Trigger warning: this post quotes rape apologism and descriptions of behaviour which does not appear consensual
Angry readers, cast your minds back to 2004, and try to remember a brief blip on the pop cultural horizon. Recall the glorious supernova that was Steve Brookstein, a bright-burning star sadly lost to us. Drawing a blank? Don’t worry. Even Wikipedia describes his career as “very brief“, and I exaggerated somewhat over his success. He won a TV talent show, which I’d happened to watch, and managed to forget about him before the credits had even stopped rolling.
Until last night, when suddenly and unexpectedly he crawled into my Twitter replies. I have no reason to believe it’s not the real him, as it’s an established Twitter account and who the hell would impersonate a washed-up cruise-ship singer? Anyway, he came from nowhere, with rape apologism followed by misogyny.
To clarify he was a definitely full-on misogynist rather than merely a rape apologist, Brookstein continued to make some very triggering about the possibility of emotional abuse and blackmail forcing survivors into spending time with their rapists.
That night, he continued to make some truly frightening misogynistic remarks to a number of people, demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of consent, all the while suggesting that it was somehow pathological to care about consent.
Brookstein’s profound lack of understanding of consent was made particularly clear by this tweet, where he suggested even a “no” was not sufficient, and only physical violence could be taken as a signal of a lack of consent:
Along with the deep misogyny is Brookstein’s pervasive believe that he is Doing It Right. Apparently, while feminists are unfuckable, &C &C, Steve Brookstein is doing exceptionally well because he’s been married three times.
That bit signals the break, the point where you should have a laugh, because it’s about to get really dark. Why is Steve Brookstein so vehemently defending rape and rape culture?
Because Steve Brookstein is quite possibly a rapist.
Yes. Steve Brookstein thinks it’s perfectly fine to have sex with someone who is not conscious, particularly if that someone is a spouse.
I’ve said many times before that rape culture and repeating rape culture myths only really helps rapists. Brookstein dismisses consent because it allows him to do something his partner may not be comfortable with (and probably wouldn’t be comfortable with him announcing to a social networking site in the middle of the night). This is what rape culture is for.
It’s time, I hope, for Steve Brookstein to disappear back into obscurity. He failed pop music and now he’s failing at the basics of being a decent human being.
Accessibility note: The lovely @KinkShaman has transcribed the screencaps:
A screenshot of a twitter conversation between myself (@stavvers) and Brookstein (@stevebrookstein)
Brookstein: “@stavvers Did the woman Assange ‘rape’ [sic] see him again on a date? That would be strange behaviour for a rape victim. No?”
Me: “@stevebrookstein No it wouldn’t. Apparently you’ve never heard of emotionally abusive environments.”
Brookstein: “@stavvers here we go.. Poor women. Boo friggin hoo.”
A screenshot of a tweet from Brookstein: “@stavvers any women [sic] who doesn’t get what she wants can claim “emotionally abusive environment” load of bollocks.”
A tweet from Brookstein: “@magiczebras so if your boyfriend touches you when you’re sleeping in bed together is that sexual harassment? You are crazy people.”
A tweet from Brookstein: “@GemieMac the idea is that you get them in the mood… but according to nutjobs on here that is “emotionally abusive behaviour”
A conversation between Brookstein and twitter user Charlie Baker (@Girlpantsx).
Brookstein (to the timeline in general): “This assange [sic] rape allegation has blown my mind. Soon men are going to have to get women to sign consent papers before every session.”
Baker: “@stevebrookstein Or they could just understand that no means no?”
Brookstein: “@girlpantsx no doesn’t aways mean no. It can mean “I want to but I shouldn’t.” A kick in the balls means no.
A tweet from Brookstein addressing a number of twitter users: “@opinionatedpavs @GemieMac @BolliBolshevik @Inbetween_Girl good luck getting men. Talk to me when you are on your third marriage. #kids”
A tweet from Brookstein: “@blunt_knives commonsense tells me my wife would expect the occasional stealth raid at night. [smiley face]”
79 thoughts on “Failed pop star explains why rape culture works for him”
“It can mean I want to but I shouldn’t”
Which is still a refusal of consent! Is he saying that he’d not be annoyed with demands for sex Right The Fuck Now with a taxi waiting outside and a train to catch? Or with something about to burn in the oven? Or friends downstairs who for the sake of hospitality should be attended to?
Grrr! I shall now go and wash up aggressively! The dirt is rape apologists! I shall make them pay!
The fact that he uses Tony Clifton as his avatar tells us all we need to know about him without even reading his tweets. This guy is an ass hat of the first order and probably just as fake as Clifton was.
I genuinely think it’s the real deal. Seriously, who would impersonate someone so thoroughly defunct?
It looks to me like someone is using the Tony Clifton avatar and emulating his ‘comically abusive’ style, he’s a massive troll, report the comments and don’t feed it any more.
“no doesn’t aways mean no”
Spoken like a true rapist. My sense is he’s very likely done something similar hence outrage. Pretty much the sense I’ve got from a lot of them over the past few days. All freaking out because they’re remembering that time their girlfriend/that shag looked uncomfortable/in pain/not into it/tried to say no but didn’t want to deal with drama/gave the impression she had to/rolled over and went quiet after.
