Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Wednesday, December 22, 2010

"Rape apologia"

Even in these grim times, people want to talk about below-the-waist matters -- and nothing else. Few care to discuss the "Dreyfus" treatment handed out to poor Bradley Manning, whose only crime was attempting to expose a Pentagon lie. The hot topic is the "rape" (well, rape-ish) allegation against Julian Assange.

All males are penis-monsters, or so we are told by some denizens of blogistan left. Therefore, on some cosmic level, Bradley Manning deserves everything now happening to him. Of course, he is also gay, which means that lefties will grant him a few sympathy points forever denied to one so monsterific as (say) my unforgivably hetero self.

Julian Assange is very, very monsterific indeed. He's male and...(cue the old-time radio music)...he likes to fuck! He likes to fuck women that he has no intention of marrying or even dating on a long-term basis!

As one of my fellow (male) bloggers put it, apparently expecting agreement, Assange "can't keep it zipped." That, it seems, is his true crime. The rape accusations are presumed to be true, because the accuser is female, and women are genetically incapable of lying.

Under our new cultural rules, a woman who sleeps with an entire army division is simply expressing her individuality and empowerment and growthfulness and all of that uplifting stuff. But any man who wants to fuck a woman is an abusive bastard. We remain haunted by the words of Marilyn French: All men are rapists.

This argument is eerily reminiscent of 2008, when the Obama cultists screamed racism at anyone who did not favor their candidate, because there could be no other reason for standing against the Lightbringer. Similarly, anyone who criticizes Israel's ghastly actions in Gaza and Lebanon must be an anti-Semite.

Welcome to the world of identity politics. No more of that messy, frustrating searching-for-truth stuff: Nowadays, everything comes down to group solidarity. Shirts versus skins. Life is simpler that way.

In a private communication, a reader expressed the situation thus:
I'm literally being told "STFU". And this is even despite that fact that I've articulated that I think Assange was a jerk and committed major boundary violations.

One thing I’m told: “questioning the veracity of a victim's actions, regardless of your own circumstances or experience, is rape apologia.”
Note the wording: The accuser is not an accuser -- she is a victim.

I was under the impression that her "victim" status was the very issue at question. It seems, however, that this issue has already been settled before trial, before the presentation of facts -- settled by the mere act of accusation. Even at trial, cross-examination is not permissible. In our brave new world, cross-examination equals rape apologia.

Petitio principii. Begging the question. It's the most insidious of all logical fallacies -- and it's the ideologist's favorite weapon.

"What's this, Cannon? Are you arguing for a return to the bad old days, when a rape victim could expect to have her entire sexual history held up to public scrutiny?"

In answer to that question (which must have popped into the noggins of a few of you), let's look at a famed courtroom case that first made the public skeptical of an accuser's unsupported testimony. The last century gave us many "trials of the century," and this was one of them.

Alexander Pantages. Do you recognize the name? He built what was once my favorite old-time movie palace, now a legit theater near Hollywood and Vine.

In 1929, he owned a large number of major theaters in big cities across the nation. This operation came under the envious eye of one Joseph P. Kennedy, who was then trying to establish himself in film production and distribution. Although Kennedy made a generous offer, Pantages refused to sell his theaters. Kennedy vowed to have them one way or another.

That's when a 17 year-old vaudeville dancer named Eunice Pringle brought a rape accusation against Pantages.

If you think that journalists covering rape trials used to favor males and condemn females, you're wrong. Look up the contemporary coverage of the Pantages case. She was pictured as a mere schoolgirl, a virginal blossom sullied by a fat, greasy foreigner in his 50s.

(Interestingly, the newspapers showed far more sympathy toward Pantages' wife Lois, who, that same year, was found guilty of vehicular manslaughter.)

The newspapers made no inquiries into Pringle's sexual history, yet they published an avalanche of sordid allegations about Pantages -- even though they were irrelevant to the matter at hand. Eventually, these allegations resulted in a secondary trial.

People did not complain when a male's sexual history was placed under public scrutiny. As then, so later: How many so-called liberals objected when Bill Clinton was asked irrelevant questions about his private life during the Paula Jones deposition?

Pantages was found guilty. He hired a couple of sharp up-and-coming young lawyers, who successful engineered a new trial -- precisely on the grounds that the judge on the first trial has disallowed any examination of Pringle's history.

I can guess what you're thinking:

What? They let the jurors hear about her private life, just as they had heard about the private life of the accused? Outrageous!

Outrageous or no, that testimony was heard -- and guess what? Pantages was acquitted.

For good reason.

The record demonstrated that Pringle, a trained actress, had always repeated her story word for word, never changing a syllable -- indicative of coaching. This young lady also had a short but notable history as a con artist. Moreover, she had a rep for sexual promiscuity -- and yes, that news was relevant: A promiscuous 17 year old is more likely than a virgin to allow herself to be used as bait in a honeytrap.

Lawyers reconstructed the crime (which allegedly took place in a broom closet) and proved that Pringle's description of events was physically impossible. The jury then heard evidence that Pringle's manager had made a demand for hush money.

I first read of the Pantages rape case in a book which asserted without qualification that Joseph Kennedy had engineered the Pringle accusation. More cautious writers insist that no hard evidence links the Kennedy paterfamilias to Pringle. Still, most historians familiar with the case believe that the whole thing was a set-up.

