Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Last updated: 18 hours ago

‘Fuck rape culture’ graffiti defaces Sauder building and Koerner Plaza

Photo Courtesy Sauderite/Reddit

Photo Courtesy Sauderite/Reddit


Vandals made their feelings known this morning, defacing the Sauder building and the plaza outside the Walter C. Koerner library with profane graffiti.

“Teaches rape” was spray-painted in black on the plaque in front of the Sauder building, over what normally reads “Robert H. Lee Graduate School,” to read “Sauder School of Business teaches rape.” Beside it, “fuck rape culture” was spray-painted in red on the building’s windows.

“Fuck rape culture” was also painted on the plaza outside the entrance to Koerner Library. “Fuck rape” was painted in red and “culture” was painted in black.

Photo Courtesy Kirk Sorensen

Photo Courtesy CharlieExpress/The Ubyssey

Sgt. Drew Grainger of the UBC detachment of the RCMP said one of their patrol officers responded this morning to a call from Campus Security.

He said the RCMP arrived on the scene around 8:30 a.m., but the painting occurred somewhere between 6 and 6:45 a.m.

Grainger said an investigation has been launched and the RCMP is looking for anyone who witnessed the incident, which they will be dealing with as a mischief case.

“It’s against the law to spray-paint whatever it is you have on a building,” he said. “It’s considered mischief, so that what we’re looking at it as. It’s not considered a hate crime or anything like that at the time.”

Cory Bartrim, the vice-president of Student Works for Western Canada, was at the Sauder building early this morning to set up the painting company’s booth for UBC Business Week.

Bartrim arrived at the building 8:30 a.m. He said paper had been put up to cover the graffiti on the glass and on the front plaque when he arrived. UBC staff came shortly afterward and power-washed it off. Bartrim said this held up the booth setup an extra half hour, until 11:00 a.m., as the area was too wet to begin.

Bartrim said he didn’t think many people had seen the graffiti on the glass of the Sauder building because it was the first to be cleaned in the morning. However, they had to remove the paper from the Sauder sign to remove the graffiti, and Bertrin estimated that “a good thousand students” walked by and saw it during that time.

Ray Wong, a third-year Sauder student, was also running a booth at the fair, though he didn’t arrive early enough to see the graffiti. “I would say that [the graffiti] is just because of the news that’s recently come out about what they believe to be happening at our frosh [events],” Wong said.

“The chant probably should never have been said, but then again I don’t believe in vandalizing something to raise awareness for a cause,” said Chris Dedecko, a first-year Sauder student. “Even if they just had a group of people raising awareness out in the mall, I think that would be a better way of going about it than vandalizing a building.”

“It’s very immature,” said first-year Science student Johnson Lau. “If it was an adult [from outside of UBC], I think it makes it even worse that you’re running into an area where higher education is being taught and doing stuff that only happens in high school. I think it’s ridiculous.”

Carmen Faye Mathes, a UBC instructor, had a slightly different point of view. “I guess the language and the medium used are both testament to how angry something like this can make people, and I think they have a reason to be,” she said.

  • Matt

    I’m still wondering if the username behind that Twitter screenshot is authentic, let alone the claim they made. But isn’t this your job, Ubyssey?

    • Saebu

      What’s your angle on this? It is a real twitter handle that went protected once everything blew up, the user is an actual first-year who graduated high school a couple months ago, and is, for all intensive purposes: a real-deal human being.

  • Jack

    Let’s hope the University Administrators try to find these vandals and try them for some sort of misconduct. After all, vandalism, unlike chanting words, is not protected free expression.

    • Jessica

      Hate speech (or in this case a chant) isn’t protected under “free expression”, either.

      • Jack

        It is not hate speech. It certainly would not be actionable under the criminal code as “hate speech.” There is no specific law prohibiting the chant—the only laws purported to prohibit such chants are the Human Rights Codes, which, IMO, once we stop being stupid as a society, will be struck down as unstatutable. They were foisted upon the public at large by the University Elite, as a method of control after their preferred method of control, Corporal Punishment, was removed from the K-12 system. So now, instead of just beating the little darlings with a stick/bat/etc. they beat their minds with a bunch of refuse about “speech” which tends to be rooted in pseudophilosophy. Speech Control = Slavery.

    • yella

      maybe it means there is a bigger issue at stake when someone saying “fuck rape
      culture,” simply because it is written on a building, is deemed worse than a chant that blatantly encourages a mindset that accepts rape. [by the way, the sauder IS on Musqueam territory and receives donations from sources like goldcorp, whose hired guards actually HAVE raped and killed people. but yes, what a poor little building to get a mark on it]

      if you’re concerned with free speech, i’d be happy to get
      a group of my feminist colleagues together and debate you and others who think like you face to face. maybe you’d be up to that challenge instead of leaving an internet comment and thinking conversation is done that way?

  • BAd

    Can everyone please get over this? There is more outrage over this chant than I’ve ever seen from any actual rape in the news. I guess those women in India weren’t “newsworthy” for two whole weeks like this garbage has been. If you have this much energy, why not volunteer your time with an organization that prevents rape or helps the victims of it. Oh that’s right, because actually helping something doesn’t make you feel as empowered as making other people feel like rapists because they participated in a dumb joke. Also, spray painting over the name of a man who gives more back to the community in one day before breakfast than you will in your entire life doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Also…the chant was lead by the undergraduate society…not the school itself. But guess who
    will pay to clean this up…

    I agree the chant was stupid and has no place in a reputable institution like UBC. But anyone who suggest that this chant enables or permits rape is not living in reality.

    • umuad

      So you’re making excuses for the people making excuses for the people enabling rape? This is getting pretty meta.

      Rape culture isn’t just a bunch of bros going to town because they heard someone sing a song about how great rape. It’s way more insidious than that. It’s every response that says some spray paint that you can wash off in under an hour is as bad or worse than a song where lyrics are encouraging people to rape. It’s every excuse why the song, while inappropriate, isn’t really that bad. It’s every little interaction that takes the gravity and seriousness of rape as a crime, as an assault, and throws them in the garbage. It sure does enable rape.

      With numbers on rape and sexual assault, do you really not think there are serial rapists who know exactly what they’re doing and get that little spring in their step when they hear a chant or a joke about rape? Who’s not living in reality again?

      • BAd

        “Rape culture isn’t just a bunch of bros going to town because they heard someone sing a song about how great rape.”

        and

        “do you really not think there are serial rapists who know exactly what
        they’re doing and get that little spring in their step when they hear a
        chant or a joke about rape?”

        In the same post. Way to contradict yourself. Excellent debating skill.

        • vehementi

          That’s not a contradiction. Are you sure your critical thinking abilities are OK?

