Skip to content

Dirk Hayhurst’s story of sexual abuse and debauchery in the minors has caused some blowback

Aug 1, 2014, 11:32 AM EDT

Dirk Hayhurst

Earlier this week, Dirk Hayhurst wrote about his 2003 rookie league team over at Sports on Earth. Specifically, their off-the-field sexual habits which ranged from mere immaturity to what seems to have been, by any definition of the term, rape. I linked the post here approvingly, as I believe that, for whatever else it is, it’s a revealing look at an ugly part of sports culture that is overlooked by many.

But there is that “for whatever else it is” part, and many have come out in the past few days to criticize Hayhurst for telling this story. Or telling it in this way. Or telling it at this time. Or in, possibly, overstating how many of his teammates were involved in what he described. There are a lot of good points being brought up in this regard.

One good read along these lines is Alexis Brudnicki’s, who reached out to some of Hayhurst’s teammates for their side of the story. Another is Eireann Dolan’s piece, which sharply criticizes Hayhurst for having stood silent for so long. If something was said or done about it back in 2003, she argues, the very culture that Hayhurst seeks to expose now could have been addressed then and, maybe, the perpetrators of these alleged crimes could have been dealt with. Dolan’s piece is based, unfortunately, on personal experience. Another is from Stacey May Fowles who, while getting Hayhurst’s intent, notes that, in some important ways, Hayhurst’s story is part of the problem when it comes to male attitudes about sexual abuse. All of these reads are worth your time.

For Hayhurst’s part, he responded to the criticism he has received this week on Twitter, accepting some of this criticism as well-placed, but defending himself as well. I’ll put his tweets together into paragraph form for easier reading:

Back in 2003, I was afraid to lose my job, nuke teammates with things that would be denied and near impossible to prove…I wasn’t the writer I am now. I was young and stupid and naive enough to believe baseball policed itself…The rule was never speak of team behavior outside the locker room, no matter how bad. if you did and caused drama you’d get cut, or worse…You’d get branded (ask Bouton) and subject to every form of frontier justice the game had… beaten and beaned for breaking the code . . .I didn’t write that SoE piece to accuse anyone but myself. It’s not an attack or an apology. It’s a recounting… an admission of what was . . . It’s an expose’ of baseball’s code of silence on sexist behavior, which I was a part of just as much as anyone else, and I own that…So, yes, I realize I look awful. Some think I’m a coward for speaking late. Some think I’m a rat for speaking at all…I realize how bad I look, but the truth isn’t always convenient for those who tell it. If it was, more of it would be told. Thank for reading my stuff, your support, and for putting up with this long thread of tweets invading your feed.

This is one of those situations where I can see everyone’s point of view to some extent. I do wish Hayhurst had spoken up sooner but I understand why a person in his situation didn’t. I do think he painted with a very broad brush, but I also understand that his intent — even if it wasn’t necessarily successfully pursued — was actually not to call out anyone specific (and some who complain in Brudnicki’s piece about the broad brush seem more upset about Hayhurst writing about his experiences in baseball than what he wrote here specifically). It’s a hard subject that involved failures on Hayhurst’s part. I’m not sure there is any way he could have written this which wouldn’t lead to criticism of some sort. I hope (and believe) that he knows that.

From the outside-looking-in, however, I am still glad Hayhurst wrote this, even if it wasn’t anything anyone truly wanted to read. The excesses that can and all-too-often do take place inside sports are very real and need to be talked about. Ideally, they’re talked about when they occur and when something can be done about them. But short of that, I hope that they can still be talked about so they can help us deal with this stuff in the future.

116 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. 4cornersfan - Aug 1, 2014 at 11:45 AM

    I’m trying to be outraged, but this sounds like the stories former college roommates tell about their days in the dorm. About 10% truth and 90% fabrication and exaggeration.

    • emdash01 - Aug 1, 2014 at 11:47 AM

      I’m somewhat alarmed by your college roommates, then.

    • renaado - Aug 1, 2014 at 11:50 AM

      If only their life and job were on the line…

    • sabatimus - Aug 1, 2014 at 12:13 PM

      At least you said “sounds like” instead of declaring what you said to be fact.

      • 4cornersfan - Aug 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM

        Congratulations. You are the only person who actually read my comment. The rest of the bozos made their knee-jerk comments as expected. What a bunch of mindless wusses.

  2. sabatimus - Aug 1, 2014 at 12:12 PM

    Well, you really can’t ask for a more frank response than this. And his line “the truth isn’t always convenient for those who tell it. If it was, more of it would be told” is the reason why things get covered up–explicitly or implicitly. This is the reason governments routinely lie or withhold information from their citizens.

    • Old Gator - Aug 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM

      Hayhurst is on his way to becoming the H. L. Mencken of sportswriting, and like Mencken, he is going to draw some flak. Regardless, I think that if Hayhurst didn’t exist, it would have been necessary for American belles lettres to invent him. What he’s doing is important, and the fact is, he does it well.

      Eireann Dolan’s point is taken, but for a writer, she overflies some important issues. Not the least of these is that Hayhurst isn’t merely a journalist. He is a belletrist, which is to say, a literary artist of substantial rank, and he’s still learning his craft. It’s not as if the overarching problem of sexual manipulation and abuse in sports is so suppressed that such revelations are unique or original. Though he doubtless would have added to the social dialogue, Hayhurst wasn’t going to blow any covers off of the scandal if he’d written this during his time as a professional athlete. His sort of writing doesn’t get churned out to a daily or even weekly deadline the way a sports journalist’s work often has to be. Most of it shows evidence of considerable thought, redaction and polishing. He’s a rhetorical lapidary and it takes time to bring such prose, and the thoughts that nurture it, to fruition. In the case of such writers, I’d rather have the work done well than quickly – not merely for the pleasure of the reading but because, done well, it has lasting value and remains in the discourse far longer than simple muckraking.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM

        I’m going to agree to disagree with you, but know that there’s a giant FU in it. He still didn’t do it the right way and literature is not more important than women.

