General 2012-13 Wrestling thread

[David Harding]

Not sure if this merits its own thread, so putting it here: Pete Mesko arrested, charged with first degree rape.

Oh and there I went, reading the comments. YES HOW DARE THE SUN ADHERE TO STANDARD JOURNALISM PRACTICE AND NAME THE SUSPECT. I hate people. Really, truly. Except for maybe like four or five of you.

I don't want to blame the victim here but you really shouldn't let your eyes wander like that. They're bound to get assaulted.

I know. I don't know what I was thinking, having the audacity to just read those comments like that. I was totally asking for it. I could have avoided all of this by never venturing onto the internet. Heck, I shouldn't have even learned to read.

The situation does suggest that one should avoid reading internet comment threads on anything even remotely controversial.  I mean, look how contentious arguments about much less important things get on this site when we all share a common allegiance and half of us know ach other personally.  A situation like this one pops up and folks who ve no actual connection or knowledge of the case use it as an opportunity to get on the soap box and push their own abstract ideas.

To be honest (and sincere), my outrage and exasperation at the tone of the comments on the article extend to the way society views sexual assault in general. What makes me hate people in this case is that most of the commenters have a presumed affiliation with Cornell, which should, SHOULD, indicate that they would have a basic fucking clue that the Sun in no way acted controversially by printing the suspect's name. They're reading a newspaper. When writing about crime, newspapers name suspects. I guess in this case, subbing in a fresh-faced, corn-fed athlete from their alma mater for your usual common criminal was too much to comprehend, so it couldn't have been straight reporting, it must have been sullying this young man's reputation before all the facts came in.

My impression is that suspects are not named, but that once someone has been charged they are identified.  The Ithaca Journal identifies the accused.

[ugarte]

Not sure if this merits its own thread, so putting it here: Pete Mesko arrested, charged with first degree rape.

Oh and there I went, reading the comments. YES HOW DARE THE SUN ADHERE TO STANDARD JOURNALISM PRACTICE AND NAME THE SUSPECT. I hate people. Really, truly. Except for maybe like four or five of you.

I don't want to blame the victim here but you really shouldn't let your eyes wander like that. They're bound to get assaulted.

I know. I don't know what I was thinking, having the audacity to just read those comments like that. I was totally asking for it. I could have avoided all of this by never venturing onto the internet. Heck, I shouldn't have even learned to read.

The situation does suggest that one should avoid reading internet comment threads on anything even remotely controversial.  I mean, look how contentious arguments about much less important things get on this site when we all share a common allegiance and half of us know ach other personally.  A situation like this one pops up and folks who ve no actual connection or knowledge of the case use it as an opportunity to get on the soap box and push their own abstract ideas.

To be honest (and sincere), my outrage and exasperation at the tone of the comments on the article extend to the way society views sexual assault in general. What makes me hate people in this case is that most of the commenters have a presumed affiliation with Cornell, which should, SHOULD, indicate that they would have a basic fucking clue that the Sun in no way acted controversially by printing the suspect's name. They're reading a newspaper. When writing about crime, newspapers name suspects. I guess in this case, subbing in a fresh-faced, corn-fed athlete from their alma mater for your usual common criminal was too much to comprehend, so it couldn't have been straight reporting, it must have been sullying this young man's reputation before all the facts came in.

The misguided outrage stems from the journalistic practice of not naming rape victims (out of concern for stigmatizing/traumatizing a person NOT suspected of wrongdoing) and the lunkheaded creation of a false equivalency that wants to extend that courtesy to the accused. I'm sure you could find out more about this by googling "misandry" but I'd recommend eating shards of glass before you dive down that self-pitying rabbit hole.

[Trotsky]

Not sure if this merits its own thread, so putting it here: Pete Mesko arrested, charged with first degree rape.

Oh and there I went, reading the comments. YES HOW DARE THE SUN ADHERE TO STANDARD JOURNALISM PRACTICE AND NAME THE SUSPECT. I hate people. Really, truly. Except for maybe like four or five of you.

I don't want to blame the victim here but you really shouldn't let your eyes wander like that. They're bound to get assaulted.

I know. I don't know what I was thinking, having the audacity to just read those comments like that. I was totally asking for it. I could have avoided all of this by never venturing onto the internet. Heck, I shouldn't have even learned to read.

