For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Feminists and rape. And Whoopi Goldberg is an idiot.
Written By : Tabitha Hale

Crossposted at TabithaHale.com

According a recent conversation on The View, there are apparently varying degrees of rape. And Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t think that oral, anal, and vaginal pentration, despite being told no (several times), was actually rape.

So here’s the thing, Whoopi. Rape is rape. As AllahPundit pointed out, Samantha Geimer’s testimony claims that it was, in fact, a “rape-rape”. And really, the only other person involved admitted to giving quaaludes and champaigne to a child before sodomizing her, so who do you trust?

Tommy Christopher sums up my thoughts exactly.

Whoopi floats the notion that rape “wasn’t the allegation,” and that the victim “was aware,” and Melissa Gilbert thinks it makes a difference that “Mom was in the building.”

What the EFF? I hate to even point out the sickeningly obvious here. First of all, “rape-rape” was the allegation. Samantha Geimer testified that she told Polanski “No!” While Polanski denies this, he loses a couple of credibility points by drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. I’d say she gets the benefit of the doubt here.

Notwithstanding that, though, is that the standard of consent now, “She was aware?” Keep an eye on your drinks, ladies, because in Whoopi’s world, the right dose of rohypnol will leave you just conscious enough to have deserved it.

The clip on Jezebel disturbed me even more than the first one I watched in Tommy Christopher’s post. Whoopi’s pseudo-logical rant about defining what it actually was that he did about sent me over the edge.

I can’t believe I’m about to say this, but Joy Behar actually said something I absolutely agree with. You can’t have sex with a 13 year old kid without it being rape. There is no such thing as consensual, it is always rape according to the law. Hence the term “statutory rape”. Even if they do it in Europe, Whoopi.

Apparently the fact that there were drugs and alcohol involved complicates the issue for Whoopi and the girls. Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter. If she said no, which she did, it’s rape. There is no such thing as “gray area” in the real world. Rape is rape. When someone says no, and they are then pushed into sexual acts, it becomes “rape-rape”.

I know what it looks from Samantha’s side. People default to “blame the victim” mode when there is any questionable behavior on the part of the victim. I suppose it just makes it easier for them to handle the idea that it could happen to them, or someone they love. The logic behind this just blows my mind. Essentially, what’s being said is that because a girl has a few drinks, stays out too late, wears the wrong clothes, etc., guys have the right to her body.

In this case, the girls on The View start asking where mama was in a warped version of the same game. When it happened to me, the backlash was “well, you were drinking…” or “there was someone down the hall, why didn’t you do anything?”… which compounds the problem. Women struggle enough with guilt after a rape, and they shouldn’t.

Maybe that’s part of the “rape culture” that feminists are always talking about. Which beings us back to Whoopi’s weird “it’s okay in Europe so it should be okay here” mentality. One of the tenets of feminism is that the US is a horrible patriarchy that we need to fight. But we’re supposed to accept it in other countries? It seems to be a battle that they choose to fight when it suits their purpose.

Regardless, this is not okay. You can’t categorize rape. You can’t pretend that it’s not really rape because one of your friends did it. And you certainly can’t downplay the significance of the rape of a child.

Stop trying to drown out the issue with legalese, Whoopi.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/29/video-whoopi-says-polanski-didnt-commit-rape-rape/
0
  • Rickvid_in_Seattle

    I was walking down the street with some $100 bills poking out of my shirt pocket. Boy oh boy, I knew it was silly, even dangerous. I got…I don't know. Some guy punched me and took my money. Whoopie? Was I robbed? Whoopie? Hell-ooooo!

  • Bill_Dalasio

    Ms. Hale,

    I hate to say this, as it may sound a bit like blaming the victim in this case, but what do you expect from the modern feminist movement? They sold their concern for rape victims to Bill Clinton and sealed it off with a fond rememberance of Teddy Kennedy.

  • D-Vega

    I would have to agree. A 13 year old cannot legally give consent so its illegal either way. Unless of course, you are 13 too.

    Polanski also plead guilty to the charge of sex with a minor, which is a felony. Its moot at this point whether it was statutory rape or whether it was consensual or not. The guy plead guilty to the charge, and then when the judeg decided he would make an example out of him he became a fugitive. End of story.

