Jessica Valenti's take on the Assange sex case in last Sunday's Washington Post was more of the same old same old, a mish-mash of the usual feminist victim blather about America's supposed tolerance of rape.
But then, just as we are nodding off, Valenti tosses a bucket of ice water on us by -- it seemed to me (you read it and decide for yourself) -- at least tacitly endorsing what would be the most unjust, inhumane, morally grotesque law in our entire jurisprudence. Read carefully what she says:
". . . we should look to [Swedish rape laws] as a potential model for our own legislation.
"In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn't give it."
Valenti, who, by the way, is not above resorting to the cheap feminist trick of calling a rape accuser "the victim" (which means, of course, that the accused must be a "rapist"), seems to at least tacitly endorse turning the most fundamental act of intimacy, an act that has been performed countless times every minute of every day of every year since the beginning of time the world over, into a presumed felony.
Read that again. It's not hyperbole. Under the plan proposed by some Swedish legal experts, once a woman cries "rape," the accused male would be sent away to prison for many years unless he could prove consent.
What would this mean in practice? In many rape cases, there is no significant evidence aside from the testimony of the accuser and the accused. Under this plan, if the jury doesn't know who to believe, as is often the case, the male would be guilty because he is unable to meet his burden of proof. He will have lost the trial before it has begun.
From a legal perspective, such legislation would do an end run around one of our most cherished rights -- the right not to testify against oneself. At present, a prosecutor is not permitted even to suggest that the jury draw an adverse inference from the defendant's refusal to testify. Under this plan, the defendant would have no choice but to testify because it would be his burden to prove he didn't rape the accuser. It would be a setback to pre-Magna Carta days.
Reversing the presumption of innocence for consent is the radical feminists' Holy Grail. Linda Brookover Bourque's Defining Rape said in 1989 that the ultimate objective of rape reform is shifting the burden of proof from "the victim" to "the offender." It is the most dangerous, most radical proposal in this entire field.
But, you see, for Valenti and her ilk, there aren't enough young men rotting away in prisons for rapes they surely must have committed. If we flip the burden of proof for consent, America, which is already the prison capital of the world, would need to double or triple the number of existing prisons to house the young men guilty by reason of penis. Our colleges and our military literally would become pink ghettos.
The misandry underlying this proposal is so vile, so breathtaking, that it ought to frighten anyone who possesses a Y-chromosome, and anyone who loves someone who possesses a Y-chromosome. All of us need to be alert to the fact that this proposal lurks out there, and that there are committed zealots in this country who would love for it to be the law of our land.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
44 comments:
It's the persons who sacrificed the least for those cherished rights who are so willing to throw them away.
It's the persons who suffered the most from injustice in the first place - men - who fought so hard for then.
It seems the best way to tear down societies is to "empower" those who have the least to lose by doing so.
If this plan were implemented, if the jury didn't convict HIM, then that would have to mean the jury doesn't believe HER? Wouldn't that be proof of a false rape claim?
"It's the persons who sacrificed the least for those cherished rights who are so willing to throw them away."
Oh, how true that is. We have no problem sending 19-year-old boys to the front lines to be used as cannon fodder, but if he has sex, he's a criminal on the basis of her accusation alone. And as the article says, if the jury doesn't know who to believe, he goes to prison for a long time.
Something is so wrong here it is frightening.
Jessica Valenti (New Gender / Raunch feminist); does not want to make all sex in America "Immediately Suspect to a Rape charge", she wants to make all ""hetero-sex" Immediately subject to sex crimes accusations"
This would seem ??silly?? if it were not so truthful. Its gonna be hard for most folks to digest the fact that the "New American Gender / Raunch" does not attack all males, in fact its only the heterosexual males that are the target of their "Empowerment" campaign.
The new "American Gender / Raunch Empowerment campaign" would quickly run out of gas if American law enforcement were forced to treat women and men "equal under the law".
Anon at 9:17: I agree completely.
Anon at 9:18: In theory, but my strong suspicion is that they will make provision to insure that the results of the trial against the male can't be used against the accuser.
I'm thinking "rape" and all other forms of gender wars will be eliminated when only a powerful male lords it over his vast herd of females.
Maybe that's the ultimate plan after all...
