‘Rapist’: “I went to take off her blouse.
‘Victim’: “No, this is going to be quick and dirty.’”
About 8:16 into the monologue.
It’s all Kathy Shaidle’s fault.
Granted, I have to be much more careful about where I go late at night.
I was just minding my own business, passing through Ms. Shaidle’s neighborhood, just after midnight, when what do I come across, but a blog item about a humorless, feminist “comic,” and stupid me, I take the bait.
Just yesterday, when I posted an item on the racist treatment that black Detroit Judge Vanessa Bradley dished out to a white female alleged rape victim, my legman, David in TN asked, rhetorically, “Where are the feminists? … Crickets chirping...............,” and was seconded by longtime reader jeigheff, “Yes, indeed: where ARE the feminists?”
Well, fellows, the feminists are otherwise engaged, lynching yet another heterosexual white man for a non-existent “rape.” Sound familiar?
Almost everyone knows that feminists are humorless bullies, but many people who have managed to insulate themselves from them often forget, I believe, just how unmitigatedly evil feminists so often are.
Here’s the set-up. On August 14, a guy goes to an improvisational comedy festival in New York, the Del Close Marathon. “The Upright Citizens Brigade” (UCB) is performing its “ASSSSCAT 3000” (beats me). UCB started in Chicago, and some of its members are or were performers on Saturday Night Live.
There’s an open mic, and audience members can tell humorous anecdotes, which the UCB comics on the stage use to embellish on or act out. The young man, Eric Angell, apparently an aspiring comic, gets up and tells a story with comical aspects and a deep (for me) undercurrent of melancholy and loneliness. Two people, neither of whom desires the other, end up having sex. One of the people is Angell.
It seems that at the Chicago comedy club where Angell was then a fry cook and sometime host, a “very drunk, older girl” is relentlessly coming on to his work buddy, who doesn’t want to sleep with her, since he already has a girlfriend, but he gives Eric her phone number at the Four Seasons Hotel. (Obviously, she has money, and/or works for a fancy company.)
Eric protests that he has no carfare, but his friends throw in more than enough, and pressure him to go. He calls the woman, but without letting on that he is not the man she desires. He shows up, she tells him he’s not who she expected, and that she’s not letting him in, but walks away, leaving her hotel room door wide open, the first of many mixed signals she sends.
A game of seduction commences.
He enters her room, bides his time, and periodically makes more aggressive moves, all but one of which (her taking off her blouse) are ultimately acceptable to her.
The most important passage is the one I highlighted at the beginning, which occurs at about 8:16 into the story.
Man: “I went to take off her blouse.”
Woman: “No, this is going to be quick and dirty.’”
A series of feminists—Poupak Sepehri, Halle Kiefer, and Irin Carmon—have misrepresented the story, in order to turn it into a confession of “rape.”
So, if you're a female Second City customer from out of town, you're a little older and a little drunk, and you are interested in one of the waiters, given all the justifications above, it's OK that the cook/host shows up in your hotel room and rapes you.
Poupak is disappointed that Dominic Strauss Kahn was not railroaded by the criminal justice system, but tells women to keep on trying, with false rape charges. Of course, she doesn’t call them “false.” For her, there is no such thing as a false rape charge by a woman against a (white?) man. Women in America live in a “rape culture.” This, from a wealthy woman of privilege who describes herself as “French-Iranian.”
She then quotes a twitter from the comdy club Second City in Chicago, where the young man was employed:
Splitsider commenter Annapetrock even lied outright, turning Angell’s line at the end, quoting the woman as having texted his friend “I don’t do second-rate” into “second rape.”
There is already a shamelessly propagandistic entry at the libel factory that I call The Pretend Encyclopedia, better known as Wikipedia, about the non-rape.
During an audience-participation portion of "Asssscat 3000", an improvisational comedy show at the Del Close Marathon held August 14, 2011 in New York by Upright Citizens Brigade, an audience member related a story which could be construed as a confession of rape.  The video has led to online discussion of whether the audience member's actions, if true, constitute rape and whether the performers should have denounced his actions outright rather than performing improv comedy loosely based on the story.
