What's your preferred choice? Throwing anyone in jail that is suspected of committing a crime?
No. See, I live in the real world, where nothing is ever perfect. We can talk about this sort of absolutism all we want, but we actually have to live in a system that we can bear.
The fact of it is, there is no system which prevents there from being some wrongful convictions and also meaningfully impacts real criminals. "Reasonable doubt" is a strong standard, but even that's not an absolute one; even when tried under the reasonable doubt standard, some innocents are convicted. That's unfortunate, but it's also the price we pay for the liberties which are guarded by the courts.
Knowing this fact, the question for me isn't whether I can accept some people wrongfully convicted, but what the ratio of that is. If there's a system that locks up a thousand criminals for every one person it wrongly convicts, I can live with that. I could probably even live with a lower ratio.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I don't know about the guy you were quoting, but I know that I would feel the same way if it were another crime.
So you would rather have no successful criminal prosecution at all than have one single person wrongly convicted?
Yes.
In my opinion, Protecting the rights of the innocent is an a completely different tier than getting revenge on the guilty.
Criminal prosecution is not simply a game of revenge, its quite beneficial to discourage people from commiting crimes and prevent others from continuing to commit crimes.
The problem is, even with all of those things you mention, it's hard to prove a rape case. A guy can claim it was consensual, unprotected rough sex while roleplaying after a night of partying. They do, in fact. And get off.
Recently there's been an outrage here because a guy was freed from charges of rape because he admitted that the woman shouted no and that she struggled, he just didn't interpret this as her refusing consent.
So, yeah...
That certainly would be an interesting case to read about. Do you remember where the story on that one can be found at?
What's your preferred choice? Throwing anyone in jail that is suspected of committing a crime?
No. See, I live in the real world, where nothing is ever perfect. We can talk about this sort of absolutism all we want, but we actually have to live in a system that we can bear.
The fact of it is, there is no system which prevents there from being some wrongful convictions and also meaningfully impacts real criminals. "Reasonable doubt" is a strong standard, but even that's not an absolute one; even when tried under the reasonable doubt standard, some innocents are convicted. That's unfortunate, but it's also the price we pay for the liberties which are guarded by the courts.
Knowing this fact, the question for me isn't whether I can accept some people wrongfully convicted, but what the ratio of that is. If there's a system that locks up a thousand criminals for every one person it wrongly convicts, I can live with that. I could probably even live with a lower ratio.
And I am actually ok with a reasonable doubt system too. What is being suggested though is not a reasonable doubt system... it's a system where guy's would have to prove that they are not criminals instead of a system where the state has to prove that they are criminals.
Yes rape sucks. Yes victims of rape are already incredibly unlikely to come forward. yes, I wish it was better... but NO, I am not for compromising on the legal process just to give the system a better chance at convicting rapists. Why compromise the system for rapists when we didnt compromise the system to put mobsters and bootleggers in jail?
And I am actually ok with a reasonable doubt system too. What is being suggested though is not a reasonable doubt system... it's a system where guy's would have to prove that they are not criminals instead of a system where the state has to prove that they are criminals.
No, it isn't.
Here are the facts involved:
1) Sometimes, Person 1 will have intercourse with Person 2 (henceforth 1 and 2) with both parties both willing and aware that the other is willing. This is the default case.
2) Sometimes, 1 will have intercourse with 2 with only 1 willing, and 1 aware that 2 is unwilling. This is the standard rape case.
3) Sometimes, 1 will have intercourse with 2 with only 1 willing, but with 1 unaware that 2 is unwilling. This is the ambiguous case.
4) Sometimes, 1 will have intercourse with 2, with both parties willing and aware that the other is willing, only to have 2 later claim that they were unwilling. This is the "false rape" or bogeyman case.
Everyone is agreed that the default case should be legal; everyone is agreed that the standard rape case should be illegal. The only question in these two is how it is possible to prove the standard rape case.
The problem is, in fact, is that what is considered sufficient evidence in another type of case is often judged insufficient by a jury; despite the fact that motive, means, and eyewitness testimony (that of the victim) is available, often juries acquit. The problem is exactly the opposite of what you identify; the standard of proof for a rape case usually involves multiple levels of corroboration, possibly including physical evidence of sexual assault on the body of the victim, evidence of their distressed psychological state in the immediate aftermath of the incident, and a host of other things. It would be ludicrous in a mugging case for the defense lawyer to say "the victim walked home afterward, doesn't sound like he was mugged to me." That's exactly the sort of thing said in a rape trial.
