Two "Promising" Young Rapists
I've been remiss in not blogging this yet, but David Edwards' piece at TheRawStory gave me the kick in the ass I needed. His headline:
CNN grieves that guilty verdict ruined 'promising' lives of Steubenville rapists
An excerpt from his piece:
CNN broke the news on Sunday of a guilty verdict in a rape case in Steubenville, Ohio by lamenting that the "promising" lives of the rapists had been ruined, but spent very little time focusing on how the 16-year-old victim would have to live with what was done to her....CNN's Candy Crowley began her breaking news report by showing Lipps handing down the sentence and telling CNN reporter Poppy Harlow that she "cannot imagine" how emotional the sentencing must have been.
Harlow explained that it had been "incredibly difficult" to watch "as these two young men -- who had such promising futures, star football players, very good students -- literally watched as they believed their life fell apart."
"One of the young men, Ma'lik Richmond, as that sentence came down, he collapsed," the CNN reporter recalled, adding that the convicted rapist told his attorney that "my life is over, no one is going to want me now."
At that point, CNN played video of Richmond crying and hugging his lawyer in the courtroom.
"I was sitting about three feet from Ma'lik when he gave that statement," Harlow said. "It was very difficult to watch."
Me? I found it very difficult to look at that photo of the two guys carrying her limp, apparently unconscious body around.
I also found the picture difficult to look at. In the video one of the young men apologizes and says he "had no intention of doing this." Having sex with an unconscious person by its very nature requires intent because the other person is not participating. Maybe they had no intention of getting caught, but the sex act was intentional.
I'm only thankful that they were caught early on on life; maybe this will stop this from becoming a pattern of behavior in their lives.
Junebug at March 18, 2013 1:43 PM
I suppose that when you believe that govt. has power, and that individuals do not, you perpetuate the idea that somehow the court took things away from them, rather than the idea that they themselves threw their lives away...
I am astonished that CNN took this tack, unless this was some kind of slut-shaming against the victim...
SwissArmyD at March 18, 2013 1:45 PM
I agree with Amy, Junebug and Swisster, and ask you to consider the comments here and here.
Our mysterious commenter is mistaken: This was not the behavior of "drunk, underage, horny kids." This was the behavior of young men so removed from decency that they didn't know a girl was human.
And where was Dad?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 18, 2013 1:56 PM
Then we have people like Evan Westlake, who said, when asked why he didn't report it: "It wasn't violent. I didn't know exactly what rape was. I thought it was forcing yourself on someone."
I don't know what else to say.
MonicaP at March 18, 2013 2:09 PM
Does this figure into the Internet-vs-real-world argument?
Radwaste at March 18, 2013 2:14 PM
When I read about the reporting on this, I thought there was going to be some sort of moral to the point - e.g.
The two young men whose lives were full of promise have been reduced to convicts... because of their poor choices and lousy morals
If it had gone that way (or something similar) then I could have seen the point in mentioning it. As far as I've seen, the "story" was more lamenting that the two jocks were found guilty.
Shannon M. Howell at March 18, 2013 2:35 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/03/18/two_promising_y.html#comment-3646464">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Crid, I actually pulled a comment you made the other day and put it in my notes for my Internet chapter (for which I'm now writing the end, mercifully!).
A few essential bits from your comment:
Amy Alkon at March 18, 2013 3:31 PM
I personally think they got off too easily. One year, for inflicting trauma on a helpless teenager who may never recover from the experience.
And juvenile court? Wrong venue. You want to play adult "games," you can answer for them as an adult.
And, as other commenters have noted, the sympathy for the two thugs is shocking. The court did not ruin their lives, nor did the government. If their lives are truly ruined over this, they have themselves to blame.
Patrick at March 18, 2013 3:58 PM
Two guys were hung by their feet and beaten to death in Egypt for trying to steal a Rickshaw with a girl inside. Instead of crying these guys should be thanking their lucky stars that this happened here and that they received such light sentences. Unfortunately these thugs will be heroes to some and are already acting as victims. They will get out of jail having learned nothing.
nelson struck at March 18, 2013 4:24 PM
Then we have people like Evan Westlake, who said, when asked why he didn't report it: "It wasn't violent. I didn't know exactly what rape was. I thought it was forcing yourself on someone."
I don't know what else to say.
Posted by: MonicaP at March 18, 2013 2:09 PM
____________________________________
Yes, well, one problem is, many a boy has trouble grasping that there IS such a thing as unwanted sex, since he can't imagine ever NOT wanting it for himself. One way to teach him empathy is to ask him: "If a MAN had sex with YOU when you were drunk and unconscious and said later 'that wasn't rape,' would you agree?"
Chances are, the light will click on.
Another problem is that, in part because of hyped-up fictional TV dramas, we only think of it as "forcing yourself on someone" if the woman is screaming AND fighting. Of course, she has to be awake to do that! So, the public has become jaded. Trouble is, even if she's sober, there are still serious reasons why she might not fight - and then the public loses sympathy when it shouldn't. For example, a teen girl might go to a boy's room with the intent of having sex and then change her mind once she's inside - but she also might realize, too late, that he's the angry macho type who considers it a crime for a girl to change her mind that late, even though of course it isn't, so besides saying "no, please don't let's" she may well be wise not to try to fight him off - but later, she won't tell the jury that she EVER thought of having sex, because, again, she will fear that the jury will think that her "breach of etiquette" was practically a crime.
