Retroactive Rape

[Raeyh]

However, none of my friends have ever raped anyone, and nor have I.

I have trouble believing you when your signature claims you are a zoophile, which generally involves statutory rape. Let's see: "zoophile: a sexual attraction to animals." I take it back, you could just lust after them, so maybe your claim is true. On that note, anyone could claim that they were not fully informed on all the nuances of sex, and therefore could not give informed consent. If they couldn't give informed consent, wouldn't that also be statutory rape?

[Four-sided Triangles]

Yes, and I think you are the only one who is taking it seriously, including the authors.

You don't think she believes what she writes?

[Caninope]

American men systematically rape American women? When did this start happening?

You question the Patriarchy?

Into the rape camps with you, feminist!

Whoa, whoa! Here's my man card! I can explain it! I wasn't at this month's Man Meeting^TM because I was too busy playing Mass Effect 2!

That's a fair excuse, right?

[Tallberg]

American men systematically rape American women? When did this start happening?

havent you seen it? why, right now, as I look out my window, there are approximately 30 african-style rape squads defiling the innocence, purity, and humanity that is the human female with their dirty dirty male parts.

EDIT: AND THEY'RE SAYING THE C WORD!

I'm not going to lie I burst out laughing at that.

[The Republic of Lanos]

American men systematically rape American women? When did this start happening?

You're examining the issue to individualistically. Zoom out. Think more collectively.

I did. I'm still getting "Where the fuck is this rape culture?" questions. If it's out there, they're doing a better job at hiding than NAMBLA.

[Ende]

I like you, FST. But I can't say I like this idea. To quote William Blackstone:

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer."

Also, guilty until proved innocent is a horrible idea. The Code of Hammurabi, a 5000 year old law actually instituted innocent until proven guilty.

They had it right.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Wouldn't it be easier to just genetically engineer women to have teeth down there?

Then consent or a lack thereof would be obvious.

[The Cummunist State]

American men systematically rape American women? When did this start happening?

You're examining the issue to individualistically. Zoom out. Think more collectively.

Why don't you zoom out instead of thinking all men are evil? Think for yourself, not some femminazi dogma. I know no one could honestly believe it.

[Caninope]

American men systematically rape American women? When did this start happening?

You're examining the issue to individualistically. Zoom out. Think more collectively.

You just said there was a systematic rape of women by society.

This would imply American society too.

[Huskvarneque]

Yes, and I think you are the only one who is taking it seriously, including the authors.

You don't think she believes what she writes?

Everyone believes what they write, doesn't stop it from being complete, nonsensical, bull. Like 90% of what I write for example!!!

[Sailsia]

American men systematically rape American women? When did this start happening?

You're examining the issue to individualistically. Zoom out. Think more collectively.

yes, we all know this is what you mean- that's why it's so absurd. you honestly give women less credit then they deserve, if anything, youre the one pandering to the stereotype that women are helpless creatures who are either too weak, stupid, or gullible to realize when they are being sexually taken advantage of.

[1000 Cats]

And you think we're all sponges? We're not; we're quite good as a species at picking up social cues, and at deciding what is relevant and what is not. I have a disgusting sense of humour and do make the odd rape joke, among other things. However, none of my friends have ever raped anyone, and nor have I. None of them are the least bit racist or sexist either, nor do we go around punching pregnant women in the stomach, or barbecuing fetuses, or... eh, I'll stop. The point is that there really is no 'rape culture' - their is a mindset that is common to rapists, but it has not been connected in any way to his immediate social environment, but rather his opinion on women, interpretation of certain normally neutral stimuli (ie clothing), etc. which would have their roots in early life, probably as their own gender is solidifying.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/ ... e-101.html

I see not a single source in there. You see, my dear Mister Triangles, when you are having a discussion like this, emotionally-driven proclamations about the way "society" is and other gigantic and clearly angry blanket statements don't really go very far. And links to blog posts as sources most certainly do not unless that blog post itself contains a source and you were too lazy/tired/apathetic/annoyed at your internet connection to get the source itself.

You call yourself a scientific fellow, but all I ever see coming out of your mouth, so to speak, when you get on this topic is very reminiscent of something I would expect shouted from a cultist's podium.

[Terruana]

Did anybody here read her post or the comments on it?

I read her post and the first ten, twenty comments. Then I realised that everybody who was agreeing with the post was just as stupid misguided as she was, and everybody else disagreed with the guilty until proven innocent system anyway, so I stopped bothering.

[Revolutopia]

Wouldn't it be easier to just genetically engineer women to have teeth down there?

