Originally appeared at Hypervocal
By now the controversy surrounding Daniel Tosh’s tiny little rape issue has hit a point where piling on adds very little — unless it’s an argument as jarring and eloquent as Austin comedian Curtis Luciani’s.
(If you’re not caught up, know this: Tosh, who hosts a show on Comedy Central, performed at the Laugh Factory in Hollywood and allegedly launched into a bit about how anything, no matter how offensive or taboo, can and should be turned into jokes. Anything, even rape. A woman in the audience stood up and said, “Rape jokes are never funny,” to which Tosh said something about how he’d like to see this woman “raped by five guys” right now. When the story was posted online, Twitter went nuts.)
The great thing about the Tosh debate is that what started out as Rape jokes good! Rape jokes bad! has turned into a nuanced breakdown and discussion of the technique behind a meaningful, effective, poignant, good rape joke. What makes some more effective than others? When your topic is as triggering as rape, and when a significant portion of your audience has likely experienced some form of sexual assault, how do you acknowledge them?
Thing is, this isn’t an issue of anyone being “censored” or “silenced” or not “allowed” to do anything. People love comedy, especially offensive, edgy comedy. The surprising consensus: People actually want more rape jokes. But we want them to be fucking smart. The takeaway from this whole thing, for comedians and anyone, really, should be a crash course in taking the craft of offensive-comedy writing to the next level (see Lindy West’s unbelievably hilarious and thorough “How to Make a Rape Joke.”)
Anyway, Curtis Luciani. Take it away.
Let’s imagine a world in which women cut men’s dicks off. Like, frequently. To the extent that one in five men has had his dick cut off by a woman or had a woman attempt to cut his dick off.
(I apologize immediately if it sounds like I’m being flip. I am not being flip. Imagine the pain and shame and humiliation of someone cutting your dick off. Imagine it in earnest.)
Sometimes it’s a clear-cut case where a woman attacks you in the street, out of nowhere, and cuts your dick off. But more often it’s a situation where you actually know the woman, maybe you trust her, maybe you think everything’s okay, and then one day she cuts your dick off.
Still with me? This is going to take a while. I’ll tell you when I’m done. (And if you think I’m being insufferably self-righteous: Good news, you don’t have to read this!)
Okay, now let’s also say that the shame and guilt around having your dick cut off is so strong that many dick-cuttings go completely unreported. After all, someone is likely to raise the question of whether or not you were “asking for it” in one way or another. And if you do accuse a woman of cutting your dick off, you can expect to see people (quite naturally) rally to her defense and slander your character in response.
You can expect to see her friends … who are maybe also friends or yours … shrug their shoulders and say “Well, I don’t know, it’s complicated … it sounds like something was just happening between the two of them and maybe it got out of hand. I dunno. But I know that Sarah’s not a bad gal. I know she would never, like, MALICIOUSLY cut a dude’s dick off.”
So, a shitty state of affairs for the men-folk of our imaginary world, yes?
Now imagine that in this world, something like 90 percent of professional performing comedians are women. And they’ve accepted that there are certain codes of behavior when it comes to comedy. Most people who “like comedy” generally accept the premise that there are no subject areas that cannot be somehow given a comic treatment, but it is also accepted, as a practical rule, that as the subject gets more troubling, more intense, more painful, a more skilled approach is necessary to find the humor in it.
However, it is also accepted that people are people and they are going to have authentic responses to things. It is accepted, for example, that you probably should not go in front of an audience that contains several black people and start tossing around the N-word unless you have an EXCEPTIONALLY sophisticated and road-tested routine built around it, one that you are confident will overcome the very significant risk you are incurring. If a comedian did this and did NOT overcome the risk, no one would be shocked if the audience shouted her down and stormed her out of the club, nor would anyone be particularly eager to defend her.
HOWEVER, there’s this ONE thing. Many of the comediennes of this world have this ONE little sticking point. One little thing. It just IRKS the hell out of them that they can’t seem to make jokes about cutting dicks off without some whiny pussy male in the audience throwing a shit fit about it!
You see where this is going. And it’s brilliant. Continue reading on CultureMap Austin.
About Cooper Fleishman
Comedy is about engaging in discussion about aspects of our lives that may makes us uncomfortable (example: people do not like to openly complain about their own children, so a major realm of comedy is providing a way for parents to complain about how children drive them nuts).
Thus it does not work if we need to make up an entire imaginary world, because comedy is about the world we live in. In this case the jokes do not seem funny because we do not actually live in this world. When you screw up causation, the argument falls apart, as it does in the case of this piece.
Finally, because there are probably an army of people out there just waiting to jump on the bandwagon of this piece, let me be clear:
In a world where dick-cutting actually happened, the jokes would not be funny, they would be hilarious.
The best example of this is discussed in The Things They Carried (the novel, not the short story). There is a chapter where one of the soldiers cannot stop himself from laughing about jokes relating to a man who was shot by a sniper while urinating. Another soldier has a problem with this, since it could actually happen to any of them. Ultimately, however, not only do the jokes continue, but other soldiers join in on them: the jokes are funny because they allow any otherwise taboo subject to be discussed.
As The Things They Carried is pseudo-autobiographical, I have to assume that conversation, or one very much like it, probably took place, and the consensus was clear: the jokes could still be funny.
Moderator Note: Edited to remove insult to author
Dear moderator,
The sentence you deleted began with the phrase “This post is…”
The insult was to the piece and not to the writer.
I have to admit, I dont understand what it is about rape jokes that give people who are offended by them the right to make certain claims about their social effects. I keep reading that rape jokes “normalize rape” and “make people more likely to rape”, etc.
I’ve seen/heard/read dead baby jokes, pedophilia jokes, Helen Keller jokes, jokes that involve murder/mutlilation.. and while people have certainly voiced offense to them, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that joking on these equally offensive topics “normalizes murder” or “make people more likely to molest children”.
Agreed. The logic of laughter=approval is often asserted but never explained.
A related tendency that I’ve noted is to somehow make rape (the topic) immune to irony. That is, anything a comedian (or amateur jokester) says about rape is treated as though it’s delivered without any irony or exaggeration at all.
Here you go, boys. http://oforganon.tumblr.com/post/11150747104/to-all-those-men-who-dont-think-the-rape-jokes-are-a
Nope, that’s not helpful. In fact, it reminds me of a very irritating person who once said “men who do rape jokes are scum, while women who do rape jokes are probably survivors.” What utter bollocks. Even disregarding the Mel Brooks (best person ever) theory of “turning an awful thing into comedy to make it less scary”, no gender deserves to have a finger wagged at it like it’s responsible for the other dog going poopies.
Oh, and because it might be relevant: this practically five minute rape joke – http://blip.tv/nostalgia-chick/spooning-with-spoony-2136614 – was created by that crying lady you see in the video.
(TRIGGER WARNING)
Marc -
Read that one before, and, nope, not terribly convincing.
You’re telling me that if someone says “Its not rape if you yell surprise!” that ACTUAL rapists will ACUALLY THINK the person telling the joke ACTUALLY, REALLY IN REAL LIFE REALLY condones rape?
Perhaps we’re just not defining our terms clearly here. Because, yes, there are some “jokes” that seek to diminish or normalize rape (for instance, talking about getting someone drunk so they’ll have sex with you). I completely agree with the idea, there.
But is a “rape joke” any joke that involves the word rape, at all? If someone jokes about how “Hey, its not like I’m raping sex slaves in my basement”, is that a rape joke, even though they’re stating that they aren’t raping? Or use of the word “rape” in a nonsexual connontation (“The government rapes you on taxes”)?
I’m asking these questions sincerely, and I don’t believe its a matter of semantics or splitting hairs.
Well, boy (you don’t mind if I call you “boy”, do you Marc?), the linked article is a load of crap, because it’s based on the premise that all rape jokes are pro-rape, and the guys who laugh at them are frat boys sitting around playing video games.
You know how that article talks about how many men admit to raping as long as it’s not called “rape”? I suspect something similar goes on with rape joke objectors who have laughed at many a rape joke, even ones that use the word “rape”, but since it was funny or insightful, they didn’t count it as a real “rape joke”.
If that article is entirely correct, than many feminists who have explained since the Tosh incident (and some before) which kinds of rape jokes are funny and acceptable are no better than these hypothetical frat boys enabling each other as rapists.
I have no problem agreeing that many rape jokes aren’t funny. The proposition I disagree with is “Rape jokes are never funny”, as if every single kind of rape joke ever is one that normalizes rape and makes it more likely to occur.
Notice, however, that in presenting and analyzing several examples of funny rape jokes, Lindy West (and others) are outright contradicting Tosh’s heckler, who didn’t just say that his rape joke was unfunny (which most people agree with), but that *rape jokes aren’t funny* – which she asserted in the form of a heckle.
My takeaway is that some rape jokes aren’t funny, and some are. Tosh’s example would seem to be one of those unfunny ones, though it’s hard to say for sure since the only version of it I’ve seen “told” was from a humiliated heckler summarizing the exchange via Twitter. Based on what little familiarity I have with him, I’m willing to concede it probably wasn’t funny. However, comedians like Louis C.K. and Richard Pryor have crafted rape jokes that are both funny and thoughtful, even to people who would normally agree that “rape jokes aren’t funny”, so obviously, *some* rape jokes are funny, regardless of whether a particular person finds all such jokes offensive. That’s true of any taboo subject, not just rape.
Alright, let me try and respond to this without too much swearing. First off, I’m a rape victim, spent a little over a year getting sexually abused and abused for *that* when the news spread round school. Not to mention that I had to run away from a job because my boss kept groping me and the managers actually stating I was more expendable than he was.
And d’you wanna know what I’ve learned over the past week? People aren’t interested in helping, they just want to pat themselves on the back. I’ve been told I’m not a real woman because rape jokes are my coping mechanism. I’ve been told I’m no better than my rapist. I’ve had hypocrites trying to speak for me when they should just shut the fuck up because they have no clue what they’re on about.
As for this bullshit, hey, you remember Sharon Ozbourne and her crew laughing about that guy who got his penis cut off by his wife and had to watch it get put in a grinder? Remember that prison rape is seen as hilarious and deserved? Remember 1in6.org? If the answer to any of these is yes and you still did this post, then…
^^^^^
THIS,comment of the day.
Thank you.
I posted this on the page, but I’ll repeat it here.
The two problems with the analogy is that except for an extreme masochist there is no such thing as consensual genital mutilation. Sex, however, can be both consensual and non consensual.
(I know that rape is ultimately about power rather than sex, but part of the shaming of women who are raped plays off the image of women who enjoy sex as bad – thus the twisted notion that prostitutes can’t be raped)
More importantly, the male equivalent of rape is… Rape.
