George Hook

" I tell my kids to be careful around strangers because there is a remote chance that the stranger might wish them harm."

Exactly. And my response to that was, that rape (which is what we are discussing here) is in the overwhelming majority of cases more likely to be perpetrated by rapists who are known to the individual. It is not the 'stranger' who represents the risk.
 
Thirsty said:
" I tell my kids to be careful around strangers because there is a remote chance that the stranger might wish them harm."

Exactly. And my response to that was, that rape (which is what we are discussing here) is in the overwhelming majority of cases more likely to be perpetrated by rapists who are known to the individual. It is not the 'stranger' who represents the risk.
Click to expand...
But the case about which George Hook was commenting did not involve a family member of person the victim knew. Therefore while correct your comments are not relevant in the context of this specific topic, i.e. his comments about a specific case.

In the generality of things children should be warned about their mothers boyfriend/ their stepfather as they are statistically the group most likely to sexually assault them.
 
Last edited:
Thirsty said:
"can you comment on this"
Rat hole.
Click to expand...
Nice.
I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. You seem to think that if someone is pointing out risk, or advising someone to avoid risk, they are by extension assigning a moral culpability on the victim if that risk manifests.
 
Comparision to seat belts / cars /etc is a rat hole & its one I'm not going down.

I didn't reference family members.

I thought I was being pretty clear.

George Hook says that it was the woman's fault that she was raped by person B as she had sex with person A.

I believe he is wrong.
 
Thirsty said:
George Hook says that it was the woman's fault that she was raped by person B as she had sex with person A.

I believe he is wrong.
Click to expand...
He didn't say that.
I don't agree with some of the things he said but to suggest that he said it was her fault she was raped is incorrect.
As I said at the start I don't like him. I think he's a bigot and a misogynist but it is valid to say that it is irresponsible for people to put themselves in the situation that the victim put herself in in this incident.
 
Purple,

What parts of Hook's apology do you agree with and what parts do you not agree with?
 
The blame is always with the rapist. We should all try to avoid these vile creatures.

Ways to avoid these vile creatures might include; not getting blind drunk (or take drugs), not strolling around dodgy parts of town, not heading with someone you've just met, not going to somewhere other than your place (I'm speculating a bit on that one, but I guess at least you know there isnt a dungeon at your place and someone will eventually come looking for you there). I didn't hear George's comments, I read some quotes but it's not clear to me that he was victim blaming, but there's utter hysteria and good advice is still good advice, even if you insist on twisting it.
 
Thirsty said:
regardless of how you believe the pregnancy came about, some form of non-consensual assault was involved.

I believe she at least deserved to give her consent.
Click to expand...
Waffle and nonsense. Even fundamentalist women's rights fanatics, Christians or other, Bible adherents or not don't believe the rubbish you are promulgating. New Testament Luke 1:26-28

"In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you." But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him This post will be deleted if not edited immediately. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. For nothing will be impossible with God." Then Mary said, "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her."

The speech by the angel is in the future tense and according to the Bible, Gospel of Luke, nothing did happen until Mary consented, the bit I put in bold italics, and the angel left.

That is the Christian story and the usual source quoted. Where did yours come from?
 
Last edited:
At what point was she subjected to "non-consensual assault"? Show me the sentence that documents that happening. At what stage, again according to one of the few documents in existence about the purported events of that day, does Mary refuse her consent, say "NO", or tell the angel to get lost? Show me the sentences where those things happen.

I can show you where the opposite happens and the interpretation theologians and other Bible scholars place on it. Where is your evidence for your version of events? Can you quote me chapter and verses? Are you a Christian or did you just latch onto a fairy story you thought you understood in support of a concept you clearly don't fully understand?

Do you now regret the stupid series of posts you made?
 
I know the religious side show is all a bit tongue in cheek but just as a matter of clarification rape is separate from impregnation. Look up the Oxford dictionary for the graphic details.

It is not unknown for women to deliberately get pregnant after consensual sex but where the male party no way wants to be "pregnant". Does that affront the consent principle? Well obviously yes but clearly not on the same page as rape.
 
