Carroll's story is noteworthy. Long after she accused Copperfield of rape, she was charged in January 2010 with prostitution and lying to police about an attempt to solicit a 31-year-old businessman. When the man refused her alleged offer of $2,000 for sex, she told police he drugged and raped her. A conviction for such a vile form of rape would have gotten the innocent man possibly decades in prison. But as with so many other cases we report on here, her account of events of the alleged rape by the businessman was questioned by cops after they viewed a hotel's security video footage.
Here's what happened in that case: According to news accounts, Carroll met the victim at a lounge and, according to the innocent man, they engaged in sexual touching. According to this news account, "Carroll told police that she got in a taxi with her male companion and blacked out, only to wake up in a hotel room with the man on top of her, pinning her shoulders to the bed." Only that's not what happened. "A check-in employee [at the hotel] told police she heard Carroll talk about calling another girl for a threesome . . . . Surveillance video from the Bellevue Club and Hotel shows Carroll and the man engaging in 'romantic behavior,' according to charging documents. It also shows Carroll taking an elevator by herself while her companion ordered champagne from the concierge desk." (The above photo is a still from that hotel video.) "Carroll was taken for a rape test . . ., but refused to sign over the results to police, saying they might interfere with her case against Copperfield."
After that rape lie, Federal prosecutors dropped their criminal investigation against Mr. Copperfield. Now, news outlets are reporting that Carroll has dropped her civil lawsuit for damages against Mr. Copperfield, which asserted claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, assault, and false imprisonment, has been dropped. Mr. Copperfield's attorney had recently filed a motion to dismiss her complaint in that civil action, alleging, among other things: "Carroll's claim is insufficiently pled, failing to allege the necessary factual basis for several essential elements, including a causal relationship between the alleged misrepresentation and injury, and adequate damages." See here. That motion had not been ruled on at the time Carroll dropped the civil suit.
In Carroll's criminal case, according to this news item, Carroll appeared in criminal court last Friday to ask that the pretrial hearing be postponed for another month. Carroll also waived her right to a speedy trial.
In the news account about the civil suit being dropped, which appears below, the newspaper identifies her by name -- but makes sure to add that "she voluntarily identified herself." It is astounding that news outlets feel a necessity to add such a disclaimer, given that this is a civil action and not a criminal case (most media outlets similarly protect the identity of Ben Roethlisberger's civil complainant), and the same woman is subject to criminal charges of her own for telling a monstrous rape lie about an innocent man. If she had not voluntarily identified herself, would the newspaper have hidden her identity in any story about her criminal case that happened to mention her civil action against Copperfield? That possibility, as repulsive and inane as it sounds, would not be so far-fatched given the over-the-top political correctness that infects our news outlets when it comes to rape. It is no secret to regular readers of this blog that news outlets treat an alleged rape as far more serious, and far more evil, than a ghastly and vile rape lie that can send an innocent man or boy to prison for decades.
HERE IS THE NEWS STORY ABOUT THE CIVIL SUIT BEING DROPPED:
David Copperfield Rape Lawsuit Vanishes
The assault lawsuit against David Copperfield has made like the Statue of Liberty and disappeared.
A woman who accused the star illusionist of tricking her into visiting his island in the Bahamas in 2007 by promising her career opportunities and then forcing her to have sex once she arrived has dropped her federal complaint.
Copperfield's camp has maintained that he was a victim of "attempted extortion" and nothing more.
"It has never been about money," plaintiff Lacey Carroll (she voluntarily identified herself) said in a statement released by her attorneys Tuesday. "I just wanted him held accountable for what he did."
There was no further explanation as to why she abandoned her suit, but this last year hasn't been easy for her.
Carroll has pleaded not guilty to prostitution and filing a false police report after being accused late last year of telling police that a customer at the restaurant where she waitressed in Bellevue, Wash., drugged and raped her in a hotel room.
The man claimed, however, that she made up the story after he refused to pay her $2,000 for having sex.
The FBI investigated the rape allegations against Copperfield for nearly two years, at one point searching his Las Vegas warehouse for evidence, before ending their probe in January without filing charges.
"Carroll's lawsuit was nothing but a pathetic attempt to extort Mr. Copperfield for money with malicious and false allegations," the magician's attorney, Angelo Calfo, said in a statement. "There was no settlement. Mr. Copperfield would not and did not pay Carroll a dime to drop her lawsuit."
Calfo also said that Copperfield is cooperating with the FBI "to have Carroll prosecuted for having wasted taxpayer dollars and law enforcement resources in a two and one-half year investigation of her false allegations."
Link: http://au.eonline.com/uberblog/b177290_david_copperfield_rape_lawsuit_vanishes.html
Posts
69 comments:
Another day, another injustice against men.
OT:
Chelsea's Law?
http://californiaschildren.typepad.com/californias-children/2010/04/chelseas-law-one-strike-youre-out.html?cid=6a00e55005baf388340133eca46e77970b
It all seems well, but as we know about the prevalence of false claims, how long will it be before any type of rape claim garners a life sentence?
"Surveillance video from the Bellevue Club and Hotel shows Carroll and the man engaging in 'romantic behavior,' according to charging documents. It also shows Carroll taking an elevator by herself while her companion ordered champagne from the concierge desk."
Clearly, video (as well as audio, and most every other form of technology) is a tool of the evil patriarchy used to oppress women - all men should carry a recording device!
Like Crystal Mangum, Lacey Carroll is nothing more than a prostitute. Yet, the rape-hysteria fomenting gender-feminists would have us take their words over any man's.
I suppose one could argue that Elliot Spitzer got lucky in that his involvement with prostitute Ashley Dupré was found out the way it was. Otherwise, what would have prevented her from one day, as her looks began to fade, suddenly claiming that he had raped her? He's got millions, making him a good target for a law-suit ala Katlin Faber, Andrea McNulty, and the woman who tried to do the same to Rick Patino - oh, and of course, Lacey Carroll.
A rich man getting with a prostitute/hostess/town-slut is now-a-days leaving himself wide-open to not only good old-fashion blackmail, but now to an FRA and a law suit.
For guys with money, there is no damned excuse NOT to have a recording device with them at all times.
Getting just a bit off-topic, there have been any number of media stories about the modern high-end call girl (typically, articles about the "empowerment" they derive expensive prostitutes), some making as much as that $2000 figure Lacy Carroll was asking for. Seems to me that is a guy is single and has the kind of money to spend on such over-priced p*ssy, he should consider making written contractual arrangements for those "services" so as to protect himself. [of course, the best course would be to never pay for sex, putting those empowered young high-class whores out of business]
It's amazing how often prostitutes falsely cry rape.
What's most shocking is that THIS woman could have tied up David Copperfield for TWO years with a criminal investigation hanging over his head. Those were two years that were most certainly a blur of a nightmare for David Copperfield.
Guys need to learn to create an evidentiary trail to points to consent. Of course, if men/boys would not get involved with women on one-night stands, that would pretty much end this website, because so much of what we report on stems from that.
The reason why the word of a prostitute should not be considered equal to the word of a citizen is simple ...
THEY'RE PROSTITUTES!
They would do ANYTHING for money - as their chosen profession shows.
They have absolutely no moral compass - as their chosen profession shows.
So gee, do you think that a prostitute is the kind of person who might lie about rape for money?
The question scarcely survives its statement. I for one am sick of the portrayal of prostitutes as 'victims'. Victims my ass. They just so happen to make a living out of what they would be doing anyway.
"A rich man getting with a prostitute/hostess/town-slut is now-a-days leaving himself wide-open to not only good old-fashion blackmail, but now to an FRA and a law suit."
I don't know if that's true, but this case wouldn't be an example of that as Lacey Carroll did not present herself upfront as a prostitute.
"It's amazing how often prostitutes falsely cry rape."
Is it more often than any other profession? It seems the most common occupation of a false rape accuser is student.
"Of course, if men/boys would not get involved with women on one-night stands, that would pretty much end this website, because so much of what we report on stems from that."
From reading this website that doesn't seem to be true. While some false rape accusations are made after of one-night stands, others stem from long-term relationships, or situations where there wasn't any sex, or where the alleged rapist never even existed. So let's not blame the victim.
"The question scarcely survives its statement."
Nice catch phrase, but I do not think you can equate prostitute with false rape accuser, any more than you can equate drug dealer with child molester. Their chosen profession does not show that they have no moral compass or would do anything for money. It only shows that they are willing to have sex for money, and they might not think that is immoral. And in many parts of the world, including some parts of the U.S., it's not even a crime.
Snark, excellent comments. I agree. I grow weary of the Saintly Prostitute portrayed in Hollywood (what was the name of that Jodie Foster film a couple of years back -- a microcosm of the entire women's movement).
This also goes to show how pathetic our justice system is in this country.
A 2 YEAR investigation for this woman????
Now comes the next worst part....watching her walk away with probation and not having to register as a sex offender.
Seriously women like her deserve 20 years in prison MINIMUM and sex offender registry for life.
This is yet another fantastic example of why women that allege rape should NOT have their identity protected.
If it were not for her filing another false rape claim she would have anonymously trashed the name of an innocent man for life.
Is it because I am more aware of these FRA or does it seem like more and more are being charged for false police reporting?
I hope it's the latter and it is becoming more and more exposed to the general public that women do indeed lie.
I pray Lacey gets a jail sentence, gets sued by Copperfield and this new man she has accused.
CBGirl
Archivist - "I think you are wrong, based on years of work in this area. If you had to pick one typical FRA where a man/boy is named, one-night stands would be the biggest problem, by far."
The reason that our anonymous friend doesn't calculate these to be the most common of FRA's is likely because such cases are seldom resolved as "know to be false", nor do they tend to make the make the news, even if revealed as false. Therefore, most of these types of cases aren't going to be posted here - no news story=nothing to post; "unknown" status of rape allegations authenticity=no FRA to report here.
Also, I would imagine that a great many of those unreported false rapes (regrettable sex reported to friends as rapes) can also be attributed to one-night-stands and more casual hook-ups.
"...this case wouldn't be an example of that as Lacey Carroll did not present herself upfront as a prostitute."
And we know this how...?
She might well have presented herself as a prostitute, but have failed to disclose her exorbitant fee, which the man refused to pay. Women who expect to get paid for sex tend to mention it up front. If they don't make that known, they are likely to end up servicing some guy who didn't come with money in hand (not expecting to pay).
Just as likely, the man knew full well she was a prostitute, and even knew the price, but intended to "stiff" her (the kind where one doesn't pay-up, that is).
sl, thanks. I know one thing: without the one-night stand type things (and I include Hofstra and similar cases in that), there's probably not a great need for this blog.
What you are saying about the one night stands is pretty upsetting in another way.
Since it is almost impossible to prove that she lied then you do not see them listed as false claims.
But she does not need to prove some guy raped her to totally ruin his life...all she has to do is accuse him.
Think about it. This gives any woman a FREE PASS to anonymously accuse an innocent man of rape.
He gets his name trashed for life risks loosing everything he has and commuting suicide from the stress or spending decades in prison and she gets to stay anonymous and collect victim funds.
And there is probably a 99.999% chance that she will never even have her identity revealed.
Just TOTAL BS.
CBGirl and I would respectfully disagree.
As long as there are FRA's this blog is invaluable.
Archivist - "without the one-night stand type things (and I include Hofstra and similar cases in that)"
Even a number of the instances of illicit sex leading to and FRA-based cover-up are also "hook-ups". The last post involved a woman who had been cheating on her husband for some time with the lover she "threw under the bus" when she got caught.
However, it seems that quite a number of such FRA's come about because the women has engaged in an opportunistic fling, and didn't have another plan to explain away questions about her activities.
And, even though many of those cases include the "drug-off into the bushes" type claims, it is still notable how many women name their lovers as their rapists.
If memory serves, one of the list of ways ways to avoid an FRA was for men to avoid women who are in relationships. It might be worth while reposting the complete list again (and with some frequency of repetition) as a general service to men.
Another lying whore enabled by the legal system. The only reason she failed is because her iq is lower than her shoe size.
So why should it be acceptable for women to have one night stands while, when men do the same, they are labeled as irresponsible and blaimed for false accusations levelled against them (as CBGirls has demonstrated)?
Anon@1:22,
You are correct that 'prostitute' does not equate to 'false rape accuser'.
However, I think that to choose to be a prostitute, is a sign of one having a very broken moral compass.
I never implied that prostitute equates to false rape accuser. What I stated is that people who choose to be prostitutes are clearly 'not right'. They probably are more prone to lying and doing fucked up things for money. I do not believe this is an unfair statement. It's called realism. You should try it sometime. It might not be as sugary-sweet as candyland, where every prostitute has a heart of gold and is a victim of circumstance (or TEH EVIL MEN), but you know, the truth is often harsh and disturbing. It doesn't make it any less true.
"....if men/boys would not get involved with women on one-night stands, that would pretty much end this website, because so much of what we report on stems from that."
C'mon, it comes from strangers and it can come from long term relationships as well.
In other news: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2010/04/21/big-ben-suspension-fair-reason-think/
Mr. Goodell, as the victim of a false accusation -- whose accuser was later convicted for lying -- this is like a slap directly in my face. Shame on you, sir, for contributing to the stigmatization of the falsely accused.
