Print

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

[Virex]

For instance, there are also ideas floating around that women can't rape men, or that a man having sex with an inebriated woman is rape (which is obviously a good point), but that a woman having sex with an inebriated man is not, or that if they're both drunk, the man specifically is still at fault (which is degrading to both genders involved).

As a side note - under UK law, it is in fact impossible for a woman to be a rapist.  They can be convicted of other sexual attacks and being accessory to rape though.  Probably another aspect of rape law here that needs to change...

I can't imagine it being common enough for the hassle that such a law change would entail though?

What. Are you saying that because there are fewer male rapes, it's too much of a hassle to make them illegal? And they're not actually all that uncommon, from what I have heard, though men tend to report them less. Why? Because the police usually don't believe them, or because they don't want to let it be known that they were raped.

I'm actually more concerned with the effect this would have on the view males have of females. Because if the law is changed and publicity is given to it, it'll be a bright red shining beacon for people who have gripes with women for some arcane reason to start playing the rapist card. Because after all, even the law says that they're rapist! Or worse, the old "but they do it too!"-card will be played again. Basically I'm just afraid that such a law change will only increase the amount of rape victims.
In cases like this of course we want to protect men as well as possible, but we all too often lose track of what doing so would mean for women because they are going to end up as the victims of such a change. I think it's time to realize that we as men don't have a monopoly on legal protection and that we need to be very careful about the signals we send into the world.
Now if there was a way to change this law without publicity, then maybe I could consider it, but as it stands, anything related to rape has the chance of becoming an unguided projectile that blows up in the faces of those that need the most protection.

[Truean]

For instance, there are also ideas floating around that women can't rape men, or that a man having sex with an inebriated woman is rape (which is obviously a good point), but that a woman having sex with an inebriated man is not, or that if they're both drunk, the man specifically is still at fault (which is degrading to both genders involved).

As a side note - under UK law, it is in fact impossible for a woman to be a rapist.  They can be convicted of other sexual attacks and being accessory to rape though.  Probably another aspect of rape law here that needs to change...

I can't imagine it being common enough for the hassle that such a law change would entail though?

What. Are you saying that because there are fewer male rapes, it's too much of a hassle to make them illegal? And they're not actually all that uncommon, from what I have heard, though men tend to report them less. Why? Because the police usually don't believe them, or because they don't want to let it be known that they were raped.

I can assure you that technically its illegal in most of the US, but he's right, getting it prosecuted is an entirely different matter. The police, the judge, the jury and society at large have a preconceived notion that a male being "raped" by a female is lucky....

As for the UK, our law has its roots in theirs. It used to be Ohio didn't prosecute women for rape but rather they could be an accessory (before or after the fact) (setting another woman up to be raped or covering for the suspect), accomplice, etc.

The modern trend is to move laws towards gender neutrality http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp1.31. However, there are certain areas of law that will not abide this and there is a reason the Supreme Court only subjects laws distinguishing between men and women to intermediate scrutiny instead of strict. The practical translation is that "Separate but Equal" is fine for gender issues in law. If you think about it this is a reasoned view for our society as it stands today: restrooms, changing/fitting rooms, locker rooms, etc. We seem to want those separated for some reason, and so long the ladies' room is as good as the men's room it's ok. [shrugs]

[Andir]

No he's right, England has taken a bad turn. Those riot aren't there by chance, and the student's movement , who has been completely ignored, was there for a reason as well.
But they really ought to attack the government directly, instead of doing it at random. The problem is that the political world is completely discredited, and therefore I don't think this movement will politically structure himself.
Now shall we take bet on who will burst next? France or Italy? Or Spain maybe?

Edit : http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/07/7292281-the-sad-truth-behind-london-riot Here's a better explanation.

Police and local leaders in Tottenham made real progress in improving community relations in the intervening years and that's true about all of Britain. The best way to prevent crime, the theory goes, is to improve the lot of the people, then they won't need to commit crimes. But caught in a poverty and joblessness cycle, young people in many British urban areas have little hope of a better life.

So, as the saying goes... you take care of necessities and people will be happy... I'm not seeing it.  All I see is more greed as pointed out here:

The riots are clearly nothing to do with hating the police, or the government, or anything else.  If you look at a map of the riots, all the targets are basically shops with stuff that people might want to steal (unless JD Sports, H&M and Tesco are somehow symbols of the government's oppression).  It's opportunistic theft and vandalism on a grand scale (with some random attacks on the emergency services thrown in).

The crime isn't directed at groceries for food, etc.

So I have to ask if providing the needs of the poor the basics to live is the solution to reducing crime? (as many claim)  There's obviously some resentment going on here.  It's not lack of food apparently, but lack of money? ...goods? ...social standing? ...?

[Lysabild]

It's not lack of food apparently, but lack of money? ...goods? ...social standing? ...?

It's lack of it all and the fact that they're treated as less than people.

[Heron TSG]

I'm actually more concerned with the effect this would have on the view males have of females. Because if the law is changed and publicity is given to it, it'll be a bright red shining beacon for people who have gripes with women for some arcane reason to start playing the rapist card. Because after all, even the law says that they're rapist! Or worse, the old "but they do it too!"-card will be played again. Basically I'm just afraid that such a law change will only increase the amount of rape victims.
In cases like this of course we want to protect men as well as possible, but we all too often lose track of what doing so would mean for women because they are going to end up as the victims of such a change. I think it's time to realize that we as men don't have a monopoly on legal protection and that we need to be very careful about the signals we send into the world.
Now if there was a way to change this law without publicity, then maybe I could consider it, but as it stands, anything related to rape has the chance of becoming an unguided projectile that blows up in the faces of those that need the most protection.

Why, because there would be an actual punishment? Also, some women already play the rapist card, because the courts will almost always go in their favor. With that law, only women can play the rapist card. After all, only men can commit rape, right? If people of either sex can be considered rapists, then the victims of rape will have a much easier time getting the offender into jail. In short, I don't think that causing rape to be illegal will draw a huge crowd of new rapists.

[Andir]

It's not lack of food apparently, but lack of money? ...goods? ...social standing? ...?

It's lack of it all and the fact that they're treated as less than people.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that same mentality applies to Irish... does it not?  Aren't they looked down upon by the British?

[Sheb]

I'd say it's mostly lack of opportunities, the UK got one of the lowest social mobility around the developed world. I could see that as a corollary to the U.S.'s "I might be a millionaire one day so I want tax cuts on private jets" metnality: "I cannot hope to get a good job and buy those stuff legally, so I might as well loot them".

[Siquo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that same mentality applies to Irish... does it not?  Aren't they looked down upon by the British?

They A: don't live in Britain so it's kind of weird to revolt against a different country and B: the ones that do (Northern Ireland) have been rioting and blowing up Brits for decades. (although they quit that a few years ago, thankfully)

[GlyphGryph]

And there are women who rape women as well.


On to the riots bit!
Andir, I don't think the issue is stuff, so much, for most of the rioters. It's broken promises. When you put your trust in someone or something, and it responds by basically giving you the old heave ho, of course you're going to be pissed off. Especially if its something major like university you've been sort of building your life plans around. It's a betrayal.

To give a more personal example from my own life - Imagine your getting married. The brides father insists on paying for the photographer and venue. You say thats not necessary, but he convinces you, and plans get made based on certain expeditions.
He then refuses to pay for either of the two, deciding after the fact that he shouldn't be responsible, and the couple only find this out after multiple calls, late in the process, when they suddenly find themselves with no venue or photographer, and the need to get one on short notice with costs far exceeding what was originally intended. Even if they make it work...

You can't see how this would cause a schism, would cause tension and anger? It's not that this couple felt entitled to this stuff, it's that they felt like they were treated like shit by someone they put their trust in. They had built plans around those promises. Like so much of life, I imagine the happiness or lack thereof isn't caused by the actual stuff, but by the disconnect by what is expected, deserved, promised, and what actually occurs.

[RedKing]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that same mentality applies to Irish... does it not?  Aren't they looked down upon by the British?

They A: don't live in Britain so it's kind of weird to revolt against a different country and B: the ones that do (Northern Ireland) have been rioting and blowing up Brits for decades. (although they quit that a few years ago, thankfully)

And C: most of the ones in Northern Ireland love the Brits, because they're (according to Unionist rhetoric) the only thing standing between them and utter annhilation at the hands of the Catholic Irish. The ones blowing up Brits are the Catholic Irish (except when Ulster-men would do it and frame the IRA to keep the Brits engaged....)

But yeah, there's a long history of the Irish, Scots, even the Welsh rioting against English rule in part because of issues of human dignity and equal rights. But they typically didn't do so by randomly burning shit and looting stores.

[Siquo]

when they suddenly find themselves with no venue or photographer, and the need to get one on short notice with costs far exceeding what was originally intended. Even if they make it work...

Spoiler: personal (click to show/hide)

Christ, that sucks, man... You've got what, 1.5 months to go? Damn... Good luck, my man!

[Truean]

So I have to ask if providing the needs of the poor the basics to live is the solution to reducing crime? (as many claim)  There's obviously some resentment going on here.  It's not lack of food apparently, but lack of money? ...goods? ...social standing? ...?

Last year, the firm I work at defended 31 theft defendants who stole food... 24 the year before that... 15 the year before that.... For the most part, they admit their act and claim the defense of necessity. Hopefully, the judge sees what's going on and indulges a loophole.... I don't like the hardass judges who "strictly interpret" the law in this case. The poor bastard was starving; show some mercy. We're doing a lot of foreclosures and bankruptcies lately as well.

O, I will agree there is a difference between stealing a precooked meal from a supermarket display (cause if you're homeless you can't cook it) and smashing in a storefront window to get at the merchandise and trample all over property rights. All the same, there's far too much hunger in a country that calls itself the best in the world. We have the capacity to be....

That said, hunger isn't causing these British riots. Broken promises with no recourse is. Is it right? I've no idea.

[The Merchant Of Menace]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that same mentality applies to Irish... does it not?  Aren't they looked down upon by the British?

They A: don't live in Britain so it's kind of weird to revolt against a different country and B: the ones that do (Northern Ireland) have been rioting and blowing up Brits for decades. (although they quit that a few years ago, thankfully)

And C: most of the ones in Northern Ireland love the Brits, because they're (according to Unionist rhetoric) the only thing standing between them and utter annhilation at the hands of the Catholic Irish. The ones blowing up Brits are the Catholic Irish (except when Ulster-men would do it and frame the IRA to keep the Brits engaged....)

Umm. No.
Religion has nothing to do with being Republican or Unionist.
I know plently of Catholics that are unionists and plenty of protestants that are Republican.

Granted, Most republicans are Catholic and most Unionists are Protestant, but I just felt the need to point that out.

[Kay12]

For instance, there are also ideas floating around that women can't rape men, or that a man having sex with an inebriated woman is rape (which is obviously a good point), but that a woman having sex with an inebriated man is not, or that if they're both drunk, the man specifically is still at fault (which is degrading to both genders involved).

As a side note - under UK law, it is in fact impossible for a woman to be a rapist.  They can be convicted of other sexual attacks and being accessory to rape though.  Probably another aspect of rape law here that needs to change...

I can't imagine it being common enough for the hassle that such a law change would entail though?

What. Are you saying that because there are fewer male rapes, it's too much of a hassle to make them illegal? And they're not actually all that uncommon, from what I have heard, though men tend to report them less. Why? Because the police usually don't believe them, or because they don't want to let it be known that they were raped.

I'm actually more concerned with the effect this would have on the view males have of females. Because if the law is changed and publicity is given to it, it'll be a bright red shining beacon for people who have gripes with women for some arcane reason to start playing the rapist card. -snip-

By that logic, shouldn't we abolish the criminal status of rape completely? It's a bright red shining beacon for people who have gripes with men for some arcane reason to start playing the rapist card.

[Virex]

For instance, there are also ideas floating around that women can't rape men, or that a man having sex with an inebriated woman is rape (which is obviously a good point), but that a woman having sex with an inebriated man is not, or that if they're both drunk, the man specifically is still at fault (which is degrading to both genders involved).

As a side note - under UK law, it is in fact impossible for a woman to be a rapist.  They can be convicted of other sexual attacks and being accessory to rape though.  Probably another aspect of rape law here that needs to change...

I can't imagine it being common enough for the hassle that such a law change would entail though?

What. Are you saying that because there are fewer male rapes, it's too much of a hassle to make them illegal? And they're not actually all that uncommon, from what I have heard, though men tend to report them less. Why? Because the police usually don't believe them, or because they don't want to let it be known that they were raped.

I'm actually more concerned with the effect this would have on the view males have of females. Because if the law is changed and publicity is given to it, it'll be a bright red shining beacon for people who have gripes with women for some arcane reason to start playing the rapist card. -snip-

By that logic, shouldn't we abolish the criminal status of rape completely? It's a bright red shining beacon for people who have gripes with men for some arcane reason to start playing the rapist card.

Now you're being facetious. My gripe is not with the law itself, but with the fallout that would be caused by changing the law.