The Bureau of Labor Statistics gathers all manner of information, with varying levels of specificity, about every type of occupational injury imaginable. The title of this post is true. The government can tell you how many women in a select age group, on average, miss work due to carpal tunnel syndrome, and how many days they miss. Another government bureau keeps track of stats on every sort of traffic fatality imaginable. Another keeps track of the number of fatalities caused by cancer causing compounds in meat. And on and on it goes.
The government gathers this information because it is essential to understand the risk in order to be able to control it. If the risk rises to unacceptable levels, the government steps in and regulates the activity. Risk management is big business for private businesses -- McDonalds can tell you how many people are burned by its coffee every year -- and it is important public policy for government. It is crucial to know how dangerous a thing or an endeavor is -- whether it be the workplace, the Toyota Avalon we drive, the elevators we ride in at work, the air we breathe, the step ladder we climb on -- so that the risk of harm is kept at the acceptable threshold level.
If, for example, fatalities are three times more likely to occur from riding in a certain model and make vehicle than from riding in the average vehicle, that likely would play an important role in the government's or the manufacturer's decision to recall it. Short of a recall, it would be important to the decisions to buy, to insure, and to continue to manufacture that particular car. (Indeed, evidence that a manufacturer knew of an inordinate risk of a product but proceeded to sell it is often damaging evidence in a product liability trial.)
Yet, somehow -- incredibly -- we allow innocent men and boys to have their lives destroyed by being jailed and imprisoned for supposed rapes they didn't commit, and no one can say with any level of confidence how frequently that occurs.
Worse, the government and the persons who control the public discourse on this issue, don't care about having an accurate picture.
The entire field has become so politicized that most of what is written about it is unreliable. Organizations such as NOW and RAINN rely on the U.S Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey to insist that rape is rampant and largely underreported. What those organizations do not publicize is that this survey, conducted by in-person and telephone interviews, defines rape as follows: "Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. . . ." You need to scroll to page 131 out of 133 to find that definition. Putting aside other problems with the definition, "psychological coercion," of course, can mean all manner of things that are not rape, including "I'll take your mother to the doctors tomorrow if you make love to me tonight."
All reliable indicators show that false rape claims are a significant problem. See, e.g., footnote one in this post. But no one -- not RAINN, not NOW, and not the FBI -- knows how prevalent false rape claims are. Politicized representatives of the sexual grievance industry pretend to know, but they really don't. A leading feminist legal scholar recently acknowledged: ". . . the statistics on false rape accusation widely vary and 'as a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown.'" A. Gruber, Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime, 84 Wash. L. Rev. 581, 595-600 (November 2009) (citation omitted).
Have you ever noticed that every time a feminist discusses false rape claims, she becomes an actuarial? False rape claims, she posits, are an acceptable risk because there are so few of them and because there are so many actual rapes -- especially of the unreported variety. "I'll start to become concerned about false rape claims," she gushes, "when false rape claims become half the problem rape is." Then she'll support her rant by trotting out statistics that are, again, wholly untrustworthy.
Mind you, many of the same people who are perfectly OK classifying even some innocent males as "acceptable risks" in the war on rape would be among the first to bellyache about "the greedy capitalists" if a manufacturer put a product in the stream of commerce knowing that even a few people would be injured by it.
But the false rape problem is being permitted to fester without regulation, and no one is stepping in to say that the risk has exceeded acceptable levels because no one, aside from a few of us, even wants to know how serious the risk is. Seriously, isn't it time to insist on an independent government panel to give an accurate picture of the false rape problem? A panel comprised of persons who are not connected in any way with the sexual grievance industry?
Instead, we are kowtowing to rape feminists. And they are content to cover their eyes to the risk. Let us be honest: they would insist that no matter how egregious the false rape epidemic, it will always be acceptable risk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
59 comments:
Once you have been labeled as a rapist -- and any woman, even a prostitute, is given the authority to apply the label -- the government and society don't care about you, they have no interest in your welfare, they don't even acknowledge that you exist, up until the moment that your false accuser's incompetence forces them to drop the charges.