The situation does suggest that one should avoid reading internet comment threads on anything even remotely controversial.  I mean, look how contentious arguments about much less important things get on this site when we all share a common allegiance and half of us know ach other personally.  A situation like this one pops up and folks who ve no actual connection or knowledge of the case use it as an opportunity to get on the soap box and push their own abstract ideas.

To be honest (and sincere), my outrage and exasperation at the tone of the comments on the article extend to the way society views sexual assault in general. What makes me hate people in this case is that most of the commenters have a presumed affiliation with Cornell, which should, SHOULD, indicate that they would have a basic fucking clue that the Sun in no way acted controversially by printing the suspect's name. They're reading a newspaper. When writing about crime, newspapers name suspects. I guess in this case, subbing in a fresh-faced, corn-fed athlete from their alma mater for your usual common criminal was too much to comprehend, so it couldn't have been straight reporting, it must have been sullying this young man's reputation before all the facts came in.

The misguided outrage stems from the journalistic practice of not naming rape victims (out of concern for stigmatizing/traumatizing a person NOT suspected of wrongdoing) and the lunkheaded creation of a false equivalency that wants to extend that courtesy to the accused. I'm sure you could find out more about this by googling "misandry" but I'd recommend eating shards of glass before you dive down that self-pitying rabbit hole.

I like you ugarte, but presumption of innocence is self-pitying?  Get a grip.  I would expect this from some tub-thumping demagogue lapping up easy applause on the campaign trail.

Accusations of rape, like accusations of child molestation, can destroy the accused's life regardless of the eventual verdict.  That makes plastering EITHER PARTY'S NAME all over the place ethically suspect.  It's wonderful for circulation, but it's not knuckle-dragging atavism to suggest extra care be used.

The idiocy here is dragging cultural baggage into the discussion, on either side.  Blaming the victim through horrendous sexist narratives is one type of idiocy.  Your post is pretty nearly as bad on the other side.

[Jerseygirl]

Not sure if this merits its own thread, so putting it here: Pete Mesko arrested, charged with first degree rape.

Oh and there I went, reading the comments. YES HOW DARE THE SUN ADHERE TO STANDARD JOURNALISM PRACTICE AND NAME THE SUSPECT. I hate people. Really, truly. Except for maybe like four or five of you.

I don't want to blame the victim here but you really shouldn't let your eyes wander like that. They're bound to get assaulted.

I know. I don't know what I was thinking, having the audacity to just read those comments like that. I was totally asking for it. I could have avoided all of this by never venturing onto the internet. Heck, I shouldn't have even learned to read.

The situation does suggest that one should avoid reading internet comment threads on anything even remotely controversial.  I mean, look how contentious arguments about much less important things get on this site when we all share a common allegiance and half of us know ach other personally.  A situation like this one pops up and folks who ve no actual connection or knowledge of the case use it as an opportunity to get on the soap box and push their own abstract ideas.

To be honest (and sincere), my outrage and exasperation at the tone of the comments on the article extend to the way society views sexual assault in general. What makes me hate people in this case is that most of the commenters have a presumed affiliation with Cornell, which should, SHOULD, indicate that they would have a basic fucking clue that the Sun in no way acted controversially by printing the suspect's name. They're reading a newspaper. When writing about crime, newspapers name suspects. I guess in this case, subbing in a fresh-faced, corn-fed athlete from their alma mater for your usual common criminal was too much to comprehend, so it couldn't have been straight reporting, it must have been sullying this young man's reputation before all the facts came in.

The misguided outrage stems from the journalistic practice of not naming rape victims (out of concern for stigmatizing/traumatizing a person NOT suspected of wrongdoing) and the lunkheaded creation of a false equivalency that wants to extend that courtesy to the accused. I'm sure you could find out more about this by googling "misandry" but I'd recommend eating shards of glass before you dive down that self-pitying rabbit hole.

I know where the misguided outrage comes from; my current job has me face to face with that and "misandry" pretty much all the time. I assume you're spelling this out for readers of this thread who are not me.

