By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

How should rape be defined?

Recent discussion on reddit led me back to an old comment I made in response to the assertion of another commenter in defense of feminist researchers using an overly broad definition of rape that the crime is hard to define. While I understand why a feminist might think that, as proponents of the ideology can't even fully agree on what constitutes consent, the determining factor in their various definitions for the crime, I disagree.

I contend that such a belief relies on ignoring the importance of mens rea, a vital factor which feminists strive to eliminate from the discussion. I would argue that relying on the subjective concept of sexual consent rather than the more definitive measure of intent, which can be demonstrated based on the alleged perpetrator's provable actions, makes it more difficult to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. Relying on whether proof of consent exists also places the burden of proof in a criminal case on the accused rather than on the accuser, a violation of the due process rights of the accused.

My response was to describe how rape should be defined in order to avoid confusion and minimize the incidence of false allegations resulting in conviction.

It would have to start with describing sex crime in general, defining that as the act by the perpetrator of contravening or disregarding the victim's right to refuse sexual contact.

Disregarding should be defined as ignoring an unresponsive/incapacitated state, or age or disability related inability of the victim to understand and agree to the act. This would cover incapacity due to an intoxicant, and protection of minors and the mentally disabled. It wouldn't cover drunk sex with a responsive partner, as a responsive partner is capable of refusal.

Contravening could be defined as taking any measure to enforce the perpetrator's will on an unwilling victim such that the victim no longer has the option to refuse. This would cover physical force, coercion by threat, and surreptitious use of an intoxicant to bypass the victim's will. It wouldn't cover pressure or seduction, as these means do not prevent refusal, but seek to persuade.

The term "rape" would be used when there was penetration of any orifice by either the perpetrator or the victim, or enforced oral contact with sex organs, under the conditions described in the overall refusal definition.

This would cover the actions generally considered to be sexual intercourse - oral sex, vaginal sex, and anal sex would all fall under that definition, even when the perpetrator is a female rapist forcing the victim to perform cunnilingus, where "penetration" might not be seen as an accurate description of the act.

Making the definition so specific would avoid problems caused by using an overly broad definition which relies on a subjective concept like sexual consent.  It would go a long way toward reducing false allegations brought forth due to misunderstanding of the law, and provide counselors with a clear guideline for discussion of prevention - communication would be key, as it would be made clear that a potential victim has both the right and the responsibility to communicate refusal unless incapacitated or unqualified, and a potential partner becomes a perpetrator at the moment that refusal (or incapability) is ignored.

#IStandByJack update 2: Futrelle's Magic Fainting Couch Ride

In a recent post I described David Futrelle's sniveling cowardice and melodramatic damseling over a father's response to the result of Futrelle's manipulation of his more unstable readers.


As I said, Futrelle's method of operation involves selective presentation of cherry-picked information, falsely framed to infer that which it does not actually support. Futrelle's self-sustaining slander farm stretches right past error through the land of the deliberately obtuse to outright targeted deception. He uses that method to stir outrage in a loyal following of individuals of questionable mental stability whose pattern of behavior, generally inspired by his publication, he'd whine piteously about if they were targeting him. He then sits back and watches his useful idiots do his dirty work for him, cherry picks from the responses to their behavior, and starts the pattern all over again.

Futrelle's shit-stirring resulted in one of his useful idiots sending a father messages threatening his family, including his 6 year old daughter, over Futrelle's writing. One of the tweets named Futrelle specifically, just to make that clear.

Needless to say, the child's father responded with all of the tact and finesse of an angry Dad whose child's safety has been wrongfully compromised. He made a conditional statement which Futrelle, fully aware of what set it off, chose to take as a meaningful threat, thereby admitting that in writing his manipulative posts, he does intend to send his crazy followers after his targets. Futrelle feigned ignorance, then when he could no longer do so, made a series of excuses relying on imputing malice where malice has not been proved. As I explained in the earlier post, he's actually portraying HIMSELF as the victim of the doxing of a 6 year old child, targeted in his name by one of his supporters enraged by his presentation of his narrative. He's like a man who kicks a revolving door, then cries foul when the other side of it swings back and bumps him in the ass.

Having seen the post, and being fully aware that his manipulation is eliciting threats of violence against not only his targets, but their children, Futrelle FINALLY came to his senses and wrote a post admonishing his readers to exercise restraint, and...

haha, no, Of course he couldn't do that.

