Jump to content
IGNORED

LAF-Cover Rape


debrand

Recommended Posts

today rape has almost lost its meaning in the wash of rampant fornication and "hooking up."

I can't believe she just said this. I can't even formulate a proper response to this article, it's so horribly sexist and jus wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The Stinking Fishwife and her ilk blame the feminists and the sexualization of childhood (don't get the link between those two) for the Sandusky thing.

Instead of blaming Sandusky the criminal pervert, it's the fault of society according to the Fishwife and her minions.

I find it odd, because I really haven't heard of anyone who is not completely outraged by the entire Penn State story and find the rapes and the cover-up entirely unacceptable.

Oh, and Herman Cain? That's not his fault either, according to the Fishwife and her clan, regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct/harassment at work.

(Note to Mrs. Cain: You have no idea of the way your husband acts at work. Just because you show up at the Christmas parties, and people come up and say how nice your husband is, does not mean you have a freakin clue how he acts when you are not there).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The response that I linked to is actually older so I don't think that it had anything to do with Penn State. They had written an article on how a woman's clothing choices are a factor in rape but I can't find that particular article. Back when I was on Catholic Answers' forum, someone linked to it. Thankfully, most people were appalled by it but there was one guy who loved it. I wish that I could find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an exercise in masochism that I even read anything that fundies have to say about rape. My rage is spent for the most part, so I can't even conjure up too much.

When I was assaulted, it was in February in Pennsylvania and I was wearing a calf-length coat that made me look like the Michelin man. Those my age and older will remember those big quilted coats, as they were a bit of a rage at the time. Epic fashion fail - lol. I also had a hat and scarf on and I doubt very seriously whether my perpetrator could tell if I was a beauty queen or ugly as a dog's hind end, or if I was 17 or 57. And honestly, it didn't matter. I was just at the wrong place at the wrong time (leaving my department store job and walking to my car - so yeah, not tomato-staked to my "authority"). Nothing more, nothing less. I was someone to assault, to control, to overwhelm. That's all.

And what about 80-year-old women getting raped in their own homes? Those whores. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

today rape has almost lost its meaning in the wash of rampant fornication and "hooking up."

somehow it got lost that it wasn't you who said that alba...just wanted to point that out again so no one thinks those thoughts are coming from you. :)

there is an, um, VAST difference between rape and "hooking up".

what is it? hmm...let me think...hooking up is CONSENSUAL!??!

I mean probably women would be safer if they were accompanied by a men at all times. Unfortunately. Whose fault is that?

Not the womens'. Men have dicks, yes. Men have needs, yes. Men also come with brains that they can use to decide that random women are NOT there to satisfy their needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so full of fail I don't even know where to begin. Add me to the membership list of Good Girls Who Were Raped Anyway. Which, by the way, includes EVERY rape victim, because no woman is "bad" enough to deserve rape. WTF is up with the idea that some people "deserve" to be raped, anyway? That is such rotten thinking it stinks worse than the Fishwife.

The assbastard who raped me lived in a guesthouse for young men involved in my religious cult. He had been stalking me for weeks, and I had told him I was not interested, I had a boyfriend, please leave me alone, etc. Other men in the group watched him doing this. Far from "protecting" me, they encouraged him, and threw me in his way as often as possible. One night he insisted on walking me home from a prayer meeting, because he said I would not be safe on my own. When we reached the house where I rented a room (because I would get corrupted in the eeevil university dorms, according to my father), the landlady was not home. He insisted he would come inside, "just for a minute," to make sure I was safe. And then he raped me. And I couldn't even call it rape to myself for years, because I thought i must have been asking for it. He told me so.

I had been trained since birth not to say no to men, not to stick up for myself, not EVER to punch a man in the face, slam the door on him, and scream NO. I was modest and quiet and knew better than to do anything to call attention to myself. Training girls to submit to men is TRAINING THEM TO BE RAPED. Sorry for the flaming capital letters, but I can't shout that loudly enough. "Lady" Lydia is preparing her own daughters for a world of hurt, and she doesn't even care, because she is a selfish cow who thinks only of her own smug, self-protective little shell of sanctimony. Oh my goodness, if only I'd thought to wear a head-covering and a pink petticoat with ruffles on it! Then I surely would not have been raped. :evil: I'm so mad I can't even see straight right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm, it's still theft if I leave my car unlocked, with the keys in it even, and someone who doesn't own it drives off with it. A poor decision on the part of the victim does not negate the criminality of another's action.

