# Affirmative consent



## tech-novelist

In the spirit of the "affirmative consent to sex" laws, I'd like to see a law that says that a man must give affirmative consent to child support before any sexual activity that might lead to pregnancy, or the woman cannot claim such child support.

What's fair is fair, right?


----------



## Forest

Are you trying to make sense out of a turnip soup recipe? Never works.

Affirmative consent is a purely a timely, fashionable, undefinable, and nebulous term. It will be defined only by confusion and disagreement.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I think that due to basic differences in biology, women have rights and responsibility for children that are conceived outside of a legal contract like a marriage. (for example women but only women can decide on an abortion). 

But I think this is separate from consent. I think consent is that both people are able to give informed consent to the activity taking place. "Affirmative" consent is one way to verify that is what is going on, but I don't think it is the only way. 

So men and women should be under the same rules for giving consent to sex.


----------



## tech-novelist

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I think that due to basic differences in biology, women have rights and responsibility for children that are conceived outside of a legal contract like a marriage. (for example women but only women can decide on an abortion).
> 
> But I think this is separate from consent. I think consent is that both people are able to give informed consent to the activity taking place. "Affirmative" consent is one way to verify that is what is going on, but I don't think it is the only way.
> 
> So men and women should be under the same rules for giving consent to sex.


Sure, but I'm not talking about giving consent to sex, but to paying child support. Obviously that is not biologically determined.


----------



## tom67

This is a good one
WeConsent app films people giving consent to protect users from assault claims | Daily Mail Online
Notice how a feminist says this is dangerous because what if she changes her mind.
They can never be accountable.


----------



## badsanta

@technovelist you do understand how a condom works don't you?










You may have never realized that this image from sexual education is really a metaphor for your penis. You probably do use them to keep your bananas fresh don't you?

...wait a minute, I bet they would keep bananas very fresh. Hmmmm perhaps I just punked myself! 

Learning something new everyday,
Badsanta


----------



## Mr. Nail

There is no way that affirmative consent would work here as the partnrers are able to change their minds at any point, say second trimester, or 13 years after birth.

On the other hand I have often wondered why there isn't a one time buy out option for the guy. A male abortion sort of. Probably because it would be over used. 

In reality is most child support paid by men who were quite happy in the relationship at the time of the birth?


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> In the spirit of the "affirmative consent to sex" laws, I'd like to see a law that says that a man must give affirmative consent to pay child support for any children born of any sexual activity that might lead to pregnancy, or else he can't have sex with a woman.
> 
> What's fair is fair, right?


Fixed your post. And yep, fair.


----------



## Constable Odo

I just give the woman a fake name and address. Usually several towns away from where I really live, at least 25 miles, and not somewhere I usually travel. That way she won't be able to track me down, and the odds of me running into her when she's randomly driving around trying to hunt me down are slim to none.


----------



## Anon Pink

This is absurd. 

When you have sex you MUST know that that is how babies are made. It's like making cake batter, pouring it into a pan, placing the pan in the oven...and then "hey man I didn't consent to cake being made! I didn't know the oven was turned on to 350 for 28 minutes!"

So stupid...


----------



## tech-novelist

Ok, I'll accept FW's modification:

"In the spirit of the "affirmative consent to sex" laws, I'd like to see a law that says that a man must give affirmative consent to pay child support for any children born of any sexual activity that might lead to pregnancy, or else he can't have sex with a woman."

Does anyone have a problem with that?


----------



## Mr. Nail

OOps. I see now that he has to sign consent to pay child support before engaging in sexual activity. That should throw a bucket of icewater on it.

Oh Grr thats a re-write. 

How about this: A woman must consent to sex before engaging in flirting activity. Let's stop this at the real begining.


----------



## Constable Odo

Not me. 

"Hi, I'm Fred. From Malden."


----------



## Pluto2

Parents are already legally obligated to support their children. Most adults understand that you don't need consent for an existing legal duty. 

If you don't want kids, get a vasectomy.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

"Affirmative consent isn?t based on the idea that every sexual encounter is a rigid contract between two parties. No one is suggesting that college students need to run through a checklist before unbuttoning each other?s shirts. Instead, it?s more about broadly reorienting about how we approach sex in the first place.
The current societal script on sex assumes that passivity and silence ? essentially, the ?lack of a no? ? means it?s okay to proceed. That?s on top of the fact that male sexuality has been socially defined as aggressive, something that can result in men feeling entitled to sex, while women have been taught that sex is something that simply happens to them rather than something they?re an active participant in. It?s not hard to imagine how couples end up in ambiguous situations where one partner is not exactly comfortable with going forward, but also not exactly comfortable saying no.
Under an affirmative consent standard, on the other hand, both partners are required to pay more attention to whether they?re feeling enthusiastic about the sexual experience they?re having. There aren?t any assumptions about where the sexual encounter is going or whether both people are already on the same page. At its very basic level, this is the opposite of killing the mood ? it?s about making sure the person with whom you?re about to have sex is excited about having sex with you.
Making sure someone else is enthusiastic about what you?re doing with them requires you to consider their wants and needs, think about how to bring them pleasure, and ultimately approach sex like a partnership instead of a means to your own end.
It?s admittedly somewhat of a departure from the way our society often approaches sex; recent studies have found that most college students feel uncomfortable voicing their desires during sexual encounters, and there?s a gender imbalance in whose pleasure is prioritized. But the emphasis on getting consent isn?t an effort to turn everyone into rapists. It?s just about encouraging better communication across the board."


Seems sensible to me, if you can't have a basic convo or learn how to make sure your partner is happy to have sex- well you have no business having sex.


----------



## Runs like Dog

permanent yet reversible birth control for men will revolutionize feminism.


----------



## unbelievable

Currently, only females are free in this country to have all forms of sexual activity but be completely absolved of all parental obligations. Pregnant females can get perfectly legal abortions. The male party to the conception has no legal voice in that decision. If we actually do value equality under the law, we must find this arrangement is discriminatory on the basis of a person's sex. No man, not even judges, governors, cops, or the President of the United States can simply choose to end the life of an innocent human without some form of due process. Only citizens with a uterus can do that.

In light of that, it is perfectly rational and reasonable for a male to request and to receive an enforceable contract prior to sexual activity that would also absolve him of any potential parental obligation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Runs like Dog said:


> permanent yet reversible birth control for men will revolutionize feminism.


Yes it will revolutionize men, and women, and maybe people can stop thinking that the reason women have babies is to "trap" men in to paying for them.

Women don't want unplanned pregnancies. Neither do men.


----------



## Anon Pink

unbelievable said:


> Currently, only females are free in this country to have all forms of sexual activity but be completely absolved of all parental obligations. Pregnant females can get perfectly legal abortions. The male party to the conception has no legal voice in that decision. If we actually do value equality under the law, we must find this arrangement is discriminatory on the basis of a person's sex. No man, not even judges, governors, cops, or the President of the United States can simply choose to end the life of an innocent human without some form of due process. Only citizens with a uterus can do that.
> 
> In light of that, it is perfectly rational and reasonable for a male to request and to receive an enforceable contract prior to sexual activity that would also absolve him of any potential parental obligation.



These are very complicated points of discussion. 

A fiction book I read some years ago featured a husband who desperately wanted his wife to keep her pregnancy. He desperately wanted to be a father and due to some recent event he was now sterile. 

The wife was a doctor and part of a revolutionary feminist group trying to ensure women continued to have reproductive rights of choice. The group kidnapped an anti choice Supreme Court judge and implanted the doctor wife's pregnant uterus in the judge who was a man. He was now effectively pregnant and to have the uterus removed would kill the fetus, something he staunchly felt was akin to murder. 

Meanwhile the father was trying to find a lawyer who would help him ensure (through court order) that the judge would not kill his unborn son. 

Wish I could remember the title of the book...

There are no easy answers regarding men having a right to end or save an unplanned pregnancy. 

*Except for this: Do not have sex with a woman who does not agree with your view on unplanned pregnancies.*


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I don't think its simple. If no coercion is involved, then I see sex as a symmetric act - equal responsibility. Pregnancy though is not. Women (at least in the US and most of Europe) have the right to terminate or not terminate a pregnancy, the father has no say. (I agree with this - it would be horrible if a father could force a woman to have or not have an abortion).

The woman also has all the physiological effects of pregnancy.

It just isn't symmetric. 

I believe that the default is that the biological father is responsible for support. I don't know if non-responsibility contracts are possible, but I don't think so. 

Its actually extremely foolish for men to have sex with women they don't know very well. They do it because they are irrational, but if they thought about the risks they would realize that its crazy. 







technovelist said:


> Sure, but I'm not talking about giving consent to sex, but to paying child support. Obviously that is not biologically determined.


----------



## Constable Odo

Faithful Wife said:


> [...]maybe people can stop thinking that the reason women have babies is to "trap" men in to paying for them.
> 
> Women don't want unplanned pregnancies. Neither do men.


Women having babies to "trap" men aren't "unplanned" by definition.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh gee, lookie there...you think you are teaching me something! How cute.


