"But if the victim were a woman, they wouldn’t hesitate, and the law needs to be enforced equally."
Laura Curtis at Pursuing Holiness Blog has a post on the double standards when men are sexaully assaulted:
Given the way that our society laughs and mocks men who are abused in this way, I can understand the guy not coming forward, but he must. It is only when individual men start to say "No, this is not justice for all" and endure the ridicule that men everywhere will no longer have to endure their rights and bodies being violated in this absurd manner without consequence.
This is an unremittingly bad story. An LSU fan was stupid enough to drink himself senseless in a public place and evidently didn’t have even a single friend willing to look out for him. An mob of stupid Alabama fans assaulted him – putting trash on him and even teabagging him. In fact, they were so stupid that they filmed their crimes and posted them on the internet.
Next, the New Orleans police department – with actual video of a sex crime in their possession- decided they couldn’t investigate unless the victim stepped forward.
Let’s do a little thought experiment. Let’s imagine that this was a girl who drank herself stupid. Let’s imagine that she was touched, her breasts were fondled, and that a man rubbed his genitals on her while she was unconscious. Can anyone imagine the NOPD – or any police department, anywhere – dragging their heels on investigating unless she came forward?
Given the way that our society laughs and mocks men who are abused in this way, I can understand the guy not coming forward, but he must. It is only when individual men start to say "No, this is not justice for all" and endure the ridicule that men everywhere will no longer have to endure their rights and bodies being violated in this absurd manner without consequence.
Labels: men's rights (or lack thereof)
posted by Helen Smith at 3:44 PM
19 Comments:
I thought crimes like that were on a "must prosecute" basis. I suppose it depends on what State you're in.
@Wayne
It depends on what genitals you have...not the state you are in
There was a case in 2009 in which a woman grabbed her boyfriend by his testicles and pulled until his scrotum tore open. The prosecutor simply declines to prosecute her. THAT is how sex crimes against males are viewed in modern America. There is quite literally no type of sexual crime a person can commit against a male victim that will be taken seriously by the law. In many states rape of a male wasn't even recognized until the 21st century. Even then, the only rape the laws acknowledge are anal rape. You can do whatever you like to a male victim's genitalia and the law won't acknowledge it as sexual assault. Just don't put anything in his butt and you're OK.
It is just insane how the law treats male victims of sexual abuse, but considering that depictions of sexual violence against males are used as comedy gags in television and even children's movies, what do you expect? We aren't classified as human beings under the law anymore.
It's even worse than that, Memphis Steve: Lots of men who are raped are then forced to pay child support to the woman.
There was a case from Missouri in which a guy passed out at a party from alcohol, and the woman got into bed and got him hard while he was passed out and got his sperm (instead of from a sperm bank which she was intending).
What she did was a sexual assault by any means, and not only was she free of prosecution, he was ordered to pay child support and fork over a huge retroactive amount.
Boys who are subjected to statutory rape by adult women have also been ordered to pay child support (nominal, the parents usually pay it, but then the boy really gets in the harness when he turns 18).
It seems like women have advantages over men in many areas, but feminists and women-firsters STILL complain that they are disadvantaged and STILL demand more and are STILL given more by chivalrous and mangina men.
In the area of criminal law, women can even commit cold-blooded, first degree murder and get away with it (cf. Mary Winkler). They just have to claim the man was abusive - even lacking any real evidence, like Mary - and luckily the guy's not around any more to dispute it.
In the area of "reproductive rights", women have ALL of the advantages. Despite the constant rhetoric about the Patriarchy oppressing women and taking away their reproductive rights and all that, women can choose to terminate a pregnancy or not. They can choose to give the baby up for adoption or to just chuck it through a flap at a hospital or firehouse ("safe haven" laws). They have all the choices. Men are only there to pay for her choices. If she decides to have the baby, there is a huge state mechanism that is going to corner the guy, force him to work and take away his money to pay for Cupcake's choice. She chooses, he is responsible for her choice.
Frankly, that doesn't sound like a Patriarchy oppressing women.
"Can anyone imagine the NOPD – or any police department, anywhere – dragging their heels on investigating unless she came forward?"
NOPD? Yeah, yeah I can.
I am an LSU fan, and he was already assaulted if he watched the whole game. Alabama tore up our Tigers.
His later sexual assault is adding injury to insult.
But seriously, a crime was committed. Most rape victims are male. Most rapes are committed in prison. They are certainly not prosecuted.
Trey
The teabagger has been identified - he's his 30s, married, with a child. !!! Not that this would have been excusable if he were a college student, but still. At the moment he is on his way – with his attorney – to New Orleans to have a little chat with the NOPD. I’m sorry for his family, but I’m glad that it’s looking like there will be some consequences for his behavior. That is, unless NOPD - which locals often describe as Not Our Problem Dude - finds some way to let this guy off the hook.
I sort of like your notion, a bit. But for me? No, I just don't put men in the same class as I put women. A major difference is pregnancy. Another, to be quite frank, is personal defensibility and capacity to choose wisely. Women can't, pretty much, defend themselves. And I do not consider them fully capable of understanding threat analysis. Men, on the other hand, if they abandon their natural tools, I have little... make that no... sympathy.
If the guy was simply overpowered by a bunch of thugs, that would be a different matter. This wasn't the case. The man should, rightly, be ashamed.
Women can't, pretty much, defend themselves.
Ever heard of a gun? Women with guns can defend themselves quite well, but judging from what a douche bag you are, you think that women are probably too delicate to carry guns. So for their own safety, you don't let them.
And I do not consider them fully capable of understanding threat analysis.
Right. Women are just stupid.
Men, on the other hand, if they abandon their natural tools, I have little... make that no... sympathy.
Right. Men are pretty much animals undeserving of any sort of sympathy. Can we even be considered human?
The man should, rightly, be ashamed.
He should be ashamed of getting so stupid drunk, not being sexually assaulted, you human paraquat! The men who sexually assaulted him should be ashamed (and prosecuted) of sexually assaulting him.
You're a douche, plain and simple.
Ken, now I understand what people mean when they quote text and just write, "This." Well said.
Ken,
You are an idiot. You have bought into feminism of today. It is an aberration that will disappear, one way or another, and for the reasons I stated. Women aren't equal, even with a gun. Most women have ftf issues, they won't pull the trigger.
You are an absolute idiot if you think men and women are equally able at self defense and if you think women take security as seriously as men do. Then again, you have pointed that out clearly.
Sounds like you have empathy, not sympathy, by the way. Quit getting drunk in queer areas and you won't have these issues. No sympathy whatsoever.
I have bought into the feminism of today? Are you effing high? Let me know when you see a modern feminist condemn the idiots who say that when men are sexually assaulted, well they brought it on themselves.
Women aren't equal, even with a gun.
I'm not talking about equal. What I am saying and the statistics, if you know how to do any research, clearly shows that women who carry guns are far less likely to be victims of any kind of assault. The frequencies of gun carrying women are on par with those of men (carrying or not).
Most women have ftf issues, they won't pull the trigger.
Pretty sure Sarah McKinley disagrees as do all other women who have guns when confronted with an attacker.
You are an absolute idiot if you think men and women are equally able at self defense
Of course, you muster zero evidence for this and your previous statements, making half assed declaratives using "ftf" and how women have issues with them. When given the means with which to protect themselves, instead of having those means stripped away, primarily in the form of gun control laws, women can defend themselves as well as any man against an attacker.
if you think women take security as seriously as men do.
Again, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. Women don't pay attention to where they're at or what's going on? Seriously? Maybe you don't know a lot of women, but I can tell you that they are much more concerned with safety than most men I meet.
Quit getting drunk in queer areas and you won't have these issues.
Project much?
And you seem confused on the differences between empathy and sympathy. Here's a helpful link for you. It's possible to both empathize and sympathize. I identify with the injustice against men (empathize) and feel sorry for (sympathize) the LSU fan for not only having been sexually assaulted by callous thugs, but also to be further humiliated by assholes like you. You're inability to feel sorry for someone who's obviously been hurt and humiliated (you claim to feel no sympathy) only paints you as a callous douche bag.
Ken,
What are you, ten? Women who carry are the vast minority of women. Any statistical difference of rape between them and other women is offset by their being armed, and so self-selecting to lead a specific type of life. Women who carry are almost too rare to even consider as a statistic.
As well, expecting others to have sympathy for people who put themselves in harms way is absolutely foolish. We have no reason to pity such people. I only have just so much sympathy and it only goes to those who, for no choice of their own, are harmed. That the world has become so metrosexually based that men, if you are one, can have sympathy for such a loser... And, be mouthy here. In a face to face you wouldn't be a little bitch to me, unless it was a crying one. Punk.
Women who carry are the vast minority of women.
Men who carry are the vast minority of men. So? How does this change the fact that women with guns can defend themselves from attackers as well as a man? And who needs to carry? Do you even know who Sarah McKinley is? She wasn't carrying, but she was able to use a gun and put down an attacker.
Why do you assume a woman has to be carrying to protect herself? Many women are attacked in the home. You want to change the subject from a woman's ability to protect herself with a gun to statistics (I don't blame you for changing the subject, though, you clearly are lost and have no idea what you're talking about).
There are 250,000,000 privately owned guns in the US. That's more guns than there are adults. Additionally, nearly every man I know who owns a gun has a wife/girlfriend who owns a gun. Women are currently buying guns at higher rates than men. Women are currently applying for concealed carry at higher rates than men. If things continue gun ownership among women will reach parity with men.
You change the subject to talk about statistics, but you are woefully ignorant of even those. Your mom must be so proud she pushed out such an idiot as yourself.
expecting others to have sympathy for people who put themselves in harms way is absolutely foolish.
The LSU fan wasn't putting himself in harms way. He didn't go to a drug deal in a sketchy part of town. He didn't get drunk and get behind a wheel. He got drunk and passed out. There is no way this can be construed as putting himself "in harms way". I have sympathy for anyone who is physically taken advantage of against their will. It's called being a human being. You talk about losers, but you're the one lamely calling himself (herself?) "Doom". I don't expect anything from you. You simply reveal yourself as weak with an inability to see others as people.
Also, you make a lot of assumptions about me, when the reality is I would make you my bitch. I'd put you over my knee and give you the spanking you so obviously deserve. And your mother's a punk.
You remain a giant douche.
Doom: "As well, expecting others to have sympathy for people who put themselves in harms way is absolutely foolish."
If a woman had similarly "put herself in harm's way" and was assaulted in this manner, would you have the same lack of sympathy, empathy, or whatever you want to call it?
I really have no patience anymore for this little buzzing creatures who actually have more condemnation for the victims of crime than for the perpetrators.
bmmg39,
The difference is a woman can get pregnant and is not as culpable for her actions, to my way of thinking. However, and to a degree, no I would not have sympathy for her. I would have sympathy from any child created this way though. While the molesters/rapists are guilty for their part, any target has a range of personal responsibility too, separate and different.
A lack of sympathy, however, does not lead to a lack of interest in prosecution. And rightly. However, it is only sad that people cannot be prosecuted for being stupid too. If I agree with the police in not pursuing this. For both legal and social reasons.
Ken,
You are still a pu**y idiot. Shut up.
What a retort! "Shut up". What's that matter? Did your ignorance come to an end? Of course not because you say this: The difference is a woman can get pregnant and is not as culpable for her actions, to my way of thinking. Last I heard, getting tea bagged, while still sexual assault, can't get you pregnant. Since it's still assault and not matter if the person being tea bagged is a man or woman, no pregnancy can occur, the fact that in this situation a man was sexually assaulted shouldn't make a difference... to your way of thinking.
Or do you not know how women get pregnant? Didn't your mommy teach you the birds and the bees?
You douche bag.
Without taking side in the discussion, can we please keep it civil? I think the discussion has interest, and civility would help it.
Here's an idea: the next person to use bad language in the thread is universally considered to have lost the argument.
I personally believe anyone drinking themselves to incapacity is a fool. It shouldn't make them a "free shot victim".
The guy caught on tape should spend at least the next year in jail.
Post a Comment
<< Home