Letters to the Editor
-
Follow up...
Wow, it looks like the really warm fuzzy people have joined the party now...
Jeffersonian, I know that stat that AKA sighted sounds high, but it has actually been out there for some time, and as someone who has worked in women's clinics, and from experience with my friends, it's definitely in the ball park.
While I'll grant you that regret over a poor decision should not be mistaken for rape, I will tell you that the majority of rapes are not the "violent guy in the alley" type. While many men may think that nonconsensual sex with a guy you know, when there is no "violence" is not such a big thing, I have to gently point out your error. Being forced to have sex (and, with most men being larger and stronger than many women, this doesn't generally require a weapon or a even hard core smack-down) is a pretty soul-destroying experience for women. Being forced/coerced to have sex by someone you thought you could trust? Well, that'll pretty much shatter any faith you have in men right there.
As for telling you, most women don't spill that stuff to any but their closest female friends if anyone at all. The number's really not that unrealistic, when you consider how many women a single rapist could force to have sex in his lifetime, even if you kept him down to only a couple a year....
And Smith? I do love a good backhanded compliment, and I'd just like to clarify a few things.
1. I don't think Hillary should drop out. I never have. I have been so pumped about this primary! We've had this amazing stable of contenders and all the Republicans could trot out was,well, not all that much really. I do wish that Hillary would go back to where she was at around NH. The words she spoke about how important this election is where incredibly powerful, now she's pandering to voters with race bating and gas tax exemptions?
2. You see yourself putting feet in the fire and I see unnecessarily harsh, borderline rational arguments. You aren't clearing up anything for younger women, you're coming off as condescending and irrational. It's all about tone, and online formats are tone deaf. Sarcasm is lost, passion is lost.... it's an environment ripe with opportunity for miscommunication. Some people feed off of that, but more often than not, it makes us lose our own arguments. Asking if Celia would debate a the merits of a man's desire to rape vs. a woman's desire not to be raped? Obviously untenable and intended to anger. Of course she doesn't wish to, but by setting up a construct for debate that demands a particular argument, you lose the debate because you've shut down the conversation.
3. I don't expect anyone to jump on board in support of Barack. After all, the primary isn't over yet. I can only hope that you'll see the post on this site for what they are, the ravings of lunatics. I include myself in that. I mean, what sane person gets in arguments with people they will never meet in a format that doesn't really go anywhere? The truth is that there are jerks within all of the campaigns, but there are far more decent people. They just aren't posting here. I hope you'll give the general election the same sort of time you've given the primaries.