#DickHeadDetox : Matt Forney for being an arsenugget

Matt Forney is the dudebro who wrote the “I love insecure women” blog currently making the rounds on Facebook. I’m not going to bother linking to his blog because he doesn’t need the hits. Instead, I’m just going to include a few “choice” paragraphs on his misogynistic drivel about women. Whilst reading below, do remember that the tagline for his blog is “The Man Who Shouted Love at The World”: 

Whenever a girl I’m talking to brags about how she’s “confident” and “strong,” I can feel my dick deflating like a punctured tire. I’d still bang her, of course; a repellent personality doesn’t negate the fact that she has a slammin’ body. But a crucial part of the attraction is lost. I’d be less offended if she ripped a fart in my face.
The idea that women should have self-esteem or need it, beyond a low baseline to ensure they don’t commit suicide or become psycho stalkers, is one of the most disastrous social engineering experiments of the modern era. A woman with excessive confidence is like a man with a vagina. It’s an attribute that is at best superfluous and at worst prevents women from fulfilling their natural biological and social functions.

In order for America to right itself, there needs to be a massive and concerted war on female self-esteem. 

From the moment they’re old enough to speak, girls in America are bombarded with propaganda that artificially boosts their self-esteem. They’re told that they’re shpecial and you-nique because they have an extra X chromosome. They’re told that they’re smart, that they can do anything, that they deserve respect merely for existing. They’re encouraged to derive self-worth not from their inherent feminine nature but from their college degree, their job or the other illusory trappings of achievement in a man’s world.
Combine this with the white-knighting tendencies of fathers and the sexual attention that attractive girls already get from puberty forward and you have a complete social meltdown in the making. 

Here are my reasons why girls should be discouraged from being confident. 

1. Most girls have done nothing to deserve self-esteem.

2. Insecurity is integral to femininity:

Confidence doesn’t give men erections; vulnerability does.

Essentially, “confident” women are incapable of viewing men as human beings.

3. Women don’t want to have high self-esteem.

Feminists can claim that women don’t need men, but their actions put the lie to that; they need us far more than we need them. Girls will all but die without masculine attention. Hell, I’m even starting to think that the feminist agita about “rape culture” is part of this as well. Pushing lies like the claim that one in three women will be raped during her lifetime and their constantly expanding the definition of rape are ways for feminists to indulge their desire for vulnerability in a way that doesn’t conflict with their view of themselves as “strong” and “empowered.”

At the end of the day, there are no Strong, Independent Women™. There are only shrews pleading for a taming. All the posturing, the pill-popping, the whining and demands for “equality”; they’re a cry for help. Girls don’t want the six-figure cubicle job, the shiny Brooklyn 2BR, the master’s degree, the sexual liberation, none of it. They want to be collectively led back to the kitchen, told to make a nice big tuna sandwich with extra mayo and lettuce, then swatted on the ass as we walk out the door.

I say we give them what they want.

I say we give Forney what he’s so clearly demanding: a place on the #DickheadDetox and a lifetime of celibacy. 

Halloween: Let the Xenophobia Commence

Halloween is flat-out my favourite holiday. You get to dress up in stupid outfits and get free candy. What’s not to love?

As a child growing up in Canada, we always had two Halloween costumes: one to wear inside at Halloween parties and one to wear Trick-or-Treating outside when it’s -20c. Dressing up as a witch, skeleton or ghost was considered boring. Over the years, I’ve been a “punk rocker”, Strawberry Shortcake, Barbie rocker, a Ladybug, and a broken heart.* Halloween was a community event with local churches and clubs holding parties for whoever wanted to attend. We always had Halloween parties in school and were allowed to bring in 3 pieces of candy each day to eat at school. As we were not allowed fizzy drinks, crisps, candy or chocolate, this was a big deal! We would go trick-or-treating in massive groups, frequently changing costumes over the course of the night to hit up our neighbours again and again. 

The emphasis here is on community-orientated. Obviously, there are always people who want to ruin things for others by throwing eggs at windows and there are always going to be children and teenagers who, for a variety of social reasons, crave negative attention and act out in [self-] destructive ways but, as with everything, these are a minority.

