Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

[Phi for All]

14 hours ago, Gees said:

With women joining the work force and going into occupations where they never were before, there are going to be problems. We will have to find a way to work them out.

If you replace "women" with a different group in our society (like "Asians", or "Stamp Collectors", or "Prosthetic Leg Wearers") in the above sentence, you can see how silly what you're suggesting is. Why should there be problems with these folks entering the workforce? What is there to "work out"? It seems to me that the problem in every scenario is still the man who refuses to treat with people on a non-sexual basis.

I could understand it if you replace "women" with "convicted felons", or "those with violent mental illnesses". Do you think we should equate "women" with groups that have an understandable problem blending with the rest of society? What basic understandable problems do women have with regards to work? 

[CharonY]

It is interesting that when it comes to sexual assault the victim's behavior and circumstances are questioned, whereas in other cases, such as "regular" assault it is more focused on the act itself and the evidence level. 

[Phi for All]

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is interesting that when it comes to sexual assault the victim's behavior and circumstances are questioned, whereas in other cases, such as "regular" assault it is more focused on the act itself and the evidence level. 

In a "regular" assault, you'd have to be doing something overtly stupid to trigger questions about behavior and circumstances. In sexual assaults, you're right, the assumption is fairly automatic that the woman was doing something to bring attention to herself, like the guy in the regular assault who was flashing lots of cash in a rough neighborhood. In the woman's case, having breasts, smiling, or wearing perfume is often enough to trigger these questions.

[Raider5678]

20 hours ago, Phi for All said:

In a "regular" assault, you'd have to be doing something overtly stupid to trigger questions about behavior and circumstances. In sexual assaults, you're right, the assumption is fairly automatic that the woman was doing something to bring attention to herself, like the guy in the regular assault who was flashing lots of cash in a rough neighborhood. In the woman's case, having breasts, smiling, or wearing perfume is often enough to trigger these questions.

Very true.

However, are there any official court cases of this? Where it actually came into play? I mean, obviously, it'd have to be more extreme than "having breasts" but still. There should be at least 1 court case?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

However, are there any official court cases of this? Where it actually came into play? I mean, obviously, it'd have to be more extreme than "having breasts" but still. There should be at least 1 court case?

The issue under discussion is that it does not even come to court. Prosecution is not only based on forensic evidence, but various studies have concluded that that a number of extralegal factors influence whether a case is being prosecuted or not. There are for example racial components when the assaulter is a stranger (highest rate are for white women assaulted by black men). Age is another determinant as younger victims are considered less credible (Spohn 2008). I a study in Detroit The same author (Spear&Spohn 1997) found that these characteristics are stronger predictors of eventual prosecution than forensic evidence or witnesses. In other words, it is more about the victim than the evidence surrounding the act. The most relevant factors were questions regarding moral characters (including e.g. whether the victim is in a stable relationship or had changing partners, but also alcohol or other drug use). 

In many cases I am pretty sure that the defense will attempt to discredit the victim. But if you really want egregious examples, there are cases where judges actively questioned the victim's behaviour (there are a couple of reports on US, Canadian and UK judges, if you want to look). One that comes to mind are the statements of a Canadian judge who asked victims to keep heir knees together and one from Montana who sentenced a teacher for raping a 14 y student to 31 days because "she looked older and was "as much in control".

Obviously, that indicates that there are likely deeper issue within society with this.

 

[Outrider]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

In many cases I am pretty sure that the defense will attempt to discredit the victim.

And the excuse is always "the defendant deserves a vigorous defence." So is it now time to set some rules in place to stop the victim blaming defence? I think so.

https://m.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/woman-who-was-gang-raped-as-a-teenager-calls-to-st/3245561/

Quote

 

Tegan Wagner, 29, has launched a bid to stop in-court victim blaming during an emotional interview on Nine's60 Minutes.

The Sydney woman was a victim of the notorious Ashfield Gang Rapists - a group responsible for committing a series of attacks involving the indecent assault and rape of young women at knifepoint.

During a gruelling cross-examination that lasted three days, Ms Wagner said she was grilled with more than 2000 questions and "made to feel dirty" like a "slut".

"This was three days of hell," she said.

 

 

[Gees]

Raider5678;

I am going to respond to your post because it is intelligent, rational, and unbiased -- which is a nice change.

6 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Very true.

However, are there any official court cases of this? Where it actually came into play? I mean, obviously, it'd have to be more extreme than "having breasts" but still. There should be at least 1 court case?

Sure, there are lots and lots of Court cases. There are so many that you can pick and choose the ones that support your position. We have seen some of the cases that support the "victim" female position, and the one about Amherst, but what about the one that I learned about when studying law? This was a case from many years ago about a black man, who was sentenced to prison for 30 years to life, because he attempted the rape of a white woman. What was the evidence in this case? The ONLY evidence was that he was walking down the road behind her; following her, maybe. There was no other evidence presented.

