At 1/29/15 05:29 PM, Stretchysumo wrote:

Yeah because mental trauma is worse than spending years in prison, being labeled as a sex offender for the rest of your life all because you were falsely accused and prosecuted. Not to mention you'd probably be beaten and also raped in prison, if not placed in solitary for your own safety. Why do feminists think rape is literally the worst fate possible and that throwing due process out the window is acceptable? I'd rather be raped than suffer being falsely accused of doing so any day, but that won't happen because men can't be raped, right? The fact that people defend guilty until proven innocent just blows my fucking mind.

Never even said worse. Both are things I would not wish on my worst enemy, but to deny the trauma that rape victims suffer through is - putting it politely - ignorant. Hey, look at that phrase I used again, rape victims, not raped women.

At 1/29/15 04:17 PM, Gagsy wrote: "I was raped"

"Can you prove it?"

"Well.. no, there was no one else arou-"

"Theres the exit right behind you. Bye bye."

"That man is a witch!"

"Can you prove it?"

"Well I suppose not but..."

At that moment a procession of strong clergymen who don't need no bishop stride in

"You're promoting COVEN CULTURE!!!"

"What's that!?"

"The pervasive mainstream acceptance of witchcraft in modern society of course!"

"Come on that's just ridiculous! No one here could really support..."

"I don't think I asked to hear yourWITCHSPLAINING you vile UNWASHED-APOLOGIST"

"Now you're just making up stuff to discredit my stance. Witchcraft is a very serious crime and to levy such an accusation is very harsh. It's up to us to do our due diligence not only to avoid executing innocents but also so that when one is accused of witchcraft it is not done so lightly or for petty reasons. Think of the world we'd be living in if all a person had to do to have someone legally jailed or executed was accuse them of witchcraft! It'd be anar..."

"HE'S CASTING A SPELL ON ME EVERYONE AAAAH SOMEONE PLEASE HELP!"

And so the townspeople executed the naysayer and the poor father who was assaulted by the warlock received many generous donations at that week's collection to help him through the trying time.

How about we just don't rape, yall?

At 1/29/15 07:54 PM, Jeff-Teh-Great wrote: How about we just don't rape, yall?

That's impossible. Men's egos are far too big, their brains far too small, unable to control themselves. It's so disgusting, but in the world we live in, a man cannot always suppress his natural instinct to have his way with, to demonstrate power over, what he incorrectly deems to be beneath him and his brethren, the beautiful, woman. It's ingrained in every man's DNA, trust me, I checked.

Oh and btw, I live in Massachusetts, basically feminist capital of earth (no small coincidence, also one of the most well-educated places on earth).

At 1/29/15 06:50 PM, Gagsy wrote:

At 1/29/15 05:29 PM, Stretchysumo wrote:

Yeah because mental trauma is worse than spending years in prison, being labeled as a sex offender for the rest of your life all because you were falsely accused and prosecuted. Not to mention you'd probably be beaten and also raped in prison, if not placed in solitary for your own safety. Why do feminists think rape is literally the worst fate possible and that throwing due process out the window is acceptable? I'd rather be raped than suffer being falsely accused of doing so any day, but that won't happen because men can't be raped, right? The fact that people defend guilty until proven innocent just blows my fucking mind.

Never even said worse. Both are things I would not wish on my worst enemy, but to deny the trauma that rape victims suffer through is - putting it politely - ignorant. Hey, look at that phrase I used again, rape victims, not raped women.

Denying the trauma rape victims go through? I'm not denying anything. I'm just against guilty until proven innocent, unlike you. By saying the law should work like this, you are saying rape victims successfully being able to press charges more easily is more important than preventing innocent people from being locked up. That's some backwards ass logic.

At 1/29/15 11:11 PM, Sensationalism wrote:

At 1/29/15 02:15 PM, Newgaf wrote: I've never met a man who was accused of rape and brought to trial for it. However, I've met many women who were raped and unable bring men to trial for it.

Maybe the change is a good thing.

Isn't that the truth? Couldn't agree more.

At 1/29/15 03:53 PM, Bit wrote: I'd rather be raped than have the rest of my life ruined. You have nothing to live for if you spend 40 years in jail and find yourself unable to get a job or move into any neighborhood without being under the constant scrutiny of your neighbors. That's no way to live, and sentencing someone to such a life is not reasonable where there is no evidence.

40 huh? I'm pretty sure the actual number would more likely be 5-10....in the us.

Being raped doesn't ruin your life. It's so easy to go through compared to going to prison where you get free food and housing.

So you're trivializing being incarcerated for a crime you didn't commit. That's really great. You're literally saying that actually having years of your life taken from you, your reputation destroyed, having to be registered as a sex offender, and probably never being able to be employed again is not that bad?

Nowhere near as much scrutiny as having to prove something super shitty happened to you and being made to feel worse when your every move is criticized and WHY COULDN'T YOU JUST STOP IT YOU EPIC FAILURE PIECE OF SHIT WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU CLEARLY YOU WANT IT IF YOU LET IT HAPPEN DESPITE SAYING NO AND ALL THAT.

This is just fucking stupid. Try explaining to everyone you meet that you're a registered sex offender because the court told you to prove you DIDN'T do something

It's hilarious how much you guys cling to this false accusation shit and make such a big deal. You trivialize rape and act like it's so much easier to go though than being falsely accused. All that aside, rape still happens way way way more.
What are you so worried about?

"You won't be accused as being a witch, what are you so worrieeld about? Those people getting burned alive for no reason aren't you."

The burden of proof is upon the party making the accusation. It's not perfect, but it's the best system available. No civilized society would presume that the accused is automatically guilty without some sort of proof. That opens up its own can of worms where you can accuse someone of damn near anything and, as long as it can't be proven that they aren't guilty, they will be convicted by default. That would only serve to turn the legal system into a witch hunt.

Exactly, which is why agreeing with this would make you a hypocrite if you believe in due process. They're treating this as the burden of proof being on the accused.

It's not working. It is not the best system available. The amount of unpunished rapes is ridiculously high.
If you read the article you would know it has nothing to do with acting like the rapist is guilty without any proof at all. It has to do with shifting they we think about rape.

Trying to shift the way its viewed or not, it's still wrong

Someone who went through a super traumatic event still has to be able to prove it happened. But the person who put them into that situation by not listening to them and doing things anyway shouldn't be asked when they were given consent?

Asked when they were given consent is not at all the same as being asked to prove it. It's he said-she said unless it's signed in writing or recorded.

“We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?”

I'd sure like to hear what the answer to that question would have been in my case.

It probably would have been something like "when she stopped resisting and got quiet for a while before continuing to ask me to get off her"

At 1/29/15 02:51 PM, Gagsy wrote: So let me get this straight..

Its not ok for a man to have to prove that a women said yes to sex when he is accused but a woman making a claim has to prove that she didn't say yes, and thats ok?

Two sides of the same coins chums.

If a woman accusing has to prove she was raped then a man accused should have to prove he wasn't guilty.

Seriously....what is wrong with you people?

So many of these jacked up responses.....our society is so fucked in this regard right now. Like heads up asses fucked.
@stretchysumo rape is just a little bit of mental trauma and that's it? lmfao!!!!

I said mental trauma, not "a little mental trauma". Other than possible injuries immediately after the fact, it is entirely mental trauma by definition.

Some of you should read Ejit's post again probably because it clears a lot up for those of you who are having a hard time understanding what the article was about.

I did read it. I know exactly what the article is about

At 1/30/15 12:15 AM, SansNumbers wrote:

At 1/29/15 01:01 AM, Stretchysumo wrote: What ever happened to a defendent being innocent until proven guilty?

That is a relatively innovative method of running a trial that, in the modern world, began in America and was not automatically adopted by every country ever.

I know. However, the UK also adopted this stance a long time ago, so it's relevant.

At 1/29/15 11:11 PM, Sensationalism wrote: Being raped doesn't ruin your life. It's so easy to go through compared to going to prison where you get free food and housing.

Going to prison doesn't ruin your life. It's so easy compared to getting free surprise sex.

Hey, look. I can use retarded statements to make bad situations look good, too. Prison is to free food and housing what rape is to free surprise sex. It's not like prison is a bad thing, right? I could easily spend a few decades behind bars without any lasting consequences.

Nowhere near as much scrutiny as having to prove something super shitty happened to you and being made to feel worse when your every move is criticized and WHY COULDN'T YOU JUST STOP IT YOU EPIC FAILURE PIECE OF SHIT WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU CLEARLY YOU WANT IT IF YOU LET IT HAPPEN DESPITE SAYING NO AND ALL THAT.

The fuck are you talking about. I don't think that this is even within the scope of this discussion. Nobody ITT has even so much as implied that it's OK to rape someone who is saying "No".

It's hilarious how much you guys cling to this false accusation shit and make such a big deal. You trivialize rape and act like it's so much easier to go though than being falsely accused. All that aside, rape still happens way way way more.
What are you so worried about?

Yo. I never said that rape was trivial. You're reading things that aren't there.

I said that I'd rather be raped than spend a large chunk of my life in a small cell where my only companions are a bunch of scoundrels who repeatedly beat me because they heard I was a rapist.

And your statistics on false convictions are flawed. They're false, remember? Nobody knows (or is willing to admit to) the fact that they're false.

It's not working. It is not the best system available. The amount of unpunished rapes is ridiculously high.
If you read the article you would know it has nothing to do with acting like the rapist is guilty without any proof at all. It has to do with shifting they we think about rape.

rly

Sounds a lot like guilty until proven innocent, m8.

"Men must prove a woman said 'Yes'"

Good fucking luck proving that someone said something when there are literally no impartial witnesses.

Someone who went through a super traumatic event still has to be able to prove it happened. But the person who put them into that situation

Whoa, whoa. Stop right there.

You just ASSUMED that they were guilty.

That's like saying "Well, the prosecutors needed to prove that the defendant committed the murder, but the MURDERER doesn't need to prove their own innocence when the prosecutors couldn't come up with anything?"

You're assuming from the start that they're guilty, and that's exactly what should be avoided.

“We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?”

I don't see what's stopping them from asking now, but the burden of proof should not be on the defendant. As I mentioned above, it's really hard to prove that kind of statement.

I'd sure like to hear what the answer to that question would have been in my case.

It probably would have been something like "when she stopped resisting and got quiet for a while before continuing to ask me to get off her"

No. More like "She said it was a p good idea to sex" and then she denies it, he denies it, etc. with no real proof on either side. Such is the unfortunate truth about rape cases: They're difficult to prove either way because there is little evidence to be presented.

Nobody here is saying "Rape is good! More rape for everyone!", but you seem to think that this is the case. Nobody is trivializing rape, but you seem to be actively trying to trivialize false accusations. Above, you said that a prison sentence was equivalent to free shelter and food. That's an absolutely ridiculous comparison.

Rape is awful. I wish that all rapists would die in a fire, but I would never want to presume guilt on the part of the accused when no evidence has been presented. To use an even worse (and there aren't many) crime as an example: I would never presume that someone accused of murder is guilty simply because they can't prove that they DIDN'T murder someone.

But if that's not really what this is about, then we are both in agreement that nobody should be guilty until proven innocent.

Even so, you are seriously sweeping the reality of false accusations under the rug. They happen, and their occurrence is on the rise. Being put in jail is not a minor thing that you can brush off as "Well, there are just a few hundred of them." No. That's not good enough. No innocent person should be in jail.

Oh no. I'm sorry. Rape is a SPECIAL* crime. It doesn't matter how many innocent people are jailed with the rapists, and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is suspended for the duration of the trial, something that isn't even done for murder cases.

but u no m8

I never hear anyone talk about "murder culture" or any movements to increase the conviction rate of murders.

I can't recall ever having heard someone say that it's fine to convict innocent people of murder because "Most of them are probably guilty."

I doubt that any sane person would suspend the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" when convicting someone of murder.

But that must be the horrible RaPatriarchy at work, huh?

Why does it seem like nobody read the article in this thread? What this law says is that there has to be proof of consent, that now a woman not saying no isn't enough.

In a lot of rape cases women are too threatened to say no because they fear for health, job etc. Many times a women while comply with forced sex because she is simply fearing for her life. Another instance where women are to afraid is to say no is at work because the person thats instigating the sexual act is their boss and they fear that if they don't comply they will get fired.

Everyone, should also note that false rape accusations are astronomically small. You have more chances of being struke by lighting then being accused of rape. Also, judging by the amount of rapes that go unreported you have good chance of raping someone and getting away with it.

The only thing the concerns me about this law is what happens when a man rapes a man or woman rapes man, what about when a woman rapes a woman?

Inclusion, everybody calm your tits, nobody is going accuse you of rape.

At 1/29/15 02:18 AM, Sensationalism wrote: You know the amount of unreported actual rapes is much higher than the amount of false rape accusations.

As a woman- I agree with your biased and unfounded opinions!

Says the guy who provides nothing at all to back up his shit to the person who did.

Why would you attack a fellow WOMYN RIDAH?

If we cannot band together to defeat the patriarchy then what is the point! Herra help us!

At 1/30/15 12:33 AM, Stretchysumo wrote: I did read it. I know exactly what the article is about

Yeah but dude. You're assuming there's this witch hunt (you literally said witch hunt) out there, with men being tried left and right for crimes they didn't commit, who are unable to prove their innocence.

You're right that it's fucked up to have to prove innocence, just as a concept. "Innocent until proven guilty" or whatever. Still you have to consider how long men have been able to get away with a really fucked up thing. Before DNA testing, it was impossible to prove. Even with DNA testing, it's very very unlikely, and impossible if they use a condom.

The measure is just so that women (and men I guess) have some ground to bring people to trial, despite there being no earthly way to "prove" that they fucked you without you saying you were cool with that.

In order to justify your outrage, you should find evidence that what you're saying is happening,ishappening. It's like the stricter rape laws that took place in the US -- nobody asks every step of the way, like you legally need to, if you can suck the nip, lick the clam, fuck like a dog. It's kind of like the speed limit -- it's a law that it's OK to break, but that exists so that if people get way out of line with it, there's some frame of reference.

This is coming from a guy who's had so many girlfriends and close friends raped that it's ridiculous. You can't do shit about it, and like a tenth of women are raped in college. It's fucking awful. They need some leverage.

It's not like I need to prove I didn't rape the queen of England (not that I want second-generation incest babies).

Damn, this world is getting to be fucked up. If the person he "raped" doesn't like him, she could easily say, "He didn't have my consent." and get him thrown in jail.

At 1/30/15 07:06 PM, Newgaf wrote:

At 1/30/15 12:33 AM, Stretchysumo wrote: I did read it. I know exactly what the article is about

Yeah but dude. You're assuming there's this witch hunt (you literally said witch hunt) out there, with men being tried left and right for crimes they didn't commit, who are unable to prove their innocence.

No, I'm not assuming that it's extremely common. You're assuming that I'm assuming that. The fact of the matter is that it's not acceptable, no matter how small the number of false convictions, it's still morally wrong to have a system set up like that. It's not like false rape claims are extremely common, but it has happened and a few that have been acquitted spent a decade or more behind bars. Without absolute proof of guilt needed to convict, it is statistically impossible that nobody will ever be falsely convicted. There is no way to justify this.

You're right that it's up to have to prove innocence, just as a concept. "Innocent until proven guilty" or whatever. Still you have to consider how long men have been able to get away with a really fucked up
The measure is just so that women (and men I guess) have some ground to bring people to trial, despite there being no earthly way to "prove" that they fucked you without you saying you were cool with that.

Ground to bring to trial? Seriously? This applies during a trial, not before. Can't prove consent during a trial? Have fun in prison.
There's no point in even arguing with people who defend this shit. I bet you believe the " statistics " on false rape convictions/unreported when the entire concept of being able to accurately gauge that is impossible. If someone doesn't report it, then it didn't go to trial, which means there's no record proving it happened. That information is gathered from surveys not from an actual number which is impossible to know. As for "rapists unconvicted", that number is inherently assuming that they were guilty despite being decided innocent in a court of law. Also, false rape stats can only be gathered from those who were acquitted. Anyone that was charged wrongfully is considered guilty. Surely you can see why the notion of these statistics even being possible to gather is completely retarded?

At 1/30/15 07:06 PM, Newgaf wrote: In order to justify your outrage, you should find evidence that what you're saying is happening,ishappening.

At 1/31/15 08:01 AM, Stretchysumo wrote: No, I'm not assuming that it's extremely common. You're assuming that I'm assuming that.

Nope. I said you said witch hunt.

Read.

There's no point in even arguing with people who defend this shit. I bet you believe the " statistics " on false rape convictions/unreported when the entire concept of being able to accurately gauge that is impossible.

No, like I said, I just know a bunch of women who've been raped, and were unable to prove it.

Again, read, and stop "betting".

Surely you can see why the notion of these statistics even being possible to gather is completely retarded?

Have you considered that rape victims often go to therapy, and that therapists have a hand in calculating said statistics? So, it's possible, and it's not retarded. You are just in an outrage, and lack judgement.

@Shikamarana I'm sure you think you're smart, but there's nothing the least bit ironic about what I said.

Let's look at your line of reasoning, though. You probably think that it's ironic because I'm not making sure that what I'm saying is true, like I said Strechysumo should. However the statistics are on my side, and note that I was speaking of justifying one's outrage. I'm not outraged, and I'm not purporting anything to be true which I am unsure of. I'm basing what I say off of what is there. Sumo was basing his impassioned argument on what isn't there, namely a list of men wrongly tried for rape, and convicted because they couldn't prove their innocence, a la "witch hunt".

Also, hypocrisy isn't the same thing as irony, contrary to what the plebeians might tell you.

@Voltage I don't get it. Unless reference to sexual molestation is just one of those things that can be used in lieu of an observation to make somebody laugh, in which case: ha, ha.

At 2/1/15 09:25 PM, Newgaf wrote: Also, hypocrisy isn't the same thing as irony, contrary to what the plebeians might tell you.

Sorry, m'lordship.

Jesus, this thread. By definition, if sex is forced it is not consensual, it is rape. Rough sex or whatever your kink is something different. Not a difficult concept.

This law is actually super progressive and I don't understand why you're treating it otherwise. If a woman or a man is too drunk to speak, do you imagine they then deserve to have no legal defense in the event that they are raped, simply because they couldn't form the word "no"? Consent is sexy and a good foundation for a healthy, mutually respectful relationship.

Rape is the least reported of all violent crimes, mostly because the process of reporting and pursuing legal action is structured in most places to be like pouring salt in to an open wound. Post traumatic stress disorder is very common.

The data is out there. For some US statistics, in 72-81% of cases in which a male rapes a female college student, the female is intoxicated (Lisak & Miller, 2002; Mohler-Kuo, et al., 2004). Of all college rapes, 11% of college women who experience rape report it to the police. Cases where alcohol or drugs were involved only are only reported 7% of the time (Kilpatrick, et al., 2007). Prosecution is difficult and painful for victims. Their previous sexual history is dragged out, they are asked what they were wearing, they are ostracized, they are made to repeat and relive an intensely painful experience immediately after it has happened. If they wait to heal, they are less likely to be believed.

Beyond college, look at the US military. US female soldiers in Iraq are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by an enemy- that's one in three female service members. Of military rape cases that are actually reported (about 20% of them), a mere 8% end in prosecution versus 40% in civilian cases; within the military 80% of men convicted of rape or sexual assault are simply honorably discharged. (source)

The law in most places overwhelmingly does not support rape victims. Any effort to change this is a good thing.

At 2/3/15 08:40 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 2/3/15 06:51 AM, lovingthedark wrote: The law in most places overwhelmingly does not support rape victims. Any effort to change this is a good thing.

Even assuming someone is guilty until proven innocent?

The problem with this thread is that it constantly reverts back to that men have become guilty until proven innocent, and that there's a change in the law.

Instead it is a clarification that consent must be given, that shagging somebody when they're comatose/disabled and unable to resist you still counts as rape.

As a rule of thumb, men shouldn't go about bedding overly drunk or mentally handicapped women
...
... and steer clear of overly-vindictive-females-who-want-to-screw-you-over-by-attempting-to-spend-lots-of-money-and-several-months-in-a-court-case-with-a-paper-thin-story-that-you-raped-them-during-your-relationship. We've all had at least one.