|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article fails to mention what happens in the case of female rapists. Oh, right. I forgot. Women never rape. *rolls eyes*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article fails to mention what happens in the case of female rapists.
The link isn't working for me, but if this refers (and it seems to) to an article I recently read, then your comment was (no big surprise here) my first thought. A woman, who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs is assumed unable to give her consent. As for a man who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, well...
Married men will have to watch out. Go out on your anniversary, have a few drinks, go home and make love. Bingo! You're a rapist? The feminists are sure laughing over this one.
The mentality behind this seems to be the same behind the article in the Chicago Tribune that attempts to justify sex between women and boys, while saying that sex between men and girls is rape. In the case to which the Times article (again, if I'm thinking of the right article) refers. A man who has sex with a drunk woman is a predator. A woman who has sex with a drunk man is just trying to have a relationship.
Male Evil / Female Good. It's a true as the existence of the patriarchy and the statement that men have all the power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 02, @12:02PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
What's the conviction rate for lesbian rape?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 03, @03:29PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
How long would this law last if a woman or a number of women accused and pressed charges of rape against this guy or guys responsible for this new law? Would it matter whether or not they actually had sex? Is semen DNA evidence required if the woman waits a few days after the act to report it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laws like this triggered the civil wars in Great Britain that resulted in the Magna Charta. I am a member of the Somerset Chapter Magna Charta Barons.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rape trials and sexual assault trials are a sham to begin with.
The sexual assault trials in Canada are so bogus I don't know where to begin.
The stats are so blown out of reality we have no idea what is fact or fiction.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t know much about Canadian laws but I suspect they’re similar to those in most states here in the U.S.
Here I the U.S. an accused person has a constitutional right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, or stated differently, an assumption that the accusation against him is false.
Then laws that require the suppression of evidence that might prove innocence (but not evidence that might prove guilt), and that provide anonymity for the accuser (but not the accused) effectively negate the original assumption.
Is that how it works in Canada?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, rape sheild laws are in effect here.
Lets say she is someone who makes statements like 'I love to swallow cum'. Okay thats your word of what happened (your word means shit). You may know a half a dozen guys who knows for a fact that she says things like that, good luck bringing these guys in under the rape sheild law.
Another thing about the Rape Sheild laws. In nearly every case I have witnessed where the 'Sexual Assault Centre' has been involved they have blatenly coached the witness(alleged victim) on how to act.
So what happens is the victim gets up there and looks like the virgin mary as pure as snow etc.... You are made to look like a ruffian brute etc.. I don't have to tell you how far tears can get someone on a false accusation. Male judges will convict on tears alone. But back to the virgin mary appearance, well you know she's promiscuous and sexually aggressive and you know the real 'Candace Varga'(my name for false accusers) but the judge doesn't. So the rape sheild is actually more of a weapon more than a shield.
Her name is not published the accused's name is. Over 90% of sexual assaults are tried in Summery courts, which means you do not get a jury you get a provincial court judge. A provincial court judge I might remind that has been trained for 'sensitivety' by the sexual assault centres. End result Judge's are indoctrinated to see that a woman should be believed all the time.
I personally spoke to Erin Pizzey this morning. And her view on Canada was that it was the worst feminist bastion of anti-male hate and corrupt politics she has seen yet.
I live in Ontario and Ontario and Quebec is the worst of all the provinces.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
believe it or not I have actually had professors and students tell me that men can not be raped. They implied that men can not get "hard" if they are under the duress of a rape. The fact is that men can be physically aroused during a rape. Arousal is a physical reaction to stimulation it is not a voluntary response.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The fact is that men can be physically aroused during a rape. "
Funny but I find that arguements of women who have had orgasims during an episode is 'okay'.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see if I remember my username...
That argument also fails to acknowledge how many different acts are considered sex and therefore, rape. If a woman is forced to give oral sex to a man, that would logically be considered rape. A woman could force a man to do the same - which should also be considered rape. Not really sure how often this happens, but regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its about coercive tactics.
If I get around to writing up an excerpt I might just show you what I mean.
But ya, if men are guilty because they used coercive tactics than so should women.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some one please tell me again why we still have sex with women! Don't you think that they should be tattoed with a warning that sex with this person could be dangerous to you health. NOW there is a program I could get behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 02, @05:14PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Some one please tell me again why we still have sex with women! Don't you think that they should be tattoed with a warning that sex with this person could be dangerous to you health. NOW there is a program I could get behind.
I am thinking about writing "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?" on my penis whenever I go out, just in case there is the possibility of a sexual encounter. :) (Just kidding)
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
women who are under the influence of drink or drugs will “automatically be regarded as unable to give consent to sex”.
Can anyone corroborate in other sources whether this new law prohibits all sexual relations after drinking or whether it is specifically limited to situations such as spiking drinks with "date rape" drugs? If this story is undeniably true and not just legal speculation, then I think there should be some travel advisories issued.
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With laws like this, there is no question of trusting women anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a little bit disheartened by some of the posts like this that I have seen lately. There are good people and bad people and people anywhere in between in both men and women. There's a lot of stupid laws and a lot of greedy women who exploit them, but not that doesn't account for all of them.
My mother is a feminist of the old school and even though we bump heads sometimes a little, I have great respect for and trust in her. Not only did she work hard to rise to the position of Chief Information Officer at a liberal arts college, while never neglecting to feed us the finest in home-cooked gourmet meals, she was raising two boys as a single mother, and she never hit up our father for any child support or alimony. Why? Because it was her decision to leave, and considering the five other children my father eventually had, even though we were not wealthy as we were growing up, we were still better off financially than him. She also never said a bad word about him, although I did come to understand the nature of their fundamental incompatability. "So what?" you may say, "all she did was behave in a reasonable manner." Exactly my point.
People are all different, and despite any unreasonable laws, reasonable women will continue to behave in a reasonable manner. They do seem to be a bit few and far between, but they are out there, and the same could probably be said of men. Don't confuse bad laws with bad people.
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 02, @08:40PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
People are all different, and despite any unreasonable laws, reasonable women will continue to behave in a reasonable manner. They do seem to be a bit few and far between, but they are out there, and the same could probably be said of men. Don't confuse bad laws with bad people
Unfortunately, the principle quality of the con artist is the ability to inspire trust. Which is why trust is an enormously valuable commodity, not to be given away lightly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 03, @12:57AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
True 'AU'.
And frankly, though, I don't think it is a question as to whether or not there are "good women" out there, of course there are.
The problem is, you can't tell the good from the bad untill it's too late.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"People are all different, and despite any unreasonable laws, reasonable women will continue to behave in a reasonable manner. They do seem to be a bit few and far between, but they are out there, and the same could probably be said of men. Don't confuse bad laws with bad people."
I think that people will do the right thing on a larger scale so long as they are given the right information. So far women are not given the right information. They are given bolstered and exploited stats in order to terrorize women into making laws or giving funding among other things.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to make it clear that I'm speaking only for myself.
There are of course MANY good women out there. I DO have female friends who I trust, but I am aware that this doesn't change the fact that there are MANY women who have let themselves be brainwashed into believing that men are evil rapists, or even that there are women who are simply out to get men, for whatever reason.
I'm somewhat disheartened by some of the comments made as well, but, there's no absolute way to determine a woman's (or anyone's) intentions. This is why it's important to be extremely wary.
If you have any ways of discriminating between bad and good people, I, for one, would like to know.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are of course MANY good women out there. I DO have female friends who I trust, but I am aware that this doesn't change the fact that there are MANY women who have let themselves be brainwashed into believing that men are evil rapists...
Of course there are "MANY good women out there." The problem is that they have done nothing while evil women have carried out an attack against all men. If good women do nothing then perhaps their goodness should be questioned.
For example, as a result of good women doing nothing we now have mandatory primary aggressor arrest laws. In this situation, because good women have done nothing, when the good woman and good man have an argument the man can easily be arrested and prosecuted. It doesn't matter if the good woman doesn't want to press charges. They will be pressed anyway. It doesn't matter if the good man is innocent he will be prosecuted and threatened anyway.
Domestic violence laws are such that the man is prosecuted with a single 911 call. It can be a neighbor, the wife, or a child. Once that call is made it doesn't matter if the man is innocent. All that needs to happen is that an officer claims that the man is the primary aggressor. Then all exonerating evidence will be suppressed and the arrest will begin.
The fact is that normal self-defense laws no longer apply for men. They have been so weakened that they have almost no meaning. I can cite countless examples where innocent men are placed under false arrest and then terrorized by the police.
Therefore, wise men are right to question the rationality of continuing their interactions with woman. If these good women are going to do nothing then they become part of the problem. It is even worse because when men try to do something these women that do nothing will criticize these men that try to do something. Oh but wait. That means they are doing something. The good women are aiding evil women by criticizing good men that try to do something.
In their criticism alone, they are doing something to attack men. So, it is my conclusion that good women are responsible for doing something, and that something is attacking men using the mechanism of criticism when men try to become activist and address men's issues.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are trying to tell me that "good" women have done less than "good" men in fighting "evil" women. If so, I don't believe you.
There are too many men in the US Congress that have accepted the "men are evil" BS or simply are too afraid to oppose evil women, and so, these misandric laws get passed. I certainly don't expect good women to fight for men's rights any more than I expect good men to fight for THEIR OWN rights.
That's just me, though.
-
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are trying to tell me that "good" women have done less than "good" men in fighting "evil" women. If so, I don't believe you.
Okay. Fair enough. I should explain myself a little more. When writing the post, I had some realizations that led me to that conclusion on the spot. However, I didn't fully explain what was behind my assumptions that led to the conclusion.
In the men's movement, we frequently find that married men's wives will be critical of them for being a member of a men's activist group. It is common for them to literally suffer emotional abuse every time they attend a meeting. Yet nobody would argue that these are rad-fems that are evil, and these are your typical good women in many cases.
By contrast, we see wives of paternity fraud victims supporting their husbands if they become associated with a men's rights group. That is because they see the harm that is visited upon themselves and their children. They feel the consequences of large sums of money being transferred to another man’s child.
Clearly, both groups of women are basically good in the sense that they are not rad-fems who actively seek to attack men. Nevertheless, good women that have never felt the consequences of male discrimination will often criticize their domestic partners for involvement in the men's movement.
For example, I know of only a few men that would talk to a woman in the workplace about being a men's activist. Instead the social norm is for a man is to hide his activism from his employers and coworkers. Notice that the feminists are able to freely talk about their activism. For men, they can easily become the object of a hostile environment suit. Nor would a man openly discuss his activism with a new girlfriend.
In this way, good women are supporting evil and participating in the problem. They are not only actively discouraging men’s involvement; good women are actively opposing a man’s involvement in the men’s movement. Most of this arises out of social norms where people think that if a male is an activist that they must hate women, or they believe that the man must have been burned or victimized by a woman in some way by a woman. There are of course obvious exceptions where some equity feminist will support men’s issues.
So yes, men are responsible to correct the problem, but these damn “GOOD” women must stop shaming men and therefore aid evil when men do take action. That is how good women help evil to triumph. It may not be intentional, but they most certainly support the evil by supporting outdated social stereotypes that negatively stigmatize men that are active.
There are too many men in the US Congress that have accepted the "men are evil" BS or simply are too afraid to oppose evil women, and so, these misandric laws get passed. I certainly don't expect good women to fight for men's rights any more than I expect good men to fight for THEIR OWN rights.
This stereotype of women being superior moral beings is something that can be traced back to the dark ages. It has been around along time. I believe that it is this stereotype that is the most dangerous of all. Using this stereotype we devalue men, and the devaluing of men means they have lower relative intrinsic worth as compared to woman. This is the very definition of bigotry.
