The Sexist

Inside A Date Rapist’s Living Hell

Aaron P. Taylor's club is a very boring place to be.

Last November, I outlined some advice for well-meaning sexists on How Not to Advise Women Not to Get Raped. The post was in response to a guy named Aaron P. Taylor, who, in response to getting shut down by a female in da club, penned a manifesto entitled "Advice 4 Women: How to NOT Get a ‘Deserved Raping.’" The essay warned women against behaviors that indicate that she really "wants it"—even when her actual words (in the case of Taylor's target, "Naaaaaaah!") indicate that she actually does not want to have sex!

These behaviors include:

* flirting

* dancing (repeatedly)

* putting your face close to a man's face

* kissing

* wearing a shirt that "shows just about everything but her nipples, then have a 30-minute conversation with a guy about how voluptuous and sensitive her breasts are, then spend half the night stroking her hand against the outer-lining of said breasts." (It happens).

* anything else that gives a man a boner

Obviously, this argument—that women shouldn't do certain things unless they're down to fuck—is based entirely on a man's expectations, and his own preferred end to every female interaction (sex). In reality, women aren't soley interacting with men in order to eventually cause him to orgasm. And just because a behavior is "sexy" doesn't make it "suggestive." Most of the time, a dance is just a dance. A shirt is just a shirt. Putting your face close to a man's face is just putting your face close to a man's face. And a man getting a boner from any of that is his personal problem. Even if a woman is grinding her ass on your pelvis, all she's suggesting is that—shocker!—she wants to grind her ass on your pelvis. Really, the only way a woman can actually suggest she wants to have sex with you is by saying, "I want to have sex with you!" It's that easy.

One response to Taylor's essay that hasn't been raised, however, is how fucking shitty life would be for everybody if "dancing" really meant "fucking." Taylor's worldview offers one big problem for guys like Taylor: If women flirted, danced, wore revealing clothing, or did anything else that men happened to find arousing only in direct preparation for sex, da club would be a very lonely place. Under this model:

* A woman would never look at a man, lest he expect her to speak to him.

* A woman would never speak to a man, lest he expect her to flirt with him.

* A woman would never flirt with a man, lest he expect her to dance with him.

* A woman would never dance with a man, lest he expect her to kiss him.

* A woman would never kiss a man, lest he expect her to fuck him.

* A woman would never fuck a man, lest he expect the right to fuck her any time he wants, in any way he wants, in any orifice, whether she likes it or not.

In other words, women would never, ever, ever go to da club, lest a man chose to administer her a "deserved raping" for showing up. Don't you see, Aaron P. Taylor? It's a prison of your own design! Taylor is not just advising women how "not to get a deserved raping." He's also advising women how to make Aaron P. Taylor's life a living hell. Which is, actually, the only reason women might want to refrain from doing whatever the fuck they want to do on the dance floor.

Photo by Yoshimai

  • Pingback: Last Week’s Most Popular Blog Posts - The Sexist - Washington City Paper

  • James Herne

    I am sick of infantile men like Aaron acting like women are not human.

  • b-bop

    Acceptable Targets According to this guy:

    Someone standing on the street waiting for a bus. You may think in that moment "Wow, he/she is super cute" and you become slightly aroused, that's totally a deserved rape.

    Anyone who is a known celebrity already has millions of people that have become aroused by their actions. According to this guy that would be a deserved rape.

    Children would be deserved targets as well, with their carefree bubbly personalities.

    The guy who wrote the article himself...Someone who has a number fetish considered the title of his 'advice 4 women' to be a total come-on.

  • Jessa

    the only person responsible for rape is the rapist.

  • Jake Haze

    Whoa, whoa, whoa...

    Your "model for loneliness" is illogical, or at least built on a foundational assumption that women never are talking to men with the intention of having sex with them. You pigeon-hole your own gender into YOUR sexual schema, doing exactly what you denigrate this dude for.

