new

No, Amy Schumer did not give a speech celebrating how she raped a guy

Thought Catalog – which seems to be rapidly becoming the go-to site for terrible antifeminist posts – is making a bit of a stir on Reddit with a post bearing the deliberately provocative title “Wait A Second, Did Amy Schumer Rape a Guy?” Spoiler Alert: The anonymous author concludes that yes, she did. The anonymous author is full of shit.

In the Thought Catalog piece, Anonymous takes a look at a speech that Schumer – a comedian with some subversive feminist leanings — recently gave at the Gloria Awards and Gala, hosted by the Ms. Foundation for Women. The centerpiece of Schumer’s speech, a bittersweet celebration of confidence regained, was a long and cringeworthy story about a regrettable sexual encounter she had in her Freshman year of college, when her self-esteem was at an all-time low.

The short version of the story: A guy named Matt, whom Schumer had a giant crush on, called her at 8 AM for a booty call, after he apparently had been turned down by every other woman in his little black book. Amy, thinking she was being invited for an all-day-date, only discovered his real intent when she got to his dorm room and he romantically drunkenly pushed her onto the bed and started fingering her.

After several failed attempts at intercourse, and what she describes as an “ambitious” attempt to go down on her, he finally gave up and fell asleep on top of her. Lying there listening to Sam Cooke, she decided she didn’t want to be “this girl” any more, “waited until the last perfect note floated out, and escaped from under him and out the door.”

Looking back on the incident, she thanks her failed lover for introducing her “to my new self, a girl who got her value from within her.”

But Thought Catalog’s anonymous author, noting the extreme drunkenness of Schumer’s stumbling lover, concludes that “Amy’s actions may have constituted as rape in the eyes of her college, Towson University.” (Or at least according to the school’s current policies.)

Anonymous quotes Towson’s current policy on sexual harassment, which states:

"In order to give effective Consent, one must not be mentally or physical incapacitated (e.g., by alcohol or drugs, unconsciousness, mental disability)."

And adds:

"It’s hard to argue that Matt was not mentally incapacitated. In Amy’s words, he was “wasted.” "

Actually, the fact that Matt wasn’t too intoxicated to initiate an assortment of sexual acts with her — or to get up and change the music at her request — suggests that he wasn’t “mentally incapacitated,” at least by the standards used by colleges when investigating alleged sexual assaults. The Association of Title IX Administrators’ Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct Model Policy (which sets an unofficial standard for college administrators) defines incapacitation as “a state where someone cannot make rational, reasonable decisions because they lack the capacity to give knowing consent (e.g., to understand the ‘who, what, when, where, why or how’ of their sexual interaction).”

In any case, it’s not clear why Anonymous is looking at Towson’s sexual harassment policy, which is designed to deal with “non-consensual Sexual Contact, Sexual Exploitation, or requests for sexual favors that affect educational or employment decisions,” and which clearly doesn’t apply to Schumer’s story.

As for sexual assault, the school’s official web site states:

"Sexual assault is defined by Towson University as forcible sexual intercourse, sexual penetration–however slight–of another person’s genital or anal opening with any object, sodomy, or any unwanted touching of an unwilling person’s intimate parts or forcing an unwilling person to touch another’s intimate parts. Under this definition, these acts must be committed either by force, threat, intimidation, or through the use of the victim’s mental or physical helplessness, of which the accuser was or should have been aware. This includes, but is not limited to, victim helplessness resulting from intoxication or from the taking of a so-called “date-rape drug.”"

This definition is drawn from the University of Maryland System Policy on Sexual Assault, which classifies sexual assault involving penetration — the traditional definition of rape — as a more serious type of sexual assault (Sexual Assault I) than those forms of sexual assault involving touching (Sexual Assault II). By this standard, assuming we equate Sexual Assault I with rape, Schumer clearly did not rape him.

Anonymous then looks at Maryland’s state laws and concludes:

"In the eyes of Maryland state law, things get a bit more complicated. Amy could be guilty of rape or sexual assault depending on whether or not penetration was achieved. According to the state law, a person may not engage in vaginal intercourse with another “if the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the act knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual.” Legally, it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t rape, at least given the details in Amy’s speech."

Well, actually, yes it is. And not just legally, but by any reasonable definition of the word “rape.”

Because Schumer, at least by her account, wasn’t “the person performing the act.” He was. She was lying there wondering what had gone wrong with her life.

