Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/06/20 16:11:32
Subject: Re:The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
A massive twit-storm washed over your humble columnist yesterday, set off by our Wall Street Journal op-ed defending an Obama nominee and the rights of criminal defendants. To recap briefly: Sen. Claire McCaskill has placed a "permanent hold" on the nomination of Gen. Susan Helms to be vice commander of the Air Force Space Command. McCaskill is punishing Helms for having granted clemency to an officer under her command, Capt. Matthew Herrera, who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault.
We reviewed the facts and concluded that Helms was correct in holding that the prosecution case was so weak as to make the conviction unjust. (Herrera did not escape punishment: He pleaded guilty to an "indecent act" and was involuntarily discharged from the service.)
Our argument infuriated feminists, yielding hundreds of tweets and perhaps a dozen posts on various leftist websites. Particularly noteworthy was a tweet from @Invisible_War, which promotes a documentary described as "a groundbreaking investigation into the epidemic of rape in the US military." The tweet read: "Appalling: @WSJ's @jamestaranto thinks we're criminalizing male sexuality by prosecuting military rape."
That is an utter falsehood. Our column discussed sexual assault but made no specific mention of rape, a distinct and more serious offense under military law. Herrera was not accused of rape. We sent a corrective tweet to @Invisible_War, but no correction has been forthcoming. Readers are left to draw their own inferences as to the film's credibility.
Enlarge Image
Getty Images
The falsehood that we were somehow defending rapists was propagated widely. At Salon, Katie McDonough published a piece titled "Five Easy Steps for Becoming a Rape Apologist: James Taranto's editorial provides a handy guide for blaming the victim." (Amusingly, McDonough faults us in Step 3 for using the "gendered" word "histrionic." She must imagine that it has an etymological commonality with "hysterical." In fact they come from different languages: hystera is Greek for "womb," but histrio is Latin for "actor." Remember when that municipal worker in the District of Columbia got fired for saying "niggardly," which a coworker mistook for a racial slur?)
Some of the comments were just abusive. At the website of Cosmopolitan magazine, Natasha Burton called us a "freaking jackass." Victoria Lee tweeted: "why is it always guys who look like Taranto, the ones who know crap about women, ... try 2talk abt women." We contrasted that tweet with one from Jessica Valenti (who was not referring to us): "Calling a feminist 'ugly' is generally the first response of humdrum misogynists and the last resort of covert ones."
Sauce for the goose, we suppose. (Though we now need a gender-specific phrase for an argumentum ad hominem against a man, the male equivalent of the argumentum ad feminam.) But then Lauren Rankin replied: "good god, man. that's not a comment on your attractiveness; it's a comment on your white, male privilege." Rankin thinks she's defending Lee by construing her comment as racist.
Related Video
Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on Lt. General Susan Helms, a victim of Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill's war on men. Photos: AJ Mast
The feminist website Jezebel featured a piece by Katie Baker (last seen lashing out at Susan Patton) calling us "a prolific woman-hating troll," "the worst" and, for good measure, "THE WORST." We'll give her "prolific." Then she wrote: "I'm not interested in engaging with Taranto, because he's a cockroach." As we've noted before, describing one's adversaries as vermin is a rhetorical trope of the genocidaire.
All this viciousness was in the service of denying that there is, as we wrote in yesterday's article, a "war on men." Well, imagine if a prominent feminist journalist wrote about the "war on women" and dozens of conservative male writers responded by subjecting her to similar verbal abuse. Would that not be prima facie evidence that she was on to something? If the answer is yes--and we'd say it is--then either the same is true in our case or the sexes aren't equal. (Select one or both of the above.)
We can take the abuse. In fact, in this instance we delight in it, not only because we see the humor but because it proves us right.
But the underlying subject matter is far from funny. The objective of these ideologues is to destroy the lives of men. Some such men are serious criminals who deserve severe punishment. But others are victims of false accusations or overzealous prosecutors. Some were involved in ambiguous situations in which a fair trial cannot establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Herrera clearly fell into at least that last category.
Everyone accused of a crime, even the guilty, is entitled to the basic protections of due process, including the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and the right to appeal a guilty verdict.
One way of responding to our op-ed would have been to concede that Taranto has a point about the Herrera case and McCaskill's treatment of Helms, but to argue that sexual assault in the military is nevertheless a serious problem that requires new administrative or legal remedies.
