It is easy to think that England is not so bad — we are basically free, even if we pay too much in tax. The counter-examples normally raised in libertarian circles usually include the way children can be taken away on a whim. Yet the real relationship of the state to the individual is much worse than this.
We are sliding into a full-scale overturning of the Common Law, which the Queen swore to uphold, as did each judge in his judicial oath of office. Today we read that new guidance will require a man to prove in court that a woman said “yes” to sexual intercourse.
This entirely overturns the legal basis of crime, which is that you are innocent until proven guilty. It is for the woman claiming rape to prove that she said “no”. No fatuous law should claim that a verbal “yes” or “no” is required either, as the very nature of sex is that urges take over and the whole sticky business proceeds in a hormonal way. What if there is no verbal indication either way?
Note that no statute is required to effect this major change: this is just “guidance” that will be issued to prosecutors and police forces. It seems guidelines issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions are now able to produce huge constitutional changes with no discussion in parliament.
To be honest, a woman who gets “legless” in a public place is opening herself to the possibility of being taken advantage of, but the solution is for such women not get so drunk they are unable to say no. In my view the type of women who get legless are likely to be “well up for it” anyway. It should certainly not be a crime for a man to seek to have sex with a drunk woman. This sort of guideline would be unworkable in real life. In some venues, there are no non-legless women to target.
These guidelines will also cover people who are reluctant to object to sex because the “perpetrator” is an employer (or teacher or fellow gang member). But relations of power over other people are part of any structured society where the rich and powerful will always have their way with underlings.
What about saying that those who object to being the object of sexual attention by employers and others should say “no” loudly and clearly if they expect to halt the act? Relationships characterised by financial dependence are also to be covered by the guidelines, but this could describe nearly every marriage.
The criminal justice system should not be “hacked” in order to increase convictions. If surveys — and we are only talking about survey evidence — show that 85,000 women are raped each year, with 90% knowing the attacker, but fewer than 3,000 cases go to court and only 1,000 convictions are handed down, then that shows that the very nature of the crime means it will only be possible to convict in rare circumstances. Incidentally, the fact that 90% of the women know their attackers illustrates the fact that most claimed rapes are simply not the result of unknown assailants jumping out of bushes. It is more the case that many women acquiesce in sex with people they don’t really want to have sex with owing to power relationships, but short of building a Marxist classless society, this will always be the case. I would argue the 10% of cases where the women don’t know the attackers are the real rapes.
In fact, only 15,000 claims of rape are reported to the police a year — much below the 85,000 figure — and these will include many false claims — and so it is not clear what problem the criminal justice system needs to be reformed in order to solve. If women don’t get drunk in public, that will be a very good start to protecting themselves.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think as late as 1964 the United Kingdom was still basically decent – yes government was vastly too big, but there was a basic understanding of the principles of the rule of law – a sense of fair play.
I think Mr Webb (and Dr Gabb) are correct that we are not that country any more – the legal system and so on have something basically wrong with them. There is something wrong basically with the culture of the country.
As for this specific issue, rape, I do not know about the facts of the matter to comment further upon it.
This is standard feminist law; the appointment of radical feminist Alison Saunders to the position of DPP- managing to actually find somebody worse than Keir Starmer, a feat in itself- ensured it would become policy. Like numerous other bodies, enabling acts allow them to effectively make law on the fly. Parliamentary democracy is effectively dead.
Feminist law itself can be traced to a single source; the radical feminist legal “scholar” Catharine Mackinnon. Her written works are, in fact, surprisingly few, but form the basis of modern American feminist legalism, which is being exported worldwide. Mackinnon invented the ideological term “sexual harassment”. She is also responsible for the ideology of “objectification”. Her words have had enormous power.
In terms of the legal theory, you only need really read two things; her article “Marxism, Method And The State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence” and her book “Towards A Feminist Theory Of The State”. All of what we see happening is in them; including her open declaration that a feminist jurisprudence (and society) is incompatible with a liberal one; you must have one or the other. In this, of course, she is correct.
The theory in essence declares that objectivity (the search for facts in a court) is a “male” epistemology which naturally biases the court towards the male (rapist). Objectivity (which leads via some of her gobbledegook to “objectification”) is thus imposed by the male class- the class who rape- to defend their rape culture. The antidote therefore is jurisprudence based on the feminine epistemology of subjectivity. What the woman believes (or declares she believes) must be the basis of convictions. If she says she was raped, that’s what the court must believe.
Mackinnon’s article- despite not even being peer reviewed in an official journal- was one of the most cited articles the year it was published. It has had enormous influence. It is as I said the entire basis of modern feminist legalism. She is probably, in terms of influence, the most important of all 2nd Wave Feminists, because she has- effectively single-handedly- totally transformed centuries of legal method. Not many people have had that much effect on their society.
She is also, classic neo-progressivist; a Connecticut Yankee upper class puritan (daughter of a Republican senator) with a worldview entirely predicated on post-Marxist theory.
There is one other point on this that comes to mind though. The DPP has no power over the law. She can issue these “guidelines” to the police and prosecutors. But an accused man has no obligation to prove himself innocent to either. That is a matter for the court, and the jury. The police simply arrest people and present them to a court; they have no power to decide guilt. So you will have the police and DPP saying, “we will bring you to trial for rape because the woman did not explicitly say yes” and then when the man gets to court, that is not the standard by which rape is judged, so he has to be acquitted.
So we have a situation in which Saunders is telling her underlings to use a different standard of evidence to the actual legal system. The DPP’s job is to decide whether to bring cases to court or not based on whether there is sufficient evidence for a conviction. How can they do this if they use a different evidential standard? What is the use of a prosecutor standing in a court room using the “Saunders Standard” when the defence, judge and jury are not?
Doesn’t make much sense, does it?
Yes, Ian, that’s true, but the guidelines means many more marginal cases will go to full court (if the guidelines are implemented). So of the 15000 rapes reported to the police, more than the current 3000 will go to court in a kind of scattergun approach to gain as many convictions as possible, regardless of the merits of the cases. I think it is quite possible that increasing hysteria over sexual crime will lead to an increase in convictions from the current 1000 a year. Although these guidelines are for prosecutors, the people on the jury are influenced by moral panics the same as anyone else…
The only hope is that juries refuse to convict on marginal cases, leading to a lower conviction rate even as more cases go to court – which would eventually influence the police and prosecutors to stop wasting the courts’ time?
A new way of conducting rape trials under the new guidelines
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/a-new-way-of-conducting-rape-trials.html
I’m not sure that Claire Khaw’s suggestion here is awfully useful. Go and look at it to see.
Well, having read she wants to integrate Islam into the Western culture, I never look at these links.
Another reason–were one needed –to vote for UKIP and to help put Davey boy and his gang out on their arses.
Under the system in place for the last few decades, rape courts are judged by their productivity: 50 per cent conviction rate is good, 90 per cent would be better. Innocence or guilt – who cares?
The only comfort left for those with respect for justice is that, no matter how the law is altered or twisted, juries are loath to convict in cases where there just isn’t enough proof that the alleged victim was forced to do it against her will, or that her being drunk automatically nullifies her consent. It’s hard for the saboteurs of the justice system to get around that.
They hate jury trial. As DJ points out above, juries are affected by moral panics, but the evidence seems to be that they are less affected than the Establishment. This is in a sense a reversal of the expectation that the Establishment are a “cool head” who calm the populace; the opposite appears to be true, at least currently. The effect is least evident, unsurprisingly, in the current spate of paedo-trials (non famous ones who cannot afford a proper defence).
They would love to abolish jury trial if they could. As it is, they are doing everything they can to water it down. I see that the odious Keir Starmer- now standing for parliament in a safe Labour seat (quelle surprise) is planning to introduce a “victims justice” law that will weaken traditional court systems further. But we must fight as much as we can to keep trial by jury. It is also a terrible pity that they got away with abolishing the grand jury system; which is one reason that people like Starmer (formerly) and now Saunders have so much undeserved power.
I don’t know what the grand jury system was. Please explain. Is it like in America where a jury decides whether to prosecute in the first place if I have not misunderstood the whole thing?
Yes. I’m not an expert myself I admit. But it allowed a jury to throw out any obviously nonsense cases before the waste of a full trial.
Until 1933, every criminal indictment had to go before a grand jury, which would decide if there was a case to answer at full trial before a petty jury. This function is now served by committal proceedings before the magistrates. I know how the system worked in the 17th and 18th centuries, but am hazy about the procedure before 1933.
The grand jury was effectively a committee of county magistrates, up to 23 in number, who reviewed the witness’s depositions in private before deciding whether the bill of indictment was a ‘true bill’ i.e. whether the prosecution appeared to have a prima facie case. The depositions (sworn witness statements) had been taken at an earlier stage by the local magistrates sitting in petty sessions. So we had a three-stage process, following arrest: (1) Petty sessions, or ‘Police court’ as they were then called (2) Grand jury (3) Trial before the judge and ‘petty’ jury.
Thanks. My knowledge of criminal procedure before the 1980s is largely confined to the period covered by the State Trials.
There used to be grand juries in England but they got rid of them in 1933/4. I think it’s better system but others beg to differ.
The 85,000 figure is a total fantasy, a wild extrapolation from an estimate based on bad mathematics. It has no basis in fact but because it appears in a crime or telephone survey the feminazis call it a government statistic.
I have discussed the feminist rape narrative here: https://archive.org/details/BillCosbyAVoiceOfReason
and maybe next month or soon I will be augmenting it.
There is another solution which could work before all this FemiNazi horror gets totally unmanageable.
All Ethnic White British Men – which is the target-group , and everyone knows this – could abjure sex with human females, for an undefined time. This may be “a little bit” – we’ll see when the opposition caves in – or it may be “indefinite”. The advantage that Male Hominids have is that they can “pleasure themselves” at will, often if skilled without even being noticed in public, and also can avail themselves of what will be the increasingly desperate ranks of ordinary normal women who are (a) not GFN intellectuals and (b) who don’t subscribe to the strictures of the GramscoFemiNazis.
A disadvantage is that owing to the deliberate dis-education of in particular British Males by the “National Curriculum”, and their marginalisation into computer games, robbery and mooching, also all deliberate, it will be well-nigh impossible to manage their organised resolution and resistance.
But if it was to work, then as a side-effect we might also begin to discover what the true monetized price of “sex” is. I expect that it’s a lot of % below what the “current street price” is now, given the oncoming flooding of the market (if this plan was to work, which it won’t) by ordinary, normal, nice women, desperate for some man, any man at all, even for a few minutes. If resistance continued, in a consolidated fashion for long enough (it won’t), then brothels and escort girls might end up paying White Ethnic Males to, er, “be clients”.
“Consent” is what has then to be given _by the man_ ….
The point is, “if we could take away what we have to give”…then the GramscoFemiNaziProsecutorNazis would have “not a leg to stand on”; for there would be “no rape”. Because there would have been “no sex”. The “gangs of Men” in (northern Cities) are functionally-unprosecutable for actual rapes which are done routinely and have been recored, for these blokes are “ethnoreligious” and have already had Holy Water sprinkled onto them.
There is a not implausible theory that a major driver of the GFN (Feminist Division) War On Porn is precisely to deny males alternative outlets for their urges, and enforce a monopoly. Several feminist writers- notably Naomi Wolf- have been a little too honest in this regard, writing articles bemoaning the loss of the “exchange value”[1] of the female “poonani” caused by easy availability of porn.
This is of course why they have spent the past century and a half so furiously trying to end prostitution and promiscuity.
[1] Marxist economic analysis, what a surprise.
One of the basic things in feminism that remains contentious is whether the best way to control male sexuality is to not give them any at all, then put them in prison when they seek alternatives (Radicals) or marry them then give them hardly any, then put them in prison when they seek alternatives (Princesses).
Why is it necessary to “control male sexuality”? Isn’t making as many copies of our own genome as possible the entire point of being an animal? Did Mohammed actually get things right at last? Should Peace _actually be_ really truly _upon him_ ?
Should we in fact ask the DPP to prosecute the GramscoFamiNazis, on account of their being “anti-Muslim”, and therefore committing a “religious hate-crime”?
It strikes me that with all this feminism going on that all the state is doing is adding to the problem. We need to have fewer yet tougher laws to establish a good sense of law and order in this country and that means for me bring back capital punishment for cold blooded murder and paedophilia. Those who have committed rape (in the truest sense of the word) should have their bits and their hands chopped off.
I’m not convinced that the new DPP is the right person for the job. I also believe that the word ‘rape’ is a very loose term these days especially with alcohol and drugs involved along with promiscuity.
What’s a “poonani” Ian? I am sorry, but I don’t know. Shall I look it up?
I tried, but I got somewhere in Ceylon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punanai&redirect=no
It is a warm and moist location south of the Equator which is a popular recreational destination.
Ah, that’ll be Mauritius then, where all the luvvies and GreeNaziConferenz-LeninoTrots all go.
The funny thing is, although it’s a very popular destination, and everyone has a marvellous time there, nobody is allowed to mention it by name.
England may “not be so bad” – perhaps. But what about Wales?
What do people here think of the Ched Evans rape case?
England and Wales share the same legal system, and it wasn’t rape.
So, why was he convicted of rape? Inquiring (or should that be enquiring?) mnds want to know.
It is more involved than it looks – because she went back to a hotel room to have sex with another footballer, and he turned up to join in. It is claimed that she had passed out from too much drink by then, but he carried on and did the deed with her unconscious body. I don’t know what proof there is of this – as she claimed the next day to not remember a thing about it.
Rape for me is really an unknown man jumping out of a bush and violently raping a woman. Maybe these more marginal case represent bad behaviour of some type, but I don’t know if “rape” is really the word. Also, a woman needs to take some responsibility for not going back legless to a footballer’s room for sex. By all accounts she was up for it and it is claimed b some that she serviced a lot of the team – and I do think the morals of the girl in question are relevant in a rape case.
So far as I understood it, there was no claim she was unconscious, merely “too drunk to consent”. If he had indeed used her body while she was unconscious, there would be a valid claim of no consent, but that wasn’t the crux of it. It was that she was simply drunk,and thus her consent was not valid.
It’s worth noting that the police advised her to bring a rape charge. She’d actually gone to them just to report losing her handbag.
Exactly how does one manage to have an orgasm inside the tummy of an unconscious (or even just passed out) female? (or even her “posterior parts” – although that is for animals and not humans, and I am sure is never “done” at all, anywhere.)
I mean, she’d not be in any state to be able to help you at all; and of course as any male animal of any phylum or class or order knows, “speed is of the essence”. This has been since the First Predators ambushed and immediately gored and ate the living, copulating bodies of the First Humans (whose backs were turned…literally…)
You see, this “raped while drunk” thing….er….I can’t figure that one out at all, let alone what contortions you’d have to undergo, simply to “get in”. Then she’d be all limp and nothing would happen, however hard you tried.
Somehow, I don’t think they’ll be letting me on a Jury for one of these showtrials, any time soon….
The following is for the benefit of foreign readers who may not know who Ched Evans is.
Ched Evans is an English White footballist with what looks like a steady girlfriend who is manfully tryin’ to back the poor blighter up. Therefore that is a normal hetero relationship which I detect that the “powers that be” have decided should be broken up in public in order to make a NaziFeminiz GFN point.
It appears that he’s got sent to jail, then _done his bird_ (if anyone is in doubt, this is London White Working-Class slang for having “served your time”) and is now out, looking to resume his life.
Every football club that tries to sign him then gets publicly threatened by its “patrons” and “sponsors” with the threat of having its money switched off, so they all immediately back down amid an hysteric condemnation of the poor man.
Really, we are well past the point where anything remotely resembling rational discussion can solve these problems.
The details of his case indeed make the State-Prosecution look shiftily-shaky. The point about footballists is that they are Galdiators; they like to have sex with girls, specially interesting ones that’ll be “up for a couple of hundred quid while your bird’s not looking, sweety! And you’d better buy me a few drinks first in that “Club” over there, ‘coz the doormen’ll let you in …’COZ they KNOW me, stupid!!!”
He has done his bird – he’s done quite a few birds, or so they say – it was doing birds that got him sent down in the first place!
While we’re at it, what about the “victims’ justice” now being introduced in court? When people are fined, there is always a token £10 victims’ surcharge added on top – this is highly irritating. Justice should be public justice, not a victims’ vendetta.
So if somebody burgulates me, and gets taken to court and convicted, does he have to give me a tenner then?
Or do the Police trouser the dosh for their Christmas Party fund?
What, furthermore, happens then, when I witness in the box against him, and all his “best mates” then come round and trash my house and car and knife my children? Will they pay me as well?
Interestingly, today the Telegraph ran a heart-rending article from one Eleanor Muffitt, as part of their “introduce American style kangaroo rape courts into British Universities” campaign, about how she ended up dropping out of university because she was sexually assaulted, and the university thought it was a police matter, the bastards.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11373858/Sexual-assault-on-campus-My-univesity-failed-me.html
What they failed to mention is that Eleanor Muffitt, according to LinkedIn, is a Telegraph features apprentice. Or that two years ago she wrote them an article about how she dropped out of university…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/10829579/Sleepwalking-into-university.html
…because her heart just wasn’t in it in the first place and she wasn’t interested at all and other teenagers should think twice before assuming they have to go if they’re not really interested.
How queer.
I’ve just read her article, because I have a boy at a university and I needed to know how to protect him. I reckoned initially that there’d be info in it that he might want to know, as a man.
Her article sounded “a little hollow” when I tapped it a few times here and there. You know – like “tyre-kicking” when you are evaluating a car.
As unromantic as it might sound, I’d recommend that every man secretly audio record every sexual encounter. Keep the recordings as long as a false accusation of sexual assault might reasonably be expected to come along, say 30 or 40 years, then destroy them.
Con smartphones do that? Good idea.
Audio alone is prob not enough. What is to stop her saying you pulled a knife and made a finger-across-neck-I’ll-cut-your-throat-gesture followed by a finger-to-lips-silence gesture and you just kept talking as if everything was a “normal” encounter.
“Yes” she tells the agog Jury of hand-picked creduloids “its was like there were two of me. Amazingly I heard my own voice talking normally even as horrible things were being done. Inside my mind I was screaming with silent terror”.
Think the can’t make that one fly? Recall the case of the American surgeon who was convicted of sexual assault –having supposedly committed the entire deed in front of the rest of the surgical crew. Including “oral rape” –ie sticking it in her gob–to do which he would have hand to climb on the operating table on his hands and knees. In front of the rest of the surgical team. Still got a conviction tho’. Never ever underestimate human stupidity when being lied to and the evil and malice of the liars. Get every encounter on film.
I don’t think it’s entirely feasible to turn every sexual encounter into a fairly-well-specified movie set. However, I suppose that a “professional operator” will insist on only _going back to his place_ , where all the recording gear can be turned on by him remotely, already set-up for the “bedroom bit”. It’ll be expensive, time-consuming, will look suspicious as to his insistence on the location of the deed, and will be a sexual repressant.
Well, that’ll be the end of Homo sapiens-sapiens then. At least, the end of that part of it – (caucasiensis) that could conceivably Make It To The Stars in under 500 years; this is the best estimate of the time to the in-practice functional-start of the Next Ice Age.
One feels that vertical-upward-rifle-toting, strongly-bearded, headscarfed/balaclava’d males of “certain cultural memes that cannot be named”, their “deeply respected scholars”, and their billions of always-totally-silent “co-culturalists” don’t really share my _Strategic Objective_ with quite as high a priority as I do.
It’s a great pity for someone like me, living on the verge of The Dawn Of Time, when the Universe has hardly got out of bed….And to realise near the evening of our lives that in fact Man is now _Not Going Anywhere_ . And all because of the intellectual legatees of people _//whose arses we whipped//_ … SEVERAL TIMES_ , and who live among us now as if they were ourselves, and _we let the bastards get away with it_ .
Here’s a nice comment from “Conservative Woman”:-
http://conservativewoman.co.uk/laura-perrins-rape-law-turned-head-suspects-will-prove-innocence/
Avatar
Stuck-Record • an hour ago
Well, thank heaven for modern mobile phones.
Now every date or encounter with a woman must have a romantic, “Hold on. I have to get your videotaped consent recorded, timestamped, and uploaded to a secure server before we sexually touch.”
How sweet.
2
•
Reply
•
Share ›
I think I should point out at this juncture that if you decide to record the “encounter” as a means of self-protection, you’ll fall foul of Alison Saunders’s other jihad against “revenge porn”.
There is also the question of how many women would want men (who perhaps they do not know well) having videos of them in an amorous and drunken state.
That’s why it won’t happen, and in the end there will be no babies.
Eventually they’ll classify rape as sex where she regretted it, or felt that she’d been compelled into having sex when she didn’t really want to. These kinds of questions in a questionnaire, in the USA, by feminists; led to the supposed 1 in 10 women rape figure.
“or felt that she’d been compelled into having sex when she didn’t really want to” – I’m afraid this is already in the definition of rape nowadays!
They already have.
“Legless”, eh? I’d never heard the expression before, and had to look it up (we Yanks have our own slang for excessively drunk, including “wasted”, “S***-faced”, etc.). I’m glad it doesn’t actually mean “without legs”, as men do like to focus on a woman’s gams, among other parts.
The police tell you not to leave your valuables on display, for example, in your car; so why can’t the same precautions and situational awareness be applied to women putting their ‘goods’ on display and leaving themselves vulnerable where there are likely to be lots of sexual predators about? They say “women should be able to express themselves anyway they choose without fear of attackers”, but I’d also love to drop my wallet on a park bench and still expect it to be there the following day… What the feminists are really advocating is a fascist police state; where women are insulated from the consequences of all their actions/poor judgements, and any potential predators (all men) have serious limitations placed on their freedoms (legal, social and economic)… This is what happens when a civilisation loses its ability to think critically and is governed instead by extreme biological impulses. Also check gynocentrism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynocentrism
Nick, you are right as far as it goes, but let me make clear that a woman who “leaves her goods on display” and is violently raped is the victim of a real rape, whatever she was wearing, etc. However, it’s becoming clear that 90%+ of claimed rapes are not like that at all – they are simply women regretting the night before…
Of course, but the point I’m making is crime prevention could/should be applied to women too. If I walked through a notoriously dodgy neighbourhood wearing an expensive gold chain and was mugged – the police would think I’m an idiot, and would probably not even bother to investigate, putting it all down to personal irresponsibility (I’ve seen things like this happen). So for society to move forward, women are going to have to be held to the same standards that men are subjected to – not all this white-knighting and female apologising that prevails today…
Agree, that the criteria that rape statistics are based on is seriously ambiguous: ‘regretting the night’, ‘not being in the mood’, ‘didn’t want to hurt partners feelings’, ‘partner lied about social status’, etc., etc.. By this criteria all men have been victims of rape too, but this is not recognised in the application of law… I think I also read that male rape wasn’t even recognised in the American constitution until very recently.
I just stumbled upon this site, so have no idea what the general nature of this site is.
However I do believe, when such a tiny percentage of reported rapes (we do not know how many occur however from surveys we can assume it is much higher than the actual number which are actually reported) even proceed to trial, let alone achieve a ‘guilty’ verdict (usually around 3%), more measures are required to be put in place to prevent these rapes.
It is also false to assume that all rapes are male-female. There are also male-male, female-male and female-female etc. however men too, need the protection of the law.
The biggest reason people do not complain of rape is due to the social backlash as a result of it. If anything, the victim is stigmatised more than the perpetrator due to the culture of ‘victim blaming’, ‘pitying’ the victim, and making them feel like they are a lier (when in fact, they are telling the truth).
Before you start assuming that a ‘large percentage’ of these reported rapes are false, think about just how difficult and damaging it is for the person raped to go through the system.
To be able to go through that, and have the massive social backlash, it is likely that the percentage of false claims is very low.
However of course, I do not just look at it from a logical perspective. Statistically, rape is one of the crimes which has the lowest false reporting rates. Other crimes have a much higher incidence of false reporting to police. The issue with convictions for rape – is evidence.
I am wondering where you have your information about all of these ‘false’ reports of rape? Every academic article/study I have seen holds the opposite of your opinion to be true.
In my opinion, much more needs to be done to prosecute and remove the culture of rape in the society. Looking at the conviction rates – it leads to wonder whether or not rape is truly illegal. Therefore increasing the strength of evidence and allowing usually inadmissible evidence into court – is not everything – but it does help.
The prosecution, usually at an advantage in most cases is here at a disadvantage. This is due to the prevalence and misconception that ‘most women lie’, or ‘she was asking for it’. By introducing a more objective model of consent, it requires – and forces the culture – to actively wonder whether or not there is consent. Is this such a bad thing? Most upstanding citizens would think this a minor imposition in order to secure the freedom from the fear of rape.
I like this video to display consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
Feminism is defined as equality for both men and women. Sure, stronger rape laws help the cause of feminism. They do so in two ways.
The first is to enforce rape laws to protect women from rape. The second, is also to protect men from rape.
The preconception of rape is: ‘A man rapes a women in a dark alleyway’. In reality, most rapes happen between people who already know each other. This makes everything so much more difficult, and nearly none of the time will a court see a ‘model rape victim’. This does not mean it did not happen – just that in other cases, peoples preconceived ideas interfere causing many juries to acquit a guilty defendant.
sdih, the law should not be designed to achieve guilty verdicts. Even if there are many rapes and many guilty men go free, the fact that in most cases proving what happened beyond all reasonable doubt is impossible means that, in a free society, the guilty man should go free. The only men convicted should be those whose crimes are undoubted, even if that is a small fraction of the projected total number of rapes.
I think you are totally wrong to say there are few false rape reports. The fact that you claim most rapes are by someone the woman knows gives the game away: mostly, we are not talking about assailants jumping out of bushes, but about sexual experiences the woman later regrets — but that is not rape.