Rochester Professor Wonders Why Rapists Shouldnt Be Allowed to Reap the Benefits of Passed Out Girl

[redqueen]

Professor Landsburg Do you remember Mr. Landsburg?

He's the guy who defended Rush Limbaugh and insulted Sandra Fluke.

This time, it's even worse.

Rochester Professor Wonders Why Rapists Shouldn’t Be Allowed to ‘Reap the Benefits’ of Passed Out Girl

Steven Landsburg is an economics professor at the University of Rochester. Formerly a Slate columnist, Landsburg is well-versed in the art of the high-minded counterintuitive take, like "Don't Vote: It makes more sense to play the lottery" and "Do the Poor Deserve Life Support?" With this as his background, Landsburg's students have come to expect a bit of intellectual boldness from the instructor, whom they once elected Professor of the Year, as Landsburg's own website is quick to note. But last week, one of Landsburg's thought experiments crossed the border that separates irreverent from rapey, and at least two students were offended in the process.

Within the past week, two different University of Rochester students have tipped us off to a post on Landsburg's personal blog. Dated March 20 and titled "Censorship, Environmentalism and Steubenville," the post attempts to compare and contrast potential "psychic harms" associated with pornography, environmentalism, and being raped while you are passed out. If one of those things, prima facie, doesn't sound like the others to you, well, Landsburg would like to understand "what is the key difference among them?"

You can and should read the whole post, pasted below, but the gist is this: After describing a scenario in which a character named "Farnsworth McCrankypants" is mentally traumatized by knowing other people watch porn ("Question 1&quot , and another in which "Granola McMustardseed" is distressed by the idea of wilderness desecration ("Question 2&quot , Landsburg poses "Question 3," which references the recently closed Steubenville rape case:

Let's suppose that you, or I, or someone we love, or someone we care about from afar, is raped while unconscious in a way that causes no direct physical harm—no injury, no pregnancy, no disease transmission. (Note: The Steubenville rape victim, according to all the accounts I've read, was not even aware that she'd been sexually assaulted until she learned about it from the Internet some days later.) Despite the lack of physical damage, we are shocked, appalled and horrified at the thought of being treated in this way, and suffer deep trauma as a result. Ought the law discourage such acts of rape? Should they be illegal?

Later he writes (emphasis ours throughout):

I'm having trouble articulating any good reason why Question 3 is substantially different from Questions 1 and 2. As long as I'm safely unconsious and therefore shielded from the costs of an assault, why shouldn't the rest of the world (or more specifically my attackers) be allowed to reap the benefits? And if the thought of those benefits makes me shudder, why should my shuddering be accorded any more public policy weight than Bob's or Granola's? We're still talking about strictly psychic harm, right?

And also:

It is, I think, a red herring to say that there's something peculiarly sacred about the boundaries of our bodies. Every time someone on my street turns on a porch light, trillions of photons penetrate my body. They cause me no physical harm and therefore the law does nothing to restrain them. Even if those trillions of tiny penetrations caused me deep psychic distress, the law would continue to ignore them, and I think there's a case for that (it's the same as the case for ignoring Bob McCrankypants's porn aversion). So for the issues we're discussing here, bodily penetration does not seem to be in some sort of special protected category.

...

http://gawker.com/5992762/rochester-professor-wonders-why-rapists-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-reap-the-benefits-of-passed-out-girls

Rape culture? What rape culture? This guy is just a jock. Or, erm, a frat boy. Or, erm, in the military... or, erm... quick, someone... think of a way to minimize this!

[shenmue]

1. What a serious piece of...

And he gets paid.

[Auntie Bush]

5. He should be fired!

There is nothing to discuss. Rape is rape and is illegal under any circumstance. End of discussion! No yes, no sex pure and simple.

[Warpy]

2. And dehumanize the victim

by pretending there is no risk of pregnancy, no exposure to disease, no video, no internal injury, and the worst consequence will be a hangover. Maybe. Better yet, just eradicate her (or even him) from the picture completely, it makes it easier to concentrate on that nice boy from such a good family who raped an unconscious body and felt entitled to do so thanks to apologists like this jackass.

Then we can turn the tables and say any seriously drunk man can be assaulted and robbed of everything he's got because he's just not going to remember what happened and there will be no psychological scars from being robbed and beaten.

Rape apologists are disgusting.

[Iris]

3. The part I don't get is "if no pregnancy or disease results"

so, if the rapist impregnates the victim and gives her a disease, .... then what? He is liable for what? child support?

[redqueen]

4. "Rape apologists are disgusting."

Yep.

