My Rapist
October 31, 2006 12:10 PM Subscribe
My Rapist One day several years ago, I opened up my hometown newspaper and found a picture of my rapist on the Engagements page.[via nytimes]
Because there's nothing wrong with single link FPPs?
posted by dazed_one at 12:23 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by dazed_one at 12:23 PM on October 31, 2006
Why, did it need a wikipedia definition? Anyway, thought-provoking.
posted by found missing at 12:24 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by found missing at 12:24 PM on October 31, 2006
So, seriously, what's interesting about this? I'm asking seriously why this is interesting, not as comment on the worth of the post, but because I'm curious about why I should be compelled by it. It's about rape, which ought to lend it some gravitas, but it's both stereotypical and pithy at the same time, which is perhaps a limitation of the medium, but doesn't make it more compelling.
posted by OmieWise at 12:33 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by OmieWise at 12:33 PM on October 31, 2006
I don't know what additional links would've added to it. But will this post become useless when the article goes behind the NYtimes's pay wall?
I wasn't sure what to think of this when I read it on Sunday, and I'm still not. My first, unhelpful response was irritation that the victim hadn't "done something" about her attacker in 1980. My impulse to blame the victim is a little embarassing.
But once I get past that, what next? What did other people get from this? Should I be compelled to feel something, or take some action?
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 12:34 PM on October 31, 2006
I wasn't sure what to think of this when I read it on Sunday, and I'm still not. My first, unhelpful response was irritation that the victim hadn't "done something" about her attacker in 1980. My impulse to blame the victim is a little embarassing.
But once I get past that, what next? What did other people get from this? Should I be compelled to feel something, or take some action?
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 12:34 PM on October 31, 2006
"Hello, my name is Larry. Insurance is my game. Raping was another game of mine."
(warning: youtube + Mr.Show)
posted by isopraxis at 12:36 PM on October 31, 2006
(warning: youtube + Mr.Show)
posted by isopraxis at 12:36 PM on October 31, 2006
I wonder how hard it would be to look up Maureen Gibbon's home town, and read through the papers for situations that match the description (man marrying a woman with a one year old daughter). If that's a pretty small town, it seems like that wouldn't happen that often.
Hmm.....
posted by delmoi at 12:36 PM on October 31, 2006
Hmm.....
posted by delmoi at 12:36 PM on October 31, 2006
I wasn't sure what to think of this when I read it on Sunday, and I'm still not. My first, unhelpful response was irritation that the victim hadn't "done something" about her attacker in 1980. My impulse to blame the victim is a little embarassing.
Well, I don't know. She was a victim, but she was also a witness. I think it's fair to blame her for at least not going to the police. The blame is for what she did after the rape. What if this guy whent out and did the same thing again?
posted by delmoi at 12:39 PM on October 31, 2006
Well, I don't know. She was a victim, but she was also a witness. I think it's fair to blame her for at least not going to the police. The blame is for what she did after the rape. What if this guy whent out and did the same thing again?
posted by delmoi at 12:39 PM on October 31, 2006
I often look at the hometown newspapers engagement section and try and predict, roughly, what kind of job or career the pictured people are in (since they always tell you). Anyway, maybe this article would make more sense if your the type to read the hometown paper engagement section. The dark side, creepy, goes with Halloween.
posted by stbalbach at 12:41 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by stbalbach at 12:41 PM on October 31, 2006
I'm feeling the same way OmieWise. Plus, she comes off more than a bit confusing. She doesn't want confrontation and wants to move on with her life. Publishing a story about this seems to go against those goals. She got raped, nothing was/is/will be done about her attacker, and life goes on.
The real tragedy here was that she hid the attack. If anything was worth exploring in the article it was her reasons for doing so and what could be done so that other women feel comfortable/confident enough to report a rape.
Seems to me, despite what she says, she needs closure on this, can't find it, and writing this article is an attempt at doing just that.
posted by ruthsarian at 12:41 PM on October 31, 2006
The real tragedy here was that she hid the attack. If anything was worth exploring in the article it was her reasons for doing so and what could be done so that other women feel comfortable/confident enough to report a rape.
Seems to me, despite what she says, she needs closure on this, can't find it, and writing this article is an attempt at doing just that.
posted by ruthsarian at 12:41 PM on October 31, 2006
Good article. But one thing I can't help but think of is that shr could never tell her parents or anyone else for that matterm but she can write about it in one of the worlds biggest selling newspapers? I think that that's an interesting way of dealing with it, but a courageous one, nonetheless.
The way I'd deal with it if I were her... I'd totally ring the dude's wife/fiancee (she'd know her name from the engagement photo, no doubt) and tell her. If I got him when they picked up the phone, I'd just say I'm an old friend of hers and I want to surprise her. And when she gets on the phone, I'd tell her everything. I'd also say that she could chose to believe me or not, but that I just thought she needed to know. The resulting breakup or divorce and the hardship and pain and financial suffering he'd experience as a result would go some way towards paying him back.
Infact, as I write I feel she almost has a duty to go to the cops or tell his wife/fiancee because of the stepdaughter. What happens if this guy does to the stepdaughter (or even his own wife) one day what he did to the author? Maybe... just maybe this article goes some way towards doing this.
Thanks for the link. Thought provoking (and it's only 6:41am!)
posted by Effigy2000 at 12:42 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
The way I'd deal with it if I were her... I'd totally ring the dude's wife/fiancee (she'd know her name from the engagement photo, no doubt) and tell her. If I got him when they picked up the phone, I'd just say I'm an old friend of hers and I want to surprise her. And when she gets on the phone, I'd tell her everything. I'd also say that she could chose to believe me or not, but that I just thought she needed to know. The resulting breakup or divorce and the hardship and pain and financial suffering he'd experience as a result would go some way towards paying him back.
Infact, as I write I feel she almost has a duty to go to the cops or tell his wife/fiancee because of the stepdaughter. What happens if this guy does to the stepdaughter (or even his own wife) one day what he did to the author? Maybe... just maybe this article goes some way towards doing this.
Thanks for the link. Thought provoking (and it's only 6:41am!)
posted by Effigy2000 at 12:42 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Awful. It is horrifying to realize that people who hurt others so much can happily go about their lives.
posted by agregoli at 12:42 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by agregoli at 12:42 PM on October 31, 2006
She never cared to tell her mother, not the mention the cops. Sorry, but your life? it´s your fault, sweetie. I´m pretty sure a LOT of guys would love to have a talk with that scumbag at the time. YOU never did anything, and blames HIM for not feeling guilty?
posted by cardoso at 12:43 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by cardoso at 12:43 PM on October 31, 2006
God damn I hate my gender (M) sometimes.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 12:44 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 12:44 PM on October 31, 2006
It's unfortunate that the victim/witness's unwillingness to come forward and identify her attacker has potentially put countless other women at risk. This is her decision, however, and as a man who has never experienced anything approaching rape, I find it difficult to understand the myriad, perhaps contradictory emotions that have contributed to her decision to remain silent.
Still (and even if the man would only have received a short or suspended sentence, or been acquitted), reporting the man would have at the very least alerted the police and the public of his presence. And, if he were suspected on a similar charge, perhaps they would have looked more closely at him as a suspect, if the facts warranted. As it is now, he is apparently able to live comfortably with his past (and maybe ongoing) misdeeds, while his victim's life has been forever altered.
posted by Ricky_gr10 at 12:54 PM on October 31, 2006
Still (and even if the man would only have received a short or suspended sentence, or been acquitted), reporting the man would have at the very least alerted the police and the public of his presence. And, if he were suspected on a similar charge, perhaps they would have looked more closely at him as a suspect, if the facts warranted. As it is now, he is apparently able to live comfortably with his past (and maybe ongoing) misdeeds, while his victim's life has been forever altered.
posted by Ricky_gr10 at 12:54 PM on October 31, 2006
Thank god for internet porn, eh?
posted by Second Account For Making Jokey Comments at 12:55 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by Second Account For Making Jokey Comments at 12:55 PM on October 31, 2006
What self-centered pap. "I'm dealing with it now." News flash: part of "dealing with it" is doing the right thing.
posted by koeselitz at 1:00 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by koeselitz at 1:00 PM on October 31, 2006
Well I'm certainly glad that we're all people who will end up later in life not regretting a single thing that we haven't done, and exercising the utmost of civic duty even at the cost of humiliation. Because we all live in glass houses too, that people may see everything that happens to us when it happens to us.
I can't say that I'm disappointed by metafilter very often, but this is definitely one of those times.
posted by clevershark at 1:01 PM on October 31, 2006 [4 favorites]
I can't say that I'm disappointed by metafilter very often, but this is definitely one of those times.
posted by clevershark at 1:01 PM on October 31, 2006 [4 favorites]
I don't know about any requirement that she tell anybody about the rape. It wasn't a car accident she witnessed, it was a horribly invasive and traumatic event that she was involved in. As far as I'm concerned, people pretty much get a pass for dealing however they would like to with events like that as long as they don't hurt other people. (It is neither her within her power, nor is it her undeniably responsibility, to make sure this guy doesn't rape again.)
But that aside, I'm still curious about what's compelling about this particular 900 words on trauma.
posted by OmieWise at 1:09 PM on October 31, 2006
But that aside, I'm still curious about what's compelling about this particular 900 words on trauma.
posted by OmieWise at 1:09 PM on October 31, 2006
Yeah I have to echo what clevershark said. This is obviously an incredibly difficult situation. People often blame the victim in these types of cases (went willingly, knew her attacker) and even today who's to say she would be believed if she went public with her story? I got the sense her relationship with her parents was not strong enough to survive the event, which is why she may have held it in all these years. She is doing something brave now, which is to put it out there that this happened to her, and to remind people that this crime in particular is very difficult to deal with.
posted by cell divide at 1:13 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by cell divide at 1:13 PM on October 31, 2006
Not the greatest link, true, but worthy of discussion.
I have a dear, dear friend, whom I rarely see more than a couple times a year, who sometime back dropped the bomb on me between dinner courses that she'd been recently raped. I think once I stopped choking I asked; "He's in prison or dead right?" No, of course not. She thought he was a "friend", and she's okay now.. blah blah blah.
"Do you want me to make him dead?" And I was totally serious.
"No."
While in hindsight I guess I'm glad I didnt have to follow through on that, I would have gladly castrated that mufu. She moved away from that area shortly thereafter. We still keep in touch as usual, but that subject, as per her request, is forgotten. I have no idea what happened to him and his name has never been revealed to me. Probably a good thing.
I have to confess, however, that while I thankfully do not understand rape from the womans perspective, I have an impossible time understanding why anyone would not report it, or at least not seek help. I'd call the cops if someone punched me in a bar, and hell, I probably would have deserved it.
Just dont get it.
posted by elendil71 at 1:13 PM on October 31, 2006
I have a dear, dear friend, whom I rarely see more than a couple times a year, who sometime back dropped the bomb on me between dinner courses that she'd been recently raped. I think once I stopped choking I asked; "He's in prison or dead right?" No, of course not. She thought he was a "friend", and she's okay now.. blah blah blah.
"Do you want me to make him dead?" And I was totally serious.
"No."
While in hindsight I guess I'm glad I didnt have to follow through on that, I would have gladly castrated that mufu. She moved away from that area shortly thereafter. We still keep in touch as usual, but that subject, as per her request, is forgotten. I have no idea what happened to him and his name has never been revealed to me. Probably a good thing.
I have to confess, however, that while I thankfully do not understand rape from the womans perspective, I have an impossible time understanding why anyone would not report it, or at least not seek help. I'd call the cops if someone punched me in a bar, and hell, I probably would have deserved it.
Just dont get it.
posted by elendil71 at 1:13 PM on October 31, 2006
I find it difficult to understand the myriad, perhaps contradictory emotions that have contributed to her decision to remain silent.
Still (and even if the man would only have received a short or suspended sentence, or been acquitted), reporting the man would have at the very least alerted the police and the public of his presence.
Ever lived in a small town, Ricky_gr10? Know anything about social shunning and punishment and having your reputation ruined and people whispering behind your back that you were asking for it? Ever figured that maybe you'd just hang on for a few months until you could get the hell out of there and start over at college? Ever been called a slut as you walked down high school corridors? Ever been totally cognizant of the fact that you were now a target for further violence because you were a "bad girl"?
Come on, use your imagination. Small town means that the police would know the guy; perhaps one fo them would even be related to him in some way, even if distantly. What would you do?
posted by jokeefe at 1:15 PM on October 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
Still (and even if the man would only have received a short or suspended sentence, or been acquitted), reporting the man would have at the very least alerted the police and the public of his presence.
Ever lived in a small town, Ricky_gr10? Know anything about social shunning and punishment and having your reputation ruined and people whispering behind your back that you were asking for it? Ever figured that maybe you'd just hang on for a few months until you could get the hell out of there and start over at college? Ever been called a slut as you walked down high school corridors? Ever been totally cognizant of the fact that you were now a target for further violence because you were a "bad girl"?
Come on, use your imagination. Small town means that the police would know the guy; perhaps one fo them would even be related to him in some way, even if distantly. What would you do?
posted by jokeefe at 1:15 PM on October 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
Further to this:
Just dont get it.
If you had been through a horrible, private ordeal, you might choose not to extend the ordeal by going through a horrible public one. That's the reasoning, if it helps at all.
posted by jokeefe at 1:21 PM on October 31, 2006
Just dont get it.
If you had been through a horrible, private ordeal, you might choose not to extend the ordeal by going through a horrible public one. That's the reasoning, if it helps at all.
posted by jokeefe at 1:21 PM on October 31, 2006
This is really similar to the plot of Ariel Dorfman's play "Death and the Maiden", later to become a Roman Polanski movie. That had a couple of good pistol-whippings in it too though. Whee!
posted by hermitosis at 1:23 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by hermitosis at 1:23 PM on October 31, 2006
Let me make it clear that I'm not trying to defend this guy.
What I'm interested in is: in the absence of her reporting this to the authorities or confronting him about it, what should/could this rapist have done to atone for his crime? Is he not allowed to have a life beyond one mistake he made while he was young? Does he deserve a life of self-flagellation?
Again, not making excuses. Just curious in what people have to say.
posted by kdar at 1:25 PM on October 31, 2006
What I'm interested in is: in the absence of her reporting this to the authorities or confronting him about it, what should/could this rapist have done to atone for his crime? Is he not allowed to have a life beyond one mistake he made while he was young? Does he deserve a life of self-flagellation?
Again, not making excuses. Just curious in what people have to say.
posted by kdar at 1:25 PM on October 31, 2006
The blame is for what she did after the rape. What if this guy whent out and did the same thing again?
Then the blame would still be his.
posted by Bovine Love at 1:30 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Then the blame would still be his.
posted by Bovine Love at 1:30 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
stubbing your toe is a mistake.
raping an innocent 16 y/o girl is not -- it is a grotesque, premeditated assault.
if he had a conscience he would either find her, or turn himself in or both.
but he has no conscience, which is he made that "one mistake."
posted by milarepa at 1:34 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
raping an innocent 16 y/o girl is not -- it is a grotesque, premeditated assault.
if he had a conscience he would either find her, or turn himself in or both.
but he has no conscience, which is he made that "one mistake."
posted by milarepa at 1:34 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Like many, I wanted more out of this article. I wanted a conclusion, a resolution. But like many women who've dealt with this sort of thing, the author doesn't have any nice endings for us.
And that sucks. Not only that she did not have the support system or faith that her rapist would be punished, but that still she feels that she has no recourse.
I'm lucky. I've never had to find out if I'm one of the women who sits quietly and deals with the trauma in some sort of way or if I'm one that will take the bastard down. I don't know, I like to think that I'm a fighter and would not quietly let something like that slide. But on the other hand, I did grow up in a small town. I can see the benefits of keeping your mouth shut, particularly if you are a 16 year old girl working in a bar. But after all that time has past, how can outing him hurt you any further. It's possible that there could be retaliation against her parents, but it doesn't seem that's a concern for her.
Still...I'd have called him. And his mother. And his fiancee. And the father of his step-daughter.
I think the flaw in this article is not that the author failed us and didn't give us resolution, it's that life failed us, and didn't give her resolution.
posted by teleri025 at 1:35 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
And that sucks. Not only that she did not have the support system or faith that her rapist would be punished, but that still she feels that she has no recourse.
I'm lucky. I've never had to find out if I'm one of the women who sits quietly and deals with the trauma in some sort of way or if I'm one that will take the bastard down. I don't know, I like to think that I'm a fighter and would not quietly let something like that slide. But on the other hand, I did grow up in a small town. I can see the benefits of keeping your mouth shut, particularly if you are a 16 year old girl working in a bar. But after all that time has past, how can outing him hurt you any further. It's possible that there could be retaliation against her parents, but it doesn't seem that's a concern for her.
Still...I'd have called him. And his mother. And his fiancee. And the father of his step-daughter.
I think the flaw in this article is not that the author failed us and didn't give us resolution, it's that life failed us, and didn't give her resolution.
posted by teleri025 at 1:35 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Because of my rapist, I’m forever young.
Frankly, that line is the most hauntingly beautiful thing I've read in years. So frickin' sad, but so beautiful.
posted by milarepa at 1:38 PM on October 31, 2006
Frankly, that line is the most hauntingly beautiful thing I've read in years. So frickin' sad, but so beautiful.
posted by milarepa at 1:38 PM on October 31, 2006
I never understood all the snark about one-link posts, sheesh. If it's interesting content, why the heck does it matter?
What an article.
A good friend of mine was raped, also in a smallish town (one of those towns where you inevitably run into people you know), and I always wondered if her rapist might ever show up in a newspaper or something. I know she had heard about where he'd ended up, from folks that still live there, but otherwise there haven't been any "close encounters." I'd never wish one on her, either.
posted by symphonik at 1:39 PM on October 31, 2006
What an article.
A good friend of mine was raped, also in a smallish town (one of those towns where you inevitably run into people you know), and I always wondered if her rapist might ever show up in a newspaper or something. I know she had heard about where he'd ended up, from folks that still live there, but otherwise there haven't been any "close encounters." I'd never wish one on her, either.
posted by symphonik at 1:39 PM on October 31, 2006
I was personally moved by the piece and am surprised and frankly, a tad disgusted, by some people's self-righteous and censorious reactions here. This woman was raped and then discovered her rapist's photograph in the local paper announcing his marriage to another woman. That is not something she could have anticipated and she thought it worth sharing. She has no obligation to come forward and report the crime; rape is a crime that is very difficult to cope with and most victims don't ever report it, be they from small towns or large. Some sensitivity is in order here.
posted by Azaadistani at 1:41 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by Azaadistani at 1:41 PM on October 31, 2006
Does he deserve a life of self-flagellation?
Yes. Yes he does. Justice is not forgiveness. It is responsibility. Let his priest, his family, his victim if he's that lucky, forgive him. Fine. That does not absolve him, or any of us for that matter, of our responsibility to accept the consequences of our actions. Those that perpetrate such crimes are POS, and never should they be allowed to forget that.
posted by elendil71 at 1:41 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Yes. Yes he does. Justice is not forgiveness. It is responsibility. Let his priest, his family, his victim if he's that lucky, forgive him. Fine. That does not absolve him, or any of us for that matter, of our responsibility to accept the consequences of our actions. Those that perpetrate such crimes are POS, and never should they be allowed to forget that.
posted by elendil71 at 1:41 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Those essays from the back pages of the NYT Magazine are often quite good and poignant, as was this one. It has become my favorite part of the magazine.
posted by caddis at 1:41 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by caddis at 1:41 PM on October 31, 2006
So, seriously, what's interesting about this? I'm asking seriously why this is interesting, not as comment on the worth of the post, but because I'm curious about why I should be compelled by it. It's about rape, which ought to lend it some gravitas, but it's both stereotypical and pithy at the same time
I'll try to answer (obviously I can only explain why I liked the piece).
