Retroactive Rape

[Four-sided Triangles]

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/200 ... f-consent/

This article proposes a different system to deal with rape than the current one. Rather than focusing on issues of consent, it presumes that the legal default of all women be "no." In other words, the law assumes that a woman did not want sex unless it can be proven otherwise. This would essentially be a reversal of the burden of proof.

Under this system, all accusations of rape would automatically be considered correct. Every woman who says she was raped was, by definition, raped.

Proponents of the system say that it would definitely cut down of the amount of rapes out there. They also allege that it would not be abused, or if it were abused, the abuse would be so absolutely minor as to be negligible. They also state that it doesn't hurt men at all, since a man is perfectly free to refrain from ever having sex at all if he wants to avoid any risk of being accused of rape.

Opponents allege that it would, in fact, be abused far more than the proponents seem to think. They also assert that it is not only counter to the fundamental notion of innocent until proven guilty, but it also technically criminalizes all heterosexual intercourse.

What does NSG think? Would this legal idea of rape be abused harshly, or is that simply conspiratorial thinking? It seems to be quite obvious that this would lower the overall amount of rape in the world, so the only questions are whether it's just and whether or not the potential for abuse outweighs the benefit.

I'm actually not sure myself. It would certainly lower the amount of rape out there, and the whole notion of constant false rape accusations as revenge from bitter women is pretty much a myth. On the other hand, the potential for abuse does exist. Of course, the potential can be completely avoided if a man simply elects to never have sex. I'm ambivalent here.

[Alyakia]

guilty until proven innocent - a bad thing(tm)

[Conserative Morality]

Jesus Christ, how does this even look like a good idea to anyone?

[Wikkiwallana]

Jesus Christ, how does this even look like a good idea to anyone?

Well, if you squint, face to your left, rotate your head 30° clockwise, look through your peripheral vision, and put on my patented corrective lenses, you'll see it's a grand solution.

[Four-sided Triangles]

So, are you going to put forth arguments or not?

[Third Mexican Empire]

Have Americans completely forgotten the great injustices their forefathers suffered?

[Yorick]

the whole notion of constant false rape accusations as revenge from bitter women is pretty much a myth.

Uh, no it isn't I personally know people that's happened to as do my friends. Some women are sociopathic like that.

[Conserative Morality]

So, are you going to put forth arguments or not?

No. Why on Earth would I acknowledge any sort of legitimacy of such an intellectually bankrupt idea with an argument? Mockery is all it deserves, and shock.

[Wikkiwallana]

So, are you going to put forth arguments or not?

No. Why on Earth would I acknowledge any sort of legitimacy of such an intellectually bankrupt idea with an argument? Mockery is all it deserves, and shock.

I think there's room for some scorn, too.

[Four-sided Triangles]

No. Why on Earth would I acknowledge any sort of legitimacy of such an intellectually bankrupt idea with an argument? Mockery is all it deserves, and shock.

I think it's our moral duty to bend over backwards in order to help people who have been historically oppressed. If this means a few innocent men go to prison in order to greatly reduce rape, doesn't the end justify the means?

[Pendragonia]

I oppose this because it is an overturning of the Presumption of Innocence.

[Camicon]

Bad Idea^tm is a Bad Idea^tm.

To think that people won't abuse power when it's handed to them on a silver platter is naivety of the worse kind. The kind that will (not might) ruin the lives of men because a woman is feeling a mite vindictive.

[Yorick]

So, are you going to put forth arguments or not?

No. Why on Earth would I acknowledge any sort of legitimacy of such an intellectually bankrupt idea with an argument? Mockery is all it deserves, and shock.

This is why the feminist label has become so toxic to normal people.

[The Corparation]

I thought we had a whole "Innocent before proven guilt" thing in this country.

[The Cummunist State]

Guilty until proven innocent = thousands of innocents going to jail.
Also, why is the same not for men? Why is their default position yes?

[Alexlantis]

It's something that can be heavily abused. Women aren't any more pure of heart than men are.

[Wikkiwallana]

No. Why on Earth would I acknowledge any sort of legitimacy of such an intellectually bankrupt idea with an argument? Mockery is all it deserves, and shock.

I think it's our moral duty to bend over backwards in order to help people who have been historically oppressed. If this means a few innocent men go to prison in order to greatly reduce rape, doesn't the end justify the means?

No, the end does not justify the means. Ever. The means must be independently justifiable or they are as bad or worse than whatever they are being used against.

[Olthar]

I guess next we'll have murder cases decided simply by the testimony of one alleged witness, then, right? And of course, if someone says that someone else stole something from them, they must be completely true; I mean, who would lie about that? In fact, why don't we just throw out that whole "trial" thing and just have one guy dole out verdicts based on whatever he feels like at the time! That'll not only reduce crime across the board, but also lower taxes as we won't need to pay for all those ridiculous "trials" and "judges."

[Nazi Flower Power]

Bad idea. There is too much potential for abuse. You need to lay off on the misandrist blogs.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Now all those falsely accused of rape are screwed forever?

What the hell?

[The Grand World Order]

Yeah, no.

Let me reiterate. Fuck no.


At my high school, a teacher's daughter got knocked up twice (she really, really got around- she even tried to have sex with me despite never talking to me before) and had an abortion both times. To save their image, the family made a public spectacle claiming that she was raped. While the media tore those boys' reputation apart, thank God the courts didn't utterly destroy their lives.

Your idea would be nothing short of an atrocity, here.


Not only that, but eyewitness testimony in any criminal case should be taken with a grain of salt. It's been proven time and time again through controlled experiments that memory is a fickle thing, and people unintentionally tell insanely inaccurate stories. That's why witness testimony is losing value in courts today.

[Terruana]

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/05/16/the-new-page-of-consent/

This article proposes a different system to deal with rape than the current one. Rather than focusing on issues of consent, it presumes that the legal default of all women be "no." In other words, the law assumes that a woman did not want sex unless it can be proven otherwise. This would essentially be a reversal of the burden of proof.

Under this system, all accusations of rape would automatically be considered correct. Every woman who says she was raped was, by definition, raped.

Proponents of the system say that it would definitely cut down of the amount of rapes out there. They also allege that it would not be abused, or if it were abused, the abuse would be so absolutely minor as to be negligible. They also state that it doesn't hurt men at all, since a man is perfectly free to refrain from ever having sex at all if he wants to avoid any risk of being accused of rape.

Opponents allege that it would, in fact, be abused far more than the proponents seem to think. They also assert that it is not only counter to the fundamental notion of innocent until proven guilty, but it also technically criminalizes all heterosexual intercourse.

What does NSG think? Would this legal idea of rape be abused harshly, or is that simply conspiratorial thinking? It seems to be quite obvious that this would lower the overall amount of rape in the world, so the only questions are whether it's just and whether or not the potential for abuse outweighs the benefit.

I'm actually not sure myself. It would certainly lower the amount of rape out there, and the whole notion of constant false rape accusations as revenge from bitter women is pretty much a myth. On the other hand, the potential for abuse does exist. Of course, the potential can be completely avoided if a man simply elects to never have sex. I'm ambivalent here.

Yeah, this makes perfect sense. But why stop at rape? Why not do it for every crime? Can't prove you didn't steal your TV? Go to jail! Can't prove you didn't punch that guy in the face? Go to jail! Can't prove you didn't shoot that guy a couple of blocks over? Go to jail! Think of all the crimes we'd be preventing! #sarcasm

Also, there is no way in hell that this wouldn't be abused. It would pretty much make it possible to have anyone you've ever slept with arrested for rape just because you say it was. Also, from the way you wrote this, it seems like it would only apply to women? Would men also be able to claim rape every time someone sleeps with them?

Also, I literally laughed out loud when I read the bit about "if men don't want to be accused of rape, don't ever have sex". I can only assume that's a joke :')

[Nazi Flower Power]

I guess next we'll have murder cases decided simply by the testimony of one alleged witness, then, right? And of course, if someone says that someone else stole something from them, they must be completely true; I mean, who would lie about that? In fact, why don't we just through out that whole "trial" thing and just have one guy dole out verdicts based on whatever he feels like at the time! That'll not only reduce crime across the board, but also lower taxes as we won't need to pay for all those ridiculous "trials" and "judges."

Ooh, you mean like the Third Reich? Good plan!

[Four-sided Triangles]

I guess next we'll have murder cases decided simply by the testimony of one alleged witness, then, right? And of course, if someone says that someone else stole something from them, they must be completely true; I mean, who would lie about that? In fact, why don't we just through out that whole "trial" thing and just have one guy dole out verdicts based on whatever he feels like at the time! That'll not only reduce crime across the board, but also lower taxes as we won't need to pay for all those ridiculous "trials" and "judges."

That is not equivalent. It is possible to prevent yourself from being falsely accused of rape. Simply never have sex with anyone. It is not possible to take actions which would prevent you from any possibility of being falsely accused of murder.

[Yorick]

Right, because government promoting abstinence has been so successful in this country...