For the record, Miss Manners wrote in 1984:
"....the vulgar assumption that money spent on entertaining a woman is a short-term investment, collectible before the food has left her digestive tract, is of long standing. None of this should obscure the outrageousness of the ancient premise that a man who spends money on a woman has the right to think he has purchased her favors. Such transactions are available commercially, but have no place in decent society.....We all know that the only reason a man should have in asking a woman for a date is for the pleasure of her company....(and that the only reason a lady has consensual sex with him is that she was swept away by passion.)"
And, regarding older women, there was a TV movie from 1984 starring Kathleen Quinlan: "When She Says No."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088394/reviews
It has an unresolved ending, but it's worth watching if you can find it - or at least, the top two user comments in the link above are very much worth reading. (As one mentioned, it's clear we're supposed to sympathize with the woman - a college professor - but we're still supposed to think. What the commentators didn't quite make clear, though, is that MANY women would be terrified into submission, without saying a word, when it's three against one AND she can't be quite sure they won't beat her up if she tries to resist or escape.)
Also there was a long, wonderfully sensitive 1994 article in Harper's - "On not being a victim: sex, rape, and the trouble with following rules." At one point, the author, Mary Gaitskill, said that rape by a stranger could, in some ways, be less horrific than rape by someone she knew and trusted. Near the end, she tells this story:
"A few years ago I invited to dinner at my home a man I’d known casually for two years. We’d had dinner and comradely drinks a few times. I didn’t have any intention of becoming sexual with him, but after dinner we slowly got drunk and were soon floundering on the couch. I was ambivalent not only because I was drunk but because I realized that although part of me was up for it, the rest of me was not. So I began to say no. He parried each 'no' with charming banter and became more aggressive. I went along with it for a time because I was amused and even somewhat seduced by the sweet, junior-high spirit of his manner. But at some point I began to be alarmed, and then he did and said some things that turned my alarm into fright. I don’t remember the exact sequence of words or events, but I do remember taking one of his hands in both of mine, looking him in the eyes, and saying, 'If this comes to a fight you would win, but it would be very ugly for both of us. Is that really what you want?'
"His expression changed and he dropped his eyes; shortly afterward he left."
lenona at March 18, 2013 4:24 PM
"I'm only thankful that they were caught early on on life; maybe this will stop this from becoming a pattern of behavior in their lives."
"Does this figure into the Internet-vs-real-world argument?"
This kind of behavior isn't something you can stop with a jail sentence. It also isn't something you cause with instant social access. This kind of behavior is a compulsive mental illness, and needs to be treated as such. Putting them in jail only delays the problem till they get out.
wtf at March 18, 2013 4:53 PM
I'm thrilled that someone stood up to the small-town/football mafia. Everyone is, of course, boo-hooing because big king-ding-aling football stars futures were cut short,
but hey, can't be the king forever. Now you can sing to Bubba in the shower about your glory days.
Joe Sarmiento at March 18, 2013 6:00 PM
Dan Wetzel @ Yahoo Sports has been providing excellent coverage of this story:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/highschool--prosecutors-may-get-conviction-in-steubenville-rape-trial--but-it-will-come-at-a-cost-050043103.html
More here:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/highschool--steubenville-high-school-football-players-found-guilty-of-raping-16-year-old-girl-164129528.html
(The girl and her parents) culled social media for clues and walked into the Steubenville Police Department with a flash drive of evidence. Just prior to that, Mays became panicked and texted the girl. "I'm about to get kicked off my football team", Mays wrote.
Martin at March 18, 2013 6:53 PM
It's still going on.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 18, 2013 7:30 PM
This whole thing sickens me, as do some of the responses to it. Out at The Atlantic, a "person" named CJ, spent Saturday trying to argue that this wasn't even rape bc they used their fingers. Ugh...just a got a little sick typing that...Anyway, what kind of world do we live in where people think it is okay to penetrate a comatose person, female or male, for grins. From what I read over at Anonymous, the Trent kid did this to punish her for breaking up with him and all indications are that this is not his first time to do this either. What really frightens me though, is how all the other kids sat by watched it happen and took pictures of it. The casual cruelty just boggles the mind.
Sheep mommy at March 18, 2013 7:50 PM
I wish her parents had decided to act like parents a bit earlier. Mom dropped her and a bottle of vodka off at the party. It all sucks.
KateC at March 18, 2013 8:14 PM
Kate- Ouch!
But only ouch... As Paglia used to say, the complicity that attends a rape victim who drinks does not exonerate... especially when she's five years too young to drink anyway.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 18, 2013 8:47 PM
But jesus, what kind of place is Steubenville, Ohio?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at March 18, 2013 8:50 PM
I don't have the heart to read details... The still picture of that girl being dragged around like a sack of potatoes is too horrible.
