Real Rape Victims Don't Get Pregnant

[Poorisolation]

I take it you have never received less than 100% marks in an exam and have never gotten confused or misspoke nor been misrepresented in reported conversation ever?

Being a politician, it is part of his job not to make those kinds of mistakes...

You can sit a politician through the most extensive briefing in the World but you cannot make them think on their feet

The problem is that interviews require an entirely different set of mental skills than does the formulation of sound policy for the long term. Both however have the capacity to go wrong in seconds.

[Terruana]

Being a politician, it is part of his job not to make those kinds of mistakes...

You can sit a politician through the most extensive briefing in the World but you cannot make them think on their feet

The problem is that interviews require an entirely different set of mental skills than does the formulation of sound policy for the long term. Both however have the capacity to go wrong in seconds.

Yeah, but it's not really unreasonable to expect a politician who's giving a statement about the legal definitions of rape to have done enough research beforehand to understand the difference between date rape and statutory rape, and to have the mental capacity not to forget it all as soon as he opens his mouth.

[Poorisolation]

You can sit a politician through the most extensive briefing in the World but you cannot make them think on their feet

The problem is that interviews require an entirely different set of mental skills than does the formulation of sound policy for the long term. Both however have the capacity to go wrong in seconds.

Yeah, but it's not really unreasonable to expect a politician who's giving a statement about the legal definitions of rape to have done enough research beforehand to understand the difference between date rape and statutory rape, and to have the mental capacity not to forget it all as soon as he opens his mouth.

Of course but it is important to examine fully and in detail the entire policy proposed. Politicians especially when in office should be constantly scrutinised. Then again we as members of the public should not simply take the interpretations of journalists at face value either as however pleasingly similar to our own preconceptions they may sound are often motivated by preconceived agenda which may not in fact reflect our interests.

[The Archregimancy]

Ken Clarke's language on 'proper rape' was very poorly chosen, but he was trying to make an argument on gradations of rape offences.

There's ample precedent for this.

Sweden, that notorious bastion of misogyny and opposition to women's fundamental rights, recognises three grades of rape offence.

These are (and remember that these are not my terms): 1) violent rape, 2) regular rape, and 3) unlawful coercion.

My link risks bringing Julian Assange into this discussion, but for reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

Clarke's intent seems to have been to argue a similar recognition of gradation of severity of rape offence, but his argument was lost in the furore over his choice of phrasing.

What's the difference between Violent rape and Regular rape?

According to the link in my post, the Swedish legal definition is as follows:

Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of rape.

There is the most serious kind, involving major violence.

But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving violence but not violence of the utmost horror.

And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking generally, and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional pressure on someone.

The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four years respectively.

Note that I'm not trying to argue for or against the broad applicability of the definition, merely noting that it exists in Sweden.

[Mail Jeevas]

Random perspective:
In most rape statistics made in the United States, male on male/female on male/female on female are not even counted. Although many states have neutral gender language on the books so that it's possible to convict a woman raping someone, or male on male, etc, there are still many people who can't see rape as anything but male on female or think that there is no such thing as rape.

Amusingly - My Tween Understands Basic Reproductive Facts better than Rep Akin and Rape 101. I think some elected officials need to read these.

[Person012345]

I suspect they were also referring to female on male rape, tbh

"A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman - the tariff is longer than that."
"No it's not, if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape. Because she is under age, she can't consent... What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

He specifically defines rape as being male-female within the context of the argument (although poorisolation's point didn't actually have anything to do with my post he was quoting, so perhaps we are talking cross purposes).

[Terruana]

I suspect they were also referring to female on male rape, tbh

"A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman - the tariff is longer than that."
"No it's not, if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape. Because she is under age, she can't consent... What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

He specifically defines rape as being male-female within the context of the argument (although poorisolation's point didn't actually have anything to do with my post he was quoting, so perhaps we are talking cross purposes).

Ah, I was referring to the part at the end of Poorisolation's post which said "As to male on male rape that has been prosecuted as such in the UK at least since 1995.", which I had assumed to be a reply to the end of your post saying "Which of course ignores when men get raped, although that sort of ignorance is quite common and therefore forgivable - not that it should be allowed to stand, but I don't think that we should immediately witch-hunt someone just because they said that rape is male-female. They should be corrected certainly though. But I digress."

[Transhuman Proteus]

Although I'm not exactly pleased at him apparently not knowing what 'date rape' was when dealing with the issue.

I take it you have never received less than 100% marks in an exam and have never gotten confused or misspoke nor been misrepresented in reported conversation ever?

In an exam you can be being marked on more than just knowing the right answers, so it is possible to not get 100% but still know your stuff.

As to talking - if it was a slip of a tongue or brain freeze, sure.

But to be utterly confused about such an important area of something you are going to be discussing and are advocating policy on though? Especially if that confusion isn't down to a brain freeze but just not knowing at all apparently?

[Page]

Providence has handed Barack Obama the best Christmas in August gift he could ask for. Does he want to be civil or does he want to be president? Milk this fucker to its core.

[Person012345]

"A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman - the tariff is longer than that."
"No it's not, if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape. Because she is under age, she can't consent... What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

He specifically defines rape as being male-female within the context of the argument (although poorisolation's point didn't actually have anything to do with my post he was quoting, so perhaps we are talking cross purposes).

Ah, I was referring to the part at the end of Poorisolation's post which said "As to male on male rape that has been prosecuted as such in the UK at least since 1995.", which I had assumed to be a reply to the end of your post saying "Which of course ignores when men get raped, although that sort of ignorance is quite common and therefore forgivable - not that it should be allowed to stand, but I don't think that we should immediately witch-hunt someone just because they said that rape is male-female. They should be corrected certainly though. But I digress."

I think it was supposed to be, I assumed he misunderstood as I didn't say anything about whether it was prosecuted, but that Clarke completely ignored it when talking about rape in that argument, defining it specifically as male-female, and that that was wrong and should be corrected.

[Desperate Measures]

Things would be easier if all republicans were this stupid.

[Alqania]

The crime of Ken Clarke is in wanting to reform the prosecution of rape in order to nail more of the guilty bastards to the wall...ahem present juries with a wider range of charges and penalties that more accurately reflect the wide range of situations and variable circumstances that surround what at its core remains a very serious crime.

Ken Clarke's language on 'proper rape' was very poorly chosen, but he was trying to make an argument on gradations of rape offences.

There's ample precedent for this.

Sweden, that notorious bastion of misogyny and opposition to women's fundamental rights, recognises three grades of rape offence.

These are (and remember that these are not my terms): 1) violent rape, 2) regular rape, and 3) unlawful coercion.

My link risks bringing Julian Assange into this discussion, but for reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

Clarke's intent seems to have been to argue a similar recognition of gradation of severity of rape offence, but his argument was lost in the furore over his choice of phrasing.

I believe your point was correct, but the BBC article seems a bit inaccurate.

Chapter 6 of the Swedish Penal Code states that the punishment for rape is imprisonment for at least two and at most six years. This is what someone might call 'regular rape', although the word 'regular' doesn't appear in the legal provision.

If the crime is "less serious", the sentence is imprisonment for at most four years. This "less serious" rape is still called rape and is not called coercion.

If the crime is gross, then a punishment of imprisonment for at least four and at most ten years is imposed for gross rape. This is what someone might call 'violent rape', although the legal provision uses the term gross rape, not violent.

The above are the three gradations of rape. The next crime listed in Chapter 6 of the Swedish Penal Code is sexual coercion. This is a crime separate from rape, rather than a gradation thereof. The punishment for sexual coercion is imprisonment for at most two years.

If the latter crime is gross, then a punishment of imprisonment for at least six months and at most six years is imposed for gross sexual coercion. There's no "less serious" gradation of sexual coercion.

So, to recap, Swedish law has three grades of rape and two grades of sexual coercion. And then there are other sex crimes that have similarities with rape.

[The Black Forrest]

Things would be easier if all republicans were this stupid.

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large numbers.

[Samuraikoku]

I've seen this on Facebook.

I've only got three words: No true Scotsman.

[The Black Forrest]

I shit you not...

http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco- ... t-19-2012/

vids via link



What are the chances of Akin being kicked out of the race? What makes people make thoroughly ignorant comments like that?

Personally I'd say that he needs his party nomination removed. He should also perhaps spend some time at a rape crisis centre to learn first hand how traumatic rape is. However I suspect that he would probably do further harm if confronted with recent rape victims.

Ah no.This man is a disgrace to Republicans everywhere.Why couldn't he be a Democrat,it would suit him better.

And if he get's elected then he is the face of Republicans everywhere. Well, at least in his State.

[Poorisolation]

I take it you have never received less than 100% marks in an exam and have never gotten confused or misspoke nor been misrepresented in reported conversation ever?

In an exam you can be being marked on more than just knowing the right answers, so it is possible to not get 100% but still know your stuff.

As to talking - if it was a slip of a tongue or brain freeze, sure.

But to be utterly confused about such an important area of something you are going to be discussing and are advocating policy on though? Especially if that confusion isn't down to a brain freeze but just not knowing at all apparently?

The problem lies in your 'apparently'. The conversation leading to the furore was very specific and thus did not examine the breadth nor depth of the policy at all in the interview. It is very hard to extrapolate what the Secretary of State for Justice did or did not know at the time from the remarks made.* Yet that does not stop people.

In a similar manner Congressman Todd Akin can demonstrate a profound lack on knowledge of human reproductive biology and yet expect apologists to willing explain it away.

In a perhaps forlorn effort to at least show willing to getting back on topic I would point out that given the extreme polarisation of American politics at the present time it is entirely customary for candidates for either party to make statements intended solely to pander to the prejudices of the base membership of their party. At this juncture in time the Republican Party actually seems to celebrate ignorance and lack of education frequently condemning the educated liberal elite.

Mitt Romney on the other hand who needs to court the votes of Independent voters has been forced to distance his campaign form Akin's remarks. Sadly though I doubt the Congressman's progress to the Senate will be deflected by this alone and can only hope some fluke of electoral sanity sees him off. Then again I am not American so he will not be sitting in my Senate.


*of course he unlike his interviewer has subsequently offered several statements attempting clarification but hey who cars about that?

[Roan Cara]

This is one of the many reasons I hate USA. All your politicians are either naive liberals, moderate militarists, conservative idiots, or just plain dumb. I want to hit this guy.

sadly I fully agree and I have to live here

[Gauthier]

I shit you not...

http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco- ... t-19-2012/

vids via link



What are the chances of Akin being kicked out of the race? What makes people make thoroughly ignorant comments like that?

Personally I'd say that he needs his party nomination removed. He should also perhaps spend some time at a rape crisis centre to learn first hand how traumatic rape is. However I suspect that he would probably do further harm if confronted with recent rape victims.

Ah no.This man is a disgrace to Republicans everywhere.Why couldn't he be a Democrat,it would suit him better.

Don't worry, I'm sure FOXNews has taken care of that for you.

[Ovisterra]

It's like a "no true scotsman" fallacy, but much, much stupider.

[The Black Forrest]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/com ... _blog.html

I like his "misspoke" statement.

[Samuraikoku]

:D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/com ... _blog.html

I like his "misspoke" statement.

And then he was quick to try to change the issue.

[Gauthier]

This is, of course, just another example of how Republican thinking is no longer grounded in reality, but rather in ideological necessity.

If you start from the premise that abortion is bad, you have to consider the possibility of a rape victim wanting to get an abortion. Since extremism is now the rule withing the GOP rather than the exception, the only ideologically proper response to this situation is to come up with some justification for why a rape victim should have to bear the rapist's baby.

Ultimately, this ideological necessity forces people into various highly uncomfortable positions: There is no such thing as rape (what people call rape is merely Surprise Sex With Strangers™ (in which consent is conferred through situational factors, such as provocative dress or poor life-style decisions involving one's choice in parking spaces); rape exists, but Real Rape™ does not produce babies; or Real Rape™ does produce babies, but these blessed children are a beautiful life-changing gift from God, presented in a sort of "broken" way that only a lifetime of pious reflection can help us truly understand.

If it were just abortion and rape, it would be bad enough. But it's everything: Oil pipelines are good for caribou; global climate change can't be man-made, because only God can change the world; only tax cuts for the rich improve the economy; stimulus spending is only good when a Republican President is in the White House; if your income falls and your expenses don't, then you're spending more money; real world data has no relevance when it comes to discussing economics; and it's not racism to believe that African-Americans don't know the value or importance of work, but it is racism to call such sentiments examples of racist ideation. I could go on and on and on and on, but what would be the point?

It would be like shooting fish in a barrel, only less satisfying.

The Republicans will simply pass a law classifying rape-induced pregnancies as "Immaculate Conceptions" which will of course be against the law to abort.

[Northern Dominus]

:D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/com ... _blog.html

I like his "misspoke" statement.

And then he was quick to try to change the issue.

And yet it's not going to matter.
He represents rural (see "river-billy") Missouri in his district. As long as he keeps harping boilerplate issues and playing to their latent racism in that neck of the woods doubtless he'll get reelected.

[Neo Arcad]

Yet he will still get votes from Republicans. Because it doesn't matter how thoroughly disgusting and terrible someone is; if they have an R next to their name, they get votes.

You know the same goes for Democrats too, right? Or do I need to get out the muck rake?
Don't point fingers; your party isn't pure as the driven snow either. I personally hate you all, elephants and asses alike.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

:D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/com ... _blog.html

I like his "misspoke" statement.

And then he was quick to try to change the issue.

Indeed

Akin Statement on "Jaco Report" Interview

St. Louis - Congressman Todd Akin just released the following statement regarding his interview on the "Jaco Report" broadcast this morning in St. Louis:

"As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve.

"I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election.

"But I also believe that this election is about a wide-range of very important issues, starting with the economy and the type of country we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. We've had 42 straight months of unacceptably high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and Democratic leaders in Washington who are focused on growing government, instead of jobs. That is my primary focus in this campaign and while there are those who want to distract from that, knowing they cannot defend the Democrats' failed economic record of the last four years, that will continue to be my focus in the months ahead."

What is even more scary is that this asshole is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Wow. I mean really...some one needs to trout slap the wanker.