NOTE: this is mainsteam radical feminist thinking. In "Addressing Rape Reform in Law and Practice" (2008), Professor Susan Caringella of Western Michigan University's Sociology Department, lays out an elaborate legislative scheme to reverse the presumption of consent for rape:
"What all this means is a shift in the burden of proof to the defense would entail that the defense establish, with a preponderance of the evidence, that it was more likely than not that the woman alleging the rape did give clear indications of freely chosen agreement to engage in the sex acts. Affirmative consent constitutes the kind of consent that would be . . . necessary to overcome the presumptive or implied nonagreement in the law. . . . . What the defense would be required to do would be to introduce adequate evidence to show that the alleged victim did openly and affirmatively express a yes of her own free accord."
I'm tempted to cheer the psycho bitches on actually....
I'm clear of my own FRA now, at the cost of my kids, so my policy now is give ***nothing*** (financially) to the state, take everything I can from the state, and help my fellow man, as long as he is a man.
Valenti and her ilk see this kind of vandalism of one of the core principles of the criminal law and the constitution as being expedient for a larger goal they have --> namely of taking sexual initiative away from men and giving it to women, as a means of expanding women's "sexual power".
Valenti edited a book of essays about these topics entitled "Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape". The basic idea is that the most common heterosexual script of the man initiating and continuing to proceed in the absence of a female "no" is, in effect, "disempowering" to the woman's "sexual agency and power", since the script, in this view, has the man as the protagonist and the woman as the reactive party. Valenti and her ilk claim this sets up rape, because it gives men too much sexual agency and only gives women the ability to say "no", and men may not respect this "no". So, the idea they have is to trash this script and replace it with one that is female-led (or, as they prefer to describe it, "based on open communication" as in "May I kiss your breast now? Yes. And ... now, may I kiss your belly? Yes ... " and so on, which is so far divorced from the reality of heterosexual sex and passion as to be laughable if it weren't being advocated with a straight face in books like that one or being incorporated into campus behavioral standards as we speak. Never mind that many/most women would find being questioned constantly like this during each escalation of physical contact to be passion-killing. Remember, that's because they have a "false consciousness". And, if they were to embrace their "true, empowered consciouness", they would realize that they can side-step the question and answer game by simply being the party who takes the sexual initiative themselves -- in which case, no questions needed because a woman cannot, in this view, "rape" a man, because rape is a means of social control that can only be imposed by men upon women, by feminist definition. So at the end of the day, the idea is to make sex female-led rather than male-led.
Changing the rape law is the main "stick" these folks have come up with to "force" this. If all sex is redefined as rape unless the man can prove consent, this will chill many men from sexually initiating with women, given the real legal risks. If they step back and let the women initiate, they will be on safer ground (of course, never completely safe, because a woman could always deny that she *did*, in fact, initiate, or that once she did initiate, she withdrew her implied consent at some stage) than they would be if they initiated, because if a woman initiates at least consent can be implied from the outset. And that's the plan: change the heterosexual mating script by means of monkeying with the rape law so as to chill male sexual initiation due to the legal risks. That's what's going on here. The Constitution and centuries of criminal law be damned -- women need more sexual power, damnit.
Novaseeker, thank you for your enlightenment. Your note is eye-opening, sobering, and chilling. ". . . at the end of the day, the idea is to make sex female-led rather than male-led." These are areas beyond my expertise.
I urge everyone to read Novaseeker's comment.
@Archivist:
Would you say something like that would pretty much make it mandatory for men to keep audio recording hardware on them?
Donn, if this were the law, I would hope every male would use audio and whatever other methods for tangibly reocording consent are available.
"Donn, if this were the law, I would hope every male would use audio and whatever other methods for tangibly reocording consent are available."
Since my episode, I have been, copies on google mail, google chat (archived, NEVER have unarchived chat) the works.
Also carry a digital mp3 recorder the size of a cigarette lighter that will record over 200 hours in one go.
If there is a next time for me, i am making DAMNED sure there isn't just enough evidence to prove it was an FRA, but enough evidence to convict the FRA that it was an FRA.
If the American legal system no longer protect men and boys, we will see more and more of Americas young men taking it upon themselves to give "protect themselves" from a perverted system that wants to enable and foster false rape accusations. They will "protect themselves" by using cell phones to video consent, like the Hofstra case. Young men now understand the potential consequences of not having cell videos.
Gender feminist perverts who dominate American academia are now going after "cell videos", which are the only way the "Hofstra boys"
escaped their "rape lynch" from the American media, and Gender feminist perverts who now dominate America.
without the cell video, The innocent "Hofstra boys" would most likely be in prison for 10-15 years.
One of my favorite Jessica quotes from Feministing:
"Rape is part of our culture; it's normalized to the point where men who are otherwise decent guys will rape and not even think that it's wrong. And that's what terrifies me."
You know what terrifies me? That some women feel that "otherwise decent guys" can so easily make the leap across the moral chasm from being a decent guy to raping someone. But, alas, this is part of a worldview that doesn't see much difference between glancing at a Playboy Magazine and raping someone. The problem is that people who feel that way think that rape is culturally imprinted on our undeservedly entitled masculine DNA, like farting, fighting, and scratching our balls.
With a warped, twisted, and ultimately evil worldview like THAT, is it any wonder they think they are justified in positing inane plans to reverse the burden of proof for consent?
The best defense would simply be to accuse the other person. In that case, you're both presumptively guilty of rape and both imprisoned.
If anything, this screws over rape victims since legitimate rapists have no incentive not to cry rape in turn.
” as they prefer to describe it, "based on open communication" as in "May I kiss your breast now? Yes. And ... now, may I kiss your belly? Yes ... " and so on”
Sorry to get off-topic here, but, anyone who’s had a look at the pathetic milquetoast mangina (beta, or even omega fail to truly describe him) and/or read anything she’s written about their “relationship” (he is apparently not allowed to speak or otherwise communicate with anyone else) would have to wonder if, under Vallenti’s model for sexual relations if the poor wimp has ever made it past second base with her.
I can just imagine the interplay between them:
Wimp: “May I hold your hand now?”
Vitch: “Fine! If you must.”
Wimp: "May I kiss your lips now?
Vitch: “Just do it quickly – don’t even think about trying to use your tongue”
Wimp: "May I kiss your breast now?
Vitch: “You are sooo f*cking pathetic! I’m going out to find a real man. You get back to the kitchen, b*tch. I’ll be back tomorrow, and I expect you to have everything done to my expectations.
Wimp: “Okay, honey. I love you! Have fun!”
Archivist - ”One of my favorite Jessica quotes from Feministing:
"Rape is part of our culture; it's normalized to the point where men who are otherwise decent guys will rape and not even think that it's wrong. And that's what terrifies me."
I suppose she’s referring to her husband as well.
The best defense would simply be to accuse the other person. In that case, you're both presumptively guilty of rape and both imprisoned.
If anything, this screws over rape victims since legitimate rapists have no incentive not to cry rape in turn.
It would do neither. The man would still get jailed. No judge or prosecutor or police officer would ever risk charging the woman with rape in that case.
Even if by some sort of miracle, this would work, she wouldn't be imprisoned. It would be the same as the countless stories of female teachers sleeping with their minor student.
If it were a man, he'd be a disgusting criminal in jail for 20 years.
Since she's a woman, she's simply confused and needs counseling.
Furthermore, the man WILL get charged with making a false police report.
One of my favorite Jessica quotes from Feministing:
"Rape is part of our culture; it's normalized to the point where men who are otherwise decent guys will rape and not even think that it's wrong. And that's what terrifies me."
As opposed to:
Making false rape accusations are part of our culture; it's normalized to the pont where women who are otherwise decent human beings will make a false rape accusation and not even think that it's wrong. And that's what terrifies ME.
Yours in Sisterhood,
Lisa
What the defense would be required to do would be to introduce adequate evidence to show that the alleged victim did openly and affirmatively express a yes of her own free accord."
"Adequate" evidence, eh? What could possibly establish that? A recording? What are the standards for authenticating it? What if the woman alleges (and she always will) that it's not her on the recording, that she withdrew consent after the recording ended, or that the rape occurred outside the purview of the recording? This standard means there can be no possible defense to a rape charge. This standard is so insane that at a minimum men will have no choice but to have sex on camera, no matter how much they, or their sex partners, are offended by it.
Now, as for the main post. This is nothing new. New Zealand, one of the great success countries of civilization before their draconian phase, had this implemented for a while. As does most of Scandinavia. As do other countless countries.
It's simply tyranny. As a general rule, politicians will try to limit the freedoms and rights of the citizenry. This has been going on since the first form of government was established. Do you really think that the people in power really even *CARE* about rape victims, or FRA victims? Their human value for both is precisely NIL.
But if there is a way to circumvent a right of a person, in any given way, they will jump on it like it's a bar of gold.
Making a law taking a person's right to the fifth amendment? Not a trick, a LAW? Doing away with the presumption of innocence through a LAW?
That's like having bacon on top of a mountain of supermodels. That is BEYOND jackpot, that is ascension to godhood.
The person that manages to single-handedly destroy the american justice system through those words will be heralded as one of the greats of all time. His/her name will be right up there with Draco and Stalin.
Just remember one thing:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I wouldn't presume to add anything to a quote by Franklin, but I must (and others before me have):
And they will lose both.
Edit: I have mis-spoken. When I said implemented, it's in effect, not by law. Not yet anyway.
I should also point out that obeying the proposed legal standard will have the (no doubt intended) perverse effect of making most men i.e. betas so undesirable that women will either submit to unofficial polygamy or go lesbian. Alphas, naturally, will ignore it.
The burden of proof would mean that MEN would have to get women to sign contracts before engaging in sexual intercourse with them.
This however would be a waste of time too, as any woman could simply say, "I didn't REALLY want to sign it" - and of course, you have 5 business days to void any contract too.
Feminists are not the only ones who resort to the trick of calling accusers "victims".
All major media outlets do this too.
They are completely shameless - they do not even say "alleged victim".
And - no offense - I am not frightened by anything these bimbos say...
I FART IN THEIR GENERAL DIRECTION!!
Well it looks like soon we will live on a Big Brother world. All rooms of a house will have 24/7 hours recording both on camera and audio to make sure they got enough evidence in the case of rapes (also domestic violence and all types of crimes) that would be fun future, people terrified of everyone else, because you know trying to fix the relationships between the genders is not progressive or feminist.
Meanwhile, the rape-if-u-don't-wear-a-condom law isn't just law in Sweden.
Boys, don't go to QLD.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/if-its-not-on-its-not-on--and-thats-the-law-20101208-18pka.html
Sonja Newcombe - "Meanwhile, the rape-if-u-don't-wear-a-condom law isn't just law in Sweden."
Very heartening to read the comments on the article Sonja links.
In found this one especially insightful:
"As a lawyer I would say that if it is the law that not wearing a condom after consent being given on condition that one is worn is sexual assault then it must be the case that not being on birth control, e.g. the Pill or an IUD, when consent is given to sex by a man on the basis that a woman is on birth control then that must also be sexual assault. In essence the 2 are indistinguishable so we had better be clear that we want to go down that road! - Lindsay"
Hopefully, this Assange issue will create a good deal of public focus on the nonsense that the SGI would wish to foist on to the world.
As I see it, one thing that has long been working in their favor has been a lack of public attention on the details of the rape/non-rape issue, where most people simply blindly agree with their demands due to their revulsion at the though of women being raped. Id people learn just what the SGI wants to have considered rape, perhaps they'll be less willing to accept that the recommendations of th SGI are necessary or valid.
slw, I posted that very same question on Reddit the other day and I plan to turn it into an FRS post. It makes perfect sense to me. Under contract law, I am the master of my offer. If I condition acceptance to my partner having taken birth control and it turns out she hasn't, why shouldn't it be rape if the condom thing is rape?
Take a look at the insane number of responses my question got at Reddit -- 150 comments:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ejkyz/if_not_wearing_a_condom_is_rape_is_it_also_rape/
Better link:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ejkyz
/if_not_wearing_a_condom_is_rape_is_it_also_rape/
"These seemingly benign pieces about how women should have “sex like men,” but can’t because they are too emotional hinge on gender essentialist frameworks of understanding sexuality that just don’t effectively give the full story and focus more on slut-shaming and gender binaries."
http://feministing.com/2010/12/13/and-last-week-i-saw-a-unicorn-too/#more-27984
Here's a new twist on that female's quote:
"Rape is part of black culture; it's normalized to the point where black men who are otherwise decent black guys will rape and not even think that it's wrong. And that's what terrifies me"
There, fixed it for you! How does that sound now?
I would not be at all surprised if in 50-60 years there will be mass-executions of men somewhere in the Western World.
Germans who treat the Jews like crap in Germany during the late 1800s to early 1900s probably couldn't see the holocaust coming within their lifetimes.
Likewise I don't think most people today can see that men are being marginalized, ridiculed, and eventually that will turn into state-sponsored hatred.
Germans who treat the Jews like crap in Germany during the late 1800s to early 1900s probably couldn't see the holocaust coming within their lifetimes.
It's already started here, exactly the same way it started then.
It's called a sex offender registry.
I don't believe western governments want to kill off men, i believe they want to "psychologically castrate", break, and divide them, to the point where the feel so "broken and helpless" that they will take the yolk into their mouths without a whimper of protest.
Anonymous - "I don't believe western governments want to kill off men
True!
Even though some feminist heroines have so hated the male gender that they openly advocated for the killing of men and boys, doing so would also kill-off the main supply of labor and productivity. Woman may be able to do some jobs quite capably, but there are many, highly critical ones that they not only can they not do effectively, they would prefer not to have to even try to do.
They need men, if only as their beasts of burden.
Elephants can also be "psychologically castrated" to the degree that a little piece of twine (which they could easily break)as their leash will lead them along.
You see, when elephants are young, their masters put a heavy chain around their neck, and as the elephants get older they grow into the helplessness of never getting out of their chain; and it in turn this "psychologically castrates them" to the degree where only a small piece of twine will keep them captive.
American males are now so "psychologically castrated" broken and divided, that a small group of perverts can de-regulate the American mortgage industry "UNTIL IT UTTERLY COLLAPSES", throws the world economy into chaos, and the perverts who did it remain relatively anonymous.
This scenario of the "American mortgage collapse" will go down in world history as the epitome of a "broken and psychologically castrated" nation that is collapsing under the leadership of small group of irresponsible perverts, WHO ARE HELD TO ACCOUNT BY NO_ONE.
Islam's gender views are based on common-sense observation.
That's why a woman's testimony is worth half of af man's and why a married woman CANNOT deny her husband sexual satisfaction (no "honey I have a headache.").
Something jumped out at me when I was over at avoiceformen.com. He ran this piece, and when I looked a Valenti's title, I thought:
What can this teach us about rape in the US? Nothing. There was no rape, and it occurred in Sweden. I guess those parts slipped past Ms. Valenti.
According to the Internet, JP has a son. I wonder what her response would be if one day (when he is older) a woman was to accuse him of rape? Will she side with the woman accuser (victim in her mind) and support her son being sent presumptively off to prison?
Even if you recorded her saying yes, couldn't she just say she was coerced?
It seems that these feminists would prefer to just have a few alphas around and all the betas/omegas turn into their gay best friends.
Does Valenti address the legal issue of not having to testify against oneself? Is she aware of this provision, or trying to abolish it?
even if you have the recording of her consent, she could have recanted it afterwards. And of course you have to prove the recording was on the right day.
Google for "six second rape" where the guy continued sex for 6 seconds after she changed her mind.
Basically you need to have complete and uninterrupted recording to prove she never recanted.
And of course you need to be prove that she is not drugged, drunk, incapacitated, legally declared insane, temporary confused, and of course, that she is over the age of consent (check ID), and much more.
And of course, there are legal problems of recording too. Like consent, privacy. Not to even mention if she is 17, the local age of consent is 16, but a recording a legal act constitutes child porn. Probably even voice recording could be pornographic already.
I described some of the precautions here:
Get a lawyer before sex: 27 precautions before risking sex with a woman
I was optimistic, in my updated draft I am up to 31 precautions now .......
And minors, adolescents, children have it worse.
Consult a lawyer before playing doctor. Perverse sex laws traumatize children.
I actually was not planning to spam this blog with my links, it just happens that my postings match the topics precisely.
Keep on the good work!!
To be fair she said the US should change to the way Sweden is now. She didn't say that Sweden or the US should adopt this shift in the burden of proof.
Keep it in perspective.
Post a Comment