On this thing called "rape culture"

LarryC wrote:

DSGamer:

Again, I am not conversant with that practice. I'm aware that that is how it is, but what's the use of it? If you can dissolve a marriage at any time through the right legal proceedings, and it's only exactly what two people describe it to be between them, what's the difference between marriage and a pinky swear? The white dress?

Sometimes there isn't much difference. I think that's what makes it beautiful. Some people think marriage is stupid and they're free not to marriage and I don't judge them. Some people marry in their 60s. They're not having kids. They just want love and companionship as they continue living out their lives. I think that's beautiful, kids or no kids. To some people marriage is indeed a sacred religious bond and I think that's beautiful as well.

I like the idea, basically, of two adults committing to each other and deciding for themselves what level of meaning that has. My wife and I crafted our own vows and had a fairly traditional wedding. Over time our marriage itself has involved, but the ritual and the things we do that make our relationship different than just "shacking up" definitely matter to us. However, I don't put that judgement on anyone else. In fact, as I'm agnostic, it's not a religious thing to me. It's also not about children for us. It's a deeply personal vow between the two of us to care for one another on every level as long as we live.

In other words marriage has evolved in many countries to be what you want it to be. When the issue of gay marriage comes up I think about this and how the state should probably just sanction civil unions. The state should hand out "civil union" papers to gay or straight couples and then allow the couples to decide if they want to have their own ceremony in a catholic church, courthouse, Church of Elvis or whatever. Who am I to say what their marriage is and how they should go about being happy?

Edited: Took me so long to write this that it was no longer relevant. Hurrah for the delete key!

LarryC:

Now I can't say that we are perfect. Not by far. The biggest hurdle we have, in my opinion at least, is that we still have not, as a people, come to a consensus that women can like sex, have sex, just as much as the guys and get a pat on the back for it. Women who enjoy sex are considered "slutty" and "promiscuous" and men who enjoy lots of sex are called "studs." One is pejorative and the other is celebratory and that mentality feeds heavily into the inherent inequity that still exists. It is also what perpetuates a "rape" culture to a large degree. Once those two perceptions of female versus male sexuality are on equal terms, 90% percent of the battle has been won. Even in the prison "rape" culture, bottoms are called "punks" and "bitches" and they are treated like "girlfriends" to some degree. I bet the same thing applies in female prisons as well. The top (rapist) is likely the "butch" and the bottom (victim) is probably the "bitch."

We also still respect the "sanctity" of the family far too much. Abusive husbands get slaps on the wrist and abused children are often trapped with their family's, as well. My wife used to work for a background checking agency in college and she was appalled about how many men avoided jail and punishment, despite repeatedly beating their girlfriends, wives, and children. That is f*cked up and expresses an underlying inequality in how we see women and their role as the subservient wife. Also, if that abused woman decided one day to pick up a gun and end her husband for good, she would be considered, "crazy" and "hysterical!" If a man kills a guy who raped him, I think most people would think the man perfectly sane and call it justice.

So, I will judge your culture just as I judge mine. I am not trying to keep score or say we are better. I am criticizing though, just as I criticize my own culture. I know you think I am ethnocentric, but, again, I am not. I am just calling it as I see. When inequity is codified into law and accepted as progressive, I will call bullsh*t.

It would be far easier to have this argument in person with a few fingers of scotch. We might find more common ground than you think. Words on the page sound much harsher than words in the air, especially over the internet.

Farscry:

That's okay. I tend to have thick skin in general, or so I imagine. Calling me naive won't offend me, and particularly when you present new data. If I were offered a sexual assault study that was authoritative and that I haven't seen before, I'd have thanked you a lot. It's hard for a Filipino to gather data on his fellows because he's always assumed to have some agenda related to his clan or affiliation, and that's not entirely without basis.

My primary point was that rape culture here is centered around abuse of guardianship powers and around child prostitution. A well-dressed, healthy looking, sexy girl might get raped at knifepoint in the downtown slums, but it's extremely unlikely. The slum-goers generally know better than to mess with what could be the scion of a powerful family. They'd get massacred. Literally - as in tons of dead people massacred.

