Dr. Phil treats date rape as a legitimate debate

[alp227]

I'm no fan of pop psychology or anything else that quacks like Dr. Phil have to talk about, but wow this is a new low:

This is why old people need to be trained on how to use social media.

Yesterday, Phil McGraw tweeted out the since-deleted message, “If a girl is drunk, is it OK to have sex with her? Reply yes or no to @drphil #teensaccused.”

Yikes. In the best possible light, McGraw was likely trying to begin a discussion presumably for fodder on his show about consent. Unfortunately, a social forum where a response can only be 140 characters was just so not the way to go about that. The fact that the question itself promotes rape culture is pretty much the worst, so it’s no surprise that the Internet reaction was swift. (The trending topic #DrPhilQuestions had users asking other mocking queries.)

To make this tweet an even worse insult to injury, the CBC reports that Phil (of sh!t) recorded an interview with the mother of Rehteah Parsons, the Canadian teenage date rape victim who later committed suicide AFTER THIS TWEET.

So when will Quack Phil lose his psychology license?

this blog breaks down 5 problems with Dr. Phil's tweet.

[one_voice]

1. He's disgusting I can't stand him. n/t

[Demo_Chris]

2. I think I am missing something...

What was wrong with him posing this question?

[leftstreet]

4. Why does he want to hear from people who think it's okay?

I admit I don't really get what he's after

But why doesn't he tweet: 'Is it OK to boink a German Shepard if it's sleeping?'

Huge eeeewwwwww factor all around

[Demo_Chris]

8. If I am reading it correctly he wanted to hear from BOTH sides...

Again, not seeing the controversy. Regardless of where one personally stands on the question, soliciting and polling opinions is not wrong. Note as well that the answer is subjective. He did not ask if it was okay to have sex with a woman who was passed out -- but even if he HAD done so I still don't understand the controversy.

I consider sex with someone who is unconscious to be rape (obviously) but I am a bit curious what percentage of the population would NOT agree with me on that one. You'd never really know unless you asked a large group of people.

Note that I say this as someone who knows nothing about this guy other than that he is some kind of TV or radio personality.

[leftstreet]

10. He should just tweet: 'Sex with a drunk person is not OK'

If he's really worried there are people out there who still think it's okay, he should use his influence to stamp it out

Opening up the 'debate' to rationalizations just seems creepy

[joeglow3]

14. THIS is why academics have tenure.

My wife and I have sex 3-4 times a week. Is it okay if I have sex with her after a night of drinking? What if we are both drunk?

There are plenty of avenues this discussion could go and, from an academic/social commentary standpoint, it is a valid question. However, people who want to interpret it their negative way will cry for their head to silence them. People like this are the reason we need tenure at our universities.

[nomorenomore08]

22. I'm sure whatever you and your wife do with each other is fine. No one else's business anyhow.

Assuming you're both okay with it, which I have no reason to suspect otherwise...

What's being talked about here is more of a power imbalance, e.g. between an "aggressor" who's relatively sober and a "victim" who's staggering drunk. Or between a person who's "only" plastered and one who's blacked/passed out.

[joeglow3]

24. Do you KNOW that?

The question doesn't lead me to that conclusion.

Now, I don't know what "#teensaccused.” means, so that may be why.

[nomorenomore08]

36. I'm basing my assumptions on common sense, mostly.

First of all, the question as asked was grossly oversimplified, in more ways than one - as noted by the article in the OP. Second of all, I really doubt that most of those rightfully slamming Dr. Phil on this have any kind of underhanded agenda.

[bettyellen]

12. So it's okay with you if your sister can't speak or walk or see straight, and some

galoot she never met before "helps her home" and fucks her blind while she cries her eyes out- because she is conscious? That seems okay to you?

[joeglow3]

15. What if it is my wife?

What if we talked about what we were going to do with each other earlier in the day, before she got drunk? What if we both got drunk in this scenario.

People like you want to interpret it ONE way and arrogantly assume your view is the ONLY possible scenario. Like I said above, you are the reason college professors have tenure. You would demand everyone without your identical views be fired.

