Rape and Rape Culture


Because of Low by Abbi Glines My rating: 2 of 5 stars As I mentioned in my review for Breathe, I broke my boycott of books by Abbi Glines. I had been hoping that my disdain for the books I’d read was misplaced. And with Breathe, I figured out that it wasn’t. Considering how negatively I felt towards Marcus Hardy in that book, it doesn’t surprise me that in Because of Low, I also found him to be a loathesome, misogynistic miscreant. (Say that three times fast.) This book is so much more degrading toward women than most books by this author. That’s really saying something because it is a common feature of her books to have women portrayed as objects and toys for the male characters to manipulate, abuse, etc. So when I say that this book is absolute misogynist trash, believe it. Marcus is having family issues because his daddy decided to cheat on his mom. While he hates his father’s decision and often complains about it in his own inner monologues, his vitriol is unleashed on the other woman. The nicest things he calls her is: gold-digger, that slut, and his little girlfriend. He repeatedly calls her a whore. He even calls her a “paid-for” toy. He often suggests that his dad is being used for his money and that that indicates how he’s a sucker. He thinks one time that he might kill his father, but then he suggests that he might have an even more elaborate plan for his father’s girlfriend. That part honestly had me a bit freaked out because it took the sexism into a whole new level of awful. Marcus has an obsession with stalking and sexually accosting innocent girls. That too carries over to this book. But this time, the innocent girl is interested. He wonders things like if Low knows that her BFF “had bagged” a certain number of women that week. Bagging or being bagged is grotesque. It not only objectifies women, it makes sex sound like something that is done to one party by another, when it’s not. Even in power-play sexual relationships, sex doesn’t work that way. When sex is something done to a party by another party, it’s called by another word: rape. So, we either need to call the sex between Cage and various women sex or we need to call it rape. If it’s consensual, then we should go with sex. If it isn’t, someone should be calling the fictional police department of the fictional town of Sea Breeze to report this sexual predator. Marcus talks about how he has a righteous fury toward Cage over any possible sexual relationship between Cage and Low. He envies him touching her. Marcus fails to understand that Low is a grown-up. She gets to do what she wants with her body. He gets angry because Low wears cowboy boots when she goes out. They’re so hot on her that he can’t handle the thought of any guy being attracted to her while she wears them. He needs to stop this crap. He talks about going caveman, which is trashy book talk for basically wanting to take a woman back to his apartment/house/mansion and coerce or force a sexual act out of a woman because she’s either pissed him off or because he is feeling insecure. It’s really a degrading phrase for all of humanity. The author uses the term “female” or its plural “females” in many of her books to refer to women. This is sexist and transphobic language. It’s sexist because it breaks women down to their reproductive organs–female is the term for biological sex. It’s transphobic because not all women are born female and not all people born female are women. As usual with her books, there are also slams at single parents. Tawny is portrayed as so uncaring that she leaves her daughter’s care arrangements (baby-sitters being lined up) to her sister. She is portrayed as being a cruel individual because she kicks her sister out any time that her daughter’s father happens to be around, so she leaves her sister homeless. There are also references to Low’s mom dying of cancer, which is something that is not uncommon in her books. And Low’s dad is a deadbeat & Marcus’s almost turns into one; these are other things that come up quite often in her books. There are slams of people who have had plastic surgery–a lot containing talk about breasts being fake and how that makes women ugly or trashier. Low even does this with Trisha. She sees her as a sex object first and can only picture her being good at sex work. This sort of judgment doesn’t work both ways, as she respects her and takes up for her when the guys suggest Low might not be very smart. And if a woman is into casual sex? Oh, honey, don’t even go there. That must mean that she’s an airheaded slut because that’s how they all behave in these books. But the guys who like casual relationships aren’t portrayed as stupid. Lead male characters who have history of casual relationships are suggested to be lacking morally, but that doesn’t keep them from ending up with a girl who has only had and will only ever have sex with them. Yep, the douchebags always get the virgins. I feel like this plot was stolen from an MRA website. The male characters in the books need to learn to stop ignoring when women say that they aren’t interested. In this book, it was Cage who didn’t get it. But both Marcus and Cage spent some time talking about Low as though she was some prize in a contest, not a person. Cage also had a tendency toward trying to tear Low down. It was presented as a best friend being compassionate and caring, but it was a type of bullying. He tried to ruin any confidence that Low had about her relationship. If […]

