Thursday, May 20, 2010

Positioning Man Who Raped A Woman As A Victim

In a comment on my post about the rape of a woman which happened after the victim's ex-boyfriend, Jebidiah James Stipe, posted a Craigslist ad seeking sexual violence while pretending to be her, the man who answered that ad, Ty Oliver McDowell, was positioned by commenter Social Worker as a victim ("In this case, it really does sound like there are two victims here.") and the fact that he changed his plea from not guilty to guilty was used as supporting evidence.

For anyone not familiar with the case here is a summary:

The advertisement appeared on Craigslist in early December. "Need a real aggressive man with no concern for women," read the posting on the Internet classified advertising forum. Its purported author was a Casper, Wyo., woman, whose photo also was posted.

One week later, a man accepted the offer, forcing his way into the woman's home, tying her up and raping her at knifepoint. "I'll show you aggressive," he allegedly said, according to court testimony.

In fact, authorities say, the woman had nothing to do with the ad. Instead, they say, a former boyfriend had posted it, soliciting her assault.
A link was provided in Social Worker's comment to a post titled Revenge Rape and Reason is Ty Oliver Mcdowell a Rapist or a Victim by Martha lownsberry, Staff Writer (Ranked #1 expert in Criminal Law) where the author misuses the reasonable person argument to focus only on whether a reasonable person would believe that a woman could want this type of rape fantasy acted out. According to the logic used in this analysis if a reasonable person could believe that some women could want this fantasy acted out then McDowell should have no legal responsibility for his actions against someone who never sought this fantasy.

This argument completely ignores the reasonable person's responsibility to ensure that the person who placed the ad is the person described in the ad.

McDowell is in no way a victim in this case since he made the choice not to verify the identity of the person who placed the ad before breaking into a woman's home and raping her at knifepoint. He didn't even make enough of an effort to ensure that the person who placed the ad was in fact a woman.

Too often when it comes to sex crimes people excuse those who practice deliberate ignorance and who use generalities about what some women want as an excuse to not make sure their actions are wanted by a specific person at a specific time.

From a CBS story after McDowell initially pleaded not guilty:
A Wyoming man, charged with raping a woman he met on Craigslist, claims that he did nothing wrong when he forced his way into her Casper home in December, tied her hands, and, prosecutors say, raped her at knife point.

According to Ty McDowell, who pleaded not guilty, he was just responding to the woman's Craigslist ad, which said she wanted to play out a "rape fantasy."
When what someone is requesting in an ad is the acting out of multiple felonies this defense is garbage.

Too often rationalizations and excuses are accepted as a valid substitute for actual innocence. If we are serious about being opposed to sexual violence we must reject conflating these 2 very different things.


Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 10:54 AM   20 comments links to this post


At May 22, 2010 4:13 PM, Anonymous Social Worker said...

I didn't realize my little comment would become the subject of a full post. I guess I'm...flattered.
And a bit disturbed to be "positioned" as defending the actions that I am normally against.
This is a very odd place for me to be.
Although, I am used to being in situations where I find people who I typically agree with tilting their heads at me when I don't fall in line with a particular point of view. I guess this is one of those times.

There is something about this case that does strike me though. To be fair, Marcella, the legal analysis I referenced and you included did not say that McDowell should have NO legal responsibility, but simply raised the question based on reasonable doubt given the situation.
The actual quote is:
"he just might have a case that could get him off, or at least a reduced sentence."

You also left out an important piece of the story, which is that McDowell communicated multiple times with Stipe, the ex-boyfriend, who was POSING as the woman. McDowell had no initial reason to think there was anything amiss. I agree he should have checked it out in person, HOWEVER with some focus being placed on having odd sexual fantasies agreed to in writing, he may have thought he had written consent.
I don't know if you've ever reviewed personals on Craigslist or adult hookup sites, but rape and BDSM fantasy is not that unusual.
It bothers me that many fellow rape advocates when discussing this case agree that he may not have known what he was getting into and may have been completely tricked, but allow no leniency based on this. That seems an unfair, all or nothing, position to take. And if lawyers and criminal analysts are taking this view, there must be something to it.
I'm all for putting rapists away and getting them rehab, but I'm not for a blanket approach to every situation. I do think he deserves punishment, but I also believe that he and the woman have a common bond in that they were both duped. I wonder what type of case they might have if they were to team up and sue Stipe. Let's not ignore that he is the primary criminal here.

At May 22, 2010 11:51 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

SW, the issue isn't about falling in line.

For legal responsibility it doesn't matter how often McDowell communicated with the person who placed the ad, in this case Stipe, because that is not a viable substitute for actual verification that he was communicating with the person who allegedly had a rape fantasy.

McDowell and this woman have no common bond. He made the choice to accept the possibility that he was being duped into committing a real rape and he hoped that the ad would provide him with all the defense he would need. She had no choice at all.

It doesn't matter how common certain fantasies are. What matters is that people ensure that they only fulfill requests where it is proven that the people who are acted upon are freely participating.

When guesswork and assumptions eliminate or reduce accountability that directly contributes to violence such as this woman experienced.

At May 23, 2010 2:11 PM, Blogger JENNIFER DREW said...

There was a landmark case in the UK Morgan V regina wherein the husband arranged for males to group rape the woman who was married to this man. The husband told these men his wife fantasised about being subjected to 'rough sex' by a group of males. The husband also claimed his wife would resist and say 'no' but she was in fact 'consenting' and so what happened? Why these men group raped the woman and they were subsequently tried for group rape. Initially these men were convicted but on appeal their convictions were overturned because at the time UK male-centered law said a man cannot commit rape if he 'honestly and reasonably believes a woman is consenting.' In other words a woman's right of ownership of her body is invalidated if the male defendant(s) can prove they honestly believed a woman consents - irrespective of what she says or does.

Even worse these men believed the husband not the woman owns the woman's body.

After lengthy sustained lobbying by feminists finally the law was changed to 'reasonable belief' but this continues to be subject to male-centered views of what supposedly passes for female sexual expression.

This is what is happening in the case concerning Ty McDowal who responded to Stip's advertisement. Because 'common sense' informs us that many if not most women have sexual fantasies of wanting to be subjected to 'rough sex' and men do not have to actually ask the woman, but instead rely on misogynistic myths concerning women's sexualities.

This is another example of how our rape culture continues to excuse and justify male sexual violence against women. Now in the UK the law specifically states that a man cannot 'consent' to other men inflicting physical harm upon his body even if such harm is sexualised. The case was termed The Spanner case and because it involved men committing sexual violence against another man 'reasonable belief' did not enter into it. Odd is it not that here in the UK that phrase 'reasonable doubt/reasonable belief' continues to apply in all cases wherein a male defendant(s) is charged with raping/and or committing sexual violence against a woman. Another example of how male sexual violence against women is justified.

At May 23, 2010 4:32 PM, Anonymous m Andrea said...

Oh gosh, my fweelings are hurt. Everybody hand me a tissue.

Social Worker, your attitude creates actual HARM for other people, and your primary concern is that your fweelings are hurt. Don't think about other people at all, and don't think about the HARM which those other people suffer BECAUSE OF YOU, instead think about yourself because you're the only one who matters.

That's just your first paragraph... The reason all those attorneys see the problem and you don't is because those attorneys are aware that every damn rapist in America would be using this excuse.

"Oh your honor, I thought she agreed to let me rape her, here's an email I thought was from her but I made no effort to verify". "Okay, case dismissed". EVERY judge would be required by law to let EVERY rapist go free.

That scenario wouldn't even pass the common sense test, you fricken moron.

At May 23, 2010 10:15 PM, Anonymous Social Worker said...

m Andrea,

My feelings are not at all hurt. I was being, and I guess it didn't come across well to you, ironic. I am usually the one arguing vehemently on YOUR/my side of a case like this. I was simply remarking that it was odd to be questioned by those who I am typically standing alongside.

You completely missed my attorney's remark. I was stating that there must be some legal foundation to the point I was making BECAUSE many attorneys are making that point as well. In fact, it was from reading analysis and debate from attorneys on this case that I raised the questions I raised.

Your "moron" comment is a bit ableism, but I'm not so PC as to offer that I may, indeed, not be the brightest person. That's why I read on these matters in legal sites and then raise questions in places like this with people whose opinions I generally respect. That includes you, by the way, just so you don't think I'm making a snide remark.

As for passing the "common sense" test, again, if legal experts are raising these questions, you can sure bet others will as well. I've been in the field for quite a while and I'm raising them. If those in the field have differing views on this, then what does that tell you about the layfolk who might serve on a jury?

So, are we discussing points or diminishing each other?

Jennifer, I am familiar with the Morgan case and you make an excellent point. I had that case in mind when I was looking at the situation here. It seemed a bit different as the perpetrator thought he WAS communicating directly.

Marcella, I appreciate that you thought my comments and question deserved their own post. Perhaps that indicates a concern that I am not the only one raising them and that it is better to discuss this than ignore it.

At May 24, 2010 12:11 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Social Worker, my hope is that rather than digging your heels in as you seem to be doing that you will seriously consider the logic of why your position is something that I and others cannot support and will not tolerate as reasonable.

Just because many attorneys or legal experts make a point doesn't mean their point is valid or even logical.

Unfortunately, there is an entrenched tolerance in criminal law which disregards victims of sexual violence and which looks for reasons to excuse those involved in perpetrating sexual violence of their own free will. This is what I call the "she was raped, but he's not a rapist" syndrome.

This case is just one of many examples where "reasonable" people disregard the legal and moral duty people have to ensure that all involved are truly consenting. Not guess, not assume, ensure.

The traditional view of assessing sex crime cases ignores actual consent in favor of looking at whether generic people might assume consent on the part of other generic people as if this is the best any person can do when it comes to their sexual actions.

This view by its design tolerates a significant amount of non-consensual behavior, which in turn means allowing people to be victims of sexual violence. It positions verification of consent and even identity as optional.

At May 24, 2010 11:17 AM, Anonymous Social Worker said...

This is not about me or what I think; it has nothing to do with this one person's view.
I am raising points and ideas that I see discussed on legal sites, news comments, even other feminist blogs. I try to stay neutral in discussions like this and avoid making it about me personally. But others are having a hard time with that concept.

So...I'll be clear. I don't like this case or this situation. I am concerned that it will be used to justify harm to others. I don't think McDowell should get away with this. I said before, I think he should be charged and have to deal with what he did.

I am not "digging my heels in" as I generally share your view of this. But that's really irrelevant. Were I to agree 100% with what you say, it doesn't change the larger picture. I am raising what I think are legitimate areas we need, as a group, to be addressing.
As I mentioned, other feminist/rape advocacy sites have shared their confusion and doubt as to whether this man is FULLY culpable.
You can insult me or make this about me if you like, I suppose, but I don't see the point. I prefer to maintain focus on the story and the legal/ethical questions it raises.
I have seen Marcella artfully navigate some heady waters in the face of stronger disagreements than this and trust that she can do so here.
If I'm wrong, please let me know and I'll stop.

At May 24, 2010 1:10 PM, Anonymous m Andrea said...

First of all, I'm surprised that Marcella let that comment go through, since it was quite insulting. And yet, perhaps a blunt re-statement of the obvious is what is required.

Anyway, Social Worker, I find it extremely difficult to believe that you do indeed "share my position" on anything, since the ONLY comments you have ever made here are nothing more than concern trolling! Have we considered teh menz enough, what about teh menz, are we being fair to teh menz. Puhleeze.

I've been reading Marcella ever since she first started this site, and NEVER has she been unfair to anybody, including men. She goes out of her way to be fair to EVERYBODY, including women. And that's the thing which is probably confusing you -- she doesn't start out with the assumption (as you do) that "being fair" involves analyzing rape from the perspective of the default human. Marcella assumes that women are entitled to actual fairness, not fauxfairness. She takes as her starting position those rights and privileges which men claim for themselves, and then asks the question "what would justice look like if women had these exact same rights and privileges?" It is in this way that the incredible unfairness to women is highlighted.

Consider. "Your honor, the reason I took the car belonging to John was because I thought John sent me an email telling me it was okay to take his car". That excuse, that failure to verify that the email was in actuality from John, WOULD NOT PASS AS AN EXCUSE FOR ANY OTHER CRIME. Emails can easily be forged, hello. John's dad could have sent the email from John's computer, hello. John's friend could have sent the email as a prank, hello. John's ex-friend could have sent the email because John's EX-friend wanted John's car to be stolen, hello.

At May 24, 2010 2:21 PM, Anonymous m Andrea said...

Emails can easily be forged, hello. John's dad could have sent the email from John's computer, hello. John's friend could have sent the email from John's computer as a prank. John's EX-friend could have sent the email because John's EX-friend wanted John's car to be stolen.

Social Worker, you are assuming as your default position that the defendant's word should be accepted as valid -- with no proof. Yet you are not willing to accredit the victim's word with the same validity. If we are to assume that the defendant is telling the truth when he says consent was given, then we must also assume the victim is telling the truth when she says consent was not given.

Which places our attempt at determining the truth at an impasse. Which is why reasonable people have to look at an email, or a phone call, or a Craig's list advertisement, and consider how easily they can be forged by a third party. According to you, the mere presence of an easily forged document is enough to validate a legally binding contract, yet this standard IS NOT ACCEPTED FOR ANY OTHER CONTRACT. For every other contract where one party claims to have zero knowledge of the contract, the fact that a document can be easily forged is enough to indeed introduce reasonable doubt -- which automatically nullifies the defendant's claim. This is especially true in cases where a victim is never likely to have agreed to such ridiculous terms in the first place. You're asking us to place more importance on an extremely rare outlier rather than the most likely situation by far.

But there's another problem, and it's one which Marcella harps on repeatedly. When the potential for harm exists, people have a reasonable obligation to ensure that they themselves are not inflicting harm. You are assuming that men have no such obligation -- what precisely is your reasoning for this? Answer me, or stop whining. Do you assume that no one at any time has any responsibility to ensure they are not inflicting harm? Or is this argument something you assert only in the case of rape?

Even lawyers, prosecutors and judges who usually have no problem finding a reason to let the accused rapist go free have MAJOR objections to this crap, and I'm supposed to believe that you're a person who has studied and taught social justice? lol

Are you going to cry about your fweelings and run away, only to return for Marcella's next post where you once again try to refocus the discussion by whining about teh menz?

At May 24, 2010 2:36 PM, Anonymous m Andrea said...

You're acting like there's a whole contingent of lawyers, judges and prosecutors defending this crap, and that's not the case at all. A few are waking up to the fact that this is a relatively new excuse being used, and they realize that it'll be grossly abused if allowed to fly.

This is one of those deals where they would probably like to let this excuse be used in cases of rape, since most of them are patriarchal pigs, but they also realize their hatred of women would be too obvious. First rule of patriarchy is "plausible denial". They have to at least give the allusion that they care about women, and this excuse is too obviously rooted in misogyny.

As are you, "Social Worker". You're trolling.

At May 24, 2010 2:54 PM, Anonymous m Andrea said...

lol If a few thousand women all placed an anonymous advertisement with Craig's list, all listing the address of their ex-husband and claiming that the door was unlocked and everything was "free to whoever wanted anything", I'm pretty sure this excuse would be quickly considered a felony and the sentence would be burning at the stake, stoning, etc.

At May 24, 2010 4:13 PM, Anonymous SW said...

m Andrea,
First of all, Hello. I thought it was only polite to respond since you greeted me so many times.

I almost considered not replying as I truly have the feeling you are having an argument with someone else. Especially since I am not arguing.
I also think I'm talking to a different person than the one I've seen make intelligent, coherent responses and posts on here.
Seriously, why are you attacking me?
I'm not hurt, since you seem to like to reframe what I say as my feelings being hurt. Just confused. I don't even know what to say to, "cry about my fweelings" and "Have we considered teh menz enough, what about teh menz, are we being fair to teh menz." I also don't know what "concerned trolling" is. I'm, ahem, over 30, so I'm admittedly not up on the latest slang.

But you are quoting things I never said and don't even know what they mean. Are you talking about Mens Rea,the legal concept? And "fweelings?" You keep using that word. Is that supposed to be mocking a 7 year old with a lisp?

I will try AGAIN to be clear seems I seem to be utterly failing at this. I think HE IS GUILTY. I've said as much several times now.

You wrote, "you are assuming as your default position that the defendant's word should be accepted as valid..."

I assume no such thing. I think all the evidence must be reviewed, including the emails, the victim's statement, the defendant's statement, etc.
I do think SOME of his behavior indicates the possibility that he may have been duped, including pleading guilty and making statements about his sorrow for what he did to her. How often does THAT happen in a rape case vs the stoic party line we usually see men taking?

What I am raising for discussion is a point MANY OTHER PEOPLE including legal experts and feminists have raised.
I agree that lawyers can be wrong; I agree that feminists sometimes take bad positions (I think, perhaps,this is what I'm being accused of now); I agree that verification of consent would have been the way to go for him to avoid damaging her to a hideous extent.
ALL of us have the responsibility to ensure no harm knowingly comes to another. He harmed her, ergo he broke that social trust and must pay the price.
The question is, and nobody really knows this but McDowell, how "knowing" was he?

AND I believe it is possible to hold one point of view while considering another. I think the human mind is rational and capable enough for this exercise without getting bent out of joint. sigh...

Did you read the case? Have you read the legal opinion I posted? Would it be a good idea for me to link other sites discussing this very thing? I'm happy to do so; just didn't want to clutter the comments section unnecessarily.
As to the car-email analogy, actually there have been similar cases where the defendant WAS let off because of the believed consent, especially when written. There's a legal term for that I think, but I don't recall what it is. The property/money, etc. must be returned but the defendant is not considered guilty.
And it's a bad analogy here anyway as the "car," sadly, cannot be returned in this case. If only.

And in all your misreading of what I have written, please do not try to imply that I was rude to Marcella. I have great respect for her and this blog.
I fail to understand how you interpreted me being insulting out of praising her ability to handle difficult topics like this.
My final comment about letting me know if I should stop is simply out of respect to not push a conversation where it isn't wanted.

Marcella, you referenced a concept you coined earlier, "the 'she was raped, but he's not a rapist' syndrome." I haven't heard that term before. Can you say more on that or, if you already have, just point me to the post?

Thank you for tolerating all of this and have a terrific move.

At May 24, 2010 4:35 PM, Anonymous SW said...

m Andrea: "According to you, the mere presence of an easily forged document is enough to validate a legally binding contract..."

Just to be extra SUPER clear, NONE of what I've written is "according to me," but concepts, ideas, expert opinions that I have read elsewhere that needed to be examined in the light of day.
If I at ALL gave the impression that this concept in this case was created by me, I apologize fully.

I have read other rape advocacy sites and blogs where the opinions range from what we have said here all the way to he should be set free. I say again, if "we" are saying these things, that's something to talk about.
Or maybe we just wait to see how the case comes out...

At May 24, 2010 5:57 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...


What I call the "she was raped, but he's not a rapist" syndrome refers to a common and longstanding response when the victim's experience of sexual violence is not denied, but where excuses are made for why a person who inflicted sexual violence on another person should not be held fully legally accountable. These excuses are often presented as logical and objective when they overlook basic logic and are in fact subjective.

Many times this happens because of the view that actual consent is not required by the law. Instead the perceived legal standard for consent is only the presence of positve musings by the alleged rapist about the alleged victim's likelihood to be consenting.

Before the US legal reforms of the 1970s the statutes were written such that the burden of clarification and seriousness of non-consent fell completely onto the victim and the person taking sexual actions had no legal duty to ensure the other person was consenting.

Repeated "no"s from the person who didn't consent weren't enough to see a non-stranger rapist convicted. If someone was too shocked to physically resist then their rape wasn't a crime. This attitude that legal consent for sex is disconnected from a person's actual consent remains far too pervasive.

At May 24, 2010 7:23 PM, Anonymous m Andrea said...

Social Worker, you are concern trolling.

Echidne recently had a particularly stupid one -- even after his bad logic had been eviscerated a thousand times, he still kept repeating the same stupid question, pretending to be "concerned". I wouldn't be surprised if these two are the same person (or read the same "Trolling for Dummies" article).

Social Worker keeps insisting that assertion X is not his position. Instead, Social Worker keeps insisting that assertion X is the position of "other people" who are not here and for some mysterious reason which is not clear we should discuss assertion X even though NOBODY HERE FINDS ANY MERIT in assertion X.

It's troll-bait, not an argument. It's also been debunked quite well by Marcella, which does indeed constitute "discussion" so unless you have something new to add, OR CAN ACTUALLY REFUTE ANYTHING, it's time to toddle off troll.

At May 25, 2010 9:01 AM, Anonymous Kali said...

What I call the "she was raped, but he's not a rapist" syndrome refers to a common and longstanding response when the victim's experience of sexual violence is not denied, but where excuses are made for why a person who inflicted sexual violence on another person should not be held fully legally accountable.

Which summarizes quite well in a nutshell what Social Worker is doing in his comments (by proxy of alleged "legal experts and feminists").

At May 26, 2010 9:44 PM, Anonymous SW said...

