Skip to main content

There are some subjects where EVERYONE who posts to a site such as this should have no disagreement about.

The violent crime that is the forcing of unwanted sexual attention on another person is one of them.

 I rarely get angry when I read a Diary but this person managed it.

Here is the bottom line on rape ...

A woman, any woman, should be free to walk down the street stark naked, and be safe from any kind of sexual assault.

There is no provocation, no woman ever "asked for it", and if you cannot keep your pants zipped absent a specific invitation to un-zip them, then you are a sexual predator and deserve all the punishment that can be meted out.

It is high time we dispensed with this arrant nonsense and started teaching our young men how not to be rapists, rather than spending all this time blaming women for being victims, and suggesting that it is they who need to change.

It isn't, it never was.

Sometimes, when I read the pathetic "concern" that men express towards women, followed by suggestions on how they may present less of a target to violent criminals, it makes me ashamed of my gender.

So listen up ...

Keep your dick in your pants, and your hands to yourself, unless and until you are told that you may proceed!

How hard is it? And when will our schools start drilling that message into guys before they become rapists?

Originally posted to Every Part of You Belongs to You on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:23 AM PDT.

Also republished by Sluts and House of LIGHTS.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (240+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rosaura, wilderness voice, DrLori, serendipityisabitch, AoT, rigcath, detroitmechworks, pat bunny, arlene, Wee Mama, zerelda, SaraBeth, cotterperson, jlms qkw, pat of butter in a sea of grits, BadKitties, jrooth, Onomastic, Chaddiwicker, Lilith, mookins, Greasy Grant, bibble, Kevskos, Tara the Antisocial Social Worker, MKinTN, jan4insight, political mutt, sfbob, howabout, Catte Nappe, allergywoman, Vita Brevis, science nerd, hnichols, LynChi, DefendOurConstitution, trumpeter, stevie avebury, countwebb, bleeding heart, FindingMyVoice, marleycat, blueyedace2, mungley, Raven Song, Sun Tzu, Lost Left Coaster, RJDixon74135, War on Error, pixxer, ask, badscience, swampyankee, cececville, JDWolverton, TexanJane, anna shane, LSmith, CwV, CoExistNow, TokenLiberal, Brainwrap, Avilyn, cyncynical, FG, Mary Mike, IL clb, glendaw271, Karen Hedwig Backman, McWaffle, pittie70, Matt Z, enufisenuf, Shippo1776, middleagedhousewife, Jabus, petulans, Lorikeet, CA Nana, tuesdayschilde, susakinovember, Preston S, Diogenes2008, cassandraX, blukat, eru, a2nite, gloriana, majcmb1, carver, cosette, Avila, FriendlyNeighbor, Eyesbright, prettygirlxoxoxo, gustynpip, left rev, mikidee, Dr Colossus, ferg, Nobody, TexDem, Mimikatz, Ice Blue, koosah, Siri, BlueOak, chrississippi, Fishgrease, BlackSheep1, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, mollyd, Steven D, grollen, saluda, Gowrie Gal, Empower Ink, vacantlook, Involuntary Exile, Glen The Plumber, Susan from 29, Sylv, papercut, tardis10, draghnfly, cwsmoke, carpunder, grumpelstillchen, millwood, Nica24, alice kleeman, weatherdude, Batya the Toon, Sapere aude, splashy, Radiowalla, wasatch, kurious, sc kitty, pasadena beggar, Bluesee, Hanging Up My Tusks, NJpeach, slowbutsure, implicate order, coquiero, Carol in San Antonio, run around, niteskolar, greycat, schnecke21, doroma, crose, boadicea, rapala, Horace Boothroyd III, TheMeansAreTheEnd, SteelerGrrl, Sue B, The Marti, mamamorgaine, jeff in nyc, the good witch, historys mysteries, Hastur, Tonedevil, tytalus, 2thanks, Patience is Not a Virtue, peachcreek, Ginny in CO, Dumbo, Sam Sara, blugrlnrdst, missLotus, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Loonesta, SilverWillow, Leftleaner, pitbullgirl65, Cassandra Waites, kathny, WakeUpNeo, rb608, asterkitty, TrueBlueMajority, Daulphin, nhox42, Captain C, LoreleiHI, dejavu, ChocolateChris, Skennet Boch, martini, commonmass, GoldnI, murasaki, Lost and Found, Azubia, k88dad, Debby, Safina, SueM1121, 207wickedgood, Regina in a Sears Kit House, LillithMc, KenBee, pvasileff, Cali Scribe, Oh Mary Oh, Purple Priestess, madhaus, bsmechanic, This old man, jnhobbs, Marko the Werelynx, murrayewv, bkamr, MBNYC, Stripe, Yasuragi, NonnyO, bigjacbigjacbigjac, One Pissed Off Liberal, celdd, Quilldriver, LaFeminista, oortdust, nuclear winter solstice, 88kathy, snowwoman, geordie, politik, Raggedy Ann, martydd, avsp, Spirit of Life, belinda ridgewood, Brecht

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:23:20 AM PDT

  •  This is already becoming a tired meme, but (136+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, AoT, rigcath, Wee Mama, zerelda, SaraBeth, cotterperson, jlms qkw, BadKitties, Onomastic, pat of butter in a sea of grits, mookins, serendipityisabitch, Kevskos, Tara the Antisocial Social Worker, MKinTN, sfbob, howabout, radmul, lexalou, allergywoman, science nerd, LefseBlue, trumpeter, countwebb, FindingMyVoice, NonEuclidian, marleycat, blueyedace2, mungley, Raven Song, War on Error, swampyankee, anna shane, CoExistNow, Avilyn, cyncynical, IL clb, Matt Z, Shippo1776, middleagedhousewife, misslegalbeagle, CA Nana, tuesdayschilde, susakinovember, Diogenes2008, northsylvania, blukat, eru, a2nite, cosette, Avila, fran1, prettygirlxoxoxo, Eyesbright, The Rational Hatter, gustynpip, mikidee, carver, Mimikatz, Ice Blue, TexDem, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, BlackSheep1, broths, grollen, Empower Ink, Involuntary Exile, Susan from 29, Loquatrix, Sylv, tardis10, papercut, cwsmoke, Nica24, nominalize, splashy, Radiowalla, wasatch, kurious, pasadena beggar, implicate order, schnecke21, crose, Chinton, Sue B, The Marti, historys mysteries, Hastur, Tonedevil, home solar, MikePhoenix, peachcreek, TrueBlueMajority, Loonesta, drmah, SilverWillow, Leftleaner, pitbullgirl65, Cassandra Waites, kathny, WakeUpNeo, rb608, asterkitty, Meteor Blades, dejavu, sjburnman, jham710, martini, Lost and Found, Safina, 207wickedgood, Regina in a Sears Kit House, LillithMc, KenBee, Cali Scribe, Oh Mary Oh, Purple Priestess, madhaus, bsmechanic, oslyn7, Marko the Werelynx, bkamr, Stripe, NonnyO, bigjacbigjacbigjac, One Pissed Off Liberal, celdd, Quilldriver, LaFeminista, oortdust, snowwoman, kayak58, avsp, Spirit of Life, belinda ridgewood

    Instead of telling women "Don't get raped,"  how about teaching men "Don't rape."  

    Somehow that appears to be threatening to some people on a number of levels.

    "I speak the truth, not as much as I would, but as much as I dare, and I dare a little the more, as I grow older." --Montaigne

    by DrLori on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:29:32 AM PDT

    •  Thank you (35+ / 0-)

      And the tragedy is that our Leaders, the finest men, who we elect again and again, are among the worst offenders in this regard.

      Shame on them!

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:31:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think it will get tired (36+ / 0-)

      until men start taking responsibility and stop blaming women.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:31:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It will not get tired (8+ / 0-)

        Until real honest men who love women exercise their power to convince other men that rape is not acceptable and anyone who thinks otherwise will be sanctioned. We have to police our own. Men have to fix this. Any rape poisons all of us.

        That said, there will always be deviants. But they should become outcasts, not fit for civilized society. They disrupt the social fabric.

        In general it's a societal problem, and that's where rape "jokes" come in. As very bad taste.

        My daughter, who works for the UN Refugee agency these days (UNHCR), did part of her Grad school in Singapore, after several years in Europe. It was one city(state) where she could go to a party at night, walk back to her apartment alone in the middle of the night and have no fear. It's a city state that has its own society and makes its own rules, but they work.

        Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

        by blindcynic on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:37:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I do believe that's what Twigg just said. (5+ / 0-)

      I don't quite understand this comment, in that light.

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:33:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe DrLori (29+ / 0-)

        was simply supporting and emphasizing my point.

        I don;t think it can be said too often :)

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:36:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gotcha. (43+ / 0-)

          Then I'll add, for the record, that this all applies to male rape, too. Sometimes I think men are even more vulnerable than women are, because talking about it seems to be an even stronger taboo.

          Glad to see  this diary, btw. The first one was mindcurdlingly bad, in several ways.

          At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

          by serendipityisabitch on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:48:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wish I could rec your comment about (12+ / 0-)

            a dozen times.

            "I speak the truth, not as much as I would, but as much as I dare, and I dare a little the more, as I grow older." --Montaigne

            by DrLori on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:15:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  more vulerable to trauma (18+ / 2-)

            It's weird that when it's noted that men in the military are raped as often as women in the military, that it's not also emphasized that it's virtually always men who rape, it's men who rape women, other men and children of both sexes. And the statisic is still misleading, there are far more men in the military than there are women, so obviouslly more chances. If there were equal numbers, they'd be far more women raped.  

            But men who are raped are less culturally prepared to realize it wasn't personal, it was about availablity and circunstance.  Far fewer women rape-victims question what it means about them personally, and wonder if they were putting out passive victim (or homosexual) signals.  Like children men are more likely to assume some fault and that kind of thing drives them to feel shame and maintain silence.

            But, the more men who speak up, the more it's recognized as all too common, and not at all a specific response to a particular type of man.   And no particular type of man rapes either, could be anyone under the 'right' circumstances (when they are stronger and think they can get away with it.)  And most rapists assume that their victim really wanted it, so all this stuff about provocoative dress really does give them comfort.  

            "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

            by anna shane on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:49:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is actually wrong (31+ / 0-)
              And no particular type of man rapes either, could be anyone under the 'right' circumstances (when they are stronger and think they can get away with it.)
              The overwhelming majority of rape and a vastly disproportionate amount of other violence is perpretrated by a tiny percentage of particularly violent men.

              That particular study finds that in the college population they studied, 4% of men were responsible for about 91% of rapes (about 7 each already, in a college-age population) and 28% of total violence. A smaller group they call "single-act rapists" (those who admitted to one rape), who comprised 2% of the population, committed the remaining 9% of rapes and 6% of total violence.

              Another more recent study by the Navy arrives at similar figures. Further research has discovered that the serial rapists (around 5% of men responsible for about 90% of all rape) plan their crimes and select their victims carefully.

              Rape is not a crime of opportunity. If it seems that way, it's because the rapist created the opportunity. If it were a crime of opportunity, we'd expect to see a completely different distribution.

              There is a survival advantage to believing that any man could be a rapist. The fact is, you can't tell the difference, because they'll only admit to it if you ask them on an anonymous confidential form and don't use the word 'rape'. Barring that, they look pretty much like any other guy, unless you've already seen their violent side.

              But in the interest of accuracy, knowing what we're dealing with, knowing how to fight on a societal scale, we should make an effort to understand what's actually going on. And it appears that most men are actually not potential rapists. Most men are also apparently substantially less violent in other ways than we'd thought.

              "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

              by kyril on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 01:57:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Most men are not rapist. (15+ / 0-)

                It is not something that every red blooded "real" man secretly wants to do.

              •  Therein lies the problem (12+ / 0-)
                The fact is, you can't tell the difference,
                Yes, you can't tell by looking who is the rapist. In fact, some of the "nicest" men are the worst, because it's a front they put up to lure in their victims. They are wolves in sheep's clothing.

                That's why the rapists need to prosecuted and put away, because you can't tell by looking.

                Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                by splashy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:45:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Recommend a million times. (15+ / 0-)

                The idea that all men, especially young men, are potential rapists, if faced with temptation, is simply false. That is like saying that all adults are potential pedophiles easily overwhelmed by the vision of a naked child. We aren't. The "instinctive, primal rape" belief is not only false, it gives cover to sadistic predators who benefit from the attitude that raping people is an innate desire that all men share, and sadly, some just can't control. That is simply not true.

                Studies show that rapists choose their victims, and stick to particular patterns of stalking, entrapping and attacking their victims. This is no different in cases of so-called "date rape" (where the standard defense is "mixed messages" and "sudden temptation.") The "acquaintance rapist" is only different from 'stranger rapist' in that former gets off on deceiving and entrapping his victims, while the latter gets enjoys the terror he causes by a sudden, brutal assault.

                Those boys in Steubenville are not little toddlers who didn't understand that hitting sister with the toy car is very bad. They are, in fact, newbie rapists who had not perfected their crime. If they had not been caught they would have done it to another girl.

                 

                "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

                by Reepicheep on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:28:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you're thinking of serial rapists (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Reepicheep

                  many men have only raped once, often when in college or with a group of buddies.  I recall one story of a professor who volated a student, after a party when she'd passed out, and  he was also drunk, and she woke up unexpeedly and flipped, and it's possible that this was his first rape.  He thought he could get away with it.  

                  "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

                  by anna shane on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:53:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I dare say he wasn't thinking at all (0+ / 0-)

                    Show me the whisky stains on the floor
                    Show me an old drunkard as he stumbles to the door
                    And I'll see a young man with so many reasons why...
                    ...and there, but for FORTUNE, go you - or I... - thanks, Phil

                    by chmood on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:13:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Huh? What is a professor doing (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Reepicheep

                    "violating" a student at a party? Why was he at a drunken student party anyway?

                    This was his first rape — for which he was caught!

                    It's always the first time — until he is caught again.

                    Most rapes are perpetrated by serial rapists and they all start with a "first time."

                    I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

                    by samddobermann on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 10:22:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  It is possible that it was just the (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kyril, New Jersey Boy

                    first rape he was punished for.

                    He was a professor, and she was a student. He was conscious, she was passed out. He has all the power and she is helpless. Its the perfect set up. If she reports the crime afterwards, it is unlikely that anyone will believe her. Worse, she could be ostracized by her peers if she accuses super-cool party professor of raping her.  

                     

                    "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

                    by Reepicheep on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:51:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I'd love to see a diary on this, just sayin. n/t (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kyril, Onomastic, Yasuragi

                "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

                by Reepicheep on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:33:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  one out of twenty men (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                207wickedgood

                is pretty fucking frequent. How many guys do you know? Which ones are the rapists?

                What laws can the senators make now? Once the barbarians are here, they'll do the legislating. C.P. Cavafy

                by anonymous volanakis on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:30:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you'd have to guess any of them (0+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:
                  Rick Aucoin

                  if they thought they could get away scott free.  What stops them is fear.  there would be some who would never rape, and they'd always protect a woman. In normal men few will risk getting caught, that's why it's opportunistic.  

                  "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

                  by anna shane on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:55:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  actually (0+ / 0-)

                if you interview normal men, many will admit that they took advantage of some situation. If a woam is passed out, for example, or very drunk.  Violent rape is unusual, but so called date rape is common, it doens't have to be an actual date.  These are often unreported, and they're not serial rapists, they are opportunistic rapists. who kid themselves that is's consenual.   In war most men rape in groups, very few will not go along with it.  

                "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

                by anna shane on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:50:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Rapists often groom their victims (0+ / 0-)

                Try and get one alone. Or make sure they are at functions where potential victims might be vulnerable.

              •  There is a difference. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                serendipityisabitch

                I knew the victim, many years after the fact, of one of those single-act rapes. She'd been going with the guy for a long time; they were making out; he didn't stop.

                Now, that doesn't make it okay.

                But it is a long way from that to stalking women so that they have to fear walking out at night.

                We have 2nd degree murder, when you get in a fight with someone and don't stop.

                Maybe we should have 2nd-degree rape.

                (I would be very surprised if this were ever punished in the present USA.)

                •  Interesting idea. I see no way to implement (0+ / 0-)

                  it, or even to define it strictly enough for a court to want to touch it, but there are some potentially relevant parallels.

                  The biggest difference, of course, is that death is an easily demonstrable end result, no matter what the factors are that lead up to it. To argue degrees of culpability in rape would require a much better definition of an end condition for the process - a can of worms that gets deeper and more tangled the more you look at it.

                  At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                  by serendipityisabitch on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:29:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  To this idea, I say, "no." (0+ / 0-)

                  "Jersey_Boy" was taken.

                  by New Jersey Boy on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:18:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Outstanding Comment /nt (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kyril

                Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies have nothing to lose but their chains -Marx (-8.75,-8.36)

                by alain2112 on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:58:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Say wtf? (6+ / 0-)
              And no particular type of man rapes either, could be anyone under the 'right' circumstances (when they are stronger and think they can get away with it.)
              WHAT?

              "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

              by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:26:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  wel, men who would never rape (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                New Jersey Boy

                have a very hard tiem believing that so many other guys would.  It's sweet, but unrealistic. Just think of war statistics, when the men will surely get away with it, that's when most rapes happen. And why they happen in the military, because there is a culture of getting away with it.  

                "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

                by anna shane on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:57:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  the military is a natural magnet for the violently (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rick Aucoin, samddobermann, Yasuragi

                  disposed ("duty, honor, country" notwithstanding):  I imagine (not being one, myself) that the desire to rape and the desire to kill are often found in the same skin bag.  The military forces consider this an 'externality' - ie, not their problem - and they make little if any effort to RE-condition soldiers for life AS a civilian, AMONG civilians, at the end of their tours.

                  This IMO is why combat vets are in such demand as "peace officers" once they're mustered out.  This is insane, and the trouble resulting should surprise no one.  Stop rape in the military?  The military creates rape, celebrates rape, and murder...but NOT IN EVERYONE.  Because not everyone is a rapist, opportunity be damned.  RAPISTS are rapists - and they must be stopped by ALL of us.

                  As I've been told and heard others told, biology IS NOT destiny.  The idea that 'all men are rapists, they're just cowards' is as wrong - and wrong-headed - as the notion that 'all women want it, they just can't admit it'.

                  Show me the whisky stains on the floor
                  Show me an old drunkard as he stumbles to the door
                  And I'll see a young man with so many reasons why...
                  ...and there, but for FORTUNE, go you - or I... - thanks, Phil

                  by chmood on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:26:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  its unbelivable that someone here (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Yasuragi

                    ... would not only say such a dispicable thing, but then be rec'd for it.

                    In years of being around this site, through flame wars uncountable, I've never seen such a bullshit commment that was rec'd by so many and hr'd by none.

                    Unfuckingbelievable.

                    "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                    by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:37:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  "skin bag?" I understand that you are refering (0+ / 0-)

                    to someone who has committed rape, but this is still a human being ... not a skin bag.  And, I can't believe I'm actually calling for more respect for a rapist -- but IMO it serves no good to dehumanize people, no matter the situation.  

                    Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                    by bkamr on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:41:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  to clarify: I was NOT talking about 'some BODY' (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bkamr

                      I was describing behaviors, not persons;  and while I agree that any given human deserves some basic minimum of respect, understanding behaviors need not get defused and diluted by conflating persons with characteristics.

                      I certainly feel NO compulsion whatever to "respect" the impulse to rape, to murder, to punish...which is a very different matter.

                      Hope this helps.

                      Show me the whisky stains on the floor
                      Show me an old drunkard as he stumbles to the door
                      And I'll see a young man with so many reasons why...
                      ...and there, but for FORTUNE, go you - or I... - thanks, Phil

                      by chmood on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:10:47 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  There is only one way I could agree with this (14+ / 0-)
              And no particular type of man rapes either, could be anyone under the 'right' circumstances
              The only way I could agree with the above statement is if you mean that no easily identifiable type of men are rapists.

              Because yeah, there are rapists and potential rapists in every possible demographic you could identify.  But there are also vast numbers of men who would never commit rape under any circumstances.

              If what you mean is that you can't tell the difference by simple observation and that any randomly selected man could be a rapist, then yeah.  If what you mean is that there is no difference and most or all men are rapists and potential rapists, then sorry, no, that's just flat-out false.

            •  I can't beleive you said this, and who rec'd it. (7+ / 0-)

                  serendipityisabitch, twigg, Buckeye Nut Schell, eru, gustynpip, BlackSheep1, grollen, Kevskos

              Seriously?  You all stand behind this statement?  

              And no particular type of man rapes either, could be anyone under the 'right' circumstances (when they are stronger and think they can get away with it.)
              Really?  You are all going to rec that shit?  For fucking real?

              That's one of the most outrageous things I've EVER read on this fucking website, and that's saying something.

              And it got 8 recs so far and not one HR?

              Are you KIDDING me?

              "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

              by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:44:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think that's because you can't tell (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kyril, anna shane

                Which men are the rapists. Rapists tend to do quite well at blending in, at looking innocent. That's how they manage to keep doing it.

                That being said,  I did not recommend because of the poor wording.

                Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                by splashy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:48:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's not what it says. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kyril, Reepicheep, dejavu, Hamtree

                  That might be what you thought it meant, but that is NOT what the commenter said.

                  F'ing outrageous.

                  "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                  by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:59:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  why so upset? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    splashy

                    How do  you know it isn't true?  If one out of three women has been sexually assaulted, you think that's just a handful of bad apples?  All you can say is you wouldn't rape. If you're a guy, ask some of your buddies, but without telling them what you want to hear.  Many will admit to the one time, when there was an opportunity.  They'll later be sorry.  But the woman will have been raped.  

                    If there is no opportunity, they won't manufacture one, but if there is?  

                    if you find it f'ing outrageous, how do you think the woman feels.  

                    or better, ask you female friends, who raped or tried to rape them and what were the circumstances.  

                    "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

                    by anna shane on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:12:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah, fuck you. (2+ / 1-)
                      Recommended by:
                      salamanderanagram, Hamtree
                      Hidden by:
                      serendipityisabitch

                      Just, fuck you, you horrible wretched person.

                      Go ahead, get anyone you can to come HR this comment, but you deserve it.

                      Fuck you.

                      You're wrong, and you're spreading vile fucking lies.

                      Fuck you.

                      "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                      by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:55:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't know whether anna is right or wrong (0+ / 0-)

                        and neither do you. Not enough solid data either way. In any case, your opinion of her opinion doesn't justify your comment. HR'd

                        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                        by serendipityisabitch on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:20:31 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ill wear that hr proudly. (0+ / 0-)

                          There isn't enough evidence to disprove the statement that almost all men are rapists at heart and only don't rape from fear of being caught?

                          Yeah.  Fuck you too.

                          "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                          by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:34:44 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  If you want to disprove that men are rapists (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splashy

                            (and my belief, though not my knowledge, is that most men aren't under most circumstances), don't you think you might want to find words that don't undercut your point?

                            Aren't you saying "Although I'm ready to use these words against you this way, trust me that I won't follow them up with actions because I'm just not that kind of a guy. I'm just saying fuck you because it's such a great way to end an argument, not because I'd ever mean anything by it."?

                            Think about it.

                            At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                            by serendipityisabitch on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:14:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right. (0+ / 0-)

                            Because every guy I've flipped the bird at or said 'fuck you' to was a threat of rape.

                            How pathetic, like accusing all men of being rapists at heart isn't enough, you want to play pedantic and dishonest games with generic insults?  

                            Done with speaking to you, for sure.

                            "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                            by Rick Aucoin on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:04:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If anna were a 'guy', I'd agree with you. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                            by serendipityisabitch on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:08:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Why so angry? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        serendipityisabitch

                        Seriously, why are you reacting so strongly?

                        Is there some personal issue involving this that you are thinking about?

                        They idea is to get people thinking about things, and how it is from the point of view of others.

                        Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                        by splashy on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:46:52 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  According to the Numbers Posted Above by Kyril (0+ / 0-)

                      4% of the men in the study were serial rapists with an average of 7 offenses.  Collectively this accounts for assaults against 28% of women, or close to the one in three that you cite.

                      So that one man in twenty five is the problem.  Is that "just a handful of bad apples?"  Of course not, especially as that phrase is generally used to sweep the problem under the rug.  It does, however, caution against tarring all men as potential rapists.

                      Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies have nothing to lose but their chains -Marx (-8.75,-8.36)

                      by alain2112 on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:03:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  I have to admit, I was reccing the paragraphs (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                anna shane

                above that, and didn't take that particular statement apart.

                And no, now that you've pointed it out I can't say that I'd rec it by itself. But, without going back and counting words, I'd say there was about half of the comment I agreed with, a third that I didn't particularly disagree with, and that piece. If I'd paid attention, I might have put a comment in about the characterization of men that was made, but I'd still have recced the comment.

                At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                by serendipityisabitch on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:39:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Really, classifying all men as rapists. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Reepicheep, jeff in nyc, Hamtree

                  Okay, thanks for your... opinion of men.

                  One wonders just exactly how vile the "second half" of a comment would have to be before it earns your HR or at least loses your support.

                  I don't wonder enough to ask you to answer, though, please, I've heard enough of your opinions already, and the others who rec'd up that vile piece of shit.

                  "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                  by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:44:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My opinion about men? Mostly I like 'em a whole (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mamamorgaine

                    lot.  On the other hand, I've never been subjected to any major amount of sexual pressure. Being 6'2" and around 190# at the age of 13 may have had something to do with that.

                    That doesn't mean I don't know women who are, simply, afraid of men in general. The "all men are potentially rapists" theme is one of the backlash positions to "all women are sluts". If you are raised to be afraid of men, it's a hard position from which to find countering data.

                    What I hear you saying is that any woman who holds that position or accepts that it seems valid to some other women, is beneath your contempt. I'm very sorry to hear that.

                    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                    by serendipityisabitch on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:04:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, the comment said... (6+ / 0-)

                      ... flat out, no equivocation, that all men are potential rapists.

                      And that's fucking bullshit.

                      "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                      by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:59:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  women must view all men as potential rapists (0+ / 0-)

                        if they want to avoid being raped.  And under the right circumstances most men would rape.  For example, in war, that's statistically factual.  It's called a war phenomenon.  Maybe not a woman of their class.  

                        "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

                        by anna shane on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:15:01 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yeah, fuck that. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Hamtree

                          And for fucking SHAME on you for even saying it, much less BELIEVING such a thing and spreading around such vile fucking lies.

                          For fucking shame.

                          "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                          by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:54:07 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  so, anna you think that (0+ / 0-)

                          women can avoid being raped it they view all men as potential rapists?

                          Wow, you are wed to the idea that all men are potential rapists.

                          In war there is one big difference; rape is a tool to break down the opposing population. It is done for the purpose of humiliation and to destroy relationships in the resident opposing populations.

                          Many men who get caught up in the war time gang rapes suffer from their own actions after the war.

                          I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

                          by samddobermann on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 10:37:46 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Why "in war there is a big difference?" (0+ / 0-)

                            Rape isn't a strategic "tool;" it's a war crime, and what in the world is this?

                            Many men who get caught up in the war time gang rapes suffer from their own actions after the war.
                            Translation: "Many men get caught up in the war time gang rapes"  None of these guys are personally responsible for their crimes - forces beyond them made them do it.

                            Translation: "[they] suffer from their own actions after the war" Poor guys.  They are victims too.  

                            No.  If a man chooses to rape another human being they have chosen to commit a vile, violent assault on an innocent, non-combatant, and they are a war criminal.  I don't care if they "feel bad;" the person they violated deserves justice and the rapist deserves jail.

                            Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                            by bkamr on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:01:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  No. Absolutely not (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Richard Lyon, Indexer, Rick Aucoin

                          As others have pointed out, if that's how you want to proceed through life for your own safety, I won't argue with that. But this woman does not and will not view all men as potential rapists.

                          Your idea that rape is an issue of opportunity implies that A) rape is about sex and B) men are all savages who cannot control their sexual urges.

                          That is not true of most men that I know, and I know a LOT of men. I've been drunk and alone with a lot of men. They are my friends for a reason. They're not simple savages that can only think with their dicks.

                          I understand what you're trying to say here, but I think you're a bit out of your depth and should probably stop talking.

                          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

                          by BoiseBlue on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:34:21 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  You are correct. I have removed my tip (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rick Aucoin, madhaus, BoiseBlue

                I apologise. I habitually tip most comments in my own Diaries. In this instance I wasn't paying attention.

                Sorry.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:07:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks, twigg. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  twigg

                  Your name was the only one in that list that it really horrified me to see, I know, or hoped I knew, your postings and positions on the subject better than that.

                  Damned upsetting that anyone would make such a comment and it get so many recs and no hr's.

                   Asshole comments are a dime a dozen here, but for one like this to be rec'd by so many is just nauseating.

                  "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                  by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:48:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  correction, your name and AoT's (0+ / 0-)

                    I've rec'd a thousand comments by AoT over the years, I can't believe he uprated this thing.

                    I'm going to just walk away from this now.  Its pushed me over the line and I'm just going to tell myself that one comment like this uprated by so many is really just an aberation and doesn't really reflect the Daily Kos community.

                    Surely.

                    "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                    by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:55:33 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I hope I'm misunderstanding... (10+ / 0-)

              ...and that this is not really one of the most ignorant and sexist comments about rape I've ever heard.

              And no particular type of man rapes either, could be anyone under the 'right' circumstances (when they are stronger and think they can get away with it.)
               

              What would Mothra do?

              by dov12348 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:23:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  oh come on (0+ / 0-)

                I don't agree with it either, but there are WAY more ignorant and sexist comments about rape than that made by Republicans every friggin' week.

                •  Maybe, by Republicans. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hamtree

                  But HERE and get REC'D?

                  Flat out saying that the only reason almost all men don't rape is they don't think they can get away with it?

                  That's fucking BULLSHIT and deserves to be HR'd into oblivion, not fucking UPrec'd by so many people.

                  Goddamn fucking bullshit.

                  "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                  by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:59:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Did you really mean to say this? (7+ / 0-)
              "And no particular type of man rapes either, could be anyone under the 'right' circumstances (when they are stronger and think they can get away with it.) "
            •  Just want to have this crap easy to find later. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hamtree

              Anna Shane wrote:

              It's weird that when it's noted that men in the military are raped as often as women in the military, that it's not also emphasized that it's virtually always men who rape, it's men who rape women, other men and children of both sexes. And the statisic is still misleading, there are far more men in the military than there are women, so obviouslly more chances. If there were equal numbers, they'd be far more women raped.  

