I think there is a misunderstanding on this thread that those of us who say the discourse needs to shift away from “She should have taken precautions if she didn’t want to be raped” somehow live in Pollyanna land and don’t teach our own daughters how to be safe. OF COURSE we do! We 100% understand that right now the only one she can control is herself. Our point is that when rapes happen we don’t ask “Why didn’t she take precautions?” we ask questions that put the blame where it belongs. We are looking to change the discourse and change the system. If my daughter ever gets raped I will not being asking questions about what she did to bring it upon herself like so many here. I will understand that she committed no crime.
8 Likes
it seems like a public trial.
1 Like
This is why I said earlier that the “investigation” has already jumped to a conclusion.
Others claimed it’s not true - but in the public eye it has.
If they’re guilty, they should fry. But if they’re not guilty, their lives are wrecked - and why - for being disgusting pigs? Well there’s a lot of disgusting pigs out there.
At this point, I’m not sure a fair trial can be had. Maybe in Guam or Puerto Rico. There’s too much press - and that’s if it even gets to a trial which it may not.
But again, Jane Doe filed a civil suit, not a criminal suit. Others picked up the criminal aspect.
But I also think potential defendants (on a criminal basis, there are no defendants - yet) will call out anything that they can - that’s the job of a defense attorney - to find reasonable doubt. So it’s not surprising that it would surface - and a lot more will too. But it doesn’t mean that it will create that path of doubt.
@fiftyfifty1 - I never implied that she committed a crime nor did I suggest it. I don’t know everyone’s gender, of course, but I do assume there is a gender divide in the messaging.
But we don’t have all the facts. We really don’t have any facts. We have what we’ve read and assume they are facts and she acknowledged consensual encounters and even trying to wake one boy up. I mean, I’ve read 7 people attacked her then two attacked her but others snorted drugs off of her (no idea if that’s criminal or not…sick yes, criminal no idea.) Everyone is making assumptions about what happened and not a single person on this thread knows.
All of that will come out because it’s all relevant because it may, in fact be, she wasn’t criminally assaulted.
1 Like
And I think that’s probably a fair point. I don’t know to what, if any, extent that affects what evidence gets handed to the grand jury when it makes its decision about whether or not there is a case to be brought to trial, but perceptions do matter. If these men do end up being found guilty in court, it’s not in anyone’s interests - and definitely not in Jane Doe’s either - to think there was bias.
These are examples of precautions that every person takes and are not unique to women- and two of those things on the list are backed by laws, so not doing them results in a ticket, if caught.
2 Likes
Because our culture’s history is replete with victim blaming and shaming. If you’re asleep in your bed and some man comes in and rapes you - I’m talking about YOU - do you want to hear from me that you need to be more careful? Not sleep in your underwear? Get a better lock on your door? Be less sexually appealing? Not drink so much? Of course you don’t. And yet that is where the discussion often goes when these things happen. Everybody wants to know how drunk she was, what she was wearing, whether she was trying to get male attention, what her past is like (sexual promiscuity, wild partier, etc.). And then all that kind of inquiry creates a set of attitudes that leads to the really great observations like, “wasn’t she asking for it?”
Females should be singled out because they are on the receiving end of SA 99.999% [warning: not an actual statistical citation] of the time. Sure, somewhere at some time a man was sexually assaulted by a woman he couldn’t fend off. But to say that’s the exception to the rule is a gross understatement and why we don’t spend a lot of energy on it as a societal issue [though any instance of SA is important and a victim is a victim].
6 Likes
It is always troubling to hear accounts of SA (whether in the form of rape, unwanted/lascivious contact, or verbal assault). SA and, indeed, all other forms of overt crime would cease to exist if we all simply followed the Golden Rule: treat others how you would like to be treated. (caveat: unless you are a masochist)
Everyone in developed society – and, I’ll wager, developing societies too – has heard of this simple concept. Nearly everyone is raised in a church of some sort, and I have yet to encounter a religion that does not teach it. I would venture to say that this is extrareligious – atheists and agnostics also subscribe generally.
So where is the disconnect? If we are taught this, and it is fully engrained in society, why do we err?
I think there are three main culprits, acting solely or in combination:
- Irresponsible use of alcohol and drugs. These things make us do things we sometimes regret – they can remove the “Should I do this?/WWJD?” filter, leaving only the devil on our left shoulders to advise us.
- Media desensitization. We all watch R-rated movies, and they tend to show normal people doing bad things. And sometimes these characters end up being the movie’s heroes. Glorifying bad behavior sets a poor example.
- Innate sociopathy. Anti-social personality disorder causes a person to view others as pawns and the world in general as their playground. Their needs and “rights” are more important than anyone else’s. Like most mental illnesses, there is a range of severity - starting with lying at level 1 and continuing all the way to murder at level 10. This is the bad gene in all of us, and while most of us stop short of hurting others intentionally, there are some who do not. They are (most of) the violent criminals, rapists, murderers.
So while we all know the Golden Rule, and how society generally expects us to act – with respect for others – these three erosive things are how we end up with most crime. So taking it easy on the sauce, watching less negative/violent content, and finding a drug to treat sociopathy would lead to better behavior.
This is not a new take, but I wanted to put it here for posterity.
A lot of research into mass atrocity (e.g. how did so many ordinary Germans and Poles and Dutch decide that it was not only OK to rat out their Jewish neighbors to the SS, but that once their neighbors were deported, it was OK to move into their homes/apartments and take their stuff, knowing they’d never come back for it and that there would be zero consequences) actually rejects the sociopathy argument- at least for a significant proportion of the population. Yes, there were prison guards shoving babies into the crematoria- and likely a high degree of pathology there. But there were ordinary people who just concluded that gassing your grocer or your kids 3rd grade teacher or your next door neighbor who earned an Iron Cross during WW 1 protecting the Fatherland was just a fine and ordinary thing to do.
A lot of evil is- in fact- banal. Mass hysteria or an inability to counteract more powerful voices and personalities- or just the “heavy lift” of having to ask the question “is this how an ethical person behaves”.
I am fascinated by Chiune Sugihara, the Japanese diplomat who saved so many lives during WW2. So much about him was totally ordinary. Historians, psychologists, sociologists, ethicists, religious figures are still trying to unpack him. I think two things distinguish himself from the thousands of other diplomats and politicians who could have done what he did but didn’t. 1- He experienced early failure in his career. He was supposed to become a doctor, bailed on that, to the eternal disappointment of his parents. 2- Perhaps because of that, he demonstrated an utter lack of interest in what others thought of him.
So perhaps the key to raising ethical and moral kids is to make sure they know you disapprove of them??? Such a puzzle.
But I think history is filled with otherwise normal (and often religious) people who are not inebriated or having a psychotic episode who do horrifying things to other people.
2 Likes
For the most recent available year (2024), Bureau of Justice Science lists 16% of rape / sexual assault victims being male at NCVS Dashboard . While SA victims are no doubt primarily female, it’s far more than 0.001% male victims.
1 Like
@blossom, another similar case would be Oskar Schindler.
2 Likes
But that 16% is likely mostly assaulted by other men, not by women as given in the example.
In other news, Jane Doe’s home was the subject of a swatting incident.
3 Likes
CDC lists ~80% of male SA victims having male perpetrators for rape and substantially lower for more general categories, such as unwanted sexual experience; so it’s still nowhere near the claimed only 0.001% male victims. However, even if 100% of male victims had male perpetrators, that doesn’t mean that males being potential victims should be ignored.
1 Like
I would note the difference between sociopathy (which I referenced) and psychosis. A sociopath knows what he is doing is wrong, but does not care. Someone suffering from psychosis has a “split brain” (schizophrenia or another severe mood disorder) and cannot control his thoughts.
Medication is available to treat psychosis, but as far as I know there is no such treatment for sociopathy/ASPD.
1 Like
I agree. There was a statistic somewhere above that the campus rate of male sexual assault is similar (I think the figure was 17%). I wonder if the male victims are also asked if they were drinking, what they were wearing, what they expected to happen when they were in a frat house in the cases that happened at frats, what their sexual histories are etc. I am genuinely interested in how these cases are dealt with. There’s just not much info out there.
4 Likes
Don’t know that this belongs here in this thread - but it’s what some above have talked about - fear of reporting. So I put here.
But in this case, reporting weeks later and immediately bathing and showering, all the evidence is gone. There is none.
Something like this happening is horrific.
But I also understand why some doubt stories like this - when they come up.
I’m not female but I have no doubt, both men and women (because many women don’t think like people on this thread) might have similar thoughts/doubts.
I’m not saying I do - but I can see people having doubts based on the article.
Arizona congressional candidate says she was raped while repairing campaign sign - WBAL
This woman’s processing of the rape is absolutely normal behavior. It’s so easy for people to claim they’d react to certain situations in a specific way while sitting at home scrolling on their phone. If someone’s first thought after reading this article is that they don’t believe the story, it’s pathetic but not surprising.
5 Likes
but also SA in Greek Life generally
2027 Colleges with the Most Students in Fraternities (U.S. News)
Schools like Washington & Lee (71%), Texas Christian University (48%), & MIT (42%) house a much higher percentage of college men in fraternities than Cornell University (23%).
Any similar problems or issues to discuss with the goal of increasing general awareness to the CC community? Anything to report that is going right with fraternities at other leading colleges & universities?
At the risk of being tarred and feathered and yelled at, after reading the article, the FIRST thought I had was “Why was she doing that at 2-3 am all by herself? Can’t you do that during daylight hours?”
And I’d have no issue if more disgusting pigs lives were wrecked. Let sunlight be a disinfectant. Don’t want your life wrecked? Don’t be a disgusting pig. Whoever you are.
This is entirely separate from criminal charges. This is about people realizing that behavior should have consequences and those consequences may be quite meaningful.
4 Likes
That’s of both genders, btw
1 Like