The Laws Need To Change
False accusations of rape would be far less likely if women (never heard of this from a man) would get the same amount of jail time for a false accusation that the falsely accused would if convicted for rape.
In the Hofstra case, she should have to do all the sentences all four men would have gotten. From CNN, the poor guys' ordeal only ended because somebody had a cell phone camera there, and it disputed her account:
Authorities dropped charges and freed the four men hours after their accuser changed her story about having been forcibly tied up and sexually assaulted in a dormitory bathroom."The woman admitted the encounters with each of the men were consensual," Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice told reporters at a news conference Thursday.
The woman recanted her story Wednesday after authorities told her that part of the incident was recorded on a cell phone video, Rice said.
"That was when she began to tell the truth," she said.
Authorities have not released the accuser's name.
Why the fuck not? We know the names of the accused. Why suddenly prissy about revealing the name of the actual criminal in this? One who decided to murder four men -- effectively take away their lives by sentencing them to prison.
I read about a Southern woman in the Civil War era who decided to get revenge on the Yankees, who had occupied her town, by falsely accusing a Union soldier of rape. The Yankee authorities believed her in preference to their own soldier, and the man was hanged.
She confessed to this on her deathbed.
david foster at September 19, 2009 8:17 AM
Apparently her name (Danmell Ndoye) has been discovered:
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/09/college-students-rape-lie-caused-four.html
Doh-San at September 19, 2009 8:27 AM
Penalizing false accusers more harshly is called for, but might incentivize them to not recant. For example, in this case, if the young woman knew that she would get five life sentences she might have been too scared to back down. I don't know what the right answer is, but doing what feels emotionally satisfying (throwing the book at the false accuser) might not get the end result that we want (fewer false convictions).
Pseudonym at September 19, 2009 8:40 AM
I don't know of any other crime that results in equivalent sentences for false charges. And I think that the range of penalties available would be sufficient IF THEY WERE APPLIED. This is more the problem. Women typically aren't charged for making false claims, even when these are malicious and premeditated. From the perspective of our criminal legal system, women are still treated with a sort of Victorian condescension. They're seen as misbehaving children.
Mike at September 19, 2009 9:16 AM
I'd like to wish good luck to the nation's next four millionaires, coming in right after that kid who got beat up on the school bus.
Vinnie Bartilucci at September 19, 2009 9:19 AM
I think at the very least there should be an allowance for a civil case against the accuser. These boys deserve a public hearing to clear their names and spread some mud on hers.
brian at September 19, 2009 9:27 AM
> I don't know of any other crime
> that results in equivalent sentences
> for false charges
Rape is a distinctive crime.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 19, 2009 9:53 AM
Women in our society have more power than men, in many ways. Certainly they are more often believed than men, whose motives are invariably suspect because "they're men."(usually said with a note of disgust)
Women who have figured out they can abuse this disparity, and have the moral bankruptcy to do so are very dangerous. The laws are not equitable. Perhaps they never can be, but assumption of innocence before one is proven guilty MUST be preserved if justice is to be available to both sexes indiscriminately.
quigley at September 19, 2009 10:06 AM
She should be listed as a registered sex offender.
Atop that, she should be subject to severe civil penalties, required to reimburse the city as well as the accused.
Atop that, she should spend at least some time in jail.
Atop THAT, she should be listed on some sort of national "false accuser" website, accessible by law enforcement, with relevant information handy so that if she ever plays this game again, she'll be caught more quickly.
Lastly, she should be required to disclose this crime to any person with whom she intends to have a sexual relationship.
Robert at September 19, 2009 11:04 AM
"Her actions and her demeanor depict a very troubled young woman in need of much help," Rice said.
Why the hell should anyone feel the least bit sorry for that piece of shit?
Why is it that every single time we read about some woman screwing a man over with a false allegation...or killing one...we're asked by one of the investigating parties to feel sorry for HER?
Robert at September 19, 2009 11:09 AM
What troubles me is the haste that these detectives made to arrest the accused when they admittedly saw many inconsistencies in her story. They questioned why the accused would hide the rope she claimed was used yet leave used condoms at the scene. They questioned why nobody in the dorm heard her shouts yet residents could often be heard brushing teeth. They went in with a supposed open mind, but only open towards the accuser and not the accused.
One man was fired from his job immediately as well as suspended from school. These men were presumed guilty and never given the benefit of being innocent until proven guilty. It is amazing that this DA who was elected because she represented change and promised to be tough on crime is only considering bringing charges against this woman. Had one of these men not videotaped the events of the evening, this woman would not have recanted.
Despite the knowledge that this woman recanted, Joye Brown still wrote an article in Newsday saying these men participated in a despicable act of group sex which was videotaped. She condemned their behavior of participating in a consensual sex act. She further stated that they were photographed smiling when released and that while they should be happy, they should not be proud. She is still speaking against these men. Where is the rage against this woman?
Kristen at September 19, 2009 1:10 PM
"Authorities dropped charges and freed the four men hours after their accuser changed her story about having been forcibly tied up and sexually assaulted in a dormitory bathroom."
*Figuratively speaking*, women who choose to do these things because they regret their own poor decisions should be publically hung, drawn and quartered.
They shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the rest of us women.
But this is from the article – this was absurd:
"We respect women," he said. "We know how to treat a lady.
You lay down with dogs, you’re going to wake up with fleas. From what appears to have transpired, I think they are giving themselves a little too much credit here.
No, you aren't criminals, no you didn't deserve to be falsely accused -- but don't expect us to believe you are "gentlemen" either.
Feebie at September 19, 2009 1:14 PM
In a masochistic fit, I was trolling feminist sites, and I forget which one, but one site was aghast at the bad character of the men that would tape this on their cellphone.
Kind of amusing.
Luckily, New York is I think, a 1 party taping state, so the taper probably won't be harassed for that.
Feebie, I don't know if they are gentlemen or not, but if you grant a woman agency, and don't judge her on her desire, than there is really nothing wrong with her wanting to have sex with five guys, or five guys wanting to participate in group sex with her.
jerry at September 19, 2009 2:08 PM
"No, you aren't criminals, no you didn't deserve to be falsely accused -- but don't expect us to believe you are "gentlemen" either." Feebie
I'm with Jerry on this... Is there an inherent reason to believe that a group of adults didn't simply decide to do something as adults? Why wouldn't they be Lady and Gentlemen of that is the case? Isn't accepting that she has the power to make her own decision a sign of respect?
SwissArmyD at September 19, 2009 2:50 PM
In theory it might be SwissArmyD...but clearly this particular woman was not very good at making decisions. Respect is not something she deserves. No false accuser should get that.
Robert at September 19, 2009 3:02 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/19/the_laws_need_t.html#comment-1668515">comment from jerryI was trolling feminist sites, and I forget which one, but one site was aghast at the bad character of the men that would tape this on their cellphone.
I've said before that famous men, especially, should consider having women sign a tiny wallet-sized contract saying sex is consensual before they do it.
Amy Alkon at September 19, 2009 3:41 PM
Feebie, I've never participated in group sex, and I was admittedly prudish as a teen. Women are more sexually open than they were 20 years ago. While I'm not saying everyone should go out and screw anything that says yes, you are also talking about 18 year old men. In all seriousness, how many 18 year old men would turn down a chance to screw some young girl. It was a porn dream come true for them that unfortunately turned into a nightmare. Hofstra is not an easy school to get into which tells me that this young man worked hard in school to get in. To say he's not a gentleman now because of a consensual sex act is unfair and seems like he is still being punished despite an accusation being false.
Kristen at September 19, 2009 4:03 PM
"Is there an inherent reason to believe that a group of adults didn't simply decide to do something as adults?"
I would have no problem here if that were the case. I am not making a moral judgement in the least, however, it did suggest in the article that this woman was a few cards short of a full deck (maybe drunk? on drugs, just bat-shit crazy)? No matter, it was consensual so it is not criminal.
But would we be talking about this if these guys had chosen a woman who was both emotionally sober and sexually open? No.
In a deep quite corner of their own little minds they know they had the advantage, and they took it. That's where there responsibility in this lies. And I am not going to ignore that because crazy-pants girl took it a step further.
Does that make them a criminal? Nope. But asking us to think they are gentlemen?!? Sorry, I ain't buying it.
There is a lesson here they are missing.
Feebie at September 19, 2009 4:05 PM
"Feebie, I've never participated in group sex, and I was admittedly prudish as a teen. Women are more sexually open than they were 20 years ago."
This is not what I am saying. You want to have group sex - go ahead!!! But don't tell me that if this girl was a little off-center these guys didn't know about it.
So what is that called? It ain't rape - but it ain't really being a gentleman either...
Feebie at September 19, 2009 4:07 PM
I don't know these men personally so I couldn't state that they are gentlemen or that they aren't. I also do not know the girl involved to know whether or not she exhibited any kind of behavior that would suggest to these men that she was off which is what you seem to be basing your opinion that they are not gentlemen on. What about her boyfriend who said that she looked like she just had hot sex and questioned her. He didn't say she seemed upset or disoriented. He wondered where she'd been and in his own words, "she looked like she just had hot sex." Then he urged her to go to campus security. Most likely she is an insecure girl who engaged in a consensual sex act and felt caught when it came time to admit to her boyfriend what she had done so she lied about it. How could those men possibly suspect that would be the case when they were in that bathroom? Again, you are expecting them to have some insight into human behavior after spending time at a college frat party. Its unreasonable and unrealistic.
Kristen at September 19, 2009 4:19 PM
Kristen: "I also do not know the girl involved to know whether or not she exhibited any kind of behavior that would suggest to these men that she was off which is what you seem to be basing your opinion that they are not gentlemen on."
Here you go....
"Her actions and her demeanor depict a very troubled young woman in need of much help," Rice said.
Look at my original statement. This woman should have the book thrown at her - she deserves that and a lot more for not accepting responsibility for her actions. In no way am I condoning what she did, at all.
All I said was for them to proclaim themselves somehow noble in this - far from them being truthful.
"Again, you are expecting them to have some insight into human behavior after spending time at a college frat party. Its unreasonable and unrealistic."
No it's not.
Feebie at September 19, 2009 4:33 PM
"I've said before that famous men, especially, should consider having women sign a tiny wallet-sized contract saying sex is consensual before they do it."
Contracts aren't worth crap, I think you need a professional eyewitness. Hotels should provide a discreet specialized type of concierge that, for a fee, attends trysts in a non-sexual capacity. They could provide protection and lubrication, handle clean-up, document any apparent injuries on the bedmate and attest to them being attained in consensual acts.
I'm thinking "cuntcierge" might work, but some might object to the term. If Kobe, or Merriman, or Rothlisberger had a cuntcierge available when they engaged in their pecadillos, they all would have saved themselves much grief.
Chappelle suggested your idea five years ago.
XWL at September 19, 2009 4:47 PM
"Her actions and her demeanor depict a very troubled young woman in need of much help," Rice said.
DA Rice is a joke. Did she consider this woman's actions or demeanor as someone in need of help when she arrested 4 men based on her accusation? She seems troubled now that she was faced with evidence that she was lying, a lie that would have ruined the lives of 5 young men. Nobody is calling them noble, but to say that they are not gentlemen because they had consensual sex with a girl from a party is unfair.
DA Rice also made a statement saying she hoped that this wouldn't make it difficult for future victims in rape when coming forward. The best way she can prevent that is by pressing charges against this woman. This is a DA who feels that she needs to make examples of people and there is no better time than now. Make an example of this woman falsely crying rape because the truth is that besides hurting these men, she is hurting true victims of rape. DA Rice had a wall of shame for people arrested for DWI. How about starting a new wall of shame!
Kristen at September 19, 2009 4:50 PM
"I've said before that famous men, especially, should consider having women sign a tiny wallet-sized contract saying sex is consensual before they do it."
The problem with this is in the definition of consent. Because a woman consents in the beginning of the act does not mean she cannot rescind consent at any point during. While I think that's bullshit, I've read about it in actual articles defining rape. If a woman says no but continues, she can cry rape after the act. If they are in the middle of fucking and she changes her mind and says stop and he doesn't immediately, she can cry rape. In Joye Brown's article in Newday she actually questioned whether this girl decided during the act that she didn't want to continue and then further questioned the legality of an 18 year old giving consent. Its all a way of making this girl look like a victim although she is anything but.
Kristen at September 19, 2009 4:55 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/19/the_laws_need_t.html#comment-1668530">comment from XWLcuntcierge
I just love that.
Amy Alkon at September 19, 2009 5:03 PM
Kristen:
You are missing my point.
I like you - but this is going no where. So here's what I am saying in five words: ITS ALL ABOUT PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
Wouldn't it sound off to say?
"Good for these guys for beating the wrap. AND THEY SHOULD FEEL SO PROUD OF THEMSELVES TOO!"
I think it does. It's missing something.