  • http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

    Whoopsie's attempt to dissimulate is just hilarious. "Rape-rape"? WTF? Someone with real authority and gravitas needs to publicly excoriate Whoopsie for her attempt at magically trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

  • http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

    They sold their concern for rape victims to Bill Clinton and sealed it off with a fond rememberance of Teddy Kennedy.

    Posted by Bill_Dalasio

    2009-09-30 16:25:33

    That and a refusal to stand up for woman who are essentially chattel in Muslim countries(but protest wars to bring those woman freedom).

  • http://www.thepiratescove.us William_Teach

    The amazing part is that ABC, or whichever station runs The View, didn't can Whoopie immediately. Same for those in the media who are actually defending a man who drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old.

    As someone wrote on a blog or Twitter or something somewhere (I read too many,) imagine if Polanski was a priest. These same folks would be calling for the death penalty.

  • aharris

    I can't believe that Whoopie would defend this. "It's not rape-rape"? What kind of sick logic is that?

    The girl was 13, drugged, and said "no." Polanski admitted he did it. What part of that doesn't she get?

    I further can't believe that this got aired on national television.

  • Raposa

    I suspect that "it's okay in other countries" is a way of saying "it's legal in sharia law".

    Not exactly a standard I'd like to apply here.

  • Heidi

    Whoopi is an idiot idiot. And just for the record, if you read the grand jury transcripts, the 13-year-olds mother was not there, as Melissa (irrelevant) Gilbert said. Not that it even matters. If a parent served up their child, naked, on a silver platter, a 40 year old man should run away. It just bugs me that none of these women had the facts right. Hurry back, Elisabeth Hasselbeck!

  • CoolCzech

    I would have to agree. A 13 year old cannot legally give consent so its illegal either way. Unless of course, you are 13 too.

    Posted by D-Vega

    2009-09-30 16:35:46

    It's not just that, D-Vega:

    In fact, the girl did NOT give any sort of consent. Polanski drugged her, ignored her when she pleaded to go home, ignored her when she asked him not to sodomize her.

    There is absolutely NO room for doubt in this case, whatsoever. I just find it amazing that many of the same feminists that "theorize" that marital sex is a form of rape seem so confused by a middle aged man drugging and sodomizing a child. What are we missing here??

  • Corperate_Cabana

    'rape-rape' is the new 'a little pregnant'.

  • http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

    What are we missing here??

    Cool, I'd suggest that we aren't the ones missing something.

  • http://www.sfusualsuspects.com/ Pork_Soda

    So if I play with matches and burn my apartment building down that's not "Arson-arson"? Thanks Whoopmeister, my landlord will be pleased.

  • CoolCzech

    Unless of course, you are 13 too.

    Posted by D-Vega

    2009-09-30 16:35:46

    Actually, strictly true that's not true either – a child CANNOT give legal consent to ANYONE, period. Of course, I rather doubt either 13 year old would be charged. But in fact, if a 17 year old screwed an 11 year old… I expect charges WOULD be made.

  • CoolCzech

    ummm… I meant, "strictly speaking…"

  • BIG

    It is amazing to me that people can be defending Polanski. The fact that many in his industry are now standing by his side, one has to wonder what crime must be committed to be blackballed in Hollywood? For the answer, click below.
    http://troglopundit.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/say-

  • http://www.associatedcontent.com/melpol melpol

    Being entrapped does not forgive him for the crime, but there are many criminals in the case including the pimping mother,trampy daughter, and crooked judge.

    Polanski was tricked him into pleading guilty to a lesser charge. The deal was for the judge and his partners to get half a million for no jail time. But once Polanski pleaded guilty the price went up. He was threatened with 50 years if he did not come up with the money. Polanski would not give up all his assets and fled the country.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    The trial was a mess, but Polanski was scum and should have gone to prison – and no one should be defending him now.

  • http://blog.ashfame.com hacking

    Hello my friend! I wish to say that this article is awesome, nice written and include almost all important infos. I’d like to peer extra posts like this .

Advertisement
Featured Video

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info