'Lady' Lydia is so dumb, it makes me think she needs the cover of her headship or whatever wacky terminology they have for it.

I don't dress (IMO) like a harlot, though I would earn a frequent "Uh oh!" from that Fish with Trish lunatic. I like my tops that show a hint of cleavage, and form-fitting dresses. If someone can't recognize that I'm both quite bright and have great breasts, I don't see that as my problem. Women don't have to choose between being valued as sexy and valued as something else (intelligent, moral, domestic, even) in the normal world.

Emphasis mine and QFT. And an addendum, which is how you dress is nothing at all leaving the keys in the car of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lydia and Jenny's obsession with blaming everyone but the menz for sexual assault is as clear a sign as I need to be thoroughly convinced that their husbands/fathers/sons/brothers (some close male figure) have committed rape, and their insistence that women are responsible is their way of dealing with that fact- easier to blame the victim then deal with the fact that their loved one is a rapist. I realize that this may sounds extreme or overreaching, but that kind of misogyny doesn't come out of nowhere. I read those quotes and immediately felt like this was a way for them to deal with some issues in their own family. I would guess that somewhere in the Chancey and Sherman families there are several little girls and young women that have been victimized and Lydia and Jenny are tragically doing what so many mothers before them have done and blame the child rather than blame the asshole responsible for molesting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sickens me that these women actually believe things like that. Rape is force, plain and simple, women do not invite it and men know how to control themselves, it's a choice they make.

Learning to defer to male authority in every situation is not alright! It leads to situation where when a woman is raped she will not report it, so there is probably higher rate of rape going on in these types of communities because no one wants to step forward and accuse a man of forcing himself on her, when "she must of done something to entice him" :angry-banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was raised Mennonite. There is NOT a lower incident of assualts among the plain people, there's a higher rate of hiding abuse AND demanding that victims "forgive" their rapists.

This is precisely why the Slut Walks got started. You can be a SLUT...and you still do NOT deserve to get raped.

She's also slighly off on her chivarly interpretation. WHITE women were protected from allegations of violating their honor, from BLACK and JEWISH men. If the assault come from her own home, or usually even from a random white man, then she was a whore and a liar. If the woman was not white, then it didn't matter what happened to her in the first place.

A Century of Childhood is a fascinating read on the reality of what life was like in "the golden ages." Sexual play and sexual assault was common for children up until they reached puberty and it would become obvious that someone had assaulted a girl via pregnancy and when boys reached full manhood upon entering their aprenticeship and were free to screw any woman they wanted so assaulting them became less common.

This.

I call WTF on the whole article.

Hanging rapists had very little to do with certain for the victims. By law until fairly recently, it was perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife. Nobody avenged the honor of a slave or servant. However, a black man could be hung for looking the wrong way at a white woman. It was about the man's honor, not the woman's, and a desire to make sure that black men knew their place.

There are patriarchal societies today which stress modesty and honor - and which respond to any sexual activity, including rape, by their women as a reason to murder them. This is going on NOW in my backyard - there is an ongoing trial in my province involving the "honor killing" of 3 daughters and a first wife by the parents and oldest son.

Young pretty girls aren't in fact more likely to be raped - they are just more likely to get attention from the media. If anything, rapes increase among vulnerable populations - those with disabilities, in foster or group home care, or who are on the streets. There is also a higher risk from a parent's new partner.

There IS one scenario in which a general breakdown of morality in society does increase rape: when it is committed as a war crime. I'd consider genocide to be a breakdown of morality, and there's documentation that many victims in Rwanda were raped before being massacred (see "Shake Hands With the Devil" by Romeo D'Allaire), but somehow I don't think that LAF was referring to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I have had the opportunity to observe in my community is a religious sect called the Mennonites. I never hear of any of their children, girls, or women being abducted, molested, raped, or dealt with treacherously. I find that interesting, because they follow two guidelines in their behavior: they dress in a very simple, modest manner, and they stay near their authorities. Although I am not of this sect, I find the fact that they do not suffer the maladies of modern society such as I mentioned very heartening. I am not suggesting we dress exactly as they do or even follow their beliefs, but I am suggesting we take a good look at the ingredients that go into their lifestyle, which looks like a pretty safe one for women.

