The Glade 4.0

I think a lot of you are missing that this is just a proposed law with no chance of actually being passed. Yeah, it's crazy, but it's not really worth getting worked up over. We propose all sorts of crazy laws in the US every week.

Except its important IMO to discuss and bring to light this kind of stupidity, lest it gain a foothold. The proponents of laws like these tend not to care about how stupid us neophytes think they are, and will continue to try and get their way if we don't pay attention

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

In the U.S. this would have virtually no chance of passing. The law is proposed in New Zealand which, while not being in Europe, is a hotbed of Euro-liberalism.

It's also heavily representative of exactly what feminists in the U.S. have been proposing for years. It should be a wake-up call to just how poisonous an ideology that claims to be in favor of equality for all by advocating the interests of one particular group is, and just how dangerous unchecked victim politics is.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm not so sure it has no chance of passing, either. In NZ, women already cannot commit rape, the rape statutes specifically refer to penetration with a penis. They can only commit sexual assault which has much lower penalties.

While technically women in the U.S. can commit rape in various ways, our crime statistics suffer from having allowed feminists (a professor named Mary Koss in particular) to invent special terminology for female-on-male assaults involving vaginal penetration. Specifically, this is called "forced to penetrate" in Federal crime statistics, not rape, thereby contributing to the idea that "women don't rape men" by using a euphemism in its place. The only female-on-male rapes in the statistics would be forcible anal penetration (and possibly statutory rapes; I don't recall if those are counted separately or not.)

As it is, the idea of male victims is considered a joke by the vast majority of society due to a combination of heavily mistaken ideas about male sexual physiology and a general belief that women just aren't sexually aggressive. Antics like this make it very hard for male victims to be taken seriously, which contributes to the idea that "it never happens" which makes it hard for claims to be taken seriously... and so forth.

We actually have no idea at all how prevalent female rape of males is. Unlike female victims, where "not taken seriously" is a euphemism for " the accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence" male victims may not even realize they have been raped, considering it just "damn, I'll never do that again." and if they do report, they're likely to be dismissed out of hand - there are no hotlines or victim advocates for males.

It may be that male victimhood really is rather rare compared to female victimhood, but there is simply no reliable data. The combination of societal prejudice and feminist propaganda is simply overwhelming.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I agree with you that there is no reliable data for this, but I think people can confidently say that female-on-male rapes are far, far less than the reverse. Anecdotally speaking, and also logically speaking. If the rates were as high, there would be enough to break the threshold and victims would start being taken seriously.

I would agree that male-on-female numbers are probably higher, but "far, far" is really not something supported by logic at all. It's supported by intuition and conventional wisdom, and this is part of the problem. The idea of male victimhood is so counter to our culture that males cannot necessarily even recognize themselves as victims, and so even if there are many of them, they won't "break the threshold." This is an immense psychological blind spot because the same behaviors are simply not considered assaultive if a woman does them to a man than the reverse.

It's easily illustrated by looking at sex involving alcohol. If two drunk people have sex, even though the law doesn't explicitly say so, the woman can claim she wasn't able to "meaningfully consent". An equally impaired male technically can make the same claim, but he simply won't be taken seriously if he makes that claim regarding a female. Even if she's sober and he's drunk, it's "dude.. come on! I wish some chick would do that to me!" There's also the misconception that a man can't get hard if he doesn't want it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't know, man. If the victim doesn't see himself as a victim, I'm good saying he's not a victim.

Yeah, the problem is later on when the gal comes down pregnant and wants the child support. Men feel victimized right about then.

_________________

I'm not saying "does not see himself as a victim" in the sense of he doesn't feel victimized; I'm saying that even though he may have a sense of victimization and associated feelings, he does not even realize that what happened to him was a crime. He has essentially no access to the services that might help him work through what happened, even without considering criminal complaints.

Contrast it to the situation of women, who can consent to sex and then turn around later and claim it was rape. They might not get anywhere, legally, with such a complaint but it will get taken seriously by almost any victim service organization, who will treat her as a victim in all but the most spurious cases.. and even then, all she has to do is spin what happened a little bit. This contributes to the inflation of disproportion between male and female complaints - spurious complaints from females inflate their numbers as much or more than not taking men seriously depletes theirs.

Assuming male victims are significantly less common than female victims (and that is reasonably likely), the attitude that it basically never happens ensures they aren't taken seriously when it DOES happen. This is actually a common problem with almost any group-based victimization mentality; the group that is less often victimized isn't taken seriously as individuals
even when they do have a legitimate complaint.



Indeed.. and with the system as it is, it's not at all impossible that the woman might get child support from him even if he was convicted of rape. That's happened to underage male victims of statutory rape.. that hot teacher is all good until a bill shows up for child support, and that's assuming the kid was really as ok with it as everyone imagines.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Maybe there's something to this committed monogamy thing than a bunch of outdated religious zealots...

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Honestly, this is why I think it has a real chance of getting passed here. In addition to the feminists, it will also be supported by the religious conservatives that know it's ridiculous, but will support it anyway because it indirectly supports their goal of preventing premarital sex. The same was true of them and the laws that sent 18-year olds to prison for 15 years for having sex with their 17-year old girlfriends.

Feminists are responsible for statutory rape laws.

_________________

No it won't. Those same religious conservatives A) generally can't stand feminists and B) also tend to be big on things like "due process".

You really need to stop imagining you have any idea how religious conservatives think. You're willing to invent a reason why they'd support any idea you don't like, no matter how counter it runs to their actual ideas. I'd also like to see where statutory rape laws were a result of religious conservatives just wanting to prevent premarital sex. Despite being opposed to it, practically none want to criminalize it. Most religious conservatives don't even want to criminalize homosexual activities even if they oppose same-sex marriage.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, there really isn't. While lack of sex is grounds for dissolving a marriage, monogamous relationships, including those legally recognized by the state, do not count as consent to sexual activity in a court of law.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

generally speaking though, when you get to know someone rather that just sleeping with someone you just met, I would imagine the chances of the kind of things being mentioned here decreases.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Not as much as you think. We are talking about the daughters of a generation of women who were taught that all penetration is rape. Incidentally, feminists with degrees are the worst women in the world at breeding by birth rate.

_________________

Broken cultural ideas that broadly label penetration in negative ways will be taken care of by natural selection. Basically, the Muslims, Mormons, and African populations will replace the feminists in not too long.

Sadly, sociologists are collecting evidence that indicates this is not a joke.

_________________

Actually they do. In the absence of expressed denial of consent, marriage constitutes implicit consent. Marital rape means forcing your spouse to have sex when they say "no".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is quite true. In point of fact, those of you (and Khross, I am not referring to you here as I know you are not one of them) who think stamping out religion in society or getting people to go atheist is going to usher in some age of freedom from oppression had beeter think again. Those nations Lex mentioned are beating us badly on birthrate, and they're doing so not just in shitholes, but in places like Russia.

What's going to happen when the largest nuclear arsenal in the world belongs to a Muslim-majority nation?

How about France? What's the birthrate of secular French to Muslims look like?

Some of you had better wake the **** up. You're ***** about Christianity on the internet because you don't like it, but Christians are the ones disproportionately entering public service and the military, while some of you just want to sit back and complain about things on the internet and think "freedom" consiists of you getting to do whatever the **** you want, and pompously lecture everyone else on freedom.

But you're the ones in no big rush to have babies. Guess what? Us Christians are having the babies that are going to defend you in coming decades. If you want to get gay couples in on the act as legitimate married couples raising come kids, by all means, we need that, but all the time you spend trying to tear down the traditional family structure, you'd best understand you're only hurting yourselves. You people aren't having enough babies. You'd best be glad for the Christians in the traditional families because we're the one's providing the people most likely to actually do something to besides 'defend freedom' by ***** on the internet.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I know its in vogue to crap on atheists and agnostics for not supporting society, but a lot of the birth rate destruction is caused by conservative values that clash with typical modern Western society values. Religious conservatives say its sinful to have sex before marriage. It's also conservative values that say you wait for financial security to get married and that you should avoid having children until you can comfortably afford to raise them. The poor individuals on welfare are almost 100% liberal and they are definitely not slacking on the baby making. Combine that with a society that sexualizes everything and broadcasts it at people starting at about age 8, and you've got a recipie for driving people insane.

Sometimes the liberal and conservative values get combined in strange ways as well, which is why I don't think its far fetched for them to come together on the rape issue. For example, take Germany's extremely low birthrate. It is mainly caused by a culture where women without kids are expected to work, but women with kids are expected to not work. There, a woman in her early 20s whose life goal is to have kids and be a homemaker is a joke. We feminists fought hard for workplace equality and now you're going to throw it away? Be dependent on a man your whole life? However, the second her egg's perimeter is breached, she's expected to conform to traditional values, discard her budding career overnight, and focus on being a mother. The stigma against working mothers is extreme and they face large amounts of prejudice and discrimination. So the only way you can have kids there is to be career focused in your 20s then at some point just discard everything you've worked for and switch roles. Naturally, its not working well.

No it isn't. There's nothing particularly "in vogue" about "crapping on atheists" either, in fact it's pretty much the reverse, for athesists to do exactly what you're doing.



Contrary to popular belief, people will not be "driven insane" by having to exercise a modicum of sexual restraint. Furthermore, those poor people may be economically liberal, but they tend to be religious, are frequently conservative from a religious standpoint, and tend to espouse those values even if they don't live them. Blacks, in particular, are heavily conservative protestants even if they're politically liberal.



So, in other words, the problem is that Germany still cannot get over its addiction to social conformity, regardless of the governing social values.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Xequecal:

Most Europeans and most feminists need to learn one simple truth.

Human sexual dimorphism is real.

_________________

In other words, yes a man can be convicted of raping his wife. That means marriage does not equate to consent. Marriage currently sets a high bar for proving that you did not consent to the sexual encounter. That is true. Marriage is not consent in and of itself. Monogamous relationships, which is what Rorinthas proposed in his initial post, covers a much broader range of human pair bonding. You can not defend yourself against a rape charge by claiming to be in a monogamous relationship.

More to the point, this law shifts the burden in the court room to make it easier to claim one was raped. Now, you do not have to demonstrate to the court that you did not consent to our hot, sweaty man-love. I have to demonstrate to the court that you explicitly consented. The stated intent of the law is to increase conviction rate. Yes, it is hard for a married person to prove their spouse raped them, which is what this law is designed to change. That means when I make my case in court, I need to give them the Bill Clinton.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.