But does anyone know if she had a father in the home?
Dear fathers on the blog: What would you think if your wife dropped your 16-yo daughter at a party with a bottle of vodka?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 18, 2013 9:07 PM
Wiki says Tracy Lords is from Steubenville.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 18, 2013 9:17 PM
There was a story, in my high school in the early 80's, that a non-virgin, semi-slut, got up on a table and stripped to her panties and danced in front of half the high school team, including her brother, before the girls pulled her away. There were about 17 males and females that saw this.
The girl was blackout drunk.
If a guy had felt her up -- would he be guilty of rape?
I am in no way discounting the rape conviction. But saying she had zero responsibility means that she is a child with no choice but to go to multiple parties and drink there. Putting zero blame on the victim is wrong. This isn't a mini-skirt defense for the victim or rapists.
She placed herself at a party, with men, with no support group, became intoxicated on her own, had no one looking out for her and had something happen.
This is a situation of walking into a crappy alley, known to house muggers, and not wrapping your hand around the butt of your pistol. If you know the alley sucks, you walk around or take a chance or take a buddy.
I'm not saying the rapists are blameless, but establishing 100% victimhood is also not right either.
Jim P. at March 18, 2013 9:24 PM
If a guy had felt her up -- would he be guilty of rape?
Depends. Would he be feeling up her vagina with his fingers? Then yes.
MonicaP at March 18, 2013 9:35 PM
This is a situation of walking into a crappy alley, known to house muggers, and not wrapping your hand around the butt of your pistol. If you know the alley sucks, you walk around or take a chance or take a buddy.
I seem to have a more positive view of men and boys. No girl or woman should expect that she might get raped if she's not careful -- especially not when she's at a party full of people. Most men can walk by an unconscious woman and restrain themselves from sexually assaulting her. Your comment seems to suggest that women should expect that any man will rape her given half a chance -- like muggers in an alley waiting for some unarmed sap who isn't paying attention. Ugly.
MonicaP at March 18, 2013 9:46 PM
For those who (here and elsewhere) may be offering up half ass apologies or excuses for this kind of crap:
I'm a guy (quintessentially).
Even when I was a teenager, it never even occurred to me that it was okay to violate an unconscious woman (regardless of the way she became unconscious, even if she danced naked prior to passing out).
EVER!
I didn't even have to have it drilled into me by a bunch of cantankerous adults. It was simply a matter of common sense.
Why are excuses even on the table? Would the apologists forgive such an assault on their wives / girlfriends / family members?
It doesn't matter if you've 'walked into the wrong alley.' The person who assaults and / or rapes you is a cluefree, useless piece of shit dickweasel and deserves every reprobation that gets placed upon them (up to, and including, being beat within an inch of their lives).
Because, apparently, that's the only language they'll understand.
The court did not take away their promising future. They tossed their future out of the car window as if it were a soiled napkin from a fast food lunch.
They *chose* their fate. They don't get to complain now that they have to cash in those chips.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at March 18, 2013 10:16 PM
This is not some kind of zero sum game, where blame is apportioned. IF it proves true that her mother was complicit, that makes it the worse... But the girl paid for her lack of foresight with a terrible burden of her life.
There is nothing that would excuse what they did, nor should the observers have gotten away with not doing anything. Not a single one of those kids has the sense to know right from wrong, and there is consequence all around.
There is a fine line between 'she shouldn'a gotten so drunk' and this is her fault. You expect a certain decency from others in your community, and character is what you have when no-one is looking.
These boys are prolly lucky that other guys in school didn't bust them up.
It really doesn't seem that anything was learned here.
SwissArmyD at March 18, 2013 11:25 PM
Lots of my family is from sports-crazy small towns. The varsity high school football heros rule. It's pretty insane. I know the situation all too well. From this background, a couple of comments:
- There is still the matter of basic human decency. These boys lack it. They lack it because their parents failed to raise them decently. The "sports heros" I have known in small-town USA would not have treated a girl like this, because they knew better.
- There are a lot more people involved who deserve to be punished: the adults who attempted to suppress this case. Remember: This only came to light because Anonymous dug it out from under the rug, where the so-called adults had attempted to sweep it.
a_random_guy at March 18, 2013 11:29 PM
SwissArmyD writes: "character is what you have when no-one is looking"
This. Can we tattoo this on their backsides?
a_random_guy at March 18, 2013 11:32 PM
"One of the young men, Ma'lik Richmond, as that sentence came down, he collapsed," the CNN reporter recalled, adding that the convicted rapist told his attorney that "my life is over, no one is going to want me now."
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, I just skimmed the comments ahead of mine, sorry if this is a repeat.
This statement speaks volumes, because it shows that this young man is still thinking only of himself, and has not accepted responsibility for his actions, and is not showing the least bit of remorse for the crimes he committed.
Since they were tried as juveniles, they will go to the "High School of Criminal Behavior". Most likely they will be even more dangerous when they get out, because it seems that no one, not their parents, teachers, coaches, any random adults in their lives, are holding them to any sort of standard, or setting any boundaries/expectations for their behavior.
