Quote:

---

A Wisconsin lawmaker faces fresh criticism from his election challenger over comments he made last year about women who "rape easy."

State Rep. Roger Rivard (R-Rice Lake) spoke to the Chetek Alert newspaper in December about a 17-year-old who was charged with assault after having sex with his underage girlfriend on their high school campus. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Rivard said his father had warned him that "some girls rape easy." He explained that meant they'd verbally consent to sex, then later accuse the man of rape.

"If it's rape, it's rape," Rivard told the newspaper. "If it's not, it's not."

Rivard, who was endorsed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in August, told the Journal Sentinel Wednesday that his father's advice was taken out of context:

"He also told me one thing, 'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry,'" Rivard said. "Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.' All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy.'
"What the whole genesis of it was, it was advice to me, telling me, 'If you're going to go down that road, you may have consensual sex that night and then the next morning it may be rape.' So the way he said it was, 'Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.'

---

Quote:

---

Rivard said his father had warned him that "some girls rape easy." He explained that meant they'd verbally consent to sex, then later accuse the man of rape.

'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry,'"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Auraptor,

it's still a distressing attitude toward women and sex to impart on one's son, and an overtly simplistic judgment about a complex issue. You can acknowledge that this individual (perhaps among many others) is saying disturbing things without subscribing to the idea of a war on women.

I mean, is the number of false rape accusations truly that staggering? Is it such a prevalent problem that instead of advising his son to respect himself and a potential sex partner, be safe and responsible, he's warning him about how "underage girls"(!!!!!) are at high probability ruthless, hypocritical liars? Basically suggesting that when such accusations are raised, they are less than likely to be true?

I don't believe you would agree with such a thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
No surprise that Rappy calls it "nonsense" and tries to shift blame to the woman who's raped and blame it all on her.


And who brought up any "war on women"? Besides you, I mean.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

"He also told me one thing, 'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry,'"...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I have to agree here that I'm made uncomfortable by the idea that the concept of rape s being diluted.

"A violent act" itself is a cloudy term. Rape is a form of violence and violation, period. But it doesn't have to be a physical act of struggle and overt brutality. Fear, intoxication, power imbalances, all kinds of things influence consent. "No means no" is meaningless if you're scared of saying no or unable to say so. The context of rape has been broadened for a reason. And that may seem scarily foggy to some men, and there may be cases of false accusations, but in general, sex is quite simply an area where communication, respect and honesty are key. Men and women both need to deal with that reality. It's always been that way, only rigid social structures subverted ideas of consent for one gender and made it seem "easy" for only part of humanity. The complexity is not new, it is merely openly acknowledged now and more evenly distributed.

That said, I agree that this line of "rape so easy" is being taken out of context. It's a cynical, misogynist bullshit way of thinking that reveals a seriously disturbed attitude toward sex and human interaction, but it is not, I think, trying to condone rape.
It does, however, reveal a startling readiness to disbelieve women who speak up about such traumatic experiences. Which is highly harmful.

And it disallows for the real power imbalances that can be part of relationships or encounters where there is an age difference, since he goes on about girls being "underage". It's a grey area or a reason.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And is anyone else totally creeped out by the "so" in "Some girls rape so easy?" Like he's relishing even thinking about it?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Oh, man...what the hell levels are there to consent and nonconsent?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
The context of rape has been broadened for a reason.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly, HKC - there's a tendency (which I had *hoped* was dying out, but which is apparently spreading within the GOP now) to minimize and trivialize rape and violence against women. To, in effect, blame it on their "hysteria", almost, and somehow try to turn things around and make it all the woman's fault. And it's this joking tone of it they like to use - "Hey, what can I tell you? *SOME* girls just really rape easy!" - that tells me they aren't serious about the issue, don't believe it IS a real issue, and it paints all their apologies and mea culpas with a layer of mendacity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
The context of rape has been broadened for a reason.

---

That's fine, and I understand the reason. But the language needs to change with the broader context to allow us to understand AND talk about the finer nuances. If "yes means no" is also "rape," we need new vocabulary to make the distinction between the no rapes and the different types of yes rapes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Frankly I think the business those girls decided to make public is none of ours, and I think it constitutes entrapment, whatever else I think of Julian Assange (hint: I don't think he's an internet revolutionary, but something more complicated and sinister).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
But the language needs to change with the broader context to allow us to understand AND talk about the finer nuances. If "yes means no" is also "rape," we need new vocabulary to make the distinction between the no rapes and the different types of yes rapes.

Otherwise people become so frustrated with lumping it all together that they start dismissing the complexities of consent, and start making up their own awkward language like "legitimate rape" or "easy rape."

---

Quote:

---

Would you care for a preview of a woman’s life in GOP Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s world of “forcible rape?”