      • whatacrocker - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:06 PM

        I think the point is an important one. Not the literary merit, but simply the attention part of it. In other words, the younger Dirk Hayhurst could have said something, but who would have listened? Do we really imagine that some single-A manager is going to wade into the locker room, guns blazing, trying to find the perpetrators? Or some assistant GM? Or the police, for that matter, given that Hayhurst was not the affected party and that his report would essentially be hearsay? And unfortunately, even if the perpetrators were caught, this particular form of rape would have been VERY difficult to prosecute, since undoubtedly the players would claim consent was given. As there was no violence (and thus no evidence of violence), it would have been a “he said, she said” situation.

        By waiting until he had some fame/stature, at very least Hayhurst allowed his story to reach a much larger audience…

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:16 PM

        You guys are still missing the most important part: he could have told THE WOMEN. They could’ve had some agency of their own here. Dammit, we don’t need you fix everything around us; we deserve the right to fight for ourselves and withholding info from us denies us that. He didn’t need any public stature to let those women know they were being taken advantage of — and then he could’ve let them handle it. Waiting didn’t do jack for these women. And that’s a crime.

      • jtorrey13 - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:20 PM

        I agree with Old Gator and Craig and I’m glad Hayhurst wrote it. I’m also glad that historiophiliac commented as I read her comments on Craig’s initial post and … well I listened. I had no clue on how to respond.

        Now there has been more written (and I still need to get to all the links that Craig made) but I still have one overriding question that I’d like to address to historiophiliac. (I know the comments of an article are probably no way to have an intelligent discussion, but it’s the only forum I currently have at the moment.)

        I’ve read “The Bullpen Gospels.” Hayhurst is a decently upright and strong man by that book. What he did was wrong in not saying anything. I’m glad he has said something now though the timing may be way too late.

        I wonder if I have the strength (physical, mental, moral) to stand up like so many people wish Hayhurst had done. I’d like to think I would. I also know that I haven’t been in a fight since 8th grade and I’m not a very confrontational person. I don’t ever want to see this kind of thing happen, but until I am a witness, I’m not sure if my internal fortitude would surge up and remove the fear and anxiety from my mind and body to do something. (I want to put a caveat – there are many situations when I don’t think I would have any problem speaking up or calling the police or yelling for help – it’s the other 5% that trouble me.)

        So, with those prefaces, if I failed, why would I want to share? I’d be admitting my failure. I’d be opening myself up to questions of my character and my morality. I might even be more ashamed in the future and create a spiral of self-loathing that would make an attempt to share even more difficult as I imagine how people would judge me as a person.

        I know I have made mistakes in relationships with women. I already kick myself for those mistakes (whether it is as simple as refusing a dance to … sigh … awkward groping in high school with a girlfriend to …) and I hope I have learned. I don’t like myself for those things. I don’t want to hate myself even more by knowing other people hate me.

        I don’t want to be a “not all men” guy. I know I am a man. I know I have made mistakes. I … well … I don’t know. I want to do better is all I can say and I want to help people do better. I’m not sure what Hayhurst’s motivations were, but I can understand the “need” to confess. Forgiveness may not be possible, but just listening to something that can’t be changed is possible. Hopefully by talking about it, Dirk will do better and other people will do better. I hope to do better.

      • jtorrey13 - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:23 PM

        Oh wow. Yes. Telling the women. Warn them. I think I was thinking in more general terms of the act as it is happening. Giving them a chance to avoid the situation is a much more powerful solution.

      • whatacrocker - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:28 PM

        And how, exactly, is he going to warn the women? Do you imagine that two of Hayhurst’s teammates told him their “game plan” for the night, pointed out the woman who would be targeted, and then said “we’re going to leave the room now for five minutes, in case you want to talk to her about anything,”?

        By the time that Hayhurst was aware of these incidents, they were undoubtedly a fait accompli.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:45 PM

        He might not know what another player is up to at first, but once he became aware of something — go to the woman (even if it’s after the fact). If the deed is done, she can choose her response to it — or at least make sure she doesn’t put herself in that situation again in ignorance. Once he knows about a player, if he’s out with them, say something to the woman or just make a pest of yourself so they aren’t alone, if she doesn’t know. Make an anonymous tip. There are more responses than just going to the boss or starting a fight.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:04 PM

        I prefer Sinclair Lewis. Author of “Elmer Gantry,” a story about a road-show revivalist taking advantage of some people’s naive religious beliefs.

        Now, whether Hayhurst is Lewis, or is Gantry? I’d say the latter is a definite possibility.

      • jtorrey13 - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:27 PM

        Just read the Stacey May Fowles, “Foul Territory” as well as Eireann Dolan’s essay. Wow. The reasoning behind sharing is also in focus. To be seen as a hero or a social justice crusader. To do the “right” thing 10 years later and be praised, 10 years too late for the victim. To “save” women.

        Yes, the reasoning behind Dirk’s article is offensive. Any praise goes to women who have suffered at the hands of men like these, whether active or bystanders, and come out the other side.

        I still need to listen more. Anoymous tip. Saying something afterwards. Standing up and telling the woman that she is not wrong. Testifying.

      • whatacrocker - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:30 PM

        Look, I think at least 95% of the people on this thread are in agreement that doing something would have been better than doing nothing. But I think that it is necessary to think about what is practical and possible, rather than what is idea.

        You suggest, for example, that he could do something while he’s “out” with other players. First of al, if you read his books, he makes it clear that he didn’t socialize with them much because he was a teetotaler and a Christian and all of that. Beyond that, however, is he supposed to assume that every social interaction he witnesses between a teammate and a woman is potentially the first chapter in a rape, and to proceed accordingly? I think that’s problematic.

        Similarly, you propose that he should “go to the woman” after the fact. Again, how do you propose that he should do that? How does he learn their identity and their contact information? I mean, if it’s like the Susan Sarandon character in Bull Durham, then yes. But from everything I have heard/read/etc., most of these trysts are with random women, often from the crowd at a game. I’m guessing that even the player(s) who had sex with the women wouldn’t know how to contact most of them again, even if they wanted to, much less Hayhurst.

        I stand by my view that the only practical response available to Hayhurst was some form of whistle-blowing, and that it is fairly unlikely that whistle-blowing would have done much good.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:39 PM

        And, he apparently didn’t do that either.

  3. SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 12:26 PM

    Dirk hasn’t played at the majors since 2009 and the minors since 2011. Even allowing for “job fears,” that’s still almost 3 full years.