Kat at March 18, 2013 11:55 PM
> This is not some kind of zero sum game, where
> blame is apportioned.
☑ Correct. Important point, nicely put, and thank you.
Now...
Not taking anything back, but...
So, like, I finally read enough to see that there was no coitus. (Ahem.) Gotta confess that the social media angle now consumes a bigger portion of my concern for this girl, if not for the town. I think that without pestering this girl, there are things about human character for us to learn from the rest of Steubenville.
Seriously, I did a tour of the place on Google Earth. There are no psychopathologies visible from the streets.
There are a lot of us out here who wouldn't want the ugliest nights of our teen lives transmitted across the planet for eternal indexing on Google servers. I'm 54, and it's something my generation has struggled to convey to the next: You don't want to talk about how wasted you got at the beach last night on MySpace/Facebook/etc. A lot of teenage girls — and Hell, a lotta women in their 50's at company Christmas parties, for that matter — get grabbed, and grabbed roughly, while fully sober and conscious. They will remember. And these will never be fond memories, but they needn't scar women for life... So long as it's a secret between the victim, and Drunken Bob from Accounting with a lampshade on his head, and Bob's vengeful wife, who's enraged to see how much of an asshole he can be after a few drinks. Or for a teenage girl, when the rest of the class knows that Jimmy is a hands-y dork. When shame and intimate retribution are at hand, these are not emotionally crippling assaults.
Social media make all this humiliation permanent. And yeah, digital penetration of a passed-out girl with internet photography and gossip is, in karmic terms, rape. I don't think the courts or media are wrong to use the word.
So again, I'm not taking anything back, but the focus now moves to Steubenville.
Someone with children needs to explain to (childless) me why a mother passes a bottle of Vodka to a daughter before a party. Otherwise I go for the most transparent psychological explanations: That the mother hated being a teenage girl, was terrified of her own earliest sexual and romantic encounters, is resentful of their outcomes, has seen no better path, and wants to teach her daughter that getting blitzed is the way to tolerate ugly inevitability. Honey, this is how we throw our hearts away... Remember, your Daddy was a linebacker, and they went all the way to the Sectionals that year, but he was cold & clumsy as a granite boulder.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 19, 2013 12:53 AM
Jim, if some drunk guy came up to me waving a wallet in front of me and throwing his watch at jewelry at me, saying, "Take it! Take it all! I'm going to sign over my life savings to you" and I took it, then yes, I would be a swindler and a thief.
Even if he'd given me a diamond necklace last week.
NicoleK at March 19, 2013 2:28 AM
Kat, I hear you, but I think they have a good social support network for when they get out. I knew a kid who went to jail for dealing his senior year. He got out a few years later, and still got into a top college where he is now studying...biology? Something STEM anyhow.
If they really did have good grades and all that, they can still get out and make something of themselves.
NicoleK at March 19, 2013 2:32 AM
People are morons.
Though I have to agree with Crid when he asks the quesiton...where are the fathers in this?
My father taught me not to be a bully, not to pick on the weak. For the better part of my childhood, that wasn't a problem, because I was so small. Eventually, when I got big almost overnight, big enough to be a bully if I wanted to be, I made the right choice.
Robert at March 19, 2013 3:32 AM
what kind of place is Steubenville, Ohio?
It's deep Appalachia, a different world. (Sort of like LA is a different world).
Stinky the Clown at March 19, 2013 6:36 AM
what kind of place is Steubenville, Ohio?
Ever see "Deliverance"?
Stinky the Clown at March 19, 2013 6:37 AM
"I'm thrilled that someone stood up to the small-town/football mafia"
This. I'm not into athlete-bashing in general, but take away the fact that the guys were star football players, and this story probably doesn't make the news. Some animals are more equal than others.
Cousin Dave at March 19, 2013 6:49 AM
The leaks from Anonymous allege that the girl was drugged:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/01/local-leaks-tipsters-allege-steubenville-victim-was-drugged/60597/
Insufficient Poison at March 19, 2013 7:02 AM
Crid,
If you are still reading this thread, to answer your question about why the mother would have given the girl a bottle of vodka that night. The answer is popularity. Your assumption that the mother was looking to "protect" her child was right, but the theory was wrong. Some mothers will do anything to help their daughters fit in with the popular crowd. Maybe this lady wasn't popular in high school and she is reliving her youth through her daughter's exploits. Or maybe, she remembers her time in high school before Facebook and Instagram and the current callousness of youth. I don't know which it is, but protecting the kid's social standing had a lot to do with it. You can even see it in the way she "forgave" those animals for what they did to her daughter. This girl's social life is now over. She will be on the outside looking in for the rest of her high school career. I bet at some point she even regrets her decision to press charges. In essence, she will also be doing time right along with the boys who did this to her.
I have spoken with my own child at length about this case. It is a good illustration of the fact that things are not always what they seem. I bet this girl had lots of "friends" at those parties, but not one stood up for her. Not one of her BFFs helped her when she need it. My child often feels like she has no close friends and is a little envious of the image projected by the popular crowd, but this has opened her eyes and she realizes that true friends are hard to come by and that being in the popular crowd is not always as fun as it looks.