          • BAd

            Actually, my critical thinking abilities are just fine, thanks for your concern. Did you notice that I was taking a stance on an issue which disagreed with the majority of posts here? Usually someone without critical thinking abilities would just follow the rest of the herd. I on the other hand, looked at the entire situation and made my own call. That call is that the chant is stupid and will not occur anymore, but the ongoing outrage is entirely misplaced and is more about exercising control over what others do and say than actually helping prevent rape or helping victims of it.

            And yes, saying in one breath that the song doesn’t encourage rape and then in the next saying it does is a clear contradiction.

            You better have more on your resume than “critical thinking abilities” when you graduate. Because a little hint, the real world doesn’t really believe that a degree is a guarantee of that anymore.

          • vehementi

            Actually I have graduated and am employed and critical thinking turns out to be far more useful (and a better indicator of success) than a degree. I frequently hire “unqualified” people who are able to demonstrate good reasoning skills and intuition.

            The two things you quoted are not contradictory. First of all the first quote does say the song encourages rape (like the second quote), just that rape culture isn’t only about encouraging rape in the most obvious surface level sense, but rather about the deep and hard-to-see assumptions that go reinforced (e.g. good chanty laughy times on a bus associated with a vaguely rapey song with nobody calling it out). And Umuad was talking about two categories of people – derpy bros getting it in their head hey I’ll rape, and existing determined rapists (who will rape regardless of chants and rape culture).

          • BAd

            Congratulations on your successful career. As I have no way to verify your claims regarding your ability to frequently hire people, I will just have to take your word for it and assume you aren’t making it up to look superior in front of observers here….

            “existing determined rapists (who will rape regardless of chants and rape culture).”

            “REGARDLESS OF CHANTS AND RAPE CULTURE”.

            Wow, I couldn’t have set it better myself, thanks. Seeing as we agree the song does nothing to encourage rape. Perhaps we can all go calm the f*** down and get on with our lives.

          • umuad

            That they’ll rape anyways isn’t the point, it is that society implicitly supports and enables them is the point. If someone is a rapist, they need to know that they are trash. Garbage. To have people shun and ridicule them. To feel the full weight of our social consciousness bearing down on them, you know, like rape survivors have done to them.

            The survivors whose sexual histories are picked over with a fine-toothed comb, to find any reason to justify their rape. The survivors who are told they really wanted it because they were nice to the person who raped them once. The ones who are called slurs, whose trustworthiness are called into question. The ones who have judges, juries, police, media, families, friends, and people in comments on articles (yeah, i see yall) do their damnedest to place any or all of the blame on a survivor’s shoulders, instead of, you know, holding the rapist responsible for their actions.

          • Jack

            Is rape a scientific concept or a legal concept?

          • BAd

            Jack, it can be both depending on the context. “Rape Culture” on the other hand is a trumped up term designed by some clever people to redirect the hatred others have for rapists towards society in general, thereby harnessing that anger as a tool of control to rebuild mainstream culture according to their world view. Unfortunately for them, nobody buys it and so the concept has no real significance.

          • Chris Whitman

            Yeah, rape culture isn’t taken seriously by anybody!

            Except, I don’t know, say, many of my professors at UBC law? People drafting authoritative legal opinions? The judicial system in general?

            There’s no doubt in my mind that UBC has institutions which are actively covering for the misconduct of some of their students in the sexual harassment of their fellow students. However, there are MANY elements, not simply in academia but in professional degree programs and among people at UBC who are making a substantive difference in our society, who feel that this is a serious matter of significance.

            The idea that rape culture is a “radical feminist construction” or whatever is on your part either deliberate misdirection or willful ignorance. You are attempting to minimize a legitimate political position because it suits your goals either to simply pretend that culture in general is behind you on this or because you are so trapped in a narrow bubble of yes-men that any conflicting opinions seem rare and aberrant.

            There are a lot of elements in our society who benefit from rape culture and deny that it even exists, but I assure you that lots of people—people who both act and represent others in a significant sense—take this concept seriously. Pretending it’s a fringe opinion or confined to some ivory tower does nothing but disclose your own ignorance and your preference for the sort of facts you can make up from the comfort of your couch.

          • BAd

            Hi Chris. Are you able to explain to me why everything I say is just my own narrow minded and incorrect opinion, but everything you say is objective fact?

            Your post often uses “many” and “lots of” which are just short, easy ways of saying “I have nothing to back this up so I’m just going to use hollow words that sound quantitative if you read them fast enough.

            I don’t see you citing any independent, credible and quantitative sources or data to back up anything you say. As far as the reader can tell your entire post is based on just as much hearsay as mine. But of course, your statement is right because it is yours? We should just believe you because you’re you and you can type words.

            I only started commenting here not to defend the CUS but because I felt that the news media (both professional and student) and a certain group of students with certain political interests were grossly overreacting to this chant. By overreacting they crossed a line by attempting to equate the signers of this song with rapists. They are not rapists and are not even CLOSE to being rapists. In fact, pretending a chant is like rape makes light of rape itself in my opinion. Just like the CUS crossed a line in signing the song, (which I have from the beginning acknowledged was wrong) so did those who protest it, especially in light of the over-the-top, hurtful and illegal graffiti.

          • Chris Whitman

            Here’s a source: you can look at the CFLS web site to check out the internationally renowned legal scholars who have advocated for women’s issues at UBC, or have appeared before the court directly to represent or intervene on behalf of women on vital issues.

            Feminism isn’t unrealistic, or a laughing stock or “for tumblr,” feminist activists are out there making substantial change in a lot of different fields, from social work and grassroots work right up to important supreme court cases.

            Regarding the graffiti—yes, it was illegal! But the fact is that it’s still pretty clearly an act of conscience, unlike leading first year students in a pro-rape chant. The history of activism includes people doing a lot of illegal things because they believed that action contrary to the law was, in good conscience, preferable to inaction in the face of a serious social or institutional problem.

            So I don’t feel that “both are wrong” is a good takeaway here—it minimizes the important differences between the two acts.

          • BAd

            Ok, well you still didn’t really cite anything specific and considering when I google “CFLS” the first 10 links are about light bulbs…I’m not really sure how widely accepted it is as a source. But I don’t want to argue that so I’ll just let you have that one.

            Also nice to know that an aspiring lawyer thinks its OK to break the law if you do it as an “act of conscience”. Let me know if that ever works in court and I’ll consider retaining you to defend me in my various transgressions.

          • Jack

            In a sense, you should not waste your breath. These clockwork oranges simply have no idea that what is seen as a “serious problem” is a matter of biology, of circumstance, of many contingent factors. They are basically eugenicists (they believe certain genwhich express themselves in phenotypically concrete ways are “good”, all else is “bad”) who would probably put potential-rapists into internment camps, if they could. I mean,t hat is basically what this is about, punishing people for expression, based on the unproven assertion that speaking about something makes people more likely to do it. After all, everyone who tells a joke walking into a bar is more likely to walk into a bar, right?

