Take a look:

Here (http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/06/11/deuces-law/).

Looks like typical feminist raving at first glance. But doesn't it actually make some sense after all, once you read it again without paying so much attention to the tone in which it's framed or the countless legal irregularities. After all, most of the facts or predictions are reasonable. Still, we couldn't really handle things that way, not in our culture. It would be wrong. Nonetheless, those feminists do make at least some sense, don't they? Your thoughts? I'd rather a general discussion of the subject since obviously, the arguments from that site can be put to shreds in a couple of seconds (regardless of the fact they make some sense), so please try to limit the urge to quote parts of that particular text I'm linking.

Chev...........have you been drinking again?

Women, who have much less incentive to use sex as a weapon than men do, are much less likely to violate men’s rights through rape accusations than men are to violate women’s and children’s rights through rape. This is not up for debate, and is thus not sufficient grounds for appeal.

I think this is the only part that I find illogical. I'll admit the vast majority of rapists are men, but how many women use revocation of sex as a threat and the offer of sex as a reward to get what they want?

Of course, I can see two fallouts of this. One, unsigned statements of consent being sold as frequently as condoms (ok, probably more so). Two, since the law cannot be gender biassed, I forsee a lot more men accusing women of rape, especially those who are themselves accused.
Woman- "I didn't want it and you can't prove I did, so it's rape!"
Man- "Well I didn't want it either, and you can't prove I did, so you raped me!"
:lol:

I think this is the only part that I find illogical. I'll admit the vast majority of rapists are men, but how many women use revocation of sex as a threat and the offer of sex as a reward to get what they want?

Technically, that wouldn't be rape since sex withdrawal would be the tool used in obtaining other goods, so that'd be extortion. :p :lol:

Of course, I can see two fallouts of this. One, unsigned statements of consent being sold as frequently as condoms (ok, probably more so). Two, since the law cannot be gender biassed, I forsee a lot more men accusing women of rape, especially those who are themselves accused.
Woman- "I didn't want it and you can't prove I did, so it's rape!"
Man- "Well I didn't want it either, and you can't prove I did, so you raped me!"
:lol:

An obvious effect of a presumption of non-consent would be rape on both sides, yeah. But they could justify it with the fact the man's most typically stronger than the woman.

I used to think such laws would never pass anyway, unless they tried in Sweden. But anyway, regardless of the fact it so falls short of any standards of law, isn't it peculiar how actually right she is is on the facts and likely also on the predictions?

Feminist raving, yes, but they address some valid points. If the estimate of rapists getting away with it in reported cases is anywhere close, then there is an obvious problem.

But I don't think that the proposed legislation will solve anything...

Perhaps the crown proves sexual contact and states the accusation that it was unwelcome, while the burden of proof of consent falls to to the defense. Simple drunkenness would not be enough to convict. Castration, if implemented should have safeguards similar to that associated with the death penalty (that's as far down that path as I am prepared to go). Further, I would like to see fraud or gross deception added as conditions that invalidate consent.

I'm going to go with feminist raving and it makes no sense at all. One of the cornerstones of our culture is "innocent until proven guilty". Another cornerstone is "No cruel and unusual punishment". I am very curious as to how the author feels about the death penalty. Should the penalty for a woman who does falsely accuse a man of rape be that she should be sentenced to live naked in a maximum security "male" prison for as long as she should live?

As a man, I take offense at the implication that I am just a "rapist waiting to happen" that is implied by the tone and attitude of the article. The comments to the posting are even more scary than the posting itself.

While rape is truly a horrible crime, people have to remember that "regret" is not "rape".

I would scratch "typical feminist raving" and replace it with "utter madness raving" instead. I've known some very hard-line feminists, and while I disagree with many of their assumptions they were certainly not crazy. "Section 2" is the only passage in the article that makes sense. Removing the presumption of innocence from ANY crime is utterly ridiculous, regardless of what the crime is. The whole point of a balanced judicial system is that "charged" and "convicted" are not the same thing.

Section 3 is even more ludicrous, especially combined with #1 and the removal of the presumption of innocence. Is the next logical step to castrate every man who's accused of rape? Shall we also adopt Saudi Arabia's laws and cut off thieves' hands and, while we're on the subject of sex, stone adulterous women to death? Utterly ridiculous.

Section 4 would be funny if she wasn't so dead serious. The whole point of that section is to negate sexist views of women, yet it is entirely based on a sexist view of men instead! Of course, her sexist views are an absolute and "not up for debate" just because she says so, and everyone who disagrees with her is a male chauvinistic pig, a rapist and should be castrated on the spot :rolleyes:

Preposterous. Accusations would be flung every which way, and those unable to produce an alibi would have their balls cut off. It's insane.

I find it worse to throw an innocent man in jail (or other, nastier things) than to let a guilty man go free. However, I might approve of a law similar to the one above, but for multiple-conviction offenders only. Here in Sweden, there are reports of new rapes almost every day, with stories of how some people rape, get thrown in jail (or more oftenly, go free) and rape again. For those people, with enough evidence of a psychotic pattern, I am for stripping them of their assets and killing them (to make it financially attractive as well). The same goes for child molesters, but perhaps with a lower threshold for the maximum punishment. And I do not thing my views are morally reprehensible, because in my mind, sexual offenders, especially for those with childen involved, are some of the worst scum walking the earth.

At the same time though, hard evidence must be present for any such punishment to take place, which is probably in most cases impossible to produce. For example, if a female regrets the act afterwards (because the guy bails afterwards), and then decides to take that to the police, then I would almost say that she should be punished (not harshly, but false accusations of this kind are pretty grave as well).