Dan Murray said:
Purple,

What parts of Hook's apology do you agree with and what parts do you not agree with?
Click to expand...
I agree with his apology. As I said at the outset it was a ham-fisted attempt to make a point. It is not the fault of the victim and he was wrong to question whether it was even partially her fault but that doesn't mean one should not question the wisdom of putting yourself in a risky situation. We certainly should not tell young women that it's a good idea to get blind drunk, pick up a stranger, go to his hotel and have sex with him and then pass out on the floor of the jacks.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
It is not unknown for women to deliberately get pregnant after consensual sex but where the male party no way wants to be "pregnant". Does that affront the consent principle? Well obviously yes but clearly not on the same page as rape.
Click to expand...
Indeed; if he doesn't want to be a father he's a deadbeat dad but if he wants to be a father and she doesn't want to be a mother he's interfering with her bodily autonomy.
 
Here's my experience with a very drunk girl;

A few years ago I was out for a drink with a friend in Dublin during the week. We got talking to a few girls from Wexford who were heading off on their first ever foreign holiday the next day. One of the girls was quite drunk and was, as they say, all over me. I didn't reciprocate for a number of reasons, firstly I was married at the time, secondly she was a 19 and so to me she was a child and thirdly she was drunk and nobody can consent to anything when they are blind drunk.
My friend and I moved away from them as it was a bit awkward.
At around 11.30 I went outside to get a taxi home and I saw the same gild stumbling around looking distressed. I asked her if she was okay and she said that she couldn't find her friends. She then fell and smacked the side of her face on the pavement. I knew that if I left her the most likely thing that would happen was that the police would bring her to hospital and she and her friends would miss their holiday. Therefore I stayed with her and tried to get her to call one of her friends.
She was so drunk and distressed that she couldn't find her phone in her bag. I had to root through her stuff and get it out. Eventually I got the name of a friend from her and called the number. There was no answer. I sat with her until 1.30am until her friend called back and then came and got her.
She put herself in a very difficult position. She also put me in one, rooting through a drunk girls bag while sitting at the side of the road outside a pub. I got home at 2.30 am, covered in her blood and puke.

She was a child and vulnerable and anything could have happened to her. It was grossly irresponsible of her to get that drunk and it was disgraceful that her friends left without her. She could have been mugged or raped or just knocked down by a car. It is her right to do what she did. It was also really really stupid.
 
@mathepac - if you consider God vs. Mary to be a relationship of equal standing, jolly good. I don't see it that way.

stupid series of posts
Click to expand...
perfectly happy for you to disagree with my point of view, but abuse is unnecessary.

edit typo
 
Describing a post or series of them as "stupid" is not abuse, not by any stretch of anyone's imagination. I offer the following as definitions, with examples, of "abuse"; which one relates to describing internet posts as stupid?

abuse (as in "maltreatment") n. : cruel or inhumane treatment; "the child showed signs of physical abuse"

abuse (as in "disrespect") n. : a rude expression intended to offend or hurt; "when a student made a stupid mistake he spared them no abuse"

abuse (as in "misuse") n. : improper or excessive use; "alcohol abuse"; "the abuse of public funds"

abuse (as in "mistreat") v. : treat badly; "This boss abuses his workers"

abuse (as in "pervert") v. : change the inherent purpose or function of something; "Don't abuse the system"

abuse (as in "attack") v. : use foul or abusive language towards; "The actress abused the policeman who gave her a parking ticket"

abuse (as in "use") v. : use wrongly or improperly or excessively; "Her husband often abuses alcohol"; "while she was pregnant, she abused drugs"

And at what sage did God rape Mary, his mother? Do you have that documented or are you just making it up as you go along?
 
abuse (as in "disrespect") n. : a rude expression intended to offend or hurt;

Your intention was quite clear, it's unnecessary.
 
Thirsty said:
"male party no way wants to be "pregnant"."

It is relatively easy to prevent.
Click to expand...
Some guys trust their gals.

Anyway what about the parable of the Golden Fleece.

It came to pass that there was a very very rich man. He so wanted to flaunt his wealth that he had a suit made of €50 notes and went strolling down skid row.

Tramp A approached him and asked "please sir can I have €50 off your sleeve. "Certainly my man" said the v.v. rich man.

Tramp B, greatly impressed by the success of A, asks can he have €50 off the other sleeve. "Certainly not" says the v.v. rich man.

B grabs the €50 anyway and runs away.

EoP

Now there is absolutely no question in law as to who is the victim and who is the villain here. All the same, it's hard not think the v.v. rich man shares some of the blame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top