The Governments way of protecting Women

[Taffy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/4802420.stm

All looks good to begin with. But when you read into it more, you begin to wonder just how it's going to protect women. I mean, it's hardly like a real rapist is going to be put off doing it again because of some daft woman on a bill-board with no-entry written all over her knickers, is it?

I think its daft the way that the government thinks that advertising is going to stop all criminals from breaking the law. That job should be left to the police, not advertising companies.

And if they are trying to protect the men who fall victims to evil women who consent to sex then go crying rape afterwards, then why do they think this is going to make the blindest bit of difference? Those men still won't be able to prove that the woman consented, and the women aren't going to be put off what they're doing, because they know that their case is a lot stronger than the mans.

It's just a waste of bloody money, and it makes me angry :mad:

[Gopha]

i must agree with this, I personally think that rapists are the worst sort of people . Although ,women can call rape after they have had sex with a guy without a consent form and when they are no longer going out then they use the "rape card" as it were.

Edit: took out malicious comment sorry :o

[Ronin Storm]

Transactional Analysis has stuff to say on this -- that is something TA calls "a game". I've seen that game described as "Cry Rape", but I have found an article which covers this subject from a TA perspective.

http://www.ericberne.com/games/games_people_play_rapo.htm

It is important to note that these games, in TA, are considered aberant or abnormal behaviour, and the basic rule I expound here is "don't play".

As an aside, I suggest some real caution on this topic. Please avoid likening rape or rapists to other subjects or people. This is highly inflammatory subject matter if treated without care and a great deal of respect.

[Haven]

looks interesting but not something I should read at work *saves it for another time*.

[thatbloke]

How many high profile footballers have you heard about in the past year who have been accused of rape??? and how many of those accused were proven guilty??? none that I can remember... which makes me feel that more women are scheming and are golddiggers than the police and government and some people want to believe

[Taffy]

My point exactly!

I hate true rapists, those sick, twisted people who get thrills out of stuff like that *shudders*

But I quite possibly hate the goldiggers even more.

[Tetsuo_Shima]

My point exactly!

I hate true rapists, those sick, twisted people who get thrills out of stuff like that *shudders*

But I quite possibly hate the goldiggers even more.

Its the same with a lot of things really. I believe (without trying to veer this topic off course) that asylum seekers (or at least some of them) also play this kind of game, whereby anything negative brought upon them is automatically classified as racially motivated. Worst thing is, the government actually panders to this kind of thing, neglecting the (geographically) true descendants of the UK in order to gain a more politically favourable image.

Example: Baa Baa Black Sheep being doctored to Baa Baa Wooly/Rainbow Sheep. Which I find, by all accounts, ridiculous.

Anyway, back to females. Yeah, in some strange way, the 'tarts', 'slappers', 'golddiggers' actually use their feminine vulnerability as a weapon, which is grossly unfair. Sad thing is, its really hard to counter gold digging. Where women receive a lot of protection from the government as far as rape is concerned, and they are forever fighting for 'equality', its really hard to be able to turn round and take some of that away from them if the case looks iffy, since the vast majority of women truly do need protection from the government. An obscure case to be sure.

[gringotsgoblin]

the (geographically) true descendants of the UK


Which geographically true descendents of the UK would you be referring to?

The French invaders post 1066?

The Norwegians Vikings from around the same period.

The Celtic tribes, who originated from (possibly) Germany. or any other of three score of races: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Britons

Maybe we should establish a template of people who are 'true geographic descendents'. People with blonde and blue eyes, perhaps?

[Gopha]

lets not get into the aryan race argument

[gringotsgoblin]

lets not get into the aryan race argument

Quite.

[gringotsgoblin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/4802420.stm

And if they are trying to protect the men who fall victims to evil women who consent to sex then go crying rape afterwards, then why do they think this is going to make the blindest bit of difference?

[This post is for Gopha to make sure the thread stays on topic...sorry Gopha :o ]

I think the problem was some women who said "I never said yes!" and the mens' argument was "But she was obviously up for it..!"

The law is going to be changed so that unless the woman *definitely* says yes, you shouldnt have sex with her. The law protects women who get too drunk and do something they would have not done when sober.

The problem is that the law will now imply that drunk women arent responsible for their actions. But the man (who is also probably drunk) will be held responsible for their actions!!

