Peikoff on date rape

[intellectualammo]

You contradict yourself. Saying "Stop" or "No more" would be withdrawing consent.

No, I'm not, and no, it wouldn't. If one gives explicit consent or implied consent, you can't take that back. You can however stop it from continuing, by saying things like "Stop", "No more".

Once the sexual act begins, there is no withdrawing consent as it's already begun and is happening, only stopping the sexual act from continuing is what one can do.

Girl: "No, I don't give consent"

Guy: "Girl, you already did, but if you'd like me to stop, I'll stop."

Girl: "No, keep going!"

hehehe

You don't start something, then say let's not start something, after it's already started. You can only stop it from continuing. Or allow it to continue.

Edited March 5, 2012 by intellectualammo

[bluecherry]

You two are in disagreement here only over what terms are applicable. The key issue here you both agree on. The thread was started over something Peikoff said which seemed to mean that a person can never cease giving permission for a sexual act to continue anymore once they have given permission for it to start. Neither you support that notion. I think the dispute over the term "withdrawing" here may be that you, intellectualammo, may take withdrawing consent to mean declaring the initial consent to activities up until that point to be invalid, trying to remove it from history while John is taking withdrawing consent to mean just that permission to continue is no longer being given without any impact on the status of the consent up until that point. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(By the way, intellectualammo, where is the picture in your avatar from? I like it.)

Edited March 5, 2012 by bluecherry

[intellectualammo]

You two are in disagreement here only over what terms are applicable. The key issue here you both agree on. The thread was started over something Peikoff said which seemed to mean that a person can never cease giving permission for a sexual act to continue anymore once they have given permission for it to start. Neither you support that notion. I think the dispute over the term "withdrawing" here may be that you, intellectualammo, may take withdrawing consent to mean declaring the initial consent to activities up until that point to be invalid, trying to remove it from history while John is taking withdrawing consent to mean just that permission to continue is no longer being given without any impact on the status of the consent up until that point. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct.

(By the way, intellectualammo, where is the picture in your avatar from? I like it.)

Thanks. I found it on DeviantArt, artist by the name of JenniFurret (Jennifer McCreight)

http://fc06.devianta...Jennifurret.jpg

http://jennifurret.d...malion-31996595

I found this only after something I had written (very long but VERY interesting story). It is the single most important artwork out there in the world today to me. I could go on and on about this recontextualization of hers of Pygmalion as well as my own...

Edited March 5, 2012 by intellectualammo

[bluecherry]

Thanks. And yes, I remember how much you love Pygmalion and noticed the thematic similarity.

[intellectualammo]

Thanks. And yes, I remember how much you love Pygmalion and noticed the thematic similarity.

[JASKN]

Lo! Peikoff has retracted his original statement as stated, and added clarification. Let the backpedaling begin!

[bluecherry]

I just listened to the relevant section. Maybe if it was written out it would be easier, but I found it a little hard to follow what he was trying to say his actual position now is. Everything he said there was kind of long and winding. Sometimes it seemed like he was saying one thing, but then a minute later it seemed like he was saying the opposite.

I got the part about how legally just a claim of having said no in the absence of any corroborating evidence and with the other party denying this that that claim of no is not enough to actually convict somebody of rape. Nothing unusual there. I also got that he seemed to have agreed with Amy upon further reflection that he can't really imagine why a moral person A would still be interested in sex with somebody B who called things off and in so doing perhaps showed evidence of them, B, concluding that they, B, had made a mistake in getting involved in the first place with A. He says he got carried away and hastily jumped to defending whatisname because he thought some people were just out to attack him because they like bringing down successful people. I think he said that after looking into the case further that he no longer has a certain conclusion about it. Things get more and more unclear though to me aside from these things.

[Ninth Doctor]

Lo! Peikoff has retracted his original statement as stated, and added clarification. Let the backpedaling begin!

Indeed, and it's quite good. It’s 15 minutes long, the entire podcast is dedicated to it.

http://www.peikoff.c...ity-and-to-law/

He acknowledges that he didn’t know anything about the Kobe Bryant case, beyond that some people he hates were on one side of it. He went “by feeling”.

