Davis was not blindfolded indefinitely. Indeed, he testified having managed to peek out of the pillowcase as soon as the other women arrived.
I had also thought of this "safe word" business: what if there was one and he FORGOT it? Who is to blame then?
Thanks, rural - Francesca, this context is absolutely relevant.
I first got an error page, but by entering Jaeger in Salon's Search window, I found this story:
Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2009 09:05 PDT
The John Bobbitt effect?
You've probably heard by now about the trial of Matthew Jaeger going on in Lawrence, Kansas. That is, if you live in or near Lawrence, Kansas.
In a world where John Bobbitt becomes a punchline (and "Lorena" a verb), while the woman in Lawrence remains, likely, a footnote, something's a little off.
Jaeger, 24 -- said to have a history of physically and sexually abusing his former girlfriend -- is accused of breaking into her apartment in October 2007 and attacking and kidnapping her after finding her with another man. (Warning: very gory details ahead.) Jurors in the trial recently viewed an interview with the accuser, 23, videotaped from her hospital bed several days after the incident. On the tape, the woman "tells police that Jaeger choked her until she passed out and that when she regained consciousness, she was bleeding profusely from her vagina," the Lawrence Journal-World reported. "I don't recognize myself down where he hurt me. It's a part of myself I can no longer recognize. It doesn't look like me. It looks like it's been mutated and deformed."
The case and current trial appear to have been covered extensively in area media outlets. But over here on the coast(s), we heard about it only from a Broadsheet reader, who observed: "I'm thinking a case of a man's genitals being mutilated by a woman would probably be a national story."
Apparently, our tipster invoked some sort of evil make-it-so genie. Two days later came the story of four women facing felony charges for assaulting a man they accused of cheating. They are accused of luring him to a hotel room, striking him, and gluing his penis to his stomach. And voila: a quick Web search reveals page after page of news coverage, national and international.
There are obvious differences between the two stories. In the latter, not only did the victim escape relatively unharmed, but penises and Krazy Glue (not to mention krazy broads!) were involved; this, regrettably, is a gift to writers of punny headlines and seekers of "wacky" news. So like it or not, we can see why it'd get so much ink.
And maybe the Jaeger case doesn't need to top the national news or start "trending" on Twitter. But in a world where John Bobbitt becomes a punchline (and "Lorena" a verb), while the woman in Lawrence remains, likely, a footnote, well, something's a little off. For what it's worth, the comments to the Lawrence stories do display surprising discretion and compassion. In other words, no one's asking, "Why didn't she just lop off his dick?"
- Lynn Harris
Here's the full link. The "l" at the end of r-F's link got lopped off.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/08/04/jaeger_case/index...
Aren't we all progressive tonight...I'm not even entering on this shitstrom. Some of the thoughts flying around on here are wrong is all I am going to say. If you are offended then maybe you already know why.
I read the Salon piece earlier today. Horrible. Words beyond that fail me.
So yes, the penis and krazy glue story got more press, more than likely because of the novelty that the victim was male instead of female. However, can't we agree that both were crimes?
Yes, and we can go further - we can agree that both are wildly sensationalized incidents from a violent sexist society which are played up by the MSM for voyeuristic purpose - guaranteed to get people commenting and, in the absence of much in the way of facts or context, displaying and overlaying their own pet theses onto such stories.
Unionist wrote: ...we can agree that both are wildly sensationalized incidents from a violent sexist society which are played up by the MSM for voyeuristic purpose...
Actually Lynne Harris demonstrates quite the opposite in her Salon story, i.e. that Jaeger's rape and mutilation of his victim was merely covered locally while Mr. Davis' predicament got immediate national (and indeed international) exposure.
Look, martin, I never would have heard about this ridiculous penis story if not for babble. As for the Jaeger story, the same is true - except that maybe the fact that the Jaeger story dates from 2007 could have something to do with its faded notoriety?