During his monologue the audience member claimed that, while in Chicago at an unspecified time in the past, he went to the hotel of a drunk woman (allegedly a customer at the Second City Chicago theater where he was interning as a host/cook) under false pretenses, and proceeded to have sexual relations with her under circumstances which might constitute rape.  Commentators have questioned whether the woman's actions - which allegedly included partially undressing and asking whether the man had a condom - constituted implicit consent to sex, or were rather an attempt to reduce potential violence to herself in a situation in which she thought she was going to be raped regardless of her actions.
Several attendees of the event reported firsthand accounts of the monologue . Stephanie Streisand, a attendee, wrote "...he was at the DCM after party. He was smiling until one by one people were going up to him to let him know he was a rapist. He left the party early."
A sample follows of the first feminist I read on the subject, via Kathy Shaidle.
Thoughts And Feelings
One Night at Asssscat, or What to Do With a Date Rape Monologue
By Halle Kiefer@ 11:10 am
We’ve been getting a lot of emails this morning about a particular audience monologist that performed at the Assssscat at the Del Close Marathon on Sunday, August 14. In case you don’t know, the Del Close Marathon is the Upright Citizens Brigade’s annual improv fest in New York and Asssscat is the improv show that caps off the weekend. Last night, improviser Poupak Sepehri posted on her Tumblr about the show and in it linked to a video of the monologue, posted by improviser Stephanie Streisand. Having raised his hand and been chosen by the performers on stage to tell a story, the audience member in question begins at about 38 minutes in. If you watch it or saw it in person, the most benign way to describe it is that it’s the story of the monologist coercing a drunk woman into have [sic] sex with him, despite her repeatedly telling him that she did not want to and to leave her hotel room. The more accurate way to describe it, in my opinion, is as the chilling account of pseudo-rape, told by the perpetrator as if it was a funny thing that he saw on the subway.
I was in that audience for the show, and I have lot of THOUGHTS and FEELINGS about what an incident like this means to the comedy community and how it was handled. What this guy did and what, if anything, the woman in the story can do about it is a matter for the authorities. I hope that doesn’t seem like an utter cop-out, though maybe that’s what it is. For the purposes of this article, however, I’m specifically interested in what this story, and the public venue it was told in, means to us as comedians, and comedy-loving people, specifically.
As an audience member, let me just say that his story filled me with a creeping dread….
I tried half a dozen times to post a response, which probably would have been censored, anyway—feminists consider disagreement with them a form of “violence”—but got the same error message every time: “An error occurred with Links. Please try again later.”
I have since concluded that my problem was no accident. I was trying to comment via Facebook. I checked, and determined that not one of the 92 comments came via Facebook, even though many of them appear to be So-und-So@Facebook, or So-und-So@twitter. If you check their code, however, they were all posted via their internal IDs, at Splitsider.
That was in order to rig the comments, and make it look as though virtually everyone agreed with the feminazis.
Anyway, here’s my response:
You may be a member of any number of “communities,” but the “comedy community” ain’t one of ‘em. Now, take your irony supplement and a laxative, and don’t call me in the morning!
That was before I started reading the comments, finished Kiefer’s screed, or even saw the monologue.
I read 43 (not counting at least one that had allegedly been “deleted by user,” and one, by “REAL Julian Asange@twitter” (actually: http://splitsider.com/user/2610/229362451twitter), that I couldn’t figure out) before I found one that did not insist that the comic in question was guilty of “rape-rape”; name him and his employer; try to have his life “ruined”; call for him to be taken “off the streets”; and driven to commit suicide.
When someone (“Josh Guerrin”) finally was permitted to take the mob to task, pointing out that the man had not admitted to raping anyone, not only did he get nowhere with them, but the first commenter argued that if a man persists in wooing a woman after she has said once that she’s not interested, that counts as rape, and the next response accused Guerrin of being a rapist.
If that were the case, the human race would have died off about a million years ago.
(This is post one)--So this is the first thread I have read about this incident with a few sane rational people. And I would like to address what I think is the underlying problem. Most of the people commenting are basing their comments and deciding the guilt of this guy based on a description of what was said, and that description IS WRONG! My wife and I have watched the video start to finish 4 times now and it does not play out as described in these posts.
