Nambla unearthed...
April 8, 2002 11:45 PM   Subscribe

Nambla unearthed... Watch out gay community - you'll soon be under attack (once again) and for all the wrong reasons. An association that was initially intended to be an outreach program to young gay men - and was instantly iconoclized (?) into the realm of socially deviant folklore is the foucs of the current Catholic Priest Witchunt. I'm not sure what angers me more... the fact that priests violated the sanctity of their religion (i.e. trust in a relationship) or the fact that EVERYONE KNOWS THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS!! Come on, you KNOW you've been joking about priests and boys since before high school.
posted by matty (46 comments total)
 
Funny you should mention that, because I punched someone in the subway in New York today for saying some shit like that. It was some young guy playing tough papi in front of his friends, walking through the car and picking on any man he thought looked 'gay'. He came up to me and said something like 'you been molesting any boys, fag?" I was shocked, but the shock was quickly replaced by rage, and before I knew what I was doing, I punched him in the stomach. His friends all scattered, and I exited the train (it had just arrived at a station). He didn't follow me (he was clutching his gut, probably more in disbelief than pain).

I stood in the station for a few minutes totally shaken. It was the first time in years that I have ever been harassed. I instantly thought about what he said and it made me tear up. I can attribute it to nothing except the recent shameful situation with the Catholic church in America. The worst part is that the people at the Vatican, surrounding John Paul II, are doing their best to blame the current situation on all gay men, priests or otherwise (here's a NYT article on the subject). I'm not Catholic, so it's not so personal, but I've been following Andrew Sullivan's personal responses to the unfolding situation with great interest. He discusses the situation, and his feelings toward it, with great candor and sensitivity. He wrote a great piece about it here, as well as continual commentary on his weblog. Whatever you think of his political views on other subjects, his writing about this issue is both progressive and heartfelt.
posted by evanizer at 12:12 AM on April 9, 2002


One troubling aspect of this post, link and other reports I’ve read recently concerning Catholic Priest accused of child molestation is that many seem to blur the line between homosexuality and pedophilia. While one takes place between consenting adults, the other is unethical, immoral and illegal. Unless I misread the article, Nambla appears to have been founded by gay pedophiles. Pedophilia is the issue, whether the orientation is gay or straight is irrelevant.
posted by melgx at 12:23 AM on April 9, 2002


1) People that want to have sex with children don't do it because they are gay or straight, they do it because they are sick.

2) Priests that molest children do not do it because they are Catholic. They do it because they are pedophiles (see 1). There is plenty of sexual abuse in Protestant denominations, perhaps not with children as much, but abuse nonetheless. Especially CSA. In light of the Catholic scandal, CSA alone would probably provide enough material for an front page post and lots of discussion.

3) Nambla is a horrible, horrible blight on our society, and I don't know what to do about them, is it really free speech to give tips via the web on how to seduce children? I guess so. With liberty comes responsibility, including the difficult task of being ever vigilant over the well being of your children, something that apparently we cannot depend on the government or the church to secure. How sad.
posted by insomnyuk at 1:03 AM on April 9, 2002


NAMBLA is certainly a horrible blight on society in general, but it has an even worse impact on the gay community. I cringe every time I hear the words "gay" and "NAMBLA" in the same sentence on the news, or see it in print, because I know that a few more people are now probably thinking gay = pedo.

Sadly, what most people don't realize is that most men who molest young boys are, generally speaking, straight.

I wonder how many straight people actually realize all the shit that gay people have to put up with...if any do.
posted by CrayDrygu at 2:12 AM on April 9, 2002


Sadly, what most people don't realize is that most men who molest young boys are, generally speaking, straight.


Cray--This is just as ridiculous as saying that most are gay. Do you really want to try to take this thread down this path?

The issue is not gay/straight or faith, it is: How do we deal with pedophiles and where do we draw the line between free speech and incitement"

Evan--It's been a long time since I have been confronted with a situation like that. You just reminded me of the confusion and rage that can take over at that point. Whether you are gay or straight it does not matter. Fighting words like that can provoke responses in us they we did not even know we had in us, or had forgotten about and are obviously often difficult to deal with.

An association that was initially intended to be an outreach program to young gay men

That is not really what the article says. The original purpose is a bit unclear, but it does not seem as though it were this benign.
posted by anathema at 3:03 AM on April 9, 2002


Sadly, what most people don't realize is that most men who molest young boys are, generally speaking, straight.

