Thought Catalog – which seems to be rapidly becoming the go-to site for terrible antifeminist posts – is making a bit of a stir on Reddit with a post bearing the deliberately provocative title “Wait A Second, Did Amy Schumer Rape a Guy?” Spoiler Alert: The anonymous author concludes that yes, she did. The anonymous author is full of shit.
In the Thought Catalog piece, Anonymous takes a look at a speech that Schumer – a comedian with some subversive feminist leanings — recently gave at the Gloria Awards and Gala, hosted by the Ms. Foundation for Women. The centerpiece of Schumer’s speech, a bittersweet celebration of confidence regained, was a long and cringeworthy story about a regrettable sexual encounter she had in her Freshman year of college, when her self-esteem was at an all-time low.
The short version of the story: A guy named Matt, whom Schumer had a giant crush on, called her at 8 AM for a booty call, after he apparently had been turned down by every other woman in his little black book. Amy, thinking she was being invited for an all-day-date, only discovered his real intent when she got to his dorm room and he romantically drunkenly pushed her onto the bed and started fingering her.
After several failed attempts at intercourse, and what she describes as an “ambitious” attempt to go down on her, he finally gave up and fell asleep on top of her. Lying there listening to Sam Cooke, she decided she didn’t want to be “this girl” any more, “waited until the last perfect note floated out, and escaped from under him and out the door.”
Looking back on the incident, she thanks her failed lover for introducing her “to my new self, a girl who got her value from within her.”
But Thought Catalog’s anonymous author, noting the extreme drunkenness of Schumer’s stumbling lover, concludes that “Amy’s actions may have constituted as rape in the eyes of her college, Towson University.” (Or at least according to the school’s current policies.)
Anonymous quotes Towson’s current policy on sexual harassment, which states:
In order to give effective Consent, one must not be mentally or physical incapacitated (e.g., by alcohol or drugs, unconsciousness, mental disability).
And adds:
It’s hard to argue that Matt was not mentally incapacitated. In Amy’s words, he was “wasted.”
Actually, the fact that Matt wasn’t too intoxicated to initiate an assortment of sexual acts with her — or to get up and change the music at her request — suggests that he wasn’t “mentally incapacitated,” at least by the standards used by colleges when investigating alleged sexual assaults. The Association of Title IX Administrators’ Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct Model Policy (which sets an unofficial standard for college administrators) defines incapacitation as “a state where someone cannot make rational, reasonable decisions because they lack the capacity to give knowing consent (e.g., to understand the ‘who, what, when, where, why or how’ of their sexual interaction).”
In any case, it’s not clear why Anonymous is looking at Towson’s sexual harassment policy, which is designed to deal with “non-consensual Sexual Contact, Sexual Exploitation, or requests for sexual favors that affect educational or employment decisions,” and which clearly doesn’t apply to Schumer’s story.
As for sexual assault, the school’s official web site states:
Sexual assault is defined by Towson University as forcible sexual intercourse, sexual penetration–however slight–of another person’s genital or anal opening with any object, sodomy, or any unwanted touching of an unwilling person’s intimate parts or forcing an unwilling person to touch another’s intimate parts. Under this definition, these acts must be committed either by force, threat, intimidation, or through the use of the victim’s mental or physical helplessness, of which the accuser was or should have been aware. This includes, but is not limited to, victim helplessness resulting from intoxication or from the taking of a so-called “date-rape drug.”
This definition is drawn from the University of Maryland System Policy on Sexual Assault, which classifies sexual assault involving penetration — the traditional definition of rape — as a more serious type of sexual assault (Sexual Assault I) than those forms of sexual assault involving touching (Sexual Assault II). By this standard, assuming we equate Sexual Assault I with rape, Schumer clearly did not rape him.
Anonymous then looks at Maryland’s state laws and concludes:
In the eyes of Maryland state law, things get a bit more complicated. Amy could be guilty of rape or sexual assault depending on whether or not penetration was achieved. According to the state law, a person may not engage in vaginal intercourse with another “if the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the act knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual.” Legally, it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t rape, at least given the details in Amy’s speech.
Well, actually, yes it is. And not just legally, but by any reasonable definition of the word “rape.”
Because Schumer, at least by her account, wasn’t “the person performing the act.” He was. She was lying there wondering what had gone wrong with her life.
