TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

I even put the sarcasm smilie...

Catastrophic post, Scorer, almost makes me miss the anti-feminist rants.

Matt

ferrarilover wrote:I even put the sarcasm smilie...
Catastrophic post, Scorer, almost makes me miss the anti-feminist rants.
Matt

I know Matt, but I've been in a foul mood all day..

Aww, Scorer, I feel bad for you now. Was it a woman, a nasty feminist woman with short hair and comfortable shoes?

Eh, don't worry, Torquay tomorrow. Who knows, we might win...

Matt.

It was mainly the roof - and the bloody cat..!!

Anyway, we might just nick a 2-1 win, since Chesterfield haven't been doing too well in the League recently.

Or they might win 4-0...

'Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free' seems to be a common attitude among certain sections of today's society, reflecting, for example, the approach some may have towards marriage or commitment to relationships. It is, in my view, a fallacious one, although with my advancing years and, more importantly, growing infirmity, it's one with which I seem to have developed a little more affinity. But such an attitude may reflect, if not your individual circumstances, then your outlook on life in general. Look at it this way: if you are of a younger (and perhaps fitter) generation, would you be happier for someone to give you free fish every weekend or would you rather have your own little fishing boat? The fishing boat may be harder work with greater risk, but ultimately more rewarding..

Reality is an illusion.

Albert Einstein

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinion, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Oscar Wilde

War and armed conflict:

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?

Mahatma Gandhi

If a woman, who's had too much to drink and gets into a car and drives all over the road, is regarded in law as being responsible for her decision to drive whilst over the limit, why is it that the same woman, if she over-imbibes and gets into a one-night stand with consensual sex which she later regrets, is regarded in law as not responsible for her actions and incapable of consent, but her male partner, who also may have drunk too much, is held responsible and liable to be prosecuted for rape...??

Because, quite rightly, the standard is the absence of valid consent, rather than the presence of explicit rejection.

If the sex was genuinely consensual, then the male in your story is immune from prosecution.

Matt.

I think his argument is that the woman can regret the one night stand and cry rape - even if she initially consented....

Scott Brehaut wrote:I think his argument is that the woman can regret the one night stand and cry rape - even if she initially consented....

Quite right. If an inebriated woman is deemed capable of deciding whether or not to drive in such a state, she should also be capable of deciding whether or not to have sex. If she later regrets the sex and cries rape, the guy is ****, whether or not he was inebriated himself, since a woman who's had too much to drink is deemed incapable of giving consent, but a man in the same state is considered to be still capable.

The definition of rape has been widened in recent years to the extent that a woman now need only 'feel' that a rape has occurred; if, for example, an initially hesitant woman later agrees to sex and then regrets it the following morning. A woman crying 'rape' has a right to be taken seriously, but not necessarily to be believed. There have been an increasing number of false accusations. Broadening legal definitions to include ambiguous terms is counter-intuitive to justice. People have the right to be clear on which actions are prohibited by law. Emotion-based definitions make laws woolly and subjective, and open the doors to injustice. See Diana Davison: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/wh ... r-shit-up/

Well of course she can, but that's not really much of an argument anything (or for it, for that matter). It's a statement of realistic fact.
Are we suggesting that rape should be legal in order to take away this 'weapon' from evil women?
Men can just as easily falsely accuse women of almost anything and it will just as easily be uncovered.
An accusation is meaningless without evidence. Evidence of rape is extremely rare and erroneous convictions are equally unlikely.

Scorer and his ilk really are panicking about something which is extremely unlikely to happen. That's fine, it's a cause close to his heart and it is only right that we on the Internet allow him to bang his drum, but if you're going to spend your life worrying about being persecuted by evil women and an evil state, you might as well refuse to wear trousers (716 deaths caused by trousers in the last three years) or wander about in public with a WWII tin helmet on your head in case of asteroid strike.

It's a big, bad, imperfect world out there, kids. Take care of yourselves.

Matt.

Matt you're missing the point about woolly definitions, subjectivity and double standards at play in the law here.

Back on topic:

What does the fox say?