I meant to quote SA’s post. Sorry. I didn’t even notice I’d quoted the wrong post until just now.
Not too very long ago we had a thread titled something like “Ask the Rape Victim”. I, and a few other posters, came in early and said (basically), “Good luck with this; the SDMB isn’t a good place for these discussions. There are a lot of rape apologists.” After that a lot of posters showed up and basically said, “What the heck? Really?” and asking for instances of this problem.
When I read that other thread (and this one) i thought, “I am going to bookmark these for next time,” but I realized that it would make no difference. Some people refuse to see these discussions and disgusting, or even problematic. There is no way to convince them of anything.
A long time ago I resolved to quit reading anything to do with rape or sexism on these boards, because it made me hate so many posters, and not want to read anything on here any more. I think I need to be more vigilant about that again, or leave the boards altogether. This is all so disappointing.
Please name one person in the other thread who has defended the rapists. One.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s more that they’re trying to make the victim share blame.
I rarely read or respond to threads here about rape, because so many of the posts are indicative of rape culture.
Tangential to the pitting, but…
Emotions and rationality are not functionally separate, despite common understandings. People whose emotional affect is disabled by brain injury, for example, do not become super-rational. They are disabled, and may have trouble making any decisions at all. They lack reasons, which turns out to mean that they lack effective reasoning. David Brooks’ new book talks about this.
As to the present thread and its derivation, I am unable to understand the reasoning of some present, and must wonder if they too have suffered disabling brain injury, or are just defensive about their own rapist tendencies.
regards,
miss elizabeth
No, surely you cannot be that dense, the message was remember to teach your daughter to avoid dangerous situations where people will violently assault her and the chances of her being raped decrease incredibly.
My post is my cite! (eta: in response to this
Oh, and margin is right. ‘Least, it seems if I don’t say so then I approve of raping eleven-year-olds, and I sure as shootin’ don’t, so I have to go with the alternative.
My post is not my cite, dipshit. I originally posted that it is pointless to argue with people about whether they are rape apologists because they just don’t get it. Then (of course!) someone comes in and says, “Let’s argue about whether someone is a rape apologist!!” So I referenced back to my earlier assertion; I know that I won’t convice him, and I already said it was pointless to try.
Although, I just admitted I know this, and yet I am responding to you.
In fairness, “Other posts that I won’t cite are my cites!” is a distinct claim from “My post is my cite!”.
You don’t wanna argue it, fine, but it’s usually considered good form to back up accusations. Otherwise, people who aren’t already agreeing with you tend to come away with two opinions: one, that you make unsupported allegations and are less than credible therefore, or two, that accusations of being a rape apologist are inherently subjective and rarely substantiated, and that said accusations should, as a group, be considered less than credible.
And neither are good things, IMHO.
On the matter of the original OP pitting I wanted to remain neutral. Right-wing assholes sometimes have logic on their side, though even then they often manage to phrase their position in a nasty insensitive way.
There was a follow-up, however, that reminded me why I detest American right-wingers.
If a rational thinker were to take Starving Artist’s position (though reversing subject and object in many of the sentences and replacing most of the adjectives) there might be a grain of truth here.
But it makes me sick to my stomach to listen to this from a redneck hypocrite, eager to destroy public education, who likes to see his “Welfare Mamas” out there working even when the wage is barely enough to pay for childcare, who sees nothing to complain about when prejudice at all levels of the justice system means that some classes or races are incarcerated at a higher rate than Beck-viewing WASP’s, even when the crimes, if any, are comparable, and who feels that taxing billionaires at a rate higher than we tax the middle class is Marxist “class warfare.”
When I see such contemptible thugs say contemptible things in a thread about the rape of an 11-year old girl, then Yes, I join with margin in condemning the “Blame the victom” mentality.
:smack: Starving Artist, I’m gradually learning that you’re an ignorant asshole, but please Please tell us this is just some sick humour. You do know sex between adult and 11-year old is always rape, don’t you?
Having older boyfriends is a bad thing that should stop immediately? :Dubious:
That being said, the girl in this story didn’t have an older boyfriend, she had an abuser. Other than that, Hamlet is spot on.
No they haven’t. People have said, over and over, that the victim is eleven years old, and is therefore not to blame for her rape. Nor is she responsible if she did something stupid - she is eleven years old.
It is wrong to the point of ridiculousness to see the phrase “where were this girl’s parents” as blaming the victim.
The victim did stupid things, for which she is not to blame, because she is eleven. Her parents failed to adequately supervise their daughter and stop her from doing the stupid things (for which she is not to blame, because she is eleven). It would be valuable if we, as a civilized society, could have a discussion on how we might be able to prevent other young girls from doing stupid things (for which they are not to blame, because they are underage).
But if every discussion gets sidetracked by loud idiots, and we cannot discuss some of the factors that enable rape, then we are missing out on an opportunity to reduce rape.
If nobody ever teaches a ten year old to look both ways before crossing the street, and he gets hit by a car and dies, it is not his fault. But it is perfectly legitimate to say, “Why didn’t anyone teach him to look both ways before crossing the street?”
Is it an absolute guarantee that he will never die in a car accident if he looks both ways before crossing instead of dashing out into traffic? Of course not. Does that mean teaching children to avoid dangerous situations is worthless?
And letting your eleven year old daughter dress up like a streetwalker and hang around with nineteen year olds is a recipe for disaster. As I said in the other thread, this is not blaming the victim; it is an obvious truth.
Regards,
Shodan
She didn’t “hang around with 19 years olds.” She was abused by them.
For an eleven year old? If you are dubious about that, you are an idiot.
Regards,
Shodan
She did both, you dumb bastard. And the first led directly to the second. Why didn’t her parents stop the hanging around, and thereby stop or prevent the abuse?
Regards,
Shodan
Meh, they’re just talking about the Catholic Church.
I would claim he’s not at fault for the robbery. He didn’t rob himself, did he?
Yeah, yeah. You know that someone is a rape apologist but it would be a waste of your time to back up your assertion. And for this I’m the dipshit? :dubious:
No she didn’t. She wasn’t capable. 11 year olds don’t “hang around” with adults. She was abducted by them. Every instance she was with that 19 year old was an abduction.