Review: Because of Low


Breathe by Abbi Glines My rating: 2 of 5 stars Once upon a time, I decided that I was never going to read another book by Abbi Glines again after reading books in the Rosemary Beach series. They were books that degraded women and promoted sexist ideas, stigmatized mental illness, and suggested adoption meant that your adoptive parents weren’t your parents. Her books also tended to lack things like plot and proper grammar. Well, I changed my mind when I found the Sea Breeze books in my local public library’s catalog. I figured that if I didn’t have to buy the book that I wouldn’t feel quite as disappointed if it sucked. I was right. Of course, I went in with the expectation that the book would be pretty bad, so I shouldn’t have been disappointed at all. But there were still some slight feelings of disappointment. I think they were mainly due to the fact that I felt that a book like this one should not have been published in the first place. As you have probably figured out by now, I was not a fan of the book. As with other books by Glines, there were serious issues with her writing style. The dialogue never flowed right. Conversations were wooden; they felt forced. There was only one continuity issue that I found, which is better than some authors do. There were some grammar issues, of course. I was a bit taken aback by the capitalization issues with directions. It seemed like no one had been taught that regions get capitalized. I even wondered if maybe I wasn’t remembering my English classes properly. I wasn’t. It was just that the writer and/or the editor failed to recognize it. There was a lot of repetition going on. One example is the introduction of Dewayne. Over the course of two pages, his name was mentioned six times, including one time where it was misspelled. You would think with that many mentions of him that he was an important character. He wasn’t. I’m not even sure if he showed up at any other point in the book, but I digress. Another example of repetition, in the first twenty pages of the book, Sadie, the seventeen-year old lead female character, complained about the cost of the condoms she bought for her mother. She would go on to complain about that through the book, as well as her mom’s sex life. Speaking of things Sadie did that were annoying, she was extremely whiny and judgmental. She viewed herself as being superior to her mom because she had never been interested in dating. She was a “good girl” and her mom was treated like some sort of evil, unintelligent, lazy, slutty monster. It was clear fairly early in the book that her mom needed some therapeutic help, but Sadie just wrote her off as being spoiled and selfish. There was a dependence upon tropes and stereotypes. Marcus, who is four years older than Sadie, was described as a “nice guy” and he behaved in a way consistent being a Nice Guy™. He befriended Sadie when she first started working with him. He was her first friend and she didn’t feel attracted to him, but he was extremely attracted to her–or attracted to what she represented. He would tell her how she wasn’t like other girls, which Jax also told her. (Writers, can you stop using that line in books? No one is 100% like any other person.) As Sadie expressed her body image issues, Marcus told her that he hoped that she stayed “this way. Sweet and innocent.” He basically was telling her that her self-esteem issues made he attractive. No. No. No. Marcus also had a tendency to follow her around and always seemed to show up whenever she was crying about something–this was particularly disturbing because the crying typically happened after he shared some gossip about Jax. (He even had his sister stalk her for him.) He was actively working to end her relationship with Jax, which he knew hurt her, so that he could be with her. This is not acceptable. This is not what a nice person does, but it is what a Nice Guy™ would do. And his badness didn’t end there. Sadie told Marcus that she wasn’t interested in him as anything other than a friend. She told him that she wass in love with Jax. She actually rejected him a few times. And what did he do? He waits until Jax is out of town and Sadie is alone and he kisses her. This was after yet another time where she told him that she wasn’t interested. This is a type of assault. If she hadn’t run away, I wonder if he would have tried to rape her. You might think that with all this Marcus talk that he was one of the leads. Nope. He was a secondary character. Jax was one of the leads, but Jax was a poorly developed character. As a teen pop star, he had a life that he led in front of the cameras and a different life he led in private. It doesn’t get much more descriptive than that. There was talk of the “old him”, but it was mainly just little mentions of how he had changed at some point in his career. One of the frustrations that I felt towards his character was after the Marcus kiss attack, he flew all the way across the country to rescue Sadie. That felt like he was underestimating Sadie’s ability to take care of herself. In the whole time that they were together, the brooding pop star began making her more and more dependent upon him. And here’s where I get to another thing that really bugged me about this book. This book felt like Glines took different parts of all four Twilight books and mixed them up, then wrote a story. The love triangle between Marcus, Sadie, and Jax was so similar to Jacob, […]

