|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the record, I do think rape laws should apply equally to women who are married and umarried. In this sense I have no problem with the proposed bill. But I also think that the people who criticized the bill have a point - that some women will take advantage of it to make false accusations against a soon-to-be ex-husband.
This could spark an interesting discussion, if we can keep it from turning into a flamefest. :) What do you think - is there some way a law could be made that would balance the rights of women and men in this situation?
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women routinely and deliberately with the connivance of their sleazy lawyers use false accusations of child abuse (both physical and sexual) against men in divorce actions. So what is to prevent them from using rape accusations to oppress the man? NOTHING! There have recently been many men released from prison after having their sentences overturned using DNA analysis after they served many years on bogus rape convictions. Just what got these innocent men convicted in the first place? Bascially, HER word against His! It is really just that simple!
Virginia has gotten along quite well without marital rape laws for a couple of centuries now. They should continue to do so.
It would be better if the Virginia legislature used this energy to reform the child support laws or revise rules of evidence to guard against false accusations against men by women and reform other misandric family law matters that have ruined the family in this country and have de facto criminalized all men just because they are men. And what about using some of this energy to protect male children who are facing this institutionalized discrimination when they grow up? There are believe it or not cases where underage boys have been statutorily raped by an older female and the state's court system ruled the boy rape victim liable for child support! The solons of the Virginia legislature seem to have too much idle time on its hands and had to come up with something to show their political agenda driven perpetual concern with taming the beast in the house (men!) and protecting the proverbial little defenseless woman from the big bad predator male.
Sounds like the NOW gang and their male sycophants have taken control of all state legislatures to some degree. Here would be a good place to reverse that sorry trend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This could spark an interesting discussion, if we can keep it from turning into a flamefest. :) What do you think - is there some way a law could be made that would balance the rights of women and men in this situation?
Rape occurs when one person forces through coercion or deception, sex upon another person.
It is a crime that must be proved to occur.
That's the only fair way.
Rapists have no rights to a child of that union, and must support the child.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @11:47AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
During a heated debate on the House floor this month, opponents complained that changing the law could cause women in divorce cases to file false charges of rape as leverage for securing more child support or alimony.
Supporters of the bill scoffed at that argument, explaining the change was a matter of fairness and that rape cases aren't prosecuted lightly.
Since the charge of rape is used as leverage for divorce cases, they haven't addressed it. It's sort of like the argument against banning drugs.
Argument: "But banning drugs will not prevent drug inflow!"
Response: "Drugs are bad."
It's a non-answer. Can't we postpone the divorce case until the rape case has been tried?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by wiccid stepparent on Thursday February 28, @11:59AM EST (#3)
(User #490 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
"Can't we postpone the divorce case until the rape case has been tried?"
I'd prefer the rape case be postponed until the divorce case is tried. I am still paying off several of my ex-husbands debts that he ran up before our divorce is final. I'm the one with a job, lucky me; and his bills show up on my credit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just make more laws against men. We need to make it so men will not want to merry or leave the house, to dangerous. Another politician just pandering to women and screwing men, his brothers.
See
Marriage, Bubonic Plague, And Infected Warts
If You Have A Choice, Go With The Warts
http://www.angryharry.com/fred.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I examined the legislation that both legislatures are sponsoring and voting on. I believe that this is a perfect example of a radical feminist appealing to a chivalrous male to pass laws that will further criminalize men. What is sad is that the chivalrous male (Normant) is most likely ignorant of this strategy. He still falsely views females as unempowered and in need of traditional chivalrous protections from evil males. I will bet that if a constituent called and pointed out this strategy that Normant would scoff at the idea.
Note how it is noble to pass this law to protect a victim. Also, note the insidious side of the anti-rape law. It is no longer necessary to have physical evidence to prove a rape allegation. I believe there is no other intent on the part of Suit other than to criminalize fathers so that women are empowered. What is sad is that Normant really believes that he is doing the right thing by eliminating a males right of self-defense against false allegations.
The men in Virginia need to stand up and take notice. I believe that Suit is extremely dangerous to men’s rights. It appears that she is following the classic pattern of NOW to incrementally eliminate the rights of due process and the traditional burdens of proof.
For example, Suit has sponsored anti-stalking legislation that removes the burden from the prosecution to prove malevolent intent. So, now any angry female can prosecute her x-lover without any burden of proof. Further, there is no longer any need for an alleged stalking victim to notify the other party that they are in fear. So, a reasonable man has no possibility of knowing that an irrational depressed female is in fear. They assume the reasonable man must know the depressed female is in fear and send him to jail.
The effect of this is to incrementally victimize men by criminalizing them when a female finds it to their advantage to make false allegations. It makes it incrementally easier for a vengeful x-wife or x-girlfriend to seize the property of males and have them jailed.
This is one of the primary strategies of totalitarian feminist that wish to legislate our every action. They know that the public and legislatures would reject their agenda outright. So, they look for the passage of apparently friendly PC legislation that purports to protect a victim while making it incrementally easier to unjustly criminalize men through false allegations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"the ability to charge rape without having to prove they no longer live with their husband or without having to prove a serious bodily injury."
I will not support this. The burden of proof should be on the accuser, not the accused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have been wondering for a long time, with Tammy Bruce's book exposing the blatant violation of laws by feminists, how much of the $10 billion allocated to female supremacists domestic violence/male bashing program through VAWA is being used to buy off politicians?
Do you have any idea how much political influence $10 billion can buy? It is a phenomenal amount of money to throw at anything, let alone something as typically minor as domestic violence, which can be nothing more than shouting or pushing or more typically a false accusation altogether. Yet we throw more money at this than any other program I can find. How many candidates are being bought off by feminists with our tax money through VAWA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...how much of the $10 billion allocated to female supremacists domestic violence/male bashing program through VAWA is being used to buy off politicians?
Where did that $10 billion number come from? It seems it should be more like $10 million...still a huge amount of funding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @03:58PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, go ahead and pass it provided a rider is attached to the bill that says in the case of a failure to obtain a conviction, it will be considered prima facie evidence of a false accusation. A person falsely accused must be prosecuted, no discretion to the prosecuted, and must recieve the maximum sentence for the crime they falsely accused (No prosecutorial or judicial discretion in plea bargains.) In addition they will automatically be severed from their children, losing parental rights, and be liable for all child support, even while imprisone; failure to work to support their children while in prison in the shops there will be contempt of court, and add to their sentence.
Now, if so few women would actually file false charges as they claim, and if it is as despicable and act as they claim that they disavow, the feminazis should have no problem with these addendums. And if they decline to place them in there, then we should take it as evidence that it is just another anti-male bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, AU, while I often fantasize about things like this, I'm beginning to think that some genetic cowardice and flaw renders the female psyche incapable of accepting responibility for herself.
Oh, is that harsh? Okay, I will retract it - conditional on the NOW denouncing and withdrawing support for similar lies told by pheminist scholars. In fact, the above phrase is paraphrased from one of those worthies. (You go figure out who it is.)
Seriously though, a clear rider like that with teeth and no room for lawyers to waffle, run up bills and charge lots of money? Even though it's the way it ought to be, it'll never happen.
But this has got to be stopped. My letters are on the way out as we speak.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 01, @05:34PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
So the people who prosecuted and testified against OJ Simpson should be set free because he was acquitted. After all, guilty people NEVER get acquitted. Therefore we should expand this idea to all criminal cases. If you are the victim of a crime, but the person you pick out of the lineup is acquitted, you will be put in prison for life for falsely accusing them. The law will apply equally to juveniles and adults, so child molestation is covered.
The public should not have a problem with this, because guilty people are never acquitted. The awful people who falsely accused poor, innocent OJ deserve life in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the people who prosecuted and testified against OJ Simpson should be set free because he was acquitted. After all, guilty people NEVER get acquitted. Therefore we should expand this idea to all criminal cases. If you are the victim of a crime, but the person you pick out of the lineup is acquitted, you will be put in prison for life for falsely accusing them. The law will apply equally to juveniles and adults, so child molestation is covered.
