Indian man convicted for "serial raping" American girls

[Remiel]

I mean how can anyone not have a little suspicion, much less flat out deny the obvious correlation, especially when we know that he comes from a family that sees itself as an oppressed family at the hands of whites... ? how could anyone deny the potential for there being a racial reason to the rapes?

There is a vast gulf between admitting the potential for there being a racial reasoning in choosing the victims and affirming that there is one. You are always quick to jump upon the latter in such cases.

[Remiel]

This is also a way of getting back at White men whom they hate (and secretly envy). I have met many dudes from these two regions who believe that they are a gift to White women....

what half baked drivel! How can we verify any of your claims here?

[lictor616]

There is a vast gulf between admitting the potential for there being a racial reasoning in choosing the victims and affirming that there is one. You are always quick to jump upon the latter in such cases.

and I wished to discuss that potentiality (which in my estimate and all probability, is quite high)... although i agree that the evidence is not flawless.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know how you people can be fooled by their concealment of his animus and pretense... We know the link between race and rape... you people SAW the interracial rape stats in the US...

No, we didn't. We saw the stats from a poll, which is quite different from "interracial rape stats in the US," which, btw, don't exist. Furthermore, looking at the results of years of polls, we don't even "see" what you want us to see by referring solely to one year's poll; a poll that was obviously chosen so we would "see" what some people want us to see.

especially when we all know of the high desirability of white women (as verified by their dominance of the model realm)

You yourself refute your own claim here, your "their dominance of the model realm" claim, with an earlier post:

Remiel said: If, perchance, we were to find a European fashion guru doing the same thing to young Indian or African models, the evidence would support his seeking out Indian and African women because they are a minority of models.

To which you reply: nonsense on stilts... none of the accused models where anything BUT whites... not even an indian or black girl for good meeasure in integrated 68% white america?

So Remiel is saying what you just said; that the majority of models are white, and that's why the majority of his victims were white, and you say that that explanation is "nonsense."

Edited September 4, 2009 by American Woman

[Melanie_]

The world is full of sick people who will take advantage of the young and naive. Ethnic origin has nothing to do with it. I'm glad to see he got 59 years in prison; we need sentences like that here for sex offenders.

[kimmy]

So... ...this guy raped underaged girls and gets 59 years in prison?

Sounds like it's lucky for him he did the raping himself, because if he'd had pictures of somebody else doing it, the sentence could have been 200 years.

Other than the color of the man's skin, this sounds like a pretty familiar story (we've all heard the phrase "casting couch"...) Men who find themselves in a position to prey upon young women sometimes do so. I doubt his person was motivated by racial factors... I am only guessing, but I suspect he was motivated by the same factors that have motivated men to pursue attractive young women for as long as humans have walked the earth.

I am also put off by the word "defiled" used in the opening post. These women have been victimized by a criminal, but they have not been "defiled". The word "defiled" suggests somehow that they have been ruined or rendered worthless by what has happened. This is a 3rd-world attitude ("10 chickens for your daughter if she is a virgin... but only 2 if she is not a virgin. The groom's mother will conduct an inspection.")

These women may be left with emotional scars by this experience, but they are not "defiled".

-k

[Bonam]

I am also put off by the word "defiled" used in the opening post. These women have been victimized by a criminal, but they have not been "defiled". The word "defiled" suggests somehow that they have been ruined or rendered worthless by what has happened. This is a 3rd-world attitude ("10 chickens for your daughter if she is a virgin... but only 2 if she is not a virgin. The groom's mother will conduct an inspection.")

These women may be left with emotional scars by this experience, but they are not "defiled".

It depends on the individual person and their circumstances and personal strength but some women are never the same again after this kind of occurrence. It is doubtful that many of them were "virgins" before coming in contact with this guy anyway, that is obviously not the issue. But the trauma they endured could render them less comfortable around men and particularly in sexual encounters for a long time. In some cases that may prevent them from living a normal life, and will also negatively impact the lives of any partner/spouse they may have. From that point of view a distraught rape-victim could certainly be less attractive of a prospect for relationships. So in that sense, "defiled" could certainly apply.

[kimmy]

So in that sense, "defiled" could certainly apply.

It could be argued from that point of view, but I strongly doubt that is the sense Lictor is using the term.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

.....I am also put off by the word "defiled" used in the opening post. These women have been victimized by a criminal, but they have not been "defiled". The word "defiled" suggests somehow that they have been ruined or rendered worthless by what has happened. This is a 3rd-world attitude ("10 chickens for your daughter if she is a virgin... but only 2 if she is not a virgin. The groom's mother will conduct an inspection.")

