11-Year-Old Gang-Raped. NYT posts controversial article about it.

Alhazred wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Alhazred wrote:

No, I just don't take the so-called feminists on the board seriously.

No, it's just all you have are insults.

Keep telling yourself that while you do nothing but try to will reality into being something it's not, and while Just Chipper answers me with nothing even resembling an argument. Hmm, more double standards...

Come to think of it, it's also rather interesting that I've made worse and much more childish insults at Cy, at random, without attracting nearly this much butthurt over it. Suddenly it's offensive because there's an argument involved

It's interesting that Cyberwulf has barely said anything to you in this thread, yet you have mentioned her in almost every post you've made thus far.

Quote :

No, I didn't.

O rly?

Allyearlierinthisthread wrote:

Why is there zero responsibility with the populace to prepare for it, to take preventive measures against being victimized by it, and to have any goddamn common sense about it? The argument here is always "it's the rapist's responsibility not to rape." That's all well and good, and in a perfect world it would be the standard everyone is held to, but the Rape Culture camp seems intent on believing that morality can save rape victims if morality had a more solid grounding in society. This is ignoring the reality that it doesn't and will not for our lifetime, the lifetimes of our children, and many more after that. Why is it that rape prevention is about pushing a fantasy where rapists, people who by definition do not care about morality, would be stopped by morality instead of pushing for people to avoid actions that make victimization easier?

Quote :

No, I'm continuing to insist that the part of the board talking about rape culture is a nut brigade wanking over absurd generalizations, wishful thinking and an extremely black and white worldview.

And I've explained why this is a strawman, pointed out why it's wrong, yet you have conveniently ignored those arguments and continued to keep that strawman sitting in your field.

Ally wrote:

Doobie wrote:

In your first post on the matter, you implied that part of the responsibility for rape happening lies with the victim.

No, I didn't. I've never implied any such thing.

Allyearlierinthisthread wrote:

Why is there zero responsibility with the populace to prepare for it, to take preventive measures against being victimized by it, and to have any goddamn common sense about it? The argument here is always "it's the rapist's responsibility not to rape." That's all well and good, and in a perfect world it would be the standard everyone is held to, but the Rape Culture camp seems intent on believing that morality can save rape victims if morality had a more solid grounding in society. This is ignoring the reality that it doesn't and will not for our lifetime, the lifetimes of our children, and many more after that. Why is it that rape prevention is about pushing a fantasy where rapists, people who by definition do not care about morality, would be stopped by morality instead of pushing for people to avoid actions that make victimization easier?

It's probably a wise idea to not try to pretend you didn't say something when everything you've said is just a click away.

Quote :

(for the millionth time, responsible parenting would've stopped this from happening. You can wank all you want about everything else, but if the 11-year old's mother had actually been supervising her, and not letting her out of sight for hours of a time, and kept track of who she was associating with so she could stop her from associating with men twice her age, which any responsible parent would do, this wouldn't have happened. Responsible parents would not look at a situation like this and think "since it falls on the men not to rape, I can trust them not to rape."

How do we know this mom was horribly neglectful and irresponsible anyway? I mean, it's heavily implied in the New York Times article, but the NYT article also implies that the way the girl dressed caused the rape.

Quote :

And that is retarded, because rapists don't give a flying fuck. You keep retreating on the notion that most rapes don't involve obvious rapists, but the fact that this case alone could've been prevented by something other than the rapists deciding not to rape because it would be wrong disproves the notion that the problem is that black and white.

I'm not saying preventive measures can't be taken against rape, what I'm saying (and what every other "femiloony" is saying) is that we don't give two shits of a flying fuck what preventative measures victims do or do not take. I don't know how I can put it any more clearly. You don't know that this rape could have been prevented if "the mom was more responsible" or if the girl hadn't been dressing 'like a slut".

Quote :

Flat-out wrong, because while it shouldn't be an issue, it often is an issue. It's an issue if a rapist saw a woman in naughty nightware and couldn't control himself. It's an issue if a rapist picked the first target with a vagina he saw and uses her clothes as an excuse when caught. It's an issue when a rapist rapes someone because they have easy access to that person socially, because somewhere else, the first two rapists still exist.

1) No it isn't.

