DexMSR said:

Of course other crimes affect the fabric of society too, I'm not saying they dont, but we are talking about one crime in particular here. I was reacting to the point made that including cultural conotations with rape somehow demeans it to the satus of mass hysteria, which I dont agree with.

I'm not saying people are not forgiven by individuals, they are. But society as a whole is much slower to forgive.

INSATIABLE said:

Very good post....actually THEY ALL ARE VERY GOOD POSTS AND I APPRECIATE THE ENERGY HERE!!!

That's just being real

INSATIABLE said:

I wasn't saying that anyone said anything remotely racist but only speaking to the hypocrisy of of not forgiving people for skeletons when it is clear that people in this country, in several different cases, has selective amnesia.

To make a better point (I think) I'll use Roman Polnaski. He raped a young girl, yet millions of people went to go see his films and he received a standing ovation as he won the Oscar for best director for The Pianist some years ago.

novabrkr said:[quote]

JustErin said:

I think you skipped a lot of posts in this thread.

To generalize and say that those that are the most outspoken on the subject are the most ignorant and have not experienced it themselves is something I disagree with. I think it just means that they have learned to somewhat deal with what has happened to them and feel strongly about trying to help others that have been through it.

SureThing said:

JustErin said:

What is a friend to do??

SHANNA said:

Just be a friend and be there if they choose to talk about it. That's all you can do.
[Edited 1/24/07 10:19am]

JustErin said:

Stymie said:

Sad.

I am also proof that victims of sexual abuse can live repaired, wholesome lives. Additionally, I don't personally know whether either Cleaver or Polanski truly repented (for lack of a better word) for their crimes, but it pains me to see people picking sides when it comes to racial issues. It's as productive as stabbing yourself in the chest, in my likely ignorant opinion.

INSATIABLE said:

Actually, I don't see this issue as a racial one at all. As far as repenting, Mr. Polanski still lives outside the US becaues he refuses to stand trial for his crime.

And no opinion of yours is ignorant.

SHANNA said:

Just listen, I guess.

And I wanted to clarify, cuz I dunno if I mislead you.

I wasn'nt saying EVERY woman has been FULL OUT raped.

I was just saying that a lot of women (I'm sure its most) have had some guy try to fondle you before yuo even knew it was wrong.

Or have a group of young boys make you take your clothes off when you were a kid.

Or get drunk and have some go try to F ya when your passed out.

Whatever. Those experiences are less traumatic (to me) than being raped, and have happened to us all.

Thats all I was sayin.

Stymie said:

Monstrous.

SureThing said:

jone70 said:

Malcolm X went to prison for burglary, I think people viewed his crimes as being more to do with being a disaffected youth than a serious criminal. Of course burglary is serious, (ask the victims) but I think that his crimes were overlooked because they were perceived as the behaviour of a young guy born into poverty and reacting to his surroundings. I dont know, thats just a thought....I could be completely wrong.

LleeLlee said:

Thanks for your input! But could one argue that Cleaver's raping (esp. white) women was also the result of a someone born into poverty and reacting to his surroundings? I don't have the book at work w/me, but iirc, he did it as a way to 'get back' at white mens' treatment and abuse of black women throughout US history. Not saying that is right, or even logical, but (again iirc), that was his reasoning. Also, I'd guess that Malcom was burglarizing more white homes than black--but was that a conscious decision or a result of class, environment, etc?

JustErin said:

Well sorry, I personally only found one comment that very briefly mentioned the potential of men being sexually abused as well (and that wasn't reactionary in the sense I depicted), that's not a strong reaction by most standards. Maybe there were more, but I still can't find them. The other one was posted while I was writing my response. It comes after my first comment.

But yes, from my experience what I've read of articles on the subject matter it could be easily said that the most heated ones have no idea what they are talking about. They are usually demanding incredibly harsh penalties for rapists ("remove their penises!" - if that isn't a sign of mass hysteria, I don't know what is). It's very common even to voice out things such as "rape is worse than murder". Which is complete garbage and shows how little belief people in general have in life.


[...]

(what's written below is not a personal response to JustErin anymore, just some general thoughts - read it if you have the patience to try to understand what I am talking about here)

It's not even the fact that individuals could be seriously physically harmed that people are so concerned over, the only thing that shines through it is the bottom line: sexual abuse involves sexuality. In sexual abuse you lose your own right to control it, quite simply put, and that is what is feared on a daily basis (yes, by women as the vast majority). Of course, our sexuality is so much more than matters related to sex. Remaining in control of our own sexuality is at the core what we are controlling about ourselves anyway. It's about controlling wants.

This is basically why the reactions are so incredibly strong. And also because like it has been articulated here (differently): as the act bears so strongly the simple signifier of "rape" as "women's right for their own sexuality taken away by men" the group of potential victims is as vast it gets. Likewise the number of potential abusers is just as big. So in such a vast potentiality the collective of everybody is a participant of a singular act of abuse. This is because the victim has been simply named as a "woman" and the abuser simply as a "man", there are no further efforts of distinction between what it takes for something like this to materialize, in different kinds of "criminal" cases the participants have something completely else to offer than their sexuality (sexuality is empty in that sense, it's not a chosen role like the role of a shopkeeper's is). But this comes down to the participants being purely representatives of their own sex, which of course is unfair because you never know what is going to happen tomorrow to you, just because you happen to carry with you a mark of your own gender wherever you go. And indeed as such it has every characteristic of an on-going mass hysteria (using again the world LleeLlee introduced) that will never likely cease to exist in any historical situation.

Mind you, my own reaction to the mere surfacing of the word "rape" is pretty much just as strong as the ones that I am criticizing here. And all it takes really is the mere WORD. Otherwise I wouldn't be taking all this time to respond to these posts, by giving it a bit more theoretic rationalization. Which is of course what I feel I can offer to these kind of discussion on my own part. Like I said the thing that frustrates us the most about an act of abuse is that we aren't able to experience it (like another person could), and it's what upsets men participating in these discussions: you really can't say anything in regard with women being abused my men (which is of course the single most common association with the word "rape"). There is no way to really potentially experience the situation in the exact same frame.

But let's get one thing clear for everybody - stop talking about the problematic nature of rape as first and foremost as a "crime". It's not the fact that it's classified as a crime that makes it such a volatile subject. Yes sure, it's a crime but I usually find people easily classifying it with that word because it's too hard to find other words to formally refer to it. Its outlawed nature is totally secondary to it, people are easily able to distinct a violent act as unethical even as its not coded into law. Here lies one of the biggest problems with the phenomenon, in my own opinion. It's not something that can be formalized adequately, yet its punitive applications are completely based on a formalized moral code. And the fact remains that any sexual act, consential or abusive, doesn't abide any efforts of conceptualization. That is why it is sexual, because it cannot take place within the spoken frame of our being. These two aspects of the phenomenon do not match, and that's why some individuals will openly voice a commandment "to cut off their penises". To cut off their physical form of sexuality altogether, to stop them from simply being the most feared norm of human males.

"Cleaver infamously acknowledges raping several white women, which he defended as "an insurrectionary act." He also admitted that he began his career as a rapist by "practicing on black girls in the ghetto." "


sorry but that sounds as if he's not even remorseful

jone70 said:

I think (but im not 100% sure as I read it ages ago) Malcom was burglarizing more white homes than black, was it a conscious decision to "get back" at white people? I think you'd be naive to say it wasn't. Also, he probably burgled more white homes for the more obvious fact that they reaped the bigger rewards at that time. I still think that people were probably more accepting of Malcolm's crimes because of the nature of them. Maybe he and Cleaver were motivated by the same desire, i.e revenge, but the methods they used were very different and maybe that is where the difference lies.

My view...he was never held accountable for the rapes he admitted to. Personally nor with the court system. Something failed.
[Edited 1/24/07 0:55am]
[/quote]


"Never held accountable? He served his time in jail! This is the system we live in right, he has his accountability."



The jail time he did between 1957-1966 was for an assault with intent to murder conviction. Not rape. FYI
[Edited 1/24/07 13:33pm]

Since Roman Polansky came up: he fled to France and became a French citizen .The French won't extradite their citizens. He travels between France and Poland(where he was born) but avoids counties such as Britain as he would be arrested and returned to the US to face trial.

xplnyrslf said:

"Never held accountable? He served his time in jail! This is the system we live in right, he has his accountability."



The jail time he did between 1957-1966 was for an assault with intent to murder conviction. Not rape. FYI
[Edited 1/24/07 13:33pm]
[/quote]

Well...like O.J. He didn't get caught!

So, still remains that this man turned his life completely around and championed a cause for a race and a nation of people. Is that something to dismiss because of his past...this is all I am asking?

DexMSR said:

Everyone's experiences are different and one's viewpoint is based on those experiences.
I consider his actions a serious character flaw that supercedes "good feelings" towards him.
Also have two family members...(not immediate family) molested:one 15,the other 8, by the nephew of a powerful state senator years ago. Because of the media attention and additional stress to the victims the family was discouraged to pursue it. The 8 year old didn't tell anyone she was raped until years later.

So,NO, to answer your question. His good actions shouldn't be completely dismissed. I'm simply disgusted by any molestor who isn't held accountable...whatever their power, $$$$, fame, ability to fly out of the country and have a safe haven,have a last name with political influence... and worse yet have others make excuses and rationalize it all.

I'm not posting anymore on this topic.
[b][Edited 1/24/07 17:07pm]

KoolEaze said:

but a client often pays 4 just that, "The power thing". for some, power is so interconnected with sex that there is no separating the 2. without whores I think they'd certainly be more crimes of a sexual nature, not necessarily rape.

ZombieKitten said:

Move on? Yes, when the criminal lowlife gets his. But forgive? Hell no.

We just have to agree to disagree on this.

DexMSR said:

turned it "completely" around?
"Later in the 1980s, Cleaver became addicted to crack cocaine. In 1992 he was convicted of cocaine possession and burglary. In 1994, after nearly dying in a cocaine-related assault, he kicked his addiction." He died in 1998.
Not sure why you hold him in such high regard for helping to found the black panthers when he eventually renounced the black panthers and became a republican.
from the little I've read of this man, it seems he did indeed end-up doing good things for "diversity" so all in all, yes it seems he cleaned up his life but....I've yet to read anything that says he had any remorse for any of his rapes and his victims. that's hard to overlook.

Shorty said:[quote]

DexMSR said:

My point is....are we capable of seeing past a persons "personal" demons to allow the good the person stands for to prevail in accepting them for who they are??

Period.

I didn't "intend" for this thread to turn into an examination of rape or whatever. Just stick to my point. I am seeing I should never have used ANY examples and just left it to a metaphysical querie.

Whap!

DexMSR said:

But I think the point is, it's not that black and white. It depends on matters of degree, whether they've truly repented, etc.
By using the arbitrary term of 'personal demons' you can be talking about anything. I think concrete examples are necessary to the discussing the issue.

CarrieMpls said:

Yes, you are right.

Whap!

Wow !!
I'm surprised this stayed pretty civil.

Our human history is filled with injustice and unimaginable crimes by all types of people. Yes, the individual can be forgiven and overlooked that person's whole contribution. I've beleived people allow us to trust them at different levels.

NO ONE gets unlimited trust.
I'm jaded.

Mach said:

Wow hunny you are a better person that I am. I was too a victim of sexual abuse by a male relative when I was young and to this day I couldn't forgive the person who did this to me mainly because he never admitted he did was wrong or feel any mercy of the pain and heartache that I went through not to mention caused me emotional distress and my limited trust on people particularly men. To me to forgive someone is to admitted what they did was regretful, pay for what they did, vowed won't happened again and learn from their mistakes, and become a better person to prove themselves. Until then I would not forgive that person. Just because I would refused to forgive that person that doesn't stop me from healing and move on because you can't change the past or what happened. Otherwise it would eat you inside.
But still that takes guts though and I wished you the best.
[Edited 1/25/07 11:44am]

uPtoWnNY said:

Co-sign.