Rape is sex without consent so yeah, “no” does in fact mean “stop, you are raping me”. If it looks like “no” and you carry on regardless, you are being a rapist. Any man who willingly engages in sex with a woman who does not want to for whatever reason is a rapist. There is no grey area here.
Also, his ‘music’ makes my ears bleed.
I replied to him saying reading his comments makes me eternally greatful I married such a great guy who respects me and my body. His response? “haha so he taps you on the shoulder and says, “Darling, I was wondering, if it’s not too much trouble would you mind terribly..””. Nice to know he thinks that being in a loving, respectful relationship is funny.
Or that, “Wanna fuck?” is a question that is so difficult and unreasonable to utter.
Christ. The idea that I might ever be in the same place as this man truly frightens me.
It’s strange, we talk a lot about rape apologism, but I do wonder whether a lot of what we’ve been seeing recently doesn’t stray into something more like ‘rape denial’?
I don’t mean individuals denying rape allegations – I mean more a denialism regarding whether there is any such crime. From this idiot to Akin to Assange fans, it’s like they keep demarcating their line for ‘actual rape’, and not only does that area get smaller and smaller, but no rapes ever seem to fit the criteria.
I mean, they give all sorts of hypothetical scenarios that they would accept as rape, and scenarios that I’m sure many people have had to suffer through – but when a particular rape is publicised for whatever reason, there’s always something, isn’t there? Some reason it can – and must – be delegitimised.
One thing I’ve noticed about the “discourse” about the Assange allegations is there’s this huge muddled spectrum of ‘CIA plot’ to ‘whores must have made it up’ to ‘yeah well, whatever he did it wasn’t rape’ to ‘well it might be rape in Sweden, but *weirdos*’. Not all, but a lot of people seem to use these interchangeably, at least to some degree. It’s quite a good example of this sort of denialism I think – because it’s as though it doesn’t even matter what the position on the specifics is at any one time, as long as there’s no rape; rape’s just not something that’s allowed to be true.
I get a sense that we’re approaching some sort of event horizon where enough caveats can be in place, or cobbled together to fit a particular situation, that many of these rape apologists are actually creating a culture in which no-rape-is-ever-rape. Right now they might be able to cling onto a position of ‘well, yes of course there’s *rape*, but *coincidentally*, none of these high profile cases are actually rape’. But as the tweets above illustrate, that position does seem to closely correlate with a definition of rape so narrow and malleable that very few situations would actually ‘pass the test’ of legitimacy (*shudder*).
Anyway, keep up the good work. Posts like these are difficult to write (and to read) but they’re so important. Solidarity.
This made me so angry when I read it last night. Horrible that someone with so many followers -and, therefore, influence over how others perceive things – could not only have those perceptions, but be so incredulous about those who had different views. I went to his website to remind myself who he was, and noted that he has recently become a father to a little girl. This diluted my anger a little, as it turned to sadness, and a hope that all children learn that they are in control of their own consent, and that all children learn to respect, and seek, it.
I noticed his hashtag ‘kids’ in reply to stavvers. I read it as an assertion of the ‘rightness’ of his argument and worry about the psychological environment in which his children are raised.
While I agree that “no (always) means no”, as a conservative I would argue what goes on between two adults is their bushiness, not the State or special interest groups. Courting and sexual interaction being what it is, with so much hinging on gestures, body language and other subtitles that are often totally unique to the individuals concerned, typing to “police” human sexual behaviour with this notion of “enthusiastic consent” would be impossible and, from a legal standpoint, unworkable. If a man and woman engage in sexual intercourse without any form of verbal or physical protest on either side, that is consent, a verbal statement of consent is superfluous and pointless in 9 out of 10 sexual encounters. Any half-decent man with an I.Q. above 4 knows if a women is consenting or not. Unless a woman verbally or physically makes it clear she does not desire sexual contact, consent is and will always be assumed given.
Rape is rape, everybody knows what rape is. Shifting the goal posts to frame ALL sexual encounters regardless of both parties consent as rape unless this verbal “enthusiastic consent” is given, is ridiculous and absurd.
You must have terrible sex. Like, seriously bad, if you think enthusiastic consent somehow ruins sex.
The goalposts must be shifted to frame all sexual encounters because all sexual encounters must be covered by consent. That’s enthusiastic.
How is casting aspersions and presumptions about my sexual life in any way a reasoned response to my argument? If your only counter-point to the objections I have raised above is the puerile and childish retort “your sex life must be terrible”
[diatribe of ableist language moderated out]
why should I or anyone else take this “enthusiastic consent” thing seriously? has stood most people in good stead for quite some time. I am not arguing, nor did I, that “enthusiastic consent” “ruins sex”, it’s just a pointless and rather silly addition to something that already has a consent fail safe – the one syllable word “no”.
Nonsense. I had a girlfriend once who had a go at me when I asked if she want me to do a particular thing for her. She said, “Just shut up and do it.”
