Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

There's a difference between rape having a sexual element and rape being about sex.

True, but I find the distinction so nuanced as to not warrant the significance it's been given.

Attitudes about sex are more permissive than anytime in recent history and popular culture is full of examples of women being overtly involved in sex without calling them whores. So if your position were correct, you'd expect rape to be at an all-time low. But I don't think it is.

I'm a white male from a flyover state. Attitudes like those of the young men in this incident are rampant. Women who act like men sexually suffer all sorts of shitty judgments. They are ostracized. They are viewed as not deserving respect. TV shows don't change mores as easily as you think.

And even assuming TV did change mores, consider what stereotypes are reinforced. Take Sex and the City. Parker's character doesn't fuck around. She's chasing love. She's the hero. The blonde woman who fucks with abandon, like a man would, is an anti-role model. She's a punchline, something not to be emulated. Even to the writers of these allegedly "empowering" shows, the women who fuck to fuck are always flawed characters. On some level deserving some scorn. Our "traditional" bullshit belief that women are the less sexual sex, or the more virtuous, must be reinforced. The obvious logical jump in that archaic thinking is that women who don't fit the societal expectation deserve what they get. Do you doubt there aren't dozens of troglodytes in Ohio right now saying, "Well, if she hadn't gotten so drunk and been so easy, none of this would've happened"? That's the power of "traditional" judgmental values.

No matter what over cultural changes you'd like to see, as long as a woman has the right to say no to having sex with any particular guy at any particular time for whatever reason she feels like (which I assume you are not saying that should change), guys are going to rape as a means of exerting power and control by taking that choice away from her.

Absolutely. But wound into that will be a disrespect for women that accrues from friction between the sexes enhanced by traditional values. Only an idiotic male would call a sexually aggressive woman a whore.

As a man, I have always valued-- hell, I've fucking revered, sexually aggressive women. Sex is a thing we desire, with many women, and I think it's both a serious fucking turn-on, and deserving of utmost respect, when a woman brushes off the societal pressure to be chaste and seeks her own pleasure.

But I've known a shitload of guys who think otherwise. They don't like it. I don't know why, but my suspicion is because their upbringing in a household hewing to "traditional values" taught them such women were defective. I think they think they're entitled to sex from women they view as permissive. And once they make that jump, rape's not much to justify.

So basically I'm calling bullshit on your argument.

I kind of figured that.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

So what was the point of your comment at all? You were agreeing with Fugee that it's really about power through forced sex, but wanted to make sure that everyone remembers that rape involves sex?

TM

My point is that people often say, "it's not about sex, it's about power and control."

I think that's wrong. You apparently do to. So what are you on about?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Fugee

Attitudes about sex are more permissive than anytime in recent history

In some groups, yes, in other groups, no.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

My school is on there. Remember:

• Be handsome
• Be attractive
• Don't be unattractive

Mine's there also. Which robs the list of any credibility.

And Georgetown is a chock full of talent, but more than USC? That's suspect.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

one could make a decent argument the greatest harm done to the girl was the posting on social media- especially for the reasons you list.

Call the parents of the players. They could use a mind like yours on the appellate team.

On the civil suit, I'm sure we'll see crossclaims against Verizon, Apple, and Twitter.

[Not Bob's Id]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

if they cross themselves that's a Catholic, Liberty is Baptist, isn't it? You probably got head from a Notre Dame dame. Ha ha.

Indeed, and a "ha-ha" in the voice of that kid from The Simpsons at that.

Apropos of this, Not Bob used to fall for Italian girls, many of whom ("who"?) are Catholic. Although not typically at Notre Dame. Anyway, one of the Italian girls he fell for went to Yale. She did not give him fellatio, not even with the assistance of the lyrical persuasion of Mr. William M. "Billy" Joel of Hicksville, New York.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

My point is that people often say, "it's not about sex, it's about power and control."

I think that's wrong. You apparently do to. So what are you on about?

I think you're a dweeb.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

In some groups, yes, in other groups, no.

More brilliant analysis.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Call the parents of the players. They could use a mind like yours on the appellate team.