[Starry Messenger]

6. This must be an example of female privilege and White Knighting that one hears so much about here.

[Dawson Leery]

7. This ass is a college professor?

[Brigid]

8. This jackass should be fired.

Immediately.

[seabeyond]

9. didnt we have an OP on this a couple months ago about the "norm" in teenage boys

raping passed out girls and how they really did not know it was rape. and then a week followed of rape apologist posts.

that being said, we also had a week of men on du calling out these rape apologists.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

10. Being penetrated by photons is actually actionable in certain instances

Up the ways a bit from me is a cozy little town called Alpine, one of the richest towns in the country, actually. Eddie Murphy once had his digs up there. His neighbor objected to the lights for his tennis court being on, as they interfered with his enjoyment of his tea ceremony thingamajig (the complainant was Japanese). Presumably they were causing him, ya know, deep psychic distress, or something. Took Murphy to court and won. From what I hear Murphy sold his house to Joe Piscopo after that incident.

So there.

[MineralMan]

11. A complete asshole.

He should be dismissed immediately.

[alp227]

12. As much as I believe that free speech is for bigots, too,

I think Prof. Landsburg has crossed a line for a respectable university. He had his chance with free speech but has TWICE blown it both with this example and with the Sandra Fluke case. Good thing Rochester is a private university, so he can't sue for 1st Amendment issues.

[Johonny]

39. they should dismiss him but not tell him

so he can show up to school and teach his classes day after day. So long as he doesn't know he has actually been dismissed then no harm could possibly come to him. Why shouldn't his school reap the benefits of his situation. They should fire him, don't tell him and see if he ever figures out. Like you know his bank sending him an email saying those direct deposit check are no longer coming. Apparently finding out something over the internet doesn't count so this is perfectly ok.

[salin]

13. Why even go out on this ugly limb... unless trying to rationalize

past actions of self or some-one close to self. Sure this is speculation - but its just speculation per rhetorical speculation.

Why indulge upon "if a tree falls in a forest when no one is there to here it" type of speculation - as a comparison to a passed out female - who wasn't aware that she was being raped so "did it really happen - and/or does it matter?"

So per professor's speculation - suddenly the grotesque stories of sexual abuse in nursing homes and hospitals involving unconscious patients, is okay - as long as there is no pregnancy - because the patient was unaware of the abuse happening to his/her body.

Transparency is a great disinfectant - hope this story is read broadly.

[BlueToTheBone]

14. It is, I think, a red herring to say that there's something peculiarly sacred about the boundaries

of our bodies. I wonder what he would say if the boundaries of his body was penetrated..even when he didn't know.

Somehow, I think he would say something different than that.

[freshwest]

15. So sociopathy is now graced with euphemisms such as 'intellectual boldness?'

[rrneck]

16. That's even faulty libertarian logic.

If someone profits from physical contact with your body without your consent you have not been compensated for that transaction. And as any libertarian will tell you, that is theft and theft is violence. Or something like that.

I swear to fuck have people forgotten what the real world looks like?

[jmg257]

17. What a dick. Someone has to kick this dumb ass square in nuts.

Some things are so assanine, one can't even think of a reply.

[olddots]

18. Is this maggot on fux news yet ????

He's a professor he has to be wicked smahhht !

[baldguy]

19. How about; "An unconscious human being isn't a piece of furniture"?

[jeff47]

20. You know prof, if you want a sex doll they are available for purchase on the Internet

You wouldn't even have to worry about pesky things like her having a brain, and feelings, and getting her so drunk she doesn't remember. And being a reprehensible excuse for a human being.

[tom2255]

21. Is this guy serious?

He can't be this much of a mess.

[RedCappedBandit]

22. What. the. FUCK. AM. I. READING.

I can't even. WOW.

[Sharpie]

23. I understand the thought experiment...

... but he had to realize how tightly people are wound and that it would cause an uproar.

Probably needed to be mentioned before he faded entirely.

[JI7]

26. how about post 25 , isn't the point nof these to ask should it be forbidden

just because of how others might feel ?

but in things like Rape and other violent acts against people these things aren't banned just because of discomfort. it's an attack on others .

we aren't talking about a case where someone should not wear something because others would feel uncomfortable with it.

[Arcanetrance]

24. That made me physically ill

Spoken by someone who's never experienced sexual assault in any form. Just cause she's unconscious and unaware of her situation doesn't make her any less of a person. That logic could one day be used to harm him or someone close to him let's see what he thinks than. Until than he can Fuck off and die

[MrModerate]

25. Landsburg was (as far as I can tell) attempting to set up a provocative thought experiment . . .

Which — among other things — makes no sense given that the question (as best I can parse it out) is "ought things that cause others discomfort be forbidden because they cause discomfort?"

