Millions of girls and women in the United States and throughout the world are raped. Oftentimes, the victim does not receive sympathy and is often thought as being somewhat the initiator. Girls and women who are raped often have their characters questioned. The perpetrator of the rape in certain cases are not judged as harshly. Sometimes, depending upon who they are, the perpetrator is treated with kid gloves.
If a rape is reported and there is a trial, the victim undergoes ever closer scrutiny. She is questioned regarding her particular sexual history as if that has any bearing regarding the rape. In other words, girls and women who are raped are victims again if they go to court. Rape is a misogynic crime which diminished women's dignity and created deep psychological scars for life. Many women who are raped are oftentimes viewed as "the lesser." In parts of the world, some families ostracize the rape victim or worse as she had "disgraced" the family. Rape iseems the be THE ONLY crime where the victim is oftentimes reviled instead of being helped. Do you agree?
I agree with you. But here's the kicker, what do we do about it?
How can one get mad at a rape victim. Unless she made a stupid decision (i.e. letting a strange man into her house) it is not her fault. This is what is wrong with society....
The "voice of reason" has become the quiet little "Who" that has to be the last to speak up in order for the world to hear that it exists.
I know my metaphor is a little juvenile, but it is the facts that those who need to be heard are usually the last ones to speak up.
Right now, this seems to be a good start; but there has to be more. Even if it means that placards need to be hung on every door, every wall of every middle and high school. It is up to each of us to try to be that last "Who" that says hello.
We are responsible for what is happening even though it is inadvertent. Dirty laundry sells in the media and the warped sense of morality that has come from a lack of responsibility in that same media has brought us a society that will blame the victim.
"Well, she should not have been outside." "Well, maybe she should have worn slacks instead of a skirt." "Well, maybe if she had not been out shopping." "Maybe this would not have happened if she had called in sick that day..."
The person who gets mauled by a dog should have had a stick. The person who gets his head smashed in should not have been doing his neighborhood watch duties. The person who is accosted in the parking lot should not have gone shopping alone. The person whose home is burglarized should have had her jewelry in a safe deposit box in the bank.
Until the voice of common sense and reason resonates through this country (and the world) we will continue to victimize the victim, and be concerned about the perpetrator. After all, Dr. Spock and "poor, misguided children" are all the fault of the parents... No matter what, the innocent will suffer the consequences.
Now, on to gun control, and concealed weapons licenses?
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people, a lot of them women, who equate how a woman dresses and her likelihood of being raped. Many of these people have a false belief that rape is a sexual crime only... it is not, it is a violent crime.
Uninvited Writer makes an excellent point, a point that makes me even more disgusted when I hear people discuss or question the sexual history of a rape victim.
Rape isn't about sex, sexual frustration or feeling like you're "owed" sex. Once the rapist crosses the line of being told "No," or worse yet, knowing that the victim is unable to give consent, the pretense of "sex," has fallen away, the act of rape is a power-play, a violent crime that is more about asserting one's dominance over the will, health and mental well-being of another.
One of the *worst* parts about watching PhillyD's recent reporting on the rape case in Stubenville was reading the comments.
It's horrific enough the poor girl was repeatedly raped, filmed, and then had that film posted on YouTube, for the whole damn world to see...
Then you read the comments, person after person who mention that they "don't agree with what those boys did, but that she shouldn't have been drinking *that much* or, well, supposedly she's a big slut..."
Oh, my, horror, are you, for real? Ser-io-us-ly?
For the record, and it's STILL neither here, nor freaking there, I've seen people drunk before, blacked out, passed out, totally out of their freaking minds drunk, and I've never seen someone so incredibly physically unresponsive as that girl, I'm pretty damn sure she was drugged.
Even darker, it sounds like there is a very good chance that boy who she used to date premeditated her rape, from comments he had made previous to it.
But no... she shouldn't have gotten so drunk. This poor girl was railroaded into a situation that will forever alter the rest of her existence in such a real, heartbreaking way.
Wanting to go out and be "naughty," or have some "fun" shouldn't be a death sentence delivered from the hands of your so-called "friends."
Thousands of comments repeating over and over again that she should have "checked herself."
Then you think about it and you realize this girl was in a room, (more than one,) with dozens of people, dozens of people saw her being carried from place to place and NO ONE stopped it?!?
When I realized that, it kind of dawned on me... I threw-up.
Then there were all these comments, this idiotic political quips about how, "Well, that's what happens when you let those "liberals," "republican'ts," what-the-ever-freaking hell... The deities as my witness if someone ever says that to me in person I'll stick a hot-poker in their eye, I really will.
