Notable Quotable:

Notable Quotable:

Remember, folks: whenever a woman says "die for me because you are a man," just look her in the eye and say "my body, my choice."

Monday, July 23, 2012


At least that's what you'll be saying. (Alternate titles:  Here's a big fat Red Pill.  Take It or Leave It - or- Things Will Be Changing Around Here, Feel Free to Call Me a Bitch)  I may be about to make myself a pariah.  So be it.

Wow.  Interesting and poorly argued emotional rants over at Matt G’s place.  (Better and Better)  I’m saddened to see that Matt himself is doing much of the emoting and ranting.  I’ve been reading him for a couple of years now and I like him, but I’m afraid he just fell directly into the Knee-Jerk-White-Knight category.  (Then again, Matt works in law enforcement; perhaps his experience with women leads him to assume we're all weak, irrational and hysterical.)  The thing is, he's not a particular fan of political correctness, but there's that one PC line he can't seem to cross - "Gender."  In the following comment thread he gives a "pass" to a female victim, while twisting vague assumptions to demonize an entire class of men.  I wrote this post a couple of days ago, and waited to publish it, hoping Matt would reconsider and engage in the reasoned discourse he claims to want (over on his post).  

I wan't planning to bring this discussion to my blog, because I'm a little hesitant to call out people I generally respect,especially well-intentioned and intelligent people, but since Matt has decided to "control" the debate with his delete button, while threatening to use my published comments to tell everyone how poor my judgement is, I decided to tell the whole the story.  I will not engage in a edited conversation on another blog, and I will not edit this conversation  (unless one of my two trolls shows up.)   I didn't write this as an attack, I wrote it as a defense.  I suppose the polite thing for me to do, would be to shut up and let it drop. I should let Matt's personal insults stand, and validate them with my silence.  I should also give Matt a "pass" for his lack of knowledge about men's rights issues, because I happen to like him.  That would be the civil thing to do.  

But ya know what?  It has been a long, long time since I have expected a pass for my own intellectual laziness.  I'm sure as hell not handing one to a man who has attempted to belittle me.

Please go check out his original post asking for a discussion about coercive rape:

I have copied and pasted the comment thread, including my last few, which he may or may not have published.  I’m afraid he’s decided that I like rapists and pedophiles, and I’m deluded to boot.  Anyhow, here’s the thread, with my analysis in red, comment by comment.  It’s very long.  Sorry:

Xander said...
To the degree that I can understand rape, it seems to me to be as much (if not more) an emotional crime as a physical crime. So, in the instance of a "coercive rape" does the subject/victim feel annoyed or violated by the coercion? I dont believe that there's any definition that fits neatly into the Penal Code, but I do believe that in any individual case it either is, or 'is not rape. I don't believe that it is always either one or the otherI agree with Xander.   It is extremely subjective, which makes it a tricky legal issue.

Thursday, July 12, 2012 7:29:00 PM
Suz said...
Mmm. Can of worms for desert.
Oddly enough, here's an excerpt from an e,mail I sent to a friend a few hours ago: "Just think how a rape victim feels when she hears some sorority slut cry about being “raped” by a drunk dude at a frat party after she got plastered, ditched her friends, wandered into a bedroom with him and took off most of her own clothes."
Legally: Yeah, if the radical feminists continue to get their way, it could be considered rape. These are people who want to define as rape anything remotely unpleasant, done by a man in the vicinity of a woman. That way they can prove, ya know, that all men are rapists.
Morally: Um. No. From the dawn of humanity until about fifty years ago, men had the presumed right to expect sex with their wives. And women had the presumed (OMG Nooooo!) obligation (*gasp* the other "O" word) to provide it.
Want to talk about sleep deprivation as torture? How about a man who goes to bed frustrated for months on end, so as to accommodate his selfish wife?
And the real test of whether or not it's rape? Ask a real rape victim if it's rape.  Why no, I’m not totally immune to my emotions.  Yes, I displayed my irritation at our overwhelming “victim culture.”

Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:48:00 PM
 Anonymous said...
My wife and I, without knowing you wrote about it, had this very conversation tonight. I said no and she said yes. I told her it was the recent womans studies classes she took at the predominantly all female college she attends that persuaded her opion. She just smiled and told me to order her another drink.  (…and I may be presuming here…) yet another woman takes courses in Women’s Studies, and realizes there’s a helpless victim everywhere she turns.

Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:59:00 PM
 Suz said...
Start hiding assets. Or go to
Or both.
Cassandra spoke but nobody listenedBecause I have no idea how tempted she will become, to get her share of the loot offered to victims.

Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:10:00 PM
 Anonymous said...
@ Suz We weren't having the conversation about our own sex life, but that of others. Trust me, if anything, she would be coercive raping me far more often than I would her.   Whew! That's a relief!

Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:08:00 PM
 Suz said...
Good to know, Anon. That 'victim mentality' can be highly contagious.  ‘Nuff said.

Friday, July 13, 2012 12:27:00 AM
 Gaffer said...
The lack of logic in assuming that Coercive Sex is always wrong is illustrated by your example. But it could also be argued that the husband who gives in to his partners desire has also been "raped". Are the ladies who push their agenda ready to accept this? I doubt itMe too.

Friday, July 13, 2012 6:12:00 AM
 azreel said...
Coercive rape?
No. Just, no. No such animal exists.
If I wine and dine a lady, take her out to a movie, and then we have sex at my place later, I could be said to have "coerced" her into sex.   
If the wife wants to sleep, she can sleep on the couch, or have the husband do the sameI disagree.  It’s rare, but it’s real.