Kier:

Hm...

I'll try to provide context as much as I can. It's a complex set of differences.

In the Philippines it's said that marriages involve two families, not two people. That's largely true. Before marriage, you go to the guy's parents and associate with them, and they get to know your folks and all that. This is not precisely a friendly get-together or just saying hi, though most try to maintain a casual atmosphere. Marriage between your kid and someone else's kid means that you and the parent of the other kid are now related, and that comes with its own set of social obligations, observances, and so forth. It's important to get to know the other parties so as to establish the desirability of the connection.

It is not unknown for a girl or a guy to call off marriage because of irreconcilable familial differences. It's better to stay unmarried than to start a potentially violent conflict.

We are people of family. When we say that family means a lot to us, it means that a Filipino without a clan - without a family - he's weak and alone by comparison. Even expat Pinoys maintain family connections and can always expect to go home and find free lodgings and meals, if they really, really need it. My first cousins and I - nearly 20 of us - maintain close ties with each other and we are close enough that copies of say, inFamous, gets passed around freely. I don't care who has it. If it's in the family, it's still in my possession. I know many of my second cousins and some of my third cousins, along with related aunts and uncles and so on.

Not every family is that friendly. I know of families who have had fatal internal feuds surrounding properties. That said, they are not apathetic. You are close to your family - whether that closeness is ultimately based on love or hate or rivalry depends on the unit.

Enough context.

Given that state of affairs, you can imagine that any wife of mine will have frequent and inevitable social contact with all of my brothers, my sister, all my cousins, and all my aunts and uncles of the first degree, and significant contact with those relations of mine of the second degree. Properties that come to her or to me affect both her family and mine, and losses affect both families likewise. It is in their best interests, socially, and financially, to vet any potential candidate, and it is to my best interests to select a mate who won't ruffle too many feathers.

A marriage in this case is a formal and strong binding commitment because it binds many people together - not just the two of us who are immediately engaged in the affair. If my wife suffers because I'm not satisfying her sexually, she takes it out on everyone around her, intentionally or otherwise. It is in their interests to obligate me to satisfy her, and vice versa.

In short, a marriage of such strength is kind of like an adoption. It is a formal linking of families with many intersecting interests involved.

Many people opt not to be married. They stay with each other, have children (or not), and express affection and share properties - but they're not married and have no intention of becoming married. They have satisfying lives and affectionate partners and what not, I'm sure.

For my part, I agreed to be married to my wife because both her family and mine approved the connection, I was very happy with her in all ways, and the tax rebates were very attractive. Performing the religious ceremony was also convenient for religious reasons.

My wife and I were together for eight years before we were married. Our relationship with each other was established and agreed upon long before we agreed to enter the social contract. We finally entered it for the strong reason of our wanting to have kids. Legitimacy issues arise from not being married when you have children, and most of the provisions of marriage were established to safeguard the sanctity of the family unit. It made sense then to be married.

heavyfeul:

Can't drink alcohol, though. I've got gout so that'll trigger my arthritis. Maybe I'll take a shot of demerol instead.

I hope my clarification outlines the context of what I've been saying. Pinoy culture and society is defined by the web of social contracts and obligations that exist within the family units. Sexual obligations between partners is just another of these obligations. Someone who is outside of these obligations is perceived as having nothing to lose and thus is a loose cannon. He or she can do anything and there wouldn't be much in the way of social oversight. I suppose an equivalent of this is Japanese culture is the negative aspects of ronin.

heavyfeul wrote:

Women who enjoy sex are considered "slutty" and "promiscuous" and men who enjoy lots of sex are called "studs." One is pejorative and the other is celebratory and that mentality feeds heavily into the inherent inequity that still exists. It is also what perpetuates a "rape" culture to a large degree. Once those two perceptions of female versus male sexuality are on equal terms, 90% percent of the battle has been won.

