Rape Culture: Why Yes can mean No

[Teallaura]

Great refutation.

Your response was crap - it didn't deserve more effort than that. Build your own strawmen.

[Darth Ovious]

Fraud is then the issue - not duress. Caveat emptor. If you were expecting a contract to be valid then you make danged sure the signing is witnessed. The problem is that both things occur - women and men blackmailed into signing a contract they don't wish to and men and women lying to get out of a valid contract they signed.

We all know what divorce courts are like though. Take this ridiculous example.

[Teallaura]

DO, you're doing the thing you're complaining about - making law based on the outliers. Yes, there are really bad decisions out there -and some are never corrected (see Terri Schivo). But you don't throw out the rationale merely because some idiot that shouldn't be on a bench makes an idiotic decision - or even when the fully adjudicated decision is really idiotic (See Roe v Wade, Plessy v Ferguson, et al). For every anecdote of a guy getting shafted, I can find equally horrible examples of women getting short shrifted (seriously, you (general) had kids - why are you so surprised you have to keep supporting them even after leaving their mother? But the examples of dead beat dads getting off lightly or even managing to punish the offended spouse are legion.).

The answer, once things get into court (which is best avoided), is to make judges accountable for their decisions (to an appellate court) and to freaking fix the standing rules back like they should be. Your anecdote should never have been granted standing since she wasn't injured - that's Junior College Law 101.

The ball is in both courts - divorce is like fire - it burns everyone it touches. The law can only sort out the rubble - the real answers lie elsewhere. And you will NEVER get anywhere assuming it is all the fault of one side or the other. Yes, feminism was hijacked back in the Sixties and that radicalism has done enormous damage - but you're very mistaken if you think there weren't also male hands in the cookie jar.

Myself, I think we should look at 'blame' only so much as to understand cause then FIX THE DANGED THING.

[rogue06]

Eventually it will be fear that stops men from interacting from women in those situations. They will simply choose to stay away and not even try because they are afraid.

Hormones will almost always trump common sense.

[Darth Ovious]

DO, you're doing the thing you're complaining about - making law based on the outliers. Yes, there are really bad decisions out there -and some are never corrected (see Terri Schivo). But you don't throw out the rationale merely because some idiot that shouldn't be on a bench makes an idiotic decision - or even when the fully adjudicated decision is really idiotic (See Roe v Wade, Plessy v Ferguson, et al). For every anecdote of a guy getting shafted, I can find equally horrible examples of women getting short shrifted (seriously, you (general) had kids - why are you so surprised you have to keep supporting them even after leaving their mother? But the examples of dead beat dads getting off lightly or even managing to punish the offended spouse are legion.).

OK I guess you don't know what the divorce courts are like. As for the bit I bolded where did I say otherwise? Where did you get that impression? Check my previous post and I actually stated the opposite.

The answer, once things get into court (which is best avoided), is to make judges accountable for their decisions (to an appellate court) and to freaking fix the standing rules back like they should be. Your anecdote should never have been granted standing since she wasn't injured - that's Junior College Law 101.

What if the judges decisions are well within the law? Since we are on the issue of child support then here you go.

http://www.cafcusa.org/docs/DCSS_200...lity_study.pdf

Using this logic, we estimate that 64 percent of debtor parents in California who accrued arrears over a one-year period that generally corresponded with FFY 2000 had orders that were too high relative to their ability to pay.

I take it we can agree that it's mostly men who pay child support. Also there is the case of John Cryer who has full custody of his child 95% of the time and yet when he tried to get the child support order changed the judge denied it. So he has to pay child support to his ex-wife for a child that he takes care of.

https://nationalparentsorganization....r-jon-cryer-mu

Two and a Half Men star Jon Cryer must pay child support for his son of whom he has custody. Here's the opinion of the California appellate court.

So much for the appellate court.

The ball is in both courts - divorce is like fire - it burns everyone it touches. The law can only sort out the rubble - the real answers lie elsewhere. And you will NEVER get anywhere assuming it is all the fault of one side or the other. Yes, feminism was hijacked back in the Sixties and that radicalism has done enormous damage - but you're very mistaken if you think there weren't also male hands in the cookie jar.

Yes, they are called white knights. We have a term for them. Doesn't make it any less an issue.

Myself, I think we should look at 'blame' only so much as to understand cause then FIX THE DANGED THING.

Fixing it requires to change the laws in place that have been influenced by lies.

[rogue06]

The term pro-choice is just a less nasty sounding way of saying pro-abortion. When we respond with pro-life we just open up all sorts of garbage that is not relevant to the question. I never claim to be pro-life, I am always anti-abortion. And when the "patriarchy" swallows the stupidity that feminists put forth they have already lost.

This is especially true about those who the only thing that they're "pro-choice" on is abortion. As George Will put it back in June of 2002,

[Darth Ovious]

Hormones will almost always trump common sense.

Your statement here seems to suggest it is not possible for men to remain sexually inactive. Surely as Christians we shouldn't believe that since we believe that people shouldn't have sex before marriage.

[rogue06]

You act as if campus rape is a complete myth and has never ever occurred.

Ms. Magazine

[rogue06]

Your statement here seems to suggest it is not possible for men to remain sexually inactive. Surely as Christians we shouldn't believe that since we believe that people shouldn't have sex before marriage.

Not at all. I'm just saying that by and large such a policy as an abysmal historic track record.

[Teallaura]

OK I guess you don't know what the divorce courts are like. As for the bit I bolded where did I say otherwise? Where did you get that impression? Check my previous post and I actually stated the opposite.

You (general) - which makes it clear that I am NOT talking about you personally.

It's drivel to assume that all divorce courts are the same - or that they all err in only one direction. Thousands of good mothers lost custody over 'alienation of affection' which is pseudoscience bunk and was (and still is to an extent) embraced wildly by the courts. Courts of all kinds are run by humans and they ALL share in the ability - sometimes near glee - of committing error. You (personal) aren't the only one ever wronged in court.

What if the judges decisions are well within the law? Since we are on the issue of child support then here you go.

http://www.cafcusa.org/docs/DCSS_200...lity_study.pdf

Didn't bother to read the link. If the law is unfair, you change it. Rocket science, that ain't. But finger pointing and pretending that it's all one sided will not change erroneous laws - not even egregious ones.

I take it we can agree that it's mostly men who pay child support. Also there is the case of John Cryer who has full custody of his child 95% of the time and yet when he tried to get the child support order changed the judge denied it. So he has to pay child support to his ex-wife for a child that he takes care of.

https://nationalparentsorganization....r-jon-cryer-mu

The court erred - or the law needs changing. Still stupid - still not a one-side fits all equation.

So much for the appellate court.

What, you think appellate courts don't err? In California? Home of the Ninth 'we don't need no stinkin' constitution' Circuit? Are you kidding me?

I already conceded that even fully adjudicated decisions can be wrong - but shooting people in the streets is worse than fixing the law/courts. Judges come in size human like everyone else - why is this a surprise to you? But only an appellate court has the power and the knowledge to effectively call judges to account. Do they fail sometimes? Heck yes - but they also succeed sometimes. It needs improvement - blaming feminists won't get that done.

Yes, they are called white knights. We have a term for them. Doesn't make it any less an issue.

Who said it lessened anything? The myoptic 'it's all the evul fems' view only makes it harder to fix the very injustices you are complaining about.

Fixing it requires to change the laws in place that have been influenced by lies.

Yep - so? Wanna give up and just quit, or light a candle rather than curse darkness?

[Darth Executor]

Hormones will almost always trump common sense.

Porn and sex toys makes it easier than ever to satisfy hormonal urges without ever seeing a naked woman in real life.

[One Bad Pig]

When I was student, there was an estimate of there being atleast one rape per weekend at the on Campus residence. And we're not talking about a situation where there is any doubt about consent.
Some of my brother's Civil Engineering students put a stop to one that was going happen in an empty classroom (the girl was screaming loud enough to be heard)

The on campus residence also had an estimated 2 AK47's per bed, so there was no way campus security was going to try stop things.

From what I understand, violent crime is a far worse problem in SA than in America.

[One Bad Pig]

Porn and sex toys makes it easier than ever to satisfy hormonal urges without ever seeing a naked woman in real life.

On the other hand, such experiences have an impact on how actual sex is viewed; when woman is reduced to 'sex object' guys tend to think less about what the woman wants.

[Jedidiah]

Your statement here seems to suggest it is not possible for men to remain sexually inactive. Surely as Christians we shouldn't believe that since we believe that people shouldn't have sex before marriage.

But what percentage of rapes are performed by faithful Christians?

[Darth Ovious]

Ms. Magazine

It should also be noted that the questions asked that led to the 1 in 4 figure for women also led to the same 1 in 4 number for men. However she took the majority of those men and separated them off and put them in their section called "forced to penetrate". This meant that these men did not come under rape statistics like the women's figures did. The CDC used Mary Koss's figures, so you can see the statistics from their website.