After being criticized for trying to make himself the victim of threats he inspired against someone else's child, Futrelle has taken the additional step of whining to his readers that he's being bullied. His response to Jack? He ran Jack's statement through the same MO I outlined above; selective presentation, false framing, and manipulative writing. His whining, boiled down to its essence, was as follows;

"Poor me, Jack is mad at me because I got someone to threaten his little girl, and he said words I don't like! His response to threats against his child are unjustified but I'm totally within my rights to indulge in extreme paranoia over this, and everyone KNOWS I'm a nice guy who doesn't condone behavior I haven't bothered to criticize until I feared blame for it might stick to me."


In other words, in a desperate and pitiful attempt to snatch victimhood from the jaws of shame, Futrelle responded to being criticized for sparking proxy abuse by knowingly fueling the reaction. And he supplemented that by adding similarly presented complaints about my criticism of his initial response. Rather than take a smidgen of adult responsibility for the results of his own actions, Futrelle has portrayed exposure of his paranoid fantasy for what it is as an irrational attack on him. Not only is he "victim" of a 6 year old's experience, the guy who fancies himself every MRA's judge and jury is also now "victim" of not being given control over others' assessment of HIS behavior.

Before writing this most recent article, one might have understood how he could have convinced himself that he was completely detached from the behavior of his readers. Now that he's admitted in print to having seen the cause & effect relationship between his dishonesty and his readers' actions outlined, he cannot rightfully claim that his carefully crafted demonization of men's rights advocates is ever, in any way, disconnected from any response his readers make. And knowing that at least one is not averse to responding by targeting innocent, uninvolved 6 year old girls, he's decided his best course of action is to add fuel to the fire while continuing to deny responsibility for any damage done by its eventual spread.

Futrelle says he will not apologize for taking Jack's "threat" seriously, yet he has attempted to shame Jack for taking seriously the proxy threat that has resulted from Futrelle targeting him and other AVFM writers. He's reversed in his mind a threat against Jack's child, turning it around to make himself the victim, and has the nerve to complain that the rest of us won't go along with his delusion.


Futrelle thinks a chain of sound logic explaining why presuming fulfilled Jack's condition - if harm would come to his family - demonstrates expectation, and therefore intent, is irrational... yet presents as a rational belief the inference that a man sounding off about being made to fear for his family's safety would, without that cause, do anything that would jeopardize his ability to provide for them.

Futrelle feels maligned because his disclaimers about doxing haven't detracted from his perceived responsibility when his dehumanization campaign results in it, yet he feels entitled to ignore the part of Jack's statement that doesn't fit in with the victim narrative he wants to present to his readers.

If he becomes any less self-aware in his complaints, he'll have to start referring to himself in the 3rd person.

Update; Knowing that his yellow journalism sends his readers out on real-world crusades against his targets, Futrelle has selected another:


After months of David Futrelle producing and promoting inflammatory false frames and lies about the men's rights movement, A Voice For Men in particular, the publication's writers and editorial staff as a group, and each of us personally, Jack Barnes's 6 year old kid was doxed and slyly threatened "I would hate for something to happen" style in Futrelle's name, presumably by a reader inspired by Futrelle's work.

As a father reacting to a stated threat against his child, Jack made a conditional statement - one that several times contained "If" in it, along with the statement that he hopes and prays never to have cause to back it up. If something happens to Jack's family. If his family is harmed. If he has to bury his wife and kid because Futrelle's intentional shit-stirring has riled up a psycho. It's pretty clear how Jack has been affected by recent events; a person who contacted him in Futrelle's name has given him reason to fear for the safety of his family.

Feminists have a habit of phrasing their complaints to paint fathers as uninvolved, callous deadbeats who take no interest in their children's welfare or experiences. Seeing a father's protective instinct laid bare ought to pleasantly surprise those who expect indifference in its place. That's the role they demanded he and all other fathers fill.

Male feminism's white knights especially ought to be able to empathize with a man's need to express that instinct, as they lay claim to it daily. One would think male feminists, of all people, would get that sounding off like this might be an expected response when a father sees his child threatened. One might even expect a male feminist to feel embarrassed at being associated with the threat that elicited Jack's response.

So how has David Futrelle answered?

