Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, February 28, 2013

[OTP - March] Scott wants money for spring training teams

While working at the Detroit Tigers’ spring facility in Lakeland, Gov. Rick Scott announced today he will ask the Florida Legislature to set aside $5 million a year for projects specifically aimed at improving the Major League Baseball training facilities in the state.

“It’s my job as governor to make sure Florida remains the number one destination for spring training and that is why we will work to provide $5 million annually to only be used for spring training facilities,” Scott said in a statement that was released while Scott was participating in one of his “work days” with the Tigers at Joker Marchant Stadium in Lakeland.

Tripon Posted: February 28, 2013 at 02:05 PM | 2909 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball, florida, ot, politics, spring training

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 16 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >  Last ›
   1501. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:20 PM (#4391771)
Teaching boys to respect female autonomy may of course not work. Certainly it's not going to eliminate all rape. But what's the alternative? Teach them to rape responsibly?


People are either dumb or trolling. The alternative has been proposed many times in this thread: Teach boys to respect female autonomy and teach girls not to put themselves in bad situations.

If you ignore this again you're actively trolling.
   1502. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4391773)
Why on earth would you want to transfer responsibility for rape from the rapist to the victim?

I never have, nor would I. Read more better.


How about you trying to write better-
this is about the umpteenth time in this thread you have damn well IMPLIED something before you later more clearly state something else, then you go back to implying the thing you just claimed to not be saying...

oh wait, I get it, you're trolling right?



   1503. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:23 PM (#4391775)
I'm just amused at the sight of self-proclaimed liberals acting and sounding exactly like abstinence-only sex ed christian fundies.

It is funny, isn't it? Let's saturate society, including minors, with sex and sexual innuendo, including porn of all types, then act all offended when they act entirely in accordance with what they see and hear.

And then, even better, let's call them "trash" and "sub-human" and "rapist," and trip over each other calling for civilized principles of juvenile justice to be trampled, so we can declare ourselves all superior and whatnot and not lose our "feminist" cred.

Geez, a bunch of 40 year old guys are more mature and better behaved than a 16-year-old -- way to go!! You must be so proud. And so understanding of the plight of women.
   1504. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:27 PM (#4391778)
No, I'm saying that it's categorically incorrect for 40 year old men to assume that 16 year old boys have the same understanding of proper sexual propriety as them.

I'll gladly say it -- plenty of boys/men between 14-25 have gotten much of their understanding of sex and what women "want" out of sex from watching porn.
   1505. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:29 PM (#4391780)
People are either dumb or trolling. The alternative has been proposed many times in this thread: Teach boys to respect female autonomy and teach girls not to put themselves in bad situations.

*Shrug* I'm ok with trying. But like abstinence-only education, it's not going to do much. Kids who want to get shitfaced, are going to, no matter the warnings of parents or teachers of what might happen if they do.
   1506. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4391782)
And then, even better, let's call them "trash" and "sub-human" and "rapist,"

Yeah, let's not call people who rape people "rapists". That would be mean.
   1507. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4391783)

No, I'm saying that it's categorically incorrect for 40 year old men to assume that 16 year old boys have the same understanding of proper sexual propriety as them.


They should be tried by a jury of their bros!
   1508. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4391786)
It is funny, isn't it? Let's saturate society, including minors, with sex and sexual innuendo, including porn of all types, then act all offended when they act entirely in accordance with what they see and hear.
I have a bigger problem with America's gun fetish, but YMMV.
   1509. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:35 PM (#4391788)
I'll gladly say it -- plenty of boys/men between 14-25 have gotten much of their understanding of sex and what women "want" out of sex comes from watching porn.


Of course they have. The internet exists because of this.
   1510. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:35 PM (#4391789)
It is funny, isn't it? Let's saturate society, including minors, with sex and sexual innuendo, including porn of all types, then act all offended when they act entirely in accordance with what they see and hear.

So what's your alternative? Eliminate free speech, or legalize rape? Which do you prefer?
   1511. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4391790)
Yeah, let's not call people who rape people "rapists". That would be mean.

Denominating all forms of sexual assault and misconduct "rape" isn't just mean, it's really, really dumb and stupid. Why do you people insist on your euphemisms and overinclusive, loaded terminology? Can't you make your point in a more mature and advanced way?
   1512. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4391792)
Unless you're reading my acknowledgement that adolescent primates will... look for sex to be "adolescent confusion about who, how and when not to rape." I'd thought you smarter than that, of course.

Given that you wrote this:
...and teach them the "new rules" of what is and is not rape
the answer is no, I'm simply not smart enough to not read what you've written as boys are not confused about who, how, and when not to rape.

(Yes, that's a ghastly sentence. The point remains.)
   1513. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4391793)
Denominating all forms of sexual assault and misconduct "rape" isn't just mean, it's really, really dumb and stupid.

Which is why nobody here has done that. See also discussion on previous pages about penetration.
   1514. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4391794)
So what's your alternative? Eliminate free speech, or legalize rape? Which do you prefer?


How about moronic either or choices that frame the question in impossible terms for shits and giggles? Good lord.
   1515. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4391796)
I seriously have to wonder how you people get along in life. Do you just leave yourselves wide open to being criminally abused by others on the theory that it's criminal for the others to abuse you? So when you buy something in the store, instead of counting out the money you owe do you just hand over your wallet to the cashier and have her count the money and give your wallet back to you? After all, it's criminal if she steals any money from you.

But I don't think any of you actually live your lives this way. I think you're all full of what makes the grass grow green and are just pimping liberalspeak on the internet.

I would like to know specifically from those of you with teenage daughters:

1. Have you ever told your daughter not to put herself in a vulnerable position? Have you ever said, you know, there are bad people who might do bad things to you, even rape, and you should reduce the chance that something bad will happen to you by making intelligent decisions and limiting your risk. So don't put yourself in a vulnerable position which would increase your chance of being raped.

2. Or have you said to your daughter, there is no need to worry about whether you put yourself in a vulnerable position. There are laws against rape and if a man rapes you he is a criminal. It's fine to get so drunk at a party that you black out.

3. Or have you just told nothing at all to your daughter about this because you just don't ####### give a #### about what happens to her?

Please respond by being specific about what lesson you have imparted to your teenage daughter on this subject. Because as I said, I think you people are full of it and don't actually live your lives in this way.

If you don't actually have a teenage daughter then please comment hypothetically.
   1516. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4391797)
It is funny, isn't it? Let's saturate society, including minors, with sex and sexual innuendo, including porn of all types, then act all offended when they act entirely in accordance with what they see and hear.

How on earth do a vast, vast, overwhelmingly majority of humans manage to get by without raping anyone? It's like they are actually inhuman. They maybe are from Krypton. Or Morlocks.
   1517. Blastin Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4391798)
being born outside of marriage?


This is not the same as being born without a father, of course.

(Obviously, the point being that my parents never married but were both involved and are still friendly. But I know I'm not normal, and some sort of family unit is ideal if possible.)
   1518. The Good Face Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4391800)
In your opinion telling boys not to rape girls is exactly the same as telling boys and girls not to have sex until marriage, then?


They're the same in that they're both good ideas, but they are incomplete ideas, and as such doomed to failure.

Sam's 1499 is the most sensible way of addressing the situation. People are still monkeys driven by monkey impulses that we're often blind to, but taking a multi-pronged approach to problems of human behavior is almost always better than simply trying to "teach" people to behave in a certain way. Especially when that way is contrary to what our monkey brains really want to do.
   1519. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:45 PM (#4391801)
I'm simply not smart enough to not read what you've written as boys are not confused about who, how, and when not to rape.


Let me try to be clear.

If the event in question had occurred in the 1970s, it would not have been "rape." It would have been "a high school party." If the event had happened in the 1980s, it would not have been rape. If the event had happened in the 1990s, it probably still would not have been rape. The definition of the term is changing, both sociologically and legally. Most teenage boys are not up to speed on the proper do's and don'ts of...well, of much of anything. They're teenage boys. They are, generally speaking, morons.

When the young man in question above says he really didn't think he was raping the girl at the time, I believe him. I don't think he thought he was assaulting her. I don't think he thought he was raping her. I think he thought he was pulling off a funny somewhere halfway between Jackass and American Pie. He was terribly wrong, and he's going to jail for that mistake. But if you think he wasn't confused and bewildered to get caught up in this, you're not paying attention to anything but your own internal dialogue entitled "what proper, modern, feminist men know to be true."
   1520. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:47 PM (#4391803)
being born outside of marriage?



This is not the same as being born without a father, of course.

(Obviously, the point being that my parents never married but were both involved and are still friendly. But I know I'm not normal, and some sort of family unit is ideal if possible.)


True, but it is highly correlated.
   1521. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:48 PM (#4391804)
Oh, and for the record, the problem with Abstinence Only education is the "only" bit, not the "abstinence" bit.
   1522. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4391805)
How on earth do a vast, vast, overwhelmingly majority of humans manage to get by without raping anyone?


Depending on who you ask, they don't.
   1523. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4391806)
Eliminate free speech, or legalize rape?

Porn really isn't "free speech." It's lucky in that lawyers and society have been unable to come up with a definition that would get at what needs to be gotten at -- f$cking on camera simply to f$ck on camera -- without infringing on things we don't want to be infringed on.

Taken by itself, hard core porn has little to commend it and society is worse off because of its widespread, easy availablity. Among other things, much of it is extremely degrading to and objectfying of, women.
   1524. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4391808)
Porn really isn't "free speech." It's lucky in that lawyers and society have been unable to come up with a definition that would get at what needs to be gotten at -- f$cking on camera simply to f$ck on camera -- without infringing on things we don't want to be infringed on.

Taken by itself, hard core porn has little to commend it and society is worse off because of its widespread, easy availablity. Among other things, much of it is extremely degrading to and objectfying of, women.


It really should be illegal under either the obscenity statutes, or the pandering statutes.
   1525. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:54 PM (#4391812)
being born outside of marriage?

This is not the same as being born without a father, of course.

(Obviously, the point being that my parents never married but were both involved and are still friendly. But I know I'm not normal, and some sort of family unit is ideal if possible.)

True, but it is highly correlated.

They are not correlated. One is a subset of the other, and you are using the larger subset as a proxy for the smaller, because it strengthens your argument.
   1526. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:54 PM (#4391813)
Depending on who you ask, they don't.

If you define rape as having hookup sex with a girl/woman who feels bad about it the next morning, you have a lot of rapists out there.
   1527. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 05:57 PM (#4391815)
society is worse off because of its widespread, easy availablity. Among other things, much of it is extremely degrading to and objectfying of, women.

All of that is true of Christianity, yet you don't see me running around wanting to ban it. Promoting freedom means accepting that people will use those in ways you object to.
   1528. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4391816)
They're the same in that they're both good ideas, but they are incomplete ideas, and as such doomed to failure.

Why is abstinence only education a good idea. This can only be true, if sex outside of marriage is objectively bad. Otherwise, it's simply an attempt to impose your own morality on other people, and infringe upon their liberty.
   1529. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4391817)
If you define rape as having hookup sex with a girl/woman who feels bad about it the next morning, you have a lot of rapists out there.


Sadly, many liberals do define rape in this fashion.

They also have a difficult time imagining a woman lying about having been raped.

And their go-to rebuttal argument on the overall topic is the meaningless "rape is rape."
   1530. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4391819)
They are not correlated. One is a subset of the other, and you are using the larger subset as a proxy for the smaller, because it strengthens your argument.

They most certainly are. Children born out of wedlock have a much higher likelihood of being raised w/o involvement and support from their fathers.

All of that is true of Christianity, yet you don't see me running around wanting to ban it. Promoting freedom means accepting that people will use those in ways you object to.

Why did I stop ignoring you? Time to fix that.
   1531. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:03 PM (#4391821)
Why did I stop ignoring you? Time to fix that.

Don't. The spectacle of someone reveling in his own idiocy, as a sow revels in slop, is well worth the read.
   1532. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:05 PM (#4391823)
Here's another fact for Sam (normally one of my favorite posters) to consider: a 14-year-old also has come forward and accused Steubensville players of an apparently similar rape.

I really get not liking a mob demand for justice. I don't like that aspect of this story either. However, I do think it's entirely legitimate to ask whether more people should have been charged here. At the very least there were other boys who taped and photographed this girl being raped and than shared those videos and photos. I'm pretty sure that's criminal.

High school kids have been getting drunk and hooking up for decades. High school and college girls have gotten themselves drunk so as to become less sexually inhibited for decades, which often results in quite intended sexually-related activity. This episode seems to have mildly crossed an extremely blurred line. It really wasn't close to "barbaric."

I hesitate to respond to this, because I'm pretty sure you're just being a troll, but... this is reprehensible. At least two boys fingerbanged an unconscious girl, jizzed on her, and possibly anally raped her. All while others videotaped it and shared photos and videos of it with their friends, and posted about it on facebook and twitter. If that's anywhere close to a blurry line for you, you're pathetic.
   1533. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:08 PM (#4391824)
I really get not liking a mob demand for justice. I don't like that aspect of this story either.

In this case, the "mob" has mostly been on the side of protecting the perpetrators. From withholding evidence, refusing to testify, deleting videos, up to and including threats aimed at the victims.
   1534. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:09 PM (#4391825)
When the young man in question above says he really didn't think he was raping the girl at the time, I believe him. I don't think he thought he was assaulting her. I don't think he thought he was raping her.
I can give you that he didn't think he was raping her. If he didn't think he was assaulting her, that is far more within the "ignorance is no excuse" category. I'm neither sympathetic nor empathetic.


I think he thought he was pulling off a funny somewhere halfway between Jackass and American Pie. He was terribly wrong, and he's going to jail for that mistake.
Yup.

But if you think he wasn't confused and bewildered to get caught up in this, you're not paying attention to anything but your own internal dialogue entitled "what proper, modern, feminist men know to be true."
Not to derail to the grammar threadarians, I could not care less how confused and bewildered he was. As far as my own internal echo-chamber solo dialogue, it has nothing to do with your "modern" grenade. I'll defer to someone not present - if Harvey's take on what proper men know to be true, what he was taught, and what he taught his sons is that different from what I'm saying here (about boys and men), you can call me all the dirty F(eminist)-words you want.
   1535. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:17 PM (#4391829)
In this case, the "mob" has mostly been on the side of protecting the perpetrators. From withholding evidence, refusing to testify, deleting videos, up to and including threats aimed at the victims.

Well, I think there are two separate "mobs" here. One is the local one doing the things you claim. The other is the outside internet one, demanding that more people be prosecuted, sentences be stiffer, etc. I think the local one in some ways justifies the outside one, and I think pointing out areas in which the local judicial process may be biased or have failed is wholly legitimate. I don't like demands for harsher sentences, etc, in the absence of evidence that the judge in the case was biased or that the sentences were out of the normal range for similar crimes.
   1536. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4391830)
Here's another fact for Sam (normally one of my favorite posters) to consider: a 14-year-old also has come forward and accused Steubensville players of an apparently similar rape.


If more facts come to light, I will consider the new facts and how they modify the present. As of right now I see a young woman who put herself in far too much danger by getting passed-out drunk in public, two young men who sexually assaulted a her (which is legally rape in Ohio), a culture of silence in small town America (that has little to do with football nor is indicative of conspiratorial actions by the local authorities to cover up the rape), and a lot of liberal commentators (here and elsewhere) far too willing to assume the worst of the boys who committed the crime, who leave their liberal empathy for others at the door if the others in question might be a stupid, confused football jock.

If you follow me on other forums, you'll know that I am quite vehement in calling out the mentality in question (in regard to college football and the money makers of the major programs on campus, especially.) If this turns into a multiple case event, then those facts will obviously modify my judgement. As of right now, all I see is a mob looking to set the witch on fire for sexually assault.
   1537. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:23 PM (#4391832)
Don't. The spectacle of someone reveling in his own idiocy, as a sow revels in slop, is well worth the read.

Oh sweet, delicious irony.
   1538. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:24 PM (#4391833)
As far as my own internal echo-chamber solo dialogue, it has nothing to do with your "modern" grenade. I'll defer to someone not present - if Harvey's take on what proper men know to be true, what he was taught, and what he taught his sons is that different from what I'm saying here (about boys and men), you can call me all the dirty F(eminist)-words you want.


Two thoughts. First, obviously Harvey would not support this sort of behavior, because the behavior in question is ignoble and unmanly. It is out of vogue to teach manliness, duty and nobility as values these days, as they are too often seen as throwback cover for "patriarchy" by overly sensitive activist types. That is a problem with the movement, in general. We lose a lot when we lose nobility in men. But it is difficult to teach men to be men, in one breath, while telling them they have no place to be men because that would create inequality and patriarchy in the same.

Second, I self identify as a feminist, so don't pull that coy "mean old Dittohead talking about Feminazis" bullshit with me.
   1539. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:24 PM (#4391834)
Taken by itself, hard core porn has little to commend it and society is worse off because of its widespread, easy availablity.
I'll need to see some support for that argument.
   1540. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4391837)
If more facts come to light, I will consider the new facts and how they modify the present.

But at the outset of this conversation you said you were purposefully not following this story - are you sure you are even aware of the current ones, let alone whether there are more yet to come?
   1541. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:28 PM (#4391839)
But at the outset of this conversation you said you were purposefully not following this story - are you sure you are even aware of the current ones, let alone whether there are more yet to come?


I have the facts presented here, and the general shape of the conversation to date.
   1542. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:34 PM (#4391842)
If more facts come to light, I will consider the new facts and how they modify the present.

But at the outset of this conversation you said you were purposefully not following this story - are you sure you are even aware of the current ones, let alone whether there are more yet to come?

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
   1543. zenbitz Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:34 PM (#4391843)
Stubenville boys should get 1 year in jail (not fed), 2 years community service at battered womens shelters and a tatoo of "rapist" on their foreheads until they are about 30.
   1544. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:35 PM (#4391844)
might be a stupid, confused football jock

I guess this is where we differ. I fully believe in rehabilitation. I think it's likely there are redeeming qualities to both these boys, as there are with most criminals. I just don't believe this can be described as a result of confusion or stupidity. It's pretty clear that even if they didn't think of this as rape, it was intended to humiliate and debase the victim. This wasn't one person thinking they were having a drunken hook-up and the other deciding later that it was rape. This was a group of people enjoying and participating in the sexual humiliation of another person. That's evil.
   1545. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:39 PM (#4391846)
This was a group of people enjoying and participating in the sexual humiliation of another person. That's evil


Maybe. It's also little more than a scene from the Jackass movies.
   1546. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:42 PM (#4391847)
Maybe. It's also little more than a scene from the Jackass movies.

Jesus Christ, can you think of one tiny winy little thing that's different between the two situations?
   1547. zenbitz Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:43 PM (#4391850)
You know whats most distubing? Not sexual assault of unconscious chick, hell thats as old as rocks. But you would think there would be one stalwart citizen in this band of football heros that throws his letterman jacket over her and calls her a muttha fukkin cab.
   1548. zenbitz Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:45 PM (#4391851)
And going back a few pages, clearly they should tie the restraining order radius to the effective range of the dude (or theoretically, dudette's) weaponry. They can get Obama to implant gps systems in both parties anuses when they are drunk and passed out.
   1549. CrosbyBird Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:48 PM (#4391853)
And obviously these lads certainly exercised poor judgement; how much of a prosecutorial reduction in charges should I expect for assaulting them as a direct result of my disgust with their actions? I promise I'll only use my fingers. Come on, they're totally begging for it.

Well, if you use a deadly weapon rather than your fists in assaulting them, you'll likely face a more significant sentence.

Is there really no difference in your mind between non-consensual digital penetration and intercourse in terms of degree of evil? Can't we acknowledge that one awful thing can be more awful than another awful thing without looking like we're supporting the less awful one?
   1550. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:52 PM (#4391856)
Can't we acknowledge that one awful thing can be more awful than another awful thing without looking like we're supporting the less awful one?


Apparently not, no.
   1551. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:57 PM (#4391858)
Is there really no difference in your mind between non-consensual digital penetration and intercourse in terms of degree of evil?

Well, there's no difference in the Ohio rape statute - in fact it specifically equates the two.
   1552. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:58 PM (#4391859)
Tell young girls not to get passed out drunk and open themselves to these dangers. Tell young men not to rape women (or men.)

Seems like the latter would mitigate the former pretty significantly. Which is sort of the point - how about men just not rape people, and if there is some unsureness, go with not "f**king someone just because you can at that particular moment" as the default position.


Half the men I know have been sexually assaulted by women, and most have been physically assaulted by women. Please refrain from comments that make it sound like violence is perpetrated only by men.

The only difference between men and women in this regard is that men are physically stronger. At heart there's very, very little difference between the sexes.

From the Ohio statute - “Sexual conduct” means vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.


Color me skeptical when it comes to quoting statutes as though that quoting proved anything other than what a statute in question said. It has no bearing on the morality of an issue, and for the purposes of discussion we're hardly obliged to take 'what the statute said' as the endpoint of our quest for definitions.
   1553. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:58 PM (#4391860)
Well, there's no difference in the Ohio rape statute - in fact it specifically equates the two.


He wrote "degree of evil." You replied with a hedge about legal statutes in Ohio. Can you not address the question as a moral question, rather than hiding behind the dry legality of a single state statute? Is the Ohio law morally correct to conflate the two? If another state's law did not, would that be evil or okay?
   1554. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4391867)
Well, the legal question revolves around the definition of the term. What are we addressing by deciding if one is worse than the other? I might find some murders or rapes more heinous than others, but the fact is they are both still murders and rapes.
   1555. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4391868)
Can't we acknowledge that one awful thing can be more awful than another awful thing without looking like we're supporting the less awful one?


No. Remember: "rape is rape." QED, end of story, period, the end, exclamation point, double period, Good Day Sir, I.Said.Good.Day.
   1556. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4391869)
Is there really no difference in your mind between non-consensual digital penetration and intercourse in terms of degree of evil?

Well, there's no difference in the Ohio rape statute - in fact it specifically equates the two.


See? "Rape is rape." That really is all they have. They can't respond to the actual question, other than to ask why you are asking it and imply that asking it suggests something sinister about you - something sinister, very sinister, like maybe you obviously support rape.
   1557. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:09 PM (#4391870)
Well, the legal question revolves around the definition of the term. What are we addressing by deciding if one is worse than the other? I might find some murders or rapes more heinous than others, but the fact is they are both still murders and rapes.


RAPE IS... wait for it.. RAPE.
   1558. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:12 PM (#4391872)
Well Ray, it would help your argument if you could provide an example where rape wasn't rape.
   1559. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:13 PM (#4391873)
And if you insist, Sam, I am perfectly fine with making the rape/not rape distinction to be non-consensual penetration of the vagina or anus, regardless of what was used to do it.
   1560. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:16 PM (#4391875)
Well Ray, it would help your argument if you could provide an example where rape wasn't rape.


Why don't you provide an example where pizza isn't pizza? "Rape is rape" is irrelevant and non-responsive to the question "Is there really no difference in your mind between non-consensual digital penetration and intercourse in terms of degree of evil? Can't we acknowledge that one awful thing can be more awful than another awful thing without looking like we're supporting the less awful one?" Yet that's what was offered up in reply. Rape is rape.
   1561. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:18 PM (#4391877)
People who equate a drunk 16 year old fingering a girl he left a party holding hands with and who was obviously hanging around him, and an adult who jumps a woman stranger in the dark, sticks a knife to her throat, and sticks his d!ck in her against her will are moral midgets bordering on moral degenerates.
   1562. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:20 PM (#4391878)
See? "Rape is rape." That really is all they have.

Who is they Ray? Care to have a conversation with an actual person instead of the amorphous blob of evil liberals that resides in your head?

I would say that some rapes are more evil than others. I would not say that all rapes involving intercourse are more evil than all rapes involving digital penetration. Context, intent, victim, etc all play in to it.

The guy who legitimately believes he's having consensual intercourse (but is mistaken) is probably doing something less evil than these two did.
   1563. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:25 PM (#4391882)
People who equate a drunk 16 year old fingering a girl he left a party holding hands with and who was obviously hanging around him, and an adult who jumps a woman stranger in the dark, sticks a knife to her throat, and sticks his d!ck in her against her will are moral midgets bordering on moral degenerates.

Thank goodness nobody is doing that. Both may be guilty under the DOJ definition of rape, which is the same as the Ohio statute, but the latter example would be guilty of a host of other things as well.

//edit - I suspect the sentencing would also reflect the disparity in their deeds, absent any external mandatory requirements
   1564. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:27 PM (#4391883)
People who equate a drunk 16 year old fingering a girl he left a party holding hands with and who was obviously hanging around him, and an adult who jumps a woman stranger in the dark, sticks a knife to her throat, and sticks his d!ck in her against her will are moral midgets bordering on moral degenerates.

Yes, and people who defend Nazis (or the Yankees) are monsters. What's your point? No one has done either of those things in this thread.

And again, your characterization of what happened is ridiculous.
   1565. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:31 PM (#4391885)
No one has done either of those things in this thread.

Right. No one's said "rape is rape" in this thread. Or called juvenile offenders "rapists." Stay classy, leftists.

And again, your characterization of what happened is ridiculous.

Not at all. Press reports had her leaving the party with one of the "rapists" holding hands and getting into a crowded car sitting next to the "rapist", drunk but not passed out. He then "raped" her in the car, provoking howls of outrage or even dissent from absolutely no one else in the car.
   1566. CrosbyBird Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:37 PM (#4391888)
Because the only reason to bring it up is as some sort of attempt to mitigate the perps guilt. Otherwise, why discuss it?

That's a serious oversimplification.

The first reason, and in my opinion, the most important reason to discuss it is to increase awareness of the increased risk that comes with this behavior in the real world. I don't want someone I love to think that her actions have no effect on her safety; I think that's a

A second reason (which almost certainly doesn't apply in this particular case, but could in others) is because guilt generally depends on the mental state of the perpetrator to some degree. Consent is the difference between rape and socially acceptable sexual conduct, and an alleged victim's behavior can help answer the question of whether the alleged offender had a reasonable good-faith belief that consent was given. To be perfectly clear, in the case of a barely-conscious person, no belief of consent, good-faith or otherwise, could be reasonable.

Perhaps part of this is also to provide context in order to appropriately assess sentencing (which is very different than guilt). In this particular case, it's very difficult to come up with any context that even partially mitigates this particular behavior other than (perhaps) the youth of the perpetrators.

In other cases, it might really make a difference, and we shouldn't be afraid to talk about it. If John has sex with Mary, and Mary didn't consent, we would say he raped her. What he thought, and whether it was a reasonable belief, doesn't matter in practically every state's law.

I think this is a problem and a significant part of our cultural attitude toward rape; if the law doesn't distinguish between "rape by mistake" and "willful rape," then many people will care about those extra details, and whether one could make a good-faith mistake is at least partially dependent on the victim's behavior. I think we'd have less repulsive attitudes about rape in general if people weren't spending so much energy creating a false equivalency between "drunk guy mistaking consent to X and Y for consent to X, Y, and Z" and "predator consciously and intentionally violating woman." Very few people think that's the same sort of evil, and would advocate the same intensity of punishment. Once again, I should hope it is obvious that I am NOT saying that this particular incident is anything other than a clear case where consent was not given.
   1567. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:38 PM (#4391889)
See? "Rape is rape." That really is all they have.

Who is they Ray? Care to have a conversation with an actual person instead of the amorphous blob of evil liberals that resides in your head?


Huh? I know "Oh my god who is saying that, who-who-who-who!" is a standard failed rebuttal, but in this case it's doubly silly because one only needs to look a few posts above:

--------------

1551. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 06:57 PM (#4391858)

Is there really no difference in your mind between non-consensual digital penetration and intercourse in terms of degree of evil?

Well, there's no difference in the Ohio rape statute - in fact it specifically equates the two


1554. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4391867)

Well, the legal question revolves around the definition of the term. What are we addressing by deciding if one is worse than the other? I might find some murders or rapes more heinous than others, but the fact is they are both still murders and rapes.
   1568. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:39 PM (#4391890)
In other cases, it might really make a difference, and we shouldn't be afraid to talk about it. If John has sex with Mary, and Mary didn't consent, we would say he raped her. What he thought, and whether it was a reasonable belief, doesn't matter in practically every state's law.

Sure, and when those cases come up we discuss it, e.g. the Starlin Castro thread.

In this case, there's no question regarding consent.
   1569. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:51 PM (#4391893)
In this case, there's no question regarding consent.

There's actually plenty.
   1570. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:52 PM (#4391894)
The fact that I'm more willing to embrace modernity and sexual freedom than "liberals" isn't my problem, per se. Anyone who has spent more than a half hour debating with me knows that my only real favoritism is toward unpopular positions that need to be aired.

You're entitled to say and think what you want, but since you seemed surprised that someone would view you as a "men's rights" type, I figured you'd want to know.


Sorry, Vlad, but this is just hateful bull####. It's as contemptible as calling women favoring equal pay "feminazis" just because you disagree with their point of view, or claiming that Obama is as bad as Pinochet because they share a few points of view wrt national sovereignity.

But if you think you're going to train sex and sexually questionable actions out of adolescent primates, you're going to be sorely disappointed with the world.
-------
So really, we'd better not do anything at all.


Sam and Ray's point looks to me like the exact opposite of not doing anything at all. Because adolescent males are who they are, you need, in addition to giving males the massage that this behavior is not acceptable, to also communicate to adolescent girls that it's a very very bad idea to get blackout drunk at parties.


That's my impression as well, but apparently to point out the lastmost is to, really (according to some posters), not so subtly approve of rape. It's a disgusting insinuation.

I had thought the liberal smear machine a function only of Ray and his ilk's paranoid fantasies until I found BTF. A few of you are Limbaugh-shitty when it comes to assassinating the character of those you disagree with.

The coach was sent messages regarding the matter by the accused about the incident at the time of the occurrence. "Two players who testified at a hearing in October were not suspended until eight games into a 10-game regular season," reports the Plain-Dealer, which notes that Saccoccia has maintained that he did not discuss the incident with his players.

And? Do we expect football coaches to suspend their players prior to any actual charges being filed? Are they supposed to take preemptive action against their players because of something that might be investigated at some undetermined future date?


I eagerly await the first poster's offer to resign from his job the next time he's accused of a crime, to ensure that his employer is not tarred by guilt-by-association. Well, even though no guilt has been established.

The almost universal practice of suspending athletes merely accused of crimes strikes me as particularly grotesque and objectionable, but also something very few people seem bothered by.

Also, speaking as a guy who earns a living as a writer: If people can't understand what you're trying to say, then that's on you, not them. Even if they're stupid.


That's unusual. Most writers I know don't advocate dumbing down writing, especially not to the lowest common denominator.

   1571. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:54 PM (#4391896)

Right. No one's said "rape is rape" in this thread.

Well, Ray has said it a lot.

Not at all. Press reports had her leaving the party with one of the "rapists" holding hands and getting into a crowded car sitting next to the guy, drunk but not passed out. He then "raped" her in the car, provoking howls of outrage or even dissent from absolutely no one else in the car.

I think you might have your parties confused. Before the car ride in question she was puking in the street, and mumbling incoherently.
   1572. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:54 PM (#4391897)
In this case, there's no question regarding consent.

There's actually plenty.


Uh, SugarBear? How so? Was she not passed out?
   1573. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 19, 2013 at 07:59 PM (#4391902)
Good grief this thread is terrible. Anyway from when they were very young I have taught my boys that no does mean no, consent is important, and touching requires consent - initially in a non-sexual way and currently (they are young teens) sex has been included.

Not every parent does this, and so the thought that "well we tried and just telling boys not to rape girls doesn't work" is ridiculous. There is still parts of the world (pools of nasty) where rape is not really rape, unless maybe it involves a knife or something and that is what the evil feminists and liberals are trying to eliminate, and if we offend Sam and a few others, well gosh that is too darn bad. If it makes woman safer then I am OK with ticking off Sam.

And Jack 1551 is absurd and completely refuted by pretty every study on the issue ever done. Men are much more likely to be sexual predators than woman. Whether it is genetic, societal, or what is semi-irrelevant - thems the facts, even if you and your friends are statistical anomalies and what you wrote is true.
   1574. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:01 PM (#4391903)
Huh? I know "Oh my god who is saying that, who-who-who-who!" is a standard failed rebuttal, but in this case it's doubly silly because one only needs to look a few posts above:

Well, spike pointed out that they were both legally rape (as they are). That's different from shutting down a conversation by yelling rape is rape and refusing to discuss anything else.
   1575. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:03 PM (#4391905)
Uh, SugarBear? How so? Was she not passed out?

Not by my reading, no. At least not as to the first one. But, like Sam, I'm far more focused on the meta.

I was speaking more to the legal standard, which in the prosecutors' own words required the defendants to know of the victim's incapacity to consent. There are significant questions about that element, as it's subjective.

They didn't get a jury trial and the judge was a visiting judge who ran a quick trial, including over a weekend. No one should be happy with such a thing.
   1576. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:06 PM (#4391909)
   1577. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:08 PM (#4391911)

They also have a difficult time imagining a woman lying about having been raped.


No, it just happens to be about as rare as in-person voter fraud.

   1578. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:08 PM (#4391912)
Good grief this thread is terrible. Anyway from when they were very young I have taught my boys that no does mean no, consent is important, and touching requires consent - initially in a non-sexual way and currently (they are young teens) sex has been included.


BM, was this an attempt to answer my #1515? Because if it was, I appreciate the attempt, but the question was about what you tell your *daughters* (or would, if you had them), not your sons.

Since it's been awhile and all I've heard is crickets in response to my #1515, I'll pull a Lassus/Andy and repost it while asking for an answer from all progressives in this thread:

-------------

But I don't think any of you actually live your lives this way. I think you're all full of what makes the grass grow green and are just pimping liberalspeak on the internet.

I would like to know specifically from those of you with teenage daughters:

1. Have you ever told your daughter not to put herself in a vulnerable position? Have you ever said, you know, there are bad people who might do bad things to you, even rape, and you should reduce the chance that something bad will happen to you by making intelligent decisions and limiting your risk. So don't put yourself in a vulnerable position which would increase your chance of being raped.

2. Or have you said to your daughter, there is no need to worry about whether you put yourself in a vulnerable position. There are laws against rape and if a man rapes you he is a criminal. It's fine to get so drunk at a party that you black out.

3. Or have you just told nothing at all to your daughter about this because you just don't ####### give a #### about what happens to her?

Please respond by being specific about what lesson you have imparted to your teenage daughter on this subject. Because as I said, I think you people are full of it and don't actually live your lives in this way.

If you don't actually have a teenage daughter then please comment hypothetically.


   1579. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:09 PM (#4391914)
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/steubenville-rape-case-story-heard/story?id=18705357

Perhaps a better link.
   1580. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:10 PM (#4391915)
They also have a difficult time imagining a woman lying about having been raped.


No, it just happens to be about as rare as in-person voter fraud.


Case rested.
   1581. CrosbyBird Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:20 PM (#4391922)
In this case, there's no question regarding consent.

I agree. But that's only one of the reasons that I gave.

I find it very difficult to overcome the idea that this particular behavior is pretty clearly outrageous and unacceptable, and that even younger teenagers are mature enough to know this without special or additional education. I also find it difficult to believe that even young teenage girls aren't aware that drinking until you're unconscious increases your odds of being sexually assaulted.

This seems to me to be a fundamental problem with parenting and the culture; I wasn't some sort of remarkably forward-thinking teenager and I knew this without being explicitly told.
   1582. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:24 PM (#4391925)
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/steubenville-rape-case-story-heard/story?id=18705357

Perhaps a better link.


That really doesn't raise any questions that help the defense. There are some allegations that she was coming on to one of the guys, and, that in her drunken state, she agreed to go in the car with the 5 guys.

But it clearly says both defendants penetrated and groped her after she was fall-down drunk, throwing up, incoherent, and passed-out.
   1583. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:25 PM (#4391927)
I agree. But that's only one of the reasons that I gave.

I find it very difficult to overcome the idea that this particular behavior is pretty clearly outrageous and unacceptable, and that even younger teenagers are mature enough to know this without special or additional education. I also find it difficult to believe that even young teenage girls aren't aware that drinking until you're unconscious increases your odds of being sexually assaulted.

This seems to me to be a fundamental problem with parenting and the culture; I wasn't some sort of remarkably forward-thinking teenager and I knew this without being explicitly told.


But, is anyone arguing we shouldn't teach girls (and boys) not to get fall-down drunk?
   1584. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4391930)
I find it very difficult to overcome the idea that this particular behavior is pretty clearly outrageous and unacceptable, and that even younger teenagers are mature enough to know this without special or additional education. I also find it difficult to believe that even young teenage girls aren't aware that drinking until you're unconscious increases your odds of being sexually assaulted.

While I'd generally concur with the proposition that a 16 year old should be able to know when conduct generally is less than expected by the community, I disagree with the assertion that a 16 year old is mature enough to understand capacity to consent to sexual contact and when someone is so intoxicated that they are unable to so consent.(*) The latter was the only issue in the sexual assault charge.

(*) Sixteen year olds aren't even allowed to drink legally.



   1585. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:32 PM (#4391932)
Uh, SugarBear? How so? Was she not passed out?


Not by my reading, no. At least not as to the first one. But, like Sam, I'm far more focused on the meta.

I was speaking more to the legal standard, which in the prosecutors' own words required the defendants to know of the victim's incapacity to consent. There are significant questions about that element, as it's subjective.


Even from the ABC link you sent, I have no trouble with the conclusion that she was simply too drunk to consent, if not passed out at times.

Indeed, the best argument from the defense attorneys is that she was "sober enough" to consent:

Attorneys for Trent and Ma'lik insist that their clients are not guilty of any crime, claiming that she was sober enough throughout the night to consent.

I don't think the word "sober" can be credibly applied in any way to her state during the events that night.

And this argument from them doesn't pass the giggle test:

"What we believe we will be able to support is that she voluntarily proceeded throughout the night with our client," Trent's attorney, Brian Duncan, told ABC News. "There is no indication that she was somehow so intoxicated that she could not have consented to any of the contact that occurred."

I agree with you on the meta point, but I don't see a reason to take a stand against what seems to be a very reasonable and supported determination that she was not in a position to give consent.

They didn't get a jury trial and the judge was a visiting judge who ran a quick trial, including over a weekend. No one should be happy with such a thing.


I agree with you here.
   1586. Morty Causa Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:33 PM (#4391934)


1584:

But why doesn't it apply both ways? She's to drunk to consent even if she ostensibly consents--and guys, also underage, are too young to know that. Or to know what is or is not legal consent (except in the obvious sense of overcoming someone through duress or threat)?
   1587. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:33 PM (#4391935)
And obviously these lads certainly exercised poor judgement; how much of a prosecutorial reduction in charges should I expect for assaulting them as a direct result of my disgust with their actions? I promise I'll only use my fingers. Come on, they're totally begging for it.

Well, if you use a deadly weapon rather than your fists in assaulting them, you'll likely face a more significant sentence.


I said I only want to use my hands. Obviously these young fellows are absolutely begging for a good thrashing from my educated fists given their heinous actions, so how much of a reduction in prosecutorial charges should I be entitled to given that they're clearly leading me on?

Is there really no difference in your mind between non-consensual digital penetration and intercourse in terms of degree of evil?


If it happened to me? Me personally and not some abstract "somebody" whom I've never met and am thus insulated by abstraction? You'd better believe it chum. Someone fists your ass against your will and maybe you'll feel a little bit raped too.

And really, that's what's so obnoxious about this whole discussion, both here and in the media at large. It's always the presumed weaker person who is supposed to shoulder some blame, and naturally that person is never in the dominant group that sits back and tut-tuts that they really should be more careful. Women need to watch what they wear and where they walk, or they're asking for trouble. A gay fella shouldn't wink at the wrong man or he's inviting retaliation for unwanted advances.

And these scolds are almost always effete fancy lads who wouldn't imagine themselves under such rigorous standards of behavior. Lemme tell ya, some people sure like to puff up and talk tough on topics like these only because there's no social stigma equating their bluster with an incitement to assault. If we lived in a society where packs of roaming bull-queers were routinely dragging drunken blowhards out into back alleys for a little light dick-whipping I don't think we'd see a similar cry to personal responsibility against those who incite such assaults. You can run your mouths about how these girls are shouldering blame for being victims of assault but you'll be quick to cry for the comforting embrace of Big Government if someone beats your ass because you weren't sufficiently demure, didn't yield on the sidewalk, flashed too much cash, or did any of a thousand factors every bit as mitigating to your own assault as having too many drinks with friends or wearing a tank top is for women.

   1588. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:34 PM (#4391937)
But it clearly says both defendants penetrated and groped her after she was fall-down drunk, throwing up, incoherent, and passed-out.

It says no such thing, "clearly" or otherwise.
   1589. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:34 PM (#4391938)
Sorry, Vlad, but this is just hateful bull####. It's as contemptible as calling women favoring equal pay "feminazis" just because you disagree with their point of view, or claiming that Obama is as bad as Pinochet because they share a few points of view wrt national sovereignity.


Someone who would find me contemptible for being unreceptive to misogyny is someone whose respect I'm probably not all that interested in having in the first place.

Also, your analogy is terrible.
   1590. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:34 PM (#4391939)
But it clearly says both defendants penetrated and groped her after she was fall-down drunk, throwing up, incoherent, and passed-out.


I agree, Snapper.
   1591. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:38 PM (#4391943)
But it clearly says both defendants penetrated and groped her after she was fall-down drunk, throwing up, incoherent, and passed-out.

It says no such thing, "clearly" or otherwise.


I think Snapper used the word "clearly" as in, "it is clear from reading the article and the various accounts of the evidence." And I agree that from the article you sent that what Snapper wrote is clear -- well, with the exception that there is a dispute over whether she was actually passed out. And the defense is disputing "incoherent." So I will walk my statement back a bit. But, still, from the article it is clear to me that she was in no position to consent.

I mean, sure, maybe if we had a time machine and went back and viewed all of this through their eyes we might see that the guys had an honest and reasonable belief that she was consenting, but, well, we can only go on the evidence we have. And the idea that she consented to this seems preposterous to me.
   1592. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:40 PM (#4391945)
I agree with you on the meta point, but I don't see a reason to take a stand against what seems to be a very reasonable and supported determination that she was not in a position to give consent.


I'm not taking a major stand, other than on the broader point that I'm troubled by holding 16 year olds to account for figuring out the state of intoxication of other 16 year olds and how that bears on their consent to not unwelcome sexual contact, which was a necessary element to the conviction. Everyone should be troubled by such a thing. Those are adult concepts, beyond the obvious fact that 16 year olds can't even legally drink.
   1593. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:43 PM (#4391953)
And the idea that she consented to this seems preposterous to me.

That's not the legal standard -- and here I'm using the prosecutor's own description.(*) She said the charge required the defendants knowing the victim didn't have the capacity to consent.

(*) "She was a toy to them that night and the bottom line is we don't have to prove that she said no. All we have to prove is when she's being penetrated that she was unresponsive and not in a position to consent and they knew it."
   1594. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:46 PM (#4391957)
Those are adult concepts, beyond the obvious fact that 16 year olds can't even legally drink.


I'm troubled that, if these are correct:

* The defendants were tried as adults for serious crimes, with their liberty, reputation, and social standing at stake (including the potential to be deemed sex offenders), but were not given a jury trial.

Did they not ask for a jury trial?

Yes, the idea that they can't legally vote, drink, or smoke, yet can be tried as adults seems off to me.
   1595. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:46 PM (#4391961)
No, it just happens to be about as rare as in-person voter fraud.

Case rested.

Well I am glad that you have finally come round to the POV that in person voter fraud is a rare enough occurrence to not require additional safeguards.

Beyond that, some woman do lie about being raped, and the legal system should do a better job of protecting men from the fallout of such allegations, in cases that they cannot prove BARD. But that's not really related to the discussion we were actually having.
   1596. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:46 PM (#4391962)
They weren't tried as adults. Hence the lack of a jury trial.
   1597. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:47 PM (#4391963)

I'm troubled that, if these are correct:

* The defendants were tried as adults for serious crimes, with their liberty, reputation, and social standing at stake (including the potential to be deemed sex offenders), but were not given a jury trial.

Did they not ask for a jury trial?

Yes, the idea that they can't legally vote or drink, yet can be tried as adults seems off to me.


They were tried as juveniles.
   1598. Morty Causa Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:47 PM (#4391964)
16-year olds aren't even fully developed yet. Their pre-frontal cortexes (impulse control) are not fully formed. They are not adults in any sense, except they can somehow get plenty of booze, which appeals to their un-matured, un-fully-formed brain.
   1599. dlf Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:48 PM (#4391967)
But I don't think any of you actually live your lives this way. I think you're all full of what makes the grass grow green and are just pimping liberalspeak on the internet.

I would like to know specifically from those of you with teenage daughters:

1. Have you ever told your daughter not to put herself in a vulnerable position? Have you ever said, you know, there are bad people who might do bad things to you, even rape, and you should reduce the chance that something bad will happen to you by making intelligent decisions and limiting your risk. So don't put yourself in a vulnerable position which would increase your chance of being raped.

2. Or have you said to your daughter, there is no need to worry about whether you put yourself in a vulnerable position. There are laws against rape and if a man rapes you he is a criminal. It's fine to get so drunk at a party that you black out.

3. Or have you just told nothing at all to your daughter about this because you just don't ####### give a #### about what happens to her?

Please respond by being specific about what lesson you have imparted to your teenage daughter on this subject. Because as I said, I think you people are full of it and don't actually live your lives in this way.

If you don't actually have a teenage daughter then please comment hypothetically.


I have two daughters, a 16 year old and a 12 year old. I'm not sure if I qualify as progressive anymore - I worked for Michael Dukakis a lifetime ago, but think Liz Warren is a fruitcake - but can play one on the internet.

I have repeatedly told my daughters that the world is basically a good place and people are basically good, but they need to be careful. I've told them that they are responsible for their actions and particularly need to be careful around drugs and alcohol. Particularly with the 16 year old, I know her friends, where she goes and who she goes with. Their mother and I have made it as clear as possible that we will drop everything to come get them if they feel uncomfortable in any situation and that we are always no further away than a phone call.

They have - thank god - never been the victim of sexual abuse and hopefully I will never have to have this conversation. But in a different context (bullying) I have been absolutely clear that being the victim of boorish behavior is not their fault and they shouldn't feel demeaned or diminished by having been the target of improper conduct. We talked about tools to avoid the situations, but I also was 100% clear to them that they shouldn't feel like it was their fault that they were bullied. I've talked about tools to avoid a sexual assault, but if, heaven forbid, they suffer what the Stubenville girl did, I would never, ever, ever suggest that it was their fault, even if they were drunk or started the night off flirtatiously. Simply put, being stupid is not justification to be used as a sex doll or in any way diminishes the responsibility of the perpetrators.
   1600. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 08:50 PM (#4391970)
I also find it difficult to believe that even young teenage girls aren't aware that drinking until you're unconscious increases your odds of being sexually assaulted.

Yeah, the problem is that nobody really sets out to drink until they are unconscious. To get really drunk sure. But unconscious is one of those things that by the time you know what has happened, it's too late.
Page 16 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Page rendered in 1.0794 seconds
52 querie(s) executed