Feebie at September 19, 2009 6:20 PM
Chappelle suggested your idea five years ago
It's not the first time I've suggested it. I think a lot about human nature. There's always a lot of prevention and cleanup needed.
Amy Alkon at September 19, 2009 6:33 PM
"In a masochistic fit, I was trolling feminist sites, and I forget which one, but one site was aghast at the bad character of the men that would tape this on their cellphone."
Yeah, I can well imagine how disappointed they would be. Just think of it. If only no-one had recorded the incident, they could have nailed another four innocent men and helped preserve the myth that women don't lie about rape.
It must be so frustrating, to have the whole thing ruined all because some little ill-mannered boor decides to souvenir some evidence.
Nick S at September 19, 2009 8:30 PM
Feebie, I love ya but you're way off base here.
What you've proposed here is that women are never responsible for their actions. This is just as bad as the laws in several states that make it illegal for a man to have sex with an intoxicated woman regardless of his condition.
That's right, the law has decided that an intoxicated woman is not competent to consent to sex. An intoxicated man is. And, in addition, he's expected (no matter his level of inebriation) to determine if she's sufficiently intoxicated to meet the legal definition of impaired without having either the training or legal access to the equipment to ascertain such.
And now you want eighteen year old boys who have no formal training in medicine or psychiatry to determine if a young woman is sufficiently sound of mind before they take her up on her offer to play hide the salami?
Ninja, please.
brian at September 19, 2009 9:43 PM
"What you've proposed here is that women are never responsible for their actions."
Brian - back atcha!
I am saying nothing of the sort. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. She then took it a step further (by trying to blame someone else for her own poor choice) - she should receive heavy consequences for doing so considering what would have happened to these guys.
"That's right, the law has decided that an intoxicated woman is not competent to consent to sex."
And here is where I see the law as being wrong (and why it's so important that people accept responsibility for themselves and don't drag matters into court that fuck up the process of bad behavior = consequences).
She took the drink. If you can't handle your liquor then you got what's coming to you. But it still doesn't dismiss the need for a little humility on the part of these guys. Good grief, that was a dumb thing for them to say.
"And now you want eighteen year old boys who have no formal training in medicine or psychiatry"
You need no such thing in order to use your own common sense. If you are drinking to the point where you can't use it anymore - well, you may want to rethink that, no?
Feebie at September 19, 2009 9:55 PM
I think what I find most odd here Feebie is your preoccupation with the victims and what one of them said... ask yourself why you are making excuses, and what you would say if the genders were reversed. Even if she was acting out or emotionally needy that wouldn't be an excuse for what she was trying, any more than it would be for a guy.
SwissArmyD at September 19, 2009 10:28 PM
>>>You lay down with dogs, you’re going to wake up with fleas. From what appears to have transpired, I think they are giving themselves a little too much credit here.
No, you aren't criminals, no you didn't deserve to be falsely accused -- but don't expect us to believe you are "gentlemen" either.
I couldn't agree more. Being accused of rape falsely is brutal. I am glad the truth came out and they were freed. I hope they are not negatively affected by this false accusation. However, let's not go overboard praising them as I saw one program do. It appears they were pulling a gang bang on a willing participant. Not illegal by any means but certainly not a gentlemanly thing to do either. Leave it at this: they were four guys at a party acting kinda badly who got totally screwed over for doing nothing illegal.
TW at September 20, 2009 1:42 AM
I think young women should understand that not every hour of a good man's life is spent trying his darnedest to be a sexually perfect "gentleman." Feebie apparently acknowledges this. Are you guys now going to make her sign off on every move these guys made in their lives from birth through last midnight, just to make a point? Her condemnation of them... Well, it's not even condemnation. It's certainly not a preoccupation. She's offering the slenderest possible judgment... They weren't perfect "gentlemen". No fines, no scarlet letters, she might not even snub them at a cocktail party.
Like, what do you want?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 20, 2009 1:44 AM
Brian writes.....>>>>That's right, the law has decided that an intoxicated woman is not competent to consent to sex. An intoxicated man is. And, in addition, he's expected (no matter his level of inebriation) to determine if she's sufficiently intoxicated to meet the legal definition of impaired without having either the training or legal access to the equipment to ascertain such
I've seen a feminist argument that said any form of coercion to have sex is rape. Haven't most guys used the "coercion" of stubborn verbal persuasion at least once? This is rape??? (I guess fortunately for me I find drunk a distinct turn off). But seriously, I could not agree more with the premise of your argument. Their is a disturbing nature to the near blanket statement of, *she was intoxicated and therefore it is rape*. The just nature of a law that has significant gray area always worries me like in this case. I might be wrong here but I thought our legal system was based on the premise that guilty people will sometimes go free to minimize the chance of innocent people being convicted. This premise is thrown right out the window when a law has this much gray area. It makes unjust verdicts a near certainty. And as with some other recent subjects on Amy's site, lack of dissent makes laws like this happen. They happen because our government will allow emotion to trump thought.
Regarding punishment for a false accuser...... I don't think the same sentence for a false accuser is necessary. I suspect 12 months in jail will be more than enough punishment and to send an unambiguous message of deterrence. At the moment it is reasonable to conclude, with false rape accusations significant in number, that there are more than a couple women who don't fear using the false accusation. That needs to change and, again, I think a year will do it IF prosecutors actually file the charges (and that is a huge IF).
The two things I find so tough to digest with stories like this: A) "They" haven't even considered not releasing the names of the accuser AND the accused when it comes to sex crimes. B) Rape is a crime that can be so devastating in its effect. Yet you will find this section of women who use the accusation so damn cavalierly. To use it as a cover for their own bad, unfortunate or stupid behavior? This indicates either an utter lack of understanding for a crime of this brutal nature or an appalling level of selfishness/lack of consideration for anyone but themselves (or both).
TW at September 20, 2009 3:41 AM
Feebie, you are no doubt correct that these boys were no gentlemen. But frankly, who cares? It is such a trivial point in comparison to the much bigger issue.
The fact that you are so hung up on a trivial point like that says a lot about your perspective and priorities. Get over it!
Nick S at September 20, 2009 4:38 AM
"This is not what I am saying. You want to have group sex - go ahead!!! But don't tell me that if this girl was a little off-center these guys didn't know about it."
So you expect 18 year old boys to be experts on psychological profiling and masters of nurturing and empathy, while also displaying a Zen-like self-control in the face of temptation. I'm guessing you were a saint at that age, in order to feel entitled to make such judgements.
Expecting an 18 year old boy to turn down an opportunity like that is like taking a child into the candy store and letting them have what they want, then chastising them afterwards for a lack of self-control.
Nick S at September 20, 2009 5:03 AM
I'm not claiming these men are gentlemen or not gentlemen. Feebie made a comment stating they are not because they participated in a consensual sex act and I think its not only missing the point, but a continuation of painting these guys out in a bad light. I live near where this happened and read the local news coverage as well as experienced the rage in the local community. Hofstra is a relatively safe campus in a black/hispanic area. The first thing that people were saying although it would never get reported in the news were things regarding the ethnicity of these men.
These men went to party, had sex with a woman of legal consenting age who by the way gave her consent, and within 24 hours were arrested and then painted out in the press and local communities as a predatory wolf pack. People in the surrounding communities knew who they were. I'm not sure about all of them, but one man's family who lives on Long Island was harassed.The family was receiving hate mail within 24 hours. They were harassed in the local jail by not only guards, but other inmates. One of the men was suspended from school and was fired from his job. This was all over a consensual sex act.
I understand that Feebie was responding to a quote made by one of the men regarding knowing how to treat a lady, but you aren't talking about a polished man who has prepared for a press conference. You are talking about a young man who had been through hell and was not very articulate in stating his innocence and relief at being released. I think he deserves a little slack considering what he's been through.
Kristen at September 20, 2009 5:40 AM
Kristen, good points. I don't see the point in quibbling over something minor when someone has been through an ordeal like that.
It's a bit like visiting a home where someone has just died and giving a stern lecture about keeping the place tidy. It just shows a complete lack of perspective, tact and priorities.
If anything, the fact that a young man in that position would feel the need to justify himself in that way suggests he is conscious of the judgement of others. Otherwise, why would he bother? Why not just say "the stupid lying skank got found out. So there".?
Nick S at September 20, 2009 6:43 AM
What Feebie and others like her are engaging in is known as dog-whistling. That is, if you want to communicate something obnoxious you don't state it explicitly and thereby allow others to call you out. You use subtle cues in order to get the message out to the other bigots who operate on the same frequency.
The coded message here is that guys like this are asking for it and get what they deserve.
Nick S at September 20, 2009 6:53 AM
While I disagree with Feebie's original comment, Nick S, I don't think that she is sending a message that they got what they deserve. There is an article in today's NY Daily News by Michael Daly saying similar things in a more strongly worded way. Mr. Daly does not seem to be in touch with many of today's young men and women. While I don't claim that most are engaging in gang bangs, young men and women are not just experimenting more than say 20 years ago, but they are engaging in sexual practices that were taboo.
There is a porn site that is all amateur porn. I couldn't imagine on my best day letting someone watch, videotape and then post it on the internet, but apparently that's a big thing now. I can't believe all of these women participating have mental problems or are being taken advantage of and that is what is being suggested when these men are deemed not to be gentlemen by participating.
Kristen at September 20, 2009 8:05 AM
"False accusations of rape would be far less likely if women ... would get the same amount of jail time for a false accusation that the falsely accused would if convicted for rape."
This is wrong, jail time should be proportional to the amount of damage done to the victim ... not to diminish what a rape victim goes through at all, but let's be brutally honest, a victim of rape does not lose her job and reputation as a result of the crime, is not completely ostracized by friends/family/community, doesn't spend time in jail, doesn't have to blow her life savings on lawyers ... on the contrary, I'd say that making a false accusation of rape is far more damaging and should thus carry a much *higher* sentence than rape.
Lobster at September 20, 2009 8:31 AM
"No, you aren't criminals, no you didn't deserve to be falsely accused -- but don't expect us to believe you are "gentlemen" either."
Sorry, but I'm afraid I cannot imagine what you might be basing this negative judgment on other than that they're black ... there is no evidence here at all that they're not (unless you think engaging in group sex automatically makes you somebody who is horrible to women, which would be just another, different prejudice on your part instead).
Lobster at September 20, 2009 8:42 AM
"Her condemnation of them... Well, it's not even condemnation. It's certainly not a preoccupation. She's offering the slenderest possible judgment"
Kind of like when people say a rape victim was 'asking for it' by wearing sexy clothing right? Come to think of it, that's a very good analogy to her judgment of these men ... they "should have known" she was off-kilter? Sounds awfully lot like those people who say a girl "should have known" her sexy clothing in a bar would get her unwarranted attention. Come on, it's ridiculous.
These men are *victims* here, and there is absolutely no evidence they've done anything bad at all ... to even suggest any negative judgment at all is wrong and out of place and indicates some kind of grave, twisted, screwed-up way of looking at this whole thing ... as if men are automatically pigs even when they're not just done nothing wrong but are in fact victims of an incredible wrong. The anti-male prejudice is just shining through ridiculously and glaringly obviously.
Lobster at September 20, 2009 8:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/19/the_laws_need_t.html#comment-1668597">comment from LobsterI'd say that making a false accusation of rape is far more damaging and should thus carry a much *higher* sentence than rape.
It really is a form of murder, should it stick (taking somebody's life away, which is what you do by removing their freedom and making them go through daily life in prison to boot) -- and otherwise a form of theft of the most serious kind (armed robbery, since it puts the falsely accused through horrible psychological and physical torture and perhaps endangerment in jail while the police interview their false accuser and gather evidence).
False accusers should be charged accordingly.
Amy Alkon at September 20, 2009 9:01 AM
In Norway, a woman has been sentenced to some jail time and a fine for falsely accusing a man of rape. So there is hope somewhere.
Kendra at September 20, 2009 10:28 AM
I accuse you of shoplifting, bank robbery, or even visiting a prostitute.
I accuse you of wife beating, or pedophilia, or rape. (All three of these are common to divorce.)
I accuse you of murder.
I don't know if it's nature or nurture, but I think most of us react differently to the charges of domestic violence, rape, and pedophilia in ways that never let the accusation go away. It really is life changing and life destroying.
Again at the feminist sites, I picked up on comments identical to what happened when the Duke Students were pronounced innocent: well, now those boys know what happens all the time to women, and worse, does false charges really affect them psychologically, or at work? I think it's the rape victims who face that, not the false accused. Harrumph!
jerry at September 20, 2009 11:38 AM
I don't know of any other crime that results in equivalent sentences for false charges. And I think that the range of penalties available would be sufficient IF THEY WERE APPLIED. This is more the problem.
__________________
Well said, Mike.