I’m very sorry for your own experience.
Emmeline, first of all, let me say that my heart goes out to you. No one can ever get back what was forceably taken from you and that’s the tradagy of this. I don’t find ‘Rape Jokes’ particulary funny , even when told by a female commedian (eg: Sarah Silverman). That said, the comparison to ‘genital mutiliation’ , other than ‘shock value’(which is what the author was reaching for) Doesn’t compare! You can hopefully get on with your life. (granted, it won’t be easy) Where as, if it’s CUT OFF, your life is over. You might as well purchase the means to ‘Do the deed’ and get it over with.
Via pregnancy or disease, rape can kill a woman just as easily as severing the penis can kill a man. It can also sterilize her. And unlike emasculation, rape can happen again.The point was to pick a subject that would elicit in men a similar emotional response to that women have about rape. They don’t have to be the same, because the anatomy is different. The point is for men to put themselves in women’s shoes as closely as possible.
There is no constructive understanding that can come from jokes about either subject, and people have other things to laugh about.
Are these same women getting angry n stopping all the jokes about violence men face? Men are kicked in the nuts in KIDS MOVIES, jokes about violence to men are mainstream, hell women laughed on a daytime TV show about a REAL case of a man being mutilated. Are women imagining what it’s like to know it’s seen as acceptable to slap a man if you are angry with him? Knowing you can’t hit back because that’s seen as wrong? Yet is there a big movement to stop jokes about violence to men? Or is rape a special instance? When’s the last time you saw a tv audience full of men laugh their ass off to a real case of woman having her vulva mutilated? I’ve seen some say this is the kinda shit some extremist MRA’s say and how bad it is, but are they also angry at the women who laughed at the guy being dismembered?
Reason I ask is because I see this massive amount of upset over rape jokes and attempts to get them quashed, but very little for all other violence. I’ve seen some men n women show distaste to the show that laughed over a man being mutilated, even contacting advertisers to get their funding revoked which was a good move but the rape jokes movement seems far bigger. Is it funny to laugh at a person being beaten to a bloody pulp but being raped is bad and not acceptable?
None of it is funny, but to make rape jokes in response to castration jokes is just as destructive as what happened on “The View.” Especially when rape is so much more common than partner violence against men and causes risks that men do not face (pregnancy). But your anger about the violence done to men is good. It is the only way that you will understand the necessity of feminism or the fac that rational feminism is the only solution to some of the problems men face. The point of all of this is that everyone’s body is sacred. Feminists figured that out first, and the condemnation of rape creates a new category of crime against humanity, into which castration falls. As for how much is being done to stop rape jokes vs. castration jokes, it’s all speculation that leads to a “who has it worse” debate as if suffering is a sport.
“but to make rape jokes in response to castration jokes is just as destructive as what happened on “The View.”
A lot of the rape jokes I was familiar with growing up were priest molester jokes. They usually had altar boys or some other boy as the victim. Don’t drop the soap prison rape jokes are probably the new male as victim joke. I suspect that they’re at least as accepted if not more so than the male as perpetrator/female as victim rape joke. Not that it’s either here or there, but I think we err when we categorize rape jokes as only portraying female victims.
SVI: “The point of all of this is that everyone’s body is sacred. Feminists figured that out first.”
Correction, SVI. Feminists figured out that women’s bodies are sacred. When it came to male victims of sexual abuse from females, certain strands were reluctant to even accept that.
If everybody’s body is sacred, where were these feminists when the male victims spoke out on what happened to them and were soundly ridiculed and rejected by society as non-relevant compared to women? Why did some feminists, even when hearing these stories, continued to tell them they were still benefiting from the oppression of women and their privilege negated any harms wrought on them compared to female victims?
Yes, you got the ball rolling in regards to female rape but male rape and abuse victims? Please don’t over exaggerate. And I say this as someone who’s had the same accusations and baseless assumptions levied at him by certain feminists when I was telling my stories of harm from females and girls in my youth.
@ SVI
“It is the only way that you will understand the necessity of feminism or the fac that rational feminism is the only solution to some of the problems men face.”
I’m not sure that feminism is even a solution to some of men’s problems let alone the solution. I heard that feminism broke down gender roles and that’s helped men. Then why don’t stay at home dads have the same level of respect as working women? Was the message just not received correctly? If feminism broke down gender roles, why do feminists fight the criminalization of visitation interference, the preference for joint custody, or for men to even be able to establish paternity? I think the message was quite clear. The issues men face are much more often resolved despite feminism than because of it.
Look at the FBI definition of rape that was fought for by feminists. It essentially dismisses the majority of female perpetrated rapes, the majority of the victims being male. How exactly does telling them they don’t count help them?
“Especially when rape is so much more common than partner violence against men”
You have no idea is that is actually true. Not to mention that your definition of rape seems to exclude male victims (otherwise why contrast it against something that happens to men).
“Feminists figured that out first,(????) and the condemnation of rape creates a new category of crime against humanity, into which castration falls.”
I’ve seen many feminists make jokes about violence against men. Please stop presenting feminism as a uniformly good and respectful movement, sadly it isn’t. Secondly, jokes about horrible things are a crime against humanity now? Better call the Hague, they have work to do.
By ‘crime against humanity’ I meant rape itself. Not the jokes.
In that case you seem to be implying that condemnation of rape is a new thing.
@Archy you speak as if rape is a women only issue. Rape IS an example of the violence men face, therefore rape jokes have the potential to be just as offensive to men. It’s a topic that affects everyone, not just women.
Which is why I found the analogy so wrongheaded.
Danielle, I know full well that fact. If you read my other comments you’ll realize I also mostly see anti-rape campaigners who only campaign to raise awareness for female victims and male perpetrators, rarely for male victims and I’m yet to see a decent campaign to raise awareness of female perpetrators even though in a 1 year period they were 40% of rapists.
I understand rape jokes can be offensive to men, but I am questioning why it’s some women in particular that are against one form of violence, but not against other forms of violence in comedy? I’m asking if people give a shit about men basically, but in particular the women, or in fact anyone involved with the anti-rape joke campaigns.
“The point was to pick a subject that would elicit in men a similar emotional response to that women have about rape.”
- The rape of men is EXACTLY that! Genital mutiliation is completely different from raping men OR women. Get a clue SVI.
BTW…there have been TONS of jokes about John Bobbit getting his cut off, and the more recent guy from last year. Also, male penises are cut off, partially, EVERY F’N DAY. Its called circumcision. Are the feminists and their apologists on this site really that dim to be ignorant of these facts?
Luckey, most men haven’t thought about the possibility of rape unless it’s actually happened to them. Castration is a more familiar fear. The article couldn’t use circumcision as an example because most American men are brainwashed into thinking it’s okay. If you talked to women from cultures where FGM is perpetuated BY women, they wouldn’t compare it to rape. They would say it protects against rape.
Another difference with rape (besides being far more common against women) is that for women it can lead to pregnancy. There are cases of boys being forced to pay child support to adult female molesters, but those are few and far between (and nobody agrees with it except judges who aren’t people anyway). When women are raped, they have assholes on Capital Hill telling them that they’re criminals if they don’t suffer through childbirth (potentially fatal) and raise the rapist’s child.
When a boy is raped by a woman, it becomes the plot for an Adam Sandler comedy.
Women may have people telling them they can’t get abortions, but i the US they still can.
The point is that the author is ignoring male rape victims.
@ SVI
“There are cases of boys being forced to pay child support to adult female molesters, but those are few and far between”
But because those boys couldn’t compel their rapist to abort the child they had no ability to control their own reproduction, whether he pays child support or not, he has still fathered a child. There are currently no states where women can’t get abortion services (some places are less accessible than others).
“most men haven’t thought about the possibility of rape unless it’s actually happened to them…Castration is a more familiar fear.”
- Uh, no. Whenever men think, read, or hear about prison, they think about the possiblity of rape. That’s why men fear prison. Castration is hardly ever though of because it is so rare, while prison rape is VERY COMMON.
Men fearing possibility of rape while in prison may support her stance. It suggests that men don’t fear or think about rape as something that can happen anywhere rather only within prison. The dick chopping analogy seems a more familiar fear in that it’s a violent act that can happen anywhere for men, would strike an emotional reaction in men, and something most men would want to avoid happening to them same as rape for women.
“The dick chopping analogy seems a more familiar fear in that it’s a violent act that can happen anywhere for men”
- If you think that men in general are walking around thinking about “dick chopping” then you don’t know what men think about.
I didn’t state, suggest, or imply that I think men generally walk around in fear of.
I did state that it seems men’s fear of dick chopping seems a more familiar fear to women’s fear of being raped in that both are violent acts that can happen anywhere.
If you thought by familiar fear I meant familiar to men let me clarify I meant familiar to rape. Unsure how you may have been confused as my statement was in response to the validity of dick chopping being used as analogy for male on female rape.
@Emmeline
“And d’you wanna know what I’ve learned over the past week? People aren’t interested in helping, they just want to pat themselves on the back. I’ve been told I’m not a real woman because rape jokes are my coping mechanism. I’ve been told I’m no better than my rapist. I’ve had hypocrites trying to speak for me when they should just shut the fuck up because they have no clue what they’re on about.”
Those people annoy the hell out me, I don’t think anyone has the right to tell you that stuff especially saying you’re no better than your rapist! You didn’t do anything wrong, hell I laugh at the abuse n troubles in my life to cope.
“As for this bullshit, hey, you remember Sharon Ozbourne and her crew laughing about that guy who got his penis cut off by his wife and had to watch it get put in a grinder? Remember that prison rape is seen as hilarious and deserved? Remember 1in6.org? If the answer to any of these is yes and you still did this post, then…”
I saw some do letter writing to try get the advertisers on Sharon’s show to remove their ads, I think some did which was good. As for the rest it doesn’t look like many give a damn, the uproar is mostly about when women are the rape victims that I’ve seen, fuck all seem to care about men.
Thanks for the comment, I hate what you went through and hope you are ok but I appreciate you taking the time to tell us of your experience for this topic. Sometimes laughter is the best medicine…
@ Emmeline
I’ve wanted to extend my sympathies for what you went through and I’m not entirely sure why I’ve been holding back. It amazes me how women can use that 4 letter word to describe what happened to them. I don’t think I’ll ever get to the point where I’ll acknowledge that happened even if I know it did. You are stronger than I and I wish you the best.
Thank you, but it is still very hard to say “I was raped” in real life. I can say the word anytime I want, but when it comes to that sentence, my brain literally just crashes into a wall after “was”. I’m not particularly sure why, but that’s for me to figure out.
