justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 1, 2015 21:01:22 GMT -5
Even if I believed that chart was accurate (I don't but let's pretend that I do), Maimonides made a good point when he said "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." Now, granted, long term prison isn't death... but the theory applies here as well. Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent be punished unjustly. While I don't want anyone innocent to be in jail, humor me - how many women that you know have been sexually assaulted? Raped?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 7:13:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 21:28:35 GMT -5
Even if I believed that chart was accurate (I don't but let's pretend that I do), Maimonides made a good point when he said "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." Now, granted, long term prison isn't death... but the theory applies here as well. Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent be punished unjustly. While I don't want anyone innocent to be in jail, humor me - how many women that you know have been sexually assaulted? Raped? Two (my Mother being one of them, a co-worker being the other). Interestingly enough that's only twice the number of men that I know that have been falsely accused of rape (my brother being that one). So... going by my experience/knowledge... 1/3 of of rape claims are false. (kinda kills the impact of that graphic... doesn't it?)
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 1, 2015 21:48:11 GMT -5
While I don't want anyone innocent to be in jail, humor me - how many women that you know have been sexually assaulted? Raped? Two (my Mother being one of them, a co-worker being the other). Interestingly enough that's only twice the number of men that I know that have been falsely accused of rape (my brother being that one). So... going by my experience/knowledge... 1/3 of of rape claims are false. (kinda kills the impact of that graphic... doesn't it?) Not really. You're discounting the females that have not told you about it. You'd have to take the proportion of females that trust and know you enough that they would tell you vs those that have and then extrapolate that number out to all the females you know. Considering it took one of my best friend almost 9 months after it happened to tell me and it took another best friend over 2 years of knowing me to tell me when she met me almost 4 years after the attack - the number of females you know vs those that are actually close enough to tell you is always a lot smaller percentage than you know.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 7:13:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 23:21:00 GMT -5
Two (my Mother being one of them, a co-worker being the other). Interestingly enough that's only twice the number of men that I know that have been falsely accused of rape (my brother being that one). So... going by my experience/knowledge... 1/3 of of rape claims are false. (kinda kills the impact of that graphic... doesn't it?) Not really. You're discounting the females that have not told you about it. You'd have to take the proportion of females that trust and know you enough that they would tell you vs those that have and then extrapolate that number out to all the females you know. Considering it took one of my best friend almost 9 months after it happened to tell me and it took another best friend over 2 years of knowing me to tell me when she met me almost 4 years after the attack - the number of females you know vs those that are actually close enough to tell you is always a lot smaller percentage than you know. Ok... let's make the number of "non-reporters" (to me) 100-fold... that's 200 (I SERIOUSLY doubt that... but you are going with the flights of fancy stratagem here, so I will as well) to 1. Still well short of the "1000 innocent go free before 1 innocent be punished" standard.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 1, 2015 23:32:45 GMT -5
Two (my Mother being one of them, a co-worker being the other). Interestingly enough that's only twice the number of men that I know that have been falsely accused of rape (my brother being that one). So... going by my experience/knowledge... 1/3 of of rape claims are false. (kinda kills the impact of that graphic... doesn't it?) Not really. You're discounting the females that have not told you about it. You'd have to take the proportion of females that trust and know you enough that they would tell you vs those that have and then extrapolate that number out to all the females you know. Considering it took one of my best friend almost 9 months after it happened to tell me and it took another best friend over 2 years of knowing me to tell me when she met me almost 4 years after the attack - the number of females you know vs those that are actually close enough to tell you is always a lot smaller percentage than you know. some will never tell. and they certainly are not going to tell a man. i mean....why on earth would they? what could possibly provoke that confession?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 2, 2015 2:00:05 GMT -5
Not really. You're discounting the females that have not told you about it. You'd have to take the proportion of females that trust and know you enough that they would tell you vs those that have and then extrapolate that number out to all the females you know. Considering it took one of my best friend almost 9 months after it happened to tell me and it took another best friend over 2 years of knowing me to tell me when she met me almost 4 years after the attack - the number of females you know vs those that are actually close enough to tell you is always a lot smaller percentage than you know. some will never tell. and they certainly are not going to tell a man. i mean....why on earth would they? what could possibly provoke that confession? Absolutely right, dj. There are more than just a few who will go to the grave without ever saying a word. I think that's getting better now and women will become less and less afraid to talk about it. Still, at this point in time there are many, many women out there who say nothing, or tell only their family members or a dearest friend. If someone does tell you about such a thing, you don't ever tell anyone else and you don't mention it to the victim unless she brings it up. Those are sorta the unwritten rules for so many of us.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 2, 2015 3:15:46 GMT -5
A yes only means yes if it's still a yes throughout the entire act. At any point during the act consent can be revoked, no questions asked. While there are instances of changing their mind or false accusations they are far more outweighed not only by the number of victims but by the number of victims too afraid to come forward for fear of being told they were asking for it or no one believing them because they knew the guy so they must have wanted it. I agree that consent can always be withdrawn at any time. I think false allegations are actually far more widespread than non-reports. Women have the option of, at any time, accusing a man of rape- sometimes even when there's been no sexual contact . As a religious person, my personal view is that this is yet another good reason to wait. Consent obtained at the altar, or at least the courthouse is tough to argue with.WTF?? So a married man can rape his wife any time he wants to? No consent required? She gave her consent at the altar? What kind of twisted thinking is that?