So my thought is that an innocent person being made to feel "dirty" or like a "slut" is a lot better than being an innocent person who was convicted and had to do 30 years hard time. This is assuming that he survived 30 years after being convicted of attempted rape of a white woman. I will not argue that there are not incompetent judges, biased and stupid juries, and incompetent attorneys, but that is the reality. Law is not like what you see on TV. There is no script writer that will make everything come together the way you think it should.

As I stated before, I worked in law offices, so I have some personal experience in these things. In one office, I worked for an attorney who was very good at Juvenile cases, Protective Social Services cases. I had been doing some filing, as many of these cases require annual reports, and started reading the file. When the attorney walked into the office, he took one look at my face and then the file in my hands, and said, "Don't read those old cases." There were tears streaming down my face. I said, "Does she still have that little girl?", he answered, "Yes." It is very difficult to sever parental rights in Michigan -- especially for the Mother.

As far as the Father goes, it is a little different. Everyone knows about "dead-beat dads", who do not take care of or claim their children. These cases are usually paternity cases, where the Courts do blood tests, establish paternity, and charge child support. We had four paternity cases the year before I was forced to retire because of disability. One of the cases was what you would expect, but the other three were men who wanted access to their children. These men were suing their child's Mother in Court for parental rights. These men wanted to talk to the child's teacher, have input regarding their education, take them to a ball game or out to dinner, or fishing or on vacation -- they wanted to know their children. They wanted the children to know them and their heritage and their Grandparents. So if they wanted all of this, why didn't they marry the Moms?

Why would the Moms marry them? A woman can have a baby, live with Grandma and Grandpa, who are the best babysitters in the world, and cry to the State that they are single parents. They will get free medical, housing costs, food assistance, great babysitters, and even get to go to college. They can date anyone they want, keep whatever hours they want, and not answer to anyone. If the Dad gives them trouble, they can "forget" to be there when he comes to pick up his kids.

If a man is fool enough to marry in this environment, he has to know that she has the power to take everything from him whenever she chooses. He will lose his home, his family, the patio that he worked to build, his quiet evenings, his holiday experiences, his life. She, on the other hand, can keep the home, the children, and her routine, while running up his charge accounts, slandering his name, f*cking his brother, his neighbor, and his co-worker, and beating his children and sending them to bed without supper. There are no laws against this. She can move in her boyfriend, make him her babysitter, and if her ex gets mad, she can have him sent to anger management, all while he is paying for the privilege of being her ex-husband. If anyone questions her behavior, she explains that "He was mean to me" or "I was afraid of him" -- and people will buy it. Do women do this? Yes. I have witnessed it more than once, and it is becoming a problem. When a news show tells me about a man, who murdered his wife right after she said she wanted a divorce -- I am not surprised.

Of course, all women are not like this, but if you like statistics, then look at the marriage rates. They are down in every State except Hawaii. Male suicide is up and children are running wild with little discipline or control. Many people marry, but don't have children -- that rate is also down. My personal experience and the above statistics tell me that this is a trend -- a trend that is destroying families. What is causing it? Are the men that women work with also aware of this trend? Yes. It is damned personal, and many have experienced at least a part of it.

Some people think that this trend is caused by Women's Rights. For myself, I don't know, but I do know that for all the talk about women's rights, there is damned little talk about women's responsibilities. Most men know that justice is nice to get, but you have to learn to roll with the punches. Men also know that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. If women want equality, then they have so stop yelling about being a "victim", start learning how to solve their problems, and look at their responsibilities. That is my whole point.

Gee

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Outrider said:

And the excuse is always "the defendant deserves a vigorous defence." So is it now time to set some rules in place to stop the victim blaming defence? I think so.

Attacking the victim is offense, not defense.

10 hours ago, Gees said:

Raider5678;

I am going to respond to your post because it is intelligent, rational, and unbiased -- which is a nice change.

Sure, there are lots and lots of Court cases. There are so many that you can pick and choose the ones that support your position. We have seen some of the cases that support the "victim" female position, and the one about Amherst, but what about the one that I learned about when studying law? This was a case from many years ago about a black man, who was sentenced to prison for 30 years to life, because he attempted the rape of a white woman. What was the evidence in this case? The ONLY evidence was that he was walking down the road behind her; following her, maybe. There was no other evidence presented.

Black people have been railroaded in the justice system for a long time, and your case is reminiscent of the one in "To Kill a Mockingbird". It would not be surprising if the racial aspect of this case was the driving factor.

Convicting people without much evidence is a failure of the whole justice system; it is not confined to sexual assault crimes. Cherry-picking a few cases does not show that there is any systemic bias in convicting men of sex crimes without due process and proper evidence, as compared to any other sort of crime.

10 hours ago, Gees said:

So my thought is that an innocent person being made to feel "dirty" or like a "slut" is a lot better than being an innocent person who was convicted and had to do 30 years hard time.

That's not the point, and has never been the point.

1) You can properly investigate, try and possibly convict a person without slut-shaming the victim, and

2) this is not an issue for other kinds of crimes.

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that these are the issues?

10 hours ago, Gees said:

 As I stated before, I worked in law offices, so I have some personal experience in these things.

...

These men were suing their child's Mother in Court for parental rights. These men wanted to talk to the child's teacher, have input regarding their education, take them to a ball game or out to dinner, or fishing or on vacation -- they wanted to know their children. They wanted the children to know them and their heritage and their Grandparents. So if they wanted all of this, why didn't they marry the Moms?

What does this have to do with the OP? Are these powerful men?

10 hours ago, Gees said:

Some people think that this trend is caused by Women's Rights. For myself, I don't know, but I do know that for all the talk about women's rights, there is damned little talk about women's responsibilities. Most men know that justice is nice to get, but you have to learn to roll with the punches. Men also know that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. If women want equality, then they have so stop yelling about being a "victim", start learning how to solve their problems, and look at their responsibilities. That is my whole point.

Gee

When equality is suddenly present in a situation that was previously unequal, it feels like bias to those who were privileged. Blaming women may make you feel better, but it's hardly the solution.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That's not the point, and has never been the point.

1) You can properly investigate, try and possibly convict a person without slut-shaming the victim, and

2) this is not an issue for other kinds of crimes.

 

1

I'm questioning the slut-shaming aspect of this.

The moment you say "She was asking for it!" is the second you say "I plead guilty!"

I looked further into some cases involving "slut shaming" and I no longer agree it was slut shaming.

Ultimately, each case came down to Her word against His word. Her word won all of the cases I looked into. Now, most of the defense, they claimed were men just trying to slut shame the girl and that just because she was dressed a certain way etc etc etc.

But, that's NOT what they were doing. They were attacking the credibility of the accuser. Because ultimately, if it's just Her word against His word, with very little evidence, what else can you do? The only evidence against the man beside her word is circumstantial evidence. Wrong place, at the wrong time. The defense was trying to prove he did NOT rape her, and in only 1 case(There are more, I only found 1 case where they did this), did they try to prove it was consensual sex(it was a boyfriend & girlfriend.) 

It was never "she was a slut. It's her fault." it was always "Her story is conflicting, this is a false accusation." 

Which, in most of the cases, I concur. It seemed like the man raped the girl. But he is still entitled to a defense, and if the ONLY defense is Her word against His, it's always going to be trying to disprove her word. 

There is a difference between slut shaming, and legally defending the accused. Because legally defending the accused does not include slut shaming, it does, however, include attacking the credibility of the victim, which for some reason is now considered slut-shaming.

 

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm questioning the slut-shaming aspect of this.

The moment you say "She was asking for it!" is the second you say "I plead guilty!"

I looked further into some cases involving "slut shaming" and I no longer agree it was slut shaming.

Ultimately, each case came down to Her word against His word. Her word won all of the cases I looked into. Now, most of the defense, they claimed were men just trying to slut shame the girl and that just because she was dressed a certain way etc etc etc.

Without providing us with links to the cases, there's no way to try and rebut your claim. There's no way to know if you have a random sample or if they were cherry-picked. So it's of little value.

 

[Raider5678]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Without providing us with links to the cases, there's no way to try and rebut your claim. There's no way to know if you have a random sample or if they were cherry-picked. So it's of little value.

 

Fair enough.

Since I can't prove I didn't cherry pick all of them, then this is the case Outrider presented.

 

https://m.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/woman-who-was-gang-raped-as-a-teenager-calls-to-st/3245561/

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Fair enough.

Since I can't prove I didn't cherry pick all of them, then this is the case Outrider presented.

 

https://m.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/woman-who-was-gang-raped-as-a-teenager-calls-to-st/3245561/

 

And what in that article leads you to your conclusion? They don't list the >2000 questions, but "putting yourself in that situation" is one of them that is mentioned. That's not part of he said/she said, that's victim blaming.

they also say shecwas 14, so it's likely statutory rape, and alcohol was involved, which raises the possibility that consent could not have been given. But these details are not in the article.

[Gees]

 Raider5678;

Thank you. In this forum, when I see a member with over a thousand posts, but a low reputation, it usually means that they can and do think. Thanks for proving me right.

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm questioning the slut-shaming aspect of this.

The moment you say "She was asking for it!" is the second you say "I plead guilty!"

I looked further into some cases involving "slut shaming" and I no longer agree it was slut shaming.

Ultimately, each case came down to Her word against His word. Her word won all of the cases I looked into. Now, most of the defense, they claimed were men just trying to slut shame the girl and that just because she was dressed a certain way etc etc etc.

But, that's NOT what they were doing. They were attacking the credibility of the accuser. Because ultimately, if it's just Her word against His word, with very little evidence, what else can you do? The only evidence against the man beside her word is circumstantial evidence. Wrong place, at the wrong time. The defense was trying to prove he did NOT rape her, and in only 1 case(There are more, I only found 1 case where they did this), did they try to prove it was consensual sex(it was a boyfriend & girlfriend.) 

It was never "she was a slut. It's her fault." it was always "Her story is conflicting, this is a false accusation." 

Which, in most of the cases, I concur. It seemed like the man raped the girl. But he is still entitled to a defense, and if the ONLY defense is Her word against His, it's always going to be trying to disprove her word. 

There is a difference between slut shaming, and legally defending the accused. Because legally defending the accused does not include slut shaming, it does, however, include attacking the credibility of the victim, which for some reason is now considered slut-shaming.

Yes, there are lots of cases, and one must remember that this type of case is judged and prosecuted by different laws in the different States. This type of crime is under the jurisdiction of the States, not the Federal, so there can be differences in the actual wording of the laws, the Statutes that apply, and the Court procedures. That may not seem like it should make a great difference because it is all illegal, but it can make a difference in the Courts. For example: Some Courts may allow her prior sexual experience to be admitted as evidence, others may not.

Although some people in this thread would have you believe that this injustice is all about women and sexual assaults, that is nonsense. Consider the following scenario:

A man calls the police and says he has been burglarized. They come to his home. While filing out the report, they ask, "How did the burglar get in? Is there any sign of forced entry." The man states that he does not usually lock his doors, so that would not be a problem. The police ask if he has any idea who might have done this. The man states, "Well, there was a guy, who was down on his luck, so I let him stay here for a few days. He is gone and my property is gone." The police finish the report.

Would this matter be prosecuted? Unlikely. There may have been a crime, but there is no case. Fingerprints are irrelevant because the man lived there and there was no forced entry. Even if you caught the guy red-handed with the goods, he could simply say that the homeowner gave him the property. It is his word against his word. In many cases, the only thing that the prosecutor has is the HOPE of prosecuting because of the "victim's" credibility. Would his insurance company reimburse him for his losses? Unlikely. They would most often claim that there could have been collusion between the men in the hope of ripping off the insurance. The most likely outcome is that the police tell him to start locking his doors and stop moving in strangers. Maybe this is "stupid man" shaming.

All crimes are not reported. Police, when called, do not always make out a report. Prosecution does not always happen. Conviction is never sure. The biggest difference between sexual assault crimes and other crimes is that no one is keeping count on the others and screaming for justice.

 

Swansont;

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Attacking the victim is offense, not defense.

Maybe you should take that up with the American Bar Association.

Quote

 

Black people have been railroaded in the justice system for a long time, and your case is reminiscent of the one in "To Kill a Mockingbird". It would not be surprising if the racial aspect of this case was the driving factor.

 

"To Kill a Mockingbird" may have been based on that case. All cases do not make it into the textbooks, but I know it was an old case when we studied it in the early 1980's. I remember being surprised that attempted rape could carry a longer sentence than rape. Hopefully, that law has changed.

Of course racial issues were the driving factor. All cases, where credibility is part of the decision, have to take biases into account -- that means most cases. It is just like in this thread. People want confirmation of what they believe, not facts. Giving them facts is likely to make you guilty of something and sentence you to 3 down votes and accusations of "victim blaming".
 

Quote

 

Convicting people without much evidence is a failure of the whole justice system; it is not confined to sexual assault crimes. Cherry-picking a few cases does not show that there is any systemic bias in convicting men of sex crimes without due process and proper evidence, as compared to any other sort of crime.

 

You are making me laugh. I hate to shock you with this information, but most "evidence" is testimony. Even if you have actual physical evidence, it means very little without testimony. For example: We will say that a one hundred dollar bill passed from your hand to my hand. That is the physical evidence, much like a rape kit that proves a transfer of bodily fluids. So when this money passed, what did it mean?

Was it a gift? Or a reward for something that I did? A loan?

Was it payment for something purchased or contracted? A deposit that must be returned? A retainer fee that does not have to be returned?

Was it theft? Or maybe I swindled you.

Which of the above is found to be true depends mostly on testimony, and with testimony comes bias. So credibility is kind of important. If you have credibility, then you can lie all day long and get away with it as long as you are a reasonably good liar.

 

Quote

That's not the point, and has never been the point.

So what do you think the point is?
 

Quote

 

1) You can properly investigate, try and possibly convict a person without slut-shaming the victim, and

2) this is not an issue for other kinds of crimes.

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that these are the issues?

Please review my post to Raider above.

 

Quote

What does this have to do with the OP? Are these powerful men?

What do you think the OP is about? It is about power, all kinds of power, and it's abuses. The power of wealth and position, the power of beauty, the power of sex and sexuality, the power of genders, the power of races, the power of innocence, the power of victims, the power of media and how these powers are used and abused. The power to down vote someone without telling them why, which is in my opinion one of the more gutless powers, because we have the right to down vote, but no responsibility -- and don't even have to admit we did it.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. When power gives you rights without responsibilities, you have absolute power over something and will be corrupted. It is inevitable.

 

Quote

When equality is suddenly present in a situation that was previously unequal, it feels like bias to those who were privileged. Blaming women may make you feel better, but it's hardly the solution.

Maybe so, but that is not what we are talking about here. Men and women are not equal; if you don't believe me look at some of CharonY's posts. As for blaming; CharonY blames men, you blame the judicial system even though you obviously don't know anything about it, and both of you blame me. I am not blaming women for anything, I am just looking for feasible solutions and know that they can not be found by writing more laws as that is already tipping in the wrong direction. 

 

Raider5678;

5 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Fair enough.

Since I can't prove I didn't cherry pick all of them, then this is the case Outrider presented.

https://m.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/woman-who-was-gang-raped-as-a-teenager-calls-to-st/3245561/

I did not read this when Outrider presented it as I was occupied, but it is interesting. I have little doubt that the child was raped. I also doubt that the boys had any idea of the realities and consequences of their actions -- this was a tragedy all the way around. So many lives ruined. She was 14 years old, right at the beginning of the "age of rape" when little girls want to be beautiful, exciting, and glamorous, but have no idea of how to be women yet. The boys were simply ignorant and arrogant, which is what boys often are, before they become men.

What was a 14 year old doing, going to a party with "friends" where there was drinking and obviously no adult supervision? Did she have her parents' permission? If so, maybe they should be prosecuted. If she didn't, that may be why the attorney was so rough on her.

I was remembering when my youngest turned 14. She wanted a party, but believed like most teens that you can not have fun without getting high, so thought that no one would come to her party. We threw her a bang up party with 40 or 50 kids and a few drop-ins. There was no booze, no drugs, and if they wanted to smoke they had to leave the yard. But we gave them a scavenger hunt that had them running around the whole neighborhood, tons of food, dancing with a Rent-to-Own stereo system, lots of games, a bonfire, and two tents for the 12 that were spending the night -- one for girls and one for boys. Her Father and I stayed up all night and kept our eyes on them. I think I would trust a ten year old alone before I would trust a 14 year old.

There are three times in a child's life when they must be watched closely; in the first year when they are turning into a person, in the toddler stage when they are turning into a child, and in the teen years when they are trying to be adults. It is the times of change that are most dangerous.

Gee

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Gees said:

  A man calls the police and says he has been burglarized. They come to his home. While filing out the report, they ask, "How did the burglar get in? Is there any sign of forced entry." The man states that he does not usually lock his doors, so that would not be a problem. The police ask if he has any idea who might have done this. The man states, "Well, there was a guy, who was down on his luck, so I let him stay here for a few days. He is gone and my property is gone." The police finish the report.

Would this matter be prosecuted? Unlikely. There may have been a crime, but there is no case. Fingerprints are irrelevant because the man lived there and there was no forced entry. Even if you caught the guy red-handed with the goods, he could simply say that the homeowner gave him the property. It is his word against his word. In many cases, the only thing that the prosecutor has is the HOPE of prosecuting because of the "victim's" credibility. Would his insurance company reimburse him for his losses? Unlikely. They would most often claim that there could have been collusion between the men in the hope of ripping off the insurance. The most likely outcome is that the police tell him to start locking his doors and stop moving in strangers. Maybe this is "stupid man" shaming.

Stupid-man shaming would be the police and others asking him why he had nice things to steal, and that he was asking to have them stolen. It would be people telling him that the burglar was a great guy, and asking why stupid-man is trying to ruin his reputation with these accusations (I mean, he never stole their stuff). It would be threats to sue stupid-man for the accusation. 

In a situation more relevant to the OP (as we were talking about powerful men), stupid-man would be ostracized at work or even fired, because the alleged burglar was higher up in the organization. He would be shut out of opportunities for promotion, or to work on the cool projects, because he's been labeled a troublemaker.

Those are the differences that others are focusing on.

6 hours ago, Gees said:

All crimes are not reported. Police, when called, do not always make out a report. Prosecution does not always happen. Conviction is never sure. The biggest difference between sexual assault crimes and other crimes is that no one is keeping count on the others and screaming for justice.

There are no crime statistics? I think that's a dubious claim. 

The "screaming for justice" is in the victim-blaming that you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around, and have not shown is prevalent in other crimes. 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

 Maybe you should take that up with the American Bar Association.

I don't expect that that would do any good. It's not just the lawyers who engage in the practice, which has been explained multiple times across the threads we've had on this topic.

6 hours ago, Gees said:

"To Kill a Mockingbird" may have been based on that case. All cases do not make it into the textbooks, but I know it was an old case when we studied it in the early 1980's. I remember being surprised that attempted rape could carry a longer sentence than rape. Hopefully, that law has changed.

Of course racial issues were the driving factor. All cases, where credibility is part of the decision, have to take biases into account -- that means most cases. It is just like in this thread. People want confirmation of what they believe, not facts. Giving them facts is likely to make you guilty of something and sentence you to 3 down votes and accusations of "victim blaming".
 

You admit this, so how is it relevant? He was basically being convicted for being black.  

6 hours ago, Gees said:

You are making me laugh. I hate to shock you with this information, but most "evidence" is testimony.

A point I've raised a number of times — whenever people say there is no evidence against the accused. 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

 Which of the above is found to be true depends mostly on testimony, and with testimony comes bias. So credibility is kind of important. If you have credibility, then you can lie all day long and get away with it as long as you are a reasonably good liar.

So explain to me how the clothes a woman is wearing establishes or ruins credibility. Or being at a party.

 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

So what do you think the point is?

I explained that in my post, right after I stated this.

6 hours ago, Gees said:

 What do you think the OP is about? It is about power, all kinds of power, and it's abuses. The power of wealth and position, the power of beauty, the power of sex and sexuality, the power of genders, the power of races, the power of innocence, the power of victims, the power of media and how these powers are used and abused. The power to down vote someone without telling them why, which is in my opinion one of the more gutless powers, because we have the right to down vote, but no responsibility -- and don't even have to admit we did it.

Who has more power: the rich man, or the beautiful woman on his arm? 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

Maybe so, but that is not what we are talking about here. Men and women are not equal; if you don't believe me look at some of CharonY's posts. As for blaming; CharonY blames men, you blame the judicial system even though you obviously don't know anything about it, and both of you blame me. I am not blaming women for anything, I am just looking for feasible solutions and know that they can not be found by writing more laws as that is already tipping in the wrong direction. 

I am not blaming the justice system. 

And to say you aren't blaming women flies in the face of a few posts you've made. Your tangent about custody issues, for example.

 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

Raider5678;

I did not read this when Outrider presented it as I was occupied, but it is interesting. I have little doubt that the child was raped. I also doubt that the boys had any idea of the realities and consequences of their actions -- this was a tragedy all the way around. So many lives ruined. She was 14 years old, right at the beginning of the "age of rape" when little girls want to be beautiful, exciting, and glamorous, but have no idea of how to be women yet. The boys were simply ignorant and arrogant, which is what boys often are, before they become men.

Simply ignorant?  Not have any idea of the consequences? 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it strains credulity to think that anyone is ignorant that rape at knifepoint is illegal. And this wasn't a one-off. They were convicted raping five other girls. This is the very kind of rape apology that is rampant in society. 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

What was a 14 year old doing, going to a party with "friends" where there was drinking and obviously no adult supervision? Did she have her parents' permission? If so, maybe they should be prosecuted. If she didn't, that may be why the attorney was so rough on her.

Why aren't you asking why the boys, or her friends, were at the party, and whether they had permission to be there? 

 

[Raider5678]

57 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't expect that that would do any good. It's not just the lawyers who engage in the practice, which has been explained multiple times across the threads we've had on this topic.

 

How many people do you know personally who were raped?

 

 

8 hours ago, Gees said:

1. Thank you. In this forum, when I see a member with over a thousand posts, but a low reputation, it usually means that they can and do think. Thanks for proving me right.

2. I did not read this when Outrider presented it as I was occupied, but it is interesting. I have little doubt that the child was raped. I also doubt that the boys had any idea of the realities and consequences of their actions -- this was a tragedy all the way around. So many lives ruined. She was 14 years old, right at the beginning of the "age of rape" when little girls want to be beautiful, exciting, and glamorous, but have no idea of how to be women yet. The boys were simply ignorant and arrogant, which is what boys often are, before they become men.

3. What was a 14 year old doing, going to a party with "friends" where there was drinking and obviously no adult supervision? Did she have her parents' permission? If so, maybe they should be prosecuted. If she didn't, that may be why the attorney was so rough on her.

2

1.My low upvote count is due to me being a conservative. The other participants(Ten_Oz, Swans, Charyon, Phi, Outrider) are capable of thinking too. They just didn't reach the same conclusion we did.

2. I'd say there was more tragedy on the girls part. Firstly, the boy's used a knife, which is usually a pretty big red flag for the boy's my age. Additionally, I know good and well that raping someone is bad. Period. Granted, this is because it has been ingrained into my head by my "sexist bigoted evil Christian church" that rape is horrible and there is no excuse for men who do it, but I feel like most boy's have the general idea too. Rape = bad. 