Friday, July 13, 2012 10:15:00 AM
 Evyl Robot Michael said...
In a generally consenting relationship such as a marriage, the partners have contracts with each other, both explicit and implied. It's better to clearly define though, to eliminate such questions. In one marriage, it may be sexual violation if the Mr. asks a second time after the Mrs. declines due to headache. In another marriage, it may be hunky dory for hubby to use wife's limp body when she's passed out drunk. Or, vice-versa on the gender roles for that matter as this could easily go both directions. It all really depends on expectations and permission - as in consent. If pushing your partner into something they don't really want to do right now is rape, then Jennifer and I have each been guilty of it at one time or another. I prefer to think that we were acting within our own contract and thus, it was all legitimate.  This is the usual way of it.

Friday, July 13, 2012 10:43:00 AM
 Sabra said...
It might be, it might not be. Apparent consent can certainly be coerced. Marital rape absolutely happens, sometimes forcibly, sometimes not. I don't think I could make a blanket statement one way or the other.  Sabra gets it.

Friday, July 13, 2012 8:04:00 PM
 Anon this time said...
When I was first getting started thinking about carrying a firearm, my mom asked me if I would use the gun to prevent a rape. "Of course!" I answered. She shrugged, a little sadly, and said, "Well, if he's not going to kill you, it's just sex when you don't want it. And every married woman has done that."
It made me sad for herI feel sad for her too.  Sad that she automatically associates a married woman having sex when she doesn’t want to, with rape.  (During a conversation about self-defense, no less!  Project much?  Sheesh!)

Friday, July 13, 2012 10:10:00 PM
 Jennifer said...
Oh boy. It depends on a lot of things. If the previously non-consenting partner is coming back with something to the effect of, "If I do, will you leave me alone and let me sleep?" It's not exactly enthusiastic consent. It's consent, but just barely and certainly not a positive sort of thing in a relationship. Even if they do end up enjoying it, they will not feel valued as an equal partner in the transaction. But no, I would not consider it rape.
Now if it's more like, "so you wanna have a little fun before we go to sleep?" "Not tonight, I'm really tired." "Please?" "No, really. I'm just not feeling it." "Come on." "No." *more wheedling* "Fine. Can we just get it over with?" That's getting awful darn close to a rape situation. It's not really consent at that point. And come on, not really fun for either party. Would that fly for a rape conviction? No way, no how.
Now if party one massages party two and they get warmed up and into the idea, obviously, happy times for everyone involved and really how it should go down.
It's all very complicated. Yes, rape is rape. No, getting drunk and making bad decisions is not rape even if you regret it in the morning. Getting someone drunk so you can take advantage of them is.
Provided you really respect your partner and their wishes and desires, even if they are just your partner for one night, you aren't going to rape them. The feminists would like to define rape far too broadly.  Well said.
Saturday, July 14, 2012 10:39:00 AM
 Mikael said...
I certainly wouldn't equate "Do it or I'll fucking kill you and your family" and nagging them until they say yes.
The first example I would call clear-cut rape.
If they got nagged into it, they don't really have a problem with the doing it with that partner. Especially in a marriage. I certainly wouldn't consider it to be a nice thing to do, but not rape, with the possible exception of teen girls getting guilted into it, and even then it's not as bad as the first example.  Exactly.

Aaaaand here’s where the discussion starts to go off the rails:

Saturday, July 14, 2012 11:50:00 AM
 Squeaky Wheel said...
To everyone who says that the deprivation of sleep and the coercion of the husband isn't a form of rape  - I honestly don't believe you've ever been in a situation to make that call. If you had, you wouldn't say things like "selfish wife" and whatnot.  Sure. Lump all of us meanies together.  Azreel who thinks there’s “no such animal” is exactly the same as me mentioning “selfish wives.”  See?  See the direct connection?  Me neither.
There are a myriad of reasons why not wanting to sleep with your spouse is legitimate, from both sides. I didn't find out that my ex-husband was even capable of what he did to me until it started happening, after we were married and he had effectively cut me off from most of my emotional and physical support lines (family, friends, finances, and firearms).   Ah, clearly we have a rather extreme example of an all-around abuser.  Would any reasonable person assume that he couldn’t possibly engage in sexual abuse as well?
It absolutely is rape.  Why yes, in some cases it is.  It's sexual and emotional abuse used to meet the sexual and emotional satisfaction of the attacker. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF RAPE.  Um, no.  That is not the definition of rape.  (But, I’m sad to say, this is where Matt G. let his sympathy short-circuit his logic, because he never does challenge this definition, and he is very well educated.  He assures me of this.)
And yes, women can absolutely do it to men, too, but there's this thing with men: they have to have an erection to have sex. A woman's got a hole, and whether she's ready or not, a guy can just go to it without concern, because whether it's in the usual way or with blood, he'll get his lube. That penetration is a violation when it's not welcomed expressly (even if the welcome is coy), and that shit hurts.  Whether it hurts or not, and how much easier it is for a man to rape a woman than for a woman to rape a man, has NO BEARING on the issue of whether or not coercive sex is rape.  This is what we call a red herring; it's a distraction, not an argument.
A sorority girl getting drunk and making a bad decision isn't a valid comparison, but if the guy's not impaired, and still takes advantage of the situation, there's a fuzzy line that creates confusion, and that confusion can be called "rape" if other circumstances permit (like if the girl had never displayed that sort of behavior before).  The drunk sorority girl was not intended as a comparison.  It was intended as an illustration of how far we have stretched the definition of “victim,” so we can include juuuust about everybody.
If you're unhappy with your sex life while married, that's what communication is for - to find a solution that works for both of you. Counseling, "marital aids," fix the underlying issue. You don't act like an asshole just to get your way. That's not compromise, and that's not a marriage. Anyone who condones the "women should just be used to having sex whenever the husband wants when they're married" line of thinking needs to have a wake-up call, and while I'd prefer it not be violent or damaging, you know what they say about some political affiliations: "A conservative is just a liberal who's been robbed."  Wonder how Squeaky defines an Independent who doesn't abandon logic in the pursuit of ideology.

