Peikoff on date rape

[Ninth Doctor]

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.

Amen. First post? Welcome to OO!

[DonAthos]

So, I've lost my free time for the last forever and haven't been able to drop by and invest any serious time here lately. Tonight was suffering from insomnia and decided to, you know, just look around a bit... and of course this is the damned thread I stumble into.

I know it's been disavowed by "both sides" that this has anything to do with the rape scene in The Fountainhead -- and I hate to be "the rape guy" -- but you know what? It seems pretty clear to me that these issues are related. Or maybe Objectivism, a philosophy of reason and non-initiation of force, just keeps on getting "accidentally" paired with rape... somehow? But no. That doesn't track. It seems to me that Objectivism (at least as it's often popularly presented) is ambivalent on this subject matter. In the thread devoted to rape in The Fountainhead, I laid out my nascent ideas on the source of that ambivalence, but here I'll just say that these comments from Peikoff do not surprise me in the least.

In fact, I'd be surprised if Peikoff fundamentally felt any other way (and to be sure, it'll be interesting to see his planned statements). But whether Peikoff ultimately does or does not support the apparent meaning of his statements, several others have seemingly expressed very similar views re: Dominique and Roark in the aforementioned thread; that Dominique had given an implied consent ("engraved invitation") and her later actions could not serve to change that. When she later considered (and called) the action "rape," she was just "confused." So yeah. The "romantic realism" line... the "authorial fiat" line... they're all (ultimately faulty) arguments that detract from the main point, which is that Roark was free and clear to do as he felt regardless of what Dominique said/did during the scene. Peikoff's latest comments seem part, parcel, and utterly consistent with what I'd already gathered from discussing The Fountainhead and reflecting on peoples' voiced positions. Though they would never call it "rape" (and presumably do not allow themselves to understand it as such), some Objectivists clearly endorse behaviors and actions which add up to rape in fact, when enacted in the real world.

This is more than just Peikoff said something dumb, and more important. This is an issue that speaks to questions of "what does it mean to consent?" and "if someone is 'evasive', can I force them to do what 'they really want'?" and "can a person willingly suspend their rights?"

[bluecherry]

Fiction =/= reality. What's ok in fiction due to conditions which are impossible in the real world is not ok to try in the real world where those conditions are not and cannot be there. That what happened in The Fountainhead took place in fiction and not the real world is crucial piece of context which cannot be dropped. The facts of that fictional world and it's fictional possibilities allows for things to be good ideas which in other contexts (like the real world) would be terrible ideas. It may be a darn good idea for Luke to use the force to deal with problems in Star Wars, but it would be a terrible idea in real life. Supporting a fictional character in a particular type of fictional world doing something doesn't mean you have to support it in other contexts such as real life. The same applies to less stretched fictional worlds and characters too. I don't think there was a single, solitary person in the Fountainhead thread who was anything but very strictly and strongly against trying anything like that scene in the real world even if they don't regard it as rape in the book. In the event (which I regard as unlikely) that Peikoff's statements were made with anything to do with The Fountainhead in mind, then he's the exception, not the rule on conclusions in regard to real life among those who don't regard Dominique as a victim of some horror.

Edited February 21, 2012 by bluecherry

[DonAthos]

Fiction =/= reality. What's ok in fiction due to conditions which are impossible in the real world is not ok to try in the real world where those conditions are not and cannot be there. That what happened in The Fountainhead took place in fiction and not the real world is crucial piece of context which cannot be dropped. The facts of that fictional world and it's fictional possibilities allows for things to be good ideas which in other contexts (like the real world) would be terrible ideas. It may be a darn good idea for Luke to use the force to deal with problems in Star Wars, but it would be a terrible idea in real life. Supporting a fictional character in a particular type of fictional world doing something doesn't mean you have to support it in other contexts such as real life. The same applies to less stretched fictional worlds and characters too. I don't think there was a single, solitary person in the Fountainhead thread who was anything but very strictly and strongly against trying anything like that scene in the real world even if they don't regard it as rape in the book. In the event (which I regard as unlikely) that Peikoff's statements were made with anything to do with The Fountainhead in mind, then he's the exception, not the rule on conclusions in regard to real life among those who don't regard Dominique as a victim of some horror.