3. 14 year's old and drinking is bad, either way. However, poor life choices still don't lead to the right to blame someone for what others did to her. Ultimately, it was a bad situation. Although the risk factor of being raped was definitely higher. 

57 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why aren't you asking why the boys, or her friends, were at the party, and whether they had permission to be there? 

 

Ultimately, because whether her friends had permission to be there or not wasn't part of the equation. 

Whether the boy's had permission to be there or not wasn't part of the equation.

It was why was she there, that is part of the equation. 

Her friends were not the ones on trial. The boy's and she were on trial. 

 

You're immediately taking these questions as an attack on all women or something. Ultimately, it's what any normal person thinks.

What the hell were the parent's doing letting a 14-year-old girl go to a party with alcohol and no adult supervision? It is not her fault she got raped, but she was definitely in a bad situation would you not agree? The boy's raped her and that was terrible. It was entirely their fault.

But she was in a bad situation to begin with, and I'd like to point out her parent's did not do a good job keeping her out of it.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

How many people do you know personally who were raped?

 

If I punched you, I couldn't cite your stupid question as a defense.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

How many people do you know personally who were raped?

How is that relevant to anything under discussion?

33 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

1.My low upvote count is due to me being a conservative.  

That's a convenient excuse, but correlation isn't causality.

 

33 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

3. 14 year's old and drinking is bad, either way. However, poor life choices still don't lead to the right to blame someone for what others did to her. Ultimately, it was a bad situation. Although the risk factor of being raped was definitely higher. 

Ultimately, because whether her friends had permission to be there or not wasn't part of the equation. 

Whether the boy's had permission to be there or not wasn't part of the equation.

It was why was she there, that is part of the equation. 

Why is that part of the equation? 

33 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Her friends were not the ones on trial. The boy's and she were on trial. 

She was not on trial.

33 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You're immediately taking these questions as an attack on all women or something. Ultimately, it's what any normal person thinks.

What the hell were the parent's doing letting a 14-year-old girl go to a party with alcohol and no adult supervision? It is not her fault she got raped, but she was definitely in a bad situation would you not agree? The boy's raped her and that was terrible. It was entirely their fault.

But she was in a bad situation to begin with, and I'd like to point out her parent's did not do a good job keeping her out of it.

If it was not her fault, then why are some of these issues being raised?  Because bringing them up sounds a lot like saying it was her fault.

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, Gees said:

Thank you. In this forum, when I see a member with over a thousand posts, but a low reputation, it usually means that they can and do think. Thanks for proving me right.

"the true test of another person's intelligence is how much he agrees with you"

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

"the true test of another person's intelligence is how much he agrees with you"

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” 
― Oscar Wilde

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

How many people do you know personally who were raped?

The number is not zero, and is far higher than should be tolerated by anyone of any gender or ideology. This question betrays your lack of empathy and understanding on this topic and (as has already been pointed out) is totally irrelevant to the points being made. Our points aren’t magically rendered moot if we don’t personally know women who have been raped (which sadly I do, and likely as do most of us despite being oblivious to it).

Edited December 21, 2017 by iNow

[mistermack]

On the subject of women being dissuaded from pressing charges, I don't think people are fully aware of what happens in real life.

A high proportion of complainants who DO continue with a case, drop out before it gets to court. Often, without telling those who are expending huge sums of public funds on their complaint. The just don't turn up on the day. All of that wasted money could have been spent helping cancer patients, or care of the elderly, or of children. etc. etc. It doesn't just frustrate the police and crown prosecution service. It hurts other people.

Many of the women who do drop out suffer a lot of stress and anguish before they decide to drop out as well. It's in their own interest to be made fully aware of what they will have to go through, and the chances of the accused walking free at the end of it all, and how THAT will make them feel.

So for everyone's sake, it is owed to the accusers to give them a clear and realistic picture of what has to happen, and the chances of a conviction at the end of it all. And the sort of grilling that they will get in court. You can't just let them go on in in blissful ignorance.

But one person will call it responsible informing, another will call it talking them out of it. And women who probably would have dropped out before the court case, might well feel that they've been fobbed off.

It's not a perfect world. It a world of compromises. Unfortunately, it has to be. You try for the best compromise. There's no better option out there.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1. How is that relevant to anything under discussion?

2. That's a convenient excuse, but correlation isn't causality.

 

3. Why is that part of the equation? 

4. She was not on trial.

5. If it was not her fault, then why are some of these issues being raised?  Because bringing them up sounds a lot like saying it was her fault.

1

1. I know 3 personally, and people did a lot talking behind their back. Yet I never heard anyone bring up about how it was actually her fault, nor that they were in blame. They brought up stuff that you talked about, including being in a certain place she shouldn't have. But that never proceeded into your claims of people dismissing the rapist with "she was asking for it."

2. True. More then likely I got a lot of downvotes because I had a lot of bad posts when I was 12. Which looking back at them now I can't see how I thought they'd be right. 

 

3. It's part of the equation because the lawyers are trying to come up with a defense. Whether you think they shouldn't be entitled to a defense or not, ultimately the defense is not going to be pretty. When it come's to rape charges, it's almost always going to come down to the defense trying to prove the accuser is a liar. Because it's almost alway's his word vs her word.

4. She took part in the trial. My bad, she was in court. 

5. I did not say it was her fault. You have to realize just because I don't take your position on the matter and it doesn't exactly line up with yours, does not mean I'm clearly a sexist bigot trying to blame the poor girl for what happened. As soon as someone says something contrary to your position you begin a campaign to paint them as a sexist, a racist, or a bigot of some sort. It's not a discussion if the minute I say something contrary, you drag it back to the same point over and over and over and over and over and repeatedly make me say I'm not blaming her. Everything I say gets's caught in this massive glove of yours and is immediately labeled "Sexist argument blaming the girl." It is hard to discuss anything when everything you say is just brought back to a single point.

 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If I punched you, I couldn't cite your stupid question as a defense.

He is repeatedly going back to the claim that I am victim shaming rape victims.

He acts as though I have absolutely no experience with rape victims, and that I'm a sexist bigot.

I know 3 girls personally who were raped. More if you count it as I only know their name and where they live.

He has labeled me in his mind as a sexist and it pisses me off.

When I found out these girls were raped it hurt just as much as it would everyone else. He has the nerve to suggest I don't care about them, I didn't care about them, and that I dismissed them, and he has a level of arrogance that is ignorant to everyone else's experiences except his own.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's not a perfect world. It a world of compromises. Unfortunately, it has to be. You try for the best compromise. There's no better option out there.

 

That may be true of governments because they have fiscal/public obligations; it doesn't matter who you vote for, you will always get the government. 

If I get over excited and punch you, in the face, because of your stupidity, I have no defense.

If I get over excited and rape you, because of your dress sense, I have a defense.

Where is the compromise?










 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

1.My low upvote count is due to me being a conservative.od job keeping her out of it.

Couldn't let this stand tacitly, sorry it's off-topic. Your low upvote count is due to your being a smart person with limited life experience, a passion for learning, and a tendency to hold assertive stances. The combination is common in people your age. You use the knowledge you have but your reasoning filters are still developing. You make bold statements that often clash with what others know, so it's not difficult to see how that affects reputation. People don't vote you down because you disagree with them (or if they do, that will often be countered with an upvote). More often it's because you're being insistent and not listening past your own concepts. Again, pretty normal for the college-bound person flexing their mental muscles.

 You remind me of Cap'n Refsmmat when he first joined. It's a miracle he survived the early moderators. Very bold, very argumentative, often very wrong. Little bastard was like 12, and now he owns the place. Brilliant scientist. Age really doesn't matter, but the filters you gain with experience are pretty important. 

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

On the subject of women being dissuaded from pressing charges, I don't think people are fully aware of what happens in real life.

A high proportion of complainants who DO continue with a case, drop out before it gets to court. Often, without telling those who are expending huge sums of public funds on their complaint. The just don't turn up on the day. All of that wasted money could have been spent helping cancer patients, or care of the elderly, or of children. etc. etc. It doesn't just frustrate the police and crown prosecution service. It hurts other people.

Many of the women who do drop out suffer a lot of stress and anguish before they decide to drop out as well. It's in their own interest to be made fully aware of what they will have to go through, and the chances of the accused walking free at the end of it all, and how THAT will make them feel.

So for everyone's sake, it is owed to the accusers to give them a clear and realistic picture of what has to happen, and the chances of a conviction at the end of it all. And the sort of grilling that they will get in court. You can't just let them go on in in blissful ignorance.

But one person will call it responsible informing, another will call it talking them out of it. And women who probably would have dropped out before the court case, might well feel that they've been fobbed off.

It's not a perfect world. It a world of compromises. Unfortunately, it has to be. You try for the best compromise. There's no better option out there.

"A high proportion" sounds like "I'm pretty sure this goes on a LOT!" It's also far too subjective for us to take seriously. Also, since the current option is under question in this thread, I would suggest that "There's no better option" is a point that's far from being reached. I would suggest that building confidence in a case is exactly the sort of initiative the courts could improve upon, so there is no hazy line between informing and dissuading. 

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

He is repeatedly going back to the claim that I am victim shaming rape victims.

He acts as though I have absolutely no experience with rape victims, and that I'm a sexist bigot.

I know 3 girls personally who were raped. More if you count it as I only know their name and where they live.

He has labeled me in his mind as a sexist and it pisses me off.

When I found out these girls were raped it hurt just as much as it would everyone else. He has the nerve to suggest I don't care about them, I didn't care about them, and that I dismissed them, and he has a level of arrogance that is ignorant to everyone else's experiences except his own.

1

WTF are you talking about?