TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

206

We know now, from rape kit testing, that the vast majority of rapes are committed by just a few men. These men rape habitually. They rape their girlfriends, their wives and acquaintances or strangers. It's the same men. Over and over again.

.The idea that stranger rapists and date rapists were different men was a myth. Rapists tend to commit all kinds of different rapes and don't have a particular MO.Two: A very few men commit most of the rapes. Often over the course of decades and decades.

I literally know women who were raped in college because they drank the libfem cool aide and bought into the idea that "we can all be friends because we all understand that being drunk/having had sex before isn't consent." Yes. Everyone understands that. But rapists don't care. They love that you're depending on them to apply what they learned and not rape you.

But part of rape culture is the myth that any man will rape under the right/wrong conditions. That's apparently not true.

Maintaining that myth provides an alibi for not prosecuting rape aggressively, or trying to wipe it out as a phenomenon. As it turns out, we could almost eliminate rape just by catching most guys the first, second or third time. And processing kits even if women don't want to report.

For instance: A woman comes in after her husband has raped her, but then refuses to press charges. You should still process the kit and cross-reference it with kits from every city that man has every lived. Then you might be able to lock him up for a rape he committed 20 years ago.

That's why it's so important to get a rape kit done even if you know the person who raped you. They could have raped someone else who doesn't know them.


[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman68 points69 points  (35 children) | Copy Link

Several large metro cities have scores of untested rape kits sitting around because they do not have the money or interest in processing. That was the big argument used in Memphis when they were pressed to test more for unsolved crimes, they said nah them guys is already in jail. I think they just don't care and at least the city of Memphis does not have the money, I don't know about the county. People tend to care about certain kinds of rape and murder, if you are poor or viewed as transient or connected to prostitution nobody cares. If you are a cute college coed or UMC they care.

So actually getting a rape kit "done" does not guarantee it will get processed.

[–]lefactorybebe20 points21 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I think this is generally a nationwide issue, though I'm not 100% certain. I remember the actress from law and order coming out in support of more testing because there's a huge backlog of untested kits all around the country. I think some cities are pretty good about it, but most just have like literally hundreds (possibly thousands?) just sitting on a shelf gathering dust.

Edit: https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/massive-backlog-untested-rape-kits-public-safety-issue/story%3fid=60540635

Here is an article with a map that shows the amount of untested rape kits by state. Most states are in the thousands. Northern states are generally better about testing than southern states. North Carolina has the highest number of untested kits in the country.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman12 points13 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes I am sure you are correct. I think the issue is felt more acutely in cities with a combination of high violent crime rates and cashflow issues places like Memphis, Detriot, Baltimore, St. Louis.

I did read this week they are reportedly going to be looking at untested evidence in the Atlanta child murders again which might be interesting there are a lot of people with doubts about that one.

[–]lefactorybebe5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, definitely, I'd totally agree.

And wow, that's really interesting! I'd never heard of that case before but yeah it seems like there's a lot of questions that need to be answered there. I'm really curious to see what they'll find.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Oh the Atlanta child murders were huge and it really brought to the forefront some issues Atlanta grapples with to this day.

[–]lefactorybebe3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I guess I wasn't born yet when they happened and I live very far from Atlanta lol. But I'm still surprised cause I've always been interested in crime stories and everything. How awful though, I hope they find some better answers.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

There are some podcasts about it and a documentary on Netflix lots of current and past summaries with a quickie google. It is a very interesting case. I am also into true crime I think for women it has replaced soap operas.

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It’s also a really interesting, thought provoking subplot on this season of Mindhunter

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes it is. I actually like mindhunter better this season than than last season.

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Me too! I’m so happy I slogged through the slow first season, it was so worth it

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

I remember the actress from law and order coming out in support of more testing because there's a huge backlog of untested kits all around the country.

If you are testing thousands of rape kits, then that's thousands of cancer biopsies not being tested. It takes years and millions of dollars to train a laboratory technician. Every rape kit costs many thousands of dollars to perform.

The thing is, it only takes one rape kit to convict a rapist for decades. If you perform twenty rape kits on his twenty other victims, he's still in prison.

Those kits haven't been tested for a reason. Often the perpetrator has already confessed to the crime and his fingerprints and other evidence has already proved his guilt so it's just a waste of money and time to test the kit. It's a sensible savings to just not test it.

[–]lefactorybebe1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

No, we're more than able to do multiple things. The work on cystic fibrosis isn't taking away from the work on cancer, it's different people doing different things.

The article I linked was initially written because a young girl was raped and murdered. It turned out that the guy who did it could have been detained at least a year earlier because he had raped another woman and she had a rape kit done, but the kit was never tested. That little girl wouldn't have died.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/nyregion/rape-kit-tests.amp.html

They're testing old rape kits in NYC. Since 2015 they've been able to put 64 people away with those kits. Who knows how many more in the future. I wonder how many people the offenders might have raped and/or murdered in the intervening years. The reason the kits aren't tested isn't because of a confession, it's because of money.