She was probably talking directly with them and they told her they weren't abused, but would you trust someone in an extremely sheltered culture like that where everyone knows your business and has each others' (except the women's) backs? The scenes of polygamist women emphatically stating their their daughters aren't being abused come to mind. They've been trained to think that it's not abuse their whole life so of course they are going to say there is no abuse going on. If you follow the IFB Cult Survivors group over on Facebook you'll see this attitude too. "It's not ABUSE, it's CHILD TRAINING." Their definition of abuse is different from ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, would they prefer the biblical method of dealing with rape, where the rapist simply pays off his victim's father and marries her? :shock: There is so much history fail in that paragraph I don't even know where to start.

As to the "blame the victim" mentality...yeah, what everyone else said :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jennie Chancey sez:

When a girl wears a "come-on" look and skimpy clothing, she is inviting wrong attentions (sometimes on purpose, but more often because that's just our culture and "fashion" these days).

Young girls, old women, babies, men, boys, people with disabilities who cannot make a report - individuals from all these broad groups have been subjected to rape.

Rape isn't really about attraction. Men who rape other men in prison aren't necessarily homosexual. Men who rape disabled women aren't typically attracted to people with disabilities.

No - rape is a crime of power and opportunity. This is part of the reason why it's so often used to terrorize conquered populations during warfare (for example in Judges 21:10-24 and Numbers 31:7-18).

Dinah didn’t "deserve it" either (Genesis 34). The Bible says she was but a maiden when Hamor raped her - a power play to ensure the marriage he wanted.

In other words, and as I've pointed out to those pinheads at LAF (and beyond) in the past, the issues of rape and modest dress are actually quite separate.

Mrs. Sherman has gotten a lot of feedback in the past from angry women who declare that a woman is never responsible no matter what if a man comes on to her or rapes her. Saying a girl must not invite bad attention or wear indecent clothing does not excuse the wickedness of the men who prey upon young girls, but it does exhort girls to be careful of the message they are sending through their clothing and attitudes.

Actually, saying a woman's clothing can "invite" rape is excusing the rapist.

It's also dead wrong, so of course women are "angry" - heaven forbid; what worse sin can there be in a woman than anger? - when they keep encountering the lie that clothing makes a difference.

The truth has been pointed out so many times and in so many ways that I can only assume this particular claim – i.e., that rape has anything to do with attire - is actually a known falsehood that people like Lydia Sherman and Jennie Chancey are deliberately propagating in service to their own warped theology.

But lying for Jesus is still lying.

As far as rape statistics being the same today as they were in the past, we do have historical accounts to show us that rape and assault increase as a nation's morals decline. I have first-person diaries, letters, and biographies from the late 18th century through the early 20th century that show clearly that men who assaulted women were held to account to an extreme degree.

First of all, there is no way to accurately compare rape statistics in modernity to whatever scattershod statistics might have been kept in the past.

There's no basis to the claim rape levels are the same now as they've been historically.

And secondly, while it's laudable that the source texts Chancey cites – well, she actually doesn't cite any by name, but whatever - will demonstrate that rape was taken seriously and prosecuted seriously in the past, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument that clothing type can influence rape.

Yes, we have had sin with us since the Fall, but there are times when it is rampant and open and times when it is held in check by godly magistrates. The death penalty for rape was carried out until our more "enlightened" times dictated that a man couldn't be held accountable for rape.

These people don't think men are entirely accountable for rape, no matter how much they protest to the contrary. They still cling to the myth – or repeat the worn lie – that rape has anything to do with clothing.

And in claiming a victim bears any part of the responsibility for her own rape, even if it's only a fraction of a single percentage point, than that's one less fraction of a percentage point of the blame for the rapist to carry for his crime.

