Not a member? Sign up now
Why is the New York Times comparing infidelity to rape?
By Ben ReiningaMay 19th, 2011, 1:30 pmComments (24)
You, like me, have probably been reading a lot of news this week about the managing director of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was arrested for sexually assaulting a hotel maid. It's a huge story, and one that's precipitated a number of interesting discussions on wealth, class, rape, French people, and a whole host of other mysteries. One of the things that seems to keep popping up, however, and one that's been bugging me, is the overwhelming number of people comparing infidelity and rape.
The New York Times, like a lot of other publications (especially when they're dealing with a breaking story), re-runs some of the 'background' paragraphs in articles about the same topic. I noticed, because I've come across this paragraph like eight times.
Mr. Strauss-Kahn's extramarital affairs have long been considered an open secret. But the legal charges against him — which include attempted rape, forced oral sex and an effort to sequester another person against her will — are of an entirely different magnitude, even in France and elsewhere in continental Europe where voters have generally shown more lenience than Americans toward the sexual behavior of prominent politicians.
While saying nothing explicitly, this paragraph has the same weird implication that I've seen in a bunch of other places. French people are chill about infidelity. We impeached Bill Clinton; they would have given him a rugged slap on the back. That's cool, and I agree. It also has nothing to do with rape.
The fact that this dude went to prostitutes and cheated on his wife proves nothing except that he's an ordinary man with a functioning libido. More than half of people admit to cheating on their partners at some point, and lots of people pay for sex. That might not make them stellar boyfriends, but it also doesn't make them criminals. Saying violent rape is of a "different magnitude" makes it sound like one's six and one's an eight on some weird French Richter scale of sex.
Not cool. They are fundamentally different acts, with radically different motivation and consequences. Everyone who's ever happily toyed with non-monogamy should be pissed off.
Commentarium (24 Comments)
"But the legal charges against him — which include attempted rape, forced oral sex and an effort to sequester another person against her will — are of an entirely different magnitude.."
I don't understand where they're comparing it to rape...what are you talking about?
That's a comparison. Magnitude is a way of comparing the extremity or degree of 2 similar things. That quotation says that cheating is a big earthquake and rape is a bigger earthquake. I'm trying to say that's stupid. :(
I think he's objecting to the use of "magnitude" because it implies all these things (including infidelity) are differences in degree rather than kind. So the proper wording would be, "But the legal charges against him ... are of an entirely different kind/nature."
@VoR++, yes, I think that's precisely it.
Ohhhh, ok. You're pretty easily upset!
"The fact that this dude went to prostitutes and cheated on his wife proves nothing except that he's an ordinary man with a functioning libido. "
BS. It proves he can't control his libido. It proves his libido directly supports trafficking-in-persons since prostitution is supported in no small part by human traffickers. It proves he's willing to expose himself (and his other sexual partners) to STDs. It proves he's willing to compromise himself in the eyes of the public (re: Berlusconi).
You really should ask his wife how she feels about it. Assuming she's not entirely supportive, it also shows he's not a man of his word. Non-monogamy and breaking a promise are not synonomous.
DA, I kind of love you.
Also, Ben, if by "lots of people pay for sex" you mean "lots of men pay for sex" then I'm with ya.
His wife knew -- the whole thing's an "open secret." And yes, AT, I include both men and women in my use of the word "people"
His wife knew. Are you sure? Did she approve? Did she give him permission to renege on his vow? How are you even sure she knew? And I'm talking prior to the bad conduct not "she must have read about it in the paper" knowing.
You strongly support a man's right to stray outside his marriage. Great, that's your prerogative but please don't portray doing so as a victimless activity. The damage may be minimal and it may be significant. Maria Shriver, Elizabeth Edwards and Hillary Clinton come to mind. Not necessarily the most sympathetic group but didn't they deserve better. Did their kids?
And let's get back to the prostitutes. I'm sure you'd like to think of them as open, free, Washingtonienne-type women but the reality is there are significant substance abuse, depression and exploitation issues involved in prostitution.
You want to be non-monogamous, have at it. Divorce your wife and take care of your kids. If you feel entitled to stray within your marriage, exploit prostitutes and entertain mistresses, you have a problem with controlling your impulses.
Is it a stretch that such a "man" would consider the Senegalese hotel maid as fair game to treat as he pleased? Nope.
AT, what the fuck are you on? Women are 1/3 of the consumers of porn, and they have a long history of hiring sex workers, although obviously not as much as men, not such a small minority that you can pretend they don't exist.
And I'm of the opinion that it's shameful to be neither a john nor a whore, but that's a different beast entirely. The point -- the obvious, obvious point -- is that infidelity is in no way similar to rape. And yes, there are plenty of households that have a third or swinging or partially open relationship. And no, that doesn't make you a Berlusconi-level asshole. Monogamy is hard, and a few lapses over the course of a marriage are usually things that a couple is able to reconcile between themselves, in a place where your judgment and opinions really have no weight.
@nope covered it nicely. Y'all are focusing on the wrong thing here, which was the POINT of Ben's original commentary.
I'm on being sick of rape-apologists, and this article by Ben walked a very fine line. What exactly is wrong with using the rapists' sexual past (which includes infidelity and john-ing and other rapes) against him in Court?
It's not a fine line; it's a false line.
Arguing that men who conduct themselves such as DSK - serial affairs, breaking vows, etc - is like arguing that someone who regularly gets blasted at the bar after work would in no way lead to DUI. Yet we all know someone who has crossed that line.
Sorry, you can try selling it but I'm not buying. When you're conduct is closer and closer to the line, eventually you cross the line.
I think that it's important that someone points out that Clinton was not impeached due to an affair. He was impeached for committing perjury while being deposed for a sexual harassment suit.
I agree with your point, but quibble with your English. An order of magnitude (or, I guess, degree) is a factor of very roughly ten. That is, a really big difference. I would say that the NYT quotation is like saying that infidelity by a politician is a little tremor, while rape is a big earthquake.
I think he's disagreeing that rape is ten times worse than rape. I think the point he's making (that I support) is that rape is completely different than an affair because one is a violent crime and one is having sex with someone who isn't your partner.
They're so pussy-whipped at the Times that they've confused a little on the side with assault.
i do like the "sequester another person against her will", so.. can you sequester someone while their willing ?
Of course, it's done with juries from time to time.
...also with witnesses, particularly if retribution is possible.
...also naughty lil' me, when I get corner time.
Perhaps, but that's extralegal sequesteration.
Why? Easy: Infidelity and rape are both sexual deviant in nature and considered crimes, morally and/or legally, depending on the part of the world. Hence, they're on the same scale, although obviously rape is a heckuva lot more horrible.