That kind of stuff already exists. It is not hard to find things on the internet. It would still be illegal anyway since distributing those kinds of pictures of individuals without their consent is a crime. Which is why those ex gf revenge type sites get taken down whenever one becomes kind of popular.
Running an involuntary porn site isn't illegal. In fact, the reason that that really famous one was shut down was because evidence linked the uploads not to 3rd party users (which are fine), but to the site owner himself. By legalizing "child porn", you basically allow for a legalization of IsAnybodyDown full of children, and all it has to do is have sufficient systems in place to check people's age and ban illegal users (say, anyone over 18, once discovered). This is the kind of gray area I'd be worried about encouraging by making the whole sexting thing decriminalized. If anything, it means that any laws pertaining to it would have to be incredibly exactingly drafted, and even then I worry that someone will inevitably find a loophole.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
That being said, you keep proclaiming that there is a double standard between the complainant and the defendant. But according to Tiax this is not so - the complainant must also demonstrate that the needs of their case outweigh the harm caused by the evidence they ask to introduce. Can you provide a citation of a recent (last 10 years preferably) law, or a case, that clearly demonstrates otherwise?
Off the top of my head as a man, I would consider this to be a good high point about "guilty until proven innocent"
Granted, the woman involved was extremely troubled, but if you look at any of the old communications that were done during the investigation it was set up as black woman versus privileged white man. You had people like Rev. Al Sharpton try to help her with a scholarship and the like. However, one of the young men was pumping gas with a video and cell phone records. It was unbelievable how much of a canard the whole situation was.
I am especially angry at prosecutors like Nifong who make a mockery of the justice system, and this is why I find that rape shield should be extended to the accused until proven guilty of the crime. So instead of a provincial case, we see a much larger media frenzy descended upon young white men who are privileged and very hard working to get a good job and a good life going for themselves and instead interrupted by a strange woman and a nefarious prosecutor turned persecutor.
Allowing the rationality and evidence to go through without the media for a proper investigation before even going to court suffices to make the justice system work. A cooling down period, the use of gag rules has occurred in some trials in other contexts. A gag rule on police and investigators during a rape case without any leaks or few if any are fair.
If they have a strong case, and they go to trial, then reveal everyone's name including the victim and the accused. If they do not go to trial, then the public records are sat down in a court house and let go to drift.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
As for official sources on the actual statutes, here are all states 2011 statutes: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NCPCA%20Rape%20Shield%202011.pdf
For one, Colorado states that only evidence of the accuser's previous sexual contact with the defendant or evidence showing that the alleged rape was done by someone else are allowed, and even those submissions may be deemed inadmissible, end of story. Too lazy to go down the list, but plenty of states have similar rules.
Keep reading. Other evidence of the accuser's sexual history is presumed to be irrelevant, but the defendant can challenge that presumption, and can offer proof in a pre-trial hearing that such evidence is in fact relevant, in which case the evidence is admissible.
(2) In any criminal prosecution for class 4 felony internet luring of a child, as described
in section 18-3-306 (3) or under sections 18-3-402 to 18-3-405.5, 18-6-301, 18-6-302,
18-6-403, and 18-6-404, or for attempt or conspiracy to commit any of said crimes, if
evidence, that is not excepted under subsection (1) of this section, of specific instances of
the victim's or a witness's prior or subsequent sexual conduct, or opinion evidence of the
victim's or a witness's sexual conduct, or reputation evidence of the victim's or a witness's
sexual conduct, or evidence that the victim or a witness has a history of false reporting of
sexual assaults is to be offered at trial, the following procedure shall be followed:
(a) A written motion shall be made at least thirty days prior to trial, unless later for
good cause shown, to the court and to the opposing parties stating that the moving party
has an offer of proof of the relevancy and materiality of evidence of specific instances of
the victim's or witness' prior or subsequent sexual conduct, or opinion evidence of the
victim's or witness' sexual conduct, or reputation evidence of the victim's or witness'
sexual conduct, or evidence that the victim or witness has a history of false reporting of
sexual assaults that is proposed to be presented.
(the procedures go on for a few more paragraphs). The point is, however, that when you say "For one, Colorado states that only evidence of the accuser's previous sexual contact with the defendant or evidence showing that the alleged rape was done by someone else are allowed, and even those submissions may be deemed inadmissible, end of story." you are absolutely wrong. End of story.