Here is the case of a 26 year old woman that was raped by 28 year old Richard Fourtin Jr. “Woman,” however, might be somewhat deceptive since the individual involved, unnamed for her privacy, suffers from severe cerebral palsy, cannot speak and has the mind of a three year old. Fourtin was found guilty and sentenced to six years in prison in 2008.

Now he’s free because the courts overturned his verdict. Why? Because Connecticut state law says that a victim can only be “physically helpless” if they are ‘‘unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.” Meaning that if you don’t fight back, you weren’t “forced” and that implies consent. The most famous example of this cruel mindset is the infamous 1993 case in which a woman gave her rapist a condom and begged him to wear it because she was afraid of contracting HIV. Her fear of death was greater than her fear of rape and the defense argued that this implied consent. Fortunately, the man was convicted anyway but by today’s extremist right wing philosophy, he would be innocent.

And that’s what makes the GOP’s push to redefine rape so dangerous. Here you have a woman that can only really communicate her displeasure by biting, scratching or kicking. She cannot say “no” and her physical disabilities makes fighting difficult. Did she try to fight back? Who knows? If she was unable to leave a mark on her assailant and, being so severely handicapped this is very possible, there’s no proof that she didn’t consent. The onus is actually on a mentally retarded person to prove she communicated “no” through every means at her limited disposal.

Extrapolate that to a woman being held at gunpoint. If she fights or argues, she risks being killed. How does she prove there was a gun involved? Does that mean she consented if she can’t? He won’t have a mark on him and neither will she outside of her vagina. It wasn’t a “forcible rape” so it can’t be a real rape. Sooner or later, one of the GOP’s wordsmiths is going to coin the phrase “non-consensual sex” or something similar to denote the difference between what they want the definition of rape to be and the reality that the vast majority of rape in this country does not actually involve force of any kind.

This case exposed a disturbing loophole in Connecticut state law but it also revealed the kind of travesty of justice that awaits women in a Republican America. Whatever you think of the Democratic Party and no matter your opinion of President Obama, there is no denying that the GOP is pushing for this kind of world for our mothers, sister, daughters and wives. There is also no denying that the Democratic party is pushing for the exact opposite. Remember in November.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly, HKC - there's a tendency (which I had *hoped* was dying out, but which is apparently spreading within the GOP now) to minimize and trivialize rape and violence against women. To, in effect, blame it on their "hysteria", almost, and somehow try to turn things around and make it all the woman's fault. And it's this joking tone of it they like to use - "Hey, what can I tell you? *SOME* girls just really rape easy!" - that tells me they aren't serious about the issue, don't believe it IS a real issue, and it paints all their apologies and mea culpas with a layer of mendacity.

---

So you're saying that, for example, Julian Assange is wrong to trivialize the charges of the two women who charged him with rape and sexual assault?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
They charged him with not using a condom. While I understand the sentiment, the rape laws in that country are a little unusual. Frankly I think the business those girls decided to make public is none of ours, and I think it constitutes entrapment, whatever else I think of Julian Assange (hint: I don't think he's an internet revolutionary, but something more complicated and sinister).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So you're saying that, for example, Julian Assange is wrong to trivialize the charges of the two women who charged him with rape and sexual assault?

---

Yes. He should not trivialize those charges.

---

Quote:

---

If it's purely a matter of a court case in Sweden against Assange for the sexual assault charges, then I'm all for putting him on trial for those charges.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
CTS, who are you talking about??? Who's getting so frustrated?

---

Quote:

---

What's wrong with having to talk a little bit if we want to make fine distinctions? I don't see any all-important reason to differentiate between the "different types of yes rape."

---

Quote:

---

Are you telling me that you think "no rape" is somehow "worse" than "yes rape?"

---

Quote:

---

Rape, finally, got nothing to do with "yes" or "no." It has to do with violation. And most rape is going to be perpetrated by someone significantly more powerful than his victim, so how is the amount of struggle and forcibleness exercised in the process any kind of determining factor in how much rape is going on?

---

Quote:

---

What is your stake in this? Who are you championing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So you're saying that, for example, Julian Assange is wrong to trivialize the charges of the two women who charged him with rape and sexual assault?

---

Yes. He should not trivialize those charges.

---

Geezer's so funny. What did he expect you to say?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

This is important. Rape has been reconceptualized to be a function of a power differential. Anyone who has significantly less power than another person is thought of as unable to give true consent. Therefore, anyone who has significantly more power than the other person should never accept "consent." This is the new model of rape.

