(Provisionally Retracted Due to the Doubtful Nature of the Story)

I've been thinking about this, and this story is seeming less and less likely to me.

When someone wants to make a histrionic false case (or even a non-histrionic one), they generally make it the best presentation of that histrionic false case possible.

Including tweaking the facts to support their claim -- and omitting facts that undermine it.

But in this histrionic false case, the author goes out of her way to include, gratuitously, details that not only don't support her, but in fact undermine her.

For example, she goes out of her way to tell us she doesn't even care about this guy -- she's just using him sexually in order to "satisfy" her.

That doesn't read like something a claimed victim would say.

That reads like something that someone intending to spoof a feminist would say.

If she were really making this charge, wouldn't she have omitted that self-undermining detail?

Later on she gratuitously notes she "came" from the claimed rape, and then gives some rigamarole to justify the inclusion of that fact.

Again -- why bother to claim that many rapes result in the victim's orgasm (???!!!!?)?

If the writer realized this was a detail that cast doubt on her tale, why include it at all? In that case, you don't even have to supply a dubious argument to explain the fact away.

As the Media instructs us, the most powerful argument you can make against an inconvenient fact is simply suppressing the fact altogether.

So this all seems very doubtful to me.

I'm sorry-- I bit hard on this because I needed something to publish and I didn't have anything. But now that I've had more than two minutes to consider it, this seems pretty implausible to me.

Original post below. The original title was "Good Lord."

This girl now has to explain why this ridiculous claim of "switch rape" is terrible. Content Warning.

No, it's not what you're thinking. No matter what you're thinking, you are wrong. Whatever you're thinking, you're thinking something too reasonable.

I don't know how much traction this bizarre theory has gotten. Who knows -- maybe it's just this one specimen.

I imagine that feminists will actually ridicule this position and stamp this lunacy out. But that is only a guess, and given some of the other strange ideas they have, I would not bet a great deal of money on that proposition.

Meanwhile, this is happening.

Briefly--and I do mean briefly, you should read the whole thing to get a sense of everything at play--[feminist Michelle] Goldberg's report focuses on efforts by transgender activists to break the spirit of anti-trans radical feminists, who believe that a man is a man and a woman is a woman and no amount of "mutilation" (their word) can change that. Trans-activists are, shall we say, displeased by this belief, as well as by the radfems' exclusion of the transfems from the radfems' reindeer games. That exclusion has led to death threats and calls for boycotts.

Of course it has.

Scam? This is so absurd that some think it's just a hoax, intended to illustrate the absurdities of some feminist claims:

It might could be.

posted by Ace at 05:28 PM

| Access Comments