Sheep mommy at March 19, 2013 7:30 AM
"Dear fathers on the blog: What would you think if your wife dropped your 16-yo daughter at a party with a bottle of vodka?"
I'd think that in the divorce, she would still be awarded full custody.
"small-town/football mafia" yep we had one. The only incident I'm aware of was one of the cheerleaders was daughter of the Pricipal. She used to steal keys to the gym/pool and throw weekend pool parties (rumor of alcohol, or clothing optional) for the football team/cheerleaders and friends. Eventually got caught. No expulsions, no suspensions, no one off either team. The only punishment I heard of was FB team, had to run a lot of laps. Hardly a punishment, but I will say this to the best of my knowledge, no one else got any official punishment. If it wasn't football team, and Pricipals daughter, would have been jail time.
Joe J at March 19, 2013 7:36 AM
Actually, she did have a support group--a number of other girls tried to get her to come with them, and not go off with the guys. I was a wild girl in my high school, and put myself in all sorts of stupid situations. Maybe I had more sense than I thought, maybe the fear of my NRA-champion father's wrath kept me moderately safe, maybe times were different.
And Anon is wrong. She wasn't drugged. Take a look at Lee Stranahan's coverage. He's not a perfectly objective observer, but neither are the Anon crowd.
http://stranahaninexile.wordpress.com/
KateC at March 19, 2013 8:48 AM
One time in high school I asked my mom for a giant bottle of vodka before a big party. I told her I was going to use it to wash my hair as I had seen a tv show where it clarified the head and scalp. She bought a giant bottle without questions, I put it in my shower...
....and because i was such a nerd I actually used it to wash my hair. I stopped by the party, gave a gift and left.
Yes people I was a nerd in highschool and I spent the rest of the night reading Japanese comics.
Ppen at March 19, 2013 8:58 AM
> Your assumption that the mother was looking
> to "protect" her child was right, but the
> theory was wrong.
OK, I hear ya, but...
This behavior (vodka for your 16-y-o) is just so fucked up that I'd think this kid's prospects for happiness were seriously constrained anyway. (No excuse for blackout molestation/photography. That's a given: We all understand each other perfectly and agree completely on this point.)
Vodka-for-your-16's doesn't just show up in a single generation.
> I have spoken with my own child at
> length about this case.
I totes ♥ you.
> The leaks from Anonymous allege that the
> girl was drugged
It's embarrassing how much I used to listen to Loveline back in the day. (Click here for a stream from the golden years... Beware, any random show is likely to be mundane... But Pinsky's insight sometimes made up for Carolla's blowharding.) In dozens of phone calls from girls about how they'd been drugged at parties, the narrative was that the drug had been mixed into their (alcoholic) drink... Or, typically, their third (alcoholic) drink.
Naw, sorry, listen: I'm with Paglia. Dark rooms and howling music and blinding drunkenness are how teenagers deal with being scared shitless of each other when reaching around underwear.
God Bless NRA-Daddywrath. Buy him a good tie for Father's Day. Send a handwritten card, and seal it with a kiss.
(See also.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 19, 2013 10:26 AM
As for motivation, I've also seen mothers who want to be the cool mom and are willing to do anything for the title. It speaks of women who never stopped being teenagers and are more eager to be their kids' friends than mothers.
When you have a kid, your time to be cool is over.
MonicaP at March 19, 2013 10:35 AM
Another
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 19, 2013 10:40 AM
Regarding the CNN coverage, it's clear that many people still think: "Since radical feminists have argued for years that unmarried consensual sex is not a crime or even a disgrace, the least they owe our beloved boys is to stop arguing that forced penetration is any more criminal than a forced handshake."
What it comes down to, when you think about it, is the idea that if we're not going to charge BOTH the rapist and the victim for the crime, the least we can do is condemn her more than we do the rapist.
That is, it all goes back to the ideas that a woman's body isn't really her property, it's society's property, that a non-virgin (or a rumored non-virgin) is only useless "damaged property," that all men are naturally-born rapists, that a woman's sacred job is to protect that public property, even when the cost is her own life (literally or otherwise) and that failure to do so is a crime. Which, of course, is why Shakespeare's Lucrece commits suicide afterward.
I mean, do you hear any condemnation for Dr. William Petit of Cheshire, CT, since HE didn't have/use a better anti-burglary system? After all, it wasn't he who paid the ultimate price for that "failure" - it was his wife and daughters.
(Hint: It's pretty common, e.g., for carjacking victims to get blamed. However, the more that victims try to be "polite" and not tempt criminals, the more they will get blamed when they don't follow every tiny "rule" and so criminals will get even bolder, since public sympathy will not be on the victims' side. Since when is "the victim was very careless, Your Honor," a legal defence?)