Saturday, July 14, 2012 6:59:00 PM
 Suz said...
@ Squeaky Wheel,
I think your perception may be colored by your own abuse. (Not an uncommon occurrence, right?)Your personal experience has taught you to view with suspicion, anything remotely resembling the abuse you suffered. Within the context of an abusive relationship, coercive sex can be considered "marital rape," especially if it is done routinely as part of an ongoing campaign to degrade and dehumanize the wife. This is the exception, not the rule. Indeed it is such an extreme exception, it could be construed as one that proves the rule. In a normal relationship, it is nothing more than an occasional inconvenience. Trying to protect yourself from active abuse is not being a "selfish wife," but the vast majority of women in this situation are not being abused; they're merely being asked to do something they'd rather not do.  (This is the crux of my statement.  Is it incorrect?)
I'm sure you know that ongoing abuse starts subtlely. The abuser incorporates many normal, or at worst, shrug-inducing behaviors into an escalating pattern of control. Innocent-but-unpleasant behaviors used maliciously by sociopaths, are still innocent-but-unpleasant behaviors.   OK, be honest with me.  No I wasn’t very tactful and I didn’t use a lot of gentle euphemisms, but  does this comment merit the attack that follows?  And is it factually WRONG? 

Sunday, July 15, 2012 11:54:00 AM
 Squeaky Wheel said...
@Suz - I don't know you, but based on your comments, I have no reason to believe that you're anything but a moron. I sincerely apologize for even bothering to explain my situation, as you obviously like to take any new information and warp it to your own ends.
I recognize the difference between abuse and rape. You, obviously, don't.  
Squeaky quickly escalates from the standard “my experience is the definitive experience” rant, to ad hominem attack with no rational explanation.  Except, of course, that I’m an insensitive brute who dared to suggest she might be biased.  Apparently this makes me a moron.

Sunday, July 15, 2012 4:55:00 PM
 Matt G said...
We're not going to be calling people names, here. Squeaky, you're a friend, but I won't put up with that here.   There is hope for rational discourse!
I asked a question. I was hoping for reasoned discourse. Your point will be better made if you can make it without attacking the individuals who make counter points. To that end, Suz, telling someone else why they feel the way that they do about something is a pretty effective way of getting them to twist off on you.   ‘Scuse me, Matt?  Who attacked whom?  Politely pointing out a personal bias is not an attack.  It would have been an attack had I called her on her obviously irrational hysteria, but I didn't, did I?  (Incidentally, I didn’t tell her WHY she feels the way she does, I said her FEELINGS may be influencing her perceptions.  I was courteous enough not to point out that the legal definition of rape, along with normal behavior by normal people, were clearly NOT influencing her perceptions at all.  “Reasoned discourse,” indeed.  (Just be sure to keep the reasoned part secondary to the sympathy for the non-reasoned part.  Hopes reined in.)

Sunday, July 15, 2012 5:36:00 PM
 Squeaky Wheel said...
You said it more eloquently than I could, given the subject matter.  Hamsterlation:  (if I may presume to flatter Deti , who is MY hero, with imitation)  "My hero!  *sigh*"
You can't tell someone how to feel about something even if you HAVE been through it, because it's all different. There are levels of understanding and experience that you just can't fathom, even if you talk to everyone and get their viewpoints. It's just not possible, and to presume to tell someone why they feel a certain way is, I'm sorry, moronic.  …aaaaand who told her what she feels?  Nobody.  But if she continues to discuss it as if it happened, a unicorn will make it real.  Yay!
I won't be commenting on this again, Matt, don't worry. I shouldn't have clicked to read the comments, in the first place, because I *knew* that I would come across something like this, but I'd hoped that perhaps the arguing methods wouldn't be quite so ham-fisted as those I've seen.  Hamsterlation:  “So there!” (flips hair, flounces out, slams door.)

{ I apologize for the snark aimed a Squeaky; I do have sympathy for the abuse she has suffered (as I was damn close to walking that road myself at one time) but I have no sympathy whatsoever for her refusal to be logical.  Past abuse is no excuse for present ignorance and immaturity.  She doesn’t get a pass.  Not from me, anyway.}

Sunday, July 15, 2012 5:44:00 PM
 Suz said...
Sorry, Matt. I spend most of my online time in the Manosphere; I'm accustomed to discussions where straightforward challenges are welcome, as they make people consider points of view they may not have noticed previously.   Although I don't engage in name-calling, I don't take it personally when people become emotional.  Yes, I am implying that straightforward challenges (even polite ones) seem not to be welcome here,  but not saying so implicitly, since I’m still holding out hope for “reasoned discourse.”
It appears that Squeaky was so intent on hurling epithets and accusations, she forgot to add relevant content. I actually would like her to elaborate on her statement, and perhaps show where I'm incorrect, and why.   Not gonna happen, is it? *sigh* Hopes dashed.  Even Matt refuses to discuss the actual issue.  From here on out it’s all attacks based on erroneous, ill-informed assumptions.

