'Legitimate Rape'

pennypocket

Colmustard wrote: »

I absolutely agree with the first part of your post. But the second part. This is an emotive issue and everyone has a position, I don't think someone who is pro abortion like myself would ever post an anti abortion post.

So people are just posting their own opinions.

Fair enough Colmustard.

Blacklilly, I apologise if my swearing offended, but it's an issue I feel very strongly about, and in the public sphere, I really don't find many women have the courage to [understandably] argue for the right to abortion in this country, despite the many thousands who have crossed the water to carry out abortions since the 1980s. I find the hypocrisy in this country swear-inducing.
In any case, your arguments about 'newborns' and 'self-mutilation' are absolutely unrelated to what I am talking about, so our discussion ends here. Thanks for your confirmation of my literacy, etc., yours.

blacklilly

Penny I also feel women should have confidence in voicing their opinions on this issue whether it be for or against, freedom of speech for all parties is extremely important. I would never want to silence someone who has opposing opinions to myself

pennypocket

blacklilly wrote: »

Penny I also feel women should have confidence in voicing their opinions on this issue whether it be for or against, freedom of speech for all parties is extremely important. I would never want to silence someone who has opposing opinions to myself

That is a very commendable sentiment and thank you for that. Nevertheless 'for or against' leaves very much room for desecration of that free voice [confidence, freedom of speech] that you support. But still, I appreciate your response.

hatrickpatrick

I have to say, first of all I think Akin's remarks are beyond moronic and a timely reminder of why the Republican Party should never be allowed anywhere near any position of authority. But while I condemn rape in the strongest possible terms, I do find it uncomfortable that it's impossible to have a discussion on what should or should not count as "rape" without a sh!tstorm and attacks from every possible angle. If people have opinions, they should be free to air them.
For example, I think Ireland's statutory rape laws are a disgrace and if a 15 year old boy has consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, first of all I absolutely do not accept that this is equal to instances of rape in which force is used or there is a total absence of any form of consent, and secondly I do not accept that in such cases the male should be regarded as the "aggressor" while the girl is a totally innocent victim, regardless of who initiated and what actually happened.

Should I be attacked with "rape is rape, end of story" remarks for airing what I consider to be the reasonable opinions outlined above? Because I have been attacked for this before and been accused of all kinds of things from misogyny to victim blaming. And that is absolutely not right, in my view.

Just something to think about. Akin's remarks are insane due to their incredible medical inaccuracy and total lack of empathy for victims of rape, but in my view, to suggest that the definition of rape needs to be better defined is not an evil thing to suggest. Sometimes laws are badly written and are therefore unjust, and in those cases it is absolutely right and proper that they be reviewed - and such discussion should be able to take place without those proposing it being shouted down with ridiculous and sensationalist accusations.

I realize this has nothing to do with Akin's remarks, but seeing as so many posters on Boards and indeed journalists covering this have decided to venture into this subject, it needs to be brought up.

I wonder how many others out there share this view but don't air it for fear of being labelled a horrible person for it?

If you must indeed now condemn me for this, come at me bro I'll be waiting for ya

Dangerous Man

Colmustard wrote: »

So another man opposes abortion, surprise, surprise, a man who will never have to have an abortion,

So you are ANTI ABORTION, I bet that makes you feel good about yourself. For you that is an empty platitude as you will never be in a position to have to make that "choice" but yet you impose your morals and judgement on half the worlds population.

Good for you and as for that been sexist, really, a woman's body and life is her own, she has the right to carry a pregnancy or not. Nothing to do with us.

My gender is irrelevant. I know you wish it were relevant, but it's not. According to your 'logic,' people should only care about issues that affect them directly. Which is stupid. Really stupid.

I never said that I was anti-abortion.

Not in Ireland, she doesn't. You need to cultivate the ability to discern between where rights actually come from and some nebulous notion of natural justice.

Oh, and learn what the word 'platitude' means...

Dangerous Man

Colmustard wrote: »

He can have an opinion, but he can't oppose an abortion clinic.

Of course I can, if I so desire. Your statement has no basis in reality.