I never said that fiction = reality.

But fiction does bear a relationship to reality. In the case of The Fountainhead, I've often heard it said that Roark is meant to be an example of human perfection, or the ideal man, or some such. And of course we're often invited to weigh the morality of fictional events. Fiction is meant to be... applicable to our lives, isn't it? We're supposed to draw lessons. We're supposed to be changed. And if that isn't true generally, then isn't it specifically true when it comes to Rand's novels?

Where The Fountainhead is even-more-specifically concerned, I'm not 100% sure about where it comes from originally, but the quote from Rand which we've bandied about -- where she described the rape scene as "rape by engraved invitation" -- I'd grabbed from an ARI study guide for The Fountainhead... for students. Here's the entire question:

1. At the granite quarry, Dominique is deeply attracted to the red-headed worker who stares at her insolently. She pursues him aggressively, but resists him in the moment of her triumph. Given that Dominique is eager to make love to Roark, why does she physically resist? Ayn Rand once stated regarding this scene that, if it is rape, “ then it is rape by engraved invitation.” What does she mean? Is this actually rape, i.e., is Dominique an unwilling victim?

So here, would-be Objectivists (keeping in mind that the outreach to schools, essay contest, etc., are all part of a proselytizing effort) are being asked to examine a scene of rape... and come to the conclusion that it is not. (The subheading for this study guide section is "Understanding the Plot." This is nearly, but not-quite, base-level stuff. Basic understandings. "Look at this clear rape that is described by the character involved as rape, but decide that it isn't." I'm nearly to the point of describing this as an invitation to "doublethink." And actually, I guess I just did.)

Is it truly surprising that some Objectivists would do so, then take as one of their lessons that there are certain times when it would appropriate for a man to treat a woman as Roark treated Dominique? When it would be appropriate for a man to try to behave as Roark, the perfect man, did? Is it truly surprising that some Objectivists would import their defenses for what Roark did -- and why it "isn't rape" -- to other scenarios, some of which might take place in real life? (What The Fountainhead as fiction allows is for Roark to rape Dominique and things to "work out": Dominique enjoys it, and even falls in love with Roark. We understand that this is the very rape that Dominique needed. As I made clear several times in that other thread, this is not some unique twist to The Fountainhead. It is a standard trope... of rape erotica.)

Well... again, I'm just not surprised, that's all. I consider this to be completely understandable and even expected, given the defenses I've seen for that Fountainhead scene. You say that The Fountainhead is fiction and not real life? I agree. But when Objectivists have to construct bizarre mental mechanisms in order to pronouce what clearly is rape "not rape" (because they've received from on high that it is not rape; just ask the author), that's bound to have deleterious consequences elsewhere. The gymnastics in this very thread to make Peikoff's meaning other than what he seems clearly to mean, I now find utterly and sadly familiar. It's part of that rubber meeting the road, or the whirlwind reaped from our sown wind, or the fruit borne of that tree, or whatever metaphor you'd prefer which says that allowing intellectual dishonesty, even in a matter so apparently small as wrangling over the meaning of a fictional scene in a novel, has bigger and more fearful consequences later on down the line.

[bluecherry]

"Is it truly surprising that some Objectivists would do so, then take as one of their lessons that there are certain times when it would appropriate for a man to treat a woman as Roark treated Dominique?"

Yes. Absolutely. Or more to the point, it would be a glaring, serious error that would probably have to come from somebody who doesn't have a very good knowledge and grasp of Objectivism or even literary analysis. For such conclusions to come from somebody who seemed to know their stuff otherwise would be a real surprise and make me question what on earth went wrong somewhere in their heads at some point. As long as Peikoff clears up this podcast issue here, I've never yet come across anybody who knew much of anything about Objectivism and actually thought it was ever wise or even permissible to treat a real person how Roark treated Dominique in that one scene.

