Gay Emory Student Dragged From Frat Party

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

So...again, I haven't blamed the victim, nor have I ever said it was ok. Glad we're on the same page.

Well, victim precipitation can border on victim blame depending on the crime and the actions of the victim.

Ranting about "common sense" and an annoying gay dude is along the lines of saying that he essentially waved his ass in the air for it to get kicked.

That isn't to say that he couldn't have been smarter to prevent dumbass fraternity men from doing dumbass stuff. But how unsmart he was is up for debate. Moreover, I don't care how dumb someone is, when you use homophobic slurs you are making it about your opinion of homosexuals rather than how annoying that particular person is.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Well, victim precipitation can border on victim blame depending on the crime and the actions of the victim.

Ranting about "common sense" and an annoying gay dude is along the lines of saying that he essentially waved his ass in the air for it to get kicked.

That isn't to say that he couldn't have been smarter to prevent dumbass fraternity men from doing dumbass stuff. But how unsmart he was is up for debate. Moreover, I don't care how dumb someone is, when you use homophobic slurs you are making it about your opinion of homosexuals rather than how annoying that particular person is.

Personally I haven't said anything about common sense, and I've stated explicitly it isn't his fault, and assaulting someone is wrong, no matter who the victim is. They had every right to kick him out, but no right to cause physical harm. Basically, I think the homophobia is a whole separate matter. Which is, unfortunately, much harder to deal with. The fact that they felt comfortable saying these things in a public setting makes me doubt that they'll see the error of their ways.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

Personally I haven't said anything about common sense, and I've stated explicitly it isn't his fault, and assaulting someone is wrong, no matter who the victim is. They had every right to kick him out, but no right to cause physical harm. Basically, I think the homophobia is a whole separate matter. Which is, unfortunately, much harder to deal with.

Oh yeah you just agreed with what sigmadiva said about common sense.

So, the fraternity men were wrong in gay bashing and assaulting him. Exactly. That other stuff is blurring the issue.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Oh yeah you just agreed with what sigmadiva said about common sense.

So, the fraternity men were wrong in gay bashing and assaulting him. Exactly. That other stuff is blurring the issue.

I suppose I should have been more direct when agreeing. Again, I do not think it was his fault he was assaulted because it is not ok to assault someone. I obviously do not support anyone gay bashing.

[sigmadiva]

Drole and DrPhil are right - I am blaming the victim, because in my opinion he did not use very good judgment. It still does not excuse what the fraternity men did, though.

If this gay guy was just walking down the street and out of the blue these fraternity guys attacked him, for the same reason, then yes, the fraternity men are at fault.


BUT!!! This gay guy walked into a private party in a private residence, looking out of place, and it started some trouble. I'm sure this gay guy knows the fraternity culture on this campus, so I don't think he so innocent as some of you are trying to make him out to be.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

BUT!!! This gay guy walked into a private party in a private residence, looking out of place, and it started some trouble. I'm sure this gay guy knows the fraternity culture on this campus, so I don't think he so innocent as some of you are trying to make him out to be.

Oh wow.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Oh wow.

Yes! Given the circumstance of this situation, this gay guy will need to accept his part of the blame.

He put himself in a situation that was potentially volatile, and it was. He walked into that party, no one forced him in there. It still does not excuse what they fraternity men did.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yes! Given the circumstance of this situation, this gay guy will need to accept his part of the blame.

He put himself in a situation that was potentially volatile, and it was. He walked into that party, no one forced him in there. It still does not excuse what they fraternity men did.

That's the thing though. He should've had an expectation he might be asked to leave. He shouldn't have had an expectation that he'd get his ass kicked. If they just said "Leave" and no more it wouldn't have been an issue. No one forced them to do/say what they did, either.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yes! Given the circumstance of this situation, this gay guy will need to accept his part of the blame.

He put himself in a situation that was potentially volatile, and it was. He walked into that party, no one forced him in there. It still does not excuse what they fraternity men did.

This gay guy.
This gay guy.
This gay guy.

How do you know that he knew that he was putting himself in a potentially volatile situation. That is presumptuous and superdramatic. He chose to go to a party at an off-campus fraternity house with some friends. Nothing ground breaking and wooptydoo there.

I don't believe that you really think it doesn't excuse what the fraternity men did because you are overstating what "this gay guy" did. That makes me think you are partially excusing what the fraternity men did. That may not be your intention but that is the outcome. Afterall, "this gay guy" knew better.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This gay guy.
This gay guy.
This gay guy.

That is how he is referred to in the article. If they had given his actual name, then I would have used his name. I think that by stating his sexual orientation (which is his business, btw), it just made the whole story more sensational, like others have said.

How do you know that he knew that he was putting himself in a potentially volatile situation. That is presumptuous and superdramatic. He chose to go to a party at an off-campus fraternity house with some friends. Nothing ground breaking and wooptydoo there.

How do we know the opposite is not true too? I really doubt this young gay man just innocently walked into the party without knowing the 'vibe' of the fraternity, or the fraternity culture on that campus in general. Like I said, I don't think he is as innocent as you are trying to make him to be.

I don't believe that you really think it doesn't excuse what the fraternity men did because you are overstating what "this gay guy" did. That makes me think you are partially excusing what the fraternity men did. That may not be your intention but that is the outcome. Afterall, "this gay guy" knew better.

No, it does not excuse what the fraternity men did. They were wrong for escalating the incident. But, I also think given the nature of how the situation occurred, they gay guy has to shoulder some of the blame too. If not legally, then at least morally.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

How do we know the opposite is not true too? I really doubt this young gay man just innocently walked into the party without knowing the 'vibe' of the fraternity, or the fraternity culture on that campus in general. Like I said, I don't think he is as innocent as you are trying to make him to be.

Innocent of what? Innocent for what?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

How do we know the opposite is not true too? I really doubt this young gay man just innocently walked into the party without knowing the 'vibe' of the fraternity, or the fraternity culture on that campus in general. Like I said, I don't think he is as innocent as you are trying to make him to be.

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?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

He chose to go to a party at an off-campus fraternity house with some friends.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

He knew his friends who were at the party. The article didn't paint him as some stray who wandered off the street.

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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.