It’s easy to see why his comments are seen as sympathy with the rapists, given the conclusion he derives from a parallel boys-will-be-boys argument:
Are you sure? It sounds like he is.
[QUOTE=Dan Black (Emphasis added)]
Wouldn’t you love to have a group of 19-year-old girls under your control, day in, day out?
[/QUOTE]
I’d like to think human nature is better than that.
Yes, and his idea of human nature is that every 25-year-old men—including all the people in his audience—are just waiting for a chance to have that kind of authority over young women, so that they can use that authority to rape them.
He’s directly implying that there’s a limit to how much you can expect this problem to be solved, because that’s just the way that young men—including all of you folks—are naturally.
He’s simultaneously minimizing the problem and implying that we should not expect much from efforts to solve it, and also that there’s a limit to how hard we should try.
It’s disgusting.
I guess I have a higher opinion of 25 years olds, even males, that do you or this jack-wagon. I am assuming the Honorable Dick was speaking to only the men in the room.
I also have much higher expectations of elected representatives. I expect them to at least act as if all their constituents are worthy of respect. The Honorable Dick appears to have none for any, as he thinks men by nature want to abuse women, and that that is just fine.
I do not agree he is explaining human nature; I think he is defending very nasty behavior, resulting from a very nasty attitudes about men and toward women.
I find the comment about having a bunch of 19-year-olds under one’s control creepy. Worrying triumph of id over superego, or something.
But the argument that marital rape is hard to prove is of course correct. If one is to convict someone of rape on no reliable evidence, just because they’ve been accused, and there is evidence of sex that may have been consensual, you have rewritten the standard of reasonable doubt. That’s a bad thing.
That doesn’t mean marital rape should be made legal, just that it will naturally be hard to prosecute, if we maintain reasonable standards of evidence.
“No reliable evidence”? — Juries have always been given the power to decide whether a victim’s testimony is reliable.
The more I read this, the more I don’t understand it. How is anything you say here different in a marital rape case as opposed to a non-marital rape case?
Between two married people, there’s a much higher presumption that they have had consensual sex.
There’s no valid inference here in context.
If all you know about them is that they are married, then you have a valid presumption that at some point in their marriage, they have engaged in consensual sex.
And that is also just as true when the alleged victim is involved in a non-marital relationship, such as a dating situation or in a live-in romantic relationship. It is also true of the two people involved have had an ongoing relationship as a prostitute and a client.
However, if one if them testifies that on X occasions listed in the charges, that the sex was not consensual, then your presumption means nothing. All that matters is whether the testimony is itself credible.
My point is that rape, or sexual assault, is typically harder to prove than crimes that offer more evidence than the accuser’s testimony.
Not impossible to prove, not uniquely hard to prove, but generally harder to prove. Thus many rapes go unprosecuted.
One for the Stupid Gun News and this thread: Oregon GOP group defends gun raffle to honor Lincoln and MLK with inept slavery analogy
First there was the raffle itself. Because what better way to honor two men famously assassinated with guns than to raffle off a gun? I mean, we honor Christ with crosses, right?
And then there was the apology for the raffle:
Well, that makes it all better.
Freedom to be free of debt ? The fuck is he on about ? Are there some Debt Bandidos out there, tagging innocent Americans with their debt guns I should know about before I make any travel plans ?
Also, there’s an unverifiable quote making the rounds which, if accurate, is pretty stupid:
It seems to have come from a small committee meeting that does not do full transcripted minutes, so take it with the approprate number of salt grains.
So, apart from race it’s not really political, and they might vote for a white Democrat? A white female Democrat, even?
Oklahoma: Congressman Lankford (R) to seek Coburn’s seat. Conservative, deeply religious, disciple of Coburn - what could go wrong?
Within moments - eating their young. ““We won’t support Congressman Lankford’s bid for the Senate because of his past votes to increase the debt limit, raise taxes, and fund Obamacare,” said SCF (Senate Conservatives Fund) Executive Director Matt Hoskins in a statement released Monday.
“We have reviewed his record and it’s clear that conservatives cannot count on him to fight for their principles,” he continued.”
You make a few sane votes (prevent national default, actually Obama decreased taxes using the metric of lost tax money total, do something for approximately 40,000 Okies without insurance who would benefit) and they throw you to the wolves.
Read more: Lankford announces Senate bid - POLITICO
No mention of Sarah Palin’s “inspiring” mlk day message?
Apparently, to honor Dr. King, Obama should stop “playing the race card.”
I wish a didn’t read that. There’s so much irony in that article it burns when I pee now.
Jeeeeez! What in the living crap…!!! This snowbound nobody probably thought it was “MILK” day and was speaking out against chocolate milk rights. Good effing grief.
So there’s this guy called Joshua Black running for the Florida House. Like many politicians these days, Mr. Black has a Twitter account. And since 140 characters is much too short for any sort of rational discourse but plenty long enough to spout stupid shit, Mr. Black has opted to write that President Obama should not only be impeached, but arrested and hanged high.
He further added that “Execution is the appropriate punishment for traitors #BenedictArnold #criminalpoliticians” A pic of the full tweet exchange here (courtesy of SomethingAwful).
Amusing detail for those listening to our show on the radio : Mr. Black is *actually *black. And calling for a lynch mob. Which I think says something about racial equality in America today !