By punishing Ben Roethlisberger for NOT sexually assaulting a woman in a club you are sending the message loud and clear: if a man is falsely accused, it's because "he was askin' fer it."
There is absolutely nothing that the victim of a false rape accusation can do to deserve being falsely accused. This suspension and mandatory counseling is a vile act of condescension and victim-blaming (yes, he is the victim).
I hope that FRS will consider writing an open letter to the NFL over this.
OrangeDream - "So why should it be acceptable for women to have one night stands while, when men do the same, they are labeled as irresponsible and blaimed for false accusations levelled against them"
???
I'm afraid I'm not understanding what you're asking here.
Has anyone stated that it is more acceptable for women than for men to engage in one-night-stands/hook-ups?
There is certainly a great risk to men (of an FRA) if he does so, but other risks are more or less equal (STD's), or fall disproportionately on women (pregnancy).
Both men and women who engage in such encounters are irresponsible, IMHO, but are acting in a legal manner.
The problems arises when one party makes a criminal allegation against the other. Women are to blame for making FRA's; but men are never-the-less foolish for having placed themselves into the position of being vulnerable to that possibility.
Unlike what one sees from gender-feminism, such as encouraging women to dress provocatively, drink irresponsibly, go into potentially dangerous situations while demanding men fall all over themselves to try to prevent rapes; we don't need to get stupid here and demand the equivalent of men acting irresponsibly, drinking too much, failing to protect themselves (i.e. a recording device), all while insisting women need to stop making FRA's.
Yes women need to stop making FRA's; but men need to act in their own personal best interests and be especially careful with sexual partners outside of relationships. As such, men need to take as great of care to protect themselves against FRA's as they do protect themselves against STD's or unwanted pregnancies (there being some women who are intending to get "knocked up" via such hook-ups).
We need to demand as least as much sexual freedom for men as the feminazis demand for women, and that includes one-night stands. The falsely accused are not 'stupid.'
Due to our wonderful legal system, pregancy is far greater risk for him than for her.
"Also, I would imagine that a great many of those unreported false rapes (regrettable sex reported to friends as rapes) can also be attributed to one-night-stands and more casual hook-ups."
True, such accusations that are not made to the police are far less likely to be posted on this blog. Although many unreported false rape accusations are made after people have been involved for some time, or where no sex occurred. In fact, there was one in this week's Savage Love involving an infidelity with an ex-boyfriend http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=3899559
Regardless, I do not think we know enough to conclude that most false rape accusations are after one-night stands based on actual evidence.
Also considering how rejection is a common motive for false rape accusations, a man might be more likely to be falsely accused for refusing a one-night stand than going through with one.
""...this case wouldn't be an example of that as Lacey Carroll did not present herself upfront as a prostitute."
And we know this how...?"
From the other news reports.
"Women who expect to get paid for sex tend to mention it up front."
This is true.
"Just as likely, the man knew full well she was a prostitute, and even knew the price, but intended to "stiff" her (the kind where one doesn't pay-up, that is)."
How is that just as likely? While I haven't read anything that she was working as an honest prostitute, and everything I have read makes her seem exceptionally dishonest, even if she was, her response would have been to get out of there as fast as she could, and not turn around and make a threat that for all she knew could get herself beaten or killed. Nevermind, everyone knows prostitutes are paid beforehand, so there is no way he could have "stiffed" her unless he actually was going to rape her.
It's also not how exclusive escorts who can charge that kind of money generally work. Firstly, they don't walk around looking for business. That would be both dangerous and a waste of time. They put up ads and then screen who responds, often quite carefully, or work for an agency that does that. Secondly, their clients typically check the online reviews before they would agree to spend that kind of money on a prostitute or agency they don't already know.
"It's called realism. You should try it sometime."
Then why don't you go over to Feministing where that's considered valid argument?
And obviously it's a problem that the papers conceal the identities of false rape accusers, refusing to subject them to the same scrutiny that is applied to their victims.
A prostitute couldn't get away with this if the media would do its job impartially.
Chef Snork, sometimes you can be unbelievably thick headed: "The reason why the word of a prostitute should not be considered equal to the word of a citizen is simple ..."
If you're referring to morals and integrity, the word of a prostitute is just as "honorable" as whatever comes out of the mouths of citizens like Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Tiger Woods, Ben Roethlisberger, etc.
And THIS: "people who choose to be prostitutes are clearly 'not right'."
What about the vagina chasers who keep them in business? lol, you smell like a chauvanist.
"Then why don't you go over to Feministing where that's considered valid argument?"
Haha. Come on. Feministing LOVES prostitutes. They buy into the heart of gold fairy tales. What I'm saying is that prostitutes are fucked up people - that's all.
"lol, you smell like a chauvanist."
I freely admit to being a chauvinist, misogynist, and whatever other misspelled invective you wish to hurl at me. What's your point?
"If you're referring to morals and integrity, the word of a prostitute is just as "honorable""
Hahahahahahhahahaaha. God, it must be a laugh riot in women's studies classes.
The thing is, upper-middle class white daddy's girls like yourself, Dawn, have never encountered a real-life prostitute.
Hint: they are generally quite nasty people.
Anonymous - "...everyone knows prostitutes are paid beforehand"
As one who's had a sum total of "zero" experience with prostitutes, I'll have to defer to you on this and the other aspects related to the way in which they do "business"(it does make sense that they would get paid first).
Anonymous (same?) - "We need to demand as least as much sexual freedom for men as the feminazis demand for women, and that includes one-night stands. The falsely accused are not 'stupid.'"
The stupidity I was referring to would be if we were to insist that men shouldn't need to take precautions - proffered as a counter to the stupidity coming from gender-feminists that women shouldn't need to take precautions. I didn't mean to imply that FRA victims were 'stupid', but rather that telling men to not take precautions would be 'stupid'.
And, with "freedoms" come responsibilities. While gender-feminists will continue to insist that women should have only the freedoms (all responsibilities falling to men only), it isn't rational to take the counter-point that men should have only those same freedoms. As is often noted, gender-feminism seeks to treat women as if they were children (while deeming them "empowered"). But, we don't need to "match" them in their level of stupidity - men do need to act like responsible adults, even if women cannot be counted on to do likewise.
To those ends, I don't seek to stop people from engaging in what ever manner of consensual sex they like, but rather than men need to be the ones (for their own self-interests/don't count on a woman to look out for you) take responsibility for their own protection.
One cannot always count on a surveillance camera to record the truth, which is why I would advocate for a personal recording device. Some suggest video camera’s. I’d suggest an audio recorder instead. They don’t need to be placed so as to have line-of-sight, they’ll work in low or no light, and they come in discreet packaging (some look like pens, for instance) which can be kept close, but secret.
If one feels compelled to engage in hook-up sex, then one would need only start the recording (most devices will hold hours worth) and encourage her to talk before hand (both gets her voice sample for recognition purposes, and demonstrates that the device was able to pick-up whatever she might say), hopefully getting her to express some verbal consent, and then again afterwards (to demonstrate she did not feel raped at that time). A simple positive response to a question such as “how was that for you?” should do the trick to deflect her later reporting it as rape when her (all too expectable) regret sets in.
This, I believe, separates smart, responsible (even if casual) sexual choices as opposed to irresponsible, ‘stupid’ ones.
We might even encourage women to record sexual activities (independently, and not in place of the man doing so),suggesting that they will then have proof if she says "no". If they would record it for themselves, then they would perhaps be that much less likely to try to convince themselves they'd been violated later on.
"The thing is, upper-middle class white daddy's girls like yourself, Dawn, have never encountered a real-life prostitute."
What are you talking about, Snark - they train all their lives under master prostitutes - their mothers. What else do you call a tropphy wife, what else do you call an ex-wife living on alimony and alimony in the form of child support, what else do you call a girlfriend extracting gifts and clothes and lodging and food from a boyfriend, what else do you call a wife who makes "77 cents" to every dollar her husband makes?
If you're referring to morals and integrity, the word of a prostitute is just as "honorable" as whatever comes out of the mouths of citizens like Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Tiger Woods, Ben Roethlisberger, etc.
**
You'd know!
And, with "freedoms" come responsibilities. While gender-feminists will continue to insist that women should have only the freedoms (all responsibilities falling to men only), it isn't rational to take the counter-point that men should have only those same freedoms.
****
With POWER comes responsibility. Freedom -- almost by definition -- means that you are not responsible, and are able to choose a less desireable behavior. It's up to you because you are FREE.
For example, a filmmaker can make a good movie, or a bad one; a movie with an uplifting, positive message or an anti-social rant, because he is FREE. And this freedom doesn't come with "responsibilities."
Men should not be less free than women, who are able to have all the one-night stands they want without fear of false rape accusations.
We may never convince the "Hared core "gender / Raunch" style feminists (male and female) that there is now a need to start addressing false rape accussers.
I believe the cultural "power and control" that rape hysteria produces for them, is too much for them to give it away without a fight.
But a fight is what they will get, because with this "power and control" they get from "Rape hysteria", they are forcing a raunch culture perversion on society. They have in fact lost their moral authority to lead.
Look at the Rape/mob marches and parades on campuses accross the country and see whom it is that is getting "empowered".
Anonymous - "With POWER comes responsibility."
Um...,
Wouldn't that mean that women could claim they they have no responsibilities since they claim to have no power (non-white people could do likewise)?
It makes no sense. Where do you get this notion that freedom entails no responsibility? Freedom is typically considered to mean free choice – with the caveat that since one is free to choose, they must choose wisely, since, as no one else forced them to chose as they did, they alone will be responsible for the outcome of those choices.
By your interpretation, two people who exercise their freedom to hook-up would then bear no responsibility for what ever may happen as a result. If she got pregnant, neither of them would have any duty to care for a child subsequently born – both simply pointing out that they had no POWER over pregnancy. The same would apply to STD’s. Being powerless to control STD’s, neither would be responsible for passing it to the other.
Take to it’s logical conclusion, this idea you suggest that freedom does not demand responsibility would result in utter chaos. [are you still sticking with that idea?]
Anonymous - "With POWER comes responsibility."
I could also add that the POWER feminists no posses has made possible for them to heap responsibilities onto men.
How's that square-up with your Power=responsibility ideas? What responsibilities have feminists assumed with their ever-increasing poser?
More like "With POWER comes the ability to declare others to be responsible."
And, if I have no POWER over the IRS, do I still have responsibility to pay my taxes? Is so, your idea is meaningless.
"Then why don't you go over to Feministing where that's considered valid argument?"
Haha. Come on. Feministing LOVES prostitutes."
Sorry, I was being snarky. Oops, I did it again.
"What I'm saying is that prostitutes are fucked up people - that's all."
Yes, and all I'm saying that saying prostitutes are bad people because prostitutes do bad things, isn't any less circular than saying men are bad people because men do bad things.
While prostitution is largely illegal, is it any less moral than legal behavior like marrying for money? Regardless, I don't put crimes such as voluntary prostitution, gambling, drugs, etc. where the participants are consenting adults, in the same moral category as assault, larceny, false accusation, etc.
"Anonymous (same?) - "We need to demand as least as much sexual freedom for men as the feminazis demand for women, and that includes one-night stands. The falsely accused are not 'stupid.'""
Different anon, but I agree with that.
Funny that feminists fought for their sexual freedom, but now they want to blame men for the results of that freedom.
Interesting Blog you have here. We invite you to list it in our Blog Directory and share it with others.
"Yes, and all I'm saying that saying prostitutes are bad people because prostitutes do bad things, isn't any less circular than saying men are bad people because men do bad things."
Hahahahahah. Wow. Sorry but this is nonsense.
Someone who does bad things MIGHT JUST be a bad person.
Let me ask you - a rapist, is he a bad person? You say yes, but why? The only information you have to go on is that he did a bad thing.
Bad people do bad things. OBVIOUSLY.
You can't apply that to "men" because not all men do bad things. The fact of being a man is not a bad thing; there is no biological imperative for a man to do anything bad.
Whereas a prostitute, by the very definition of the term ... sells her body for money.
Which is ... perhaps ... a bad thing ... making her ... a bad person!
Can you say anything of equivalence about "men", all three billion of them? Is there anything of equivalence that men, by necessity, do?
"Men" is BEING.
"Prostitute" is DOING.
"Men" is an immutable fact of birth.
"Prostitute" is FREELY CHOSEN.
Your analogy is ridiculous. Completely ridiculous.
It is not circular to say that a person is bad because he or she does bad things - THAT IS COMPLETELY SENSICAL!
How else do you define a 'bad person'?
"While prostitution is largely illegal, is it any less moral than legal behavior like marrying for money?"
No.
Women who marry for money are also hugely fucked up, and will quite clearly do almost anything for money.
When money is someone's reason for being, and they would do ANYTHING to get more of it ... there is something wrong with them. Yes.
It might just be laziness, in the case of gold-diggers. But I think that a lot of the time, such people have real issues, and are more prone to lie (e.g. pretend that they have feelings for the sucker they married) and to do anything for money - except get a proper job.
So yeah ... prostitutes and gold-diggers, the same thing really. Both types of people are broken and horrible.
"Regardless, I don't put crimes such as voluntary prostitution, gambling, drugs, etc. where the participants are consenting adults, in the same moral category as assault, larceny, false accusation, etc."
... okay? Good for you ... this kind of response always amuses me. The sputtering disbelief that we do not agree.
Why does it matter to me what you think of prostitutes?
If you want to come up with an argument about why prostitutes are great gals, then please, go right ahead. I will read it, and consider it sincerely.
But ... simply stating your opposing view ... achieves what exactly? LOL!
It makes no sense. Where do you get this notion that freedom entails no responsibility? Freedom is typically considered to mean free choice – with the caveat that since one is free to choose, they must choose wisely, since, as no one else forced them to chose as they did, they alone will be responsible for the outcome of those choices.
***
Freedom that comes with a "caveat" isn't freedom. Freedom means that there is no nanny learing over your shoulder ready to second-guess your choices.
And in case you haven't noticed, feminists DO pretend to be powerless, and thereby less accountable.
"It is not circular to say that a person is bad because he or she does bad things - THAT IS COMPLETELY SENSICAL!"
It's tautology. You are saying prostitutes are bad because prostitution is bad. Which is no different than saying nurses are bad because nursing is bad.
Other than nursing being perfectly legal and ethical.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8632863.stm
A 20-year-old woman who falsely claimed she had been raped in a Belfast park has been jailed for nine months.
Lindsay Gorman, originally from Lake Glen Avenue in west Belfast went to police two years ago, after claiming she had been raped in Botanic Gardens.
etc
Prostitution is legal too --
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/04/david_copperfield_seeks_to_mak.php
Take a look at the disgusting comments under this blog entry -- even though Copperfield was innocent and the accuser was literally a lying whore, the woman commenters still want to blame David for being victimized!
What a bunch of nifongist scumbags!
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/04/david_copperfield_seeks_to_mak.php
Try that link.
Prostitution is legal too --
***
What bimbo-friendly fantasy world are you living in?
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand
Indeed, what better way to do this than to simply criminalize male sexuality.
I don't agree that if men stopped having one-night stands and the like, these problems would largely go away (aside from the problematics of getting the entire male population to simply switch off behaviors entrenched by millions of years of evolution and natural selection). Instead, what would most likely happen is that the focus would simply switch to other areas, such as relationship rape, criminalizing pornography, perhaps jailing men for looking at women as they pass them in the street etc.
The core of the problem is that, especially in the United States, you have a legal and law enforcement industry that is too big and out of control. America imprisons a ridiculously high percentage of its population, and has far too much vexatious litigation and excessive awards for civil cases.
What you have is a monster that needs to find more victims to perpetuate its own existence. If there are not enough soft targets (such as men who sleep around), well they can always start looking elsewhere.
Nick
I agree.
The U.S. has more people in prison per capita than any other country in the world and 93-94% of them are MALE.
Isn't it pretty sick that SHE decides to drop the civil suit!
I mean for this not to be throw out by now is yet another injustice.
Looking at the photo of her in the Seattle Times piece, my first reaction is: 'she thinks she is worth $2000! I would not sleep with her if it was free!'. Only a complete narcissist would assume they can fetch that sort of money.
"It's tautology. You are saying prostitutes are bad because prostitution is bad. Which is no different than saying nurses are bad because nursing is bad."
IF there was an argument that nursing was bad, then yes, nurses would be bad for doing it ... what is difficult to understand here?
Oh I get it, you're a value-relativist ... nothing is bad ... everything is subjective ... nursing and prostitution are morally equivalent, and so on.
Prostitution is a legitimate career choice for empowered grrrrrlz and we must respect our prostitutes! LOL!
"It's tautology. You are saying prostitutes are bad because prostitution is bad. Which is no different than saying nurses are bad because nursing is bad."
Whoever posted this tripe is no doubt a master of sophistry and rhetorical nonsense.
A tautology is when you essentially say the same thing twice. It is not a tautology to infer one thing from another.
In any case, a claim can only be considered a tautology if it is so self-evident and uncontested that no-one would disagree with it. That is, if virtually everyone agrees with Snark's inference that prostitutes are not reliable witnesses then in some sense it could be considered tautological. But you would have to agree with Snark for that to be the case. I am taking it that not everyone does.
Isn't it pretty sick that SHE decides to drop the civil suit!
I mean for this not to be throw out by now is yet another injustice.
***
That's right, and you raise some important questions.
#1: WHY did it take the government two years to figure out that she is a liar, and only then because she was so incredibly stupid as to falsely accuse another man and get busted?
#2: WHY has she even been allowed to file a civil suit? Her case has no merit so why didn't the system crush it automatically?
#3: WHY did the media trash David Copperfield, and WHY didn't it sniff out the truth about these false accusations months ago?
This situation is a monumental failure of our legal and media systems, and something needs to be done about it.
Anon above me
The media is SCUM.
I seriously do not know how any male can even watch any sort of news anymore. All they do is just trash guys 24-7.
Before I became interested in Men's rights I did not know my head from my ass from being brainwashed by the media's propaganda.
I know that she was lying in the Copperfield case but why were US Federal prosecutors even involved since the criminal allegation(the lie) was about something outside the US and their jurisdiction.
"Whoever posted this tripe is no doubt a master of sophistry and rhetorical nonsense."
Ad hominem.
"A tautology is when you essentially say the same thing twice."
More or less, yes. Which is what Snark was doing.
"In any case, a claim can only be considered a tautology if it is so self-evident and uncontested that no-one would disagree with it."
No, you are confusing its rhetorical definition with its definition in formal logic.
"IF there was an argument that nursing was bad, then yes, nurses would be bad for doing it ... what is difficult to understand here?"
That would be my question.
"Oh I get it, you're a value-relativist ... nothing is bad ... everything is subjective ... nursing and prostitution are morally equivalent, and so on."
No, that's not it. Anyway, this is starting to feel like teaching a pig to sing.
"Prostitution is legal too --
***
What bimbo-friendly fantasy world are you living in?"
Perhaps the commenter is posting from where prostitution actually is legal?
http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000772
slwerner said...
Clearly, video (as well as audio, and most every other form of technology) is a tool of the evil patriarchy used to oppress women - all men should carry a recording device!
Even when the tape 'accidently' gets erased, such as in the case of 'Big Ben' it can still be a life saver....
#1: WHY did it take the government two years to figure out that she is a liar, and only then because she was so incredibly stupid as to falsely accuse another man and get busted?
#2: WHY has she even been allowed to file a civil suit? Her case has no merit so why didn't the system crush it automatically?
#3: WHY did the media trash David Copperfield, and WHY didn't it sniff out the truth about these false accusations months ago?
This situation is a monumental failure of our legal and media systems, and something needs to be done about it.
Apr 22, 2010 4:48:00 AM
Anon: " you raise some important questions.
#1: WHY did it take the government two years to figure out that she is a liar, and only then because she was so incredibly stupid as to falsely accuse another man and get busted?
#2: WHY has she even been allowed to file a civil suit? Her case has no merit so why didn't the system crush it automatically?
#3: WHY did the media trash David Copperfield, and WHY didn't it sniff out the truth about these false accusations months ago?
This situation is a monumental failure of our legal and media systems, and something needs to be done about it.
Apr 22, 2010 4:48:00 AM
"
FYI - a false accuser can falsely accuse anyone any time, 24/7/365 and it's RAPE SHIELDED.
Again, I repeat - a person can file a dozen, a hundred, a thousand false accusations. They are each and everyone from God lips - rape shield, rape shield, rape shield.
"Just becaue she make other false accusations does not make THIS one false..." wah, wah, wah.....
Once a liar always a liar.
@Dawn
"What about the vagina chasers who keep them in business? lol, you smell like a chauvanist."
Vagina chasers... hmmm... You must mean like the lesbians who frequent prostitues? lol, You smell like a lesbian.
So prostitutes=okay, but their customers are evil. That sure makes a lot of sense. It's like saying that fishermen are good but the fish they catch are bad.
Then again, if I was a childish, self-obsessed idiot who thought that nothing mattered unless it directly affected me, I might think that way, too.
I don't know about prostitutes but I have known strippers and some of them are super nice. Both in personality and in morals. A guy I hung out with growing up married a girl that was a stripper and they are still together like 15 years later...she is a really nice girl.
Prostitution should be legal...but it is not here in the united states because we hate men too much here.
However it is perfectly legal to work construction...even though more men are trafficked in it and more men are killed and injured in it by a landslide more than prostitution.
Remember the craigslist killer?
And the resulting crackdown on prostitution ads because 2 women got killed?
Well guys are killed every day in this country delivering pizzas usually over less than $50. It's a pretty common thing in my city.
Have you ever heard of anyone wanting to make delivering pizzas illegal?
But delivering pizzas doesn't involve male sexuality in any way (unless it comes with extra sausage?), and therefore isn't a primordial evil that must be stomped out.
Post a Comment