Pedophilia is completely unrelated to whether one is hetero or homosexual. Forget whether you find sex between two men or two women perverse, the issue with pedophilia is about an older person being so selfish that they cannot allow a younger person to simply grow up and make their own choices. Call it a mental disease or whatever, the bottom line is that someone with more life experiences is aggressing upon an individual with less. It is simply wrong and has nothing to do with what we equate with healthy, adult sexual orientation.

Over the years I have seen the Gay community grapple with this issue and summarily rejected it. Praise (insert your God or kitchen appliance here) that they have. Although there have been times where the question even got to the point of debate (do a find for NAMBLA on this page). Thankfully clearer heads, have always prevailed.


Being gay or straight is not about who you have sex with, but who you love. Pedophilia is about ego, selfishness and a lack of compassion for a fellow human being. Love and pedophilia, in my eyes, are diametrically opposed ideas.
posted by lampshade at 4:09 AM on April 9, 2002


Sadly, what most people don't realize is that most men who molest young boys are, generally speaking, straight.

I would change that to the more meaningful: Sadly, what most people don't realize is that most men who molest young boys are, generally speaking, family or members of their inner circle.

So at the end of the day, all this panic about nambla and wandering/internet pedophiles, while understandable, is indeed grossly misdirected. As the Church is glaringly exposing (much to their regret), until our real attitude changes, nothing changes. We can regulate as much as we want, but uncle Pete is still the real danger. And he is already inside the house.

The line between free speech and incitement is no line. The line between saying and doing is what the law should care about.
posted by magullo at 4:21 AM on April 9, 2002


I still don't buy this stuff. Don't the NAMBLA people only go after little boys? Isn't that gay? Wouldn't it be straight if it were like man girl love association? Then they'd be hetero pedophiles. Whatever though, I'm rooting for the kids to grow up and drown the sickos that harrassed them in a bathtub or something.

The article described a meeting of 150 people in Boston on the topic of man-boy love and said many speakers representing various religions endorsed such relationships
Now this is disturbing. Various religions... wish they'd have said which ones where also there.
posted by Keen at 4:32 AM on April 9, 2002


One must wonder why this has become such an issue today, of all days. Is it that the more ethnically friendly and traditionally, also by way of ethnicity, distrusted Catholic church being somehow deemed an obstuction to the Vast Right Wing Plan? Hmmmmmm? And then to add the fud of the "given" homosexuals to the mix????

Do all roads lead to Rome?

Just a thought experiment. It just occurred to me.
posted by crasspastor at 4:42 AM on April 9, 2002


The line between free speech and incitement is no line. The line between saying and doing is what the law should care about.

Maybe not ideally. But actually there is a line although it is often not a bright one. The Supreme Court has historically limited speech when the speech is determined to incite others, taking into account "time, place and manner" of the speech (I hope I have this right). But like I said, there are few bright lines in these determinations. One thing is for sure, when it comes to children, the law tends (or at least attempts) to be very protective.
posted by anathema at 4:49 AM on April 9, 2002


Where's Catholic man Buchanan when you need him?
posted by crasspastor at 4:51 AM on April 9, 2002


You know, I'm not gay, and I get harassed sometimes (for appearing to be gay). Do you have any idea how annoying/confusing that is?? Last week someone was all 'sup gorgeous and I was all nothing sir. It happens far too goddamned often, but the peope in question are always too lame for me to really take offense.
posted by Settle at 5:03 AM on April 9, 2002


anathema As far as I know, the U.S. supreme court has only limited speech when it is meant to incite specific persons. That is, you send the instructions to build a bomb to a specific individual, and not announcing it to a community at large.

One thing is for sure, when it comes to children, the law tends (or at least attempts) to be very protective.

Make that over-protective. A while back, a proposal to define as child porn anything that "looked like" child porn was struck down in the U.S. We've got to protect the kids ... from everything, including weird agendas that do not properly address the real issues.
posted by magullo at 5:06 AM on April 9, 2002


Don't the NAMBLA people only go after little boys? Isn't that gay?

Yes, the NAMBLA people do go after little boys. While this may technically be defined as "gay", the larger issue is about control. Think of it in terms of rape - for the rapist, the sex is not really the driving force, it is the domination, feelings of control, the submission of the subject that are the driving force.


...most men who molest young boys are, generally speaking, family or members of their inner circle.

