What the hell, Charlie Rose?

[merrily]

On Charlie Rose this week, a guest (male, if it matters) spoke of a woman who woke up at some point to find out her best friend (male) was raping her. The guest added that this kind of event can be even more damaging to a woman than being raped by a stranger because it can take her ability to trust anyone or anything.


One of Charlie's Rose's questions to his guest went something like this: Do you think that, in 99% of the cases, the males know they are rapists?

The guest responded that many men (perps) don't see it as rape, but it is.

http://www.pbs.org/charlierosetheweek/home/

Date of video April 24, 2015 (about 10 minutes in)

This is PBS, no less.

[Demit]

1. I'm curious: why do you say "this is PBS"

as if that is surprising? Did you expect the network as an entity to be more sensitive? Certainly Charlie Rose's bias shouldn't surprise you. He's a huge cheerleader for the 1% / the privileged / the status quo.

[merrily]

2. I expressed no surprise in the OP, unless you assume wtf is an expression of surprise. I did not

intend it that way. However, your reply did surprise me.

[Demit]

3. I really was asking an honest question, not making assumptions.

It wasn't clear from your post. I didn't mean to offend you.

So what was it you meant by saying "what the hell Charlie Rose?" and "this is PBS no less"?

[merrily]

11. How about commenting on the subject of the OP?

Why do I have to defend or explain my choice of words at all, let alone more than once? I have already said to you that nothing in the OP was intended as an expression of surprise.

The OP is about a man making a fortune from a TV show and, on that show, he implies to his viewers that 99% of men who are trusted by the women they rape don't actually think they are committing rape. And so far, the only question or comment you have is that I should explain my choice of words-- and one brief explanation was apparently not enough?

BTW, the only thing I said about your reply 1 was that it surprised me. I said nothing at all about your making assumptions or asking a dishonest question. This thread is about rape. I am not going to make it about my choice of words or my motives or your motives.

[Demit]

12. I was trying to. But I didn't know what your subject was.

I understood it was rape, but it seemed to be Charlie Rose vis-a-vis rape, then it seemed to be PBS vis-a-vis rape. I was asking you to clarify, that's all.

I don't know why you are bristling at me. It's obvious now that you think I have some ulterior motive. You are utterly mistaken. You should take a step back in future, maybe allow that someone is being sincere before making automatic assumptions and becoming so hostile.

[Novara]

4. I don't know why he said "99%", but....

....I do think it's a legitimate question for this situation as described. Because I'll bet most men don't think that is rape. To a guy: they're friends, right? Of course he can force himself on her. That's not RAPE rape, right?? I believe a lot of men think this.

[TexasProgresive]

5. You are right

It was a legitimate question. Maybe not 99% but certainly a fair percentage of men. Just think of the republican wackados trying to define rape into the trash bin.

[Novara]

6. Exactly. "Legitimate" rape. "Forcible" rape. "Provable" rape. Gotta report it to the police....

....or it's not rape.

Rape means no consent. Doesn't matter if the woman is asleep, too drunk to consent or if she's physically fighting off an attacker. It's rape.

Don't you ever get the feeling they want to redefine rape because they've raped women themselves? Hell, even I was the victim of spousal rape, "date" rape. Etc.

[merrily]

9. Relevant: Republicans see their entire constituency as predominantly male, with a subset of

religious males and females. And, frankly, for most of the nation's history, the entire power structure was white male.

Hence, the minute after women start making substantial headway in getting admitted to college, we have pushback in the SCOTUS from white males. And I get that college classes are finite, but jeez, they were even more finite all those years women were excluded entirely or just about entirely. For example, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was one of three females in her law school graduating class. At that, thank goodness she could type because, as a law school graduate then, the only job she was able to get was legal secretary.

Taking the male side on a rape--from how the victim dressed to what constitutes implied consent, etc. is going to be the Republican wheelhouse, even after society as a whole gets more enlightened. And, if religious people--especially older ones--are your other major constituency, you are going to be anti-choice. It's hard to justify criminalizing abortion or the morning after pill in the case of rape and incest. So, your road is to re-define rape and maybe even pretend incest doesn't actually result in pregnancy if the woman is truly unwilling.

It's been a long, long time coming, but people are finally saying no to crap like that. That no has to get louder and more bi-partisan.

[niyad]

15. gop rape advisory chart

[merrily]

7. As you can tell from the bolding in the OP, I thought 99% was important and telling, if not

STUNNING. I would not wave that off.

But, even if Rose had not said that:

In the full situation described by the guest, there had been no sexual contact of any kind between the female and the male in the past. No discussion, either.

The female had (supposedly) drunk too much and been offered to sleep on the couch in the male's dwelling. If it was so innocent in his mind, just another facet of friendship, why did he wait until she was (a) drunk and (b) asleep before he penetrated her?

[Novara]

8. Why did he wait until then? Because there are men who think they are entitled....

....to take what they want and if they can't get it from a willing partner they look to the first opportunity to get it any way possible.

I think the "99%" number probably wasn't a well thought-out, planned statistical number. I suppose I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt but I wonder if he meant to say "a majority" instead. Because I don't think anyone rationally believes that 99% of men would be rapists if they had the opportunity. Sadly, there was a recent study that showed that 1 in 3 college aged men would force a woman to have sex against her will if they thought they could get away with it. 31.7%. Not insignificant.

STUDY FINDS A THIRD OF COLLEGE MEN WOULD RAPE IF THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT

It's a small study but still.

[merrily]

10. I disagree that the facts show he really thought he was entitled to have sex with her.

Last edited Sun Apr 26, 2015, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't think a study about what men would do if they thought they could is inconsistent to any degree with what I am saying.

I think they know they are not entitled.

As far as Charlie Rose, I am confident that he knows the difference between most and 99%. He makes his living via words and what his words convey to the public.

I really am reluctant to make analogies on a message board because the impetus seems to be to pick apart the analogy, rather than respect what the poster is trying to convey.

However, I will do one anyway: If you think you are entitled to walk out of a store with merchandise, you don't wait until you think store personnel are too drunk or too sound asleep to see you walking out. You just take what you truly feel entitled to take and walk out with it, confident that you have the right so to do. The same is true if you are the type of person who would empty the entire store, if you thought you could get away with it. If you truly feel you have a right to it, you back up a truck in broad daylight and maybe even ask store personnel for help. You don't get them drunk enough to pass out first.

I think they know very well they are doing a very bad thing.

ETA: If your meaning is that the "trusted" rapists feel entitled to do something they know very well is a bad thing, then we are close to agreeing.

[Novara]

13. The study framed it as....

....."forcing a woman to have sex against her will," not "rape." So the problem here is that they don't see forcing a woman to have sex as rape, and I have a feeling that includes the situation you've described: within a trusted relationship. Maybe especially so. Granted, this study is small and it has been criticized but I do think it brings up a good issue for discussion.

And yes, the word "entitled" can mean different things to different people. In this type of situation, it's possible since he wasn't getting her consent, he took advantage of her being unable to resist or consent. To me, the fact that he did it regardless of whether she wanted it smacks of entitlement. Deep-seated, subconscious "here's my chance, because I want it so I will take it" entitlement. And I'm sure it's easier to rape an unconscious woman than it is to rape a woman who is resisting. He saw her state of unconsciousness as an opportunity to take what he wanted - who needs consent? He knew that if she were conscious she would say no. To me, that's one definition of entitlement. You may see entitlement a little differently - that's okay and we can agree to disagree on semantics. But the fact that he waited until she couldn't resist to go ahead and do what he wanted means that he felt he was entitled to do so, at least to me. Does that make sense? I hope I explained my perspective.

[merrily]

14. My first reaction was that "entitled" is something to which I truly believe I have a legal right.

I did not see it at first as my sense of being entitled to something I have no right to have. Then I thought of the other meaning and edited.

If someone consent to have sex with you and does not withdraw consent, you do have a right to have sex with that person. Otherwise, it's a bullshit sense of entitlement.

So, yes, it's only semantics. Not even that, really. It's really only that I happened to think of the other meaning first.