Review: Breathe



Lay off: the slut-shaming the suggestions that women who date or befriend womanizers need protecting the kisses and other acts (including anal, oral, or vaginal sex) that female characters say they don’t want from aggressive male characters the continuing complaints of the male BFF that he wants more than a friendship that same BFF actively trying to sabotage the relationship of his BFF and her boyfriend labeling male characters who participate in these activities as “nice guys” This kind of stuff perpetuates a culture where women are disrespected, are afraid, and believe that their feelings/boundaries do not matter. That they do not matter. It harms anyone who sees the normalization of this crap. And crap is putting it very nicely. via Tumblr

CBS News had a story on the “leaking” of Snapchat nudes. They brought up Jennifer Lawrence calling her pictures being published a “sex crime”. The last line of the story said that the Snapchat pictures being released would only be “an actual sex crime” if it involved pictures of minors. I don’t know if they were saying that because so many states lack adequate digital privacy laws, or if they feel that unauthorized nude pictures of adults being released is just not that bad. Well, it is bad. Let’s change the situation from pictures being released to a person outside your bedroom/bathroom window. Instead of having images of you nude on a hard drive, the person is watching you dress, undress, shower, use the toilet, have sex, etc. Laws cover this kind of violation. Laws understand that this kind of voyeurism is a sex crime. So does society. Well, nude pictures being leaked is the same sort of situation. A person does an act (that is titillating for some) in private, for themselves or another person. They feel safe doing this, so they put themselves in a vulnerable position. If someone takes advantage of them for/while they are doing this, then that is a sex crime. “An actual sex crime” does not have to involve a person being raped or assaulted. It doesn’t have to be an underage person in a picture to be a crime. It is a crime because it is a violation of someone. via Tumblr

An Actual Sex Crime



Beneath This Man by Jodi Ellen Malpas My rating: 2 of 5 stars What. Did. I. Just. Read? This book was not good. No, that’s an understatement. This book was very bad. It wasn’t the absolute worst book I’ve ever read, but it’s pretty high up on the list of sucktastic books. There is a lot about this series that I just hate. I was hoping this book would be better than the first, but it really wasn’t. The quality of writing was a bit better, but the story quality is still crap. Ava needs to get new friends. Seriously. This is a woman whose best friend is totally cool with a guy stalking her, forcing her to move in with him, and being an abusive and manipulative jerk. Kate knows that Jesse treats Ava horribly, but she’s basically cheering him on with the abuse, stalking, and manipulation. I don’t know why Kate hates Ava so much, but it is very clear that she does. Jesse blames his “not an alcoholic” behavior on Ava. She drives him to drink. Her leaving him drives him to spend four days downing shot after shot of vodka, so that’s her fault. His sex with other women during that time period is also his fault. He’s never felt like drinking so much in his life, but being with her makes him want to drink. He tells her this. His friends basically tell her this, too. This is not okay. He can’t take responsibility for his self-destructive behavior, so he puts it on her. And she seems to be okay with taking the blame. It sort of makes sense, since she’s also the one who is responsible for his forcible and coercive sexual actions on her. This kind of thinking is so horrifying that I just wanted to scream as I read it. That’s probably why it took seven days to read this book. It isn’t a hard read style-wise, it just sends the kind of message that victims of domestic violence and rape are responsible for the abuse that they face. You know, the despicable kind of thinking that we should be way past in the twenty-first century. Remember when I said the writing quality was a bit better than it was in the first book? That’s true, but the writing quality is still pretty bad. There was a lot of repetitiveness. If you say that a character is dressed smartly in the first part of a paragraph, you don’t have to say it again two or three sentences later. The same goes for talking about a character being in tight white boxers. It doesn’t need to be repeated right away. The brand dropping was also pretty common in this book, which was very annoying. I get that she wanted to convey that Jesse lives a rather luxurious lifestyle, but mentioning all the brands was just so tacky. And the high fashion that was mentioned didn’t sound very fashionable. It definitely didn’t sound like the brands that were being described. The whole book was a serious disappointment. Between the tacky writing, the god-awful story, and the heavy use of tropes, the book was just not worth reading. Unless you were really into the first book, I really wouldn’t recommend tackling this book. The only reason that I’m going to read the last book in the series is that I want to find out what things this group of social weirdos is going to do next. I’m guessing whatever they do, it will be horrible. View all my reviews