----------



## Anon Pink

Constable Odo said:


> Women having babies to "trap" men aren't "unplanned" by definition.


There is a difference between 'unplanned' and 'unwanted'.

None of my pregnancies were planned. But they were all wanted.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh gee, lookie there...you think you are teaching me something! How cute.


as if no woman, ever, got pregnant to get her man. To think.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it will revolutionize men, and women, and maybe people can stop thinking that the reason women have babies is to "trap" men in to paying for them.
> 
> *Women don't want unplanned pregnancies. * Neither do men.


Some do. I think it is disingenuous to ignore reality to support a cause. Some women, not many likely, have been known to intentionally get pregnant to keep a man or to force marriage.


----------



## Anon Pink

naiveonedave said:


> as if no woman, ever, got pregnant to get her man. To think.


It does happen. It's something that men should be very very careful about.

Recently one of the "One Direction" dudes got a woman pregnant. My teenaged daughter was disgusted but the news. I suggested the dude was pretty damn stupid to have unprotected sex ...ever! Being rich and famous probably brings out the crazy gold diggers who would love to have an easy pay check for the next 18 years. 

How any man can not be cognizant of that and take precautions to ensure it doesn't happen is beyond me!


----------



## Pluto2

NobodySpecial said:


> Some do. I think it is disingenuous to ignore reality to support a cause. Some women, not many likely, have been known to intentionally get pregnant to keep a man or to force marriage.


And men ALWAYS provide for their children :rofl:


----------



## NobodySpecial

Pluto2 said:


> And men ALWAYS provide for their children :rofl:


No they don't. Why does everything wind up in a gender war whereby EVERYONE of a given gender is either pure or evil? That's just dumb.


----------



## Anon Pink

NobodySpecial said:


> Some do. I think it is disingenuous to ignore reality to support a cause. Some women, not many likely, have been known to intentionally get pregnant to keep a man or to force marriage.


Which is exactly her point. If men had the ability to ensure zero swimming sperm ever entered a woman's vagina they would never ever be trapped by THEIR unplanned pregnancies.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon Pink said:


> Which is exactly her point. If men had the ability to ensure zero swimming sperm ever entered a woman's vagina they would never ever be trapped by THEIR unplanned pregnancies.


Well then I agree a million percent.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> Some do. I think it is disingenuous to ignore reality to support a cause. Some women, not many likely, have been known to intentionally get pregnant to keep a man or to force marriage.


On average, roughly one in ten children were not fathered by the man who is raising them, thinking they're his.


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> And men ALWAYS provide for their children :rofl:


I know you are, but what I am. aka tit for tat. Both are wrong, egads.


----------



## Anon Pink

Cletus said:


> On average, roughly one in ten children were not fathered by the man who is raising them, thinking they're his.


That's appalling!

Where do you get this statistic?


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> That's appalling!
> 
> Where do you get this statistic?


Here's a quick article on the subject. It's been known for a long time. The NHANES study in this country (if I remember correctly, might be the wrong study) bore it out in the US as well. 

One Out Of Ten People Weren't Fathered By The Man They Believe Is Dad - disinformation

There's a lot of debate about the actual number, and it depends heavily on the population under study, but rates of 3-5% are found pretty regularly in most populations, with some being very much higher.


----------



## Lon

I agree, but coming at it from the other side... I know a young woman who was in a toxic relationship, got pregnant, had the baby then broke up and moved away. The father is not on the birth certificate. Some time later she applied for, and received, social assistance and had started receiving payments, however the gov't is now threatening to cease them demanding she get support payments from the biological father (whom was controlling and abusive and she worked very hard to get completely out of the picture). She'd rather forfeit her welfare checks and let her and her baby go a little hungry than have to deal with the abusive ahole.


----------



## Lon

Cletus, a close friend found out that he'd been raising a child which wasn't his for over 2 years. His W, the mother, eventually couldn't keep hiding her secrets and addictions and it all came out and she ended up leaving with the child. That one cost him a huge fortune (both emotionally as well as in the bank account).


----------



## Anon Pink

@Cletus

The article you linked suggested that the highest rate of "not the baby-daddy" is among the lowest socio-economic groups. It's still appalling though!



> The prestigious medical journal the Lancet concurs: “The true frequency of non-paternity is not known, but published reports suggest an incidence from as low as 1% per generation up to about 30% in the population.”
> 
> The research shows that the lower a purported father’s socioeconomic status, the more likely his wife got someone else to father the child. From a Darwinian standpoint this makes perfect sense, since she wants her offspring to have the highest-caliber DNA, which may not come from the stiff she settled for at the altar.
> 
> This knowledge should make Father’s Day a much more interesting, and introspective, holiday…


 @Lon two good examples of the complicated issue of paternity.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
the law in the US as I understand it is really extreme. Even if a woman becomes pregnant by deliberate deception ( including impregnating herself with semen from a used condom), the man is liable for child support.

Now this sort of deception is EXTREMELY rare, I'm just mentioning it to indicate how extreme the laws are.

Does anyone know if a man can sign a contract releasing him from responsibility for any children that result from sex? I think you can't, but I'm not sure.


I would like laws to exist that would make it financially safe for two consenting adults to have sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Some do. I think it is disingenuous to ignore reality to support a cause. Some women, not many likely, have been known to intentionally get pregnant to keep a man or to force marriage.


Not sure what "cause" you think I'm supporting.

I'm all for reversible birth control for men. If you mean that "cause", then yes I'm for it.

Some men have been known to intentionally ditch women and children and not pay child support, too. I do not consider this a reflection on all men nor do I think it is what most men want. But apparently I have to point it out, like you had to point out that some women do get pregnant to keep a man, just to be "fair" or "not disingenuous"...or something.


----------



## Constable Odo

richardsharpe said:


> Does anyone know if a man can sign a contract releasing him from responsibility for any children that result from sex?


No, you can't.

The courts view child support as monetary compensation to raise the child. A child, by definition, is incapable of entering into a contract, thus, cannot sign its legal right to support away. Either in-vitro, or after birth.


Most men I know are perfectly willing to pay child support, if there are some assurances the money is actually going to support the child. Unfortunately, there is no oversight in this area, which is why the funds are usually spent on buying liposuction and new breasts rather than new clothes and sneakers for the kid.


----------



## Mr. Nail

We used to have a social convention that helped to ensure that men didn't have sex with women until they both had agreed to responcibilities for unplanned pregnancies and child care and parenting responsibilities. It was called Marriage. There was even an expectation of chastity prior to marriage and fidelity in marriage. Those ideas were found to be to restrictive of personal freedom, and in general too old fashioned and unrealistic. 

Vasectomy is an interesting male soloution. Unfortunatly women do not accept it. They believe that they should have a voice in that chioce.


----------



## Anon Pink

@Mr. Nail

I've never heard of a woman being against a man's right to prevent pregnancy through vasectomy. I've heard that some doctors require a wife's consent-which I think is absolutely outrageous! I've also heard that some doctors refuse to do the procedure if the man is considered too young to make such a decision-which is also outrageous!


----------



## Lon

Anon Pink said:


> @Lon two good examples of the complicated issue of paternity.


and I'm just one person, if everyone knew of two examples, then the problem proliferates. I'm sure I can think of others, but any time I hear speak of a woman's right to choose to carry a fetus (which I'm not really putting up for any debate at this time) I can't help but think what of a man's choice to decide his own fate of whether or not the woman chooses to continue with gestation or not. I do believe not only affirmative consent needs to be given, but also that informed consent does as well (if a child is carried to term and it is known who the biological father is, unless he is deemed an unfit parent by the courts why shouldn't he have every right to parent that child?)


----------



## Lon

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> the law in the US as I understand it is really extreme. Even if a woman becomes pregnant by deliberate deception ( including impregnating herself with semen from a used condom), the man is liable for child support.
> 
> Now this sort of deception is EXTREMELY rare, I'm just mentioning it to indicate how extreme the laws are.
> 
> Does anyone know if a man can sign a contract releasing him from responsibility for any children that result from sex? I think you can't, but I'm not sure.
> 
> 
> I would like laws to exist that would make it financially safe for two consenting adults to have sex.


A father can sign an application form to terminate his parental rights, however that does not absolve him at all from financial obligations - ie. he would still have to pay child support (so it makes no sense to me why a father would voluntarily/officially sign anything and not just walk away instead).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Constable Odo said:


> *Most men* I know are perfectly willing to pay child support, if there are some assurances the money is actually going to support the child. Unfortunately, there is no oversight in this area, which is why *the funds are usually spent on* buying liposuction and new breasts rather than new clothes and sneakers for the kid.


Yep. Once again, "most" men are saints and women are "usually" selfish jerks who neglect their children's needs.


----------



## Anon Pink

Faithful Wife said:


> Yep. Once again, "most" men are saints and women are "usually" selfish jerks who neglect their children's needs.


Must ignore the blatant baiting.


----------



## Fozzy

I'm confused about the purpose of this thread. Is it to suggest that it's sometimes ok to not help raise a child that you helped create? Really? Because if that's the purpose of this thread, I'm baffled how we got to this point.