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Sept 2, 2015 5:37:55 GMT -5
I agree that consent can always be withdrawn at any time. I think false allegations are actually far more widespread than non-reports. Women have the option of, at any time, accusing a man of rape- sometimes even when there's been no sexual contact . As a religious person, my personal view is that this is yet another good reason to wait. Consent obtained at the altar, or at least the courthouse is tough to argue with.WTF?? So a married man can rape his wife any time he wants to? No consent required? She gave her consent at the altar? What kind of twisted thinking is that?
Every woman has the right to say NO at any time to any man AND expect it to be honored.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 7:13:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 5:41:28 GMT -5
I agree that consent can always be withdrawn at any time. I think false allegations are actually far more widespread than non-reports. Women have the option of, at any time, accusing a man of rape- sometimes even when there's been no sexual contact . As a religious person, my personal view is that this is yet another good reason to wait. Consent obtained at the altar, or at least the courthouse is tough to argue with.WTF?? So a married man can rape his wife any time he wants to? No consent required? She gave her consent at the altar? What kind of twisted thinking is that?
Marriage (at least the religious variety) can be considered "implied consent" (not to rape, obviously, but to sex)... unless she (ETA: or he... he does the vows too, and men can be raped as well) revokes it at some point in time. It's in the vows ("to have and to hold") as well as Christian scripture (not that I'm going to quote that here! LOL).
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 2, 2015 6:19:53 GMT -5
I agree that consent can always be withdrawn at any time. I think false allegations are actually far more widespread than non-reports. Women have the option of, at any time, accusing a man of rape- sometimes even when there's been no sexual contact . As a religious person, my personal view is that this is yet another good reason to wait. Consent obtained at the altar, or at least the courthouse is tough to argue with.WTF?? So a married man can rape his wife any time he wants to? No consent required? She gave her consent at the altar? What kind of twisted thinking is that?