So I disagree with the premise that enthusiastic consent is vital to a relationship. If you need EC to make your sex feel safe that’s fine…tell your boyfriend to check with you first before he tries to put his thumb up your arse but don’t push you conversational sex on others.
That is enthusiastic consent, you div. “Want me to do this?” “Fuck yeah, do it now”. You asked, she consented enthusiastically.
Stop being so quick to defensiveness and pay attention to what’s actually said rather than cherry pick it for bias. It just makes you look even more stupid.
‘Go on then, get it over with’. … How humiliating for you. Surely you and any partner are worth more than that?
Bad logic detected in this quadrant.
Why are you assuming “enthusiastic consent” is taken to mean consent that is expressly verbal? Also, with regards to non sequiturs, this: “…. sexual interaction being what it is, with so much hinging on gestures, body language and other subtitles….” is then followed by “… without any form of verbal or physical protest on either side, that is consent, a verbal statement of consent is superfluous…” followed not too much later by “… Unless a woman verbally or physically makes it clear she does not desire sexual contact, consent is and will always be assumed given…”.
So, which is it? Human beings have subtle communication so consent is assumed via body language (other cues, etc.) or consent can only be understood to not have been given/given by a verbal “yes” or “no”? Which? Define “physical” for me, too. If a woman is lying there clearly not enjoying herself would you consider that a physical sign, too? Or do you expressly want her to, as Steve so eloquently puts it give you a swift “kick in the balls” and if she doesn’t you’ll take it that she’s probably just ‘shit in bed’ and pump away anyway. Also, where did you get “police” from? Who said they want to “police”, via their “self interest groups” the sexual behaviour of consenting adults? The issue here is non-consent and all the subtle variations thereof; extrapolating into shit no-one said is precisely that.
You seem to fundamentally fail to understand that “enthusastic consent” clearly means no force, no pain, no coercion, no discomfort, no waking up being someone’s fuck hole. So no, it appears you do not, after all, understand what rape is. I would have to agree you’re probably a pretty bad lay, yeah. If you can’t agree that women should be enthusiastic particpants in the sex you have with them then sure, you’re thinking like a rapist. Don’t like it, too bad – that’s just plain logic.
Again, the classic ultra-left smear tactics some into play whenever a reasoned alternative opinion is put forward. When have I ever said that women should not be enthusiastic participants? I have been arguing against that exact thing. My point is that the argument laid down by the author of this blog is pointless. Consensual sexual activity requires consent on both sides, everyone knows this. It is this whole concept of “enthusiastic” consent that causes a problem. As though consent might no be “enthusiastic”. Consent is consent in the same way rape is rape. The author is making an irrelevant argument. In answer to your rather odd question as to whether I would just “pump” away if a woman was obviously not enjoying sexual intercourse, I can state categorically that I most certainly would not, indeed nothing would give me less pleasure. That is my point, everyone knows when a woman is consenting to sexual contact, by physical or verbal communication, so this whole concept is “enthusiastic consent” is a pointless non-argument. This whole idea of waking a woman up via sexual activity is again, entirely a contextual thing. If you already know the women intimately and she makes physical or verbal signs of pleasure and willing consent, that’s fine, if she makes it clear your attention is not wanted at that particular time and in that situation, obviously you cease. That’s just simple common sense and it’s nobody’s concern but the two people involved.
Consensual sexual relations between two people are indeed the business of nobody but themselves, but like boomer, I detect a certain confusion in your arguments as to what you understand consensual to mean.
You say “Any half-decent man with an I.Q. above 4 knows if a women is consenting or not. Unless a woman verbally or physically makes it clear she does not desire sexual contact, consent is and will always be assumed given.”
Leaving aside the IQ comment, it seems you are saying that every man can detect from subtle cues (verbal or physical) whether a woman desires him or not. I think this is palpably not true. Perhaps some men are mind-readers who can tell infallibly whether a woman is into having sex with them at that moment- but I think it’s a ludicrous idea. The only sure way of knowing if she wants you is to ask (it doesn’t have to be verbal, but honestly, being verbal is not a buzzkill). To say that consent can ever be assumed to have been given is a language of entitlement to rape.
From the heterosexual POV, It is also rather joyless IMO to say that consent is about not saying “no” – it puts women culturally in a rather invidious position as passive receivers of male sexuality. I agree with stavvers that promoting the idea of enthusiastiac consent is a vitally important issue.
(heterosexual POV? sorry…from any point of view, whatever your orientation, consent should mean enthusiastic consent)
Right. So then you agree that a woman having sex with you and not enthusiastically doing so is blurgh, ewww, and off. Cool. So now you know what’s meant by the term and not what you erroneously assumed before was verbal consent. So, in fact, not pointless at all but all to entirely relevant and, as you yourself prove, very much needed indeed.
And, nope. You’re all over the place with contradictions again. Enthusiastic consent is needed because as you yourself have just indicated again, you apparently still can’t get it into your head that penetrating a sleeping woman is not ‘contextual’ fuck all but actually rape. That’s not a feminist thing, by the way, that’s the law. In the case in question – the case at issue here – there was no intimate relationship (intimate to be taken as you have indicated “know the woman intimately”) but what amounted to a single prior instance of sex with consent. You also have no idea what took place past or addendum to what was defined as rape by documentation pertaining to the case so, again, non sequitur in “no-one’s business” but making not just assumptions but building whole arguments thereon anyway.