          • Chris Whitman

            What are you even talking about?

          • Chris Whitman

            Via Google. http://faculty.law.ubc.ca/cfls/

            Literally walking to the law building and asking somebody is also an option.

            I never said acting in good conscience could get you out of a criminal conviction. But again, the history of activism is full of people who have faced prosecution or gone to jail for what they believe. In many cases, history has vindicated them.

          • Jack

            I think you crystallize the issue by talking in terms of courts and other disciplinary institutions—it’s very ironic, because courts work on the basis of rape: you are forced to submit to the court’s power to adjudicate the cause. If you do not submit, they will hold you in contempt, that is, jail you, until you do. So if your whole feminist legal theory hinges on the fact that a coercive apparatus has endorsed it, well, how is that any different from rape being OK because rapists endorse it?

            And I think that you provide proof that BAd is right—there is a group of people with a radical ideology who are attempting to reform society by way of harnessing people’s hatred (gut feeling) for rapists. This is not how Unviersity-level scholarship is suto operate. Therea re supposed to be reasoned arguments, reasonable conclusions. It’s not supposed to be a matter of regimenting people on the basis of their emotions. If that is all that is done in Universities these we might as well replace professors with Advertising Agencies.

          • Chris Whitman

            That’s not what contempt means. That’s not what rape means. That’s not how prison sentences work. You managed to get my argument re: the law and ethics almost *exactly* backwards.

            I’ve repeatedly represented here that court convictions are not an accurate measure of rape statistics, and that arguments using the law should attempt to take into account legal theory and the realities of law enforcement and prosecution rather than offhandedly assuming the courts have moral authority and operate effectively in all cases. In fact, directly above I make the case that there is a long history of criminal prosecution (and conviction) for acts that were found to be performed with the highest moral consideration.

            So… did you even read what I wrote?

          • Jack

            Convictions are teh only way to measure rape, because rape is a wholly legal concept that does not exist outside of the conviction. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction, so to count anything as a rape but what has been proved by due process of law is inequitable.

            Rape is when someone is forced to submit to another. We could even use that as the general definition, and have sub-species of rape: sexual rape, educational rape, judicial rape. Medical rape, too. All are rapes, because someone is for submit to the will of another. The reason this is not done is because then people who want to punish rapists must accede to the notion that judicial rape, by due process of law, is legitimate. Sometimes it is right to violently dominate others: like, when we are teaching them not to rape people, right? Seeing the execution of a judgement, criminal or civil, as anything other than justified violent domination is to miss the central notion of execution, the glory of law. And if people believe violent domination is never justifiable, they must dispense with concepts like judgement and execution, if they are to be grounded in anything but mere will.

          • Chris Whitman

            I feel like this comment stands on its own. I can’t improve or respond to this in any way. I want to leave it as a monument to arguing on the internet.

          • Sarah B

            The MRA brigade and its fact-free basis of existence on full display. Wow.

          • Jack

            Contempt is a summary procedure by which bodies are attached, that is, violently dominated, and brought before a tribunal having the authority to do so. Rape is, as you will know, not raelly the legal term in Canada’s criminal code—that is seual assault. At the University level, we often generalize concepts—what is the essential, clear, distinct notion involved with rape?

            It is so common that it is now a byword: rape is about power and domination. Fair enough. So it is possible to generalize rape and view every action that involves a power imbalance in which domination occurs (such as judicial proceedings, medical proceedings, etc., basically anything where there is inequality or fiduciary relationship) and regard them as a species of rape, but, as in the case of medical domination, perhaps for the benefit of the patient. If the patient is not dominated, does not submit to the will of the physician, the patient may get sick, or remain sick.

            And your own example is self-defeating. Perhaps some time in the future it will be in vogue to think that rapists are moral people attempting to perpetuate their own genetic material, operating within the confines of a cruel, totalitarian state that denied them their right to breed. That is at least conceptually possible. So you’re right, we cannot even presume that conviction stats tell us anything worthwhile.

            Also, if you are going to be a lawyer and have such little faith in the “moral authority” of the court as _the_ arbiter of guilt, I don’t really know how fit you can be for that profession. Who is to arbitrate claims of guiltiness, you? Where did you get your jurisdiction? Lawyers should be completely neutral—politicized lawyers “don’t get it.” What a lawyer does depends on the interests of his or her client, be that the Crown, an individual citizen or whatever. All of these folk beliefs you have are…unseemly…and it is doubly unseemly that, if what you say is accurate, folk-belief has infected the law school. Lawyers and Law should be above the folk, as they are what superintends the folk.

          • vehementi

            You failed at reading, again.

          • BAd

            Vehementi, did you have a good day of frequently hiring people? I’m surprised you were able to fit in so many comments with your busy career schedule. By the way, how do you assess someone’s “intuition” in a job interview? Do you make them guess what number you’re thinking of?

    • umuad

      Also, I guess, people are outraged over the situation in India, just because you don’t know about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Are you have difficulty with the concept of object permanence or do things really just cease existing for you if they’re not in your immediate vicinity?

      • BAd

        I was very clearly referring to outrage in the Canadian media, which for the cases in India was incredibly short lived.

        • vehementi

          This story is like two days old. It is unlikely that you are able to support your claims that stories of India rapes (happening halfway around the world) have never lasted longer than these two days or had more fervor.

    • Lamnidae

      “But anyone who suggest that this chant enables or permits rape is not living in reality.”

      Have you even read/heard the words to the chant? I’m pretty sure that it gives a green light for rape. It probably wouldn’t make someone go out and rape someone else, but it sure does reinforce the current rape culture, which is a part of our reality.

    • Dee El Lobo

      not so worried about the ubc coffers

    • clnblk

      https://www.google.ca/search?q=india+rape&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=yuQxUqSZLuaXiAKkzoGADw

      https://www.google.ca/search?q=india+rape+protests&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=5-QxUtPpDab8igLdBw

      There were protests worldwide, to say nothing of the outrage that hasn’t simmered in India since that attack took place. What was the purpose of that comparison? If the world didn’t stop spinning for the endemic rape culture in India then it can’t be discussed or addressed here?

  • Fate

    this was not a constructive response by whoever vandalized the sauder building. it’s the school that will end up paying to clean it up, not the CUS/Frosh itself. Furthermore, it does nothing to make going to classes and school easier for any victims of sexual assault—this was a thoughtless act of vandalism. I am all for punishing those responsible for continuing/protecting the chant, and for changing orientation events in general to include diversity, sexual assault support, and other training for the frosh leaders, but spraying graffiti over a building only loosely associated with those responsible is just an act of immaturity, and contributes very little to any productive discussion.

    • umuad

      Immature is a word used in biology for organisms that haven’t reached their adult stage yet, so good thing Sauder is a business school I guess.