"Fiction is meant to be... applicable to our lives, isn't it? We're supposed to draw lessons. We're supposed to be changed. And if that isn't true generally, then isn't it specifically true when it comes to Rand's novels?"

Not EVERYTHING is meant to be taken and copied literally. Some of the fictional elements of this one scene in The Fountainhead are impossible in real life, so the exact course of action taken there are not applicable to real life. There are thematic elements involved that are not entirely detached from reality of course, but the actual way they were acted out in that scene is absolutely not meant for recreation in real life.

"are being asked to examine a scene of rape"

Begging the question and then misstating part of the quoted guidelines of the essay. The essay just says to write about if it is rape and why or why not. Also, I said in the other thread that it is Dominique who employs doublethink. We don't need to, she does. Knowing that is what she is up to means that though the explanation of the scene involves such things, it is what the character is up to, not the audience. The audience just has to point out what she's thinking/doing.

"It is a standard trope... of rape erotica."

But this is not rape erotica. It's not erotica of any type first of all. Second, lots of factors involved lead to it not being rape though in real life it would have been a different story, since real life lacks some of those factors.

I also think you are seriously misdiagnosing the source of some of the statements in this thread. There is more than one possible source for some statements and you may want to look into that other stuff.

[DonAthos]

I've never yet come across anybody who knew much of anything about Objectivism and actually thought it was ever wise or even permissible to treat a real person how Roark treated Dominique in that one scene.

Check this out (emphasis added):

But there's no way he actually meant that a man is good to go and force himself on a woman. But depending on the context, it could be okay. She could be one of those types that wants to be taken and wants to offer resistance, and the man may have identified this in her. It's risky, and the price of being mistaken can be high.

Are we reading this together? Here, in this very thread, we have the above member saying that it "could be okay" for "a man" to "force himself on a woman." Right? I'm not making this up, am I? The words are <pointing at my computer screen> right there.

What would make it "okay"? Well... the woman "could be one of those types that wants to be taken and wants to offer resistance, and the man may have identified this in her."

Now... where have I heard that sort of argumentation before (and recently)? In fact, where have I heard this exact argument, repeated several times?

Wait, stop, I'll tell you. In the thread about the rape scene in The Fountainhead. "One of those types" = Dominique. "The man may have identified" = Roark. So... perhaps you'll No True Scotsman Amaroq out of being someone "who [knows] much of anything about Objectivism"...? But I'll venture a guess and say that Amaroq is quite conversant with Objectivism. So, on that basis alone, I must disagree with you that you've "never yet come across anybody who knew much of anything about Objectivism and actually thought it was ever wise or even permissible to treat a real person how Roark treated Dominique in that one scene." Because I think you've come across that in this very thread.

And come to it, why shouldn't I endeavor to be like Roark -- he, the perfect man? Because he does "the impossible"? What specifically is it that Roark does that is impossible? Hold down a resisting woman, believing that he knows what is best for her? Because that sounds firmly in the realm of the possible to me. (Actually, it sounds like the details of the Kobe Bryant case brought up... in this very thread. Maybe Peikoff knew exactly what he was talking about?)

"are being asked to examine a scene of rape"

Begging the question and then misstating part of the quoted guidelines of the essay.

Just want to quickly comment on this, because I loves me logical fallacies... (and those who think I'm wrong about basically everything can take that as meaning I love to commit them, if they desire! )

The quoted segment would only be question begging if I were using it as the basis of an argument meant to prove that the scene in The Fountainhead were rape. But I'm not. I've made that argument separately, and it exists in the thread devoted to it. Here, I'm proceeding on the basis that I am correct to label it rape (which I am), and expressing my reaction to this latest controversy, which is: it does not surprise me (and shouldn't surprise you). Instead, it is a consistent application of bad thinking that people have engaged in, in order to turn a fictional scene of clear rape into "not rape" for other purposes.