    Color me at least 50 percent skeptical of his motives for writing now, and therefore, any degree of sensationalism, reframing, overstating, or other things that are involved.

    • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

      Upon actual reading, or at least skimming, of the story, I see him pulling out stereotypes, “hiding” players’ identities just enough to avoid legal troubles, but still allowing someone who actually is that curious to probably figure out who they are and more.

      Beyond that, it seems to be a mix of belated guilt relieving and apple-polishing of his own character, almost certainly the latter more than the former.

      Hayhurst as a writer didn’t impress me that much before this, and he’s now declined further.

      • jwbiii - Aug 1, 2014 at 12:54 PM

        So you’re saying that Hayhurst confessing that he remained silent about gang rapes makes him look good?

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:57 PM

        That’s not at all what I’m saying. In fact, I’ll address that at the end.

        What I am saying is that:
        1. Waiting 3 years after fears of “losing your job” to write the story is interesting
        2. But, waiting not long at all until after joining a sports website to write the story is also interesting.
        3. Hiding players’ identities without actually hiding their identities that much is also interesting.

        One can be a liberal, even a left-liberal of sorts, as I am, and still be skeptical about people and their motives.

        That includes, as Historiophiliac notes, the fact that if Hayhurst were really that concerned way back when, he could have at least warned women who were about to become trapped, exploited. or worse, about what was allegedly about to happen. So, per that particular comment, no, it makes him look worse.

        Per the three bullet points above, it makes it look like he’s trying to burnish his sports-writing career.

        And, fact is, an actual sports mag, or sports section of a daily paper, wouldn’t have published that as written.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM

        I’m willing to bet that Hayhurst thought he was going to get a lot more of what Craig gave him about the article and a lot less of what I did.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:02 PM

        @Historiophiliac If I’m understanding you correctly, well put.

      • Old Gator - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:28 PM

        I don’t think anyone’s in any position to evaluate what Hayhurst “thought he’d get.” He’s a sentient being who’s been writing for several years, and it’s just as possible he figured he’d catch it from both sides. He’s taking his lumps. And Histy, come on, there was no implicit or explicit value assertion that literature is “more important than women” in my comments. If decent treatment of people, gender notwithstanding, weren’t important to him, he wouldn’t have written at all. What Hayhurst has written, though, will have more staying power because he took the time to get it said forcefully and lucidly. That includes his documentation of the process by which he came to understand that he needed to write it.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:41 PM

        He does not get a free pass on this, OG. I don’t care how articulate he is about his complicity.

      • Old Gator - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:51 PM

        He’s not asking for a free pass. I think he makes this very clear. Nor am I giving him one. But the articulation is important because it helps the message, or lesson, or penitence stand up. Others will take it seriously precisely because it isn’t an inarticulate rant. I also realize this is a subject that affects you very deeply (as it ought to affect everyone, though unfortunately it doesn’t) but neither does it suit you to construct a straw man just so you can burn it.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:01 PM

        The form matters to you, OG. It does not to me.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:03 PM

        @OldGator Per @historiophiliac, this is NOT an “either/or.” Whether I know exactly what happened, or not, if something happened that not only violated Hayhurst’s moral sensibilities, but was also criminal, I can condemn the criminality while also wondering if a mix of moral apple-polishing and money-grubbing suddenly led Hayhurst to “see the light” three years after his playing career ended.

    • recoveringcubsfan - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:46 PM

      As the gadfly says, anything anyone has to say should be judged not by it’s content, only by its timing. The Ten Commandments are therefore severely compromised, since God waited 1000s of years to write them down, and even then it was all hearsay. Good one, ‘fly.

      • recoveringcubsfan - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:48 PM

        Also, autocorrect jobbed me on the apostrophes in my last post. But then, I also waited a few minutes to write it out, so its validity was already in doubt.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:01 PM

        Well, as a secularist and someone knowledgable about critical biblical theory, actually:

        Israelite people cobbled together a moral code based on Hammurabi’s law and other things. A guy named Ezra put it into final written form about 900 years after a non-existent literary character named Moses allegedly got a divine revelation.

        And, per Old Gator’s H.L. Mencken comment, and timing and other things, I prefer Sinclair Lews. Author of “Elmer Gantry,” a story about a road-show revivalist taking advantage of some people’s naive religious beliefs.

      • Old Gator - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:22 PM

        Sinclair Lewis was a novelist. Hayhurst is an essayist. Big difference.

      • Old Gator - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:32 PM

        PS – and for those idiots thumbs-downing Gadfly, you could do worse than read Elmer Gantry yourselves. You might also want to read Flannery O’Connor’s short story “Good Country People.” They might make you less likely to take bloviating BS artists who jerk people around by their superstitions like, say, Rick Perry or Cal Thomas a lot less seriously.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:55 PM

        Gator, thanks for the kind words. I knew the difference in literary styles between Mencken and Lewis. I was simply using your naming of Mencken as a lead-in to Lewis, being from the same era, because I wanted to get to the Elmer Gantry reference on purpose.

        Or, I could have named a former MLB player: Chad Curtis.

        To be honest, I don’t know if Hayhurst isn’t another Chad Curtis.

        ==

        Beyond that, though, I’m not as impressed with Hayhurst as an essayist as you may be, even should he (we all hope) not be the next Chad Curtis.

        ==

        And, on the literary, per Mencken, I’d rather go to straight cynicism and have me a shot or two of Ambrose Bierce.

      • dsaverno - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:31 PM

        amen, Gator/Gad. Preach

  4. dasportsninja - Aug 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM

    The players were degenerates. I hope to raise my daughter to use better judgement.

    • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 12:47 PM

      I don’t know that it’s your daughters that will be a problem like this. But, yeah.

    • playball - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:20 PM

      I think Dolan’s article will serve you well. Parents can teach their kids (not just daughters) the many things, such as self-defense, that Dolan has learned. Granted, it isn’t enough. You can do only what you can do as a parent.

      As an adult, there are so many things that get muddied into the equation. The women sleeping with a ballplayer is not something I would judge. The assumption is you don’t end up with a jerk (s) doing the
      things to you that Hayhurst exposed. Going to a bar, having a drink or three and hooking up with someone, should you really expect such assault?

