Jaclyn Friedman, the author widely credited with coining the term "enthusiastic consent," puts it this way on her website: "What if, instead of just the absence of 'no,' an enthusiastic 'yes' was required as a standard for sexual consent?"
Like this?
Ya, name calling, you sure put me in my place.
The point is that BS called you out on creating vague straw men of people who don't exist and then bashing them, and you responded by simply restating that you strongly believe that your straw man will be true someday. That's the definition of a delusion; a belief without evidence, where the evidence is strongly to the contrary.
As for your article; 1) Someone suggesting this change as a thought experiment is not "feminists trying to change the law", and 2) Her model for this is, in fact, significantly different from the one you've been straw manning throughout this debate.
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.
Well maybe we should sign pre-nups before even one night stands?
an episode of L&O SVU actially had a good idea - film all sexual encounters just to cover your ass, pro ball player did it and proved he was innocent of rape.
Senori-The point is that BS called you out on creating vague straw men of people who don't exist and then bashing them, and you responded by simply restating that you strongly believe that your straw man will be true someday. That's the definition of a delusion; a belief without evidence, where the evidence is strongly to the contrary
I would call it pattern recognition but clearly you disagree.
Senori-The point is that BS called you out on creating vague straw men of people who don't exist and then bashing them, and you responded by simply restating that you strongly believe that your straw man will be true someday. That's the definition of a delusion; a belief without evidence, where the evidence is strongly to the contrary
I would call it pattern recognition but clearly you disagree.
So would I
They want to call it delusional, you dont need a government study, just look at a few feminist facebook accounts and you can see the trend - anything less than estatically written consent is rape, and men are never the victims, always the perp
I myself have like 3 feminist friends their facebook posts often consist of demonizing men.
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
They want to call it delusional, you dont need a government study, just look at a few feminist facebook accounts and you can see the trend - anything less than estatically written consent is rape, and men are never the victims, always the perp
I myself have like 3 feminist friends their facebook posts often consist of demonizing men.
There are at least three logical fallacies in this paragraph: confirmation bias (because the "feminists" you remember are the ones you disagree with), straw man (because the position you're suggesting is one no major "feminist" actually agrees with), and faulty generalization (because even if one or two did feel that way, it doesn't mean all do), etc. Does that matter at all?
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.
an episode of L&O SVU actially had a good idea - film all sexual encounters just to cover your ass, pro ball player did it and proved he was innocent of rape.
Right, I think one of the biggest problems that the "redefine rape" camp doesn't realize they have is the knock-on effects to society that would result.
On an enthusiastic consent standard, combined with the "preponderance of evidence" metric that is becoming prevalent because of Title IX, it simply behooves every participant in a sexual encounter to record as much actual audio and video data of the encounter as possible, or to have a third-party credible witness on hand, in order to establish a preponderance of evidence for enthusiastic consent. Otherwise, an accusation of failure to obtain enthusiastic consent from a credible-seeming plaintiff is enough by itself to ruin one's life.
Even the signed consent forms in triplicate aren't enough under this standard, because the accuser could always claim an activity took place that wasn't consented to on the form, and the only way to undermine that testimony in a way that is more than 50% convincing is to go to the tape or some other physical evidence, or provide a third-party credible witness. Indeed, even on the comparatively-lax consent standard in place today "going to the tape" has sometimes been necessary to meet the evidentiary standard in campus rape cases. (which are now "tried" by extrajudiciary panels stuffed to the gills with batty feminists.)
I don't even think the particular feminists behind this nonsense actually want to live in the twisted sexual hellscape they will create for themselves if they succeed, even if they do manage to reduce the prevalence of rape. It just doesn't add up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Aren't you the guy who accepts everything on nutball tumblrs as gospel?
It is true that MRAs use a variety of social media and have not had fifty plus years of classes to indoctrinate, billions of dollars in government aid, and a media eager to spread our message unquestioningly.
