next »

[crazybatlady]

What's with the student newspaper at Central Connecticut State University (the Recorder) publishing a pro-rape essay, "Rape only hurts if you fight it"?  It includes such brilliant claims as "Far from a vile act, rape is a magical experience that benefits society as a whole" and "If it weren't for rape, how would [ugly women] ever know the joy of intercourse with a man who isn't drunk?"

Lovely.

Thoughts? Prytania, what say you?

Here's the link: http://bp2.blogger.com/_Mh1TZAM-AWU/Rc10M9wENVI/AAAAAAAAABo/3Swu3KRXMtE/s1600-h/rape.png

It's also on MSNBC news online etc.

cbl, proud to be penis-free

[jammer]

Please tell me that this is a very bad example of satire....

[prytania3]

Give me a minute to read it, CBL.

[prytania3]

Well, the beginning of it is sort of interesting--showing how rape shaped history and was a necessity to some extent, but then it really goes downhill from there. Rape as a sexual cure for ugliness? A great way to spend time in the penitentiary?

And it comes from Connecticut. What can I say? CT is a weird place and I still can't figure out the rules.

[crazybatlady]

The author wrote another column about abortion and the man's rights to a woman's uterus once she's carrying "his child."  It doesn't mention his right to put a condom on his penis or anything, just that he should have uterine rights.

Weird.

[mrhistory]

My guess is that  this loser thinks its satire?  Weird tone to it suggests that but what a dreadfully written piece of trash.

My hope and prayer is that he experiences the "joy" of helping "mankind" in some future moment of someone's need to assault another and then reconsiders.  My guess is that he becomes the "hero" of some nutball cable "news" show and becomes as famous as he'd like to be.


That might have been the ugliest thing I've read in some time. Central Connecticut University! Bet you are proud today.  His parents too. My, glad I'm not his father.

[yemaya]

The author wrote another column about abortion and the man's rights to a woman's uterus once she's carrying "his child."  It doesn't mention his right to put a condom on his penis or anything, just that he should have uterine rights.

Weird.

By that argument, a woman (pardon the hetero assumption) should also have penile rights...including the right to cut it off if he puts it somewhere it doesn't belong.

My guess is that  this loser thinks its satire?  Weird tone to it suggests that but what a dreadfully written piece of trash.

Probably not.  I've heard some of my socially conservative "pro-life" in-laws voice similar thoughts.  And plenty of that sort of talk among social conservatives on my campus.  Which is why I have very little respect for pro-lifers in general. 

My hope and prayer is that he experiences the "joy" of helping "mankind" in some future moment of someone's need to assault another and then reconsiders.  My guess is that he becomes the "hero" of some nutball cable "news" show and becomes as famous as he'd like to be.

Somebody like that is bound to wind up in prison at some point in his life....

[infopri]

Good lord.  There's not much that offends me, but this qualifies.  I agree with jammer and especially mrhistory, that this was intended as satire.  I assume this John Petroski is a student--it smacks of student "humor."  (Jeez, and it's not even April 1 yet.)

I am 100 percent against censorship, but I have no problem with after-the-fact punishment.  I hope the university comes down hard on the paper and Mr. Petroski and forces a prominently printed apology (and the removal of the paper's opinion editor, which appears to be Mr. Petroski himself). 

Yes, they have the right to print things that are, at best, in terrible taste.  But the community has the right to react and demand redress.

[mrhistory]

Good lord.  There's not much that offends me, but this qualifies.  I agree with jammer and especially mrhistory, that this was intended as satire.  I assume this John Petroski is a student--it smacks of student "humor."  (Jeez, and it's not even April 1 yet.)

I am 100 percent against censorship, but I have no problem with after-the-fact punishment.  I hope the university comes down hard on the paper and Mr. Petroski and forces a prominently printed apology (and the removal of the paper's opinion editor, which appears to be Mr. Petroski himself). 

Yes, they have the right to print things that are, at best, in terrible taste.  But the community has the right to react and demand redress.

I would think that advocating assault would come under something besides censorship.  My opinion is that you have to be seriously nuts to make this sort of argument---certifiable.

[prytania3]

I think the columnist is seeking attention by being outrageous.

[mrhistory]

I think the columnist is seeking attention by being outrageous.

He's a walking argument for a faculty advisor even on college newspapers. Its a disgusting column and CCU should be ashamed to be associated with it.

[infopri]

Good lord.  There's not much that offends me, but this qualifies.  I agree with jammer and especially mrhistory, that this was intended as satire.  I assume this John Petroski is a student--it smacks of student "humor."  (Jeez, and it's not even April 1 yet.)

I am 100 percent against censorship, but I have no problem with after-the-fact punishment.  I hope the university comes down hard on the paper and Mr. Petroski and forces a prominently printed apology (and the removal of the paper's opinion editor, which appears to be Mr. Petroski himself). 

Yes, they have the right to print things that are, at best, in terrible taste.  But the community has the right to react and demand redress.

I would think that advocating assault would come under something besides censorship.  My opinion is that you have to be seriously nuts to make this sort of argument---certifiable.

First, I think (hope!) you are talking about the article when you say "this sort of argument," and not my post?  But to address your actual point, about advocating assault:  The principle behind the First Amendment is that people get to have their say, and if their say crosses into criminal behavior, then you can prosecute.  Yes, I know that the First Amendment prohibits the government from prior censorship, not private universities.  But this is a state university, so the First Amendment may well apply.

Also, it is often extremely difficult to prove (legally) that a particular speech was advocating assault.  Not impossible, but not as easy as you might expect.  Especially if there is no subsequent assault (which I gather there hasn't been--yet).

Still, just reading the article made my blood boil (which takes some doing; I'm usually not easy to rile).  I think I need a shower; I feel dirty.

[larryc]

I think the columnist is seeking attention by being outrageous.

Which we are giving him.

The stupid kid will grow up in a few years and be deeply mortified and embarrassed by what he wrote.  But through the magic of Google, his name will forever be associated with this column. His name is uncommon enough that there is no living it down, years from now when some junior assistant in HR googles his name before passing on his job application to the boss, this lovely piece will pop up.  And imagine when potential girlfriends google him! The dumb ass is screwed.

[americanist]

Back in my college days, I would have printed his picture on t-shirts and posters, with big print saying "John Petroski: Rapists, have at him!"  I am happy to say that I have since grown up and would never wish rape on another human being.

Considering that rapists offer clothing, location, and all sorts of other random bits of information as evidence that their victim "was asking for it," this column seems unwise. One does hope Mr. Petroski is never raped.

[americanist]

Addendum: I do realize that it's meant as satire, but even good satire is taken seriously by many smart people and virtually all non-smart people. So regardless of Mr. Petroski's intent, this is just so, so unwise.