Retroactive Rape

[Four-sided Triangles]

We've already established that you want to punish men that are INNOCENT, though.

I don't believe in punishment for the sake of punishment. And no, I don't want to punish people who are innocent. I simply acknowledge that innocent people will unfortunately be caught up in the system.

Do you support war? Have you ever supported a war? If so, then you support something which WILL result in the deaths of many innocent people. All wars have civilian casualties.

[Ende]

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

Trolling? Are you serious?

[The Blaatschapen]

Isn't there any state like Florida or Texas or so that recently fined people that were living in sin. I remember something like that here on the forums.

Otherwise, Iran is a possibility. Now to find someone to go with me to Iran.

Good luck convincing a woman to go to Iran to have sex when they can be stoned for showing ankle.

She can keep her socks on.

[Ovisterra]

You don't think men have it easier in a great many ways than women in western society?

Not to nearly as heavily a degree as it's claimed. For example, although there is admittedly some wage discrimination against women, it's worth noting that men often skew more heavily to the extreme ends of the wage scale; i.e. men occupy most of the cushy high-paying jobs, but almost most of the god-awful low-paying jobs.

Besides, the idea of of a patriARCHY, when taken literally, is flawed. Either that, or nobody told me where to pick up my slice of the archy.

Just because you don't rule the world, and happen to be male, does not mean society is not sexist.

[Galloism]

We've already established that you want to punish men that are INNOCENT, though.

I don't believe in punishment for the sake of punishment. And no, I don't want to punish people who are innocent. I simply acknowledge that innocent people will unfortunately be caught up in the system.

Do you support war? Have you ever supported a war? If so, then you support something which WILL result in the deaths of many innocent people. All wars have civilian casualties.

I've never supported a war.

Assassinations... That's something else.

[Moribundustan]

+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?

Newsflash, there, Skippy -- people get sued (and/or lose their jobs...and/or occasionally get thrown in jail) over far, FAR less than what that imbecile posted on her blog. It's one thing to think it, quite another to post it where all and sundry can see it and criticize....."If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", to paraphrase Harry Truman.

Over and above all that, my POV is absolutely valid, if the [lack of] logic displayed by something so moronic is applied evenly. Furthermore, as someone else pointed out, the entire concept is highly sexist, as it presumes that men cannot be raped.

As to "butt-hurt" -- I think the fact that you choose to use that precise terminology says far more about you than anything else written here...

...But you have a nice life, anyway

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

We've already established that you want to punish men that are INNOCENT, though.

I don't believe in punishment for the sake of punishment. And no, I don't want to punish people who are innocent. I simply acknowledge that innocent people will unfortunately be caught up in the system.

Do you support war? Have you ever supported a war? If so, then you support something which WILL result in the deaths of many innocent people. All wars have civilian casualties.

Not the same thing. I'd go into it, but I'm starving for food and pussy, so I'll leave it to someone else.

[AppsHeroia]

Just because you don't rule the world, and happen to be male, does not mean society is not sexist.

Yeah society is sexist, I never said otherwise. But it cuts both ways; women aren't the only ones discriminated against.

Can I let you know a little secret? In Western society today, or at least where I live... men and women GET ALONG FINE. Are there some issues sometimes? Sure. Are there occasional sexist douchebags (from both sides)? Yeah. But ultimately, Western society is not some anti-female dystopia. Except the US sometimes because the Republicans are insane.

Example: one of my best female friends has a degree in politics. After she decided she didn't like that, she got a job as a prison guard. In a MEN'S prison.

I'm a failed computer programmer. Who's wearing the pants in our relationship?

[Moribundustan]

...Is there any country/state out there where having consensual extramarital heterosexual sex with an adult human female is illegal?

Someone else may have answered this, but: Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Taliban-Afghanistan, for starters....Of course, for less extreme reactions, you could always try Dubai, and be jailed for a couple of months for kissing openly on the beach at sunset...even if she's your wife.

[Galloism]

I even admitted to being conflicted about it. I don't necessarily support this idea. I just thought it was a very proactive proposal to reduce rape and wake men up to the existence of patriarchy and thought it at least deserved examination.

Not really.

Guilty until proven innocent is a terrible idea, regardless of gender.

I'm also not sure how it would "wake men up to the patriarchy". In my view, it would more likely have the effect of devillifying rapists.

I want to expound on this a bit.

The problem with casting a net too wide is that it loses all meaning. I'll give you a perfect example:

Sex offender.

What does that mean?

Depending on jurisdiction, it can mean anything from raping an infant to urinating against a wall while walking home drunk.

However, with the "sex offender title", they're equal. They all look awful, so none of them look awful. They're equal, and we can't tell the difference without research into their individual case.

Reversing the standard of proof for rape would have the same effect. Everyone looks just as guilty, so none look guilty. It muddies the waters until you can't tell a real threat from an imagined. Real rapists will get away with it again and again because we can't tell them apart.

It's asinine.

[Xerberos]

No. I don't have my list of citations in front of me, but most rape is committed by sociopaths and sadists. There's a big body of study of the criminology of rape, and there are plenty of interviews with rapists therein. When people who study criminals interview rapists, they find that they meet the definitions of the the criminal insanities I mentioned. It's no big secret; since you appear to be at a university, you should be able to find the same books that I read in your local library.

If one in every 6 women is raped, then there must be a shit ton of sociopaths out there. Even if each sociopath rapes 10 women, we're talking about 1-2% of all men being sadistic sociopaths.

The blog said 1 in 6 women is sexually assaulted. Depending on the definition, that could be felt up at a club or even getting a rude remark made to them. It doesn't necessarily mean rape.

[Farnhamia]

-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?

Newsflash, there, Skippy -- people get sued (and/or lose their jobs...and/or occasionally get thrown in jail) over far, FAR less than what that imbecile posted on her blog. It's one thing to think it, quite another to post it where all and sundry can see it and criticize....."If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", to paraphrase Harry Truman.

Over and above all that, my POV is absolutely valid, if the [lack of] logic displayed by something so moronic is applied evenly. Furthermore, as someone else pointed out, the entire concept is highly sexist, as it presumes that men cannot be raped.

As to "butt-hurt" -- I think the fact that you choose to use that precise terminology says far more about you than anything else written here...

...But you have a nice life, anyway

So contact an attorney, contact the authorities, have that imbecile charged or sued. As far as I can see, she's in the kitchen, taking whatever heat there is for her opinions. And of course it's a sexist position. That's part of the point.

And do tell, pray, what does my choice of words tell you about me? I would love to learn.

[Moribundustan]

...And of course it's a sexist position. That's part of the point.

And if said position cannot withstand like criticism without histrionics, it is not a position that should have been openly speculated on in the first place.

And do tell, pray, what does my choice of words tell you about me? I would love to learn.

That you are venal little being with delusions of adequacy in education?

[Farnhamia]

...And of course it's a sexist position. That's part of the point.

And if said position cannot withstand like criticism without histrionics, it is not a position that should have been openly speculated on in the first place.

And do tell, pray, what does my choice of words tell you about me? I would love to learn.

That you are venal little being with delusions of adequacy in education?

Oh, we're going to get on famously, I can see that already. I didn't think the blog post was particularly histrionic. Okay, maybe a bit, but it's nothing more than I would expect to find in a radical feminist blog. I think you're making mountains out of molehills.

[Moribundustan]

I think you're making mountains out of molehills.

...Said the German "Voter On The Street" in 1933.

The point is not that "it can't happen here" -- because it can. There are plenty of people out there who would do far worse than what this bimbo wants, if given the opportunity.

In comparison, Hitler was an amateur.

[Farnhamia]

I think you're making mountains out of molehills.

...Said the German "Voter On The Street" in 1933.

The point is not that "it can't happen here" -- because it can. There are plenty of people out there who would do far worse than what this bimbo wants, if given the opportunity.

In comparison, Hitler was an amateur.

And there are more people, myself included, who would oppose them. And congratulations on your first Godwin!

[New England and The Maritimes]

No. Too much potential for abuse, and it gets the point of law backwards. What we need is more education campaigns to get women to come forward and to let men know that, err, rape is pretty shit.

[Samuraikoku]

Reversal of the burden of proof is almost never a good idea. Under any circumstances.

[Moribundustan]

...And congratulations on your first Godwin!

Sorry, haven't been on the forums long enough -- "Godwin"?

[Tlaceceyaya]

...And congratulations on your first Godwin!

Sorry, haven't been on the forums long enough -- "Godwin"?

Godwin's law dictates that if a discussion goes on for long enough, Hitler will eventually be brought up.

[1000 Cats]

...And congratulations on your first Godwin!

Sorry, haven't been on the forums long enough -- "Godwin"?

Godwin's law: As an internet debate goes on, the chance of Hitler or Nazis being mentioned approaches 1. Try to avoid being the one who invokes Godwin's law.

[Ende]

Godwin's Law: "If a discussion goes on, the longer it goes on, the more likely Hitler will be brought up at one point."

Also, using Hitler to make a point is "Ad Hitlerem." Generally a bad idea to use.

[Samuraikoku]

Godwin's Law: "If a discussion goes on, the longer it goes on, the more likely Hitler will be brought up at one point."

Also, using Hitler to make a point is "Ad Hitlerem." Generally a bad idea to use.

Reductio ad Hitlerum, or "Hitler Ate Sugar".

[Mallorea and Riva]

And also that the debate ends, declaring those who invoked Hitler to be the loser. Although that might be Godwin's corollary.

[Ende]

Godwin's Law: "If a discussion goes on, the longer it goes on, the more likely Hitler will be brought up at one point."

Also, using Hitler to make a point is "Ad Hitlerem." Generally a bad idea to use.

Reductio ad Hitlerum, or "Hitler Ate Sugar".

Ah, that's the proper term for it. I forgot.

ANYWAY, I went and read the blog post in the post. And then I went and read the blog. What the hell? I mean, I could understand some of the points, but no. That's absurd. Guilty until proven innocent? We ditched that 6000 years ago with the Code of Hammurabi.