----------



## Anon Pink

Bugged said:


> well...it does not take vaginal sex actually...Boris Becker had an _unplanned _daughter via blow job>
> 
> BORIS BECKER SHOWS LOVE FOR QUICK-LOVE CHILD - NY Daily News
> 
> No sex is zero risk.>


Which is worse the "3 minute tryst" (3 minutes!  ) or the fact that he had said tryst while his wife was in labor!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy said:


> I'm confused about the purpose of this thread. Is it to suggest that it's sometimes ok to not help raise a child that you helped create? Really? Because if that's the purpose of this thread, I'm baffled how we got to this point.


The purpose of this thread was to mock the concept of affirmative consent. Because that idea doesn't sit well with the OP and some of the other guys here.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> The purpose of this thread was to mock the concept of affirmative consent. Because that idea doesn't sit well with the OP and some of the other guys here.


or because affirmative consent violates due process aka civil rights of men?


----------



## staarz21

naiveonedave said:


> or because affirmative consent violates due process aka civil rights of men?


Okay, usually I'm on the guys side of this particular subject. I have 3 boys and I want them to be safe. I don't want them ended up with a looney toon who is going to accuse them of rape if it was consensual and maybe they pissed her off later. I've seen this happen so much and I KNOW it's a real problem men face....


HOWEVER....

How in the hell is getting a Yes! I want you IN me! violating your civil rights as a man? 

Because the way you just worded that sentence, makes it sound like you just want to do it regardless of what she says. Because if she says yes it's violating your rights? Or if she says no, it's violating your rights? WTF? 

This is all pretty damn easy...

1. make sure you're not sleeping with someone you don't know. 

2. Make sure you're not sleeping with a crazy person (this goes along with knowing who you're sleeping with)

3. Make sure you're REALLY SURE she wants to have sex with you. 

If there is ANY doubt what so ever....DO NOT DO IT! 

Go jerk off. 

I'm sure jerking off doesn't violate your rights, or does it...did you give yourself consent? 

This is such an attempt to start a fight.


----------



## Faithful Wife

staarz21 said:


> This is such an attempt to start a fight.


Yep.


----------



## soccermom2three

naiveonedave said:


> or because affirmative consent violates due process aka civil rights of men?



Whoa! This comment says A LOT about you. You have scary thought process. Are you posting from jail?


----------



## naiveonedave

staarz21 said:


> Okay, usually I'm on the guys side of this particular subject. I have 3 boys and I want them to be safe. I don't want them ended up with a looney toon who is going to accuse them of rape if it was consensual and maybe they pissed her off later. I've seen this happen so much and I KNOW it's a real problem men face....
> 
> 
> HOWEVER....
> 
> How in the hell is getting a Yes! I want you IN me! violating your civil rights as a man?
> 
> Because the way you just worded that sentence, makes it sound like you just want to do it regardless of what she says. Because if she says yes it's violating your rights? Or if she says no, it's violating your rights? WTF?
> 
> This is all pretty damn easy...
> 
> 1. make sure you're not sleeping with someone you don't know.
> 
> 2. Make sure you're not sleeping with a crazy person (this goes along with knowing who you're sleeping with)
> 
> 3. Make sure you're REALLY SURE she wants to have sex with you.
> 
> If there is ANY doubt what so ever....DO NOT DO IT!
> 
> Go jerk off.
> 
> I'm sure jerking off doesn't violate your rights, or does it...did you give yourself consent?
> 
> This is such an attempt to start a fight.


sorry, but if you look into the background for affirmative consent, the reason is an attempt to toss men into jail for rape, when there is no evidence that rape occurred, other than he/she said. In my country, that is a violation of our rights. 

The problem is, even if you have it, it can be immediately rescinded, so it really doesn't get you anything, in the cases where the woman decides she was raped after the fact. Sorry, I ain't buying it, especially after Duke Lacross and other cases.


----------



## Cletus

soccermom2three said:


> Whoa! This comment says A LOT about you. You have scary thought process. Are you posting from jail?


Now wait a minute. I've never been in a jail in my life, and I'm of the opinion that the affirmative consent movement has a huge potential to put some very frightening legislation on the table. As I've said in another post, the American Law Institute is currently struggling with the topic and has some serious concerns. 28 of Harvard's law professors stand in opposition to their school's AC regulation. 

I post again for your reading pleasure: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-regulating-sex.html?_r=0

This is not a paranoid or misogynistic position and you do not have to be a derelict to be concerned about the legal standing of affirmative consent.


----------



## Mr. Nail

The purpose of this thread was to mock the concept of affirmative consent. Oh most certainly. 

The idea that affirmative consent is "don't have sex", is really just another mocking. 

The we consent app doesn't come close to covering the legal issue. But it is a good indicator of what the difficulties in writing a useful affirmative consent policy / law, will be. At best affirmative consent is a good training tool for young men and women. 

I don't think there is any woman here who would deny that unwanted advances (flirting) is annoying. Many would agree that it could even be sexual harassment. But all of them would agree that getting permission to flirt would ruin it's effectiveness. This is just a mild example of the problem with the whole concept.


----------



## naiveonedave

soccermom2three said:


> Whoa! This comment says A LOT about you. You have scary thought process. Are you posting from jail?


No I just want to keep my sons from going to jail on a bogus trumped up rape charge, ala duke lacross. 

The fact that you will sacrifice my civil rights is very disturbing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr. Nail said:


> I don't think there is any woman here who would deny that unwanted advances (flirting) is annoying. Many would agree that it could even be sexual harassment. But all of them would agree that getting permission to flirt would ruin it's effectiveness. This is just a mild example of the problem with the whole concept.


Yeah, comparing flirting to rape makes sense.

Not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Being that the MRA types constantly like to bring up the fact that women rape too, and they constantly bring up the fact that men are apparently frequently falsely accused of rape, it would seem that they would be FOR affirmative consent, to protect themselves from rape and false rape charges.

But no...they are against it and mock it at every turn. Because feminism.

(Cletus, I'm not saying you are an MRA...your thoughts on this topic, as expressed, seem logical from your position).


----------



## Mr. Nail

So affirmative consent does not start until the moment before penetration? We have laws for that.


----------



## badsanta

technovelist said:


> ..a man must give affirmative consent to forum support before any posting activity that might lead to very long threads, or the forum cannot claim support from the OP.


Ummm Techno, 










Looks like you start swinging your d*** around in here a little too much! You really should become a forum supporter, and me too!

Badsanta


----------



## Faithful Wife

I personally don't care about the new laws they are trying to write.

Affirmative consent is a sex positive, best practices-type concept (and SURPRISE! not all sex positive people are feminists!) that should be adopted by everyone in order to protect themselves and each other.

The fact that people have a problem with this even as a CONCEPT is shocking to me and always has been.

Further, the fact that people want to insist on being allowed to use what they would call "seduction" techniques (basically, getting from no to yes) is appalling. It really doesn't hurt anyone to get affirmative consent, but the round and round "oh no! that would be a boner killer to have to actually TALK about the fact that I want to have sex with him/her!" is just so weird to me.

And making the claim that it is just sooooooo common for women to cry rape when it didn't actually happen is also weird to me.

But whatevs. 

There is a world outside of TAM where people are all for affirmative consent....including MEN. (shock!)

One of these men is Mark Manson.

http://markmanson.net/sex-education


----------



## naiveonedave

FW - I resent that you are tossing aside due process under the law. Pure and simple. That men are duped into this nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsense.


----------



## Pluto2

affirmative consent laws do not violate anyone's civil rights.

Ohio and California both have affirmative consent laws that provide a guideline for determining when the accused had knowledge of the victim's impairment, and the level of impairment that must be present before an accused should reasonably know that that the victim was not capable of making an affirmative consent.

The laws also have reasonableness standards for determining when under the cirucmstances, nonverbal affirmative consent to sexual activity was given. The presence of guidelines and the existence of a reasonableness standard would satisfy both the procedural and substantive due process rights of the accused.

Defining rape as sex in the absence of affirmative consent produces two benefits. First, it defines consent as communication, verbal or non-verbal thereby eliminating jurors' ability to consider precipitating or past sexual conduct. Second, it places the burden of communication properly on the person desiring the sex. 

Some statutes even fairly recently, failed to recognize a rape unless there was physical force and/or threat, and others allowed a victims past sexual history to be admitted to determine consent (sort of the once a ***** always a ***** belief).

Maybe some affirmative consent laws go too far, but I don't think so. And for all the posters properly concerned about their sons, imagine just for a moment how you might feel if your children were daughters.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> FW - I resent that you are tossing aside due process under the law. Pure and simple. That men are duped into this nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsense.


Guess how much I care about your resenting my opinion?


----------



## Cletus

Pluto2 said:


> Maybe some affirmative consent laws go too far, but I don't think so. And for all the posters properly concerned about their sons, imagine just for a moment how you might feel if your children were daughters.


This is not a gender question. 

I have one of each. I would hope that both would be capable and willing to tell a partner clearly and concisely to stop a sexual act they did not like rather than to have their partner guess to what she is verbally and/or non-verbally agreeing. In fact, I don't even need to hope. I feel sorry for the poor man who ignores my daughter. 