Rape is *not* a political issue or a joke or a religious issue. Rapists don't need to "find God," victims of rape don't need to comport themselves with more modesty. This is a human rights travesty and as long as people keep walking the earth with victim-blaming rationales and the inability to feel even an ounce of empathy, it's not going anywhere.
I'm sorry this is so long, and so filled with hate or despair or whatever, but you don't have to be a victim to feel for another human being and when I was watching D's video the other day / reading the comments / thinking about that poor girl, it really affected me. My heart goes out to her and her family.
No one seems to have mentioned teenagers are stupid. I don't mean that they're somehow less of a human but their brains aren't fully developed until they are in their early twenties. That means they are still VERY poor at making good decisions for themselves. Does that absolve this poor girl? No, she really shouldn't have been out getting drunk BUT where were her parents?! It's their responsibility that she's not out doing something harmful to herself, it's their responsibility for telling her she is worth something and loved and should never put herself in a compromising position. Girls that go out and get drunk are either victims of peer pressure or lacking something great in their lives that they are trying to fill. It always comes back to the parents.
As for the boys... Their parents must be total shit. A boy who is taught that girls are *human beings* just like themselves would never lower himself to rape one. This isn't a question of bad judgement it's a question of where is the empathy?! The morals?! This is NOT normal "boys will be boys" behavior! This stems from the belief women are lesser creatures, even objects, and this has to be taught!
Until we as a society, as a whole, decide women are equals and not something to use and abuse we will continue to blame the victims of rape.
I don't believe the majority of people believe rape is the woman's fault. I just think that the second someone says any thing like "if she wouldn't have been drinking this wouldn't have happened" it is interpreted like that by many. When it comes down to it people are stating it like it is. Just as me saying (and I'm not comparing) "well if I wouldn't have picked up that box I wouldn't have blown my back out".
There is no way of preventing rape but there are ways of protecting one's self at least a little. Unfortunately the second someone says that they become the bad guy which does no good for the cause.
Walk through the heart of Chicago with $50 bills hanging from your pockets, a 1 carat diamond on each finger and swinging a $1,000 camera and you will be mugged.
It doesn't excuse the mugger, trivialize the crime or make you any less victim, but it's not real smart, either.
poor comparison Wilderness, unless of course you are requiring all women to wear burqas when out and about.
As peeples said, most will miss the point entirely.
Regardless of who you are, every adult has some responsibility to take care of themselves. Carrying $50 bills hanging out of your pockets is an at least somewhat appropriate comparison to attending a party of drunken men and getting so drunk yourself you pass out. It has nothing to do with wearing a burqa 24/7.
Those $50 bills do not excuse the mugger, however much in encourages him, and a drunken woman does not excuse a rapist however much it encourages him. Neither is very smart, though.
Anyone intentionally putting themselves into a dangerous situation bears at least some of responsibility for results, if not blame. In the case of the woman at the party it shouldn't be dangerous, but most people understand that it is.
It is the mugger that has the responsibility to control themselves.
No, wilderness, it's a poor comparison because it equivocates being raped to being mugged. Anyone who has been both mugged and raped, (god, hopefully not at the same time,) will tell you that as a human being when you compare the two you've failed to show good judgement at the very least.
I realize I'm taking a pretty hard line stance on this, but I feel like you & peeples have missed the point entirely when you place responsibility on a young girl who's been drinking *not* to get raped.
Men and women, boys and girls are probably going to drink.
Some will make some pretty dumb choices. ("OMG, I can't believe I slept with *him* !!!" comes to mind.)
Some will make some truly horrific decisions with life altering consequences. ("If only I hadn't gotten behind the wheel while I'd been drinking that family of 5 would still be alive," comes to mind.)
And some, a hopefully small minority, will choose, ((CHOOSE)) to show themselves to be the monsters that they actually are. (Anyone who uses the "Well, drunk girls gonna get raped," mentality comes to mind, sorry, it sickens me with it's implicit victim blaming.)
Blaming a girl for going to a party and drinking... if we take your logic to the next step, that is precisely what you're doing, and there were dozens of people there who should have helped her, known better and are JUST as guilty in my mind as the perpetrators of this galling crime, is completely beyond the pale.
Walking down the street wearing a dress, going to a bar or party, walking to or from school, getting into your parked car at night, these should not be considered dangerous situations:
This young woman went to a party.
As parties often do, there was drinking.
Her drinking got out of hand.
That DOES NOT give anyone the license to gang-rape her.
Going to a public party, in a public place should not be considered a dangerous situation.