If you read the speech in its entirety, instead of depending on the selective quotations in the Thought Catalog post, this is abundantly clear. As she describes it, he:

Pushes her down on the bed; as she writes, he does “that sexy maneuver where the guy pushes you on the bed, you know, like, ‘I’m taking the wheel on this one. Now I’m going to blow your mind. —’”

Penetrates her with his fingers; as she writes, “[h]is fingers poked inside me like they had lost their keys in there.”

Tries to have intercourse, though his penis is only half-willing; she describes him as “pushing aggressively into my thigh, and during this failed penetration, I looked around the room to try and distract myself or God willing, disassociate.” Even using the “made to penetrate” standard, she’s not raping him, because she’s not making him do anything; he’s the active one.

Goes down on her.

Attempts intercourse again; this time, “[o]n his fourth thrust, he gave up and fell asleep on my breast.”

At no point in Schumer’s story does she describe herself as initiating anything. Indeed, she spends much of the time thinking to herself how much she wants to leave.

"He started to go down on me. That’s ambitious, I think. Is it still considered getting head if the guy falls asleep every three seconds and moves his tongue like an elderly person eating their last oatmeal? — Is it? Yes? It is. I want to scream for myself, “Get out of here, Amy. You are beautiful, you are smart, and worth more than this. This is not where you stay.”"

If a woman initiates sex with a man who is too drunk to consent, that’s rape. But a woman lying motionless trying to dissociate while a man tries to penetrate her is not a rapist. Even if he is drunk.

And that’s the case no matter how you switch the genders up.

Of course that’s not how they see things on Reddit, where most of those who’ve commented on the story have been quick to agree with the Thought Catalog author that Schumer raped her partner. Ironically, it’s been those outside the Men’s Rights subreddit who have been the most outspoken on this point. In TwoXChromosomes, a subreddit ostensibly devoted to women but in fact overrun with MRAs and other antifeminists, someone calling herself Shield_Maiden831 has gotten more than 200 net upvotes for a comment concluding that “f you really believe in equality, then it seems to be a clear cut case from her own admission.”

Not everyone agrees. Elsewhere in TwoX , one commenter by the name of critropolitan argues, I think quite cogently, that

"Unless the full transcript reveals something that the quotes in the article don’t, it doesn’t seem like Schumer exploited this guys mental state to do something to him that violated his will.

He was the one who called her.

He was the one who acted every step of the way and she went along with it.

Assuming that a person who is drunk is, automatically, in virtue of being drunk, without agency, is a mistake. It is moreover a mistake only made with regard to sex – no one thinks the same with regard to bar fights or the choice to drive. Drunken sex might not be the platonic ideal of sex, but it is not automatically rape in every case regardless of the actual state of minds, wishes, and feelings of the participants. —

There is no suggestion that Amy engaged in any sexual contact with this guy while he was passed out, or that she did something he didn’t want to do but he simply lacked the capacity to effectively resist or communicate non consent. Instead he was drunk enough to show significant signs of drunkeness, but not so drunk that he couldn’t not only communicate effectively but take a sexual initiative.

Rapists can exploit the vulnerability of drunk people, but we must walk back from the bizarre and agency-denying position that all drunk sex is rape. Rape is far too serious a matter for this bullshit."

It is.

But of course the MRAs and antifeminists on Reddit now accusing Schumer of rape aren’t interested in taking rape seriously. Indeed, if we look back on how they regularly talk about rape and issues of consent, it’s clearly they’re interested in taking rape less seriously. Their main interest in this case is as a supposed “gotcha” of a prominent female comedian with feminist leanings. In the process they are slandering her, and trivializing the real issue of rape.

Mouse on a Pedestal: Jordan Peterson, Anglocuck Supreme

Jordan Peterson - a man who teaches the quasi-science of psychology at declasse Canadian universities - is all the rage among tradcon males across the Anglosphere. His books, televised debates and utterances are extolled as 'revolutionary conservatism', a much needed antidote to the slack minded Social Justice Warriors who presently dominate Anglo academic life.