On the civil suit, I'm sure we'll see crossclaims against Verizon, Apple, and Twitter.

fuck the players. I'm talking about the girl and her future.

She was drunk in the street, which is bad for her, but there she was at least largely at fault (or was there any claim she'd been drugged?) for that, and it sounds like "really drunk in public" wasn't real unusual for the students there.

She was treated like a rag doll, and then the players stuck fingers in her- they deserve whatever they get, but she was passed out for that. Careful now, I'm not saying the players didn't do bad crimes- they did, and they should go to jail. And the people that posted stuff, while vile, maybe didn't do anything that is a crime.

But the worst horror for her may be the crap shared on the internet that will be there next year, and when she looks at the internet in 20 years it'll probably still be there. And she knows everyone at school has seen it, and she has seen it, and it revisits the horror every time she looks.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Flower, while I've always admired your sexual prowess from afar, I now realize you just have no standards.

A virtually uninterrupted succession of unsolicited, no-strings-attached fellatio, or standards. Choose one. Besides, the Biola chick was kind of cute, the way she clutched at her Bible and tried to mumble the Lord's Prayer.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

More brilliant analysis.

TM

I'll try to be more long winded, like Sebby, who is saying that same things.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'll try to be more long winded, like Sebby, who is saying that same things.

Is this another teaching moment?

[Hank Chinaski]

Mitt Romney does not even watch the NCAA tournament until next week after the 47% have been eliminated.




Stolen from the twitter of @pourmecoffee

although i think it would be better if one substituted "Saturday" for "Next Week."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

She was drunk in the street, which is bad for her, but there she was at least largely at fault (or was there any claim she'd been drugged?) for that, and it sounds like "really drunk in public" wasn't real unusual for the students there.

Agreed, but what significance does this hold? She was drunk because she drank too much, like 90% of kids her age inevitably do at some point in the growing-up process. Am I missing a point here?

She was treated like a rag doll, and then the players stuck fingers in her- they deserve whatever they get, but she was passed out for that.

If she wasn't passed out, or incoherent, she could have said no to having those fingers put inside her. Or she could have said yes. In either event, there'd be no crime. So your point is?

Careful now, I'm not saying the players didn't do bad crimes- they did, and they should go to jail. And the people that posted stuff, while vile, maybe didn't do anything that is a crime.

But the worst horror for her may be the crap shared on the internet that will be there next year, and when she looks at the internet in 20 years it'll probably still be there. And she knows everyone at school has seen it, and she has seen it, and it revisits the horror every time she looks.

Am I understanding this? You seem to be suggesting the victim's life is potentially ruined because she was victimized? Well, I guess I understand that it would make some people uncomfortable around her to know what happened to her. But those people would be few. I mean, really, am I going to think badly of a woman who was sexually assaulted? No. It's illogical. I'd feel bad for her, and be cautious not to say things that might cause her to think about the incident. And am I going to think she contributed to it because she was drunk? Hell no. This is even more illogical.

She will feel embarrassed and humiliated by those photos. But I highly doubt she will suffer any negative scrutiny from people as a result of them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Agreed, but what significance does this hold? She was drunk because she drank too much, like 90% of kids her age inevitably do at some point in the growing-up process. Am I missing a point here?



If she wasn't passed out, or incoherent, she could have said no to having those fingers put inside her. Or she could have said yes. In either event, there'd be no crime. So your point is?



Am I understanding this? You seem to be suggesting the victim's life is potentially ruined because she was victimized? Well, I guess I understand that it would make some people uncomfortable around her to know what happened to her. But those people would be few. I mean, really, am I going to think badly of a woman who was sexually assaulted? No. It's illogical. I'd feel bad for her, and be cautious not to say things that might cause her to think about the incident. And am I going to think she contributed to it because she was drunk? Hell no. This is even more illogical.

She will feel embarrassed and humiliated by those photos. But I highly doubt she will suffer any negative scrutiny from people as a result of them.

I'm not going to bother with too much more. You suggested the posting on the internet was really of no moment. You are dead wrong- to her horror those will always be there.