Finally, can we accept, once and for all, that male teen athletes, however loved/idolized, do NOT deserve the trust and general freedoms given to boys who are not athletes? That is, they must be supervised and chaperoned until they can prove that they will not exploit their celebrity power to do evil, just as you wouldn't allow kids complete ownership of a huge inheritance until they were older, because they cannot be trusted to use that power wisely. After all, many a rapist gets angry at hearing "no" because he's never heard "no" in his life - not because of a lack of sex!
lenona at March 19, 2013 11:40 AM
> What it comes down to, when you think about it,
> is the idea that if we're not going to charge
> BOTH the rapist and the victim for the crime,
> the least we can do is condemn her more than
> we do the rapist.
?
What what "comes down to"?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 19, 2013 12:09 PM
If a guy had felt her up -- would he be guilty of rape? - Jim P
Depends. Would he be feeling up her vagina with his fingers? Then yes. - MonicaP
OK Monica, what if the girl dancing on the table was perfectly sober, and the guy feeling her up was black out drunk (but still concious) felt her up, would she be guilty of sexual assault?
lujlp at March 19, 2013 2:58 PM
Regarding the CNN coverage, it's clear that many people still think: "Since radical feminists have argued for years that unmarried consensual sex is not a crime or even a disgrace, the least they owe our beloved boys is to stop arguing that forced penetration is any more criminal than a forced handshake." - lenona
Well thats just stupid, radical feminists push the notion that all sex is secretly rape.
I get called a rape apologist for not accepting the notion that sex can retroactivly be called rape if the woman decides she regrets it later. I dont think vollentarily drinking or using drugs magically turns sex into rape, I dont think that imparment invalidates consent, I think lack of consent should be the bar. And in this case no one started having sex with until she was beyond passed out.
In my humble opinion, 1st degree murder and rape should have the death penatly as a sentencing option
lujlp at March 19, 2013 3:10 PM
Actually, I hope she changes her name and moves far away. The social media networks have done the victim no favors, and they were repeating her name before CNN, MSNBC and Fox were even onboard.
KateC at March 19, 2013 3:46 PM
OK Monica, what if the girl dancing on the table was perfectly sober, and the guy feeling her up was black out drunk (but still concious) felt her up, would she be guilty of sexual assault?
Depends. Was she forcing him to feel her up? Then yes.
Not sure why y'all are confused about this. Don't stick your parts in other people's holes when they're too drunk to consent. Seems pretty simple to me.
MonicaP at March 19, 2013 4:28 PM
> Not sure why y'all are confused about this.
☑
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 19, 2013 4:42 PM
"Not sure why y'all are confused about this. Don't stick your parts in other people's holes when they're too drunk to consent. Seems pretty simple to me. - MonicaP
Course it seems simple to you the legal system views sex as something done to an woman, not something she participates in, and not something she would be arrested for. When was the last time you heard of a woman being arrested becuase the guy she had sex with was too drunk to consent?
Also define "too drunk"
Also at what point is a man "to drunk" to be reileved of his legal responsiblity to make sure the woman is not "too drunk"
The reason I as is that there are those who define "too drunk" as using mouthwash before sex, and "one drop invalidates consent".
So you can see why in case of a woman being awake and aware and initiating sex and saying yes that guys can be confused as to the concept of too drunk.
lujlp at March 19, 2013 4:53 PM
And we know, for a fact, that she was passed out and not blacked out?
Way back when I was 17, I knocked off school with a 16 or 17 year old young woman, who I knew was no virgin. (I knew some of her ex-boyfriends.) We did some innocuous crap in the morning and by 1P we were back at my house drinking some mixed drinks (I think screwdrivers) and smoked some pot.
We started making out and were both topless. She left a hickey on my neck that took a week to go away. Suddenly she got up, grabbed her top and said she was going to the bathroom. I found her about 15 minutes later puking her guts out, outside. About 30 minutes later she was ready to go home. Nothing more than that happened. She didn't remember the make-out session or the hickey to the point she asked who gave it to me a few days later.
This was way before Gore invented the internet. I was 17, had no clue about blackouts and was going to get lucky with a hot chick. I didn't force anything on her. She decided to get intoxicated with me. That we didn't fuck was more a matter of timing.
So saying that she (and friends) have no responsibility because she is a female that got drunk with a bunch of people (most of whom she probably didn't know) I just can't take without, at least, a margarita rim of salt.
No she shouldn't expect to be raped. But if she passed out in the alley after leaving a bar, and had her wallet stolen; would she at least be judged irresponsible?
What if she had driven, but made it home safely?
I'm not saying she is guilty of wrong doing, I'm saying that she is not totally absolved of some responsibility.
Jim P. at March 19, 2013 8:22 PM
that's the thing, Jim. Her responsibility, and their responsibility are not part of the same equation. She has a responsibility to herself, certainly. The two guys have a responsibility to not violate a sovereign body.
What makes burglary criminal is NOT you leaving your door unlocked. It is criminal when a stranger enters your house unbidden, and takes what is not theirs.
SwissArmyD at March 19, 2013 9:17 PM
Go Swissy Go.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 19, 2013 11:00 PM
No, Dood… Really. Good going.
☑
Paglia has an analogy for this too, and you've saved me the trouble of looking it up. But here's the thing: This girl's naivete —if that's what this was, and I'm not sure we should call it that— has zero exonerative consequence for these boys. None. Zilch. Zero. Goose egg, empty set, Vista Del Nada.
