(I'm talking about sexual violence against a man so tread carefully and the link I'm about to drop has some pretty serious images up front and center.)
Gaddafi did not deserve to be sodomized before being killed.
Yes he is a war criminal that is responsible for atrocities that were probably only outdone by a few other people.
Yes he oppressed people and kept them in control with violence.
Yes if he had had his way about it he would have stayed in power and ruled with an iron fist.
But none of that justifies sodomizing him.
When stooping to his level of violence and depravity can those folks really call them selves rebels/freedom fighters?
Hell I can sort of understand killing him because that actually does serve the purpose of making sure that he will never rise again (I'm not sure if that makes it okay but what's the point of sodomizing him other than to inflict pain and humiliation?). But like any other man he did not deserve that. I can almost understand the desire to do that to him (because believe me when I say I have very serious issues with the thought of revenge) but ultimately its a display of violence that makes me wonder if those rebels are better than the man they disposed (Remember how the cruel tyranny of the French Monarchy was followed by The Reign of Terror?).
Rape is treated like a joke.
Rape is treated like a suitable punishment.
Rape is treated like a viable tactic to get someone to talk.
None of that is cool. From this display of sexual violence to the regular use of rape as a threat to get someone to confess on a tv crime drama. None of it is.
I'm glad that Gaddafi is no longer in power but what purpose did sodomizing him serve?
Fro tip to Ozy.
