High profiles murders in the U.S: what is going on?

[Mr. Tea]

Nobody said it was "just about killing." Rapists are often non-violent *technically* (they don't end up punching or beating the victim), but the very act of rape whether a beating ensues or not is a violent act.

But it's also a sexual act, isn't it? There's no reason why it can't be both sexual and violent. One does not preclude the other.

 

[nomadthethird]

No one can do anything that *causes* them to get arrested. Getting caught with a kilo of pot is not the *cause* of being arrested. The intention of the police officer to arrest causes arrest. But you should be able to have as much pot as you like.

Wrestling tigers does not *cause* getting eaten. It is the intention of annoyed tigers to eat you that causes getting eating. If you think you can wrestle tigers without getting eaten go ahead but don't project your bloody minded foolhardiness onto others.

(not analogies, just for amusement)

So, pragmatism then? Isn't that essentially what people here were advocating?

You just keep making yourself look worse. If I were you I'd stop talking.

It's not a problem of "a few sexist judges", it's a full-spectrum societal problem. We cull juries out of society, and it's juries of a woman's peers who often WILL NOT convict a rapist. How many times need we go over the statistics? When you do the math, if you assume a 40% report rate (which many dispute and claim is lower), only > 3% of rapes are successfully prosecuted and end in jail time.

Women are not criminals for merely existing in the social sphere. Women don't get raped because men are sooo horny and they lack self-control so much that women should have to stay indoors alone with other women otherwise they might *cause* themselves to get raped. In fact, a woman is most likely to be raped IN HER OWN HOME by someone she knows or is related to. (How many times do I need to repeat this?)

A woman out with friends IS NOTHING LIKE A PERSON WHO BUYS A KILO OF DRUGS. (People buy weed in ounces and pounds, not kilos, but okkkkk.) A woman is not "breaking the law" by having a fun night out and drinking. She is not putting herself in danger of being raped by some criminal act, she is simply existing and crossing paths with a rapist.

It's entirely ridiculous to compare a woman who gets raped with a person who buys a kilo of drugs and gets caught.

Shows me where your mind is at, really, though, so thanks.

Ignore.

 

[nomadthethird]

But it's also a sexual act, isn't it? There's no reason why it can't be both sexual and violent. One does not preclude the other.

Nope. It's a sexual act in the mind of the rapist. It's a horrifying violation of a person's autonomy for the victim.

The act is called "rape" and not "forced sex" for a reason.

 

[nomadthethird]

If someone cornered you at knife point, then stuck a dildo up your ass and raped you with it be something you'd call "sex", Mr. Tea?

 

[nomadthethird]

Of course. But you're not going to be able to tell criminals "Hey, don't break the law, it's bad. That's why we have those laws, guys!" It's a lot easier to give advice to people who want to avoid becoming victims in the first place.

As a matter of fact, most public service announcements and commercials about drugs do exactly this--warn people that they shouldn't sell drugs or do them because of the consequences, legal and otherwise.

They don't have commercials that say "a person might come up to you at a playground and sell you drugs, therefore do not go to playgrounds."

 

[swears]

Once again, our culture of victim blaming has emerged with ANOTHER "blame the victim" tactic JUST AS STUPID as "but she wore a tight dress once four years ago" and "she's had sex before so she must like sex" in the form of "women who drink too much just make themselves targets."

It's always easier for men to try to come up with ways to blame women for not guarding and locking their pussy than it is for them to realize that victim blaming is WHAT RAPISTS USE TO JUSTIFY RAPE.

It's not blame. It's not saying it's the woman's fault. It's just the fact that we can't police everybody all the time and keep tabs on every man in the world to make sure he's not going to commit a sexual offence, precautions have to be taken. I think going out and getting shitfaced without at least one sober friend is a dangerous idea for anyone.

Then why not give women "advice" not to know any men, or have a father, brother, or boyfriend?

Statistically that's the single most important factor in a woman's rape, after all.

You can tell women that if they are being abused by one of those people, they should tell someone.

 

[Mr. Tea]

If someone cornered you at knife point, then stuck a dildo up your ass and raped you with it be something you'd call "sex", Mr. Tea?

Well it would be a violent and non-consensual instance of something some people do for sexual pleasure, yes. Alternatively, you could say that it's not sex even when done consensually, depending on how narrow or wide your definition of 'sex' is: it could be intercourse alone or it could include all the associated foreplay, afterplay, paraphilias and so on.

 

[nomadthethird]

It's not blame. It's not saying it's the woman's fault. It's just the fact that we can't police everybody all the time and keep tabs on every man in the world to make sure he's not going to commit a sexual offence, precautions have to be taken. I think going out and getting shitfaced without at least one sober friend is a dangerous idea for anyone.



You can tell women that if they are being abused by one of those people, they should tell someone.

