(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Okay now, I'm just confused - which has basically been most of my day. Confusion.

This article from The Wall Street Journal describes Gluten Sensitivity which is different than Ceiliac disease but also a nasty thing with a similar cure - off glutens.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200393522456636.html

But I couldn't tell you if I'm Celiac or Gluten Sensitive. My Aunt told me I was Celiac based on blood and history of sensitivity to glutens, but the gastro-intestinologist and the article indicates maybe Gluten Sensitive. I don't know. Probably doesn't matter. Same result in any case.

Also read various bits on LJ about that horrible gang-rape?

Go here for a summary or the New Times admitting that they screwed up royally in their reporting of it:

http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=30670

The reportage on this story and the community reaction is not only mind-bogglingly insane, but horrifying. It is also demonstrative of several things - that sexism and misogyny is so ingrained in our culture that men and women seem to be oblivious of how their actions reflect it, how the information revolution is affecting journalism, and how people will literally use anything to justify horrible actions. Also, that our culture is incredibly violent, and this is expressed through tv, books, video games, and films. Think about it for a moment - how many tv shows have you seen this week
alone that had a woman tortured, beaten, raped, or referred to it in some way? How many news broadcasts or articles mentioned it? How many books? How many films are out that show it?

What surprises me - is that the reportage on the case by both liberal and conservative media sources focused on the age of the victim. 18 men raped an 11 year old Latino girl. Now...what is the most horrifying word in that sentence to you?

Let's change the sentence :

18 men raped a gay man.

18 men raped a 25 year old Latino woman.

A man raped an 50 year old Latino girl.

An 11 year old boy raped an 11 year old girl.

Note the only word that stays the same is the word "rape".

Now, statutory rape isn't really rape - since the victim often has consented to the sex and merely is too young to be considered capable of consenting. It's used a lot - because it's easier to prove statutory rape because all you really need is a)evidence of sexual intercourse or sexual activity, and b)a birth certificate. Example - a woman was arrested in Long Island for having sex with her 15 year old student on charges of "statutory rape" - he was 15, she was 25. After she got out of prison, they moved in together. Another example is Roman Polanski - where they plead down to statutory rape even though evidence of actual rape was present. But it was easier to get him on the statutory rape charges for a lot of reasons, which I don't want to go into, because the case is over 45 years old and the information not clear. But that's statutory rape. Another example - Angel sleeping with Buffy is statutory rape in California - he slept with her when she turned 17. 18 is legal age. Or say Dawn slept with Xander when she was 14 - that is statutory rape. And yes, I agree the legal term is confusing. But the legal definition of rape is not the same as the medical definition, any more than consent is the same. For consent to be provided legally - both individuals must be conscious and mentally competent or capable of making an informed decision. And lawyers can argue the meaning of each of those words.

I don't know about anyone else - but this is not just statutory rape. This is rape with a captial R, all the horrifying bits and pieces included. It's the movie Accused - except with an 11 year old in the Jodi Foster role. Do you have any idea what it must be like to be forced to have sex with 18 men?
That poor girl's insides must be in ribbons. And how painful? Not to mention traumatizing. There's no justification for that. None. That's a hate crime. They did that because of hate. It's a crime of monsters or demons. My immediate response is castrate the fuckers (sorry its an appropriate curse word)! Even though I know that's not a good response. The other is the punishment should fit the crime. But I don't believe in an eye for an eye. And I do believe in karma...but hate crimes do tend to elicit hateful albeit righteously hateful responses.


Most of my rage though is directed to the media covering this and the community, specifically the mothers of those boys. Meanwhile in Japan, which is ravaged by an earthquake, a tsuanmi, and a potential nuclear disaster - the people over there are demonstrating civility, kindness, and grace.
This proves human beings are capable of being both angels and demons.

Comments

[ishtar79.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've also been beyond horrified at that rape case. Both at the actual heinous crime, and at the subsequent response from the community and the media-talking about those "boys" having their lives destroyed (yes, I know some of them were underaged, but in my book, if you're old enough to rape, you're old enough to deal with big boy consequences), slut-shaming the little girl (and this would have been reprehensible even if they'd gang-raped an adult prostitute. But implying that a CHILD was "asking for it" is a special kind of evil), blaming the victim's mother (here's a thought, what about the perpetrators' parents? Do they feel real proud, having raised monsters).

Gah. I'll stop before I degenerate into an incoherent rage rant.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yep, I can't think about it without falling into rage. I ranted about it for fifteen - twenty minutes over the phone with my mother tonight, who was horrified and shocked.