Men need to be trained to not rape.

[Tahar Joblis]

I don't think we should assume that people are lying.

If the case is a "He said, she said," we should not assume guilt. We should not assume that the accuser deserves to be thrown in jail for making a libelous accusation; we should likewise not assume that the accused is guilty.

Setting aside whether you actually practice what you claim to preach above . . . Because you usually choose your words carefully, the lack of parallelism between "should not assume that the accuser deserves to be thrown in jail for making a libelous accusation; we should likewise not assume that the accused is guilty."

Given someone guilty of rape quite clearly deserves to be thrown in jail for committing rape, you shouldn't read anything into the omission of the repetition.

Skepticism? Really? That is all you see in that?

Skepticism, leading him to believe that the girl is lying. Also, that he wants to emphasize the word "alleged" suggests he's open to the idea that people are supposed to wait to jump to conclusions until it's something other than "alleged," but I would go as far as to say he's suggesting the accuser is lying.

I believe that case has strong emotional meaning to you. I suggest you not cite it unless you are prepared for it to be examined. Seriously, I am trying to be considerate. (And, no, I would not imply in anyway the arrested man you knew was guilty.)

Well, if you want, we can talk about the Duke Lacrosse case. In the Duke Lacrosse case, I was, at the time, among the majority of people chanting that they were guilty.

If you can remember back that far on NSG, you might remember I was leaning heavily on my local connection in making the case that they had to be guilty. Why would the accuser have fabricated the charges? The DA had to be so confident for good reason!

When I say that people presume rape charges are true when they are splashed across the news, I'm saying that from the perspective of someone who used to be part of that presumption. And when I came to finally put all the pieces together, I found that I suddenly became part of a villified minority of those saying "wait to pass judgement, he may not be guilty, wait for all the facts to come out, it's not good to presume guilt" when it came to rape cases discussed here on NSG.

Funny, isn't it? I've played that side of the fence. I'm pretty sure that the majority presume guilt because it looked that way from both sides of the fence; from presuming guilt myself to fighting against the presumption of guilt. And now, I see how heavily it''s pushed in even the most otherwise-neutral sounding articles. We use rapist and victim, not accused and accuser. The alleged is there sometimes, but disappears quickly so often.

With almost no exceptions, DNA evidence is relevant only in cases where there is a dispute as to the identity of the rapist. That is a very small percentage of rape cases.

Just, y'know, a few thousand charges of sexual assault per year whose investigations involve testing DNA evidence. Just, y'know, the entire Innocence Project.

DNA evidence is a major advance. It can very often be what establishes truth or falsehood of an accusation by itself. Yes, it does not address the most difficult rape cases, where the only question is that of consent.

It is scary that you otherwise seem to agree with Justice Hale.

On the fact that rape is very difficult to prove or disprove, but that making an accusation is simple?

I think that's plainly obvious. It is typically very difficult to prove what happened when we have only the accused and the accuser for witnesses. And that's the circumstance for many rape cases.

No, that is not generally the case. Nor are things "the opposite."

So can you not introduce the defendant's sexual history?

I should think that some of it might be quite relevant. Such as the fact that the defendant has a history of being forceful... or the fact that the defendant only sleeps with men, not women.

Yes, generally, . . . and? Are there perhaps reasons for this? Or was it adopted merely to persecute men?

There are reasons for this outside of persecuting men; the reason being that additional victims may decide to come forward. Got any figures on how often that actually happens?

However, it also results in the persecution of men. How many suicides, murders, lynchings, lost jobs, wrecked reputations, and years of inflicted depression are worth an extra rape conviction?

What's your Blackstone ratio?

The remedy to past injustice is not future injustice.

Did I say otherwise? Or did you just make up something to throw at the wall?

You were talking about past injustices in order to object to the position that we tend to presume guilt of the accused in a rape case.

I repeat this because you did not actually even acknowledge it, let alone respond.

And as I said, the remedy to past injustice is not future injustice. Comprende?

That is completely non-responsive and outrageous. I never said or implied anything even fucking remotely close to support for a presumption of guilt. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You claimed that it is far from clear that calling alleged victims liars is "a less, not more, socially destructive presumption."

I have, I believe, a compelling case to the contrary, and it is rooted every bit as thoroughly in history as the injustices you find in US rape law going into the eighties. The presumption of guilt in rape cases is immensely socially destructive. The case I linked to one example of how destructive the presumption of guilt can be. It can and has meant death at the hands of vigilantes for those falsely accused. It's not irrelevant to what we're arguing over; it's of central relevance to my assertion, and to your denial of my assertion.

The presumption by the general population that an accuser, whose anonymity is maintained in the media, is in fact lying? Has very little effect in and of itself. Has a little more effect when it is present within the legal system itself, rather than simply the public. It would be a little more destructive still if the accuser's identity were being splashed around, but I still don't think it meets the standard for what we see happen with a presumption of guilt.

Yes, we should not presume accusers guilty of making false accusations. That case needs to be proved, and proved beyond reference to a simple "not guilty" verdict.

[Freelanderness]

What does this has to do with the problem at hand: that we have people raping other people?

Because the only people who think men should be 'trained' not to rape are radical feminists. Rape shouldn't even be a feminist issue. It is an issue, but I fail to understand how it is a feminist one.

Because Womens' Rights are Human Rights possibly.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't think only radical feminism hold this idea, but we digress.

This thread is not about feminism or how radical some of it can be. This is about the issue of rape and that both men and women can be guilty of it and we need to teach them what's not ok.

But it's titled men need to be trained not to rape.

Yes, it is. But it has nothing to do with radical feminism or feminism at all.

[Freelanderness]

I don't think only radical feminism hold this idea, but we digress.

This thread is not about feminism or how radical some of it can be. This is about the issue of rape and that both men and women can be guilty of it and we need to teach them what's not ok.

But it's titled men need to be trained not to rape.

And it's written by someone who is against the feminist movement. Now what conclusions can be drawn from that?

[Liriena]

I am all for women's rights. I despise feminism for this reason.

You despise feminism because of the OP's blatant misrepresentation and shameless strawman of feminism? Are your convictions THAT feeble?

[Free Council Communes]

Because the only people who think men should be 'trained' not to rape are radical feminists. Rape shouldn't even be a feminist issue. It is an issue, but I fail to understand how it is a feminist one.

Because Womens' Rights are Human Rights possibly.

But rape isn't a womens' rights issue. Women being the main targets of something doesn't make it a womens' rights issue.

[Ifreann]

Radical feminism is a poison on our society. It is an elitist ideology created by rich bourgeois women. It should be stopped at all costs.

What does this has to do with the problem at hand: that we have people raping other people?

You see, a woman said something, something a man doesn't like. Therefore FEMINISTS ARE DESTROYING SOCIETY WHAAAAAAAAAARGARBL

---

Hold on. a woman raped a man?

It's happened quite a few times in the course of human events.

---

Yeah...no. It presuposes that many men (as shown by actual statistics) wrongfully believe that certain forms of rape are not actually rape, or that certain attitudes from women inherently imply consent.

Even worse. Now you've made it presuppose that all men need to be "trained not to rape" because they may have "raped" without knowing they did. If not all men, how do you decide who needs this "training?"

Who on this Earth does not need to know the realities of consent and rape?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What does this has to do with the problem at hand: that we have people raping other people?

You see, a woman said something, something a man doesn't like. Therefore FEMINISTS ARE DESTROYING SOCIETY WHAAAAAAAAAARGARBL

Its all our feminist vaginas of doom's fault it seems. *nod*

[Conserative Morality]

Yeah...

There are few worse ways she could have worded that.

[Ifreann]

I don't think only radical feminism hold this idea, but we digress.

This thread is not about feminism or how radical some of it can be. This is about the issue of rape and that both men and women can be guilty of it and we need to teach them what's not ok.

But it's titled men need to be trained not to rape.

Perhaps consider reading a little more of the thread than just the OP.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I think it would be beneficial for both sexes to be taught about respecting others' right to sexual autonomy.

Nah, just men.

I guess. I have no idea where my penis is half the time.

[Cannot think of a name]

Nah, just men.

I guess. I have no idea where my penis is half the time.

I think they made a song about you in the 90s.

[Individuality-ness]

Because Womens' Rights are Human Rights possibly.

But rape isn't a womens' rights issue. Women being the main targets of something doesn't make it a womens' rights issue.

It's a women's rights issue because
1. Women are being told that they should not be people in order to prevent rape.
2. Women who ARE raped are called sluts and are otherwise shamed.
3. There's the misconception that certain behaviors = a woman "asking for it".
4. Prosecution rates are low because women either don't report, the police are assholes, the defense makes her look like a slut...

Men get raped too, and they have their own set of problems. But most rape victims are women, and most rapists are men.

[Liriena]

That is precisely an important part of the problem. I would add to it that it is also insulting to ignore the fact that women commit acts of rape, domestic violence and abuse as well and yet this is almost never referred to when feminists are talking about rape. Particularly for survivors who have suffered at the hands of women this is an insulting thing to hear.

It would have been better to have said 'people' rather than men.

Feminists don't have the responsibility to talk about female-on-male rape when:
1) The issue, in this topic in particular, is the social and cultural factors involved in the widespread persistence of vast percentages of males who actually believe that some actions (which legally fall into the category of rape) are not actually "rape", or they wrongfully believe that certain actions or attitudes from women indirectly imply consent to sex.
2) Feminism is a social and political movement focused almost entirely on the problems regarding conscious and unconscious prejudices towards women in human civilization. This issue is particularly obvious in the matter of rape, with the disproportionate rates of male-on-female rape, especially in some enviroments.

[Free Council Communes]

But it's titled men need to be trained not to rape.

And it's written by someone who is against the feminist movement. Now what conclusions can be drawn from that?

So I suppose all someone's posts are invalid simply because they oppose radical feminism? The opinions of whoever started the thread are irrelevant.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

And it's written by someone who is against the feminist movement. Now what conclusions can be drawn from that?

So I suppose all someone's posts are invalid simply because they oppose radical feminism? The opinions of whoever started the thread are irrelevant.

I suggest you read what she posted. She never said the posts were invalid.

[Individuality-ness]

And it's written by someone who is against the feminist movement. Now what conclusions can be drawn from that?

So I suppose all someone's posts are invalid simply because they oppose radical feminism? The opinions of whoever started the thread are irrelevant.

He opposes feminism in general. That sort of says something about bias.

[Kaelmlant]

The subtleties in her wording strike me as the most provocative. Arguing that men need to be trained not to do something implies that, in the absence of such training, men are naturally inclined to do that something. It's arguing that men, as you said, are rapists by default, and will be rapists unless steered in the right direction through some form of intervention. I don't like how it returns to the old assumption that men have instincts that need to be curbed, just as we often hear "boys will be boys" tossed around to explain away poor behaviour.

I'm not flat-out disagreeing with her, though. It's important to have an open dialogue about sexual autonomy, but singling out a particular sex and phrasing it the way she did is entirely wrong, in my opinion.

That is precisely an important part of the problem. I would add to it that it is also insulting to ignore the fact that women commit acts of rape, domestic violence and abuse as well and yet this is almost never referred to when feminists are talking about rape. Particularly for survivors who have suffered at the hands of women this is an insulting thing to hear.

It would have been better to have said 'people' rather than men.

I agree, singling out men in the article both lets female rapists completely off the hook, and makes it very easy to be discriminatory and insulting, something which the author took no steps to avoid. Insulting the group that they intend to persuade and change is completely counterproductive, and completely undermines the intended impact. In some ways, I actually do question whether the article was meant to have a positive impact, or whether it was intended primarily to grasp readers and lead anyone disagreeing with the tone to be labelled a rapist sympathiser. If the intended effect is a lot of hits, the article has been a success. If this was an earnest attempt at opening discussion about education to prevent rape, it has failed spectacularly to generate support.

[Free Council Communes]

But rape isn't a womens' rights issue. Women being the main targets of something doesn't make it a womens' rights issue.

It's a women's rights issue because
1. Women are being told that they should not be people in order to prevent rape.
2. Women who ARE raped are called sluts and are otherwise shamed.
3. There's the misconception that certain behaviors = a woman "asking for it".
4. Prosecution rates are low because women either don't report, the police are assholes, the defense makes her look like a slut...

Men get raped too, and they have their own set of problems. But most rape victims are women, and most rapists are men.

So simply because the majority of victims are women it's a womens' rights issue? Then all crimes in which the majority of victims are women should be womens' rights issues.

[Nadkor]

And it's written by someone who is against the feminist movement. Now what conclusions can be drawn from that?

So I suppose all someone's posts are invalid simply because they oppose radical feminism? The opinions of whoever started the thread are irrelevant.

Are you shitting me?

I mean...

Is this something you've actually written? With a straight face?!

"I'm using what the OP wrote about something he doesn't like in order provide a foundation for my own dislike of that thing, but the OP's opinions are irrelevent!"

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

Wise the fuck up.

[Freelanderness]

Because Womens' Rights are Human Rights possibly.

But rape isn't a womens' rights issue. Women being the main targets of something doesn't make it a womens' rights issue.

No and that's exactly what feminist groups are arguing. That everyone should care.

[New Edom]

That is precisely an important part of the problem. I would add to it that it is also insulting to ignore the fact that women commit acts of rape, domestic violence and abuse as well and yet this is almost never referred to when feminists are talking about rape. Particularly for survivors who have suffered at the hands of women this is an insulting thing to hear.

It would have been better to have said 'people' rather than men.

Feminists don't have the responsibility to talk about female-on-male rape when:
1) The issue, in this topic in particular, is the social and cultural factors involved in the widespread persistence of vast percentages of males who actually believe that some actions (which legally fall into the category of rape) are not actually "rape", or they wrongfully believe that certain actions or attitudes from women indirectly implied consent to sex.
2) Feminism is a social and political movement focused almost entirely on the problems regarding conscious and unconscious prejudices towards women in human civilization.

Oh I see. Feminists don't have the responsibility to talk about female on male rape or female on female rape. There's justice for you folks. They don't care about anything but what happens to women.

[Free Council Communes]

That is precisely an important part of the problem. I would add to it that it is also insulting to ignore the fact that women commit acts of rape, domestic violence and abuse as well and yet this is almost never referred to when feminists are talking about rape. Particularly for survivors who have suffered at the hands of women this is an insulting thing to hear.

It would have been better to have said 'people' rather than men.

Feminists don't have the responsibility to talk about female-on-male rape when:
1) The issue, in this topic in particular, is the social and cultural factors involved in the widespread persistence of vast percentages of males who actually believe that some actions (which legally fall into the category of rape) are not actually "rape", or they wrongfully believe that certain actions or attitudes from women indirectly implied consent to sex.
2) Feminism is a social and political movement focused almost entirely on the problems regarding conscious and unconscious prejudices towards women in human civilization.

Actually, sexual acts should be considered consensual unless one partner directly & verbally objects to said sexual act.

[Freelanderness]

And it's written by someone who is against the feminist movement. Now what conclusions can be drawn from that?

So I suppose all someone's posts are invalid simply because they oppose radical feminism? The opinions of whoever started the thread are irrelevant.

Nope, let's try again. A person who is against a movement says something you don't agree with. One would not logically blame whatever that person said on the very movement they oppose

Are you with me?

[Nadkor]

Feminists don't have the responsibility to talk about female-on-male rape when:
1) The issue, in this topic in particular, is the social and cultural factors involved in the widespread persistence of vast percentages of males who actually believe that some actions (which legally fall into the category of rape) are not actually "rape", or they wrongfully believe that certain actions or attitudes from women indirectly implied consent to sex.
2) Feminism is a social and political movement focused almost entirely on the problems regarding conscious and unconscious prejudices towards women in human civilization.

Actually, sexual acts should be considered consensual unless one partner directly & verbally objects to said sexual act.

I don't even...

This is why we need to educate people about rape and consent.

This post. This very post.

This is why.