The way I see it, this seems to be some sort of revenge against how women have been treated in the past and how their legal rights have been undermined. She pretty much goes on to admit it herself by saying the following:

I suppose men don’t like to hear someone discuss treating them the way they’ve treated women throughout history.

EDIT: Noticed chev's guideline about quoting the article, sorry. ;)

As to rape in general, it's a serious crime but so is murder and still it's treated with the presumption of innocence. There is no reason to treat rape with different standards in my honest opinion.

I'm going to go with feminist raving and it makes no sense at all. One of the cornerstones of our culture is "innocent until proven guilty".

Yup.

Another cornerstone is "No cruel and unusual punishment".

Yup.

Another thing is that I don't like the implication that rape is merely sex without consent - consent being understood as something akin to consent to a contract. That's wrong since there's more to a crime than objective circumstances - there's always the part about guilt apart from the more physical part of facts. Same way, it's completely absurd that victims should decide if a crime has been committed, as if it were a matter subject to their judgement. Still, obviously, mistaken belief of consent is utterly awful as a fake line of defence, together with most of "she was asking for it" kind of defences.

As a man, I take offense at the implication that I am just a "rapist waiting to happen" that is implied by the tone and attitude of the article. The comments to the posting are even more scary than the posting itself.

Of course. That's why I decided to skip those parts and concentrate on the merits. It's easy to prove that this particular feminist is off-balance, but really, does it make no sense at all what she says?

While rape is truly a horrible crime, people have to remember that "regret" is not "rape".

I think feminists have quite a different definition from the rest of people. Suffice to say their definition is very subjective. "Sexual contact which leaves a bad feeling," seems to be more like it sometimes. Pre-WW2 Polish law knew the crime of "seduction". Some of regret-inducing or emotionally manipulative cases would qualify. I do believe rape can be committed by fraud, not just force, but pulling a guilt trip on a medically sane person is not there.

The way I see it, this seems to be some sort of revenge against how women have been treated in the past and how their legal rights have been undermined. She pretty much goes on to admit it herself
I'm certainly not going to try and defend the sexism women have been subjected to in the past (not to mention the horrifying treatment they still get in parts of the world), but turning this into "you've mistreated us, now's your turn" is utterly ridiculous. This idiocy is precisely the reason many people still refuse to take feminism seriously. Unfortunately it can be hard to remember that many, many feminists are more concerned with finding actual solutions than with spewing venom ("loud minority" syndrome strikes again).

Another thing is that I don't like the implication that rape is merely sex without consent - consent being understood as something akin to consent to a contract. That's wrong since there's more to a crime than objective circumstances - there's always the part about guilt apart from the more physical part of facts.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Isn't the guilt of a criminal a direct consequence of his acts? Or did I completely miss what you meant by "guilt"?

Same way, it's completely absurd that victims should decide if a crime has been committed, as if it were a matter subject to their judgement. Still, obviously, mistaken belief of consent is utterly awful as a fake line of defence, together with most of "she was asking for it" kind of defences.
I don't think either should have a place in a trial. It's certainly not up to the accused to decide if a crime has been committed, but by the same token it should not be up to the victim either. The whole point of having a third party (and a fourth one, in systems where the jury and the judge each have their own role) is for someone completely neutral to judge if there's been a crime, based on the facts. I also don't like certain implications if the victim gets to decide about the criminality of the matter. Take a (sadly not uncommon) case of a drunk man forcefully having sex with a sober woman against her will, with her actively trying to prevent the act. In my opinion this would qualify as rape. Now take another case, where both the man and the woman are drunk, and the woman does not object to the sex. Later they sober up and she decides she didn't want the sex - does that qualify as rape? What if he decides he didn't want the sex?

I think feminists have quite a different definition from the rest of people. Suffice to say their definition is very subjective. "Sexual contact which leaves a bad feeling," seems to be more like it sometimes.
I don't know many feminists that would define it as such. At least the ones who I've had this conversation with tend to a less ambiguous definition - they all stressed that they would consider it rape only if it was forced on them. Now all of them specified that the forcefulness did not necessarily have to be physical, and in the case of more "mental" dominance can be a bit tricky (is an abusive husband also a rapist?). However, my understanding is that the force/dominance factor has to be there at the time, so "bad feeling afterwards" does not automatically qualify (the bad feeling is therefore immaterial, legally speaking, because if it stems from the use of force then the situation can be considered as rape anyway).

(is an abusive husband also a rapist?)

Probably, but you'd not likely get a conviction. I wouldn't shed any tears if the guy did get his balls chopped off. I remember that John Bobbit's penis was the subject of a lot of rude jokes in the mid 1990's...

This is one of those lovely issues where there are no good answers. It will always end up as word against word unless there are injuries or witnesses to show in court. The entire discussion about an accusation being enough for conviction is bizarre but it is seriously being held in many countries amongst them Sweden. People are, quite rightly, very upset when accused sexual offenders are let go or when the court wants to ask the victim questions but we try to live according to the rule of law and if you do an accusation can never be enough for a conviction.

One thing that I think we as a society should do to deal with these sexual crimes is to undramatize them. A rape is basically an assault with the addition that our societies sees it as something truly horrible and stigmatizing even for the victim. The rape itself isnt that "bad" as evident that most victims prefer the rape over for example blows. The real violation arrives because we as a society charges this kind of assault with an extreme tension and making the victim more or less ashamed of being a victim. Who would be ashamed if someone beats the crap out of you? While you are ashamed if you get raped and then you receive extreme amounts of pity and are pretty much expected to be completely devastated and your life being ruined because of this crime. If we can remove that tension around the entire crime it would be so much easier to deal with while both removing some of the incentive for the rapists (because this tension and charge around this very specific crime is one of the big motives I am sure) and lessening the trauma on the victim.

