Books on rape

[DeYaKen]

Relax, Frankie goes to Hollywood ?

It strikes me that this campaign is similar to those Animal Rights folk who pilloried a Bank because they were the bank for an Animal Experiments firm ?
And there are several other examples.

Yes I believe Relax was another one.

My point really is that you have to think about these things. The question is always, am I doing more harm than good? In the case of this book, how else would he market it. Who would advertise it? If he found anyone to take his ads it would probably cost him more than he would make from the book. However, get a mate to start a petition, share it on facebook and twitter, You have a free advertising campaign that goes viral. Even this thread is giving him publicity that he doesn't deserve.

 

[Messier82]

Here's a scenario to consider, possibly more applicable to US law than UK but I'll stand to be corrected on that:

Guy goes on a date with a girl, she makes allegations of rape (is date-rape treated differently by the law? I don't know). He ends up in court and starts quoting douche-bag Roosh as a kind of defence, claiming that these 'techniques' rolleyes can't be wrong or illegal because he got them from a book from Amazon.

What happens next?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Here's a scenario to consider, possibly more applicable to US law than UK but I'll stand to be corrected on that:

Guy goes on a date with a girl, she makes allegations of rape (is date-rape treated differently by the law? I don't know). He ends up in court and starts quoting douche-bag Roosh as a kind of defence, claiming that these 'techniques' rolleyes can't be wrong or illegal because he got them from a book from Amazon.

What happens next?

That would be an affirmative defense and would have to be declared at the beginning of the trail...like "Not guilty because of temporary mental defect or disease" is. Then the burden of proof is on the defense, not the prosecution.

But I doubt very much a judge...in the US...would allow it.

And it would essentially be considered the Twinkie defense which was shot down in US courts a long time ago.

I saw it on TV or read it in a book, is no defense. I was hopped up on sugar is not defense.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Here's a scenario to consider, possibly more applicable to US law than UK but I'll stand to be corrected on that:

Guy goes on a date with a girl, she makes allegations of rape (is date-rape treated differently by the law? I don't know). He ends up in court and starts quoting douche-bag Roosh as a kind of defence, claiming that these 'techniques' rolleyes can't be wrong or illegal because he got them from a book from Amazon.

What happens next?

Do you mean other than incredulous laughter? Otherwise, what Zeb said. Unless you can prove insanity you don't get to blame your issues on your mommy or your bedtime reading.

 

[Messier82]

I wasn't meaning just the position of the guy in court.
You don't think the media would grab the story and run with it?
He's denying rape by claiming he was just "wearing down her resistance", based on the "instructions" in a "How to..." manual.

Kindle Rapist blames Amazon for example.

Amazon sued by date-rape victims Good luck with with that, they don't even pay tax

 

[HandsInTheDark]

kindle rapist sues amazon

You know it's hard enough to design electronics to survive normal use. We'll never get them to survive penetration.

And yes, that would be a typical headline. Reporting standards have really fallen.

But it doesn't matter. Amazon would be unhurt, and the masses would be in an uproar for the thirty seconds it would take for a drought or Trump statement or sports figure indiscretion or nipple slip to distract them. The Bread and Circus department will make some money and absoluty nothing will change.

 

[Handley_Page]

I wasn't meaning just the position of the guy in court.
You don't think the media would grab the story and run with it?
He's denying rape by claiming he was just "wearing down her resistance", based on the "instructions" in a "How to..." manual.

Kindle Rapist blames Amazon for example.

Amazon sued by date-rape victims Good luck with with that, they don't even pay tax

Oh the Red-tops would have a field day with that.

Post conviction, the accused sues Amazon. . . .

 

[SikFuk]

ZEB - It seems to me the point here is deciding where to draw the line between market forces and censorship. On the one hand, conservatives like to rely on market forces for solutions, but on the other hand, when those market forces result in the restriction of a market for something conservatives like, they call those market forces censorship.

Another example is conservatives banning historical information and scientific information from appearing in textbooks. I'd suggest this is actual censorship, and it's censorship that can result in harm, in that they're harming the education of millions of children.

So in one case, conservatives approve of censorship that causes harm, and in another case, they object to perceived censorship that prevents harm. I'm just glad I'm not a conservative. All that pretzel logic would hurt my head.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

ZEB - It seems to me the point here is deciding where to draw the line between market forces and censorship. On the one hand, conservatives like to rely on market forces for solutions, but on the other hand, when those market forces result in the restriction of a market for something conservatives like, they call those market forces censorship.

Another example is conservatives banning historical information and scientific information from appearing in textbooks. I'd suggest this is actual censorship, and it's censorship that can result in harm, in that they're harming the education of millions of children.

So in one case, conservatives approve of censorship that causes harm, and in another case, they object to perceived censorship that prevents harm. I'm just glad I'm not a conservative. All that pretzel logic would hurt my head.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[sr71plt]

What the hell are you talking about?

I understood it exactly (and agree with it) and am not surprised you don't "get it."

