You can't change normal human behaviour by making a law against it.
The feminists want to outlaw aggressive sexuality however this is a normal part of human sexuality.
As I showed earlier the feminists mean to reorder normal gender interaction by creating a social structure where women no longer follow the lead of men,
want to punish men who try to lead women even if the women desire to follow the men.
In their mind women do not have the right to consent to being submissive or even to follow the historic feminine behaviour patterns, they look at these women not as whole humans but as damaged humans locked in a cycle of abuse.
The trouble is that this view is wrong, women follow men sexually because that is the natural play between the masculine and feminine....it is the nature of the dance. Feminists can't change the dance with laws and punishment, the drive to follow our soul and our nature is far too strong.
Feminists can encourage women to be more masculine, and they do, but unless they can find feminine men they will not find suitable mates.
Pushing women to be masculine does not serve the well being of the overall society, so I object on those grounds, and because I personally object to being pushed to become a feminine man, as men are pushed because as always relationships must be balanced in order to work.
In a relationship if one person changes the other must change so that the two are complimentary, so that they will work together. Likewise, if women generally change the men will need to generally change as well, if men and women are to be together. And contrary to the feminine clap trap about the glory of the freedom to no longer need/want a mate, the family structure is too important to the health of the society to be thrown away for the sake of the feminists' utopia fantasy.
More generally, attempts to legislate passions and morality always fail, and always will fail.
Continued attempts at trying betray a deep rooted ignorance of human nature.
Everybody knows the punishment for killing someone, yet we still kill each other.
Even when states like Texas make the punishment the state killing of the offender the crimes still happen. Making a law, hurting the perps, does not keep the unwanted action from taking place.
The purpose of the law is to exact retribution, it is not to promote societal health except in the sense of removing known perps from the society
However, a woman feeling raped
might say more about the dynamics in that relationship than it does about the man being dangerous. We don't know, and only an expert who is allowed into the relationship in a counseling setting can know. To assume that the man is wrong when the woman feels wronged is to assume guilt. A skilled impartial third party must try to figure out where the truth lies.
If the man was wrong, as he likely was at least in part, then putting the redress into the health setting does not let him skate free to go about hurting other women. Counseling can be mandated, a record to be used in future events can be created, monitoring can take place. Also, I am not completely apposed to promoting public safety by making a man who gets into situations where women feel raped ineligible for certain occupations.
July 27, 2008
Privacy on parade
A tabloid tale of sordid sex risks the public being kept more in the dark
Giles Hattersley
On Thursday at 10am, Max Mosley descended the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice in central London to face the mob he had come to abhor. After what had just occurred in Court 13, it's fair to say the mob wasn't too keen on him either. The gathered reporters waited stonily for Mosley's address.
Mosley was a little shaky, his normally stoic features faltering under the crowd's glare. "I am delighted with that judgment," said the 68-year-old head of the FIA, the governing body of world motor sport. "[It] is devastating for the News of the World."
It was the final day of a grip-ping three-week trial, in which Mosley took on the press - and won. On March 30, the News of the World had run their sensational revelations that the head of Formula One, the richest sport on earth, had engaged in a sadomasochistic orgy with five professional dominatrices in a Chelsea flat.
Having paid one of the girls to film proceedings, the paper had footage of Mosley's bottom being shaved, thwacked till it bled, his ears inspected for lice by girls dressed in prison uniforms and a Luftwaffe jacket, barking out commands in comedy German accents.
French attitudes serve the powerful, but not the people
Though details of the sex veered from the farcical (cups of tea and banal chitchat afterwards) to the stomach-churn-ing (15 full-force pelts to the buttocks), in his ruling Mr Justice Eady pushed questions of sexual morality aside and found the public had no right to know about it. He then awarded Mosley a record £60,000 in compensation.
Thanks to a creeping privacy law, many in the legal profession predicted this outcome when the News of the World's star witness - the dominatrix who had filmed the orgy, known in court as Woman E - was unable to take the stand to offer proof that Mosley had requested from her a specifically Nazi theme to his five-hour spankathon. On Friday she went public with a denial there were any Nazi overtones, saying that she was "sorry for everything that has happened".
Without the Nazi element, it was ruled the events stood outside the public interest. That Mosley is an international figurehead and elected official no longer provided the press with a protective umbrella to report on the (very) dark side of what Eady deemed his "private" life.
Next morning the headlines hit hard: "Freedom Gets a Spanking" scoffed the front page of The Sun, above a piece that caught the mood of the press. One man's right to keep his bleeding bum private - it was said - could not only spell the end of the kiss-and-tell, which some might think was no bad thing, but also place serious newspaper investigations in jeopardy. Yet Eady himself said that his ruling should not be seen as a "landmark" decision. What is the truth?
At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of two clauses of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was given added weight in the UK by the 1998 Human Rights Act. Article 8 allows for the right of the individual to a reasonable level of privacy; article 10 enshrines freedom of expression. The conflict between the two, as decided by judges such as Eady, is what has caused the confusion.
"The trouble is that the Human Rights Act isn't a computer program," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights organisation Liberty. "All it tells you is that a proportionate right to privacy is necessary and that the same applies to freedom of speech. But it's common law, so it's incremental and not always completely consistent."
Godwin Busuttil, a media law barrister, points out this means that every case is "fundamentally fact sensitive" and will turn on whether the judge decides that the means of gaining information is justified in serving the wider public interest.
Where does this leave us? Does Amy Winehouse, a one-time role model, have the right to keep her drug troubles pri-vate? Should Mark Oaten, who was trying to win the Lib Dem leadership when he was exposed for using rent boys, have a right to campaign as an easy-going family man?
In his summation, Eady said: "Would it justify installing a camera in someone's home, for example, in order to catch him smoking a spliff? Surely not."
But what if the pothead were a celebrity who traded on their squeaky clean image? Or a politician who had a voting record tough on the war on drugs?
"The press do have grounds for worry," said Chakrabarti. "It's not hard to see why, even after the Mosley ruling, some feel there is a lack of clarity in the law."
However, beyond questions of clarity, there is also the matter of truth. Aside from the allegation his orgy was Nazi-themed, a suggestion that Eady firmly quashed, Mosley did not dispute the nature of his hard-core S&M party.
Colin Myler, editor of the News of the World, which is owned by News International, parent company of The Sunday Times, finds himself in the position of all editors: not judging a story on its veracity, but on its acceptability.
"Newspapers surely have the absolute right to challenge and expose double standards of elected leaders and [others] in public life," he said. "If they have a dark sexual secret life, should readers not have the opportunity to know? I believe if it's lawful and legitimate and in the public interest then we should publish it.
"But privacy, as it currently stands, has been creeping along at an incredible pace and, in my view, goes way beyond what article 8 of the Human Rights Act was actually intended for. Our press now is being strangled by stealth."
That said, he doesn't think the verdict will drastically alter the way he and his peers ply their trade. "If you are asking me, ?'Is it the end of the kiss-and-tell for newspapers?', then I don't think the answer's ?'Yes'."
Caroline Kean, a high-profile media lawyer who is representing Grazia magazine in a dispute with Victoria Beckham, agreed that the press is yet to be seriously cuffed.
"I think [the Mosley ruling] is good news for the media. Here was a case where the judge ruled without a doubt it was a very embarrassing set of circumstances, that a man's life had been ruined, but he set damages at £60,000. If that is the level that is payable in an extreme case such as this, others will likely receive much, much less. Is someone really going to risk bringing a case when, in all likelihood, they'd walk away with less than £5,000 even if they win?"
She points to the case of actress Sienna Miller, who is seeking damages from The Sun and the News of the World for publishing photographs of her with her new boyfriend in Italy. "She was on a beach in full public view where she knows she is likely to get [photographed]. Even if she won, can she really expect to see a large payment like Mosley's?" said Kean.
This, of course, sidesteps the issue that the law is now on the celebrity's side, to say nothing of the possible £1m legal bill a newspaper can face if it has to go to trial. It's ludicrous to suppose editors won't think twice about publishing their hot splash if it could come with a seven-figure price tag.
However, rare is the powerful public figure who wishes to go to court. The prepublication threat of legal action is now the preferred method of squashing a story. The concern isn't just that newspapers won't risk publishing, or that they might get sued if they do, it's the stories that you - the reader - will never hear about.
This is where the danger to investigative journalism lies. It is standard practice to contact the subject of a story before the article goes to press to put any allegations to them. In the new climate, the subject of an investigation when contacted could complain to a judge that his or her privacy has been breached and stop publication.
The privacy laws have ushered in a new breed of story-kill-ing injunctions. Some are so stern it is illegal to tell you that they even exist. Notable recent examples include a current affairs presenter with a complicated love life and an adulterous sports personality whose mistress's husband was refused the right to tell his story. IT'S a rough irony that privacy laws have arrived in the era of the online information explosion. You only need to log on to American gossip Perez Hilton's blog for, say, the latest details on former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards's love child.
Cases now brewing include J K Rowling's battle with Big Pictures, a paparazzi agency, over taking pictures of her children when she is out in public. Gideon Benaim of the media law firm Schillings is representing her. "It isn't that J K Rowling is a recluse," he said, "it's about her wanting to have her children to have a normal family life. She's fought hard for that. She doesn't use them in her public life, taking them to premieres or using them in photoshoots."
The same, arguably, cannot be said of Victoria Beckham -a woman who included her children in her recent Spice Girls tour and has been happy to discuss the size of her husband's manhood in interviews. Nevertheless, she is seeking to use privacy laws against Grazia magazine, which reported that she worries when David spends nights on the tiles without her. It smacks of a pick'n'mix attitude to fame designed to drive editors spare.
Mosley has announced he plans to sue the News of the World again, for libel. He is also suing the German newspaper Bild for 1.5m (£1.2m) over breach of trust, violations of copyright law and fraud because it paid for the News of the World's video and photos. Then he will possibly take further action in France.
If Mosley wins such a high amount overseas, the nature of European human rights law means that the case could have a bearing on future cases in the UK. Having escaped with a sore bottom, Mosley could spank the fourth estate again.
