Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,377
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
He plead not guilty. So it is NOT clear that this isn't part of his defense.
-
Features
Mayor blames 4 year old for her own molestation
- Thread starter Underseer
- Start date
Bullshit. You understand NOTHING. This is classic victim-blaming. It doesn't matter who the fuck you think he was speaking to when he said it, he was victim-blaming.
Yes he IS blaming he. He is claiming a FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD WANTED IT!!! What fucking part of that is not victim-blaming.
Holy-fucking-shit I can not believe that you can not get it.
Is it still "victim blaming" if it isn't being said as a defence? If he isn't saying it in an attempt to blame her for anything? I think you may need another word in that case.
And does it matter if it is true or not that she was willingly participating? Would it even matter of she enjoyed it or initiated it or indeed wanted it? It is still rape either way, given her age and the laws and her obvious inability to understand the sexual nature of what went on.
If he was asked "did she resist" and he answered "no. She wanted it" is that victim blaming, even if she did indeed not resist and wanted whatever happened, not appreciating that it was sexual, etc?
And does it matter if it is true or not that she was willingly participating? Would it even matter of she enjoyed it or initiated it or indeed wanted it? It is still rape either way, given her age and the laws and her obvious inability to understand the sexual nature of what went on.
If he was asked "did she resist" and he answered "no. She wanted it" is that victim blaming, even if she did indeed not resist and wanted whatever happened, not appreciating that it was sexual, etc?
yes.
But he IS blaming her.
No, we don't
She was FOUR YEARS OLD
If you are able to recognize and acknowledge this much, why are you having such a difficult time recognizing that the rapist was engaged in victim-blaming by trying to claim that the child initiated the sex; and was "willing" and "consented".
Being willing and legally consenting are not the same thing. It isn't hard to imagine a four year old wanting to pull on a man's penis for totally nonsexual reasons, just out of curiosity and amusement. That would be completely willing participation but total legal non-consent.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
He was shifting responsibility for his actions onto the child. I've heard it's not uncommon for sex offenders who prey on very young children to try to shift the blame that way. They claim the child wanted the sexual contact or perhaps even tempted the abuser, therefore the abuser is the innocent one and the child is responsible for everything that happened to him/her.
It's victim blaming.
Let's pretend for a minute that this is what happened - he is the adult in this scenario. One assumes he knows right from wrong (and legal from illegal). That he had sex with her is 100% on him. He is trying to deflect, minimize, and justify his own behavior as an adult by claiming that the four-year-old child initiated it. That is victim-blaming.
It is far more likely that the child did no such thing at all. Rapists almost always claim that their victim was willing and/initiated the sex act. But it wouldn't matter either way in this case.
"Willing participant" doesn't mean she wanted it. At that age there would be no understanding of what to want anyway. I would interpret it as no resistance was given. So long as he didn't hurt her in the process this wouldn't surprise me--she did what he told her to do.
This would be victim blaming if he had said it in court. At least the Washington Post article only says he said it in the context of therapy.
- - - Updated - - -
That, also. I can easily see him making it a game she liked.
you are wrong
laughing dog
Contributor
The pastor said the 4 year old initiated the sex. That is blaming the victim because this is statutory rape.
Honestly, I don't know which is more disheartening - the actions of this pervert or the utterly stupid and sick mental gyrations of the "this is not blaming the victim" crowd.
Honestly, I don't know which is more disheartening - the actions of this pervert or the utterly stupid and sick mental gyrations of the "this is not blaming the victim" crowd.
laughing dog
Contributor
He said she initiated it. That means he was just going along for the "ride". It absolves him of the responsibility of initiating it - that is blaming the victim.
What 4 year old has the physical maturity to have a man's penis inserted into her vagina, bottom or mouth without pain?
It is blaming the victim no matter where it is is said.
Are both of you seriously arguing that 8 counts of rape and 4 counts of attempted rape are based on her pulling his penis? Do you realize how utterly creepy and incredibly stupid your response is?
Last edited:
But did he say otherwise? I think that is where Loren is going. Did he say it wasn't his fault and was hers? Or did he just say she was willing?
Maybe she did. What of it?
No, it doesn't absolve him of anything. As Ravensky said, he is the adult and he is expected to know better and not to take advantage of her. But that doesn't mean she didn't initiate it or wasn't a willing participant. It isn't impossible that she may even have enjoyed it and only later realized what had happened to her once she was old enough to know better.
I was giving an example. I don't know what the actual facts and allegations behind the charges are in this case, and I don't think you do either. And it isn't relevant to what I was saying.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
She did not initiate sex. If a scorpion grabs your penis, is that initiating sex to you? Don't answer--because it's not or at least it shouldn't be.
fast
Contributor
I'm going with victim blaming. To me, this hinges on why the fact (with a mitigating appearance) is offered. If it's to show guilt of a lesser evil, that's not victim blaming; if it's to show he's not solely and absolutely 100% in the wrong, then it is.
The actual declaration of the fact does not alone demonstrate victim blaming (I grasp that), but couple that fact with the why is how to get our answer.
Illustration:
If one says her skirt was provocative, that information alone is insufficient to determine that one is attempting to blame the victim. It doesn't look good (that's for sure), and if one goes on to say this never would have happened if she wasn't dressed so provocatively, it's going to take a herd of horses to convince me it's not victim blaming. However, the truth is still the truth, and the truth still hinges on just what I say it does.
A willingness of a child to acquiesce to an adults sexual wants in absolutely no way implies legal consent. If the perpetrator of a sexual assault brings up the victims frame of mind as if it was a pleasurable welcoming experience (by saying the child liked or enjoyed it, or the child wanted it or asked for it), then we still need to know why the perp is saying those things.
If it's because he wants to downplay his crime (like a murderer saying the victim didn't suffer or like a rapist saying the victim was willing and not subject to bloody violence), then that's just a way of saying things could have been worst and so a way of him to say that he's not as bad a person as another might have been.
If it's to mitigate his responsibility by showing that he's not solely the guilty party, then yeah, that's victim blaming all day long.
A way to help narrow down motive for such facts being offered is to consider context in which truths surface. Voluntarily exclaiming in defense is vastly different than answering in direct questioning.
Example 1) did she come into your room? YES
(Hard to conclude victim blaming)
Example 2) this is ALL your fault! SHE CAME INTO MY ROOM!
(Easy to conclude victim blaming)
Example 3) Why did you prey on her? SHE CAME INTO MY ROOM!
(Need more information)
So, victim blaming or not depends on WHY what's being said. To shift blame, yep, but if it's to downplay the crime, nope.
The actual declaration of the fact does not alone demonstrate victim blaming (I grasp that), but couple that fact with the why is how to get our answer.
Illustration:
If one says her skirt was provocative, that information alone is insufficient to determine that one is attempting to blame the victim. It doesn't look good (that's for sure), and if one goes on to say this never would have happened if she wasn't dressed so provocatively, it's going to take a herd of horses to convince me it's not victim blaming. However, the truth is still the truth, and the truth still hinges on just what I say it does.
A willingness of a child to acquiesce to an adults sexual wants in absolutely no way implies legal consent. If the perpetrator of a sexual assault brings up the victims frame of mind as if it was a pleasurable welcoming experience (by saying the child liked or enjoyed it, or the child wanted it or asked for it), then we still need to know why the perp is saying those things.
If it's because he wants to downplay his crime (like a murderer saying the victim didn't suffer or like a rapist saying the victim was willing and not subject to bloody violence), then that's just a way of saying things could have been worst and so a way of him to say that he's not as bad a person as another might have been.
If it's to mitigate his responsibility by showing that he's not solely the guilty party, then yeah, that's victim blaming all day long.
A way to help narrow down motive for such facts being offered is to consider context in which truths surface. Voluntarily exclaiming in defense is vastly different than answering in direct questioning.
Example 1) did she come into your room? YES
(Hard to conclude victim blaming)
Example 2) this is ALL your fault! SHE CAME INTO MY ROOM!
(Easy to conclude victim blaming)
Example 3) Why did you prey on her? SHE CAME INTO MY ROOM!
(Need more information)
So, victim blaming or not depends on WHY what's being said. To shift blame, yep, but if it's to downplay the crime, nope.
Victim-blaming does not require the asshole doing it to say "It wasn't the rapist's fault. It was hers". Assholes engaged in victim-blaming say shit like "She initiated it", "She was a willing participant", "She didn't resist". Assholes engaged in victim-blaming assign at least a portion of the responsibility for wrongful act committed against them.
I truly can not believe that you and Loren do not understand that claiming a four-year-old child "initiated" a sex act is blaming her for the rape committed against her.
If anyone needed an illustration of how deeply ingrained rape-culture is, here it is in action.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
This clown is mentally ill. That is all there is to say.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,377
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Kind of a "Well, I would have stopped if she said no, so that mitigates things, right?" sort of thing.
I'd say it is more absolute desperation to avoid going to jail.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,377
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
I want to have sex with Asian women. I however don't just go out and rape them. We all have certain things that we like, and perhaps a lot of it isn't actually our choice. But we do choose to act or not act on those desires.
This isn't about being "sick". This is about being a criminal who decided to choose his desires over the well being of another person, in this case a very young child.
Very well said.