Amazon is a business. It's beyond amusing that a conservative wouldn't uphold Amazon's right to decide what products it was going to sell on any legal basis it chose--even on the basis of yammering by a group that, conservatively speaking, is just exercising its own right to influence events. That should make complete sense to a conservative--but not really to one who is actually "MEMEMEME; all the privileges are mine." This someone is not really conservative. He/she is purely selfish and can't see beyond the end of her/his own nose.

 

[SikFuk]

What the hell are you talking about?

Just take it one paragraph at a time.

Or perhaps I should ask you - when do market forces morph into censorship? In other words, if Amazon decides its reputation might be damaged by continuing to sell rape how-to books, and chooses not to sell them any more, is that censorship, or market forces?

Is the question of harm valid? In other words, if they refuse to sell a product because it might cause harm, is that censorship, or acting with integrity?

 

[HandsInTheDark]

ZEB - It seems to me the point here is deciding where to draw the line between market forces and censorship. On the one hand, conservatives like to rely on market forces for solutions, but on the other hand, when those market forces result in the restriction of a market for something conservatives like, they call those market forces censorship.

This is a slightly confused view. I certainly don't speak for all conservatives and don't neatly fit in any category myself, but in the US at least conservatives are a fragmented group. Some are all about free market (with a few caveats where their stock portfolios are concerned), largely on the premise that the government screws up everything it tries to regulate (for which they have some evidence.) Others espouse old world ethical views, aka your social conservatives - they are still trying to figure out why and how gay marriage could possibly have passed, and are much more prone to like the idea of banning a rape handbook. These two groups are increasingly not on speaking terms anymore; and both are losing traction with voters (though the Trump phenomena is interesting); the social conservatives are at risk of becoming an extinct species.

My guess is, IF this book proved to be a rape handbook and IF people raised a fuss about it, and IF Amazon opted to sell it and there was a huge public outcry and Amazon refused to pull the book, so IF people turned to political means to get it blocked - then you'd see largely identical response from left and right politicians. Right now they are all very keen to get votes and are fairly malleable to pressure from the masses.

All of which is incredibly hypothetical. For every IF up there I can see a fallacy, the biggest being that anyone gives a flip about what Amazon sells. They banned a few things along the way, but it doesn't look like it's a common decision they make. This is interesting:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/23/technology/amazon-banned-products/index.html

The process by which Americans turn their backs on things is bizarre. A few years back people were annoyed at the french, so there was a movement to not eat french fries despite the fact that they are largely a US grown product with nothing french about them. (Remember "freedom fries"?) Recently we've been driving the historic Confederate flag off of flag poles in response to racial rioting; the rioting is because of economic and injustice issues. But fixing actual issues is hard and banning a dye pattern on a piece of cloth is really easy, so that's what happens.

Even if the public wanted this book banned, and it was, half a dozen books like it would probably stay on the shelves because no one noticed them.

The wisdom of crowds thing only works when the crowd doesn't have all the characteristics of an attention deficit disordered drunk.

 

[SikFuk]

They banned a few things along the way, but it doesn't look like it's a common decision they make. This is interesting:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/23/technology/amazon-banned-products/index.html

From the linked article:

Notably, Amazon also bans "offensive products," which include "products that promote or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual or religious intolerance or promote organizations with such views."

If that's their policy, the rape book shouldn't be for sale. Period. In this light, the petition is just reminding them to read their own policy statement.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

From the linked article:



If that's their policy, the rape book shouldn't be for sale. Period. In this light, the petition is just reminding them to read their own policy statement.

Yeah, read the rest of the article. They aren't all that consistent. In my view if they want to ban something, great - it's their choice. And if they don't, great - chalk up another one for competition in the market of ideas.

 

[robertreams]

I have advice for Roosh, et al: Never do anything sexual with/to a woman unless she asks. If she isn't asking, then you or she or "things" just aren't right, or there is something you aren't doing right.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

I have advice for Roosh, et al: Never do anything sexual with/to a woman unless she asks. If she isn't asking, then you or she or "things" just aren't right, or there is something you aren't doing right.

Newsflash: there are a lot of women who like it when it's the man's idea. Of course there are a lot that don't - it's a wide world and a complicated gender. But when people make statements about sexuality containing always and never, I find it impossible to take it seriously.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Newsflash: there are a lot of women who like it when it's the man's idea. Of course there are a lot that don't - it's a wide world and a complicated gender. But when people make statements about sexuality containing always and never, I find it impossible to take it seriously.

There are quite a few men who get off on being kicked in the crotch, but it's bad form for a woman to assume the guy she's dealing with is one of them unless he's told her so.

So it is with reluctance fantasies.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Just take it one paragraph at a time.

Or perhaps I should ask you - when do market forces morph into censorship? In other words, if Amazon decides its reputation might be damaged by continuing to sell rape how-to books, and chooses not to sell them any more, is that censorship, or market forces?

Is the question of harm valid? In other words, if they refuse to sell a product because it might cause harm, is that censorship, or acting with integrity?

It's a business making a business decision, period. If Amazon halts sales of whatever due to pressure from outside the company, then the group pressuring Amazon would be the entity that is forcing the censorship.