Review: Beneath This Man


Social Media is So Anti-Social: I’m 30 years old and I have been using computers since I was a toddler. I’ve been using the internet since elementary school. I designed my first website when I was about 13 or 14. I also ran an online zine on AOL at that same time. I’ve had my own domain where I host my personal blog for 13 years now. You could call me a geek or a nerd and I would be totally okay with that. What you should never call me is a whore or a slut. You shouldn’t threaten me with rape or murder. You shouldn’t say that I deserve a lobotomy or I look like a man or that I’m fat or ugly. You shouldn’t say this sort of stuff to anyone, anywhere. Ever. Shortly before I turned thirty, I made the mistake of responding to a snarky comment from a Twitter user. This user had responded with “BWAHAHA A Woman made the hashtag” over my friend calling out people who were making rude remarks on the hashtag #FlukeForCongressCampaignSlogans. I asked him, “Is that supposed to make the hashtag any less offensive?” He responded with, “Haha! I bet you’ve never needed BC. #HumanManatee” I’ve been made fun of for years over my weight. It’s a sore subject for me, but I didn’t want this stranger to know that. I didn’t want him to know that I cared what he or anyone else thought about how I looked, so I fired back, “You think you’re original, but you really aren’t. And I have been on birth control off and on since middle school.” I probably should have either ignored the first remark or left out the part about taking birth control in middle school, but I didn’t. I never stood up for myself as a kid when people would say cruel things about me due to my weight, so I felt good about standing up for myself with this internet bully. And I’ve never been ashamed of the fact that I had to take birth control pills when I was in middle school (or high school or college) because there’s nothing shameful about them. A little packet of pills had never defined me before, but when I used them to respond to this guy, they did.  I was inundated with responses from him and from several of his followers who were egging him on. He accused me of trading anal sex for Big Macs. One of his friends used my then-profile picture to make some meme images that said that my face was birth control. A few of the people, including the original troll, said that I didn’t look like a woman because they couldn’t tell if I had breasts. I was called “Honey Boo Boo” in fifteen years. There were other comments that I can’t even remember right off. All I remember is that it went from this one guy insulting me to a group of five or six people insulting me dozens of times in less than fifteen minutes. I reported every single abusive tweet to Twitter that night. I blocked each of the people. I quit engaging with people online for about two months. I also began self-injuring regularly again. I felt suicidal a few times. And I waited to find out if Twitter was actually going to do anything about it. They didn’t. The first response was about a month after it happened. They decided the #HumanManatee comment wasn’t worthy of being considered abusive. I’m not exactly sure how that isn’t considered abusive and I tried to get them to explain it to me, but there really was not explanation. The next response was another month later. It was the larger decision, about the rest of the tweets and the users who made them. Twitter decided none of these users were abusive. I was dumbfounded. How was this not abuse? How was it okay to say these things? I know that sometimes when you’re interacting with someone you disagree with that you might get snarky or downright mean, but, in all my years online, I’d never seen it get this bad, this quick, and I’d never seen a service basically say there was nothing they could do. Twitter told me that I was basically going to have to both block this guy and keep up with whether or not he made any more attempts to harass me. He didn’t. Instead, he picked on other people. He picked on enough people that he had his primary account permanently suspended. That occurred after he repeatedly used Islamophobic slurs. His secondary account had some temporary suspensions levied on it, but it still exists. His tertiary account also still exists. He’s had other people report him, yet these accounts still exist. I’ve had people contact me off of Twitter to tell me that this particular person has made comments to them like he made to me, yet these accounts still exist. I’ve seen people complain about reporting him or friends of his for sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and otherwise discriminatory language, yet these abusive accounts still exist. A few hours ago, he insulted not one, but two of my friends. He said that he would never have sex with one because he didn’t have sex with animals. He made rape threats to another. The first friend is considering not using Twitter again. The second is trying to figure out why Twitter decided to give her a temporary ban for the argument, when they aren’t doing a thing about to the account of the guy who threatened her. It’s not just Twitter and it’s not just this guy. Threats and abuse are levied at people every single day online. Some sites will do something about it, but social media sites, in my experience, just say, “Well, don’t pay attention to them and they’ll go away.” Sometimes they do go away, but usually, they’re only going away because they’ve found fresh meat. They only go away […]


