Mayor blames 4 year old for her own molestation

[laughing dog]

Maybe she did. What of it?

First, it is virtually impossible for a 4 year old to initiate sex. Second, he is an adult who must say no.

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.

Really, you think it is remotely possible for a 4 year to enjoy having oral, vaginal or anal sex?

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.

I agree that what you are saying are not relevant to the actual facts of the case, because what you are saying is truly disgusting.

 

[Malintent]

ya'll understand that the Mayor was the Molester, right? Or did I read the article wrong?

The Mayor is not victom blaming... the Molester (who happened to be the Mayor) is doing what every rapist does... attempt to stay out of jail. The only way to do that in light of a rape charge when facts of the encounter are not disputable ("wasn't me"), is to dispute lack of consent. It's all they got.

"Blaming the Victim" in Rape cases is precisely identical to "I was there, but I'm not guilty of rape".

What else would you expect the accused to say? what.possibly.else?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

ya'll understand that the Mayor was the Molester, right? Or did I read the article wrong?

The Mayor is not victom blaming... the Molester (who happened to be the Mayor) is doing what every rapist does... attempt to stay out of jail. The only way to do that in light of a rape charge when facts of the encounter are not disputable ("wasn't me"), is to dispute lack of consent. It's all they got.

"Blaming the Victim" in Rape cases is precisely identical to "I was there, but I'm not guilty of rape".

What else would you expect the accused to say? what.possibly.else?

Well, it's still victim blaming, but it's just that the victim blaming is the least bad thing that he did. It's like if someone walks out into the middle of the street and shoots a guy in the head and then he gets bitched out for being a jaywalker.

It's not actually shocking that child rapists don't have a whole lot of respect for rape victims.

 

[laughing dog]

ya'll understand that the Mayor was the Molester, right? Or did I read the article wrong?

The Mayor is not victom blaming... the Molester (who happened to be the Mayor) is doing what every rapist does... attempt to stay out of jail. The only way to do that in light of a rape charge when facts of the encounter are not disputable ("wasn't me"), is to dispute lack of consent. It's all they got.

"Blaming the Victim" in Rape cases is precisely identical to "I was there, but I'm not guilty of rape".

What else would you expect the accused to say? what.possibly.else?

He could say "I'm a sick man and I did it." Or he could refrain from saying anything. Instead, he chooses to claim a 4 year old initiated the sex which is an attempt to place some of the responsibility onto the victim.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

ya'll understand that the Mayor was the Molester, right? Or did I read the article wrong?

The Mayor is not victom blaming... the Molester (who happened to be the Mayor) is doing what every rapist does... attempt to stay out of jail. The only way to do that in light of a rape charge when facts of the encounter are not disputable ("wasn't me"), is to dispute lack of consent. It's all they got.

"Blaming the Victim" in Rape cases is precisely identical to "I was there, but I'm not guilty of rape".

What else would you expect the accused to say? what.possibly.else?

He could say "I'm a sick man and I did it." Or he could refrain from saying anything. Instead, he chooses to claim a 4 year old initiated the sex which is an attempt to place some of the responsibility onto the victim.

Ya, it really is disappointing when child rapists don't live up to the high moral and ethical standards which we all set for them.

I expected more from the man and feel let down by him.

 

[KeepTalking]

ya'll understand that the Mayor was the Molester, right? Or did I read the article wrong?

The Mayor is not victom blaming... the Molester (who happened to be the Mayor) is doing what every rapist does... attempt to stay out of jail. The only way to do that in light of a rape charge when facts of the encounter are not disputable ("wasn't me"), is to dispute lack of consent. It's all they got.

"Blaming the Victim" in Rape cases is precisely identical to "I was there, but I'm not guilty of rape".

What else would you expect the accused to say? what.possibly.else?

The fact that 99% of rapists attempt to blame their victims for their actions does not mean that a rapist doing so is not victim blaming.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

If a rapist is saying something to show guilt of a lesser evil, how is that rapist not trying to show that he is not 100% in the wrong with respect to the crime for which he is accused? The rapist is saying that it's not as bad as it looks, because the victim is partially to blame. You should have stopped typing after that first sentence.

 

[Malintent]

ya'll understand that the Mayor was the Molester, right? Or did I read the article wrong?

