Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peikoff on date rape

Rate this topic


Ninth Doctor

Recommended Posts

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?

As candidate Obama once said, when asked about some fine point of fetal viability and abortion, “that’s above my pay grade”. So let’s remove the 'he says she says' aspect: Assume a case where the encounter is videotaped, and there’s clear consent for penetration, then a minute or so later the woman says ‘stop’. He asks why, and she replies ‘because I said so’. He carries on regardless. Is that rape, or otherwise legally actionable? Is it not Peikoff’s position that the man may continue, legally and morally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As candidate Obama once said, when asked about some fine point of fetal viability and abortion, “that’s above my pay grade”. So let’s remove the 'he says she says' aspect:

That assumes away the entire point of my question, which was finding the proper legal course when there is no objective evidence. The case you bring up is in principle resolvable as a provable rape with the only point of contention being whether stopping within 5 seconds is or is not good enough. I took Peikoff to be making a point about a case with no objective evidence available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That assumes away the entire point of my question, which was finding the proper legal course when there is no objective evidence. The case you bring up is in principle resolvable as a provable rape with the only point of contention being whether stopping within 5 seconds is or is not good enough. I took Peikoff to be making a point about a case with no objective evidence available.

Indeed, he does make such a point, and I’m not disputing it. I don’t have any particular insight into how prosecutors ought to do their jobs, hence, it’s “above my pay grade”.

I’m trying to keep the focus on Peikoff’s new position on withdrawal of consent. Is he not saying that the man may continue, legally and morally, once penetration has occurred? I think he allows that there could be sufficient reason to make the man have to stop (he doesn't spell that out), but also that there are insufficient reasons, giving him license to continue. This is why I had my hypothetical victim reply “because I said so”, that being the archetypical insufficient reason for anything.

I gather you agree that even with an insufficient reason, it's still rape if the man continues, so we seem to be on the same page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are on the same page, but I think a case can be made that responding in 5 seconds is good enough both morally and legally.

I agree entirely. Just to clarify, in an earlier post I said I didn’t know if 5, 10, or 60 seconds was the right number, and my intent was that 5 is clearly too little, 10 is maybe too much, it’s on the borderline, and 60 is clearly too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he allows that there could be sufficient reason to make the man have to stop (he doesn't spell that out)

My basis for this claim is his phrasing: "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." I'm allowing for the implication that a "major" change must be respected, in his view. This is what I call a sympathetic reading; I see that some people don't give me credit for being fair with Peikoff, so there, take that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad Peikoff recanted. This guy is pretty ham-handed in his thinking aloud, and overall seems like a bit of a nitwit. He isn't very deft or insightful in his thinking. But at least he finally revised his formerly bone-headed analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad Peikoff recanted. This guy is pretty ham-handed in his thinking aloud, and overall seems like a bit of a nitwit. He isn't very deft or insightful in his thinking. But at least he finally revised his formerly bone-headed analysis.

Nitwit, huh! Have you read any of his books or listened to any of his lectures? Where is your great body of work so that we can know how you have a leg to stand on in making this kind of judgement?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nitwit, huh! Have you read any of his books or listened to any of his lectures? Where is your great body of work so that we can know how you have a leg to stand on in making this kind of judgement?

Peikoff's past work is certainly of value, but a lot of what he says in his current podcasts seems very strange.

When I first got into Objectivism I bought and read OPAR and listened to all of Peikoffs previous podcasts, it was useful for absorbing everything and seeing how all these abstract principles applied in everyday situations.

Since then peikoff has said a few strange things, most notably

-The government should bomb that mosque in New York

-some stuff about transsexuals, I believe a few things he said were just factually untrue or highly exaggerated

-The things he's said here about consent to sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]it was useful for absorbing everything and seeing how all these abstract principles applied in everyday situations.

What you say is a far cry from "nitwit," especially if he is still providing value for you through his everyday analysis using Objectivist principles -- which, to note, is the explicit reason he gives for doing the podcasts at all. This is true even if you disagreed with many of his conclusions. He still serves a valuable purpose of making philosophy more accessible and real for you.

I can't imagine ever referring to Peikoff as a "nitwit," even if he were stricken with a sever case of Alzheimer's. It would no longer be his knowledgable brain, but the disease speaking for him. Wotan's insult was baseless and arrogant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far no one has stepped up to defend Peikoff’s new position, to claim it has been misrepresented, that context hasn’t been respected, and so on. Also, none of the defenders of his original statement have offered a retraction. I see that Dwayne Davies has been banned, he was probably the worst but he certainly wasn’t alone in being not just wrong, but in being abusive about it.

So, I’m really wrong on this whole issue, or I was (with) what I said.

[…]

Whenever you make a mistake you identify what is the basic error you committed, so you don’t commit it again in some other form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was there a post where his expanded edition was critiqued? I'm not sure what part of it you are thinking needs defending. Or, for that matter, whose earlier posts ought to be retracted.

