Obviously, as Cliff said, once you enter into the murky world of drinking and hooking up, things are going to get pretty grey. This is the reality described by Camille Paglia when she describes the hook-up culture in the gay community in 1970's NYC. Guys know there was a risk, and they liked that because well, it probably made the sex better. A lot of guys also carried switchblades or brass knuckles.
Now I really am not reiterating that old canard that women just need to learn to defend themselves, although I think it is probably a good thing to acknowledge that risk accompanies pleasure, and to prepare accordingly.
That said, even if we all agree that sexual assault or rape occurs way more frequently than most of us good citizens want to acknowledge, and that it doesn't just take place in the arena of the hook-up, to what degree are we willing to regulate these ostensibly completely private interactions?
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
I object to the term 'rape culture' or 'culture of violence' or 'racism culture' because it means that the bad things in peculiar to that the culture, or especially pervasive in that culture. There are murders in Iceland. Does Iceland have a 'culture of murder'? I'd suggest not. I'd suggest it has murders.
I think you've basically demonstrated my point in post #797 here. One objection to the term is that it's not descriptive, but I think for me that's actually superceded by the fact that it de-rails conversations onto this totally unproductive path.
I mean, I'm downright positive that this exact kind of hyperbole is pretty much the only reason that Milo Yiannopoulos has 150,000 twitter followers.
Quote:
It doesn't do us any good to pretend that the appeal of a cheeseburger and fries is entirely fabricated by McDonalds, and so compelling to change how they advertise is the way to get rid of obesity (though it may help).
Interestingly, it might actually be accurate to suggest that we have an obesity culture...
Quote:
The problem is there is a strong and influential school of thought on the left that rejects biological influences on behaviour, and subscribes to the myth of the blank slate. They believe we can make people into whatever we want. And when you start from a flawed premise about the nature or a problem, you've off to a bad start in addressing the problem. This isn't an obscure academic debate either - it has tremendous influence on public attitudes and policies.
I agree; you see it all over with people suggesting that evolutionary biology is inherently wrong because it creates cognitive dissonance, or suggesting that Steven Pinker is some sort of Hitleresque demon. But I don't think that this debate, obscure or not, is taking place in this thread right now, and you're tilting at windmills a bit in this case.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
It is obvious that he is attempting (albeit poorly) to be satirical/ironic. The fact that you take a quote out of context without highlighting that fact damages your credibility. It's a pretty common strategy among the Regressive Left. I think it's actually earned its own verb: to "greenwald".
As I said, I'm not fan of Roosh, but it is absolutely necessary to be intellectually honest when we have these discussions.
Oh, that was a satire piece? My bad, I didn't realize I was reading The Onion. In his attempt to prove a point(that women need to take charge of their sexuality), he is stating that it is a women's fault she gets raped. Not sure I'd want to die on that hill, either.
Now I really am not reiterating that old canard that women just need to learn to defend themselves, although I think it is probably a good thing to acknowledge that risk accompanies pleasure, and to prepare accordingly.
That said, even if we all agree that sexual assault or rape occurs way more frequently than most of us good citizens want to acknowledge, and that it doesn't just take place in the arena of the hook-up, to what degree are we willing to regulate these ostensibly completely private interactions?
Most cultures in human history have tried to thwart sexual predation by keeping single young women away from private encounters with men. Gender segregation, chaperones, etc. We've turned our backs on those restrictions in favour of personal freedom. That's what the sexual revolution was all about. But freedom is always dangerous. And that's not blaming the victim, but recognizing that we're more vulnerable in private than we are when we're with others.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
After reading that, I'd like to pose two questions:
Are people aware that challenging the credibility of the witness is a legal tactic in all serious crimes, and not just sexual assault?
If yes, do they think sexual assault charges should be handled differently? How?
Sexual assault charges are handled much differently than all other offenses. There are much greater restrictions on what evidence can be used to establish credibility of the victim.
^Can you elaborate? I must have missed that lecture.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
^Can you elaborate? I must have missed that lecture.
Rape shield laws? You can't bring up past sexual history unless it is specific and relates to physical evidence, for example the victim may have had sex consenually with someone else and that would need to be introduced to clear up misunderstood test results. And you can't use psychological records to prove the victim was unstable. However it sounds like you know more than me. Am I missing something?
Can you point me to a rape shield law of the sort you're talking about? I suspect that questions on past sexual history would be objected to on the basis of relevance, which is judged on a probative value versus prejudicial effect spectrum, same as in all cases. Psychological records would be privileged, generally, I would think?
It's not that I know more than you, I don't do criminal defense.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Can you point me to a rape shield law of the sort you're talking about? I suspect that questions on past sexual history would be objected to on the basis of relevance, which is judged on a probative value versus prejudicial effect spectrum, same as in all cases. Psychological records would be privileged, generally, I would think?
It's not that I know more than you, I don't do criminal defense.
Section 276 of the criminal code is the law regarding past sexual history. And yes, the psych records are always privileged but as I understand it, especially so in sex assault cases because it relates to the general intent of 276 which is to not make stereotypical inferences from any testimony regarding victim credibility.
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Oh, that was a satire piece? My bad, I didn't realize I was reading The Onion. In his attempt to prove a point(that women need to take charge of their sexuality), he is stating that it is a women's fault she gets raped. Not sure I'd want to die on that hill, either.
No, it's not satire. Read around Roosh's own site, or his Return of the Kings site. He is a real piece of work.
No, it's not satire. Read around Roosh's own site, or his Return of the Kings site. He is a real piece of work.
Ya, should have had that in green text, I thought The Onion reference was enough...Acording to his site, this muppet is organizing some sort of worldwide gathering of like-minded muppets. Calgary's is outside the Starbucks in The Core mall on Feb 6th, if you want to meet any of the people that follow this wiener.
Just to touch on the role of a criminal defence lawyer, which I have never been, when I was in school one of the professors described it as the lawyer was protecting the entire system by ensuring that only those that can be proven to be guilty are found guilty. This means vigorously challenging the evidence of witnesses and ensuring that the police follow the proper protocols in gathering evidence.
That struck a chord with me as a lot of the actions of accused are pretty heinous but they still deserve a strong defence as it ensures the system continues to work as well as it can, not to say it is perfect by any means.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",
...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.
Obviously this doesn't include cases where the assault wasn't charged or reported.
I read that as a conviction rate of 45% which seems to be right in line with most of the other offences listed there. I am actually surprised it was that high.
My question is that if he is seemed innocent in all of this, what does he do? Does he go back to the CBC? Retire and hide out?
I'm going to guess that since he has money, he's going to sued, a lot, and lose a lot of money in a system where the burden is only 50.1% instead of 99.99999% (balance of probabilities vs beyond a reasonable doubt)
