Monday, March 29, 2010

Republicans For Rape....?

I came across this site a while ago, and I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it:

While the site is satirical and was created by a liberal, they are being incredibly bold in the approach they are taking in getting their point across. One blog, for example, reads: "Being a 'victim' of rape is, at best, a minor inconvenience and can be acceptably swept under the rug. Binding arbitration can and does deliver sufficient remedies for 'victims' of gang rapes so breathtaking that the victim requires reconstructive surgery. I can't provide any examples of restitution because the proceedings of such cases are kept secret. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, concealing these rapes from the public is the only suitable way to talk about them. Rape techniques are trade secrets of the rapist – sexual intellectual property – and they deserve protection."

The site seems to have been created as an attack on the 30 senators who voted against Al Franken's amendment to the Senate Defense appropriations bill. You can read about some of the controversy surrounding this amendment here:

At the bottom of, there is a disclaimer that reads: This website is (mostly) satire. Its creators do not endorse rape nor do they oppose anti-rape legislation.

...mostly satire?? What is that supposed to mean?

The site's creator may be well-intentioned, but are they going a bit far? What do you think?



  1. What does mostly satire mean?!

  2. Wow, I really don't feel like this is a very productive way of addressing those who didn't support the bill.

    It's interesting that this site, mostly or otherwise, as satire, points out social-legal constructions around rape. So, I don't really know if the "mostly" is the most troubling part - are we supposed to laugh at this? Are we not supposed to take the site seriously? Because I don't know if that's very productive either.