There's a reason that the anonymous commenter over the weekend (and others) can't bring themselves to say, in a short number of words, that of course a decent young man will stick his fingers in a teenage girl if she's too drunk to resist. Their struggle to say so using many words is not fun to watch, though it's instructive.
Swissy said it perfectly earlier: This is not zero-sum. The responsibilities of the girl and her assailants, while perhaps simultaneous, are not contiguous.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 19, 2013 11:16 PM
Jim P, let's say you got drunk at a bar tonight and decided to walk home instead of calling a cab. A mugger sees you stumbling around in the moonlight, smashes your skull with a lead pipe and takes your watch & your wallet.
Even a big guy is an easy mark if he's so drunk that he's oblivious. By drinking so much that you're not fully aware of what's going on around you, you have done what the Steubenville girl has done - you've made yourself a tempting target for criminal scum. But the point is that muggers & rapists are criminal scum. If the mere sight of a vulnerable fellow human leaves them unable to restrain their criminal impulses, then they belong in a cage, and that's that.
Martin at March 20, 2013 9:40 AM
Yeah the girl was stupid.
Doesn't change the fact that the dudes were criminals.
If we start saying XYZ is a crime unless its done to a stupid person, no one will be convicted of anything ever.
NicoleK at March 20, 2013 1:15 PM
The girl and her mom are idiots. The boys got what they deserved. It is a shame they never learned right from wrong, or cared. Any of them.
Not the victim nor the thugs deserve any sympathy or respect. Sorry. If you choose to become inebriated past the point of reason, or even consciousness, then you should expect that something bad might happen. Low hanging fruit is an easy target.
It sounds like the entire town needs a refresher in basic decency and responsibility.
LauraGr at March 20, 2013 1:53 PM
Thank you for getting to the kernel of what I was trying to point out.
The men are not absolved, but putting her in a as a pure victim is not true either. When you put yourself in a position to be a victim you may become a victim.
Jim P. at March 20, 2013 7:34 PM
> putting her in a as a pure victim
[1.] Goofy wording. "Putting her in" what?
[2.] Purity is not a factor in any sane appraisal of this: She's not bottled water, subject to contamination.
[3.] There is no human being you could have left with those boys, pure or impure, drunk or sober, for whom their behavior to her would have been acceptable.
There are no exceptions for you to name, and so we're done here. See how that works?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at March 20, 2013 8:49 PM
Please excuse her of all "accountability".
You
Thank you, you **********.
Jim P. at March 20, 2013 10:36 PM
I can't imagine what point you're making. Masculine discipline is what was missing these boys' lives.
I mean, Huh? What are you trying to say?
I think you're trying to say that some women deserved to be raped.
I don't think so, m'self.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at March 20, 2013 11:22 PM
Crid, Not saying some women deserve to be raped. I'm saying, if you put yourself in a vulnerable position, there are those that will take advantage. This girl and her mom treated the girl like so much trash. Is it surprising the boys did too?
Don't you think there's enough bad shit out there without making it practically guaranteed?
I wouldn't leave my wallet or Ipad or car keys around with no worries. I surely wouldn't do the same with my daughter or myself. There is always someone that will lift the wallet, swipe the keys and craigslist the ipad. Making it easier for them to do so is stupid. The girl and her mom were stupid.
LauraGr at March 21, 2013 7:24 AM
> I'm saying, if you put yourself in a vulnerable
> position, there are those that will take
> advantage.
Look us in the eye and say these words: It was advantageous for these boys to stick their fingers in this unconscious girl.
> The girl and her mom were stupid.
Stupid doesn't describe it.
> Don't you think there's enough bad shit out
> there without making it practically guaranteed?
Unconsciousness "guarantees" being photographed for the internet with some smirking dorkweed's fingers in your crotch?
Swissy said it perfectly, and you can't hear it: The boy's grotesque crime stands on its own, tall & proud, without any reliance on her behavior.
She behaved irresponsibly, but her conduct is and must be distinguished from the offense being punished. I won't tolerate a presumption that teenage boys should be expected to do such things whenever they have the chance.
You shouldn't either.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 21, 2013 9:56 AM
And now, away from work and giving it full attention, I still can't imagine what connection Jimp sees between this matter and the one at his link.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 21, 2013 10:01 AM
Look us in the eye and say these words: It was advantageous for these boys to stick their fingers in this unconscious girl.
For those boys in that moment it was
Unconsciousness "guarantees" being photographed for the internet with some smirking dorkweed's fingers in your crotch?
It does at party with a group of guys will a well established track record of being soulless assholes
Swissy said it perfectly, and you can't hear it: The boy's grotesque crime stands on its own, tall & proud, without any reliance on her behavior.
She behaved irresponsibly, but her conduct is and must be distinguished from the offense being punished. I won't tolerate a presumption that teenage boys should be expected to do such things whenever they have the chance.
You shouldn't either.
You crid for a guy who bitches and moans about people reading more into your words than what you wrote, you are fucking EAGER to do it to everyone else
lujlp at March 21, 2013 10:59 AM
> For those boys in that moment it was
And those boys are being encouraged to recalculate their accrual of value. So what? "Modernity," we call that. We don't put up with primitive Islam shit, even in Appalachia.
