Can you be perverted behind the door?

hawkeye10 wrote:

A consistent small difference in biology and brain chemistry between the genders leads to some major differences in perception of the same reality.

Some major differences, yes I agree. I'm just asking you to admit that there are some major similarities as well. They're so obvious that they almost go with out saying (e.g. we all perceive red things as red), but nevertheless it sounds like you're ignoring them.

Quote:

The problem with feminism is that women DAMAND (sic) that men adopt their perception...injustices of the past are not my fault...

Can you name a single current feminist individual or organisation that has expressed the view that you are objecting to? I've never heard a feminist say, "Men must adopt our perception; injustices of the past are their fault." I think you're attacking a straw woman.

Quote:

Ummm, I am a mystic.....I don't share your high appreciation of objective truth over subjective truth.

Then why do you need proof of current injustices against women?..

Quote:

injustices claimed to be current and my fault need to be proven to me before i take them seriously.

I'm not sure what subjective truth is supposed to be. Sounds like dodgy relativism to me.

Quote:

We also know this by America basically making illegal racial and gender specific social organization.

This is tangential, but... are there any non-racist reasons to support racial-specific social organisation? What kind of things do you have in mind here?

Quote:

Sure spiritual depth is missing, but so is richness of personality, so is the ability to function independently of the collective (not a slave to fads, the conventional wisdom, the mob mentality), so is the ability and willingness to examine life and humanity.

I can't argue with that, but I don't think women's liberation is the cause of this problem. Even if you think feminism is now redundant in Western culture, surely you can't deny that it was once a necessity? In the not-so-distant past, women basically weren't allowed to have a rich personality or to function independently of the collective. They were encouraged to obey conventional wisdom and refrain from examining life or humanity (being intellectual was a man's job, like so many other things).

In fact, in many parts of the world this is still the case.

0 Replies

Agrote, I don't have the patience to participate in this thread, but I just wanted to let you know I've been enjoying your thoughtful, logical posts.

....oh, and that thing about Paris Hilton--"thin, orange, and blonde" -- heeheehee!

0 Replies

Thanks, cat. It's a shame he hasn't responded.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Thanks, cat. It's a shame he hasn't responded.

I think that i have sufficiently given my explanation for why the project of Feminism failed. Given that you don't agree that it has failed we don't have much to talk about, there is not enough common ground to continue. Given that I don't expect the movement to reemerge during my life time I don't have a great deal of patience for a theoretical argument about feminism, though i am interested in reversing the idiotic sex laws that the last generation of feminists championed.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

agrote wrote:
Thanks, cat. It's a shame he hasn't responded.
I think that i have sufficiently given my explanation for why the project of Feminism failed. Given that you don't agree that it has failed we don't have much to talk about, there is not enough common ground to continue.

If you have no desire to hold discussions with people who disagree with your ideas... what are you doing in a debate forum?

Avoiding such discussions is a dangerous thing to do, especially when your ideas are somewhat extreme, and on the face of it seem quite implausible. If you can't defend your views against objection or scrutiny, then there's a decent chance that you're wrong. And if you don't try to defend them, you'll never know this. This is why there are racists: if you ignore all the arguments against your position, you can get away with believing just about anything.

Quote:

Given that I don't expect the movement to reemerge during my life time I don't have a great deal of patience for a theoretical argument about feminism, though i am interested in reversing the idiotic sex laws that the last generation of feminists championed.

But the theoretical argument may shed light on whether the sex laws actually should be reversed. You need to be open to the possibility that you are mistaken, and that the sex laws are fine as they are. Engaging in this debate will determine to some extent whether or not your mission is a good one. This is important, because if you are wrong, then changing the sex laws may have terrible consequences.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you have no desire to hold discussions with people who disagree with your ideas... what are you doing in a debate forum?

