Robert St. Estephe–Gonzo Historian–is dedicated to uncovering the forgotten past of marginalizing men. “Gonzo journalism” is characterized as tending “to favor style over fact to achieve accuracy.” Yet history – especially “social history” – is written by ideologues who distort and bury facts in order to achieve an agenda. “Gonzo” writing is seen as unorthodox and surprising. Yet, in the 21st century subjectivity, distortion and outright lying in non-fiction writing is the norm. Fraud is the new orthodoxy. Consequently, integrity is the new “transgressive.”

Welcome to the disruptive world of facts, the world of Gonzo History. •?•

“We live in a rape culture, and don’t you ever forget it, not even for one minute!” A lot of money has been spent on the rollout of this thought product and the campaign keep going and keeps getting placed in larger markets. It is quite impressive. The entire enterprise is classic Edward Bernays “by the book” (the Bernays book being Propaganda, 1928, Horace Liveright, N.Y.). This “We live in a rape culture” trope is so widespread by now that we can confidently say that it is now the biggest rape fantasy the world has ever known.

We might ask, just how exactly does this biggest of all rape fantasies fit in to the psychological typologies of rape fantasies as understood by social science researchers? According to Michael Castleman, M.A., in his 2010 Psychology Today article on the subject these imaginary scenarios when fantasized by women can be either erotic (“I’m being forced and I enjoy it.”) or aversive (“I’m being forced and I hate it.”) or, they can belong to a third – and intensely intriguing category – mixed. The incidence (among those women who engage in such a pastime) of these three types break down, according to Mr. Castleman, to 45% erotic, 9% aversive and 46% mixed. This makes things rather complicated, if we try to understand the popularity of women’s daydreams of the sort that can be characterized as “I’m being forced and I enjoy it and I hate it.”

These fantasies are not rare. According to data collected from 9 separate surveys conducted from 1973 to 2008 about one in four women claim to have rape fantasies, the median frequency of occurrence being around one per month. Mr. Castlemen believes the rates may be higher due to reluctance of some respondents to be forthcoming about their guilty pleasures.

“We live in a rape culture” has now become a standard slogan in the gender ideology industry. Feminists like saying it, they like writing it and they like getting everyone they can to listen to it. They like this “rape culture” talk a great deal, this cannot be doubted; yet it is an equally unchallengeable fact that feminists who like to talk about “rape culture” are adamant, universally so, in their vocalization of their dislike of the act of rape itself. Now this might not seem so interesting a point to make were it not the case that gender ideologues are constantly caught lying about rape statistics, lying about the matter of false accusations of rape and are in essence perpetuating a fantasy of a “rape culture”, rather than identifying and reporting on any authentic rape crime wave or a widespread tolerance of rape.

You see where I am going with this. There is a big fat rape fantasy going on in the perfume-filled back rooms of the feminists and when we look at the nature of the fantasy it turns out that the “rape culture” fantasy falls into the category of “aversive,” and when we compare this propagandized group fantasy (which hopes to become a universal mass fantasy) to the incidence among individual women we can see that “aversive” is the least popular kind by far (estimated 9% versus erotic at 45% and mixed at 46%). But origination (among professional gender ideologues) and promulgation (by the same, but with assistance of others, perhaps less involved and informed as to the specious origins of the claim) and reception are not the same as one another.

Those members of the general public, those who receive the advertised fantasy (“we live in a rape culture”) may not be having quite the same fantasy experience as those who cooked it up in the first place. My guess is that the popularity of the “rape culture” fantasy, a popularity I believe does indeed exist among large numbers of the receivers of the message, is quite possibly going to be of the mixed variety.

A large share of the public apparently likes to hear about there being an ever-present rape scenario for them to mentally involve themselves in and it is expressed overtly as aversive, but since, for the female portion of the public, the way they elaborate it in their individual fantasy scenario is mixed: they, a large proportion of them, may just have an erotic component to the message they are told to like to hear but which they are told is supposed to be an exclusively aversive message. The public does not, after all, typically follow orders strictly the way the propaganda producers intend them to.

Whatever the case, “rape culture,” a fantasy invented by professional gender ideologues as a propaganda campaign that exploits fundamental psychological aspects of the mind is to some large extent now a popular rape fantasy, a constant imaginary rape going on inside the mind at a rate of frequency exponentially higher than that which would ordinarily occur among individuals (one per month). A rape fantasy must have a victim and a rapist, I’m assuming. The fantasy rapist is by definition not a real one. He (when fictional rapist is male) is a made-up idea of a rapist.

A fictional (fantasy) rapist is a false rapist figure, much as a real person falsely accused of rape is a made by the accuser/fantasist into an imaginary rapist (yet real person) who is standing in as a figure for a fictional scenario. A real person who thus, in a sense, gets “invited” into a fake-rape fantasy (except in those cases where rape actually occurred but the wrong person is identified as perpetrator). Perhaps this invitation of a flesh and blood actor into the fantasy adds to the fantasist’s excitement. It most does certainly add excitement (of the unpleasant kind) among all those drawn into such a spill-over from fantasy world to real world.

This specific type of rape fantasy, in which no intercourse at all – let alone any rape – actually occurred, but a fantasy did occur and a real person comes to be selected retroactively as the starring actor in the rape fantasy is what prompted me to start dwelling on this murky borderline cross-over between real crimes and the fantasy of crimes that is represented in the “We live in a rape culture” meme. A blurring of reality is encouraged or, rather, it is forced upon the public. The “rape culture” propaganda campaign makes a sort of command: “You shall have a rape fantasy right now and you shall think about inviting the real men around you into the scenario by identifying them as real rapists starring in this prompted fantasy.” Whereas the share of all women who, according to the study cited above, engage in self-initiated rape fantasy is only about 25% (and quite possibly a larger share), the ubiquitously advertised product of “rape culture” induces — as it was designed to do — a rape fantasy (of some sort or other) among all women (plus men as well).

The “We live in a rape culture” campaign, I would argue, sends a decidedly mixed message, one that operates both on a conscious and unconscious level.

All my rumination on the topic of rape fantasy has been with the aim of trying to better understand just what is going on in the heads of women who make false rape accusations. Whether the examination above is helpful in clarifying the question or not it does show that the question is a complicated one — one that cannot be explained through examining strictly conscious thought processes at the exclusion of unconscious ones. The less-than-conscious realms of erotic fantasy life must be brought into the analysis if we are going to try to comprehend the phenomenon of the false rape accusation.

Presented below are two cases from a period preceding (by many decades) the introduction of the currently ever-present “We live in a rape culture” propaganda campaign that, given available evidence, fit the type of the rape fantasy in which no intercourse occurred, and in which a stranger is “invited” into the rape fantasy — without any forewarning by the imaginatively active accuser/fantasist.

The first of these two cases, which took place in 1952 in Chicago, involves a chronic schizophrenic, Mrs. Barbara Latimore, who “invited” a stranger she picked out on a bus, Harold Miller to take a real-life role in her rape fantasy world. He was convicted of the imaginary crime and spent four years in prison before family and friends were able to demonstrate that the mental patient accuser’s word should never have superseded the testimony at trial of multiple witnesses giving Miller a clear alibi and the medical report showing there was no sign that any rape had occurred.

The second, from 1954 in New York City, involves an at-least-partly alcohol-fueled rape fantasy on the part of a Mrs. Mary Gillen which collared two teenage boys before it became clear that no rape had actually occurred and that the boys never had any contact with her. They were in jail five months before matters were cleared up by an industrious and conscientious member of the prosecution team.

It seems to me that understanding thinking and behavior of false rape accusers will be made easier when we apply what can be learned from the study of the psychology of rape fantasy, and further, that we can better understand the phenomenon of aggressive “rape culture” propagandizing and its effects on individuals’ conscious as well as subconscious reception of it and the distortions it may be causing in public policy if we look into thew nexus of rape fantasy/false rape accusation psychology.

There are far too many non-consenting individuals who are receiving the unwanted invitation of “Welcome to my rape fantasy.” And there is far too much promulgation of the gender ideologues’ fantasy that “Women don’t lie about rape.” The creation of a grand scale scenario involving an entire sex (the male one) being the subject of a non-consenting conscription into a mass rape fantasy is what we are confronted with in the “We live in a rape culture” public fantasy. This is what seems to be the aim of ambitious and well-funded gender ideologues, and my response to their “welcome,” their “invitation,” is a firm and permanent “No thank you.”

No, I do not consent (enthusiastically or otherwise), to be dragged into your fantasy which states that “we live in a rape culture.” Your mixed erotic/aversive fantasy has no appeal to me. I recognize it for what it is, an attempt to tap into the unconscious of a population in order to manipulate that population to serve the agenda of the propagandists who created it. No, I do not wish to participate in your fantasy. Keep your rape fantasy to yourself, in the private realms of your conflicted erotic/aversive mixed-up minds. And keep your delusions of social control power-grabbing to yourself while you’re at it. I refuse to participate. I refuse to cooperate. After all, I am the possessor of my own agency, not your object to be acted upon. You, gender ideologues, have, of your own free will, chosen to live in an erotic/aversive rape fantasy sub-culture of your own making. The operative concept is “choice.”

•?••?•

Barbara Latimore’s rape fantasy: Chicago, Illinois, 1952-1956

FULL TEXT: (Chicago, Illinois) – Life for Harold Miller this week took on all the sweetness of the candy he used to mix before he spent four years in prison for a a crime of which he was falsely accused and convicted – a crime which in all likelihood was only the figment of a tortured mind.

Before his four-year nightmare began, Miller, who is now 31, was a chocolate mixer at a candy company. Quiet and unassuming, he lived with his mother, relaxed after work with his friends and engaged in the usual activities of any normal Chicagoan.

~ RIDING A BUS ~

One fall night in 1951, Miller was riding on a bus, unaware that a woman passenger was pointing him out to her husband as the man who had raped her four nights before. When he left the bus he was trailed by the husband of Mrs. Barbara Latimore, while she rushed to call the police.

Arrested, Miller was accused of having accosted Mrs. Latimore in a vacant lot, dragging her to the rear porch of a house at 3429 S. Indiana ave., and attacking her.

The testimony of free friends – who took lie detector tests – that the accused man had been with them at the time of the alleged rape bore little weight with the police.

Miller was brought to trial, and on May 2, 1952 was sent to prison.

~ HAD FAITH IN HIM ~

But there were people who believed in his innocence. Jim McGuire, Sun-Times Reporter; Roy Woods, Millers stepfather, Charles Lieman, his attorney; and Ken Doughty of the Civil Liberties committee worked tirelessly to clear him.

McGuire died, but the others persevered. They found that Mrs. Latimore was a chronic schizophrenic, who was capable making even the most fantastic lies sound plausible. Two years after the after the alleged attack she was committed to Manento [State Hospital] for a series of shock treatments.

She was released conditionally in Feb. 1954, and her discharge became permanent one year later.

~ NEW TRIAL PLEA ~

On November 10, armed the information about Mrs. Latimore’s mental condition, and with the fact that a medical examination had failed to substantiate the claim of rape, Liebman asked Judge A. Sbarbaro, who had sentenced the claim of rape, Liebman appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which ordered a new trial.

Last week, three psychiatrists and a psychologist explained to Judge Sharboro the mental delusions under which Mrs. Latimore was suffering at the time of the accusation and pointed out that Miller had been convicted on her testimony alone.

~ AN INJUSTICE ~

Judge Sbarbaro said he would hold a new trial and declared that the conviction had been “an injustice to the individual and to the community.”

Miller would not have to endure the ordeal of the new trial, because Assistant States Prosecutor Francis Riley said the state will not re-open the case.

With tears in his eyes, Miller thanked the people who had worked to free him – all that is, except Jim McGuire. But Mrs. McGuire knew how her husband would have felt. She said:

~ JIM NOT PRESENT ~

“It is wonderful. I am sad to think that Jim was not present, but I feel that he won from the grave. This is the third man he had gotten out of prison.”

As for Miller, he has no ill-feeling toward anybody. He summoned up his ordeal this way:

“I believe that God and trusted Him all the way. At times, when everything seemed hopeless, I lost faith, but each time it was quickly restored.”

Harold Miller was the unfortunate victim of a sad miscarriage of justice. Back home with his mother at 7325 South Parkway, he is adjusting himself to the fact that the future holds more for him than the prospect of life in prison.

He does not know if he will go back to making candy, but of one thing he is certain – life itself had never been so sweet.

[“Free At Last – Man Wrongly Jailed Four Years Starts Life Anew,” Chicago Defender (Il.), Apr. 7, 1956, p. 8 (?)]

***

***

Mary Gillen’s rape fantasy: New York, N. Y. 1954