11/21/24
August 09, 2003
From OJ to Kobe: I don't know that I agree with all of Jason Whitlock's analysis, but I certainly feel that his tone is correct. This Kobe trial is not of substance. I don't think anyone thinks that Kobe is a rapist, at least in the sense of the violent crime of rape. Rich celebrities having sex with groupies/available women is not anything new. At least in OJ's case the Trial of the Century was unique; never before had murder, celebrity, and race intersected like that. But this Kobe trial is just people staring at a train wreck, with the media providing blow-by-blow details.
I don't think anyone thinks that Kobe is a rapist, at least in the sense of the violent crime of rape. And we know this how? I don't think most of us know anything about the real kobe, other than the 'media' kobe. I think OJ was guilty, but (if I'm right) I would have never thought he was capable of such a thing. Besides, the fact that kobe doesn't stalk women at bus stops and drag them into the bushes doesn't mean the rape (IF he's guilty) wasn't violent. Rape seems to me to be violent by definition. I've never heard of this 'non-violent' type of rape you speak of.
posted by justgary at 03:00 PM on August 09, 2003
rapist n : someone who forces another to have sexual intercourse The setting and the circumstances don't matter. If he's found guilty, he's a rapist. Period.
posted by wfrazerjr at 05:26 PM on August 09, 2003
What wfrazerjr said. Wait for the trial.
posted by therev at 07:10 PM on August 09, 2003
No offense, cg1001a, but if your post reflects current public knowledge of the case, perhaps the media should be covering the story more. There is no non-violent category of rape, nor is there any evidence backing the notion it was simply a case of "rich celebrities having sex with groupies/available women." We don't know bupkiss at this point.
posted by rcade at 11:38 PM on August 10, 2003
"She said 'no', but I knew she wanted it." Is that acceptable non-violent rape? Come on, man! Get with it.
posted by garfield at 08:44 AM on August 11, 2003
Um, I think he's a rapist. But I'm horrified by the media frenzy surrounding this, and have promised that I will turn off any TV progam that shows anything about it, and I'm not reading anything about it either.
posted by aacheson at 11:35 AM on August 11, 2003
I've never heard of this Kobe bloke, but even so, what wfrazerjr said. Rape is rape is rape. If he's found guilty I hope they throw the book at him.
posted by squealy at 12:02 PM on August 11, 2003
I stand by my statements. My post does not use the term "non-violent rape", as several of you have. I said I don't think Kobe is a rapist, then I described rape as a violent crime.
posted by cg1001a at 02:46 PM on August 11, 2003
"I don't think anyone thinks that Kobe is a rapist, at least in the sense of the violent crime of rape." Your post suggests the idea of 'non-violent' rape. One can think of Kobe as a rapist, not that you do, but then can separate that from the violent crime of rape? Can't make lemonade with lemons. Rapists don't look like rapists. Rapists are everyday people who f up and go too far. Hell, you don't go to church/mass/choose your poison, and think you're looking at a pedophile, but you could be...at least in this country.
posted by garfield at 04:09 PM on August 11, 2003
that is, without lemons. dammit fool, proof read!!!
posted by garfield at 04:14 PM on August 11, 2003
I still question is the notion that someone can be a rapist outside "the sense of the violent crime of rape." If someone is a rapist, by definition they have committed a violent crime.
posted by rcade at 07:17 AM on August 12, 2003
I think we understand the nuances involved here. By the logic of the people who have a problem with my wording, we know that OJ did not murder two people because a jury of his peers found him innocent in criminal court.
posted by cg1001a at 02:31 PM on August 13, 2003
I think Whitlocks's point has nothing to do with the substance of the cases themselves but rather in how the media presents them. Kobe's trial will have plenty of substance but will it play in Peoria? And will Geraldo ask Kobe's Mom the really tough questions? While I don't agree with him that the entire media spent their coverage of the OJ case sucking up to the prosecution (I'm paraphrasing a little here) I do agree that the only reason to televise this trial is for the ratings. But that's goes for pretty much everything on TV, why should this be different.