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

The article I linked was initially written because a young girl was raped and murdered. It turned out that the guy who did it could have been detained at least a year earlier because he had raped another woman and she had a rape kit done, but the kit was never tested. That little girl wouldn't have died.

Such disasters happen, but for over 99% of rape kits, the perpetrator is already in prison. If you test 1000 rape kits the chances are extremely low that you will find a rapist who is not already convicted or awaiting trial.

If you do 1000 biopsies the chances are good that you will save several score lives.

[–]lefactorybebe0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a source for that?

And I seriously doubt the same technicians testing rape kits are looking at cancer in the first place. Doesn't make any sense. They're not competing for resources. Like I said before, we can do more than one thing at once. The only issue is money.

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Like I said before, we can do more than one thing at once. The only issue is money.

OK but you need to accept that a dollar being spent on cancer testing is a dollar not being spent on rape kits and vice versa.

Also I dispute the claim that a lab doing rape kit testing is not in competition with lab doing cancer biopsies when they are both looking for intelligent young qualified biochemists.

If an intelligent young biochemist works in a lab devoted to largely irrelevant rape kits (because the perpetrators are already in prison) then she's obviously not available to a lab saving lives by doing cancer biopsies.

A normal biochemistry graduate could just as easily join a rape kit lab or a biopsy lab. And the two labs can't share her easily. Usually she's either saving lives with biopsy testing or wasting time with rape kit testing for men who are already in jail for decades.

[–]lefactorybebe0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

So no source.

And that's ridiculous. The state or donors pay for rape kits. Private people and insurance pays for biopsies. It's not the same money.

And oh, is there a shortage of biochemists? Like come on man. I was in the hospital last week and got my blood work back in like under an hour. A couple years ago I had 2 biopsies done and got the results back in a day or two. Everything is fine, nobody is dying because their biopsies took too long, do you hear yourself?

And there is no "rape kit lab" rape kits are sent to state forensic labs, which you know, also do all the other forensic testing.

And that's the thing, there are tons of these guys not in prison, that's why the newly tested rape kits that have been sitting around for years are resulting in people being put in jail, because they were free.

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Blood work and DNA work are really different. The fact that you compare the two shows how little you know.

DNA testing is slow.

Actually most of these men are in prison, and an extremely small proportion have never been sent to prison for rape. You're more likely to win the lottery than sonehow commit more than one rape and not get prison.

[–]lefactorybebe1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You have answered exactly 0 of my points. Also seemed to gloss over the part where I mentioned my 2 biopsies that were done in a matter of days.

[–]sogol19901 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

thanks for sharing this

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Several large metro cities have scores of untested rape kits sitting around because they do not have the money or interest in processing.

Isn't that because the perpetrator of the rape is already in jail for at least two decades and will be extremely unlikely to be active upon release?

If the perpetrator has already confessed and has been in jail for years and will remain there for many more, and if the victim's description matches the face, MO, vehicle and clothing of the perpetrator you already have in prison, is it possible to forgive them for not testing the kit?

Money is scarce, and if I recall correctly, every single test costs many thousands of dollars. Not only that, but there's a limited number of laboratory technicians in the world. Laboratory technicians are required to test biopsies to try to catch cancer before it's too late. If a laboratory technician is performing a rape kit test on a case where the perpetrator is already in jail, then she's not performing a biopsy test at that time.

No rape kit test will ever save a life from cancer. And most untested rape kits are inevitably going to prove that a serial rapist did it. And in almost all situations that serial rapist will already have been apprehended and sentenced to spend decades in prison.

So what I am asking is: your doctor wants to have a cancer biopsy done on you. But they say "hey, if you let us delay your biopsy for three months we can do a couple dozen rape kits to confirm that the guys we already have in prison are rapists, and maybe your cancer gets to an irretrievable stage, or maybe we delay testing those kits another little bit and try to save your life, what's it gonna be?"

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Your reply is incoherent.

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

It's perfectly coherent. But you are devoid of any rejoinder. You know you're completely, obviously wrong.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nah I am good.

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

You may be good, but you are also confused and ideological. I've beaten you and you've got nothing.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Nah I am not confused.

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's what confused people say.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay talk to somebody else then.

[–]Rabidstuffy 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

They don't bother testing when a girl comes in after getting caught cheating on her boyfriend and says, "I was raped" after going home with Raul and getting drunk in his apartment.

[–]The3liGator8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

While I think that does happen, it's not the cops' job to make that judgment without examining the evidence.

[–]CamoWoobie10000Women are SHIT5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In a perfect world. But cops also have to balance a budget, time, manpower and resources. Pragmatically, every claim of every crime cannot be investigated to the fullest. Cops act as a preliminary filter.

[–]Rabidstuffy1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

They do examine the evidence and then decide not to waste our tax dollars

[–]czerdec1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well if feminists are willing to donate billions of dollars to test rape kits of rapists who have already been placed in prison, I have no objection to that. It's better than wasting money on pussy hats.