> It does at party with a group of guys
> will a well established track record
> of being soulless assholes
There was no such "track record," and "souless asshole" isn't an appraisal of human character that's going to kick ball forward. Convicted is somewhat more useful, and fully "established."
> bitches and moans about people reading more
> into your words
Everyone's being quoted precisely, in context, on the selfsame page. What could be fairer? "Putting her in [as] a pure victim" is what Jimp said. What it means isn't entirely clear, but he'd probably be offended if we assumed he didn't mean it.
> you are fucking EAGER to
Your problem is with me, always. About the issues, you'll always trust the first thing you can think of when responding.... But your impulses don't enlighten.
Relax, little feller.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at March 21, 2013 12:58 PM
Your problem is with me, always
No, not always, but we both know why I dont like you. However even with my distain of you personally I still agree with you on some subjects, which means my disagreement with you on others is not colored by my disliking you, but the merit of your argument.
That you assume the only reason I disagree with you is because I dont like you and that I am thus incapable of having any rational reasons for holding a counter opinion says far more about your problems understanding reality than my problem with you.
lujlp at March 21, 2013 1:42 PM
Well nyah-nyah. Be interesting!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at March 21, 2013 4:49 PM
Let me break it down this way. I have no issue with the sentence the boys received. None at all. I am not even talking about them except that they were opportunistic.
Legally--- Legality- we make illegal that behaviour we find egregious enough that we cannot, as a society, tolerate. It is the lowest bar allowable for conduct. It is like the student that gets all D- grades and still passes high school because it isn't an F. It is not a goal to aim for unless your standards are very, very low. Not illegal does not mean good, desirable, smart, prudent, kind or recommended.
We also have another standard by which we judge. It isn't based on law precisely. It isn't particularly codified and changes from region to region and with other factors. I won't call it morals, ethics, honor, common sense, politeness, kindness, generosity or tactfulness. Yet is is all those things. All of those things that are higher than the very base of "illegal".
The boys broke the law. I'm assuming the mother did as well with providing the alcohol to the daughter.
There is no law that says a girl of age cannot fuck every man she meets upon minutes of making his acquaintance. That does not mean it is good and prudent, smart or recommended behavior. Illegal is not my standard for judging that behavior.
A man can say mean things to people all day long. Not illegal. You can choose to be a selfish asshat and not break the law.
I am able to separate the boys behaviour from the girls stupidity because they are different standards I am using for passing judgment. And I am. I judge the girl and her mother to be incredibly stupid.
LauraGr at March 21, 2013 7:31 PM
☑
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at March 21, 2013 8:55 PM
I have no issue with the sentence the boys received. None at all.
I do, up to four years is not long enough for them to sit in jail
lujlp at March 22, 2013 7:13 PM
Regarding the CNN coverage, it's clear that many people still think: "Since radical feminists have argued for years that unmarried consensual sex is not a crime or even a disgrace, the least they owe our beloved boys is to stop arguing that forced penetration is any more criminal than a forced handshake." - lenona
Well thats just stupid, radical feminists push the notion that all sex is secretly rape.
Posted by: lujlp at March 19, 2013 3:10 PM
__________________________________
Maybe I should have phrased it better. As in, many people still think: "Women are property and that's all there is to it. So, either sexual behavior between unmarrieds is ALWAYS a crime or it NEVER is! Radical feminists, make up your minds! You can't have it both ways! Consent has nothing to do with it!"
BTW, I'd like you to name one living feminist who believes what you said. As Al Franken said in the 1990s (yes, I know he's a comedian): "Limbaugh was wailing about how feminists believe that all heterosexual sex is rape. The thing is, though, I know of a lot women, almost all of whom consider themselves feminists, and I know of only one who actually holds this belief. And we've been married for nearly twenty years."
lenona at March 23, 2013 10:57 AM
What I wonder is: Why didn't the judge say ANYTHING, IIRC, about the need for BOYS to stay out of situations (parties) they suspect they can't handle? If only for the sake of the football team? As I mentioned above, maybe it's time to realize that underage celebrities are not to be left unsupervised, since they are MORE likely to behave badly, not less.
From elsewhere:
As Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir was asked to place a curfew on women to end a series of rapes. She refused, saying: "But it is the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home."
And, from the Huffington Post:
Nodianos is asked at one point what he would think if it was his daughter being assaulted. "If that was my daughter, I wouldn't care. I would just let her be dead," Nodianos responded. "And is it really rape if you don’t know if she wanted to or not? She might have wanted it. That might have been her final wish."
(See my post from March 18, 2013 4:24 PM.)
What DO parents say to their sons these days to keep them from thinking that way? IF they say anything?
lenona at March 23, 2013 11:18 AM
> What DO parents say to their sons these days
> to keep them from thinking that way? IF they say
> anything?
Millions of Americans —and maybe two billion others— teach their sons that women are human beings. It's not that big a deal.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at March 23, 2013 2:37 PM
Leave a comment