Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?

[riskllama]

too late, sym - jimbo already won.

[Symmetry]

too late, sym - jimbo already won.

The poll is even stevens, mate.

Jimbo relies on three deeply flawed assumptions:

1) That her being 14 is irrelevant
2) That her being literally owned by her master is irrelevant
3) That this is some sort of a trial.

Upon that shaky foundation he concludes that there was no rape. Or more correctly that he would never have been convicted.

His evaluation- that she probably wanted it, is more than a little sickening. We know that Jefferson was a brutal man- he had his slaves whipped and beaten into obedience.

One of the things that really struck me recently was the way in which a man can present himself in public, while being a monster in his private life. There's no shortage of examples- take Bill Cosby for a modern American example, or Jimmy Savile in the UK. Seeming models of the family man and the children's entertainer.

Jefferson's public persona was clearly different from the man he was in reality. Perhaps some of his public facade was an indication of a private guilt? Or a way to mask his abuses? I'm no psychologist, but there are enough modern day examples of public virtue masking an abusive personality around for anyone to see.

It's worth considering that Jimbo's entire argument rests on a weird set of assumptions that you have to take for granted in order for it to work, and yet he still comes up with the oldest excuse for rape in the book- "She wanted it".

[tzor]

If 14 isn't old enough for sex, why does puberty appear usually before that age?

Modern diets.

The average age at which the onset of puberty occurs has dropped significantly since the 1840s.[69][70][71] In every decade from 1840 to 1950 there was a drop of four months in the average age of menarche among Western European females. In Norway, girls born in 1840 had their menarche at an average age of 17 years. In France, the average in 1840 was 15.3 years. In England, the average in 1840 was 16.5 years. In Japan the decline happened later and was then more rapid: from 1945 to 1975 in Japan there was a drop of 11 months per decade.

A 2006 study in Denmark found that puberty, as evidenced by breast development, started at an average age of 9 years and 10 months, a year earlier than when a similar study was done in 1991. Scientists believe the phenomenon could be linked to obesity or exposure to chemicals in the food chain, and is putting girls at greater long-term risk of breast cancer.[72]

Nutritional factors are the strongest and most obvious environmental factors affecting timing of puberty.[73] Girls are especially sensitive to nutritional regulation because they must contribute all of the nutritional support to a growing fetus. Surplus calories (beyond growth and activity requirements) are reflected in the amount of body fat, which signals to the brain the availability of resources for initiation of puberty and fertility.

Much evidence suggests that for most of the last few centuries, nutritional differences accounted for majority of variation of pubertal timing in different populations, and even among social classes in the same population. Recent worldwide increased consumption of animal protein, other changes in nutrition, and increases in childhood obesity have resulted in falling ages of puberty, mainly in those populations with the higher previous ages. In many populations the amount of variation attributable to nutrition is shrinking.

Although available dietary energy (simple calories) is the most important dietary influence on timing of puberty, quality of the diet plays a role as well. Lower protein intakes and higher dietary fiber intakes, as occur with typical vegetarian diets, are associated with later onset and slower progression of female puberty.

[jimboston]

You rely on three deeply flawed assumptions:

These are not assumptions. I gave valid irrefutable reasons why I made the points I made.

1) That her being 14 is irrelevant

It is irrelevant. You cannot impose the moral standards of today on the actions of yesterday.

Today, in "the modern world" at least. 'Most' people would consider sex with a 14yo to be reprehensible.
In the world of the late 18th century a 14yo was essentially an adult. Therefore her age is irrelevant.

2) That her being literally owned by her master is irrelevant

I don't believe I said this was irrelevant. In fact I pointed out the possibility that the rape could be coerced because she was his slave. I don't think you need overt violence for a sexual act to be called rape, and coercion may be such that the act was essentially rape. I pointed out that this the fact she was a slave is a 'strong suspicion'. However, this alone does not prove that T.J. raped her.

3) That this is some sort of a trial.

Nope. I never said it was a trial. If this was a trial it would be over before it started.

I do use the example of a trial to help frame the discussion. I also state my own beliefs.

So yah... um you're wrong here.

Upon that shaky foundation you conclude that there was no rape. Or more correctly that he would never have been convicted.