You're surprised? Did you forget the comment made a while back it is perfectly okay to slap a woman across the face with an open hand?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 2, 2015 7:21:36 GMT -5
Even if I believed that chart was accurate (I don't but let's pretend that I do), Maimonides made a good point when he said "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." Now, granted, long term prison isn't death... but the theory applies here as well. Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent be punished unjustly. So you think we should go with the Shira law that says a woman isn't really raped unless two witnesses saw the act? The major reason women don't report rapes is that they know it will be very, very hard to prove it wasn't consensual sex. If it's a stranger who followed you home, broke into your house, beat you up and raped you, you will probably be believed, but if you're at a party with some guys you know and one of them lures you into a back room and pins you against the wall and no one can hear you screaming because the music was too loud - you're out of luck. If you're really unlucky and the kid who did that to you has a rich daddy, you'll find yourself on the witness stand trying to defend yourself against accusations that you're a drunk slut who bangs a different guy at every party. It's a shame that there are some disturbed women who would make false rape allegations. But I'm more concerned about all the masses of women who never bother to report the crime at all because they don't think they will be believed. This teaches our young men that if they get a girl drink they can do what they want and laugh it off as good clean fun.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 2, 2015 7:36:11 GMT -5
Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent be punished unjustly. That's a terrible type-I/type-II error ratio. 50:1 is the absolute upper limit on what's reasonable. 30:1 is what I'd consider to be an optimal trade-off. Fortunately, specific ratios don't factor into our court system.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 2, 2015 7:54:39 GMT -5
Even if I believed that chart was accurate (I don't but let's pretend that I do), Maimonides made a good point when he said "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." Now, granted, long term prison isn't death... but the theory applies here as well. Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent be punished unjustly. So you think we should go with the Shira law that says a woman isn't really raped unless two witnesses saw the act? I agree with Richard insofar as nobody should be convicted of rape based on nothing more than victim testimony. Having said that, I resent the fact that (to the best of my knowledge) the courts can't "pool" multiple rape allegations into a single case for prosecution. If two or more victims from separate rapes by the same perpetrator came forward, even years apart, I would welcome treating both instances as a single crime and putting both testimonies simultaneously before a judge. So long as the testimony had no glaring inconsistencies, the judge would do well to convict on that basis. swamp: Would something like the above be possible under any circumstances in our system?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 2, 2015 10:00:13 GMT -5
So you think we should go with the Shira law that says a woman isn't really raped unless two witnesses saw the act? I agree with Richard insofar as nobody should be convicted of rape based on nothing more than victim testimony.Having said that, I resent the fact that (to the best of my knowledge) the courts can't "pool" multiple rape allegations into a single case for prosecution. If two or more victims from separate rapes by the same perpetrator came forward, even years apart, I would welcome treating both instances as a single crime and putting both testimonies simultaneously before a judge. So long as the testimony had no glaring inconsistencies, the judge would do well to convict on that basis. swamp: Would something like the above be possible under any circumstances in our system? Seriously? Vaginal bruising = normal during sex, semen = proof that they had sex, but man says she agreed to have sex, bruising on her wrists where she was tied up = just a little playful S and M Maybe if he beat her they could get him on assault, but not rape, because he insists they had a pleasant sexual interlude and THEN he beat the crap out of her. In your scenario, a guy would only need to make sure he raped her in private, with no witnesses, to make sure he gets away with it. No point in doing rape kits anymore, because all the guy has to say is yeah, I had sex with her but she agreed to it and he walks free. So would your policy also apply to other crimes? If some guy you know held you up at gunpoint and took your watch from you, and you complain to the police to get it back, but the guy says you gave it to him as a gift, and there are no witnesses, does he get to keep the watch? Otherwise, what's to keep me from liking your watch and lying to the police and telling them it's my watch? Or does your passion to protect the wrongfully accused only apply to those with penises accused of sex crimes? And before you answer that the police need to do a detailed investigation of each alleged rape, keep in mind that rapes that don't involve assaults or murder often don't get a lot of police attention. Every now and then you hear about a foresic lab with a forgotten stash of unproccessed rape kits that date back for years. So expecting police departments to do a CSI style intensive investigation of every rape in order to try for a conviction just means more rapists would walk free. But I guess in a male dominated society, that's a better alternative than prosecuting a single man who didn't actually do the crime.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 2, 2015 10:07:30 GMT -5
then there is the "examination", which can often be as cold and inhuman as the rape. it is little wonder rapes go unreported.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 2, 2015 11:01:43 GMT -5
I'm surprised that we are even having this discussion. It is common knowledge that rape is a crime that is vastly unreported. It is certainly easy to understand the reasons why, but if you don't some of them have been spelled out above.
Beyond that though, I think there is another male disconnect here, and one that I certainly fall into. I am postulating this- I don't have any evidence, studies or even opinions from experts saying this is so.
We guys on here certainly take notice when we see a lady who is attractively dressed. We also certainly take notice when a woman is provocatively dressed. To us, that reminds us of...... sex. We think of..... sex, with that woman. Not so much when we see a photo of a Nun, or a group of Mormon women at church.
It seems reasonable to think that a woman who is provocatively dressed incites more thoughts of sex among males, and therefore...... But that is the fallacy. Being generally decent sorts, mot of the guys on here are not rapists. We cannot assume that someone bent on rape thinks the same way, because they don't. So I think we make to much of a connection between dress and molestation. There really isn't much of one I don't think.