This is a serious issue - as it's very hard to prove/disprove date rape, and undoubtedly some men have got away with committing rape, and some women have had men unjustly convicted of rape. But this wont fix anything.

[Gopha]

Basically there are flaws with the system which will need to be overviewed over the years?

[gringotsgoblin]

Basically there are flaws with the system which will need to be overviewed over the years?

If by 'overviewed' you mean 'scrapped', and by 'over the years' you mean 'straight away', then yes.

[Missy]

Although ,women can call rape after they have had sex with a guy without a consent form and when they are no longer going out then they use the "rape card" as it were.

is it not possible for a man to have sex with a guy and then call rape???? you may not agree with the laws but what if it was your girlfriend, sister, daughter or mother??

[Ronin Storm]

The law protects women who get too drunk and do something they would have not done when sober.

Taking a small aside there... alcohol. Should we really be protecting people who have a substance abuse problem? Sure, we should be protecting other people from them, but protecting them?

I know, I know, it's not something one can really distinguish easily in real life situations, legally speaking, but surely people could choose not to get so hammered that they have no idea what they are doing?

[Haven]

I've read some more of the examples from that book ronin and its pretty disturbing reading ... mainly because it all rings so true and I find it quite sad that we all get drawn into (or know someone who has) such behaviours. Still on that basis of that I may actually buy the book.

[Haven]

Which is the worst case (sit back and evaluate it for yourself):

A woman who cries rape and takes it to court when in-fact it was consensual sex.

A woman who is raped but keeps quiet because she fears being exposed as a fraudster i.e.the woman above.

Personally I believe its better for a woman to come forwards and be proven wrong than to not come forwards at all. The mental damage done to a woman who is too fearful to come forwards to seek help is going to scar her for life so we need to encourage people to come forwards and take what help is available to minimise this.

Obviously the worse case scenario is that a woman who has been raped comes forwards and is falsely shown to be lying about her rape - this is the worst possible scenario and the fear of this is probably one of the reasons many women dont come forwards at all (obviously there will be many other stong motivators such as denial and fear of retribution).

Whereas the woman who is not raped but comes forwards and is shown to be false should not (unless she already has other mental conditions) be overly scarred for life.

Its obviously impossible to show statistics on the number of women who cry rape who are:

a) not raped in the first place
b) raped and proven to be raped
c) raped and proven to not be raped

I would hope that our judicial system is good enough that "a" and "b" accurately reflect the truth and that the percentage of cases where the courts are wrong "c" is hopefully very low.

[Wraith]

Whereas the woman who is not raped but comes forwards and is shown to be false should not (unless she already has other mental conditions) be overly scarred for life.


Just to pick up on this point. You're right that a false accusation of rape won't (or at least shouldn't) affect the accuser, but what about the accused? If it goes to trial, the accused will have spent several months in jail, and had their reputation destroyed. They will not be able to get back the lost time, and even being acquited will not necessarily remove the stain from their reputation as a lot of people believe the phrase "there's no smoke without fire" A prime example of this is Michael Jackson. Twice accused of child molestation and acquited both times, yet I've lost track of the number of times people have said they think he's guilty since then.

Also, with regard to the justice system, I think that a lot of criminals escape punishment, due to incompetence, technicalities and other minor reasons. I saw this first hand when I served on a jury last year. A "balance of probability" scenario (as used in civil cases) was used the jury would have decided that the accused was guilty, but as criminal cases have to be "beyond reasonable doubt", the accused was acquited. This was due to the police not closing off the (very minor) chance that the crime could have been done by someone else. (i.e. a door was left open so someone could have snuck in - yeah right :rolleyes: ) After that, I just don't trust the justice system. It's so concerned that an innocent should not be locked up, that it probably releases a large number of criminals. I'm not saying this is wrong (as it is important not to imprison innocent people), just that I wish there was a better way.

Wraith

[DocBot]

we have the same law in sweden, sort of. I find it alarming, it's almost "guilty until proven innocent" and that's bad. Luckily, so far there hasn't been any court cases where it was only word against word (after the law was implemented, that is). We'll see how this turns out...

[Ronin Storm]

I'm not saying this is wrong (as it is important not to imprison innocent people), just that I wish there was a better way.

I suspect that's exactly how our judicial system came into being in the first place. After all, I'm sure there was a time when "the law" was actually "I'm right, you're wrong, and now I kill you" and any form of peer review has probably got to be better than that.

