No, re-read my posts.

Okay, I'll just take your word for it.....

This is what I stated.

LOL. I don't know why "innocent" has anything to do with this topic.

What sigmadiva is contending is that he had to know what he was getting himself into because he absolutely had to know that this was a heteromasculine frat boy party where wizard hats and gay dudes would not only raise eyebrows but result in an assault and gay slurs. That's silly.

I really hope this was a theme party or Halloween party. I don't know of anyone who thinks that wizard hat = freakum dress

Yup. He went to the party. A party he did not have to go to. He went to a party hosted by people who tend to have a certain opinion about sexual orientations.

When I was an undergrad at TAMU, I did not know about every NIC/IFC fraternity, but just by being on campus and interacting with some of the members and their associates in classes and thorough different orgs and friends, I picked the 'vibe' on a few of them.

I knew the ones that I could be cool with and hang out with them, and I knew the ones who were okay, but I dare not go out to their fraternity house for a party.

It wasn't a costume party, hence all the undue attention the kid got.

I'm kinda on board with you. But can you distinguish between the above paragraph and saying that a woman who was wearing a short skirt and a revealing blouse who got raped was asking for it?

I didn't realize he was an alum, but that still doesn't mean he behaves like an adult. Whether you think he should or not. I know plenty of people my age still in school/just out that haven't yet made the transition from "college kid" to "adult". Not that I'm oh-so-mature at all times, but you get the picture.

I don't think there is a consensus because the article takes Wizard-kid and friend's word and Adam Smith gives his own account, and like Kevin said, both of these parties have a motivation to twist things. The one thing the two accounts do agree on is that the physical assault happened, and it shouldn't have. It's he said/he said and we're just left to draw our own conclusions.

Who thinks it's justified?

That was what I thought her next paragraph would be in any post, frankly.

Hijack/
What about looking, is that ok? If a man or a woman wear a specific cut of clothing JUST to highlight and show off their "asset's" is it fair to say that they shouldn't get offended or embarrassed if people look?

That's a little extreme (and unfair) comparison.

If I go to a Tea Party meeting wearing a pro-choice shirt, I'm not doing anything wrong per-say, but I'm definitely asking for trouble. If someone does something to me physically, obviously they are wrong. But it doesn't mean I'm completely innocent for going somewhere to get a reaction out of people.

If his attire was unacceptable for the party, why was he allowed to enter?

*goes back to read the article*

It's not that far, especially when you consider that it's all too often that rumors fly around that such-and-such a fraternity is full of rapists (or worse, a rape actually occurs).

Fair enough...it's just that in this case he should have had the expectation he'd be kicked out of the party. He shouldn't have expected homophobic name calling and physical assault.

PiKA...I'll get flack for this, but on the rare occasion I go out and wear something that showcases my boobs, I'm doing it to get attention. And I'm not going to act like I'm not. So if a guy looks, fine. The only problem comes from the ones that don't know they're supposed to stop at looking. Looking? Fine, I put them out there. Asking to buy me a drink with a cheesy line? Skeeves me out but ok. (Though I never drink it unless I can watch the bartender making it and it gets passed straight to me) Asking me super personal questions about my sex life, or even trying to touch? I go make friends with the bouncer. (And I have had to do that, which is why I usually am pretty covered up unless I'm going out in my current small college town...not worth the risk of attracting super creepers).

Others have answered what I would say, but since you asked me directly I'll give you my answer.

No, she was not asking for it. But her behavior and how she may have presented herself while wearing the said attire may not gain her a whole lot of sympathy. It is still wrong / illegal that she got raped, yes. But using good judgment she should not go into a situation where that might happen.

If she was just walking down the street and was attacked, she is morally and legally right.

If she went to a party with people she did not know, got isht-faced drunk and passed out,then woke up a realized she was raped,then yes, she should still press charges and those guilty should be prosecuted. But, in the end she made a bad choice that left her in that position.

All I'm saying is that given the circumstance / situation - use good judgment!!!

Is this really comparable?

So it would be fair to say here that neither party used good judgment, that the newspaper seems to have continued that trend by publishing this story, giving anonymity to the complainant whilst publicly trashing Mr. Smith.

This is a whole big ball 'o fail.

Yes.... it is.

I don't get the picture. He is an "actual adult."

Coddling college students (those who are not only over 18 but no longer have "teen" at the end of their age) and alum as not "actual adults" does a huge disservice to higher education and Greek Life.


From the article:

Guy's statement:
“This guy approached me and asked why I was wearing my hat. ... I said that I like the hat, just as you like your pink shirt. He then asked me if I was gay, and I said I was. He then started choking me with his elbow and put me into a head lock, and he dragged me out of the party by my neck.”

After the student was allegedly dragged the approximately 10 to 15 feet from the house’s common area to the door and thrown onto the front lawn, Smith was overheard telling other attendees “Hey, this kid’s a f****t.”

