple, and how much of it one puts on the house; in the end, they're still "houses", as such. That is, it's a difference of manner and degree, not one of fundamental components.

And while the difference between, say, Alaska and the Daa'ish°°° seems pretty obvious, it really is mostly a matter of degrees.

But look what happens when our American way forbids the sort of religious extremism that we might find in, say, the Old Testament. Not only do we not cut off the hand that offends, we're way past poisoning our wives on suspicion of adultery or simply not sparing the rod. In the question of American prosperity versus Christian piety, God lost. Still, though, some relics remain.

So think of those basic societal values and virtues. Sometimes those sympathetic to the fact that women are human beings will crack a joke about the "Guardians of Female Chastity", and we do so because despite the political façades about family values, it really has been, historically speaking, about reserving masculine privilege.

A functional result is observable: We disdain rape, domestic violence, unplanned pregnancy, and other aspects of sexual conduct, all in the name of protecting women's virtue. Yet at the same time, we adopt public policies that create, maintain, or augment circumstances in which these outcomes find augmented likelihood.

Still, though, the fact that a behavior exists does not mean that it is deliberate. Hell is paved with good intentions; we know this much already. But consider that this is also why some of us are mortified by allegedly "Christian" virtues teaching eight year-old girls submission to sex roles. There comes a point at which the question of accidental outcomes is entirely irrelevant to the public policy discussion; much like we might not send a criminal to prison if his or her mental capacity demands psychiatric institutionalizaiton, the thing is that there comes a point when cognitive dysfunction is simply dangerous to the community.

Rape culture is an example of mass dysfunction transcending to danger. In this context, rape culture, which is properly neither culture nor subculture, but, rather, a prevailing cultural influence, is comprised of a number of presuppositions forming fundamental components that justify, aid and abet, or encourage sexual abuse of other people. Generally speaking, rape culture targets women predominately.

Look at what happened in Rotherham. Or what's going on in Tanana. You're seeing rape culture in its full, inglorious display. Remember the Cook Islands debacle several years ago? Perhaps high school football in Ohio?

Look at the American "conservative" arguments surrounding women and human rights:

• Reduced sex education.

• Entrenched, unbalanced societal roles according to sex.

• Reduced contraception access.

• No abortions.

• Slut-shaming.

• Cynical regard for reports of sexual harassment and abuse, including attempted justification of rape, harassment, and other violence.​

Colloquially, yes, it does always come down to dirty old men finding excuses to fuck little girls. More appropriately stated, of course it's more complicated than that, but, to the other, neither is it significantly removed from that general arc.

In some places, women and girls cannot expect the help of law enforcement; females learn to expect to be raped. And therein lies another quirk of rape culture: If resignation moves a woman to not protest and simply submit, then it isn't really rape, or so the idea goes. And that's the whole point; the Guardians of Female Chastity are essentially trying to reserve that chastity unto their own privilege.

It's a complete, neurotic clusterdiddle. These are all symptoms of deeper, more complex psychological dysfunctions. And here's the thing about normalcy: One of the criteria for elevating a problematic behavior to mental illness is whether it disrupts or inhibits to a significant degree normal social relations. But normal is also a statistical baseline. Therefore, if rape culture or some other damaging behavior represents statistical normalcy, then we are simply erasing rape by saying it isn't really rape.

It's not supposed to make sense in any real context; rather, it is a question of how it makes sense to those advocates of rape culture.

And think about it. Of course it's a hard phrase. Very few would appreciate being defined as such. But, as with so many other contradictions between label and behavior, neither are they prepared to renounce the behaviors that lead to the label.

One of the more controversial identifications of rape culture I've suggested in recent months is the degree to which Infinite Prevention Advocates have established a tacit outer boundary to their rape prevention advice: Nothing that might tell women to consider the IPAs potential rapists.

That is to say, as I've noted before, that the stuff about shoes and mobile phones and haircuts and clothes addresses a tiny fraction of rapes, and is touted as "common sense", while obvious prevention techniques that would address the vast majority of rapes is off the table.

