“Do I deserve to have my bike stolen if I leave it unlocked on the quad?”

Well no. We would still hold the bike thief accountable, even if they put minimal effort into stealing a bike. Sorry, still off-topic.

Isn't this kind of a 'dog bites man' story? I mean, if a member of Congress or a Governor or other public official had said it, that would certainly be news. But "22 year old college kid says something sexist and stupid" strikes me as kinda lightweight as far as newsworthy goes.

Some bikes, with their svelte titanium bodies and bright gleaming paint, are probably asking for it.

Not all men... OW!

2: Being 22 shouldn't get you off the hook for saying something that stupid publically.

Women could prevent rape if they would just take precautions, like wrapping their, uh, "front hole" in a Kryptonite New York Fahgettaboutit Chain with disc lock, and two auxiliary U-locks through their frame and each wheel. And don't forget another chain around your rear stays and your seat.

@2, I mostly agree. Every time another story like this pops up I basically look at the age, roll my eyes, and hope the douche grows out of this mindset quickly. I do however wish colleges would ding these dudes for plagiarism. GET A NEW CRAPPY ARGUMENT, BRO.

(I do think these guys should still be called out on it, I just don't think it's newsworthy)

I've had friends who would walk the streets late at night drunk. They would complain to me about getting rolled. I would explain to them there are predators and there are prey. Predators look for easy prey.

99% seems a little high if we are counting molestation.

@9
Being a woman generally makes women easy prey.

Not all bicycle thieves.

He was just comparing her to a bike because he didn't want to say the "TRIGGER WARNING" word vagina. This article would have been a lot more interesting if he had used the socially accepted term of front hole.

@10 We probably aren't, because the severity and lasting traumatic effects of suffering non-penetrative sexual assault is often played down or brushed aside.

The legal argument he is using is that of a Moral Hazard (but as #1 points out, he uses the wrong analogy).

"An idea that a party that is protected in some way from risk will act differently than if they didn't have that protection."

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/…

So, a man meets a woman who has had two glasses of wine. These glasses of wine have reduced her inhibitions about sex. The man may, or may not know this, or he may think, two glasses...big deal.

However, in this situation, the moman presents a moral hazard to the man.

Her perceived willingness to have sex, combined with the idea that if she appears provocative or says "sexy" things implies to him that she wants sex, that there exists a consent based on her actions. He feels protected in following through.

However, the next day, the woman can make any claim she wants regarding her choice the previous night. The man now must account for this because it was not part of the "contract" the night before and he is not "covered" in any way as he thought.

Remember the Michigan state politician being silenced by her Republican colleagues because they deemed her use of the word "vagina" to be inappropriate?

Chris Herries is the kind of guy who will steal your shit, run an insanely unethical business, and commit an occasional rape all while feeling like it's not his fault it's so easy for a rich white man to get away with all that shit.

If you read the whole article (and I did), yes that was a stupid statement.

BUT, several of the men interviewed said that they were thinking a whole lot more about being with girls at parties and possible ramifications. There is some good in the story and if awareness is being raised, for the better.

@6- You forgot about superglueing full the heads of the allen bolts on the stem/handlebars/shifters/levers/brake calipers. But otherwise nice work keeping that front hole under wraps.

However uneloquently, I think his point is: There are reasonable precautions that we all take to avoid becoming a victim. Not to say that every precaution out there is reasonable.

Assiduously monitoring one's alcohol consumption and sobriety is a reasonable precaution. "Dressing a certain way" is essentially not reasonable (unless we're talking an ascent of Mt. Everest).

As I have said many times - responsibility lies with the bearer of the consequences. It's not about fairness or justice or anything like that. It's not like a thorough prosecution of the assailant, ultimately resulting in a guilty verdict, coupled with appropriate punishment wipes away the impact of being raped, you still have to live with it, and any injuries, unwanted notoriety, etc. Living with the consequences does not make you at fault, it just means that it is ultimately your problem. Not getting shitface drunk is a reasonable request in basically all possible scenarios.

Man or woman, take reasonable precaution to prevent yourself from becoming a victim - of rape, violence, theft, whatever crime it is you wish to avoid. Everyone wins.

#15 Rape apologist.

TRANSLATION: Yeah, all those women -- from 2 to 80 who get themselves raped should apologize to their rapists for leading 'em on, being females with holes and all.

#9 TRANSLATION: Nope, shouldn't bother calling out rape apologists. After all, what could possibly go wrong with that?

"Our culture is broken, and until men take responsibility for their actions, it will remain broken."

rape is basically a constant of human culture for basically ever. so, "our" culture, where rape is becoming frequent, sexual harassment is declining, and women's political and earning power is increasing, isn't broken.

especially compared to the ceaseless parade of horror that is human history.

Word to the wise: don't look at the comments section at Bloomberg. They seem to think that fake rape reports are far more important than actual, you know, rape. Also they want to blame "liberal values" and, somehow, the Democrats. I've always said, if you don't think this country has a sexism problem don't look at the articles on the subject, look at the comments on those articles, and then try to tell me there isn't a problem.

We should move to a blanket rule about consent: If a woman says she did not consent, the only question is whether there was sexual contact. I don't care if she said yes at the time, or no at the time.

What's that? But then crazy women will accuse you of raping them if you sleep with them? Guess what, you shouldn't have slept with them.

Flip the narrative entirely. Make men prevent rape, not women.

@23/sarah71 - you know, I went to great (actually no, it was not a great length, it was a reasonable length, which you completely ignored, which I guess proves that I am wrong. but anyhow) lengths to say the exact opposite:

"Man or woman, take reasonable precaution to prevent yourself from becoming a victim"

#21

That didn't take long.

I figured the name calling and dismissal of all logical though would have begun a lot sooner.

Silly me to try and have a rational argument in SLOG.

@6 "the front hole"

...you mean the urethra? How exactly would that prevent...

OH!! Do you mean the middle hole?

In the analogy, the bicycle is not the woman. The person leaving the bike unattended is the equivalent of the woman. So the comparison is between two humans taking on undue risk (in the opinion of the person quoted). There are legitimate arguments against what was said, but it's incorrect to claim that he was comparing a woman to an object.

@29 yes its everyone else's fault you are a douchebag.

@29: Here's a tip if you want to have a rational argument about rape: Try not referring to a woman who has had two glasses of wine as a "moral hazard".

Here's a tip if you are upset with being called a rape apologist: Try not offering rape apologies in your posts.

Here's a tip if you are worried that your inability to discern if a woman is actually interested in having sex with you could lead to an accusation of rape: Try not having sex with women.

@29 "Silly me to try and have a rational argument in SLOG."
As soon as you make one, we can enjoy a discussion.

@32, I've never left my vagina unattended. The analogy still doesn't hold up.

@31, clearly the correct analogy should be a tricycle... With all the wheels in a row...

Women going out and taking risks in life is like not being locked up for not committing a crime.

And yes, considering there is plenty of sexual assault on college campuses, what this kid said is a big deal. It reflects a much larger attitude problem spewed about by a bunch of fucking enablers. And, no, us women neither need nor want advice on how to "stay safe". Go fuck yourselves.

@36 @39 The analogy is between the crimes of rape and theft. Not between vaginas and bicycles.

I don't agree with the analogy or the opinions of the person making the analogy, but I also don't think it's correct to make fallacious arguments against him.

A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle. Stoopid fish, leaving its bicycle unlocked right in the middle of campus.

Also I would love to see the article's source for its claim that 99% of all rapes are committed by men. All it says are "US Government figures" with no links to support such claims. Which part of the US Government is saying this? The FBI? The DOJ? DOD? CIA? IRS? TSA? Sloppy work, Bloomberg.

@45: So who do you think commits 99% of all rapes? Bicycles?

@45: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.P…

@45 Perhaps you have some real insight to share instead of just snarky bullshit wankery? Yes? No?

@47 Do you have a more recent study you can link? One that isn't from almost 20 years ago?

>Help make your brothers and friends and sons understand that this kind of behavior is not acceptable, and stop making excuses for rapists. Be a man.

Can you stop setting up this dichotomy? I don't know anybody who would rape anybody. That doesn't make me fall on the other side of this. My gender and orientation doesn't make me responsible for others who share those two same things.

Hey asshole (i.e., Paul Constant) as for your line "And men should feel an immense amount of responsibility about sexual assault. Because men commit the vast majority of sexual assaults." I ask you this: shoudl women also feel immense responsibility towards child abuse, considering that most child abuse, a VAST MAJORITY in fact, is committed by women?

"his means that fathers were involved in 36.8 percent of child maltreatment cases and that mothers were involved in 64 percent of child maltreatment cases"
Source: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/userma…

Or is what's good for the goose NOT good for the gander?

And just because a certain group commits more crime, why should members of that same group feel anything? That's the same logic white nationalist types use when they talk about African Americans "committing more crimes" (which has more to do with institutionalized racism created by the wealthy white liberal establishment, of which Paul Constant is a proud member of, then it does African Americans themselves)

With every articles, Paul looks more and more an idiot and a hypocrite. With people like him as your spokesmen, is it any wonder why liberals are poised to loos big in the upcoming elections?

@48 That's pretty funny since you just called yourself out @45.
So.
Do you have anything besides wankery to contribute?

@50 facts and statistics that contradict the Jezebel party line are TOOLS OF THE PATRIARCHY shitlord!

http://time.com/30545/its-time-to-end-ra…

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/econ…

@51 I asked a question that was met with a snarky, dismissive comment on your part, and outdated statistics on the part of @47. You're a retard. Go back to your short bus, kiddo.

@ 53, you think rape has dramatically changed since the 90's?

@ 50, off topic. And disingenuous, given your total silence on Slog on the matter of child abuse, except as a rhetorical device to use in arguments over unrelated topics. Probably fallacious, too. In short, par for the course with you.

@54 Considering the FBI and DOJ's defintion of rape was: “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will" up until 2012, yes I think it's changed a little bit since the 90s.

I hope you realize the old defintion doesn't well serve the injustices suffered by members of the LGBT community that don't fit under that strict qualifier.

The new defintion is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

It's also rubbish at classifying woman-on-man rape, but that's a topic for another day.

@56: do you disagree with the definition you have cited? And do you disagree that the majority of rapes are committed by men? If you do not believe that the majority of rapes are committed by men, then by whom?
And let's be clear saying that most rapists are men is in no way the same thing as saying most men are rapists. This seems to be what many of the gentlemen who wax so defensive seem to think.

Personally I think the new definition is significantly, and obviously better in part because the language is less narrow, and offers avenues of redress for victims of both genders, and persuasions other than Het.
Do we agree Hacksaw?

@Lissa: Adorable bunnies from your avatar. They are the REAL rapists.

Getting too technical, @ 56. By either standard there is little reason to assume men are not the overwhelming majority of offenders, and that is the point upon which this post hangs. If women are in fact committing more rapes than is generally supposed, now is the time to show that.

@58 We do not disagree that the new definition is better. Where we disagree is with the sentiment that 99% of rapists are men. Especially because I'm guessing this is a narrow definition of what constitutes being a man. Are we talking cis man? Trans man? Trans women who are still pre-transition? Genderqueer but biologically-male men? These are details that deserve to be meted out.

The notion that 99% of all rapists are men is more than a little sexist, and probably statistically outdated.

@ 61, are non-cis men enough in number to make a statistical difference? Particularly when most police departments, attorneys general, and prisons are still classifying all arrested and imprisoned as just male and female?

I feel 99% may be an hyperbolic number, and I think you are correct that the existing statistics are using Cis gendered men as the definition of male perpetrators. I don't have a problem with that as I think that the other breakdowns you've posited can be included under the new definition of sexual assault.

"I don't want to be responsible for my actions. So clearly, all college women need to be fitted with locked chastity belts so I can't rape them when they are drunk." said Chris Herries, a senior at Stanford University.

@50 Ok now I just feel sorry for you, apparently not only did your parents beat you with the stupid stick they raped you with it. Get help please.

I feel like this is relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv5pjSRS…

@62: That would be my question as well. And in any event adding these populations to an expanded definition of "men" certainly isn't going to decrease the percentage of rapists that are men.

@59: GRrrrRRRRrr :)

@Lissa: When I was 12, an adult woman tried to rape me. It really pisses me off that you are claiming it wasn't attempted rape because she was female and I was male.

And yes, that's what you're saying. Because the way they arrive at the stat that "99% of rapes are committed by men" is by saying it's only rape when something is inserted into the victim. OF COURSE by that definition almost all "rapes" are committed by men. But I have no use for any definition of "rape" that says child molestation to the point of forced intercourse is not rape.

@69: First, how awful that that happened to you. I had a similar experience at age 12, although my assailant was male. I will never forget his eyes, and I dearly wish that we did not have this thing in common. As you say, the current legal definition of rape is one of penetration. I did not write that definition, and that you have no use for it because it does not cover what happened to both of us under the word “rape” is understandable. I am making no claims what so ever about your experience, and I certainly wouldn’t either tacitly or overtly try to imply that your experience was somehow less heinous, or not a sexual assault because it did not involve penetration and was perpetrated by a woman. Perhaps in time the definition of rape will be, as it already has, be broadened even further, but as it stand now it has not. Again, I had nothing to do with that, but even if it someday it is expanded to cover what happened to us ( which I do hope happens) and more molesters, both male and female are brought to justice as rapists, I doubt that that will change the statistic that most rapist are male.
And again, again, AGAIN! (for the benefit of the peanut gallery) that does NOT in any way shape or form mean that most men are rapists.

The study that I linked to @47 is actually titled "Sex Offenses and Offenders". It includes data on both rape and sexual assault.

The study notes that the definition of rape varies depending on the reporting program or survey. It lists six sources for data; of these, three explicitly define rape as committed against a male or female, two define it as against a person without specifying gender, and one specifies only female victims.

The study explicitly defines sexual assault, distinct from rape, as "statutory rape, forcible sodomy, lewd acts with children, and other conviction offenses related to fondling, molestation, or indecent practices."

Based on the above, it isn't fair to say that the study excludes male victims of rape or sexual assault.

Looking at the offenders, the study notes that of those imprisoned for rape 99.6% are male, while of those imprisoned for sexual assault 98.8% are male.

Clearly, the study doesn't imply that only men can rape or commit sexual assault - it includes 135 women convicted of rape and 651 convicted of sexual assault. But it does make it clear that the vast majority of these crimes are committed by men.

And yes, the study is from 1997. While the definition of rape may have changed since then, if we look at the combined numbers for rape and sexual assault (which I think would encompass the more liberal definitions of rape which may have been adopted since that time), 99.1% of those crimes were committed by men.

Is anyone seriously suggesting that the past twenty years have seen such a significant increase in rape and sexual assault convictions of women that it would have more than jiggled the needle a bit off of the 99% figure? For the numbers quoted in the survey, getting women up to a mere 5% of those convicted of rape and sexual assault would require an increase in convictions of over 500%.

I expect if this had occurred, we'd have read it about by now.

I'm not sure who's nuttier, Constant or the commenters over at Bloomberg. Their perceptions of reality are just so bizarre.

@Lissa: Thanks for your kind words. I, too, am sorry to hear you were attacked. It sounds like you had it worse than I did. I don't think my attacker was malicious. I think it just never occurred to her than a male might not want to take an opportunity to "get" no-strings-attached sex, and so she had a really hard time hearing the word "no".

The definition of rape we're talking about here isn't "the" legal definition of rape. It's just the definition one CDC study used. The definition of rape can vary from state to state in the US, and in Canada, where I live, it's my understanding that "rape" has been abolished as a legal term: we just have different degrees of "sexual assault" now.

To give an example of a very different definition of rape which is also used by a US government agency, a few months ago I was reading an article in the New Yorker about the Maryland penitentiary system. They believe that a prisoner cannot give consent to sex with a guard, because of the imbalance of power between guards and prisoners, and therefore, whenever a guard and a prisoner have sex, the guard has raped the prisoner. So they define many incidents of female guard-male prisoner sex as "rape": incidents that the CDC study would consider as "sexual assault" at most.

I expect that you're right when you say that most rapists are male, but I'm quite sure that it's not as high as 99%. (It can be pretty high without being 99%!) I think that there's a lot of reason to believe that incidents of nonconsensual sex forced on men by women are even more underreported than the other way round. But that would be another, long, post.

And how "rapists" are presented matters. I very much doubt that my attacker ever thought of herself as a rapist, although she knew she could be in a lot of trouble if I complained about her to the police (because playing on that knowledge was how I got her to back off). But she was a "good girl": a college student with good grades. "Everyone knows" that's not who rapists are. If someone had told her that college students with good grades could be rapists, yes, even female college students with good grades, I think she probably wouldn't have wanted to try doing what she tried.

None of this is to say we shouldn't stop taking steps to reduce the incidence of rape against women. We absolutely should. But I reject the model that there's some zero-sum game where attempts to reduce rape against males, or that pointing out that women, too, can be rapists, can only come at the expense of less effort to stop rape against women. I think that these efforts reinforce each other. E.g. feminists pointing out that women who are being raped can have legitimate reasons not to try to resist rape, and that lack of resistance does not stop it being rape, imply that imprisoned men can have legitimate reasons not to try to resist rape, and that lack of resistance does not stop it being rape. And vice-versa.

@73: I have to say Old Crow, you and I are pretty much exactly on the same page.

You know what? All you people who say you don't know anyone who would rape a woman, odds are you know men, more than one, who actually have raped one or more women, that's just a statistical fact. So no, it is not pointless to tell all of you to keep reinforcing the idea that rape in never OK and never ever the woman's fault because you all know men who think the opposite. Your are all the kind of naive, enabling idiots who are the real problem in this world, you're the reason rapists get away with it.

Let me tell you a story, a true story, my cousin is currently serving time in prison for multiple rapes, attempted rapes and assault. No one knew, except his step-mother who figured it out and called the police. He confessed and there is no doubt that he did it. After he was locked up and going through trial (not to determine whether he did it but whether some of the crimes where aggravated or not) it was all over the news and there was an outpouring of rage and anger over the crimes he had committed. That anger was in large part NOT directed at him, but at his female relatives, his sisters, my sisters. People who were angry that my cousin raped women were threatening to rape his sisters to get back at him, after all, his crimes where their fault in the minds of all these men, all these strangers. So pervasive is the idea in western culture that rape is to blame on women that when you can't possibly blame the victims, you blame other women instead of the guy who did it.

@75: Oh my god how awful. Your poor family, and all his victims!
And you are right. It is so hard for people to reconcile that the person they know could be a monster, and that makes it doubly hard for victims.
In addition to the incident at age 12, I was assaulted years later, at knife point. As rapes go, ( I can't believe I'm typing this) it fit the preferred cultural narrative. White virgin, violently attacked by black stranger.
And some one still scrawled SLUT across my door.

For victims of rapists that code to the world as just ordinary guys, that have jobs and play on your softball team or serve you your coffee every morning........how much harder it is for them.
People cannot stand to think that these men, with whom they interact daily could be rapists. It can't be true, they would know, so it isn't true, and that victim must be lying.
And victims like Old Crow, whose attackers were women! Even more so! A nice college girl? A rapist? Unpossible!
Sigh.
It's all so fucked up.

I take the defensive driving approach, when talking about rape to my teenage kids: My son needs to take every precaution to ensure that any sexual activity he engages in is 100% consensual. But my daughter should take reasonable precautions to avoid being in positions where she could be victimized. This does not mean that a rape would ever be her fault, and if she were raped because she had drank too much or dressed a certain way, it would still be the other persons fault.

But it is naive to insist that rape can be avoided simply by the correct assigning of blame for it. Do people ever have accidents even though they follow all traffic rules? Of course they do. Can you avoid some of these traffic accidents that are not your fault by driving defensively? The experts all pretty much say yes.

Should my daughter ever be raped, I am not going to blame her. Or any other rape victim. But as her dad, I am still going to tell her to keep safe when drinking by only doing so with trusted friends. And to not go walking around alone after dark dressed to kill. Etc. Because an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Here is a story and a sight guaranteed to make every white, wealthy liberal man-hater wince:
Woman uses her LEGALLY CARRIED GUN and shoots a would-be rapist.
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/tx-wom…
Not all women carry guns...but if they did, rape would be a thing of the past by dinner time.

@78 - ...
Really. Is that what you think More guns = less rape. Christ that is inane. How, indeed, would you restrict gun ownership to women? 10-16 year olds with guns? ... Ah fuck it, this is not worth teasing apart, your point is completely foolish and naïve.

@78: As a woman, a feminist, a gun owner and a survivor of sexual assault, I beg you; please stop talking about things you do not understand. You are a fool.

@78: No mention of the guns used by those criminals to commit their spree of robberies and other such outrages, eh?

@78- I'm wincing at your stupidity. I just sprained a facial muscle I winced so hard.

You may be the most ignorant, stupidly proud-of-yourself douchebag I've ever encountered.

Thank You Paul,

for choosing to use words which are not irresponsible