For the most part, I'm in agreement. Just a couple of points:
" because it equivocates being raped to being mugged". No it doesn't. There is no "equivocation" and none was intended. A simile, a metaphor, not a statement of equality.
"Going to a public party, in a public place should not be considered a dangerous situation". Agreed, it should not be dangerous. I even said that. It is though, and only a fool or drunk thinks otherwise. Life isn't always what we want it to be, and this is one of those times. You can live in a fantasy world of what you think should be or you can live in reality were what is, is. Which is the point I'm trying to make.
You are living in that fantasy world you wished existed when you think there is no danger, and so was that girl.
Just as my stroller was, walking a dangerous street as an obvious target.
Steady on Wilderness, thinking that something is wrong is not the same as living in a fantasy world where danger doesn't exist!
We are aware that danger exists but don't blame the victim for falling foul of that danger.
No we don't. At least not when even elementary precautions are taken. And, as is right and proper, even failure to take those precautions does not absolve the rapist or mugger of the slightest bit of blame.
Same thing, though - "falling foul" of danger is a little different from ignoring or increasing that danger. It just isn't smart.
Which brings us right back to women dressing in Burqas doesn't it?
Women don't only get raped late at night having had far more to drink than is good for them. It happens during lunch or on the way home from work, or after school or a million and one other ways in which the victim is just going about their normal life, in their normal clothing.
And your point, in relation to this young girl, her actions and the actions of the rapists?
That it happens under circumstances? No argument.
The it is more common in the circumstances she willingly put herself into? Again, no argument.
Young girls (and young men) do not understand or appreciate their tolerance for alchol, one minute you are on top of the world, the next you are out of it.
When I was a teenager I got stupidly drunk on several occasions but never felt the need to rape anybody even though there were often girls around as equally stupid drunk.
So she, knowing that excessive alcohol will cause her to go unconscious, and knowing that she doesn't know how much that takes, is therefore absolved of all responsibility because she chose to drink anyway. No. She (and because she was apparently underage, her parents) bear that responsibility.
You got "stupidly drunk" - right. You were stupid (what I said) and you paid the price for that stupidity. That's how the world works, what reality forces on everyone whether they like it or not.
She got drunk and will pay the price for that forever with the memories she carries. The boys got drunk and will pay the price for their drunken actions forever.
We don't use the boys drunkenness to legally absolve them of the results of their actions and neither will reality absolve her of the consequences of her actions.
That's the whole point, there was no price to pay beyond the next day's hangover and the girls paid no price either beyond a hangover.
Nothing life changing happened, as it should be.
In your case, you mean. I thought you referred to those boys for a minute.
Yes, that's they way it should be, but life doesn't work that way. The drunk driver, and his victim, pay forever for instance. We're talking about life here, reality, not what we would like it to be. We don't live in utopia; we live in the real world where s*** happens and it is up to us to do what we can to prevent it. Not the cops, not some nanny state, and not the bystanders we call "friends". Us. We are ultimately responsible for what we do and we will pay the price for stupidity. We may not like it, but we will pay.
As that girl will pay. She voluntarily raised the risk of rape, the odds went against her and she will pay the price. Nothing you, I or any court can do will change that. Stupidity always carries a price and she will pay one - a very high one but that, too, is life. It isn't fair.
OK, I give in.
The silly girl asked for it and she ought to apologise to those boys for forcing them to rape her.
*sigh* OK, John. Whatever you say.
I knew when I said what I did that few would agree, or even make an effort to understand. I give, too - you toddle off and live in your make believe world, where your actions never carry a negative consequence. I'm happy for you, but I'll be forever stuck in reality.
There you go again!
I've never said that your actions can never have a negative consequence, only that those negative consequences are not the fault of women.
I understand. Actions that have negative consequences (drinking yourself into a stupor) are always the fault of someone else. Probably male.
I get it. When a woman drinks herself into a stupor, it's never her fault. After all, somebody else held her down and poured it down her throat. I get it.
Really, I do. Women are too stupid to have any responsibility at all for their own lives - we all know that and accept total male responsibility for anything they care to do. And they thank us for that attitude, too.
You really need to read your own posts. Paraphrasing your one sentence: "Women that perform actions that produce negative consequences have no responsibility and cannot be faulted for performing those actions."
Maybe in your world; I would personally never insult a woman (or any other adult) so.
Using that same logic, then, where are all the hand-wringing naysayers telling those "young impressionable boys," not to go to parties and drink because they're in danger of "might "accidentally" raping someone?"