She(according to him) never said "No" or "ordered him to leave"(And I understand this is a fine semantic distinction, but an important one), she said ONCE "you really gotta go"(according to him) which people say all the time. He then said "you don't want me to go" and she said "yes I do". They then start to make out(according to him), and she says"you're going to have to go", and from that point on (according to him) she does not say anything in the negative about him being there other than the fact that she clearly isn't into him. The original post has her asking him to leave at every turn. The original poster also mis-remembers quite a few important things;according to her he "pushed her on the bed" and "fingered her violently". Not according to him, which yes, he COULD be lying, but to all you people, he IS lying.
The original poster says in her update that even though the video exist she won't watch it because,"I can almost recite the whole thing by heart and it was disturbing enough the first time)" That seems cruel and irresponsible when what you are doing is publicly convicting someone of rape. I have seen so many comments saying that people should get together and track this guy down and ruin his life.
I've seen multiple people saying he should kill himself or hoping he would.----(this is post 2)Also I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the reason I am posting this at all, is that, my wife(who is a woman) and I watched the video together and at the end both came to the same conclusion-This is a sad story by a socially awkward guy about the time he got pity sex from a woman who set out to have sex at the beginning of the night but had to settle because the guy she wanted didn't show. WE COULD BE WRONG! But it just seems pretty straight forward.
Has no one here ever settled while hoping to have sex? Has no one here ever hoped to have sex? Are we all so suburban as to believe that no woman could ever set out to have sex? Is that an arena only for men?
This story sounds like a guy who was trying to be self-deprecating when recounting this tale by including the fact that she was obvious that he was not her first choice. Does that mean he has poor judgement? Yes. Does it mean he probably will continue to have trouble having sex? Yes. But does it make him a rapist? Far from it. It makes him like all of us-more awkward than not.
But no, I agree, let's push him to suicide. Let's destroy his life. Let's label and deride him to the point of breaking. Because he's not a human being. He's a rapist-trust me the internet told me.
It is ironic that the alleged crime is essentially not treating someone as a human being and instead an object to be used and the majority response is to treat him like he's not human and instead use him as an object to vent your frustrations and anger about other things.----(this is post 3)Seriously? No one is on this thread any more? I swear I'm not trolling or looking for a fight.
This has been eating at me since I saw it the other day. It's all I can think or talk about. Most of you people are looking for this guys head and I need to hear your evidence. How is everyone SO sure he is a rapist that deserves to be destroyed literally and figuratively? How did I get this so wrong? I am asking legitimately. Please someone explain their point of view on how this was a cut and dry admission of full on rape.
Posted on August 28, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Now come two attacks on him. (In between, he defends himself, but the point for me is their vicious attacks on him for being the sole honest, decent person on the thread.)
@Josh Guerrin@facebook Oh, she only said ONCE "you really gotta go" and only ONCE said "you're going to have to go" for a grand total of two "get out of my house"s, shit, that changes everything. It's not rape in your eyes until the No count exceeds what, a baker's dozen?
Do you seriously think that if you enter a complete stranger's house and don't leave until you've been fucked, that what happened is fucking "pity sex?"
Posted on August 28, 2011 at 2:25 pm
@Josh Guerrin@facebook Josh Guerrin if you do not think the story in that video describes a rape there's a stomach-churningly high chance that you yourself have raped someone. Educate yourself about consent before you do it again, for your wife's sake.
Posted on August 29, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Later, Guerrin responded to a slightly less vicious critic:
Josh Guerrin@facebook (http://splitsider.com/user/2737/fb1136391919)
@Julie Gillis@facebook I agree that there is alot to be said for letting the majority(even if it's the internet) decide.
My issue is that until now I had not seen any debate. It was simply, this guys a rapist and we should get him. And I SO didn't see that, that it bothered me when nearly everyone else did. I was on another thread initially(not sure what website) and a girl named optimiss or something, at first said basically what I did-It sounded creepy and awkward and not a story I would share- but not rape. And it ended with so many people telling her(as someone who WAS raped we later found out) that she was pro-rape and just as bad as a rapist; that she said the vitriol coming from people was to much and she was crying and had to leave. And that what has come out of this. It just bothers me. I was bullied and beat up and picked on, grades 1-12(because I was always the shortest kid in school)and what I have seen come out of all this is not people rising up to defend this woman or even people unable to speak for themselves, it's people looking for blood because they are angry hate filled people with a need to vent it anonymously to any perceived wrongdoing. I am not saying there should be no justice and I am definitely not saying that if he did in fact rape her he shouldn't stand trial. But this is mob mentality at it's worse.