    Other than that--yeah, tasteless title on the "Deserved Rape". Quotation marks are not literary, grammatical, or academic LOLs or JKs; you do not get to shrug off accountability by putting something in those quotes, especially when the entire content of your (his) post is sexually charged.

    Also, while Aaron's deserving of reprimand, and we all feel uncomfortable conceding any truth to what that guy said, you must admit the focus on breasts is, uh, erotically tinged. Is the woman asking to be violated? No. Is she any more accountable for a violent act against her than if she had acted otherwise? No; I agree there is never a reason to sexually assault a woman. BUT... come on, really?

    Yes: if you can "it happens", I'm gonna, "Come on, really?"

    I hope this doesn't seem hollowly aggressive. If it does, I apologize. I have a kind of confrontational way of speaking. I'm just trying to contribute to the post in a meaningful way.

  • shala

    @ Jake

    The author doesn't assume women never do these things to advance to sex, what she's saying is that men like Aaron pretend that ANY time ANY woman does these things, she's inviting sex, which is entirely untrue. The author wishes to point out the danger in his thinking.
    Yes, sometimes a woman may flirt with you because she wants to have sex with you, but you should never EVER expect sex from a woman just because she flirts with you, which is exactly what our scumbag Aaron did.
    It's a matter of thinking that just because a woman is okay with sharing one thing with you (a dance, a kiss, a conversation about her breasts) you are entitled to everything else she has to share (sex). This is how Aaron came up with the term "deserved raping" in the first place.
    And you are backing him up. You point out that a focus on breasts is "erotically tinged."
    I say: So-effing-what?
    If you are unable to talk about a woman's breasts without having sex with said woman soon after, then your options are to either: walk away from the conversation, or make it clear to the woman that you are only engaging in the conversation so you can have sex with her soon after. It's only fair.
    If you are only dancing with a woman hoping to have sex with her, tell her. If you only speak to a woman to have sex with her, tell her. Getting my point? It's not so much about what the women do, it's about what you go into the situation expecting. And to put it bluntly: you are never entitled to sex with another person without their DIRECT consent. As soon as you start thinking that you are, you start behaving like Aaron and putting yourself into the mindset of a date-rapist.

    With my rant aside, and as I've said on previous blogs about the same article, I'm not advocating that a woman purposely mislead a man for fun. But I am arguing that she has every right to do so. As long as the man is a willing participant, the woman is doing nothing out-of-bounds. Whether it is in ill taste or rude is for each person to decide on their own.
    But honestly, if a guy can't handle being a little turned on without screwing someone or something immediately thereafter, he should probably consider having himself locked up.

    How would you feel if someone suddenly got angry with you, accusing you leading them on, when all you thought you were doing was having a simple conversation over drinks? What if a guy/girl you accidentally brushed up against on the floor started following you around the rest of the night, asking for your number? What if every person you made eye contact with in a bar thought that was an invitation for them to hit on you?
    Doesn't sound like fun? Welcome to the world women live in.

  • Claire

    I agree whole heartedly with this article. Aaron is a scumbag who most certainly should consider having himself locked up. Never assume anything from a conversation or gesture unless it is absolutely explicit (i.e. "I want to have sex with you!").

    But... food for thought: sometimes I imagine living in some alternate universe where everyone practiced completely open communication.

    Wouldn't it be awesome if all conversations began with both parties declaring their intentions?

    Women could say either "I want to flirt with you but am not going to undress for you" or "I'd like to sleep with you and that's why I'm flirting."

    Men could say "If you're not going to sleep with me, I'll abandon this conversation right now" or "I'm okay with sexless flirting because I'll fantasize about you changing your mind when I go home and masturbate alone."

  • TT

    First off: obviously, the guy who wrote the article is a complete rape-apologist, misogynist asshole, and he's wrong. A man is never entitled to sex with a woman. But it's important not to go so far in breaking down his argument that you contribute dishonestly to the conversation.

