Betty Dodson with Carlin Ross

Better Orgasms. Better World.

• Login
• Join

Search this site:

You have a very valid point, and I agree with you.

My reasons for focussing on the attackee was purely because the main post by Carlin was focussed on the attackee.

My views on the attackers are probably as generic as most - questioned upbringing, etc etc. Lets be honest - I'm no psychiatrist, but if you're going to rape an 8 year old, there must be issues somewhere.

As for double standards, I agree with you as well. At the same time, however, you grow up having to learn how to make decisions wisely. Thats where parents come in. When you're too young to be making decisions, thats when parents step in. As you're maturing, your parents guide you, and then one day, you'll be making those important decisions without anyones guidance or input. Its entirely up to you. You, at some point, learn when to have fun, and when to sit out - without it being a question of 'missing out on the fun'. 

Which is why I questioned the girls upbringing. I'm not saying it would be totally flawed. I'm sure she has wonderful parents. Did they miss out the 'Don't take candy from strangers' rule though? Who knows. (as I've previously mentioned, I don't know whether the girl knew the attackers or not, so I can't really comment on this.)

On another note; the praying man article disgusts me. How could you do that to your OWN CHILD? *sigh* 

I am sickened by the responses in this thread. Apparently people don't understand Carlin's message at all.

Nina accuses the victim of being responsible for her attack. Not ONCE did she mention the victim's attackers. She questioned the victims upbringing; however, she did not question the upbringing of her attackers. The average boy would never act in the same manner as these sick boys who ganged up on a little girl and attacked her. Why is she questioning the little girl's judgement...yet says nothing about the apparent lack of judgement and morals of a group of young molestors.

I am not going to discuss the abortion issue because I think it is a seperate issue; however, I am not ashamed to admit I am pro-choice.

I am sick of society blaming the victim for criminal behaviour. The double standard sickens me. I am annoyed by people who tell me that I am missing out on fun adventures in my life because I choose to behave in a safe manner. On the other hand, if I took their advice and I was raped as a result of "having fun" the same group of people would point their finger at me for being so "stupid" (aka...lack of common sense) and "behaving irresponsibly" (rolls eyes) That's because many people in this world are hypocrites.

Dear All,

Appropriately for this thread, this morning's news revealed just such an occidental case at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm

Chu

Dear All,

While the UK laws might not be perfect, they are, I think reasonable. No legislation can cover every possible situation and context. Abortion is nearly always a least worst option as opposed to a positive choice and I'm constantly amazed at the polarised attitudes prevailing in other countries such as the US.

Even the titles of opposing organisations, Pro-life and Pro-choice give the impression that decisions around this issue are made within completely rational boundaries; it is as if such decisions are made a priori, as if all the heart-ache, the practical and emotional fall out, the physical stress and the ethical and moral uncertainties can be washed away under the cleansing lights of moral certainty.

In my limited experience as a father; two miscarriages and one late abortion due to Downs Syndrome - the loss and the grief is not helped by the false-certainties of morality. And if fathers feel so effected, I can only guess at the strength and depth of women's experiences. Life is messy, life is full of sliding scales and grey areas.

Another sliding scale is what one might call cultural value. And while I agree with Carlin that:

"At 8, there was no way to sexualize the victim or blame her for what happened like we would if she were older.  And we're outraged by her parents response but why?"

I'm uneasy about the phrase:

"Why don't we understand that in their culture women never have any value."

Who, in the sliding scale of life is the 'They' of 'Their'; is it some Liberians, all Liberians, a few Liberians? How many, under what circumstances and how so measured? I ask this because, though I know nothing about Liberia and have, as far as I know, not met a Liberian, I have heard similar things about my own ethnic group and feel such comments are often unfounded or exagerated. I'm appalled by the way many children accross the world are treated, by so-called 'honour' killings, by sexist and infantacidal values and accept that there might be correllations of higher frequencies of such problems in some places more than others. But I'm also convinced that one might be suprised at how few people would act upon such horrible moral precepts and I suspect that western industrialised countries would not always come up smelling of roses either; witness the vatrious scandals in ophanages and churches in the UK and USA over the years. 

