Un-PC Men Are Attacked By Bitches for No Reason.

[compared2what?]

.And GM Citizen can prove it by pointing out that when I say that he does not support the assertion in the subject line with any data, that constitutes limited proof, of which he can provide more, given the right forum. For those just tuning in:

All a woman has to do is say "rape", and the burden of proof to prove innocence falls on the guy.

Okay. My resolve is not that strong. That's an absolutely unfucking true, hateful and stupid thing to say.

I strongly suggest that you do some reading and research that's thorough enough to be representative of the various typical failures of the justice system in rape cases. If you still want to maintain that all a woman has to do is say "rape" and the burden to prove innocence falls on the guy when you're done -- and by "done" I mean more deeply acquainted with the material than whatever degree of familiarity with the Kobe Bryant case you acquired in the course of being conscious in a media-saturated world while it was happening -- get back to me.

Did you simply chose to ignore everything else I said?

And I was giving the Bryant case as one example. I was saying how often times innocent get punished, and the guilty men go scott free.

Oh but 8bit, you were not politically correct, don't ya know. You MUST always paint the female as the victim, without exception. That is unless it is an abusive lesbian relationship, in which case you should just disregard it.

GM Citizen, that is every bit as absolutely unfucking true and stupid a thing to say as the thing that prompted the original response was.

However, to give credit where due, it is even more hateful, plus wholly unsupported by data or context, rather than poorly supported by data or context.

Way to go. You must be a treat to sit next to at dinner parties.

8bit, honey, I'm about to respond to you, with something of an apology. So hold on a moment, okay?

Blah, blah, blah. You say nothing at all, but what you say proves what I said to 8bit to be true...at least in your case.

Now, let's not hijack this thread any further. This deserves to have its own thread. See you there

Okay. Hi! Bring it on.

[compared2what?]

As long as we're waiting around, I wanted to briefly comment on this.

But it's also true, in the same sense, that lots of rapists claim the sex was consensual and that lots of women who report rape are discredited on the grounds that they're just doing it because they're predatory, dishonest and devious whores.

The only world in which that part of the story speaks for itself so well that no further explanation is necessary is one that holds the proposition that lots of women are predatory, dishonest and devious whores to be true, as supported by so much data that it amounts to common knowledge.

Women have brought that view upon themselves by not standing up to the bullying and bullshit of certain so-called "feminists" (I wouldn't call them that) in a crusade to force all women to accept their belief systems. These feminists would probably get along well with the Reagans- both nearly destroyed the porn industry in the 80s.

In theory, I think we probably stand on more common ground than a literal response to the above would suggest, T4Y, because I'm not totally sure what you're talking about.

If you're saying that women who subscribe to the idea that pornography is misogynist are not subscribing to an idea that empowers women, I agree. In fact, I'd say they lose more than they gain, since any sexually repressive environment hits women harder than it does men. I also am a lot less concerned by what goes on in the realm of imagination than I am by what goes on on the ground. The professional porn industry, such as it is, is historically pretty fucking abusive to its stars. And especially its female stars. But it seems to me that's more directly attributable to the fact that it's a business run by brutal mobsters than it does with any of the big-picture cultural discrimination against or violent abuse directed at women that it occasionally reflects or depicts. In any event, the depiction of an abuse is not, per se, an endorsement of it. I would say that sexual fantasy was a beautiful thing, if it were a thing. But it's not. It's a fantasy. Sexual fantasies, like all compelling fantasies, might be used either for good or for ill. But at that point, they would become things, and would have to be assessed as such. So when that's not happening, as far as I'm concerned, there is no problem.

Also, I'd like to see both prostitution and pornography go fully legal and legit. Until they do, they'll always pose a threat to a some people, including some really serious threats to some very vulnerable people.

Mistaken as I think it is to oppose pornography in the interest of feminism, though, I don't see the cause-and-effect link between the anti-pornography movement of the '80s and the blanket assertion that women have no one to blame but themselves for being commonly regarded as predatory, dishonest and devious whores.

If you really meant to say that, could you please elaborate?

[OP ED]

I tried to avoid the digression into porn on the other thread.

Maybe it fits better here.

I'd also like to see an actual legalization of the industry, and its attached industries (I find it amusing that sex toys must be called by euphemistic names in many places, even when sold in 18+ stores) as the forced movement of any natural human proclivity into an underground status invites crime and exploitation. This despite the fact that most porn is boring as all hell, and doesn't even remotely resemble actual human sexual activities. As long as the current nonlegal framework remains the reigning paradigm for these practices (including prostitution) we can expect regulation of the relevant health, social, and psychological issues to remain theoretical in this country, and the associated societal ills will continue to plague us. (like herpes)

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Reagan, except that he was in movies with little in the way of plot or realism.