Yes, rape is a distinctive crime. So is murder. Yes, someone who tries to frame someone for murder is committing a felony. Yet even Michael Moore, who considered O.J. to be innocent and who said "nothing the LAPD says should ever be believed," said NOTHING about how any member of the LAPD should be punished for falsifying evidence. Why? Presumably because we simply consider it WRONG to impose *equivalent* sentences for false charges of rape or murder. It simply isn't on the same level to most people, though now that we're hearing more and more about such women and such lying cops (and lying attorneys such as Nifong(?)) we will, one hopes, impose SOME standard penalty.
And yes, of course the woman's name should be released. (Though I wish someone would explain why ALL the names can't be kept private until the trial's over or the charges are dropped - you'd want that for your own brother, after all.)
lenona at September 20, 2009 12:16 PM
"Sorry, but I'm afraid I cannot imagine what you might be basing this negative judgment on other than that they're black ... "
Are you fucking kidding me?
Feebie at September 20, 2009 12:19 PM
"You use subtle cues in order to get the message out to the other bigots who operate on the same frequency."
Are YOU fucking kidding me?
Feebie at September 20, 2009 12:21 PM
Let's face it Feebs, you come to this website and post comments, some disparaging of other people whom you've never met except for online and since discredited reports of their behavior.
Sure, perhaps there was no malice, but there's no way I'm going to consider you a lady or gentleman.
jerry at September 20, 2009 12:35 PM
"Expecting an 18 year old boy to turn down an opportunity like that is like taking a child into the candy store and letting them have what they want, then chastising them afterwards for a lack of self-control."
Nope. They aren't children. They are adults. What do you say to people that get in a car when they are drunk just because they "want" to? Absurd.
I just thought that the statement they made about "Respecting women" and "knowing how to treat a lady" was an immature, dumb comment considering these circumstances. They are missing something huge if they had the chutzpah to say this.
It's not about morals
It's not about them being black (wtf)
It's not because I am a bigot (wtf)
It's not because they were being sexually adventurous either.
I am glad they weren't charged and I hope that this woman receives heavy penalties.
I still find it audacious that under these circumstances, they said what they said. If I hadn't read that, I wouldn't have even commented.
But now, because I pointed out that this deserves a little humility and personal responsibility on their end I am met with comments that I am some racist. Brilliant.
What else you got?
Feebie at September 20, 2009 12:36 PM
"Sure, perhaps there was no malice, but there's no way I'm going to consider you a lady or gentleman."
So what?
Feebie at September 20, 2009 12:38 PM
In general, I think the whole "dog-whistle" meme is really suspect.
Before "dog-whistling" there was "coded words", which were ways that people would deconstruct some speech by examining the words used in various contexts and seeing patterns and associating those patterns with the speaker. G.W. would reference bible phrases that were interpreted all over the net ahead of time to refer abortion, and so G.W.'s speech was recognized to be about abortion.
That was one thing, at least the speaker was claimed to be using words in a way that google could show had been used many other times in similar ways.
That morphed into dog-whistling, where speakers no longer had to use specific words to communicate their evil intentions, but they could communicate those same intentions or worse using words that no one could hear, or examine, or google. Only fellow dogs and the secret people aware of the dog whistle language could hear it.
Code Words: Ronald Reagan speaking of States Rights while announcing his candidacy in Philadelphia Mississippi. You can agree or disagree with the meanings and interpretations, but at least Reagan did actually say those words.
Dog Whistling: Maureen Dowd on Joe Wilson. You Lie "Boy!". Maureen Dowd hears something that Wilson never says.
I am not fond of arguments that rely on hearing dog whistles or other evidence that only special people can hear or see.
jerry at September 20, 2009 12:49 PM
> I can't believe all of these women
> participating have mental problems
> or are being taken advantage of
> and that is what is being suggested
> when these men are deemed not to
> be gentlemen by participating.
Kristen, let me first salute you for not asserting that the mores which ruled your teenage underpants are the ones that should command every human heart until the end of time. People, maybe women especially, are often eager to see a perfectly level playing field when these judgments are made. But the game changes: Being guarded for a basketball layup by Shaquille O'Neal in 2009 is completely different than being guarded for a layup in 1968 by Walt Frazier.
Sexual practice is something that's changed across the generations, and it's something that needs to change... Bad, incompetent fucking does a lot of unnecessary damage. Your flexibility is righteous and noted.
I think a woman who pulls a stunt as cruel as this has mental problems. Maybe not clinical problems, but she's got spectacularly weak character. She's a bad person. I think she should do hard time. And in a better world, young men would be protected from such nightmares.
However....
Did you ever notice how some men are able to move their present lives into that better world, harvesting all sorts of benefits? ...Not just in sex, but in almost every other realm? How do they do that?
Beats me! It's probably their excellent judgment, which I don't share.
On the other hand, I never got accused of gang-rape. And neither did most of the other guys reading this comment stack. I grew up in a town with several cultural verges, which is the nicest way of saying alot of confused young people were going to parties in neighborhoods unlike their own and taking a lot of drugs. There were lots of semi-sober, semi-clothed, eager-to-please young women around with no AIDS to worry about, but there were no troubling gangbangs. How come?
We had judgment. Specifically, me and my fellow teenage boys didn't trust each other's impulses in pursuing specific encounters, or try to line up encounters we could share. (Kristen's word is too casual: "participating".) We knew better than to move with a mob mentality, or to think that carnal fantasies were going to come theatrically to life on some average Saturday night. Now, much deeper into adulthood, I've seen collections of responsible people comfortably taking all sorts of amusement from each other. But it's a far different experience than when a young man slaps a buddy on the back and says, 'Dude, we found a hot one!'
Specifically, their judgment was wrong, wasn't it? No matter what she said to them, they shouldn't have trusted her. Sex is hazardous unless you can trust someone, and that will never go away.
And I don't want it to! Basically, you want these four guys to have learned nothing from this experience at all. This is the mirror image of the obliviousness of feminine behavior you decry, that a woman might at any later time decide than an encounter was rape.
Here's how adult sex works, both for men and for women: You have to make judgments about people. And when you make those judgments, goddammit, be right. And if you're wrong, don't come cryin' to me. Because even though I've got some grey hair, I'm not your Dad, and I don't love you enough to sort out the problem that you should have avoided.
Feebie's admonishment that they behave like 'gentlemen' is probably the gentlest possible wording by which to request that they take something from this experience. Sorry the kid was a 'psychobitch', but don't bother me with this again, boys.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 20, 2009 12:50 PM
"Let's face it Feebs, you come to this website and post comments, some disparaging of other people whom you've never met except for online and since discredited reports of their behavior.
Sure, perhaps there was no malice, but there's no way I'm going to consider you a lady or gentleman."
...
You lay down with dogs, you’re going to wake up with fleas. From what appears to have transpired, I think they are giving themselves a little too much credit here.
No, you aren't criminals, no you didn't deserve to be falsely accused -- but don't expect us to believe you are "gentlemen" either.
Feebie, if it helps, I don't think you're a criminal, I just don't believe you are a lady or gentleman either.
jerry at September 20, 2009 12:51 PM
Frankly, I'm still not convinced they're innocent. We might have a case here in which the police and community pressured someone to recant. Use a section of cell phone video and threaten to prosecute her. It's done all the time.
Frankly, this thread, and this website in general, convinces me evermore of something I've increasingly come to believe. Libertarians, and those with libertarian leanings, have the philosophies of pirates, and the morals of prostitutes.
TheExpatriate700 at September 20, 2009 12:51 PM
Jerry -
YOU are reading into things. I am not sending out any dog whistles. I've said (as clearly as I can) what I see.
You've asked me questions directly before, and I've answered. They've been manipulative as shit!!! And I didn't see where you were going until later.
Evil intentions? READ WHAT I'VE SAID and stop engaging in conspiratorial theories.
I apply EVERYTHING I've said above in these posts to my life. Meaning, EVERYTHING is my own personal responsibility in one way or another. EVERYTHING. And if I played the smallest part in something, I give up any excuses to engage in back patting to play up my role as a victim.
I ain't perfect, but I do try my best to walk the walk.
It's the way I've found to "learn valuable life lessons" and not make the same mistakes again.
IS THIS CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?
Hey, guys, don't have sex with nutjobs or drunk women you don't know!!! It's a really bad idea because look what happens.
Feebie at September 20, 2009 12:58 PM
"Feebie, if it helps, I don't think you're a criminal, I just don't believe you are a lady or gentleman either."
Jerry, I DON'T CARE. Bite me.
Feebie at September 20, 2009 12:59 PM
Frankly, I'm still not convinced they're innocent. We might have a case here in which the police and community pressured someone to recant. Use a section of cell phone video and threaten to prosecute her. It's done all the time.
Frankly, this thread, and this website in general, convinces me evermore of something I've increasingly come to believe. Libertarians, and those with libertarian leanings, have the philosophies of pirates, and the morals of prostitutes.
Everyone with knowledge of this case says they are innocent.
ExPatriate, with no personal knowledge of what happened, can suss out the deeper conspiracy.
Occams Razor: A) There is a big conspiracy that the media hasn't clued in on, and the kids are guilty, and the girl is being pressured, and we have to thank ExPatriate700, or B) The kids are innocent as everyone say and Expatriate700 is probably a nutcase, and quite like a bigoted, racist nutcase.
Frankly, ExPatriate700's comment convinces me he/she is probably a nutjob whacked out bigoted nimrod who will never be satisfied.
jerry at September 20, 2009 1:11 PM
Feebie,
You've got spunk! I like that.
I agree with you that these guys were sleazy, and that no one involved deserves anything but disrespect and scorn -- despite group sex with strangers in the toilet being perfectly legal and acceptable these days, and all. When she made a false rape charge, things went from sleazy to criminal, an entirely different level, of course.
These guys are sleaze-bags and victims all at the same time. It don't make it right, but they WERE askin' for it, in a sense, with such self-demeaning behavior. Some victims of rape DO contribute to the circumstances leading to their violation. In the same way, some victims of false rape accusations don't have the sense of a donkey.
There is no inherent VIRTUE in victimhood, and sometimes the victim does deserve some portion of the blame: someone who leaves his car with the engine running in a bad neighborhood doesn't DESERVE to have his car stolen, but ....
Jay R at September 20, 2009 1:43 PM
Jay R "gets it"!
Feebie at September 20, 2009 1:46 PM
For once, Crid, we almost agree completely. I do think this girl has mental problems, but not the kind where her head is spinnning and she walks around drooling giving these men a clue. They are young kids at a party drinking. A girl suggests something that seems to be big on all the porn sites. A porn dream come true. Honestly, its not the first I've heard of it which really is my point. Is it my thing? No, but apparently these young men and women are experimenting in ways I never would have. I really can't say that its poor judgment because who am I to say what gets a person off as long as its consensual and not hurting anyone.
More to the point though is the fact that the papers today, at least the local ones here in Long Island, are still trashing these men while letting this girl off. Joye Brown wrote another article today in hopes of continuing a "discussion." She is against naming the accuser until she has more facts. I didn't notice any of these columnists sparing these young men from news coverage before they had all the facts. And they are still not sparing these men. You don't want to gangbang, then don't do it, but these men did not deserve what happened to them no matter who thinks their choice to fuck as a group consensually was wrong. Instead of questioning their moral choice, these columnists should be screaming their heads off at this ridiculous DA to press charges against this girl. Please look up Newsday and Joye Brown and tell me that you don't get sick at the hypocrisy in her column. These men were innocent and she is still calling them out on the carpet.
Kristen at September 20, 2009 1:46 PM
Appropriate punishment for intentional false rape accusation (proved beyond a reasonable doubt)?
-- At least 5 years in state prison
-- Must inform all male social contacts of past false accusation as a condition of probation
-- Lifetime registration as sex offender
-- On top of this, liability for civil judgments in the millions -- which are non-dischargable in bankruptcy.
A nice lifetime of indentured servitude and shame ought to do it!
And if they get raped in prison, oh, well! Shit happens to people who do bad things.
Jay R at September 20, 2009 1:58 PM
I'm not convinced that's reasonable. If, during intercourse, one person (it can be a man or a woman, right?) revokes consent, how much time is allowed to elapse before the other person becomes a rapist? One second? Five? Are they allowed to say "Are you sure?" and wait for a response? What if there's a communications breakdown, for example if one person is hard of hearing and doesn't hear the word "stop"?
Pseudonym at September 20, 2009 2:56 PM
Pseudonym,
The appellate court that affirmed a young man's rape conviction ruled that 5 seconds was enough.
It's tough bein' a MAN, baby!
Jay R at September 20, 2009 3:03 PM
"It don't make it right, but they WERE askin' for it, in a sense, with such self-demeaning behavior. Some victims of rape DO contribute to the circumstances leading to their violation. In the same way, some victims of false rape accusations don't have the sense of a donkey."
There is a difference between failures of omission and failures of commission though. If society cannot protect every person or punish every crime that takes place, that is simply an unavoidable fact of life. But if society decides to persecute innocent people or stack the legal system against one section of that population, that is a different matter entirely. At that point it becomes a societal problem rather than merely an issue of bad personal judgement and risk management.
