|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone who could put a boy caught in the situation described into jail for TEN YEARS and then walk away all happy and smug with her/his self should be horse-whipped in public and made to grovel naked and beg forgiveness at the feet of those who have suffered from his or her actions.
There's a cable tv 'reality' show I'd watch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this story was also on realsprots with braynt gumbel. it presented it in a light that was sympathetic to the young man i showed the head prosecuter as an ass. also i believe that on one episode gumbel went on a rant against the martha brukes of the world who saw a few upper class white women as "opperesed" because they couldn't play golf at the masters. he was outraged at their compairisons of themselves with blacks in the deep south and elsewhere
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 20, @07:48PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Given all the anti-male hate mongering in the media and especially in law schools, gross injustices like this are inevitable.
Men who are not thinking about how to do something about this are wimps and traitors. Women who are not agry about this are male-haters.
Martin Luther King must be turning over in his grave. We want justice, and we want it NOW!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, so ya'll have met our favorite Stealth Seagull Pheminist here, the charmingly disingenuous Lorianne. Welcome back, Pheminut Troll!!! Didja miss me, sugar-lips? Or did you think since I had a regular writing gig, that this board was too small potatoes?
Ah, how we have erred there; but without my fave whipping beyatch, and her outpourings of irrelevance, illogic, and stupidity there's hardly a reason for me to offload. Welcome back to the jungle, snugglebuns.
George and Jimmy, unfortunately, have already taken the bait of irrelevant tangents and strawmen proferred by L, and diversion of the topic from the real argument, namely deceptive practice by the prosecutor in order to achieve a conviction, any conviction, against a male in the name of Pheminist mandated political correctness. It's the fact that the DA lied, and the courts aided and abetted it to get a black man for daring to touch a white woman in the Cracker regions of the south.
Hammer the real points, gents, and don't let her change the subject. Once she doesn't have her marching orders, handbook, and debating script from her pheminist sisters, she's lost.
And she'll go away soon, anyway, wontcha, sugar-doodle?
:-)
Cheers, Pheminist Troll!
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @11:34AM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's the fact that the DA lied, and the courts aided and abetted it to get a black man for daring to touch a white woman in the Cracker regions of the south."
Kind of like what happens in the novel (& movie) "To Kill A Mockingbird". Meh.
MacKenna
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let's not forget poor old emmit till either
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and, the 10 best reasons I have seen yet for same sex marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @11:23AM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
But who would ever want to invite one to the wedding?
;-)
MacKenna
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @12:00AM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously, pheminut ideology and stupidity of the law has been shown to be a suitable deception for what passes for law.
As long as feminist make excuses that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" in a case like this, we will be required to bring up the arguement used against the Nazi's in World War II (and it is perfectly applicable here), "THERE IS A LAW ABOVE THE LAW."
When tyrants rule the people suffer. Clearly, under 30 years of feminist influence we men have become a demonized group ruled by tyrants.
Common sense is dead. Under 30 years of feminist influence we have become a nation ruled by barbarians using trickery to create the illusion of law. This case is anarchy.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
don't compair feminists to barbarians, we don't need to insult the barbarians
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If men don't like statuatory rape laws, then they should form a lobby to eliminate them. Is this a platform of the men's movement?
what a pathetic strawman argument.
I have a better idea - just teaching boys that females are dangerous liars to be avoided at all costs. That will keep the girls safe as well as the boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @09:44PM EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm
That is exactly what I do and teach my son. He has the RIGHT to know and I have an obligation to warn him.
steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is exactly what I do and teach my son. He has the RIGHT to know and I have an obligation to warn him.
DAMN STRAIGHT he does. In fact, if you were not teaching him that, I would say that you were terribly remiss in your parental responsibility.
And, as painful as it might be for Jen and Dave, I believe they better be teaching their sons that same thing, unless they want to see them in prison some day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @08:21PM EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
"Men are much better off today under our system of justice. Not to say our legal system if perfect, but it is certainly better than it once was."
What the fuck do you think happens to men charged with sex crimes in prison? Not that I care all that much for rapists and cild molestors. But innocent people are sent to prison and both are quite often lynched.
"If men don't like statuatory rape laws, then they should form a lobby to eliminate them. Is this a platform of the men's movement?"
This would be your way of demonizing the mens movement, no? Yet of course feminists aren't out there complaining how women get off scott free compared to men charged with the smae sex crimes. In fact you yourself have ignored my questions on the treatment of women compared to that of men for sex crimes. I take this silence as meaning you know this "inequality" exists and are not really concerned about this.
Why are feminists so little concerned about this? Does this show us that not caring about boys being sexually abused/statuatorally raped a platform of feminists? You give that impression.
p george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @11:01PM EST (#88)
|
|
|
|
|
"Oh good grief.
I believe in the rule of law and equal justice under the law. I don't care if someone is black white male female or Martian."
Then what the F@$%K are you doing on this board preaching to US????? It is WOMEN who are getting this leniency and getting away with sex crimes. And YOU don't say shiznit about that, YOU concentrate on men who DON'T get away with sex crimes.
"You guys need to convince other guys, not me. I'm already on board against any adult having sex with any minor. And I've done work in my state to get tougher laws passed for statuatory rape for any adult, male of female who commits this crime."
Are YOU concerned about how women are given less time in prison then men??? I don't think you do OTHERWISE you would have answered me originally.
This is what I said and YOU didn't reply to it.
"Yet of course feminists aren't out there complaining how women get off scott free compared to men charged with the smae sex crimes. In fact you yourself have ignored my questions on the treatment of women compared to that of men for sex crimes. I take this silence as meaning you know this "inequality" exists and are not really concerned about this."
WHY AREN'T YOU DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS FEMALE PRIVILEGE. WHY DIDN"T YOU DO THIS AT THE VERY BEGINING WHEN YOU REPLIED TO ME?
"good grief" my ass, as if I'm the idiot.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @11:37PM EST (#91)
|
|
|
|
|
"And I was just asking: Is elimination of statuatory rape laws a platform of the men's movement? Just want to know. You're the one who claims even asking the question is "demonizing"."
You know exactly what I meant. And you know that I know what you were trying to do by asking that question. well could be I'm wrong, maybe you're that stupid. Oh wait, was that rude, my bad.
now answer me this
"Why are feminists so little concerned about this {sex crimes against boys, and women getting away with it}? Does this show us that not caring about boys being sexually abused/statuatorally raped a platform of feminists? You give that impression."
In your struggle to get stiffer penalties for "men and women", were you also trying to get even MUCH harsher sentences for women so as to be equal with men in being convicted and sentenced? just curious ;)
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @09:55PM EST (#114)
|
|
|
|
|
No, I have no idea why no one wants to answer the question of whether or not the men's movement or those here at Mens Activism wants to eliminate statuatory rape laws. It seems a simple straightforward question. The answer might not be simple. Perhaps some groups favor that and others don't. I don't know. Guess I won't find out asking here as everyone seems afraid of answering the question.
I don't know what the official feminist position is on women being prosecuted for having sex with minors or if there is an official position. I'll check into it. I do know they took (justified IMO) heat for supporting adult women having sex with minor teen girls in the Vagina Monologues. Not enough heat in my opinion.
I do know that in my state working on this issue and on EVERY internet board I have ever had this discussion on the subject save this one, MEN joke and make light of women having sex with adolescent/teen boys and do not support women being prosecuted for it. Period.
If you don't believe me fine. Go do your own research, take a poll.
Yes, I took the position that any adult should be prosecuted the same for sexual contact with minors no matter the sexual combination. Most MEN did not support that with regards to adult women w/ boys ... they also wanted harsher penalties for adult men with same-sex liasons with minor boys.
But again, take your own poll, bring up the subject on other message boards and see what response you get. Also get involved in your state legislative process and I'll bet you'll run into the same attitudes ... but maybe not, I'd be interested to know where people are more egalatarian minded.
Lorianne
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @10:49PM EST (#119)
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, I took the position that any adult should be prosecuted the same for sexual contact with minors no matter the sexual combination. Most MEN did not support that with regards to adult women w/ boys ... they also wanted harsher penalties for adult men with same-sex liasons with minor boys."
You know what lorianne, shut the hell up. WHY THE HELL ARE YOU HERE PREACHING TO US??? If you care so much about "Adults" being equally prosecuted for sex crimes then STOP saying that "it's men who are the problem, not innocent egalitarian I". You know what that fucking feels like, it's similar to saying to a black person "well it is blacks killing blacks". Well, not exactly the same but you should be able to get the point. YOU keep on using that lame ass argument, and you used it on me before in another argument. IF YOU are really concerned about women being prosecuted the same way as men then stop preaching to us who are already "in the know" and go to your man hating feminist sites and preach to them and bring us the links. {I'm serious}
WE here are talking about the bigotry that men face in being prosecuted compared to that of women. And you come here and say "well it's men who you need to talk to, not I". How the hell do think that comes across to us?
WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS fighting for women to be prosecuted as harshly as men? WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS fighting for men to be punished less harshly? Where are all the women who are fighting for this, or even just concerned????????
Even if it where true that 95% of all men thought men should punished harder then women it's STILL A PRIVILEGE TO WOMEN, and that includes YOU.
"MEN joke and make light of women having sex with adolescent/teen boys and do not support women being prosecuted for it. Period."
Hey guess what, women laugh at those same jokes. Where are all the women wanting other women to be more harshly prosecuted?
And you know what women do>? They joke about men being raped in prison, but would be utterly outraged if there were jokes on tv, radio, movies about women being raped.
You are such an unbelievably self righteous beeyaatch.
I won't even go into how sexually abused boys are treated by society {which includes women compared to sexually abused girls. I'll just say that there is a stigma that the boy is now a damaged person who's a potential child molestor/sexual predator. Which I think makes boys not want to say jack shit. Where are all the feminists acting concedrned for these boys? And you know what the feminists have done to make it harder on sexually abused boys? They've built a theory or at least a bias that men are inherently sexually predatory which compounds the goddamn stigma for sexually abused boys! Now talk to them about that bs.
p. george
whatever.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is a biased question, Lorainne, which is why no one will answer you. What you have done is set up a apparently reasonable question " Do the people at Mens Activism wants to eliminate statuatory rape laws"
And if this were the only question asked at another time, I am sure everyone would agree that no, we do not want to abolish these laws entirely. They give the law a tool to charge people who prey on underage children.
There is a huge HOWEVER here. First of all, these laws are not fairly upheld along gender lines. Men are charged more often with this crime and men get harsher penalties for the same crime. This is unfair, and must be added to qualify your simple question.
Also, the law itself is biased against this particular type of case, of two people close in age having consensual sex. Being upset at the particular application of the law does not necessarily mean we are against the law. Just like being opposed to drunk driving doesn't mean we are against drinking, or against driving separately. It is the application of combining both that we are against. In this case, the boy was not preying apon this girl. They were dating and having sex. This type of application is a way of parents to save face. That is the problem.
It is completely irrelevant what your very unofficial studies conclude about who agrees with the application of the law. The fact is that the application of these laws is biased. Period. I really don't care if most men still live in the dark ages and feel protective of women to the point of giving them overwhelming privelage. It is still wrong.
So let me ask you a question. Do you feel that the statutory rape laws are applied equitablty, and if so, what is your reasoning?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a perfect example why men have such animosity toward feminism and feminsts, Jen.
The point men keep trying to make is repeatedly ignored, and twisted into something which no one would really defend.
A perfect way to illustrate the essential fallacy being argued - which cannot be logically refuted simply because it is a fallacy in the first place - would be to use the example of Sharia law.
Under Sharia law, the penalty for theft is having one's hand chopped off. That is the law. If one was walking through a store and one's 4 year old child ate a piece of candy, technically, that is "theft". The position Lorianne is taking is that she would support having her child have his/her hand chopped off under those circumstances.
Taking the position that the punishment is excessive for the circumstances of the crime is not "advocating that theft be legalized", it is simply saying that the punishment is excessive to the circumstances of the crime.
It would be really interesting (for those who enjoy such things as tweezing nose hairs) to have our feminasty troll take her same position regarding the sanctity of "the law" in the case of the woman who was sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery. It was, after all the law, and this woman certainly knew it.
Of course, our feminasty troll will try to blame what happened on the man, and claim that the woman was actually raped, but I don't remember such a claim ever being made in the news stories about it.
Arguing for issues of principle is all well and good, but in the case of our stupid troll the issue is not one of principle, it is whatever benefits women, or even better hurts men, that she is in favor of. If that involves turning around and arguing exactly the opposite principle in the next case - well people that evil have no need or concern for integrity or consistency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @01:34PM EST (#131)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen,
I've answered the same question approx 5 times just on this thread. Yes the laws are applied inequitably. The laws are even WRITTEN inequitably. The question is why they are, which everyone seems to want to blame on evil feminists instead of looking at who support the inequitable laws and why. Even you alluded to it that men give adult women a pass on the issue of having sex with minor boys (adolescent and teen). Also, our culture punishes same-sex adult/minor sex more harshly and adult male/minor male much more harshly. These laws are WRITTEN this was, therefore there is no suprise that men are more harshly punished. Duh?
The question is ... what is the consensus for changing these laws? Even here I see more support for passively circumnavigating this laws (don't get involved with females, jury nullification, etc.) rather than actively confronting them legislatively to get them changed. And using the exucuse that "feminists" oppose them so it's no use. That's a cop out. Racist and sexist and homophobic laws predate modern feminism.
Why isn't there anyone willing to confront the issue that long held gender attitudes and general laziness keeps inequitable laws on the books?
In the case were feminists (or any other group) gets laws passed in there favor ... which I dispute has happened in statuatory sex laws .... at least some people get actively involved in changing the laws.
Once again, what is the Mens Movement's position and how do they plan to change statuatory sex laws? How will they garner support for their position (once they formulate a position)? Are they going to work towards elimination of statuatory sex laws? .... or for more equitable prosecution of existing statuatory sex laws?
In my experience statuatory sex laws are supported by about 90% of the population because the prevailing consensus among people (many of the parents) is to protect minors. This seems like human nature to me. If anyone is pushing legislation in this area it is parents, not "feminists".
As I said, in my state a bill to raise the AOC from 14 to 16 was supported by over 90% of voters, forcing reluctant politicians to overturn a Governor's veto of the bill by a super-majority of votes. Legislators got so much mail and calls on this issue there was simply no way they could not vote for the bill and expect to be re-elected. No other legislation in the history of the state has ever received that much support. That means that MEN and women and feminists and basically everyone else support the bill. That doesn't make it a "feminist" issue. It makes it a populist issue. People care about this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes the laws are applied inequitably.
The question is ... what is the consensus for changing these laws?
If they are being applied inequitably, what effect will changing them have? Any changed laws will simply be applied equally inequitably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that was Lorainne, you forgot to sign your post
Here is the problem. The laws are not written inequitably. The laws technically are gender blind. Anyone over the age of consent cannot have sexual contact with anyone under the age of consent. There is not much to change within the law. Your entire argument (5 times, as you are keeping count)keeps drifting back to the law, when technically the law is not the problem.
The problem is how the law is carried out. Even you admit that. So how is changing the law going to fix the problem?
The problem is that society sees nothing wrong with slightly younger boys and older women(ex a 15 and 18 year old), yet do feel there is a problem with a 15 yr old girl and 18 yr old boy.