I also maintain to the general eLynah readership that the internet commentariat (well, and society at large) falls well on the side of "buuuuuuuuuurn the motherfucker" for all charges except those of sexual assault. Really, what percentage of comments on a story about an alleged child molester's arrest call for us to "reserve judgment" and "let the courts decide"? How many bring up that children are notoriously unreliable witnesses and are easily led during questioning?

[Ben]

Accusations of rape, like accusations of child molestation, can destroy the accused's life regardless of the eventual verdict.  That makes plastering EITHER PARTY'S NAME all over the place ethically suspect.  It's wonderful for circulation, but it's not knuckle-dragging atavism to suggest extra care be used.

Police name the person charged with a crime as part of the public trial process. The alternative would allow the government to arrest, charge, and try people essentially in secret.

[Trotsky]

I also maintain to the general eLynah readership that the internet commentariat (well, and society at large) falls well on the side of "buuuuuuuuuurn the motherfucker" for all charges except those of sexual assault. Really, what percentage of comments on a story about an alleged child molester's arrest call for us to "reserve judgment" and "let the courts decide"? How many bring up that children are notoriously unreliable witnesses and are easily led during questioning?

Wait, though.  Let's say pedophilia is the current brainfreeze crime.  Like witch or communist once were, in the public mind accusation equals proof ("where there's smoke there's fire, a-herp") and everybody merrily rushes to light the auto da fe.

Shouldn't sane minds guard against that behavior, rather than attempt to replicate it with yet another accusation?  "We don't mindlessly stone people to death when their accusers are women" is not a valid demonstration of sexism.

[Trotsky]

Accusations of rape, like accusations of child molestation, can destroy the accused's life regardless of the eventual verdict.  That makes plastering EITHER PARTY'S NAME all over the place ethically suspect.  It's wonderful for circulation, but it's not knuckle-dragging atavism to suggest extra care be used.

Police name the person charged with a crime as part of the public trial process. The alternative would allow the government to arrest, charge, and try people essentially in secret.

You are conflating two issues.  This is why the media aren't doing anything illegal when they name the accused.  Whether they're doing something unethical is entirely different.

The former is a political right.  The latter is a commercial strategy.

[Scersk '97]

[deleted]

[Jerseygirl]

I also maintain to the general eLynah readership that the internet commentariat (well, and society at large) falls well on the side of "buuuuuuuuuurn the motherfucker" for all charges except those of sexual assault. Really, what percentage of comments on a story about an alleged child molester's arrest call for us to "reserve judgment" and "let the courts decide"? How many bring up that children are notoriously unreliable witnesses and are easily led during questioning?

Wait, though.  Let's say pedophilia is the current brainfreeze crime.  Like witch or communist once were, in the public mind accusation equals proof ("where there's smoke there's fire, a-herp") and everybody merrily rushes to light the auto da fe.

Shouldn't sane minds guard against that behavior, rather than attempt to replicate it with yet another accusation?  "We don't mindlessly stone people to death when their accusers are women" is not a valid demonstration of sexism.

Except that in the current public mind, accusation of sexual assault *does not* equal proof -- its truth is immediately called into question by the public. That's the dominant reaction. The backlash against that reaction comes after.

Let's also be clear: just because you apparently disagree with my position doesn't mean I'm saying what you think I am. I'm not saying, "Hurrrrrr! Every accusation of sexual assault is 100% true!" A review of publications put forth by the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA.org) reveals that false reports of rape occur at about the same rate as false reports of other crimes -- and there remain serious reliability issues about the validity of the data at the higher end of the spectrum. Plus, there's a big difference between your "mindlessly stoning people to death when their accusers are women" (please note that nowhere in the response you quoted did I specify I was only talking about cases in which women are the accusers/victims -- men can be and are sexual assault victims as well) and asking people to realize that articles that name those accused of sexual assault are no different in agenda than those that name those accused of other crimes.

Also, you realize that unlike witches and McCarthy-era communists, there are real, actual perpetrators and victims of sexual assault in this country, right? And you realize that *being* sexually assaulted (and then, in most cases, facing at least *some* amount of disbelief that the assault actually happened, or that you didn't do anything to encourage it) can ruin lives forever as well, right? In many cases, just as much, if not more, than being accused of a crime.

