|
There's no doubt that it is in some people's judgment immoral to hire a stripper. At the same time, it's perfectly legal and geez, women do it too (Google "Chippendales" or better yet just look up "adult entertainment" listings in the Yellow Pages to see that strippers come in both sexes). The morality of the actions of the lacrosse players though is not nor should be a factor-- the legality of their actions are what should be examined, since we can play the morality game all day and come up empty. As for the lousy attitude shown by one of the players in one of the emails reportedly sent by him to his friends, I will be first to say that it is not at all desirable and eminently condemnable. However, is his attitude enough to label him a criminal? And would the parallel attitude from a female toward a male, stripper or not, be as readily condemned? We here at MANN know about how many times a day prominent women in media and other spheres say or write equally nasty things about men and seem to get away with it without the least bit in recriminations. So I stress that such behavior and attitudes are wrong coming from people of either sex. But are they grounds for criminal prosecution or the ruining of one's future, especially if the person in question is still rather young yet and perhaps has some growing up to do? No, they are not.
I saw the breaking news yesterday on CNN when it was revealed there was no DNA match on the boys, nor any forensic evidence at all of any sexual assault committed by any of them. The reporters seemed embarrassed and harried and one remarked that "rapists can use condoms," implying that the lacrosse players had done what they were accused of, and just were smart enough to use condoms to avoid detection. There has been no evidence reported that such was the case (ie, condoms recovered, or other evidence, such as of physical injury to the accused or the accuser), and even if there had been, in the case of a used condom being discovered, such is not prima facie evidence that a rape occurred.
So at the present time, what this appears to be simply is a case of a false accusation that has likely led to the ruining of the futures, at least the foreseeable futures, of a number of young men who have been publicly named-- while their accuser has not been and can't be under law. It is another case, or so it appears, of a man/men being presumed guilty based solely on the accusation of a woman, with any further evidence entirely lacking.
In short, it seems to be a textbook example of what MANN regulars have been discussing now for years: men are guilty of whatever, no matter what, when accused of whatever by a woman.
Justice for all, indeed!
|
I debated which category to post