Sexual Violence

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:17 pm

karmic marshmellow wrote:just my lawn the little fuckers..)

What did your lawn do to piss off God? Oops sorry, thread drift.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:35 pm

Oh heartless fellow mortals - could you not have helped him

Now he burns in the fires of hell with a mythical being

No, Oh no

Geoffrey!!!!

BTW: Violent Crime

Stu - not in Rwanda it hasn't been decreasing pal, or Sierra leone, I'd say it's on the increase in Iraq, Pretty hairy for any individual in Palestine and the many no go areas of Afghanistan - Chechnya things aren't too great apparently, In the Sudan it pretty much sucks and in Pakistan its pretty out of control. what about those friendly neighbourhood death squads, pretty tough to be a kid on the streets of Brazil, think you can do pretty much what the fuck you like to an outcaste in Northern India right now and racial tension in the former Yugoslavia is off the map. South Africa is still very dangerous in some areas and it ain't easy to be a civilian where those Tamil Tigers are thrashing it out, still quite a few places in Northern Ireland you wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of the road in and gun crime is absolutely soaring in London. The media huh? Hmmmm.

nymphgonebad · Post by **nymphgonebad** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:38 pm

karmic marshmellow wrote:
princess strych-9 wrote:well, william gibson would disagree with you, but i'm willing to see merit in what you have to say.

yeah, yeah global warning - what about the locusts tho?
A paranoid person might think you were sick of all these serious discussions.

Besides, we're off-topic anyway. I don't suppose locusts ever committed an act of sexual violence against anyone? (just my lawn the little fuckers..)

bring it back to topic, then. oh, my, christ - do i have to do everything?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:39 pm

JP, in my post I specifically stated individual violent crime. This is not to be confused with the state sanctioned violence that I believe you are citing.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:50 pm

my point mate is that in these theatres of war (what the hell that distinction matters I fail to see anyway) or if you like theatres of 'terror' - lord help us, individual violent crime is off the fucking ricther scale - chaos begets more chaos - have you ever seen or been involved in a riot or a clash with the authourities? I am not assuming you haven't but I have, in a violent enviroment people change dramatically. BTW The former Yugoslavia / Brazil / South Africa, state sanctioned acts of violence? I don't think so, just very violent places with bloody histories. At any rate, the distinction is patently ridiculous if you are talking about the breakdown of society, what illustrates that better than war?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 2:00 pm

princess strych-9 wrote:bring it back to topic, then. oh, my, christ - do i have to do everything?

Hmm, nope. I'll do the work this time.

Not violence, thank whomever-you-thank-for-good-things but seeing naked children out on the playa (away from camps) this year made me nervous. I love the idea of bringing kids (my 9-month old will attend as soon as he's old enough to understand my instructions) and nobody faults a child for wanting to play naked. That said, I trust *almost* everyone who attends BM but I know that some creeps sneak in anyway. Was anyone else worried for these kids or am I being too conservative?

KristieEB · Post by **KristieEB** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 2:13 pm

too conservative

OregonRed · Post by **OregonRed** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 2:18 pm

Not violence, thank whomever-you-thank-for-good-things but seeing naked children out on the playa (away from camps) this year made me nervous. I love the idea of bringing kids (my 9-month old will attend as soon as he's old enough to understand my instructions) and nobody faults a child for wanting to play naked. That said, I trust *almost* everyone who attends BM but I know that some creeps sneak in anyway. Was anyone else worried for these kids or am I being too conservative?

As a mother, I too, was concerned for these children. However, from what I've seen parents who bring thier children to BRC tend to pay closer attention to thier children than folks in the "real world" do. The playa is a dangerous place before burners and yahoos show up, this danger is compounded by the event itself. You really have to be on top of it as a parent to bring your kids out.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 2:23 pm

At any rate, the distinction is patently ridiculous if you are talking about the breakdown of society, what illustrates that better than war

I think it is an important distinction. It has already been mentioned here that state sanctioned violence is as old as culture istself. So, I see no breakdown, just a bloody depressing continuation of the status quo. The difference is only perceptual. If you would cite state/cultural/tribal sanctioned violence as a breakdown, I would ask you to tell me when it was fixed. I believe this original drift, started by you, was implicating trends.

sugarlarry · Post by **sugarlarry** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 2:50 pm

Couldn't it be argued that quite the opposite is happening? That society is in fact becoming more and more organized? I mean if it were in fact falling apart, why would there be so many of us? Why would so many of us enjoy so much wealth and freedom?

That said, don't go thinking I don't think everything is peachy... I just think that we as a species are sort of on the right track... we just need to constantly re-evaluate our position and direction. You can't really think in terms of how things appear over a period of years, but rather generations - I think.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:09 pm

Bullshit

It may be more bureaucratic in the west and our wealth may allow us freedom but it is at the expense of two thirds of the planet - Communism fell, what in god's name makes you think the machinery of consumerism won't falter? Anyway on a global scale 'society' may be becoming more organised according to the capitalist model but there are a hell of a lot of dissenters.

In terms of this argument about distinction - as I pointed out not all the places I was talking about were examples of 'state sanctioned violence' they were examples of places full of a history of hatred and tension where incidents of, fuck me, 'individual' violence weren't decreasing.

I love this fucking quote

"Why would SO MANY of us enjoy so much wealth and freedom" - um, capitalist greed and economic bullying?

Dude, those of us enjoying that 'wealth and freedom' are actually vastly the minority of people on this planet - most of the people on this piece of rock have very little compared to the average californian - that is the result of capitalism - that is why when you go to India you can live there for months on 200 dollars.

You, don't think its all fucked up right now? you don't think hiroshima changed the playing field forever - 'I am become the bringer of death' Oppenheimer, the American guy who tested the first atom bomb quoting the Bhagavad Gita when he pressed the button

let me just say yeah, there have always been wars, sure, but the capacity for destruction has never ever been so great

Fine, whatever don't let me rain on your parade man

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:19 pm

Rob the Wop wrote:
princess strych-9 wrote: kill em off, ship em to some godforsaken island, i don't really care. what's important is that these sick fucks don't hurt anyone else, because then the cycle of abuse keeps rolling merrily along.
Doesn't offend me at all. I advocate capital punishment and screw today's definitions of "cruel and unusual" punishment. If they raped and killed someone, sodomize them with a overly large object til' they die. This not only removes a "damaged" individual, but puts a greater sense of fear into others contemplating the same acts.

Yes, it MIGHT be possible to "treat" the individual until they are better. Problem is a very small percentage of habitual murders, rapists, and hardened criminals will become useful members of society with treatment. This results in many more victims so that a minor percentage can live a normal life. Or our taxes paying for a person to live their whole life behind bars, which isn't really a life anyway. I've always thought that anyone given a life sentence should simply be killed. They no longer serve a purpose in today's society.

"If they raped and killed someone, sodomize them with a overly large object til' they die."

Raping the rapist just sanctions their own act. It's a statement that its okay to rape because you're really really mad at someone. Whether the state does it, or a vigilante mob, or an individual seeking vengeance, it says rape is okay, because they hurt me. That is a way to keep the cycle of abuse turning.

Cutting off the rapist's balls is just another form of sexual violence.

It's when individuals, groups, and communities seek another answer, whether it's locking the person up, or preventing the act, or focusing on healing the person who was hurt, that the cycle gets broken.

Yeah it costs a lot to lock them up, but IMO opinion that's better then sending the message that violence is the ultimate answer to dealing with fuck-ups.

Besides, tell someone they are worthless and irreversibly screwed up, and they won't care if they incur the ultimate sanction. Look at 3 strikes, the cops have already identified some criminals who'll fight the cops to the death against all odds because society has told them - you fucked up three times and now it's over for you.

I think if you want to work on preventing sexual violence that means education and enlightenment, not murder or more sexual violence.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:46 pm

when you talk about racially motivated tribal violence in FYR you are not talking about a random murderer. What I mean by sanctioned is that you belong to a group and that group deems it O.K. for members of your group to kill folks outside of your group. This is radically different from some nut who is a sociopathic serial rapist/murderer. I'm cool to take a few steps back and define terms if that will further the discussion, but your never going to get me to believe that there is any more of this kind of violence now than there has been in the past. On the contrary, I think a case can be made that, per capita, planetwide, there is less now than there was a few millenia ago when everyone in a particular warring tribe got cot up in the madness of war. This is not the universal case anymore. I do agree that our capacity for distruction is much greater and as a result the stakes are higher. Still, I don't see a case beeing made vis a vis warfare that we are more hostile now than we have been in the past.

from webster

Main Entry: break·down
Pronunciation: 'brAk-"daun
Function: noun
Date: 1832
1 : the action or result of breaking down: as a : a failure to function b : failure to progress or have effect : DISINTEGRATION <a breakdown of negotiations> c : a physical, mental, or nervous collapse d : the process of decomposing

what is happening now, wrt war that hasn't been going on before?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:48 pm

holey spilling rerros batman!

sorry

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:02 pm

Firstly to abeerinthemorning in the words of the great Frankie howard -

Yay, yay and thrice yay for you excellent argument against CP

To Stuart, I see your point but I still think it is worse now, jesus some of the fiepower we have now...it has gone way beyond anything of the like in even fairly recent history y'know?

the stakes too are imeasurably high

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:16 pm

yeah, the toys the boys have to play with now are pretty incredible. I was just chatting with this guy at work about it. He was talking about how when the V2s were screaming out of the sky over england it must have been like a sci-fi film where your enemy has this technology you just can't deal with. You can't see it, track it, stop it, whatever. I think when american troops are thrashing around in the middle east it has to be like that as well. What the hell can a 3rd world country do to stop that shit? Nothing (well, assymetrical warfare I guess). I think it is hilarious that we are sold this shit under the guise of how it will bring more order to the world. But I digress. People suck.

sugarlarry · Post by **sugarlarry** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:16 am

"On the contrary, I think a case can be made that, per capita, planetwide, there is less now than there was a few millenia ago when everyone in a particular warring tribe got cot up in the madness of war."

Absolutely. Things have changed quite radically. There are six billion people living on this planet. This does not happen when people are constantly fucking up. It only happens because we are moving towards greater degrees of organization, thus allowing us to produce enough food to support the population. This doesn't happen when people are constantly fighting. Also, let's not forget the fact that genocide is now out of fashion despite the fact that some of our more backwards cousins still think it's cool.

As for your comments Chimp regarding firepower... this is proof in and of itself. Countless billions have been spent on creating weapons that are designed to kill as few people as possible. In fact they are designed to fly through doors, and kill specifically who you are looking for rather then exterminate the population of an entire city. I'm not saying that this is something to respect, BUT it is an indicator that Western values are shifting. Do you suppose that this sort of weapon would be of interest to the Romans, Aztecs, Hutus, Iroquis, or Nazis? Probably not.

Yeah... we as a species have some fabulously powerful weapons as well, and we've managed not to use them save once (well twice) right after they were developed, and in the largest conflict by far in human history. I think we've progressed since then, and will continue to do so. I think all parties have a role to play in this progression, but it is a fragile state, and care must be taken to improve the lots of everyone if we are truly going to get anywhere.

A big part of this is going to be the West recognizing that their greed is playing a big part in things, BUT the rest of the world is going to have to recognize their shortcomings as well. To blame everything on the West is absurd.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:38 am

Not only did the West carve up the middle East - and The British Empire had a lot to do with this - but we also then pretty much deserted it.

Genocide 'unfashionable'? A strange choice of words there - Places in recent history: Somalia, Guetamala, Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, The Balkans, East Timor, Chechnya (Putin has had no word uttered against him for his 'policies' there by the West since 9/11) have all suffered in ways which clearly accord with the articles set out in the 1948 Genocide Convention. Some of which is printed here:-

Article I

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

- The difficulty arising with this text is the wording "intent to destroy", which can be either "in whole or in part", groups defined in terms of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. So the imposition of restrictions during the nineteen-sixties and seventies on reproduction in India, through forced sterilization or the continuing restrictions in China, do not constitute genocidal policies as the intent is to restrict the size of groups, not to destroy existing groups in whole or in part. Policies implemented during the Third Reich respecting Jewish, Roma and Sinti groups, on the other hand, were quite clearly genocidal in terms of this article as there was a clearly stated policy indicating the presence of an intent to destroy them..

Many experts, legal and academic, consider these criteria deficient in various respects. Some consider that the criteria are insufficiently broad. For instance, it excludes the physical destruction of certain sub-groups that have regularly been the victims of extensive killing programs. Usually mentioned in this context are members of political or social classes. Also, the definition focuses on the physical destruction of the group. There have been many instances in which the group has physically survived but its cultural distinctiveness has been eradicated. A contemporary example is the destruction of Tibetan culture by the Chinese, or that of indigenous tribes in certain countries in South America, Paraguay and Brazil, for instance. (Edited down from an article in 'Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations'. Fourth Edition. London: Routledge, 1996) -

The destruction of culture - now that is an interesting notion quite aside from the question of genocide -

Look at what happened right after the occupation of Bagdhad, some of the oldest artefacts in human history, dating back to Mesopotamia were destroyed by a people who had been so brutalized that their reaction was riotous and irrational - Unfortunately the US troops did nothing to protect some of the most precious surviving artefacts from Mesopotamia, the very heart of human civilisation. So, much of Iraq's cultural history, and indeed the world's, has now been eradicated.

Now I believe there was a case for action against the regime of Saddam but under UN auspices and with real evidence of WMD and a probable ability to deploy. If the UN were involved more fully now the war is officially 'over' then it would seem less like an occupation and more like a genuine liberation (oil interest debates aside of course)

I am only pointing out the sacking of those Bagdhad museums to portray the fact that cultural tragedy can be the effect of even the most 'pinpointed' military campaign.

Personally Iam not convinced when I see grainy black and white photos of bulidings being 'targeted' anyway.

Maybe thats just me.

Zane5100 · Post by **Zane5100** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 6:48 am

"Nuke 'em till them glow, shoot 'em in the dark, and use their babies' heads as runway lights."

God, I love my old squadron’s "unofficial" motto.

I do agree that the American political administration could have given two rat shits in a tin can about cultural treasures, because if Bush & Co. had cared about preserving museums, not to mention other institutions...

This invasion has been a complete fuck-up.

Chef · Post by **Chef** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 7:31 am

Zane5100 wrote:This invasion has been a complete fuck-up.

Aren't most invasions a complete fuck-up?
At least for the people being invaded.

Zane5100 · Post by **Zane5100** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 7:34 am

Chef wrote:Aren't most invasions a complete fuck-up?
At least for the people being invaded.

Yeah, you've got me there.

sugarlarry · Post by **sugarlarry** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 7:48 am

The cases of genocide are interesting, because for the first time in our history we are starting to do something about it. We've reached a point where we will at least consider comitting lives, and massive resources to put a stop to this. It doesn't always work, and "our" methods are not always agreed upon, and on't always work, but its a start.

Rats. Gotta go to work. I'll finish this thought later.

Zane5100 · Post by **Zane5100** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 7:58 am

sugarlarry wrote:The cases of genocide are interesting, because for the first time in our history we are starting to do something about it. We've reached a point where we will at least consider comitting lives, and massive resources to put a stop to this. It doesn't always work, and "our" methods are not always agreed upon, and on't always work, but its a start.

Rats. Gotta go to work. I'll finish this thought later.

I think that it's a step a positive direction, but I do think that we need to work on the conditions and processes that lead to genocide and not just separating the parties involved and trying to help clean up the mess afterwards.

How to work on that? Where are the resources?

Too bad we've spent ~$4 trillion dollars on weapons that we hope to never have to use. That could have been a good start...

Who was it that said "Physician, heal thyself?"

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 8:31 am

Hey Sugar Larry

I beg to differ, we did fuck all about Rwanda, it was Blair that forced action in the former Yugoslavia, far, far to late to avoid the actual genocide, it has taken one hell of a long ting time to get around to committing any troops in Liberia (no vested interest), Putin has a free hand to put down the so called 'terrorists' in Chechnya and Pol Pot had a hell of a time in Cambodia -

No-one helped those students in Tiannamon Square either, or has really done anything to free Tibet

If 'doing something about it' means bombing the fuck out of Iraq, then oh yes, indeed 'we' have.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 8:37 am

Hey Sugar Larry

I beg to differ, we did fuck all about Rwanda, it was Blair that forced action in the former Yugoslavia, far, far to late to avoid the actual genocide, it has taken one hell of a long ting time to get around to committing any troops in Liberia (no vested interest), Putin has a free hand to put down the so called 'terrorists' in Chechnya and Pol Pot had a hell of a time in Cambodia -

No-one helped those students in Tiannamon Square either, or has really done anything to free Tibet

If 'doing something about it' means bombing the fuck out of Iraq, then oh yes, indeed 'we' have.

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 8:51 am

Rob the Wop wrote:[
I believe less in sending food and supplies- more in creating grain capable of handling the harsh conditions of the area, more in helping develope water treatment facilities, more in establishing safe sex practices and providing condoms, more in establishing medical facilities based upon the local population.

Africa is a graveyard of good intentions, aid projects gone wrong, fish ponds clogged, roads to nowhere, confused Chinese, too many weapons and not enough parents.