[–][deleted] 37 points38 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Just pointing out a source bias here, rape kits are going to come by and large from the kinds of rape that are most likely to drive someone to the cops. Violent rapes are way more likely to be reported than drunk/date rapes. Even so, we have known for quite a while that not all men are actually rapists. The problem has been, the major feminist line has been, that social standards allowed rapists to hide way too easily under a plausibly deniable curtain of "men are supposed to make the moves" and such. And under all the rape denial that factually goes on in the world.

Think about it this way. There were anonymous studies done I can't remember the name of to google released on college campuses and self reported rapists more often than not reported doing it more than once. Rapists are rapists, yeah, they do it more than once if they can. No, not every guy is a rapist. It's not about a majority of men being a threat. It's about the fact that misogynistic culture makes it really hard to tell who's who.

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

there were anonymous studies done I can't remember the name of to google released on college campuses

Honestly most of those "studies" are awful with horrible design and are not to be taken as anything but a "mmm maybe?"

Studies like that are where all the ridiculous statistics come from.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, people studying in colleges are a specific fraction of all people.

[–]sogol19904 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah,I agree

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman26 points27 points  (98 children) | Copy Link

Rape culture says nothing about all/most men raping in the right conditions.

Edit: shout-out to all the men down there saying that there's no rape culture and then proceeding to explain to me why rape victims are partially to blame when they got raped. You have illustrated my point better than I ever could have.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (81 children) | Copy Link

The whole point of rape culture was that it was cultural, and hence affected all men. If most men aren't rapists, you don't have a cultural issue at all.

If the issue is a predatory minority, it's more about the difficulties of identifying and prosecuting that minority. In which case the #1 issue is failure to report by victims, and the #2 issue is unresponsive or hostile bureaucracies. If you want to be preventative, you need to ask what makes that predatory minority different -- and there are most likely biological factors that predispose those men to antisocial actions.

[–]mistresswhat9 points10 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Nah you're not getting it.

There's a similar issue with predatory cops -- studies have shown repeatedly that a small minority of cops are responsible for the vast majority of violence. BUT there's an entire culture in police departments of "us vs them" and in general when looking at instances the cops don't go "oh no, how horrible to get shot by police for doing nothing wrong" -- they go "oh no, how horrible to have to defend yourself and then get called a murderer." The key is that nonviolent cops think like this too.

And that's rape culture. It's not that most men rape, it's that most men put themselves in the position of the rapist rather than the victim, and most men aren't rapists, so their first impulse is to look for reasons the rapist might have just made a mistake or the victim might be lying. This goes triple if they like the rapist or dislike the victim. People believe what they want to believe -- there's a reason dudes on the internet were still proclaiming Cosby's innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence.

(It's a bit more complicated than that and women definitely participate in rape culture too, but I stand by the analogy.)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Look. I always heard the phrase "teach men not to rape". I've never heard "empower decent men to challenge institutional or informal structures of oppression". Isn't the need to empower men at all, rather than divest them of agency and moral authority, more or less acknowledging that the patriarchy doesn't actually exist as such? And since women seem to be imploring men to protect them, isn't the exact problem is that we have the complete opposite -- the patriarchy *doesn't* exist, or at the very least, it's comprised of the wrong persons?

> This goes triple if they like the rapist or dislike the victim.

Smartest thing you wrote. At the end of the day, a lot of people will abandon ethics over personal inclination or desire. That's much bigger than rape culture though, it permeates most kinds of systemic injustice that exist at all. It takes integrity and courage to challenge prevailing power and prevailing opinion -- more than most people possess.

[–]mistresswhat11 points12 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I'm not here to defend the way an entire large and varied anti-rape movement has operated over the last thirty years. "Teach men not to rape" sounds catchy and there's some truth to it but yeah, teaching bystander intervention tactics instead has become increasingly popular for a reason.

The entire reason women are asking men to do this is because men are actually the ones who are likely to be believed and taken seriously, so yeah, no patriarchy there. If I tell Grabby McCoworker "stop touching me" he can rationalize it as me being a bitch with weird hangups about hugs but if he complains to his dude coworker about me and gets told "hey that was a really long weird hug and you know she doesn't like it so knock it tf off" he's much likelier to stop.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

The entire reason women are asking men to do this is because men are actually the ones who are likely to be believed and taken seriously

It's that men are capable of exerting physical authority over other men.

You want your dude coworker to police the actions of other men to protect you. What is that if not patriarchy?

[–]mistresswhat3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't want to be protected. In an ideal world I wouldn't have to deal with predatory men at all. Second place would be being believed on my own. Dude intervening on my behalf because me drawing explicit boundaries isn't enough to make my coworker stop touching me is a distant third. I don't want to have to rely on my male coworkers to stand up for me because a lot of the time they won't.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

> I don't want to be protected.

Does that translate as "I want to be protected" in our non-ideal world?

I understand exactly what you're saying. But also understand that men can be very literal.

[–]mistresswhat5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean it's necessary for my safety in some cases so yeah I'm gonna want protection in those situation.