I'm sure a young girl who's just been raped *really* wants to hear %40-%60 of society telling her she shouldn't have been out, shouldn't have been drinking, should have known it was dangerous...
It's a crock. I'm not saying it isn't the real world, but there certainly has to be a realistic middle ground between never cutting loose and getting drugged and gang raped in the middle of dozens of people.
Nowhere in any of my posts will you find the slightest indication that those boys aren't 100% to blame for what happened, or that they should not be punished to the full extent of the law.
But yes, it was pretty stupid to get drunk enough to do what they did and they will pay for it for a long, long time. Actions have consequences, which they will not figure out.
Whether she want's to hear it or not doesn't have much bearing on whether it's true or not, now does it? I imagine that the drunk driver, having killed someone, doesn't want to hear that they shouldn't have been drinking either.
Somewhere in the past few decades we've crossed over to a nanny state, where no one ever carries any responsibility for poor decisions. It's always someone else's fault, never anything I did. It just doesn't work, and unless that girl realizes her own stupidity she may well do the same thing again.
But that isn't likely, is it? She will have learned that her own actions DO have consequences, and the consequences of being so drunk she was comatose aren't very pleasant. She won't let it happen again, at least if she has any brains at all.
Reading some of the comments here, I feel like screaming and throwing heavy objects (don't worry, I never actually do that).
This girl got drunk, just like millions of teenagers have done before her, and millions more will do. She is responsible for getting drunk, but she bears no responsibility for being raped. None. Not even a tiny bit.
If she did bear any responsibility for being raped, then she wouldn't have been raped would she?
Don't forget, rape is a non-consensual act.
No. Her sole responsibility is for intentionally putting herself in danger. Not for the actions of others.
That is not what you said before: "Anyone intentionally putting themselves into a dangerous situation bears at least some of responsibility for results, if not blame."
That statement is what is so infuriating. That statement reveals a mindset that still wants to place responsibility on a young girl who was violated against her will.
Everyone in the country - male, female, child, elderly - take a risk of rape by simply being alive. For the majority that risk is low (although never low enough!).
But this girl intentionally increased that risk by a great deal and will pay the price for that action for the rest of her life. It was stupid, it was dangerous and she knew she was doing it. She bears the responsibility for that and no one else.
But increasing the risk of rape is NOT the action of rape. She did not perform the rape and even though she, by her own actions, ensured that she could not make the slightest protest still bears no responsibility for the rape itself. Just for increasing the risk.
I probably worded that poorly, PP, but I did not intend to indicate that she bears any responsibility for the rape itself. It's difficult to differentiate between increasing risk, intentionally putting oneself in danger of violence and the violence itself but I do see a difference.
Had the girl run into a burning building and died, she would be solely responsible for that. Not only increasing the risk of death by entering, but the death itself. She is to blame for both.
When the harm is done by a second person, though, it is different. She increased the risk but she did not commit the violence. She carries the responsibility for putting herself in increased danger but not for the violence she suffered.
I'm not sure I can do better here in describing what I feel or think, but I'll give one more example.
Women, working late at say, a Mall, often ask for security to accompany them to their car in a dark parking lot. Others don't and end up being robbed or worse. We're not shy at tell them "you should have asked for security!", indicating that they failed in their responsibility to be careful. We don't fail to chase down the robber, but we DO make the statement.
Same here. That girl has some responsibility to take some care, to protect herself to at least some extent from harm. She totally failed in that responsibility and she was wrong in doing so. I sympathize with her hurt, I fully support finding and punishing the offenders, but I also recognize her own failure to take even the most minor of precautions. We do no one any favors by "teaching" them that they will be safe no matter what they do or don't do, that they bear no responsibility whatsoever for their own actions.
I understand exactly what you are saying. I just think you are dead wrong, and part of the problem. All that needs to be said about this case is that a girl was raped. Whether or not she was drunk, whether or not she was at a party, none of that matters. To even suggest it does is a reflection of a culture that has historically devalued women and attitudes like yours are why those boys thought it was socially acceptable to do what they did.
Fair enough. And in cases like this it seems obvious that attitudes like yours - that women carry no responsibility for their own safety - is a part of why there are so many rapes.
Whether you believe that rapists should be summarily shot or simply turned loose, the idea that women should live in a make believe world where their actions have no influence on their chance of being raped will forever result in more rapes. And beatings, murders, domestic violence cases and all the rest of the evils of our violence laden, discriminatory prone society produces.
Whether it should be that way is irrelevant; it is what it is and women (or men) share in the responsibility for their own safety.