Your arguments are, therefore, not reasoned at all. Your arguments are weak, badly formulated, and intellectually dishonest. Also, no, I don’t have any political leanings either way but nice try anyway.
Honestly, consent isn’t that difficult. In my life, it basically consists of two questions:
1) “Wanna fuck?”
2) “This okay?”
And respecting the answers given.
If it’s considerably more nebulous for you, may I suggest that you’re doing it wrong?
**is their business, that’s an unfortunate typo.
Trigger warning: Truth
Sorry but what exactly does him being a “failed pop star” have to do with anything? Your blog posts would be much more convincing if you break out of the familiar pattern of ad hominem attacks and focus only on the arguments you find disagreeable. That you take joy in the failings of another human being says more about you than him. One could equally well make the case that an unemployed adult has no business calling someone else a loser, but I digress.
Believe it or not, there are people who don’t mind their partners doing it to them when they are asleep. My girlfriend routinely wakes me up with a blowjob. She is not a rapist. Then there is the BDSM community with its concept of “consensual non-consent” where repeatedly asking your partner for consent might defeat the whole purpose of the act. If two people trust, or indeed love, each other enough to allow this, then where is the problem? The feminist agenda to define rape as anything except signed consent forms submitted in triplicate and attested by the Mayor of London is as frightening as it is hilarious.
Finally, I hope people are able to read through your pathetic, libelous (and usual) attempt to label people (“Steve Brookstein is quite possibly a rapist”). If his wife doesn’t have a problem, it is not rape. And since you have no way of knowing that, Steve Brookstein isn’t “quite possibly” a rapist.
Oh wow. You’ve never studied even a little bit of formal logic, have you?
Sorry hon tell me which part you don’t understand and I’ll explain it to you.
I’m just gonna jump in here and I’ll leave it to the blog owner to publish.
First of all, there is a huge and distinct difference between your girlfriend waking you up with a blow-job and a man penetrating a woman while she’s asleep. Of course, your girlfriend isn’t a rapist and you wouldn’t be one either should you choose a similar form of behaviour such as cunnilingus or finger stimulation. Do you think women that care about women’s issues don’t think women should enjoy sex? Or that we wouldn’t think that men that do aren’t awesome? No lol.
Keep in mind the core issue here is a woman penetrated while she’s sleeping. You also raise consent within the BDSM community and, by implication, your own well-established trust within your relationship. Both of these are again crucially different to the situation of a woman sleeping who had consented to sex on one previous occasion with the explicit proviso of a condom being worn. Sex once is not an invitation for sex indefinitely thereafter and especially if it was clear that the woman concerned wanted a barrier. You think that’s reasonable, right? The trust and love you mention and the understandings that result are entirely valid but they don’t apply in this case.
Furthermore, you may have views on feminism and think that being a feminist means being a man-hater but, in fact, feminists are only concerned with level playing fields between sexes (and those occasionally in-between) that are certainly different but who should be equal in all ways. It probably seems like we want signed consent forms but that’s just a subversion of what is actually occurring which is reasonable and healthy dialogue and, given the varying nuances in this issue, some of which has to be addressed pretty finely. Don’t be under the impression that women who care about women’s issues automatically means they hate men; if you address women’s issues as human rights issues, you’ll probably find you agree with most of it. No-one hates you.
As for libel, irrelevance of career, etc., well, he wanted to fling shit and insults so that’s what he got back. He seems more than capable of handling himself so if he has any issues, I’m sure he’ll chime right in. Also, nope; you don’t know what’s occurring in his relationship but rational preponderance of available evidence does, unfortunately, indicate that his attitude is certainly somewhat unhealthy or perhaps misguided at best. Everyone deserves an opportunity to be able to take a good look at themselves so hopefully he’ll take this one.
[Comment moderated due to lack of relevance. Jake decided to tell his life story and mansplain feminism to us rather than make any points germane and relevant to this topic]
I assume (wrongly by the sounds of it) that a man making advances in his attempts at foreplay would result in her waking up. I can’t imagine a man could have satisfying sex with a sleeping woman. He must wake he up in the early stages of his advances.
Trigger warning: this comment mentions Jake
Jake, hon, that was a sexist remark you made above. You want to be taken seriously, but you make it so difficult for us to do so. How can any of us respect you if you can’t respect us?
That was just my snarky response to her (his?) snarky response but I understand that feminists like you are guided by a rigid, unyielding ideology that becomes the prism through which you interpret everything in the world. There is a neat label for everybody that disagrees with you: sexist, misogynist, rapist, rape apologist. Take your pick and do your worst.
…except you were all of the above and don’t have q point, you utter cunt.
you seem to ignore the fact that you and your fellow misandrists keep accusing me of rape. Throwing that term around at any man that disagrees with you takes away from your argument.
But you are a rapist. You keep insisting that it’s acceptable to have sex with a woman without her consent. You’ve just said it again today.