First of all, I don't think it's "about rape." It doesn't strike me as a theme-based essay. It's a character piece. Or at least that's how I responded to it. The writer conveyed a strong sense of character, and I responded -- just as I would to a character in a novel or movie. To me, this is more than enough to make the piece compelling.
I'm not sure what you mean by "stereotypical." In what way did this piece conform to a stereotype and what is the stereotype? To me, it seemed like a pretty straightforward and honest report or the writer's feelings, and her report didn't use hackneyed phrases or cliche constructions. I'm not sure how an honest report of feeling can be stereotypical.
I connected with her, because I'm sure in her shoes I'd feel exactly the way she does: confused. If you're the sort of person with really "clean" feelings, you probably won't connect with her. But when someone does something bad to me, I'm not able to feel something simple, like anger or fear or thirst for revenge. I do feel all those things, but I also feel a mixture of humiliation, denial and even pity for the perpetrator (and guilt about my desire for revenge).
Maybe she "should" have turned him in, but that's not the point of the piece. Arguing about that is like arguing about whether or not Hamlet should kill his stepfather. Hamlet is more interesting when you connect with Hamlet's conflicted feelings. If you wait for him to make a decision, you'll just get impatient with the whole play. There's a certain kind of super-active, cut-and-dried personality who will always hate Hamlet (and Holden Caulfield). "Why don't you shut up and DO something!" If this is you -- and if it IS you, you're not bad or soul-less ... you're to be envied -- you probably won't connect with this piece.
posted by grumblebee at 1:43 PM on October 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
I'll try to answer (obviously I can only explain why I liked the piece).
First of all, I don't think it's "about rape." It doesn't strike me as a theme-based essay. It's a character piece. Or at least that's how I responded to it. The writer conveyed a strong sense of character, and I responded -- just as I would to a character in a novel or movie. To me, this is more than enough to make the piece compelling.
I'm not sure what you mean by "stereotypical." In what way did this piece conform to a stereotype and what is the stereotype? To me, it seemed like a pretty straightforward and honest report or the writer's feelings, and her report didn't use hackneyed phrases or cliche constructions. I'm not sure how an honest report of feeling can be stereotypical.
I connected with her, because I'm sure in her shoes I'd feel exactly the way she does: confused. If you're the sort of person with really "clean" feelings, you probably won't connect with her. But when someone does something bad to me, I'm not able to feel something simple, like anger or fear or thirst for revenge. I do feel all those things, but I also feel a mixture of humiliation, denial and even pity for the perpetrator (and guilt about my desire for revenge).
Maybe she "should" have turned him in, but that's not the point of the piece. Arguing about that is like arguing about whether or not Hamlet should kill his stepfather. Hamlet is more interesting when you connect with Hamlet's conflicted feelings. If you wait for him to make a decision, you'll just get impatient with the whole play. There's a certain kind of super-active, cut-and-dried personality who will always hate Hamlet (and Holden Caulfield). "Why don't you shut up and DO something!" If this is you -- and if it IS you, you're not bad or soul-less ... you're to be envied -- you probably won't connect with this piece.
posted by grumblebee at 1:43 PM on October 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
Because of my rapist, I’m forever young.
Frankly, that line is the most hauntingly beautiful thing I've read in years. So frickin' sad, but so beautiful.
Seconded.
posted by grumblebee at 1:44 PM on October 31, 2006
Frankly, that line is the most hauntingly beautiful thing I've read in years. So frickin' sad, but so beautiful.
Seconded.
posted by grumblebee at 1:44 PM on October 31, 2006
Awful. It is horrifying to realize that people who hurt others so much can happily go about their lives.
There is no such thing as an evil person. There are only mundane people who do evil things.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 1:48 PM on October 31, 2006
There is no such thing as an evil person. There are only mundane people who do evil things.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 1:48 PM on October 31, 2006
grumblebee writes "First of all, I don't think it's 'about rape.'"
I think that hits the nail on the head.
posted by clevershark at 1:48 PM on October 31, 2006
I think that hits the nail on the head.
posted by clevershark at 1:48 PM on October 31, 2006
if he had a conscience he would either find her, or turn himself in or both.
Being accused of rape implies no conscience?
I admit, it is one possibility. But there are others. Perhaps he simply didn't do it? Or perhaps he did, but is afraid to go to prison, get raped himself, and wear the letter of sex-offender for the rest of his life? Perhaps, considering the price we would undoubtedly make him pay, he has more fear than conscience?
No, forget it. When sex is involved, let's throw out reasonable doubt, and let's satiate our bloodlust and our sense of decency together. Because they so seldom get to dine at the same table.
posted by kid ichorous at 1:51 PM on October 31, 2006
Being accused of rape implies no conscience?
I admit, it is one possibility. But there are others. Perhaps he simply didn't do it? Or perhaps he did, but is afraid to go to prison, get raped himself, and wear the letter of sex-offender for the rest of his life? Perhaps, considering the price we would undoubtedly make him pay, he has more fear than conscience?
No, forget it. When sex is involved, let's throw out reasonable doubt, and let's satiate our bloodlust and our sense of decency together. Because they so seldom get to dine at the same table.
posted by kid ichorous at 1:51 PM on October 31, 2006
Ah, the FPP isn't posted for the article, but the inevitable debate.
I am also wondering why she didn't talk to someone and throw his ass in jail. I cannot imagine why a 16-year-old girl in a small town in 1980 wouldn't report a rape. I mean, it's not like victim-blaming would be an issue, or that there's a low likelihood that she received proper sex education that would guide her what to do or teach her victims don't ask to be raped, or that she felt she had no trusted adult source she could confide in. It's not like she's a scared teenager terrified of the social consequences of telling. I mean, we all know how sympathetic the public is now to rape victims, I'm sure they were just as if even more sympathetic then, right? Nobody would ever tell her she "asked for it" by getting into the truck of a guy in his 20s. And it's not like there's all that confusion piled on top of all the other emotional trauma and guilt that accompanies rape. God, how stupid of her! How selfish! I cannot fathom why she didn't do anything.
And man, if she didn't report then, why the hell is she talking about it 25 years later? I mean, since when do people's attitudes about and methods of dealing with traumatic experiences change?
posted by Anonymous at 1:53 PM on October 31, 2006
I am also wondering why she didn't talk to someone and throw his ass in jail. I cannot imagine why a 16-year-old girl in a small town in 1980 wouldn't report a rape. I mean, it's not like victim-blaming would be an issue, or that there's a low likelihood that she received proper sex education that would guide her what to do or teach her victims don't ask to be raped, or that she felt she had no trusted adult source she could confide in. It's not like she's a scared teenager terrified of the social consequences of telling. I mean, we all know how sympathetic the public is now to rape victims, I'm sure they were just as if even more sympathetic then, right? Nobody would ever tell her she "asked for it" by getting into the truck of a guy in his 20s. And it's not like there's all that confusion piled on top of all the other emotional trauma and guilt that accompanies rape. God, how stupid of her! How selfish! I cannot fathom why she didn't do anything.
And man, if she didn't report then, why the hell is she talking about it 25 years later? I mean, since when do people's attitudes about and methods of dealing with traumatic experiences change?
posted by Anonymous at 1:53 PM on October 31, 2006
but a single link FPP? Why?
Because they are vastly preferable to FPPs crammed full of too many pointless links. Not being able to tell which link is most important, I usually skip those FPPs altogether. I don't have all day to read a single MeFi post.
More single-link FPPs, please.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:54 PM on October 31, 2006 [2 favorites]
Because they are vastly preferable to FPPs crammed full of too many pointless links. Not being able to tell which link is most important, I usually skip those FPPs altogether. I don't have all day to read a single MeFi post.
More single-link FPPs, please.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:54 PM on October 31, 2006 [2 favorites]
I was responding to kdar who said he made "one mistake"
posted by milarepa at 1:54 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by milarepa at 1:54 PM on October 31, 2006
I have a friend who together with a sibling faced abuse from their stepfather.
My friend described the process of taking it to the police years later as being like having your leg broken as a child. It hurts like hell. Then, when you go to the police for the first time, you break that leg again. Then when you go to court, 30 people stand around and break your leg again, and then, after he gets convicted, you feel like your leg is being broken again.
posted by Jerub at 1:57 PM on October 31, 2006
My friend described the process of taking it to the police years later as being like having your leg broken as a child. It hurts like hell. Then, when you go to the police for the first time, you break that leg again. Then when you go to court, 30 people stand around and break your leg again, and then, after he gets convicted, you feel like your leg is being broken again.
posted by Jerub at 1:57 PM on October 31, 2006
It is interesting to see an article where the victim neither is destroyed nor goes on to completely heal. This tallies much more with my experience than a lot of the stuff I read on rape.
Out here in real life, closure is a luxury you only get if you are lucky.
posted by QIbHom at 2:04 PM on October 31, 2006
Out here in real life, closure is a luxury you only get if you are lucky.
posted by QIbHom at 2:04 PM on October 31, 2006
Being accused of rape implies no conscience?
Nobody's been accused of rape here, because the author does not identify the rapist. No one is named, so no accusation. The author says that she was raped, and her intent is clearly not to accuse anyone, merely to tell her story.
Your entire comment, including sentences as "Perhaps he simply didn't do it?" seems to be founded on the idea that this may be a false accusation. Who "didn't do it", kid ichorous? Who has been accused here?
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:05 PM on October 31, 2006
Nobody's been accused of rape here, because the author does not identify the rapist. No one is named, so no accusation. The author says that she was raped, and her intent is clearly not to accuse anyone, merely to tell her story.
Your entire comment, including sentences as "Perhaps he simply didn't do it?" seems to be founded on the idea that this may be a false accusation. Who "didn't do it", kid ichorous? Who has been accused here?
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:05 PM on October 31, 2006
kdar, differing crimes and their contexts call for differing punishments. There is a huge difference between shoplifting and murder, between slapping another kid in the schoolyard and rape. There are crimes that are forgiveable, crimes where only the most vengeful would argue the person should be punished for the rest of their lives.
Rape is not commonly believed to be one of those crimes. There are lines people cross where you cause someone else enough pain that you do not get a free pass from the rest of society because you were "young" (and to me, 20s is not young enough to pretend you didn't know what you were doing).
posted by Anonymous at 2:09 PM on October 31, 2006
Rape is not commonly believed to be one of those crimes. There are lines people cross where you cause someone else enough pain that you do not get a free pass from the rest of society because you were "young" (and to me, 20s is not young enough to pretend you didn't know what you were doing).
posted by Anonymous at 2:09 PM on October 31, 2006
For me, the best part of the piece is the title, her taking possession of him, her ownership of him.
posted by thinkpiece at 2:14 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by thinkpiece at 2:14 PM on October 31, 2006
Ever lived in a small town, Ricky_gr10? Know anything about social shunning and punishment and having your reputation ruined and people whispering behind your back that you were asking for it? Ever figured that maybe you'd just hang on for a few months until you could get the hell out of there and start over at college? Ever been called a slut as you walked down high school corridors? Ever been totally cognizant of the fact that you were now a target for further violence because you were a "bad girl"?
Come on, use your imagination. Small town means that the police would know the guy; perhaps one fo them would even be related to him in some way, even if distantly. What would you do?
I lived in a small town for most of my life, and I still find these comments baffling. You've got the wrong guy--you're looking for the paper cutout who wants to reduce the argument to a pat solution or perhaps even implicitly denounce the victim more than the attacker. Although you enumerate some of the obvious (even stereotypical--do you live in a small town?) elements that fall into what I was assuming (and I pointed this out) contributed to the author's decision to remain silent, I can't help but consider her silence an act of complicity with a culture of silence that allows people like the attacker to remain free. Maybe her silence allows him to remain free to offend again, or maybe he would simply have gotten away with it... with everyone, from her family, to the cops, to the townspeople, blaming her. The fact is, neither of us knows for sure, although you've certainly developed an interesting and plausible narrative of what might have happened.
posted by Ricky_gr10 at 2:17 PM on October 31, 2006
I hate summing-things-up and themes and distillations, but since that's what this discussion is about, I'd say that you could boil the essay down to the following:
One day several years ago, I opened up my hometown newspaper and found a picture of my rapist on the Engagements page. ... And then I had [a] ... fantasy. I imagined calling him up and telling him what an effect he’d had on my life. ... I still think about how I would have begun that call: I would have used the phrase all old acquaintances use: “Remember me?”
It's about the how the rapist is doing something mundane: getting engaged. He has gone on with his life and maybe forgotten all about the author. Or at least that's the author's feeling. But she has never -- never for a day -- forgotten about him.
I think most of us can relate to that, even if we haven't raped or been raped. And I think THAT'S what this piece is about. It's about how sometimes a single act that we do stops someone else in their tracks. Or sometimes someone stops us by a single act. At that point, it feels like there's a cosmic imbalance. A is so much more meaningful to B than B is to A. And if you're the one that was profoundly affected, you feel like correcting that imbalance: "Remember me?"
This has even happened to me in a positive situation. There was once someone who did a tiny thing that had a good impact on my life. But I don't think she knows how profound her impact was. I fantasize about telling her.
I also think this has to do with aging. The older I get, the more I yearn to go revisit open wounds (even positive open wounds, if that makes any sense) and say a few words -- just so both parties understand the profundity involved.
posted by grumblebee at 2:18 PM on October 31, 2006
One day several years ago, I opened up my hometown newspaper and found a picture of my rapist on the Engagements page. ... And then I had [a] ... fantasy. I imagined calling him up and telling him what an effect he’d had on my life. ... I still think about how I would have begun that call: I would have used the phrase all old acquaintances use: “Remember me?”
It's about the how the rapist is doing something mundane: getting engaged. He has gone on with his life and maybe forgotten all about the author. Or at least that's the author's feeling. But she has never -- never for a day -- forgotten about him.
I think most of us can relate to that, even if we haven't raped or been raped. And I think THAT'S what this piece is about. It's about how sometimes a single act that we do stops someone else in their tracks. Or sometimes someone stops us by a single act. At that point, it feels like there's a cosmic imbalance. A is so much more meaningful to B than B is to A. And if you're the one that was profoundly affected, you feel like correcting that imbalance: "Remember me?"
This has even happened to me in a positive situation. There was once someone who did a tiny thing that had a good impact on my life. But I don't think she knows how profound her impact was. I fantasize about telling her.
I also think this has to do with aging. The older I get, the more I yearn to go revisit open wounds (even positive open wounds, if that makes any sense) and say a few words -- just so both parties understand the profundity involved.
posted by grumblebee at 2:18 PM on October 31, 2006
The Stupid is strong in this thread, starting with "a single link FPP? Why?" and continuing with all the confident "If I was in her position, I'd [bla bla self-confident bla]..." You (collectively) have no fucking idea what you'd do, and the very fact you can so smugly prescribe reveals a fatal lack of imagination and empathy. But enjoy your Superman fantasies.
Thanks to cgs for the post and to grumblebee, jokeefe, and jerub (among others) for good commentary.
Oh, top prize for The Stupid goes to kid ichorous and his reflex defense of Men Accused of Rape. Yeah, fuck those lying bitches and their false accusations, probably the biggest problem facing the nation today! Oh, but she didn't accuse anyone? Never mind, I'll rant anyway, what the hell.
posted by languagehat at 2:38 PM on October 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
Thanks to cgs for the post and to grumblebee, jokeefe, and jerub (among others) for good commentary.
Oh, top prize for The Stupid goes to kid ichorous and his reflex defense of Men Accused of Rape. Yeah, fuck those lying bitches and their false accusations, probably the biggest problem facing the nation today! Oh, but she didn't accuse anyone? Never mind, I'll rant anyway, what the hell.
posted by languagehat at 2:38 PM on October 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
Awful. It is horrifying to realize that people who hurt others so much can happily go about their lives.
There is no such thing as an evil person. There are only mundane people who do evil things.
And...what's your point? I never said the guy was evil. I think anyone who has it in them to rape someone is horribly fucked up beyond repair, but I don't believe in people being "evil."
It's a horrifying story because it's such a common one.
posted by agregoli at 2:42 PM on October 31, 2006
There is no such thing as an evil person. There are only mundane people who do evil things.
And...what's your point? I never said the guy was evil. I think anyone who has it in them to rape someone is horribly fucked up beyond repair, but I don't believe in people being "evil."
It's a horrifying story because it's such a common one.
posted by agregoli at 2:42 PM on October 31, 2006
For me, the best part of the piece is the title, her taking possession of him, her ownership of him.
For me, that part totally ruins the story. But that's mostly because I'm totally annoyed with the "My" construct as it has seemingly taken over the world........ MySpace, My Documents, My Computer, My Pretty Pony, My Yahoo........I really don't mean to trivialize the author's unquestionably awful experience but that was the first association I made when I read the title: MySpace. Ugh...
posted by otherwordlyglow at 2:50 PM on October 31, 2006
And I think THAT'S what this piece is about. It's about how sometimes a single act that we do stops someone else in their tracks. Or sometimes someone stops us by a single act.
Yes. This, at heart, is a piece about memory, and how memories affect us. Nicely put.
posted by jokeefe at 2:52 PM on October 31, 2006
Yes. This, at heart, is a piece about memory, and how memories affect us. Nicely put.
posted by jokeefe at 2:52 PM on October 31, 2006
What did other people get from this?
Yikes. I'm a little sorry I asked. I'm glad I read this. I had been thinking about it since Sunday and was interested in what mefi would say when I saw it posted. I learned something about myself and my initial reaction. But now I feel compelled to join the pile-on.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 2:52 PM on October 31, 2006
Yikes. I'm a little sorry I asked. I'm glad I read this. I had been thinking about it since Sunday and was interested in what mefi would say when I saw it posted. I learned something about myself and my initial reaction. But now I feel compelled to join the pile-on.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 2:52 PM on October 31, 2006
Those that perpetrate such crimes are POS, and never should they be allowed to forget that.
This is a completely honest question. Are such people irreversably (always) POS or can (or should) they be redeemed? Again, honest question. I find this fascinating.
posted by Stauf at 2:55 PM on October 31, 2006
This is a completely honest question. Are such people irreversably (always) POS or can (or should) they be redeemed? Again, honest question. I find this fascinating.
posted by Stauf at 2:55 PM on October 31, 2006
Those that perpetrate such crimes are POS, and never should they be allowed to forget that.
My feeling is that a rapist is responsible for what he did: forever. If I rape someone and 20 years later, they're still suffering, that's my problem, and I need to do what I can to make up for it -- or society needs to compel me to do what I can to make up for it.
Having said that, (some) people do change. Though I've never raped or seriously hurt anyone, I am a very different person from who I was when I was 20. So I'd say it's possible for someone to rape and then later feel great remorse and also to become the sort of person who would never rape again -- and the sort of person who feels nothing but loathing for his younger self.
He's still responsible for his actions, but in my book, he's no longer a POS.
posted by grumblebee at 3:15 PM on October 31, 2006
My feeling is that a rapist is responsible for what he did: forever. If I rape someone and 20 years later, they're still suffering, that's my problem, and I need to do what I can to make up for it -- or society needs to compel me to do what I can to make up for it.
