The Audition
June 9, 2016 10:56 AM Subscribe
Thank god the Stranger exists to out bullshit like this. No one else would.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:12 AM on June 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:12 AM on June 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
The dude wrote for the Stranger. My daughter knows him fairly well and had scheduled a photo shoot with him a couple of months back, which she had to cancel. Her friend circle is completely rocked by this news and I would be much less than surprised if several of them are going to come forward and say "It happened to me, too".
posted by alltomorrowsparties at 11:22 AM on June 9, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by alltomorrowsparties at 11:22 AM on June 9, 2016 [19 favorites]
Yeah, this dude is apparently very well known in social circles that I'm just barely on the fringes of... and the reaction from way, WAY too many people is one of "wow, he always seemed like a fucking creep, i heard rumors so i'm not surprised about this". WTF, people. Stop enabling the missing stairs in your social circles! You hear lots of rumors about some guy you know? You know women who won't be alone with them? STOP AND ASK YOURSELF WHY.
posted by palomar at 11:24 AM on June 9, 2016 [49 favorites]
posted by palomar at 11:24 AM on June 9, 2016 [49 favorites]
It's especially sickening considering "porn recruiter tricks woman into having sex with him" is, like, THE MOST COMMON FUCKING TROPE IN INTERNET PORN. This life-imitating-art shit1, right here, is what results when privileged young men, raised on rape culture and never held accountable for their actions, get their inspiration from the ubiquitous and horrifyingly misogynistic videos of the PornHub age2.
1NONE of this is to excuse this piece of garbage or to say he isn't 100% responsible for his actions.
2The point here is not "all pornography is evil forever," but Christ, 99% of what's out there is just vile.
posted by duffell at 11:33 AM on June 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
1NONE of this is to excuse this piece of garbage or to say he isn't 100% responsible for his actions.
2The point here is not "all pornography is evil forever," but Christ, 99% of what's out there is just vile.
posted by duffell at 11:33 AM on June 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Ugh, I really hate how "sex-positive" has been perverted and co-opted to mean "young women should happily have sex with whatever dude."
I was excited to see that this is by Sydney Brownstone, who is seriously one of the best young journalists out there. Remember her name!
posted by lunasol at 11:33 AM on June 9, 2016 [36 favorites]
I was excited to see that this is by Sydney Brownstone, who is seriously one of the best young journalists out there. Remember her name!
posted by lunasol at 11:33 AM on June 9, 2016 [36 favorites]
Ugh, I really hate how "sex-positive" has been perverted and co-opted to mean "young women should happily have sex with whatever dude."
"Free Love" in the 60s was co-opted by dudes shaming women for not fucking them so quickly I don't think you can conceivably prove it didn't start as that.
posted by griphus at 11:39 AM on June 9, 2016 [87 favorites]
"Free Love" in the 60s was co-opted by dudes shaming women for not fucking them so quickly I don't think you can conceivably prove it didn't start as that.
posted by griphus at 11:39 AM on June 9, 2016 [87 favorites]
Ugh. I sure hope this doesn't go as things usually do in bohemian circles, where a small number of people get really angry, the dude isn't welcome in a few places for a few months and then almost everyone except the actual victims and their close friends agree to forget because it's awkward to always be saying "everyone is welcome to go to this show/bar/space EXCEPT RAPISTS LIKE THIS GUY AND HE IS BANNED FOREVER".
Ugh, ugh, ugh. What a creep, what a horrible creep.
posted by Frowner at 11:43 AM on June 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Ugh, ugh, ugh. What a creep, what a horrible creep.
posted by Frowner at 11:43 AM on June 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
sydney brownstone has tweeted a screenshot of the rapist's homepage. she also still wants to talk to anyone who has stories about him.
posted by nadawi at 11:46 AM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 11:46 AM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
What's weird to me is the bar for creating porn is so low that this guy and others like him could set up a low budget production company to offer the women jobs after their "auditions" (at ridiculously low pay) and be completely immune to prosecution for rape by misrepresentation as long as they were careful with their initial claims to the women (IE: You can make up to attractive wage per hour etc.). As criminals these guys are sloppy.
posted by Mitheral at 11:51 AM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Mitheral at 11:51 AM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
What would happen if in a completely non-sex-work related field, this dude convinced someone they needed to have sex in exchange for a job or business opportunity, and the job or business opportunity turned out to be false?
Or, there are at least legal repercussions if a manager gets a subordinate to exchange sex for a promotion, aren't there? Even if the promotion is delivered? Or maybe I've been misunderstanding something my whole life and the repercussions for that all involve violations of internal company policy and scandal / PR fallout for a company or manager's career.
posted by XMLicious at 11:54 AM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Or, there are at least legal repercussions if a manager gets a subordinate to exchange sex for a promotion, aren't there? Even if the promotion is delivered? Or maybe I've been misunderstanding something my whole life and the repercussions for that all involve violations of internal company policy and scandal / PR fallout for a company or manager's career.
posted by XMLicious at 11:54 AM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
In which it is discovered how overwhelmingly shitty a lot of the black-letter law on fraud and consent is.
Well, toward the end of her article Brownstone addresses the legal avenues:
posted by cribcage at 11:55 AM on June 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, toward the end of her article Brownstone addresses the legal avenues:
But Figler says that if a prosecutor wanted to seek justice for these women, that prosecutor could try the case as third-degree rape for violating consent. A prosecutor could try to convince a jury that misrepresentation of the material facts didn't allow for "freely" given consent. That same prosecutor could also look at Washington's laws on fraudulent misrepresentation of a business opportunity.That's basically correct in any jurisdiction. This is one of those situations where people talk about passing new laws and I'm skeptical. It's a large and difficult task to propose crafting a law that would address this particular situation in a constitutional way and without creating problematic ripples. On the other hand, it's possible to address this situation under existing laws. The latter is rarely tried, for reasons that often have more to do with available resources than legal feasibility.
posted by cribcage at 11:55 AM on June 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
seems to me the reasons are far more about rape culture than resources.
posted by nadawi at 11:56 AM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 11:56 AM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't think you can separate those two. Rape culture, so to speak, is a major part of the reason why prosecuting a case like this—or passing a new law to address a case like this—would require significant resources.
posted by cribcage at 11:58 AM on June 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by cribcage at 11:58 AM on June 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
resources is also the excuse given when rape kits get forgotten/thrown out/never tested. it's not a resources problem though, it's a priorities problem. justice for women being raped is not a priority in our society or our judicial system. i understand feeling nervous about new laws, and i also don't much think it'd help, but i understand the impulse when we're constantly told that there's just nothing the system can do - sorry ladies, your rape isn't rape-y enough to mess with - over and over and over again.
posted by nadawi at 12:02 PM on June 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 12:02 PM on June 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted. Sorry, let's steer clear of any remotely doxx-y stuff, including "here's a link to someone who isn't the guy, but some people might confuse them", which ends up still throwing a weird spotlight on some random person.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:02 PM on June 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:02 PM on June 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
A prosecutor could try to convince a jury that misrepresentation of the material facts didn't allow for "freely" given consent.
Point of fact: this would be the same kind of law that allows people to be charged with rape if they don't disclose their HIV status, i.e., "you lied to me about being HIV positive and I wouldn't have had sex with you if I had known".
I'm actually in favor of prosecuting people who use deception as a way to get sex, but just be aware that you'll be running up against a bevy of rights-groups if you support that as well.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 12:05 PM on June 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Point of fact: this would be the same kind of law that allows people to be charged with rape if they don't disclose their HIV status, i.e., "you lied to me about being HIV positive and I wouldn't have had sex with you if I had known".
I'm actually in favor of prosecuting people who use deception as a way to get sex, but just be aware that you'll be running up against a bevy of rights-groups if you support that as well.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 12:05 PM on June 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
XMLicious: that's a good point, but I'd presume that would be more of a civil sexual harassment matter than a criminal case of sexual assault?
This guy is beyond shitty and should be in jail for what he did, which was IMHO, serial rape, but I do question where you draw the line? If pretending to be a porn recruiter is over the line, and I feel that it is, then what about pretending to be a lawyer when you work fast food? Pretending to be a lawyer when you're in your final year of law school? Pretending you have a sports car when you rented it for the night? Shaving a few years off your age? All crappy things to do to someone else, absolutely, but are they all rape?
Ultimately, how do you decide what misrepresentations could be material to someone deciding to have sex with you? What's sex through fraud and what's, as Scrubs put it, doling out your crazy in little pieces? Could someone turn around and say you should have disclosed depression, or schizophrenia, or cancer, as they might not have started a relationship with you had they known about your illness?
In terms of a black letter law, I guess I'm just not sure how you define it.
posted by zachlipton at 12:08 PM on June 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
This guy is beyond shitty and should be in jail for what he did, which was IMHO, serial rape, but I do question where you draw the line? If pretending to be a porn recruiter is over the line, and I feel that it is, then what about pretending to be a lawyer when you work fast food? Pretending to be a lawyer when you're in your final year of law school? Pretending you have a sports car when you rented it for the night? Shaving a few years off your age? All crappy things to do to someone else, absolutely, but are they all rape?
Ultimately, how do you decide what misrepresentations could be material to someone deciding to have sex with you? What's sex through fraud and what's, as Scrubs put it, doling out your crazy in little pieces? Could someone turn around and say you should have disclosed depression, or schizophrenia, or cancer, as they might not have started a relationship with you had they known about your illness?
In terms of a black letter law, I guess I'm just not sure how you define it.
posted by zachlipton at 12:08 PM on June 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
On the other hand, it's possible to address this situation under existing laws.
I don't think it would be. Rape-by-deception is almost universally (in the US) taken to mean something like pretending to be an actual person. Like pretending to be somebody's spouse in order to get them to have sex with you. Not lying about profession or whatever. There are huge issues to be overcome/addressed if this kind of thing is made illegal. It's not as simple as "if you lie about something important consent cannot be given freely".
posted by Justinian at 12:10 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think it would be. Rape-by-deception is almost universally (in the US) taken to mean something like pretending to be an actual person. Like pretending to be somebody's spouse in order to get them to have sex with you. Not lying about profession or whatever. There are huge issues to be overcome/addressed if this kind of thing is made illegal. It's not as simple as "if you lie about something important consent cannot be given freely".
posted by Justinian at 12:10 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Broader point of fact: it's probably impossible to reconcile a society that encourages (almost) unlimited sexual freedom with a society that also protects women. As griphus points out, even in a free-love environment, men will still manage to maneuver themselves to have ultimate (but purely consensual!) power over women.
We need a new sexual ethics.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 12:12 PM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
We need a new sexual ethics.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 12:12 PM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
it's not a resources problem though, it's a priorities problem.
Again, you can't separate those two. Every jurisdiction has a limited number of prosecutors, a limited number of trial dates, a limited number of available jurors. A case like this almost certainly will go to trial (for a number of specific reasons, but for brevity's sake we can take your tack and just use the umbrella term "rape culture"), which means considerable resources are being spent on this case instead of other cases. Yes, obviously that's a priority issue. Every resource issue is a priority issue, and vice versa.
I'm not following where you're finding a point of disagreement.
There are huge issues to be overcome/addressed if this kind of thing is made illegal.
There are two questions. The first is whether we are going to pass a new law addressing this type of situation. You're right, that would implicate big, broad issues. The second, alternative question is whether we can use existing laws to address this type of situation. I think we can—and to nitpick a little, I don't think that would require overcoming huge issues, but I agree it would require a huge act of overcoming issues. Somebody would need to spend a lot of time on this single case, and almost certainly at multiple levels (pretrial, trial, appeal).
posted by cribcage at 12:15 PM on June 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Again, you can't separate those two. Every jurisdiction has a limited number of prosecutors, a limited number of trial dates, a limited number of available jurors. A case like this almost certainly will go to trial (for a number of specific reasons, but for brevity's sake we can take your tack and just use the umbrella term "rape culture"), which means considerable resources are being spent on this case instead of other cases. Yes, obviously that's a priority issue. Every resource issue is a priority issue, and vice versa.
I'm not following where you're finding a point of disagreement.
There are huge issues to be overcome/addressed if this kind of thing is made illegal.
There are two questions. The first is whether we are going to pass a new law addressing this type of situation. You're right, that would implicate big, broad issues. The second, alternative question is whether we can use existing laws to address this type of situation. I think we can—and to nitpick a little, I don't think that would require overcoming huge issues, but I agree it would require a huge act of overcoming issues. Somebody would need to spend a lot of time on this single case, and almost certainly at multiple levels (pretrial, trial, appeal).
posted by cribcage at 12:15 PM on June 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
if sexual freedom is the problem, how do you explain all the rape in extremely conservative religious circles? my first rape was by a mormon priesthood holder and covered up by the mormon clergy. i promise you it's not because they really clung to free-love as an ideology. it seems to me that in all environments, men who are rapists and those who cover for them are the problem.
posted by nadawi at 12:16 PM on June 9, 2016 [53 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 12:16 PM on June 9, 2016 [53 favorites]
Oh, to hell with this disgusting rapist. He's been a known quantity for years. Men like this aren't even missing stairs, they're black holes wrapped in a warm embrace of willful ignorance. "But he's so talented!" "I've known him for so long and he's never been weird to me!"