Market forces are you refusing to purchase something...for whatever reason and the product doesn't sell, so the company pulls it from it's shelves. That is not censorship.

Pulling a bad product that might cause harm is a recall and the company is acting with integrity.

 

[SikFuk]

It's a business making a business decision, period. If Amazon halts sales of whatever due to pressure from outside the company, then the group pressuring Amazon would be the entity that is forcing the censorship.

In the Roosh case, their policy already forbids the sale of that book. The group pressuring Amazon is only reminding them that they're ignoring their stated policy. I don't see that as censorship, I see it as being being the equivalent of the "report" button on LIT stories.

Market forces are you refusing to purchase something...for whatever reason and the product doesn't sell, so the company pulls it from it's shelves. That is not censorship.

Can't market forces also be public pressure, ala the confederate flag? Or a boycott? Big corporations aren't stupid, they're very image-conscious. That's why Exon and the Koch Brothers underwrite NPR/PBS programming, not because they believe in the mission of those news outlets, but because they want to buff their image. The same can be said for the other business decisions corporations make, like deciding what they want to sell and what they don't want to sell. They're doing it because of market forces.

Pulling a bad product that might cause harm is a recall and the company is acting with integrity.

And that's exactly what Amazon should do in this case.

Now, where, exactly, does censorship fit in to this scenario? (Oh wait. It doesn't.)

 

[Zeb_Carter]

In the Roosh case, their policy already forbids the sale of that book. The group pressuring Amazon is only reminding them that they're ignoring their stated policy. I don't see that as censorship, I see it as being being the equivalent of the "report" button on LIT stories.



Can't market forces also be public pressure, ala the confederate flag? Or a boycott? Big corporations aren't stupid, they're very image-conscious. That's why Exon and the Koch Brothers underwrite NPR/PBS programming, not because they believe in the mission of those news outlets, but because they want to buff their image. The same can be said for the other business decisions corporations make, like deciding what they want to sell and what they don't want to sell. They're doing it because of market forces.



And that's exactly what Amazon should do in this case.

Now, where, exactly, does censorship fit in to this scenario? (Oh wait. It doesn't.)

You know saying something more than ten times doesn't make it true. But you keep on believing what you want. And when the powers that be...whoever they maybe...shut down your favorite erotica site, what will you say to that?

 

[TxRad]

Using logic and facts on Zeb is a waste of time. You can't reach a closed mind. In his case, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Using logic and facts on Zeb is a waste of time. You can't reach a closed mind. In his case, ignorance is bliss.

Again, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, doesn't make it true. You might try yelling at the top of your lungs, but that really doesn't work either.

As for caring what you think...take a wild guess.


Also, I have yet to see any facts. Just conjecture and innuendo. And lots and lots of repeating.

All because you think I'm supporting what the asshole wrote, which make you so wrong.

 

[TxRad]

Again, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, doesn't make it true. You might try yelling at the top of your lungs, but that really doesn't work either.

As for caring what you think...take a wild guess.


Also, I have yet to see any facts. Just conjecture and innuendo. And lots and lots of repeating.

All because you think I'm supporting what the asshole wrote, which make you so wrong.

Nope, i know that you don't support him. You just don't understand what the thread is all about. It has nothing to do with censorship but in your mind you know different even though censorship and what companies do are two different things as has been pointed out to you a dozen times.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Seeing as "market forces" doesn't have a formal definition, and censorship's ACLU definition is uselessly broad, you're arguing about noises and may as well agree to disagree.

In any case it doesn't matter. The Roosh book is simply one expression of a philosophy that's hardly new and hardly unusual. Hate it or tolerate it, it's not going away regardless of who refuses to sell what. Books are symbols; the reality is in people's brains. As fiction writers we all get that, right?

 

[Bramblethorn]

In any case it doesn't matter. The Roosh book is simply one expression of a philosophy that's hardly new and hardly unusual. Hate it or tolerate it, it's not going away regardless of who refuses to sell what. Books are symbols; the reality is in people's brains. As fiction writers we all get that, right?

As a fiction writer, I also get that symbols are one of the ways we alter what's in people's brains. If I didn't have the power to affect people through what I write, I wouldn't be doing it.

Seriously, are you really suggesting that a book written for and marketed to guys who want to change their interactions with women, full of rules on how to interact with women, doesn't affect the way they interact with women?

It's been pretty well established that many rapists don't see themselves as rapists because their peers tell them that what they're doing is OK. Roosh sets himself up as one of those enabling peers; like many other PUAs, he uses the old "I was just like you guys, not getting any until..." as part of his patter.

So publicly challenging this shit is very valuable. When Edmonton launched their "Don't Be That Guy" campaign, reported rape rates dropped by 10%, which is huge for any anti-rape campaign. What was novel about that campaign was that instead of giving women "rape-avoidance" advice it concentrated on telling guys that it was unacceptable to have sex with a woman who hadn't consented.

The value of a campaign against these books is less in whether it succeeds in getting them pulled from sale, than in showing guys that Roosh's message is not generally accepted. I do take DYK's point that it provides free publicity for his books, but I think that horse bolted a while back.