This is people breaking into store to steal just because it's easy. People have an issue with rape. Good. They should. But taking your anger at rapists out on this guy because some blogger convicted him in her mind and on her site is just a terrible facet of humanity that seems to be championed on the internet way too much.
Posted on August 29, 2011 at 12:10 pm
The history of feminism circa 1960, is a history of hoaxes, shakedowns, shameless propaganda, shilling of evil racism, and the complete betrayal of women who really are the victims of violence.
What group has been consciously targeting white women for rape, torture and murder for generations? Black men. And which group has devoted itself, by and large to protecting white (and not just white) women? Chivalrous white men.
Feminists are, with rare exceptions, political prostitutes.
No, I take that back. That was unfair to some kindhearted whores I’ve known.
Feminists are the political equivalent of black widow spiders. Everything they have, they got through the chivalry of white heterosexual men. And whom do they exclusively target for destruction? Chivalrous white heterosexual men.
Meanwhile, what group has consciously targeted white women for rape, torture and murder for generations? Black men.
When black men rape white women, in some years 100 times a day, do feminists protest the predation? When blsakc men were msaking a sport of raping white coeds on Duke University’s campus, did feminists bang their posts, and hoist signs saying, “Castrate”? No, they demonstrated against and terrorized instead innocent white men, as they did constantly during the Duke Rape Hoax.
Less than one month into the Duke Hoax, feminists knew, as did the entire world, that the three white lacrosse players were innocent, but the feminists never let up on their campaign to have them railroaded, and never apologized. The players’ innocence wasn’t a flaw in the feminists’ plan, but a feature.
During the William Kennedy Smith rape trial in 1990, Catherine MacKinnon revealed on the New York Times op-ed page that for her, it was preferable if Smith were innocent and were railroaded, because zillions of (white) men needed to be railroaded, in order to make up for every man in history who had ever gotten away with raping a female.
But what about black men, innocent and guilty?
Did feminists protest the 1989 black-Hispanic attack that left white “Central Park Jogger” Trish Meili comatose and clinging to life? In 1990, did they defend Meili against the daily black supremacist theater in which blacks stood on the street, when Meili limped to court to testify, and screamed at her, “Slut!” “Whore!” “The (white) boyfriend did it!” “She did it to herself!”?
In 2002, did feminists rage against the hoax by the New York media and DA Robert Morgenthau, which completely rewrote the crime, in order to rehabilitate all but one of Meili’s attackers?
Of course, not.
Did they protest against what O.J. Simpson did to his ex-wife, or the millions of blacks who supported him? Don’t make me laugh.
In 2000, did they protest the attacks, including manual rape, on predominantly white women by a predominantly black mob in Central Park following the Puerto Rican Day Parade? Instead of protesting against eh attackers, feminists attacked the NYPD, because the majority of the cops on duty were white.
Did feminists rise up over the rape-torture-murder of white Channon Christian in the Knoxville Horror by racist blacks, led by half-brothers Lemaricus Davidson and Letalvis Cobbins? They don’t even know Channon Christian’s name.
What about the rape-torture-attempted murder of a white Columbia University graduate student by black Robert Williams? The rape-murder of Jennifer Moore by Draymond Coleman? The rape-murder of John Jay College student Imette St. Guillen by Daryl Littlejohn?
Note that Moore and St. Guillen were staggering around Manhattan drunk. Instead of venting rage against big black men who actually raped and murdered drunken women, white feminists rage against a skinny white guy who didn’t rape or harm anyone. That’s partly because feminists are terrified of blacks, and have prostituted themselves to blacks on the political level, in order to amass wealth and the power to harm the innocent.
When a black man harms a white female, feminists collectively lie down, spread their legs, and take it. They don’t terrorize men like Eric Angell in spite of their innocence, but because of it. Feminism is evil.
A final note to Mr. Angell: This evil can be fought. Every poster who accused you of rape defamed you, and can be sued for libel.