Dating in a rape culture

[mikeymikec]

So, you have one woman saying that something happened with nothing to back it up other than her comments, and an old woman hating man to verify we have rape culture?

How about the CNN video that I've mentioned three times, including once in a comment directly addressed at you?

 

[Paratus]

If your argument is that there is/was a rape culture in the church, then sure. In broader society then no.

According to the article I'd disagree. Not only did the church cover it up, a much later investigation of the police showed they had a history of covering up these abuses. When he tried to get counseling they told him he was making up the attack and to come to terms with his homosexuality. So for him broader society, specifically the parts that were supposed to help a victim like him, were definitely part of "rape culture".

Time would later prove that decision to have been less paranoia than a sober assessment of the cultural climate. He writes that he did go to church officials three times to report his experience, only to be brushed off, and that a state inquiry into the church’s cover-up of predatory priests many years later would reveal that police were often in the habit of assisting church officials in hushing up such crimes. Decades after the rape, Douglas was contacted by a police officer who found his name in church files, and who confirmed his long-held suspicion that he was likely just one of many victims.

The priest was eventually convicted of raping another boy, Douglas writes, but because of bad health, he never served a day in jail.

Douglas discovered when he went to get counseling shortly after the crime that he was something of a unicorn—a man who wanted to talk about being raped to a treatment community that didn’t buy the premise. He checked himself into a psychiatric hospital, where an official told him that this account was a fantasy and that he should come to terms with his homosexuality. He went to a local rape crisis center, where deeply ideological counselors struggled to situate his experience within a political framework that posited rape as a means of patriarchal oppression and viewed him as an enemy by virtue of his sex.

I have seen your global warming posts and I know you build your conclusions on data. What data do you have that shows we live in a rape culture?

I tend to think the relative rates of under reporting show we still have an issue:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/vnrp0610pr.cfm

Serious violent crime (defined as rape or sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault) was less likely to go unreported to the police in 2010 than in 1994. The percentage of unreported serious violent victimizations declined from 50 percent in 1994 to 42 percent in 2010. Unreported simple assault (assaults not involving an injury or a weapon), and property crime victimizations followed a similar pattern during the same period. The percentage of unreported simple assaults declined from 63 to 51 percent, and unreported property crime declined from 67 percent to 60 percent.

On average, an estimated 211,200 rapes and sexual assaults went unreported to police each year between 2006 and 2010. Although serious violent crime was generally less likely to go unreported to the police than simple assault, a higher percentage of rape or sexual assault (65 percent) than simple assault (56 percent) victimizations went unreported over the five-year period.

From 2006 to 2010, a greater percentage of victimizations against men (55 percent) than women (49 percent) were not reported to the police. A greater percentage of violent victimizations against white non-Hispanics (54 percent) than black non-Hispanics (46 percent) went unreported to the police. Among victims of violence, women (20 percent) were more likely than men (8 percent) to say they did not report to the police because they were afraid of reprisal or of getting the offender in trouble.

 

[Rebel_L]

No, you cant assume its rude because she felt it was rude.



Yes, I know. The authors message is that if someone is offended by you treating them as if they might be a rapist you should be super angry at them for not understanding all the personal things you go through. Realize the argument I am making. I am not saying the person is wrong for being safe. I am not saying that the person does not have real things to worry about. I am not saying the guy was 100% correct.

I am saying that her internal feeling in reaction to what he did is an overreaction.



He is ignorant of her reasoning. He did not like that she was treating him as if he might be a rapist. Again, this is normal. If you treat people with caution for something like rape, they feel that its a signal that you think they are that thing. Its not correct, but that is how many people feel. His reaction while wrong is not uncommon.

Her response emotionally is anger that he does not understand her situation. That is the over reaction.

The message is that she is angry that men do not understand all the things she goes through mentally, not that the guy did something super offensive. Unless that is, you think not knowing things is offensive.

The message is that she is fed up with the large amount of males out there who say they want to date but then act like a womans concerns are meaningless because they dont share them. At best that is complete ignorance combined with a lack of social skills, more often though its a selfish unwillingness to compromise or be considerate of another person and in either scenario a good indicator that building a meaningful relationship is going to be very difficult if not impossible and not worth the time investment to even have a conversation about the topic, never mind going on an actual date.

You also could really benefit from understanding the difference between treating something as though it might be something specific and treating something as though you dont know what it is. Your insistence that its the same reminds me of some of the threads in discussion club where one of the atheists is trying to explain to one of the theists the difference between not believing there is a god and believing there is no god.

Well then what is the conclusion to that? Nobody ever knows anything ever because its impossible. In that case judgement of victim and attacker should never be done because unless you have perfect information, who are you to judge. Surely that is not your position and you just jumped to a comment before fully thinking it through.

If your judging of others (especially people you dont even know) based on assumptions contributes to a societal attitude that unfairly causes harm to some people, surely you must agree that it would be best if you were to stop that kind of judging.

We have a legal system to hand out consequences for unwanted behaviors, I would think that when it comes to personal interactions with others you would fully support other people not thinking of you, or treating you poorly based on incomplete information.

I keep saying this and I think you are missing it. Many people find it offensive to be treated as if they are at risk of being something bad. They will argue its a stereotype to assume all of a group is dangerous because of a few people. Not all men rape, and not even close to a majority. He could have been a dick I suppose, but it sure seems more likely given how people typically are that he was just offended and pointing it out.

If you cant see the difference between treating something as an unknown and treating something as though it might be something specific, then perhaps your time would be better spent trying to convince people that being treated as though they might be something bad is a good and reasonable thing rather than being annoyed at people who are frustrated that others are offended by reasonable behavior.

 

[realibrad]

How about the CNN video that I've mentioned three times, including once in a comment directly addressed at you?

If you are going to post something to me, do put @ and then my name. You can click the quote button just as easily and make it easier to see.

So, your next thing is that the media said they had promising lives and they were ruined by rape convictions?

Here is what you said...

I just watched the video, the boys' achievements were put forward first, the evident sympathy for them as their "lives fell apart". One might wonder what kind of fucktard would feel sympathy for a rapist, especially one who then distributes embarrassing media of their victim, let alone that this is a big news organisation that is evidently pandering to those with compatible opinions. Not once did the reporter express any kind of sympathy for the victim. How would you feel about it if the victim was someone close to you, would you be thinking sympathetically for the rapists since they've been caught and are facing judgement for their crimes?

The reason the achievements were put forward at first is to show that they were on track to have a good life. You assume it was for sympathy, but I felt it was to show how good they had it, and how they ruined it by raping a girl.

Then you say you dont like that the reporter did not express sympathy for the victim, as if reports need to express their emotional feelings about it. That is not reporting by the way. Also, the guy clearly says that lives are destroyed by the verdict and the crime. You seem to think that because the focus is not only on the victim that nothing else bad is happening. Their lives being ruined is the right thing to do as a punishment, but its still something that will ruin their lives.

CNN even went on to refer to another reporter in an analysis of how unfortunate the consequences must be for the poor rapists. Frankly, before that event occurred, the idea of a major news organisation covering a story in that way wouldn't have even crossed my mind as being vaguely plausible in the West, yet it's an extreme example of rape culture. Sympathy for a rapist. In a civilized country, the concept of it is mind-boggling.

You seem to be viewing everything as if admitting something bad is happening to the rapists that they are trying to feel sorry for them. Its not. Its a way of showing the impact of their poor decisions. Raping a girl like they did is horrible. Does not mean that we should not understand the impact of punishment. Its not that they are trying to elicit sympathy, its that they want to convey the gravity of the situation.

 

[1prophet]

not sure if trolling or just stupid

It's only stupid to those that look for someone else to blame as long as it isn't one of their own sacred cows.

 

[1prophet]

In addition to the CNN video I mentioned earlier, people who claim that rape culture is mythical should perhaps engage in some additional reading:

Crown Prosecution Service dropped rape case because the victim was wearing Spanx underwear:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ecause-woman-was-wearing-Spanx-underwear.html

Barrister claims that men should be cleared of rape if the victim was drunk:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-if-the-victim-is-drunk-claims-barrister.html

From the second link

"It is not a crime to drink, but it is a crime for a rapist to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex through drink."

Aside from being passed out or unconscious, since the person isn't capable of consent why should they be held responsible if they get caught driving in the same condition by the police,

after all why should they be told they are responsible for driving under the influence but not responsible for having sex in the same inebriated condition?

 

[realibrad]

According to the article I'd disagree. Not only did the church cover it up, a much later investigation of the police showed they had a history of covering up these abuses. When he tried to get counseling they told him he was making up the attack and to come to terms with his homosexuality. So for him broader society, specifically the parts that were supposed to help a victim like him, were definitely part of "rape culture".

That is because they were trying to protect the church. Just because people hold positions does not mean they are not doing something for the church. If it were not people affiliated with the church that would be interesting.

I tend to think the relative rates of under reporting show we still have an issue:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/vnrp0610pr.cfm

But what about this?

Serious violent crime (defined as rape or sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault) was less likely to go unreported to the police in 2010 than in 1994. The percentage of unreported serious violent victimizations declined from 50 percent in 1994 to 42 percent in 2010. Unreported simple assault (assaults not involving an injury or a weapon), and property crime victimizations followed a similar pattern during the same period. The percentage of unreported simple assaults declined from 63 to 51 percent, and unreported property crime declined from 67 percent to 60 percent.

Now, just because things are not reported does not mean rape culture. I said this before, but many victims do not want to dwell on their rape. They just want to move on and try to forget it. I find this sad, because I think it would be better to report it, but I understand it too.

 

[realibrad]

The message is that she is fed up with the large amount of males out there who say they want to date but then act like a womans concerns are meaningless because they dont share them. At best that is complete ignorance combined with a lack of social skills, more often though its a selfish unwillingness to compromise or be considerate of another person and in either scenario a good indicator that building a meaningful relationship is going to be very difficult if not impossible and not worth the time investment to even have a conversation about the topic, never mind going on an actual date.

I will say this again. Its not just "males" that are offended by this. If you are told by a parent not to say hello to a child because they dont know if you are a child molester, you would likely get offended. It is normal that people get offended in situations like that. I don't think they should be, but it is normal. His being offended could be a normal reaction, even if its not how I react. You are assuming his normal reaction to being treated as a possible rapist is a dick move, but its normal and has nothing to do about rape culture.

You also could really benefit from understanding the difference between treating something as though it might be something specific and treating something as though you dont know what it is. Your insistence that its the same reminds me of some of the threads in discussion club where one of the atheists is trying to explain to one of the theists the difference between not believing there is a god and believing there is no god.

What makes you think I dont already understand that? I am not making an argument of how I would react. I am making the point that I see others reaction that way.

If your judging of others (especially people you dont even know) based on assumptions contributes to a societal attitude that unfairly causes harm to some people, surely you must agree that it would be best if you were to stop that kind of judging.

What assumption are you talking about? Are you going back to the comment that you can never know all things to make a judgement on who is guilty or not?

Also, as an atheist my very existence is offensive to some. Should I not be allowed to be something because it makes people unhappy?

We have a legal system to hand out consequences for unwanted behaviors, I would think that when it comes to personal interactions with others you would fully support other people not thinking of you, or treating you poorly based on incomplete information.

Depends. If our legal system said someone was not allowed to say I'm a dick it would be legal, but I would say that is a bad law. That is because I am for freedom of speech even if its offensive. I think the government deciding what is legal can be very bad in terms of behaviors. Not too long ago blacks and whites could not marry. It was considered by most to be unwanted behavior. If you say that we should stop victim blaming, then what is the argument for not abusing that power?

If you have a solution to that, then you would be far far ahead of most people.

If you cant see the difference between treating something as an unknown and treating something as though it might be something specific, then perhaps your time would be better spent trying to convince people that being treated as though they might be something bad is a good and reasonable thing rather than being annoyed at people who are frustrated that others are offended by reasonable behavior.

Is this supposed to be the same as this?

You also could really benefit from understanding the difference between treating something as though it might be something specific and treating something as though you dont know what it is.

If so then I see a problem. Treating something as if it might be vs it could be is different. Treating someone as unknown vs might be is not the same as the previous.

In the context of the comic, she is not treating him as unknown. She is treating him as a possible rapist. She is not worried that he is going to steal her identity, or egg her house. She is worried that this person might rape her if she makes it too easy of a situation.

Again, even though I have said this over and over, I will say it again. I have no problem with her being safe. I only have a problem with how angry she got internally in reaction to him.

 

[Rebel_L]

Then you say you dont like that the reporter did not express sympathy for the victim, as if reports need to express their emotional feelings about it. That is not reporting by the way. Also, the guy clearly says that lives are destroyed by the verdict and the crime. You seem to think that because the focus is not only on the victim that nothing else bad is happening. Their lives being ruined is the right thing to do as a punishment, but its still something that will ruin their lives.

The bold'd statement is a pretty good indicator of victim blaming.

A verdict is not something that you can hold accountable, it is an affirmation of what the criminal chose to do, the sentence is the application of consequences laid out before hand. The criminal may have wrecked his own life as well as that of others, but it was the criminals doing not the verdicts. To say otherwise is to be a part of the problem.

 

[MajinCry]

There's also this.

https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

 

[zinfamous]

There's also this.

https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

You know...I like Mick Foley. In every account I know of he's a rather decent guy...but something about his "thumbsup" image next to that chart, wearing his flannel shirt....Yeah, he's shown as a supporter for this group, but man: That ain't right. :hmm:

 

[brycejones]

There's also this.

https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

Look at that 30 innocent men attacked by vengeful 3rd wave feminists. A man can't do anything anymore without some vengeful shrew calling the cops.

 

[realibrad]

The bold'd statement is a pretty good indicator of victim blaming.

The point he was making was that it was all about how the boy's lives were ruined and how sad it was. The video includes a person talking about how the victim was also hurt which conflicts with the statement he made.

In no way does that video show victim blaming.

If a verdict is not guilty the only life hurt is of the victim. If there is not punishment, then the act does not hurt the attacker. The punishment is what hurts the attacker, as it should be.

A verdict is not something that you can hold accountable, it is an affirmation of what the criminal chose to do, the sentence is the application of consequences laid out before hand. The criminal may have wrecked his own life as well as that of others, but it was the criminals doing not the verdicts. To say otherwise is to be a part of the problem.

No. Raping someone who does not feel guilty will not hurt that person. Its the punishment carried out by the people that punishes the attacker. The criminal did not wreck his life by the rape, he wrecked it by getting caught. I am happy that a rapist got punished. That does not mean that the criminal act is what hurt the attacker, its the punishment. Dont put the cart before the horse.

 

[realibrad]

There's also this.

https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

Sad stat. Victims of rape very often do not want to go through the process of coming forward. There is also some that report rape that is not true. There are also some who feel like they were raped, but might not have been.

Not sure how this graph shows a rape culture. If only 100 out of 300 million people were raped, it would not be a rape culture right?

This is why rape culture needs to be defined clearly. If there was a clear definition then it would be a lot easier to find data to support or disprove the term as applying to a culture.

 

[Rebel_L]

No. Raping someone who does not feel guilty will not hurt that person. Its the punishment carried out by the people that punishes the attacker. The criminal did not wreck his life by the rape, he wrecked it by getting caught. I am happy that a rapist got punished. That does not mean that the criminal act is what hurt the attacker, its the punishment. Dont put the cart before the horse.

And its the bullets that kill people right, not the people who pull the trigger?

 

[zinfamous]

Sad stat. Victims of rape very often do not want to go through the process of coming forward. There is also some that report rape that is not true. There are also some who feel like they were raped, but might not have been.

Not sure how this graph shows a rape culture. If only 100 out of 300 million people were raped, it would not be a rape culture right?

This is why rape culture needs to be defined clearly. If there was a clear definition then it would be a lot easier to find data to support or disprove the term as applying to a culture.

maybe I have no idea where this general discussion has been going over the years (I give 2 dicks about gg vs feminists), but to me, "Rape culture" doesn't refer to a society that actually, well, rapes a lot. It's a society where rape isn't so much as punished as it is more or less accepted due to failure to prosecute, failure to come forward, victim shaming, and a whole host of other social stigmas that go back centuries "boys will be boys" is quite real, of course.

In that sense, total number of rapes within a population doesn't matter. It's how society tolerates rape that matters. Within the Catholic Church, I think you have both (alarming number, and widespread tolerance, direct cover-up). Within frat-house dynamics, I think you have both.

regardless, the actual number of rapes is truly shameful. Looking at any number of rapes and saying "Well, it really isn't that many," doesn't help any situation.

 

[mikeymikec]

From the second link

"It is not a crime to drink, but it is a crime for a rapist to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex through drink."

Aside from being passed out or unconscious, since the person isn't capable of consent why should they be held responsible if they get caught driving in the same condition by the police,

after all why should they be told they are responsible for driving under the influence but not responsible for having sex in the same inebriated condition?

If both people are drunk enough not to be able to consent to sex, that is one matter.

If one participant is aware enough (and therefore is able to consent) but the other is not and they have sex anyway, the participant who is aware enough has done something wrong. You should not have sex with someone who is not capable of consent.

When you drive a vehicle, you are easily capable of causing serious damage and loss of life. If you are aware and in control of your faculties enough to go through the motions of driving a car (albeit with decreased awareness of hazards and decreased reaction time), you're capable enough to know better. The same cannot be said for sex, because one participant can even be unconscious while they other has sex with them.

Does this really need pointing out?

 

[MajinCry]

Sad stat. Victims of rape very often do not want to go through the process of coming forward. There is also some that report rape that is not true. There are also some who feel like they were raped, but might not have been.

Not sure how this graph shows a rape culture. If only 100 out of 300 million people were raped, it would not be a rape culture right?

Rape culture's already been defined for you, time and time again. Belligerence towards victims of rape/sexual abuse, trivialization of their suffering, victim blaming, rapist sympathizers, etc.

A good example is the Catholic Church. People believe that the Church is more important than the raped adults and children, victims of those that are part of the Church, to the point that they'll believe that age-old tale of "The Church has to protect it's image".

Being raped and having your rapist protected and sheltered, is far less important and significance than the Church being known to protect rapists and shelter them. That's what a person means when they say that the Church was protecting itself.


The most prominent example of rape culture, particularly in America, would be found in regards to Native Americans, where 1 in 3 Native American have reported being raped, and the law is such that non-Native Americans cannot be prosecuted for committing crimes (rape included) in Native American communities.

Another good example, is that taharrush epidemic, where the so-called refugees were committing rape en masse, with the media covering it up and police departments refusing to investigate and prosecute. Here are a couple articles on the subject.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-handling-of-mass-sexual-assaults-in-cologne

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/...ks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful/


Going back to America, what about Bill Clinton taking regular trips to Jeffrey Epstein's sex slave island, by taking a flight on the so-called "lolita express"?

https://news.vice.com/article/the-s...-a-fight-against-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton

"People in the know always talk about Jeffrey Epstein."


Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein is a financier and political donor. He is also a convicted sex offender who is the subject of ongoing litigation from at least a dozen of his then-underage victims.


Flight logs show Bill Clinton traveled at least 10 times on Epstein's private jet, dubbed the "Lolita Express" by tabloids, and he is widely reported to have visited Little St. James, Epstein's private island in the US Virgin Islands. That's where, according to attorneys for Epstein's victims, many of the worst crimes against minors were committed by Epstein and friends who traveled there with him.


In a 2011 interview with her attorneys, Virginia Roberts, one of the teenagers preyed upon by Epstein, said he had told her he had "compromising" information on Bill Clinton and that the former president "owes me a favor."

Yet people still love Bill Clinton, and people seem to highly respect the woman that's married to the guy. Bit fucked if you ask me.




It's shit like that, that falls under that rape culture thing. It's as broad as the latter part of the name implies.

 

[realibrad]

And its the bullets that kill people right, not the people who pull the trigger?

Bullets are not a concept, but an object that is directed by a person. That is why we judge the person and not the bullet.

If you dont want to talk to me, then dont. Nobody is forcing you to engage with me. I am being respectful and trying to have an open and honest conversation, but if you dont want it then dont.

 

[realibrad]

maybe I have no idea where this general discussion has been going over the years (I give 2 dicks about gg vs feminists), but to me, "Rape culture" doesn't refer to a society that actually, well, rapes a lot. It's a society where rape isn't so much as punished as it is more or less accepted due to failure to prosecute, failure to come forward, victim shaming, and a whole host of other social stigmas that go back centuries "boys will be boys" is quite real, of course.

In that sense, total number of rapes within a population doesn't matter. It's how society tolerates rape that matters. Within the Catholic Church, I think you have both (alarming number, and widespread tolerance, direct cover-up). Within frat-house dynamics, I think you have both.

regardless, the actual number of rapes is truly shameful. Looking at any number of rapes and saying "Well, it really isn't that many," doesn't help any situation.

Rape is punished when its labeled as rape. I will grant you that it was horrible in the past how people tried to define real rape. Current society is nothing like that.

Show me where someone was raped in the past 15 years where nothing happened because boys will be boys.

It is true that many do not come forward, but not because rape is accepted. its because rape is damaging to people mentally. Trying to cope with what happened and then having to think about it during an investigation is too much for some. That is not rape culture so much as individuals who are hurt and cant find a reason to come forward. That I truly feel sad for.

As I said before, nobody deserves to be raped. Rape is not okay ever. That said people are shitty and because of that people should take some steps to protect themselves. In no way does that mean that someone should be absolved from rape at all. Punishment should not be based on the victim in terms of the level of safety they took. If you rape, you get punished, end of story.

 

[realibrad]

If both people are drunk enough not to be able to consent to sex, that is one matter.

If one participant is aware enough (and therefore is able to consent) but the other is not and they have sex anyway, the participant who is aware enough has done something wrong. You should not have sex with someone who is not capable of consent.

When you drive a vehicle, you are easily capable of causing serious damage and loss of life. If you are aware and in control of your faculties enough to go through the motions of driving a car (albeit with decreased awareness of hazards and decreased reaction time), you're capable enough to know better. The same cannot be said for sex, because one participant can even be unconscious while they other has sex with them.

Does this really need pointing out?

If you have 3 drinks in a hour, you could legally be drunk enough not to consent to sex and it would be rape, but you would easily be aware enough to get into a car and kill people. There is no legal definition of BAL% and consent.

 

[realibrad]

Rape culture's already been defined for you, time and time again. Belligerence towards victims of rape/sexual abuse, trivialization of their suffering, victim blaming, rapist sympathizers, etc.

Show me where that was shown to me ever. Unless you are talking about Mike and his so called definition, nobody has tried to define it to me.

Also, show me where we blame victims of sexual abuse, and not victims in general. As I already explained, we blame victims of all types of crime.

People also trivialize horrible things like 9/11. Are you saying we have a pro-terrorism culture too?

A good example is the Catholic Church. People believe that the Church is more important than the raped adults and children, victims of those that are part of the Church, to the point that they'll believe that age-old tale of "The Church has to protect it's image".

As I already said, if you want to talk about rape culture, then the catholic church is perfect. We agree.

Being raped and having your rapist protected and sheltered, is far less important and significance than the Church being known to protect rapists and shelter them. That's what a person means when they say that the Church was protecting itself.

Yep, it was and is bullshit. The fact that the federal government knows the catholic had a systemic problem of abuse and does nothing is fucking amazing and sad.

The most prominent example of rape culture, particularly in America, would be found in regards to Native Americans, where 1 in 3 Native American have reported being raped, and the law is such that non-Native Americans cannot be prosecuted for committing crimes (rape included) in Native American communities.

Native American culture might be a rape culture, but to say we are a rape culture expands it way beyond what is reasonable

Another good example, is that taharrush epidemic, where the so-called refugees were committing rape en masse, with the media covering it up and police departments refusing to investigate and prosecute. Here are a couple articles on the subject.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-handling-of-mass-sexual-assaults-in-cologne

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/...ks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful/

That is a bunch of people not wanting to admit something is an issue out of fear of being called a racist. Its stupid, but Germany does not have a rape culture. It has a problem with migrants that come from a culture that might be considered a rape culture.

Going back to America, what about Bill Clinton taking regular trips to Jeffrey Epstein's sex slave island, by taking a flight on the so-called "lolita express"?

https://news.vice.com/article/the-s...-a-fight-against-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton


Yet people still love Bill Clinton, and people seem to highly respect the woman that's married to the guy. Bit fucked if you ask me.


It's shit like that, that falls under that rape culture thing. It's as broad as the latter part of the name implies.

A lot of that sounds very troubling. He has enough power to suppress the facts. But, the fact that it is being suppressed shows we dont have a rape culture. If we did, then nobody would be worried right?

Rape is bad. Rapists are bad and should be punished. Victims should be supported to an extent. We should not just believe someone when they say they are raped. If we did that, then what would have happened to those Duke boys. Unless you believe their lives are ok to ruin if it helps the greater good.

 

[Fayd]

Let me show you part of the problem. This is from the CDC.



Wow, reading that would make it seem like rape to men almost never happens right? It clearly says that the sample of men were too small to to produce anything useful. But wait, what is the very next part of that report?



Wait...what? The first part said that men reported being raped so infrequently that it was not a meaningful measurement. Then, the next part says that when you include the other things, the rate goes to 5.5 and 5.1%

Well, that is because women are raped more then men, but men have other forms of sexual violence. But wait, did I read that other part right?



What the fuck? How is a man sticking his dick in a woman who does not consent rape, but a woman forcing a man's dick into her not rape?


So, its correct to say that men represent the majority of attackers. But, sexual assault happens to men and women.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm

That is from the CDC study from 2011.

It doesn't mean rape against men doesn't happen, nor does it mean it's sufficiently small as impossible to produce reasonable estimates. It means the authors of that study don't know how to use statistics.

 

[werepossum]

Does your graph of sexual assault include male rape? Only recently has the law recognized that a woman can rape a man. Its possible that the graph you posted did not include this. I would assume assault would include this, but I have seen many times where it was not.

Hell, I spent most of my single life trying to convince women of this. Well . . . convince, encourage . . .

This site has to be a parody site. I'm betting it's a spin-off of The Onion.

 

[mikeymikec]

If you have 3 drinks in a hour, you could legally be drunk enough not to consent to sex and it would be rape, but you would easily be aware enough to get into a car and kill people. There is no legal definition of BAL% and consent.

I would guess that's the case because the risks associated with sex are not in any way similar to the risks similar to the risks associated with driving a car. For example, one could drive a car in such a way that causes say a coach full of people to plough into a bridge support on a motorway at 60mph, or a lorry to jack-knife in busy traffic and causing a multi-car pile-up.

The reason the achievements were put forward at first is to show that they were on track to have a good life. You assume it was for sympathy, but I felt it was to show how good they had it, and how they ruined it by raping a girl.

Then you say you dont like that the reporter did not express sympathy for the victim, as if reports need to express their emotional feelings about it. That is not reporting by the way. Also, the guy clearly says that lives are destroyed by the verdict and the crime. You seem to think that because the focus is not only on the victim that nothing else bad is happening. Their lives being ruined is the right thing to do as a punishment, but its still something that will ruin their lives.

You seem to be viewing everything as if admitting something bad is happening to the rapists that they are trying to feel sorry for them. Its not. Its a way of showing the impact of their poor decisions. Raping a girl like they did is horrible. Does not mean that we should not understand the impact of punishment. Its not that they are trying to elicit sympathy, its that they want to convey the gravity of the situation.

And yet CNN didn't have any problems describing what they thought of the crime or the perpetrators in the video of this news article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/05/asia/pakistan-teen-girl-killed/index.html

What about the poor perpetrators of this crime? What about their lives that have been ruined by this crime? Emotional adjectives are also used several times in this clip regarding the severity of the crimes committed, yet not once for the steubenville rape case report.