#20minutesofaction

[Derec]

Yes you are. You refused to refer to what he did as rape, instead calling it "sexual assault,"

Not me, the state of California. He was convicted of sexual assault (three counts), not rape. These words have precise legal meanings. It is not my fault that many media outlets are mischaracterizing the case.

then characterized it as a "mistake."

Well it is. A mistake that is costing him dearly. You just want his life to be destroyed any more than it already is and I think the sentence is sufficiently damaging.

Nobody accidentally fucks an unconscious woman, Derec.

Did I say it was "accidental"? No, I just said it was not premeditated. Also, he didn't technically "fuck" her as far as I know.

 

[Ford]

A mistake that is costing him dearly. .

Yeah. His penis "mistakenly" found it's way into her vagina. How could that have happened?


ETA...again, what are your thoughts on the victim? I know you won't answer...but I'm gonna keep asking. Do you think it was her fault? Do you think she was asking for it? Do you think she was wrong to press charges for being raped?

<snip> speak to the victim for a moment. <snip>

 

[Rhea]

A mistake that is costing him dearly. .

Yeah. His penis "mistakenly" found it's way into her vagina. How could that have happened?

Well, his penis had not _yet_ found its way there, just his fingers and all the dirt and debris that his drunken hand scoop up while doing it. However, we can be fairly certain what was next if the two bicycle guys hadn't come along.

Nevertheless, "mistake" is not the thing that was happening.
And as far as we can tell, he does not regret doing any of it, he only regrets the consequences to someone who gets caught doing it.

 

[Derec]

Yeah. His penis "mistakenly" found it's way into her vagina. How could that have happened?

First of all, he did not use his penis.
And I do not think you know what the meaning of "mistake" is. One definition is "a wrong action or statement proceeding from faulty judgment, inadequate knowledge, or inattention". Fits this quite well. It does mean it is not a crime. It does not mean he should not serve some time. But I for the life of me do not see how society is helped by locking him up for years.

<snip>

 

[Rhea]

Fortunately, we do not yet lock people up for precrime.

We seem to have locked him up for attempted rape.

 

[repoman]

This swimmer guy is young, fairly handsome, probably tall, gifted athletically and rich.

Christ, this kid could have been another Ted Bundy.

 

[Ford]

Christ, this kid could have been another Ted Bundy.

Well if he ate her, then clearly the girl was sending off signals that she wanted to be cannibalized. Did you see the dress she was wearing? It screamed "eat me!"

 

[repoman]

Wow! I mean seriously... not surprised in any way... I mean you aren't defending a sexual molester who was trying to become a sexual rapist. Not at all.

I am not "defending" him. But I think the deminization is going a bit too far - comparing him to Ted Bundy for example.

By the way, what is an asexual rapist?

I don't fully buy the rape is ALWAYS a crime of power. Sometimes it is done by low sexual market value losers. But this guy should have been able to pull some women to date or one night stand. But to me, him being attractive enough makes it more statistically likely that he is MORE predatory than a poor, ugly and unfit guy doing the exact same act.

 

[Derec]

Are you fucking retarded? Rape is always about power. A rapist cannot rape people that he cannot overpower.

Obviously a rapist has to overpower the victim. The question is not about that, but about the primary motivation - display of power or sexual gratification. I think it depends, you can't make pronouncements that all rapes are A or B. I think this guy was clearly after sexual gratification, he was drunk and was clearly not thinking. Not excusing what he did, just explaining it.

For reference: a non-rapist is a guy who might be a super horny loser who technically could overpower most women or children, and yet doesn't harbor the desire to do that, or the inhumanity to try to excuse it for some "action."

That pretty much sums up my case. If I was 20 years old and at that party that girl would not give me the time of day, but I would have zero desire to rape her.

Wait, why do I get the feeling we are dealing with some super horny losers in this thread?

Here, some more vaginas for you:

Technically, vulvas. If you want to see a vagina ...
http://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/we..._article_collections/anatomy_pages/vagina.jpg

 

[Derec]

So how are you coming along on that whole sympathy for the Stanford rape victim front, Derec?

She got the conviction. Her attacker will serve time.

Defend that, Derec. Tell me that's a mistake.

Saying that it's a mistake is the opposite of defending it. Note also that he was almost as drunk as she was. His judgment was also impaired. I stand by calling it a mistake and also by saying that 6 months/3 years is sufficient sentence.

- - - Updated - - -

You should be.

Why?

 

[Ford]

Saying that it's a mistake is the opposite of defending it

No, Derec. You are defending the rape. In your opinion, she deserved to get raped because she was drunk. You have refused to take her side, Derec. You think she deserved to be raped.