Start with the idea that one makes himself a "potential rapist" in acknowledging that approach; people generally don't like indicting themselves. But think about why the obvious prevention techniques addressing over seventy percent of reported male on female rapes is off the table: Segregation of the sexes represents a tremendous disruption and denigration of everyone's quality of life.

However, therein lies the problem with the "common sense" techniques to guard against the statistical outliers: Infinite Prevention Advocacy only denigrates women's quality of life. Additionally, it distracts from the real statistical threat. All in all, it's a convenient outcome for male IPAs: Suspect everyone, but remember, #NotAllMen, so don't suspect me. Consider some of the prevention advice women receive: Don't let a man pour you a drink. Statistically speaking, that should be: Don't let any man you know, including your husband or male intimate partner, pour you a drink. Self-indictment hurts feelings.

If it was deliberate, it would be evil.

For the most part, it's merely symptomatic of psychological dysfunction, but this is a dangerous psychological dysfunction. So, yes, much like the psychiatrically deviant criminal may not be morally culpable for a crime, we acknowledge the danger they present and quarantine them from the general public. Indeed, this is so routine that we can now style perpetual sentences that continue after the statutory sentence has passed. Out here in the Evergreen State, when a male RL3 offender finishes his prison term, barring extraordinary circumstances we pack him off to McNeil Island; if you ever saw Three Fugitives with Nolte and Cage, that prison.

But it's not like we can confine rape culture advocates to psychiatric facilities. Indeed, over the long run we need to simply shatter rape culture and grind its broken shards into dust. But we also need to quarantine it away from the public policy discourse, so that we can figure out how to break it. It's dangerous, and the more influence it wins in society, and the longer it goes on, the worse the situation will get.

Of course, for many of these advocates, that's okay with them, because it's all women's fault, anyway.

When you are looking at rape culture, you are seeing an intersection of two paradigmatic truths:

It is a Freudian theorem that each individual neurosis is not static but dynamic. It is a historical process with its own internal logic. Because of the basically unsatisfactory nature of the neurotic compromise, tension between the repressed and repressing factors persists and produces a constant series of new symptom-formations. And the series of symptom-formations is not a shapeless series of mere changes; it exhibits a regressive pattern, which Freud calls the slow return of the repressed, "It is a law of neurotic diseases that these obsessive acts serve the impulse more and more and come nearer and nearer the original and forbidden act." The doctrine of the universal neurosis of mankind, if we take it seriously, therefore compels us to entertain the hypothesis that the pattern of history exhibits a dialectic not hitherto recognized by historians, the dialectic of neurosis.

―Norman O. Brown​

† † †​

The members of all communities, including nations and whole civilisations, are infused with the prevailing ideologies of those communities. These, in turn, create attitudes of mind which include certain capacities and equally positively exclude others.

The ideologies may be so ancient, so deep-seated or so subtle that they are not identified as such by the people at large. In this case they are often discerned only through a method of challenging them, asking questions about them or by comparing them with other communities.

Such challenge, description, or questioning, often the questioning of assumptions, is what frequently enables a culture or a number of people from that culture to think in ways that have been closed to most of their fellows.

―Emir Ali Khan​

Those who attend politics according to its history and psychology have witnessed an incredible return of the repressed, as social conservatives obsessed with issues of sex and sexuality have fallen spectacularly from grace; looking back at some of Ted Haggard's anti-gay sermons, come on, it should have been obvious. And the menagerie on parade? Airport bathrooms? Rentboys to lift his luggage? Wandering the Appalachian Trail in Argentina? As with Elliot Spitzer and the high-end hookers, the problem isn't the fact that their behavior shows that they're human, but the hypocrisy of screwing with other people's lives like that when hiding your own similar sins. It's the slow return of the repressed.

And as social conservatives have started losing on fronts they have traditionally expected to win—e.g., the Gay Fray—they do seem to be cracking up at least a little. This whole thing about contraception is insane. FOX News lining up women to justify sexual harassment is political theatre to the point of red-light circus.