To Unionist: Your media input is hardly evidence. The Wisconsin story is all over the Net (nearly 9,000 hits after less than 48 hours, it's even translated on Cyberpresse in Quebec), while I found only 197 web sites discussing the rape and savage assault Matthew Jaeger is accused of and his trial. As for Timebandit's argument of a "novelty" angle, that only makes the point of the double standard involved and targeted by Harris, one that discourages your gender-neutralizing interpretation.
Martin, these stories are worthy of U.S. tabloid journalism. They have nothing to do with our lives and struggles, except to trivialize them. And to repeat myself, the Jaeger story is two years old.
I beg to differ. Sexist violence, reversal tactics and the whipping-up of male paranoia by populist woman-hating media go on 24/7 and influence people wherever such stories are published. Dismissing accounts of extreme violence against women as "tabloid journalism" is shooting the messenger and in effect forestalling action against such violence. The Salon article made an important point about the way some stories are promoted and others buried. I am sorry to see you arguing against this awareness-raising.
And the Jaeger rape may be "two years old," but his trial is happening on this very week, with the usual demonization of the victim.
Yes, and we can go further - we can agree that both are wildly sensationalized incidents from a violent sexist society which are played up by the MSM for voyeuristic purpose
Oh, no. Canada, with its lack of a tabloid media, would never, never play up such a story. And such an incident could never, I mean never ever, occur in Canada.
Josh, why would you post this story on babble - just out of curiosity?
Martin, stop attacking me, even if that gives you more satisfaction than dealing with the issues I raise. Get back to the prurient love interest of this thread, please.
George Sodini, a misogynist who had been ranting on his website about his life and lack of sex partners just killed 3 women and wounded 9 more near Pittsburgh, Penn., in a LA Fitness aerobics class. Unionist may call accounts of this new mass murder "tabloid journalism," but there is a pattern of woman hating and sex obsession here that will go on until it's squarely confronted in male culture.
Oh, no. Canada, with its lack of a tabloid media, would never, never play up such a story. And such an incident could never, I mean never ever, occur in Canada.
Heh. Actually, it was on the front page of Toronto's free daily, Metro, this morning. :D
And the Jaeger rape may be "two years old," but his trial is happening on this very week, with the usual demonization of the victim.
"the victim"?? That's kind of dry and boring, isn't it?
Don't you have a cutesy nickname for her? Can I help you think of one?
Josh, why would you post this story on babble - just out of curiosity?
Uh . . . because I wanted to.
Unionist, I didn't attack you, I questioned that notion of "tabloid journalism" you keep coming up with to dismiss media coverage of sexist violence. I think it's classist, just as is the mainstream media usual ignorance of such assaults (unless they have a "novelty" angle).
I am surprised with what seems like an idealist method of dismissing realities such as sexist violence or the CJC/Bnai Brith's political influence through name-calling and an apparent refusal to take them seriously.
"the victim"?? That's kind of dry and boring, isn't it?
Don't you have a cutesy nickname for her? Can I help you think of one?
What ever else may be happening in the thread this is grossly inapproriate - we don't joke about rape victims. Period.
What ever else may be happening in the thread this is grossly inapproriate - we don't joke about rape victims. Period.
But we do, evidently, which is kind of my point. And I otherwise agree.
If I thought Snert was actually going to DO it, then I'd have stepped in. But it was quite clear what point he was making.
Perhaps calling a sexual assault victim "sticky dick" is also grossly inappropriate. Period. What do you think?
But we do, evidently, which is kind of my point. And I otherwise agree.
We don't make our points by using "ironic sexism". You really shouldn't jump in the deep end on topics you are just looking to stir up trouble.
I think perhaps consulting a mod would be approriate not engaging in the same bahavior. But snert always takes the low road especially when issues of women, feminism, etc. are involved. But if 2 wrongs now make a right...fun times.
This is rich. Martin mocks a victim of sexual assault and you say nothing. I threaten to do the same thing (but I don't) and you're giving ME the grief.
Any biases you want to own up to, or was this just a mistake?