I really debated with myself about responding to this. I hope I don’t regret it, but for the sake of positive blogging, I thought it needed to be said.

m Andrea: Thank you for the education on trolling. I did read through the links you gave. I actually found one of them to be the most apt for you:
“A phrase of absolutely no meaning, used by bloggers to shut down debate on their sites.” I know it isn’t YOUR site, but it was the closest I could get.

In the usual meaning of trolling, I would be “someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” or trying to “sow fear, uncertainty and doubt.”
I suppose you could accuse me of playing devil’s advocate for what I presented, sort of, but it WAS the topic presented. Nor did I try to “derail, stifle, control” the topic.
I mostly just noted that it existed and was being lobbied about in several arenas.

More to the point, I didn’t start the post. Marcella did, which tells me she found my minor side comment on a separate post interesting enough to warrant an article, albeit with a different point of view and well-stated.
I decided to weigh in since she was quoting me. And I admit to being defensive. As I said from the start, it was kind of a weird position to be in. But I thought, okay, it’s an interesting topic, I’ll keep it rolling. I thought that’s what blogs are about.
Marcella and Jennifer both responded with on-topic solid replies.

Then the weirdness started with the personal attacks from you, including calling me a “fucking moron.”
I was put off, but thought there was a discussion going, so volleyed back. But no, you just wanted to attack. And attack. And attack.
So, I’m done.
And you are right. Marcella made excellent points which I continue to think about.

You, on the other hand, asked (actually demanded) me to answer your questions. And I did. You didn’t answer any of mine, including why you were attacking in the first place. You fabricated comments that I never made and didn’t respond when I asked you why you did that (or even what the heck they meant). You said “NOBODY HERE FINDS ANY MERIT,” though several people replied on topic and civilly. You were the only “nobody.”

I imagine if Marcella thought I was a troll or not contributing in some way, she wouldn’t have posted my comments.
I respect that you’ve been here for a long time and I’m a relative newcomer. I hope all newcomers don’t get that treatment when you don’t like what they say.

I’ll let the readers of these posts decide who better fits the definition of troll here.

Toddling off.

P.S. I thought the “his” references were amusing. I never stated my gender. Do you have a hard time accepting a woman who thinks differently from you? No need to answer.

At May 27, 2010 12:11 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...


When you support positioning a rapist as a victim and then defend doing so as being nothing more than playing devil's advocate you are minimizing the real and extremely negative impact your original position has on real people's lives. This is true whether that was your intent or not.

Those people impacted may not always respond with the type of coolness you demand because of exactly how personal the harm has been to them and how your words reinforce that harm.

You didn't just note that an opinion existed, you wrote: "In this case, it really does sound like there are two victims here." Your latest clarifying statement is directly contradicted by your earlier quoted statement. This is one of the reasons you could be viewed as a concern troll.

Unfortunately, there is a long history of people who express concern for rape victims while supporting ideas which harm rape victims and which contribute to the perpetration of sexual violence.

Harmful biases run deep in our society. In order to reduce the rate of sexual violence these harmful biases must be challenged even when those biases are expressed by allies. A harmful position from an allie does more harm than the same harmful position from someone who is openly hostile.

On a practical level rapist denial and minimization are as dangerous as denial of a rape victim's experience. Lack of negative legal consequences is a serious contributor to the most common forms of sexual violence.

My decision to highlight your choice to position a rapist as a victim in no way supports that position as a valid one.

You criticize m Andrea for being off topic but now your primary interest seems to be a personal spitting match with her rather than keeping your focus on accountability for those who commit acts of sexual violence.

At May 29, 2010 12:20 AM, Anonymous m Andrea said...

According to the logic used in this analysis if a reasonable person could believe that some women could want this fantasy acted out then McDowell should have no legal responsibility for his actions against someone who never sought this fantasy.

Oh that makes no sense. IF reasonable people are to assume that some men like to fight, THEN reasonable people should assume that all men like to fight -- and no man should ever be held accountable for starting a fight with another man. Just ignore the fact that it's actually assault! Amazing how only when the subject is rape do idiots lose their ability to reason.

Btw Marcella, your second to last comment, about the "she was raped but he's not a rapist" explanation -- that was absolutely PERFECT. I saved it in my files for future reference. Thank you!

At May 29, 2010 7:37 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

m Andrea,

You are correct that the logic used to excuse a rapist from responsibility makes no sense and to point out that it would also excuse many other criminals from responsibility. The selective application of this logic is what shows that this logic is based on bias rather than consistant thinking of those who promote this bias as logic.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home