If the legal system afforded men the presumption of innocence and wasn't so quick to believe women's allegations without evidence, then false rape allegations would not be potentially so life-destroying.
Nick S at September 20, 2009 4:37 PM
Why do you fuckers keep whining about this? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN? Not just this time, but next time?
Do you want people to be able to move through the world with the sexual sophistication of a block of marble? Because that's what I think of someone says either —
• "Dude, this twenty-year old girl, a stranger to me, said she says she was really into multiple penetration!"
or
• "After all those margaritas, I thought the frat boy was taking me back to his room to talk the new Twilight movie, because he though my blouse was rilly cute!"
What do you want to have happen? Here's Jay R's fantasy:
> -- At least 5 years in
> state prison
> -- Must inform all male social
> contacts of past false accusation
> as a condition of probation
> -- Lifetime registration
Etc., etc., etc...
Can I tell you something about that list? It's very feminine. It's fantasy built on womanly naïveté... That all the world's problems can be answered with "Well, I wish he/she knew how it FEELS......"
Well, it's sex. It doesn't feel like you think it does, not for other people. A man and a woman have competing interests in life. Getting both needs met is a negotiation.
Our purpose is not to let people move through the marketplace without learning what other people want, whether or not they want to trade.
Listen, dramatic TV is horseshit, but a few weeks ago I read an interview with the producer of a TV show about the sixties that covered this nicely.
Or as Paglia put it for Cosmopolitan magazine (1991):
_____
Dating is a very recent phenomenon in world history. Throughout history, women have been chaperoned. As late as 1964, when I began college, we had strict rules. We had to be in the dorm under lock and key by eleven o'clock. My generation was the one that broke these rules. We said, "We want freedom--no more double standard!" When I went to stay at a male friend's apartment in New York City, my aunts flew into a frenzy. "You can't do that, it dangerous!" But I said, "No, we're not going to be like that anymore." Still, we understood in the sixties that we were taking a risk.
Today's young women want the freedoms that we won, but they don't want to acknowledge the risk. That's the problem. The minute you go out with a man, the minute you go to a bar for a drink, there is a risk. You have to accept the fact that part of the sizzle of sex comes from the danger of sex.
_____
Apparently you guys want men to be that naive now, too.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 20, 2009 6:02 PM
3 pointer from top of the key, Crid!
Feebie at September 20, 2009 6:27 PM
The thing about the whole 'if only they had behaved better, they wouldn't be in this mess' talking point is that it is a complete inversion of reality. In reality, it is usually the nice guys who get taken advantage of the most by women.
Indeed, the main reason we are in this mess is because western men have been too accommodating towards women's demands. We can thank all the 'gentlemen' in positions of power for passing countless measures designed to protect women and sacrifice men.
There are many men whose lives have been affected by false rape allegations who never engaged in risky sexual behaviors or in some cases even had sexual relations with the woman. Or consider men who were good fathers and husbands who are taken to the cleaners in the divorce courts or denied contact with their children. It must be so comforting for these men to know that bad things only happen to bad, sleazy guys!
Frankly, any young man today who is not a little selfish or ruthless is not likely to survive in the prevailing climate. And it is pointless to give advice that might have worked in a different time and place, but will not work in today's climate. And honestly, I'm glad that these boys have a little front and chutzpah. It will help them to avoid becoming another statistic. I only wish I had that level of confidence at that age.
Nick S at September 20, 2009 7:45 PM
In this case, and many others like it, the only thing that allowed the falsely accused to get off the hook was that they filmed the sex.
In other words, if they had been more discreet and respectful they wouldn't have got the evidence to defend themselves and might well be in jail now.
So remind me again Feebie. What is the lesson of this particular morality tale? Please, I'm ever so grateful for your pearls of wisdom.
Nick S at September 20, 2009 7:52 PM
Feebie, I take it that you cannot answer the points being raised so you are just giving obtuse responses instead.
Nick S at September 20, 2009 7:57 PM
Nick S.
Apparently, you along with a few other posters here think everything needs to be mystified in order to make sense. It doesn't. And furthermore, it's only my fucking opinion, capice?
I guess this is why some people need religions to tell them what to do, or the government, or they feel the need to take their shit to court or be patted on the back constantly.
If you can't see it, I ain't gonna repeat it. Figure it out yourself. That's what I had to do.
Feebie at September 20, 2009 8:11 PM
> Frankly, any young man today who is
> not a little selfish or ruthless is
> not likely to survive in the
> prevailing climate.
The poor little darlings! Their lives are at stake.... They can't, as young men, feel safe having group sex with young women they barely know.
Nightmare!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 20, 2009 8:18 PM
Crid, either you don't get it or you are deliberately quoting me out of context.
My point was exactly the opposite of claiming these guys are "poor darlings". My point is that these guys got out of their predicament precisely because they were more ruthless in what they did (that is, they got what they wanted and then had enough 'dirt' on the girl to beat the rap). If they had behaved more decently they would not be in a better position.
I think you just like picking arguments with others for the sake of it, and if it means misrepresenting people and taking cheap shots then so be it. I'm tired of dealing with fuckwits like you, so if you could just go and fall under a bus I would be most grateful.
Nick S at September 20, 2009 8:48 PM
"If they had behaved more decently they would not be in a better position."
heh?
Feebie at September 20, 2009 8:59 PM
Feebie, your two responses here are textbook examples of the way many people respond when they have lost an argument. First, there is the bluff (8:11), and then there is the troll (8:59).
The bluff usually consists of arrogantly overstating one's position and dismissing one's opponent in an effort to fool the opponent and others viewing the argument that one is actually more confident of one's own position, when in reality you don't have a leg to stand on. It's kind of like getting a crap hand in a card game but then scaring off other betters by acting like you have a strong hand.
The troll usually consists of taking cheap shots, getting the last word in no matter what, trying to get the opponent to waste time repeating points they have already made, or giving obtuse responses in an attempt to frustrate or confound the opponent.
Textbook stuff. And so predictable.
Nick S at September 20, 2009 9:25 PM
"In reality, it is usually the nice guys who get taken advantage of the most by women." (victim)
So you'll show 'em Nick,
"Frankly, any young man today who is not a little selfish or ruthless is not likely to survive in the prevailing climate." (egocentric justification for bad behavior)
or;
"My point is that these guys got out of their predicament precisely because they were more ruthless in what they did (that is, they got what they wanted and then had enough 'dirt' on the girl to beat the rap). " (egocentric justification for bad behavior)
Now, why don't you just calm down for a moment, Chachi and just think about this.
Would ANY of these things you are using to justify their behavior needed to be done at all if they had just made a better decision? A better judgement call? OR, had they said "Phheeww, lesson learned (don't nail crazy drunk bitches I don't know in a gang bang) - not gonna do that again?" Instead of touting themselves as "gentlemen" in this ordeal?
So why are you arguing with me about this? Yer butt itches don't it? Because it couldn't POSSIBLY be that simple? It couldn't possibly be just right there...right? You want to be the victim dammit!!!! AND HOW DARE I TELL YOU OTHERWISE!!!!
And don't kid yourself, men do this shit as much as women. Women have the law in their favor - yes. And I am saying it shouldn't be that way. But sack the hell up!
Feebie at September 20, 2009 9:43 PM
> quoting me out of context.
The context is right there for easy review... That's what I love about this.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 20, 2009 9:47 PM
TW writes...."No, you aren't criminals, no you didn't deserve to be falsely accused -- but don't expect us to believe you are "gentlemen" either."
Lobster writes in response.....>>>Sorry, but I'm afraid I cannot imagine what you might be basing this negative judgment on other than that they're black ...
So you are afraid you can't imagine what I base that on other than racism? You quoted and commented on my first paragraph. Within my second paragraph of the same post I wrote, >>>"It appears they were pulling a gang bang on a willing participant. Not illegal by any means but certainly not a gentlemanly thing to do either".
So it is more accurate to say you can't imagine your own skill of reading comprehension. I stated quite absolutely why I believe their behavior was not gentlemanly and it was not race based (the only raced based comment was yours). Please take your race peddling crap and tell it to someone who will be shut down by your weak minded manipulative tactic. Hopefully those who will be shut down by your tactic is small in number.
TW at September 20, 2009 11:13 PM
So I go into a strip joint and have 3 girls gyrating on me. During the course of this behavior one of them puts her heel down on my foot and breaks it. I sue the establishment for medical compensation. During the trial my lawyer is up there and says, "this man, a gentleman, a man who knows how to treat a lady was victimized by these girls!". I hope like hell I can keep from laughing out loud at that. I suspect the audience will already be laughing though.
Because two adults do something that is consenting, it does not make it a gentlemanly or ladylike act. The irony is that ungentlemanly or unladylike behavior can be some of the, ahem, "best" behavior. However, that is another subject. The activity during which the false accusation happened doesn't necessarily define the victims. I don't know them. Just please spare me the declarations of, "I'm a gentleman and know how to treat a lady" when it is in the context of you doing a gang bang on a girl at a party. Again, they were doing nothing illegal whatsoever and were brutally wronged. I think it should be left at that versus then going on to praise their virtues.
TW at September 20, 2009 11:32 PM
Feebie, your whole point is that people's bad choices are responsible for bad outcomes. Yet if I disagree by pointing out that sometimes less than admirable behavior pays off, and sometimes good behavior doesn't get rewarded I am dismissed as promoting "egocentric justification for bad behavior".
Basically, no-one can disagree with you because it is an automatic sign of bad character. I guess that is the advantage you have of always being infallible. It means you save an awful lot of time having to deal with any opposition.
Good for you love. It must be nice to be so damn perfect.
Nick S at September 21, 2009 1:07 AM
"So why are you arguing with me about this? Yer butt itches don't it?"
Feebs, you're so hurtful! How can I recover from that?
"Because it couldn't POSSIBLY be that simple? It couldn't possibly be just right there...right? You want to be the victim dammit!!!! AND HOW DARE I TELL YOU OTHERWISE!!!!" - Careful with all the block capitals and exclamation marks. You'll give yourself a hernia!
Well Feebie, you are right. You have smoked me out! All of these cases of false rape allegations that have come to light. It has all been carefully orchestrated by me and my buddies just to create a good victim narrative and have something to hold over women. Quite a neat little ruse isn't it?
I enjoy nothing better than sitting home feeling sorry for myself, instead of going out and screwing hot chicks! Now I have the perfect excuse to feel like a victim!
Nick S at September 21, 2009 1:34 AM
The trouble with Paglia is that, unlike other pragmatic thinkers, she does not distinguish between being a stupid victim and being, in effect, a criminal. (Regarding the William Kennedy Smith case, she said, not verbatim: "I think the woman should be the one charged - with ignorance. Everybody knows that Kennedy is spelled S-E-X.") Also: "We have the right to leave our keys on the hood of our car in New York, but it would be stupid."
In short, her savage contempt for the victim is the note on which she always ends.
Bottom line: I think it's safe to say that most young people would really rather be warned than not warned as to how rapists target their victims - or what the circumstances are under which acquaintance rape tends to happen, as well as how easy it can be to become a victim of false rape charges and how to protect yourself against that. However, that is hardly the same as saying that once you HAVE been warned, regardless of what the laws say, you've suddenly lost your right to any public or private sympathy should you get victimized under less-than-ideal circumstances.
Side note: Most people understand, without being told, that when a black man goes, for no "good reason," into a well-known racist neighborhood and gets beaten half to death because of his color, it is NOT civilized to talk, even privately, about how he could have avoided it. That is not the issue. So when a woman gets raped by a man of ANY color, why the comparative lack of sympathy and civility? (It's not just scared women who say "I would have been smarter than that," after all.)
Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, a false accusation against a man can come from a woman the man has never even had sex with. Or even met. So that makes it a much harder thing to guard against. Hence the need for maybe a few new legal guidelines.
lenona at September 21, 2009 7:58 AM
"Good for you love. It must be nice to be so damn perfect."
Oh Nick, I am far from perfect. Far from it.
Feebie at September 21, 2009 8:56 AM
"Careful with all the block capitals and exclamation marks. You'll give yourself a hernia!"
Do women get hernia?
Feebie at September 21, 2009 9:06 AM
> In short, her savage contempt for
> the victim is the note on which she
> always ends.
You're not the first person to offer that critique of her, but there's never any underlying explanation. It just sort of peters out after "Paglia's mean!...." There's no explanation as to why a person would express contempt for victims.
But it depends on the victim, don't it? She is, after all, an unrepentant liberal. Yet she's impatient with people who are incuriously stupid, and with people who demand that civic parent-figures coddle them in naïveté.
I'm cool with that. You do not have a basic human right to walk around thinking that people are basically good, that everyone shares your interests, and that any instance of conflict with another person is a hideous threat of nuclear force.
Well, maybe you have the right to think that, but you don't have the right to my support in making the world conform to your childish fantasies.
Paglia will insist that you see things as they are: Girls, boys can be horndogs; Boys, girls can be manipulative.
The cruelty is not Paglia's.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 21, 2009 9:23 AM
"Apparently you guys want men to be that naive now, too"
No, I just want liars identified to the public. That's why all I want is a Liar Register right along next to the Sex Offender Register and that her name go onto it, and thet effect be that she and the other names never be able to make a sworn statement or sign anything ever again.
That should fix it, when people find that can't vote or rent an apartment in their own name ever again.
Jim at September 21, 2009 9:59 AM
Given that a hernia is a protrusion through the peritoneum, yes.
Men just happen to have one more convenient hole in theirs that's easier to breech.
brian at September 21, 2009 10:05 AM
Um, except, if you are a rapist with a gun, you could force the woman to sign the paper.
NicoleK at September 21, 2009 1:35 PM
> No, I just want liars identified
> to the public
Will these listings include names of men who women believe to have told "lies" with regards to wooing and sex?
Not enough paper in the world
crid at September 21, 2009 3:03 PM
"False accusations of rape would be far less likely if women (never heard of this from a man) would get the same amount of jail time for a false accusation that the falsely accused would if convicted for rape."
In a perfect world, maybe this would work. In reality, rape is a crime that in most cases has no evidence, no witnesses, and comes down to one person's word against another's. In many cases, the only way to PROVE that an accusation was false would be for the accuser to recant, and who the hell would do that if it meant an automatic jail sentence?
Shannon at September 21, 2009 6:30 PM
You've got spunk!
Interesting choice of words given the subject matter Jay R
lujlp at September 22, 2009 9:01 AM
Do women even get hernias?
Here is a short instructional video Feebie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpyoxEYa5mE
lujlp at September 22, 2009 9:12 AM
Crid: Please see my third and fourth paragraphs again.
I think most of us can count on at least one person in our private lives to "hit us" when we're down. "How could you be so stupid?" Or, at least, to offer diplomatic advice as to how to self-protect in the future. Especially if one IS known to others to be a stupid person.
lenona at September 22, 2009 10:26 AM
a victim of rape does not lose her job and reputation as a result of the crime, is not completely ostracized by friends/family/community,
One word: BULLSHIT! Victims of rape are handed these same penalties all the time, especially if the rapist is beloved or popular in a community. The police and papers can't say who the accuser is, but that doesn't stop the defendant from slandering the person from one end of the town to the other.
Putting in a rape claim is like filing an EEOC complaint. In the end, whether you win or loose, it will follow you for the rest of your life until you leave the town and get an entirely new circle of people to associate with.
-Julie
Julie at September 22, 2009 11:41 AM
> I think most of us can count
> on at least one person in our
> private lives to "hit us"
> when we're down.
You talk about clarity as if it were a pesky burden, a personal smiting that unfortunately can't be avoided, as if the "down" part of "hit us when we're down" was going to come to us no matter what...
That's not how it works. When you think clearly about how your interests and those of other people do and do not align, you're much less likely to get blindsided. Men and women both are less likely to have bad sexual encounters when they're a little bit savvy and a little bit humble. This can be taught.
Almost no one gets through these matters without disappointment, but many people are raised in a loving but demanding environment such that they never face catastrophe.
So don't pout.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 22, 2009 1:06 PM
The Hebrews in ancient times well know that men sometimes raped women. They also well knew that women made false rape charges. This was 5,000 years ago.
They had a solution that one must recognize was not perfect, but it at least attempted to protect others from both things.
If a woman claimed rape in the outdoors, far from help, she was to be believed, and the man was punished. I forget, I assume with death, I can't remember right now.
If a woman claimed rape in the town, the judges sought witnesses who heard her scream. If none were found, it was assumed she was lying, and she was punished. Again, I am not sure what the punishment was, but it was not a slap on the hand.
I expect smart men ran and hid when they saw a woman in the woods. Except for the rapists.
Today, we have changed this slightly. If a woman says she was raped, no matter the circumstances, there is a presumption of guilt for the accused. If you don't have video, your life is over.
Yet, we still have large numbers of false rape charges. Not 1%; not 5%, but clearly around 50%, year after year.
Anyone who points out what was known by ignorant, primitive people 5,000 years ago is viewed as an evil person.
Enough already.
irlandes at September 23, 2009 2:14 PM
You talk about clarity as if it were a pesky burden, a personal smiting that unfortunately can't be avoided, as if the "down" part of "hit us when we're down" was going to come to us no matter what...
________________
Not what I meant at all. To repeat:
I think it's safe to say that most young people would really rather be warned (BEFOREHAND) than not warned as to how rapists target their victims - or what the circumstances are under which acquaintance rape tends to happen, as well as how easy it can be to become a victim of false rape charges and how to protect yourself against that. However, that is hardly the same as saying that once you HAVE been warned, regardless of what the laws say, you've suddenly lost your right to any public or private sympathy should you get victimized under less-than-ideal circumstances.
(Maybe I should have said "....lost your right not to be treated like scum by family, friends and strangers.")
In short, of COURSE we should teach young people to be savvy, to think about whether it's that important to go out alone every night (men can get mugged or worse too, after all), etc.
So don't pout about having to worry about a woman's picking a man's name out of a phone book and then falsely accusing him of rape or paternity - that's just another thing we have to be "humble" about in learning self-protection.
From 1995: "We need to stop thinking of male violence as some kind of freak of nature, like a tornado. Because the thing about tornadoes is, you can't do anything about them."
Which brings me to the question: Why is there relatively so little talk in the media about lecturing to one's kids about not shoplifting, not committing violence, and not staying silent when others do it? Do parents really think kids will grow up honest and decent so long as the parents set a good example? Hardly. Besides, kids have to be truly afraid of the potential punishments - or loss of affection, which is unlikely if neither is common in the family.
lenona at September 24, 2009 8:43 AM
Yet, we still have large numbers of false rape charges. Not 1%; not 5%, but clearly around 50%, year after year.
I have heard this 'statistic' every single time this issue comes up here, yet I have never seen any rational validation of it. It frankly eliminates the message of the user, because they frankly sound like people who see a conspiracy around every corner.
I agree that false rape accusations are a horrible problem, and any woman who would do that needs to be severely punished by both the legal, civil, and social court systems. However, to say that 44,500 women made false rape claims last year is a bunch of bullshit, and you know it.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
-Julie
Julie at September 24, 2009 9:20 AM
> I think it's safe to say that
> most young people would really
> rather be warned (BEFOREHAND)
> than not
Here then is the root of our disagreement. Yes, many people prefer to see the world as it really is, even when it's unpleasant and hurtful. (And you're right, this preference can be encouraged.)
But human nature isn't perfect, amd many other people DON'T prefer to think that way. They prefer to live as children in a realm where nice big people will protect them from bullies, and where all the evil is in the hearts of others, and not within their own darling selves.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 24, 2009 3:59 PM
"Today's young women want the freedoms that we won, but they don't want to acknowledge the risk. That's the problem. The minute you go out with a man, the minute you go to a bar for a drink, there is a risk. You have to accept the fact that part of the sizzle of sex comes from the danger of sex."
Crid: "Apparently you guys want men to be that naive now, too."
Uh, actually what you are saying is that if these young men deserve no sympathy because they made a bad judgment, then the young women who go to bars for drinks and run into trouble with men they party with also deserve no sympathy if they e.g. get raped by any of those men. Both in your view would be victims of their own bad judgment, right? Logically, either you have the same contempt for female victims of e.g. acquaintance rape as you do for these men, or, if not, then you hypocritically think female victims deserve sympathy but male victims deserve contempt. It must be one or the other, you've painted yourself into a corner, since either way, you're wrong.
The reality is that nobody's judgment is 100% reliable, some people are bad and you just can't tell ... the main reason *you* haven't been a victim yet is not just your oh-so-superior judgment, but also dumb luck, and perhaps one day you will be a victim of something or other. You cannot go through life not trusting anyone, yet nobody can be fully trusted ... we all try our best, but interacting with other humans *is* a gamble, and some people draw the short straw.
Lobster at September 24, 2009 6:08 PM
Also, the fact is there are thousands of consensual gang bangs all the time and virtually none of them result in false rape charges ... just because it's not normal in your "world" doesn't mean it isn't dead normal in other areas of society ... it's easy to say from your armchair after the fact with such 20-20 hindsight that having a gang-bang was 'poor judgment' in this case *because* we now know what happened, but what of the thousands of other gang bangs that go off without a hitch? Reality is it just isn't reasonable to expect that consensual gang-bangs lead to false rape charges. Moreover, you cannot assume this was an error of judgment unless you personally knew this girl yourself and saw how she behaved ... you seem to act as if you know it would've been obvious from her behavior, how do you know, were you there? Have you met her? Do the reports indicate she obviously looked like somebody who would lay false rape charges? Doubtful. Must be nice to be able to be so sure you know things that you don't actually know at all ... I think they call that 'religion'.
Lobster at September 24, 2009 6:14 PM
> Uh, actually what you are
> saying is
I have no patience with zombie translators. Either wake up and fault me with quotes from what I actually said, or continue to dream your paranoid dreams in silence.
> that if these young men deserve
> no sympathy
Sympathy, they got. They surely got my sympathy, as do women who move with a sense of alert responsibly and get raped nonetheless. But don't ask for a whole lot more, OK?...
...Because it's simply not true that dumb luck is the smaller part of what protects us. Some people are raised with such care, and clarity, and humility they they essentially face no risk for these tragic outcomes. Some women understand that what young men feels about sex is urgent and short-sighted. And some young men understand that a young woman who's eager to have encounters with a group of his friends who she's never met before is not likely to be playing from a full deck. I know lots, LOTS, of people who've never been through a nightmare scenario like this.
I, as a grey-haired taxpayer, want to adjudicate as few intimate encounters as possible. I don't have the time to worry about other people that way. I don't love them enough to make time.
When responsible people get bruised a little bit, my advice echos Paglia: Learn what you needed to learn and move forward; leave everyone else out of it. Consider her brilliant advice to women who want zero risk of date rape: "Stay home and do your nails."
Lobster, I get the feeling you're doing this all from reading magazines.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 24, 2009 8:28 PM
Learn what you needed to learn and move forward; leave everyone else out of it. Consider her brilliant advice to women who want zero risk of date rape: "Stay home and do your nails."
Most of the people on this site are chronically attempting to disabuse the planet of the idea that all men are abusive, either sexually or physically. Why then are you perpetuating the idea that each time a women goes out she needs to fear sexual assault? Isn't' that the same as telling children the 'stranger danger' bullshit?
If all adult strangers aren't dangerous, and all men aren't abusive, why should all women assume the risk of sexual assault each time they leave the house? This isn't Darfur, and even in Darfur there are certain activities that increase the risk of assault (sadly, getting water is one of them).
Also, if rape victims are supposed to 'leave everyone else out of it' how exactly is the rapist punished?
-Julie
Julie at September 25, 2009 12:36 PM
Oh, and I did a bit of research on your oh so quotable Ms. Paglia. She seems to have created a rather large niche for herself being a rape apologist. Good for her I guess.
Personally, I've never been wrongfully accused of raping someone, so I can't speak to the emotional trauma that might cause.
From what I can see externally it can ruin future relationships, the ability to earn a living, not to mention the ability to live peaceably in a new (or old) community. The rapes that I experiences personally had many of the same consequences. I would never dream of telling someone falsely accused that they just need to accept it as the consequences of having sex in today's society, and that they should just stay home and hide if they didn't like that. That is the message that Paglia's writings are saying, "This is the risk, there is nothing you can do about it. Get over yourself if you think it is bad. Rape is the consequence women must pay for dealing with men."
That is underestimating women and men, and as a person who's never been raped, it isn't exactly her judgment to make, is it? How does she know how personally traumatic it is?
-Julie
-Julie
Julie at September 25, 2009 2:30 PM
> Why then are you perpetuating the
> idea that each time a women goes
> out she needs to fear sexual
> assault?
"A woman's" interior life –her fears, her dreams, her womanly aspirations for love and romance– are her own fucking business. When these forces betray her, I don't want to be bothered wiping up the mess. Capiche? Do what you want... But don't bother me with this shit, little girl. I got problems of my own.
> She seems to have created a
> rather large niche for herself
> being a rape apologist.
Oh, grow the fuck up.
> That is the message that Paglia's
> writings are saying, "This is....
Let me repeat a passage from earlier in the thread, nearly verbatim, because in your urgency to throw a pissy fit, you skipped an important theme:
I have no patience with zombie translators. Either wake up and fault (Paglia) with quotes from what (she) actually said, or continue to dream your paranoid dreams in silence.
> How does she know how personally
> traumatic it is?
In the context of this discussion, why would it matter how personally traumatic it is?
Why are you defending stupidity?
PS- Do people like you?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 25, 2009 10:27 PM
Just sayin', you subtract yourself from the end of every comment you make.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 25, 2009 10:28 PM
Also, if rape victims are supposed to 'leave everyone else out of it' how exactly is the rapist punished?
