A revelation! Women have had a perfect way to protect themselves from rape all along, as defense attorney in a rape case explains.
"All she would have had to do was to close her legs . . . it’s as simple as that," he told the jury. "Why didn’t she do that? . . . The reason she didn’t do that was because the sex was consensual, as easy as that."
Just…close…your legs, and you’re impervious to rape? This crime has been perpetrated throughout civilization for thousands of years, and now for the first time ever, a lawyer has had the stunning insight into all they’ve ever had to do was execute this trivial little maneuver with two appendages. This evidence was irrelevant:
When he tried to kiss and grope her she clearly said no, and was clearly saying no as he bent her against a wall and raped her.
It doesn’t matter if you say no, if you fail to make the Impenetrable Closed Legs Maneuver.
No word yet on whether this brilliant argument got his client off.
Gosh. That’s about as sound as Paglia’s “hey, if it’s invevitable, lie back and enjoy it.” The idiocy is simply too much to bear.
When I read something like this, I know, I know, I KNOW that it is very bad, very, very bad — (TW) but I fantasize about people like that defense attorney being put in the same position and suffering the consequences, because it seems that, like many Republicans and T-P idiots, that they have NO ability to feel empathy or place themselves in the position of another person. The ONLY things that matter to them are their own personal, limited experience, and whatever fantasies they clutter their brains with.
If I had been on that jury, I might have caused a mistrial by standing up and tossing my chair at him.
It seems the jury didn’t buy it.
Applause!!!!!
Legs closed is still a sex position.
I have neither enough face, nor enough palm
Wasn’t the comment made to the jury some time before the verdict? It says in the second paragraph that the man was found guilty.
So all a rapist has to do to not be a rapist is to be so scary and violent that she is afraid to physically resist. Then it it’s actually consensual. It’s practically biblical.
Not really an appropriate subject for humour. This is a joke, right? An attempt at comedy? I mean, you posted a link to the article, quoted in full the seventh paragraph, and yet the second sentence contains the words “was found guilty”.
It’s not funny either way.
Wow. That’s the ultimate mansplanation.
“Hey, just lock your doors and you won’t get robbed!”
“Hey, just button your jacket and you won’t get pickpocketed!”
Hey, just fuck off, m’kay?
Wow. That line of argument can be used to dismiss any crime I can think of. Somehow, though, I’m guessing he only uses it in rape cases.
You forgot the “fuckbrained assholes” tag.
Reminds me of the old “inkwell” demonstration. The defense attorney moved an inkwell around randomly and told the jury foreman to try and put a pen in it. Story goes it worked fine until one foreman grabbed the lawyer with one hand, cold-cocked him and then inserted the pen.
Monitor note:
To avoid auto-embed of YouTube videos:
<a href="
Produces: Youtube video
I sometimes wonder about some defense arguments. The world is full of assholes which would make this argument as their first and best. Then there is the bit about defense lawyers having to do everything possible to throw in reasonable doubt, no matter how ugly or stupid that may get. And then there are some attorneys whose previous work I’d like to have a look at, because their argument is so vile and ridiculous it makes me wonder if it is out of character for them and they are actually sabotaging their client’s case under the guise of defense by any means necessary. (Such a lawyer would have to be good at reading a jury since, you know, some people would just buy such bullshit as a defense, as we see all too frequently.)
I….
I just…
I can’t…..
How…
http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcc2onedy91qb8i73o1_500.gif
I think this sort of outcome is not that rare these days. Yes, the victim will be put on trial more than the perp, but juries still come through on occasion.
The Enemy understands that the people are turning against them. That’s why they fought so hard to keep the Stubenville and Maryville ever from going to trial.
And yeah, I call them “the enemy”. I intend to dehumanize them as their victims have been dehumanized for years.
No competent criminal lawyer would make that puerile submission. The accused was a bouncer, presumably with limited capacity to pay for competent representation. He retained an idiot. In NZ and Australia at least, intimidation, trickery and certain types of mistake negative consent to penetration.
Then there is the bit about defense lawyers having to do everything possible to throw in reasonable doubt, no matter how ugly or stupid that may get.
That’s actually not true, at least in any jurisdiction in the United States. A defense attorney is obligated to provide their client with a zealous defense, but no attorney is required to go to any length possible on behalf of their client.
I know of a lot of sex positions involving closed legs.
But seriously, as was aid upthread, that just means the solution is to intimidate the person into holding still.
Also, Hairhead, you’re right, that is very very bad. And you should not have said it. I assume you’re saying you volunteer for that?
The Lawyers statement:
“The accused was of the view there was an element of willingness from the accuser, and that she was a willing partner. What I say to the jury doesn’t represent my personal view. It merely represents the defence.”
In a later interview he went on to say that the comments were not made in a general sense, but with direct relevance to the facts of this particular case.
Could I have gone there and said what he did? No way. Does he have a reputation as an incompetent hack? No.
I haven’t listened to it yet, but apparently the lawyer did a radio interview earlier today. Link below if anyone’s interested.
