You deserve to be raped

[ksen]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/...oga-pants-are-partially-responsible-for-rape/

“[Linor Arbigil] is a beauty pageant contestant and there’s a lot of provocative, you know, seductive pictures of her that she has put out of herself,” he said. “I believe that if she was at home, and if she had kept to her Orthodox Jewishness, that rape would really probably would not have happened.”

During the protest, Saxton held a sign reading, “You Deserve Rape.” And he shouted at women to “give up your immodest clothing” and “yoga pants are sin.”

“One street preacher said, you know, if you dress like it, you act like it, different things like that, you’re asking for it,” he opined to Vice. “Therefore, you deserve rape. And his last three words I felt like were nice, and I decided to put them on a sign, and go to the event.”

“I believe there are certain qualities that may be worthy of rape,” the street preacher added. “If a woman dresses proactively, gets blackout drunk, and is wearing really revealing clothing, then I would say that she is partially responsible for the rape.”

jesus christ

eta: oh, but there's no such thing as "rape culture."

 

[Derec]

eta: oh, but there's no such thing as "rape culture."

Street preachers saying stupid shit is not evidence of "rape culture".

 

[ksen]

uh huh

 

[funinspace]

Wow...he deserves to be beaten to a pulp by Wonder Woman far far more than those "provocative" gals 'deserve to be raped'. So if wants to start the ball rolling by throwing a large rock exactly right above himself...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"If a woman dresses proactively, gets blackout drunk, and is wearing really revealing clothing, then I would say that she is partially responsible for the rape.”

That'd be two things, with one of them repeated. So if she just gets blackout drunk, but is wearing a turtleneck and baggy pants, he'd think she wasn't in the wrong? Or what if she is doing yoga while sober?

The funny thing about "revealing" clothes is that the revealing clothes don't really matter. A hot woman, is a hot woman. The clothing is just an excuse.

 

[Bronzeage]

eta: oh, but there's no such thing as "rape culture."

Street preachers saying stupid shit is not evidence of "rape culture".

No, you are wrong. This is an example of rape culture. It is a very small segment of US society, but it is there and there is no point in denying it. This man thinks that other men have so little control over their emotions and desires, the sight of a woman's thighs in tight pants will compel them to attack her, tear her yoga pants from her body and rape her.

I know this sounds crazy to normal people, but there that guy is, saying women who wear tight pants have only themselves to blame if a man loses control and rapes her. A crime has been committed, but it's not the rapist's fault. She enticed him to commit a felony, which ought to be some kind of crime in itself.

 

[Toni]

"If a woman dresses proactively, gets blackout drunk, and is wearing really revealing clothing, then I would say that she is partially responsible for the rape.”

That'd be two things, with one of them repeated. So if she just gets blackout drunk, but is wearing a turtleneck and baggy pants, he'd think she wasn't in the wrong? Or what if she is doing yoga while sober?

The funny thing about "revealing" clothes is that the revealing clothes don't really matter. A hot woman, is a hot woman. The clothing is just an excuse.

I wonder what men and boys do to deserve to be raped? 80 year olds? 3 year olds?
The funny thing is that 'hotness' does not matter to a rapist. It's just a convenient excuse, similar to how a woman dresses, how much she drinks, if she walks alone, works in a non-traditional role, steps out of line in any way, shape or form.

 

[Bronzeage]

"If a woman dresses proactively, gets blackout drunk, and is wearing really revealing clothing, then I would say that she is partially responsible for the rape.”

That'd be two things, with one of them repeated. So if she just gets blackout drunk, but is wearing a turtleneck and baggy pants, he'd think she wasn't in the wrong? Or what if she is doing yoga while sober?

The funny thing about "revealing" clothes is that the revealing clothes don't really matter. A hot woman, is a hot woman. The clothing is just an excuse.

I wonder what men and boys do to deserve to be raped? 80 year olds? 3 year olds?
The funny thing is that 'hotness' does not matter to a rapist. It's just a convenient excuse, similar to how a woman dresses, how much she drinks, if she walks alone, works in a non-traditional role, steps out of line in any way, shape or form.

It's not even a convenient excuse, because the guys who say things like this, aren't the rapists.

The guys who say things like this are afraid of women and the power of their sexuality. They are afraid a woman will make them do something that will make them appear foolish. They are afraid if they approach a hot woman who is provocatively dressed, she will recognize them for the pathetic worm they are and laugh in their face. These guys need reinforced reasons to avoid women who appear to be in control of their own lives.

Plus, there are some serious mommy issues at play here.

 

[ksen]

wat?

 

[Toni]

"If a woman dresses proactively, gets blackout drunk, and is wearing really revealing clothing, then I would say that she is partially responsible for the rape.”

That'd be two things, with one of them repeated. So if she just gets blackout drunk, but is wearing a turtleneck and baggy pants, he'd think she wasn't in the wrong? Or what if she is doing yoga while sober?

The funny thing about "revealing" clothes is that the revealing clothes don't really matter. A hot woman, is a hot woman. The clothing is just an excuse.

I wonder what men and boys do to deserve to be raped? 80 year olds? 3 year olds?
The funny thing is that 'hotness' does not matter to a rapist. It's just a convenient excuse, similar to how a woman dresses, how much she drinks, if she walks alone, works in a non-traditional role, steps out of line in any way, shape or form.

It's not even a convenient excuse, because the guys who say things like this, aren't the rapists.

The guys who say things like this are afraid of women and the power of their sexuality. They are afraid a woman will make them do something that will make them appear foolish. They are afraid if they approach a hot woman who is provocatively dressed, she will recognize them for the pathetic worm they are and laugh in their face. These guys need reinforced reasons to avoid women who appear to be in control of their own lives.

Plus, there are some serious mommy issues at play here.

Have to disagree about whether these guys are rapists. What happened in Stuebenville was hardly unique. Not the rape, and not what happened after and not the excuses given to excuse the rapists.

Of course not all who make such statements are rapists. And not all rapists make such statements.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's not even a convenient excuse, because the guys who say things like this, aren't the rapists. .

No, they're the rapists' lawyers, who try to convince a jury that it's at least plausible that she 'wanted it.'
That their client doesn't deserve to be punished for taking advantage or for not taking 'no' as an answer, because everyone who knows Slutty Susan knows that her 'no' means 'yes' or 'maybe.'
And judgmental pricks on the jury nod their head sagely, thinking 'i would not let my daughter dres...' rather than 'would i let this guy off if it was my daughter...'

 

[ksen]

Don't forget the judges too. They've also been known to engage in some rape apologia.

 

[Derec]

Don't forget the judges too. They've also been known to engage in some rape apologia.

Not so much rape apologia but realization that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary and that one can't simply take the accuser's testimony for truth a priori.

 

[Toni]

Don't forget the judges too. They've also been known to engage in some rape apologia.

Not so much rape apologia but realization that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary and that one can't simply take the accuser's testimony for truth a priori.

And some judges are mighty lenient even when the rapist confesses:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/justice/montana-rape-sentence/

Baugh's comments at the sentencing in August sparked controversy. He said the girl looked older than her years and was "probably as much in control of the situation as was the defendant," according to the Montana attorney general's office, which appealed the sentence.
In Wednesday's decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that Baugh used an inapplicable statute to impose the 31-day sentence. When read properly, Montana law mandates a minimum four-year prison sentence -- with a suspension of no more than two years -- for the rape of children under 16 by someone at least three years older, the court ruled.

Since he raped his 14 year old student, it is highly likely he actually knew how old she was. Not that appearing older is justification for raping anybody. Except to rape apologists.

 

[laughing dog]

eta: oh, but there's no such thing as "rape culture."

Street preachers saying stupid shit is not evidence of "rape culture".

It most assuredly evidence of "a rape culture". Perhaps not a pervasive one, but those who agree that a rape victim is even partially responsible for her/his rape adhere to that "rape culture" because no one deserves to be raped. No one.

 

[Derec]

It most assuredly evidence of "a rape culture". Perhaps not a pervasive one, but those who agree that a rape victim is even partially responsible for her/his rape adhere to that "rape culture" because no one deserves to be raped. No one.

I agree wholeheartedly with the last part. I somewhat disagree with the former. The term "rape culture" as it has come to be used is about claiming that this "rape culture" is a pervasive one. So what supposedly constitutes it is taken to be much broader than the example in the OP - if you doubt a rape claim, that's "rape culture". If you think college students accused of rape deserve due process, that's "rape culture". If you think that simply having drunken sex doesn't mean the girl was raped that is an example of "rape culture". I've even read anti-porn feminists claim that porn itself is an example of "rape culture". As such, I find the term completely meaningless.

 

[J842P]

Of course not all who make such statements are rapists. And not all rapists make such statements.