2) If a rapist rapes someone because they were wearing a tube top and a miniskirt than that is his fault for raping her in the first place. Can't control himself? Just fuck off.

3) If he uses her clothes as an excuse it's a shitty excuse and it should be treated as a shitty excuse. It's a "non-issue". If I was brought into court for bludgeoning a man to death with a brick, and my defense was "his shoes didn't match his pants and I couldn't control myself", would his shoes be a big deal?

What are you arguing for, since apparently you're not arguing that rape is partially the victims responsibility?

Should all women just wear baggy sweats everywhere? Never leave their house after 8? Carry a gun and a can of mace everywhere? Never see a boy in private? That way all rapes ever would end? OWAIT... they wouldn't.

Quote :

And you're wrong, because this is a gross over-generalization. You're actively refusing to look at every case individually and consider the factors therein while parroting that the same set of rules should apply to all cases regardless of variables. This very case alone proves that there is a possible circumstance for a rape to have been prevented by something other than the rapists adhering to morals.

You know what else could have prevented this rape, 100%?

... this shit will change your fucking life....

.... holy shit lookout....

holyfuckingshitdood...

You wanna know?

If the people wouldn't have raped her OSHI....

Quote :

Oh look, you don't understand my argument at all, as this is not and has never been my argument. My argument has been that the variables between cases of rape make it more complicated than "rapists shouldn't rape," and depending on those variables, preventive measures can, in some cases, stop rape.

Yeah, preventive measures are cool and stuff in some situations.

But you know what else can prevent rape, 100% in all situations?

If rapists wouldn't rape.

Quote :

As for the strawman accusation: You're applying extreme tunnel-vision and generalization to a topic that in reality is complex and not easy to break down into neat chunks. When confronted on this your sole argument is to insist that the neat chunks work fine despite all indications in reality otherwise. I don't need to make you a strawman, you are a strawman.

Alright. Please inform me in your infinite fucking wisdom how the issue is infinitely more complex than my tiny little pea-brain can understand. Please, educate me.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Alhazred wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Alhazred wrote:

No, I just don't take the so-called feminists on the board seriously.

No, it's just all you have are insults.

Keep telling yourself that while you do nothing but try to will reality into being something it's not, and while Just Chipper answers me with nothing even resembling an argument. Hmm, more double standards...

Come to think of it, it's also rather interesting that I've made worse and much more childish insults at Cy, at random, without attracting nearly this much butthurt over it. Suddenly it's offensive because there's an argument involved

It's interesting that Cyberwulf has barely said anything to you in this thread, yet you have mentioned her in almost every post you've made thus far.

I smell unrequited love/hate.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

The question I think should be asked is, are there any failsafe preventative measures for rape? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, there are not.

Well, actually ... yeah. There are.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

Flat-out wrong, because while it shouldn't be an issue, it often is an issue. It's an issue if a rapist saw a woman in naughty nightware and couldn't control himself. It's an issue if a rapist picked the first target with a vagina he saw and uses her clothes as an excuse when caught. It's an issue when a rapist rapes someone because they have easy access to that person socially, because somewhere else, the first two rapists still exist.

1) No it isn't.

2) If a rapist rapes someone because they were wearing a tube top and a miniskirt than that is his fault for raping her in the first place. Can't control himself? Just fuck off.

3) If he uses her clothes as an excuse it's a shitty excuse and it should be treated as a shitty excuse. It's a "non-issue". If I was brought into court for bludgeoning a man to death with a brick, and my defense was "his shoes didn't match his pants and I couldn't control myself", would his shoes be a big deal?

Isn't it profoundly insulting to men to say that when a man catches sight of a woman in revealing dress, he surrenders all control to his erection? That it is not he, but his phallus, that rules the situation?

Cactus Wren wrote:

Isn't it profoundly insulting to men to say that when a man catches sight of a woman in revealing dress, he surrenders all control to his erection? That it is not he, but his phallus, that rules the situation?

It would be if they actually found it insulting and didn't constantly use it as an excuse when they do something reprehensible. Because if a woman tells them they should find it insulting, we all know that's only 3/5ths of a real opinion.

Men have never been in a position where they're threatened by being reduced to their presumed external sex organ. The presumption of a penis has only, in general cultural history, given an individual entitlement to a privileged class and been associated with power, control, subjection, and so on.

