Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

I don't think any form of sexual assault should be legal, regardless of the sex of the offender. Punishing only one sex for it is downright unfair.

In UK, one needs a penis to be a rapist. Without one, one can still rack up other sexual assault charges, but will never get charged with rape itself.

Yeah I've heard about that particular law. Ridiculous.

[Heliman]

Misgyonism is much more prevalent, disruptive and damaging to society them misandry will ever be. Just because they both exist doesn't mean we should lose track of the balance here. Giving misandrist more ammunition wouldn't do anything but make some men feel uncomfortalbe, while if we give misgyionists but an inch of extra room, feelings of discomfort are the least of our problems.

Equality is hard to have if you give a party an unfair advantage, even if it is the lesser party.

No, I'm not bringing up things like maternity leave when I say this. Hell, given the circumstances that's more work for the lady than most jobs anyways.

[GlyphGryph]

And even maternity leave is actually, often and in many places, part of something that is allowed for both genders. Because situations like this
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100917001905AAVpWJu
aren't exactly mega-rare.

Many places like Britain have, or are moving towards, a system where leave is allowed for either parent to care for the child, because maternity leave is in many ways just as unfair towards women - they are the ones who have to sacrifice time working and professionally advancing, even if they have the better job.

And with the current British laws, doesn't it mean women can't rape women either, legally? Because I can see how that would hurt women alone.

[Kay12]

Yeah, UK laws require one to use a penis for it to be a rape. No penis -> no rape.

The actual text, as rip'd from Wikipedia: A person (A) commits an offence if he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, B does not consent to the penetration, and A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

[Durin Stronginthearm]

In UK, one needs a penis to be a rapist. Without one, one can still rack up other sexual assault charges, but will never get charged with rape itself.

Yeah I've heard about that particular law. Ridiculous.

It's a matter of terminology only, really. Rape is defined as involving a penis; Section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers other nonconsensual penetration and has the same maximum penalty (life imprisonment).

[Virex]

I disagree with Virex completely. I'm not sure what's his agenda for defending women's "right" to get off with lesser punishment for rape than men, but again, I see no substantial reason for it.

I am not against changing the law in principle. I am just wary of the side effects that changing the law would have and do not think the benefits outweigh those side effects. As I already said before, we have become so accustomed to ignoring the rights of women that we can't even recognize it when we're trampling on them, as exemplified by people not even giving second thoughts to the effects such a law change could have even after I brought up the issue.

[Heliman]

It's a matter of terminology only, really. Rape is defined as involving a penis; Section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers other nonconsensual penetration and has the same maximum penalty (life imprisonment).

So the issue is just the definition of the word "rape?" can women still receive life in prison for such acts anyway, but under a different subtext?

[Kay12]

In UK, one needs a penis to be a rapist. Without one, one can still rack up other sexual assault charges, but will never get charged with rape itself.

Yeah I've heard about that particular law. Ridiculous.

It's a matter of terminology only, really. Rape is defined as involving a penis; Section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers other nonconsensual penetration and has the same maximum penalty (life imprisonment).

Sometimes, terminology matters. The social stigma of rapists is, depending on who you ask, either a just part of the punishment or a horrible stain that'll ruin a person's life. Either way, it should fall equally on everyone.

I disagree with Virex completely. I'm not sure what's his agenda for defending women's "right" to get off with lesser punishment for rape than men, but again, I see no substantial reason for it.

I am not against changing the law in principle. I am just wary of the side effects that changing the law would have and do not think the benefits outweigh those side effects. As I already said before, we have become so accustomed to ignoring the rights of women that we can't even recognize it when we're trampling on them.

You have not yet given any substantial examples of negative effects happening from similar law changes, so I don't believe there to be any substantial negative side effects that outweigh women being let off with less severe charges than men for the same crimes. And what exactly are the rights we're trampling on? The right to rape without being charged for rape?

[Virex]

In UK, one needs a penis to be a rapist. Without one, one can still rack up other sexual assault charges, but will never get charged with rape itself.

Yeah I've heard about that particular law. Ridiculous.

It's a matter of terminology only, really. Rape is defined as involving a penis; Section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers other nonconsensual penetration and has the same maximum penalty (life imprisonment).

Sometimes, terminology matters. The social stigma of rapists is, depending on who you ask, either a just part of the punishment or a horrible stain that'll ruin a person's life. Either way, it should fall equally on everyone.

Or a badge of honor in case you tried to "cure" someone from her "abnormal sexuality." Or as a reaffirmation of your position as important person within the prison/gang/clan. Or as a sign that you have regained your honor in the face of an insult. There are literally too many positive connotations associated with the word rapist to list them all here.

I disagree with Virex completely. I'm not sure what's his agenda for defending women's "right" to get off with lesser punishment for rape than men, but again, I see no substantial reason for it.

I am not against changing the law in principle. I am just wary of the side effects that changing the law would have and do not think the benefits outweigh those side effects. As I already said before, we have become so accustomed to ignoring the rights of women that we can't even recognize it when we're trampling on them.

You have not yet given any substantial examples of negative effects happening from similar law changes, so I don't believe there to be any substantial negative side effects that outweigh women being let off with less severe charges than men for the same crimes. And what exactly are the rights we're trampling on? The right to rape without being charged for rape?

I was dead sure I had some sources somewhere, but I can't find them right now, so I'll assume we'll have to agree to disagree here. I have however not seen any evidence to the contrary, so I'd say it's better to err on the side of caution in this case.
The rights we're trampling on have nothing to do with the bill itself, but much more with the reactions from some groups to the bill. I just don't think it's ethically justifiable to put a whole gender into danger over a minor law change, especially since women can already be persecuted for what they have done, but then under a different name.

[Kay12]

I just don't think it's ethically justifiable to put a whole gender into danger over a minor law change

I still don't get the "endangering women" thing. How the heck is changing the definition of rape going to endanger an entire gender?

[GlyphGryph]

Virex,
I really would like you to go a lot more in depth on this, because I honestly can't understand where you are coming from with some of the things you are saying.

The rights we're trampling on have nothing to do with the bill itself, but much more with the reactions from some groups to the bill.

What rights would be trampled? How? I'm honestly interested in knowing here, but its hard to see things from your point of view when I don't.

[Virex]

Well, one of the key points is that I think that the messages the government gives off are a key component that (subconsciously) shapes the way we see the world. As such, giving off a message that could be taken as a reaffirmation of the views of those that don't consider women as sentient beings is playing with fire, especially due to the extreme prevalence of that view, even among those that would furiously deny it if asked directly. I feel like there's a volcano lying dormant on this subject and the last thing we should do is anger it's spirit.

I just don't think it's ethically justifiable to put a whole gender into danger over a minor law change

I still don't get the "endangering women" thing. How the heck is changing the definition of rape going to endanger an entire gender?

It would be a reaffirmation of many men's concept of women as manipulative and heartless (something I hear all around me in case you're wondering where this is comming from), giving credibility to some of their quite insane complaints about how evil their wife/girlfriend/mistress really is. Plus, "if women like rape then they must like being raped". Women have enough trouble keeping creeps off of their back without the government reaffirming their views and, in their eyes, giving them a carte blanche.

[kaijyuu]

Let me give you some of my personal experiences, Virex.

My uncle had a bottle of soda poured on his head and then was beaten with a frying pan by his wife. He couldn't fight back, because if he did he would've been going to jail. He couldn't call the police either, since they'd just laugh at him.

It took years for him to get custody of the kids, and only after his wife was diagnosed with serious depression. Had the genders been flipped, everything would've been very different.


The claim that men are somehow more sexist than women is complete and utter bullshit. As is anything stating that male -> female domestic abuse is worse than the other way around.

Those people claiming their girlfriend/wife/etc is evil? Maybe it's not a joke.

[Kay12]

I just don't think it's ethically justifiable to put a whole gender into danger over a minor law change

I still don't get the "endangering women" thing. How the heck is changing the definition of rape going to endanger an entire gender?

It would be a reaffirmation of many men's concept of women as manipulative and heartless, giving credibility to some of their quite insane complaints about how evil their wife/girlfriend/mistress really is.

How many men you assume to have that view? I don't. I haven't seen anyone who openly thinks so. And I don't think many men will suddenly start thinking so if the definition of rape is changed.

Plus, "if women like rape then they must like being raped". Women have enough trouble keeping creeps off of their back without the government reaffirming their views and, in their eyes, giving them a carte blanche.

That's a really far-fetched idea, not to mention sexist as hell. If we were to adopt that logic, all charges against women should be abolished, because if a woman was convicted of anything, that would "endanger their gender".

[GlyphGryph]

I'm... not sure if I follow any of that, to be honest.

It would be a reaffirmation of many men's concept of women as manipulative and heartless (something I hear all around me in case you're wondering where this is comming from)

How? I mean, I honestly don't understand how a woman being capable of raping someone, something that is obviously a thing that is true in every sense but the legal one, would somehow reaffirm men's concept of women as manipulative and heartless. Women are also capable of being tried for robbery, and murder, and I've never heard of an argument involving that as a justification either. I'm honestly not seeing the potential connection here. Could you try explaining a bit more why you think this would be the result?

giving credibility to some of their quite insane complaints about how evil their wife/girlfriend/mistress really is

Some people really do have evil wive's/girlfriends. I think there's more than enough social pressure against it that it is unlikely men are going to go around saying they've been raped, though, especially as justification for complaining. And if they were inclined to do so, I don't see how the law being in line with how people already consider the situation would be the thing that pushed them over the edge. Do you see these people claiming to have been raped? Is that the issue?

Plus, "if women like rape then they must like being raped".

Where would it be said that women liked rape? How would people interpret the law this way? No one interprets the fact that women are capable of robbing as justification that women must then like being robbed. Not only does it not make sense, I just haven't seen any evidence that this would even approach being a likely (if completely illogical) association.

Finally, wouldn't those already so inclined to misinterpret something so badly be the type that are already absolutely certain women are capable of rape? Do you really think it would change anything for them?