It is true that MRAs use a variety of social media and have not had fifty plus years of classes to indoctrinate, billions of dollars in government aid, and a media eager to spread our message unquestioningly.
And therefore, anything posted in a gif on theredpill.mras.mensworld.falserape.tumblr.blogspot.biz is definitely a true fact?
Believing there might be an emerging trend in rape qualifiers =/= predicting an end result.
(I'm just showing joande some support, I don't necessarily believe as joande believes)
If I believed, based on the popularity of some TV programs that the future would be full of terribad redneck reality shows featuring obese deer hunters putting their kids in beauty pageants...this is not the same as saying "In 2020, the only show on TV will be Camouflage Tiaras"
There IS a trend in some feminist circles towards labeling pretty much anything short of signed enthusiastic consent forms as "rape".
According to some of these metrics, I can't count the number of times I've apparently raped my wife
Are these links intended to be examples of labeling everything short of signed enthusiastic consent forms as "rape"? The first one, at least, seems to be the opposite:
I figure that as long as everyone’s communicating about the situation openly, and working to keep things relatively low-pressure, then consent is likely to happen, even if it’s not perfectly “enthusiastic.”
The idea of enthusiastic consent is quite simple. In a nutshell, it advocates for enthusiastic agreement to sexual activity, rather than passive agreement. Many of you may be familiar with the book Yes Means Yes!, which popularized the idea. The concept also requires that consent be given to each piece of sexual activity, meaning that a yes to one thing (such as vaginal penetration) does not mean consent to another (like anal penetration). Basically, we’re saying, “Yes! I want this!” or, “No, I don’t think I want to do that,” and we’re asking “Is this ok?” To do these things is to be respectful of not only your own bodily autonomy, but also your partner’s. It’s just common courtesy, really. To give enthusiastic consent isn’t exactly to scream that you want it at the top of your lungs; it’s more that an unsure or hesitant yes is not enthusiastic consent, and needs to be considered.
Yeah, the blogger is reasonable, but the "enthusiastic consent" ideal being circulated amongst these groups is what I'm getting at.
That's today, now. If this is the direction it's going, could it get worse? I'd say it's pretty possible, and I think that's what Joande was trying to point out.
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
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to read a blogger who says enthusiastic consent as a concept is imperfect, and suggests that valid criticisms have been levied against it both from feminist and non-feminist circles, and conclude from that that feminists are unreasonable.
Isn't the trend in question that feminists will level unreasonable legal requirements on consensual sex, and unreasonably label innocent situations as rape?
Believing there might be an emerging trend in rape qualifiers =/= predicting an end result.
(I'm just showing joande some support, I don't necessarily believe as joande believes)
If I believed, based on the popularity of some TV programs that the future would be full of terribad redneck reality shows featuring obese deer hunters putting their kids in beauty pageants...this is not the same as saying "In 2020, the only show on TV will be Camouflage Tiaras"
There IS a trend in some feminist circles towards labeling pretty much anything short of signed enthusiastic consent forms as "rape".
According to some of these metrics, I can't count the number of times I've apparently raped my wife
I don't think all those links necessarily say that "enthusiastic consent" is required for not-rape, but that it's ideal. Also at least one of those (I think the second) mentioned that "enthusiastic consent" need not be actually asking a question - if they're clearly into it, that's still enthusiastic consent, even if you never actually ask "do you want to sex?"
Here's my feeling, after having thought about it for a while.
I think "no means no" is fine, WITHIN the parameters of:
-the person is capable of consenting (not on drugs, or unconscious, or with a mental illness, or a child, etc)
-the person is capable of easily communicating (not mute, not incredibly sick, not paralyzed, etc)
-the other person isn't in any way threatening or intimidating them or using force of any kind
If someone starts initiating sex and you don't give them any indication that you're not interested, whether it's because you feel like you OUGHT to have sex with them, or you're just ambivalent, or whatever - that's not rape. That's just bad sex. We shouldn't put people in jail because they're bad at reading subtle body language.
Also, since one article mentioned this and I thought it was stupid - "yeah, i guess" is totally consent. It's definitely not rape. Now, it's not exactly the kind of consent that's likely to lead to the greatest sex of your life, and I would generally not engage in sex if that's all the interest the other party has, but when you're talking about what should legally be consent - that's totally consent. If you badger someone for sex and eventually they say yes, that's totally consent. NOW, if they're badgering you and you tell them to stop and they don't, that's sexual harassment and also a problem. But if you say yes....that's totally consent. The LAW shouldn't be based on how @#$@#$ enthusiastic you are.
The line between "mediocre sex" and "going to prison for 20 years" should be very well marked between "yes" and "no", not "yes" and "eh, i guess".
From the perspective of someone who wants his partner to be having a good time, I pretty much always aim for enthusiastic consent anyway, because it's just more fun. And if you want to encourage people to do the same, be my guest. But from a legal point of view? Get real, you can't make the line that ambiguous.
(As far as drunk sex goes, that's a way bigger hornet's nest of problems that I think get pretty hairy, and personally I think we should all just avoid altogether)
Agreed with prior poster on all counts. I don't think of it as "the law requires enthusiastic consent". Instead, it's more "if your partner is clearly enthusiastic, you're guaranteed not to run afoul of any consent grey areas". It's something you can (and probably should) do above and beyond what the law says if you're worried about a false rape accusation. Ignoring doesn't necessarily mean that you're raping someone. But if you do that, you're going to have to do something else to make sure the other person isn't screwing you because they feel like you coerced/pressured them into it. Just do SOMETHING to keep out of the grey area, if it's not enthusiastic consent, fine, so long as it works for you. We simply recommend "enthusiastic consent" because it has the really awesome side effect of giving us better sex at the same time as screening people that are feeling pressured.
The problem is that buyers remorse is a real issue. They could be totally consensual when it happens, and the next morning regret it and BAM! false accusation, life ruined, job lost, arrested, shamed...etc.
So to avoid facing this scenario with nothing more than a "he said/she said" defense - I think I like the idea I brought up earlier - film it. Always.
The camera don't lie.
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
The problem is that buyers remorse is a real issue. They could be totally consensual when it happens, and the next morning regret it and BAM! false accusation, life ruined, job lost, arrested, shamed...etc.
So to avoid facing this scenario with nothing more than a "he said/she said" defense - I think I like the idea I brought up earlier - film it. Always.
The camera don't lie.
I think that's more of a social problem than anything. I like the idea of keeping it private until a conviction, but there's not really any precedent for that afaik.
Also, I think ideally that would be true for ALL crimes...rape accusations might be especially devastating, but I think any kind of accusation can still hurt your rep.
They want to call it delusional, you dont need a government study, just look at a few feminist facebook accounts and you can see the trend - anything less than estatically written consent is rape, and men are never the victims, always the perp
I myself have like 3 feminist friends their facebook posts often consist of demonizing men.
There are at least three logical fallacies in this paragraph: confirmation bias (because the "feminists" you remember are the ones you disagree with), straw man (because the position you're suggesting is one no major "feminist" actually agrees with), and faulty generalization (because even if one or two did feel that way, it doesn't mean all do), etc. Does that matter at all?
It's not very effective to simply point out the logical fallacies.
They want to call it delusional, you dont need a government study, just look at a few feminist facebook accounts and you can see the trend - anything less than estatically written consent is rape, and men are never the victims, always the perp
I myself have like 3 feminist friends their facebook posts often consist of demonizing men.
There are at least three logical fallacies in this paragraph: confirmation bias (because the "feminists" you remember are the ones you disagree with), straw man (because the position you're suggesting is one no major "feminist" actually agrees with), and faulty generalization (because even if one or two did feel that way, it doesn't mean all do), etc. Does that matter at all?
It's not very effective to simply point out the logical fallacies.