Yes, and that is the saddest thing. We are currently fixated on the Catholic church and NAMBLA, but there is a far larger and unseen or unspoken of, world out there where seemingly heterosexual people are taking advantage of children. And I am not just talking about men who take advantage of boys.
posted by lampshade at 5:08 AM on April 9, 2002


Settle--What does this have to do with the post? Do you just want to announce that you get hit on?
posted by anathema at 5:09 AM on April 9, 2002


magullo--there are more factors to consider, I will check on the specifics.
posted by anathema at 5:15 AM on April 9, 2002


the larger issue is about control. Think of it in terms of rape - for the rapist, the sex is not really the driving force, it is the domination, feelings of control, the submission of the subject that are the driving force

I never did buy that "control" concept. To me, it sounds like a convoluted rationalization, a PC veneer to distance "normal" sex (whatever that is) from criminal sex.
posted by mischief at 5:26 AM on April 9, 2002


please define what you mean by "criminal" sex -- are you talking b&d/s&m? or are you saying that rape is not, indeed, criminal?
posted by pxe2000 at 5:47 AM on April 9, 2002


[An association that was initially intended to be an outreach program to young gay men]

They might have put a bit more effort into their name then if they wanted to avoid the stigma of pedophilia.
posted by revbrian at 5:53 AM on April 9, 2002


As oxymoronic as NAMBLA is, it should be under fire. High time, too. As for freedom to organize, NAMBLA should be accompanied by NAMBLA's Anonymous. KKK Anonymous. Sex Addict's Anonymous. Whatever.
Settle: I am sure we are easily damaged by sexual harassment, but this is not the floor to cry on.
posted by Quixoticlife at 6:01 AM on April 9, 2002


Mischief: I, in no way, meant to imply that the "control concept" is an excuse for the behavior. It is not. It might be at the root of certain behavior, but it not an excuse for that behavior.
posted by lampshade at 6:07 AM on April 9, 2002


I totally agree with what Andrew Sullivan says. People forget what the real scandal is -- not that children were molested, which is done by Protestant ministers, Boy Scout leaders, and Little League Coaches, but that when molestation was discovered, even in some heinous cases, it was covered up. Victims were bullied by the heirarchy, a civil crime was hidden, people who needed to know their pastors' pasts were kept in the dark, and the Church ignored its own teachings. Feh on them, I say.

As for NAMBLA -- that's outreach to young gay men? I beg pardon? Perhaps a Humbert Humbert society should be created as an outreach to young straight females. I mean, adolescence is a time of insecurity and sexual vulnerability - why should it only be the gay teens who are exploited? Spread the love around, I say.
posted by meep at 6:46 AM on April 9, 2002


NAMBLA was not founded as an outreach program. It's the MAN BOY LOVE association. They claim pedophilia as a 'sexual orientation'. It has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.
posted by glenwood at 6:50 AM on April 9, 2002


pxe2000: criminal sex = rape

lampshade: I didn't say you were making an excuse. I was saying that that whole "rape = control" issue sounds like a contrivance from a bad Jodie Foster movie.

Further, it does nothing to explain why both men and women have such powerful rape fantasies when they masturbate. Does anyone know if any credible scientific documentation for this equivalency exists, or is it just another meme from Oprah?
posted by mischief at 7:02 AM on April 9, 2002


revbrian You've got some nerve showing up here and critizing organizations on account of their names. Is the Holy Roman Catholic Church a less pedophiliac-sounding kind of name for an organization? And how much does it really matter if the purpose (to protect the members at all costs) is the same? And since when does a Church member defend hypocrisy? ... Oh, right. I forget they've been doing it all along, while claiming to be the 'real thing'.
posted by magullo at 7:08 AM on April 9, 2002


mischief - the argument that rape is about power and control, not sex, can hardly be a "meme from Oprah", given that it's been around rather longer than Ms Winfrey has been in the public eye.

I'm not sure what you'd consider credible scientific documentation, though searching Google on "rape about power not sex" (or substitute 'control') reveals a pretty wide-ranging base of individuals and organisations who support the view, including a number with quite considered, rather than emotional or political, positions.

And a statement like "criminal sex = rape" is surely a bit simplistic when you consider the number of places in the world where consensual sex of various kinds is actually illegal.
posted by jonpollard at 7:33 AM on April 9, 2002


Fine, meme from wherever. What is the basis for it? Where are the studies?

Search google for "rape about power not sex studies" and you will see that the notion is disputed. Further, even those who adhere to the "rape=power" notion admit that it is a "feminist theory", not a psychological or biological theory. As one academic put it:

"The complexity of causal analysis of rape is highlighted [in her paper] including the consensus of expert panels on violence against women that no theory emphasizing a single cause is adequate to explain why men rape, no matter what it’s ideology."