In the early periods of the woman's movement, they recognized the problem with this stereotype. Nevertheless, they chose to use it as a foundation for their argument to get voting rights. They have openly played this card for over a century now.
In addition, the roots of the claim that women are morally superior to men can be found in chauvinism and Christianity. By going against this stereotype we are going against every major religion in the world. That's a tough one to overcome. It is the conservative’s embrace of chauvinism and the marriage of the left’s view of women being victims that creates a powerful voting block that is rapidly destroying men's rights.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm somewhat disheartened by some of the comments made as well, but, there's no absolute way to determine a woman's (or anyone's) intentions. This is why it's important to be extremely wary.
I wonder why you aren't more disheartened by the discriminatory legislation, than my comment that such laws necessarily any trust between the sexes. Why should interacting with someone be based on the trust that they will not abuse a discriminatory law that will deprive you of your right to due process? How far have we internalized our own relative worthlessness as human beings (because we are male) that we don't take our right to due process as a matter that should not depend on trust? The right to due process, the right not to have to prove our own innocence, is something that should be accorded to every citizen--well, maybe not every citizen, only women, because we're chivalrous and we want them to like us, so we'll forego that. Justice is no longer blind, it seems, and we can't see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...that such laws necessarily erode any trust between the sexes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 05, @03:09AM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
((("because we're chivalrous and we want them (women) to like us,")))
Not me, Mars.
I don't care a lick if women like me.
If they do, then I figure I must be doing something wrong.
Now, before some Troll comes along and makes that same old tired accusation of; "You hate women!",
I will say, as a "group", No, I really do not care for them all that much. I know individual women who I care for a great deal, and I love women as my fellow human beings, but that's it.
It is BECAUSE of the laws and the current exeptability and prevalence of anti-male bigotry, in America that I do not trust women. AND is why I do not date, have NO intention (or desire) to marry and avoid females as much as possible all together.
Like I said, Yeah, there are good women out there, BUT you can't tell the "good" from the "bad" without a program.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud,
I wasn't referring to you--I know you weren't disheartened by my comments; they probably should be clarified in any case. My point is that when laws like these are enacted, the risk of association becomes unacceptably high, and matters that should not have to be matters of trust, such as a gender-blind guarantee of innocence until proof of guilt, have to be taken on trust--at least in the sense that one has to trust that laws presuming their guilt won't be abused.
Now maybe that's what women want: they want men who are going to tough it out, and they want the law to help them select the toughest men, the ones who will keep trying even in the face of rape laws that deny men due process...it's a theory that is really due to Warren Farrell, who made a similar remark about the sexual harassment laws. My problem with such institutionalized tests for reproductive fitness is that they tend to favor less fit females, who would otherwise make poor choices. This is what happens when one gender actively seeks to limit the other gender's reproductive choices in favor of its own. This is a conclusion (my own speculation, actually, since I'm not an evolutionary biologist) that Farrell doesn't seem to make.
If I were a Martian visiting the Earth to survey the reproductive behavior of its dominant species, I would observe that the females have sought to limit the reproductive choices of males as much as possible, through the use of legislation, punitive child support awards, biased sexual harassment laws, an male-bashing media that continually sends the message that males are less fit to reproduce than women (through constant fabricated images of male ineptitude) while feminist critics claim that the media is anti-woman, and laws and procedures to deprive males of the presumption of innocence, unequal treatment with reagard to domestic violence (males are always perpetrators), and rape laws that require men to prove their innocence. I would conclude that under these conditions (which go much further than I've indicated), less fit females are tending to mate, on average, with more fit males (the ones that endure the various tests of their masculinity), and that the human population of Earth was hastening its extinction--but, I'm only a Martian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 07, @11:08AM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
Mars,
I get what you're saying.
If I were a Martian visiting Earth, My observational Log entry, Would say; "The male of the Human speicies is, by and large, physicaly stronger than the female, Yet he allows the Female to dictate over him in nearly every way. She tells him, what to do, what things he can say, and even what thoughts to think.
He will fight to the death, if need be, to protect the female, Both on the level of war, and on an individual level.
Though humans have various religions and writeings detailing a "createor-god" The Human Male devotes much more time appeaseing, honoring, and placateing the Female than he does his "god". Therefore it is my presumption that the "god" of humanity is giveing way to the female as supreame-being. The female is held in much higher asteem than the male. Her life is seen as more valuable than the male. She is refered to, in many cases, as "Diva". In some human tounges, Diva translates to mean a Divinity, To be 'Devine'. A God.
The human female looks down upon the male as a subserviant. He seems to accept this role, without question. He will yeild his humanity, his masculinity, his self respect, All at the command of the female.
Their forms of communications, such as Television, which seems to be their "holy scripture", tells many stories of Female supreamacy and supiriority. Though the Males I have observe bare NO resemblance to the one's depicted in their media, The male tends to agree with the 'holy scripture' (Television)
That he is not worthy to kneel at the feet of the female of his speicies.
Further evidence of the males worship of the female as supreame being, is evidenced by a strict speech code, imposed only on the male. The male is forbbiden to speak out against the female in any way. to do so is considered Blasphemy, and is a punishable offence.
Though the male of the human speicies is more likely than the female to be born a "geniuss" much is written and 'televised' about the intelectual SUPIRIORITY of the female, and intelectual INFIRIORITY of the male. Despite the fact that male and female intelegence is roughly the same.
My conclusion is as follows: The male of the human speicies is a willing pet, slave, and worshiper of the female of the spiecies. There is one exception to this. It is a group of males (and some females)known as "Men's activists".
These are the Blasphemers, whitches, heritics and infidels of the human's religion of Gyno-worship.
They are gaining momentum in their society.
We will wait and see what effect they have before we make a decission on whether to attack theire primitive world.
If these so-called Men's activists fail, The human race will be MUCH easier to conquer.
As one of their earlier leaders once prolcaimed:
"United we stand, Divided we fall." And these Earthlings are nothing if not DIVIDED."
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thundercloud
^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm somewhat disheartened by some of the comments made as well, but, there's no absolute way to determine a woman's (or anyone's) intentions. This is why it's important to be extremely wary.
Why be disheartened?
I have no magic glasses that let me see auras, so I can tell a "good" woman from a pheminist.
Since I am a second class citizen, being male, and women hold political, social, legal, and economic power over me, I would be foolish in the extreme to assume that such power will not be exercised.
Thus I must assume it will be exercised, and treat all women accordingly.
Since I am unwilling to have such power exercised over me, I don't look for a gentle hand. I look for women who eschew such power, and affirmatively spit on the concept.
They are damn few and damn far between. And it does no good for women on here to raise their hands and say, "I'm one! I'm one!" Not that I'm not glad, but you are a statistical anamoly, and probably from BFE compared to my location; added into the fact that a site such as MANN will attract only the extremely supportive or hostile, hardly a representative sampling.
This makes me a misogynist. Oh well. All I have to say to the Phemikooks is, "You made me."
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a little bit disheartened by some of the posts like this that I have seen lately. There are good people and bad people and people anywhere in between in both men and women. There's a lot of stupid laws and a lot of greedy women who exploit them, but not that doesn't account for all of them.
I'm sure there are many good women out there, but that isn't the issue. The kind of trust men extend to women has to be affected by laws that deprive men of due process. Now your interactions with women will necessarily involve an element of trust that they will not abuse discriminatory laws. If you believe that women are intrinsically good--whether or not you believe men are intrinsically evil, as many of us have been told since we were children--then, rightly or wrongly, you won't behave any differently.
Is this yet another tedious hurdle in the struggle to reproduce? Only the most resilient men will be man enough to overcome this additional test for reproductive fitness. It seems that the feminist movement has given expression, in the form of legislation biased against males, to institutionalized tests of reproductive fitness, which involve men in proving themselves worthy to women, essentially. The rape law that requires men to prove their innocence is an example of this phenomenon. So are punitive child support assessments (only the wealthiest men are worthy) and on and on.
Why should we trust a group that has so much political power over us (I remind you that a prominent feminist asserted that the personal is political, so without any loss of generality I can avoid mentioning any "personal power" that women might or might not have--this is a subject best avoided in any case--and confine my remarks to their political power).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 05, @03:40AM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
Mars,
While I was reading your post, a thought came to me.
When ever I hear women, especialy feminists, talk about the "sexes", I find that it seems they beleive that Men and Women ingaged in some legendary, pitched battle of a war. a war in which women, by their own means alone, won. (ala Xena warrior princess.)
Do they not realize that if it had not been for MEN they would not have equal rights or ANY rights at all?
If MEN had not wanted women "emancipated", They would NOT have been.
Now that it is men who are losing their rights, I wonder how many women will "return the favor".
BONUS;
FEMINIST-FUN-FACTS!!
Feminists want the world to believe that it is women and women alone who have suffered dicrimination, and have suffered it worse and longer than any other "group" on Earth.
DID YOU KNOW...; That women had the right to vote LONG before My people (American Indians) did?
Women were granted the right to vote in 1912.
American Indians were barred from voteing untill 1948.
(You see why feminists want to keep CERTAIN minorities quiet???)
Just another FEMINIST-FUN-FACT, brought to you by:
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>American Indians were barred from voteing untill 1948.
Hi Thundercloud,
Can I get some more details about this? Any online reference avialable on these voting rights? I'd like to know more as I want to write about it, and I already have info that suggests that voting wasn't the simplistic men "oppress women" stance the feminists claim.
Raymond Cuttill
www.cyberManbooks.com, www.menshour.com, www.mensmovement.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"People are all different, and despite any unreasonable laws, reasonable women will continue to behave in a reasonable manner."
The trouble is, when going through life and selecting friends and a mate, how do you tell the difference at the outset? Even if you're sure you have the right one, how do you know she won't change and become hardened and cynical along the way?
I agree with you, subversive: ultimately people are all individuals. But what's the litmus test? Which button do you push to see if the feminist LED lights up? Is there a tricorder that can help tell the difference?
I'm 49 and married to my first wife, a (mostly) reasonable woman. But I have to say I'm frightened for my son, who is 13 and just beginning to look at girls. My message for now is "stay away from them; they're nothing but trouble." But eventually I'll have to give him real advice, and all I see is a pit full of vipers, women who act "reasonable" when you meet them socially or professionally who turn VERY ugly when you start to bring up the issues we cover here.
If the laws treated men and women equally, I know exactly what I'd tell him. But now I have to advise him in a manner that takes into account the lesser treatment men get in all aspects. Now I have to tell him that he has to work harder at his life than the girl in his Reading class because she's got all this victim shit working for her, and HE is the one who going to pay her freight.
I'm not generally a violent person, and I don't own a gun. But sick as it sounds, sometimes I can see why Marc Lepine took the exit he did.
Sorry, guys. Just unloading a bit.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But what's the litmus test?
Frank,
I believe there is a litmus test. That test is in how critical a woman is of a man that is supportive of men's activists. If the woman is critical then she is trouble. If the woman is supportive and agrees that there are unique issues that men face then she is kosher.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If the woman is critical then she is trouble."
Then you're saying that I should leave my wife immediately.
Hmmmm...
(just kidding!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question is not whether there are good women out there. The question is whether you can tell them apart from the wicked, vindictive women. I know that I can't. I've had several "perfectly nice" girlfriends, introduced to me by my trusted friends, go psycho on me when I tried to break up with them. You know: threats of false accusations, "taking me for all I was worth," that sort of thing. Fortunately, they never followed through on the big words. These women don't walk about with big, flashing signs on their foreheads that say, "Closet Bitch". You find out only afterward.
To be fair, this is exactly the kind of dilemma that women face when dating. There are bad men out there. If a woman picks the wrong one, she could end up raped, or in extreme circumstances, dead. Now, I'm sure that many women reading this will cheer, "Oh good. You guys deserve it. Now we're even." However, it's not that way at all.
Back in the bad ol' patriarchal days, a woman had her father and her brothers to act as enforceers. If any guy dared touch her, her family would make sure he regretted it. Of course, the family also knew her, and if she was prone to lying or changing her story suddenly, they wouldn't be quite so ready to defend her honour. After the great feminist revolution that killed off the patriarchy, the only change is that now feminists want the state to take over the role of daddy. Far from taking responsibility for their own defense, feminists want the same old patriarchal system, just with the police, the courts, and the prisons standing in for daddy and the brothers. The only hitch is that the state doesn't know the woman personally, and doesn't make allowances for her personality and veracity: they treat sensible women and pathological liars as equals.
Add to that the fact that although there is a punishment for bringing false charges, it is hardly ever prosecuted, and you have a recipe for disaster. Now daddy and the tough brothers don't care how often the bad woman lies, they'll still keep arresting her victims and putting them on trial.
In the end what it comes down to is that both men and women can be victimized by wicked members of the opposite sex. In the case of wicked men who victimize women, society abhors these men, and the state attempts to hunt them down and stop them. However, in the case of wicked women who victimize men, society doesn't really care, and the state helps the woman do the victimizing and then refuses to castigate her if her deception is revealed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some good women are subverted (no pun!) by Feminazis who feed them all kinds of pie in the sky about how bad off they are and how better off they can be by being obnoxious and doing outrageous things to men.
It's like some kind of wierd cult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here a link on the BBC site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2367371.stm
A Home Office report in 2000 recommended dropping the "honest belief"
defence in certain cases. A 2000 report said: "A defence of honest belief in
free agreement should not be available if there was self-induced intoxication,
recklessness as to consent, or if the accused did not take all reasonable steps
in the circumstances to ascertain free agreement at the time."
From the original:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-46218 1,00.html
The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has made it clear that the current
rate of convictions for rape is “unacceptable”, and the explicit aim of these
reforms is to find more men guilty.
And
These reforms will shift the burden of proof on to the defendant,
undermining the presumption of innocence. It will be possible to convict a man
of “accidentally” raping somebody who he genuinely believed consented to
sex.
The exact wording of the new law doesn't seem to be available yet, but it
doesn't seem that the idea is to get convictions without being overburdened by
concern for false or even mistaken allegations. This is ostensibly to get
date rapists convicted, but the possible result of this is that men will be
imprisoned for having consenting sex with a woman who then later decides she was
raped because she had had some drinks. Now since it is unlikely the police
will be knocking on doors on Sunday morning to find out if women had had sex and
drinks last night and then arresting the man for rape, then it will follow that
the matter will only come up when the woman complains. Examples that come
to mind where we already get false allegations are when a guy breaks up with a
woman and she suddenly remembers she was raped last night. Since the law
appears to be open ended, it now officially rape if she had some drinks last
night and if she can convince a jury that she wasn't totally of clear mind last
night. Basically if the guy "admits" to having sex and she's convincing
that she was at least somewhat drunk (how can he prove she wasn't), then he is
guilty of rape. This will be a tool in the hands of some women who
have it in for men. As for whether women can be trusted. Of course a
lot will be fair, but how do you know which ones.
Some possible long term effects come to mind. Firstly the government
will claim they've got more rape convictions, and on paper this will be
true. Convictions under this law will be easy. Real rapists may get
away while the police and Crown Prosecution pursue "easy kill" rape convictions.
(There is no sign of any more money for police or lawyers to pursue rapists,
which means difficult cases will be dropped). Once it gets around that a "rape"
conviction is simply a vindictive ex-girlfriend getting revenge then the term
"rape" will become a joke. A lot of men will start to believe that real
rape is almost non existent whilst "date rape" is just unjust laws used by women
who hate men. On Friday we had David Schwimmer, of Friends fame, on a news
programme telling us about how terrible date rape is. They also did a spot
about date rape drugs. This is obviously the opening round to propagandise
the new law as being about date rape and saving women from this but in reality
this will do nothing about real rapists, date rapists or otherwise, but it will
look good on paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I checked it but missed this mistake. The first sentence should read:
The exact wording of the new law doesn't seem to be available yet, but it does seem that the idea is to get convictions without being overburdened by concern for false or even mistaken allegations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The exact wording of the new law doesn't seem to be available yet, but it does seem that the idea is to get convictions without being overburdened..."
By the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Raymond, it certainly does give a woman a great deal of advantage in 'blackmailing' a man to do what she wants him to do.
In my case she wanted me to take her to Europe, let her move into my apartment among a number of other things.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A number of peopele here have assumed that this is a new UK law.
At this time it is only a proposal for a new law following a govenrnment consultation document on crime.
The proposed new law will be mentioned in the Queens speech in the form 'My government will bring forth a bill....'
This is a statement of intent. Before a law is passed many of the issues debated here will be discussed and no doubt a number of amendments will be proposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 03, @11:29AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how this works out legally. In most case that I know of when a woman is drunk having sex, the man is drunk too.
How does the law maintain that a woman's consent to having sex when she is intoxicated, does not constitute valid consent, but the man's consent to having sex when he is intoxicated, does constitute valid consent?
What does this mean? That the first person to show up at the police station to file a rape complaint is the victim, and the last person to show up is going to be the rapist?
Okay then boys... make sure you show up at the station first!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> What does this mean? That the first person
> to show up at the police station to file
> a rape complaint is the victim, and the
> last person to show up is going to be the rapist?
Do not fool yourself. The male is a suspect by definition. You should be very careful when choosing your partners.
In any case these laws were in USA at least since mid 80-s.
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The male is a suspect by definition.
Precisely. Note that the article states, "One report says that women who are under the influence of drink or drugs will 'automatically be regarded as unable to give consent to sex'."
The article does not state that a person who is "under the influence of drink or drugs will 'automatically be regarded as unable to give consent to sex'." Only a woman.
If a man and a woman get drunk and enjoy sex, the woman will have done nothing wrong. The man will have committed rape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, gotta love that fucked up political logic as it applies to crime. I doubt anyone would argue that being responsible for someones life is a greater responsibility than drinking alcohol, voting or driving, and yet in many states you can be charged as an adult for a violent crime almost ten years before you can legaly drink a beer. Its the same way with date rape. If a women who has been drinking can't willfully consent to sex, why should a man whos been drinking be held responsible for it?
And on the subject of rape, its actually easier for women to cause men a great deal of pain during rape. As others have pointed out, an erection is an involentary reaction, not a volentary one. All the woman has to do is give the man a quick hand job, mount his erection, and reach down to squeeze his testicles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just watched this filme 40 Days and 40 Nights.
Kind of a funny film if you ask me.
But I just thought I'd mention that a guy was raped by a woman in the film and it was basically considered humour.
Anyways, ya women are not sexuall assertive ever. Thanks for your time.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 06, @09:17AM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, yes.
But we must remember; ANYTHING a woman does to de-base, dehumanize and humiliate a man is ALWAYS "Cute and funny", "appropriate", "deserved", "just a joke", "A "strong woman"", Blah blah blah.
But if a MAN DOES IT... (insert dramatic music here.) It's EEEEEEEEVIL!!!!! (insert horror music here.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thundercloud.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just thought I would mention that.
She is a serial false accuser. Do not let her or people like her ruin your life, with unjust systemic discrimination laws.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 09, @03:36AM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
Dan,
Maybe from now on We all should use the name "Candace" to mean ALL false accusers.
You know, like how men who solicit(SP?) prostitutes are all called "Johns".
In this case when describeing a female false accuser one would say she is a "Candace.".
Just a thought.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Maybe from now on We all should use the name "Candace" to mean ALL false accusers. "
Brilliant!!!!
I'd like to start it out as in this statement.
It would be called "Pulling a Candace Varga" which to all of us would mean 'making a false accusation' I like that.
"She tried to pull a 'Candace Varga' but everyone knew it was total bullshit"
Ya, I can see that happening.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