And stealing the name of his pre-pubescent crush to coerce young women into consenting to sex with him under demonstrably false pretenses? There has to be some kind of superlative beyond "creepy" to describe him. How unfathomably shitty it must be for her to have her maiden name tied to this piece of garbage for no reason other than that he's spent the past couple-few decades nursing a grudge over her failure to reciprocate his affections in middle school.
Ugh, I really hate how "sex-positive" has been perverted and co-opted to mean "young women should happily have sex with whatever dude."
griphus touched on this already, but I'm pretty sure this is what it's meant since almost the very beginning. Straight dudes have historically displayed a great deal of enthusiasm when it comes to derailing concepts tangentially related to female liberation from their intended purpose in order to recycle them into a way to increase women's sexual availability to men.
I want to address the "omg slippery slope" thing but I just can't today. Not enough energy. Hopefully one of my Crone Island sistren can head off this round. (TIA, I owe you a pitcher of margaritas)
posted by amnesia and magnets at 12:17 PM on June 9, 2016 [48 favorites]
And stealing the name of his pre-pubescent crush to coerce young women into consenting to sex with him under demonstrably false pretenses? There has to be some kind of superlative beyond "creepy" to describe him. How unfathomably shitty it must be for her to have her maiden name tied to this piece of garbage for no reason other than that he's spent the past couple-few decades nursing a grudge over her failure to reciprocate his affections in middle school.
Ugh, I really hate how "sex-positive" has been perverted and co-opted to mean "young women should happily have sex with whatever dude."
griphus touched on this already, but I'm pretty sure this is what it's meant since almost the very beginning. Straight dudes have historically displayed a great deal of enthusiasm when it comes to derailing concepts tangentially related to female liberation from their intended purpose in order to recycle them into a way to increase women's sexual availability to men.
I want to address the "omg slippery slope" thing but I just can't today. Not enough energy. Hopefully one of my Crone Island sistren can head off this round. (TIA, I owe you a pitcher of margaritas)
posted by amnesia and magnets at 12:17 PM on June 9, 2016 [48 favorites]
I do question where you draw the line? If pretending to be a porn recruiter is over the line, and I feel that it is, then what about pretending to be a lawyer when you work fast food? Pretending to be a lawyer when you're in your final year of law school? Pretending you have a sports car when you rented it for the night? Shaving a few years off your age? All crappy things to do to someone else, absolutely, but are they all rape?
Where in those scenarios does the person in question use the lie to coerce someone into having sex with them under the pretense that doing so is a requirement for a job?
posted by palomar at 12:17 PM on June 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
Where in those scenarios does the person in question use the lie to coerce someone into having sex with them under the pretense that doing so is a requirement for a job?
posted by palomar at 12:17 PM on June 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
As griphus points out, even in a free-love environment, men will still manage to maneuver themselves to have ultimate (but purely consensual!)
Just to be clear, everything I've read/heard indicates that the tenets of Free Love were often used by men in place of actual consent in the same sense that "she's my wife" was/is frequently used in place of actual consent.
posted by griphus at 12:17 PM on June 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Just to be clear, everything I've read/heard indicates that the tenets of Free Love were often used by men in place of actual consent in the same sense that "she's my wife" was/is frequently used in place of actual consent.
posted by griphus at 12:17 PM on June 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
The whole story is fractally awful, but the part that's REALLY getting to me is the part where he's created this alias to convince his targets that it's actually a woman with their best interests in mind, and then... he just keeps using the same alias. And his real name, for the actual shoots. Like, he knows he has to go to some lengths to conceal his motives, but once he's created a paper-thin pretense, he doesn't go to any extra effort to conceal that he's the one committing the actual sexual misconduct. Because he's already pretty widely known as a creep and a guy who will do or say anything for sex, and he's never gotten in any legal trouble for it. He's reached the point where he's basically daring law enforcement to do anything about it, and he's right: they're not going to do anything.
posted by Mayor West at 12:29 PM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Mayor West at 12:29 PM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Somebody would need to spend a lot of time on this single case, and almost certainly at multiple levels (pretrial, trial, appeal).
I think if somebody manages to get this in under current laws it would be by focusing on the fact that he's claiming specifically that having sex with him is a requirement for a job of some sort. Not just "I'm a big shot movie producer and could really help out your career in Hollywood". Not "I'm a super awesome rich lawyer (and not an unemployed schlub, trust me)." But specifically you must have sex with me to get a job.
That could maybe differentiate it from broader issues involving lying.
posted by Justinian at 12:33 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think if somebody manages to get this in under current laws it would be by focusing on the fact that he's claiming specifically that having sex with him is a requirement for a job of some sort. Not just "I'm a big shot movie producer and could really help out your career in Hollywood". Not "I'm a super awesome rich lawyer (and not an unemployed schlub, trust me)." But specifically you must have sex with me to get a job.
That could maybe differentiate it from broader issues involving lying.
posted by Justinian at 12:33 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
XMLicious: that's a good point, but I'd presume that would be more of a civil sexual harassment matter than a criminal case of sexual assault?
At the beginning of the OP article its says
so that was my line of thinking in terms of how it could at least be pursued as fraud, if indeed either of those other situations would result in legal consequences.In hindsight, they consider what happened to them sexual assault or fraud.
posted by XMLicious at 12:33 PM on June 9, 2016
It also sounds from the article like he got the women really drunk before initiating sex, so there are potentially clearer grounds for a rape charge than just misrepresentation of a job requirement.
posted by grumpybear69 at 12:41 PM on June 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 12:41 PM on June 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
if sexual freedom is the problem, how do you explain all the rape in extremely conservative religious circles? my first rape was by a mormon priesthood holder and covered up by the mormon clergy. i promise you it's not because they really clung to free-love as an ideology. it seems to me that in all environments, men who are rapists and those who cover for them are the problem.
Agreed; under any system we've tried so far in which men hold the lion's share of power, rape finds a way.
posted by jamjam at 12:51 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Agreed; under any system we've tried so far in which men hold the lion's share of power, rape finds a way.
posted by jamjam at 12:51 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
according to comments on the article, he also used to try to get 14 year old girls back to his apartment in olympia by promising them beer. this guy's victim list is likely very, very long.
posted by nadawi at 1:13 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 1:13 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Multiple friends of mine are involved i this, at least on the fringes. He contacted a number of people i know propositioning them for this with his bullshit fake account. I also knew of this guy, as in that he existed and worked with the stranger and bla bla bla.
To people asking about the missing stair thing, there's a couple things to note here:
1. This guy kept a low profile. He was a background "oh yea i know that guy" sort of well connected dude
2. He had a certain amount of social status, in that there's people who didn't unfriend him and backed him up as "cool" because he got their bands booked at venues, etc.
3. following 1 and 2, people DONT TALK ABOUT THIS STUFF HERE. I don't know how bad this is other places, and it might be about the same, but one of the things i've noticed in Seattle is that posts about stuff like the stanford case get tons of support and "FUCK THAT GUY", but any discussion of local stuff is always met with disdain or is ~stirring drama~ and gets pushback unless it's in private groups/spaces, offline, or on social media in some restricted way(ie: a private profile with a very curated friends list, private blog, etc)
Any time anyone tries to call a guy like this out as a creep early on, a ton of people come out of the woodwork to start a fight. So... These discussions happen in private, among close friends.
It's hard to know someone is a missing stair when no one even talks about avoiding them. It's more a loose floorboard.
Of course when an article like this comes out it opens the floodgates, but the default goes way beyond "oh yea that guys a creep". I didn't even hear any of that, and i'm pretty plugged in to those discussions.
Once someone is ~cool~ no one wants to be the one to shit on them and get hit with the backdraft. I completely understand, of course, and don't blame the people who were hurt and dont want to be re-victimized by that garbage but... It COMPLETELY works in those peoples favor, and is part of their armor.
I've been watching a sea change in this locally over the past year or two, where people are REALLY being taken to task and quickly more and more often... But the lumbering beast is still dragging along.
Ugh. I sure hope this doesn't go as things usually do in bohemian circles, where a small number of people get really angry, the dude isn't welcome in a few places for a few months and then almost everyone except the actual victims and their close friends agree to forget because it's awkward to always be saying "everyone is welcome to go to this show/bar/space EXCEPT RAPISTS LIKE THIS GUY AND HE IS BANNED FOREVER".
Seattle, or at least the community i'm part of within it has reached a serious breaking point with this where people are too damn mad. People get 86'd and are 86'd. There's already a list of bars and venues and coffee shops and such this guy is banned from, just like people who pissed all over a table or something.
I've seen a couple people get outed and kicked out of a ton of places recently, and it seems to work and stick. People are just too damn tired of what you're describing(which i watched happen for years and years and years).
Will there still be a few places that sympathetic friends work at where he can go drink a beer and be a creep? yea. But there's a definite real persona non grata going on here, not just the old "oh yea, fuck that guy..." that kinda sticks and then slides off after a few months.
posted by emptythought at 1:28 PM on June 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
To people asking about the missing stair thing, there's a couple things to note here:
1. This guy kept a low profile. He was a background "oh yea i know that guy" sort of well connected dude
2. He had a certain amount of social status, in that there's people who didn't unfriend him and backed him up as "cool" because he got their bands booked at venues, etc.
3. following 1 and 2, people DONT TALK ABOUT THIS STUFF HERE. I don't know how bad this is other places, and it might be about the same, but one of the things i've noticed in Seattle is that posts about stuff like the stanford case get tons of support and "FUCK THAT GUY", but any discussion of local stuff is always met with disdain or is ~stirring drama~ and gets pushback unless it's in private groups/spaces, offline, or on social media in some restricted way(ie: a private profile with a very curated friends list, private blog, etc)
Any time anyone tries to call a guy like this out as a creep early on, a ton of people come out of the woodwork to start a fight. So... These discussions happen in private, among close friends.
It's hard to know someone is a missing stair when no one even talks about avoiding them. It's more a loose floorboard.
Of course when an article like this comes out it opens the floodgates, but the default goes way beyond "oh yea that guys a creep". I didn't even hear any of that, and i'm pretty plugged in to those discussions.
Once someone is ~cool~ no one wants to be the one to shit on them and get hit with the backdraft. I completely understand, of course, and don't blame the people who were hurt and dont want to be re-victimized by that garbage but... It COMPLETELY works in those peoples favor, and is part of their armor.
I've been watching a sea change in this locally over the past year or two, where people are REALLY being taken to task and quickly more and more often... But the lumbering beast is still dragging along.
Ugh. I sure hope this doesn't go as things usually do in bohemian circles, where a small number of people get really angry, the dude isn't welcome in a few places for a few months and then almost everyone except the actual victims and their close friends agree to forget because it's awkward to always be saying "everyone is welcome to go to this show/bar/space EXCEPT RAPISTS LIKE THIS GUY AND HE IS BANNED FOREVER".
Seattle, or at least the community i'm part of within it has reached a serious breaking point with this where people are too damn mad. People get 86'd and are 86'd. There's already a list of bars and venues and coffee shops and such this guy is banned from, just like people who pissed all over a table or something.
I've seen a couple people get outed and kicked out of a ton of places recently, and it seems to work and stick. People are just too damn tired of what you're describing(which i watched happen for years and years and years).
Will there still be a few places that sympathetic friends work at where he can go drink a beer and be a creep? yea. But there's a definite real persona non grata going on here, not just the old "oh yea, fuck that guy..." that kinda sticks and then slides off after a few months.
posted by emptythought at 1:28 PM on June 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
Dismantling of one repressive power structure does not necessarily entail the dismantling of any others. A few excerpts from the introduction to The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism, Edited by Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice G. Raymond, 1990:
To sexual liberals, sexuality is not a construct of culture that reflects and reinforces a culture's values including its devaluation of women, as feminists contend, but an icon of nature, so fragile that any analysis, criticism, or attempt at change threatens not only the existence of human sexuality but everyone's freedom.I've only started reading, so I can't comment on any of the essays within. Like Tyrant King Porn Dragon above I have recently wondered how to reconcile the idea of free and open society with a non-oppressive one. I'd like to think it's possible, but the prospect seems difficult. Leidholdt also raises an important point about this conflict that really struck me:
Conflict between feminists and sexual liberals is nothing new. Indeed, the two groups have been at odds from the beginning of the second wave of feminism in the 1960s, if not before. The early consciousness-raising groups and the activism and publications they generated squarely confronted the sexual attitudes and mores of liberal and left-wing men. In Notes from the First Year, for example, a collection of essays published by New York Radical Women in 1968, Shulamith Firestone identified and then dissected what she called "the seeming freedoms" for women championed by so-called progressive men. At the top of her list was sexuality:As for sex itself, I would argue that any changes were as a result of male interests and not female. . . . A relaxing of mores concerning female sexual behavior was to his advantage; there was a greater sexual supply at a lower or nonexistent cost. But his attitudes haven't changed much.
[T]he civil libertarians' philosophy [...] considers the state the principal and often the sole threat to human freedom—a good that flourishes as long as the power of the state over the individual is kept in check. In this analysis, freedom is distinct from social and political equality. Although this philosophy accurately describes the situation of white men in this country, it has never been applicable to the situation of minorities and women. For members of these groups, social and political equality is a precondition of freedom. Moreover, for minorities and women, the state is no greater an obstacle to equality than many nongovernmental institutions and organizations. (emphasis my own)posted by Freelance Demiurge at 1:34 PM on June 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
This might be naïve, but isn't the key to making a society that's sexually and otherwise liberated but also non-oppressive to women (and others) to remove the power imbalances, structural and otherwise? If there's no power imbalance, everyone can do what they want, everyone can hit on everyone else and be turned down or not based on what that other person wants, and there's no real reason anyone should be uncomfortable or feel obligated to do something they don't really want.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:07 PM on June 9, 2016
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:07 PM on June 9, 2016
I have a hard time seeing what this guy did to the women involved in the article as rape (except, of course, for the at least one woman who he plied with alcohol first)
I don't think that we want our existing criminal laws (or to pass new ones) to be used to punish people for being dishonest with sexual partners.
Like yeah, he catfished them, but if they gave sober, non-coerced*, continuing consent throughout the encounters, what do we want the law to actually do?
*I don't really buy the argument that this particular deception rises to the level of coercion
It sounds like he did, however, rape at least one of these women, and it's yet another example of the legal system failing women that he is not already being procescuted for that.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:08 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think that we want our existing criminal laws (or to pass new ones) to be used to punish people for being dishonest with sexual partners.
Like yeah, he catfished them, but if they gave sober, non-coerced*, continuing consent throughout the encounters, what do we want the law to actually do?
*I don't really buy the argument that this particular deception rises to the level of coercion
It sounds like he did, however, rape at least one of these women, and it's yet another example of the legal system failing women that he is not already being procescuted for that.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:08 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ugh, I'm so sick of the "I mean, if we started prosecuting rape by deception, then we wouldn't be able to lie about our jobs to women to get them to sleep with us anymore!"
YES.
YES YOU SHOULD NOT BE LYING PEOPLE INTO SEX.
STOP IT RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.
It doesn't matter why you think you have good reasons to lie. If you are lying to a person you are considering having sex with, just decide whether lying is more important or sexing them is more important. It is not okay to trick women into sex and there is so much bullshit entitlement in the idea that no, men totes deserve to lie to women to get them to sleep with them because otherwise how would they get sex?
DO NOT CARE. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SEX.
posted by corb at 2:13 PM on June 9, 2016 [84 favorites]
YES.
YES YOU SHOULD NOT BE LYING PEOPLE INTO SEX.
STOP IT RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.
It doesn't matter why you think you have good reasons to lie. If you are lying to a person you are considering having sex with, just decide whether lying is more important or sexing them is more important. It is not okay to trick women into sex and there is so much bullshit entitlement in the idea that no, men totes deserve to lie to women to get them to sleep with them because otherwise how would they get sex?
DO NOT CARE. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SEX.
posted by corb at 2:13 PM on June 9, 2016 [84 favorites]
"If you want to be considered for this job you have to fuck me" would be considered coercion in any other context. Is it because it's sex work that this is okay? Does it matter that this guy has no connections to anyone in the porn industry, that the job being promised does not exist? Or are we just going to shrug and go "welp, too bad, so sad" because women should be smarter than to believe anything men ever say to us?
posted by palomar at 2:21 PM on June 9, 2016 [39 favorites]
posted by palomar at 2:21 PM on June 9, 2016 [39 favorites]
Saying you must do "___" if you want a job, when there is actually no job on offer, is what coercion is. If you are defending this you need to take a step back and think about stuff quietly.
posted by bleep at 2:23 PM on June 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by bleep at 2:23 PM on June 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
To be clear, I strongly believe that lying to convince someone to have sex with you is an incredibly shitty thing to do. It is something horrible people do and they leave a trail of pain and destruction in their wake. Some forms of it are already rape in some states and should be in every state, such as tricking someone into thinking you're a spouse or partner.
My question is just where do we draw the line in terms of what actually constitutes criminal sexual assault, vs unethical garbage person behavior? It's obviously somewhere well in between impersonating someone's partner in a dark room and "no you look great in that dress," and figuring out where to set that line is an important part of the conversation.
To me, the coercive and employment aspects of this case make it much worse too, and I'm not sure how that gets incorporated into sexual assault law vs normal laws about fraud in business. This guy sure feels like a rapist, not a contractor handing out bids he has no intention of honoring.
posted by zachlipton at 2:25 PM on June 9, 2016
My question is just where do we draw the line in terms of what actually constitutes criminal sexual assault, vs unethical garbage person behavior? It's obviously somewhere well in between impersonating someone's partner in a dark room and "no you look great in that dress," and figuring out where to set that line is an important part of the conversation.
To me, the coercive and employment aspects of this case make it much worse too, and I'm not sure how that gets incorporated into sexual assault law vs normal laws about fraud in business. This guy sure feels like a rapist, not a contractor handing out bids he has no intention of honoring.
posted by zachlipton at 2:25 PM on June 9, 2016
Saying you must do "___" if you want a job, when there is actually no job on offer, is what coercion is.
Doesn't coercion usually involve some sort of threat? I would call that some sort of fraud, probably theft of services by misrepresentation, if it wasn't about sex.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:27 PM on June 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Doesn't coercion usually involve some sort of threat? I would call that some sort of fraud, probably theft of services by misrepresentation, if it wasn't about sex.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:27 PM on June 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Like yeah, he catfished them, but if they gave sober, non-coerced*, continuing consent throughout the encounters, what do we want the law to actually do?
Sex and rape are loaded concepts, so let's remove them from the equation for a moment. Consider a parallel hypothetical. You are an aspiring landscaper. Tom tells you, "I run a landscaping company, and I hire aspiring landscapers. If you mow my lawn as an audition, then I will probably hire you." Based on that statement, you mow Tom's lawn. Later you discover Tom has no affiliation with any landscaping company. He's just a guy who conned you into mowing his lawn.
There's a spectrum of responsibility. At one end, you probably have some responsibility to perform due diligence when somebody asks you to perform free work as an audition. But at the other end, Tom certainly has a responsibility not to make affirmative misrepresentations in order to con people into performing free services. We might disagree about when we want the law to intervene and how, but can we all start from the common agreement that we do want the law to play some role, somewhere on this spectrum?
Now add sex back into the equation. Understand that this complicates the equation considerably, for a variety of reasons including (1) rape culture, and (2) our pretend refusal to connect sex with commerce. If we examine the interaction from the other side entirely—sex first, removing commerce from the equation—then we're in the realm of criminal law and it's equally complicated. But I do think we can all probably agree that somehow, we want the law to play a role in interactions like this.
posted by cribcage at 2:28 PM on June 9, 2016 [28 favorites]
Sex and rape are loaded concepts, so let's remove them from the equation for a moment. Consider a parallel hypothetical. You are an aspiring landscaper. Tom tells you, "I run a landscaping company, and I hire aspiring landscapers. If you mow my lawn as an audition, then I will probably hire you." Based on that statement, you mow Tom's lawn. Later you discover Tom has no affiliation with any landscaping company. He's just a guy who conned you into mowing his lawn.
There's a spectrum of responsibility. At one end, you probably have some responsibility to perform due diligence when somebody asks you to perform free work as an audition. But at the other end, Tom certainly has a responsibility not to make affirmative misrepresentations in order to con people into performing free services. We might disagree about when we want the law to intervene and how, but can we all start from the common agreement that we do want the law to play some role, somewhere on this spectrum?
Now add sex back into the equation. Understand that this complicates the equation considerably, for a variety of reasons including (1) rape culture, and (2) our pretend refusal to connect sex with commerce. If we examine the interaction from the other side entirely—sex first, removing commerce from the equation—then we're in the realm of criminal law and it's equally complicated. But I do think we can all probably agree that somehow, we want the law to play a role in interactions like this.
posted by cribcage at 2:28 PM on June 9, 2016 [28 favorites]
Doesn't coercion usually involve some sort of threat?
Sure, the threat is "if you don't, I won't hire you." Or more typically "if you don't, I'll fire you."
But I do think we can all probably agree that somehow, we want the law to play a role in interactions like this.
I think the only question is whether it fits best under current law as fraud or as rape-by-deception.
posted by Justinian at 2:34 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sure, the threat is "if you don't, I won't hire you." Or more typically "if you don't, I'll fire you."
But I do think we can all probably agree that somehow, we want the law to play a role in interactions like this.
I think the only question is whether it fits best under current law as fraud or as rape-by-deception.
posted by Justinian at 2:34 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Rape is sex without consent. If you lied you didn't get consent. This thread is creepy as hell.
posted by bleep at 2:36 PM on June 9, 2016 [39 favorites]
posted by bleep at 2:36 PM on June 9, 2016 [39 favorites]
"If you want to be considered for this job you have to fuck me" would be considered coercion in any other context.
That's sexual harassment, which is not a crime, but for which there are civil causes of action.
Saying you must do "___" if you want a job, when there is actually no job on offer, is what coercion is.
That's fraud, which can be a crime, and for which there are civil causes of action. Coercion would be "you must do ___, which is not your job, or you'll lose your job." If you want to make the argument that all porn auditions (assuming, of course, that real porn auditions require sex I honestly don't know) are coercive (because women are being made to have sex in order to get a job), that's at least a coherent argument (but one that's also hard to make unless you want to ban all sex work).
Consider a parallel hypothetical...
I had actually typed up a hypothetical that was similar to the landscaping one, but dropped it because I didn't want to be seen as minimizing the extent to which these women feel taken advantage of.
If these women wanted to sue this guy for fraud, I'd support it. He lied, and got services out of them for it. But, just like in the landscaping hypo, I have a hard time seeing it as a crime.
I mean, I'm not defending this guy. He is a rapist. But he's a rapist because he got women drunk in order to get them to consent to him, not because he lied. The lying makes him a creep, and someone who I would not feel comfortable being around, and who I would feel the obligation to warn other women about, but it doesn't make me want to see him behind bars.
Rape is sex without consent. If you lied you didn't get consent. This thread is creepy as hell.
I do believe that there are some lies that go to the heart of the act that negate consent (for example, to twist this around a bit, if a guy sets up a hidden camera to film what was supposed to be a private act, or say that they were promised payment that didn't arrive, or they were promised a job). In this case though -- they knew who they were having sex with, they knew it was going to be filmed, and they knew they might not get a job out of it.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:46 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's sexual harassment, which is not a crime, but for which there are civil causes of action.
Saying you must do "___" if you want a job, when there is actually no job on offer, is what coercion is.
That's fraud, which can be a crime, and for which there are civil causes of action. Coercion would be "you must do ___, which is not your job, or you'll lose your job." If you want to make the argument that all porn auditions (assuming, of course, that real porn auditions require sex I honestly don't know) are coercive (because women are being made to have sex in order to get a job), that's at least a coherent argument (but one that's also hard to make unless you want to ban all sex work).
Consider a parallel hypothetical...
I had actually typed up a hypothetical that was similar to the landscaping one, but dropped it because I didn't want to be seen as minimizing the extent to which these women feel taken advantage of.
If these women wanted to sue this guy for fraud, I'd support it. He lied, and got services out of them for it. But, just like in the landscaping hypo, I have a hard time seeing it as a crime.
I mean, I'm not defending this guy. He is a rapist. But he's a rapist because he got women drunk in order to get them to consent to him, not because he lied. The lying makes him a creep, and someone who I would not feel comfortable being around, and who I would feel the obligation to warn other women about, but it doesn't make me want to see him behind bars.
Rape is sex without consent. If you lied you didn't get consent. This thread is creepy as hell.
I do believe that there are some lies that go to the heart of the act that negate consent (for example, to twist this around a bit, if a guy sets up a hidden camera to film what was supposed to be a private act, or say that they were promised payment that didn't arrive, or they were promised a job). In this case though -- they knew who they were having sex with, they knew it was going to be filmed, and they knew they might not get a job out of it.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:46 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
if you read the comments below the article, there's no question that this guy is a rapist and preys on minors.
posted by nadawi at 2:49 PM on June 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 2:49 PM on June 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I feel so sick about this. Matt Hickey raped my roommate in Olympia in 2003. He was very well known for being a slime-ball, but he was also one of the most prominent "scenesters" at a time where the Oly indie scene was valuing unity among all other. A friend and I tried to get something done about the rape of my roommate, including talking to Matt and his friends about it, but while there were plenty of believers, no one was willing to speak out openly about it.