The word "no" is the first word most of us learn. It is a powerful, simple, and unambiguous tool for removing consent at any time. 

Forgive me if I don't find your assurances compelling that AC laws will be properly written and reasonably enforced in an era of sexual offender registries ruining the lives of too many non-predators.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Pluto2 said:


> Second, it places the burden of communication properly on the person desiring the sex.





Faithful Wife said:


> Further, the fact that people want to insist on being allowed to use what they would call "seduction" techniques (basically, getting from no to yes) is appalling.


Clear as mud


----------



## Lon

I thought this thread was supposed to be about affirmative consent for men to be expected to assume their parental responsibilities following successful conception of new life? I thought affirmative consensual sex was just the metaphorical framework to affix the starting point for discussion.

If the only purpose of sex was reproduction (and this actually is a perspective I have argued for often) then affirmative consent for parental responsibility would be the act of consensual sex, however most people adamantly argue that non-reproductive sex is in fact a real thing, so then in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, considering abortions are legal and considering the female gender has complete autonomy at the discovery of that information, over whether or not she wishes to undertake the parental responsibilities, then in the name of equality should the biological father also have autonomy over undertaking those responsibilities too?

Would go like this: woman has positive pregnancy test, at which point she should be legally required to inform father, so at that time BOTH biological parents can choose whether to assume parental rights (by continuing with pregnancy by her and by offering affirmative consent by him) or not undertake them (by aborting for her or not giving consent for him). - edit: and in the name of equality I think there is also room in the argument for the mother to also choose to carry the child to birth whilst also not giving affirmative consent to undertake her parental rights, meaning that the father does or else neither and the baby is given up for adoption.

Like Richard pointed out, it's not a symmetrical arrangement, however the legal rights and obligations can still be balanced on a scale.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> Forgive me if I don't find your assurances compelling that AC laws will be properly written and reasonably enforced in an era of sexual offender registries ruining the lives of too many non-predators.


Cletus, can you show us some kind of evidence that this is an "era" of "too many" non-predators being falsely accused?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr. Nail said:


> Clear as mud


What can I clear up for you, Mr. Nail? I don't even understand your multi quote post. But I'm happy to give my thoughts in order to clear up any actual misunderstanding you may have of what I have said. I cannot speak for Pluto though.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Cletus, can you show us some kind of evidence that this is an "era" of "too many" non-predators being falsely accused?


This is one of the cases that has been in the news lately.

The kid was dumb, but he was lied to. Both the girl he is accused of raping and her mother pleaded the court to not put him on the offender registry, but the judge refused. Now he can't even live at home because he has a 15 year old brother. 

Teen's plight: From dating app to sex offender registry - CNN.com

Surely you've heard that many states are examining their sexual offender laws because of cases like this? The ACLU believes that registries do overall more harm than good and stop very little criminal activity as you can read here.

A quick search of the internet ought to be enough to convince you that many respected organizations, i.e. not MRA groups, want to see significant changes to laws that were ostensibly made to stop pedophiles and rapists but are being abused, sometimes destroying lives in the process. Because once you're on the registry, you're done. 

This is my central fear about AC.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok but one case doesn't mean there is an "era" of non-rapists being charged with rape. I'm asking, is there some kind of evidence that this is a rampant problem? I'm talking about the false rape charges that men (even non-MRA types) are saying happen so frequently. Where is the evidence that this is a huge occurrence? 

As for the sex offender registry, to me that is a different topic, because not just rapists are on there, other types of offenders are on there, too. Being on the sex offender registry is not going to dissuade any actual rapists, to be sure...but it is still a different topic, IMO.

So....as for false rape charges? Do you have any sources?


----------



## Mr. Nail

I'm quite a bit leery to wade into this yet again. When people are convinced of their truth, pointing out glaring discrepancies generally makes them defensive not thoughtful. But, today I'm in the mood, so here goes. (and no calling me a rapist )

Courtship is the art of turning a no into a yes. Every scrap of romantic fiction I have been exposed to backs up the idea that this is not only normal, it is expected. Now nothing much is going to happen if you start with a pair of "heck no! 's. But if you have a "yes" and a "no but maybe" seduction may begin. Seduction is not necessarily an evil. In fact it is often a gentle mutually satisfactory experience. We want to be wanted. We desire to be desired. We both want to move from acquaintance to friend to lover. There is nothing appalling about the process by which a relationship increases in intimacy to the point of sexual intercourse. Some people like me take a long time to go through this. Some people do it quite quickly. It's very much about comfort and personal boundaries. But that is just timing and personal differences that I anticipated you questioning. Overall the process whether taking months or minutes is the same.

I brought in Pluto's quote because it is common language in Consent policies. The policy assumes that one person desires sex. That indicates that the other person is at least reluctant to engage in sex. There in the very words of the policy is the expectation that one person is convincing the other person to change their no to a yes. If there is no changing a no to a yes, there is no reason for consent. 

But I have never in my 50 years walked into a room and looked at a stranger and thought, "I'd like to have sex with her". Should that actually happen I would think it would be a very very low order of probability that she would have the same attraction. Always there are steps. In short I also expect seduction.


----------



## Starstarfish

As a (former) child whose father never paid child support, I find the whole attitude that women usually blow child support on boob jobs and lipo sad. All that encourages is the mentality that not paying child support is a "win" somehow. Of course the person who loses here is the child. 

I do wish there was some kind of legal allowance where if someone legitimately doesn't trust their former ONS/wife/lover to use the money to support the child, than the child support goes into an account in the child's name they can access when they turn of age.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok but one case doesn't mean there is an "era" of non-rapists being charged with rape.


Not what I said. 



Cletus said:


> Forgive me if I don't find your assurances compelling that AC laws will be properly written and reasonably enforced in an era of sexual offender registries ruining the lives of too many non-predators.


People land on offender registries for many reasons, rape being only one. My concern is for poorly worded or enforced laws that make it easier to land on a registry by mistake, for whatever reason. The argument I am refuting is the one that says to simmer down, AC laws won't have any unintended consequences and no one will abuse them. I don't believe that, and the various Megan's Laws and their abuses is partly why. Combine that with my personal opinion that AC is *more* ambiguous (even if more _desirable_ in a perfect world) than "just say no", and you have my concerns neatly wrapped. 



> I'm asking, is there some kind of evidence that this is a rampant problem? I'm talking about the false rape charges that men (even non-MRA types) are saying happen so frequently. Where is the evidence that this is a huge occurrence?


The number is unknown. The most quoted rate is somewhere between 2 and 8%, or from one in every 12 to one in every 50 rape accusations. One meta-study (http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegations.pdf) over a 10 year span found that 6% (1 in 16) of the rape cases studied could be conclusively shown to be false. A much higher percentage - almost half - didn't rise to the definition of rape, or the victim was uncooperative, or there was insufficient evidence and so were never prosecuted. Somewhere around 5% seems to be a good minimum baseline in lieu of a real number that in which we can have solid faith.

I'll let you decide if that is too many.


----------



## Fozzy

Starstarfish said:


> As a (former) child whose father never paid child support, I find the whole attitude that women usually blow child support on boob jobs and lipo sad. All that encourages is the mentality that not paying child support is a "win" somehow. Of course the person who loses here is the child.
> 
> I do wish there was some kind of legal allowance where if someone legitimately doesn't trust their former ONS/wife/lover to use the money to support the child, than the child support goes into an account in the child's name they can access when they turn of age.


Or maybe child support could be put into dedicated accounts tied to a visa that can be randomly audited for receipts. My health spending account is set up that way. If I try to use it (and it's a MasterCard) at a bowling alley for instance, it will automatically reject.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr. Nail said:


> I'm quite a bit leery to wade into this yet again. When people are convinced of their truth, pointing out glaring discrepancies generally makes them defensive not thoughtful. But, today I'm in the mood, so here goes. (and no calling me a rapist )
> 
> Courtship is the art of turning a no into a yes. Every scrap of romantic fiction I have been exposed to backs up the idea that this is not only normal, it is expected. Now nothing much is going to happen if you start with a pair of "heck no! 's. But if you have a "yes" and a "no but maybe" seduction may begin. Seduction is not necessarily an evil. In fact it is often a gentle mutually satisfactory experience. We want to be wanted. We desire to be desired. We both want to move from acquaintance to friend to lover. There is nothing appalling about the process by which a relationship increases in intimacy to the point of sexual intercourse. Some people like me take a long time to go through this. Some people do it quite quickly. It's very much about comfort and personal boundaries. But that is just timing and personal differences that I anticipated you questioning. Overall the process whether taking months or minutes is the same.
> 
> I brought in Pluto's quote because it is common language in Consent policies. The assumption shows there in the very words of the policy that one person is convincing the other person to change their no to a yes. If there is no changing a no to a yes, there is no reason for consent. But I have never in my 50 years walked into a room and looked at a stranger and thought, "I'd like to have sex with her". Always there are steps. In short I also expect seduction.


But times have changed, and we need new concepts.