Morgan - Interesting idea. How about this suggestion:
We remove all rape shield statutes and replace them with mandatory gag orders on all sex cases until they are concluded. Then we follow the standard rules - if there is a conviction, gag order remains, if not, it is lifted.
That way, true victims are protected regardless and the social risks are minimized. Standard rules apply for character evidence, and the same standard of scrutiny is applied to it regardless of its status as a sex case or not.
That sounds, at least to me, 1000% better than the current garbage.
Side note: is there an ignore button somewhere on this forum? =/
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Then we follow the standard rules - if there is a conviction, gag order remains, if not, it is lifted.
Why do you advocate keeping said order in case of a conviction, but not an acquittal? An acquittal will generally rig the press to rage at the accuser, and a conviction will generally rig the press to rage at the (now convicted) accused. What you propose definitely favors the accused over the accuser. Why not unconditionally lift the order regardless of the verdict? Or unconditionally keep it?
Then we follow the standard rules - if there is a conviction, gag order remains, if not, it is lifted.
Why do you advocate keeping said order in case of a conviction, but not an acquittal? An acquittal will generally rig the press to rage at the accuser, and a conviction will generally rig the press to rage at the (now convicted) accused. What you propose definitely favors the accused over the accuser. Why not unconditionally lift the order regardless of the verdict? Or unconditionally keep it?
Thats just how it works nowadays - I'd be fine with a partial lift of a gag order after all cases (enough for future character evidence for both parties).
OH edit: Forgot. Gag orders currently only really apply to accuser, not defendant. Slipped my mind entirely.
Side note: is there an ignore button somewhere on this forum? =/
Click on my name, view public profile, user lists, add to ignore list. That won't stop me from pointing out when you're wrong, though. You just won't have to read it.
Side note: is there an ignore button somewhere on this forum? =/
Click on my name, view public profile, user lists, add to ignore list. That won't stop me from pointing out when you're wrong, though. You just won't have to read it.
Tiax-It interests me that a group of women claiming they face discrimination would constitute in and of itself an argument that I would have to somehow counter but groups of men claiming they face discrimination is considered so lacking in credibility so as to warrant skepticism.
It's like this Tiax, How much **** is the acceptable amount of **** in your coffee? 1 ounce or 10 ounces? If the system always gives custody by default to the mother that's **** in your coffee, if men are second class citizens and a women's testimony is privileged over theirs it's **** in your coffee, if the default is guilty until proven innocent that's **** in your coffee. There are things we can control within a free society and things we can't. Anyone can commit X disgusting injustice to anyone in the community sadly and any claim to the contrary is a ****ing illusion. However how our laws are written is something that we as a free society DO HAVE CONTROL OVER!
One giant glaring problem with the feminist argument I keep seeing is that we cannot KNOW what's going on in private and thus it's really hard to convict men of DV or SA. Their solution is to try to bias the system against men to make it easier to get a conviction and in their sick minds create "social justice". This is as sane as me deciding that since I can't stop terrorism I'll engage in it myself and call the resulting mountain of injustice "equality". The belief that what random criminals do and how society behaves itself exist int he same moral space seems to be a product of a totalitarian mindset.
When you realize there is no acceptable amount of **** in your coffee, you can grasp that feminist jurisprudence is really just sexism and misandry written into law.
Skepticism enough to look at who was making the claims; finding that several spanish sociologists have also stated that a massive bias exists, many lawyers, and many individuals. I think what you are experiencing isn't skepticism but denial.
I'm not saying it isn't accurate. I know essentially nothing about the Spanish legal system, so it's certainly plausible to me that it's got serious problems. But you can find videos for all kinds of things on random youtube channels. I'd like to see a bit more reputable of a source before I'm convinced that hundreds of thousands of people are being jailed for no reason.
I don't see why it has to be hundreds of thousands to be an issue personally. After reading comments from esteemed female judges no less stating that they are ashamed to be part of the spanish judicial system I can recognize that there is a problem.
The Dean of Barcelona's judges, Maria Sanahuja quotes...
"The massive detention of men for scarcely any reason is a characteristic of totalitarian countries."
"The Integral Law on Gender Violence is causing a repugnant violation of fundamental rights in Spain."
"It has provoked a sort of madness in the law that generates abuse, the elimination of the requirement of proof during the legal process, and the absence of the presumption of innocence."
"All of us are responsible for the Law continuing like this, by which we have caused enormous pain to tens of thousands of men."
