Friday, October 30, 2009

Where Did Those Gang Rapists And Their Cheering Section Get Their Ideas?

To answer the question of how the gang rapists in Richmond, CA got their sense of entitlement for such a brutal crime you don't have to look far.

First, to understand the beliefs of this group of gang rapists and those who saw nothing wrong with what those rapists were doing look at how those who interceded and likely saved this girl's life learned about this gang rape:


They were watching "The Proposal" on television Saturday night when word suddenly arrived from campus, two blocks away: A girl got drunk after homecoming. A bunch of guys stripped her naked and were using her. At school. Right now.

"I was on Emeric (Avenue) with some friends when some dudes walked up and were like, 'There's a drunk girl back there,' " said Raul Rubio, who brought back the news to his girlfriend. "They said she was naked, and if you want to get f---ed, go back there."

Rubio did not. [He and others decided to call 911.]
This casual offer to join in on a gang rape is appalling, but it isn't surprising to me since I have read multiple comments from men who blame rape on women getting drunk which echo these types of words. The latest comment of this type I've seen was left on a Daily Mail article about date rape drugs:

want a girl?

2 am saturday town centre take your pick...any position but mostly flat on the floor.... great town if you like visiting the clinic on the Monday

- john, leicester, 27/10/2009 9:24
Of course John and others who repeat this type of statement will claim that they don't support rape when they are in fact giving explicit instructions for rape. They will claim instead that their words are designed to prevent rape by telling girls to not be one of those "drunk gals" while they ignore the choices made by rapists who commit so-called easy rapes.

This is not a prevention message, it is instead a way of helping rapists rationalize these types of rapes. Every girl has likely heard someone say, "If you don't want to be raped, don't get drunk." Since those girls got drunk, they must have wanted to be raped and if they wanted it then it's not rape.

Those who claim this isn't what they mean reveal that this is lie when they react negatively to the prosecution of men who rape drunk girls or women. This negative reaction shows they aren't seeking to prevent rape, only to excuse it in the name of prevention.

When John writes, "Want a girl?" what he is really saying is, "Want to rape a girl? It's easy." This is the true message of the guys in Richmond: "If you want to join a gang rape, go back there."

Rape is the only possibility in both of these statements since truly consensual sex with a semiconscious or unconscious girl is impossible. If a man can just take his pick then consent or lack of consent is clearly off the table even from the perspective of the person making this claim.

This behavior is what I would call the sexual vulture rapist. Many people will incorrectly claim that these rapists are passive and that if women were more restrained in their behavior that these men would stop raping, but these men are far less passive than they want people to believe they are and there is nothing accidental about their actions.

When they want to rape in this way they make the decision to go where they feel they can do their best hunting when they believe they can maximize their success. Some will network with other sexual predators so that an individual rape becomes a gang rape. If they don't find a vulnerable target they may push other potential victims to drink to the point of not being able to consent. Some of them will spike their intended victim's drink.

If what they consider satisfying sex is to swoop down and rape lifeless bodies then the whole process of actually talking to girls above the age of consent or women and seeing if any of those conversations lead to having mutual sexual encounters is likely going to be highly unappealing.

These men aren't far removed from the 2 men who saw a picture of a young woman who had recently died and decided to dig up her grave so they could have sex with her corpse. The girl who was gang raped wasn't far from becoming a corpse. Those who were fine with assaulting her while she was unconscious likely wouldn't have noticed or cared if they continued after they and their buddies murdered her. To them she was at best just a body. At worst she was an object of scorn who deserved the violence done to her.

The ethics expressed by the boys and men in Richmond to another guy who thankfully was appalled by this "opportunity" and the ethics expressed by John in Leicester are no different from the ethics expressed by a man who tells men how to get past security measures at the local college to get into women's dorm rooms at 4 am or how to use a doggie door to get into a woman's home in order to rape her or how easy it is to pull a gun on a woman at a stoplight.

The only difference is the cultural opinion about these different sets of victims and the acceptable or unacceptable tools to use during a rape. Some admitted rapists look at other rapists who choose different victims and/or methodology with disdain and the desire to be seen as nothing like "those" rapists.

Many people who claim to be decent human beings adamantly agree with this idea of acceptable and unacceptable rapists including a judge who sympathized with a rapist, and pub owner, who injured his drugged victim by doing what the judge described as "rough play." The judge previously called what this rapist did a crime of opportunity when explaining why this rapist wasn't being sent to jail.
Medical examinations determined that a man had vaginally penetrated her, and also found sedatives in her system. [...] He was initially charged with sexually assaulting three other women, and administering a noxious substance, though those charges were eventually dropped.
The judge would have to know about those other charges yet indicators of a predatory pattern didn't matter. The only reason for this not to matter is the judge's opinion of this man's preferred victims. I doubt the judge would feel the same way if this man owned a restaurant which didn't serve alcohol and was spiking customer's soft drinks. Same vulnerability, same crime. Different acceptance of rape.

When the subject turns to what needs to be done to stop alcohol or drug facilitated sexual assault those who relate to or sympathize with many rapists will demand that women be the one's who must change their behavior and their thinking.

Some people who don't like rape but who view the victim's actions as the root cause or trigger will side with cold-blooded rape apologists. Many of those who are not okay with these rapes have locked themselves into a belief that the situation girls and women face is fixed and any attempt to move this fixed object is futile.

The problem with this premise is that the requirement to avoid specific risks such as going to bars or drinking because a significant number of women are preyed on in those situations must apply to different situations as well. In Canada it's been estimated that 38% of sexual assaults are committed by the victim's husband. This means, under this premise, that women who don't want to be raped shouldn't get or stay married.

If women who drink are being legally irresponsible because of the number of rapes against those who have been drinking then women who marry must be viewed as legally irresponsible as well. Since those who warn girls and women against drinking don't also warn them against marriage the theory of legal irresponsibility is a convenient sham.

The Internet provides a window into the darker and more raw version of this rape prevention advice.

From fbardamu: Sluttiness implies consent or how feminists encourage violence against women:
Yes, a woman is “never at fault for rape,” like how a white supremacist who walks into a black neighborhood wearing white sheets and throwing burning crosses onto front lawns isn’t at fault if he gets the shit beaten out of him and possibly arrested. It’s not like he put himself in a bad situation or did something incredibly stupid!
This analogy reveals the hostile rationalizations of many rapists and those who on a practical level have their backs. Who can truly blame men for responding violently when they are being threatened and attacked? Racists burning crosses in people's yards with the potential to burn people's houses to the ground has been made equal to women who walk down the street looking slutty but who won't consent to have sex with whatever boy or man who sees her. Don't we all know this?

Looking at the ugliness behind what is often presented as helpful advice can be difficult but it critical if we are serious about genuine rape prevention -- reducing the number of those willing to perpetrate and the number of those who will cheer or shrug when they learn about a rape.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 12:42 PM   4 comments links to this post

4 Comments:

At October 30, 2009 2:16 PM, Blogger Marj aka Thriver said...

Well researched and written, as usual, Marcella. I appreciate the great work you are doing.

 
At October 30, 2009 6:23 PM, Blogger JENNIFER DREW said...

I've known for a long while feminists are scapegoated for most if not all of society's ills and inequalities - but 'responsible for men's violence against women' is news to me.

But denials, justifications,excuses, scapegoating and blaming women is a common ploy used by men who are determined not to be held accountable for their actions or behaviour. Even racism is being used as a ploy because apparently members of the Klu Klux Klan are identical to women and girls who dare to walk out in public and refuse to meekly submit to men's and/or boys' sexual predatory behaviour.

After all weren't women and girls placed on this earth for the sole purpose of being males' sexualised masturbatory objects.

The men and boys who group raped this young woman did not engage in 'sex' rather they used her as a masturbatory tool because it certainly wasn't sex.

Agreed we need look no further than how our women-hating culture is teaching and justifying normalising men's sexual violence against women and girls because women and girls are not human but dehumanised 'things' who can be subjected to horrific male sexual violence' at will because 'no human was hurt in the process.'

Here in the UK two ten year boys have been accused of raping an eight year old girl and immediately horror was expressed at such a crime. But given our society is a women-hating one and condones male sexual violence against women unless and if, such crimes are at the most extreme continuum, we should not be surprised at such male hatred and/or contempt being expressed and directed at women and girls.

 
At October 30, 2009 7:41 PM, Blogger LadyJtalks said...

Well done post, Glad I found it off your twitter. When can mothers truly teach their boys in a way that stops this cycle of men who think this. I did my best to teach my son but alas though he would never do this thing I was shocked to hear that he said to his sister when approached inappropiately from a uncle "Well, we don't know what you might have done" I can't tell you how that still eats at me. LadyJ

 
At October 30, 2009 8:45 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

LadyJ,

Thank you for the feedback on this post.

Your example of what your son said is heartbreaking and it tells me how pervasive certain messages are in our society. That's why I believe primary prevention from men and other boys is so important. If men and boys who are admired are supporting healthy boundaries then the unhealthy boundaries women talk about won't be so easy to sell to boys as just the way guys are.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home