As for "criminal sex = rape", you are taking it out of my original context.
posted by mischief at 8:20 AM on April 9, 2002


That whole gay = pedophile thing has been pretty much totally debunked for some time now, as I recall. Only the most homophobic screwjobs still yank that chain.

But rather than discuss who/what's naughty and who/what's nice, perhaps we should all as a society take a vow to stop fucking children...? We should realize the sheer volume of damage it does to children when you fuck them; that most truly frightening adult criminals were sexually abused as children, and that fucking children is in effect creating little monsters, often as not; and that betraying the trust of a child is perhaps the absolute worst form of treachery one can foment, especially in the service of one's own callow desires.

That'd be a good start. Say it with me: "I vow not to fuck anyone under the age of 18. I know it's a stupid arbitrary number, but despite that, I'm just not going to do it. Even if I'm 19 and my girlfriend is 17, I'm still not going to fuck her until her birthday. I do solemnly swear, on my personal honor as a decent human."

Next step: don't take hushmoney from pedophiles when they fuck your kid, you greedy pile of dogshit. Here's a question: how much exactly do you charge someone to rape your children? And what do you spend that money on?

Evanizer: good for you, man. He deserved it, and you were right to do it.

Note: obviously, the "you" in the above does not refer to you personally, unless you fit the qualities described.
posted by UncleFes at 8:33 AM on April 9, 2002


Search google for "rape about power not sex studies" and you will see that the notion is disputed. Further, even those who adhere to the "rape=power" notion admit that it is a "feminist theory", not a psychological or biological theory.

For that matter, even this equation is an overly simplified view of feminist theory regarding rape. In fact, one of the big splits between radical feminism and liberal feminism is that radical feminism is willing to question the ways in which power influences sex, while liberal feminism tends to avoid any criticism of sexuality. For example, radicals point out that the issue of consent is problematic and cultures that don't recognize marital rape as a crime, or in cultures where leading an abusive relationship is likely to result in being killed or maimed by one's own family. MacKinnon and Dworkin's views have been reduced to a sound bite of sex = rape, and most of the rest of feminism has been reduced to sound bite of rape = power, when the actual positions are quite a bit more nuanced than that.

Certainly, the notion that power is a central feature of rape seems to be self-evident considering that several of the major wars in the last century have involved substantial documentation of sexual assault and sexual slavery by invading armies. It also seems to be self-evident considering the story behind the most publicly photographed sexual assaults during the Seattle Mardi Gras riot in which a woman was sexually assaulted after she refused to flash the crowd.

The meme is perhaps important for highlighting the victims point of view over the assailant's point of view.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:52 AM on April 9, 2002


I vow not to fuck anyone under the age of 18.

Bad choice when you include "everyone"! Many teenagers experience sexual intercourse long before 18. Some as early as thirteen and before.

Further, many pre-teens experiment with sex, albeit without intercourse. My first sexual encounters involved a small group of both boys and girls ranging in ages from 5 to 9. I was 6.
posted by mischief at 8:54 AM on April 9, 2002


Even if I'm 19 and my girlfriend is 17, I'm still not going to fuck her until her birthday. I do solemnly swear, on my personal honor as a decent human

Where does honor and decency come into the above equation? Most child abuse laws make exceptions to situations like your example. Just as many (most) child abuse laws place the consenting age at 16.
posted by magullo at 8:56 AM on April 9, 2002


[revbrian You've got some nerve showing up here and critizing organizations on account of their names. Is the Holy Roman Catholic Church a less pedophiliac-sounding kind of name for an organization?]

Holy Roman Catholic Church - Uh, yes. But I'm not catholic either. Why exactly do I have "some nerve"?

[ And how much does it really matter if the purpose (to protect the members at all costs) is the same? And since when does a Church member defend hypocrisy? ... Oh, right. I forget they've been doing it all along, while claiming to be the 'real thing'.]

Are you suggesting that the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" was created to molest children and teenagers and that is its sole purpose?

I'm on record as saying that every single priest who did these things should be subject to the very same legal scrutiny as every other sicko. Not sure what I did to earn your ire but you can keep it to yourself if you don't want to explain it.
posted by revbrian at 9:00 AM on April 9, 2002


Where does honor and decency come into the above equation?

Minimally. Just trying to cover the bases, address the greater question, and put up a general vow suitable for most people. Are you a "special circumstances" type of person? Best not to take the vow, probably. But you are hereby exempted from babysitting my kid until you do.

