I am very troubled by your constant use of the terms 'my rapist' and 'known rapist'. etc. I am not defending or denying his actions; I wasn't there. But to my knowledge, he has not been convicted of rape or even officially charged with it.
No no no no no. This is straight out of victim-blaming 101. You cannot both be upset with someone for being willing to invoke a restraining order, and undermine her credibility for not having pursued or acquired a rape conviction. If you support S and R in not wanting the police brought to their house, you cannot then turn around and chide someone for not using the legal system in a way that you find satisfactory.
Here is a helpful infographic explaining why "convicted of rape" is really not a useful standard of any kind.
Song actually has a restraining order against the man who assaulted her. That's impressive. Most rape survivors don't have anything approaching that level of system-sanctioned proof. Holding her to an even higher standard--and again, a standard that relies on the authority of the very same system whose envoys are described with such fear and mistrust elsewhere in this post and the comments--is absurd and offensive.
The issue is not that she has a restraining order, the issue is how she chose to use or misuse the restraining order, in a circumstance where she was not even present, and then try to misrepresent her actions after the fact.
Scott, I respect that you are really stressed out about this, but please don't tell me what "the issue is" or isn't. I was responding very specifically to the notion that the word "rapist" can't be used unless someone is convicted in a court of law. That notion is bullshit and deserves to be called out. And I found it particularly absurd to appeal to legal authority in a context where legal authority is being portrayed as a scary thing. Either the system is corrupt and scary, in which case there should be full sympathy for a woman who braved it sufficiently to get a restraining order against the man who assaulted her, or the system is reliable and just, in which case there should be no issue with calling the police.
Personally I fall on the "corrupt and scary" end of the spectrum. I wouldn't want the police brought to my house either, and I will feel even more strongly about it once I'm a parent with a non-traditional lifestyle, because that will put me in a uniquely vulnerable situation with regard to the law and the courts. But usually my way of avoiding that situation is to not invite people over who have a history of violent behavior or are otherwise likely to do something that would result in the police being called.
Fair enough to issue definition. And I think one of the results of this all is that we'll have to be a lot more careful about who's considered dangerous, and who's considered a loose cannon.
Rape is totally a legal term. It's also a non-legal term, and the two don't always quite overlap, which causes a lot of pain, frustration, and trauma for people, and a lot of difficulty in conversations about these issues.
If you will not believe a victim unless she jumps through specific legal hoops, you are blaming her for not doing so, and you are suggesting that she is not believable without that legal backup, which undermines her credibility.
You are the one who turned this conversation to focus on whether Judah "really" raped Shira. That was unconscionable, and I am pretty appalled.
No no no no no. This is straight out of victim-blaming 101. You cannot both be upset with someone for being willing to invoke a restraining order, and undermine her credibility for not having pursued or acquired a rape conviction. If you support S and R in not wanting the police brought to their house, you cannot then turn around and chide someone for not using the legal system in a way that you find satisfactory.
Here is a helpful infographic explaining why "convicted of rape" is really not a useful standard of any kind.
Song actually has a restraining order against the man who assaulted her. That's impressive. Most rape survivors don't have anything approaching that level of system-sanctioned proof. Holding her to an even higher standard--and again, a standard that relies on the authority of the very same system whose envoys are described with such fear and mistrust elsewhere in this post and the comments--is absurd and offensive.
Reply
Reply
Personally I fall on the "corrupt and scary" end of the spectrum. I wouldn't want the police brought to my house either, and I will feel even more strongly about it once I'm a parent with a non-traditional lifestyle, because that will put me in a uniquely vulnerable situation with regard to the law and the courts. But usually my way of avoiding that situation is to not invite people over who have a history of violent behavior or are otherwise likely to do something that would result in the police being called.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Especially when something like 6% of all rapists are ever convicted.
My point being that if someone rapes someone else, they are a rapist, and it is valid to call them so whether or not they are successfully prosecuted.
Reply
You are the one who turned this conversation to focus on whether Judah "really" raped Shira. That was unconscionable, and I am pretty appalled.
Reply
Please take extra care with your words, since you appear to keep meaning things that you don't actually say clearly.
Reply
Leave a comment