[bettyellen]

29. you are the one doing the assuming- but Demo Chris only mentioned lack of consciousness-

as what he considered wrong. He seemed to be skipping over the most common kinds of date rape, so I ASKED HIM INSTEAD OF ASSUMING. Because that's a pretty fucking glaring omission in this discussion.
Try it sometime, before throwing out crazy scenarios about who I am and what I would demand- because those are arrogant- and completely nutty assumptions that have nothing to do with the question I asked.

[Skittles]

55. CREEPY

[joeglow3]

57. To you. And I bet you think that is all that matters.

Like I said, arrogance.

[Skittles]

60. LOLOL

what a JOY you must be!!!

[joeglow3]

61. My wife thought so last night

three times.

[Skittles]

62. OMG

you're pathetic.....BYE BYE

[joeglow3]

63. Bye

Glad I don't have to be subjected to you telling me how every facet of life needs to realign to fit your view anymore.

[Demo_Chris]

17. That's an imaginative narrative from a simple post...

To answer your question: NO, that is not okay with me. If someone cannot talk they cannot give consent. That would be rape.

However, you might be unaware that there exist infinite stages of intoxication that lie between "Had a beer, feeling fine" and "I did what?" At some subjective point along that path, sex transitions from consensual to non-consensual, and I would argue that this is so regardless of what the intoxicated party might be saying at the time. But at what point, and how is a potentially intoxicated partner to know that some subtle line has been crossed. More, if both partners have crossed this threshold which is the rapist and which the victim?

As I said in my original post on this subject, I see nothing wrong with the guy posing the question, and so far no one has offered even a wisp of an argument against my position. Instead, I have been offered rather flimsy strawmen.

[bettyellen]

30. Not really Chris- it's a scenario that occurs quite frequently on college campuses, so I guess

you are pretty unaware if you think it's "imaginative" in the least. It's common as dirt- go educate yourself.
What IS imaginative, is that you would assume I am unaware that lots of people people drink and have sex? That's a pretty foolish assumption to make, LOL.

[Demo_Chris]

31. I was responding to your accusation, perhaps you should reread your post. nt

[bettyellen]

35. Well, the only standard you cited as wrong was unconsciousness, so I ASKED you if other -

much more common scenarios were okay. And it seems you think the scenario I outlined is somehow uncommon or not worthy of discussion. And you'd be wrong on both counts.

[Demo_Chris]

39. Yet again you are making statements about what I know or think...

I have tried to be very precise here. If I have not been clear you can ask me and I will be happy to answer. However, I suspect that there are probably few questions on this topic I have not already addressed.

In any case, NONE of this has anything whatsoever to do with the rather simple question posed in this tweet. Clearly some people are supposedly offended, but I am coming to believe that the offense is not with what he said, but what he didn't say.

[bettyellen]

41. ... you said it took "imagination" to describe a very common rape scenario- so I said it appeared

you weren't aware that it's a VERY frequent occurrence on college campuses. Never said what you know or think- just saying what seemed like from your posts downplaying the issue. Get the difference?

[Demo_Chris]

43. Poorly written on my part, I meant it took imagination to assume I was okay with what you described.

[bettyellen]

45. and I only asked a question- but you said I made an accusation. The article linked in the OP made

some great points about what's problematic in the way this question was asked. What did you think of the specific points it made?

[Demo_Chris]

46. I addressed them all elsewhere in this thread...

In summary, I think they are weak. When someone writes a hundred word essay to explain why a one sentence question was "offensive", and they cannot even manage to do it without assigning motivations and subtexts that were never present in the original, it's just drama for the sake of drama.

Anyway...

We're on the same team here. We probably agree with each other completely on the entire rape topic. And I think ALL of us have devoted more time to Dr Phil and his question than either deserves.

[BainsBane]

47. Whether they agree is irrelevant. It is rape and against the law.

So he was soliciting comments from the pro-rape as well as the anti-rape side.