In previous decades, women were raped and then not believed when they came forward, were called sl*ts, were harassed, and they literally had no power to protect themselves.

Because of this, and because enough cases of actual rape (of both men and women) were ignored or glossed over, enough people were outraged by this that they demanded change in the legal system.

So now the pendulum has swung somewhat and now women have far more power than they did in previous decades.

IMO, you can't ignore HOW and WHY we got to this point and just focus on the poor men who may be falsely accused. Yes, I am 100% against false rape accusations. But I'm also 100% against rape and unwanted touching and sexual assault. To be more empathetic toward the relatively low number of false charges in comparison to the huge number of real rapes that occur is just bizarre to me. I am empathetic to both, but real rapes still do occur, and regardless of what some people may want to believe, the real rapes that do occur are what people who are behind AC are trying to address.

The implication that feminists actually WANT to find ways to falsely accuse men of rape, just so, I don't know, they can laugh at them in court? Or they just want make any random man they can lure into thinking she actually wants to have sex with him (and then files false rape charges, apparently) pay for how much they hate all men? Or....what exactly DO men think women are so gleefully filing false rape charges FOR? Since some of you think this rampantly occurs, what exactly is the motive you see behind women doing this? Women are simply evil that way or....? 

I've known a whole lotta women in my life, and have NEVER heard even one of them saying "oh yeah so I like TOTALLY filed false rape charges against Joe, Bill and Fred....just because I hate men, mwah ha ha!" 

So we've definitely entered a new era. One in which the innocent days of seduction are over. 

Most young people easily and quickly adopt the concept of affirmative consent. It is only the older crowd who have such an issue with it.

But think about it. The older crowd were shamed for even wanting to have sex to begin with. Women especially could not just go for it or say they wanted it. So seduction was usually the path to sex for most couples.

The younger crowd have not taken on those shame-shackles. They are more than happy to say "you wanna? yes? awesome, me too!"

The old days are over and we have to change our concepts and practices because there used to be rampant sl*t shaming and real rapes happening everywhere.

Thanks to that, we are now faced with creating a new way of getting from "nice to meet you" to "f*ck yes I want to have sex with you!"


----------



## Forest

Mr. Nail said:


> Clear as mud


Just another boondoggle that is purely for looks. It will, however generate some interesting resentment and disdain between the sexes.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> Somewhere around 5% seems to be a good minimum baseline in lieu of a real number that in which we can have solid faith.
> 
> I'll let you decide if that is too many.


Even 1 false accusation (of any crime) is too many, however, no, I do not see 5% as a rampant problem. Especially once you factor in the real rapes that are never reported.

As for the registry, different topic. I'll stay out of that one.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Faithful Wife said:


> So we've definitely entered a new era. One in which the innocent days of seduction are over.
> 
> Most young people easily and quickly adopt the concept of affirmative consent. It is only the older crowd who have such an issue with it.
> 
> But think about it. The older crowd were shamed for even wanting to have sex to begin with. Women especially could not just go for it or say they wanted it. So seduction was usually the path to sex for most couples.
> 
> The younger crowd have not taken on those shame-shackles. They are more than happy to say "you wanna? yes? awesome, me too!"
> 
> The old days are over and we have to change our concepts and practices because there used to be rampant sl*t shaming and real rapes happening everywhere.
> 
> Thanks to that, we are now faced with creating a new way of getting from "nice to meet you" to "f*ck yes I want to have sex with you!"


No thanks, even if I did see that brave new world you describe, I would not choose it. If this is sex positive, I'm not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr. Nail said:


> No thanks, even if I did see that brave new world you describe, I would not choose it. If this is sex positive, I'm not.


No worries, the young folks don't care that you wouldn't choose it, and the sex positive folks only care that you don't rape anyone, so I'm sure you're good.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Even 1 false accusation (of any crime) is too many, however, no, I do not see 5% as a rampant problem. Especially once you factor in the real rapes that are never reported.


Fair enough, you decided that 1 in 20 isn't too many. In 2010, the FBI counted 85,593 official rapes. That's about 4300 false accusations. 

I'm starting to feel like the woman who walks into the police station to report a rape and has her story minimized out of existence.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy said:


> Or maybe child support could be put into dedicated accounts tied to a visa that can be randomly audited for receipts. My health spending account is set up that way. If I try to use it (and it's a MasterCard) at a bowling alley for instance, it will automatically reject.


Fozzy, please don't believe the hype. Child support is determined by adding up all the expenses and income of both parents and the amount of time each parent has physical custody of the kids...all of the expenses are detailed and both parents get to see each other's detailed expenses (and bank statements, tax returns, etc), and the governing body that calculates child support also sees it. If either parent doubts the validity that the expenses are necessary or real, they can request back up in the form of receipts.

Further, the calculation can be redone every two years or more often if any event occurs that affects either parent's income (ie: if one loses their job or wins the lottery, they can or their ex can call for a new calculation to be done to adjust for the change).

Some of these guys want to make it sound like women just hand a jacked up list of fake expenses and receipts to a judge and the judge says "yeah dad, just pay for anything she wants, without any justification or proving that the money isn't going to her new c*ck carousel lifestyle! Ha ha, loser!"

It doesn't work like that, regardless of how these guys want to paint it.


----------



## Forest

It you look closely at what's happening, it mostly a CYA move on behalf of the colleges. This "affirmative consent" thing is an administrative action that seeks to control student behavior. They have had the power and ability to control this same behavior all along . 

The existing statutes regarding sexual assault are sufficient to handle this situation. What is new, is that NOW the colleges are shuffling and promoting things in a attempt to convey that they are taking action. 

They could have taken this action all along, but did not. They ignored, dragged feet, and dodged until a bullet hit them. The political climate now has pushed them into action. Actions they ignored for decades. Now, they can create new documents; create new titles for new employees; spend new money; get more public facetime with the media. 

The colleges are spinning this like Charlie Sheen. They want to be the heroes after years of bloated disregard. They want to reap upon the crises of others.

Responsibility is the issue. Students, administration, etc. None have a good record.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> Fair enough, you decided that 1 in 20 isn't too many. In 2010, the FBI counted 85,593 official rapes. That's about 4300 false accusations.
> 
> I'm starting to feel like the woman who walks into the police station to report a rape and has her story minimized out of existence.


What I actually said was that even 1 was too many and that no, I did not feel 5% (if accurate) indicated a rampant problem, especially if you factor in all the unreported rapes.

Even 1 actual rape is too many, too. 

Funny how actual rapes are never brought up in these pity parties for the false rape charges.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> What I actually said was that even 1 was too many and that no, I did not feel 5% (if accurate) indicated a rampant problem, especially if you factor in all the unreported rapes.
> 
> Even 1 actual rape is too many, too.
> 
> Funny how actual rapes are never brought up in these pity parties for the false rape charges.


Nothing funny about it at all, even when (again) minimizing the issue with a 'pity party' disclaimer. It's not a zero-sum game. We don't have to eliminate all rape before we worry about false rape accusations. 

There is all sorts of sympathy for rape victims, as their should be. There should be every damn bit as much sympathy for anyone accused of a rape he or she did not commit, and I shouldn't have to be convicted of holding a pity party for concerning myself with them. 

5% isn't a tsunami. But it certainly rises above my personal threshold of "too little a problem to worry about".


----------



## Anon Pink

Cletus said:


> Fair enough, you decided that 1 in 20 isn't too many. In 2010, the FBI counted 85,593 official rapes. That's about 4300 false accusations.
> 
> I'm starting to feel like the woman who walks into the police station to report a rape and has her story minimized out of existence.


Cletus, the FBI's official rape count away underestimates the actual number of rapes, forced sexual penetration because so few are reported and even once reported, many of those are dismissed for lack of evidence-which does not mean that no rape occurred.

I personally think false rape charges are extremely rare comparative to actual rapes. What I would like to know is how many of those false rape charges resulted in conviction because without a guilty verdict a false rape accusation isn't going to materially harm the poor guy.

We cannot account for bat sh!t crazy women who go postal on vindictiveness. We cannot throw the baby out with the bath water on this issue because this issue is woefully under reported and disgracefully under charged and only 10% of those charged get convicted...if I remember my stats correctly.

So that's a whole heap of victims going without justice and a whole heap of predators going without penalty who will no doubt continue to force women and this AC law will make women safer, make rape easier to prove and force everyone to own their goddamn sexuality. 

If you get a maybe with a coy smile you COULD be looking at bat sh!t crazy who will file charges, so walk away from the coy chick. She's dangerous.


----------



## Fozzy

Anon Pink said:


> .
> 
> If you get a maybe with a coy smile you COULD be looking at bat sh!t crazy who will file charges, so walk away from the coy chick. She's dangerous.


You just described my wife.


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> ...and this AC law will make women safer, make rape easier to prove and force everyone to own their goddamn sexuality.


How? How will it be easier to put rapists in jail because of this change? 

I don't see it. Until everyone starts taping every sexual encounter, proving you didn't say "yes" is hardly different from proving you didn't say "no" unless you were too drunk to do either, and even that is going to be he-said/she-said more often than not. AC is a feel-good but accomplish-little ideal. 

