|
CNN grieves that guilty verdict ruined ‘promising’ lives of Steubenville rapists
|
In what warped universe is it right to feel bad for convicted r@pists? Fuck this. I'll be in the Angry Dome
|
http://i.imgur.com/VOCAOhs.gif
http://i.imgur.com/YOzybEX.gif http://i.imgur.com/3mGC4lf.gif But srsly, I'm not surprised at all. |
The Onion actually perfectly predicted this two years ago apparently.. This is nothing new to the area either, as from what I've heard from the account of a pornstar from the city, they were doing this back when she was in high school too. The fact that this has apparently been going on for many years I think means that we need more than just a simple trial, we need a full scale investigation of this community, who knows how deep rooted this apparent tradition of tolerated **** is.
|
A friend of mine wrote this piece for the Sydney Morning Herald.
TW - rrape, rrape-culture rrape-apologist-bullshitery. |
|
I certainly hope that she is alright! Poor darling... I extend prayers and love unto her.
Ugh, it's astonishingly sordid how often this happens in real life, the media and everywhere else. In an essay I once wrote, I actually discussed another case in which The New York Times did exactly this in 2011. The article had the audacity to mention the 11 year-old girl's style of dress and reputation for frequenting the playground with boys. The ages of the 15 male attackers ranged from middle school-level to 27 years old. The remarks made by the interviewed parties and the reporter are a disgusting display of **** culture and inhumanity. I don't even know what to say. It's so disheartening and awful that society has yet to progress beyond this. It's sickening. This why the promotion of feminist awareness (in all respects) is extremely important in the endeavor to combat sexism and destroy **** culture. I yearn for the day these kinds of atrocious behaviors and words are relegated to the realm of nonexistence. |
I'd like to say though that this is Anywhereville. I don't think any town is above this. Some particulars are unique, football towns are partial to protecting football players, but everywhere, victims are blamed for what happened. This is ultimately why in the Canadian criminal code, r@pe doesn't exist, because judges and juries are so prejudiced in they think "well its wrong, but it wasn't R@PE."
And this is the ugliest and original meaning of privilege; you're above the law. They'll get a year or two, and then their records will be wiped clean and they'll go on with their lives. Everyone involved in the cover up, everyone else who participated in the assault, will not be punished at all. We're all cool at screwing our noses up at India, but when we do it, its fine. |
These two will at least be registered sex offenders, they deserve worse but at least it is something, unlike their friends who participated but got nothing because the agreed to testify, even though the damn thing was caught on camera and they bragged about it in detail online where everyone could see so no testimony was really needed.
Also what do you mean it doesn't exist in Canada's criminal code? |
Quote:
"R@pe" is no longer a legal term in Canada. If someone r@pes, they'll get charges with sexual assault, how violent the assault was depends on if they get charged with first, second or third degree sexual assault. What I do like about it is that there's no debate about what constitutes r@pe. Like recently in New York a woman was anally and orally r@ped, but they couldn't charge the r@pist with r@pe (god I hate this filter) because in New York state, r@pe is legally defined as forcefully penetrating a vagina with a penis. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
We have a similar issue here in Australia - legally you have sexual assault and indecent assault, and the defining factor between the two is whether or not penetration occurred.
One of the ways that rrape-culture is winning is by taking the word off the table when talking about all of this - it enforces the "it wasn't really rrape, it was just..." ideas. No, date rrape is rrape. Statutory rrape is rrape. Sexual assault is rrape. Indecent assault is rrape. We need to stop using fuzzy language to cover up this shit. ...this is also why the filter here drives me to distraction. |
Statutory **** is ****?
|
Serious point or sarcasm? My tone detector is wonky at times.
|
I'm actually asking. I didn't consider it like that. 17 year old and an 18 year old have sex. Doesn't seem like a crime. Unless I'm missing something.
|
The point of an age of consent is that people under that age are not legally able to give consent because the state does not feel that they are competent enough to do so. I think it is fucking stupid that in the US you have to be eighteen to consent to things when there is no real difference in the mental and emotional maturity of sixteen year olds and eighteen year olds, which is why most countries have sixteen as their age of consent (some have even lower ages). Many places have provisions for minors to have sex with people in a certain age range (typically three years but it varies), which is because the laws are intended to keep predatory individuals from going for the young, inexperienced, and vulnerable minors, not preventing people within their peer group from having sex with one another. I think we can all agree that an eighteen year old fooling around with a fourteen year old is a fucked up dynamic no matter how you try an look at it, developmentally they are just at such different stages and so outside of each other's peer group that the eighteen year old simply deciding to pursue any sexual relationship is a predatory action.
It's 3:15 and statutory r@pe is a slightly complex issue so I tried making a point as best as I could, I hope it made a little sense. |
^^That.. (thank you, Solumina!)
and I would add that a lot of the problems when talking about things like this come from the fact that we're discussing something that is a behaviour within the confines of legal-speak. Rrape is a legal term - statutory rrape even more so when you are looking at people who are consenting in an equal dynamic but on differing edges of an arbitrary line. However, statutory rrape isn't always a case of an 18 year old in a consensual situation with their 16 year old girlfriend, sometimes it's the 40 year old who has coerced the 16 year old with the idea of being special. |
I understand that. I think my apprehension is in the arbitrary line. When I was 17, I had a brief fling with a 20-almost-21 year old girl and it doesn't really seem like a bad thing. Is that because I, a male, was the minor? And if not, does that sort of say that the law is too broad? I don't understand how a 30 year old man going with an 18 year old girl is icky, but technically legal, while a 30 year old woman with a 17 year old boy isn't considered icky, but is technically illegal. And that's to say nothing about queer relationships.
Also, thanks for your help, Sol. Sorry to keep you up. |
I'm not really up on the age of consent thing here, and definitely not up on the law in the US about it all. I do know that in some states here there is a different marker for male-male relationships.
In Australia male-female and female-female (sorry about the gender-binary thing, but that's the way the law sees things.. and I don't know anything about where the legislation comes down for people who are trans*, but I'm thinking that it would be dependant on what their physical body is like..) is younger than male-male because of the idea that there is a link between ppedophilia and homosexuality (which for the record, there isn't). With regards to the comment about genders, age and ick - I think that there is very much an idea that if the older person is male then they are taking advantage, where as if the younger person is male then "score!" With regards to the comments about age differences - when I was under the age of consent I was sleeping with people who were at times more than twice my own age.. they didn't know my age, I wasn't coerced, tricked or intimidated. I wasn't taken advantage of. I knew what I was doing, and I did it because I liked it.. looking back I can see that there were really fucked up reasons for liking it, but that isn't the fault of the people I was sleeping with. I think that sometimes people who are under the age of consent *are* able to make decisions like this.. but I also think that those people are few and far between, and there needs to be some sort of line somewhere.. however arbitrary it is. |
|
Quote:
I'd say yes, gender dynamics are weird. A teacher was caught sleeping with a young male student, and a local radio station did a poll, and most replied "yeah good on the boy!" But on the other hand, it doesn't make it easier for female victims either, I mean Roman Polanski's victim was really asking for it, that kid Lady Ligeia was asking for it, etc. There's also the racial dynamic where women of colour are thought of as sexual beings at a young age, while white girls are allowed to be little girls. |
Doh, I meant the kid Lady Ligeia mentioned!
|
Quote:
|
Ok, I'm facepalming so hard here, the palm of my hand and surface of my face are now diamonds. Why? because the defense attorney for the black kid, was previously trying to argue, that the girl was too intoxicated to be *****.
And now he's trying to argue in appeal that the kid's brain is too underdeveloped to be capable of being held responsible for ****** someone so he shouldn't be put on the sex offender registry list. How the fuck did this asshole's lawyer graduate from high school? |
and now the victim is recieving death threats. God this is going to cause a lot of victims to not report when they get *****. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMl1EJX_Zgw
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:00 AM. |