What Dan Said.

by Little Miss Attila on December 22, 2010

Not that Stacy isn’t a creep sometimes, but he doesn’t justify sexual assault. Much as I appreciate Tommy Christopher’s previous defense of the conservative femisphere against the “hate-f*ckers,” it sounds like he could be overreacting a little bit in this instance.

Also, it sounds like Sweden has its head up its ass regarding what constitutes “consent” to sexual activity.

Here’s the deal, for the benefit of Michael Moore, Julian Assange, and all the other lefty men who believe that it’s attractive for a man to be . . . . a bit of a bounder: a woman who is asleep or passed out cannot give consent. You must wake her up to have sex with her, or it’s rape. Okay?

That said, the young women I counsel don’t drink, but–in addition to delivering the “don’t get in any stranger’s car” lecture at least annually–I always tell them they need to keep control of their beverages unless they’re with people they really, really trust. There is no shame in taking that can of Coke into the bathroom with you–don’t just leave it there on the table, unless you’re hanging out with close friends who have your back.

UPDATE: I may have spoken a mite too soon; Tommy Christopher points me to his actual post, and it appears that Stacy was actually coming from his “slimy jerk” place in this instance; after all, there’s no way to rationalize “you buy the ticket, you take the ride.” I should have followed the chain all the way back.

And Stacy should know better–does, I suspect, when he isn’t putting on that tiresome, boring antifeminist swagger of his: he went to college, too. Prior to his marriage he was, by his own account, every bit as slutty as those he’s judging now.

Here’s the thing: I don’t want to live in a world in which every ill-considered, regrettable drunken hookup by 20-year-olds can be recast as an assault if one party (usually the woman) has misgivings the next day.

But I also don’t want to live in a world in which “you buy the ticket, you take the ride.” A person’s husband doesn’t have that kind of latitude–why should a hookup? After all, sex can become very painful for a woman in a hurry; if it starts to hurt, and the woman says so (or the man senses it), the option of “getting off the ride” has to be there.

Please remember that a woman’s ovaries are roughly as sensitive as a man’s testes, and they are very close to the end of the train track, there.

The option of withdrawing consent is essential–whether one is married to the man, or not. Otherwise, the system doesn’t work, no matter the surrounding circumstances. Or who the man happens to be.

{ 4 trackbacks }

My 2 Cents Regarding the Tommy Christopher/Stacy McCain Kerfuffle | POWIP
December 22, 2010 at 11:40 am
Nobody’s Fault But Mine : The Other McCain
December 23, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I have only one thing to say about the great Assange debate « Da Techguy's Blog
December 23, 2010 at 6:53 pm
The POWIP “Evils of Islam” Poster Contest Update | POWIP
December 24, 2010 at 5:16 am

{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }

Dan Collins December 22, 2010 at 7:18 am

Thanks, Joy. My daughter’s 16. How old are yours?


smitty December 22, 2010 at 8:00 am

I will now speak of a foreign concept:
A man should marry the woman for whom Destiny has set him aside and pursue happiness.
BTW, Are thoughts concerning this monogamous, heterosexual notion still legal?


The constitutional Crusader December 22, 2010 at 9:41 am

I completely agree, Atilla. It amazes me how people can justify just about anything thanks to Moral Relativism. It’s insane!



Tommy Christopher December 22, 2010 at 2:32 pm


I hope you didn’t rely on Dan’s piece to divine my point, since he completely misstates it, and doesn’t bother to link to the piece that I actually wrote on the topic.


Withdrawal of consent is “unadulterated nonsense.”

“You buy the ticket, you take the ride.”

These are what I wrote about, nothing else. Never called him a rape apologist, or an anything anything. Just let people know what he said, why it was fucked up, and why his walkback was a lie.


