RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that it's common, but to blindly believe an accuser is foolish, IMO. Call them anecdotes all you want, and they certainly are, but I'm sure most people know of situations like this.
The Legacy of the Kobe Bryant Rape Case
- Thread starter JazzGal
- Start date
I'm not saying that it's common, but to blindly believe an accuser is foolish, IMO. Call them anecdotes all you want, and they certainly are, but I'm sure most people know of situations like this.
So let's move away from my assertion that Kobe's statement amounts to a confession. The article posted in the OP talks about the way the media and Kobe's lawyers trashed the victim to the point that she dropped the case and moved out of her hometown.
They did all the classic stuff. Basically said she was too much of a slut to believe that she could have been raped, I mean, you're a skeezy slut who sleeps with half the losers in your hometown but you're gonna say no to one of the biggest NBA stars of all time? Righ?
They asked if the injuries to her genitals might have been caused by having sex with three men in three days, as if genitals are more prone to injury based on the number of men you have sex with. Because if you just have sex with the same guy three times in three days you don't get those kinds of injuries, only nasty hookers get those kinds of injuries.
People asking for Kobe to be shown some respect while trashing the victim relentlessly.
Let's not forget, Kobe had an infant at home. A wife who was caring for a child she had just recently borne. Consensual or not he's a pretty huge scumbag. But let's give him a pass because boys will be boys and nasty sluts will obviously be nasty sluts.
They did all the classic stuff. Basically said she was too much of a slut to believe that she could have been raped, I mean, you're a skeezy slut who sleeps with half the losers in your hometown but you're gonna say no to one of the biggest NBA stars of all time? Righ?
They asked if the injuries to her genitals might have been caused by having sex with three men in three days, as if genitals are more prone to injury based on the number of men you have sex with. Because if you just have sex with the same guy three times in three days you don't get those kinds of injuries, only nasty hookers get those kinds of injuries.
People asking for Kobe to be shown some respect while trashing the victim relentlessly.
Let's not forget, Kobe had an infant at home. A wife who was caring for a child she had just recently borne. Consensual or not he's a pretty huge scumbag. But let's give him a pass because boys will be boys and nasty sluts will obviously be nasty sluts.
GVC
Well-Known Member
The sex lives of both Kobe and the victim are absolutely none of my business. What purpose does judging either of them serve?
GVC
Well-Known Member
None of my business. Don't know if she'd have legal recourse if Kobe was increasing her risk of getting STDs, but she could have (and still can) sue for divorce.
If your post was only to highlight that slut-shaming is a problem, I agree with you. It seemed you were doing more than that though.
Athletes and other entertainers are just people, and don't make a particularly noteworthy contribution to society through their profession. I see no reason to celebrate or scrutinize their personal lives. That 'news' outlets do so shows a complete lack of journalistic integrity.
I agree with you. While Kobe's conduct might not be any of your or my business the issue here is the way the media covered this issue where they focused on the victim's conduct and gave Kobe a free pass. Really, outside what happened in that room, neither of their conduct matters in regard to wether she was raped or not.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
the stats show that it is foolish to not institute a precedence of believing the accuser.
Most ppl initially assumed Kobe was guilty. I bet Bern did as well. Thx for stating the obvious.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
I take it you disagree with the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
Anyways, I never said you shouldn't believe the accuser, I specifically stated you shouldn't blindly believe them. World of difference, and you should know that.
Just because women didn't have as much of a voice as they do now (baby steps), I do not accept that men were not responsible for their perceptions of what constitutes rape in 2003 anymore than they are now. Based on my perceptions, men who were unenlightened then usually still are. Men who thought women deserve respect then most likely still do.
Listen to your partner. If she cannot communicate her consent, then it is rape. If she says "no" or "stop" or "don't do that" or pushes you away and you still proceed, it is rape. Simple.
I was not insinuating that you were a rapist. I was insinuating that perhaps you are doing it wrong if you can't tell if your partner is into it.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Google 'affirmative consent'. That discussion is far more prevalent today than it was 10-15 years ago. It's a discussion that needs to happen because there simply are grey areas. Sex can, for example, be violent, selfish and consensual. Affirmative consent doesn't only protect women from disrespectful men and outright rapists; it also protects well-meaning men in situations that seem ambiguous. You're unwilling to accept that consent isn't always black and white or to have an open, honest discussion about it. That's a mistake.
How many times are you going to change your standard for what constitutes rape? I've seen three sometimes contradictory standards in this thread alone.
I've never been in a situation where consent from my partner wasn't clear. That doesn't mean I can't conceive of such situations.
Last edited:
