Gay Emory Student Dragged From Frat Party

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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).

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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!!!

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

She is never responsible for being raped.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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.

[srmom]

Originally Posted by lucgreek
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. "

Is this really comparable?

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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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.

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

Sounds about right to me.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

[knight_shadow]

^^^ That's a horrible example.

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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

^^^ 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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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.

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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

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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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....."

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

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.

I agree.

[agzg]

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.