Rape

[pErvinalia]

Yeah. But invoking a paedophilia case and a drug rape case is ridiculous.

[Blind groper]

Even pedophilia and drug rape cases need to be tried, evidence produced, and guilt shown 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Obviously, I do not know if Rolf Harris and Bill Cosby are innocent or guilty of rape. I am just saying that having many accusers is not evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

[Hermit]

I think there is a good chance that Bill Cosby and Rolf Harris are both innocent of rape. Not of immorality, but that is not illegal.

Bill Cosby has admitted to have slipped Quaaludes to a series of young women he then had casual sex with, and Rolf Harris has been found guilty of sexually abusing females under the age of consent. Concerning both of them the majority of alleged offences will never come to court because the statute of limitations applies by now. Who else do you think has a good chance of being innocent? Polanski?

Charlie Sheen said that he had sex with 5,000 women. Magic Johnson said he had sex with 10,000. It appears that male celebrities are so attractive to young doting women fans that they can have a different bed partner every night. Wish I was a celebrity!

So you take the word of Sheen and Johnson, but not the word of several dozen alleged victims? By the way, you too can be as popular as them with the ladies, and that without even needing to be a celebrity. All you have to do is to spend 1.6 million dollars on prostitutes in under four years.

So here we have hundreds, if not thousands of women who had sex with some celebrity, and now regret it

No, we don't. You just made that up.

[mistermack]

From what I remember, BIll Cosby's accusers lied their heads off, and got caught out lying.

They said that he got drunk with them, when Cosby never touched alcohol and could produce countless witnesses to that fact.

I think well-meaning people often get outraged, on behalf of serial liars.
This compensation situation clouds every case, when the alleged perpetrator is very rich.
And that goes for Rolf Harris and Bill Cosby. You can't take peoples word for it, when they have a pot of gold dangling in front of their often skint noses.
And they lawyers are part of the frame-up. They often work for no-win, no-fee, so they are making it clear to the "victims" what to say and how to say it.

It doesn't matter if it happened or not. The chances of a payout are still good.

[Rum]

This thread reads like an apologist's list of excuses. There is certainly injustice in the courts regarding a great many crimes, including rape, but the drift of this thread is that women, in particular, are making a bit too much of a fuss about having men's dicks thrust into them against their wishes.

[mistermack]

This thread reads like an apologist's list of excuses. There is certainly injustice in the courts regarding a great many crimes, including rape, but the drift of this thread is that women, in particular, are making a bit too much of a fuss about having men's dicks thrust into them against their wishes.

So anyone who complains, thirty years after the event, should be given the benefit of the doubt?

[laklak]

There are reasons we have a statute of limitations. IMO that should be extended to civil matters also. Cosby is highly unlikely to face any criminal charges, since the alleged attacks occurred so long ago, but he could be dragged through civil court and ruined. Whether you believe the accusers is immaterial, allowing punitive damages after 20 or 30 years shouldn't be permitted.

[Thinking Aloud]

This thread reads like an apologist's list of excuses. There is certainly injustice in the courts regarding a great many crimes, including rape, but the drift of this thread is that women, in particular, are making a bit too much of a fuss about having men's dicks thrust into them against their wishes.

I don't really see any of that in this thread, except perhaps for some hyperbolic comments which don't seem to be fully serious. I see it more as a commentary on the difference between the criminal justice approach to 'innocent until proven guilty' and the 'guilty by accusation' views currently popular in some quarters. I've served on a jury in a rape trial, so am always interested in people's views about how it can somehow be made fairer.

[Rum]

This thread reads like an apologist's list of excuses. There is certainly injustice in the courts regarding a great many crimes, including rape, but the drift of this thread is that women, in particular, are making a bit too much of a fuss about having men's dicks thrust into them against their wishes.

So anyone who complains, thirty years after the event, should be given the benefit of the doubt?

Did I say that? No, I just think the thrust of the thread is wrong. Getting to the truth about rape is perhaps[s how one should think about the issue rather than thinking about it in terms of men being unfairly treated. Women have mostly been unfairly treated most of the time for a very very long arguably.

[mistermack]

This thread reads like an apologist's list of excuses. There is certainly injustice in the courts regarding a great many crimes, including rape, but the drift of this thread is that women, in particular, are making a bit too much of a fuss about having men's dicks thrust into them against their wishes.

So anyone who complains, thirty years after the event, should be given the benefit of the doubt?

Did I say that? No, I just think the thrust of the thread is wrong. Getting to the truth about rape is perhaps[s how one should think about the issue rather than thinking about it in terms of men being unfairly treated. Women have mostly been unfairly treated most of the time for a very very long arguably.

Getting to the truth would be great.
But getting to the truth is the problem. After rape happens.
You can do a lot with education, and I don't think that they're doing enough. Although they are making a start with some recent ads.

I think this thread was more about rape cases, than the subject of rape itself though.

Don't forget that a wrongful conviction for rape can be as devastating, or more so, as some actual rapes.

[Blind groper]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... royed.html


"According to new research published last week by Anne Campbell, Professor of Psychology at Durham University, the answer appears to be a surprising no. Indeed, her findings suggest that the majority of women aren't suited to one-night stands at all, no matter how much they try to persuade themselves otherwise.Analysing the responses of 1,743 men and women who responded anonymously to an online survey - admitting to one-night stands - she found that 58 per cent of women, compared with only 23 per cent of men, regretted their fleeting, casual encounters with the opposite sex."

To Hermit

I did not make anything up.

As the reference above shows, regretting casual sex is not only common, but probably 'normal' for women. I have made one assumption. That is that casual sex with a male celebrity will also be regretted commonly. If so, my logic is sound.

The changes in memory of regretted events is well established, and if you google Elizabeth Loftus, you will get some of her research findings on the subject.

I began this thread as a discussion into justice. Convicting someone wrongly of rape is as bad, if not worse, than the rape experience itself. As I see it, right now, men falsely accused of rape have a strong chance of being convicted. I do not know how to avoid that, apart from making people more aware of how those false claims can arise. Nor am I having a go at the women who make those false accusations. Many of them will have altered memory and truly believe that they were raped, when in fact they had consensual sex.
In many ways, this issue is like the issue of pedophilia, where lots of men have been falsely convicted, on crappy evidence, because people (including jurors) incorrectly assume that pedophilia is very common and a major danger to all children. Rape is not as common as most people believe. As I said before, some crackpot 'studies' have suggested up to 25% of women get raped, and these horribly wrong statistics get published in the popular press. The truth is that it is much more likely that real rape happens only to 1% to 3% of women. But lots of men get convicted of rape.

[pErvinalia]

As I see it, right now, men falsely accused of rape have a strong chance of being convicted.

This is the problem. What do you base this on? It seems to me that it's little more than just a feeling.

[JimC]

Undoubtedly, there will be some men falsely accused of rape who get convicted, and some who are guilty will escape conviction. BG seems to think there will be a lot of the former... Personally, I doubt it, but it would be quite difficult to get trustworthy figures on either...

[pErvinalia]

yeah.

[Blind groper]

Impossible to get accurate figures on how many false convictions have happened.

However, based on my original reference, there will be numerous situations where consensual sex is later perceived by the woman as rape. Since, when a woman reports rape, it is generally assumed she is telling the truth, that means a lot of cases where men are charged with rape who are, in fact, innocent.

In addition, there will be a number of cases where a rape accusation is made vindictively.

There was a time, once, where women were mistreated, and rape accusations were mostly ignored or glossed over. Today the pendulum seems to have swung too far the other way, with the assumption that the accusation is not made unless rape took place.