[ugarte]

I like you ugarte, but presumption of innocence is self-pitying?  Get a grip.  I would expect this from some tub-thumping demagogue lapping up easy applause on the campaign trail.

Accusations of rape, like accusations of child molestation, can destroy the accused's life regardless of the eventual verdict.  That makes plastering EITHER PARTY'S NAME all over the place ethically suspect.  It's wonderful for circulation, but it's not knuckle-dragging atavism to suggest extra care be used.

The idiocy here is dragging cultural baggage into the discussion, on either side.  Blaming the victim through horrendous sexist narratives is one type of idiocy.  Your post is pretty nearly as bad on the other side.

I didn't say "presumption of innocence" is self-pitying. I said caterwauling about misandry is self-pitying.

As for whether newspapers should report a person's name pretrial? The fact of the arrest is a public announcement by the Ithaca PD that they believe they have sufficient information to convict a person of a crime. That is a newsworthy event worth reporting in full. The name of the VICTIM is not newsworthy in the same way and drawing a parallel between the two is insane. Should the newspapers have redacted the name of Jerry Sandusky until the trial? Of Raj Rajaratnam? The arrest is news. The fallout for the wrongly accused is AN OBJECTIVELY BAD THING but there is a reason to report arrests generally. There is no reason to report the name of a crime victim where, as here, there is a weird inexplicable cultural stigma that attaches to getting raped.

If you don't see the difference I'm not sure what to tell you.

[Jerseygirl]

We should all fall on the side of reserving judgment, in my opinion, for ALL crimes, regardless of type or severity.  "There but for the grace of God..." some people say...

Except it's not "There but for the grace of God..." when it comes to sexual assault. It's actually really easy not to sexually assault someone. Understand what (enthusiastic) consent is, and seek it each and every time you desire to fool around/have sex. And if "yes" turns to "no," or "I'm not sure" stop. And if that's too difficult for people to understand, there are plenty of resources out there to help explain the concept.

[Scersk '97]

We should all fall on the side of reserving judgment, in my opinion, for ALL crimes, regardless of type or severity.  "There but for the grace of God..." some people say...

Except it's not "There but for the grace of God..." when it comes to sexual assault. It's actually really easy not to sexually assault someone. Understand what (enthusiastic) consent is, and seek it each and every time you desire to fool around/have sex. And if "yes" turns to "no," or "I'm not sure" stop. And if that's too difficult for people to understand, there are plenty of resources out there to help explain the concept.

Yeah, that's all well and good, but you know it's not that simple.  All you've got to do is mix alcohol or some other mind-altering drug into the equation and everything becomes difficult to understand. Indeed, no matter how much you and I might prefer there not to be, there is a grey area here; that is, unless we're all going to abstain from alcohol when sex is in the offing, "disagreements"—scare quotes because it's a bad word for a touchy concept—might occur.

To my mind, it's shaky enough ground that I require, as you say, "enthusiastic consent" before proceeding further; indeed, I prefer the company of women who are, shall we say, very clear in their general modes of communication for this and many, many other reasons.  But not all women are that way, and one does not always know who one is dealing with.  (Of course, one of the ways to figure that out quickly is to strive for clarity on one's own part.  In my experience, people who are wishy-washy about things don't mesh well with people who are direct.)

To stop rambling, I'll state that any crime, even sexual assault, can involve differing perspectives on a particular event, sometimes leading to different ethical or legal interpretations.  Don't read this as "one person's rape is another's rough sex"—not what I meant.  Rather, what we perceive always differs from what other humans perceive; thus, we each, after all, only experience the world via our own senses and filtered through our own minds.  We are truly known only to ourselves.  So, "but for the grace of God" have my interpretations of various activities generally lined up with those of my partners.  Of course, I had a strong role in making sure of this, but one can never be sure when dealing with another human being.

(Indeed, scary thought:  are we ever sure even with ourselves?  Are our perceptions always clear?  I think not.)

That's why, sadly, we have courts to decide if someone has committed a crime.  And it's why I prefer always to reserve judgment, whatever the crime. Because I don't have the hubris to think that I ever know the truth of anything.

[Jerseygirl]

We should all fall on the side of reserving judgment, in my opinion, for ALL crimes, regardless of type or severity.  "There but for the grace of God..." some people say...

