Behave!

[soulster]

People, it looks like Ralph zapped the Beverly Johnson thread because of the constant bickering and usual Marv-bashing, the second thread to go bye-bye in a week. Someone also got banned as a result of their actions.

Rant: Are any of you even able to have a conversation without getting confrontational, resorting to personal attacks, or making snarky comments? This is why we can't have anything nice around here. We can't even have a discussion about something as innocuous as sound without someone making it personal. What's wrong with you? Do you guys act like this in real life? Do you get an attitude with everyone you meet? How do you guys hold jobs or have family get-togethers? Do you go off on people because they aren't wearing the right shoes?

We enjoy an uncommon amount of free speech around here. We like it that way, but it won't last if some of you guys keep it up. Don't just blurt out any old thing. Think before you post. If you still screw up, the mods allow you plenty of time to correct yourself. Maybe if the mods cut down the editing time to, say, 15 minutes, people might think a little harder if they really want to make that personal attack. I am on a LOT of message boards, even moderated one or two. This place is VERY liberal and relaxed in comparison. You like it, yes? You can even use the occasional cuss word if you feel the need and you won't get punished. Don't screw it up! For those of you who only come here, trust me, Ralph is very generous and permissive compared to almost any other forum. But, he won't tolerate the personal attacks. He has a boiling point just like you do, except, he's the boss.

Keep personal attacks out of here, and this place will run smoother. Cut the drama.

Rant over.

[ralpht]

Thank you Soulster. I do try to keep peace here and I think it proper to allow a certain amount of freedom for members to express themselves. But then......

[soulster]

I may have been guilty of a little bit of the bad behavior too, but, I do try hard not to resort to personal attacks. Once that happens, it's all over for a thread. There's no real coming back. I also have a hunch that people act up just to force your hand because they don't want something here. I would say those folks have control issues.

Almost every thread that goes south does because someone decided to confront or attack someone else. The way I see it, if they are NOT a member here, they are fair game. But, don't come to someone's house and poop in the corner. It will still stink everything up.

I would say that if someone feels the need to bash someone, step away from the keyboard, grab something to eat, take a swim, go for a walk, something, and think about it first. When you come back, it may not even be important enough to comment.

[Jerry Oz]

As it's been said before: Average minds talk about events, great minds discuss ideas, and small minds talk about people. If you didn't believe it before, you know it's true now.

[thomas96]

Might be best to just not participate in the discussions.

[marv2]

Might be best to just not participate in the discussions.

No thomas, that is a big part of the fun, the intereting part of the forum.

[Roberta75]

No thomas, that is a big part of the fun, the intereting part of the forum.

But its not fun when the women accusing Cosbyof rape get called dumb and greedy and bitches and liars and opurtunists. its real real insulting to the women members on this here forum.

Roberta

[thomas96]

But its not fun when the women accusing Cosbyof rape get called dumb and greedy and bitches and liars and opurtunists. its real real insulting to the women members on this here forum.

Roberta

Females who lie about getting raped are the ones insulting to women who are actually raped.

[antceleb12]

But its not fun when the women accusing Cosbyof rape get called dumb and greedy and bitches and liars and opurtunists. its real real insulting to the women members on this here forum.


Females who lie about getting raped are the ones insulting to women who are actually raped.

Careful. We're treading very fine lines with this subject. Topics as hot as this are bound to spark some heated debate. Heated debate is fine, but keep it civil.

I suggest that if you do have a problem with a particular member on the forum, send them a CIVIL private message addressing such concerns. Maybe talk to Ralph if the problem is out of hand. Let's not air each other's dirty laundry on here, please!

[Jerry Oz]

I never understood why people hijack threads to argue with each other when they can go off line and hash it out. I can't to the realization that there are attention whores who demand validation or they'll ruin the fun for everyone else.

I've seen excellent threads go to pot because adults chose to communicate like children. It's easy enough to do: Make your point and respond in a mature manner to those who don't agree with you. If we all agreed with each other on everything, there would be no need to discuss anything.