[compared2what?]

Also

But it's also true, in the same sense, that lots of rapists claim the sex was consensual and that lots of women who report rape are discredited on the grounds that they're just doing it because they're predatory, dishonest and devious whores.

The only world in which that part of the story speaks for itself so well that no further explanation is necessary is one that holds the proposition that lots of women are predatory, dishonest and devious whores to be true, as supported by so much data that it amounts to common knowledge.

Women have brought that view upon themselves by not standing up to the bullying and bullshit of certain so-called "feminists" (I wouldn't call them that) in a crusade to force all women to accept their belief systems. These feminists would probably get along well with the Reagans- both nearly destroyed the porn industry in the 80s.

I'm forced to disagree with you, T4Y, if only because I find blaming the views one holds on someone else's conduct to be silly. There are several reasons for the prevelance of this belief, and most of them existed LONG before the eighties, or feminism for that matter, happened. Read the rape laws in the bible (or lack thereof) sometime.

This comes from me, one who holds the proposition that lots of women are predatory, dishonest and devious whores to be true, as supported by so much data that it amounts to common knowledge. Of course, we could argue about what "lots" means in this sentence, but I'd venture that "millions" certainly qualifies.

Even so, this is irrelevant so long as this female's status as such hasn't been established.

I find myself disturbed by the lack of accounting for more than one side of this story. And I feel little sympathy for someone dumb enough to be carrying an unregistered handgun, especially in the south, where odds are, $50 could've made it legal. Perhaps a higher priority than beer?

I seem to be NOT feeling particularly sorry for Mr. Redneck here.

All of this despite the Note on my own record, which the police read (and ask about) everytime I get stopped. Note = "suspected of criminal sexual misconduct". This because they couldn't prove enough to even charge me, so they thought they'd fuck me up with their little note. Bastards.

Wanna know what I did?

Had sex in a public place, but we'd (more or less) finished before the police came, and were already re-dressed. They knew, but couldn't establish any evidence, so I get a lil note on my record, still there, lemme see, seven years later now...

I'd also point out that the female got no note on HER record.

just saying.

LIL,
SHCR

WRT the note on your record, the case as stated is definitely an individual instance of injustice. And it definitely represents a blanket presumption that if a sexual offense involving one man atnd one woman is suspected, the perp is, by default, the man. Which would not simply be an injustice, but a flagrant violation of the law of the land, in principle. And principle is very meaningful when it comes to the law.

Though I don't know, I would venture to guess that when it comes to widespread gender bias on the part of law enforcement, the presumption of male guilt in heterosexual sex crimes is pretty widespread. Assuming that my guess is good, what I don't know and can't even venture to guess is how much practical damage is done as a result or how severe it is, So I don't have the material on which to base a reasoned general opinion about the nature or extent of what kind of social injustice it reflects, or how to address it.

However, just sticking to your situation, if it's burdensome to you, you should and (I am almost certain) can have the specific injustice you describe redressed, and without too much difficulty -- ie, I'm pretty sure you can get that note removed from your record pretty easily. Do you want me to look into it?

I have one further thing to say. But it's late now. So I'm gonna deal with the rest of your dashing and rascally post tomorrow.

[OP ED]

I don't know that its burdensome. Merely annoying when I'm already in the presence of police officers, whom I generally find tedious in and of themselves. On the plus side, it gives me the opportunity to explain to each new cop I meet why I'm automatically antagonistic towards and distrustful of police.

A lot of them actually feel sorry for me. Most of them are pricks though, and will use anything as an excuse to fuck with you.

I just figure I'll hold high office some day and my file will disappear mysteriously after the election.

It could be worse. Fairly often on our local news we hear about cops shooting someone a bunch of times for no reason. They could've done that to me instead, so I count myself fortunate in some ways.

Honestly, I even understand the tendency to a presumption of male guilt in heterosexual crimes. Like many stereotypes it has some statistical basis upon which is rests. Men normally ARE the perpetrators. The entire situation was beyond the pale, IMO, but not out of character per se. If you lived in my home area, and I mentioned the suburb this occurred in, even without this context, you'd likely say something like "man the cops there are fascist fucks". Everyone does. I once heard them tell a man he "didn't look right" to be in that area (despite having lived there his whole life), when I asked them what THAT was supposed to mean, they fucked off and ran away fairly quickly. Just pricks, the lot of them, really. (they also run drugs, I know, from my days involved with ToS people in the area, several of whom ARE cops)

So, no, you don't need to look into it for me. If it bothered me a lot, that is to say, often, I'd have moved on it by now. I still may, if I encounter it in the future. Its been some small time now since I've had the opportunity to be reminded of this by said police. Basically, I think, because I'm less poor and drive a better car, so I don't get stopped/followed as much to begin with.

I await your further points of contention and/or alignment with great anticipation.

LIL,
SHCR

ps.
---
btw, I finally got about halfway done responding to your (much previous) pm, but all of this nonsense distracted me, and since my, er, roommate is now home from drinking her brains out, I feel the urge to be distracted by something less relevant but more pleasant. I'll just be sure not to leave the house.

[OP ED]

one other thing. UN-PC men are lucky. PC men still have to pay good money to get attacked by bitches.

whoops. gotta go.

(and it is pronounced Beeawwtchiz)

[Stephen Morgan]

8bit: All a woman has to do is say "rape", and the burden of proof to prove innocence falls on the guy.

That's the law here and has been since Blair's time. The powerful feminist lobby wanted it and it was so. They were somewhat frustrated that their other unjust measures hadn't worked. They introduced "rape shield" laws, removing the right to face your accuser. Didn't work. Tried to get rid of juries. That might have worked, but they couldn't get it done. So they still get convictions in less that 10% of rape cases, according to the much quoted figures, because juries don't like convicting people who are manifestly innocent.

I'm reminded of both the Kanin study, showing 40% of rape claims are false (counting only those admitted to be false, not those proven to be false where the accuser doesn't recant) and also of the famous story of a jury convicting a man of stealing a ten bob note and valueing it at one shilling and sixpence as anything over five shillings would've meant the death penalty.

Therefore the removed the presumption of innocence (already not universal anyway). Increased the standard of consent so two drunkards fucking is rape. Didn't work. Have faith in the jury trial, and pity the Dutch who don't have it.

compared2what: If you're saying that women who subscribe to the idea that pornography is misogynist are not subscribing to an idea that empowers women, I agree.

I wonder why this is meant to be relevant. Surely more important is whether it's TRUE, not whether it hits men or women hardest.

and: Though I don't know, I would venture to guess that when it comes to widespread gender bias on the part of law enforcement, the presumption of male guilt in heterosexual sex crimes is pretty widespread.

Not just sex crimes. Sentences average twice as long for knocking down and killing a white woman rather than a white man. And I should bring up the twelve year old paying child support to the woman who raped him.

Which reminds me of a BBC Panorama froma few years ago. 19 year old girl forced sex on twelve year old boy, if sex is the term, they because she wanted to shut him up, as she admits in her interview, she threw him off a railway bridge. Sentence 18 months suspended, charge indecent assault. Female sentencing discount, as we in the men's rights movement say.

[compared2what?]

8bit: All a woman has to do is say "rape", and the burden of proof to prove innocence falls on the guy.

That's the law here and has been since Blair's time. The powerful feminist lobby wanted it and it was so. They were somewhat frustrated that their other unjust measures hadn't worked. They introduced "rape shield" laws, removing the right to face your accuser. Didn't work. Tried to get rid of juries. That might have worked, but they couldn't get it done. So they still get convictions in less that 10% of rape cases, according to the much quoted figures, because juries don't like convicting people who are manifestly innocent.

Forgive me if I am merely being dimwitted owing to sleep deprivation, which I am about to address by sleeping, but:

I am flummoxed by your post. The British legal system is not my area of expertise, so I might just be reading the terminology wrong. Whatever the case, I need clarification, because I don't understand what you're saying.

Is the law is literally that following an accusation of rape, the burden of proof defaults to the defense, and has that been the case for years?

What are the legal standards wrt burden of proof generally, and what exceptions are made to them in rape cases?

Does the prosecution have any burden of proof at all after the accusation is made, or is all it takes for a woman to say "rape"?

Who are the leaders of the powerful feminist lobby? In what incorporated and named forms does it exist? Who finances it?

Does the shield law protect the accuser's identity for public purposes, or are defendants not allowed to hear the accusations prior to trial, or are they not permitted to depose the accuser, or....what does the shield law mandate, exactly?

If there's a less than ten percent conviction rate in rape cases, and the powerful feminist lobby wanted the law changed to increase convictions in rape cases, and their wish was Tony Blair's command, you'd kind of have to figure that however powerful they are, it's not powerful enough to oppress innocent defendants, seemingly.

I am completely confused. Please help me.

[JackRiddler]

I await Stephen Morgan's answers to c2w's very factually-oriented questions.

Women and men. It's hard to think of a subject where people throw around more terms and statements as though they were self-evident and universal without bothering to define or specify the referrents.

It's hard to think of a subject where people more readily conflate their personal experience, or perception thereof, or their vendettas, or their wounds large and small, with general truth. (Well, okay, it isn't - various ideologies come to mind - but perhaps the reader really does know what I mean.)

As for me, personal experience has made me into a general misanthrope, but definitely more of a misandrist than a misogynist. And feminism is not a dirty word, or a term that can be bandied about without saying exactly what you mean by it.

[IanEye]

I await Stephen Morgan's answers to c2w's very factually-oriented questions.

Women and men. It's hard to think of a subject where people throw around more terms and statements as though they were self-evident and universal without bothering to define or specify the referrents.

i too await Mr. Morgan's thoughtful response.

in the meantime:

[url=http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=62289F7A34B8B5EA]The cheese on the taco
The frank in the bun
Sauerkraut on my sausage
Relish your fun
Finger your trigger
Wipe your prints off the gun

Wo wo wo penises and vaginas

These innuendos and cunning one liners
Oh I can think of nothing that’s finer
Some of us jocks
And some panty liners

Wo wo wo penises and vaginas

“Penises & Vaginas” – Stinky del Negro
[/url]

[lunarose]

am especially boggled by 8bit's contribution, as i understand he lives here in the sf bay area. when i was in high school, the rule was that if you got raped in oakland, don't call the cops unless you were ready for round two........in the '80's and '90's oakland had notoriously low rape prosecution rates, in fact they declines to prosecute the brutal rape of a nun, which case finally brought some public pressure to bear and some reforms were attempted.

male rights advocates should take heart at a recent california case. my brain has forgotten the particulars so i can't provide a reference, but maybe another poster will be able to id the case from my description.

i heard two female witnesses on the radio, describing what they saw and did. they were at a party with a male college sports team, and a lot of tdrinking. they became aware that a boy was holding a door closed, letting men and in and out but no women. it was a glass door covered inside by a blanket. the girls heard that there was a girl inside and all the guys were having sex with her, and became concerned. the blanket moved, they were able to see inside - one man was having vaginal sex with the unconscious girl, while another (who's face they could see) attempted oral penetration. as the girl's vagina was battered and bloody, and she was unconscious and (i believe) spewed with vomit, they could immediately tell it was rape. they were able to force their way in and get the girl to a hospital, they drove her there themselves because she was having trouble breathing and there was no sign of the cops or an ambulance showing up.

at the hospital, the ER didn't have a rape kit or facilities to test for any drugging, so after 45 minutes she was transfered to another facility. then it was discovered she was 17.

the two female witnesses saw the guy holding the door shut, the faces of the guys going in and out of the room, and the face of the guy attempting oral penetration. no semen was found for dna testing, but the vomit on the victim was not her own and so is available for such testing.

a grand jury was convened, and right off the bat gave immunity to two males present at the scene (the two female witnesses can id more than two men present in the rape room). there was a lot of public outcry, but the upshot was that no prosecution was possible, since the victim was so traumatized, drunk or drugged, and passed out that she could not make any positive id's. the two female witnesses were not called by the grand jury, even though they gave statements to the police at the ER. they have been receiving death threats on a regular basis since.

so all of you 'male rights' advocates should be thrilled at this outcome. just make sure any women you fuck are too passed out to yell 'rape' and (as looks likely) you have friends and family in high places, and your way will be smoothed.

lovely world we live in, isn't it? with such charming, intelligent, informed posters on our board............

[posting tulpa]

"Wheewee!!! It sure smells like overbearing feminism in here"

[lunarose]

yep. nothing like the right of men to rape passed out, vomit covered,
unconscious girls. you're looking good defending that, while i'm just some whining, mewling feminist.

yep, you guys have made me feel real ashamed of myself.

[Jeff]

This thread is starting to stink of '80s beer-sweat after an Andrew Dice Clay show.

Admin sez: sexism is as ugly as racism, and is just as unwelcome here.

[OP ED]

yep. nothing like the right of men to rape passed out, vomit covered,
unconscious girls. you're looking good defending that, while i'm just some whining, mewling feminist.

yep, you guys have made me feel real ashamed of myself.

lunarose puts more words into other peoples' mouths.

You could try debating what people actually say as opposed to what you say. You might get better responses that way.

Also, please point out who defends the case you discussed?

There've only been a couple replies since then and I'm having trouble finding a defense of those actions even implied in any of them.

I see lots of misunderstandings and flaming language, but little in the way of overt sexism in this thread, honestly. Though I see several attempts to re-frame various areas this way. Perhaps to avoid any discussion of them?

Its not like they'd be off-topic.