I don’t usually use Smart Bitches to overtly rant and rave about politics; this site is for romance novels, after all. But I’m going to make a special exception for Bill Napoli, a Republican state senator for South Dakota who had these words of wisdom to say about acceptable rape exceptions for the abortion ban:
A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
An acquaintance of mine, Sylvia, referred to this as “hella rape,” which is quite possibly the best damn phrase I’ve read all year.
At any rate, fuckwittery should not go unrewarded. I’m thinking we should do to Napoli what Dan Savage did to Rick Santorum. The nifty thing is, Napoli himself has provided an excellent definition. I propose the following entry be entered into the lexicon:
napoli (not to be confused with the proper noun, which indicates the Italian city)
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): napolied
Pronunciation: nA’poli1. To brutalize and rape, sodomize as bad as you can possibly make it, a young, religious virgin woman who was saving herself for marriage. 2. To hella rape somebody.
Etymology: From State Senator Bill Napoli’s (R-SD) words on an acceptable description of rape that would merit an exemption from South Dakota’s abortion ban.
Now, popularizing this term is going to take a little help from you guys.
First of all, I’ve created a little page with the definition for “napoli.” LINK TO http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/billnapoli with “Bill Napoli” as the anchor text. The link should look like this:
This is known as Google-bombing.
Second of all: Urbandictionary.com. I’ve submitted the entry, and it’s currently awaiting editorial approval. Once it’s up, I’m going to post a link here, and I hope enough of you guys vote on it that it becomes the top result for “napoli.” (Gawd, I feel bad for Napoli, but…not bad enough.)
And feel free to refer people to both the Bill Napoli definition page and this page, of course.
C’mon, everybody! With a little help, we can hopefully make napoli the new santorum.
OMG, what a fantastic idea. I will do everything in my power to make this as big as the Santorum thing.
What an ass.
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why the Democrats have not been jumping all over these kinds of statements and sentiments (and not with the weak inanity of those “Sam Alito was evil because he was a member of CAP” comments during the confirmation hearings). Someone please explain to me how the Right has gotten so many passes on absolutely outrageous stuff!
I know, Robin. I’m with you, there.
I can’t do much right now (not a citizen, can’t vote, crycrycry) but I can perpetrate small acts of spite that will hopefully get the word out. Plus seeing the definition page become the number 1 Google result for “Bill Napoli” will warm the cockles of my dead, black heart.
Jaysus! Another reason to love this site! I guess it does take a “Smart Bitch” to get the ball rolling. You’ve got my vote!
Gari
More thoughts: Maybe we can have some sort of a napoli scale for rapes in romances. One napoli is a forced seduction, five napolis is an all out gang-rape fest a la old-sk00l Rosemary Rogers.
Think I need a new hobby much?
This is amazing! I definitely support the napoli scale concept. My question: will linking from a lj entry register on Google?
Heh. To Napoli someone.
I like it. At least as far as my end goes, consider it spread.
My question: will linking from a lj entry register on Google?
It may or it may not—depends on whether you friendslock the entry—but it certainly can’t hurt 🙂 .
Just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does.
*Sigh*
Just what the world needs, another religious bigoted idiot. I’d like to know whatever happened to the good old fashioned devil worshippers, I’m pretty sure they were more humanitarian than some of these freaks. Sigh.
Calling him an asshat is an insult to the “real” asshats. Seriously, he’s in a class by himself.
There needs to be another term for him—
Uberasshat?
Excellent – let us know when the UD entry is up for voting. :^)
It’s too bad he’s can’t be Napolied.
Er… feeling a little lost, where do we link?
Janie, and anyone else who was confused about where to point the link, please link to the URL below:
http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/billnapoli
Thank you for spreading the joy that is being napolied.
Also this could be entered on Wikipedia. I’m on it.
Uhuh. Imagine what a woman would have to go through to prove that she was even a candidate for napoliation. As in, Miss, your skirt makes me question your napoliworthiness.