I fully agree that any humour regarding a subject that’s hurt alot of people has to be done very very carefully, but sadly I haven’t seen the conversation move much past “Rape jokes good vs. Rape jokes bad.”
As for the rest… we live in a world where many different types of horrible things happen to people. Some of these things happen more to women, others happen more to men. It’s not really possible to compare and rank these things, let’s just take people’s word for it that they’re all horrible. This is why it would be useless for me to imagine a world where my penis is likely to be cut off, it would have nothing more to do with rape than the myriad of other horrible things that could happen to me.
At any rate, the Sharon Osbourne (and other women) laughing at what happened is a little different for the following reasons:
A)It was televised, there’s no issues of misquotes or “you had to be there” anyone can go and hear for themselves what those women said and how they said it. In tosh’s case he claims he said one thing, the retweeter claims he said something else, who knows?
B) The women on that chat show weren’t laughing at some hypothetical assault created for the purpose of injecting a little ridiculous into our lives (I’d actually be fine with that depending how they said it). They were laughing at a real human being who was *actually* mutilated in some horrible fashion. That goes way, way beyond the average rape joke, or any other kind of joke.
Yeah, the thing that got to me wasn’t the ‘panel’ thinking it was funny, or even Sharon Osborn screaming “You go girl!” (She is the rare example of a Female Asshole, an honor usually reserved for men) No, the thing that shook me up was the wilding cheering of the female audience. I remember thinking to myself ” So this is how women REALLY look at men”. I havent been able to look at a female (Even those close to me) with trust since. They (Wife, Daughters, Sisters, Mom) all claim to have my best interest at heart, but I just can’t trust them.
That’s the thing, I think it represents a bad attitude on their part more than something actually thought through. If it happened to someone close to them I doubt they’d be so thrilled.
Like I said, if it’s hypothetical, fine, I’ve made jokes involving someone having their willy cut off, it’s the reaction to an actual case that bothered me.
Search YouTube about it and you’ll find more women condemning Catherine Kieu than making excuses. Sharon Osbourne is a rich privileged airhead, unfit to shine the shoes of the average woman.
Remember that in the same conversation, she also joked about a woman’s breasts being mutilated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muuFygvXPAM
Actually, she made a cheap joke about breasts being floppy, but she also said “it’s different.” She also giggled through her “apology.”
I’m sorry, but with both this and the Lorena Bobbitt incident the most common reaction was “what did he do to deserve it?”
To me the reaction is no different than the “what did she do to deserve it” or “how she’s fully or partially responsible or accountable” reaction in many male on female rapes. Sexual violence crimes seem to often lay the blame on the victim.
There is a big difference, actually: often the people who joke or say “what did he do to deserve it” are people who would NEVER say that about a woman who was raped. Yes, there are some (mostly men) who would joke in either case, but I’ve encountered otherwise enlightened women who thought the Lorena Bobbit incident was hilarious.
When both crimes get the fault the victim reaction to me it’s not a difference much less a big difference both crimes that some individuals joke or lay the blame on a dick chopping victim but not a male on female rape victim. To me it doesn’t matter if some of the male on female rape victim blamers wouldn’t fault a dick chopping victim or some of the dick chopping victim blamers wouldn’t fault a male on female victim. Both crimes are still getting the same reaction- blaming the victim.
Bit curious as to why for you individuals not treating both victims equally makes a difference in both getting the same reactions.
More curious as to why for you it seems nonexistent for there to be people who joke or say ‘what did she do to deserve it’ for a woman being raped but would NEVER say that about a man who got his dick chopped off.
Its the hypocrisy. What makes it worse is that it is from people who should know better.
Perhaps there are people who would blame the victim of a rape but not of genitsl mutilation. However, that view is nowhere near mainstream and is often heavily criticized. The problem is that the people who say “he must have done something to deserve it about a man would be the first to tear apart anyone who said a woman was “asking for it.”
So for you the individuals hypocrisy makes it a big difference when both victims are getting the same blaming reaction.
I highly doubt the view of blaming male on female rape victims and not dick chopping victims is heavily criticized and not mainstream. There seem to be an enormous amount of male on female rape victim-blaming and shaming and regarding genital mutiation as worse than rape akin to murder as rape you can continue living if you’re rape but if you lose your dick your life is over. It wouldn’t be inconceivable to me for blaming X but not Y and vice versa to be mainstream as society often supports mixed messages.
To clarify as it seems to me you have a bias and playing ‘who has it harder’:
1. Why for you there are people blaming dick chopping victims but not male on female rape victims while it’s a ‘perhaps there are people’ blaming male on female rape victims but not dick chopping victims?
2. Why for you it seems to be heavily criticized and not mainstream to have a blame male on female rape victims but not dick chopping victims and not the opposite?
I did not say that genital mutilation is akin to murder. It may arguably be worse than rape.
I have been trying to avoid saying this so plainly, but here goes: i have heard people in the mainstream of gender relations who would never victim blame a rape victim make jokes about men getting their penises cut off. I remember the fallout from the Lorena Bobbitt incident. A columnist for the local paper wrote a joking column about the incident and while there were letters of complaint there were no reprisals. I remember women cheering Bobbitt’s aquittal. There were songs written about it. By comparison, a similar reaction to a rape aquittal would be considered barbarous.
It’s not about “who has it worse.” obviously rape is a more prevalent crime than genital mutilation, and it affects women more. I think it’s good that we are growing out of the “she asked for it” mentality. But I think the reaction that a male victim “must have done something to deserve it” is not a progressive attitude and that true feminists should not succumb to those attitudes.
@Monkey
Nowhere do I state, suggest, or imply you said genital mutilation is akin to murder:
“I highly doubt the view of blaming male on female rape victims and not dick chopping victims is heavily criticized and not mainstream. There seem to be an enormous amount of male on female rape victim-blaming and shaming and regarding genital mutiation as worse than rape akin to murder as rape you can continue living if you’re rape but if you lose your dick your life is over.”
I’m aware and already acknowledged that there are people who blame or joke about dick chopping victims but would never blame a male on female rape victim. Likely there are many who cheered Bobbitt’s aquittal and many who found it barbarous. Just as there are likely many who cheered rape aquittals and many who considered it barbarous.
You do seem to be bias and playing ‘who has it worse’ by saying when both crimes get a victim-blaming reaction there is a big difference because of individuals hypocrisy. Hypocrisy that to you is seems to be one-sided as there are pepple who are hypocritical to dick chopping victims but ‘perhaps there are people’ who are hypocritical to male on female rape victims.
“But I think the reaction that a male victim “must have done something to deserve it” is not a progressive attitude and that true feminists should not succumb to those attitudes.”
I’m quite unsure why you stated that as feminism wasn’t mentioned or the discussion unless you think feminists are the only ones who succumb to that attitude (?).
Anyone who would say a woman would ask for it would not be published or broadcast other than in the most extreme right wing media outlets. The comments on Bobbit, however, were in mainstream newspapers and other outlets.
My point about feminists is that I truly and honestly believe that they should know better. I expect feminists to be more sensitive to gender violence and not automatically take the woman’s side. If some neanderthal MRA claims that women deserve rape, they should be condemned. However, far too often hostility against men from feminists or other women is considered justified. That was my only point.
@Monkey
Different experiences as I’ve seen many male on female rape victim-blaming and shaming on tv shows, movies, books, newspapers, and magazines. Seems common enough that in my experience potential victims are blamed as the blame is slipped into some anti-rape defense for women.
Still I’m unsure why you made that point as the discussion never mentioned feminists or feminism. To me it’s an out of the blue remark unless you feel unless you feel that it’s an attitude solely or mainly prevalent in feminists or an attitude feminists should be held accountable for.
“If some neanderthal MRA claims that women deserve rape, they should be condemned. However, far too often hostility against men from feminists or other women is considered justified. That was my only point.”
Seems your point is missing that far too often hostility against women from MRAS or other men is considered justified. Again you seem to have a one-sided bias view. There’s many who condemn violence against men and many who justify violence against men it’s the same for women.
Though on your point:
1. Why would you expect feminists to be more sensitive to gender violence? To me a feminist would likely be sensitive to violence against women perhaps feeling a ‘look out for your own’ of with the amount of victim-shaming, victim-blaming, minimizing, and no empathy for violence against women.
2. Why would you expect feminists to not automatically take the woman’s side? To me a feminist would likely automatically take the woman’s side perhaps feeling a ‘siding with your own’ with how often being a woman is seen as automatically being in the wrong.
3. Are you under the impression that feminism was designed for men’s issues? If so I doubt that as my impression is that feminism is about equality and fair treatment for women where they lack it.
Why? Because I like and respect feminism and feminism.
Gender equality should mean equal rights and equal responsibilities. “equality for women” should mean gender equality, period, and that entails acknowledging that women, as human beings, are just as capable of good and bad as men.
“looking out for your own” is not a good strategy for true equality, and it is especially bad strategy if,as in this case, people are trying to generate empathy.
@Monkey
Okay so you brought out feminism out of the blue because you like feminists.
Equality for women where they lack it means equality for women where they lack it . What you think it should mean doesn’t equate to what it actually means. If you’re looking for gender equality it’s probably best suited to look into humanism.
It’s irrelevant if ‘looking out for your own’ isn’t a good strategy for true equality when that’s not the goal. I highly doubt feminists ‘looking out for their own’ would be an especially bad strategy if they’re trying to generate empathy as it it only matters if the people they’re trying to generate empathy from is looking out for their own.
It’s ironic that you’re talking about true equality when you seem to have a bias, playing ‘who has it harder’, and apply accountability only for feminists on hypocrisy towards dick chopping victims but not male on female rape victims.
Seems more like you’re invested in men’s issues thinking it a higher concern as in big difference from women’s issues. There is MRA if you’re looking for equality and fair treatment where men lack it and again there’s humanism if you’re looking for gender equality, which I highly doubt.
I’m big arguing “who had it harder.” I brought it up because the original author’s thesis – that we wouldn’t joke about these things if they happened to men – has been proven false. What my point was that as someone who thought Tosh’s comments were bad I thought that this article was not helping.
“equality… For women” is not really gender equality. Equality is y defintion equality for all. I have been told many times that if I want gender equality that I should support feminism. As bell hooks wrote, feminism is for everybody.
On other forums I have defended the woman in the audience for her right to heckle Tosh. I didn’t point this out here because I didn’t think it was relevant to my problems with this article.
Please don’t assume you know what I believe.
You brought it up not to the article or the author’s thesis but in response to my statement.
Me: both dick chopping and male on female rape get the same blaming reaction as sexual crime victims often get blamed.
