Update: Final update added 8 PM PST 6/23/11

In round two I interview Salon writer MaryElizabeth Williams on the topic of what was so objectionable about my blog post Pegs and Holes. (See prior posts for more background.)

MaryElizabeth Williams is a senior staff writer for Salon.com, an author, and has written for The New York Times and other publications. She recently wrote this about me.

Let's jump right in.

MaryElizabeth: Why did I object to your post? Perhaps you meant it humorously, but let's start with the way you lump "behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world" together. Cheating is "behaving badly." Raping is a crime. Right off the bat, you're working off fuzzy logic, in which a consensual affair and an act of violence are somehow on the same plane. You do so again later when you suggest that if men were to "lose the urge for sex," there'd be "no rape, fewer divorces," as if rape was all about the "urge for sex."

You state that "society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable...society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness. No one planned it that way." Your presumptuousness over the natural instincts of men is surpassed only by your wild second-guessing regarding those of women. And society, by the way, is plenty planned. Ours here in America, in fact, was planned by, and its government and businesses are still largely run by, men. So instead of going on about the "instincts" of men and women, consider what our culture deems acceptable behavior from all its members, of both sexes. I would furthermore submit that if our society is "a virtual prison for men's natural desires," you've never been to Vegas.

Now let me ask you - do you believe that rape is a "natural" instinct, or that our culture doesn't differentiate between the "urge for sex" and forcible violation? 

Scott: I'll start by answering you closing question. I think sex is a natural instinct, and it manifests differently in different people. A person who is simultaneously horny, prone to violence, and has sociopath tendencies might act in the worst possible way. That person would be abnormal, and I favor the death penalty for rape. Violent behavior is natural in the same sense that cancer and hurricanes are natural. Natural doesn't mean good. Everything I just explained was obvious to many if not most readers of my Pegs and Holes post. You can verify that claim by reading the comments on this blog and on Huffington Post.

On your other points, let me see if I can break them down to bullet points and get your agreement on what you are saying before I respond to them individually. I believe you are saying...

1. Men who have no sexual desire and no erections will still rape because it's not about the sexual urge.

2. If an author lists three things that are bad, he means all three things are equal to each other. For example, if I say blizzards, ulcers, and head lice are bad, I am implying that they should be treated the same way.

3. Society didn't evolve as the result of millions of people making millions of independent decisions. It is mostly the result of planning by men who successfully designed society to meet their needs. 

4. Men can get their natural urges satisfied by, for example, traveling to Las Vegas. Their wives and girlfriends won't mind. There's no real downside. 

5. You can't tell when I'm trying to be humorous. 

Did I accurately summarize your points?

MaryElizabeth: So to be clear, you're saying do believe that "horniness" is a factor in rape. I wonder, have you ever known someone who was raped? Are you aware that rape is used as a weapon of war? Men who have "no sexual desire and no erections" do rape, Scott. Ask someone who's experienced it. Ask Abner Louima, as just one example.

Further, I wonder why you're backing off from your own use of "tweeting, raping, cheating" and "no rape, fewer divorces" in the same lines of thought. You may facetiously compare your post to saying "blizzards, ulcers, and head lice are bad," but I would argue that if that had been your original statement, you'd have been rightly accused of posting utter gibberish.

Instead, you referred, in the most blanket-like of terms, to the "natural instincts of men" as "shameful and criminal."  You're the one who called men "square pegs" and referred to "males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges." You made no such distinction, as you do now, for the more "prone to violence" and "sociopathic."

And let me see if I understand you correctly - society has evolved from "millions of independent decisions"? I guess the Constitution can go suck it.

Finally, just because someone can tell when you're attempting to be humorous, it doesn't follow that you're succeeding at it. Likewise, just because people disagree  with you, it's not always a sign they're just not as smart as those HuffPo commenters. Perhaps if there weren't so many of us with what you deem poor reading skills, you wouldn't have the need to create imaginary defenders. (http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/04/19/scott_adams_sock_puppetry_scandal) I'd like to believe that you've reached out to your critics because you have a genuine curiosity to understand why your remarks were so offensive to so many, Scott. Or is that one more thing I'm apparently all wrong about?