I find this of interest, and a point of commonality. A similar value system is set within my culture as well, though it does have context. Women who enjoy sex are prized and valued, but only insofar as they only enjoy sex with one man or a few men serially over decades. Men who have many women are viewed positively, but there are also caveats. Namely, they're mainly idolized by other men who are unhappy with their sexual situations. Women and happily married men - not so much. I am not certain that an equal accounting of sexes would be desirable if both are praised when there are many sexual partners. That's just unhealthy, medically speaking.

heavyfeul wrote:

We also still respect the "sanctity" of the family far too much. Abusive husbands get slaps on the wrist and abused children are often trapped with their family's, as well. My wife used to work for a background checking agency in college and she was appalled about how many men avoided jail and punishment, despite repeatedly beating their girlfriends, wives, and children. That is f*cked up and expresses an underlying inequality in how we see women and their role as the subservient wife. Also, if that abused woman decided one day to pick up a gun and end her husband for good, she would be considered, "crazy" and "hysterical!" If a man kills a guy who raped him, I think most people would think the man perfectly sane and call it justice.

Going to start this off with a disclaimer to prevent misunderstanding. I am not calling my culture superior. It's just different. You decide how it's relevant to yours.

There are abusive husbands in the Philippines who beat their wives, but they are not viewed positively by anyone, male or female. As before, the perception is that if you require physical violence to get your lawfully married wife to do anything, then you must not be a very potent husband. Some women have gotten out of marriage (annulments) with gratuitous settlements just so they won't divulge that their socially or financially prominent husbands beat them down.

Generally speaking, we don't rely on the state to police husbands. Brothers and fathers do that. A wife is not estranged from her family and she is not the sole property of her husband. If her brothers or father find out that she's being beaten, there will be hell to pay. In the absence of male relatives, female relatives are not shy about defending their own. The fierce Warays and Batanguenas are not above fetching their machetes from the kitchen, if it came to it.

Wives are not viewed as subservient. Such a wife is generally perceived as weak and ineffective. A wife is a partner, often in the most literal sense in conjugal business ventures. Who else will advise a man of the stupidity of his ways if not for his wife? Who else will he listen to? A man going bad can be perceived by women to be the result of mismanagement by a wife. She should have acted and spoken better. She should have known better, since she belongs to the wiser sex. A business established by a husband will often have the wife as CEO, vice, or treasurer, usually with more actual power and doing more actual work than the position implies.

Rape occurs even in this milieu, though admittedly not in the same fashions.

heavyfeul:

heavyfeul wrote:

We also still respect the "sanctity" of the family far too much.

Been thinking about this a bunch, especially as it relates to rape culture and how it's like locally.

For us, family is for children, and the marriage institution, by extension, is for the children. It is not for sentiment nor is it for spirited proclamations of love. It is an expression of love, but it is a very specific and a very serious aspect. One does not enter into it lightly, or unadvisedly, as it is said.

Therefore, it is important to keep one's eyes on the ball, as it were, as a society, as regards governance, and as regards social convention. Marriage states are in the Family Code because marriage is for the family, and most of the provisions in it are for the creation of families and for the protection of the people in it, especially the children.

We do not legally allow divorce because the understanding is that divorce is for the purpose of allowing spouses to contract marriages with other people. Such an arrangement complicates the family environment (and familial relations!) and intrudes on social values we want the children to imbibe. Abusive husbands are supposed to be controlled by their social obligations and relations, as they have a right and a duty to do so. Where this function fails, husbands who are shown to be abusive can be separated from their wives, but not divorced since we do not want them to marry anyone else.

Allowing husbands to continue to beat their wives and children undermines the value of the family unit. This is not a show of respect for the unit, but a perversion of the unit from a nurturing institution into a power institution made for the benefit of men. The solution is not to take the husband away (unless nothing else will work), nor to take the unit apart. The cure may not be worse than the disease, but it kills the patient all the same. The solution is to install incentives and disincentives in the legal framework in order to counteract the social impetus to beat wives and children, while keeping the husband performing his regular duties.

I wholeheartedly believe in the social and long-term importance of establishing norms in children within the family unit. A boy who sees his father harming his sisters and his mother without any intervention allowed from his uncles and grandfathers learns the wrong lesson. When he grows up, he is more likely to express himself to women in similar fashion. Removing the father after the event only shows the boy the consequences, so he does it in secret or in protected situations rather than in the open.

What he needs is a template of behavior he can follow that he has been shown to be successful and functional. He can't grow up behaving properly if he hasn't been shown the instruction manual.

The perceptions I enumerated are ones I derive from what actually goes on, not what people actually say. I think most people in the US, find abuse of women abhorrent, but it still goes on to a fairly large degree. So while we espouse one view in public, in private a lot of crazy sh*t still goes on. But, there is definitely a moral majority that condemns that sort of behavior and our laws generally reflect that. With the risk of sounding elitist in a totally new way...it goes on to a greater degree in economically depressed communities, just like in other countries.

We have had a major revolution in the last 50 years in the US. Some of the big milestones include: the birth control pill and divorce in the 60's, legal abortions in the 70's, and strong feminist push into the workforce in the 80's, men becoming morally responsible, as well, for childcare during the 90's, and now it seems like we are in a new sexual revolution. The old feminism, from what I can tell, is being replace by a new feminism that embraces female sexuality in a more "sex positive" way. Basically telling women it is perfectly normal to be highly sexual, non-monogamous, and a feminist at the same time. I really think that by the time my kids are my age, that men and women will have a semblance real social equality.

I would characterize the US (at least the metropolitan areas) as very progressive, but we have a huge country geographically with tons of different cultures, so you could be in a very progressive place like Seattle, WA, but a short plane ride to Cheyenne, Wyoming will put you in a fairly conservative culture. We also having a growing Latino population, that is very Catholic and often quite conservative as well.

I guess my major point is that we have a facade of progressiveness (what we want to become), but there are still plenty of the old behavior still going on behind closed doors (what we still are). The concept we have of ourselves is still no inline with the reality of the situation. That can be dangerous, since it makes it easy to assume, "well everything is okay now, with just a few bad apples." But, the reality is we still need to make good on the promise of our public rhetoric.

At the risk of sounding superior, I'd like to comment on that. Please don't take it the wrong way. Again, I'm not in any position to say the my culture is superior or more "progressive" given how f*cked up our leadership and politics continue to be.

Broadly speaking, man-woman relationships in the flatland farms of the Philippines tends to be significantly more egalitarian than most societies between sexes, for purely pragmatic reasons. Menfolk don't have a provable advantage in farming rice compared to women, and every hand is needed at harvest time since rice needs to be harvested as quickly as humanly possible. If your wife is a mindless servant and you happened to be away at harvest time, your family is dead. That includes you.

Conversely, when not harvesting, rice farming requires surprisingly little work, so husbands are expected to help raise kids, make craftswork, and generally engage in fruitful activities for everyone's benefit.

That's as traditional as it gets where I come from. If you're not raising the kids, you better be doing something good, or you're a good-for-nothing lazy bum, regardless of your gender.

Abuse of women occurs for various reasons. I'm tempted to say that much of the institutions that make women subservient come from foreign influences, but we don't have enough of the local culture from before to really know which is which at this point. Nevertheless, the more empowered (relative to most of the world, apparently) position of women means that this mainly occurs where there is a significant disparity between the man and the woman (or vice versa). Examples of this would be in guardianship relationships, master-servant relationships, and lord-vassal relationships.

It's uncommon for a date rape to occur; menfolk don't look favorably as such tactics, and certainly the womenfolk won't stand for that. Physical abuse of girlfriends by boyfriends occur, also, but general consensus is that they're both damaged goods. Idiots, really. They'll both try to hide these incidents. Girls who are known to be abused will be highly encouraged to leave the relationship by everyone in general. The man generally receives a large social penalty. It really isn't cool.

Example:

One of our nurses was in a marriage where she mentioned that her husband was violent towards her. I told her to drive him out of the house ASAP. She agreed. Next week, they're back together. At this point, she receives social sanction for taking him back. I tell her she's an idiot for doing that. She agrees. This goes on for some time, until she eventually wises up and tells him pointblank never to return or she's going to shoot him at the doorstep as a home invader. Finally. Everyone is relieved. She receives general social commendation. They are, however, still married.

I'm not privy to other details, but the man's father did not support him in this incident. Few fathers would do so openly, since violence against women is viewed so negatively across the board. She never deserves it. He never has a right to do it. Everyone has a right to interfere if and when this happens, particularly family members who are invested in the situation.

In all truth, I cannot describe this situation as progressive because:

a. the violence is still occurring. Worse, female to male violence is also known to occur, where this seems all but unknown in your culture.
b. it's always been this way around here. No progress is occurring that I know of.

Abuse of women still occurs, but my impression is that it occurs somewhat less (unsupported by data!) because the women are just as violent as the men!

As much as I like to defend video games as being relatively harmless, I'd love to hear from other GWJers what they think of Bulletstorm. It's been getting slammed by the traditional press for combining sexually explicit language and extreme violence. I haven't played it but I'm wondering how much is hype and how much is truly offensive in the d@#kwolves manner.

I am of two minds. Largest part of me has such a Daikatana vibe that I cannot take it seriously.

But there is always that part of me that looks at it, and others of that ilk with a scowl. I do not like our community looking like the impression that those outside often view it as.

KingGorilla:

This may be a sign of my age but I'm not really going for the dudebro thing that seems to be driving Bulletstorm forward. Shooting enemies in the butt? That used to make me laugh. I'm over it. Guys swearing up and down? Used to be cool when it was forbidden me. Now, it's just annoying; like kindergarten kids who repeat the same "funny" word over and over and over, except far less cute.

For better or worse, I do not feel like part of the gamer community that likes Bulletstorm for these items, for FPS play on DA consoles, and for the general "gamer" disdain for the Wii system (which I like just fine).

As far as I can tell, that part of the community that's perceived to be somewhat crass and somewhat misogynistic actually is somewhat crass and somewhat misogynistic. Granted, I wouldn't want to be classified in the same boat, but these days there are enough people playing Farmville that I'm in little danger of that.

jdzappa wrote:

As much as I like to defend video games as being relatively harmless, I'd love to hear from other GWJers what they think of Bulletstorm. It's been getting slammed by the traditional press for combining sexually explicit language and extreme violence. I haven't played it but I'm wondering how much is hype and how much is truly offensive in the d@#kwolves manner.

Based on the quick playthrough I had of the demo, I'll happily agree with you that it's in poor taste. But that's no reason to attack it. Poor taste is *awesome* if that's what you're into.

Got some links to the stories on it? "sexually explicit language and extreme violence" covers a lot of ground.

Jonman wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

As much as I like to defend video games as being relatively harmless, I'd love to hear from other GWJers what they think of Bulletstorm. It's been getting slammed by the traditional press for combining sexually explicit language and extreme violence. I haven't played it but I'm wondering how much is hype and how much is truly offensive in the d@#kwolves manner.

Based on the quick playthrough I had of the demo, I'll happily agree with you that it's in poor taste. But that's no reason to attack it. Poor taste is *awesome* if that's what you're into.

Got some links to the stories on it? "sexually explicit language and extreme violence" covers a lot of ground.

This coverage on RPS will catch you up. As far as I know, the attacks are pretty much coming from Fox News, in that "oh noes the children" vein of manipulated controversy.

In other mainstream news, the Wall Street Journal reviewed Bulletstorm pretty favourably:

But Bulletstorm is not as ludicrous as either the media or the game studios would have you think. It has firm roots in earlier PC shooters—games like Duke Nukem 3D and Serious Sam, which set the tone for Bulletstorm by tossing hypermasculine protagonists with big guns in cartoonish worlds; and Soldier of Fortune, whose main selling point was the ability to dismember enemies with well-placed bullets. Bulletstorm is a smart and meaningful evolution of those cult classics, updating their run-and-gun antics for a modern palate. The real issue is that it doesn’t go quite far enough to create something new.

I just watched a gameplay video (albeit without sound) and the combat is very reminiscent of Serious Sam. Over the top, but not remotely realistic. Are the sound bytes in this game really so offensive? From my brief look it appears to be fairly well-trodden ground as far as FPS games go.

I meant to link this here the other day, but in the meantime it's getting more interesting.

Here's the story from yesterday: Rape victim 'inviting,' so no jail

A convicted rapist will not go to jail because a Manitoba judge says the victim sent signals that "sex was in the air" through her suggestive attire and flirtatious conduct on the night of the attack.

Kenneth Rhodes was given a two-year conditional sentence last week which allows him to remain free in the community, in a decision likely to trigger strong debate. The Crown wanted at least three years behind bars.

Queen's Bench Justice Robert Dewar called Rhodes a "clumsy Don Juan" who may have misunderstood what the victim wanted when he forced intercourse along a darkened highway outside Thompson in 2006. . . .

"This is a different case than one where there is no perceived invitation," said Dewar. "This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour."

Inconsiderate behaviour—amazingly, Judge Dewar out-Something Awful'ed Something Awful for rape euphemisms.

So obviously Dewar's comments didn't fly. Now that I get around to posting it, the story is: Judge's sex-assault remarks under review

The Canadian Judicial Council is reviewing complaints received against Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Justice Robert Dewar in regard to comments he made in recent days. . . .

An angry crowd of about 100 protesters gathered outside the Manitoba Law Courts building in Winnipeg at noon Friday demanding Dewar's resignation. . . .

The province of Manitoba has also condemned the judge's remarks.

"The sense that there is anything they could do that might deserve sexual assault is an outdated, outmoded attitude of the past and not something that their leaders share," Jennifer Howard, the province's minister responsible for the status of women, said Friday. "That's something I most strongly want to say."

How some lawyers live with themselves is beyond me:

...He said Rhodes never threatened the woman, didn't have a weapon and was simply "insensitive to the fact (she) was not a willing participant."

That just floors me.

That's a valid defense? Awesome. I'm going to go rob someone and then claim that I was just insensitive to the fact that they weren't a willing donor.

muttonchop wrote:

That's a valid defense? Awesome. I'm going to go rob someone and then claim that I was just insensitive to the fact that they weren't a willing donor.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. But if the time is a one-year curfew and having to write a letter of apology to the victim, hey go for it.

These are the cases that are all too common, and why we have public speakers and classes warning about drinking too much, going alone to someone apartment, etc. The chances of a conviction in this case are rather thin in my experience. Your two eye witnesses were drinking or drunk. Coincidental witnesses saw the pair kissing, and then go up alone. Stop me when we get to reasonable doubt. Most prosecutors will not touch this case without concrete genital trauma, DNA, and an ER report. Or at the very least, felony goes out the window.

And these are the all too common situations that we hardly hear about.

Rape culture is unfortunately named. Its most literal interpretation would seem to imply that there are 'cultures of rapists' populated by roving bands of savages. It might be more accurate to say that we can 'exist in a culture of rape', but even this is somewhat misleading and perhaps overly accusatory. I think of rape culture as a theoretical framework with which cultural norms can be contextualized and examined critically. I would have preferred to call it 'rape normalization' or something; as it stands, the first time you hear the term might be when you are accused of 'perpetuating rape culture', which may inspire you in your indignation (and ignorance) to do something hurtful involving t-shirts and gaming conventions.

Like many here, I first encountered the term very recently during the fallout from the whole dickwolves thing. I read a bunch of Shakesville and other sites, none of which I knew existed beforehand. I found a lot of the material there touching and very enlightening. There was also a bit of culture shock with all the nested brackets and trigger warnings. (Do those with PTSD troubles skip over the warned sections, or are the warnings there to give people an opportunity to prepare themselves in some way?)

Now I find myself reflecting on my appearance to other people. A few weeks before I started reading this stuff, I had to meet one-on-one with a female classmate (whom I don't know well) to help her with some software problems. I wonder now, even though we met on a small, densely-populated campus, in a meeting room with a glass wall facing the central promenade: Is my presence threatening? Had she taken any sort of precautions, mental or physical, in the event that I made some sort of inappropriate advance? For me it was a work thing and maybe an opportunity to make a new acquaintance, but for her it may have been an exercise in uncertainty and apprehension.

YOU STAY CLASSY, TEXAS.

"She lied about her age. Them boys didn't rape her. She wanted this to happen. I'm not taking nobody's side, but if she hadn't put herself in that predicament, this would have never happened," said Angie Woods, who lives in Houston but grew up in Cleveland.

The girl was eleven.

For those of you asking "where does this happen? When?", there ya go.

I have apparently lived my life on an island of sanity in what seems to be an ocean of complete insanity. Seriously, how do people who say things like that not just get punched until they learn to not be inhuman assholes?

I still don't buy that all of the things mentioned up-thread promote rape culture, but I definitely see that rape culture is, in fact, a thing. Goddamn it, people.

Prederick wrote:

For those of you asking "where does this happen? When?", there ya go.

Yeah. Exhibit A for those who don't believe "rape culture" exists.

Kraint wrote:

I have apparently lived my life on an island of sanity in what seems to be an ocean of complete insanity. Seriously, how do people who say things like that not just get punched until they learn to not be inhuman assholes?

I still don't buy that all of the things mentioned up-thread promote rape culture, but I definitely see that rape culture is, in fact, a thing. Goddamn it, people.

Agreed wholeheartedly, this sends me into a blind rage.

Kraint wrote:

I have apparently lived my life on an island of sanity in what seems to be an ocean of complete insanity. Seriously, how do people who say things like that not just get punched until they learn to not be inhuman assholes?

We don't punch people enough. Seriously. With punching being "assault" bullies get away with saying terrible things. I wouldn't mind if someone in that meeting had just cold-cocked one of the people blaming the girl.

DSGamer wrote:
Kraint wrote:

I have apparently lived my life on an island of sanity in what seems to be an ocean of complete insanity. Seriously, how do people who say things like that not just get punched until they learn to not be inhuman assholes?

We don't punch people enough. Seriously. With punching being "assault" bullies get away with saying terrible things. I wouldn't mind if someone in that meeting had just cold-cocked one of the people blaming the girl.

I wish things worked that way, but in my experience, twatting someone in the face is not an effective method of changing their mind. Quite the opposite.

Jonman wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Kraint wrote:

I have apparently lived my life on an island of sanity in what seems to be an ocean of complete insanity. Seriously, how do people who say things like that not just get punched until they learn to not be inhuman assholes?

We don't punch people enough. Seriously. With punching being "assault" bullies get away with saying terrible things. I wouldn't mind if someone in that meeting had just cold-cocked one of the people blaming the girl.

I wish things worked that way, but in my experience, twatting someone in the face is not an effective method of changing their mind. Quite the opposite.

You have to keep it up, a one-off won't get the job done. Eventually the stupid will rattle loose and fall out.

Kraint wrote:
Jonman wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Kraint wrote:

I have apparently lived my life on an island of sanity in what seems to be an ocean of complete insanity. Seriously, how do people who say things like that not just get punched until they learn to not be inhuman assholes?

We don't punch people enough. Seriously. With punching being "assault" bullies get away with saying terrible things. I wouldn't mind if someone in that meeting had just cold-cocked one of the people blaming the girl.

I wish things worked that way, but in my experience, twatting someone in the face is not an effective method of changing their mind. Quite the opposite.

You have to keep it up, a one-off won't get the job done. Eventually the stupid will rattle loose and fall out.

Yeah. That's what my little brother always says about a relative of ours that's an a-hole. His theory is that someone needs to punch him a few times to let him know that what he's doing isn't acceptable. Do it in public and humiliate him.