      • Fate

        I was referring to the person vandalizing the building, not Sauder itself, when I used the term immature.

        • umuad

          That’s my point. It was a joke. “Maturity” is a biological state, not some nebulous category for behaviour you don’t agree with.

          • Fate

            Actually, not to be anal, but since you took the time to shoot down what i was saying by focusing on just one word, there are in fact psychological/developmental definitions of maturity relating to a person or organism’s ability to respond to their environment in an appropriate manner. Writing “fuck rape” (the language itself is problematic–are we raping rape, here?) or “sauder teaches rape” on property of a building that will be 1) cleaned by UBC as a whole and 2) not responsible for FROSH (remember, it is an event organized by CUS) is a much less appropriate response than say, speaking to the media or trying to get faculty/departments to change policies so that you can avoid instances like this happening again. Graffiti like this can be incredibly triggering for an assault-survivor–whoever did this graffiti seems to have had no thought put into what this will do to victims who have to walk through those doors. It is possible to have a strong, effective, logical response that simultaneously does not trigger the group you are supposedly trying to protect.

          • Jack

            ” ability to respond to their environment in an appropriate manner”

            nothing but fascist bullshit that privileges one state of being over anotehr. It’s hilarious how all of you progressive tykes believe in all sorts of normative concepts—normative rape culture = baaaaad. Normative anti-rape culture = goooood. Because if the problem is normativity itself, you lose your moral authority to normatively enslave others to your fascist whimsy.

          • Mapsandpeaches

            Yeah, it’s really a bummer when women want a say as to whether men have sex with them, isn’t it?

          • Jack

            Well, it is a political stance. My issue is with closing off debate, rather than rendering the issue one that is debated. People are forced to do all sorts of things even if tey don’t want to—it’s hardly like we live in a radical voluntaryist society. people are forced to obey speed limits, go to school, &c &c.

          • Mapsandpeaches

            It’s a political stance for women to want to get consent from the men who have sex with them? It’s a political stance for a man to ask for consent, or a woman to ask a man for it? Those are basic decency, and recognizing the autonomy and humanity of the person they’re interacting with.

            Plenty of people choose to stop at red lights, for example, because they recognize that it makes others safer, not because they’re “forced” to. People choose to do things that create a safe and respectful world because they are decent people. Can’t say the same for trolls like you.

          • Jack

            That’s not really a University-level argument. That’s a folk-psychological/folk philosophical argument. There are some cases where stopping at a red light increases safety. There are some where it doesn’t. Same thing for speed limits, etc. Your platidudes about a “safe and respectful world” are not University-level—you’re basically repeating propaganda you ewre indoctrinated with by your parents or primary school without being willing to take a close look at those values and how they are justified por justifiable.

          • Mapsandpeaches

            So your laughable argument about people who are anti-rape being eugenicists is some sort of high-minded, deeply educated perspective? Have you ever spouted these ideas in a university setting? If you had, I think you’d find you’d be laughed out of the department. Nice try.

          • Jack

            Which department? I suspect you are not aware of the current critiques of intuition which suggest that there may be no tenable basis for ethics, at least until intuition is salvaged as a concept.

            And there you go again, using a disciplinary model, albeit a social one to prove your point, rather than providing a University-level argument for it. So being laughed at means one is wrong? That’s very scholarly. You get a gold star

          • Mapsandpeaches

            No, you’d be laughed out of it because you are wrong and deluded and bigoted.

          • Yanick McDonald

            Don’t feed the troll!

          • Mapsandpeaches

            Sigh, you’re right…I should stop.

          • vehementi

            Poor guy wasted so many hours of his life trying to annoy people in this thread. :(

          • Jack

            Well, if someone is wrong, at the University level, we provide an argument for why he or she is wrong, we don’t simply rely on the laughter of others to demonstrate the point. It may be very funny to read a proof that someone is wrong, but the laughter itself does not constitute the proof.

            Some people simply do not believe in the existence of moral or ethical facts. If you cannot entertain that sort of viewpoint without engaging in childish name-calling, then I don’t know if you are operating at a University level. In an ethics class, if the issue came up, how would you defend your position? Refuse to argue, call everyone who argued against the existence of moral/ethical facts “wrong”, “deluded”, “bigoted”? Perhaps you are deluded for believing in things like moral facts.

          • Yanick McDonald

            Trolling at a, ” University level”

          • Jack

            That is simply an ad hominem argument. One of the most unfortunate aspects to the culture generated by the internet in the facebook age is that people can simply ignore the viewpoints they don’t like, dismiss them without engaging with them is not scholarly behaviour. Posting a hilarious meme that makes someone look like a troll might work with your self-selected group of facebook friends, but not really an appropriate way to deal with a diverse community into scholarshipp as opposed to epic lulz.

          • Yanick McDonald

            Politicians argue that way all the time. They have been around since before the internet.
            I think taking an opposition to this topic is only painting a target on yourself. Perhaps you like it.

          • clnblk

            So how many women have you raped? Rough estimate?

          • Jack

            Personally, I do believe in consent—but I recognize that as a contingent fact predicated of my biology and upbringing, not some sort of transcendental truth that I have internalized due to my inherently virtuous, morally superior nature.

            On the consent issue, I am not so much interested in rape, which is a relatively small thing compared with larger issues like education, traffic control law, etc. One question that is very important is this: if children cannot consent to sex, how can they consent to education? If they cannot consent to education, how is forcing a child to have an education different from forcing a child to have sex? The old “I’m teaching you how to have a good time” canard? Pedophiles love that one.

          • Chris Whitman

            This is undergraduate trolling at best, though.

          • Mapsandpeaches

            I’m kind of impressed–I’d never heard a troll call anti-rape a type of eugenics before.

          • Jack

            Well, perhaps if you thought about it instead of knee-jerking you could learn something about yourself—today is very much like the climate before WWII—lots of things are in vogue, thought of as necessarily true, but there are not very good arguments for them, other than disciplinary/authoritarian arguments. It was only after WWII that we gained a fulsome understanding of the problematic nature of eugenics, how that sort of reasoning can quickly run out of hand. It is not so much your specific conclusion about rape which concerns me (I am not very interested in moral conclusions); rather, what concerns me is your method for getting there. If you are willing to use such a ham-fisted method to support this conclusion, what other conclusions might you support using equally specious methodology?

            I sort of wonder what your position on Israel is and if you reason on that topic in the same way, tho that is strictly a curiosity.

          • Mapsandpeaches

            Yes, “Jack,” opposing rape makes me similar in methodology to and with the same potential for oppression as a Nazi. I was wondering when you’d get around to accusing someone of that.

          • clnblk

            It was inevitable for him to invoke Godwin’s law at some point.