There is an idea called "Puritan Pornography", that gets its name from recollections of the old Anti-Catholic League. The ACL would distribute all manner of grotesque propaganda, including the occasional review of Catholic sexual perversion; the Puritan Pornography idea is that this behavior had the effect of allowing immersion in both in sexual perversion and self-righteous, properly Protestant moral indignation. I cannot stress to you enough how hilarious it was, in 1992, when the ridiculously-thick Oregon Voter's Guide came out (ha!), and among the myriad arguments about Measure 9, to institute state-sponsored discrimination against homosexuals, was a bit from a guy named Phillip Ramsdell, who basically ejaculated a list of sexual perversions homosexuals might engage in. The thing was that everything on the list was perfectly accessible to heterosexuals, and it's pretty damn apparent that plenty of heterosexuals take part in things like rimjobs, urophilia, coprophilia, and bondage. Indeed, the most he probably accomplished with that was to give some of his fellow prudes some ideas for spicing up their own intimate relations with their properly submissive wives. One of my favorite political moments, ever.

There is a powerfully influential set of ideas in our culture that would, in the name of empowering women (according to twenty-first century marketing gimmicks) see their educational, economic, and self-governing potentials deliberately constricted by force of law, leading to severe denigrations of women's quality of life. One of the symptoms within those outcomes is, indeed, rape culture. It's not necessarily that these people are specifically, explicitly evil, but, rather, that they really do seem somehow inhibited from recognizing the demonstrable outcomes of the policies they advocate.

And it is true, nobody ought to appreciate being called a misogynist or rape advocate or whatever else. But neither should we restrain ourselves, for the sake of these advocates feelings, from calling the behavior by its name.

And what we have going on in Alaska, for instance, is a flaming, emblematic example of the rape culture in effect. They're not explicitly calculating these outcomes, but they also so resent the self-indictment of recognizing what they have created that it's going to require dragging that demon kicking and roaring into the sunlight and compelling those who participate in the processes resulting in the rape culture outcome to look at what they're protecting.

And look at how binary it is. There is no question among them, "How can we achieve these values in our society without these particular negative effects?" And while there is a good chance they are exactly correct, it would seem the problem is that they have already surrendered to the notion that we simply can't achieve that outcome according to the present human condition. So what we end up with is insistence on policy outcomes that empower and augment rape culture and other misogynies, that in turn simply cannot accept the outcomes it brings.

It's a downward spiral. And if it was an individual, there would be no question of calling it out. Even if it was a large group, there really isn't much question of calling it out. But when that large group includes oneself, a person often, even predictably, will have trouble acknowledging it, even more so calling it out.

How much more do we owe these advocates?
____________________

Notes:

° Begging your pardon; it's just an old joke from my own life. I once had necessity of pointing out that the "Mexicans" a friend was complaining about at her work—because them Mexicans jus' shouldn't act like everyone else 'cause that jus' shows y'how lazy them Mexicans really are—weren't all from Mexico. Punch line? She nodded and explained, "We have Cuban Mexicans, too." No, really; there was so much wrong with that conversation, and then came the "Cuban Mexicans" line.

°° For four years, a graphical footnote on my mother's television reminded me the other day, Styx was the most popular band in the United States among 14-25 year-olds; approximately junior-high to college graduate, or, the target market of rock and roll). "Lorelei", the über-cheesy wunderhit, emerged at the beginning of that period:

Her eyes become of Paradise, she softly speaks my name. She brightens every lonely night, no one's quite the same. She calls me on the telephone, she says be there by eight. Tonight's the night she's moving in, it's time to celebrate!

"The way she moves, oooh-ooh-oooh! I gotta say, 'Lorelei let's live together ....'"​

°°° I learned something yesterday, that the 'i' in Daa'ish is almost entirely sublimated. I had started using the word because (A) it is the word the locals in the theatre use, and (B) it's quicker to type and say than any of the Islamic State variants. There is, also, something of a joke going on in some Middle Eastern Islamic communities that has to do with the way the phrase is written; I actually think of the saba for mackerel joke. But for American purposes, the word can be pronounced "Dash", or, more appropriately, "Dâsh".