[intellectualammo]

I'm thinking of that case of Kobe Bryant, where the woman came up sometime in the middle of the night, after some drinking, to his bedroom, and then when he purported to do something, she said, "No, I don't consent." You cannot do that. You have given every evidence that that is what you are going to do, and it's too late at that point to say, "Sorry but no."

Right. But if she says "Stop!" at anytime throughout that night, that's different.

[bluecherry]

Are we reading this together? Here, in this very thread, we have the above member saying that it "could be okay" for "a man" to "force himself on a woman." Right? I'm not making this up, am I? The words are <pointing at my computer screen> right there.

Alright, I'm not even going to try to argue here - I forgot about that post. I concede that at least once in this thread somebody seems to really not have the kind of strong respect for "No means no" that I've seen in the vast majority here. Having it brought that post back up I remember that was a "What the heck?" moment when I saw it the first time. I could add some more here, but for now I'll hold off on commenting on this specifically.

"What specifically is it that Roark does that is impossible?"

It's not *believing* he knows things, it's that he does know and can know confidently. He does watch out for the outside chance of signs he was mistaken, but still, to even try this he had insight like one just cannot rely on in reality.

I said it was question begging because I figured basically that the subject had been raised as a point of contention again here.

[Ninth Doctor]

Peikoff’s example in the podcast doesn’t line up with the fact pattern in The Fountainhead. This thread’s already gotten a bit unwieldy, and I suspect that when Peikoff revisits the subject (March 5 I believe is the expected date) there’ll need to be a new thread to discuss whatever he says. In any event, if there’s going to be a big discussion of The Fountainhead, maybe another thread would be the right place for it? It'll get buried here.

[bluecherry]

There already is another thread about that. It was just brought up in here though to suggest that views about that scene in The Fountainhead may be influencing what Peikoff and others have said. I've been trying to say though that while DonAthos seems to think that it is pretty natural that people who don't think Roark raped Dominique would think it was fine to try similar things in real life this isn't the case, it is neither inevitable nor even typical by a long shot. Granted though, discussion about if that scene actually was rape or not is getting too far off track.

[Ninth Doctor]

It was just brought up in here though to suggest that views about that scene in The Fountainhead may be influencing what Peikoff and others have said.

Sure, and that opens up discussions of authorial intent, fiction vs. reality, counter charges of psychologizing,...it's all interesting and important, but methinks we've got enough on this particular plate.

[bluecherry]

I'm not objecting to dropping this topic - after all, I don't think it is a relevant factor anyway. DonAthos is the one that would need convincing about ending this line of conversation or not. (You quoted me so I assumed you intended to reply to me. If that wasn't the case, then never mind, disregard this.)

[Eiuol]

I know it's been disavowed by "both sides" that this has anything to do with the rape scene in The Fountainhead -- and I hate to be "the rape guy" -- but you know what? It seems pretty clear to me that these issues are related. Or maybe Objectivism, a philosophy of reason and non-initiation of force, just keeps on getting "accidentally" paired with rape... somehow? But no. That doesn't track. It seems to me that Objectivism (at least as it's often popularly presented) is ambivalent on this subject matter. In the thread devoted to rape in The Fountainhead, I laid out my nascent ideas on the source of that ambivalence, but here I'll just say that these comments from Peikoff do not surprise me in the least.

I was thinking about this briefly when the thread here first came up but resolved the question relatively quickly, so I'll mention my thoughts which may alter things for you.

Strictly speaking, yes, the "rape" scene and the Peikoff quote are related, but only in the sense that the subject is consent in sex. But quickly the context becomes completely different, making conclusions from one not affecting the other much except by merely contrasting the scenarios.

It would be bad methodology to abstract much about consent from The Fountainhead. To take what Roark did in The Fountainhead and presume *that* to be a good course of action to mimic is to say that as individuals, we can be justifiiably read a person as we wish. But no one exists in that kind of literary world where an author's plot construction and devices are part of a character's moral decision making. To start talking about real life scenarios, there is a lot more information to consider, especially that consent as discussed before was taking into account that there is probably clear intention to have sex, then that consent is retracted. This alone makes The Fountainhead mostly irrelevant to anyone's conclusions, or should be irrelevant.

I don't think anything about Objectivism is ambivalent about the subject matter of consent in sex. You say "keeps on" getting paired with rape in two examples that I can tell: This Peikoff quote, and The Fountainhead. There isn't much connection. You mention the essay contest, but that's even mentioning that the scene is not the least bit shallow. There is a lot to think about, and even the question "was it rape" is totally relevant intuitively speaking. The event is notable and of course even Dominique suggests it was rape, so it's not unusual at all to evaluate her thoughts. Other than that, I don't know what else you mean.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Eiuol

[DonAthos]

I was thinking about this briefly when the thread here first came up but resolved the question relatively quickly, so I'll mention my thoughts which may alter things for you.

I appreciate it, but will only reply to say that I'll let the topic go for now out of deference to the Doc's wishes. Bluecherry and I have followed up in private messages, and should anyone else care to contact me similarly, I'd be happy to continue the discussion.

Otherwise I guess it's a waiting game until Peikoff deigns to set the record straight.

[Hairnet]

I listened to the LP quote a couple of times. He does indeed seem to be saying, in-context, that the woman's mere presence in the hotel room constitutes consent and that consent cannot be later withdrawn.

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.

In that light, I find it only a little disappointing that LP has this, what I consider to be, bizarre opinion of sexual consent. Frankly, I haven't cared for some of his other podcasts opinions either in the area of sexuality. Back to thinking for myself ;-) j/k

Hopefully, for the sake of those who benefit from his podcasts, he will retract his statement.

I don't know if anyone has said this, but the difference between rape and consent is physical force. I don't actually know if this was proven in the Kobe Bryant case. I actually get the impression, from reading the facts that are known, that physical force was not proven, but it seems that he used persuasion to allow matters to progress beyond the point of her comfort level. That is not, in my view, rape. The guilt or innocence of Bryant does not change my view of the LP statement. It is still wrong.

Hello,

I disagree. Peikoff is not at all known for speaking well on the spot. Just look up clips of him on fox news and all the bad press he has gotten for Objectivism, this is precisely why Yaron Brook now goes on the NPR, Fox, and such. Peikoff is a good writer, when he has the time and energy (and an editor) to help him craft a clear and concise message.

His statement honestly didn't make much sense because it was refering to way to much that wasn't said. All people do this where they say something that sounds really strange, because they only say part of a thought, so the rest of the thought was taken out of context.

I am not defending the statement, rather peikoff. If he meant what some people are implying he meant, that would mean some pretty bad things about his character. I do not think he endorsed the policy of "If you can get her in the house, she is yours morally" policy. Honestly it wouldn't be coherent with the rest of his stated ideas, or the implications of the very next paragraph in that podcast. There is also the fact that he said this as an offhand qualifer for his next statement.

It is clear he mispoke and he just has to come out and say something along the lines of

" A woman consensually having sex can not say "no" before hand, and presume to have sex consensually, and then later claim that she was raped".

or the more contraversial

"Sometimes "no" does not mean "no", and a woman saying "no" is not always evidence of rape"

At worse he is arguing that there is some sort of implied consent in a womans behavior that can contradict her words, and that a womans words are not the whole story when it comes to consent.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Hairnet

[John Link]

T minus 2 and counting.

[John Link]

This appears on Amy Peikoff's website:

"He plans to discuss this issue in his next unfilled podcast, which will be the first Monday in March (March 4)."

I now see that the statement above is inconsistent, since the first Monday in March, tomorrow, is the 5th. In any case I expect that we'll soon have something interesting to discuss.

[Ninth Doctor]

T minus 2 and counting.

It may turn out to be a great non-event. I find it impossible to predict what he’s going to say.

I now see that the statement above is inconsistent, since the first Monday in March, tomorrow, is the 5th.

Good chance she forgot we’re in a leap year. We’ll find out soon enough.

[softwareNerd]

It may turn out to be a great non-event.

Either way, it is not an important event by any rational standard. I think it is unfortunate that both Peikoff's supporters and his detractors make it appear otherwise.

[Ninth Doctor]

Either way, it is not an important event by any rational standard. I think it is unfortunate that both Peikoff's supporters and his detractors make it appear otherwise.

I disagree. If he retracts, it will be virtually unprecedented. When has he ever admitted having been wrong?* If he doubles down, meaning if he confirms that he intended and stands by all the worst implications of his original statement, I can't imagine any other result than a substantial thinning of the ranks of his supporters and admirers. If he finds a clever way of sidestepping the issue, well we'll just have to wait and see. A sidestep would be "read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged to understand what I mean", and I think he might do just that.

* I had a friend who, back in the day, subscribed to a service that provided tapes of Peikoff’s radio show, when it was on the air in LA, long before internet streaming. In the first episode he stated a number of positions, setting out who he is in an abbreviated way. One of the things he said was: Abortion, I’m all for it! In response to feedback, the next episode had him retracting that statement, saying he meant abortion rights, etc.

[softwareNerd]

I disagree. If he retracts, it will be virtually unprecedented. When has he ever admitted having been wrong?*

What Peikoff says or doesn't say might be important to what people think of him, but it really has very little importance outside of that. For argument's sake, let us assume he says something really crazy. What of it? Will a few people be put off Objectivism? Maybe, though I doubt anyone who would otherwise have become an Objectivist would be put off by something like that. Either way, the impact is minor. There are very few Objectivists who have some audience outside of other Objectivists, and Peikoff is not one of them. Edited March 4, 2012 by softwareNerd

[Ninth Doctor]

There are very few Objectivists who have some audience outside of other Objectivists, and Peikoff is not one of them.

He controls the copyrights, and has made his name inextricable with Objectivism. I agree that he isn’t very well known outside of Objectivist circles, but with Understanding Objectivism about to be released (this Tuesday) and DIM upcoming, I think we’re going to be seeing more efforts to make his name better known. To the extent that succeeds, this date rape business can only contribute a bad aftertaste.

[intellectualammo]

Following two quotes are of Jason Stotts' and in the blue are my comments:

"I think that Leonard Peikoff has done some great things for Objectivism, he is like a demi-Aquinas, but when he talks about sex and sexual issues, it makes me really sad. Frankly, his position on rape is both disgraceful and disgusting. I don’t know how anyone of good moral character or intelligence could actually advocate what Peikoff advocated. It is made much worse because Peikoff is someone I respect and I did not expect him to hold such a reprehensible view of rape."

Thanks for insulting my moral character, intelligence there.

"Leonard Peikoff believes that if a woman were to come to a man’s house late at night, dressed sexily, and perhaps drunk, that he should just be able to use her a fuck-toy, even if she says no. Even if she says no. He thinks that the context is sufficient consent and that any other consent is unnecessary. Furthermore, he believes that this consent cannot be withdrawn, which is the most troubling part of his claim."

Consent definately cannot be withdrawn, it was already given or rather implied in this case. But one can say at any point "Stop" "No more" and one would have to oblige.

All very simple to me what Peikoff said.

Edited March 5, 2012 by intellectualammo

[John Link]

Good chance she forgot we’re in a leap year. We’ll find out soon enough.

If this weren't a leap year then March 4th would be a Saturday, not a Monday, so that doesn't explain Amy's mistake.

Edited March 5, 2012 by John Link

[John Link]

Consent definately cannot be withdrawn, it was already given or rather implied in this case. But one can say at any point "Stop" "No more" and one would have to oblige.

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

Edited March 5, 2012 by John Link