Skip to main content

View Diary: Don't Be That Girl (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't you find it sad that there are even two (2+ / 0-)


    We're talking about rape. It's a crime. I'm tired of hearing that women will claim they were raped to just get back at some man. Or that they didn't understand what was really happening so it wasn't really rape. Until we as a society treat rape as a crime whenever it happens, then we will have two sides.

    I'm not saying that the crime will always be proven but we have got to stop blaming women for rape and start prosecuting rape cases like they are a crime. Right now, we're prosecuting the victim as if she/he were the criminal far to many times.

    Writing this comment makes me think of Trayvon Martin... there were definitely two sides to that case as well. It was heavily politicized when it shouldn't have been. That's what I want to take away from rape cases. That level of politicization.

    •  not really (0+ / 0-)

      I mean look rape is wrong period end of discussion however the circumstances of the other diary were about as muddy as they can get. And it's situations like that one that make it so hard to decide whether it was rape or not.

      And you don't have to like it but there have been cases of false rape accusations, some of which were honest and some not so much.

      I have to tell you I don't really like you bringing Trayvon Martin into this because it's not a valid analogy. There are things that men and women can do to make the situation better. And no that's no going to magically completely solve rape but it would dramatically cut down on the type of rape the diary describes.

      Der Weg ist das Ziel

      by duhban on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 10:39:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Trayvon Martin could have done things differently. (1+ / 0-)

        He didn't have to wear a hoodie did he? He didn't have to be walking during the day time did he? He didn't have to smoke pot did he? But should he have had to do things differently?

        The cases are not as different as you would like them to be. Victims of all crime could probably have changed something in order to have prevented the crime but that doesn't mean they should have changed anything. That's the difference with rape - too many people are still willing to say that "if she would have done such and such, it would never have happened" yet we don't dare say those things about a young man like Trayvon who was so wrongly murdered. Because we know that isn't the inherent problem - it isn't that he wore a hoodie or that he was walking down the street or even that he used marijuana, though plenty of Zimmerman supporters would like us to think so.

        Rape is not muddy. That's where we disagree the most. Rapists are very good at choosing situations that will put a young woman's word in doubt. They are criminals who plan their crimes.

        I don't believe I've asked if you've watched The Invisible War? Truly, it changed my mind about how I saw rape and rapists. If you watch only one documentary this year, that should be it. I would love to hear your opinions after you've seen it.

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

          Whether he smoked pot or not had nothing to do with what happened. More over Zimmerman had no right to accost him and did so against the outright and explicit commands of the police.

          So I don't really see your point of comparison. I mean I suppose we could stretch that to compare to the scenario in the other diary where in there were also a series of bad decisions (by both people) leading up to the accusation of rape but at no time was there ever any thing close to official advice or command.

          Rape can be muddy and I think that is where we disagree. I mean no disservice or insult to victims of rape but for every clear cut case of sexual assault there's at least one if not more case of a scenario like the diary where in it may or may not be rape. And most criminals, most rapists are not especially clever. The vast majority of rapists are not only repeat offenders they're no very subtle either.

          Der Weg ist das Ziel

          by duhban on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 04:19:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It "may or may not be rape" (0+ / 0-)

            in example from the other diary?  You're talking about the one where the woman used the word NO and he chose to disregard it?  You consider that "muddy"?

            In that case, I'm not sure if there's any point in bothering with facts, but:

            The "misunderstood signals" myth that enables rapists has been thoroughly debunked.  Rapists understand a refusal long before they get to the explicit "no."  Not because they're "especially clever," but because that's the way people normally communicate.

            I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

            by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 06:45:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here's some more (0+ / 0-)

              on the debunking of the"miscommunication" myth:

              The problem arises with the miscommunication model, which is just plausible enough to suck people in to talking as though that were the prevailing situation, when we ought to know otherwise.

              I know that the miscommunication model describes, if anything, only a marginal subset of all rapes because I know that about 90% of all rapes are committed by a small population of repeat offenders who do it again and again, with premeditation, taking advantage of the prevalence of the victim precipitation and miscommunication model to provide cover for what is really the deliberate use of alcohol and isolation to rape their acquaintances. See here and here.

              After describing these models, O’Byrne’s paper analyzes the language used by nine young men in focus groups to discuss rape. I am more interested in putting the models out there than in the findings of the study, so I will summarize it only briefly and trust that readers can do their own follow-up. The gist of it is that these young men evidenced an understanding of and even a preference for nuances and diplomatic communication to refuse sex, but then when discussing rape, reversed course and began to argue that anything the least bit ambiguous was unintelligible. They framed rape as largely a problem of miscommunication, and further framed the miscommunication as a problem with women not nowing how to say the right thing.

              That doesn’t square with the research. It doesn’t square with their own discussion of communication when they’re not talking about rape. And basically it’s just self-justifying bullshit. Yet Lisak’s research and others shows that the vast majority of these guys — seven or eight out of nine — probably do not rape. What gives? Why create a social framework where rape is accidental if they don’t have to cover their own asses?

              I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

              by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 08:06:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site