We can imagine being persuaded to agree with such an argument. But we haven't seen anybody make it. The tweets and articles quoted above are typical of the response from the feminist left. The few who've deigned to discuss the facts of the case at all--Slate's Amanda Marcotte and TalkingPointsMemo's Catherine Thompson among them--have distorted them beyond recognition, obscuring the questions about the credibility of Herrera's accuser that led Helms to reject the court-martial verdict of guilty.
This appetite for punishment regardless of facts, this contempt for the rights of the accused, is worthy of a lynch mob. That is an inflammatory analogy, but we employ it advisedly. The victims of lynching were not infrequently men accused of sexual violations.
Sometimes I think digital age information technology is a plague designed to destroy critical thought; all the information one could ever want and but no motivation to actually analyze it. But, I think that's probably just my pessimism coming to the fore.
I'm not sure most people ever had any critical thought.
It's just that it is so much easier now to access information and analysis techniques, and so much more bs gets firehoses across the world, that we think things are worse.
Actually people are just doing the same old thing of reading stuff that supports their views and ignoring stuff that challenges them.
A massive twit-storm washed over your humble columnist yesterday, set off by our Wall Street Journal op-ed defending an Obama nominee and the rights of criminal defendants. To recap briefly: Sen. Claire McCaskill has placed a "permanent hold" on the nomination of Gen. Susan Helms to be vice commander of the Air Force Space Command. McCaskill is punishing Helms for having granted clemency to an officer under her command, Capt. Matthew Herrera, who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault.
We reviewed the facts and concluded that Helms was correct in holding that the prosecution case was so weak as to make the conviction unjust. (Herrera did not escape punishment: He pleaded guilty to an "indecent act" and was involuntarily discharged from the service.)
Our argument infuriated feminists, yielding hundreds of tweets and perhaps a dozen posts on various leftist websites. Particularly noteworthy was a tweet from @Invisible_War, which promotes a documentary described as "a groundbreaking investigation into the epidemic of rape in the US military." The tweet read: "Appalling: @WSJ's @jamestaranto thinks we're criminalizing male sexuality by prosecuting military rape."
That is an utter falsehood. Our column discussed sexual assault but made no specific mention of rape, a distinct and more serious offense under military law. Herrera was not accused of rape. We sent a corrective tweet to @Invisible_War, but no correction has been forthcoming. Readers are left to draw their own inferences as to the film's credibility.
Enlarge Image
Getty Images
The falsehood that we were somehow defending rapists was propagated widely. At Salon, Katie McDonough published a piece titled "Five Easy Steps for Becoming a Rape Apologist: James Taranto's editorial provides a handy guide for blaming the victim." (Amusingly, McDonough faults us in Step 3 for using the "gendered" word "histrionic." She must imagine that it has an etymological commonality with "hysterical." In fact they come from different languages: hystera is Greek for "womb," but histrio is Latin for "actor." Remember when that municipal worker in the District of Columbia got fired for saying "niggardly," which a coworker mistook for a racial slur?)
Some of the comments were just abusive. At the website of Cosmopolitan magazine, Natasha Burton called us a "freaking jackass." Victoria Lee tweeted: "why is it always guys who look like Taranto, the ones who know crap about women, ... try 2talk abt women." We contrasted that tweet with one from Jessica Valenti (who was not referring to us): "Calling a feminist 'ugly' is generally the first response of humdrum misogynists and the last resort of covert ones."
Sauce for the goose, we suppose. (Though we now need a gender-specific phrase for an argumentum ad hominem against a man, the male equivalent of the argumentum ad feminam.) But then Lauren Rankin replied: "good god, man. that's not a comment on your attractiveness; it's a comment on your white, male privilege." Rankin thinks she's defending Lee by construing her comment as racist.
Related Video
Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on Lt. General Susan Helms, a victim of Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill's war on men. Photos: AJ Mast
The feminist website Jezebel featured a piece by Katie Baker (last seen lashing out at Susan Patton) calling us "a prolific woman-hating troll," "the worst" and, for good measure, "THE WORST." We'll give her "prolific." Then she wrote: "I'm not interested in engaging with Taranto, because he's a cockroach." As we've noted before, describing one's adversaries as vermin is a rhetorical trope of the genocidaire.
