Judge Keeps Rapist out of Jail

TheHedonist wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Yet the views of the judge are views widely held by society. Victim-blaming is rampant across the nation, and there is a prevailing belief that a woman can be "asking for it" by wearing high heels, a skirt, and a tube top. Or, that if a woman starts making out with a man, or sucking his dick, then she's given him permission to go all the way. Both of these statements are wrong, and both of these statements weren't only repeated by the judge, but by society as a whole. How often do you hear people talking about a girl who was "asking for it"?

I think what I disagree with here is your use of the word 'widely'. I have heard those things and they are terrible, but I don't hear them often and more often than not I hear them with the appropriate disdain attached (disdain for the sort of people who think that way, not the sort of women who dress that way). Also:

Quote :

both of these statements weren't only repeated by the judge, but by society as a whole.

...how is that possible? I think the fact that there's a news report giving this woman's (completely justified) outrage some attention speaks volumes as to the fact that society on the whole does not accept this sort of behavior, from the rapist or the judge. Most judges are old, possibly chauvinistic white men, but most of society is not, I guess is my point. I don't disagree with anything you're saying except the frequency you claim it occurs.

You're still getting extremely defensive about the idea that rape culture exists?

If your circle of friends is clear of it, then you've got a good circle of friends. But that doesn't mean the world out there is like your circle of friends.

And guess what? ANYONE WHO GETS REALLY DEFENSIVE WHEN THE IDEA OF RAPE CULTURE IS BROUGHT UP IS ACTIVELY FEEDING THE PROBLEM.

Yes, dumbass, that's you. You're doing it.

You're increasing rape culture, right now. You're contributing to it. You're feeding it. Because you don't want to think you could be wrong, or because it makes you uncomfortable, or for some other dumbshit reason that is somehow more important to your ego than the idea that women get systematically tormented by rape culture.

Aren't you proud of yourself?

Mugg wrote:

OH RITE, CAUSE MEN NEVAR GET RAPED OR SEXUALLY ASSAULTED!!!!!!

THOSE HORNY FUCKERS JUST ALWAYS WANT TO GET LAID!!!!! DAMN TESTOSTERONE!!!!!!!

Way to demolish rape culture for everyone.

Pretty sure his point is that because men are so unlikely the be sexually assaulted compared to women, it makes you look silly to attempt to 'make sure they're protected'. One guy has a schoolyard bully after him the other has a gangster with a violin case full of handguns, and you're worried about the guy with the bully. Which is a shame, because the first half of the sentence that started this...

Mugg wrote:

I just don't agree with lumping the whole populace under a rape culture, if the reverse of evil man versus good woman wasn't equally discussed, debated, or wanked over.

I agree with.

Notanoni wrote:

Because you don't agree with everything I believe you support rapists.

Stop confusing my skepticism with defensiveness, and stop acting like because I haven't experienced those negative trains of thought as often as you and so don't think them to be dominant, defining character trait in society that it means I support them. It doesn't. Your logic is circular: believe in the rape culture because if you don't you're feeding the rape culture which if you believe in the rape culture because if you don't...

See what I'm getting at here?

TheHedonist wrote:

Pretty sure his point is that because men are so unlikely the be sexually assaulted compared to women, it makes you look silly to attempt to 'make sure they're protected'. One guy has a schoolyard bully after him the other has a gangster with a violin case full of handguns, and you're worried about the guy with the bully. Which is a shame, because the first half of the sentence that started this...

You also forgot that the news story is about a man getting away with raping a woman, and than we have Mugg come trotting in crying about how we never pay enough attention to men.

Quote :

Stop confusing my skepticism with defensiveness, and stop acting like because I haven't experienced those negative trains of thought as often as you and so don't think them to be dominant, defining character trait in society that it means I support them. It doesn't. Your logic is circular: believe in the rape culture because if you don't you're feeding the rape culture which if you believe in the rape culture because if you don't...

See what I'm getting at here?

Ok. Hedonist. I want to ask you something.

You honestly don't hear "she was asking for it" regularly? Honestly? No one around you ever says, "Well, the guy who did it was pretty bad, but she really shouldn't have been out so late/wearing that skirt/being a tease/going to that club."?

TheHedonist wrote:

Mugg wrote:

OH RITE, CAUSE MEN NEVAR GET RAPED OR SEXUALLY ASSAULTED!!!!!!

THOSE HORNY FUCKERS JUST ALWAYS WANT TO GET LAID!!!!! DAMN TESTOSTERONE!!!!!!!