Scott: If you're lumping together every type of rape from war crimes to date rape to child rape to prison rape, most generalizations fall apart. I will grant you that when rape is used as a weapon of war, horniness is not the inspiration for the act. And I will grant you that if an erect penis is not used in the crime, horniness is probably not involved. And I will grant you that if someone who is seriously insane commits rape, it might not involve any horniness. And I will grant you that there are probably dozens of other twisted motivations that don't start with horniness.

My original reference in my Pegs and Holes blog involved the IMF chief and his alleged rape of the hotel maid. In that case, I don't think he first had an urge to do some violence and decided that his penis was the go-to weapon of choice.

Chemical castration drugs already exist, and have proven extraordinarily effective in reducing recidivism rates among sex offenders. The science is on my side. If you have a link that shows otherwise, I am happy to look at it.

And yes, I've known a number of rape victims. I don't draw conclusions from anecdotal evidence, but horniness was obviously a factor in those cases.

If we can set aside for a moment the clarity, or lack thereof, in the writing of my original blog post, can you tell me what view you think I hold that is different from your own? And please put your answer in bullet point form if you can.

MaryElizabeth: Let's look at how you're changing your narrative here. "My original reference in my Pegs and Holes blog involved the IMF chief and his alleged rape of the hotel maid." Your original post about "tweeting, raping, cheating" declared that "the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn't ask to be born male?"  That's not a specific reference to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who, by the way, is not accused of "horniness" taken to an extreme, but of orally and anally assaulting a woman.  A refusal to take no for an answer may be a "factor" in some sexual assaults, but "horniness" does not lead to rape, Scott.

You go on to state, "Chemical castration drugs already exist, and have proven extraordinarily effective in reducing recidivism rates among sex offenders."  Yet in your original post you said, " Society is organized as a virtual prison for men's natural desires..." and whimsically imagined that  "science will come up with a drug that keeps men chemically castrated for as long as they are on it."  You didn't say, "sex offenders." You said "men." The entire tone of your post    suggests the two are indistinguishable in your mind, and that   " if a man meets and marries the right woman, and she fulfills his needs, he might have no desire to tweet his meat to strangers" ie, the burden of responsibility falls upon women to keep "bad behavior" in check. It's a very cynical and incredibly depressing way of looking at the world.

What views do I think you hold that's different from my own?

-      That, as you stated earlier this year,  "women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently." I don't regard my sex as differently abled subset of society.

-      That society forces males to exist  "in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness" (Perhaps you could clarify what society you're speaking of. Is there an Unhappiness Island I'm not aware of?)

-  That "It's a zero sum game. If men get everything they want, women lose, and vice versa." I'm not convinced this general "men" you speak of all want the same things. The men   right now fighting for the right to marry their same-sex partners in New York want something very different than the men of the National Organization for Marriage. Hugh Hefner, whom you claim never got "a round hole for his round peg" likely has damn near everything he could want, if whatever he does want, it's probably not indicative of what Justin Bieber wants. And I don't believe in a world where one gender always has to win and another has to lose.  I think better of humanity.

Here are few questions for you: What are you hoping to communicate with posts like "Pegs and Holes"? Is it means as strictly satire? And if so, why bristle when people take the bait? 

Scott: On your first bullet point, you are making my point for me. The actual point of the earlier blog post you mentioned was that men don't argue in situations where the cost of doing so is greater than the gain. The world is watching you make that true for me right now. This debate will probably reduce my income by a third, as feminist forces have already mobilized and started to ask newspapers to drop Dilbert. That's the sort of risk that men don't have when they engage in a debate with other men.

The exception would be when anonymous men on the Internet debate with women. In that case they have no downside risk and are willing to fully engage. But nothing is gained by it beyond entertainment.

On your second bullet point, regarding men existing in a state of unfulfilled urges, I'm referring to the fact that men (gross generality alert) have hearts that want a relationship with one person and penises that want a thousand different women. Neither marriage nor single life can satisfy that condition. And our current society discourages any other sort of arrangement.

Woman (gross generalization alert) are biologically less inclined to crave continuous sexual variety. That's a statement about evolution. If you have a link that disproves that notion, I'm happy to look at it.