      As a parent, you can only do so much. If someone intends to rape someone, I have a hard time believing they’ll escape. I’m going to print Dolan’s article. What she does now to provide her a safe feeling, are all good thoughts.

      • dasportsninja - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:27 PM

        A drink or three? Sounds like they met at a bar and knew that they were gonna go have some drunk sex with a stranger who should not have been trusted.

      • playball - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:49 PM

        People meet at bars and have sex with people they don’t know. They flirt with and are a bit tipsy and things lead to sex. It happens.

        *Disclosure: i just randomly said ‘a drink or three’ to make the statement that Hayhurst referred to some of the women as being too drunk to know what was going on. I don’t obviously know where they all met.

        And I wasn’t trying to give you grief as a parent. Honest. I have no doubt you are going to give your daughter every skill to help her.

        This is a very difficult subject. Rape changes your life forever.

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:55 PM

        Sounds like they met at a bar and knew that they were gonna go have some drunk sex with a stranger who should not have been trusted.

        Again, why are you placing the blame on the victim here, and not the sh!tty guy she went home with?

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 7:26 PM

        @Copo…. And you know she HAS changed her mind how, exactly?

        That was the whole point of my totally serious “state trooper” analogy.

        But, forget about it.

        If you want to try to claim that 10 percent = less than 1 percent, there’s no sense talking.

        I already said I was out of here when “mansplaining” arrived. You just cemented that decision.

    • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:37 PM

      I hope to raise my daughter to use better judgement.

      And herein lies the problem. Why do we (collective we here) seem to focus on what the ladies, aka victims, need to do in these situations and not the men, aka the perpetrators? How about parents, especially the fathers, telling their sons to not be so rapey?

      • apmn - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM

        Why not both? I don’t get why rape prevention is an Either/Or deal.

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:12 PM

        Because when it comes to rape/sexual assault, the gross majority of the blame is on the guys end (yes guys can be raped/sexually assaulted, but it’s very rare so it’s almost besides the point). By telling/teaching women not to put themselves in certain situations, just means the rapist goes looking for a different target. Why not try to eliminate the rapist’s behavior at the core, so everyone is more safe?

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:16 PM

        It’s hilarious that you think women don’t already get that prevention instruction growing up.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:29 PM

        There’s also the issue of, if a woman has had enough to drink, she may not be able to remember if she said “no” or not, folks.

        Again, this isn’t an either/or, no more than the issue of whether Hayhurst is largely telling the truth, but otherwise doing so now for “fiduciary reasons.”

        Very few things in life actually are either/or.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:35 PM

        More details on this not being an either/or. A woman, at Salon, a few months back, without in any way condoning some men acting like Neanderthals, wrote about the stupidity (no other word for it) of women getting themselves sh!t-faced blotto in “hook-up” situations. And, the “social justice warrior” types jumped all over her.

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:49 PM

        if a woman has had enough to drink, she may not be able to remember if she said “no” or not, folks.

        If you are so drunk that you can’t remember whether you consented, that probably means you didn’t have the capacity to consent, thus making it rape.

        A woman, at Salon, a few months back, without in any way condoning some men acting like Neanderthals, wrote about the stupidity (no other word for it) of women getting themselves sh!t-faced blotto in “hook-up” situations. And, the “social justice warrior” types jumped all over her.

        Except again, that’s placing the blame for someone else’s actions on the woman. Watch this vid from the Daily Show linked at jezebel.com. This is the stuff we honestly try to tell women to “protect themselves from sexual assault(s)”.

        http://jezebel.com/the-daily-shows-take-on-sexual-assault-is-devastatingly-1596369413

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 4:10 PM

        Is it really that hard just not to have sex with incapacitated women?

      • whatacrocker - Aug 1, 2014 at 4:45 PM

        Historiophiliac and COPO: Your profound naivety would be amusing, if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s part of the problem.

        You seem to think that if all fathers just taught their sons that rape is wrong, the problem would go away. This reflects a gross misunderstanding of the dynamics of rape which, as has already been noted here, is about power more than it is about sex. Most, perhaps all, rapists suffer from some sort of severe mental or emotional deficiency that is not going to be eliminated by dad simply telling junior that rape is wrong.

        Consider some parallel examples. Do you think that pedophiles are simply unaware that molesting children is wrong? Do you think that murderers just never learned that killing isn’t legal or moral? Heck, what about abstinence? I’m very certain that millions of evangelical Christian parents have made their views clear on this point, and yet look how many Bristol Palins there are.

        If you all want to write nasty messages about Dirk Hayhurst, and you also want to fire a few grenades at me and Old Gator and the like, then that’s your right. But when you shame the messenger, and when you attack anyone who tries to bring any complexity to this issue (and make no mistake, it is a deeply complex issue), you’re actually doing more harm than good. And that saddens me.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 6:42 PM

        @Copo, nice, but that’s not what I was talking about.

        A woman could have said yes, and gotten too blotto to know if she changed her mind or not. As for “capacity to consent,” that then places the blame on a man who may be getting drunk at the same time.

        Is a 22-year-old drunken male supposed to road-test a 21-year-old drunken female as though he’s a state trooper?

        Read the Salon story I mentioned, on the main points: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/10/sexual_assault_and_drinking_teach_women_the_connection.single.html

        I quote:

        Perpetrators are the ones responsible for committing their crimes, and they should be brought to justice. But we are failing to let women know that when they render themselves defenseless, terrible things can be done to them. Young women are getting a distorted message that their right to match men drink for drink is a feminist issue. The real feminist message should be that when you lose the ability to be responsible for yourself, you drastically increase the chances that you will attract the kinds of people who, shall we say, don’t have your best interest at heart. That’s not blaming the victim; that’s trying to prevent more victims.

        Without blaming all women, and without excusing men, women who get drunk but want no real-world responsibility for the situation into which they put themselves have to be questioned.

        Per the book of myths that I referenced in response to @recoveringcubsfan earlier, the use and misuse of booze by both sexes has a millennia-old history.

        Like the post-Flood legend of Noah’s own daughters getting him drunk and raping him to get impregnated.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 6:50 PM

        Finally, because baseball and sports blogging is only a small amount of what I write about, false rape accusations, as I noted immediately above, are more common than some think. And, beyond the deliberately false ones are many more that don’t pan out.