Then consent or a lack thereof would be obvious.

They do have those rape condoms with blades now.


In answer to the original question, no this a stupid idea.

[1000 Cats]

Yes, and I think you are the only one who is taking it seriously, including the authors.

You don't think she believes what she writes?

No, I don't. I think she is a parody.

[Vazdania]

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 feel as though this goes to far.

[Northwest Slobovia]

And you think we're all sponges? We're not; we're quite good as a species at picking up social cues, and at deciding what is relevant and what is not. I have a disgusting sense of humour and do make the odd rape joke, among other things. However, none of my friends have ever raped anyone, and nor have I. None of them are the least bit racist or sexist either, nor do we go around punching pregnant women in the stomach, or barbecuing fetuses, or... eh, I'll stop. The point is that there really is no 'rape culture' - their is a mindset that is common to rapists, but it has not been connected in any way to his immediate social environment, but rather his opinion on women, interpretation of certain normally neutral stimuli (ie clothing), etc. which would have their roots in early life, probably as their own gender is solidifying.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/ ... e-101.html

I could replace "rape culture" in that essay with "glory"* and it would be precisely as true.

*: a reference to Humpty Dumpty's isomorphic word game in Alice in Wonderland.

[Tallberg]

Yes, and I think you are the only one who is taking it seriously, including the authors.

You don't think she believes what she writes?

It's entirely plausible; nay, likely, that she's in the same camp as a Glenn Beck or a Joseph McCarthy; unable to explain the fact that certain men are either sexually attracted to the control, or are just plain assholes who break the law and take the innocence of a woman (a horrible crime, I might add, that no one in there right mind condones), she's decided that there is a "rape culture," where, if you're not actively campaigning against rape (something that goes without saying, since most people are against it period), then you are obviously for rape. It's the same mindset that if you're not looking for the Communist, you are the Communist. And it's ridiculous, reactionary, and divisive.

[Augarundus]

Because there is no systematic rape of men by women. Women can rape men, sure, but every instance of such is an individual action. The reverse is not true. Rape of women by men is a systemic problem arising out of the structure of society. It's not simply a case of individual bad men acting out.

Except that isn't true! "Men" cannot systemically rape "women".

Each individual is his own moral agent (apologies for the gendered language of "his"; however, that is technically correct thanks patriarchal Anglo-Saxons); the violence committed within rape is solely the responsibility of the individual who is the moral agent responsible for the rape.

There is no "society" or "culture" responsible for this rape because there is no such thing as "society" or "culture", just as there is no "God", no "Nation", no "People", etc.; these abstractions can ONLY refer to the actions of individuals.

[Gauthier]

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

Because there is no systematic rape of men by women. Women can rape men, sure, but every instance of such is an individual action. The reverse is not true. Rape of women by men is a systemic problem arising out of the structure of society. It's not simply a case of individual bad men acting out.

A proposed criminal procedure that not only violates Innocent Until Proven Guilty, but appeals to your hangup. Big surprise.

[1000 Cats]

However, none of my friends have ever raped anyone, and nor have I.

I have trouble believing you when your signature claims you are a zoophile, which generally involves statutory rape. Let's see: "zoophile: a sexual attraction to animals." I take it back, you could just lust after them, so maybe your claim is true. On that note, anyone could claim that they were not fully informed on all the nuances of sex, and therefore could not give informed consent. If they couldn't give informed consent, wouldn't that also be statutory rape?

I hear people say things like this and I assume they must be virgins, because very rarely when two human beings have sex do they formally ask each other first. If you want to discuss it further, you can telegram me.

[Four-sided Triangles]

No, I don't. I think she is a parody.

So what's her real position? Is she a Phyllis Schlaffley anti-feminist type?

[Four-sided Triangles]

No, I don't. I think she is a parody.

So what's her real position? Is she a Phyllis Schlaffley anti-feminist type?

[Socialdemokraterne]

I think it's our moral duty to bend over backwards in order to help people who have been historically oppressed.

Or, rather than perverting our legal system by shifting the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant, we could simply continue to convict rapists who have been demonstrated by evidence to be guilty?

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 ends justifying the means is a god-awful basis for a country's legal precedents. By that sort of thinking, in the name of diverting crime and terrorism everyone should be forced to allow their municipal government to put security cameras in their houses and workplaces. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?

[The Congregationists]

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.

<sigh>

I've seen this blog before and suspect it is to feminism what Christwire and Landover baptist are to conservative Christianity. I suspect Poe's law here. Never the less, a more cynical and pessimistic me thinks you've just read is what rape law is going to look like fifteen years from now.