Eh, he said she said usually works out in favor of the he. Rape convictions are notoriously hard to get.

That is due to the presumption of innocence, NicoleK. That you wish to see 100 men go to jail just to ensure that not one guilty man goes free is a return to historical governance. But not a good choice.

It's my understanding they are harder to get than other crimes, where innocence is also presumed.

I'm not sure where I said I wanted 100 men to go to jail, that's your words not mine.

The law is slowly but steadily being weaponized by certain special interests.

Family courts are notoriously biased against men.

Red flag laws provide a new means of extracting revenge, mostly on men by women. Better yet, most are complete refutations of due process.

While it may be difficult to get criminal convictions for rape (often because the woman has no interest in having her own contributory behavior or patterns of behavior to be made public), it has become increasingly easy to get convictions for sexual assault or domestic violence. If there is a domestic disturbance, and anyone was hit, it's the guy who gets arrested. Ask any cop.

And institutions like colleges and universities have their own Spanish Inquisition-style processes for handling complaints, often from coeds who got shit-faced and later regretted what they did with their equally drunk boys.

My solution? Not sure there is one, but treating false accusations with the same level of punishment as what the accused is being charged with would help.

Law is what happens for people who can't manage their own interactions with others. And it infantilizes everyone involved. But it results in justice more by happenstance than not. There are times I imagine the world descending back into Dark Ages and anarchy, and wonder how our protected victim classes will fare then.

Law is what happens for people who can't manage their own interactions with others. And it infantilizes everyone involved. But it results in justice more by happenstance than not. There are times I imagine the world descending back into Dark Ages and anarchy, and wonder how our protected victim classes will fare then. ~ ruralcounsel at May 26, 2021 8:34 AM

Nicely put.

I just re-watched A Man for All Seasons last night and this oft-quoted exchange stands out:

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

"Rape convictions are notoriously hard to get. "

That is because it is an act that with consent is extremely common and considered normal.

Attempted murder, no one wants to be murdered.
No one wants to be mugged
NO one wants to be robbed
No building wants to be arson-ed.
Sure there may be the ridiculously rare S+M person or someone trying to do a insurance scam, but in general no.

Plenty of people every day wants to have sex. Women go to extreme lengths (dress diet makeup, locations, on line ) to get sex.

So when sex happens it is a reasonable question were they a willing partner. In no other crime is that a reasonable question.

I'm old enough to remember when libs worried about government invading their bedrooms. Now they're cheering it on.

Well, Western Civ, you had a good run.

I imagine the world descending back into Dark Ages and anarchy, and wonder how our protected victim classes will fare then.

Most of them will fall, like wheat before a scythe. Some who survive will suddenly see the value of behaviors they previously mocked as outdated and out of touch.

Some may have to repeat the process a second or third time. I don't think many will get a fourth opportunity.

You didn't put your clothes back on and leave? You consented.

Delicate little flowers or tough and independent? What? Both at the same time, you say? Ok, ladies. As with everything else, you will eventually find out that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

If men are smart, they will require that women BEG beforehand -- and get it in writing or on video. Of course, not even that will be enough if she changes her mind after the fact. The law is perfectly happy to allow women to withdraw consent retroactively to avoid the appearance of being a nasty little slut.

Looks like investing in love-doll technology is a good bet!

"he said she said usually works out in favor of the he" ~NicoleK

Because he is the defendant. With a presumption of innocence and no other evidence he will go free. Witness testimony by only the accused and the accuser are notoriously unreliable. You are calling for an accusation to become a conviction.

"I'm not sure where I said I wanted 100 men to go to jail, that's your words not mine." ~NicoleK

It is what you are advocating for. But I understand when things are put clearly they lose their desirability.

Getting arrested and getting convicted are not the same thing.

And Ben, you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I did not advocate for anything. Amy expressed concern that in a he said she said situation the hes would lose out. They don't and they won't.

Specifically I was responding to this statement:

***
I wonder how the "he said/she said" thing will work, and -- just a guess here -- probably not well for the "he"s.
***

I disagree. I think it will work out well for the hes, it has thus far.

Then you are being willfully ignorant, NicoleK. Affirmative consent isn't a new thing. It has been tried. And how it turns out is men are guilty until proven innocent. It does not turn out well for the 'he'. Such has been documented at this very blog multiple times.

Let's consider students in a college dorm or those with a room-mate. In many college "assault" cases, there were people nearby who would have helped but the girl did not call for help, did not leave when she could have. It was regret later or he didn't call. That isn't rape, it is just bad sex.

NSW has its head stuck, er, in the dark.

On the one hand, you have Kounelli Photography, which FB page features women who make Victoria's Secret models look like boys.
On the other, a newspaper three years ago reported police detained and questioned a man for asking directions of a 12-year-old girl -- from three feet away.

Lotta questions people just don't want to answer

“Getting arrested and getting convicted are not the same thing.”

Often, they are. The process is the punishment in and of itself.

Or do you think sitting in jail for four months until your trial comes up, or posting a million dollar bond so you don’t have to is nothing?

“Getting arrested and getting convicted are not the same thing.”

The women have rape shield laws to keep their name out of the news, but an accusation against a man will destroy his reputation and life. Even if he never sees a trial or jail.

found a book today - The Morality of Consent.

No, it's not what you think - unless you already know it. But then, how many books HAVE "consent" in the title?

It's by "recognized legal scholar of the Supreme Cout and the First Amendment," Alexander Bickel, from 1974. (He died the same year, aged 49, from cancer.)

https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/21/archives/the-morality-of-consent-by-alexander-m-bickel-156-pp-new-haven-yale.html

First paragraphs from the review:

This short but provocative volume, completed just one week before Alexander Bickel's death, is a fitting testimony to the author's extraordinary, though tragically brief, career as a constitutional scholar, lawyer and teacher. In just a hundred and a half literate pages, we are treated to vintage Bickel insight into every major political issue of the decade, from the civil rights movement, to the Warren Court, through the frenetic university upheavals, and—inevitably—to Watergate.

But this is no jumble of themes; it is a tapestry woven by a master of subtle color and texture. Bickel dues not merely restate history; he relates events and movements one to the other in ways that are both challenging and disturbing. He sees the Nixon Presidency and Watergate as the “utterly inevitable” consequence of the undisciplined liberalism and “resultorientation'” of the Warren Court. A strange relationship, probably wrong, and surely overstated. But Bickel makes out a plausible case...

I found a book today - The Morality of Consent.

No, it's not what you think - unless you already know it. But then, how many books HAVE "consent" in the title?

It's by the "recognized legal scholar of the Supreme Cout and the First Amendment," Alexander Bickel, from 1974. (He died the same year, aged 49, from cancer.)

https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/21/archives/the-morality-of-consent-by-alexander-m-bickel-156-pp-new-haven-yale.html

First paragraphs from the review:

This short but provocative volume, completed just one week before Alexander Bickel's death, is a fitting testimony to the author's extraordinary, though tragically brief, career as a constitutional scholar, lawyer and teacher. In just a hundred and a half literate pages, we are treated to vintage Bickel insight into every major political issue of the decade, from the civil rights movement, to the Warren Court, through the frenetic university upheavals, and—inevitably—to Watergate.

But this is no jumble of themes; it is a tapestry woven by a master of subtle color and texture. Bickel dues not merely restate history; he relates events and movements one to the other in ways that are both challenging and disturbing. He sees the Nixon Presidency and Watergate as the “utterly inevitable” consequence of the undisciplined liberalism and “resultorientation'” of the Warren Court. A strange relationship, probably wrong, and surely overstated. But Bickel makes out a plausible case...

Joe J, it's interesting that even men's rights activists have not, to my knowledge, done anything to try to keep the names of the accused out of the media.

So, either MRAs don't really think the problem of false accusations is as bad as they say. Or, they like to yell but not campaign or fundraise or really help men in need (which is pretty much what their enemies claim). Or both.

“Joe J, it's interesting that even men's rights activists have not, to my knowledge, done anything to try to keep the names of the accused out of the media.”

Never mind that this is impossible to do in a country with a working first amendment. Free press and all that.

"Never mind that this is impossible to do in a country with a working first amendment. Free press and all that. "

Except that it is possible, as I mentioned rape shield laws keep the name of the accuser out of the press (because it would damage their reputation), just need to expand it to the accused too.

There were attempts, early on, but met great resistance, and they didn't fight what they had no chance of winning. Though it would have been fair, it was a PR disaster, "You want to protect rapists".
No you want to protect accused before they are found guilty. Once tried and found guilty shout names from the roof tops.
One of the main arguments against it was that, it allowed other accusers to come forward, to pile on. As we see with any accusation today, as soon as there's one, 3 more appear. Doesn't mean any are true, just pile them on. Of course the fairness would also be to release the name of the accuser. Since, if this is the 15th time she falsely accused someone the jury/public might find that interesting, but that was axed by rape shield laws.
The problem with that is a shit-storm of accusations/lawsuits is standard practice now in a highly politicized world.

It is hard to tell if that fight is still unwinnable, Joe. After generations of blatantly discriminatory practices in family court public opinion is turning. The blatantly discriminatory way affirmative consent has been enforced has further soured things. Not to mention the very obviously political false rape accusations of the last few years.

But despite all that the US does not have a 'rape culture'. Defending those accused of rape is still immensely unpopular.

Ben I don't know, as we are seeing lately we have a sickness in media and education, where the lies outweigh what they can see and any logic. When college professors claim we have a worse rape culture on campus than war zones, but still should send girls there for indoctrination. that the US is more racist than anywhere, but we should welcome in migrants and asylum seekers.
Some see any non guilty verdict as proof that a rapist went free, rather than the possibility someone was falsely accused.

That is why I said it is hard to tell. You listed why increasingly people don't get their news from the legacy media. Too much obvious propaganda. Some states are outlawing critical race theory in public schools and colleges. The proponents for CRT say if you are opposed to it you just don't know what CRT is or you are a racist. But the lie is too big. Too obvious. CRT is being opposed now because people know about it and because CRT is racism.

So is there a silent majority gathering on rape shield laws? Who can say? But I do know as long as they are silent they don't matter. I also know issues like this don't change slowly. They are like the old jokes about bankruptcy.

'How did you go out of business? Oh, very very slowly, and then all at once.'

You have more hope than I,
I see the CRT in schools as it's been there for a while just recently discovered. So we have a generation of indoctrinated coming through the system, with the just graduated and protesting on the streets group, just the first generation.

Lotta wounded masculinity in here.