Short answer: yes.
Before I give you the long answer, I must ask you to consider whether you want to continue reading, as this chapters contains one of the most emetic rape apologism I’ve encountered in awhile. At the very least, find a sturdy chair and a bucket. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
The chapter starts off innocuously enough.
Pg. 185 God is pro sex!…Are the new atheists correct? Have religious views of sex been a source of repression and harm?
Most people, when faced with the accusation that their worldview has been the source of harm in a particular area, would probably attempt to show that their worldview has nothing to do with that harm.
The last thing you would expect the author to do after this point would be to, oh, I don’t know, give a stunning example of how his religious view of sex has led him to the conclusion that a profound evil like rape isn’t that big a deal. Despite my many attempts to actually summarize the comparison, I have failed, so you’ll just have to see for yourself:
Is it absurd to think that a creator would even care what we do with our bodies? Isn’t sex just a recreational activity?
Get ready. We’re about to make a weird leap from consensual sex to rape, a leap only comprehensible in a worldview where sex is something men do to women. The unstated logic of the following paragraph is that if women are upset by being raped, it’s mostly because it was premarital rape.
Page 186: In Smart Sex, Dr. Jennifer Morse…looks closely at the phenomenon of date rape on campus, which an rightly be considered a crisis. According to Morse, it’s a puzzle why date rape should be such a big deal. When people go on dates, they frequently find themselves participating in many activities they don’t particularly want to do. Why is it a crisis, she asks, to get forced into sex, but not a crisis to get forced into eating Chinese food when you really wanted Mexican?
Does it even need to be said? If someone is forcibly cramming food down your throat, that’s also a violent assault. But I suspect the author is using an idiosyncratic definition of the word “forced.”
Violating the first rule of holes (when you’re in one, stop digging), the author proceeds:
Why aren’t there “basketball game date crisis centers” for students to visit after being dragged to a basketball game they didn’t want to attend?
If you are literally dragged to a place against your will, you were kidnapped. In that case, there actually are “basketball game date crisis centers:” they’re colloquially known as “police stations.”
Raising this absurd comparison between unwanted sexual activity and other kinds of activities – such as eating chinese food and going to a basketball game – shows there really is something unique about sex.
The comparison is only absurd if you think: A)being kidnapped and literally forced to eat Chinese food wouldn’t be a big deal (to which I say: bullshit), or B) being sexually battered and enthusiastically participating in sexual activity are not that different. B), as I said above, only makes sense if sex is something men do to women, and that a woman’s opinion about the whole thing doesn’t really matter much in determining whether her experience was traumatic.
The author’s religiously-inculcated sexual repression has caused him to fail to see the distinction between sex and rape. Forcing a woman to have sex is the same as ordering Chinese instead of Mexican. It may not be her preference, but she’ll get over it.
The whole premise of the sexual revolution (which the New Atheists heartily embrace) is that sex is just another recreational activity. But the proliferation of date rape crisis centers deeply undermines this assumption.
First, they aren’t date rape crisis centers. They’re rape crisis centers. Second, and more frighteningly, this dude really does not see a difference between sex and rape. If sex is just another recreational activity, why can’t I penetrate you whenever I want?
If I ever see Kerby Anderson, the author of the chapter, coming my way, I’m crossing the street. If I see him in a bar, I’m watching my drink.
He quotes Morris, another disturbed individual, saying:
Either sex is a big deal, or it isn’t. If it is really no big deal, then “unwanted sexual activity” shouldn’t be particularly traumatic. Colleges ought to save themselves some money, shut down the date rape crisis centers, and tell co-eds to get over it.
Those scarequotes around unwanted sexual activity are truly scary. Again, and again, and again, this book proves that the contributors, editors, and publishers do not understand the difference between sex and rape.
They use this failure to grasp such an obvious difference to argue that religion can’t be the cause of sexual repression so dangerous it causes the adherents to fail to grasp the difference between consensual sexual activity and violent battery.
I hate to be patronizing, but it must be said: saying if you like sex, you shouldn’t mind rape, is like saying if you like hugs, you shouldn’t mind being tackled. It’s like saying if you like regular dental checkups, you shouldn’t mind if I pull your teeth out with pliers. It’s like saying, if you’d donate a kidney to your sister, why the hell are you upset you woke up in a bathtub of ice?
The New Atheists embrace sexual equality for women, which means both no means no, and yes means yes. Christians, at least these Christians, reject the idea that women have the right to have or not have sex when they choose. Sex is when men penetrate women – their opinion is largely irrelevant – and only the man who buys a woman from her father has the right to do that.
Make no mistake: these are evil, evil people, who deserve nothing but contempt and scorn for perpetuating these attitudes.