You want to know what would make me STFU and accept AC? A nationally standardized law with an explicit list of which permissions you have to _verbally_ obtain at a minimum (no body language allowed - that's WAYYY too open to mis-interpretation) for which acts to consider yourself free of a rape charge. Then, and only then, would people have a chance at knowing the law BEFORE they were accused of rape. 

I think I know what consent looks like. You think you know what consent looks like. If our definitions don't match pretty damned closely, one of us will wind up raping the other.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Many cases are very clear. Force or the threat of force. Drugging. Sex with someone incapacitated by alcohol. Any sexual activity in the fact of a "no" are clearly rape. 

We may not always know what happened in the above cases due to lack of evidence, but I think that if we knew, the great majority of people would agree that it was rape. 


In many cases even though rape has occurred, there is not enough evidence to prove it in court. I think affirmative consent tries to fix this, but doesn't really address the core problem - the lack of evidence. 

Without affirmative consent:
Victim: "he raped me"
Rapist: "She didn't object, so it wasn't rape". [ a lie since she did try to resist]


With affirmative consent:
Victim: "he raped me"
Rapist: "She gave verbal consent to everything we did". [a lie because she didn't give consent].


The problem remains - if there are no witnesses, the rapist can make up any story he wants, including lies about affirmative consent. 


Affirmative consent may help in cases of unclear consent, but I think those are actually pretty rare. I think most rapists know that they are committing rape. 


All that said, consent laws should be symmetric with respect to gender.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> I'm starting to feel like the woman who walks into the police station to report a rape and has her story minimized out of existence.


Yes Cletus. I will be so bold as to consider you comparing yourself to an actual rape victim just because I don't share your opinion a "pity party".


----------



## tech-novelist

Cletus said:


> How? How will it be easier to put rapists in jail because of this change?
> 
> I don't see it. Until everyone starts taping every sexual encounter, proving you didn't say "yes" is hardly different from proving you didn't say "no" unless you were too drunk to do either, and even that is going to be he-said/she-said more often than not. AC is a feel-good but accomplish-little ideal.
> 
> You want to know what would make me STFU and accept AC? A nationally standardized law with an explicit list of which permissions you have to _verbally_ obtain at a minimum (no body language allowed - that's WAYYY too open to mis-interpretation) for which acts to consider yourself free of a rape charge. Then, and only then, would people have a chance at knowing the law BEFORE they were accused of rape.
> 
> I think I know what consent looks like. You think you know what consent looks like. If our definitions don't match pretty damned closely, one of us will wind up raping the other.


And we know which one will be the rapist...


----------



## EleGirl

Anon Pink said:


> @Mr. Nail
> 
> I've never heard of a woman being against a man's right to prevent pregnancy through vasectomy. I've heard that some doctors require a wife's consent-which I think is absolutely outrageous! I've also heard that some doctors refuse to do the procedure if the man is considered too young to make such a decision-which is also outrageous!


The good thing is that there is a new type of vasectomy about to hit the market. It's a blockage that is cased by some think like a polymer. To reverse it takes the injection of a solution that dissolves the blockage.


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> Ok, I'll accept FW's modification:
> 
> "In the spirit of the "affirmative consent to sex" laws, I'd like to see a law that says that a man must give affirmative consent to pay child support for any children born of any sexual activity that might lead to pregnancy, or else he can't have sex with a woman."
> 
> Does anyone have a problem with that?


Since babies are a normal result of sex, a man who has sex with a woman implicitly gives consent to help support any child born of the sexual encounter. 

Perhaps our society needs to have sex education classes to teach some males that sex = babies???????? I thought that was a pretty well known fact now in 2015.


----------



## RandomDude

:scratchhead:

I don't get it, why so much criticism against affirmative consent, how is the law written in your country?


----------



## EleGirl

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I don't think its simple. If no coercion is involved, then I see sex as a symmetric act - equal responsibility. Pregnancy though is not. Women (at least in the US and most of Europe) have the right to terminate or not terminate a pregnancy, the father has no say. (I agree with this - it would be horrible if a father could force a woman to have or not have an abortion).
> 
> *The woman also has all the physiological effects of pregnancy.*
> 
> It just isn't symmetric.
> 
> I believe that the default is that the biological father is responsible for support. I don't know if non-responsibility contracts are possible, but I don't think so.
> 
> Its actually extremely foolish for men to have sex with women they don't know very well. They do it because they are irrational, but if they thought about the risks they would realize that its crazy.


I agree and want to expand on the underlined part. The woman also has the risk of the physical effect of pregnancy. This is not a minimal risk.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> Here's a quick article on the subject. It's been known for a long time. The NHANES study in this country (if I remember correctly, might be the wrong study) bore it out in the US as well.
> 
> One Out Of Ten People Weren't Fathered By The Man They Believe Is Dad - disinformation
> 
> There's a lot of debate about the actual number, and it depends heavily on the population under study, but rates of 3-5% are found pretty regularly in most populations, with some being very much higher.



From the linked article... different populations have different outcomes...

"Actual figures range from 1 percent in high-status areas of the United States and Switzerland, to 5 to 6 percent for moderate-status males in the United States and Great Britain, to 10 to 30 percent for lower-status males in the United States, Great Britain and France."

In another article... one of many that I found that give a much lower number...

"This survey of published estimates of nonpaternity suggests that for men with high paternity confidence, nonpaternity rates are typically 1.7% (if we exclude studies of unknown methodology) to 3.3% (if we include such studies). "

The paternity myth: the rarity of cuckoldry - Gene Expression


----------



## EleGirl

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> the law in the US as I understand it is really extreme. Even if a woman becomes pregnant by deliberate deception ( including impregnating herself with semen from a used condom), the man is liable for child support.
> 
> Now this sort of deception is EXTREMELY rare, I'm just mentioning it to indicate how extreme the laws are.
> 
> Does anyone know if a man can sign a contract releasing him from responsibility for any children that result from sex? I think you can't, but I'm not sure.
> 
> 
> I would like laws to exist that would make it financially safe for two consenting adults to have sex.



No, a mother and/or father cannot sign away their responsibility to care for their child(ren). 

The exception is with adoption.


----------



## RandomDude

Or if they leave the bloody country like mine did


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> or because affirmative consent violates due process aka civil rights of men?


Really? Only have sex with a woman who consents to have sex violates due process aka civil right of men?

Since when, in current society in the west, did men have the civil right to have sex with a woman who did not want to have sex with him?


----------



## EleGirl

Mr. Nail said:


> The purpose of this thread was to mock the concept of affirmative consent. Oh most certainly.
> 
> The idea that affirmative consent is "don't have sex", is really just another mocking.
> 
> The we consent app doesn't come close to covering the legal issue. But it is a good indicator of what the difficulties in writing a useful affirmative consent policy / law, will be. At best affirmative consent is a good training tool for young men and women.
> 
> I don't think there is any woman here who would deny that unwanted advances (flirting) is annoying. Many would agree that it could even be sexual harassment. But all of them would agree that getting permission to flirt would ruin it's effectiveness. This is just a mild example of the problem with the whole concept.


Affirmative consent has nothing to do with getting permission to flirt. 

It's about sexual contact and actual sex.


----------



## EleGirl

Mr. Nail said:


> So affirmative consent does not start until the moment before penetration? We have laws for that.


Affirmative consent also covers thinks like when I'm on a train, or walking in a crowed place and some guy grabs my crotch or my boobs. And yes this happens often to women.

The laws we have say that a woman has to say 'no'. If she does not say 'no' and does not fight back, then she is assumed to have consented. (Keep in mind that all rape safety training tells women not to fight because if she fights she's more likely to be seriously injured or killed.)


----------



## EleGirl

Starstarfish said:


> As a (former) child whose father never paid child support, I find the whole attitude that women usually blow child support on boob jobs and lipo sad. All that encourages is the mentality that not paying child support is a "win" somehow. Of course the person who loses here is the child.
> 
> I do wish there was some kind of legal allowance where if someone legitimately doesn't trust their former ONS/wife/lover to use the money to support the child, than the child support goes into an account in the child's name they can access when they turn of age.


The problem with the money going into an account that the child can access when they turn of age is that often the support is needed to pay the rent, feed, clothe and educate the child while the child is under aged.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> Even 1 false accusation (of any crime) is too many, however, no, I do not see 5% as a rampant problem. Especially once you factor in the real rapes that are never reported.
> 
> As for the registry, different topic. I'll stay out of that one.


From what I've read, about 50% of all rapes are never reported. So it seems that the real percentage of false rape accusations is about 2.5%

And, keep in mind that a fair number of actual rapes are dismissed as false rape charges because there is not enough evidence to prove that it was rape.

One example that I can think if is a woman here on TAM who had a friend who was drugged, gang raped, beaten up, and then dumped on her front lawn. 

The guys who gang raped and beat her said she was into rough sex and she loved it. Those investigating the rape charges said it was a false accusation. 

If that cannot be proven to be rape, then there is no surprise and a very small percentage of reported rapes ever lead to prosecution, and even fewer to actual conviction.