A rapist thinks Target: Woman. Goal: Sexual Conquest ( or domination, or violence, or whatever- I am out of my depth here too)
They don't think Victoria's Secret. good observation. may i make another one? we often have discussions about criminal conduct, here. when we do, MOST posters here (and, i would posit, MOST PEOPLE) would agree that the punishment is a deterrent for committing the crime. and i am sure that is true: for people who have respect for the law and have no motivation to commit a crime. where the logic breaks down, however, is that we, the law abiding citizens, ASSUME that these same value systems apply to criminals. in other words, that murderers and rapists are considering the outcome of their crimes, when in fact, most are not. they are acting on impulse, and assuming they won't get caught. their moral judgment is impaired, as well as their respect for the law. criminals are not thinking about the outcome of their actions, in most cases. they are thinking of committing the crime. and, in some cases, they are not even thinking of it as a crime. that is what makes them criminals.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 2, 2015 12:36:11 GMT -5
I agree with Richard insofar as nobody should be convicted of rape based on nothing more than victim testimony.Having said that, I resent the fact that (to the best of my knowledge) the courts can't "pool" multiple rape allegations into a single case for prosecution. If two or more victims from separate rapes by the same perpetrator came forward, even years apart, I would welcome treating both instances as a single crime and putting both testimonies simultaneously before a judge. So long as the testimony had no glaring inconsistencies, the judge would do well to convict on that basis. swamp: Would something like the above be possible under any circumstances in our system? Seriously? Vaginal bruising = normal during sex, semen = proof that they had sex, but man says she agreed to have sex, bruising on her wrists where she was tied up = just a little playful S and M Maybe if he beat her they could get him on assault, but not rape, because he insists they had a pleasant sexual interlude and THEN he beat the crap out of her. In your scenario, a guy would only need to make sure he raped her in private, with no witnesses, to make sure he gets away with it. No point in doing rape kits anymore, because all the guy has to say is yeah, I had sex with her but she agreed to it and he walks free. So would your policy also apply to other crimes? If some guy you know held you up at gunpoint and took your watch from you, and you complain to the police to get it back, but the guy says you gave it to him as a gift, and there are no witnesses, does he get to keep the watch? Otherwise, what's to keep me from liking your watch and lying to the police and telling them it's my watch? ... So... she's got bruising on her wrists from being tied up, which is corroborating evidence. She's apparently also beat up, which is corroborating evidence. What part of "based on nothing more than victim testimony" is confusing you? Maybe if the defense could bring in witnesses to testify that the victim liked men to beat her up during sexual intercourse, we might dismiss these elements as proof of non-consent, but otherwise they corroborate her story and the game changes. In the absence of these elements, yes, the accused goes free. Our standard of justice is "beyond a reasonable doubt". We don't throw that under the bus just because false allegations are rare. It's one of the reasons I cry "prudence!" from the rooftops. It's also the reason I say "fight back". I must have seen at least a dozen rapist interviews in which the convict makes it very clear he picks the woman he thinks is least likely to fight back. Many convicts even aborted attempts when a victim put up a fight. Never impair your ability to fight back. Never drink to excess. Don't go to venues where excessive drinking and sex are the norm. Never leave a drink unattended, or else avoid drinking entirely. Never solicit or consent to sex outside of marriage. Don't go on dates alone with strangers or casual acquaintances; double-date or plan activities as part of a group. Don't engage in sadomasochistic roleplay. Be the stone cold sober woman with black eyes and skin under her fingernails for whom the defense cannot procure a single witness willing to testify that sex with the accused was even conceivable. If not, the courts won't believe you. They can't believe you. Our standard of justice dictates so. Screwing with the standard is not viable. Too many innocent men will be convicted. Prudence and vigilance are our only recourse. That goes for men as well as women.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 2, 2015 13:26:18 GMT -5