Works Cited:

Przybyla, Heidi and Eric Sabo. "Limbaugh Embraces Costa Rica Socialized Medicine". Bloomberg. March 16, 2010. Bloomberg.com. September 13, 2014. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=as29boo9FyVQ

Brown, Norman O. Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytic Meaning of History. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1959.

Khan, Emir Ali. "Sufi Activity". Sufi Thought and Action. Ed. Idries Shah. London: Octagon Press, 1990.

Luciano, Michael. "Fox News Host On Cat-Calling: 'Let Men Be Men'". The Daily Banter. August 29, 2014. TheDailyBanter.com. September 13, 2014. http://thedailybanter.com/2014/08/fox-news-women-on-cat-calling-let-men-be-men/

 

Why so much focus on the NFL anyway? They did more than the judicial system that simply let Rice go. Rice didn't have to do anything but attend diversionary program and with no criminal record as of today he remains clean.


Court documents state that Rice, "did attempt to cause significant bodily injury to Janay Palmer, and/or did purposely or knowingly cause significant bodily injury to Janay Palmer and/or under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, did recklessly cause significant bodily injury to Janay Palmer."

And yet nothing?

The NFL was only his employer, its the judicial system that dropped the ball on Rice.

 

But... but... this is 'Murica! We do "morbid" well!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And finally...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh... wait... that's morbidly obese... well, still morbid.

(note - despite my attempt at jest, I agree wholeheartedly - how advocating that ASSAULT AND BATTERY is wrong is somehow "feminizing" the game escapes me entirely)

 

There is something I don't understand, that maybe someone can explain to me. The Obama Administration is having a hard time saying the word "war" when it comes to dealing with the terrorist army call ISIL. The ISIL army have tanks, cannons, missiles and kill people, but this is not a war, if we confront this. Yet the same people, like Obama, have no problem saying there is a "war against women", even though there are no tanks, cannons or missiles being used. Did liberalism commandeer the word war to create confusion in their clueless base?

If you are a Muslim male, who hates the evil west and cuts peoples head off, this is not war. But if you are a western male who is not with the program of liberal propaganda, that means you are waging war against women? Who buys into that?

Women like men to lie to them, with the term war on women an exaggeration that makes them feel skinny and important. But if you are a terrorist or freedom fighter, war can't be waged against you, since this is what american men do and only this is so evil to be called war. Women may not have received the right to vote, until recently, because too many women, but not all, are easy to lie to, impacting social common sense. Eve may eat of this bull, but it is up to Adam to take a step back and think before selling you mind to the lowest bidder.

 

White House - “The U.S. is at war with ISIL in the same way the U.S. is at war with al Qaeda."

A swing and a miss by our resident Obama-hater!

 

Long Time Comin' ... Too Long, In Fact

There is a notion in these United States called Due Process.

Without cooperation from the victim, getting Rice to plead and enter a diversionary program was probably the best course they had. For Rice's part, pleading out and entering the diversionary program was clearly the best available course, as fighting it out in court guaranteed the public would become acutely aware of the understatement. This is just "the way the system works", regardless of how we feel about it.

The NFL faces two primary questions:

(1) Did they really know the details months ago?

(2) Did the NFL only increase the penalty because the public saw?​

As evidence mounts suggesting that the answer to the first is, "Yes", the second question becomes more acute: If the NFL already knew, and only increased the penalty because the public was aware of the severity of the act, then it is not so much a question of dropping the ball, but, rather, aiding and abetting.

This issue has been pressing on professional sports leagues for several years, now; the current arc seems to have been sparked by Michael Vick's conviction, imprisonment, and initial lifetime ban from the NFL. Aditi Kinkhabwala° the NFL from Sports Illustrated, and Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Bianchi kindled a fire, and Aditi Kinkhabwala of Sports Illustrated scorched the NFL from a second front:

If only Michael Vick had been arrested for abusing women instead of dogs.