        I don’t know what percentage of those are due to drunkeness, but I’m sure more than a few are:

        http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2011/09/false-rape-has-real-victims-too.html

      • fearlessleader - Aug 1, 2014 at 6:54 PM

        Respectfully, “whatacrocker,” go to mansplaining hell. Do you honestly think that the women on this thread (and most women anywhere) have ever had the luxury of being “naive” about rape? Do you think we don’t all know a whole lot more about it—and about how to try to avoid it—than we’d like to? And do you think that rapists are all hardcore criminals who jump out of bushes and wield knives before subduing their victims?

        They’re not, you know. Many of them, perhaps MOST of them, are normal guys who have grown up believing that sex with women is their birthright, that consent has grey areas, and that they aren’t REALLY rapists unless they have ski masks and weapons. Perhaps you should educate yourself about rape before you patronize people who have already done so, and before you inadvertently reinforce any more of the tropes that embolden predators like Dirk’s old teammates.

        I’ve got no issue with the commenter who said he was going to teach his daughter to avoid creeps like these. I’ve got a big issue with the fact that no one ever reads pieces like this and says “Wow, I’m going to teach my son the importance of respecting women and understanding the concept of consent.”

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM

        You seem to think that if all fathers just taught their sons that rape is wrong, the problem would go away.

        No, I’m not, and now you are putting words into my mouth.

        This reflects a gross misunderstanding of the dynamics of rape which, as has already been noted here, is about power more than it is about sex.

        Yes, when discussing serial rapists, or those who are actively looking to rape women. I don’t think that applies here, do you?

        If you all want to write nasty messages about Dirk Hayhurst, and you also want to fire a few grenades at me and Old Gator and the like, then that’s your right. But when you shame the messenger, and when you attack anyone who tries to bring any complexity to this issue (and make no mistake, it is a deeply complex issue), you’re actually doing more harm than good. And that saddens me.

        I haven’t done any of this so this is irrelevant.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 7:12 PM

        Oh, my effing doorknob. I mentioned “social justice warriors” earlier.

        And, we finally get the dreaded “mansplaining.” (You forgot your hashtag.)

        I think it’s more than time to stop commenting on this thread.

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 1, 2014 at 7:16 PM

        A woman could have said yes, and gotten too blotto to know if she changed her mind or not. As for “capacity to consent,” that then places the blame on a man who may be getting drunk at the same time.

        And you know she hasn’t changed her mind, how exactly? And yes it’s the fault of the man if she has changed her mind and he doesn’t stop.

        Is a 22-year-old drunken male supposed to road-test a 21-year-old drunken female as though he’s a state trooper?

        Are you being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse? If your “date” is passed out, she’s too drunk to consent. If she’s vomiting, she’s too drunk to consent.

        But we are failing to let women know that when they render themselves defenseless, terrible things can be done to them.

        This is utter bullsh!t. Watch the vid in the link I posted. Women have heard this sh!t for years.

        The real feminist message should be that when you lose the ability to be responsible for yourself, you drastically increase the chances that you will attract the kinds of people who, shall we say, don’t have your best interest at heart. </i.

        Haha this is hilarious. So the worse a woman acts, the more likely she's attract bad people. Holy crap I'd have a hard time taking anyone seriously after that.

        Without blaming all women, and without excusing men, women who get drunk but want no real-world responsibility for the situation into which they put themselves have to be questioned.

        See my handle, this is a giant [CITATION NEEDED] here. Let’s see some citations about women who “wanted no real-world responsibility” for their actions.

        Like the post-Flood legend of Noah’s own daughters getting him drunk and raping him to get impregnated.

        You did not just quote a fake story as a citation…

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 1, 2014 at 7:22 PM

        Finally, because baseball and sports blogging is only a small amount of what I write about, false rape accusations, as I noted immediately above, are more common than some think. And, beyond the deliberately false ones are many more that don’t pan out.

        Every single study you link on your blog has a giant red flag vis a vis false rape allegations vs total rape cases. It’s really easy to figure out, which puts the actual % far lower than what’s reported. So no, it’s not an issue at all unless you think <1% of rape accusations are false is a significant issue.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 7:27 PM

        Misposted this, with all the thread nesting.

        ===

        @Copo…. And you know she HAS changed her mind how, exactly?

        That was the whole point of my totally serious “state trooper” analogy.

        But, forget about it.

        If you want to try to claim that 10 percent = less than 1 percent, there’s no sense talking.

        I already said I was out of here when “mansplaining” arrived. You just cemented that decision.

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 1, 2014 at 7:38 PM

        If you want to try to claim that 10 percent = less than 1 percent, there’s no sense talking.

        I already said I was out of here when “mansplaining” arrived. You just cemented that decision.

        Quoting your blog, and then I’m going to explain what you are too dense to figure out:

        Appearing to use “false” in the sense of willful claims, a British study puts false rape claims there at about 9 percent. That’s lower than what was in the military, at least. But still problematic.

        FBI reports from 1996 consistently put the number of “unfounded” rape accusations around 8%

        So let’s round up, and say that it’s 10% like you think. Do you understand that not every rape is reported. And in fact, many aren’t? That means that the denominator is much larger than these reports are factoring in. So simple math for you:

        [hypothetical] If out of every 100 reported rapes, 10 are false, but only 100 out of 120 rapes are reported, that means that it’s 10/120 or just over 8% are false.

        And it’s great you quoted something from wikipedia where the next line is:

        This statistic is almost meaningless

      • fearlessleader - Aug 1, 2014 at 7:55 PM

        SocraticGadfly, I like you. But if lecturing a bunch of intelligent adult women about rape, and calling us “naive” while perpetuating a host of wildly untrue and downright dangerous myths about the topic, doesn’t qualify as “mansplaining,” then I don’t know what does.

      • whatacrocker - Aug 1, 2014 at 9:48 PM

        fearless, historiophiliac, etc.: I am quite familiar with the scholarship in this area, thanks.

        NOBODY denies that permissive attitudes about rape, or about men’s entitlement to sex, is part of the problem. This is particularly true in circumstances where you have a lot of young adult men living together in a situation where oversight from authority figures is low. Minor league baseball teams, fraternities, military, etc.