Okay, I’ll admit that I’m struggling here. On the one hand, I love the satiric way in which Candy’s coinage reveals the vicimizing power of Napoli’s language and his appalling exploitation of the virgin/whore dichotomy. But I keep feeling that we’re replicating the woman-as-victim part of that equation, rather than sending the consequences right back to Napoli. What am I missing here that I can’t reconcile this?
Jay: YES, the Wikipedia idea is GENIUS. You r0xx0r my b0xx0rs, except I don’t wear boxers, but if I did, you so totally would rock them.
Sadly, I don’t think Senator Napoli COULD be napolied. I assume he’s married and, therefore, not a virgin. Also, even he would admit he’s not saving his anus for anyone. So he could be brutally sodomized, raped so thoroughly that he required massive internal stitching, and still. . . not napolied. Sorry, Bill. :down:
Yes, because you know, only virgins suffer during a rape. The rest of us are all whores asking for it.
His attitude (which is sadly quite prevalent of late and back in the seventeenth century where it belongs) makes my skin crawl.
I’ll post the link at my blog when you put it up. The man consorts with roaches.
Plus, you guys totally know that a woman can’t get pregnant unless she enjoys it. Duh.
But I keep feeling that we’re replicating the woman-as-victim part of that equation, rather than sending the consequences right back to Napoli.
Hmmm. The whole “santorum” definition was designed to make Rick Santorum’s “big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head.” I imagine that if Napoli knew of our Nefarious Plot, he probably wouldn’t be thrilled with the idea that his name will (hopefully) soon be used synonymously with the rape and sodomy of virtuous, religious young women.
On a side note: Does anyone else find it fascinating that he specifies “girl”? (Well, that and sodomy, because non-consensual vaginal penetration alone just doesn’t cut it any more in terms of abortionworthy rape.) I don’t get the sense that he was using “girl” in the figurative “What’s up, girls?” sense, but the literal, porntastically barely legal sense. Like if you were a 38-year-old virgin saving yourself for marriage, being napolied would somehow be less horrible or traumatic than if you were a 18-year-old virgin.
All of which is to say: I’m not sure, Robin, what can be done to send the consequences back to Napoli himself. Any thoughts or ideas?
You can borrow my b0xx0rs, if you really want ‘em.
It’s done: My first Wikipedia entry. Complete with linky goodness.
Lauren: you can link to this page: http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/billnapoli
I’ve re-worded my instructions in my post so they’re hopefully less confusing. Some kind of technical writer I am, hee.
>>This latter statement led reproductive-freedom advocates to define Napoli as. . .<
<
Oh, FUCK, that is AWESOME! Though I would suggest that it be “women’s-rights advocates” or just “decent human beings”. I’d imagine even pro-lifers could imagine a scenario where a non-virgin could
possibly be raped.
It must be such a comfort to Senator Napoli that his little old grandma could never really be raped. Grandma’s a dirty whore who loves forcible penetration just like the rest of us who’ve put out.
Ohmigod. The Wikipedia entry is beyoootiful. Thank you for fighting the good fight.
You can borrow my b0xx0rs, if you really want ‘em.
ALL YOUR B0XX0RS ARE BELONG TO US.
(Except they wouldn’t fit me. Curse these childbearing hips!)
I’m afraid the Wikipedia article was flagged almost immediately, and the good bits deleted. It might be possible to get it entered under a less direct title (i.e., “The Napoli controversy” – that’s what they did for Rick Santorum – but that might require that this movement gain more momentum first.).
As for how else to bring this back to Napoli, I don’t know that there is a way. Except, of course, to vote him out of office – that’s the traditional remedy for errant politicians. But his constituents presumably feel quite differently – he may well be faithfully representing their views – so that will be hard. That’s the problem with democracy, isn’t it – that it’s rule by the people?
(Speaking of which, I still have a half-finished response to your political debate sitting on my home computer. It got long, and I had to go to class…)
I’m afraid the Wikipedia article was flagged almost immediately, and the good bits deleted.
Goddammit! I wish I’d taken a screencap or made a PDF.
But I have hopes that napoli as a verb will catch on, allowing us to create another Wikipedia entry. C’mon, everybuddy! Spread it like it was santorum!