Thus the focus is on the issue of discomfort for the receiver, regardless of what the stimulus might be. Problem being, his example is heinous, and he tumbles further down the rabbit hole by trying to put some rhetorical padding around that example.

This is similar to the professor who strutted around in stormtrooper gear in a whacked-out attempt to get his students' attention.

I'd say Landsburg is a fool with really bad judgement about what's appropriate in lessons, but probably not a genuine rape apologist. In fact, I'd posit that he's not a genuine anything — except dickhead.

[Ilsa]

27. There's no money to be made in being a moral

person.
That's what I learned about Professor Asshole in reading this.

[PCIntern]

28. I am a U of R grad

And am appalled. The local alumni board, of which I am a member, will be discussing this shortly.

[BlueJazz]

29. I have a person who comes into my home every day when I'm gone, He picks the lock...

...doesn't hurt anything, doesn't cause any damage, goes through everything I own....then leaves
a few minutes before I get home.
I really don't see anything wrong with the whole scenario.

[magellan]

30. How did this asshat get to be a professor?

Would he so glibly compare the "psychic trauma" of having photons penetrate his body to that of his own daughter seeing a video of herself being raped while unconscious?

[Blue_Tires]

31. I know everybody wants to take this moron down, but

He is clearly just whoring for liberal and feminist outrage...Dont give him what he desperately craves, and just ignore his arguments...

Not every random no name asshole spewing illogical nonsense on some blog from the corner of the innernettes is worth a point by point takedown on DU...

[HiPointDem]

32. I'm going to subject myself to abuse by saying that whatever the professor's personal opinions,

the thought experiment he sets up *will* make students think, because it takes the issue out of its usual box and into an unfamiliar context.

And I think in the context of academics, that's a good thing. It's a good thing to think about *why* we have the beliefs we do, to look at them from different perspectives, and to practice defending them against different arguments.

This is what academic freedom is for. For the record, I disagree with the professor's line of thought not only on rape, but on porn and on the environment. But I'm of the opinion that actual *free* discussion that goes outside the boxes imposed by dominant storylines is a good thing.

http://www.thebigquestions.com/2013/03/20/censorship-environmentalism-and-steubenville/

[seabeyond]

34. then lets ask him if that is the intent why not shift it to a boy, you know, a male child or

a grown man, to really be outside the box and think.

cause i gotta tell you, raping unconscious girls and think if there is no harm, there is no foul.... well hell, that is all kinda normal thinking for too many people in our culture.

[Helen Reddy]

35. Oh yeah.

The men would be screaming bloody murder if the Prof. was talking about reaping the benefit from an unconscious dude. Or is it just lady-people? How about men on men?

[Sheldon Cooper]

42. Exactly.

Why shouldn't a guy take advantage of a passed out guy? I mean, if he's just looking for an unconscious object to shove his dick into, wouldn't a passed out guy serve the purpose just as well?

[Helen Reddy]

33. Kicked and Recommended n/t

[randome]

36. The only valid 'thought experiment' would be this.

Do we sometimes make a rape more traumatic by our reaction to it?

I am not in the slightest trying to apologize or 'normalize' rape but I think sometimes we approach a victim -especially a younger one- with the defacto judgment that "you must feel terrible" and therefore send subtle cues that her reaction should be precisely that without first finding out how she truly feels.

I don't know if there is some other way to behave around a rape victim other than to be supportive and look for signs of how she truly feels.

But even after a rape, if it's someone we know, we often walk on eggshells around her, perhaps extending the time for recovery.

Just a 'thought experiment'. Don't think for a moment that I don't take the issue seriously. I have two daughters, you know.

[seabeyond]

37. we cannot talk about this side issue reasonably and rationally where it might actually help a rape

victim cause we live in a rape culture and rape apologist society.

so though i think you absolutely have a valid point, there is no way in hell i would support a discussion on this subject when we cannot even come to terms what rape is and rape is wrong and it is never never never a victims fault he/she is raped.

[randome]

40. Agreed.

And I suppose police officers and trauma counselors are trained to know how to handle these situations in the first place.

[Tikki]

38. Bet this has already been posted...Prof. how would you feel if you woke up from being roofied and...

saw a video on your computer, looping over and over, of a bunch of High School kids raping you?

Still no harm, no foul?


Tikki

[Comrade_McKenzie]

41. Are they just letting any freak be a professor these days?

Jesus Christ.