You still haven't answered this question. If one of the advantages of society is to punish those who disobey the shared rules of that society, how does 'leaving [everyone else] out of it' play into a a legal system? Should I leave everyone else out of it by just killing the mother-fucker that tries anything? You are showing obvious disdain for any victims, but you have yet to explain how you expect society to move forward without an attempt at Justice or Law.
I'll address the Paglia rapist pandering with a later post.
-Julie
Julie at September 26, 2009 8:07 AM
Although she says she has never been raped herself, Ms. Paglia goes on to assert that "rape does not destroy you forever." "It's like getting beaten up," she cavalierly adds. "Men get beat up all the time."
www.nytimes.com/1992/09/15/books/books-of-the-times-on-men-women-and-one-maverick-thinker.html
How does she (and those who quote her) know the trauma associated with an experience she's never had?
In another interview Paglia says the following:
“Rape is one of the risk factors in getting involved with men … if you get raped, if you get beat up in a dark alley, it’s okay.”
In the same article Paglia is quoted about the "The powerful, uncontrollable force of male sexuality"
revandylittle.com/2009/02/18/an-ethical-analysis-of-date-rape/
So, if I get involved with men (involved is never defined...it could mean anything) and am raped, it is okay because men are unable to control the powerful and uncontrollable force that is sexuality? So, rapists are absolved of any responsibility for their actions, but the victim needs to get up the next morning and say "Gee, that sucks...time to go to work". Crid, explain to me how this doesn't blame the victim for the actions of the person who assaulted them?
women must be like gay men who understand that every date is a sexual encounter. Every woman must regard a date as a possibility for mixed messages. If she is very religious, if she plans to be a virgin until marriage, if she is not sure about the person that she is with, she should be absolutely safe and she must guard herself. If a woman goes to a manUs apartment on the first time she meets him, she is consenting to sex.
www.yale.edu/yje/paglia.html
So, no matter how much I scream, yell, beg for him to stop, if a man gets me into his apartment that is an invitation for sex? How is that not rape apology? Why not just implement Sharia law and be done with it?
The final nail in the coffin is the fact that Paglia only references men raping women. Women rape men and men rape other men. If rape is something that isn't motivated by the 'uncontrolable male sexuality' and 'mixed messages' of women, then how do her 'theories' stand up?
We all have to be responsible for our own decisions. I've never met a woman who has been raped that hasn't gone over the situation a million times and analyzed every decision she made to try and figure out how she could have avoided the attack. However, just because I forget and leave my front doors open doesn't mean that someone who comes in and takes my television didn't steal. Just because a woman is drunk, or smiles at a guy in a bar, or takes a man's offer for coffee doesn't mean that she gave the man authorization to rape her or that forced sex isn't rape (unless the two agreed ahead of time that they wanted KINK, then both parties gave consent). That is what makes this rape apology.
Crid, you are a smart guy, I'm having difficulty believing that you don't already understand that.
-Julie
Julie at September 26, 2009 2:41 PM
Why must people bother me with their infantilism? This, truly, is what I hate about getting old and going grey: Not my erotic transparency to attractive woman on the street... Honestly, I'm cool with that. The ugly part is that when people see grey hair, they think of their parents. Or they the think of the concerned, loving, endlessly supportive people that they dream their parents SHOULD have been... People with bottomless pockets and all the time in the world to listen to intimate whining.
> Also, if rape victims are supposed
> to 'leave everyone else out of it'
> how exactly is the rapist punished?
If she's truly a rape victim, then by all means, I want to know about it. I have women in my life who I love a lot, and I don't want them at risk for that. (And I insist that they move sensibly to protect their own safety.)
(That last part's not entirely true. The women I love best, certainly all the ones in the family, were tremendously savvy from the word go, and never needed gratuitous hectoring or clumsy chaperons.)
But if the "victim" is a person who's been arrogantly assuming that she can move through the world naively, without paying attention to the feelings of others, or to the behaviors which signal those feelings, then I'm going to have a lot less interest. Because my women aren't like that.
This works for the men, as well. As noted above, I never had any friends who thought they could all go out together, find and take a new young woman who happened to have a wild-ass, masculine sexual appetite, and move along afterward without repercussions.
> you have yet to explain how
> you expect society to move
> forward
No, we've covered it. Adulthood, savvy, courtesy, awareness, etc.
> (involved is never defined...
> it could mean anything)
Why would you say that? It's not true at all. Paglia defines these scenarios more precisely than any other rhetor, which is why ninnies are frightened of her. She's not afraid of bad words or unpleasant truth. (One of my favorite passages went something like this [paraphrase]: 'A woman who drinks with a man and is raped is complicit.' To have an alcoholic beverage is to decide you aren't going to need your best judgment for the next few hours. No fair complaining if it turns out you were wrong.)
> So, no matter how much I
> scream, yell, beg for him
> to stop, if a man gets me into
> his apartment that is an
> invitation for sex?
Right. If you should have been alert, and decided to set your caution aside because you're such a delicate, trusting, open flower of a little girl, I'll find it hard to care. You were going to get hurt soon anyway, and badly.
And if you were a teenage man out with his friends, and this one playful girl convinced you that feminine sexuality was just like masculine sexuality after all –all urgent and anonymous and animalistic– I will again find it difficult to be sympathetic.
> Why not just implement Sharia
> law and be done with it?
Kitten, you don't get this: These events are what Sharia wants to protect you from... Big bad manly nature that can't be resisted. Sharia wants to take your judgment out of the equation.
You don't know who your friends are.
> We all have to be responsible
> for our own decisions.
Then say no more; you're where you need to be.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 26, 2009 8:03 PM
(Signed)
+Crid
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 26, 2009 8:07 PM
"*Figuratively speaking*, women who choose to do these things because they regret their own poor decisions should be publically(sic) hung, drawn and quartered."
I suggest that there is something better.
International Facebook Recognition!
Yes, you can snoop around and find Tracy, too...
Radwaste at September 27, 2009 12:31 PM
Kitten, you don't get this: These events are what Sharia wants to protect you from... Big bad manly nature that can't be resisted. Sharia wants to take your judgment out of the equation.
Listen, I have come to accept that when discussing anything with you I will be condescended to, and I continue in order to not imply my agreement with my silence, however, I am not now nor will I ever be your fucking kitten. This is your one fucking warning.
You don't completely understand the problem with Sharia law. Those who advocate it claim that they are attempting to shield women from the horrors of male advances. What they are doing is shielding men from the responsibility for the consequences of their actions. It states outright the monstrous and banal idea that men are just walking hard ons without any discernment or control. That underestimates men and imprisons women. It is rape apology. No one wins.
This works for the men, as well. As noted above, I never had any friends who thought they could all go out together, find and take a new young woman who happened to have a wild-ass, masculine sexual appetite, and move along afterward without repercussions.
I agree these young men did something really fucking stupid. However, what the woman did wasn't just stupid, it was wrong. Wrong should be punished (filing a false police report is a crime and this should be punished if nothing else). The fact that she was taking advantage of someone doing something stupid doesn't absolve her guilt.
> So, no matter how much I
> scream, yell, beg for him
> to stop, if a man gets me into
> his apartment that is an
> invitation for sex?
Right. If you should have been alert, and decided to set your caution aside because you're such a delicate, trusting, open flower of a little girl, I'll find it hard to care. You were going to get hurt soon anyway, and badly.
Crid, the mistake I consistently seem to make with you is that I give you more credit as a human than you deserve. Men are responsible for their actions just like women. Men are not victims of their sexual desires. Women need to do all they can to ensure their own safety, but men are responsible to do all they can to ensure that they have consent. Frankly if I were a dude today I would video tape all of my sexual encounters to ensure proof of consent. NO ONE is allowed the assumption of sex, period. Although I agree that laws need to change to ensure punishment of people who file false rape charges, and I firmly believe that the burden of proof needs to be with the person leveling the charges, I also am very thankful that the current laws weren't written by old blow-hards such as yourself. That would be a frightening country indeed. Every so often it would be nice if you allowed your humanity to show...if it is still under there.
@radwaste: I LOVE that idea. If convicted sex offenders can be shamed forever on the internet, then people who file false rape claims should get the same treatment!
-Julie
Julie at September 27, 2009 6:28 PM
> This is your one fucking
> warning.
No, go ahead and be deeply offended... You've been so condemnatory and small-minded in your responses that I don't mind the shameful burden of having hurt your feelings and turned you into a bitter enemy. (Especially in an anonymous forum. Nyah-nyah! Your ass looks fat in those pants! Har!)
> What they are doing is shielding
> men from the responsibility for
> the consequences of their actions.
Not really... When, under Sharia, a man says "My uncles and I will kill you if you look at my sister with sexual intent," he means it. The feelings of the sister, whether she's in the mood for a little attention or not, appear nowhere in this calculation. Sharia works just fine without her.
> the monstrous and banal idea
> that men are just walking
> hard ons
This is the "grow up" part mentioned earlier. Masculine sex isn't like feminine sex. Masculine lust is focused, directed, unstable, and unconcered with other social needs. Day in and day out, feminine lust isn't like that. You have an insipid presumption that in the best-managed society, women would never have to be aware of what's going on in men's lives. But this is not a policy problem, this is a biology problem. You want to insist that men and women feel the same thing. You confuse feminism and femininity, and I resent you for it.
> what the woman did wasn't just
> stupid, it was wrong.
Right. I said that earlier in the thread, like this: "[S]he's got spectacularly weak character. She's a bad person. I think she should do hard time."
> I give you more credit as
> a human than you deserve
Which is remarkable, because I've never made that error on your behalf. (Just sayin'.)
> Men are not victims of their
> sexual desires.
Well, no more than women are the victims of *their* romantic presumptions, anyway. ("Why hasn't he called? It's been three days! He said he'd call! He really seemed to like me when we were humping in the back bedroom at the Christmas party on top of everybody's coats! He couldn't have been so drunk that he forgot my number... I wrote it down for him....")
I don't know anyone whose sexual nature isn't a burden to them at some point in their life. Sure, some people handle certain burdens better than other people (money / sex / food / religion / work / education / sports / etc.). These things challenge some people across a lifetime.
But no matter how much of a meddlesome ninny you want to be (and apparently that's very meddlesome indeed), you cannot remove the danger of sexual exchange. People are going to get hurt out there, and they're often going to get hurt because they're naïve, and arrogant, and self-centered.... But these are weaknesses which experience can fix, and I'm not inclined to interfere with that process... No more than I'd interfere with a woman who doesn't understand that two extra bagels in the morning will pack on weight.
You don't wannt get hurt? Not a problem. Stay home and do your nails.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 27, 2009 8:18 PM
Masculine sex isn't like feminine sex
I never said that it was.
You have an insipid presumption that in the best-managed society, women would never have to be aware of what's going on in men's lives.
I never said that either. You are projecting your sad angry little assumptions about women on me. That is not my responsibility.
You have an insipid presumption that in the best-managed society, women would never have to be aware of what's going on in men's lives. But this is not a policy problem, this is a biology problem. You want to insist that men and women feel the same thing. You confuse feminism and femininity, and I resent you for it.
Again you are projecting. I'm not saying that women should be able to walk through life without any concern for their own well fair and safety. That is just stupid and rather anti-Darwinian. However, you think that if a woman accepts drinks, enters a mans home, wears an attractive outfit, or any number of other things that she has consented to sex, and that is BULLSHIT.
No matter what has happened, if a woman says no and the man proceeds, HE RAPED HER AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PROVIDED BY LAW! The catchphrase is "No means No" for a reason. Any justification of 'mixed signals' stops when the woman says No, Stop, I don't want this! That is what you don't seem to get.
Men are responsible for their own actions and are perfectly capable of not having sex with a woman when she says STOP. If men are incapable of stopping, then they are all rapists. Every last one of them. I don't believe that, but you do. Who is doing a greater disservice to men and women?
I don't know anyone whose sexual nature isn't a burden to them at some point in their life.
That is what masturbation is for.
you cannot remove the danger of sexual exchange.
I'm not saying that I can. I'm saying that if a man forces a woman to have sex after she said no, he raped her, no matter what came before. Period. Date rape/acquaintance rape does exist and the aggressor is completely responsible for his actions. He should never be able to justify his actions with those old standbys which absolve him of the guilt of the crime of rape.
People are going to get hurt out there, and they're often going to get hurt because they're naïve, and arrogant, and self-centered.... But these are weaknesses which experience can fix, and I'm not inclined to interfere with that process...
Assault is assault. Society's ability to wash its hands of a situation die when a law is broken. If two men getting into a fist fight can go to jail for assault, why does a man sexually assaulting a woman get a free pass in your world? Is it because by narrowing the definition of rape so severely you get to justify behavior you know to be wrong? Taking a possession of someone else's by force is illegal and wrong no matter what you do to justify it.
If you don't want to take responsibility for your own sexual actions, do us all a favor and keep your dating down to Rosy Palm and her five sisters. It will save alot of heart ache by avoiding you holding down some woman and fucking her against her will because she had the audacity to enter your home or accept your offer of drinks.
-Julie
Julie at September 28, 2009 10:10 AM
> I never said that it was.
And yet you want men to behave as women behave.
> I never said that either.
What you said was that a woman can hit the brakes on a sexual encounter at any moment, and expect society to appear in the room with in a referee's jersey with a whistle clipboard and the will to intervene.
> That is just stupid and rather
> anti-Darwinian.
You needn't worry on behalf of Charles; his insights persist whether you honor them or not.
> you think that if a woman accepts
> drinks, enters a mans home, wears
> an attractive outfit, or any number
> of other things that she has
> consented to sex, and that is
> BULLSHIT.
Two errors. First, the "or". Such a string of behaviors is cumulative, rather than logically disjunctive. A juror would be asked to consider the totality of the message from the sequence. "Your Honor, she was flirting with him in front of all their friends at the bar; AND she was drinking heavily — surrendering her own clarity, implying that she felt comfortable with him; AND she was dressed in an alluring manner; AND she was smiling and laughing as she went back to his place...."
Second, the "any number of things." This is the infantile absolutism which sinks your entire argument. "Any number" includes infinity: You want a world where nothing can go wrong... Where the golfer gets an endless number of Mulligans, and a woman's judgement can never, ever be expected to protect her –or the rest of us– from bad outcomes (not even from mundane jury duty).
How is such a woman taking any responsibility whatsoever? (Again, Sharia is composed with your needs in mind.)
> That is what masturbation
> is for.
Right, see, it's getting kind of personal. You're offering a little girl's fearful prayer that the world be made totally safe, as it felt back when Mommy and Daddy made all the bad things go away.
> he raped her, no matter
> what came before. Period.
Go ahead, then. Live that way. You aren't sharpening our revulsion to bad behavior, you're diluting the power of the word "rape". Be sure and let us know how it works out...
But just write a book or something, OK?.. Don't come cryin'. I got problems of my own, and I care for many sensible people who're troubled by things worse then their own weak judgment. My compassion is precious. No tears, "-Julie".
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 28, 2009 12:32 PM
(I know shit's getting out of hand when people who use spellings like "well fair" also deploy the word "rather".)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 28, 2009 12:34 PM
"You aren't sharpening our revulsion to bad behavior, you're diluting the power of the word "rape"."
Exactly!
Feebie at September 28, 2009 6:59 PM
(Tip to the youngsters out there: Never mistake "then" for "than" when you're about to tease another commenter for bad spelling.)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 28, 2009 7:23 PM
Such a string of behaviors is cumulative, rather than logically disjunctive.
You are changing your argument. Note the quote below:
> So, no matter how much I
> scream, yell, beg for him
> to stop, if a man gets me into
> his apartment that is an
> invitation for sex?
Right. If you should have been alert, and decided to set your caution aside because you're such a delicate, trusting, open flower of a little girl, I'll find it hard to care. You were going to get hurt soon anyway, and badly.
You've never once stated that you are looking at cumulative effect of a series of choices by the victim. I've quoted Paglia saying "if a woman enters a man's home, she is consenting for sex" and "If a woman is drinking, she is consenting for sex" and you agreed heartily. Now you are changing your tune. Which is it?
How is such a woman taking any responsibility whatsoever?
She is taking the same responsibility we all take. She's suffering the consequences of the rape on a day to day basis. She gets to deal with the health concerns, the physical healing, and the emotional repercussions. Do you really believe all of those are fiction?
By your standard, if someone were to forget to lock their car door and the car was stolen, you wouldn't consider it theft, right? The former owner of the car made a judgment mistake, so if someone takes advantage of that,by your logic, they can't be held responsible. If you don't agree to that, why is the rape of a woman any different? What gives the man the right to force sex upon someone who is clearly demanding that he stop and fighting his action?
You still haven't explained why if I woman says "No, I don't want to do this" that a man is incapable of stopping forward progress and not penetrating the woman. You've explained why you don't think he should be required to stop, but that is different and completely subjective. Why can't the man stop when a woman says, "No"?
-Julie
Julie at September 29, 2009 8:57 AM
I want to make sure that I am making my position clear and that I'm making my understanding of Crid's position clear.
To my understanding Crid is saying the following:
If a woman does any of the following, she is giving irrevocable consent for sex:
* Dresses provocatively
* Drinks alcohol
* Enters a man's home
* Flirts with the man in public
That irrevocable sex consent remains in effect no matter how much the woman screams, begs, cries or fights to keep the sex from happening and absolves the man from any legal consequences because the male sexual response is a "powerful, uncontrollable force" and male reaction to sex is "different" than female sex reaction.
Have I summed your position up accurately Crid?
My response is that if a woman begs, cries, fights and makes herself very clear that she does not want sex, any man who forces sex on her is a rapist who should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law. Men are capable of understanding that someone who is begging, fighting, and crying doesn't want sex, even with a hard-on. There is nothing 'unstoppable' about male sexuality that would keep a man from engaging in this rudimentary level of rational thought.
I'm not talking gray area bullshit where the woman regrets it later, or she decides she only wanted 15 strokes and the man doesn't pull out soon enough, etc.
Have I captured your argument accurately Crid, and if so, what about male sexuality would keep a man from understanding that the woman didn't want sex and stopping?
-Julie
Julie at September 29, 2009 9:39 AM
> Now you are changing your tune.
> Which is it?
Oh, take your pick. This is your fantasy world, the rest of us are just mean-spirited "rape apologists", or "rape panderers" such as Camille Paglia, with "savage contempt for the victim".
> I'm not talking gray area
> bullshit
Of course you are, of course you are. The law against sudden, violent, instrusive rape of the weak by strangers can't be improved, can it? Nor, you would agree, should seventh-grade boys go to the gas chamber for snapping a bra strap.
The title of the blog post is "The Laws Need To Change", and you want law improved for women as well. The "gray area" is exactly what concerns you, where your new laws are going to do their work. And that "gray area" isn't "bullshit", it's the tonal range where the majority of human life is lived. The thing about laws is, they get adjudicated. Can you really make a law better by announcing that a woman can, at any hour she likes, announce that a given encounter was rape?
I don't think you'll get more convictions. On every jury I've served with, there have been a few grown women who don't share your kindergarden fantasies of delicate feminine righteousness. If the law changed to match your fantasy at noon today, many sensible women would be ignoring it by 12:01pm, and the courts would be no less busy than they were yesterday.
But the erotic sophistication of others is not a factor in your daydream. Practicalities don't apply in a scared little girl's prayer for a safe planet, even though grown women readily handle all sorts or problems that frighten their young sisters.
> To my understanding Crid
> is saying the following:
Again with the translation. Why do you do that?
> Have I summed your position
> up accurately Crid?
You don't need to "sum up" anything, Julie. These are short exchanges, and everything's still typed directly overhead. Why do you demand an opportunity to distort meanings?
> health concerns, the physical
> healing, and the emotional
> repercussions. Do you really
> believe all of those are fiction?
Your fantasy conflates episodes like "He was kind of arrogant, and I wasn't so much into him after that" with "He clubbed me with a baseball bat and took me from behind, Polanski-style." Real-world sexual encounters deliver a range of satisfaction. But in the Julie Fantasy, everything goes perfect or the courts get involved.
> if someone were to forget to
> lock their car door and
> the car was stolen
Paglia's metaphor: A guy drives his sports car into Manhattan and leaves it parked on the street with an expensive camera sitting on the fender. Five minutes later, he comes out of Starbucks and the camera's gone. Of course there was a theft, and if they catch the thief, he should be prosecuted. But our motoring photographer was being stupid... And the city should not have its privacy violated to search for the missing camera. Even the police have better things to worry about. Officer O'Malley says: 'Next time, lock it in the trunk, OK? Or leave everything at home.'
> health concerns, the physical
> healing, and the emotional
> repercussions.
What you're saying is, a woman's need for good judgment continues.
> You still haven't explained
> why if I woman says "No, I
> don't want to do this" that
> a man is incapable of stopping
The reason I haven't explained that is because I'm embarrassed for your naïveté. In the one moment in a grown man's life where feelings translate electrically into behavior, you want a woman's half-muttered verbal impulse to bring things to a halt, no matter how many opportunities she's had to change the direction theretofore.
For purposes of this discussion, it doesn't much matter why a man is "incapable". And 'statistically disinclined' covers the territory better, anyway: The important thing is that many, many men won't stop, and women will always have reasons to offer bad reports later. You think the problem is law. I think you're being interpersonally simpleminded.
Good luck out there!
PS — That "why if I woman" is, in the schoolyard Freudian sense, a tell.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 29, 2009 12:57 PM
Julie, I’m speaking for myself here, but seriously. I mean seriously. Why are you absolving women of any responsibility in becoming sexually mature by their own experiences? This is precisely the type of shit that keeps women in the ridiculous loop of victim-hood and sexual oppression. It’s this shit RIGHT HERE.
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen.
The word RAPE should be coveted in its use. Like what Roman Polanski did to the 14 year old girl under his care, THAT was rape. I care greatly that it is not diminished by immature women toying with men and then lashing out when they don’t get what they want or because they wanted to be “respected” in the morning after getting shit-faced when they probably know their judgment wasn’t the best at that point, or they feel shame for perfectly natural sexual behavior. This is NOT my problem, nor anyone else's.
Is a man’s primal instincts somehow less understandable than women’s manipulation of that instinct to get something out of it?
Sure there maybe gray areas here, but really! Removing responsibility for the behaviors she engaged in leading up to the “Stop” or “No means, no” is extremely short-sighted and not something I care to have our legal system burdened with.
Feebie at September 29, 2009 1:29 PM
Y'all are projecting crap onto me that I never said and never advocated. My statement is simple:
A woman's stupid mistakes don't absolve a man from being guilty of rape.
That is the only statement that I am making. Am I justifying the stupid shit some women do that get them into bad situations? No I'm not. That is what you both seem to be saying and I dare you to find a quote where I say that women shouldn't educate themselves and do all that they can to to keep themselves safe. That isn't the issue on the table as I see it an as I have been attempting to debate it.
The issue is if someone being an easy target absolves the criminal of accountability for the criminal act. My answer is no. Period.
I care greatly that it is not diminished by immature women toying with men and then lashing out when they don’t get what they want or because they wanted to be “respected” in the morning after getting shit-faced when they probably know their judgment wasn’t the best at that point, or they feel shame for perfectly natural sexual behavior.
And I am not saying that any of these situations are rape. I never have. What I am saying is that the ends don't justify the means.
Of course there was a theft, and if they catch the thief, he should be prosecuted. But our motoring photographer was being stupid...
I agree.
you want a woman's half-muttered verbal impulse
I never said that...I said screaming, yelling, and begging. Big difference.
The important thing is that many, many men won't stop
I agree...and women should do all that they can to avoid those situations. But if they are caught in one and clearly communicate their desire to not proceed, the man is guilty of rape if he proceeds.
The title of the blog post is "The Laws Need To Change", and you want law improved for women as well.
I never asked for change in the laws. For the woman that reported those men as rapists, she should at least be prosecuted for filing a false police report, if nothing else.
The definition of rape that I am talking about fits every jurisdiction that I've ever seen. If a man forces sex after a woman has expressed clearly that she doesn't want it, that is rape. If she did stupid shit before that happened, sure someone should talk to her about protecting herself in the future, but that doesn't negate the fact that the man fucked her against her expressed wishes. The camera was still stolen. The law should deal with that with the laws already on the books.
-Julie
Julie at September 29, 2009 2:25 PM
Julie, question.
How many times do you *really* believe women have changed their minds between penetration and climax?
As opposed to how many times women have later regretted doing it all together.
This ain't a legal problem.
Feebie at September 29, 2009 2:44 PM
> If a man forces sex after a woman
> has expressed clearly that she doesn't
> want it, that is rape.
Again, let us know how the prosecutions work out for you.
Later, I mean... Don't dial the phone and interrupt dinner or anything, just publish an article somewhere when you've got a good sample.
You want so badly to be right....
Crid at September 29, 2009 4:10 PM
How many times do you *really* believe women have changed their minds between penetration and climax?
When did I say that is what I was advocating? This all started because I said that Paglia's assertion that if a woman enters a man's home she is consenting to sex is a load of shit (and rape apology). I've said that if a woman fights, begs, and screams to try to keep a man from penetrating her, that the fact that she came into his home (or drank alcohol, or wore a mini skirt, or flirted with in earlier in the evening) doesn't give him the unilateral right to do whatever he wants to her.
That is the only point I've been attempting to make. You and Crid have been the ones who have been erecting strawmen in an attempt to make it seem like I'm trying to make all consensual sex illegal. That is not what I've said.
-Julie
Julie at September 30, 2009 7:26 AM
Again, let us know how the prosecutions work out for you.