        However, to suggest that “rape culture” is the sole, or predominant, explanation for rape is a very troublesome idea that severely oversimplifies the problem. We should be examining, discussing, and trying to rectify ALL possible triggers/causes for rape, not just the one that YOU happen to believe in. If you think that rape is exactly the same as racism, and has NOTHING in common with violent/sexual crimes like murder, child molestation, assault, etc., then I have no idea what to say to you. Although I would ask again, if it’s as simple as “creating a culture” that frowns on rape, then why are there so many evangelical Christians who become pregnant? Or who are gay? Or who get divorced? I am QUITE certain that evangelical Christians frown on all of those things.

        Further, if you cannot tell that most/all of the commenters here who disagree with your specific conclusions–Old Gator, me, etc.–are nonetheless ON YOUR SIDE, then that says more about you than it does me. You may be WELL assured that any sons of mine will be made well aware of the wrongfulness of rape, and that I find rape to be among the most reprehensible of crimes. Nonetheless, because I will not embrace your particular views on the matter, I have been accused of “mainsplaining,” and of being a spokesman for white male privilege, and of being a rape enabler, and have been told to go to hell. Do you REALLY think such rhetoric is helpful? I am not on the fence on this issue, not in the slightest. But if I was, do you think such vicious ad hominem attacks would bring me onto your side of the fence, or would they push me away?

      • whatacrocker - Aug 1, 2014 at 9:50 PM

        Note: “who become pregnant as teenagers”…

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 10:35 PM

        How do you seriously *not* get that Hayhursts’ whole story is about rape culture? Did you read it?

        And you think you are on our side (whatever that means), but you really mean you don’t want to have to face any connection to complicity. Have a nice night (and don’t talk down to us about how naive and simplistic we are).

      • whatacrocker - Aug 1, 2014 at 10:59 PM

        Well, historiophiliac, I did acknowledge the existence of rape culture. I also SPECIFICALLY identified minor league baseball as an excellent example of such a culture. So, it would seem I did ‘get” Hayhurst’s story.

        As to being “on your side,” are you really unclear as to what that means? It means that I deplore this particular crime, and those who commit it. Unequivocally, without exception, without reservation. In my previous message, I characterized rape as being among the most reprehensible of crimes.

        It is also rich that you accuse me of talking down to people. Pot, meet kettle.

        Now that I have addressed your questions, here’s two of my own:

        1. How do you not get that preventing rape is more complicated that waving a magic wand and saying “men should shape up, and talk to their sons”?

        2. How can you POSSIBLY believe it is productive to lump the actual rapists, and people like Dirk Hayhurst, and people like me together as being (apparently) equally guilty? I say again: If I was someone who was on the fence on this issue, and you pointed at me and shouted ‘RAPE ENABLER!’ do you REALLY think that would make me more likely to embrace your worldview?

        In any event, this shall be my final post on this story and on this subject. Congratulations, you have silenced me. One can only hope that Hayhurst reads this site, sees your comments, and also decides to go silent. Then you will have done some REAL good in terms of making sure that this issue is discussed openly and thoughtfully.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 2, 2014 at 12:42 AM

        While you’re off keeping silent, maybe you can really think about what we’ve said — which is in NO WAY as simple as you’ve tried to paint it. Maybe someday you all can get that it’s not all about you and your masculinity/p!ssing contests.

      • fearlessleader - Aug 2, 2014 at 1:57 PM

        Interesting that “whatacrocker” chooses to scold us with the specific warning that our “rhetoric” might “push [him] to the other side” of the rape issue if he weren’t already such a great anti-rape kind of guy. What does that mean, exactly? “You shrill, nasty ladies might persuade a lesser man that rape is okay, so you should really watch your mouths”?

        Pssst, crocker, you’re still victim-blaming, and you’re getting thumbs-upped for it.

        Isn’t rape culture fun?

  5. blacksables - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:44 PM

    http://www.crimestoppersoforegon.com/

    That link is to the Crime Stoppers website for Eguene, Oregon. It provides a number to call and specifically states you can remain anonymous.

    Now, I can’t say for sure that Eugene had this in 2003, but it has been around for 30 years, and is in over 600 cities. Considering Eugene is 146th in metropolitan size in the states, I’m betting it has been for at least 11 years.

    Al Gore had invented the internet by then, so I’m not sure why Hayhurst couldn’t have found the same information.

    • recoveringcubsfan - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:51 PM

      Making this about Hayhurst’s failure to report a suspected crime is a great way to ensure that nobody ever writes another article like this. Silence is apparently preferable to you people. Great job, internet!

      • blacksables - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:01 PM

        He wouldn’t have needed to write an article today if he had made an anonymous phone call 11 years ago.

        Of course, that wouldn’t have paid him anything.

        You can’t take the moral high ground when you’re crawling through the sewers.

      • Old Gator - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:37 PM

        Blacksables, you’ve said some painfully stupid, sanctimonious and presumptuous things here, but man, that’s right down there with the dumbest and most presumptuous of them. Hayhurst isn’t claiming any moral high ground. If anything, he was framing a confession, and he’s taking his lumps. Your own high horse has a tendency to throw you on your duff every time you open your mouth, and I guess you keep hitting your head so hard that you never remember the last time it happened, because you keep on coming back and claiming the “high ground” yourself.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:57 PM

        No, lack of silence is preferable. The lack of silence that would have happened had he called Crimestoppers.

      • blacksables - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:28 PM

        Well, Old Gator, the fact that you support Hayhurst speak volumes about you.

        Of course, you like to advocate violence at every opportunity, so it’s no surprise you condone his actions.

      • Old Gator - Aug 1, 2014 at 4:11 PM

        You’re not only a dimwit and a hypocrite, but you’re a liar as well. When have I ever “condoned violence”? All I can remember is your accusing me of it, and clearly, you’ve been thrown on your alleged head so often that you can’t make that distinction either.

      • blacksables - Aug 1, 2014 at 6:34 PM

        Wow, ‘your accusing’?

        I’m sure you meant ‘you’re accusing’ or ‘your accusation’.

        Pretty egregious grammar mistake from a Junior High School English teacher. Of course, you lift all of your comments from Cliff Notes and Travelogues, so I guess it’s not too surprising.

        Or are you just channeling your inner Frito Bandito?