I don't think this should be difficult to understand. If you're dangling over a firepit on a rope with no way of getting yourself out of there you'd probably prefer (1) to not be dangling over a firepit, (2) if you must be dangling over a firepit you'd prefer to have some means of escape within your grasp, and (3) if you're dangling over a firepit with no means of escape you sure as hell want someone to come and rescue you.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

but if he complains to his dude coworker about me and gets told "hey that was a really long weird hug and you know she doesn't like it so knock it tf off" he's much likelier to stop.

Because 3rd party opinion is more valid usually.

[–]mistresswhat3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but would he react the same way if the third party were a woman? Keep in mind that straight male sexual predators are significantly more sexist than the general population.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Real predators would not listen to a man as well, unless they felt threat.

[–]mistresswhat5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Depends on the predator. For some the threat of disapproval from a fellow male is enough. Others are incorrigible.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah, they still have to be close enough for that. If that's a dude you see only at work and almost don't talk to him, the predator won't listen to him.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Because nonviolent cops activate defensive mechanism. They assume situations when they did something they could be blamed for.

Because that can happen.

Now, a man also can be accused of rape when he did not really do anything shitty. I would say for some men it's more probable than getting raped. That's why they don't put themselves to the position of victim.

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's statistically more likely for them to personally get sexually assaulted, actually, though I concede most men probably don't think about that probability much.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I assumed a man who is large enough to not being assaulted. Or who visits parties often enough. That's why I said for some men.

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

BUT there's an entire culture in police departments of "us vs them" and in general when looking at instances the cops don't go "oh no, how horrible to get shot by police for doing nothing wrong" -- they go "oh no, how horrible to have to defend yourself and then get called a murderer."

That's because cops and the general public really are an "us versus them" situation.

A cop has power to command any citizen to stop what she's doing and wait for an extremely long time before being allowed to leave. Almost all cops exercise this power. This creates a natural group dynamic between cops and civilians. One is distinctly different than another.

It's not comparable with rapists and non-rapists. Rapists don't work together and they don't know each other. Everyone who's not a rapist is the enemy of rapists.

A cop will defend a fellow cop even if he's a violent killer because the group identity is already formed, and the badge is enough to form a bond.

But no non-rapist will ever freely choose to defend a man whom he knows to be guilty of rape. The possible defense will only be made where the accused's innocence remains a possibility due to lack of definitive evidence.

It's not like cops. Cops will continue to defend each other after the video proving the violence emerges. Once the DNA evidence proves that Larry raped Rachel, no man defends Larry.

[–]mistresswhat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

lmao, no, men will absolutely continue to defend known rapists. Again, look at Cosby. They mostly shut up about it in the thick of #MeToo but a significant number of those "canceled" dudes are back at their old jobs now. They might not declare that Larry was right to rape Rachel, but they'll explain that Larry was going through a lot at the time and doesn't deserve to be penalized for the rest of his life over one mistake.

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman11 points12 points  (61 children) | Copy Link

It's not about most men being rapists. It's about most people blaming women in part for getting raped and excusing the rapists and not prosecuting them enough. It's a cultural issue in that we create a culture beneficial for a minority rapists, not that most men are generally rapists.

Also a minority being an issue doesn't make it not a problem. School shooters are a minority, but school shootings are still a cultural issue in the US.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope5 points6 points  (44 children) | Copy Link

When men say you should somehow minimize your chances of getting raped, they don't blame you.

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point  (43 children) | Copy Link

Putting any of the responsibility of not getting raped on the rape victim rather than completely and fully on the rapist is absolutely placing blame in the victim.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope7 points8 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

This is a very black-and-white view. I've heard teenagers are most likely to have it.

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

Teens these days must be more sensible than you, then.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope4 points5 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Regardless, your view is black-and-white and thus impractical.

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

It is impractical. If you're not very careful, you have a good chance of getting assaulted. I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that getting assaulted is 100% the fault of the assaulter. The assaulted bears absolutely no responsibility for it. None. At all. No matter what someone is doing, where they're walking, or how they dress, it does not give anyone permission to assault them. To tell someone who is assaulted "well you shouldn't have been walking there dressed like that," places part of the blame on the victim and part of the responsibility for not getting assaulted on them. Was it dangerous to walk in that part of town dressed like that? Yeah, probably. It's still her right to do that without getting raped, and still the rapists fault 100%, regardless of what the circumstances may or may not be.

I'm not saying women shouldn't be very careful. I'm saying that women shouldn't have to be. It is utterly exhausting to constantly have to watch your back in strange parts of town/with new people, and if a woman decides it's not worth the stress and pays the price for it, it's still not her fault and still the rapists fault.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope4 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

What I'm saying is that getting assaulted is 100% the fault of the assaulter.

So? It does not mean you should not minimize your chances of getting assaulted?

Arguing with that means arguing that women should not minimize their chances of getting assaulted. Which is anti-feminist, don't you find?

No matter what someone is doing, where they're walking, or how they dress, it does not give anyone permission to assault them.

Is there anyone claiming otherwise? Ok, I know, there is a minority of woman-hating men who will type in the internet "It serves her right!" The majority of those who say she should minimize her chances of getting assaulted do not type "It served her right!" at the victims of rape.

To tell someone who is assaulted "well you shouldn't have been walking there dressed like that,"

Well, what if someone says she should not walk there dressed like that again, if she does not want to be assaulted?

It's still her right to do that without getting raped, and still the rapists fault 100%, regardless of what the circumstances may or may not be.

No one is saying otherwise. It is her right, but people are allowed to give advices whether or not it's good to use that right.

I'm saying that women shouldn't have to be.

They don't. But the reality is imperfect.

if a woman decides it's not worth the stress and pays the price for it, it's still not her fault and still the rapists fault.

Who says otherwise?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

When some bro is wandering around on a sketchy beach drunk off his ass and gets robbed in the moonlight by the locals, 100% of us know he was a fuckin' moron to put himself in that position.

Partygoers who get drunk, drive, total their car and injure themselves and innocent bystanders, are being clueless assholes and 100% of us know it.

A woman who gets drunk, puts herself into an isolated situation with guy she barely knows, and therefore invites a extremely high risk of victimization is irresponsible. And guess what? 100% of us know that.

We just can't say this openly because of assholes like you, OP, who are crusading for women to endanger themselves because you have some bullshit PC point to prove. What's up with that?

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman1 point2 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

You're comparing a drunk women who gets raped because she was alone with a guy to someone who drives drunk... and you're calling me the asshole?

I was assaulted outside of a police station in broad daylight in the nicest area in town in work atire on my way home from work. Guess who got blamed for that? Me. Because "a woman shouldn't walk near a police station."

I was also assaulted at a children's hospital, again, with an abundance of on site security in a nice part of town when I stepped outside to call and give family an update on the child in hospital without having the child in question hear certain things. Who was blamed for that? Me, because "women shouldn't go outside when it's dark"

I was stalked and almost kidnapped as a teen byba man in a target wearing sweatpants and an old teenager. Guess who was blamed for that? Me, because "I shouldn't wear loose clothing that's easy to rip off or a ponytail easy to grab" when I'm not with my parents." Again, very nice area. Low crime rate.

So I'm not allowed to step outside after sunset on my own, wear loose clothes, wear my hair up, or walk past police stations if I want to have assaults be my fault.

I'm not saying women shouldn't defend themselves. I'm saying it doesn't matter what precautions we do or don't take because people like you will always say we should have been doing more and that part of the blame is on us rather than getting angry at the perpetrator. And that, that right there, is rape culture.

[–]Sksjdbdbdjjfn 1 points [recovered]  (25 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I am calling you an asshole.

Your negative experiences don't give you a trump card to pull out in any argument, and they're certainly not an excuse to engage in bullshit strawman garbage either. So fuck right off with that. I have my own victim card but guess what? I'm not pulling it out just because you like comparing. We can be sympathetic towards each other in another context, but right now we're going to be focused on logic and reasoning in an abstract context, without defaulting to personally specific emotional reactional junk like you're trying. That's the way to shut down an discussion, not have one.

You want to try again, now?

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman5 points6 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

I wish you would use real life examples because, by God, you're theoretical examples are laughably awful. That was a lot of writing with absolutely no content. Sounds like you're just angry for getting called out on your misogyny, but whatever.

A drunk guy on a beach who was robbed was stupid. He also didn't deserve to be robbed, is not at fault for being robbed, and it is the robbers fault that he got robbed.

Not even touching your disgusting example comparing women who get raped for being alone with a new man to a person who drives drunk. That's repulsive.

Someone who is drunk and alone with a new guy isn't making the smartest move. They also don't deserve to get raped, are not at fault for getting raped, and and it is the rapists fault that they got raped.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

They also don't deserve to get raped

Duh?

I trained soldiers not to step on roadside bombs. Do you think my advice was "don't take precautions, it's the insurgents fault you've got no legs?"

[–]AndiSLiuNAHALT0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hi there, I'll point out a few things we can all agree with, but then later ask you: what exactly do you mean by "fault", and "stupid"?

A drunk guy on a beach who was robbed was stupid.

A drunk woman on a beach who was robbed was stupid.

Even if they could have done some things to minimise their risk of being robbed, they could still get robbed. Is someone who takes more risks, labelled "stupid" just because they take more risks? What exactly does labelling them as "stupid", or saying they could have made actions which take less risks, mean?

Does it discount at all any support we'd give them on being a victim of crime? If we say, someone could have taken some action to reduce their risk of being robbed, such as locking their car doors (only effective to a certain extent), are we in any way saying that we shouldn't be as supportive of a risk-taking robbery victim with whatever we support them with - time, insurance payout, whatever - as any other robbery victim?

If resources are scarce, we could preferentially allocate them to reward more cautious, less risk-taking behaviour, but are resources really that scarce that we have to penny-pinch by discounting victims based on the amount of risks they take?