1
Previously published on Thought Catalog   Before Janet Bloomfield even launched into the meat of her diatribe on the lies feminists tell, she decided to tear down all feminists. If a woman is a feminist, she is an “unattractive, angry woman who blames all her problems on men. She is single, bitter and spends most of her time showering other women with contempt for not making the ‘correct’ feminist choices, whatever those happen to be. She is loud, screechy and deeply unhappy.” While she acknowledges that this is a stereotype, she seems to have no issue with promoting it. She even justifies it, which makes sense. People who promote intolerance often justify that intolerance in some way. And she uses this intolerant view to promote five lies that she thinks feminists tell. And when she says this, she makes sure to use hyperbolic language to promote her own feelings of intolerance. The problem with this is that she is using her own feelings of anti-feminism to promote ignorance and not promote actual facts. Let’s take a look at what she and many like her get wrong.   MYTH: Trigger warnings are a feminist thing that turns women into children. They are illogical and only exist for women. FACT: Though many feminists talk about trigger warnings, the warnings exist outside of feminism. Triggers are words or actions that lead to a trauma victim having flashbacks. These flashbacks happen not only to women, but to men and to transgendered persons. They don’t just happen with victims of rape and domestic violence, but to people who have gone to war, been in car accidents, women who had a difficult delivery, or been in any other traumatic situation. Though they have only recently become a part of everyday language, flashbacks, trauma triggers, and PTSD have been discussed throughout history. By the end of the first World War, the British army had dealt with 80,000 cases of a condition that is now best-known as ‘shell shock’. These men would have unrelenting anxiety, tics, and nightmares. Despite the fact that it was the cause of 1/7th of the disability discharges in the British Army. Though these men had killed other men, while fighting for their country, they were labeled as cowards or weak. (If they deserted, like some did, they could face execution.) When people like Janet Bloomfield suggest that feminists who support trigger warnings want to turn grown women into children, she is doing the same thing to them that people did to men returning from war almost a hundred years ago. Having PTSD is not something that makes a person childish or weak or a coward. It is not something that people should be mocked for having. In fact, it’s sometimes summarized as a “normal reaction to abnormal events”. Asking for people to respect your limits is not a childish thing. It is an establishment of a boundary, something that is very difficult for persons with PTSD.   MYTH: Simply stating that there is something triggering could trigger. FACT: For some, yes. For some, no. Some people do get triggered by the warnings themselves. Some don’t. Some are triggered by graphic descriptions. Some are triggered by seeing a simulation of the trauma they endured. Each person’s triggers are different, but that doesn’t mean that we have to stop respecting them by doing away with the warnings.   MYTH: Feminists view people who can’t deal with being triggered are “pathetic simpletons” who are “incapable of controlling their emotional reactions or confronting the slightest bit of adversity or conflict”. They see women as being emotionally fragile. FACT: No. Having a mental health issue does not make a person weak or fragile. Trigger warnings for people PTSD are like allergy warnings for people with food allergies. If you don’t call a person who is allergic to peanuts “weak” because a chocolate company puts a warning that a product that doesn’t have peanuts was manufactured in the same factory as food that does have peanuts in it, then you shouldn’t call a PTSD patient’s trigger warnings a weakness. They are just a warning that there is the possibility that if you look or listen to a particular thing that there is a possibility that your illness will be triggered. If you look at people who openly discuss their triggers as being fragile or being weak, then that really says more about you and your intolerance than it does about the person being triggered.   MYTH: Feminists who talk about “victim-blaming” don’t view women as smart, rational or aware. FACT: Feminists do view women as smart, rational, and aware. They also know that the blame for a rape lies on the rapist. A rape victim can be dressed provocatively or like a slob. A rape victim can be drunk or sober. A rape victim can be pretty or ugly. A rape victim can be drugged or they can be asleep or they can be awake. A rape victim can be raped by a stranger or by someone that they know. A rape victim can be a baby or a small child or an older child or a teenager or a young adult or middle aged or elderly.  A rape victim could be armed and still be raped. A rape victim could know self-defense and still be raped. A rape victim could drink water from a bottle they’ve brought from home that has never been opened. This bottle might never leave their sight. They could still be raped. The only thing that is true for all rapes is that they were committed by a rapist. And the reason that victim-blaming is often brought up is that there are people who continue to blame any and every rape victim for their rape. For example, when Austin Clem received a suspended sentence for his conviction of the rape of his neighbor from the time she was thirteen until she was eighteen, someone commented that it was an affair, saying, “At what point […]