I'm going to go cry now.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:53 PM on June 9, 2016 [50 favorites]
I'm going to go cry now.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:53 PM on June 9, 2016 [50 favorites]
And just to clarify, by "well known for being a slime-ball", I mean that the whole scene knew that he raped our friends and neighbors, and had for years.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:54 PM on June 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:54 PM on June 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
From the article:
posted by zarq at 2:54 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sex-work scammers are rarely prosecuted for rape, and McNeill feels that they should be. "Consent obtained under false pretenses is not consent, and sex without consent is rape," McNeill says. "Because sex work is in the shadows, even when women do report, there's a tendency among the 'good people,' and that includes good women, to shame them—to say, 'You had it coming' or 'Sex work is rape anyway.'"Exactly. This is rape. Even if the people who were "auditioning" had been paid to have sex with Matt Hickey (unless I missed it, the article wasn't completely clear about whether they were or not?) it's still rape.
McNeill gives a classic example: clients who hand sex workers envelopes full of paper instead of cash. A sex worker's consent is contingent on one thing: getting paid. When that condition of consent is violated, the sex is nonconsensual.
posted by zarq at 2:54 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
thank you for speaking up then and now, a box and a stick and a string and a bear.
posted by nadawi at 2:55 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 2:55 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
If you lied you didn't get consent.
I'm sincerely sorry that you find this thread creepy, but I suspect some of the problem is that the comments you're reading as "creepy" are addressing this in a more nuanced manner with the understanding that everybody lies sometimes, and often prior to sexual encounters. Have you never lied to a person before having intimate physical contact with them? Not about your career or salary, not about your age or weight, not about how many people of which genders you've been with prior...nothing at all, ever?
It's a rhetorical question; I'm not trying to put you on the spot. The point is, we can't change the law to recognize all those instances as rape. We probably can't even accomplish it by employing some abstract term like whether the lie was "material," because who knows what another person will consider to be material in that context. It's perfectly reasonable for me to consider immaterial the fact that I've slept with four people instead of two, and it's equally reasonable for you to consider that fact a dealbreaker.
Intelligent people can and do disagree over what constitutes "rape" in legal, moral, or conversational senses. I don't think there's a right answer in this particular situation. But I do think that if you see the answer as easy and simple and obvious and you can't fathom why anybody might disagree, then you're probably not thinking things through.
If these women wanted to sue this guy for fraud, I'd support it. He lied, and got services out of them for it. But, just like in the landscaping hypo, I have a hard time seeing it as a crime.
That's fair, and I definitely don't think you're defending the guy. But I would point out that in the landscaping hypothetical, Tom could indeed be prosecuted in many jurisdictions. The only reason why a prosecutor would suddenly get gun-shy in this situation is because it would require acknowledging sex as commerce, which opens a whole can of worms and exponentially increases the work required.
posted by cribcage at 2:55 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm sincerely sorry that you find this thread creepy, but I suspect some of the problem is that the comments you're reading as "creepy" are addressing this in a more nuanced manner with the understanding that everybody lies sometimes, and often prior to sexual encounters. Have you never lied to a person before having intimate physical contact with them? Not about your career or salary, not about your age or weight, not about how many people of which genders you've been with prior...nothing at all, ever?
It's a rhetorical question; I'm not trying to put you on the spot. The point is, we can't change the law to recognize all those instances as rape. We probably can't even accomplish it by employing some abstract term like whether the lie was "material," because who knows what another person will consider to be material in that context. It's perfectly reasonable for me to consider immaterial the fact that I've slept with four people instead of two, and it's equally reasonable for you to consider that fact a dealbreaker.
Intelligent people can and do disagree over what constitutes "rape" in legal, moral, or conversational senses. I don't think there's a right answer in this particular situation. But I do think that if you see the answer as easy and simple and obvious and you can't fathom why anybody might disagree, then you're probably not thinking things through.
If these women wanted to sue this guy for fraud, I'd support it. He lied, and got services out of them for it. But, just like in the landscaping hypo, I have a hard time seeing it as a crime.
That's fair, and I definitely don't think you're defending the guy. But I would point out that in the landscaping hypothetical, Tom could indeed be prosecuted in many jurisdictions. The only reason why a prosecutor would suddenly get gun-shy in this situation is because it would require acknowledging sex as commerce, which opens a whole can of worms and exponentially increases the work required.
posted by cribcage at 2:55 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
It was rape. Period. Whether it can be successfully prosecuted as rape in Washington State is possibly a completely different matter, but as to whether it in fact constituted rape, I have no question or hesitation or doubt. These young women were targeted, groomed, and made vulnerable under false pretenses, by a serial sexual predator.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:55 PM on June 9, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:55 PM on June 9, 2016 [24 favorites]
Ouch. It really seems like so many people knew what a scumbag Hickey is but nothing at all ever came of it.
posted by Justinian at 2:56 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 2:56 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
NYMag's The Cut: Tech Journalist Allegedly Catfished Multiple Women Into Having Sex With Him
posted by zarq at 2:59 PM on June 9, 2016
posted by zarq at 2:59 PM on June 9, 2016
but while there were plenty of people of believers, no one was willing to speak out openly about it.
This mirrors a depressingly high, like more than fingers and toes amount of stories i experienced or heard from close friends in seattle. FUCKkkkkkk.
I'm sincerely sorry that you find this thread creepy, but I suspect some of the problem is that the comments you're reading as "creepy" are addressing this in a more nuanced manner with the understanding that everybody lies sometimes, and often prior to sexual encounters. Have you never lied to a person before having intimate physical contact with them? Not about your career or salary, not about your age or weight, not about how many people of which genders you've been with prior...nothing at all, ever?
Yea, but this like... isn't a slippery slope.
"I am in a position of power, and you are someone who needs(possibly desperately) a job. I will not give you this job that will give you the money you need to survive unless you have "sex" with me" is consent under duress.
I don't understand why this is such a hard concept. It's like high school kids claiming that stealing from walmart like really isn't theft man, because they wont even notice.
I guess my main question to the doubters and "well technically..." people here is, why do these conversations get so complicated when sex and rape are involved? If he had defrauded these woen out of lots of money by having them pay up front for jobs, or had them pay up front for a "lease" on an apartment he couldn't even rent out that resulted in them losing their home and belongings no one would be splitting these hairs. But because they "agreed" to "sex" with him under false, pressured pretenses suddenly there's "nuance".
I'm really really tired of hearing this in these situations. And it would probably be quite eye opening to read some of the comments on facebook from this guys friends defending him. Because yea, that kind of stuff is defense. And a lot of it is almost word for word what they're saying.
posted by emptythought at 3:00 PM on June 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
This mirrors a depressingly high, like more than fingers and toes amount of stories i experienced or heard from close friends in seattle. FUCKkkkkkk.
I'm sincerely sorry that you find this thread creepy, but I suspect some of the problem is that the comments you're reading as "creepy" are addressing this in a more nuanced manner with the understanding that everybody lies sometimes, and often prior to sexual encounters. Have you never lied to a person before having intimate physical contact with them? Not about your career or salary, not about your age or weight, not about how many people of which genders you've been with prior...nothing at all, ever?
Yea, but this like... isn't a slippery slope.
"I am in a position of power, and you are someone who needs(possibly desperately) a job. I will not give you this job that will give you the money you need to survive unless you have "sex" with me" is consent under duress.
I don't understand why this is such a hard concept. It's like high school kids claiming that stealing from walmart like really isn't theft man, because they wont even notice.
I guess my main question to the doubters and "well technically..." people here is, why do these conversations get so complicated when sex and rape are involved? If he had defrauded these woen out of lots of money by having them pay up front for jobs, or had them pay up front for a "lease" on an apartment he couldn't even rent out that resulted in them losing their home and belongings no one would be splitting these hairs. But because they "agreed" to "sex" with him under false, pressured pretenses suddenly there's "nuance".
I'm really really tired of hearing this in these situations. And it would probably be quite eye opening to read some of the comments on facebook from this guys friends defending him. Because yea, that kind of stuff is defense. And a lot of it is almost word for word what they're saying.
posted by emptythought at 3:00 PM on June 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
cribcage: Have you never lied to a person before having intimate physical contact with them? Not about your career or salary, not about your age or weight, not about how many people of which genders you've been with prior...nothing at all, ever?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but... no. I've never done that and I bet a whole lot of people haven't, either.
posted by zarq at 3:02 PM on June 9, 2016 [40 favorites]
I know this wasn't directed at me, but... no. I've never done that and I bet a whole lot of people haven't, either.
posted by zarq at 3:02 PM on June 9, 2016 [40 favorites]
If he had defrauded these woen out of lots of money by having them pay up front for jobs, or had them pay up front for a "lease" on an apartment he couldn't even rent out that resulted in them losing their home and belongings no one would be splitting these hairs. But because they "agreed" to "sex" with him under false, pressured pretenses suddenly there's "nuance".
I don't think anyone has said there is nuance; what they've said is that which crime it falls under is complicated. And even your own example supports that; For example, in the case of being paid up front for jobs which didn't materialize... that would also be fraud rather than theft. As would paying for a lease that didn't exist. In both cases what crime was committed is not the crime of stealing money but of fraud because the people involved freely gave away the money... but did so under false pretenses.
posted by Justinian at 3:03 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think anyone has said there is nuance; what they've said is that which crime it falls under is complicated. And even your own example supports that; For example, in the case of being paid up front for jobs which didn't materialize... that would also be fraud rather than theft. As would paying for a lease that didn't exist. In both cases what crime was committed is not the crime of stealing money but of fraud because the people involved freely gave away the money... but did so under false pretenses.
posted by Justinian at 3:03 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
sometimes when i read these threads i think over the circumstances of my rapes throughout the years, about the different ways the stories could be told, and wonder which of these nuanced technicalities of how it was unfortunate, but not really real rape per se, would be trotted out if those stories were somehow made into posts here.
posted by nadawi at 3:04 PM on June 9, 2016 [50 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 3:04 PM on June 9, 2016 [50 favorites]
Nadawi, i often thing of how my own story was taken that way. At the time, and years later.
posted by emptythought at 3:04 PM on June 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by emptythought at 3:04 PM on June 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
This guy is, as far as I'm concerned, a serial rapist. Period. The only question I was trying to address, as the article does, is whether and how the law should be changed and how what he did fits in with existing laws. To the extent that question at all seems to minimize or dismiss the impact of what he did to what is clearly a long list of victims, I apologize.
posted by zachlipton at 3:11 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 3:11 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I know this wasn't directed at me, but... no. I've never done that
No, it was rhetorical and wasn't directed at anyone. But it also wasn't a limited set ("nothing at all, ever?"). I'm sure you're right that many people have never told a single lie of any consequence whatsoever to any person at any time prior to having a sexual encounter with that person. After all, many people have never had sex at all, so there's a large contingent right there.
But the point, which I think stands, is that there is a large and varied group of experiences that do fit that characterization. And so, if we can prosecute an instance like this without needing to navigate our way through those choppy waters—and I think we can—then it's better to do that. New laws create new problems.
posted by cribcage at 3:12 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, it was rhetorical and wasn't directed at anyone. But it also wasn't a limited set ("nothing at all, ever?"). I'm sure you're right that many people have never told a single lie of any consequence whatsoever to any person at any time prior to having a sexual encounter with that person. After all, many people have never had sex at all, so there's a large contingent right there.
But the point, which I think stands, is that there is a large and varied group of experiences that do fit that characterization. And so, if we can prosecute an instance like this without needing to navigate our way through those choppy waters—and I think we can—then it's better to do that. New laws create new problems.
posted by cribcage at 3:12 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
nadawi, i think of my own unreported assault(s) during these threads, too, because i know i'd be torn apart and nitpicked and rules-lawyered to fucking death, all in an effort to diminish and reduce what happened to me while telling me that that's not what's happening at all, it's just that *nuance* and *grey area* and baaaaaarrrrrf.
and then we sit in these threads and wonder, gosh, why don't more women report their assaults. gosh, why. it's not like it's hard to do or that people will be wildly unsupportive, gosh, never.
posted by palomar at 3:12 PM on June 9, 2016 [38 favorites]
and then we sit in these threads and wonder, gosh, why don't more women report their assaults. gosh, why. it's not like it's hard to do or that people will be wildly unsupportive, gosh, never.
posted by palomar at 3:12 PM on June 9, 2016 [38 favorites]
according to comments on the article, he also used to try to get 14 year old girls back to his apartment in olympia by promising them beer. this guy's victim list is likely very, very long.
posted by nadawi at 1:13 PM on June 9 [2 favorites +] [!]
The awful thing is, it's not like this was ever a secret. Within a month of arriving in Olympia, I knew all about this, and all of my friends knew about this. And we travelled in exactly the same circles Matt did. It wasn't a matter of no one warning vulnerable women about this known predator, because everyone knew. Many of his victims knew. This was simply an accepted part of the scene, and many that had traveled from all over the world to be part of "the hippest town in the west" accepted it as a cost of doing business there. I wish I knew then just how utterly toxic this was, and worked harder to end it.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:13 PM on June 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 1:13 PM on June 9 [2 favorites +] [!]