For instance, under what circumstances is "coerced sex" to be equated with rape or torture? Is it rape when it occurs occasionally within a healthy marriage, or only when it is an intentionally malicious habit in an abusive one? How does one tell the difference? There must be a difference got it to be taken seriously as a problem.
Also what IS the difference between rape and abuse, in her opinion, and how does that apply to my comment?
btw, this might help:
"rape1    [reyp] Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap•ing.
1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force."
I think that technically, the answer to your original question lies in the difference between "coercion" and "duress," and whether or not there is a threat of harm.  What, no answer?  Of course not!   Silly  me.

Sunday, July 15, 2012 7:36:00 PM
 phlegmfatale said...
I largely quite agree with the comments of Evyl Robot Michael, but I'll go one further. If one is in an exclusive relationship with a partner, an occasional headache is one thing, but if one is continually wilfully denied sex by a partner who is not suffering a health condition [mental or physical (legally married or no)], they deserve to be fucked around on.
My opinion, worth what you paid. One should not feel they ALWAYS have to be in the mood, but the agreement to sex is part of the relationship deal, and a person who denies sex to their partner in my opinion has no right bitching about a partner who goes elsewhere.
All that being said, though, a person should never force another person to have sex against their will. My point is just that if you buy the cow, (or bull) you should get the milk (or other stuff) in the package deal. Them's the rules.  But this one's OK, because she didn’t directly contradict Squeaky.

Sunday, July 15, 2012 9:49:00 PM
 phlegmfatale said...
Um, now that I read it, Suz' previous comment seems more to muddy the waters than clarify. How about just draw the line at "unwanted sex is rape." Period. Seems simple enough to me. No clarifcation necessry.
That goes back to my previous comment about unwilling partner, too: person in relationship who does not want sex has not claim for betrayal if their partner finds willing sex elsewhere. Period. End of story.  Well, not quite.

Sunday, July 15, 2012 11:48:00 PM
 Suz said...
It’s a muddy issue.
It depends on the circumstances. To say it’s never rape is to leave women vulnerable to abuse; to say it’s always rape is to leave men vulnerable to abuse. Consider the two scenarios that are likely the most common.
First is with a physically and/or emotionally abusive husband. He demands sex at any time without regard for his wife’s needs or feelings. He probably even makes a point of demanding sex when it creates a hardship for her, like when she has to wake up early. His purpose is to control her and undermine her self-confidence, not for her benefit or the benefit of the marriage, but for the sake of control itself. In this case the coercion is probably even duress, because the threat of retaliation is implied if not stated. How could that not be considered marital rape?
The second likely scenario is precisely the opposite. It’s a husband “begging” for sex, but completely on his wife’s terms, not his. She withholds sex as a means of controlling him. (And yes, if he has to beg, she withholds sex habitually.) Even when she gives in, it’s with disgust or impatience, assuring that he will feel guilty or inadequate. Not only that, but if he gets “out of line” she can hold the threat of rape charges over him. And then he owes her, big time. This too is abuse. However, since men aren’t taught to view themselves as potential victims, most men in this situation don’t even realize how badly they’re being manipulated into complete emotional dependence. How is that rape when it’s precisely what the wife wants?
Outside of these two scenarios where one party uses sex to control the other, coercion probably happens very rarely; either he goes to bed frustrated or she gives in out of courtesy, even if it’s inconvenient.    Discussion, please?

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 7:25:00 AM
 Anonymous said...
Suz - more muddy than you admit, I think, and leaking like a sieve, to boot. I'm in a relationship where my partner withholds sex as a means of controlling the relationship, but I take exception to your characterization of the two likely scenarios. My partner withholding sex is male. We have not had sex this calendar year, but I'm female, so maybe my femaleness just makes me feel victimized.  Answered below, answer unchallenged.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:59:00 PM
 Matt G said...
Hey, Suz?
I know the legal definition of rape. I've got a lot of education in this stuff. I've also got some experience in investigating rapes and filing reports on them.
Dictionary Dot Com's definition isn't real helpful in this case, and if it were, a guy who has posted a blog for 6 years could presumably have accessed such information as easily as you did.   My point exactly.  Squeaky didn’t look it up, did she?  And where’s your critique of her definition? 

As for being in the "Manosphere," I'm curious how that helps. I've spent over a decade as a moderator on a major firearms bulletin board, the vast majority of which users were men. I've had occasion to review posts for their directness, reasonableness, and clarity, and I'll be honest when I tell you that I've seen no greater influx of it from men than from women. Some of my co-moderators were women, and they did just fine without needing to resort to changing their tone for the given gender that they were speaking to.  Answered below.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 10:24:00 PM
 Suz said...
By "likely," I meant "more common," which doesn't exclude other scenarios.
The fact that you were moderating a gun blog (guns being a traditionally masculine interest) means that most of your female readers probably fell into two groups - hysterical antis, and women far more thoughtful and aware than most women. In that pool, the ratio of irrational males to irrational females would probably be about even.
As for my posting the most easily accessed simplistic definition of rape, it was in response to Squeaky's highly subjective definition. Were you planning to also say, "Hey Squeaky, I know the definition of rape," or would that be too unkind?   No answer.  Huh.  Imagine that.
Of course marital rape is more complex than my definition. It's also more complex than hers. In terms of securing a conviction for a real crime, which definition is the better place to start? Have you ever used Squeaky's definition of rape in your work? When you asked for a discussion here, did you want a balanced one?   Again, no answer.  How does one conduct a reasoned discourse when all questions are ignored?  Or do some people not know the difference between “reasoned discourse” and “Raise your hand and shout out your answers.”
My mention of the Manosphere was because of the quality of debate on the most highly respected sites over there. The authors and the most frequent commenters are coldly rational, and non-rational, emotional appeals from both sexes are readily exposed for their lack of logic. That type of discussion brings out some very real truths, unencumbered by emotion-based distractions and straw men. I strongly recommend you check it out - The Spearhead, A Voice for Men, Dalrock. You will be impressed by the logic.

Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:01:00 AM
 Matt G said...
Oh, I've checked it out.
And I was impressed.

Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:54:00 AM
 Matt G said...
(Just not in a good way.)

Friday, July 20, 2012 2:46:00 PM
 Suz said...
Did you see any lies?  Turns out yes!  Yes he did see lies!  He read the twisted (and well refuted) lies of Dave “Man Boobz” Futrelle, ABOUT the Manosphere. 

Friday, July 20, 2012 3:07:00 PM
 Suz said...
(Except from one or two overly-emotional types who were probably put in their places immediately?)
(Also, don't believe the SPLC, who gets funding from hate groups.) Yes, RadFem is a hate group.  It’s more radical members advocate eugenics, and it’s more moderate members merely demonize most masculine behaviors (except sexually servicing females, and of course hard labor) and push for laws that transfer wealth and power from productive males to unproductive females.  They call this “equality” btw.

Friday, July 20, 2012 3:18:00 PM
 Matt G said...
Oh, I totally believed Paul Elam when he pledged that, if he sat on a jury panel in a rape trial, he would acquit the accused even in the face of clear evidence that the defendant was guilty.
Note: Paul Elam isn't some random commentor: he's the moderator of the site "A Voice For Men." Of course, if he were to sit on such a jury, he would have violated his oath, and have committed perjury.
Sorry, I had trouble stomaching much more of such dreck, "sir". But I was impressed, all right.

Friday, July 20, 2012 10:50:00 PM
 Suz said...
Paul also said:
"With rape shield laws and their trampling of every defendants right to a fair trial, the law itself cannot be trusted." the same article. He's not saying he would presume a rape didn't occur, he's saying he would presume the defendant wasn't getting a fair trial. And there's a good chance he'd be right.  Perhaps Matt didn’t read that part, either in my comment or on AVfM, because he has yet to address it.  (I don’t entirely agree with Paul Elam on this, but he has a good point.)  A single "not guilty" vote would cause a mistrial, NOT an acquittal, and the prosecution's case would have to be pretty damn strong to justify a re-trial.  If it's a weak case, the defendant should go free. With his expertise in the law, MATT KNOWS THIS (but perhaps he assumes that Paul Elam doesn't.)  However, that headline sure makes Paul look depraved, doesn't it?  Matt is making false assumptions about Paul based upon an intentionally tiny sample of information: literally, a few sentences.  Low. Hanging. Fruit. 

Either Matt G is being disingenuous, or he's displaying very sloppy "logic."  And this is a man who builds cases against men accused of rape.   I DO NOT believe Matt is corrupt or intentionally dishonest, but this level of single-minded devotion to an unproven premise looks to me like a red flag.  I'm guessing Paul Elam has seen a few such red flags in his day.  (Google Mary Kellett, DA in Maine.)  Matt is not being objective here.

Is it OK with you that since the passage of VAWA, the 4th amendment no longer applies to males? How many men has your department arrested and jailed, without probable cause, because an arrest is now required to follow ANY accusation? Do you know that there are probably cops in your department who can only exercise discretion on the sly, and do so by telling DV "offenders" to take a walk so as not to be arrested the moment the magic words "he hit me" are spoken? How much federal grant money has your department received to imprison them without due process? And how many women get the same treatment? Do you think the Mary Kelletts of the world are all holed up in Maine? Even Congress had to acknowledge it this year.  Congress debated neutralizing gender-biased language in VAWA, among other things.
There's a backlash coming. Don't know how long it will take, but one of these days we women will get exactly the "equality" we keep saying we want.
Do you have a son?

Saturday, July 21, 2012 5:42:00 AM
 Matt G said...
Suz, you honestly believe that I or any other police officer is compelled to make an arrest without probable cause, based soley upon an accusation from any woman, because of the Violence Against Women Act Of 1994? Which was partly struck down by US v Morrison? You're trying to tell ME that this 18 year old law requires me to suspend the 4th Amendment rights of the accused?   My answer follows. 
Suz, I'll try to say this with as much respect as I possibly can muster: You don't know what you're talking about, and you clearly don't know who you're talking to.
Go somewhere else to spread your disinformation. Adults are talking, here.

Saturday, July 21, 2012 6:10:00 PM
 Matt G said..."
I DO have a son, and I don't like what the future holds for him.
I'm speaking up on behalf of his rights."
You know, I clicked Delete on your comment too early; perhaps I should explain something.
Suz, you don't know the law. You're quoting people who don't know it either, or are lying to you. You're telling me, a cop with a Master Peace Officer's License and all but the sheepskin for a Master's in Criminal Justice, with experience (STATED HERE, IN THIS COMMENT THREAD!) in investigation of sexual assault, what I'm required to do, and what I do-- and you're wrong. You're dead wrong. I will now save this thread, and tell people: "Suz was wrong here. What else was she wrong about? What else is she saying to you that doesn't make sense if you will take the time to parse it out, and check the facts?" Which facts?  Again, no answer, but thanks for the credentials.
The term "rape apologist" has been bandied about so much, it almost has lost its meaning anymore. But when you defend a guy who says that he would cause a rapist to go free in any instance, I wonder what kind of person you are, and what kind of a man you've reared your son to become. Would you be proud of him for releasing a rapist? Would your mother? Would your father?   
You uphold the values of a man who states that child prostitutes should be prosecuted for preying upon pedophiles.
(He then confirms it here.)
 Um, no.  I don’t.  The Spearhead published a study of Martin's that was totally unrelated to pedophilia.  The Spearhead has also made it clear that pedophilia is counter to men’s rights.  I’m with that all the way.  Even Fred Phelps speaks the occasional true words, and a stopped clock is right twice a day.  Martin’s stance on pedophilia is NOT acceptable to most of the Men’s Rights Movement.
You tell me that I and my co-workers violate men's 4th Amendment rights without having ever met me. Have you read this blog? Have you not figured out that I'm doing my damndest to try to preserve the rights of the citizens that I serve?  I believe Matt is doing just that.  I don’t believe all of his colleagues are.
No. You haven't. You believe what somebody told you, without checking on it. Please go look.  Yes, I’ve been looking.  For the better part of a year now.  And I don’t get my “facts” from the likes of Dave Futrelle.
And while I don't mind in the least having someone disagree with me on my blog (I may or may not argue their points), I can't stomach your falsehoods here. "See any lies?" you asked me. Yep. ????? Still waiting…Go away.