He'd still be on the football field today.

He'd still have the love and adoration of his fans.

And, yes, he'd still have his Nike deal.

Such is the shame of professional sports.

Dogs are treated with more respect than women.

(Bianchi)​

† † †​

Albert Belle, Dante Bichette, Chili Davis. Jose Canseco, Pedro Astacio, Wil Cordero, Julio Lugo and on and on it goes. There are arrests, charges, convictions and pleas. Some domestic battery, some domestic abuse, a whole lot ignored. For a decade now studies have showed us that male athletes have a greater propensity for violent behavior than men who don't play sports. Studies have also shown that male athletes are more likely to be aggressive with the women they date, and more tolerant of demeaning behavior toward women.

We've accepted that some athletes have difficulty distinguishing between the rules on the field and rules at home, and that many athletes operate under a warped set of boundaries. But why, when we get so riled up about misbehavior that affects our games (like taking steroids), are we so forgiving of misbehavior against women?

Barry Bonds is being demonized on his home run chase. Where was all this indignation 14 years ago, when Bonds was arrested for grabbing his wife around the neck, throwing her at a car and then allegedly kicking her while she was on the ground? (The charges were dropped after Bonds' wife refused to cooperate with prosecutors. The couple later divorced.) UMass professor Todd Crossett, the author of one of those pioneering studies, says it's the difference between "crimes against sport," and regular old crime. Our trust is broken by the first because the effort's no longer honest, Crossett says. And we're indifferent, he says, to the second.

(Kinkhabwala)​

There is more going on here than just the Rice case. The NFL has known this day is coming, and has worked very hard to fend it off as long as possible. At least over the course of the last seven years, all professional sports organizations in the U.S. have been effectively on notice that this is coming.

Two of the four women Dukes has children with have charged him with domestic violence. So has another girlfriend. The 22-year-old has been arrested six times, charged with battery twice. A judge on Tuesday decided that Gilbert needed a restraining order (the third time a woman's put one on Dukes), and on Wednesday, that Dukes needed to undergo psychiatric evaluation before he is allowed to see the couple's two children. The Devil Rays haven't ever disciplined him. He was suspended in Triple-A last year for 30 games -- for confrontations with a teammate and a coach. Good thing they weren't women, right?

Dukes sat the first two games after his threats came to light. The third game he hit a three-run home run. He's a five-tool stud and so he plays on, not denying the allegations, promising the smattering of Tropicana Field fans who booed him this week "will get over it." They can't. Not when it's the whole league's problem.

On May 5, Seattle reliever Julio Mateo allegedly hit, choked and bit his wife in a New York hotel. Five days after that, Arizona utilityman Alberto Callaspo was arrested for allegedly beating his wife. That was just a week after Callaspo cut the side of his wife's face with a knife and slammed their 17-month old son against a headboard of a bed.

The Mariners demoted Mateo, suspended him without pay for 10 days and now have him on the inactive list while he undergoes counseling. Arizona tried the same, but the players union balked and Callaspos is playing right now.

(Kinkhabwala)​

It's time to deal with this.

And in that context, it is true that circumstance describes more and more apparently that #GoodellMustGo. The NFL has every appearance at this point of having been caught red-handed in aiding and abetting domestic violence.
____________________

Notes:

° SI pulled the 2007 article from its website for reasons unknown, reposting it in 2010; however, if you check the first line of the second paragraph of the article, it is from 2007 despite the date stamp.

Works Cited:

Kinkhabwala, Aditi. "Way off base". 2007. Sports Illustrated. January 1, 2010. SI.com. September 15, 2014. http://www.si.com/more-sports/2010/01/01/dukes-domestic

Bianchi, Mike. "Ignoring domestic abuse is the shame of the sports world". Orlando Sentinel. August 5, 2007. OrlandoSentinel.com. September 15, 2014. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._1_michael-vick-michael-pittman-spousal-abuse

 

Regarding the whole Ray Rice incident...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

pretty much?