Please excuse the cynical reposting:

The Development Set

Excuse me, friends, I must catch my jet-
I'm off to join the Development Set;
My bags are packed, and I've had all my shots,
I have travelers' checks, and pills for the trots

The Development Set is bright and noble,
Our thoughts are deep and our vision global;
Although we move with the better classes,
Our thoughts are always with the masses.

In Sheraton hotels in scattered nations,
We damn multinational corporations;
Injustice seems so easy to protest,
In such seething hotbeds of social rest.

We discuss malnutrition over steaks
And plan hunger talks during coffee breaks.
Whether Asian floods or African drought,
We face each issue with an open mouth.

We bring in consultants whose circumlocution
Raises difficulties for every solution-
Thus guaranteeing continued good eating
By showing the need for another meeting.

The language of the Development Set
Stretches the English alphabet;
We use swell words like 'epigenetic',
'Micro', 'Macro'. and 'logarithmetic'.

Development Set homes are extremely chic,
Full of carvings, curios and draped with batik.
Eye-level photographs subtly assure
That your host is at home with the rich and the poor.

Enough of these verses -- on with the mission!
Our task is as broad as the human condition!
Just pray to God the biblical promise is true:
The poor ye shall always have with you.

Ross Coggins

nymphgonebad · Post by **nymphgonebad** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 9:04 am

sugarlarry wrote: Countless billions have been spent on creating weapons that are designed to kill as few people as possible. In fact they are designed to fly through doors, and kill specifically who you are looking for rather then exterminate the population of an entire city. I'm not saying that this is something to respect, BUT it is an indicator that Western values are shifting..

shifting values, or a desire to cover their asses and not be regarded as mass murderers?

sugarlarry · Post by **sugarlarry** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 9:12 am

Actually a lot of people were doing something about Rwanda, and were basically blocked by the UN. France and the US who are currently at each other's throats were basically the forces behind denying a larger UN force that could have minimized the suffering. Canadian General Romeo Dallaire did what he could to stop it, actually going against UN orders. He has a new book out called "Shake Hands with the Devil: The Falure of Humanity in Rwanda". It's an unbelievable story. I saw him in an interview describing shit that was beyond imagination. Dallaire suffered two nervous breakdowns after returning to Canada, and it's easy to see why.

The thing is, we are moving towards trying to figure out how to stop these things, and hopefully resolve conflict without fighting massive wars. Yugoslavia is a good example of this, though there are many who question the wisdom of this move, because it took a bombing campaign to pound the Serbs into their senses. Regardless, we are starting to stand up and see what is going on. As you point out, do something in Yugoslavia, and are doing something in Liberia - despite the fact that there are no interests there.

The thing is, you might think the West is nothing but a bunch of greedy fucks, but we have actually accomplished quite a bit socially to the benefit of hundreds of millions. Hundreds of races live together in relative harmony in North America, because we've moved beyond cultural differences that would have had us at each other's throats a hundred years ago. This is no small task. Also, you can't deny the gains made by women over the past century in North America and Europe. These positive changes are spreading along with the negative influences of the West, so it isn't all bad.

Cultural change is both a good and bad thing. You will see the loss of languages, traditional clothing, foods, and traditions, but you will see other opportunites presenting themselves as well. I'm a mutt. Grandson of imigrants who fled extreme poverty and famine. My roots cultures mean nothing to me now. A loss? Not really. I've become something new, and I wouldn't give it up for a plate of spaghetti, a tight pair of jeans, and a moped.

So where do you stand Chimp? Do you think we are doomed? If so, what's to be done?

sugarlarry · Post by **sugarlarry** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 9:17 am

"shifting values, or a desire to cover their asses and not be regarded as mass murderers?"

I don't know. Maybe a bit of both. Regardless they are evolving along this path because people don't want to see cities carpet bombed. Personally I believe in the shifting values approach. True mass murderers don't usually care what people think... they just beat them into submission, or shoot them if they are too much trouble.

gizray · Post by **gizray** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 9:22 am

how about the cases that the media don't report on? how about all the money our country and germany dumped into turkey to fight 'terrorism' during the 90's? that wasn't for some greater peace. that was to give turkey a hand in crushing the kurds. in exchange the turks were the first to volunteer troops for afghanistan. fucked up shite. funny thing is u.s. citizens keep pointing blame or support towards the u.s. govt. the govt doesn't control shit. the govt is just another tool of big business, just like the media.

Sexual Violence

back to topic

yeah, BUT........