Having said that, (some) people do change. Though I've never raped or seriously hurt anyone, I am a very different person from who I was when I was 20. So I'd say it's possible for someone to rape and then later feel great remorse and also to become the sort of person who would never rape again -- and the sort of person who feels nothing but loathing for his younger self.
He's still responsible for his actions, but in my book, he's no longer a POS.
posted by grumblebee at 3:15 PM on October 31, 2006
Stauf phrased the original intent of my question better than I did.
posted by kdar at 3:31 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by kdar at 3:31 PM on October 31, 2006
Are such people irreversably (always) POS or can (or should) they be redeemed?
Personally I don't think I could ever look anyone who has committed a crime such as rape in the eye and not think he was a piece of shit. But I do believe everyone can be "redeemed".
The thing about rape is that it is such a violation of the victim. People who say things like 'she was partly to blame' - would you phone the cops if a man buggered you against your will? I'm guessing not. There's the shame, humiliation, sense of violation and fear to contend with. Fear of reprisals, fear of rejection.
I couldn't find a single fault in a womans actions if this happened to her. Whether she was to cut the guys balls of thirty years after the event or never said a word. I'll never understand, nor do I ever want to, why a rapist would rape or how it feels to be abused in such a way. Horrible, just horrible - and yet it goes on every day and some people feel justified in blaming the victims.
posted by twistedonion at 3:37 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Personally I don't think I could ever look anyone who has committed a crime such as rape in the eye and not think he was a piece of shit. But I do believe everyone can be "redeemed".
The thing about rape is that it is such a violation of the victim. People who say things like 'she was partly to blame' - would you phone the cops if a man buggered you against your will? I'm guessing not. There's the shame, humiliation, sense of violation and fear to contend with. Fear of reprisals, fear of rejection.
I couldn't find a single fault in a womans actions if this happened to her. Whether she was to cut the guys balls of thirty years after the event or never said a word. I'll never understand, nor do I ever want to, why a rapist would rape or how it feels to be abused in such a way. Horrible, just horrible - and yet it goes on every day and some people feel justified in blaming the victims.
posted by twistedonion at 3:37 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
He's still responsible for his actions, but in my book, he's no longer a POS.
Hmm, perhaps. Heaven knows I am no saint, and I have tried to redress my own sins, but the social contract is not particularly forgiving and I guess neither am I. I used to be, and then my friend got beaten and raped.
Meh, that was trolling perhaps. Sorry. In any case I would like to believe in that kind of redemption, but I may be too cynical for that.
posted by elendil71 at 3:40 PM on October 31, 2006
Hmm, perhaps. Heaven knows I am no saint, and I have tried to redress my own sins, but the social contract is not particularly forgiving and I guess neither am I. I used to be, and then my friend got beaten and raped.
Meh, that was trolling perhaps. Sorry. In any case I would like to believe in that kind of redemption, but I may be too cynical for that.
posted by elendil71 at 3:40 PM on October 31, 2006
Oh, top prize for The Stupid goes to kid ichorous and his reflex defense of Men Accused of Rape. Yeah, fuck those lying bitches and their false accusations, probably the biggest problem facing the nation today! Oh, but she didn't accuse anyone? Never mind, I'll rant anyway, what the hell.
THANK YOU. I was reading these comments thinking, how come no one has reamed this asshole yet?
posted by ORthey at 3:52 PM on October 31, 2006
THANK YOU. I was reading these comments thinking, how come no one has reamed this asshole yet?
posted by ORthey at 3:52 PM on October 31, 2006
I can completely understand why she didn't report it, even though my first reaction is to agree with everyone who said she should have. I lived in a small town and went to school in another small town where students arrived on different buses coming from different areas of the district (it was the only private school in the area). For about a month when I was 15 I was regularly sexually assaulted by another student at school, the only other person who arrived on the earliest bus. I was terrified of telling anyone in authority. Honestly, I never saw it as an option. I'm trying to remember why that was because I would behave differently now.
I think that I was primarily afraid that it would get around to the other kids (in a school with fewer than 200 pupils, stuff does get around) and that everyone would say I was making it up. After all, it was my word against his; the only physical evidence was the bruises he'd get when I kicked his shins to try and make him stop (he would prevent my upper body from moving with his bulk). I thought he would say I'd attacked him for no reason and was trying to cover it up. Or that I had made it up to make it seem as if I was sexually desirable. After all, he was a pretty popular guy.
Yes, that is utterly ridiculous, and yes, there is no way I would have those thoughts and feelings now, but I was sixteen and had virtually no self-confidence. I would also say that there wasn't as much publicity or awareness of the gravity of sexual assault, although I don't know if that's my perception or a true reflection of the social circumstances 20 years ago. I never told anyone at the time.
That was over 20 years ago and I left when I was 18. My situation was not as traumatic as the one in the article but I too occasionally wonder about that guy. I've googled him (and found zilch). I've wondered what I would say if I ever bumped into him. Whether he's changed. Whether he would feel ashamed or embarrassed, something else that never crossed my mind at the time, because I thought it was all to do with me; my fault, my problem. Because I thought it was specifically to do with his view or opinion of me, at the time I never thought about whether he might go and do it to someone else. I was ashamed of myself, but for being a person who was unworty enough to be assaulted, not for failing to speak up.
I think it's important to realise that a teenager doesn't necessarily have the same trust in authority to protect, punish or believe that adults do. I'm a different person now and if anyone assaulted me in any way, you'd better believe I would report it. Do I blame myself for not having reported what happened back then? I think I should have. But I don't blame my 15-year-old self, because she was doing the best she could at the time with what resources she felt she had available.
posted by andraste at 3:53 PM on October 31, 2006
I think that I was primarily afraid that it would get around to the other kids (in a school with fewer than 200 pupils, stuff does get around) and that everyone would say I was making it up. After all, it was my word against his; the only physical evidence was the bruises he'd get when I kicked his shins to try and make him stop (he would prevent my upper body from moving with his bulk). I thought he would say I'd attacked him for no reason and was trying to cover it up. Or that I had made it up to make it seem as if I was sexually desirable. After all, he was a pretty popular guy.
Yes, that is utterly ridiculous, and yes, there is no way I would have those thoughts and feelings now, but I was sixteen and had virtually no self-confidence. I would also say that there wasn't as much publicity or awareness of the gravity of sexual assault, although I don't know if that's my perception or a true reflection of the social circumstances 20 years ago. I never told anyone at the time.
That was over 20 years ago and I left when I was 18. My situation was not as traumatic as the one in the article but I too occasionally wonder about that guy. I've googled him (and found zilch). I've wondered what I would say if I ever bumped into him. Whether he's changed. Whether he would feel ashamed or embarrassed, something else that never crossed my mind at the time, because I thought it was all to do with me; my fault, my problem. Because I thought it was specifically to do with his view or opinion of me, at the time I never thought about whether he might go and do it to someone else. I was ashamed of myself, but for being a person who was unworty enough to be assaulted, not for failing to speak up.
I think it's important to realise that a teenager doesn't necessarily have the same trust in authority to protect, punish or believe that adults do. I'm a different person now and if anyone assaulted me in any way, you'd better believe I would report it. Do I blame myself for not having reported what happened back then? I think I should have. But I don't blame my 15-year-old self, because she was doing the best she could at the time with what resources she felt she had available.
posted by andraste at 3:53 PM on October 31, 2006
languagehat: Oh, top prize for The Stupid goes to kid ichorous and his reflex defense of Men Accused of Rape. Yeah, fuck those lying bitches and their false accusations, probably the biggest problem facing the nation today! Oh, but she didn't accuse anyone? Never mind, I'll rant anyway, what the hell.
That's not what I intended, and I'm sorry if anyone has construed it that way. Admittedly I could have worded it better. But I think you're being a little insincere with your strawman, and you know it.
My comment was a response to speculation in this thread about 1) the nature of the man in question, and 2) how such people should be punished. I feel that the very involvement of sex tends to get the better of us emotionally, and we find ourselves making attributions and judgments that we wouldn't make in other contexts. Though no name was given, I'm seeing the usual battle standards get raised. If there's no accused, who are some of you attacking? Thin air? Who has "no conscience?" Who deserves a "life of self-flagellation?" Whom do we have to make it clear we're "not defending?"
A mental image, a fictional character that distorts and simplifies the issue at hand.
Many react the same way to the bogeyman of "terrorism," but I've found Metafilter to be remarkably free of that bias. In general, posters here seem to realize that there are two (or more) sides to an issue, and aren't given to chest-thumping fantasies about waterboarding captives. But rape is somehow different. Is "I'd kill him myself" the token of passage to participate in this thread?
I hope I've made better sense of my opinions. Also, I hope you don't take it personally, Languagehat, as I generally enjoy your posts.
posted by kid ichorous at 3:56 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
That's not what I intended, and I'm sorry if anyone has construed it that way. Admittedly I could have worded it better. But I think you're being a little insincere with your strawman, and you know it.
My comment was a response to speculation in this thread about 1) the nature of the man in question, and 2) how such people should be punished. I feel that the very involvement of sex tends to get the better of us emotionally, and we find ourselves making attributions and judgments that we wouldn't make in other contexts. Though no name was given, I'm seeing the usual battle standards get raised. If there's no accused, who are some of you attacking? Thin air? Who has "no conscience?" Who deserves a "life of self-flagellation?" Whom do we have to make it clear we're "not defending?"
A mental image, a fictional character that distorts and simplifies the issue at hand.
Many react the same way to the bogeyman of "terrorism," but I've found Metafilter to be remarkably free of that bias. In general, posters here seem to realize that there are two (or more) sides to an issue, and aren't given to chest-thumping fantasies about waterboarding captives. But rape is somehow different. Is "I'd kill him myself" the token of passage to participate in this thread?
I hope I've made better sense of my opinions. Also, I hope you don't take it personally, Languagehat, as I generally enjoy your posts.
posted by kid ichorous at 3:56 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Those that perpetrate such crimes are POS, and never should they be allowed to forget that.
No. Hell no. This attitude is the worst possible response to crime of any kind. It forces a person out of any possibility of rehabilitation, and permanently into the identity of "criminal". Either rehabilitate them, which necessarily involves sincere repentance accepted by society, or execute them. This life-long shunning approach you advocate guarantees the commission of further crimes, which is a fact so well demonstrated by modern prison systems that failure to understand the point is absurd. Of course you may retort that recidivism is all part of the plan, you like a bit of crime, because it gives you something to watch on TV and a ready supply of criminals to think yourself the better of, but here in the reality-based community, we'd prefer crime was reduced. Even if we had to sink to such a level of moral depravity that we actually understood and forgave those dirty, dirty people.
Of course that other option, execution, is equally valid - we don't have to understand or forgive someone we've killed off as too much of a danger to society. Now whether rapists reach that point of danger is questionable - it seems this rapist, for one, apparently didn't. I expect most don't.
Now this is why rape is such a fascinating issue for sociological, criminological, and philosophical discussions. As we see above, it provokes strong emotions that other crimes simply do not. It is often punished far more harshly--ie, with execution--than more traumatic and arguably more vicious assaults (those classified as grevious bodily harm - compare rape with, say, knife wounds). Vengeance is advocated for it long after, and in circumstances where, other crimes would have passed on. (Compare: "I saw a photo of the guy who twenty years ago ... stole $40,000 from me"; "... pushed me off my bike down an embankment and broke my legs"; "... laid out a poison bait for my dog"; "... fired me from my job as a scapegoat to protect himself" - all of these are life-changingly traumatic experiences.)
I think this is because rape breaches so many, at least three, customary expectations of human interaction: (1) those relating to physical autonomy; (2) those relating to conception of children; (3) those relating to sexual custom.
I don't really have a conclusion to make - I'm not going to second-guess the decision of the woman involved, and I don't know what I would do myself. I don't know if the question's even relevant to a male, as such; obviously men can be raped, but it's clear that the experience, while comparably traumatic, is different: it is likely to involve much greater physical humiliation, and there is no risk of pregnancy, to give two examples of difference.
Were a female friend of mine raped, I would advise her (and my advice here is purely due to experience in welfare/social work background, and follows the party line) to preserve DNA evidence, to report it to police, and to see a rape counselling service. And I would do whatever I could to help her take that advice, in terms of listening to her, driving her around, keeping her company, getting her food, running errands for her as required, etc. All the sort of things that are expected of a friend helping a friend through a horrible personal experience.
As to what vengeance I might take, or counsel others to take, on her behalf: consider why you feel compelled to do this--are you yourself behaving proprietorially towards her--and why you might do anything beyond what she personally wants done. A conviction for rape is likely to be sufficient vengeance. Also, one must bear in mind that if a man accused of rape is not convicted and later murdered, his accuser and any of her friends and relatives are prime suspects. Thus more care than usual for a murder--even if murders are usual for you--is warranted. Even if you abandon all thoughts of escaping legal consequence, and kill him on the courthouse steps to demonstrate your fury, this will not un-rape her. You may well be adding two more traumas to her life: his death, and your own punishment.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:01 PM on October 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
No. Hell no. This attitude is the worst possible response to crime of any kind. It forces a person out of any possibility of rehabilitation, and permanently into the identity of "criminal". Either rehabilitate them, which necessarily involves sincere repentance accepted by society, or execute them. This life-long shunning approach you advocate guarantees the commission of further crimes, which is a fact so well demonstrated by modern prison systems that failure to understand the point is absurd. Of course you may retort that recidivism is all part of the plan, you like a bit of crime, because it gives you something to watch on TV and a ready supply of criminals to think yourself the better of, but here in the reality-based community, we'd prefer crime was reduced. Even if we had to sink to such a level of moral depravity that we actually understood and forgave those dirty, dirty people.
Of course that other option, execution, is equally valid - we don't have to understand or forgive someone we've killed off as too much of a danger to society. Now whether rapists reach that point of danger is questionable - it seems this rapist, for one, apparently didn't. I expect most don't.
Now this is why rape is such a fascinating issue for sociological, criminological, and philosophical discussions. As we see above, it provokes strong emotions that other crimes simply do not. It is often punished far more harshly--ie, with execution--than more traumatic and arguably more vicious assaults (those classified as grevious bodily harm - compare rape with, say, knife wounds). Vengeance is advocated for it long after, and in circumstances where, other crimes would have passed on. (Compare: "I saw a photo of the guy who twenty years ago ... stole $40,000 from me"; "... pushed me off my bike down an embankment and broke my legs"; "... laid out a poison bait for my dog"; "... fired me from my job as a scapegoat to protect himself" - all of these are life-changingly traumatic experiences.)
I think this is because rape breaches so many, at least three, customary expectations of human interaction: (1) those relating to physical autonomy; (2) those relating to conception of children; (3) those relating to sexual custom.
I don't really have a conclusion to make - I'm not going to second-guess the decision of the woman involved, and I don't know what I would do myself. I don't know if the question's even relevant to a male, as such; obviously men can be raped, but it's clear that the experience, while comparably traumatic, is different: it is likely to involve much greater physical humiliation, and there is no risk of pregnancy, to give two examples of difference.
Were a female friend of mine raped, I would advise her (and my advice here is purely due to experience in welfare/social work background, and follows the party line) to preserve DNA evidence, to report it to police, and to see a rape counselling service. And I would do whatever I could to help her take that advice, in terms of listening to her, driving her around, keeping her company, getting her food, running errands for her as required, etc. All the sort of things that are expected of a friend helping a friend through a horrible personal experience.
As to what vengeance I might take, or counsel others to take, on her behalf: consider why you feel compelled to do this--are you yourself behaving proprietorially towards her--and why you might do anything beyond what she personally wants done. A conviction for rape is likely to be sufficient vengeance. Also, one must bear in mind that if a man accused of rape is not convicted and later murdered, his accuser and any of her friends and relatives are prime suspects. Thus more care than usual for a murder--even if murders are usual for you--is warranted. Even if you abandon all thoughts of escaping legal consequence, and kill him on the courthouse steps to demonstrate your fury, this will not un-rape her. You may well be adding two more traumas to her life: his death, and your own punishment.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:01 PM on October 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
Azaadistani, thank you for speaking up so well for a compassionate attitude to the writer. It would be better in some respects if she reported it, but no one is entitled to blame her for not doing so. Only she can tell whether it is worth the cost to her.
This is also a case where criticizing the FPP is out of place. I just can't relate to someone not "getting" why this is worthy.
I don't know what the statute of limitations is for rape, but maybe she can still file charges if she feels able to sooner or later. Even without a good prospect of conviction, at least it would alert others and subject the rapist to an investigation.
I was hoping she would have a talk with the fiancee. Maybe she will.
"What I'm interested in is: in the absence of her reporting this to the authorities or confronting him about it, what should/could this rapist have done to atone for his crime?"
Kill himself. It's the only thing proportional. It's a traditional response to disgrace in some Asian cultures, unjustly denigrated in the west because of Judaeo-Christian nonsense.
This is not to be confused with the hot-head pro-vengeance view. I'm against state homicide. But this is my answer to the question as asked.
posted by jam_pony at 4:05 PM on October 31, 2006
This is also a case where criticizing the FPP is out of place. I just can't relate to someone not "getting" why this is worthy.
I don't know what the statute of limitations is for rape, but maybe she can still file charges if she feels able to sooner or later. Even without a good prospect of conviction, at least it would alert others and subject the rapist to an investigation.
I was hoping she would have a talk with the fiancee. Maybe she will.
"What I'm interested in is: in the absence of her reporting this to the authorities or confronting him about it, what should/could this rapist have done to atone for his crime?"
Kill himself. It's the only thing proportional. It's a traditional response to disgrace in some Asian cultures, unjustly denigrated in the west because of Judaeo-Christian nonsense.
This is not to be confused with the hot-head pro-vengeance view. I'm against state homicide. But this is my answer to the question as asked.
posted by jam_pony at 4:05 PM on October 31, 2006
andraste, thank you for sharing your story with us. Maybe a few people here will gain a bit of understanding from it.
posted by zarah at 4:12 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by zarah at 4:12 PM on October 31, 2006
This life-long shunning approach you advocate guarantees the commission of further crimes, which is a fact so well demonstrated by modern prison systems that failure to understand the point is absurd
Thank you, aeschenkarnos. People like you remind me that humanity might not be irrevocably backwards and ignorant after all.
posted by biscotti at 4:16 PM on October 31, 2006
Thank you, aeschenkarnos. People like you remind me that humanity might not be irrevocably backwards and ignorant after all.
posted by biscotti at 4:16 PM on October 31, 2006
Two questions are getting mixed together in this thread: (1) did the author have a duty to report her rape, and (2) was her failure to report excusable?
I think most would agree that the answer to the first question is "yes." Victims of crimes should report them so that the offender is duly punished, other potential offenders are deterred, and the likelihood of the criminal causing further injuries is reduced. The third purpose applies with particular force to rape because sex criminals are likely be repeat offenders. Based on the information in the article, all of these purposes would have been served had the author reported her rape.
The second question is where the divergence of opinion seems to arise. Most agree that the answer is "yes" because trauma, social stigma, fear, youth, and other circumstances made it reasonable, or at least understandable, for the author (and similarly situated victims) to decide not to report the crime. I haven't heard an argument to the contrary other than invocation of the duty -- "she should have reported it" or "I would have reported it." This goes to the first question, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the second.
posted by brain_drain at 4:35 PM on October 31, 2006
I think most would agree that the answer to the first question is "yes." Victims of crimes should report them so that the offender is duly punished, other potential offenders are deterred, and the likelihood of the criminal causing further injuries is reduced. The third purpose applies with particular force to rape because sex criminals are likely be repeat offenders. Based on the information in the article, all of these purposes would have been served had the author reported her rape.