To restate in an abbreviated way: previously Peikoff said that if a woman goes to a man’s room, she can no longer withdraw consent for sex. Now he’s saying that once penetration has occurred, she can no longer withdraw consent for sex. I’m not going to go through all the nuances again right now, please read the last couple pages of the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was there a post where his expanded edition was critiqued? I'm not sure what part of it you are thinking needs defending. Or, for that matter, whose earlier posts ought to be retracted.

I believe Ninth Doctor was referring to anyone who had defended Peikoff's original podcast. I would think that such people would now either disagree with Peikoff's acknowledgment of his error, or accept it and retract their previous defense of the original podcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just speculation on my part, but it may have to do with him being an associate of CheckingPremises. I tend to agree with the ban, if so.

If it were strictly that, I would disagree and disapprove. I recall seeing posts by him that crossed the line into incivility, I assume that’s why he’s gone, and that the worst posts were probably deleted.

I gave my opinion of Checking Premises here:

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=288638

Back in the early to mid-nineties, if you so much as posted on Jimbo’s list, MDOP, you were banned from the other list, Stubblefield was the moderator if I recall correctly. Objectivism doesn’t need these kind of policies, they’re better suited to Scientology and genuine cults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the early to mid-nineties, if you so much as posted on Jimbo’s list, MDOP, you were banned from the other list, Stubblefield was the moderator if I recall correctly. Objectivism doesn’t need these kind of policies, they’re better suited to Scientology and genuine cults.

I think Objectivism only needs reasoned adults discussing ideas civilly, and civilly disagreeing when needed.

I do not think Objectivism needs endless analysis of various sides and sects, where attitudes, not facts, get the primary treatment. It doesn't need "moral sanctions," "end my association"s publicly, or any other such quibbling. It's so tiresome! And it's a massive waste of time -- it changes nothing with those already in greater agreement with Rand's ideas, and does nothing to get her ideas out there to those not in agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen instances where uncivil posts were deleted and in many cases disapproved of the deletion--simply because the fact of the incivility is sometimes instructive. Fortunately in at least one case where I was on the receiving end someone had already replied to, and quoted from, not one but two uncivil posts before they got deleted, and I was able to use the person's nastiness to bolster the very point I was making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Objectivism only needs reasoned adults discussing ideas civilly, and civilly disagreeing when needed.

I do not think Objectivism needs endless analysis of various sides and sects, where attitudes, not facts, get the primary treatment. It doesn't need "moral sanctions," "end my association"s publicly, or any other such quibbling. It's so tiresome! And it's a massive waste of time -- it changes nothing with those already in greater agreement with Rand's ideas, and does nothing to get her ideas out there to those not in agreement.

The difficulty begins where one party thinks the error (or perceived error) is so egregious or fundamental the other party is not, in fact, an Objectivist. Then you have people proclaiming themselves to be authorities on what is or is not Objectivism, and they may or may not be holding to a very strict notion. (It can be just as much of an error to be overly inclusive as it is to be overly exclusive.) In the end, though _all_ of this is fighting over taxonomy, not over whether or not the person is actually right or wrong.

I am becoming more and more reluctant to use the word "Objectivism" on myself not because I think I have fundamental disagreements over it, but because I am sick of the wrangling over what the term means, and tired of watching people spend time over the issue of whether so-and-so is an Objectivist, rather than whether they are correct. As soon as I apply the label to myself I expose myself to the potential of some back-biting clown attacking me for using the term improperly. It is fortunate, in a sense, that Objectivism's influence in the culture is limited or I'd also risk guilt by association in the eyes of non-Objectivists (oh, yeah you are one of _those_ guys who snipe at each other over trivia).

That having all been said: Leonard Peikoff corrected himself, as I thought he might. I don't think the correction goes far enough. I also don't know whether he considered his wording any more carefully than he did the last time, though. So what am I to do? I guess, I can safely say that if his last statement actually matches what LP thinks, re. withdrawal of consent during intercourse... LP is wrong, and badly so.

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To restate in an abbreviated way: previously Peikoff said that if a woman goes to a man’s room, she can no longer withdraw consent for sex. Now he’s saying that once penetration has occurred, she can no longer withdraw consent for sex. I’m not going to go through all the nuances again right now, please read the last couple pages of the thread.

I've kept up with it. Mostly barbs and indirect attacks with an ad hominem flavoring. No need to repeat all that. What I was wondering though, since you seem to feel entitled to a retraction by everyone who was in disagreement with you(myself being one), was if you could be so kind as to specify who made mistakes in their reasoning and which ones, so that they might be reasonably and specifically addressed, rather than laying a blanket accusation designed to poison the well upon all of our collective shoulders.

Regarding Peikoff, if your take away point from those 15 minutes is that he thinks that it's morally acceptable to rape a woman once you get it inside, than I'd not bother trying to explain anything further to you. That is very clearly not what his explanation was about and any further explanations would be falling on deaf ears. I don't intend any of this in a mean way, but I'm truly mystified as to how you can think that what you wrote is what he actually thinks or that what he said in his retraction justifies in any way the last 10 pages of your attacks on his moral character and mental capacity in response to what is at worst an error of knowledge, but mostly an error of semantics and his presentation and clarity of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've kept up with it. Mostly barbs and indirect attacks with an ad hominem flavoring.

