Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
California recently became the first state to pass the first "Yes means Yes" law regarding rape. Compared to most "No means no" laws, this is the first law that requires a positive affirmation of consent before sex is considered consensual. Put simply, having sex with a drunk girl who is too drunk to say no is considered rape because she didn't actually say yes to sex. Yet at the same time, drunken consent was frequently considered by most "No means No" laws to not be consensual because drunken consent is not consensual.
While the concept behind the law is commendable and in the situation I just described it is definitely a step forward regarding the prevention of rape, this also makes it much easier to successfully falsely accuse someone of rape. A scenario of consensual sex that turns into a morning after regret is now rape if she didn't explicitly state yes. Having sex with your girlfriend in California is rape if you don't get her positive consent before hand(talk about a mood killer).
Rape is obviously a very difficult situation to deal with, but this recent law raises a question... which is more devastating? To be raped or to be falsely accused of rape? The recent law in California certainly makes it easier to press charges against a rapist, but at the same time makes it so that most men will technically be consider rapist(women too actually). If you're married/in a serious relationship, when was the last time you said verbally "Are you ok with having sex?" because the lack of that confirmation makes you a rapist by California standard?
I respect their efforts to combat rape, and I think every situation of intentional rape should be prosecuted. I also belive that this is a situation where getting it wrong affects both sides for their lives, so it should be done correctly.
Therefore, I raise the question, which is worse... to be raped, or to be wrongly convicted of rape?
Therefore, I raise the question, which is worse... to be raped, or to be wrongly convicted of rape?
Maybe when the man is wrongly convicted of rape, he will be raped in prison and can answer the question with authority. Until then, my vote goes to rape.
Maybe when the man is wrongly convicted of rape, he will be raped in prison and can answer the question with authority. Until then, my vote goes to rape.
Wouldn't that just prove that being wrong accused of rape is even worse than rape, because not only did they not not do anything, but they also getting raped?
Statistically speaking rapists are considered among the worst criminals and the most likely to be raped in prison, therefore your theoretical person would actually argue that being wrongly accused of rape is worse than rape.
Being accused of rape is one of those rare things that destroys a man's reputation in all aspects. Nobody will ever look at you the same even if its found out the woman lied
California recently became the first state to pass the first "Yes means Yes" law regarding rape. Compared to most "No means no" laws, this is the first law that requires a positive affirmation of consent before sex is considered consensual. Put simply, having sex with a drunk girl who is too drunk to say no is considered rape because she didn't actually say yes to sex. Yet at the same time, drunken consent was frequently considered by most "No means No" laws to not be consensual because drunken consent is not consensual.
While the concept behind the law is commendable and in the situation I just described it is definitely a step forward regarding the prevention of rape, this also makes it much easier to successfully falsely accuse someone of rape. A scenario of consensual sex that turns into a morning after regret is now rape if she didn't explicitly state yes. Having sex with your girlfriend in California is rape if you don't get her positive consent before hand(talk about a mood killer).
Rape is obviously a very difficult situation to deal with, but this recent law raises a question... which is more devastating? To be raped or to be falsely accused of rape? The recent law in California certainly makes it easier to press charges against a rapist, but at the same time makes it so that most men will technically be consider rapist(women too actually). If you're married/in a serious relationship, when was the last time you said verbally "Are you ok with having sex?" because the lack of that confirmation makes you a rapist by California standard?
I respect their efforts to combat rape, and I think every situation of intentional rape should be prosecuted. I also belive that this is a situation where getting it wrong affects both sides for their lives, so it should be done correctly.
Therefore, I raise the question, which is worse... to be raped, or to be wrongly convicted of rape?
I think I get where you're coming from although, tbh, it seems sortof creepy to consider the natural consequences.
I'm old now, but I remember girls saying to me, "Don't... stop". But it meant, "Don't stop!!!!!" Somehow, sex has run off the rails.
I sat on a jury where a Russell Sage girl accused a Clarkson kid of either rape or abuse, I forget. The whole thing was a sham. She was put up to it by the college counselors, members in good standing of the sex abuse industry. Her whole story was a transparent lie and it took the us just 1 hour to find the kid innocent.
If that kid had done it, he'd have been the first Clarkson kid ever to rape a girl. Maybe even the first to have sex.
Being accused of rape is one of those rare things that destroys a man's reputation in all aspects. Nobody will ever look at you the same even if its found out the woman lied
Having people know that you were raped can destroy a woman's (or man's) reputation in all aspects. Nobody will ever look at you the same even if the rapist is found guilty.
If that kid had done it, he'd have been the first Clarkson kid ever to rape a girl. Maybe even the first to have sex.
I don't know what or where Clarkson is, but I don't see how you can know that nobody there has ever committed rape. Crimes are often committed by the people you would least suspect. Take John Wayne Gacy for example. To assume that nobody from a certain place would never commit a crime because they are from that certain place seems like you're putting too much faith in stereotypes.
P.S. I hope the jury you were on had a much better reason for finding him innocent than this. Guilt or innocence shouldn't be determined by a community that a person belongs to.
Would you rather be beaten and tortured, or accused of beating and torturing somebody?
Would you rather have your life savings stolen, or accused of stealing somebody else's life savings?
Would you rather have your head cut off with a dull knife on YouTube by a terrorist, or accused of being a terrorist that cut somebody else's head off with a dull knife and posted it on YouTube?
I can't say if it's worse to be raped or accused of rape. I think that's a case-by-case thing. But I think the same question should be applied to other crimes as well. In any event, it's something interesting to think about. What is worse, being a victim or being accused of something you didn't do? I think this would definitely depend on the individual and the circumstances.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