Except it's not "There but for the grace of God..." when it comes to sexual assault. It's actually really easy not to sexually assault someone. Understand what (enthusiastic) consent is, and seek it each and every time you desire to fool around/have sex. And if "yes" turns to "no," or "I'm not sure" stop. And if that's too difficult for people to understand, there are plenty of resources out there to help explain the concept.

Yeah, that's all well and good, but you know it's not that simple.  All you've got to do is mix alcohol or some other mind-altering drug into the equation and everything becomes difficult to understand. Indeed, no matter how much you and I might prefer there not to be, there is a grey area here; that is, unless we're all going to abstain from alcohol when sex is in the offing, "disagreements"—scare quotes because it's a bad word for a touchy concept—might occur.

To my mind, it's shaky enough ground that I require, as you say, "enthusiastic consent" before proceeding further; indeed, I prefer the company of women who are, shall we say, very clear in their general modes of communication for this and many, many other reasons.  But not all women are that way, and one does not always know who one is dealing with.  (Of course, one of the ways to figure that out quickly is to strive for clarity on one's own part.  In my experience, people who are wishy-washy about things don't mesh well with people who are direct.)

To stop rambling, I'll state that any crime, even sexual assault, can involve differing perspectives on a particular event, sometimes leading to different ethical or legal interpretations.  Don't read this as "one person's rape is another's rough sex"—not what I meant.  Rather, what we perceive always differs from what other humans perceive; thus, we each, after all, only experience the world via our own senses and filtered through our own minds.  We are truly known only to ourselves.  So, "but for the grace of God" have my interpretations of various activities generally lined up with those of my partners.  Of course, I had a strong role in making sure of this, but one can never be sure when dealing with another human being.

(Indeed, scary thought:  are we ever sure even with ourselves?  Are our perceptions always clear?  I think not.)

That's why, sadly, we have courts to decide if someone has committed a crime.  And it's why I prefer always to reserve judgment, whatever the crime. Because I don't have the hubris to think that I ever know the truth of anything.

And everyone else should require enthusiastic consent as well. That's what I'm getting at. The concept of enthusiastic consent should be a well-known, well understood concept that we teach each other. "Well, I guess..." etc. is not enthusiastic consent. Convincing, winning someone over, etc. is not enthusiastic consent. "Yes" is enthusiastic consent.

If we stopped stigmatizing women's sexuality, a lot of this gray area of which you speak would be eliminated, because women wouldn't need to worry about our reputations if we happily agreed to each sexual encounter in which we wanted to partake, instead of feeling like we had to go through the motions of being convinced to have sex in order to remain ladylike in disposition. Conversations around sex would become more honest and true consent would be easier to identify. But if we stopped stigmatizing women's sexuality, misogynists would lose a very important tool to keep us in our place.

ESPECIALLY sexual assault involves differing perspectives on a particular event (not that each perspective has equal validity). For example, there are plenty of people who think that if a woman is married, she can't be raped by her husband, because marriage is implicit consent (it's not where I live!).

Finally, it's not sad that we have courts to decide if someone has committed a crime, it's awesome. I don't want to leave justice up to an unregulated mob. That's not to say there are no systemic issues that need to be addressed.

[Scersk '97]

If we stopped stigmatizing women's sexuality, a lot of this gray area of which you speak would be eliminated, because women wouldn't need to worry about our reputations if we happily agreed to each sexual encounter in which we wanted to partake, instead of feeling like we had to go through the motions of being convinced to have sex in order to remain ladylike in disposition. Conversations around sex would become more honest and true consent would be easier to identify. But if we stopped stigmatizing women's sexuality, misogynists would lose a very important tool to keep us in our place.

Don't normally say it sincerely, but "right on!"

ESPECIALLY sexual assault involves differing perspectives on a particular event (not that each perspective has equal validity). For example, there are plenty of people who think that if a woman is married, she can't be raped by her husband, because marriage is implicit consent (it's not where I live!).

Well, every perspective has equal validity, i.e., I can't see through another person's eyes and experience his or her brain filter, so his or her perceptions are true and valid prima facie.  But not every interpretation, based as interpretations should be on drawing together explanations for events that fit all the data involved, of those events has equal validity.  Indeed, only after much work can we determine if a particular person's account of events is not presented truthfully.  I mean, that's what courts are for, and it's hard work.