However, like all Anglo cuckservatives, Peterson is just telling men to return to the plantation. He is just Tommy Fleming lite, a pitiful Anglocuck who thinks men should accept traditional duties while women do as they please; a clown living in the 1950s, telling men to 'man up' and join the ranks of castrated cuckdom in the Anglo-American Matrix. The central problem with his position is that the Anglosphere has moved beyond his tradcon values, never to return. Peterson is still hung up on marriage, 'honour' and fidelity in a world where such things are scorned or ridiculed by women and society at large. Indeed, being an 'honourable man' is now a one-way trip to financial rape in the frivorce courts of the Anglosphere. Here is one of my correspondents, Lawrence, on the reality of the situation in contemporary America:

At one point in my corrections officer job, the incarceration of men for child support and alimony arrears got so bad that a group of us prison guards came to the warden, complaining that we were being unethically ordered to guard men who really weren’t a threat and who should have never been sent to jail. Once imprisoned, they usually lost their professional licenses, their driver’s licenses, became unemployable so they just wound up back there again. The warden just shook his head, he knew how corrupt the system is, how the US family courts, media, politicians, universities, feminists and the prison execs all work hand in glove to profit off the US slave economy fueled by all the husbands and fathers tossed into prison. How it creates sick incentives that encourage divorce and profiteering. (This is another reason the US divorce rate is by far the highest all over the world, so much money is made from it). But the warden knew he was powerless to reform it. Just like we were as guards. The vultures of the Anglosphere want their prison slaves, and husbands and fathers are an easy target.
Like I said, every man in the Anglosphere is a target of this machine, but wealthy American and Canadian men are the hardest hit, because the US legal system gives family court judges wide latitude, which really can’t be appealed, to place arbitrarily high demands on the incomes of men who have been wealthy at any point. This is why Robin Williams committed suicide. At one point he was a very wealthy Hollywood A-lister. But after his two divorces, he was no longer pulling in that kind of money. The family courts didn’t care. They said he once made big money, and in the fantasy unicorn filled land of US family courts, that meant he could just click his feet together and make the same money again. So they made Robin pay out the nose for alimony. By this time he was sick with Parkinson’s Disease he couldn’t make anywhere close to that amount of money, and his lawyer was warning him that prison time was likely coming. So he committed suicide. Here’s another famous case, a guy in New York with same sort of situation, once made a lot of money on Wall Street and became upper class, told to pay alimony every year after that at insane high levels, lost his job in recession== then off to prison when it became impossible.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-26/jail-becomes-home-for-husband-stuck-with-lifetime-alimony Brendan Fraser has been hit with a similar judgement, tens of millions of dollars in alimony.
Wealthy men across the US, Canada, UK and the Anglosphere generally are hit hard like this. And yes, a lot of them wind up in prison. The incarceration rate in Canada and the UK isn’t quite as bad, but this happens there too because the misandrist structure of the laws and family courts is as bad as in the USA, and the legal systems share the same insane practice of imprisonment after court-ordered impoverishing of a man. I found this out ironically after I expatriated and was working as a Web and database planner, when my previous experience led prison systems in many countries to contract me to help with their intake software and legal briefing documents. This imprisonment of men for marriage or kids (or in these #metoo days, just for “harassment” that in reality is “any interaction with women”) really is an Anglo phenomenon uniquely. Whatever stupid idiosyncrasies the rest of the West has with feminism, they don’t throw men in prison for this.
The very worst case I saw as a prison guard was a surgeon, yes an American surgeon who was one of the most respectable guys I ever met, hard working, worked until 2 a.m. 6 days a week to save people’s lives. With all the work hours, his wife got “lonely” and started sleeping around, eventually having 2 kids that weren’t even his as he found out later. And then she filed for divorce so she could take the surgeon’s money, blow it on cocaine and stupid luxuries for herself without doing any work herself (that’s the real destination where the “child support” money goes) and sleep around with her favorite Chad of the week, all on her hard working surgeon ex-husband’s money. She won an insanely high judgment in a US family court, millions of dollars in child support and “alimony” that the poor surgeon would have to pay. Since by the court’s judgment, “she should be entitled to maintain the same standard of living after the divorce”, even though this greedy gold-digging Anglobitch is the one who filed for the divorce to steal from her hard-working husband who was actually saving people’s lives.
After a few years of doing this, and losing his house and his nice car, the poor surgeon threw out his back while helping a patient onto an operating table. He had to cut down his hours as a surgeon, and went to the divorce court asking for a reduction in the support demands, and ask that his lazy, spoiled brat bitch ex-wife get a damn job herself. But the court refused using the same delusion filled imputation bullshit they pull on other ex-husbands, claiming he could somehow make millions of extra dollars using his surgical wizard skills somehow. Which he couldn’t do in reality with his injured back, something the family court judge couldn’t or wouldn’t even try to understand. So then now the alimony and child support were demanding 120% of his income. You see, the family court system will never let you off the treadmill once they target you, especially if you earn a lot of money. Eventually he drained his savings and retirement, couldn’t make the payments at all—and he wound up in the prison where I was a corrections officer.
The corrupt American family court-media-feminist-academia cultural Marxist-big business-prison industrial complex had worked perfectly to ruin this poor man, and what a prize they had. A dedicated, hard working US surgeon, saving lives every day, drained of his money and reduced to poverty by a gold-digging, spoiled greedy bimbo who divorced him due to his very dedication, had kids with other men to force him to pay bullshit “child support” in addition to never-stopping alimony, his assets taken by his gold-digging ex wife and the state to grease their own corruption, the “child support” in actuality supporting the ex wife’s corrupt, hedonistic lifestyle after divorce. And then the poor surgeon himself made a literal slave in a US prison, stripped of his license and made a perpetual debtor, worked to the bone but never allowed to profit from his own efforts or hard work. That really is how it works in the US family court and prison system. That poor surgeon was the worst case we ever saw, made us so mad we were talking about how we were going to “free the Bastille” and start a revolution ourselves to stop all the corruption, Robespierre style. And free all the innocent men, and even some women, who were imprisoned this way, to feed more slaves to the machine.
Because if you’re an American man, particularly a rich, well to do, middle class or upper class man with skills, saved money, assets, wealth and a good job, that’s what you really are. Fresh meat for the Anglosphere family court meat grinder machine. Like Legal Eagle said, you are literally a slave with marriage or child-bearing in the US or the greater Anglosphere, from that day on, the state and officials have full purview over all your assets and unlimited ability to seize them. Legal Eagle saw this from the legal debate and court side, I saw the horrible result from the prison side, where men were sent after all their assets had been stolen by the family courts and their only further “value” was as slaves to the prison-industrial complex. This shit’s real, guys.
And now, in the ugly aftermath of #metto, #timesupand #nameandshamehim, you don’t even have to get married or have a kid in the Anglosphere to become a slave. Any interaction with a women, even something as casual as a glance or an innocent conversation, opens you up to charges of harassment and sexual misconduct. And given that as much as half of young white women in America find even innocent male female interactions to be harassment, you’re in great danger at any moment. Many harassment and misconduct changes now are being assembled by our corrupt legal-prison-industrial complex system to become prosecutable offenses. But even short of that, the witch-burning in social media means that any vague accusation, whether recent or months or years ago, will make you unemployable and a social pariah. You’ll lose your health insurance and ability to earn a living, and then the state will have all kinds of additional ways to brand you a criminal and toss you in jail.
[url}https://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-wardens-tale-why-expatriation-from.html[/url}
[url]https://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-wardens-tale-why-expatriation-from_31.html[url]

Peterson tells men 'to be men' - in other words, try to live up to traditional male responsibilities - in a world which despises them, getting nothing but penury and imprisonment in return. Meanwhile, single mothers with four thug-babies live happily on taxpayer handouts across the Anglosphere while Peterson's 'responsible' men foot the bill.

The point is, Anglo conservatives like Peterson have not truly grasped the reality of contemporary gender relations. At heart, they believe we are still living in the pre-feminist era where men are coming home to smiling housewives and discussing the Bible around the kitchen table before a roaring log fire. In truth, the fact that western women are no longer economically dependent on men has entirely obviated those assumptions. With the rise of sperm banks and other post-male reproductive technologies, women don't even need a man to have children. Besides, the Calvinist misandry of the Anglosphere remains unchallenged even while female rights and opportunities advance apace in every sphere - education, the media, reproductive technology and jurisprudence.

This is partly generational; but mainly because Peterson, Tommy Fleming and other 'conservative' Anglocucks are academic fantasists with scant knowledge of contemporary social reality. Boomer academics like him need to leave their post-War ivory towers and do some volunteer work in a hospital or prison to gain some understanding of how the world actually works. Academic Anglocucks like Peterson or Fleming are dangerous because gullible young males listen to their inane opinions, or even base important life-decisions on them. In the 1950s, that was no great problem; in the 21st century, with its #metoo hysteria and no fault divorce-epidemic, such 'advice' should be cursorily dismissed as the rantings of madmen.