Discussion in 'SHH Community Forum' started by Thread Manager, Jul 22, 2018.
For clarity; if a man falsely accuses another man of rape, I can call him a petty **** ?
Well then shame on you. Are you a guy or a girl? Cause I distinctly remember you at one point said you were a guy who just liked Elektra... so I am not real sure how you dont have that type of fear somewhere in your head...
I am trying to think of how to put this. This fear, it seems rather irrational, but almost like the weird male overreaction to this situations.
Its like #MeToo comes around, it is finally giving women and men a voice to fight back against this really awful status quo that has existed for so long. And how so many men respond is to say they are afraid of it. That suddenly they are the ones at risk, to something that never has manifested in any meaningful way. And in the process it becomes the reason to not believe women. To question them with things that we known are tactics, and literally have video evidence of what happened with Anita Hill. Its like victims are screaming out, and it doesn't really matter beyond surface levels of care for a lot of the population. Its like, its been 6 months already, can we move on. And that is just... ugh.
Men aren't overreacting to MeToo, they're reacting to overreactions from the MeToo camp. Just take that stupid "verbal consent" movement that almost made it into the lawbooks in a few countries.
A lot of women in the MeToo movement are clearly drunk on power, basically wanting to **** over men at every turn.
Actually we dont know anything of the sort, because not all false accusations invole the police and there is no database.
As for that Paris situation, a person being slapped by a *****ebag doesnt really seem as serious as a person being falsely accused of rape, and having their life destroyed. Nor is this really an "either or" situation. It's not as if acknowledging that people falsely accuse men of rape will somehow cause police to neglect people that suffer assault.
Personally I fear prison more than death. Being locked in a cage, raped, and assaulted by other prisoners isnt my idea of a good time. Being in prison while innocent would be an even bigger nightmare. I have no interest in risking that just for a quick shallow lay.
And some problems unfortunately dont have a solution. There will always be liars and POS human beings that will ruin another person's life for one reason or another.
Even what you just described, how is that ****ing over men at every turn? Oh, I might have to ask a woman if she wants to have actual sex with me, it is the end of the world, as opposed to you know, actual sexual assault, actual rape.
And in a very serious way, how is saying this not exactly what men, drunk on power, have been saying about women forever, and in the process ****ing women over in general?
There are statistics on these things. Do you just discredit them and if so why?
It's not the end of the world (not a lot of things are) but it's not how human interaction works. It's stupid and tone deaf. I really hope you're not in favor of fining or imprisoning people who don't comply with that verbal consent crap.
Some men are afraid because ironically, women do have a lot of power when it comes to this topic. It doesn't take a lot to ruin someone based on a false accusation, just a few words and an audience. Is it an irrational fear? Probably, but then so is distrusting all men when most of them wouldn't think of hurting a hair on your head.
In theory, I see little issue with verbal consent being mandated and passed into law, because it helps to potentially avert the Aziz Ansari type situations and allows regular people to forge ahead in their sexual relations with clear boundaries.
This doesn't change the 'he said she said', testimonial nature of rape accusations; conviction rates for sexual assault and the ilk would still be naturally low because of the burden of proof.
How would you make it law? Require both participants to sign a contract before coitus?
It doesn't matter if you don't "buy it" or think it is "irrational"... it's a real fear some men have.
Hardwick is obviously innocent... Aziz Ansari is another case we don't really know how it went down as he was alone with the woman. Hardwick went through hell for no reason... so yes.. men have every right to fear some things like false accusations...
to act like its not a real thing and its irrational is ****ing silly ... seems like a pretty rational thought to me given false accusations are just as real as real ones... just because one happens more often doesnt make the other false.
but considering the people talking... nevermind
i guess every woman thinking men want to rape them is rational?
"I don't buy this fear of sleeping with or being alone with women in case you get accused."
I mean, for god's sake, you literally came here and were freaking out about some guys whistling at you cause you looked nice.
As it says on the tin, verbally? The delineation makes it clearer for men and women on either side of the issue who struggle with unspoken cues and signals. Any 'transgression' of that consent would still be disputed in court as per normal.
And I concur with Reek above: it's a real and irrational fear, for men in this case and on the flipside for women.
So really it's a symbolic law that changes nothing because verbal consent is already discussed in these cases. If there is no way to prove what happened it's useless. Woman says there was no consent, man says there was, or vice versa. How do we proceed from here?
You're exactly right in saying it's symbolic in nature, because it'd serve as a guiding principle in this ongoing convo about sexual consent if nothing else. Chances are it'd help the more slightly socially awkward types in Azi Ansari navigate the dating scene.
It's gonna be a fairly long convo anyway.
I'm not sure that a socially awkward type could muster up the courage to ask for verbal consent. Seems like a useless gesture to me that's just gonna get people riled up.
Can't we just let humans be humans and not regulate when people can or can not have sex any further? People get by on sexual "charisma" and non-verbal communication just fine. The type of person that is capable of raping someone isn't going to be deterred by a verbal consent law.
The legal onus, I imagine would be placed on the consenting woman (or man), to elicit said consent as well, if the legality of this movement gains further traction. So in Azi's case, Grace would have to get the call and response going because she's the one feeling the boundaries aren't clear. For everyone else, the sexually confident and articulate, it carries on as usual.
For rape cases, it can help bypass loopholes used by the defendant's lawyers, like in the Spanish gang-rape of an 18-year-old, where they argued the filmed assault didn't show the girl physically resisting, thereby giving consent to the act.
I think one thing I hear a lot from men is they don't understand the line. I personally don't think this is an issue, but many men say they don't know what it is. Whatever the line is, I think it needs to be clearly defined. Anita Hill pointed this out specifically with sexual harassment at work. That the guidelines need to be defined and put out there in a way that it is no longer a question.
Is it irrational for women to distrust men considering the general conversation surrounding this topic? The statistics bare out that men's number one concern being false accusations or their potential ruined reputation makes very little sense. But men still try to keep the status quo when it comes to something we know is a very large, very real problem. Sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape is something a very large percentage of women will encounter in their lives. But it does not seem to be a legitimate concern for men on the whole. So why trust men in that regard?
But verbal consent is completely useless for the man when it comes to SJWs. He can get all the verbal consent he wants. But, if the woman backtracks later and says there was no consent, they will proceed as if the man is guilty. If he were to get written consent, she could probably say later that she was coerced in to signing it . . . and they will side with her. He could get the consent on camera, and if she says later that there was a man off camera holding a gun and insisting that she "act" the part out, the SJWs will side with her.
Consent is a wholly irrelevant concept if one party can merely say later that there was no consent and then that statement be treated as absolute, irrefutable evidence.
So your answer is what? Consent isn't necessary?
Also you do realize this works both ways right? A woman could say no, and get raped. Then the man could say he didn't rape her. Is that not as big a concern?
I'm not talking about consent as it relates to the interaction between two people. I'm talking about consent as it relates to the interaction between two people in the realm of social media and SJWs.
Between two people, consent is obviously important and necessary.
But, with the SJW crowd, consent is completely meaningless. It has no value. It carries no weight. Why? Because all the woman has to say afterward is that there was no consent--even if there was---and the SJWs will proceed as if there was no consent. Because "believe all women."
My "answer" is what it has always been. Let's take these accusations seriously, but let's not take these accusations as conclusive proof. The accuser deserves a chance at getting justice, but the accused is also equally entitled to that same justice.
Justice is supposed to be blind, but people like you advocate that she lift her blindfold to make sure justice is lurching toward the preferred people. That's dangerous.
So, how do you feel about MeToo?
That's not what happened at all. A table of 10 men made lewd comments towards me because they thought I looked like a hooker (which I didn't). That doesn't include the men who yelled at me from their cars. That is a hell of a lot different than "whistling at me because I looked nice."
You don't know what it's like to be followed at lunch time on a busy street by a guy who won't take no for an answer. Or having multiple men stick their hands up your skirt and down your shirt at a bar and not letting you leave.
For the record, I firmly believe that if I asked for help with that guy who was following me, someone would have helped and that person would likely be a guy. I'm not scared of men or paranoid that I'm going to get raped, but I can understand why some women would be. Especially given that the vast majority of North American women have dealt with harassment at some point in their lives (based on stats). False accusations can be dealt with as they come and because they're horribly illegal, but harassment and assault are more widespread and deserve attention, hence MeToo.
Lots of ifs here. What exactly is your solution?
Solution to what? Rape? That's going to happen regardless. He is right about consent, like everything else in this realm it's just a he said/she said thing. It already IS illegal to coerce someone into having sex with you, so a verbal consent law is stupid and a waste of time.