Summary
Caroline Darian’s book reveals her father’s abuse of her mother, including drugging and inviting strangers to rape her.
Darian also discovered disturbing photographs of herself, leading her to question whether she was also a victim of her father’s abuse. “How could he have photographed me in the middle of the night without waking me? Did he also drug me? Worse still, did he abuse me?”
The trial of Dominique Pelicot and 50 other men accused of raping his wife continues, with expert testimony suggesting the perpetrators were not ordinary men.
https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaLago/comments/90hv5q/here_are_the_285000_manafort_family_texts_that/
Trump pardoned him, but he drugged her for gangrape too.
i’m not clicking on a reddit link so this assertion may be wrong, but i don’t think the case in the OP has anything to do with trump?
It’s the same act, drugging for gangrape, as committed by Paul manafort, trumps 2016 campaign manager.
Would be hard considering that one is in France and the other in the US
And you thought this couldn’t get any worse.
In court, expert psychiatrist Laurent Layet, who interviewed 20 of the accused – including Pelicot three times – said they could not be described as “ordinary men…because that would be tantamount to saying that all men are capable of such acts.”
Yes, and? We choose the bear.
I am not capable of such an act. It’s really weird for you to say I don’t exist.
Unless the rapist guys’ skin turns green so they can be easily told appart from the good ones, women are going to chose the bear.
That’s reasonable and understandable. Calling every man a rapist is not.
I agree. Where did anyone do that? All I see is women using my argument to protect themselves. Aramis87 acknowledged the existence of good men with “yes”, then expressed it’s still safer to chose the bear, which it is.
rapists are ordinary men =/= all men are rapists
Ordinary men are doing these things. Not all ordinary men, but ordinary men nonetheless. To call them anything but ordinary is to make out like they’re some special breed but they’re just ordinary men.
This is almost getting the point of Arrandts ‘banality of evil’ comment.
Most human evils are done by ordinary humans.
There is nothing specially evil about Nazis.
Fascist governments are made up of ordinary people.
Some media unerlined the fact that the only shared trait between all of them (includes the ones “not found”) is that they are men. Not rich, poor, crazy or anything, they are men, so the bear it is
No, the only two things they share is that they’re men, and that they’re rapists. Both of those factors are important. Not all men are rapists, and not all rapists are men.
Of course they are rapists but once we said it what happens ? They go to prison and we wait for the next case ? The husband was teaching one of the guy how to do it, so some crazy bastard may have taken the inspiration.
Now to the topic. Rapist is not a social class or trait. The topic is that there is no specific social trait to define a rapist, any man of any social class coild be a rapist and this is the point that matter. After that we can ask why can any man, as nice as they seem, can turn a rapist. One thing we can note is that it is often when the man is in a position of power over the victim (coaches, priests, fathers, big brothers…) and looking with this angle we start to see a pattern. And to finish : of course not all men are rapists and not all rapists are men, but the balance is skewed. In 2023 in France, men represented 96% of agressors in sexual offenses. At some point, you can’t turn a blind eye on how.skewed it is.
Your entire paragraph about how any man could be a rapist also applies to women. Just seemingly at a higher probability (given the effects of testosterone I’ve heard from transmen, I’d be more surprised if it wasn’t skewed tbh, even if sexual assault by women is probably even more underreported than sexual assault by men).
The relevant question regarding danger here isn’t how many % of rapists are men, it’s how many % of men are rapists. And if we’re overanalyzing the bear thing, what percentage of bear encounters lead to death. Assuming one sees both bad outcomes as equal, it seems valid to consider one worse than the other.
In any case, the bear answer comes from a real fear that shouldn’t be dismissed and that alone indicates a problem, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the rational answer. And regardless it should be extremely obvious why the answer is very offensive to all men that would never sexually assault someone. I don’t think either side is in the wrong here, but both sides are obviously going to be emotionally charged from the getgo, because it sucks to be discriminated against, and it also sucks to frequently feel in danger (…as a result of being discriminated against)
As a father of a daughter, that’s the best choice.
The bear might have eaten recently, I’d rather risk that than the alternative.
Men are so utterly broken, have been forever.
