1 in 5 women get raped?

You don't know what you are talking about, Firefly.

Temporary Orders of protection are issued ex parte (i.e. without the need for a fair hearing). The accused person is never present and often doesn't even know about it until after the order of protection has been granted. This is obviously appropriate in cases where someone is in danger. You don't want to make a victim wait for a hearing in order to get protection.

This isn't an issue for temporary orders. Obviously there needs to be a way to provide immediate protection for victims of abuse.

The problem with this bill is that it takes due process rights away from the accused in the hearing to decide whether a restraining order should be permanent. This hearing happens some time after the temporary order has taken effect.

Someone who has a permanent restraining order can be kept from his or her children, or have trouble getting work. This hearing must be fair to both the accuser and the accused, both sides should have equal opportunity to make their case. Feminist groups are opposing attempts to make this process fair.

90 days does not meet my definition of "immediate".

These are different issues, Hawkeye.

The point is that the more severe the consequences of a legal action are, the more important that the rights of the accused are protected. You are right that 90 days is a long time. The important thing is that the accused has his day in court where he is treated fairly and can answer these serious charges.

90 days after he lost his job and did not see his kids....no biggie. This is the age of the internet, the alleged abuser should be able to put in his 2 cents with-in 90 minutes.

You're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. And the more you try to explain your objection to the NYS bill, the more garbled and confused your thinking gets.

The NYS bill specifically referred to a pilot project involving the requesting and issuance of temporary orders of protection in Family Court by audio-visual means.

First you tried to explain your objections to that portion of the bill by rambling all over the place about criminal charges and due process rights of criminal defendants--matters totally unrelated to that section of the NYS bill about Family Court and the issuing of temporary restraining orders by audio-visual means.

Now you are rambling about permanent orders of protection, also unrelated to what the NYS bill referred to. When something says it pertains to temporary orders, your thinking has to be pretty scrambled to conclude they are talking about permanent orders, as you have done.

The NYS legislature is now a "feminist group"? The legislature had no problem agreeing to pass that section of the bill pertaining to the pilot project in Family Court--the section you think is "unfair", and that you gave as your reason for not supporting the entire bill.

Are you aware your thinking makes no sense? You are so hell bent on attacking feminists, you can't even focus on a specific section of a proposed NYS bill that has no connection whatsoever with criminal proceedings, due process issues, or specifically feminist concerns, or which would disadvantage anyone in terms of their legal rights. Using audio-visual communications is already part of our general legal system, and there is no reason not to have a pilot project to explore its utility in NYS Family Court regarding temporary orders of protection, where it might enable such orders to be requested and obtained more rapidly by those who seek the protection of that court.

And what makes you think that the process and procedures for granting a permanent restraining order in NYS are not already being carried out in a lawful manner? Don't you think someone in the NYS judiciary, or legislature, or the governor's office, would have noticed if this wasn't being done in a lawful manner?

You seem to be trying to downplay the ongoing continuing risks one individual might pose to others, or their ongoing interference with the rights of others to live a life without being subjected to threat, or jeopardy, or menace, or harm, the sort of things that would be involved in the issuing of permanent restraining orders.

Your thinking is too scrambled and confused to make discussion with you worthwhile, and it's founded on distortions such as those you blatantly displayed in your interpretation of the NYS bill regarding the Family Court pilot project. Mainly you want to kvetch about feminists without providing concrete objective evidence, and links, to support such views. That doesn't lead to productive discussion of anything.


.

Who'd you say was going off topic?

Yes, I am wrong about the NYS bill. I checked. The bill only talks about ex parte temporary orders. I am a bit surprised that electronically filing the temporary order isn't already law.

I apologize for my error, and I retract my objection to this part of the bill.

I have several legitimate places I differ from feminist groups. The biggest is the opposition to joint custody between mothers and fathers.

Would you like to address that one, Firefly.

Who, specifically, is opposed to joint custody?

http://www.nownys.org/archives/leg_memos/oppose_a00330.html

I've already addressed it--you haven't.

I've already told you I cannot find any current position statement by national N.O.W. pertaining to child custody issues. I have twice asked you to quote verbatim their alleged position on child custody, and to provide a link to it, and you've never done that. I'm of the opinion they have no national position on child custody. If you think they do, it's up to you to find it and post it--verbatim, with a link.

I also brought up and discussed the NY chapter of N.O.W.'s specific objections to a specific 2006 joint custody bill which was pending in the NYS legislature at that time, and asked for your input regarding their thinking. You never responded.

Regarding that bill, the president of NY N.O.W. made it clear they felt custody issues should be decided on a case by case basis, in the best interests of the child, and not by legislation that imposes joint custody. In general, they felt whoever was the primary caregiver for a child prior to the divorce, should remain the primary caregiver after the divorce, to provide less disruption for the child. That makes good sense to me.

I agree with shared parenting, but not necessarily with joint custody in all cases, for a wide variety of reasons pertaining to the best interests of the child and to the suitability of the parent to provide adequate care. I wouldn't necessarily support joint custody if one parent has addictive problems, for instance.

And, no, I'm really not that interested in the specific views of feminist groups on these issues, or in listening to you kvetch about them, particularly because you've not been able to cite any specific current positions of these groups on child custody issues, despite the kvetching.

You're the one obsessed with feminists, not me.

And now that we're moving toward same sex marriage on a national level, we're going to have same sex divorces and same sex child custody issues--so any traditional notions of which gender parent a child belongs with are going to become moot.

Arizona Says Rape Victim Knew The Risks, Asks For Lawsuit To Be Thrown Out

Source: TPM

The Arizona Attorney General's Office filed a motion in a lawsuit this week saying a teacher knew the risks she was taking when she was left alone in an unguarded prison classroom with a convicted sex offender who allegedly raped her, the Arizona Republic reported on Tuesday.

The woman eventually filed a federal lawsuit questioning why she would be left alone with no way to defend herself while teaching a group of sex offenders.

Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Weisbard delivered a motion on Monday to dismiss the lawsuit, the newspaper reported.

"Plaintiff is an ADOC (Arizona Department of Corrections) employee who routinely worked at the prison complex," Weisbard wrote. "By being placed in a classroom at the complex, the officers were not placing Plaintiff in any type of situation that she would not normally face. The risk of harm, including assault, always existed at a prison like Eyman." Weisbard also wrote that there was no proof that the corrections officers were aware of any risk to the teacher.

-snip-

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/arizona-prison-rape-teacher-risks

Republican Lawmaker Not Sure Sex With Unconscious People Really Is Rape

As if "unable to give consent" isn't the very textbook definition of rape.
By Kali Holloway / AlterNet
February 5, 2015

It seems yet another Republican lawmaker is confused about what rape is. In this case, Utah State Representative Brian Greene, while considering a bill that would ensure unconscious victims are protected under the legal definition of sexual assault, expressed a few concerns. Namely, his belief that there are special cases in which having sex with someone who is out cold might not really be rape.

“I hope this wouldn’t happen, but this opens to door to it,” Greene begins in a video of the hearing. “An individual has sex with their wife while she is unconscious—or he, if that’s possible, I don’t know—a prosecutor could then charge that spouse with rape.”

Yes, indeed, a prosecutor could! Because that is literally and precisely how rape works. I’m not sure why we need to keep having this conversation.

Greene then went on to say that having sex with someone who is unconscious might qualify as rape “in a first-date scenario. But to me, not where people have a history of years of sexual activity."

By that argument, should you pass out in the company of a lover or spouse—or an ex, even—with whom you've previously had sex, it’s pretty much impossible to be raped. What’s that? You were literally too incapacitated to possibly be able to give consent? Greene still isn’t sure that qualifies as “rape" rape.

In any case, the Utah legislator came to his senses just long enough for the bill to pass by unanimous vote.

Watch the video of Greene wondering what rape is:

Waking up my wife with dick is very fun, I will object to anyone calling this rape when she has over the years told me she likes it.

There is a difference between being asleep and being unconscious. But, if your wife ever decides she doesn't like to be awakened that way, and lets you know that, she certainly could call it rape if you continued to do it.

How about if your wife comes out of anesthesia to find your dentist's or doctor's dick inside her?

Would you object to anyone calling that rape too?

Thats just plain despicable.

But it's consistent with how Hawkeye views consent and rape.

Hawkeye's notion of what constitutes 'foreplay':

"Hey! You awake?"

Is this juvenile behavior really necessary? Come on now, copying offensive pictures from the Internet isn't even original or clever. It's rehashing old jokes to bully someone because he doesn't agree with you.

I really wish this would stop.

Who's trying to bully Hawkeye?

Hawkeye openly talks about his BDSM lifestyle, and having his wife bound and gagged during sex.

That picture is probably, not only not offense to him, it's more likely a turn-on for him.

How come you're silent when nononono routinely posts considerably more crap and says blatantly offensive things about other posters here?