Speaking of which: since there’s spreadingsantorum.com, I wonder if there’s a domain name I can purchase and website I can set up for this? Something appropriate. All variations of “napoli” as a word itself have been taken. Any suggestions, y’all?
That’s the problem with democracy, isn’t it – that it’s rule by the people?
Indeed—and isn’t that why the judicial branch is part of the balance of power? To ensure that the rights of the minority are not trampled on as a result of the majority acting out of its own self-interest? The question in this particular case, of course, is whether abortion can be viewed as an actual right. (You and a whole host of other people know more about this topic than I do, however, since my knowledge of all of this is hazy at best.)
(Totally trying to incite lengthy, thought-provoking analysis from Robin, EvilAuntiePeril, Jay and all you other politically-minded Smart Bitch readers.)
Speaking of which, I still have a half-finished response to your political debate sitting on my home computer.
Am looking forward to it. I have found out the hard way that the comment limit is 5000 characters, so split the comment in two if ye haf to.
Man, but I am seeing red right now. Knowing S. Dakota was doing this has had me pissed off for the last few days, but the Governor’s little comment just sent me into orbit.
So if a female is raped but wasn’t a religious virgin she doesn’t deserve access to a safe and legal abortion? Are we really back to the era where the shame goes to the woman and not on the asshole that violated her?
So…needless to say, spreading the word seems like the least I can do.
Okay, thought I would say that I am a “pro-lifer”, but I think this guy is a massive tool. What an ass.
Just because you are pro-life doesn’t mean you have no compassion for rape victims. I hope this guy loses his seat.
This guy is the very definition of a tool. That he could say this out loud and not be thrown out of office shows us how far we have to go. I would burn my bra- but it’s a really nice one and I think parts of it would melt versus burn. That leaves us no choice but to VOTE
“On a side note: Does anyone else find it fascinating that he specifies “girlâ€?”
I have to say, the detail with which he listed his requirements makes me wonder if that’s his fantasy when he yanks his little napolizer in the middle of the night.
The question in this particular case, of course, is whether abortion can be viewed as an actual right.
According to Roe v. Wade, our right as women is that of privacy, and it’s located—at least by the Supreme Court in that case—in the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. But here’s the rub(s): there is still a big debate over whether privacy is a fundamental right (i.e. Constitutionally protected), since it doesn’t actually appear in the Constitution. Further, there are those who believe that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment should be limited to race, since it is a Reconstruction amendment. Even beyond that, Roe itself set the bar, so to speak, at “viability,” pretty much dividing the pregnancy into trimesters for the purpose of marking the limits of a woman’s privacy, allowing that as the pregnancy progressed (with viability at 28 weeks, according to the Court), the balance between the individual woman’s right to privacy and the state interest in a)the woman’s health and later b) the life of the fetus MAY swing more toward the states and their right to limit the circumstances under which women cannot have an abortion (within an undue burden standard).
The really ironic thing, IMO, is that (from what I’ve read) abortion was cmmonly practiced in the American colonies, and if a women terminated a pregnancy herbally before the “quickening” (i.e. through the first trimester), it wasn’t frowned upon. It was only when midwifery succumbed to the pressure of male-dominated “professional” medicine that the practice was curtailed (and then later by health and sanitation concerns).
A few years ago, Christopher Hitchens wrote an article in Vanity Fair arguing that the right to choose is embraced by too many political wives (including Republican wives) to ever be in serious jeopardy in this country, but I do worry, not only because of the increasing power given to states in some areas (it’s interesting to see the areas in which state’s rights seem to prevail and those where the federal power is still privileged). More, I am concerned about the overall cultural backlash against women’s continued crawl toward equality, and if anyone watched the Alito confirmation hearings, some of the senatorial comments really kind of scared me. What really pisses me off is the suggestion that any sane woman is actually pro-abortion. NO ONE I know wants to be in the position to make that choice, but many of us sure as hell want the power and the protection to make it if we have to. Personally, I’ve always thought that if men had children, abortion would be legal, state subsidized, and inclusive of a nice, cushy spa stay with milage points on the credit card.