Colmustard

platitude; is a trite, meaningless, biased, or prosaic statement, often presented as if it were significant and original. I will remember that.

A woman's right to an abortion if she demands it is the issue here, not men to deny women that right. So you are now pro-abortion good, we convinced you.

Its simple really, if you are opposed to abortion, don't have one, but don't have it outlawed for those that want one. Surely you see something wrong with the 1000s of women each year who are forced, for whatever reasons, to go to London or Holland to have an abortion.

PrincessLola

I just love how this threads get derailed into discussions of "false rape accusations". Every f*cking time.

Just stop. You don't get to feel super included in everything, certain things will affect one gender/ social group more than the other.

hatrickpatrick

PrincessLola wrote: »

I just love how this threads get derailed into discussions of "false rape accusations". Every f*cking time.

Three posts out of 11 pages contain the word "false", including yours. :rolleyes:

Your inclusion of quotations marks around the phrase false rape accusations also implies that you're one of the people who believes they don't happen, which is demonstrably absurd.

You don't get to feel super included in everything, certain things will affect one gender/ social group more than the other.

I am determined not to drag this thread down to your level of mud slinging so I won't reply to this in the manner I usually would, all I'll say is that if a guy said that to a woman, he would be charged by a rampaging, torch wielding lynch mob...

If as I suspect your post was directed against my earlier post, read it again; not once do I bring up the concept of false allegations. 2 other posts in this entire thread did. Did you type "false" into the search field beforehand so you could decide whether to post this tirade?

As you say yourself... Just stop.

RDM_83 again

Colmustard wrote: »

Its simple really, if you are opposed to abortion, don't have one,

You can;t really think its that simple can you? a common reason people oppose abortion is because they consider the fetus has potential for life/conciousness. To give an example I could argue with quite a body of evidence that new born babies are not conscious as we understand it, does this mean X can say "your opposed to post natal abortion fine then don;t have one yourself"*.
Really paraphrasing this argument and I'm not saying the two are equivalent but I'm sort of shocked by this simplistic view.

* there;s a interesting scholarly paper on exactly this topic thats quite thought provoking.

Dangerous Man

Colmustard wrote: »

platitude; is a trite, meaningless, biased, or prosaic statement, often presented as if it were significant and original. I will remember that.

A woman's right to an abortion if she demands it is the issue here, not men to deny women that right. So you are now pro-abortion good, we convinced you.

Its simple really, if you are opposed to abortion, don't have one, but don't have it outlawed for those that want one. Surely you see something wrong with the 1000s of women each year who are forced, for whatever reasons, to go to London or Holland to have an abortion.

In Ireland, women do not have that right because rights come from political processes, just like in every other democracy.

I see the problem you're having now. You seem to think that ideology or strong personal beliefs are just that - personal - and that individual's beliefs are not extended into the actual, empirical world in which we live (at least, it seems, for you - the personal beliefs and ideologies of others.) Ergo, just let those who want abortions have them, and those who don't want abortions, don't have to have them. Again, your logic is completely flawed. We can take this logic and apply it to a whole plethora of situations and show how silly it is. Let's take just two, however, for now.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you're in favour of the right for dog-owners to dock their animals' tails. And let's say that I, as a concerned animal rights activist, believe that the practice of cutting dogs' tails off is barbaric and outdated and I campaign vigorously against it.

Your logic would hold in this case that if I don't agree with the docking of dogs' tails, then I don't have to dock my own dogs' tails. It takes no account of my serious moral objections. (Indeed, if we apply your gender logic to this your argument would then be 'if you're not a dog owner then your argument is irrelevant.) You see now why your position is flawed? Let's take one more.

Person A wants to smoke crack cocaine. As far as this person sees it, his behaviour has no effect on society because it's his body, his business, and nobody else's. Therefore, Person A believes, that because his activity has no bearing on anybody else, it should be legal. A cursory glance at this argument would have person A winning because, if, as he contends, his behaviour would indeed have no effect on anybody else, then there really isn't a legitimate basis for refusing his request.