Until I moved to the UK, I had no idea that Halloween was viewed as anything other than a kid-orientated holiday. Back home lots of people didn’t participate due to religious objections or concerns over the commodification of childhood; like with Valentine’s Day and Easter, Halloween is a just another holiday.

Then I arrived in the UK and discovered that Halloween is the celebration of evil children menacing adults for candy. It’s a horrid nasty holiday imported by hateful Americans who want to destroy the planet and do so by sending plane loads of teenagers to the UK for the sole purpose of causing havoc and destruction on Halloween.

The above might seem a little melodramatic but it’s a snapshot of posts about Halloween that are made on Mumsnet every year. The level of anti-American diatribes are so severe that I now deliberately avoid Mumsnet for the month of October every year. I’ve never understood why it’s acceptable to malign Americans using language that would be immediately considered xenophobic about any other culture or country. I’m not even American [and if anyone gets to be anti-American, it’s Canadians.** After all, we’re the only country to have defeated the US militarily on their own soil***].

I’ve gotten bored defending Halloween from people who have no idea what the origins of Halloween are [here’s a huge hint: google guising]. I’ve gotten bored reading posts by people who seem to think a child rocking up on your door saying trick-or-treat and singing a song is akin to having your knees capped for failure to pay off your gambling debts; although, to be fair, hearing me sing is probably on par with that. But, not 6 year olds.

There are always going to be people who ruin things for others but that doesn’t mean that Halloween itself is an inherently evil tradition. Or, that Americans deliberately invented it with a view to annoying British people.

It’s not acceptable to trash a tradition which is important to others just because you don’t like the country that the tradition originated in [ignoring the whole Festivals of the Dead, All Hallows Eve and guising stuff since they clearly don’t count****].

There are lots of valid reasons to criticise America:

  • imperialism
  • war in Iraq and Afghanistan
  • capitalism
  • racism
  • “War” on drugs 
  • genocide
Your neighbour’s kids being an arse on Halloween is not the fault of the American government or the American people. Frankly, it’s a reflection of the capitalist-patriarchal culture of the UK which others huge swathes of our children. It’s our fault and it is the price we pay for treating our kids like dirt.

And, hey, if you don’t like Halloween, just don’t celebrate it. There is no law that says you have to attend Halloween discos or take your kid guising/ trick-or-treating.

It’s another tradition: celebrate it or not but don’t use offensive language or  ahistorical constructions of reality to dismiss it

*Bonus points for those who can guess what decade I was born in.

**After you’ve listed every country and peoples wherein American policy has resulted in genocide or civil war. But, details. Clearly.

*** Granted this was in 1812 and technically we were a British colony and the invasion of the US which resulted in burning down the White House and cracking the Liberty Bell involved British troops but that’s not really all that relevant.

**** If you like to believe in ahistorical conspiracy theories. Obviously.

#DickheadDetox : Bono for being totally annoying

Actually, there are literally hundreds of reasons why Bono belongs on the #DickheadDetox but most of them are encapsulated by the word annoying. Or, hypocritical. Both are equally valid.

Mostly, he’s on my #DickheadDetox for his decision, and the rest of U2, to take advantage of Ireland’s tax laws and placing a portion of their income in the Netherlands to reduce the amount of tax they pay. Granted, this isn’t exactly new behaviour for rich white men. Everyone knows that tax laws are designed to protect the rich from paying their fair share. Just look at how many corporations pay little to no tax at all. 

The difference between Bono and, say, Phillip Green is that Green doesn’t prance around babbling about an end to world poverty. U2 paying full tax in Ireland would involve a substantial increase to government revenue which could be used to fund healthcare and social programs. Since Ireland isn’t exactly the richest country in the EU, this could have an immediate benefit to the state. 

If Bono wants to dodge taxes, well, there’s not much that can be done about it but please don’t then bang on about an end to world poverty when you have more than enough money and houses that could make a significant change to people’s lives [and this goes for the rest of the entertainment industry and their obsession with hosting “benefit” dinners rather than funding social programs]. 

Capitalism is the reason why the vast majority of people living on this planet live in poverty, many without access to clean water, food and basic sanitation. People who pay for their favourite hat to be flown across the world need to examine their own priorities before lecturing others. 