          • Jack

            All people who wish to use violence to control others are the same, operationally speaking. The difference, if any, comes from whether or not their use of violence is justified or justifiable. If you want judicial violence deployed against rapists, social violence deployed against people who chant various things, it is clear you support the use of violence for the purpose of control.

            You don’t see to understand what i have said. It is not that you oppose rape, it is that you have no articulable argument for why you oppose it, other than that it is a widely held folk belief that “rape is bad.” Fair enough. History is replete with examples of widespread folk-beliefs being discarded. If you have no critical apparatus by which you judge your folk-beliefs, how do you know they are justified?

            And you may very well have such a critical apparatus—I suspect you do, it is simply difficult to use on the “hard cases” where emotions come into play—which is unfortunate, because those hard cases tend to be exactly where we need coherent justification, not emotion.

          • Jack

            Also, I would really like to know if you think Israel has a moral right to defend itself, similarly to how I presume you think someone being raped has a moral right to defne him or her self.

          • Mapsandpeaches

            And yes, actually, I know about experimental philosophy, and you’re either too dim to understand that none of the empirical work done on intuition comes close to supporting your outrageous claim, or you’re too dishonest to care. At this point, I suspect it’s both.

          • Jack

            It’s not a matter of experimental philosophy, their arguments are not as good as ones that deal with the ontology of intuitions and so forth. Intuitions likely supervene on brain-states, so your view is quite eugenicist in the sense that it privileges one evolutionary track over another and reserves condemnation and contempt for those differently evolved from you. Absent narrative structures like law, ethics, if we are left with strictly quantitative structures, there is simply no room for moral condemnation.

            Said another way, if moral/qualitative structures exist only by assertion, it would behoove you to think of a better way to convince people than insulting them for not sharing your views.

          • Jack

            The University is supposed to be a non-sectarian, non-political institution. If you think it is OK to reduce the University to a bunch of political parties who simply have platforms that they push without any critical consideration thereof, except perhaps within their own party-jargon, I weep for Alma Mater.

          • clnblk

            Sexual consent is a political topic now?

          • Jack

            Of course it is. All law, other than natural law, is a political topic. And if you take the tack that most people take these days, that is, to deny natural law, then you are left with all law being a contingent set of political relations.

            It might be that I do not find the conclusions most in this thread reach about rape untenable, only that their methodology is terrible. And if they are willing to reach a reasonable conclusion by an unreasonable methodology, one must worry that they will use a similar unreasonable methodology to reach an unreasonable conclusion.

            The basic view here is that people need to be indoctrinated to understand that “rape is bad.” That’s very thin, isn’t it? Are you really so naive as to think that priming people to receive moral values in that manner never generates problems? “Witches are bad” was once received morality. I am certain that those who burned witches were just as certain as most of the posters here are that witchcraft is wrong. But they reached that conclusion via, perhaps, an unreasonable methodology. If rape is bad, there is a reasonable argument for it. “We need to catapult more propaganda” is not really an argument, and, what’s worse, it is perhaps a tacit admission that the speaker does not believe in moral arguments, only in discipline. If discipline is the only source one can find for morality, I am unsatisfied. How do you calibrate who ought to be disciplined?

          • clnblk

            I don’t find the idea of not sticking my penis in people that don’t want it there thin at all, actually. There are reasonable arguments for why rape is bad, are you trying to suggest that there aren’t? Because that’s what it seems like you’re doing. They already exist, you need someone here and now to hold your hand and explain to you why rape is bad? You don’t get to fuck anyone you want any time you want. Just because you want something doesn’t mean you get it. You don’t get to take peoples orfices because you’re aroused, or you hate women or you lust after children. What is so complex about this? If someone says no, or they can’t say no or you’ve used fear or the threat of violence to take something of theirs then you’ve taken something. It has nothing to do with politics or laws. My body is not yours, hers is not yours, theirs is not yours to do with whatever you want, whenever you feel like. It is the simplest of calibrations and only a sociopath would struggle with it.

          • Jack

            What I believe isn’t very relevant to the topic. If the statistics posted here are accurate, it is apparent that many people do not believe in consent. Sure, you can call them sociopaths, but then you really lose the ability to blame them for their actions, AFAIK the neurobiology of sociopathy suggests it is not some sort of “moral failure” on the part of the sociopath, it is simply a difference in neurobiology. It is your neurobiology that causes you to condemn the sociopath, not contact with some transcendental truth about human conduct, no?

            What is complex about it is that it is likely contingent—indeed, the existence of these sociopaths necessitates the conclusion that your belief about self-ownership is not shared by everyone.

            Knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, is never simple. The Christian religion, in its Genesis story, encodes a possible truth about moral knowledge: “the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”, knowing good and evil. The underlying metaphysical message here may be that moral knowledge is of the same order as knowledge of God. Most of us accept that whether or not one believes in God is a personal belief not amenable to rational, compelling argument. It is not impossible that it is the same for moral knowledge. Or, on the other hand, people believe there are good arguments against belief in the existence of God. If they believe that, it may be the case that those arguments have generalized forms that apply to moral knowledge.

            How you can say it has nothing to do with “laws” is beyond me. Laws are rules of action. So if there is a rule of action that says “thou shalt not take what is not thine,” sure, I can accede to that, I think it’s in the Ten Commandments (otherwise called the Moral Law). But to suggest that there is a statement of teh same content that is not a law (moral or political) is simply to ignore the meaning of “law”, probably for the sake of avoiding these tough questions.

            And they are tough questions—you can fill your head with easy answers, but what is the solution to the problem? Presume someone were a sociopath. I doubt very much that your insults/approbation would do much to change his or her behaviour or worldview. It might be emotionally satisfying for you, but is it fruitful if your goal is to reduce the occurence of rape, etc?

            Personally, tho, I find the idea of using psychiatric terminology to dismiss people who disagree with your foundationalist worldview distasteful. It’s how things work in disciplinary contexts like primary schools—so it is likely what you were acculturated to accept, but that is hardly an argument for its equity.

          • clnblk

            Rape is not going to become accepted because some people can’t keep their dick in their pants. That’s the stupidest fucking argument I’ve ever heard. I don’t care about sociopaths feelings at all, really, at least not the ones who refuse to conform to societal norms and just indulge their every whim. Not everyone who is a rapist is a sociopath, some people are just assholes. Not every action is the result of a mental disorder and not every asshole is mentally ill. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Regardless, someone (you, I guess) can spend their time musing over how hard it must be to be a rapist in a world that disapproves of rape. Tough. Not once, in any of your airy arguments have I seen you even attempt to understand what it is like to be the victim of a sexual assault. Which is pretty telling in and of itself. You seem very passionate in defending rape as an inevitability – from an “academic standpoint” – which also pretty weird.

          • Jack

            I have no idea how you drew that out of what I said. But rape is accepted, by those who use it. The issue is always which subject is accepting or not accepting and what contingencies lead to that acceptance or non-acceptance.