[ralpht]

How do you guys think I feel when I have to delete what I feel is a pretty interesting thread? There is an ignore option to use if someone really isn't in to another forum member for whatever reason.

[Roberta75]

How do you guys think I feel when I have to delete what I feel is a pretty interesting thread? There is an ignore option to use if someone really isn't in to another forum member for whatever reason.

And thats the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth Ralph. Thank you dear.

Roberta

[Jerry Oz]

True. But we always have the option to ignore ignorance. If we're mature enough to use the 'ignore' option, we're mature enough to not need it. As for me, I'm very grateful you realize that a lot of people appreciate these forums and most of us don't sink to street level when we disagree.

[soulster]

Might be best to just not participate in the discussions. Thomas, you can have a point of view, just be careful about how you present it, and remember the audience. You aren't just talking to like-minded people, you are talking to everyone in the world who is reading your posts.

[jillfoster]

And thats the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth Ralph. Thank you dear.

Roberta

Then why don't you USE it, instead of bitching about me and Marv all the time.

[soulster]

Females who lie about getting raped are the ones insulting to women who are actually raped.

See, this is what i'm talking about, too. This thread isn't for rehashing the argument in those closed threads. It would be great if people could keep the discussion pertinent to the thread topic. Threads may wander a bit, but try to keep it focused. Roberta, I suggest that if you want to debate the issue, start a thread specifically about it, but keep it non-confrontational. Instead of lashing out, try to make Thomas understand why he may be wrong. Convince him, and Marv. Don't get personal.

[soulster]

Then why don't you USE it, instead of bitching about me and Marv all the time.

STOP IT! There was no need to post this.

[smark21]

Well I'll throw in a link to this article for all of you to consider: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/06/lie-about-rape/

[jillfoster]

STOP IT! There was no need to post this.

Yes, Massa.

[Crystaledwards]

Well I'll throw in a link to this article for all of you to consider: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/06/lie-about-rape/

Excellent thought proving article.

I would like everyone to think of this scenario.

Imagine, as a man, that you are pinned down by someone physically stronger than you and made to feel totally impotent. That is enough for anyone, male or female, to feel completely violated. But then to be forcibly entered and penetrated in the most sensitive part of your body. Do men not have the capacity for imagination, for empathy? I'm beginning to think some don't, unless it's for themselves or other men.


CE

[edafan]

Ralph, thanks for being so civil

My take in all of this is you never want to put yourself in places or circumstances where something bad can happen. Maybe it's my training as 49 year h s teacher and now still teaching 2 courses at colleges.

Many times in social life, I have refused to go places and associate with individuals who might end up harming me or my people.

Also, my wife died 2.5 years ago, so I started dating. Always in a public restaurant. Always aware what a female could charge you with, in the wrong places or circumstances. Diligence does pay off. My current girlfriend/fiancée was impressed with my diligence and care. After 2 months of dating we got to meet each other's family and it has progressed nicely. My son is getting married next August, and my fiancée and I will get married in August 2016. 16 was my number on our 1962 softball Championship team in Lynn MA.

edafan

[thomas96]

I apologize. When people feel strongly about something things get out of hand. I don't think what I wrote earlier in this thread was out of line at all. But you're right, it doesn't belong in this thread as it is off topic. And for that I am sorry. I am trying to stick to music discussions as it is. Tough when every thread in the music forums becomes about the Supremes and turns into arguments.

[edafan]

I apologize. When people feel strongly about something things get out of hand. I don't think what I wrote earlier in this thread was out of line at all. But you're right, it doesn't belong in this thread as it is off topic. And for that I am sorry. I am trying to stick to music discussions as it is. Tough when every thread in the music forums becomes about the Supremes and turns into arguments.

You mean there will never be a Supremes reunion.

I'm crying

edafan

[soulster]

Ralph, thanks for being so civil

My take in all of this is you never want to put yourself in places or circumstances where something bad can happen. Maybe it's my training as 49 year h s teacher and now still teaching 2 courses at colleges.

Many times in social life, I have refused to go places and associate with individuals who might end up harming me or my people.

Also, my wife died 2.5 years ago, so I started dating. Always in a public restaurant. Always aware what a female could charge you with, in the wrong places or circumstances. Diligence does pay off. My current girlfriend/fiancée was impressed with my diligence and care. After 2 months of dating we got to meet each other's family and it has progressed nicely. My son is getting married next August, and my fiancée and I will get married in August 2016. 16 was my number on our 1962 softball Championship team in Lynn MA.

edafan

Sometimes, people believe that some people are no threat to them. They do take into consideration the risks and determine they are safe, even though that is not the way it may turn out. So, it's not good to blame the victim.

[soulster]

I apologize. When people feel strongly about something things get out of hand. I don't think what I wrote earlier in this thread was out of line at all. But you're right, it doesn't belong in this thread as it is off topic. And for that I am sorry. I am trying to stick to music discussions as it is. Tough when every thread in the music forums becomes about the Supremes and turns into arguments.

Thanks, man! That someone turns every thread into a discussion, then argument about The Supremes is another problem around here. You don't see me cutting in on a thread about their dresses to debate the merits of noise shaping, so why do people push their way into threads about just about anything and start talking about Diana Ross? It's shows a deep lack of respect. This is not a Supremes forum.

[smark21]

Another article worth reading and pondering: http://blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org/inbox/2014/11/20/the-stupid-men-say-when-they-talk-about-rape/

[jillfoster]

Another article worth reading and pondering: http://blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org/inbox/2014/11/20/the-stupid-men-say-when-they-talk-about-rape/

It asked the question "When a man gets mugged, is it his fault"? The answer is, when you go to a high crime area late at night an several hunderd bucks in cash on you, then the answer is YES.. PARTIALLY. People can't comprehend foolishness and partial blame, and I can't understand why. Are their minds too simplistic to comprehend nuances? It mystifies me. It's like the whole Trayvon Martin thing, it's SHARED blame. Granted, the perp gets a much bigger percentage of the blame, like 80 percent... but still.

[antceleb12]

It asked the question "When a man gets mugged, is it his fault"? The answer is, when you go to a high crime area late at night an several hunderd bucks in cash on you, then the answer is YES.. PARTIALLY. People can't comprehend foolishness and partial blame, and I can't understand why. Are their minds too simplistic to comprehend nuances? It mystifies me. It's like the whole Trayvon Martin thing, it's SHARED blame. Granted, the perp gets a much bigger percentage of the blame, like 80 percent... but still.

Nope. No blame. A person should be able to walk wherever and regardless of how much cash he or she carries [[how do you know the reason why they need that cash on them), they are not asking, deserving, or putting themselves in a situation to be mugged. Sometimes circumstances don't allow for the most ideal situation. Is it the smartest decision knowing the risks? Not necessarily. But to say "don't do this otherwise you'll encourage that" is making excuses for the perp. It's saying that the perp has no control and is diminishing responsibility. 80-20? Absolutely not. The perp is 100% responsible for the crime they commit. They know their actions are wrong and illegal, and using the justification of "oh but they had cash " or "oh hey they were walking through a sketchy area" is in no way an excuse. Safety guidelines such as "don't walk alone at night" or "don't carry cash on you in a sketchy neighborhood" are OK guidelines, but sometimes that just doesn't work out and to judge someone by saying they put themselves in that situation is not fair.

[Crystaledwards]

Another article worth reading and pondering: http://blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org/inbox/2014/11/20/the-stupid-men-say-when-they-talk-about-rape/

Very interesting read. I find it very worrying when people make comments to try to trivialize rape. Their motivation for this must be questioned if we are to find a way to stop it. Let's start with a very basic question. Is rape always wrong? I believe there is never a reason or an excuse to rape anyone, Male or female. Does anyone disagree?

CE

[ralpht]

I have received a few requests to delete this thread. After reading some of the last posts, I'm going to let it stand for now. Please stay on topic and keep it CIVIL. It really isn't all the complicated to do so.