 

Say a prostitute comes up to a John, and asks, "do you wish to party?" The John nods and then asks, how much? They work out the deal and he pays the gal. No formal "yes", has been said, but rather it is only implied. Is this also rape? Or does implied consent count as yes due to social conventions between two parties?

Husband and wives can often read each others minds, with words not necessary. Is this level of unspoken intimacy now taboo since it will also lead to rape if words are not spoken?

Say the gal likes sex, but the male she met at the party finishes too fast. She is not ready to call it quits, and works him to get him going again. Does he need to say a formal "yes", or if not, is she guilty of rape? Or his his body language sufficient to imply the yes?

Changing the subject, if rape is going to be so strict, what about slavery such as within alimony? Alimony requires the male pay the female even when her services to him are discontinued. He has to pay like a slave, without compensation, against his will. Should all forms of social slavery be abolished or should the recipients of alimony have to provide services to the payer to avoid slavery issues? Is this a form of female rape of men where yes by the male is not required?

 

If consent is given (such as the other party willingly going along with it) then I would presume it is implied until such a time that it is implied to be withdrawn, such as someone saying to stop, trying to get away, etc.

Did... you really just compare paying for the child you helped conceive and then dumped on the other person to rape or slavery?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are you giving Richard Dawkins a pass on his rape tweets, Bells?

"Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse."—Richard Dawkins

Admit it: some rapes are worse than others

 

Excrement Is As Excrement Does

Roddy White, a wide receiver for the Atlanta Falcons, caused murmuring ripples last week when he tweeted a crass joke about child abuse. Someone whispered in his ear what the real allegation was against Adrian Peterson, and he deleted the tweet. To the one, yes, we get it. To the other, he was really off the mark on that occasion. To a third, perhaps Mr. White will profit philosophically by the inevitable reflection one undertakes in the wake of having embarrassed oneself so badly.

And we already know the NFL and its people have serious attitude problems.

With Richard Dawkins, though, there is a sense that the super-hero crime alert klaxon is screeching. Dicky Dawk is unsettled: There is an important discussion taking place in the public square without him! Oh! No!

The article you linked to is a very bizarre sort of distraction. It seems to use problematic results to reinforce the presuppositions that lead to those problematic results. In truth, I have never seen it asserted that the Crown has only one charge to cover all sex offenses, though such an outcome would really help the paragraphs about prosecution make sense.

The truth of the matter is that Dawkins seems to be overlooking what any given violation is worth to the individual survivor, which also sounds about on par with his everyday megalomania. It is very nearly a cartoonish perspective of what rape actually is and does to people. It is an interesting contrast:

• A professional cynic could actually offer some value to the general discourse on the broader subjects and issues pertaining to the rape phenomenon in human behavior by vivisecting the psychopathology of the societal standards that inflict such devastating emotional impacts—slut-shaming, self-blame, &c.—on survivors of what we might, in honor of the Dawk, describe as "lesser rapes".

• Or, perhaps, that professional cynic could turn his cynicism toward a broader form of human corruption; what are the values that justify burying a convictable rape accusation because the accused is a superstar athlete?

• But a professional cynic can help assert his own presence in the discourse by invoking an incredibly shallow and unspeakably hurtful question; he's trying to pick fights between other people.​

Then again, he's Richard Dawkins. Roddy White's exceptional gaffe turns out to be germane to the discussion he affected; that is to say, the NFL player's behavior reminds certain cultural aspects of the NFL itself. Richard Dawkins' calculated offense? It's just crass, stupid marketing by a guy who is smart enough to know better, but also low enough to not care. We already know Richard Dawkins is excrement. And he has nothing to contribute to this discussion, especially as there appears to be no legitimate intention to contribute about his behavior.

The Cult of Dick is what it is; that axiomatic truth has exactly zero effect in this discussion. Indeed, the result of Dawkins' behavior is to simply remind that he is excrement.