Retroactive Rape

[1000 Cats]

did you know if you feed a troll you only make him more powerful

fun fact

Oh? What happens when you feed a newb?

[DaWoad]

FST you really need to stop pushing this whole fear/hate/whatever of sex thing you've got going on onto other people. I understand that, to you, sex is somehow inherently repulsive/coercive and, while I disagree, that's fine. What's less fine is your support of a guilty until proven innocent position simply because it would support your "sex is teh ebil" views.

[Aurorum Veritas]

Avoiding sex won't protect anyone from the abuse of this power. Under this sytem, anyone can be accused of rape and assumed guilty whether they're sexually active or not. How would you go about proving that you don't have sex?

Another good point.

[Forster Keys]

did you know if you feed a troll you only make him more powerful

fun fact

Oh? What happens when you feed a newb?

He becomes a more experienced and enriched person.

[1000 Cats]

Oh? What happens when you feed a newb?

He becomes a more experienced and enriched person.

Except after midnight.

[Wiztopia]

Often because women that bring it forward half to put up with a lot of unnecessary and inappropriate questions that have no relevance to whether or not they were raped.

Gathering evidence to try to ascertain the truth or falsehood of an allegation that is perhaps the worst that can be made against a person. Yeah - totally uneccesary and inappropriate. Definately.

FST's logic is this. If a woman had sex in any way then she was raped.

[New Chalcedon]

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.

I'll take "really bad idea" for $200, Woody.

Really, this is a terrible idea for several reasons:

(1) Placing the onus of proof on the defendant is almost always a bad idea. The prosecution has more resources than 99.5% of defendants - they should be doing the work in hte courtroom.

(2) What happens when a woman decides, a few days later, that she actually didn't want to have sex? Does that become rape? Also, what of when a woman wants to blackmail a man by having perfectly consensual sex, then threatening to call rape?

(3)The very idea would set gender relations back decades - or more.

(4) What happens if a woman accuses someone like myself (homosexual virgin) of rape? I'd be found guilty, due to the difficulty of proving a negative. Despite the fact that the very idea is ludicrous.

(5) Who would be the jury? Women? Or men?

There are more reasons why this is A Bad Idea (tm) - I won't go into them, mostly because I consider the reasons presented to be more than sufficient to consign whatever idiotic person thought this up to eternal irrelevance.

This is one of the more repugnant things I've seen linked here. Does anyone else feel like they need to take a shower after reading the linked article?

*A* shower? Posts like that to which the OP linked are the reasons I dislike rad-fems so much, and they drag down the feminist movement generally. Mostly because a lot of people aren't aware (or are barely aware) of any differences between feminists and rad-fems, and assume that all feminists (or at least most of them) support suck dreck, when in fact most feminists I've met would be appalled at such an idea becoming law.

Wrong. A low of about 20% and a high of about 40% of all reported "rapes" are false reports.

Source?

The sources I can find put it in the 8%-10% region.

Source 1
Source 2 (Page 40 table: 216 out of 2,214 researched cases found to be false allegations)

IOW, Jinos don't know what the fuck he's talking about, but he's stumbled upon a partial truth - there are a significant number of women willing to cry rape without evidence or basis. Just not 20%-40% of all reporters of rape. Still, the point is there: if 8%-10% of rape reports today are found to be false, what do you think will happen if all it takes is a woman's word to put hte guy behind bars? Because let's face it, that's what will happen if the onus of proof is placed on the guy. Either that, or guys will carry around contracts that they'll get girls to sign before having sex with them - which is wrong in so many ways.

[Cheesewhiz]

No, this is a very bad idea. Other people have already elaborated as to why.

[Wikkiwallana]

What happens when a woman decides, a few days later, that she actually didn't want to have sex? Does that become rape?

According to the blog author, it doesn't become rape, it already was, and she just didn't press charges right away.

[Wiztopia]

What happens when a woman decides, a few days later, that she actually didn't want to have sex? Does that become rape?

According to the blog author, it doesn't become rape, it already was, and she just didn't press charges right away.

Everybody is a rapist.

[New Chalcedon]

What happens when a woman decides, a few days later, that she actually didn't want to have sex? Does that become rape?

According to the blog author, it doesn't become rape, it already was, and she just didn't press charges right away.

Hence: Bad Idea.

[Hjornis]

According to the blog author, it doesn't become rape, it already was, and she just didn't press charges right away.

Hence: Bad Idea.

so if a girl dont sepesificly say "I want to have sex" its rape?

and why cant the boy say the same thing? I dont want to be too personal but sometimes it fun to lye there and lett her do all the work. Could this argument work? and press charges against her?

[Wikkiwallana]

Hence: Bad Idea.

so if a girl dont sepesificly say "I want to have sex" its rape?

No, even if she does, according to the blogger:

Well, what if lack of consent were the default? What if all prospective objects of dudely predation — by whom I mean all women — are a priori considered to have said “no”? What if women, in other words, were seen by the courts to abide in a persistent legal condition of keep-the-fuck-off-me?

A straight girl could still have as much sex as she wants with men, if for some reason she thinks it’s a good idea (naturally I would most vigorously urge self-identified heterosexual women to contemplate the horrific personal and political implications of submitting to male domination in this way. But that’s another post). All she’d have to do is not call the cops. No harm no foul.

But if, at any time during the course of the proceedings, up to and including the storied infinitesimal microsecond preceding the sacred spilling of dudely seed, the woman elects to biff off to the nearest taco stand; and if her egress from the sweaty tableau is in any way impeded by the pronger (such an impediment would include everything from “traditional” brute force, to that insistently whispered declamation “just a couple more minutes, I’m almost there” the dread seriousness of which the fervid oaf dramatizes by that ever-so-slight tightening of his grip on her wrist); or if, in three hours or three days or, perhaps in the case of childhood abuse, in 13 years it begins to dawn on her that she has been badly used by an opportunistic predator, she has simply to make a call.

Presto! The dude is already a rapist, because, legally, consent never existed.

Emphasis mine. Consent is literally impossible, it does not, can not, happen. Instead what happens is "I didn't feel like pressing charges".

And she knows it:

I grasp that, technically, the plan criminalizes all male participants in heterosexual sex.

Well, what of it? The set-up now, with the emphasis — in a misogynist world with a misogynist judiciary — on whether or not women “give” consent, is that female participants are all infinitely rapeable, because all some perv has to do is say, “she said yes.”

[Saeran Sulsae]

Only way to get rid of all these legal issues is to ban sexual activity entirely. Though, to be fair, that's pretty much FST's whole worldview.

[Central Slavia]

FST, you are a filthy rapist, using the cover of asexuality to hide your crimes.

Now, prove me wrong.

[Central Slavia]

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?

This statement reeks of troll.

[1000 Cats]

FST, you are a filthy rapist, using the cover of asexuality to hide your crimes.

Now, prove me wrong.

He has, a number of months back, stated that he is a rapist. He's not, and I think he's moved away from this idea, but I don't think that's the best argument to be presenting him.

It seems to me that FST has backed down from the argument in his OP and has since asked what we think should be done about rape prevalence.

[Forster Keys]

He becomes a more experienced and enriched person.

Except after midnight.

And of that we don't speak.

[The Mizarian Empire]

This entire suggestion is wrong like sex in a crib and If you would bear with me for a moment ladies and gentlemen I'll be glad to summarize why
A brief disclaimer: I am not misogynistic, if anything I am open if not entirely in agreement with equal rights for women, henceforth my term for more extreme/hardline feminists shall be coined "fem-nazis". Once again I am all for women's rights. Bearing in mind some of these points may have already been made, into the maelstrom we go:


A) Unless you have an eyewitness who can outright attest that the sex was consensual (y'know, if you prefer that kind of thing), there is absolutely no way to defend yourself against such accusations.

B) Murphy's law pretty much makes it a given that when someone/something is stated "it wont be abused", its going to be abused, often, without remorse. This reeks of the whole scare of Congress wanting to give US presidents the right to indefinitely detain Citizens on suspicion of being a terrorist last year, Take your pick of sources:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/congress-is-poised-to-let-obama-imprison-anyone-he-wants/249315/
http://dailycristo.com/politics/congres ... americans/
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur ... fine-being

C) This pretty much violates the fundamental human rights of average citizens (AKA Innocent until proven guilty) in ways I don't even want to fathom.

D) If I'm reading this correctly (and in the name of all that is legal, feel encouraged to correct me if I'm wrong) this law/term would only apply to women. Making it horribly sexist as well as incredibly biased, lets play a little game shall we? I call it Scenario:

if I were to apply this to any other field of criminal activity (Theft, Narcotics, Terrorism etc.) In which I pointed the finger at a random individual and said for instance "Hes a drug dealer!". And suddenly without any evidence, any reason to suspect he is or ever will deal in controlled substances in his life (at most taking prescribed painkillers or medicine). He is labeled guilty until proven otherwise; I probably be well within reason to suspect either A, I'm living in a Extremist police-state or B, The Justice system is about as morally bankrupt as the late Kim Jong Il.

TL;DR If you have a functioning brain in your head you would disagree with what is being proposed here, even if you are a victim of rape.

[The Mizarian Empire]

Now with all of that out of the way I want to quickly point out that FST (Thats the OP, Four-Sided-Triangle for those of you unaware) has a bit of a history as being considered one of 3 things on these forums

A) A troll

B) An Idiot

C) Clinically insane

PS; Don't believe me? I challenge anyone to look his name up (particularly in General forum) and look at the replies.

[Pope Joan]

Laws intended to protect victims often end up being abused by those who need no protection.

In my nine years of legal practice I saw abused women refusing, for a variety of reasons, to go to the police. Meanwhile, other women (not abused) were using the laws as a weapon to gain power over men in their lives. The accused under these "protective" laws were not allowed to confront their accusers, despite our Constitution.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

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

Well, no.
Because what you are telling us is that unless we want to be accused of rape, all men have to become abstinent.

Whilst this has been your proud boast since coming here, the majority of men don't agree with that philosophy.

[Hippostania]

Do you also look down on men who have sex, or is this something exclusive to women?

A key that opens a lot of locks is a master key. A lock that is opened by lots of keys is a shitty lock.

[Wikkiwallana]

Do you also look down on men who have sex, or is this something exclusive to women?

A key that opens a lot of locks is a master key. A lock that is opened by lots of keys is a shitty lock.

Genitals aren't security devices.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

A key that opens a lot of locks is a master key. A lock that is opened by lots of keys is a shitty lock.

Genitals aren't security devices.

No, they aren't.
But, that's an exact parallel to the typical view between men who sleep around and women who sleep around.