Jean.SG Says She Was Molested, And We Say She Deserves It?
"seems to me there's somethin' you don't know about men, an' that's we can't help this shit.
i mean, i dunno if it's genetic, or if it's to do with what we get taught, of if it's just 'cause it's expected of us -- but it's what we DO, ok?
'cause to help a girl when she's in trouble, or stop her gettin' into trouble, is just the right goddamned thing to do.." - jesse custer, preacher #17
it's just the right, goddamned thing to do.
i don't know why this post link here is bothering me so much, or i think it's more the comments from anonymous pass-bys that irks me more. link here
Before we go any deeper into this, please read these links to get some context to what's going on.
the girl's account
a local tabloid's report
asiaone's news story
and countless other people who have spoken for and against this girl for either leading the guy on (accepting a $48,000 'gift'), putting herself in an awkward situation (sharing a bed together) and inviting trouble.
Yes. Yes. and Yes.
but still, what gives the guy ANY RIGHT to snuggle up next to her in the dead of the night, start stroking her back with his fingers, and when she was too terrified to do anything, whip out his big dick (it must be big if his brain was there and not in his cranium) and stroke it at her buttocks?
No seriously, what gives him the right to assume the stage has been set, the gift ($48,000 mind you) has been given, the circumstances were ideal (what? he thought she planned the 'one bed' dilemma?) when there is no clear sign of consent?
i'll admit, i think sex is a special enough act that you remain faithful to your partner to, even before you are married. but that's just me, and even for people who don't share the same view and are more versed in this act of sleeping with anyone they wish, isn't there some sort of 'teasing' or acknowledgment that they want to have sex with you?
i hardly think a dead log not making a noise to your stroking fingers is communication that screams out 'YES! TAKE ME NOW!'
i think i've made my point, who was clearly, more in the wrong for assuming too much.
the final thing that irks me, are all these anonymous people who leave comments behind saying that she had brought it upon herself, saying money had changed hands, justifying this course of action. well if it does, it clearly shows how you treat women, they're nothing more than things that can be bought.
women are humans just like us. i think it sorta shows what kind of person you are. the selfish type who looks out only for his/herself, or you respect your peers, regardless of where they come from, and their well-being is of concern to you.
it's funny how such anonymous commenter's can say such things, and although www.jean.sg has chosen to remain anonymous, at least she has a source blog and is contactable via email and willing to go public. how many of these other unverified commenters are willing to be spotlighted by public opinion, and actually broadcast what they really want they say and put it on record, while taking full responsibility for the words they use.
not many i can imagine.
big empty words. forever resigned to anonymity lacking any credibility.
my identity on this blog is public and transparent for a reason. i'm taking responsibility for anything and everything i say here, and i cannot speak for anyone but myself.
in closing, the blame that we heap on www.jean.sg will come full circle. if we are unwilling to give her quarter and benefit of the doubt for such a hideous action, when it happens to one of your loved ones, or to yourself and you are powerless to do anything about it, we have only wrought the hurt upon ourselves, because we allowed and justified such a thing to happen in the first place.
why am i speaking out about this? i'll share two of my favorite quotes, because it's pushed my buttons and these quotes belly my own principles as a man, and mortal.
'cause to help a girl when she's in trouble, or stop her gettin' into trouble, is just the right goddamned thing to do.." - jesse custer, preacher #17
once a man has seen, he can never turn his back on it. never pretend it doesn't exist. no matter who orders him to look the other way. we do not do this thing because it is permitted. we do it because we have to. we do it because we are compelled." - rorschach, watchmen issue vi
13 comments:
Well Said!!! Couldn't agree more.
I think this is one of the more neutral article I can find. And well said on the part about "sex is a special enough act that you remain faithful to your partner to, even before you are married". It's not just you, it's me too. :)
And of cos I'm not an anonymous person. we've met once or rather twice
I don't think that it's so much of an issue whether who has what rights, but whether the girl initiated many actions while pleading extreme naiveté – actions that led to a conclusion where she paints herself as an innocent victim while the guy is tarred as a sex fiend.
Facts of the case? (cut and paste from my tomorrow.sg posting, paisehs)
1) Girl invited the guy to accompany her to Seoul.
2) Girl did the hotel arrangements - ended up with a single hotel room with a single double bed.
3) Girl willingly sleep on the same bed with guy.
4) Guy touched girl - girl did not protest. (girl claims she froze in fear)
5) Girl claims she feels something on her butt and screams. Guys back off.
Sounds like a case of miscommunication of signals – but the TNP article adds in more details.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaywalk/2592149064/sizes/o/
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3176/2592148632_f4d4fe4a19_o.jpg
6) Guy have been openly chasing the girl for years, - so now point 1-5 reads very differently as we have the girl in question inviting a guy she knows that is very interested in her overseas, and her arrangements put them in a single room in a single bed which she willingly shares with him.
7) Guy have been fetching her with his car for work for extended period, best of all, he have helped girl paid off $48k in loan - the girl calls this a gift.
No one can realistically claim that platonic and normal friends will give each other $48k right? On one hand the girl keep saying that she maintains that the guy is a normal friend, yet on the other hand she lets him ferry her all about and takes huge amounts of money from him – to top it off she asks him on a overseas trip and arrange for a single room with a single bed.
Guy goes with her, guy makes a move – she rebuffs him and he stops. And she proceeds to destroy his reputation by posting his name on her blog, making police reports, writing letters to his company/boss etc
I am really more inclined to see the guy as a victim than the woman in this case.
Oh yea, I read Preacher too - nice stuff with a cool ending.
But this Jean is no Tulip.
once a man has seen, he can never turn his back on it. never pretend it doesn't exist. no matter who orders him to look the other way. we do not do this thing because it is permitted. we do it because we have to. we do it because we are compelled." - rorschach, watchmen issue vi
You're inspired by Rorschach?! Wow, man...=)
Still I agree with you. We need to give benefit of the doubt that the alleged incident might happen. The thing is Jean clearly finds herself in difficult situation in proving John's guilt.
Till then, he should be considered innocent.
a_x
Hey I like this post. It's fair to both parties. In fact, if you read those accusations on people's blogs, you find many fallacies.
The simplest is who says this will mean that? Like who says sleeping on the same bed means its a signal for "let's have sex?" In fact, do we KNOW for sure what happened? Maybe it's really she suay?
No one knows, and until then, both are the victims. Innocent until proven guilty, let's not forget that.
Well done, your post. :)
1) Girl invited the guy to accompany her to Seoul.
2) Girl did the hotel arrangements - ended up with a single hotel room with a single double bed.
3) Girl willingly sleep on the same bed with guy.
4) Guy touched girl - girl did not protest. (girl claims she froze in fear)
5) Girl claims she feels something on her butt and screams. Guys back off.
I think we are missing a #6 here. #6 should be the guy apologize for the misunderstanding/miscommunication of signal. But that did not happen.
I can understand if the guy took the wrong signal. I cannot understand when the guy deny that the whole thing ever occur and refuse to apologize for the mistake.
Is it that hard to say sorry?
I am a female. From my point of view, I still think she asked for it. Whether she deserved it is another matter altogether.
See, if I am offered that much money from a man, common sense tells me there are strings attached, and if I accept the money, I will have to give something in return.
Obviously, she's is either too dumb to realize what she has done (that is, giving positive hints) or she is an opportunist - take advantage of the man by taking his money and then claim to be innocent to absolve herself from the consequences, expectations and put all the blame on the man.
There are too many women like that - materialistic, pretentious and manipulative. Men are just too blind and dumb to fall into their trap.
The man asked for it too. He lacks self-control and thinks every women can be bought with money. So, the scores are even.
Both ain't no angels.
Thank you.
This guy is really dumb. $48,000 can buy him a lot of nights with different women, and he just gives it away as a "loan"? As for the gal, I think she's either very naive or very manipulative.
i think that, by the line of argument that it was entirely the guy's fault for touching the girl despite the girl giving him many not-so-subtle hints after 2 years of his pursuit, guys shouldn't take the initiative anymore so as to avoid prosecution, lawsuits, or public humiliation such as this. let girls scream explicitly for sex from now on before we guys ever make a move.
Brian,
You have no right to comment on the above case, as you are a friend of Tianhong and Tianhong is a friend of Jean.
In Jean's Blog Day 1: Tianhong was one of the person who send her off at the airport.
Tianhong mentioned in the above comment that she met you one or twice.
You are baised, even though in your blog you try to camouflage it with all the neutral comment, you know you are baised.
John pay almost $45+K in the month of March 2005 to various parties on behalf of Jean.
How many of you earned 45K in one month?
He was a saviour, an angel in the month of March 2005 to Jean.
What will happen to Jean, if John has not help her pay up the loan?
Only Jean know what will be the consequence.
If it is a credit card bill, it is 24% per month. It is 39 month now from March 2005, what amount will the amount be now.
To be continue....
I agree with what you say above -- that even in such a compromisng situation, it does not give a man the right to take advantage of it. You even suggested the thing about how in such a situation, surely some signals ought to have been given first. But here's the question: what makes you sure that signals weren't give in the first place?
For me, if I'm not keen on a guy who was pursuing me, I'd have put a stop to it and not let it drag on for two years. Surely he must have been somewhat encouraged to keep on going for two whole years.
He had no right to take advantage of the situation. But was he taking advantage of it in the first place, or just reacting?
Post a Comment