[soulster]

For the last day, a forum member and I have been carrying on a nice exchange of PMs about the issue of rape. We both disagree on things, but it has been very friendly. This thread is going well - for now - but, I wonder why all threads can't be this relaxed and civil, instead of the [[to use a racially-charged term) ghetto attitudes from some members?

[ralpht]

Beats me too, Soul.

[soulster]

Beats me too, Soul. Every time I see someone losing their cool here, I visualize a Jerry Springer-style brawl

[Jerry Oz]

I imagine people who are dominated by their spouses, bosses, co-workers, and others over the course of their day. They're intimidated and unable to push back when bullied and told that they're worthless, so they internalize their pain until they can express it with relatively few repercussions. It's easy enough to demean someone in the anonymity provided by a screen name, so they let loose in the most therapeutically satisfying way possible: by trying to make someone else feel even worse than they do.

[soulster]

I imagine people who are dominated by their spouses, bosses, co-workers, and others over the course of their day. They're intimidated and unable to push back when bullied and told that they're worthless, so they internalize their pain until they can express it with relatively few repercussions. It's easy enough to demean someone in the anonymity provided by a screen name, so they let loose in the most therapeutically satisfying way possible: by trying to make someone else feel even worse than they do.

I find that most people with real power over their lives are less likely to lash out at others. There must be a lot of unhappy people who feel powerless on this forum.

[Jerry Oz]

I agree. The first one to attack is usually the first one with nothing reasonable to add to the conversation. Easier to bow out than to get upset with someone you don't even know.

[Roberta75]

Nope. No blame. A person should be able to walk wherever and regardless of how much cash he or she carries [[how do you know the reason why they need that cash on them), they are not asking, deserving, or putting themselves in a situation to be mugged. Sometimes circumstances don't allow for the most ideal situation. Is it the smartest decision knowing the risks? Not necessarily. But to say "don't do this otherwise you'll encourage that" is making excuses for the perp. It's saying that the perp has no control and is diminishing responsibility. 80-20? Absolutely not. The perp is 100% responsible for the crime they commit. They know their actions are wrong and illegal, and using the justification of "oh but they had cash " or "oh hey they were walking through a sketchy area" is in no way an excuse. Safety guidelines such as "don't walk alone at night" or "don't carry cash on you in a sketchy neighborhood" are OK guidelines, but sometimes that just doesn't work out and to judge someone by saying they put themselves in that situation is not fair.

Bam i couldnt agree with you more antcelebs12. Its like saying if a woman go out on a date and wear a short skirt and go to the bar with a guy and accept a ride home from him she deserve to be date raped. NO no no no no no no she doesnt.

Fondly,

Roberta

[144man]

Bam i couldnt agree with you more antcelebs12. Its like saying if a woman go out on a date and wear a short skirt and go to the bar with a guy and accept a ride home from him she deserve to be date raped. NO no no no no no no she doesnt.

Fondly,

Roberta

Do I take it that you leave your windows open at night and don't lock your front door? It seems crazy to me that men who advise women to take sensible precautions end up being accused of being soft on rape.

[Jerry Oz]

Do I take it that you leave your windows open at night and don't lock your front door? It seems crazy to me that men who advise women to take sensible precautions end up being accused of being soft on rape. It's still a crime to walk into an unoccupied house of the door is wide open. And for a man [[or jury) to suggest that a woman's manner of dress should be considered in a rape case makes me wonder why all the women with string bikinis on every public beach aren't subject to sexual assault. They wear next to nothing, after all.

So, it shows that men have impulse control even when they see a [[mostly) naked woman, knowing that they'll be caught, and if proves the suggestion that "she was asking for it" to be a lie of the highest order.

[144man]

That's because string bikinis are not out or place on a public beach. To wear them in inappropriate surroundings could be considered as contributory negligence.

[Jerry Oz]

That's because string bikinis are not out or place on a public beach. To wear them in inappropriate surroundings could be considered as contributory negligence. We'll agree to disagree. I'm not suggesting it's wise to offer a lunatic an excuse by wearing such clothing. But it's insane to suggest that a woman wearing underwear in public contributes to a one-sided decision to initiate coitus when it's still rape to force it on your naked wife.

[edafan]

I believe that all people should act civil to each other. Noone should be raped. I am a male. I also like women who dress their age. All people in a dating situation should respect each other. I also do not like character assassination. I really feel bad for the women in the Cosby situation. I feel for them. No amount of money can replace dignity. And the person I really feel for is Mrs. Cosby, more than anyone. God, please bless all of them, and let them find some peace. Edafan

[jillfoster]

We'll agree to disagree. I'm not suggesting it's wise to offer a lunatic an excuse by wearing such clothing. But it's insane to suggest that a woman wearing underwear in public contributes to a one-sided decision to initiate coitus when it's still rape to force it on your naked wife.

I agree with 144man. "Contirbutory negligence" as he put it, is NOT the same thing as "asking for it". When you prod a snake and get bitten, THAT is "asking for it". Much of disagreement I find in social media today is born out of either ignorance... people using incorrect terminology for actions, or the spin or exaggeration of a situation in oder to make yourself look "right".

[Roberta75]

Do I take it that you leave your windows open at night and don't lock your front door? It seems crazy to me that men who advise women to take sensible precautions end up being accused of being soft on rape.

I do leave my windows open most nights as I like to sleep in a real cold room.

Roberta

[soulster]

It's still a crime to walk into an unoccupied house of the door is wide open. And for a man [[or jury) to suggest that a woman's manner of dress should be considered in a rape case makes me wonder why all the women with string bikinis on every public beach aren't subject to sexual assault. They wear next to nothing, after all.

So, it shows that men have impulse control even when they see a [[mostly) naked woman, knowing that they'll be caught, and if proves the suggestion that "she was asking for it" to be a lie of the highest order. In Islamic countries with sharia laws, it is illegal for women to show any skin. That's because men are excused from having any impulse control. They are exempt from having any responsibility for what they may do, and the blame is placed on the victim. Men having a pass in our so-called free nations, such as ours, is tantamount to what they do in more oppressive nations.

[soulster]

That's because string bikinis are not out or place on a public beach. To wear them in inappropriate surroundings could be considered as contributory negligence.

That's total nonsense! Is this 1925 again?

[Jerry Oz]

I agree with 144man. "Contirbutory negligence" as he put it, is NOT the same thing as "asking for it". When you prod a snake and get bitten, THAT is "asking for it". Much of disagreement I find in social media today is born out of either ignorance... people using incorrect terminology for actions, or the spin or exaggeration of a situation in oder to make yourself look "right".If I was to agree with you that it's contributorily negligent to walk into a bar with a mini dress and no panties [[for an extreme example), how is it that of 50 men in the bar, one guy decides to follow her out to her car to rape her? Shouldn't all 50 use that excuse to get a lighter sentence? Wasn't she 'available' to everybody? For that matter, what if she was wearing underwear but the mini dress was sufficient to arouse some perv to action? Or tight jeans? Or her pretty toes? Or makeup? Trust me, depraved men don't need an excuse.

I guess you believe that a gay couple who walks into a country bar on the rough side of town contributes to being beat down as well. Or those Black kids who were chased through Bensonhurst 30 years ago should have known that teenage mafia wannabes didn't appreciate their kind calling on the girls in the neighborhood. Or that Eric Garner should have known that selling loosies will get you killed in New York City.

It's a nonsense argument to suggest that someone should expect something bad to happen based upon someone else's perception of them. It's not smart, but it's only an excuse for someone to suggest that the victim was partially to blame just for being there and having the nerve to be a [[take your pick) sexy woman/Black man/gay man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Crystaledwards]

That's because string bikinis are not out or place on a public beach. To wear them in inappropriate surroundings could be considered as contributory negligence.

No. Hands off means hands off whether in a bikini or a burka!

CE

[Crystaledwards]

If I was to agree with you that it's contributorily negligent to walk into a bar with a mini dress and no panties [[for an extreme example), how is it that of 50 men in the bar, one guy decides to follow her out to her car to rape her? Shouldn't all 50 use that excuse to get a lighter sentence? Wasn't she 'available' to everybody? For that matter, what if she was wearing underwear but the mini dress was sufficient to arouse some perv to action? Or tight jeans? Or her pretty toes? Or makeup? Trust me, depraved men don't need an excuse.

I guess you believe that a gay couple who walks into a country bar on the rough side of town contributes to being beat down as well. Or those Black kids who were chased through Bensonhurst 30 years ago should have known that teenage mafia wannabes didn't appreciate their kind calling on the girls in the neighborhood. Or that Eric Garner should have known that selling loosies will get you killed in New York City.

It's a nonsense argument to suggest that someone should expect something bad to happen based upon someone else's perception of them. It's not smart, but it's only an excuse for someone to suggest that the victim was partially to blame just for being there and having the nerve to be a [[take your pick) sexy woman/Black man/gay man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Crime victims are often scrutinized as to who they were with, what they were wearing, what music they were blaring, where they were walking or what they might have done to cause the violence committed against them. One would think that by this day and age “victim blaming” would be non-existent, but it isn't. Blaming the victim releases the assailant who commits the violence from the responsibility for what he or she has done. The most obvious outward and visible expression of victim blaming appear in sexual assault cases. Victims of rape are often blamed for being provocative, seductive, suggestive, teasing, or “asking for it”. In the case of the Bill Cosby accusers, the women's dress, lifestyle, and sexual background appear to be a more important factor to many here, than the sexual abuse that may have occurred. In the case of unarmed youth Trayvon Martin, blaming the hoodie he was wearing was expressed by many.

It is illogical to me how the role of the victim becomes the role of the accused.

CE

[Jerry Oz]

My only questions in the Cosby case pertain to how someone can defend himself against charges that he did something up to 45 years ago. There's really no evidence but there is the assumption that he did something without anything beyond the accusations to base it upon. The court of public opinion adjudicated it fairly early on but I'm on record saying that I have no idea what happened and if most of us are honest, we'll agree.

With that said, I'm amazed that anyone can mitigate a criminal act. Do you know how many college sexual assaults go unreported because a 19 year old woman was stupid enough to get drunk in a bar or a frat and some animal took the opportunity to rape her? Read: She was stupid for getting drunk, not because she should have known the consequences. No one EVER contributes to being raped. That's why it's considered 'rape'.

The problem with the recent police deaths is not that all cops are bad, but that they rally around the ones who are negligent and offer mitigating reasons as to why they are half-assed and unable to do their job without stepping over the line from time to time. Trayvon Martin's hood mitigated his death in the eyes of many. Michael Brown's strong-arm robbery of a box of cigarettes mitigated his. It goes on and on and both the prosecution and defense are shameless for doing it when it serves their cause.

There is no excuse for criminal activity. Period. I don't care if your child is hungry and you steal a loaf of bread. At some point, 'justifiable' theft will drive the vendor out of business and that's wrong. There are always options and crooks are simply too lazy to consider them. So they come up with excuses for why they did it instead of admitting they did the wrong thing when they're caught.

[Crystaledwards]

My only questions in the Cosby case pertain to how someone can defend himself against charges that he did something up to 45 years ago. There's really no evidence but there is the assumption that he did something without anything beyond the accusations to base it upon. The court of public opinion adjudicated it fairly early on but I'm on record saying that I have no idea what happened and if most of us are honest, we'll agree.

With that said, I'm amazed that anyone can mitigate a criminal act. Do you know how many college sexual assaults go unreported because a 19 year old woman was stupid enough to get drunk in a bar or a frat and some animal took the opportunity to rape her? Read: She was stupid for getting drunk, not because she should have known the consequences. No one EVER contributes to being raped. That's why it's considered 'rape'.

The problem with the recent police deaths is not that all cops are bad, but that they rally around the ones who are negligent and offer mitigating reasons as to why they are half-assed and unable to do their job without stepping over the line from time to time. Trayvon Martin's hood mitigated his death in the eyes of many. Michael Brown's strong-arm robbery of a box of cigarettes mitigated his. It goes on and on and both the prosecution and defense are shameless for doing it when it serves their

There is no excuse for criminal activity. Period. I don't care if your child is hungry and you steal a loaf of bread. At some point, 'justifiable' theft will drive the vendor out of business and that's wrong. There are always options and crooks are simply too lazy to consider them. So they come up with excuses for why they did it instead of admitting they did the wrong thing when they're caught.



It's the sweeping generalizations that I find terribly disconcerting.

Not every Italian man in a smart suit is Mafia. Not every woman in cut off shorts and a midriff top is a hooker. Not every scruffy white man in a pick up truck is a redneck. Not every Black or Latino kid in a hoodie is a criminal. It's clothing for goodness sake. Trayvon Martin was a teenager walking back home, from the store, with candy and a drink, talking to his girl on his cell phone, with his hood on because it was raining. What kind of asinine, warped logic can make his hoodie partly responsible for his murder? People of All ages, genders, and races wear them. New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick wears hoodies often. I doubt anyone is going to follow, confront, and shoot Mr. Belichick because he has a hoodie on?

CE

[soulster]

I also like women who dress their age.

Who's standard of age? I think people should be able to dress however the hell they want to as long as they don't break any local laws.

[soulster]

If I was to agree with you that it's contributorily negligent to walk into a bar with a mini dress and no panties [[for an extreme example), how is it that of 50 men in the bar, one guy decides to follow her out to her car to rape her? Shouldn't all 50 use that excuse to get a lighter sentence? Wasn't she 'available' to everybody? For that matter, what if she was wearing underwear but the mini dress was sufficient to arouse some perv to action? Or tight jeans? Or her pretty toes? Or makeup? Trust me, depraved men don't need an excuse.

I guess you believe that a gay couple who walks into a country bar on the rough side of town contributes to being beat down as well. Or those Black kids who were chased through Bensonhurst 30 years ago should have known that teenage mafia wannabes didn't appreciate their kind calling on the girls in the neighborhood. Or that Eric Garner should have known that selling loosies will get you killed in New York City.


Excellent post, man! Any of you ever go to a swinger-type club? Just because a woman can walk around 100% buck naked doesn't mean you can touch her.

[thomas96]

Crime victims are often scrutinized as to who they were with, what they were wearing, what music they were blaring, where they were walking or what they might have done to cause the violence committed against them. One would think that by this day and age “victim blaming” would be non-existent, but it isn't. Blaming the victim releases the assailant who commits the violence from the responsibility for what he or she has done. The most obvious outward and visible expression of victim blaming appear in sexual assault cases.

It's not "victim blaming." It's determining the truth. In the courts both the plaintiff and defendant are attacked and grilled, in order to find out the truth about every single aspect of the situation. With sexual assault cases it's almost always a "he-said, she said" situation and the victim could be either the male or female. These days it is ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT THE FEMALE IS THE VICTIM. You don't find it possible that in, say, Bill Cosby's situation, these women consented to the sex in an attempt to get Cosby to advance their careers and after not getting anywhere they are coming out lying saying they were raped? It's innocent until proven guilty. Ever hear of a fella named Brian Banks? If not, look him up.

[ralpht]

Now this is what I call a good conversation.

[soulster]

It's not "victim blaming." It's determining the truth. In the courts both the plaintiff and defendant are attacked and grilled, in order to find out the truth about every single aspect of the situation. Even when the truth is clearly there, the jury or judge may rule against it. Eric Garner, anyone?

[Crystaledwards]

It's not "victim blaming." It's determining the truth. In the courts both the plaintiff and defendant are attacked and grilled, in order to find out the truth about every single aspect of the situation. With sexual assault cases it's almost always a "he-said, she said" situation and the victim could be either the male or female. These days it is ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT THE FEMALE IS THE VICTIM. You don't find it possible that in, say, Bill Cosby's situation, these women consented to the sex in an attempt to get Cosby to advance their careers and after not getting anywhere they are coming out lying saying they were raped? It's innocent until proven guilty. Ever hear of a fella named Brian Banks? If not, look him up.

In the case of the Cosby women I firmly believe that most women are telling the truth.

Yes I have am somewhat familiar with the Brian Banks case but when it comes to rape or just physical assault 2% - 4% of the time the accusation is false. Unfortunately Mr. Banks fell into that 2% - 4%. The DA should have done a more thorough investigation before pressing any charges and his accuser should have been incarcerated for the exact same time that Brian Banks spent in jail.

Can you possibly take into account how shocked, ashamed and afraid the rape victim is afterwards? Look at the abuse Cosby's accusers are getting now. Many victims try desperately to put it behind them, so that they don't feel defined by it, but it comes back, and back, and years later is almost unbearable. By the time you are ready to deal with it, it's usually too late.

In most cases when the plaintiff is rich and famous the defendant is grilled by million dollar, charismatic attorneys who then throw highly paid experts on the stand to disqualify credible evidence and taint the jury. Surely you remember the "If the glove don't fit you must "acquit" line?

CE

[Jerry Oz]

Crystaledwards, from my seat it looks like Cosby is coming out on the losing end of the public abuse in this situation. I don't think it's necessarily abuse to ask questions for either side. In my personal opinion, I think that some of them are probably telling the truth but my instincts tell me that many [[if not most) are not. I'm ill at ease when it comes to hearsay, especially when it recalls crimes alleged to have occurred decades ago because we'll never know the truth.

With that being said, this is a serious issue. Even with the embarrassment of learning that the military protects rapists, the number of reported assaults increased last year. To make matters worse, the number of women who reported retaliation after pressing charged jumped as well. The excuse is that women shouldn't be in a man's domain [[the military) and that's why women in combat is an issue. It's ridiculous but the culture of the military blames them for being women. To my knowledge, none of these women was dressed inappropriately when the assaults occurred, so that takes that issue off of the table.

Let's not talk about the issue of sexual assault on college campuses.

Men tend to understate this crime and they're less likely to want to 'ruin a man's career' when sexual assault charges are raised. In the few cases when they're found responsible, they're allowed to withdraw from school without public demerit or to leave the military with honorable discharge. The fact that women who press charges become cautionary tales that warn others makes this a shame on society, not on the victims.

[144man]

That's total nonsense! Is this 1925 again?

It's not nonsense. I don't like it, but it's what the law seems to be in the UK at the moment.

[144man]

No. Hands off means hands off whether in a bikini or a burka!

CE

I'm talking about the legal position, not what I personally believe.

[Jerry Oz]

Legally, you can't force your wife to have sex with you, even if she's walking around bare-assed naked. What makes anyone think that there's compelling reason why this wouldn't hold true for a stranger in a public setting?

Much is made of the fact that "no means no". Perhaps more needs to be said about "not saying 'yes' means 'hell no'".

[144man]

To reduce this to its most absurd, it will end up that up that a written certificate of consent will have to be obtained by each party before making love, and keeping the document for 30 or 40 years.

[Jerry Oz]

That or men will learn to be more careful with whom they share bodily fluids. It's hard to prove date rape in general, but the best way to avoid being falsely accused is to share them with partners not likely do it.

By the way, many US colleges are requiring participants to actually ask and receive clearly stated consent. Otherwise, the act is not considered to be consensual and the guy [[or gal) can be expelled.

[soulster]

It's not nonsense. I don't like it, but it's what the law seems to be in the UK at the moment. But, you didn't say that.

[soulster]

To reduce this to its most absurd, it will end up that up that a written certificate of consent will have to be obtained by each party before making love, and keeping the document for 30 or 40 years.

This is actually the law in California now, at least for college students. A woman must explicitly give her consent for any sexual contact beforehand. Just saying "no" won't cut it anymore. You have to say it. Why? Non-verbal communication can be misconstrued. How many times have I heard some dude brag about boning some chick. When I ask if that's what they really wanted, the guys usually say "She didn't say "no.".

[144man]

But, you didn't say that.

I made quite clear my abhorrence of rape in the deleted thread. The use of a term like "contributory negligence" implies that it is a purely legal argument.