My eyes may be burning out of my head. Last night I caught glimpses of Twitter user @NiceGuyBrianG’s defenses of rape via @Mowgli3. I didn’t have time to take a serious look then. So starting at 8 this morning and continuing through now I am still reading one of the most painful conversations I have ever read in my life.
Just one guy…Being so so very wrong.
From what I can tell* he starts off by trolling #ididnotreport for victims to blame. I am not sure if his sole intention is trolling or if he really means the fucking bile that spews from his fingertips but it doesn’t fucking matter. He intentionally goes after people who are coming out of the rape culture closet as victims and proceeds to tell them that it is their fault. That is below the fucking belt even for an average troll. It demonstrates a complete lack of empathy as well as a penchant for dehumanizing others. Lets take a look at some early tweets from this twit:
u had. saying yes then saying no is games playing. blaming the other party after is wrong.
Yep, that’s right readers. Full unapologetic victim blaming. This asshole has an ax to grind and doesn’t even try to hide it. It takes some seriously deep-seeded misogyny to troll for victims and attempt to further victimize them. It takes a rapist.
Oops, did I call “nice guy” Brian G a rapist without evidence? How very unskeptical of me. Good news he provides that too:
I hate to tell you, “nice guy” Brian G, yes, you are a rapist. If they were drunk, they could not consent. Well actually, I don’t hate to tell you. I kind of get a thrill out of it, but nonetheless a rapist is what you are.
BTW the proper ending to “I’m not a rapist but” is…I am a rapist and a rape apologist.
See “nice guy” Brian G doesn’t think rape in its currently defined form exists. Hmmm… maybe that makes him a rape denier rather than a rape apologist. Lets look at what he has to say:
@mama_tuna saying stop after the guy is already committed is the worst kind of cuntery. i can understand why some guys get carried away
That’s rape denial and rape apology in the same breath. Oh yeah and “nice guy” Brian G, don’t lie and say you have empathy for people who have been genuinely wronged. First you have to believe they have been genuinely wronged. You don’t seem to be capable of seeing the inherent wrongness of violating a person’s bodily autonomy, so how the fuck can you feel empathy for them?
Moving on. More words of rage inducing bile from our resident “nice guy:”
Now this ironic gem is in response to several direct wishes of violence toward him. I stated in another post the importance context can have on the implication of desired harm. I am still not condoning the wishes aside from stating they are somewhat understandable reactions to someone who so obviously wants to subjugate women to rape at the hands of their partners.
The irony though lies in the simple statement “I have not wished harm on anyone.” Just because he doesn’t say “I hope you are raped tonight” or “I hope you die in a brutal car crash: doesn’t mean he isn’t wishing harm. The whole of his position, that women’s bodies be subject to the man’s desires if they are in a relationship, is the wishing of harm upon every woman in the world. He “wishes” the law to be changed to reflect his skewed morality and that wish is a harmful one, potentially even a deadly one.
Furthermore he has actually caused harm to people reading by further blaming victims who were finally choosing to address their assaults.
One of the people he harmed actually blocked him ( I think before my starting point) and eventually picks up engaging with him:
That appears to be the before-I-can-read part of their conversation. This appears to be the after:
I am assuming she blocked him because being blamed for her own rape was harmful to her. I might be wrong.
The irony kicks into overdrive eventually though. After “nice guy” Brian G leaves and goes to work, the tweets keep coming his way. I can’t see the ones he didn’t reply to, but I can imagine them quite well. When the rape apologist extraordinaire comes back, he feels the righteous indignation of victimization.
Doesn’t he know that he was “asking for it?” Seems like he ought to know after this comment:
Or that it hurts less if he just relents?
Cognitive dissonance is the same in all forms of apology.
Eventually our “nice guy” Brian G gives up to go to sleep. It is clear he is frustrated and feels like a victim of threats, insults and criticisms:
ok, i’m calling it a night,since i’m basically repeating myself across a dozen different convos. u don;t agree with me, i don’t agree with u
i realise that this will be seen as me running away but to be honest, i don’t really care. feel free to keep the death threats rolling in
Asking for it again Brian?
if you continue to tweet me about this stuff overnight or tomorrow, i probs won’t reply, since apparentky that means i’m ‘attention seeking’
Yeah, thank you to those people who kept this idiot talking long enough to expose his rampant misogyny.