Age of consent in my state is 18, so that's what I go with. Personal honor, obviously, is a rather antiquated concept, but one I still think should matter.

Who else has got beefs?? (fes rolls up sleeves in inordinately agressive fashion... notices revbrian...)

You got some nerve saying your not Catholic!
posted by UncleFes at 9:03 AM on April 9, 2002


"the notion that power is a central feature of rape seems to be self-evident"

Your scenarios do not support this position since most rapes apparently occur between people who know each other.

Power may be a central feature in some rapes, but to say it is a central feature for all rapes, I think, is a dangerous overgeneralization. What is wrong with admitting that some rapes are motivated by pure animal sexuality?

What benefit is derived if the meme is "important for highlighting the victims point of view"? That seems to be asking the question, "What did the victim do to become the target of this violence?"
posted by mischief at 9:10 AM on April 9, 2002


revbrian If a pedophiliac organization calls itself man-boy love organization whatever, at least they are being upfront and straight-forward about it. Whatever their sins and crimes, they are not liars.

The Catholic church, while pretending to serve the poor, is in fact abusing many of the needy, in many different ways. That, I find terribly inmoral. First because of the deeds themselves (exactly equal to those of any nambla-affiliated or free-lance pedophiliac, as everyone seems to agree). But the real kicker is that they not only deny the facts to protect their own, but in fact perpetuate the crime by a) transferring the criminals somewhere else where they and their deeds are not known and b) by pretending they are helping when in fact they are perverting. So I don't really care what the original intent was (probably to try to give an explanation to things science couldn't take care of at the time), their development has been deplorable. I'm happy to dig up some historical examples, but what most churches are doing even today is denying basic scientific facts (and the unspeakable behind closed doors - and 'm not referring to sex only). Sorry, not interested.

So, yeah, I think the vast majority of religious organizations are truly the scum of the earth, and their representatives mere rethorical maggots. Happy now?
posted by magullo at 9:25 AM on April 9, 2002


Mischief Care to substantiate the following very surprising quote from your post: "since most rapes apparently occur between people who know each other"? Maybe a source would be helpful. Child abuse is mostly done by the inner circle, but as far as I know, that is not the case when adults rape other adults (the only exception I've heard of is homosexual rape).
posted by magullo at 9:30 AM on April 9, 2002


[You got some nerve saying your not Catholic!]

Well, I'm not! Well, I *was* but I was young and desperate and confused and I'm much better now, thankyou.

I would seriously like to see every person involved in the coverup of these things have to face conspiracy charges though. A cousin of mine was thrown in jail about 15 years ago for molesting children. Appearantly his jailtime was a bit too harsh because he ended up hanging himself in jail. I didn't lose a second of sleep over it and doubt I ever will.

[Magullo : Happy now?]

Not particularly. Tossing the whole bushel because of a couple bad apples is the same sort or ignorance and short-sightedness that causes racism, gaybashing, misogyny, etc.
posted by revbrian at 9:33 AM on April 9, 2002


UncleFes (May I congratulate on your very appropriate nick for the thread - joke!)

Are you a "special circumstances" type of person

Yes, one that would not like his son/daughter sent to jail for having sexual relationships with somebody a year younger.

Personal honor, obviously, is a rather antiquated concept, but one I still think should matter.

So do I. My personal honor system claims that if a society says you can't drink before your 21, then you should not be tried as an adult when you're 12. If your society claims the right to turn your childhood into adulthood at the drop of a hat, I say ignore any age-based limits because the very people that set those limits don't respect them. My definition of personal honor does not include sucking up to what the majority says, specially if the majority is plain wrong.
posted by magullo at 9:41 AM on April 9, 2002


revbrian It's not everybody, but it's not a a couple bad apples either. After we're done with the child-abuse scandals in the Western world, we should look into very serious allegations coming from Africa. The extent of the damage, including the cover-up, asks for large amounts of disclosure. Which are not coming. And let's not talk about church finances ...
posted by magullo at 9:44 AM on April 9, 2002


"Only one-quarter to one-third of rape victims are assaulted by a stranger"
(U.S. Department of Justice, Preventing Violence Against Women. Washington, D.C.; June 1995; 13-15.)

"Altogether, offenders known to the victim accounted for about three-quarters of all rapes and sexual assaults against women. Strangers commit 18 percent of such assaults."

(U.S. Department of Justice, Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. August 1995; 1.)
posted by mischief at 9:46 AM on April 9, 2002


My personal honor system claims

All of which is excellent. However, it does little to stop the issue a lot of us seem to be studiously avoiding here, which is the very real problem of adults having sex with children.