Again, when did I say that all rapes are prosecutable? Very few actually are, because we are all innocent until proven guilty. In these blogs I have advocated for people accused of rape to have the same privacy as the victim, because if they are innocent until we prove otherwise they shouldn't have their lives ruined. I have also advocated for the abolishment of DNA registries of felons, because it is a violation of the fourth amendment. Police shouldn't be allowed to go on fishing expeditions in the hope that they track down a bad guy without any other evidence.
Allowing people to be innocent until proven guilty means that some guilty people will get away. That happens in every crime: from rape to theft to hacking to vandalism. However, it is better to let a thousand guilty people off than to imprison one innocent person. Way to erect another strawman. Really, do you buy straw in bulk or grow it yourself?
What I am saying is bad judgment on the part of a woman (entering a man's home, drinking) does not give that man the right to sex. That does not constitute consent. If the woman makes it very clear that she doesn't want sex (begging, screaming, crying, fighting) and the man proceeds, he raped her. Period. Will they be able to prosecute all rapes? Of course not, and most rapes aren't even reported. But, just because there isn't enough evidence to prosecute doesn't mean that what happened isn't rape. It means that all attempts at justice are imperfect. You take what wins you can get and pick your shit up and move on when you loose.
-Julie
Julie at September 30, 2009 7:56 AM
loose should be: lose. I never said spelling was my strong point.
-Julie
Julie at September 30, 2009 11:02 AM
> when did I say that all rapes
> are prosecutable?
Well then what do you want? Your fascination with consent is petty and procedural, a frame of mind incompatible with horniness or intimate contact of any kind.
Your goal, what you apparently want, is to diminish the horror of the word "rape". When a woman says "no", whether screaming like a banshee or or half-whispering in the rear of the throat, you want some mystical seraph to appear from the ether, make a note on a clipboard, and then vanish without consequence. All you want is to be right. As you've put it so many times—
> Period.
Well, listen, when someone rapes somebody, I want them fucking well prosecuted. So let's be thoughtful about what constitutes rape.
> It means that all attempts at
> justice are imperfect.
For a standard as metaphysical as yours, I'm disinclined to fault our criminal justice system.
Just curious, how old are you? If you're older than about, say, 30, did you have a large & close circle of girlfriends who you socialized with in your prime dating years? That "a man is incapable of stopping" thing suggests a lack of field experience.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 30, 2009 8:17 PM
Your fascination with consent is petty and procedural, a frame of mind incompatible with horniness or intimate contact of any kind.
Here come the personal attacks again. It is funny that you attack me but don't refute a single thing that I say.
Your goal, what you apparently want, is to diminish the horror of the word "rape".
I want no such thing. I want the meaning of rape acknowledged so that the victims of it can get help and move past it. Do I want as many of those who are guilty to be prosecuted? YES, but I'm enough of an adult to understand that someone being found 'not guilty' is not the same as someone being found 'innocent'. I also recognize that in some circumstances rape doesn't leave a clear 'person of interest', and so no one may ever be prosecuted. However, society's desire for justice is separate from rehabilitation of the life of the victim.
That "a man is incapable of stopping" thing suggests a lack of field experience.
First, you are the one who says that a man is incapable of stopping, not me. But (and I know that I will live to regret this) let's look at my knowledge and experience of rape, shall we?
I was assaulted for the first time when I was 13 in the back of the school bus that I rode home. I repeatedly told the High School Senior that I didn't want anything to do with him over the weeks and months previous, but sadly I'd been very ill and almost died a month previous to the attack. I fell asleep on the bus and next thing I knew he'd grabbed me, pulled me back to the last seat in the bus and his buddy held me down while he attacked me. The clearest thing that stands out in my mind was me thinking that I didn't want my little sister (who was 7 at the time and sitting in the front of the bus) to see what was going on. I didn't want her to get scared or worried and come after me. So, I fought as much as I could and eventually fought my way out, and went stumbling to the front of the bus battered with clothes torn. I walked off the bus reassuring my little sister that nothing was wrong and that it would all be okay. My parents took one look at me, tossed me in the car, and took me to the police station. The boy was just a couple of months away from 18, so he was able to enter a plea as a minor and got community service and a fine. He was kicked off of the bus, but not out of school. He went on with his life, and now is a member of the armed forces. I was labeled as a whore in my small town (despite that I had no voluntary sexual contact with anyone in the entire time I was living there) and never got my reputation back.
My next series of attacks occurred in an abusive relationship I was in during my freshman year of college. I met a military man at a party and we started dating. Things turned very ugly very quickly, with him beating me and than raping me whenever he decided that he wanted sex. This went on for a period of months. I didn't leave him (or report it to the police) because he insisted that he would hurt my family if I did. Eventually he was transferred out of the state, and I was able to break free without any risk to my family.
I went to a fraternity party shortly there after and was hanging out with a male buddy of mine. I'd had a beer, and when I finished that buddy of mine offered to get me another. He slipped something into my beer. Well, I only remember the rest of the night in fits and starts. He told the rest of my friends that he was going to walk me back to my dorm room, and he raped me when I had no ability to fight back. No one in my group ever saw him again. It was the last party of the semester, and he didn't come back the next year. I never reported it to the police.
My final story starts shortly after the beginning of my second year of college. There was a new guy hanging around...he was sort of a friend of a friend. One day we finished our meals at the same time and were talking as we walked from the student center to the dorms...less than 100 yards. I've blacked out much of what happened. I can remember him holding my arms down (over my head) and feeling trapped, and that is all I can remember until the next morning when I went to breakfast with my (now) husband. Considering all that I have been able to remember, whatever happened was pretty fucking awful. I tried to remember for the longest time, but I eventually gave up. The memory of what happened will likely die with my attacker.
What do the first 3 attacks have in common? By Paglia's standard (that you are defending) none of them were rape because I knew them, and therefore you both believe that I did something to indicate consent to sex. There is no such thing as acquaintance rape, right Crid?
What advantage is it to define an attack such as the ones I experienced as rape? It allows you to admit what happened, look at the injury that it caused, and work on healing. Having people standing around telling you(or you telling yourself) that you caused it makes the injury that much worse and keeps you from resolving the issues that it is causing. I learned that the first time.
Have I taken any responsibility for the attacks? I don't believe that I have responsibility for other people attacking me, but I have learned lessons from each one. I don't drink *at all* and I don't hang around others that are. I don't trust men, even when I've known them for awhile, unless they have consistently proven they are trust worthy. I am also constantly determining my risk in a situation. Do I do all of these things because I believe that all men are rapists? No, I do them because I don't trust my own judgment and I understand that the consequence I pay will likely be greater than the consequence paid by the person who attacks me.
So Crid, are you going to attempt to free me from the shackles of emotional misery by telling me that I've never been raped and that my attacks were well founded and that I 'wanted it rough'?
-Julie
Julie at October 1, 2009 8:32 AM
Oh, and I forgot...are you also going to tell me that the 'stranger rape' was nothing more significant than being beaten up, and that men get beaten up all the time, so I shouldn't be so upset about it? (a direct paraphrasing of Paglia).
-Julie
Julie at October 1, 2009 11:30 AM
response pending....
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 2, 2009 8:23 AM
> I want the meaning of rape
> acknowledged so that the victims
> of it can get help and move past
> it.
I don't think a whole lot of people are going to "acknowledge" the "meaning" which you'd ascribe to rape.
> I'm enough of an adult to
> understand that someone being
> found 'not guilty' is not the
> same as someone being found '
> innocent'.
This is just a no-fun comment to write. You seem resolutely determined to be ROBOTICALLY SUSPICIOUS of people. I'm just a silly old fart saying snotty things to you on an anonymous blog, and you don't need my authorization to live your life that way. Go ahead.
> you are the one who says that a
> man is incapable of stopping
Never said anything of the kind. I said many men won't.
> let's look at my knowledge and
> experience of rape, shall we?
Oh golly, do we have to? I had the feeling early on that your resentment wasn't about any policy proscriptions, but about a set of intensely personal experiences, the details of which I'd hoped to avoid. But here we are. You've tricked me into this. If I don't read and feel compassionate feelings and say compassionate things, I'm the bad guy.
I feel used. I feel manipulated. I feel.... cheap.
> Paglia's standard (that you are
> defending) none of them were
> rape because I knew them
Preposterous. Who knows what she'd say about your experience? Did you ask her specifically, and did she respond specifically? Our best guess about what she would say to you –which is probably not a very good guess– would come from her many writings about abusive relationships... After all, Paglia's fame & influence probably crested during the OJ trials.
> Have I taken any responsibility
> for the attacks?
I hate it when people interview themselves. I'll ask my own questions thankyouverymuch.
> are you going to attempt to free
> me from the shackles of
> emotional misery
Your emotions are your own business. I do policy, not therapy.
> so I shouldn't be so upset about
> it? (a direct paraphrasing of
> Paglia).
There's no such thing as a "direct paraphrase"; it's a contradiction in terms.
Paglia's point –if we're talking about the passages I think we are– regarded women who want to move into the unchaperoned dating world, but then make make brief, clumsy mistakes as they learn to carry themselves like adults. She's into personal responsibility.
It's only analogous, not precisely identical, to the experience of a young man who gets into fistfights until he learns how violence and anger work in the real world. (My own last tussle was 1978; I pummeled that fucker's knuckles savagely with the sockets of my eyes, and he won't soon forget me.)
There was an earlier analogy of a camera stolen from atop a car fender: Nobody's saying rape is like that, either.
Any more, or we 'bout done here?
Your first question to me was:
> why should all women assume the
> risk of sexual assault each time
> they leave the house?
The answer is: So they'll move cautiously. Their own judgment will protect them better than any tool which I –as a bitter, smartass, taxpaying blog commenter– can offer. Or pay for. Better than a world full of Sex Police, and better than a world of Sharia.
'Kthxbye.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 2, 2009 6:13 PM
I don't think a whole lot of people are going to "acknowledge" the "meaning" which you'd ascribe to rape.
Really?
"any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape
That is my definition right there. I don't see any conditional definitions like "Unless she enters a man's home, drinks at a bar, or can't fight off any attacker"
You seem resolutely determined to be ROBOTICALLY SUSPICIOUS of people.
No, I have attempted more than once to make sure that I'm understanding your position correctly, because it frankly seems too monstrous to believe. I don't want to think that anyone could be that horrible. You are the one who refuses to explain yourself clearly or answer my questions. That leaves me to debate you based upon my understanding.
Paglia's point –if we're talking about the passages I think we are– regarded women who want to move into the unchaperoned dating world, but then make make brief, clumsy mistakes as they learn to carry themselves like adults. She's into personal responsibility.
I am into personal responsibility as well. After my own attacks, no one was going to put my life back together other than me, and I did a pretty bang up job all things considered. However, I'm talking about things that Paglia has said directly.
In all of the Paglia reading that I have been doing for this debate, it has been a centralize theme that she does not believe that date rape exists (and you've concurred). You even said that you believe if a woman enters a man's home, she is consenting to have sex with him...no matter how much she resists. Notice you didn't say that she needs to understand that the man might expect sex in that circumstance, but that her entering gives consent. I've confirmed that multiple times.
In Paglia's interview with Spin magazine, she goes further stating that she doesn't understand why women make such a big deal about rape. She says that being raped is nothing more significant than being beaten up, and men get beaten up all the time.
You have said multiple times that you believe I'm attempting to rewrite rape law, when in actuality I"m not. YOu are. You have said multiple times that you believe that date rape doesn't exist or that the victim is complicit if they make a series of mistakes. In order to implement that from a legal perspective, that would require a much more detailed level of regulation than currently exists. (As in: if she was raped but she was drunk, that is misdemeanor rape, if she wore a slutty dress he can sue her for damages, etc) There is no way to implement your 'view' with additional litigation.
Frankly, I've attempted to give you credit I assume all humans deserve and you consistently spout the same crap 'women are to blame and date rape doesn't exist' with strawmen thrown in to try to push me off the trail. I've bored with attempting to redeem you. I won't make the same mistake again.
-Julie
Julie at October 2, 2009 8:23 PM
> That is my definition right there.
Golden. What are you going to do with it? Apparently this isn't about prosecutions. So it isn't about policy.
> attempted more than once to make
> sure that I'm understanding your
> position
Right, but I'm just a bitter coot on the internet. The hazard is guys in real life. And women who are sensible, as well as intuitive, can protect themselves.
> it has been a centralize theme
> that she does not believe that
> date rape exists (and you've
> concurred)
That's ridiculous. I've never read her to say such a thing, and I've certainly never said such a thing.
> You have said multiple times that
> you believe that date rape
> doesn't exist
And the precise quote would be?
> There is no way to implement your
> 'view' with additional litigation.
No, I'm not arguing for law, I'm arguing for wisdom. Men and women should protect themselves.
> I've bored with attempting to
> redeem you. I won't make the
> same mistake again.
Ah well then, drive safely.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 2, 2009 11:36 PM
Leave a comment