Author: has written 239 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

42 Responses

  1. AGP
    AGP January 16, 2014 at 2:26 am |

    I hate all the things. Especially the stupid things.

  2. Echo Zen
    Echo Zen January 16, 2014 at 5:03 am |

    I don’t see the problem here. All I’ve ever wanted was for other Republicans to be as open and forthright as this one, about what they really think of women.

  3. Chataya
    Chataya January 16, 2014 at 8:54 am |

    unlike, of course, same-sex marriage, which has never happened in history before ever.

    Everyone knows that The Gays were spawned by bra burning feminists in the 70s.

    1. macavitykitsune
      macavitykitsune January 16, 2014 at 9:03 am |

      WE ARE PHOENIX. SPEAK OUR SACRED NAME, ELGEEBEETEE. WHISPER IT IN FEAR.

      WE RISE FROM THE ASHES OF BURNT BRAS, SCREAMING OUR GAYGENDA INTO THE SKIES, AND TAKE FLIGHT WITH THE WHIRRING SOUND OF THE SPINNING BODIES OF DEAD CIS STRAIGHT MEN.

      FEAR US.

      1. pseudalicious
        pseudalicious January 16, 2014 at 9:19 am |

        I want this on a cross-stitch.

      2. DannyChameleon
        DannyChameleon January 16, 2014 at 11:01 am |

        This is my new motto.

      3. PrettyAmiable
        PrettyAmiable January 16, 2014 at 12:39 pm |

        Week’s over. I’m fairly certain I will neither read nor hear anything better than this comment. I think we can all go home now.

      4. Echo Zen
        Echo Zen January 16, 2014 at 4:49 pm |

        This deserves to be on Tumblr.

      5. macavitykitsune
        macavitykitsune January 17, 2014 at 1:13 pm |

        Awww, y’all. ♥

  4. Jeff
    Jeff January 16, 2014 at 4:00 pm |

    “did not know how on earth you could validly get a conviction of a husband-wife rape, when they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie, and so forth, there’s no injury, there’s no separation or anything.”

    This statement comes off harsh and presumptuous(Republicans are far from politically correct), but if you don’t twist the words than it is obvious where he is coming from. A legal standpoint. Basically, how on earth could you get a conviction from a he said she said case without any proof whatsoever. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

    Although I believe in pro choice, I myself am pro life. However, why should I have to pay for a non-rape victim’s abortions? Abortions after rape make up less than 1% of the U.S abortions. That is 99% of women who have abortions due to non-violent experiences. For every year, 47% of these women have had at least 1 abortion prior. I’d be happy to pay taxes toward rape victims and women under 18, but the rest, no. Life is filled with lessons and consequences, they are grown women who need to take responsibility for their choices.

    There are much better and more humane ways to fight over population and poverty than abortion.

    1. macavitykitsune
      macavitykitsune January 16, 2014 at 4:05 pm |

      I find your statements here:

      Basically, how on earth could you get a conviction from a he said she said case without any proof whatsoever.

      and here:

      I’d be happy to pay taxes toward rape victims and women under 18, but the rest, no. Life is filled with lessons and consequences, they are grown women who need to take responsibility for their choices.

      Personally I think that any man who marries a woman should be prepared for the possibility of being accused of marital rape at any time. Life is filled with lessons and consequences, they are grown men who need to take responsibility for their choices. If they didn’t want to be accused of marital rape, they could just have not gotten married. No unmarried people have been accused of marital rape! Have these married rapists thought about that? Huh? Huh? HUH?

      1. macavitykitsune
        macavitykitsune January 16, 2014 at 4:06 pm |

        I meant to say I find them contradictory.

    2. ldouglas
      ldouglas January 16, 2014 at 4:17 pm |

      We need a giraffe here.

      [thank you for sending a giraffe alert ~ mods]

    3. DannyChameleon
      DannyChameleon January 16, 2014 at 4:33 pm |

      So Jeff,

      you are saying that if a woman is married she

      A.) Shouldn’t be allowed to qualify her partner having sex with her, against her wishes as rape, and therefore

      B.) Should not be allowed access to abortion when she becomes pregnant as a result.

      Yeah. I’ve heard this before.

    4. Ally S
      Ally S January 16, 2014 at 4:35 pm |

      Basically, how on earth could you get a conviction from a he said she said case without any proof whatsoever. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

      Where the hell did you get the idea that it’s necessarily a he-said-she-said case? There is no reason to assume that. Also, I’m really, really tired of the phrase “he-said-she-said.”

      There are much better and more humane ways to fight over population and poverty than abortion.

      Such as depriving fertile DFAB people of their bodily autonomy. Perfect solution!

      1. PrettyAmiable
        PrettyAmiable January 16, 2014 at 8:01 pm |

        Also, I’m really, really tired of the phrase “he-said-she-said.”

        SO MUCH THIS. I seem to remember this being used in elementary school when kids in the class got into fights, but as an adult, I’ve literally only ever heard the phrase used as a justification for why no one gives a flying eff about victims of assault.

    5. tigtog
      tigtog January 16, 2014 at 4:44 pm | *

      “did not know how on earth you could validly get a conviction of a husband-wife rape, when they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie, and so forth, there’s no injury, there’s no separation or anything.”

      This statement comes off harsh and presumptuous(Republicans are far from politically correct), but if you don’t twist the words than it is obvious where he is coming from. A legal standpoint. Basically, how on earth could you get a conviction from a he said she said case without any proof whatsoever. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

      It certainly comes off as full of presumptions as to limiting scenarios in which juries might be asked to decide whether the law might apply.
      1. “when they’re living together” – so he’s presuming that ‘marital rape’ doesn’t happen when people are living apart even though still married?
      2. “sleeping in the same bed” – so he’s presuming that ‘marital rape’ doesn’t happen when people are sleeping apart?
      3. “she’s in a nightie” – so he’s presuming that ‘marital rape’ doesn’t happen when the wife is not in a nightie?
      4. “there’s no injury” – so he’s presuming that ‘marital rape’ doesn’t result in injuries?
      5. “there’s no separation or anything” – - so he’s presuming that ‘marital rape’ doesn’t happen when a couple is legally separated but still married?
      So he wants to deny people who do have evidence supporting their accusation of marital rape the right to have the charges evaluated by a jury just because some cases of marital rape might not have supporting evidence of their claims? Isn’t that the sort of thing traditionally decided by prosecutors regarding the strength of a case rather than a legislator deciding that it’s just too hard to have any sort of law about it at all?

      1. Jeff
        Jeff January 16, 2014 at 6:31 pm |

        1. “when they’re living together”. I don’t see it written anywhere that he states “marital rape doesn’t happen when people are living apart”. From what I understand, separation would be considered a break from marriage, a sign that things are not going well.

        2. “sleeping in the same bed” –

        so he’s presuming that ‘marital rape’ doesn’t happen when people are sleeping apart?

        Again, I think he is emphasizing that the marriage had no visual fractures.

        3. “she’s in a nightie”

        A stupid statement, but the same as before.

        4. “there’s no injury” –

        so he’s presuming that ‘marital rape’ doesn’t result in injuries?

        Many rapes result in injury. Bruising, blood under the nails, and vaginal scaring are very common. That is not to say that all rapes go without injury, however, that isn’t the point. The point is, to convict, we need actual proof.

        5. “there’s no separation or anything”

        Again, he’s showing how a prosecution doesn’t have anything to work with.

        So he wants to deny people who do have evidence supporting their accusation of marital rape the right to have the charges evaluated by a jury just because some cases of marital rape might not have supporting evidence of their claims?”

        “and/or the rapist caused physical injury to the victim. ”

        I see nowhere that it states that if you have evidence that your claim of rape is denied. Matter of fact, what it is saying is that you must HAVE evidence.

        Imagine if you were the one on trial for a case in which there was no evidence. Imagine if anyone could say that anybody did anything. Not only would it ruin lives but it would be a devastating blow to our taxes and legal system.

        1. tigtog
          tigtog January 17, 2014 at 1:04 pm | *

          Witness testimony IS evidence, you fool.

        2. smrnda
          smrnda January 18, 2014 at 9:21 pm |

          There is a big difference between saying “if a crime like this happens, there won’t be much evidence and a conviction will be hard to get” and saying “this action must be excluded from being considered a crime *because* it’s going to be hard to get a conviction.” The latter seems rather self-defeating.

        3. Freemage
          Freemage January 24, 2014 at 6:37 pm |

          Jeff, there is a vast, vast difference between “anyone can say anything they want” and accepting a woman’s description of events that happen to her.

          Comparisons to non-violent crime are inherently odious in rape cases, but sometimes necessary when speaking to people who fail to comprehend some very, very basic points.

          Thus: We have a case where a man has a large stack of money in his pocket. A woman claims the man stole the money from her; the man claims that no, she gave it to him. So long as there is no dispute about whether or not the money was hers originally, there’s very few courts that would deny that she was also most likely telling the truth about the money being stolen, so the man would be convicted of theft.