He does seem to leave open, by implication, that there are contexts were a man can force himself on a woman, but the examples he gives are all to the contrary. Then, near the end, he says once you have “penile penetration”, “I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid”. He then talks about some code at Dartmouth requiring written permission for sexual activities, in detail to the point of absurdity. It gets pretty confusing, it sounds like he means ‘no’ when he says ‘yes’ in this section, and that in itself is quite ironic. His view on withdrawal of consent is still not entirely clear, or it’s still wrong, I’m not sure which. Maybe I need to listen again. There was a phrase or two where I literally couldn't understand what he was saying. There was the case of the 5 second delay resulting in a rape conviction, and everyone I’ve read agrees that sounds ridiculous (of course I wasn't on the jury, and, further, can't say whether 5, 10, or 60 seconds is the right figure). If he used that example, I think we’d be ok. But he doesn’t and I’m left wondering if he thinks it’s ok to keep pounding away for 30 minutes while the woman is saying ‘no’ and ‘stop’. But I doubt he means that, and doubt we'll be hearing further clarifications.

[John Link]

I think the dispute over the term "withdrawing" here may be that you, intellectualammo, may take withdrawing consent to mean declaring the initial consent to activities up until that point to be invalid, trying to remove it from history while John is taking withdrawing consent to mean just that permission to continue is no longer being given without any impact on the status of the consent up until that point.

That's correct. Thanks for seeing through our apparent disagreement.

Edited March 5, 2012 by John Link

[JASKN]

But he doesn’t and I’m left wondering if he thinks it’s ok to keep pounding away for 30 minutes while the woman is saying ‘no’ and ‘stop’. But I doubt he means that, and doubt we'll be hearing further clarifications.

Do you really, honestly wonder this, even for a split second? Is this really a conclusion that can be drawn in your mind about this particular man?

[Ninth Doctor]

Do you really, honestly wonder this, even for a split second? Is this really a conclusion that can be drawn in your mind about this particular man?

Dr. Peikoff, as a philosopher, should be an expert at crafting words in such a way as to be clearly understood. More than the common person, he should understand the importance of "getting it right" when it comes to making a statement. It is generally my policy to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that what they meant to say was reasonable and often words don't come out the way a person intends them to. However, as I said, he is a philosopher and this was a prepared podcast. His words ought to be evaluated on face-value.

Call it quality control, hell yeah I evaluate his words on a standalone basis, everyone should. It's not like he's using Objectivist jargon here. Perhaps instead of "I'm left wondering" I should have phrased it: "the implication remains" or some such. I made it clear enough that I don't think he means it that way.

[JASKN]

Call it quality control, hell yeah I evaluate his words on a standalone basis, everyone should.

I disagree with this. Why wouldn't you consider his entire person, as well as you understand it, when judging him? Perhaps you could make a slight argument against his person based on this or that public comment in recent years, but even then the judgement would be aided by your entire knowledge of his person. I would call it judging from the bigger picture instead of only case-by-case. If you have the information about something(/one), why would you not use it?

[Ninth Doctor]

I disagree with this. Why wouldn't you consider his entire person, as well as you understand it, when judging him? Perhaps you could make a slight argument against his person based on this or that public comment in recent years, but even then the judgement would be aided by your entire knowledge of his person. I would call it judging from the bigger picture instead of only case-by-case. If you have the information about something(/one), why would you not use it?

As I wrote here:

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=288820

"These statements amount to granting Peikoff a blank check to contradict Objectivist principles, or rather, a call to faithful cultists to ignore contradictions when they occur. He makes a statement that, coming from anyone else, would be taken as moral sanction to commit rape, and how many among the faithful can accept that his words mean what they plainly mean? There’s the claim that Peikoff “has earned the maximum benefit of the doubt”, but why should you ever need to extend him benefit of the doubt? Is he not a clear communicator?"

In this case I'm criticizing a formulation that continues to have a bad implication. His character shouldn't enter into it. But I'm saying his position is not clear, and to the extent I'm referencing his character it's to exonerate him from the bad implication.

BTW I just went back and relistened to the last 3 minutes, and I might be about to switch to full-on attack mode, I think I'll have to revisit this again around lunch time.

[JASKN]

Aaand, now I don't care again. You're making mountains out of molehills. It seems like you think Peikoff shouldn't be granted basic human error and basic benefit of the doubt. It also seems like you put these informal podcasts at the same level of researched, sweated-over, scholarly texts.

[bluecherry]

That's correct. Thanks for seeing through our apparent disagreement.

Excellent. Glad to see I may have helped clear things up a bit.

[Trebor]

BTW I just went back and relistened to the last 3 minutes, and I might be about to switch to full-on attack mode, I think I'll have to revisit this again around lunch time.

Grow up!

[aequalsa]

Aaand, now I don't care again. You're making mountains out of molehills. It seems like you think Peikoff shouldn't be granted basic human error and basic benefit of the doubt. It also seems like you put these informal podcasts at the same level of researched, sweated-over, scholarly texts.

You know that part of emotionally driven relationships just before the breakup, when people go way, way out of their way to find fault in every word and action of their partner?

[Chris.S]

Amy Peikoff: should not force sex on a women from earlier consent; eg. young girls deciding they arent ready yet. Guy may be justified in his thoughts, but not justified in having sex, and why would he want to?. LP: conclusion: moral right to say no

LP continuing: many reasons for changing her mind: youth, discovers something bad about the man previously unknown, possibly something about the style of sex the man wants that puts her off, physical problems - eg cramps, grasp the sleaziness of the setup, realizing fantasy is not reality. Women in these situations have the right to refuse

Common setup of the above: groupies contesting to sleep with the athlete/music star. Not all are simply teenagers. They get to the bedroom and become afraid, reality hits them, they change their mind. Conclusion: immoral, because she voluntarily subjected herself to the irrational passion of the crowd. After involving the guy: moral right to withdraw consent, however, irresponsible and immoral for putting oneself in the situation where she has to withdraw consent in that fashion.

Re: Bryant case: wanted to defend Bryant based on loathing the people who like to prosecute successful people. Admits decision was based on feeling.

Should have said: she has moral right to change her mind, but police should not be allowed to charge him of rape if there is no evidence of rape. History of prior assaults or witnesses are a possibility to press charges. Otherwise, any man is at the mercy of any woman.

Husband and wife: escalation of sexual touching. Besides an absence of evidence of force, how could a wife's "No" be enough to put away a husband for rape? What does she have to say no to in order to make it rape - gives examples of escalation of sexual touching. Her "no's" could be signs of something else. People on internet: any and all "no's" are a monstrous evil = ridiculous.

Rational line = genital connection. Any voluntary instance of genital connection means that the woman can no longer say "yes" (I'm assuming he actually means "no" here because it doesn't make sense within the context of what he's talking about, but I copied his wording anyway), otherwise saying "no" in the midst of sex before climax, that "no" is not valid.

Conclusion: Disagrees that any time a woman says no, in any context, it absolutely must be upheld by the man. Examples above (husband and wife).

Finishes with Dartmouth example.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peikoff doesn't say that it's ok for a man to rape a woman. In fact he says that police should get involved when there's evidence of force used.

He also states more than once that a woman has the moral right to say "no" at any time, but qualifies that near the end by saying that at the point of actual voluntary intercourse and before climax, her "no" does not necessarily need to be respected by the man. I think he's unclear about those circumstances again.

I'm unsure of my position on this. By default, I'd say that sex is complicated (sometimes very complicated, even for Objectivists) and that it's always the better choice for the man is to agree to her emphatic "no" (or even her agreeing to his "no", however odd that may be). However, if the act was voluntarily entered into by both parties, and the transaction is cancelled by one party mid-way, I tend to think that the cancelling party is in the wrong (but that doesn't mean the other can or should continue). Comparing it to entering into a contract, there are very few times a party to the contract can decide to cancel on a whim. There has to be some unforeseen circumstances, or other conditions written into the contract before it is signed.

In the case of sex, obviously there's no actual contract, but I'd say that basic, proper cancellation circumstances would include physical pain or some outside interference by other parties. But to cancel the act based on a whim or a feeling is different and depends on the people involved and their relationship (pick-up at a bar, girlfriend/boyfriend, husband and wife). Certainly, the party wanting to continue should feel aggrieved, and I think in some cases may be in the right to finish or at least try to convince the cancelling party to change their mind. I think most times the two would stop and the continuing party would try to persuade the other to continue, and if it doesn't work then they would stop.