            And if we do an inter-species comparison, we find very little like sexual consent in the human, contemporary sense, in any other species. I take it those dogs at the dog park humping without consent are immoral.

    • Dee El Lobo

      seems pretty constructive to me. everyone is talking about it

      • Fate

        People were talking about the issue before the vandalism because of the press it has received thanks to the Ubyssey and the constructive outpouring of disapproval that followed from the gender studies/social justice department as well as concerned members of the UBC community. Saying that Sauder, the school, “teaches rape” oversimplifies (and stretches) the truth to the point where detractors will just say, “see these people are crazy and take things too far blah blah”. If the graffiti said “sauder FROSH excuses rape” or “Sauder FROSH perpetuates rape culture” that would be one thing that i think most people would agree with (although destruction/vandalism of property only loosely affiliated with the instigators is still problematic), but saying outright that the business school teaches rape just makes our side of the debate look foolish. The point of the outrage is to make sure that somewhere in the leadership level, policies and people change so that rape culture is no longer perpetuated or hidden–moving towards changing the entire FROSH structure (such that leaders and students need to take inclusion and other training/info sessions), or changing the curricula of all departments so they better integrate social issues like these so there won’t be people who think a chant like this is going to “help people get out of their bubbles”. The point is to make people understand WHY the chanting and the coverup and the tradition is wrong, not make people learn to cover their asses in PR interest.

        Furthermore, throughout this I think it is very important that the discussion be directed in a way that doesn’t continually force rape and sexual assault survivors to be confronted by triggers all the time, having to relive the worst moments of their lives. As someone who was assaulted while a minor, I am pretty comfortable engaging in discussions like these but even I can come to feel sick at times being confronted with this topic at all times. I’m sure there are many more women and men out there who have had more recent, or horrific, experiences than i did who must be going through triggers that make their quality of life exceptionally worse, as a result of the society that continues these chants, and also as a side effect of the debate. I think it is absolutely necessary to address these problems, but I think people are forgetting that of prime focus here should also be making UBC a safer (physically and emotionally) environment for survivors of assault.

        /endrant

  • umuad

    Egads, a little spray paint and some vulgarity, better bring out the smelling salts and fainting couches! It’s almost as bad as creating an environment hostile to people who are survivours of rape and sexual assault.

    • Saebu

      Sarcasm really isn’t needed. :

      • umuad

        Nah, I’m really tired of the hand-wringing with regard to graffiti at the best of times, but now we get to have a bunch of people insinuating that a marginalised person’s expression of outrage is as bad or worse than marginalising that person in the first place?

        I think I’ll stick with being dismissive of these neanderthals.

        • U_wan_pray_game

          Tumblr pls go.

          • umuad

            Yeah dude, because people who care about the well-being of others are an internet phenomenon, just to get at you.

        • Saebu

          It isn’t readily apparent that a marginalised person even spray-painted those words on Sauder, so your initial premise is questionable at best. Secondly, “avenging” a violation of social code is never justifiable by the use of a violation of criminal law.

          Fun fact: Neanderthals were some of the first people to paint crude images on caves. The tools have changed, but the people have not.

          • vehementi

            FUD really isn’t needed. :

  • Lamnidae

    Maybe some people will finally understand the emotions and victimization involved with being raped and/or sexually assaulted are real and that people who are angry about the chant aren’t just “butt hurt” or the like. I don’t necessarily agree with the vandalism, but it if gets the message across, it gets the message across.

    • Jack

      What is teh message, that being raped creates a sense of entitlement and a desire to enslave others? How we become the thing we hate! “I was raped, so now I have a right to control everyone around me so that I don’t have to remember it!” Fuck that noise. Better living through chemistry. If these rape victims cannot hack it in a world without enslaving everyone, they should be on benzos or thorazine or whatever quiets down their little minds.

      • Rae

        Oh my god, you have no soul.

        • Jack

          The more of this topic I read, the more I am convinced that one side only has ad-homs for those who don’t accept their intuitions.

          • vehementi

            ROFL

          • Kamran

            Pot, meet kettle.

          • Rae

            What sides? The people against rape versus the people for rape?

          • Mapsandpeaches

            Folks upvoting him, have you *read* what else Jack has posted? He calls people who oppose rape eugenicists and claims that rape is a reproductive strategy. Seriously, check out what you’re supporting first.

          • Jack

            Are you also prejudiced against eugenics? You should note that I have not judged it a good or bad reproductive strategy—if you judge it bad, tho, I think you are a eugenicist with a top-down reproductive plan for society. That’s fine. Own it.

      • Lamnidae

        It’s not about receiving special treatment for being a victim, it’s about wanting a change in our rape culture. It’s about being allowed to talk about being raped or sexually assaulted without the majority of people telling you are the one at fault and deserved it. It’s about reworking the misogynist mindset surrounding rape that affects both the male and female victims. There is no sense of entitlement that comes with being raped.

        • Patrick Adair

          Because spray painting “Fuck Rape Culture” on public property is going to do a whole lot of good for everyone, right? What change could this immature and unintelligent bullshit, hope to bring about?

          • clnblk

            Public shaming?

        • Jack

          Uh, you certainly seem to have a sense of entitlement visavis the “reworking” people’s “mindset.” That’s a form of control, dominion. A society that valued rape could just as easily suggest that we have an institutional apparatus dedicated to reworking the mindset of those who are afraid of the rape experience. I am not saying which is right or wrong, but I think that at the University level, the discussion must be had, not treated as a primary school type curriculum item where people are graded pass/fail on this sort of thing via a simple disciplinary apparatus that admits no discussion. If there are good arguments against rape, let us hear them, rartrher than just a lot of ends-directed talk about controlling those who apparently have a different belief-system.

          • Mapsandpeaches

            Here’s an argument against rape: it’s inherently violent and denies the victim’s personhood, privileging that of the rapist’s. It reduces people to objects onto which the rapist’s need for power is projected.

            You seem to care a lot about people being forced to go to school and to follow the speed limit. Why don’t you care about people being forced for rape?

          • Jack

            Well, what if personhood is a fiction? What if we;re all just matter? What if people are objects and that any identity over that of “thing” or “object” is hallucinatory? How is the disposition against being “raped” not indicative of a desire for power over that thing which is commonly called one’s own body? But that prejudges the question. To whom does the body belong? In many cases, we allow people to take possessions without consent: in the enforcement of law, in the schooling of children. The issue is the hypocrisy of accepting non-consentual acts in some cases, not in others. At bottom, it is reducible to an aesthetic or political sense, one that need not be shared, which is more or less absent in most ofther species.