So, Bono is on the #DickheadDetox 

And, because this still makes me giggle: Peter Walker in the Guardian on the live blog for the Nobel Peace Prize: 

An admin note 

A note, and a warning. If Bono wins, I shall end this live blog immediately and lie down in a darkened room for a while. It’s unlikely – he’s 100/1 with the bookies – but I thought I should mention it. My editors have agreed to this condition.

#DickheadDetox Charlie Sheen for a lifetime of Violence against Women

Charlie Sheen’s networth, according to google, is somewhere in the vicinity of $125 million.  Most of this he has earned after committing numerous physical assaults on a number of women. When people babble on about how men face public humiliation for committing domestic violence, just point them to Sheen who has literally financially profited from committing violence.

There are so many examples of violence perpetrated by Sheen that I could list, these are just some of the “highlights”:

  1. “Accidentally” shooting then partner Kelly Preston in the arm.
  2. Physical assault of an unnamed women in 1994.
  3. The assault on Brittany Ashland in 1997.
  4. The assault and murder threats made against then-wife Denise Richards in 2006.
  5. Multiple accounts of domestic violence against then-wife Brooke Mueller, including a death threat in 2009 which resulted in his children being taken into care.  
  6. Death threats against Capri Anderson in 2010
I have included links to all stories and it is worth reading all of them to see how ingrained victim blaming and the minimisation of male violence actually is. Brittany Ashland and Capri Anderson are both adult film actresses and much of the press focuses on their jobs rather than Sheen’s violence; as we all know women in the sex industry always deserve what they get. * Brooke Mueller and Denise Richards also deserved for having the gall to marry Sheen. You see, it’s their own fault for marrying Sheen in the first place. And, then having the gall to bear his children.

There are lots of references to Sheen’s alcohol and drug addiction. They are always referred to as mitigating factors rather than evidence of Sheen’s destructive behaviour. After all, Sheen was only fired from Two and A Half Men using after insulting The Man in Charge rather than his years of substance misuse and violence. Assaulting women is just not as an important a crime as calling your boss a “clown”.

And, it’s not like violence had a negative impact on Sheen’s career. His salary for Two and A Half men was over a million dollars per episode. After being fired, he jumped straight back into sitcom-land with something called Anger Management.

Sheen has very rarely been prosecuted for his violence and has only occasionally visited rehab. 

Sheen belongs on the #dickheaddetox for violence against women. His supporters belong on it too for glamourising and minimising male violence against women.

*That is obviously sarcasm for those inclined to stalk me.

#DickheadDetox : Russell Brand Redux: Because I’m fucked right off.

I know I only added Russell Brand to the #DickheadDetox on Wednesday but I am now officially fucked off by all the nincompoops lining up to suck his cock because Brand can string a sentence together. This is how celebrity obsessed and pathetic our culture has become. 

People are literally lining up to suck Brand’s cock because he claims to support a revolution; whose revolution is entirely open to interpretation since Brand is never going to 1) give up his privileged position or money; 2) recognise that that group called women are human too; and 3) stop sexually harassing women.

He’s just not. It doesn’t matter that he can hold his own with Jeremy Paxman in an interview. Millions of people can do that and no one’s lining up to let them guest edit the New Statesman.

Let’s be perfectly clear here: Brand has said NOTHING which hasn’t said a million times before by Right-On Dudebros. Hell, he hasn’t said anything more interesting that some of the teenage boys hanging about my local park come up with when stoned. 

Russell Brand is an over-paid wanker with too much time on his hands, not enough knowledge of systemic oppression and no interest whatsoever in finding out.  He lack of knowledge of history is astounding for someone babbling on about revolutions; of course, this is because he isn’t ever going to experience the violence and starvation which accompany revolution. As a wealthy white male, he is unlikely to be rape or tortured or martyred to a cause. He’s unlikely to end up trying to make bread out of flour made from tree bark or eat shoe leather pretending it’s meat. 

If we’re going to make comparisons about revolutions: Russell Brand is the Marie Antoinette of the revolution: well-fed and confused as to what poverty actually entails. 

To those who insist that Brand is some kind of Messiah: read a fucking newspaper [and not one Brand has “guest-edited].

#DickheadDetox Part 1 for Brand is here.