“… I said men can make advances on a woman without her consent…”
That’s rape, Steve. If you’ve made advances on a woman without her consent which you’ve repeatedly said it’s fine to do, then you’re a rapist. That’s not bigotry against you – it’s just a fact. As has already been pointed out to you, the fact that you think this is fine means you yourself have engaged in this behaviour and very likely with your wife. You, as point of fact, therefore, are not only a rapist but you’ve raped your own wife. The woman you claim to ‘love’.
You’ve admitted to it. Repeatedly.
Throwing the term “misandrists” around takes away from your argument as well. Not that there was much there to begin with.
Wow, you’ve never been involved in the BDSM community or even talked to anyone who has, have you?
I’ve been doing BDSM for years, and I can tell you this: you haven’t the faintest how ‘consensual non-consent’ works. You are exactly the type of person that would be dangerous to play with.
Well before the actual scene happens, there’s a crap-ton of talking. Detailed, intense, thorough discussion, of every aspect. Frequent checking in during the discussion that this is consensual. A safeword is picked that clearly indicates ‘stop now’. Going over what trigger points there might be. Even though the sub might not know for certain exactly how things will happen, they will have agree to the sorts of things that will be done to them. They will have discussed exactly what should be done if there’s a bad reaction. The sub needs to be enthusiastically consenting the whole way through this.
During the scene, if the sub says the safeword or shows signs of real, genuine distress, the dom stops. No arguments, no weasel-wording, no pretending of ‘oh I didn’t hear/see you’. *It’s their job to be careful and pay attention and be protective of the sub.* Consensual non-consent play is as much, if not more, for the pleasure of the sub as it is for the dom.
Naturally, if a couple have been doing this for quite some time, and it’s an ongoing regular type of play that they enjoy, they might not have anything more than a ‘same rules as before?’ type discussion. If it’s a full time DS couple, there might be some slight differences in the sorts of things they consider.
But the first few times it happens? There is never anything less than a serious, deep, thorough, intense discussion on what happens and what can go wrong and how to deal with it. And after the scene, there is often an equally important discussion on how it went and what to improve or do differently next time. Because this is hardcore, real edgeplay stuff. You don’t fool around with this, especially if the sub has previously encountered people who treat enthusiastic consent as something ridiculous and optional and impractical, which might make them anxious that someone will ignore their signals or distress.
Don’t appropriate your dreadful and vague ideas of what happens in BDSM into your attitude. Because anything less than enthusiastic consent means I will not play.
From the sounds of it, you couldn’t handle the amount of consent and discussion and checking in needed to be a safe partner to play with. Don’t pretend that you know what it’s like to engage in BDSM play and ‘consensual non-consent’. You are clearly missing the consensual bit, and that’s dangerous.
At least, I SERIOUSLY hope that bellend has never been involved in the BDSM community.
Interesting how you use a deliberately sexist put-down there to defend your rape apologism. You then parade your girlfriend’s loving gesture as a sexual trophy on a public internet site. How low can it get?
You really don’t respect women very much, do you? Have you shown this thread to your girlfriend? If so, was she impressed? Because if I spoke about my wife like that she’d make my life a very special kind of hell and rightly so.
Seriously, I dare you to show this to her. Then show her mum, your mum, sister, daughter or any other women in your life and just see how proud of you they are.
Notice how I have not outed myself. If I had wanted to parade my sexual trophies, I would have included a link to my facebook profile.
All I am trying to show, anecdotally, is that sex without consent isn’t always rape. There are people, and an entire communities, that practise such sex. The dynamics of the relationship between the two partners are important and each rape accusation needs to be treated on its own merit.
I can absolutely understand that there will be women who require and practise “enthusiastic consent” in their sex lives. But there is no need to foist your views on others. One of the great ironies of feminism is that it seeks to teach women what they should be outraged at.
No Jake, sex without consent is always rape. What part of that do you not get? It may be that consent is not necessarily always verbal, and can be indicated in other ways, but it remains explicit consent. And who are these ‘entire communities’ where non-consensual sex is the norm? In your head?
Women who state that consent is required aren’t ‘foisting their views’ on anyone – you not a victim here. ‘Enthusiastic consent’ is not a sexual practice or lifestyle choice, it means actual consent rather than a woman saying yes because she’s afraid of the consequences of saying no.
And no, it’s not ‘irony’ (please use a dictionary) even if what you’re saying about feminism were true, which it isn’t.
Excellent piece by Laurie Penny. Very disturbing and very courageous
Well said Jake. I am Steve Brookstein.
Firstly I have NOT been married THREE times. I’m on my one and only ever wife and I love her.
Rape is an awful crime and your eagerness to brand me a rapist is disturbing.
You assume that when I said “no doesn’t always mean no” that I would force myself on a woman. This is a disgusting assumption to make about me.
I was meaning that during foreplay a guy can be persistent despite a girl having said no at some point. There comes a point when a guy knows that he can’t go any further. It’s not just a word. It’s an action. It’s body language. It’s an expression.
I stand by my comments.
ANY woman can claim “emotionally abusive environment” that is NOT saying that some if not MOST are valid. I am not saying EVERY woman is claiming it. That is what you are hearing.