Adam Smith's statement:
"This kid was at the party, and was acting kind of ridiculous. I went over, took his hat and started dancing around," he said.

Smith then said he asked the student: "Why are you wearing this gay ass hat?" According to Smith, the student replied that it was for the "same reason you're wearing your pink shirt."

Smith said that he then asked if the student was implying that he (Smith) was "f***ing gay or something." Hearing an affirmative reaction, Smith then admitted to putting him in a head lock and ejecting him from the party.

I see an agreement that an assault happened and heterocentric language that is essentially gay bashing was used. The slightly different story that Adam Smith tells is that of why it happened and whether the student did anything to precipitate it (i.e. whether the actions aren't completely Smith's fault because they make a grain of sense despite being wrong----essentially what sigmadiva is arguing).

If that simplistic and surface-level conclusion is all this boils down to then we could've stopped at page 1.

There's the way you think/want things to be and the way they are (in regards to college students making adult decisions.) Some are capable of it at 18, some aren't.

No.

She is never responsible for being raped.

Never.

NEVER FUCKING EVER.

The "sympathy" she gets should NEVER be based on what she was wearing and where she was. What the fucking hell.

On the bright side, this "BE CAREFUL!" attitude has been submarining rape prosecution for well over 50 years now, so that's nice. God bless high-level cognitive dissonance.

Lets be honest, 50 years ago she was "asking for it" too.

Also she was married so if it's her husband it can never be rape.

/rage

I don't think the poster said anything to that effect.

One must make good choices in order to prevent bad things from happening, however.

This is great as a platitude (and probably a good way to live your life), but it implicitly draws a proximate causal link between "passing out on the couch" and "dude raping you" when applied to the specific situation, which is clearly not your intention.

I'm sure women who pass out at parties are more likely to be raped. That's because rape is largely a crime of opportunity (like nearly every crime), and not because of the bad decisions made by the woman. The causal link runs the opposite direction of the platitude.

I think that's a good analogy - the short skirt one - NO.

At my son's fraternity, they have an enormous bouncer at the door and only invited guests are allowed in - even at parent's weekend, the bouncer was making sure that the people coming in were supposed to be there.

This is a RM policy, but it sure saves issues like this from occurring.

And, if I walked into a party dressed as a Wizard, complete with Wizard hat, I'd definitely be doing it for effect and would expect a reaction. I would also expect to be kicked out of the party unless the party was a costume event.

I find it hard to believe this young man didn't know this, if this old lady does...

Doesn't mean I agree with him getting roughed up - noone deserves that, but I agree with the using your good judgement part. Isn't that what we teach our kids? Don't make a spectacle of yourself and don't ask for trouble - this boy did both.

Honestly, that is how I feel. Yes, I'd feel bad for the girl, but at the same time I'd shake my head and ask 'what was she thinking??'


No, it is never right for anyone, male or female, to get raped for any reason under any circumstance. That is why use of good common sense on a situation is prudent. You just don't have to put yourself in certain situations.


But then, I think I know where you are coming from Drole - do what ever the hell you please, and if you get in trouble, blame someone else. I guess you, Drole, feel that people don't have to take responsibility for their own actions - it is always someone else's fault. :rolleyes:

It's always someone else's fault, meaning, like, the perpetrator's fault, that they raped someone?

Sounds about right to me.

You are right, and I agree with you. But, if you are going to put yourself in harm's way - don't be surprised if you get harmed.

Let's take it to a less reactive example:

Just about every time it rains in Houston it floods. We don't need much rain for the streets to fill with water.

The weather man comes on TV and says "Stay where you are. Don't go out. The streets are flooded. It is dangerous."

But hey, I'm out of Cap'n Crunch cereal, and by gosh, by golly, I want my cereal NOW!!! So I go out in my car, trying to drive on flooded streets, and my car gets stuck, it floods with water.

So, using Drole's logic, I should blame the weather man for ruining my car.

^^^ That's a horrible example.

The rain didn't see an opportunity to flood you and set its sights specifically on you.

Hell, for the analogy to work, it would prob have to be the weatherman.

Or you are driving for less stupid reasons (i.e. work and family) and can't get out of your driving obligation.

You are using a victimless and noncriminal act of nature as an analogy. I generally don't describe people caught by inclement weather as "victims" because nature cannot victimize. Pick an analogy dealing with people on both the victim and the perpetrator side of the equation.

As I stated in my first post about victim precipitation, analyzing victim precipitation is not the same thing as victim blame. What you're doing is more along the lines of victim blame because you keep saying "I guess it's all someone else's fault." You want the victims to share some of the blame. The notion that some rape victims should've been smarter is why victims of rape and sexual assault who feel that they were being stupid do not come forward. We already know that there are ways to reduce the probability of any type of victimization; and there are campus efforts to teach students about being smarter and more aware of their surroundings. Teaching people to protect themselves is not the same thing as telling them they were essentially idiots because they were careless.

