[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[Huggy Bear]

There’s no point in trying to rewrite history on a message board- it’s all still there…,even less so in the context of this psa thread.

If it was my intention to rewrite history, I wouldn't of literally provided a link to the thread so people could go see for themselves...

[arewethereyet]

Rape is a violent act. Ask a victim of a rape or an attempted rape how non-violent it is.

Did you read the quotations? The "rape as violence" narrative has caused many women who have been raped by acquaintances to not report it, and to even view it as "normal," precisely because they fall outside the stereotypic description of a violent stranger using force and weapons. 

Consider the following anecdote: "A New York City judge recommended leniency for a man who had forcibly sodomized a woman who had cognitive disabilities. Astonishingly, the judge said, 'there was no violence here'" (Matlin, 2012, p. 433). That is what happens when you require violence as a criteria for rape: It causes you to undermine the vast number of cases, from statutory rape to date rape, which do not align with the violence stereotype.

Reference: Matlin, M. I. (2012). The psychology of women. Wadsworth Publishing: Belmont, California.

Lucy charging 5 cents for her psychiatry services is more valid than your endless stream of quotes. You have no thoughts of your own.

[The Grand Nudger]

There’s no point in trying to rewrite history on a message board- it’s all still there…,even less so in the context of this psa thread.

If it was my intention to rewrite history, I wouldn't of literally provided a link to the thread so people could go see for themselves...

Already gave you my take on that, it’s a bit like a meth dealer tipping off authorities.

There’s really not much else to say other than suggest that if you fail to see the many ways in which the rules being discussed could have been broken in that thread- it’s only a matter of time until you do it again.

I’m glad that our wonderful volunteer staff hears the lions share of excuses on this sort of stuff- I don’t have the patience anymore…if I ever did.

[Ranjr]

Rapists should have their assholes seared shut, then be fed nothing but soluble fiber and prescription strength laxatives!

FUCK ANYONE WHO DEFENDS THEM

This should have been </thread>

wtf assholes.

[Huggy Bear]

If it was my intention to rewrite history, I wouldn't of literally provided a link to the thread so people could go see for themselves...

Already gave you my take on that, it’s a bit like a meth dealer tipping off authorities.

There’s really not much else to say other than suggest that if you fail to see the many ways in which the rules being discussed could have been broken in that thread- it’s only a matter of time until you do it again.

I’m glad that our wonderful volunteer staff hears the lions share of excuses on this sort of stuff- I don’t have the patience anymore…if I ever did.

Another quote from that thread...

I guess If you repeat something enough times, it must be true? where did I state any of the drivel you just spewed? I'm simply stating the trial was a farce, somehow you guys made the leap in logic for that to mean being in favor of rape? Are you stupid?

[The Architect Of Fate]

"The problem is that a man can also force a nonconsenting woman to engage in sex without resort to actual 'violence.' Power will do. The 'rape as violence' approach may strengthen the case for punishing violently coerced sex, but it may do so at the cost of obscuring the case for punishing forced sex in the absence of physical violence." 

"The available data suggest that while violent stranger rape may be among the most frequently reported crimes in this country, the non-traditional rape―the case involving non-strangers, less force, no beatings, no weapons―may be among the least frequently reported, even when its victims perceive it to be "rape." In many if not most of these cases, forced sex is tolerated by its victims as unavoidable, if not 'normal" (Estrich, 1986).

References: Estrich, S. (1986). Rape. The Yale Law Journal, 95, 1087-1184.

I've presented these references to you in the past. Respectfully, it's a shame that your position remains outdated.

If you’re going to characterize someone else’s opinion as ‘outdated’, quoting a 35 year old article might not be your best move.

Boru

Also using your position to force someone into having sex is a form of violence

---

I guess If you repeat something enough times, it must be true? where did I state any of the drivel you just spewed? I'm simply stating the trial was a farce, somehow you guys made the leap in logic for that to mean being in favor of rape? Are you stupid?

You were essentially jumping for fucking joy that a rapist was freed 

[HappySkeptic]

I vote for a thread closure. It serves no useful purpose beyond the original rule change announcement.

[onlinebiker]

I will not defend IAs statement.  My frustration isn't about rape apologetics.


But I will say this place is becoming a mono-culture, with low tolerance for other points of view.  It becomes boring patting each other on the back for our correct views, rather than having actual discussions.

Mono culture?


Bwaaaahahahaha....

Obviously you haven' t seen the replies to some of my posts......

If I didn' t wear Nomex ® skivvies my nuts would have been toast YEARS ago...

[Mermaid]

As many of you know by now, Drich has been permanently and forevermore banned. The tipping point was when he tried to portray Bill Cosby’s history of serial rape as business as usual.

Going forward, rape apologetics will be an actionable offense on these Forums and will not be tolerated. It will be considered and punished as trolling (under the ‘Making provocative posts’ clause). Rape apologetics will consist of but not be limited to:

-Condoning sexual assault.

-Downplaying sexual assault.

-Blaming the victims of sexual assault.

Boru

So why not just prohibit the discussion of the subject altogether, I was accused of all that in trying to explain why Cosby's conviction would be overturned.

I vote for a thread closure.  It serves no useful purpose beyond the original rule change announcement.

WHY? I think this thread should stay up. It's an important topic and I'd disagree about it serving a purpose. It's a discussion.

[HappySkeptic]

WHY? I think this thread should stay up. It's an important topic and I'd disagree about it serving a purpose. It's a discussion.

about a topic that is declared toxic to this board, and has already resulted in another banning, and could result in more.