For the ambiguous case, the circumstances are only harder, for the defendant has an affirmative defense, namely that he had sex with the woman unwilling, but without the mens rea that she was unwilling. Given that it is essentially impossible to prove mens rea (which is why it is usually not left to the juries in other crimes) these are almost always acquitted.
For the bogeyman case, see all of the above, but multiplied.
Now, it is also true that outside of the standard criminal justice system, there is also a media which presents such cases and often has a different standard of evidence. However, that is a separate discussion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
For the ambiguous case, the circumstances are only harder, for the defendant has an affirmative defense, namely that he had sex with the woman unwilling, but without the mens rea that she was unwilling. Given that it is essentially impossible to prove mens rea(which is why it is usually not left to the juries in other crimes) these are almost always acquitted.
The bolded statement is completely false. The accused has the constitutional right to have a jury make all factual findings necessary to determine criminal liability. With a few strange exceptions not worth discussing here, mens rea is an element of every crime (e.g. murder, rape, theft). Thus the jury is always required to find the appropriate mens rea before convicting.
Now, it's true that in many cases mens rea simply won't matter because the dispute is "did he do it," not "did he mean to do it." But any time the accused disputes mens rea ("I swear I thought the gun wasn't loaded"), the jury has to decide this issue.
well, not if they plea out - and the state is really good at scaring suspects into plea bargaining away some shred of innocence for some amount of lenience.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
On the topic of ambiguous rape... I dont really know what you want here... you want all guys to get written permission? How do you prove that verbal consent wasn't given? What happens if they change their mind and dont say anything?
In a standard rape case that's the way it should be. There should be a high burden of proof because the punishment (socially, it should be higher legally) is extremely high. We're talking about a situation that is often not criminal that happens between two parties in private. Every guy that sleeps with a girl should not have to worry that she'll turn around and get him thrown in jail for rape. No matter how small the chances are. So yes there should be evidence that backs up the story that it was rape and not just rough sex. Should I be able to hand someone $5,000 and then charge them with grand theft and have a high degree of success? No, people are going to ask why I had $5,000 in cash, how the guy might have gotten it, why he'd try to take it from me(how he would know about it and how to get it) etc...
Again... I realize that this means if say... Susie has Jimmy over for a study date and he rapes her without her fighting back much and she's too ashamed to do anything about it immediately that Jimmy's probably walking free... But to me that's better than the alternative.
Senori-So you would rather have no successful criminal prosecution at all than have one single person wrongly convicted?
The difference you fail to realize is a system that locks up some people by accident and a system that locks up people without a fair trial are two entirely different things. As different as a car accident caused by ice and mowing people down with your car on purpose. Feminists have created on college campuses a system that raises the conviction rate by denying the accused basic due process (essentially one of our most basic rights). You cannot compare that to a system that makes honest mistakes. They wish to do the same in our criminal court systems, neither is acceptable.
Rape is hard to prove and frankly it should be. It is also really easy to lie about to, and even if it is as rare for someone to lie about rape as murder we would not make that exception for murder, we literally have been put to that test with organized crime.
Ladyluck-Having thought some more about your argument it really is sick on so many levels to argue that violating men's civil rights will produce benefits for both men and women. It is a moral hazard to say the least especially from a women as rape definitions (at least non-statutory rape ones) are gendered. Some about 99% (new FBI) and others 100% (Britain's) for women to demand those accused of rape lose their right to a fair trial is morally identical to the white population argueing that blacks should be denied a fair trial. You will never face the consequences of that decision now will you?
When we have gender neutral definitions of rape and women face the same punishments then you can talk about acceptable risks. You'll still be wrong though.
Again... I realize that this means if say... Susie has Jimmy over for a study date and he rapes her without her fighting back much and she's too ashamed to do anything about it immediately that Jimmy's probably walking free... But to me that's better than the alternative.
I've read about cases with less where they got a conviction, no system is perfect and rape is especially challenging.
I would argue that if they had made an agreement before hand that they were going to have rough sex then I could understand this ruling but since there is no evidence of that I disagree with the judges ruling.
There has been a case of a women who advertised on craigslist that she wanted a sexual partner to fufill a rape fantasy (yes they exist-I declined such a request not to long ago due to the request involving erotic asphyxiation). She (the woman in the story) went to the police afterwards and claimed to have been raped even going so far as to want charges brought. It was only after the police found the craigslist ad that she admited she was lying.