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The point isn't that women shouldn't protect themselves. It isn't that women should try to avoid dangerous situations. It's that if something does happen, even if they were being stupid, they were not responsible for getting raped and should not be treated as such.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

They're responsible for putting themselves in a dangerous situation; nothing more, nothing less.

We still don't have a crime without a perpetrator. And clearly, no matter how irresponsible the victim was, it doesn't excuse the perpetrator's actions whatsoever.

[–]PPD-AngelIncel Ban Count: 17[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Be civil

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a cultural issue in that we create a culture beneficial for a minority rapists, not that most men are generally rapists.

I mean you have guys like Jeffrey Epstein. Nobody's excusing his actions except the elite.

Most people do a cost-benefit analysis and decide that rocking the boat, as far as it concerns them, is less desirable than letting the victims take the hit. And that's why you have issues from everywhere from high schools to the English royalty.

[–]MasonMan12342 points3 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

There is no rape culture in the US. It's just extremely difficult to prosecute rape cases because there tends to be a lack of physical evidence connecting any perpetrator to a rape.

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman9 points10 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Even with physical evidence, rapists frequently get less time than people with marijuana violations, people frequently blame the victim at least in part for "putting herself in that situation" and several states store rape kits and never test them, so they can't be used as physical evidence when physical evidence is available.

And, even with physical evidence, many rapists get little or no time because of lax and specific legal definitions of rape (eg. forced penetration of an object, forced oral sex, forced to be the penetrator does not count as rape in many states). This is why Brock Turner got only 3 months.

[–]sogol19901 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

thats horrible.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is definitely not true that sex offenders get light sentences. In California at least they get very hefty prison terms.

[–]MasonMan12343 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

even with physical evidence

I'm going to stop you right there. There are men who are convicted of rape even without physical evidence, many of them completely innocent. That's something we as a society want to avoid, wrongfully imprisoning innocent people. As for Brock Turner he's an outlier, he got a slap on the wrist because of rich privilege.

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That sucks, shouldn't happen, and rarely happens. We're talking about cases with physical evidence or witnesses, and you're derailing. Also 3 months in jail for what is defined by law as sexual assault is not an outlier.

[–]MasonMan12340 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also 3 months in jail for what is defined by law as sexual assault is not an outlier

For 3 felonies that could've potentially landed him 14 years in prison? Yes that's a huge outlier.

We're talking about cases with physical evidence or witnesses, and you're derailing

Physical evidence has to prove that somebody committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, that usually isn't the case for rape (unless the attack was overtly violent or brutal). Witnesses can be (and have been shown to be) the least reliable pieces of evidence and are responsible for most wrongful convictions.

[–]TheLongerCon1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

As for Brock Turner he's an outlier, he got a slap on the wrist because of rich privilege.

He really didn't. He got put on sex offender list for life, which alone is worse than 5 years in prison. And there wasn't even "physical evidence", just one pair of eyewitnesses. If Brock shut up and didn't talk to the police, he'd probably never would have been convicted of anything.

[–]bunker_man._.0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

which alone is worse than 5 years in prison.

Not if you're rich? The annoyance of having to be on the list is hardly the same as straight up losing 5 years at prime of life, and the perpetual embarrassment of such a thing.

[–]TheLongerCon0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about if you're thinking being on the sex offender list is just an annoyance. It kills any career and romantic ambitions.

And Brock wasn't rich, he went to Stanford on a swimming scholarship.

[–]bunker_man._.1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It doesn't kill ambitions if you're wealthy and connected, lol. Definitely not any more than being in prison for it for years in general would.

[–]TwentyX40 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

rapists frequently get less time than people with marijuana violations

Need a citation here.

I remember looking this up a while back, and the average sentence for a rapist was almost 10 years.

[–]reluctantly_red2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Stranger rapes are easy to prosecute. Date rape just the opposite.

[–]bunker_man._.2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The point of the idea of rape culture is not that all men rape. Its that enough do that it isn't a one-off problem, and people kind of tolerate it enough that little is done about it. Most people don't rape, but many do know people who either did, or did things like it, and kind of just gloss over it.

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The whole point of rape culture was that it was cultural, and hence affected all men

But all criminals make use of some element of culture to operate. It's logically insane to conclude that because a criminal exploits some aspect of a culture to commit his crimes, that the whole culture is set up to enable that crime. That's so stupid that anybody who says it should have all their educational qualifications revoked and be required to return to kindergarten to start over.

[–]gimmethebeat_boysPurple Pill Woman4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually had never even heard of this theory until reading the original post.

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

saying that there's no rape culture

There is no rape culture. Rapists are extremely rare and don't know each other. Just like there's no serial killer culture. Rapists act alone.

If a non-rapist person says that a careless person was helpful to letting the rapist have an opportunity, that isn't a rape culture, that's just a person who isn't a rapist and who doesn't ally with rapists making an observation.

You believe in a common fanatical delusion that a rape culture exists. Many fanatics believe that everything is evidence that their fanatical delusion is true.

Like 9-11 truthers, all evidence that it wasn't an inside job is just dismissed as "they made it look that way because they're such geniuses. You have illustrated my point better than I ever could have."