10 Myths Anti-Feminists Have About Feminists


okcgoldmine vs creepshots: stewardish: stewardish: A comparison of two tumblr blogs: creepshots and okcgoldmine. —okcgoldmine: re-posts photos of men; photos were taken with men’s permission and posted personally by the men on a public web page —creepshots: posts photos of women taken without the women’s knowledge or consent. —okcgoldmine: has no ads —creepshots: has ads —okcgoldmine: uses tags that come directly from the words written by the men and posted by them at okcupid. Examples: jack of all trades, devil’s advocate, men’s rights, everything but rap. —creepshots: typical tags are: upskirt, phat, booty, hungryass, boobs. —okcgoldmine: sometimes adds humorous text, such as “Boy you must be the sun because you need to stay 93 million miles away from me.” But most posts have text written by the men themselves and posted by them on a public web page. (x) —creepshots: adds text such as “I caught these two mamacitas suntanning with their asses out while enjoying a Carribean cruise in Dec. 2009. They were totally asleep and unaware of my camera work. They may possibly be the hottest daughter-mother pair I’ve ever seen in one shot.” I would have to agree. I don’t think I can easily choose who has the better ass. Very nice creep work.—creepshots editor (x) —okcgoldmine: taken down by tumblr in May, 2013 —creepshots: just fine with tumblr. jfc it’s all in fun u need to get a sense of humor. reblogging because 7 months later creepshots on tumblr is still up and okcgoldmine is still down. summary: poking fun at men: TUMBLR TAKES DOWN YOUR BLOG posting photos of women without their consent and calling them sluts: THAT’S OK WITH TUMBLR via Tumblr

