...and these are the Family Values folks....

I got caught in that battle of words and concepts as a news reporter, saying that a rape victim suffered no injuries. Holy shitsky, Tchaikovsky! Next day i was lambasted, boiled and eaten. I had cited the police report, meaning there were no injuries in addition to the rape - e.g. bruises, cuts, etc - without emphasizing that the rape alone was injury enough, thank you kindly. From then on, my rape reports all had an extra sentence in them making this distinction abundantly clear.

I failed to point out in my previous comment that my experience as a reporter definitely raised my consciousness on the subject.

Matt hell...I bet you have 1,000 potential posts from your reporter years.

Sharon Barnes' quote strikes me the most: "A blessing from G-d." Is she out of her mind?

Jonathan, it is for all of us to fear, about who govern or going to govern us. Trully, I think that all as human can make mistakes with words, and all the rest must understand. But the mistaken ideas, and the ignorance of basic morality without even caring for the right, is such an enemy on itself for the majority.
These are statements that shock to say the least..
Thank you for sharing..

Bud she may well be a victim of Religious Insanity, yes.

Stathi any time! Thanks!

Scary. Particularly since the answer is so easy.

jls yes, and on both counts.

I think you should forgive all of these based on their lack of Hands on experience.
Bill Clinton-In his book, Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story, Michael Isikoff relates how Clinton, then Arkansas governor, had sex with former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen.

"It was rough sex," Isikoff writes, "Clinton got so carried away that he bit her lip, Gracen later told friends. But it was consensual." Isikoff missed the lip-biting connection. He also failed to acknowledge that at least one of Gracen's friends, Judy Stokes, had told the Paula Jones legal team that the sex was not consensual at all.

"Do you believe Clinton raped her?" investigator Rick Lambert asked her. "Absolutely," Stokes replied. "He forced her to have sex. What do you call that?"


There are any number of female Democrats, however, who would disagree, Juanita Broaddrick among them. In the Ken Starr investigation, Broaddrick emerged as "Jane Doe No. 5." The woman Clinton abused or assaulted had to take a number. After years of keeping quiet, Broaddrick tearfully told her story to Lisa Myers on NBC's Dateline in February 1999.

Broaddrick: "And he came around me and sort of put his arm over my shoulder to point to this little building and he said he was real interested if he became governor to restore that little building and then all of a sudden, he turned me around and started kissing me. And that was a real shock."

Myers: "What did you do?"

Broaddrick: "I first pushed him away and just told him 'No, please don't do that,' and I forget, it's been 21 years, Lisa, and I forget exactly what he was saying. It seems like he was making statements that would relate to 'Did you not know why I was coming up here?' and I told him at the time, I said, 'I'm married, and I have other things going on in my life, and this is something that I'm not interested in.'"

Myers: "Had you, that morning, or any other time, given him any reason to believe you might be receptive?"

Broaddrick: "No. None. None whatsoever."

Myers: "Then what happens?"

Broaddrick: "Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip (she cries). Just a minute ... He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. (crying) And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him 'No,' that I didn't want this to happen (crying) but he wouldn't listen to me."

Myers: "Did you resist, did you tell him to stop?"

Broaddrick: "Yes, I told him, 'Please don't.' He was such a different person at that moment, he was just a vicious, awful person."

Myers: "You said there was a point at which you stopped resisting?"

Broaddrick: "Yeah."

Myers: "Why?"

Broaddrick: "It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to 'Please stop.' And that's when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip"

There are various forms and degrees of rape. You can be very overwhelm and push someone to do something she did not ever plan on doing-lets take this for instance:
Mimi Alford's recent book, Once Upon An Affair, details a few such incidents. No one who has read the book doubts its veracity. Alford's "affair" with John F. Kennedy began when she was a 19-year-old virgin working in the White House. To her great surprise, Alford found herself being given a private tour of the family quarters by a president whom she barely knew.

"He placed both hands on my shoulders and guided me towards the edge of the bed," she writes. "I landed on my elbows, frozen between sitting up and lying on my back. Slowly, he unbuttoned the top of my shirtdress and touched my breasts." It goes on from there. The emotionally overwhelmed Alford did not resist, but if this isn't rape, it is something damn close -- a flagrant abuse of power, what the French might call ----droit de seigneur,--- the right of the master.