Yeah I don't think this guy is a rapist. He's just your run-of-the-mill religious nut. It's hardly a new phenomenon. At this point in my life I can only feel sorry for these types. He probably is a decent person at his core, somewhere deep down past his spirituality. His mind has been utterly poisoned, as Hitchens would put it, by religion. The funny thing is, he's right! According to the ideas plainly stated in the Holy Books of Christianity, he's absolutely right about dressing modestly. The Abrahamic religions, i.e. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, are hateful, patriarchal, life-denying ideologies. In a lot of ways, what he does is much less intellectually aggravating to me than the lukewarm, cafeteria manifestations of religious faith that we see in the population at large because by accepting the "nice parts" of what is otherwise a bunch of hateful nonsense they legitimize and perpetuate the cycle of brainwashing and indoctrination. Although I must admit, I'd rather live among the latter type. It's really a damn shame that Western civilization was poisoned by these bronze-age, desert-nomadic myths and ideologies.

 

[Derec]

And some judges are mighty lenient even when the rapist confesses:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/justice/montana-rape-sentence/

Baugh's comments at the sentencing in August sparked controversy. He said the girl looked older than her years and was "probably as much in control of the situation as was the defendant," according to the Montana attorney general's office, which appealed the sentence.
In Wednesday's decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that Baugh used an inapplicable statute to impose the 31-day sentence. When read properly, Montana law mandates a minimum four-year prison sentence -- with a suspension of no more than two years -- for the rape of children under 16 by someone at least three years older, the court ruled.

Since he raped his 14 year old student, it is highly likely he actually knew how old she was. Not that appearing older is justification for raping anybody. Except to rape apologists.

This is a weird case and the coverage of it is not very clear. It is not clear to me whether this was an actual rape or simply defined as "rape" because she was so young. The "she was probably as much in control of the situation" and him saying "I thought she was older" (her age would hardly be an excuse for rape, but would be an excuse for consensual sex) lines lead me to believe that it was probably statutory rape rather than "rape rape" (as Whoopi Goldberg would say) as does the sentence, quite frankly. I cannot imagine a judge would impose a 31 day jail term for an actual rape (i.e. sex against the girl's will) of a 14 year old. Also if it was just statutory rape (i.e. it was in accordance with her will but she is deemed too young to consent by law) the 31 day jail term is appropriate and the 15 year probation excessive.
Also the whole thing is part of a plea deal which complicates things further.

Do you have any links that give more details here? Also, if the sentence is invalidated by the Montana Supreme Court does that mean the guilty plea is invalid as well and the case will have to be retried?

In any case, it is very unfortunate that the girl killed herself.

 

[ksen]

And some judges are mighty lenient even when the rapist confesses:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/justice/montana-rape-sentence/

Baugh's comments at the sentencing in August sparked controversy. He said the girl looked older than her years and was "probably as much in control of the situation as was the defendant," according to the Montana attorney general's office, which appealed the sentence.
In Wednesday's decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that Baugh used an inapplicable statute to impose the 31-day sentence. When read properly, Montana law mandates a minimum four-year prison sentence -- with a suspension of no more than two years -- for the rape of children under 16 by someone at least three years older, the court ruled.

Since he raped his 14 year old student, it is highly likely he actually knew how old she was. Not that appearing older is justification for raping anybody. Except to rape apologists.

This is a weird case and the coverage of it is not very clear. It is not clear to me whether this was an actual rape or simply defined as "rape" because she was so young. The "she was probably as much in control of the situation" and him saying "I thought she was older" (her age would hardly be an excuse for rape, but would be an excuse for consensual sex) lines lead me to believe that it was probably statutory rape rather than "rape rape" (as Whoopi Goldberg would say) as does the sentence, quite frankly. I cannot imagine a judge would impose a 31 day jail term for an actual rape (i.e. sex against the girl's will) of a 14 year old. Also if it was just statutory rape (i.e. it was in accordance with her will but she is deemed too young to consent by law) the 31 day jail term is appropriate and the 15 year probation excessive.
Also the whole thing is part of a plea deal which complicates things further.

Do you have any links that give more details here? Also, if the sentence is invalidated by the Montana Supreme Court does that mean the guilty plea is invalid as well and the case will have to be retried?

In any case, it is very unfortunate that the girl killed herself.

Jesus christ, you don't think the fact that the girl killed herself was any indication that it might have been rape rape?

 

[rousseau]

Is this where we repeat the conversation we had a few weeks ago, and nobody budges on their position again? I guess human issues are a cyclical thing, so..