No-one can dispute that the scandal ruined Pantages. He lost two years of his life and was forced to sell his theater chain at far less than its value -- to Joe Kennedy.

In the 1970s, many feminists asked why the accuser in rape trials had to undergo so much unfair and obtrusive questioning about past habits. The reason can be summed up in a name: Eunice Pringle. She changed the way American jurisprudence -- and American journalism -- regarded rape accusations.

Is it really the case that anyone who views an accuser suspiciously is a "rape apologist" produced by a "rape culture"?

Consider the Tawana Brawley case. I never condemned Al Sharpton for championing her cause. When women turn on the tears, they wield a weapon more powerful than C4.

Consider Crystal Gail Mangum.

Consider Danmell Ndonye, who withdrew a false accusation of rape after video evidence surfaced demonstrating that the sex had been consensual.

Consider television weather forecaster Heidi Jones.

Consider Paula Jones, who at first told friends that Clinton was "sweet, very sweet" -- and then changed her story, making herself out to be the victim of sexual harassment. Remember?
In late 1997, Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled Jones was "entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom President Clinton had sexual relations or proposed to or sought to have sexual relations and who were, during the relevant time frame, state or federal employees."
Fishing expeditions are permissible when males are targeted.

Ann Coulter considered Paula a "good Christian girl who had suffered sexual harassment." Then she -- Paula -- posed nude for a very hefty sum of money. Labor deserves payment.

Consider Gennifer Flowers, whose story kept growing like topsy. She also got the Penthouse pay-off. Bob Somerby:
Do famous accusers say things which aren’t true? Yes, they sometimes do—although the mainstream press, and the liberal world, worked quite hard to bury that fact during the Clinton jihad. One example: It seems abundantly clear that Gennifer Flowers made up a whole lot of crap about Clinton. (She raked in a whole lot of dough for her trouble.) But so what? By 1998, a jihad was on, with all the fools chasing Clinton around, determined to prove he was vile. As a result, the fools all stood in line to vouch for Flowers’ moral grandeur.
Lucre is not the sole motive. More often than not, accusers are prompted by something other than money.

There are a number of individuals -- male and female -- who wander through life in a haze, unable to determine the difference between reality and fantasy. These people can seem very convincing. I know this from personal experience.

Time to make a confession: I spent quite a lot of time in the 1990s researching a book which would have dealt, in substantial part, with the then-raging controversy over Satanic Ritual Abuse allegations. In that era, there were quite a few women leveling charges at a bizarre occultist named Michael Aquino. I talked to some of these women. Although they had made no formal complaints to the police (at least, not to my knowledge), they eagerly told Aquino-raped-me tales to various writers.

Unknown to these claimants, I had also conferred with a woman named Linda B., who had had a brief (consensual) romantic liaison with Aquino some years before the media discovered him. Linda -- who had parted with Aquino on less-than-amicable terms -- gave me a physical description.

None of the women making "satanic rape" accusations could describe the man accurately. One woman even pretended to faint when I asked for a description! In fact, the accusers didn't even know the correct way to pronounce his name.

I've had more experience with fantasists of this sort than you can possibly guess. They demand victimization status. They crave sympathy the way an addict craves an armful. They can shoot enough moisture out of their eyes to fill the California aqueduct.

(There are also plenty of male fantasists out there. They don't blubber as readily, although they do get weirdly angry over their imaginary abuses.)

For a perfect example of the breed, read the tale of Lauren Stratford, alleged rape victim, Satanic abuse victim and Holocaust survivor. Nothing she said was true. Not one word. Yet some people still believe her -- and some of the believers are motivated by feminist mythology.

I never met Lauren, but I've met women like her -- more of them than you can ever guess. They lied and lied, right to my face. When I finally admitted that I could not believe their allegations, they started making up lies about me.

To this day, I shake with outrage at the memory. In a sense, they were rapists.

So don't you fucking DARE try to tell me that women can't lie.

Here's the truth:
In a study that span nine years, sociologist Eugene J. Kanin’s findings were that in the United States, 41% of rape allegations are false. Kanin discovered that most of the false accusers were motivated by a need for an alibi or seeking revenge. Kanin was once popular and highly praised by the feminist movement for his groundbreaking research on male sexual aggression. His studies on false rape accusations have received very little interest.
Some people have criticized Kanin's methodology. But when Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project studied the FBI's testing of semen samples, they found that DNA had exonerated the accused "rapists" in a quarter of all cases. Keep in mind that semen samples are not obtained from many rape accusers. Keep in mind, too, that a false accuser would have to be pretty damned bold to maintain the charge even after physical evidence has been placed on a microscope slide.

Should accusers be investigated and cross-examined? Damned right.

They should be grilled about everything relevant, including, in certain instances, their sexual history. If men have to go through that kind of humiliation, then women should not be exempt. All arguments in favor of double standards are casuistry.

Each case must be judged on its merits; each case demands an individualized approach to investigation. Too often, when objective evidence (such as a video tape) is absent, the only way to get closer to the truth is to allow jurors to learn as much as possible about both accused and accuser.

Yes, that process can be grim, unpleasant and unfair. But what choice is there? The only alternative is to give the Lauren Stratfords of this world free reign to rewrite reality.

No, I am not saying that every female is a Lauren Stratford. That's no more true than is the idea that we live in a "rape culture." But I believe that there are thousands of Laurens out there.

Anyone who respects our legal traditions should never tolerate any question-beggers who automatically refer to accusers as "victims" before the airing of evidence.

In the Assange case, we have a woman who cried rape even though she threw a party for the guy after the incident, even though she slept with him after the incident, and even though she complained to her fellow upper-class activist hipsterettes that he was the world's worst screw. She was not some traumatized, battered Iowa housewife with nowhere to go, and I am infuriated by the scoundrels who have attempted to frame her story in those terms. She belongs to the Swedish equivalent of the "Whole Food Nation." I am never going to believe that someone like that would throw a party for a guy who took her without consent.

This piece has it (mostly) right:
What this unappetising spectacle of feminists telling us that everything with a dick is capable of rape really represents is an attempt to assert one longstanding liberal orthodoxy – that rape is rife – over another, newer liberal orthodoxy – that Assange is an untouchable, saintly speaker of truth to power. This is a competition of victimhoods, with the feminist set within the liberal elite feeling aggrieved that their favoured victims – women, everywhere, at all times – have seemingly been elbowed aside by a new pet victim: Assange and political hackers. There is no meaningful principle at stake here; rather we’re witnessing a clash of miserabilist, conspiratorial outlooks, with one side insisting that all women are at potential risk from ‘rape culture’ and the other side arguing that Assange is at risk from the military-industrial complex’s ‘power culture’.
Comments:
Some women lie about rape, therefore Assange is innocent?

Who exactly is claiming that women never lie about rape?

Not your best work, Joseph.
 
I got libeled by a fembot a while back. But then it dawned on me. She, was really a he, in female stripes, and just couldn't help himself.

I think what some feminists don't realize is they end up idolizing female man haters who just may have wished they were men themselves.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
"Some women lie about rape, therefore Assange is innocent?"

Show me where I claimed that, and I will pay you every cent from my kickstarter project.

Some women lie about rape. Therefore, those who express skepticism about any given accuser are NOT indulging in "rape apologia." They are, in fact, acting properly. Skepticism is GOOD -- even when one is skeptical about a female.

THAT is what I said.

Learn how to read.
 
Well, Joseph, we get a better understanding of why you take such umbrage on this topic...your personal experience seems to include being on the unwarranted end of false accusations.

I would ask that you use your residual feelings of trauma from that kind of violation to imagine what it must feel like for a victim of physical violation to be instantly belittled, scoffed at and publicly verbally abused. You and your readers are not of that ilk, but it is horrifying to see how much of that attitude exists (to use online examples) everywhere from commenters over at newser to those in the reader section at many major news outlets. And yes, even from women (Whoopie's "it's not rape rape.")

If only everyone would tread lightly while maintaining innocent until proven guilty, as you point out. But that's not the case. (Especially, as you enumerated, where politics are involved.) Even if we here in the US don't operate within a rape culture, for sure we're mired in a fratboy culture, to the detriment of both genders. Even fratboys employed by the White House who grope images of Sec. of State Clinton during drunken parties feel free to post the degrading pictures without fear of reprisal.

And date rape drugs exist for the benefit of one gender. It's going to take an acknowledgment of that from men, and wholesale denouncement of the entire sex trade, wherein huge profits are made from the enslavement of young women and girls, before many women feel compelled to denounce the fraction of our population who have mental problems resulting in false accusations.

Considering that entire countries, even continents, do suffer in a severe rape culture, you may think we have no right to claim such a culture here. But until it's seen as a human rights issue, and vigorously denounced and not tolerated by any nation, as a whole, I can understand why it should be considered a global acceptance of rape. Remember when there was a movement to divest from South Africa while they practiced apartheid. Is there any such movement now to shun the countries which practice wholesale rape?
 
Well, I'm female, and I have to say Joseph is right on this. Some women lie about rape. It is possible that these two women in Sweden lied about rape. At this point it all seems so 'she said, he said,' who can know what really happened?

You have to keep an open mind, folks. The fact that TPTB have so much vested interest in this case really raises a lot of suspicion. Yes, Assange may be an asshole. Yes, Wikileaks may be a tool of the CIA. That doesn't mean he is therefore guilty of rape. I know that the U.S. government wants to imprison Julian Assange to make an example of him; I think he deserves some degree of 'benefit of the doubt.' We have to be very careful and weigh all the facts (and it's not like we even have them all) before imposing judgment.

catlady
 
On so-called "date rape" drugs:

"A study of more than 200 students revealed many wrongly blamed the effects of a “bad night out” on date-rape drugs, when they had just drunk excessively. … The study … found three-quarters of students identified drink spiking as an important risk – more than alcohol or drugs. More than half said they knew someone whose drink had been spiked. But despite popular beliefs, police have found no evidence that rape victims are commonly drugged with such substances, the researchers said. …

“During thousands of blood and alcohol tests lots of judgement-impairing compounds were discovered, but they were mostly street drugs or prescription pharmaceuticals taken by the victims themselves, and above all alcohol was the common theme. … Earlier this year, Australian researchers found that not one of 97 young men and women admitted to hospital over 19 months to two Perth hospital claiming to have had their drinks spiked, had in fact been drugged."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6440589/Date-rape-drink-spiking-an-urban-legend.html

They are, as you can see, an urban legend. There is no such thing. Women in our culture feel that they are not responsible for their actions, therefore if they get drunk and have sex with someone they normally wouldn't have because they intoxicated themselves, it must have been rape (or "date" rape).