            And if we think about what consent is, we can arguably suggest it is a narrative entity, that is, a fictitious entity. So if we inbreed for people who believe in consent, we effectively inbreed for people who believe in things that lack any substance but a narrative substance. Is it really correct to breed a population that believes in punishing people for failing to internalize fairy stories? If it is right to breed people to believe in consent, why not force similar beliefs in intangible things, like in God?

  • john smith

    They should call it the Saudomy School of Business

  • john smith

    Also “fuck rape” seems like an ambiguous statement

    • yella

      fuck you

      • john smith

        :(

  • U_wan_pray_game

    Normal science™ says “here’s the facts, what conclusions can we make from them?”
    Radfem/Patriarchy theory, on the other hand, says “here’s the conclusion, what facts can we get to support it?”

    It’s why nobody takes Rape Culture and even Women’s Studies in general seriously in academics anymore. It tends only to feed hostility as you see here.

    Tumblr crowd pls go.

    • umuad

      Here’s some facts. One in six women will be raped in their lifetime, for men, it’s one in thirty three, yet here you are, in year of our lord 2013, saying rape’s not really that big of a deal. I guess it’s only science when you want it to be.

      • Jack

        Source for those stats? The only legitimate stats are conviction stats, as everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Only a court of competent jurisdiction is entitled to make a finding of rape—women self-reporting that they have been raped is inadequate in respect of due process.

        • vehementi

          It is not true that the only legitimate stats are convictions for the same reason as we don’t use the number of murder convictions to count how many people were murdered last year. Because that would discount every unsolved murder, which is obviously wrong.

          Convictions and due process are tools used to allow the state to bear its impossibly mighty power down on an individual and remove their rights. We have that process in order to not have that extremely disproportionate power used without cause.

          The number of rapes is a separate discussion. Self reporting rapes is absolutely a legitimate way to get at the number of rapes (with appropriate use of error bars).

          Your arguments in this comments section are extremely suspicious.

          • Jack

            I am sorry, your parallel with murder is insufficient. There is a corpse, a dead body, which demonstrates a homicide. But whether or not that homicide was justified, whether or not there is a guilty person behind it,t hat can only be determined after conviction.

            In the case of rape, the whole issue hinges on something that is not factual but predicated wholly of the purported cognitive state of the purported victim. A dead body is a dead body. No sort of physical marks necessitates a finding of rape—if you believe they do, you are naive about the ex practices many engage in.

            Self-reported rapes are wholly illegitimate—they are not, as that fellow from the US said, “legitimate rapes.” The only legitimate reapes are those determined by duly constituted judges.

          • vehementi

            You sure are persistent!

          • Mapsandpeaches

            I’m confused. Downthread you mock people who have faith in the rule of law, describing it as “a sort of psychosis, beneficial in the short-term, but in the long term destructive of the species, planets, etc.” And yet here you say that *judges*–who are absolutely a key part of the practice of law, duh–actually make objectively correct assessments, and you believe in their word–the word of law–above all else? I can’t expect logic from a troll, but still. Get it together, man.

          • Chris Whitman

            Sorry, but courts determine criminal culpability, not the factual existence of a wrong.

            First off this process is imperfect, especially when law enforcement agencies tend to misuse or fail to provide or process rape kits etc.

            Secondly trial judges find facts; they don’t *make* them, and no judge would claim they did. Finding a defendant not guilty of sexual assault doesn’t mean the assault didn’t happen, only that evidence couldn’t be established beyond a reasonable doubt that it did. Criminal justice is hugely conservative specifically because its punishments are so harsh and its power is so exceptional.

            A failure to criminally prosecute doesn’t mean no wrong was committed—for example it doesn’t preclude civil litigation on the same facts. If finding a defendant not guilty doesn’t even imply there was absolutely no wrong within the judicial system, why should it imply this socially and *especially* existentially?

          • Mapsandpeaches

            Thank you so much for making those points! It is futile to argue with this troll (so I should probably stop), but that’s an excellent breakdown of a concept that was sailing way over this guy’s head.

          • Chris Whitman

            Np! You can’t always sway someone with argument but at least you can make them look ridiculous.

          • Candy Pornsak

            I always find this logic laughable. Feminists use this faulty logic time and again to justify their bloated and bizarre rape statistics – such as one-in-four women have been raped. (And that says nothing about their faulty, dishonest methodologies either.) Remember this – when a defendant is found not guilty of sexual assault she is found not guilty because there wasn’t enough evidence to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. While it is true to say that that condition doesn’t obviate the possibility of actual guilt outside of a legal definition – it also doesn’t obviate the FAR MORE LIKELY possibility of innocence. Yet feminists continually cling, in defiance of logic and reason, to the first formulation. Why? Patriarchy. Why? Rape Culture. Why? Penis. That’s why.

          • Chris Whitman

            OK, so there’s a problem here. Actually several problems.

            The first is that, if you assume some sort of spectrum of availability of evidence for a criminal case, for it to be far more likely that not guilty parties are in fact innocent, that would mean that most likely guilt was clear and unambiguous in the cases where the act occurred, evidence was easily available, and evidence gathering was effective.

            In fact we know that none of these things are true.

            The requirement here is that if rape happens, it should be easy to prove: victims go to the police early, evidence is gathered and processed correctly, police investigate promptly and effectively, the perpetrator can be located easily, the elements of the charge are easy to demonstrate, etc.

            In fact, if you assume that there is a real number somewhere out there representing the actual number of sexual assaults, we know very well that you are losing some cases at every step of this process. In many cases we know that some of these are performed QUITE poorly. The conviction rate simply cannot be an effective measure of the actual number of sexual assaults occurring.

            And in general, measures of the crime rate are taken from reported crimes, not convictions. I’m not sure what actual justification there is for treating sexual assault differently from assault, burglaries, etc. in this respect.

            On the other side here, the suggestion that the number of reported rapes are vastly exaggerated is a huge, unqualified assumption. We have a generally good idea of how many false crimes are reported for other types of charges. It would be a valid null hypothesis, even in the absence of evidence, to assume that the rate of false reports of sexual assault is similar. To assert to the contrary would suggest that women are, in disproportionately large numbers, making false allegations. I’ve heard many, many people say this, but I have yet to see even a single shred of evidence to support this claim, and it is not a small or self-evident claim.

            But there are STILL problems here. Sexual assault cases aren’t just heard in criminal court. Tort litigation for sexual assault is becoming increasingly common.

            In battery, the evidentiary requirements and the burden of proof are far different. First, finding liability is based on a balance of probabilities rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, due to historic common law tradition in Canada, the plaintiff in a battery trial is not required to prove that consent was absent. Rather, they can simply assert a lack of consent and the burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove that consent *did not* occur as a defence.

            So if someone is found not guilty of sexual assault but liable in battery, would you count that as a “real” sexual assault? If not, why not? Why peg the estimated number of assaults to the strictest possible standard of evidence? To a system based on the maxim “it is better that ten guilty persons go free than one innocent suffer”? Aren’t these numbers distorted *by design*?