Not by stating that he discourages this type of behavior in his readers.
Not by assuring that is readers won't attack Jack's family.
Not by promising to write a post admonishing his readers to refrain from engaging in violence against their political opponents.
Not even by sympathizing with a father's concern for his family's safety... but instead by confirming that concern, by treating those statements - which include "this is not a threat," as threats of planned actions, not conditional, but direct.

There's only two logical possibilities left, now that Futrelle has made this response. He can admit that his answer was a completely irrational overreaction to being held responsible for the effects of his dishonest shit stirring on his followers, and backpedal to a more rational (or at least rational sounding) response... or he can admit what his current response indicates; that he intends for harm to come Jack's family as a result of his shit stirring, that he DOES encourage his readers to engage in this type of behavior, and that he DOES intend for one or more of his readers to respond to his writing by engaging in violence against HIS political opponents.

After all, "If X, then Y" only infers Y on the condition of X... so responding to "If you X, then I'll Y" as if the individual has only stated "I'm going to Y" is an admission that you've planned on X happening. And Futrelle's apparent plan X seems pretty cowardly if you ask me.

It's getting old, watching sick fucks like Futrelle take cheap shots at political activists from behind followers who are little more than useful idiots. Futrelle's knowingly dishonest, falsely framed and deliberately inflammatory style
(See the post under the video here: http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/video/cassie-jay-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-red-pill-documentary-film/),
is designed to stir up exactly the kind of nutjob who would dox and threaten a child to punish her parent for his political activism.

The behavior is textbook "queen bee" style relational aggression taken to the next level. It consists of falsely framing selectively presented information and using rhetological fallacies to create an impression the information does not actually support, all to manipulate the reader both intellectually and emotionally. Futrelle's spin on it is doing so in such a way as to be excessively inflammatory, and it does exactly that. The threat narrative ( https://youtu.be/Uy3SKPWjWeM?list=PLJOWMtQBIv1sFM-u8FIKZxK0_AkoBzeCV ) built by Futrelle's writing has resulted in a pattern of behavior among his faithful that would be called stalking or targeted harassment if MRAs or even just guys in general did it to feminist women. Futrelle's followers do it to MRAs of both sexes... then try to play victim when it results in criticism they're not willing to weather.

Several of them have obsessively pursued AVFM's writers and other staff with defamatory assertions and insinuations, inserting themselves into discussions that do not involve them, making the discussions about themselves and Futrelle, then making harassment accusations when they don't like the answers they receive. These nutjobs actually once tried to push a man to commit suicide by starvation because they were angry that he was asking that Canadian law be enforced equally with respect to both sexes.

When Thunderf00t responded to Laughing Witch's letter writing campaign by signal boosting her own release of her own information and it had negative results for her, SJWs came out of the woodwork to condemn him as if he'd doxed her and sicced the internet on her, portraying the "fire Thunderf00t for disagreeing with me on the internet" campaigner as a victim because shit she threw into the wind blew back and hit her in the face. A massive hand wringing lament went up because Laughing Witch claimed without proof that people she was responsible for would be indirectly affected by the blowback.

Now, Futrelle's dishonest, deliberately inflammatory shit-stirring has inspired one of his head-fucked followers to directly dox and directly threaten the six-year-old child of one of his political opponents... not in response to an attack but over nothing more than disagreement about political ideology.

How does Futrelle respond? Calling off the dogs? Posting a call to be better than that? Admonishing his readers to not destroy their credibility by taking actions that make them the "bad guys," as MRAs are expected to do when so accused?

Haha, nope!

Futrelle has instead mounted his high horse, feigned detachment despite his own dishonesty being the first domino in the chain, and is now seeking a means to make HIMSELF out as the victim of doxing and threats targeting a 6 year old girl.

He uses the word "escalate" to describe Jack's conditional statement. He ignores the fact that targeting Jack's family IS escalation. He assumes that the reason his own family has never been so targeted is because his favorite writing subjects couldn't get that information, rather than the simple fact that we don't work that way. Futrelle doesn't know the difference between his high horse and moral high ground. His ability to make that mistake with near impunity relies on his choice to target only people who do know the difference, and who don't do the same things to him that he does to others.

Way to go, David, you prevaricating, skanky-assed dolt-hustler. You just demonstrated with your own occupancy of it that there is a lower place to sink in the name of gender issues debate than I believed actually existed.

Edit: Update

google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html