I am fully aware that people will be able to misunderstand this in so many ways but praise internet anonymity.

This reminds me of a woman I saw back in the 80s on a talk show -- she said "All men are potential rapists." Which in it's face is true, I suppose, but by that same logic you could say "all humans are potential murderers", as they all have the physical capability to kill another human being.

Feminists love the idea of castration. It symbolizes for them a quick reversal of roles -- women have been made powerless for years, in one swift stroke a man is rendered powerless!

I would argue that she's just making noise to get attention. Rape is a reprehensible crime but altering the presumption of innocence is just complete and utter horse puckey. Of course, the feelings that surround sex and sexuality are extremely complicated, more than any legal system, and that being the case a topic like this is going to get people on edge.

I want to know how you stumbled across this psychotic woman's ravings.

One point I'd like to make though is that this sort of stuff is extremely radical feminism, and does not represent femnisim as a whole. Most feminist I know just seek to achieve equal status for women in society by getting them equal wages and representation in society. They'd never support this kind of bs.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Isn't the guilt of a criminal a direct consequence of his acts? Or did I completely miss what you meant by "guilt"?

It's difficult to be precise on that one since "act" already conveys some choice. "Facts" may as well describe the criminal's internal circumstances. Anyway, "guilty" is someone who can reasonably be charged with what he did. A madman or a child cannot incur guilt because he can't control his actions to such an extent. Same way someone who is in error cannot commit a crime unless the crime is able to be committed by negligence. So a man who actually really believes the woman is consenting and he has a good reason to believe so, does not commit rape even if the fictim feels raped afterwards. This is a little lacking, I believe. In a traditional legal view, she would not be a victim of rape because there would be no crime since the man wouldn't be guilty. I believe that goes too far. I believe such a woman should be considered a victim of rape in every aspect, regardless of the fact that the man would not commit a crime and would not be guilty.

My point of contention is that if the error is justifiable - and it very rarely is, let's face it - then there's no rape. For example if you're being accosted by your twin's partner and you don't know what's going on but you play along without asking questions. While the victim may feel raped (or even be so), you don't commit a crime. However, most instances of "mistaken belief or consent" are just instances of men being unable to accept a no.

I don't think either should have a place in a trial. It's certainly not up to the accused to decide if a crime has been committed, but by the same token it should not be up to the victim either. The whole point of having a third party (and a fourth one, in systems where the jury and the judge each have their own role) is for someone completely neutral to judge if there's been a crime, based on the facts.

Yeah.

I also don't like certain implications if the victim gets to decide about the criminality of the matter.

Yeah, that's totally unfathomable to me as well. The victim is a witness or a prosecutor only, but never a judge.

Take a (sadly not uncommon) case of a drunk man forcefully having sex with a sober woman against her will, with her actively trying to prevent the act. In my opinion this would qualify as rape. Now take another case, where both the man and the woman are drunk, and the woman does not object to the sex. Later they sober up and she decides she didn't want the sex - does that qualify as rape? What if he decides he didn't want the sex?

Many people, including probably (sadly) lawyers, would believe that his drunkenness would be no excuse (as is the case with drunken drivers causing accidents), while her drunkenness would be a factor preventing consent. So he would be taking advantage of her drunkenness - while drunk himself. That would obviously be blatantly unjust.

By contrast, he would of course be able to accuse her of rape by taking advantage of his drunkenness, her own drunkenness then not being a mitigating factor for her, either. That would be totally untraditional and yet in a consequently traditional view such an accusation would at least have to be examined. In the end, a reasonable judge would conclude that both parties were in the same situation in which they induced themselves and thus no charge should be enforced. But surely you could find a judge who would sentence the guy.

I don't know many feminists that would define it as such. At least the ones who I've had this conversation with tend to a less ambiguous definition - they all stressed that they would consider it rape only if it was forced on them.

Sure, but what did they mean by "forcing"? Would emotional manipulation and guilt trips be included? In fact, I wouldn't mind, really, except it would have to be clearly defined in the criminal law for clarity reasons and for fairness, and the same high standards of proof should be upheld so that no one can push through a bogus charge of rape by guilt trip. Of course, taking advantage of someone's depression or some other medical unit, by means of a fraudulent emotional game, is rape in my opinion - unless it falls under the lighter charge of "coercion".

Now all of them specified that the forcefulness did not necessarily have to be physical, and in the case of more "mental" dominance can be a bit tricky (is an abusive husband also a rapist?).

Depends. If he uses threats of violence or deprivation of material means for her or the children, or some other such extortion, then it is already rape under most reasonable current laws.

But if he plays moods, it gets trickier. Generally if she's clinically depressed or if it's clear he's playing her for purely sexual gains, knowing that he's using unethical means with great impact (say he's bragging to his friends or family members about it, so that's how you know), then I would say that could be rape as well.

However, my understanding is that the force/dominance factor has to be there at the time, so "bad feeling afterwards" does not automatically qualify (the bad feeling is therefore immaterial, legally speaking, because if it stems from the use of force then the situation can be considered as rape anyway).

Yeah, if they change mind afterward, that's bogus. Obviously, if they discover something they justifiably didn't know before, it can be different - but this only if it's fraud on the man's part. Say he tells her he loves her and he begs her to show him how she loves him. Then he talks trash of her to his buddies or even just to her. As far as I remember, one of the female lawyers of the previous generation at my university won such a case against a man.

This is one of those lovely issues where there are no good answers. It will always end up as word against word unless there are injuries or witnesses to show in court. The entire discussion about an accusation being enough for conviction is bizarre but it is seriously being held in many countries amongst them Sweden. People are, quite rightly, very upset when accused sexual offenders are let go or when the court wants to ask the victim questions but we try to live according to the rule of law and if you do an accusation can never be enough for a conviction.

Exactly. One other thing that upsets me is when the means of defence are being legally limited. Sure, not all questions are relevant, but sometimes previous behaviour of the victim does matter. Say the victim is a witness and he or she has a false witness conviction. Shouldn't that matter when it comes to credibility and the witness statement of the victim is the only evidence?

One thing that I think we as a society should do to deal with these sexual crimes is to undramatize them. A rape is basically an assault with the addition that our societies sees it as something truly horrible and stigmatizing even for the victim. The rape itself isnt that "bad" as evident that most victims prefer the rape over for example blows. The real violation arrives because we as a society charges this kind of assault with an extreme tension and making the victim more or less ashamed of being a victim. Who would be ashamed if someone beats the crap out of you? While you are ashamed if you get raped and then you receive extreme amounts of pity and are pretty much expected to be completely devastated and your life being ruined because of this crime. If we can remove that tension around the entire crime it would be so much easier to deal with while both removing some of the incentive for the rapists (because this tension and charge around this very specific crime is one of the big motives I am sure) and lessening the trauma on the victim.

I doubt that could help punish the offenders, though. In fact, isn't there a trend amongst the progressives to reduce the punishment for rape on those precise grounds? Then one suddenly gets more years in prison for taking away a purse or landing a punch than for raping the victim.This reminds me of a woman I saw back in the 80s on a talk show -- she said "All men are potential rapists." Which in it's face is true, I suppose, but by that same logic you could say "all humans are potential murderers", as they all have the physical capability to kill another human being.

[quote]Feminists love the idea of castration. It symbolizes for them a quick reversal of roles -- women have been made powerless for years, in one swift stroke a man is rendered powerless!

I'm hardly a feminist and yet I see it as somehow fitting. Although I don't know how I'd feel about it if I were a judge and had to deliver such a verdict.

I would argue that she's just making noise to get attention.

Possible. I never took a blog post for a serious law draft. ;) I doubt even she did. It was just a blog, after all. But it's so representative, after all. And, truly, doesn't she make some sense, in some way?

I want to know how you stumbled across this psychotic woman's ravings.

Got the link from someone else. ;) You thought Google? I'm not that mad. ;)

In truly blatant cases (such as a fellow jumps out of the bushes at a complete stranger of a woman, drags her into the bushes, and rapes (or even tries to rape) her), then I'm in favor of some form of castration, though the civilized side of me would want it done medically or chemically. It's the gung ho approach that this woman takes, not to mention her "if you don't agree with me, it's because you advocate rape!" attitude, that makes me totally lose respect for anything she or her fellow militants have to say. She argues from a shrill, vitriolic, anger based perspective that is difficult to take seriously despite efforts to do so.

This is actually funny in a sick way. now please here me out before roasting me alive. I've made no secrets of the fact that my tastes are a bit.........twisted. Well like calls to like. Being a Sadistic Dominant, i attract Masochistic submissives & the #1 act (or roleplay if thats easier to understand) is the forceable rape/taken against their will scenario. This is requested by more than 9 out of 10 subs according to every Dom i have ever talked too.
Now, please realise that every responsible Dom/Sub(s) group sets up a contract that clearly defines what is & isn't allowed during the scene & ALWAYS includes a safe word(usualy a different safe word for each participant) however these are NEVER, EVER any form of "no" or "stop or "quit" as these are part of the act. It is always something benign like "lemon" or "yellow" or "pudding".
It's just strangely perverse that the worst offense against a woman is also the secret fantasy of so many. Not trying to say that it is of them all by any means.

My point of contention is that if the error is justifiable - and it very rarely is, let's face it - then there's no rape. For example if you're being accosted by your twin's partner and you don't know what's going on but you play along without asking questions. While the victim may feel raped (or even be so), you don't commit a crime.
That's a tricky one. For one thing if I was in such a case my first instinct would be to say I'm the twin. If she still pushes for sex then there can be no guilt/crime/rape because she knows who I am and still wants the sex (I'll leave the moral implications aside for the sake of the argument). If I'm in a state where I've drunk myself into a stupor, I would go back to your statement: she may feel raped but she requested the sex and my only crime was to play along. As a side question, I know being drunk is usually not a legal excuse (and it shouldn't be) but in this particular case (where the drunkenness simply makes me more passive) would I be guilty? (again moral and family-values considerations aside)

Many people, including probably (sadly) lawyers, would believe that his drunkenness would be no excuse (as is the case with drunken drivers causing accidents), while her drunkenness would be a factor preventing consent. So he would be taking advantage of her drunkenness - while drunk himself. That would obviously be blatantly unjust.
It doesn't make sense to me. Why is her drunnkenness an excuse and his isn't? For that matter, if both were so drunk (and are therefore unlikely to have a crystal clear recollection of what led up to the sex anyway) who's to say she didn't acutally propose, or at least overtly encourage him? Keep in mind that in my theoretical case I specifically said that, at the time of the sex, they were both consenting. Obviously if she was trying to push him away and he forced it, then whether she was drunk or not (or to be honest whether he was or wasn't) is immaterial and it would be rape in any case.

By contrast, he would of course be able to accuse her of rape by taking advantage of his drunkenness, her own drunkenness then not being a mitigating factor for her, either.
OK that makes even less sense. So whoever makes the accusation first has a higher chance of winning? I'm sensing a disturbing morale out of the story: if you have sex while drunk, with someone who's drunk, make sure you accuse them of rape as soon as possible, just to be on the safe side.

Sure, but what did they mean by "forcing"? Would emotional manipulation and guilt trips be included? In fact, I wouldn't mind, really, except it would have to be clearly defined in the criminal law for clarity reasons and for fairness, and the same high standards of proof should be upheld so that no one can push through a bogus charge of rape by guilt trip. Of course, taking advantage of someone's depression or some other medical unit, by means of a fraudulent emotional game, is rape in my opinion - unless it falls under the lighter charge of "coercion".
She didn't define it in a legal term at the time (that's what we have you lot for ;) ) but she did include heavy emotional manipulation. By heavy she meant serious emotional games such as taking advantage of someone's depression, threats targeted at her when the man knows she is emotionally fragile (she mentioned threats against the woman's young children. I assumed she meant if they are from a previous marriage). Obviously things like "If you don't have sex with me I will cry" don't quite fit the bill and she dismissed casual (well, she called them "lame") excuses. However I do agree with you that the actual type of manipulation would need to be very clearly defined in legal terms to prevent abuse, both of bogus charges as well as bogus defences.

Yeah, if they change mind afterward, that's bogus. Obviously, if they discover something they justifiably didn't know before, it can be different - but this only if it's fraud on the man's part. Say he tells her he loves her and he begs her to show him how she loves him. Then he talks trash of her to his buddies or even just to her. As far as I remember, one of the female lawyers of the previous generation at my university won such a case against a man.
I would agree that this man's actions were vile, but I would still not call it rape. Does lying in order to have sex automatically qualify as rape? Say I lie to a woman and tell her I'm filthy rich, which causes her to have sex with me. If she later finds out I'm not rich, does this make me a rapist? A liar, a cheat, a horrible man, yes, but rape seems far too harsh.

Exactly. One other thing that upsets me is when the means of defence are being legally limited. Sure, not all questions are relevant, but sometimes previous behaviour of the victim does matter. Say the victim is a witness and he or she has a false witness conviction. Shouldn't that matter when it comes to credibility and the witness statement of the victim is the only evidence?
It should matter even more if the false witness conviction was in another case connected with rape accusations (double points if she was the "victim" there as well). Though I'm also wary of automatically discrediting the victim-witness because of such cases, because she may be actually telling the truth the second time around.

I'm hardly a feminist and yet I see it as somehow fitting. Although I don't know how I'd feel about it if I were a judge and had to deliver such a verdict.
I don't see it as fitting at all. "He's done something horrible so let's do something even more horrible in the name of justice" feels to me like the worst subversion of a judicial system that you could possibly have. This was the concept of crime and punishment 5000 years ago. I would like to believe we've become more civilised since then.

And, truly, doesn't she make some sense, in some way?
Truly, no. As I said before, section 2 is the only one that even comes close to making sense (and even that one she ruined simply because she's sexist - great way to promote anti-sexism :rolleyes:). The rest would be laughable if rape wasn't such a serious matter.

That's a tricky one. For one thing if I was in such a case my first instinct would be to say I'm the twin. If she still pushes for sex then there can be no guilt/crime/rape because she knows who I am and still wants the sex (I'll leave the moral implications aside for the sake of the argument). If I'm in a state where I've drunk myself into a stupor, I would go back to your statement: she may feel raped but she requested the sex and my only crime was to play along. As a side question, I know being drunk is usually not a legal excuse (and it shouldn't be) but in this particular case (where the drunkenness simply makes me more passive) would I be guilty? (again moral and family-values considerations aside)

If you knew you were being mistaken for your twin, you could probably earn a criminal charge that way - certainly a civil tort. My example was a situation when the supposed victim made the mistake but the supposed offender didn't know a mistake was being made, so he could in no way be taking advantage of it. In my example you don't know the person knows your twin. You just know the person is hitting on you, as unlikely as it is that e.g. the name won't pop up. Just academically here - normally in practical life such mistakes won't happen.

It doesn't make sense to me. Why is her drunnkenness an excuse and his isn't?

Because he's the offender tried under a criminal charge. If you're drunk, it doesn't count as an excuse but rather as an aggravating factor. In her case, the drunkenness amounted to having low barriers. So in a way, he, while also drunk himself, was taking advantage of her drunkenness. Obviously, this only makes sense from a legal perspective and one which is somewhat prosecutorial. A public prosecutor could actually see it like this.

Now, if he accused her of taking advantage of him, it would be reversed. He could claim he wasn't consenting because he was unable to, while her being drunk wouldn't excuse a criminal action consisting in taking advantage of a drunken person.

For that matter, if both were so drunk (and are therefore unlikely to have a crystal clear recollection of what led up to the sex anyway) who's to say she didn't acutally propose, or at least overtly encourage him? Keep in mind that in my theoretical case I specifically said that, at the time of the sex, they were both consenting.

Of course they were. However, some lawyers and some feminists experiment with valid consent, as in contracts, rather than factual consent. I think that's rubbish, if you know my opinion. They're simply mixing a contract-law-based definition of consent into criminal law, which is a different regime.

This particular example is tricky because 1) drunkenness is not an excuse in crime (ignorant first timers excepted), 2) drunkenness removes the ability to consent to acts which are criminal if non-consensual. So two drunken people doing something basically means they can't theoretically consent. So taking our absurd example even further, you could actually jail both of the drunken people just so long as they were both somewhat active.

OK that makes even less sense. So whoever makes the accusation first has a higher chance of winning?

Not exactly. Whoever pushes the charge wins. They could actually charge each other and each win. At least so long as they could find a dumb enough judge. In real life, either the man would get a sentence or none of them, but not both. However, my academic dissections show that if one were to be consequent in that reasoning which relies on the assessment of drunkennes as both removing the ability to consent AND also at the same time not being an excuse, then both would have to be sentenced.

I'm sensing a disturbing morale out of the story: if you have sex while drunk, with someone who's drunk, make sure you accuse them of rape as soon as possible, just to be on the safe side.

A man could actually do that, although I can't realistically expect him to succeed. It would have to be a very extreme case.

She didn't define it in a legal term at the time (that's what we have you lot for ;) ) but she did include heavy emotional manipulation. By heavy she meant serious emotional games such as taking advantage of someone's depression, threats targeted at her when the man knows she is emotionally fragile (she mentioned threats against the woman's young children. I assumed she meant if they are from a previous marriage). Obviously things like "If you don't have sex with me I will cry" don't quite fit the bill and she dismissed casual (well, she called them "lame") excuses. However I do agree with you that the actual type of manipulation would need to be very clearly defined in legal terms to prevent abuse, both of bogus charges as well as bogus defences.

Generally it'd have to be some malicious manipulation which actually breaks someone's will or makes use of a situation in which a person can't defend himself. Depression is one thing, a bad day with a lot of self-pity and temporarily lowered standards is another.

I would agree that this man's actions were vile, but I would still not call it rape. Does lying in order to have sex automatically qualify as rape? Say I lie to a woman and tell her I'm filthy rich, which causes her to have sex with me. If she later finds out I'm not rich, does this make me a rapist? A liar, a cheat, a horrible man, yes, but rape seems far too harsh.

That's hard to say. Your example is like having sex with a prostitute and refusing to pay afterward. It does mean you cheated someone into sex, but it hardly "feels" to be rape. If it were something more relationship-related and less shallow, then maybe.

It should matter even more if the false witness conviction was in another case connected with rape accusations (double points if she was the "victim" there as well). Though I'm also wary of automatically discrediting the victim-witness because of such cases, because she may be actually telling the truth the second time around.

Yeah. Any witness should be heard and considered, but one also has to evaluate the credibility.

I don't see it as fitting at all. "He's done something horrible so let's do something even more horrible in the name of justice" feels to me like the worst subversion of a judicial system that you could possibly have. This was the concept of crime and punishment 5000 years ago. I would like to believe we've become more civilised since then.

Yeah, but do you know how many women go through it and the assailants go unpunished? Just in the US, 20% women have faced an attempt and 25% a successful attempt. That means one in four. It's a vile crime and one particularly low and selfish. I wouldn't cry into my beer if they one day decided to punish it a bit more physically, although I wouldn't most probably introduce that kind of punishement if it were up to me.

Truly, no. As I said before, section 2 is the only one that even comes close to making sense (and even that one she ruined simply because she's sexist - great way to promote anti-sexism :rolleyes:). The rest would be laughable if rape wasn't such a serious matter.

It just strikes me as somewhat truthful that in reality, mostly abusive men would be targeted by a presumption of non-consent - regardless of the fact it would fall so close to presumption of guilt that we wouldn't be able to accept it because we presume innocence, not guilt. Otherwise she's actually pretty right.

With a Canadian reference, I have problems with feminist visions of criminal law.

Feminist criminal law theorists have for decades strove to make inroads that make it more difficult for men to assert defences against criminal charges. Men can't cross examine on this ground, they shouldn't be able to assert this substantive defence, and so on. A favourite target is the requirement of proving mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, men shouldn't get off because they claimed an honest belief in consent and so on because it doesn't alter the fact that the victim suffered trauma stemming from the sexual assault. Primacy should attach to the harm suffered and not what he says his perception was.

And yet, feminist criminal theorists LOVE the proof of mens rea requirement when it comes to women getting charged for doing things to men. (e.g. battered wife syndrome defense) When a woman kills a man or otherwise causes pretty severe harm to him (and it does happen), all of a sudden victim harm is to be relegated to irrelevance, and the accused's perception becomes of prime importance.

The whole thing comes across as the feminist theorists wanting to have their cake and eat it too, and perfectly willing to play games with general criminal law principles in self-serving fashion. Other male criminal law experts besides me have picked up on this. If you want to emphasize crime control or due process, then either model has to avail its benefits to everyone or not at all. Its hard for me to accept that general principles should be sacrificed to create double standards along a gender line. But then that gets back to an earlier thread I had started. Some strands of feminism and some feminists are not at all about gender equality but worsening the lot of men for the sake of female empowerment. Or at least my perusals of feminism and some confrontations I've had in my law school have convinced me of that.

Maybe I have the makings of an article here. ;)

I think the deeper root here is that a lot of extremists are disturbingly willing to forgo logic completely and play double standards, make up blatant lies, and cheat in order to make their side look better. This is one example of this occuring in an extremist group (extreme feminism). You can also see it in extreme liberals and conservatives, extreme vegans, anything. If you try to confront these people with a logical defeat of their illogical arguement, they generally retreat further into illogic, in my experience.

Not exactly. Whoever pushes the charge wins. They could actually charge each other and each win. At least so long as they could find a dumb enough judge. In real life, either the man would get a sentence or none of them, but not both. However, my academic dissections show that if one were to be consequent in that reasoning which relies on the assessment of drunkennes as both removing the ability to consent AND also at the same time not being an excuse, then both would have to be sentenced.
That's what I'm having trouble digesting. I'll ignore the absurdity of the dumb judge situation (in which they both win - I'm assuming it would make some kind of sense from a purely legal perspective, but for an outsider the outcome is downright bizzarre) but the "real life" outcome seems in and of itself sexist since it would show that, if the man and the woman are on an equal footing as far as facts and the "guilt" (as you outlined it earlier) are concerned, then the woman wins just by being a woman. As for both being sentenced, I find this as absurd as the first case (both winning). If it turns out that they were both equally drunk and equally consenting within their drunkenness (if you see what I mean) then shoudn't there be no guilt involved anyway? It seems as if it should be a "no one wins and no one loses" situation in which they should both realise they've been equally stupid and just live with it (and be a bit more careful about getting outrageously drunk next time)

(Just to make it clear my example above, as well as my previous posts, relies entirely on the assumption that there was no force, physical or otherwise, involved. I am not trying to find excuses for rape, and I don't want to be perceived as such.)

Generally it'd have to be some malicious manipulation which actually breaks someone's will or makes use of a situation in which a person can't defend himself. Depression is one thing, a bad day with a lot of self-pity and temporarily lowered standards is another.
I agree, and "bad day" is exactly what she meant by "lame excuses". Clinical depression is quite obviously another case entirely. I suppose it would be a bit trickier for situations that fall in-between, but if the law was specific enough about it that would make it easier to judge the blurred line cases.

That's hard to say. Your example is like having sex with a prostitute and refusing to pay afterward. It does mean you cheated someone into sex, but it hardly "feels" to be rape. If it were something more relationship-related and less shallow, then maybe.
I picked a shallow example on purpose to highlight the point that cheating someone into sex is not the same thing is rape. I can't think off the top of my head about a more relationship-related factor that would be bad enough to consider as rape.

Primacy should attach to the harm suffered and not what he says his perception was.
I've no problem with this being implemented in law on a broad level, except that...
And yet, feminist criminal theorists LOVE the proof of mens rea requirement when it comes to women getting charged for doing things to men
... if we're going to have this kind of legality, then we must have it at all levels. This is the kind of hypocrisy that I find very irritating (and very dangerous). I'm all for feminism as a means for women to have equal rights to men. This is how things should have been all along, and definitely how they should be from now on. And while I'm no great fan of the "women are superior to men" brand of feminism, it doesn't strike me as bad as giving women more rights than men in the name of equal rights.

I also agree with the point NOG has made.

I dont think feminists like her do much good for their cause.

I think women are still oppressed, and there is still work to be done, and rape is a disgusting and unforgiveable crime.

But I dont think castration is ever going to be the answer, I think that shows its about punishment, revenge and control for her. She wants men to feel dominated and intimidated by taking away their sexuality, destroying them in the process. I agree that rape is incredibly destructive to women, but I just dont think that merits castration.

I dont see her campaigning for laws to protect women in the middle east? Surely there is far more rampant abuse of women and children there?

Some of her points are valid, but I think the castration point goes too far. It stops being about justice and protection for women and becomes tit for tat.

A question I thought of a while ago, a difficult thing to answer I think.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario. You have a young son, 20 years old. He is about to commit a crime. Nothing on earth can prevent him from committing this crime. The only thing you can do, is decide which crime. Either, he murders an innocent person in cold blood, no provocation. Or, he rapes a young lady.

Which of the two crimes would you find easier to forgive?

That's a rather bizarre hypothetical, proteus, so bizarre that I'm gonna leave it for others to deal with, or perhaps I'll come back to it later.

I have no problem with castration in and of itself -- I believe that some sex offenders willingly undergo a chemical form of the process wherein they report on a regular basis for shots that eliminate their ability to get an erection.

The problem I have with this feminist's raving is that what it boils down to is a "the woman is always right and the man is always wrong, and if you don't agree with that, the logical conclusion is that you are a rapist who hates women." What kind of frigging logic is that? Her version of rape is similar to my perception of how some feminists view abuse, which seems to be "anytime a woman is unhappy, it is a man's fault and he is abusive, and should be treated as if he had violently raped her, because we all know that's what he wants to do anyway."

It's logic like that that makes me have no respect for modern feminists in general.

It's "feminists" like her that give a bad name to feminism.

They live with ideologies as harsh as you can get. A faschist is a faschist and a fanatic a fanatic no matter how they tyr and justify their ideologies. Hers is an ideology of oppression and is questionable as any other such ideology. To call it feminism and her a feminist is incorrect...what would be more describing for such a person who apparently lacks empathy? Ah, yes...a psycopath. Or a sociopath. Hers is a justice and a law of a sociopath...No different from that of a person who follows honor codes of organized crime...

With a Canadian reference, I have problems with feminist visions of criminal law.

Feminist criminal law theorists have for decades strove to make inroads that make it more difficult for men to assert defences against criminal charges. Men can't cross examine on this ground, they shouldn't be able to assert this substantive defence, and so on. A favourite target is the requirement of proving mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, men shouldn't get off because they claimed an honest belief in consent and so on because it doesn't alter the fact that the victim suffered trauma stemming from the sexual assault. Primacy should attach to the harm suffered and not what he says his perception was.

That's a breach in the normal vision of criminal law, yeah. In Polish doctrine, a crime takes:

- a prohibited act,
- guilt
- harm

#1 is one of the criminalised acts
#2 is accountability - meaning the person knew the meaning of his actions and could direct them
#3 is at least a minimal degree of "social harmfulness" (this blocks absurdly formalistic charges)

Easily, an honest mistake, if it is justifiable, removes #2.

I think the criminal trial should stay within the confines of an honest attempt to find out (not decide, but find out) how things happened and then decide what to do about it. Facts are not a matter of consent, as the past is not subject to agreement. Parties can agree what sort of retribution will be fitting, but they cannot agree on facts in any sense which would affect the facts themselves.

And yet, feminist criminal theorists LOVE the proof of mens rea requirement when it comes to women getting charged for doing things to men. (e.g. battered wife syndrome defense) When a woman kills a man or otherwise causes pretty severe harm to him (and it does happen), all of a sudden victim harm is to be relegated to irrelevance, and the accused's perception becomes of prime importance.

That is absurd as well, although less absurd than the previous case. While it is altogether unfathomable that the court should share the (putative) victim's view without examining the merits of it, it is actually not so absurd to put a great weight on the (supposed) offender's perception. The offender's perception - at the moment of the crime, tempore criminis, shapes to an extent the circumstances of his consent. This must affect the level of his guilt.

The whole thing comes across as the feminist theorists wanting to have their cake and eat it too, and perfectly willing to play games with general criminal law principles in self-serving fashion. Other male criminal law experts besides me have picked up on this. If you want to emphasize crime control or due process, then either model has to avail its benefits to everyone or not at all. Its hard for me to accept that general principles should be sacrificed to create double standards along a gender line. But then that gets back to an earlier thread I had started. Some strands of feminism and some feminists are not at all about gender equality but worsening the lot of men for the sake of female empowerment. Or at least my perusals of feminism and some confrontations I've had in my law school have convinced me of that.

Well, double standards are present in many socially charged areas of the law or types of situations. What ticks me off the most, however, is subjecting facts to parties' will as if it could shape them. Obviously, facts have happened and cannot be changed at a later point.

Maybe I have the makings of an article here. ;)

Let me know so I can cite you. :p

I read the article and tbh I find many of the ideas wrong. Sure, it's troubling that few rapists are convicted. It's even more troubling few rapes are reported - it's probably one of the few crimes where it's considered immoral to be a victim. Yet is the cure better than the disease?

As the author herself says, the best idea would be to change people's perceptions. Sure, it is, and it is unrealistic. But what are we given as the best workable solution?

- The presumption of innocense is not attached to sex crimes. It works for murder, hate crimes (other than hate crimes with a sexual element), assault, etc - but not for anything vaguely classified as rape. So, for example, I would be innocent until proven guilty if I kidnapped my girlfriend, put her in a cellar and beat her to death over the next few days - but not if, the day after a date, she has second thoughts. Right. And just how, by Kopyrka's everflowing fins, do I prove my innocense? Because apparently "She seemed to consent at the time, and I simply didn't know she was having thought of her previous break-up which she didn't actually say" doesn't seem to work. Plus, there is also the trickier matter: is rape more devious and more vile than murder or any other crime, that we need such extreme measures as gutting a fundament of all civilized law? Somehow, the "yeah, there may be some innocent victims but less than the criminals unpunished now" doesn't sound all that reassuring.

- Section two - "broadly defined" is right. "intentionally taking advantage of a person’s physical or emotional vulnerabilities for sexual purposes" is fine, but emotional vulnerabilities are quite vague - and when you mix this vagueness with harsher punishment, such as these later in the article, you can get too far. In itself, however, this paragraph is okay-ish - if only there was a more stringent definition of "high-pressure tactics, emotional ... manipulation."

- section three: In general, I can live with castration as part of the punishment for rape, especially in severe cases (as in, not the "morning after OMG" rape). However, building special prison facilities for that, AND having the victim's perception of danger count as an immense aggravating measure seems to go way overboard. For LOLs, note the gender issue - while a rape could be committed against a male ("if the victim at any time during the crime feels that her/his life was in danger"), the labor done at detention centers for rape isn't. Ok, so I'm nitpicking - but if we cover all variations, we may as well go all the way, no? I didn't know the victim being male was a mitigating circumstance for rape.

Section four: ok propositions - although I'd say there should be a limit on appeals anyway, especially if new evidence turns up. However, I disagree with the latter part. "Women, who have much less incentive to use sex as a weapon than men do, are much less likely to violate men’s rights through rape accusations than men are to violate women’s and children’s rights through rape. This is not up for debate..." Actually, there is one very good reason women have an incentive to use sex as a weapon (or, rather, a tool) - they have less other weapons to turn to, and the same author imo mentions this in another article. Though they may be less likely to violate men's rights through rape accusations (which, under the previous sections, become that much more powerful) than to be raped, that may be for different reasons altogether and is not an axiom, imo.

Overall, I think the author is way, way above what I consider sensible. While I am most likely biased - just as most everyone is, since gender issues by definition involve all who have a gender - I think this goes beyond feminism and into obsession.

@The Shaman

Very well written post, I agree with all of it.

The only thing that I would add is that she seems to have "The ends justify the means" burned into her skull.

She seems to think its okay to punish men, guilty and innocent alike, so that a few women can live safer, and indeed can abuse the very laws that protect them. Theres that old saying, "First do no harm" and I think it applies here.