Avoiding such discussions is a dangerous thing to do, especially when your ideas are somewhat extreme, and on the face of it seem quite implausible. If you can't defend your views against objection or scrutiny, then there's a decent chance that you're wrong. And if you don't try to defend them, you'll never know this. This is why there are racists: if you ignore all the arguments against your position, you can get away with believing just about anything

I have not avoided discussion, however we are at a dead end since you insist on behaving as if gender an sexual relationships are controlled and explained by reason and rationalizations. People are as much irrational as we are rational, who we are and what we want can only partly be explained rationally. Have you never been in love....how is it that you don't know this?? Feminism was stuck on reason as well, which is a big part of why it failed. Feminism never properly took into account that the price of fighting with men over power would be that men would look at them and find them less desirable. Never properly took into account that power is not one of the main things that most women want, and that fighting about power gets in the way of women getting what they want. Feminism did create a larger class of women who don't particularly care if they have a man, who will not invest much of themselves into a personal relationship with a man, who walk around talking about how they are happy with out a man. I doubt it but what ever, as a man I only want a woman who wants me, and these women have made their choice. There is not any point of standing there and arguing about it...they don't want what I want so there-for relating with them is not worth my time.

Likewise, there is no profit it my arguing with you agrote when you insist on subjecting gender relationships and thus feminism to a rational framework. In my opinion your assumptions are wrong, thus everything that you have to say on the matter is flawed from the get-go.

0 Replies

I'm confused about what you think my assumptions are. And I don't know why you don't want to explain to me why they are wrong (whatever they may be). Assuming that you want your own and other people's beliefs to be as close to the truth as possible, there is always profit in subjecting your ideas and arguments to the scrutiny of other people, especially those who you completely disagree with. If you can't clearly explain your disagreement, there is reason to doubt that it is justified.

I haven't claimed that "gender an sexual relationships are controlled and explained by reason and rationalisations." Clearly love is irrational to some extent. So what? What's the relevance of this?

I suppose I have implied that the ethics of gender and sexual relationships should be controlled by reason. But this is completely different from the claim that gender and sexual relationships themselves actually are controlled by reason. It's a prescriptive claim, as opposed to the descriptive claim that you have attributed to me; and it's about the ethics of relationships, not the nature of relationships. Love is irrational, sure, but the ethics of love should worked out rationally, don't you think? For example, if we disapprove of adultery (say), it should be because we know that it causes harm, and not because we feel that it is wrong, or for any other fluffy, non-rational sort off "reason".

hawkeye10 wrote:

Feminism never properly took into account that the price of fighting with men over power would be that men would look at them and find them less desirable.

I'm not quite sure why you think they needed to take this into account. But leaving that aside, I don't think your claim is true. You may personally find the desire for equality of pay or the right to vote a turn off in potential partners, but I don't and I can't imagine that most men do. I can't imagine that a desirable woman could become any less desirable just by having certain political or philosophical opinions. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Quote:

...Never properly took into account that power is not one of the main things that most women want, and that fighting about power gets in the way of women getting what they want.

Surely it's for women to decide what they want. And surely a significant proportion of women must have wanted what the feminists wanted, otherwise feminism would never have happened.

What is it that you think most women want? Is it what they ought to want?

0 Replies

Quote:

Assuming that you want your own and other people's beliefs to be as close to the truth as possible, there is always profit in subjecting your ideas and arguments to the scrutiny of other people, especially those who you completely disagree with. If you can't clearly explain your disagreement, there is reason to doubt that it is justified

I agree with this

Quote:

I suppose I have implied that the ethics of gender and sexual relationships should be controlled by reason. But this is completely different from the claim that gender and sexual relationships themselves actually are controlled by reason. It's a prescriptive claim, as opposed to the descriptive claim that you have attributed to me; and it's about the ethics of relationships, not the nature of relationships. Love is irrational, sure, but the ethics of love should worked out rationally, don't you think? For example, if we disapprove of adultery (say), it should be because we know that it causes harm, and not because we feel that it is wrong, or for any other fluffy, non-rational sort off "reason