Everyone has been careless at some point, ranging from leaving products unattended or not fully paying attention to our surroundings as we walk to the car. And we should all thank God that a motivated offender either wasn't around or didn't take us up on that opportunity. Had a motivated offender seized that opportunity, we would see how we could've done some things differently to reduce the risk but the blame remains 100% with the offender. I cringe when some defense attorneys ask the victim "what were you doing in the first place? Didn't you know....."

ETA: The only time when the blame doesn't lie 100% with the offender, and this is also an example of victim precipitation, is when the victim and the offender had an equal risk of victimization. For instance, if someone brings a gun into an otherwise nonlethal argument and the person with the gun ends up getting shot, which happens quite often. The person who brought in the gun could've easily been the offender but ended up as the victim.

Umm....I take it you've never driven in Houston with flooded streets.

True story: I think it was earlier this summer, as usual, we had a quick, hard rain, and the streets flooded. A woman and her daughter were caught driving in the rain and the highway underpass they were on flooded. The daughter got out and left the car. She tried to urge her mom to leave, but the mom would not leave her car. Sadly, the mom drowned because she would not leave her car.

That is when I shake my head and ask why.


I picked that analogy just to show how narrow-minded I feel Drole's logic is. It is so black and white. There are reasons behind why things happen, and understanding the reason helps to understand the why.

No, you, Drole and agzg are saying it is someone else's fault. I said the the gay guy has to share some of the blame because he put himself in a situation he did not have to. The fraternity guys were wrong too. I just don't think this incident would have ever happened if the gay guy just did not show up.

To the bold: that has been my whole point! Thanks for saying it too! If you know the ways to prevent from being a victim, then practice them. I'm not saying that you will never be a victim of something at some point, but you can definitely reduce your chances.

Well, that is a fair question. Because I would want to know too. How much did you know, and when?


I agree.

I don't think the kid needed to be choked out or dragged out of the party. He may have been kicked out but he didn't ask or need to be assaulted.

And no, it's never the victim's fault ever in cases of rape, EVER. I don't care if he or she dressed provocatively. I don't care if he or she drank too much. I don't care if he or she went to the rapist fraternity house. I don't care. It's never the victim's fault.

It's not this kid's fault he got his ass beat. At all. And the kid who did it took the opportunity just like a rapist would his or her victim. He picked on someone he saw as vulnerable or weak. Period.

Just because there are ways a potential victim can decrease the probability they're attacked doesn't mean it's their fault, IN ANY WAY, if they weren't using them at the time.

People need to keep their hands to themselves.

The flooding analogy is a major fail.

Actually, you should probably blame the store that is staying open in the face of the weatherman and everyone else advising people to stay the @#$% indoors, and enticing you out with its yummy Captain Crunch. The store is implicitly saying by its actions "it's OK for you to drive even if you pass Noah on the way."

Do you think you're in the grey area because you are talking about victims sharing the blame? You aren't just talking about understanding why things happen.

It is obvious that incident wouldn't have happened with that particular guy if he had not been there. Got it. What isn't obvious is the overstating of that obvious and the "share some of the blame" aspect of it all.

No, it wasn't. And if you felt a EUREKA moment when you read that in my post, you REALLY haven't been reading my posts.

Re-read my posts about the difference between analyzing victim precipitation (which researchers and practitioners do everyday) and victim blame (which is what you were doing).

Thus the difference between what you were saying and what I was saying.

If you agree with that then you are contradicting yourself. You went from saying the fraternity guys were wrong (which we all agree about) to saying this "gay guy" should've known better. If you understand that the "gay guy" didn't put the fraternity guys at equal risk of victimization (he was outnumbered even if he was being annoying), you understand how the blame cannot be shared. The same logic applies to rape. Rape victims do not place the rapists at equal risk of victimization--there's no competition to see who can rape whom first.

And blame the employers who are not required by law to shut down because of the weather or aren't sympathetic to the plight of the flooded employee.

What about those darn children who may need to be picked up during a flood? Nature doesn't announce its wrath.

Seriously, fuck off.

No one is responsible for rape but the rapist. A woman should not have to dress a certain way or have to avoid certain neighborhoods to not get raped.

You can say my name 12 more times in your next post and I'll still tell you you're part of the fucking problem.


Yes, being raped is exactly like a flood. Women should have to be on guard for surprise rape all the time. I mean if they mess up, they basically deserve it right? They really should take responsibility and not be so rapable. Always asking for it.
So when a woman is raped by her boyfriend, that's also her fault? A wife by her husband? If the woman is wearing jeans is it impossible for her to have been raped because she obviously had to help the guy take her jeans off and that means she wanted it? She was raped by an ex, but they'd had sex before so it's ok right?

Or is it only when they're walking down the street in a short skirt that they're asking for it? Or drunk at a party?

You're right, asking people to take responsibility not to rape people is the wrong answer here.


No, the guy does not deserve any blame for being assaulted.




Everything you said.

LOL. No offense, sigmadiva, but "fuck off" is one of my favorite phrases. LOL.