And no the young woman who had the fetish in my experience was not a nut. She is an extremely normal looking/behaving individual, if she had gone to the police after I fufilled her request I have no doubt I'd be in prison right now.
Now that I think about it an accusation would have meant the end of my career, even my family would probably have to move. To pretend false accusations are no big deal really is crazy.
I'm back. From outer space. Now to dredge up the topics that came up while I was away.
-"Enthusiastic consent"
First of all, the phrase "Are you sure you want to do this?" is badly worded and no one should say that to anyone they want to have sex with. It's basically implying that this is a bad idea, or that you don't think you're deserving of it, or whatever. If you want verbal confirmation, something like "Mind if a grab a condom?" is a better idea.
Second of all, the idea that you need verbal confirmation, let alone enthusiastic confirmation, I think is a bit silly. If the person you're with doesn't seem to be into it, then asking for permission probably is either going to make them feel pressured or make plain what you already suspected. Even if it's not rape, having sex with someone who's not very interested but is willing to consent is lame at best. My preferred method for determining into-it-iveness is to make sure they're making at least some of the "moves" along the way - for instance, if she's taking off some of my clothes, fondling things, etc, that's probably a good sign. If she stops making moves, so do I. Being in tune with your partner is way better for making sure it's actually a good time for everyone involve, unless you have Aspergers or something that makes it hard for you to tell how people feel or something.
Thirdly, I think the whole tangent only got brought up because I thought the reference to "When Harry Met Sally" a billion posts ago was an awkwardly forced and generally poor joke and I wanted to cast the light of shame on the perpetrator, which apparently backfired and turned into a whole "thing". My bad.
If you have a one night stand, be sure to text her the morning after and say something like "Did you have fun last night?" or something similar. When she texts back "Yes, :)" save/record the text in some way to avoid a false rape accusation.
Wow, what?
-Firstly, very few rape accusations are false.
-Secondly, if she's scheming to drag you both through legal hell (or if you actually did rape her and for some reason don't know), she'll just *shocker* not text you back.
So your "advice" is both offensive and ineffectual.
Of course you can't prevent anything 100% of the time - locks example, identity thief example, etc. But a certain amount of common sense on the first few dates - stay in public places, don't get overly inebriated - shouldn't be very intrusive and could definitely protect you. You're probably better off avoiding a lot of drinks for the first few dates anyway, but that's just my opinion. I'm not saying it's your fault if you want to get drunk, but I'm saying if your goal is to avoid getting raped, not getting drunk is probably a good idea with someone you don't know well.
This quote here just really makes it seem that you don't understand the problem. There needs to be a change in culture so that guys are told 'You're probably better off avoiding a lot of drinks for the first few dates. If your goal is to avoid raping, not getting drunk is probably a good idea with someone you don't know well.' Sure you can continue to educate girls in the way you mentioned, but no one even suggests educating guys. That's the sort of culture change that is being looked for.
As far as the whole verbal consent thing and it being a mood-killer, that's another sort of cultural change that needs to happen. Know what else can turn down the heat of the moment? A guy fumbling around for a condom and putting it on. Does that mean that condoms are dumb and shouldn't be used? Hardly. Same thing with getting verbal consent. A quick "Babe, are you sure you want to do this?" and nod with accompanying "Yeah" takes all of like two seconds and hardly kills the mood. Hell, just ask while your getting out your condom and kill two birds with one stone! If it became the cultural norm to ask before sex it would be expected and it would help to reduce the rate of rape. Again, as Jay13x said, it isn't strangers jumping out of bushes committing the majority of rapes.
And as far as "No means no" vs. "Only yes means yes" imagine the following situation: a girl gets barely-able-to-walk, practically-passed-out drunk at a party and a drunk guy shuttles her off to a bedroom.
In a "No means no" culture, the guy doesn't hear "no" and has sex with her. He never got consent from her, despite following the cultural norm.
In an "Only yes means yes" culture, the guy doesn't hear "yes" and realizes that he doesn't have her consent.
And as for the "well she shouldn't have been getting so damn drunk in that environment, it's too risky" train of thought, that's part of the culture that needs to change. Rarely in our culture would anyone fault the guy, or advise the guy not to get so damn drunk in that situation. But think about that scenario if only the guy were sober and the girl was still completely ****faced drunk. He probably wouldn't have wound up raping her, right? That's part of the cultural change that is being looked for: emphasize to both sexes this advice on how to avoid the occurrence of rape. People don't get drunk and commit identity theft without realizing it, but people do get drunk and commit rape without realizing it.
-I don't disagree that the guy should avoid getting drunk. I avoid getting drunk on early dates personally, although not for that reason in particular. But I think it's just a bad idea in general for both parties on early dates.
-See above for verbal/enthusiastic consent stuff.
-I don't disagree that "only yes means yes", but I don't think "yes" only takes the form of a verbal yes. Do you really think I need to stop someone who's recently stripped off all my clothes and is (etc etc I don't want to get a warning but you get the gist) and ask "Hang on a moment, there, miss - I, for myself, am interested in engaging in sexual intercourse with you, but I would like to ensure that the feeling is mutual. Would you be interested in copulation this eve?"
I mean, if it's not clear because a girl is especially quiet or reserved sometimes I'll ask (and occasionally it's met with sarcasm), but requiring a verbal yes just seems like overkill in most situations. I don't think I've ever had a girl ask me if I want to have sex - it's obvious from the way I'm acting.
First of all, the phrase "Are you sure you want to do this?" is badly worded and no one should say that to anyone they want to have sex with.
If a women enthusiastically concedes, and then half way during intercourse says no, and then if a man doesn't stop it is rape, well then the enthusiastic consents has no meaning whatsoever in the first place.
What?
If I invite you into my home, then ask you to leave, and you refuse to do it, you're still a trespasser. How is that any different?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
First of all, the phrase "Are you sure you want to do this?" is badly worded and no one should say that to anyone they want to have sex with.
If a women enthusiastically concedes, and then half way during intercourse says no, and then if a man doesn't stop it is rape, well then the enthusiastic consents has no meaning whatsoever in the first place.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my complaint about phrasing, but I would say that verbal (or non-verbal) agreement to having sex holds true unless it's changed. If it's not gotten in the first place then there's no certain initial state of agreement.
Can definitely say no one's ever changed their mind partway through in my recollection, though. That would be super weird. I think a lot of these cases and "enthusiastic consent" requirement are built on some weird stuff that rarely comes up. 99% of the time, in my experience, it's obvious when both parties are interested, and there's no risk of miscommunication or mind-changing or whatever. For the remaining 1%, play it by ear, don't be an idiot, don't be a dick. It's not that complicated.
So what is the reason for a "enthusiastic invitation" construct then?
The same reason that an invitation to enter private land is important; because in the absence of that invitation being subsequently rescinded, it gives you the legal right to be on that land (or, in this case, to engage in sexual intercourse with them). Without the original consent to enter private property (or to have sex with them) that act is illegal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
So what is the reason for a "enthusiastic invitation" construct then?
The same reason that an invitation to enter private land is important; because in the absence of that invitation being subsequently rescinded, it gives you the legal right to be on that land (or, in this case, to engage in sexual intercourse with them). Without the original consent to enter private property (or to have sex with them) that act is illegal.
That still doesn't explain the difference between "invitation" and "enthusiastic invitation". Or the need for it, or the logic behind it.
Well obviously there isn't one from a legal POV. Did anyone say that?
Personally I'd prefer my partner was, like, REALLY into it, not just acquiescing, though.
It's fair to say the eventually feminists will try to change the law so that anything less then an "enthusiastic consent" is rape, of course allowing the "victim" to define what that is.
Tiax-Not really, your false idol worship aside, there has been a steady decline in due process for men accused of rape even though the definition has been expanded along with the forms of "proof" that will be accepted.
Feminists have done exactly this with harassment definitions every chance they have gotten and have stated their intent to do the same with rape.
It's fair to say the eventually feminists will try to change the law so that anything less then an "enthusiastic consent" is rape, of course allowing the "victim" to define what that is.
I'm not sure what distresses me more here: (a) that your crusade continues unabated against vague, unnamed "feminists" whose alleged positions and goals are apparently the product of your own hostile imaginings and certainly not represented by any actual human being active in this thread; or (b) that you seem to think other people can decide for you whether or not you're giving consent, and your own opinion on the matter may be disregarded.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Again: "Enthusiastic Consent" is the idea that if the other person really wanted to have sex with you, they'd be "enthusiastic" about the idea, and thus you wouldn't need to coerce or otherwise pressure them. If you truly believe this "enthusiastic" condition to be unnecessary... can you think of a situation that both meets this standard, and can potentially qualify as rape? Also, can you think of a situation that does not meet this standard that isn't also potentially consent-ambiguous?
The fact of the matter is, you can't read a person's mind, nor can they read yours. There are a lot of social constructs in place that can make it difficult to tell a person no. So instead of looking for the other person not unambiguously denying consent, we should be looking for the other person to unambiguously give consent.
(b) that you seem to think other people can decide for you whether or not you're giving consent, and your own opinion on the matter may be disregarded.
If you have a gun to your head and say "yes" it is rape, right?
If you say "Yes" when someone asks you if you want to have sex but it isn't enthusiastic, is it rape? NO!
I honestly believe an attempt will be made to conflate the two. I can already see it, "but Men are big and scary and she thought he would hurt her if she didn't say Yes".
And I never said that another person could define consent for you, but it is the law that defines what consent is, not the individual (any of them) after the fact.
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No. See, I live in the real world, where nothing is ever perfect. We can talk about this sort of absolutism all we want, but we actually have to live in a system that we can bear.
The fact of it is, there is no system which prevents there from being some wrongful convictions and also meaningfully impacts real criminals. "Reasonable doubt" is a strong standard, but even that's not an absolute one; even when tried under the reasonable doubt standard, some innocents are convicted. That's unfortunate, but it's also the price we pay for the liberties which are guarded by the courts.
Knowing this fact, the question for me isn't whether I can accept some people wrongfully convicted, but what the ratio of that is. If there's a system that locks up a thousand criminals for every one person it wrongly convicts, I can live with that. I could probably even live with a lower ratio.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Criminal prosecution is not simply a game of revenge, its quite beneficial to discourage people from commiting crimes and prevent others from continuing to commit crimes.
That certainly would be an interesting case to read about. Do you remember where the story on that one can be found at?
And I am actually ok with a reasonable doubt system too. What is being suggested though is not a reasonable doubt system... it's a system where guy's would have to prove that they are not criminals instead of a system where the state has to prove that they are criminals.
Yes rape sucks. Yes victims of rape are already incredibly unlikely to come forward. yes, I wish it was better... but NO, I am not for compromising on the legal process just to give the system a better chance at convicting rapists. Why compromise the system for rapists when we didnt compromise the system to put mobsters and bootleggers in jail?
No, it isn't.
Here are the facts involved:
1) Sometimes, Person 1 will have intercourse with Person 2 (henceforth 1 and 2) with both parties both willing and aware that the other is willing. This is the default case.
2) Sometimes, 1 will have intercourse with 2 with only 1 willing, and 1 aware that 2 is unwilling. This is the standard rape case.
3) Sometimes, 1 will have intercourse with 2 with only 1 willing, but with 1 unaware that 2 is unwilling. This is the ambiguous case.
4) Sometimes, 1 will have intercourse with 2, with both parties willing and aware that the other is willing, only to have 2 later claim that they were unwilling. This is the "false rape" or bogeyman case.
Everyone is agreed that the default case should be legal; everyone is agreed that the standard rape case should be illegal. The only question in these two is how it is possible to prove the standard rape case.
The problem is, in fact, is that what is considered sufficient evidence in another type of case is often judged insufficient by a jury; despite the fact that motive, means, and eyewitness testimony (that of the victim) is available, often juries acquit. The problem is exactly the opposite of what you identify; the standard of proof for a rape case usually involves multiple levels of corroboration, possibly including physical evidence of sexual assault on the body of the victim, evidence of their distressed psychological state in the immediate aftermath of the incident, and a host of other things. It would be ludicrous in a mugging case for the defense lawyer to say "the victim walked home afterward, doesn't sound like he was mugged to me." That's exactly the sort of thing said in a rape trial.
For the ambiguous case, the circumstances are only harder, for the defendant has an affirmative defense, namely that he had sex with the woman unwilling, but without the mens rea that she was unwilling. Given that it is essentially impossible to prove mens rea (which is why it is usually not left to the juries in other crimes) these are almost always acquitted.
For the bogeyman case, see all of the above, but multiplied.
Now, it is also true that outside of the standard criminal justice system, there is also a media which presents such cases and often has a different standard of evidence. However, that is a separate discussion.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
That's quite a bold assumption there
The bolded statement is completely false. The accused has the constitutional right to have a jury make all factual findings necessary to determine criminal liability. With a few strange exceptions not worth discussing here, mens rea is an element of every crime (e.g. murder, rape, theft). Thus the jury is always required to find the appropriate mens rea before convicting.