What a moron! This kind of irrational reasoning is what we have to face from NOW and their minions. This moron obviously knows that millions of males are in jail because of false allegations and loves that fact because...well...they are men!
As this site becomes more popular/infamous we can expect more moronic trolls that have no power of reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As this site becomes more popular/infamous we can expect more moronic trolls that have no power of reasoning.
We are rising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the people who prosecuted and testified against OJ Simpson should be set free because he was acquitted. After all, guilty people NEVER get acquitted. Therefore we should expand this idea to all criminal cases. If you are the victim of a crime, but the person you pick out of the lineup is acquitted, you will be put in prison for life for falsely accusing them. The law will apply equally to juveniles and adults, so child molestation is covered.
The public should not have a problem with this, because guilty people are never acquitted. The awful people who falsely accused poor, innocent OJ deserve life in prison.
That's just plain moronic, and is a typical pheminist tactic.
What AU was, inelegantly I grant, proposing that if someone abuses the process with false accusations of DV, rape, child abuse, and any of the dozens of other bogus charges that have been used to deprive men of their families, that such an accuser should be found to be:
1) Unfit as a Parent, and still made to pay child support.
2) Prosecuted for it, with no prosecutorial or judcial discretion on sentencing if found guilty - no deals, mandatory time.
This is a far cry from your willful misstatement of his or her position. Your illogic is dismaying in the least. However, as it gives insight into the true mind and aims of pheminism, it is still valuable.
And I agree with the spirit of this, and namely that anyone who would manufacture charges to depriive a child of a parent out of vindictiveness or to obtain advantage in a civil case is the lowest form of primate life on the planet. But, being a pheminist, you will never address that, as it would require you to take a side aganst your anti-male bigotry, and because pheminists believe that this is right, fair, and just.
So - pheminist troll - kindly fuck off, you cum-drunk gutterslut.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the notion that women (or men)...shall we say "people" should not be required to be living apart from a spouse to be considered to have been raped. That you married a person should not mean that you gave consent for every advance, desire, or sexual wish of the person.
I agree that people shouldn't need to show signs of physical damage to prove they were raped. You can force yourself upon someone without causing visible damage (ask any consenual bondage participant or sadomasochist).
Fact is, a spouse can rape their partner while living together and without causing any visible damage. Drinking, drugs, what-have-you, are not limited to the single's scene and should not be taken any more lightly regardless of a person's marital status.
However, I disagree with an acusal of rape being used in a civil case such as divorce proceedings. To win a criminal case, you need prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases only need a preponderance of evidence. You have a jury with criminal cases. Not so with civil cases. Criminals are said to be innocent until proven guilty. Civil offenses are quite the reverse. The accused often has to prove their innocence.
The bill being proposed in this article is handling rape in the wrong venue. It's a criminal charge. It should be proven in a criminal court, not a civil court. I also think it should come before divorce proceedings IF it is to be used as leverage. But more than that, there should be laws which make it a criminal offense to use a rape "charge" in court without that charge having been proven in criminal proceedings.
Good idea gone awry, IMHO.
Credendo Vides
(By believing, one sees)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree - I definitely don't think you can charge someone with rape or even child abuse - which I feel is a criminal charge - as divorce leverage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To win a criminal case, you need prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sorry, you are quite mistaken because this is no longer true. This proposed law removes those protections incrementally. The feminists have successfully introduced and had the legislatures pass laws that allow for criminal convictions on little more than hearsay. This incremental practice has been going on for 30 years now. For this reason, there is a cumulative effect that is extremely damaging to men.
All that will be necessary with this new rape law is to make a false allegation, a couple of lies to the police, and rumors. Then DV laws will kick in to eliminate any key witnesses (like the domestic partner) and convict the male without absolute proof. The DV laws will prevent the defendant from trapping the wife/girlfriend in a lie because they will be eliminated as a witness by law. This allows the DA to make virtually any charge against a male and get a conviction without proof.
It is this form of ignorance that is most dangerous to men today. Men really believe that traditional protections are still in place and fail to realize that subtle wording is inserted in these new laws to erode normal legal protections.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