If you read the speech in its entirety, instead of depending on the selective quotations in the Thought Catalog post, this is abundantly clear. As she describes it, he:
Pushes her down on the bed; as she writes, he does “that sexy maneuver where the guy pushes you on the bed, you know, like, ‘I’m taking the wheel on this one. Now I’m going to blow your mind. …’”
Penetrates her with his fingers; as she writes, “[h]is fingers poked inside me like they had lost their keys in there.”
Tries to have intercourse, though his penis is only half-willing; she describes him as “pushing aggressively into my thigh, and during this failed penetration, I looked around the room to try and distract myself or God willing, disassociate.” Even using the “made to penetrate” standard, she’s not raping him, because she’s not making him do anything; he’s the active one.
Goes down on her.
Attempts intercourse again; this time, “[o]n his fourth thrust, he gave up and fell asleep on my breast.”
At no point in Schumer’s story does she describe herself as initiating anything. Indeed, she spends much of the time thinking to herself how much she wants to leave.
He started to go down on me. That’s ambitious, I think. Is it still considered getting head if the guy falls asleep every three seconds and moves his tongue like an elderly person eating their last oatmeal? … Is it? Yes? It is. I want to scream for myself, “Get out of here, Amy. You are beautiful, you are smart, and worth more than this. This is not where you stay.”
If a woman initiates sex with a man who is too drunk to consent, that’s rape. But a woman lying motionless trying to dissociate while a man tries to penetrate her is not a rapist. Even if he is drunk.
And that’s the case no matter how you switch the genders up.
Of course that’s not how they see things on Reddit, where most of those who’ve commented on the story have been quick to agree with the Thought Catalog author that Schumer raped her partner. Ironically, it’s been those outside the Men’s Rights subreddit who have been the most outspoken on this point. In TwoXChromosomes, a subreddit ostensibly devoted to women but in fact overrun with MRAs and other antifeminists, someone calling herself Shield_Maiden831 has gotten more than 200 net upvotes for a comment concluding that “[i]f you really believe in equality, then it seems to be a clear cut case from her own admission.”
Not everyone agrees. Elsewhere in TwoX , one commenter by the name of critropolitan argues, I think quite cogently, that
Unless the full transcript reveals something that the quotes in the article don’t, it doesn’t seem like Schumer exploited this guys mental state to do something to him that violated his will.
He was the one who called her.
He was the one who acted every step of the way and she went along with it.
Assuming that a person who is drunk is, automatically, in virtue of being drunk, without agency, is a mistake. It is moreover a mistake only made with regard to sex – no one thinks the same with regard to bar fights or the choice to drive. Drunken sex might not be the platonic ideal of sex, but it is not automatically rape in every case regardless of the actual state of minds, wishes, and feelings of the participants. …
There is no suggestion that Amy engaged in any sexual contact with this guy while he was passed out, or that she did something he didn’t want to do but he simply lacked the capacity to effectively resist or communicate non consent. Instead he was drunk enough to show significant signs of drunkeness, but not so drunk that he couldn’t not only communicate effectively but take a sexual initiative.
Rapists can exploit the vulnerability of drunk people, but we must walk back from the bizarre and agency-denying position that all drunk sex is rape. Rape is far too serious a matter for this bullshit.
It is.
But of course the MRAs and antifeminists on Reddit now accusing Schumer of rape aren’t interested in taking rape seriously. Indeed, if we look back on how they regularly talk about rape and issues of consent, it’s clearly they’re interested in taking rape less seriously. Their main interest in this case is as a supposed “gotcha” of a prominent female comedian with feminist leanings. In the process they are slandering her, and trivializing the real issue of rape.
Hell’s teeth. I know we all have various vision problems and muscle strains from all the eye-rolling, but I’m really confused by foolface wjburrows here.
Is it that my suffering eyes are reading something completely different from what s/he read? Or is it possible for a functioning adult to have reading comprehension that bad and still not suffer from stabbing themselves with table cutlery?
All I can offer is a suggestion to scroll back to the top of the page, maybe read a couple of pages of comments and then have a long hard think.
Just remember, ladies, that if someone punched you in the face while they’re drunk then it’s your fault that you let them do it instead of putting them to bed with a nice glass of warm milk. Repeat after me now – it’s always her fault!
(Meanwhile, Forehead is all “Yes! Finally someone here understands!”. Bless.)
You seem to fail to comprehend that a person so drunk that they are passing out is incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. In those situations the person who is not drunk is responsible for having sex without obtaining consent. That failure to obtain consent is usually termed rape. Arguing that you do not need to obtain consent is by definition rape apology.
This is the thread that never ends,
it just goes on and on, my friends.