#DickheadDetox : Charles Saatchi for Minimising Male Violence Against Women

Charles Saatchi’s deliberate physical attack on then wife Nigella Lawson is well-documented. There can be no debate about what happened since Saatchi physically assaulted Lawson in public. At least, one would assume that there could be no debate but, as ever, with male violence, especially that perpetrated by rich white men, the apologists rushed out to defend Saatchi and blame Lawson.

The minimising of Saatchi’s criminal act within the national press resulted in numerous posts on the website for the campaign Ending Victimisation and Blame [Everyday Victim Blaming]. Every single one of these posts is a must read:

  1. Nigella Lawson: Domestic Violence in the Public Eye
  2. Saatchi: A Forgiving Man?
  3. Saatchi Delivers the Final Slap in the Face to Nigella
  4. Saatchi: It isn’t working
  5. Apparently, Charles Saatchi is just a bore. The Daily Mail’s response to Saatchi’s Violence*
The minimising never stops though. Saatchi received tremendous sympathy in the press when he announced his divorce. The divorce obviously being Lawson’s fault for not announcing her personal responsibility for being a victim of domestic violence. If only she’d publicly defended Saatchi after he assaulted her, then it would all be fine. After all, violence is always the fault of the victim and Saatchi is just a misunderstood poppet.

Saatchi, having clearly explained how physically assaulting Lawson was all her fault as was the divorce, has now taken to threatening Lawson with public humiliation. At least, a “source” is suggesting that Saatchi will be issuing legal writs explaining why Saatchi was totally justified in physically assaulting Lawson.

So, just to be clear, there is no reason that makes a violent physical assault on a woman acceptable. Ever.

Saatchi and his apologists all belong on the #DickheadDetox for victim blaming and eliding responsibility for male violence.

*This piece was written by men but I included it as part of the full response to the minimisation of Saatchi’s violence.

Dear Mr. Delingpole, Perhaps you would like to address this rape threat?

[screen capped at 4:15 on 26.10.13]
Dear Mr. Delingpole, 

By now, we have all read your deliberate and deeply misogynistic attack on a woman you have misnamed “vomit”. I would have thought someone at such a high level in your profession would know better than to write a deeply offensive personal attack on a woman that contains more than a number of potentially libellous statements, but I was wrong.

Let’s be open and honest here. This is what you wrote:

“I am really, REALLY angry with that stupid blonde cow of a Mother of Dragons from Game of Thrones season 3. She used to be so fanciable. And now she’s just turned all priggish, self-righteous, bullying and, worst, dishonourable. She is RIGHT off my shag list.” 

Many entertaining comments ensued, only to be interrupted by this one from a woman I’d never heard of, with a ridiculous first name which sounds a bit like Vomit. Here’s what she said: 

“Well that is the most disgusting piece of sexist, misogynistic crap I’ve read today and I work for TROLL HAGS ANONYMOUS. You should be ashamed of yourself. You won’t be though.” 

Her organization isn’t really called TROLL HAGS ANONYMOUS, by the way. I’m calling it by a pseudonym because I don’t want to give it any publicity. Basically, its aim is to eradicate misogyny from the internet.

You may think you are a crusader for a great cause. You are not. You are a stinking, loathsome troll. You are the kind of sad loser who seeks attention and personal validation by being seen publicly to take offence over issues you had absolutely no need to be offended by because you could just as easily have shrugged your shoulders and looked the other way. That’s what normal people do in a free society. What you did, Ms Vomit is not normal, not healthy. Again, you and your kind are trolls. Fuck right off, the lot of you.

1. Your comment was misogynistic. Suggesting that women’s main value lies in their fuckability is misogynistic.
2. Referring to a feminist organisation set up to support women who are victims of rape and death threats online as “TROLL HAGS ANONYMOUS” is misogynistic and dismissive. 
3. I’m not entirely sure how you think calling someone a sad loser doesn’t count as libellous; after all, we live in the UK  where the libel laws are fairly weighted on the side of the victim [see every person sued for libel by pharmaceutical companies for suggesting their products are less than stellar]. 
4. I don’t think you quite understand misogyny: women don’t have the choice to “look the other way”. Middle aged white men can ignore misogyny but, women, well, considering the frequency with which we are sexually harassed on the streets, raped, assaulted, insulted and fired for the crime of being born with a vagina, it is slightly more difficult for us to “turn the other cheek”.

