He seemed nice. In a recent article about the problem of Pakistani pimps picking up young girls outside school and turning them into hookers, I wrote:
A lot of right-wingers want to come at the Paki Pimp Gang phenomenon from the Christian Feminist angle of oh our poor sweet innocent princesses, corrupted by these evil foreigners.
A reader responded, outraged that I would label these girls guilty.
How anyone could believe that young girls (age 11-14) from the white underclass who are groomed, given drugs, and taken advantage of at an extremely vulnerable age by men decades older are just as guilty is actually more tragic than it is offensive.
These are not 16 and 17 year old experienced sluts, they are naive innocents being corrupted by foreign enemies of war who should have never had access to them in the first place. They target girls from troubled households right at the onset of puberty so at a time when they are experiencing hormonal and emotional changes with no involved parents to guide and protect them. I would bet that the vast majority of these young victims were inexperienced virgins before they were targeted and abused by the Paki rape gangs, even if its only because they were 12 years old.
The statement in question was made in a brief filler article. I cant always give full explanations of every argument I make, but I repeat the same arguments over and over, so I assume that most people are familiar with them.
Its been a while since we talked about this, so I want to give a full explanation as to why I would identify these girls as criminals and co- conspirators with the Pakistanis, as opposed to victims of the Pakistanis.
People want sound bites, and if you dont give them sound bites, they will create their own sound bites while knowing that there are a large number of people who wont read a thousands of words long essay explaining a position.
So, before I give you the actual, lengthy explanation, let me give you the two paragraph sound bite:
If you dont mark young girls who join drug gangs as guilty of a crime and give them some form of punishment, young girls will continue to join these gangs in the future. If girls are punished for getting involved with drug-running gangs, girls will know that there is a consequence for getting in the car with a Pakistani man who is prowling around outside their school.
Whether you believe these girls were totally unaware of sex or not, dont get in the car with a stranger is something every child knows is a rule. When you make these girls victims after theyve broken the rules, you are ensuring that as long as there are Pakistanis, there will be girls getting in cars with Pakistanis. By removing consequences for breaking the rules, and instead rewarding the rule-breakers with a prized status, you are sentencing future young girls to this fate. The purpose of punishing a crime is not to take revenge, it is to prevent others from doing it in the future.
This is all so obvious that its difficult to process how someone would not immediately recognize this as true.
So now, let me walk you through the long version.
The Problems with Consent Theory The first point to recognize is that the traditional view of sex has been replaced over the last several decades with a new doctrine, surrounding the slippery concept of consent.
Click for Full Text!