To flaunt his power, Kennedy later had Alford perform oral sex on one of his aides. "It was a pathetic, sordid scene," Alford writes. "He had emotionally abused me and debased Dave [Powers]. For what? To watch me perform for him and to show Dave how much he controlled us?" To her credit, Alford refused to comply the next time the president urged her to do the same for his brother Teddy.

Jay Who by now doesn't know that Clinton was wrong to do what he did, I wonder? Jay, if your point is that moral messes aren't exclusive to one party, let's gee whiz stipulate to that, and you're always welcome to blog on that...of course, it's old news, so you won't and nor will anyone else.

I chose to write about current attitudes that have resulted in at bst mame-brain statements. And, no, I don't feel at all bad abt neglecting what we already have long known abt Bill C...and I admit not to have considered him when I saw Mr. Pearson's piece.

Oh. Well.

Jay I should charge you for the space here today. Wait. Open owns this space. Maybe. Ok. I'll charge you anyway. The bill's in the mail.

Jay one last tht: They, all of them, deserve Lisbeth Salander and her "ink".

As John Boehner so eloquently expressed it: "Knuckle draggers."

jmac apt term; yep

What Bud and jmac said.

crank :)

Jonathan, this is a perfect example of what Kosher is talking about today.

Your post is about the absurdist positions that Radical Republicans have taken with respect to rape, and all of a sudden I find myself reading about accusations of rape against Bill Clinton and Jack Kennedy, perfectly demonstrating the Pavlovian response with respect to the fixed ideas of those who are obsessed about a particular subject so that it always comes up when a trigger word is spoken or read.

For some commenting here, the word rape is specifically associated with Bill Clinton and Jack Kennedy.

I don't intend to argue that these assaults were rape or not, but I do wish to point out that all rape is assault and battery, without exception and, if it were prosecuted as such, we would get more convictions with fewer indignities being heaped upon the victims during the trials.

Whether or not it was rape is often a subjective opinion. Assault and battery is much more cut and dried, easier to prove and much harder to disprove.

For the record for me, rape is rape when she says no and he does it anyway. Case closed. Whether or not there's any violence involved.

Rape is rape, but it is very hard to prove psychological coercion, such as that used by wealthy, powerful, famous men who use their status to overcome the objections of their targets.

On the other hand, accusations brought forth years, or decades, after the original event are always suspect in the absence of any physical evidence....and often the physical evidence for rape is difficult to come by, no pun intended. Really.

One thing I am pretty sure of is that neither Romney nor Obama will ever be caught in these situations. Romney's obsessive compulsive religion controls his behavior. And Michelle would cut Barack's balls off if she ever caught him doing any such thing.

I wouldn't dare post this any higher on the comment crawl. To many wiggies out there.

About Paul Ryan....and these other creeps.....I am not so sure because it seems they aren't sure themselves where the line is.

As I once wrote with respect to Herman Cain, when you starting questioning where the line is with respect to rape, ...you've already gone over it.

alan yep; thanks!

Like Bud, Sharon Barnes makes me maddest in a field of maddening, ignorant fools.

A woman who has been impregnated through rape has not been given a "gift" or a "blessing" or has benefitted in ANY way!! It's not a "Make lemonade" situation, as Sharron Angle tried to tell women while running against Harry Reid for his Senate seat.

She's had an unwelcome, unwanted burden thrust upon her through the very mortal agent of a little man trying to make himself feel big by raping a woman. Forcing a woman to carry that unwanted baby for nine months is nothing short of cruelty. Heaven ain't got NOTHING to do with the situation! And "Legitimate" and "Rape" do NOT belong in the same sentence.

If I DID have tiny ninjas in my private parts, I'd give them their freedom to go chase down all these biologically misogyinistic ignorant fools! Are they STILL having problems understanding why more women support the president??

rated

shiral :)

Jon I don't like the idea of rape becoming a political football. It is a great moral injustice that has been perpetrated upon women forever. There are ignorant conservatives and liberals.That being said anyone with a microphone or a computer should condemn sexual brutality...period. Pregnancy is another issue. Women need to have access to birth control. However, given the nature of the beast, what is said in public will probably never change nor will it influence what happens in the 'heat' of the moment.

Family values is another discussion. Whose family are we talking about? It is like saying quality time....good quality? By whose standards? I think that the rape issue needs to be discussed separately. Good post! Lots to talk about and as usual... well presented.

thanks, Ande!

I am in contrast to Ande, who I love to read and find a very wise woman. As for me, I am grateful for election year politics shedding light on the candidate's social positions. It's not all about the economy. More emphasis is given to women's issues during presidential election time than any other. I think we have seen the same with Gay rights. There is a deep divide between parties regarding our American human rights, and it is never more obvious than during campaigns.
/r.

