Nathan Wuertenberg
Commentary Editor
It is possible that some of you reading this have recently encountered the name Alex Knepper in popular news sources. It is also possible that some of you have even read his March 28, 2010 article in the American University Eagle as it spread throughout the Internet and made waves across the national news scene and caused storms of outrage. Finally, it is possible that my response to this article will only be another drop in the ocean of that outrage. Despite this possibility, I feel the necessity to continue.
In this article entitled “Dealing with AU’s anti-sex brigade,” Mr. Knepper, among other claims, most notably argues that “date rape” is not, in fact, rape. What? Let’s rewind that and review, shall we? Although this is not always an accurate indicator, if the crime is included in the name of the act, there’s a good chance it’s a crime.
But, I admit, that’s not enough. Let’s look at the example Mr. Knepper uses of a typical date rape situation and determine if it qualifies as rape. “Let’s get this straight,” Knepper declares, “any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK?” I don’t know how many of you are familiar with jungle juice (it’s a college campus, so I’m assuming a large portion), but this particular concoction is frequently comprised of a juice-esque liquid and whatever cheap liquor can be obtained. This often includes grain alcohol. To take a page from Knepper’s book, let’s get this straight: THAT SHIT CAN MAKE YOU GO BLIND. And not like “inspiring Ray Charles-blind.” More like “I keep tripping over/injuring small children-blind.” At best, five cups worth of jungle juice will make your face go numb. At worst, a bunch of small children have bruises because of you. At what point in that experience does a person have the capacity to indicate consent. Simple answer: they don’t. That’s what rape is: sexual intercourse without that person’s consent. Simple rule of thumb ladies and gentleman (because a man can be raped too): no definitive consent=don’t do it.
In the course of his article, Knepper also offers a blistering critique of feminism in which, he implies, the feminist movement is attempting to make women more powerful than men. Let’s be clear: that’s not feminism. Being a feminist simply means that an individual believes that men and women should be politically, socially, and economically equal (or at least have equal opportunities to succeed in any or all of these categories). Feminism means you believe everyone has the right to choose their own destiny. Believe that? If you do, congratulations. You’re a feminist. Now you can be as pissed off as I am about the things Knepper said.
First of all, Knepper compares feminism to Pat Robertson. Given this particular individual’s frequent criticisms of the feminist movement, such a comparison seems a stretch. Second of all, he labels feminism a “religious dogma.” For those of you who haven’t taken an introductory religion course (or haven’t actually lived on this planet), that’s not true. In order for a set of beliefs to qualify as a religion, it must possess three basic characteristics (often referred to as the ABC’s of religion). These are: A)ssures salvation, B)elieves in a precise theology, and C)onverts non-believers. At what point does feminism assure salvation? No feminist ever told me I would go to heaven for supporting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Furthermore, anyone familiar with the myriad of different feminist movements (including but not limited to womanism, LGBT-focused feminism, anarcha feminism, radical feminism, liberal feminism, Libertarian feminism, and environmental feminism) can hardly claim that feminist theology is “precise.” I might be able to give Knepper the “converts non-believers” category. After all, I believe everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed, why don’t you? Maybe you should reconsider whatever you’re about to say to that.
Third, Knepper completely abuses the idea of “social construction theory” (which, by the way, has not been “disposed of by neuroscientists and psychologists” and is actually correctly termed “social constructivism” or “social constructionism”). In fact, I could be wrong, but I’m fairly certain Knepper isn’t talking about social constructivism at all. Social constructivism is devoted to the study of how social phenomena like stereotypical gender roles (i.e. girls are nurses and boys are doctors) become widely accepted traditions. It is not completely focused on the study of gender roles, but that study is part of the wider social constructivism structure. Nowhere could I find in my admittedly brief research before writing this response any theory that argued that “men are essentially born as eunuchs, only to have wicked masculinity imposed on them by an evil society.” I did happen upon some interesting findings in the field of gender identity research that claimed individuals do not develop a functional gender identity until they are 2 or 3 years of age. As far as I can ascertain, that particular study has not been “disposed of” by neuroscientists and psychologists. Questioned, maybe. In a competitive scientific world some questioning is inevitable. But it hasn’t been disregarded. Perhaps if Knepper had done a modicum more research than the poor uneducated sap who is writing to you now, such a mistake would never have been made, and readers would have been more likely to take his opinions seriously.
Fourth, Knepper offers to his readers a series of what he calls “pro-sex views.” Personally, I wasn’t aware anyone over the age of puberty was not pro-sex. There are those who advocate celibacy before marriage, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with saving yourself for marriage. But that isn’t to say that after marriage you can’t bump uglies like there’s no mañana. According to Knepper, “the goal of contemporary feminism and Gay Party activism is not to explain sex, but to abolish its passion.” This passion, according to Mr. Knepper, is characterized by “spontaneity, raw energy and control (or its counterpart, surrender).” I will agree with Mr. Knepper on several points: sex can in certain situations be improved by “spontaneity” and “raw energy.” Furthermore, if your own individual sexual preferences include the possession of “control” or the act of “surrender” in that situation and you can find someone else who will give their consent to be your “counterpart,” feel free to act out those fantasies. But that does not mean that such sexual practices are always, 100% of the time, appropriate (as Mr. Knepper implies). But, a sexual relationship of mutual respect, love, and caring is. It may sound naive to some of you for me to say that. It may even seem unnecessarily obvious to others. However, it has to be said. Sex doesn’t always have to include the “inherently gendered thrills of fetishism, sadomasochism, kink or cross-dressing” as Knepper argues. Sometimes sex isn’t about simple gratification. Sometimes it’s about expressing the feelings you have for a person in the most intimately physical way possible, which makes Knepper’s glorification of “anonymous sex” seem a bit shallow and immature. One has to wonder if Knepper has ever experienced a mature, responsible relationship himself.
Finally, Knepper “altruistically” offers five of his favorite books on sex and gender: “The Myth of Male Power” by Warren Farrell, “The Sexual Spectrum” by Olive Skene Johnson, “Vamps and Tramps” by Camille Paglia, “Philosophy In the Bedroom” by the divine Marquis de Sade, and “Who Stole Feminism?” by Christina Hoff Sommers. The first has most often been used (wrongly, it would appear from my brief research) as the anti-feminist Bible. The second unabashedly uses personal stories to bolster scientific findings (and, if you’ve ever taken a psychology class, you know that anecdotal evidence doesn’t actually represent evidence). The third is written by an author that argues that in order to “revamp” feminism “the lady must be a tramp” and calls the idea that homosexuals are born gay “ridiculous.” The fourth is just creepy, but again, if you’re into that kind of stuff, feel free to check it out. Finally, “Who Stole Feminism” is by a woman that once claimed that feminists were “just mad at the beautiful girls.” Personally, I find the idea that a movement devoted to promoting equity and respect between the genders requires impropriety to be successful counterintuitive and ridiculous. Furthermore, the idea that homosexuality is any more reversible than heterosexuality is offensive. Finally, the idea that feminists are just ugly girls jealous that they aren’t more sexually appealing is a stereotype. I looked it up.
But, again, I have only performed the briefest research in preparing to write this article. I could be wrong about everything I believe. However, like Alex Knepper, I have the right to tell anyone who disagrees with me to suck it in a public forum.