    There's a big difference between expectation and entitlement. If a girl is griding on me in a club, kissing me, and talking about her breasts, what's wrong with me expecting that her ultimate intention is sex? A ton of consensual sexual encounters begin just like that, so I may expect history to repeat itself. My expecations may not be met, and I'll be disappointed, but hey - we all have to deal with some disappointment in life. I'll live. I don't see a problem with that scenario. The problem is if I felt her behavior ENTITLED me to sex, which, of course, it doesn't. I think you folks understand that, but you go to far in saying there's a problem in expectation. Maybe a better word would be "hope," but I think the semantic difference is pretty negligible.

    Secondly, in response to Shala's comment:

    "If you are only dancing with a woman hoping to have sex with her, tell her. If you only speak to a woman to have sex with her, tell her."

    Come on now. With almost any woman in the world, that would end a dance or a conversation pretty damn quickly. It's really just not the way courtship works, neither for long-term-relationship-seekers or one-night-stand-seekers (for the most part). As adults (men included), we can deal with expectation and disappointment without declaring our desired endgames every step of the way like some mission-programmed automatons.

    And sorry for all the hyphens.

  • K

    For those advocating more direct communication of sexual (or non-sexual) intentions, I do think that the social taboo against explicitly expressing interest is silly and creates dangerous ambiguity in the minds of some people. But very few people instantly want to fuck someone based on their initial flirtation. When I'm talking to someone interesting and attractive, when I accept a drink from someone who offers, when I kiss someone outside a bar after an evening of flirting & dancing, I'm *still* sizing that person up. Is this a potential fling, a one-night-stand, a new friend, or the person I want to marry? I don't know from the get-go, so more investigation is warranted. It's always disappointing when, after an evening's flirting, a nice date, and some heavy-petting, it becomes clear (to both of us) that something isn't clicking.

    But I didn't "lead him on" and he didn't "lead me on" if that's where it ends. We thought we might be good for each other, as it turned out we weren't. And never has a man I've been "trying out" ever insisted that, because he bought me a beer, I "owe" him something. And neither do I ever think that, if I pick up the bar tab, that he owes *me* something. Relationships are not financial transactions.

  • Catherine


    so I'm not entitled to sex, but if she brings up tits I'm expect sex? Double standard much?

    then if you admit you're only interacting with her for sex she's going to leave. Well, y'all were the ones who set up the standard that men have sex it all the time but a Good Girl Doesn't, now live with it. If you are offended that I think it's a terrible bore to spend time with someone who is in it for my vagina, you'll just have to endure the fact i have standards about who's going to leave DNA evidence in me.

    So yeah, I think you've got your entitlement working.

    Though it would be refreshing to have it so straightforward.

  • LeftSidePositive


    I agree that there's nothing inherently wrong about getting one's hopes up. Of course, miscommunication can be a problem and cause some hurt feelings, but I don't think that's the issue here. We're saying it's a problem that women are treated like they've given up all basic expectations of safety and autonomy if they arouse a man.

    You say:

    "Come on now. With almost any woman in the world, that would end a dance or a conversation pretty damn quickly. It’s really just not the way courtship works, neither for long-term-relationship-seekers or one-night-stand-seekers (for the most part)."

    Of course. Because, by doing that a man would be showing beyond all possible shadow of a doubt that he is a total piece of shit. If a person only values my company or my flirtations if he is guaranteed whatever action he wants, I will realize that he's a piece of shit and not want to sleep with him (or indeed continue talking or have anything to do with him ever again). Now, Aaron in this article is absolutely, unquestionably, a total piece of shit. If he absolutely refuses to invest an evening flirting with someone without guaranteed sex, the only way to prevent his own disappointment and waste of time would be to clarify his intentions upfront... Maybe he might find it more strategically successful to deal with a little disappointment some evenings rather than significantly lower his chances by showing people what a total piece of shit he is.

    "As adults (men included), we can deal with expectation and disappointment without declaring our desired endgames every step of the way like some mission-programmed automatons."