Now Twitter misogynist Brian G likes to whine over and over again about being aware of consent as it applies to the law and assures us women he has no intentions of breaking it (as if we can believe that claim when he decided to expose how he didn’t mind breaking the law when it came to drunken women). He tried to argue that the law as it stands in regards to consent is immoral (insert concussion-inducing headdesk here) compared to his position.
What is his position? Well he sates it pretty clearly by saying “being in a relationship implies a level of consent. or it should.” but then proceeds to muddle the problem by refusing to fully define that level. Most reasonable people would maintain the “level of consent” implied by relationships is that your partner may proposition you respectfully for any number of safe and legal acts of mutual enjoyment. Brian G, on the other hand would argue that this level of consent at least sometimes supersedes a right to bodily autonomy, especially if the two partners in question are engaged in coitus. If one partner “decides on a whim” that he or she no longer wants to continue, the enthusiastic partner aka rapist is morally obliged to continue. Furthermore “nice guy” Brian G thinks that partners are also morally obligated to just lay there and take unwanted sex even when they didn’t initiate sex, that sex is an assumed part of a relationship contract.
This “nice guy” has one fucked up sense of morals. One would almost bet he was christian if there wasn’t plenty of evidence to suggest there are a lot of these types of misogynists in the atheist community as well. Nonetheless, it is his “moral code” that needs to be argued. He has little to no evidence on his side to support his skewed sense of morality as being greater than that which is reflected in the current rule of law. He resorts to the naturalistic fallacy to suggest that male on female forced subjugation is “the natural order of things” and therefore more moral. He does not offer any actual evidence how it is more a “natural order of things” than egalitarian partnerships are a “natural order of things. ” Nor does he offer any evidence why a natural order of things is more moral than an unnatural order of things. I am willing to bet he drives a car despite that, by his logic, cars would be less moral than walking. The naturalistic fallacy has no bearing on reality. Other than the naturalistic fallacy Brian G has no evidence to support the claim that his way is the best way.
Well a couple times he did say “it just is.” It’d be laughable if it weren’t so fucked up.
So I guess it is my turn to offer why the legal moral code in its current form may be more moral than his. First I have to define morality. In some ways, I am a moral relativist which means I can technically define Brian G’s claim as actually being a set of morals. I can also debunk his “greater morality claim” using the concept of moral relativity by stating that we no longer live in a culture where the accepted norm is the subjugation of women. Nor do we live in a culture that continues to accept a marriage contract as an obligatory sex contract. Rather in a morally relativistic sense, our laws are of higher moral value than his personal sense of morals because they typically reflect the will of the culture as a whole.
But I am not a moral relativist in that sense, so I won’t stick to merely using that argument. Instead I am also going to suggest a normative morality of sorts. Some sort of morality that is greater than culture, perhaps even greater than humanity (by being represented to some degree by most social creatures.) A moral code that is ultimately based on the autonomy of individuals.
That moral code is the basis of our most crucial laws. Recognizing individual humans as autonomous with fundamental freedoms in respect to that autonomy is the basis for the bill of rights. Yes, a long long time ago, some humans had a different view of humanity than we do today where some humans were considered not quite as human as their white male counterparts. That has changed though, we learned though science and reason, that humans are humans regardless of race, gender or other aspects inherent to their existence as humans. It is not a smooth linear transition. There is no full and complete recognition of humanity by all humans. It is a mythical state, but still easily seen as a one of greater morality.
In a true and complete egalitarian society, bodily autonomy still may not be respected by everyone. People may still commit immoral acts. Ultimate morality does not necessarily follow from a shift toward egalitarianism. What does cease to exist is systemic immorality. Systemic violations of individual autonomy has no basis in egalitarian societies. All violation’s or crimes against humans would exist independent of privilege and culture.
But that is an invisible pink unicorn (or god) of morality. We won’t ever see that utopia. The only aspect of that morality we can individually hope to acquire is our own personal respect of the bodily autonomy of others. That should essentially be our greater goal as humans. To find the greatest balance for ourselves in respecting and sometimes protecting the autonomy of our fellow humans. A very complicated, heavily nuanced golden rule of sorts.
But Brian Granger**, I have to say to get there, you must first recognize us women as fully human. Until then your morality will always be skewed to favor crimes against us. Until then you will continue to be a rape apologist and a rapist.
*Twitter would only let me go back so far into the debate. It starts somewhere around when he is tweeting all the followers of another user and claiming he is a pedophile.
**Yes he was stupid enough to use his real name in the debate.