              But men who are raped are less culturally prepared to realize it wasn't personal, it was about availablity and circunstance.  Far fewer women rape-victims question what it means about them personally, and wonder if they were putting out passive victim (or homosexual) signals.  Like children men are more likely to assume some fault and that kind of thing drives them to feel shame and maintain silence.

              But, the more men who speak up, the more it's recognized as all too common, and not at all a specific response to a particular type of man.   And no particular type of man rapes either, could be anyone under the 'right' circumstances (when they are stronger and think they can get away with it.) And most rapists assume that their victim really wanted it, so all this stuff about provocoative dress really does give them comfort.  

              Emphasis added.

              And who all uprated this vile trash?

              serendipityisabitch, twigg, Buckeye Nut Schell, eru, gustynpip, BlackSheep1, grollen, Kevskos, alice kleeman, AoT, historys mysteries, Hastur, mamamorgaine, ShoshannaD, petesmom, TrueBlueMajority, Cassandra Waites

              Every one of you should be ashamed of yourselves.  Just fucking ashamed.

              "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

              by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 10:02:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  AoT? (0+ / 0-)

                Come on, youre better than that.  How could you uprate such trash?  Some of the other names don't surprise me, but twig and AoT , y'all arebetter than this.

                "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                by Rick Aucoin on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:50:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  ?!??! (3+ / 0-)
              And no particular type of man rapes either, could be anyone under the 'right' circumstances (when they are stronger and think they can get away with it.)
              Seriously?

              How is this different from "women are asking for it" as an explanation? It gets us nowhere.

              You've just given cover to rapists: "Hey, I'm a man. I can't help it—I had opportunity and I thought I could get away with it—it's the way I'm wired."

              I'm certain that's not what you meant to do.

              I'd venture to say there are many, many men who are quite physically strong, who have had the opportunity to "get away with it," and who have—often at great personal expense in time and money—helped a woman that has had—for example—a bit too much to drink to stand up, pull herself together, preserve a bit of her dignity, get into a cab, get upstairs into her apartment, and into bed—and who have locked the door behind us as we leave once she's "safe," precisely because we don't want her to—for example—get raped in the less-able-to-take-care-of-herself state she's in.

              It happens. A lot. I've done it more times than I care to remember. I find it to be embarrassing and not at all edifying, but it is what you do.

              Speaking as someone raised by a father who had several daughters, and by someone that has a young daughter myself, and would never (either one of us) in a million years consider violating someone—of any sex, I think what you've just said is not only fairly hateful but also distinctly counterproductive.

              -9.63, 0.00
              "Liberty" is deaf, dumb, and useless without life itself.

              by nobody at all on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:03:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  It's not that. (7+ / 0-)

      We DO teach this to men.  It's just that some men don't follow the rules.   Yes, the educational campaign could certainly be improved.  If you've found the magic educational program or legal system that is 100% effective, then please share it, because that would be way cool!!!   As far as I know, such a thing does not exist.

      It's the part about NOT teaching children about very real dangers of rape that exist in this very real world, that I object to (not find "threatening", but object to.  Disagree.  STRONGLY, VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE.  That is totally  irresponsible.   I've met those children.   They were raped.   It is very sad, and I deeply regret that they had a mother like the diarist, who either never gave it a thought, or considered it and decided not to give their children the necessary information to help them protect themselves.  It's still sad, when they have a mother who did everything she could to protect them, and it still happened.  But, at least that mother knows that she did what she could.

      You might as well say that we shouldn't bother with fences around pools for families without children, because people shouldn't trespass.   There are lot of things that shouldn't be, but that are.

      It's just ridiculous.   Totally and completely ridiculous.    Fantastic, even, as in 'living in a fantasy'.

      Again, I am not objecting to teaching men about rape.   I believe it is already done, but could be done with more emphasis.   But, not teaching girls about rape is reprehensible.

      You do a disservice to all the men here on DailyKOS, by suggesting that they were never taught not to rape.   I'm sure that if you ask them, they will assure you that that were taught this lesson.  

      Your cognitive dissonance seems to be in the area where you have to cope with the reality that some people will break rules that they were taught to follow.

      •  Thank you for your thoughts. (9+ / 0-)

        I don't think anyone reasonably believes that we should keep children ignorant, and I KNOW the commenter you replied to doesn't believe that.

        It, however, is not the point.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 01:09:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We do teach girls differently than boys (10+ / 0-)

          and that is stupid and self-defeating, IMNVHO.

          We teach girls to be quiet and go along rather than risk making the situation worse. We teach boys to yell, scream and make a scene.

          We should be teaching everybody to fight back. I am reminded of a scene in a long-ago ABC primetime PI show, "Longstreet." The protagonist, a blind PI, was taking self-defense lessons from an instructor played by Bruce Lee.

          He had James Franciscus' character in a pretty serious hold, and he said, "What do you do now?"
          Longstreet asked, "Pray?"
          The instructor replied, "Bite!! Bite as hard as you can, and hang on!"

          We should be teaching all our kids that it's not just strangers they shouldn't trust. We should be teaching our kids, "Yell, Scream, Make a Scene!"
          And we should be teaching everybody how to defend themselves effectively. If that counts as advocating physical violence and gets me banned, so be it.

          We used to value manners and it used to be a matter of honor to behave as a gentleman. That's gone by the wayside. Time to start knowing how to deal with jerks effectively instead.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

          by BlackSheep1 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:03:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not more emphasis (4+ / 0-)

        but they need to actually mean it.

        Also, the message "Getting what you want by coercion is great unless it's sex" isn't likely to work very well.

        Our snoops are not legally authorized to snoop without legal authorization. Of course, if they were legally authorized to snoop without legal authorization, that would constitute legal authorization. Do you feel better yet?

        by happymisanthropy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 01:22:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, but... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        207wickedgood

        There has to be a balance.

        I like the new campaign (I believe in Canada) where they are advising men to, "Don't be that guy".  I think it is brilliant and it highlights the fact that a guy may think it is culturally acceptable to go out drinking with a girl and then go back to one of their residences and have sex.  Now, maybe one or both of them is too drunk to give consent.  Maybe the guy thinks that is the way sex is supposed to occur.  "Don't be that guy" makes it socially unacceptable to use alcohol to gain sex and removes the social implication that it is accepted practice.

        With that said though, I have raised four girls and they all know not to allow themselves to be in a position to be raped.  The diarist's comment that a girl should be able to walk down the street naked without being raped is true.  They "SHOULD" be able to however, unfortunately, that is not the reality of this world.  

        I am not saying that it would be here fault if she got raped but I am saying that it would be incredibly unwise for her to tempt fate like that.  I should be able to place a $100 bill on my car under my car windshield in a dark alley and nobody should touch it but I would not advise trying it.  The person who took it would still be a thief and should still be punished as such but I would have to consider I did not take reasonable precautions to prevent this.  That does not make it my fault but I would strongly advise others not to do the same thing.  Is that blaming the victim to suggest that others should not leave money out where criminals can easily get to it?

        We have to teach people not to take things that do not belong to them and we have to teach people not to rape but we also have to teach people not to leave valuables out where they could easily be taken and we have to teach people not to put themselves in positions where they are likly to become victims of rape.  It is the unfortunate reality in which we reside.

        "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

        by Buckeye Nut Schell on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 01:33:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Whoa. I'm not certain where all that rightous (9+ / 0-)

        anger is coming from here.  I don't believe the diarist said anything close to what you're interpreting.  The diarist certainly never said that men are never told not to rape or that girls shouldn't be told about the potential dangers of being raped.

        You can't honestly assert that it's not true that women are all too often blamed for being raped and that men are excused for raping.  If you do assert that, I will charge you with not being honest.  

        Our society has for far too long placed the responsibility for not getting raped  more heavily on the woman than is placed on men to not rape.  Other societies even more.  Look at India and what men have been getting away with there.  No just rape, but murder.

        While there's a general consensus that raping someone is wrong - and in fact a crime - and many men are strong advocates of women having the right to be free of unwanted sex, there are many other men and some women who figure it's a woman's responsibility to make sure she lives a protected life and if she fails, well, too bad.  And many, many more than just figure it's not that big a deal, so move on.

        But what I'm really trying to understand is why you'd get so upset over the concept of emphasizing more strongly that it's the man's responsibility and obligation to NOT rape and we all need to insist that any man who does be held accountable and make sure women know it's Not Their Fault.  That doesn't mean they can't be taught things to do to try and be safer.  But no matter what, if it does happen to them, It's Not Their Fault, even if they didn't do all those things on that particular day or night.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 01:37:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Helping with your understanding (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kevskos, splashy, TrueBlueMajority

          The reason we need to emphasize more strongly that it is the man*'s responsibility not to rape is that the rapist is the actor. The rapist is the criminal.  It doesn't matter how short a woman's skirt is, how much she flirts and teases, or how drunk she gets, if the rapist doesn't rape, no rape occurs.  That's one reason.

          Creating a culture of fear where women have to second guess what they wear, who they talk to, or whether they can walk to their car alone after work because all of those things might trip bullet-points on the checklist of "things that get you raped" is also a problem.  It is stigmatizing.  It is disempowering.  And, sure you can calmly say, well, of course it wasn't her fault, but there's always that self-assured rape apologist adding "but she could have done this differently."  That's another.

          While there's a general consensus that raping someone is wrong - and in fact a crime - and many men are strong advocates of women having the right to be free of unwanted sex, there are many other men and some women who figure it's a woman's responsibility to make sure she lives a protected life and if she fails, well, too bad.
          [citation needed].  Actually, just don't.  People who believe that this is a dog-rape-dog world and that if you get raped, well, hey, tough breaks are psychopaths.  Also, raping someone is wrong.  "General consensus" doesn't mean what I think you think it means. Paragraphs like this make you sound like an apologist for rape culture.

          *Yes, there are female rapists, too, but they're a strident minority, and female-on-victim rape tends to happen in different circumstances than male-on-victim rape, so the gendered addressing here is intentional.

          •  Ummm. Did this get posted in response to a (0+ / 0-)

            different comment maybe?  I'm the one posting about how we need to emphasize more strongly that it's mens' responsibility to not rape and that women should never bear blame for being raped.  I was responding to a comment that seemed angry over that concept.

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:09:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the problem with teaching girls about rape (18+ / 0-)

        Almost always these 'teachings' feed into or originate from serious cultural falsehoods that the teachings can actually CAUSE harm and promote rape.  

        I'm not saying that's what you're suggesting (you just say 'teaching girls about rape' - which could include what I'm thinking of or not) - so here's some examples.

        If we teach girls to not walk alone at night as a rape prevention it may suggest that stranger rape is the primary fear, when acquinatance rape is a far greater danger for most girls.

        If we teach girls that dressing slutty somehow puts them in danger it ignores the fact that the vast vast majority of rapists don't even remember what their victims were wearing.  So we're teaching nonsense.  Then when a girl is raped her failure to dress appropriately is evidence of her culpability (just as a pool owners failure to put a fence around it would be evidence of their partial culpability of a drowning - to use your example).

        The problem with teaching girls to avoid rape is that it can easily shift responsibility for rape and actually encourage, empower and protect rapists.  

        Obviously this doesn't mean we can't teach girls about the dangers of sexual assault.  But what it does mean is that many of the current efforts out there to do that are disengenious bullshit that only serve the cultural biases that protect rape culture.  

        unfortunately this makes it far trickier to provide safe teachings because people get all messed up on this issue.  (woudln't it be nice to be able to say "don't drink until you pass out" without that phrase also empowering someone to blame a passed out girl for the sexual assault perpetrated against her because it was partially her fault for breaking the rules)

      •  I agree with you, except (5+ / 0-)

        What's being "taught" is really a glom of mixed signals.

        Mom and/or health class tells them not to rape;
        coaches treating women like cattle;
        political leaders demeaning women and nattering about "legitimate rape";
        pastors teaching that women are inherently sinful and/or it's always the woman's fault.

        I'm sure that if you ask them, they will assure you that that were taught this lesson.
        Even in sub-cultures or social groups where the signal balance is really messed up (Steubenville), it's almost never 100% to 0%. That's why these guys can always quote someone who supposedly "taught" them, even though they really learned from someone else.

        The question I'd ask these guys is who was their role-model for their rapist behavior. Put a spotlight on the jerks modeling rapist behavior. Make similar jerks think twice, make them worry about consequences.

        "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

        by nosleep4u on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 01:52:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The thing is, there are mixed messages (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Onomastic

        All over the place.

        There isn't enough on the side of don't rape, for those that were raised in less than optimal situations, or that have mental flaws that make it so they want to do that.

        Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:50:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with you....but..... (13+ / 0-)

        What people object to is not teaching women sensible ways to stay safe....

        .....it's blaming them for being raped because they didn't do everything possible to avoid rape.

        "You shouldn't have been in that bar."
        Yes, but it's still not her fault.

        "You shouldn't have dressed like that."
        Yes, but the rape was still a crime.

        "You shouldn't accept drinks from strange men."
        Yes, but I'd like to be able to live my life without being wary of every stranger.

        I once ran into a Vietnam war vet who went to a "women's self protection" class with his girlfriend. The usual precautions were discussed: Never park in a dark area. Carrry your keys in your hand in such a way that you can use them as weapon. Every moment, be aware of everything going on around you. Regard every man you don't know as a potential threat. Never let someone get close enough to grab you.....on and on and on.

        "It stunned me," this man said. "It was the kind of thing we were told to do in Vietnam, because you never knew who the enemy might be.  But women live with that kind of fear all their lives!"

        Yes. We do. And we shouldn't have to.

        Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

        by Sirenus on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:08:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  actually, we don't teach this to men (3+ / 0-)

        at least, not with the intensity with which we teach it to women.

        it is not a part of men's daily life and thinking in the same way that women, every day, have to think about don't walk down a dark side street, don't park in an unlit garage, don't get in the elevator with a man you don't know, don't get into a taxicab with two men in the front seat, don't wear that clothing in that part of town, don't go out without money to get home on your own, always stay alert when you are walking down the street looking purposeful and not distracted, don't take the stairs alone, check to make sure no one is hiding in the back seat of your car, check to make sure no one is hiding in a public restroom, don't be an easy target, if they ask for your wallet throw it one direction and run in the other direction, don't get in your car if a van is parked next to you, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.  the list of self protective things women are supposed to do is long and involved.

        I could write a list three times as long without even thinking.

        many girls and women live with the assumption that any situation on any day could be a dangerous situation.  I don't know a single man who growing up was given as much instruction about avoiding being an offender, or not supporting "rape culture" in other men.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
        Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:25:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That diary ......... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, cotterperson

      has been DELETED......

      "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them. Isaac Asimov (8.25 / -5.64}

      by carver on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 01:32:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  When will PARENTS start teaching that to boys? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic

      And when will they quit letting them buy video games where kicking a woman in the crotch gains you major points?

      Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

      by Sirenus on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:57:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  YES!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic, newfie

      I know, I've read it many times, but maybe if we keep repeating, "Don't Rape" to those that don't understand its the perp's place to stop doing the crime rather than the victim's responsibility to correct his behavior.

      I purposefully used, "those who don't understand," rather than, "men," because:
      a)  there are many good men (like Twigg!),
      b)  and unfortunately, too many medieval-minded women that blame victims.  Still.