I have never said women carry no responsibility for their own safety. However, they do not have to bear the responsibility of being raped by amoral cretins.
Again, that girl is responsible for being drunk at a party. Nothing more.
Yes you did. You plainly said it doesn't matter if she was drunk beyond even the capability of whispering "No"; something clearly under her control and that equally clearly added to the risk of rape. Her safety, in other words, that she had no responsibility to protect or maintain in the slightest.
But if she wasn't responsible for maintaining even that tiny bit of safety, who was? The drunken boys? The cop on the beat? Obama?
Oh, come on. I would agree with you if she were drunk and driving a car. She was just drunk. It is not her responsibility to police the actions of a rapist.
Good. We are in perfect agreement then as that is exactly what I've said. Her responsibility was to provide something towards her own safety and she failed to do so.
AND that it was NOT her responsibility to police or prevent the actions of a rapist. That was the responsibility of the boys, which they also failed to do. Both rapists and, to a lesser extent, the observers (who I understand are also under investigation with possible charges yet to be filed).
Disagreement solved, although I do believe that drunk to the point of being comatose played a part as well.
I don't agree that our disagreement is solved. I think you want that girl to share in the responsibility for being raped. Why, I don't know.
"As that girl will pay. She voluntarily raised the risk of rape, "
"That girl has some responsibility to take some care, to protect herself to at least some extent from harm. She totally failed in that responsibility and she was wrong in doing so. "
"She will have learned that her own actions DO have consequences, and the consequences of being so drunk she was comatose aren't very pleasant. She won't let it happen again, at least if she has any brains at all."
"She got drunk and will pay the price for that forever with the memories she carries."
No, we do not agree at all. You are not recognizing that your attitude is part of a culture that blames women for the degradation inflicted upon them by men. I don't see any point in continuing as it is obvious you cannot or will not acknowledge that.
Blames women for the degradation inflicted up them by men? No.
Blame them at least a small amount when they make no effort whatsoever to protect themselves? Yes, at least for that lack of effort.
But you're right - there isn't much reason to continue. You will continue to believe that shouldn't happen meanswon't happen, even while discussing an incident where it did, and there is no need for women to take precautions. I will continue to insist that it does happen and that women do have some responsibility to take some prudent precautions. It doesn't mean wear a burka 24/7, it doesn't mean stay at home unless with a man. It does mean don't go to a party of drunken young men and proceed to pass out.
In all those 4 quoted paragraphs, can you point to anything not 100% true? Not unintended insinuations you read into them, but actually false? Will she not pay? Did she not raise the risk factor? Will she not learn? Did she not get drunk? If you disagree with any of it, where?
By the way, do you really think that if she had whispered "no" it would have made any difference? Really?
Couldn't say - how drunk were the boys? Not as bad as she was, obviously, but beyond the point of listening to reason?
I would almost guarantee that, given the observers, had she put up any kind of fight at all it wouldn't have happened. A scream, maybe.
Doesn't matter, though. Drunk or sober, rape is not acceptable - they are fully guilty either way.
*edit* Before you jump all over me, I don't refer to her hurt as not mattering. Just their guilt.
"But if she wasn't responsible for maintaining even that tiny bit of safety, who was? The drunken boys? The cop on the beat? Obama?"
Why do you insist on making that rape anyone's responsibility besides those boys? No one coerced them into behaving like animals. They did it all on their own.
As for "maintaining her safety" your argument is not valid when her safety is violated by someone else. Again, she was guilty of being drunk; that is all.
"As for "maintaining her safety" your argument is not valid when her safety is violated by someone else. Again, she was guilty of being drunk; that is all."
Here we will disagree. On a recent trip to Las Vegas our campground, although on the strip, was a 1 block down a dark street with road construction. Returning late at night my wife and I (at my insistence) walked around and through a casino rather down the dark street. An elementary precaution, taken even though our safety was barely in question. Just common sense to me, though.
To claim that because it was another person that might harm her and therefore she isn't responsible for her own safety is nonsense. That's where her need for safety, and her responsibility, is greatest, not non-existent. When she is subject to harm from someone else.
"Whether you believe that rapists should be summarily shot or simply turned loose, the idea that women should live in a make believe world where their actions have no influence on their chance of being raped will forever result in more rapes. And beatings, murders, domestic violence cases and all the rest of the evils of our violence laden, discriminatory prone society produces."
This statement is incredible. Women's actions do not result in more rapes. Those boys had a choice to rape or not. That girl did not have a choice.
First, women's actions can result in more rapes. To a very (very) small degree the actions of the one being raped, but to a larger degree those women promoting the idea that a woman need not take any care for their own well being can cause more harm than good.
While that's a find and wonderful ideal, it simply does not work in the real world. It's a goal to work toward, and we're doing that, but it isn't here yet and it will pay to take a little care. Walking down a dark, downtown Chicago street with $50 bills hanging out of your pockets is stupid as it attracts muggers; some actions of some women are nearly as stupid as it attracts rapists.
Is that wrong? Of course it is, but it's factual and ignoring simple things like that will result in more rapes. As long as the entire onus of a gir's safety is given to the men around her and their willingness to control their urges you will see rapes. Not all will stop, whether you, I or anyone else finds it unacceptable or not.
"As long as the entire onus of a gir's safety is given to the men around her and their willingness to control their urges you will see rapes."
Oh my, it just gets worse. Yes, I expect men to "control their urges" whether or not I take extra precautions for my own safety. Just so you know, I have over 7 years of martial arts training and expect that women be taught to engage in behaviors that make them safer. However, if a woman chooses not to take those precautions, she shares NO responsibility for any act that criminally violates her will. None. Only the perpetrator is responsible.
Expect all you want; experience very clearly shows it isn't going to happen. Not all men (or women; one was indicted today for statutory rape in my town) will control their urges and certainly not all women are going to take martial arts training. Just as obviously this girl didn't learn to engage in behaviour that made her safer; she went the opposite direction as far as it is possible to go.
Just as muggings, murder and all the other violence happens. And, just as the mugger is 100% responsible for his actions, so is a rapist.
It doesn't help the one being murdered or raped much to acknowledge that, though. Better to take some precautions and prevent it yourself than to sit back and proclaim it to be a terrible thing after the fact.
I think everyone forgets this "responsibility" people keep talking about would apply no matter what happens to a person. As a human our brains tell us to protect ourselves by not putting ourselves in harms way. It isn't blaming the victim for the crime at all. It's saying that we should all be aware that actions have reactions. No matter if we are talking about alcohol, driving and texting, or walking into a dark alley in a bad neighborhood alone we all should take responsibility to think our actions through to do the best we know how to protect ourselves.
Good luck. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think anyone else does. The emotions of rape are simply too high to think rationally about it.
I guess everyone better stop drinking right now. I think of all the times I went out drinking and wasn't raped, I guess I dodged a bullet.
If you went to a private party, not a bar, and drank yourself into a coma I'd have to say you did.
Good friends, maybe, or very drunk ones, but I'd think that outside of the far more common "violence oriented" rapes that's probably the most common circumstance to have it happen.
Be thankful that your wonton recklessness did not cause you to get raped! Of course, you could still experience one of those "violence oriented" rapes.
[Apparently, there are different degrees of rape, some that are "violence oriented" and some that are not. I'm so glad we have men to tell us whether or not violence occurs when we are forced against our will. What would we do without their wisdom?]
What, PP, you want to argue that the rape with the woman kidnapped, beaten, raped and murdered is no different than one of just sex without the vicious violence? You really want to argue that the motives or outcomes for both are the same?
Join the rest of us in the real world, why don't you? You'll find that the world is gray, not black and white, and thereby a little harder to work with but at least it's real and not a fantasy world of make believe.
Um, I am a woman and I live in the real world. I did not say that getting beaten, raped, and murdered is not "worse" than getting raped. However, it is certainly not okay to characterize that as "violence oriented," which implies that getting raped but not beaten is not violence. They are both violence and I would submit to you that some women who are raped but not beaten could suffer just as much if not more trauma that another woman who was beaten and raped. And it is not for you or I or anyone but the person who experiences it to judge whether one rape situation is worse than another.
By the way, rape is not sex. I shouldn't even have to type those words. I give you credit for being willing to reveal your true beliefs, and get called on the carpet for it, because you are not the only one who falsely believes that rape without a beating is sex.
Wrong on so many counts.
I'm truly sorry that you don't care to acknowledge that "violence oriented" rape (in quotations, yet) as different than other forms. I'll try to explain in simple words.
Using the term, as done in the quotes, should tell you that there is more than the absolute definition. In this context, then, it refers to an action whose primary purpose is violence. Whose goal is pain, whether physical or mental. The sexual act performed is only a pathway to produce that pain, nothing more, and is often not even physically possible for the perpetrator who may use artificial tools rather than a biological one.
A "non-violence oriented" rape, then, would refer to the opposite. One where the sexual act is the intended goal, with any violence or pain being unintended. Artificial tools will never be used as it does not produce the goal. In this sense your comment that rape is not sex is silly, unless you want to define what happened to that girl as not being rape. Date rape, or the use of drugs, would probably fall into this category as long as no physical harm is intended.
While you may choose to define rape (intercourse without permission) for the purpose of sex as not being rape it doesn't make it so and I would vehemently disagree. You can also, and it would seem you do, try to change the motive of the rapist from having sex to causing physical or emotional harm, but that doesn't make that true, either. While rape of this kind is fairly rare, and getting rarer all the time, it does still happen, just as with this girl.
Finally, you are, as usual, putting meaning into my words that is not there. Your reference to the "degree" of rape was never mention nor intended, just "type". If you want to stop rapes it will behoove you to understand what causes them and that includes what "types" there might be. You may declare all types the same, and all causes the same, but that can only show your ignorance and uncaring attitude. Enough PR, for instance, will surely help stop the "non violent" rapes discussed here but it will do absolutely nothing to help stop the rapist out to hurt a stranger. That will take something more similar to changing the insanity of a killer looking for a victim; any victim.
Only if you wish to punish them differently should you be considering what "degree" a rape is. Should you wish to make a differing punishment for different degrees of rape that is your prerogative; I would not do so. While I might add additional penalty for murder, for instance, or statutory rape, the crime of rape should only carry one basic punishment.
"While you may choose to define rape (intercourse without permission) for the purpose of sex as not being rape it doesn't make it so and I would vehemently disagree."
WHAT? That is so NOT what I said. How did you get that out of what I said?
As for the rest of it, you are the one trying to say that one type of rape is just sex, while another type is sex and violence. I am saying all rape is violence, and that it is NOT for the purpose of sex but for the exercise of power and dominance.
Also, I never once declared all types the same or all causes the same. Not once. I said that all rape is violence. I also said that the only person who bears any responsibility for a rape is the rapist. That is all.
What those boys did to that young girl had nothing to do with sex and everything to do with power, dominance, and aggression. They were football stars, popular kids. I'm certain that if all they wanted was sex, they could find a willing participant quite easily. What they did to her was violence for the gratification of their need for power and dominance. I don't know where you got the idea that some rape is "for the purpose of sex." If a person wants sex, they find a willing participant.
"WHAT? That is so NOT what I said. How did you get that out of what I said?"
Yes you did. "By the way, rape is not sex". Sex can absolutely be rape, as much as rape at least contains sexual overtones and actions. When you claim that sex is not rape you are also claiming that forcible sex is not rape. If that is not your meaning, I apologize and retract the statement.
"I am saying all rape is violence, and that it is NOT for the purpose of sex but for the exercise of power and dominance."
And you are 100% wrong. The boys in this case were not exercising power and dominance; they were satisfying sexual urges within their own bodies. If you think that the desire for power and dominance can be fulfilled from either a comatose body OR a corpse you really need to rethink that. Neither one can give the responses so necessary to be considered dominated.
While it is probably true that the thing of "forbidden fruit" came into play, it still wasn't about dominance. A great many people find excitement in forbidden sexual acts; with the wrong partner, in forbidden locations, etc. but it's not about dominance.
"And you are 100% wrong. The boys in this case were not exercising power and dominance; they were satisfying sexual urges within their own bodies. If you think that the desire for power and dominance can be fulfilled from either a comatose body OR a corpse you really need to rethink that. Neither one can give the responses so necessary to be considered dominated."
Oh, so urinating on her is satisfying a sexual urge? Having sex with a comatose human being is satisfying a sexual urge? Tweeting her photo and bragging to their friends is satisfying a sexual urge? You don't think those cretins were exercising power and domination?
Wow, just wow. If all they wanted to do was satisfy a sexual urge, they could undoubtedly find a willing participant.
I give up. You think you are enlightened but you are a dinosaur.
Folks, this is what needs to change to stop this kind of behavior from men toward women.
Again, we finally agree. This kind of gut reaction is what we need to stop. An understanding of what is truly happening is necessary to change it. Simply spouting opinion without understanding isn't going to help a great deal.
Still, we can still get along (maybe) on what might be done to stop the random rapist stalking the streets.
Gotta run, PP - the son needs help. Another time, another day perhaps we'll meet on something without the tremendous emotional baggage we can discuss/debate.
wilderness: They're trying to understand whether or not this girl was drugged, (in the car on the *way* to the first party,) before she started drinking.
You cannot tell me that her being possibly drugged, before she even began drinking, despite the fact that she was heavily intoxicated had nothing to do with her state. I've never seen someone that OUT just from being drunk.
The point, however, is that this group of boys called themselves the "Rape Crew," very likely drugged her before she even got to the first party and proceeded to do things like urinate on her after she was out cold.
How is a girl supposed to protect herself from being drugged? I know, yes, there are ways to protect yourself, but hell...
Now even the bartenders in some bars have been called on it, putting a date-rape drug in a girl's drink after being bribed by a guy @ the bar.
I find the attitude you display, the varying levels of "rape" you insist exists, and your thinly veiled "victim-blaming," to be abhorrent. No, women are not responsible for the actions of men. They are responsible for their own actions, but when it comes down to it, being drugged and dragged through two different parties with tons of witnesses: the impetus rests with the boys who raped her and the bystanders who allowed it to continue without saying anything, calling anyone or making a stand.
But for the love of good friends and great luck I could have been that girl. Everyone is stupid some time, no one should have to pay for their stupidity like that.
And of course if the girl were drugged that changes the entire picture. Your picture of a drugged girl being dragged through parties is a completely different one from a girl, of her own free will, drinking herself into a stupor. If it is accurate she would not carry even the 1 or 2% of the blame I would have assigned her.
Even if she was incredibly stupid, no one should have to pay for their stupidity like she did. Whether or not they should, though, they do and nothing will ever change that. "Payment" might be in the form of being raped, it might be a hangover, it might by by parents buying a coffin. Whatever it is, there will be payment and we need to understand that.
And that - a refusal to take responsibility for stupid actions - is mostly what I speak of. Stupid actions all too often produce stupid, and very painful, results. It doesn't matter to whom you apply the blame to - the results are still painful.
I just had to share this:
http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2013/ … neWorld%29
This is how real men behave.
Yes, wilderness, perpetrators of rape are expressing dominance, control and getting high off that sense of power they had over this young woman. Despite the fact that she was unconscious, her reactions may have been lacking, but they were still dominating her. Sex is never rape. Rape is never sex. They were in NO way fulfilling a sexual urge, otherwise, as PP said, there wouldn't have been the act of urinating on her. I mean, seriously, how much clearer could that possibly be?
Say what you will, but this is the simple truth of it. Sex without a woman's consent is rape. Whether it is a violent rape or a non-violent one, it is rape. If you have gentle sex with a woman who is unconscious, it is rape. If you violently force a woman to have sex, it is rape. If a woman cannot tell you yes, or flat out tells you no, or you do not leave her any way to voluntarily participate in the sexual act, it is rape.
NO means NO - and silence does NOT equate to passive consent.
I agree entirely with what you said.
Those are all rape that however does not imply all these things are the same, the motivation I think is very different, we often hear the trope "rape is always about power not sex" I think in the instance of the person who rapes someone who is unconscious (without taking photo's etc.) is simply doing it for sex, where as the person who inflicts pain and suffering on someone is exerting power and probably doing it for that "enjoyment".
Obviously some people have a sexual attraction to rape given the number of people who role-play such fantasies (for any morons: obviously this does not excuse rape).
In violent acts of rape, most often people will say the incident is about power, not sex. In truth, though, there are those who become sexually aroused by the violence itself. Ultimately, I think that's what's meant by "it's about power, not sex." Domination, control, the ultimate ability of the perpetrator to demand compliance from the victim is actually the sexual component for the perp, not the act itself.
it depends on specific situation ,if she commit false accusation to achieve her own goal ,that is her fault,but generally,not her fault
by theirishobserver.7 years ago
At a Court in Ireland today a Garda (Police officer)told the court that a now 20 year old woman was raped 57 times by 22 different adult men when she was 13 years old, a number of the men have now been successfully...
by Sid Kemp4 years ago
Terrorism and Spree Killing: Are perpetrators also victims?Ever since the Columbine HS massacre in 1999, a debate has been raging. When a perpetrator of a spree killing or terrorist attack is killed in the attack, is he...
by ptosis5 years ago
CNN sympathetic to convicted rapists, saying how their lives were ruined -- while completely ignoring the fact that the rape victim's life is the one whose life was ruined by these rapists' actions -- is...
by Tony3 years ago
Should women be blamed if they are sexually abused due to their promiscuous dressing?
by Barbara6 years ago
Does it matter that women are not equal to men? Why or why not?A fellow hubber commented on my hub "I am not equal in 15 states", "How has this hurt you? Why do you care?" How would...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
issues which either excite and/or peeve you to no end and why, why not? It can be family, political, social, religious, or what have you. You are free to discuss what YOU want ! Of course, men can join in...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.