I acknowledge Carlin that you contexualised your own position as extreme in order to make the point but the de-humanising of women by male dominance is as much about white-male-patriarchy as it is about how we deal with cultural and gender diversity - I know that you know that, but many readers might not.  

A hugely interesting and poignant thread, nonetheless,

best wishes and solidarity for equality and justice,

Chu

Sorry! Didn't mean to confuse you - the abortion bit I was talking about was in England. Carlin was talking US. It just goes to show how much of a contrast there is between the priorities of doctors in England and those of the US.

I may be mistaken, but I'm relatively 99% sure that doctors here in the UK will save the mother at all costs over her fetus (in a situation like Carlin described). Obviously in situations where the mother cannot be saved, then they will try and safely deliver the baby, depending on how old it is, and if it would be safe to deliver it.

I'm shocked by this young girls parents behaviour on the matter. I wish I knew whether the girl knew the boys or not. Even if she did, why would she go all the way to a shed just for chewing gum? Even an 8 year old has more sense than that (I know a few kids of that age) or at least they should do. Which questions her upbringing in the first place. I really do hope that things work out for the girl, either way.

Moving on to abortion - I thought I'd read up on what the NHS has to say (the british health service, for those who don't know) on the matter. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx

The law, on abortion, simply states that:

• Abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialised licensed clinic.
• Two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy.

And that its legal up to 24 weeks. If you get the abortion through the NHS, it is of no charge (its free), though you may be declined, in which case you'd have to go to a private clinic.

'The law states that an abortion is legal after 24 weeks:

• if it is necessary to save the woman's life,
  to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical, or mental, health of the pregnant woman, or
• if there is substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.'

The most important of all though, was this:

'The reasons that an abortion may be necessary are set out in The Abortion Act 1967. These are:

• continuing with the pregnancy would be a greater risk to the woman's life than would ending the pregnancy,
• continuing with the pregnancy would involve a greater risk of injury to the woman's physical or mental health than would ending the pregnancy,
• continuing with the pregnancy would be more of a risk to the physical or mental health of any of the woman's existing children, or
• there is a real risk that the child, if born, would have a serious physical or mental disability. '

Can someone please tell me what is so morally wrong with anything I just stated? I can understand that some people are against abortion, fine, but don't impose your views on those do not have an issue with it, and certainly not with those who need it.

(sorry for turning this into an abortion topic rather than the rape issue)

Per usual, you hit it right on the mark Carlin. I wish I could be as well spoken on womens issues as you. If you're going have a rally/ protest/ revolution, be sure to email me. I'm there.

It's a federal law that bans late term abortions in every state in ALL INSTANCES:

The Supreme Court in April 2007 upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion.  The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

President Bush, who signed the law in 2003 and appointed two of the justices who upheld it, said the prohibition "represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America."

"Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America," he said in a statement released by the White House.

At issue is the constitutionality of a federal law banning a rarely performed type of abortion carried out in the middle-to-late second trimester. (Watch how the decision might affect Roe vs. Wade Video)

The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a "health exception" for a woman who might suffer serious medical complications, something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote in these divided appeals, said the federal law "does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right." He was joined by his fellow conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Roberts.

"most people are fools, most authority is malignant, God does not exist, and everything is wrong" Ted Nelson

if you were in your last trimester and were in an accident and it was between your life and the fetuses, they legally have to let you die to save a fetus!??  WAHT!!!???  are you SERIOUS? is this in the entire united states? that is RIDICULOUS!  i'm sorry, but i do NOT agree with that. is there some way to have in your will or on a MEDIC ALERT bracelet or something that says, "um, you better not save a fetus if it's between me and the fetus."??  i'm outraged at this. i had no idea.

You can find me at:

http://dodsonandross.com/art/cowrie-shell
http://dodsonandross.com/art/second-sumission
http://dodsonandross.com/art/artsy-vulva