One thing that frustrates me about Napoli’s comments is that they reflect so badly on the strides women have made in rape law, from the pre-80s requirement of substantial resistance to the 80s and 90s shift to non-consent. But still, rape laws are relatively inconsistent, with some states requiring more in the way of a woman’s resistance than others. And marital rape has been criminalized for less than a generation!
I liked Sara’s invocation of the word “napolizer” the best, I think, because it keeps the ickiness on him, rather on the women (and girls!) who are the victim of rape (and who have already been tainted by his words).
According to Napoli, only young, unmarried virgins who are religious should dare ask. I wonder if their choice of religion makes a difference? Are devout young, virgin Muslim girls eligible? And I wonder how this is proven? Okay, if you can quote at least fifty verses of scripture, and if there’s a record you went to church 52 times a year, and if you wear a lot of religious paraphernalia, AND, if you can prove you were a virgin before you were brutally raped and sodomized, we’ll give your request consideration.
Aw, hell, it’s no use sermonizing, or getting hysterical about it. (Although I do it anyway, quite frequently.) This case will wind up in the Supreme Court, likely after another of Bush’s picks have been added, and Roe will be overturned.
Save those coat hangers, girls!
post 1
post 2
done and done. people like napoli make me ill. i’ll have this info posted in at least 20 other places before the night’s out, and i’ll be bugging everyone i know to spread the word too.
BILL NAPOLI: When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn’t allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again.
Oh yeah, that works great. Let’s take everyone’s right to decide for themselves what their life will be like. This is so offensive that I’m not sure what to say about it.
there is still a big debate over whether privacy is a fundamental right (i.e. Constitutionally protected), since it doesn’t actually appear in the Constitution
Wow, I had no idea that was what was going on. So those famous words, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – are they in the constitution? You would think liberty would cover a person’s right to privacy. (I’m Canadian)
I have no words for a man so obviously stupid. Is this guy married? So if his wife was raped (in the real world terminology) and she became pregnant would he insist that she remain pregnant? I wonder what he would think of a woman who was drugged and raped. Would she qualify?
What is it about men that they feel the need to take a woman’s power away? I don’t want to take a man’s freedoms away. What is so scary about us that men are like this?
This is when I thank God that I’m Canadian. I get snaky when I see this kind of crap so I couldn’t imagine how I would get if my country tried pulling shit like this!
I am so linking and hitting all the hot spots for this one. I wish this guy would go back to ‘the wild west’ he grew up in and leave all us modern, logical, intelligent people alone!
CindyS
So if his wife was raped (in the real world terminology) and she became pregnant would he insist that she remain pregnant?
Oh, no, she would be one of the “good girls” who deserves access to an abortion.
“The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion”
“To ensure that the rights of the minority are not trampled on as a result of the majority acting out of its own self-interest? The question in this particular case, of course, is whether abortion can be viewed as an actual right.”
It also depends on whether or not one counts embryos/fetuses as part of a ‘minority’ who need protected. I think Napoli (a) believes that the embryo/fetus is an individual in its own right and (b) the way Napoli’s comments are phrased, it sounds as though he think the ‘innocent’ have greater rights to protection. Non-virgins are less innocent because we’ve tasted of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. So, we’re sinful and we should be grateful to have the opportunity to give birth to an innocent. I think that’s what’s behind this.
Me, I don’t think of embryos or fetuses as individuals. Biologically, they’re more like parasites within the woman’s body. And yes, there are nice, symbiotic parasites, and not-so-nice parasites, so I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. What I mean is that I see the woman as the human being, the one with rights. And I refuse to believe that sex is bad or that a woman’s previous sexual history has any relevance in a rape trial – prostitutes can be raped, married women can be raped, virgins can be raped. It’s all rape, it’s wrong, and the blame is the rapist’s.
What stuns me along with every other repulsive word and phrase of Napoli’s description is his idea that the sodomy has to be as “bad as you can possibly make it”. As if especially brutal rip-you-apart sodomy is bad, but regular forced sodomy? . . . not so bad. How do misogynists like this get elected? And why do I have the sinking feeling that some women out there, probably Ann Coulter among them, would agree with Napoli?
Done deal, ma honeys. Let da bomb continue.