The reason why there is and most likely always will be genderherp is because of the ridiculous amounts of things we invest in the body and its parts, be they genitals, uterus, or chest.

Or anything, really.
How many of you think, or know someone who thinks, body modification (of any sort, including cosmetic plastic surgery) is somehow some sort of shameful, less desirable sin?

A rapist IS a rapist because he (or she) can't control themselves. Not because somebody's walking around looking sexy.

Hey, I bet a few of the guys on this board have seen girls walking around looking sexy, and guess what - they couldn't control themselves and got a hard-on. Does that make them rapists? No, that makes them people with impulses.

The problem with the rape culture is that people tag the wrong thing as being its cause. They blame the victim for going out late at night wearing nice clothes, or maybe flirting with somebody.

Do you blame the beaten housewife for being hit by her husband? But then her son sees her being beaten, and he thinks that this aggression is the right way to assert power over other people. So he goes out and, to assert his strength, beats up somebody in the street.

Who do we blame? Do we blame the mother for not fighting back? Do we blame the father for setting a bad example? Do we blame the son for perpetrating the crime? Do we blame the victim for being out at that time in that place?

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just pin the blame on one single person? That would make all of this so much easier, and it's what people try to do. But none of this is the fault of one, single person.

There's the mother. Of course she should have been keeping a closer eye on who her daughter was hanging with and so on, but surely she's not to blame for the horrific rape that her daughter suffered.

There's the daughter, very young, going out and dressing like a tramp and associating with these people, but surely nobody's going to blame her for getting raped?

There's the rapists. But it sounds like they were egging each other on, trying to look big. Who was the ringleader?

It's more complicated than pointing at somebody and making an accusation. This is a problem with society.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

A rapist IS a rapist because he (or she) can't control themselves.

Harley ... no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

A rapist is a rapist because he CHOOSES TO RAPE.

Rape isn't something that "just happens", either to a victim or a perpetrator.

Possibly the rapes could have been prevented if the little girl's mother had known where she was. Possibly not.

Possibly the rapes would not have happened had the little girl not dressed, as you vilely put it, "like a tramp". Possibly not.

But, assuming there were eighteen rapists, eighteen rapes occurred.

And EVERY ONE of those rapes could have been prevented by a single act: a man's decision NOT TO RAPE.

A rapist is not a rapist because he "can't" control himself.

His phallus does not take control of his hands and force him to seize a struggling, frightened woman or child.

His erection does not take control of his legs and prevent him from walking away.

His penis does not take control of his voice and choke off the words, "Guys, she's just a kid, this is a bad idea."

A rapist is a rapist because he CHOOSES TO RAPE.

I repeat:

A RAPIST IS A RAPIST BECAUSE HE CHOOSES TO RAPE.

That's kinda what I meant in different words. A rapist is an individual who can't control their sexual impulse to fuck somebody and fucks them whether the person agrees or not.

Some people contemplate it but don't do it, therefore they keep themselves under control.

I'm pretty sure we mean the same thing, just different words.

I don't think we do, Harley, not as long as you keep using the word "can't".

A rapist is not someone who "can't control their sexual impulse to fuck somebody". Saying they "can't" puts the responsiblity outside of the rapist.

A rapist is someone who CAN control their sexual impulse to fuck somebody AND CHOOSES NOT TO.

"won't"
"doesn't"
etc.

Cactus Wren wrote:

I don't think we do, Harley, not as long as you keep using the word "can't".

A rapist is not someone who "can't control their sexual impulse to fuck somebody". Saying they "can't" puts the responsiblity outside of the rapist.

I would say that if they can't control their sexual impulses they have the obligation to learn to do so. Until they manage that, they have the obligation to keep themselves away from situations where their lack of control might cause problems, and, if necessary, get help from others to deal with the issue. Whether they have the self control necessary to restrain those impulses is irrelevant. They are still, ultimately, responsible for their actions.

Rape is all about sex and a rapist's sexual impulses. Yes. This is what it's all about.

How charming.

Did I mention she's trying to drum up support for a student dress code?

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Rape is all about sex and a rapist's sexual impulses. Yes. This is what it's all about.

