Emma Sulkowicz Creates a Pornography of a Faked Rape and Then Claims That If You Watch It, You're a Rapist

This alleged rape victim sure likes playing around with the definition of rape -- expanding it, changing it, mutating it for her art.

That's not problematic at all as regards her claims of actually, really being raped. That is, raped for real, not raped in an artistic sense of the word.

You can't watch her amateur rape pornography at the moment, because her servers are overloaded, and the 4chan types have really dropped the ball by not yet uploading it somewhere else. (Well, they probably have; but they dropped the ball in not telling me where to see this fake rape reconstruction of a fake rape.)

For now, you can read her trite, vapid commentary on her own "art."

The piece is called Ceci est ne pas une viol. "This is not a rape," which is kind of hugely undermining of her rape claims, no? The sentence is a reference to the Magritte painting "The Treachery of Image," (which frankly also struck me as pretty trite), and the alleged confusion about whether the image of the thing is the thing itself. (Spoiler alert: It's not.)

What Sulkowicz could mean by this allusion isn't clear. I say that because she seems 1, fairly dumb, and 2, emotionally florid. But she could mean several things, all of which would be extremely embarrassing for Senator Kristen Gillibrand if the media ever asked her questions about this (which, fortunately for Gillibrand, they won't).

She could mean that something that appears to be consent is not consent, for example. This idea tracks with those offered by other radfems who have recently argued that No Means No, but Yes Can Also Mean No -- and that sometimes women consent to sex for reasons such as being guilted into it, or seeking an emotional closeness that never materializes, and that consent had under such circumstances is not consent and ergo the ensuing sexual encounter is actual rape.

It is difficult, at this point, to believe that Emma Sulkowicz is anything more than what she appears to be, a liar and lunatic.

Let me quote from her windy introduction to her amateur rape porn. Read this carefully; this gives the game away.

Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol is not about one night in August, 2012. It's about your decisions, starting now. It's only a reenactment if you disregard my words. It's about you, not him.

Do not watch this video if your motives would upset me, my desires are unclear to you, or my nuances are indecipherable.

You might be wondering why I've made myself this vulnerable. Look--I want to change the world, and that begins with you, seeing yourself. If you watch this video without my consent, then I hope you reflect on your reasons for objectifying me and participating in my rape, for, in that case, you were the one who couldn't resist the urge to make Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol about what you wanted to make it about: rape.

Please, don't participate in my rape. Watch kindly.

If you watch this video "without her consent," you're raping her. A video she's putting up herself -- not something hacked from her account.

And what constitutes "consent"? That you watch it on the terms she demands, in support of her beliefs. That is, if you emotionally affirm her, then you have not raped her.

If you do not emotionally affirm her, then you have raped her, even though she has quite clearly given her consent. She's just deciding that your lack of emotional affirmation can invalidate her consent (and thereby render your own actions "rape").

Gee, I wonder if Paul Nussberger's lawyers will be interested in these Cutting Edge Ideas about consent about rape.

It's amazing to me, too, that this Rape Monger does a piece about rape and then says if you see rape here, it was about your determination to make this all about rape.

My determination? Um, you've got some balls, #MattressGirl.

Insane.

The Wymyn Writers are showing why you should treat them as second-rate intellects by praising the shit out of this silly queef of an attention grab, in many cases, without actually having seen it.

This boob from Elle claims that the film is a "powerful" statement, though she can't quite say what that statement is -- I mean, she quotes Sulkowicz, but she seems utterly incapable of doing (as I have done here) of offering restatements of what Sulkowicz may be saying. Just quoting someone doesn't mean you understand their message --I can quote people in Ancient Greek without understanding what is meant.

She also says, I'm pretty sure, that she hasn't herself been able to view this allegedly "powerful" statement.

At the time this article was published, the video was not available to view, likely because of high demand on Sulkowicz's web servers.

In other words: This is Pro-Wymyn so I'm quite sure it's "powerful" even though I haven't seen it and thus am in no place to judge.

This is essentially racism. Let me explain.

The left can't believe it could possibly be racist, and that's why they are so very susceptible to the attractions of racism.

And racism does have attractions. Germany was probably the most cultured, advanced nation on earth in 1931. Nevertheless, all it took was some racist mystics talking up some mythical Aryan Super-race descended from India to get Germany to go insane for racist lunacies.

Racism is an extremely attractive ideology for the dim and weak and unaccomplished. Dumb white people like thinking that they have some mystical connection to Other Great White People.

Thus it is that an idiot Klansman can think he share some special blood-and-land kinship with Leonardo Da Vinci.

Leonardo Da Vinci doesn't need to dream up mystical connections to other White People. He's got enough of his own laurels to not need to grab up on some other White Dude's accomplishments by claiming a mystical racial river running between them.

And racism is easy. It is very easy to believe an ideology which tells you you are superior, and that others are inferior. And not just inferior -- affirmatively evil.

Children believe this, implicitly -- half of child development is trying to teach them to stop believing this.

Identity politics should be called what it is, and what it is is Racism. Yes, I know that "racism" doesn't technically apply to gender, as it doesn't with religion. (Pendants say that you can't be racist against Muslims -- technically true but trite.)

I'm using Racism as a not-entirely-technically-accurate word to denote all the tropes of My Group Is The Best Group and Your Group Is Subhuman thinking.

Yes, these idiot women are Racists, in this sort of a meaning.

If men sat around doing little but thinking of new ways to say Women Are Terrible, what would we say about them? Well, we don't have to wonder; the feminists call them anti-women and ugly, despicable monsters.

But when groups of women sit around doing nothing but denigrating men and thinking of new and exciting ways to claim victimization at the hands of men -- this is precisely the same thing.

The same with whites who do little but grouse about how Blacks Have Ruined Everything. Racist, we might say.

And yet what do we say of blacks -- most of whom are paid to speak on MSNBC -- who think and speak nothing except how Terrible White People Are?

They are racists.

And I understand the attraction of racism. You can't look at history and not understand how powerful the tug of ideologies crafted from Identity -- Racial, Religious, Sexual -- are and always have been. And always will be.

And it's time we started Noticing. Noticing things like how quickly a Women Racists will jump to support anyone of their gender -- even if they haven't actually seen the film they're praising.

Because the film doesn't matter. The ideology says that thou must support thy Identity group, and disparage competing Identity groups. Period.

Merit doesn't matter. Thought doesn't matter. Virtue doesn't matter.

All that matters is that we have Racial, Religious, Gender, and Sex-Preference Identities, and whatever we are, that is The Best, and all others are Unworthy and Oppressors.

The KKK claimed it was being oppressed by a troika of Yankees, Jews, and Blacks. What makes their endless grievance-mongering unacceptable, whereas Michael Eric Dyson's constant denigrations of White Devils are... what, charming? Enlightened?

We call it Identity Politics when we're being polite about it. What it really is, and what we'd call it if we weren't forced to be polite about it, is Racism.

And the left is nothing but a miserable, hateful stew of it.

PS: Keep away from the comments. Serious Content Warning. Though 90% of the commenters are sane and normal (and all think Sulkowicz is a wack-a-doo), there is one commenter trafficking repeatedly in hardcore anti-semitism, and one troll who keeps posting shock pictures of, for example, a dude holding open his buttcheeks, and I'm kind of short-selling that one.

So, he's attacking the site, he thinks, by polluting it... but he's an idiot. I want people to see this --and he's keeping people from doing so.

Update: The video is on Pornhub, and can be found by searching Emma Sulkowicz.

It's... to call it a student film would be charitable. It fails on every level.

Will the Media Ever Ask Senator Gillibrand About Her All-In Position on these Rape Claims? Nope! You don't question people who are Right In Their Hearts.

posted by Ace at 11:03 AM

| Access Comments