Little Miss Attila December 22, 2010 at 8:26 pm

Yes. His original “bought the ticket” post was offensive and stupid, and I should have read that in addition to his follow-up.



retriever December 22, 2010 at 3:53 pm

I rather liked Stacy’s post and don’t see what any reasonable person could object to about it. Promiscuity puts a person in harm’s way. It’s true for guys too (go alley catting and they may get coshed on the head by a pimp or some other malefactor). I made some rather snarky comments at Gerard’s the other day (tho I hate Assange and keep hoping some unfortunate “accident” will befall him) about the two “skanks” because I tend to feel sorrier for victims of criminal assaults, and children who are victims than adults who are drunk or just change their mind. But obvioiusly Assange is no gentleman. In my experience, leftist men are far more exploitative of women and far more immoral sexually. They can say that chivalry is outdated. They mooch off women. And can act shocked if a woman wants any kind of commitment. At the risk of sounding church mousey and schoolmarmey (whaddya expect, I was a youthminister for years and I have young daughters), it saddens me when young women sell themselves short and fall for men who are scum of the Assange variety. Men who dislike women. Men who are just users. Women who are themselves just users. I imagine they have a lot of miserable hungover mornings wondering “Who is this and what did I do last night?” At the risk of being sentimental, all I can say is that each of us is worth so immeasurably more. Each of us a beloved child of God, precious in His sight. We should cherish each other, not use and throw each other away like Kleenex…


ponce December 22, 2010 at 4:25 pm


Wishing harm comes to Assange in one breath and then spouting so pseudo-Christian b.s. with the next?

I think you need to study the teachings of Jesus before it’s too late for you, son.


retriever December 22, 2010 at 5:20 pm

Ponce, Assange is a dangerous madman, whose narcissism can do great harm to many. His loathsome sexual habits are gross enough, but his monstrous ego and his arrogant belief that HE can somehow singlehandedly transform the world by stealing and publishing secret information is quite wicked. I didn’t say that I planned to do anything to hasten his end, but there’s nothing wrong with expressing dislike of someone who behaves as he does. He was appallingly brought up, by a single mother, all over the place, without any proper male role models, for which I can pity him. But his actions put other people’s lives in danger, which is reprehensible. He’s old enough to have got therapy and got over his dreadful start in life.

As for “pseudo Christian bs?” What do you know of it? Do you even believe in God yourself? How can you tell what is real and what is fake Christianity? What do you know of Christianity, Ponce? Have you spent years ministering to young people fed poisonous bilge by our secular, hedonistic culture? Have you ever counselled pregnant teenaged girls raped by gangbangers? I have. Have you comforted more fortunately situated young women who thought they were liberated in their relationships and realized they were just being used by !@#holes like Assange? If Jesus were alive today, I believe He would both have great pity for young people caught up in the kinds of dehumanizing relationships we see all around us AND great anger for exploitative types like Mr. A. Being a Christian is not about simpering and feeling “nice” all the time about everyone.


ponce December 22, 2010 at 6:53 pm


I didn’t say you couldn’t fill your heart with hatred.

I just said if you did you’re not a Christian.

You’re old enough to make the choice.

I know hatred can be addictive, it’s not easy to give it up.


Little Miss Attila December 22, 2010 at 7:05 pm

Back off, Ponce.


retriever December 22, 2010 at 7:23 pm

Ponce, you don’t know me so you don’t know what is in my heart.
There is also a difference between righteous indignation and hatred.
Most significantly, you have not said that you are a believer yourself so why on earth would you consider yourself competent to determine who is a real Christian or not? It would be as absurd as if I were to decide who is a “real” Muslim or not. In any case only God can see into the heart of a believer. That’s why, for a Christian, one can vent and express frustration about someone obnoxious (such as Assange) but then one has to go back into the real world, be polite to them, and has to continue to pray for them in private. They are, after all, as beloved by God as any other of His creatures.

I hope that you can find a congenial church this Christmas and try to learn about the faith by belonging somewhere instead of just sniping at believers. You would be a lot happier.


Joe December 22, 2010 at 8:27 pm

You make good points LMA.

Here’s the thing: I don’t want to live in a world in which every ill-considered, regrettable drunken hookup by 20-year-olds can be recast as an assault if one party (usually the woman) has misgivings the next day.