As I said, it's always better to stop. A lot of this depends on what people think "sex" and "consent" are, and I think that's where much of the disagreement here comes from. Consent is much more clear: no force or fraud. But once given voluntarily, where does "sex" stop and what constitutes withdrawal of consent? If one person orgasms and then wants to stop, where does that leave the other? The trade was initiated, but not finished to mutual satisfaction.

In any case, I think Peikoff still wasn't quite clear enough, whereas Hsieh's discussion was much clearer.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Chris.S

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Aequalsa, IMHO the standard you want to apply here might apply to an informal conversation that gets recorded, or perhaps a gaffe during a Q&A that gets recorded, stuff that is truly extemporaneous. It makes no sense for stuff that is recorded well in advance before being released.

Dr. Peikoff is not just speaking to people who will pick at and find fault with everything he says, he is also putting himself out to be the best spokesman and authority on what Objectivism is and consequently speaking to an audience that hangs on his every word. Under circumstances like that one ought to be careful what one says, and especially so about what one publishes in an archive.

Of course everyone will make mistakes even so--but that in turn implies one ought to clarify themselves--quickly and unambiguously--whenever they accidentally make a statement that makes it this easy to misconstrue one's real position in a matter like "When do things cross the line into rape?"

If it had been me, I would have been horrified on reading the plain text, I would have immediately put verbiage on my website correcting what I had said, and I would have made room in the following week to issue a short clarification (for those who don't read)--bumping other content to future podcasts if necessary. Obviously Dr. Peikoff disagreed with me about the urgency of this--and that's not necessarily a moral failing.

I have not yet listened to the podcast or read any sort of transcript so I cannot evaluate Ninth Doctor's implication that Peikoff may still be stating a bad position.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

(In Response to Chris S's summary which posted while I was composing my previous post)

If all he is saying is that the man has the right to wonder about the rationality of a woman who says stop after intercourse has started, I can agree with that. I wouldn't agree with any sort of statement that the man has the right to continue because the woman is an irrational flake. I am not sure what he's trying to say here though.

I certainly agree with the notion that someone cannot _retroactively_ withdraw consent, deciding the morning after that on second thought, they didn't want to have sex with the man, so it was rape.

[Chris.S]

(In Response to Chris S's summary which posted while I was composing my previous post)

If all he is saying is that the man has the right to wonder about the rationality of a woman who says stop after intercourse has started, I can agree with that. I wouldn't agree with any sort of statement that the man has the right to continue because the woman is an irrational flake. I am not sure what he's trying to say here though.

That's what I mean, even his clarification podcast is still unclear, and I can't agree with him fully. Whereas Hsieh is extremely clear, and I can fully agree with her.

[Ninth Doctor]

Alrightee, I did some transcribing. Start at 12:40 on the mp3 download version (the one without the standard introduction).

[T]hen the question becomes: what does she have to say ‘no’ to in order to make it rape? If she says yes, kisses, but that’s all. If she then says ‘no’ when he says ‘French kiss’, and he gives her a French kiss, is that rape? Or she agrees to take off the shirt, and he goes to touch her breast and she says ‘no’. Is that ok, is that rape? Is that a case where he’s wrong? Maybe he just thinks she’s shy at the moment, maybe she wants something else, maybe he knows they have a loving relationship and many times she’s felt skittish at the beginning and then fallen into it? If you go by the way some of these people on the internet talk, if ‘Aunt O’ (????) comes out of the woman’s mouth then it’s a monstrous evil, is positively ridiculous.

I mean, I think that the rational line should be genital connection. If there’s a relationship involving the genitals by choice that is the point at which the woman no longer can say ‘yes’ (??????). I mean otherwise it amounts to, in the midst of penile penetration, and before the climax she says ‘no, I don’t want this I’ve changed my mind’. I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid. So, in this sense I do not agree that every time a woman says ‘no’, in any context, no matter whether her husband, no matter what the minor nature of the change, that must be respected. That is simply ridiculous, and can’t be enforced.

At this point he begins to talk about Dartmouth. The material immediately preceding has him advising that in the case of a married couple, where there’s too many ‘no’s’ in bed, that the person being refused ought to get out of the marriage. I think the quoted material contains enough context to analyze on it’s own.

This is pretty messy, but I think I’m on firm footing when I say he’s still wrong, and it’s particularly the phrase “I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid” that tips the scales. How is the man to know that a particular ‘no’ is not valid? What’s strange is that much earlier in the podcast he acknowledged that “cramps” are among the moral reasons a woman can say no before the sex starts, you’d think he would allow that something like that can happen in the middle of coitus too. Or, as I suggested may have happened in the Kobe case*, the “parts don’t fit”, though I note that at this point he has established, fairly well, that he’s no longer talking about a first-time encounter.

I’ve had the experience of a partner telling me, during the hot and heavy bit, that she wants me to finish. Not to stop, but to, y’know, take a shortcut to the homestretch, as in, let’s not run the full marathon this time. Then, there have been cases of a clear ‘stop’, and indeed it takes some number of seconds for that to register with the rational faculty; however, reason having returned to it’s throne, alas the business must cease.

Now, I’m trying to apply Peikoff’s formulation to my own experience, and it’s still not working. He sets up the “loving relationship” context, and ok, I’ve been there and done that, and it’s either she says ‘hurry up and finish’ (which, BTW, can be such a turnoff), or she says ‘stop’. If she says ‘stop’, that’s it, thou shalt stop. If you’ve set up that ‘stop’ doesn’t mean stop, then we’re back to S&M and safe words, so for now let’s assume ‘stop’ means stop.

Can a woman unambiguously say ‘stop’ in the middle of coitus and expect it to be respected, whether she communicates a sufficient (according to whom?) reason, or no reason at all? I say yes, morally speaking. On the legal side, it’s still going to be ‘he says she says’, and whether a prosecutor ought to get involved is going to play out on a case by case basis. Is Peikoff saying that if the woman acknowledges that genital contact began consensually, then the prosecution can’t pursue a case on that basis? I don’t hear him offering any such strictly legal opinion here, but if he were, I completely disagree with that view also.

*BTW, another possibility the evidence suggested in the Kobe case is that the sex started consensually, then she was turned off by his trash talk during the act, and he kept going over her protests. If so, it bears on Peikoff’s new position, his “rational line” of “genital connection”.

[bluecherry]

"If you go by the way some of these people on the internet talk, if ‘Aunt O’ (????) comes out of the woman’s mouth then it’s a monstrous evil, is positively ridiculous."

It was "N O" not "Aunt O"

[DonAthos]

I've only listened to this podcast once, but taken with the partial transcriptions provided here, I'm willing to take a stab at what I think has happened.

I believe that initially (in the previous podcast) Peikoff meant to say (as I think it sounded) that a woman can "give consent" to sex in a manner like showing up to a hotel room at night, and past that point she cannot "withdraw" that consent; that the man is free to have sex with her regardless of what she then says.

But he was met with a lot of, uh... feedback, proposing circumstances under which a woman might show up at a hotel room (for sex)... but then... change her mind. Like she sees whips and chains on the wall. (Or perhaps is disappointed at the lack of whips and chains.) So he's correcting himself.

He has moved the "point of no return" line. Now, it's not showing up at the hotel room, but genital contact. From Ninth Doctor's transcription (with one minor edit, in bold):

If there’s a relationship involving the genitals by choice that is the point at which the woman no longer can say ‘no’. I mean otherwise it amounts to, in the midst of penile penetration, and before the climax she says ‘no, I don’t want this I’ve changed my mind’. I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid.

All right. So am I wrong in taking his meaning? Because I take it that, if I have penetrated a woman, then "that is the point at which" she can no longer "say 'no'"; that her attempts to communicate a change of mind to me are not "valid." And I'm free to continue on with the intercourse.

Am I misconstruing this? Or is this what Peikoff is saying?

[Grames]

Can a woman unambiguously say ‘stop’ in the middle of coitus and expect it to be respected, whether she communicates a sufficient (according to whom?) reason, or no reason at all? I say yes, morally speaking. On the legal side, it’s still going to be ‘he says she says’, and whether a prosecutor ought to get involved is going to play out on a case by case basis. Is Peikoff saying that if the woman acknowledges that genital contact began consensually, then the prosecution can’t pursue a case on that basis? I don’t hear him offering any such strictly legal opinion here, but if he were, I completely disagree with that view also.

Legally it is possible to pursue and lose all kinds of bad cases. How can government officials, the district attorney and the prosecutor, hope to succeed in a case of "he said vs. she said" and is this a proper expenditure of government funds?