      • fearlessleader - Aug 1, 2014 at 6:57 PM

        Blacksables, Gator was using a gerund and modifying it with a possessive adjective.

        It’s one of the only things he’s gotten right on this thread.

      • blacksables - Aug 1, 2014 at 7:13 PM

        I thought that only applied to French. Good to know. Thanks.

      • Old Gator - Aug 2, 2014 at 1:38 AM

        Nice, if lamely obvious, way to back out of your BS accusation that I condone violence.

  6. seanwasamarine - Aug 1, 2014 at 1:54 PM

    Why is this a story?

    • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:12 PM

      Pageviews? Clickbait? Both Craig’s piece and Hayhurst’s original.

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:14 PM

        You don’t think an athlete discussing ways in which sports, both harbors and entices players to treat women like crap, possibly rape/sexually assault, them is newsworthy?

      • gloccamorra - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:26 PM

        Yup. It’s about sex and men behaving badly. And it’s the internet. My problem with it is the assumption that all of it is true. Dirk wasn’t a participant, so it’s not an eye witness report, and certainly not a sworn affidavit.

        There were a lot of down votes for the first mention of college dorm braggadocio, but if you don’t include the young male tendency to exaggerate, ESPECIALLY about sex, you can easily be led to believe horrible crimes have been committed.

        The internet has an antidote to this, a phrase called, “pics or it didn’t happen.”

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:58 PM

        @COPO and per Gloccamorra, the mix of moral rectitude and money-grubbing (Hayhurst recently landed the SoE gig and has cranked out four fluffy books in 3+ years) can be powerful motivation.

        I didn’t say it IS but I dod say it can be.

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:52 PM

        The internet has an antidote to this, a phrase called, “pics or it didn’t happen.”

        Before I start quoting, give me a number. Give me a specific number of assaults I need to show before you start to doubt this stuff happens.

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:57 PM

        Give me a specific number of assaults I need to show before you start to doubt believe this stuff happens.

        Sigh, edit function please

    • sabatimus - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:29 PM

      If you think this isn’t a story, why are you supporting it by commenting?

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:00 PM

        @sabatimus When I blog about stuff like this, I insert “no follow” into my html so any clicks off my blog don’t count as pageviews.

        I also, when viewing this page, use AdBlock so I don’t see its ads, and use Ghostery, so I don’t get its tracking cookies dumped on me.

        So, actually, I don’t “support” the page.

  7. Marty McKee - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:08 PM

    We sure haven’t gotten very far since BALL FOUR. Shooting the messenger is still the number-one reaction to hard truths in baseball.

    • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:18 PM

      Way to feel sorry for the accomplice to the rape instead of the victim. If he knew and did nothing, he was complicit. How’s that for a hard truth?

      • sabatimus - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:36 PM

        I know it’s very poor consolation, but he did say he was stupid and that allegations would be hard to prove. Actually, I believe, provided the women were willing to come forward (this being a big if, given social climate), through DNA testing and simple detective work, it might actually be somewhat simple to prove this happened. He’d get flak from his teammates and probably get cut as he indicated, but at least he’d have done something in a timely fashion.

        Another interesting point is that he didn’t name names. That would invite lawsuits that he would lose because, now, the allegations cannot be proven.

      • Old Gator - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:45 PM

        Histy: the problem with “hard truths” is that they’re usually oversimplified. Hayhurst is taking his beating and he’s not ducking it. He’s also writing very lucidly about how hard it is to expunge the effects of a rancid system of values within which he had been living and which he’s since been working to outgrow. It’s not a matter of “feeling sorry” for him, but of understanding that it’s no less complex a thing to understand the moral equivocation he absorbed as a younger man than it is to understand the moral equivocation that a woman at a bar exhibits when she gets drunk and goes home with a stranger. Both play to peer pressures, lonliness, exercises of power (since rape isn’t about sex but power) or of submissiveness meant to compensate for feelings of inadequacy or the need for social acceptance within a particular peerage, even one as debased and debasing as “jock culture.” Moral education isn’t unitary, isn’t flawless, and isn’t instantaneous.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:15 PM

        “Man is not what he thinks he is, he is what he hides.” Andre Malraux

  8. buddaley - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:35 PM

    I think a lot of the comments about Hayhurst miss the point in that they focus on the messenger instead of on the story. Let us suppose that he was complicit, that he excused himself and is self-serving, that he has ulterior motives. Let’s suppose all the criticisms of his motives, actions, personal ethics or whatever are valid. I don’t know whether they are or not, but let’s suppose.

    That still leaves the story he tells and the questions it raises about Baseball Culture or Jock Culture or Minor League Culture or whatever situation you think it describes. Even if it is true that he uses too broad a brush-and my guess is that while it is possible that most teammates did not participate, the status conferred on ringleaders was probably accurately described-does that diminish the necessity of considering the behavior and baseball’s response to it-then and now? Are we going to lose sight of the story because we question the narrator? Does the fact that the specific story told was eleven years ago alter the significance of it?

    It seems to me that focusing on Hayhurst or the accuracy of each detail or the ethics of violating confidences (if that is indeed an issue) or any of the other points raised obscures the most important point which is that in some circles it is acceptable, even admirable, to degrade, humiliate and essentially rape, and that even the victims sometimes participate in such behavior because of degraded values. I don’t know that minor league baseball is more rife with such behaviors and values than other institutions, but where it is revealed, that is where it needs to be addressed. The character or motives of the person revealing the situation is another issue altogether.

    • sabatimus - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:41 PM

      Very well said. I think throwing Hayhurst under the bus and being aware of the larger issues are mutually exclusive. Him saying it much earlier may have resulted in some changes earlier. But overall I’m glad he said it because it showcases a huge problem with the ways women are treated, and still treated.