This was a strong deterrent, but today rape has almost lost its meaning in the wash of rampant fornication and "hooking up."

In other words, date rape doesn't happen. It's just bad sex that women later describe as rape, thus robbing the term "rape" of all meaning.

Real subtle, Chancey.

Because the majority of girls play the harlot, your average man doesn't see any need to protect women or honor them.

Why not? Seriously.

Even if I accepted the claim that “the majority of girls play the harlot" - whatever the hell that means - it doesn't follow that men should abandon the responsibility to protect their fellow human beings and follow the law.

In a nation that honors God's laws and enforces stiff penalties for crimes, the crime rate drops sharply--witness the 74% drop in the crime rate in Kennesaw, Georgia, after that city's mayor publicly announced that all citizens would be encouraged to arm themselves for self defense in case of break-ins (see this link)!

So, what we've learned so far here is that...

(1) Women who "play the harlot" are responsible for at least some part of rape, which is no big deal if it occurs within the context of a "hookup culture," and (2) stealing stuff from someone's house should carry the death penalty.

No – I'm not even snarking: That's what Jennie Chancey, in her meandering note, is actually saying.

And now for Lydia Sherman:

Since another poster has already taken apart her idealistic view of the Mennonites, I'll just move on to the other fuckery in her post.

If it is someone else's fault that our young girls are snatched and assaulted, then it is someone else's fault that our cars are stolen when we leave the keys in and the doors unlocked in a public place.

If...if it's someone else's fault? Did the “young girls†snatch themselves? There's no “if†about this: If a rapist/kidnapper snatches a woman off the street, it's his fault.

I know: What a shocking concept!

And yes, actually, it is also someone else's fault if your car is stolen even if the doors are unlocked and the keys are in the ignition.

Does the car still belong to you? Yes.

Did you give someone else permission to drive it? No.

In other words, no one else has any business sitting in the driver's seat of your personal property if you did not give him permission to be there. Someone who takes your car without permission is commonly known as a car thief.

Or is Lydia suggesting thieves who take advantage of open doors are somehow less culpable than thieves who have to break windows? Should they serve a lighter sentence?

Maybe Lydia thinks so, but I certainty don't.

Everyone with an ounce of sense will do what they can to protect their cars and not leave them open.

That might deter some thieves. Opportunists. Scavengers.

Really determined thieves – professional thieves – will just take the car anyway, if they want it badly enough. It doesn't really matter in the end if a thief took a locked car or an unlocked one: He's still a thief.

You never hear anyone say, "I should be allowed to leave my car unlocked, and if someone steals it, that's their fault!" We understand this in the realm of cars and material possessions, but why don't we understand it in relation to our daughters?

I do hear people say they should be able to leave their home doors open; that the ability to leave doors unlocked at night is a measure of neighborhood safety. I think that's dumb, but I also think a thief who takes advantage of an unlocked door is no different than a thief who breaks through a locked door.

(Remember - these are the same assholes who think trespassing and burglary should be punishable by death without trial, hence their emphasis on having everyone arm themselves and be prepared to gun down home invaders. And I don't think they give a shit whether an invader walks through an unlocked door or busts through a locked one.)

It's such a fantastic rabbit trail – such a red herring; a bright distraction – to open this ridiculous side-conversation about car theft when the subject of this discussion is actually rape.

I'm saying our girls deserve no less. Cover them up, stand close to them, or leave them at home.

Notice how Lydia Sherman manages to remove every shred of agency from the "girls" themselves: One can "cover them up," set them nearby, or simply leave them at home. They don't act at all. They're simply set down or covered up or posed or positioned - like houseplants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't see me around FJ over the next few days, it's because I set fire to my computer in anger. This... I have no words to express my anger. Incoherent screaming is as close as it gets. All I can do is abuse some smilies. :angry-cussingblack: :angry-cussing: :angry-screaming: :angry-fire: :angry-teeth: :angry-jumpinganger: :angry-steamingears:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't see me around FJ over the next few days, it's because I set fire to my computer in anger. This... I have no words to express my anger. Incoherent screaming is as close as it gets.

