Slut shaming in the Buffalo News?

Dick, you're forgetting that we are not arguing about what's evidence in a criminal investigation. We are arguing about what's responsible to print.

 

Who titled this thread ?

 

They think if they repeat the lingo enough times no one will notice their arguments make no sense. Saul Alinksy would be proud.

 

Dick Whitman started this thread with the phrase "slut shaming" in the title.

 

And "victim blaming" in the first post.

 

"It's likely enough that the woman at the bar is the woman who genuinely believes she was raped even though there is no evidence that her wounds were caused in the course of a rape and could just have likely been caused by rough sex with Patrick Kane, although we don't know if Patrick Kane actually touched her, nor do we know if she's actually the same woman. Let's go with it."
— Editor Dick Whitman, The Buffalo News

 

You can actually just use the real name of the Buffalo News editor, who went with it all.

 

Anyone else been reduced to tears?

 

I'm all wrung out.

Thoughts?

 

To expand a little bit on the "genuinely believe" comment that had everyone on the side of the angels up in arms:

Ever since we had rape day in Criminal Law, and probably peaking with l'affair Rolling Stone, this crime has been pretty fascinating to me. I don't really care about back alley bogeyman rape. But date and acquaintance rape is really interesting, because it seems so incredibly unlikely. It would be about the only crime that I can think of that is committed by someone the victim knows, in the open. The perpetrators can't just slink off into the night, like a burglar. They pin their hopes on the idea that the victim won't report the crime to the police, and that's a pretty thin reed upon which to hang your future. Even if there isn't enough to charge, you have to go through the process of being investigated for rape, which can't be a picnic. And even if the woman doesn't tell the police, she likely will tell friends, and you now get to walk through your days wondering who knows and who doesn't. All for five minutes with a woman who isn't participating? Why would anyone take that risk, especially in the case of a celebrity like Patrick Kane, who is even less likely to disappear into the woodwork afterward, and has so much to lose.

And yet, it happens, right? It happens with alarming frequency, even if you dismiss the 1 in 5 statistic.

Aside from the occasional Jackie, screaming for attention, or revenge-minded person like Conner Oberst's accuser, women basically have no incentive to make this up. Maybe some of them embellish details because they believe they were raped, and want to make sure it sounds like rape. But I can't imagine any but an almost insignificant fraction downright invent a rape. Even Jackie didn't name a specific individual. And she didn't go to the police. At the same time, I'm willing to bet that a huge percentage of the men feel just as strongly that they didn't commit the crime, due to all the factors I discussed above: Basically, faced with all that, why would they?

I have to guess that in the vast majority of cases, men mistake giving in for consent. But I don't know how you'd study that.

 

Dick, maybe the test should be it's rape if the woman doesn't have an orgasm.

Wait. I think I'm gonna need a good lawyer.

 

No, it's not. It's pretty close to standard operating procedure on the part of the would-be accused. Whether through slut-shaming or other means, both before the accusation is made and after. It's kind of a big part of the problem.

"Let's try to remember who the real victims are in all of this."

They don't get to make that decision. You're venturing into "everyone in here is innocent," Shawshank Redemption shtick.

Third-party investigations of credible accusations of wrongdoing are kind of a bedrock of our justice system.