"I've been violated!" It's amazing what a woman's cry for help can do to a lot of people. It only goes to show that Filipinos, for the most part, are still chivalrous in nature even if most people claim that times have changed. We still cling to an old habit that he who cries first is the victim. Our sense of justice is based on the impeccable ability to convince everyone that an injustice was brought upon you with only your tears as proof.
I am an adamant believer that women should be given due respect as equals and at times, as superiors. A damsel in distress, in this country, is given the benefit of the doubt when crimes are presented to the media and general public. Times have changed. A damsel in distress may not be a victim after all.
Before you go around in public burning flags and pointing at government officials for their lack of support, I urge you to examine the evidence first. We should not be so narrow-minded to side with a woman just because she claims she has been violated and the alleged suspects happen to be Americans. Their race can be capable of monstrous acts, but so are we.
Let's be honest with ourselves. Any self-respecting woman would not join a group of rowdy men whether they're foreign or local. We all know what type of job entrails that kind of service and no one even questioned it. Of course her family will never admit it and the media wouldn't dare ask the question. A proud parent would never say, "My daughter is a whore and I'm not ashamed of it."
So please, stop waiving your sign boards. Stop your protesting as if you're protecting your country's dignity. You're making a fool of yourself for ignoring the truth. If you're still wondering why the government has not pledged their support, it's simple. They must remain impartial. That's how justice works. This country has to stop the mob mentality. You can't change things by going to the streets with a handful of rebels looking for a cause to shout out. The day we loose faith in justice is the day we loose it.
Birthday Girl
9 years ago
8 comments:
Oh Jesus. I suppose you mean well, but still, dude, that is utter bullshit. I've heard this crap so many times, variations of "She was wearing a short skirt, so it's her fault she was raped!" And I call bullshit every time. I don't give a damn whether she was a five-peso pokpok who spread her legs for half of Subic, No Means No, it's that simple.
When a woman doesn't want it, hands off, no matter what the provocation.
Do you really want a popular board? I could repost and link to this wrongheaded post and have some people react, mostly the same way I did.
I think she didn't say no. They must've disagreed with the price. Things got out of hand and they ended up in court.
sheesh. if a woman offers to screw you senseless for the low low price of 50 centavos, and you refuse to pay and force her to have sex, what's that called? rape.
even if she would have said yes for the right price, the point is that she didn't say yes, that's what "disagreed" means, doesn't it?
you obviously haven't dealt with their kind yet. they usually ask for payment first but with clients with stature, they disregard their rule because money obviously is not a problem. The rape case presented that the victim had no injuries that would show she was raped. Victim claims she was highly intoxicated. However, sex causes trauma to the vaginal opening whether it was with consent or without. Rape or whether the victim is unconscious or not would have trauma in the 5, 6 and 7's. Imagine the vagina as a clock and you'll get the picture. This would mean that the assailant had no help from the victim at all or is non-cooperative. Sex with consent would have trauma in the 11, 12 and 1's simmilar to what Nicole sustained. So it was with consent. Court's definition of rape does not fit the description. She was not raped, she wasn't properly compensated. That's a different charge all together.
yes thank you, i watch csi too. see, now you're starting to think. your asinine first post argued that just because the woman was a pokpok and hung out with a bad crowd automatically she was not raped. which is stupid. the first and only issue is consent. that's what you should have said, instead of mocking protesters with signboards who are only defending human rights.
i don't see any stuff about bruising on nicole's vagina at 6 o'clock, ano yan, kinuwneto sa yo ng barbero? cite your sources.
dr. raquel de rosario fortun and dr. rolando ortiz concluded that it would be "unusual" for nicole's bruising to occur through consensual sex. source:
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2006/07/12/forensic.expert.backs.doc.s.findings.in.subic.rape.case.html
the defense only argued that the forensics did not prove rape. the defense never presented any contrary forensic evidence to prove that it was consensual.
i'm not sure why i'm bothering to argue this. seems like you're just pulling this stuff out of thin air. you won't do your homework, because this is "just your blog," your outlet. but you're still wrong and posting poisonous nonsense. so here we are.
You won't see my sources in a place accesible to a 2 yr old with a modem, unfortunately. For you it may be hearsay but if I wanted to find out if you have dandruff, I won't surf the net, I'd ask your barber. For what it's worth for you, my sources are medical staff who don't appear in the stories and from drunken policemen who frequent my uncle's house. You can dismiss everything and call it BS. It won't mean much to me. And stop defending the protesters, the bulk of them are paid to hold up signs they didtn't even make and chant stuff they don't understand. Of course you won't find it in any public document and its not in the internet so feel free to call it BS too.
Post a Comment