---

Quote:

---

And y'know, depending on their laws and rules, Assange may well be guilty of rape under the law in Sweden. If he and either or both of these women agreed to have consensual sex, and also agreed that he would wear a condom while engaging in that consensual sex, and then he either did not wear the condom, or removed it during the act, then consent is withdrawn at that point, contractually speaking, because he is in violation of their contract. And if consent is withdrawn, then yes, it is rape at that point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Similarly, this is also why a relationship between a doctor and a patient is very inappropriate, or a military officer and an underling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Frankly I think the business those girls decided to make public is none of ours, and I think it constitutes entrapment, whatever else I think of Julian Assange (hint: I don't think he's an internet revolutionary, but something more complicated and sinister).

---

So they're girls who "rape easy"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
See the link to the Illustrated Guide to Crimnal Law above.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

This is important. Rape has been reconceptualized to be a function of a power differential. Anyone who has significantly less power than another person is thought of as unable to give true consent. Therefore, anyone who has significantly more power than the other person should never accept "consent." This is the new model of rape.

---

I actually agree with this new model of rape. I think it is more correct.

To bring in Firefly to this conversation, this is why I am hesitant when River is paired up with other characters. Even when River clearly expresses interest. I think any person who actually cared about River would not put her into such an emotionally vulnerable situation, which could go wrong in so many ways.

Similarly, this is also why a relationship between a doctor and a patient is very inappropriate, or a military officer and an underling.

---

Quote:

---

Inappropriate, no doubt. But is it rape?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Inappropriate, no doubt. But is it rape?

---

Yes, I think so. It's inappropriate BECAUSE there's a question of consent. It's frankly a bad idea for anyone to get involved in such a relationship, as the ethical quandaries are insidious no matter how careful the couple might be with each other.

While I can't protect people from making bad choices, and I think they have to be allowed to make them, at the same time I would always be expecting such a relationship to blow up in a very damaging and hurtful manner to both parties.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
They charged him with not using a condom. While I understand the sentiment, the rape laws in that country are a little unusual. Frankly I think the business those girls decided to make public is none of ours, and I think it constitutes entrapment, whatever else I think of Julian Assange (hint: I don't think he's an internet revolutionary, but something more complicated and sinister).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


I think he expected me to rush to the defense of Assange on these charges, because I happen to agree with Assange on some other issues. I agree with lots of people on one thing or another, but won't condone or excuse rape from them.

And y'know, depending on their laws and rules, Assange may well be guilty of rape under the law in Sweden. If he and either or both of these women agreed to have consensual sex, and also agreed that he would wear a condom while engaging in that consensual sex, and then he either did not wear the condom, or removed it during the act, then consent is withdrawn at that point, contractually speaking, because he is in violation of their contract. And if consent is withdrawn, then yes, it is rape at that point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
They charged him with not using a condom. While I understand the sentiment, the rape laws in that country are a little unusual. Frankly I think the business those girls decided to make public is none of ours, and I think it constitutes entrapment, whatever else I think of Julian Assange (hint: I don't think he's an internet revolutionary, but something more complicated and sinister).

---

They are allegations at this point, and he has yet to be charged or convicted. He denies the charges. The issue is as Kwicko has stated, if he goes to Sweden to face the charges, he will be extradited to the US and face the death penalty. It's not about weasiling out of rape charges, but protecting himself.

---

Quote:

---

I'd like to add that the reality is that rape victims under report rather than make false allegations because of the stress of bringing a rape case to trial and the difficulty proving rape rather than consensual sex.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


I think he expected me to rush to the defense of Assange on these charges, because I happen to agree with Assange on some other issues. I agree with lots of people on one thing or another, but won't condone or excuse rape from them.

And y'know, depending on their laws and rules, Assange may well be guilty of rape under the law in Sweden. If he and either or both of these women agreed to have consensual sex, and also agreed that he would wear a condom while engaging in that consensual sex, and then he either did not wear the condom, or removed it during the act, then consent is withdrawn at that point, contractually speaking, because he is in violation of their contract. And if consent is withdrawn, then yes, it is rape at that point.

---

I agree with the above.
It is interesting that Swedish prosecutors have not come to Britan or just done a video link, both would be common ways of proceeding.

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, to the initial post. Sounds like another ignorant jerk with foot in mouth disease.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Indeed. And it's underreported because of exactly this stigma attached to the victim, the idea that if she was raped, then she must have been asking for it or have done something to egg on the rapist or lead him on.

And it gets treated that way by so many of the law enforcement community, and now lawmakers themselves, who almost seem to have a leering, lecherous joking quality about the way they discuss this stuff - As if they're saying "Can't rape the willing, right?", and then winking about it.

And it's fucking disgusting, is what it is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
How many women do you personally know who've suffered from "regret rape?" How many? It's a chimera. It's like voter fraud. Sure, some individual, somewhere has done this. But we don't rewrite the English language because of it. We sit 'em down and find out the truth.

---