However, a more thoughtful consideration reveals that while person A's position, on an individual basis might be sound - it may not be the case on a societal level. Person A may smoke his crack in his home and not bother a soul. Person B might smoke crack, however, as a result of the logic that facilitates legal crack smoking, go nuts and start robbing to feed his habit.

Nudderwords, we can't (and don't) legislate on the basis of individual needs and wants; we legislate on a societal basis - that is to say, we LOOK AT THE ISSUE FROM ALL SIDES. And, again, it has to be pointed out that in the case of abortion, no matter how you attempt to skew it, muddy the waters, or plain ignore basic facts, in the case of abortion we are taking about more than one life - we are talking about at least three - the life of the mother - the life of the father and finally, the life of the unborn. So to say that abortion just affects women - is wrong. It's so wrong.

mackg

pennypocket wrote: »

I just feel like I am arguing with children on this issue. What the fúck business is it of yours what I do with my body? Where the fúck do you stop; are you against contraception? My 'family planning' decisions are my own, and if I desire an abortion [without having to travel to the UK or the Netherlands, and without proper aftercare] it should be available in this country. Fúck off with your fúcking sanctimonious shíte.

When did I say I was anti-abortion? If there was a referendum tomorrow I would vote for the legalisation of abortion in Ireland. You put words in my mouth and then swear at me over them. If you don't want to hear anyone elses point of view start a blog. All I said was that if abortion was an option that the father would have some way of having his objection noted.

He may not be referring to men having the legal right to prevent abortion, but rather having the basic right to object to an abortion taking place.

Ickle Magoo sums up perfectly what I was talking about.

pennypocket wrote: »

If a woman doesn't want to have a child, for whatever reason, that's where it ends. That's it. Responsibility for the child, when it is born is a completely different issue, and I'll think you'll find child support well legislated for.

And, besides the entire point of this discussion, I have noticed that long term boards' users known to each other are more than willing to stand up for the equally shíte opinions of each other rather than challenge the bases of the argument in question. Fúcking sad, and in the end, shuts down all discussion from the start. You know who you are.

I have been a reader since 2002.

If you've been reading since 2002 I'm sure you'll have seen this rolled out plenty of times as a way to dismiss people with opposing points of view. There are plenty of well known posters on here that are pro choice and vocally so and I very much doubt they would silence those opinions for the sake of backing up another poster because they know them.

blatantrereg

PrincessLola wrote: »

I just love how this threads get derailed into discussions of "false rape accusations". Every f*cking time.

Just stop. You don't get to feel super included in everything, certain things will affect one gender/ social group more than the other.

You might be onto something there. Some accusations of crimes are false. But why are people quicker to doubt or dismiss claims of rape than other accusations (where similar levels of evidence are available)?

Is there some reason to think someone is more likely to lie about it? Is it just sexism? ...Or perhaps some warped form of prudishness?: I'm sure it's dreadfully rude to doubt someone's word who says they are a victim of something... But maybe it's ok if they are already being so rude as to talk about sex.

I think it is just sexism. Women are often subjected to various forms of sexual harrassment and bullying and it is just accepted by society, even when it's in plain sight. A lot of people are offended by attractive women. How dare they be more attractive than you, or be attractive and not want to have sex with you. Sure saying you were raped is just some warped form of boasting.

Yes there are false accusations. There are false accusations about every sort of crime. But people only take this weird sort of offence to people saying they were raped.

RDM_83 again

blatantrereg wrote: »

You might be onto something there. Some accusations of crimes are false. But why are people quicker to doubt or dismiss claims of rape than other accusations (where similar levels of evidence are available)?

I don;t think you really need to delve into sexism and gender politics to find the reason people doubt 'some' rape accusations, to be brutal there simply may not be evidence of a crime occurring so it devolves into one person word against another, I don;t think people question rape allegations where there's the strong evidence that is associated with other crimes.

A 3am ! theory of mine is that the idea of rape being the worst possible crime (there was a thread here a while back where people thought it was worse than torture and murder) is actually detrimental to the conviction of rapists as people with those views would wonder "rape is such a terrible crime why doesn;t she have defensive marks/bruising etc"

Before I get slaughtered I understand how it doesn;t work that way with peoples actual reactions to force (freezing up etc), and though I think torture/murder is worse i still regard it as a very serious crime

mackg

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I don;t think you really need to delve into sexism and gender politics to find the reason people doubt 'some' rape accusations, to be brutal there simply may not be evidence of a crime occurring so it devolves into one person word against another, I don;t think people question rape allegations where there's the strong evidence that is associated with other crimes.

A 3am ! theory of mine is that the idea of rape being the worst possible crime (there was a thread here a while back where people thought it was worse than torture and murder) is actually detrimental to the conviction of rapists as people with those views would wonder "rape is such a terrible crime why doesn;t she have defensive marks/bruising etc"

Before I get slaughtered I understand how it doesn;t work that way with peoples actual reactions to force (freezing up etc), and though I think torture/murder is worse i still regard it as a very serious crime

I would pretty much equate the act of rape with torture.

blatantrereg

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I don;t think you really need to delve into sexism and gender politics to find the reason people doubt 'some' rape accusations, to be brutal there simply may not be evidence of a crime occurring so it devolves into one person word against another, I don;t think people question rape allegations where there's the strong evidence that is associated with other crimes.

I did say with similar levels of evidence. Plenty of accusations are just one person's word against the other. The tendency is to believe the accuser with most crimes when this is the case. Not so much with rape though.

If I told you I was mugged, beaten or robbed by someone, you'd believe me. Why though? It's just my word saying it. You're skeptical when it's just a woman's word that she was raped. [Incidentally, I really think there should be more skepticism when it comes to accusations of other crimes tbh. There is a huge double standard.]

Doc

blatantrereg wrote: »

You might be onto something there. Some accusations of crimes are false. But why are people quicker to doubt or dismiss claims of rape than other accusations (where similar levels of evidence are available)?

Is there some reason to think someone is more likely to lie about it? Is it just sexism? ...Or perhaps some warped form of prudishness?: I'm sure it's dreadfully rude to doubt someone's word who says they are a victim of something... But maybe it's ok if they are already being so rude as to talk about sex.

I think it is just sexism. Women are often subjected to various forms of sexual harrassment and bullying and it is just accepted by society, even when it's in plain sight. A lot of people are offended by attractive women. How dare they be more attractive than you, or be attractive and not want to have sex with you. Sure saying you were raped is just some warped form of boasting.

Yes there are false accusations. There are false accusations about every sort of crime. But people only take this weird sort of offence to people saying they were raped.

The simple fact is that you are innocent of a crime until you are proven guilty so until someone is proven guilty of a rape there has to be doubt about whether the person who is accusing is a victim or not. If the person accursed clams to be innocent why should their word be any less worthy of belief then the accuser. It is the legal systems job to decide who is or is not a victim. Once a person if found guilty then there should be no doubt but until then there has to be so that real justice can be done!

The fact is that rape is a serious deplorable crime that society rightly sees as one of the worst but often the only people who witness the events are the person who was raped and the rapist. It is therfour both difficult to prove and difficult to disprove an allegation as both parties will have their own different versions of events. As the burden of
proof has to be on the prosecution often terrible crimes go unpunished because of this but because of the difficult nature of disproving such an allegation it could irreparably damage the repatriation of a person if they were to be falsely accused.

blatantrereg

Doc wrote: »

The simple fact is that you are innocent of a crime until you are proven guilty so until someone is proven guilty of a rape there has to be doubt about whether the person who is accusing is a victim or not. If the person accursed clams to be innocent why should their word be any less worthy of belief then the accuser. It is the legal systems job to decide who is or is not a victim. Once a person if found guilty then there should be no doubt but until then there has to be so that real justice can be done!

The fact is that rape is a serious deplorable crime that society rightly sees as one of the worst but often the only people who witness the events are the person who was raped and the rapist. It is therfour both difficult to prove and difficult to disprove an allegation as both parties will have their own different versions of events. As the burden of
proof has to be on the prosecution often terrible crimes go unpunished because of this but because of the difficult nature of disproving such an allegation it could irreparably damage the repatriation of a person if they were to be falsely accused.

Proven guilty in the minds of the judge/jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Plaintiff's testimony is often considered sufficient evidence for this. Can be sufficient even when it contradicts itself in fact. It's just up to the minds of the judge/jury - and their egos, biases, fears etc.
People tend to believe those who say they were victims of most crimes, are sympathetic to them, and antipathic towards people questioning their story. However the reverse tends to be true when it comes to rape.
It's true in court proceedings as well as in society in general (which is also relevant).

Colmustard

Dangerous Man wrote: »

In Ireland, women do not have that right because rights come from political processes, just like in every other democracy.

I see the problem you're having now. You seem to think that ideology or strong personal beliefs are just that - personal - and that individual's beliefs are not extended into the actual, empirical world in which we live (at least, it seems, for you - the personal beliefs and ideologies of others.) Ergo, just let those who want abortions have them, and those who don't want abortions, don't have to have them. Again, your logic is completely flawed. We can take this logic and apply it to a whole plethora of situations and show how silly it is. Let's take just two, however, for now.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you're in favour of the right for dog-owners to dock their animals' tails. And let's say that I, as a concerned animal rights activist, believe that the practice of cutting dogs' tails off is barbaric and outdated and I campaign vigorously against it.

Your logic would hold in this case that if I don't agree with the docking of dogs' tails, then I don't have to dock my own dogs' tails. It takes no account of my serious moral objections. (Indeed, if we apply your gender logic to this your argument would then be 'if you're not a dog owner then your argument is irrelevant.) You see now why your position is flawed? Let's take one more.

Person A wants to smoke crack cocaine. As far as this person sees it, his behaviour has no effect on society because it's his body, his business, and nobody else's. Therefore, Person A believes, that because his activity has no bearing on anybody else, it should be legal. A cursory glance at this argument would have person A winning because, if, as he contends, his behaviour would indeed have no effect on anybody else, then there really isn't a legitimate basis for refusing his request.

However, a more thoughtful consideration reveals that while person A's position, on an individual basis might be sound - it may not be the case on a societal level. Person A may smoke his crack in his home and not bother a soul. Person B might smoke crack, however, as a result of the logic that facilitates legal crack smoking, go nuts and start robbing to feed his habit.

Nudderwords, we can't (and don't) legislate on the basis of individual needs and wants; we legislate on a societal basis - that is to say, we LOOK AT THE ISSUE FROM ALL SIDES. And, again, it has to be pointed out that in the case of abortion, no matter how you attempt to skew it, muddy the waters, or plain ignore basic facts, in the case of abortion we are taking about more than one life - we are talking about at least three - the life of the mother - the life of the father and finally, the life of the unborn. So to say that abortion just affects women - is wrong. It's so wrong.

Colmustard wrote: »

Abortion terminates a pregnancy and ends a potential viable life, that is all. Birth control also stops a potential human life. When it comes to pregnancy the woman is effected more, it is still a dangerous condition it may surprise you to learn about half a million women die worldwide a year in childbirth. Women can also develop life long health conditions due to pregnancy such as diabetes and other diseases. They are also left with a life changing and not always enhancing package whether they want it or not.

A man in a lot of cases does not have these problems. So no it is not an equal decision. Men allied with the catholic church in this country pushed and succeeded in getting the constitutional amendment that denies women the right to abortion at a time when women's positions in Ireland was questionable.

No I am not having a problem at all, crack cocaine or any drug issue effects all society both men and women equally. For some of the reasons I gave in the above post, denial of abortion rights to women effect women more so it is not an equal issue between men and women. In the end it is only women who have abortions and not men.

Now stretch your imagination and imagine men and women got pregnant in equal measure then I would say it is an equal issue between the genders.

So I rechon allowing easy access to abortion services is really the Christian thing to do. (LOL)

dr.bollocko

This guy Akin is just getting worse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19347185

In a new fundraising appeal, Mr Akin claims "the liberal elite" are trying to take down a "pro-life conservative".

He used false science in his celebration of ignorance of an original comment.

Now he's trying to twist the debate into a pro-life vs. pro-choice one. As opposed to a pro-intelligence vs. pro-moron debate which it originally was.

In an appeal for $5 campaign donations on Wednesday, Mr Akin appeared to pitch to Christian evangelicals, anti-abortion activists and anti-establishment Republicans.

He accused Republicans of trying to "duck and run for cover" in the face of adversity over the row.

They're distancing themselves from an idiotic statement in an election year Akin. They're not running from the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.

What's worrying is that while we can look at all sides and establish the scenario. There are grass roots republicans who will now legitimately believe that it's an issue of "the liberal elite" vs. a "pro-life conservative". As opposed to somebody who celebrates and swims in bad science and ignorance so long as it will be his bed-fellow.

hatrickpatrick

blatantrereg wrote: »

You might be onto something there. Some accusations of crimes are false. But why are people quicker to doubt or dismiss claims of rape than other accusations (where similar levels of evidence are available)?

Is there some reason to think someone is more likely to lie about it? Is it just sexism? ...Or perhaps some warped form of prudishness?: I'm sure it's dreadfully rude to doubt someone's word who says they are a victim of something... But maybe it's ok if they are already being so rude as to talk about sex.

I think it is just sexism. Women are often subjected to various forms of sexual harrassment and bullying and it is just accepted by society, even when it's in plain sight. A lot of people are offended by attractive women. How dare they be more attractive than you, or be attractive and not want to have sex with you. Sure saying you were raped is just some warped form of boasting.

Yes there are false accusations. There are false accusations about every sort of crime. But people only take this weird sort of offence to people saying they were raped.

IT's for two reasons. One is that the definition of "rape" is, as I said, ridiculously broad in this day and age, and many people consider some current definitions of it to be invalid - for instance as I said above consensual sex between minors, or sex which occurs when both parties were drunk (how do you decide which side was the aggressor and which the victim? It seems utterly unjust to have a "Default" in this scenario )

Secondly, it's because if a man is accused of rape and subsequently acquitted, it is apparently perfectly acceptable to regard it as an automatic miscarriage of justice. For example, when people comment on the statistics of sexual assaults reported vs convictions in court, there's an unspoken implication that many acquittals are incorrect and therefore that innocent until proven guilty has been suspended. A false accusation will still destroy somebody's life even if the case does not succeed - Dominic Strauss Khan has never been found guilty of raping an American hotel maid, yet her accusation cost him his job at the IMF and his chances of becoming France's next president. In this case, a false accusation destroyed this man's life.

That is not right.

So yes, there is a lot of frustration among many men about how an accusation of sexual assault can do so much damage even when he is found innocent in court, and the same definitely cannot be said for other crimes. If Strauss Khan had been accused of murder and then been found innocent in court I doubt it would have had as severe an impact on his professional and political life.

Capt'n Midnight

Ironically Todd Atkin won't pull out even though everyone is asking him to.

hatrickpatrick

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Ironically Todd Atkin won't pull out even though everyone is asking him to.

Pulling out isn't always 100% effective you know, he would have been better off abstaining from the election altogether

hatrickpatrick

An example to support the points I made above.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0823/Jordan-withdraws-men-accused-of-sexual-assault-from-Paralympics

Jordan pulled three squad members accused of sexual assault in Northern Ireland out of the 2012 London Paralympics on Thursday, sports officials in Amman said.

The Jordanian Paralympic Committee said the three men — two Paralympic power-lifters and a trainer — will be flown home later on Thursday but that they will be returned to court in Northern Ireland on Oct. 18 for their hearing.

None of these men have actually been found guilty, in court, of committing any crime whatsoever. Is it right that anybody can derail their Olympic careers by merely accusing them of something? Surely such punishment is inappropriate until after the trial?

By all means strip them of any awards they may win if they are subsequently found guilty, but this trend of allowing an as yet unproven accusation to destroy a man's life or career is one of the reasons this is such a contentious issue. Of course, it's easy for posters such as Lola to scoff at these issues as if they're no big deal - as a woman, she is almost completely unlikely to ever have to deal with this type of smear.

Is it really such an outlandish thing to demand that the democratic cornerstone principle of "innocent until proven guilty" be applied universally to all crimes, and not simply suspended in cases of sexual crime?

blatantrereg

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

IT's for two reasons. One is that the definition of "rape" is, as I said, ridiculously broad in this day and age, and many people consider some current definitions of it to be invalid - for instance as I said above consensual sex between minors, or sex which occurs when both parties were drunk (how do you decide which side was the aggressor and which the victim? It seems utterly unjust to have a "Default" in this scenario )

Secondly, it's because if a man is accused of rape and subsequently acquitted, it is apparently perfectly acceptable to regard it as an automatic miscarriage of justice. For example, when people comment on the statistics of sexual assaults reported vs convictions in court, there's an unspoken implication that many acquittals are incorrect and therefore that innocent until proven guilty has been suspended. A false accusation will still destroy somebody's life even if the case does not succeed - Dominic Strauss Khan has never been found guilty of raping an American hotel maid, yet her accusation cost him his job at the IMF and his chances of becoming France's next president. In this case, a false accusation destroyed this man's life.

That is not right.

So yes, there is a lot of frustration among many men about how an accusation of sexual assault can do so much damage even when he is found innocent in court, and the same definitely cannot be said for other crimes. If Strauss Khan had been accused of murder and then been found innocent in court I doubt it would have had as severe an impact on his professional and political life.

Any accusation does damage. Rape accusations do a lot of damage because rape is a more heinous crime than most. However people are less inclined to believe them (like I said in previous post). Here is a good example of different reactions to accusations of rape and of assault:

An American footballer was recently dropped after his wife said he headbutted her. She had a three inch gash on her head. I dont know whether he did it or not, and if you told me I had to bet money one way, I would say he did. However he hasn't commented on the matter. He hasn't been tried on the matter. The woman in question is apparently inclined to be violent herself. You'd think that a 190 pound pro American footballer would do more damage than gash someone's head if he headbutted them. So other explanations for the injury would certainly seem possible to me. So really it comes down to one person's word against the other. No trial, no comment, but he's been dropped and widely demonised already - just from the accusation.

http://www.blogher.com/chad-ochocinco-dropped-miami-dolphins-vh1-and-wife-after-head-butting-incident?page=0,0

Now compare this to the effect of more than one separate accusation of sexual assault and rape against Ben Roethlisberger, another American footballer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roethlisberger#cite_note-SIKing-187

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5889250/American-football-double-Superbowl-winner-accused-of-rape.html

No automatic dropping there.

Kooli

Doc wrote: »

The simple fact is that you are innocent of a crime until you are proven guilty so until someone is proven guilty of a rape there has to be doubt about whether the person who is accusing is a victim or not. If the person accursed clams to be innocent why should their word be any less worthy of belief then the accuser. It is the legal systems job to decide who is or is not a victim. Once a person if found guilty then there should be no doubt but until then there has to be so that real justice can be done!

A couple of things I've seen would make me doubt it's as simple as protection of the accused under 'innocent until proven guilty'.
I remember a thread in the Ladies Lounge which asked if people had been sexually assaulted or raped. After some women shared their experience, there were immediately posts from men questioning whether it was really sexual assault or rape. This was on an anonymous forum, where no one was accused by name, there was no talk of pressing charges, and there was no identifying information about the perpetrators.

But for some reason there is a knee-jerk response when women talk about rape or sexual assault that huge amounts of skepticism need to be applied by default. And everything they say must be questioned. Even when there is no actual accused person to defend - this invisible nameless man's rights are being defended by strangers in front of the actual woman who was actually assaulted and is admitting to this anonymously?
I was baffled. Luckily the mods put an end to it pretty quickly.

Dangerous Man

Colmustard wrote: »

No I am not having a problem at all, crack cocaine or any drug issue effects all society both men and women equally. For some of the reasons I gave in the above post, denial of abortion rights to women effect women more so it is not an equal issue between men and women. In the end it is only women who have abortions and not men.

Now stretch your imagination and imagine men and women got pregnant in equal measure then I would say it is an equal issue between the genders.

So I rechon allowing easy access to abortion services is really the Christian thing to do. (LOL)

So for you it's more a matter of degree - I can accept that. A woman being pregnant clearly affects a woman more than man. But it doesn't not affect a man or the unborn. And again, none of that means that others cannot advocate on behalf of the unborn.

Oh, and as to the bolded text, I'm sure a lot of Christians would actually agree with you. But I don't. Maybe that's because I'm an atheist.

B0jangles

Kooli wrote: »

A couple of things I've seen would make me doubt it's as simple as protection of the accused under 'innocent until proven guilty'.
I remember a thread in the Ladies Lounge which asked if people had been sexually assaulted or raped. After some women shared their experience, there were immediately posts from men questioning whether it was really sexual assault or rape. This was on an anonymous forum, where no one was accused by name, there was no talk of pressing charges, and there was no identifying information about the perpetrators.

But for some reason there is a knee-jerk response when women talk about rape or sexual assault that huge amounts of skepticism need to be applied by default. And everything they say must be questioned. Even when there is no actual accused person to defend - this invisible nameless man's rights are being defended by strangers in front of the actual woman who was actually assaulted and is admitting to this anonymously?
I was baffled. Luckily the mods put an end to it pretty quickly.

Exactly the same thing happened in a very similar thread in another (US based) forum I'm a member of - it was a thread asking about the general experience of being a woman and naturally sexual assault/ rape and the fear that they might happen came up, and you would not believe the number of guys who showed up to scoff at and totally dismiss the experiences described.

It was pretty disturbing tbh.

hatrickpatrick

Kooli wrote: »

A couple of things I've seen would make me doubt it's as simple as protection of the accused under 'innocent until proven guilty'.
I remember a thread in the Ladies Lounge which asked if people had been sexually assaulted or raped. After some women shared their experience, there were immediately posts from men questioning whether it was really sexual assault or rape. This was on an anonymous forum, where no one was accused by name, there was no talk of pressing charges, and there was no identifying information about the perpetrators.

But for some reason there is a knee-jerk response when women talk about rape or sexual assault that huge amounts of skepticism need to be applied by default. And everything they say must be questioned. Even when there is no actual accused person to defend - this invisible nameless man's rights are being defended by strangers in front of the actual woman who was actually assaulted and is admitting to this anonymously?
I was baffled. Luckily the mods put an end to it pretty quickly.

But this may be because, as I said earlier, the definition of 'rape' is too broad. Specifically for example as I said earlier, I don't regard consensual sex between minors of the same age to rape, and I certainly don't believe the boy should automatically be regarded as the aggressor (why assume he initiated, etc?) in such cases, yet the legal system defines this as "rape" equal to actual forceful, non consensual sex. Exact same applies to two equally drunk people having consensual sex while drunk and waking up with regret. In such scenarios, again, the man is presumed to be the "aggressor".
Even the very definition of rape does not refer to "intercourse" but to "penetration". So apparently it's physically impossible for a woman to have non consensual sex with a man regardless of his age or whether he was "too drunk to give informed consent". That isn't right, it's unacceptable discrimination.

And the thing is, I will probably be attacked for airing these views, even though in my view they are legitimate political views. It's simply a failure of legislation if the definition of a particular crime is too broad and therefore damages its own credibility.

I say that as someone with every sympathy for victims of rape, if rape is defined as sex without consent. I think those responsible for that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But I don't include teenage boys who are sexually active with their teenage girlfriends, or men who were accused of rape after a drunken encounter in a nightclub which was regretted the day after.

Is it really misogynist or evil to suggest that certain legislation is invalid or badly written, and should be reviewed?
I take serious offense to people who accuse me of sexism when I post views like these, I believe in a complete lack of double standards in society and always have had, and you'll regularly see me defending women in other threads where different double standards are raised.

Annasopra