But I also don’t want to live in a world in which “you buy the ticket, you take the ride.” A person’s husband doesn’t have that kind of latitude–why should a hookup? After all, sex can become very painful for a woman in a hurry; if it starts to hurt, and the woman says so (or the man senses it), the option of “getting off the ride” has to be there.

A man stops if asked to. While it may be frustrating, it is the right thing to do.


Darrell December 23, 2010 at 3:18 am

Really back off, ponce.
Your act is beyond the point of getting old.
You do not believe in God from your own admission. And you don’t even believe that Jesus was anything other than a myth, again from your past words. You define hypocrisy with your every word on the subject.

For those keeping score at home right now, it’s retriever 983 and ponce 0. The slaughter rule would have been invoked long ago in the real world.


Dan Collins December 23, 2010 at 3:31 am

I think that this conversation has been proceeding in two different registers. First is the moral or ethical register, as one of my commenters said. There’s no doubt that if a woman says stop, the guy should stop. If he continues beyond that, he’s raping her. Easy.

The second one, and the one that Stacy is referencing, in his intentionally irritating way, is the prudential register. And if you look at Stacy’s original post, he’s at pains to make that clear, if not in the body of the text, then in the comments immediately on the heels of writing it.

Now, if you want to claim that it’s a walk-back, that’s fine, but it certainly comes hot on the heels of his original post. What we’ve got, then, is a hypothetical situation regarding intentions and whether or not as an evidentiary matter “no means no” provides any reasonable protection after a certain point, and on top of that we have a linguistic situation involving intentions that we must also submit to interpretive judgment, with the plaintiffs and defendant at odds about who intended what.

In any case, I don’t like the “slut shaming” in his post. He goes out of his way to be deliberately insulting to women who find themselves in bad situations. Putting that aside, my piece dealt with the two registers that the arguments seem to be operating in, and if I’ve been unfair to you, Tommy, then I apologize. Still, as an ethical matter caveat emptor may ring hollow and yet still be fine advice prudentially.

I suppose that if Stacy insists on writing so provocatively, he deserves it.


Joe December 23, 2010 at 6:53 am

Dan, I am pretty sure Stacy’s intent was not to make light of rape or sexual assault, but suggesting that a little common sense in choosing partners in the first place goes a long way.


Tommy Christopher December 23, 2010 at 7:20 am


thanks for looking more deeply into this. I would only add, as I’m pretty sure you would agree, that this:

“Here’s the thing: I don’t want to live in a world in which every ill-considered, regrettable drunken hookup by 20-year-olds can be recast as an assault if one party (usually the woman) has misgivings the next day.”

…does not represent a fraction of a fraction of sexual assault complaints, even though a huge problem with our culture is that the media blows up cases like the Duke case, while ignoring the pandemic of real assaults, feeding into the myth that women who “cry rape” are the true predators.

Also, you can hardly be blamed for missing Stacy’s original column, as several of his fans have blogged about my response while failing to mention what it is I was responding to.


Dan Collins December 23, 2010 at 1:53 pm

Wait just a minute here, Tommy: the MEDIA blew up the Duke case? Really?

What was it that they first blew up, and why did they first blow it up? Whose lead were they following? With whom did the presumption of truth go?

The argument out of percentages is part of the problem. Every instance needs to be considered on its evidence AND NOTHING ELSE. People have gone to jail on the basis of false identification as well as on the basis of tainted testimony often enough that it ought damn well give pause to a jury or a pundit, whether or not the woman strikes their sympathies more deeply.

So, Charles Dickens in Great Expectations represents a burly blacksmith who is physically abused by his smaller but shrewish wife. Statistically, that may not be representative of that time, place, or socioeconomic condition. And ideologues will moan. Well, screw them.

Each and every case must be decided on its merits and those alone. Anything else, any lodging of presumption, is prejudicial, purely and simply. I have my own opinions regarding Assange and his accusers, but if I were empaneled I would put those aside to the best of my ability and focus on the evidence. And likely, the evidence would admit reasonable doubt, and likely I would have to vote to acquit, as much as I think he’s a malignant narcissist.

If a man stands accused of having sexually abused a woman, it may seem to me likely that he has, but that is not enough. If I find against the plaintiff, she is of course free to consider me a sexist pig, but that doesn’t make me one, any more than her accusation made her alleged abuser an abuser in the eyes of the law.

And when push comes to shove, that’s what we’re left with.


Tommy Christopher December 23, 2010 at 2:24 pm

My point is that cases LIKE the Duke case, that support the “cry rape” narrative, are the ones that get all the media attention, way out of proportion to how often that actually happens.


Dan Collins December 23, 2010 at 2:37 pm

And my point is that far prior to the unravelling of the accusers story, the Duke “rape” case acquired widespread notoriety from all of those people who rushed to judgment, based on their profiling of the accused. So, I have no sympathy.


Little Miss Attila December 23, 2010 at 2:40 pm

But I think Dan’s point is that that case got plenty of media attention in a way that was sympathetic to the woman, before it became clear that she was making it up.

The “he said, she said” issue is an unsolvable one, and it’s an argument that supports both sides’ arguments, in a way: the “take it easy on the hookups” people are correct inasmuch as it’s more difficult to defend against rape–and establish that it occurred–once a liaison has begun.

But that cuts both ways as well: the fact that women technically can “cry rape” when all that happened was bad sex is an argument that men should also be careful whom they hookup with, too.

Young people–and people of any age–should not be spending too much time in the beds of people whom they don’t trust. (And, of course: more than a couple of drinks increases the chances of sex, and the chances that the sex, while consensual, will be really bad.)


TR Sterling December 23, 2010 at 5:35 pm

LittleMissAtilla, It does sound like you may be close to falling off your “spiritual axis of equilibrium”, hehe, that is how they say it in some NJ groups. I prefer the Gloria Estefan smoothness “it cuts both ways, our love is like a knife that cuts both ways…” She had a nice voice for pop ballads. The point I think you were making is that some consensual sex after a couple of drinks with someone you may not trust that much may be really bad. By really bad I think you mean loveless, without trust and perhaps in a non-emotionally felt way after slight anesthetic effect of a couple of drinks? Yeah thats pretty much the definition of hooking up. Damn, I missed that phase somewhere in my 20’s and 30’s. All I have now is old records of Gloria Estafan and The Cars. Take care Joy!

ponce December 23, 2010 at 10:58 am

“The slaughter rule would have been invoked long ago in the real world.”

Forgive me Purrell,

But I’m always a little skeptical when a wingnut declares “Mission Impossible.”

As for the members of the fringe right who claim to be Christian yet do nothing but constantly spew hatred, in the spirit of the holidays, I will just assume they have a different version of the bible than me.

Happy Winter Solstice Holiday of your Choice everyone!


Little Miss Attila December 23, 2010 at 12:07 pm

(Ponce–off the thread.)

Tommy, I don’t know what the actual numbers are, and I suspect that getting good numbers is part of the problem–by definition, assaults that the woman won’t admit to or report are hard to measure accurately.

You and I basically agree. The caveat I put in there wasn’t so much because of the Duke case but because of some campus conduct codes I read about during the 1990s, which stated that the man had to get verbal consent for each action after the kiss–“may I touch your breast?”, “May I take off your blouse?” and on and on. It made it sound like kids those days had to go through a flight checklist just to assure themselves that they weren’t engaging in sexual assaults–or the victims of one.

I do think rape is underreported–how underreported, I’m not sure. And I strongly suspect that women who say they’ve been raped when they simply regret what happened are rare. (And I haven’t looked deeply into the Assange case, since that was the springboard to this kerfuffle, yet unimportant to it. This is more of a philosophical issue.)

What I do know is that the slut-shamers are increasing, rather than decreasing, the odds of a woman whose memory is blurry from booze deciding that she must have been assaulted if she can’t recall exactly what happened. The fact that there are people out there who are willing to place that kind of label on a woman based on one fling simply demonstrates why a girl might deny she’d fully participated in the first place. Does that happen as much as a true victim simply remaining silent? I really doubt it. And yet, I’m sure it occurs as well.


SDN December 23, 2010 at 5:50 pm

LMA, this page might interest you…..


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: