NationStates

Fartsniffage wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:That wasn't the article I have read, that's very misogynistic.

It was the first hit on google. Perhaps you'd be better served by linking your own evidence in future as both articles linked in this thread featuring the judges you've named have proved you to be a liar....

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Galloism wrote:This is not how debates work. You have claimed, repeatedly, that "yes means yes" reverses the burden of proof. You have yet to bring one single court decision ruling that this is the case in any country in all the world.

Your claim is rejected for lack of evidence.

Prove your claim or be dismissed as a person making irrelevant claims backed by no evidence.

I mean, she has a point when it comes to administrative rulings in campuses. But campuses in America are not courts of law, they are merely kangaroo courts in the sense that they administer the proceedings.

Most courts have found, when this has been appealed, that the proceeding was botched and it isn't proper procedure what they have been doing, which is bound to happen when you leave the investigation and sentencing of a student to a bunch of non-lawyers.

Galloism wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I mean, she has a point when it comes to administrative rulings in campuses. But campuses in America are not courts of law, they are merely kangaroo courts in the sense that they administer the proceedings.

Most courts have found, when this has been appealed, that the proceeding was botched and it isn't proper procedure what they have been doing, which is bound to happen when you leave the investigation and sentencing of a student to a bunch of non-lawyers.

Administrative proceeds in schools have a problem, but it's not "yes means yes". It's the preponderance of evidence burden of proof that is the problem. If the hearing panel is 51% certain that a rape occurred, then they can vote to expel.

That's an extremely low burden of proof - even for an administrative proceeding.

Combine that with mantras that women are never lying, never mistaken, and never vengeful, and you have a process where a single person's word meets the 51% standard even if substantial evidence contradicts it.

Nelvarg wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:
Try to search "Judge Carol McCoy"...

...which leads to Mock vs. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, wherein you find this passage:


"Does not change the burden of proof"

So what's your point again?

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Galloism wrote:Administrative proceeds in schools have a problem, but it's not "yes means yes". It's the preponderance of evidence burden of proof that is the problem. If the hearing panel is 51% certain that a rape occurred, then they can vote to expel.

That's an extremely low burden of proof - even for an administrative proceeding.

Combine that with mantras that women are never lying, never mistaken, and never vengeful, and you have a process where a single person's word meets the 51% standard even if substantial evidence contradicts it.

Indeed.

Do you think raising it to "clear and convincing evidence" intra-adjudicatively would help? Or would you suggest another alternative?

Chessmistress wrote:

Nelvarg wrote:...which leads to Mock vs. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, wherein you find this passage:


"Does not change the burden of proof"

So what's your point again?

The point is that University of Tennessee applied an internal policy that is identical to SB 967 but there isn't SB 967 in Tennessee, and that's the only reason why Carol McCoy have been able to reject the accusation.

Aelex wrote:I'm questioning the validity of the theory of the Rape Culture here, in Europe and America (aka the west)

and you're answering me with plain and vague as hell statements about how "male rapes are congratuled by the culture", "media are praising non-consensual sex as a fetish" and "women are raped in war".
So, let me ask you now, is it my point which is weak or rather your argument?

• vague statement
• vague statement
• vague statement

Galloism wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:
The point is that University of Tennessee applied an internal policy that is identical to SB 967 but there isn't SB 967 in Tennessee, and that's the only reason why Carol McCoy have been able to reject the accusation.

Actually, Her Honor Judge McCoy went even further than just saying that the law didn't allow that.

She used some amazing terms in this ruling. I suggest reading it.

She noted that, in addition to imposing an unreasonable standard not supported by law, the administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously with regard to this student.

She even went further than the law required her to go - charging the court costs to the college.

Galloism wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Indeed.

Do you think raising it to "clear and convincing evidence" intra-adjudicatively would help? Or would you suggest another alternative?

Honestly, I'd prefer all rape reports were turned over to the police for investigation. Rape is a crime - it should be treated as such.

If we MUST have an administrative proceeding for expulsion or suspension based on this type of thing, clear and convincing evidence is appropriate given the severe consequences of expulsion. Beyond a reasonable doubt is too tall of a standard for an administrative staff that has no police powers or right to search and seize evidence, or facilities by which to analyze evidence.

Chessmistress wrote:

Galloism wrote:Honestly, I'd prefer all rape reports were turned over to the police for investigation. Rape is a crime - it should be treated as such.

If we MUST have an administrative proceeding for expulsion or suspension based on this type of thing, clear and convincing evidence is appropriate given the severe consequences of expulsion. Beyond a reasonable doubt is too tall of a standard for an administrative staff that has no police powers or right to search and seize evidence, or facilities by which to analyze evidence.

So you're against SB 967?

Meh.
Personally I'm beginning to think that our society may not ready for a reversal of burden of proof.
Not because innocent men would be jailed under "false accusations" of vengeful women. I still think that issue would be extremely rare.
Because a lot of men would continue to act as nothing have changed, due misinformation: rapists would continue to rape thinking nothing have changed, and plus more under the new rules some guys in good faith would be severely hurted.

Reversal of burden of proof, just like SB 967, should meant to change culture, but we cannot change culture if a lot of people continue to say "nothing is changed". It cannot works so, it'll never work so. Real changes requires courage, not lies

Just a little hint:
SB 967 means combining "affirmative ongoing consent" with "preponderance of evidence" and it's a civil law that applies just only within campuses in California: if you read references to "criminal law" or "Canada" or "UK" in an argument about SB 967 it's very likely that the poster is trying to mislead you talking about something else, because in Canada and UK they have affirmative consent (not ongoing) BUT combined with "no-means-no" (even if that's changing in UK due new rules about investigations).

Alien Space Bats wrote:Assuming guilt in cases of rape and thus requiring the defendant to offer a court unambiguous proof of ongoing affirmative consent, vocally offered in enthusiastic fashion prior to each and every sex act is a HUGE recipe for prosecutorial abuse. It's clear to me that you don't understand the law, or the way in which the law can be used by unscrupulous officials as a blunt weapon to beat down and destroy anybody the authorities despise.

So I'll spell it out for you, since you are either hopelessly naive and/or without imagination. My vehicle for doing this will be a little story.

Alice and Bob have been married for years. Ted, the local prosecutor (sometimes known here in America as a State's Attorney) decides that he wants to destroy Bob utterly. His motives in seeking this goal are irrelevant. Maybe Bob's a drug dealer who's been too careful to get caught; maybe he's a political rival. Maybe Bob has enemies who are willing to make a generous contribution to Ted's campaign coffers in exchange for his destruction (because Bob is a dissident, a whistle-blower, a pesky investigative journalist, a business rival, or that one person who owns that one parcel of land that a cabal of wealthy interests need to get their hands on in order to start a massive real estate development project that will make them all rich; fill in the blank here, because there are more possibilities than one could ever name in a lifetime).

So Ted decides to charge Bob with rape. He does this in spite of the fact that Alice hasn't gone to the police to file charges against her husband, because under your proposed formulation of the law, Ted doesn't NEED Alice's support to make his case. Under your concept of how this should work, Bob is automatically guilty of rape unless he can prove that Alice vocally offered ongoing affirmative consent EVERY SINGLE TIME THE TWO OF THEM FUCKED.

Naturally, Alice — who loves her husband — is outraged by Ted's bullshit maneuver. She agrees to take the stand as a witness on her husband's behalf. At first blush, you'd think that this would be enough; sadly, however, that's a hopelessly naive point of view.

Alice takes the stand and Ted lacerates her. He starts by asking her to describe ever sexual encounter she's ever had with Ted, going back as far as the statute of limitations will allow. Likely Alice will falter at this point, since few married couples can recall the dates, times, and circumstances under which they've had marital relations over even the last month or two, let alone the last several years. Ted then goes for the jugular vein: Did Alice give affirmative consent IN PLAIN ENGLISH every single time the two had sex, and did she do so on an ongoing basis throughout the course of each and every sexual encounter?

If Alice is honest, she'll likely answer that she can't recall — because sometimes married couples just spontaneously choose to engage in sex without first exchanging spoken affirmations of consent, let alone continually doing so throughout the sex act ("Damn," thinks Alice, "I remember that one time I just came up to him, kissed him, fondled his crotch and then we just went on from there. Was that rape? Christ, if it was, who raped whom?!?"). Once she does, Ted will force her to admit that she can't actually confirm that she said "Yes" both before and throughout the course of each and every sex act she ever had with Bob, in which case Bob is done: He's as good as convicted by his wife's own admission.

Alternately, Alice will swear on a stack of Bibles that, yes, she gave spoken affirmative assent every time, and kept on giving it until each and every sex act was done. At that point, Ted will first challenge Alice's ability to recall whether or not she expressly gave continual affirmative consent, given that she can't even remember PERFECTLY when, where, how many times, and under what specific circumstances she and her husband have engaged in sex; if she can't recall such details, how can she be CERTAIN she always gave consent.

If Alice admits fallibility at this point, Ted has Bob dead to rights. "Isn't it true that there MIGHT have been a time, even ONCE, when spoken affirmative assent wasn't given continuously throughout the encounter?" If Alice admits that it's possible, Bob's defense is broken, and he WILL be convicted of rape. But if Alice lies and says, that she's CERTAIN that she ALWAYS gave verbal consent, and gave it continuously throughout the course of sex,Ted will ask Alice if she wants to see her husband imprisoned for rape. When she agrees that she doesn't, he will then accuse her of lying under oath: "Surely there was at least ONE time you had sex with your husband without saying 'Yes' beforehand, or without continuing to say 'Yes, keep going' until he withdrew, wasn't there? Be honest, Alice: Aren't you just SAYING that you ALWAYS gave verbal consent and KEPT ON GIVING IT until you were done in order to protect your husband from going to prison?!?"

And then Ted will call a psychologist to testify as to Alice's pathological urge to lie in defense of her rapist, and the frequency with which women do so, all of which will make Bob's case fall apart.

See, this is where you fail: You lose sight of the fact that rape is a criminal offense and not a civil one; it's not the victim bringing charges against the accused, but rather the STATE bringing charges ON BEHALF of the victim, whether the victim wants such charges to be brought or not. You therefore can't imagine a situation in which a man would be charged with rape without his (alleged) victim being his accuser; nor can you imagine how an overzealous prosecutor could use the presumption of guilt as a weapon to destroy anybody he wants to destroy. Your world is one in which women are routinely victimized by men and in which there is no such this as abuse of public authority.

And as such, it isn't the real world at all.

THIS is why I argue that your idea would force proactive couples to religiously videotape every single sex act and to make sure they constantly offer verbal assurances of continuing interest through the entire sex act (mouth full or not). To fail to do so would be to risk being convicted of rape, even if one's partner doesn't want to see that happen.

Usually I use my logic for far more profitable things, but, as said, today I'm in the mood and also I'm tired with misinformation. I'm tired to being called "liar" when I say I'm a Feminist.

Garrafas wrote:LOL

• vague statement
• vague statement
• vague statement

Galloism wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:
So you're against SB 967?

Only the section which changes the burden of proof to "preponderance of evidence". That's really too low given the seriousness of the charge. I don't particularly object to the rest as far as I've looked into it.

Meh.
Personally I'm beginning to think that our society may not ready for a reversal of burden of proof.
Not because innocent men would be jailed under "false accusations" of vengeful women. I still think that issue would be extremely rare.
Because a lot of men would continue to act as nothing have changed, due misinformation: rapists would continue to rape thinking nothing have changed, and plus more under the new rules some guys in good faith would be severely hurted.

Reversal of burden of proof, just like SB 967, should meant to change culture, but we cannot change culture if a lot of people continue to say "nothing is changed". It cannot works so, it'll never work so. Real changes requires courage, not lies

Just a little hint:
SB 967 means combining "affirmative ongoing consent" with "preponderance of evidence" and it's a civil law that applies just only within campuses in California: if you read references to "criminal law" or "Canada" or "UK" in an argument about SB 967 it's very likely that the poster is trying to mislead you talking about something else, because in Canada and UK they have affirmative consent (not ongoing) BUT combined with "no-means-no" (even if that's changing in UK due new rules about investigations).

Reversal of the burden of proof in criminal trials is absurd for reasons already detailed to you. Rape is not a civil matter - it's a crime. It's not brought by the victim. It's brought by the state. You've been told this.

Hell, ASB said it best (and I recommend everyone read this - it's illuminating):

Alien Space Bats wrote:Assuming guilt in cases of rape and thus requiring the defendant to offer a court unambiguous proof of ongoing affirmative consent, vocally offered in enthusiastic fashion prior to each and every sex act is a HUGE recipe for prosecutorial abuse. It's clear to me that you don't understand the law, or the way in which the law can be used by unscrupulous officials as a blunt weapon to beat down and destroy anybody the authorities despise.

So I'll spell it out for you, since you are either hopelessly naive and/or without imagination. My vehicle for doing this will be a little story.

Alice and Bob have been married for years. Ted, the local prosecutor (sometimes known here in America as a State's Attorney) decides that he wants to destroy Bob utterly. His motives in seeking this goal are irrelevant. Maybe Bob's a drug dealer who's been too careful to get caught; maybe he's a political rival. Maybe Bob has enemies who are willing to make a generous contribution to Ted's campaign coffers in exchange for his destruction (because Bob is a dissident, a whistle-blower, a pesky investigative journalist, a business rival, or that one person who owns that one parcel of land that a cabal of wealthy interests need to get their hands on in order to start a massive real estate development project that will make them all rich; fill in the blank here, because there are more possibilities than one could ever name in a lifetime).

So Ted decides to charge Bob with rape. He does this in spite of the fact that Alice hasn't gone to the police to file charges against her husband, because under your proposed formulation of the law, Ted doesn't NEED Alice's support to make his case. Under your concept of how this should work, Bob is automatically guilty of rape unless he can prove that Alice vocally offered ongoing affirmative consent EVERY SINGLE TIME THE TWO OF THEM FUCKED.

Naturally, Alice — who loves her husband — is outraged by Ted's bullshit maneuver. She agrees to take the stand as a witness on her husband's behalf. At first blush, you'd think that this would be enough; sadly, however, that's a hopelessly naive point of view.

Alice takes the stand and Ted lacerates her. He starts by asking her to describe ever sexual encounter she's ever had with Ted, going back as far as the statute of limitations will allow. Likely Alice will falter at this point, since few married couples can recall the dates, times, and circumstances under which they've had marital relations over even the last month or two, let alone the last several years. Ted then goes for the jugular vein: Did Alice give affirmative consent IN PLAIN ENGLISH every single time the two had sex, and did she do so on an ongoing basis throughout the course of each and every sexual encounter?

If Alice is honest, she'll likely answer that she can't recall — because sometimes married couples just spontaneously choose to engage in sex without first exchanging spoken affirmations of consent, let alone continually doing so throughout the sex act ("Damn," thinks Alice, "I remember that one time I just came up to him, kissed him, fondled his crotch and then we just went on from there. Was that rape? Christ, if it was, who raped whom?!?"). Once she does, Ted will force her to admit that she can't actually confirm that she said "Yes" both before and throughout the course of each and every sex act she ever had with Bob, in which case Bob is done: He's as good as convicted by his wife's own admission.

Alternately, Alice will swear on a stack of Bibles that, yes, she gave spoken affirmative assent every time, and kept on giving it until each and every sex act was done. At that point, Ted will first challenge Alice's ability to recall whether or not she expressly gave continual affirmative consent, given that she can't even remember PERFECTLY when, where, how many times, and under what specific circumstances she and her husband have engaged in sex; if she can't recall such details, how can she be CERTAIN she always gave consent.

If Alice admits fallibility at this point, Ted has Bob dead to rights. "Isn't it true that there MIGHT have been a time, even ONCE, when spoken affirmative assent wasn't given continuously throughout the encounter?" If Alice admits that it's possible, Bob's defense is broken, and he WILL be convicted of rape. But if Alice lies and says, that she's CERTAIN that she ALWAYS gave verbal consent, and gave it continuously throughout the course of sex,Ted will ask Alice if she wants to see her husband imprisoned for rape. When she agrees that she doesn't, he will then accuse her of lying under oath: "Surely there was at least ONE time you had sex with your husband without saying 'Yes' beforehand, or without continuing to say 'Yes, keep going' until he withdrew, wasn't there? Be honest, Alice: Aren't you just SAYING that you ALWAYS gave verbal consent and KEPT ON GIVING IT until you were done in order to protect your husband from going to prison?!?"

And then Ted will call a psychologist to testify as to Alice's pathological urge to lie in defense of her rapist, and the frequency with which women do so, all of which will make Bob's case fall apart.

See, this is where you fail: You lose sight of the fact that rape is a criminal offense and not a civil one; it's not the victim bringing charges against the accused, but rather the STATE bringing charges ON BEHALF of the victim, whether the victim wants such charges to be brought or not. You therefore can't imagine a situation in which a man would be charged with rape without his (alleged) victim being his accuser; nor can you imagine how an overzealous prosecutor could use the presumption of guilt as a weapon to destroy anybody he wants to destroy. Your world is one in which women are routinely victimized by men and in which there is no such this as abuse of public authority.

And as such, it isn't the real world at all.

THIS is why I argue that your idea would force proactive couples to religiously videotape every single sex act and to make sure they constantly offer verbal assurances of continuing interest through the entire sex act (mouth full or not). To fail to do so would be to risk being convicted of rape, even if one's partner doesn't want to see that happen.

A thing you've never acknowledged, by the way.

Usually I use my logic for far more profitable things, but, as said, today I'm in the mood and also I'm tired with misinformation. I'm tired to being called "liar" when I say I'm a Feminist.

You can't complain about misinformation while simultaneously spreading misinformation about gender of victimization in regards to domestic violence and rape. Which you do - regularly. Despite being shown to be wrong, from multiple sources, reputable sources, repeatedly.

See, I believe you are a feminist. There are enough of people like you to accept that you are a feminist.

You are exactly the type of feminist from which MRAs are gaining power. You are exactly the type of feminist who is ruining the movement and causing reasonable equality minded people to abandon the label. You are responsible for that. You should be ashamed, not proud.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:No one's denying that female rape statistics are higher than those of male rape.

Chessmistress wrote:Okay.
If you wish so, next time I'll use exactly these words

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:No one's denying that female rape statistics are higher than those of male rape.

Chessmistress wrote:

Galloism wrote:
Only the section which changes the burden of proof to "preponderance of evidence". That's really too low given the seriousness of the charge. I don't particularly object to the rest as far as I've looked into it.



Reversal of the burden of proof in criminal trials is absurd for reasons already detailed to you. Rape is not a civil matter - it's a crime. It's not brought by the victim. It's brought by the state. You've been told this.

Hell, ASB said it best (and I recommend everyone read this - it's illuminating):



A thing you've never acknowledged, by the way.



You can't complain about misinformation while simultaneously spreading misinformation about gender of victimization in regards to domestic violence and rape. Which you do - regularly. Despite being shown to be wrong, from multiple sources, reputable sources, repeatedly.

See, I believe you are a feminist. There are enough of people like you to accept that you are a feminist.

You are exactly the type of feminist from which MRAs are gaining power. You are exactly the type of feminist who is ruining the movement and causing reasonable equality minded people to abandon the label. You are responsible for that. You should be ashamed, not proud.

Okay.
If you wish so, next time I'll use exactly these words

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:No one's denying that female rape statistics are higher than those of male rape.

Chessmistress wrote:Beside: the argument you quoted is stupid.
Because Alice can simply declare "I ALWAYS gave affirmative ongoing consent to my husband" then refuse to further answer.

Galloism wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:Okay.
If you wish so, next time I'll use exactly these words

That doesn't say what you think it does.

Chessmistress wrote:

Galloism wrote:That doesn't say what you think it does.

These words are reasonable, according you, I guess.
If it's so, then I'll use these words.
Every single time you'll say men are raped more or less in the same number of women, or the stats are closer, or something similar.

I edited the previous message, highlighting a defect in the example.

Chessmistress wrote:

Galloism wrote:That doesn't say what you think it does.

These words are reasonable, according you, I guess.
If it's so, then I'll use these words.
Every single time you'll say men are raped more or less in the same number of women, or the stats are closer, or something similar.

I edited the previous message, highlighting a defect in the example.

Aelex wrote:west

Garrafas wrote:

Aelex wrote:west

LOL

Aelex wrote:

Garrafas wrote: LOL

Care of responding to what I aid or even just making a point?
Or do you just prefer to continue to make a fool of yourself?

Galloism wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:
These words are reasonable, according you, I guess.
If it's so, then I'll use these words.
Every single time you'll say men are raped more or less in the same number of women, or the stats are closer, or something similar.

I edited the previous message, highlighting a defect in the example.

It's been responded to.

In addition "men are probably raped almost as often as women" and "female rape statistics are higher than those of male rape" are not necessarily in conflict. Depending on which set of statistics you are talking about, it could actually both be true simultaneously.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
No one's denying that female rape statistics are higher than those of male rape. What we're denying is the myth that men cannot be rape victims and that women cannot be rapists. Men can definitely be raped, and by women too.

"We all know that women are raped much more than men, so much that no one can deny such difference. But we recognize that even men can be raped, even by women"

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence;

Garrafas wrote:First of all, you started misrepresenting my arguments by excluding it to "west", and also changing the verbal tenses I used. I don't feel harassed for arguing with such a demagogue.
l.m.g.t.f.y. has no complicated web address, you can search "rape porn" by yourself, or "rape [any kind of sexual media]" and look the huge amount of cultural content it carries.
Last, but not least, it's impossible to analyse fully a culture disregarding its past. Your so called western culture doesn't rape as much as it did on the past, but some behaviors, as lessening the concept of rape, are related to west cultural past.

Aelex wrote:Anyway, if I search for bestialitic or pedophilic porn, I will find some. Do that mean they are accepted as "normal" in the west?

Many people define sex as PIV. However this definition is problematic as sex for most individuals is also composed of many other activities - including oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation. This is true even for heterosexuals who engage in PIV as a regular part of their sex lives. However, it is particularly true for gay, lesbian, and other sexual and gender minority individuals, as well as those heterosexual couples who chose not to engage in PIV for one reason or another.

When people define sex as only vaginal intercourse, it diminishes the value of other forms of sexual activity and makes those types of sex more difficult to discus.