Funny how you jump into assumptions and justifications for her without knowing a thing about her other than her gender and the signpost she has, yet wag your finger at another victim for having a reaction to a message invalidating a ton of rape victims, and also lumping them in the same group as their abuser, as if it was an inherent, genderlocked flaw.
If you don’t see that as a double standard, then you should really read my last paragraph again and reevaluate your biases.
Removed by mod
You’re either trolling, or too far gone. I am saying “It is not always a man”, and I would never keep representation away from someone just for being a minority, or associate with people who behave like that.
And honestly, I find it appalling, that you jump to assume people claiming to have been raped here are most likely lying, and wonder if you would say that to a woman who claims to have been raped.
And if for you, that hinges on gender alone, you would have to be either extremely thick, or simply arguing in bad faith to ignore how sexist that is.
For an exercise, check out other articles posted about Gisele’s case, and look for comments about male victims. Most people just post in support of her, or in hatred of her abusers.
The reason why this conversation exploded on the topic was the picture chosen for it. It is meant to be divisive, drive engagement and thus, ad revenue.
We’re all being farmed for engagement, which takes away from what is important, seeking justice without looking at genders.
That picture is very triggering to the many, many victims of rape with female perpetrators, especially if the victims are male, hence the outrage.
I am not engaging with you, or calling you “my dear”, unless that is your sock puppet. Plus, you are being farmed for engagement.
Stop harassing me.
You’re just trying to create drama, anybody not braindead can see that what was done to her was beyond atrocious and that she is a hero. Yet the publisher of that article deliberately chose a picture that divisive to generate engagement, get clicks and thus, get paid.
I have been very vocal about this case since the start, because what was done to her was an absolute atrocity, and Gisele literally waived her right to anonimity in order to raise awareness about it. She is a hero, he is a monster, and that is what we should all be focusing on, yet whoever published this article, simply decided to fling mud.
We’re all being manipulated, my dear.
So would I, and I also wish nobody did meth. A lot of dangerous things have been normalized by many people, to the point where they get so used to them, that they seem normal and relatively harmless to them, only because their “normal” is so fucking far from the socially acceptable normal.
Fucking finally. It is a well known bias in academia, which is sadly, very difficult to prove without studies like this one.
Oh, that is something I was not aware of, which is important information. I thought it was crowd sourced and fact checked. I hate disingenuous stuff.
Thank you, I truly had no idea.
Allegedly, they didn’t. Multiple men were contacted through a swingers website, and allegedly led to believe she was a willing participant pretending to be asleep, instead of what she really was, the victim of a disgusting monster, drugged and undressed without her knowledge, for the pleasure of a sick monster.
To the point where one of her abusers, fully aware of what he did, wrote to her to apologize from jail, realizing what he had done under false pretenses, and aware that by not doing his due diligence, he raped her in the literal sense of the word.
Some of us find it useful, although a bit excessive sometimes, not a mod here, just a random user who likes looking at the biases so I don’t waste my time on articles to what could easily be equated to “MAGA.com” at a glance, instead of actively having to go look for resources.
Yes, the one protecting rape victims no matter the gender, and the one against people like you, who call people you don’t know abusers, just for having a penis. I hope you grow some empathy one day, and figure out what you did wrong here.
I would assume it was because the person who posted said “meme” turned out to be a sexist asshole, taking their “benefit of the doubt” and wiping their ass with it further down the comments, and getting a bunch of those comments deleted.
Personally, I would imagine that the real issue with THIS ARTICLE is the picture they chose to forefront it. Why would they choose that one? Rage engagement, to drive engagement and ad revenue, because it has been proven time and time again, that divisiveness brings money. There is a lot of coverage about her and her bravery, as it should be, because she is a massive hero.
If we choose any other posts about the case, that don’t drive themselves on such divisiveness, and and consider the top comments, we can see that the focus is where it should be, on her story and his conviction, yet they rarely get as much engagement as this one.
It is manufactured ragebait to feed the algorithm, using divisiveness as its drive. And it is both succeeding, and taking away from the real point, her story and the support and help that she, and all rape victims deserve.
In the context of this comment section, and the image that was chosen to lead the article, it is not disgusting and it simply makes sense.
She is a fucking hero, she is brave and she gives hope to us rape victims. But if on the same breath you praise her and the people who support her, and dismiss a fuckton of rape victims just because the perpetrators of their particular rapes were women, then that is bound to raise a significant level of discomfort and take away from what the story should be, giving support to the victim of The Beast of Avignon and all rape victims, encouraging them to come forward.
I would prefer to say, nobody deserves to be raped, and as long as people keep giving that flawed statistic that harms both male and female victims of rape, I have no reason not to share it.
That kind of disregard is what keeps most female child rapists out of jail, or nets them far lesser sentences.
Nice try from an overly quoted study done on bad faith, here is a better one that shows, with sources, that said study is incorrect.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You clearly underestimate us, you sexy thing