      So, thanks Twigg, and DrLori.  Do you mind if I send a copy of your post to our local school superintendent?  I'm not sure of the etiquette of sending your work on..  I'll look in the FAQs.  thanks, Rene

      Do the best you can.

      by home solar on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:59:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with your idea but... (0+ / 0-)

      It should be, "instead of telling people' don't get raped' tell people 'don't rape'."
      Some men rape men, and some women rape others of both sexes, and then their are people who are neither male/female.
      It might be because I'm a man whose been sexual abused, but when your form of speech divides rapists as men and victims as women you're also saying something about each sex.
      I realize you don't mean any harm and that you don't see a difference between a female/male victim; I realize I'm also being a nit picky ass, but trust me even knowing you mean no harm reading a sentence that implies that I'm not a man for being sexual assaulted doesn't feel good.

      We only think nothing goes without saying.

      by Hamtree on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 10:44:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  what does it take to ban someone anymore? (16+ / 0-)

    direct threats of violence

    that bullshit diary about "solving rape"  children inadvertently seducing?  

    sockpuppets galore.

    i know, not all equal.  

    Ted Kennedy: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die…”

    by jlms qkw on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:37:41 AM PDT

  •  That was a very strange diary. (22+ / 0-)

    I thought it might be poorly conceived satire of some sort, but there was no snark or satire tag.
    The diarist's comments about children and clothing was just disturbing.

    -4.38, -7.64 Voyager 1: proof that what goes up never comes down.

    by pat bunny on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:41:03 AM PDT

  •  It's rape if/when/after the person says "NO". (26+ / 0-)

    I have no clue what about this is so difficult or unclear, except as an expression of stilted moral development.

    •  Add to that ... (38+ / 0-)

      when they are too incapacitated to say yes or no.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:48:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's rape (35+ / 0-)

      when they haven't said "yes".

      I accept the nuance involved in affirmation.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:54:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That too. (7+ / 0-)

        I don't want to victimize anybody so these things don't cross my mind much....

      •  The FBI agrees with you (22+ / 0-)

        The FBI definintion of rape:

        The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
        (Emphasis mine). Seems pretty clear and simple to me.
        •  We muddy the water (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R, mungley, a2nite, Onomastic, Kevskos

          with the exploration of the word "consent".

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:20:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That still leaves open (6+ / 0-)

          the issue of whether that consent is going to be defined in a negative (not saying no) or possitive manner.

          •  Yes, that did occur to me (8+ / 0-)

            after I posted. There is a whole lot of effort by some parties trying to weasel around the concept of consent. This definitely showed up in the various discussion around the Steubenville case.

            •  There have been proposals to change the law (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite

              to place the burden of proving possitive consent on the man. That would likely raise the possibility of needing to obtain written consent like a doctor performing a medical proceedure.

              •  I don't know that we have to go that far, (5+ / 0-)

                But we do have to fight against the "She didn't say no" interpretation of consent.

              •  Also it's likely unconstitutional. You can't (6+ / 0-)

                make a defendant prove they didn't commit a crime.  

                •  Quite possibly (0+ / 0-)

                  but in the situation where there are no independent witnesses it is problematic to sort out the truth about consent. This is likely to continue to be a very contentious issue.

                  •  I understand that. But I'm not sure any court (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dr Swig Mcjigger, Sparhawk, soros

                    is going to buy that argument.  The fact that a crime is hard/impossible to prove doesn't mean you can put the responsibility for disproving the crime on the defendant.  

                    •  It is a subject that deserves discussion. (0+ / 0-)

                      I realize that the constitution contains constraints for criminal law. However, when you look at the situation with sexual assault it seems pretty clear that our system isn't working very well. Surveys repeatedly report that about one in five women have been victims at some point in their lives. That is much higher incidence than other type of crimes. Yet the rate of formal complaints, case brought to trial and convictions are all very low in relation to the incidence. Something is wrong with that.

                      I don't think that there are easy simple solutions to the problem, but I think that we have to be prepared to look at everything that we have historically considered to be established tradition about this matter.

                      •  When a crime is horrible enough (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sparhawk

                        the Constitution doesn't apply ?

                        There used to be a customary remedy for laws that don't apply and juries that won't convict -- Lynch Law.

                        Oh ... it's fallen out of favor in the past 50 years or so ... but before that you could find serious jurists asserting that  .... along with Jury Nullification ...  Lynching was part of the "unwritten" law that promoted justice and public order.

                        And then there's the current lack of enthusiasm for the `1st, 4th and 5th Amendments when "non-citizens" and "terrorism" are thought to be possibly involved -- not to mention the blind eye so generally turned to the use of police spies and agents provocateur "keeping us safe."

                        But with Rape, the problem has not been so much that Juries have been unwilling or unable to figure out whether or not consent was present in any given case.  The problem has been getting the cases investigated, and brought to trial in the first place.

                        And, in all fairness, the role that Official piggery and indifference plays in this is very much less than it was a generation ago.

                        Would there be a point in changing the rape statutes so that the "original" idea of rape ... an unambigously violent stranger-on-stranger assault ... is punished even MORE severely than it is now  -- whereas offenses lying on a continuum of "faulty consent" are punished in accordance with the offenders' degrees of obtuseness?

                        Should we consider a "rape by fraud" statute, such as Julius Assange is facing?  

                        Maybe.  

                        At the very least it would encourage men to consider that they need to have absolute confidence in the goodwill and good judgement of their casual hookups -- or risk the consequences.

                        But is it justified or even a good idea to create special classes of crime in which "innocent until proven guilty"  and the "shadow of reasonable doubt" standards can  be set aside ?

                        All crimes  (with the possible exceptions of shoplifting and pot-selling) are THAT HORRIBLE to someone.

                        •  There are lots of problems (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          samddobermann

                          at all stages of the process. Right now the balance seem to be stacked against the victims of rape. We need to find ways to correct that.

                          •  Only if it preserves the rights of the accused (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AdamSelene

                            Any 'solution' that fails to do so cannot be used.

                            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                            by Sparhawk on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:23:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah ... there are still "problems." (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sparhawk, Onomastic, 207wickedgood

                            Requiring evidence of crimes is SUCH a disadvantage to accusers, police and prosecutors.

                            There are men still living who remember when the deck was stacked exactly the OTHER way ... at least when the victim was white and female and the accused was black and ... well, black.  In some jurisdictions "class" could be a stand in for "race" ..

                            Fast forward a decade or two ... and there even more women who remember the "earnest resistance" standard, under which, if they hadn't suffered broken bones, and witnesses hadn't heard their screams ... "no case."

                            Now, I don't know in which county of which state you reside, but where I live fully HALF the cops who investigate rape cases are women, and about a third of the Prosecutors and Judges are too.

                            That's a very very different situation  than we'd expect to find in a forward position in Afghanistan.

                        •  F*ing a sleeping girl (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Richard Lyon

                          ... to work around her repeated and explicit refusal to consent to your preferred form of sexual activity is not "rape by fraud".  It's simply rape, in any developed nation on Earth.

                          Back to the topic at hand.  There's a wide variety of standards used for different things in the legal world - reasonable suspicion, reason to believe, probable cause, credible evidence, substantial evidence, preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, and beyond a shadow of a doubt.  They're used for different things (more on that later).

                          Nobody is talking about eliminating "innocent until proven guilty".  But here's the problem: the default legal assumption in rape cases is that consent was given.  It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't.  This is very different from the standard legal assumptions for other crimes.  It's not assumed that a murder victim consented to be murdered.  It's not assumed that a robbery victim consented to give their wallet over to a stranger.  It's not assumed that a identity theft victim consented to have someone else take their identity.  In such a case, yes, the prosecution has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the accused killed the victim, or took the victim's wallet, or took the victim's identity, etc.  But if that's proven, it's not up to the prosecution to prove that the victim didn't want it.

                          But it is that way with rape.  The legal assumption is that if any two random people have sex, no matter how implausible, that consent was given to it - and the prosecution has to prove otherwise. And for this reason, rape is exceedingly difficult to prosecute.  One in four women will be raped at least once in their lives.  Ten percent of men openly admit to having raped in studies where the word "rape" isn't used but sexual situations that are rape are described and the subject is asked if they've done them.  Yet only the tiniest fraction ever end up in jail.  If the legal system is convicting, say, 70% of murderers and 3% of rapists, there's a big problem.  And this shift in legal assumptions for rape cases is the problem.

                          I'm not arguing that the prosecution shouldn't have to prove the circumstances - far from it, they must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, just like always.  I'm not even arguing that the presumption should be that if two random people have sex, it should be assumed that no consent was given (as in the case of, say, murder).  What I am arguing is that the default assumption should be no assumption and consent needs to be established by the "preponderance of evidence" standard.

                          The accused's arguments for why the facts are what they are do not inherently get a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.  You can't use an insanity defense by saying "I'm insane" and require the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you're not - a preponderance of evidence burden falls on you to prove that you are.  Likewise, a person should not be able to just say "She consented" as a defense and require the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not..

                          There's a great article on all of this, and a lot more,  here that goes into a lot more detail than I possibly could.  Excerpt:

                          It is noteworthy that this is not an unusual feature in criminal case processing. Berliner reports precident for shifting the burden of proof in rape statue in her comments about Washington's rape law.  Here the burden is placed on the defense if/when attempts are made to argue consent (1991:2693 n. 43). In addition to shifting the burden of proof, as Kadish and Schulhofer point out, "in some instances state law may require the defense to bear both burdens" of production and proof (2001:45). Tchen (1983) describes a similar requirement in court decisions. The Supreme Court in Illinois upheld a statute that required "the defendant to prove the existence of the exculpating factor beyond a reasonable doubt" (1552, citing People v. Smith 71 Ill. 2nd 95, 105, 374 N.E. 2nd 472, 476 [1978}, n. 195). Tschen cites other examples of the legality of shifting the burden to the defense. She notes, for instance, that "a common law affirmative defense has existed in Michigan for nearly ten years" (1552).

                          Other examples of shifting the burden of proof are easily found. One is seen with self-defense. Here the defense has the burden to prove that force was necessary for protection against imminent harm (Black 1991: 947).  Another example is found when the defense wants to argue discriminatory prosecution, where the burden of proof shifts to the defense to show that harm resulted from the selective prosecution of a criminal statute not typically enforced. In a similar vein, if the defense wants to argue that the defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated, the burden of proof once again shifts to the defense to show prejudice was caused because of this violation. "Defendant bears the burden of showing prejudice. The moving party has the burden of proof" (Michigan Judicial Institute 2001: 109; also see Michigan Judicial Institute 2002: 287). The defense is the moving party in counsel substitution or withdrawal and so bears the burde of proof in Michigan (Michigan Judicial Institute 2001:104).  The list could go on; the point is there is precedence for shifting the burden of proof.

                          •  Re (0+ / 0-)
                            It's not assumed that a murder victim consented to be murdered.  It's not assumed that a robbery victim consented to give their wallet over to a stranger
                            Consenting to being killed happens exceedingly rarely.

                            Consenting to have sex happens millions of times per day.

                            That's the difference.

                            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                            by Sparhawk on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:01:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So if a person goes to a party, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Richard Lyon

                            gets roofie put in their drink, and wakes up abandoned half naked in a nearby alley, the default legal assumption should be that this was consensual sex?  Because that's what it currently is.

                            And again, I'm not saying that the default legal assumption should be that it wasn't consensual, as is the case with murder.  I'm saying that the default assumption should be no assumption.  As is the case with an insanity defense, as is the case with a self-defense defense, an "it was consensual" defense should require the defense to back up their claims and have both sides of the argument evaluated on the merit, instead of just taking it at face value, no matter how absurd.  It's the defense's defense, they should have to back it up and have it critically evaluated, just like they would an insanity defense, a self-defense defense, etc.

                          •  In your scenario (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sparhawk, soros

                            There would be a toxicology report, possibly eye witness report and likely evidence that would confirm she was drugged. Even by current standard "she consented" would not be able to be used in court.

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:54:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Except it doesn't work like that. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Richard Lyon

                            The defense always argues that the person was taking roofies willingly.  Some people do that to get high / get drunk faster.  Prosecution has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they weren't.

                            To put it plainly: if preponderance of evidence is a good enough standard to establish whether something was self defense, it's good enough to establish whether something was consensual.

                          •  Your scenario still doesn't work. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sparhawk

                            It doesn't matter if she was drugged or if she drugged herself. Under current law when she's in that state she can NOT legally consent to sex. It's the same if she willingly drinks so much alcohol she passes out.

                            Try again.

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:12:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The person could have consented before (0+ / 0-)

                            taking the drugs.  And anyway, the simple fact is that most rape drugs leave the system so fast that they're rarely isolated on toxicology tests anyway.

                            And if you don't like that example, try the bottle example below.

                          •  Oh, and as for the (0+ / 0-)

                            "possible eye witnesses", please, there almost never are eye witnesses to rape.  That's big part of the problem.

                            But the real problem is the legal standard.  If tomorrow you went to the police bleeding and reporting being gang-raped by a group of guys while they choked you and inserted a bottle into your rectum, and it went to court, with all of the forensic evidence matching what you said, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt - typically without any witnesses - that you weren't secretly into autoerotic asphyxiation and anal pentration, had a "wild night", then changed your mind.

                            Does that sound reasonable to you, that the default assumption is that you're into autoerotic asphyxiation group bottle sex with anonymous guys?

                            If the defense wants to put forth a theory, it should be evaluated as any other defense theory, with both sides bearing the burdens and evaluated on a preponderance of evidence standard.  NOT by default simply taken at face value in a manner totally unlike other crimes where the defense claims that the victim consented.

                          •  Again, bogus example. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            soros, Sparhawk

                            I said possible eye witness (or witnesses), and your "almost never" comment is hyperbole. Your scenario of a woman being slipped a roofy would likely take place at a public social event, like a party or bar.

                            Signs of struggle and trauma, including (but not limited to) vaginal or anal trauma ARE successfully used and admissible in court. If that evidence was so easily refuted with bogus claims, that wouldn't be the case.

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:22:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It is absolutely not hyperbole. (0+ / 0-)

                            Witnesses to rape itself are exceedingly rare, to the point it's practically a red herring to bring the concept up.  And any person who only saw evidence "suggestive" that a rape took place is not sufficient for a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

                            Signs of struggle and trauma, including (but not limited to) vaginal or anal trauma ARE successfully used and admissible in court.
                            To which the defense argues that the person likes rough sex.  Then the prosecution has to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard about the victim's personal sexual preferances on that night, which is almost impossible to meet.
                            If that evidence was so easily refuted with bogus claims, that wouldn't be the case.
                            Which is precisely why only the tiniest fraction of rapes end up with the perpetrator in prison, in stark contrast to other crimes.  This is the problem you're failing to acknowledge.

                            And to reiterate: the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is rarely used to establish consent in criminal law, generally confined to rape cases.  So it's simply a harmonization of law to move to the standard you'd see in other types of defense claims.  Because that's what "she consented" is - a defense claim.

                          •  I'm not buying your claim (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            soros, Sparhawk

                            That physical evidence of bodily harm is that easily refuted with ridiculous claims. If it were then hospitals and law enforcement wouldn't go to such lengths to gather forensic evidence of physical trauma.

                            Can you cite which state laws give special requirements for prosecuting rape cases?