I agree with Richard insofar as nobody should be convicted of rape based on nothing more than victim testimony.Having said that, I resent the fact that (to the best of my knowledge) the courts can't "pool" multiple rape allegations into a single case for prosecution. If two or more victims from separate rapes by the same perpetrator came forward, even years apart, I would welcome treating both instances as a single crime and putting both testimonies simultaneously before a judge. So long as the testimony had no glaring inconsistencies, the judge would do well to convict on that basis. swamp: Would something like the above be possible under any circumstances in our system? Seriously? Vaginal bruising = normal during sex, semen = proof that they had sex, but man says she agreed to have sex, bruising on her wrists where she was tied up = just a little playful S and M Maybe if he beat her they could get him on assault, but not rape, because he insists they had a pleasant sexual interlude and THEN he beat the crap out of her. In your scenario, a guy would only need to make sure he raped her in private, with no witnesses, to make sure he gets away with it. No point in doing rape kits anymore, because all the guy has to say is yeah, I had sex with her but she agreed to it and he walks free. So would your policy also apply to other crimes? If some guy you know held you up at gunpoint and took your watch from you, and you complain to the police to get it back, but the guy says you gave it to him as a gift, and there are no witnesses, does he get to keep the watch? Otherwise, what's to keep me from liking your watch and lying to the police and telling them it's my watch? Or does your passion to protect the wrongfully accused only apply to those with penises accused of sex crimes? And before you answer that the police need to do a detailed investigation of each alleged rape, keep in mind that rapes that don't involve assaults or murder often don't get a lot of police attention. Every now and then you hear about a foresic lab with a forgotten stash of unproccessed rape kits that date back for years. So expecting police departments to do a CSI style intensive investigation of every rape in order to try for a conviction just means more rapists would walk free.
But I guess in a male dominated society, that's a better alternative than prosecuting a single man who didn't actually do the crime. In my city, we had one of the highest number of untested rape kits. Over 12,000 untested rape kits going back to the late 1970s were found in a back room of a police station. The statute of limitations ran out long ago for many of those rapes. Last year Tennessee changed the statute of limitations because of the Memphis rape kit debacle. Now as long as the rape is filed within three years of the alleged crime in the future, there is no statute of limitations.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 2, 2015 13:33:10 GMT -5
Seriously? Vaginal bruising = normal during sex, semen = proof that they had sex, but man says she agreed to have sex, bruising on her wrists where she was tied up = just a little playful S and M Maybe if he beat her they could get him on assault, but not rape, because he insists they had a pleasant sexual interlude and THEN he beat the crap out of her. In your scenario, a guy would only need to make sure he raped her in private, with no witnesses, to make sure he gets away with it. No point in doing rape kits anymore, because all the guy has to say is yeah, I had sex with her but she agreed to it and he walks free. So would your policy also apply to other crimes? If some guy you know held you up at gunpoint and took your watch from you, and you complain to the police to get it back, but the guy says you gave it to him as a gift, and there are no witnesses, does he get to keep the watch? Otherwise, what's to keep me from liking your watch and lying to the police and telling them it's my watch? ... So... she's got bruising on her wrists from being tied up, which is corroborating evidence. She's apparently also beat up, which is corroborating evidence. What part of "based on nothing more than victim testimony" is confusing you? Maybe if the defense could bring in witnesses to testify that the victim liked men to beat her up during sexual intercourse, we might dismiss these elements as proof of non-consent, but otherwise they corroborate her story and the game changes. In the absence of these elements, yes, the accused goes free. Our standard of justice is "beyond a reasonable doubt". We don't throw that under the bus just because false allegations are rare. It's one of the reasons I cry "prudence!" from the rooftops. It's also the reason I say "fight back". I must have seen at least a dozen rapist interviews in which the convict makes it very clear he picks the woman he thinks is least likely to fight back. Many convicts even aborted attempts when a victim put up a fight. Never impair your ability to fight back. Never drink to excess. Don't go to venues where excessive drinking and sex are the norm. Never leave a drink unattended, or else avoid drinking entirely. Never solicit or consent to sex outside of marriage. Don't go on dates alone with strangers or casual acquaintances; double-date or plan activities as part of a group. Don't engage in sadomasochistic roleplay. Be the stone cold sober woman with black eyes and skin under her fingernails for whom the defense cannot procure a single witness willing to testify that sex with the accused was even conceivable. If not, the courts won't believe you. They can't believe you. Our standard of justice dictates so. Screwing with the standard is not viable. Too many innocent men will be convicted. Prudence and vigilance are our only recourse. That goes for men as well as women. Wait...what? If I'm not married I shouldn't have sex, ever?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 2, 2015 13:45:28 GMT -5
So are you just as enthusiastic about 'beyond a reasonable doubt' when it comes to murderers?
