the "yes means yes" law (Santa Monica, Alameda: gated, living)

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by JRichards1996

I don't know if women necessarily "ask for rape"

No.

Women do not ask to get raped.

Men do so because they can, and know they can pretty easily get away with it, especially if they have power and money to back them up.


We know you're a kid, but you must eventually learn that it is not for women to not "provoke" drunk or dangerous alpha-males into violence ("Hey, she dresses like a ho, she obviously wanted it!), it is for men to not rape women. Period.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Iaskwhy

They automatically take the girls side. That's how it will work.

Pretty much this.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

No.

Women do not ask to get raped.

Men do so because they can, and know they can pretty easily get away with it, especially if they have power and money to back them up.


We know you're a kid, but you must eventually learn that it is not for women to not "provoke" drunk or dangerous alpha-males into violence ("Hey, she dresses like a ho, she obviously wanted it!), it is for men to not rape women. Period.

Why are you so one-sided? Woman take advantage of men too. Why does Society look at it differently? Just because someone has a vagina vs a penis doesn't mean that can't take advantage of someone who is tanked. The ratio is not that high for sure but it does happen. Have you seen the number of women teachers lately getting busted for sexing minors? Many women are very sexually devious.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Why are you so one-sided? Woman take advantage of men too. Why does Society look at it differently? Just because someone has a vagina vs a penis doesn't mean that can't take advantage of someone who is tanked. The ratio is not that high for sure but it does happen. Have you seen the number of women teachers lately getting busted for sexing minors? Many women are very sexually devious.

Ratio not as high?

Rape of males by females

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, female on male rape accounted for 0.2% of all known and convicted rapes in the United States.[28]

Yep, not quite as high. THAT'S why society views it differently. Rape is a violent power thing. A very male thing.

1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).1
17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape.1
9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003.2

https://www.rainn.org/get-informatio...ssault-victims

[Iaskwhy]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Ratio not as high?


Yep, not quite as high. THAT'S why society views it differently. Rape is a violent power thing. A very male thing.



https://www.rainn.org/get-informatio...ssault-victims

1) For many many years and still in some jurisdictions, women couldn't/cannot rape men because of the way that rape is defined of those areas, rape was/is defined as penetration, so the statistics are skewed.

2) If you think male rape of a female is underreported than how to you think female rape of a male is? (I'll give you a hint, much more underreported.) What guy in this country would go to the police if he was raped? Almost none of the guys I know. Just look at domestic violence against males is treated, how many women compared to men are charged with domestic violence, even though domestic violence is 50-50 male-female.

3) The one in six stat is complete BS.

[majoun]

This law will be a godsend to California's racist community. They'll use it to put more young black, brown, and yellow men behind bars.

It will also be a boon to blackmailers and extortionists.

And, as with so many laws, the authorities will not enforce it much against those considered armed and willing to use weapons.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by majoun

This law will be a godsend to California's racist community. They'll use it to put more young black, brown, and yellow men behind bars.

It will also be a boon to blackmailers and extortionists.

And, as with so many laws, the authorities will not enforce it much against those considered armed and willing to use weapons.

You are assuming that judges and/or a majority decision by a jury of 12 people are stupid.

Look up what happens when a decision is based on the "preponderance of the evidence." This is required by this law.

It would take a real giant conspiracy to get somebody convicted simply because they were of a certain color.

The judge and jury, as instructed by the judge, will take into account all witness testimony, physical evidence, etc., which is pretty hard to fake.

If everybody at a party, for instance, says the girl was really into the guy, was smiling, and told all her friends she couldn't wait to have sex with the guy, that's one story.

If everybody interviewed said the girl was wasted and seemed to be held up by a guy she wasn't really into, and he led her upstairs to a room, and then the physical evidence showed tears in her vagina and rectum, and her blood level the next morning when she reported the crime showed that there were roofies in her system, that's another situation altogether.

They will take ALL information, and the judge/jury will make a decision based on all the evidence and figure what most likely was the truth.

This is very fair. And, like I said, to fool this system would take a real, concerted effort by more than one person.

If your point is that a conspiracy MIGHT happen, and because a conspiracy MIGHT happen, that therefore the entire law should be thrown out, well, to put it very nicely, I disagree.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

You are assuming that judges and/or a majority decision by a jury of 12 people are stupid.

Look up what happens when a decision is based on the "preponderance of the evidence." This is required by this law.

It would take a real giant conspiracy to get somebody convicted simply because they were of a certain color.

The judge and jury, as instructed by the judge, will take into account all witness testimony, physical evidence, etc., which is pretty hard to fake.

If everybody at a party, for instance, says the girl was really into the guy, was smiling, and told all her friends she couldn't wait to have sex with the guy, that's one story.

If everybody interviewed said the girl was wasted and seemed to be held up by a guy she wasn't really into, and he led her upstairs to a room, and then the physical evidence showed tears in her vagina and rectum, and her blood level the next morning when she reported the crime showed that there were roofies in her system, that's another situation altogether.

They will take ALL information, and the judge/jury will make a decision based on all the evidence and figure what most likely was the truth.

This is very fair. And, like I said, to fool this system would take a real, concerted effort by more than one person.

If your point is that a conspiracy MIGHT happen, and because a conspiracy MIGHT happen, that therefore the entire law should be thrown out, well, to put it very nicely, I disagree.

Now you are touching on one of my pet obsessions: justice by jury system.

Jury decisions are not based on "preponderance of the evidence." They are entirely based on the personal opinions of the jurors. This is completely allowed in American justice. Logic is not required. Attorneys know this and they play to the juries with sophistry - not logic. Logic is not required for police to arrest a person, for prosecutors to prosecute, for judges to preside, for juries to decide. None of the : police, lawyers, or judges in this country - or any other country for that matter - are ever required to take a single college course in logic. Nor are they required to use use logical deductioning.

Any argument that convinces wins, regardless of truth.

And, finally, let me point out any notion that ordinary citizens from any and all walks of life are competent to investigate crime through presentations made by prosecutors who have vested career interests in winning cases regardless of truth - and believe me it is absolutely true that truth is not their goal - convictions are - is, frankly, nuts. What would qualify a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker to make independently intelligent, rational, logical decisions? Do they have any training in law, psychology, logic, forensics, etc etc etc, or any other of the skills and technologies that are thrown at them with dazzling presentations by very clever people whose motivation isn't truth but rather only to convince and win?

Trial by a jury of one's peers is a nightmare inquisition.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Now you are touching on one of my pet obsessions: justice by jury system.

Jury decisions are not based on "preponderance of the evidence." They are entirely based on the personal opinions of the jurors. This is completely allowed in American justice. Logic is not required. Attorneys know this and they play to the juries with sophistry - not logic. Logic is not required for police to arrest a person, for prosecutors to prosecute, for judges to preside, for juries to decide. None of the : police, lawyers, or judges in this country - or any other country for that matter - are ever required to take a single college course in logic. Nor are they required to use use logical deductioning.

Any argument that convinces wins, regardless of truth.

And, finally, let me point out any notion that ordinary citizens from any and all walks of life are competent to investigate crime through presentations made by prosecutors who have vested career interests in winning cases regardless of truth - and believe me it is absolutely true that truth is not their goal - convictions are - is, frankly, nuts. What would qualify a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker to make independently intelligent, rational, logical decisions? Do they have any training in law, psychology, logic, forensics, etc etc etc, or any other of the skills and technologies that are thrown at them with dazzling presentations by very clever people whose motivation isn't truth but rather only to convince and win?

Trial by a jury of one's peers is a nightmare inquisition.

Off topic, mutt. I know what you mean and I have stories, too. Let's start another thread on that shall we?

But, even if the jury was full of stupid people, the majority of them would still have to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the accused was guilty of rape in the law we are discussing.

Even 12 stupid people, as a rule, can't be so stupid as to believe, and vote, that a woman who claims to be raped, was not raped, when all of the witnesses say she was out of it, and the physical evidence shows forced sex.

And even if this situation MIGHT HAPPEN, again, this does not make this law a bad law.

[Iaskwhy]

The issue with this law is that it is based entirely on what was said, it is one parties word versus anothers. He said/she said between a women and a man, ends up with the man in jail nearly every time and the woman free nearly every time. The situation becomes even worse when it is a white woman and a black man.