Actually, and even with ignoring the personal attack in your blog, it is clear you have no understanding about the structural inequalities in our society. And, why would you? You’re a man and a white one at that. You haven’t experienced the structural inequality since birth. And, you clearly aren’t interested in learning about structural inequalities since your first response to being called out on clearly sexist language is to have a temper tantrum on your blog. 

The target of your attack, Vonny [and not Vomit as you so childishly name her], has already called you out on the misogynistic blog; as has the feminist organisation End Online Misogyny or as you so charmingly called them : TROLL HAGS ANONYMOUS. Personally, I would like to know why you’ve allowed a rape threat to be posted on your blog? I’m sure you’re going to dismiss this as “freedom of speech” and minimise the stalking that the commentator is clearly doing but, well, freedom of speech isn’t the right to be a jackass and allowing threats of rape to remain on your blog reflects rather poorly on you.

You may want to rethink your approach to criticism if it involves childish name-calling and allowing threats of violence to remain on your blog. It’s rather pathetic.

Best, Stewie

Totally New Anti-Rape Advice: Wear a Chastity Belt: AR Wear’s New Anti-Rape Clothing

Yesterday, I received an odd email in response to my new article in the Huffington Post on victim blaming anti-rape campaigns. I’m just going to go out on a limb here and suggest they didn’t actually read my article properly since they responded to it with this: 

We read your article The Huffington Post The Best Way to Prevent Rape: Tell Men to Stop Raping. We agree with many of your arguments but we also think that there needs to be more options for women to protect themselves against rape. That is why we have launched a campaign on Indiegogo to design the first anti-rape clothing line. 

Although this should not be dealt as man vs woman issue but rather a problem of our society in general statistics show that women are much more likely to be the victims of rape. This is why we believe that even though there should be a wider effort to educate our society about rape, there should be options available for women and girls that offer protection as well. 

AR Wear underwear and running shorts is a “concept prototype” that offers women and girls a non-aggressive way of resisting rape even if unconscious. In our video you can see exactly how AR Wear garments work: We strongly believe women should have more options to protect themselves from a possible sexual assault. 

We would love to hear your input on this issue and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me anytime at …*

Honestly, my first reaction to this email was to bang my head off my keyboard. Ignoring the whole missing the point of my article completely angle, anti-rape clothing is just another way of victim blaming women for getting raped rather than dealing with the epidemic of male violence in our culture. It’s nothing more than a new-fangled chastity belt.

There is so much wrong with this brief statement that I am not sure where to start: “non-aggressive way of resisting rape even if unconscious”. Firstly, it presupposes that all victims must “resist”. This is not only inherently unkind but it also ignores that fact that every single women reacts differently to being raped and that there is no one correct way to respond. This myth is one of the reasons that rape convictions are hard to secure. Women who do not “resist” are considered complicit in their rapes. Secondly, there is something wrong with the way “non-aggression” is used in this sentence: rape is a crime of male aggression. Women are also socialised from birth to be non-aggressive. Women who behave in an “aggressive” manner are shamed as aggression is a positive quality in men but negative in women. This statement both reinforces gendered constructions of acceptable femininity whilst implying that women who do not “resist” in an “obvious” way are complicit in their own rapes.

Obviously, I have a problem with the idea of clothing protecting women from rape. Chastity belts did not protect women from rape; and specialist underwear will not protect women from rape. We need a fundamental restructuring of our culture to end rape. Underwear will not do this.

Anti-Rape underwear whose advertising campaigns are based entirely on rape myths will not help protect women or children from rape. They simply reinforce the very myths which make it easier for rapists to rape whilst blaming the victims for being raped. 

This is the tagline for AR Wear: A clothing line offering wearable protection for when things go wrong

Rape is not “something that goes wrong”. It is a crime with a clear perpetrator who chooses to rape. It isn’t an accident. It isn’t a miscommunication. And, it is mostly certainly not “something that goes wrong”. The idea that a company is attempting to profit from women’s fears of rape whilst simultaneously minimising rape as a crime makes me very, very angry. 

I watched their advertising video and was disgusted by the rape myths they are using to promote their product. The following information taken from their website but is a reflection of what is stated in the video:

We developed this product so that women and girls could have more power to control the outcome of a sexual assault. We wanted to offer some peace of mind in situations that cause feelings of apprehension, such as going out on a blind date, taking an evening run, “clubbing”, traveling in unfamiliar countries, and any other activity that might make one anxious about the possibility of an assault. 

Insinuating that women and girls [but not boys?] have the power to control the outcome of sexual violence is victim blaming. The implication is that if you go clubbing or traveling without wearing this product and are raped it is somehow your fault. Women have every right to be anxious about being raped. We are all aware of how common rape is but we do not need more people profiting from our fears and blaming us. We need men to stop raping and men to stop making excuses for rapists. 

We read studies reviewing the statistics of resisting assault, whether by forceful or non-forceful means. We learned that resistance increases the chance of avoiding a completed rape without making the victim more likely to be physically injured. We concluded that an item of clothing that creates an effective barrier layer can allow women and girls to passively resist an attacker, in addition to any other form of resistance they may be able to carry out at the time of an assault.

The video uses the phrase “studies show that resisting sexual assault lessens the chance of a rape taking place without increasing the violence of the attack.” Obviously, they haven’t actually linked any research to support this statement, nor have they linked to any research which states the opposite. They haven’t explained how they came to the conclusion that “an item of clothing” will help women will help women “resist” without increasing the possibility of physical violence. Nope, instead they’ve gone straight to the victim blaming language based on a statement without listing any research to support it. 

It is simply unacceptable and unethical to make such blanket claims about research into rape without even bothering to list what research they have read.

No product alone can solve the problem of violence against women. Nevertheless, a woman or girl who is wearing one of our garments will be sending a clear message to her would-be assailant that she is NOT consenting. We believe that this undeniable message can help to prevent a significant number of rapes.

It’s ever so kind of them to suggest that their product won’t solve the problem of violence against women. It would just be, well, nicer, if they didn’t use yet another rape myth to advertise it. Rapists are not confused about the issue of consent. They are more than aware that the woman or child has not consented. They just don’t care. They choose to rape. It doesn’t matter how many times or ways a woman expresses her lack of consent, rapists rape because they want to. 

Wearing anti-rape underwear won’t make it “clear” to a rapist that they do not have consent. Rapists already know they don’t have consent. It just makes 
women who have been raped feel guilty about being raped.

The video goes one step further than the above rape myths. It uses emotional blackmail to coerce parents into immediately donating money to the Indigogo fundraising page. Preying on the fears of parents to raise money is fairly despicable.

This product won’t help protect women because it doesn’t stop rape. And, using rape myths to sell a product to prevent rape is so very, very heinous.

I’m not really surprised someone has come up with clothing to protect women from male violence. We’ve been taught since birth that we are responsible for being raped because of how we dress, the way we talk, where we work, where we live, our hobbies and even the act of breathing. 

We don’t tell men to stop raping. We just tell women that it’s their fault.

Frankly, if we’re going to get into the underwear to stop rape business, design some underwear for men which will prevent them from raping women; underwear that won’t allow them to use their penis as a weapon in women’s bodies.

And, for the millionth time,

These are the things which do not increase your vulnerability to rape:

  1. Going out in public.
  2. Wearing a black dress.
  3. Running
  4. Drinking alcohol.
  5. Sleeping.
  6. Visiting another country [and there isn’t even the slightest whiff of racism here. Not at all].
These are things which do increase your vulnerability to rape: 
  1. Rapists.

*Identifying details and contact details have been redacted.

#DickheadDetox: Russell Brand Just For Existing

I feel the same way about Russell Brand as I do about Jimmy Carr: both are too intelligent to believe the misogynistic bullshit they spout. They do it because they want to; because they believe that women aren’t really human.

Google the terms “Russell Brand misogyny” and you will see literally thousands of hits detailing the disgusting misogynistic drivel that Brand spouts daily. These are some of the highlights: 

Brand is so dreadful that I can’t bear to actually waste time googling more examples of his behaviour. He is the quintessential right-on Dudebro.
He is a misogynist and he deserves to be on the #DickheadDetox just for existing.

