Retroactive Rape

[Farnhamia]

The current system is bad enough as it is without this.

Women can scream rape and the man will go to jail 90% of the time, because for some reason, the woman's word is always ultimate truth. There's several stories about this, such as the woman who gave a blowjob to a man, the man didn't do what she asked him (the woman cheated on him before), she accused him of rape and took him to court. If he had not unwittingly recorded the session, he would have gone to court. It's ridiculous how the man needed video evidence to not get sent to jail - And it all started just because the man wouldn't help the woman get an abortion from a previous relationship (She didn't want her family to know)

The current system is biased enough towards women.

(Image)

Pic related

Someone obviously can't recognize a joke.

Obviously.

[Erinkita]

And we've reached a demonstration of one of the things i hate most about this kind of spiel. It feeds the confirmation bias of everyone who thinks that the feminists are out to get him.

[Absurd Ramblings]

Something I know full well will never happen? How do I know that? In the UK, possessing a penis is required for rape to be rape. If you do not possess such an organ, it CANNOT be rape. Even with a dildo, a female is incapable of rape.

[citation needed]

Further, they have already come dangerously close to shifting the burden of proof to the accused. How do you prove you didn't do something? How do you prove someone consented? By asking her to sign a contract before engaging in sexual activity? I know enough about women to know that a turned on woman will be immediately turned off by showing her such distrust.

didn't you read what farn wrote? Hint: it wasn't "this is teh bestest idea everz!!!"

No, it is not that women have such thoughts that bother me. It bothers me that ANYONE can have such thoughts. If you take a look at the site and try to post something, where there would normally be a button that says "submit" (like the button I'm about to press) they have one called "blame". Fuck 'em. LIterally.

1- lets not and say we didn't shall we?
2-there are small numbers of idiots in every group ever (and larger to majority numbers in some) try not to judge all based on the actions of those idiots. Otherwise, yes the person who wrote this is likely bug house nuts. Yes she represents the worst of feminism and has, frankly, become exactly what most feminists fight against.

Apologies; I really thought everyone knew this.

The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

And yes, I did read what he wrote. That I agree with him on her being essentially a lunatic does not change that I find it extremely naive to assume it wont ever happen when it is already happening one small step at a time.

[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?

Something I know full well will never happen? How do I know that? In the UK, possessing a penis is required for rape to be rape. If you do not possess such an organ, it CANNOT be rape. Even with a dildo, a female is incapable of rape.

Further, they have already come dangerously close to shifting the burden of proof to the accused. How do you prove you didn't do something? How do you prove someone consented? By asking her to sign a contract before engaging in sexual activity? I know enough about women to know that a turned on woman will be immediately turned off by showing her such distrust.

No, it is not that women have such thoughts that bother me. It bothers me that ANYONE can have such thoughts. If you take a look at the site and try to post something, where there would normally be a button that says "submit" (like the button I'm about to press) they have one called "blame". Fuck 'em. LIterally.

"Blame"? I hadn't noticed that.

Those women are, sadly, extremists, much the same as the people over in Stormfront are extremists, or the Westboro Baptist Church members are extremists. To put them in NSG terms, they're trolls. By getting your knickers in a twist over this, you're feeding them. When you feed trolls, they get bigger and louder. Don't feed trolls.

Yes, that blog post was an attack on the male gender, but what did you expect from a site called "I Blame The Patriarchy"? Offers to make you a sammich? If you go to a skin-head neo-nazi rally dressed like a Hassidic Jew, what would you expect?

By responding in kind to them, with invective and, as Moribundustan said, histrionics, you become them. Don't become them.

[Four-sided Triangles]

http://www.menspeakup.org/42869841

This is a less emotionally-charged version of a similar proposal to the one in the OP.

[Farnhamia]

http://www.menspeakup.org/42869841

This is a less emotionally-charged version of a similar proposal to the one in the OP.

This is all your fault, you know.

[Four-sided Triangles]

This is all your fault, you know.

Twisty is known to be provocative. She's basically the enfant terrible of feminist blogging. Her intent is to get you to think by being shocking.

[Absurd Ramblings]

Something I know full well will never happen? How do I know that? In the UK, possessing a penis is required for rape to be rape. If you do not possess such an organ, it CANNOT be rape. Even with a dildo, a female is incapable of rape.

Further, they have already come dangerously close to shifting the burden of proof to the accused. How do you prove you didn't do something? How do you prove someone consented? By asking her to sign a contract before engaging in sexual activity? I know enough about women to know that a turned on woman will be immediately turned off by showing her such distrust.

No, it is not that women have such thoughts that bother me. It bothers me that ANYONE can have such thoughts. If you take a look at the site and try to post something, where there would normally be a button that says "submit" (like the button I'm about to press) they have one called "blame". Fuck 'em. LIterally.

"Blame"? I hadn't noticed that.

Those women are, sadly, extremists, much the same as the people over in Stormfront are extremists, or the Westboro Baptist Church members are extremists. To put them in NSG terms, they're trolls. By getting your knickers in a twist over this, you're feeding them. When you feed trolls, they get bigger and louder. Don't feed trolls.

Yes, that blog post was an attack on the male gender, but what did you expect from a site called "I Blame The Patriarchy"? Offers to make you a sammich? If you go to a skin-head neo-nazi rally dressed like a Hassidic Jew, what would you expect?

By responding in kind to them, with invective and, as Moribundustan said, histrionics, you become them. Don't become them.

Indeed. Extremists. Extremists which it is sometimes - after a particularly bad public case of abuse - politically correct to oblige.
Please see my above post. It really isn't that unrealistic, sadly.

[The Blaatschapen]

This is all your fault, you know.

Twisty is known to be provocative. She's basically the enfant terrible of feminist blogging. Her intent is to get you to think by being shocking.

What was there to think about?

[Absurd Ramblings]

This is all your fault, you know.

Twisty is known to be provocative. She's basically the enfant terrible of feminist blogging. Her intent is to get you to think by being shocking.

You mean enfant provocateur?

My french teacher had a different definition of enfant terrible, at least.

I wonder if making a similarly anti-woman "provocative" statement would not result in all kinds of legal and criminally vengeful repercussions.

[Tulija]

Simply outrageous.

[DaWoad]

[citation needed]

didn't you read what farn wrote? Hint: it wasn't "this is teh bestest idea everz!!!"

1- lets not and say we didn't shall we?
2-there are small numbers of idiots in every group ever (and larger to majority numbers in some) try not to judge all based on the actions of those idiots. Otherwise, yes the person who wrote this is likely bug house nuts. Yes she represents the worst of feminism and has, frankly, become exactly what most feminists fight against.

Apologies; I really thought everyone knew this.

The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

And yes, I did read what he wrote. That I agree with him on her being essentially a lunatic does not change that I find it extremely naive to assume it wont ever happen when it is already happening one small step at a time.

yeeesh that is a terrible freaking law. Sorry, yah, had no idea that existed what with being a colonial and all (canadian eh?).
I very much doubt it will happen, ever. For one thing males make up around 50% of the population and being an automatic rapist isn't one of those things people let slide. That said, i was responding to your "this is why it's terrible" bit. I understand why it's terrible, so does farn and pretty much everyone here including FST if I'm not mistaken.

[Four-sided Triangles]

You mean enfant provocateur?

In terms of Twisty's behavior, there's very little difference. Her provocateur status is a direct result of being blunt to the point where it's slightly outrageous.

[Central Slavia]

This is all your fault, you know.

Twisty is known to be provocative. She's basically the enfant terrible of feminist blogging. Her intent is to get you to think by being shocking.

More like vache hysterique of feminist blogging.

[Four-sided Triangles]

More like vache hysterique of feminist blogging.

Hysterical cow? That's not very nice.

[Itanica]

Someone obviously can't recognize a joke.

Obviously.

I did recognise it as a joke,

[Sciongrad]

I think it's our moral duty ... If this means a few innocent men go to prison in order to greatly reduce rape, doesn't the end justify the means?

This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, moral. To the contrary, the concept itself is contrary to widely accepted moral beliefs, hence why nobody would even consider this as a decent idea.

And that whole "rape can be avoided by not having sex" bit? ...

[Lord Tothe]

So we should punish all men now for what some other men may have done in the past, create a system of guilty-until-proven-innocent, and create an atmosphere of fear and distrust around the idea of sex because a handful of people have done bad things. And what about gender equality? What about the rather rarer but nonetheless real situations where men are the one raped? What protection do they have? This has to be an April Fools prank that launched at the wrong time, because no one can honestly think this is a practical solution to the issue of rape.

Conclusion: retarded idea is retarded, or stupid prank is stupid.

I think it's our moral duty ... If this means a few innocent men go to prison in order to greatly reduce rape, doesn't the end justify the means?

This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, moral. To the contrary, the concept itself is contrary to widely accepted moral beliefs, hence why nobody would even consider this as a decent idea.

By that logic, EVERYONE needs to be locked away in case they committed a crime, because that way at least every criminal is behind bars. Only there will be no jailers or wardens, because EVERYONE is locked up. You don't want to risk any guilty people being free, do you? [/exaggeration for satiric purposes]

[Ecans]

I must assume that you are tossing this idea out to shock and annoy. Thousands of years of law have resulted in the "innocent until proven guilty" approach. Too many humans, of both genders, are spiteful, corrupt and just plain evil. Abuse is certain.

This suggestion is the sort of thing that make reasonable people tune radical feminists out. They rant on and occasionally provide an amusing fill-in spot on the evening news.

[Farnhamia]

Twisty is known to be provocative. She's basically the enfant terrible of feminist blogging. Her intent is to get you to think by being shocking.

More like vache hysterique of feminist blogging.

And people wonder why "Twisty" has an audience.

[Yes Im Biop]

Actually it is. Every man has a choice if he is going to be a rapist or not, and the ones who don't rape are not responsible for the ones who do.

What about rape culture? Can't men who don't personally rape still inadvertently encourage and normalize rape through their words and actions? Aren't they therefore somewhat responsible for rape?

No

[Absurd Ramblings]

Apologies; I really thought everyone knew this.



And yes, I did read what he wrote. That I agree with him on her being essentially a lunatic does not change that I find it extremely naive to assume it wont ever happen when it is already happening one small step at a time.

yeeesh that is a terrible freaking law. Sorry, yah, had no idea that existed what with being a colonial and all (canadian eh?).
I very much doubt it will happen, ever. For one thing males make up around 50% of the population and being an automatic rapist isn't one of those things people let slide. That said, i was responding to your "this is why it's terrible" bit. I understand why it's terrible, so does farn and pretty much everyone here including FST if I'm not mistaken.

In one aspect, I agree. Not that it can't happen, but that if it does, it will not last very long, as 70% (Source: my ass) of the male population will soon find themselves in (a lack of enough) jails.
The main problem as I see it is that people - especially men - do not take these women serious (that is, consider them a serious threat.)

[Wikkiwallana]

And we are sapient creatures capable of reason, so the biological perspective means nothing. We can rise above it and owe it to ourselves to do so.

This is taken from the cracked artickel floating around her on the forum somewhere aka why modern men are trained to hate woman

We Think You're Conspiring With Our Boners to Ruin Us
... aka, Why Do You Think the Garden of Eden Story Has a Snake?

First, you need to understand something about the unique love/hate relationship men have with their penises.
Do you remember that story about police having to free a guy who got his dick stuck while humping a pool filter? Or that other guy who got stuck humping a park bench, or the other guy who got stuck humping a picnic table? Or that judge who got caught jerking off while on the bench listening to testimony?

You see this type of story come up a lot -- check your local police blotter. And they all have something in common: They're all guys.
Seriously, do a Google search for "masturbating in public library." Notice something in common with all of those stories? They're all dudes. Obviously I'm not saying women don't pleasure themselves (every single study would prove me a liar); I'm saying that men are far, far more likely to engage in extremely high-risk masturbation in public. They're more likely to do it at work, and they're more likely to do it in situations where they could go to jail.
No, it's not some rare, weird exhibitionist fetish, either. It's that they can't even wait the couple of hours it'd take to do it safely at home.

and this is taken from webmd

Hamann and his Emory colleagues used sophisticated MRI brain imaging to look into the brain activity of 28 male and female college students.

The students looked at arousing photographs of heterosexual couples engaged in sexual activity and sexually attractive opposite sex nudes and at "neutral" photographs -- pleasant pictures of men and women in nonsexual situations.

"We found that the [brain areas] amygdala and hypothalamus were more activated in men than in women when viewing identical sexual stimuli, even when females reported greater arousal," writes Hamann.

In fact, men and women both rated the erotic photographs as sexually attractive and physically arousing. Both groups also found the photos of the couples more attractive and arousing than the photographs depicting a nude person of the opposite sex.

However, in a closer look at responses to the photographs of couples -- which got the biggest arousal from both men and women -- men had greater activity in the amygdala and hypothalamus than did women, writes Hamann. Women showed no significant activation in these regions.

Men also revealed a "greater propensity" for finding even the "neutral" photographs arousing -- although to a lesser degree, reports Hamann. This pattern may reflect what other sex drive studies have found, that across all cultures men prefer sexual variety more than women, he says.

To say that we can overlook biology becouse we can think is the same as I woulld clame that you would not need to sleep becouse you could think.

You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying we should ignore our instincts. What I'm saying that as we are capable of judgement above and beyond those instincts, we have better decision making tools available to us, and we should use them. We should not attach moral values to something just because it is instinctual.

[Giovenith]

While something should be done about rape, this is just plain stupid.

[Sciongrad]

By that logic, EVERYONE needs to be locked away in case they committed a crime, because that way at least every criminal is behind bars. Only there will be no jailers or wardens, because EVERYONE is locked up. You don't want to risk any guilty people being free, do you? [/exaggeration for satiric purposes]

In any given scenario, I would rather a guilty man be free than an innocent man be punished. Also, how did you come to the conclusion that I would prefer everyone be punished?