You are a target and nothing else, and that label never really comes off.
Know what I'd like to see someday? Shelters/refuges for the falsely accused, where they can stay, away from the pointed fingers, and be provided with the resources to rebuild their shattered lives.
Considering how many false allegations are made, there should really be one in every town.
And the people running them, should have the best lawyers at hand, such that anyone who continues to make allegations against them (once they have been found innocent) is sued extortionate amounts for slander/libel. (Think how Scientology goes after people who insult their religion, that's the kind of legal response I have in mind.) Could make an example of a few feminists in this way. Then people would think twice before calling innocent men rapists. That should become a crime just as taboo and unthinkable as rape itself.
Well, I can dream, can't I ...
Here in the UK, we have the Police, and the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) which handles actual prosecutions.
The CPS and the Police are PORTRAYED as two separate entities, but the fact is that they are as separate as your left and right hands, both work to the same bidding.
The CPS website is "interesting"
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_manual/rape_manual/ is a long page
skip right to the end, the "myths" section.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_manual/rape_manual/#a21
ooh, what's this?
Myth #7
Myth 7: Women Cry Rape When They Regret Having Sex or Want Revenge
Implications:
* reinforces stereotypes of the 'vindictive woman';
* reinforces stereotypes of women as untruthful;
* re-victimises and stigmatises the victim; and
* undermines her support for seeking justice
Facts:
* studies have indicated that only 2% of all reported rapes are false, which is slightly less than false reporting in all other crimes.
well, well, well... it must be "fact" cos it says so on the CPS website, innit.
It's about time people WOKE THE FUCK UP.
The State DOES KNOW THE FUCKING NUMBERS (I have posted links previously for the UK) but the numbers are like black on black violence, politically un-utterable, far better to fuck every (man) up the ass.
The falsely accused should live tax-free for the rest of their lives.
"* reinforces stereotypes of the 'vindictive woman';
* reinforces stereotypes of women as untruthful;"
Um, women do this quite well for themselves, every time they VINDICTIVELY LIE ABOUT RAPE.
"* re-victimises and stigmatises the victim; and"
WHAT victim? You mean the falsely accused man, right? Nope, a false allegation is plain old VICTIMISATION, not RE-victimisation.
"* undermines her support for seeking justice"
Why would the criminal want to seek justice? LOL!
The point is that this is the OFFICIAL LINE, FROM THE PEOPLE WHO DECIDE TO CHARGE YOU, AND WHO PROSECUTE YOU IN COURT.
STATE POLICY.
2% is a STATE POLICY.
and people ask why nobody apparently knows the true numbers?
Even Baroness Stern in her recent report, could not give the numbers, she filed a FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST for the data, and the request was refused, because, guess what, it was too much trouble to collate the data.....
CTRL+F fuck man, that's too much trouble.
So, AfOR, now false rape claims are LESS frequent than other crimes? I mean, they don't care whose intelligence they insult? Because I just came from the FALSE BURGLARY SOCIETY website, and the FALSE ROBBERY SOCIETY website. And they are even more popular than this one.
Wow!
Archivist, it has been known for quite some time that the CPS is essentially a feminist dominated and controlled institution since shortly after the Labour party got in 2 elections ago and started "affirmative action", e.g. pushing women for jobs way above their skill level.
However, there IS an undercurrent of backlash, and the pendulum IS swinging back, albeit slowly, albeit in some areas and not others, but the glory days of feminist dogma are on the wane.
Especially now we are facing a MASSIVE cut in the public purse. Things will get worse before they get better, but that is a necessary part of the process, things have to get worse to convince more "useful idiots" that shit needs to be changed.
I understand wanting the gov't to care more to track and collect false rape accusations, trials and imprisonments (I would want this followed for each step), but how is this information knowable?
It's like the idea of unreported rape. We don't know what those numbers really are, we can only conjecture.
I'm asking this as an academic question. How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?
In other words, how do you get an eye on the actual false reports versus the unsubstantiated versus the "he said/she said" versus actual rape that was denied?
I've got an answer for you, social worker:
POLYGRAPH BOTH PARTIES.
EVERYTIME.
ALWAYS.
That, and that alone, will start to answer some questions.
Organizations such as NOW and RAINN rely on the U.S Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey to insist that rape is rampant and largely underreported
They just take what the States report for their statistics and since real rapes are probably only 2% of reported rapes we can extrapolate that 1/50th of that number is about correct.
You can't use their official statistic on rape at all. There is hardly any error when it comes to traffic accidents or murders but with rape it is all error.
The polygraph is bullshit. The results are whatever the cop operating it want them to be.
and since real rapes are probably only 2% of reported rapes
***
You know, we aren't going to get anywhere by making baseless assertions and then pretending that they're facts like the feminists do.
Let's use real facts instead.
Social Worker, the only way to accurately test rape claims is to have unbiased persons well-versed in rape law and the rules of evidence to examine every report of rape over a given time, over a certain geographic area, in an objective manner. I am talking about a painstaking study that would take years. This, as opposed to a telephone survey where a woman exclaims: "I was raped in college," and the feminist surveyor chalks it up as "ANOTHER RAPE!" You see, rape is a conclusory term that is meaningless without knowing what happened. The most important thing -- and trust me, I am saying this as an attorney and it is not meant to be misogynistic -- is to ascertain what a reasonable person in the position of the male understood. THAT'S the test; THAT'S the battleground here. The fact that a young woman "didn't want to have sex" is all well and good -- but it doesn't prove anything. The question is, what was communicated to the "rapist"?
Where the answer is not clear, it is unfounded. Most reports likely will be unfounded, and they are taken out of the equation. No funding is appropriate for that class of reported rapes, and no inference that it was an actual rape is appropriate.
As for "unreported" rape, it is probably time to stop discussing that concept, at least with respect to adult women. There's nothing more we can reasonably do to have women "come forward." We are already cutting deeply into the rights of the presumptively innocent in an effort to have rape victims "come forward." I will be doing a lengthy piece about that shortly, but to continue to discuss unreported rapes is akin to treating adult women as children, and we are far, far beyond that. The concept is a crutch that helps the sexual grievance industry maintain its livelihood.
But even if the government doesn't give a hoot about the victims of false rape accusations, it's not all bad. At least your rights will be upheld if you are a lesbian who wasn't allowed to take another lesbian to your high school prom: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100720/ap_on_re_us/us_lesbian_prom_date
I think conducting more studies, a la Kanin and others, would be great.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with ONLY looking at the man's pov. How do you reconcile his thinking it was okay and her clear statement that she said "no, stop," etc?
Is that counted as an unfounded? Or ruled in his favor?
Anon @ 10.01- I'm a lot older, smarter and experienced than you so you may take anything I write as fact. Personally, I have not heard of even 1 rape in over 60 years. Now, if something is common we would hear of it. I've heard of burglaries and muggings, drug overdoses and even 1 murder but yet no rapes. Even if it was something that a female didn't report years ago, there is no way that rapes wouldn't become known because people will always whisper and gossip about things. The girl who was raped would either tell her mother or friend or if she was hurt, go to the hospital(nurses gossip) etc and females just can't control themselves when it comes to talking about things and the knowledge would somehow get out that a female was raped.
Anon @ 10.01- I'm a lot older, smarter and experienced than you so you may take anything I write as fact.
***
FAIL
As the victim of a false rape accusation, I am embarrassed to have someone like you posting here. You are probably a feminist troll posing as an MRA, making insane comments about how "there is not 1 single rape."
Just shut the fuck up and get out; we don't serve your kind here.
Social Worker, sigh. The male's pov isn't MY idea, it is the law. If both sides have plausible accounts it is unfounded. And Kanin did not go far enough. He only treated as false claims those claims which the women recanted. It is likely there were far more false claims than that.
"I'm not sure I'm comfortable with ONLY looking at the man's pov. How do you reconcile his thinking it was okay and her clear statement that she said "no, stop," etc?"
Social Worker, it is not simply the male pov. Whenever you are talking about a criminal offense, the main issue is the accused's intention and state-of-mind, not whether or not an alleged victim feels violated. It's this thing called "criminal intent".
We don't convict people of robbery or fraud based on someone's hurt feelings or sense of violation. We convict based on the intention of the accused.
Social Worker - ”I'm not sure I'm comfortable with ONLY looking at the man's pov. How do you reconcile his thinking it was okay and her clear statement that she said "no, stop," etc?
Is that counted as an unfounded? Or ruled in his favor?”
If she said “No”, then it’s rape – plain and simple. I don’t think people here (FRS) ever claim that the notion of ”she said “no”, but she meant ”yes”” is in any way absolution for his having forced her. [I would also note that this is despite the hugely popular (with women) rape-fantasy romance novels in which the heroine says “no”, and initially resists, only to give in and enjoy the best sex of her life – falling madly in love in the process. We don’t hold that just because many women have romanticized rape-fantasies that it somehow legitimizes date-rape. I just want that to be clear.]
But, what is also quite typical are instance where the women initially refuses, but then eventually gives in to his persistence, and mutters something tot the effect of “okay” or “whatever” (and then offers no resistance).
In her mind, she still did not want it, but to him (and he may not be thinking things through perfectly clearly), she has just given him consent. He heard something which he could conclude was a “yes”, but she was just giving in to unwanted pressure for unwanted sex. And it may even be that she chose not to resist out of some fear of what he might do if she did (but, that was a notion in her mind, and may not have even been a real concern at all).
It is these situations that are the “gray” area between rape and consensual sex – not instance where a man proceeded against stated wishes or physical resistance.
In those instances when there are no clear signals that she does not want to proceed, just exactly how is it that we (society) can decide that he should have known better, and conclude that he should be severely punished as a rapist?
Pay attention because I should charge tuition for this. Here's the test: Aside from the physical act that we associate with rape, rape requires proof that there was no consent. Consent is determined by the accused's outward manifestations -- what did she say? How did she act? The communication aspect is what's important -- what would a reasonable person in the position of the male have understood from her speech and conduct? If a reasonable person would have considered it consent, it was consent regardless of her secret intentions. It wasn't rape.
Easy example: if she mutters something that she intended to be a "no" but that reasonably sounds like a "yes," it's not rape.
Get it?
Archivist - "Easy example: if she mutters something that she intended to be a "no" but that reasonably sounds like a "yes," it's not rape.
Get it? "
In retrospect, my choice of the term "gray area" was a poor one, indeed. I was trying to point out to Social Worker that the "break-point" (or whatever we may term it) is not a woman saying "no" and a man thinking that she meant "yes", but rather that it is based on whether or not she (audibly) says "no", or resists.
It really is a hard and fast cut-off between rape and consensual sex. My terming it a "gray area" was, again, a poor choice of terms in trying to describe where "the line" is actually drawn (and attempting to point out that what ever the women may have felt is not the basis for such a determination).
slw -- your description was fine. I am always amazed there is such confusion over that -- what other test could possibly work and be fair?
No I still don't get it.
Are you saying that if she said 'no', but he thought it was a 'yes', it was not rape just because he is a man and therefore more 'reasonable'?
Weeeell, since we're treading down this road, what do you all think about the "Yes means Yes" concept where a couple does not proceed with relations unless/until BOTH parties have made it verbally clear they are interested in...whatever they're doing to do?
That would go a long way to clearing out any confusion and making it clear when a boundary is being crossed.
IMO, this is a much safer practice for the man to avoid any "confusion."
I'm not disagreeing at all that the women (or any intruded on party) needs to make it clear she does NOT want sex, but ensuring both DO is even better.
The problem with rape claims is that they're almost always one person's word against another. I can't imagine many genuinely guilty rapists admitting it knowing that. In a study examining the percentage of rape accusations/convictions that are false, I imagine the two accounts would differ in almost every case. (Maybe less so in the 'grey area' cases slwerner mentioned, though I'd guess the emphasis and some details would still be different, even if not deliberately. Memory isn't flawless and can be heavily affected by biases and preconceptions or even information after the event - in both mundane and emotionally charged situations.) How do you decide who is telling the truth?
Now I agree with not convicting people of rape when there is reasonable doubt. That's the way the law works. False accusation is also a crime though and the same standard of proof applies - if it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accusers are lying, they shouldn't be convicted. Obviously if it can, they should.
In a study, if there's no proof either way, I don't think it's any more fair to label the accusers in those cases as liars than it is to label the accused as rapists. I realise many previous studies have done the latter - and that's both ethically wrong and invalid - but doing the same thing doesn't make it right. In this case, the study would reveal the % of rapes, the % of false accusations and the % of cases that are ambiguous. It's depressing and not the result anyone wants to see, but I bet the latter figure would be very large.
Does anyone have any ideas to improve it?
(This is anon from 7.14 speaking).
Social Worker - It sounded ridiculous when I first heard about it. It's a bit of a buzz kill to be thinking about whether or not your partner might later accuse you of rape or to know that your partner thinks you might do that. Thinking about it though, well, I don't think it's realistic but it's about the only proposal I've heard that could actually solve many of the one person's word against another cases. It'd definitely help falsely accused men and probably prevent a lot of accusations. Not much use for rape victims though.
In a study, if there's no proof either way, I don't think it's any more fair to label the accusers in those cases as liars than it is to label the accused as rapists.
***
Actually, it's infinitely more fair to label the accusers as liars, if you have to choose between one or the other.
Why? Because the accuser isn't the one facing life in prison if she has the wrong label stuck on her, obviously.
I specifically said you shouldn't choose one or the other. Also, as I was talking about a study, not the law, and the decisions made by the researchers conducting said study, no-one is facing a prison sentence based on the outcomes. If we were talking about the law, an accuser also faces a prison sentence if labelled as a false accuser, albeit a much shorter sentence than someone accused of rape.
I really hope you don't think the answer to the false rape epidemic is to start labelling anyone who reports a rape as a liar if there's not enough evidence for a rape conviction. The very nature of rape makes it difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent men having their lives destroyed by false accusations isn't justice, but accusing genuine rape victims of being liars for coming forward most certainly isn't either.
Actually, it's infinitely more fair to label the accusers as liars, if you have to choose between one or the other.
But it isn't a choice between the two. In many of the gray area cases we discuss, the woman may genuinely believe she WAS raped, but didn't, as Archivist often points out, give reasonable indication to the accused that she did not want to have sex/be raped.
The man may genuinely believe he had consent.
She isn't a liar, he isn't a rapist. In those cases, no charges either way. I think the answer ultimately is allowing the benefit of the "reasonable" doubt, either way.
Re: Yes means Yes
It'd definitely help falsely accused men and probably prevent a lot of accusations. Not much use for rape victims though.
No, but we are talking about how men can reasonably protect themselves from gray area accusations. Yes means Yes would solve many of those situations.
For rape situations where the rapist doesn't care what she thinks, then this wouldn't apply, obviously.
I understand more U.S. states are adopting the stance that the accused rapist must provide proof that he reasonably obtained or sought to obtain consent. I don't know how this concept plays out legally though.
If we were talking about the law, an accuser also faces a prison sentence if labelled as a false accuser, albeit a much shorter sentence than someone accused of rape.
***
LOL! Prison for false accusers -- that's a good one.
***
No, but we are talking about how men can reasonably protect themselves from gray area accusations.
***
LOLOL! Men protect themselves from false accusations? That one's even better!
You guys sure are a laugh riot tonight. One of you thinks it's even conceivable that a false rape accuser would go to prison in America and the other way thinks there is some way to *reasonably* protect yourself from false rape accusations. (By pulling a video tape out of your ass, thus proving there was no rape?)
I understand more U.S. states are adopting the stance that the accused rapist must provide proof that he reasonably obtained or sought to obtain consent.
***
In that case more US states are preparing to nifong vast numbers of innocent men, because there is no way to prove that you obtained or *sought* consent. It's your word against hers, and yours doesn't count for anything because it comes out of a mouth that is ultimately connected to a penis.
And penises are, you know, proof of your inferiority.
"Weeeell, since we're treading down this road, what do you all think about the "Yes means Yes" concept where a couple does not proceed with relations unless/until BOTH parties have made it verbally clear they are interested in...whatever they're doing to do?"
This is an awful idea, for more reasons than I have time to chronicle. The vast majority of people don't operate the way you say they should, and you know it. Yet you would criminalize men -- and yes, it would only be men -- for behaving the way people have found it acceptable to behave since the beginning of time. All due respect, it is loopy ideas like this that engender disrepute of feminism.
Put it this way: your idea would send a young man to prison for many years, and destroy his life, for engaging in sex even after the woman clearly and unequivocally nods her approval and indicates beyond any doubt, but non-verbally, that she wants to have sex. Such a plan is inhumane in the extreme, and if anyone dared suggest imposing such an unnatural obligation on women, the feminists would be screaming in the streets.
Your suggestion is very troubling.
@Social Worker
I know we are. I said it would help in those cases (providing such a contract was used), as you quoted me saying.
The reason I mentioned it wouldn't be much use for rape victims is because just before that I said "it's about the only proposal I've heard that could actually solve many of the one person's word against another cases". By this I was referring to any rape case (not just these 'grey area' ones) in which there's very little evidence.
Ok never mind, I misunderstood Social Worker. I was thinking of a contract which a man could choose to ask a partner to sign before sleeping with her if he was worried about a false accusation. That way he has written proof of consent for evidence just in case. Like I said, it's unrealistic and a major mood killer, but it'd work.
Anon at 10.18: I'm British. Where did I say anything about America? False rape accusers have been sent to prison here as you can read about on this blog.
Also the contract isn't something I just imagined to make that clear. It's an idea I've read about before and I assumed Social Worker was referring to that.
"I'm not disagreeing at all that the women (or any intruded on party) needs to make it clear she does NOT want sex, but ensuring both DO is even better."
I agree that that would be better. Clear sexual communication is a plus in my book. A lot of normal sex happens without it, though, and while it would probably be better if everyone were super comfortable talking openly about sex, they aren't. Hell, I'm not, though I am working on it.
I'm also pretty sure that if Yes means Yes were adopted into law AND all couples instantaneously morphed so that each obtained affirmative verbal consent from their partner, feminists would still object.
You know, that whole "coercion" thing.
My professor of Gender and Society (albeit off-handedly) referred to rape as a man "having sex with a woman when she wouldn't have had sex with him". Seriously.
We need to realize that people influence each other in conscious and unconscious ways. Say I know a woman and am only mildly attracted / connected to her. Say one night she whispers in my ear that she really wants to fuck me.
I would get affected by that and probably fuck her even though parts of me would be hesitant or wouldn't have wanted to before she told me her interest. She didn't "coerce" me, she influenced me. And I hypothesize that it wouldn't be wholly dissimilar for a woman approached by a man really attracted to her. We affect each other!
It can be really complex because people are really complex and they have complex relationships to their sexuality.
Sometimes, as you point out, communication of that can be clear and simple, which is great.
I would estimate the vast majority of the US population doesn't communicate crystal clearly and they shouldn't be criminalized for it, in my opinion.
Anon @ 5.37- As I said I'm a lot smarter and more experienced than you'll ever be, kid. And apparently you can't read either because I said that I did not personally know of a case of rare. And if a person as worldly as myself had never heard of one personally it means that rape must be a very rare occurance. You may occasionally hear of a case on the news but that is not something in your everyday life and is like hearing about an earthquake somewhere.
Archivist @ 11.15-I really wish you would stop with this reasonable person nonsense. In the law it was always referred to as the "reasonable MAN rule" and for good reason.
FAIL
Jul 21, 2010 5:29:00 AM
Yes, you probably failed community college lol
Only in a totally corrupt feminised judicial system would a female's word be taken as evidence.The burden of proof is on the female represented by the prosecutor and it must be beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. The defendant doesn't have to do anything. Now, since all of these rape allegations involve a he said/she said sort of situation there is really no way for a man to be convicted in an honest system.The defendant doesn't have to testify but he if he wanted he could and merely say that the female asked him to get into bed and fuck her. Case dismissed. Two people were present and both giving opposite stories.The jury cannot convict because it does not meet the standard for conviction, "beyond a reasonable doubt".
And apparently you can't read either because I said that I did not personally know of a case of rare.
***
Apparently you can't either, or you just choose not to. What you actually said was that because you personally had never heard of a rape therefore there are no rapes.
Which is just as stupid and insane as when a feminist claims that there is no such thing as false rape accusations. And I for one do not care to share a foxhole with the mirror image of a feminist hatemonger.
As I said I'm a lot smarter and more experienced than you'll ever be, kid.
***
You may be old enough to have changed Moses's diapers but "son," you aren't smarter than ANYBODY.
Congratulations: you've made the dumbest, more inane arguments in favor of many of our key positions that I've ever heard. If only we had a whole army of dumbfuck mysogynists like you we could bury men's rights forever.
Nice thread. A lot of interesting comments going around.
To clarify some, I wasn't referring to a written contract, though there are some that exist, as Anon @ 10:45 and 10:46 pointed out. (I think created by feminist scholars to address some of the concerns we're discussing.)
What I meant was simple verbal confirmation between partners ("You into this, baby?" "I sure am! *giggle*) Silly example, but you can see what I'm saying.
This is an awful idea, for more reasons than I have time to chronicle.
Archivist, I don't understand why you don't see this as potentially beneficial. It would NOT solve situations where the woman is maliciously filing charges as that will happen anyway. But it should reduce accusations based on bad communication. I mean the kind that you talk about where she seemingly gave a positive indication though she really didn't want to have sex. Checking with your partner (both ways!) would allow a possibly hesitant woman (or man)to speak up.
And it's feminist camps that are advocating this approach, so I don't think "the feminists would be screaming in the streets."
"Yes means Yes" isn't an idea I made up. There's been a lot written on the concept and there's even a blogsite titled yesmeansyes that discusses the idea in detail.
If you're inclined, I would really like to read your more detailed concern/objection to the concept. Perhaps an article suggestion, hmmm? nudge nudge
Anon @ 4:05 a.m.Only in a totally corrupt feminised judicial system would a female's word be taken as evidence.
I don't know if this was meant in irony or a joke, but this is almost how it is right now. The system is fairly skewed against men in the court room. IDEALLY, much (not all as I think it goes too far the other way) of what you said should be the way it is. But it's not.
I think the mysogynist means that a "female's" word should never be equal to a man's, which is bullshit.
Sorry if I'm writing too much, but I'm excited by this discussion and neglected to address Michael's comment.
I'm also pretty sure that if Yes means Yes were adopted into law AND all couples instantaneously morphed so that each obtained affirmative verbal consent from their partner, feminists would still object.
You know, that whole "coercion" thing.
I know you agreed with the concept over all, but you made this comment and got me curious. What is the coercion element here? I would think Yes means Yes would reduce it.
What I meant was simple verbal confirmation between partners ("You into this, baby?" "I sure am! *giggle*)
***
But how are you supposed to prove that these words were even spoken? The only two people who were there (most likely) were you and her, and if she wants to set you up she'll make up whatever dialogue she wants.
And even signing a contract before is useless, since she can always say that she changed her mind but you wouldn't let her stop. And having a woman sign a contract for sex would just make you look creepy, anyhow.
There is no way to prove consent (without a tape), and they don't require the woman to prove that she withheld consent.
But the politicians who pass these stupid laws don't care about how the laws will be abused. In principle, it sounds all right to require her to *giggle* "yeah, baby!" so they write that in, as if women won't make anything up.
Anon @ 1:03:
I completely agree with you here.
But we're talking about two entirely different situations and maybe I should have stated that better.
If a woman is going to file charges maliciously, none of what I'm talking about will help.
The vast majority of "gray area" rape claims though seem to be a dispute about what actually happened. The woman/girl isn't malicious in this case, but had a vastly different experience than the man/boy. For those situations, a clear ahead of time discussion, even as simple as "Do you want to have sex?" would help.
There are other indicators, such as her returning kisses with passion, taking off your clothes or hers, smiling, making suggestions, etc. It should be fairly easy, without much buzzkill, to differentiate a women/girl who's laying there looking scared from an active participant.
A man/woman who doesn't CARE to ensure his/her partner's enjoyment/participation is crossing a line. Whether it's rape or not in a particular case is another story.
Anon at 1.03 - I agree, it looks creepy and would probably send potential partners running a mile. Like I said, it's not realistic and it sounds ridiculous but I do think it would work in principle. Sure she could still claim to have changed her mind halfway through, but if you can present a contract proving she consented, she'd have a hard time winning that case. Besides, anyone deciding to sign would have to be pretty sure. Also, anyone deciding to make an accusation (grey area or just completely false - as long as sex took place at all) would think twice knowing that they'd signed a contract saying they consented. As with Yesmeansyes, it would clarify that both partners were into it so there's no misunderstandings.
I'm not suggesting people go out and start trying to make all future partners sign a contract. I'm just acknowledging that it would in theory provide protection from false accusations.
What is the coercion element here? I would think Yes means Yes would reduce it.
Jul 22, 2010 1:00:00 PM
Well, I would think that when you said, "I do" in front of an official and 2 witnesses that the matter was settled.
The problem with men is that they permitted a bunch of man hating lesbians and wackos to even have any say in this matter.If you had just given them a good beating 30 years ago for even suggesting that a man can rape his own wife we wouldn't have these problems today. It would not have spread down to Universities where every young man has to watch everything he does and cannot behave in a natural manner anymore.
I've never seen any MRA talk about giving women "a good beating."
Those who talk that way always turn out to be feminist trolls who think that we're mysogynists because we're against false rape accusations.
Anon@4.18: Take note of this person. This is what feminists and manginas do. They twist anything written and try to divert the thread because their real intent is to disrupt.
In fact, to even permit a female to have any say in how we run our society and justice system is absurd. There has NEVER been a time in history, whether it was the Romans establishing a system of law to the present day, where a female had any hand in it. The concept of justice is alien to their Nature. The rational men make the rules(laws) and the females and men abide by them.
And Anon @ 4.18-stop this silly nonsense about sharing a foxhole because there are no females in combat.
Still pretending to be something other than a feminist troll? How sad.
And no, there is nothing wrong with women voting.
Anon @ 5:16 & 5:36 p.m.:
Take it elsewhere. Even I'm not buying your load of fake-misogyny.
Wow, look at that, I'm a false misogynist accuser!
Agreed, Social Worker.
Post a Comment