We’re humans. Sometimes people tell the truth, sometimes people lie. Due process needs to be given for any allegation, or else we’re back to the days of mob justice killing innocent people.
We’re humans. Sometimes people tell the truth, sometimes people lie. Due process needs to be given for any allegation, or else we’re back to the days of mob justice killing innocent people.
The same is of course true of all sorts of things, not just men and women, and not just about sexual matters. Two people are talking about a business deal, one of them backs out, the other reveals his Mafia connections and threatens to kill the first one's dog, the first one relents and does the business deal. It's unjust, it's hard to prove, things like this have happened many times.
We don't suspend the rules of due process for this example either.
Even accepting all the ugliness of the many unsolved crimes in our society, most of which are not rape, the presumption of innocence, due process, and the rule of law are still far better than the alternative.
I concur, John. Emma's POV, however, is based on the assumption that men are so disproportionately awful and capable of crimes against women than the reverse that the justice system needs to be skewed in favor of a woman's word even in the absence of substantive evidence, because otherwise a lot of guilty men will go free.
That may be (maybe she says it somewhere in the other comments). It's a common point of view. This is a strategy for people trying to undo the foundations of liberal democracy: life isn't fair for my group so let's burn down the whole system. Even if those propositions were true, it still wouldn't be much of an argument (what's the alternative?).
Of course, these propositions are not true, and the reality is that all sorts of people bear injustice and that women are not special, nor is whatever other minority group someone might use as an example.
Agreed. She makes her attitude towards men quite clear throughout her posts by pointing out extreme scenarios, which started with a man coercing a woman to have sex with him by threatening to kill her dog if she doesn't comply -- and then saying that this is "very common." Yes, I'm not making that up. The rest of her posts contain classic SJW tropes and terms.
Her point, like all SJWs (of either gender and all gender identities) seems to be, "let's modify the system so it has a clear bias in favor of women over men, because men are much more awful than women, and because of that, he is so likely to have been guilty of the accusation she made against him that we need to always believe her just to make sure that he goes to jail if he's guilty, otherwise she fail to find justice."
And she doesn't like the fact that due process requires evidence rather than assumptions of guilt based on gender or similar arbitrary biases, since she feels it's a given that men are terrible and that women are very unlikely to lie. Of course, the likelihood of someone from any demographic lying increases in direct proportion to how much favoritism both the law and the general public gives to them for that arbitrary, sentimental reason. People in general lie all the time, and we can't give them further impetus to do so with arbitrary forms of leniency and favoritism. That's not seeking justice and fairness, it's seeking privilege and exceptional power. She also wants the caveats of consent to be so rigid that it's easy for a woman to retroactively take away consent if in retrospect she comes to the conclusion (possibly convinced by others) that she was somehow coerced into it and didn't make actually make the choice under her own volition. It's not hard to see how many cans of worms that opens up.
It can also be used against women by denying them agency if a third party decides to intervene for personal reasons or if that third person has an agenda against a certain man and woman making a connection.
And what is her suggested alternative to due process? All SJWs tend to be pretty vague on that for obvious reasons. They make it clear by implication what the alternative should be, which is why they simply tear down the existing system. Autocratic thinkers do not like due process for good reason.
Men and women should be able to complete on exactly the same field, the same pool, the same court, etc. Eliminate men-only sports leagues and women-only sports leagues. Let the athletes, regardless of sexist or gender compete on the same physical field and event. The strongest, fastest, most athletic should compete against the strongest, fastest, most athletic and those that aren’t good enough to compete against them on the same level can have their own league. Oh shit wait.
I have no problem with women competing in predominantly men's sports if they can prove they have the same strength capabilities. That would be only a small number, however. Of course, sports like football are different from the fighting sports. A woman in a physical sport like football would need to be able to take hits as well as run fast, or she could be in serious trouble. And the majority of women are too light to deal with blows from men who typically weigh in excess of 200 pounds.
Sometimes it's not about sheer skill, but strength. If everything else is equal, then strength matters. Personally, having experience in martial arts, I wouldn't mind women competing against men, because despite the fact that men are typically stronger in the upper body, and thus hit harder, women are typically faster and have more stamina than men, and this balances things out.
A featherweight boxer would be faster than a heavyweight, and may be able to land more punches, but the heavyweight will typically hit harder and inflict more damage, and could also take more blows. This could even out depending on the fighters, but the rule system in a competitive fighting sport tends to place a preference on fighters who are as close to equal in strength and therefore potential hitting power as possible.
The woman who's been sexually assaulted and can't get the assaulter prosecuted would be more analogous to a situation where a man is falsely accused and can't get the accuser prosecuted for filing a false report. In the direct analogy, he's not in jail, but he has been wronged by a liar and may suffer some severe consequences in the social realm, which are compounded by his inability to get justice.
And if we change the analogy to this more fair comparison, then I'd agree with your conclusion. It sucks to be the falsely accused person, but there is an element of personal responsibility in having picked a bad partner. And even to the extent that the situation was unavoidable, I don't know what solution the legal system can offer.
There is no need, however, to forestall feeling sorry for people because bad things happen to them. I feel sorry for a lot of people who can't get justice through the legal system.
I think what Josh actually meant was that people of both genders need to own their decisions from an ethical standpoint. That is in no way saying that women who are actually raped because of a bad choice means that the man should not be legally accountable. But if a woman has consensual sex with a man, and then later decides that she regrets it for a variety of factors, she can't just decide that it wasn't consensual retroactively. That's why it's important to investigate and figure out what actually happened rather than always taking the word of the accuser because they're part of a protected class of people, or because due process makes it difficult for a simple accusation to indict someone (of a non-protected class).
You posit an absurdly-contrived situation, declare it to be "incredibly common" and then imply that the entire framework of the criminal justice be retooled as if this were the norm rather than the vanishingly-rare exception, without acknowledging the obvious side effects that would have.
And I see from some of your other comments that you're basically expanding the definition of rape to include any situation in which a woman objectively consents to sex but on some level would rather not do it. I've had sex in situations where I would have preferred not to. Like, I was tired from a long day and really just wanted to go to sleep, but she wanted to so I did it anyway because you do things like this in relationship. I never felt remotely raped.
And perhaps more directly analogous to your examples, I have had sex with women under emotional coercion. Someone I was trying to disengage from, who understood that I was trying to disengage from her, and who telegraphed the intense pain that that would cause her. I didn't want to inflict that pain on someone I cared for, so kept postponing the inevitable. (And as I'm sure you know, this is a very common relationship tactic that both men and women use).
But this wasn't rape. Rather, it was a failure on my part to maintain proper boundaries. Most of the situations that you describe in your comments are failures to maintain boundaries, and it's very counterproductive to conflate them with rape, and not just because of the obvious damage that it does to the non-rapist man. If you actually want to help women in these situations, it's much more fruitful to teach them how to maintain proper boundaries than it is to exonerate them from all responsibility and thus agency. Particularly since if she has difficulty maintaining proper sexual boundaries, she's also probably being walked over in other aspects of her life as well. And of course it also wouldn't hurt to explain to her that it's probably not a great idea to bring home the type of man who's going to threaten her if for whatever reason she decides to back out of having sex.
Professional.experience? If so you have lost your objectivity. Personal experience? Is so it is consuming you. Both? If so, both. It is not that your position(s) lack merit. It is that you make emotional arguments. Profane emotional arguments. Rarely are those effective.
In your scenario she submitted. Women can't, and shouldn't, have it both ways. One is either strong enough to do the right thing (say no AND protect their dog) or women are a weaker sex in need of protection, in which case the notion of equality is a myth. Sheluyeng is right about due process. I am weary of starlets who engaged in sex to further their careers and then crying victim 10, 20, 30 years later. Personally I think it is wrong to engage in sex as a career move period, but failing to complain timely ultimately denies due process.
I don't agree with this example, Emma, especially not as an argument that due process can be a bad thing. You gave a scenario where a woman was very clearly coerced, which is extortion, and thus a form of rape, and hence should be punished by law. You also mention, understandably, that this may amount to a "his word against hers" sort of scenario that cannot be easily proven. But that in no way justifies the erasure of due process and the replacement of it with mob "justice," because when you throw that very important aspect of American jurisprudence out the window, you create a scenario where it becomes increasingly common for angry and bitter women who were not actually raped to lie based on a rejection, resentment because they didn't get everything they wanted out of a relationship or interaction, financial motivations, or simply on the basis of mental illness. Empowering a group of people to do such things with reckless abandon is not justice by any sane definition of the word.
Also, saying that such a scenario as you described is "incredibly common"? I disagree, and I think that is a hyperbolic assumption based on an implicit hatred of all men on the basis of what some have done. Admittedly, more men will do such things in an environment where they are in positions of entitlement. However, that is true of *all* human beings, and you do not rectify that by simply inverting the entitlement factor and arguing that it's okay to destroy people's lives because you think people from that group will destroy the lives of those from another group. That's a classic example of allowing Peter to slit Paul's throat so that Paul won't do it first.
Finally, I disagree that there is "no hope" of finding justice in such situations. Very, very few men (or anyone else) who engage in such predatory behavior do it just once, and never again. They establish observable patterns of behavior, and these can build up and be used against them as damning character evidence. Of course, multiple accusers do not always suggest guilt, as there can be other factors that motivate at least some of those multiple accusations, including monetary motives and satisfying a need for attention that people with certain emotional problems have, which is why such accusations need to be investigated thoroughly and why realistic amounts of evidence must be there.
This process will not always be perfect, but we can mitigate it by making certain that no group of people (whether men, women, or otherwise) have a disproportionately strong ability to hurt or coerce others.
I did try to understand your POV: which seems to be that since it's difficult, in your eyes, to use actual evidence to find out if an accusation is likely to be true, that means women often cannot find justice for real crimes against them. So, what is your solution? Eliminate due process and always assume that a woman is telling the truth in the total absence of any evidence "just in case"? I'm sorry, Emma, but your stated believe that men are very frequently doing things like this reveals your bias against men, which is why you want a system to justice to favor one gender over the other.
That does not even make sense. If a guy says I will kill you if you don't have sex with me, that is a threat. And the use thereof constitutes rape. If he says I will kill your child or your family then to be reasonable he would have to have the ability to carry it out to be reasonable. With the ability to carry it out that is likely rape. The reasonableness of I will kill your dog as a threat is a question of fact to be determined by a finder of fact - a judge or a jury. If he harmed the dog before the act it would be a stronger case but even then.the fear would still be of harm to yourself - if he harmed my dog, what will he do to me? In other words there is a perceived threat without it being uttered. Maybe the same Argument could be made just on the basis of the threat to harm the dog but my instinct is that a successful prosecution would need more information (he had a weapon, he grabbed the dog). But who let's a whackadoodle like this in their home with their (presumably) small, fragile pets?
But of course #MeToo is far, far more than a "cry of rage." It's a demand for very serious real world consequences based solely on a woman's say-so. Assume that there'd never been a Depp/Heard trial, but only Depp's allegations of abuse by Heard. What, according to you, should have been her punishment? Prison? Monetary damages? Loss of a job and job opportunities? All of the above? None? Those are things #MeToo demand men suffer solely due to the accusations of women, and many of them often do. Not exactly just a "cry of rage."
Amber Heard is a very, very prominent example of something that has become all too widespread thanks to the weaponizing of #MeToo by liberals. It was created by liberals during an era when they have gone off the rails with authoritarianism, and that alone renders its motivations suspect from the get-go. Especially when some of its main architects took a very hypocritical stance on it once a man they supported (Joe Biden) was accused. Then the calls for due process came out. Not because they necessarily thought Biden was innocent, but because he was a Democrat. This is how identity politics and political exceptionalism works in terms of actual justice. It's all about who you are and what you identify with, not whether your accusation actually has merit in its own right.
I'm not saying this couldn't happen, but there is always a temptation to come up with unlikely possibilities and then make them central examples that drive policies and mores that mostly don't make a lot of sense.
The woman gets to decide whether or not this was rape.
Rape is a strong word, and should be.
She would learn more from the incident if she saw that she needed to make some changes in her life, like getting to know someone better before having sex, like loving herself more. If she recognized that she had a part in what happened, then her life improves. Not, not, not that she was to blame, but that her choices played a part. I say this from experience, having come of age in the '70s.
Rape victims of war, that's a different matter, for example.
"... there is always a temptation to come up with unlikely possibilities and then make them central examples that drive policies and mores that mostly don't make a lot of sense."
Agreed and well stated. That would be like Emma's chosen example of a man threatening to kill a woman's dog unless she has sex with him, and then saying that it's "very common" for men to do such things, with the implications that it's equally common for women to be so wussy that they actually comply with the threat instead of taking action against it. This is the essence of the Victim ideology: it not only demonizes men but it infantalizes women in a condescending way. When you use such unlikely examples and then call them likely, you're just begging for rational and objective people to come out in defense of a suspect that prefers to investigate such claims rather than just assuming they're true to make sure the guy goes to jail just in case he is guilty.
What you are trying to do here, Emma, is criminalize or demonize common forms of persuasion utilized by both genders to acquire sex from someone they are attracted to. And it's all based on demanding that men jump through a series of hoops before a woman can say yes, but putting women in the position of being forced to hold up those hoops or be labeled a victim.
You say "most" men have done this? You put so many caveats on the road to acquiring consent that meets your very stringent standards on this that you ignore the fact that many women have "goaded" and "cajoled" men they are interested in the same way, but you only consider it an issue if men do it. This is because you want almost any woman to be in a position where she can easily get a man who displeases her in any way accused since he failed to mark one of the hundred boxes of criteria you expected him to check off in order for it to be considered proper "consent." And you pretend to see no way this can be weaponized or based on a truly negative opinion of men in general?
Then you find it strange that you're getting such a backlash from anyone who has control of their emotions and do not hate men.
I think I'm listening quite well, and I've heard it so many times before, so I know what I'm hearing. You just do not like my reactions. My "little show" is something called actual debate, btw.
A man and a woman are in bed about to have sex...He says something horrible and she starts to leave, he says something else horrible and she stays, submits...She has been raped.
So if he'd just kept his mouth shut, she wouldn't have been raped, just screwed by an asshole, but because he said something she didn't like, she gets to condemn him as a rapist? Look, she's clearly an idiot, he's clearly an asshole. IMO, society should banish both of them, there is no benefit to having either around.
What if they had sex first, and then he said something horrible and she left, was she raped?
She revoked and then consented again. IMO. This is what is known as a question of fact to be determined by the chosen trier of fact - i.e. a judge or a jury. All of the rest of us are just offering our opinion on the facts presented. I think you are saying she complied after the dog statement out of fear. But that fear must be reasonable. I do not think it is as presented. And I love dogs BTW.
Emma, I think the comprehension issue stems from not having enough information …
1) Was this a one night pickup, or did these 2 adults know each other beforehand?
2) Where did it take place? If in her home, was her dog present?
3) Etc.
Listen, I’m not discounting your obviously passionate presentation of a scenario where a woman submits to sex under threat, but to be fair to those questioning or discounting the charge of rape is legitimate without knowing more surrounding the circumstances.
Emma's argument against your reasonable requests, Honey, would likely be that because the man can say it was consensual whether it wasn't or not, because the woman could not prove this in a court of law we need to assume he was guilty to make sure he doesn't get away with it. Her rationale against due process is that men are "often" like this, and the law and society needs to consider that men need special restrictions and women special protections (read: entitlements coupled with a condescending lack of agency). She says that men "often" bully women into giving them sex, yet the truly Orwellian degree of checkpoints mainstream liberals like her impose to make it all but impossible for a man to be in a position where the consent of a woman he had sex with to be either legally or socially recognized is one of the most severe forms of overt bullying one can ever see.
It's a form of pre-emptive bullying to stop someone whom you presume must be a bully just because of the demographic they belong to. She loathes men so she always wants them in a position where they can be destroyed, and to regulate the sex lives of men and women for the alleged benefit of the latter. This, of course, will create a situation where a third party can accuse a man of coercion or bullying to receive sex even if the woman he was with does not agree.
Rape is so common in your eyes because you consider so many normal and common interactions to be rape or coercion. You can make any type of crime seem "common" if you conveniently broaden the definition of it widely enough.
She wants an impartial court to be replaced with the assumptions of the mob based on the gender of both the accuser and the accused. Because she will insist that the accuser is not likely to prove that the accused is guilty if the former requires evidence.
The fact that you think cajoling is a rape is why you believe that rape is so common. The fact that you think seduction is rape may also be why you believe there are so many rapes.
People like you do a grave disservice to people trying to affect change for women (and men) when dealing with power struggles in the workplace and elsewhere.
You keep contradicting yourself, Emma. You will say "rape is so common" and then you will use euphemisms like "cajoling", "goading," and "bullying" and want us to place them in the same category even when you recognize they aren't illegal. Your point is always the same: men are awful sexual predators who need special controls, and due process is an impediment to this. All of this shows that you are arguing an emotional standpoint of resentment towards men in an attempt to give women entitlement while simultaneously gaining control over the choices of both.
She could have left. She could have avoided having sex if she chose to. She submitted.
Clearly a woman who would otherwise have sex with a guy, but who hears something she doesn't like is not the same type of victim as a woman who is accosted in a parking lot and forcibly raped.
If someone told me I had the choice between being accosted in a parking lot and forcibly raped by some stranger and losing my dog, I may give a different answer if I were asked that instead of the former, I had to have sex with someone that I would have otherwise had sex with, except they said things I didn't like first.
You think guys don't have sex with women that say things they don't want to hear? LOL.
Maybe I am awful, but at least I wouldn't entrap a person and accuse them of rape when it could have very easily been avoided.
Rape is a very serious crime, your comical exploitation of what a rape is demeans the people that have actually been raped. Grow up and stop hanging out with truly awful people.
Correct, a threat to kill an animal is not a rape.
Clearly the people in your example are the worst people on earth and deserve each other. I have no sympathy for either of them, but I do wish the dog would be sent to a good home.
Your sort of "Metoo" happened because a bunch of hysterics apparently prefer a system of "justice" more akin to Salem circa 1691 than a system based on facts and provable allegations.
Just wanted to say, Bruce, that in following this thread and the impressive back and forth you're having with Emma (from both of you), it appears your Sunday was a helluva a lot more exciting than mine..
Emma was a good sport. I think she took more fire than necessary.
Oddly after our dialogue I saw that some Hollywood dork was successfully sued for millions by an aspiring young woman he lured back to his room. So even without a criminal case there may be the very justice for true victims that Emma seeks.
Metoo happened because people act like because you can’t prove something happened beyond a reasonable doubt means it didn’t happen.
*****
No. It means the criminal justice system cannot act on whatever happened.
You seem to have a stilted view of our justice system. It is the result of thousands of years of refinement. People had wives daughters and sisters that they wanted protected. They also wanted to make sure that the innocent were not found guilty. You seem like you are letting the perfect (as you see it) be the enemy of the good. Work to refine our system not condemn it because it isn’t perfect in your eyes.
Please, no condescending attacks against those who question you. It takes away your credibility. Common Sense / Bari invite us to a place where we can agree to question and agree to disagree. Be civil & respectful!
Sure but a little snark is understandable. I don't take Emma's jibes personally. We were simply having a "spirited" debate. And I was hardly gentle, myself. Unless the admonition was meant for me. To which I plead "guilty as charged." Whether based on evidence or mere innuendo.
"I’m not saying it’s a bad standard, I’m saying that it leaves most victims of rape without recourse to justice, and that makes them angry, which is also totally fucking natural."
And your repetitive inability to suggest an alternative suggests that I may not be the only pile of bricks here. Moreover the notion that "most victims of rape are without recourse to justice" is completely unsupported. I suspect that's because your definition of "rape" has little to do with the actual crime of rape.
Remember the old adage about statistics and liars? The real question to ask is what percentage of credible reports of rape lead to trials and convictions.
Unless you were there and had ful context and perspective, or unless you are God, you don't know whether a crime has been committed, let alone if it was a particular man.
It would be nice if you'd actually answer a question for once.
SInce prrhaps I'm naiive, I'll answer yours. In a perfect world, every crime, including false allegations, would be punished appropriaIely. We don't live in aperfect world, so we have to do tradeoffs. I tginthink it's a greater injustice to jail and socially (even physically, in some cases) kill an innocent man instead of punishing a guilty one. Two wrongs continue to not make a right, even when the wrongs are massive.
WRT a numver: impoosible to know. I'm nit familiar with the study you didn't cite.
What is the "impossible standard of evidence" to which you are referring? The law doesn't say what evidence is required. It merely establishes that the evidence be reasonable and necessary to prove guilt. What standard would you impose?
