Several years ago, Singer R. Kelly was jailed and accused of sexually abusing teenagers and attempting to force his hairdresser into performing oral sex. His lawyer, Steve Greenberg, employed the “rock star rape defense”: “He did not force anyone to have sex. He’s a rock star. He doesn’t have to.” This tactic has been employed by others and is worth examining.
Presented more formally, the Rock Star Defense has the following form:
Premise 1: If someone is a “rock star”, they do not have to force anyone to have sex.
Premise 2: X is a rock star.
Conclusion: Therefore, X did not force anyone to have sex.
On the face of it, this might seem to be a good argument. This is because it looks like modus ponens, a valid deductive argument better known as affirming the antecedent. However, it only resembles this argument. To be modus ponens, it would need to look like this:
Premise 1: If someone is a rock star, they do not have to force anyone to have sex.
Premise 2: X is a rock star.
Conclusion: Therefore, X did not have to force anyone to have sex.
The problem is that even if it were true that “rock stars” do not have to force anyone to have sex it does not follow that a “rockstar” did not force someone to have sex. After all, people do things they do not have to do. To use a non-criminal example, a person who owns a working vehicle does not have to walk, but they can choose to do so. But the “rockstar” defense could be developed as an extended argument:
Argument 1
Premise 1: If someone is a rock star, they do not have to force anyone to have sex.
Premise 2: X is a rock star.
Conclusion: Therefore, X does not have to force anyone to have sex.
Argument 2
Premise 1: If someone does not have to force anyone to have sex, then they will not force anyone to have sex.
Premise 2 (conclusion of Argument 1): X does not have to force anyone to have sex.
Conclusion: Therefore, X did not force anyone to have sex.
Since both arguments are example of modus ponens, they are valid deductive arguments and the logic is unassailable. However, there is the question of whether the premises are true. While it could be debated whether a person is a “rockstar”, the general issues are whether rock stars do not have to force anyone to have sex and whether not having to force anyone to have sex entails that one would not force anyone to have sex.
The claim that rock stars do not have to force anyone to have sex is probably based on the assumption that anyone would willingly have sex with them because of their fame or fortune. As such, they would not need to force anyone to have sex because they would do so willingly.
While it is true that a rock star can probably find someone willing to have sex with them because they are a rockstar, it is not true that anyone (in the sense of everyone) would be willing to have sex with them. Even people who are fans of a celebrity might not want to have sex with them. As such, while a rock star can find at least one person to have sex with them willingly and thus do not need to use force to have sex, it does not follow that everyone they had sex with did so willingly.
The rockstar rape defense can also be undercut by comparing it to a rockstar shoplifting defense. A celebrity accused of shoplifting could argue that they did not steal because they are celebrities and do not need to shoplift. However, celebrities obviously do shoplift—the fact they do not need to shoplift does not entail that they did not shoplift . Likewise, even if a celebrity could have consensual sex with somebody, it does not follow that they did not assault or rape somebody else.
In light of the above, the rock star defense has no merit. This does not, of course, entail that someone is guilty because they use the defense. However, any jury should dismiss the rock star defense as absurd.
”Reputation is something automatically given to us…”. I wrote in a confusing manner since I lack Schopenhauer’s precision in the formulation of ideas, but what he basically meant is that in general most people grant others the right to be seen as ‘neutral’, neither bad nor good, but this is a ‘right’ that is very fragile, made of very thin glass, so to speak, and it can be damaged quickly, in our case because of a false allegation that is extremely serious, in that one is immediately seen as depraved, dirty, etc, pretty much amongst the worst of human beings. Sorry about the confusion.
Certainly all your arguments are rock solid (no pun intended). However, I myself am generally skeptical of rock stars committing rape. If we agree to the following:
1. There’s such a thing as sexual choice. Some people have more of that; some less; others none at all, for example disabled people and the like.
2. Most people, especially people with a weaker will or discipline, or more immature people, are drawn to status. Homeless person who lives in poverty, who have committed rape, seem to be a very tiny minority: I myself have heard only of one case. The men accused of rape seem to always be ultra famous and rich. Might I be falling prey of causal fallacy? Perhaps, since I have not conducted a research on how much truth there is in what I say. But invariably we always hear of rapists being mostly actors, rock stars, i.e. people who have plenty of money.
3. A rock star certainly would seem to have no shortage of sexual choice, unless he or she is ugly, etc. After all, having sex with another person isn’t really the amazing accomplishment many seem to picture. I mean, animals do it, in fact the lowest life forms. I seriously doubt that a rock star would have trouble getting sex.
4. Perhaps these men are very, very different from me, but I imagine that men are far more aware that rape is a serious crime and that could mean jail, than it is assumed. But maybe not, which brings me to the point below:
5. In general, rock ‘stars’, famous actors, celebrities, seem to have even more issues than most of us. They numb their brains with drugs and alcohol, they don’t really learn anything (I am always disappointed at how some of my favourite actors believe in stupid things such as the ‘law of attraction’ and ridiculous trash such as that).
In short, these ‘stars’, in fact especially ‘rock stars’, seem to have a very poor sense of discipline and judgement. Let’s in fact take it a step further: most stars seem to be pretty stupid people, a very far cry from a philosopher, or even just an idiot like me who simply tries to learn something.
So it IS entirely possible that I am mistaken on most or all of my assumptions. But the feeling I just can’t shake off is this: a lot of women seem to have a chip on the shoulder, AND resent men who seem to have so much wealth, fame, etc. I mean, we can certainly list several cases where women who accused someone (invariably some men who harness some significant amount of wealth or power) have even been found to be liars, or not credible enough. A lot of them feel bad for having had sex with men who at first liked, and then hated for some reason. I can think of several men such as these who not only have never been accused of rape before, they don’t even have a criminal history.
Sure, that means nothing: as you know even better than I, that someone has no criminal record doesn’t make him or her not a criminal, necessarily. Maybe they have never been found out.
In general, I am skeptical of stories such as ‘he raped me in the back of the supermarket’. But absolutely, the ‘defense’ Steve Greenberg offered, is a ridiculous one, or so it seems; the way I interpret it is: this rock star (whoever he is) doesn’t have to risk getting jailed for a sexual act with a woman, since in his position, he is not at all desperate for sex, he can get it quite easily.
You say that not everyone would have sex with a rock star. You’d be surprised. I remember watching an interview to Lou Reed in his 70’s, the interviewer, a young and very attractive woman, just decided to french kiss him after the interview. Then again, a female poet (of course pretty, etc) decided to marry an old man with an extensive history for being a womanizer I don’t remember who is he. I myself have been told by women some pretty shocking stuff, probably you too. And again, some women marry serial killers in jail.
I have heard time ago of a theory about how women do not try to compete for a man they like, they actually compete – between themselves -.
Just look at all these bizarre trends of women seemingly mangling their face with plastic surgery…..is there ANY man who likes these artificial looking lips? I bet you don’t either. So why do they do this stuff?
Women are very complicated cookies. Men are simple: if the woman is very attractive, that’s it. They don’t even care about the personality, the job, whatever. Women are very different, and far more complicated. I mean, I am not the first man saying this, right?
And I most certainly am not defending any man whatsoever, least of all rapists….if anyone breaks the law, they have to pay the price. I can only imagine, if I had been raped, it would have seriously messed with my mind and my life. This is a very serious crime, and rapists are shameful and repugnant people. I can understand feeling a sexual urge due to being extremely attracted to a woman, but to being unable to control oneself and commit a serious crime such as rape, one has to be a real piece of work.
Not to mention, how can I enjoy having sex with a woman who hates me? I just can’t understand it, these men must have dirt in place of brains. So I am no defender of men, or rock stars, in fact I think most of these people aren’t at all what I’d like to be. Sure, some of their money would not hurt, then again from philosophers I have learned to not get obsessed with money.
Sorry about the long reply. Thank you for your essay. I am still going through your collection on Amazon, great stuff. It’s interesting to hear a philosopher writing about ‘common’ issues and things that happen around us. I am not a good student but at least I hope I am less stupid than I was before. Thanks again.
PS. by ‘common’ issues, I do not mean to include RAPE in this category. Again, rape is a very serious crime. No one has the right to violate someone in such a bestial and shameful way. Personally I would punish them with more than jail, as I don’t believe jail is a realistic form of punishment except for lesser crimes, but that’s another topic.
Once, when I was a kid, I was savagely beaten by a priest, of all people. I can imagine this as being the closest form of ‘rape’ I have experienced against my person, but probably not being close enough.
PPS. by ‘I am not defending men’, I don’t mean to suggest that I am a feminist.
I believe in what Epictetus said: ‘Be a partisan of no man, but your own.’. (one can substitute ‘man’ with ‘woman’, etc, these differences to me have no significance at all as far as being human is concerned: none of them is worth more or less than another.).
Russell Brand is the next one to be charged with rape, etc. Frankly, I am very skeptical about his supposed serial rapism. There’s always a chance that I am wrong, but I doubt it. The reason is simply that he has always been extremely good looking (I mean, most of us can tell who’s good looking, very good looking, etc etc. I am not nearly as good looking as him) ; famous; seemed to ‘know the ways in society’ (a trait that Schopenhauer said is typical of ‘vulgar people’, which I generally agree with, but still, being socially savvy, or not, doesn’t make the average person a bad person, necessarily, though he might be ‘vulgar’ ), etc. In short, I don’t believe Brand – needed – to rape women, since he could get the sex he wanted, with absolutely no problem. Why would he risk ending up in a dirty jail cell for it? I imagine he knew that rape lands one in jail, to say nothing of the act being a sickening and atrocious one (let’s face it, to be a rapist one has to be crazy).
It’s as if I had the money to buy myself a nice meal, but instead I choose to be a shoplifter and steal the food from a supermarket, and risk being prosecuted and possibly jailed. Why would I do that? I just can’t shake the feeling that misandry is very real, and that various women try to ruin lives because they have a chip on the shoulder, i.e. they had sex with a man who they knew was having sex with other women, and in the end, she regrets it for various reasons, for example for feelings of having ‘been dumped’. Then the story repeats again with another man. So she ends up hating all men, except perhaps her father or brother. I imagine someone like Brand would have always welcome ‘casual sex’, simply because he had no special reason to attach himself to a particular woman, because, well, he was looking for sex, he was in the prime of his life, he had the looks, etc etc. The woman might have hoped that he settles for her, which didn’t happen.
As I always say, women are more complicated than men; men are quite simple in comparison. The reason is because in general women have more sexual choice and more sexual power than men. In bed, a man can never outlast a woman, we all know that. Women like s**tstorms and drama, they want to be ‘swept off their feet’. They wait their entire lives for that to happen. They want to feel powerful highs and lows and powerful emotions. Men are the opposite, most of them don’t want to bother with any of that stuff. These dynamics create problems, because men and women are very different. These seem crass thoughts, but I believe they are grounded in reality.
So to conclude: sure, there’s some crazy men who are capable of committing sickening acts such as rape, and in the end it matters very little if one is a rockstar or not, the fact is that rape is a crime and is ‘punishable by law’ (although in my view, being in jail and being raped, aren’t at all comparable: I have no criminal history but I’d probably choose to be in jail than being raped, if I were forced to choose one of the two).
But, I believe the problem of misandry is also a very real one.
Just to clarify, I know almost nothing about Brand, and I am not defending him in particular. He probably is a complete fool, I just learned that he believes or promotes conspiracy theories, and to me, anyone who does that, isn’t that smart after all. Just what I said about famous people before: most of them seem to have more issues than us.
He was somewhat well known a while back, but (as you said) he has gotten into conspiracy theories. While this shows that he is either scamming people or bad at reasoning, we really can’t infer much about his innocence or guilt from this. Although it does show that he might have a tendency to lie (if he is a scammer) or that he exists in a distorted world.
There are cases of false accusations, so you are right that the possibility should be considered. But the evidence (which can be doubted) is that false claims about assault are unlikely. But, as you note, not impossible.
Sorting out the stats is difficult, since an allegation would need to be proven false and we also need to consider the number of assaults that are not reported.
And even if a person is found not guilty this does not mean the accusation was false.
https://evawintl.org/best_practice_faqs/false-reports-percentage/
Thank you for the link, this was interesting as I have been wondering about how common or uncommon these false accusations seem to be. However, the percentage indicated in the reports, are between 2 and 8%. Especially the latter figure, to me, is definitely high. We aren’t talking about something like 0.8 %.
As someone I just came across who discusses the problem of misandry (won’t name him here as I don’t know much about him so far) , said, a false accusation of rape basically means a life completely destroyed. Personally, I’d say this is a crime that is actually comparable to rape itself, in that it inflicts serious psychological trauma. Ironically, while in the case of rape the victim might choose to keep the trauma a secret, in the case of a false accusation the damage to one’s reputation is devastating, regardless.
I once read the story of a respectable man who was defamed for similar problems, in a newspaper. He sued the newspaper and won the case, and was awarded the highest level of compensation. He even published the transcript of the hearing. Yet, in the comments, I could note there were people who still called him the most ignominious ways.
As Schopenhauer explained (paraphrasing): ‘Reputation is something automatically given to us. But the moment this is ruined, should we even be able to demostrate the causes of this being unfair, we’ll have to bear with the consequences, such as stigma and shame.”.
Thank you, Dr LaBossiere. Your essays are always instructive and worth reading.