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

9-11 truthers

[–]goneaway2thewind-2 points-1 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

If that were true the whole world would be like Palestine, we give women freedom because we care about them. There's literally nothing stopping us from actually enslaving the female gender, we don't because that isn't who we are.

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

There's literally nothing stopping us from enslaving the female gender

The women who don't want to be enslaved, maybe?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

His point is that empathy is a thing.

You can be grumbling around in a bad mood thinking evil thoughts about women, if some poor thing falls on the ground next to you and cries out in pain, it cuts right to an instinctive reaction to help and protect her.

Most antisocial people have a fundamentally different brain structure where those empathy centers aren't activated. So you need to look at the neurology involved here as well.

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I get that that was the point being made. But the notion that women are only free because of the empathy of men isn't right.

[–]goneaway2thewind3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

We are stronger, faster, and the more dominant gender. There's literally countries where you could argue that this is already happening, nothing is stopping us from doing that on a global scale except for the fact that men aren't like that and love women. The majority of us would never rape a woman against her will.

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

It's happening in those countries because women are culturally raised from birth to expect and accept this. Most men being physically stronger than most women isn't enough to enslave an entire gender who doesn't want to be enslaved, especially with modern weapons that women already have access to. Women also have more endurance than men and comparable lower body strength in many cases.

[–]goneaway2thewind3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Wow you really are oblivious if you think we wouldn't win. You seem to not even remember men were the ones fighting the wars, men hold higher records in nearly all athletics, trans women are dominating women's sports, women being afraid to even walk the street because they know bigger men might want to do something to her., women complain about a supposed patriarchy already. But no appearently you live in a bubble. Good thing we wouldn't do that on a massive scale anyway BECAUSE WE ARENT LIKE THAT.

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Listen, I'm not saying men couldn't possibly succeed if they tried. I'm saying that it's asinine to think that having the upper hand in hand to hand combat has any bearing on chances of success since modern wars are not fought in hand to hand combat (and it would absolutely be a war).

I think it's also crazy to say that men wouldn't fear women in enslaving us. Even if men did win, it would not be at no cost, and hundreds of millions of men would likely die. This would absolutely play into the decision on whether or not to go ahead with this.

Additionally women would more than likely just set up heavily armed men free safe zones.

Just... the entire prospect of men being able to enslave women no problem and them only refraining because of empathy is fucking ridiculous.

[–]EsauTheRed1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I smell fear

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You live in a bubble if you think women wouldn't slaughter millions of you if you tried.

[–]ofthewhite 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Rape probably follows the 80/20 rule.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't troll.

[–]taimoor25 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Any research/data on rape kit testing? This sounds like an unsupported claim.

[–]sogol19901 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I dont know either, i asked the op of that comment , Im waiting for her to provide sources

[–]Next_Flow10 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

We're waiting op, this post is trash cause the source is some random redditor believing some random redditor

[–]sogol19900 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

heres ops response:

the fact that rapists tend to repeat the offense is one of the best reasons to test. As this article points out.

https://boingboing.net/2019/07/16/not-napoleons.html

[–]Next_Flow10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

thanks to the institutional misogyny of police departments and prosecutors

Actual news articles don't list opinions, they include facts from both sides of the argument that can help you form your own decisions. I didn't make it to the end, but if they list sources I recommend you list individual sources instead of some trash blog.

[–]everythingelseisfull0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Rape kits are good evidence when one person says they were raped and the other person says that no sex occurred. They aren't very useful when two people agree that sex occurred, but there is dispute over whether it was consentual. In the second set of cases, police don't usually process the rape kits.

[–]taimoor20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Is there any citation? Some study which shows a few men do most of the rapes?

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

K. Thanks for the info.

[–]sogol19901 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

you`re welcome

[–]CamoWoobie10000Women are SHIT2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I disagree with forcing someone to get a rape kit done. Sounds like a massive invasion of privacy, possibly a 4th amendment violation? Also that is probably going to end up triggering PTSD in a lot of actual rape victims. Even doing a rape kit voluntarily may. Also, a rape kit test does not always conclude that a rape occured. A nonviolent rape may look exactly like consensual sex. And as other commenters have pointed out, the rape kit may never even be tested

We are in an unfortunate circumstance being that rape is so hard to prove. But, that being said, i will never be for lowering the burden of proof. Yes it sucks, but I would rather have some rapists get away with rape than to jail innocent people. Presumption of innocence and requiring evidence beyond a reasonable doubt are cornerstones of our judicial system.

I also do not agree with painting an entire gender as potential rapists because a vast minority of them happen to be. (In theory at least, if people can stereotype and profile me based on my gender, ima do the same back, but thats a topic for another time). If I were to do the Same exact thing, using statistical data, but with race, I would be called a racist.

[–]sogol19902 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

there is no forced test,(if someone wants to prove something they better provide evidence)

we need to encourage testing by advertising its potential in recognizing serial rapists.

[–]scambucks 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think you caught the points of her post...