Way to demolish rape culture for everyone.

Pretty sure his point is that because men are so unlikely the be sexually assaulted compared to women, it makes you look silly to attempt to 'make sure they're protected'. One guy has a schoolyard bully after him the other has a gangster with a violin case full of handguns, and you're worried about the guy with the bully.

Men being less likely to be sexually assaulted is arguable. Either way, I didn't want to start a whole "men need attention!" thing. My beef is mostly with how sexist the feminists in this forum are and I was curious which of them would still be spouting off about rape culture if it was a male victim and not a female victim. I didn't intend for much more discussion beyond that.

I still find most of the feminists here extremely sexist, but I'll hold hope out for those who would still be holding up their ideals if a man was the victim and the female the perpetrator.

Sorry if I seemed all "men need protecshun toooo"; it's more of my irritation toward sexism against men veiled as fighting for women's rights. Personally, I think there's a difference in wanting equality for all and wanting to trash the opposite gender.

Mugg wrote:

Either way, I didn't want to start a whole "men need attention!" thing. My beef is mostly with how sexist the feminists in this forum are and I was curious which of them would still be spouting off about rape culture if it was a male victim and not a female victim. [...] I still find most of the feminists here extremely sexist, [...] Sorry if I seemed all "men need protecshun toooo"; it's more of my irritation toward sexism against men veiled as fighting for women's rights. Personally, I think there's a difference in wanting equality for all and wanting to trash the opposite gender.

So basically you came into a thread about an absolutely appalling miscarriage of justice, that only came about because of misogyny, and decided to say "OH YEAH WELL WHICH OF YOU GODDAMN FEMINISTS WOULD EVEN CARE IF THE GENDERS WERE REVERSED" because you don't like feminists.

Mm, I certainly believe you care about "equality for everyone", justice, and rape victims (male and female).

Oh, by the way, feminists don't have to prove a fucking thing to you. I really don't give a shit about your "hope" for me.

Mugg wrote:

I still find most of the feminists here extremely sexist, but I'll hold hope out for those who would still be holding up their ideals if a man was the victim and the female the perpetrator.

Please explain exactly why we all hate men.

It is kinda tough to sympathise with male victims firstly because they are more likely to be the perpetrators in the first place, and secondly because they are generally so much bigger and stronger than women - note the 'generally'.

We also see a lot less men reporting it, being ashamed or concerned that they might get villified in some manner. They also often have trouble proving that it was against their will, since too many people are so ignorant as to brlieve that stimulation of the penis is directly related to pleasure.

TheHedonist wrote:

Notanoni wrote:

Because you don't agree with everything I believe you support rapists.

Stop confusing my skepticism with defensiveness, and stop acting like because I haven't experienced those negative trains of thought as often as you and so don't think them to be dominant, defining character trait in society that it means I support them. It doesn't. Your logic is circular: believe in the rape culture because if you don't you're feeding the rape culture which if you believe in the rape culture because if you don't...

See what I'm getting at here?

How would you act around someone who got extremely defensive and upset when the idea that racism is a part of the wider culture was brought up?

Hmmmmmm?

Would you say that this person was helping racists get away with their attitudes?

Or would you say FUCK YOU, CIRCULAR LOGIC, LOL

(I'm guessing the second choice, unless for some reason you think that rape victims have it so much better than people who merely face discrimination based on skin color, culture, national origin or ethnicity that they should be given at least as much decency and consideration)

OH WAIT, YOU PROBABLY DO THINK THAT RAPE VICTIMS JUST DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD THEY HAVE IT AND NEED TO SHUT UP OR OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN RANTING LIKE YOU HAVE! OH, WE'RE DOOMED UNLESS...

I can come up with an analogy you can actually grasp... okay... trying...

How about this? Happens a lot. WGW makes fun of something and the wankee follows the links back here and keeps mentioning how they aren't defensive about the thing we're making fun of. They do this while being very worked up and pointing out various reasons why WGW should just admit the thing is nice and not a steaming pile of shit. Every time it's pointed out they are talking an awful lot about how they aren't defensive, they talk about how they really, really aren't defensive, and say this proves they aren't defensive, because they keep saying they aren't defensive.

And they claim that if we say they're being defensive when they keep going on about how they aren't defensive, this is circular logic.

In this analogy, do you believe the wankee? Is it circular logic?

Or do you actually examine the views contained in their posts?

Huh?

Notanoni wrote:

How would you act around someone who got extremely defensive and upset when the idea that racism is a part of the wider culture was brought up?

Hmmmmmm?

Would you say that this person was helping racists get away with their attitudes?

Or would you say FUCK YOU, CIRCULAR LOGIC, LOL

I would say "circular logic", simply because I am pedantic and don't like the "If you aren't part of the solution, then you're part of the problem" style of argumentation. It proceeds from a lazy premise, and offers no ground for the other side to argue by casting everything in "black/white", "yes/no" styles.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Notanoni wrote:

How would you act around someone who got extremely defensive and upset when the idea that racism is a part of the wider culture was brought up?

Hmmmmmm?

Would you say that this person was helping racists get away with their attitudes?

Or would you say FUCK YOU, CIRCULAR LOGIC, LOL

I would say "circular logic", simply because I am pedantic and don't like the "If you aren't part of the solution, then you're part of the problem" style of argumentation. It proceeds from a lazy premise, and offers no ground for the other side to argue by casting everything in "black/white", "yes/no" styles.

Someone's who is acting like that is not being a neutral party, like you're suggesting. They are performing actions, and those actions certainly have a reinforcing effect on already-existing cultural attitudes.

Someone who said nothing at all would be a neutral party.

Notanoni wrote:

Someone who said nothing at all would be a neutral party.

It is possible to argue against something from a technical standpoint without necessarily agreeing with the merits of the opposite position.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Notanoni wrote:

Someone who said nothing at all would be a neutral party.

It is possible to argue against something from a technical standpoint without necessarily agreeing with the merits of the opposite position.

Yes, but you were addressing my example, where the unspecified person was being very defensive about the idea that racism exists as a part of the larger culture. That person was not simultaneously getting defensive about the exact opposite idea (if so, then the two actions would cancel out to a neutral, though very weird, position).

Therefore, they were pushing a side.

I can't see how you're trying to say an action like that is neutral.

Notanoni wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Notanoni wrote:

Someone who said nothing at all would be a neutral party.

It is possible to argue against something from a technical standpoint without necessarily agreeing with the merits of the opposite position.

Yes, but you were addressing my example, where the unspecified person was being very defensive about the idea that racism exists as a part of the larger culture. That person was not simultaneously getting defensive about the exact opposite idea (if so, then the two actions would cancel out to a neutral, though very weird, position).

Now you're engaging in "moving target" debate. You added an argument that was not discussed at all in your first post in order to advance your claim that I am incorrect.

You can say someone's argument is baloney without a) saying the opposite is true, or advocating for it or b) necessarily disagreeing with the underlying principles. Happens all the time in political blogs. People will claim X, then use an absolutely ludicrous example to prove that X exists. I may agree that X exists, but will argue against them because they are using something that doesn't prove X exists or doesn't exist.

Notanoni wrote:

How would you act around someone who got extremely defensive and upset when the idea that racism is a part of the wider culture was brought up?

Would you say that this person was helping racists get away with their attitudes?

Or would you say FUCK YOU, CIRCULAR LOGIC, LOL

1. I'm not defensive or upset, I'm disagreeing with you. Learn the difference.

2. I would not disagree if they brought up racism as part of a wider culture, but if they called the culture a 'racist culture' overall I would disagree.

3. I never said fuck you, stop attempting to characterize me as the one who started throwing around insults and being combative. That was you.

Notanoni wrote:

OH WAIT, YOU PROBABLY DO THINK THAT RAPE VICTIMS JUST DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD THEY HAVE IT AND NEED TO SHUT UP OR OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN RANTING LIKE YOU HAVE! OH, WE'RE DOOMED UNLESS...

Stop putting words in my mouth because you don't have a leg to stand on.

Notanoni wrote:

I can come up with an analogy you can actually grasp... okay... trying...

How about this? Happens a lot. WGW makes fun of something and the wankee follows the links back here and keeps mentioning how they aren't defensive about the thing we're making fun of. They do this while being very worked up and pointing out various reasons why WGW should just admit the thing is nice and not a steaming pile of shit. Every time it's pointed out they are talking an awful lot about how they aren't defensive, they talk about how they really, really aren't defensive, and say this proves they aren't defensive, because they keep saying they aren't defensive.

And they claim that if we say they're being defensive when they keep going on about how they aren't defensive, this is circular logic.

In this analogy, do you believe the wankee? Is it circular logic?

I grasp your analogy and that's how I know it's absurdly flawed.

I did not track down this website explicitly because it did something that offended me, clearly looking for a fight and trying to defend my work. I frequent this website as-is, and something was posted on it, so I responded. I stated my position, and continue to defend it because no one has presented a more agreeable alternative. I am defensive of my position, yes, but only because people disagreed, and I then attempt to better explain myself and my thought processes, as opposed to the fanbrat, who simply whines about how mean we are and how we just don't understand their work.

Oh, by the way, this post is the first time anyone has called me defensive so far. So it's kind of maybe all in your head, darling.

Notanoni wrote:

Or do you actually examine the views contained in their posts?

Yes, I do. And that's how I know I don't agree with them. Do you really think that everyone thinks the same way, and that if they just have arguments spelled out for the in an idiot-proof manner they'll all suddenly agree? Because they won't. That is not how people work.

Now on to people who aren't terrible at this.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Ok. Hedonist. I want to ask you something.

You honestly don't hear "she was asking for it" regularly? Honestly? No one around you ever says, "Well, the guy who did it was pretty bad, but she really shouldn't have been out so late/wearing that skirt/being a tease/going to that club."?

1. Thank you for not personally attacking me or shoving words in my mouth.

2. I won't say I've never heard this because I have, but I don't hear it often. Maybe because I've had this conversation I'll notice it more, but I honestly have not heard it enough to say that it is the prevailing narrative in society. Note that I'm not denying that it is a narrative, merely that it is the most prevalent in society.

TheHedonist wrote:

2. I won't say I've never heard this because I have, but I don't hear it often. Maybe because I've had this conversation I'll notice it more, but I honestly have not heard it enough to say that it is the prevailing narrative in society. Note that I'm not denying that it is a narrative, merely that it is the most prevalent in society.

Not just to you, Hedonist, but to everyone.

Attitudes can be localised. Yes, we have television and internet, but attitudes are going to be different in, say, San Francisco, than in the backwoods of some hick town.
Saying "society" assumes the whole world. You see different things in your society from your perspective, others see differently.

It may very well be other posters seeing through rape-tinted glasses, or it may just be local attitudes. I live in a heavily Mennonite town. These people seriously hate showing off the body, and will probably call girls whoresluts for wearing fairly average tank tops and shorts more often than you would hear closer into the city. Then again, I also live in an area that has a lower rape rate than the national average, so when a story comes out, it's a pretty Big Deal, and few people will blame the clothing the woman is wearing.

Moral to the story: people's perceptions of things are different because localisation is different.

I know that this is going to make at least half the board mad at me, but oh well.

I hate the words ‘rape culture’. The words first off make no sense to me (I think partly due to my field of study) and secondary it makes it sound like something normal, we shouldn’t care about it because meh, it’s just part of the culture. He did it because it’s the culture. To me it’s almost as bad as people saying that someone deserved to be raped because of something they did. But it’s more “Meh she should have expected it since we’re in the rape culture” or “well men are raised in the rape culture so they have no choice.”

It could just be me though.

Also, I think that sometimes people do stupid stuff that gets them hurt or raped. Do they deserve it? Not at all. But sometimes you need to not do something just to be safe, such as don’t leave your drink unattended because there ARE people in the world who will want to hurt you.

*gets off her soapbox*

So where is the list of ways not to rape people, to go with the list of ways not to get raped?

bleachedblackcat wrote:

To me it’s almost as bad as people saying that someone deserved to be raped because of something they did.

[...]

Also, I think that sometimes people do stupid stuff that gets them hurt or raped.

Cyberwulf wrote:

So where is the list of ways not to rape people, to go with the list of ways not to get raped?

Yeah, don't be evil. People rape others because they want to, there's not a list of ways to keep them from hurting people just like there isn't a list to keep people from murdering others. But you know what? I'm not going to go help Ted if he can't put stuff into his car.

You can sometimes do something that keeps you from being murdered OR raped. Sometimes it's the same thing, but it's not your fault when it happens. It's the other person's fault. Of course I err on the side of being a paranoid fucknut so what do I know?

Edit: Maybe I should explain what I mean more. You can do things to keep yourself safe but it's not always going to keep you safe. It might lessen the chances of being hit by a car or having someone come in and steal your TV or be raped. It's not your fault when it happens, it's the other person's fault. It's just that we live in a world that people will want to hurt you in some way and it's good to be on your toes.

Sorry, I've been sick for about two weeks and I'm not sure if I'm making any sense at all.

bleachedblackcat wrote:

I hate the words ‘rape culture’. The words first off make no sense to me (I think partly due to my field of study) and secondary it makes it sound like something normal, we shouldn’t care about it because meh, it’s just part of the culture. He did it because it’s the culture. To me it’s almost as bad as people saying that someone deserved to be raped because of something they did. But it’s more “Meh she should have expected it since we’re in the rape culture” or “well men are raised in the rape culture so they have no choice.”

We already addressed this point. Twice.

bleachedblackcat wrote:

You can sometimes do something that keeps you from being murdered OR raped. Sometimes it's the same thing, but it's not your fault when it happens. It's the other person's fault. Of course I err on the side of being a paranoid fucknut so what do I know?

Edit: Maybe I should explain what I mean more. You can do things to keep yourself safe but it's not always going to keep you safe. It might lessen the chances of being hit by a car or having someone come in and steal your TV or be raped. It's not your fault when it happens, it's the other person's fault. It's just that we live in a world that people will want to hurt you in some way and it's good to be on your toes.

This sounds incredibly wishy-washy. I do see what you're getting at, though, but the trouble is that, as you said, those things aren't always going to keep you safe, so saying that someone did something stupid and "got themselves raped", followed by "but taking precautions might not help, anyway", smacks of victim blaming and giving up on ever changing anything. A common way to blame the victim:

"You shouldn't have left your drink unattended."

"I really needed to pee."

"You should've had your friend watch it."

"She was drunk and forgot."

"Then you should have ordered a new one."

"I was drunk, too."

"You shouldn't have been drinking so much."

And it goes on. Don't be in that neighborhood. Don't wear that outfit. Don't smile, don't flirt, don't talk to strangers. And what if you were smiling and flirting because you wanted to get to know that man better, or maybe thought sex might be a possibility later on, only to find out you don't click? You shouldn't have lead him on, nice girls don't do that. You shouldn't have been walking home alone. You were raped by the male friend you trusted to walk you home and protect you? Well, you know, you've probably been sending him mixed signals. Really, you shouldn't ever be alone with a man.

What all those "precautions" really boil down to, is DON'T GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITH A VAGINA. BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU, AND IT WILL BE YOUR OWN FAULT FOR EXISTING AS A WOMAN.

Quote :

Sorry, I've been sick for about two weeks and I'm not sure if I'm making any sense at all.

You're making some sense, as I said, but somehow I don't think it's the kind of sense you want to be making.

Sakurelf wrote:

Everything you said.

Okay, fair point. I can agree to all of that. Let me say, then, that I do not believe it is the prevailing culture in the area around me and not presume to speak for anyone else.

maladroit_mooncalf wrote:

[Good explanations of victim blaming and such]

What all those "precautions" really boil down to, is DON'T GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITH A VAGINA. BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU, AND IT WILL BE YOUR OWN FAULT FOR EXISTING AS A WOMAN.

Some of the people who identify me as a women do this to me, and it's insulting and irritating.
I also happen to know a guy who was roofied and sexually assaulted, so this derpy "rape prevention precautions" should probably be given out to everyone, not just women identified.

Oh wait, sorry
men don't get raped, they get lucky
hurrrrrrrrrrr

Verandering wrote:

maladroit_mooncalf wrote:

[Good explanations of victim blaming and such]

What all those "precautions" really boil down to, is DON'T GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITH A VAGINA. BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU, AND IT WILL BE YOUR OWN FAULT FOR EXISTING AS A WOMAN.

Some of the people who identify me as a women do this to me, and it's insulting and irritating.
I also happen to know a guy who was roofied and sexually assaulted, so this derpy "rape prevention precautions" should probably be given out to everyone, not just women identified.

Oh wait, sorry
men don't get raped, they get lucky
hurrrrrrrrrrr

Exactly. Only women get raped, and there's no such thing as trans/genderqueer folk.

Verandering wrote:

maladroit_mooncalf wrote:

[Good explanations of victim blaming and such]

What all those "precautions" really boil down to, is DON'T GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITH A VAGINA. BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU, AND IT WILL BE YOUR OWN FAULT FOR EXISTING AS A WOMAN.

Some of the people who identify me as a women do this to me, and it's insulting and irritating.
I also happen to know a guy who was roofied and sexually assaulted, so this derpy "rape prevention precautions" should probably be given out to everyone, not just women identified.

Oh wait, sorry
men don't get raped, they get lucky
hurrrrrrrrrrr

Yeah, I would've included that, but there were already complaints about how every thread about something bad happening to a woman turns into pointing out that bad things can happen to men, too. I actually remember a thread, either here or on one of the old boards, about a man getting raped and the first few comments were generally along the line of "Wow, I want to move where he lives."