I don’t know how much, if any, of the rest of my comments Matt published, and they crossed with his last one or two,  But here they are:
Once again, where are the lies?  Where is the "disinformation?"
No, I'm not telling you that VAWA requires you to suspend anyone's rights; it merely allows states and municipalities to implement policies that do, and provides grant money to cover the expenses.  Was that part struck down by US v. Morrison?
Have you never, in the last 18 years, met a man who was arrested, maybe charged, maybe not, on false DV charges, and later had his arrest record held against him when petitioning for custody of his children? 
VAWA is loaded with incentives for misuse.  Are you saying that nobody in you jurisdiction - patrol cops, detectives, social workers & victims' advocates, prosecutors, public defenders, judges (not to mention divorce lawyers) would ever abuse the power it gives them? 
Did you also believe the president when he said he would never use the power granted him by NDAA?

And later:
So where are the grownups who can say, and prove, that men and women are treated equally under the law?  Or is that conversation dominated by emotional appeals of, "But men are so mean!"
I've been reading you and conversing with you for a couple of years now, and you're an intelligent man, but it’s clear you have a blind spot.

Still later:
 Oh good God!  If you're getting your information from Man Boobz, that's where the lies are coming from. Futrelle is an expert comment-miner. Do you know what a comment-miner is?  It's a person who picks out the most extreme views and unmoderated comments, and claims that these views represent an entire school of thought.
Kind of the same way you assume I completely agree with everything Paul Elam says.  (Incidentally, I DON'T support his statement that you referenced, even though I think he has a point in questioning the veracity of evidence.)
Keep looking if you want.  There are a bunch of White Nationalists (some of whom make some creditable statements) who, along with the pedophiles, are trying to weasel their way into relevance in the MRM.  They're not getting very far, but people like Futrelle will give you the impression they dominate it.
The MRM despises racism AND pedophilia, because MALES are victims of both.
By now I don't expect you to be publishing any more of my comments, so you can take it or leave it.  This thread will be on my blog soon though, with analysis. 

***** end of comments at Better and Better.

It’s me again, out on a limb.  I admit to having an unpopular opinion, but am I wrong here?  Am I incorrect?  Matt says I’m wrong, and I have respected him for some time now, but he didn’t offer a single fact to back up his opinion.  He offered some irrelevant facts, and a lot oh highly defensive accusations, but nothing that disproves any of my statements.  

Matt completely skirted the substance of the issues I raised, and instead tried to turn attention toward the crazies on the fringe.  He tried to shame me and proclaim his superiority, instead of debating the issues rationally.  Matt remained somewhat rational throughout this discussion until he bumped into the MRM. Once he encountered the concept of men who do NOT automatically offer chivalry and self-sacrifice to undeserving women, his. wheels. fell. off.  This is a common phenomenon among garden-variety social conservatives; they have no idea how deeply they believe that Men Must Always Man Up, but the poor weak women must be offered the benefit of the doubt.  This is somehow considered "fair" and "moral."  I'm willing to risk losing a few on-line friends if the "friendship" is based entirely on false pretenses, but this is just sad.  I trusted and respected Matt's opinions, because he's far from stupid.  I think he dropped the ball.  

Do you think I dropped it?  

Please.  Tell me I'm wrong; tell me I'm exaggerating, and then prove it.  Prove to me that men in this country have all the same rights and privileges as women.  

Show me how decent, moral, hardworking men aren't COMPLETELY vulnerable to divorce theft, false rape claims, false paternity claims, and losing their children arbitrarily, all on the whims of women.  

And how men have equal opportunities in education, employment and reproductive choice.  Show me how men's needs are celebrated and crammed down our throats by the media, just like women's need are.  

Show me where male and female children don't suffer from being raised without their fathers.  Prove to me that child support, alimony and government benefits are just as good as fathers.  (While so many fathers get kicked out of their children's lives, via false DV claims.)  

And show me what laws, policies and initiatives actively discourage women from making such casual and contemptuous use of productive men.  And how often (or severely) are women punished when they are caught breaking these laws? 

Somebody please prove to me, once and for all, that the Men's Rights Movement is a pointless charade based on a few lies from a handful of whiny malcontents.  If you can convince me that men are treated equally, under the law and in social institutions, I can walk away from Men's Rights Advocacy with a clean conscience.  And I'd really like to, because the suffering I see is painful to me.  Until that happens however, I won't be changing my tune.  Not only do I have a "dog in this fight" (my own son) but I believe in Justice.  Objective, blind Justice.  Blind to color, blind to religion, blind to the influence of money, blind to sex.  I will not be silenced.

If you’re still reading, thank you.


  1. Like religion and politics, the subject of rape in any form is centered around the persons belief system and experiences. All of you made excellent points and some pretty stupid ones. And I have to admit, he sees if in a totally different light as he is the one who deals first hand with the victims. That doesn't make him right. Just that he experiences things most of us will never have to deal with. And all the reading and references, who says they are right? Every writer has a message they want to bring out. So what ever you read that is pro your stance, you can also find just as many anti comments to your stance. Other than the fun of bantering, all of you are beating a dead horse. Everyone's mind is made up and will argue their point till the cows come home. But it was a good read and I did pick up on some stuff I never thought of before. You rock!

  2. I don't know what to say, Suz, except that I was threatened with marital rape, and it totally turned me off to sex with X. But it was all part of his game of controlling me and my feelings.


    1. It's real, Janie. I wouldn't deny that, and your marriage is the type I was thinking about when I said it's a component in systematic abuse. My point was that it's a tricky issue, and it's been made more complicated by our "Hey, I'm a victim!" culture.

      How do you feel about women who claim to be neglected and emotionally abused because their husband work 70 hours a week, and don't have time to help with housework and childcare? No cheating, no addiction, no yelling, no hitting, just the absence required to pay for the house and/or car she just had to have. Do you want to roll your eyes and count to ten before saying very quietly, "You, Lady, have NO. Idea. what 'abuse' really is."

    2. Yes, I do want to say that a lot of complainers have no clue about abuse, and I'm crying now.

    3. I'm so sorry, Janie. I'm sorry for what you went through, and I'm sorry that so many women have misused the limited resources that were allocated to keep people like you SAFE from men Like Dr. X. YOU needed the help that they stole for themselves.

      And I'm really, really sorry if this post is hurtful to you. I hope you understand that you are the polar opposite of what I'm griping about.

  3. It would really have been a more thorough recap if you had included the hotlink that I provided to the text of VAWA, which in all its 356 pages of text does not provide a single provision for requiring that an accused 4th Amendment rights be curtailed, and certainly doesn't support this statement of yours to me:

    "Is it OK with you that since the passage of VAWA, the 4th amendment no longer applies to males? How many men has your department arrested and jailed, without probable cause, because an arrest is now required to follow ANY accusation? Do you know that there are probably cops in your department who can only exercise discretion on the sly, and do so by telling DV "offenders" to take a walk so as not to be arrested the moment the magic words "he hit me" are spoken?"

    1. Sorry, I thought I made it clear that VAWA doesn't REQUIRE the curtailing of rights, it merely ALLOWS it. (Then again, only half of the states have mandatory-arrest-for-DV policies. Maybe your state doesn't.) Coincidentally though, VAWA does provide financial and political rewards when this occurs.
      DV charges (against either sex, of course) generate federal grant money. Federal grant money generates local "crime-fighting" jobs. Seems to me that a surfeit of DV arrests could be rather profitable. And a reputation for being "tough on crime" could get some folks re-elected.

      But we know politicians are far too honorable to consider such factors, don't we?

      Thanks for the hotlink though; I missed that one, and I'll add it to the post. If more people learn how VAWA actually works, it might be repealed or at least rewritten. My sympathies to the government and quasi-government employees who lose their jobs due to lack of funding. (sad-face)

      BTW, where's the Violence Against Men Act? The Violence Against Children Act? The Violence Against the Elderly Act? The Violence Against the Disabled Act? Are they not as worthy of protection?

  4. No officers are required to make an arrest simply upon the outcry of domestic violence: they must find probable cause to make the arrest.

    You said, "Do you know that there are probably cops in your department who can only exercise discretion on the sly, and do so by telling DV 'offenders' to take a walk so as not to be arrested the moment the magic words 'he hit me' are spoken?"

    No, but if you'll whistle a few bars, I could probably fake it. Suz, you said something silly, there. Are you willing to back off that, now? I know exactly what criteria my fellow officers use for making an arrest, because by and large, we tend to discuss every case. Never once in my career have I heard an officer mutter "man, I HAD to make the arrest; the law gave me no choice!"

    The day that my discretion is taken from me is the day that I bounce my badge across my chief's desk. I'm not unusual in this feeling.

    1. OK, Matt, if you want to split hairs, let's split hairs. You may not know any cops who have told a man to walk away for a while, but I do. And really, that's neither here not there - anecdotes are not data.

      Additionally, I'm not surprised that you don't hear any cops grumbling that they had to arrest some poor guy because "The law gave me no choice." If the law explicitly required police to violate the Constitution, police would openly rebel; most cops have pretty high standards.

      So let's explore just how much I'm exaggerating. You already know that mandatory arrests for misdemeanors are a recent invention. It's technically not unconstitutional, but it's a bit of a gray area, and most such arrests are of men, for DV.*

      The range of probable cause has also become broader during the last few decades. Police are trained to look for ANYTHING that MIGHT indicate a crime. Police are also trained to "err on the side of caution" in DV cases. If a violent man is left at home and kills his wife, the chief won't be the only one paying for the bad publicity.

      This is all conveniently rather non-specific though, isn't it? So let's presume for a moment that mandatory arrest laws are fairly innocuous and benign. After all, even the most well-intentioned policies create a little collateral damage. That's just how the cookie crumbles. Now, since at least 70% of domestic violence is mutual, shouldn't all domestic abusers be arrested? (It is mandatory, after all.) Some states thought that was a good and fair idea, so they instituted "dual arrest" policies.

      And we all know what happened when the female arrest rate rose by over 400%, don't we? Women's advocates stepped up on their soapboxes and shouted, "You stop that! You can't go around jailing women willy-nilly, on pissy misdemeanor charges! You're disrupting their lives!" And the policy gods hung their heads in shame and said, "Oh. You're right. We're so sorry. We'll go back to only jailing MEN willy-nilly, on pissy misdemeanor charges. You don't mind, do you, if we disrupt THEIR lives?"

