| You Fall for the Rich and Powerful Type |
 You think that a bit of a conflict and drama makes a relationship interesting. You like to butt heads a bit. You truly want to have it all in life, and you expect that your partner has similar goals. You think ambition is sexy. |
How often is rape a "misunderstanding?"
Probably the two best comments are from Charles and Amanda. I'll include three comments, though.
This person came into my room, suggested we have sex, undressed me, and put a condom on me. I was seated throughout this entire situation.
After we finished, she left my room (as did I) and we returned to the party that was going on outside. She stayed at this part for another two hours, suggested we have sex again, and I declined. After this, she left. Three days later I summoned to the dean’s office and told there was an accusation of rape against me.
Despite the fact that I think the dean believed my side of the story, the fact is that the school itself had been receiving negative press for a higher than usual number of rapes on campus prior to my accusation.
Rather than take my side and explain to this girl (and I’m sure her parents) that they were not going to pursue any disciplinary action on my part, they conveniently expelled me, but without a specifically sexual charge (”inappropriate contact with another student” how nice of them), thus washing their hands of the matter and any related bad press/angry parents.
I have not spoken to her since that evening. I’m not really sure what motivated her to bring the accusation against me, other than potential embarrassment (I lived in a frat house at the time so many people knew what was happening in my room at the time, plus the refusal at the end of the evening). Anyway, knowing the rest of these details I would like to know again whether people would consider me a rapist?
I don’t even like bringing this dark part of my past into the light, but sometimes when I read rape related articles, people seem to be on some moral high horse about men’s culpability in these situation and I like to explain to them that sometimes people are accused of rape when they don’t think what they did was rape and have their lives ruined (at least temporarily in my case as several years later I am finally back in school to finish my degree).
- "Charles"
I think the reason why is pretty simple. They may not be rapists, but [men] have an interest in rape culture. Rape culture is linked to male privilege, and so men perceive maintaining privilege as predicated on maintaining rape culture. In specifics, there’s also the problem of them not wanting to hold other men accountable for raping. That doesn’t seem to make sense, unless you realize that rapists are often their friends or role models, such as professional athletes who rape.
Thinking about the cases I’ve seen where people snap into place to defend a rapist or domestic abuser, which often requires abandoning the victim, I’d say that the way rape culture protects male privilege becomes obvious. Men have higher social status than women. Therefore when people feel they have to choose a side—which is how rape or domestic violence is experienced by people in the social circle where it happens—they pick the guy and cut the girl loose. And when his guilt is undeniable, they often react by cutting them both loose.
The social privilege that allows men to rape and the victims get blamed for it also allows men to do all sorts of things and be praised for it. Things that even non-rapist men want, like the right to be an asshole, or even the right to be assertive. For women, the idea of “bros before hos” is demeaning to our very humanity, but for men, it can often seem like a warm blanket of protection.
- Amanda Marcotte
(Quoting another commenter)
'No situation WHATSOEVER “implies consent.” EVER. Under any circumstances.'
Bullshit.
Period. Plain and simple.
People know what rape is. They’re not stupid, they don’t need some effing “Ph.D” in Behavioral Sciences or some wanna be judge with a JD to tell them.
People are out there fucking right now, while I write this. How much you want to bet that the overwhelming majority, 99.9999% of them are doing it without the woman [explicitly] having said “yes” first, and neither one of them is going to think of it as rape?
Get a grip on yourself!
-TakesTwoToTango
Recent attempts to unveil the gender of Moritheil have met with confusion. Join us now as we consult an expert who strives to uncover the secret!
[02:50] Flying*: (...I cannot tell whether you are male or female from that picture)
[02:50] Flying*: (I sincerely apologize)
[02:50] Flying*: (THE SHIRT IS BAGGY OKAY)
[02:50] moritheil: EPIC WIN for androgyny!
[02:53] Flying*: You're not gonna tell me, are you.
[03:02] Flying*: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF*splode*
[03:04] Flying*: I kiiiiiiiinda lean towards female?
[03:05] Flying*: A little, maybe?
[03:05] Flying*: YOUR HIPS AND SHOULDERS NEARLY FORM A LINE.
[03:05] Flying*: EHFRETHEGSGAS.
[03:14] moritheil: :3
Convenience is the ability to order uranium online.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/21/executive-pay-bonuses-goldmansachs
When the government turns over every other decade - with violence and executions of prior officials - standards will fail.
DJ Antoine - 'Work' - 2008
Far East Movement - 'Like a G6' - 2010
Notice any similarities?
Wikileaks released a video that has been verified as actual combat footage of US forces in Iraq. What makes this particular video different is that it shows the killings of two Reuters journalists, numerous civilians, and a family (a vehicle with children inside stops to help a wounded civilian and is fired upon; the children are injured.)
At gather.com, one of the top Google suggested results for the Wikileaks video, John Grenier-Ferris offers this commentary:
I wasn't outraged. My politics didn't come into view. I didn't think it was outrageous. I didn't think it was murder. I wasn't even insulted by the crew's comments. I thought, this is what war is like, and I'm glad I'm looking at it here and not there. And I do think it's a good thing when we know what our government and military is doing.
Alfredo Avalos adds:
Maybe it is just me, but if I was a civilian in Iraq (whether if I am Iraqi or just working there), I would spend every waking moment getting out of that country, the same would apply in any country in war. Because that is what happens in war, even before they invented helicopters and machine guns. From my perspective, being a journalist at a war zone would be a death wish.
Get Your War On, a satirical criticism of the Iraq War, previously posted this assessment:
It's quite compelling, especially when we look at these sorts of comments. Evidently, Mr. Avalos has no problem with blaming the victims: for him, war is a clear cut situation, where the civilian populace deserve no sympathy. It doesn't matter who started it; once it happens, standing around is both stupid and suicidal. Death, according to this logic, is a fair punishment for someone who doesn't manage to get out once the war starts. Never mind that this is their home; never mind that they have no place to go, they don't know anybody elsewhere, and they have few skills that are in demand elsewhere. Clearly, they were in the wrong place in the wrong time, so they deserved death.
Grenier-Ferris perhaps inadvertently points out one of the most important pieces of this kind of thinking: "My politics didn't come into it." War is a matter of policy, and policy is formed by the political process, but Grenier-Ferris declines to accept or assign anyone any responsibility for the killings. To him, they occur in some kind of moral vacuum.
What might this remind us of?
“I was in an absolute sphere, so there was neither affirmation nor negation, neither good nor evil” - Lt. Col. Aizawa Saburo, at a trial for killing a superior officer, 1935.
He was in an altered state, he argued, and so it was not evil of him to kill General Tetsuzan Nagata. The courts of Japan did not buy his argument, and Aizawa was executed by firing squad. Curiously, this did not diminish Aizawa's status in some peoples' eyes. Playing the part of a hero to the end, Aizawa's last words were, "It is proper that a soldier should die to the sound of rifles. Flesh disintegrates but the soul lives on. Seven, even eight lives more will I devote to this imperial land."
Are those who rush to excuse the gunners in the video very different from those who rushed to excuse Aizawa Saburo? The societies are different, but the behavior is the same.
Why do we do it? Why do we put murderers in power, enshrine them as heroes, revere them as saints? Perhaps it's because we see war as an inevitability. If war is inevitable, then the soldier is the one who takes a bullet for the civilian. A man who essentially volunteers to take a bullet so you don't have to is a man that you can't really withhold respect from. And yet when this is institutionalized - when we see not Aizawa Saburo the individual and assassin, but a faceless soldier in a military uniform, automatically deserving of our respect - we eventually find ourselves making excuses for some truly heinous individuals.
In the UK, 16 year olds are not minors, but now (with the Coroners and Justice Act) one may go to jail for having suggestive drawings of fictitious 16 and 17 year olds.
The Coroners and Justice act expands on anti-pedophile laws which originally covered real depictions of real kids. Now, with this, fictitious depictions of minors are similarly made illegal, even though no one is being harmed. "Child" is now defined as anyone under 18, when their age of consent is 16. The kind of depiction has also been expanded to theoretically include anything sexually suggestive, rather than explicit sex acts.
Let that sink in. Presently in the UK:
ACTUALLY having sex with a 16 year old is perfectly legal, regardless of your age.
Suggestive ARTWORK of a 17 year old, on the other hand - such as a drawing of a girl in bikini or lingere - could land you in jail. Even if you are a 16 year old yourself.
Is there any logic to this? If the real thing is legal, why is something that only suggests the act illegal? Are they trying to sell more condoms? Does someone in Parliament really hate artists? As a lawmaker, what would compel you to address the issue of art which offends you before turning an eye to protecting real girls? If we accept the idea that some people are so young they ought to be protected, wouldn't we want to protect the ACTUAL PEOPLE over the CONCEPT of people?
Yes, this is supposed to be discretionary and in theory these powers are not to be abused to send random people to jail. The hope is that their use will be aimed at the worst of the worst. But the uneven enforcement of laws is completely counter to the idea of equal rights for all, and nothing exists to guarantee that this is the way these powers will be used.
This legal absurdity does little to bolster the image of Britons as a free people.
Do monsters exist?
The court heard how they came across their two young victims at a playground and lured them to a secluded area with the promise of showing them a dead fox. Once there, the brothers subjected them to a vicious 90-minute attack using branches, sharpened sticks, barbed wire, broken glass, rocks, and pieces of metal.
Both victims were repeatedly hit with tree branches and fists as they lay cowering on the ground, the court heard. Their faces were stamped on and heavy rocks were dropped on their heads. At one point, the battered and bloodied victims were forced to take off their clothes and perform sexual acts together. One of the victims eventually sustained a deep wound to his arm, into which a lit cigarette was placed by the older brother. When the terrified nine-year-old victim asked to use the toilet, he was forced to urinate on his friend's face.
The older victim was left for dead after a piece of a broken sink was dropped on his head. He could not be interviewed by police until 10 days after the assault due to the seriousness of his injuries.
The two brothers have shown no remorse for what they did.
- from PressTV
Recent Comments