okcgoldmine vs creepshots



musingsofanawkwardblackgirl: One of my followers (I am assuming you follow me) asked me: “Why does rape happen?” Considering that I am passionate about the topic and I am pretty knowledgeable in regards to the topic, I thought maybe instead of just giving a very basic answer, I could explain it. Firstly, I would like to say that’s an EXTREMELY loaded question, so I am going to throw the thesis out there for people who don’t want to read a long post: Rape Happens because people have a false sense of entitlement, and/or insecurities thus causing them to attempt to overpower another person. Now onto explaining that thesis… Firstly before we even get into rape we have to announce what rape is, according to Pandora’s Project: The exact definition of “rape” differs from state-to-state within the U.S. and by country internationally.  In the US, it is often called “criminal sexual conduct in the first degree”.  Generally, rape is defined as sexual contact or penetration achieved: without consent, or with use of physical force, coercion, deception, threat, and/or when the victim is: mentally incapacitated or impaired, physically impaired (due to voluntary or involuntary alcohol or drug consumption) asleep or unconscious. Next we have to go into the different TYPES of rape. According to Nicholas Groth‘s theory, there are three different types of rapes/rapist (It is argued that there are more, but for simplicity lets focus on his theory). These different rapes are classified as the: Anger Rapist, the Sadistic Rapist, and the Power rapist. Characteristics:  Anger Rapist –  Expressing and Discharging Feelings of Pent-up Anger and Rage This rapist rapes because he is angry, long story short. His rape is more likely to use physical aggression, and/or brutality. This man on average may not be an opportunist, and target the woman who is unconscious or use drugs to get to his victim (not to say this couldn’t and hasn’t happen).  This type of victim want to get his aggression out, and would be the guy who would violently attack his victim and would WANT to overpower her, with the end goal of penetrating her. It is not about sex to these men, it is about taking his anger out on someone, and using sex as a weapon. Sadistic Rapist – Fusion of Sexuality and Aggression This rapist might as well be the scariest in my opinion, mostly because this rapist finds sexual gratification in hurting his victims. This rapist is like the anger rapist, except worst.The Sadistic Rapist finds some kind of sexual thrill in tormenting their victims, they want to see your distress, they want to see your suffering, they get off to see you in pain. They have some how turned someone’s suffering into a fetish, and they rape because they are turned on by doing so.  According to Groth “The sadistic rapist is often believed to be blatantly psychotic, but these men are usually able to conceal these impulses from others. One of the disconcerting features of such offenders is that they are often quite personable—a quality they capitalize on to gain access to unsuspecting victims.” Power Rapist – Sexual Conquest Statistically, these are the most common type of rapist that you’ll come across (from what I understand). These rapist rape because they are insecure, to over compensate for whatever they are lacking. According to Groth “The offender may say that his offense was prompted by sexual gratification, but examination of his behavior shows that he didn’t pay any attention to the woman’s receptiveness. Instead, his aim is to capture, conquer and control his victim. Consensual sex is available; this is not consensual sex.” I think on average we hear about these guys more so. These men are the men drug women, or wait for the woman who is under the influence and they RAPE her when she CANNOT consent (just one common example). Now that we understand what rape is, and the three major types of rapist, I should note that it’s not just women who get raped. Everyone can be a victim of a rape or a sexual assault, however women and children on average are more likely to be targeted. If you are a woman of color, you are even more so likely to be a victim of rape. But why is that? Why is it that women, children, and women of color are more likely to be targeted? Honestly, this is just my theory but I think it has something to do with being a minority. Realistically Women, Children, and Women of Color are minority powers (Western Focus argument). These groups of people have been oppressed historically (for far too long), and due to that oppression are seen as powerless. I think it’s safe to say very few rapist rape because they want to get into legal trouble, so why not go for the victim who is least likely to get justice? Rape a women? Say she wanted it, flip the story back on her, make it seem like she wanted it (you). I think it’s fairly well known we have a terrible legal system in America, what are the chances of a female getting justice? How can she prove it? Very few women ever collect enough evidence to convince the legal system she was raped anyway. For children, just scare them. Tell them they’ll get in trouble, make them feel like they are in danger, remind them of how helpless and powerless they are. If you aim for a child young enough, they may never be able to find the word to articulate what happened (much less have enough bravery to do so). Now if you aim for a Woman of Color, you can take the woman argument and then add onto it. When you are “Colored” there are so many more factors that come into play, at least in my opinion. The legal system might care less about you considering your skin color, if you rapist was a white male on average he is more likely to get away with it (Click HERE for an […]

TW: Rape; Sexual Assault – Why does Rape Happen?


