Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezzy
To play the Devil's Advocate though, if someone's served their sentence do they not have the right to carry on with their lives? If not then what's the point of sentencing someone in the first place? It shouldn't really matter whether someone is famous or not since, in the eyes of the law everyone should be equal when it comes to crime and punishment.
I'm still pretty conflicted about it tbh. It's a very difficult topic.
|
I know, but you have to think of the implications of what it all means. If football clubs are willing to sign a ex-con who's committed a sexual offence as depraved as rape with nary a care in sight then it just says that their attitude is something along the lines of this, "Aw well he's spent his time in the corner I mean he did only rape that woman once, so who cares about what it says to our female fanbase and women in general if we hire him!" Like, it just seems iffy.
And I know everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, but seeing as this is a high profile case with implications being played out across a highly publicised field (excuse the pun), then it kind of sets the tone for everything else. Letting him carry on in such a cushy job with no-one in else in that career really reacting to him forcing such a traumatic act on another human being is just.. no. It's not right. Moreover I'm not sure how he can have the gall to
want to show his face in public after doing something of that calibre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z
Plus, what Niall's saying is only really valid if we're to believe that Evans really did rape the victim. Everything about the trial is so shaky that I don't believe he even committed a crime; why is it that the first guy who had sex with the girl wasn't convicted of rape but Evans was? Why would you willingly go to a hotel room with a bunch of footballers if you weren't keen to have sex with a bunch of footballers? I think there are certain types of women who go after footballers because they expect to be the next Mrs Beckham, Rooney, Cole; and this young lady took it too far.
Either way, we'll never know for sure what happened but Evans maintains his innocence and has never said sorry and I think that speaks volumes about what really happened that night. You're not going to say sorry if you've got nothing to be sorry for. Let the man play football. The girl still has her anonymity as far as the masses are concerned, she can go on to lead a normal life - he'll forever be deemed a rapist in the minds of many people regardless of whether he did it or not and I think that's punishment enough.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z
You can have sex with someone and they can then turn around and say you raped them afterwards, so I'd argue you can "accidentally" rape someone. Not all rape is violent because there's a gulf of difference between being battered, tortured even, and sexually violated and being drunk in a hotel room with a group of football players and having sex with one of them while there are other people in the room and then suddenly getting cold feet about it when a second one starts to have sex with you. I just cannot take it seriously, I don't care if people think I'm horrible for "victim blaming", she's not a rape victim in my opinion. She's a victim of her own drunken stupidity.
|
Rape is simple: if there is an absence of consent, then it's rape. If someone is inebriated they cannot consent because they aren't in a clear and lucid state of mind. Therefore, it is rape. That's taking advantage of someone sexually. You cannot argue against that. It is not 'drunken stupidity', it's someone preying on someone else who's in a vulnerable state. Consent is a constant and enthusiastic 'Yes!' and nothing else.
The entirety of what you've said highlights the problem here, and it's that people often think that the victim 'had it coming' because they shouldn't have gone somewhere with the assailant, and quite frankly it's the most stupid argument in the book. Let's apply that logic somewhere else: would you say that if someone walking home from the train station at 10pm is at fault if they're mugged? It's ridiculous. She shouldn't have to
go somewhere with the expectation that she might have to give herself up sexually. And even if she did lead them to think that that's what might happen, any
normal human being knows the line in terms of consent. Like I'm pretty sure if someone was drunk etc, or even gave the slightest hint of uncomfortableness when it comes to all this stuff most sane people would know to back the
fuck off. Whereas if you don't and you force yourself upon, or take advantage of someone, then that's a rather terrifying thing for someone to do, no?
To reiterate: victim blaming is
absolutely the problem at hand. The misogynistic view that "She shouldn't have done this...", or "She shouldn't have done that...", or "Her skirt was too short..", is just an argument both terrifyingly disgusting as it is paper thin.
Linear Mode