These women may be left with emotional scars by this experience, but they are not "defiled".

Agreed...such thinking is patriarchal and ignorant. Goes well with bigotry!

[Guest American Woman]

Other than the color of the man's skin, this sounds like a pretty familiar story (we've all heard the phrase "casting couch"...)

There's a huge difference between the "casting couch," where the trading of sexual favors for career advancement is consenting, and "rape," where it's forced. So while it s has happened before, it's not "a pretty familiar story."

[Guest American Woman]

It depends on the individual person and their circumstances and personal strength but some women are never the same again after this kind of occurrence. It is doubtful that many of them were "virgins" before coming in contact with this guy anyway, that is obviously not the issue.

I agree. Whether one is a virgin or not is hardly the issue, because virgin or not, the women chose their previous sexual partners. Besides the trauma of forced sex, in this day and age, people have to take their own responsibility regarding STD's and AIDS when they chose to have sex, so I know for myself, in this situation, I would wonder, and be quite worried about, the possibility of STD's/AIDS on top of the emotional stress of being raped.

But the trauma they endured could render them less comfortable around men and particularly in sexual encounters for a long time. In some cases that may prevent them from living a normal life, and will also negatively impact the lives of any partner/spouse they may have. From that point of view a distraught rape-victim could certainly be less attractive of a prospect for relationships. So in that sense, "defiled" could certainly apply.

Reading what the victims who did speak up in court had to say it sounds as if this very well could be the situation -- for them, at least.

[Guest American Woman]

So... ...this guy raped underaged girls and gets 59 years in prison?

Sounds like it's lucky for him he did the raping himself, because if he'd had pictures of somebody else doing it, the sentence could have been 200 years.

He was sentenced to "59 years to life." link

Furthermore, he wasn't convicted in Arizona, which is the sentence you are referring to, and it wasn't 20 counts, which is the sentence you are referring to, and all of the convictions weren't for under-aged girls, which is the sentence you are referring to.

[Argus]

He was sentenced to "59 years to life." link

Furthermore, he wasn't convicted in Arizona, which is the sentence you are referring to, and it wasn't 20 counts, which is the sentence you are referring to, and all of the convictions weren't for under-aged girls, which is the sentence you are referring to.

And it wasn't for downloading dirty pictures on the internet either. It was for committing sexual violence upon helpless young girls.

Most of us think the difference between the two is so enormous that it needn't actually be explained to anyone.

[lictor616]

Agreed...such thinking is patriarchal and ignorant. Goes well with bigotry!

I'm reading the venomous and hateful tone of some of your replies... and I have to ask ...

between me, and this Anand Jon rapist character.... who is morally superior?

if you had to choose between one or the other.. which would it be?

[Guest American Woman]

And it wasn't for downloading dirty pictures on the internet either. It was for committing sexual violence upon helpless young girls.

Most of us think the difference between the two is so enormous that it needn't actually be explained to anyone.

So who, exactly, do you think the difference needs to be explained to? Because I think you're trying to make a point here, and I think the point might be directed at me, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what that point would be.

[kimmy]

There's a huge difference between the "casting couch," where the trading of sexual favors for career advancement is consenting, and "rape," where it's forced. So while it s has happened before, it's not "a pretty familiar story."

Men in a position of power sometimes exploit young women when given the opportunity to do so. "Casting couch" refers to directors feeling entitled to sexual favors from aspiring actresses; this guy felt entitled to sexual favor from aspiring models. Now, obviously this guy has crossed a legal line that made it possible to prosecute him, so certainly this wasn't the traditional "casting couch" scenario, but it is similar enough that I feel comfortable in suspecting this attitude was his motivation rather than racial motives.

That is to say: I see this as a case of a powerful male feeling entitled to tribute from women seeking his favor, not a brown man trying to get revenge on whitey by "defiling" white women.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

That is to say: I see this as a case of a powerful male feeling entitled to tribute from women seeking his favor, not a brown man trying to get revenge on whitey by "defiling" white women.

Yet you back up Argus' claim that black men seek out white women to rape, even falsely stating that "the U.S. government is willing to state that tens of thousands of white women were raped by black men, while black women being raped by white men is such a statistical rarity that they have trouble measuring it at all..."

Interesting.

[Argus]

So who, exactly, do you think the difference needs to be explained to? Because I think you're trying to make a point here, and I think the point might be directed at me, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what that point would be.

You can't? When Kimmy pointed out, somewhat sarcastically, that he was lucky he actually raped girls instead of taking pictures, you were quick to point out just how severe the pornographer's crime was. I mean, he downloaded not one, but 20 porn pictures! That certainly strikes me as as contradicting her and suggesting the crimes were equivalent.

[Argus]

Yet you back up Argus' claim that black men seek out white women to rape, even falsely stating that "the U.S. government is willing to state that tens of thousands of white women were raped by black men, while black women being raped by white men is such a statistical rarity that they have trouble measuring it at all..."

Interesting.

The statistics in a video someone else posted made that claim. I looked, and then posted the statistics for discussion.

It seems to me that White on Black crime is generally speaking, rare. Black on White crime, on the other hand, is altogether common. That would imply that this would hold true in terms of sexual assaults, as well, would it not?

[Guest American Woman]

You can't? When Kimmy pointed out, somewhat sarcastically, that he was lucky he actually raped girls instead of taking pictures, you were quick to point out just how severe the pornographer's crime was. I mean, he downloaded not one, but 20 porn pictures! That certainly strikes me as as contradicting her and suggesting the crimes were equivalent.

Seriously try reading what I actually said. I was not "quick to point out how severe the poronographer's crime was." I was quick to point out that he was convicted in ARIZONA, which, has already been explained to you -- and Kimmy, I might add -- carries out its sentences differently than the rest of the U.S.; Arizona has its own way of carrying out multiple convictions.

So I was "quick to point out," since Jon was convicted in LA, comparing him to a different crime in a different state with its own method of carrying out sconvictions, was totally off base. Now if you want to compare crimes to crimes and sentences to sentences, say he was lucky he didn't carry out his crime in Arizona -- where I'd be willing to bet sentences are more severe for rape than for child pornography, and would be carried out "Arizona style."

I was also "quick to point out" that Jon didn't get 59 years, but rather that he got a minimum of 59 years, because he actually got "59 years to life."

If you still don't get it, if you still can't understand it, there's nothing I can do for you.

[Guest American Woman]

The statistics in a video someone else posted made that claim. I looked, and then posted the statistics for discussion.

It seems to me that White on Black crime is generally speaking, rare. Black on White crime, on the other hand, is altogether common. That would imply that this would hold true in terms of sexual assaults, as well, would it not?

And when it was pointed out to you that the statistics were for one year only, and that it was for a survey, and that it wasn't for "rape," but rape AND sexual assault (which was explained to you could mean any number of things), AND for the threat of rape and sexual assault, and that taking the total number of years and looking at the statistics told a different story, you, and others, continued as if the one survey for the one specifically chosen year was not only the gospel truth, but the truth regarding rape, when there was absolutely no indication of the breakdown of numbers regarding rape, sexual assault, and threats of rape or sexual assault. Furthermore, you act as if it's "crime statistics," when a link to the actual "crime statistics" site was posted and it was pointed out that our "crime statistics" are not broken down by race; we do not keep "crime statistics by race."

[kimmy]

Yet you back up Argus' claim that black men seek out white women to rape, even falsely stating that "the U.S. government is willing to state that tens of thousands of white women were raped by black men, while black women being raped by white men is such a statistical rarity that they have trouble measuring it at all..."

Interesting.

What has the one got to do with the other?

What has my guess at Anand Jon Alexander's motive for committing rape to do with the prior discussion?

Why don't you explain that for us, Ms Smartypants?

-k

[Guest American Woman]

What has the one got to do with the other?

What has my guess at Anand Jon Alexander's motive for committing rape to do with the prior discussion?

Why don't you explain that for us, Ms Smartypants?

"Ms Smartypants?"

A little defensive there? ... Or are you having a Jr High flashback?

I'll let your quote from the other thread say it all:

Why is race so germane to the discussion of one incident, but utterly verboten in the other?

So, about you do the explaining.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm reading the venomous and hateful tone of some of your replies... and I have to ask ...

between me, and this Anand Jon rapist character.... who is morally superior?

if you had to choose between one or the other.. which would it be?

The Other.

[kimmy]

"Ms Smartypants?"

A little defensive there? ... Or are you having a Jr High flashback?

I'll let your quote from the other thread say it all:

Why is race so germane to the discussion of one incident, but utterly verboten in the other?

So, about you do the explaining.

And now you're going to throw out of context quotes at me?

You look foolish attempting to relate my comments about Mr Alexander to the prior discussion about black-on-white rape in general, because Mr Alexander is in a set of circumstances that hardly apply to rapists in general.

While I have no statistics to back it up, I strongly believe that a very low percentage of rapists are fashion designers in a position of power over young models. Therefore your effort to apply my comments on this incident to the prior incident is a big fat failure.

Is there anything else you'd like cleared up?

-k