Someone will mention that men and women cheat at about the same rate. But research has shown that cheating isn't about sex for either gender. Cheaters generally just want someone to treat them the way they want to be treated.

Obviously it wouldn't be a point of disagreement if you were to say that many people differ from my gross generalizations. I said the same thing in Pegs and Holes: "Everyone is different."

On your third bullet point, you argue that life is not a zero-sum game for the sexes. That's probably true for economics. But my blog post was about natural urges. If a man you barely know wants to have sex with you, and you'd rather not, you can't both be winners. Society has to pick sides, and you won. I think we both agree that is the best solution. Even the man who wants to have sex with you is glad he lives in a world where his mother/daughter/sister can safely say no.

You asked what I'm hoping to communicate with posts such as Pegs and Holes. My only goal is to be interesting. Ideas are society's fuel. I drill a lot of wells; most of them are dry. Sometimes they produce. Sometimes the well catches on fire.

My next question: Do you support the death penalty for rape, as I do, or are you relatively pro-rape compared to me?

MaryElizabeth: First of all, Scott, your continued assertion regarding the risks "that men don't have when they engage in a debate with other men" is a stellar example of why people find your views offensive. It's insulting, it suggests that talking to a woman isn't worth your time and effort, and when you stoop to do so, you face retribution from the "feminist forces." Here's a thought: if as you claim anyone is asking for your strip to be dropped (and for the record, I am not among them) can you consider that maybe it's because of the things you say, rather than because you've so benevolently deigned to engage in a conversation with a female?

Now, let's consider your idea that "If a man you barely know wants to have sex with you, and you'd rather not, you can't both be winners." So much to unpack! What if it's a man you know well? It gets back to what you wrote about how "the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal." You're not making the distinction between wanting to have sex with someone and wanting to force her to have sex. And to couch sexuality in terms of "winning" and "losing" just sounds really juvenile. If a woman says no to sex, the man "loses" and the woman has "won"? I will however cop that for a man who views the world that way, the burden of male "unhappiness" you spoke of earlier must be great indeed.

You say, "My only goal is to be interesting. Ideas are society's fuel." I think that sums up the essential difference in where we're coming from. I don't write to be "interesting" (go ahead, peanut gallery, take the straight line). I'm not bored or jaded enough to write just to get a reaction. My Irish firmly in the "up" position, I'm here because I care passionately about these issues, and about the world in which my two daughters are growing up. I don't want their ideas and opinions dismissed as too troublesome for a man to squander his energy on, or to have to put up with what you refer to as "gross generalizations" about their sex.

Now, regarding your question, "Do you support the death penalty for rape, as I do, or are you relatively pro-rape compared to me?" Oh Scott. Oh really. You're just messing with me now, aren't you? What's next, you going to ask when I stopped beating my wife? You can't honestly believe that being opposed to capital punishment is tantamount to be in favor of sexual assault, can you? Where's that great logic you pride yourself so much on?

Scott: I think this would be a good place to stop. I'd like to thank MaryElizabeth for being a good sport and for trying to make the world a better place in her own peculiar way.

I feel as if this has been an Internet-wide conversation, with many websites joining in the debate. I leave it to readers to decide whether it was wise for me to engage in an honest conversation on this topic or whether it would have been smarter to apologize for any alleged offenses and slink away. Here's a link that should help you answer that question.

To the women who are not batshit crazy, and fortunately that is most of you, I apologize for any lack of clarity on my part was deemed offensive. I'm reasonably sure we agree on all of the important stuff.



Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +231
  • Print
  • Share


Sort By:
Jun 23, 2011
Also, I realize this is slightly off-topic, but I find it incredibly frustrating to submit a post and see it appear with random splotches of "!@#$%^&*." The words I'm using are literally the same words Scott used in the OP -- in many instances, I'm quoting him. Isn't this profanity filter a bit absurd (especially for a site that claims it wants to stimulate challenging, bracing dialog for novelty and irreverence purposes)? Can we do something about it?
Jun 23, 2011
@ mwisnefksy --

"Listing things implies equality among them?"

