Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And women still got raped. When we lived in Missouri years ago, there was an incident where an 80+ year old woman was sexually assaulted and left for dead in her home by a group of teenage boys. Do you think she should have covered her arms and legs? We need to get off this notion that rape happens because men are so overcome with passion that they can't control themselves. It's a violent crime, and it's about wanting to hurt someone and have power over them vs. just wanting to have sex. Rapists go looking for opportunities where victims are vulnerable. You can make yourself less likely to be a victim by being aware of your surroundings, but if you're not the one attacked, they're still going to look for someone else to attack. Rapists are predators.
See post #61, above.
Yes, it's a violent crime. So, like all other violent crimes, it can be dealt with to some degree by social regulation (the old-fashioned Mayberry way) or in default by police methods. Again, I'm not advocating this position, simply speculating about its intellectual origins, but I suspect that many conservatives prefer to maximize social regulation and minimize state regulation.
If chaperoning all young girls, requiring them to wear long dresses and never leave the house alone, is only a sort of solution, another sort of solution would be full-scale Orwellian police surveillance of the population, the other extreme. Neither is a very appetizing alternative, I think.
Yeah, you tell 'em. She was asking for it!!! I mean, those poor little boys had no control over their willies once she got drunk.
That's why the parents should have been tried -- minor-aged boys at a drunken orgy aren't really in control over their willies, they were likely just as drunk as she was. No one was in control -- these were out-of-control children, all of them. Why do the idiots they have for parents get off scot-free?
Location: where people are either too stupid to leave or too stuck to move
3,982 posts, read 6,705,244 times
Reputation: 3690
good... 1 or 2 years isn't much but the scarlet letter they will bare forever is enough...
the girl may have a chance at normal life, however the rape will be the secret (until her name is released one day if not already) burden she will carry..
Absolutely - it wasn't a perfect, happy world at all. For one thing, it was very, very class-biased. A girl from a "good" Mayberry family could bank on vengeance - especially if the boy wasn't. A boy from a "good" family might well get away with it, or at the most have to leave town for awhile. And a girl from the "wrong side of the tracks" probably just had it coming to her.
I'm not suggesting that this old world was in any way better, just speculating about the source of these conservatives' mental reservations which you noticed. And it is in the nature of conservatism to be nostalgic for the past.
The disconnect with personal responsibility is what gets me. In any other instance, these nuts would be screaming that if you do the crime, you do the time, but when it involves attacking a woman, then it's her fault and she deserves what she gets, or that she should be locked away just in case some predator might try to attack her.
There has to be a balance between teaching girls to be aware of their surroundings so they're less likely to be a victim of a violent crime, and going after violent criminals full force. Sometimes, no matter what you do, you just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time--it's not the fault of the victim. Look at what's gone on in India in the last few months--the young medical student gang raped on a bus, and the Swiss tourist raped when she was camping with her husband. Is it their fault for riding a public bus or sleeping in a tent? 5 men confess to gang-raping Swiss tourist in India - CNN.com
That's why the parents should have been tried -- minor-aged boys at a drunken orgy aren't really in control over their willies, they were likely just as drunk as she was. No one was in control -- these were out-of-control children, all of them. Why do the idiots they have for parents get off scot-free?
Yaa, no wait that is just stupid. These boys pulled it out and did what they did. Sorry you have to be responsible for what you do I don't give a rats ass what age you are.
And again -- this was just a young girl -- where were her parents -- what kind of parents would allow a skantily-clad girl to go out like that and to attend a drinking party dressed that way? And the parents of the boys -- where was the party held? Who were the adult chaperones? We don't have mandatory burkas obviously -- but that still doesn't mean parents have to dress their daughters like skanks.
Maybe we should just simply ban driving licenses for anyone under 18 - how much trouble is caused because kids are mobile and therefore mostly independent of their parents' supervision?
Yaa, no wait that is just stupid. These boys pulled it out and did what they did. Sorry you have to be responsible for what you do I don't give a rats ass what age you are.
It's still inexcusable, and punishable, but the boys were charged with putting their fingers in her - not their willies.
Yes, it's a violent crime. So, like all other violent crimes, it can be dealt with to some degree by social regulation (the old-fashioned Mayberry way) or in default by police methods. Again, I'm not advocating this position, simply speculating about its intellectual origins, but I suspect that many conservatives prefer to maximize social regulation and minimize state regulation.
If chaperoning all young girls, requiring them to wear long dresses and never leave the house alone, is only a sort of solution, another sort of solution would be full-scale Orwellian police surveillance of the population, the other extreme. Neither is a very appetizing alternative, I think.
I don't think it's Orwellian to put rapists in jail, or to hold parents accountable if they buy alcohol or drugs for kids, or just look the other way when their kids are out of control and attribute it to "just being teenagers" or "boys will be boys." I have five teenage boys, and it doesn't work that way in our home. The thing that's so awful about this case in Ohio is that the community tried to protect the boys when they'd obviously committed a violent crime. That's sick.
It's still inexcusable, and punishable, but the boys were charged with putting their fingers in her - not their willies.
What's the difference? It's still sodomy and rape. The only plus is that she won't get pregnant--they still forcefully penetrated her. Why does it matter what they use to do it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