            I understand I’m the one here with the “faulty logic.’ But I can’t see any compelling reason why criminal convictions should represent an accurate tally of sexual assaults. I can see many reasons why they shouldn’t. I can’t see any compelling reason why women would conspire en masse to create a *staggering* number of false rape reports, even in anonymized surveys where they could expect no personal benefit at all.

        • Mapsandpeaches
          • Jack

            Are those conviction stats or self-reported stats? People can be convinced they’re victims of crime, but if there’s not a conviction, it is immoral to account the purported perpetrator as a criminal. These fine details are lost on radfem ideologues.

          • Mapsandpeaches

            What about the one in four men in that study who admitted to raping women, of whom I’m willing to bet almost none have been convicted (indeed not, because the men interviewed weren’t incarcerated)? Do you believe *them,* who confess to being perpetrators of rape?

            It is not “immoral” to recite statistics on how many women have been (or as you’d put it, “claim to have been”) raped, with or without a conviction. It’s a statement of fact–and for someone who claims to be keen on the use of reason and fact in arguments, you’re awfully hasty to assign moral judgements to their reporting.

      • Candy Pornsak

        Show a source for your assertion. StatCan, police stats, and university stats routinely and directly show that one-in-six / one-in-four and the newer incarnation of one-in-three is absolute nonsense. Do bear in mind that people are by now aware of the methodology of people like Mary P Koss; how they use leading and open-ended questions to arrive at the conclusion they want and how they actively remove male victims of sexual abuse from their ‘findings.’ If you try to offer sources up such as this – you’re going to find your arguments ripped apart.

    • umuad

      Further, as if saying “hey maybe we shouldn’t make light of rape when a lot of people get raped” is really all that big of a deal, but no, no. Let’s just go out of our way to make people who suffered a violent assault feel even worse because ~freedom~.

    • umuad

      I just keep find all sorts of neat things to unpack in your post, here, you know? The implication that because you don’t find something important, no one else must either, is pretty telling. If you think the entire world somehow hinges on your point of view, I dunno, doesn’t sound like you’ve done enough research for your hypothesis.

      Also, “normal” science? You mean “normal” as in something you care about or are interested in so you lend more credence to it? “Normal” is objective anyways.

      I appreciate you’re trying to paint people here with a broad brush by name-dropping Tumblr, but please close r/debate101 (see what I did there??) and try and keep up with what us adults are talking about.

      • Jack

        Adult = A Dolt. Speak with wisdom like a child, not like some radfem ideologyvictim.

  • MiddleOf TheSky

    What about their team called Pocahontas? Didn’t someone say they were heard to chant something about “Give our land back?”

    • Mapsandpeaches

      I heard about that too :/

    • Saebu

      Funny that they would have a team called Pocahantas. As we all (probably) know, Pocahantas in the historical context was a 12-year-old married to a settler in his thirties.

  • umuad

    Fuck off, rapist.

    • Jack

      You see, that is not a scholarly argument. Indeed, it is a libel and a defamation. Because I am intellectually mature enough to have a fact-oriented discussion of the topic does not make me a rapist. But anti-rapists are clearly eugenicists who want to inbreed the population for traits that respect the thing called “consent.” Where rapists will breed with anyone, anti-rapists have a eugenics fetish and will only breed with others who share their fetish.

      It is interesting to note that belief in consent is belief in law, which may simply be a sort of psychosis, beneficial in the short-term, but in the long term destructive of the species, planets, etc. Thus, even if in the short-term inbreeding for capacity to consent provides some benefits, in the long-term it may simply render the species psychotic and unable to tell fact from legal fiction. AFAIK consent is a fiction of contract law used primarily in adjudications.

      Finally, I suspect that almost all of the anti-rape brigade believe in compulsory, non-consensual education of children, if only to indoctrinate them into acceptance of their anti-rape ideoloy. So the issue isn’t even one of radical consensualism: it is, as with most tyrannical viewpoints, rooted in an insatiable will-to-power and desire to dominate. Sorta like some pseudoscientific accounts of rape, which says it is all about power, not about breeding strategy.

      • vehementi

        LOL

      • Mapsandpeaches

        Hot damn. I hadn’t read this. You’re an excellent troll, congratulations. I hope that brushing off consent as some sort of facile and dogmatic belief in law, rather than a basic requirement for human decency, on a public forum helps you feel really powerful.

      • Mapsandpeaches

        Also, have you ever had a conversation with a victim of a sexual assault or rape? Have you ever had a conversation that included feelings or empathy in your life? If you haven’t, please do–you may find you’re missing out.

  • Christopher Reid

    first, look up the proper use of ‘begs the question’

    second, troll

    third, it seems you are the one ‘begging the question’ (really, look it up)

  • Mapsandpeaches

    I’ve posted some facts about rape for you in another comment, so I think I’ve established how prevalent rape is for you–and they’re handy statistics too, so you should feel comfortable with them, since clearly empathy isn’t your strong suit.

    Rape isn’t a reproductive strategy, troll, it’s about power. Go back to your cave–or god forbid, whatever department at UBC is unfortunate enough to host you.

    • Chris Whitman

      I will bet you $20 it’s evo psych.

      • Mapsandpeaches

        Just posited as much in a comment a few minutes ago! I bet you’re right.

  • trex

    Jack, do you go to Sauder? curious to know what the campus was like today . . .

  • Mapsandpeaches

    Also, I’m really curious about something. If rape is a reproductive strategy (and I’m willing to bet you’re a believer in evolutionary psychology in its grossest forms, which means you think that any repro. strategy that developed is therefore somehow justified in its performance because it is “natural”), does that mean *you* would rape as an effort to spread your genetic material around as much as possible? If you wouldn’t, why not?

  • Chris Whitman

    Rape isn’t a valid reproductive strategy, because reproductive success depends on the ability to raise your offspring to the age at which they can reproduce themselves rather than abandoning them, and because BRUTALLY ASSAULTING THE (potential) MOTHER and leaving her severely injured or possibly dead tends to start this process off on the wrong foot, to say the least.

    Maybe you should spend more time in class and less time on your men’s rights Reddit.

  • jefflebowski
  • Qin

    You know what’s a better reproductive strategy? Murder all other members of your gender.

    • Jack

      I don’t think that I said better or worse—that’s more transcendental stuff. It may be that the best we can get on this sort of question is a contingent perspective. So what are the contingencies that lead to the perspective that sanctions rape, what are the contingencies that lead to the perspective that thinks it is OK? I mean, if these self-reported stats are accurate, something like 1/4 women will be sexually assaulted at some point. That means men apparently believe in sexual assault. Why is that? What is the descriptive account, devoid of moral condemnation?