Both of these ideas are awfully simplistic.

Saying that a woman, rather than a rapist, needs to restrict their activities because they might "cause" themselves to be raped is "blaming the victim." There is no way around this by having good intentions. You might not be trying to blame victims when you emphasis female actions that precede rapes as if they LEAD TO rape. Because a woman drinking does not in and of itself lead to rape. A woman drinking (or doing anything) around a rapist does. Emphasising the activities of a woman before she gets raped, in the face of the facts, even though rapists are statistically more likely to be drunk than their victims are, is victim blaming whether you like it or not.

What exactly would be the difference between saying "women shouldn't wear a miniskirt, because this might attract a rapists attention" and saying "women shouldn't get drunk because they might get raped if they're drunk (the chances are slim, statistically, let's remember)...? I can't picture you telling women to wear burkas, Swears.

A culture of victim blaming actually gives rapists more tools for justifying their crimes. If you survey men, something like 5% will admit that they've ever raped or sexually assaulted a woman. Which is funny because women are raped (not just reported rapes, but all of them) at a rate of something like 35% or most would say more. With only a 2% recant/unfounded accusation rate.

Sad thing is most rapists don't even believe they've raped anyone. This has a lot to do with the myth of the big bad stranger rapist in an alley, hiding in wait for the next lone woman in stilettos to walk by. (This sort of situation accounts for less than 25% of all rape cases.) Men think if they're not beating a stranger into submission, they're not "raping" them.

 

[nomadthethird]

Well it would be a violent and non-consensual instance of something some people do for sexual pleasure, yes. Alternatively, you could say that it's not sex even when done consensually, depending on how narrow or wide your definition of 'sex' is: it could be intercourse alone or it could include all the associated foreplay, afterplay, paraphilias and so on.

Do you know what the definition of rape is by any chance?

It doesn't have to be a body part, it can be an object.

Let's remove the dildo from this, and ask you whether you'd call it sex if a huge fat sweating smelly guy held you down and ass raped you?

Wouldn't feel much like "sex" the thing you do lovingly with your girlfriend, now, would it?

 

[Mr. Tea]

It's not blame. It's not saying it's the woman's fault.

Thankyou. Nomad's arguments in this thread have revolved around this huge straw man figure who blames women - that is to say, holds them ethically accountable - for bad things that happen to them at the hands of violent criminals. Maybe some people still think that, and if they do it's indefensibly screwed up. But that's not what I'm saying and I don't think it's what anyone else here is saying either.

Let me summarise as follows: it is possible, through your own actions or inactions, to affect the likelihood of something horrible happening to you but it does not follow that you are morally culpable or 'to blame' in the event that something does happen which might not have happened had you acted differently.

Being careless is not a 'sin' that makes the person 'guilty' of it 'deserving' of 'punishment'.

But you (nomad) are clearly so worked up by now that you're obviously just going to carry on chanting the mantra that I'm "blaming women for getting raped", that they "deserve it for getting drunk", that "men can't help themselves", blah blah ad nauseam...

 

[Mr. Tea]

A culture of victim blaming actually gives rapists more tools for justifying their crimes. If you survey men, something like 5% will admit that they've ever raped or sexually assaulted a woman. Which is funny because women are raped (not just reported rapes, but all of them) at a rate of something like 35% or most would say more. With only a 2% recant/unfounded accusation rate.

What? How is that 'funny'? Has it occurred to you that maybe some rapists have raped more than one women? Or are you seriously hinting that a third of all men have committed a rape?

 

[nomadthethird]

Fuck you, Mr. Tea.

Fuck. You.

You are one of the most persistently ignorant, status quo preaching, misinformed, completely out of control sexist people I've ever read on the internet.

I try patiently to explain why you people are obviously just PARTICIPATING in blaming victims, and you still just don't want to get it. Because getting it would entail admitting that it's MEN WHO ARE RAPISTS and women can never, ever, do anything to deserve, or CAUSE, or make a situation where men can rape them. Rapists make these situations.

If you want to persist arrogantly in ignorance, be my guest. Speaking reason has never stopped you before today, why would it stop you now?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Let's remove the dildo from this, and ask you whether you'd call it sex if a huge fat sweating smelly guy held you down and ass raped you?

Wouldn't feel much like "sex" the thing you do lovingly with your girlfriend, now, would it?

Well if I were exclusively gay then the physical act itself - outside of any question of intent or consensuality - would certainly be closer to my idea of 'sex' than sex with a woman, wouldn't it?

It would be rape, and it would be violent, and it would (a kind of) sex. I don't see what's controversial there.

 

[nomadthethird]

What? How is that 'funny'? Has it occurred to you that maybe some rapists have raped more than one women? Or are you seriously hinting that a third of all men have committed a rape?

I'm not HINTING, Mr. Tea. I'm stating it plainly.

Most rapists are not serial rapists. There goes ANOTHER ridiculous media propagandist myth that Mr. Tea buys as if it's real.

All rapes are committed by a small group of serial rapists.

Nope. Most rapes are date rape or incest rapes and it's often that rapists only rape once.

 

[nomadthethird]

Nomad's arguments in this thread have revolved around this huge straw man figure who blames women - that is to say, holds them ethically accountable - for bad things that happen to them at the hands of violent criminals.

Yes, that huge strawman called THE COURT SYSTEM. Yup, completely imaginary.

 

[swears]

Emphasising the activities of a woman before she gets raped, in the face of the facts, even though rapists are statistically more likely to be drunk than their victims are, is victim blaming whether you like it or not...



Sad thing is most rapists don't even believe they've raped anyone. This has a lot to do with the myth of the big bad stranger rapist in an alley, hiding in wait for the next lone woman in stilettos to walk by. (This sort of situation accounts for less than 25% of all rape cases.) Men think if they're not beating a stranger into submission, they're not "raping" them.

But this is what I mean. A lot of those men (like you say) might not think of themselves as rapists, therefore any attempt to tell them not to go out and get pissed in case they end up commiting a sexual offence may well fall on deaf ears. Whereas women are aware that they may be in danger from these men, so that message is more likely to be taken on board. It is a fucked up and sad situation that women have to modify their behavior (btw, I do think men have to watch their intake too) but as a matter of practicality, you will have a lot more success asking people to avoid being victims rather than asking people not to commit crimes that they might not even consider to be a crime in the first place.

There should be more emphasis in letting men know that sexual abuse has serious consequences and that it's not going to fly, I'm just not sure how you would go about doing that, exactly.

 

[nomadthethird]

"men can't help themselves", blah blah ad nauseam...

Have you even READ a single thing I've posted? Really read it?

OF COURSE MEN CAN HELP THEMSELVES. If people stopped saying "well, women shouldn't get drunk unless they want to get raped", then maybe men would start being held accountable for THEIR ACTIONS in courts. If people stopped believing that men are just sex crazed animals that WILL take advantage of a pass out drunk woman, and started holding men to the same ludicrously high standard to which men hold women, then maybe the incidence of rape would go down as successful imprisonment rates and sentencing terms went up.

 

[nomadthethird]

But this is what I mean. A lot of those men (like you say) might not think of themselves as rapists, therefore any attempt to tell them not to go out and get pissed in case they end up commiting a sexual offence may well fall on deaf ears. Whereas women are aware that they may be in danger from these men, so that message is more likely to be taken on board. It is a fucked up and sad situation that women have to modify their behavior (btw, I do think men have to watch their intake too) but as a matter of practicality, you will have a lot more success asking people to avoid being victims rather than asking people not to commit crimes that they might not even consider to be a crime in the first place.

There should be more emphasis in letting men know that sexual abuse has serious consequences and that it's not going to fly, I'm just not sure how you would go about doing that, exactly.

How about you'd tell men to stop thinking that rape occurs at the hands of strangers in a dark alley, since the vast preponderance of rapes happen in a woman's home and are perpetrated by someone close to her (a friend or relative)?

You seem to have a pretty low opinion of men. So you don't think educating men from an early age about the definition of rape/sexual assault and the rights women have to consent to sex wouldn't help some men understand their own responsibility better? Wouldn't it help if men understood that they are ultimately responsible for their own actions, and for getting consent from prospective sexual partners. It would certainly help to stop acting as if the definition of rape is ambiguous to excuse rape by "otherwise good boys" and lay down the law early.

See, I think men are pretty smart, and often very well-intentioned and good, so I believe it would be quite easy to teach them a non-double-standard for sexual responsibility. In fact, in districts where rape prevention programs and education are a part of the prison system, you see lower rates of recidivism. The sad part about rape is that it's not always bad sociopathic psychopaths who are doing it, the prevalence of date rape suggests that many men just don't think it's rape if she dressed up, if she's drunk, if she flirted with you a week ago.

 

[nomadthethird]

Well if I were exclusively gay then the physical act itself - outside of any question of intent or consensuality - would certainly be closer to my idea of 'sex' than sex with a woman, wouldn't it?

It would be rape, and it would be violent, and it would (a kind of) sex. I don't see what's controversial there.

It isn't controversial, what I said, to any psychiatrist, sexual health counselor/professional, psychologist, expert in sexual assault, gynecologist-- just to you, Mr. Tea. To you it's controversial to state that sex and rape aren't interchangeable terms, nor does rape bear much resemblance to sex except in the sick mind of the rapist.

You're hopelessly stupid.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yes, that huge strawman called THE COURT SYSTEM. Yup, completely imaginary.

Yeah, and how many judges, jurors and lawmakers are taking part in this 'discussion' in this thread, right now?