All this viciousness was in the service of denying that there is, as we wrote in yesterday's article, a "war on men." Well, imagine if a prominent feminist journalist wrote about the "war on women" and dozens of conservative male writers responded by subjecting her to similar verbal abuse. Would that not be prima facie evidence that she was on to something? If the answer is yes--and we'd say it is--then either the same is true in our case or the sexes aren't equal. (Select one or both of the above.)
We can take the abuse. In fact, in this instance we delight in it, not only because we see the humor but because it proves us right.
But the underlying subject matter is far from funny. The objective of these ideologues is to destroy the lives of men. Some such men are serious criminals who deserve severe punishment. But others are victims of false accusations or overzealous prosecutors. Some were involved in ambiguous situations in which a fair trial cannot establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Herrera clearly fell into at least that last category.
Everyone accused of a crime, even the guilty, is entitled to the basic protections of due process, including the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and the right to appeal a guilty verdict.
One way of responding to our op-ed would have been to concede that Taranto has a point about the Herrera case and McCaskill's treatment of Helms, but to argue that sexual assault in the military is nevertheless a serious problem that requires new administrative or legal remedies.
We can imagine being persuaded to agree with such an argument. But we haven't seen anybody make it. The tweets and articles quoted above are typical of the response from the feminist left. The few who've deigned to discuss the facts of the case at all--Slate's Amanda Marcotte and TalkingPointsMemo's Catherine Thompson among them--have distorted them beyond recognition, obscuring the questions about the credibility of Herrera's accuser that led Helms to reject the court-martial verdict of guilty.
This appetite for punishment regardless of facts, this contempt for the rights of the accused, is worthy of a lynch mob. That is an inflammatory analogy, but we employ it advisedly. The victims of lynching were not infrequently men accused of sexual violations.
Sometimes I think digital age information technology is a plague designed to destroy critical thought; all the information one could ever want and but no motivation to actually analyze it. But, I think that's probably just my pessimism coming to the fore.
I'm not sure most people ever had any critical thought.
It's just that it is so much easier now to access information and analysis techniques, and so much more bs gets firehoses across the world, that we think things are worse.
Actually people are just doing the same old thing of reading stuff that supports their views and ignoring stuff that challenges them.
Was this a shot at me or simply an opinion on the current punditry we're seeing?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/20 16:15:36
Subject: The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
A massive twit-storm washed over your humble columnist yesterday, set off by our Wall Street Journal op-ed defending an Obama nominee and the rights of criminal defendants. To recap briefly: Sen. Claire McCaskill has placed a "permanent hold" on the nomination of Gen. Susan Helms to be vice commander of the Air Force Space Command. McCaskill is punishing Helms for having granted clemency to an officer under her command, Capt. Matthew Herrera, who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault.
We reviewed the facts and concluded that Helms was correct in holding that the prosecution case was so weak as to make the conviction unjust. (Herrera did not escape punishment: He pleaded guilty to an "indecent act" and was involuntarily discharged from the service.)
Our argument infuriated feminists, yielding hundreds of tweets and perhaps a dozen posts on various leftist websites. Particularly noteworthy was a tweet from @Invisible_War, which promotes a documentary described as "a groundbreaking investigation into the epidemic of rape in the US military." The tweet read: "Appalling: @WSJ's @jamestaranto thinks we're criminalizing male sexuality by prosecuting military rape."
That is an utter falsehood. Our column discussed sexual assault but made no specific mention of rape, a distinct and more serious offense under military law. Herrera was not accused of rape. We sent a corrective tweet to @Invisible_War, but no correction has been forthcoming. Readers are left to draw their own inferences as to the film's credibility.
Enlarge Image
Getty Images The falsehood that we were somehow defending rapists was propagated widely. At Salon, Katie McDonough published a piece titled "Five Easy Steps for Becoming a Rape Apologist: James Taranto's editorial provides a handy guide for blaming the victim." (Amusingly, McDonough faults us in Step 3 for using the "gendered" word "histrionic." She must imagine that it has an etymological commonality with "hysterical." In fact they come from different languages: hystera is Greek for "womb," but histrio is Latin for "actor." Remember when that municipal worker in the District of Columbia got fired for saying "niggardly," which a coworker mistook for a racial slur?)
