zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 14, 2016 3:09:16 GMT -5
Smart kids figure out constantly questioning will stall them from doing something they don't want to do. I make a brief explanation if it's worth explaining, usually was, then the subject was closed for now.
|
|
finnime
Junior Associate
Be kind. Everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 7:14:35 GMT -5
Posts: 8,019
|
Post by finnime on Jun 14, 2016 7:02:46 GMT -5
I always thought the excuse was that little Billy raped a girl because he wasn't hugged enough as a child. We may not be doing 'bleeding heart' right here, guys. Billy isn't raping because he needs more physical affection. Billy is raping because - of the warped and sick power dimension involved with overpowering someone else; because he does not recognize the humanness of the other person; because he has no idea how to enjoy sexual relations with love. Billy chooses the persons he rapes by their acquiescence. Very drugged, unconscious, young or awkward people are easier to overpower and much less likely to fight back. When I was a girl (teenager) taking driving lessons, the middle-aged instructor took me to side fields, grabbed me and kissed me. On several occasions. I had no idea how to respond. Later as I worked in a restaurant the head chef did the same in the walk-in refrigerator. My parents had never explicitly discussed how to respond to that sort of attack; I was a polite and well brought up child. I have a son and a daughter. My daughter is tough and strong, but their father, my XH, is a bully. I have taught my son consider girls and women before he asks them out, and taught him and his male cousins they must talk with people before sex, about birth control and preferences and anything else relevant. I hope this sort of thing would reduce raping / rape culture. Talking is the big thing.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 14, 2016 7:47:50 GMT -5
Let me zip into my flame proof suit, as I fully expect my statements to be mis interpreted.
While I understand the idea of date rape and you aren't necessarily entitled to sex just because you paid for a few dates, I think women have the obligation to either reciprocate in a relationship or otherwise indicate they aren't interested, and I mean this in a larger context than just sex.
If I'm going to spend my time, talent, money, and emotional energy on a pursuing a woman, I'm not going to apologize for having the expectation of having all that reciprocated in a relationship. And again, when I say "reciprocation" I mean on other levels than just sex. I also mean emotional support, time, talent ect.
I reject this notion that I'm supposed to spend, my time, talent, and money, and emotional energy just for the pleasure of her company. While you're free to say "no" I'm also free to not keep spending my time, money, and emotional energy on you if I don't feel I'm getting what I want/need from. And again, for the third time, im speaking in broader terms than just sex. I'm not saying women need to "put out" after a certain amount of time or anything. I'm just saying that it's not unreasonable for a man looking to start a relationship with a woman to have an expectation of having his needs meet to. I'm not running a dating charity.
If women aren't interested, they should say so. In a direct way.
In my experience though, women are notoriously wishy washy when it comes to dating and relationships. But in the context of sex, if you aren't sure, then don't do it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,242
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 14, 2016 8:15:48 GMT -5
Let me zip into my flame proof suit, as I fully expect my statements to be mis interpreted. While I understand the idea of date rape and you aren't necessarily entitled to sex just because you paid for a few dates, I think women have the obligation to either reciprocate in a relationship or otherwise indicate they aren't interested, and I mean this in a larger context than just sex. If I'm going to spend my time, talent, money, and emotional energy on a pursuing a woman, I'm not going to apologize for having the expectation of having all that reciprocated in a relationship. And again, when I say "reciprocation" I mean on other levels than just sex. I also mean emotional support, time, talent ect. I reject this notion that I'm supposed to spend, my time, talent, and money, and emotional energy just for the pleasure of her company. While you're free to say "no" I'm also free to not keep spending my time, money, and emotional energy on you if I don't feel I'm getting what I want/need from. And again, for the third time, im speaking in broader terms than just sex. I'm not saying women need to "put out" after a certain amount of time or anything. I'm just saying that it's not unreasonable for a man looking to start a relationship with a woman to have an expectation of having his needs meet to. I'm nit running a dating charity. If women aren't interested, they should say so. In my experience though, women are notoriously wushu washy when it comes to dating and relationships. But in the context of sex, if you aren't sure, then don't do it. Thanks for taking the risk of posting this.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 14, 2016 8:32:38 GMT -5
I always thought the excuse was that little Billy raped a girl because he wasn't hugged enough as a child. We may not be doing 'bleeding heart' right here, guys. Billy isn't raping because he needs more physical affection. Billy is raping because - of the warped and sick power dimension involved with overpowering someone else; because he does not recognize the humanness of the other person; because he has no idea how to enjoy sexual relations with love. Billy chooses the persons he rapes by their acquiescence. Very drugged, unconscious, young or awkward people are easier to overpower and much less likely to fight back. When I was a girl (teenager) taking driving lessons, the middle-aged instructor took me to side fields, grabbed me and kissed me. On several occasions. I had no idea how to respond. Later as I worked in a restaurant the head chef did the same in the walk-in refrigerator. My parents had never explicitly discussed how to respond to that sort of attack; I was a polite and well brought up child. I have a son and a daughter. My daughter is tough and strong, but their father, my XH, is a bully. I have taught my son consider girls and women before he asks them out, and taught him and his male cousins they must talk with people before sex, about birth control and preferences and anything else relevant. I hope this sort of thing would reduce raping / rape culture. Talking is the big thing. My comment was facetious. Nobody here denies that talking can help. Talking is communicating. Communicating is teaching. Of paramount importance is what we're teaching our kids, and most contributors' views on this are well known. If we broke down rape by circumstance, we'd no doubt find cases where the rapist was never taught; where the rapist was taught but had no intention of complying; where the rapist intended to comply but ultimately didn't due to peer pressure, overwhelming desire, rationalizing away the consequences, etc.; and where the rapist rejected the teaching after deeming it burdensome, needless, or hypocritical. Since there are so many avenues of opportunity, prevention has to be holistic. Any reasonable parent ought to provide a male child with guidelines that include: - firm and totally unambiguous prohibitions on certain behaviours
- guidelines on how to get out of situations where one may be strongly tempted to violate these prohibitions
- guidelines on how to avoid getting into situations where one may be strongly tempted to violate these prohibitions
- guidelines on avoiding behaviours that inhibit good judgment, e.g. drunkenness, drugs, wild revelries, etc.
- a clear, visceral description of the harm caused by violating the prohibitions
- a spoken or written pledge to honour the prohibitions (numerous studies have shown that this improves the odds of success)
Likewise, parents ought to provide a female child with guidelines that include:
- firm and totally unambiguous prohibitions on certain behaviours
- guidelines on how to get out of situations where an uninhibited man might be strongly tempted to disregard a woman's willingness to consent, and a clear admonition that "getting out" by any means necessary is a requirement, not an option
- guidelines on how to avoid getting into situations where an uninhibited man might be so tempted
- guidelines on avoiding behaviours that inhibit good judgment and thus compromise security
- a candid understanding that the world is an evil and unjust place, that our conduct must account for this, that honouring the rules by all means takes precedence over others' beliefs or feelings, and that certain rules must never be broken regardless of any sense of trust or obligation
- a spoken or written pledge to honour the prohibitions
Both cases require courage, and hence parents should invest the time to raise courageous, morally-circumspect offspring. Anybody who calls it 'paranoia', 'prudishness', or 'illiberal': to heck with them.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 14, 2016 10:12:43 GMT -5
Marital rape, to me, seems even more nebulous. Couples fight about stuff all the time, including sex. And I think I remember reading in divorce law, withholding sex is grounds for divorce, but I'm not sure of the specifics.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jun 14, 2016 11:06:46 GMT -5
Re: parenting styles.... You alone are not the reason your kids turn out the way they do. It's you AND their nature, so don't break your arm patting yourself on the back so hard.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 5:20:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 11:16:46 GMT -5
Marital rape, to me, seems even more nebulous. Couples fight about stuff all the time, including sex. And I think I remember reading in divorce law, withholding sex is grounds for divorce, but I'm not sure of the specifics. So yeah, if you feel someone is breaking the emotional support component of your civil contract, feel free to disolve the civil contract. Do not think that you have a right to force them to physically comply with sex.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,103
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 14, 2016 11:26:01 GMT -5
In regards to marital rape it is not a woman "withholding sex". Before it was made a crime a wife had no rights to refuse her husband's advances. You couldn't say "not tonight dear I have a headache". If he wanted to have sex it was his right to drag you into the bedroom and have sex with you. As a wife it was your duty to satisfy your husband's needs.
Going back further it was also perfectly acceptable to continue to have sex with your wife as many times as you felt you needed to concieve a child/heir. Didn't matter what she wanted as a husband it was your right to pound her into the ground until you got a child out of the arrangement.
It also used to be acceptable to lightly beat your wife, the only rule was you could not leave VISIBLE damage. It was your right as a husband to correct/discipline your wife as you pleased because it was her duty to obey you and sometimes us pesky women need a reminder. We don't find that acceptable anymore.
The idea that it's my "duty" as my wife to provide my husband with sex should also go out the window.
Abusive relationships can involve sex against the abused partner's will. Taking away the idea that it is my "duty" as a wife to satisfy my husband's needs regardless of how I feel about it helps abuse victims get justice. There is no crime if it's not illegal to do whatever you want with your wife/SO.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jun 14, 2016 13:36:34 GMT -5
Marital rape is as nebulous as stranger rape. If you say no or physically resist having sex, making you have sex is RAPE no matter who does it.
The only place it can be different is that couples with prior relationships can negotiate consent- try to initiate sex with a sleeping person that you don't know and you're not doing good things. Try to initiate sex with your sleeping long-term sexual partner who has indicated he/she is OK with it- that's cool. (As long as you stop when they tell you to!)
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jun 14, 2016 13:39:36 GMT -5
And no one is entitled to sex...EVER.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,380
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jun 14, 2016 14:03:45 GMT -5
And no one is entitled to sex...EVER. what if someone (did I mention someone who ins't me?) pays for it?
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jun 14, 2016 14:08:33 GMT -5
Then you are entitled to a refund if you didn't get sex. ( I actually thought about this right after I posted that. ) Even if you pay, if they decide not to have sex with you, all you are entitled to is a refund.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 15, 2016 12:33:26 GMT -5
Well, here we go again - me being on a different planet from everyone else. I don't consider my kids "self-centered, timid, unwise, unconcerned with courtesy, irrational and sheltered" I consider them people who have their own feelings, their own good and bad days, people who are learning about the world, relationships and interactions on a daily basis. I view it as my job to teach them to be kind and courteous and polite, to allow them to discover who they are, what they like and dislike. And as part of that, I think it's important to establish a healthy balance between being kind to others while not ignoring their own comfort level. What is so hard to understand ?? And yes, I do think that those message that we send to children from day one get ingrained in them and shape how they interact with others later. And while I don't think forcing my oldest kid to hug his grandparents when he clearly didn't want will make him a rapist, I do think that it sends a subliminal message that it's OK to use force to physically interact with another person. That is NOT a message I ever want him to get from me. I'm on the same planet. I do not make my kids hug or kiss anyone and they can refuse to do so if asked. There are old people at my MIL's church that like to try to grab/hug my kids. My kids do not know you, you are not entitled to touch my children or try to coax them into letting them touch you. They have a right to their own bodies. I encourage "stranger danger". My kids SHOULD be wary of people they don't know wanting to touch them. Same goes for family. I don't care if we are related if my children don't want physical contact that should be respected. I don't see how I can teach my children how to keep themselves safe if I have brain washed them into believing that every adult who wishes to touch them has to be obeyed. I don't see how I can teach them to respect other people's bodies if they have been taught it's okay to chase someone down, corner them and forcibly give them a hug whether they want one or not. You can be polite and respectful WITHOUT having to allow someone to touch you. If that makes me a bad parent oh well add it to the list, I'll tape another piece of paper to the bottom to make room. So do cultures where everyone is all huggy (Hispanic, for example) have a bigger issue with children not being safe? Or are we deluding ourselves into thinking we can keep our children safe by not forcing them to hug?
I can say when I was in Brazil I was blown away by how everyone kisses! I walked in to a meeting with our attorneys and accountants and I got two kisses (one on each cheek!) from everyone. Their culture is one where kissing on the cheek is expected. It is just what is done. Does that make the children less safe (everyone kisses and hugs EVERYONE!)
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,103
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 15, 2016 12:53:48 GMT -5
IDK the answer to that. I'd like to hope I am keeping my kids safe but I don't know for sure. I hope I never have to test the theory to see if I am wrong.
You're free to disagree with me and teach your children whatever you want in regards to physical contact with others.
I am not comfortable with teaching my children that they have to allow anyone who wants to initiate physical contact with them that they are obligated to allow it. I believe my kids have the right to personal space just as much as I do.
Even if I wasn't concerned I am sending the wrong message I still would not want all the old people at church grabbing my children or demanding kisses from them. They don't know you, I don't know you and you have no right to demand my kids show you physical affection. If you think we're being rude to not indulge I am fine with that.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 15, 2016 14:07:54 GMT -5
IDK the answer to that. I'd like to hope I am keeping my kids safe but I don't know for sure. I hope I never have to test the theory to see if I am wrong. You're free to disagree with me and teach your children whatever you want in regards to physical contact with others. I am not comfortable with teaching my children that they have to allow anyone who wants to initiate physical contact with them that they are obligated to allow it. I believe my kids have the right to personal space just as much as I do. Even if I wasn't concerned I am sending the wrong message I still would not want all the old people at church grabbing my children or demanding kisses from them. They don't know you, I don't know you and you have no right to demand my kids show you physical affection. If you think we're being rude to not indulge I am fine with that. Teaching a child to respect his/her own boundaries is the first step in teaching him/her to also respect the boundaries of others.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jun 15, 2016 14:17:06 GMT -5
I don't think there is a problem with touchy feely cultures. I think there is a problem with giving a reluctant child NO CHOICE in participating.
Physically forcing a child to show affection, or doing so through the usage of threats is hits my yuck button pretty hard. Encouraging? No problem. This is whether or not data holds up that kids taught that their personal boundaries don't matter as children have trouble respecting them as adults.
I also think that it's good to say thank you when someone does something for you, whether or not there's data holding up that they are more likely to go out and murder a stranger if you don't.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,103
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 15, 2016 14:20:31 GMT -5
I don't think there is a problem with touchy feely cultures. I think there is a problem with giving a reluctant child NO CHOICE in participating.
Bingo. My children are much more physically affectionate than I am. That doesn't mean that they should be forced to hug/kiss someone they are not comfortable with. I am not going to call either of my children rude or tell them they are being brats if they don't want a random church member or a family member they aren't familiar with touching them.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 15, 2016 14:23:34 GMT -5
IDK the answer to that. I'd like to hope I am keeping my kids safe but I don't know for sure. I hope I never have to test the theory to see if I am wrong. You're free to disagree with me and teach your children whatever you want in regards to physical contact with others. I am not comfortable with teaching my children that they have to allow anyone who wants to initiate physical contact with them that they are obligated to allow it. I believe my kids have the right to personal space just as much as I do. Even if I wasn't concerned I am sending the wrong message I still would not want all the old people at church grabbing my children or demanding kisses from them. They don't know you, I don't know you and you have no right to demand my kids show you physical affection. If you think we're being rude to not indulge I am fine with that. Why would I think you are being rude? It was an honest question. We all do what we think is best for our children. Just like my teachings about taking precautions to prevent rape...yet I was lambasted for that and told it was false security. So I was asking the same thing of you.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,103
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 15, 2016 14:33:45 GMT -5
It may be, I honestly don't know. Even if it doesn't keep them safe exactly I still think that people have a right to personal boundaries and that includes the kids. Just because they are kids that, IMO, doesn't give adults the right to invade their personal space.* *exception being if they are doing something stupid that will get them killed or me arrested, then yes I am going to physically step in. FWIW I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching people common sense and to be aware of their surrounding. MY issue with it is we pound into women's heads what to do but don't discuss anything with boys/men in regard to keeping themselves safe from either being victims or getting themselves into trouble. We, as a society, also tend to take it too far with women. It doesn't stop at "don't leave your drink unattended". We often have to add in for women that they need to watch what they wear and make sure they aren't TOO sexually open because it'll invite unwanted attention (i.e. rape). There is also the wording that tends to go with it. I get it you disagree with me and that's fine. I think we need to change it from how to PREVENT rape to "how to keep a person safe". Using the word prevent means that if you didn't do all those things you didn't prevent it. .. therefore you deserve it. You and I may not be thinking that way when we say the message but that's often what rape victims (both men and women) hear. That keeps people from coming forward and rapists get to keep walking the streets. It needs to change just like the "stranger danger" message evolved once it was realized kids don't define strangers the same way adults do. Now it's a much more effective and targeted message.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 15, 2016 14:47:56 GMT -5
It may be, I honestly don't know. Even if it doesn't keep them safe exactly I still think that people have a right to personal boundaries and that includes the kids. Just because they are kids that, IMO, doesn't give adults the right to invade their personal space.* *exception being if they are doing something stupid that will get them killed or me arrested, then yes I am going to physically step in. FWIW I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching people common sense and to be aware of their surrounding. MY issue with it is we pound into women's heads what to do but don't discuss anything with boys/men in regard to keeping themselves safe from either being victims or getting themselves into trouble. We, as a society, also tend to take it too far with women. It doesn't stop at "don't leave your drink unattended". We often have to add in for women that they need to watch what they wear and make sure they aren't TOO sexually open because it'll invite unwanted attention (i.e. rape). There is also the wording that tends to go with it. I get it you disagree with me and that's fine. I think we need to change it from how to PREVENT rape to "how to keep a person safe". Using the word prevent means that if you didn't do all those things you didn't prevent it. .. therefore you deserve it. You and I may not be thinking that way when we say the message but that's often what rape victims (both men and women) hear. That keeps people from coming forward and rapists get to keep walking the streets. It needs to change just like the "stranger danger" message evolved once it was realized kids don't define strangers the same way adults do. Now it's a much more effective and targeted message. I'm not starting the debate again!lol I'm too exhausted from going back and forth with someone else last night and this morning.
we are parents and we do what we think is best for our children. HOnestly, that was my only point.
|
|
tloonya
Junior Associate
What status?
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 8,452
|
Post by tloonya on Jun 15, 2016 17:12:37 GMT -5
Well, here we go again - me being on a different planet from everyone else. I don't consider my kids "self-centered, timid, unwise, unconcerned with courtesy, irrational and sheltered" I consider them people who have their own feelings, their own good and bad days, people who are learning about the world, relationships and interactions on a daily basis. I view it as my job to teach them to be kind and courteous and polite, to allow them to discover who they are, what they like and dislike. And as part of that, I think it's important to establish a healthy balance between being kind to others while not ignoring their own comfort level. What is so hard to understand ?? And yes, I do think that those message that we send to children from day one get ingrained in them and shape how they interact with others later. And while I don't think forcing my oldest kid to hug his grandparents when he clearly didn't want will make him a rapist, I do think that it sends a subliminal message that it's OK to use force to physically interact with another person. That is NOT a message I ever want him to get from me. I'm on the same planet. I do not make my kids hug or kiss anyone and they can refuse to do so if asked. There are old people at my MIL's church that like to try to grab/hug my kids. My kids do not know you, you are not entitled to touch my children or try to coax them into letting them touch you. They have a right to their own bodies. I encourage "stranger danger". My kids SHOULD be wary of people they don't know wanting to touch them. Same goes for family. I don't care if we are related if my children don't want physical contact that should be respected. I don't see how I can teach my children how to keep themselves safe if I have brain washed them into believing that every adult who wishes to touch them has to be obeyed. I don't see how I can teach them to respect other people's bodies if they have been taught it's okay to chase someone down, corner them and forcibly give them a hug whether they want one or not. You can be polite and respectful WITHOUT having to allow someone to touch you. If that makes me a bad parent oh well add it to the list, I'll tape another piece of paper to the bottom to make room. Aren't you all who hate relatives hugging going bit too far from hugging relatives to Inability to distinguish a danger from a stranger? I almost read that if you make your child politely let his aunt to hug him - he is auto magically becoming rape target! It's more/less SILLY! And yes if your child yelling @you Auntie - than he is safe on the streets... Well...
|
|
tloonya
Junior Associate
What status?
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 8,452
|
Post by tloonya on Jun 15, 2016 17:16:00 GMT -5
And no one is entitled to sex...EVER. what if someone (did I mention someone who ins't me?) pays for it? Are you SURE it's ins't you? ) Oh yeah...I remember you said you got married to stop having meaningless sex that doesn't lead to PROcreation... So you put PRO(fessiional) into procreation! App loads please.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 19, 2016 9:24:33 GMT -5
One of the things we can do to facilitate change is to stop sugar coating things. Just like the Stanford case wasn't a drunken hookup or "20 minutes of action", here's another example of an article that uses soft language to describe rape:
"Ex-Amish Family Traded Underage Daughter for Cash
When the Stoltzfus family found themselves financially strapped after leaving the Amish church, they allegedly traded their daughter to a business associate for help.
A Pennsylvania couple financially ruined after leaving the Amish church was arrested on Thursday for conspiracy to commit sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child after admitting to “gifting” their underage daughter to a business associate who went on to father two of her young children."
That article was from The Daily Beast, but I've seen it listed in two other publications with similar language. This girl wasn't "gifted" or "traded" and Kaplan didn't "father her child". Her parents sold her and Kaplan raped her.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 19, 2016 9:59:19 GMT -5
One of the things we can do to facilitate change is to stop sugar coating things. Just like the Stanford case wasn't a drunken hookup or "20 minutes of action", here's another example of an article that uses soft language to describe rape: "Ex-Amish Family Traded Underage Daughter for Cash When the Stoltzfus family found themselves financially strapped after leaving the Amish church, they allegedly traded their daughter to a business associate for help. A Pennsylvania couple financially ruined after leaving the Amish church was arrested on Thursday for conspiracy to commit sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child after admitting to “gifting” their underage daughter to a business associate who went on to father two of her young children." That article was from The Daily Beast, but I've seen it listed in two other publications with similar language. This girl wasn't "gifted" or "traded" and Kaplan didn't "father her child". Her parents sold her and Kaplan raped her. Only you've just insulted the billions worldwide who live in cultures where parents have complete discretion in marrying off their daughters to whosoever they deem fit, often in exchange for money. I don't know if marriage was involved in this case since you don't provide a link, but if not, that (plus the fact that our society has lavish social welfare nets in place to obviate the need for such transactions) would be the only meaningful difference between the two situations. You may be willing and eager to tick off millions of readers in order to take a stand, but news agencies with an international outlook, including the Daily Beast, are going to tread lightly. That's to say nothing of the fact that they could be sued for libel if the business associate hasn't been convicted of rape. ETA: Link is here: www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/18/ex-amish-family-traded-underage-daughter-for-financial-assistance.htmlKaplan has only been charged at this point, not convicted. Meaning that calling him a rapist is a one-way ticket to lawsuitville.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,242
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 19, 2016 10:38:42 GMT -5
It should be noted that immediately above the title in the Daily Beast article is: SERIOUSLY?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 19, 2016 10:39:16 GMT -5
One of the things we can do to facilitate change is to stop sugar coating things. Just like the Stanford case wasn't a drunken hookup or "20 minutes of action", here's another example of an article that uses soft language to describe rape: "Ex-Amish Family Traded Underage Daughter for Cash When the Stoltzfus family found themselves financially strapped after leaving the Amish church, they allegedly traded their daughter to a business associate for help. A Pennsylvania couple financially ruined after leaving the Amish church was arrested on Thursday for conspiracy to commit sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child after admitting to “gifting” their underage daughter to a business associate who went on to father two of her young children." That article was from The Daily Beast, but I've seen it listed in two other publications with similar language. This girl wasn't "gifted" or "traded" and Kaplan didn't "father her child". Her parents sold her and Kaplan raped her. Only you've just insulted the billions worldwide who live in cultures where parents have complete discretion in marrying off their daughters to whosoever they deem fit, often in exchange for money. I don't know if marriage was involved in this case since you don't provide a link, but if not, that (plus the fact that our society has lavish social welfare nets in place to obviate the need for such transactions) would be the only meaningful difference between the two situations. You may be willing and eager to tick off millions of readers in order to take a stand, but news agencies with an international outlook, including the Daily Beast, are going to tread lightly. That's to say nothing of the fact that they could be sued for libel if the business associate hasn't been convicted of rape. ETA: Link is here: www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/18/ex-amish-family-traded-underage-daughter-for-financial-assistance.htmlKaplan has only been charged at this point, not convicted. Meaning that calling him a rapist is a one-way ticket to lawsuitville. The girl was 14 when she was sold. I'm OK with insulting cultures where parents sell their 14 year old daughters. Oh, and 9 other unidentified girls were found in the house along with a 2 year old and infant who were born to the 14 year old when she was 15 and 18, respectively. But sure, Virgil. Defend this situation and the billions who sell their 14 year old daughters. You - and the others who defend this practice - are part of the problem.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 19, 2016 11:44:04 GMT -5
It should be noted that immediately above the title in the Daily Beast article is: SERIOUSLY? Sure. The barest whiff of disapproval. Readers can ascribe it to whatever facet of this particular story they want to. I'm saying there are legal and political reasons they're not using more incendiary language.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 19, 2016 11:47:15 GMT -5
Only you've just insulted the billions worldwide who live in cultures where parents have complete discretion in marrying off their daughters to whosoever they deem fit, often in exchange for money. I don't know if marriage was involved in this case since you don't provide a link, but if not, that (plus the fact that our society has lavish social welfare nets in place to obviate the need for such transactions) would be the only meaningful difference between the two situations. You may be willing and eager to tick off millions of readers in order to take a stand, but news agencies with an international outlook, including the Daily Beast, are going to tread lightly. That's to say nothing of the fact that they could be sued for libel if the business associate hasn't been convicted of rape. ETA: Link is here: www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/18/ex-amish-family-traded-underage-daughter-for-financial-assistance.htmlKaplan has only been charged at this point, not convicted. Meaning that calling him a rapist is a one-way ticket to lawsuitville. The girl was 14 when she was sold. I'm OK with insulting cultures where parents sell their 14 year old daughters. Oh, and 9 other unidentified girls were found in the house along with a 2 year old and infant who were born to the 14 year old when she was 15 and 18, respectively. But sure, Virgil. Defend this situation and the billions who sell their 14 year old daughters. You - and the others who defend this practice - are part of the problem. The only thing I'm "defending" is the pragmatism of the Daily Beast editors.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 19, 2016 18:50:58 GMT -5
Incendiary language is appropriate to describe the selling of and having sex with 14 year old girls.
And that's the point - we should be angry, we should be outraged, we should be incendiary. The public needs to demand change in how we talk about and view rape, selling children and having sex with underage children... and those that apologize for those practices.
|
|