The Mayor is not victom blaming... the Molester (who happened to be the Mayor) is doing what every rapist does... attempt to stay out of jail. The only way to do that in light of a rape charge when facts of the encounter are not disputable ("wasn't me"), is to dispute lack of consent. It's all they got.

"Blaming the Victim" in Rape cases is precisely identical to "I was there, but I'm not guilty of rape".

What else would you expect the accused to say? what.possibly.else?

The fact that 99% of rapists attempt to blame their victims for their actions does not mean that a rapist doing so is not victim blaming.

nor did I say that...To integrate your comment... 99% of rapes are victim-blamed because that's all the defendant has (saying nothing, or "taking the 5th", is not a better defense... admitting guilt is not a defense at all.. it is the hope for leniency). This case falls outside of that 99%, where we are WAY past victim blaming and the accusation from defense is that sex was MORE than consented by the 4-year-old... it was "Initiated".

This guy needs some serious deep brain tissue electroshock therapy.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Very well said.

Not at all "well said" unfortunately - but this discussion certainly goes a long way to explaining why we still have so much victim-blaming going on.

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.

This is meaningless. If the rapist (or anyone else) says that the rapist is guilty "of a lesser evil" by claiming that the victim did/said/wore something that reduces the evil of the rape, then partial blame is being assigned to the victim. That is victim-blaming.

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.

Again, this is a meaningless attempt at a distinction. When a woman is raped, any discussion by anyone about her skirt being "provocative" is victim-blaming because it is (at minimum) implying that the victim is partially responsible for being raped because of her choice of skirt. You can not even claim that you are simply stating a fact, because "provocative" is purely opinion. When someone has been raped, there is zero room for discussion of the look/style her choice of clothing without it being victim-blaming on the part of the person commenting on her clothing.

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.

Not for purposes of determining if he is victim-blaming. He is.

As I said at the top of this thread, it is to be expected that a rapist will engage in victim-blaming. They may do so for a variety of reasons/motivations, but it is still victim-blaming.

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.

Still victim-blaming

Example 1) did she come into your room? YES (Hard to conclude victim blaming)

This is the ONLY example here that I would agree with. If police or prosecutor is merely establishing the fact that the victim went to the rapist's room, that is not victim-blaming.

It becomes victim-blaming when anyone (police, prosecutor, defense attorney, rapist, judge, jury, you, me) then takes that fact and erroneous implies or concludes that the victim somehow contributed to what happened to her by "sending mixed signals" or that the mere act of going to his room indicates consent to sex. The mere fact of "she went to his room" is not victim-blaming. Drawing any sort of conclusion about the rape itself based on that fact is victim-blaming.

Example 3) Why did you prey on her? SHE CAME INTO MY ROOM! (Need more information)

still victim-blaming

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.

wrong. "Downplaying the crime" is the same as shifting some or all of the blame to the victim.

 

[RavenSky]

He could say "I'm a sick man and I did it." Or he could refrain from saying anything. Instead, he chooses to claim a 4 year old initiated the sex which is an attempt to place some of the responsibility onto the victim.

Ya, it really is disappointing when child rapists don't live up to the high moral and ethical standards which we all set for them.

I expected more from the man and feel let down by him.

You are correct Tom, but so is Laughing Dog.

Almost all rapists do engage in victim-blaming, and like you I am completely unsurprised that the pos Mayor/rapist did so in this case. Very often the rapist - especially child rapists - even believes what he is saying because they are (to quote someone from earlier in the thread) they are "crazy".

Sometimes, with a ton of therapy, some rapists get to the point where they can take full responsibility for their actions and say something along the lines of the words Laughing Dog suggested, which would then be NOT victim-blaming; but it's rare.

- - - Updated - - -

ya'll understand that the Mayor was the Molester, right? Or did I read the article wrong?

The Mayor is not victom blaming... the Molester (who happened to be the Mayor) is doing what every rapist does... attempt to stay out of jail. The only way to do that in light of a rape charge when facts of the encounter are not disputable ("wasn't me"), is to dispute lack of consent. It's all they got.

"Blaming the Victim" in Rape cases is precisely identical to "I was there, but I'm not guilty of rape".