      • Old Gator - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:07 PM

        People have been saying it much earlier. Books like Womanly indignation about rape, especially about the partially protected status it enjoys in some of the more degraded niches of this culture, has been a factor in media and politics and law for decades. The “difference” Hayhurst might make here is part of a long term process, not an instantaneous transformation of the prevailing ethos. Books like Laurie Anderson’s Speak (1999) or Alice Seybold’s Lucky (also 1999) were already out there and they weren’t “early” works. There was a novel you might have heard about called To Kill a Mockingbird, and there have been plenty of really strident, more pronouncedly ideological books by feminist social critics going way back too. What will make Hayhurst’s writing stand out and remain in the dialogue is precisely how well he writes it. Eventually, the ethos may change, but feelings of inadequacy, lonliness, self-abasement and sociopathy will always be with us. Shouting down someone who “finally” or not decided to articulate these experiences won’t help assure that there’ll also be discernible voices to counterbalance them.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 4:18 PM

        Are you sh!tting me??? His writing stands out from “strident” feminist works because how well he writes and he can make a difference then? The problem ISN’T

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 4:20 PM

        our voices. It’s the failure of pockets of male culture to reject violence against women. We aren’t changing our voices to suit you dudes.

        EDIT FUNCTION!!!

      • Old Gator - Aug 1, 2014 at 6:03 PM

        Sorry, we’re going to have to disagree on this one too. Strident, ideologically charged screeds don’t get taken seriously except, for the most part, by other strident, ideologically like minded readers. The rest manage a few pages and move on. The form, or the voice, if you prefer, is important, because it can make an enormous difference in how many people stay with the story and are affected deeply enough by it. Mere indignation works superficially, and though it may get a momentary rise, it doesn’t go on having much of an impact after the sensationalism of the moment passes. The culture isn’t going to be changed today or tomorrow. It’s deeply ingrained and transforming it will take time. Well written essays simply have more staying power. And yes, that’s important.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 6:51 PM

        You mean you dismiss them, and that is your choosing. And you are wrong. In the same way that civil rights in our country did not change until people took to the streets and started making noise, this won’t either — but you go on and kid yourself that essays are the answer. Someday, those essays will catch up with us and we won’t seem so “strident” anymore. We’ll be the voices of reason and righteousness we always were. So, agree to disagree it is.

      • Old Gator - Aug 2, 2014 at 12:49 AM

        I can’t ever recall you being so productive a manufacturer of straw men. Obviously this is an issue about which you’re so passionate that it’s blinded you to the larger issues within which it’s nested.

        No, I never said that essays alone would make the difference. And I’m hardly the only one who ever rejected an ideologically fixated rant. I think that’s far more common behavior than not. But something had to get people out into the streets eventually, and something also had to bring government and judicial factotums around to legislating more forceful and appropriate laws to attack the problem. Any problem, whether civil rights, domestic violence or rape. Plenty of recidivists and atavists went out into the street and rioted, hosed, clubbed, burned crosses, sicced dogs and bombed against civil rights as well.

        Changes didn’t happen because bigots were scared of riots and marches. Because the moral basis of your position seem a priori self evident to you doesn’t mean that they also strike everyone else as self-evident. If it did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Changes occurred because enough people eventually became convinced of that the fundamental injustices committed in the names of bigotry and hypertrophied masculine insecurity needed to be remedied. And essays, books, discussions, novels and other less histrionic discourses had indispensable roles in bringing those changes of opinion about. Buddha help us all when nothing but threats of violence and histrionics motivate a civilized society to remedial action.

    • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 2:44 PM

      We can be mad about both his silence and the actions of his teammates (if accurate).

      • whatacrocker - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:56 PM

        And yet, every comment you’ve made targets either Hayhurst himself, or those of us who have tried to argue that he’s neither 100% the good guy or 100% the bad guy here.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 3:58 PM

        Well, if you took that to mean I was letting his teammates off the hook, that’s a bad assumption on your part. He *is* the bad guy — they all are in this situation.

      • whatacrocker - Aug 1, 2014 at 4:20 PM

        So, those who don’t speak up–regardless of the circumstances or any mitigating factors–are just as guilty as those who commit the actual crime?

        Ok, gotcha.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 4:22 PM

        They are complicit. You are either enabling rape culture or you are trying to change it. If that hurts your feelers and makes you defensive, put your big boy pants on and suck it up.

      • whatacrocker - Aug 1, 2014 at 4:58 PM

        Do NOT turn me into some sort of rape-enabler, simply because I don’t see the world in simplistic black and white binary terms, like you obviously do.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 1, 2014 at 6:05 PM

        News flash: structural sexism/rape culture works the same as structural racism. Enjoy your privilege.

      • Old Gator - Aug 2, 2014 at 12:53 AM

        News flash: your histrionics and evasions are doing precisely what I’ve been trying to caution about: making adversaries out of people who basically agree with you. That’s a pretty counterproductive way to try to change things.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 2, 2014 at 12:01 PM

        You don’t get to be the deciding voice on what is acceptable speech or not. And I don’t really care if you feel alienated. You can dismiss me as “histrionic” but rest assured I am doing you the courtesy of not labeling what I think of your approach.

      • fearlessleader - Aug 2, 2014 at 2:23 PM

        http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

        Gator, don’t be a stereotype.

  9. psunick - Aug 1, 2014 at 4:47 PM

    Craig likes Hayhurst, so he won’t pounce on him as he would a writer whom he despises.

    So many double standards and so much hypocrisy in play here.

  10. psunick - Aug 1, 2014 at 4:53 PM

    And look what happened to Joe Paterno for allegedly “looking the other way.”

    Fire this scum, too.

    • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 1, 2014 at 7:40 PM

      As an educator, Paterno’s responsible, by law, to report sexual assaults. He also lied to a grand jury. Hayhurst isn’t in the same situation, at all.

  11. stercuilus65 - Aug 1, 2014 at 4:55 PM

    Good responses, as this story shows rape isn’t always funny.

  12. samsontjohnson - Aug 2, 2014 at 5:12 PM

    Socratic Gadfly: I realize it is important to your self-esteem to feel intellectually superior and well versed in literature, but it was Lot’s daughters that got their father drunk in order to procreate with him after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess you remembered reading about Noah getting drunk and being naked in his tent, but I have to question what parts of stories seem the most interesting to you.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Angels' 2011 overhaul finally paying off?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (4051)
  2. R. Castillo (3437)
  3. A. Rizzo (2696)
  4. A. Pujols (2256)
  5. H. Ryu (2184)
  1. E. Gattis (2164)
  2. J. Hamilton (2142)
  3. M. Trout (2062)
  4. C. Davis (1991)
  5. N. Arenado (1965)