[Demo_Chris]

56. Having consentual relations with someone who is intoxicated is not automatically against the law...

It is only against the law if jury decides that the victim was so intoxicated that consent was impossible. Someone who has had a couple drinks might well be legally intoxicated, but they are certainly capable of deciding for themselves whether or not they are interested in having sex. If you are suggesting that they a not, congratulations, you just criminalized most of the premarital sex in this country.

[pipi_k]

13. Oh, I dunno...

For statistics purposes, maybe?

[Whisp]

3. I hate that bag of fucking shit.

and his shitty assed mouth and ideas. I hope he got beaten to a pulp on twitter.

[MotherPetrie]

48. Hell must be freezing over. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

5. Didn't Oprah foist this asshole onto the unwashed masses?

I can't stand him, and that accent is like nails on a fucking chalkboard.

[msongs]

6. another gift from Oprah to the world of the gullible nt

[BlueJazz]

7. "If a Guy is passed-out drunk, is it ok to have sex with him ??

[Demo_Chris]

9. No. That's not the question he asked. nt

[BlueJazz]

11. I asked it because it wouldn't surprise me if Mr Phil spouted some dumb shit like that..

[jmowreader]

50. No.

The popsicle stick you'd have to tape to his dick to simulate an erection would rub you raw inside.

[seabeyond]

52. or a man can rape the drunk man passed out. it happens. nt

[jmowreader]

58. That's a different issue

Numbnuts like Dr. Phil would claim guys can be raped by women. If anyone knows how, please advise.

[seabeyond]

59. No it is not a different issue. You responded to.... If a man is passed out,

Can he be raped. You went into the whole Popsicle stick tale. The is much more realistic and simple answer.

A man raping an unconscious man.

[IronLionZion]

66. Really? You need someone to describe it for you?

A woman can use objects to penetrate, anal, oral, drugs, restraints, group of strong women holding down a man, etc. Men can get hard without wanting to.

Also lesbian woman can rape women too. As of 2012, the federal rape laws were adjusted so that women can finally be prosecuted for nonpenetrative sexual assault (lesbians). And that could apply to straight women too who like to take what they want without consent.

[madville]

16. The question is not specific enough

What is the definition of "drunk" as it relates to the question?

Being "drunk" has different meanings to different people, everything from passed out drunk to a buzz after a glass of wine.

What is the definition of "girl" in the question? Are we talking about someone you just met at a party/bar or a wife/girlfriend that likes sex when she has been drinking?

Both my ex-wives and several girlfriends loved having sex when they were drinking so in my mind the question is vague because there are so many different variables, some instances were it would be wrong and some were there is no issue.

[Demo_Chris]

18. That might be why he asked it the way he did. nt

[Stargazer09]

34. If you and your partners

mutually agreed to have sex prior to drinking, and if they did not object to your advances while drunk, then it was probably not rape (given the information you shared, without knowing how the women truly felt).

The tweet seemed to be asking men whether or not they thought they *could* have sex with a drunk girl, without it being considered rape. It did not imply that any sort of consent for sexual relations was previously obtained by the men being asked the question. Basically, the tweet asks, does a woman's decision to drink give a man the right to have sex with her, even if she would not consent when sober?

[taught_me_patience]

19. I don't see what's wrong with the question

maybe he could have made it less gender specific, but, in my opinion, it's an ok question.

[Demo_Chris]

28. So far no one has actually answered this. nt

[Stargazer09]

32. The article clearly explains what is wrong with the question

Bottom line, it was a very stupid question to ask.

[Demo_Chris]

37. Not even close...

The article is full of unsupported blanket assertions about what a DIFFERENT question might mean. Let's review. From the article:

"Yikes. In the best possible light, McGraw was likely trying to begin a discussion presumably for fodder on his show about consent. Unfortunately, a social forum where a response can only be 140 characters was just so not the way to go about that. The fact that the question itself promotes rape culture is pretty much the worst..."

The authors admit that this very simple and open ende d question could have been asked for informational purposes, but to hell with all that, this author casually tosses out the "fact" that this question promotes rape.