Of course, rape is now being defined as a womans feelings being hurt, which is just cause to ruin a mans life. It's just a man after all (since we won't apologize for the actions of other men, we must be guilty by association).

Great post Joseph.
 
The date rate drug comment is interesting. Does that drug have any other use? If not, it should be called a date rape drug.

However, some might take that to mean that since it is made, it must be legal.
 
I appreciate the quotes and research that went into this article.

This one quote.... "In late 1997, Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled Jones was "entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom President Clinton had sexual relations or proposed to or sought to have sexual relations and who were, during the relevant time frame, state or federal employees."" end quote

This ruling was one of the all time dumbest ruling a judge could make. CONSENSUALITY can NEVER prove NONCONSENSUALITY.

That would be like trying to prove a bank robber robbed a bank because they visited a bank the week before to make a transaction.
 
You're absolutely right Joe.

Sometimes women lie about rape.

You know what the appropriate venue for such probing questions is, though?

NOT the internet for starters.

So, yea, sure, healthy skepticism is a good thing. BUT people who go out onto the internet to disect and discuss such charges, rarely have the well being of rape survivors in mind.

BTW, your Kanin study you cited, only had a pool of 109 people. Better evidence, please.

Like this Slate article here where they discuss the 2% number, Kanin's 41% number(bad slacking on you Joe, calling it "The Truth").

Their agreed upon number is that 8-10% of rape reports are false. With an additional 60% of rapes not being reported. That still means the problems of the poor MENZ accused of it, is still a much smaller problem than the victims who suffer from it.
 
But my question is, why is with rape that we feel compelled to ask these questions?

Consider this. Since reporting the car stolen is a requirement for the financial recourse you may be seeking. I would say that 99.9% of all auto thefts are reported, with a 2% false report rate.

Since reporting the rape is rarely going to give the victim the emotional recourse they may be seeking only, 40% of all rapes are reported, with a 8% false report rate.

So, I would say, in actuality(and someone who does statistics better than me, feel free to correct me) the false report rate is about the same, if all unreported rapes are taken into account, perhaps even smaller.

Given that, why don't we ask for the driving records of everyone who reports a stolen car? Ask them if they ever loaned their car out someone? Ask them why they left it parked where they did?

That's because 90% of the people of the people who report car thefts, aren't a part of a demonized and degraded class, who are consistently painted as lying evil harpies throughout our entire culture, even by those who would claim to be our allies.

So, yes Joe, rape victims should be questioned and cross examined. I know of NO feminist and survivor advocate claiming otherwise. Such questioning should of course be conducted by legal professionals, for as flawed as they are as human beings, its still a better venue than the fucking internet.
 
Aeryl, I don't agree with the false report rate of 8-10 percent for rape. That does not coalesce with the scientific figure of 25% DNA mismatch given by the Innocence Project. Kanin's study and the Innocence Project report do coalesce, since Kanin included rape claims in which no semen samples were taken. Logic tells us that the percentage of false claimants will be higher in instances where physical evidence is absent.

I don't think you can compare false reports of auto theft with false reports of rape. False reports of auto theft are done for boring, pragmatic reasons, such as insurance fraud. False reports of rape may result from a number of psychological reasons -- attention seeking, vengeance, emotional illness, inability to distinguish fantasy from reality and so forth. Most of all, there is the growing need, felt by many in our culture, to identify oneself as a victim. This is what compelled Lauren Stratford to proclaim herself an SRA "victim" and Holocaust survivor.
 
That does not coalesce with the scientific figure of 25% DNA mismatch given by the Innocence Project.

A DNA mismatch is not the same thing as a false rape report.

It indicates the wrong person was identified as the perpetrator.
 
Jesus, myiq, that's one hell of an oops!

A case of mistaken identity at a range of 50 yards -- THAT I can understand. But a case of mistaken identity during a sexual assault? If you want to make that scenario plausible, we had better be talking about a REALLY dark room.

Come on, myiq. Accusing someone of a major crime is serious damn business. You shouldn't be doing a thing like that if there any "maybes" involved.

The likeliest scenario for the false accusations with semen evidence is that the woman had consensual sex with her normal partner on the day that she decided to cause trouble for someone else.

25%! Jesus, that figure shocked even unshockable me.
 
Unfortunately, when Tiger Woods was outed, it probably will have a harmful effect on future cases of star f'ing.

The day may arrive when it becomes humilating to have normal sexual relations with a celebrity. Either one had a serious, emotional relationship and were misled, or one was forced against their will to have sex, but do not, just say it was normal sex because a friend may actually be disappointed at the boringness of that scenario.

By the way, I am not defending the Assange guy. It will be a shame if someone who claims to be exposing the hidden truth is also a rapist as it will discredit his first agenda.
 
Another recent case
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301755/Mother-alleyway-sex-soldier-cried-rape-hide-shame.html
 
Another issue is whether he woman in question really leveled a formal charge. Swedish jurisprudence is different -- and, it seems, kind of weird.

Really, this isn't "rape" so much as a he-said she-said about what really happened when a condom broke.

I give you a portion of a BBC interview with Assange. I don't know how much of this is true:

Q: So you're not suggesting that this was a honey-trap? That you were somehow set up by the Americans, by the CIA? You don't buy into that idea because your lawyer's suggested that that's the case.

JA: He says that he was misquoted. I have never said that this is a honey-trap.

Q: You don't believe it?

JA: I have never said that this is not a honey-trap. I'm not accusing anyone until I have proof.

Q: Do you believe it is possible?

JA: That's not how I operate as a journalist because almost everything is possible. I talk about what is probable.

Q: All right, what do you think is probable here?

JA: What is probable? It is less probable that there was that type of involvement at the very beginning. That kind of classic Russian-Moscow thing. That is not probable.

Q: That leaves us with the fact, because you accept this, that one of those women at least did make a complaint against you.

JA: Not even a complaint. It appears, from the records that we do have, the suggestion is that they went to the police for advice and they did not want to make a complaint. What they say is that they found out that they were mutual lovers of mine and they had undertaken sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was a possibility of sexually transmitted diseases. They went to the police to…

Q: They wanted you to have a test as well.

JA: …to have a test.

Q: Did you have a test?

JA: Ridiculous thing to go to the police about.
 
The likeliest scenario for the false accusations with semen evidence is that the woman had consensual sex with her normal partner on the day that she decided to cause trouble for someone else.

This guy named Ernesto kidnapped and raped a 18 year old woman. She couldn't pick him out of a line-up but he confessed. This was in the days before DNA.

Ernesto got out of prison when SCOTUS threw out his confession because he wasn't advised of his right to remain silent.

Ernesto's last name was Miranda.

A woman gets raped by a total stranger. Days or weeks later she identifies the wrong guy because the police nudge her in that direction.

Bad eyewitness identifications are common in Innocence Project cases. Many of the cases involve murders.

Did they lie about the murders too?

Do you really think that most or all of those women in the cases you cite just made up a lie to cause someone trouble?

Why would they do that?
 
It is not a argument over when the condom broke.

One woman awoke to find Assange engaging in penetration, the other said he forcibly held her down as she tried to reach for the condom.

The whole "argument over a broken condom" thing? That's him and his lawyers(with the help of professional asshats Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann) playing down the charges.

And Assange doesn't have to say anything about a honeypot(and they say feminists hate men, but it's always men who claim that they can't control themselves around women, ODD THAT), his apologists do it for him.

The problem with this situation, is that the Assange apologists can't make room in their baby brains, that it's possible that Assange is freedom fighter, sticking it to The Man, and still be a rapist.

All, and I mean ALL of the victims and survivor's advocates who have spoken on this(Tiger Beatdown is a big one) all acknowledge that Wikileaks is doing good things, for the most part, and that yes such vigorous prosecution is politically motivated.

It's the bloggers who are defending Assange, by going after his victims, who can't make room in their heads for those two thoughts.

And since your tender reader is bitching about ME, let me clarify what was said.

I didn't tell them to STFU, I said comparing the survivor's advocates asking people to stop using minimizing, demeaning and threatening actions against the victims and their claims(by leaking their identities, spreading lies and distortions like the "condom broke"), the same tactics that are used against ALL victims of celebrity rapes, to the Obots who couldn't stop screaming racist(many of these same advocates are the exact same people who were being called racist, if you'll remember) was a STFU, better known as a silencing tactic, directed at those advocates.

There was also the context left out of that quote, which was that for the entire thread, and other threads, your reader had been trying to make the actions of the victims, and how they were "off" meant they were lying. They would then acknowledge that those actions were not a good indicator about the veracity of their claims(because there is no "right" way for a rape victim to act), but would then continue to attempt to "examine" their behavior anyways.

Which is rape apologia. They may not have been trying to make excuses for Assange in particular, but they sure as hell were polluting the discourse, and perpectuating outmoded ideas that help maintain the rape culture.
 
I wonder how many people remember the history of MLK and the FBI.
MLK was another one who had real trouble "keeping it zipped". Actually quite promiscuous. The FBI recorded a bunch of material, played it for reporters and politicians (to manipulate people's impressions of MLK), and in a pseudonymous letter tried to use it to push MLK into committing suicide.

Use of sexual situations was one of the most common tactics used by COINTELPRO to disrupt U.S. political organizations on the left. Documents released under freedom of information act show that the general approach was to take an existing situation and manipulate and maximally inflame it (trying to manipulate legal proceedings, sending pseudonymous letters to people's partners to provoke jealousy, etc.).

Just sayin'
 
It is not a argument over when the condom broke.

One woman awoke to find Assange engaging in penetration, the other said he forcibly held her down as she tried to reach for the condom.

The whole "argument over a broken condom" thing? That's him and his lawyers(with the help of professional asshats Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann) playing down the charges.

And Assange doesn't have to say anything about a honeypot(and they say feminists hate men, but it's always men who claim that they can't control themselves around women, ODD THAT), his apologists do it for him.

The problem with this situation, is that the Assange apologists can't make room in their baby brains, that it's possible that Assange is freedom fighter, sticking it to The Man, and still be a rapist.

All, and I mean ALL of the victims and survivor's advocates who have spoken on this(Tiger Beatdown is a big one) all acknowledge that Wikileaks is doing good things, for the most part, and that yes such vigorous prosecution is politically motivated.

It's the bloggers who are defending Assange, by going after his victims, who can't make room in their heads for those two thoughts.

And since your tender reader is bitching about ME, let me clarify what was said.

I didn't tell them to STFU, I said comparing the survivor's advocates asking people to stop using minimizing, demeaning and threatening actions against the victims and their claims(by leaking their identities, spreading lies and distortions like the "condom broke"), the same tactics that are used against ALL victims of celebrity rapes, to the Obots who couldn't stop screaming racist(many of these same advocates are the exact same people who were being called racist, if you'll remember) was a STFU, better known as a silencing tactic, directed at those advocates.

There was also the context left out of that quote, which was that for the entire thread, and other threads, your reader had been trying to make the actions of the victims, and how they were "off" meant they were lying. They would then acknowledge that those actions were not a good indicator about the veracity of their claims(because there is no "right" way for a rape victim to act), but would then continue to attempt to "examine" their behavior anyways.

Which is rape apologia. They may not have been trying to make excuses for Assange in particular, but they sure as hell were polluting the discourse, and perpectuating outmoded ideas that help maintain the rape culture.
 
I think there is a fundamental difference between men who engage in date rape and men who engage in stranger rape. Both have elements of sociopathy but men who engage in stranger rape are pretty much full out psychopaths. I believe the charges against Assange are true but I don't believe that makes him Richard Allen Davis. I think it makes him a narcissistic jerk who gambles that the women he violates won't be willing to jeopardize their social standing by accusing him of the same crime that people like Richard Allen Davis are charged with.

The point is that these women perceived him as, perhaps, a friend or a celebrity and that it was their honor to host him. They can't throw him out with out creating a huge hullabaloo, jeopardizing work that they feel has social value as well as enduring what rape victims must endure. Because they clearly didn't feel that he was a threat to their physical well-being, they had to decide if they wanted to pay the price that they would pay if they formalized the accusations. I'm sure that they've lost friends over this. If they run in lefty circles, I'm sure there is lots of harassment and abuse raining down on them right now. Meantime, Assange has lots of people - Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann most prominently - sticking up for him. I see very few people - and no one nearly as prominent - sticking for the women - mostly, people on the left don't want to acknowledge the accusations.
 
And Part II:
The nature of date rape is that the people involved already have a relationship and frequently have dense social ties. Just like victims of family abuse continue to see their abuser at events and frequently remain cordial, so it is with date rape. Under the circumstances in question, I see nothing unusual about the one continuing to host him in her house, or throwing a party for him. To not do so, would be costly in the short term, while they figured out if they were willing to endure what they would be subjected to if they went forward with charges.

As for stranger rape, most of those guys make it very, very difficult for their victims to see their face. Talk to a few of the victims who have beaten senseless and obviously assaulted, and most of them will tell you they have very little idea what the rapist looked like. A friend of mine who got out of her car after a traffic accident and woke up face down, under water in a creek bed, only knew that the assailant had long, kind of grey hair. The FBI got involved in that case because she actually saw him for a second before the blow to the head knocked her out. He assaulted at least two other women around the state and they had no idea what he looked like either.

I did read an interesting statistic one time that I cannot validate - and that is, that most stranger rapists only commit that crime once. It apparently isn't what they think it is.
 
There might be a comment in your spam filter - about zipped pants and COINTELPRO - asking to be let out.
 
Alessandro, I see your point. The drug does not exist solely to aid rapists. "Roofies" apparently are a sleep aid, but have properties that make them so common an aid to date-rapists that they earned that nickname.

I guess what I should've said is that the nickname did not arise in a vacuum and the drug's common use for that purpose is to one gender's benefit.

And upon looking this up I find that alcohol is the most common drug used to aid date-rapists.

As the mother of a son, I definitely worried about false accusations of rape, and/or dubious consent resulting in a horrendous life-ruining trial for rape. But my solution, warning or teaching to my son would never be, "Careful, boy, there are some psycho bitches out there who will ruin your life."

Instead, it's consent is clear. Period. Be very clear on this.

I was almost a victim. I met some people at a beach resort, and made plans for the following night. First the woman with the guys never showed up, and then when the guys dropped me off at my place one of them left the other with me. He chased me around but I held him off and finally convinced him to call his friend to come get him. I'm sure the jerk would never consider himself a rapist, but as we waited for his friend to arrive the bruises on my arms ripened, vivid imprints of his grip, and he was shocked. "Did I do that?"

A-yup. Those are the imprints of your attempt at force, I told him.

Call it rape culture, fratboy mentality, what have you. It's real, it's pervasive, and it needs to be acknowledged and denounced by as close to 100 per cent of the population as we can manage, and that means by both genders for the benefit of both genders.
 
I wonder how many people remember the history of MLK and the FBI.
MLK was another one who had real trouble "keeping it zipped". Actually quite promiscuous. The FBI recorded a bunch of material, played it for reporters and politicians (to manipulate people's impressions of MLK), and in a pseudonymous letter tried to use it topush MLK into committing suicide.

Use of sexual situations was one of the most common tactics used by COINTELPRO to disrupt U.S. political organizations on the left. Documents released under freedom of information act show that the general approach was to take an existing situation and manipulate and maximally inflame it (trying to manipulate legal proceedings, sending pseudonymous letters to people's partners to provoke jealousy, etc.).

Just sayin'
 
I've debated about whether I should even try to respond to the distorted account Aeryl is giving of the prior discussion.

1. My complaint was that all questioning was cast as rape apologia (perfectly exemplified by the quote Joseph included).

2. That there appears to be only one acceptable position in certain quarters (i.e. not to question the charges, including potential credibility of the accusers). And that painting anyone who questioned the case as rape apologists had analogies with the racism charges made against anyone questioning Obama. Both "rape apologist" and "racist" are emotionally laden terms that very effectively silence essentially any questioning.

3. Aeryl states "I didn't tell them to STFU". The header of one of the comments directed at me was "No, it's STFU", and there was plenty of additional material unambiguously telling me to muzzle.

4. Aeryl states: "There was also the context left out of that quote, which was that for the entire thread, and other threads, your reader had been trying to make the actions of the victims, and how they were 'off' meant they were lying." I don't know where to begin on this one. I said nothing about W (other than commenting about the sleep inertia that I experience myself when just waking up). I did question aspects of A's credibility (apparently that's not allowed). I also noted "deliberately hideous things being said on the internet" about the accusers. I also pointed out Assange's entitlement and ego and said these were potentially consistent with assault.

5. Aeryl states: "They would then acknowledge that those actions were not a good indicator about the veracity of their claims(because there is no 'right' way for a rape victim to act), but would then continue to attempt to 'examine' their behavior anyways." I said almost nothing about A's behavior after the incidents, except for noting her deletion of tweets and a blog entry (and I even noted that though the tweets could be viewed as exculpatory, that doesn't mean that they actually were exculpatory) and her comment in an interview saying that Assange was not violent. Almost everything I said concerned A's prior actions (before these incidents). Aeryl kept accusing me of saying things that I never said, but that others have said (All statements questioning aspects of the accusers’ accounts - e.g. by Assange fan boys - somehow get attributed to anyone who questions anything. One undifferentiated rape apologist.)

6. Also, in regard to the first quoted sentence of point 5 - again Aeryl attributed to me things that I've never said. The statement was made that "There is no way that rape victims act - there is no way that rape victims don't act." I said that though this statement could potentially serve as a useful entry point in understanding the varied reactions to sexual assault, the truth is more complex. Aeryl then claimed that I agreed with it. It’s a simple slogan, and it’s not without some value, but I said that the truth is more complex (not that I "agreed with it").

7. As a minor point – Aeryl also accused me of not questioning Assange’s actions – which I clearly had done. Aeryl: "I haven't seen anyone question anything but the victims actions." Just looks at the tons of criticism of Assange in MSM and blogs. Again – feels like one undifferentiated rape apologist is perceived, without regard to what actual people are really saying.

My views on this whole thing are complex. I don't know whether Assange is guilty or innocent, but I think there are some very substantial questions with the case and how it has been pursued by prosecutors.
 
I've debated about whether I should even try to respond to the distorted account Aeryl is giving of the prior discussion.

Part 1

1. My complaint was that all questioning was cast as rape apologia (perfectly exemplified by the quote Joseph included).

2. That there appears to be only one acceptable position in certain quarters (i.e. not to question the charges, including potential credibility of the accusers). And that painting anyone who questioned the case as rape apologists had analogies with the racism charges made against anyone questioning Obama. Both "rape apologist" and "racist" are emotionally laden terms that very effectively silence essentially any questioning.

3. Aeryl states "I didn't tell them to STFU". The header of one of the comments directed at me was "No, it's STFU", and there was plenty of additional material unambiguously telling me to muzzle.

4. Aeryl states: "There was also the context left out of that quote, which was that for the entire thread, and other threads, your reader had been trying to make the actions of the victims, and how they were 'off' meant they were lying." I don't know where to begin on this one. I said nothing about W (other than commenting about the sleep inertia that I experience myself when just waking up). I did question aspects of A's credibility (apparently that's not allowed). I also noted "deliberately hideous things being said on the internet" about the accusers. I also pointed out Assange's entitlement and ego and said these were potentially consistent with assault.
 
Part 2

5. Aeryl states: "They would then acknowledge that those actions were not a good indicator about the veracity of their claims(because there is no 'right' way for a rape victim to act), but would then continue to attempt to 'examine' their behavior anyways." I said almost nothing about A's behavior after the incidents, except for noting her deletion of tweets and a blog entry (and I even noted that though the tweets could be viewed as exculpatory, that doesn't mean that they actually were exculpatory) and her comment in an interview saying that Assange was not violent. Almost everything I said concerned A's prior actions (before these incidents). Aeryl kept accusing me of saying things that I never said, but that others have said (All statements questioning aspects of the accusers’ accounts - e.g. by Assange fan boys - somehow get attributed to anyone who questions anything. One undifferentiated rape apologist.)

6. Also, in regard to the first quoted sentence of point 5 - again Aeryl attributed to me things that I've never said. The statement was made that "There is no way that rape victims act - there is no way that rape victims don't act." I said that though this statement could potentially serve as a useful entry point in understanding the varied reactions to sexual assault, the truth is more complex. Aeryl then claimed that I agreed with it. It’s a simple slogan, and it’s not without some value, but I said that the truth is more complex (not that I "agreed with it").

7. As a minor point – Aeryl also accused me of not questioning Assange’s actions – which I clearly had done. Aeryl: "I haven't seen anyone question anything but the victims actions." Just looks at the tons of criticism of Assange in MSM and blogs. Again – feels like one undifferentiated rape apologist is perceived, without regard to what actual people are really saying.

My views on this whole thing are complex. I don't know whether Assange is guilty or innocent, but I think there are some very substantial questions with the case and how it has been pursued by prosecutors.
 
Without a doubt some women lie about rape.

However, most rape victims never report it, so both sides/genders are in fact victimized by the liars and the process.

But let me tell from first hand experience the truly predatory rapists are quite aware of any loopholes in the process of reporting a rape and exploit them to their benefit.

That said, something doesn't smell right with Assange and everything he is involved in. None of it tracks logically.

And when did Sweden become an unfair country to be tried in? I must of missed that memo because that theme is all over the place. While Assange brags in interviews about winning past court cases, in the next breath he is suddenly scared of getting a fair trial Sweden? And over a rape charge?

What is the conviction rate in Sweden for rape charges where there is no bruises? Probably close to nil.

While I know this isn't written for me. A conviction rate of close to nil doesn't inspire much sympathy for Assange running away from defending himself. It just makes him smell more...but on a new topic.
 
Assange is not accused of rape in Sweden. People should look up the facts. He is accused of not wearing a condom during consensual sex and having slept with two women in a relatively short period of time. You should think of it as a charge of reckless endangerment.

And yes, both men and women lie. Some people are liars. Women are not immune.

Harry
 
I don't know what to make of all this.
All the vitriol and the fracturing. Think Dakinkat leaving The Confluence.
If it wasn't about this Assange guy it would be about something else.
Seems like there is a civil war brewing in Left Blogistan and the only beneficiaries will be those who have an interest in rendering critics of Obama and his republican agenda mute.
Or could it be we turn on each other out of frustration because we have the same effect as a gnat head butting an elephant?
 
Harry, you are an idiot who is not aware of the facts of the case.

Affinis, I am not even going to attempt to reply to most of that, mainly because I'm tired of this, but, just to clarify a misunderstanding that seems to have you quite buttsore, let me explain this, one last time.

The subject line, that headed a comment, that said, "No, it's a STFU" was intended to address your disagreement that you were engaging in a silencing tactic.

Your initial complaint drew comparisons between survivors advocates and Obots. I claimed that was a silencing tactic, otherwise known as a STFU(note the "a" in front of it, meant to dilineate it from the actual phrase, STFU). You disagreed, and in my following comment I reiterated my belief that "No, its a STFU"(note the "a" again).

Thus endeth the lesson in reading comprehension.

I will close my part in this discussion by saying, again, that if you are so concerned about being counted amongst those accused of rape apologism, stop engaging in rape apologism. If the shoe doesn't fit, stop trying to wear it.

Because the truth of the matter is, as someone else whom I've engaged with this about over @ Corrente said, this speculation is nothing more than intellectual masturbation.

And while I am a full throated supporter of masturbation, this kind is harmful, and to more than just kittens. Survivors advocates have been getting death and rape threats, for addressing the lies and disinformation being spread about the victims*, yet you are upset that people are pushing back against you, because this shit hurts people.

Let me go fetch that world's tiniest violin for you.

*And yes, Joe, I will call them victims, just like we call everybody who alleges a crime has been committed against them is, way before the crime has ever proven to have been committed. Rape does not get a special exemption from that understanding, just becase it happens mostly to women.
 
Maybe it needs to be said - Miss A and Miss W may both be telling the truth and acting in good faith, while the government in England is acting in bad faith. I don't see anything amiss with how Sweden is handling this. The fact of the matter is - he's a famous guy now and he will get treated differently. If you want to catch someone, the time to do it is when their picture is everywhere. Today, we all know what Assange looks like. Next year, not so much.

I think the victims and the Swedish government are behaving as we would expect them to. I'm not so sure about England and their actions. What's this business about him being in solitary confinement?

Anyway, Lambert has provided us with a timeline:
http://www.correntewire.com/condom_timeline#more
 
Aeryl, I just went back to verify the subject line that headed the comment of yours in question (just to insure that I didn't misread it). There ain't no "a" in front of STFU (you just wrote "No, it's STFU"). The next time you want someone to read an "a", actually remember to include an "a".
 
Aeryl,

First, am I an idiot or unaware of the facts of the case, or both? Is my being unaware of the "facts" the reason I am an idiot?

I would agree I am not aware of the facts of the case. I would like to know who is aware of the "facts" and how they know them. I would suggest that not one single person posting here is likely to be aware of any facts but rather, some allegations. I cant imagine who would know the precise and unarguable facts given that people sometimes tell lies.

If you were dealing in facts this whole discussion would be moot.

For what little its worth, I am not a fan of Assange.

Anyway, you are probably right.

Apologies.

Harry
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind