|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's hard to form a decent opinion when we know so little about the facts.
But IF his statements are accurate, then what we have here is not much different than what has gone on elsewhere in the country. It's sad, and unjust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by wiccid stepparent on Wednesday February 27, @02:27PM EST (#2)
(User #490 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle - they got really looped and had sex. She got knocked up in the process. Comes down to he-said-she-said. I myself tend to take such tales with a grain of salt. But in any case, it doesn't do anyone of either sex any harm to watch what we are drinking and how much, and with whom for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 27, @02:41PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I read somewhere once that 50% of pregnancies are conceived when one or both partners is under the influence of alcohol. Meanwhile, C4M says that 56% of all pregnancies are accidental/unwanted. Those statistics combine well. People who are so drunk they can't stand cannot be trusted to make sound decisions regarding birth control. Everyone knows we shouldn't drive drunk, but most people see no problem with having sex while drunk. Attitudes need to be changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 27, @04:42PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
>> I read somewhere once that 50% of pregnancies
>> are conceived when one or both partners is
>> under the influence of alcohol.
I wonder if there is any way we could run a test case of date rape from a man? Especially in an area that has been big on pushing it. The old, "I was drunk, she wouldn't take no for an answer, I couldn't resist" and see what it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by wiccid stepparent on Wednesday February 27, @05:23PM EST (#6)
(User #490 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
"Especially in an area that has been big on pushing it. The old, "I was drunk, she wouldn't take no for an answer, I couldn't resist" and see what it does."
I am not sure that this qualifies as date rape. Likewise I am skeptical of the validity of women who use the "I was drunk and he took advantage of me" defense.
Maybe we should just criminalize alcohol the way we have done more inoccuous drugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From wiccid: My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle - they got really looped and had sex... But in any case, it doesn't do anyone of either sex any harm to watch what we are drinking and how much, and with whom for that matter.
And from wiccid in a later post: I am not sure that this qualifies as date rape. Likewise I am skeptical of the validity of women who use the "I was drunk and he took advantage of me" defense.
Maybe we should just criminalize alcohol the way we have done more inoccuous drugs.
And from one of those anonymouses running around: People who are so drunk they can't stand cannot be trusted to make sound decisions regarding birth control. Everyone knows we shouldn't drive drunk, but most people see no problem with having sex while drunk.
Try reading the article. According to his testimony, he was drinking a Pepsi and was slipped a date-rape drug. Yes, this is a he said/she said situation, but the jury sided with him, finding that his role in the sex was "involuntary." Nevertheless, the judge ordered the man to pay child support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to HIS testimony. Who is to say he is telling the truth? She claims that they had a sexual relationship of two years. One of them is fudging the truth a tad. Perhaps both of them even.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to HIS testimony. Who is to say he is telling the truth? She claims that they had a sexual relationship of two years. One of them is fudging the truth a tad. Perhaps both of them even.
Again, read the article. The jury sided with him. The judge decided to enforce child support in any case. Let's see now if this, through repetition, can make an impression... The jury sided with him and found his role in the sex "involuntary."
I'd advise people to just not drink or do drugs in excess, nor to have sex with someone who does. What does this have to do with this case? Trying once again, the jury sided with him and found his role in the sex "involuntary."
Maybe you don't want to get this: The jury sided with him and found his role in the sex "involuntary." The judge simply disregarded the jury's finding.
You simply choose to disregard the jury's finding as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OJ Simpson had a trial by jury, but to this day I am in doubt of his innocence. And then, juries convict people every day who are innocent. Thank goodness for DNA evidence. I don't have a better system in mind, but I am inherently distrustful of a verdict made by 12 people who are sequestered together until they all agree to say the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @03:03PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
OJ Simpson had a trial by jury, but to this day I am in doubt of his innocence. And then, juries convict people every day who are innocent. Thank goodness for DNA evidence. I don't have a better system in mind, but I am inherently distrustful of a verdict made by 12 people who are sequestered together until they all agree to say the same thing.
Wiccid:
The problem here is not with the actual facts. We don't know what those are, as this is a he-said/she-said. We do know what the LEGAL facts are. And that is that the jury decided that any sex he may have had with her was involuntary. The problem is (whether he really was drugged or not) what the jury found doesn't matter. The Judge decided he pays child support anyway. Do you see now?
I think the decision is outrageous, but alas, its not unexpected.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wiccid, you really need to read the article.
I don't see anything in the article that states or implies that he was taking drugs or alcohol. From anything that we find in the article, he didn't say he was, she didn't say he was, the jury didn't say he was and none of the four judges say he was. Any belief that he was drinking or willingly took drugs exists in your mind, not in the article. You are engaging in the feminist thought process -- believe the facts that suit your agenda, ignore the others, invent as deemed necessary. Where in this article does anyone state or imply that he was drinking? Your words, Likewise I am skeptical of the validity of women who use the "I was drunk and he took advantage of me" defense have no relevance here. No one in the article says he was drinking. If you believe he was, either you have evidence beyond that presented in this article, or you have a very active imagination.
Again, and you will probably avoid this, where in the article does anyone state or imply that he was drunk or taking drugs (not slipped a drug, taking drugs or alcohol)?
Also, it isn't his word against hers. It's her word against his and the jury's.
Your claims to the contrary are pure fabrications unless you have information in addition to that contained in the article.
Even the appellate court, from what can be discerned from the article, didn't question the jury's finding that he didn't consent to the sex. They simply decided that this fact was irrelevant. The 3rd District Court of Appeals rejected the man's argument that because he did not consent to sexual intercourse with the child's mother, he was not obligated to pay child support.
What we see from the article is that she says she's innocent. He says he was drugged and she had sex with him and conceived a child. The jury determined that the sex was involuntary on his part. The judge decided he had to pay support anyway.
Your statements about taking drugs or alcohol have nothing to do with anything anyone stated in this article. They also lend support to a system in which men, who are found by a jury to have been raped by a women, are forced to pay child support for children conceived as a result of the rape. (As a side note, the woman brought paternity action against two men. Apparently, she didn't even know who the father was.)
Those are facts, and claiming that you support men's rights won't change them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reguardless of the circumstances this is a perfect example of how men have no rights when it comes to reproduction. The child was seen as his and that is the only evidence they need to require him to pay money. As with any logical argument assume that he isn't lieing and then see what people do. If you assume that the circumstances were true the fact is that he is being forced into parenthood. If the situation was reversed and he had raped her and she had gotten pregnant and wanted to have an abortion the courts would have supported her decision and freedom to be free from forced parenthood.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 27, @02:40PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0226teacher tryst-ON.html
From the same place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 27, @08:38PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
- This is about Choice for Men and should use that icon.
- Other rape cases have had similarly bizzare outcomes.
- Statutory rape
- Drunk rape
- Date rape
- I really, really hope a guy who is forced into parenthood by rape finds us and joins our dream team of legal, media and reproductive rights experts to properly litigate this in Federal Court
- I think the guy in this case, like SO many others, made the wrong argument. Instead of arguing for non consentual sex, I'm of the opinion that he should have aimed for Federal Court by arguing for Equal Protection.
Thanks,
Kingsley
www.choiceformen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that he should have aimed for Federal Court by arguing for Equal Protection.
Unfortunately, the all-male-draft and VAWA show that the 14th amendment (so-called equal protection) is an easily ignored farce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @12:42AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
>Unfortunately, the all-male-draft and VAWA
>show that the 14th amendment (so-called equal
>protection) is an easily ignored farce.
"No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws."
-- 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The U.S. has a long and sad history of sex discrimination, for example,
women didn't even have the right to vote until the 20th century, and
men still don't have the right to decline parenthood.
The U.S. Supreme Court
made it harder to justify gender based discrimination in the recent Virginia
Military Institute case. The court concluded that sex discrimination
by the government can only be permitted if the state demonstrates an
"exceedingly persuasive justification". This is a good legal precedent
for our cause, because it makes it harder to justify forcing only men
into legal parenthood.
If my family planning was on the line, I'd use a 14th amendment argument.
Thanks,
Kingsley
www.choiceformen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 01, @02:18PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
The draft is murder and anyone who supports it is a murderer no better than Ted Bundy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @07:16AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to recall reading somewhere recently that in Wisconsin, where that guy lives, a male rapist can have his parental rights terminated because of the rape, but a female rapist cannot. It was a close split decision of the Wisconsin Supreme court. Those justices obviously don't belive in equal protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for making that point, Anon. I didn't mean to imply that Kingsley doesn't know what he's talking about, or that an equal protection argument shouldn't be tried. My point was simply that, just as the German Nazis did until they rewrote the laws, the US federal and state governments can ignore any law or amendment that they choose to ignore. (I'm not saying they can legally do it, I'm saying they can do it, if they decide to.)
If anything should be clear to us all, it's that the US and state governments don't believe in universally enforcing equal protection. They can always justify their decisions based on some alleged "exceedingly persuasive justification." Perhaps the lawyers of the man mentioned in this article already tried the equal protection argument and failed. Perhaps, it's next on their list. Perhaps they haven't thought of it. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that, if the aborting of a fetus or embryo is taken as a woman's right, because the fetus or embryo is supposedly nothing but a "part of her body," then the same can't be said of a man.
In any case, all legal arguments should be tried to protect our rights, including the equal protection/14th amemdment argument. I just wouldn't be surprised to see the argument fail and even for it to be scoffed at by our rulers and their government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the US federal and state governments can ignore any law or amendment that they choose to ignore. (I'm not saying they can legally do it, I'm saying they can do it, if they decide to.)
I'll add to this that, yes, the feds can force a state to abide by the US constitution. Nevertheless, if a state and the feds decide together to ignore the constitution, they can do so. It sounds, from what anon said above, that this may be what happened in Wisconsin with the terminating of parental rights.
I also wouldn't be surprised if some of the foreign governments that are letting mothers, but not fathers, out of prison also have "equal protection" laws or parts of their constitutions. This is one of the scary things about the Equal Rights Amendment. Our rulers may choose to view it as a one-way street.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to add that if a woman gets herself drunk, willingly enjoys sex with a man, and the next day decides that she wishes she hadn't had sex, she was not raped. (Nevermind what mainstream feminists may declare to the contrary.) If, however, a man has sex with a woman who is whacked out from alcohol or another drug, without her wanting to have the sex, that is rape. Likewise, if a woman has sex with a man who is whacked out from alcohol or another drug, without his wanting to have sex, that is also rape. One does not have the right to have sex with someone just because that person is whacked out and defenseless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And if they are both whacked out and defenseless and wake up nekked in bed together, who gets the right to declare rape against the other? I'd advise people to just not drink or do drugs in excess, nor to have sex with someone who does. Best policy. Of course easier said than done.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