"Carmen Rios, who shares, “As a former college sexual assault activist who taught about rape and consent and friend to many survivors, I am shocked and appalled by this question. …"

Why? What EXACTLY is so appalling about this very basic question? She doesn't say. Moving along, the Dr Phil show responded as follows:

“This Tweet was intended to evoke discussion leading into a very serious show topic based upon a recent news story, hence the #teensaccused label. It was a poll question, not a statement or a joke. As he has maintained over many years, Dr. Phil believes that the position of those incapacitated in any fashion; be it drugs, alcohol, age or mental illness can not and do not have the capacity to give their consent to anything, especially sex, which could have life changing repercussions. This was a research post in preparation for a show, not a personal post and Dr. Phil deleted it the second he saw it. It was clearly ill-advised. We sincerely apologize that it suggested anything other than what was intended, data gathering. As you can imagine, Dr. Phil is very upset that this happened."

Sounds pretty rational and non-rapey to me. So where does the author of this ridiculous article get off saying that this QUESTION promotes rape? Again, why is he or she so outraged? And that's that. That's the article that clears all this up. And yet the question remains:

What is SO outrageous about this very simple question? Got an answer, because I don't think you do.

[Stargazer09]

38. You read the blog post explaining what was wrong?

And you still don't understand? Wow.

[Demo_Chris]

42. Yeah, it's pretty weak...

1. The tweet perpetuates the idea that rape is blurry.

Sometimes these questions ARE blurry. Even the author of this blog post states suggests that some situations are open to interpretation -- something we can all understand. In any case, this author then goes on to state: "Implicit in Dr. Phil’s tweet was the suggestion that, you know, maybe it is fine to sleep with an incapacitated person." This is ludicrous. First, he never stated that the victim was incapacitated, and second he never offered an opinion on anything. All of that is in the mind of this author.

2. The question is too simple for the problem.

Undoubtedly. I assume it was left deliberately vague on purpose. Note that his show (apparently he didn't tweet this) did NOT ask whether or not it was okay to have sex with someone passed out from too much booze. They could have, but did not. That, in my mind, is a more interesting question. I would LOVE to know just how many people would actually state that they think this is okay. I suspect they didn't ask that question because the answer would have been overwhelmingly opposed -- and that's not a very good talking point for a program.

3. The question assumes all victims are women.

True. The tweet did not mention men or "non gender conforming" victims. Just women. That's not really a major cause for outrage. As a man who might one day be raped I am willing to overlook it. This time.

4. The tweet focused on offenders rather than survivors.

The question was not directed at offenders, it was directed at the public at large -- offenders, victims, and none of the above. There was no conversation, it was a question.

5. Dr. Phil is concerned with “can” rather than “should.”

According to the author of this blog, "Dr. Phil’s question looks to define what we can get away with in our pursuit of pleasure rather than how we should interact with our partners to make sure we’re all happy and safe." That is, in my opinion, ridiculous. This QUESTION does not define anything. It wasn't even loaded in such a way as to lead to any conclusion. All of that is in the mind of this author.

But I am beginning to get a clearer picture of the issue and the REAL reason for all the offense.

The problem, it seems to me, is that this program dared even address the topic at all. It's not his place to discuss this or even to ask this question. The answer, according to some, is that of course it's rape. It's ALWAYS rape because this is a rape culture. Even asking this rather simple question is promoting that rape culture. It is, in other words, outrage for the sake of outrage.

And knowing this, it is probably best for me to bow out. I don't have time in my life for invented drama.

[greyl]

40. 1. The tweet perpetuates the idea that rape is blurry.

2. The question is too simple for the problem.
3. The question assumes all victims are women.
4. The tweet focused on offenders rather than survivors.
5. Dr. Phil is concerned with “can” rather than “should.”

http://feministing.com/2013/08/21/five-problems-with-dr-phils-tweet/

[rapmanej]

53. I briefly saw this on CNN at work

I was a little anxious to come home and read about it, because I cannot stand Dr. Phil.

However, I don't share the outrage of others. I have read the blog post, and disagree with at least the first 4 suggestions, and don't have a true understand of the last one.