Look: if this were an LSAT logic puzzle or a computer algorithm, it wouldn't. But in political and conversational rhetoric and most forms of nonfiction prose, when an author employs a serial list like this and does not comment on the relationship among, or relative importance of, the articles contained in the list, some sort of equivalency is usually intended and reasonabluy inferred. Accordingly, an author using a list structure like this probably foresees, or ought to foresee, that it will be read that way. If he intends a different reading, he should clarify or rephrase. Again, this is why you'd take !$%* for a statement like "hangnails and the Holocaust are both bad," and why no intelligent person would make such a statement as part of a purportedly-serious commentary on either hangnails or the Holocaust.

"Also, can you stop thinking in the terms of "women versus men"

What? I haven't done this, but Adams has. He describes rulemaking in society as a "zero sum game" where womens' interests can only be advanced at the expense of mens' and vice versa. I think that's retarded. What say you?
-16 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 23, 2011
2-0 for the women I'd say. They're right. Society isn't at all designed to control the urges of men. You can have as much sex as you want as a man as long as it isn't rape. rape is not an instinct, reproduction is. Human beings arrive in this world underdeveloped (compare it to a gnu who can run one minute from birth). A major part of the actual development happens after being born, and thus is shaped by the environment. In other words, it's cultural. There is no human nature. Based on environmental differences you can have one baby turn out to be a raping murderer and the other to be a tree-hugging metrosexual. There is no such thing as human nature, thereby it is not natural for men to rape. At the most it is cultural, or not.
+11 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 23, 2011
I reread the original Pegs and Holes, and my conclusion is that Scott is saying two things:
1.) “Powerful men have been behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world. The current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior. That seems right. Obviously we shouldn’t blame the victims. I think we all agree on that point.”
2.) “Long term, I think science will come up with a drug that keeps men chemically castrated for as long as they are on it. It sounds bad, but I suspect that if a man loses his urge for sex, he also doesn’t miss it.”

Isn’t his post stating that he has a problem with men doing this (their abuse of power) and that giving them a castration pill may be a great idea for society? That is what I am reading from it (and of course it is written from a comedic/satirist perspective on his own comedic website).

Please keep in mind that this blog is about questioning ideas and it is written by a cartoonist – a point that Scott makes over and over again in many posts. He is presenting an idea! I love thinking about ideas from other ‘different’ open-minded people.

It is indeed strange for me to understand the outrage when I believe Scott has virtually the same opinion as the women criticizing him.
+28 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 23, 2011
It's the epic battle of logic vs emotions (and making assumptions). What's funny is that it's a feminist group that have been made the advocate for emotions, and that a cartoonist is taking a stand for logic. My guess is that logicists will win this round, but that the emotionists won't see it or care.
+40 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 23, 2011
Scott's actual core point seems to be that:
1. Laws and rules are an attempt by Society (note "Society" not "women") to control behavior that it finds undesirable. A lot of this behavior stems from natural male urges (that doesn't make the behavior acceptable)
2. Mass mind-control of the male population through drugs is a better alternative. Its more effective and it also keeps men happy by nipping their urges in the bud vs suppressing them. Eventually society will realize this and adopt it as a solution. (Anyone seen the movie "Equilibrium")

Regarding the first point, I don't think anyone will argue against the fact that laws are meant to deter behavior that Society finds unacceptable. At most, one could find debate that bad behavior or urges are not the exclusive domain of men - but that's not the main point anyway.

As to the MAIN POINT (i.e. drugs vs laws) - don't see anyone debating that AT ALL.

Instead of taking his post at face value, many people are making their own assumptions (Scott would say Hallucinations) about what he means and then arguing about those assumptions. Some of these include:

1. Scott thinks laws aimed at controlling men's behavior are "unfair":
Actually, he doesn't say that ANYWHERE in this post. He just says that society has evolved laws as a solution to the problem of men's tendency towards bad behavior. He does say that these laws make men unhappy by suppressing their urges - that's not the same as saying they're unfair.

2. Scott thinks laws are made to favor women:
He uses the word "society" (men and women). Stating that a society's laws are designed to surpress bad-urges in men is not the same as stating that society is woman-dominated. You might think he means that - but this is where you stop reading and start ASSUMING. After all (most) men don't want to live in a murder-rape-pillage society either and are all FOR controlling of these urges, EVEN though means they can't kill that !@$$ PHB or smash up his shiny new BMW, no matter how badly they want to!