I'm not interested in "barbs and indirect attacks with an ad hominem flavoring," so if you see me doing that, let me know and I'll apologize.

Regarding Peikoff, if your take away point from those 15 minutes is that he thinks that it's morally acceptable to rape a woman once you get it inside...

I don't know if that's my one and only "take away point" exactly -- Peikoff said a lot of things in that 15 minutes, after all -- but I also think he said that. (Or, to be more precise, I don't think he'd consider it "rape" once the woman has initially consented to penile penetration, even if she subsequently changes her mind.)

And since this was the very issue I'd hoped to have clarified by his "clarification," I guess you're right in that it does kinda overshadow the entire podcast for me. I'd said earlier in this thread that this "controversy" gets at important questions like "what is the nature of consent"? I'm not sure I could yet tell you precisely what Peikoff's answer to that question is, given what he's had to say on this topic, but I suspect that I disagree with him.

And I do think that he's advocating things that I would call rape. Things that are rape. You think I'm wrong to draw any such conclusion, and would prefer me to dismiss what he says ("appears to say") as mere semantical error or misspeaking? Why? Because he's been correct on other matters and/or is otherwise a good person? Does it follow that therefore Peikoff couldn't possibly mean the things he's saying currently?

...than I'd not bother trying to explain anything further to you.

Ah well, okay. Perhaps that was meant specifically for the Doc, or perhaps that's a general curse against those who do Peikoff the disservice of taking him at his word. Regardless, if you ultimately decide that it is worth your effort to "explain" all of this to me, I'll be here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was wondering though, since you seem to feel entitled to a retraction by everyone who was in disagreement with you(myself being one), was if you could be so kind as to specify who made mistakes in their reasoning and which ones, so that they might be reasonably and specifically addressed, rather than laying a blanket accusation designed to poison the well upon all of our collective shoulders.

I certainly don’t expect everyone to retract, and I gave the example of Dwayne Davies because of his abusiveness. The people who ought to apologize are those least likely to do so, and I don’t recall you being in the “this is so obvious, there’s nothing to discuss, case closed, you vicious Peikoff-hating context-droppers” camp.

Regarding Peikoff, if your take away point from those 15 minutes is that he thinks that it's morally acceptable to rape a woman once you get it inside, than I'd not bother trying to explain anything further to you.

He says a lot of things in those 15 minutes, it’s only in the last couple minutes that he states his revised position on withdrawal of consent. Must I dedicate a proportional amount of space to praise his mea culpa? I wrote “Indeed, and it’s quite good”, that referred to the retraction, then I moved into analyzing what seemed like the new trouble spots.

I’ve gone to some trouble to spell out a sympathetic interpretation, and the problem is that he’s still claiming that at a certain point the woman may no longer say ‘no’ or ‘stop’. The man now has discretion to decide whether a given ‘no’ is valid, in Peikoff’s revised view. Do you dispute this? Do you agree with that position?

10 pages of your attacks on his moral character and mental capacity

I believe that so far I’ve avoided attacking his moral character and mental capacity on this thread. I’ve tried to keep the focus on the ideas he’s put forward in these two podcasts. I know that some other posters haven’t done the same, but that’s the way these things go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that so far I’ve avoided attacking his moral character and mental capacity on this thread. I’ve tried to keep the focus on the ideas he’s put forward in these two podcasts. I know that some other posters haven’t done the same, but that’s the way these things go.

Oops, I did call him a "loose cannon", and then compared him to Captain Queeg. But mostly I've tried to keep the thread on topic.

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=288723

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ninth,

So Dr Peikoff has narrowed the 'context-window'.

Hmmm.

The premise that I think is what bothers me and most here, is the gender-centric

one: that the male has the right to perform and conclude the act of sex, regardless

of the female's late (even extremely late) objections.

Reverse this. To any man who has not experienced it - it will happen, sometime.

The two of you have had a fine evening, and you are now back at her place.

From a glass of wine on the couch, you have moved to her bedroom, then stripped off

and in her bed. All going beautifully, until a short while after penetration - oops! you lose,

let's say, enthusiasm.

Who can explain the complexities of the mind and body that would bring on temporary

impotence - totally conflicting with one's conscious wish and desire? A scent reminding you of someone

else; her expressions, but with a false note? No end of possibilities.

Anyhow, irked and embarrassed, you only want to go home. But no, she says, you cannot withdraw (!)

your consent at this stage - you WILL continue, and 'satisfy' her. Except of course you can't.

Well, you got the picture at the get-go..

Whatever the female equivalent of involuntary loss of desire ("frigidity" is untrue, and distasteful) - and,

anyway no less valid for a voluntary reason, our bodies never stop being our own - male, female, alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...