Due Process and the presumption of innocence are hallmarks of the justice system for good reason. While many of the #metoo stories were heart-wrenching, the Believe All Women mantra went down in flames after Tara Reade and other gold diggers started popping up.
2. Hillary Clinton said all women should be believed (Except of course if they are accusing Bill.) I bet she regretted that as soon as it came out of her mouth.
And unless they are accusing Joe Biden, of course. The mainstream liberal #MeToo crowd was more than happy to demand due process consideration for men operating on their side of the political aisle, with one liberal female journalist going so far as to say that she believed Tara Reade's accusation but was going to support Biden anyway because he was a Democrat and thus better than any possible Republican. The hypocrisy and double standards of such people are off the scale, which is why we do not take them seriously when they claim their movement is all about justice and not about subjective entitlement or as a political tool to destroy men that they dislike. This is why #MeToo lost its credibility: it ceased to recognize nuance, subjectivity, its capability of being misused & weaponized, and the fact that hatred of men could cause it to get way of control.
The woke mindset can only see women as helpless victims of male predation or oppression, but never as duplicitous and very manipulative individuals who know exactly what they're doing to get what they want. Not all women are averse to sex with men to get ahead or thoroughly disgusted by the prospect of doing so.
So, it is utterly untrue that the only reason a woman would make such a transaction is if they were under extreme duress or desperation; this depends on the individual woman, and women in such industries as entertainment and politics are well aware of fellow women who do not mind the casting couch, so to speak. Some of them find this to be a useful tool in the ultra-competitive world of capitalism, and this can give them an unfair leg up over women with more demure sensibilities who would not sleep with a man to get an advantaged position in the industry. The women-centric #MeToo mentality does not recognize this as part of their worldview, however, which gives some women with the lack of aversion I described above the privilege (yes, that is the appropriate word) to trade sex for favors in certain industries and then accuse one or more of the men whom she made such a transaction with of foul play if the deal later goes sour for them -- like if they are later fired for reasons, justified or not, that have nothing to do with the men involved in the transaction. Then they blame the industry for being sexist, and fingerpoint the mean they made those transactions with as being examples of "male predatory behavior," with the implication that they only did what they had to do but were disgusted by having to do it, and only because the man manipulated them into doing it, or threatened them, or claiming they were "naive" and taken advantage of, etc. This is why all such cases and claims need to be verified with good evidence, because the woke mentality ignores female complicity in any type of situation and only focuses on the men. In actuality, female power has always been strong, and they can easily weaponize their sexuality and attractiveness for personal gain, much as men in positions of power can do with money.
Right there is a glaring injustice in your comment. You don’t believe Tara Reade, maybe because her accusation was against someone on your side of the political bent, I don’t know the reason, regardless you paint her as a “gold digger”. You have no idea of the truth behind her story though, none of us do. It’s his word against hers.
Hi, JAE. To be fair to both you and Charles's statements: for what it's worth, I personally think that Tara Reade has a better case than other accusers. I have seen examples of how little respect Biden has for the boundaries of girls and women on more than one instance of captured video, and this bit of evidence right there makes her accusation more credible. Obviously, many women are going to be telling the truth with their accusations, because men in power *do* all too often abuse that power. No argument there.
However, I think the point Charles may have been making is that women are also human and thus equally capable of abusing their power to destroy the lives of people they dislike -- whether it be for personal, political, or financial motivations -- *if* they find themselves in a position of either individual power or widespread socially conferred power due to their identity (either via immutable characteristics or choice of religion etc). This is what happened when the *MeToo movement became weaponized by liberals based on the pervasiveness of identity politics, in this case specifically the mainstream liberal iteration of it.
As a result, we find ourselves in a defensive position where we are hyper-aware of how many women in such a climate will take advantage of this, based not only on the number of frivolous accusations that have been proven but based on our knowledge of how human nature works, i.e., the inability of any group of people to handle disproportionate power well.
That said, I fully agree that such accusations need to be treated on a case-by-base basis, because there is a good chance that either the man or the woman in such cases might be lying. And, as Charles noted, the motivation of financial gain is, sadly, a very big form of motivation, which is why so many civil court lawyers are jumping on the #MeToo bandwagon.
I NEVER believed Tara Reade because ALL the evidence pointed to Reade being both a nut and a grifter, which she was!
‘Manipulative, deceitful, user’:
Tara Reade left a trail of aggrieved acquaintances
A number of those who crossed paths with Biden’s accuser say they remember two things: She spoke favorably about her time working for Biden, and she left them feeling duped.
I don't know if I believe Tara Reade or not because I have no idea what evidence there may have been. However, based on her willingness to irrationally destroy others without Due Process, I am betting that Emma is a Joe Biden supporter and was unwilling to believe Reade's allegations, thus showing her hypocrisy. You might notice that she completely dodged that question...
Also, does a system of "justice" based on guilt by assumption because of your demographic less deserving of being put in quotes than one based on due process? Have mainstream liberals seriously come up with a better alternative than being required to weigh the evidence and investigate in an impartial manner to ensure that an innocent person is less likely of being indicted? The authoritarian and emotionalistic direction that liberalism has taken over the past few decades is truly disturbing to anyone with an objective respect for civil rights.
I’m thinking you may not be ready for the objective thought necessary to comprehend that people's lives should not be destroyed simply on the word of another. Yes, crimes often go unpunished, but that's no reason to break out the torches and pitchforks, or to make smug little comments such as yours...
Good effort trying to explain your thoughts in this pile-on. Unfortunately it’s probably futile. I understand the point you’re trying to make perfectly, and at no time did I get the impression that you’re suggesting the justice system should be overhauled to lock up accused rapists with no proof. You are simply pointing out -accurately- that many acts of domestic violence and sexual assault occur with no evidence beyond conflicting statements and makes justice for the victims difficult under our current laws. That doesn’t mean the laws are bad. And it doesn’t mean you think women never lie.
The comment section here often gets psychotic, hence why I almost never participate, but I felt the need to offer you some support here. Your point was a good one.
"You are simply pointing out -accurately- that many acts of domestic violence and sexual assault occur with no evidence beyond conflicting statements and makes justice for the victims difficult under our current laws. "
And? And you concede that it "doesn't mean that the laws are bad." So this devolves into an "angels dancing on a pinhead" argument with no purpose or end game. And btw, you put words in Emma's mouth because arguing for a different standard was precisely what she was doing. She said "I ’m not asking you to forget that, I’m asking you to remember that in order to protect the victims of slander you are sacrificing the victims of rape." The civil remedy of slander has nothing to do with the crime of rape. In fact, in an action for slander, an acquittal would have little to do with the truth of the allegation of slander, the burden of which would be on the plaintiff.
All most people are saying here is that due process is important. A single accusation with no proof should not condemn a person to punishment. That’s all.
Ok that’s great clarity! Thank you. I think a lot of your responses sound like you’re advocating for punishment (legal or social) based on one accusation without due process. That’s why people are piling on you.
By this reply I’m getting the vibe thst you're just saying that it is sad and awful that real victims of rape have no recourse for justice and that you are not advocating for mob justice / destroying someone’s life over one accusation without proof / sentencing people without due process .
Does that summarize your position? If so I think a lot of this discussion is based on miscommunication.
No your position was not clear based on earlier replies. It’s important to note that you responded to a post that was anti mob justice. Context is important in communication.
You’ve also had opportunity to clarify your position but instead engaged in argument. I’m not trying to put you down at all and I hope you see that. Just trying to help you understand what happened here today. My day job is to facilitate conversations and help people employ effective communication so I’m jumping in here to try and help out. I do hope this helps.
On what planet does a rapist escape justice based solely on his claim of innocence. What criminal doesn't proclaim his innocence? That's simply not the way our system works. But it does require victim to be a complaining witness. Which is the least one would demand - unless you believe that innuendo and baseless allegations are all that should be needed for a conviction. Should I be able to say that Emma assaulted me without any evidence of injury or your whereabouts?
Emma, Shame on you for resorting to personal attacks when your rape scenario is being questioned.
WHO, pray tell, in your opinion is “the average voter”?? Sadly, you come across as someone who feels superior and only your opinion is legitimate.
And, BTW, when you say “YOUR Justice system” are you not an American citizen? You may not agree with “America’s Justice system” but I invite you to research other countries Justice systems. Perhaps then you will appreciate (perhaps not) what we have here! Flawed in some ways, yes, but #MeToo successes could not have happened in some countries.
So do women; lie all the time, to get what they want.
By far the most cruelty I have ever endured is from jealous, insecure mean girls.
I would rather take a punch from a man - that physical pain ends in 30 seconds. With mean-girls, enduring the passive, aggressive whisper campaigns, of a bunch of jealous girls who want to socially and economically destroy the female who dare challenges them, is never-ending.
Human nature is really complicated and women have agency. Lots of agency.
Putting Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein in the same category of sexual predators demonstrates how you flattened all women into a single victim category, that is nicely tied up in a #metoo bow.
Just because you haven't figured out how to conceive of yourself as anything but a victim, doesn't mean the rest of us have to submit to your conception.
Men built civilization and now women are busy administering its decline.
Fine so suggest an alternative. If not, give it up. My guess, however, is that the majority of women here want allegations proven by competent evidence. Maybe because they don't want their fathers, husbands and sons to be victimized unfairly in a system that has nothing to do with justice or truth?
And yet, at the same time, good and honorable men have been accused and shamed by venal, vengeful and deceitful women. If you think one gender has a monopoly on venality, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
Ninety seven percent of violent crimes are committed by men; I'd say that's pretty damn close to a gender-based monopoly. And now some men (and the women who enable them) are trying to skew those stats by allowing violent offenders to choose their gender.
Here's a prime example from the NY TImes:
(Spoiler alert: "She" is actually a He who identified as a He while committing these murders!)
She Killed Two Women. At 83, She is Charged With Dismembering a Third.
Harvey Marcelin was charged with murder after a head was found in her Brooklyn apartment. Officials said it belonged to a dismembered body discovered in a shopping cart.
Also, most violent crimes are committed *against* men. Further, violent crimes that hurt other people physically are not the only type of crimes that can hurt people. Women are as capable of vicious and vindictive acts as men, but they most often resort to different ways of hurting people. For example, they will manipulate a man into fighting another man on her behalf rather than pulling a gun or knife on him herself. Manipulation behind the scenes and use of your mind instead of your muscles to enact a crime against someone else is a potent way of doing it, and just as men specialize in overt ways of causing harm to others, women simply take the more subtle but equally effective and malicious approach.
My point being that both demographics are capable of vile acts. They just typically have different ways of going about it. Women tend to cause troubles by use of their verbal and emotional manipulation skills rather than their skill with fists or the knife.
Thank you for crediting me with a system that has evolved since Magna Carta and before. Sorry to say it's the best we have, and, if done judiciously, carefully and honestly, it usually leads to the correct result. You seem to be happier with a system based on rumor, innuendo and aspersions of guilt cast in the shadows?
So play out your fantasy and you'll see why I'm so dismissive of it. If it's a "terrible option in some cases" that still leaves you with the conundrum of what system will replace it in those cases. Which would you suggest? You haven't because you can't. Will guilty people go unpunished under our system? Almost certainly. But, as has been observed, better to let off 100 guilty than to punish one innocent person. That's why our standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is the best we have.
I'm sure what you say is true. And, at the same time, when you have no less an "august tribunal" as the NY Court of Appeals finding that the permissive evidentiary standard of "substantial evidence" should govern in university sexual misconduct proceedings, it's equally clear than a bunch of completely innocent men are being railroaded by the mettoo madness.
Why do women always portray themselves as helpless in these scenarios? What if, faced with a threat to her dog or certain ego death, she pulls a 38 out of her purse and explains that actions have consequences?
Because, using Emma's duopoly approach, they are trying to be GI Jane and helpless victims at the same time. Sometimes "you can't have it both ways" is the logical answer.
Your problem “ Emma” is that you don’t actually “think”. You fantasize doing do but it is an illusion in your brain. And perhaps YOU should get out of your misandrist circle and meet other people, “it would be good for you to interact with humans face to face every once in a while”.
Of course your “victim” can file a police report. You think anyone is going to believe her or take it to a trial? Seriously, you’ve got some life experience yet to earn.
I've interacted with many women face to face in my lifetime, Emma. And I've come to learn that, like men, they are human and thus subject to the same potential for both greatness and for malicious selfishness. And, like men, if they are put in a position of entitlement, many of them will give into the temptation to use to try and dominate and control others, or hurt people who displease them in the least.
You are not arguing with people who have no life experience; to the the contrary, you are debating with people who know human nature in general quite well. Such people know that we do not live in a black and white world where only one particular group of people are capable of abusing power if given the means and motivation.
So, what does protect them, Emma? Always going with the assumptions based on what the accuser's identity is? Based on what is clearly an overwrought hatred of men and equally overwrought belief in female moral purity? And what is yet another overwrought concern about the alleged rampant nature of what you call intimate crimes due to the emotional nature attached?
And more importantly, if you throw out due process, what protects innocent people of being merely accused of crimes from going to jail?
The justice system doesn't protect a lot of victims of crime. That is reality. No justice system can do that 100%. That "hope" is not realistic considering we are human and determining "truth" is not always possible.
I agree with your point, I will also add that our judicial system is not about getting at the actual truth it is about what you can prove. That is how a person like OJ is running around a free man having been acquitted of a crime he more than likely (allegedly) committed because it wasn't about truth.
Then where, Emma, do we draw the line between what is true and what is false if we do not have good evidence to suggest that is was true? Especially if we create a political and social climate where making false accusations will easily destroy the life of a person who displeased the accuser? And as you inadvertently make very clear in the demographic focus of your emotionalistic complaints, what happens when such a system favors one demographic over another, and often used against the "disliked" demographic?
What I think is that they are identifying a particular word that is often used to immunize a certain group of people from consequences of their behavior and to justify autocratic arguments against due process and other important foundations of justice in the name of justice.
I challenge you to engage in an ad hominem free dialogue to engage successfully here. Otherwise you will be recognized as a troll with nothing to add to the conversation. Plus your argument about use, overuse, and original use fails to recognize that meanings change, usually quicker than definitions. "Racist" for example.
Nice how you prove that your clarity of thought is not marred by emotion, Emma. Now the insults start, without any rational points behind them, you prove my contention.
And btw, Emma, I in fact *do not* think that trans women who are biologically men regardless of their inner feelings or level of hormonal and surgical alteration and should not be competing against the average women athlete in professional sports and I have argued against it here and elsewhere.
"You're basic" is one of the most common SJW pejorative statements, so I feel a very legit opponent of woke ideology by finally being called that by one of them! And for proving where your ideology comes from. Thank you, Emma :-D
I am *basically* fed up with gender-based hatred and divisive culture war nonsense that divides the working class and prevents us from uniting as a class, so you're accusation was certain correct in that sense.
Btw, saying that trans women are not actually biological women is a scientific fact, and hardly an emotional judgment. How does it contradict anything I said before? It doesn't, which means you're exhibiting another common psychological trait of SJWs: projection. Along with going off the rails and throwing insults and bizarre accusations at people (as bizarre as the extreme examples you use in an attempt to make your points) whenever you see your assertions refuted and have no substantive arguments to make. In fact, there are Leftist feminists referred as TERFS who feel the same as non-woke people about the trans matter, so it would be interesting to see you go back and forth with one of them.
And using the "IDW" appellation on me is accurate to the extent that I loathe the identity politics of the Left for its hatred and emotionalism in place of actual objective thought every bit as much as I hate the version that comes from the extreme Right. Identity politics in general are not democratic, they are all based on emotion rather than reason, and they clearly come from a very dark place in the human psyche -- the desire for power. Yet you throw an appellation at me that suggests MY thinking comes from somewhere dark? To make things worse, you clearly demonstrate how SJWs use virtue armor to disguise their hatred and bitterness by attempting to hide it inside a righteous-sounding facade.
As for hypocrisy, SJWs are infamous for their hypocrisy with they way they deriding due process and certain types of behavior, but suddenly start defending it when a Democrat identitarian gets accused) and contradicting themselves whenever it's convenient, so accusing someone else of that is another case of projection.
Really, Emma? Because I don't see anyone other than SJWs using pejorative phrases like "you're basic" or calling someone "IDW" (you know, for "dark web" thinking?). Saying you're all different while acting all the same is another common tactic. If you don't want to be labeled a duck, then cease walking and talking exactly like every other duck in the world.
No, for fuck’s sake. You put the rabbit in the hat: You assume the guy will carry through. You don’t know that and neither did your “victim”. She consented to sex, plain and simple but it was voluntary, consensual sex. Her life was not in danger. Allegedly her dog’s was. If she said “no” that’d be one thing. She did not. She - in your fantasized notion - lacked a belief in her own agency. Who is to blame for that? Oh, I know, “The Patriarchy”. God help any males in your life, Emma. Get out while you can guys.
I don't think that's what he said, Emma. To use a less extreme example, in the current climate I think the woman in your scenario could have more easily coerced the man to not only sleep with her, but to give her money etc simply by threatening to *accuse* him of something. And if it was merely her word against his, she would be well aware that the public would be more likely to sympathize with her than him, with too many of them not actually caring whether she told the truth or not because the "message" was more important to them than actual right or wrong. And I think that is the main point here.
No one said that, Emma. What your detractors here are saying is that identifying any particular group of people as Victims as a form of identity demarcation and thus empowering them to destroy the lives of people from another group simply by making an accusation is not conducive to actual justice. Saying that anyone here is seriously arguing that a woman deserves to be raped via coercion simply for making a bad judgment makes it clear that you are inflamed by emotion and motivated by hatred of men, so you interpret statements far out of reasonable context to make a case against due process. Smearing one particular group of people and trying to actually form a legal legitimacy for it has never gone well for any society in history that has adopted it, which is why you are receiving such a degree of opposition from people who are not unduly influenced by emotion and bitterness towards one particular group of people.
Let us also keep in mind that you said, in all seriousness, that you think it's "very common" for men in general to behave this way and make casual and even strange threats to women to get them to comply with sex ("I'll kill your dog if you don't do what I want!"). But you have no issues with a legal and political climate in which women are enabled and even motivated to make frivolous accusations against men who simply may not have complied with their will because you think it's okay to just *assume* someone is guilty to ensure that the actual guilty people get punished... but only if those people happen to be men. That suggests a strong emotional bias towards men and an extreme level of favoritism towards women. This causes you to inadvertently make a strong case to everyone with objective reasoning that justice needs to be impartial.
Maybe your comment contains the seed of the differing viewpoints here. It wasn’t a misfortune that you waded into this pond. It was your choice to do so.
That proposition is not controversial. It’s your expanding the definition of rape that is controversial. And no, I’m not going to get into the weeds with you about that. But you seem to have the impression that we all think rape is OK. We do not think that. You are fighting with a straw man.
We’re humans. Sometimes people tell the truth, sometimes people lie. Due process needs to be given for any allegation, or else we’re back to the days of mob justice killing innocent people.
Amen 🙏
The same is of course true of all sorts of things, not just men and women, and not just about sexual matters. Two people are talking about a business deal, one of them backs out, the other reveals his Mafia connections and threatens to kill the first one's dog, the first one relents and does the business deal. It's unjust, it's hard to prove, things like this have happened many times.
We don't suspend the rules of due process for this example either.
Even accepting all the ugliness of the many unsolved crimes in our society, most of which are not rape, the presumption of innocence, due process, and the rule of law are still far better than the alternative.
I concur, John. Emma's POV, however, is based on the assumption that men are so disproportionately awful and capable of crimes against women than the reverse that the justice system needs to be skewed in favor of a woman's word even in the absence of substantive evidence, because otherwise a lot of guilty men will go free.
That may be (maybe she says it somewhere in the other comments). It's a common point of view. This is a strategy for people trying to undo the foundations of liberal democracy: life isn't fair for my group so let's burn down the whole system. Even if those propositions were true, it still wouldn't be much of an argument (what's the alternative?).
Of course, these propositions are not true, and the reality is that all sorts of people bear injustice and that women are not special, nor is whatever other minority group someone might use as an example.
Agreed. She makes her attitude towards men quite clear throughout her posts by pointing out extreme scenarios, which started with a man coercing a woman to have sex with him by threatening to kill her dog if she doesn't comply -- and then saying that this is "very common." Yes, I'm not making that up. The rest of her posts contain classic SJW tropes and terms.
Her point, like all SJWs (of either gender and all gender identities) seems to be, "let's modify the system so it has a clear bias in favor of women over men, because men are much more awful than women, and because of that, he is so likely to have been guilty of the accusation she made against him that we need to always believe her just to make sure that he goes to jail if he's guilty, otherwise she fail to find justice."
And she doesn't like the fact that due process requires evidence rather than assumptions of guilt based on gender or similar arbitrary biases, since she feels it's a given that men are terrible and that women are very unlikely to lie. Of course, the likelihood of someone from any demographic lying increases in direct proportion to how much favoritism both the law and the general public gives to them for that arbitrary, sentimental reason. People in general lie all the time, and we can't give them further impetus to do so with arbitrary forms of leniency and favoritism. That's not seeking justice and fairness, it's seeking privilege and exceptional power. She also wants the caveats of consent to be so rigid that it's easy for a woman to retroactively take away consent if in retrospect she comes to the conclusion (possibly convinced by others) that she was somehow coerced into it and didn't make actually make the choice under her own volition. It's not hard to see how many cans of worms that opens up.
It can also be used against women by denying them agency if a third party decides to intervene for personal reasons or if that third person has an agenda against a certain man and woman making a connection.
And what is her suggested alternative to due process? All SJWs tend to be pretty vague on that for obvious reasons. They make it clear by implication what the alternative should be, which is why they simply tear down the existing system. Autocratic thinkers do not like due process for good reason.
Men and women should be able to complete on exactly the same field, the same pool, the same court, etc. Eliminate men-only sports leagues and women-only sports leagues. Let the athletes, regardless of sexist or gender compete on the same physical field and event. The strongest, fastest, most athletic should compete against the strongest, fastest, most athletic and those that aren’t good enough to compete against them on the same level can have their own league. Oh shit wait.
I have no problem with women competing in predominantly men's sports if they can prove they have the same strength capabilities. That would be only a small number, however. Of course, sports like football are different from the fighting sports. A woman in a physical sport like football would need to be able to take hits as well as run fast, or she could be in serious trouble. And the majority of women are too light to deal with blows from men who typically weigh in excess of 200 pounds.
Unfettered free market/no regulations solves everything!
Yup, no doubt. Just no evidence to support that, and plenty against it.
Sometimes it's not about sheer skill, but strength. If everything else is equal, then strength matters. Personally, having experience in martial arts, I wouldn't mind women competing against men, because despite the fact that men are typically stronger in the upper body, and thus hit harder, women are typically faster and have more stamina than men, and this balances things out.
A featherweight boxer would be faster than a heavyweight, and may be able to land more punches, but the heavyweight will typically hit harder and inflict more damage, and could also take more blows. This could even out depending on the fighters, but the rule system in a competitive fighting sport tends to place a preference on fighters who are as close to equal in strength and therefore potential hitting power as possible.
Interesting, but wrong. Personal Responsibility for choices can not be avoided.
Well you've messed up your analogy.
The woman who's been sexually assaulted and can't get the assaulter prosecuted would be more analogous to a situation where a man is falsely accused and can't get the accuser prosecuted for filing a false report. In the direct analogy, he's not in jail, but he has been wronged by a liar and may suffer some severe consequences in the social realm, which are compounded by his inability to get justice.
And if we change the analogy to this more fair comparison, then I'd agree with your conclusion. It sucks to be the falsely accused person, but there is an element of personal responsibility in having picked a bad partner. And even to the extent that the situation was unavoidable, I don't know what solution the legal system can offer.
There is no need, however, to forestall feeling sorry for people because bad things happen to them. I feel sorry for a lot of people who can't get justice through the legal system.
I think what Josh actually meant was that people of both genders need to own their decisions from an ethical standpoint. That is in no way saying that women who are actually raped because of a bad choice means that the man should not be legally accountable. But if a woman has consensual sex with a man, and then later decides that she regrets it for a variety of factors, she can't just decide that it wasn't consensual retroactively. That's why it's important to investigate and figure out what actually happened rather than always taking the word of the accuser because they're part of a protected class of people, or because due process makes it difficult for a simple accusation to indict someone (of a non-protected class).
You posit an absurdly-contrived situation, declare it to be "incredibly common" and then imply that the entire framework of the criminal justice be retooled as if this were the norm rather than the vanishingly-rare exception, without acknowledging the obvious side effects that would have.
And I see from some of your other comments that you're basically expanding the definition of rape to include any situation in which a woman objectively consents to sex but on some level would rather not do it. I've had sex in situations where I would have preferred not to. Like, I was tired from a long day and really just wanted to go to sleep, but she wanted to so I did it anyway because you do things like this in relationship. I never felt remotely raped.
And perhaps more directly analogous to your examples, I have had sex with women under emotional coercion. Someone I was trying to disengage from, who understood that I was trying to disengage from her, and who telegraphed the intense pain that that would cause her. I didn't want to inflict that pain on someone I cared for, so kept postponing the inevitable. (And as I'm sure you know, this is a very common relationship tactic that both men and women use).
But this wasn't rape. Rather, it was a failure on my part to maintain proper boundaries. Most of the situations that you describe in your comments are failures to maintain boundaries, and it's very counterproductive to conflate them with rape, and not just because of the obvious damage that it does to the non-rapist man. If you actually want to help women in these situations, it's much more fruitful to teach them how to maintain proper boundaries than it is to exonerate them from all responsibility and thus agency. Particularly since if she has difficulty maintaining proper sexual boundaries, she's also probably being walked over in other aspects of her life as well. And of course it also wouldn't hurt to explain to her that it's probably not a great idea to bring home the type of man who's going to threaten her if for whatever reason she decides to back out of having sex.
Well put.
Professional.experience? If so you have lost your objectivity. Personal experience? Is so it is consuming you. Both? If so, both. It is not that your position(s) lack merit. It is that you make emotional arguments. Profane emotional arguments. Rarely are those effective.
In your scenario she submitted. Women can't, and shouldn't, have it both ways. One is either strong enough to do the right thing (say no AND protect their dog) or women are a weaker sex in need of protection, in which case the notion of equality is a myth. Sheluyeng is right about due process. I am weary of starlets who engaged in sex to further their careers and then crying victim 10, 20, 30 years later. Personally I think it is wrong to engage in sex as a career move period, but failing to complain timely ultimately denies due process.
I don't agree with this example, Emma, especially not as an argument that due process can be a bad thing. You gave a scenario where a woman was very clearly coerced, which is extortion, and thus a form of rape, and hence should be punished by law. You also mention, understandably, that this may amount to a "his word against hers" sort of scenario that cannot be easily proven. But that in no way justifies the erasure of due process and the replacement of it with mob "justice," because when you throw that very important aspect of American jurisprudence out the window, you create a scenario where it becomes increasingly common for angry and bitter women who were not actually raped to lie based on a rejection, resentment because they didn't get everything they wanted out of a relationship or interaction, financial motivations, or simply on the basis of mental illness. Empowering a group of people to do such things with reckless abandon is not justice by any sane definition of the word.
Also, saying that such a scenario as you described is "incredibly common"? I disagree, and I think that is a hyperbolic assumption based on an implicit hatred of all men on the basis of what some have done. Admittedly, more men will do such things in an environment where they are in positions of entitlement. However, that is true of *all* human beings, and you do not rectify that by simply inverting the entitlement factor and arguing that it's okay to destroy people's lives because you think people from that group will destroy the lives of those from another group. That's a classic example of allowing Peter to slit Paul's throat so that Paul won't do it first.
Finally, I disagree that there is "no hope" of finding justice in such situations. Very, very few men (or anyone else) who engage in such predatory behavior do it just once, and never again. They establish observable patterns of behavior, and these can build up and be used against them as damning character evidence. Of course, multiple accusers do not always suggest guilt, as there can be other factors that motivate at least some of those multiple accusations, including monetary motives and satisfying a need for attention that people with certain emotional problems have, which is why such accusations need to be investigated thoroughly and why realistic amounts of evidence must be there.
This process will not always be perfect, but we can mitigate it by making certain that no group of people (whether men, women, or otherwise) have a disproportionately strong ability to hurt or coerce others.
Welcome to the "moderate, non-echo chamber, interested in debate, disaffected, formal liberal" board, Emma. You will NOT be popular here. Have fun!
This is a classic example of projection.
I did try to understand your POV: which seems to be that since it's difficult, in your eyes, to use actual evidence to find out if an accusation is likely to be true, that means women often cannot find justice for real crimes against them. So, what is your solution? Eliminate due process and always assume that a woman is telling the truth in the total absence of any evidence "just in case"? I'm sorry, Emma, but your stated believe that men are very frequently doing things like this reveals your bias against men, which is why you want a system to justice to favor one gender over the other.
But is that not true of you as well? You seem impervious to any other POV.
That does not even make sense. If a guy says I will kill you if you don't have sex with me, that is a threat. And the use thereof constitutes rape. If he says I will kill your child or your family then to be reasonable he would have to have the ability to carry it out to be reasonable. With the ability to carry it out that is likely rape. The reasonableness of I will kill your dog as a threat is a question of fact to be determined by a finder of fact - a judge or a jury. If he harmed the dog before the act it would be a stronger case but even then.the fear would still be of harm to yourself - if he harmed my dog, what will he do to me? In other words there is a perceived threat without it being uttered. Maybe the same Argument could be made just on the basis of the threat to harm the dog but my instinct is that a successful prosecution would need more information (he had a weapon, he grabbed the dog). But who let's a whackadoodle like this in their home with their (presumably) small, fragile pets?
But of course #MeToo is far, far more than a "cry of rage." It's a demand for very serious real world consequences based solely on a woman's say-so. Assume that there'd never been a Depp/Heard trial, but only Depp's allegations of abuse by Heard. What, according to you, should have been her punishment? Prison? Monetary damages? Loss of a job and job opportunities? All of the above? None? Those are things #MeToo demand men suffer solely due to the accusations of women, and many of them often do. Not exactly just a "cry of rage."
Amber Heard is a very, very prominent example of something that has become all too widespread thanks to the weaponizing of #MeToo by liberals. It was created by liberals during an era when they have gone off the rails with authoritarianism, and that alone renders its motivations suspect from the get-go. Especially when some of its main architects took a very hypocritical stance on it once a man they supported (Joe Biden) was accused. Then the calls for due process came out. Not because they necessarily thought Biden was innocent, but because he was a Democrat. This is how identity politics and political exceptionalism works in terms of actual justice. It's all about who you are and what you identify with, not whether your accusation actually has merit in its own right.
Do you disagree that "s a demand for very serious real world consequences based solely on a woman's say-so. "?
Stated another way, given the opportunity, you chose to not answer the question.
I'm not saying this couldn't happen, but there is always a temptation to come up with unlikely possibilities and then make them central examples that drive policies and mores that mostly don't make a lot of sense.
The woman gets to decide whether or not this was rape.
Rape is a strong word, and should be.
She would learn more from the incident if she saw that she needed to make some changes in her life, like getting to know someone better before having sex, like loving herself more. If she recognized that she had a part in what happened, then her life improves. Not, not, not that she was to blame, but that her choices played a part. I say this from experience, having come of age in the '70s.
Rape victims of war, that's a different matter, for example.
"... there is always a temptation to come up with unlikely possibilities and then make them central examples that drive policies and mores that mostly don't make a lot of sense."
Agreed and well stated. That would be like Emma's chosen example of a man threatening to kill a woman's dog unless she has sex with him, and then saying that it's "very common" for men to do such things, with the implications that it's equally common for women to be so wussy that they actually comply with the threat instead of taking action against it. This is the essence of the Victim ideology: it not only demonizes men but it infantalizes women in a condescending way. When you use such unlikely examples and then call them likely, you're just begging for rational and objective people to come out in defense of a suspect that prefers to investigate such claims rather than just assuming they're true to make sure the guy goes to jail just in case he is guilty.
I think you do not understand what consent means.
Goading? Are you serious, being annoying will get you laid - do the women just do it to shut the men up?
Cajoling? Saying flattering things is now a cause of non-consensual sex? LOL.
Look, again, you make a mockery of a very serious crime.
What you are trying to do here, Emma, is criminalize or demonize common forms of persuasion utilized by both genders to acquire sex from someone they are attracted to. And it's all based on demanding that men jump through a series of hoops before a woman can say yes, but putting women in the position of being forced to hold up those hoops or be labeled a victim.
You say "most" men have done this? You put so many caveats on the road to acquiring consent that meets your very stringent standards on this that you ignore the fact that many women have "goaded" and "cajoled" men they are interested in the same way, but you only consider it an issue if men do it. This is because you want almost any woman to be in a position where she can easily get a man who displeases her in any way accused since he failed to mark one of the hundred boxes of criteria you expected him to check off in order for it to be considered proper "consent." And you pretend to see no way this can be weaponized or based on a truly negative opinion of men in general?
Then you find it strange that you're getting such a backlash from anyone who has control of their emotions and do not hate men.
I think I'm listening quite well, and I've heard it so many times before, so I know what I'm hearing. You just do not like my reactions. My "little show" is something called actual debate, btw.
A man and a woman are in bed about to have sex...He says something horrible and she starts to leave, he says something else horrible and she stays, submits...She has been raped.
So if he'd just kept his mouth shut, she wouldn't have been raped, just screwed by an asshole, but because he said something she didn't like, she gets to condemn him as a rapist? Look, she's clearly an idiot, he's clearly an asshole. IMO, society should banish both of them, there is no benefit to having either around.
What if they had sex first, and then he said something horrible and she left, was she raped?
This is the most interesting and unusual - and apt - comment in this whole sorry chain today.
She revoked and then consented again. IMO. This is what is known as a question of fact to be determined by the chosen trier of fact - i.e. a judge or a jury. All of the rest of us are just offering our opinion on the facts presented. I think you are saying she complied after the dog statement out of fear. But that fear must be reasonable. I do not think it is as presented. And I love dogs BTW.
You.
That was a very simple and to the point response, Lynn. I wish I could do the same :-)
Emma, I think the comprehension issue stems from not having enough information …
1) Was this a one night pickup, or did these 2 adults know each other beforehand?
2) Where did it take place? If in her home, was her dog present?
3) Etc.
Listen, I’m not discounting your obviously passionate presentation of a scenario where a woman submits to sex under threat, but to be fair to those questioning or discounting the charge of rape is legitimate without knowing more surrounding the circumstances.
Emma's argument against your reasonable requests, Honey, would likely be that because the man can say it was consensual whether it wasn't or not, because the woman could not prove this in a court of law we need to assume he was guilty to make sure he doesn't get away with it. Her rationale against due process is that men are "often" like this, and the law and society needs to consider that men need special restrictions and women special protections (read: entitlements coupled with a condescending lack of agency). She says that men "often" bully women into giving them sex, yet the truly Orwellian degree of checkpoints mainstream liberals like her impose to make it all but impossible for a man to be in a position where the consent of a woman he had sex with to be either legally or socially recognized is one of the most severe forms of overt bullying one can ever see.
It's a form of pre-emptive bullying to stop someone whom you presume must be a bully just because of the demographic they belong to. She loathes men so she always wants them in a position where they can be destroyed, and to regulate the sex lives of men and women for the alleged benefit of the latter. This, of course, will create a situation where a third party can accuse a man of coercion or bullying to receive sex even if the woman he was with does not agree.
"It's a form of pre-emptive bullying"
That's the conclusion I came to as well after thinking more about it, yesterday.
Rape is so common in your eyes because you consider so many normal and common interactions to be rape or coercion. You can make any type of crime seem "common" if you conveniently broaden the definition of it widely enough.
Doesn’t matter what I, or you “think” Totally matters in Court
She wants an impartial court to be replaced with the assumptions of the mob based on the gender of both the accuser and the accused. Because she will insist that the accuser is not likely to prove that the accused is guilty if the former requires evidence.
tbh
The fact that you think cajoling is a rape is why you believe that rape is so common. The fact that you think seduction is rape may also be why you believe there are so many rapes.
People like you do a grave disservice to people trying to affect change for women (and men) when dealing with power struggles in the workplace and elsewhere.
You keep contradicting yourself, Emma. You will say "rape is so common" and then you will use euphemisms like "cajoling", "goading," and "bullying" and want us to place them in the same category even when you recognize they aren't illegal. Your point is always the same: men are awful sexual predators who need special controls, and due process is an impediment to this. All of this shows that you are arguing an emotional standpoint of resentment towards men in an attempt to give women entitlement while simultaneously gaining control over the choices of both.
She could have left. She could have avoided having sex if she chose to. She submitted.
Clearly a woman who would otherwise have sex with a guy, but who hears something she doesn't like is not the same type of victim as a woman who is accosted in a parking lot and forcibly raped.
If someone told me I had the choice between being accosted in a parking lot and forcibly raped by some stranger and losing my dog, I may give a different answer if I were asked that instead of the former, I had to have sex with someone that I would have otherwise had sex with, except they said things I didn't like first.
What exactly is a "Neill", pray tell?
You think guys don't have sex with women that say things they don't want to hear? LOL.
Maybe I am awful, but at least I wouldn't entrap a person and accuse them of rape when it could have very easily been avoided.
Rape is a very serious crime, your comical exploitation of what a rape is demeans the people that have actually been raped. Grow up and stop hanging out with truly awful people.
Correct, a threat to kill an animal is not a rape.
Clearly the people in your example are the worst people on earth and deserve each other. I have no sympathy for either of them, but I do wish the dog would be sent to a good home.
Alleged victims.
Your sort of "Metoo" happened because a bunch of hysterics apparently prefer a system of "justice" more akin to Salem circa 1691 than a system based on facts and provable allegations.
Just wanted to say, Bruce, that in following this thread and the impressive back and forth you're having with Emma (from both of you), it appears your Sunday was a helluva a lot more exciting than mine..
Emma was a good sport. I think she took more fire than necessary.
Oddly after our dialogue I saw that some Hollywood dork was successfully sued for millions by an aspiring young woman he lured back to his room. So even without a criminal case there may be the very justice for true victims that Emma seeks.
Metoo happened because people act like because you can’t prove something happened beyond a reasonable doubt means it didn’t happen.
*****
No. It means the criminal justice system cannot act on whatever happened.
You seem to have a stilted view of our justice system. It is the result of thousands of years of refinement. People had wives daughters and sisters that they wanted protected. They also wanted to make sure that the innocent were not found guilty. You seem like you are letting the perfect (as you see it) be the enemy of the good. Work to refine our system not condemn it because it isn’t perfect in your eyes.
Please, no condescending attacks against those who question you. It takes away your credibility. Common Sense / Bari invite us to a place where we can agree to question and agree to disagree. Be civil & respectful!
Sure but a little snark is understandable. I don't take Emma's jibes personally. We were simply having a "spirited" debate. And I was hardly gentle, myself. Unless the admonition was meant for me. To which I plead "guilty as charged." Whether based on evidence or mere innuendo.
"I’m not saying it’s a bad standard, I’m saying that it leaves most victims of rape without recourse to justice, and that makes them angry, which is also totally fucking natural."
And your repetitive inability to suggest an alternative suggests that I may not be the only pile of bricks here. Moreover the notion that "most victims of rape are without recourse to justice" is completely unsupported. I suspect that's because your definition of "rape" has little to do with the actual crime of rape.
Remember the old adage about statistics and liars? The real question to ask is what percentage of credible reports of rape lead to trials and convictions.
Wrong again. Stats don't matter unless you know what they represent.
You're making this too easy Emma.
Unless you were there and had ful context and perspective, or unless you are God, you don't know whether a crime has been committed, let alone if it was a particular man.
> Likewise you don’t know that a woman is lying;
Indeed. Thats why I used the word "alleged" instead of "fraudulent" for example.
> insisting on an impossible standard of evidence for most instances of rape to meet,
The fact that people get convicted for raoe and related crimes falsifies your claim.
Perhaps a different tack: wht would your perfect trial look like?
Also,what number would satisfy you?
It would be nice if you'd actually answer a question for once.
SInce prrhaps I'm naiive, I'll answer yours. In a perfect world, every crime, including false allegations, would be punished appropriaIely. We don't live in aperfect world, so we have to do tradeoffs. I tginthink it's a greater injustice to jail and socially (even physically, in some cases) kill an innocent man instead of punishing a guilty one. Two wrongs continue to not make a right, even when the wrongs are massive.
WRT a numver: impoosible to know. I'm nit familiar with the study you didn't cite.
again, _what is your proposal?_
What is the "impossible standard of evidence" to which you are referring? The law doesn't say what evidence is required. It merely establishes that the evidence be reasonable and necessary to prove guilt. What standard would you impose?
Due Process and the presumption of innocence are hallmarks of the justice system for good reason. While many of the #metoo stories were heart-wrenching, the Believe All Women mantra went down in flames after Tara Reade and other gold diggers started popping up.
For me it was the Kavanaugh accuser and the way the media supported her.
Because humans are human and there will always be someone trying to grift any movement.
Blacks being killed comes to mind among others.
"Blacks being killed...." lol.
I have two comments:
1. Duke lacrosse case
2. Hillary Clinton said all women should be believed (Except of course if they are accusing Bill.) I bet she regretted that as soon as it came out of her mouth.
And unless they are accusing Joe Biden, of course. The mainstream liberal #MeToo crowd was more than happy to demand due process consideration for men operating on their side of the political aisle, with one liberal female journalist going so far as to say that she believed Tara Reade's accusation but was going to support Biden anyway because he was a Democrat and thus better than any possible Republican. The hypocrisy and double standards of such people are off the scale, which is why we do not take them seriously when they claim their movement is all about justice and not about subjective entitlement or as a political tool to destroy men that they dislike. This is why #MeToo lost its credibility: it ceased to recognize nuance, subjectivity, its capability of being misused & weaponized, and the fact that hatred of men could cause it to get way of control.
And let's not forget the women who volunteered to service Clinton because he supported abortion rights. I call that bad taste but...........
The woke mindset can only see women as helpless victims of male predation or oppression, but never as duplicitous and very manipulative individuals who know exactly what they're doing to get what they want. Not all women are averse to sex with men to get ahead or thoroughly disgusted by the prospect of doing so.
So, it is utterly untrue that the only reason a woman would make such a transaction is if they were under extreme duress or desperation; this depends on the individual woman, and women in such industries as entertainment and politics are well aware of fellow women who do not mind the casting couch, so to speak. Some of them find this to be a useful tool in the ultra-competitive world of capitalism, and this can give them an unfair leg up over women with more demure sensibilities who would not sleep with a man to get an advantaged position in the industry. The women-centric #MeToo mentality does not recognize this as part of their worldview, however, which gives some women with the lack of aversion I described above the privilege (yes, that is the appropriate word) to trade sex for favors in certain industries and then accuse one or more of the men whom she made such a transaction with of foul play if the deal later goes sour for them -- like if they are later fired for reasons, justified or not, that have nothing to do with the men involved in the transaction. Then they blame the industry for being sexist, and fingerpoint the mean they made those transactions with as being examples of "male predatory behavior," with the implication that they only did what they had to do but were disgusted by having to do it, and only because the man manipulated them into doing it, or threatened them, or claiming they were "naive" and taken advantage of, etc. This is why all such cases and claims need to be verified with good evidence, because the woke mentality ignores female complicity in any type of situation and only focuses on the men. In actuality, female power has always been strong, and they can easily weaponize their sexuality and attractiveness for personal gain, much as men in positions of power can do with money.
Unfortunately, Hillary has no regrets.
Right there is a glaring injustice in your comment. You don’t believe Tara Reade, maybe because her accusation was against someone on your side of the political bent, I don’t know the reason, regardless you paint her as a “gold digger”. You have no idea of the truth behind her story though, none of us do. It’s his word against hers.
Hi, JAE. To be fair to both you and Charles's statements: for what it's worth, I personally think that Tara Reade has a better case than other accusers. I have seen examples of how little respect Biden has for the boundaries of girls and women on more than one instance of captured video, and this bit of evidence right there makes her accusation more credible. Obviously, many women are going to be telling the truth with their accusations, because men in power *do* all too often abuse that power. No argument there.
However, I think the point Charles may have been making is that women are also human and thus equally capable of abusing their power to destroy the lives of people they dislike -- whether it be for personal, political, or financial motivations -- *if* they find themselves in a position of either individual power or widespread socially conferred power due to their identity (either via immutable characteristics or choice of religion etc). This is what happened when the *MeToo movement became weaponized by liberals based on the pervasiveness of identity politics, in this case specifically the mainstream liberal iteration of it.
As a result, we find ourselves in a defensive position where we are hyper-aware of how many women in such a climate will take advantage of this, based not only on the number of frivolous accusations that have been proven but based on our knowledge of how human nature works, i.e., the inability of any group of people to handle disproportionate power well.
That said, I fully agree that such accusations need to be treated on a case-by-base basis, because there is a good chance that either the man or the woman in such cases might be lying. And, as Charles noted, the motivation of financial gain is, sadly, a very big form of motivation, which is why so many civil court lawyers are jumping on the #MeToo bandwagon.
I NEVER believed Tara Reade because ALL the evidence pointed to Reade being both a nut and a grifter, which she was!
‘Manipulative, deceitful, user’:
Tara Reade left a trail of aggrieved acquaintances
A number of those who crossed paths with Biden’s accuser say they remember two things: She spoke favorably about her time working for Biden, and she left them feeling duped.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/tara-reade-left-trail-of-aggrieved-acquaintances-260771
But the first clue was Reade's huge crush on Vladimir Putin. Seriously!
In her own words:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190404043945/https://medium.com/@shewrites94/why-a-liberal-democrat-supports-vladimir-putin-f54ca2a3a405
I don't know if I believe Tara Reade or not because I have no idea what evidence there may have been. However, based on her willingness to irrationally destroy others without Due Process, I am betting that Emma is a Joe Biden supporter and was unwilling to believe Reade's allegations, thus showing her hypocrisy. You might notice that she completely dodged that question...
So we should just destroy a man's life based on Believe All Women? Should Joe Biden be impeached and imprisoned based solely on Tara Reade's word?
Also, does a system of "justice" based on guilt by assumption because of your demographic less deserving of being put in quotes than one based on due process? Have mainstream liberals seriously come up with a better alternative than being required to weigh the evidence and investigate in an impartial manner to ensure that an innocent person is less likely of being indicted? The authoritarian and emotionalistic direction that liberalism has taken over the past few decades is truly disturbing to anyone with an objective respect for civil rights.
I’m thinking you may not be ready for the objective thought necessary to comprehend that people's lives should not be destroyed simply on the word of another. Yes, crimes often go unpunished, but that's no reason to break out the torches and pitchforks, or to make smug little comments such as yours...
Good effort trying to explain your thoughts in this pile-on. Unfortunately it’s probably futile. I understand the point you’re trying to make perfectly, and at no time did I get the impression that you’re suggesting the justice system should be overhauled to lock up accused rapists with no proof. You are simply pointing out -accurately- that many acts of domestic violence and sexual assault occur with no evidence beyond conflicting statements and makes justice for the victims difficult under our current laws. That doesn’t mean the laws are bad. And it doesn’t mean you think women never lie.
The comment section here often gets psychotic, hence why I almost never participate, but I felt the need to offer you some support here. Your point was a good one.
"You are simply pointing out -accurately- that many acts of domestic violence and sexual assault occur with no evidence beyond conflicting statements and makes justice for the victims difficult under our current laws. "
And? And you concede that it "doesn't mean that the laws are bad." So this devolves into an "angels dancing on a pinhead" argument with no purpose or end game. And btw, you put words in Emma's mouth because arguing for a different standard was precisely what she was doing. She said "I ’m not asking you to forget that, I’m asking you to remember that in order to protect the victims of slander you are sacrificing the victims of rape." The civil remedy of slander has nothing to do with the crime of rape. In fact, in an action for slander, an acquittal would have little to do with the truth of the allegation of slander, the burden of which would be on the plaintiff.
All most people are saying here is that due process is important. A single accusation with no proof should not condemn a person to punishment. That’s all.
Ok that’s great clarity! Thank you. I think a lot of your responses sound like you’re advocating for punishment (legal or social) based on one accusation without due process. That’s why people are piling on you.
By this reply I’m getting the vibe thst you're just saying that it is sad and awful that real victims of rape have no recourse for justice and that you are not advocating for mob justice / destroying someone’s life over one accusation without proof / sentencing people without due process .
Does that summarize your position? If so I think a lot of this discussion is based on miscommunication.
I think it is. She's just going about advocating for her position really poorly.
Well I hope this doesn’t stop her from posting because I appreciate our conversations here. Clarity is so important.
No your position was not clear based on earlier replies. It’s important to note that you responded to a post that was anti mob justice. Context is important in communication.
You’ve also had opportunity to clarify your position but instead engaged in argument. I’m not trying to put you down at all and I hope you see that. Just trying to help you understand what happened here today. My day job is to facilitate conversations and help people employ effective communication so I’m jumping in here to try and help out. I do hope this helps.
On what planet does a rapist escape justice based solely on his claim of innocence. What criminal doesn't proclaim his innocence? That's simply not the way our system works. But it does require victim to be a complaining witness. Which is the least one would demand - unless you believe that innuendo and baseless allegations are all that should be needed for a conviction. Should I be able to say that Emma assaulted me without any evidence of injury or your whereabouts?
You keep digging yourself deeper with ridiculous statements and then demand a return to your original premise? Logic doesn't work that way
Emma, Shame on you for resorting to personal attacks when your rape scenario is being questioned.
WHO, pray tell, in your opinion is “the average voter”?? Sadly, you come across as someone who feels superior and only your opinion is legitimate.
And, BTW, when you say “YOUR Justice system” are you not an American citizen? You may not agree with “America’s Justice system” but I invite you to research other countries Justice systems. Perhaps then you will appreciate (perhaps not) what we have here! Flawed in some ways, yes, but #MeToo successes could not have happened in some countries.
"The average voter?" Is your self-regard always so staggering?
You dodged the question.
So do women; lie all the time, to get what they want.
By far the most cruelty I have ever endured is from jealous, insecure mean girls.
I would rather take a punch from a man - that physical pain ends in 30 seconds. With mean-girls, enduring the passive, aggressive whisper campaigns, of a bunch of jealous girls who want to socially and economically destroy the female who dare challenges them, is never-ending.
Human nature is really complicated and women have agency. Lots of agency.
Putting Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein in the same category of sexual predators demonstrates how you flattened all women into a single victim category, that is nicely tied up in a #metoo bow.
Just because you haven't figured out how to conceive of yourself as anything but a victim, doesn't mean the rest of us have to submit to your conception.
Men built civilization and now women are busy administering its decline.
Re the lumping of CK with Weinstein - you said it better than I was about to..
That is true. And it is why these things should be handled in a court of law with due process and evidentiary rules.
People lie all the time and THAT'S why we have Due Process.
Does that include birthing "people?"
On the contrary, you are the one with dogmatic and unnuanced thinking here, honey.
Fine so suggest an alternative. If not, give it up. My guess, however, is that the majority of women here want allegations proven by competent evidence. Maybe because they don't want their fathers, husbands and sons to be victimized unfairly in a system that has nothing to do with justice or truth?
And yet, at the same time, good and honorable men have been accused and shamed by venal, vengeful and deceitful women. If you think one gender has a monopoly on venality, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
Ninety seven percent of violent crimes are committed by men; I'd say that's pretty damn close to a gender-based monopoly. And now some men (and the women who enable them) are trying to skew those stats by allowing violent offenders to choose their gender.
Here's a prime example from the NY TImes:
(Spoiler alert: "She" is actually a He who identified as a He while committing these murders!)
She Killed Two Women. At 83, She is Charged With Dismembering a Third.
Harvey Marcelin was charged with murder after a head was found in her Brooklyn apartment. Officials said it belonged to a dismembered body discovered in a shopping cart.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/nyregion/harvey-marcelin-shopping-cart-body.html?smid=url-share
He's talking about lying. There is no gender-based monopoly on lying.
97% of violent crimes may have been committed by men, but 97%+ of men haven't committed violent crimes.
Also, most violent crimes are committed *against* men. Further, violent crimes that hurt other people physically are not the only type of crimes that can hurt people. Women are as capable of vicious and vindictive acts as men, but they most often resort to different ways of hurting people. For example, they will manipulate a man into fighting another man on her behalf rather than pulling a gun or knife on him herself. Manipulation behind the scenes and use of your mind instead of your muscles to enact a crime against someone else is a potent way of doing it, and just as men specialize in overt ways of causing harm to others, women simply take the more subtle but equally effective and malicious approach.
My point being that both demographics are capable of vile acts. They just typically have different ways of going about it. Women tend to cause troubles by use of their verbal and emotional manipulation skills rather than their skill with fists or the knife.
Thank you for crediting me with a system that has evolved since Magna Carta and before. Sorry to say it's the best we have, and, if done judiciously, carefully and honestly, it usually leads to the correct result. You seem to be happier with a system based on rumor, innuendo and aspersions of guilt cast in the shadows?
So play out your fantasy and you'll see why I'm so dismissive of it. If it's a "terrible option in some cases" that still leaves you with the conundrum of what system will replace it in those cases. Which would you suggest? You haven't because you can't. Will guilty people go unpunished under our system? Almost certainly. But, as has been observed, better to let off 100 guilty than to punish one innocent person. That's why our standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is the best we have.
I'm sure what you say is true. And, at the same time, when you have no less an "august tribunal" as the NY Court of Appeals finding that the permissive evidentiary standard of "substantial evidence" should govern in university sexual misconduct proceedings, it's equally clear than a bunch of completely innocent men are being railroaded by the mettoo madness.
Can we find a common ground?
Some people still quaintly believe that facts trump innuendo and rumor. Sorry to be so non-dualistic.
Money usually
Why do women always portray themselves as helpless in these scenarios? What if, faced with a threat to her dog or certain ego death, she pulls a 38 out of her purse and explains that actions have consequences?
Of if it’s a pit bull or trained attack chihuahua, that guy is in big trouble.
Good point!
I must agree with this, Futuristic. Yes, it's a bit extreme, but then so was Emma's example.
Because, using Emma's duopoly approach, they are trying to be GI Jane and helpless victims at the same time. Sometimes "you can't have it both ways" is the logical answer.
Right back at you Emma. Judge much?
Your problem “ Emma” is that you don’t actually “think”. You fantasize doing do but it is an illusion in your brain. And perhaps YOU should get out of your misandrist circle and meet other people, “it would be good for you to interact with humans face to face every once in a while”.
Of course your “victim” can file a police report. You think anyone is going to believe her or take it to a trial? Seriously, you’ve got some life experience yet to earn.
I've interacted with many women face to face in my lifetime, Emma. And I've come to learn that, like men, they are human and thus subject to the same potential for both greatness and for malicious selfishness. And, like men, if they are put in a position of entitlement, many of them will give into the temptation to use to try and dominate and control others, or hurt people who displease them in the least.
You are not arguing with people who have no life experience; to the the contrary, you are debating with people who know human nature in general quite well. Such people know that we do not live in a black and white world where only one particular group of people are capable of abusing power if given the means and motivation.
So, what does protect them, Emma? Always going with the assumptions based on what the accuser's identity is? Based on what is clearly an overwrought hatred of men and equally overwrought belief in female moral purity? And what is yet another overwrought concern about the alleged rampant nature of what you call intimate crimes due to the emotional nature attached?
And more importantly, if you throw out due process, what protects innocent people of being merely accused of crimes from going to jail?
The justice system doesn't protect a lot of victims of crime. That is reality. No justice system can do that 100%. That "hope" is not realistic considering we are human and determining "truth" is not always possible.
I agree with your point, I will also add that our judicial system is not about getting at the actual truth it is about what you can prove. That is how a person like OJ is running around a free man having been acquitted of a crime he more than likely (allegedly) committed because it wasn't about truth.
Then where, Emma, do we draw the line between what is true and what is false if we do not have good evidence to suggest that is was true? Especially if we create a political and social climate where making false accusations will easily destroy the life of a person who displeased the accuser? And as you inadvertently make very clear in the demographic focus of your emotionalistic complaints, what happens when such a system favors one demographic over another, and often used against the "disliked" demographic?
And you accuse me of binary thinking......
I get the feeling you really like the word “victim.”
What I think is that they are identifying a particular word that is often used to immunize a certain group of people from consequences of their behavior and to justify autocratic arguments against due process and other important foundations of justice in the name of justice.
I challenge you to engage in an ad hominem free dialogue to engage successfully here. Otherwise you will be recognized as a troll with nothing to add to the conversation. Plus your argument about use, overuse, and original use fails to recognize that meanings change, usually quicker than definitions. "Racist" for example.
Nice how you prove that your clarity of thought is not marred by emotion, Emma. Now the insults start, without any rational points behind them, you prove my contention.
And btw, Emma, I in fact *do not* think that trans women who are biologically men regardless of their inner feelings or level of hormonal and surgical alteration and should not be competing against the average women athlete in professional sports and I have argued against it here and elsewhere.
"You're basic" is one of the most common SJW pejorative statements, so I feel a very legit opponent of woke ideology by finally being called that by one of them! And for proving where your ideology comes from. Thank you, Emma :-D
I am *basically* fed up with gender-based hatred and divisive culture war nonsense that divides the working class and prevents us from uniting as a class, so you're accusation was certain correct in that sense.
Btw, saying that trans women are not actually biological women is a scientific fact, and hardly an emotional judgment. How does it contradict anything I said before? It doesn't, which means you're exhibiting another common psychological trait of SJWs: projection. Along with going off the rails and throwing insults and bizarre accusations at people (as bizarre as the extreme examples you use in an attempt to make your points) whenever you see your assertions refuted and have no substantive arguments to make. In fact, there are Leftist feminists referred as TERFS who feel the same as non-woke people about the trans matter, so it would be interesting to see you go back and forth with one of them.
And using the "IDW" appellation on me is accurate to the extent that I loathe the identity politics of the Left for its hatred and emotionalism in place of actual objective thought every bit as much as I hate the version that comes from the extreme Right. Identity politics in general are not democratic, they are all based on emotion rather than reason, and they clearly come from a very dark place in the human psyche -- the desire for power. Yet you throw an appellation at me that suggests MY thinking comes from somewhere dark? To make things worse, you clearly demonstrate how SJWs use virtue armor to disguise their hatred and bitterness by attempting to hide it inside a righteous-sounding facade.
As for hypocrisy, SJWs are infamous for their hypocrisy with they way they deriding due process and certain types of behavior, but suddenly start defending it when a Democrat identitarian gets accused) and contradicting themselves whenever it's convenient, so accusing someone else of that is another case of projection.
Really, Emma? Because I don't see anyone other than SJWs using pejorative phrases like "you're basic" or calling someone "IDW" (you know, for "dark web" thinking?). Saying you're all different while acting all the same is another common tactic. If you don't want to be labeled a duck, then cease walking and talking exactly like every other duck in the world.
No, for fuck’s sake. You put the rabbit in the hat: You assume the guy will carry through. You don’t know that and neither did your “victim”. She consented to sex, plain and simple but it was voluntary, consensual sex. Her life was not in danger. Allegedly her dog’s was. If she said “no” that’d be one thing. She did not. She - in your fantasized notion - lacked a belief in her own agency. Who is to blame for that? Oh, I know, “The Patriarchy”. God help any males in your life, Emma. Get out while you can guys.
I don't think that's what he said, Emma. To use a less extreme example, in the current climate I think the woman in your scenario could have more easily coerced the man to not only sleep with her, but to give her money etc simply by threatening to *accuse* him of something. And if it was merely her word against his, she would be well aware that the public would be more likely to sympathize with her than him, with too many of them not actually caring whether she told the truth or not because the "message" was more important to them than actual right or wrong. And I think that is the main point here.
Because she likes the danger element.
Maybe she tried to get out of bed because he said he’d never kill her dog, buzzkill.
Who can say
No one said that, Emma. What your detractors here are saying is that identifying any particular group of people as Victims as a form of identity demarcation and thus empowering them to destroy the lives of people from another group simply by making an accusation is not conducive to actual justice. Saying that anyone here is seriously arguing that a woman deserves to be raped via coercion simply for making a bad judgment makes it clear that you are inflamed by emotion and motivated by hatred of men, so you interpret statements far out of reasonable context to make a case against due process. Smearing one particular group of people and trying to actually form a legal legitimacy for it has never gone well for any society in history that has adopted it, which is why you are receiving such a degree of opposition from people who are not unduly influenced by emotion and bitterness towards one particular group of people.
Let us also keep in mind that you said, in all seriousness, that you think it's "very common" for men in general to behave this way and make casual and even strange threats to women to get them to comply with sex ("I'll kill your dog if you don't do what I want!"). But you have no issues with a legal and political climate in which women are enabled and even motivated to make frivolous accusations against men who simply may not have complied with their will because you think it's okay to just *assume* someone is guilty to ensure that the actual guilty people get punished... but only if those people happen to be men. That suggests a strong emotional bias towards men and an extreme level of favoritism towards women. This causes you to inadvertently make a strong case to everyone with objective reasoning that justice needs to be impartial.
Poor Emma. It’s a lot harder to swim in the deep end than wade in the shallow end, isn’t it?
Maybe your comment contains the seed of the differing viewpoints here. It wasn’t a misfortune that you waded into this pond. It was your choice to do so.
That proposition is not controversial. It’s your expanding the definition of rape that is controversial. And no, I’m not going to get into the weeds with you about that. But you seem to have the impression that we all think rape is OK. We do not think that. You are fighting with a straw man.