Try not to take it too hard: Lydia Sherman is nearly impervious to facts of any sort -- seriously -- and Jennie Chancey is merely an 'amateur historian' (see: dilettante) who hasn't lived long enough to sniff as much glitter-glue as Lydia has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a strong deterrent, but today rape has almost lost its meaning in the wash of rampant fornication and "hooking up." Because the majority of girls play the harlot, your average man doesn't see any need to protect women or honor them. One target is just like the next. This is tragic!

So her main point is that girls who "play the harlot" obviously don't need protection or honor. Why is it tragic that one target is just like the next? I think it should be just as big of a deal if a pure woman or a harlot has a violent crime committed against them. She seems to want more differentiation so that we all know which women are harlots that don't matter and which are honorable women to be protected. :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, even if I do leave an expensive car unattended with unlocked doors and the keys in the ignition it is still both wrong AND illegal to steal it. So that analogy is full of fail. If someone got caught with a stolen car and told the police that the owner had left the keys in it, the police wouldn't just shrug and let the thief walk away scott-free. That thief could still face criminal charges just like someone who had to work harder to steal a car.

So basically these horrible, horrible people are saying that it's perfectly fine and dandy to steal a car if it's easy enough to do. I'm sure Jesus once said "Thou shalt not steal, unless it's really easy and really tempting and then it's not your fault."

So if you have fundies around you, watch out. They just said it's ok for them to steal your car if you leave your keys in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to blame women for getting raped, then we might as well blame, say, Walmart for when thieves steal from them. I mean, my GOD, they have all their stuff just SITTING OUT THERE ON THE SHELVES. You can't blame people for just walking in and TAKING it, now, can you?!???? :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to mail a copy of A Woman in Berlin to these two nasty pieces of work.

http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Berlin-Eigh ... 263&sr=8-1

Those two hags are sick individuals. Rape has been occuring throughout all of human history. I've done enough study on warfare that it is used all the time to subjugate a conquered people. Yeah, those women were totally asking for it.

I'm not going to go on here but needless to say this kind of stuff makes me furious after spending so much time studying warfare and seeing pictures of women raped and killed in the name of war. I'm beyond disgusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those two hags are sick individuals. Rape has been occurring throughout all of human history. I've done enough study on warfare that it is used all the time to subjugate a conquered people. Yeah, those women were totally asking for it.

In the Bible, King David had a daughter Tamar who was raped by her brother Amnon. I wonder if LAF believes that Tamar was luring them in by simply being "fair".

Sometimes dressing provocatively can be asking for "trouble" or perhaps the wrong kind of attention, but it certainly isn't asking for rape. And there are many Biblical examples of innocent women being forced into sexually inappropriate acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, if you really want to start discussing some 'just sensible' ideas, divorced from the idea of blaming the victim (difficult, I know, but let's concede the point for just a moment to follow this through), wearing modest clothing doesn't decrease your risk. Walking around alone at 2am in the clubbing area, yes, that actually can be a risky behaviour. And you can point out that a- if it's not you, and if you avoid that rape, it'll just be another woman (doesn't change the statistics), and b- still not the victim's fault,( and why the fuck do we have to point this out), but that is an example of avoiding a dangerous situation that could, in fact, potentially keep you away from the risk. It's just a one-in-a-thousand example, because that's not how most rapes happen.

But that's not what they're talking about - they're talking about dressing modestly. Which, from what I've seen, doesn't have 0.1% to do with it, it has nothing to do with it. The fact that this old article talks about 'radical feminists' dressing slutty - um, what? Do you know what radical feminism is? Do you understand that most radical feminists probably aren't that interested in clubbing and wearing fishnets? - shows that they don't have a grasp on reality.

But, to get back to this 'I know, guys, but let's just ignore the victim blaming and talk about what might possibly maybe change the risks slightly for an individual woman' - why is wearing a skirt an increase of risk, and not the ridiculous examples that annalena brought up? Ridiculous, and spot on in its ridiculous nature, because you need to go as extreme as such examples to come close to their ideas about theft.

Inherently, a woman's body is available for sex in their eyes. That's the baseline. And that's the terrifying part where I really do start leaning closer to radical feminism than just plain ol' feminism, because in this sense they do have a grasp on reality. That is society's view on women's bodies and rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.