Some trolls just keep on necroing it,
no matter what it does,
and they will keep on necroing it forever,
just because this is the thread that never ends…
Oh my god. This thread is still going? Why is it so haaaaard for some people to understand that the passive party, the one trying to get away from the situation is not a rapist, regardless of the state of intoxication? Are MRAs really so desperate for a gotcha that they’d rather make their heads seem like the thickest blocks of wood than let go of a case where they think they’ve found a foothold?
@wjburrows
This isn’t about double standards, you disingenuous shitweasel. If you’d cared to read the comments a little back, I shared my own story where the same kind of thing happened, with the genders reversed. I was the sober man lying passively, at best trying to squirm away because I didn’t really want to be there, and the drunk woman was actively doing sexual stuff to me. Nobody here called me a rapist. Because that would be fucking stupid. Like you.
Ah, but let’s not kid ourselves. You’re not trying to make sense. You’re trying to attack feminists with half-assed arguments that anyone can see through because you’re an idiot. Go to hell.
Interesting how some people when they are confronted with an alternative argument resort to name calling and outright abuse – “troll”, “shitweasel”, “idiot”, “Go to hell”.
I have read Schumer’s speech and I didn’t read anywhere about her saying she was trying to get away. To me she seemed self absorbed in herself and her need to have a man rather than giving any care for the drunk man she was using for her satisfaction.
She admits having sex with a man who could not consent. This isn’t something she did passively. She was an active participant. To me that is rape.
The double standard is that men are supposed to be responsible for the women in their lives who get drunk and can’t remember their drunken sexual aggression the next day but the rape apologists come out when a sober woman like Schumer takes sexual advantage of a drunk man, to suggest she attempted to get away is simply disingenuous, to satisfy or attempt to satisfy her own desires and needs.
-3/10. Plus, the nominations for 2014 are closed.
Rape laws typically require sexual connection, lack of consent and no reasonable expectation of consent. That is a belief that the other person consented even if mistaken can be a defense to rape. However drunkeness of the other party means there can be no reasonable expectation of consent. There is no defence of being a passive party. If you have sex with another person you are responsible for obtaining consent. No argument.
Of course the legal definition of rape is in some jurisdictions biased so that a woman cannot rape a man. I am assuming that unnecessary gender bias is ignored and both man and woman are equally responsible for the other’s sexual safety.
The 2014 nominations are closed, and you wouldn’t be in the running even if they weren’t.
-4/10
A sober Schumer had, by her own admission, sex with a man who was so drunk he was passing out. She did not, because she could not, obtain consent from that man. That is by definition rape.
To defend her is by definition rape apology.
Let’s have one standard for women and men.
Shorter wjboring: “OMFG I came on this blog to troll and now everyone’s calling me a troll! Stop mocking me! It’s not allowed! NOWHERE ON THIS SITE DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MOCKING ANYONE! MISANDRY!”
Yep, the only reason people ever refuse to engage with sealions is because they don’t have any good arguments to use. It’s never because this argument has been had multiple times with multiple people and everyone except the sealion is tired of it, or because the premises are too stupid to dignify with a response, or because nobody is actually obligated to engage with sealions in the first place.
Nope, it’s always because the sealion is just sooooooo awesome, like a Mary Sue in a bad fanfic.
Plus, the troll’s pushing bullshit that has been debunked many times, including multiple times in this thread alone. Troll has nothing true, nothing original, nothing even mildly worth the bother.
-6/10.
Mock all you want it does not change the fact that if Schumer were a male she would be guilty of rape in most jurisdictions.
This is the law in NZ where I live:
Person A rapes person B if person A has sexual connection with person B, effected by the penetration of person B’s genitalia by person A’s penis,—
(a)without person B’s consent to the connection; and
(b)without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection.
1. Note that in our law only a man can rape a woman hence the double standard.
2. Once the sexual connection has been established the only other issue is consent.
3. Case law has well established that a drunk incapacitated person cannot give consent.
This would be an open and shut case if the genders were reversed.
You can say whatever you want about trolling but I came here to present cogent arguments based on the laws that what occurred is by legal definition rape. And to excuse her behaviour is rape apology.
Hmmm.
FIFY
Expecting troll to read is misandry.
So, shorter latest boring-ass troll:
Amy Schumer is a rapist because she was sober and let a drunk guy try to have sex with her against her will.
Yeah, big injection of legal sense there!
Truly one of the greatest legal minds of our century.