Some of the comments were just abusive. At the website of Cosmopolitan magazine, Natasha Burton called us a "freaking jackass." Victoria Lee tweeted: "why is it always guys who look like Taranto, the ones who know crap about women, ... try 2talk abt women." We contrasted that tweet with one from Jessica Valenti (who was not referring to us): "Calling a feminist 'ugly' is generally the first response of humdrum misogynists and the last resort of covert ones."
Sauce for the goose, we suppose. (Though we now need a gender-specific phrase for an argumentum ad hominem against a man, the male equivalent of the argumentum ad feminam.) But then Lauren Rankin replied: "good god, man. that's not a comment on your attractiveness; it's a comment on your white, male privilege." Rankin thinks she's defending Lee by construing her comment as racist.
Related Video
Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on Lt. General Susan Helms, a victim of Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill's war on men. Photos: AJ Mast
The feminist website Jezebel featured a piece by Katie Baker (last seen lashing out at Susan Patton) calling us "a prolific woman-hating troll," "the worst" and, for good measure, "THE WORST." We'll give her "prolific." Then she wrote: "I'm not interested in engaging with Taranto, because he's a cockroach." As we've noted before, describing one's adversaries as vermin is a rhetorical trope of the genocidaire.
All this viciousness was in the service of denying that there is, as we wrote in yesterday's article, a "war on men." Well, imagine if a prominent feminist journalist wrote about the "war on women" and dozens of conservative male writers responded by subjecting her to similar verbal abuse. Would that not be prima facie evidence that she was on to something? If the answer is yes--and we'd say it is--then either the same is true in our case or the sexes aren't equal. (Select one or both of the above.)
We can take the abuse. In fact, in this instance we delight in it, not only because we see the humor but because it proves us right.
But the underlying subject matter is far from funny. The objective of these ideologues is to destroy the lives of men. Some such men are serious criminals who deserve severe punishment. But others are victims of false accusations or overzealous prosecutors. Some were involved in ambiguous situations in which a fair trial cannot establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Herrera clearly fell into at least that last category.
Everyone accused of a crime, even the guilty, is entitled to the basic protections of due process, including the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and the right to appeal a guilty verdict.
One way of responding to our op-ed would have been to concede that Taranto has a point about the Herrera case and McCaskill's treatment of Helms, but to argue that sexual assault in the military is nevertheless a serious problem that requires new administrative or legal remedies.
We can imagine being persuaded to agree with such an argument. But we haven't seen anybody make it. The tweets and articles quoted above are typical of the response from the feminist left. The few who've deigned to discuss the facts of the case at all--Slate's Amanda Marcotte and TalkingPointsMemo's Catherine Thompson among them--have distorted them beyond recognition, obscuring the questions about the credibility of Herrera's accuser that led Helms to reject the court-martial verdict of guilty.
This appetite for punishment regardless of facts, this contempt for the rights of the accused, is worthy of a lynch mob. That is an inflammatory analogy, but we employ it advisedly. The victims of lynching were not infrequently men accused of sexual violations.
Sometimes I think digital age information technology is a plague designed to destroy critical thought; all the information one could ever want and but no motivation to actually analyze it. But, I think that's probably just my pessimism coming to the fore.
I'm not sure most people ever had any critical thought.
It's just that it is so much easier now to access information and analysis techniques, and so much more bs gets firehoses across the world, that we think things are worse.
Actually people are just doing the same old thing of reading stuff that supports their views and ignoring stuff that challenges them.
Was this a shot at me or simply an opinion on the current punditry we're seeing?
No, certainly nothing personal at you.
A lot of punditry is complete crap, usually intended to preach to the particular choir the pundit is a vicar for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/20 16:25:58
In these sorts of cases the difference in reporting is almost painful at times. The men who carry out these acts are, quite rightly, vilified and treated like the criminals they are. But some women who carry out these acts are given sympathetic coverage, we get to hear how much they love their victims, and sometimes how they've gone on to continue the relationship with the victim when they've come of age.
2013/06/20 17:06:51
Subject: The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
Dreadclaw69 wrote: In these sorts of cases the difference in reporting is almost painful at times. The men who carry out these acts are, quite rightly, vilified and treated like the criminals they are. But some women who carry out these acts are given sympathetic coverage, we get to hear how much they love their victims, and sometimes how they've gone on to continue the relationship with the victim when they've come of age.
I agree with the presentation, in the first article, the woman is red-eyed, probably from crying, it's obviously a mug shot, and she doesn't "look" like a criminal. The image of the guy in the second article shows him being arrested, there are obviously cops around him, and he looks a little disheveled.
But again like MR said, this goes back to the different laws of the states. Lewd Conduct with a Minor has more of a penalty in CA than their statutory rape charges... 1st degree rape in New York could be similar to Lewd Conduct in CA.
Edit: It should be noted that rape in New York has 3 degrees which carry their own penalty. 3rd Degree Rape: Anyone 21 years or older having intercourse with someone under 17 (Penalty - Up to 4 years in prison) 2nd Degree Rape: Anyone 18 years or older having intercourse with someone under the age of 15 (Up to 7 years in prison) 1st Degree Rape: Anyone 18 years or older having intercourse with someone under the age of 13, though anyone regardless of age it seems can be charged with 1st degree rape if the victim is under 11 (Up to 25 years in prison).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/20 17:11:01
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
2013/06/20 21:21:22
Subject: The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
Dreadclaw69 wrote: In these sorts of cases the difference in reporting is almost painful at times. The men who carry out these acts are, quite rightly, vilified and treated like the criminals they are. But some women who carry out these acts are given sympathetic coverage, we get to hear how much they love their victims, and sometimes how they've gone on to continue the relationship with the victim when they've come of age.
You don't think that what the man in the OP did was objectively more of an unpleasant act than the woman in question?
I don't want to get too graphic here, but read the details and really think about that for a second.
None of which is, of course, relevant to the fact that the reporting is consistent with the law in their respective states.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2013/06/20 21:38:22
Subject: The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
Dreadclaw69 wrote: In these sorts of cases the difference in reporting is almost painful at times. The men who carry out these acts are, quite rightly, vilified and treated like the criminals they are. But some women who carry out these acts are given sympathetic coverage, we get to hear how much they love their victims, and sometimes how they've gone on to continue the relationship with the victim when they've come of age.
You don't think that what the man in the OP did was objectively more of an unpleasant act than the woman in question?
I don't want to get too graphic here, but read the details and really think about that for a second.
None of which is, of course, relevant to the fact that the reporting is consistent with the law in their respective states.
You are right on that. These are not identical acts. The second one was much more vile in nature...
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/06/20 21:59:26
Subject: Re:The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
It's just that it is so much easier now to access information and analysis techniques, and so much more bs gets firehoses across the world, that we think things are worse.
You're probably right, but I must ask: Does this make it better, or even worse?
To be frank, it seems to me that you are saying the stories are very similar in order to be outraged at the way they are being described differently. But if they are different, they should be described differently.
Then you go off on the tangent of imagining that the woman in case one got let off lightly compared to a man.
In terms of semantics, you seem to want statutory rape and actual rape to be described as the same thing. The law does not recognise them as the same thing, that is why they are described differently.
There are a lot of fair points in what you've said (though I'd disagree I was "outraged", or even mildly perturbed for that matter, I even took pains to post an addendum to my posting to that effect). I'd agree you refuted most of my post accurately.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2013/06/21 07:11:37
Subject: Re:The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
I don't think these two crimes are too different. At the base of both are the same things , the traumatising of a child, a person doing the traumatising for a feeling of power. Both are crap , both deserve punishment , both are illegal.
I think we really need to get over the whole "penetrator is the aggressor " thing and just look at the crime for the damage it does the children.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
2013/06/21 07:26:24
Subject: Re:The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Despite having the best name in the world, Wolf Blitzer just fills me with the urge to kill... again.
Better than Dick Pound?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bullockist wrote: I don't think these two crimes are too different. At the base of both are the same things , the traumatising of a child, a person doing the traumatising for a feeling of power. Both are crap , both deserve punishment , both are illegal.
There is a massive difference between consensual sex with a person who we do not believe can properly give knowledgeable consent, and forcing yourself on someone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/21 07:26:32
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/06/21 08:48:17
Subject: Re:The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
To be frank, it seems to me that you are saying the stories are very similar in order to be outraged at the way they are being described differently. But if they are different, they should be described differently.
Then you go off on the tangent of imagining that the woman in case one got let off lightly compared to a man.
In terms of semantics, you seem to want statutory rape and actual rape to be described as the same thing. The law does not recognise them as the same thing, that is why they are described differently.
There are a lot of fair points in what you've said (though I'd disagree I was "outraged", or even mildly perturbed for that matter, I even took pains to post an addendum to my posting to that effect). I'd agree you refuted most of my post accurately.
Perhaps I attached too much importance to the "This must stop" statement.
Monster Rain wrote: You don't think that what the man in the OP did was objectively more of an unpleasant act than the woman in question?
I don't want to get too graphic here, but read the details and really think about that for a second.
None of which is, of course, relevant to the fact that the reporting is consistent with the law in their respective states.
You are correct that the male did in the OP was much more unpleasant and vile. I should have phrased my post better. That being said when there are cases of underage sex between a student and teacher with similar circumstances, there is often a discrepancy with how the media treats the male and female perpetrators. That was the point I was trying to make.
2013/06/21 15:24:05
Subject: The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The root of the issue is that our cultures tend to see men as acting and women acted upon. A woman molesting a boy doesn't fit into the cultural vocabulary (unless maybe she's doing it at the behest of a man). So, yes, feminists are likely to agree with you that it's a problem.
Dingdingding.
Exactly. This is all part of the larger problem of enforced gender roles which hurts everyone.
2013/06/21 15:39:48
Subject: Re:The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Despite having the best name in the world, Wolf Blitzer just fills me with the urge to kill... again.
Better than Dick Pound?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bullockist wrote: I don't think these two crimes are too different. At the base of both are the same things , the traumatising of a child, a person doing the traumatising for a feeling of power. Both are crap , both deserve punishment , both are illegal.
There is a massive difference between consensual sex with a person who we do not believe can properly give knowledgeable consent, and forcing yourself on someone.
except you cant give consent, because you dont know any better.
both methods distinctly take advantage of the power, be it of mind or body, that the adult has over the child, and in this case a trusted position of being a teacher was also abused.
the article about the man would be exactly the same weather the child claimed to consent or not.
both are the same crime, the article on the mans never mentions if the girl gave consent or not, not that either kids CAN give consent, and doesnt say he is charged with beating/assault/confining ect.
it just says the man is accused of rape due to an alleged incident, even if the man was innocent (not saying he is) his life is over.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/21 15:45:53
2013/06/21 16:17:02
Subject: The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
Dreadclaw69 wrote: In these sorts of cases the difference in reporting is almost painful at times. The men who carry out these acts are, quite rightly, vilified and treated like the criminals they are. But some women who carry out these acts are given sympathetic coverage, we get to hear how much they love their victims, and sometimes how they've gone on to continue the relationship with the victim when they've come of age.
You don't think that what the man in the OP did was objectively more of an unpleasant act than the woman in question?
I don't want to get too graphic here, but read the details and really think about that for a second.
None of which is, of course, relevant to the fact that the reporting is consistent with the law in their respective states.
You are right on that. These are not identical acts. The second one was much more vile in nature...
Was discussing this with my friend's wife, we both agreed while they are both horrible, the second one FEELS worse, based on the article. In the first, the boy would definitely be a case of statutory rape, but he was probably enjoying himself. The girl was forced in a car, and was younger. I think the difference in age really makes the difference for what feels more wrong. That said, how many of us guys would have liked to nail one of our teachers when we were younger? If I had a chance at my 6th grade English teacher on Long Island, I would have in a heartbeat-26 and a knockout. Then again, I had female classmates when I was 14 who desperately wanted to sleep with the science teacher. So there shouldn't be a double standard at all. I again posit that the two year age difference is what makes the second crime listed feel worse.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: In these sorts of cases the difference in reporting is almost painful at times. The men who carry out these acts are, quite rightly, vilified and treated like the criminals they are. But some women who carry out these acts are given sympathetic coverage, we get to hear how much they love their victims, and sometimes how they've gone on to continue the relationship with the victim when they've come of age.
You don't think that what the man in the OP did was objectively more of an unpleasant act than the woman in question?
I don't want to get too graphic here, but read the details and really think about that for a second.
None of which is, of course, relevant to the fact that the reporting is consistent with the law in their respective states.
You are right on that. These are not identical acts. The second one was much more vile in nature...
Was discussing this with my friend's wife, we both agreed while they are both horrible, the second one FEELS worse, based on the article. In the first, the boy would definitely be a case of statutory rape, but he was probably enjoying himself. The girl was forced in a car, and was younger. I think the difference in age really makes the difference for what feels more wrong. That said, how many of us guys would have liked to nail one of our teachers when we were younger? If I had a chance at my 6th grade English teacher on Long Island, I would have in a heartbeat-26 and a knockout. Then again, I had female classmates when I was 14 who desperately wanted to sleep with the science teacher. So there shouldn't be a double standard at all. I again posit that the two year age difference is what makes the second crime listed feel worse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/21 16:20:34
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
2013/06/21 16:25:54
Subject: Re:The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
If you ignore the fact that they aren't the same crimes as you can easily read in both the articles and the respective states' penal codes, I suppose you're right.
I also think that people are underestimating the impact of having one's picture plastered across the internet in order to be identified as a kid toucher will have on the woman in question's social life.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/21 16:27:41
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2013/06/21 16:32:13
Subject: The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
BBC wrote:Teacher Jeremy Forrest has been sentenced to five and a half years for abducting and having sex with a 15-year-old schoolgirl.
The 30-year-old was convicted at Lewes Crown Court on Thursday and later admitted five charges of sexual activity with a child.
Before sentencing, the judge Michael Lawson QC summed up the case. That summing up is reproduced below:
"It is a huge privilege for an adult to be permitted to teach children. To pass on not just what they know but how to discover more, to excite curiosity and to open new vistas.
"An inspiring teacher can lift a child to levels neither they, nor their parents, ever dreamt of.
"By her 15th birthday any thought of waiting until she was 16 had been abandoned, and you embarked upon a full sexual relationship soon after”
"It appears that you had both the personality and the talent to do that for those whom you taught. But you chose to ignore the cardinal rule of teaching - that you should do so in an environment that was utterly safe and with no hidden agendas.
"I say ignored because the evidence showed clearly how concerned your fellow members of staff were for your reputation as a teacher. They responded to the reports from students of your behaviour and their own observations.
"Time and time again between February and July 2012 they warned and advised you and offered you support. You lied to them as to the nature of your developing relationship and denied sending the messages and photos that pupils had seen.
"You even complained that the rumours that were circulating were lies by the girl. You lied to her mother and complained that the girl's silence in relation to those false rumours were ruining your career and that she was harassing you. She felt mortified that her daughter was behaving in that way.
"In reality you had by then already started an intimate relationship with the girl - her first - within days of her 15th birthday and, as you spoke, you were preparing to spend much of the summer holidays pursuing that relationship with her in you and your wife's home, in hotel rooms and in the back of your car.
"I am satisfied that you deceived her too about the true nature of your relationship with your wife. You took her away with you when it was likely that you would be suspended and possibly even arrested.
"When you first started teaching the girl in September 2011, you noticed her, and she responded to your care and concern about difficulties she was having. She developed an affection for you.
"For her it was a supportive relationship she should have been able to trust. Her attendance and performance at school improved. It was evident to others who went on the school trip to Los Angeles that by then she had become infatuated with you. She told you of her eating disorder and other insecurities.
"I have seen nothing in the evidence which shows that at any stage you tried to provide proper boundaries between yourself and her, to discourage her, or let other staff deal with the matter appropriately.
"Indeed all the evidence shows that you encouraged her infatuation and provided opportunities for her to communicate with you and be alone with you.
"Your behaviour over this period had been motivated by self interest and has hurt and damaged many people”
"By her 15th birthday any thought of waiting until she was 16 had been abandoned, if ever that had been the plan, and you embarked upon a full sexual relationship soon after. Texts that we have heard of show that you were active in driving that relationship forward.
"It is argued that she was willing for that to happen but to urge that argument is to ignore the rationale for the age of consent rules. It was your duty as a teacher to stop her infatuation, not to fuel it. Your research into what might happen to you, if caught, is proof of the deliberate nature of your behaviour.
"On 20th September you took her to France. I suspect you went for your own purposes.