Reporting rape is just about useless because we have a system the claims to take it seriously but does not.


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> I don't get it, why so much criticism against affirmative consent, how is the law written in your country?


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

Existing law requires the governing boards of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions to adopt and implement written procedures or protocols to ensure that students, faculty, and staff who are victims of sexual assault on the grounds or facilities of their institutions receive treatment and information, including a description of on-campus and off-campus resources.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.
Section 67386 is added to the Education Code, to read:
67386.

(a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092

(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether* consent was given by both parties to sexual activit*y. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. *It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity*. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:

(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.

(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.

(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.

(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:

(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.

(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.

(b) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt detailed and victim-centered policies and protocols regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking involving a student that comport with best practices and current professional standards. At a minimum, the policies and protocols shall cover all of the following:

(1) A policy statement on how the institution will provide appropriate protections for the privacy of individuals involved, including confidentiality.

(2) Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses.

(3) Response to stranger and nonstranger sexual assault.

(4) The preliminary victim interview, including the development of a victim interview protocol, and a comprehensive followup victim interview, as appropriate.

(5) Contacting and interviewing the accused.

(6) Seeking the identification and location of witnesses.

(7) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate.

(8) Participation of victim advocates and other supporting people.

(9) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident.

(10) Providing that an individual who participates as a complainant or witness in an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty.

(11) The role of the institutional staff supervision.

(12) A comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases.

(13) Procedures for confidential reporting by victims and third parties.

(c) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall, to the extent feasible, enter into memoranda of understanding, agreements, or collaborative partnerships with existing on-campus and community-based organizations, including rape crisis centers, to refer students for assistance or make services available to students, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, and legal assistance, and including resources for the accused.

(d) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall implement comprehensive prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. A comprehensive prevention program shall include a range of prevention strategies, including, but not limited to, empowerment programming for victim prevention, awareness raising campaigns, primary prevention, bystander intervention, and risk reduction. Outreach programs shall be provided to make students aware of the institution’s policy on sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. At a minimum, an outreach program shall include a process for contacting and informing the student body, campus organizations, athletic programs, and student groups about the institution’s overall sexual assault policy, the practical implications of an affirmative consent standard, and the rights and responsibilities of students under the policy.

(e) Outreach programming shall be included as part of every incoming student’s orientation.


.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Even 1 false accusation (of any crime) is too many, however, no, I do not see 5% as a rampant problem. Especially once you factor in the real rapes that are never reported.
> 
> As for the registry, different topic. I'll stay out of that one.


wow, just wow. In the US, it is guilty until proven innocent, you know that, don't you?


----------



## naiveonedave

Anon Pink said:


> I personally think false rape charges are extremely rare comparative to actual rapes. What I would like to know is how many of those false rape charges resulted in conviction because without a guilty verdict a false rape accusation isn't going to materially harm the poor guy.
> 
> .


we will have to agree to disagree with this. The data posted by Cletus clearly refutes this.


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> Really? Only have sex with a woman who consents to have sex violates due process aka civil right of men?
> 
> Since when, in current society in the west, did men have the civil right to have sex with a woman who did not want to have sex with him?


AC = my word is more valid than you word = assumed guilt.

they don't have a civil right to have sex with women. they have a civil right to not be found guilty without proof. AC basically means no or very limited proof and as enacted at college campuses, no proof and no trial and no fair representation.


----------



## Forest

EleGirl said:


> Reporting rape is just about useless because we have a system the claims to take it seriously but does not.


As someone who has actually taken rape reports in the field, I can assure you that this is not true. Not even close to true. At least not in a police agency of any considerable size or expertise.

Any report that is brought forward is handled with regimented procedures, and HEAVY oversight. The policies, procedures, and followup are second only to a homicide. One rape report will likely take an officer an entire shift, and into overtime. There are exams, interviews, gathering and preserving evidence, witness statements, nurse examiner statements, and immediate contact with crisis center counselors. In cases with a recent time frame a detective and unit to process the scene are summoned. It is a painstaking, resource heavy, and very serious issue. A mistake or generally poor work will be noticed and dealt with in a rape case faster than anywhere else. 

Without opening a can of worms, I can also tell that a much higher percentage of these reports than you feel probably feel comfortable with about are not prosecuted because the reporting party is unable, unwilling, or unresponsive in the investigation. By "unable", I mean unable to remember facts, generally due to intoxication. I cringe when I here parties say "the police wouldn't do anything", as I know there is more to the story, but we're not hearing it.
If prosecution rates are low, its due to these reasons. I can't blame a party for not wanting to endure our court system, but the system will hang in there as long as the participants.


----------



## Pluto2

Of course rape is not taken seriously by a fair number of law enforcement agencies across this country. 

Why Haven't 70,000 Rape Kits Been Tested for DNA? - NBC News

70,000! These women were willing to come forward and report a heinous crime. They were then subjected to further degradation by being subjected to the "rape kit" No, I'm not saying the personnel who did the tests degraded anyone. But after your body has been violated you then get to have strangers further invade your body. It is a humiliating process. And the authorities won't even process the evidence. Some times these victims are told its because of money, sometimes they're told that there's no case. This is inexcusable.


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> Of course rape is not taken seriously by a fair number of law enforcement agencies across this country.
> 
> Why Haven't 70,000 Rape Kits Been Tested for DNA? - NBC News
> 
> 70,000! These women were willing to come forward and report a heinous crime. They were then subjected to further degradation by being subjected to the "rape kit" No, I'm not saying the personnel who did the tests degraded anyone. But after your body has been violated you then get to have strangers further invade your body. It is a humiliating process. And the authorities won't even process the evidence. Some times these victims are told its because of money, sometimes they're told that there's no case. This is inexcusable.


as much as I am against AC, I am totally on board with this tragedy. Rape is disgusting and when there is evidence, we need to use it to prosecute.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> or because affirmative consent violates due process aka civil rights of men?


Woa. I missed affirmative consent being passed as law. When did that happen?


----------



## Starstarfish

EleGirl said:


> The problem with the money going into an account that the child can access when they turn of age is that often the support is needed to pay the rent, feed, clothe and educate the child while the child is under aged.


Yes, from personal experience, trust me, I understand that. However, I feel like any alternative where the child can get themselves better ahead in life is better than this MRA undertone of "don't pay - B#$% Ex will just use it for lipo."

Or - women trick men into getting pregnant (IE - she said she was on birth control) because taking responsibility with condoms is evidently too much to ask. (Yes, I know but they don't feeeeeeel good.) Or if she can choose to have an abortion without me, not being able to opt out of child support is unfair and against my civil rights. Or throwing out statistics about how often men are raising a child not biologically theirs. 

Ideally, an alternative system wouldn't be neccessary. Ideally, people would think of their children as people they want to help rather than pawns to hurt/punish/or get victory over an ex or to prove a political point but we all know that's sadly not true.


----------



## unbelievable

http://sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf

In this 1994 study, 41% of reported forcible rapes were found to be false. That number may be somewhat high and not representative of the nation at large but I spent many years investigating rapes and probably close to half of the ones reported to me turned out to involve a victim who just outright lied about some material fact, making prosecution problematic. Maybe 25% turned out to be totally bogus. That has been a few years ago. Maybe more people are now familiar with forensics and aren't as apt to file false rape complaints. I love to put rapists in prison but only a complete moron would automatically believe every allegation that comes through the door. People do lie. It's not limited to rape complaints, but in my experience, there was a higher incidence of false complaints when it came to rape, sexual assault, or even sexual harassment than other crimes against persons (robbery, agg. assault, kidnapping, etc).


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> Woa. I missed affirmative consent being passed as law. When did that happen?


it hasn't, yet. And universities that institute it, are essentially making 'laws', as the impact is huge.

the point of the whole thread is when it is passed into law...


----------



## Wolf1974

Forest said:


> As someone who has actually taken rape reports in the field, I can assure you that this is not true. Not even close to true. At least not in a police agency of any considerable size or expertise.
> 
> Any report that is brought forward is handled with regimented procedures, and HEAVY oversight. The policies, procedures, and followup are second only to a homicide. One rape report will likely take an officer an entire shift, and into overtime. There are exams, interviews, gathering and preserving evidence, witness statements, nurse examiner statements, and immediate contact with crisis center counselors. In cases with a recent time frame a detective and unit to process the scene are summoned. It is a painstaking, resource heavy, and very serious issue. A mistake or generally poor work will be noticed and dealt with in a rape case faster than anywhere else.
> 
> Without opening a can of worms, I can also tell that a much higher percentage of these reports than you feel probably feel comfortable with about are not prosecuted because the reporting party is unable, unwilling, or unresponsive in the investigation. By "unable", I mean unable to remember facts, generally due to intoxication. I cringe when I here parties say "the police wouldn't do anything", as I know there is more to the story, but we're not hearing it.
> If prosecution rates are low, its due to these reasons. I can't blame a party for not wanting to endure our court system, but the system will hang in there as long as the participants.