Island I could not agree more. :)

Thank you Island and Jon for your respect. My point is this. There are some social issues that transcend politics. Rape is one of them. I agree that it is important to know where the candidates stand with respect to birth control/abortion. If the issue of rape was not tied directly to birth control/abortion, do you think that it would ever come up during a campaign? I doubt it.

I'd really like to continue but am polluting your post and going off subject. Let's talk about this another time.

Ande your comments are always welcome here!

And I do agree that there's a good chance that rape would rarely make the front (political) pages were it not for related issues.

I do think it's important to raise up when so many in one major party speak of it as dismissively as they do.

you keep bringing all this vile shit to my attention, Rabbi, and
uh, yeah, thanks so much..
:)
my own research tells me that
rape is a violent antisocial act
that happens when a male is quite mentally disturbed.
ill.
a physical process that has been going on forever
is begun. sometimes there is fertilization of a female egg.
in this case, the process continues ,
developing a creature that evolves through a series of weird forms,
mirroring the entire evolution of every thing: fish, reptile, mammal,
monkey, human.
~
Multiplying cells is what we are speaking of.
Cells that certainly got a 'telos': to develop into a human being.
Some say just cuz you were conceived, you got a 'right' to life.
I truly dunno about that. But...
i know damn well the cell proliferation is going on inside
a sentient being, a woman, whose circumstances cannot
be ignored.

Nature aborts. Often. There is always gonna be more life coming.

The metaphysical condition of these cells is
one of two things:
1. a buncha cells. gross matter doing what it does. in which case it has no 'human' rights, sorry.
or
2. an eternal soul, gestating.

well, an eternal soul musta come from somewhere, so
being as it is 'eternal'
does not it just go..uh...back where it came from,
maybe counting its damn blessings it didnt have to
sojourn seventy five yrs down this valley of gloom and tears
and darkness
we call, 'life'?

James thanks....and I'm not a rabbi. I know many whom I admire, tho. :)

Cliff Notes to the jerks.

Snark yep...

Though I wouldn't reach the same conclusion Mike Huckabee does, he's the first person I've seen make a coherent case, and I base that strictly on what you quoted. There are people who argue that any time conception takes place under any circumstances, we have a human life and we should respect that life as a human life. He goes on to say that he worked for a man who was conceived by a rape and that this man's life was worth preserving, that he was grateful that this man was born because of what he went on to achieve.

Any abortion, any elimination of a potential human life, means we eliminate the potential of that life. In order to be pro-choice, which I am, we have to conclude that the price of protecting those potential lives under any circumstances is too high to be acceptable, that the consequences to women who become pregnant without wanting to justify terminating those pregnancies. I am of the opinion that the price is indeed too high, but I'm not about to hide from the consequences of my position. I have zero objection to Mr. Huckabee's pointing out those consequences. He does not leave me speechless. I'd rather read a good case from my opposition than a bad one.

Still liked and rated the post

Kosh There's no question and it's obvious that there can be excellent people born of rape. For me that's besides the point which is, for me, that these people all agree that government should lay off individuals except when it comes to infantalizing women and pushing them all over the show.

Vagina Voter 2012. Legitimate and forcible. What a Blessing.

Jon,
Don't expect consistency from what currently passes for conservatives. The GOP has decided they no longer care.

Jon,

I know you should charge me for space on that one but, Clinton was the central figure at the DNC and continues to stump for Obama whom (by all accounts) he personally detests. All I here regarding politics here at OS is the Republicans are rudderless mercenaries for the rich. I have not seen any mirrors put forth here.
If Clinton werw a Republican he would not have returned to the RNC ever . Actually the MSM would have had him ousted and their chief supporters would have been the Republican Party. But, he is a returning hero in the Carolinas and we talk about some stupid and not so stupid comments made by Republicans some nobody ever heard of before.
The Kennedy section was educational as it truly described the degrees of forced rape in my opinion. I was taught to love this man growing up in Irish Boston. Part of me will always but, I get sick that A Caroline Kennedy can introduce herself as a Catholic and then rail about 24 hour waiting periods for 2 minutes and then get a standing ovation.
I like my side much better on this one.

don't politicians(humans)say the dumbest stuff?thank somebodies god things i've said never made the msm.....
R

What's your issue with Huckabee's statement? He says that rape is horrible and indefensible but that sometimes it results in pregnancy and when those pregnancies are able to go to term, the person who is born sometimes goes on to do extraordinary things.