What else would you expect the accused to say? what.possibly.else?

The fact that 99% of rapists attempt to blame their victims for their actions does not mean that a rapist doing so is not victim blaming.

correct

 

[KeepTalking]

The fact that 99% of rapists attempt to blame their victims for their actions does not mean that a rapist doing so is not victim blaming.

nor did I say that...To integrate your comment... 99% of rapes are victim-blamed because that's all the defendant has (saying nothing, or "taking the 5th", is not a better defense... admitting guilt is not a defense at all.. it is the hope for leniency). This case falls outside of that 99%, where we are WAY past victim blaming and the accusation from defense is that sex was MORE than consented by the 4-year-old... it was "Initiated".

This guy needs some serious deep brain tissue electroshock therapy.

Thanks for the clarification, but I still think you are wrong. The rapist in this case is victim blaming, just like 99% of all rapists. He is just being very egregious about it.

I will note that to arrive in a state "where we are WAY past victim blaming", we must first pass through victim blaming territory. The rapist saying that his victim initiated the contact is an attempt to at least lay partial blame upon the victim.

 

[Malintent]

nor did I say that...To integrate your comment... 99% of rapes are victim-blamed because that's all the defendant has (saying nothing, or "taking the 5th", is not a better defense... admitting guilt is not a defense at all.. it is the hope for leniency). This case falls outside of that 99%, where we are WAY past victim blaming and the accusation from defense is that sex was MORE than consented by the 4-year-old... it was "Initiated".

This guy needs some serious deep brain tissue electroshock therapy.

Thanks for the clarification, but I still think you are wrong. The rapist in this case is victim blaming, just like 99% of all rapists. He is just being very egregious about it.

I will note that to arrive in a state "where we are WAY past victim blaming", we must first pass through victim blaming territory. The rapist saying that his victim initiated the contact is an attempt to at least lay partial blame upon the victim.

OK. I'll agree to that evaluation.

I have difficulty getting past the idea one can even try to blame a 4 year old of taking a sophisticated set of actions that relates to a level of anatomical and brain development not even close to present.

It's like I smash someone's computer at their house, and they ask me what the fuck I am doing, and I respond, "It was self-defense". One would be very surprised to find oneself in a discussion of "stand your ground", rather than, "your a fucking vandal".

 

[laughing dog]

He could say "I'm a sick man and I did it." Or he could refrain from saying anything. Instead, he chooses to claim a 4 year old initiated the sex which is an attempt to place some of the responsibility onto the victim.

Ya, it really is disappointing when child rapists don't live up to the high moral and ethical standards which we all set for them.

I expected more from the man and feel let down by him.

If you think those are high moral standards, then I can certainly understand why you felt let down by him.

BTW, plenty of child rapists play the "I'm a sick person" or "I was molested as a child" instead of blaming the victim.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, it really is disappointing when child rapists don't live up to the high moral and ethical standards which we all set for them.

I expected more from the man and feel let down by him.

If you think those are high moral standards, then I can certainly understand why you felt let down by him.

BTW, plenty of child rapists play the "I'm a sick person" or "I was molested as a child" instead of blaming the victim.

And that gets exactly back to what I was saying about complaining about how the guy who shot a man in the middle of the street is a jaywalker. This guy's choice to blame the victim instead of blaming himself is the least bad thing about him.

You are, of course, free to admire and respect as many child rapists as you like for having the integrity to not cast aspersions on their victims and complain that those gentlemen are being unfairly grouped in with this monster, but I don't actually give a shit what kind of justifications they come up with for their behavior. A guy raped a child and then said some bullshit to try and get out of the charges - the nature of the bullshit doesn't matter.

 

[laughing dog]

If you think those are high moral standards, then I can certainly understand why you felt let down by him.

BTW, plenty of child rapists play the "I'm a sick person" or "I was molested as a child" instead of blaming the victim.

And that gets exactly back to what I was saying about complaining about how the guy who shot a man in the middle of the street is a jaywalker. This guy's choice to blame the victim instead of blaming himself is the least bad thing about him.

You are, of course, free to admire and respect as many child rapists as you like for having the integrity to not cast aspersions on their victims and complain that those gentlemen are being unfairly grouped in with this monster, but I don't actually give a shit what kind of justifications they come up with for their behavior. A guy raped a child and then said some bullshit to try and get out of the charges - the nature of the bullshit doesn't matter.

You are babbling over a straw man.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And that gets exactly back to what I was saying about complaining about how the guy who shot a man in the middle of the street is a jaywalker. This guy's choice to blame the victim instead of blaming himself is the least bad thing about him.

You are, of course, free to admire and respect as many child rapists as you like for having the integrity to not cast aspersions on their victims and complain that those gentlemen are being unfairly grouped in with this monster, but I don't actually give a shit what kind of justifications they come up with for their behavior. A guy raped a child and then said some bullshit to try and get out of the charges - the nature of the bullshit doesn't matter.

You are babbling over a straw man.

OK, so to eliminate the strawman, what exactly is the point that you're trying to make? I read it as you saying that other child rapists have shown themselves to be able to display a standard of behavior that this guy isn't holding up to and it's somewhat disappointing that he didn't measure up to the others in his group. If that's not the case, correct my misrepresentation of what you were going for when you said "BTW, plenty of child rapists play the "I'm a sick person" or "I was molested as a child" instead of blaming the victim" and I'll be happy to discuss your actual point instead of my misunderstanding of your point.

 

[KeepTalking]

You are babbling over a straw man.

OK, so to eliminate the strawman, what exactly is the point that you're trying to make?

Probably whatever point was being made before some SJW snowflake wandered into this thread complaining about the use of the words "victim blaming".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Again, this is a meaningless attempt at a distinction. When a woman is raped, any discussion by anyone about her skirt being "provocative" is victim-blaming because it is (at minimum) implying that the victim is partially responsible for being raped because of her choice of skirt.

I disagree. We may be analyzing the mental state and the degree of bad behaviour of the accused. That's typical in sentencing. It is an analysis of his behaviour. It is not a judgment of anybody else's behaviour, and it is not a shifting of blame to a victim or anybody else.

If a guy looks at at your bare breasts while you are walking around topless, that is less extreme than a guy manipulating you so he can look down your blouse, etc. And a guy in a strip club that touches a dancers chest because he thinks that is allowed / normal is considerably different than a guy who walks up and touches a lady's chest at a bus stop. Context matters in our judgment of him, and the actions and even the characteristics of the victim is part of that context. That also includes this victim's young age. It makes it more disturbing than if she were an adult woman.

 

[laughing dog]

You are babbling over a straw man.

OK, so to eliminate the strawman, what exactly is the point that you're trying to make? I read it as you saying that other child rapists have shown themselves to be able to display a standard of behavior that this guy isn't holding up to and it's somewhat disappointing that he didn't measure up to the others in his group. If that's not the case, correct my misrepresentation of what you were going for when you said "BTW, plenty of child rapists play the "I'm a sick person" or "I was molested as a child" instead of blaming the victim" and I'll be happy to discuss your actual point instead of my misunderstanding of your point.

You are babbling over a straw man.

OK, so to eliminate the strawman, what exactly is the point that you're trying to make? I read it as you saying that other child rapists have shown themselves to be able to display a standard of behavior that this guy isn't holding up to and it's somewhat disappointing that he didn't measure up to the others in his group. If that's not the case, correct my misrepresentation of what you were going for when you said "BTW, plenty of child rapists play the "I'm a sick person" or "I was molested as a child" instead of blaming the victim" and I'll be happy to discuss your actual point instead of my misunderstanding of your point.

My comment was a direct response to the questions “ What else would you expect the accused to say? what.possibly.else?” I gave a possible (and factually realistic) alternative that had nothing to do with blaming the victim. I then added to the realistic possibilities.

What I find deeply disappointing is the number of posters who argue that claiming the 4 year old "initiated the sec" is not an example of blaming the victim.

 

[Axulus]

If there is some scenario where the events that took place can be described as the child being a "willing participant", how does that make the child in any way blame worthy? How can it be blaming the victim where, even if the words being said are in some sense true, the child would still have 0% blame?

Think of it another way: I run up to you and demand your money or I'm going to mess up your face. I describe the event as you offering no resistance and you hand over the money. Am I blaming you, the victim, because I said you offered no resistance? Of course not, you are 0% to blame for the robbery.