Ethics and morality are products of the rational mind, thus have little use in matters that are largely controlled by our irrational selves. I believe that all is fair in love, thus I am not a stickler for demanding that relationships be guided by an ethical code, though I am very ethical in my lower power relationships (work, neighbors and so on). RE your example; we hurt the ones we love more than anyone else, it is who we are as humans. You seem to not know this, or at least wish to make this reality go away. Trying to make intimate relationships "safe" demands that they become lower power, and takes away much of their ability to force us to grow. Destruction and renewal is the natural order of life, humans and thus human relationships follow this law the same as all other life

Quote:

I'm not quite sure why you think they needed to take this into account. But leaving that aside, I don't think your claim is true. You may personally find the desire for equality of pay or the right to vote a turn off in potential partners, but I don't and I can't imagine that most men do. I can't imagine that a desirable woman could become any less desirable just by having certain political or philosophical opinions. Perhaps you could elaborate?

I have never met a feminist who did not give off a vibe that I represent an oppressive gender, even if I am as an individual OK. Women are not very good at separating the political and the philosophical from the personal, if I had ever met a feminist who could resist infecting her personal relationship with her latent hostility towards men I would leave open the possibility that a feminist could be desirable as a mate, but that has not been my experience. some men will have these women, will settle for a woman who can not fully give herself to a man or to a relationship, but I demand more.

Quote:

Surely it's for women to decide what they want. And surely a significant proportion of women must have wanted what the feminists wanted, otherwise feminism would never have happened.

What is it that you think most women want? Is it what they ought to want?

I think that the majority of younger women have disowned feminism, feminism failed when women were no longer willing to support it. Being angry at men does little to improve a woman's quality of life, modern women make more productive use of their time and energy than taking up the cause of feminism allows.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Assuming that you want your own and other people's beliefs to be as close to the truth as possible, there is always profit in subjecting your ideas and arguments to the scrutiny of other people, especially those who you completely disagree with. If you can't clearly explain your disagreement, there is reason to doubt that it is justified

I agree with this

So you do think there is profit in your arguing with me, after all?

Quote:

Ethics and morality are products of the rational mind, thus have little use in matters that are largely controlled by our irrational selves.

That sounds logical, but I don't think it is. Religious faith, in my view, is irrational. Nevertheless, it makes perfect sense, in my view, to make ethical claims about it, such as the claim that it has bad consequences for humanity and that it is therefore bad that some people promote it as a virtue. If something is irrational, I'm sure it can't be explained in rational terms. But it can nevertheless be a topic of rational conversation.

"I am not the he went" is a meaningless sentence.

Nevertheless, the above sentence (underlined), is not meaningless. That's the sort of thing I'm getting at. Love is irrational, but rational claims about it are still meaningful and useful.

Quote:

I believe that all is fair in love, thus I am not a stickler for demanding that relationships be guided by an ethical code, though I am very ethical in my lower power relationships (work, neighbors and so on).

Why? What's the reason for behaving differently when it comes to your so-called 'lower power' relationships?

Quote:

RE your example; we hurt the ones we love more than anyone else, it is who we are as humans. You seem to not know this, or at least wish to make this reality go away. Trying to make intimate relationships "safe" demands that they become lower power, and takes away much of their ability to force us to grow. Destruction and renewal is the natural order of life, humans and thus human relationships follow this law the same as all other life

The example was just to illustrate the general point that we can and should apply ethics to relationships (if we are to apply it to anything at all). I don't necessarily stand by the particular ethical claim that I cited in the example, and I'm not asking you to agree with it. You could well be right about it being best not to constrain love by making it too[/] safe.

Although I think we may disagree about where to draw the line. I don't think we're playing it too safe by making it illegal for partners to rape each other.

[quote]I have never met a feminist who did not give off a vibe that I represent an oppressive gender, even if I am as an individual OK.[/quote]

You need to be careful about assuming that this 'vibe' was in their heads and not yours. If you believe that feminists see you as oppressive, it might be easy to sense such vibes even when they are not there.

But even if all these feminists you've met were giving off that vibe, you need to be careful again when you make this generalisation about all feminists. I have never met a feminist that fits your description (and that's not because I've never met a feminist). How many have you met?

[quote]Women are not very good at separating the political and the philosophical from the personal, if I had ever met a feminist who could resist infecting her personal relationship with her latent hostility towards men I would leave open the possibility that a feminist could be desirable as a mate, but that has not been my experience.[/quote]

Feminsits do not necessarily have a latent hostility towards men. It is possible to be a male feminist; I've heard J.S. Mill described as one of the early proponents of feminism. That should tell you something.

Specifically, it should tell you that feminism is about gender equality and women's rights. It is not, at its core, about the hatred or demonisation of men. Sure, some feminists probably do hate men, but then some Christians think it's okay to murder people - that doesn't mean that Christianity is a murdersome religion (not that it doesn't have its other problems).

[quote]I think that the majority of younger women have disowned feminism, feminism failed when women were no longer willing to support it.[/quote]

It didn't exactly fail. Women have much more freedom now than they had before. To name just one thing: these days women are allowed to vote. Sounds like a success story to me.

[quote]Being angry at men does little to improve a woman's quality of life, modern women make more productive use of their time and energy than taking up the cause of feminism allows.[/quote]

They use their time and energy doing many things that they would not have been able to do if it weren't for the women's liberation movement. Don't forget that.

And you don't need to be angry towards men to be a feminist. You're arguing with a caricature of feminism. I'm not asking you to agree with feminism, I just want you to realise that it is not necessary to hate men, or to believe that they are responsible for all of the evils of the world, in order to qualify as a feminist.

You haven't yet told me what these young women want, or how feminism prevents them getting it.

0 Replies

Quote:

That sounds logical, but I don't think it is. Religious faith, in my view, is irrational. Nevertheless, it makes perfect sense, in my view, to make ethical claims about it, such as the claim that it has bad consequences for humanity and that it is therefore bad that some people promote it as a virtue. If something is irrational, I'm sure it can't be explained in rational terms. But it can nevertheless be a topic of rational conversation.

"I am not the he went" is a meaningless sentence.

Nevertheless, the above sentence (underlined), is not meaningless. That's the sort of thing I'm getting at. Love is irrational, but rational claims about it are still meaningful and useful.

putting our irrational nature into words so that we can communicate the irrational nature of man is useful, and obviously we must make some sense of the experience before we can verbalize it....so I think that I agree with you

Quote:

Why? What's the reason for behaving differently when it comes to your so-called 'lower power' relationships?

lower power relationships are governed by codes of civility, plus those who have a weaker relationship with us are less willing to put up with the nastier parts of ourselves. Granted there are people who are willing to be an assh+le whenever the mood strikes, but they do pay a social price for this behaviour.

Quote:

You need to be careful about assuming that this 'vibe' was in their heads and not yours. If you believe that feminists see you as oppressive, it might be easy to sense such vibes even when they are not there.

But even if all these feminists you've met were giving off that vibe, you need to be careful again when you make this generalisation about all feminists. I have never met a feminist that fits your description (and that's not because I've never met a feminist). How many have you met?

I have hung around a lot of feminists, back when I considered myself one, but that was long ago and I have avoided that tribe ever since. My information may be dated. It is also true that many of the feminist I knew personally considered themselves to be radical, they may not have been mainstream

Quote:

Feminists do not necessarily have a latent hostility towards men. It is possible to be a male feminist; I've heard J.S. Mill described as one of the early proponents of feminism. That should tell you something.