I don't see what the problem with his statement is. It might be somewhat naive, but it's completely inoffensive as far as I can tell.

And, there is forceable and non-forceable rape. Statutory rape, in the instance of a 16 and 20 year-old would be rape by statute, but in no way forceable. When a woman is too drunk to consent, that would also be non-forceable.

There's a reason they have degrees of crimes. Some are worse than others...much worse.

Malcom I'd find it rather inoffensive, too, if I did not already know it wasn't tied to his efforts to outlaw all abortions even in the case of rape, denying women the sanctity of their own minds and bodies...he does not trust women to make individual choices; he wants government to determine them.

Malcom as to your second comment, I disagree.

A drunk woman who is, against her will, impregnated, is raped.

Statutory is as to age on the (right) assumption that a minor is nearly always the less emotionally powerful of the two involved.

If the man is drunk as well and gets no indication from the woman that sex is not acceptable, how is that forceable?

What's the difference in maturity between a 20 year old guy and a 16 year old girl (and, actually, in most states 19/16 is rape - it's usually a misdemeanor, but you still get the pleasure of registering as a sex offender for sleeping with your girlfriend, in the cases where the girl is the guy's girlfriend)

The anti-abortion set have a valid argument. By scientific standards, life begins at conception. They believe that life to equate to a human being, and destroying that life to be murder.

It's not a stupid argument. If there were a class of what you believed to be people being murdered, I would consider you amoral if you didn't do all that you could to protect those people.

I don't agree with them either, though I do find abortion deplorable and a thing that should be avoided at all costs, but I find the privacy violation more deplorable and if there's one entity I don't want forcing medical procedures on me, it's the government.

Still, for them, it's not about a woman's choice, it's about preventing murder, and they have valid arguments for their position.

Abortion is a wedge issue that always comes up around election time. It's an unwinnable argument by either side, because both sides are right. Getting embroiled in said argument plays into the device politics of the 2-party system.

The issue is settled as much as it's gonna be settled for now. Who cares what a couple assholes say, and especially who cares if these assholes are in the federal government? It's state legislatures, like the one in Texas that passed a law requiring women to get invasive internal sonograms before an abortion will be carried out that matter, not a few dicks popping their mouths off.

Happy Shana Tova

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=T_M5-qthA8w

HUGGGGGGGGGG

Linda Thanks!!

Dear Jonathan, the two descriptions in GE comments above about Clinton and Kennedy would, to me, qualify as rape. There are two issues, the right of a woman to assert that she is a person in possession of her own life and body, she is not a mere vessel for potential life, nor is she goods and chattel to be transferred from her father's to her husband's oversight and possession. Thus if her body is violated, whether violently physically assaulted or psychologically coerced (or both) she has the right to be given contraception to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. I'm also reminded of the Roman Polansky case. Can anyone doubt he psychologically coerced and forcibly assaulted that 13 year old into anal sex? I don't care how many great movies he's made since then. And I think that guy who headed up the IMF assaulted the hotel maid too. It's all about power, not sex.

Dear Jonathan, the two descriptions in GE comments above about Clinton and Kennedy would, to me, qualify as rape. There are two issues, the right of a woman to assert that she is a person in possession of her own life and body, she is not a mere vessel for potential life, nor is she goods and chattel to be transferred from her father's to her husband's oversight and possession. Thus if her body is violated, whether violently physically assaulted or psychologically coerced (or both) she has the right to be given contraception to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. I'm also reminded of the Roman Polansky case. Can anyone doubt he psychologically coerced and forcibly assaulted that 13 year old into anal sex? I don't care how many great movies he's made since then. And I think that guy who headed up the IMF assaulted the hotel maid too. It's all about power, not sex.

cc 100% and thanks!

(sigh) sorry for the double posts, I don't know what happened. Also I'm blaming "GE" for "the" on my "stupid" iPad keyboard!

Congratulations on the EP. The subject matter is distressing, as always.

sheila thanks (I've never "earned" an EP for having written so little.)

EP for you?
As you know,it's not the amount of words that make a good post.
I am asking myself why on earth it would be necessary to even mention rape/impregnation as a serious issue.
It is ridiculous to say that rape equals out of wedlock impregnation.
That by itself is so much beside the point,but no one speaks about rape within wedlock.(or do they?)
Rated