You: there’s a big difference as some people are hypocritical and blame dick chopping victims but not male on female rape victims.
It’s playing ‘who has it harder’ as your statement showed for you it’s nonexistent for people to be hypocritical to male on female rape victims. Further statements showed for you there is hypocrisy towards male victims while it’s a possibility for there to be hypocrisy towards female victims as in ‘perhaps there are people’.
Equality for women isn’t gender equality and nowhere did I state, suggest, or imply otherwise. Perhaps the people who told you to support feminism for gender equality were talking about a specific subset as there are different subsets of feminism and some are about gender equality and addressing men’s issue. The name itself ‘feminism’ suggests it’s not for everybody.
Nowhere did I assume I know what you believe. I stated having doubts since for you there’s a big difference in both victims getting blame as there’s hypocrisy that is one-sided for men.
I also think defending freedom of speech is irrelevant to your problems with this article. Though it’s interesting that you seem to consider this indicative of what you believe.
“I also think defending freedom of speech is irrelevant to your problems with this article. Though it’s interesting that you seem to consider this indicative of what you believe.”
I don’t consider it “indicative of what I believe.” I simply believe it. My point was that I feel no great desire to defend Tosh; my problem was with the author’s apparent ignorance of the common reaction to victims of male violence, which is indeed to laugh and mock.
I support feminism because I believe it offers something to men. Read noseriouslywharabouttehmenz on this very site.
I stand by my belief that in mainstream discourse victim blaming of men tolerated in a way that victim blaming of women is not. I think that feminism has made great strides in condemning victim blaming of women, thus it could address (or at not perpetuate) victim blamin of men.
“I don’t consider it “indicative of what I believe.” I simply believe it.”
Different views as I think stating your actions then saying don’t assume you know what I believe is stating actions indicative of what you believe. Really different views as I think saying you believe something is indicative of what you believe.
“I think that feminism has made great strides in condemning victim blaming of women, thus it could address (or at not perpetuate) victim blamin of men.”
I think feminism likely isn’t concerned about addressing victim-blaming of men with the exception of homosexual, bisexual, and transgender men. Addressing victim blaming of men would probably bes best suited to MRA or humanists.
I wouldn’t think that a bi/homosexual rights group has made great strides in condemning crimes against bi/homosexuals thus it could address crimes against heterosexuals. They could logically but is it their concern.
Sorry, I meant “I’m not arguing.” stupid tiny keypad.
At least dahlingdarling is honest about the goals of feminism. Its pro-female, not pro-equal. Critics of feminism have been saying that on GMP since day one and have constantly been told that they are incorrect by feminists themselves. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, other feminist commentors, or at least Julie and/or Heather, will have to say in response to dahlingdarling’s statements.
Quite unsure why it’s not “at least dahlingdarling is honest about her opinion on the goals of feminism”. Seems you may have a inclination to think it’s honest if it goes with your view.
Really unsure if you’re under the impression I’m a feminist by your remark of “other feminist commentors”. Nowhere did I state, suggest, or imply I’m a feminist.
This is a good example of “you’re not helping”. We do not have to imagine a world where women commit violence against men because women do commit violence against men. And virtually every comedian and most people find that violence absolutely hilarious. Every time some woman who rapes a boy makes the news it becomes comedic fodder. Every time some woman beats a man it is comedic fodder. Every time a woman kicks a man in his groin, slaps him, yells at him, threatens to kill him, and yes, castrates him, it is comedic fodder. Every time. And you can count the number of people and comedians on one hand who say making fun of boys being raped or men being beaten should be off limits.
Chances are that if you tell a joke about a criminal offense, someone in the audience may have been a victim of that offense. The idea that certain topics should be off limits, or as those complaining about Tosh’s joke seem think, only crimes against certain groups of people should be off limits, is stupid.
That does not mean that some jokes are not in bad taste. However, the idea that because someone might be offended or because something is considered a “serious” crime that people just should not joke about it is the very definition of censorship.
Well said.
Jacob, I fully agree with the above. However, I think the article still has merit because of the simple fact that men aren’t aware of the male-bashing you discuss above. At least, they aren’t aware that there’s anything wrong with it. They don’t see these things as sexual violations, precisely because of the comedy. Fleishman’s example, on the other hand, is something that DOES evoke a reaction similar to that women have towards rape. Men are agreed that such a mutilation would immediately ruin their lives and identities. The sole point of the article is this: that men should put themselves in women’s shoes and imagine a world where it was men who routinely suffered a life-altering violation that was woven by degrees into much of the culture (as the idea of men pursuing and ‘taking’ women is in ours). They do not have the same intense reaction to groin kicking, but perhaps articles like this will get them thinking about sexual violence towards men and how it connects with all sexual violence. The article could just as easily have been about prison rape or circumcision, but those wouldn’t have gotten everyone’s attention as well because people are used to them and have taken great care to put real-world violations against men out of their minds.
Sorry, but the ends DOES NOT justify the means. This scared straight tactic so all us sill menfolk can get enlightened is bull. Castration =/= Rape.
“They don’t see these things as sexual violations, precisely because of the comedy. ”
Forgive me if I’m reading this wrong but did you just suggest that men who hear or tell a joke involving rape aren’t aware that rape is a bad thing?
Imagine a world where women cut men’s dicks off…
We have that world.
The women laugh about it – certain clueless men laugh too – and when they’re done laughing about it, they rationalize the crime.
I think he meant a world in which this happens all the time.
The quoted passage depends HEAVILY on the “1 in 5″ meme ; Trouble is, the “1 in 5″ pseudo-statistic is exactly where the cynicism and jokes originate, as well as the misbegotten anger over the low conviction rate for rape.
Honestly, when feminist advocates will, in writing, suggest that “rape” is whatever she (the “victim”) says it is – then it becomes a joke, and a cruel one at that, if a woman happens to be a real rape victim, in the practical sense of the term.
Do women cut the penises off of men every day? Thankfully, no.
When it does happen, there is no question that it happened.
There is no question who did it, for the empowered harridan is usually (in the figurative sense) loudly and proudly standing with a penis in one hand, and the knife in the other.
With that as a backdrop, the fact that when a man loses his penis to a woman with a knife and a cold heart, seemingly a third of all women think this is empowering and funny, we ARE IN THAT WORLD.
When women will rationalize it, as if no woman would do such a thing unless sufficiently provoked, it speaks volumes of what women can’t express directly about themselves.
They feel that they are BETTER than men, and that empathy for men is indeed a joke.
So the world where women cut men’s dicks off is here, and as bad as that is, it’s going to get worse. Getting the goverment to do the dick cutting will be the next logical step.
Well, most women support cutting pieces off of babies’ penises, mostly because it seems neater to them.
A lot of the support for MGC comes from men. At times I think that men support MGC more strongly than women. The thing that makes it truly insidious is that men refuse to view themselves as victims and so allow (and often encourage), the victimization upon their sons. They say I’m OK nothing happened to me. They never consider that they gave nothing to compare it to. If you blind an 8 day old baby, they don’t realize what it would be like to see so they accept their blindness as normal.
Women aren’t the enemy when we battle misandry. Misandry is the enemy and it can be practiced by either men or women.
I was about to say that too. Support for MGM (and FGM for that matter) isn’t restricted to one gender.
Ditto for FGM. In South Africa where the government has banned it, girls are seeking it out like getting their ears pierced or having their sweet 16. And most of the cutters worldwide are female. Men cut boys, and women cut girls.
The first thing that popped into my mind was the Catholic Priest jokes in the 70s/80s. As early as then, people knew that this was going on and couldn’t really find a way to tell people. I’ll give you an example and if you don’t want to read it skip it, but it’s not graphic.
TRIGGER WARNING FOR PRIEST SEXUAL ABUSE
There was already a man standing by the confessionals when Father Jones was called away on an emergency. Father Smith, a novice priest, agreed to take over as the line was short and things didn’t seem too out of hand. Father Smith and the young man entered the confessional. The man started bless men father for I have sinned. It’s been a week since my last confession.
The man started going through his litany of sins most of which were the run of the mill things that father Smith could handle, but then the man confessed to receiving oral sex from his girlfriend to whom he wasn’t married. Father Smith was confused and didn’t want to give a penance that was either too harsh or too lenient. He opens the door to the confessional and notices an altar boy waiting in line. He motions the boy over and asks, “What does father Jones normally give for oral sex?” The boy answered five bucks.
The original post from Curtis Luciani isn’t actually about Daniel Tosh’s rape joke at all. If you read it in full you’ll see he’s writing about the response to the female audience member’s response. In their defense of Tosh, certain comedians have vilified the audience member as someone who wants to censor their speech. Curtis isn’t calling for any sort of censorship or prohibition on offensive humor. He’s not saying that certain topics are strictly off-limits. He’s merely suggesting that performers who work with such material handle it with extreme care and show basic human decency when something they say provokes a genuine response. This shouldn’t be the slightest bit controversial since comedians are drawn to these topics BECAUSE they’re sensitive issues. They absolutely know they’re walking a tightrope by telling a rape joke so, when they make a misstep, why not admit it that rather than curse the nature of gravity?
As for the analogy to cutting off dicks, he’s simply looking for a way to make an impact on any male readers. Most males, myself and Curtis included, don’t truly understand the dehumanizing effects and the terror of rape, or what it’s like to have that threat constantly looming. So, yea, he went with a crude analogy. It’s not perfect. But it’s something that men can understand. If a woman cut off my dick, I wouldn’t find any jokes about it funny and I would sure as hell expect other people to understand why.
Then he’s doing exactly what he claims to be against by ignoring the fact that men are raped, and that real cases of men getting their dicks cut off are joked about.
Actually, in the most recent case Sharon osborne didn’t even make a joke; she said “I think it’s wonderful.”
Sorry, perhaps I was unclear because that’s not what he’s doing. Curtis isn’t making fun of men who’ve been raped or mutilated in any fashion. The point of his analogy wasn’t to minimize, as he puts it, the “pain and shame and humiliation” of that type of brutality. Unlike Sharon Osborne, he never describes that sort of thing as wonderful. And he’s not telling anyone that they can’t be sincerely outraged over his words just because he has the right to speak them.
What Curtis IS against is the lack of understanding and empathy some people exhibit towards those who have experienced and/or know someone who’s experienced rape or molestation or forced genital mutilation or the threat thereof. He’s against that type of callousness regardless of the victim’s gender, but since most men don’t think about rape in the same terms as women he offered the analogy to give us a mental foothold (I keep saying “most” men as a tacit recognition that men also get raped). If you think he’s being insensitive to men who have been victimized or that he’s trying to get a cheap laugh at their expense just because he wrote about cutting off dicks, then that probably makes the analogy pretty effective.
I didn’t say he was making fun of male victims. What I meant was that he was doing the exact same minimization of real male pain (by suggesting that these things are merely hypothetical and completely erasing male rape victims) that he accuses Tosh’s *defenders* of doing. The analogy is not effective because we know exactly what happens when a man gets his penis cut off: he is mocked and assumed to have deserved it. It is also not effective because there is a completely non-hypothetical analogy to rape for men, and that’s rape. And it is often a source of mockery.
In other words, he’s saying that we would realize it would be horrible “if” it happened to men, but it does happen to men and it is ignored or mocked.
Men are raped also so he doesn’t even need to try to come up with another analogy that men could understand. I suspect that you’ll use that but men are raped much less frequently argument so we’d not supposed to be afraid of it. Men are killed about four times as often as women so theoretically, I should be more afraid than a woman. Why do I consistently hear the opposite is true?
A lot of the joking about dick cutting in the comments sections of the news articles was coming from men. They thought it was funny because it didn’t happen to them and wasn’t likely to. Rape and murder are more realistic fears. If men don’t fear them and can’t relate to rape or murder, how can a fictional world convince them otherwise, unless of course the author believes that the rape and or murder of men to actually be humorous or inconsequential?
I think that rape deserves an inherently different treatment than murder because it leaves you alive but not quite whole. I certainly don’t want to be murdered but I think it’d be something else entirely to have to overcome the physical, emotional, and psychological damage of rape and then go on living my life.
And, yes, men are also raped, but how often do you check your drink at the bar to make sure no one’s slipped you something?
*ahem* As a rape victim, I object to the whole “rape is worse than death” business. While male rape survivors get “grow up, bet you enjoyed it”, women survivors get “you poor forever-damaged love, you’ll never have agency again”. You can see how that’s not helpful?
I can see your point, Emmeline. I’m not speaking from a place of firsthand knowledge.
Emmieline(That’s such a beautiful name) A good friend of mine’s wife was ‘Raped’ at work, no less! Since it came down to ‘He said, She said’, he walked! She was devistaded and had to quit her job! I offered to ‘Take care of things’ (I could gaurentee the body would never be found) but he said no. Many years later and she still bears the scars. I can’t help but think that I should have ‘Taken Action’ when I had the chance!
“And, yes, men are also raped, but how often do you check your drink at the bar to make sure no one’s slipped you something?”
Unfortunately, no one ever taught me that you shouldn’t accept an open drink from a strange at a club. I don’t fault you for asking the question, but the answer is one time too few.
True, we don’t have to heal a murder victim, but their surviving loved ones might dispute minimizing it relative to rape.
I did not minimize murder relative to rape. I never said one was worse than the other.
@ Sean
“I think that rape deserves an inherently different treatment than murder because it leaves you alive but not quite whole.”
Murder often leaves many people alive, but not quite whole. The impact of crime is not felt just by the person the crime is committed against, but often the loss and anguish is felt by their family and friends.
You’re right, I was thinking only from the perspective of the victim. I was responding to the suggestion that, if I’m reading it correctly, Luciani should have just cited murder statistics instead of the analogy he used to make his point. But you are right, violence affects the friends and family of a victim as well as the victim him or herself. My goal wasn’t to say crime X is worse than crime Y, but rather to say that different crimes have different impacts. The ultimate point is if we can be sensitive to people who’ve lost someone to violence, then why can’t we be sensitive to someone who’s suffered a different type of violence or known someone who has?
The point I was trying to make is that the underlying problem is men are taught to undervalue their lives. I should be more afraid to walk around at night than a woman because I have a 4 times greater chance of being killed, but I’m not. Men also avoid medical attention for many reasons. I suspect that part of it is because they have no realistic expectation of receiving same gender care, but part of it is the tough it out syndrome.
I read an article on how medical bills are forcing women into debt and I was wondering what about the men. Men who have families will either put their families on their medical or assume the same debt as their wife. Sure, many women may have jobs that don’t provide medical insurance, but many of the poorer men don’t have access to the social safety net that women in their positions do so it should somewhat balance out. This makes me think that men are forgoing medical attention for financial concerns. Some of that might contribute to the decline in male enrollment in higher education. Men sacrifice quality of life for finances.
If men don’t care about their quality of life or whether they live at all in this world, how would a fictional world where men in general have a lower quality of life help men to understand the plight of women? He may have a shot if he did away with the fictional world and made it personal. He could have said what if your dick was cut off or by making the rape personal by saying something like what if your sister or mom was raped. That would have probably been more effective. Since men are taught to protect their families, that would have also challenged his manhood too if that was the author’s intent.
I have read accounts of men being drugged and overpowered by women. It does happen, and the men face double stigma because a) rape of men is considered humourous in our society and b) people have the messed up notion that an erection = consent. (in fact, male victims of rape may even be under reported because being forced to penetrate is not legally considered rape.
Jezebel recently ran a story about a man who was forcibly confined and made to have sex with a woman. It was treated as hilarious.
I was with a group of friends. It was two women. My friends didn’t stop it because they thought I was living out every man’s fantasy. Who wouldn’t want two women?
A link to the Jezebel post treating the story about male rape treated as hilarious?
Here ya go:
http://m.jezebel.com/5901998/german-woman-tries-to-hold-sexhausted-man-prisoner-in-her-apartment
The gawker article on the same crime featured a campy picture of a femme fatale and a bewildered man and the tag #firstworldproblems.
To be fair to the Jezebel readership 99% of the comments criticized the story, but I cannot even imagine it running with the genders flipped.
There are numerous examples from movies of female on male rape or attempted rape being mined for comedy.
I don’t see how Jezebel treated the story as hilarious in fact it even states that it won’t take the story lightly:
“There’s an obvious Calypso reference to be made here, and though it’s tempting to read this episode of sexual aggression lightly because of the gender reversal of popularly accepted roles, sexual assault is a bad, bad thing, not made any more innocuous by the fact that a woman was the aggressor in this instance.”
I do see how most comments criticized the story for stating the rape started out as an initial hook-up as it doesn’t matter whether it began consensually. The comments reaction seemed to be:
“Doesn’t matter if it’s a man or woman not consenting, whether it’s the 1st time or 37th time, sex HAS to be consensual every. single. time. “
“By all accounts, however, the initial hook-up was consensual and, even after being stopped from leaving, the man had sex “several more times” with the woman who detained him.”
I wonder if they would have used “had sex” if it had been a male on female crime or would they have just called it rape?
I think that’s in reference to that he had consensual sex initially (hook up) and supposedly during his kidnapping hence why several more times is air quoted. The comments criticize that stating that it doesn’t matter if he consented initially or in the middle when he didn’t consent to every single time.
The outside quotes are mine noting that I’m quoting from his article. If the air quotes were around had sex then I would agree that he is using that term loosely, but the air quotes were around several more times indicating that the author questions whether he had sex with her after being prevented from leaving or at the very least had sex with her more than once as if one rape wouldn’t be particularly bad.
The lack of air quotes around had sex indicates that it is the meaning the author wishes to convey implying that the other sex was consensual also.
“he had consensual sex initially (hook up) and supposedly during his kidnapping”
Do you think he had consensual sex during his kidnapping? I think that’s what the author is implying and I believe that is wrong and perpetuates rape culture. Had the genders been reversed, I’m sure kidnapping would negate consent.
I have no thoughts on whether he did or didn’t have consensual sex during his kidnapping.
The author is stating not implying he had consensual sex during his kidnapping and questioning how many times he had this supposedly consensual sex.
Why is it wrong to state a person had nonconsensual and consensual sex and how it perpetuating rape culture when it’s not victim blaming, sexual objectification, or normalizing, trivializing, excusing, tolerating, or condoning rape?
I highly doubt if the genders were reversed that kidnapping would negate the consent considering how often in sexual assault cases a woman saying no doesn’t mean no and her other actions implied consent.
So to you airquotes around several more times indicates that the author at the very least had sex with her more than once as if one rape wouldn’t be particularly bad when the author states “sexual assault is a bad, bad thing, not made any more innocuous by the fact that a woman was the aggressor in this instance.”
What other sex implied to be consensual are you talking about? If you meant that the author wishes to imply all sex was consensual the author asserted that the man had nonconsensual and consensual sex with his rapist kidnapper. In that sentence that the author was talking about the consensual sex stating that the kidnapping and rape began consensually as a hookup and he supposedly had consensual sex X amount of times with her during his kidnapping.
The airquotes around several more times and the lack of air quotes around had sex likely indicates the author is questioning the amount of times the man supposedly had consensual sex during his kidnapping. Especially when the comments are generally it doesn’t matter if he consented initially or X times during his kidnapping he didn’t consent to every single time.
Actually, the quoted around “several more times” are there because the author is quoting another article. It has nothing to do with “air quotes.”
You’re kidding me. The headline referred to him as “sexhausted.” Two sentenced that say “of course, we shouldn’t really makes fun of this” doesn’t make up for the rest of the article’s snarky attitude. The comments (which I found heartening) saw through that.
So for you the title is how Jezebel treated the story as hilarious okay then.
I’ve already addressed the title.
“Is it the title? Perhaps I’m desensitized as I find most stories on most sites to have some misleading attempt at witty/funny title no matter the content.”
“I’ve already addressed the title.”
And Daniel Tosh has already apologized.
Seems to me like you might hold others to a standard that you do not hold yourself.
What standards does it seem to you that am I holding others to that I do not hold myself?
Particulary in regards to Daniel Tosh when I haven’t mentioned him nor made a statement about his remark.
So then you accept Daniel Tosh’s apology?
What standards does it seem to you I might hold others to that I do not hold myself?
Particularly in regards to Daniel Tosh when I haven’t mentioned him nor his remark and the Jezebel article.
Or were you just bsing?
How did Jezebel take it as hilarious as I don’t seem the story downplaying the rape, making jokes about the rape, or blaming the rape victim. The only comedic bit in the article wasn’t about the rape rather questioning if the male rape victim would be treated like a female rape victim- calling him a slut, suggesting he asked for it, and using his sexual history to discredit him.
Is it the title? Perhaps I’m desensitized as I find most stories on most sites to have some misleading attempt at witty/funny title no matter the content.
“The only comedic bit in the article wasn’t about the rape rather questioning if the male rape victim would be treated like a female rape victim- calling him a slut, suggesting he asked for it, and using his sexual history to discredit him.”
If you read the comments section, I think James Landreth addressed that “thought experiment”.
“If Barry honestly believes that men don’t get victim-blamed then he has ZERO competency to speak on sexual violence issues. We get victim-blamed. WE DO. Anyone claiming otherwise knows nothing about what male survivors face when they speak out.
We don’t need a conversation about whether or not male survivors deal with victim-blaming. We need a conversation about why there are so many people who want to pretend we don’t.”
Why do people who claim to be progressive (feminist leaning) even think that men aren’t victim blamed?
I did read the comments and the story questioning whether he’d be treated like a female rape victim isn’t treating his rape as hilarious. It’s not even about his rape it’s the author’s view on society’s treatment of male rape victims vs female rape victims.
Monkey claimed Jezebel ran a story about a man being raped repeatedly treating it as hilarious yet so I was expecting for the story to downplay the rape, make jokes about the rape, or blame the victim. I didn’t see any of that and asked him to show me where Jezebel treated it as hilarious.
Monkey would probably better suited to claim that Jezebel thinks that male rape victims aren’t treated like female rape victims- calling him a slut, suggesting he asked for it, and chronicling his sexual history to discredit him.
In Monkey’s defense, he may be looking at this section.
“When neither of them falls asleep after the first go-round, they do it again and again and again until the man predictably says that he’s tired and probably should, um, leave or whatever. Except that he wasn’t allowed to just leave.”
Because a man always wants sex and you know the only thing that stops him is he’s tired. You see he didn’t really want to stop so I guess it wasn’t rape. Although the author acknowledges that he wasn’t allowed to leave, he did get “um, whatever” so it shouldn’t be a problem. He was able to have sex with her several more times after all so what’s the problem?
It don’t think it was treated hilariously. I believe that it was downplayed and minimized. You might even say that the term had sex instead of rape actually heaped doubt upon the credibility of the accuser and might actually had constituted victim blaming in conjunction with that whole at first it was consensual thing.
Maybe it was to set up a thought experiment that should have been unnecessary and would not have been necessary if the genders were reversed, however, I don’t see any clear evidence even the section you pointed out as exculpatory utilizes problematic language.
“There’s an obvious Calypso reference to be made here, and though it’s tempting to read this episode of sexual aggression lightly because of the gender reversal of popularly accepted roles, sexual assault is a bad, bad thing, not made any more innocuous by the fact that a woman was the aggressor in this instance. “
It wasn’t rape it was sexual aggression. Yes, it was sexual assault, but she wasn’t the perpetrator. She didn’t do this to him. She was the aggressor. Meaning what, that they assaulted each other, or maybe he wouldn’t have been assaulted if he had just resisted more aggressively? It’s the totality of the article that lends credence to the assertion that this instance is taken lightly and possibly in a jovial way.
Now the standard feminist defense is that when they say something misandric, they were misunderstood or it was taken out of context. The argument is we’re not misandric so anything misandric we say is by definition misunderstood. Many feminists believe that feminism and feminists by extension are above reproach or criticism. That doesn’t give me the confidence that feminism will address men’s issues. Only a vibrant men’s movement will lead to solutions to issues concerning men.
So to you Monkey is looking at the introduction of the article rather than the author detailing what occured? An introduction that seem to me portraying an normal situation gone criminal.
I don’t believe the kidnapping and rape was downplayed since the author did state it’s a bad, bad thing and not less innocuous than it happening to women and didn’t use the consensual sex to downplay the nonconsensual sex. Stating the man had nonconsensual and consensual sex with his rapist kidnapper isn’t victim-blaming to me that would be stating, suggesting, or implying that the man did something to deserve or he’s accountable for what happened to him.
The author labeled it as sexual aggression when speaking to the reader about taking it lightly. I don’t consider aggressor to be problematic language as it’s also defined as “a person who makes an unprovoked attack” and is synonymous with assaulter, assailant, and attacker. Quite unsure how you equated aggressor to she didn’t do this to him.
It’s misandric and taking it lightly and in a jovial way to state the man had nonconsensual and consensual sex, use sexual aggression when stating don’t take it lightly, and use aggressor instead of perpetrator?
In my opinion it’s best suited that you don’t have confidence in feminism addressing men’s issues as it seems feminism is about women’s issues. If you’re looking for male issues to be addressed perhaps seek out MRA.
I’m not an MRA because I don’t believe that feminism is the cause of men’s problems; the patriarchy is. From my understanding feminism is not just about “equal rights for women” but opposing patriarchy.
As I wrote above, treating women equal means equal responsibilities as well as equal rights. You cannot say “equality for women” without talking about equality for men. That’s what equality means.
@Monkey
Perhaps it’s better suited for you to be a humanist.
Opposing the patriarchy is how feminism gets equal rights and fair treatment for women wher e they lack it.
You can talk about equality for women without talking about equality for men. That’s what the keyword “for” means.
No different to me than how a homosexual rights group can talk about equality for homosexuals without equality for heterosexuals, bisexuals, or transexuals. Seeking equality for your group where it’s lacking doesn’t automatically mean you seek equality for other groups.
@ dahlingdarling
“If you meant that the author wishes to imply all sex was consensual the author asserted that the man had nonconsensual and consensual sex with his rapist kidnapper.”
Where does the author actually say that he had non-consensual sex? He states that the victim was sexually assaulted, but sexual assault encompasses a lot more than non-consensual sex or the term used for female victims, rape. It could simply refer to unwelcome touching possibly even an unwanted kiss.
“There’s an obvious Calypso reference to be made here, and though it’s tempting to read this episode of sexual aggression lightly because of the gender reversal of popularly accepted roles, sexual assault is a bad, bad thing, not made any more innocuous by the fact that a woman was the aggressor in this instance. By all accounts, however, the initial hook-up was consensual and, even after being stopped from leaving, the man had sex “several more times” with the woman who detained him.”
You’re assuming that the author’s use of sexual assault = non-consensual sex. If that was the case, why does the author use intercourse or had sex instead of rape or even simply state had non-consensual sex? Unless the reader is to assume that kidnapping negates consent, which we seem agreed that this author doesn’t agree with, he never in fact says that the victim had non-consensual sex, unless in Germany sexual assault only means non-consensual sex.
The author sid he had nonconsensual sex by stating he was sexually assaulted which is defined as “knowingly causing another to engage in an unwanted sexual act by force or threat” and “engaging in sexual activity without the explicit consent of the other individual involved”.
Sexual assault’s legal definition:
Sexual assault includes any forced act against one’s will where sex is the weapon. This can include, but is not limited to:
Sexual Battery: the unwanted touching of an intimate part of another person for the purpose of arousal by the actor
Sodomy: forced anal intercourse
Oral Copulation: forced oral-genital contact
Rape by a Foreign Object: forced penetration by a foreign object including digits (fingers and toes)
Rape: penile-vaginal intercourse against a person’s will and without consent
The author likely uses intercourse as it describes the sexual activity that was done and the author’s use of had sex was in reference to the supposed consensual sex.
So to you the author using sexual assault and intercourse instead of rape is stating the man wasn’t raped or had nonconsensual sex?
@ dahlingdarling
“Sexual assault includes any forced act against one’s will where sex is the weapon. This can include, but is not limited to:
Sexual Battery: the unwanted touching of an intimate part of another person for the purpose of arousal by the actor”
As I said, sexual assault is not limited to sexual intercourse. The author never actually states that he had non-consensual sex or that he was in fact raped. Quote the part of the article where he specifically makes that distinction.
Page 24, has the stuff about most of the rape against males was perpetrated by men, and the rest of the sexual assault had women perpetrating the majority of it against men. Important to note that rape doesn’t include “forced to penetrate” which is the most common form of what I would call rape vs a man forcibly penetrating.
@Archy
Thanks for the page it’s been some time since I read that pdf.
Perhaps the FBI definition of rape will further include men other than male on male rape when it’s less prevalent to think being penetrated is worse than being made to penetrate and it’s more prevalent to think being made to do something without your consent is wrong with no ‘who has it harder’.
“Why do people who claim to be progressive (feminist leaning) even think that men aren’t victim blamed?”
Likely because men aren’t seen as potential rape victims by women, aren’t taught “how to not get raped” by women, and aren’t instructed not to go out at night, live alone, wear this, say that, drink a lot, do drugs, getting blamed and shamed when they “fail” at not following the advice.
Not surprising that some people think men aren’t victim-blamed like women when rape is generally seen as male on female with female on male being a rarity. That thinking may lessen if rape is generally portrayed as person on person rather than male on female with prison being the exception and female on male being a rarity.
“Likely because men aren’t seen as potential rape victims by women, aren’t taught “how to not get raped” by women, and aren’t instructed not to go out at night, live alone, wear this, say that, drink a lot, do drugs, getting blamed and shamed when they “fail” at not following the advice.”
Or it could be that the male victims who come forward aren’t being heard and their victimization doesn’t register very highly on the feminist radar. I wish someone had taught me not to accept an open drink from a stranger at a club. It would have prevented a lot of pain.
Depending on the neighborhood you live in, men are told what not to wear. Particularly if they’re gang colors.
Quite unsure why male victims would have to register highly on the feminist radar for men to be seen as potential rape victims by men and get taught “how to not get raped” by women. Is your impression that feminists are ones most likely to acknowledge male victims and teach them preventive measures?
Men and women are told what not to wear in the sense of gang colors however it doesn’t seem men are told what not to wear in the sense of rape prevention.
@ dahlingdarling
“Quite unsure why male victims would have to register highly on the feminist radar for men to be seen as potential rape victims by men and get taught “how to not get raped” by women.”
Maybe you should look at the change in the FBI definition of rape that the feminists pushed. You know the one that doesn’t count the majority of female perpetrated rapes. Maybe if female on male rape was actually counted as rape, men would get the message. I don’t blame feminists for not caring highly about male victimization.
I fault feminists for claiming to care highly about male victimization when they don’t. That tricks people who care about men’s issues to support feminist causes because they think it helps men.
“Men and women are told what not to wear in the sense of gang colors however it doesn’t seem men are told what not to wear in the sense of rape prevention.”
Probably because a man is always thought to want sex so what he wears is irrelevant to his sluttiness. At least a woman can show she didn’t want sex by what she wears. How does that disadvantage women when it comes to preventing rape?
The only FBI rape definition change I know of feminists pushing was changing “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will” to be gender neutral and include forced anal or oral sex, rape with an object, and statutory rape. If that isn’t the FBI definition change what do you mean? If that is the FBI definition change then are you saying your impression is that feminists are the ones with the power to acknowledge male victims?
“Probably because a man is always thought to want sex so what he wears is irrelevant to his sluttiness. At least a woman can show she didn’t want sex by what she wears. How does that disadvantage women when it comes to preventing rape?”
The disadvantages of women having clothing being a determining factor of her wanting sex in rape cases have already been shown by victim-blaming, victim-shaming, and dismissing verbal consent as her state of dress implied consent.
I don’t think a woman showing she doesn’t want sex by what she wears is an advantage in preventing rape as I highly doubt most rapists would think ‘oh she doesn’t want sex Iet me not rape her’ or ‘oh she doesn’t want sex because she’s wearing X let me not rape her’.
How is it an advantage when it comes to preventing rape for women to show they don’t want sex by what they wear what one thinks is not wanting sex clothing may be what others think is wanting sex clothing?
@ dahlingdarling
The new FBI definition left out envelopment/forced to penetrate where a woman forces a man to penetrate her with his penis, finger, object, whatever. This is the most common form of sexual abuse men face as per the CDC stats, the majority of which is perpetrated by a female. So this can effectively mean if they report about rape you will have a huge amount of victims who aren’t reported as being raped, but many of us view it to be rape.
@ dahlingdarling
““the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will” to be gender neutral and include forced anal or oral sex, rape with an object, and statutory rape. If that isn’t the FBI definition change what do you mean?”
The FBI rape definition change that feminists supported requires the attacker to penetrate the victim orally, anally, or vaginally. Cases were the victim is forced to penetrate the perpetrator are not considered rape. So a man forcing a woman to perform oral sex on her would not considered rape, but a woman forcing a man to perform oral sex on her would not be considered rape. A ,am forcing his penis into a woman’s vagina would be defined as a rapist. A woman forcing a man’s penis into her vagina would not. You see how that essential ignores the vasr majority of female perpetrated rapes.
“Not surprising that some people think men aren’t victim-blamed like women when rape is generally seen as male on female with female on male being a rarity.”
Of course people will think female on male rape is a rarity, when you don’t actually count it.
“Likely because men aren’t seen as potential rape victims by women, aren’t taught “how to not get raped” by women, and aren’t instructed not to go out at night, live alone, wear this, say that, drink a lot, do drugs, getting blamed and shamed when they “fail” at not following the advice”
I had to take a break after reading this one because you know being instructed about how not to get raped is so much worse than you know actually being raped.
“The disadvantages of women having clothing being a determining factor of her wanting sex in rape cases have already been shown by victim-blaming, victim-shaming, and dismissing verbal consent as her state of dress implied consent.”
That’s not a disadvantage. Tell me how that’s worse than when a man gets raped people assume he wanted it regardless of what he was wearing. The point is men can’t change the perception that he wanted it by the way that they dress. It’s not a disadvantage for women. Women who dress that way are just considered as sexually available as men always are.
@Archy
This is the most common form of sexual abuse men face as per the CDC stats, the majority of which is perpetrated by a female.
A link to those stats. I would think that anal and oral perpetrated by a male would be the most common form of sexual abuse considering articles stating that men may be raped more than women according to prison stats.
@John Anderson
“The FBI rape definition change that feminists supported requires the attacker to penetrate the victim orally, anally, or vaginally. ”
The FBI definition changed that feminist supported counted men including male on male rape when the previous FBI definition didn’t even include men. Seems definition changing for further inclusion of men would be suited to MRA and humanists as in my opinion feminists may likely prefer the concerns of homosexual men not heterosexual men.
“I had to take a break after reading this one because you know being instructed about how not to get raped is so much worse than you know actually being raped. ”
Nice projection. Telling you got that from my answer that people likely don’t think men are victim blamed because men aren’t seen and treated as potential victims. More telling that you seem to go into ‘who has it worse’ mode.
Bit curious as to why you seem to think being instructed how not to get raped and actually getting raped are mutually exclusive. Those instructions on how not to get raped are usually ineffective as a woman can get raped when she doesn’t go out at night, doesn’t live alone, doesn’t wear that, doesn’t say that, doesn’t drink a lot, and doesn’t do drugs. In my opinion those instructions aren’t offering women safety from rape but a way for society to feel safe that it wouldn’t happen if she did this and that otherwise it would mean seeing men as rapists meaning seeing your brother, father, etc could rape. Another opinion is the best instruction on how not to get raped is self-defense skills and gunmanship.
“That’s not a disadvantage.”
Why for you isn’t it a disadvantage to be blamed, shamed, and have verbal consent dismissed as state of dress implied consent? Again how is it an advantage in preventing rape for women to show they don’t want sex by what they wear what one thinks is not wanting sex clothing may be what others think is wanting sex clothing?
“Tell me how that’s worse than when a man gets raped people assume he wanted it regardless of what he was wearing. The point is men can’t change the perception that he wanted it by the way that they dress. It’s not a disadvantage for women. Women who dress that way are just considered as sexually available as men always are.”
Tell me when and where did I state, suggest, or imply that it was worse or I was playing “who has it worse” like you. My point is that having a woman having her clothing being a determing factor in whether she wants sex is a disadvantage because people may differ on what clothing is wanting sex and what clothing is not wanting sex, in prosecution verbal consent can be dismised as state of dress implied consent, and I highly doubt most rapists care about her consent thinking ‘oh she doesn’t want sex because she’s wearing X’.
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/NISVS/index.html
Full report, table 2.1 and 2.2 and about page 23-25 has the breakdown of abuser.
Hasn’t got prison data that i know of so I guess maybe outside of prison the most common abuse is by female forcing them to penetrate, and inside prison it’d be male-male?
@Archy
I already had a copy of that on my computer and I don’t recall it stating, suggesting, or implying the majority of the perpertators were women as pepertators were categorized by relationship type not gender. I reread it again and still don’t see it. (?)
@John Anderson
“As I said, sexual assault is not limited to sexual intercourse. The author never actually states that he had non-consensual sex or that he was in fact raped. Quote the part of the article where he specifically makes that distinction.”
The author stated the man was sexually assaulted and he had sexual intercourse some of which was consensual. If some of the sex was consensual that means some of the sex was nonconsensual. If intercourse is the only sexual activity mentioned with a nonconsenting party it’s logical to think that the author meant sexual intercourse when stating sexual assault. You’ve already repeatedly quoted the part of the article where the author specifically makes that distinction. The author stating some of the sex was consensual is stating some of the sex was nonconsensual.
Perhaps we have different thought processes when it comes to sex it’s either consensual or nonconsensual so when someone say some of the sex was consensual I think some of the sex was nonconsensual. Do you have other options for consent when it comes to sex?
Men are trained to accept violence as normal. The majority of violence you see in media is male vs male, the bravado of a man defending himself, his family, his castle, etc. Men are taught to be brave in the face of danger, women are taught to fear the situation, but the reality is neither is really much safer than the other. Both have high levels of sexual, physical n emotional abuse to deal with in life, some areas show more danger to one gender than the other. Women are taught to be fearful of the stranger based rapist, whereas they’re more likely to be raped by people known to them. Men are taught to NEVER show that fear though they’re more likely to attacked by a stranger, most male-male violence from what I’ve seen in stats show stranger based incidents count for the most. So whilst he may not be watching his drink (no one taught him to), he’s probably watching other men hoping he doesn’t get into a fight.
We train women to be afraid, we train men to be brave, but both are at risk. The risks vary according to type of abuse, etc, males tend to suffer overall violence the most and I think stats show women suffer more sexual abuse specifically (although men are either catching up, or have hit parity already). It can cause men to be careless with their safety, or be pushed into putting on a brave face, fighting danger is so heroic etc. I still get the urge to be protector, when I am out with friends n family I am on edge ready to protect them. That is how I was raised….to be the brave heroic man, to do my best to ignore fear and fight for those I care about and this is something I see common mostly to men. Rarely have I seen women figh FOR their man, it’s mostly men fighting FOR their woman in media and stories we grow up with.
Women are taught pretty much to be vulnerable, weak and fearful
, men are taught to be invulnerable, strong and fearless (neither is better than the other btw). This puts many men in the line of fire, quite often throwing their lives away for feats of bravery, it puts women in more passive roles which are safer but are restrictive. I think it causes women to have TOO MUCH fear of men and attackers, and causes men to have TOO LITTLE fear of women and attackers. Hell most men probably don’t know how much sexual abuse women perpetrate against men, it causes a society that acts like men have so much power over women when really women have a lot of power on their own.
So women probably do check their drink far more than men, because 1, most media n discussion on sexual abuse is about women as victims, men as perps, and 2, because they’re trained to be careful. Doesn’t mean men are safer though, overall men are most likely to die from violence (4-6x more, W.H.O Stats 2004), most likely to get into a fight in public (women tend to get most of their violence with school bullying, domestic violence including sexual abuse). Stat wise women should be afraid of their friends, family, n partner more than strangers (although still cautious of), and men should be afraid of strangers mostly but still cautious around their partners, family, friends.
But quite frankly living in fear is a toxic thing, I’ve lived in it too much in my life. As much as I want to be that protector, I am afraid. It’s taught me how bad fear can be in limiting your life and I truly hope that men become more aware of their vulnerability, and women become far more aware of their strength. I hate seeing fear keep women from talking to people in public and bravery keep men from being safe. Fear may help you avoid a dangerous situation but too much can make you avoid LIVING a life.
Yeah Archy,’ provide and protect’. That’s tthe way I was taught it is for men (When the ‘shit hits the fan’, you’d be surprised at how many ‘Liberated Feminist’ agree with that!) And if you ‘Die Trying’, that’s O.K. It’s considered an ‘Honorable Death’.
Nope; shortsighted is what it is, for reasons that have been mentioned.
Anyway, I’m not a fan of Tosh as a comedian, and this incident is a perfect example of why. You don’t pull out a controversial issue like rape and not have a good comeback for hecklers ready. His response was so weak — it wasn’t even a funny, just an attack. Making fun of the heckler probably would have been funnier coming from Ron White, since just being an ass is his style (and why I don’t like his ‘comedy’ either).
It’s almost 3am as I read this but let me get this straight. We have a writer at Jezebel that, when trying to make a point about how terrible rape jokes are, decided the analog was getting one’s penis chopped off?
Rape…
Genital Mutilation….
Rape….
Genital Mutilation….
No as far as I can tell they are not the same thing. Sure one a rapist may mutilate their victims genitals and a genital mutilator may rape their victim but they are two separate things. Which brings me to the question.
Why in the devil did this person not just make an analog about oh I don’t know…..female against male rape? I have an idea why but never mind that.
So someone please tell me I’m reading this wrong because its almost 3am.
A) It’s a reaction to the whole Osbourne chat show thing which is being brought up as a parallel example.
B) If he did so then he would have to acknowledge that men *are* raped by women and it *is* joked about, thus ruining the hypothetical element.
Yeah it must be late because I’m not getting you here Peter.
A. How does Sharon Osbourne’s commentary on that genital mutilation play into that Jezebel writer going with genital mutilation instead of female against male rape?
B. I’ve reread your point B like 40 thousand times and I’m not getting it.
I’ll be back after some sleep,.
A: The sharon osbourne thing was being brought up as an example of women doing the same thing and feminist organisations not reacting. The author things that in order for them to be comparable, d*ck cutting would have to be more common.
B: If he had used male rape jokes as his example instead he would have to admit that, no, this isn’t a women-only issue where men don’t have anything to complain about and presenting it as one is wrong.
A bit of mind reading/ventriloquism on my part but it’s an important point.
@ Danny
“Why in the devil did this person not just make an analog about oh I don’t know…..female against male rape? I have an idea why but never mind that.”
That would probably be because he believes that men can’t be raped by women because they always want sex or that men would enjoy being raped by a woman, nothing like feminists perpetuating rape culture.
As well, it would draw attention to the fact that the only real way that rape is discussed in the popular media is as a subject of humor or retributive punishment.
Sorry, that should have read “the only way male rape is discussed.”
Ultimately Tosh telling the audience member that “she should be raped because he suffering would be hilarious and cathartic” was the absolute worst thing he could have done for the world of comedy. There is a big difference between crafting intelligent social commentary and being an insensitive, reactionary tool. For example, Chris Rock and Bernie Mack used to joke about poverty, violence, and drugs ALL of the time. They took the horrors childhood (and so many others at that) and made it into a humorous, but equally contemplative message. It was a struggle that, somehow, they had survived, and they reflect upon it in a way that reduces negative influences into topics to be laughed at. The people who survived those negative influences were never themselves chastised for having been subjected to them. Tosh failed because he reduced the issue of rape to a low-brow venom spit worthy praise only on 4Chan and XBox Live. That wasn’t comedy. It was confession of knuckle-walking shortsightedness.
It is okay to joke about war, violence, and other social ills. Sometimes humor is the only way to keep it from consuming our own humanity. It is just a shame to see a star using an overall constructive and lighthearted medium to dehumanize other people.
It’s not unusual for comics to be nasty to members of the audience. Comedy isn’t always comfy. The woman who interrupted the show…was asking for it.
No she wasn’t. He could have picked ANYTHING ELSE to say to her other than “wouldn’t it be funny if you were gang-raped in this club?”.
And she could have picked ANY OTHER time to complain. See how that works? Wilson is correct. Hecklers are obnoxious, self absorbed control freaks who mess up comedy clubs and movie theaters for all the other paying customers.
I understand what you’re saying, but when women defend the use of rude behavior in rejecting an unwanted interaction, I tell them yes, he’s responsible for his actions, but you’re responsible for the way you responded. Tosh is responsible for the way he reacted and he acted totally inappropriately.
He didn’t act inappropriately. He shut down a heckler in a very acceptably rude way.
Telling someone that they should be gang raped is acceptable? I’m glad you don’t live in my neighborhood.
Clutching your pearls are we? Would you like some water before you faint?
Some consideration should be given to the other paying customers and maybe that’s why he took the approach he did although if that is what he truly said, I suspect the actual reason was that he couldn’t come up with a witty retort. The level of acceptability is dependent on the level of expectation. If you expect a comedian to simply shut down a heckler that’s one thing. If you expect a comedian to actually be funny, that’s something entirely different.
If a man offers to buy a woman a drink and she tells him she wouldn’t be interested in him if he was the last man on Earth, it would shut down an unwanted advance, but I don’t think the reaction would meet the standard of human decency. That response should be acceptable because he’s wasting her time and by your standard, he deserves whatever response she gives. If it’s numbers you’re worried about, what if she’s talking with girlfriends, he’s be interrupting more than one person then or what of the other guy who might want to hit on her that she might be interested in. He’s wasting his time too.
Those are the standards I judge his alleged response by. Did the crowd deserve a better retort? They did. Did his response meet the standard of human decency? IMO no. He could have asked if dead baby jokes would be funnier and launched into some jokes or picked some other controversial topic. He could have simply said sure they are and proved it by telling a funny rape joke.
Heckling =/= Offering to buy someone a drink
When I was at a comedy club two-ish years ago, an amateur visiting from New York got heckled by a fan, which is pretty normal for any performer who is not an international star. His response was something along the lines of “your opinion will matter when you are funny enough to get booked for a stage performance”. That one-liner retort brought down the house. Dude isn’t even famous, yet he had the tact to reign in his audience without spewing a profound level of disrespect and suffering towards them. That is a level of comedic quickness that Daniel Tosh will never reach as long as he frames his career around reading pre-scripted jokes from teleprompter.
I can’t agree with you at all. If the reports are true, what he said wasn’t even remotely funny. A comedian should do better than that.
I have some black friends and they complained once about us always going to a white comedy club so I agreed to go to a black comedy club. George Wilborn was the headliner. They knew what was in store for me so they made sure I sat at the front. When he came out to introduce the show he saw this white guy in the front and said thank you Lord. He went backstage and we enjoyed the under card.
George comes back out to close the show and starts cutting on me and I took it in good humor. Then he told me that’s what you get white boy for coming to a black comedy club. I yelled out I’m only white from the waist up. He paused and tells the audience for those of you who didn’t hear John, he said he’s only white from the waist up. George goes through this routine about how my dick most be big and wraps up, but I don’t believe you. To which I point to one of my black female friends and say, just ask her. George starts cutting on her. She’s pissed, but it was her idea to embarrass me. When he was done cutting on her, he looks at me and says you fucked me up. I had a whole routine crafted. He continues with the routine, but it never had the comedic value after the side bar. He high fives me and notes that you got to have a big dick to come here.
The same night a woman took exception to some of the things he was saying about her. At the end of the show, he apologies, calls her a good sport (which she wasn’t) and gives her a tee shirt from the club. There are ways to handle hecklers and what Tosh said, if he said it, was not the way to do it. What he said to her was disgusting.
Cool story, bro
Apples and Oranges. You weren’t a heckler. You were being picked on.
I still interrupted his routine and he turned the interruption into the highlight of the show, especially when he started making fun of my female friend. The crowd was just going crazy. Although after that second time, he decided not to provide me any more opportunities to derail his routine. He also handled the woman’s complaints with grace.
A better analogy would have been about prison rape and men. And people do make those jokes all the time — not just in comedy clubs. This is virtually never considered wrong. Yet prison rape is responsible for giving men AIDS and rarely get punished. See the scholarship in the link below.
Also, the “1 in 5 females” statistic is based on a flawed study. I’d like to see someone post some real research on this.
http://spr.igc.org/en/sprnews/2004/0901.htm
Not to make excuses for what tosh said or anything, but there should be no sacred cows when it comes to comedy. That includes rape jokes.
The only reason that this protest has gathered momentum is that Daniel Tosh is a college tour approved “Safe” comedian much in the same vein as Jimmy Fallen. He’s “your girlfriend’s” favorite comedian. Tosh is not like a Bob Saget. He’s not a Lisa Lampanelli he’s not even a Dane Cook.
He’s low hanging fruit for self important people eager to punish him and threaten his sponsors in the name of political correctness (which is perfectly fine).
I’ll gladly take my neanderthal comedy with a double shot of sexism, racism thank you kindly. If I wanted to pay for a lecture I’d've stayed in class.
I think what a lot of people are forgetting here is what sparked this discussion in the first place. Tosh said he would like to see this particular woman get raped by five men. Whether you believe rape jokes can be funny or not (I believe it is possible with the right skill and sensitivity), this comment was not funny and doesn’t even qualify as a joke. He just blatantly made a malicious comment to someone who most likely was raped herself and most likely brought back painful and traumatizing memories.
I think you might need to review what sparked this discussion in the first place: A woman in Tosh’s audiance said that he said it would be funny if she were raped by five men, he said it was a misquote.
If he did say it then, yes, that’s a horrible thing to say and I wouldn’t defend it for a moment. But it’s a heck of a leap to go from there to the usual stance of “No joke involving the word rape is ever funny, other violence is ok though.”
Cutting off a dick probably won’t lead to reproduction. Rape, on the other hand, could. Therefore, these two acts of violence aren’t really related (unless it was men cutting off other men’s dicks in order to prevent their rival genes from propagating–although that’s probably a world that no one wants to live in). IMHO, cutting off a dick would have more similarities to murder or genital mutilation than to rape (which not many comics seem to touch on for obvious reasons).
The analogy, although, broken, definitely made me think about the subject matter, though, so kudos for that. I do like the thought that all forms of expression are open to criticism, so if being popular is important to an artist, than the way their words effect others will probably be weighed, just like in all other forms of our culture.
Just another episode showing the incredible amount of narcissism that is displayed by the people who say they speak for women on issues like these. Take this article’s big quote. We have to pretend or imagine a society where men are victims. The implication is men are not victims in the real world at all. The reality is that men are probably raped more than women and are certainly attacked violently more than women in the real world.
The women’s commentators display their arrogant ignorance and sexism at full volume an it is rammed down people’s throats.
I was watching one woman commenting on this on TV just today and she actually was dumb enough to say “if men could get raped they’d never be a joke about it”.
Of course not only are men probably raped more often, but jokes about men being raped are a staple of late night comedy shows considered suitable for conservative audiences. A long way short of going to the comedy club to hear an “edgy” routine.
What is going on in our society when people who speak for women feel able to say the most appalling lies with the most arrogance possible and nobody even calls them on it? Such is the overwhelming power of women over men in our society.
Here is a hypothetical for you. “The View” airs that awful episode about penis cutting. Absolutely disgusting and imho the ‘apology’ episode was ever worse.
Now the question
If there were a mens talk show similar to “the view’ that had done the exact same thing about a woman having her genitals cut out and the 5 guys made the same joke WOULD THEY STILL BE ON THE AIR.
My answer: Not a chance in hell. Though quite frankly , my question is unrealistic because no male show would ever do that anyway which is exactly my point, they know the consequences of doing it and these women knew there would be no consequences.
Interesting double standard pehaps in google.
Someone sent this to me. Though it would be ‘funny’ to show another possible double standard in google search engine.
Type (assuming you have autocomplete turned on) in
FAT WO
Notice that when you type the O after the W, it stops autocompleting. But if you type
FAT MEN , it will autocomplete to subjects about Fat Men
Weird double standard perhaps
Rape is not anything like amputating someone’s genitals. That anyone could post something like this just goes to show you the histrionics surrounding the rape discussion.
No real discussion can happen until people acknowledge that rape is not, in reality, the worst thing that can happen to a person. If you think it is, then you clearly lack any kind of imagination.