Society does not see an adult woman molesting a young teen boy as a problem, even though girls mature at a faster rate than boys, so the opposite is actually true, that younger girls are more capable of handling an older man than a younger boy handling an older woman. The last example I saw was American Pie, where one of the boys "scores" with his friend's mother. If the roles had been reversed the movie would have been boycotted by most of the female population, and a good part of men as well. Just because popular culture believes something does not make it right. Popular culture once thought slavery was right, and that women should not vote, both including the majority of women.
The law does not protect boys from girls lying about their age.
The law does not protect boys from false allegations, as in this case where the girl lied about being forcibly raped.
It is society's attitude about the sexual roles and ethics which we have a problem with.
What are we doing about it? We are here discussing it for one. As you must know from your knowledge of feminism, that was the first step the likes of Elizebeth Cady Stanton and her friends took. To meet, discuss, and plan.
We are building up ranks, we are collecting information. Then when we feel the time is right we will move for action. Do not mistake patience with laziness. There would be no benifit to moving right now. We are not ready.
This is a feminist problem because feminism created 'political correctness' which makes every social group other than white men sacred. Our boys mean nothing to feminists, who demonize "Math is hard" but are silent when "Boys are Stupid Throw Rocks At Them" (see the thread pertaining to Glenn Saks if you are confused). It is feminism which has made breaking a hymen an offense but causing a boy to lose his virginity is not ever addressed.
Your questions are meant to push us into silence, which it will not. All you have done is make us more determined to burn the lace curtain and show people what is truly happening. Thank you.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @10:43PM EST (#142)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen we agree on one thing! Yes societal attitudes do not place a high importance on equitable laws in this area for boys. Societal attitudes means more than just "feminists" it means the culture at large. And I agree, the culture at large holds inconsistent views on adults having sex with boys and with girls (and on opposite vs. same sex).
It is one step at a time. Once you change those attitudes then you can change the laws. But you're right, that's not the end of the story. After that we have to make sure the laws are equitably enforced. (Remember, we are still fighting this battle about equal treatment under the law for black ... some 150 years after the abolition of slavery). No, it does not happen overnight and that is for sure.
Also ___ No, my questions are not meant to "push you into to silence". You are (like is very popular here) attributing motives to me I do not have. I have just as many quibbles with the larger feminist movement (NOW etc) that many of you have. The difference is I won't play the hysterical "blame feminists for everything" game and that makes some of you hostile to me. It's ok, I'm used to being berated by both sides. I'm equally savaged on feminist boards for my views!
Statutory sex law just happens to be one area I'm interested in and more familar with since I worked for 2 years on a PAC in my state to get the age of consent raised. (It was a parents group, not a feminist group). We did a lot of research on the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @01:56AM EST (#143)
|
|
|
|
|
"Also ___ No, my questions are not meant to "push you into to silence". You are (like is very popular here) attributing motives to me I do not have"
I have seen you come here in the past on more than just a couple of occurances---to what seemed to me and others---as a way to change the subject of the thread and conversations pertaining to areas of female privilege to an argument that would looked to purposely detract from the topic at hand.
Do you think it just a coincidence that so many of us here have "attributed motives to me[you] I do not have"? The vast majority of times you post here, you sound hateful towards men, and you have given men here that same feeling as well.
Feminists really are the ones "who try to push men into silence". They are the ones at the forefront doing this. I almost think they do this purposely to sexually abused boys, to keep them in silence to uphold their theory that it's only girls who are sexually abused. When a man simply try's to talk about a hardship that specifically men face feminists are the first to immediately dismiss this with "men just don't want to give up their power and privileges". They replied this to me on so many occasions, actually it may have been every time. Femminists consistantly make woman out to the disadvantaged gender when it is really men who are the ones, they just leave out the statistics for men, and quote the statistics for only women making the reader assume that's the whole story.
"The difference is I won't play the hysterical "blame feminists for everything" game and that makes some of you hostile to me." I don't think this is exactly which makes us hostile to you, it is the things you say and how you go about saying them. I mean you are basically calling us hysterical for thinking this about you, as if we are the problem.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne has a pattern of attempting to hijack discussion, in what amounts to being "No, no - don't look at this too closely! Do something useless instaed!"
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
I am going to address what you said. I disagree, but since you did address what was said I should do the same. You bring up interesting points and, again, I disagree with your assertion of the misapplication NOT being the fault and contrivance of the feminist machinations. Regardless of whether a MALE politician agrees and votes for unfair laws, he is being a politician. He panders to powerful political groups. N.O.W. is one (not picking on them, but let's go with it, k?) With supposedly 500K members (the number of PAYING members is like 45K - most are just receivers of newsletters on mailing lists) can raise a huge amount of money to get who they want elected. With now and the EMILY's list group (EMILY's list is THE most powerful lobby in the US - and very gender-feminist) can put inordinate pressure on a politician to vote their way. Vote their way or lose your job. Pretty simple. Even the NRA only spends 40% of what EMILY's list does. These groups make sure the APPLICATION of the law is done as they see fit. So pointing to MALE politicians is a non-sequitor argument. The politician may be black and male, but he votes how EMILY and NOW tell him, even though black men are disproportionally represented in prison due to the applications of the laws. It's not MEN (whoever this amorphous group you keep referring to) who are doing this but FEMINIST groups who write, push, fund (and receive funding from), and enlarge these laws. Placing the responsibility squarely on the feminists is not only fair, but it's what the feminists CROW about. When a law getting tough against sex offenders passes these above mentioned groups CLAIM CREDIT. How then, in the same breath, can anyone with any credibility claim the feminist lobby is NOT responsible for laws and their application. These very same above mentioned groups PUBLISH THE STATS, use them as proof of gains made for women, profit from funding FROM the legislation (kinda sick how that works - create the problem, profit from the problem, be immune to the penalties imposed by the problem - nice!), and push for MORE laws that target men. Then when the system does something blatantly wrong, all the "feminists" claim that men can't blame feminists for the laws as "no one can define feminsts/feminism". That's rather a convenient tack to take in this arguement Lorianne.
Also, and I think you may be missing 2 important points.
The first Jen made rather eloquently. This was a case where to people (she barely under the age limit and he just over it) were in love, dating, and had consensual sex. This was not some 34 year old man who used words of "love" to satisfy his egoistic needs with a 13 year old child. These two kids had sex. He didn't twist her head around using YEARS of age gained wisdom and experience to prey upon some Snow White child, he was dating her. And don't play lawyer with me Lorianne, because you can't, with a straight face, tell me YOU or some of your CLOSET friends did not date older guys and engage in consensual sexual activities. And, taking that tack would lose you all credibility in this discussion. Ever "righteously" turn any of your friends boyfriends in to the police? Not some 14 year old girl who you sorta knew who was sleeping with a 24 year old man, TWO KIDS, where the girl was your CLOSE friend. Did you turn in her boyfriend? If not, aren't YOU just as guilty of conspiracy to commit CHILD MOLESTATION? Or was "that different" because there was a loving relationship between two people who shared a bond. I could say more, but I need not belabor the point.
The second point is that the charge he WAS found guilty of was not applicable. We can argue this all day long, but it's simple Lorianne: the charge he was convicted of was about VIOLENCE perpetrated against an manipulated CHILD by a PREYING MOLESTOR. What part of what I just stated applies to the boy/man in this particular case. Women's hymen's are not holier-than-thou-canst-possibly-imagine items. This couple had sex, and as a natural by-product her hymen was broken. Not a violent act, not a prey/victim scenario, and not a traumatic experience of molestation. Therefore it was a blatant misapplication of the law.
This is what people are tying to get to you. I hope this better explained it.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh good grief.
I believe in the rule of law and equal justice under the law. I don't care if someone is black white male female or Martian.
Oh good grief. I take it then, LORIANNE, that you are now all for prosecuting women who have committed paternity fraud for fraud, and jailing them for a good long time, plus making them repay the money - as opposed to your previous and loudly stated contention that enforcing such a thing will hurt children. Law is the law, right? Everyone's equal?
Or are some still more equal than others?
And I was just asking: Is elimination of statuatory rape laws a platform of the men's movement? Just want to know. You're the one who claims even asking the question is "demonizing".
Oh good grief. Not even a clever attempt at changing the subject, but since you asked LORIANNE, enforcement of those laws equally on women as well as men is. Or vice versa. And if the latter amounts to abolishment of satuatory rape, what does that say about the state of affairs, Hm? But thanks so much for making my point for me.
And ... in my experience discussing this issue for years now ... it is MEN who hold double standards about adult women having sex with minor boys. Not me.
Oh good grief. I seem to remember a certain LORIANNE arguing not too much over a year ago that women "molesting" boys was so rare it didn't rate programs, and most boys regarded sex with an "Mrs. Robinson" as a badge of honor anyway. You stand corrected. Thanks for playing.
By my estimation about 75% of men on boards I've participated in where this subject is raised do not think sex with a minor is a crime with it is a woman/boy (they do when it is a man/boy though).
Oh good grief. Lies, damned lies, and statistics; now unsupported statistics to boot. Want to leaven that casual assertion, LORIANNE, with a few facts? Or is that just another scientific study of your personal think tank?
Remember - 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot! ;-)
You guys need to convince other guys, not me. I'm already on board against any adult having sex with any minor. And I've done work in my state to get tougher laws passed for statuatory rape for any adult, male of female who commits this crime. (Mostly men are opposed to the language covering adult women and adolescent/teen boys).
Oh good grief. Bold claim, LORIANNE. Prove it. "Sources, please!" Or stand as a damned liar.
Get out there and work on the issue if you're concerned about the laws. And while you're out there pay attention to the attitudes of me on the subject.
Oh good grief. We have, LORIANNE; and you have been weighed, measured, and found wanting.
You are not our friend. Nor are you the friend of equalitarianism, egalitarianism, or anything like that. You're just another mind-numbed pheminist robot.
You may go now.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @05:46AM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, well how much time did the underage person get for having sex underage? Is it not illegal? If it is illegal then the underaged person surley was arrested. . .no? What was the underaged persons sentence for the illegal activity that was committed?
As far as injury goes. . .what injury? What constitutes injury? Was this person injured by ones OWN action or ones own coerced action or ones own consentual action? Is this just a hurt feelings injury. Was the minor's feelings even hurt? Or was it the parents hurt feelings?
My guess that this is just another terrorist attack striking fear in all boys/men in this nation. There is nothing new here. Just another fuel cell for our 2nd largest industry.
What is interesting and I doubt that the feminist as high and mighty as they think they are, seem to be falling pray to there own agenda's. Female prison population 3 years ago was like 3. something, last year 7. something, this year 10%. Seems like Uncle Sam has found a huge new resource, and they are tapping it!
Great job victimologist, marxist, socialist, communist, ok before this list gets to long let me sum it up. . .FEMINISTS.
Feminists and there hate in my opinion were allowed by Uncle Sam to control, oppress, weaken
the American male spirit. As it was much more difficult and legally impossible to do so without public support. Uncle Sam now has the legal tools and the spirits of most men who would have fought are depleted.
Uncle Sam needs Feminists no more. . .you talk about used and abused. . .hmmm, I wonder if they with all there power and might will have Uncle Sam arrested? Silly boys and girls!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @01:19PM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
Only adults are culpable under statuatory age
laws. The minor is not.
Lorianne
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are missing the point. It is really funny to watch you dance around, are you having fun yet?
So why is it when an adult woman has sex with a minor boy, as young as 11, no one calls it statutory rape. And how is it, that when said woman gets pregnant, the minor is court ordered to pay child support. I thought only adults were "culpable under statuatory age
laws"? Hmm?
Cat got your tongue?
Blahh.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @09:50PM EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
Very good point Biscuit Queen:
The answer is FEMINISM (terrorism by definition)
steve
games without frontier. . .war without tears
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @10:02PM EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, good point. I'd actually like to hear you-Lorainne--answer this post from JenK especially since you've ignored my questions.
I know you're still reading this thread :).
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So why is it when an adult woman has sex with a minor boy, as young as 11, no one calls it statutory rape.
Can we all say "lying bigot troll"? Good luck with her, Jen. Such people are generally stupider than concrete blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @10:31PM EST (#85)
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on the state. In many states it is a crime for a woman to have sex with a boy. In others it isn't or it is a lesser crime.
The laws reflect the attitudes of people on the subject. I can tell you from experience working on this issue in my state that it is MEN who were opposed to language making it a crime for an adult woman to have sex with an adolescentn or teen boy under the age of 18. (Not so if a man has sex with an adolescent or teen boy).
Also in many states same-sex sex with minors is punished more harshly than opposite-sex sex with minors. This again reflects the prevailing prejudices the population.
Again, if people don't like the statuatory rape laws in theiri state, I urge you to get involved with getting them changed. We did in my state and the voter's overturned a governor's veto on legislation to raise the AOC from 14 to 16.
People care about this issue and will vote on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Always the lie of the strawman. The boy was acquitted of forcible rape, not statuatory rape, and the conviction was for a form of felonious assault on a child under age.
Now, if the woman who mutilated the man's penis by biting it had gotten 10 years, instead of 9 months, that is a kind of law I would work for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @05:30PM EST (#105)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Always the lie of the strawman. The boy was acquitted of forcible rape, not statuatory rape, and the conviction was for a form of felonious assault on a child under age.
The felonious assualt on a minor was a statuatory offense. It had to do with her age, otherwise they would not use the term "minor". Had she been above the age of consent, the statuatory charge could not have been made. There are other lots of statuatory laws besides rape even such nebulous ones as "contributing to the delinquency of a minor". Had he given her given her alchohol or drugs ... I suspect they would have hauled him up on that too. I would guess the 15 year-olds' parents are behind this and asked the prosecutor to get him for every law on the books that they could find. That is why, when dealing with minors, adults really need to know the laws in their state.
Now, if the woman who mutilated the man's penis by biting it had gotten 10 years, instead of 9 months, that is a kind of law I would work for.
You're mixing apples and oranges. What state was this in? Was there a minor involved? You can't compare sentences for two different classes of crimes from different states. We do not have a uniform Federal system of laws, thank God.
You'd have to compare the woman's sentence to other persons IN HER STATE who committed a similar crime in order to show bias in favor of females.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'd have to compare the woman's sentence to other persons IN HER STATE who committed a similar crime in order to show bias in favor of females.
That, is bullshit!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who cares WHAT state it was in. Are you saying the STABBING, MUTILATION, and BEATINGS are somehow grossly different in different states (by law)? The exact criminal codes may differ, but the VIOLATIONS are not.
I don't even know how to respond to you anymore. It's like a self-indulgent 8 year old who just read "Fem theory 101" came into a room full of adults and tried to astound us with her "wisdom".
Let's make it simple, as you clearly are anyways:
Do you think it's wrong that an 18yo boy who was basically found guilty of breaking a (hear the angels sing) HYMEN deserves 10 years!? And that a woman who mutilated, beat, and repeatedly stabbed her boyfriend (funny how no one called it DV - but I digress) only got **9** months!? What the fuck apples and oranges are you talking about. Go back to Feminazi theory 101, it's the only place where whack-jobs like you make sense: to each other.
LSB
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @01:51PM EST (#133)
|
|
|
|
|
Are you reading my responses? I've already said several times I think 10 years seems excessive. It may also be inequitable but I'd have to know how others were sentenced for the same or similar crimes in Georgia to determine that.
