Retroactive Rape

[DASHES]

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.

This new way of thinking will reduce the amount of men having sex, period. That means less overpopulation over time. It also means less sex-related social issues.
I must say, even as a heterosexual Christian male, that I support this way of thinking and I think it should become official law.

[Ifreann]

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.

This new way of thinking will reduce the amount of men having sex, period. That means less overpopulation over time. It also means less sex-related social issues.
I must say, even as a heterosexual Christian male, that I support this way of thinking and I think it should become official law.

Awesome. Enjoy prison. Officer, he's the man who raped me!

[Karinzistan]

So should we just take people's word for things such as theft, murder, assault, destruction of property? Last summer my cousin was falsely accused of vandalizing a trash can. The person who accused him was someone who for whatever reason was mad at him. Turns out the gang the guy who accused my cousin of vandalizing was in were the people who vandalism the trash can all along. If the police had just "taken their word for it" , an innocent person would have been in jail and a gang would continue to vandalize. Also, you're idea that women are inherently against sex and men are always the only one who want it is sexist. Luckily this is just the musings of one misandrist blogger and isn't going to come to light. Four sided triangles, i'm not trying to be rude, but you have a problem of the physiological sort. You feel so much guilt over the actions of people you had and have no control over. If you personally have not wronged some one you have no need for that kind of guilt. Even if you did, the sex of the person makes no difference. If you wrong someone, then you have wronged someone. The sex, race, gender, religious affiliation, political affiliation, ethnicity, nationality, of the person who you wrong or wrong you makes no difference unless you or they wrong you just because one of those factors. Even if you or they did, a hate crime against one group of people is the same thing as a hate crime against another is the same if the exact same actions are done. Wheather or not those people have been "historically" wronged makes no difference. Because it's HISTORY. If people just forgave and forgot about the actions of people's ancestors over which they had no control and therefore they personally did no wrong, the world would be a better place.

[Blazedtown]

guilty until proven innocent - a bad thing(tm)

For once, we agree.

Also, Duke Lacrosse team anybody?

[Ovisterra]

No.

guilty until proven innocent - a bad thing(tm)

[Ovisterra]

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.

So you just want to make sex illegal? Seems legit. Destroy the human race, bit by bit.

FST almost always manages to pull the discussion back to something like that.

[Hjornis]

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.

how would that help if you have to prove you never had sex?

[Ifreann]

That is not equivalent. It is possible to prevent yourself from being falsely accused of rape. Simply never have sex with anyone.

So you just want to make sex illegal? Seems legit. Destroy the human race, bit by bit.

FST almost always manages to pull the discussion back to something like that.

You know, I bet sex would be a lot more fun if it were illegal....

[Ovisterra]

So you just want to make sex illegal? Seems legit. Destroy the human race, bit by bit.

FST almost always manages to pull the discussion back to something like that.

You know, I bet sex would be a lot more fun if it were illegal....

How so?

(Though I'm not sure I want to hear the answer)

[Old Tyrannia]

Apart from everything else, this is incredibly sexist as it assumes only women can/will be raped.

[Ifreann]

You know, I bet sex would be a lot more fun if it were illegal....

How so?

(Though I'm not sure I want to hear the answer)

The forbidden fruit angle.

[Ovisterra]

How so?

(Though I'm not sure I want to hear the answer)

The forbidden fruit angle.

I suppose.

[Ifreann]

The forbidden fruit angle.

I suppose.

Granted, I have it on good authority that sex is pretty fun any way, unless you're really bad at it.

[Benyemin]

Apart from everything else, this is incredibly sexist as it assumes only women can/will be raped.

Well how many men are raped per year in relation to women?

[Ovisterra]

I suppose.

Granted, I have it on good authority that sex is pretty fun any way, unless you're really bad at it.

I wouldn't know, but I'll take your word for it.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

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

If you insist.

We have a fundamental right called "innocent until proven guilty". Now, and I know this will come as a surprise to you FST, females are not sex machines who think only in terms of intercourse.

Some girl breaks up with her guy after they went Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. To get back at him, she stands up and says, "He date-raped me! I know it was several months ago, but I was so scared he was going to hurt me that I waited...".
Yes, the sex was illegal because they were both underage, but look at what happens. We get to enjoy the 21st century equivalent of Witch Hunts. 72% of American High School graduates stop gathering their rosebuds while in those hallowed halls, and such a law would set an unfortunate precedent for girls to have undue control over the boys.

And, by the way, statistically more guys feel pressured into sex than girls.

[Old Tyrannia]

Apart from everything else, this is incredibly sexist as it assumes only women can/will be raped.

Well how many men are raped per year in relation to women?

That's irrelevant. What you're doing now is stereotyping- and if we replace 'raped' with 'murdered' and 'men' and 'women' with 'blacks' and 'whites' respectively, providing you're not a Klansman you should see why your argument is not going to hold up to scrutiny.

[Absurd Ramblings]

That would be considered a declaration of war against my gender.
Edit: Bit exteme - let's say I would act accordingly.

[Moribundustan]

So...If she's a dead lay, or a flat-out bitch, can I have her jailed as a prostitute? Because, really, you spend a LOT more money dating a woman than you will on a hooker...

...I think I have a better idea: Retroactive Birth Control for people stupid enough to actually post crap like this on blogs.

[Absurd Ramblings]

So...If she's a dead lay, or a flat-out bitch, can I have her jailed as a prostitute? Because, really, you spend a LOT more money dating a woman than you will on a hooker...

...I think I have a better idea: Retroactive Birth Control for people stupid enough to actually post crap like this on blogs.

+1

[Absurd Ramblings]

Apart from everything else, this is incredibly sexist as it assumes only women can/will be raped.

Well how many men are raped per year in relation to women?

Way more than women, if you take prisons into consideration.

You may feel that "criminals don't count". That feeling is irrelevant. And even if that was the case, it would be an argument for putting men and women in the same prisons, since being rape is apparently part of the punishment.

That website the OP linked to is sicker than a religion based on child-molestation.

[Farnhamia]

So...If she's a dead lay, or a flat-out bitch, can I have her jailed as a prostitute? Because, really, you spend a LOT more money dating a woman than you will on a hooker...

...I think I have a better idea: Retroactive Birth Control for people stupid enough to actually post crap like this on blogs.

+1

-2 each and -5 from your houses for taking any of that seriously. I'm not saying that the woman who wrote the piece and the women commenting in that thread aren't serious, because I'm sure they are. You lose points for getting butt-hurt over something you know full well will never happen, and is basically just radical feminists fantasizing.

Or is it that women should even have such thoughts that bothers you?

[AppsHeroia]

How is NSG tolerating Four-sided Triangles' trolling, anyway? I was run out of town for posting much less offensive stuff than he does.

[Farnhamia]

How is NSG tolerating Four-sided Triangles trolling, anyway? I was run out of town for posting much less offensive stuff that him.

How was what he posted offensive? He's been through the meat-grinder that is Moderation and he's still here, so ... If you're that offended, report him.

[The Blaatschapen]

So you just want to make sex illegal? Seems legit. Destroy the human race, bit by bit.

FST almost always manages to pull the discussion back to something like that.

You know, I bet sex would be a lot more fun if it were illegal....

Dammit, now I want to have illegal sex. Is there any country/state out there where having consensual extramarital heterosexual sex with an adult human female is illegal?