Now, it's true that in many cases mens rea simply won't matter because the dispute is "did he do it," not "did he mean to do it." But any time the accused disputes mens rea ("I swear I thought the gun wasn't loaded"), the jury has to decide this issue.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
On the topic of ambiguous rape... I dont really know what you want here... you want all guys to get written permission? How do you prove that verbal consent wasn't given? What happens if they change their mind and dont say anything?
In a standard rape case that's the way it should be. There should be a high burden of proof because the punishment (socially, it should be higher legally) is extremely high. We're talking about a situation that is often not criminal that happens between two parties in private. Every guy that sleeps with a girl should not have to worry that she'll turn around and get him thrown in jail for rape. No matter how small the chances are. So yes there should be evidence that backs up the story that it was rape and not just rough sex. Should I be able to hand someone $5,000 and then charge them with grand theft and have a high degree of success? No, people are going to ask why I had $5,000 in cash, how the guy might have gotten it, why he'd try to take it from me(how he would know about it and how to get it) etc...
Again... I realize that this means if say... Susie has Jimmy over for a study date and he rapes her without her fighting back much and she's too ashamed to do anything about it immediately that Jimmy's probably walking free... But to me that's better than the alternative.
The difference you fail to realize is a system that locks up some people by accident and a system that locks up people without a fair trial are two entirely different things. As different as a car accident caused by ice and mowing people down with your car on purpose. Feminists have created on college campuses a system that raises the conviction rate by denying the accused basic due process (essentially one of our most basic rights). You cannot compare that to a system that makes honest mistakes. They wish to do the same in our criminal court systems, neither is acceptable.
Rape is hard to prove and frankly it should be. It is also really easy to lie about to, and even if it is as rare for someone to lie about rape as murder we would not make that exception for murder, we literally have been put to that test with organized crime.
Ladyluck-Having thought some more about your argument it really is sick on so many levels to argue that violating men's civil rights will produce benefits for both men and women. It is a moral hazard to say the least especially from a women as rape definitions (at least non-statutory rape ones) are gendered. Some about 99% (new FBI) and others 100% (Britain's) for women to demand those accused of rape lose their right to a fair trial is morally identical to the white population argueing that blacks should be denied a fair trial. You will never face the consequences of that decision now will you?
Even when women do get caught violating these laws (statutory rape) they get incredibly lite sentences...http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/
When we have gender neutral definitions of rape and women face the same punishments then you can talk about acceptable risks. You'll still be wrong though.
I've read about cases with less where they got a conviction, no system is perfect and rape is especially challenging.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/swedish-court-frees-rape-suspect-woman-article-1.1576369 came up when I searched. Sounds like what you described.
I would argue that if they had made an agreement before hand that they were going to have rough sex then I could understand this ruling but since there is no evidence of that I disagree with the judges ruling.
There has been a case of a women who advertised on craigslist that she wanted a sexual partner to fufill a rape fantasy (yes they exist-I declined such a request not to long ago due to the request involving erotic asphyxiation). She (the woman in the story) went to the police afterwards and claimed to have been raped even going so far as to want charges brought. It was only after the police found the craigslist ad that she admited she was lying.
And no the young woman who had the fetish in my experience was not a nut. She is an extremely normal looking/behaving individual, if she had gone to the police after I fufilled her request I have no doubt I'd be in prison right now.
Now that I think about it an accusation would have meant the end of my career, even my family would probably have to move. To pretend false accusations are no big deal really is crazy.
-"Enthusiastic consent"
First of all, the phrase "Are you sure you want to do this?" is badly worded and no one should say that to anyone they want to have sex with. It's basically implying that this is a bad idea, or that you don't think you're deserving of it, or whatever. If you want verbal confirmation, something like "Mind if a grab a condom?" is a better idea.
Second of all, the idea that you need verbal confirmation, let alone enthusiastic confirmation, I think is a bit silly. If the person you're with doesn't seem to be into it, then asking for permission probably is either going to make them feel pressured or make plain what you already suspected. Even if it's not rape, having sex with someone who's not very interested but is willing to consent is lame at best. My preferred method for determining into-it-iveness is to make sure they're making at least some of the "moves" along the way - for instance, if she's taking off some of my clothes, fondling things, etc, that's probably a good sign. If she stops making moves, so do I. Being in tune with your partner is way better for making sure it's actually a good time for everyone involve, unless you have Aspergers or something that makes it hard for you to tell how people feel or something.