Will the Supreme Court Ignore the Evidence? Facts vs. Beliefs in the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Case: justinspoliticalcorner: In the religious and political fervor surrounding the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties cases, which the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on any day now, three simple statements of fact about women’s health and reproduction seem to have gotten lost: Contraceptives prevent pregnancy, abortifacients terminate a pregnancy, and a pregnancy begins at implantation. So contraceptives by definition are not abortifacients because they prevent a pregnancy; if they work, there is no pregnancy to be terminated. These statements are not up for debate. They’re not subject to any “well actually” muddying of the waters. They are incontrovertible facts based in science. Nevertheless, should the Supreme Court rule in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood’s favor, and allow them to avoid their obligations under the Affordable Care Act because they are opposed to abortion-inducing drugs and they “believe” that certain emergency contraceptives qualify as such, those three factual statements will become mere matters of opinion. Undermining these basic scientific facts has been crucial to the strategy that Hobby Lobby and other corporations have employed during their holy crusade against the birth control benefit. And partisan organizations like the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the virulently anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List, are eager to assist. They conduct “research” and propagate agenda-driven nonsense from non-credible scientists, all the while ignoring and dismissing actual scientists: The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which is world renowned for being comprised of premier experts in women’s health, and whose definition of pregnancy has been the standard since 1970, for example, is dismissed as “rabidly pro-abortion.” Birth control benefit opponents obfuscate basic concepts about reproduction and women’s health. They attempt to turn a discussion about when pregnancy begins—and therefore when and how a pregnancy can be terminated—into a discussion about when life begins. But as RH Reality Check’s own Jodi Jacobson wrote in an article entitled “Life Begins At Conception. That’s Not the Point”: Human life has to begin with conception, but conception is not the same thing as pregnancy, the latter of which reason, science, and medical evidence agree begins when a fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterus and develops into a healthy embryo. Reason, science, and medical evidence are dangerous to the anti-contraception agenda. Simple biological truisms—that pregnancy begins at implantation, for instance—become, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, “Orwellian new-speak” designed to obscure the “reality” that all hormonal contraceptives potentially are abortion pills. The fact that this “reality” is actually a fantasy doesn’t matter. In pursuit of their fantasy, birth control benefit detractors dismiss any person or organization that doesn’t march in lockstep with their junk science agenda. They happily ignore that the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association, and the medical community writ large agree that emergency contraceptives are not “abortion-inducing drugs.” They ignore the legal opinions of judges like Edward Korman, who, in Tummino v. Hamburg—which ultimately required that Plan B be made available over-the-counter—called the idea that Plan B could affect implantation “scientifically unsupported speculation.”  Birth control benefit opponents even ignore people in their own camp: The official journal of the Catholic Health Association, for example, published an article stating that Plan B works only as a contraceptive and is not “abortion-inducing.” Dennis Sullivan, who is the director of the Bioethics Center at Cedarville University, and an abortion foe, published an article stating that he had found no evidence that Plan B causes abortion. He even told Christianity Today, ”Our claims of conscience should be based on scientific fact, and we should be willing to change our claims if facts change.”  That, too, doesn’t matter to birth control benefit naysayers. Given the concerted effort by anti-contraception forces to introduce as much confusion as possible to the issue of whether contraceptives cause abortion (they don’t), it is unsurprising that Hobby Lobby, and the family that owns it—the Greens—maintain beliefs about contraception that don’t reflect scientific reality. What is surprising, however, is that no court seems willing to address whether or not the beliefs held by the Greens and other plaintiffs who have filed similar lawsuits are based in fact. Hobby Lobby and the Greens make two assertions in their lawsuit. First, they allege their belief that life begins at conception and that any action that might potentially harm a fertilized egg, including any action that might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, is immoral. Second, they assert that Plan B and ella “could prevent a human embryo … from implanting in the wall of the uterus.” The first assertion is a religious belief, and the Greens are welcome to it. It’s not my place to quibble with their religious beliefs no matter how absurd I think they are. So sacred are individuals’ religious beliefs that courts rarely challenge or question them. The second assertion, however, is one of scientific fact and must be subject to court inquiry.  David Green, in an editorial for USA Today, wrote, “Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions. Which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill.” This is a scientific claim. So why hasn’t any court required Hobby Lobby or the Greens to substantiate the claim that Plan B and ella “might cause abortions”? Both the district court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals simply accepted this claim at face value. As Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe noted in her opinion dissenting from the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, “plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the abortion-causing potential of the challenged drugs are subject not only to examination but evidentiary proof.” Had any court subjected the Greens’ claims to evidentiary proof, it surely would have reached the same conclusion shared by the scientific community: None of the mandated contraceptive devices to which the Greens and Hobby Lobby object are “abortion-inducing.” As a group of health-care professionals with expertise in women’s health, including ACOG, concluded in an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court: Abortifacient has a precise meaning in the medical and […]