If I'm wrong about this, then defend her. Defend her, Derec. You can't, can you?

 

[Derec]

No, Derec. You are defending the rape.

First of all, it wasn't a rape and second, I am not defending the sexual assault.

In your opinion, she deserved to get raped because she was drunk.

No I did not. 99% of my supposed "shitty attitude toward women" are things my detractors like yourself invent out of whole cloth.

You have refused to take her side, Derec. You think she deserved to be raped.

No I did not.

If I'm wrong about this, then defend her. Defend her, Derec. You can't, can you?

How would you imagine I do that? I already said that I think Brock committed sexual assault and should serve time. What else would you expect me to say?

 

[Ford]

I already said that I think Brock committed sexual assault and should serve time. What else would you expect me to say?

That the victim didn't deserve to be raped.


That's a start.


Then, as I asked before, you could post all the threads you started defending women.


I know how you're going to respond already. You'll claim that the victim was never raped, the rapist was just a misguided young boy, and you won't be able to post your defenses of women because you've never written one.

 

[Derec]

That the victim didn't deserve to be raped.

She wasn't raped. She didn't deserve to be sexually assaulted either though.

Then, as I asked before, you could post all the threads you started defending women.

I think women are sufficiently defended in our society so there isn't much need for me to start posting threads on it.

I know how you're going to respond already. You'll claim that the victim was never raped,

True. She was sexually assaulted.

the rapist was just a misguided young boy,

Also true. That does not mean that he isn't guilty of a crime or that he should not be punished but there is a big difference between him and a premeditated serial rapist like the guy in the "Unbelievable Story of Rape" thread.

 

[Ford]

I have already said that the guy was rightly convicted and should serve some time. So how am I an "apologist"?

What about the woman, Derec?


Did she ask to be raped? Was her rape the result of the way she dressed or the way she acted or how much alcohol she'd consumed?



You've not even mentioned her throughout this entire thread, Derec. I can only take that to mean you think she's nothing more than a worthless person who deserved what she got.


Prove me wrong, Derec. Express some sympathy. Admit she was a victim. Acknowledge her as a person.


I won't hold my breath.

 

[Ford]

True. She was sexually assaulted.

Raped.

 

[J842P]

She wasn't raped. She didn't deserve to be sexually assaulted either though.

Then, as I asked before, you could post all the threads you started defending women.

I think women are sufficiently defended in our society so there isn't much need for me to start posting threads on it.

I know how you're going to respond already. You'll claim that the victim was never raped,

True. She was sexually assaulted.

the rapist was just a misguided young boy,

Also true. That does not mean that he isn't guilty of a crime or that he should not be punished but there is a big difference between him and a premeditated serial rapist like the guy in the "Unbelievable Story of Rape" thread.

He's a rapist in the non-legal sense, although he was technically convicted of "assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object."

 

[Derec]

What about the woman, Derec?

What about her?

Did she ask to be raped?

I would say no.

Was her rape the result of the way she dressed or the way she acted or how much alcohol she'd consumed?

I don't know how she dressed but her excessive alcohol consumption was definitely a contributing factor. That doesn't make it ok to sexually assault her, of course, but it is still a contributing factor because it made her vulnerable. If you leave your car unlocked you do not deserve to have your shit stolen but leaving it open makes it much easier for an opportunistic thief to steal your shit.
People should be careful not leaving their car doors unlocked and people should be careful about their alcohol consumption.

You've not even mentioned her throughout this entire thread, Derec.

We don't know much about her. Not even her name/

I can only take that to mean you think she's nothing more than a worthless person who deserved what she got.

I do not think she deserved what she got. But no matter how many times I repeat it you will continue to claim that I do.

Admit she was a victim.

I never, from the beginning of the thread, denied it.

Acknowledge her as a person.

She is a person. Sure. I don't know anything about her as an individual person though, and neither do you.

 

[repoman]

She wasn't raped. She didn't deserve to be sexually assaulted either though.


I think women are sufficiently defended in our society so there isn't much need for me to start posting threads on it.

I know how you're going to respond already. You'll claim that the victim was never raped,

True. She was sexually assaulted.

the rapist was just a misguided young boy,

Also true. That does not mean that he isn't guilty of a crime or that he should not be punished but there is a big difference between him and a premeditated serial rapist like the guy in the "Unbelievable Story of Rape" thread.

He's a rapist in the non-legal sense, although he was technically convicted of "assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object."

"Sexual Assaultist" is not a term, nor should it be.

 

[Derec]

Raped.

Not according to the laws of the State of California.