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/wellington/player/ondemand/tf-keith-jefferies-14thnov2013
aaronpound at #20:
Important point, and, in fact, there are ethical, professional, and legal limits to what an attorney can do for a client. Subornation of perjury, as just one example, is a crime in U.S. law (I have no idea if the same exists in Australian law).
Yet another in a long line of examples in which we see the damage that misogyny wreaks. Our legal systems are part of our socio-cultural systems. Socio-cultural systems fraught with toxicity are likely to encompass legal systems fraught with the same.
Still learning,
Robert
I hope, for the rapist’s sake, the “close your legs” plan really works.
Please, Alverant, can we not have any prison-rape comments?
NelC#26
Seconded.
I wonder if the judge said, “Stop that nonsense.” I’ll bet he didn’t.
Bear in mind, those from the US, that while the NZ legal system is on the whole similar to yours, there are sometimes subtle differences which can seem much larger in cases like these. Without knowing the precise legal framework of every single state in the US, the lawyers I know in New Zealand have pointed out to me that we have laws here concerning legal ethics that are not universally adopted in the West in general, let alone other Westminster style Commonwealth systems.
Such as whether a legal aid lawyer has a right to refuse representation of a pedophile, for instance, out of personal choice—and the fact a legal counsel must act upon instruction if insisted by the client. There’s been cases where lawyers have presented cringeworthy arguments at the request of the accused.
Legal Aid Lawyers will get cases like this all the time, where there’s really no solid defence, but take them as it’s part of their job description.
Pardon the Beavis & Butthead moment, but he said “got his client off”. heh heh heh heh
On a more serious note, the attorney made all past rape victims complicit in their own violation with the idiotic suggestion that all this could have been prevented with stronger thigh muscles. I suppose that in the age of Todd Akin that this shouldn’t be surprising, but still, really?
grumpyoldfart @28
That’s assuming the judge is even a man, which I doubt anyone here knows for sure. In any case, what Keith Jefferies has said is:
Franscisco @18:
dehumanizing people has led to rape, gay bashing, trans* bashing, slavery, and genocide.
I really do not care what your reasons are. If you want to engage in the same type of behavior as ‘The Enemy’, GTFO
Hairhead:
I really wish you would walk that comment back.
We do not want *more* rape in the world.
Is there something floating in the internet today? First Hairhead. then Franscisco and now Alverant?
None of these comments are helpful. All are harmful.
And in a goddamned rape thread?!
These comments from the lawyer are going down like the proverbial lead balloon here in NZ, partly because they come in the wake of this:
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/thousands-call-justice-against-roast-busters-5705668
Rape and issues of consent have been front and centre here for several weeks.
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u103/wmdkitty/Useful%20Responses/fuck-this-thing-cat.gif
WMDKitty — Survivor #36
I’m not sure that this was the best place to post that link.
But if you don’t cross-post to the Lounge or the ‘dome, I will.
My kitteh left the room because I was laughing too loud.
*quietly horrified*
…it wasn’t meant to be funny!
*shame*
I was reading about this in the national news this morning and felt ashamed. I saw the headline here and just new that I’d be seeing it again. That lawyer deserves to be disbarred.
WMDKitty — Survivor
Sometimes I laugh when I’m horrified.
It’s difficult to explain.
Still, you should cross-post the link, because the gif is genius.
auntbenjy:
Thanks for the link.
More evidence that Rape Culture totes does not exist.
::infuriating eyeroll::
jmckacksle #5
happiest sadist #21
Hur hur hur.
Or maybe, for some of us, reading about a woman being pinned down and having objects forced into her body doesn’t send us straight to some misogynistic rape = sex fantasy. Interesting how it’s all much of a muchness to so many though.
This is what passes for a legal defence these days? Don’t bother with an actual argument, just pile on the misogyny and victim blaming onto the shoulders of every rape victim throughout history.
I don’t know if this lawyer was somehow required to make such a staggeringly misogynistic and dehumanising argument by instruction of their client, or if he thinks that such toxic and unethical behaviour is justified in some kind of ‘no holds barred’ defence, or of he really is just an odious woman hating bigot, but ultimately the motivation doesn’t matter – intent is not magic, and the replication of this most poisonous of misogynistic tropes will cause immense harm, and will add further fuel to the rapacious fire of ubiquitous rape culture.
Not only does it try to cast existing rape victims as complicit in their own rapes, but it is a further reminder that society will go to almost any lengths to excuse the rapist and blame the vicitm. Women considering reporting a rape will again be reminded that they will have to deal with one or more varients of the heinously stupid ‘why didn’t you close your legs?’ defence, which will contribute to the ongoing lack of reporting of rapes, which will make it that much easier for patriarchal soceity to pretend that we are not experiencing an ongoing epidemic of rape.
I am not in a position to judge whether he failed as a lawyer by deploying this abomination of an argument, but I will state with certainty that he failed as a human being.
It is too early in the morning to be this angry. Sweet Jesus fuck.
@Scimaths
I think their point was that closing your legs does not magically shut off access to your vagina.
scimaths:
Thumper is right.
Remember that the defense said “keep your legs closed and you wont get raped.”
Well, given that there are sex positions with the legs closed…
Thumper, Tony #44 and 45
I think their point was that closing your legs does not magically shut off access to your vagina.
No, if that was their point they could have said “for any adult reading this who might for some unknown reason not realise it, the advice to close legs does not even achieve what the defense lawyer claims”
But they went for “sex positions” …. “I know sex positions”. The conflation of rape and sex is there. A woman with closed legs is still available for “sex”. And they want to use this thread to declare what clever little boys they are that they know this.
Thumper, Tony #44 and 45
that bit was supposed to be a quote
Why didn’t she close her legs?
She was, but “Thigh Gap”.
This BS reminds me of the Australian case where the defendant claimed to be innocent because the victim was wearing jeans too tight to allow rape. The same defense was used in Italy as well several years earlier. The Atlantic covered the Australian case. Sorry I’m not good with links. Not that all of you want something else depressing to read.
So, for all of those who were willing to defend the Magic Armored Undies of threads past on the off chance they might Prevent Just One Rape, here’s another sterling chance to give thinking a shot.
Presumably, this advice might Prevent Just One Rape. Is it therefore as good thing to teach? Is it a good attitude to have?
Or is it, in fact, victim blaming?
Go ahead, work it out.
I’ll wait.
@Amy Cocks: Getting into the mechanics of it makes it sound creepier than you probably intended.
Ugh, reading her story made my heart hurt for her. She was stuck downtown with no ID because she’d accidentally left it with one of her friends who had since gone home. And she had no money for the train. So she was trying to get back inside to talk to her other friends again so she could go home, and this fucking jerk took that opportunity to isolate and rape her after claiming that he was a bouncer and could get her back inside the bar. Of course she was terrified by that point.
Bullshit. He didn’t have to say that in order to defend his client. If he wanted to argue that the sex was consensual, he could have done it a million other ways, that didn’t similarly victim blame and throw shit in the face of every rape victim in history.
I don’t buy that this was just a tactic. People don’t come up with arguments like that unless they’re also sympathetic to them.
And then there’s the unspoken bit: Chances are this is not the first time he’s done something like that. Such things are not one-time occurrences; they’re part of a pattern. The other victims just never came forward, likely because they were afraid of getting exactly this kind of treatment.
scimaths (#46)
The lawyer is the one who conflated rape and sex. Happiestsadist and jmckaskle are just pointing out the lawyer’s argument that there’s a meaningful relationship between leg spreading and consent is invalid given the existence of people who have consenting sex with their legs closed.
scimaths:
You seem certain that your interpretation of Happiestsadist and jmckaskle’scomments is the correct one. Why? Why believe something so horrible about them when a better, more reasonable explanation has been offered? In point of fact, I have had sex with my legs closed.
Also, are you certain of they are both male?
Please, this needs a trigger warning. I know the title says “Rape”, but I was still caught unaware by what the lawyer said, and what it made me remember.
Obviously the lawyer hasn’t seen Robin Hood – Prince of Thieves. There is a scene at the end where Alan Rickman’s Sheriff of Nottingham tries to rape Maid Marian, and is initially stymied by her refusal to open her legs.
enki23 @8
Not even that. There isn’t even a necessity of being violent, intimidating, or otherwise threatening.
Rape being something traumatic and unexpected often elicits a trauma response (fight, flight, and freeze), and due to socialization and the nature of rape, freeze is a really common response.
So yeah, this “tactic” is even worse than you think.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how rape-prevention actually prevents rape of women in three easy steps:
a) Give a laundry list of rape-prevention tips to women
b) Any woman who claims to have been raped cannot have followed the advice (since most of it is contradictory, it’s no problem to prove that)
c) Therefore it was not rape.
Checkmate, feminists!
There’s also something extra offensive about this, in the same vein as Rush Limbaugh’s willful ignorance of how women’s bodies and hormonal contraceptive pills work. Penetration of a woman’s or man’s vagina or anus doesn’t require wide-open access, and can be achieved even with legs completely closed and pressed tight against each other. Any adult with a basic understanding of physiology would know this, and pretending to think or believe otherwise is just appallingly disingenuous.
@Giliell:
Yeah, I was saying that on the armor-all thread, in a predictive way.
Is it okay with you that I’m ridiculously unhappy to have that prediction be validated?
I’m not at all familiar with New Zealand Law, but this sound to me like a “defence of last resort”. Cursory research shows that the New Zealand Crimes Act does vitiate most defences of consent in cases of sexual assault – specifically stating that “A person does not consent to sexual activity just because he or she does not protest or offer physical resistance to the activity.” Since this would be mentioned in the jury instructions, it’s obviously not going to be a very effective defence.
This sounds like a case where there was more-than-sufficient evidence to get a conviction so the crown refused to bargain for a plea. The defence attorney would have a professional obligation to offer a full defence, but if the evidence against the client is overwhelming, the most you can really do is just claim one of the essential elements of the crime is missing. It’s obviously not a strategy that will win you a lot of cases. In cases of rape/sexual assault, consent is obviously exculpatory if actually obtained. I’m not going to the defend the specific words he used, but the the line of assault is going to be pretty much the same regardless.
I hadn’t realised that “defence of last resort” was a euphemism for “out-right, bold-faced lie.” Because that is what “All she would have had to do was to close her legs” is, at the end of the day.
Daz: When all the evidence is going against your client, when the crown refuses to bargain, and your client steadfastly refuses to plead guilty for whatever stupid reason, all you can really do is stand up and deny the obvious.
municipalis #65
Sorry, no, I don’t buy that. A lie is a lie.
Daz: In the legal world, we’d say that he wasn’t lying, but instead offering an alternative interpretation of the facts. That said interpretation is patently absurd and is false well beyond a reasonable doubt means that it will most likely be rejected, but that doesn’t bar the attorney from advancing it. Again, I’m not defending the specific language he used, but if there was nothing else that could exculpate his client, any defence would have likely come down to “the victim consented and now she’s lying.” As the attorney, you may well know that the defence has virtually no chance of succeeding, but you can’t just stand up and say “We’ve got nothing, your honour, my client is scum!”
The problem, as I mentioned above, is that in some cases your client has obviously committed the crime but is a moron and refuses to accept the fact that they’re going to jail one way or another. The justice system requires that every accused has the right to a full defence – and that right exists regardless of the weight of the evidence against them at the outset of the trial.
Yeah, everyone deserves a defence. I still say something’s fucked up if the attorney is expected to lie in order to put up a show of making that defence. It’s not, or it shouldn’t be, a process of win-at-all-costs. It is, or should be, a means of arriving at the truth.
Cut the man some slack. He’s just doing his job, trying to make some hard-earned cash.
“All she would have had to do was to tilt her head . . . it’s as simple as that,” he told the jury. “Why didn’t she do that? . . . The reason she didn’t do that was because the shooting was consensual, as easy as that.”
Scimaths: You are a fucking piece of shit. Just gonna let you know that up front. Some of my (many) rapes were in fact while my legs were closed. Because that was a position my rapist enjoyed. Go you! So glad you’re here to ‘splain to survivors!
As others have rightfully managed to figure out, my point was that the lawyer was claiming that penetration can’t occur with the legs closed. I pointed out that there are in fact many consensual positions that involve that, so no, that claim doesn’t even make any sense. But I suppose you would have appreciated more detail of how those particular rapes were committed on me?
Oh and before you all start whining about my mean tone of voice, the comment that was thrown at me in reltion to my original comment was far far worse.
happiestsadist gets to speak to me like that ? Then I get to respond with a FRACTION of the escalation they used
fucking piece of shit indeed.
scimaths #71, 72
Yeah, that’s hardly escalation at all, is it?</snark>
If Happiestsadist wishes to share details of their rapes, then a thread in which rapes are being discussed is exactly the proper venue for them to do so. This is not violation of any reader. If you do not wish to see rape being discussed, I suggest you shouldn’t read threads where the topic is rape.
Happiest sadist at #21
“I know alot of sex positions involving closed legs” followed straight away by “but seriously…” Read that again and think about it. Still want to claim there’s no way anyone could possibly interpret the first line was intended as a “joke” ?
Still want to claim that anybody objecting to said “joke” should put up with the response in #70 ?
scimaths:
Nobody claimed that except you.
You’ve had three clarifications, #55, 56, and 70, the paragraph after the insult you’re going off about. Are you going to walk back your accusation about Happiestsadist indulging in reader-violating rape fantasies?
well done for missing the point. They respond to a comment that “joking about sex positions in a rape thread is not OK” with “fucking piece of shit” and threats to go into rape details *as a punishment* (not for proper discussion) for the objection. That is a MASSIVE escalation – which you wish to defend, and my response -which you wish to criticise was tiny ***in relation***.
I’ll repeat: “I know lots of sex positions …. But seriously …..”
Look at their original post #21. The first bit was meant to be “funny”
Nobody claimed that except you.
Actually tony and thumper did. So don’t tell lies.
Pterryx again, #75
That’s not what I said, you fucking lying piece of shit (hey that’s OK right ?)
HS was not saying they wished to share their experience in any sort of constructive way whatsoever. Don’t even being to pretend that’s how it reads.
Here’s what they said:
That is beyond disgusting. Seriously, how about they “walk that back” How about that ?
The attorney claimed that it wouldn’t be sex, but rape, if her legs were closed. Pointing out that his claim fails even on those grounds is pertinent.
A more serious charge against the attorney is that even if the above claim were true, it would be stupid to suppose that the victim voluntarily opened her legs.
That’s how I read it. That’s how several others seem to have read it.
Calling a rape victim a “repellent little martyr” over a misreading, is not a tiny escalation. I’d go so far as to say it’s fucking despicable.
Scimaths:
I’m not sure what thorn is sticking you here, scimaths, but you are seriously out of line. You aren’t new here, and while I haven’t noted your presence in the gazillion threads we’ve had about rape, surely you must have at least been aware of them. There are a great many rape survivors here, scimaths, and we won’t put up with being silenced, or considered disgusting for discussing what happened to us. Many of us have gone into to detail about our rapes. If you don’t like that, or find it utterly repulsive, or anything else, please, don’t hang out in threads like this. All your reaction does is to castigate rape victims one more time, and believe me, we don’t need it.
It seems you had a problem accepting the fact that ‘legs closed’ is a normal sexual position. I am a woman (so don’t assume I’m a guy), and I can confirm that yes, ‘legs closed’ is indeed a normal sexual position. Keeping one’s legs closed wouldn’t deter a rapist in any way. Not only is there a range of intimidation and force techniques at their disposal, closed legs wouldn’t do a damn bit of good if you’re bent over, and it wouldn’t do a damn bit of good in most situations. That’s what Happiestsadist was trying to get across to you.
A family member started raping me when I was three years old. I remember as a child trying that ‘keep your legs closed’ business. It. Does. Not. Work. What I found out then was that for some people, legs closed is more stimulating and exciting for them. When I was raped by a stranger when I was 16, I was bound, wrists and ankles. It did not prevent me being raped multiple times in that condition. So here’s my suggestion to you: when it comes to rape, be quiet and listen. You might learn something. And please don’t mistake any of this for being all polite and gentle. I am shaking with anger over your utter idiocy and insistence on thinking you know what the fuck you’re on about, when you don’t. What you are doing is attempting to silence those of us who have been raped. STOP DOING THAT RIGHT NOW.
Dan, #79
1) They made the “joke” about sex positions
2) They are not the only rape victim here.
3) my response to HS was not over any “misreading” it was a direct response as to their deeply nasty outburst
4) their outburst was the escalation by calling me a “fucking piece of shit” followed by “I suppose you would have appreciated more detail of how those particular rapes were committed on me?” That is what is despicable, yet you’re all keen to tackle my reponse rather than that. Tell me, you think it’s OK to let post #70 just slide but so so important to start making up shit about my response to #70 ???
scimaths @ 71
This reaction right here is one of many reasons why many rape survivors don’t want to talk about their rapes. And that’s wrong, because when we’re talking about rape (which is what this thread is about!) the voices of those who have been victimized should not be silenced if it can at all be helped.
You are not helping anything, scimaths. You are not making a safer space by what you’re doing. You’re not making a helpful point. You misread Happiestsadist. Perhaps HS could have worded it better. Perhaps you could have read more carefully. Perhaps HS could have responded better. Perhaps you could have responded better, too.
But there is nothing productive being done here now. You are not going to somehow “win” this, because there’s nothing to win. Not unless your goal is to silence rape survivors.
scimaths:
Again, nobody said that. Nobody said it can’t possibly be interpreted the way you’re reading it. Several people said they think HS meant to illustrate the point as Daz just spelled out, and HS said so as well. That means your accusations of rape=sex fantasy at #42 and “clever little boys” at #45 directed at HS and jmckaskle were way off base. Not to mention accusing ANY of us survivors – and there are a lot of us – of courting martyrdom and using rape as some sort of power trip. This is a place where survivors don’t have to be told they’re disgusting for speaking up.
Everyone can see your earlier comments, you know.
scimaths #81
What joke? Happiest sadist pointed out, in language that many people plainly understood, that “closed legs bars penetration,” and that it would not be consensual sex if it did happen, which is the implication of the attorney’s statement is incorrect.
You jumped all over them for saying this; probably over a misreading, calling it a “misogynistic rape = sex fantasy.” Yeah; they got angry at that. I would, in their place.
You could, when made aware of their actual meaning, have apologised, and even asked them to speak more clearly in future, so as to avoid such misunderstanding. They are, after all, a rape victim—it’s clearly a highly charged subject for them. But no, what you did instead was tell them that discussion of their own experience was not pertinent, when in fact, given their rapist’s “taste,” their experience is highly fucking pertinent to the statement made by the attorney in the OP.
Empathy: try bloody using it.
I just want to step in & say that I understand the original objection to HS’s comment about positions. It can reasonably have been read to conflate sex and rape.
I do not for a second believe that that is what HS was, in fact, doing, but it can be read that way. There are times when, b/c of how much stuff in our world that is awful as F, it’s hard not to interpret ungenerously the statements of people with whom we haven’t built up trust.
I can also see how, once that misreading was made, it would be easy to distrust and continue to read uncharitably anything said by HS. For HS’s part, it’s clear that it would be shocking to get that response for calling out that this particular instance of rape apologetics was so awful it dispensed with logic entirely in order to relieve a rapist of responsibility. There wasn’t a misreading on HS’s part of Scimath’s writing – it’s just that it didn’t allow for scimath’s original good-faith misreading.
All 3 of us, scimath, HS, and I, know exactly how awful and foul rape and assault can be.
I know HS’s comments from way back, scimath, and yours a bit as well.
I encourage both of you to step back for a bit, and if you need to engage further on this, engage with the expectation that the other person is really listening and willing to work to eliminate future rapes and ameliorate rape’s harms in the present.
Caine # 80. Thank you for the response, however
No. Totally no, no, no,no, no. Wrong and wrong again.
I had a problem with people JOKING about “I know lots of sex positions” in a thread about sexual violence against women. I made that quite clear many times, yet it is still flying right past people.
Unfortunately you then build on that and most else of what you say is wrong, based on wrong assumptions. I DO NOT need an education about how rape happens in lots of ways. I DO NOT.
No because you and everyone else is not actually bothering to read what I wrote
Example ? Here’s something I said upthread: ” Seriously, you really think ANYBODY needs to know that rape can happen whatever a woman does with her legs ?” Read it again. Whay are people missing this ??
Why do people keep insisting that I must be told the very thing I am already saying myself ?
I never said I didn’t like any of those discussions (so don’t say that, it is a lie) and yes I have read some of them. I said that discussing experiences in a constructive way is one thing (and I don’t find it disgusting at all, so how about you don’t say that about me either). But to to say to someone ““I suppose you would have appreciated more detail of how those particular rapes were committed on me?” is not at all about genuine sharing of expereince. It is just downright nasty. Again I don’t know why everyone seems to be misinterpreting that either. It is quite clear.
I’m sorry you’re that upset (seriously, not being at all sarcastic). Guess what – I’m upset about the original “jokes” upthread. I’m upset about the shit spewed in #70, I’m upset about the stream of lies, invective and invention that you all are coming out with in response my reaction to that.
Over and over I have said it “I had a problem with people JOKING about “I know lots of sex positions” in a thread about sexual violence against women” I have a problem being called a “fucking piece of shit” and being told I want to know someone’s rape details for objecting to their “joke”. But I’m not supposed to have a problem with any of that ??
Christ almighty people.
If people want to address what I said here it is AGAIN:
1) Joking about “knowing lots of sex positions” in a thread about a woman being raped is *not funny* (especially not to some of us who are also victims, eh ?)
2) Nobody needs to be told that whatever a woman does or doesn’t do with her body, that is not going to prevent a rapist from raping
3) it is good for rape victims to share their experinces.
4) It is not good for rape victims to tell people that they “would have appreciated more detail of how those particular rapes were committed”. Not really in any circumstance, but particularly not in response to an objection about inappropriate jokes. (try thinking about how “silencing” that sort of abusive bullshit is why don’t you ?)
Pteryxx 83
Then fucking well read them you little shit
Dan # 84
How many bloody times. It’s right there. Comment #21 “I know lots of sex positions. But seriously …”
crip dyke, #85 thank you and apologies I missed your post befor posting again. I am stepping away now. Time zones as much as anything else.
Pity though that HS didn’t clarify their joke and went straight for “fucking piece of shit” and ” you would appreciate details of my rapes”. Maybe HS and their defenders could think about that for a while.
scimaths,
You misconstrued the intent behind those comments. It happens. No big deal. Stop digging.
scimaths @ 71
I am a man and was raped as a child. I also tried to keep my legs together, to protect myself, to stop him. Am I also a repellent little martyr?
scimaths #83
I quote HS #70
Yes, it is possible to read HS’s original comment as a joke. Given that HS has since explained just what they meant, the worst charge which can now be laid against their original comment is that it was badly worded.
End. Of. Story.
After that, you both escalated; though if I were judging, your #71 was by far the worst—but that’s subjective to me.
By all means, ask them to speak more clearly in future. To continually claim, in light of their clarification, that they were joking, though, is to call them a liar. I ask for clarification of your position: is that, in fact, what you are saying?
Ogvorbis:
It would seem we all are, Og. Well, at least if we’re ever so crass as to talk about it.
Yeah, Caine, we are upsetting scimath by introducing some realities that scimath does not want to admit exist.
Ogvorbis:
I’m afraid one of those realities might possibly be the use of gallows humour by those of us who have had some awful realities to face.
That said, I do think it is very important to impress on Scimath (and everyone else), that when you up and decide to hurl something like “repellant little martyr” at a rape survivor, you are effectively hurling that at every single person who has been raped, and Pharyngula is fair bristling with survivors of rape and sexual assault, men and women. It’s a good thing for all commenters to remember that We Are Legion, and we are all reading your words and looking at how you treat someone who has been raped.
I could have phrased my original statement better, but I’ll admit I was rather… unnerved by Hairhead’s call for retributive rape, and was perhaps not as clear as I should have been. But I was not in any way joking. The idea that keeping one’s legs closed is as stupid and shows as little understanding of sexual violence as that spiked female condom thing. In both cases, there is a very limited understanding of the ways in which sexual violence can be and is frequently performed.
I’m happy to trot out more of my “being a proper rape victim” cred for Scimath, as they apparently are very invested in making me out to be a rape-apologist man. Neither is the case. And I am very, very able to speak on this subject.
But I do always love these little reminders of why I need to never, ever speak up. Someone might decide I’m not allowed, and that I need to be triggered into silence. And that makes them a shitty person.
Oh, and just for you, Scimath, new sub-nym!
HappiestSadist:
I read your initial comment as pointing out that closed legs does not mean rape, open legs does not mean consent. I can see how it could be interpreted as humour. Not how I saw it, but I can see that. That said, scimath was, to me, out of line.
I do not want you, or any other survivor, silenced. I agree with Caine’s assessment of blast radius damage (repellent little martyr was way the hell beyond splash damage). Safe and supportive hugs to you.
Damn. Just reread what I wrote. I am neither attacking nor criticizing you, HappiestSadist. I meant to support you. Not sure if I was clear. Sorry.
Happiestsadist:
This brings up yet another problem. There have been fewer instances of the retributive rape comments in recent times, and those that do crop up are generally made by someone who is not a regular here. That said, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for making such a comment at all. It is even more egregious to make such a comment in a thread which is likely to be full of rape survivors. Throughout my life, and in my work as an advocate, I have never run into a single person who has been raped who would wish it on someone else, regardless of how vile that person might be.
Retributive rape comments hurt every single survivor out there. They do not help. They are often the stuff of triggers and nightmares. There is absolutely no excuse for a regular member of the commentariat to make such a remark, and such remarks should not be allowed a pass in any way.
scimaths
While I can see how one might initially think the comment was a joke, given that myself and others read it differently, would it not have been reasonable upon seeing alternative responses from others, to step back, admit that you might be wrong, and ask for clarification, rather than assuming your interpretation was correct?
I am also curious why you think (thought?) Happiestsadist is a man. There is nothing in the original comment that gives an indication of that.
Thank you, Ogvorbis, Caine, Tony and everyone else.
I do definitely admit I was significantly angrier than I’d have liked to have been had I been less immediately triggered.
But it is just lovely and so very safe to know that Scimaths has decided that I am a clever little boy, and that were I to go into detail about my experiences, which Scimaths apparently refuses to consider being a thing at all, it would be merely another act of my being a predatory man upon y’all. Because that’s what survivors do with their histories: they can shut up, and only speak about these distasteful matters hypothetically, or they can become predators themselves by sharing the details of what was done to them in a space that is in theory one where such is both safe and topical.
Caine, #94
But it’s Ok for HS, actually out of nowhere, to call a survivor a “fucking piece of shit” and say that said survivor for some reason “would appreciate” details of their rape ? You don’t think that is repellent ? Because I do. Telling someone that they “would appreciate” rape details is disgusting.
Like me for instance.
Well, let’s see how you’re treating me: I’m having to put up with a repeated stream of lies and inventions, such as the statement that I “would appreciate details” of someone else’s rape. I’m having to put up with people repeatedly ignoring everything I say and making up a whole load of stuff instead. I’m being called a “fucking piece of shit” and it’s just lie after lie. Indeed, you’re not reading my words at all are you ?
scimaths,
You called another rape survivor “repellent little martyr”. I kinda can’t get over that.
I can’t find where you said you were a rape survivor before Happiestsadist asked whether you want details of her own rape, so I can’t see how she could have known about you and used her own rape as a threat to trigger you. If she had done that, it would be absolutely disgusting. But she didn’t.
She wrote something that correlated with her own rape (the connection which, admittedly, she didn’t mention in her first comment and mentioned sex instead).
[insert wild misunderstandings on, well, both sides]
You know how assholes come into rape threads and poke at rape victims until you get an impression they want to push victims into describing their own rapes no matter how painful that might be? Well, I guess Happiestsadist understood you in that way.
[insert wild misunderstandings and the place where you call a rape survivor “repellent little martyr” (nope, I really can’t get over that one)]
HappiestSadist #95 and #101
You were unnerved by hairhead’s statement therefore choose to call me (who isn’t Hairhead) a “fucking piece of shit” and declare that I “would appreciate details” of another persons rape. It’s Ok for you to be angry and triggered, but not OK for me to be angry and triggered by the way your “sex positions, but seriously” or by the way you spoke to me in #70
I used the phrase clever little boys once (#46) Tony pointed out(#56) I didn’t know if either person I was referring to was male or not. I did not refer to either of you as male again. In fact I didn not contribute at all to thread again until you came in with your “fucking piece of shit” etc at #70
Not at all. Stop inventing things. Read what I just wrote
Stop lying. You have made this up out of nowhere. You declared that I “would appreciate details” of your rape. I told you I would not appreciate that at all and said it is a disgusting thing to tell someone that they “would appreciate” rape details. That is not even remotely telling someone that their experience didn’t happen. Stop repeating your lies about this. And stop with the pretence that it was a statement about any sort of genuine sharing either.
And as I said in reponse to you #70: you are not the only victim posting or reading here. Maybe some people were triggered or silenced by “I know lots of sex postions. But seriously” Maybe we were triggered by the repeated LIES and inventions about what we said, maybe we were triggered by being told we would “appreciate details” of someone else’s rape. You know, you get the idea
that (#105) was a reponse to Beatrice #103
scimaths,
fucking piece of shit ≠ (or even on the same planet as) repellent little martyr
Calling someone a “martyr” for discussing their rape? It has “oh, you were raped, boohoo” written all over it. Whether you meant that or not, which I assume you didn’t.
Calling someone a piece of shit? Overreaction or not, it has nothing to do with you being a rape victim.
So no, not the same route.
Me:
Superfluous after scimath’s comment #105.
(doing laundry and responding, so I forgot to erase the part of my comment which was unnecessary after I refreshed and read scimath’s comment)
scimaths,
Which is still explained with my comment about people expecting victims to share details.
There are people who act like they would appreciate details of someone’s rape. If not for their sick enjoyment of the description, then for the sick enjoyment of making victims talk about it, feel triggered or pained.
And then there is another kind of situation, where a rape victim feels an asshole could do with being confronted with some reality about rape.*
Happiestsadist misunderstood you, and you don’t belong to either of the categories.
I’m just asking you to take into consideration that she could have read you that way and responded in kind, and not in order to hurt you.
*in fact, this seems most probable, but of course, only Happiestsadist can confirm
Beatrice #107 and 108
No I didn’t and thank you for at least giving me the benefit of the doubt. I am replying in order to underline this, as it is important:
**I do not in any way shape or form consider rape victims discussing their experinces to be repellent or for they, the survivors, to be “martyrs” for having had that experience.**
Everybody please read and let it sink in. (I already said it before but worth repeating until it is understood)
I do object to “I am a victim and upset so I can make up any old load of nasty stuff about you and refuse to address what you actually wrote”.
I do also understand, particulary on reflection, that “martyr” can be a loaded phrase for some people. It is used by others to have a blanket go at survivors, even though that is not how I was using it.
I’m sorry I used the phrase. Used in anger, but it unleashed a load of trauma for myself and some others here too. That is not an OK thing. I’m sorry I set off the trauma for myself, I’m sorry I set it off for others.
I still object to people refusing to read what I wrote, and for them to continue lying about me though.
Thank you to Beatrice and Crip Dyke for being the only people who have replied to me with any sort of decency. Honorable mention to Tony also. No one else has come off looking very good.
I have apologised. Lets see if the rest of them will.
Scimaths:
You apologized conditionally, and you seem to be happy to ignore that you did most of the igniting of negativity in this thread. I’m afraid your willingness to say incredibly nasty things, such as ‘repellant little martyr’ will be echoing in my head every time I see your nym for a long time to come. You do realize that people tried, many times, to get you to back off the thread for a while and cool down, and you chose not to do that, and just kept digging. Even now, you won’t just leave this thread.
I was not incredibly nasty to you, Scimaths. I wasn’t nasty at all. Most people weren’t, however, a lot of them weren’t saying things you wanted to hear. I’m sorry if you were hurt, however, you aren’t owed anything, especially in light of your behaviour, and you’re really out of line with the little gold stars and ‘honorable mention’ crap. All that said, I’m going to remind you of the rules here. You have spent a great deal of time grinding an axe against one person. Now you want to rate people’s treatment of your posts while tapping your foot in anticipation of apologies. If you’re going to insist on grinding axes, please take it to Thunderdome, rather than continuing to make this thread all about you.
Objecting to lies is not axe grinding. Thanking the people who actually bothered to read my words is not “crap” or at all out of line. Do not denigrate my words like that. I meant it seriously.
Someone else spoke to me like shit, I spoke to them like shit. I apologised, I explained my apology, I apologised again. The apology is not good enough for you, maybe it will be Ok for others. It is not conditional. I don’t know what else to say.
People refuse to read my words but instead invent stuff and lie about me .This IS nasty. I still apologised.
Your post here # 111 is the first I have read asking me to leave the thread. It would seem best that I do, so I will as I really can’t think of anything else to add to this or my post at #110.
I have nothing at all to apologize for. Scimaths has decided that I am a man who was making jokes about rape, is repeatedly accusing me of lying when what I have written is visible, and then decided I was a repellant little martyr for correcting her. Her insistence on digging deeper and hurting more people besides me is kind of really alarming. But does really show amply how my original assessment of her was correct.
Frankly, I assumed that she was, as Beatrice suggested, the sort of ass who is clearly digging for details while feigning outrage by intentionally misreading. Apparently only the last two words were right.
(Also, I prefer “they” pronouns, while I IDed as a woman during my rapes, I don’t now.)
OK. I’m sorry, I’ll be more careful next time.
No worries, I’m not hurt or offended, just clarifying. :)
…Okay, and also dreaming for a day when hovertexts attached to names with preferred pronouns are a totally normal thing.
I know I’m over 12 hours late, but this needs to be said:
The idea that that was intended as a joke is the least charitable interpretation possible. How did it even occur to you? Isn’t it something of an effort to assume so much evil when no evidence requires it?
Thank you, David.
I know in most conversation I’ve had, with people all over the world and all kinds of backgrounds, the use of “seriously” at the beginning of a different topic/paragraph, is understood to add, well, seriousness or emphasis to that subject/paragraph. You really have to reach to decide that it goes back in time.