      Yeah. Innocuous and benign. Indeed.

      Are you actually surprised that some of us are standing on soapboxes and shouting, "Stop that! You can't go around jailing MEN willy-nilly, on pissy misdemeanor charges!"

      You can consider it "silly" if you want. I don't.

      *Possibly not most; there's always "drunk and disorderly" and such.

    2. Matt, are you oblivious to the cases of Mr. Vladek Filler in Maine or Mr. Gordon Smith in Delaware?

      Do contact FLAIR and S.A.V.E. services before stating, "The day that my discretion is taken from me is the day that I bounce my badge across my chief's desk. I'm not unusual in this feeling." Unless you plan of following it with some claim that your average cop is below average intelligence or, morally bankrupt.

      But, then again I have witnessed "bad" cops kicking the hell out of people laying flat on their stomache offering no resistance while a bunch of "good" cops looked on and did nothing. And, I will bet they don't discuss what a violent asshole Officer X is in the locker-room incase he or she does go down for their criminal behaviour and other cops think maybe you blew the whistle or even were just too co-operative with those investigating the incident.

    3. For what it's worth, Jason, Matt is from Texas, where citizens generally don't take kindly to their civil rights being trampled, by cops or anyone else. I suspect he is honestly unaware of the scope of what's going on in the rest of the country - where citizens are far more willing to believe that they have to lay down and take it. I think I envy him.

      Thanks for commenting!

  5. And yet again, Suz, I'm being told what we do, by you.

    Look, I'm not a cop who plays the "you don't understand, man! You weren't there!" game. I don't pretend that I've got a secret decoder ring to some special point of view that non-police couldn't possibly understand. But I will continue to point out instances when you are claiming that our SOP is different than what I see in practice, and than what I am practicing. Suz, you were wrong. I pointed that out. You redefined, and were wrong again. You accused me of splitting hairs when I said that you were flat-out wrong. You'll believe Snopes and say you were wrong there (reference your next post), but not a licensed practitioner in the field with lots of university study in the subject at hand to boot.

    So we're done.

    Oh, for what it's worth, a hip-pocket estimate of my arrest rate is probably closer to 2:1 of men to women for assaults. Maybe a little higher. But I go into every case ready to arrest either party, both parties, or no parties. I don't buy what I heard over the radio, and I demand corroborating evidence over she-said/he-said. I'm not unusual.

    1. Know what I like about When Snopes' staff discredits a claim, they use evidence and cite sources. How passe is THAT? *sigh* Bur I have a weakness for the classics. If the sum total of your refutation is "I'm not like that," then I can see that you are indeed done. (Incidentally I wouldn't read your blog if I had reason to believe you might be unethical or a sleazeball.)

      You have access to far more precise data that I do. Look up the stats; I will eat my shirt if you don't see a steady increase over the last 20 years, in the rate of arrests for, and aggressive prosecutions of false or exaggerated DV and rape charges.

      Just about everyone has money to gain by it, from mothers using arrest records to ensure custody of their little pawns, er, children, and the property, child support, alimony, single-head-of-household-tax-credits, and public aid which follow, to the millions of VAWA dollars raked in by state and municipal governments to house and prosecute harmless men (not to mention coaching naive women.)

      [Have you read Mary Kellett's record? It's a textbook example (albeit extreme to the point of obscenity) of exaggerated DV/rape claims run amok.

      The total population of her prosecutorial district is under 80,000; she files charges at a rate of 4-6 times the national average. Or perhaps she's legit and Maine just attracts more than its fair share of perverts...]

      You still haven't told me exactly what I was wrong about. Was it my hyperbole about "no probable cause?" Yes, I believe I admitted that I was exaggerating, as a means of illustrating the, um, "evolving nature" of probable cause standards. I can't give you specifics without doing quite a bit of research, but I can tell you that 30 years ago, when my dad taught Criminal Justice, I helped him grade hundreds of (multiple choice) tests and I read dozens of essays. The standards for probable cause have broadened and the threshold for arrest has been lowered, in most if not all states. Politically ambitious prosecutors and spiteful greedy women are benefiting from this, and innocent men are being financially, academically, socially and professionally ruined by it.

      I can guarantee that if VAWA were to be defunded, and if false accusers were to be publicly identified, prosecuted and sentenced to more than probation, this would all stop immediately; the incentives to railroad men would disappear. The rise and fall of "dual arrest" has proven this; it's perfectly OK, even commendable, to spend millions of You-Go-Girl dollars harassing innocent people, AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT WOMEN.

      Other than a bit of hyperbole, I don't see what I said that was factually incorrect, and I sure don't see what I "redefined." You didn't make either clear, so I don't know what you're arguing against. But yes, whether you work in Mayberry or Gotham City, I was already of the opinion that you're probably not "one of those guys." You don't need to defend your record with your own stats.

    2. "Do you know that there are probably cops in your department who can only exercise discretion on the sly, and do so by telling DV "offenders" to take a walk so as not to be arrested the moment the magic words "he hit me" are spoken?"

      Is this what you're hung up on? Did you catch the word "probably?" If so, here's another probability: Unless your district's arrest rate and prosecution rate for VAWA-related offenses are well below the national average, men are "probably" being prosecuted excessively, in disproportion to their crimes. Two of the variables that can affect those rates are dependent upon the police. The first would be department policies that reject the national trend of the last 25 years, and the second is cops on the street who teach men how to protect themselves from the predation that women are being taught by victims' advocates and social workers.

      To you, is this whole discussion about your own department? Because to me. it's not.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.