Because obviously there is never more than one reason why people do things. Nor do different factors ever motivate different people to different degrees. That, plus telling people that there is one right answer that they should focus on never gets in the way of finding solutions to a problem, because we all know that one size fits all.

Anon wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Rape is all about sex and a rapist's sexual impulses. Yes. This is what it's all about.

Because obviously there is never more than one reason why people do things. Nor do different factors ever motivate different people to different degrees. That, plus telling people that there is one right answer that they should focus on never gets in the way of finding solutions to a problem, because we all know that one size fits all.

That was exactly what I said and that was my point.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

How charming.

Did I mention she's trying to drum up support for a student dress code?

Ok, so if this was about the victim's clothes being at fault, I hope this idiot's not advocating for uniforms that require girls to wear skirts since that might accidentally lead to a series of rapes by men with school girl fantasies.

Also, dude! How young does the victim have to be before there's no way to blame her?

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Anon wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Rape is all about sex and a rapist's sexual impulses. Yes. This is what it's all about.

Because obviously there is never more than one reason why people do things. Nor do different factors ever motivate different people to different degrees. That, plus telling people that there is one right answer that they should focus on never gets in the way of finding solutions to a problem, because we all know that one size fits all.

That was exactly what I said and that was my point.

Sorry, the bit where you're post was just below mine and I never assumed otherwise had me confused.

ETA: Just to clarify on what I was saying, I said that even if the main reason behind a rape was the rapist's inability to handle their sexual urges, they would still be responsible for their actions.

maladroit_mooncalf wrote:

Also, dude! How young does the victim have to be before there's no way to blame her?

I'm guessing under 39 weeks.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

maladroit_mooncalf wrote:

Also, dude! How young does the victim have to be before there's no way to blame her?

I'm guessing under 39 weeks.

Actually, I'm pretty sure at this point that someone would try to say she was wriggling suggestively while her diaper was changed.

maladroit_mooncalf wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

maladroit_mooncalf wrote:

Also, dude! How young does the victim have to be before there's no way to blame her?

I'm guessing under 39 weeks.

Actually, I'm pretty sure at this point that someone would try to say she was wriggling suggestively while her diaper was changed.

Let's just say 39 weeks into gestation. After that, she's a toothless temptress.

These sorts of people would blame a baby in the womb for making a women pregnant because some men are particuarly attracted to pregnant women, before they blamed the rapist for not controling himself.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

These sorts of people would blame a baby in the womb for making a women pregnant because some men are particuarly attracted to pregnant women, before they blamed the rapist for not controling himself.

Can someone translate this? 'Cause I sure don't understand what Harley is trying to say.

Lady Anne wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

These sorts of people would blame a baby in the womb for making a women pregnant because some men are particuarly attracted to pregnant women, before they blamed the rapist for not controling himself.

Can someone translate this? 'Cause I sure don't understand what Harley is trying to say.

I think she's expanding on the idea of babies being blamed for their own rapes, and saying that there are probably people who would blame a fetus for getting a woman raped by a pregnancy fetishist.

maladroit_mooncalf wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

These sorts of people would blame a baby in the womb for making a women pregnant because some men are particuarly attracted to pregnant women, before they blamed the rapist for not controling himself.

Can someone translate this? 'Cause I sure don't understand what Harley is trying to say.

I think she's expanding on the idea of babies being blamed for their own rapes, and saying that there are probably people who would blame a fetus for getting a woman raped by a pregnancy fetishist.

I dunno, I think they'd just blame the pregnant woman. I mean, after all, if that slut hadn't gotten herself pregnant then that poor helpless man would never have been turned on by her pregnant form, now would he?

Maladroit's got the most appropriate interpretation so far.

Although what I meant was that these people who blame women for 'turning men on' and 'asking' to be raped, would be so arrogant as to blame a baby in the womb for making a woman look pregnant and turning a pregnancy fetishist on, before they would blame the rapist.

That poor rapist. What a slut the woman is, to be pregnant.

After all, men are all complete martyrs to their hormones and can't possibly be blamed for giving in to pure sexual impulse or losing all self-control when a pretty girl walks by. It's the girl's fault for being pretty, walking by, or stepping out of the house in the first place.

There are people in the Right Wing who would say that sort of thing without being sarcastic.