First, let me say, that rape is an issue that we should talk about. I would be most interested to see who would actually respond yes to the tweet, as that proves even more that more education is needed.

"The tweet perpetuates the idea that rape is blurry"
"The question is too simple for the problem"

To answer the first question - no is doesn't - it simply allows people to respond with their opinion. Obviously having sex with someone who can't legally give consent is rape (i.e. when he/she is drunk), but having a conversation about it surely isn't promoting rape. My biggest problem with these two statements is that they both fundamentally contradict one-another. The first statement is a definitive statement that accuses Dr. Phil of making rape too complex, and not just saying "sex while drunk" is rape, but the second statement accuses Dr. Phil's question of being too simple. Either the question is too blurry or too simple, it can't be both.

"The question assumes all victims are women. "

Sadly, based on recent events, this is unfortunately true (Steubenville, Rehtaeh Parsons). More women are raped in the US than men (outside of prison rape)

"The tweet focused on offenders rather than survivors."

The question is focused on what could be POTENTIAL offenders. I don't see that as a bad thing. I personally would rather focus on educating someone who might not even realize what they are doing is rape. Obviously, survivors of any kind of rape deserve care, empathy, and compassion, but the root problem of the culture needs to be addressed for this epidemic of date rape to see any kind of abatement.

"Dr. Phil is concerned with “can” rather than “should.”

I honestly don't understand what the argument is. In the blog post, the author seems to assume that Dr. Phil meant what we can "get away with", and then argues "what we "can” do again centers us on the potential offender’s well-being rather than the potential survivor’s and makes room for more violence. The problem with this line of arguing is that it makes an assumption as to what Dr. Phil meant, and then tries to argue against it, but all the author is doing is arguing against what she assumed Dr. Phil meant. That would be like me assuming what you meant in a debate, and then attacking you based on my assumption of what you meant, even though what you actually meant could be completely different.

So, in conclusion, I think Dr. Phil's show is terrible, but I can't see the outrage in this twitter poll.

[Vinnie From Indy]

20. Wasn't he like a telephone repair guy that bought a degree?

eom

[meow2u3]

21. Dr. Phil should rename himself Dr. Duck

quack...quack...

[nomorenomore08]

23. At best it was the wrong question, phrased badly at that. At worst this is outright rape apology. nt

[noamnety]

25. I caught part of one of his shows today.

There was a husband who was clearly abusive, threatening violence, the wife had gotten a protective order against him. Dr. Phil coerced her into getting the protective order removed so it wouldn't interfere with his show, then Dr. Phil got up in the wife's face bullying her into staying with the guy instead of divorcing him.

It was the most offensive thing I've watched in a long time. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he would blame a rape victim for getting drunk, instead of putting the blame on the rapist.

[Tumbulu]

27. How horrible!!!!

And very sad as well.

[Stargazer09]

33. Ugh

Ratings are much more important than showing that domestic violence is not okay.

The guy is even worse than I suspected.

[MotherPetrie]

49. I saw him a few times years ago on Oprah Winfrey's old show. Could not and cannot

understand how or why anyone would willingly subject herself or himself to this sick egotistical bastard's sadistic machinations. Winfrey deserves to burn in hell for unleashing this unethical, manipulative creep on vulnerable people, just to make a buck.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

26. He's a republican pos.

And he isn't licensed.

[Egnever]

44. Dr phil is a clown has always been a clown

Why pay any attention to him at all? As far as I am concerned his only purpose in life is to make me change the channel.

[Scootaloo]

51. Sometimes I read a thread on DU, nad have to check my browsers address bar

Anyone else get that feeling here? Show of hands?

[ZombieHorde]

54. If I was drunk, and had sex with a sober woman who wasn't my wife,

did I cheat, or was I raped?

[hobbit709]

64. Exactly how did "Dr." Phil lose his license? Had something to do with sexual improprieties.

[Initech]

65. The short answer to this question? No!!!!!!

Fuck you "Dr." Phil and also fuck you to anyone who answers yes to that question.