Eyewitness testimony by an alleged victim that an alleged criminal has committed a crime against them is generally considered pretty solid evidence. Drop the rape thing for a minute and think about other crimes - because surely the crime of rape should be held to the same standard as everything else. If somebody walks into a police station and says, "I was mugged, and that guy did it!", that's easily enough for an arrest, and quite possibly enough for a conviction. The defense attorney can try to give reason to doubt this testimony by questioning the accuser's motives or producing further evidence that contradicts their story. But if he doesn't, if that evidence stands unopposed, then come on, of course a jury is going to conclude that the guy is guilty.
I'm certainly not in favor of lowering the bar especially for evidence in rape cases. But nobody here has actually advocated for that. When they do, I'll argue against them. But for right now, all I see here is people trying to raise the bar. In arguing that the testimony of alleged rape victims is just a "he said, she said" situation and not sufficient evidence for anything, you are saying that this testimony is intrinsically less trustworthy than eyewitness testimony for other crimes. Yes, people do lie. But the system already has a safeguard for that; it's the right for the defense to cross-examine the witness. And yes, there is a presumption of innocence. But it's a presumption of innocence prior to the evidence, not a presumption of innocence in spite of the evidence. If the evidence points to the accused committing the crime beyond a reasonable doubt - the way direct eyewitness testimony tends to do - then the jury is not supposed to presume them innocent regardless.
And, on a more personal note, if you're really worried about being burned by a false rape accusation... what kind of people are you sleeping with, and why are you sleeping with them?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Eyewitness testimony by an alleged victim that an alleged criminal has committed a crime against them is generally considered pretty solid evidence. Drop the rape thing for a minute and think about other crimes - because surely the crime of rape should be held to the same standard as everything else. If somebody walks into a police station and says, "I was mugged, and that guy did it!", that's easily enough for an arrest, and quite possibly enough for a conviction. The defense attorney can try to give reason to doubt this testimony by questioning the accuser's motives or producing further evidence that contradicts their story. But if he doesn't, if that evidence stands unopposed, then come on, of course a jury is going to conclude that the guy is guilty.
I'm certainly not in favor of lowering the bar especially for evidence in rape cases. But nobody here has actually advocated for that. When they do, I'll argue against them. But for right now, all I see here is people trying to raise the bar. In arguing that the testimony of alleged rape victims is just a "he said, she said" situation and not sufficient evidence for anything, you are saying that this testimony is intrinsically less trustworthy than eyewitness testimony for other crimes. Yes, people do lie. But the system already has a safeguard for that; it's the right for the defense to cross-examine the witness. And yes, there is a presumption of innocence. But it's a presumption of innocence prior to the evidence, not a presumption of innocence in spite of the evidence. If the evidence points to the accused committing the crime beyond a reasonable doubt - the way direct eyewitness testimony tends to do - then the jury is not supposed to presume them innocent regardless.
And, on a more personal note, if you're really worried about being burned by a false rape accusation... what kind of people are you sleeping with, and why are you sleeping with them?
The thing about other cases is there is often other evidence that supports the claim... for example they might have the purse they stole from you.
In the case of rape... typically the evidence is that sex happened. Sex is usually not a crime when it happens.
That's why previously I have compared it to something like theft between friends. How do you prove theft between two friends on an item that is inexpensive enough to be a gift, when one says it was a gift and the other says it was stolen?
Jaclyn Friedman, the author widely credited with coining the term "enthusiastic consent," puts it this way on her website: "What if, instead of just the absence of 'no,' an enthusiastic 'yes' was required as a standard for sexual consent?"
Like this?
Ya, name calling, you sure put me in my place.
As for your article; 1) Someone suggesting this change as a thought experiment is not "feminists trying to change the law", and 2) Her model for this is, in fact, significantly different from the one you've been straw manning throughout this debate.
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.
an episode of L&O SVU actially had a good idea - film all sexual encounters just to cover your ass, pro ball player did it and proved he was innocent of rape.
Had to quote as evidence
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
I would call it pattern recognition but clearly you disagree.
So would I
They want to call it delusional, you dont need a government study, just look at a few feminist facebook accounts and you can see the trend - anything less than estatically written consent is rape, and men are never the victims, always the perp
I myself have like 3 feminist friends their facebook posts often consist of demonizing men.
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
There are at least three logical fallacies in this paragraph: confirmation bias (because the "feminists" you remember are the ones you disagree with), straw man (because the position you're suggesting is one no major "feminist" actually agrees with), and faulty generalization (because even if one or two did feel that way, it doesn't mean all do), etc. Does that matter at all?
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.
Aren't you the guy who accepts everything on nutball tumblrs as gospel?
Right, I think one of the biggest problems that the "redefine rape" camp doesn't realize they have is the knock-on effects to society that would result.
On an enthusiastic consent standard, combined with the "preponderance of evidence" metric that is becoming prevalent because of Title IX, it simply behooves every participant in a sexual encounter to record as much actual audio and video data of the encounter as possible, or to have a third-party credible witness on hand, in order to establish a preponderance of evidence for enthusiastic consent. Otherwise, an accusation of failure to obtain enthusiastic consent from a credible-seeming plaintiff is enough by itself to ruin one's life.
Even the signed consent forms in triplicate aren't enough under this standard, because the accuser could always claim an activity took place that wasn't consented to on the form, and the only way to undermine that testimony in a way that is more than 50% convincing is to go to the tape or some other physical evidence, or provide a third-party credible witness. Indeed, even on the comparatively-lax consent standard in place today "going to the tape" has sometimes been necessary to meet the evidentiary standard in campus rape cases. (which are now "tried" by extrajudiciary panels stuffed to the gills with batty feminists.)
I don't even think the particular feminists behind this nonsense actually want to live in the twisted sexual hellscape they will create for themselves if they succeed, even if they do manage to reduce the prevalence of rape. It just doesn't add up.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
It is true that MRAs use a variety of social media and have not had fifty plus years of classes to indoctrinate, billions of dollars in government aid, and a media eager to spread our message unquestioningly.
Not that MRAs across the world are not finding ways to use the MSM too...http://frankfurter-erklaerung.de/2014/01/fur-eine-ausge***ene-berichterstattung-zur-gleichstellungspolitik-offener-brief-an-den-deutschen-presserat/
And therefore, anything posted in a gif on theredpill.mras.mensworld.falserape.tumblr.blogspot.biz is definitely a true fact?
Hardly, but even tumblr and reddit can give you links to other sources.
(I'm just showing joande some support, I don't necessarily believe as joande believes)
If I believed, based on the popularity of some TV programs that the future would be full of terribad redneck reality shows featuring obese deer hunters putting their kids in beauty pageants...this is not the same as saying "In 2020, the only show on TV will be Camouflage Tiaras"
There IS a trend in some feminist circles towards labeling pretty much anything short of signed enthusiastic consent forms as "rape".
http://www.nerdyfeminist.com/2012/11/weve-got-to-talk-about-enthusiastic.html
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/05/09/towards-my-personal-sex-positive-feminist-101/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/navigating-consent-debunking-the-grey-area-myth/
According to some of these metrics, I can't count the number of times I've apparently raped my wife
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
Are these links intended to be examples of labeling everything short of signed enthusiastic consent forms as "rape"? The first one, at least, seems to be the opposite:
Yeah, the blogger is reasonable, but the "enthusiastic consent" ideal being circulated amongst these groups is what I'm getting at.
That's today, now. If this is the direction it's going, could it get worse? I'd say it's pretty possible, and I think that's what Joande was trying to point out.
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
We're talking about the belief in an emerging trend.
Are you arguing that the trend doesn't exist, or just that maybe it will sink like the titanic?
Joande seems to believe that the trend will get stronger, and grow.
Is it completely unreasonable to believe that? I'm not so sure.
I thought reality TV was going to die after The Real World. Boy, was I ever wrong.
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
I don't think all those links necessarily say that "enthusiastic consent" is required for not-rape, but that it's ideal. Also at least one of those (I think the second) mentioned that "enthusiastic consent" need not be actually asking a question - if they're clearly into it, that's still enthusiastic consent, even if you never actually ask "do you want to sex?"
Here's my feeling, after having thought about it for a while.
I think "no means no" is fine, WITHIN the parameters of:
-the person is capable of consenting (not on drugs, or unconscious, or with a mental illness, or a child, etc)
-the person is capable of easily communicating (not mute, not incredibly sick, not paralyzed, etc)
-the other person isn't in any way threatening or intimidating them or using force of any kind
If someone starts initiating sex and you don't give them any indication that you're not interested, whether it's because you feel like you OUGHT to have sex with them, or you're just ambivalent, or whatever - that's not rape. That's just bad sex. We shouldn't put people in jail because they're bad at reading subtle body language.
Also, since one article mentioned this and I thought it was stupid - "yeah, i guess" is totally consent. It's definitely not rape. Now, it's not exactly the kind of consent that's likely to lead to the greatest sex of your life, and I would generally not engage in sex if that's all the interest the other party has, but when you're talking about what should legally be consent - that's totally consent. If you badger someone for sex and eventually they say yes, that's totally consent. NOW, if they're badgering you and you tell them to stop and they don't, that's sexual harassment and also a problem. But if you say yes....that's totally consent. The LAW shouldn't be based on how @#$@#$ enthusiastic you are.
The line between "mediocre sex" and "going to prison for 20 years" should be very well marked between "yes" and "no", not "yes" and "eh, i guess".
From the perspective of someone who wants his partner to be having a good time, I pretty much always aim for enthusiastic consent anyway, because it's just more fun. And if you want to encourage people to do the same, be my guest. But from a legal point of view? Get real, you can't make the line that ambiguous.
(As far as drunk sex goes, that's a way bigger hornet's nest of problems that I think get pretty hairy, and personally I think we should all just avoid altogether)
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
So to avoid facing this scenario with nothing more than a "he said/she said" defense - I think I like the idea I brought up earlier - film it. Always.
The camera don't lie.
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
I think that's more of a social problem than anything. I like the idea of keeping it private until a conviction, but there's not really any precedent for that afaik.
Also, I think ideally that would be true for ALL crimes...rape accusations might be especially devastating, but I think any kind of accusation can still hurt your rep.
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
It's not very effective to simply point out the logical fallacies.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
He's not saying that IceCream's claim is wrong because of the fallacies, just that the fallacies make this particular argument not convincing.
I'm certainly not in favor of lowering the bar especially for evidence in rape cases. But nobody here has actually advocated for that. When they do, I'll argue against them. But for right now, all I see here is people trying to raise the bar. In arguing that the testimony of alleged rape victims is just a "he said, she said" situation and not sufficient evidence for anything, you are saying that this testimony is intrinsically less trustworthy than eyewitness testimony for other crimes. Yes, people do lie. But the system already has a safeguard for that; it's the right for the defense to cross-examine the witness. And yes, there is a presumption of innocence. But it's a presumption of innocence prior to the evidence, not a presumption of innocence in spite of the evidence. If the evidence points to the accused committing the crime beyond a reasonable doubt - the way direct eyewitness testimony tends to do - then the jury is not supposed to presume them innocent regardless.
And, on a more personal note, if you're really worried about being burned by a false rape accusation... what kind of people are you sleeping with, and why are you sleeping with them?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The thing about other cases is there is often other evidence that supports the claim... for example they might have the purse they stole from you.
In the case of rape... typically the evidence is that sex happened. Sex is usually not a crime when it happens.
That's why previously I have compared it to something like theft between friends. How do you prove theft between two friends on an item that is inexpensive enough to be a gift, when one says it was a gift and the other says it was stolen?