If one eye witness puts someone at the scene of a murder with a gun in his hand but you have no concrete evidence rather than a dead body and a suspect who can't account for his whereabouts and has a strong motive for killing the guy, are you willing to shout prudence from the roof tops and let a murderer walk free? Or is it only the poor falsely accused penis owners who you get passionate about?
And there it is. Only the nasty girls get raped - the ones who fornicate outside of marriage.
All the good girls are home with mummy and daddy waiting for Prince Charming to whisk them to their fortified castle, where the bad men can't go.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 2, 2015 14:27:01 GMT -5
Fight back - that's an interesting statement that I'm sure you find is quite simple, but it is deceptively so.
Society as a whole encourages women to be quite, to not be a bitch, be seen not heard, to essentially "be a lady". Even more so in religious households where the males rule. Yet suddenly, when someone is attacking them they are to throw all that out the window and fight back. We cripple women by telling them all their lives how women should behave and then scold them when they behave that way even under duress.
Not to mention the back and forth the experts are on whether or not it's prudent to fight back. I honestly don't know what the popular opinion is right now.
And none of that is even touching how next to impossible it is for guys to truly understand how it is to live in a body that is designed to be weaker than the other sex. Yes there's exceptions, but the majority of men can overpower the majority of women and fighting back is futile if the man really wants something.
I've had to fight and push guys off me that were going farther than I wanted. Believe me I am under no illusions that I actually fought them off, they just turned out to be not that bad of guys and finally believed me saying stop.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 7:13:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 14:30:38 GMT -5
WTF?? So a married man can rape his wife any time he wants to? No consent required? She gave her consent at the altar? What kind of twisted thinking is that?
Marriage (at least the religious variety) can be considered "implied consent" (not to rape, obviously, but to sex)... unless she (ETA: or he... he does the vows too, and men can be raped as well) revokes it at some point in time. It's in the vows ("to have and to hold") as well as Christian scripture (not that I'm going to quote that here! LOL). So you just don't understAnd what rape is then?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 2, 2015 15:44:49 GMT -5
Fight back - that's an interesting statement that I'm sure you find is quite simple, but it is deceptively so. Society as a whole encourages women to be quite, to not be a bitch, be seen not heard, to essentially "be a lady". Even more so in religious households where the males rule. Yet suddenly, when someone is attacking them they are to throw all that out the window and fight back. We cripple women by telling them all their lives how women should behave and then scold them when they behave that way even under duress. Not to mention the back and forth the experts are on whether or not it's prudent to fight back. I honestly don't know what the popular opinion is right now. And none of that is even touching how next to impossible it is for guys to truly understand how it is to live in a body that is designed to be weaker than the other sex. Yes there's exceptions, but the majority of men can overpower the majority of women and fighting back is futile if the man really wants something. I've had to fight and push guys off me that were going farther than I wanted. Believe me I am under no illusions that I actually fought them off, they just turned out to be not that bad of guys and finally believed me saying stop.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 7:13:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 16:19:43 GMT -5
And girls who don't fight a knife or a hulk are more likely to survive.... Which is a goal see. So it should be survive and not prosecute... Or fight and hope if you end up dead at least they might get DNA...?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 2, 2015 16:52:46 GMT -5
And girls who don't fight a knife or a hulk are more likely to survive.... Which is a goal see. So it should be survive and not prosecute... Or fight and hope if you end up dead at least they might get DNA...? truly grim set of options, oped.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 2, 2015 17:51:48 GMT -5
Why do you think I carry? I started carrying because DH's ex was a nut job and the laws protect nut jobs. But I don't feel safe here. I'm small, old, and weak. I even things up a bit by carrying. Do I look for trouble? Nope. But if it comes to me, I don't back down. You might get the better of me but I'll get a part of you.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 7:13:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 20:10:25 GMT -5
Even if I believed that chart was accurate (I don't but let's pretend that I do), Maimonides made a good point when he said "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." Now, granted, long term prison isn't death... but the theory applies here as well. Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent be punished unjustly. So you think we should go with the Shira law that says a woman isn't really raped unless two witnesses saw the act? The major reason women don't report rapes is that they know it will be very, very hard to prove it wasn't consensual sex. If it's a stranger who followed you home, broke into your house, beat you up and raped you, you will probably be believed, but if you're at a party with some guys you know and one of them lures you into a back room and pins you against the wall and no one can hear you screaming because the music was too loud - you're out of luck. If you're really unlucky and the kid who did that to you has a rich daddy, you'll find yourself on the witness stand trying to defend yourself against accusations that you're a drunk slut who bangs a different guy at every party. It's a shame that there are some disturbed women who would make false rape allegations. But I'm more concerned about all the masses of women who never bother to report the crime at all because they don't think they will be believed. This teaches our young men that if they get a girl drink they can do what they want and laugh it off as good clean fun. Please point out where I EVER said that. Go ahead. Quote where I ever said something THAT stupid. I'm ANTI-"religion interfering in people's lives". Being "for Shira law" would kind of go against that... don't you think? I'm FOR women's equality with men (and men's equality with women). Being "for Shira law" would kind of go against that too... don't you think?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 7:13:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 20:42:15 GMT -5
Seriously? Vaginal bruising = normal during sex, semen = proof that they had sex, but man says she agreed to have sex, bruising on her wrists where she was tied up = just a little playful S and M Maybe if he beat her they could get him on assault, but not rape, because he insists they had a pleasant sexual interlude and THEN he beat the crap out of her. In your scenario, a guy would only need to make sure he raped her in private, with no witnesses, to make sure he gets away with it. No point in doing rape kits anymore, because all the guy has to say is yeah, I had sex with her but she agreed to it and he walks free. So would your policy also apply to other crimes? If some guy you know held you up at gunpoint and took your watch from you, and you complain to the police to get it back, but the guy says you gave it to him as a gift, and there are no witnesses, does he get to keep the watch? Otherwise, what's to keep me from liking your watch and lying to the police and telling them it's my watch? Or does your passion to protect the wrongfully accused only apply to those with penises accused of sex crimes? And before you answer that the police need to do a detailed investigation of each alleged rape, keep in mind that rapes that don't involve assaults or murder often don't get a lot of police attention. Every now and then you hear about a foresic lab with a forgotten stash of unproccessed rape kits that date back for years. So expecting police departments to do a CSI style intensive investigation of every rape in order to try for a conviction just means more rapists would walk free.
But I guess in a male dominated society, that's a better alternative than prosecuting a single man who didn't actually do the crime. In my city, we had one of the highest number of untested rape kits. Over 12,000 untested rape kits going back to the late 1970s were found in a back room of a police station. The statute of limitations ran out long ago for many of those rapes. Last year Tennessee changed the statute of limitations because of the Memphis rape kit debacle. Now as long as the rape is filed within three years of the alleged crime in the future, there is no statute of limitations. This is great news! (I didn't hear about this... I don't watch a lot of news though)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 7:13:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 20:47:52 GMT -5
Marriage (at least the religious variety) can be considered "implied consent" (not to rape, obviously, but to sex)... unless she (ETA: or he... he does the vows too, and men can be raped as well) revokes it at some point in time. It's in the vows ("to have and to hold") as well as Christian scripture (not that I'm going to quote that here! LOL). So you just don't understAnd what rape is then? I understand quite well what a rape is. Do you understand what " not to rape, obviously, but to sex" and " unless she (ETA: or he... he does the vows too, and men can be raped as well) revokes it at some point in time" means?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 2, 2015 20:55:29 GMT -5
In my city, we had one of the highest number of untested rape kits. Over 12,000 untested rape kits going back to the late 1970s were found in a back room of a police station. The statute of limitations ran out long ago for many of those rapes. Last year Tennessee changed the statute of limitations because of the Memphis rape kit debacle. Now as long as the rape is filed within three years of the alleged crime in the future, there is no statute of limitations. This is great news! (I didn't hear about this... I don't watch a lot of news though) TN Legislature OKs change in statute of limitations for rape
|
|