THE most politically incorrect article EVER by Conrad Black's wife
#1
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/23/land-...landscape/

There is simply too many third rails in this to summarize, but the usual crowd is losing their minds.  Author is Barbara Amiel, Conrad Black's wife.

A snip:

We have created an anything-goes sexual society: premarital relationships, same-sex and transgendered ones, teen contraception, abortions on government health plans without parental consent, a popular culture celebrating sado-masochism in books that have sold more than 60 million copies. No problem for me. But to compensate, we’ve hung our opprobrium on a few minor vices. Hence our grim, prune-faced horror if an adult privately views child pornography or pinches a bottom. This is low Victorianism: quietly murder your unborn child but put dust covers on your computer screen should a child’s photo arouse you. Beats me.
Reply
#2
Allan--

Did you look at the comments? I did!
Reply
#3
It is thought here in Chicago Conrad Black was railroaded.

tim
Reply
#4

I think the writer of the post has an important and interesting point about how we make mountains out of molehills in order to have some sense of "morality" in a world in which homosexual "marriage" is actually seriously being considered by the Supreme Court, women can legally kill their unborn children, Popes are accused of being the cause of the AIDS crisis because they preach that sex outside of marriage is sinful, porn is a click away for any kid with a computer, and single women have no qualms having babies without daddies if their egg timers are running out and they haven't yet found Mr. Right (i.e., a man who won't lie, steal, or cheat but who isn't religious, who makes a million bucks a year but focuses all his energy on her, who can read her mind, who matches up visually with the Mr. Man of her fantasies -- a guy who's buff and ripped but would rather spend time with her than going to the gym -- well, you get the idea...) Even the revolutionaries don't want to be thought of as morally bankfrupt, and everyone wants something to rail against in order to be on "the good side" while those who disagree are "the bad people." Since they've thrown out God's laws, they've come up with political correctness as a poor substitute.

But I take serious issue with the flippant way she spoke about the Steubenville rape case. This wasn't one of those many bogus "the girl had a few too many, danced provocatively on a table with her shirt off, flirted with everyone in the room, had sex, and then regretted it in the morning" situations. This was the real deal, with her totally unconscious (seems to me that she'd been roofied) and laughing witnesses talking about how she "is so raped right now! hahaha"  Here's a video from that night, with one of the perps talking about the girls condition (she's deader than O.J.'s wife!"," "He peed on her; that's how you know she's dead") and what was done to her ("He raped her harder than that cop raped Marcellus Wallace in 'Pulp Fiction' hahaha). This is seriously sick stuff. Chivalry is nowhere to be seen in this video, not even a whiff of it, to be sure. If, God forbid (!), this video reflects typical attitudes of boy-men of that age toward their female cohorts, then young women are in for a world of hurt when they try to marry and find a man to be a good husband, and a father to their children. The boys are in no way all to blame for their lack of chivalry, what with the spoiled princess, gender-feminist-when-it-suits-them, "we don't need men; we can do everything for ourselves," sexually wanton mindsets of the females out there, but there's no excuse for this sort of stuff.


Hmm, I'm having trouble embedding this video. Check it out here:    Or, if that doesn't work, go to youtube and search for the video called "Michael Nodianos confession #oprollredroll #occupysteubenville Steubenville rape"

Reply
#5
Vox Clamantis Wrote:But I take serious issue with the flippant way she spoke about the Steubenville rape case. This wasn't one of those many bogus "the girl had a few too many, danced provocatively on a table with her shirt off, flirted with everyone in the room, had sex, and then regretted it in the morning" situations. This was the real deal, with her totally unconscious (seems to me that she'd been roofied) and laughing witnesses talking about how she "is so raped right now! hahaha"  Here's a video from that night, with one of the perps talking about the girls condition (she's deader than O.J.'s wife!"," "He peed on her; that's how you know she's dead") and what was done to her ("He raped her harder than that cop raped Marcellus Wallace in 'Pulp Fiction' hahaha). This is seriously sick stuff. Chivalry is nowhere to be seen in this video, not even a whiff of it, to be sure. If, God forbid (!), this video reflects typical attitudes of boy-men of that age toward their female cohorts, then young women are in for a world of hurt when they try to marry and find a man to be a good husband, and a father to their children. The boys are in no way all to blame for their lack of chivalry, what with the spoiled princess, gender-feminist-when-it-suits-them, "we don't need men; we can do everything for ourselves," sexually wanton mindsets of the females out there, but there's no excuse for this sort of stuff.

#Invalid YouTube Link#

Hmm, I'm having trouble embedding this video. Check it out here:    Or, if that doesn't work, go to youtube and search for the video called "Michael Nodianos confession #oprollredroll #occupysteubenville Steubenville rape"

I don't think it was flippant at all.  There was no sexual intercourse and the girl was 16, yet you have two 16 year old guys accused of "rape" and "child pornography".  That's bogus.  Compare that to the India rape case, or adults who have sexual intercourse with prepubescent kids and post it online.  It's a perversion of language.

Anyway, it's a great article made in response to the Tom Flanagan case.  Tom Flanagan is a conservative/libertarian political scientist who was thrown under the bus recently for making a distinction between real crimes and victimless crimes.
Reply
#6
(03-27-2013, 10:10 AM)PeterII Wrote: I don't think it was flippant at all.  There was no sexual intercourse and the girl was 16, yet you have two 16 year old guys accused of "rape" and "child pornography".  That's bogus.  Compare that to the India rape case, or adults who have sexual intercourse with prepubescent kids and post it online.  It's a perversion of language.

Anyway, it's a great article made in response to the Tom Flanagan case.  Tom Flanagan is a conservative/libertarian political scientist who was thrown under the bus recently for making a distinction between real crimes and victimless crimes.

The definition of rape in most places doesn't require penile penetration of a vagina. I mean, if a woman were knocked down in an alley and forcibly penetrated with a baseball bat, it's rape, whether or not a penis penetrated her. And rightfully so, IMO. There are also male on male attacks in prisons (a grossly under-reported phenomenon that doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves) in which, obviously, vaginas aren't present at all. If I had a daughter who was attacked in the way this girl was, I wouldn't want the perpetrators being grouped with "mere sex-offenders" -- with the likes of someone who might grab the wrong girl's butt at the office, or who gets his jollies flashing people. This girl was completely unconscious, was penetrated, urinated on, and had pictures taken of her and posted on the internet. If that weren't rape legally (which it is), it's rape in the deeper sense of the word. And how.

I don't know your take on the following, so don't think it's directed at you necessarily, but I have to wonder about anyone who'd agree with you while also yammering on about Cardinal Muller and his statements about the "physical virginity" of Our Lady (see:  http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3452014.0.html )  The Catechism has this to say:

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156

-- which doesn't make sense to me, to be honest, insofar as I don't equate "virginity" with "intact hymen." Speaking of a "virginal birth," to me, is strange. "Virginity" in my mind refers to one's state with regard to sexual intercourse, not whether one's hymen is intact or whether one's ever used a tampon or has ever been accidentally impaled or what not. In my mind, Our Lady would be Ever Virgin whether or not Our Lord was born in the natural way (and I'm not saying He was. I am only saying that if He hadn't been, it wouldn't affect my belief on her perpetual virginity at all).

But my point isn't to debate whether Muller was heretical or whatever, but to wonder at the hypocrisy of anyone (again, not you necessarily! I don't know your opinions on this!) who'd act all deeply troubled by Muller's statements and also think that what the girl in the Steubenville incident suffered either wasn't "rape" or was just no big deal because a penis wasn't used against her but fingers were. To be consistent, one who thinks Muller was way out of bounds and being disrespectful toward Our Lady would also have to think that this girl lost her "virginity" to these boys (assuming she was a virgin). Or at least, that she was violated in such a way that if she had been a virgin, she'd have lost her "virginity."

Reply
#7
It shouldn't matter what the woman in this article was wearing.  As a Catholic male, I appreciate women who dress modestly.  Dressing like you respect yourself should inspire people to respect you.  But... getting drunk and dressing immodestly didn't give this mob of perverts an excuse to do what they did.

And I agree with Vox that the definition of rape is not just a man forcefully having sex with a woman.  It should be any forcible penetration.  Men can be victimized too, not just in prisons but in places you would never expect.  There are also female rapists out there.  It is very uncommon, but possible, for a woman to violate a man. 
Reply
#8
There is no excuse for 16 year old boys to do this to a 16 year old girl. I drank smoked and fought when I was 16, and me and my pals would have been scared shitless to do this to any girl our age even from public school. Because the sexual revolution has clouded all of our minds right thinking is gone. This is intolerable and in the day would get you a trip down the steel stairs to the lock up with your head bouncing on every step. Not to mention getting worked over with a telephone book so there would be no evidence of their hands.

tim
Reply
#9
If drunk 16 year olds who grope other drunk 16 year olds at a house party are rapists, than half the American population are rapists, at least from what I recall of high school.

This story had leaked photos which sensationalized it.  What was not reported was the number of 16 year olds that got abortions that day.  Any pics of that?
Reply
#10
(03-27-2013, 05:01 PM)PeterII Wrote: If drunk 16 year olds who grope other drunk 16 year olds at a house party are rapists,

What happened went way beyond 'groping'!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)