3. Scott thinks "rape" is only "bad behavior" and not "criminal" - this one's just petty semantics and taking things out of context.

Feminists spend all their time dealing with anti-women sentiment, so its no wonder that they jump to such conclusions - "To a person with a Hammer, everything looks like a Nail".

The very fact that he suggests mass drugging of men shows that Scott is NOT arguing for men to have the right to satisfy their natural (albeit harmful to society) urges. He only says that the problem we (men and women) attempt to solve by laws or rules can be better solved by drugs. How about we actually debate this for a change?

PS: SCOTT - Have I understood your post mostly right, or am I hallucinating too? I'd really like to know...
-7 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 23, 2011
Here's my response to this farce:

-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 23, 2011
So - if chemical castration means "no rape", then wasn't your original implication that all rape had a sexual motivation somehow?

That may not have been your opinion - though I can't read minds - but sticking to what's on the page it does seem to be what you wrote.

Castrating drugs may eliminate violent urges also - but I don't think that's the point you were making.
+15 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 23, 2011
As Scott mentioned, it would be infinitely easier for everyone to follow your arguments if you could present them in bullet form; 1 bullet for each of your claims/hypotheses, and a short para to support each hypothesis.
Currently you seem to be running around in circles, engaging in near ad hominem attacks, agreeing with Scott implicitly and refusing to provide evidence to support your statements.
Jun 23, 2011
Ms. Williams lost all credibility when she wrote: "And let me see if I understand you correctly - society has evolved from "millions of independent decisions"? I guess the Constitution can go suck it."

So she's essentially saying that the entire population, past, present, and future, of the United States became who they are, and made every decision they've ever made, because of the Constitution?

So every drug lord, robber, industrialist, entrepreneur, teacher, doctor, and whomever else all owe their independent decisions to the Constitution?

You should ask to clarify that point.
Jun 23, 2011
"And let me see if I understand you correctly - society has evolved from "millions of independent decisions"? I guess the Constitution can go suck it."

It is true that to a certain extent society is planned, however it then requires millions of independent people making independent decions to follow that planning (obey the laws) decided by a few. Governments rely on primary and secondary socialisation to teach people the norms and values of a society and anything which falls outside these values is labledas deviance with the more extreme cases often being considered crime. The main problem for me with your argument is that you appear to be taking sweeping generalisations and trying to apply them to specific instances, something wich very rarely works, and I would suggest is academically unsound.
Jun 23, 2011

Go look at the story. Read what he had to say. He was brutally honest about his faults.

Feminism is now filled with vitriolic misandry and male oppression. Two industries notorious for male oppression are the the DV and Divorce industries. Both have been heavily influenced by feminism.

In case you are not aware it is directly related to several alarming societal trends including:

- Men who kill their family.
- The growing “marriage strike” (men who refuse to get married).

Self-Immolation as a means of political protest (which is what Mr. Ball clearly indicated), is the ultimate act of civil disobedience.

It takes courage to do that. The least you can do is read what he had to say.
Jun 23, 2011
There's an easy way to explain the "men" rule issue. The point she fails to get is in her assumption that "all men are created" equal, might be in the constitution, but the reality is the deck is stacked in favor of wealthy white guys and maybe a few wealthy guys of other races. So yes those guys (and hence the behavior of the individuals in the Peg post) is that they've got the cash/power so they are above the law and can get away with things most of mere mortal men can't do and thus we pay heavily in who is believed in gender disputes.

But in the end it doesn't matter. Both the writers have shown that they won't tolerate speech when it flies in the face of their chosen belief (and I believe its true of many writers who take a particular stance) and that the mere words themselves will do untold damage if not written in the politically correct word usage be it feminism, conservatism, liberalism, apple fans, android fans etc.) we have become a nation of "if your are with us your against us" mentality. So Scott is bound to rile someone up no matter what stance he takes (unless its that wishy washy no meaning stance that offends no one and means nothing).
Jun 22, 2011
@AndrewV69 Feminism is about analyzing and challenging systems of oppression that oppress women, poor people, disabled people, black people, gay people, and so on. It does not mean "nothing unfair has ever happened to a straight white man."

As for the link you posted, I have no idea what really happened between the man and his daughter because I wasn't there. It's certainly possible that what happened to this man was wrong and unjust and representative of problems with the system. My personal view is that our criminal justice system is deeply flawed and excessively punitive, especially when it comes to poor and nonwhite people.

The fact that you think this story somehow disproves male privilege shows you're not understanding the concept. Lots of unfair, unjust things happen to straight white male individuals every day. Male privilege is about systems of oppression.
Jun 22, 2011
"Look at me, jerking off in the shower... This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here. " But hey, there's always Vegas!

This was a much better exchange than with Jezebel.. keep it going Scott.
Jun 22, 2011
This woman is crazy. lol. I would not argue with her. I would go right down the path of least resistance.
Jun 22, 2011

What you do not appear to realize is that currently society is indeed currently set up to oppress and unfairly punish men. Much less so if you are a member of the elite and have a lot of money (DSK notwithstanding).

I am pretty sure that what I have to say, is going to be rejected by you, and any facts laid in front of you will also be rejected because it does not fit in with your perception of reality.

I am going to give you ONE example.

Recently, in New Hampshire, Thomas Ball performed an act of self immolation to protest “being bullied as a man”.

You will find a link to the letter he wrote in the above URL. Here is your test. Go read it now before reading anything else. Then come back and read the rest of what I have to say.

Go ahead.

I would not be surprised at any of your responses that evade any of the real issues. Here are two:

The second set of unofficial books, and that there are finical incentives currently in place to jail, abuse and oppress any man who comes into contact with the DV industry.

Let me list some of the issues you will latch on to avoid confronting the injustice meted out if you are a man.

He hit his daughter! (he was cleared of the charge of assault)
He was a deadbeat Dad! (After paying child support for ten years)
He committed suicide rather than pay up! (He had been out of work for two years and was broke).
He was a coward! (He took the most agonizing option of civil protest you can imagine).

I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

Jun 22, 2011
@mwisnefsky I did not say it implies equality, but that it implies they all have something in common, and are all similarly connected to the larger point you're making. My problem isn't that I think he was saying rape and cheating are the same level of bad -- it's that rape was included as a natural instinct in a post about how society is oppressing men by criminalizing their natural instincts that they can't be blamed for having.

And talking about the oppression of women is not "us vs them" to feminists. For us it's about working toward equality, which would benefit both men and women. Denying the current reality by claiming women are somehow privileged (and I'm curious to hear how you all think that even happened, considering that men vastly outnumber women in all positions of power) makes it harder for feminists to gain support and accomplish our goals -- it makes it harder to achieve equality.
Jun 22, 2011
Esperanza & newtodilbert - Listing things implies equality among them? Just because you commonly make assumptions based on what you would mean if you wrote a given sentence, does not mean everyone will, or that it was the author's intent. Clarity may have helped the distinction that those things are not meant to be equal, but like floor mats in a car, they are nice to have but hardly necessary. Also, can you stop thinking in the terms of "women versus men" in terms of the oppression that happens and think in terms of "people are oppressed"? It promotes an attitude of "us vs them" and is one of the leading causes of stupidity.

corbu - I don't think rape is a good thing, and I think that rapists should be locked away for good. But rape exists in nature. Things that exist in nature are by definition "natural." However, so does cannibalism, !$%*!$%*! to lay claim to things, infantcide, patricide, and a slew of other things that everyone can agree is wrong. Rape is wrong, rape is horrible. You are also over reacting. By places things out of reach of discussion, you limit understanding and create an air of secrecy about it. While you may not appreciate the discussion, the mere fact that it was brought up can help those who have been raped talk about it. There are certainly limits for what should be considered acceptable speech (for example, someone advocating rape, murder, theft or genocide...etc... should not be allowed to speak), but someone mentioning rape as a bad behavior (which it certainly is) probably falls within the "acceptable use" catagory.

Scott - Awesome job! Clever! I can see the effects of this:


at work here.
Jun 22, 2011
Do these writers go over their own work at all?
To use a cliche term, "she was asking for it, being so easy and available like that."
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog