Their anger followed the comments made by prosecution lawyer Robert Colover. In sentencing, Judge Nigel Peters apparently accepted the suggestions that Wilson’s teenage victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was complicit in the abuse; despite her being well below the age of consent.
The girl was accused in court of “egging her abuser on” and was described as “looking older” than her thirteen years, something the judge said he would consider in Wilson’s favour. But anti-rape campaigners railed at the accusation that the young victim was promiscuous. They argued that it helped facilitate the sexual abuse of children.
via Judge calls victim, 13, a ‘sexual predator’: Outcry as 41-year-old man walks free after admitting sex with girl – Crime – UK – The Independent.
There are several cases like this going on right now where the victim is portrayed as the criminal. But, we see this in rape culture – where women deserve it. Trayvon deserved it. Calvinists, the hardened ones, claim those in Africa or hell deserve it.
Looks like Amazon in the U.K. loves it some rape culture.
I checked and they aren’t in the U.S. Amazon Store, but the company is real.
Ht GM via the twits
“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said at a debate (video, which was posted by the state Democratic Party, is below). “And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
I don’t know what else to say…
Oh, and Romney loves this guy and picked him over Dick Lugar.
When we consider this evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and in a manner that is consistent with the state’s theory of guilt at trial, we, like the Appellate Court, ‘are not persuaded that the state produced any credible evidence that the [victim] was either unconscious or so uncommunicative that she was physically incapable of manifesting to the defendant her lack of consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the alleged sexual assault.’
via Court Requires Disabled Rape Victim To Prove She Resisted, Calls For Evidence Of ‘Biting, Kicking, Scratching’ | ThinkProgress.
What the bloody ‘el? She was mentally a three year old… severally physically handicapped. Wow…
I really want to give fellow pro-lifers the benefit of the doubt… but this is nuts.
“I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life,” Ryan explained. “But let’s remember, I’m joining the Romney-Ryan ticket. And the president makes policy.” (here)
IVF, etc… is a method of conception, no doubt, but some pro-lifers are opposed to that.
I’m not it is spiritually wise – who cares about politics – to declare rape, incest, etc… as just another method of conception.
Are we are callous to women that we can honestly say rape is another method of conception? The next step is to suggest rape is God’s will.
Earlier today, via Facebook, I suggested that the narrative about Akin was not just about birth control, abortion, and the such, but about something more sinister.
Guess who Akin’s spiritual adviser is? D. James. Kennedy:
2. Kennedy suggests rape victims can be responsible for being raped. In “Life: An Inalienable Right,” Kennedy expresses concern that rape victims who chose to get an abortion are occasionally responsible for their own rape, saying that “Even if they want to say the woman had some part in it—which in most cases they probably don’t—surely the baby did nothing wrong, so the only innocent party is killed and the rapist often goes free.” He doesn’t elaborate on how this might be true, but another Kennedy sermon says “the immodest woman is contributing to the lust of other people” by wearing revealing clothing.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/akins-spiritual-mentor-women-occasionally-invite-rape-victims-are-hysterical.html#ixzz248E5VypP
Akin sees Kennedy as a spiritual and intellectual mentor… Wow….
Zeke Miller at Buzzfeed reports:
“We feel this is a case of gotcha politics,” Mackey told reporters outside of the Republican National Committee’s platform committee discussions. “He has been elected five times in that community in Missouri. They know who Todd Akin is. We know who Todd Akin is. We’ve worked with him up on the Hill. He’s a defender of life. He’s a defender of families and this just a controversy built up, I think, it looks as though, to support his opposition. Claire Mccaskill on the other hand, has supported planned parenthood all these years, which is under investigation for use of funds, for cover up on statuatory rape and I think that Todd Akin is getting a really bad break here.”
Perkins and Mackey declined to comment on the substance of Akin’s controversial charge.
“I don’t know anything about the science or the legal implications of his statement. I do know politics, and I know gotcha politics when I see it,” Mackey added.
Perkins called the controversy an attempt to divert attention form McCaskill. “Claire McCaskill has been supportive of planned parenthood, an organization that has been under investigation for criminal activity,” Perkins said.
“For other Republicans, I have not seen Scott Brown’s statement, but he should be careful because based on some of his statements there may be some call for him to get out of his race,” Perkins added.
Asked what he was referring to, Perkins said that Brown has been “off the reservation on a number of Republican issues, conservative issues.”
via Family Research Council: ‘We Support Todd Akin Fully And Completely’ | The New Civil Rights Movement.
Wait… so they do not know about the science, but they still support him?
This is disgusting…
What the AFA and the FRC are doing is attempting to provide Akin coverage – religious coverage, to make this a religious attack.
HT – RJW, via FB.
So, over the weekend Missouri (GOP) Representative Todd Akin declared that “legitimate rape” (whatever the
hel heck that means) does not caused pregnancy. This MDiv (Covenant Theological Seminary, PCA)
Akin, as he usually does, has found an ally with the Religious Way-Right, notably Bryan Fischer. There are groups out there attempting to use science (I guess the same science suggesting dinosaurs were put in the ground by the devil) to suggest that rapes alter the woman’s body so that pregnancy cannot occur. Now, this super-cool evolutionary trait doesn’t allows work. I guess the logic then, is that if a pregnancy does occur, then maybe it is not a rape?
You do not have to hold medical degrees to know that sexual intercourse does not always lead to pregnancy, consensual or not. But, this is not actually about real science, only science dictated by what religious groups want the bible to say (a book that says nothing about science, by the way).
See more here.
I have to wonder if the PCA and Aiken would impose the Deuteronomic rape clause upon rapists and their victims? (Not saying that Deuteronomy means that, by the way, but since these guys (where are the gals?) are literalists…
Rape, for the most part, is defined as the forced act of sex. There is also the idea of consent and proper consent. So, no date rapes or drunken orgies.
The Gospel Coalition is promoting Doug Wilson’s take on take,
When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed….True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity…
I wrote this post quickly last night… Rachel Held Evans has responded to them as well. Scot McKnight has responded and so has Rodney. J.K. Gayle as responded as well.
How is that different than 50 Shades of Grey? Wilson, and the Gospel Coalition, is advocating that for a man to enjoy sex, he must be forcefully conquering the woman. For a woman to enjoy sex, she must be dominated. This is nothing more than a nice and clean version of rape. I do not mean to say that this is the violent rape or equal to it, but it is a psychological rape that forces the woman to have sex against her will. If rape is defined at the basic level as sex against one’s will, then what Wilson, the Gospel Coalition and others are supporting is flat out rape.
Read Rachel’s post.
Nothing I wanted to type was coming out well. I mean, there are some seriously mean and ugly thoughts going on in my head…
…That’s the big thing that progressives are trying to say, that it’s rape and so on and so forth. And in fact, this big battle that I’ve, uh, totally won with Keith Olbermann by the way, like, not only won once but twice and three times… uh, there were individuals saying, [high voice] “Oh what about the Virginia rape? The rapes that, the forced rapes of women who are pregnant?” What!?…
…Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy….
No, it’s not the same thing.
So many things…