I think this sort of debate rightfully looks at the edge cases where things are no longer so clear cut, where the chances for mistakes are rife. Innocent people should not be persecuted by the judicial system on suspicion that they might be guilty -- wasn't that where the Inquisition really caused people great fear? However, guilty people should not walk away free to commit more crime, doubly so where that crime is seriously harmful to others.

So we come back to our innocent until proven guilty precept, figuring that it is more harmful to hurt the innocent through judicial persecution than it is to let the occasional criminal walk free who really should be dealt with (through whatever mechanism we, as a society, see fit). Unless we can implement some form of thought policing, scanning a person's mind to see if they are a criminal, I struggle to see another way. Of course, thought policing has its problems too...

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Which geographically true descendents of the UK would you be referring to?

I think its pretty clear who I was insinuating.

[gringotsgoblin]

I think its pretty clear who I was insinuating.

It wasn't entirely clear *which* ethnic minority you were insulting. Perhaps all of them?

Either way my 'aryan race' comment holds true to you.

[Taffy]

Its the same with a lot of things really. I believe (without trying to veer this topic off course) that asylum seekers and 'all of that crowd' (or at least some/most of them) also play this kind of game, whereby anything negative brought upon them is automatically classified as racially motivated. Worst thing is, the government actually panders to this kind of thing, neglecting the (geographically) true descendants of the UK in order to gain a more politically favourable image.

Example: Baa Baa Black Sheep being doctored to Baa Baa Wooly/Rainbow Sheep. Which I find, by all accounts, ridiculous.

And what exactly do asylum seekers have to do with rapists?

I hope your not just using this thread as an excuse to be 'racist'. You need to be careful, some of your comments have a distinct 'Nazi' tint to them.

Just watch what you say, ok?

[Tetsuo_Shima]

And what exactly do asylum seekers have to do with rapists?

I hope your not just using this thread as an excuse to be 'racist'. You wanna be careful mush, some of your comments have a distinct 'Nazi' tint to them.

Just watch what you say, ok?

Jesus H Christ put a sock in it. Every single thing I say, Taffy, you have to find a fault in it. I wasnt entirely off topic, I was explaining that the asylum seeker situation is somewhat similar to the rapist situation in that they (SOME of they) use governmental protection as a tool. That is pretty fucking harsh calling me a Nazi because of a pretty legitimate and backed-up point that I made.

Perhaps all of them?

Not a singular ethnic minority, not all ethnic minorities, but the immigrants who cause trouble. Which happens to be a fair number of them.

[Gopha]

These are all justified statements but maybe its time to close the thread yeh?

[Taffy]

Jesus H Christ put a sock in it. Every single thing I say, Taffy, you have to find a fault in it.

Such as? When did I find a fault in what your saying, unless what you were saying is wrong? I just expressed my opinion that I thought that what you said was completely wrong, entirely off-topic and bloody racist!

And if you meant a few of them, why not say that. Maybe your thinking isn't racist, but the way that you expressed yourself was.

Just meant watch what you say and how you say it.

[gringotsgoblin]

These are all justified statements but maybe its time to close the thread yeh?

I agree time to close this thread. It's just going to degenerate into flaming. :(

[Haven]

Gents; locking the thread deprives those who know how to debate reasonably from doing so. A far fairer solution is to prevent those who are unable or unwilling from being reasonable adults from participating.

Consider this your one and only warning and in-case you have forgotten what this community is about then I refer you to the board terms of service point 3: (http://games.thehavennet.org.uk/faq.php?faq=thn_rules#faq_rules_1)

Throughout this discussion board respect should be the first thing on your mind. Respect your fellow members and respect their thoughts and contributions. You may not agree with their thoughts but you should respect them all the same.

Don't make me take this further and lets continue to have interesting debates in a coherant manner.

[Fi$hy]

Hmm, I'd agree with the idea that all forms of legisture can be used and abused. Yes we all see a murder become a "race crime" and the idea of people being motivated by stupid things like race or sexuality is still here in 2006.

However, it's probably how you put it, but how does racial equality legisture help immigrants? (i.e when being deported, does the cry "it's because I'm black" ring on deaf ears)

or are you going on a differant line and suggesting that immigration is the cause of social trouble (due to "troublemaking elements" or whatever)

If you're going on the second line, I must strongly disagree, I feel no more or no less threatened by an Asian Chav than I do by a European Chav. (sorry for the social stereotype, but for the purpose of argument)

I don't see how race affects how we treat people, nor should it do so.

[Ronin Storm]

I don't see how race affects how we treat people, nor should it do so.

I understand why you write that, but I disagree with the way that point logically extends.

I believe what you mean is that no matter whether I'm black or white or yellow, European or Asian or African, I should be entitled to fair treatment both by judicial systems and by society or local communities at large. That thought I agree with.

However, I do see how race, or gender, or sexuality, or body type, or hair colour or, indeed, any number of attributes necessarily affects how we are treated in any particular circumstance. I don't believe that any of these necessarily predisposes me to being stupid or criminal or malcontent, but I do believe that the differences will continue to provide divisions through simple lack of understanding, and in those divisions we will continue to find hate and fear. Our only defences against this hate and fear are altruism, which I don't believe is sustainable in wider society, and understanding. The latter I wholeheartedly believe we should strive for with all our beings, as from understanding we can, perhaps, arrive at appreciation and close those divisions up just a little more.

If I understand that women, once a month, go through an immense hormonal stress as they menstruate then I can appreciate, at least a little, that they may feel a little tetchy at that "time of the month" and hope to forgive them for it because it's their biology talking, not necessarily their real wishes. If I understand that, for Japanese girls, the cutting of their hair is a symbolic action that signifies that they have grown from a girl into a woman then I'm a step closer to appreciating their culture and way of thought.

So rather than say that race is not an important factor I'd rather say that race is a fundamentally important factor, and that I (we!) should choose to learn about these differences and, through that understanding, close the gaps that breed hatred and fear.

(Sorry Fi$hy if you feel I'm beating on you with this!)

[DocBot]

So rather than say that race is not an important factor I'd rather say that race is a fundamentally important factor, and that I (we!) should choose to learn about these differences and, through that understanding, close the gaps that breed hatred and fear.


Here's an exercise for you: replace "race" with "gender". Does this still apply for you? I'm an equity feminist myself (although I wouldn't call gender a fundamentally important factor), but I'm surrounded by gender feminists (of course, that's what I call them...), and have been in quite a few arguments over the matter.

anyway, back to the point - would you say the same about gender? Or sexuality? Or body type, for that matter?


edit: just realised a bit of clarification might be needed. By "equity feminist" I mean I think we should acknowledge the differences between men and women, and also that gender is not a social construct, but that everyone, regardless of anything (=gender in this case), should have full equality (be it of the legal, social or opportunity kind - or any other i might have forgotten). Whereas a "gender feminist" would be a person that extends the equality argument from a basis of something on the lines of "men and women are completely alike, apart from the obvious physical differences".

I'm tired now. Need to get up early tomorrow to have things stuck down my nose.

[Ronin Storm]

would you say the same about gender? Or sexuality? Or body type, for that matter?

I would same the same about gender. And sexuality. And body type. I wouldn't claim to have even most of these differences figured, but it is most certainly a work in progress. As an aside to that, even as willing to explore the difference as I might wish to be I find it hard, sometimes, to really get past the pieces of pretrained discrimination I appear to have. Do I really treat all people in the light of an opportunity to learn how we differ and close these gaps? No, I have too many trained-in defensive reactions (look for them in yourself and you will probably find them there too). But I'd like to understand. Hard aspiration to meet...

[thatbloke]

thatbird says
just to swing this right round to the begingin.........

my veiw of it is that adverts wont stop rape and thats a fact. no one is that taken bu adverts but the government like to think we are!!

i know girls who "play games" and i know guys who do it to so to be honest its all fair. although ur right that women do get the softer touch because they have boobs which is so unfair because in sex each party is as much involved as the other (joke: does depend what ur doing!!!!) but yes its unfair and its the smae in gay sex so i think there should be the same laws applied to everyone.

i think the worlds problem is that as much as everyone likes to think they are open minded they all have their issues and some our for a clear reason and some our based on a feeling or here'say (i got the in here woohoo).

to be honest i think people whould reealise that the dont have to tell every one their open minded and just be open minded.

ive never met a sole who dosent have a problem with a characteristic in people. BUT UR STILL A PERSON SO LIVE WITH IT!!!

so i try... and when i find it hard i just foget it. yay