Perhaps calling a sexual assault victim "sticky dick" is also grossly inappropriate. Period. What do you think?
I'm also curious what you think, Scout.
Perhaps calling a sexual assault victim "sticky dick" is also grossly inappropriate. Period. What do you think?
I think your the mod. If snert flagged the post commenting would be up to you. I wasn't aware of what Martin had said.
I think it's a sign of the place babble has become that this became a thread anyway. How's is this news for the rest of us?
If Snert had a real problem with "sticky dick" engaging in tat for tat by threatening to use a rape victim is really crossing a line, can we be ironically racist now on babble too?
And what's the difference between threatening to be sexist and just being sexist? Cause I can't really think of one.
Snert you aren't really curous about what I think you just either want me to scold Martin or you can accuse me of some nasty man hating feminsit bias or something equally bullshit. Save it. You went to far in your quest to gotcha Martin.
After 7 years and 42 weeks I'm gonna retire from babble. Sexism is rampant here it really is. Rexdale Punjabi is welcomed back with open arms after using sex to bully female babblers. And snert get's a pass on threatening to use a rape victim if someone doens't tow the line his way. This is just the tip of the ice berg.
Been a slice.
Your voice will be sorely missed, Scout. I hope things change enough that you can be comfortable coming back, and I regret having been part of the pattern that drove you away.
Why do posters here mock one another, make snide comments and throw jabs at each other so much? These issues are serious enough without us eating eachother.
Serious question! I love this fourm and enjoy reading both current and past threads about issues I have an interst in.
I know argung on the internet is as common as butter on toast but there is something about how a good chuck of the community here goes about doing it. Very reminicent of elementry school. I'll mock you, throw jabs at you and disrespect you in a psudeo-subtle way but the minute you make a comment at me I act all offended and cry to the mods about your behavior? I'll attack you and when you attack back I'll loudly ask you to stop attacking me?
Guys and girls that's horible. Maybe you don't notice it because you've been pecking at each other so long but as a newcommer to the forums wow. I know there is a hirarchy on message forums but it looks like the he said he said semantics just caused someone of 7 years with incredable insights to leave.
Martin you said you hope things change enough that Scout comes back- I'm not trying to single you out but in my little opinion attitudes like yours are one of the things that would need changing.
I'm sure I'll get a verbal beating for being a noob and voicing my opinion but I think this is a wonderful message forum and I'm imagining how utterly awesome the debates would be without the passive agressive one up each other junk.
I'll tell mom and dad seems to be a popular theme.
I am surprised with what seems like an idealist method of dismissing realities such as sexist violence or the CJC/Bnai Brith's political influence through name-calling and an apparent refusal to take them seriously.
I ask you not to attack me please, and you decide to [b]double up for good measure[/b]? So now I'm a closet misogynist, closet apologist for the worldwide Jewish lobby, and what else? Why don't just leave well enough alone. I have never accused you of any damned thing.
Perhaps I'll join Scout.
By the way, this thread based on some disgusting irrelevant episode, deal to the hearts of tabloid-reading misogynists, should be [b]CLOSED[/b]. It's all bullshit, based on voyeurism and fascination with sexual violence. There is no discussion to be had, no lesson to be learned. If it wasn't obvious the first time I mentioned it, hopefully we're getting there now.
A lot of ultimatums being tossed around here these days. If the trend continues, I fear I'll be left with the voices in my head.
Unionist, am I right in perceiving that you refuse to make a distinction between criticizing some of your statements - as I did - and attacking you - which I didn't?
I disagree that this thread was "all bullshit," even if it had its obvious low points. Since it will probably be closed, I will repost about yesterday's Pittsburgh massacre elsewhere to try and address the pattern evident in George Sodini's diary. People who feel this is merely "tabloid" stuff are welcome to stay out.
Unionist is probably right about closing the thread. I can't imagine that anything good will come out of it at this point, beyond more anger and sarcasm.
SparkyOne, thanks for the post. I think you're right, even if you're a noob. :)