That said, I don't favor making exuses for this man who BROKE the laws of his state. He had sex with a minor which is AGAINST THE LAW. Whether or not they were dating or whatever you think of the girl is immaterial. Laws should be upheld and I for one and glad he was caught and prosecuted. That doesn't mean I support a 10 year sentence, these are two different issues.
We make these comparisons all the time. For example you hear people saying that within the state of Texas, blacks get the death penalty more often than whites. You compare people judged under the same laws in the same state to confirm bias. That makes sense.
I don't see any value in comparing a adult woman's mutilation of an adult man in a different state, with this issue of the adult man and minor female in another state. It's ridiculous to compare the two.
I'm not into hysteria, so I'm not playing along. YES, there is "inequity" in our legal system (I've said that many times). Some states have the death penalty and some states don't for God's sake .. how's that for inequity?
Had the same circumstance occured in a different state, it would undoubtedly have a different outcome. At the very least, the sentence would have been different. But to determine if he was treated inequitably, you'd have to compare this prosecution with others like in IN GEORGIA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK,
http://www2.state.ga.us/Courts/Supreme/pdf/s03a047 3.pdf
http://www2.state.ga.us/Courts/Supreme/pdf/s03a085 0.pdf
note it took 2 years for the woman to get a trial, and 7 years for the man. Notice that the woman was sentenced the same, but her sentence was then reduced. I would have to search much longer to find a stat. rape case, and since I have 2 kids i really don't have the time to surf endlessly.
These are murder charges, but they are both similar and in the same state.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @11:24PM EST (#89)
|
|
|
|
|
"Also in many states same-sex sex with minors is punished more harshly than opposite-sex sex with minors. This again reflects the prevailing prejudices the population."
So then you would say that men who have sex with minors receives harsher punishments then women, is because this "reflects the prevailing prejudices the population"?
Why is it that you don't care about this prejudice, yet, you being a feminist, wants men to listen and care about the prejudices that women face or have faced? Would this be a double standard in your opinion? Would you be a hypocrite? Would this show your hatred for men, since you've adopted a philosophy that claims to be about "equality", yet you don't care about inequality's which men face? Would you be guilty of misandry?
Could all this denial have anything to do with you having an invested interest in women being the only gender that has any disadvantages so as you can be the center of attention? Sorta like how white women benefited the most from AA?
p. george
Why can't YOU admit this.
I've debated with you before and thought you were a hateful person, now I still think that, but more so.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @11:27PM EST (#90)
|
|
|
|
|
ok well, I feel sorta stupid. that first sentence in the last paragraph was supposed to be deleted. I must have missed it. I sound like an idiot.
p george.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @05:11PM EST (#103)
|
|
|
|
|
You're wrong. I DO care about this issue that's why I got involved in it in my state to raise the AOC from 14 to 16 ... for boys and girls ... and any type of sex .... same and opposite ... intercourse, oral etc....
Go work on it in your state and get back to me. Your experience may vary from mine but in my state it was MEN who were not keen on raising the AOC for boys or for making same-sex and opposite sex offenses the same level of crime.
We eventually got it passed but not without a big fight with MALE legislators who did not want boys protected as girls and heterosexual crimes punished the same as homosexual crimes.
Let me know if in your state people are more enlightened than in mine. I'd be interested. I do not expect that every state is the same ... since the statuatory rape laws in every state differ.
Even though laws dealing with the same crimes differ from state to state and this seemingly creates "injustice" in punishment .. I'm for the States setting and enforcing their own laws vs the Federal government setting laws so they will be uniform. IMO in the bigger picture, this is better for us all. Your mileage may vary, that is my opinion.
Now, this Marcus fellow certainly seeems to have gotten an overly harsh sentence. But to know for sure you'd have to compare him with others convicted of the same crime IN HIS STATE.
In any case, his case is being appealed to the State Supreme Court and I would hope that they would take into account comparable sentences for people who commit the same crime as he and any other mitigating (like white people getting lesser sentences) circumstances and reduce his sentence.
I don't know if the law is the same for men and women in Georgia. If it is then men and women should also get comparable sentences ... same as blacks and whites should get comparable sentences.
I agree that there should not be two sets of laws for different genders. However, as I don't live in Georgia, there is not much I can do about it. Georgians will have to change their own laws. If anyone here is from Georgia, write to your representatives about the issue and get involved. That would be one good thing that could come out of this circumstance.
Hopefully this case will cause everyone to look into what the statuatory laws are in their state and change them. Most people don't even know what the laws are in their state. I know I didn't until I got involved with this issue in my state.
Lorianne
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, you're a goddamn liar, and you need to stop insulting our intellegence.
It's real cheap and easy to make wild claims of how you have "got involved" but there's not one shred of evidence you have provided - not even your state - to give yourself the slightest credibility. And I'm sure you won't, because your claims are bullshit.
Your little ancedotes are meaningless. Even were they true, they are subjective, interpreted by you through your lens of (proven) anti-male personal bias, and wholly without scientific foundation.
You've also consitantly missed the whole point of the discussion, and as usual, attempted to twist it into something it isn't. Get this - the issue isn';t the law: the issue is the inconsistant, biased, bigoted, and selective manner in which it is applied, prosecuted, and enforced - and the manner in which deceit and trickery by zealot, sexist, and racist offcials to use it a "ding" to get a "niggah." Or more so, a Manigger.
Now - go away, little girl. Men have things to discuss, and with some mature women - not hysterical little feminutzis like yourself.
Shoo.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @05:17PM EST (#104)
|
|
|
|
|
"So then you would say that men who have sex with minors receives harsher punishments then women, is because this "reflects the prevailing prejudices the population"?
Yes, most likely that is true. And men who have sex with minor boys get harsher sentences than men who have sex with minor girls. That is why people need to be aware of the laws in their state and if they don't like them, work to change them. Many laws were set in a previous time period when people had different attitudes than today. Many of our laws need overhauling or gotten rid of but we just never get around to it.
Lorianne
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @10:25PM EST (#84)
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the definition of Terrorism: (google search "definition Terrorism")
As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements:
(1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force.
(2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce.
(3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)"
Does this sound like whats been happening over the past few decades?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 years for breaking a hymen?!? He should be awarded for even finding one! Virgin my ass!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine that: a finder's fee for a real virgin. If he's looking in the US, (and he's looking at women older than the age of consent) he may as well be looking for he Holy Grail.
OOPS!! Did I say That ?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why didn't the defense attorney point out to the jury repeatedly that a charge of aggravated child molestation can yield a 10 year sentence?
I think race did figure prominantly in this case, the case here wasn't statutory rape, it was forcible rape because they assumed "gracious! he's black, she's white, he's a few years older, he MUST have forced her!" and when that wasn't working, they switched to saying "but he did harm her! that horrible overage black man! he broke her hymen! he'll only serve a year or something, jury, don't let him walk away innocent!" which the jury was willing to concede he did SOMETHING wrong, even if they weren't informed enough of the sentence.
which brings up, jurors are not supposed to base their decisions on the length or method of punishment. should they be? If you were on a juror on a case where the sentence might be chemical castration, even if you did feel they were guilty, would you say guilty?
Statutory rape laws are used almost exclusively against young men who have sex with young women. Unless the law sets the age at an appropriately young age [I think 14, maybe 13] these are always going to be used to prove that women have no idea what they're doing and men are always oppressing and abusing them. Goddamnit, teenage girls are sluts, I've known girls, 15, 16, 17 who are PROUD of only dating college men and older. Even if there is a power play, as people imply that the young girls don't know what they're doing, wheras the older fellow do? Should a man be arrested for having a higher IQ than the woman he had sex with? Some people know of the laws and won't touch underage girls, but a lot figure that "if she's enjoying it, it's fine." Until she stops enjoying it.
I knew of a fellow, I think in Virginia, who was prosecuted for statutory rape in the same situation - pled to child molestation and served a year a prison, maybe 6 months with good behavior.
Now in both cases, not only will he be in prison, probably raped himself and such, but he will always always have to put on job applications "child molester." that's going to go over great.
If we have any males on this site who migh be having sex with underage girls, for any reason:
www.ageofconsent.com - consent laws by state and country.
New York, in it's screwy-ness, is 14 if the partner is four years or less in age difference, and 17 if more.
And this should definitely be taught in schools, just as we teach that even if everyone you know smokes marijuana, it can still carry a lengthy prison sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @06:58PM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
I heard that juries can find people not guilty because the law is unconstitutional. Lawyers aren't allowed to tell juries this for obvious reasons.
I don't know if this is true or was some sort of April Fool's joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard that juries can find people not guilty because the law is unconstitutional. Lawyers aren't allowed to tell juries this for obvious reasons.
I don't know if this is true or was some sort of April Fool's joke.
EXACTLY.
It is no joke, and it is called jury nullification. It's high time every male took the pledge to give the male the benefit of any doubt in such cases, and vote "not guilty" as a matter of protest and principle. Make the bastards disqualify us on the basis of our gender, force their hand into declaring us openly to be second class citizens before the brainwashing is complete. And when that happens, let the chips fall where they may.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @08:09PM EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
You can do this with people charged with drug offenses as well. If you care about that sort of thing.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am posting late to this lively thread. My own response is in the reply left by Lorianne.
First off, I understand that the laws are written and must be obeyed. But there does seem to be a bit of "gee that's the law, it must be just" going on. Lorianne how many of YOUR friends dated men who were older than them? And not just a year or two, but 3-5 years older? And did any, ANY, of your friends lie about their age? Did YOU ever date someone older? See, it's all about using one premise (protecting CHILDREN -be they male or female) being used to selectively target a gender (boys and only boys).
If I ask someone to buy me beer, as I am underage, I can be charged for trying to get someone to break the law. If I ask someone to get me into a club, while carrying fake id, I can be charged. But when a girl has an older boyfriend and they have consensual sex, she won't ever be charged. EVEN IF SHE LIED ABOUT HER AGE. I know, I asked this self-same question of an ADA who I was aquainted with.
I am going to present a case, where the facts don't match the ones that are the premise of this thread. I say this at the outset so you don't say I am going off on a tangent:
I had this same problem when I was 18. Met a girl who presented herself to be 16. Dated her quite openly, even went so far as to introduce her to my mother. When I met her parents the age thing didn't come up for quite a while. Then one day her father commented that I didn't look 16. I told him that I was 18. He asked me why I was dating a 14 year old girl. I was floored and confronted her with this. She told me that she cared for me deeply, and wanted to be with me. I told her that if she really cared about me she wouldn't put me in the position of going to jail.
We should punish girls who lie about their age, it's called a deterrent. In this particular case, the one presented in this thread, the girl's hymen was broken: so what?! What gross injury was caused. The law applied to the boy was meant for INJURY while a girl was being molested. That's like punishing a boy if, while the two of them are kissing, the girl gets "rug burn" from his face. What is so "holier than holy" about a girl's hymen? That it was her "first time"?! Ok, reality check here Lorianne, when I saw the movie American Pie not ONE woman I know thought it was a bad movie due to a woman getting used. Why is this germaine? Because 2 boys in this movie were "used". The first being the "high school sweethearts" who both gave each other their virginity and the next morning the girl says (from context): "well, that was great, but we're going off to college, so thanks for the 'starter sex' ... nice knowing you." If the MAN had said this, ... well I can hear the shrieking harpies now: "he USED HER!!!". Why is a woman's first time sacrosanct, but a boy's is not? And the second situation was where the woman roughly holds the man down and demands: "what's my name bitch?!" Any cries from the feminist lobby about how he was degraded and used? Didn't think so. Don't give me "patriarchy" ... women get indoctrinated all right .. by feminist entitlement, feminist privilige, and "that's different" thinking.
Two kids who cared about each other had sex. Men are sent to jail, women get "couseling" and probation. Since you keep stating the law in these black or white words, why don't you address that?
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @02:43PM EST (#134)
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, Thank you for a thoughtful evenhanded unhysterical post.
First off, I understand that the laws are written and must be obeyed. But there does seem to be a bit of "gee that's the law, it must be just" going on.
Untrue. As I've said over and over, I worked to get a law that I thouoght was wrong CHANGED in my state. I didn't just accept that it was correct because it was written down. However, before a law is changed I wouldn't expect someone to be tried under a set of unwrittenlaws (such as she was "almost" 16, they were dating, she's probably a slut, etc.)
Lorianne how many of YOUR friends dated men who were older than them? And not just a year or two, but 3-5 years older? And did any, ANY, of your friends lie about their age? Did YOU ever date someone older?
I never dated anyone older until I was over 18. I don't know if any of my friends lied about their age. If they did, they didn't tell me about it. This seems a moot point. Lying about one's age is not a crime as far as I know in any state ... if we want it to be, we should get that law passed!
See, it's all about using one premise (protecting CHILDREN -be they male or female) being used to selectively target a gender (boys and only boys).
I completely agree. But try convincing people that minor boys (adolescent/teen) need to be protected from adult females. It is not a popularly held attitude ... among MEN particularly. It is not a "feminist" attitude it is a culture-wide attitude that adolescent/teen boys do not need protecting from adult females.
It is also a culture-wide attitude that adolescent/teen boys DO need protecting from adult males. The thing no one wants to admit is that these attitudes are culture-wide and age-old. The thing about more protection for girls is also culture-wide and age-old and probably had/has to do with the fact that girls can become pregnant, which is a more serious consequence for minor girl than for minor boys. It was more of a practical consideration. Also, the culture-imposed shame involved in girl pregnancy was to be avoided. These attitude pre-date feminism and is how our laws eveloved the way they have.
As we should know by now in America ... it is difficult to change traditional attitudes and prejudices. Not impossible but difficult. We tried in my state to get the laws to be absolutely equal for any adult of any sex to have sex with any minor and whether same or opposite sex situations. It was an uphill battle. In my experience more men than women supported harsher penalties for men than for women across the board ... and harsher penalties for men with minor boys in particular. This is the cultural reality that we face, period. No amount of denying it will make it go away. It must be confronted and opposed directly. Saying "it's not true" or "only feminists support inequitable sex laws" will not get the attitudes and laws to change. It's a "head in the sand" approach to solving the problem.
If I ask someone to buy me beer, as I am underage, I can be charged for trying to get someone to break the law.
I did not know that was a law. I think that's good. Still, I hold adults more accountable for their behavior than minors. But I think minors should face some consequences as well.
If I ask someone to get me into a club, while carrying fake id, I can be charged. But when a girl has an older boyfriend and they have consensual sex, she won't ever be charged. EVEN IF SHE LIED ABOUT HER AGE. I know, I asked this self-same question of an ADA who I was aquainted with.
That's probably true. The onus is in the adult to make the good decisions and follow the law. In general I agree. I would not be opposed to some consequences for the minor. But again, I hold ADULTS more accountable for their behavior than minors. The working premise for all statuatory age laws is that minors do not have the experience or maturity to make sound judgements. In our society we think minors need gaurdians (parents or others) and we generally protect young people from themselves. In general the working premise is that minors are not sufficiently mature to make decisions in their own best inteterst. (Again, we can change this cultural attitude over time, but right now that is the prevailing cultural attitude in our society). And parents support that attitude because they want culture-wide help in protecting their children from harm .... and yes, girl children in particular. That is how statuatory sex laws came into being ... and well before modern feminism.
As far as like-age sexual relationships, most states have an age disparity clause written into their laws. Some don't. But most states have a 3-5 year age disparity exemption because it is recognized that minor teens do indeed date young adults. Here is the formula in many states with a 3 year age disparity (for heterosexual consensual sex):
15/18
16/19
17/20
Each state is different, sometimes only slightly different. I don't find that "inequitable" because I believe in States' rights to make their own laws. It is incumbent on ADULTS to find out what the laws are and follow them in their state ... and work to change the ones they don't like or find unfair or stupid or outdated.
Incidently, the most "liberal" state, California, has the most stringent statuatory sex laws. The AOC is 18 and I don't think they allow for any like-age consensual sex. This maybe be "unfair" (I think its overly strict) but those are the wishes of the people of California. However, California is also the most "equitable" for the law applying to both genders and all sexual orientations.
And again, it is the ADULT who is legally culpable under such laws ... not the minor. I find this reasonable particularly after spending time with 13-15 year old kids ... I just don't think they have the maturity and judgement to make serious decisions such as sexual ones (which can and do lead to serious consequences for the minor). That is my opinion, but like it or not, it is shared by most voters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @03:24PM EST (#135)
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, Thank you for a thoughtful evenhanded unhysterical post.
First off, I understand that the laws are written and must be obeyed. But there does seem to be a bit of "gee that's the law, it must be just" going on.
Untrue. As I've said over and over, I worked to get a law that I thouoght was wrong CHANGED in my state. I didn't just accept that it was correct because it was written down. However, before a law is changed I wouldn't expect someone to be tried under a set of unwritten laws (such as she was "almost" 16, they were dating, she's probably a slut, etc.)
Lorianne how many of YOUR friends dated men who were older than them? And not just a year or two, but 3-5 years older? And did any, ANY, of your friends lie about their age? Did YOU ever date someone older?
I never dated anyone older until I was over 18. I don't know if any of my friends lied about their age. If they did, they didn't tell me about it. This seems a moot point. Lying about one's age is not a crime as far as I know in any state ... if we want it to be, we should get that law passed!
See, it's all about using one premise (protecting CHILDREN -be they male or female) being used to selectively target a gender (boys and only boys).
I completely agree. But try convincing people that minor boys (adolescent/teen) need to be protected from adult females. It is not a popularly held attitude ... among MEN particularly. It is not a "feminist" attitude it is a culture-wide attitude that adolescent/teen boys do not need protecting from adult females.
It is also a culture-wide attitude that adolescent/teen boys DO need protecting from adult males. The thing no one wants to admit is that these attitudes are culture-wide and age-old. The thing about more protection for girls is also culture-wide and age-old and probably had/has to do with the fact that girls can become pregnant, which is a more serious consequence for minor girl than for minor boys. It was more of a practical consideration. Also, the culture-imposed shame involved in girl pregnancy was to be avoided. These attitude pre-date feminism and is how our laws eveloved the way they have.
As we should know by now in America ... it is difficult to change traditional attitudes and prejudices. Not impossible but difficult. We tried in my state to get the laws to be absolutely equal for any adult of any sex to have sex with any minor and whether same or opposite sex situations. It was an uphill battle. In my experience more men than women supported harsher penalties for men than for women across the board ... and harsher penalties for men with minor boys in particular. This is the cultural reality that we face, period. No amount of denying it will make it go away. It must be confronted and opposed directly. Saying "it's not true" or "only feminists support inequitable sex laws" will not get the attitudes and laws to change. It's a "head in the sand" approach to solving the problem.
If I ask someone to buy me beer, as I am underage, I can be charged for trying to get someone to break the law.
I did not know that was a law. I think that's good. Still, I hold adults more accountable for their behavior than minors. But I think minors should face some consequences as well.
If I ask someone to get me into a club, while carrying fake id, I can be charged. But when a girl has an older boyfriend and they have consensual sex, she won't ever be charged. EVEN IF SHE LIED ABOUT HER AGE. I know, I asked this self-same question of an ADA who I was aquainted with.
That's probably true. The onus is in the adult to make the good decisions and follow the law. In general I agree. I would not be opposed to some consequences for the minor. But again, I hold ADULTS more accountable for their behavior than minors. The working premise for all statuatory age laws is that minors do not have the experience or maturity to make sound judgements. In our society we think minors need gaurdians (parents or others) and we generally protect young people from themselves. In general the working premise is that minors are not sufficiently mature to make decisions in their own best inteterst. (Again, we can change this cultural attitude over time, but right now that is the prevailing cultural attitude in our society). And parents support that attitude because they want culture-wide help in protecting their children from harm .... and yes, girl children in particular. That is how statuatory sex laws came into being ... and well before modern feminism.
As far as like-age sexual relationships, most states have an age disparity clause written into their laws. Some don't. But most states have a 3-5 year age disparity exemption because it is recognized that minor teens do indeed date young adults. Here is the formula in many states with a 3 year age disparity (for heterosexual consensual sex):
15/18 16/19 17/20
Each state is different, sometimes only slightly different. I don't find that "inequitable" because I believe in States' rights to make their own laws. It is incumbent on ADULTS to find out what the laws are and follow them in their state ... and work to change the ones they don't like or find unfair or stupid or outdated.
Incidently, the most "liberal" state, California, has the most stringent statuatory sex laws. The AOC is 18 and I don't think they allow for any like-age consensual sex. This maybe be "unfair" (I think its overly strict) but those are the wishes of the people of California. However, California is also the most "equitable" for the law applying to both genders and all sexual orientations.
And again, it is the ADULT who is legally culpable under such laws ... not the minor. I find this reasonable particularly after spending time with 13-15 year old kids ... I just don't think they have the maturity and judgement to make serious decisions such as sexual ones (which can and do lead to serious consequences for the minor). That is my opinion, but like it or not, it is shared by most voters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As usual from you, Lorrianne, a complete waste of time for you to write your illogic.
Now - let's try this real slow - since the laws are applied inequitably, since they are ignored as much as possible when women break them, and zealously prosecuted when men break them, since those who break them get slaps on the wrists if they are women, and the books thrown at them if they are men....
And so on
And so forth
The end result of "making another law" will be: (Ta Da!)
A law which will be applied inequitably, and ignored as much as possible when women break it, and zealously prosecuted when men break it, with those who break them getting slaps on the wrists if they are women, and the books thrown at them if they are men.
See a pattern here? Is it getting through your thick skull yet? Are you stupid, or just ignoring it? The problem lies not with the laws, it's with the corrupt enforcers of the law - the system that behaves capriciously and arbitrarily to go after men, to persecute them, and to give a wink and license to women to break the exact same law.
Guys - Steven, Jen, CL - don't let this dumb bitch sidetrack you with her tricks of changing the subject and arguing an irrelevant point - keep her on the issue.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point is being missed here by The Amazing L, missed badly, and missed on Purpose.
It's well and fine to talk about laws, but if and only if such laws are applied in a consistant and evenhanded manner to protect the public order.
Manifestly, they are not. Which makes those laws unjust and tyrranical. And of no moral consequence whatsoever. Would you have obeyed a law to turn in Jews in the Germany of the 1930's? What about for segregating yourself from blacks in the south of the 1940's?
Morally wrong laws, inconsitantly applied laws, selectively enforced laws, crooked prosecutors, corrupt courts - these are things worthy only of the contempt of a morally minded person, and are unworthy of "Fair Play" in their abolishment. They do not play fair, they cannot claim fairness as a protection. While they may command the obedience of fear, and of the guin, thjey cannot command the loyalty except of the ethically challenged and morally depraved.
This young man was found not guilty. A lesser charge was proffered to give the jury something to find him guilty of - surely teen sex is a problem? Surely we must take steps to curb these appetites (Let us never mind that not a few months past, this same "Lorianne" asked how we would go about enforcing morality, and scornfully suggested criminalizing the act of zex. Hm.) so this small charge, this slap on the wrist misdemeanor for which he will serve no time will do much to teach him "responsibility."
Their mistake was believing, forgetting that Judges, and D.A.'s are politicians first and foremost, and you detect lies from a politician by watching for their lips to move. Never mind that the law was misapplied, and used as a technical "ding" to get someone. So what. He's only male. He's only black. I'm sure in Lorianne's whitebread pheminzed world such things count for little; you have but to read her words to see how she feels about that.
It's no use arguing with sexist racists like her kind. She doesn't see, not because she can't - but because she won't.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is that legal, switching charges like that? I thought that once the jury comes back with a verdict, you can't be charged for the same crime twice. Hmmm, seems like someone had to hang, I wonder how much influence dear Mommy and Daddy had in the community.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a standard prosecutors trick to pile on several different charges. Most cases never reach trial because the accused accepts a plea bargain of pleading guilty to one of the lesser charges in exchange for having the more serious ones dropped. Frequently, the accused is tried on multiple charges at once, so it is not uncommon for juries to find them guilty of some charges but innocent of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, ok. It sounded like they added one after he was found not guilty, not that they were filed jointly. It could have just been misleading.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That we've reduced "Lorianne" to being an Anonytroll who "signs her name" to one who can't be bothered to do that (Need to be careful how you write, Pheminist Troll. It's not too hard to run you words through an algorithim and figure out it's you, though)
Maybe we can finally, when she gets hysterical enough, convince Scott to require a handle; or at least post IP's for Anonymous logins so we can keep the players straight.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a joke! Most of the post here are from "anonymous" and never sign their name. Weenies.
Anyway, sometimes I post from different computers where I am not automatically logged in ... and I can't remember my password. BFD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I posted this in a differnt place also, but realized that it would probably get lost in the shuffle. I also added a few lines:
Lorianne,
I am going to address what you said. I disagree, but since you did address what was said I should do the same. You bring up interesting points and, again, I disagree with your assertion of the misapplication NOT being the fault and contrivance of the feminist machinations. Regardless of whether a MALE politician agrees and votes for unfair laws, he is being a politician. He panders to powerful political groups. N.O.W. is one (not picking on them, but let's go with it, k?) With supposedly 500K members (the number of PAYING members is like 45K - most are just receivers of newsletters on mailing lists) can raise a huge amount of money to get who they want elected. With now and the EMILY's list group (EMILY's list is THE most powerful lobby in the US - and very gender-feminist) can put inordinate pressure on a politician to vote their way. Vote their way or lose your job. Pretty simple. Even the NRA only spends 40% of what EMILY's list does. These groups make sure the APPLICATION of the law is done as they see fit. So pointing to MALE politicians is a non-sequitor argument. The politician may be black and male, but he votes how EMILY and NOW tell him, even though black men are disproportionally represented in prison due to the applications of the laws. It's not MEN (whoever this amorphous group you keep referring to) who are doing this but FEMINIST groups who write, push, fund (and receive funding from), and enlarge these laws. Placing the responsibility squarely on the feminists is not only fair, but it's what the feminists CROW about. When a law getting tough against sex offenders passes these above mentioned groups CLAIM CREDIT. How then, in the same breath, can anyone with any credibility claim the feminist lobby is NOT responsible for laws and their application. These very same above mentioned groups PUBLISH THE STATS, use them as proof of gains made for women, profit from funding FROM the legislation (kinda sick how that works - create the problem, profit from the problem, be immune to the penalties imposed by the problem - nice!), and push for MORE laws that target men. Then when the system does something blatantly wrong, all the "feminists" claim that men can't blame feminists for the laws as "no one can define feminsts/feminism". That's rather a convenient tack to take in this arguement Lorianne.
Also, and I think you may be missing 2 important points.
The first Jen made rather eloquently. This was a case where to people (she barely under the age limit and he just over it) were in love, dating, and had consensual sex. This was not some 34 year old man who used words of "love" to satisfy his egoistic needs with a 13 year old child. These two kids had sex. He didn't twist her head around using YEARS of age gained wisdom and experience to prey upon some Snow White child, he was dating her. And don't play lawyer with me Lorianne, because you can't, with a straight face, tell me YOU or some of your CLOSET friends did not date older guys and engage in consensual sexual activities. And, taking that tack would lose you all credibility in this discussion. Ever "righteously" turn any of your friends boyfriends in to the police? Not some 14 year old girl who you sorta knew who was sleeping with a 24 year old man, TWO KIDS, where the girl was your CLOSE friend. Did you turn in her boyfriend? If not, aren't YOU just as guilty of conspiracy to commit CHILD MOLESTATION? Or was "that different" because there was a loving relationship between two people who shared a bond. I could say more, but I need not belabor the point.
The second point is that the charge he WAS found guilty of was not applicable. We can argue this all day long, but it's simple Lorianne: the charge he was convicted of was about VIOLENCE perpetrated against an manipulated CHILD by a PREYING MOLESTOR. What part of what I just stated applies to the boy/man in this particular case. Women's hymen's are not holier-than-thou-canst-possibly-imagine items. This couple had sex, and as a natural by-product her hymen was broken. Not a violent act, not a prey/victim scenario, and not a traumatic experience of molestation. Therefore it was a blatant misapplication of the law.
And what Gonzo says is on target. Let me use an example. Remember the 10 years versus 9 months sideline? I am not trying to draw you back into this debate, but rather use it to show Gonzo's point (yeah, like Gonzo needs help expressing himself, but let me give it a shot). The reason we kept bringing this up was because no matter what the law SAYS men and women are judged and punished under it differently. And by your own admission some laws are even WRITTEN with gender bias. Your premise of "write a new law" is meaningless. I'm not trying to talk down to you Lorianne, truly I am not. Do I get exasperated with you, welll ... ok .. yes. But I am truly trying to show you that your solution, while possibly well meant, will not work. It's simple. But, instead of just saying it, let me prove it. Let's go with your idea: NEW LAW --> GENDER IS UNIMPORTANT IN SENTENCING!. Guess what? We already have that. From our Bill of Rights, our state constitutions, our federal anti-discrimination laws, our state anti-discrimination laws and from what we supposedly teach in our schools (haahahahahah don't get me started on THAT !) At all levels the BEST a man can get is supposed "equality". But it's not, and you yourself have said it. And to top that off, there are powerful feminist forces, yes, including you (though unknowingly) who would be willing more into law that is already broken.
Between hate groups like N.O.W. to legislative gender-feminists like EMILY there is a lace curtain of false information being put out that SHAPES the publics perception. Think I am using too broad a brush? Again, let me prove it. Ever heard of the "1 in 4" myth? It's been disproven since a year after it came out. But NOW and EMILY still use it, and force official agencies to use it to villanize men. Ever heard that "DV is leading cause of injuries to women 15-30". Total fabrication. Seriously, it ranks behind ANIMAL BITES on a list that has like 15 causes of which DV is like #8 (close to it). On and on it goes. THAT kind of misinformation is what is SHAPING the American perceptions. And when little boys are molested, where are the "Molestation advocates" for the boys? Lorianne ... there was no funding for education about boys, just girls ... see the VAWA act. So it IS feminist groups that are causing MEN to be put behind bars while the SAME groups help fund the defenses of women. Don't believe me? I'll prove it. Did you know that NOW was quietly taking up a collection for Clara Harris' defense team until someone blew the whistle? And, did YOU ever read about that? We did, mentioned ONLY by a men's program. The mainstream press never mentioned a word. THAT is the "Feminists" you claim have no complicity in the oppression, imprisionment, and silencing of men. I could type more, but I have already written a book
This is what people are tying to get to you. I hope this better explained it.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @10:23PM EST (#141)
|
|
|
|
|
All I'm saying is that it doesn't add up to me. We've had laws that were unequal protecting girls more than boys in this country since the 1600's in the first colonies, before we were even a country ... and before that in Europe. Blaming that tradition on "feminists" is just inaccurate historically.
By the same token, we've had all manner of inequitable laws that were racist, sexist, classists and anything else you can think of. People always inact laws to protect their "group". There is a HISTORY and a pattern to our laws, they just didn't appear out of the blue. They follow historical/cultural trends. That's why it usually takes a L___O___N___G time to change prevailing cultural attitudes and change laws. For God's sake we had a Civil War over changing inequitable practices.
I do not deny that feminists have had great influence recently (in the last 30 years) the legal system. YES.... that is the way our system works. Larger mass movements of people pressing their case can make great changes. That is how many faster changes are made ... such as the Civil Rights laws of the 1960's. But most laws change slowly. Statutory rape laws are an example of laws that have changed slowly and little over time. And it has been parents who have driven the changes toward a trend to RAISE the age-of-consent and have stricter punishments. And YES, parents are biased towards protecting girls from sex with older men because culturally, our entire culture is biased toward the same. (I outlined some of the historical reasons for this in my last post).
Look, I don't agree with a lot of our laws, but I know that majority opinion and powerful groups can have more power politicaly ... and that includes feminist groups. Sometimes I'm for the changes wrought and sometimes I'm against them. For example, I'm pro-Life and it is feminists who have sucessfully convinced enough people in our culture to accept abortion and vote pro-abortion rights. So guess what ... my side is out of luck! But we can still work to change attitudes and eventually laws and over the last 10 years pro-Life has made some headway in changing cultural attitudes on abortion. The whole system in a democracy is about changing attitudes so that you can get support to change laws.
Likewise, maybe the men's movement can change long held cultural attitudes about boys not needing the same protection as girls as pertains to sex with adults. Whatever the platform is .... people have to work their tails off to change prevailing cultural attitudes. IMO, in this case, it's a long hard slog not because of "feminists" but because of centuries held beliefs and attitudes about female virginity, chastity, etc. and the opposite beliefs about males.
I still don't buy that feminists created inequitable laws in this area (statuatory sex crimes) because all you have to do is research it historically to see that unequal sex laws predate feminism by 300 years at the very least!
Hanging it on feminists is like saying homophobic laws are attributable to the Christian Coalition's political influence. No, they've been around a long long time and there is popular attitudinal support for them. It'll take a long time to overturn such attitudes. We're having that debate right now over gay marriage ... so we know that is an ongoing cultural battle. Attitudes against gays didn't just appear overnight. Likewise attitudes on adult males having sex with minor females didn't just pop up overnight or when the feminists arrived.
Yes feminism has had a big influence on laws. But in the area of statuatory sex crimes, from my experience it is PARENTS who are the driving force. And 90% of voters in my state cannot all be feminists. Statutory sex laws are one of THE most widely supported laws by voters of all political persuasions. Even organizations which advocate eliminating statutory sex laws acknowledge that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @02:19AM EST (#144)
|
|
|
|
|
"We've had laws that were unequal protecting girls more than boys in this country since the 1600's in the first colonies, before we were even a country ... and before that in Europe. Blaming that tradition on "feminists" is just inaccurate historically."
I constantly hear men saying at this board that "feminists (or maybe sometimes women) want to free themselves from their traditional roles while at the same time demand to hold on to the privileges of the traditional female role". Even Warren Farell discusses in one of his books our traditional roles and how they still affect us to this day, so I do not think all of us simplistically blame feminists for this. But what we are saying is that feminists want women to have the perks of their traditional roles and keep men in all of their traditional role as protectors, providers and so on.
"Whatever the platform is .... people have to work their tails off to change prevailing cultural attitudes. IMO, in this case, it's a long hard slog not because of "feminists" but because of centuries held beliefs and attitudes about female virginity, chastity, etc. and the opposite beliefs about males."
It is true that these are very old cultural attitudes but I think, as for myself, that feminists are trying everything they can to keep these cultural attitudes against men/boys and the cultural attitudes that make men OVER-protective of females. And I'm not sure you see this.
That's all I feel like saying, were these last two posts from me less-hysterical enough? All the above is my opinion, even if I said "we", I don't want to take the time to change it.
P> George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok Lorianne,
Since these "Men's Groups", "Fathers", and "parents" groups were SO vocal and were SO politically active ... they must be very public. Could you link for us ... say 3-5 groups so we couild see that our misconceptions are just that: misconceptions.
I mean, you keep talking about these nebulous groups: time for the proof. We keep linking stories, showing past cases (specific ones), and telling you where OUR research comes from ... so, it would benefit you and your arguments greatly if you could provide 3-5 groups that are behind what you say.
We wait with eager anticipation.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll second that for a "sources please" or have a big cup of STFU as a liar.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Methinks also, Steven, we're getting half the story - lie by omission if you prefer - the clear implication is that the opposition she claims was solely from men, and the support was solely from women.
Also probably came from a - what shall we call it? - less than representative sample.
Again, Steven - don't let Lorianne hijack the discussion away from the problem. Laws aren't the problem, it's the corrupt feminist toadies that enforce them, and would likewise "enforce" (read: only on men) any other "laws" made.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
As I previously stated, we are waiting for those sources. What sources? In case you didn't read my other post, let me ask again.
Lorianne, we have been more than willing to point out groups (I can think of 3 mentioned) of men's rights advocates that think that men and women should be punished eqaully. You reply that it is more MEN who think that "it's different" and that MEN who are older should be punished more than WOMEN who are the older party. And you claimed to have worked in one of these groups or for passing gender neutral legislation. Well?????? WHAT group of MEN's Advocates was for punishing men more harshly than women when an adult takes advantage of a child? OR ... what group of PARENTS states this? Oh, and while you're showing us THOSE links (3-5 sites would MORE than prove your point) please provide us with the STATISTICS and STUDIES that back this up, and, if it's not too much trouble, the same STATISTICS and STUDIES these parents were SHOWN to motivate them. I mean, were they shown unbiased studies that seek to address the real problems or just the "men perpetrators" studies which seem awfully thin (could it be because the WOMEN perpetrators part was 'mysteriously' missing?).
C'mon Lorianne ... you were POLITICALLY ACTIVE, you must have SCADS of this proof just lying around, memorized, and linked on your "equalist" activist computer.
Soooooo ...... where is it? You seem AWFULLY quiet now that we hit upon the "PROOF" question of your claims. We on the other had would LOVE to provide proof of OUR claims. We will match you link to link and group to group. Now, that's MORE than fair. Right?
U R SOOOOOooooo BUSTED!!!!!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.ageofconsent.com/hawaii.htm
http://www.hawaiifamilyforum.org/
http://vlsh.org/01/services/nakeiki.htm
http://www.ageofconsent.com/hawaii.htm
http://www.pixi.com/~hff/newsletter.html
http://starbulletin.com/2000/08/25/news/story3.htm l
http://www.hi-ho.ne.jp/taku77/refer/welfare.htm
http://www.outinhawaii.com/emails%20published/emai ls/125email.html
http://www.state.hi.us/ag/pdf_documents/2003_conse nt.pdf
http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/papers/LeonardG11140 2abstract.html
Age of consent law and the making of modern childhood in New York City, 1886-1921___ Dr. Stephen Robertson
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numbertwo.htm
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numbereleven. htm
UN Conventionof the Righs of the Child
European Convention on Human Rights
Statutory rape law and enforcement in the wake of welfare reform. ____ Rigel Oliveri
Enforcing "statutory rape"?____ Michael W. Lynch
Sex and Reason ____ Judge Richard A Posner
Justice, Liability and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law ___ Paul H Robinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will ASSUME you were part of the Hawaii initiative. Fair enough. Have you LOOKED at who are the subgroups and associated groups with who you linked to ... or did you do a GOOGLE search?
For THIS site:
http://www.hi-ho.ne.jp/taku77/refer/welfare.htm
I found THIS:
"Enforcement of Statutory Rape Laws
The Act requires the Attorney General to establish and implement, no later than January 1, 1997, a program that: 1) studies the linkage between statutory rape and teenage pregnancy, particularly by predatory older men committing repeat offenses; and 2) educates State and local criminal law enforcement officers on the prevention and prosecution of statutory rape, focusing in particular on the commission of statutory rape by predatory older men committing repeat offenses, and any links to teenage pregnancy.
The Attorney General is also required to ensure that the Department of Justice's Violence Against Women Initiative addresses the issue of statutory rape by predatory older men committing repeat offenses."
Sorry bubba, aint no MEN's or FATHER's groups in this one. It's general legislation that targets MEN and ONLY MALE predators. While, in and of itself that's good, as we have SEEN it neither fits to the case on this thread nor does it address FEMALE predators. It DOES talk about teens and pregnancy. It does help with incentives to get off it. It also talks about incarceration money for kids (BOYS) who are likely to get into trouble after mom (teen) has him. THIS is PRO-FAMILY? Only if "family" is unwed teen mothers. No mention ANYWHERE of getting fathers involved in meaninful and ENFORCEABLE relationships with their children. And .... THIS was done by which PRO-FAMILY / MEN's group?
I will go over the others ... I gotta go, end of lunch. But one more group:
the VLSH group
Did you look at their programs. SURE it's for families.... and look at their domestic violence help. The SHELTERS are for WOMEN. Oh, THERE is an unbiased group.
Ummm, I would love to hear a reply on this. I will address more tonight.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I again, ask, did you read what you posted? I am not going to be rude, snippy, or talk down my nose at you. It's an honest question. I will address two issues that you raised:
1) The legislation proposed
2) Who is supporting it
3) Who it benefits
Legislation proposed:
In the FIRST link you posted is the back and forth and the definition.
Here is a quote from the first link you posted and from the subsequent link of the Starbulletin:
"We don't have to be very smart to know that older men
frequently prey on young people.
Our law makes no distinction concerning the age of the perpetrator. The Alan Guttmacher Institute's 1994 report,
"Sex and America's Teenagers," found that six of 10 girls who had sex before age 15 were coerced by males an
average of six years older. "
And until THIS change, the law was LESS gender neutral. But this act, again specifically TARGETS men. As from my previous post "did you read this" you can see again the legislation was directed towards helping GIRLS. NOT FAMILIES. Oh, it SAYS families: but refers to girls, their children, and somewhere here and there males are mentioned: as child molestors, absent fathers (with no positive aids to bring him INTO the relationship), and impregnators. That's not families; that's girls having children and men as an after-thought. Financial and legally culpibal (?sp) after thoughts.
Who supports it and who benefits:
Well, the groups I saw were very family oriented. To a point. How you find out where they place men is pretty simple: who do they talk about in DV, do they offer MEN DV shelters, do they talk about father's having RIGHTS to their children and the services available, and WHERE was the mention of SINGLE fathers AT ALL in this?
See Lorianne, I am going to assume you honestly mean well. I truly am. I think that society and feminist indoctrination has blinded you. Again, I am NOT in any way disparaging you, I was the same way. But when you look at these groups, you have to ask: Who contributes, who benefits, who/how are the clients defined, what services are offered and TO WHOM, and who do these groups NOT benefit.
Let me be plain. These family groups you posted make mention of "families". But there is NO mention of FATHER single family services, no DV shelters for men (a rather telling point as to who they are funded by, if they take female on male DV seriously), the legislation I mentioned in "did you read this" was ALL about single mom "families", protection of girls from "predatory men", but NO mention of single father families (since men never get custody, and girls are NEVER the abusers who lose their child), no mention of trying to INVOLVE fathers in this "family" and there was money to fund single mothers who "SONS" were incarcerated.
----No shelters for men, shelters for women.
----Legal services for "families" (man-woman-child -/- woman-child -/- nothing mentioned for single fathers)
----Prominant mention of older male predators, TWICE. No mention of female predators.
----No mention of FAMILY workshops where they try to get the PARENTS to work towards BEING a family. Again: woman+child = family.
----Domestic violence workshops that don't address
a) the myths of male only(if they don't mention it, it's my experience they teach the Duluth model or something siliar)
b) reconciliation - this was tried in Georgia with remarkable success. Men and women held to account for the DV, but if the violence was stopped and the perpetrator was monitored there was the possibility of reconcilliation. Most DV shelters discourage this based on the "male only" Duluth model of DV. It costs them "victims" which in turn costs them funding and political power.
----Since there are VERY specific father+child issues: where is ONE mention of single fathers in ANYTHING you listed.
See, again, this is not an attack on you Lorianne. But until I realised what what NOT being mentioned in newspapers, family groups, or legislation, I was ignorant. These "family" groups are all about Women+children with the man being a long way down the priority list. Just because a group CALLS itself a FAMILY group is not telling. It must be looked at as to what services are provided, to whom, and what definitions of family are provided. Also, if there is victimization ... who do they define as victims?
I saw mentions of VAWA, MALE sexual predators, FEMALE only DV shelters, "families" defined as mom+child (oh, if dad is around that's optional and not a priority), and legal services for these said same groups.
Many Feminist funded, modeled, and run groups CALL themselves "family" groups. Just like "planned parenthood" is all about abortion and very little about parenthood. The Patriot Act implies if you don't comply you aren't a patriot. The VAWA act sounds good until you look and see it does not address almost 1/2 the DV victims. And our latest "not Amnesty" program for illegal aliens is all about amnesty. In today's society we call something a name that lends sympathy and the truth is a distant second.
I want to address one last point. And I truly hope you see I have been trying to read what you sent, respond fairly, and speak to you in a way that I myself would like to be spoken too.
Many hardcore feminist groups have taken on gender neutral language, are not as strident in their demands. They request reasonably with the threat of litigation, pro-feminist legislation, use piss-poor "studies" to back their "facts", and print misleading news stories to those who don't do as they say. Some groups, like the ones I mentioned above, are complete misnomers for what their agenda is. Let's face it; if I started a group called: "Feminists to propose legislation to incarcerate men, deny men their civil rights, and produce false studies" ... I don't think I could get funding. But if I call it a: "family services, shelter assistance, & family advocates" well ... that's a whole 'nother ball game isn't it.
But Lorianne this is about young women, their choices, their children, their protection etc etc. If there happens to BE a man/father somewhere, he is relegated to the "oh, yeah, him ..." status. You may think that is unfair? Ok, which group, and maybe I missed it, has father's+child workshops? DV Shelters for both MEN and WOMEN? Helping to ENFORCE visitation rights between parents so that the CHILD (the FOCUS of a family, this thread, and hopefully a "family" group)has access to BOTH parents, Protection from paternity fraud? THOSE are father's/Men's issues that have EVERYTHING to do with SHARED parenting. Many "family" groups are pro-women, pro-women's choices, pro-protection of women, etc etc. This isn't Family. Is a woman and a child a family? SURE. But where is the reciprocal question from this "family group". Also, you DID mention MEN's GROUPS that were involved in this, who were they. Again, not to be snitty, not even a bit. But were there any? Because the MEN here on this site, and a few others, and we DID take a poll about child molestation and punishment (specifically inclusive of gender). The results: No differences in punishments based on gender. And EVERYONE was happy for the protection of children from predators; be they male or female.
Ya gotta read between the lines. Ya ALWAYS look into what their definition of "family" is and what is it not. And you never take a groups name at face value.
As to the books and articles you mentioned, I admit I have not had a chance to read them. On that, I must confess ignorance. I hope this let you see some things in a different light.
With regards,
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, the primary groups supporting this bill in Hawaii(the only one I'm personally familar with) were Family organizations and religious organizations, the Catholic Church being one. I never heard of a feminist group supporting the AOC raise, though I know nationally, that is probably a platform position of feminists.
In Hawaii, none were feminist organizations. In fact, some of the groups OPPOSED to raising the AOC in Hawaii were:
Hawaii Youth Services Network
Sex Abuse Treatment Center
Coalition for the Prevention of Sexual Assault
Those groups are heavily supported by feminists who are generally opposed to anything the Hawaii Family forum is for.
People supported the AOC raise for their own reasons. They are what they are, I can't change what their motivations are. I got involved indirectly through my involvement with pro-Life groups. Others got involved through different channels ... mostly parent advocacy groups who vote in favor of a number of initiatives to give parents greater control over their own kids' lives.
Aslo, letters to the editor at the time the bill was introduced show a lot of people were just plain embarrassed that Hawaii had the lowest AOC in the nation, and wanted it raised just so our state didn't look backward.
My main point is that the voter's overwhelmingly supported this bill for various reasons. Our legislators were prepared to chuck the bill until they got so many calls and emails from voters that they had no choice but to override the governor's veto. There was over 90% voter support for the bill. This simply cannot be "feminists" overrunning the stystem.
During the time I got involved I read a lot on the issue of statutory rape/assualt law, both pro and con. There is tons of information out there for anyone interested in the subject and some of the "con" arguments are somewhat valid. From what I can tell the primary opponents to statutory sex laws are lawyers .... which doesn't make sense to me because they could make money prosecuting cases. Go figure.
Most of the people in favor of such laws are parent/family advocacy groups and religous organizations. ... each for their own reasons.
Actually some feminists organizations are opposed to Statutory Sex laws because they see it as a legal liability to abortion providers and a disincentive for minors to seek abortion. Of course, they aren't opposed on behalf of men. Anything which threatens sacred abortion, they're against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What YOU posted I SHOWED you to be feminist inclined (and that's being polite) organizations. I didn't pick em. You did. And YES Catholic organizations were there too. So were parents. But I think you keep missing what I am saying, and to be honest it's getting pretty damned obvious it not by "misunderstandin". The LAWS passed are specifically targeting MEN and ONLY men. This law, however well intentioned, is going to target MEN. I SHOWED you from the legislation. The SAME legislation YOU linked to me. I didn't go and fine Hawaii's AOC topics: YOU DID. And why is it you seem to CONSISTANTLY keep ignoring what I post? I mean, either you are laughing hysterically at my bending over backwards to show you the bias (which is kinda fucked considering that boys are being molested too) or you are so indoctrinated that you WONT see it.
THE LAWS ARE TARGETING MEN. MANY OF THE PEOPLE SPONSORING THE LAWS (but not ALL) ARE BY FEMINIST ORGANIZATIONS (YOU LINKS). What further proof, besides the SHITLOADS of cases where there is clear gender bias, do you need?!
Either go back to my earlier posts, address the issues raised or troll elsewhere. You seem to enjoy boys being raped and men being unjustly treated under the law. Painting with an unfair and braod brush am I? You won't acknowledge what I say even when YOUR LINKS BACK ME UP.
I may not like you Lorianne, but I wouldn't laugh at a law that targets you or your gender. You are doing exactly that.
Grow up. We are discussing adult issues.
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What feminist organizations were supporting the AOC raise in Hawaii? I didn't see any. Would you mind stating which ones you think are feminist?
I'm not argueing that feminists do support these laws ... I'm just saying that statutory sex laws are OLD (predating feminism) and that popular support for them continues among the majority of voters ... they are not egged on or brainwashed by feminists into supporting them.
As for bias in going after men, that may be true, as I've already said ... as well as unequal sentencing practices because of the long held old-fashioned attitudes about males and sex.
Also, if you look at the number of men vs women who seek to have sex with underage persons (of either sex) men far outnumber women. There are whole tourism companies catering to this market among men (for sex with both boys and girls).
Also, in my experience it is WOMEN (not men) who want statutory sex laws to be both gender and sexual-orientation blind. In my experience men do favor none or less harsh treatment of women who have sex with adolescent/teen boys .. and much more harsh treatement of men who have sex with adolescent/teen boys.
What I'm suggesting is that women and feminists are not your biggest obstacle to gettting these laws to be gender nuetral ... instead it is other men. Again, this is because of traditional long held cultural values.
Another point I'd like to make but didn't earlier is so as not to muddy the waters: For ages WOMEN have been targeted legally in prostitution laws. Historically, it has only been recently where men have been legally culpable in prostitution (as the buyer) and prosecuted and punished much less harshly. Yet I don't notice men's rights groups petitioning for men to be arrested and prosecuted equally with women in the crime of prostitution. I only bring this up because the general consensus here is that feminists only care about women/girls and don't care about men/boys when it comes to political activism. Well, even if true, the same could be said of men's groups in their concern for women/girls.
In reality both men and women care about both boys and girls because we are (most of us) parents. And parents tend to care about their children whether they are feminists, masculinists or whatever. Parental concern is what fuels the support for statutory sex laws ... ask any legislator. Parental concern is one bias that transcends other biases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You didn't post ONE link that I asked for. And let's face it, I was pretty specific.
For amusements sake I will answer one of yours. YOU asked me which sites I saw that were feminist. Ummm, Lorianne... you have to read what I wrote, aint doing the retyping. I used YOUR links and PROVED what I said. I don't care if you cover your eyes and say "I don't see it.". You do. Hell, I even asked a guy at work (who thinks my MRA activity is "not for him") and HE says you're deliberately just being snippy because YOUR sites were MY proof. I mean, if it was JUST me, ok .. maybe. See Lorianne, I was trying to treat you like MAYBE, just MAYBE you were honestly asking questions and didn't know. I pretty much knew it was a sham, but it was a great mental excercise to practice my research skills and also on how to debate women. You lost. Badly. Nope, I aint being "uppity or superior" .. it's just THAT obvious. How? Ohhhhh, ok .. I WILL revel in my winnings with specifics (something you seem unable to grasp the concept of: Specifics)
1) First off you tried to get us to intone, imply, or even partially agree that MRA's want the AOC to remain lowered. First I thought, giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you misunderstood us, but then I realized you were just shamelessly trolling for us to say SOMETHING that SOUNDED like it so you could go back to the MS boards and [cut and past it] and misrepresent us as potential child molestors. It not only failed, you got people on 3 boards writing how OBVIOUS it was what you were doing. And we DID take a poll to find out how all the members felt (and this wasn't just MRA boards.) In the end Lorianne, you made us look good in comparison to feminists who don't seem to give a rat's ass about boys who get molested. And the best part: you didn't MEAN to make us look good, WE did it by our consistant message that molestation of ANY child is wrong. CONTRAST THAT to the MS board thread about a boy being molested. (and you make it so easy for us to look good in comparison, thanks!)
2) Then you tried the "it's not feminists, it's the HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD LAWS". Lol, Lorianne, Lorianne ... you walk into a forum board where men discuss legal theories, new laws, and the applications of laws and their origin and try to educate US about the subject?! Oh, man, you were a laugh a minute on 2 boards when you posted that. WE KNOW when the laws were passed. THE RECENT ones like VAWA and the AOC laws. O.M.G are you a child walking in the woods.
3) THEN, in classic feminist theory indoctrination you kept skipping subjects. I mean, I have BEEN in women's studies classes. The "professors" (now THAT's funny) DO this and the students learn by emulation. It's funny to watch the freshman react, but by sophemore year it seems normal to them. To an outsider its a looney bin, but like my daddy always said: "Hang out with car thieves long enough and your inhibitions to stealing cars disappear." But us regular folk aint part of that closed in cloister and it looks ridiculous. Keeping a feminist on topic when she's losing is like trying to hold your hands up to the wind and askin' it to stop. Sorry bubba, you wasted a ton of money in that "university" to look foolish and learn how NOT to debate. You couldn't answer the questions, you changed the subject. You tossed out red herrings. Am I not being SPECIFIC enough for ya? Oh PLLLlZZZZzzzz let me be specific. "It's the law" "ok, the LAW isn't right, let's write a new one" "ok, it the application of the law, but what about the MEN who want it" "ok, it's not the MEN, it's FAMILY GROUPS" "ok the FAMILY GROUPS are biased towards women, but the laws predate feminism" "ok, the NEW laws were enacted by Feminazis, but what about CATHOLIC groups" "ok, I don't see the bias in the LINKS I sent you, lets talk about prostitution" .... ummmm Lorianne. We were talking about an 18 year old kid who got railroaded, the misapplication of the laws, who enacted them, and not ONCE did you EVER give thought to what would happen to that young man when he gets to prison as a sex offender. Not once Lorianne. What does THAT tell you about how your "studies" have trained your mind? You have been molded to completely disregard the suffering of men/boys as "besides the point" when that WAS the point. And you spent MONEY on this kind of indoctrination?
4) I'll cut to the chase Lorianne. It's simple. Your proof, no matter how much it would KILL you to say it to US killed your arguments. I proved it. You won't admit it, but we both know. And it really pissed you off. Next time don't EVER get spoon fed falsehood by anyone who bears the title of "professor". Look at the facts, check em out, test em, challenge em, and then make up your OWN mind. You're better than that, even if you don't know it yet. Don't follow the hate-mongers down the road of self-delusion. Misery loves company and most of the "pre-eminent" minds in the Feminazi world are full of bitterness when the real world runs into "Feminist Theory". On a college campus, just like any other "ism" being taught, it SOUNDS good. Sure it does. It caters to you being "Special", "entitled", "it's-not-YOU-it's-a-conspiracy", and "YOUR anger is right, let's rehash it over and over".
Ever heard of how cults indoctrinate? Separate people from their known environment, fill them with "facts", have the group use exclusionary tactics when the "facts" are challenged, isolate the target when they don't walk in lock-step, keep feeding them "their special/our cause is unique and misunderstood", and turn them against anyone who questions the "truths". Make the group "victims of oppression". Make the followers all speak the same words, phrases, and literature; so when they are in the REAL WORLD and people look at you like you're crazy the "group" is a comfort zone where you are understood. In reality the target's "reality" has been so changed, subtly over time, that they don't realize it's not the target who has changed but it MUST be "the world". Common phrases: "I never knew I was being exploited/abused/lied to so much as I do know" or "Outside [insert cult here] I don't feel as accepted anymore when I talk about [insert cult here]" or "my group cares for me in ways no one else ever has" == Until you question the "truths" - then you're isolated and the artificial support system of the group, which is all the target has left, shun the target. Once the target has "understood how I was sucked into [name enemy group] thinking again."
Pick your cult: Branch Davidians, Jonestown, Stalinism, Church of Christ (certain sect in N.E U.S that targets teens and college kids), what-have-you. It's a cult.
Isolation from the real world in college is where the recruiters go. "NOT ME" says Lorianne. Yea, that where ALL the cults pick up their new eager to learn/please/be-accepted cadets. Why is radical feminism any different. Do I think REAL feminism is different. Yep, my momma taught it to me. Since I was shorter than her knee and over her knee when I needed discipline (kids Do need that bubba). But the Feminism being taught in colleges aint that brand.
Do I think you will read my post and suddenly gasp and say "I've been lied to for a LONG TIME"? Not likely, admitting core values are wrong takes critical analysis, and THAT is not taught in Feminist Theory. Want me to prove it? Respond to my LAST post with links to PROVE something to me first. It means proving some of your theories are wrong to yourself, but it's the only way to learn Lorianne.
Sorry to be so blunt, but it's about time someone told you: You got "taught" by professional scammers who've been perfecting their techniques for a few decades (and a few are pretty smart!).
Lemmie know if you're willing to learn.
Stubborn pride will help you only so far, then it takes humility to look in the mirror and ask the tough questions. I'm ready when you are.
Nice meeting you Lorianne.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 28, @08:54PM EST (#162)
|
|
|
|
|
"Yet I don't notice men's rights groups petitioning for men to be arrested and prosecuted equally with women in the crime of prostitution"
You're an idiot. Who do their police stings go after?? Maybe the "johns"??? Whereas they go mainely after drug dealers not the buyers, yet they go after the buyers with prostitution. Are you trying to "equalize" this?
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 28, @08:59PM EST (#163)
|
|
|
|
|
"There are whole tourism companies catering to this market among men (for sex with both boys and girls)."
Maybe men do this more who knows, but women don't need this they can take advantage of boys very strong hormones and curiousity for older women, and usually in the past women got away with this, and just now they are starting to be caught as you can see with all these female sexual "predatory" teachers. So who knows what the actual ammount it is that women commit statuatory rape considering it is rarely even called that if and when they do get caught.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 28, @09:09PM EST (#164)
|
|
|
|
|
"Also, in my experience it is WOMEN (not men) who want statutory sex laws to be both gender and sexual-orientation blind."
Really? Then why with all the power and influence that feminists have concerning sex crimes/laws why haven't these women been trying to equalize this, or why haven't they already??? Why is it "MENS" activist who are the ones who are MOST vocal on this issue and NOT feminists/women?
I think what you are actually doing is trying to once again take away from the flaws of feminism and BLAME these flaws on men.
And it is MY experience that it is BOTH men AND WOMEN who ignore and demonize boys who have been sexually abused in some way And it is WOMEN who have a hard time giving sexually abused boys any goddamn attention.
Just a few weeks ago feminists/women were doing this on a feminist board. In fact it was about WOMEN who sexually abused boys.
So fuck you, it IS WOMEN are part of the goddamn problem concerning this area.
Me thinks you need to dislodge your head from your ass.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 28, @09:32PM EST (#165)
|
|
|
|
|
Another thing,
Women can get sex just about anytime they want it. Men can't get it just anytime they want it, hence prostitution comes into the picture. In fact women who aren't technically prostitutes won't even have sex with a guy if he doesn't spend enough money on her. Women have sexual power over men, do you not see this?
In general, women have more sexual choices.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen~
DAMN! YOU ROCK!
Wow, Steven, that is by far the most powerful; and well thought out piece I have seen you write.
You certainly would have made me look twice back when I had my head up my ass.
Excellent post.
Lorainne~
as a woman who was once as feminist as you seem to be, if you THINK about it, without the social blinders, the truth is staggering. I was not led here and pandered to, in fact I was not welcome here at first, just like you. But I started shutting my mouth and reading, not just posts but studies, facts, quotes from prominant people, laws, and watching the media with open eyes. You are doing a dance, you are swordfighting, too busy parrying and riposting to stop and look at your surroundings, to stop and ask if you should be weilding your sword at all.
Stephen is reaching his hand out to you with the most powerful truth you will ever get. You must think for yourself. You are not stupid, that is obvious. You are brainwashed for a lack of a better term. Don't take our word for anything. You look around yourself. Do your own research. Examine things closely, from both sides. Your opinions must be your own or they mean nothing.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You still didn't say which organizations you said I posted who supported raising the AOC in my state you consider "feminist". Why don't you?
I can't understand what you're saying because you're skipping all over the place into DV laws and everything else. We were discussing statutory sex laws and you asked me to post information about my work on this issue in my state. When I did, you claimed that those in support of them were "feminists" but you won't say which ones you claim are feminists.
I'd be happy to agree with you if you're right, or look into it to see if these organizations are feminist, but you won't say which ones you think are feminist so I can't agree with something that is nont identified by you.
Which organizations that I posted do you think are "feminist"?
Furthermore, there are feminist organizations doing important work trying to help end sex trafficking of young boys and girls on the international sex tourism scene. ECPAT is one organization you may want to look into. They go after anyone (male and female) involved in the trafficking of young people to enslave them intoprostitution/sex slavery. (There are many young boys who are trafficked in Africa, the Mid-east and Asia) What are MRA's doing about this problem if they care so much about boys?
I think you are wrong. At worst feminists in the USA may be tagged as not caring about boys being sexually exploited by older women as much as girls by older men. (And I doubt even that). But it is MEN who cling most dearly to the attitude that older woman/boy sex is not harmful to boys. Until this changes, the laws will not be equal. You're fighting the wrong enemy. The enemy is old long held double standards about sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne ...
Which organizations did I mention the you posted had "feminist" written all over them? Once again, since your "Feminist Theory" indoctrination seems to render you (selectivly) blind I give you the answer
READ MY RESPONSES.
I gave you the answer(s). I picked **3** organizations and proved their ideology.
Oh, Lorianne ... you ever gonna answer my 9 specific questions and provide supporting links?
Or are ya just gonna keep rubbing your own humiliation into your own nose? Stop being so masochistic. If you can't (read: won't) answer the specific questions I wrote to you ... you lost the debate. Either answer them or admit defeat, leave the field of debate, and, lol, if I were you, I wouldn't bring this subject up again. To many people are already laughing.
Put up or shut up. But, I do admit, verbally beating the snot out of some over privileged "feminist theory" taught troll does have it's satisfactions.
Either grow and learn or be miserable. Either way ... I educated people, and you helped.
When you're ready to answer those questions we can have a DISCUSSION, till then, we both know you're desperately dancing to avoid it. I can only teach when you're ready to learn. That will take humility and critical analysis of what your "professors" keep teaching you: change the subject, keep your mouth moving, you'll wear him down, don't answer his questions - change the debate. Problem is Lorianne, MY way is about SOLVING the problem. Your "professor's" way is just to keep up debate until only debate is the point and the VICTIM *(only if he's male) is long forgotten. This kid's probably gonna get raped in jail Lorianne. Do you care? I read what the MS boards thought of it. Is that you?
Nothin but love for ya
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
I was pretty steamed when I wrote you that post. I was, and considering your selective blindness to showing you proof from your posts, I am not here to apologize. But, I do think ferreting out your intentions should be a bit more interesting. I have some specific questions for you. When you reply, my post will be right above your reply so you can read them.
1) Which PAC were you involved in? Link Plz.
2) You tell ME which organizations YOU linked to me had Feminist and "males as perpetrators" leanings. If you're the honest poster you claim to me this will present no problem. It took ME about 20 minutes to find, read, and post my proof from your links. Since you are so involved you can do it while eating a bran muffin. Link Plz.
3) Something I asked before is nagging me. You didn't answer it. I'll re-ask it. When you were under the AOC did you or any of your CLOSE friends date a guy over 18? Did you report this man to the police? You have been MS "law and order" here, so I am sure you did. What was your close friend's response to your actions? And, lol, don't try to tell me all the "nice girls" you knew in High School only dated guys the same age or were abstinant. Little reality check and some honesty plz. Court case # plz.
4) Which link/site/organization you sent me has a DV shelter for men? The links you sent me were "gender neutral" and not feminist right? Ok, and since YOU picked them, and are knowledgeable about them it should be a quick and easy answer. Link plz.
5) Which one of the "family", gender-neutral/non-feminist groups you linked to me has workshops specifically for single fathers? Link plz.
6) What part of the "gender neutral" law specifically addressed female predators? Link Plz.
7) Since this is all so fair, plz show me a newspaper article that shows a female perpetrator GOING TO JAIL due to this new "gender neutral law"? I'm sure the papers publish stories like this, and you were so involved with the issue, and you are so CLEARLY even minded, can you plz link the story? Link plz.
8) Which EMILY's LIST organization participated in this legislation? I mean, I don't imagine the MOST powerful and influencial feminist lobby in the U.S. would sit on the sidelines in an AOC debate when the state with the LOWEST AOC is voting to change the law. Which organization(s) were involved and HOW did they vote? Link plz.
9) Which of the organizations you linked have DV programs? Are they gender neutral? Link Plz.
See Lorianne, it's like this. No matter how indifferent you may be to men's plight and claim that feminists and feminism are not to blame there's gonna be a time it WILL affect you. The feminist initiatives to get Child Protective Services (may be called differently in your state) so willing to label men batterers of children has now turned on women. CPS steals children from families every day. Why? Power and money. And this brought to you thanks to feminist legislation that was meant for the same two reasons: money and power. Now the CPS system is destroying single/dual parent families wholesale accross the nation.
Some day a guy you know, may use the same DV false allegation machine against you. Police officers are starting to see that women are violent too. And since boys are NOT learning loving accpetence from feminist curriculm (?sp) in schools, that everyone is "an equal", and most were raised by single mothers whose "feminism" is little more than constant self-justification ... someday a man (or if you date women, a woman) may realize the relationship is ending and have you jailed. Why? Property, child custody, revenge, and because the feminists have made sure that DV laws include: loud voices, slamming doors, and other "emotional abuse" that is subjective and requires not proof. Don't believe me? Lol, ok, be that way. The DV industry is based on a never ending supply of victims for funding. They'll convict anyone with little/no proof, require YOU to pay them (ahhhh, the money angle), and they want to expand their power base. Ending the problem is a distant second.
It may seem that you can sit in your entitled little world and view yourself as immune to certain laws, but watch the 6 o'clock news. This new generation of boys and girls growing up haven't been given anything but a full diet of self-justification, "the personal is political" (i.e. use the law to commit revenge), and with a moral-relativism. In the name of choices w/out responsibilities we have raised a generation of kids who never got consequences and view other people as little more than TV characters in their own little play. Think I'm nust? The crimes committed by boys and girls in the past 10 years would have been the work of the MANSON family back 25 years ago.
Now, I believe you have some links to show me that I am mistaken. I await your reply. I ask that you plz take this discussion seriously. Sound condecending? Ummm, Lorianne ... we're talking about child molestation and misapplication of the law. It's not some cute little internet debate to score points.
Recently I even posted on the MS forums. I'm PRETTY sure you knew that. Just a guess, but I'd bet I'm right. I answered all the questions I could that were not just baiting and childish. Let's see some maturity on this subject. Stop dancing. I am asking for 9 links. Can I have them plz?
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And these signify......?
Any numbskull can do a google search on anything and post random links. And most of them are the same old male-bashing, feminist inspired crap. Got a thesis here? A commonality? A little original thought and assembly of ideas into a coherent point?
Oh, yeah. That's right. Look who is posting them.
D- for content, F for content. Play again?
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "F" is for the content of the entire books referenced with no specific passages.
Really, Lorianne. Get ya a Chicago Manual of Style, at least.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You spent 2 years working for a PAC? Which one? And, you also you stated in a previous comment that you had TONS of research. Since you HAVE it ... mind linking some for us. Just so we can see WHAT INFORMATION was given to the parents, WHO wrote it, and WHEN you were doing all this.
Here is your shining moment, here is your chance. Prove to us it was fair, balanced, and non-feminized research and the presentation of this. How could we argue with that? How could we not see the proof?
Let's see it Lorianne. You WERE telling the truth? You DO have the research? Well then, let's see it.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The article doesn't state what the statuatory rape laws are in Georgia or whether he was accused of statuatory rape or forcible rape or both.
Statuatory rape and forcible rape are two different legal matters."
Actually the article does state that he was accused of forcible rape. Since it doesn't mention statutory rape it seems reasonable to assume he wasn't accused of that.
"Ignorance of the laws is not an adequate defense."
Neither was innocence for this boy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 20, @07:49PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
After doing a quick Google search, I found that the age of consent in Georgia is, in fact, 16. Looks like the prosecuter was looking for a way to bolster her conviction record (and keep her job).
Really, I hear hymens can be broken in any sort of rough physical activity, like horseback riding. It's suppossed to be broken at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 20, @07:55PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's suppossed to be broken at some point."
exactly.
P.George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'd hate to inform you but the prosecuter was a he
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 20, @10:20PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Then I don't know why the writeup says "female prosecuter."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jimmy is incorrect. The prosecutor was Leigh Patterson and she is female. See this page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh well minor error, thanks for the correction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hombre,
Good point. Innocence doesn't seem to be a defense when the accused is male.
FYI, Lorianne is a man-hating troll.
Steve
--I rejoice at the destruction of gender feminism, and I laugh at its shattered ruins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lorianne
the law in the georgia states that any damage caused by sex (brusing for instance) consists of sexual assult. breaking the hyman (which is what he was convicted of) is a violation of this law if one is to follow it strictly. all men (and women) who have had sex with a virgin woman are techinicaly guilty of this crime. following this law strictly in all cases is insane. and that is what they did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breaking the hymen is not damage. It is a natural occurance when a woman has sex for the first time.
You are technically right, shy of 16 is still not 16. What we have a problem with is the severity of the sentence.
Lorainne, if every person, regardless of gender and race were treated equitably, meaning every person charged were convicted and sentanced at an equitable rate, your opinion would have merit. Unfortunately, men are far more likely to get convicted of higher crimes and sentenced longer for the same action.
Your telling us to go change the law is not going to help this boy, who most likely has been forcibly raped in prison, has lost any chance of going to college, and will most likely never be able to get a normal job.
Tell me, is the girl facing any consequences for false allegations? The article stated that everyone knew she was lying. Was anyone concerned with lying under oath, which is a crime?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @07:15PM EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
"Your telling us to go change the law is not going to help this boy, who most likely has been forcibly raped in prison"
well, I don't know if he's been raped yet. But this is something women aren't punished with when being sent to prison. This pisses me off so much that society thinks it's all a big effing joke that men are raped in prison.
I fear very much of going to prison someday ( I don't hurt people) and getting raped. It gives me anxiety just watching OZ. Try watching that show someday.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @07:43PM EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't really do anything illegal to be sent to prison for, I'm just paranoid.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @09:28PM EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
well P. George you are not alone. . .I am just as if not more paranoid. You see not just for me but I have a great son and love him much. He is reaching THE AGE. I show him everything I can and tell him to stay away period. It is not worth it. He seems to understand where he is on the "ladder" (somewhere round the bottom) as far as fairness and or equality is concerned.
I fear his hormones, combined with preditory females will land him in trouble. A younger 20 year old just told me how 2 of his friends were charged with rape. Both of the young men simply wanted out of there relationships (neither knew of the other). Within a week after the breakup they were facing chargs.
Seems as though if a guy dates a women these days, he is owned by her or else!
For me its not a question of "am I paranoid" its a question of "am I paranoid enough"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I know I'm the terrible female, but I even fear for my boyfriend and other males I know. For example, last summer he threw a party with alcohol. A girl came, drank, and had sex with one of the other guys there. They found out through that guy that she was actually 14 and that her mother had been screaming at him about bruising her daughter. great great. Because it wouldn't have mattered if my boyfriend had had sex with her, he could've been charged if she said "i dunno, maybe he did too" - truth matters very little when womyn's safety/comfort is concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I know I'm the terrible female
I don't know you well enough to know whether you are joking or not, but if you aren't - this is a perfect example of the pitfalls of trying to have mixed-sex discussions on these issues.
You certainly aren't a Lorianne, trying to justify all this. You do tend to show in what you write that you have an understanding of the issues which have men so angry at women, and giving them reason to think that a lot of women really are terrible.
But, I have never heard anyone here take after you, CL.
I know it has gotta be tough for you listening to guys rant. But, being in their shoes is pretty tough too, and it is women in a lot of cases who put the men there.
Hang in there. Would it help if we made you an honorary man? ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @10:18PM EST (#116)
|
|
|
|
|
No she's cool, I've read many posts from her.
Hey Cresentula, I don't think you or women in general are terrible or evil. I like your comments.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I don't know you well enough to know whether you >are joking or not, but if you aren't - this is a >perfect example of the pitfalls of trying to >have mixed-sex discussions on these issues.
I was mostly joking, occasionally it isn't fun, but it's also understandable - I don't hold it against anyone for feeling that way. It's more difficult feeling like you can't do anything to change the way things are, and trying to convince people that even if they have it good, it isn't right.
>Hang in there. Would it help if we made you an >honorary man? ;-)
do I get a plaque? ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Hang in there. Would it help if we made you an >honorary man? ;-)
do I get a plaque? ;)
Do NOT, repeat, DO NOT give me such great straight lines!!!! ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zen,
Crecentluna has been posting here for quite a while. She's great. I may or may not always agree with her (usually do, but that, objectively, means nothing) but she is fair and open minded. She is NOT a Lorianne. She's one of our GREAT female posters (like Jen K - AKA: the Bisquit Queen) and that is why so many of us are quick to defend her. She's a keeper!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crecentluna has been posting here for quite a while.
I know that. Lighten up, dude. ;-)
It just seemed that she was getting a bit down, so I thought I'd give her some recognition for enduring all the guys' bitching without starting a fight over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mabe she could get one of those "singing bass fish" plaques that are so annoying.
I like her posts too!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe we can tack Tom Sylvester's gonads to a plaque for her. He obviously doesn't use them.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, me n Luna have to stick together here...She is definitely a great poster.
I for one am vey glad she is here. The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 20, @07:34PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"Again, the adult male may not have known of this law, but he (like all adults in the state) are accountable if they break this law."
Oh really Lorianne?? Do YOU really believe that a woman would be "held accountable" if it were the male who was 16 and the 18 year old a female? Do you really think a woman would be in jail this long then given a 10 YEAR sentence???? Just look at Mary Kay Latuerno.
"The legal presumption is that ignorance of a law is not viable defense."
It may not be a defense recognized by the courts, but then again public school doesn't teach one to be a holy priest of law either.
In fact, in my state an 18 year old male and a 16 year old girl can have sex all they want without being punished. I guess he was just in the wrong state. How foolish laws seem to me every day.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take it you will equally adamant about punishing a female perpetrator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but we also have courts and judges to interprit the law in this case he violated the law in a relativly minor manner not one deserving of a ten year sentence for all intensive preposuses his life has been ruined by an over reaction to a minor crime this case has also been mentioned on real sports a hbo program, and on that program they interviewed several of the jurors who said that if they had known that he was to be sentenced to ten years they would have found him not guilty as to avoid the sentence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
his life has been ruined by an over reaction
In the interests of men protecting themselves, and other men, from this type of over reaction, what alternative do we have but to start avoiding women like they have the plague?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well as far as this goes i have learned several things form this case.
1 if you are a black man don't have sex with a white womn period.
2 if you are an athlete do not have sx with a fellow student.
( these of course do ot inculde the obvious idea o bing careful of who you have sx with period.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No "due" process...
No "innocence until proven guilty...
No "fair and impartial" hearing...
THAT is the reality of today's feminist Gulag Injustice System.
Every, every man... now is an "a priori" criminal in this land.
Where are the "equity feminists" we've all been waiting to come on board? All the "well-meaning" womyn?
navyblue... perhaps?
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well as far as this goes i have learned several things form this case.
1 if you are a black man don't have sex with a white womn period.
may not be all that bad advice for white men as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"may not be all that bad advice for white men as well."
LOL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @09:09PM EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
Men of all races should not have sex, dates, relationship and certainly not marry. . .period.
Any of which can end your career, future, freedom, lifes work, your LIFE by a mere desire, power trip, pms, or any of hundreds/thousands of reasons or excuses.
Anymore its just plain dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @06:39PM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
Because the age of consent is 16 in Georgia, therefore, it was pretty much okay for Marcus Dixon had consensual sex with her. Until the prosecuters decided to pass off the breaking of a hymen as child molestation. How the hell can you be molesting someone you are having consensual sex with?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not defending the sentence ... but she WAS 15 when they "did it".
As far as the breaking of the hymen ... the charge he was brought up on was in context of VIOLENCE commited against a minor while being molested. It's not the same thing at all. It would be (poorly) comparable to a woman being sore after sex as proof of sexual assault. Although the analogy is poor, one is a natural byproduct of sex and one is infliction of damage/injury and intimidation tactic used by a rapist/child molester. It's completely different animals. This sentence is a travesty. Found NOT guilty of rape (for which I BELIEVE - but do not know for a fact) he would have gotten LESS time, he gets sent to jail for **10** years for "taking" (funny, she GAVE it) her "maiden hood". Funny how no one in ANY of the stories of where I have read about a WOMAN molesting a BOY makes a big bruhaha about HER taking HIS "precious" virginity. Oh, sorry, "that's different". Must be a tough thing to live under the "patriarchy". (rolls eyes)
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @08:58PM EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
What about jailing law breaking prosecutors/judges?
Isn't racism and sexism illegal?
What about sending a message to women who do the same. . .the same message?
What about fraud perpetrated by the girl?
What about perjury?
Why not charge the girl. . .she committed at least two (maybe more) crimes and no charges?
Many, many underaged males have indeed been charged as adults and sent to prison of horrendous amounts of time. How many women? I would suspect few if any (only because they were female)
This girl is certainly NO VICTIM.
A mistake is a mistake. . .he made one. A crime is a crime. . .he committed none!
Only racist and or feminist (terrorist by definition) would construe any different.
The boy already served a year in PRISON, probably raped and beaten (for real rape).
Far, far, far, more then what he deserved for the MISTAKE of falling pray to a female. Females are preditors of their needs/wants/expectations with immunity from their crimes. Thats just the way it is. . .I doubt for long though as I watch more and more of your own kind being more and more prosecuted and imprisoned with longer and longer sentences. Burned by YOUR OWN AGENDA of hate laws against men.
Again. . .civil rights, constitutional rights, due process, equal protection. . .blah blah means absolutly nothing to good ole Uncle Sam anymore. Now its your turn. HE needs you no more! (although HE is building lots of nice new prisons just for women these days isn't HE, and prisons need prisoners don't they)
What a lucrative industry!!! Don't make a mistake and don't fall pray to false accusations, purgery, fraud, trumped charges etc, etc, etc.
What a wonderful loving, caring world the feminist have built. . .isn't it?
I do know this, the schools do nothing to protect/educate our sons of life/freedom threatening issues. . .nothing.
Yamamoto had a preminition! And then. . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most don't support such a law for (in my experience working on this issue in my State and also listening to men's opinions on message boards etc).
More unsubstantianted nonsense brought to you by Lorianne.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go do you own poll. You know I'm telling the truth about men's attitudes on women having sex with minor boys. You just won't admit it.
Prove I'm wrong with some facts.
You don't have to convince me that the statuotory sex laws as pertains to minors should be equal between men and women ... you have to convince your fellow MEN to support your position. And you know it.
:eyeroll: "Oh good grief."
Just check out any of the discussions on here about it over the past few days.
Go check out SYG. You could have checked out MND. The outrage is palpable.
Now go read your newspapers. It's the feminuts who are making the arguments that minor males are the agressors and have the power when they sleep with women!
Just because you can find a few token male political suckups in positions of power who don't support enforcing the law is a far cry from men not supporting the position.
You stand corrected.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 20, @09:23PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for not answering my question, or shall I say "ignoring"?
"It is unfortunate for the boy that he made such a mistake. And there may well be a racial or other component for inequitable sentencing."
Is this your way of saving face and not actually saying "GENDER"?
"There has to be a cutoff point somewhere and someone is always going to be "nearly" above that point."
This is in part why I'm thinking more and more that laws are foolish. They are inhuman and do not take into account the maturity or lack of 'either' person, but uses a fossilized rule that applies to one and all as if we were all one and the same. How silly it is to me for this man to be punished because the female was "just shy" of being legal age.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 20, @09:37PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government"
Pierre Joseph Proudhon
It seems to me the the govt. is trying to get as much men-especially black men--in shackles.
While white middle class women, quite probably such as yourself (most feminists are white middle class), who have the least chance of being thrown in prison and forgotten demonized and liberty stolen, make and self righteously encourage the enforement of inhuman laws which conventiently aren't applied to women.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While white middle class women, quite probably such as yourself (most feminists are white middle class), who have the least chance of being thrown in prison and forgotten demonized and liberty stolen, make and self righteously encourage the enforement of inhuman laws which conventiently aren't applied to women.
not yet, at least.
However, soon they will be, and then listen to the harpies whine. Women are already beginning to get chewed up by the Child Protective Services monster they created.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not yet, at least. However, soon they will be, and then listen to the harpies whine. Women are already beginning to get chewed up by the Child Protective Services monster they created.
Oh yeah, baby. And it does my MRA heart good to see them bit, too. People only react when they see women getting burnt by it.
Hey, NOW!! You let the genie out - you put it back in the fucking bottle!!!
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want a real eye-opening treat, call your state's Bureau of Domestic Violence Prevention and tell them to send you a copy of your state's entire DV laws. (They'll have it in one bound booklet.)
"Probable Cause" for arrest criteria are being rewritten based on the Duluth Model radical feminist DV "power and control" doctrine, and local police everywhere are being "trained" (indoctrinated) into these gestapo tactics.
"Anecdotal statements" at the scene of alleged domestic violence by the man... such as ... "She's just been a bitch lately..." are sufficient cause to arrest and prosecute!
A "glaring look" now is legally defined as "battery!"
Cops are becoming a 24 x 7 enforcement brigade for the feminist's campaign of terror against men.
No actual physical aggression is needed to have a man permanently removed from his home, immediately slapped with an Order of Protection, and locked up without any criminal charges being lodged against him!
If you've escaped so far... they have a dragnet about to be deployed to enlighten your ass!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If you've escaped so far... they have a dragnet about to be deployed to enlighten your ass!
Can a woman who lives across the street have me arrested for ignoring her?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep!
You're toast!
That's defined as "ignoring her needs..."
Also see -- "emotional abuse," "isolation," and "controlling her" ...
Basically, ZP, anything you do or do not do is now a crime.
And, you might want to refer to the new much broadened statutes on "stalking."
My advice?
Keep your blinds shut tight!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My advice?
Keep your blinds shut tight!
Oh, I do. She's even more butt ugly than you are. Isn't that frightening? ;-)
(sigh) gotta tell you, guys, same-sex marriage looks better all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll never be that angry!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hope you enjoy prison, then, dude.
Really, think about it. Not "gay" marriage, SAME SEX marriage. You could have an "open" marriage with a man you could trust (as opposed to a woman you never will be able to trust) and an agreement that you don't care who each other sleeps with. You get all the benefits of marriage, without being nagged to death!
Consider the possibilities! ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the meantime, everyone has to follow the laws or face the consequences.
But, that is not true for females. Women are consistently given lighter sentences than men for exactly the same crimes.
Of course, the net effect of this is mostly to put men off from women, which is what you wanted in the first place, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As usual, utter horseshit.
I'm accountable to follow the law as anyone else whether I like the law or not.
Once more your command of the obvious is staggering.
Of course, our system has flaws ... all do. But a system of laws is imperative for a decent just society.
A meaningless soundbyte. I'm sure the people of Mussolini's Italy, which had such a system of laws for order's sake would concur, no? But the trains did run on time, no?
Your fascism betrays itself. Only Just and Decent laws produce a just and decent society.
I've conceded that this man may have been treated unfairly as regards sentencing. I don't know, one would have to research other sentences for similar convictions to know for sure. But that he broke the law seems to me, from the facts given in the article, certain. Sentencing is another matter, and perhaps his race and the victims race did play a part there ... I can't say. One thing is certain. If he hadn't broken the law in the first place, unfair sentencing would be a moot point.
And there is your error - he was accused - and found innocent - of the charge of forcible rape. So, the DA, in order not to lose face, persuaded that a lesser charge, with "no jail time" would be appropriate to "Teach this heah niggah not to come sniffin' about our wimmin!"
I'm suprised at you supporting such racism. Well, not really. Just at your openness about it. Since you already support sexist treatment of men, why not racist treatment of the darkies, eh? Teach 'em their place, what the hey?
One can change the law and in fact statuatory rape laws have changed greatly in the past 20 years ... but mostly the age of consent has been going UP, not down. If one doesn't like that, work to change the laws. Laws are not immoveable. In the meantime, everyone has to follow the laws or face the consequences.
Lorianne
How about we enforce them for rich white kids - and on the women who screw young studs, eh? Tell me, how is the law just and fair when a female of that age wouldn't even be charged with it?
Nice smokescreen to cover your Racism. Give your David Duke poster a pat on the fanny on your way out. Thanks for playing.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 21, @06:26PM EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
I say give Lorianne a break. She can't help it if she is hopelessly narrowminded and udderly heartless. She reads the account of this outrage and this man's torment, and she doesn't feel anything at all. So she just writes abstract platitudes.
She's emotionally sick. We should pity her. And keep a long distance away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorainne, dear, an article was written a few weeks ago about a man who was stabbed, beaten, and sexually assaulted resulting in genital mutilation (a bite). His ex, the perpetrator, a WOMAN, got 9 MONTHS!!
This boy had consensual sex resulting in no injuries, and got 10 YEARS.
Shut up.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorainne, dear, an article was written a few weeks ago about a man who was stabbed, beaten, and sexually assaulted resulting in genital mutilation (a bite). His ex, the perpetrator, a WOMAN, got 9 MONTHS!!
This boy had consensual sex resulting in no injuries, and got 10 YEARS.
Pretty difficult not to draw the conclusion that feminists are a bunch of man-hating jerks, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. If it only were so simple.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's not simple about it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is simple - the problem is that the laws are not applied evenhandedly or with any consistancy. One class of persons is considered a better class of citizen, and immune to prosecution under those laws.
Lorianne, being of the aristocratic protected class, of course sees no problem with this.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and, the remedy is simple. If men have no protections under the laws, but those laws will be applied in full measure to men, then men have no choice but to find ways to protect themselves. Since all the laws under discussion apply to personal relationships between men and women, the best protection for men is to choose not to have them.
"When relationships with women are outlawed, only outlaws will have relationships with women."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is not simple about it is the pervasiveness. The men's issues can be summed up because it exists in a few places. A person can come here and read things and take from it what they will. For every case like this (ie the boy in prison), there is not one place to go and see people admitting this is acceptable. There are not boards saying this is right.
If there are boards which go over the top, women (mostly) can use the old "well, those are the radical feminists, I'm not one of those". The laws are so spread out that it is hard to see the big picture.
The problem is simple, the solution of getting people to see it is not so simple.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The truly frightening reality in this country's injustice system is that forty years of successful feminist organizing, lobbying, and outright coercion has resulted in two tracks of "justice."
Case in point - states' domestic violence statutes are worded for the most part in gender-neutral language. (Both men and women perpetrators of DV can be prosecuted for the same offenses.)
However, at the level of due process, men are systematically discriminated against, denied "innocence until proven guilty," slapped with restraining orders for mere hearsay, and rountinely jailed before any charges have been brought.
Sentencing is similarly gender-biased, with men getting harsher sentences than women for equivalent crimes.
Women have recourse to multiple legal defenses that men are denied - see Warren Farrell's chapter in "The Myth of Male Power" on the Twelve Female-only Defenses. (Ex's - the battered woman defense, the PMS/hormonal defense, the depressed new mother defense, the blame-the-husband defense, etc.)
Feminist lobbying and the permanent threat of adverse publicity for lawyers and judges accused of being "soft" on violence against women have thoroughly intimidated legal officials, who rountinely tow the rad fem line.
There is no Violence Against Men Act and no federal funding to reform biased justice. Compare that with the $3.2 billion funded through VAWA that fuels a national apparatus of feminist advocacy and anti-male terrorism.
Currently there is a VAWA-funded national initiative to "train" (indoctrinate) local cops into employing even more aggressive "arrest the male" tactics in responding to DV calls. (They are told to employ a "primary aggressor" test, which simply means -- "Who is physically bigger?")
The evidence is unambiguous - from the first distress call, to the availability of legal due process, to sentencing - men are criminalized upon their delivery into the maw of the Family/Father Destruction Industry.
In the absence of legal reform, all men must grasp that they have an invisible bulls-eye on their backsides marking them for extermination once the least provocation (or false accusation) has been lodged against them.
In response to this tyranny, the voluntary celibacy movement, like the marriage strike, is picking up new recruits daily!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is simple, the solution of getting people to see it is not so simple.
That is sure the truth!!! Although you don't have to go to the MS-type boards to hear (or see) someone "admitting this is acceptable". We have here, on our very own board, a sub-human troll seeking to justify it. What is fascinating is the limitless bigotry and stupidity of these people. I had a similar argument not long ago with a black woman. She kept pounding on the "against the law" point, until I hit her with "well, in that same jurisdiction, at one time, so was teaching a black child to read." The look on her face was priceless - she had been busted for the stupid bigot she was, and hated me for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's amazing, isn't it, Zen, just exactly how many atrocities were once not only blessed by the law, but made cumpulsory by it?
Things to make ya go "Hmmmm."
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One might argue that the domestic violence laws have become THE primary means of feminist social coercion over all men everywhere.
The evidence is obvious... dial 911, state - "I'm afraid of him" ... the goon squad is dispatched and arrests the "primary aggressor" (read - man)... a Restraining Order is immediately issued... the guy is shackled ... his due process is denied (no charges yet brought forward,but he's in jail!) ... then!
The State really steps in, with tax-payer funded legal "guidance" for the woman, an assigned "Women's Advocate" to counsel her (usually a man-hating lesbian on the state payroll...); the "victim" is then advised that she CANNOT drop the charges... that the State has in essence become the "victim" and will prosecute no matter what she wishes.
One phone call and both legal adults are immediately disempowered and swallowed up into the Family Destruction Industry.
Many billable hours later, and after months of anguish, there will be a "victory notch" for the feminazi regime.
Marriage dissolved by a fault divorce. Family destroyed. Children alienated from their father. Ex-wife (sorry... "liberated" woman) now dependent on the Big Nanny State... Ex-father contemplating suicide...
What a perversion of justice!
But then again, this is precisely what feminism has aimed for all along, and counts as major progress for women's rights!
WHERE are all the women who should be expressing their outrage about this social pathology?
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHERE are all the women who should be expressing their outrage about this social pathology?
Giggling over the fact that they can now win any and all arguments with their husbands and boyfriends by threatening - "One phone call, and you'll be history."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zenpriest...
I yield to your superior logic.
Such a sad state of affairs.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 words.
Jury Nullification.
Jury Nullification.
Jury Nullification.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and - it's the LAW!
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