"In taking her with you, you subjected her family to appalling distress and concerns for her safety. You made no attempt to think of their welfare or let someone know she was safe. Since her return to this country she has had to endure the relentless spotlight on what should have been a very private matter at the mere age of 15.
"You have contested the abduction charge raising a spurious defence, so that she had to give evidence, evidence very different in content from her original account and designed to support it. She had clearly received assistance in relation to what she should say.
"Further publicity will follow today's hearing. Where is that genuine care for her welfare that is the hallmark of a truly loving relationship?
'Pay the price'
"Your behaviour over this period had been motivated by self interest and has hurt and damaged many people - her family; your family; staff and pupils at the school and respect for teachers everywhere. It has damaged you too, but that was something you were prepared to risk.
"You now have to pay that price.
"You have redeemed yourself to some very small degree by waiving your right to full extradition but not before you had repeatedly tried to avoid being brought back to this country for crimes you knew you had committed.
"You know that the matters for which I have to sentence you demand an immediate sentence of imprisonment - as punishment for you and a clear signal to others. Other consequences automatically follow and they will prevent you being able to damage other vulnerable children."
What I find most interesting is that Forrest made a deal over extradition on which charges he would face and which he would not. However due to a last minute confession the judge was able to take into account the greater severaity and that accounted for four years of his five year sentence. I doubt anyone will have a problem with letting this git burn, but its something to watch out over.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2013/06/25 03:16:28
Subject: Re:The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
easysauce wrote: except you cant give consent, because you dont know any better.
Yeah, dude, we all know why it's still illegal.
But that doesn't mean we should go about pretending there's no difference between getting consent from someone who is too young to be able to really give consent, and forcing yourself on someone.
I mean, come on. You seriously can't see the difference?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/06/25 19:42:59
Subject: Re:The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
I have a brother who at 26 went to a party on a Wednesday night. On Friday he was in jail for rape of a child under the age of 18. He consensually slept with a 17 year old girl at that party who falsely identified herself as older. In Idaho under 18 equals rape without question. My brother went to prison for one year and was on probation for 5 years. He will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He is now married and has 1 child of his own and his now wife came with a son. He is subject to a scarlet letter he can never remove. I understand rape is an issue and my brother would be the first guy to do something to a rapist. He is not one. He had consensual sex with someone who wanted to be grown up. He cant watch his kids little league games (I go and video tape them). Classifing every person the same hurts those who never wanted to break the law. I am not saying my brother a saint. He is kinda a jerk and was a major alcoholic but doesn’t deserve to be a sex offender for the rest of his life.
2013/06/26 03:01:48
Subject: Re:The difference "an inappropriate relationship" and "rape"
Devoted-to-the-machine wrote: I have a brother who at 26 went to a party on a Wednesday night. On Friday he was in jail for rape of a child under the age of 18. He consensually slept with a 17 year old girl at that party who falsely identified herself as older. In Idaho under 18 equals rape without question. My brother went to prison for one year and was on probation for 5 years. He will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He is now married and has 1 child of his own and his now wife came with a son. He is subject to a scarlet letter he can never remove. I understand rape is an issue and my brother would be the first guy to do something to a rapist. He is not one. He had consensual sex with someone who wanted to be grown up. He cant watch his kids little league games (I go and video tape them). Classifing every person the same hurts those who never wanted to break the law. I am not saying my brother a saint. He is kinda a jerk and was a major alcoholic but doesn’t deserve to be a sex offender for the rest of his life.
Thankyou for that post. It showed the madness of thinking of statutory rape as rape, and also of the broadness of many sex offender registers.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I have a brother who at 26 went to a party on a Wednesday night. On Friday he was in jail for rape of a child under the age of 18. He consensually slept with a 17 year old girl at that party who falsely identified herself as older. In Idaho under 18 equals rape without question. My brother went to prison for one year and was on probation for 5 years. He will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He is now married and has 1 child of his own and his now wife came with a son. He is subject to a scarlet letter he can never remove. I understand rape is an issue and my brother would be the first guy to do something to a rapist. He is not one. He had consensual sex with someone who wanted to be grown up. He cant watch his kids little league games (I go and video tape them). Classifing every person the same hurts those who never wanted to break the law. I am not saying my brother a saint. He is kinda a jerk and was a major alcoholic but doesn’t deserve to be a sex offender for the rest of his life.