I'm not saying it has to be hundreds of thousands to be a problem. Certainly it's a problem even if a few men are being unjustly arrested or punished. But the claim was hundreds of thousands.
I watched the video, and I certainly saw the judge's comments. Obviously a judge's comments carry some amount of credibility. But this is the one judge they chose that best supports their arguments. I bet you could also find a judge who says everything is peachy. What I'd find much more convincing would be a report from a reputable news source. I had trouble finding one, but that could just be because I don't speak Spanish, and this might not be getting international attention.
It's always difficult to judge these things from a video like this, because it's so easy to make a viewpoint sound incredibly convincing when you get to pick everything that's said. If you watch a Michael Moore movie, it all sounds pretty convincing, unless you know enough going in to tell when he's full of it. Here I know nothing about the legal system in Spain, so I feel I have to be a bit more vigilant before accepting this as fact, and I think you should be too. It's always easy to jump on board with anything that supports your views, but it's also easy to end up looking foolish that way.
Oh, and according to the FBI (though the source I found was from the late 90's, cant find a newer one), Rape is 4x more likely to be falsely reported than any other crime. (and FBI stats on false rape reports are low compared to many studies) Shouldn't this mean that we should take more steps to protect the defendant in rape cases than in other cases, instead of the other way around?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
So no skepticism at all on your part? That's really all I needed to hear.
When someone tells you that they have been wronged, why is your first response to question them? You wouldn't do that if they had been robbed or assaulted, why is this crime different?
Oh, and according to the FBI (though the source I found was from the late 90's, cant find a newer one), Rape is 4x more likely to be falsely reported than any other crime. (and FBI stats on false rape reports are low compared to many studies) Shouldn't this mean that we should take more steps to protect the defendant in rape cases than in other cases, instead of the other way around?
This FBI statistic is thrown around a lot, and it is complete nonsense. The statistic you're quoting is not false reporting, but reports which local jurisdictions have ruled to be "unfounded". The term "unfounded" has various definitions depending on which jurisdiction is reporting, and has little correlation with actual false reports. The citation from Wikipedia says:
This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.
So no skepticism at all on your part? That's really all I needed to hear.
When someone tells you that they have been wronged, why is your first response to question them? You wouldn't do that if they had been robbed or assaulted, why is this crime different?
In this case, we're already dealing with a situation where both sides have claimed that they are the one who was wronged. We cannot simply take both their words for it, because then we would have accepted a contradictory set of facts. We have to be skeptical about both.
In this case, we're already dealing with a situation where both sides have claimed that they are the one who was wronged. We cannot simply take both their words for it, because then we would have accepted a contradictory set of facts. We have to be skeptical about both.
I agree completely. And may quote you on this in the future.
Speaking about the feminist concept earlier discussed "teach men not to rape" it has a hell of a lot of problems starting with...
-We already teach men not to rape
-Its silly to believe telling young men yet again that something they have been told a thousand times in a thousand ways is wrong will suddenly GET IT if they are just denigrated as a group once again. Essentially rubbing all mens noses in the crimes of a small minority of men (and ignoring that women do it to) aka business as usual for feminists.
-That rape is "normalized" when it is in reality the most stigmatized crime out there.
-It inherently sends the message that there is something wrong with masculinity. Something feminists attempt to reframe all issues into an argument that maculinity is toxic which as far as I can tell is really just about propagating/normalizing misandry.
In reality many rapists have personality disorders and are completely indifferent to whether or not what they are doing is wrong aka typical criminal minds. Rapists are not special in this regard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
In reality many rapists have personality disorders and are completely indifferent to whether or not what they are doing is wrong aka typical criminal minds. Rapists are not special in this regard.
Unless you can produce some citations on this, I'm gonna have to say, no, it doesn't work this way. Also, when we say "teach men not to rape", what is meant by that is not just telling teenagers rape is wrong - you're right in that we already do this. But we don't teach them the details of what rape *is*; what legally qualifies as consent, what doesn't, and so on. Plenty of rapes come from younger guys having very ignorant concepts of consent, stuff like "she didn't say not" or "she wasn't physically resisting me" (both of which were lines that came up in the Steubenville case, sadly enough). I don't think this is the fault of men as a group. I think this is the fault of *****ty sex education, and of the groups that push to keep people ignorant about sex, principally religious interest groups. Incidentally these same groups have a tendency to be misogynistic as all holy hell...but they in no way represent all of men as a whole (in fact, there are plenty of women involved too!)
As far as "Masculinity vs Femininity", neither is good nor bad. Each group of traits/behaviors has advantages and disadvantages, and neither group is exclusive to one gender or another - there are women who are naturally inclined to act "masculine" and men who prefer to act "feminine". The idea of applying a gendered term to either group is actually kind of antiquated and stupid. We should not hold one as better then the other (we often do), we should not put down those whose behavior doesn't match the behaviors we've assigned to their gender (we often do). As far as "masculinity is toxic"...I personally would refine that to "HYPERmasculinity is toxic". Any system which requires a man to conform to a narrow set of pre-defined behaviors regardless of their relevance to the situation at hand, that degrades and devalues men who don't conform no matter the reason, is an inherently bad system to me. I'm kind of surprised, I'd think you'd object to at least some of the ideas of the traditional masculinity, specifically the idea that men are "naturally"/"supposed to be" the aggressors and dominators in all interactions whenever possible. It's this very narrative that sets up the men=aggressor=rapist/women=receiver=victim dynamic, and it's a load of bull*****.
Men don't rape because they're naturally sex crazed fiends that obviously can't control themselves, men rape because they often don't have a clear idea of what rape/consent is.
1. Part of why we're so resentful of "how to not get raped", but not "how not to get robbed", is that the former has a history of victim-blaming that the latter doesn't. In the not-to-distant past, rape was commonly viewed as the woman's fault. In many parts of the world, it still is. Ergo when it comes up, "how not to get raped" by default comes with the subtext "Not getting raped is your responsibility", because that IS what it meant for the past thousand years. This applies doubly so when the conversation is in text form, since one can't use intonation and body language to indicate that they are not saying this from a place of judgment but instead from a place of empathy/sympathy.
What I tend to dislike about "violence against women," is that directly implies that men do not get raped.. which they do. There are some, while rare instances, of male on male date rape. There are gays who happen to be rapists. Which we have to look at what happens in both contexts that are similar; don't leave your drink somewhere and only be with people you trust. We also have to get beyond for young males, "you ain't going to get raped except in jail by Bubba."
2. The concept of rape culture, from my perspective, is less about rape per se then it is about boundaries, and a lack of respect thereof. This stems a great deal from the atrociously ****ty sex ed in our country. Most of it consists of "here's what sex is, and you should next have it til marriage, the end." Nowhere does it include what is legally considered consent. Boys are left to fill in the blanks, and while you may think it would be common sense, young boys still get it very, very wrong on a regular basis. And why wouldn't they? Teenagers get all sorts of stuff wrong all time when they're unguided and unsupervised, why would this be any different?
Women are also left without a good understanding of boundaries as well, when a young girl attempted to strike my son with a slap he just grabbed her wrist before she could connect and said, "If you hit me again, I'll hit you back. It's that simple."
"You can't hit girls!"
"Then you don't know what personal responsibility means. You don't hit other people and don't expect to get hit back. I didn't hit you, it doesn't give you the excuse to hit me. Even my sister knows that."
He released her wrist, walked away. Girl was pretty stunned.
I taught my children "people don't hit people" rather than "men don't hit women." Makes thing so much easier, especially how I am to know if my children aren't gay? If my son ended up gay, which he isn't, what then he beats up his boyfriends? Seriously, we need to look at those dynamics under different contexts and universalized rules of conduct between person to person issues than just gender vs. gender.
3. A certain amount of it comes from the fact that "don't rape" is inherently in conflict with the concept of masculinity our society likes to push. No, men are not sex-crazed monsters by default, but there's a lot in media that suggests they're supposed to be. Men are encouraged to draw self-esteem from aggression and sexual prowess. It creates a culture in which a man's worth is hinged on his ability to "get some", which subsequently give men way too much incentive to pursue sex at all costs - costs which can and often do include the woman's say in the matter.
Well, we need to take a step back about rape and how people function. During a heightened time period for risk taking, such as horniness, mental illness, war and ect. people take riskier moves. Equally there are times where rape becomes a weapon of war. And there are times when gang rape is used as an initiation test for women into gang life. Now we have to separate say the rapist pedophile, of which there are women who will rape other women, from the rapist who believes if he has sex with a virgin he'll be cured of AIDS. The woman on girl rape is a mental illness and a clear sex crime, the second is a sex crime but also from a desperation for a cure to a deadly illness. The two outcomes are the same, rape has occurred, yet the reasons are very different. The one pursues sex out of a warped desire, the other does so out of a survival need from bad information. Which I agree that the problem is sex ed, but rather not the "culture of rape" rather this Victorian sensibilities that may have worked. Like when men didn't hit women, or that rape was very much a taboo still under the guise of chivalry code of ethics. Now we also have issues of marital rape, which thanks to Lorena Bobbitt have evolved the discussion on consent specifically, which is a clear problem. Yet, there are also cases with women on girl sex that are not addressed because of this Victorian sense that gay sex is "bad" and adds to the unlikely event that a young molested girl by a woman teacher is more likely to come forward.
Equally with teachers who are women and pretty, are more likely to be identified as mentally ill than their male counterparts. Which is another problem with sexuality in public. I will also add that we have to delineate between someone who is say 18 years of age pursuing a 20 something year old teacher that is a breach of professional conduct. Versus that of say the woman on girl pedophilia case. They should not be treated as the same, as they have a different context. One is an abuse of power with two stupid people, the other is an abuse of power as well as mental and physical abuse which goes well above the threshold of abusing power. Since an 18 year old sleeping with their 22 year old teacher may have an otherwise "normal relationship" while the other leads to deleterious consequences such as sociological and psychological problems.
So it is less of a "culture of rape" and more of that we as a society suck about talking about sex in general. Limits, boundaries, decorum, and the like are also possible.
We must also look at the male and female desire for sex itself, and what constitutes the drive to have sex and understand that release of those instincts through a proper framework is an individual decision. As a person who is individually socially conservative as an individual with regards to sex, I believe that in some respect this may also be a problem with the rise in marriage age and the lack to establish early marriages that are on a good basis such as economically, sociologically, and communally. We just fail to get people out of their parents house early enough than nature wants us to, and we need to look at that and say we suck at it.
4. On getting consent - yes, you do need to ask. Kill the mood you say? Not being creative enough, says I. It's a simple matter of "Tell me how much you want me baby!", or some variation thereof. It's really not hard to work it into dirty-talk. As far as being afraid of things being misconstrued - that's why you should be upfront about your intentions. If you aren't sure that your non-verbal communication is getting the point across, BE EXPLICIT and use words! There are plenty of guys I know who have found ways to do this effectively, I'm sure the rest of you can too
Early in my marriage, the wife complained that I was more into books than sex. We had a discussion about it, and she found out that if she wanted it she would have to be aggressive about it. Simply because I was used to being celibate, I used to read in the evening when I retired from the daily grind. It was a strange conversation, but as I said to my wife, "If you want something ask for it." And I agree with you, we need to open up people to be able to talk more about sex that doesn't confuse boundaries. But also we need to expect with young men and women who do have sex not to lie to their partners, as the story I regaled earlier in this thread sent me into a morality spin some years ago when I first heard it.
People that shoot DNA at each other have a responsibility that incurs being honest about problems like STD's, child bearing problems and applications, and other such events.
I find we're talking often too much about men raping women, and less about men who rape men and women who do rape other women. We also have to talk about pedophilia, as well as other forms of abuse and setting up ways in our society to constitute ways of dealing with these problems.
When intervention groups come to school it's always an idea about feminism, when it comes to my household we take more of an equal opportunity approach to problems. If my son is struck by a woman, he is allowed to defend himself. When my daughter is struck by a man she is allowed to defend herself. When either are raped, they're expected to go to the police. I'm not certain why we can't have this conversation with both genders, not just men.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Running an involuntary porn site isn't illegal. In fact, the reason that that really famous one was shut down was because evidence linked the uploads not to 3rd party users (which are fine), but to the site owner himself. By legalizing "child porn", you basically allow for a legalization of IsAnybodyDown full of children, and all it has to do is have sufficient systems in place to check people's age and ban illegal users (say, anyone over 18, once discovered). This is the kind of gray area I'd be worried about encouraging by making the whole sexting thing decriminalized. If anything, it means that any laws pertaining to it would have to be incredibly exactingly drafted, and even then I worry that someone will inevitably find a loophole.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Off the top of my head as a man, I would consider this to be a good high point about "guilty until proven innocent"
Duke Lacrosse Case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/23/nation/la-na-nn-duke-lacrosse-acusser-murder-20131123
Granted, the woman involved was extremely troubled, but if you look at any of the old communications that were done during the investigation it was set up as black woman versus privileged white man. You had people like Rev. Al Sharpton try to help her with a scholarship and the like. However, one of the young men was pumping gas with a video and cell phone records. It was unbelievable how much of a canard the whole situation was.
I am especially angry at prosecutors like Nifong who make a mockery of the justice system, and this is why I find that rape shield should be extended to the accused until proven guilty of the crime. So instead of a provincial case, we see a much larger media frenzy descended upon young white men who are privileged and very hard working to get a good job and a good life going for themselves and instead interrupted by a strange woman and a nefarious prosecutor turned persecutor.
Allowing the rationality and evidence to go through without the media for a proper investigation before even going to court suffices to make the justice system work. A cooling down period, the use of gag rules has occurred in some trials in other contexts. A gag rule on police and investigators during a rape case without any leaks or few if any are fair.
If they have a strong case, and they go to trial, then reveal everyone's name including the victim and the accused. If they do not go to trial, then the public records are sat down in a court house and let go to drift.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Keep reading. Other evidence of the accuser's sexual history is presumed to be irrelevant, but the defendant can challenge that presumption, and can offer proof in a pre-trial hearing that such evidence is in fact relevant, in which case the evidence is admissible.
(the procedures go on for a few more paragraphs). The point is, however, that when you say "For one, Colorado states that only evidence of the accuser's previous sexual contact with the defendant or evidence showing that the alleged rape was done by someone else are allowed, and even those submissions may be deemed inadmissible, end of story." you are absolutely wrong. End of story.
We remove all rape shield statutes and replace them with mandatory gag orders on all sex cases until they are concluded. Then we follow the standard rules - if there is a conviction, gag order remains, if not, it is lifted.
That way, true victims are protected regardless and the social risks are minimized. Standard rules apply for character evidence, and the same standard of scrutiny is applied to it regardless of its status as a sex case or not.
That sounds, at least to me, 1000% better than the current garbage.
Side note: is there an ignore button somewhere on this forum? =/
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Why do you advocate keeping said order in case of a conviction, but not an acquittal? An acquittal will generally rig the press to rage at the accuser, and a conviction will generally rig the press to rage at the (now convicted) accused. What you propose definitely favors the accused over the accuser. Why not unconditionally lift the order regardless of the verdict? Or unconditionally keep it?
Thats just how it works nowadays - I'd be fine with a partial lift of a gag order after all cases (enough for future character evidence for both parties).
OH edit: Forgot. Gag orders currently only really apply to accuser, not defendant. Slipped my mind entirely.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Click on my name, view public profile, user lists, add to ignore list. That won't stop me from pointing out when you're wrong, though. You just won't have to read it.
I think I'll live. Good riddance to bad garbage.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
This seems pretty far off-topic. It's not about rape. Maybe start a new thread?
That's insane. But are they always arrested prior to trial?
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Tiax-Considering we were discussing feminist jurisprudence, and this is an example of what that leads to, it seems appropriate.
Would you say you're at all skeptical of the claims in this video, or does this strike you as a pretty reliable presentation of the facts?
It's like this Tiax, How much **** is the acceptable amount of **** in your coffee? 1 ounce or 10 ounces? If the system always gives custody by default to the mother that's **** in your coffee, if men are second class citizens and a women's testimony is privileged over theirs it's **** in your coffee, if the default is guilty until proven innocent that's **** in your coffee. There are things we can control within a free society and things we can't. Anyone can commit X disgusting injustice to anyone in the community sadly and any claim to the contrary is a ****ing illusion. However how our laws are written is something that we as a free society DO HAVE CONTROL OVER!
One giant glaring problem with the feminist argument I keep seeing is that we cannot KNOW what's going on in private and thus it's really hard to convict men of DV or SA. Their solution is to try to bias the system against men to make it easier to get a conviction and in their sick minds create "social justice". This is as sane as me deciding that since I can't stop terrorism I'll engage in it myself and call the resulting mountain of injustice "equality". The belief that what random criminals do and how society behaves itself exist int he same moral space seems to be a product of a totalitarian mindset.
When you realize there is no acceptable amount of **** in your coffee, you can grasp that feminist jurisprudence is really just sexism and misandry written into law.
The Dean of Barcelona's judges, Maria Sanahuja quotes...
"The massive detention of men for scarcely any reason is a characteristic of totalitarian countries."
"The Integral Law on Gender Violence is causing a repugnant violation of fundamental rights in Spain."
"It has provoked a sort of madness in the law that generates abuse, the elimination of the requirement of proof during the legal process, and the absence of the presumption of innocence."
"All of us are responsible for the Law continuing like this, by which we have caused enormous pain to tens of thousands of men."
I watched the video, and I certainly saw the judge's comments. Obviously a judge's comments carry some amount of credibility. But this is the one judge they chose that best supports their arguments. I bet you could also find a judge who says everything is peachy. What I'd find much more convincing would be a report from a reputable news source. I had trouble finding one, but that could just be because I don't speak Spanish, and this might not be getting international attention.
It's always difficult to judge these things from a video like this, because it's so easy to make a viewpoint sound incredibly convincing when you get to pick everything that's said. If you watch a Michael Moore movie, it all sounds pretty convincing, unless you know enough going in to tell when he's full of it. Here I know nothing about the legal system in Spain, so I feel I have to be a bit more vigilant before accepting this as fact, and I think you should be too. It's always easy to jump on board with anything that supports your views, but it's also easy to end up looking foolish that way.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
This FBI statistic is thrown around a lot, and it is complete nonsense. The statistic you're quoting is not false reporting, but reports which local jurisdictions have ruled to be "unfounded". The term "unfounded" has various definitions depending on which jurisdiction is reporting, and has little correlation with actual false reports. The citation from Wikipedia says:
http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/
In this case, we're already dealing with a situation where both sides have claimed that they are the one who was wronged. We cannot simply take both their words for it, because then we would have accepted a contradictory set of facts. We have to be skeptical about both.
-We already teach men not to rape
-Its silly to believe telling young men yet again that something they have been told a thousand times in a thousand ways is wrong will suddenly GET IT if they are just denigrated as a group once again. Essentially rubbing all mens noses in the crimes of a small minority of men (and ignoring that women do it to) aka business as usual for feminists.
-That rape is "normalized" when it is in reality the most stigmatized crime out there.
-It inherently sends the message that there is something wrong with masculinity. Something feminists attempt to reframe all issues into an argument that maculinity is toxic which as far as I can tell is really just about propagating/normalizing misandry.
In reality many rapists have personality disorders and are completely indifferent to whether or not what they are doing is wrong aka typical criminal minds. Rapists are not special in this regard.
Unless you can produce some citations on this, I'm gonna have to say, no, it doesn't work this way. Also, when we say "teach men not to rape", what is meant by that is not just telling teenagers rape is wrong - you're right in that we already do this. But we don't teach them the details of what rape *is*; what legally qualifies as consent, what doesn't, and so on. Plenty of rapes come from younger guys having very ignorant concepts of consent, stuff like "she didn't say not" or "she wasn't physically resisting me" (both of which were lines that came up in the Steubenville case, sadly enough). I don't think this is the fault of men as a group. I think this is the fault of *****ty sex education, and of the groups that push to keep people ignorant about sex, principally religious interest groups. Incidentally these same groups have a tendency to be misogynistic as all holy hell...but they in no way represent all of men as a whole (in fact, there are plenty of women involved too!)
As far as "Masculinity vs Femininity", neither is good nor bad. Each group of traits/behaviors has advantages and disadvantages, and neither group is exclusive to one gender or another - there are women who are naturally inclined to act "masculine" and men who prefer to act "feminine". The idea of applying a gendered term to either group is actually kind of antiquated and stupid. We should not hold one as better then the other (we often do), we should not put down those whose behavior doesn't match the behaviors we've assigned to their gender (we often do). As far as "masculinity is toxic"...I personally would refine that to "HYPERmasculinity is toxic". Any system which requires a man to conform to a narrow set of pre-defined behaviors regardless of their relevance to the situation at hand, that degrades and devalues men who don't conform no matter the reason, is an inherently bad system to me. I'm kind of surprised, I'd think you'd object to at least some of the ideas of the traditional masculinity, specifically the idea that men are "naturally"/"supposed to be" the aggressors and dominators in all interactions whenever possible. It's this very narrative that sets up the men=aggressor=rapist/women=receiver=victim dynamic, and it's a load of bull*****.
Men don't rape because they're naturally sex crazed fiends that obviously can't control themselves, men rape because they often don't have a clear idea of what rape/consent is.
What I tend to dislike about "violence against women," is that directly implies that men do not get raped.. which they do. There are some, while rare instances, of male on male date rape. There are gays who happen to be rapists. Which we have to look at what happens in both contexts that are similar; don't leave your drink somewhere and only be with people you trust. We also have to get beyond for young males, "you ain't going to get raped except in jail by Bubba."
Women are also left without a good understanding of boundaries as well, when a young girl attempted to strike my son with a slap he just grabbed her wrist before she could connect and said, "If you hit me again, I'll hit you back. It's that simple."
"You can't hit girls!"
"Then you don't know what personal responsibility means. You don't hit other people and don't expect to get hit back. I didn't hit you, it doesn't give you the excuse to hit me. Even my sister knows that."
He released her wrist, walked away. Girl was pretty stunned.
I taught my children "people don't hit people" rather than "men don't hit women." Makes thing so much easier, especially how I am to know if my children aren't gay? If my son ended up gay, which he isn't, what then he beats up his boyfriends? Seriously, we need to look at those dynamics under different contexts and universalized rules of conduct between person to person issues than just gender vs. gender.
Well, we need to take a step back about rape and how people function. During a heightened time period for risk taking, such as horniness, mental illness, war and ect. people take riskier moves. Equally there are times where rape becomes a weapon of war. And there are times when gang rape is used as an initiation test for women into gang life. Now we have to separate say the rapist pedophile, of which there are women who will rape other women, from the rapist who believes if he has sex with a virgin he'll be cured of AIDS. The woman on girl rape is a mental illness and a clear sex crime, the second is a sex crime but also from a desperation for a cure to a deadly illness. The two outcomes are the same, rape has occurred, yet the reasons are very different. The one pursues sex out of a warped desire, the other does so out of a survival need from bad information. Which I agree that the problem is sex ed, but rather not the "culture of rape" rather this Victorian sensibilities that may have worked. Like when men didn't hit women, or that rape was very much a taboo still under the guise of chivalry code of ethics. Now we also have issues of marital rape, which thanks to Lorena Bobbitt have evolved the discussion on consent specifically, which is a clear problem. Yet, there are also cases with women on girl sex that are not addressed because of this Victorian sense that gay sex is "bad" and adds to the unlikely event that a young molested girl by a woman teacher is more likely to come forward.
Equally with teachers who are women and pretty, are more likely to be identified as mentally ill than their male counterparts. Which is another problem with sexuality in public. I will also add that we have to delineate between someone who is say 18 years of age pursuing a 20 something year old teacher that is a breach of professional conduct. Versus that of say the woman on girl pedophilia case. They should not be treated as the same, as they have a different context. One is an abuse of power with two stupid people, the other is an abuse of power as well as mental and physical abuse which goes well above the threshold of abusing power. Since an 18 year old sleeping with their 22 year old teacher may have an otherwise "normal relationship" while the other leads to deleterious consequences such as sociological and psychological problems.
So it is less of a "culture of rape" and more of that we as a society suck about talking about sex in general. Limits, boundaries, decorum, and the like are also possible.
We must also look at the male and female desire for sex itself, and what constitutes the drive to have sex and understand that release of those instincts through a proper framework is an individual decision. As a person who is individually socially conservative as an individual with regards to sex, I believe that in some respect this may also be a problem with the rise in marriage age and the lack to establish early marriages that are on a good basis such as economically, sociologically, and communally. We just fail to get people out of their parents house early enough than nature wants us to, and we need to look at that and say we suck at it.
Early in my marriage, the wife complained that I was more into books than sex. We had a discussion about it, and she found out that if she wanted it she would have to be aggressive about it. Simply because I was used to being celibate, I used to read in the evening when I retired from the daily grind. It was a strange conversation, but as I said to my wife, "If you want something ask for it." And I agree with you, we need to open up people to be able to talk more about sex that doesn't confuse boundaries. But also we need to expect with young men and women who do have sex not to lie to their partners, as the story I regaled earlier in this thread sent me into a morality spin some years ago when I first heard it.
People that shoot DNA at each other have a responsibility that incurs being honest about problems like STD's, child bearing problems and applications, and other such events.
I find we're talking often too much about men raping women, and less about men who rape men and women who do rape other women. We also have to talk about pedophilia, as well as other forms of abuse and setting up ways in our society to constitute ways of dealing with these problems.
When intervention groups come to school it's always an idea about feminism, when it comes to my household we take more of an equal opportunity approach to problems. If my son is struck by a woman, he is allowed to defend himself. When my daughter is struck by a man she is allowed to defend herself. When either are raped, they're expected to go to the police. I'm not certain why we can't have this conversation with both genders, not just men.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.