Specifically, it should tell you that feminism is about gender equality and women's rights. It is not, at its core, about the hatred or demonstration of men. Sure, some feminists probably do hate men, but then some Christians think it's okay to murder people - that doesn't mean that Christianity is a murder some religion (not that it doesn't have its other problems).

If women can get more of what they want while men get more of what we want then it is a good deal, if women's rights comes at the expense of men's rights then I say no deal. Men not only should refuse to give up any more power to women, but we should also reclaim some of what has been lost. Specifically in the areas of rape law, and family law. Absent any new agenda that is win/win I am not interesting in listen to female whine about being not equal. if anyone has the greater right to play victim today it is men.

Quote:

You haven't yet told me what these young women want, or how feminism prevents them getting it.

You would be better served to get first hand accounts from young women about why they feel that feminism does not serve their needs, why they don't identify with the feminist movement. The first major sign that the movement was in trouble was the failure of the ERA to pass. The second was the strong reaction to the feminsts in the form of an organized effort by the Christian Right to put down the movement. By the early ninties it was clear that the movement was stalled.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Men not only should refuse to give up any more power to women, but we should also reclaim some of what has been lost. Specifically in the areas of rape law...

What have we lost, esactly? The freedom to commit rape? You'll have to remind me what your views are on this.

I agree with you that the protection opf women's rights should not come at the cost of men's rights. I presume you agree with the reverse: the protection fo men's rights should not come at the cost of women's rights.

Now I'm not sure which male rights you think are violated by the laws concerning rape, but do you not think that women have a right not to be raped?

0 Replies

I have just come upon this thread, and I am physically ill reading
hawkeye's postings.

I only can urge you to seek help, hawkeye. Anyone who promotes domination and rape they way you do, is a danger to all women and
society in general.

From your previous posts, I could see that you are a misogynist,
however, how deeply disturbed your mode of thoughts is, is even
surprising to me.

0 Replies

With Rape law in America over the last 30 years the law has changed. Once the accuser needed to prove guilt of the alleged rapist, now the alleged rapist must prove his innocence. The law was once that the lack of consent needed to be proven, now consent needs to be proven. This is a huge swing of the hammer against men.

In family law for long while divorce has meant in almost all cases the father looses his kids. He may get some meaningful visitation rights, but that is all. America family court law has in the last few years evened the playing field a bit, but men still have far to go to maintain their rights as fathers after divorce.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

I have just come upon this thread, and I am physically ill reading
hawkeye's postings.

I only can urge you to seek help, hawkeye. Anyone who promotes domination and rape they way you do, is a danger to all women and
society in general.

From your previous posts, I could see that you are a misogynist,
however, how deeply disturbed your mode of thoughts is, is even
surprising to me.

Naturally I don't agree with hawkeye's bizarre views about rape. But I must come to his (partial) defence here. I don't think he needs the sort of help that you are implying. Look again at his posts... he does have arguments for his position. Fallacious arguments, but arguments nonetheless. You don't have to be insane to reach false conclusions. You just need to be misinformed in some way.

I do agree that (assuming they are false) his views are latently dangerous, to women and society in general. But telling him that he needs help is not going to help. He is clearly a reasonable person (in that he does have reasons for his beliefs), so the thing to do is to argue against his position and show him that he is mistaken.

Another point is that the offensiveness and the danger of his views has no bearing on their truth-value. Some controversial claims turn out to be true. You're committing a fallacy if you assume that his views must be wrong just because they are misogynistic. If his conclusions are false, it will be because the reasoning behind them does not add up, and not because his conclusions are offensive or sexist.

Again, to clarify, I don't agree with him about rape at all. But I have expressed equally controversial views in this forum in the past, and my arguments for them were largely ignored. I was repeatedly told either to die or to "seek help", so I get pretty sick of hearing it. It isn't appropriate and isn't relevant. This is a debate forum. Debate.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

I have just come upon this thread, and I am physically ill reading
hawkeye's postings.

I only can urge you to seek help, hawkeye. Anyone who promotes domination and rape they way you do, is a danger to all women and
society in general.

From your previous posts, I could see that you are a misogynist,
however, how deeply disturbed your mode of thoughts is, is even
surprising to me.

Vilification of a person making an argument is not a counter argument. If you don't agree with my views, and have a counter argument that you can support, feel free to jump in.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

I have just come upon this thread, and I am physically ill reading
hawkeye's postings.

Anyone who promotes domination and rape they way you do, is a danger to all women and
society in general.

I'm with ya sister!

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

With Rape law in America over the last 30 years the law has changed. Once the accuser needed to prove guilt of the alleged rapist, now the alleged rapist must prove his innocence. The law was once that the lack of consent needed to be proven, now consent needs to be proven. This is a huge swing of the hammer against men.

In family law for long while divorce has meant in almost all cases the father looses his kids. He may get some meaningful visitation rights, but that is all. America family court law has in the last few years evened the playing field a bit, but men still have far to go to maintain their rights as fathers after divorce.

I would be fascinated to see your backing for the alleged reversal of the presumption of innocence in rape cases.

Do you contend that the law has changed, or are you simply reacting to some perceived change in the atmosphere of the courts?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
With Rape law in America over the last 30 years the law has changed. Once the accuser needed to prove guilt of the alleged rapist, now the alleged rapist must prove his innocence. The law was once that the lack of consent needed to be proven, now consent needs to be proven. This is a huge swing of the hammer against men.

In family law for long while divorce has meant in almost all cases the father looses his kids. He may get some meaningful visitation rights, but that is all. America family court law has in the last few years evened the playing field a bit, but men still have far to go to maintain their rights as fathers after divorce.

I would be fascinated to see your backing for the alleged reversal of the presumption of innocence in rape cases.

Do you contend that the law has changed, or are you simply reacting to some perceived change in the atmosphere of the courts?

given that you are austrailian let's look at this eample:

Quote:

NICK HENDERSON, STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
October 26, 2007 02:15am
A PERSON could be convicted of rape even if they had permission to have sex and were not told to stop, under tough laws proposed by the State Government.

A consultation process on rape law reform in South Australia has led to further changes to a proposed Bill which would significantly strengthen sexual assault laws.

Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said the Government would make it an offence to continue a sexual act with another person after receiving consent if they changed their mind.

"If consent is given to begin with, then the alleged victim decides she doesn't want to go on with a particular sexual activity or to engage in another type of sexual activity, obviously she will have to communicate that to the alleged offender," he said.

The Government has more clearly defined consent in the proposed laws and Mr Atkinson said a person would not need to tell an alleged offender to stop if they decided not to continue engaging in sexual activity.

"I think a scream would be sufficient," Mr Atkinson said.

"We don't want to punish men for being inadvertent or negligent but we do want to punish them for reckless indifference to whether a woman was consenting to their sexual advances," he said.

Defence lawyer and SA Council of Civil Liberties president George Mancini said it could take more than five years to determine whether the laws were effective.

He said many of the new laws were already enforced in the courts and claimed much of the legislation was "unnecessary".

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22646852-5006301,00.html?from=mostpop

But over all the laws have changed, the default was the presumption of consent, today in almost all courts the default is the presumption of lack of consent. The accused now must prove that consent was given. Given the hazy nature of sexual consent between normally sexual humans this a big change. For those who practice abnormal sexuality the swing in presumption is even more of a slam against men.

0 Replies

For those who blow my sex law concerns off as the evil vomit of a misogynist I give you:

Quote:

Rape-Law Reform circa June 2002

Has the Pendulum Swung Too Far?
STEPHEN SCHULHOFER

Robert B. McKay Professor of Law, New York University Law School, New York, New York 10012, USA

Address for correspondence: Stephen Schulhofer, Robert B. McKay, Professor of Law, New York University Law School, 40 Washington Square South, New York, NY 10012. Voice: 212-998-6260; fax: 212-995-4692.
[email protected]
Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 989: 276-287 (2003).

This paper reviews court decisions determining the scope of liability for rape over the period 1998-2002. It finds many troubling signs that some courts, under some circumstances, are still wedded to the traditional (very strict) view of the kind of force necessary to support a charge of rape. There are, however, signs of encouraging progress: convictions in circumstances where even a decision to prosecute would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, and holdings that accept power, authority, or indirect intimidation as sufficient "force." Is it possible to go too far in this direction? And is there any reason to worry that this could actually happen in reality? The research identifies several areas in which this surprising possibility may be about to materialize, for example on the normatively and practically difficult question of the degree of intoxication or alcohol-induced willingness sufficient to invalidate consent.

http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/989/1/276

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

dlowan wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
With Rape law in America over the last 30 years the law has changed. Once the accuser needed to prove guilt of the alleged rapist, now the alleged rapist must prove his innocence. The law was once that the lack of consent needed to be proven, now consent needs to be proven. This is a huge swing of the hammer against men.

In family law for long while divorce has meant in almost all cases the father looses his kids. He may get some meaningful visitation rights, but that is all. America family court law has in the last few years evened the playing field a bit, but men still have far to go to maintain their rights as fathers after divorce.

I would be fascinated to see your backing for the alleged reversal of the presumption of innocence in rape cases.

Do you contend that the law has changed, or are you simply reacting to some perceived change in the atmosphere of the courts?

given that you are austrailian let's look at this eample:

Quote:
NICK HENDERSON, STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
October 26, 2007 02:15am
A PERSON could be convicted of rape even if they had permission to have sex and were not told to stop, under tough laws proposed by the State Government.

A consultation process on rape law reform in South Australia has led to further changes to a proposed Bill which would significantly strengthen sexual assault laws.

Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said the Government would make it an offence to continue a sexual act with another person after receiving consent if they changed their mind.

"If consent is given to begin with, then the alleged victim decides she doesn't want to go on with a particular sexual activity or to engage in another type of sexual activity, obviously she will have to communicate that to the alleged offender," he said.

The Government has more clearly defined consent in the proposed laws and Mr Atkinson said a person would not need to tell an alleged offender to stop if they decided not to continue engaging in sexual activity.

"I think a scream would be sufficient," Mr Atkinson said.

"We don't want to punish men for being inadvertent or negligent but we do want to punish them for reckless indifference to whether a woman was consenting to their sexual advances," he said.

Defence lawyer and SA Council of Civil Liberties president George Mancini said it could take more than five years to determine whether the laws were effective.

He said many of the new laws were already enforced in the courts and claimed much of the legislation was "unnecessary".

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22646852-5006301,00.html?from=mostpop

But over all the laws have changed, the default was the presumption of consent, today in almost all courts the default is the presumption of lack of consent. The accused now must prove that consent was given. Given the hazy nature of sexual consent between normally sexual humans this a big change. For those who practice abnormal sexuality the swing in presumption is even more of a slam against men.

Naw....let's look at what you said.

You're American, you made a claim re American law....back it.

I can tell you that right now in Australia, the chances of getting a conviction if you are raped is very low.

I have worked in the area....it's so bad that, if I am raped, I would almost certainly not report it. Most women (and males and children) I have worked with say the rape was not as bad as court, and convictions are few and far between.

Let's see how the laws here work out (I doubt anything changing the prsesumption of innocence will get up...but let's see...this government is shamelessly brachiating about law and order, and the only precedent re presumption of innocence is the possession of drugs above a certain amount.)

You support YOUR argument about YOUR country.

The stuff about "this is how it already operates in courts already" is utter and complete bullshit when it comes to Australia. I have no idea where Mancini is getting his allegations from, but he is full of it.

0 Replies

Can you be perverted behind the door?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know