$37.12 donated in past month
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay FeatureRelated Categories: U.S. | LGBTI / Queer
Was Dahrun "Spycam Man" Ravi a Secret Closet Queen?
Just wondering of Dahrun Ravi was obsessed with his own secret homosexuality and this is what led him to spy on hid roommate having sexual relations with another man? There is a fine line between homophobia and repressed homosexuality.
Dahrun Ravi used technology to invade the private life of Mr. Tyler Clementi, who was not ready to "come out" of the closet to the entire internet.
What are the clues that individuals like Dahrun Ravi are obsessed closet queens who may in fact themselves be homosexual yet are in denial?
What would motivate Dahrun Ravi to watch two men engage in sexual acts of he himself (Ravi da Voyuer) was not somehow turned on by the acts?
If someone is a functional hetrosexual male they would not be threatened by another homosexual male unless....
the functional hetrosexual male role that Dharun Ravi is only a mask?
A jury found Dharun Ravi guilty of invasion of privacy for spying on his Rutgers University roommate Tyler Clementi and other charges.
The jury deliberated for 12 hours for more than two days and also convicted him of tampering with physical evidence.
The 15-count indictment included several bias intimidation charges, because prosecutors claimed Ravi bullied Clementi for being gay. The jury of seven women and five men agreed, finding him guilty of hate crimes, The New York Times reports.
In all Ravi was convicted of bias, invasion of privacy, hindering apprehension and witness tampering, according to the Star-Ledger. The newspaper reported he could be deported to India, his country of birth.
The verdict carries a possible sentence of five to 10 years, according to ABC News. Sentencing is set for May 21.
The case became known as the "Rutgers Webcam Spy" trial because Ravi, 20, was accused of using a computer camera to watch his freshman roommate Clementi in a romantic embrace with another man in their Rutgers University dorm room. Clementi committed suicide days later in September 2010. Ravi wasn't charged as a factor in the death, but he became inextricably linked with the end of Clementi's life.
SEE TIMELINE OF EVENTS FROM CASE
"It appears the jury thought long and hard, particularly about bias intimidation and hate crimes," said HuffPost Gay Voices Editor-At-Large Michelangelo Signorile. "It's a just verdict that will send a message about the seriousness of bias-motivated crimes."
Prosecutors alleged that Ravi spied on Clementi by going to a friend's room where he tapped into a webcam to watch his roommate in a romantic moment with another man. Clementi found out that Ravi had seen him in an intimiate encounter and that he had written about it on his Twitter account.
Clementi, then 18, asked dormitory officials to change his room, but committed suicide by jumping from the George Washington Bridge on Sept. 22, 2010.
The case was followed across the country because it centered on the chain of events that led up to Clementi's death.
Ravi was charged with bias intimidation -- essentially a hate crime -- for writing on Twitter about seeing him "kissing a dude" and inviting friends to watch a second tryst between Clementi and a man known only as "M.B."
The witness and evidence tampering charges stem from allegations that Ravi altered his Twitter posts to cover his tracks after Clementi died. They also said he tried to coordinate statements made to police by Molly Wei, a friend who also saw Clementi via the webcam.
The jurors could only find Ravi guilty of the anti-gay bias charge if they first decided he was guilty of invasion of privacy.
But Ravi's defense tried instead to portray him as an immature college student who used poor judgment for a college prank, not as someone who hated gay people. Instead, they said Ravi was suspicious of "M.B." because he was older -- in his mid- to late-20s -- and had a disheveled appearance.
More than 30 witnesses took the stand in the 13-day trial. Wei, who was also indicted but avoided prison time by agreeing to testify against Ravi, said "it felt wrong" to watch Clementi and his date.
A former player on Ravi's ultimate frisbee team testified that he seemed uncomfortable with having a gay roommate. But several other witnesses said they didn't think Ravi had a problem with gay people.
There was a great degree of anticipation over whether Clementi's date, "M.B." would be called to the stand. In the end, he did testify, but his identity was concealed, because he was also considered a victim of the alleged crimes.
"I noticed there was a webcam faced over in the direction of the bed. I just thought it was strange. Being in a compromising position," M.B. said according to the New York Post. "It just caught my eye that there was a camera lens looking right at me."
The defense began its case by calling a series of character witnesses -- mostly business partners of Ravi's father and other family friends -- who said Ravi was not prejudiced. Speculation mounted that Ravi would opt to speak, but on Monday the defense rested its case without his testimony.
The only time jurors heard from Ravi was in a taped interview with police that was played in court. In that interview, Ravi admitted to violating Clementi's privacy, but says he was not expecting to see a romantic moment.
"I didn't realize it was something so private," he said.
Maybe not, but hope that you realize it now Mr. Dahrun Ravi!!
It is commonly true that those most opposed to gay rights, are those with repressed homosexual urges. Well, surprise, surprise, there is scientific proof that is exactly the case.
An an article in Scientific American shows that of two groups of self-reported heterosexual males (one being homophobic and one non-homophobic), the homophobic group showed a good deal of sexual reponse on a penile plethysmograph that measured their sexual stimulation to three different kinds of pornography.
By the way, the homophobic and non-homophobic criteria were based on answers to a questionnaire. The pornography was male/female, lesbian and male/male. The non-homophobic and homophobic were both stimulated strongly by the first two groups, but the non-homophobic were only slightly stimulated according to the meters, by the gay male porn.
Well, the homophobic group was though, pretty excited by the gay male pornography. In fact, 80% of the homophobic group showed a moderate to definite response to this pornograpy v. 34% for the non-homophobic group. That is an overwhelming difference in reaction between the two groups.
In a second study, homophobic males in a type of game, delivered longer and more intense shocks to individuals they believed were gay males v the shock that non-homophobic males gave to gay males. Both homophobic and non-homophobic males delivered the same type and range of shocks to what they believed were heterosexual males.
There was of course, no actual males, gay or not, being shocked. This was after viewing gay pornography. Obviously the gay pornography set off anger and emotional trauma in the repressed, homophobic males.
Someday when Dahrun Ravi is walking alone near the Hudson River he may feel a cool tingling on the back of his neck. It is only Mr. Tyler Clementi saying hello and reminding his former roomate that he will never be alone again!