The second question is where the divergence of opinion seems to arise. Most agree that the answer is "yes" because trauma, social stigma, fear, youth, and other circumstances made it reasonable, or at least understandable, for the author (and similarly situated victims) to decide not to report the crime. I haven't heard an argument to the contrary other than invocation of the duty -- "she should have reported it" or "I would have reported it." This goes to the first question, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the second.
posted by brain_drain at 4:35 PM on October 31, 2006
Thank you, aeschenkarnos. People like you remind me that humanity might not be irrevocably backwards and ignorant after all.
Thanks biscotti, it's always nice to receive a compliment ... but I must point out that the high concentration of people who advocate rational (rather than emotionally appealing) solutions to problems on metafilter doesn't prove much for the fate of humanity generally. Most of humanity doesn't read metafilter, or anything else much.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:42 PM on October 31, 2006
Thanks biscotti, it's always nice to receive a compliment ... but I must point out that the high concentration of people who advocate rational (rather than emotionally appealing) solutions to problems on metafilter doesn't prove much for the fate of humanity generally. Most of humanity doesn't read metafilter, or anything else much.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:42 PM on October 31, 2006
I can understand why she didn't report it then, and I can understand why she might not want to report it long after the statute of limitations has passed. I can definitely understand not wanting to confront the guy.
What I can't understand is - why, if it is too [adjective] to report it, or to warn someone, it is not too [adjective] to spend the time and effort thinking about it to craft an essay for the nation's largest newspaper.
I wonder how many small town brides-to-be are just a bit concerned about their fiances/daughters this week.
I wonder how she'll feel in the future if she finds out the guy raped his stepdaughter, too?
But I get the feeling from the article that she is going to try as hard as possible to insulate herself from ever discovering whether something like that actually happens.
posted by bashos_frog at 4:57 PM on October 31, 2006
What I can't understand is - why, if it is too [adjective] to report it, or to warn someone, it is not too [adjective] to spend the time and effort thinking about it to craft an essay for the nation's largest newspaper.
I wonder how many small town brides-to-be are just a bit concerned about their fiances/daughters this week.
I wonder how she'll feel in the future if she finds out the guy raped his stepdaughter, too?
But I get the feeling from the article that she is going to try as hard as possible to insulate herself from ever discovering whether something like that actually happens.
posted by bashos_frog at 4:57 PM on October 31, 2006
Awful. It is horrifying to realize that people who hurt others so much can happily go about their lives.
There is no such thing as an evil person. There are only mundane people who do evil things.
And...what's your point? I never said the guy was evil. I think anyone who has it in them to rape someone is horribly fucked up beyond repair, but I don't believe in people being "evil."
I wasn't particularly picking on anything you said. The point was that people routinely do evil things and then happily go about their lives. Even the very worst serial killers get up in the morning, have a shower, eat their breakfast cereal, slaughter someone, drive home, eat pizza and laugh at the Daily Show. The point is that dangerous, crazy psychopaths, murderers, rapists, pedophiles and wife beaters are not the monomaniacal stereotypes you see in the movies - they're just like us in almost every way.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 5:01 PM on October 31, 2006
There is no such thing as an evil person. There are only mundane people who do evil things.
And...what's your point? I never said the guy was evil. I think anyone who has it in them to rape someone is horribly fucked up beyond repair, but I don't believe in people being "evil."
I wasn't particularly picking on anything you said. The point was that people routinely do evil things and then happily go about their lives. Even the very worst serial killers get up in the morning, have a shower, eat their breakfast cereal, slaughter someone, drive home, eat pizza and laugh at the Daily Show. The point is that dangerous, crazy psychopaths, murderers, rapists, pedophiles and wife beaters are not the monomaniacal stereotypes you see in the movies - they're just like us in almost every way.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 5:01 PM on October 31, 2006
brain drain Two questions are getting mixed together in this thread: (1) did the author have a duty to report her rape, and (2) was her failure to report excusable?
Aha. You're now the front-runner for "most cogent statement of the issue" award, so far. (1) I disagree that the victim has a legal obligation to report a crime, because no punishment exists to back up failure to meet that obligation. At its strongest this obligation is nothing more than an ethical obligation, for the reasons you give. Technically, crimes in most legal systems are considered for legal purposes to be committed against the state (as a breach of a statute) and are punished by the state on its own behalf, rather than against the victim, punished by the state on the victim's behalf. But this is only technical; newspapers, politicials, and even lawyers and judges speak of crimes in terms of commission against the victim. Strictly speaking, this technicality would actually put a victim who chose not to report a crime in the position of abetting the crime, and subject to punishment for that choice. This tends to strike people as unjust. Doing some actual legal research, something I haven't done in years, might show up any cases, or might show examples of "abetting" under the statutes to see if the actual victim is treated differently from a friend confessed to by the criminal. However, I can't recall any offhand and I think we would have noticed.
(2) Without a legal obligation, excusability is only a social matter, and it's pretty clear that almost all people think failure to report rape is excusable, even if undesirable. Even if there were a legal obligation to report a crime as per point (1) above, it would have exceptions couched in terms of "reasonability" - fear for one's life, complete impracticality of reporting the crime, spousal exceptions, etc etc. Whether "social stigma" would be an explicit exception would be up to the drafters of the law.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:06 PM on October 31, 2006
Aha. You're now the front-runner for "most cogent statement of the issue" award, so far. (1) I disagree that the victim has a legal obligation to report a crime, because no punishment exists to back up failure to meet that obligation. At its strongest this obligation is nothing more than an ethical obligation, for the reasons you give. Technically, crimes in most legal systems are considered for legal purposes to be committed against the state (as a breach of a statute) and are punished by the state on its own behalf, rather than against the victim, punished by the state on the victim's behalf. But this is only technical; newspapers, politicials, and even lawyers and judges speak of crimes in terms of commission against the victim. Strictly speaking, this technicality would actually put a victim who chose not to report a crime in the position of abetting the crime, and subject to punishment for that choice. This tends to strike people as unjust. Doing some actual legal research, something I haven't done in years, might show up any cases, or might show examples of "abetting" under the statutes to see if the actual victim is treated differently from a friend confessed to by the criminal. However, I can't recall any offhand and I think we would have noticed.
(2) Without a legal obligation, excusability is only a social matter, and it's pretty clear that almost all people think failure to report rape is excusable, even if undesirable. Even if there were a legal obligation to report a crime as per point (1) above, it would have exceptions couched in terms of "reasonability" - fear for one's life, complete impracticality of reporting the crime, spousal exceptions, etc etc. Whether "social stigma" would be an explicit exception would be up to the drafters of the law.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:06 PM on October 31, 2006
Well spoken indeed, aeschenkarnos.
I would point out that I wasnt exactly suggesting a "shunning" - well any more than being associated with a sexual predator list, or a prison sentence, or some other public acknowledgement of the crime. I think that would be sufficient, at least from a social standpoint. I think my point, hidden beneath my visceral reaction, was that the crime was *never* acknowledged, and I think we all agree that is unacceptable.
posted by elendil71 at 5:11 PM on October 31, 2006
I would point out that I wasnt exactly suggesting a "shunning" - well any more than being associated with a sexual predator list, or a prison sentence, or some other public acknowledgement of the crime. I think that would be sufficient, at least from a social standpoint. I think my point, hidden beneath my visceral reaction, was that the crime was *never* acknowledged, and I think we all agree that is unacceptable.
posted by elendil71 at 5:11 PM on October 31, 2006
Totally agreed, aeschenkarnos -- I meant a moral duty, not a legal one. I should have made that clear up front.
posted by brain_drain at 5:12 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by brain_drain at 5:12 PM on October 31, 2006
An honest and classy response, kid ichorous, to a shallow and kneejerk misreading of your comment.
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 5:20 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 5:20 PM on October 31, 2006
Thank you for posting this.
It affected me to read it...and will stay with me.
I have never ben raped but I can understand her feelings and her choices. I think we are headed toward a culture where this happens less often and when it does it is reported more often...but that day isn't here yet. And this happened in 1980 which is a generation away from even today when it is still very dificult and often not safe to report this.
I'm amazed she has come out as well as she has and can write about it so publicly. Bravo to her and to any woman or girl who goes through something like this and has to make difficult choices to make their lives the best they can. You have my support and respect.
posted by django_z at 5:21 PM on October 31, 2006
It affected me to read it...and will stay with me.
I have never ben raped but I can understand her feelings and her choices. I think we are headed toward a culture where this happens less often and when it does it is reported more often...but that day isn't here yet. And this happened in 1980 which is a generation away from even today when it is still very dificult and often not safe to report this.
I'm amazed she has come out as well as she has and can write about it so publicly. Bravo to her and to any woman or girl who goes through something like this and has to make difficult choices to make their lives the best they can. You have my support and respect.
posted by django_z at 5:21 PM on October 31, 2006
bashos_frog, even if it was too [adjective] to report it at the age of 16, that doesn't mean it was too [adjective] to craft the article 26 years later. I think that's the key to understanding that part of the equation; one's perceptions, toughness, self-respect and ability to cope change significantly over time, particularly between the teenage years and adulthood.
posted by andraste at 5:25 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by andraste at 5:25 PM on October 31, 2006
I feel that the very involvement of sex tends to get the better of us emotionally
Hey, kid ichorous! We're not talking about sex! We're talking about rape. Big difference.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:00 PM on October 31, 2006
Hey, kid ichorous! We're not talking about sex! We're talking about rape. Big difference.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:00 PM on October 31, 2006
Two questions are getting mixed together in this thread: (1) did the author have a duty to report her rape, and (2) was her failure to report excusable?
I think most would agree that the answer to the first question is "yes."
Are you out of your f***ing mind? Wait until you are raped and humiliated and too embarrassed to even tell your intimate friends and family. What an ass.
posted by caddis at 6:11 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
I think most would agree that the answer to the first question is "yes."
Are you out of your f***ing mind? Wait until you are raped and humiliated and too embarrassed to even tell your intimate friends and family. What an ass.
posted by caddis at 6:11 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
I understand people change, but at least in the one respect of alerting someone to this person's behaviour, it seems not much has changed - she's still not doing anything about it except writing - and by writing she walks right up to the edge of what many people think would be a reasonable response.
She wrote a letter to the NY Times where she anonymized a rapist, but she can't write an anonymous letter to the guy's fiance? The girl's father? The justice of the peace?
I can understand she has her reasons - but if it was me, I'd not be able to sleep at night knowing what she knows. I think it is the specific case that he is getting involved with two other women, if his victim saw he was in the news for some other reason, I'd be less inclined to question her reasons to not get involved.
Less emotionally charged example:
If 20 years ago I saw a classmate stick up a convenience store, I might be too afraid to report it. If I saw the guy working now as a bank manager, I think I'd let someone know what he did. But if he was now a street vendor, or something where he wasn't entrusted with people's money, I'd be more inclined to forget it.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:13 PM on October 31, 2006
She wrote a letter to the NY Times where she anonymized a rapist, but she can't write an anonymous letter to the guy's fiance? The girl's father? The justice of the peace?
I can understand she has her reasons - but if it was me, I'd not be able to sleep at night knowing what she knows. I think it is the specific case that he is getting involved with two other women, if his victim saw he was in the news for some other reason, I'd be less inclined to question her reasons to not get involved.
Less emotionally charged example:
If 20 years ago I saw a classmate stick up a convenience store, I might be too afraid to report it. If I saw the guy working now as a bank manager, I think I'd let someone know what he did. But if he was now a street vendor, or something where he wasn't entrusted with people's money, I'd be more inclined to forget it.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:13 PM on October 31, 2006
I think several of you who think you see an inconsistency in this woman's behavior missed/forgot the first line of the article. It starts out, "One day several years ago." So, one day several years ago she saw this guy's picture in the engagement section of her hometown newspaper. And did nothing. Which makes perfect sense -- if it was too [adjective] to tell anyone about the rape 20 years ago, or to confront him, it was also too [adjective] to confront him or to tell anyone (the fiancee, the police, the local paper, her parents) about it several years ago.
Then recently, years later, presumably after doing a lot of soul-searching and thinking about the effect of this one act on her life, she wrote a personal essay about it.
I'd say all those behaviors are pretty consistent with someone who didn't tell anyone about it initially, and couldn't bring herself to act when she saw his picture in the engagement section several (10? 15?) years after being raped.
It's not like she saw his picture in her hometown paper's engagement section one Sunday and dashed off an essay to go in the following Sunday's NYT.
posted by jenii at 6:16 PM on October 31, 2006
Then recently, years later, presumably after doing a lot of soul-searching and thinking about the effect of this one act on her life, she wrote a personal essay about it.
I'd say all those behaviors are pretty consistent with someone who didn't tell anyone about it initially, and couldn't bring herself to act when she saw his picture in the engagement section several (10? 15?) years after being raped.
It's not like she saw his picture in her hometown paper's engagement section one Sunday and dashed off an essay to go in the following Sunday's NYT.
posted by jenii at 6:16 PM on October 31, 2006
did the author have a duty to report her rape?
No. Not at all, for all the above mentioned reasons.
My question is: does she have an ethical responsibility to let someone know that the guy is a rapist.
Hypothetical - what if she wasn't raped, but instead, she witnessed him rape someone 20 years ago and was too afraid to come forward at the time.
Do you think she should say something to the fiance now?
posted by bashos_frog at 6:19 PM on October 31, 2006
No. Not at all, for all the above mentioned reasons.
My question is: does she have an ethical responsibility to let someone know that the guy is a rapist.
Hypothetical - what if she wasn't raped, but instead, she witnessed him rape someone 20 years ago and was too afraid to come forward at the time.
Do you think she should say something to the fiance now?
posted by bashos_frog at 6:19 PM on October 31, 2006
You know what's the worst thing about this? Her rapist, the rapist she so cathartically lays claim to, may not have even considered it a rape.
I had a very good friend of mine raped in similar circumstances by another friend. He claimed that they'd had rough sex. She claimed rape. She also told me to keep it to myself, not to tell anyone. It was his word against hers, and even after a very painful trip to her gyno, and a few weeks of severe depression, I could not get her to press charges or even report it to the police. The shame she felt, not back in 1980, but 2003, was so visceral she would pale to the point of fainting, and to this day will not acknowledge it.
I did however break her confidence (something she hated me for at the time, but we've since reconciled), and told another female friend. He'd raped her, too; not a violent back-alley meeting but a night of high pressure groping led her to just let him fuck her to get him off her back. And as I talked to the other women in my life, I found that the total rose to at least five.
Not one of these rapes were reported. In fact, one of the girls had not even really considered it rape, even though he'd forced her to have sex with him, against her will, a few times over a number of weeks. The look on her face when it occured to her that this was, in fact, a textbook rape, will stay with me for life.
I confronted him with this, and he denied it was rape. These friend of mine had, when visiting, 'known what they were there for'. All they'd needed was a 'little persuasion'.
I wanted to castrate him. I wanted to remove his sorry stain of a carcass from my planet. None of my friends would report him, not even the torn and traumatized one. And worst of all, I could not even get him to see that he'd raped her. Even confronted by all the evidence, he still denied it.
I still tell my female friends about him whenever I can. It seems so snipey and so inadequate. I don't gossip as a general rule, so it runs against everything I've ever been taught - that every side deserves representation in a story, that there is always room for the benefit of the doubt. People change. People evolve. But I can't help remembering that if the first woman he did it to had spoken out, there'd be four less with that burden of shame to carry.
posted by Jilder at 6:22 PM on October 31, 2006
I had a very good friend of mine raped in similar circumstances by another friend. He claimed that they'd had rough sex. She claimed rape. She also told me to keep it to myself, not to tell anyone. It was his word against hers, and even after a very painful trip to her gyno, and a few weeks of severe depression, I could not get her to press charges or even report it to the police. The shame she felt, not back in 1980, but 2003, was so visceral she would pale to the point of fainting, and to this day will not acknowledge it.
I did however break her confidence (something she hated me for at the time, but we've since reconciled), and told another female friend. He'd raped her, too; not a violent back-alley meeting but a night of high pressure groping led her to just let him fuck her to get him off her back. And as I talked to the other women in my life, I found that the total rose to at least five.
Not one of these rapes were reported. In fact, one of the girls had not even really considered it rape, even though he'd forced her to have sex with him, against her will, a few times over a number of weeks. The look on her face when it occured to her that this was, in fact, a textbook rape, will stay with me for life.
I confronted him with this, and he denied it was rape. These friend of mine had, when visiting, 'known what they were there for'. All they'd needed was a 'little persuasion'.
I wanted to castrate him. I wanted to remove his sorry stain of a carcass from my planet. None of my friends would report him, not even the torn and traumatized one. And worst of all, I could not even get him to see that he'd raped her. Even confronted by all the evidence, he still denied it.
I still tell my female friends about him whenever I can. It seems so snipey and so inadequate. I don't gossip as a general rule, so it runs against everything I've ever been taught - that every side deserves representation in a story, that there is always room for the benefit of the doubt. People change. People evolve. But I can't help remembering that if the first woman he did it to had spoken out, there'd be four less with that burden of shame to carry.
posted by Jilder at 6:22 PM on October 31, 2006
jenii,
I indeed did miss that, and you are right - it changes a lot, in just the ways you pointed out.
I still find the question of a victim's or witness's responsibility to future potential victims to be an interesting one, though.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:23 PM on October 31, 2006
I indeed did miss that, and you are right - it changes a lot, in just the ways you pointed out.
I still find the question of a victim's or witness's responsibility to future potential victims to be an interesting one, though.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:23 PM on October 31, 2006
caddis, please read the rest of my comment. I agree with you, I'm just analyzing the question differently.
posted by brain_drain at 6:25 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by brain_drain at 6:25 PM on October 31, 2006
Good lord, reviewing this thread I see a plurality of assholes blaming the victim for not going to the police. I wish assrapes upon the lot of you. See if you go public after that.
posted by caddis at 6:25 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by caddis at 6:25 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
I think there are a lot of people reading this that just don't understand how hard it is to report a rape. It's so often word-against-word. It's nothing like a store robbery or a murder or any other crime like that - it is a crime that exists soley due to the absence of consent. A 'yes' turns sex into rape. That can't be said in the case of the other examples I've seen.
The other problem is the perception of rape itself. The vast bulk of rapists are known to their victim. It becomes one set of words versus another's. They're victim and the agressor are often friends or ex-lovers, relatives or aquantences. Other politics come into it, and the spectre of false accusation can raise its head. Usually there is no-one else there to corroberate. Physical evidence can be ambiguous.
Furthermore, women are given such a messed-up set of protocols to follow around sex. Socially speaking, we are not supposed to give and out and out 'yes', we're supposed to tip-toe around it, seduce but never pounce. We don't want to be sluts or harlots. We are the keepers of a powerful monster between our legs. It's our job to keep it pure. Add to that the screwed-up list of things we are supposed to do to keep ourselves safe - we shouldn't walk alone at night. We shouldn't dress to immodestly, or wear shoes that we can't run it. We shouldn't talk to strange men when we're alone. So much of the onus for keeping ourselves safe is laid at our feet.
That's why the shame is there. The rape victim has 'failed' to keep herself pure. She's 'failed' to pay attention to the 'simple' rules of sexual engagement. She's 'failed' to do all the right things we're taught from childhood. We haven't come very far at all from the dim days where the woman is blamed for making the man rape her. These days the women are blaming themselves.
posted by Jilder at 6:44 PM on October 31, 2006
The other problem is the perception of rape itself. The vast bulk of rapists are known to their victim. It becomes one set of words versus another's. They're victim and the agressor are often friends or ex-lovers, relatives or aquantences. Other politics come into it, and the spectre of false accusation can raise its head. Usually there is no-one else there to corroberate. Physical evidence can be ambiguous.
Furthermore, women are given such a messed-up set of protocols to follow around sex. Socially speaking, we are not supposed to give and out and out 'yes', we're supposed to tip-toe around it, seduce but never pounce. We don't want to be sluts or harlots. We are the keepers of a powerful monster between our legs. It's our job to keep it pure. Add to that the screwed-up list of things we are supposed to do to keep ourselves safe - we shouldn't walk alone at night. We shouldn't dress to immodestly, or wear shoes that we can't run it. We shouldn't talk to strange men when we're alone. So much of the onus for keeping ourselves safe is laid at our feet.
That's why the shame is there. The rape victim has 'failed' to keep herself pure. She's 'failed' to pay attention to the 'simple' rules of sexual engagement. She's 'failed' to do all the right things we're taught from childhood. We haven't come very far at all from the dim days where the woman is blamed for making the man rape her. These days the women are blaming themselves.
posted by Jilder at 6:44 PM on October 31, 2006
That's not what I intended, and I'm sorry if anyone has construed it that way. Admittedly I could have worded it better. But I think you're being a little insincere with your strawman, and you know it.
Don't apologize. Everyone here knew exactly what you meant and it's true.
Rape is a bogeyman. When someone says they're "strengthening" laws on rape what they actually mean "we're slowly taking away the ability for anyone to defend themselves against a rape charge".
I say that as a good friend of a poor 15 year old boy that has been held in remand for the past 8 months on the flimsiest of evidence an uncorroborated testimony for someone that appears to be psychologically unstable.
You know the legislative body has lost the fucking plot when they say they want new laws to "boost conviction rates". You don't need a law to "boost conviction rates"; you need a law to protect the fucking citizens you assholes.
posted by Talez at 6:54 PM on October 31, 2006
Don't apologize. Everyone here knew exactly what you meant and it's true.
Rape is a bogeyman. When someone says they're "strengthening" laws on rape what they actually mean "we're slowly taking away the ability for anyone to defend themselves against a rape charge".
I say that as a good friend of a poor 15 year old boy that has been held in remand for the past 8 months on the flimsiest of evidence an uncorroborated testimony for someone that appears to be psychologically unstable.
You know the legislative body has lost the fucking plot when they say they want new laws to "boost conviction rates". You don't need a law to "boost conviction rates"; you need a law to protect the fucking citizens you assholes.
posted by Talez at 6:54 PM on October 31, 2006
This piece of writing annoyed me. It's not that I think she should have reported the rape. It's that she seems to be reveling in some kind of melancholy sentimentality around it. She hasn't accepted it really, and she's not really angry about it. She just seems to have gone soft.
The oddest thing to me was getting to the end and seeing that she wrote Swimming Sweet Arrow, a novel that I read and enjoyed. It deals with many of these same issues, but in a much healthier way than this piece does, IMHO. It's very sexy, even the rape scenes, and there's really anger, and all sorts of other real emotions that go beyond sentimentality. It's worth reading.
posted by alms at 6:58 PM on October 31, 2006
The oddest thing to me was getting to the end and seeing that she wrote Swimming Sweet Arrow, a novel that I read and enjoyed. It deals with many of these same issues, but in a much healthier way than this piece does, IMHO. It's very sexy, even the rape scenes, and there's really anger, and all sorts of other real emotions that go beyond sentimentality. It's worth reading.
posted by alms at 6:58 PM on October 31, 2006
She hasn't accepted it really, and she's not really angry about it.
I'm not criticizing you in any way, alms, for reporting your gut reaction, but that state -- which you call "going soft" -- strikes me as a real reaction. Some of us feel it quite often, and it's a confusing feeling. As a legitimate part of the human experience, I think it's worth writing about.
There are people -- and maybe you're lucky enough to be one of them -- who have much more cut-and-dried feelings. But I rarely am about be be angry or accepting in a clean, simple way. And I'm grateful that someone has recorded the mess that generally goes on in my mind.
posted by grumblebee at 7:19 PM on October 31, 2006
I'm not criticizing you in any way, alms, for reporting your gut reaction, but that state -- which you call "going soft" -- strikes me as a real reaction. Some of us feel it quite often, and it's a confusing feeling. As a legitimate part of the human experience, I think it's worth writing about.
There are people -- and maybe you're lucky enough to be one of them -- who have much more cut-and-dried feelings. But I rarely am about be be angry or accepting in a clean, simple way. And I'm grateful that someone has recorded the mess that generally goes on in my mind.
posted by grumblebee at 7:19 PM on October 31, 2006
But I can't help remembering that if the first woman he did it to had spoken out, there'd be four less with that burden of shame to carry.
I wish this were true. It's not. As you said in your first paragraph, "It was his word against hers," so filing charges would've been a crap shoot. Maybe the guy would've faced serious consequences. Maybe he'd have been convinced that what he did really was rape. Probably not. And in that case, her speaking out wouldn't have spared those other four women; in fact, it might have made the rapist even more "persuasive," even more abusive. This is not an argument for not reporting rape. In an abstract sense, all crimes should be reported, but each victim's decision is anything but abstract.
Your friend did not create or increase the "burden of shame" those other four women bear. I hope you've never said or implied any such thing to her.
One thing no one has noted about Gibbons' experience: She did tell two people, including a counselor at her high school.
When I came to the part I couldn’t bring myself to say, the counselor supplied the words: “And then he got a little rough.” Even in my confusion, that seemed like an understatement.
It would've taken a remarkably self-possessed 16-year-old to argue against that, to insist that it really was a crime. Much easier to let it go, sort out the confusion on your own, count the days until you leave.
On preview: talez, you're a troll.
posted by vetiver at 7:21 PM on October 31, 2006
I wish this were true. It's not. As you said in your first paragraph, "It was his word against hers," so filing charges would've been a crap shoot. Maybe the guy would've faced serious consequences. Maybe he'd have been convinced that what he did really was rape. Probably not. And in that case, her speaking out wouldn't have spared those other four women; in fact, it might have made the rapist even more "persuasive," even more abusive. This is not an argument for not reporting rape. In an abstract sense, all crimes should be reported, but each victim's decision is anything but abstract.
Your friend did not create or increase the "burden of shame" those other four women bear. I hope you've never said or implied any such thing to her.
One thing no one has noted about Gibbons' experience: She did tell two people, including a counselor at her high school.
When I came to the part I couldn’t bring myself to say, the counselor supplied the words: “And then he got a little rough.” Even in my confusion, that seemed like an understatement.
It would've taken a remarkably self-possessed 16-year-old to argue against that, to insist that it really was a crime. Much easier to let it go, sort out the confusion on your own, count the days until you leave.
On preview: talez, you're a troll.
posted by vetiver at 7:21 PM on October 31, 2006
Reporting a rape doesn't prevent future rapes. All it does is subject the reporter to harassment, humiliation, crude insults, and possibly further violence. Oh, and guys calling her (or him) a liar because some college guy can't believe that a victim could be telling the truth.
What is the arrest rate for reported rapes, anyway? One percent? Less than that?
posted by watsondog at 8:03 PM on October 31, 2006
What is the arrest rate for reported rapes, anyway? One percent? Less than that?
posted by watsondog at 8:03 PM on October 31, 2006
vetiver has a good point. And it sounds as if the teacher and the counselor that this woman talked to failed her. They apparently did not take the matter as seriously as was warranted (reading into it, of course, but the fact that the counselor finished her thought rather than finding out what really happened is suggestive--and so sad).
The responses of these two people probably reinforced the girl's own doubts and reservations about reporting to any other authority. Most kids do NOT have the resources to figure out the "right" thing to do, in a case like this, on their own. They need someone to take their part, and if they make even a tentative overture to an authority figure and it's not taken seriously, that is a betrayal that compounds the original offense.
andraste, thank you for your story. I have a friend who was molested before she was a teenager. Those of us around her are trying to help her keep things together, like 18 years later. These things can be devastating, and they do not just go away.
The possibility that the person who hurt my friend harmed other girls as well has weighed on her heavily, for years. To be assaulted, then unsure about what the authorities would do and/or let down by those you confide in, then GUILTY about other possible victims--that is enough to fuck up a person for a long time.
posted by torticat at 8:28 PM on October 31, 2006
The responses of these two people probably reinforced the girl's own doubts and reservations about reporting to any other authority. Most kids do NOT have the resources to figure out the "right" thing to do, in a case like this, on their own. They need someone to take their part, and if they make even a tentative overture to an authority figure and it's not taken seriously, that is a betrayal that compounds the original offense.
andraste, thank you for your story. I have a friend who was molested before she was a teenager. Those of us around her are trying to help her keep things together, like 18 years later. These things can be devastating, and they do not just go away.
The possibility that the person who hurt my friend harmed other girls as well has weighed on her heavily, for years. To be assaulted, then unsure about what the authorities would do and/or let down by those you confide in, then GUILTY about other possible victims--that is enough to fuck up a person for a long time.
posted by torticat at 8:28 PM on October 31, 2006
Thanks for your understanding, Trolley. Aeschenkarnos made the point more lucidly than I.
Hildegarde, what I'm trying to say is - whether the unspeakable word is "sex," "rape," or "terrorism" - we must not let the strongest emotions run the course of reasoning. Sometimes feeling strongly, viscerally, about an issue does not equip us at all to solve it. Sometimes it gets in the way. Take one of the comments in this thread:
"Kill himself. It's the only thing proportional. It's a traditional response to disgrace in some Asian cultures, unjustly denigrated in the west because of Judaeo-Christian nonsense."
What do you expect me to think, when hyperbole like this flies about? Not to mention that the cultures alluded to above would more likely suicide the victim...
posted by kid ichorous at 8:31 PM on October 31, 2006
Hildegarde, what I'm trying to say is - whether the unspeakable word is "sex," "rape," or "terrorism" - we must not let the strongest emotions run the course of reasoning. Sometimes feeling strongly, viscerally, about an issue does not equip us at all to solve it. Sometimes it gets in the way. Take one of the comments in this thread:
"Kill himself. It's the only thing proportional. It's a traditional response to disgrace in some Asian cultures, unjustly denigrated in the west because of Judaeo-Christian nonsense."
What do you expect me to think, when hyperbole like this flies about? Not to mention that the cultures alluded to above would more likely suicide the victim...
posted by kid ichorous at 8:31 PM on October 31, 2006
caddis Good lord, reviewing this thread I see a plurality of assholes blaming the victim for not going to the police. I wish assrapes upon the lot of you. See if you go public after that.
Discussing whether a victim should go to the police, and discussing why she in fact might not, is not the same as blaming her for not going to the police. As Jilder's story illustrates, there are potential consequences which may fall onto other people, as a result of a victim not speaking up. That, the possibility of harm to others through your inaction, creates the ethical obligation. Do you dispute that? If not, does your acceptance of it imply blame? Personally I don't think it does. Stating that X happened because A didn't do Y doesn't "blame" A for X. Causality is not blame; blame is a moral judgement placed over causality.
But you don't always have to fulfil ethical obligations. The prospect of the potential shame, of a trial, the lack of witnesses, the trauma of the adversarial legal system, and the overwhelming desire to have it all go away and get back on with her life; these are all good reasons not to report the crime. On the other hand, seeing him punished, having the whole thing come out and exonerate her, these are reasons to do it. These conflicting thoughts will go through her head, and she will agonize over it, and eventually come to a decision as to whether to go to the police or not. That decision's on a time-clock, too, and not making a decision within a fairly short time will so drastically reduce the odds of successful prosecution as to amount to not going to the police. Rape counsellors will tell you that, and I dare you to tell one of them that pointing that out is "blaming the victim".
The decision as to whether or not she does so is hers to make, although others might talk her into going one way or another, or even go to the police themselves. Like most decisions in life it's not a "free" decision. It is surrounded by unpleasant consequences each way. If you (like the FPP author) make a certain decision and put up on the Internet your story about that decision, then you can expect other people to second-guess you and discuss whether you did or did not do the right thing, and more generally, what persons in your position ought to do. That's not blame, it's discussion.
The people with the right to blame her for not going to the police are herself (and it seems she's done a lot of that), and any other actual, not potential, victims of the rapist whom he otherwise would not have raped. She herself might not have been his first victim, in which case, another girl's failure to go to the cops could have led to the author's rape - and she'd have the right, for all the good it would do, to blame that girl. Chances are that she'd fully understand that girl's position, though. How compatible understanding is with blame is a wider semantic argument.
On preview: I like vetiver's succinct statement: In an abstract sense, all crimes should be reported, but each victim's decision is anything but abstract.
watsondog: That would depend on the college culture. At either the two universities I've worked and studied at, a girl accusing a boy of rape would lead to the girl getting sympathy and the boy getting shunned, spat at, probably beaten up, probably expelled from the university if convicted, etc etc. The more public it got, the worse off the boy would be. It's one of the most serious things a boy can be accused of doing to a girl, and as I read the culture here, if that boy were innocent, he'd have an uphill battle to clear his name, even if it never reached prosecution. The first-years all get a few starting lectures about sexual harassment and racism and so forth, and included in that lecture are instructions on what to do if a victim of a crime.
On that topic there was an interesting discussion in one of my first year law tutorials about defamation, ie some famous woman (I think a Romanov princess) who sued a film studio for showing that she had been raped in the course of a film (Dr Zhivago, I think?). Which surprised us, and we doubted whether it would fly today, as the film presented the woman as the victim of a crime and blameless in the matter. This was the consensus of the group, and the lecturer actually had to explain that at the time, the victim of a rape was considered much more a contributor to the situation than is the view today. Similarly, there's a scandal in the Australian newspapers about some idiot of a Muslim cleric who dared to put the view of dress styles as provocation to rape out in a sermon. He's getting universally slapped, and will likely be removed from his position.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:39 PM on October 31, 2006
Discussing whether a victim should go to the police, and discussing why she in fact might not, is not the same as blaming her for not going to the police. As Jilder's story illustrates, there are potential consequences which may fall onto other people, as a result of a victim not speaking up. That, the possibility of harm to others through your inaction, creates the ethical obligation. Do you dispute that? If not, does your acceptance of it imply blame? Personally I don't think it does. Stating that X happened because A didn't do Y doesn't "blame" A for X. Causality is not blame; blame is a moral judgement placed over causality.
But you don't always have to fulfil ethical obligations. The prospect of the potential shame, of a trial, the lack of witnesses, the trauma of the adversarial legal system, and the overwhelming desire to have it all go away and get back on with her life; these are all good reasons not to report the crime. On the other hand, seeing him punished, having the whole thing come out and exonerate her, these are reasons to do it. These conflicting thoughts will go through her head, and she will agonize over it, and eventually come to a decision as to whether to go to the police or not. That decision's on a time-clock, too, and not making a decision within a fairly short time will so drastically reduce the odds of successful prosecution as to amount to not going to the police. Rape counsellors will tell you that, and I dare you to tell one of them that pointing that out is "blaming the victim".
The decision as to whether or not she does so is hers to make, although others might talk her into going one way or another, or even go to the police themselves. Like most decisions in life it's not a "free" decision. It is surrounded by unpleasant consequences each way. If you (like the FPP author) make a certain decision and put up on the Internet your story about that decision, then you can expect other people to second-guess you and discuss whether you did or did not do the right thing, and more generally, what persons in your position ought to do. That's not blame, it's discussion.
The people with the right to blame her for not going to the police are herself (and it seems she's done a lot of that), and any other actual, not potential, victims of the rapist whom he otherwise would not have raped. She herself might not have been his first victim, in which case, another girl's failure to go to the cops could have led to the author's rape - and she'd have the right, for all the good it would do, to blame that girl. Chances are that she'd fully understand that girl's position, though. How compatible understanding is with blame is a wider semantic argument.
On preview: I like vetiver's succinct statement: In an abstract sense, all crimes should be reported, but each victim's decision is anything but abstract.
watsondog: That would depend on the college culture. At either the two universities I've worked and studied at, a girl accusing a boy of rape would lead to the girl getting sympathy and the boy getting shunned, spat at, probably beaten up, probably expelled from the university if convicted, etc etc. The more public it got, the worse off the boy would be. It's one of the most serious things a boy can be accused of doing to a girl, and as I read the culture here, if that boy were innocent, he'd have an uphill battle to clear his name, even if it never reached prosecution. The first-years all get a few starting lectures about sexual harassment and racism and so forth, and included in that lecture are instructions on what to do if a victim of a crime.
On that topic there was an interesting discussion in one of my first year law tutorials about defamation, ie some famous woman (I think a Romanov princess) who sued a film studio for showing that she had been raped in the course of a film (Dr Zhivago, I think?). Which surprised us, and we doubted whether it would fly today, as the film presented the woman as the victim of a crime and blameless in the matter. This was the consensus of the group, and the lecturer actually had to explain that at the time, the victim of a rape was considered much more a contributor to the situation than is the view today. Similarly, there's a scandal in the Australian newspapers about some idiot of a Muslim cleric who dared to put the view of dress styles as provocation to rape out in a sermon. He's getting universally slapped, and will likely be removed from his position.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:39 PM on October 31, 2006
that state -- which you call "going soft" -- strikes me as a real reaction. Some of us feel it quite often, and it's a confusing feeling.
True, that. Obviously it's not always about rape, but I think we've all had a moment in life when we've completely and utterly given up on a situation when "we" were right and "they" were wrong and that situation had serious consequences for ourselves, because deep down inside it was clear that the situation was completely hopeless. Like getting fired because of someone else's screw-up that you've called attention to many times previously, or a divorce where you're not at fault, or something like that. You know, that moment where you take stock of the situation and realize that whatever the facts are there is no recourse for you.
In itself that feeling of being utterly and completely defeated and without recourse is bad enough. I can't imagine what it must be like to have that as a consequence of having experienced something as hateful and humiliating as rape.
posted by clevershark at 8:51 PM on October 31, 2006
True, that. Obviously it's not always about rape, but I think we've all had a moment in life when we've completely and utterly given up on a situation when "we" were right and "they" were wrong and that situation had serious consequences for ourselves, because deep down inside it was clear that the situation was completely hopeless. Like getting fired because of someone else's screw-up that you've called attention to many times previously, or a divorce where you're not at fault, or something like that. You know, that moment where you take stock of the situation and realize that whatever the facts are there is no recourse for you.
In itself that feeling of being utterly and completely defeated and without recourse is bad enough. I can't imagine what it must be like to have that as a consequence of having experienced something as hateful and humiliating as rape.
posted by clevershark at 8:51 PM on October 31, 2006
The responses of these two people probably reinforced the girl's own doubts and reservations about reporting to any other authority. Most kids do NOT have the resources to figure out the "right" thing to do, in a case like this, on their own. They need someone to take their part, and if they make even a tentative overture to an authority figure and it's not taken seriously, that is a betrayal that compounds the original offense.
This is so true. It's a tacit approval of silence, frankly.
posted by Stauf at 8:58 PM on October 31, 2006
This is so true. It's a tacit approval of silence, frankly.
posted by Stauf at 8:58 PM on October 31, 2006
Speaking of rape, "An appellate court said Maryland's rape law is clear -- no doesn't mean no when it follows a yes and intercourse has begun."
I'm stunned. Are your judges generally this retarded and, if so, how the hell does your society survive?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:08 PM on October 31, 2006
I'm stunned. Are your judges generally this retarded and, if so, how the hell does your society survive?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:08 PM on October 31, 2006
Many of the responses, particularly in the beginning of the FPP, are truly disgusting.
This is a short essay devoid of personal details and illustrates a deeply traumatic period in this woman's life, so what I want to know is--
Why the fuck do any of you think you have the right to sit in judgment of this woman?
I am a woman. I have never been raped, but as someone who already struggles with self-confidence and rejection issues, I know that if I were raped I would have immense difficulty telling anyone, let alone subjecting myself to the horrors of a criminal trial wherein the victim is often referred to as a whore who had it coming.
It is repulsive that some of you, and I am quite sure you must be men, have the audacity, the cojonoes, to say that "you would have done differently". Do you know what I say to that? Fuck right off. Until you are raped, humiliated and degraded to the point where you hold no self-worth and likely feel like it happened due to your own actions, then you can say what you DID, not some mythical bullshit you're fabricating.
Good to see victim blame is alive and well in a place as "liberal" as MetaFilter.
PS: "Strawman" stopped being cute and clever a long, long time ago. Rack your brain for something else more interesting to say; using the cliche doesn't make you appear intelligent, only like another cog in this silly game of ego-stroking.
posted by nonmerci at 9:47 PM on October 31, 2006
This is a short essay devoid of personal details and illustrates a deeply traumatic period in this woman's life, so what I want to know is--
Why the fuck do any of you think you have the right to sit in judgment of this woman?
I am a woman. I have never been raped, but as someone who already struggles with self-confidence and rejection issues, I know that if I were raped I would have immense difficulty telling anyone, let alone subjecting myself to the horrors of a criminal trial wherein the victim is often referred to as a whore who had it coming.
It is repulsive that some of you, and I am quite sure you must be men, have the audacity, the cojonoes, to say that "you would have done differently". Do you know what I say to that? Fuck right off. Until you are raped, humiliated and degraded to the point where you hold no self-worth and likely feel like it happened due to your own actions, then you can say what you DID, not some mythical bullshit you're fabricating.
Good to see victim blame is alive and well in a place as "liberal" as MetaFilter.
PS: "Strawman" stopped being cute and clever a long, long time ago. Rack your brain for something else more interesting to say; using the cliche doesn't make you appear intelligent, only like another cog in this silly game of ego-stroking.
posted by nonmerci at 9:47 PM on October 31, 2006
The article was heartrending. The saddest part is the fact that she has found no closure after many years. The article itself, the fact that she wrote this article for the NYT Sunday Magazine, seems to be another attempt on her part for closure. I sincerely hope that she can free herself and gain some peace.
It was never an issue for me whether she reported him or will report him. I understand the various reasons why she has not, or any other rape victim has not, gone to the police, or told their family and friends. These reasons have been earnestly and eloquently been stated above by various posters.
Also, I have a very close female friend ( I'm male) who told me a few years ago what she suffered at the hands of a man many years ago. A man that I thought I knew. A man that I liked very much and respected. In fact, he was well liked and respected by most men (and boys) who knew him. You bet I believed her. I know her well and she would never say anything like that lightly. I asked, without revealing my friend's confidence, two other women (they were girls then, we were all young) what they thought of the respected man. They mentioned his groping, his comments, his looks. They knew what he was about. I know how she felt. She told me. And I also know the reason she never told her family or friends. She would have ripped apart several families. God, the havoc she could have caused, I know well. She just didn't have the heart to do it. I never judged her. I understood. How difficult it would have been. How many people's lives turned upside down. And she was so young.
However, I would say to watsondog, you are so wrong. If a woman or girl feels she has the strength; or is in a position where she can withstand any criticism; or feels that her rage will lead her through anything; or is old enough and mature enough to withstand the immediate shock and humiliation and act for justice; or any combination of the clumsily stated above or any positions or combinations of positions I have not stated... I say act for justice.
Silence is not the answer. Silence allows things to continue. Speak out if you are at all possible. Act for yourself and for others if you can. Seek groups and people who are specifically organized to help rape victims through the justice system and through their pain. Never remain silent if you can help it.
Nobody has said she is lying. The kid, ichorous, brought up the possibility, among others, in response to a sweeping generalization. He never said "I believe she is lying".
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 10:02 PM on October 31, 2006
It was never an issue for me whether she reported him or will report him. I understand the various reasons why she has not, or any other rape victim has not, gone to the police, or told their family and friends. These reasons have been earnestly and eloquently been stated above by various posters.
Also, I have a very close female friend ( I'm male) who told me a few years ago what she suffered at the hands of a man many years ago. A man that I thought I knew. A man that I liked very much and respected. In fact, he was well liked and respected by most men (and boys) who knew him. You bet I believed her. I know her well and she would never say anything like that lightly. I asked, without revealing my friend's confidence, two other women (they were girls then, we were all young) what they thought of the respected man. They mentioned his groping, his comments, his looks. They knew what he was about. I know how she felt. She told me. And I also know the reason she never told her family or friends. She would have ripped apart several families. God, the havoc she could have caused, I know well. She just didn't have the heart to do it. I never judged her. I understood. How difficult it would have been. How many people's lives turned upside down. And she was so young.
However, I would say to watsondog, you are so wrong. If a woman or girl feels she has the strength; or is in a position where she can withstand any criticism; or feels that her rage will lead her through anything; or is old enough and mature enough to withstand the immediate shock and humiliation and act for justice; or any combination of the clumsily stated above or any positions or combinations of positions I have not stated... I say act for justice.
Silence is not the answer. Silence allows things to continue. Speak out if you are at all possible. Act for yourself and for others if you can. Seek groups and people who are specifically organized to help rape victims through the justice system and through their pain. Never remain silent if you can help it.
Nobody has said she is lying. The kid, ichorous, brought up the possibility, among others, in response to a sweeping generalization. He never said "I believe she is lying".
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 10:02 PM on October 31, 2006
Well said, TrolleyOffTheTracks, my only comment is this:
By stating that she didn't act correctly, you (the general you, not you the person) are essentially saying that she is wrong. This is my problem with the criticisms against her.
Seeing a stranger murdered is an incredibly impersonal experience. It makes us as humans feel obligated to act because it is not an act against us but a crime against humanity. There are no personal demons, no shame, there is only the feeling of enacting justice in our heads.
To have someone violate your body, the only tangible thing we know that confirms our humanity to us, and reduce you to the lowest possible denominator--a "piece of meat" that we can joke about in other threads--is unimaginable. Condemning (for that is what judgment is) the actions of the woman raped are thus akin to saying "wear your skirt below the knee and you won't gain violent, unwanted attentions". It is close-minded, old-fashioned, backwards and wrong.
posted by nonmerci at 10:16 PM on October 31, 2006
By stating that she didn't act correctly, you (the general you, not you the person) are essentially saying that she is wrong. This is my problem with the criticisms against her.
Seeing a stranger murdered is an incredibly impersonal experience. It makes us as humans feel obligated to act because it is not an act against us but a crime against humanity. There are no personal demons, no shame, there is only the feeling of enacting justice in our heads.
To have someone violate your body, the only tangible thing we know that confirms our humanity to us, and reduce you to the lowest possible denominator--a "piece of meat" that we can joke about in other threads--is unimaginable. Condemning (for that is what judgment is) the actions of the woman raped are thus akin to saying "wear your skirt below the knee and you won't gain violent, unwanted attentions". It is close-minded, old-fashioned, backwards and wrong.
posted by nonmerci at 10:16 PM on October 31, 2006
On preview: talez, you're a troll.
Why? Because I give a flying fuck about probable cause, due process and burden of proof whether its rape, murder or a speeding ticket?
posted by Talez at 10:34 PM on October 31, 2006
Why? Because I give a flying fuck about probable cause, due process and burden of proof whether its rape, murder or a speeding ticket?
posted by Talez at 10:34 PM on October 31, 2006
nonmerci - I have been following this thread off & on, but I don't recall anybody condemning the victim in the sense of suggesting that she somehow caused or deserved the rape, which is what your "wear your skirt" relates to.
The discussion seems to have centred on whether or not she had a moral obligation to report it, and how strong that obligation (if it exists) should be, in the light of her personal feelings, the general circumstances etc.
I think none of this is "akin to saying" what you claim, and that conflating a discussion of her post-rape behaviour with pre-rape "meat for cats" types of comments is not exactly enlightening or helpful.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:55 PM on October 31, 2006
The discussion seems to have centred on whether or not she had a moral obligation to report it, and how strong that obligation (if it exists) should be, in the light of her personal feelings, the general circumstances etc.
I think none of this is "akin to saying" what you claim, and that conflating a discussion of her post-rape behaviour with pre-rape "meat for cats" types of comments is not exactly enlightening or helpful.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:55 PM on October 31, 2006
Talez: if your friend is in remand, well, that's due process. The judge has to weigh up whether or not to grant bail, depending on the nature of the accusation, the chances of skipping town, the chances of "re-"offending, etc. Stagnating in remand whilst awaiting trial (with its rules of evidence, burden of proof, etc) is an unfortunate byproduct of y/our legal system.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:58 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:58 PM on October 31, 2006
Talez: if your friend is in remand, well, that's due process. The judge has to weigh up whether or not to grant bail, depending on the nature of the accusation, the chances of skipping town, the chances of "re-"offending, etc. Stagnating in remand whilst awaiting trial (with its rules of evidence, burden of proof, etc) is an unfortunate byproduct of y/our legal system.
The judge has to weigh up whether or not to grant bail but he has to do that according to legislation that the legislature sets. Slowly they've been lowering the standards of probable cause to keep people in remand.
Let me give you an idea of the evidence the prosecution has:
* An uncorroborated witness statement which shows evidence of police tampering and also no corresponding physical evidence (bruising, vaginal tearing).
* A complete lack of DNA evidence on the victim herself including a lack of semen despite the fact the attacker apparently ejaculated and her coming straight to the police.
* A "mixed sample" which could indicate his presence with the victim but they can't tell for sure. He's guilty still until the evidence can prove him innocent according to the presiding magistrate.
How long did he have to remand waiting for the charges to be formally read? 8 months.
When is his trial date? Next march.
He can't confront his accuser directly (only through representation). He can't question the reliability of the witness in court. He can't bring into question any habits of substance abuse or her history of psychiatric stability.
You tell me that's satisfying a sensible definition of probable cause. You tell me that he's being treated fairly.
Sadly we don't have a 6th amendment here.
posted by Talez at 11:47 PM on October 31, 2006
The judge has to weigh up whether or not to grant bail but he has to do that according to legislation that the legislature sets. Slowly they've been lowering the standards of probable cause to keep people in remand.
Let me give you an idea of the evidence the prosecution has:
* An uncorroborated witness statement which shows evidence of police tampering and also no corresponding physical evidence (bruising, vaginal tearing).
* A complete lack of DNA evidence on the victim herself including a lack of semen despite the fact the attacker apparently ejaculated and her coming straight to the police.
* A "mixed sample" which could indicate his presence with the victim but they can't tell for sure. He's guilty still until the evidence can prove him innocent according to the presiding magistrate.
How long did he have to remand waiting for the charges to be formally read? 8 months.
When is his trial date? Next march.
He can't confront his accuser directly (only through representation). He can't question the reliability of the witness in court. He can't bring into question any habits of substance abuse or her history of psychiatric stability.
You tell me that's satisfying a sensible definition of probable cause. You tell me that he's being treated fairly.
Sadly we don't have a 6th amendment here.
posted by Talez at 11:47 PM on October 31, 2006
nonmerci: ... I know that if I were raped I would have immense difficulty telling anyone ... Do you know what I say to that? Fuck right off. Until you are raped, humiliated and degraded to the point where you hold no self-worth and likely feel like it happened due to your own actions, then you can say what you DID, not some mythical bullshit you're fabricating.
Firstly, at some level, all such discussion is exactly that kind of fabrication. "What I would have done in situation X" is part and parcel of empathising. Since we're actually unable to really see anything from anyone's point of view but our own, because telepathy doesn't actually work, any attempt to empathize must necessarily be an exercise of imagination.
I will not accept the argument that any attempt to imagine myself suffering X is "disrespectful" to persons who actually suffered X - that is a furphy, it is immoral, and it is one of the worst pieces of fracturing nonsense that left-wing authoritarianism has given the world. it is only through an attempt to imagine ourselves suffering that we can comprehend the suffering of others. We must see ourselves as others see us, we must walk the mile in another's shoes, we must imagine ourselves raped to comprehend the suffering of a rape victim. We might say "we'd kick him in the balls"; we're not thinking about the strength differential, and the enraging effect that has on an emotionally excited man. We might say "we'd tell the cops"; we're not thinking about the amount of evidence required, and the pain involved in re-living the experience over and over. It is not fabricating an experience, but failure to fabricate the experience realistically enough that is the problem. Telling people to "fuck right off" is completely destructive to understanding.
Secondly, you're doing the exact same thing to yourself, in the opposite direction. As you say, you haven't been raped--and unlike some people here, I personally hope none of us do have that happen--but, not having gone through the experience, you're attributing to yourself an inability to cope that could be as unjustified in practice as someone else's assumed hyperability. You might be right, in that you might be able to talk yourself now into incompetence later; so might they be able to talk themselves into competence. Both of you, in my opinion, would benefit from actually doing some self-defense courses - another kind of "fabrication". This may well help you with the other problems you describe. And don't claim you didn't ask for my advice and suggestions; as soon as we post here, we ask us all.
Thirdly, rape isn't the only trauma that can break a person to the point where death becomes positively desirable for its anaesthetic effect. Some people are horribly traumatized by rape and afterwards lead miserable half-existences as shambling twilight people, ash-filled shells of the person they were. Same for those who go through loss of a beloved spouse, gross physical injury, experience war ... and so on. Some people, however, recover. On the whole, I think that's the better outcome.
These are the points I and others have been trying all day to make: (1) the fault for rape lies with the rapist; (2) responsibility for reaction to being raped lies primarily with the victim, secondarily with her friends and family, tertiarally with wider society; (3) it is desirable that people who suffer rape emotionally recover; (4) it is the responsibility of the victim's friends and family, and wider society, to aid that recovery; (5) serious and intelligent advance preparation for the possibility will help in the event; (6) prosecution of the rapist will be traumatic for the victim but it will aid her recovery more than not prosecuting him would (specific exceptions may apply); (7) future victims will be likely to be protected by prosecution of the rapist; (8) prosecution will not be successful without the victim's full involvement; (9) a choice not to be involved in prosecution is hers to make, but must not be encouraged by anyone; (10) such a choice should be met with empathy and with the clear intention of aiding recovery in the future.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 11:50 PM on October 31, 2006
Firstly, at some level, all such discussion is exactly that kind of fabrication. "What I would have done in situation X" is part and parcel of empathising. Since we're actually unable to really see anything from anyone's point of view but our own, because telepathy doesn't actually work, any attempt to empathize must necessarily be an exercise of imagination.
I will not accept the argument that any attempt to imagine myself suffering X is "disrespectful" to persons who actually suffered X - that is a furphy, it is immoral, and it is one of the worst pieces of fracturing nonsense that left-wing authoritarianism has given the world. it is only through an attempt to imagine ourselves suffering that we can comprehend the suffering of others. We must see ourselves as others see us, we must walk the mile in another's shoes, we must imagine ourselves raped to comprehend the suffering of a rape victim. We might say "we'd kick him in the balls"; we're not thinking about the strength differential, and the enraging effect that has on an emotionally excited man. We might say "we'd tell the cops"; we're not thinking about the amount of evidence required, and the pain involved in re-living the experience over and over. It is not fabricating an experience, but failure to fabricate the experience realistically enough that is the problem. Telling people to "fuck right off" is completely destructive to understanding.
Secondly, you're doing the exact same thing to yourself, in the opposite direction. As you say, you haven't been raped--and unlike some people here, I personally hope none of us do have that happen--but, not having gone through the experience, you're attributing to yourself an inability to cope that could be as unjustified in practice as someone else's assumed hyperability. You might be right, in that you might be able to talk yourself now into incompetence later; so might they be able to talk themselves into competence. Both of you, in my opinion, would benefit from actually doing some self-defense courses - another kind of "fabrication". This may well help you with the other problems you describe. And don't claim you didn't ask for my advice and suggestions; as soon as we post here, we ask us all.
Thirdly, rape isn't the only trauma that can break a person to the point where death becomes positively desirable for its anaesthetic effect. Some people are horribly traumatized by rape and afterwards lead miserable half-existences as shambling twilight people, ash-filled shells of the person they were. Same for those who go through loss of a beloved spouse, gross physical injury, experience war ... and so on. Some people, however, recover. On the whole, I think that's the better outcome.
These are the points I and others have been trying all day to make: (1) the fault for rape lies with the rapist; (2) responsibility for reaction to being raped lies primarily with the victim, secondarily with her friends and family, tertiarally with wider society; (3) it is desirable that people who suffer rape emotionally recover; (4) it is the responsibility of the victim's friends and family, and wider society, to aid that recovery; (5) serious and intelligent advance preparation for the possibility will help in the event; (6) prosecution of the rapist will be traumatic for the victim but it will aid her recovery more than not prosecuting him would (specific exceptions may apply); (7) future victims will be likely to be protected by prosecution of the rapist; (8) prosecution will not be successful without the victim's full involvement; (9) a choice not to be involved in prosecution is hers to make, but must not be encouraged by anyone; (10) such a choice should be met with empathy and with the clear intention of aiding recovery in the future.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 11:50 PM on October 31, 2006
"...no doesn't mean no when it follows a yes and intercourse has begun"
fff: Are your judges generally this retarded
Yeah, really. I think no should mean no, even if it follows a yes, intercourse has begun, ended, and there's been 2 months of dating and a bad break up. Why should a woman give up the right to claim rape, even if she's consented?
In fact why do our soldiers give up the right to walk away from the enlistment contract?
Why can't anyone retroactively put the responsibility for a bad decisiopn on someone else?
All snark aside, I haven't read the merits of that particular case, and if a woman ever told me to stop - I'd stop. But the decision is far from retarded.
Think about it in other contexts - If I loan money to someone, and I change my mind and ask for it back after they've spent it - is it robbery if they don't pay immediately?
I can still pursue them under other (civil) laws, but I can't say they mugged me.
posted by bashos_frog at 4:23 AM on November 1, 2006
fff: Are your judges generally this retarded
Yeah, really. I think no should mean no, even if it follows a yes, intercourse has begun, ended, and there's been 2 months of dating and a bad break up. Why should a woman give up the right to claim rape, even if she's consented?
In fact why do our soldiers give up the right to walk away from the enlistment contract?
Why can't anyone retroactively put the responsibility for a bad decisiopn on someone else?
All snark aside, I haven't read the merits of that particular case, and if a woman ever told me to stop - I'd stop. But the decision is far from retarded.
Think about it in other contexts - If I loan money to someone, and I change my mind and ask for it back after they've spent it - is it robbery if they don't pay immediately?
I can still pursue them under other (civil) laws, but I can't say they mugged me.
posted by bashos_frog at 4:23 AM on November 1, 2006
bashos_frog is right. Sex after a yes, then continuing after a no may be morally wrong and even worthy of being a crime, but it isn't rape.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 4:44 AM on November 1, 2006
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 4:44 AM on November 1, 2006
An honest and classy response, kid ichorous, to a shallow and kneejerk misreading of your comment.
Screw you, pal. Yes, kid ichorous's response was classy and much appreciated, but now I have to replace him with you as King of Stupid. Go read his original comment, look me in the face, and tell me that in any way "means" what he said in his next comment. My comment was an honest response to a direct reading of his; if you want a look at "shallow and kneejerk," head for the nearest mirror.
Talez, I'm not going to call you a troll because I understand where you're coming from and your concern for your friend is admirable, but part of intellectual maturity is realizing that you can't be objective about wider issues when they're having an immediate impact on your life. I'm not saying you shouldn't take part in the thread or discuss the issue, but you should realize your personal involvement is making it difficult if not impossible for you to see the other side.
posted by languagehat at 5:22 AM on November 1, 2006
Screw you, pal. Yes, kid ichorous's response was classy and much appreciated, but now I have to replace him with you as King of Stupid. Go read his original comment, look me in the face, and tell me that in any way "means" what he said in his next comment. My comment was an honest response to a direct reading of his; if you want a look at "shallow and kneejerk," head for the nearest mirror.
Talez, I'm not going to call you a troll because I understand where you're coming from and your concern for your friend is admirable, but part of intellectual maturity is realizing that you can't be objective about wider issues when they're having an immediate impact on your life. I'm not saying you shouldn't take part in the thread or discuss the issue, but you should realize your personal involvement is making it difficult if not impossible for you to see the other side.
posted by languagehat at 5:22 AM on November 1, 2006
"An appellate court said Maryland's rape law is clear -- no doesn't mean no when it follows a yes and intercourse has begun."
That's insane and evil.
I agree that a woman shouldn't be able to yes, have sex five times, break up and then claim rape, but ANYONE should have the right to call things off during the act.
Unless I misunderstand, in Maryland, once a woman says yes, as long as sex has started, she has no ability to back out. If she tries, the man can pin her down and force her.
posted by grumblebee at 5:51 AM on November 1, 2006
That's insane and evil.
I agree that a woman shouldn't be able to yes, have sex five times, break up and then claim rape, but ANYONE should have the right to call things off during the act.
Unless I misunderstand, in Maryland, once a woman says yes, as long as sex has started, she has no ability to back out. If she tries, the man can pin her down and force her.
posted by grumblebee at 5:51 AM on November 1, 2006
bashos_frog is right. Sex after a yes, then continuing after a no may be morally wrong and even worthy of being a crime, but it isn't rape.
Yes, it is rape. How hard is it (no pun intended, honest!) for a man to stop penetrating a vagina when told to stop? If I was having sex with my partner and she said, "no, stop". Stop I would. Anyone who doesn't has no respect fo that person. Be pissed at them after you comply with their wishes.
Jesus, is it such a hard thing to get your head around?
posted by twistedonion at 7:25 AM on November 1, 2006
Yes, it is rape. How hard is it (no pun intended, honest!) for a man to stop penetrating a vagina when told to stop? If I was having sex with my partner and she said, "no, stop". Stop I would. Anyone who doesn't has no respect fo that person. Be pissed at them after you comply with their wishes.
Jesus, is it such a hard thing to get your head around?
posted by twistedonion at 7:25 AM on November 1, 2006
Anyone who doesn't has no respect fo that person.
God help me if the grammar police see this... Anyone who doesn't stop has no respect for that person
posted by twistedonion at 7:26 AM on November 1, 2006
God help me if the grammar police see this... Anyone who doesn't stop has no respect for that person
posted by twistedonion at 7:26 AM on November 1, 2006
If I loan money to someone, and I change my mind and ask for it back after they've spent it - is it robbery if they don't pay immediately?
Comparing forced sex to a loan is pathetic.
I'm sure there have been many occassions where a man and woman start having consensual sex (even partners who have been in a relationship for a while), then the man likes it a bit rougher, woman doesn't... she objects but he carries on rougher than before. Is this not rape?
For such a depresssing topic I actually find this discussion a refreshing change from Iraq and all. Rape is a very emotive topic and that does cloud peoples views, but it is a worthy discussion imo.
posted by twistedonion at 7:33 AM on November 1, 2006
Comparing forced sex to a loan is pathetic.
I'm sure there have been many occassions where a man and woman start having consensual sex (even partners who have been in a relationship for a while), then the man likes it a bit rougher, woman doesn't... she objects but he carries on rougher than before. Is this not rape?
For such a depresssing topic I actually find this discussion a refreshing change from Iraq and all. Rape is a very emotive topic and that does cloud peoples views, but it is a worthy discussion imo.
posted by twistedonion at 7:33 AM on November 1, 2006
bashos_frog is right. Sex after a yes, then continuing after a no may be morally wrong and even worthy of being a crime, but it isn't rape.
Yes, it is rape. How hard is it (no pun intended, honest!) for a man to stop penetrating a vagina when told to stop?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify it. I said right there that it may be wrong and illegal. That still doesn't mean we should automatically call it "rape"; we don't automatically call all homicides murders, and we don't automatically call those who have sex with under-18s pedophiles. The law has a long and well-justified history of defining different grades of offence.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 7:42 AM on November 1, 2006
Yes, it is rape. How hard is it (no pun intended, honest!) for a man to stop penetrating a vagina when told to stop?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify it. I said right there that it may be wrong and illegal. That still doesn't mean we should automatically call it "rape"; we don't automatically call all homicides murders, and we don't automatically call those who have sex with under-18s pedophiles. The law has a long and well-justified history of defining different grades of offence.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 7:42 AM on November 1, 2006
'That still doesn't mean we should automatically call it "rape"'
See, I just don't comprehend that. Forcg penetration is rape. To me it's really clear cut. Treat me like an idiot... Define rape for me.
posted by twistedonion at 7:57 AM on November 1, 2006
See, I just don't comprehend that. Forcg penetration is rape. To me it's really clear cut. Treat me like an idiot... Define rape for me.
posted by twistedonion at 7:57 AM on November 1, 2006
The law has a long and well-justified history of defining different grades of offence.
Well where I'm from, the law calls both rape and an unwanted pat on the bum "sexual assault", which doesn't help the cause of clarity much.
I once watched "Excalibur" with a couple of women who were talking animatedly afterward about the "rape scene". Er, what rape scene, I asked. "What rape scene?! What scene do you think?" Um, I'm thinking, really I am. I'd like to think I'd remember a thing like that.
Well turns out they meant when Uther gets Merlin to disguise him as his rival so he can bed his wife. The wife thinks he's her husband, so it's not really consent, so it was rape. Anyway, not exactly on point, but just when you think a definition is clear-cut, it goes and gets all muddy again. (me, I think that permitting "deception" to vitiate consent would make criminals of 90% of the people who go home from the bar together)
That being said... yeah, I can't see how "yes then no" isn't withdrawing consent. It clearly isn't even mistaken consent. What's the guy thinking? That this is like one of those math number set questions, where the next in the series is going to be "yes" again?
posted by dreamsign at 8:11 AM on November 1, 2006
Well where I'm from, the law calls both rape and an unwanted pat on the bum "sexual assault", which doesn't help the cause of clarity much.
I once watched "Excalibur" with a couple of women who were talking animatedly afterward about the "rape scene". Er, what rape scene, I asked. "What rape scene?! What scene do you think?" Um, I'm thinking, really I am. I'd like to think I'd remember a thing like that.
Well turns out they meant when Uther gets Merlin to disguise him as his rival so he can bed his wife. The wife thinks he's her husband, so it's not really consent, so it was rape. Anyway, not exactly on point, but just when you think a definition is clear-cut, it goes and gets all muddy again. (me, I think that permitting "deception" to vitiate consent would make criminals of 90% of the people who go home from the bar together)
That being said... yeah, I can't see how "yes then no" isn't withdrawing consent. It clearly isn't even mistaken consent. What's the guy thinking? That this is like one of those math number set questions, where the next in the series is going to be "yes" again?
posted by dreamsign at 8:11 AM on November 1, 2006
OMG. I can't believe there are people defending the Maryland ruling. Little wonder the USA is on a steep path to becoming the shittiest of shitholes.
Here's my offer, Bashos: agree to let me fuck you in the ass. Just this once, just so you can learn experientially why the Maryland ruling is retarded. Because once I start, and you find out that your tender asshole is a little too small and a little too unlubricated, and I start to shred you from the inside out, you just might get a clue as to why No Means No.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:16 AM on November 1, 2006
Here's my offer, Bashos: agree to let me fuck you in the ass. Just this once, just so you can learn experientially why the Maryland ruling is retarded. Because once I start, and you find out that your tender asshole is a little too small and a little too unlubricated, and I start to shred you from the inside out, you just might get a clue as to why No Means No.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:16 AM on November 1, 2006
still doesn't mean we should automatically call it "rape";
Except this WAS rape. Clear cut case of rape. If you think otherwise, I hope all women steer clear of you for your entire life.
posted by agregoli at 8:17 AM on November 1, 2006
Except this WAS rape. Clear cut case of rape. If you think otherwise, I hope all women steer clear of you for your entire life.
posted by agregoli at 8:17 AM on November 1, 2006
Whilst we're talking about rape and what an emotive word it is I want to write about this from a male perspective. I thought about not writing this or maybe posting anonymously, but I suppose it's not that big a deal.
Quite a few years ago I was dating someone; we were pretty young but the relationship was serious. One summer she went on vacation with her family. When she came back she seemed a different person and I naturally thought that she'd cheated on me. I was angry and hurt but I couldn't understand why she kept crying. Eventually after quite a while of us both being upset she told me that she'd been drugged and raped. It was obviously devastating for her, but it also affected me deeply. It was a very hard thing to deal with personally, especially with the feelings of rage I had for the perpetrator.
We broke up a few months later, she’s moved on with her life, but I’m pretty sure that this still affects her. I know that this event affected me deeply. The point of all this is that there may be other people affected by such an attack.
So, when we talk about getting over-emotional as far as rape is concerned, that may be so, but when I hear about someone being found guilty of rape, the logical and fair side of me feels that that person should go to prison and pay their debt to society, but a little part of me has a much more extreme and violent reaction, and I suppose that I always will.
posted by ob at 8:17 AM on November 1, 2006
Quite a few years ago I was dating someone; we were pretty young but the relationship was serious. One summer she went on vacation with her family. When she came back she seemed a different person and I naturally thought that she'd cheated on me. I was angry and hurt but I couldn't understand why she kept crying. Eventually after quite a while of us both being upset she told me that she'd been drugged and raped. It was obviously devastating for her, but it also affected me deeply. It was a very hard thing to deal with personally, especially with the feelings of rage I had for the perpetrator.
We broke up a few months later, she’s moved on with her life, but I’m pretty sure that this still affects her. I know that this event affected me deeply. The point of all this is that there may be other people affected by such an attack.
So, when we talk about getting over-emotional as far as rape is concerned, that may be so, but when I hear about someone being found guilty of rape, the logical and fair side of me feels that that person should go to prison and pay their debt to society, but a little part of me has a much more extreme and violent reaction, and I suppose that I always will.
posted by ob at 8:17 AM on November 1, 2006
still doesn't mean we should automatically call it "rape";
Except this WAS rape. Clear cut case of rape.
OK, call it a matter of semantics if you like, but I do believe there is value in using different words for different things.
Stranger-in-the-park rape is different from yes-then-no rape. They're both bad, they're both illegal, but that doesn't mean we have to lump them together, or should. Here is an example of the issue being complicated.
If you think otherwise, I hope all women steer clear of you for your entire life.
It is hard to stay civil on MetaFilter sometimes...
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 8:37 AM on November 1, 2006
Except this WAS rape. Clear cut case of rape.
OK, call it a matter of semantics if you like, but I do believe there is value in using different words for different things.
Stranger-in-the-park rape is different from yes-then-no rape. They're both bad, they're both illegal, but that doesn't mean we have to lump them together, or should. Here is an example of the issue being complicated.
If you think otherwise, I hope all women steer clear of you for your entire life.
It is hard to stay civil on MetaFilter sometimes...
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 8:37 AM on November 1, 2006
I have a feeling a number of men across the country may experience a severe sinking feeling in their stomachs over the next few weeks when they open an envelope hand-addressed to them with no return, and find a clipping of this article, and nothing else, inside.
At least, I hope so.
posted by jamjam at 10:04 AM on November 1, 2006
At least, I hope so.
posted by jamjam at 10:04 AM on November 1, 2006
hoverboards seems to get what I was talking about.
However, I have read the decision now, at least the first 38 pages of it that deal with the consent issue, and I have thought more about it, and am willing to admit that at least somewhat I was defending the indefensible.
As the decision mentions in reference - "The continuation of sexual intercourse after consent has been withdrawn and the presence of force or fear, is rape."
I agree with this 100%. I also agree that this is as a severe crime as never having consent in the first place. But what has transpired up until that point is not rape, and the elements of force and/or fear are necessary for a crime to be committed.
I still don't think the decision was retarded, because it hinges on a technicality in MD law, which obviously needs to be addressed. The law is retarded as it stands.
There is still a very slippery slope regarding the application of some of the details in this case to other situations. The accused in this case says he stopped immediately, and the victim says it took him 5-10 seconds. Either way it is pretty quick. Can 5 seconds make a difference between acquittal and conviction? One second? How long does it take to say "are you sure?," "really?," or "what did you say?" - long enough to become a rapist, it seems.
If a woman said "stop" to me during sex, I can easily imagine borderline cases where it might take me 5 seconds to figure out if it was "stop, the vibrator is digging into my back" or "stop, I feel guilty about my fiance" or "stop, I changed my mind and I want to go now."
I think the application of force in any of those scenarios is rape, but without force the second scenario becomes a lot more ambiguous.
Even more ambiguous is those cases, where it will be, instead of a clear-cut "stop," something more along the lines of "we shouldn't be doing this," or "I feel really bad about this whole thing."
Let me make clear that I always stop whenever I hear "stop", regardless, even though I'm married and pretty much understand what my wife means, at least in this regard.
But the ambiguity remains an issue. Before I was married, I once had a woman go down on me, and continue well after I had said "stop it, I can't take anymore" - by some people's standards it seems, that was sexual assault. I don't agree, and I find it hard to see a bright line there for the law.
Lastly, FFF, while your offer is flattering, I am very careful about whom I would consent to have in my butt in the first place, and sadly, you're not on the list - although you do seem like a charming, intelligent type of person, and we share mostly the same politics.
So, no consent for now, but maybe if you keep trying, buy me a nice dinner, a few drinks (but not enough to reduce my ability to give informed consent)...
posted by bashos_frog at 10:25 AM on November 1, 2006
However, I have read the decision now, at least the first 38 pages of it that deal with the consent issue, and I have thought more about it, and am willing to admit that at least somewhat I was defending the indefensible.
As the decision mentions in reference - "The continuation of sexual intercourse after consent has been withdrawn and the presence of force or fear, is rape."
I agree with this 100%. I also agree that this is as a severe crime as never having consent in the first place. But what has transpired up until that point is not rape, and the elements of force and/or fear are necessary for a crime to be committed.
I still don't think the decision was retarded, because it hinges on a technicality in MD law, which obviously needs to be addressed. The law is retarded as it stands.
There is still a very slippery slope regarding the application of some of the details in this case to other situations. The accused in this case says he stopped immediately, and the victim says it took him 5-10 seconds. Either way it is pretty quick. Can 5 seconds make a difference between acquittal and conviction? One second? How long does it take to say "are you sure?," "really?," or "what did you say?" - long enough to become a rapist, it seems.
If a woman said "stop" to me during sex, I can easily imagine borderline cases where it might take me 5 seconds to figure out if it was "stop, the vibrator is digging into my back" or "stop, I feel guilty about my fiance" or "stop, I changed my mind and I want to go now."
I think the application of force in any of those scenarios is rape, but without force the second scenario becomes a lot more ambiguous.
Even more ambiguous is those cases, where it will be, instead of a clear-cut "stop," something more along the lines of "we shouldn't be doing this," or "I feel really bad about this whole thing."
Let me make clear that I always stop whenever I hear "stop", regardless, even though I'm married and pretty much understand what my wife means, at least in this regard.
But the ambiguity remains an issue. Before I was married, I once had a woman go down on me, and continue well after I had said "stop it, I can't take anymore" - by some people's standards it seems, that was sexual assault. I don't agree, and I find it hard to see a bright line there for the law.
Lastly, FFF, while your offer is flattering, I am very careful about whom I would consent to have in my butt in the first place, and sadly, you're not on the list - although you do seem like a charming, intelligent type of person, and we share mostly the same politics.
So, no consent for now, but maybe if you keep trying, buy me a nice dinner, a few drinks (but not enough to reduce my ability to give informed consent)...
posted by bashos_frog at 10:25 AM on November 1, 2006
I can't help but wonder ...
... how different would this mefi discussion be if the woman were a man telling about his experience of being raped when he was a 16 year old boy?
Rape (and the discussion of it) is very telling of the level of misogyny in a society.
posted by Surfurrus at 11:07 AM on November 1, 2006
... how different would this mefi discussion be if the woman were a man telling about his experience of being raped when he was a 16 year old boy?
Rape (and the discussion of it) is very telling of the level of misogyny in a society.
posted by Surfurrus at 11:07 AM on November 1, 2006
If a young boy was abused by a camp counselor, and later found out that the guy was about to adopt a young boy, I'd have pretty much the same reaction - he should speak out, or at least send an anonymous warning letter to the boy's mother.
But I also wonder what the reaction would be, if an 18 year old man told a 16 year old girl, during sex, to "stop it!" and she took 5-10 seconds to climax and stop. I don't think there'd be nearly as much clamoring to put the 16 year old in jail.
(The 'girl' in the Maryland case was 18 and the 'man' was 16)
posted by bashos_frog at 12:31 PM on November 1, 2006
But I also wonder what the reaction would be, if an 18 year old man told a 16 year old girl, during sex, to "stop it!" and she took 5-10 seconds to climax and stop. I don't think there'd be nearly as much clamoring to put the 16 year old in jail.
(The 'girl' in the Maryland case was 18 and the 'man' was 16)
posted by bashos_frog at 12:31 PM on November 1, 2006
OK, call it a matter of semantics if you like, but I do believe there is value in using different words for different things. Stranger-in-the-park rape is different from yes-then-no rape. They're both bad, they're both illegal, but that doesn't mean we have to lump them together, or should. Here is an example of the issue being complicated.
THIS WASN'T YES-THAN-NO RAPE.
I can't get any clearer than that. She was violently raped, said no, and still got raped. That's not yes-than-no rape. This is NOT an example of the issue being complicated. Did we read the same story?
And yes, it's hard for me to be civil when it's clear I'm talking to someone who wants to muddle the issue of this poor woman's experience. She was raped. Clear-cut, no-mistake-about-it raped. Semantic arguments are pretty offensive in the face of that.
posted by agregoli at 12:39 PM on November 1, 2006
THIS WASN'T YES-THAN-NO RAPE.
I can't get any clearer than that. She was violently raped, said no, and still got raped. That's not yes-than-no rape. This is NOT an example of the issue being complicated. Did we read the same story?
And yes, it's hard for me to be civil when it's clear I'm talking to someone who wants to muddle the issue of this poor woman's experience. She was raped. Clear-cut, no-mistake-about-it raped. Semantic arguments are pretty offensive in the face of that.
posted by agregoli at 12:39 PM on November 1, 2006
I apologize if you're talking about the other case, the Maryland one, although the Maryland ruling is absolutely absurd as well. I get far too emotional on this subject as I have several friends who have been raped, and some of the attitudes and opinions on this thread being expressed are downright vomit-inducing.
posted by agregoli at 12:57 PM on November 1, 2006
posted by agregoli at 12:57 PM on November 1, 2006
Discussing whether a victim should go to the police, and discussing why she in fact might not, is not the same as blaming her for not going to the police. As Jilder's story illustrates, there are potential consequences which may fall onto other people, as a result of a victim not speaking up. That, the possibility of harm to others through your inaction, creates the ethical obligation.
First, not everyone was trying to make such a distinction. My heated comment was directed at the ones who outright blamed her for not reporting it.
I do not believe she has any ethical obligation to report this. By attempting to create one you merely add to the shame, despite attempts to counterbalance and excuse it. Who are you to impose an ethical obligation upon a victim? It would seem that the people bantying this crap around really fail to understand the emotions associated with rape and your attitudes only further the humiliation victims feel, despite your failed attempts at sensitivy by excusing the victims' behavior. They have nothing to excuse.
posted by caddis at 1:14 PM on November 1, 2006
First, not everyone was trying to make such a distinction. My heated comment was directed at the ones who outright blamed her for not reporting it.
I do not believe she has any ethical obligation to report this. By attempting to create one you merely add to the shame, despite attempts to counterbalance and excuse it. Who are you to impose an ethical obligation upon a victim? It would seem that the people bantying this crap around really fail to understand the emotions associated with rape and your attitudes only further the humiliation victims feel, despite your failed attempts at sensitivy by excusing the victims' behavior. They have nothing to excuse.
posted by caddis at 1:14 PM on November 1, 2006
"Sometimes feeling strongly, viscerally, about an issue does not equip us at all to solve it. Sometimes it gets in the way. Take one of the comments in this thread: [quotation] What do you expect me to think, when hyperbole like this flies about? Not to mention that the cultures alluded to above would more likely suicide the victim..." -- kid ichorous
That was not hyperbole. It was a serious answer to a very specific question posed by an earlier poster kdar. It was not based on a strong emotion about rape or anything else. It was not directly about the article or about rape. It was a long-considered conclusion about the peripheral issue raised by kdar.
Furthermore, it was obvious that my line was an answer to a periperal issue raised by kdar, and that it was not directly about rape or the article. The question to which it was an answer was quoted directly above my answer.
In addition you cited my statement as an example of "feeling strongly about an issue ... get[ting] in the way [of] equip[ping] us at all to solve it" despite the fact that my statement was sandwiched between a calm expression of compassion for the writer and a statement which specifically denounced the angry, vengeful attitudes.
And of course, by endorsing a hypothetical suicide option for a hypothetical offender, by allusion to traditional Asian practice, I was not endorsing suicide for the very different occasions for which it was approved in Asian cultures. I omitted this point partly because I thought it would be understood as obvious, and partly because kdar's specific question which I was addressing was already on the verge of going off topic.
And then, what do you mean by "suicide the victim"? If the difference between suicide and homicide is unclear to you, consult a dictionary. It seems, too, that you may be confusing the hari-kiri tradition with the "honor killings" more characteristic of profoundly different cultures centered thousands of kilometers distant from those to which I referred.
It was so clear that my statement that you quoted was far from an example of what you held it out to be, that it is hard to understand how you could misunderstand it so completely. Were you deliberately intending to misrepresent my post? Did you just skim through and select something that caught your eye without even reading the whole post? Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Were you trolling? What's wrong with you?
posted by jam_pony at 1:15 PM on November 1, 2006
That was not hyperbole. It was a serious answer to a very specific question posed by an earlier poster kdar. It was not based on a strong emotion about rape or anything else. It was not directly about the article or about rape. It was a long-considered conclusion about the peripheral issue raised by kdar.
Furthermore, it was obvious that my line was an answer to a periperal issue raised by kdar, and that it was not directly about rape or the article. The question to which it was an answer was quoted directly above my answer.
In addition you cited my statement as an example of "feeling strongly about an issue ... get[ting] in the way [of] equip[ping] us at all to solve it" despite the fact that my statement was sandwiched between a calm expression of compassion for the writer and a statement which specifically denounced the angry, vengeful attitudes.
And of course, by endorsing a hypothetical suicide option for a hypothetical offender, by allusion to traditional Asian practice, I was not endorsing suicide for the very different occasions for which it was approved in Asian cultures. I omitted this point partly because I thought it would be understood as obvious, and partly because kdar's specific question which I was addressing was already on the verge of going off topic.
And then, what do you mean by "suicide the victim"? If the difference between suicide and homicide is unclear to you, consult a dictionary. It seems, too, that you may be confusing the hari-kiri tradition with the "honor killings" more characteristic of profoundly different cultures centered thousands of kilometers distant from those to which I referred.
It was so clear that my statement that you quoted was far from an example of what you held it out to be, that it is hard to understand how you could misunderstand it so completely. Were you deliberately intending to misrepresent my post? Did you just skim through and select something that caught your eye without even reading the whole post? Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Were you trolling? What's wrong with you?
posted by jam_pony at 1:15 PM on November 1, 2006
The "anonymous warning letter" isn't likely to be effective and may put the victim in further danger or legal trouble. If the wife/fiancee/partner gets an anonymous letter accusing her partner of rape many years ago, how likely is she to believe that in the face of a partner who she presumably loves and has an intimate relationship with? I know I would be extremely unlikely to believe any kind of anonymous accusation against anyone I care about; I'd assume it was some sicko getting their jollies by causing trouble, or an ex-colleague with an axe to grind.
And then, if the woman shows her partner the anonymous letter, it probably isn't too difficult for him to work out who is accusing him (if he remembers her name) and stalk/scare/threaten her.
posted by andraste at 1:54 PM on November 1, 2006
And then, if the woman shows her partner the anonymous letter, it probably isn't too difficult for him to work out who is accusing him (if he remembers her name) and stalk/scare/threaten her.
posted by andraste at 1:54 PM on November 1, 2006
caddis By attempting to create one you merely add to the shame, despite attempts to counterbalance and excuse it. Who are you to impose an ethical obligation upon a victim?
I don't impose an ethical obligation, and you can't remove it. The situation itself creates one. If your actions impact on another person, then you definitely have an ethical obligation to that person. This is almost a tautology: an obligation is equivalent to a capacity to affect. Unpleasantness of meeting an obligation doesn't remove the obligation, it just makes not meeting the obligation more and more reasonable. It isn't up to you or me to "excuse" (ie, judge) her for not meeting the obligation, either. It's not so strong an obligation.
I suspect this might come back to the "blame" vs "explanation" issue, ie whether it is possible to say "A had an obligation (of strength N) to do action X" without implying "A is a bad person for not doing action X". Obviously I think it is entirely possible, and I think what makes it possible is "A had an obligation to do action X, but because of the circumstances, could not." YMMV.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:49 PM on November 1, 2006
I don't impose an ethical obligation, and you can't remove it. The situation itself creates one. If your actions impact on another person, then you definitely have an ethical obligation to that person. This is almost a tautology: an obligation is equivalent to a capacity to affect. Unpleasantness of meeting an obligation doesn't remove the obligation, it just makes not meeting the obligation more and more reasonable. It isn't up to you or me to "excuse" (ie, judge) her for not meeting the obligation, either. It's not so strong an obligation.
I suspect this might come back to the "blame" vs "explanation" issue, ie whether it is possible to say "A had an obligation (of strength N) to do action X" without implying "A is a bad person for not doing action X". Obviously I think it is entirely possible, and I think what makes it possible is "A had an obligation to do action X, but because of the circumstances, could not." YMMV.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:49 PM on November 1, 2006
I apologize if my answer was too harsh kid ichorous. I've made mistakes here too. But please try to interpret posts correctly if you're going to quote them, to avoid confusing or adding contentiousness to a thread.
posted by jam_pony at 2:54 PM on November 1, 2006
posted by jam_pony at 2:54 PM on November 1, 2006
Your action in blaming the victim impacts the victim. By your logic you have an ethical obligation to shush yourself to help future victims. :)
posted by caddis at 2:54 PM on November 1, 2006
posted by caddis at 2:54 PM on November 1, 2006
(6) prosecution of the rapist will be traumatic for the victim but it will aid her recovery more than not prosecuting him would (specific exceptions may apply); (7) future victims will be likely to be protected by prosecution of the rapist; (8) prosecution will not be successful without the victim's full involvement; (9) a choice not to be involved in prosecution is hers to make, but must not be encouraged by anyone;
Prosecution is not always successful. This is especially true when the perpetrator and victim had a prior relationship (of any kind) and when physical evidence is limited. And before there can be prosecution, a suspect must be apprehended. According to the most recent available statistics from the FBI (2004) fewer than 45% of reported rapes ever lead to "law enforcement clearance" which includes arrest, but is also the status given a case when the victim is unable or unwilling to proceed with providing further evidence, testimony, etc.
I also think it's particularly naive and not supported by evidence to suggest that prosecution, even if successful, will aid in a victim's recovery more than the alternative. That's not something that can be presumed. That's not even true for those victims whose rapists are convicted with overwhelming evidence and given lengthy sentences.
The repeated trauma -- both physical and psychological -- associated with reporting a sexual assault and following the case through as a "cooperative" victim can provide healing. It can also lengthen and exacerbate the negative emotional consequence of having been attacked. It is up to each victim to decide if they are personally capable of enduring that trauma, and if the odds that it will accomplish something (and in fact, what it is meant to accomplish) is worth it to them. It's nice to suggest that there are greater, altruistic ethical responsibilities that attach to a victim, but even if there are, the priority attached to that responsibility is as near to nil as can be.
posted by Dreama at 3:52 PM on November 1, 2006
Prosecution is not always successful. This is especially true when the perpetrator and victim had a prior relationship (of any kind) and when physical evidence is limited. And before there can be prosecution, a suspect must be apprehended. According to the most recent available statistics from the FBI (2004) fewer than 45% of reported rapes ever lead to "law enforcement clearance" which includes arrest, but is also the status given a case when the victim is unable or unwilling to proceed with providing further evidence, testimony, etc.
I also think it's particularly naive and not supported by evidence to suggest that prosecution, even if successful, will aid in a victim's recovery more than the alternative. That's not something that can be presumed. That's not even true for those victims whose rapists are convicted with overwhelming evidence and given lengthy sentences.
The repeated trauma -- both physical and psychological -- associated with reporting a sexual assault and following the case through as a "cooperative" victim can provide healing. It can also lengthen and exacerbate the negative emotional consequence of having been attacked. It is up to each victim to decide if they are personally capable of enduring that trauma, and if the odds that it will accomplish something (and in fact, what it is meant to accomplish) is worth it to them. It's nice to suggest that there are greater, altruistic ethical responsibilities that attach to a victim, but even if there are, the priority attached to that responsibility is as near to nil as can be.
posted by Dreama at 3:52 PM on November 1, 2006
Your action in blaming the victim impacts the victim. By your logic you have an ethical obligation to shush yourself to help future victims. :)
Perhaps if I was blaming the victim that might be so. I've attempted three times now to explain to you the distinction between acknowledging the existence of an unmet obligation, and blaming a person for that. So either (1) you're intellectually incapable of understanding the difference; or (2) you disagree but are too inarticulate and/or lazy to actually explain the basis of your disagreement in any kind of convincing manner, preferring insults and mere repetitious insistence that you disagree; or (3) you're trolling.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:53 PM on November 1, 2006
Perhaps if I was blaming the victim that might be so. I've attempted three times now to explain to you the distinction between acknowledging the existence of an unmet obligation, and blaming a person for that. So either (1) you're intellectually incapable of understanding the difference; or (2) you disagree but are too inarticulate and/or lazy to actually explain the basis of your disagreement in any kind of convincing manner, preferring insults and mere repetitious insistence that you disagree; or (3) you're trolling.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:53 PM on November 1, 2006
Dreama I also think it's particularly naive and not supported by evidence to suggest that prosecution, even if successful, will aid in a victim's recovery more than the alternative. That's not something that can be presumed. That's not even true for those victims whose rapists are convicted with overwhelming evidence and given lengthy sentences.
Isn't this a presumption inherent in our culture and our system of law, though, for any crime? That prosecution of a criminal is a positive good for the victim of the crime themselves? At least, as a substitute for anarchic vengeance based on individual capacity to perform it. I'm not saying this is actually correct, but if it isn't, it goes unquestioned a lot.
It's nice to suggest that there are greater, altruistic ethical responsibilities that attach to a victim, but even if there are, the priority attached to that responsibility is as near to nil as can be.
I'm arguing that the circumstances are dire enough to outweigh even a fairly strong responsibility. I don't think we're in disagreement, practically speaking. I'm really just arguing that it's up to the victim to "decide" (noting that little of that decision will be free and voluntary) her own actions with regard to prosecution of the rapist, and included in that decision is a responsibility to other potential victims, even if it doesn't occur to her and thus she gives it no actual thought. This isn't "me knowing better", it's a statement that unconsidered factors in decision-making still exist. In a similar way she might be pregnant but not yet be aware of that, and therefore give the matter of the child no thought; this doesn't void the existence of the child.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:49 PM on November 1, 2006
Isn't this a presumption inherent in our culture and our system of law, though, for any crime? That prosecution of a criminal is a positive good for the victim of the crime themselves? At least, as a substitute for anarchic vengeance based on individual capacity to perform it. I'm not saying this is actually correct, but if it isn't, it goes unquestioned a lot.
It's nice to suggest that there are greater, altruistic ethical responsibilities that attach to a victim, but even if there are, the priority attached to that responsibility is as near to nil as can be.
I'm arguing that the circumstances are dire enough to outweigh even a fairly strong responsibility. I don't think we're in disagreement, practically speaking. I'm really just arguing that it's up to the victim to "decide" (noting that little of that decision will be free and voluntary) her own actions with regard to prosecution of the rapist, and included in that decision is a responsibility to other potential victims, even if it doesn't occur to her and thus she gives it no actual thought. This isn't "me knowing better", it's a statement that unconsidered factors in decision-making still exist. In a similar way she might be pregnant but not yet be aware of that, and therefore give the matter of the child no thought; this doesn't void the existence of the child.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:49 PM on November 1, 2006
If your actions impact on another person, then you definitely have an ethical obligation to that person.
This statement is absurd.
Frankly, it all comes down to semantics. Your version hurts the victim. You say that ethical obligations attach upon impact, but then can be excused away. I say ethical obligations attach when on balance the harm to the victim is less than the potential good. Your version puts a burden on the victim from the start. It's all a construct and the way you have formed your construct is not at all helpful to victims. I perceive this as a lack of compassion on your part, that is that although you profess compassion in excusing a victim's moral lapse, you fail to fully understand the emotions faced by a victim of such a crime, but that is just my gut reaction.
posted by caddis at 5:39 PM on November 1, 2006
This statement is absurd.
Frankly, it all comes down to semantics. Your version hurts the victim. You say that ethical obligations attach upon impact, but then can be excused away. I say ethical obligations attach when on balance the harm to the victim is less than the potential good. Your version puts a burden on the victim from the start. It's all a construct and the way you have formed your construct is not at all helpful to victims. I perceive this as a lack of compassion on your part, that is that although you profess compassion in excusing a victim's moral lapse, you fail to fully understand the emotions faced by a victim of such a crime, but that is just my gut reaction.
posted by caddis at 5:39 PM on November 1, 2006
My actions undoubtedly have impact on, say, the lives of Chinese factory slaves. It's become nigh impossible to avoid participating in that. What is my ethical obligation to them?
bashos: And I, too, am guilty of taking it too far the other way. I hope my mistake is on the correct side, because it's a steep slippery slope in either direction: even the issue of "immediate" versus "quickly" or "soon" could become a point that differentiates rape from consensual sex.
I guess the side I fall upon when those grey areas start to become the keystone to a case is one that protects women to the point where men should protect themselves by not readily hopping in bed too quick. You gotta wait until you can rightfully trust your partner, else you're really putting your life into a stranger's hands.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:10 PM on November 1, 2006
bashos: And I, too, am guilty of taking it too far the other way. I hope my mistake is on the correct side, because it's a steep slippery slope in either direction: even the issue of "immediate" versus "quickly" or "soon" could become a point that differentiates rape from consensual sex.
I guess the side I fall upon when those grey areas start to become the keystone to a case is one that protects women to the point where men should protect themselves by not readily hopping in bed too quick. You gotta wait until you can rightfully trust your partner, else you're really putting your life into a stranger's hands.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:10 PM on November 1, 2006
caddis I say ethical obligations attach when on balance the harm to the victim is less than the potential good. Your version puts a burden on the victim from the start.
Thank you for properly explaining your point. However, I think that harm and/or good are both examples of potential effects. You can't measure how much action X of person A harms person B without first having acknowledged that person A can, by their actions, affect person B. That's why I take that view, ie attachment on impact; I think the duty of consideration of harm or good comes with the potential to do harm or good.
Which brings up FFF's point, My actions undoubtedly have impact on, say, the lives of Chinese factory slaves. It's become nigh impossible to avoid participating in that. What is my ethical obligation to them?
I'm not sure what our ethical obligation to them requires us to do, but I do believe we have an ethical obligation to them, and our nations have ethical and legal obligations to their nations, etc. Personally I vote for political parties that favor increasing worker rights and/or decreasing corporation rights, I sign petitions when asked to do so, and not much else. If we choose to ignore that obligation, and my own "contribution" isn't far from ignoring it, then the only consequences to us are a feeling of guilt for it. Is that guilt legitimate? Do you think we have no obligation to them at all? Do those who want to deny the obligation do so because they actually don't think it exists, or just because they'd like to avoid the guilt?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:13 PM on November 1, 2006
Thank you for properly explaining your point. However, I think that harm and/or good are both examples of potential effects. You can't measure how much action X of person A harms person B without first having acknowledged that person A can, by their actions, affect person B. That's why I take that view, ie attachment on impact; I think the duty of consideration of harm or good comes with the potential to do harm or good.
Which brings up FFF's point, My actions undoubtedly have impact on, say, the lives of Chinese factory slaves. It's become nigh impossible to avoid participating in that. What is my ethical obligation to them?
I'm not sure what our ethical obligation to them requires us to do, but I do believe we have an ethical obligation to them, and our nations have ethical and legal obligations to their nations, etc. Personally I vote for political parties that favor increasing worker rights and/or decreasing corporation rights, I sign petitions when asked to do so, and not much else. If we choose to ignore that obligation, and my own "contribution" isn't far from ignoring it, then the only consequences to us are a feeling of guilt for it. Is that guilt legitimate? Do you think we have no obligation to them at all? Do those who want to deny the obligation do so because they actually don't think it exists, or just because they'd like to avoid the guilt?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:13 PM on November 1, 2006
Isn't this a presumption inherent in our culture and our system of law, though, for any crime? That prosecution of a criminal is a positive good for the victim of the crime themselves?
It is a presumption, and it's a horrible one that often causes significant damage to already damaged people. It's a necessary evil of the system, but it's not an evil that any individual should feel obligated to absorb themselves.
posted by Dreama at 9:01 PM on November 1, 2006
It is a presumption, and it's a horrible one that often causes significant damage to already damaged people. It's a necessary evil of the system, but it's not an evil that any individual should feel obligated to absorb themselves.
posted by Dreama at 9:01 PM on November 1, 2006
« Older Enduring Outrage: Editorial Cartoons by Herblock | ...who's the grayest of them all? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Gankmore at 12:17 PM on October 31, 2006