    I agree. I'm all for romance, charm, and mystery. (Naturally, this does not apply when a sex act is imminent, and then consent had damn well better be clearly established! That doesn't preclude romance, of course!) More to the point, I don't think people should be mission-programmed automatons (Aaron clearly is, although p.o.s. is more to the point!). There's a lot more richness to life in meeting people, discovering things, and fully experiencing surprises and disappointments. As Oscar Wilde said, "There are two tragedies in life. One is not getting what you want. The other is getting it."

  • Jake Haze


    Most of what you said's feminist posturing and ignored the whole stance of my post. I clarified numerous times that the behavior of the hypothetical female in this hypothetical situation didn't hypothetically make her responsible for her own hypothetical rape. I don't know how much clearer I could be.

    The issue I took was with whether or not a woman's behavior hinted at a certain intention. I think it does, and I also think you didn't really clarify how the interpretation of intention from behavior and conduct is unfounded; all you really said is, "IT SHOULDN'T BE SO OH NOEZ! :("

  • DianaWR


    I think what @shala is saying is that, no, it shouldn't be that way, and expectations related to sex without clear mutual consent allows patriarchal attitudes and objectification of women to continue. It SHOULD NOT BE SO. And how do we change that? In part by confronting individuals who say, "Well, maybe it shouldn't be but, come on, that's how it really is." Because it doesn't HAVE to continue to be that way, and by using the status quo instead of being willing to alter one's own perceptions and behaviors is to perpetrate social ills.

  • shala


    "I also think you didn’t really clarify how the interpretation of intention from behavior and conduct is unfounded"
    Humans are always going to try to interpret others' intentions based on their behavior. But the important thing to remember is that this is YOUR interpretation only. No one can really know what's going on in someone else's head without directly asking them.
    What Aaron and other guys do is interpret womens' behavior in a way that suits them: "oh, she's talking to me, she must be into me." "We're making out so that means I'm gonna get laid tonight."
    In doing so, guys set themselves up to be disappointed if the girl doesn't want the same thing they want. And some guys get angry about this when in fact they have no reason to be angry to begin with. A guy thought that the woman might have wanted sex that night, but he was wrong. He should be able to walk away from that thinking, "Oh well, I guess I misread the situation."

    Does that make sense? I'm not arguing that you can't try to guess someone's intentions, I'm saying that you have to realize that that's just gonna be YOUR interpretation of the situation. Unless a woman says that she wants to take you home and screw you, you have no reason to be angry at her for not taking you home and screwing you.

    Care to disagree?


    I've got to agree with "Left Side Positive" in response to your statement about my statement. I sincerely hope that sex isn't the ONLY reason most guys interact with women on a daily basis. Sure, it's gonna be a big motivator, but any guy who sees absolutely no value in a woman other than her f*ck-ability is a piece of shit and a waste of life.
    And it might actually do some good for guys like that to go around stating their intentions and opinions of women. He would utterly fail to get laid and the massive hurling of insults directed his way and general shunning that he's gonna receive by most of society might show him just how f*cked-up such thinking is.

  • TT

    In response to Shala and Leftsidepositive, who both used the phrase "piece of shit" to refer to a guy who is only interested in sex from a woman:

    I assume you're talking about a guy who exclusively interacts with women with expectation of sex. In that case, you're right; someone like that would probably be a piece of shit. But if you're talking about a guy who goes out to the bar or club on a Saturday looking for a no-strings-attached one-night stand (which is more what I was talking about), then I think you're being a little too Puritan. In that case, I maintain that there's nothing wrong with failing to explicity state your intentions, there's nothing wrong with your intent, there's nothing wrong with expecting sex if you feel you are picking up on certain signals, and there's nothing wrong with being disappointed or elated based on how things turn out. This also all holds true for a woman who goes out one night just trying to hook up.

  • Melissa

    TT, you're right about what the implications would be if they had been talking about the latter, but I think phrases like "I sincerely hope that sex isn’t the ONLY reason most guys interact with women on a daily basis" from shala show pretty clearly that they were talking about the former.

  • http://none Dave

    First off, no rape is deserved, I'm certainly not on Aarons side here, but...

    Ff grinding your ass on a dudes pelvis isn't supposed to send someone a message, what is?

    Also, any dude at a club is trying to get laid. If you don't want to be in a large room full of men who want to stick their boner in you, why are you in a dance club?

  • Melissa

    To, um, dance.
    And grinding doesn't mean anything by itself either...personally I don't like it because of the invasion-of-personal-space aspect, but for the most part...that's just how people dance. Does it kinda suck that they used to have options like swing dancing and the twist and now we just have grinding? Yeah. But you'd look awfully funny trying to do an old-fashioned dance in a club today.
    Besides, we're not objecting to guys wanting to have sex with women. We're objecting to guys EXPECTING to have sex with women who aren't interested. Move on, find someone who is interested. It's not difficult unless you feel like you're entitled to any woman you want.

  • shala


    Yeah, I was talking about the former. Unfortunately from the way a lot of guys talk (living in a college town myself) too many of them have little interest in women other than getting laid. This is not okay with me.
    And yes, that bit about someone stating their intentions was for guys who ONLY interact with women for sex, but I'd also apply it to douches like Aaron whose egos are too fragile to handle the disappointment of being turned down.
    I agree with you in that there's nothing wrong with someone going out to a bar or club trying to get laid. And if they strike out, it's okay to feel disappointed. But what I'm saying is that it's not okay to blame this on the recipient of your "charm." Like I said in my last post, the ONLY reason a guy should get pissed about a woman not having sex with him is if she specifically says that she plans on having sex with him...and then doesn't.
    But even then he should understand that it's her right as a human being to change her mind. Maybe after she said that, the guy just did something that really put her off. We'll never know. More importantly, THE GUY will never know. And that's why it's not okay for guys to walk around expecting sex from every woman who grinds on them in a club. When men do that, it becomes very easy for them to stop respecting the autonomy women have over their own bodies.
    So basically, it's not okay to expect sex from another human being. Ever. You can hope for sex, you can work for it, but you are never ever *owed* sex. It doesn't matter how much a girl touches you or how much you pay for her dinner or how many drinks you buy her (which may make sex with her that night illegal anyway) a woman is never obligated to have sex with you. As human beings we are allowed to decide what to do with our own bodies, and no amount of fondling or grinding can change that fact.
    I think the dating scene would benefit if guys could start thinking that way. What would happen is women would get a lot less free drinks in bars, start paying for their own dinners more, and be more comfortable with their bodies in public.
    Women want to be respected and to feel in control of their own bodies. Sometimes I think the reason women make guys jump through so many hoops before having sex with them is just to prove that we are still in control of our own sexuality. So maybe this predatory approach that guys have toward sex: that they must always be "on the hunt" for sex, ends up making the search that much harder. Who knows.

  • shala

    @ Dave

    Yes, as unbelievable as it sounds, many women go to dance clubs just to dance. You're gonna have to respect that. If you can't have a girl grinding on you without expecting sex from her, maybe you shouldn't be dancing in the first place. Either that, or we can bring back Swing Dancing, which would be totally awesome.

  • TT

    Gotcha. I think we're in agreement then. I guess it was really just a semantic debate between "expectation" and "hope."

  • cathy

    admittedly i'm a fairy princess, but i grind with gay men 10x more than straight men, and i would be utterly shocked if any of them expected sex at the end of the night. grinding does not necessarily indicate interest in sex but it is an awful lot of fun and a good way to show off for those WATCHING you grind.

  • Sara

    I don't know if anyone else had this problem, but the link to this idiot's supposed manifesto tried to give me a trojan. Just a warning...

  • TJ

    "Really, the only way a woman can actually suggest she wants to have sex with you is by saying, “I want to have sex with you!” It’s that easy."