The awful thing is, it's not like this was ever a secret. Within a month of arriving in Olympia, I knew all about this, and all of my friends knew about this. And we travelled in exactly the same circles Matt did. It wasn't a matter of no one warning vulnerable women about this known predator, because everyone knew. Many of his victims knew. This was simply an accepted part of the scene, and many that had traveled from all over the world to be part of "the hippest town in the west" accepted it as a cost of doing business there. I wish I knew then just how utterly toxic this was, and worked harder to end it.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:13 PM on June 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Given just the number of people who have popped into this thread just in the last few hours who had some idea this guy was up to no good, I can only imagine how many people out there knew. Yet nobody could stop him and he kept assaulting more women.
posted by zachlipton at 3:18 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 3:18 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Any law that wishes to say "it's a crime to lie to get sex," is going to have to define both "lie" and "sex." Does sex include fondling? Stripping/nudity? Erotic dancing? Someone would have to sort out which erotic activities were illegal if obtained without properly informed consent. Would it only address "intercourse" (including, presumably, oral and anal), or would it include a broader range of sexual behaviors that guys know perfectly well they can pay for but would rather (1) get for free and (2) convince themselves someone wants to give them?
Next we'd have to figure out what things must be informed, what can be just-not-mentioned, and what kinds of lies would bring the law into play. Sorting that out isn't as simple as "lying to get laid should be a crime" - because the first direction that law is going to be aimed isn't at pervs who go after barely-legal college girls. It'd be aimed at the trans community--at what point should one's AAB gender be required by law to disclose to a partner?
If you said "never" (I'm in the "never" category), then you have to decide what forms of "lying" are not grounds for prosecution under this hypothetical law. (When proposing new legislation, first figure out where and how it'll be used to support current oppressions, bigotries, and privileges. Fix the phrasing so it can't be used to support vile agendas first; later, figure out how to go after the actual creeps.)
I firmly agree that "have sex with me or you won't get the job" is coercion, whether or not a real job is on the line. (Don't we have laws against that? Nice solid laws?) But that's a different kind of coercion than "have sex with me or I won't take you to the concert," or "have sex with me and you won't get chlamydia" - and I'd want some very lengthy discussion about the nuances of those last two possibly becoming illegal.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:21 PM on June 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Next we'd have to figure out what things must be informed, what can be just-not-mentioned, and what kinds of lies would bring the law into play. Sorting that out isn't as simple as "lying to get laid should be a crime" - because the first direction that law is going to be aimed isn't at pervs who go after barely-legal college girls. It'd be aimed at the trans community--at what point should one's AAB gender be required by law to disclose to a partner?
If you said "never" (I'm in the "never" category), then you have to decide what forms of "lying" are not grounds for prosecution under this hypothetical law. (When proposing new legislation, first figure out where and how it'll be used to support current oppressions, bigotries, and privileges. Fix the phrasing so it can't be used to support vile agendas first; later, figure out how to go after the actual creeps.)
I firmly agree that "have sex with me or you won't get the job" is coercion, whether or not a real job is on the line. (Don't we have laws against that? Nice solid laws?) But that's a different kind of coercion than "have sex with me or I won't take you to the concert," or "have sex with me and you won't get chlamydia" - and I'd want some very lengthy discussion about the nuances of those last two possibly becoming illegal.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:21 PM on June 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
I firmly agree that "have sex with me or you won't get the job" is coercion, whether or not a real job is on the line. (Don't we have laws against that? Nice solid laws?)
"Have sex with me or I'll fire you" would certainly already be against the law. So it seems like "Have sex with me or you won't get the job" would be as well. Extortion?
posted by Justinian at 3:25 PM on June 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Have sex with me or I'll fire you" would certainly already be against the law. So it seems like "Have sex with me or you won't get the job" would be as well. Extortion?
posted by Justinian at 3:25 PM on June 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't understand why plying her with drinks until consent is effectively impossible doesn't make this out-and-out criminal rape. If she was sober I'd get that this is somewhere in between rape and fraud, and probably needs a new legal category if only to reliably secure convictions (because if it's not abundantly clear to the cops it sure as hell won't be to a jury). I understand that to the victims it's clearly of equal trauma or as close as makes no difference to any other kind of rape, and the suicide attempt definitely underlines that point.
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:25 PM on June 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:25 PM on June 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Also, stepping back to a more abstract level about lying/deceiving to obtain consent; I'm of the opinion that making a promise and changing your mind after the fact is different (no mens rea) than making a promise that you never intended to keep.
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:28 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:28 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't understand why plying her with drinks until consent is effectively impossible doesn't make this out-and-out criminal rape.
I'm pretty sure it would.
posted by Justinian at 3:33 PM on June 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm pretty sure it would.
posted by Justinian at 3:33 PM on June 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
we're discussing a serial rapist who has been raping women for over a decade and thus far has not seen one spec of trouble for any of his crimes. the idea that this will slippery slope into men being convicted of rape for lying about what kind of car they drive is almost funny.
posted by nadawi at 3:35 PM on June 9, 2016 [57 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 3:35 PM on June 9, 2016 [57 favorites]
(assuming, of course, that real porn auditions require sex I honestly don't know)
I would assume real porn auditions involve sex, but would pay the actors the industry average for the audition, and also make a film out of it, because that's probably the best way to avoid being on the hook for prostitution.
posted by ymgve at 3:36 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I would assume real porn auditions involve sex, but would pay the actors the industry average for the audition, and also make a film out of it, because that's probably the best way to avoid being on the hook for prostitution.
posted by ymgve at 3:36 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also, i think rules lawyering about whether this is or could be prosecuted as like, rapey-rape you know is just about the worst direction a thread about something like this could go that i could imagine.
posted by emptythought at 3:39 PM on June 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by emptythought at 3:39 PM on June 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
So ... what if it wasn't aspiring sex workers, but aspiring day laborers outside of Home Depot? I could show up with my truck and say come on in to the job site, but I need to see you lay some bricks before I hire you on to my crew. And if I did that over and over without ever paying anyone but I got myself a free brick patio out of it, wouldn't that run me afoul of some labor laws? Shouldn't all the workers be afforded the same protections?
posted by stowaway at 3:46 PM on June 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by stowaway at 3:46 PM on June 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
"Have sex with me or I'll fire you" would certainly already be against the law. So it seems like "Have sex with me or you won't get the job" would be as well. Extortion?
What if the job is having sex? I understand that that is entirely different from this case where there was no job, but "Have sex with me or I'll fire you," or "Have sex with me or you won't get the job," don't seem problematic if having sex with that person is the job...
Then again, I 100% believe that there are porn producers/directors or various other non "talent" in positions of power who abuse the proverbial "casting couch" to get people to agree to perform acts with them that are not necessary for the actual creation of porn. Which definitely seems coercive.
posted by sparklemotion at 3:50 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
What if the job is having sex? I understand that that is entirely different from this case where there was no job, but "Have sex with me or I'll fire you," or "Have sex with me or you won't get the job," don't seem problematic if having sex with that person is the job...
Then again, I 100% believe that there are porn producers/directors or various other non "talent" in positions of power who abuse the proverbial "casting couch" to get people to agree to perform acts with them that are not necessary for the actual creation of porn. Which definitely seems coercive.
posted by sparklemotion at 3:50 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
On another note, this has now hit Jezebel.
I'd like to imagine this guy is now fucked and this will effect some kind of greater change but... Reality 😪
posted by emptythought at 3:54 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'd like to imagine this guy is now fucked and this will effect some kind of greater change but... Reality 😪
posted by emptythought at 3:54 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
But having sex with that person WAS NOT the job. Good god.
posted by palomar at 3:54 PM on June 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by palomar at 3:54 PM on June 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
There was no job. It was all bullshit to get this dude's dick wet. Not sure how that's hard to understand, unless the lack of understanding is some weird deliberate thing.
posted by palomar at 3:57 PM on June 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by palomar at 3:57 PM on June 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
Slippery slope arguments are almost always total bullshit.
Rape/sexual assault accusations aren't exactly over prosecuted in this country. The idea that there are currently countless innocent men locked up due to laws that are too broad and open ended or that we're just one poorly worded law away from that becoming a reality is a ridiculous men's rights fantasy.
If you find yourself standing up for all the men lying to get sex and worried about the harm that might come to them if the women they've lied to feel violated, I'd take a step back and figure out why you're not putting the same thought and effort into convincing the men not to lie and coerce in the first place.
posted by AtoBtoA at 3:58 PM on June 9, 2016 [35 favorites]
Rape/sexual assault accusations aren't exactly over prosecuted in this country. The idea that there are currently countless innocent men locked up due to laws that are too broad and open ended or that we're just one poorly worded law away from that becoming a reality is a ridiculous men's rights fantasy.
If you find yourself standing up for all the men lying to get sex and worried about the harm that might come to them if the women they've lied to feel violated, I'd take a step back and figure out why you're not putting the same thought and effort into convincing the men not to lie and coerce in the first place.
posted by AtoBtoA at 3:58 PM on June 9, 2016 [35 favorites]
also can we talk for just a second how fuckin' creepy it is to use the name of a girl from decades ago who didn't want his attentions to facilitate his deception? this dude was once labeled iDouche online and they didn't know just how right they were, i suspect.
posted by nadawi at 4:00 PM on June 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 4:00 PM on June 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
Not sure if your comment is a response to my comment, palomar, but the non-existence of the job is my point with the Home Depot analogy. I am not a contractor, but I want a free patio. So I lie to workers -- the promise of paid work -- to get free work. It seems like a good prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney could slam him on labor violations.
posted by stowaway at 4:04 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stowaway at 4:04 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bad way to start my day, reading this. Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:24 PM on June 9, 2016
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:24 PM on June 9, 2016
Here in the UK, this would be covered by Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which holds that consent is invalidated if 'the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act'. This replaced the much vaguer wording of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which merely referred to 'false pretences or false representations'.
This came up in the recent high-profile case of the woman who impersonated a man in order to trick her friend into sex. She was convicted and jailed for eight years (and if you think that seems a harsh sentence, you can read the sentencing remarks here). The legal guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service discusses several other recent cases involving questions of consent (including the Assange case).
So, please, no more bullshit about how 'it's all too complicated .. grey area .. where would you draw the line', etc etc. Granted, this is a rapidly evolving area of law (as the CPS guidelines recognise in referring to 'the developing concept of conditional consent and the absence of a clear authority as to how far the concept extends'). But Section 76 shows that it's perfectly possible to come up with a legal definition of consent which is robust enough to prosecute cases of sex-by-deception.
posted by verstegan at 4:31 PM on June 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
This came up in the recent high-profile case of the woman who impersonated a man in order to trick her friend into sex. She was convicted and jailed for eight years (and if you think that seems a harsh sentence, you can read the sentencing remarks here). The legal guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service discusses several other recent cases involving questions of consent (including the Assange case).
So, please, no more bullshit about how 'it's all too complicated .. grey area .. where would you draw the line', etc etc. Granted, this is a rapidly evolving area of law (as the CPS guidelines recognise in referring to 'the developing concept of conditional consent and the absence of a clear authority as to how far the concept extends'). But Section 76 shows that it's perfectly possible to come up with a legal definition of consent which is robust enough to prosecute cases of sex-by-deception.
posted by verstegan at 4:31 PM on June 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
No, stowaway, not directed at you. Directed at the comment from sparklemotion about how this isn't a problem if fucking that guy was the job.
posted by palomar at 4:39 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by palomar at 4:39 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Our legal system distinguishes between different crimes because penalties are meant to be a deterrent. In a hypothetical Libertarian sex-positive empowered paradise sex-by-deception might be properly treated as a form of commercial fraud, but in our society the deterrent effect of a civil suit is demonstrably ineffective. In fact, in many jurisdictions you can't invoke commercial fraud with regard to sexual services.
We need a way to discourage things like this, and given that it's sexual and turns on a question of consent it's only reasonable to class it as a form of rape. For those people worried about people that lie on dating sites, firstly: well...; secondly, the law already recognises a difference between fraud that involves the characteristics of the interaction ("these are some of the best oranges in the world!") and those that are fundamental to the nature of the interaction ("these are sacred Oranges of Youth from the Garden of Hera herself, that can cure all illnesses"). In the first case the law recognises that the parties had an agreement but its fulfillment was defective; in the second case there was no agreement. What do we call sex without consent? Right.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:44 PM on June 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
We need a way to discourage things like this, and given that it's sexual and turns on a question of consent it's only reasonable to class it as a form of rape. For those people worried about people that lie on dating sites, firstly: well...; secondly, the law already recognises a difference between fraud that involves the characteristics of the interaction ("these are some of the best oranges in the world!") and those that are fundamental to the nature of the interaction ("these are sacred Oranges of Youth from the Garden of Hera herself, that can cure all illnesses"). In the first case the law recognises that the parties had an agreement but its fulfillment was defective; in the second case there was no agreement. What do we call sex without consent? Right.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:44 PM on June 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can't help but think that the Supreme Court can define pornography as "I know it when I see it," and yet we need to so meticulously define "rape" that we'll deny victims that status.
posted by jeweled accumulation at 4:45 PM on June 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by jeweled accumulation at 4:45 PM on June 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
facebook is filled with stories about him right now, and buried in some of the comment threads women are discussing other predatory men who run in the same circles. some people are just finding out, some people are just speaking out, very very little denial or covering for him from those that know him, at least that i've seen so far.
posted by nadawi at 4:58 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 4:58 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Knowing Matt, I guarantee he's not just reading those threads, but also commenting with multiple sockpuppets. It pains me to look back and recognize just how cannily manipulative he was 24/7, and how fucked up it was that he constantly used his sleaze-ball persona as a coy defense of real wrongdoing (the women he took advantage of "knew" what they were getting into, so why should anyone get worked up about it?). So fucking horrifying. It's sickening to think that Cosby-style manipulators are this common.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 5:16 PM on June 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 5:16 PM on June 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
but there is no need to deny these women their status. IMO they are 100% definitely victims of rape.
it's difficult to keep the legal aspects separate from the other stuff, b/c a lot of this discussion is about legal stuff and that necessarily affects more than just these individual women. that's what is so difficult / possibly bad about having the general conversation spring from a discussion of a specific instance.
I agree, and I think the general/legal conversation begs to come out of the specific instance, and even the question in the article's title is bringing it up.
The legal crime of rape (and/or sexual assault) does need to be meticulously defined, not to deny victims that status (and that status can and should exist outside of the legal system; we don't dismiss a theft victim if the robber is acquitted or never charged, but we don't extend the same respect when it comes to rape), but because it is the clearest tool we have to make it clear that certain behavior is unacceptable (actually prosecuting rapists, sentencing them appropriately, testing rape kits, etc... would very much be helpful as well). If sex through deception is going to be rape, it should be carefully defined so that we can tell people what not to do on penalty of going to jail. And then educate people on that definition.
I agree that lying about your height on OkCupid is flippant. But crimes related to sex can also be used as weapons against marginalized groups. Beyond some of the examples people have given above, should a man be charged with rape if he lies about his name, marital status, whether he has kids, where he lives, and other facts about his life with the intent of persuading someone to have sex with him? If the answer is yes, and there's a compelling case it ought to be, I could easily see a prosecutor trying to charge a sex worker with rape under the same theory, even though the situations are obviously not equivalent.
All that said, it sounds like this guy committed rape, repeatedly, in ways that are not at all legally novel or legally ambiguous, and had he been prosecuted for those crimes far earlier, he I hope, wouldn't have left as many victims in his wake.
posted by zachlipton at 5:40 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
it's difficult to keep the legal aspects separate from the other stuff, b/c a lot of this discussion is about legal stuff and that necessarily affects more than just these individual women. that's what is so difficult / possibly bad about having the general conversation spring from a discussion of a specific instance.
I agree, and I think the general/legal conversation begs to come out of the specific instance, and even the question in the article's title is bringing it up.
The legal crime of rape (and/or sexual assault) does need to be meticulously defined, not to deny victims that status (and that status can and should exist outside of the legal system; we don't dismiss a theft victim if the robber is acquitted or never charged, but we don't extend the same respect when it comes to rape), but because it is the clearest tool we have to make it clear that certain behavior is unacceptable (actually prosecuting rapists, sentencing them appropriately, testing rape kits, etc... would very much be helpful as well). If sex through deception is going to be rape, it should be carefully defined so that we can tell people what not to do on penalty of going to jail. And then educate people on that definition.
I agree that lying about your height on OkCupid is flippant. But crimes related to sex can also be used as weapons against marginalized groups. Beyond some of the examples people have given above, should a man be charged with rape if he lies about his name, marital status, whether he has kids, where he lives, and other facts about his life with the intent of persuading someone to have sex with him? If the answer is yes, and there's a compelling case it ought to be, I could easily see a prosecutor trying to charge a sex worker with rape under the same theory, even though the situations are obviously not equivalent.
All that said, it sounds like this guy committed rape, repeatedly, in ways that are not at all legally novel or legally ambiguous, and had he been prosecuted for those crimes far earlier, he I hope, wouldn't have left as many victims in his wake.
posted by zachlipton at 5:40 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Have you never lied to a person before having intimate physical contact with them? Not about your career or salary, not about your age or weight, not about how many people of which genders you've been with prior...nothing at all, ever?
No! No I fucking haven't! Why the fuck would you do this or defend doing this?
I have to say all of this apologism in the thread sounds nothing so much as like MRAs trying to be like "No man, rape of a drunk girl isn't rape! I mean, who among us hasn't gotten a girl drunk before having sex with her?" And I find it hard to believe the Stanford swimmer thread can be coexisting with this one and so many people can still be like "I mean what about the mens what if they have to not lie OH MY GOD THEIR TRAUMA".
posted by corb at 5:45 PM on June 9, 2016 [53 favorites]
No! No I fucking haven't! Why the fuck would you do this or defend doing this?
I have to say all of this apologism in the thread sounds nothing so much as like MRAs trying to be like "No man, rape of a drunk girl isn't rape! I mean, who among us hasn't gotten a girl drunk before having sex with her?" And I find it hard to believe the Stanford swimmer thread can be coexisting with this one and so many people can still be like "I mean what about the mens what if they have to not lie OH MY GOD THEIR TRAUMA".
posted by corb at 5:45 PM on June 9, 2016 [53 favorites]
I would assume real porn auditions involve sex, but would pay the actors the industry average for the audition, and also make a film out of it, because that's probably the best way to avoid being on the hook for prostitution.
It's my understanding that there's no way a risk of prostitution enters into this because while it's illegal to pay someone to have sex with you, it's perfectly legal to pay other people to have sex with each other.
posted by rhizome at 6:01 PM on June 9, 2016
It's my understanding that there's no way a risk of prostitution enters into this because while it's illegal to pay someone to have sex with you, it's perfectly legal to pay other people to have sex with each other.
posted by rhizome at 6:01 PM on June 9, 2016
This thread, with all the hairsplitting "was it really rape?" questioning is making me physically ill. Yeah, I get that there is legal nuance, and that it's fun to discuss issues of nuance, but, when you are doing that in the presence of multiple rape-experiencers, maybe getting out of that Internet armchair and onto the "oh shit, I've put my foot in it" stool would be the best move. I mean, really, just don't. Could there be one corner of the internet where we don't "well, actually" rape out of existence?
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:04 PM on June 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:04 PM on June 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
Have you never lied to a person before having intimate physical contact with them? Not about your career or salary, not about your age or weight, not about how many people of which genders you've been with prior...nothing at all, ever?
I don't know about "nothing at all, ever?", but certainly nothing as major as age, height, or career. That's just not how I want to live my life, and I don't really see the value in carefully parsing out exactly where the line is and just how his actions could possibly be construed as ok. I'll leave legality to the lawyers, but this is so clearly gross and fraudulent.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:04 PM on June 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't know about "nothing at all, ever?", but certainly nothing as major as age, height, or career. That's just not how I want to live my life, and I don't really see the value in carefully parsing out exactly where the line is and just how his actions could possibly be construed as ok. I'll leave legality to the lawyers, but this is so clearly gross and fraudulent.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:04 PM on June 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I have to say all of this apologism in the thread...
I don't see any instances of apologism in this thread. That characterization might be offensive if it weren't so routine. Some folks want these threads to be a straight drumbeat of reaffirming the perpetrator's horribleness. He's bad, he's bad, he's bad. He should be banished from bars and restaurants. He should be charged with rape. He should be charged with assault. Let's see if we can charge him with terrorism. Well, wait, that might be going too far. DID YOU JUST DEFEND HIM?!!
Every person in this thread, I sincerely believe, thinks this guy is a terrible human being who committed terrible acts. We all agree on that point. However, rather than simply beating that drum over and over and over and over and over and over, some of us would like to discuss specific aspects of what happened, or broader implications, or possible legal remedies, etc. We don't find any intellectual interest in reaffirming that he's terrible—because of course he is—and we want to widen the discussion. You are free to ignore these comments. But characterizing it as apologism cheapens the term and makes you look stupid.
I don't really see the value in carefully parsing out exactly where the line is and just how his actions could possibly be construed as ok. I'll leave legality to the lawyers
Except that the comment you're quoting was part of a legal conversation, and a conversation in which exactly no one suggested that what this person did was "ok."
it's perfectly legal to pay other people to have sex with each other.
This depends on the phrasing of the particular jurisdiction's prostitution laws. In some areas of law, there are so-called "model" laws that most jurisdictions adopt verbatim, so there is consistency. That isn't the case here. One of the more famous examples was Rhode Island, which for a time only criminalized prostitution if you were soliciting the transaction outdoors or operating a brothel. Legal phrasing in this area is part of the reason the porn industry in the United States is mostly confined to Florida and California.
posted by cribcage at 6:20 PM on June 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
I don't see any instances of apologism in this thread. That characterization might be offensive if it weren't so routine. Some folks want these threads to be a straight drumbeat of reaffirming the perpetrator's horribleness. He's bad, he's bad, he's bad. He should be banished from bars and restaurants. He should be charged with rape. He should be charged with assault. Let's see if we can charge him with terrorism. Well, wait, that might be going too far. DID YOU JUST DEFEND HIM?!!
Every person in this thread, I sincerely believe, thinks this guy is a terrible human being who committed terrible acts. We all agree on that point. However, rather than simply beating that drum over and over and over and over and over and over, some of us would like to discuss specific aspects of what happened, or broader implications, or possible legal remedies, etc. We don't find any intellectual interest in reaffirming that he's terrible—because of course he is—and we want to widen the discussion. You are free to ignore these comments. But characterizing it as apologism cheapens the term and makes you look stupid.
I don't really see the value in carefully parsing out exactly where the line is and just how his actions could possibly be construed as ok. I'll leave legality to the lawyers
Except that the comment you're quoting was part of a legal conversation, and a conversation in which exactly no one suggested that what this person did was "ok."
it's perfectly legal to pay other people to have sex with each other.
This depends on the phrasing of the particular jurisdiction's prostitution laws. In some areas of law, there are so-called "model" laws that most jurisdictions adopt verbatim, so there is consistency. That isn't the case here. One of the more famous examples was Rhode Island, which for a time only criminalized prostitution if you were soliciting the transaction outdoors or operating a brothel. Legal phrasing in this area is part of the reason the porn industry in the United States is mostly confined to Florida and California.
posted by cribcage at 6:20 PM on June 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Not seeing any apologists? The "but doesn't everyone lie to get sex?" thing reeks of it.
Oh. That was you. No wonder you can't see it.
posted by palomar at 6:25 PM on June 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
Oh. That was you. No wonder you can't see it.
posted by palomar at 6:25 PM on June 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
Sorry but I wholeheartedly agree with cribcage. And I type this with trepidation, y'all.
This guy is a fucking creepy rapist. But is there room to discuss the ins and outs of the law as it pertains to these crimes without being misinterpreted as somehow apologizing or sanctioning or whitewashing or approving in any way of the perpetrator's actions?
I feel like there is often little room to discuss anything for fear of the very backlash that I see in this thread.
posted by bologna on wry at 6:37 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
This guy is a fucking creepy rapist. But is there room to discuss the ins and outs of the law as it pertains to these crimes without being misinterpreted as somehow apologizing or sanctioning or whitewashing or approving in any way of the perpetrator's actions?
I feel like there is often little room to discuss anything for fear of the very backlash that I see in this thread.
posted by bologna on wry at 6:37 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
The distinctions drawn between legal discussions and social discussions are false and really grind my gears.
Leading with 'how could these rapes be prosecuted?' as a frame is much better than 'how rapey is this rape?' and then excusing the question with 'oh, I mean in legal terms of degrees'. You're not talking to a lawbook. You're talking with survivors. It's not actually hard to take that into account.
posted by E. Whitehall at 6:48 PM on June 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
Leading with 'how could these rapes be prosecuted?' as a frame is much better than 'how rapey is this rape?' and then excusing the question with 'oh, I mean in legal terms of degrees'. You're not talking to a lawbook. You're talking with survivors. It's not actually hard to take that into account.
posted by E. Whitehall at 6:48 PM on June 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
Mod note: Cribcage, this is the point where you stop digging.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 6:53 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 6:53 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
if you're going to discuss rape and the so called nuances with rape survivors you might find strong opinions. i don't believe this can be called backlash in any meaningful sense.
posted by nadawi at 6:58 PM on June 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 6:58 PM on June 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
Here's an existing California penal code discussing rape that easily narrows down what sort of lies are illegal with regards to rape, and manages to include wording* that (arguably) encompasses Matt Hickey's actions without making lying about your height on OkCupid a crime. 261.a.4.D
Seems like it got a little lost in the last back and forth but a reading of what you linked looks to me like it is almost spot-on with this case. I don't think it only "arguably" encompasses Hickey's actions I think it clearly does on its face. I mean, "due to the perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose". Could it be any more on-point here? It actually kind of surprises me how well thought out the wording of the law is.
Hopefully this scumbag will get arrested under this statute.
posted by Justinian at 7:04 PM on June 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Seems like it got a little lost in the last back and forth but a reading of what you linked looks to me like it is almost spot-on with this case. I don't think it only "arguably" encompasses Hickey's actions I think it clearly does on its face. I mean, "due to the perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose". Could it be any more on-point here? It actually kind of surprises me how well thought out the wording of the law is.
Hopefully this scumbag will get arrested under this statute.
posted by Justinian at 7:04 PM on June 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'll leave well enough alone, and I understand the strong opinions. I just get itchy at all the backlash when the general consensus is that this rapist should be prosecuted. I understand the legal bullshit around this is a touchy subject, and perhaps one that can't happen here.
posted by bologna on wry at 7:10 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bologna on wry at 7:10 PM on June 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unfortunately that law, which is an excellent idea narrowly targeted to something pretty similar to this precise situation (and thanks 23skidoo for pointing it out) is a California law and it seems like these rapes occurred in Washington. I hope the attention this has gotten now convinces prosecutors to do the hard work necessary to make a case here though.
posted by zachlipton at 7:11 PM on June 9, 2016
posted by zachlipton at 7:11 PM on June 9, 2016
I have seen so many Facebook friends and friends-of-friends post earnings about Hickey that as soon as I saw that the sleazebag's name was Matt I thought "oh hey, I bet this is Matt Hickey." Well-known doesn't even begin to cover it; I know that at least four women have gone to the police over him, outside of these incidents. To my knowledge none of them even got a call back from the cops.
posted by KathrynT at 7:22 PM on June 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 7:22 PM on June 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
Now here's the real question: I wonder how many Seattle-area MALE mefites know this guy's name and reputation? I'm not sure but I think everyone who has chimed in here to say they knew of him is female.
posted by KathrynT at 7:24 PM on June 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 7:24 PM on June 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'm male. See my comments above. If Seattle is anything like Olympia was 15 years ago, there are dozens of men that were fully aware of this. Dozens of women, too. At least back in the day, the enablers were remarkably diverse.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 7:37 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 7:37 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
from twitter : Matt Hickey raped women in Olympia, WA long before his porn audition scam. His name was written on bathroom walls. 20 YEARS DUDE. and i think of the ways we try to protect ourselves and others beyond keys as weapons and covering our drinks.
that account, which is maybe nsfw, also has some great information about knowing how to recognize legit porn offers, which is good to familiarize ourselves with. one way we fight this type of victimization is to recognize and support good practices in sex work with an eye towards further legalization and pro-labor protections.
posted by nadawi at 7:41 PM on June 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
that account, which is maybe nsfw, also has some great information about knowing how to recognize legit porn offers, which is good to familiarize ourselves with. one way we fight this type of victimization is to recognize and support good practices in sex work with an eye towards further legalization and pro-labor protections.
posted by nadawi at 7:41 PM on June 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
KathrynT, you give police too much credit. I've had someone straight up say they'd kill me - complete with audio and video recording over multiple minutes - and the police never gave me the courtesy of a call back, even after repeated attempts and a supervisor escalation.
Police don't care.
Police NEVER care.
posted by Yowser at 7:46 PM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Police don't care.
Police NEVER care.
posted by Yowser at 7:46 PM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
New York Magazine has picked it up and has described him as a tech journalist.
posted by humanfont at 7:52 PM on June 9, 2016
posted by humanfont at 7:52 PM on June 9, 2016
Unfortunately that law, which is an excellent idea narrowly targeted to something pretty similar to this precise situation (and thanks 23skidoo for pointing it out) is a California law
Crap, that's obvious is retrospect. I was just excited that it seemed like a case could easily be made.
posted by Justinian at 7:54 PM on June 9, 2016
Crap, that's obvious is retrospect. I was just excited that it seemed like a case could easily be made.
posted by Justinian at 7:54 PM on June 9, 2016
box & string & stick & bear, I am so pleased to hear that my cynicism was misplaced.
posted by KathrynT at 8:07 PM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 8:07 PM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
And in case that came off too dry, I really mean it. My husband knew his name, but as a local music guy slash Stranger commenter.
posted by KathrynT at 8:10 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 8:10 PM on June 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, Matt was [and is] an entrenched patriarchy problem, not just a "dudes looking the other way" problem. Everyone knew he was a predator.
from twitter : Matt Hickey raped women in Olympia, WA long before his porn audition scam. His name was written on bathroom walls. 20 YEARS DUDE.
Hey, one of my other old roommates! Serial rape is such a crappy occasion for a reunion. Like I said, everyone knew.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 8:11 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
from twitter : Matt Hickey raped women in Olympia, WA long before his porn audition scam. His name was written on bathroom walls. 20 YEARS DUDE.
Hey, one of my other old roommates! Serial rape is such a crappy occasion for a reunion. Like I said, everyone knew.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 8:11 PM on June 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yeah, to put this in a bit of context for outsiders, Olympia (where Matt grew up and lived til moving to Seattle in his 30's) was an extremely progressive college/hippy/punk town, and Matt ran in moderately progress circles. "Don't rock the boat" (among your fellow radicals) was an unfortunately strong urge.
I remember there were several threads about his sexual assaults on the Chainsaw Records messages boards back in the late 90's; I'd be curious if the wayback machine could dig them up.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 8:23 PM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I remember there were several threads about his sexual assaults on the Chainsaw Records messages boards back in the late 90's; I'd be curious if the wayback machine could dig them up.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 8:23 PM on June 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm inferring that the geek social fallacies played a role in the public silence.
posted by brujita at 8:44 PM on June 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by brujita at 8:44 PM on June 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Cato: You're attempt at irony is severely undermined with incorrect punctuation.
thelandofnod on June 8, 2016 at 12:55 PM · Report this
From the comments below the article. This might be the most awesome thing I've ever read. A Mobius Strip of irony.
I do apologize for interjecting, just had to share. Very insightful and civil discussion here.
posted by raider at 8:52 PM on June 9, 2016
thelandofnod on June 8, 2016 at 12:55 PM · Report this
From the comments below the article. This might be the most awesome thing I've ever read. A Mobius Strip of irony.
I do apologize for interjecting, just had to share. Very insightful and civil discussion here.
posted by raider at 8:52 PM on June 9, 2016
My question is just where do we draw the line in terms of what actually constitutes criminal sexual assault, vs unethical garbage person behavior? It's obviously somewhere well in between impersonating someone's partner in a dark room and "no you look great in that dress," and figuring out where to set that line is an important part of the conversation.
Here's where we should draw the line: ANY lie makes it a prosecutable rape. If you knowingly say one thing that is factually untrue while trying to convince someone to consent to sex with you, you are attempting rape. If you actually have sex with them without having corrected the lie and then reobtaining consent, you are committing rape.
What is so hard about only having sex with people who actually want to have sex with you?
posted by IAmUnaware at 12:09 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Here's where we should draw the line: ANY lie makes it a prosecutable rape. If you knowingly say one thing that is factually untrue while trying to convince someone to consent to sex with you, you are attempting rape. If you actually have sex with them without having corrected the lie and then reobtaining consent, you are committing rape.
What is so hard about only having sex with people who actually want to have sex with you?
posted by IAmUnaware at 12:09 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
ANY lie makes it a prosecutable rape.
Well that's never gonna happen. But I don't see why we have to go either all slippery slope wont someone think of the rapists on one end of the spectrum or the smallest lie means its prosecutable!!! on the other here. As posted elsewhere in the thread there are already laws on the books in other states (like California) which criminalize this behavior without making it a crime to say you're 37 years old instead of 41 or whatever other extreme example anyone wants to dream up. The law on the books here in CA is good. You can read it above. They should pass something similar in WA.
posted by Justinian at 1:34 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well that's never gonna happen. But I don't see why we have to go either all slippery slope wont someone think of the rapists on one end of the spectrum or the smallest lie means its prosecutable!!! on the other here. As posted elsewhere in the thread there are already laws on the books in other states (like California) which criminalize this behavior without making it a crime to say you're 37 years old instead of 41 or whatever other extreme example anyone wants to dream up. The law on the books here in CA is good. You can read it above. They should pass something similar in WA.
posted by Justinian at 1:34 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I dunno. Part of what makes this legal discussion so wearying and upsetting for so many is (at least partly, and it's just my thoughts) is that it has two serious problems, one internal and one external:
Internally, it buys into the idea that we can somehow parse out rape (and, more broadly, sexual harassment) finely enough to catch all the villains and avoid "false capture" of "men who aren't rapists but who might look like rapists in the wrong light." This is a very technologist solution, which assumes that we can solve a problem with the right tool. The problem with this is that it never really hits the mark, especially since the legal tools tend to be created by men, for the convenience of men, and from the point of view of men to deal with a problem which disproportionately and overwhelmingly affects women. I have serious doubts about whether such a "fix" is possible, but it certainly is impossible while men have even an equal share in creating the laws. And, yes, I realize what this says about laws and a civil society and all that; as I said above "wearying and upsetting."
Externally, the Brock Turner case has reminded a lot of us forcefully that, even in cases where the rape is unambiguous and obvious, the justice system has very little interest even investigating, much less prosecuting, much much less holding actually accountable any man who has any serious privilege. So, even if you could parse out your perfect concept of rape and write a completely unambiguous law for the ages, a lot of people in this thread (and most, if not all the women) are wearily and uncomfortably aware that the imaginary shining and perfect law would rarely or never get used. Society and its systems aren't interested in solving rape, and moving that lack of interest in a hard slow and painful process. Until that problem is solved, that perfect law is just a pretty hood ornament on a giant ugly rape culture car.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:49 AM on June 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Internally, it buys into the idea that we can somehow parse out rape (and, more broadly, sexual harassment) finely enough to catch all the villains and avoid "false capture" of "men who aren't rapists but who might look like rapists in the wrong light." This is a very technologist solution, which assumes that we can solve a problem with the right tool. The problem with this is that it never really hits the mark, especially since the legal tools tend to be created by men, for the convenience of men, and from the point of view of men to deal with a problem which disproportionately and overwhelmingly affects women. I have serious doubts about whether such a "fix" is possible, but it certainly is impossible while men have even an equal share in creating the laws. And, yes, I realize what this says about laws and a civil society and all that; as I said above "wearying and upsetting."
Externally, the Brock Turner case has reminded a lot of us forcefully that, even in cases where the rape is unambiguous and obvious, the justice system has very little interest even investigating, much less prosecuting, much much less holding actually accountable any man who has any serious privilege. So, even if you could parse out your perfect concept of rape and write a completely unambiguous law for the ages, a lot of people in this thread (and most, if not all the women) are wearily and uncomfortably aware that the imaginary shining and perfect law would rarely or never get used. Society and its systems aren't interested in solving rape, and moving that lack of interest in a hard slow and painful process. Until that problem is solved, that perfect law is just a pretty hood ornament on a giant ugly rape culture car.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:49 AM on June 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I do not see how a rule as broad as "ANY lie makes it a prosecutable rape" would not end up being primarily used against people who have been raped, to even more effectively re-traumatize them by poring over every detail of what they said and did and make that even more direct ammunition for rapists to hold a counter-charge of rape over their accusers' heads. Or even as a means to facilitate rape in the first place if a rapist can establish beforehand that a target lies regularly in a way that might be exploitable for creating doubt/suspicion, for example an underaged person having a fake ID for buying alcohol.
To quote for truth ifdssn9 from above:
To quote for truth ifdssn9 from above:
posted by XMLicious at 2:52 AM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]If the criminal justice system is sexist (it is) and it is run by people who are sexist (it is) then you need to be concerned about any law that involves discretion. That discretion will be implemented in a sexist system, by sexist people.
Trans people in the UK have been prosecuted for "deceiving" sexual partners. You're deluding yourself if you think there's a nice tidy law to be written.
posted by hoyland at 3:01 AM on June 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by hoyland at 3:01 AM on June 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
* 261.a.4.D: (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances: (4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions: (D) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.
Looks to me like that set of provisions is mostly aimed at doctors or other health professionals doing sham diagnostic procedures or treatments. The victim needs to be unaware of the "essential characteristics of the act" (most likely because they think it's a legitimate medical procedure), while the victims in the present case knew of the essential characteristics of the act but had been deceived about the context in which it occurred.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:44 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Looks to me like that set of provisions is mostly aimed at doctors or other health professionals doing sham diagnostic procedures or treatments. The victim needs to be unaware of the "essential characteristics of the act" (most likely because they think it's a legitimate medical procedure), while the victims in the present case knew of the essential characteristics of the act but had been deceived about the context in which it occurred.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:44 AM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Looks to me like that set of provisions is mostly aimed at doctors or other health professionals doing sham diagnostic procedures or treatments.
Yeah, it's almost certainly a statutory response to the so-called "Dr. Feel-good" case that shows up in every first-year criminal law casebook. (Which I won't bother to link here because ick ick ick.) The problem being that this makes the California law oddly over-narrow: this wouldn't catch, for instance, sexual abuse in religious cults.
Ultimately we seem to be circling around a special scienter requirement (say, knowing that, or with reckless disregard toward the possibility that a particular misrepresentation would induce someone otherwise unwilling to consent to sex.) While in theory this would be an ideal, flexible but tailored solution, it would probably be a shitshow in practice for reasons elaborated upthread. (Retraumatizing victims, ballooning trial costs, creating plausible deniability that swallows the entire provision, etc.) Still, absent a better option, it might be worth a shot.
posted by fifthrider at 6:43 AM on June 10, 2016
Yeah, it's almost certainly a statutory response to the so-called "Dr. Feel-good" case that shows up in every first-year criminal law casebook. (Which I won't bother to link here because ick ick ick.) The problem being that this makes the California law oddly over-narrow: this wouldn't catch, for instance, sexual abuse in religious cults.
Ultimately we seem to be circling around a special scienter requirement (say, knowing that, or with reckless disregard toward the possibility that a particular misrepresentation would induce someone otherwise unwilling to consent to sex.) While in theory this would be an ideal, flexible but tailored solution, it would probably be a shitshow in practice for reasons elaborated upthread. (Retraumatizing victims, ballooning trial costs, creating plausible deniability that swallows the entire provision, etc.) Still, absent a better option, it might be worth a shot.
posted by fifthrider at 6:43 AM on June 10, 2016
the whole hair splitting conversation about what new laws we need seems entirely besides the point since in this post and in his at least 20 year history we know that he's straight up traditionally raped a fuck ton of women and no one official seems to care. his name has been scrawled as a warning on bathroom stalls, 14 yr olds have passed his name around, he raped so many women and girls in oly that he had to relocate to seattle, and then he raped so many there that he had to come up with this horrific plan. and at the end of all of this, he'll likely not even be charged with any of it (or they'll go through the sham of charging him so we can watch another serial rapist acquitted).
imagine if 20 years ago he had been stopped...
posted by nadawi at 6:52 AM on June 10, 2016 [21 favorites]
imagine if 20 years ago he had been stopped...
posted by nadawi at 6:52 AM on June 10, 2016 [21 favorites]
And Olympia was the hub of riot grrrl......
If I was a girl in Olympia and had to spend most of my teenage years dodging the local rapist, I'd be a riot grrrl too.
posted by jonp72 at 6:59 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
If I was a girl in Olympia and had to spend most of my teenage years dodging the local rapist, I'd be a riot grrrl too.
posted by jonp72 at 6:59 AM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
IAmUnaware: Here's where we should draw the line: ANY lie makes it a prosecutable rape. If you knowingly say one thing that is factually untrue while trying to convince someone to consent to sex with you, you are attempting rape. If you actually have sex with them without having corrected the lie and then reobtaining consent, you are committing rape.
What is so hard about only having sex with people who actually want to have sex with you?
Well, the problem is that society is held together with little innocuous lies. I mean, ANY lie means that you could prosecute over something stupid, like professing to agree with something just to avoid a fight or look better. Hell, the way you describe it (factually untrue), it would count if you were inadvertently wrong! That's just crazy. Plus, what about lies of omission or general deception? Are you lying to your partner about your hair color if you've had dyed hair the whole time and didn't tell them?
Laws like this wouldn't be used to protect women. They're be used by assholes for revenge, because everyone has been factually incorrect about something in any relationship they're in, and nearly everyone has lied at least one (hell, that even would include things like "Sure, honey, I want to go see that movie tonight" if you didn't). There needs to be some higher standard than just any lie, ever. The Californian standard above didn't look too bad, although I favor the old one over the new one.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:22 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
What is so hard about only having sex with people who actually want to have sex with you?
Well, the problem is that society is held together with little innocuous lies. I mean, ANY lie means that you could prosecute over something stupid, like professing to agree with something just to avoid a fight or look better. Hell, the way you describe it (factually untrue), it would count if you were inadvertently wrong! That's just crazy. Plus, what about lies of omission or general deception? Are you lying to your partner about your hair color if you've had dyed hair the whole time and didn't tell them?
Laws like this wouldn't be used to protect women. They're be used by assholes for revenge, because everyone has been factually incorrect about something in any relationship they're in, and nearly everyone has lied at least one (hell, that even would include things like "Sure, honey, I want to go see that movie tonight" if you didn't). There needs to be some higher standard than just any lie, ever. The Californian standard above didn't look too bad, although I favor the old one over the new one.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:22 AM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Free Love" in the 60s was co-opted by dudes shaming women for not fucking them so quickly I don't think you can conceivably prove it didn't start as that.
Yep. Same as it ever was.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:42 AM on June 10, 2016
Yep. Same as it ever was.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:42 AM on June 10, 2016
Much of the "slippery slope" argument about this stuff ignores the role of the jury system. Jurors don't convict people of rape when the balance of equities is remotely on the side of the defendant. Rape juries are invariably sympathetic -- probably too sympathetic -- with the grey zones of consent and invariably skeptical -- often too skeptical -- of alleged victims.
Sending this guy to prison (as he certainly seems to deserve) is not jeopardizing the freedom of arguably lesser scumbags who seduce women with rented sports cars or fake legal careers.
My guess is that in Seattle this guy has a 75% chance of conviction -- half the juries convict him on the first poll, half the juries hang because one or two jurors thinks its impossible to rape someone who is willingly (in her own mind) auditioning to be a porn actress. You get to 75% because the prosecutor will retry a hung case once.
posted by MattD at 7:50 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sending this guy to prison (as he certainly seems to deserve) is not jeopardizing the freedom of arguably lesser scumbags who seduce women with rented sports cars or fake legal careers.
My guess is that in Seattle this guy has a 75% chance of conviction -- half the juries convict him on the first poll, half the juries hang because one or two jurors thinks its impossible to rape someone who is willingly (in her own mind) auditioning to be a porn actress. You get to 75% because the prosecutor will retry a hung case once.
posted by MattD at 7:50 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
For multiple nauseating examples of the historical difficulty of prosecuting rape by fraud, see the section of this article titled "Sexual Scams: Talent Agents, Acting Coaches, and Movie Producers."
posted by milk white peacock at 7:50 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by milk white peacock at 7:50 AM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
the whole hair splitting conversation about what new laws we need seems entirely besides the point since in this post and in his at least 20 year history we know that he's straight up traditionally raped a fuck ton of women and no one official seems to care.
Yes, yes, yes. I think part of the reason these conversations tend to involve at least a handful of people (almost always male people) casually chatting about penal code is because it's probably easier and more comfortable to talk about laws at arm's length than it is to acknowledge one's own complicity in nurturing the kind of culture that allows the behavior of men like Matt Hickey to go unchecked for literal decades. Every time I hear about this brand of violence being enacted on other women, I feel like all of us are a little less safe in the world. But I can't even tell men as a class to pick up their trash because most of them won't do a damn thing except go full throttle NAMALT.
So barring that, maybe we could try to collectively refrain from armchair quarterbacking over which specific statute this asshole should or could be prosecuted under? Untold thousands of rape kits are gathering dust in evidence closets around the world. Police tell us we're lying, if they even deign to take our reports. Judges want us to take responsibility for being assaulted. How much more evidence do we need that the legal system as a whole thinks women's suffering isn't remotely worth the effort in the first place?
The reason men like this feel entitled to abuse women is because they know they live in a world that's much more likely to blame those women for being stupid/slutty/careless/tired/drunk enough to allow themselves to be assaulted than it is to prosecute or punish men for committing assault. The letter of the law rarely even comes into play at all because it's usually just women that they're hurting, and many, many women (especially women who engage in sex work) are considered to be contemptible, if not literally disposable, by our very nature.
posted by amnesia and magnets at 8:33 AM on June 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
Yes, yes, yes. I think part of the reason these conversations tend to involve at least a handful of people (almost always male people) casually chatting about penal code is because it's probably easier and more comfortable to talk about laws at arm's length than it is to acknowledge one's own complicity in nurturing the kind of culture that allows the behavior of men like Matt Hickey to go unchecked for literal decades. Every time I hear about this brand of violence being enacted on other women, I feel like all of us are a little less safe in the world. But I can't even tell men as a class to pick up their trash because most of them won't do a damn thing except go full throttle NAMALT.
So barring that, maybe we could try to collectively refrain from armchair quarterbacking over which specific statute this asshole should or could be prosecuted under? Untold thousands of rape kits are gathering dust in evidence closets around the world. Police tell us we're lying, if they even deign to take our reports. Judges want us to take responsibility for being assaulted. How much more evidence do we need that the legal system as a whole thinks women's suffering isn't remotely worth the effort in the first place?
The reason men like this feel entitled to abuse women is because they know they live in a world that's much more likely to blame those women for being stupid/slutty/careless/tired/drunk enough to allow themselves to be assaulted than it is to prosecute or punish men for committing assault. The letter of the law rarely even comes into play at all because it's usually just women that they're hurting, and many, many women (especially women who engage in sex work) are considered to be contemptible, if not literally disposable, by our very nature.
posted by amnesia and magnets at 8:33 AM on June 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
more than 22 days ago women in seattle were desperately trying to raise the alarm
posted by nadawi at 10:27 AM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:27 AM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Looks like Matt's been scrubbing his internet footprint pretty thoroughly over the past month; twitter, facebook, linkedin, and others (including his personal sites) are taken down or have been stripped of content. I'm really curious to see how this all unfolds.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 1:34 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 1:34 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
What's gross is that reddit post was scrubbed of any useful information because "it might be a witch hunt".
posted by corb at 1:36 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 1:36 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's super typical reddit behavior though, especially when it's a woman accusing a man of anything, even if it's directly harassing her.
posted by emptythought at 2:39 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by emptythought at 2:39 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe this belongs on "criminals are dumb dot com", but it seems to me that the number of women interested in porn is so large, and the bar on establishing a "legitimate" porn studio is so low, that I can't even imagine the reason for faking any of this.
I mean, if that is what you're after, why go about it in such a complex (not to mention sleazy and criminal) way?
posted by rokusan at 3:28 PM on June 10, 2016
I mean, if that is what you're after, why go about it in such a complex (not to mention sleazy and criminal) way?
posted by rokusan at 3:28 PM on June 10, 2016
because rape is not a crime about getting sex. his vast and long reaching history of being a rapist shows pretty clearly why he didn't do this on the up & up. the deception is part of his enjoyment, no doubt.
posted by nadawi at 3:43 PM on June 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 3:43 PM on June 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
i mean, it's sorta like saying 'bill cosby could have sex with anyone he wants! why drug and rape women on his set?' because drugging and raping women is the thing he was after, not sex.
posted by nadawi at 3:44 PM on June 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 3:44 PM on June 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Wow, is it really that hard to see why this is definitely rape and something like fudging how interesting your life is on your okcupid profile isn't? The latter presumably involves a lot more factors besides "random lie to seem more cool" in the decision to have sex--attraction, desire, romantic feelings, etc. (I mean, you probably shouldn't do that either because you will get caught and that's just embarrassing for everyone, but still...)
These women had sex with this piece of shit solely because they thought it was part of an audition to receive paying work. They would not have agreed to have sex with him otherwise. That's rape.
posted by lovecrafty at 4:31 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
These women had sex with this piece of shit solely because they thought it was part of an audition to receive paying work. They would not have agreed to have sex with him otherwise. That's rape.
posted by lovecrafty at 4:31 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
> Looks like Matt's been scrubbing his internet footprint pretty thoroughly over the past month; twitter, facebook, linkedin, and others (including his personal sites) are taken down or have been stripped of content.
His Facebook account is under a different first name, now; if you were FB friends with him once you might still be.
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:09 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
His Facebook account is under a different first name, now; if you were FB friends with him once you might still be.
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:09 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
he's still actively posting on reddit under an easy to find name that he's used for years in a variety of places.
posted by nadawi at 1:13 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by nadawi at 1:13 PM on June 15, 2016
« Older Why is craft beer so white? | A little bit of a boy on the floor Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The slippery part is what do you do in a bad divorce: can you find lack of consent based on financial mismanagement or fraud? It's a lot trickier of a question than it appears at first blush, especially in a legal system so squeamish about the barest hint of incorporating sex into the market economy as ours. (The traditional reason for not prosecuting Johns who pay in counterfeit money is that the law won't 'dirty' itself by enforcing an illegal contract.)
posted by fifthrider at 11:04 AM on June 9, 2016 [4 favorites]