Finally, it's not sad that we have courts to decide if someone has committed a crime, it's awesome. I don't want to leave justice up to an unregulated mob. That's not to say there are no systemic issues that need to be addressed.

Well, it's sad in the sense that we have to have them at all, that we don't live in a fantasy-unicorn land of truth, safety, and happiness.  Sure, I'm very glad we have courts, just as I'm glad that there are hospitals and people who want to be doctors (surgery, ick!), but I find criminal law to be so depressing.  Either way it turns out, lives are going to change, and often not for the better.

[Jim Hyla]

We should all fall on the side of reserving judgment, in my opinion, for ALL crimes, regardless of type or severity.  "There but for the grace of God..." some people say...

Except it's not "There but for the grace of God..." when it comes to sexual assault. It's actually really easy not to sexually assault someone. Understand what (enthusiastic) consent is, and seek it each and every time you desire to fool around/have sex. And if "yes" turns to "no," or "I'm not sure" stop. And if that's too difficult for people to understand, there are plenty of resources out there to help explain the concept.

Yeah, that's all well and good, but you know it's not that simple.  All you've got to do is mix alcohol or some other mind-altering drug into the equation and everything becomes difficult to understand. Indeed, no matter how much you and I might prefer there not to be, there is a grey area here; that is, unless we're all going to abstain from alcohol when sex is in the offing, "disagreements"—scare quotes because it's a bad word for a touchy concept—might occur.

To my mind, it's shaky enough ground that I require, as you say, "enthusiastic consent" before proceeding further; indeed, I prefer the company of women who are, shall we say, very clear in their general modes of communication for this and many, many other reasons.  But not all women are that way, and one does not always know who one is dealing with.  (Of course, one of the ways to figure that out quickly is to strive for clarity on one's own part.  In my experience, people who are wishy-washy about things don't mesh well with people who are direct.)

To stop rambling, I'll state that any crime, even sexual assault, can involve differing perspectives on a particular event, sometimes leading to different ethical or legal interpretations.  Don't read this as "one person's rape is another's rough sex"—not what I meant.  Rather, what we perceive always differs from what other humans perceive; thus, we each, after all, only experience the world via our own senses and filtered through our own minds.  We are truly known only to ourselves.  So, "but for the grace of God" have my interpretations of various activities generally lined up with those of my partners.  Of course, I had a strong role in making sure of this, but one can never be sure when dealing with another human being.

(Indeed, scary thought:  are we ever sure even with ourselves?  Are our perceptions always clear?  I think not.)

That's why, sadly, we have courts to decide if someone has committed a crime.  And it's why I prefer always to reserve judgment, whatever the crime. Because I don't have the hubris to think that I ever know the truth of anything.

And everyone else should require enthusiastic consent as well. That's what I'm getting at. The concept of enthusiastic consent should be a well-known, well understood concept that we teach each other. "Well, I guess..." etc. is not enthusiastic consent. Convincing, winning someone over, etc. is not enthusiastic consent. "Yes" is enthusiastic consent.

If we stopped stigmatizing women's sexuality, a lot of this gray area of which you speak would be eliminated, because women wouldn't need to worry about our reputations if we happily agreed to each sexual encounter in which we wanted to partake, instead of feeling like we had to go through the motions of being convinced to have sex in order to remain ladylike in disposition. Conversations around sex would become more honest and true consent would be easier to identify. But if we stopped stigmatizing women's sexuality, misogynists would lose a very important tool to keep us in our place.

ESPECIALLY sexual assault involves differing perspectives on a particular event (not that each perspective has equal validity). For example, there are plenty of people who think that if a woman is married, she can't be raped by her husband, because marriage is implicit consent (it's not where I live!).

Finally, it's not sad that we have courts to decide if someone has committed a crime, it's awesome. I don't want to leave justice up to an unregulated mob. That's not to say there are no systemic issues that need to be addressed.

I can't see how this concept is so hard to understand. Anything but yes, let's go, is a no. Why any parent would want to instill anything other than that idea is hard for me to understand. Seeing what has happened with my daughter's generation, gives me some hope that it is changing, at least a little to the better.