<p>Hunt, I did answer your question. Rapists don’t choose their victims based on what they’re wearing. In fact, they usually don’t even remember what their victim was wearing. So while a woman who dresses provocatively is more likely to get attention, even unwanted attention, that is not sexual assault. It’s not a continuum, and the abstract you posted doesn’t say that it is.</p>
<p>Now I wonder if you’d return the favor and respond directlly to this statement which I’ve posted twice before: </p>
<p>–> Rape is not a crime of sexual desire. It is a crime of power and control. </p>
<p>The below is from a rape crisis center. If you don’t believe me or the crisis center, please do your own search. This information is extremely easy to find:</p>
<p>Aren’t Hunt and 07DAD (?) lawyers? Shouldn’t they have a better idea of how the legal system works than the generic omniscient person on CC with a divining rod?</p>
<p>Both things could be true simultaneously: That rapists look for available targets they perceive as vulnerable, AND that women who dress “provocatively” (if one could quantify that, but let’s just say that we could) are more likely to be targets. Which - to be clear - is NOT saying that women who dress provocatively “deserve” anything bad.</p>
<p>What a rapist looks for consciously and the characteristics of the women he rapes may be two different things. For example, it’s theoretically possible that, say, blonde women are more likely to be rape targets but that doesn’t necessarily mean that rapists went out that day looking for blondes.</p>
<p>“I’m fully aware that it is the process. That wasn’t my point.”</p>
<p>My point is this is what the whole thread it about. SV did not follow the process and people are free to disagree with what she should or should not have been permitted to do. Many have previously argued that SD should have been free to discuss her assault and that she has a “right to free speech”. It’s already been said and it was not in response to Hunt.</p>
<p>“Aren’t Hunt and 07DAD (?) lawyers? Shouldn’t they have a better idea of how the legal system works than the generic omniscient person on CC with a divining rod?”</p>
<p>Do you make a habit of agreeing with every lawyer you know? Lawyers don’t even agree with each other half the time.</p>
<p>"…AND that women who dress “provocatively” (if one could quantify that, but let’s just say that we could) are more likely to be targets."</p>
<p>Following this logic, a woman may think if she dresses conservatively, she is somehow less likely to be a victim of assault. Would she be correct in that assumption?</p>
<p>I am disappointed by what has happened to this thread. I freely admit that I am partly responsible for its deterioration. Nevertheless, I’m not going to apologize for the fact that I said 07Dad has distorted values. Maybe IRL, he’s a wonderful person. But I draw my conclusions about what his values are from this thread. He is a sample of what he has said; there are other examples:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is virtually NO chance that SAVANNAH has distributed photos of her genitals. If she had done so and the boys and/or their parents knew about it, the boys or Mr. Frey would have said so to the police. When someone --a real person, who is only 16 years old is sexually assaulted–saying that there is a “one in four” chance SHE texted photos of her own genitals and that this will be looked into in a civil case-as if it would not be in a criminal one-- is despicable, IMO. That’s my opinion. YMMV…and obviously it does. </p>
<p>Moreover, lets repeat romani’s response. Assume for the moment that some young woman has sent a nude photo of herself to her boyfriend. 07Dad is SERIOUSLY suggesting that she would be a DEFENSE in a case brought against someone else who sexually assaults her and takes lewd photos of her when she is unconscious. If her boyfriend has nude photos of herself, then obviously, according to 07Dad’s reasoning, that gives anyone else the right to take nude photos of her without her consent and email them to friends. IMO, this indicates that 07Dad has distorted values. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That language means 07Dad actually read the boys’ statements. IMO, anyone who could read Zehnder’s statement and make that comment has lousy values. it is wholly rational for me to conclude that 07Dad agrees with Zehnder’s values, based on what 07Dad said in this post. </p>
<p>Heck, anyone who would make that statement even without reading Zehnder’s statements has lousy values, IMO. </p>
<p>I don’t think I’ve been “unfair” or that I have failed to read 07Dad’s posts or that I am distorting anything he’s said. I am finding it difficult to understand why so many people think it’s awful to criticize such posts.</p>
<p>I think I read 07dad’s posts differently than you. I read that he said the lawyer in a civil case could/would take that approach. I didn’t read that 07dad agreed with that.</p>
<p>I can’t give you a citation but what I have read indicates that only two items really matter. One is long hair. Apparently, women with long hair are more likely to be assaulted. This is NOT because long hair is more provocative. It’s because in an assault, it’s common for a perp to grab a hold of the victim’s long hair. It’s just another way to gain control over the woman. The other is wearing a skirt. The length of the skirt is unimportant. Pants are safer. Apparently a young woman is more likely to get raped when she is wearing a skirt down to the ground than when he is wearing short-shorts. In one case you don’t have to get the clothing off the woman to assault her; in the other case, you do. </p>
<p>Now I hasten to add that there are certainly women with short hair wearing jeans who are raped. There is no “safe” way to dress. Savannah was wearing pants when she was sexually assaulted .</p>
<p>^^It would have been helpful if that is what 07dad meant to say, that he would have done so. If a lawyer followed that line of defense, it would be despicable, imo.</p>
<p>Thank you jonri. That makes sense as most offenders look for opportunity and vulnerability.</p>
<p>thank you Jonri–that was a clarifying post. </p>
<p>How many times has rape been discounted because a woman was deemed a slut? How many times are women called whores while their partners beat them? How often are women’s sexual histories used against them in workplace harassment cases? The sexual double standard is a lot more dangerous than we’d like to think.
[Jessica Valenti: He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut: The Sexual Double Standard]</p>
<p>Dad07–I respect your desire to teach your son, but imho, it’s one thing to teach our sons and daughters about protecting themselves, it’s quite another to influence them to perceive young women as cagey and manipulative and to be feared at every turn. to have to be so vigilant in expecting that a young woman is likely to make false accusations seems driven by an unusually high amount of fear and mistrust.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with lawyers. I assume they know more about the law than the people who seem to argue the law here acting like they know how the works.</p>
<p>Likely to make false accusations? Fear and distrust. Where’d you get that?</p>
<p>As this thread exemplifies, people seldom truly understand what someone else is saying unless and until they slow down, break it down together and make SURE they have the same understanding. We are a jillion pages into this thread and STILL arguing over “well he said and he meant–did not, did too.”</p>
<p>Then you apply it to the subject of having sex with each other (especially two young people) and IMO there cannot be any room for misunderstanding. </p>
<p>And, since I am a zealot on the subject, I do not think this is something that should be attempted (the making sure both are on the same page) when there is alcohol involved.</p>
<p>The revised deal demonstrates one thing: This still isn’t being taken seriously. And if one of those bums showed up at MY women’s charity, I’d kick him out.</p>
<p>While I disagree with the 50 hours, I suspect the inability to expunge at 19-1/2 may be a dealbreaker for them. Maybe the judge believes it will be too.</p>
<p>If this doesn’t disappear in 2-3 years, it is not longer “not a big deal.”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t be surprised to see the boys try to deal for more hours, or a more serious punishment, if they can retain the ability to expunge the record. I doubt either boy wants “sexual abuse” on their record for the rest of their lives.</p>