My “stealth raid” comment was said with a :0) icon, so it was flippant. But even still, yes, if my wife was sleeping and she didn’t have to get up in the morning (which isn’t the case anymore) I would like to think I could try and get things going. Obviously it would wake her and it is THEN when she makes a choice to continue or to stop. Don’t assume she is drugged, unable to move, I’m holding her down, I’m emotionally bullying her or able to have sex without her realising. This is my situation not your spin.
To claim that all advances on a sleeping partner is potential rape is ridiculous. Some men like to be woken up by a oral sex so are you going to ban that too?
One point on the Assange case:
You say “blackmail forcing survivors into spending time with their rapists.” You have to prove Assange has blackmailed or emotionally abusing this girl that has been chasing him and then inviting him to stay not once but twice at her flat. Thinking it doesn’t make it so.
Women need to help themselves too. Now before you start thinking “short skirts, asking for it” mentality, I’m not that stupid. Women don’t ask to be raped but if a woman is raped it doesn’t help her cause for a conviction if she goes on another date with the alleged rapist and invites him to stay another night despite other offers for places for him to stay.
This isn’t making an excuse for the rape, I’m saying to avoid kids getting run over by drunk drivers teach your kid not to play in the road. It can’t hurt for women to have a better awareness can it?
Rape has low conviction date rate because it is difficult to prove because unless there are signs of a struggle it’s a matter of who you believe.
Why not help women improve their behaviour before and after date rape situations instead of branding married men with new born babies rapists and making excuses for women not coming forward with “emotionally abusive environment”.
I am keen on see improvement in the rate of convictions as I know girls personally who haven’t and probably won’t get justice. But branding me a rapist or a rape apologist isn’t going to help your cause.
Hope this clarifies my position. I’m not your enemy.
Excuse all errors.
Thank you for replying Steve. Firstly, I’ll link you to this, as it ought to clear up a lot on enthusiastic consent. https://stavvers.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/people-i-will-never-have-sex-with-ever-those-who-dont-get-enthusiastic-consent/
See, when people reject enthusiastic consent or use misogynistic language (which you did, a lot) it sets off a lot of alarm bells. By doing this, you’re perpetuating a culture which allows rape to happen. By suggesting that the allegations against Assange definitely aren’t rape because you are doing it is to negate the possibility that they are. Because these situations can be abusive. They are not always, but they can easily be, and when you say things like you did the other day, you are perpetuating a culture which makes it easier for people to rape and get away with it.
So, basically, think before speaking. What you said the other day sounded really fucking bad.
You’re conflating a whole lot of issues here. Rape has many different manifestations but is almost always coloured by perceptions of the victim’s behaviour in order to determine validity. What you see in your mind are images you’re fed by the media. Women beaten up, screaming and crying while they’re forcibly violated. Your reaction to that is disgust and anger. “Fuck, I could kill that guy, that fucking animal, if I got my hands on him…”. In that reaction you also confirm for yourself that you are not a rapist. You could never do that to a woman.
What you are seeing is an example of rape and from this it follows for you that all rape goes like this. If these things do not occur – the woman screaming, crying, being brutalised – then for you, you start to make things murky and confuse them with your own prejudices and hang-ups about female behaviour. You remember that girl that cock-teased you once, another you were convinced you were in love with but she was into a wealthier guy, that pretty girl with the long legs and great tits you didn’t think you’d ever have a chance with. All your shit about women. All of it now projected onto a woman who hasn’t behaved according to your expectations of how a rape victim should act. If she doesn’t act that way, well, naturally, she can’t be anything other than yet another crafty bitch out to fuck some poor guy over. Poor you, right? Poor men.
Don’t get confused between all your assumptions/hang-ups about women and these victims. Don’t confuse the issue of a sleeping woman being fucked without a condom when she had expressly consented to one previous instance of sex as long as one had been used with your ‘stealth attacks’ on your wife. Don’t confuse your need to have a bit of a laugh and get lots of Twitter hits with your capacity to treat women like shit. You think you’re oh so lol but I saw how you spoke to women on your page. You won’t admit to it, I know, but you undoubtedly see yourself as quite the man, unfailingly right, unerringly superior. Rape’s a big ol’ funny joke, right? Women who care about rape victims are just deluded dyke feminists, right? You demonstrate nothing but confusion, ignorance, and contempt for women and the real funny thing is you don’t even know that you do. Be a better man. Stop being confused.
Sorry, but it’s not the words that sound bad, it’s how you hear them.
By the way, I seem to have misplaced my Misogynistic Phrase handbook, can you remind me of what things I said that got you feminists ringing those alarm bells, waving those pitch forks and torches with cries of “Rapist!!!”
Think before speaking? What YOU said sounded really fucking bad. I don’t recall calling any of you women anything near as awful as what you called me.
It’s not how I hear them. It’s that they’re bad. Up to a quarter of women have survived rape. Many of them have had people saying exactly the things you said to them and about them, and sometimes in the context of the rapes.
Step back. Have a look at yourself.
stepped back, all seems fine.
‘it’s a matter of who you believe.’
The problem is far too many people will automatically believe the man, often DESPITE evidence. Regardless of whether Assange is guilty or not what he is accussed of IS RAPE and people are denying it is rape. That is what the problem is, not only does this misogynistic society refuse to believe women it refuses to believe in rape. The woman in the case clearly told him she would ONLY HAVE SEX WITH HIM IF HE USED A CONDOM, how clearer can you be? Yet still it is seen as ‘not rape’, ditto being asleep and UNCONSCIOUS and thus unable to consent. What we are seeing here is people refusing to believe rape is rape despite it being bloody obvious it is.
When you refuse to believe the thousands, millions of women who are telling you that this IS RAPE and that we demand control of our own bodies, I’m afraid you ARE our enemy. Answering with a few ‘jokey’ comments about ‘stealth raids’ is not doing you any favours. An emoticon doesn’t absolve an ignorant twatty comment from being an ignorant twatty comment.
sorry but stealth raid as a flippant comment in the context of a loving relationship isn’t twatty. If it is a rapist talking about a night out on the prowl then yes. so keep it in context.
The woman “Clearly told him” where do you get these facts? People don’t always believe the man, it’s about getting enough evidence.
Can you explain why she went on another date and invited him to stay again? I find this strange. Would you advise a rape victim to invite the rapist back again?
Jesus dude, you’re talking about this as if stuff like domestic violence and abusive marriages don’t even exist. It’s perfectly fucking possible to be violated and abused by someone you actually like and/or care about.
I think you are confused. I am fully aware of domestic abuse, but I’m focusing on the situations that are innocent encounters. Why would I want to make them appear anything other than loving?
Penetrating a women without her consent, ie when she is sleeping, is not loving, it is rape. I’m glad you withered from the public domain as quickly as you rose to “fame”. Otherwise, your drivel could’ve been taken seriously rather than widely ridiculed.
Obviously, your fellow rapists & rape apologists will stand by you, but thats not surprising. Rapists look after rapists.
wow, you are angry. are you the child of a rape victim? It’s not your fault….ok?
Steve, a lot of your comments have been in violation of the comment policy, but I’m approving them so everyone can see how much of an arsehole you’re being.
No i’m not, but if you like, you can say it to my face one day?
In fact, it is more likely your own child is the result of a rape. Think about that.
haha my comments are offensive? Being called a rapist and that I rape my wife is ok? You really are a deluded bunch of morons.
I think you need to have a conversation with your wife. Here’ a script:
Steve: Hey honey, can I check something with you? I’m almost certain there’s nothing to worry about, but after a conversation on the internet, I realise I haven’t always checked that you’re feeling sexy every time we’ve had sex. I love you, and I want to make sure I haven’t stepped on any boundaries or made you feel that you ever had to do anything you weren’t comfortable with.
At this point, it can go one of two ways:
Steve’s Lovely Wife: Aww darling! Thank you for checking, but you’ve nothing to worry about. You’ve never made me feel uncomfortable or pushed me into anything, so don’t worry. Thanks for checking though.
Steve: Phew! I thought that was the case, but these guys online got me kinda worried! Glad we’re okay. Smooches now?
Steve’s Lovely Wife: Hells yes! I’m all about the smooches!
Steve’s Lovely Wife: Actually Steve, it’s never been anything I wanted to bring up, because I love you and we work great together, but there have been a couple of times where I feel that I went along with things because you were so into it and I didn’t feel I could stop things, or where I felt I owed it to you to have sex with you, but deep down, I didn’t really feel that sexy.
Steve: Oh wow. I had no idea. Honey, I’m so sorry. I never wanted to make you feel like that. Is it alright if we chat about what happened in those situations, and we can work on ways of checking that we’re both into things that don’t spoil the mood for us?
Steve’s Lovely Wife: Of course.
See? Not that scary.
I think your having trouble thinking in comparative examples there Steve. Your ‘oh why would she have went out with him again if she was raped, that must mean he never raped her’ is *identical* logic to ‘oh why is she still married to him if she was beaten, that must mean he never actually hit her’.
There is no ‘love’ or ‘innocence’ that causes this logic to differ because NEWSFLASH: You don’t get to decide what other people think and feel or how other people deal with their issues. Other people are not you. Other people may have all kinds of internal stuff going on that you are not privy to. Other people may have had a hard time coming to terms with the shame and helplessness they feel because people like you insist they must be wrong or lying just because they don’t fit into your specific experience. Your specific infinitely fucking narrow experience.
A woman needs to prove rape. All I’m saying with regard to the Assange case is that it doesn’t help a woman’s case if she goes out with the rapist on a second date. Do you agree?
This is why I’m hammering the domestic violence point Steve, as you’ve already said you’re aware of that, and married people tend to be aware of it and horrified by it, so please take what you ‘get’ about that and apply it to this.
Subsequent years of marriage don’t negate the violence in abusive relationships. It can be hard for women to come to terms with what’s happening, especially if they’ve been taught that the situation is normal (a depressingly common thing in the past, and probably still). Similarly, it can be hard for a victim of rape to come to terms with what has happened to her, especially since this, what’s happening now, you casting doubt on everything, is depressingly common, and so though she feels violated and damaged, she’s being told it’s normal behaviour, and so it must be her that’s wrong. And so yes, it’s really rather believable that someone in that situation would go on another date with her rapist, because it can take time to really acknowledge what has happened.
So… No, I do not agree. Subsequent dates have no bearing on whether or not a woman was once raped.
So basically a woman is to be believed and regardless of his denial he is gulity. Is that what you are saying?
So, I’m going to refer you back to my last comment, because a) that’s really cataclysmically obviously not what I’m saying, you should probably read it again, and b) you’ve utterly failed to acknowledge even the most basic of points that I’m explicitly stating; women can have entirely understandable reasons for not wishing to report rape or abuse – even to doubt that abuse, and one of those reasons is the attitude you possess – that will tell them they are wrong or lying if their experience differs from what you say it should be. Coming forward in full knowledge you’ll be called a liar before the case has been brought to court is a pretty fucking big negative reinforcement there Steve.
I have already been extremely charitable with you, despite a constant change in your focus and and your utter disregard for my repeated point, but to (far too) politely address your most recent question directly: I haven’t presumed any guilt or innocence here on anybody’s part, not even once. My entire contribution to this thread is directed at reminding you of the logic you are using, and that it is the self same logic that has allowed men to do unspeakably horrible things to women that were once even perfectly legal and socially acceptable. Horrible things that you say you are ‘aware of’.
Hey Steve, Jake is asleep and in need of a stealth raid. He’s already stated he won’t mind at all. Something for you to do rather than hang around here, spouting your drivel.
The only way to avoid rape is to educate men not to rape, to get full ENTHUSIASTIC consent and to stop rape myth perpetuators like you being able to breath, brookstein. I suspect you are a rapist, even if you don’t want to admit it. Worse still, the person you have probably raped is your own wife, who you claim to “love”. Nice one.
haha “I suspect you are a rapist” you idiot…Well, I suspect you’ve been raped and hate all men because of it. How do you that?
Eh? I am a man, so why’d I’d hate all men is beyond me. I’m lucky enough not to have been affected by rape or any loved ones, but not so much of a moron that I don’t know what is consent & what is rape.
You have raped your wife, I suspect, and now you’re desperately trying to cover your own behaviour.
yeah yeah that’s it, call everyone a rapist. that’s the best way of solving the problem. idiot.
Someone who believes penetration without consent is a rapist, ergo, you are a rapist. Hope this helps.
turns out after long debate… you people want women to believed on every occasion regardless of circumstance or evidence or lack of. Great! Well thank fuck I’m married and don’t have to worry about it. Bye
“Well thank fuck I’m married and don’t have to worry about it. Bye”
Just because you are married doesn’t mean you cannot rape your wife, which I reckon you do on a regular basis.
You are a cowardly and low man of shallow principles, dubious morals and a remarkable lack of insight into either yourself or other people. Shame really. I’m sure I recall you in a TV documentary to do with the ghastly Cowell and how he treated you and I remember thinking that you seemed courageous, honest and extremely likeable. You have done yourself no favours in the way you’ve conducted yourself in this issue and I somehow doubt it’ll be forgotten, either.
You should have done what the better part of your nature has been telling you all along and admitted that there were issues here that you’d never given much thought to but you were happy to look into more and change your mind on. The best and brightest people are those who are always happy to be learning but it takes a really stupid person of particularly bad character to persistently claim they are right despite an overwhelming amount of well-argued, rational, and intelligent information to the contrary. Feminism is not your enemy; you are.
And no. We want rape victims to have their day in court. What you have argued for and supported is that they never get one at all. You don’t deserve to nor should you ever be near any woman until you sort your head out.
Please do extend your lovely wife our sincerest sympathies.
The Assange situation is worth investigating but as for me I simply don’t believe a husband could have satisfying sex with a sleeping wife without her waking before penetration and either giving consent or refusing. if they have a good relationship it won’t be an issue. Please show me overwhelming evidence. Now by all means have “enthusiastic consent” but don’t force your views on me like an aggressive rapist.
So they’re not “stealth raids” after all…since you just said she gives consent or refuses in order for it to be satisfying sex.
Which begs the question, what the fuck is your point?
You brought up your “stealth raids” to prove that sex w/o EC is cool and then in your last comment, you admit that they aren’t “stealth raids” after all, but sex with enthusiastic consent. You’re still a moron, but it appears you agree that EC is mandatory.
I actually served this guy at work in Croydon back in 2004 just after he got kicked out of the X Factor. I didn’t even know who he was as I don’t watch the show and a colleague told me after. My work uniform back then was a polo shirt and black trousers, nothing showing but my arms. Dude wouldn’t stop staring at my chest the whole time I was talking to him and my polo shirt was the largest male size possible (I like my tops baggy) so it wasn’t like you could really see anything but he was trying his hardest. He tried the “Do you know who I am?” line with me and I responded with “A customer”. So yes, I can fully believe this of him as having met the man myself, I can verify he’s a grade A tosser. He’s not going to change.