    A good post overall, but this statement is pretty stupid. Obviously there are multiple ways for someone to communicate the desire to have sex with someone just like there are multiple ways for me to invite someone into my home for tea.

    You shut down his points pretty effectively, but if anywhere in that dung heap there is a point to be taken away it's this: just as multirelizability and ambiguity exists in every speech act, it is also the case that ambiguity exists in sexual intentions at a club. You are correct that any action suggests nothing more than a desire for that particular action (and only at that particular moment it should be added!), not necessarily a progression to other acts. Still, I think it needs to be admitted that it is not implausible to believe that other actions might follow from it. Not necessarily, but possibly, perhaps even probably.

  • Deb

    I don't care if a woman is deliberately trying to give a man an erection for no other reason than making a fool of him when she rejects him. It's his problem and no grounds for rape. Too bad, so sad for that man. He can learn to control his own movtives,desires and behavior if he doesn't like it. Men reject women all the time. Sex is fair play. Rape is rape.

  • Mockingbird

    The thing is that real men with self control DO NOT rape women. They respect a woman’s words when she says no, just like Aaron did (however frustrated or elated they may feel).

    What Aaron is pointing out is that SOME men do NOT have this self control. And if this flirtatious Lady had been rubbing herself on one of THOSE men, instead of himself, she may or would have been in serious trouble.

    The MAIN POINT is that no lady (or man) can tell in advance whether the person you interacting with in an emotionally charged situation has or does NOT have the self-control.

    So when in a situation like a club, or anywhere, Aaron's point is that you must keep in mind that not everyone THINKS the same way you do. Never ASSUME that you are being understood or listened to. Which is why you must be aware of what is happening and how it can affect you.

  • Jenna

    What Rapey-Aaron fails to realize is that SOMETIMES dancing, flirting, dressing a certain way, etc. are to attract men (plural) so that a woman can pick and choose from SEVERAL men. I myself have done this. Why should men be the only ones doing the choosing? Maybe Aaron should examine himself to find out why, if a woman IS on the prowl, she isn't choosing him. That's his real objection. He's mad because he wasn't chosen and thinks telling women "you're setting yourself up to be raped with good reason" is an appropriate response.

    Aaron is just a petty misogynist who can't get laid and wishes he had the legal right to "take some pussy". He resents that women can and do entice more than one man without reprisal. He actually thinks teasing, flirting, conversing and titillating a man without screwing him should be a punishable offense. I bet it's his unpleasant, revolting personality that leaves him alone and lonely more often than not.

  • shala


    Yes, the difference between expectation and hope is subtle, but important. For example: a teacher expects, rather than hopes, a student will complete his/her homework.
    When a person expects something from another it implies a contract (whether official or unspoken) whereby one party can be reprimanded or punished for not holding up their end of the bargain.
    Guys like Aaron EXPECT a woman to be willing for whatever sexual acts the guy is willing for. They create a contract within their own heads that allows a woman to be punished for her non-compliance. In most cases, men limit this to name-calling or similar behaviors. In a few (okay, sadly not that few) cases, the man decides the woman is deserving of rape.
    This is why it is so important for us not to read more into another person's than is actually there. When a man decides to interpret a woman's actions differently than she had intended them, (assumes them to mean she's consenting to sex when she wasn't) he establishes her as a person who is voiding a contract. At this point, it is up to his "benevolence" to decide if and how she should be punished. He may decide she is only "deserving" of him bashing her to his friends, or calling her a name. But... he may be a more heavy-handed type of person.
    So, the important thing here is that the logic is the same, although the extent to which it is carried out differs.

  • shala

    @ Mockingbird:

    STFU. Seriously. If Aaron had meant his article to be a friendly warning, he wouldn't have included the word DESERVED in the title. Read my previous post to help you understand.
    His real point is that when women don't want what he ASSUMES they want, he thinks that gives him license to say they deserve to be punished.