AHAHAHAHA! ” an alternative argument?” Oh, bless you, chucklefuck. You really think you have anything to say that hasn’t been said before? You really think your opinion is refreshing and new? You really think you’re a lone voice of reason? Nope, you’re just another disingenuous bullshitter trying their hardest to twist other peoples’ words into a sad little “gotcha”.
There is nothing “interesting” about calling you names, shithead; obnoxious clusterfucks like you should be used to it already. I call you names because you continue using talking points that have been addressed. Literally. Dozens. Of. Times. You choose not to read these points because you’re so deeply entrenched in your fantasy of a misandrist world which doesn’t really exist. You’re choosing not to understand the difference between a sober person being a non-aggressor and a sober person being an aggressor, unless he is a man of course.
Wow. What an enormous blockhead you are. Sheesh.
The man could consent. He was the active one doing all the sexual things, not her. If he was too drunk to consent, he would not be doing those things to her. If she was a rapist, she’d be doing stuff to him, not the other way around. How fucking stupid do you have to be to not get that? I refuse to believe anyone can be that boneheaded, so I’m going to assume that deep down, you know you’re wrong, but your desire at a pathetic gotcha trumps your ability to think clearly.
I’d be interested to learn what parts of the speech exactly warrant your opinion that she was “desperate for a man” and “using him for her satisfaction”. Considering his bumbling, drunken attempts at foreplay didn’t arouse her at all, I fail to see what the satisfaction part was. But then again, since you didn’t bother to read the article you’re commenting on to find those points addressed already, I think that’d be a huge waste of time for both of us.
Ooooh, now I get it. Since women are always supposed to be passive receptables for sex, it doesn’t matter whether or not she actually did something or not. In your misogynistic mind, women are active participants even when they are lying passively. That’s why in your mind, Schumer was getting satisfaction from an act that she said wasn’t erotic at all: you don’t think women actually like sex, but have it for unrelated reasons.
That’s why men like you probably view men forcing themselves on passed-out women as consensual sex and not rape: The role of the woman is to lie down and spread her legs while the man does his thing. That’s literally the woman’s whole sexual role in your mind. You think that every time a woman exists in any sexual context, she is an active participant. Therefore, you don’t think sexual objectification is a problem either, since a woman being the unwilling target of horny male stares is her being an active participant. This actually explains very much about the mindset of men like you. Nothing good, I assure you.
And with that, I’m leaving this thread and going to sleep. There is nothing that can save this particular poophead. He has entered a trance-like state of confirmation bias where everything around him is proof of the righteousness of his cause. Words mean what he wants them to mean. He can’t be proven wrong because the words proving him wrong are a sign that he is right. He can’t be helped anymore, so I say good riddance to him.
You have no idea of the reason I came to this thread. Jumping in an making assumptions is not a reasonable way to argue. I can’t imagine the arguments have been handled given that the response seems to be to simply throw ad hominems rather than debunking the arguments.
I haven’t seen one argument even attempting to negate the simple requirements of sexual connection without consent to constitute rape. Well maybe there was the spurious argument of her passivity and desire to get away, which firstly as best I can tell Schumer did not claim and secondly is not a defense for lack of consent.
In writing a comment I was replying to the substantive article. As far as I can tell there is no obligation on me to read all of the proceeding comments, which are not even available without going to another page/link. I was referenced to the article, I read the article and I responded to it. This seems a completely valid set of actions to me. The fact that others have made similar arguments may suggest in itself that there is some validity to those arguments. It does not preclude another person without reference to those previous arguments putting forward the same arguments in different words.
I would be happy to hear any arguments why Schumer did not need consent for her sexual activity and therefore why what she described was not rape. Instead I have primarily heard personal attacks which rather than make me waiver in my understanding have the opposite affect of suggesting that those opposed are unable to make sound refutations and therefore resort to personal abuse.
I can see your actions and extrapolate. You’re about as deep and complex as a sheet of glass and your motivations are exactly that transparent.
Hmmm.
FIFY
Shorter trollboring: “Not only am I not going to read the article I’m necroing, I’m not going to read the old comments OR any of the actual responses to my trolling.”
“I have no idea of the reason I came to this thread.” FTFY.
Also, insulting and mocking you!= ad hominem. If we said, You are a stupid and evil person, therefore we do not respect your stupid and evil ideas, that would be ad hominem.
Instead, we are saying, Your ideas are stupid and evil, therefore we will insult and mock you.
What Amy Schumer actually said:
How we get from him being drunkenly aggressive and her finally escaping his drunken aggressions to “she raped him” is a brangle of legalistic logic only a truly desperate ‘winger troll can mansplain.