[–]sogol19901 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I got what she said, but if there is so much benefit in taking the tests seriously why not? persuading the law and police and rape victims to take it seriously and invest in them more,thats what I meant.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Wut?

[–]CamoWoobie10000Women are SHIT0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Wut about wut

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Rape kits can be declined.

[–]CamoWoobie10000Women are SHIT0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hmm I thought he was talking about changing it so a woman must get one done, nvm on that part

[–]czerdec 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

Get the fuck out of here with your science bullshit!

My Women's Studies professors all agree that rape is an extremely common behavior among males of all regions, social classes and every other category. Almost all men are rapists or engage in behavior that is so close to the acts of serial rapists that there's no important difference. Your "rape kit" science contradicts my professors so your science has to go out the window.

[–]sogol1990 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

why so harsh? I just re-posted someone else comment which I found interesting, to see other peoples opinion about it. it was posted by a rad-fem.

[–]czerdec 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm being sarcastic against the kind of people who falsely claim that rape culture exists. I upvoted your OP.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband[M] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't troll.

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

How's that trolling? I am making a clear point (that Grievance Studies contradicts the results of the Scientific method, using an ironic pose of supporting Grievance Studies.

[–]AutoModeratorBiased Against Humans[M] 0 points1 point  (25 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]CamoWoobie10000Women are SHIT2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Someone TLDR me on "rape culture" and how it exists in the west pls. Never got a real definition, i just see it thrown around

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It’s the idea that rape is excused or normalized culturally. Victim blaming, boys will be boys, etc. obviously that stuff does occur but I don’t think by and large it’s culturally that bad anymore. There is a reason many jxs had to enact rape shield laws though in the past - because that shit was commonly used to defend alleged rapists despite the fact it wasn’t relevant. The fact they even need to exist kinda shows that this at least was a widespread issue

[–]I-wanna-GO-FAST0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s the idea that rape is excused or normalized culturally.

This totally exists. For male victims of rape though, not female victims.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

when people talk about prisons and make jokes and the like :(

It exists in some shape or form for both genders I just don’t think it’s as bad as it used to be. Obviously victim blaming still occurs but there has also been a cultural shift condemning that sort of thing too.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nobody here is saying rape culture here but you.

[–]CamoWoobie10000Women are SHIT2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Did u not read the OP?

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes would ask you the same.

[–]CamoWoobie10000Women are SHIT2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

From the OP

But part of rape culture is the myth that any man will rape under the right/wrong conditions. That's apparently not true. Maintaining that myth provides an alibi for not prosecuting rape aggressively, or trying to wipe it out as a phenomenon. As it turns out, we could almost eliminate rape just by catching most guys the first, second or third time. And processing kits even if women don't want to report.

3rd highest rated comment right now

Rape culture says nothing about all/most men raping in the right conditions.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I was more interested in the issue of untested rape kits. The idea that men will rape under the right circumstances is more about the perceived nature of men. The whole men are predatory starting piont.

[–]Rabidstuffy 1 points [recovered]  (15 children) | Copy Link

You can't rape your wife. That's like saying you can rape yourself

[–]lilacluna5489 points10 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Your wife can still refuse sex. Having sex with someone who is unwilling is rape.

[–]Rabidstuffy 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

No she can't.

[–]-IIII--tip--III-7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Individuals like you are a problem. Regardless of marital status, people still have a right to refuse sex for any reason. And the reason doesn’t matter. If someone doesn’t want sex, then having it with them anyway is rape. Marital rape is a thing.

[–]Rabidstuffy-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

They don't have that moral right if they are married. A married person who refuses sex with their spouse is immoral and setting up their own marriage to fail. Oh even worse? The guy who lays in bed next to his wife and masterbates. Might as well just give her the house and start paying her alimony right then.

[–]JAMellott23 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're deep down a dark rabbit hole and I hope you realize it soon. Everything you just said implies that you have no understanding of human behavior or empathy.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't make things personal.

[–]lilacluna5487 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're going to wind up in jail someday with that kind of mindset.

[–]Rabidstuffy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think so.

[–]boundarychimpsALL THE COLORS1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So are you saying "she" is actually your hand, or are you saying you're into bestiality?

Most married folks are married to other adult humans, who absolutely can refuse sex if they want to.

Refusing often enough might be a valid cause for divorce in some places, but that's rather different from not being able / allowed to refuse.

[–]poppy_bluBeware the freight train3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The laws in 50 states say otherwise.

Troll elsewhere.

[–]sogol19905 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

its like saying men cant be raped! (your statement)

quit the ignorance ,having sex with an unenthusiastic partner is a sure way to kill the mood and boner for a lot of men, forcing a partner against her will is way beyond that, most men are not comfortable with the idea.if some men force sex or anal etc to their partners it seems like the only intention behind it is humiliation and hatred.

not having a problem with forced sex shows a fuc ed up mindset .

[–]Rabidstuffy 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

You guys must all be really bad at sex

[–]sogol19903 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

so forcing a partner is a way to be good at sex? ! Im done!

[–]Rabidstuffy-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree you are done

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter