Steve and Jen bring you this daily review of the news
Premium Advertiser

News Blog Sponsors

News Links

BBC World Service
The Guardian
Washington Post
Iraq Order of Battle
NY Times
LA Times
ABC News

Blogs We Like

Daily Kos
Digby's Blog
Operation Yellow Elephant
Iraq Casualty Count
Media Matters
Talking Points
Defense Tech
Intel Dump
Soldiers for the Truth
Margaret Cho
Juan Cole
Just a Bump in the Beltway
Baghdad Burning
Howard Stern
Michael Moore
James Wolcott
Cooking for Engineers
There is No Crisis
Whiskey Bar
Rude Pundit
Crooks and Liars
Amazin' Avenue
DC Media Girl
The Server Logs

Blogger Credits

Powered by Blogger

Archives by
Publication Date
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
Comments Credits
Comments by YACCS
Saturday, May 06, 2006

Speaking of creepy

By invitation only

Too bad Eugene Volokh is such a freak. First, read this post.

You Just Flunked Out Of Feminism 101. Wait, Stupid Also Just Failed Out Of Moron.

Posted by Belle Waring

Now, I post this with a heavy heart, because the truth is, that despite any previous complaints about puppies, I actually regard Eugene Volokh as an intelligent, thoughtful person with whom I would love to have a beer or two. (In fact, we have friends in common.) So, I was basically floored by this:
The premise of this post is that laws which prohibit unwanted sexual touching are based on the fear of involuntary sexual arousal on the part of the victim. And I’m sorry to say, that’s just crazy talk.

Say, on the other hand [vs physical contact ordinarily regarded as non-sexual, but which may be unwanted, such as shoulder-patting], that someone intentionally touches your genitals, or intentionally caresses your breasts (if you’re a woman). In many circumstances, this would be considered a crime. Why the difference? I think that here too there is a connection with sexual arousal—either the possibility that you might be involuntarily sexually aroused, or the likelihood that the other person is deriving some sort of sexual arousal from touching you.

Now, the premise here is that unwanted sexual arousal forms the basis of objections to unwanted touching of, say, a woman’s genitals by a stranger on the subway. Now, I would be inclined to give Eugene the benefit of the doubt here. Except for the part where he totally forfeits my trust.
Why the difference? I think that here too there is a connection with sexual arousal—either the possibility that you might be involuntarily sexually aroused, or the likelihood that the other person is deriving some sort of sexual arousal from touching you.

Again, taken alone, this might be reasonable, if only in a thought-experiment way. But the conclusion? Does it perhaps exclude the most obvious problem? Sources say, yes:

So while I’m not positive, it seems to me that there’s something interesting and possibly important in play here: Some conduct that involuntarily sexually arouses another (or seriously risks doing so) may be improper, even if similar conduct in which involuntary sexual arousal is absent is generally fine.

Wait, remember above, where we were considering both the possibility that unwanted sexual contact should be avoided because it might cause unwanted sexual arousal in the victim and the crazy, totally improbable problem that the person feeling you up on the subway might be sexually gratifying himself at your expense without your permission? What happened to option two, eh?

And then, having knotted the noose in boy scout fashion, Eugene just sticks his head right in:

It[unwanted sexual touching of a woman’s breasts or vagina by a stranger] may be both arousing and disturbing; it might in fact be disturbing partly because of the arousal, or of the possibility of arousal.

Now look. I somewhat hesitate to claim magic feminist backsies on everyone who disagrees with me. But. I’ve actually been raped before! Sweet! And I have sat next to someone on the DC metro who was jerking off while I was sitting next to the window and had trouble getting out. I sort of feel like I’m pointing at the sky saying, “hey, it’s teh blue!” The problem of a dude rubbing his thigh against yours while he jerks off is not, and now I must get all caps, NOT, a problem about involuntary sexual arousal on your part. No, it’s more of the problem of where a dude is rubbing on your thigh and jerking off. And my sister got assaulted in the metro elevator before when she was 13 and when she punched and kicked the guy trying to feel her up he broke her jaw in 3 places! Again, and I hate to get all irritated, but the problem was NOT that she was geting all turned on by that guy. So, in short, WTF? And then, W.T.F.???

Hmmm, and this is what I read over breakfast today:

Cops lick foot fiend

Say he slobbered over 70 women as they rode subway

Daily News Exclusive


Falling to his knees on a subway train, a young Brooklyn man allegedly grabbed the feet of scores of female straphangers - kissing and licking them until the women screamed.

But last night Joseph Weir, 23, kept his mouth shut and let his lawyer do the talking as he was arraigned in Manhattan Criminal Court last night on charges of unlawful imprisonment and forceable touching.

The tall, thin, shy-looking suspect has already confessed to abusing at least 70 female straphangers in the past three years, cops said. The admission came after police busted him Thursday for allegedly violating a woman on a Queens-bound E train in lower Manhattan, the sources said.


"He would grab women by their ankles, then kiss and lick their feet. A real sicko," a police source said.

Sometimes he would take off with his victims' shoes, police said.

Assistant Manhattan District Attorney Rachana Pathak said Weir would corner a woman alone on the subway at night and bow to her while asking, "Can I date you? Can I be your slave?"

He would then grab his victim's ankles, and pull the woman off her feet, the prosecutor said. In one case, he fondled a woman's thigh and genitals. Another woman was victimized twice in nine months.

"These women are having nightmares," Pathak said. "He is clearly predatory and a menace."

"Lord have mercy! He's never had any problems before," said his mother, Jeranda Weir, who described him as a hardworking man who suffers from a speech impediment. Weir had worked as an escort on a Manhattan helipad, but he lost the job several months ago, his mom said.

"He was a hardworking boy until he got laid off last year," she added. "We can't deal with this right now."

Several women who routinely ride the E train were repulsed by Weir's alleged exploits. "That's disgusting," said Madeline Muniz, 21. "I can't believe it. He would go around the train, licking women in front of other people?"

Ok, professor,what about feet? Is having a total stranger slobber all over your feet in public sexually arousing or just perverted.

posted by Steve @ 7:49:00 PM

7:49:00 PM

The News Blog home page


Editorial Staff

Add to My AOL

Support The News Blog

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
News Blog Food Blog
Visit the News Blog Food Blog
The News Blog Shops
Operation Yellow Elephant
Enlist, Young Republicans