Thirdly, I think the whole tangent only got brought up because I thought the reference to "When Harry Met Sally" a billion posts ago was an awkwardly forced and generally poor joke and I wanted to cast the light of shame on the perpetrator, which apparently backfired and turned into a whole "thing". My bad.
-"This thing"
Wow, what?
-Firstly, very few rape accusations are false.
-Secondly, if she's scheming to drag you both through legal hell (or if you actually did rape her and for some reason don't know), she'll just *shocker* not text you back.
So your "advice" is both offensive and ineffectual.
-I don't disagree that the guy should avoid getting drunk. I avoid getting drunk on early dates personally, although not for that reason in particular. But I think it's just a bad idea in general for both parties on early dates.
-See above for verbal/enthusiastic consent stuff.
-I don't disagree that "only yes means yes", but I don't think "yes" only takes the form of a verbal yes. Do you really think I need to stop someone who's recently stripped off all my clothes and is (etc etc I don't want to get a warning but you get the gist) and ask "Hang on a moment, there, miss - I, for myself, am interested in engaging in sexual intercourse with you, but I would like to ensure that the feeling is mutual. Would you be interested in copulation this eve?"
I mean, if it's not clear because a girl is especially quiet or reserved sometimes I'll ask (and occasionally it's met with sarcasm), but requiring a verbal yes just seems like overkill in most situations. I don't think I've ever had a girl ask me if I want to have sex - it's obvious from the way I'm acting.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
What?
If I invite you into my home, then ask you to leave, and you refuse to do it, you're still a trespasser. How is that any different?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my complaint about phrasing, but I would say that verbal (or non-verbal) agreement to having sex holds true unless it's changed. If it's not gotten in the first place then there's no certain initial state of agreement.
Can definitely say no one's ever changed their mind partway through in my recollection, though. That would be super weird. I think a lot of these cases and "enthusiastic consent" requirement are built on some weird stuff that rarely comes up. 99% of the time, in my experience, it's obvious when both parties are interested, and there's no risk of miscommunication or mind-changing or whatever. For the remaining 1%, play it by ear, don't be an idiot, don't be a dick. It's not that complicated.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
The same reason that an invitation to enter private land is important; because in the absence of that invitation being subsequently rescinded, it gives you the legal right to be on that land (or, in this case, to engage in sexual intercourse with them). Without the original consent to enter private property (or to have sex with them) that act is illegal.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Well obviously there isn't one from a legal POV. Did anyone say that?
Personally I'd prefer my partner was, like, REALLY into it, not just acquiescing, though.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I don't think shyness precludes being really into it, it's maybe just harder to read.
Anyway that's getting sort of off-topic though.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Feminists have done exactly this with harassment definitions every chance they have gotten and have stated their intent to do the same with rape.
Heres a case that is far from rare...http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/01/serial_rape_accuser_sara_ylen.html
She put multiple men away based on nothing but her testimony and now has been shown to be liar.
Shes a serial false accuser many feminist activists just falsely accuse one man...http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/in-academia-false-claims-of-rape-and-harassment-are-now-employed-by-activists-as-tools-of-social-change/
It seems like every time I get online theres a new story in this vane.
It honestly amazes me people just accept the agitator propaganda that gets put out there and never research these things themselves.
I'm not sure what distresses me more here: (a) that your crusade continues unabated against vague, unnamed "feminists" whose alleged positions and goals are apparently the product of your own hostile imaginings and certainly not represented by any actual human being active in this thread; or (b) that you seem to think other people can decide for you whether or not you're giving consent, and your own opinion on the matter may be disregarded.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The fact of the matter is, you can't read a person's mind, nor can they read yours. There are a lot of social constructs in place that can make it difficult to tell a person no. So instead of looking for the other person not unambiguously denying consent, we should be looking for the other person to unambiguously give consent.
If you have a gun to your head and say "yes" it is rape, right?
If you say "Yes" when someone asks you if you want to have sex but it isn't enthusiastic, is it rape? NO!
I honestly believe an attempt will be made to conflate the two. I can already see it, "but Men are big and scary and she thought he would hurt her if she didn't say Yes".
And I never said that another person could define consent for you, but it is the law that defines what consent is, not the individual (any of them) after the fact.
Like this?
Flaming others is not allowed. -Galspanic
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.