UPDATE: This is a brilliant take down of the Great White Man Syndrome in Salon and another brilliant takedown by Joan Smith

Part 2 of the Russell Brand #DickheadDetox is here.

Welcome to Rape Culture: Cee Lo Green Avoids Rape Charge by Drugging Victim

CeeLo Green has been charged with giving the drug ecstasy to woman without her consent in Los Angeles last July. He then took her back to her hotel room. 

I wrote gave her “the drug ecstasy without her consent”. The BBC wrote “slipped”. Let’s be clear here: the word slipped implies an accident. Deliberately putting a known rape-drug into a woman’s drink without her consent is not an “accident”. It’s a deliberate act of violence in and of itself.* It is also a deliberate act made in order to commit a second act of violence: rape.  

This is the entire article on the BBC website:

Singer and television star CeeLo Green has been charged with giving the drug ecstasy to a woman while the two were dining at a Los Angeles restaurant. 

Mr Green, real name Thomas DeCarlo Callaway, “slipped” the drug to the 33-year-old woman during the meal last July, prosecutors said. 

The two then went back to the woman’s hotel room, authorities said. 

If convicted, Mr Green, 38, faces up to four years in prison. He pleaded not guilty.
Mr Green was charged with one felony count of furnishing a controlled substance, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office said. 

He pleaded not guilty during his arraignment in Los Angeles County court on Monday.
Prosecutors have requested his bail be set at $30,000 (£18,579). He is scheduled to appear in court again on 20 November. 

Mr Green, an Atlanta native who rose to prominence as a member of rap group Goodie Mob, later won fame as a solo artist. He also appears on the NBC reality show The Voice.

What isn’t mentioned: what Green did to the victim after they got back to her hotel room. The victim doesn’t remember because she was drugged to the point of amnesia. It neglects to mention that the prosecutors “declined” to pursue a rape charge because the woman was incapacitated. Even the Daily Mail managed to include that extremely important piece of information, although it was buried in a huge pile of rape myths. There is also no mention of Green’s well-documented history of violence against women. Green has convictions for domestic violence against his ex-wife who divorced him citing mental and physical cruelty. There is at least one other instance of sexual violence which was investigated. 

The Daily Mail article is full of the usual rape myths, many of which came from the police investigating the crime itself. The LAPD has a reputation for being a heteronormative, racist, homophobic, militarised and corrupt institution. It’s not surprising that rape victims don’t report when the police believe that male celebrities have the right to rape whoever they want without punishment.

This is just a brief snapshot of some of the myths in the DM which came from police sources: 
  1. The woman had been dating Green prior to the incident.
  2. The woman in question had a prior sexual relationship with Green.
These are two pernicious rape myths which are responsible for the fact that most rapists never face a criminal trial never mind conviction. The vast majority of rapes are perpetrated by men known to the victim; men who know that their “prior relationship” will be used as evidence that the woman must have consented. It is the reason that rape in marriage is still legal in numerous countries all over the world. Rape in marriage was only criminalised in 1991 in England and Wales [1982 in Scotland].

What the BBC neglected to mention is that Green’s own attorney admits that “sexual contact” took place. Blair Berk just claims it was “consensual”. This is yet another pernicious rape myth: if the woman was so incapacitated by ecstasy that she could not remember what happened, then she could not have consented. 

CeeLo was pleased that the rape charge was rejected and will address the ecstasy charge in court, his attorney Blair Berk wrote in a statement. 

She said any sexual contact between Green and the woman was consensual. 

‘Mr. Green encouraged a full and complete investigation of those claims and he was confident once conducted he would be cleared of having any wrongful intent,’ Berk wrote. She declined further comment.

The above was published in the Daily Mail. It reads as though Green’s attorney is admitting that rape took place but without “wrongful intent”. At what point did deliberately putting a rape-drug into a woman’s drink stop having “wrongful intent”? 

This is rape culture: where a male celebrity cannot be prosecuted for rape for drugging his victim in advance. Where deliberately placing a known rape-drug in a woman’s drink has no “wrongful intent”. Where a woman is in a perpetual state of consent to any man she meets, and no woman can ever revoke consent. Once you have said yes to a man, you can never say no again.

Below are a series of tweets on the case: 

Thank you to Victoria Brownworth for bringing this to my attention.