Although I normally think the Brits are more reasonable than those of us in the United States — colored by characters like Mary Poppins and enhanced by the British Broadcasting Network — I have been utterly proven wrong. It seems that people all over the world are complete idiots when it comes to sensitive topics like, say, rape.
“Britain’s most hard-hitting, controversial and politically incorrect bog” is apparently written by “Britain’s most perceptive, honest and intelligent political commentator.” That commentator is British National Party member Nick Ericksen writing under the pseudonymn John Bull. The title of the blog piece is RAPE: LIES, LIES, LIES.
I don’t have to tell you that rape is a serious crime. A serious crime usually not given enough attention by the media or by politicians. Ericksen apparently agrees that “violent rape by a stranger on the street is a terrible crime” but he goes on to say that “feminazis [have] built ‘rape’ up as a serious offence” and have included date rape and husband rape in the category of old-fashioned-violent-street-rape-by-a-stranger kind of rape, which is apparently much better than other kinds of rape.
Mr. Ericksen needs much more than a slap on the wrist (he was sackedfrom his candidacy) for perpetuating the myth (to use his words) that rape by one’s husband or partner is not rape. Rape is sex without the permission of one party, period. Which means that men can be raped too, Mr. Ericksen, despite what you might think (although, as we all know, women are much more often the victims of violent crimes). Our society has built up a culture of rape that allows men to feel that they control women and that, as Mr. Ericksen says, “rape is simply sex” (for more on this topic, please read Transforming a Rape Culture).
Let’s examine a little of what Mr. Ericksen said, just for the fun of it, shall we?
An analysis was recently conducted by the Forensic Science Service of over 1,000 cases where women had complained that their drinks had been spiked. Not one showed any trace of Rohypnol. NOT ONE.
However, by examining the actual press release from the FSS about this study, one finds that
In 31 per cent of cases (315) alcohol only was detected, in 19 percent of cases (189) an illicit drug only was detected and in 15 per cent (155) of cases both alcohol and an illicit drug were detected.
While no uses of the drug Rohypnol specifically were found, there were plenty of cases of other drugs used. No where in the article does it say, as Mr. Ericksen suggests, that women were to blame for drinking excessively and taking recreational drugs on their own. However, even if the study had found what Mr. Ericksen seems to think, his argument would still be underminded by the fourth conclusion of the FSS study:
Irrespective of whether a potentially sedative drug was found, high alcohol concentrations and/or the presence of illicit drugs and/or pharmaceutical drugs can interfere with a person’s ability to give ‘informed consent’.
Too bad, Mr. Ericksen.
Mr. Ericksen then does something that I teach my composition student never to do. He commits a dangerous fallacy:
Given that only 6% of rape allegations are upheld by the courts, we can see that 94% of rape allegations are lies.
Just because only 6% of rape allegations are upheld does not mean that the rest are necessarily lies. Our culture holds a perpetrator innocent until proven guilty and puts the burden of proof on the plaintiff. But Mr. Ericksen takes this argument further claiming that
modern feminazi women [are] nasty, devious, lying, man-hating creatures, [seeking] to ruin a man’s life simply in order to disguise the fact that you are a slapper, or because he broke up with you and you want to get ‘even’, or because he rebuffed your advances
Yes, that’s right. Modern feminists are nasty, devious, lying, man-hating creature seeking to ruin men’s lives. Yes, that is my ultimate goal in life. We won’t even go into the implications of Mr. Ericksen’s claim here that all women are emotional unreasonable “creatures” (not people, not humans, of course).
Then Mr. Ericksen gets to the heart (if there is one) of the matter: he is worried about date rape and husband rape being lumped in the same category as stranger rape. According to Ericksen,
Women enjoy sex, so this type of ‘rape’ cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal. To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is serious crime is like suggesting that force feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offense. A woman would be more inconvenienced by having her handbag snatched.
After you are done hitting your head on the desk, consider this: Mr. Ericksen assumes that husband rape is not violent. Mr. Ericksen also assumes that all women enjoy sex. Mr. Ericksen also assumes that non-violent rape is not all that bad (never consiering the psychological consequences of rape). He also equates forced sex to force feeding a woman chocolate cake. While the two are clearly not the same, I cannot honestly say that being force-fed any item I did not want to eat would be pleasurable.
And finally, the last bit of treasure from Mr. Ericksen,
In other words the demonisation of rape is all part of the feminazi desire to obtain power and mastery over men. Again, for those who are seeking to cause trouble by deliberately misunderstanding me: yes, violent rape by a stranger in the street is a terrible crime, but I am not talking about that – I am talking about ‘husband-rape’. Men who go along with the rape myth (for all types of rape – including ‘husband-rape’) are either morons or traitors.
Sigh. Apparently all men must stick together for the continuation of their species. If they agree with feminism or agree that date-rape or husband-rape are crimes, they are either a) complete idiots (unlike Mr. Ericksen) or b) traitors of their sex. I hate to break it to you, Mr. Ericksen, but men who support this so-called ‘myth’ are simply supporting basic human rights – the rights afforded to all humans – yes, Mr. Ericksen, even women.
All in all, Mr. Ericksen lives up to his pseudonymn. Everything in his blog is just bull. His arguments do not stack up. While he goes to great lengths to make sure people do not misunderstand him (he think violent rape by a stranger in the street is awful), what he is really saying here is that all kinds of reported rape are just women crying “wolf.” And what about the women who don’t report rape? This is the kind of attitude that makes them fearful of reporting the incident. Why should she report it if men think she is less inconvenienced by the rape than she would be in “having her handbag snatched”?
My blood is boiling, but I think that most intelligent and reasonable people will agree that Mr. Ericksen’s blog post is simply bull.
I’m sorry, but you’re being terribly judging.
I agree with him in some aspects and disagree with him in others.
However, the point is, you’ve let him make you “blood boil” and not actually ben open-minded to his thoughts at all. From what I can only assume, you’ve seen one thing that has irritated you and offended you (Which in turn, is also your fault for letting him do this) and gone off on what is generally called a “tangent”.
You’ve over-exaggerated it. You have some good ideas and thoughts, but you clearly do not know how to articulate yourself. And the fact that typing a piece of literature this size takes quite some thought and time, tells me your thoughts are then considered “rational” (to yourself). You have clearly had the time to get past the ‘crumle zone’ of being offended. To add, you have even wasted however many minutes of your life to read, type, quote and publish this upon the internet. An article which (Sorry if I offend) less than seldom people will read to get any REAL satisfaction from writing this. You have actually wasted time. You’ve been angry for 10 minutes, and even longer whilst you’ve been writing this, and, more likely, even after writing it.
Look into “Ethics”, “Rhetorics”, “Logic” and maybe a bit of religion. I don’t follow any religion myself, but just knowing the different perceptions and aspects is good and healthy for the soul, as long as you have understood what you have read. It’s not right that you are letting something so small and fairly insignificant annoy you so much.
Good luck!