Actually this isn't the conclusion I stated.

I'll repeated my conclusion since it appears you didn't read it.

"Thomas Jefferson may have raped Sally Hemings, or he may not have. Without additional evidence one must conclude that the answer is impossible to discern."

I then expanded on my conclusion stating my own belief and also stating what I believe would happen in a court of law IF this was a trial.

Your evaluation- that she probably wanted it, is more than a little sickening. We know that Jefferson was a brutal man- he had his slaves whipped and beaten into obedience.

Again you misquote me.

I never said she wanted it. I said she may have "saw this as a way to elevate her status". Wanting him sexually and using his sexual advances for your own purposes are two entirely different things.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

One of the things that really struck me recently was the way in which a man can present himself in public, while being a monster in his private life. There's no shortage of examples- take Bill Cosby for a modern American example, or Jimmy Savile in the UK. Seeming models of the family man and the children's entertainer.

Jefferson's public persona was clearly different from the man he was in reality. Perhaps some of his public facade was an indication of a private guilt? Or a way to mask his abuses? I'm no psychologist, but there are enough modern day examples of public virtue masking an abusive personality around for anyone to see.

This is all true.

Everyone has different faces in public... both MEN and WOMEN.

This does not prove T.J. is guilty of rape. It only proves that it's possible he committed rape.

I already said that.

I win twice in one thread! Yah!

[Symmetry]

Jimbo, perhaps I was a little harsh on you, but I hope you understand that introducing the argument that "She must have wanted it" was anger inducing. It's a classic of rape apologists, but especially bad in this case- she had no say in the matter, and historical evidence shows that she was never freed from slavery- even by Jefferson's own will.

At best, if Jefferson did use his power as slave owner to manipulate her into believing that her status would change, we know that he never intended to free her. I don't see that part of your argument as a way to excuse Jefferson. It seems more like a further reason to see him as a manipulative master. Of course, the fact that he also kept his own children as slaves is more evidence.

That he had sex with a 14 year old girl who he owned as a slave would be more than enough for most to conclude rape. Your arguments present a lot of "maybes", but lack a basic sense of how a slave owner owned slaves.

[Thorthoth]

That he had sex with a 14 year old girl who he owned as a slave would be more than enough for most to conclude rape.

Your prejudice against slavery makes you unable to view this case impartially. If you were honorable you would recuse yourself, but as you are also an arrogant and self-righteous egoist, that isn't likely either. The only option left to the rest of us is disregard your warped and predetermined opinions on the matter.

[mrswdk]

Sym is such a misogynist. First it's 'he had sex with her', next it's 'poor girl was a victim of his advances'.

Sym is a total patriarch. Thinks every time a girl has sex it's a sign that she's being abused by some sort of male pornography rape culture.

Well guess what, Sym - women enjoy sex too!

[Symmetry]

It's kind of surprising that being against slavery would be an issue here- I think I've been pretty clear that I think that slavery and rape were tightly related.

[Thorthoth]

It's kind of surprising that being against slavery would be an issue here- I think I've been pretty clear that I think that slavery and rape were tightly related.

Of course you do, you humorless moralistic-dingbat, now be gone.

[Symmetry]

Ok sure- I don't like the rape excuse that "she wanted it". I've posted why I think the argument is BS.

[jimboston]

Jimbo, perhaps I was a little harsh on you,

I can take it.

but

You know that everything said before the word "but" is meaningless... so your 'apology' of being harsh is faux.

I hope you understand that introducing the argument that "She must have wanted it" was anger inducing.

Yeah, I suppose if I said that it would be anger inducing.

Since I never said it though...

Two points...
1) An earlier poster presented the possibility that she may have participated in sexual acts with Jefferson to better her position.
So even if we were saying "she wanted it" it wasn't me who introduced the idea.

2) Sally using sex to advance her position does not necessarily mean "she wanted it" or even "she enjoyed it". It's entirely possible that she felt Jefferson's "advances" and just "went along with it"... knowing that a) he'd get his way anyway AND b) if she went along "willingly" she'd be able to use that to advance her position.

I'm just pointing out reasonable possibilities. It's also possible she fought it every time, and it's possible she seduced him.

My whole point it WE'LL NEVER KNOW because we have no witnesses, we have no complaints, we have no inside knowledge of their 'relationship' at all. So to presume rape without inside knowledge it just as ridiculous as presuming innocence.

It's a classic of rape apologists, but especially bad in this case- she had no say in the matter,

I agree that saying "she wanted it" about a rape victim is disgusting.

That doesn't apply here. Sally never made a complaint about rape and none of Jefferson's contemporaries (as far as I know) ever commented about him treating her badly. We are all SPECULATING both those who suggest he did rape her and those who suggest he didn't. You can't make those comparisons in this case as you have no basis upon which to make them. We aren't "rape apologists" if there's no complaint of rape from the vicitim.

and historical evidence shows that she was never freed from slavery- even by Jefferson's own will.

... and this means what? It's not related in any way to the point.

At best, if Jefferson did use his power as slave owner to manipulate her into believing that her status would change,

I never suggested he manipulated into believing her status would change. Maybe he did, or maybe she convinced herself. It's not the point.

The point is that she had a higher status in his household than many other slaves. Was she free, no, but she enjoyed privileges an benefits not available to many others. Did she get these because she was just naturally better suited to the position... quite possible. Did she get these because of her 'relationship' with Jefferson... also possible. Was he attracted to her in the first place because of those qualities that made her better suited to her position (i.e. her intelligence, her grace/manner, etc.)... also quite possible. In all likelihood all of these things are factors. It's also quite possible that she manipulated or used Jefferson as much as he used her.

We know that he never intended to free her.

Actually that's not true. We know he never freed her. Maybe he intended to and changed his mind. Maybe he intended to and just never got to it. We don't know what he was thinking. We know his actions, his writings... we know what other people said about him. We don't know his thoughts.

I don't see that part of your argument as a way to excuse Jefferson.

In what way did I excuse Jefferson of anything????

It seems more like a further reason to see him as a manipulative master. Of course, the fact that he also kept his own children as slaves is more evidence.

That seems more reprehensible to me than any other complaints made against him in this thread.

Of course many many many slaveowners kept children they knew (or suspected) were their own as slaves. If you want to start a Jefferson bashing thread I think this is your best bet... but we are all products of our time.

That he had sex with a 14 year old girl who he owned as a slave would be more than enough for most to conclude rape.

Who are these most you speak of? Most CC members? Most people in general? Most people who can't think things through logically when presented with inflammatory phrases like "sex with a 14 yo" and "slave"?

Your arguments present a lot of "maybes",

This whole thread is about "maybes" because the questions cannot be answered with the info provided.

Prior to DNA evidence the Hemings decedents had an oral tradition wherein they maintained that they were progeny of Jefferson. This was maintained through generations. Now on the one hand, this oral tradition includes a belief that Sally Hemings believed her children would be freed... the tradition states this was a quid-pro-quo. However, never has this oral tradition presented statements whereby Sally claimed that Jefferson 'raped' her.

So again... if you want to bitch about Jefferson keeping his kids as slaves.... you can find evidence to support this act as despicable.

However, if he 'raped' her... would this not also be part of the oral tradition?

I think you are the one creating the "maybes" here... I'm just pointing them out. A bunch of maybes does not make a fact.

but lack a basic sense of how a slave owner owned slaves.

Enlighten me. I think I have a good "basic sense" about how a slave owner owned slaves.

I have enough of a sense to know that there's no one single model that fits all. Some slaveowners were exceptionally cruel, some were more benevolent. Some relished in physically abusing slaves, some only used physical punishment when they felt it absolutely necessary. Some treated different slaves (household vs. field slaves) differently from each other. Some made slaves work ridiculous hours, others let their slaves do extra work on their "free time" to earn side money. Ultimately all slaves were property, but their situations and day-to-day existence would be quite varied.

Jimbo, perhaps I was a little harsh on you,

It's funny how you start out so kindly then go on and try to bash me.

[jimboston]

It's kind of surprising that being against slavery would be an issue here- I think I've been pretty clear that I think that slavery and rape were tightly related.

I agree with this statement.

It's well know that many many many females slaves were raped.

This well know fact however is not proof that Thomas Jefferson was a rapist.

Does this fact make it reasonable to speculate or consider the possibility that he was a rapist?
Yes. I would say it is reasonable to consider.

Now having considered it... I've concluded that their's no way of knowing for a fact wether or not Thomas Jefferson was a rapist.

1) Is it true some/many slave owners (or white foremen who controlled the slaves in the field) were rapists.

YES

2) Does this mean that all slave owners (foremen) were rapists.

NO

1) Is it true that Thomas Jefferson had sex with his slave Sally Hemings.

YES

2) Does this mean that he raped her? Does the fact that sexual intercourse occurred prove rape.

NO

In both cases the former fact does NOT prove that latter statement.

[jimboston]

Ok sure- I don't like the rape excuse that "she wanted it". I've posted why I think the argument is BS.

I agree, in general.

In a modern day case of rape, where we can interview both the victim and the accused, this is a BS argument.
It is used too frequently by the accused to somehow wiggle free or tarnish the victim.

I don't think it applies here... but regardless you will also note I never tried to use this as a defense of T.J.

I did point out the possibility that Sally Hemings might consent to have sexual intercourse with Thomas Jefferson in order to gain some benefit for herself. The benefit may be direct (i.e. in her status within the house) or indirect (i.e. applying to her children). This is a valid point as it presents a reason why a slave (Sally Hemings in this case) might consent to have sex with a master. There are other reasons she might consent... she may have just been attracted to him. I also mentioned that possibility.

This doesn't mean I'm saying "she wanted it"... because in order for you to suggest that's what I'm saying you have to first present some evidence of rape. You've present no evidence for rape, and then you go on concluding guilt. It makes no sense.

[Bernie Sanders]

A middle aged man having sex with a 14 year old girl.....nope it was legal back then. Only property being abused, right?

Jefferson was a pedophile.

[jimboston]

A middle aged man having sex with a 14 year old girl.....nope it was legal back then. Only property being abused, right?

Jefferson was a pedophile.

The question of this thread is whether or not he was a rapist, not a pedophile.
Start a new thread.

Seriously your comments is so lame, I shouldn't bother replying.

You're right, Jefferson was a pedophile and you're a genius!
Oh wait, neither of those is true.
Sorry my bad.

[Symmetry]

Ok sure- I don't like the rape excuse that "she wanted it". I've posted why I think the argument is BS.

I agree, in general.

In a modern day case of rape, where we can interview both the victim and the accused, this is a BS argument.
It is used too frequently by the accused to somehow wiggle free or tarnish the victim.

I don't think it applies here... but regardless you will also note I never tried to use this as a defense of T.J.

I did point out the possibility that Sally Hemings might consent to have sexual intercourse with Thomas Jefferson in order to gain some benefit for herself. The benefit may be direct (i.e. in her status within the house) or indirect (i.e. applying to her children). This is a valid point as it presents a reason why a slave (Sally Hemings in this case) might consent to have sex with a master. There are other reasons she might consent... she may have just been attracted to him. I also mentioned that possibility.

This doesn't mean I'm saying "she wanted it"... because in order for you to suggest that's what I'm saying you have to first present some evidence of rape. You've present no evidence for rape, and then you go on concluding guilt. It makes no sense.

It makes more sense if you allow back in her age and the fact that she was a slave. She was born into ownership- that is a fact. She was a slave of Thomas Jefferson- that is a fact. She was 14 years old and a slave when Jefferson used her as his slave.

For me, the idea of consent implies freedom to consent. Sally Hemings was not free.

[Thorthoth]

For me, the idea of consent implies freedom to consent. Sally Hemings was not free.

Well, we're not free of you either, Symbo,... you... you, post rapist!!!

[mrswdk]

[quote=“Symmetry”]For me, the idea of consent implies freedom[/quote]

But who of us is really ‘free’?

[jimboston]

It makes more sense if you allow back in her age and the fact that she was a slave.

Huh?

She was born into ownership- that is a fact. She was a slave of Thomas Jefferson- that is a fact. She was 14 years old and a slave when Jefferson used her as his slave.

For me, the idea of consent implies freedom to consent. Sally Hemings was not free.

OK... you've finally made a valid point. Depending how you define consent this may make sense.

I agree she wasn't free to say "No" to Thomas Jefferson. At least not in the sense that she could just say "No" and walk away.
If T.J. wanted to press the point he could continue his advances and she'd have to go along.

You are assuming T.J. wouldn't have accepted a "No". On what do you base this assumption?

Sally Hemings was free to say "Yes". Now you'll note that I've never assumed she said yes. I've given a couple possible reasons why she MAY have said yes. Ultimately it comes back to the fact that you're making an assumption and I'm just pointing out possibilities.

[Bernie Sanders]

A middle aged man having sex with a 14 year old girl.....nope it was legal back then. Only property being abused, right?

Jefferson was a pedophile.

The question of this thread is whether or not he was a rapist, not a pedophile.
Start a new thread.

Seriously your comments is so lame, I shouldn't bother replying.

You're right, Jefferson was a pedophile and you're a genius!
Oh wait, neither of those is true.
Sorry my bad.

Hmmm, so your take is no rape has been committed, cause pedophiles only have sex with children?

Go pound sand and watch your Disney Channel so you can get aroused.

[Dukasaur]

Hmmm, so your take is no rape has been committed, cause pedophiles only have sex with children?

Oh, spare us. A 14-year old is not a child. At 14 I was visiting whorehouses. Actually, I had a whore the first time when I was 13.

At 14 I was already selling dope, I had my own car (although I had to be careful not to go too close to town or get spotted by the cops) and I embarked on my first political act -- organizing a student walk-out when they tried to shorten our lunch hours.

This horseshit where we try to keep our children safe and under our thumb until they're 30 is a very recent development, a product of our soft and decadent 20th century pussy-whipped society. Throughout most of history, a 14-year old would have had a full-time job unless they were born rich, and in many cases would have been married and running a family.

[Bernie Sanders]

Hmmm, so your take is no rape has been committed, cause pedophiles only have sex with children?

Oh, spare us. A 14-year old is not a child. At 14 I was visiting whorehouses. Actually, I had a whore the first time when I was 13.

At 14 I was already selling dope, I had my own car (although I had to be careful not to go too close to town or get spotted by the cops) and I embarked on my first political act -- organizing a student walk-out when they tried to shorten our lunch hours.

This horseshit where we try to keep our children safe and under our thumb until they're 30 is a very recent development, a product of our soft and decadent 20th century pussy-whipped society. Throughout most of history, a 14-year old would have had a full-time job unless they were born rich, and in many cases would have been married and running a family.

No wonder Owenshooter has been attacked ruthlessly by the same old shitheads here. We got a moderator for CC who thinks it's ok for 14 year olds to be used as sex toys!

Well done Duk!

[Bernie Sanders]

Here you go Duk! You have good company!

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/world/middleeast/to-maintain-supply-of-sex-slaves-isis-pushes-birth-control.html

DOHUK, Iraq — Locked inside a room where the only furniture was a bed, the 16-year-old learned to fear the sunset, because nightfall started the countdown to her next rape.

During the year she was held by the Islamic State, she spent her days dreading the smell of the ISIS fighter’s breath, the disgusting sounds he made and the pain he inflicted on her body. More than anything, she was tormented by the thought she might become pregnant with her rapist’s child.

It was the one thing she needn’t have worried about.

Soon after buying her, the fighter brought the teenage girl a round box containing four strips of pills, one of them colored red.

“Every day, I had to swallow one in front of him. He gave me one box per month. When I ran out, he replaced it. When I was sold from one man to another, the box of pills came with me,” explained the girl, who learned only months later that she was being given birth control.

It is a particularly modern solution to a medieval injunction: According to an obscure ruling in Islamic law cited by the Islamic State, a man must ensure that the woman he enslaves is free of child before having intercourse with her.

[Dukasaur]

Here you go Duk! You have good company!

Oh, don't be an idiot. There's no comparison between Arab war atrocities and normal people having normal sexual relationships.

[Bernie Sanders]

Here you go Duk! You have good company!

Oh, don't be an idiot. There's no comparison between Arab war atrocities and normal people having normal sexual relationships.

Your sense of normal sexual relationship is what I question.