Obviously, a 15 and a 16 year old engaging in a bit of after-school intercourse, though fairly stupid, does not fall into the subject at hand. And I'm not sure how drawing an admittedly arbitrary line at 18 is "sucking up to the majority." But to follow your recommendation of ignoring age-based limits decriminalizes everything - not exactly an optimal solution.

What's so funny about my nick??
posted by UncleFes at 9:54 AM on April 9, 2002


Power may be a central feature in some rapes, but to say it is a central feature for all rapes, I think, is a dangerous overgeneralization. What is wrong with admitting that some rapes are motivated by pure animal sexuality?

That assumes that motive is really the only thing to do with it. Oportunity and method are also really important in my book. The question is what makes a rapist think he (and I'm going with the generalization and ignoring the rare exceptions for this argument) can get away with using expressing his "pure animal sexuality" in a way in which the active involvement of the victim is irrelevant? Would he still consider rape if he knew that his intended victim could disembowel him and become a local hero for taking out the trash?

That doesn't mean that sexuality is not involved in rape. But saying that it's "just pure animal sexuality" is just as bad of a simplification as saying its just about power.

What benefit is derived if the meme is "important for highlighting the victims point of view"? That seems to be asking the question, "What did the victim do to become the target of this violence?"

This is in contrast to highlighting the rapist's point of view by saying, "it was just a wild sexual experience that she regretted after the fact." The point in focusing on the victim's experience of rape as a violent act is to get rid of the bullshit about the victim asking for it because of how she was dressed, or how drunk she was. It also dissassociates the rape from other sexual activities the victim may be involved in, eliminating the defense that the victim was promsicuous.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:55 AM on April 9, 2002


KJS: I don't understand what you mean by "method". As to your next point, do all rapists even consider "getting away with it", or as I suspect, are some rapists acting out of mindless impulse (whatever the root cause of that impulse may be)? IOW, "Dick hard. Woman present. Fuck."

saying that it's "just pure animal sexuality" is just as bad of a simplification as saying its just about power

That was MY point. I see rape as having a range of underlying motivations (from the purely powermongering to the purely sexual), not all of which will be present in any given incident.

As for "the victim asking for it", I agree that part is bullshit. However, the victim's mode of dress and state of vulnerability contribute to the opportunity as perceived by the rapist. Too often, this point is worded in such a way that while relieving the victim of responsibility (rightfully so), it negates further consideration from the perspective of the rapist.
posted by mischief at 10:52 AM on April 9, 2002


"the notion that power is a central feature of rape seems to be self-evident"

Your scenarios do not support this position since most rapes apparently occur between people who know each other.


Indeed they are. However I don't see how that fact disproves that point Kirk was making. There are power issues within relationships, not all, and not all to the same degree, but they exist.

I do believe that rape is an issue of power not sex. We all enjoy sex, and seek it out. Not everybody rapes. Rape has always been used as an instrument of power, in some ways this is particularly evident in times of war, or in institutions such as jails.

"As for "the victim asking for it", I agree that part is bullshit. However, the victim's mode of dress and state of vulnerability contribute to the opportunity as perceived by the rapist."

There seem to be two contradictory statements in that out-take. I'll just deal with the most obvious. People shouldn't be perceived as "vulnerable" because of the way they dress. Disgracefully, the lawyers of rapists might make a big deal about the way a person dressed when and if a case of rape is tried in a court of law, but it does not follow that this had anything to do with their rape. It didn't and it couldn't. Rape is a crime, no matter how people choose to dress. The rapist might say, "Your honour, she was dressed provocatively, thus she wanted it" However, this is obvious transference.

"What is wrong with admitting that some rapes are motivated by pure animal sexuality?"

Loaded question. You show or intimate by that statement that you believe that deep down, we must agree with you, but just don't want to "admit it." But (speaking for myself) I totally disagree with that tenet. Why it would be wrong for me to pretend to believe something that I don't, is, so far as I can see, self-obvious.
posted by lucien at 4:30 PM on April 9, 2002


when you consider the number of places in the world where consensual sex of various kinds is actually illegal.

like parts of the US...
posted by rhyax at 6:36 PM on April 9, 2002


Huuhhh I think I was giving the other side of the story, or something. It related to a previous post..which was maybe getting off topic.

And anathema, harassed, not hit on. Harassed, although not in any particularly vicious way.
posted by Settle at 7:01 PM on April 9, 2002


« Older South High School Sucks   |   Kissing Hank's Ass. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments