Dear Asshole, In Case You Haven't Heard, Women Are Human Beings

pardon me while i vomit rivers of puke into a bucket of rotting sardines and fresh cat shit from cats fed on rotting sardines for a month. i'm making up a fedex special for some blogger who does not merit a link. i found this piece of excrement via pandagon:

The reason many people believe a woman is at least partly responsible for her own victimization is because in many cases that is demonstrably true. In no other circumstance is it argued that a victim of a crime is must be considered wholly innocent of responsibility regardless of his actions - just ask your insurance company if you don't believe me. As Camille Paglia pointed out, a woman who gets drunk and goes to a man's bedroom deserves no more sympathy or understanding from society than the man who leaves his unlocked car running with the key in the ignition or the woman who leaves her purse unattended on a public park bench.

i'm with twisty. the patriarchy can go eat shit and die. nobody is responsible for another person's choices. i don't give a shit if a crime victim was 'stupid' or 'careless' or whatever these astonishingly puerile representatives of so-called traditional values are saying these days to rationalize what amounts to a toddler's understanding of personal responsibility. the victim of the crime does not make the criminal commit the crime. i was under the mistaken impression that most good christians got 'the devil made me do it isn't a excuse' lecture by the time they are four.

rape victims don't need sympathy. they need justice. the focus should be on what the rapist said and did, not what the victim did to 'cause' him to rape her. i'm sick of people talking about what the victim said, did, wore, didn't do, didn't wear, or didn't say to exercise this supposed all-powerful control over the rapist's decision to rape her. none of the following are even remotely relevant to the crime of rape:

1) the victim's choice of clothing
2) the victim's state of drunkenness
3) the victim's relationship to the rapist (girlfriend, wife, favorite hooker, whatever)
4) the victim's sexual history

to end rape, we have to talk about rapists, not their victims. rape is not about the victim. rape is what rapists choose to do, how they do it, and why they get away with it. next, i would like to address the unbelievably odious notion that the crime of rape is akin to the theft of a foolishly unattended purse or unlocked running car. the circumstance of having a female body is not even in the same category as possessing a piece of personal property. being raped is nothing like having a piece of personal property stolen. few people suffer PTSD from having their unattended car or purse stolen. greetings to Major Asshole, i have a message for you from Planet Civilization: Rape. Is. Not. A. Property. Crime. the fact that the blogger whom i will not link even makes that argument demonstrates that he views women as a form of property.

Now, this responsibility doesn't make the thief any less a thief, or a genuine rapist any less a rapist. (I use the term "genuine rape" because most so-called "date rape" is not rape nor a crime of any kind, because he said-she said is no basis for a system of justice. If sex without written permission is a crime, then all sex is rape and all men are unrepentant criminals.) Responsibility is not a zero-sum game.

do we need to go over this again? when someone CHOOSES to commit a crime, whether it is theft or rape, that person and that person ALONE is responsible for the crime. for the love of all that is good and right, could we please put that haggard old myth about rampant false rape accusations out of its fucking misery please! less than a third of rapes are reported to the police. the reason is the shame and fear of facing people just like the asshole blogger i refuse to link or even name. so, explain to me why women would be falsely reporting rapes in droves around the country?

he actually stretches so far as to make the argument that prosecuting date rape would undermine the justice system because it would require sorting out conflicting accounts of what happened. what does bonehead think happens in criminal investigations and trials anyway? his post practically oozes contempt at the idea that a man actually should have to determine whether a woman wants to have sex with him before the sex happens. getting an affirmative yes does not entail getting written permission. please read the chapter in Debate 101 titled 'Exaggeration Is Not An Argument.'

if a women has dated a man or slept with him in the past she still retains the right to refuse sexual encounters with him. the fact that he may deny raping her if she in fact reports that he did rape her is not any justification for not prosecuting date rape or pretending that date rape does not exist. basically, if the blogger who shall not be named believes that a man has the right to have sex with a woman who cannot give unambiguous consent, who dated him, or who had sex with him, i wish he'd stop being such a tease about it and just say so.

where crimes are concerned, responsibility is a zero-sum game because, last i checked, we don't make victims do any jail time for crimes committed against them. when sentences for crimes are handed down, time is not divided between the victim and the criminal according to how much responsibility the justice system decides each of them bears for the crime. the criminal alone faces punishment for the crime.

Women have demanded freedom from paternalistic protection they enjoyed/endured in the past. Now they've got it, and many of them are finding that they don't like it and thus have, as usual, turned to the State in search of the security they crave so badly.

dear asshole, when feminists talk about the culture of rape, they are talking about people like you. women do not cause men to rape them. people like you enable rapists to rape and get away with raping because you make excuses for rape. you always talk about what the victim did to bring it on herself. you keep talking about what women should and should not do to be 'safe'. then assholes like you whip out the 'traditional values' banner and bleat about how the only way women can be safe is if they give up all notions of living as equal, free, independent beings and submit to the authority of male relatives.

i wonder what deep-seated problem the blogger has with 'the State' over-seeing the investigation and prosecution of rape crimes? unless he thinks rape is not actually a crime, or that it is a trivial crime like jay-walking, i don't understand what his objection is exactly. maybe he just has contempt for the idea that women are entitled to law enforcement services that protect them from crime. his post is really starting to emit the special, ripe stench of an argument that women are not and should not be full citizens and therefore are not entitled to justice that does not originate from the decree of a male relative.

bitch, puh-leeze!! under patriarchy, eleven year old girls can look forward to being sold to sixty year old perverts when daddy has a loan he can't repay. like most proponents of 'traditional' values, asshat seems to think that protecting women from rape is synonymous with making them less free. he's making the argument that rape is a reason to return to patriarchy, pretty much exposing the terrorism that rape is as a phenomenon. it's there to show women why they can't and shouldn't be free. we can never talk about why men as a gender need to make changes in their behavior and attitudes when we talk about rape.

it's always about what rape requires women to do to avoid it, and bloggers like asshat here are always ready to tell us that avoiding rape requires allowing someone else to dictate what is okay for us to wear, where it is okay for us to go, whom we should marry, whom we should date... what lives we should live. instead of raising boys to respect women they want to raise girls to fear men.

I'm just curious what basis the moral relativists have for condemning rape in the first place. If I deem the slaking of my desire for lust - or violence, if you prefer that theory of rape - to be an intrinsic good, who are you to condemn it? Certainly, one could argue that it is a violation of private property rights, but then, what of those moral relativists who reject the notion of private property. If all property is held in common, then how can a woman object if I decide to make use of that which belongs to me?

women are not property. rape is not a property crime. you can also go burn your Straw-Liberal in effigy by yourself. feminists and liberals are not moral relativists. please show me a bona fide american liberal feminist who refrains from criticizing the status of women in countries like saudi arabia because of moral relativism. rape ia not a consequence of women wanting to be free, but rather of men who believe women shouldn't be free.