          Yet, for some reason, you feel that if a woman testifies she did not consent to sex, she should suddenly be subjected to an additional layer of skepticism about what happened–one that would never be applied in the earlier scenario, at least not without some evidence on the part of the defendant. Why do you feel so strongly that women are inherently inclined to lie about sex, and in particular, sex within a marriage?

    6. EG
      EG January 16, 2014 at 4:54 pm |

      I’d be happy to pay taxes toward rape victims and women under 18, but the rest, no. Life is filled with lessons and consequences, they are grown women who need to take responsibility for their choices.

      Hmm. Well, I’d be happy to pay taxes toward abortions for women in need, but the various wars in the middle east, corporate welfare, and paying the salaries of legislators like this asshole, no.

      Funny thing, nobody gives me a choice. So why do you think your preferences deserve to be catered to?

      Or, how about this:

      I’d be happy to pay taxes toward emergency care for somebody who was hit by a car, but people who are injured while voluntarily playing football or skiing, no. These are grown people who need to take responsibility for their choices.

      1. DannyChameleon
        DannyChameleon January 16, 2014 at 5:06 pm |

        I’d be happy to pay taxes toward emergency care for somebody who was hit by a car, but people who are injured while voluntarily playing football or skiing, no. These are grown people who need to take responsibility for their choices.

        I like this.

        1. EG
          EG January 16, 2014 at 5:15 pm |

          Thanks! Apparently half the adult population should either refrain from sex or make perfect decisions about it every single time, and that’s fine, but manly sports are sacrosanct. God forbid we should apply the same standards of responsibility.

    7. EG
      EG January 16, 2014 at 4:56 pm |

      Abortions after rape make up less than 1% of the U.S abortions.

      Citation needed, I believe. How would you know? Doctors don’t demand this information of women hooked up to lie-detectors before performing abortions, you know. And if they did? It would be covered by doctor-patient confidentiality.

    8. whistlewren
      whistlewren January 16, 2014 at 6:23 pm |

      So we have a new resident troll. That’s always fun.

    9. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
      The Kittehs' Unpaid Help January 16, 2014 at 6:32 pm |

      Basically, how on earth could you get a conviction from a he said she said case without any proof whatsoever. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

      So you’re saying it defaults to believing the man.

      Colour me surprised.

      It may shock you, but marital rape is recognised in laws all around the place – even in the US!

      1. SunlessNick
        SunlessNick January 16, 2014 at 9:10 pm |

        So you’re saying it defaults to believing the man.

        Even if you interpret that sentence at face value, you’d have trouble getting a conviction for any crime without evidence. But that doesn’t mean marital rape shouldn’t be a crime.

    10. Karak
      Karak January 16, 2014 at 10:49 pm |

      I think men who have sex in ways I don’t approve of should have their testicles removed. Why should I, as a taxpayer, have to deal with the consequences if their actions? By mutilating strangers, I feel good about myself.

      Think about the fact that a lot of commenters here either have had or know someone’s who’s had an anortion, you smug bag of farts.

      1. shfree
        shfree January 16, 2014 at 11:22 pm |

        And for crying out loud if I could just pay taxes on the shit I thought was important, damn, I would be a LOT happier. Screw you, Wall Street! But no, no one gets to cherry pick where their tax money goes. Why do people think that they do when it comes to welfare, other social aids and nothing else?

    11. smrnda
      smrnda January 18, 2014 at 9:14 pm |

      The dismissal of all rape that isn’t a stranger with a weapon jumping out of the bushes and causing lots of visible injuries as ‘he said she said’ is one of the reasons why rape has such a low conviction rate, and such a low reporting rate.

  5. Comrade Kevin
    Comrade Kevin January 17, 2014 at 11:21 am |

    Ewww. A senator in a vagina? Point that thing somewhere else.

  6. Athenia
    Athenia January 17, 2014 at 11:24 am |

    Recently, there was some sort of Dateline episode where a husband was abusive towards his wife; she was told that she should record their conversations as evidence—she ended up recording him raping her. So, yes, you can actually prove a husband has raped his wife with evidence that it was rape and not just sex.

    This woman also got a law passed denying convicted spouses of abuse alimony.

    On the bright side Republicans, she also bought a gun to protect herself! /sarcasm

  7. Bastet
    Bastet January 17, 2014 at 7:30 pm |

    OMG! This is so archaic. It effectually denies poor women access to abortion and married women the right to bodily autonomy. Disgusting and heartless legislation.

  8. Anna
    Anna January 19, 2014 at 2:57 pm |

    The thing that amazes me about marital-rape deniers is that they don’t seem to grasp the concept of domestic violence — and that rape can be an aspect of it. And that domestic violence can happen when a couple is living together, not separated, and can be perpetrated without any visible injuries.

  9. Bastet
    Bastet January 19, 2014 at 3:47 pm |

    Honestly, I think it’s hard to get a conviction in all cases of rape because two things need to be proven. The first; that sex took place. The second; that it was forced.

    If ‘hard to get a conviction’ is grounds to deny legal protection and due process then the precedent is a very dangerous one. It could be expanded to all cases of rape that didn’t have witnesses. We wouldn’t dream of using this precedent against muggings without witnesses, home invasion without witnesses, street violence without witnesses etc

    Lets see what that scenario looks like:
    *Evidence shows sex with injuries occured but the evidence doesn’t prove the parties didn’t want to be injured. No due process.
    *Evidence shows the wallet is missing but it cannot prove you didn’t want to give it away. No due process.
    *Evidence shows the home has been broken into but it can’t prove the owner didn’t WANT to be burgled. No due process.
    *Evidence shows this person was beaten and injured but we cannot ascertain if they wanted to be beaten or not. No due process.

    As soon as we apply the same ‘logic’ to any other crime the fallacy becomes obvious. We have been trained to view rape as somehow different, underserving of police and court time. This is, in my opinion, the very essence of the problem.

    1. ldouglas
      ldouglas January 19, 2014 at 3:52 pm |

      So I agree with your broader point re: how terrible the logic is of “hard to prove, therefore legal,” but I do think there’s another key difference- unlike having your home burgled or being beaten up, sex is, the vast majority of the time, something people do consensually.

      1. Freemage
        Freemage January 24, 2014 at 6:48 pm |

        So is transferring money. I buy things, in exchange for other things. I occasionally give small amounts of money to charities, or even to random strangers on the street. Yet if I point to someone and say, “That person took my money, against my will!”, no one turns to me and says, “Are you sure you didn’t just let him think you wanted him to have it?”

        1. Bastet
          Bastet January 24, 2014 at 8:21 pm |

          Thank-you! This is my point exactly. We’ve been trained to view rape differently to other crimes. I’m so glad someone else sees this too.

  10. Bastet
    Bastet January 19, 2014 at 5:04 pm |

     “…unlike having your home burgled or being beaten up, sex is, the vast majority of the time, something people do consensually.”

    People give consent to others coming into their home, rhey give money to charity, help someone out in financial difficulty, give away property to friends, family, neighbors and charity. People willingly enter fights. These things all happen with consent.

    The fact that sex happens with consent is no grounds to deny due process in cases of rape no matter how hard it is to prove. Vaginal or anal yearing, bruises, scrapes, scratches etc cannot be routinely passed off as, ‘she must be kinky and love rough sex’. Again, lets apply this to a street beating scenario- ‘He got into fights at school and was reprimanded on several occasions. A college friend can testify to a bar brawl after heavy drinking that resulted in a black eye. He had been drinking on the night of the alleged assault. With his history of consensual fighting we cannot prove he didn’t engage in this fight willingly and after it got a little out of hand he now just has post-fight remorse. There is no reason to waste police and court time on this very hard to prove allegation. Due process denied.’

    1. ldouglas
      ldouglas January 19, 2014 at 5:44 pm |

      The fact that sex happens with consent is no grounds to deny due process in cases of rape no matter how hard it is to prove.

      Yeah, I’m not arguing it is. You’re not responding to my post, here.

      People give consent to others coming into their home,

      And in the case that the burglar was a friend or family member, it could be tough to prove.

      they give money to charity,

      Not sure charities do much burgling/.

      give away property to friends, family, neighbors and charity.

      And again, those situations could make it tough to prosecute theft.

      People willingly enter fights.

      Yeah, a person with a history of assault might have a tough time proving they were assaulted.

      My only point is that rape is typically harder to prosecute than most other crimes primarily because it’s the nonconsenual version of something that almost always is done with consent, and that by it’s nature, it’s rare for there to be witnesses. The fact that you can think of exceptions isn’t particular relevant.

  11. Bastet
    Bastet January 19, 2014 at 5:07 pm |

    I have to add here, of course innocent until proven guilty is an important part of the judicial process. So is having access to the judicial process.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.