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:50:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Believe what you want. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            As a general rule, law enforcement doesn't go to great lengths because most rape cases don't even go to trial because the odds of conviction are so low.  And most rapes aren't even reported for exactly the same reason, victims know that odds are nothing will come of reporting it.  Even the "great lengths" statement is not accurate.  Your standard rape kit doesn't include an immediate test for date rape drugs, for example, just sample collection - but unless analyzed immediately, date rape drugs and their metabolic byproducts typically break down.  And about 40% of rape kits in the US are never even analyzed at all, for the same above reason.

                            As for specific state laws, I recommend reading the report I linked earlier on the subject.

                          •  Or... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sparhawk

                            You could just cite the laws if they're in the report. Which laws mandate special requirements for prosecuting rspe cases? Cite the laws.

                            Just for clarification, do you agree or disagree that sexual contact and the woman's accusation (alone) should not be enough for a guilty verdict?

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:28:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course an accusation alone shouldn't be enough (0+ / 0-)

                            to convict.  But neither should saying "it was consensual" by itself be enough to acquit.

                          •  Ridiculous, and epic failure of logic (0+ / 0-)

                            So let me get this straight.

                            You believe if man and a woman have sexual contact, and the woman claims it was rape, the man should have to prove it was consensual? So now rape accusations should not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

                            There is no argument ever that consent was given for a crime. If a woman has consensual sex, there was no crime in the first place.

                            If you give me $20 for gas and then later accuse me of stealing the money, the defense is NOT that you consented to me "stealing" $20.

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:44:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you and the person above you blind? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Richard Lyon

                            You write:

                            You believe if man and a woman have sexual contact, and the woman claims it was rape, the man should have to prove it was consensual?
                            I wrote:
                            I'm not even arguing that the presumption should be that if two random people have sex, it should be assumed that no consent was given (as in the case of, say, murder).  
                            Please back off the blind knee-jerk reaction and actually read what I write.

                            You wrote:

                            So now rape accusations should not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
                            I wrote an long post and referenced an entire book by a legal scholar how it's standard for defense arguments to not have to be rebutted beyond a reasonable doubt, and that much more common is the presumption of evidence standard.
                            If you give me $20 for gas and then later accuse me of stealing the money, the defense is NOT that you consented to me "stealing" $20.
                            The defense is that it was a consensual act on my part.  Which is precisely the defense used in rape cases. Except in your theft example, there would be shared burden on a preponderance of evidence standard to prove or disprove that it was consensual, while in the rape case, the prosecution would bear the full burden and would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  So you have the exact same legal defense being treated wholly differently between crimes.  And this misapplication it is having a profound negative outcome in terms of the rate of successful rape prosecution and the prevalance of rape in society.  Hence it is a problem to be remedied, with an obvious solution.
                          •  Corr: (0+ / 0-)

                            ** "Preponderance of evidence", not "presumption of evidence".

                          •  And just suppose... (0+ / 0-)

                            Suppose it cannot be proven either way whether or not the sex was consensual.

                            You want the man convicted of rape?

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:10:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then it would not meet the preponderance of (0+ / 0-)

                            evidence standard, and the accused would be acquitted.  

                          •  That's how it works NOW (0+ / 0-)

                            Are you saying you support that, or do you want in that case the man to be convicted?

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:23:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                            As it stands now, it has to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, not a "preponderance of evidence" standard.

                          •  That makes no sense. (0+ / 0-)

                            We start with the status that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

                            If it is known that there was sexual contact, it still must be proved that the person was raped by the accised beyond a reasonable doubt.

                            If it can be proven that it rape then by default it is proven that the sex was not consensual.

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:39:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We're both talking about 'proven' (0+ / 0-)

                            The distinction is over the legal standard for the word 'proven' - "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "predominance of evidence".  

                            If it is known that there was sexual contact, it still must be proved that the person was raped by the accised beyond a reasonable doubt.
                            So if I'm a stranger and I walked up and stole $400 out of your wallet when nobody was looking and used it to buy new rims for my car, and then said "he was feeling charitable and gave it to me to buy new rims", should the prosecution have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you weren't feeling charitable and just gave it to me to buy new rims, or should the court judge that claim on the predominance of evidence"?

                            Virtually everyone would say "predominance of evidence".  And indeed, that is how it's done.  My claim that you "consented" to give me your $400 is just that - a defense claim - and defense claims aren't something that the prosecution is obligated to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.

                            And just like a consent claim gets a predominance of evidence analysis in a theft trial, a consent claim should get a predominance of evidence analysis in a rape trial.  If a theif's defense of consent is technically possible but unlikely, they get convicted under a predominance of evidence standard.  The same should apply to rapists.

                          •  "predominance of evidence" (0+ / 0-)

                            Never heard if it, looked it up. Couldn't find it. Is that even really a legal term? Do you actually have any legal expertise or are you just winging it?

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:36:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ack (0+ / 0-)

                            Preponderance of evidence, not predominance.

                            I did a search-replace and had the wrong word in there.

                          •  Wow, just wow. (0+ / 0-)

                            A the threshold of a preponderance of evidence is used in civil cases, which is essentially deciding which way the evidence leans.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                            The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[5] described it simply as "more probable than not." Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.
                            So you're advocating that if there is sexual contact between a man and a woman, and the woman claims it was rape, and if a jury decides there's a 51% chance she's telling the truth.....

                            The man should be convicted of rape, lose everything he has, spend years being someone's bitch in prison (they love rapists in prison) and spend the rest of his life as a registered sex offender.

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:05:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A preponderance of evidence stanard is *also* (0+ / 0-)

                            used in evaluating defense arguments in criminal cases.  See all of the references cited in my above link.  It's used for arguments of insanity, arguments of self defense, arguments of malicious prosecution, arguments of discriminatory behavior, and on and on down the list.  The defense can't simply make a claim and require that the prosecution prove their claims beyond a shadow of a doubt.

                            The prosecution is obliged to prove the basic facts of a criminal case beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Not defense excuses for said facts.

                          •  Ack after (0+ / 0-)

                            Beyond a reasonable doubt.  Shadow of a doubt is a different standard.

                          •  *sigh* (0+ / 0-)

                            Now I'm mixing up Icelandic and English.  "Ack again", not "aftur" and certainly not "after".  :Þ

                          •  What is your legal expertise? (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you even have any or did you just stay at the holiday Inn Express?

                            First of all, I don't just take your claims at face value when it comes to legal matters, but either way your comparison is silly.

                            A bullet entering someone's body is [i]always[/i] meant to do harm. If you shoot someone you have to explain WHY you shot the person. There is NO possible scenario where shooting someone does not require legal questions to be answered.

                            A penis entering a vagina is NOT always meant to do harm. In fact, the vast majority of the time it is to give pleasure and/or create life. The mere fact that a man put his penis inside a woman's vagina does not require legal justification. Billions of people do it all over the world without requiring explanation to law enforcement or any court.

                            And just so we're clear, you are on record saying you're OK with someone being convicted of rape because a jury thought there was a 51% chance he is guilty?

                            Please proceed, Governor.

                            by USArmyParatrooper on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:55:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  As most cases never get to court (6+ / 0-)

                it is a moot point.

                We need to stop the assaults happening, and it starts with a cultural change of attitudes.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 01:12:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Impossible in that form (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                twigg, kyril, Kevskos, Cassandra Waites, soros

                Unconstitutional on the burden of proof issue on its face. Making the statement of consent gender-biased is problematic, too, both for same-sex situations and for, however uncommon they might be, female rapists ("she gave consent" as an affirmative defense against female-on-male or female-on-female rape would be a legal crisis so ugly that even Congress might act).

                The solution to the definition problem, really, should be that everyone engaged in sexual activity must each have affirmatively consented to the action. Yes, that still makes many cases he-said-she-said, but since we don't like the idea of the NSA monitoring everything, everywhere, there's no law that will remedy that.

              •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                How romantic.

                Thousands of people all over the place would be 'rapists' under the "must give positive consent" interpretation.

                Women too. In fact, every sexual act that didn't have signed forms would create two 'rapists'. It's a formula for selective prosecution and horrible legal nightmares.

                Seriously it's so bad an idea I don't get how people can even consider it.

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:21:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  And sometimes (8+ / 0-)

        they might say 'yes' without understanding what that means.  Children, disabled people etc., and that is still rape.

        I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

        by trumpeter on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:21:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  what she said (0+ / 0-)

        default setting is keep yourself to your self

        "Eating your seed corn is not a good business model." - FishOutofWater

        by saluda on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:04:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's rape -- if the person did NOT say "YES" (5+ / 0-)

      Nowhere in our law does "silence" EVER convey "consent."  (For example:" An offer to sell  may expire by  a particular date, but failure to refuse that offer does not create an enforceable contract.)

      Oddly, even some (young, naive and guilt-prone) survivors have trouble internalizing that concept.

      In 1991 Antioch College tried to formally embody this idea in a campus code of behavior.   You'd think ... given that college populations throw people from entirely different cultures and value sets together in behind-doors situations ... everyone would have been delighted and compliant.

        Such was SO not the case.  

      Try  a google of [ antioch sexual policy] you will find more mockery and condemnation than intelligent engagement, much less  understanding and support.

      I'm not sure that frequent, public  and draconian punishment of date-rapists, stalkers and workplace harassers is the whole answer ... but "a little more" couldn't hurt.

      (And in the Military, the proven method of "changing culture" has been to set the objectives, and then punish the commanders  whose subordinates fail to achieve them.)

      What's so hard about "ONLY Yes means Yes !"

      •  Re (0+ / 0-)
        Nowhere in our law does "silence" EVER convey "consent."  (For example:" An offer to sell  may expire by  a particular date, but failure to refuse that offer does not create an enforceable contract.)
        Ah, but if I ask you to walk with me somewhere and you just start walking but don't affirmatively agree, am I guilty of kidnapping?

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:28:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is there some point you want to make ? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2

          Can you really NOT know the answer to this?

          Can you really imagine that your hypothetical "walk" has anything in common with anyone's "fuck." ??

          Never mind ... I'll play along

          This is what I remember from about the  New York State criminal statute.

          The elements of the crime of Kidnapping includes some variant on the  "unlawful detention."   The standard is that force, or the threat of force, must be employed to restrain the victim.

          I don't remember that the statute includes a specific length of time at which a  simple Assault is escalated to Unlawful Detention and then again to Kidnapping.  Nor do I remember whether actually moving the victim from one place to another is required to sustain the charge of Kidnapping.

          But in any case ... it is the introduction of force into the scenario that creates the criminal offense.

          So, "No" ... you're not guilty of Kidnapping as long as I walk along side you.  That crime results when you prevent me from going elsewhere.  

          But there IS an issue here:   The Lunkhead and the Ingenue.  

          The Ingenue is too well brought up, too inhibited and too other-worldly to understand that the Lunkhead is making sexual advances until somewhere between "2nd and 3rd bases. "   Not knowing how to cope with the situation,  she does nothing and the Lunkhead proceeds to fondle, sodomize  or have intercourse with the Ingenue.  And oh yeah, just for shits and giggles -- "alcohol was involved" for both of them.

          So ... is the Lunkhead guilty of a Rape ?  

          Damn right !   The problem is:  "proving it."

          In the real world: this IS a SheSaid/HeSaid.

          Will a police department investigate a case like this.  Well, in NYC they'd probably take a report from the victim and interview the alleged perpetrator.  

          But you tell me.

           Rape in the First Degree is carries a 15 year penalty.   Is the unsupported word of the victim enough to proceed to arrest?  Arraignment?  To a Grand Jury?  If you were on the jury, knowing only SheSaid/HeSaid ... would YOU vote to convict?  What more would you need in the way of evidence.

          •  Re (0+ / 0-)
            The elements of the crime of Kidnapping includes some variant on the  "unlawful detention."   The standard is that force, or the threat of force, must be employed to restrain the victim.
            Same with rape. It's a violent crime. It's exactly the same thing.
            The Ingenue is too well brought up, too inhibited and too other-worldly to understand that the Lunkhead is making sexual advances until somewhere between "2nd and 3rd bases. "   Not knowing how to cope with the situation,  she does nothing and the Lunkhead proceeds to fondle, sodomize  or have intercourse with the Ingenue.  And oh yeah, just for shits and giggles -- "alcohol was involved" for both of them.
            So ... is the Lunkhead guilty of a Rape ?  
            Damn right !   The problem is:  "proving it."
            Nope, not guilty. If he didn't use violence or the threat of force, he's not guilty. To assume otherwise is to infantilize women and assume they are incapable of managing their own sexual affairs (and to ignore the law).

            You are quoting the law as you wish it would be as opposed to how it is.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:29:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh! You're so CLEVER ! You GOT me !! (0+ / 0-)

              I really should have included "in the moral sense" before the "Damned Right."  

              Yeah ... like 11th grade Geometry class -- "if you skip steps you lose points".

              •  That's how the law works (0+ / 0-)

                So you concede that I am 100% correct then?

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:04:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh yes. Oh yes. Oh yes. Oh God! Oh yes. (0+ / 0-)

                  You are 100% correct that rape is a crime of violence and without evidence of the violence no conviction for the crime of rape is possible ...  

                  And I didn't explicitly state that because of her sheltered upbringing, inexperience and poor social skills, the Ingenue (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that ANY aggressive male was potentially dangerous and therefore threatening.  Stupid. Bad. Stupid Me.

                  So ...

                  YOU WIN

                  YOU ARE BETTER

                  YOU ARE WISER

                  I AM DEFEATED

                  (Have you cum yet)

                  I AM INFERIOR

                  YOU ARE VICTORIOUS

                  ( Now?  Now?)

                  Time's up, John ... zip it up and get out of here !

                  •  He's right, you know. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    soros

                    Don't be so dramatic.

                    In very few of my sexual encounters was the question expressly asked, "Do you want to have sex?"

                    It's usually an escalation of kissing and physical touching that later leads to sex. Your notion that it's rape without a verbally spoken "yes" is absurd.

                    Are you actually trying to argue that rape is not defined by the act itself, but rather, how one of the participants feels about it the next day?

                    Please proceed, Governor.

                    by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:35:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Probably.. (0+ / 0-)

                      there was a diary here a while ago with lots of Recs about someone that didn't understand what she went through was rape until a few years after the fact... and after someone convinced her that it was raped..

                      It's all very subjective.. next time you're anywhere near a sexual encounter get a lawyer quickly and have the terms of the deal witnessed before signing.

                      To you, I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.” ― Woody Allen

                      by soros on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:56:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  You again (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vcmvo2, martydd

              Can there ever be a discussion of sex and rape without you showing up with your sickening view of what it is and what it isn't?

              What is it you don't understand about "lack of consent"?  Is the concept that anyone has the right to refuse sex that difficult for you to understand?

              Rape does not require violence or threat of force.  
              Rape does not require violence or threat of force.
              Rape does not require violence or threat of force.

              According to your sick little worldview, it isn't rape if a teacher hints to a student that an "A" is available for sexual favors, if a boss hints to a subordinate that they might keep their job in an upcoming workforce reduction for certain benefits granted, or if an interview subject suggests a hot news item could be revealed for the same.

              According to your sick little worldview, offering a 12 year old a ride in a slick sportscar in exchange for sex is not rape.

              According to your sick little worldview, pouring six drinks into someone, waiting until they fall unconscious, and having sex with them is not rape.

              Your viewpoint is not just wrong.  It's immoral, and that's why I will not hesitate to call you out every time you show up in one of these discussions,

              Your viewpoint is offensive and you need to be called out for it.

          •  I have a question about your scenario (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk, soros

            A man and a woman are drinking alcohol. Both have lowered inhibitions.

            The man and the woman begin kissing, one thing leads to another and they ended up having sex.

            Neither the man, nor the woman, actually asked "Do you want to have sex?"

            Did they both rape each other? How is that substantively different from your scenario?

            Please proceed, Governor.

            by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:29:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've had ONE "gotcha" already, today ... so (0+ / 0-)

              you tell me.

              In your set-up: The next morning one of them has Sexual Buyer's Remorse and files a criminal complaint.

              What do you think happens in the real world?

              What do you think ought to happen ?

              •  It's not a "gotcha" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                soros, Sparhawk

                It's YOUR scenario.

                If one of them has sexual buyer's remorse the next day, too bad. Rape is defined by the act itself, not whether not one of the participants later decides he or she regrets it.

                In the real world, if a rape accusation is made the accused will be investigated, as should all allegations of rape.

                Please proceed, Governor.

                by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:29:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  What is being pushed (20+ / 0-)

    is a notion of implicit consent. If a woman does things to make her appearance attractive, then some men want to interpret this as a coded message asking for sexual advances. That is obviously wishful thinking on the part of those men.

    There are "date rape" cases where making a legal determination as to whether consent was given or not becomes problematic. There are various proposals for clarifying the law. However, what seems like the general cultural message that needs to be established is that no always means no. The underling problem here is the notion of the entitlement of male privilege. That is something that is very difficult to get rid of.

  •  Wow ... I missed that diary somehow. (14+ / 0-)

    Thanks for calling attention to it. Added my HR to the tip jar.

    There were some jaw-droppingly outrageous things said in there - from the excusing of sex with children to the Taliban-like clothing advice.

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

    by jrooth on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:44:55 AM PDT

  •  Regarding the issue of rape in the military, (29+ / 0-)

    my view is: if a man can't control his penis, why should we trust him to control an M16 rifle?

    This shirt is dry clean only. Which means... it's dirty. -- Mitch Hedberg

    by Greasy Grant on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:48:43 AM PDT

  •  From (7+ / 0-)

    the date of his sign up here at Kos and the hobbies he listed in his profile I suspect he is one of the offended gamers all upset that people are starting to get serious about the sexism in many video games.

  •  Thank you for this diary. (8+ / 0-)

    The other one left a horrible taste that this is countering.

    I could not even comment in the other one, it was so sickening.

  •  Don't think a short statement is going to work (12+ / 0-)

    I read that other diary. I'm not sure there are enough words to explain to that person how foul their thinking is.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:00:24 PM PDT

  •  Troll who wrote the original diary (16+ / 0-)

    still a member in good standing, far as I can tell from profile read.

    People need to stop excusing rapists. All rapists, be they cloaked in clerical collars or pretending "women just need to wear burqas."

  •  I do teach boys and men to not rape. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RageKage, cotterperson, DBunn, k88dad

    I will say that I have done some teaching with first year college men about "not raping." So I always kind of feel personally challenged when someone complains that we aren't teaching men to not rape.

    It's on going in various forms all the time.

    However, because rape, like other violent crimes, seems to continue to occur, it would be silly not to pass along some safety tips to women and girls.

    So I guess what I'm saying (somewhat unconnected to the linked-to diary) is that teaching women and girls to be prepared and cautious, does not equate to blaming them, condoning the act of rape, or most importantly - is not mutually exclusive from teaching boys and men to not rape.

    We do both.

    "Jersey_Boy" was taken.

    by New Jersey Boy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:01:59 PM PDT

    •  Do you really think that women and girls (8+ / 0-)

      are so ignorant and naive that they require your advice and counsel? Everything around them makes them fully aware of the risks of sexual assault.

      •  Yes. Some/many do not have enough information. (7+ / 0-)

        At least, I know I didn't. That I was lucky about my sexual choices doesn't mean that making sure women and girls have the relevant information isn't a positive thing.

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:29:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, not all do, but (9+ / 0-)

        that in no way excuses the animals, nor does it assign blame on the victim.

           During school fundraiser season, had a young girl, in the 6th grade come door to door doing her fundraiser. It was still early in the school year, and being Arizona, it was hot. She asked if she could come inside the house while I looked over her catalog.  Big no-no (boy or girl, that is not something that should be done). She was alone, and willing to go into the house of someone she did not know.  

             Teaching people, or saying that they may need to be taught how to avoid things, is not the same as what the OP in that other dairy was saying. Some people have innocent minds, and don't think of the dangers they place themselves in.

          I struggle with this all the time, have DD child, he is very trusting of people. It is a constant challenge to make him aware that not everybody can be trusted.

        "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." T. Roosevelt

        by Lowgun on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:43:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Uh. Not sure how to respond. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson

        The rape prevention seminar I participated in broke into two groups - males and females. I was with the males.

        You think the discussion in the female group was unnecessary?

        I must be misunderstanding you.

        "Jersey_Boy" was taken.

        by New Jersey Boy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:46:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Depends on the information given. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreenMother

        Some of the most valuable information I was ever given re: sexual assault was in a high school sex ed class, warning us that category changes were risk factors for date rape, including dating anniversaries. There was no other way I would have gotten the information that some men believe dating for six months gives them the right to sex, as I have no brothers and the logic leading to that idea is usually kept in Girls Not Allowed settings.

        Society at large was more than willing to explain to us at length and repeatedly that some guys think paying for dinner out means they get sex. Not so much for telling us that guys who had proven themselves Not Rapists over a period longer than some relationships last before engagement starts being floated as a concept could suddenly morph into date rapists during a 6 month anniversary date.

        Prayers and best wishes to those in Boston, in Texas, and for this week to be over without anything else happening.

        by Cassandra Waites on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:10:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And then we allow (14+ / 0-)

      the subject of her clothing to be raised in court.

      I think not.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:14:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not necessarily (6+ / 0-)
        teaching women and girls to be prepared and cautious
        Whatever the commenter might have meant, that statement does not say anything about clothing.  In fact, I would take such an idea a bit farther and suggest that not only women and girls, but men and boys are taught to be prepared and cautious. Not just about rape, but about violence against their person or property in general.  The guidance really needn't differ between them to be useful. Be alert and aware of surroundings. May not be a good idea to be in some places at late hours alone. Don't be flashing your valuables among strangers - Mr Nappe is far more likely to get mugged because he just has to stop and reorganize the bills in his gold money clip smack in the middle of the crowd waiting to get into the bathroom, than I am to be raped because of showing too much thigh at the bar.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:40:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Anybody raising or teaching children (6+ / 0-)

          needs to teach them about various forms of safety and precautions. What is at issue here is the way that it is specifically singled out in discussions of rape. When there is a story about someone getting hit by a car, you don't usually see people wondering if they stopped to look both ways, or were wearing bright clothing to make them clearly visible.

          •  I still don't understand your disagreement. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kevskos, cotterperson

            I DO teach my children to look both ways. I also will teach them to drive safely.  And expect drivers to look out for children.

            It would be foolish to only use one approach.

            "Jersey_Boy" was taken.

            by New Jersey Boy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:54:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As a parent that is your job. (0+ / 0-)

              Once your children have reached an age to be responsible for their actions, it is not my job to run guilt trips on them whenever something bad happens to them. It is a question of context. To assume that all women must be constantly reminded of generally obvious things is what the objections are about. They may not have been your intention, but it was what was happening in the other diary to generated the need for this diary.

              This is an issue that has become a very sensitive point for a lot of people.

    •  And various things are happening all the time that (6+ / 0-)

      tell men rape isn't such a big deal.  Such as football players raping and not being charged because they're football players.  Such as frequent sexual assaults being perpetrated and subsequently ignored in the military.  Just two very recent examples of the mixed message our society sends out every single day to men.

      Good for you for teaching men rape is bad.  But you providing that lesson is hardly going to overcome all the messages the other consequences or lack of sends out.  It seems like a very strange thing to get personally "challenged" about.

      Besides which, I think if you've been paying attention and are in fact so in tune with the issue of rape, you'd readily realize and acknowledge that women are, in fact, frequently blamed when they are raped.  Not quite as much in the last few decades as used to be the case, but still plenty.  Not only blamed, but often ostracized.  To pretend that's just about "teaching" them to be prepared and cautious is something more than being "personally challenged". (and yes, we certainly want to keep our womenfold cautious, don't we?)

      To be honest, I'm not thrilled at the idea of someone with ideas like yours being the one teaching men to not rape.  I'd much rather it be someone like the diarist.  

      "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

      by gustynpip on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 01:48:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Egads. I'm not sure how to respond. (0+ / 0-)

        It feels like you're trying to provoke me.  I'm not sure why.

        I didn't personally participate in the women's breakout group since they are separated by gender.  Maybe they didn't talk about anything women could do with regards to preventing rape.

        However, I'd be shocked if they didn't.

        Is that the idea that has you worried about me?

        And yes, the men's group is a bizarre mess of confused messages. Most don't really even understand the legal definition of rape at the outset.

        I'm not sure how much effect it has, but I'd rather have tried than not. They're young and some good information early can have an effect, I hope.

        So perhaps it was a little narcissistic to feel "personally challenged" when folks say, "why don't we teach men not to rape?" Welcome to the internet, we're all a little narcissistic here.

        Peace.

        "Jersey_Boy" was taken.

        by New Jersey Boy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:29:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What has me worried about you is that you seem, (0+ / 0-)

          both by this comment and others, to have little grasp of how much responsibility to avoid being raped is already placed on women, how men have been excused for raping because of the way a woman was dressed or how late she was out or that she'd gone out with the asshole and should have known better.  You seem to think that "teaching" us even more that we have to live in constant fear and that if we are so foolish as to want to just be able to live a normal life - or what is normal for men, well, we just have to be taught that if we do that, it'll be our fault.  I don't imagine you actually meant that, but think about it a bit.  Try not to be narcissistic about a subject that really has nothing to do with you, except in regard to your attitude about it.

          You have no concept how much women are already taught that.  

          Call that "provoking" you if you choose.  I call it having little sympathy with someone who is teaching men yet seems to have made little effort to obtain knowledge about what women are taught and how much their lives and decisions are already centered around trying to protect themselves.

          "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

          by gustynpip on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:02:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow. You have projected quite a bit onto my posts. (0+ / 0-)

            I don't think I'll convince you that I'm not the person you've decided I am.

            Maybe you'll re-read my posts and think differently. Or maybe you'll be confused by them and ask for clarification.

            I'm not going to participate in your casting me as some sort of villian. I volunteered for a rape awareness seminar for college first years.

            That's it. If you aren't a college first year in a "rape awareness seminar" then I'm not actually trying to teach you anything, so you need not feel condescended to.

            Talk about narcissism.

            "Jersey_Boy" was taken.

            by New Jersey Boy on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:08:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  But that means they have to always be (3+ / 0-)

      On the alert, never able to actually relax and be who they are.

      You are asking girls/women to stifle themselves because men have problems with self-control. You are asking the victims to not be who they are because others are creeps that will attack them if they act like who they are.

      It's the same thing forced on blacks, who have to not ever get angry, not ever speak up, not ever express an opinion, for fear of getting attacked by white people, mostly men, that will think they are getting "uppity."

      It's about establishing who is boss, who is in power, who holds the reins in their lives.

      I reject that premise. The men should take responsibility for not raping, not the victims.

      The men should stifle who they are, because they are causing harm to others. They are in the wrong, not the victims.

      Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:07:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As I've said before on this topic: (3+ / 0-)

      Teaching women and girls to be prepared and cautious, to do various things or avoid various things in order to minimize their risk of rape, is not a bad thing in itself.

      However.  Every single piece of advice that could possibly be given in this context has been used, and is still being used, regularly, as a point of victim-blaming.  As a hook on which to hang a defense of the rapist.  As a means of proving that rape has not actually occurred, because if she really didn't want to have sex with him then she wouldn't have done that.

      And this context has to be taken into account when offering advice, because it's not a context we can remove ourselves from.

  •  When we have a political party dedicated to (10+ / 0-)

    punishing "sluts" it sure is difficult to get so many knuckleheads to take responsibility. Which is easier to take responsibility or to blame someone else?  Clearly the assheads that are going to do this will just listen to the Todd Akin's of the world and rationalize that it's OK.  That does not excuse their behavior, they are still predators and should be stopped/prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but it would be nice if we did not have a political party providing ready excuses for these criminals.

    •  somehow (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution

      I think that perhaps rapists are not the most politically astute creatures ...

      the political system that legitimizes and excuses cultural and environmental enactments of rape and despoliation is IMO more a symptom than a cause

      which, of course, does not invalidate the fact that we need to work to change it

      "a lie that can no longer be challenged becomes a form of madness" -Debord

      by grollen on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:29:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just made the mistake (7+ / 0-)

    of reading that other "diary" on this subject.

    I think the author's user name - in part, at least- explains the antediluvian point of view.

    If he truly believes that children are seductresses and the only way a woman is safe from rape is by donning a garment made popular in the Middle Ages . . .

    It may be time for this Hogwart's reject to look into lodgings at that other bastion of rehabilitation and re-training.

      Anybody know if Dartmoor Prison is still open?

    Don't practice. Train.--Brian Harvey

    by luvsathoroughbred on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:32:47 PM PDT

  •  Well, the original diary was just deleted. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Onomastic, twigg

    One down...

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:38:50 PM PDT

  •  For the first time ever (12+ / 0-)

    I looked up the rules about banning, and sent an email off to kos asking if it was bannable. The diary was gone by the time I sent the email. Not sure if a mod deleted it or the diarist.

    One way or the other, I stand by my request. Diarist should be banned. He/she advocated removing rape laws about CHILDREN, for God's sake.

    •  Yes. And your email was warranted, and may make (5+ / 0-)

      the difference, though others may have made the same decision.

      Also, a conversation started at the Help Desk (far upper right corner of the page) will generally help things along pretty well. Elfling is more likely to be doing a continuous scan of incoming problems than Kos, at least during the week.

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:53:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks serendipity (7+ / 0-)

        I cut and pasted the lines that I objected to most in my email to kos (the ones advocating the removal rape laws against children because young girls dress so provocatively and because children should have to report rape). I'll let kos decide. It's not like it's a huge deal if kos gets to it tomorrow instead of today. The diary is gone at any rate, and I doubt that that guy will be publishing anything else immediately.

        •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

          and thanks. Admins need to be notified. The diarist needs banning as soon as possible. I read a quote from the original diary. I could not HR the diarist's tip jar fast enough.

        •  thanks (0+ / 0-)

          I didn't read the original diary but after seeing here the references to it, I looked at hidden comments, to see if I could figure out who the diarist was and  get the gist of what he said, and I surely did find out.  If ever someone deserved to be banned from this site, it's this guy.  Thanks for sending a mail to kos - I will do the same.

  •  As my sig line says, (13+ / 0-)

    I’m a feminist because the message is still "don’t get raped" not "don’t rape"

    I (thankfully) missed the original diary you mentioned, but I agree whole heartedly with the sentiments in this one.  T&R.

    The Girl Who Loved Stories
    I’m a feminist because the message is still "don’t get raped" not "don’t rape"

    by Avilyn on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 12:49:34 PM PDT

    •  I know this is late in the diary. (0+ / 0-)

      Your sig line always makes me wonder, because I'M a feminist and I work on both messages.

      I've gotten some negative feedback about it here. I'm curious about your opinion.

      Maybe you won't answer. This diary is a few days old. But I'm interested nonetheless.

      Maybe you check your comments. . .

      "Jersey_Boy" was taken.

      by New Jersey Boy on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:08:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here we go again... (5+ / 0-)

    Yes, and everyone should be able to run a convenience store, without having to worry about being shot.

    And, everyone should be able to park their car in front of their house, totally unlocked, even with the lights on and the doors open, and not worry about it being burglarized.  

    We should be able to leave our purse or our cell phone or our ipad sitting out in public somewhere, totally unattended, for hours, without anyone ever stealing it.

    And, we should be able to park our bikes anywhere, anytime, and be assured they will not be stolen.

    And, people should not be coerced, threatened, attacked, beaten and killed in domestic violence situations.

    And, people should not be abducted and forced into human slavery.

    And, cops should never beat a prisoner to death, or "throw down" a weapon, or lie on a police report.

    However, we share this planet with several billion people.   And, every day, new people are born, and we start the arduous process of teaching them all of the rules about what they can do and can't do.   Some of learn it, and some don't.  Some of them are aberrant, hard-wired in such a way that makes it difficult for them to understand, or care, what the rules are.

    It is also true, scientifically true, that when a person who does know and care about all the rules, is put under sufficient stress (such as when drinking heavily), his brain will suffer impaired impulse control, and impaired judgment, and even these individuals may commit crimes of violence that they would not do when their brains are working better.  And, it is true that there are several sources of stress out there, including our wide panoply of drugs, like crystal meth, cocaine, alcohol, etc.

    To put it another way -- "It's a jungle out there."   People shouldn't commit crimes.  They shouldn't defraud, steal, rape, harass, assault, murder, etc.

    BUT, they do.

    Therefore, I AM teaching my children how to keep themselves safe, and that includes the awareness of the danger of rape... and carjacking, and purse-snatching, and burglary, and all the other things that shouldn't happen, but do.  

    I am raising my children to live in the world that exists, not the one we wish existed, the one we fantasize about, because my kids will live in the real world, not a makebelieve one with unicorns and rainbows where crime never, ever happens.

    I also believe that this society can walk and chew gum at the same time.    We can teach our children about the dangers that exist in this world, and also teach our children NOT to commit crime.    What I don't believe is that we will ever reach 100% compliance, and if we do, that's going to be a very bad sign, human nature being what it is.   It would probably mean that humans are 100% dead and gone, and there's no one here to worry about it anymore.

    I really do not understand why so many people on this site pose this as an either/or choice.    We should -- OBVIOUSLY -- do both.

    The incredible utopia that the diarist describes is, indeed, incredible, as in, unbelievable.   It would be nice if crime never happened, and we could just implement a new educational system that would be so effective that crime would come to an end, and we wouldn't need to teach  kids to recognize and avoid situations that increase their danger because there would be no danger.   But, crime does happen, and responsible parents teach their kids about it.

    Irresponsible people counsel parents to teach their girls that rape shouldn't happen, and therefore there is no need for them to take any precautions.

    If the shoe fits, wear it.

    •  Yes, but... (15+ / 0-)

      IMHO, it's not an issue about not teaching people to be safe, it's the focus on victims of crime rather than perpetrators when we're talking about social messages and movements.

      It's not just about rape, although I think it is worst there. We've had an increase in the number of hate crimes here in DC (similar to NY), including a troublesome trend of murders and attacks on trans women. The police have conveniently put up posters in the gay bars telling people not to walk to or from the bar alone (I'm sorry, but I live alone, am I supposed to lock myself in until I can get a chaperone?), be aware of our surroundings, not to talk back to people who harass us, etc.

      It's all good and sound advice and it p*sses me royally off. Why? Because there is no parallel sign in the straight bars or in the media telling straight men (who are responsible for nearly all our violent crime) not to harass LGBT people. There's no PSA campaign telling people that beating on someone who doesn't act the way you want is not only a crime, but damn pathetic on top of it.

      We should be tackling crime both ways. Instead we assume that "bad people" are out there who cannot be stopped and therefore we all need to live in fear. Well most of those "bad people" are just regular humans who make really bad choices. I don't think, for instance, most men who commit date rape are thinking "I'm going out tonight and force myself on someone." Rather they're thinking "she's acted in this manner, and therefore I can get what I want regardless of anything else she does or says," or "she's drunk, so I don't have to worry about consent." It's all about straight male privilege and how that colors perceptions and we should be focusing on that as well.

      A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a facist state - Margaret Cho

      by CPT Doom on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 01:06:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The problem is that we suck at it (5+ / 0-)

      we suck at teaching girls to avoid rape, and we do it in a fundamentally different way than we teach people to avoid other crimes.  (generally speaking, I don't know what you specifically have taught people in your life).  

      The issues is that with young women and teaching them to be cautious of rape, almost always these 'teachings' feed into or originate from serious cultural falsehoods such that the teachings can actually CAUSE harm and promote rape.  

      If we teach girls to not walk alone at night as a rape prevention it may suggest that stranger rape is the primary fear, when acquinatance rape is a far greater danger for most girls.

      If we teach girls that dressing slutty somehow puts them in danger it ignores the fact that the vast vast majority of rapists don't even remember what their victims were wearing.  So we're teaching nonsense.  Then when a girl is raped her failure to dress appropriately is evidence of her culpability (just as a pool owners failure to put a fence around it would be evidence of their partial culpability of a drowning - to use your example).

      But the main problem with the way we teach girls to avoid rape is that it quickly shifts responsibility for rape to the victim and actually encourages, empowers and protects rapists.  

      If someone breaks into my unlocked house and steals my stuff, they are not going to argue that I wanted them to steal it.  So the fact that my door is unlocked may be foolish, but it is unlikely to be a fatal flaw in their prosecution.  It won't get me harrassed by people, or cause people to assume that I am a bad person.

      Shifting the focus of sexual assault is about taking away some of the cultural power we have given rapists.  

      Obviously this doesn't mean we can't teach girls about the dangers of sexual assault.  But what it does mean is that many of the current efforts out there to do that are disengenious bullshit that only serve the cultural biases that protect rape culture.  

      unfortunately this makes it far trickier to provide safe teachings because people get all messed up on this issue.  (wouldn't it be nice to be able to say "don't drink until you pass out" without that phrase also empowering someone to blame a passed out girl for the sexual assault perpetrated against her because it was partially her fault for breaking the rules)

  •  Awesome twigg & thanks (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Onomastic, twigg, Kevskos, 2thanks, WakeUpNeo

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 01:19:25 PM PDT

  •  One night, it seems like a hundred years ago, I (17+ / 0-)

    was a counsellor at the Sexual Trauma Center in Central Emergency Hospital in San Francisco. My job was to support the victims of sexual assault while they went through the legal and medical procedures during the immediate aftermath of the assault.

    A victim, who had been pulled off the street, kidnapped and repeatedly raped for three days, was speaking softly to me while we waited in the examining room for the doctor. A police officer was standing in the doorway. The victim, in a shaky voice, said that perhaps if she had not been wearing such a short skirt the man would have ignored her.

    The officer stepped in the room and told her that she could walk down the street naked and would still not be responsible for the actions of that man. I don't think I have ever been so proud to be a resident of the City and a member of the team as I was at that moment.

    But that was in 1976.

    I thought the discussion had already occurred. It breaks my heart to know that the same battle must be re-fought.

    •  Indeed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Susan from 29

      It is high time the legal establishment got their heads around that one.

      A woman (or man's cos' I am being criticized for not writing a treatise covering all possibilities) clothing, manner or previous sexual partners are not an excuse, and are irrelevant.

      The only time I can think of when previous conduct "might" be relevant, is where a person has previously been convicted for making a false allegation.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:24:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Keep it in your pants" is an even shorter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg

    bottom line.

  •  Those that make the "she deserved it" argument (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, Oh Mary Oh

    are woefully uneducated as far as rape is concerned.

  •  Women commit rape. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WakeUpNeo

    In fact, there are more than a few women who molest children, too. Most of them get away with it, because people automatically assume that only men are capable of such things. It's pure sexism, and you post is a good example of this problem.

    I understand you mean well, and I join you in denouncing sexual assault. However, you framed the issue as something which only men do to women. This is not helpful.

    You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

    by Eric Stratton on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:05:12 PM PDT

    •  The fact that I framed the Diary a certain way (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mamamorgaine, Oh Mary Oh, snowwoman

      and it really wasn't much more than a comment, neither suggests nor implies that I think that it is the only issue.

      I did not frame the Diary in a way that suggests that only men rape women, but that is the issue I was discussing.

      You are free to widen the discussion at your convenience.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:20:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A fair point. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg, WakeUpNeo

        I'm not flaming you. Lots of people see the crime of rape as exclusively perpetuated by males against females. I saw it that way for a long time. However, this is not reality.

        Personally, I feel there needs to be far more research done on female rapists. For every study on the frequency and motivations behind male rape commission, there should be another on female rape commission. Also, same sex rape needs to be examined. We actually do know a little bit about male-on-male sexual violence, but I haven't seen much literature concerning female-on-female sexual violence.

        While I appreciate your good intentions, I would argue that addressing the issue of rape from only one direction is a bit like building a bridge halfway across a river. What's the point? One final thing to consider, rapists often were the victims of sexual abuse at some point in their childhood. Every man, or woman, who gets away with abusing children... plays a role in creating a new generation of rapists.

        You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

        by Eric Stratton on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:39:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Immediate ban needed. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Onomastic

    Thanks for the diary and bringing attention to a user that needs banning.
    Read the follow-up and saw this blockquote from the original diary:
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Ban. Now.

  •  Looks like the diary in question has been deleted (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg

    which is probably a good thing. Good on ya for standing up to that BS Twigg.

    You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

    by SwedishJewfish on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:50:15 PM PDT

  •  I have no idea the context of the diary (0+ / 0-)

    It is deleted.

    However, I can address an excerpt from this diary.

    Sometimes, when I read the pathetic "concern" that men express towards women, followed by suggestions on how they may present less of a target to violent criminals, it makes me ashamed of my gender.
    Again, I don't know the context, but women should be aware of ways to make themselves less of a target. That's not victim blame. The predators are 100% to blame 100% of the time, but I would rather a woman not be a victim at all.

    Please proceed, Governor.

    by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:15:30 PM PDT

    •  "That's not victim blame" (5+ / 0-)

      Except that it gets used as victim blame.  Constantly.

      Which makes it very hard to separate "here's good advice on how not to get raped" from "here's good advice on how to separate and distance yourself from the sluts who brought it on themselves."

    •  This comment sums it up (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic, Oh Mary Oh, vcmvo2, snowwoman
      I once ran into a Vietnam war vet who went to a "women's self protection" class with his girlfriend. The usual precautions were discussed: Never park in a dark area. Carry your keys in your hand in such a way that you can use them as weapon. Every moment, be aware of everything going on around you. Regard every man you don't know as a potential threat. Never let someone get close enough to grab you.....on and on and on.

      "It stunned me," this man said. "It was the kind of thing we were told to do in Vietnam, because you never knew who the enemy might be.  But women live with that kind of fear all their lives!"

      Yes. We do. And we shouldn't have to.

      by Sirenus on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:08:17 PM EDT

      It's called a rape schedule. It's a part of rape culture which yes exists.  Even walking down the street women get catcalled, grabbed, and stalked. (Even my friends 11 year old daughter! It started with me around 13 or so. Grown ass men)It's NOT a compliment: I've had strangers run their hands up my legs, and pull my shirt away to peek down my top.  I was too startled to do anything each time, but now goddess forbid, I will chop them in the throat.

      "A chicken for every pot, a firearm for every tot" New NRA slogan credit to Ploughandstars.on the Raw Story 5.5.13

      by pitbullgirl65 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:13:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Things will change (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, Onomastic, Oh Mary Oh, a2nite

    when women are in power, and have the ability to change the culture.  As long as women are the underlings men will use their power to rape, to abuse, to pay women less,  to do all the things that reinforce their subservience.  Rape is a crime of power.

    Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you. Gabby Giffords.

    by Leftleaner on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:38:08 PM PDT

  •  Give me the beat, folks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, Oh Mary Oh

    and ban that troll.

  •  Thank you! Thank You, thank You! Thank you! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg

    Just to make it clear: Thank you for this diary.

  •  Two things that are not mutually exclusive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Susan G in MN, twigg

    1. Teaching your son not to rape
    2. Teaching your daughter to avoid "men" who didn't fall under #1

  •  Wisconsin Legislator (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Oh Mary Oh, celdd

    Today the weird and horrible GOP passed another law controlling women by forcing a rape to be public through the police before it can be called a rape.  A Legislator told them she had been raped by a cousin at the age of 8 and was protected by her parents with secrecy.  Only 18% of rapes are reported.  I wonder if Republican men have lived their sexual life with Prostitutes, because their sexual ignorance in comments sections is unbelievable.  The general hatred in all the red states passing these draconian laws makes me not want to be in the same country with them.  This was reported on Rachel Maddow tonight, the only reporter I watch who covers the war on women in all the red states.

  •  Thank you. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, twigg

    My daughter thanks you, too.

    Thank your stars you're not that way/Turn your back and walk away/Don't even pause and ask them why/Turn around and say 'goodbye'/Just wish them well.....

    by Purple Priestess on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 10:59:11 PM PDT

  •  You'll never solve anything with this Meme! (0+ / 0-)

    This isn't the first place I've seen it either.

     "Teach your son not to rape".

    It's insulting because it implies my son is an inherit rapist and if I don't fix him he will continue being a rapist. My son's not a rapist, I'm not a rapist and I don't know any men who are rapist.

    It's also just a guess on my part but I'll bet the small percentage of men who are rapist have had someone along the line let them know Rape is bad and they just don't give a shit!

    •  Ah, but how do you effectively teach (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      serendipityisabitch

      someone not to rape?

      We all know the fantastic success story of -- Just say "no"!

      Don't we?

      That is not teaching!

      This is about teaching our sons that they are not the center of the universe and that how they interact with other people must be based on respect for the individual. People are not property. Their bodies are not our toys.

      Truth be told, I do think men are inherently rapists. I think we're all born completely and insufferably selfish. Somewhere along the line we learn that our actions can help or harm other people. A few psychopaths never learn to care about the difference. And all too many people are raised in an environment where men are expected to control every situation, where empathy for the victim is a sign of weakness, where might makes right.

      We live in a society that condones rape, applauds rape-- because it's a display of power-- usually masculine power. And if there's anything that defines our culture it's the objectification and deprecation of femininity while we value and glorify that which we consider masculine.

      If the very conservative estimate that 1 in 6 women in the US have been molested or raped-- over two thirds of women in the US military have been sexually assaulted-- I don't see your "small percentage" in those numbers.

      If our sons are not raised in an environment where other people are treated as equals regardless of their gender then we have failed to teach them one of the most important lessons of all.

      When we've taught our children to understand that an incident like Mitt Romney and his gang pinning another person to the ground to cut their hair is not a harmless prank but a truly horrific assault that completely dehumanized the victim and that being able to perpetrate such an act of violence doesn't mean you're strong or funny but actually monstrous and contemptible.

      Yeah, so most people have heard that rape is wrong-- not enough people understand why it's wrong.

      Our society is breeding monsters.

      Saving the elusive werelynx though swag.

      by Marko the Werelynx on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:27:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well you're wrong! (0+ / 0-)

        No one ever taught me not to rape and I still didn't do it.

        In fact when I think back to my first sexual experiences I was resistant and it was peer pressure that pushed me toward it. The girl was much more of aggressor than I was. My maleness didn't make me some predator. Actually I have often been amazed when I reflect on the times a woman has tried throwing it at me and I was too dense to realize it.

         You are making an extraordinary claim that all men are Rapists, which is a horrible accusation and you provide next to nothing to back it up. Maybe you're confusing sex drive with rape. We may have a sex drive but we aren't rapists.

        •  Nope, nope, nope ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          serendipityisabitch

          I didn't manage to communicate anything did I?

          I didn't actually write any of that rubbish. If any of that was implied well, that's a failure on my part I suppose. My point was supposed to be that human nature is basically selfish and that empathy is a quality that must be nurtured.

          And -- to create a nurturing environment in which empathy can grow is pretty difficult in a society that idolizes the brutal and predatory male image.

          If you and I and our children are not rapists it is not because of some altruistic, benevolent aspect of human nature. It's because we grew up in a nurturing environment that encouraged us to be sympathetic and unselfish.

          Humans are very primitive, violent, and selfish by nature but we can be taught to overcome that nature.

          I can lob some developmental psychology books at you if you'd prefer the words of experts. We can gab about Erikson's theories of infant trust versus mistrust if you like. Perhaps Howard Gardner instead? Goldberg is a good read too ... although, if you can get your hands on a copy of "I Never Knew I Had a Choice" by Gerald Corey I highly recommend it. It was a required text for one of my classes.

          Saving the elusive werelynx though swag.

          by Marko the Werelynx on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:30:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No I get you. Re-phrase it however you like... (0+ / 0-)

            You are still saying all men are inherit rapists and I find it repulsive. Further  telling me to go read a book doesn't prove you're claim. You have miles to go before you come close to proving something so outlandish!

            •  I'm glad (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              serendipityisabitch

              that you find it outlandish and repulsive. That's a healthy attitude. I wish I was more optimistic about human nature.

              I've known survivors of "The Killing Fields" and Auschwitz. A friend of mine was a welder. He welded stainless steel and wasn't given a respirator because he didn't support the Communist Party. He lived in constant pain. The USA actually embraced torture as a tactic. Millions vote for things like the death penalty. Look at what our greed is doing to this planet, take a peek at the swirling ocean of plastic debris that's slowly filling the Pacific Ocean-- tell me again that we're not rapists.

              Saving the elusive werelynx though swag.

              by Marko the Werelynx on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:44:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What does my attitude have to with it? (0+ / 0-)

                You're claiming all men are inherit rapists. A claim you have done nothing to backup. The way you are kicking up dust it doesn't appear you have any plan to back up your claim.

                 Honestly based on what you just posted to somehow convince anyone that all men are rapists I wonder if you even know what rape is.

                What are you going to tell me next, "you know a dog that killed cats so therefore all men are Rapists"?

                •  I never wrote that all men /are/ rapists (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  serendipityisabitch

                  I wrote that I think rape comes naturally (which is what "inherent" means, it's part of our nature) to men. We are, by nature, selfish creatures who think with our testicles. Our most basic instincts are those of self-gratification. Testosterone is a hormone that triggers violent behavior. And I suppose you're right in the sense that I've probably horribly oversimplified everything. There's a lot more to the whole nature versus nurture debate than my one-sided blitherings. I like the positive way Steven Pinker sees the future of mankind. He's got a lot of ideas that may change the way I think about the subject of rape. And I think this strange character could also teach me a thing or two:

                  So, sorry if I've bothered you. I enjoy these long, failed attempts at dialogue because, if nothing else, I tend to learn a lot just digging around the internet reading up on subjects I haven't really studied for years and finding interesting stuff. Again, sorry if all my dust kicking only made you sneeze. Have a good night.

                  Saving the elusive werelynx though swag.

                  by Marko the Werelynx on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 03:47:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks for a very interesting video. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Marko the Werelynx

                    I've bookmarked the gentleman's site, and intend to browse there over the next couple of days.

                    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                    by serendipityisabitch on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:06:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Be forewarned! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      serendipityisabitch

                      You may run into poetry and some pretty outrageous performance art pieces.

                      He has a wide variety of stuff out there in the web.

                      I noticed that he has a lot of vlogs that seem to deal with religion and one even bears the tag "Buber"-- Martin Buber happens to be one of my favorite philosophers. I expect I'll also be exploring more of his site(s) over the coming days.

                      Who knows what we'll find ...
                       

                      Saving the elusive werelynx though swag.

                      by Marko the Werelynx on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:24:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Poetry? Oh, noes!! (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Marko the Werelynx

                        Yeah, I noticed some of that, but (outrageous secret - do not tell ANYBODY) I've been known to swing that way myself, so both my forearms are in pretty good shape.

                        Have a glorious Wednesday!

                        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                        by serendipityisabitch on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:21:28 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I think I quoted you right. (0+ / 0-)

                    You are claiming all men are inherent Rapists. That's what I posted, although spelled wrong.

                     I mostly agree with the man in this video. People put in horrific situation like war or prison do horrific things. I don't agree with him where he claims "these aren't broken people" because all his examples are of people who are in unusually bad situations. Not only are these people witnessing death and mayhem daily, they are in a constant state of fear. Plus they have an institutional influence. He really picks bad examples to show these people are unbroken.

                    Note his example of Abu Garaib and remember the photo of a female soldier walking a naked man around on a dog leash, Does that mean all women are Rapist too? I don't buy it and I don't think much has been done to prove this claim.

                     I really think what he does here is take examples where men are forced into situations of extreme violence where survival requires being ready to fight at any time then applies how they act to your average Joe in normal society and claims see we are all like that.

                     Maybe he is touching on the problems of rape we are seeing in our military and it's similar to the examples you provided with Pol Pot and Auschwitz. It's not the men who inherently do these things, it's Wars and Prisons, and corrupt Governments.    

                    •  "Therein lies the rub ... " (0+ / 0-)

                      I don't have any quibbles with your quoting. I'm all flustered and bothered by the next step you've taken which is interpret my words to mean something else.

                      That word "inherent" (regardless of spelling, which I happen to be horrible at and uncritical of in others) is vital to the point I've repeatedly failed to make which is that I think we men folk are all born with this potential to become rapists and that I believe (and this belief is shared by many prominent psychologists) that unless our environment (family, culture) promotes and encourages nonviolence and mutual respect over brutality and greed-- well, bad things are bound to happen. You can raise a child to expect instant gratification for all their whims, you can encourage their violent tendencies by giving in to their raging tantrums. There are a lot of ways people can get screwed up. Perhaps we do have a resilient spark of innate morality-- an inborn empathy maybe. So you could say that I think we all are, deep down, rapists and murderers and thieves but I also believe that most of us have a pretty good wall built up that separates us from acting on our baser instincts.

                      I don't believe anyone was stating a case for women being rapists. Where and why did you dig up that photo and drag it into this discussion? Enter straw man. I think the man in the video was speaking about the potential to become an "instrument of evil" in all of us when he brought up Abu Ghraib. He sees these perpetrators of horrific crimes as ordinary people put into extraordinary situations and seems to me to be saying that any of us might have done as they did unless we work to prevent such situations from happening and to train ourselves to recognize and avoid those situations. Are we not those soldiers? Are they not average Joes?

                      It's not the men who inherently do these things, it's Wars and Prisons, and corrupt Governments.    
                      You don't see any irony in that do you?

                      Who declares those wars, who builds and fills those prisons? Who holds the power in those corrupt governments?

                      With a vast majority--

                      Men.

                      Saving the elusive werelynx though swag.

                      by Marko the Werelynx on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 07:26:19 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I think "potential" is a new qualifier. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Marko the Werelynx

                        One that's not hard to meet. The mere fact that people rape proves we have the potential to rape, but it doesn't make us inherent rapists.

                         The reason I brought up the woman at Abu Garaib is because the person in the video you linked used Abu Garaib as an example that men are rapists. If you follow his logic that Abu Garaib shows all men are rapists then a female soldier with a naked man on the end of a dog collar would make all women rapists as well. It's not something I believe, it's something I raised to show his assertion isn't logical.

                         I think you could raise a well adjusted non violent, non rapist and put him or her in a violent atmosphere like war or prison and it would turn them into violent animals capable of all sorts of brutality, but it's not their natural state it's what the conditions make them. Put a dog on a chain, or cage an animal and poke it with sticks all day and I think you know what you'll get. That picture of the woman in Abu Garaib shows females aren't immune

    •  That's quite a leap (0+ / 0-)

      from anything I said.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:53:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not a leap it's an inference. (0+ / 0-)

        Correct me if I missed your point but you seemed to be saying you would solve rape by me teaching my son not to rape. That infers his natural predisposition is to be a rapist.

        You didn't tell me "don't teach your son to be a rapist, which would infer he's not predisposed to to be a rapist.

         So you have just inferred all men are rapists which I find to be a horrible claim. A claim you should back down from or support with evidence.

  •  I see that the diary in question (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, celdd, twigg

    has been deleted. So, I've missed it completely.

    I'm usually late to a discussion.

    Although I'm curious about the diary I didn't see, I find myself in complete agreement with this one. Bravo, twigg!

    Rape is exactly the same issue as abortion as I see it. Same issue as slavery. Some people seem to think they should have control over other people's bodies and in my opinion this is as great an evil as actually murdering someone.

    The sovereign right to make all decisions regarding our own bodies should be unassailable. That's also why I feel that laws banning euthanasia and suicide are inane. Whose life is it anyway?

    Our society is really messed up. And we can't expect solutions from the Ayn Rand fanboy, "it's all about ME!" twits. They're a symptom of the problem-- if not the actual problem itself.

    Saving the elusive werelynx though swag.

    by Marko the Werelynx on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 03:35:08 AM PDT

  •  you are a gem, twigg. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snowwoman, twigg

    Yesterday, my husband saw a woman who was wearing clothes that didn't seem to fit her anymore.  My husband said she should not be wearing those clothes.  I said, she can wear whatever she wants.  He immediately knew what that meant - stop with the sexist dialogue.  He did stop and thought about what I said and what it meant.  It takes time and patience to unteach what they have learned, but it's not impossible.  I agree - start when your boys are small - teach them from the get-go  that women are people who deserve respect, not lewdness.

    being mindful and keepin' it real

    by Raggedy Ann on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:56:43 AM PDT

  •  Police state "feminism" is reactionary (0+ / 0-)

    Police State "feminism," which this diarist and many who've commented here plainly advocate, exemplifies the very worst of pseudo-left identity politics. To say that women (or men?) should be able to "walk stark naked down the street" and have no worry about being raped or harassed is equivalent to saying that no one should ever have to lock (or close) the doors of their homes to prevent burglaries or home invasions. Common sense should tell us that this is an ideal that's unattainable -- except, perhaps, through police surveillance and draconian legal penalties on what most Americans (hopefully) would consider an unacceptable level. Rather than live in a 'beyond-Singapore' police state, with all the social repression that would bring, we take reasonable and responsible measures to protect ourselves, such as locking our doors.

    I suppose it's partly because of today's media-promoted obsessive hysteria over sex and sex crime that some people find this foolish "women should be able to walk stark naked" argument persuasive. But beyond that, the implication of it is the completely absurd notion that adult women bear no responsibility for their own actions, as though they can be expected to have no better judgment than small children. This isn't feminism at all, it's a self-defeating, narcissistic reversion to an old patriarchal concept of 'feminine' irrationality and helplessness.

Meteor Blades, ginabroom, Sylv, Nobody, Radiowalla, grollen, TrueBlueMajority, newjeffct, Avila, Emerson, Fishgrease, CriticallyDamped, LynChi, Wintermute, cotterperson, hnichols, madhaus, geordie, missLotus, 88kathy, BlackSheep1, Wee Mama, whenwego, ask, boadicea, Clues, splashy, dejavu, TexDem, Dr Colossus, pat bunny, Eyesbright, draghnfly, papercut, Lilith, zerelda, mungley, vacantlook, oortdust, Gowrie Gal, Brecht, CPT Doom, Skennet Boch, historys mysteries, Bluesee, jrooth, greycat, blueyedace2, Tonedevil, run around, terrypinder, Kevskos, eru, SaraBeth, Sun Tzu, Ice Blue, jeff in nyc, Floja Roja, Ekaterin, kathny, RJDixon74135, martini, detroitmechworks, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Mr Bojangles, AoT, arlene, Rosaura, LunarEclipse, bleeding heart, Preston S, MBNYC, IL clb, democracy is coming, CA Nana, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Stripe, kurious, nhox42, One Pissed Off Liberal, Sapere aude, gogirl2, Polacolor, bigjacbigjacbigjac, gloriana, yoduuuh do or do not, beth meacham, FishOutofWater, LillithMc, Mary Mike, Richard Lyon, Matt Z, gustynpip, sfbob, crose, cyncynical, jnhobbs, millwood, carpunder, cececville, KJC MD, Azubia, Empower Ink, JDWolverton, bkamr, ChocolateChris, Captain C, MikePhoenix, Marko the Werelynx, Involuntary Exile, salamanderanagram, grumpelstillchen, Greasy Grant, Cassandra Waites, Hanging Up My Tusks, TokenLiberal, home solar, glendaw271, petulans, TexanJane, Karen Hedwig Backman, Nica24, Quilldriver, enufisenuf, Diogenes2008, jlms qkw, Leftleaner, LaFeminista, 207wickedgood, prettygirlxoxoxo, Ran3dy, bsmechanic, Tara the Antisocial Social Worker, WakeUpNeo, War on Error, DefendOurConstitution, schnecke21, Nannyberry, cassandraX, BlueOak, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, commonmass, mamamorgaine, NJpeach, serendipityisabitch, Susan Grigsby, politik, luvsathoroughbred, mookins, Lost and Found, pixxer, Yasuragi, petesmom, Oh Mary Oh, TheHalfrican, Onomastic, Maximilien Robespierre, coquiero, slowbutsure, implicate order, asterkitty, CoExistNow, marleycat, IllanoyGal, SueM1121, LSmith, Safina, Daulphin, stevie avebury, SteelerGrrl, jham710, Regina in a Sears Kit House, allergywoman, anonymous volanakis, weatherdude, chmood, cwsmoke, Siri, SilverWillow, LefseBlue, DrLori, a2nite, swampyankee, 2thanks, Horace Boothroyd III, This old man, peachcreek, jan4insight, belinda ridgewood, reginahny, pittie70, doroma, 43north, tytalus, avsp, LoreleiHI, rat racer, Glen The Plumber, Spirit of Life, OooSillyMe, ShoshannaD, left rev, Raven Song, Sue B, nuclear winter solstice, SwedishJewfish, onceasgt, koosah, nolagrl, TheMeansAreTheEnd, countwebb, Jabus, silentlurker, alice kleeman, Alhambra, howabout, DawnGatePiper, GreenMother, Avilyn, BadKitties, rigcath, NonEuclidian, oslyn7, Batya the Toon, The Marti, blugrlnrdst, k88dad, blukat

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site