I agree with you and would like to add This has been my personal experience as well. The problem becomes that when DAs don't file cases many think it's because the victim wasn't believed. That's NOT the case. Often what that means is the case couldn't be PROVEN. Big difference between those two things. I have taken many sex assault cases and domestic violence cases and they are dismissed by the DA. As a young officer this used to piss me off because I took it personal, basically they didn't believe me, her, or the work I did to prove the case. Then I was assigned to a unit that worked hand and hand with the DA and learned what really happens. The DAs job is to win cases, plain and simple that's it. They look at cases,non high profile, as can win this or not. Remember they have to convince jury members, not other law enforcement officers, that this actually took place. That isn't always easy to do. When it comes to domestic violence and sexual assault they often have this factor of he said she said. It's really difficult to prove that in court even if you 100% believe the victims story.


----------



## naiveonedave

Starstarfish said:


> Yes, from personal experience, trust me, I understand that. However, I feel like any alternative where the child can get themselves better ahead in life is better than this MRA undertone of "don't pay - B#$% Ex will just use it for lipo."
> 
> Or - women trick men into getting pregnant (IE - she said she was on birth control) because taking responsibility with condoms is evidently too much to ask. (Yes, I know but they don't feeeeeeel good.) Or if she can choose to have an abortion without me, not being able to opt out of child support is unfair and against my civil rights. Or throwing out statistics about how often men are raising a child not biologically theirs.
> 
> Ideally, an alternative system wouldn't be neccessary. Ideally, people would think of their children as people they want to help rather than pawns to hurt/punish/or get victory over an ex or to prove a political point but we all know that's sadly not true.


the problem w/child support, as written today, is that some significant fraction (say 10%) of those getting it, totally abuse it. Since there is no recourse, men feel victimized. If there was a 'simple' way to dissect this stuff, it would not be as emotional.

I know of several cases like exW is not working, is driving brand new mustang convertible and the exH has to buy the kids clothes every time they come over, because their clothes are in tatters. This should be a friend of the court matter, but isn't. And the exH typically is driving a beater and living in a dump, because he has no $.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> it hasn't, yet. And universities that institute it, are essentially making 'laws', as the impact is huge.
> 
> the point of the whole thread is when it is passed into law...


Huh. And I thought that universities have had the right to institute rules of behavior for their campuses all along and that due process was as guaranteed right under law. I must be crazy.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> Huh. And I thought that universities have had the right to institute rules of behavior for their campuses all along and that due process was as guaranteed right under law. I must be crazy.


well they don't and the results are men get kicked out of school. Remember Duke Lacross.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> Since babies are a normal result of sex, a man who has sex with a woman implicitly gives consent to help support any child born of the sexual encounter.
> 
> Perhaps our society needs to have sex education classes to teach some males that sex = babies???????? I thought that was a pretty well known fact now in 2015.


I think every man knows that sex can lead to babies. However, I'm not sure that every man knows that the latter leads to court-ordered and legally enforced child support at the sole decision of the woman, regardless of any representation she makes at the time. Maybe that's where the education is needed.


----------



## Starstarfish

technovelist said:


> I think every man knows that sex can lead to babies. However, I'm not sure that every man knows that the latter leads to court-ordered and legally enforced child support at the sole decision of the woman, regardless of any representation she makes at the time. Maybe that's where the education is needed.


So ... how about stop having sex with random women you wouldn't want to have babies with?

Seems legit.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Affirmative consent is not about rape. It's about the accusation of rape. There is still a difference.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Yes - that works but it is sort of sad. Sex is fun, and a fair number of people (men and women) enjoy sex just for the sake of pleasure. The development of birth control made sex-for-fun possible and I think greatly increased human happiness.

If laws are written in such a way that men cannot be sure that the woman will not have their child, then sex becomes a very bad risk. 

I suppose men can have a vasectomy as the safest action - but that is not always reversible, and many men may no want children now, but may in the future.







Starstarfish said:


> So ... how about stop having sex with random women you wouldn't want to have babies with?
> 
> Seems legit.


----------



## Pluto2

naiveonedave said:


> it hasn't, yet. And universities that institute it, are essentially making 'laws', as the impact is huge.
> 
> the point of the whole thread is when it is passed into law...


Affirmative consent laws are on the books.

Cal. Educ. Code 67386, signed into law Sept. 2014
Other schools have adopted affirmative consent standards into their student conduct policies.

IMO, there remains a sexism in our culture concerning rape. How many politicians have you heard mention a "real rape" which by implication means unless there was physical force sufficient to require hospitalization, the unwanted sexual act was not actually rape.
Rape shield laws were developed in an attempt to negate many jurors and judges stereotypes concerning rape. But clearly, more work is needed. The myth of the vindictive shrew in rape crimes needs fall to the wayside. I don't expect it will ever happen here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> the problem w/child support, as written today, is that some significant fraction (say 10%) of those getting it, totally abuse it. Since there is no recourse, men feel victimized. If there was a 'simple' way to dissect this stuff, it would not be as emotional.


Your 10% number was pulled out of thin air.

And yes there is recourse on either side. If the payor hides money, there is recourse. If the payee is jacking up fake expenses, there is recourse.

But very nice that you guys just believe what you want, regardless of facts, just because you "know a guy whose ex drives a new Mustang". Of course, the ex may also have a good job of her own, but you're not going to include that part...just make the assumption that she's a piece of crap mother.

Meanwhile, you guys never seem to mention this HUGE issue for which there is statistics for....

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/05/news/economy/unpaid-child-support/

Because no, all you want to do is talk about your one example of someone you know personally, and somehow extrapolate that into a pulled out of thin air number like 10%.

From the article:

"To get out of paying, deadbeats will often take work in the underground economy to shield their income. Family courts are rife with tales where men with off-the-books jobs cry poor mouth to the judge, only to drive away in a Mercedes."


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> Huh. And I thought that universities have had the right to institute rules of behavior for their campuses all along and that due process was as guaranteed right under law. I must be crazy.


Crazy? No, but perhaps a bit naive on the topic. Slate did a fine piece on this.

College rape: Campus sexual assault is a serious problem. But the efforts to protect women are infringing on the civil rights of men.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> Crazy? No, but perhaps a bit naive on the topic. Slate did a fine piece on this.
> 
> College rape: Campus sexual assault is a serious problem. But the efforts to protect women are infringing on the civil rights of men.


The term over correction was used. Asking about a condom is as clear as clear can be

How do we raise kids who aren't douche bags is the question that leaves me scratching my head.


----------



## staarz21

Starstarfish said:


> So ... how about stop having sex with random women you wouldn't want to have babies with?
> 
> Seems legit.


I really have to agree with this. If you don't want to pay for a baby, you're going to need to stop having sex. It really IS that simple. 

The problem is that you (a general you) don't want to stop engaging in sex. So, it's a risk you're apparently willing to take. 

Men can use condoms or get a vasectomy. Men need to learn to take control of their own birth control and stop blaming women when an unplanned baby is conceived. Those crazy nut jobs that get pregnant on purpose are really few and far between.

If you're taking note of who you're having sex with, taking responsibility for your OWN birth control (bring your OWN condoms and don't let her touch them before sex - if you're really paranoid), and making sure to dispose the condom YOURSELF when you're done...you're risk of having an unwanted baby, is reduced dramatically. 

This is personal sexual responsibility. 

***DISCLAIMER**** 

Condoms can break!! You're taking a RISK EVERY TIME YOU HAVE SEX!!! 

You can reduce your chances of an unwanted pregnancy, but the only way to eliminate them completely...is to STOP HAVING SEX.

Most every adult knows this. However, I do think we need to reeducate our population frequently because people don't want to take personal responsibility for anything anymore, including offspring. 

That's just sad. My H would have never dreamed of dropping his own flesh and blood because of money. Those kids are his life. If I had ANY doubt what so ever of his ability to be a father, I would have taken a different path. I severely misjudged his ability to be a husband - but I was dead on with him being a great father. Maybe that is why I missed the red flags elsewhere. 

Anyway, I would love to discuss more about false rape allegations, because I've seen first hand what it can do to an innocent person, but I think it's needs a separate thread? The OP didn't write about false allegations...just child support. I do have some hang ups on how it's dismissed as not an important concern. I do think there needs to be a better way of protecting men against this. (for another thread lol I keep getting side tracked!)


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Your 10% number was pulled out of thin air.
> 
> And yes there is recourse on either side. If the payor hides money, there is recourse. If the payee is jacking up fake expenses, there is recourse.
> 
> But very nice that you guys just believe what you want, regardless of facts, just because you "know a guy whose ex drives a new Mustang". Of course, the ex may also have a good job of her own, but you're not going to include that part...just make the assumption that she's a piece of crap mother.
> 
> Meanwhile, you guys never seem to mention this HUGE issue for which there is statistics for....
> 
> Over $100 billion in unpaid child support - Nov. 5, 2012
> 
> Because no, all you want to do is talk about your one example of someone you know personally, and somehow extrapolate that into a pulled out of thin air number like 10%.
> 
> From the article:
> 
> "To get out of paying, deadbeats will often take work in the underground economy to shield their income. Family courts are rife with tales where men with off-the-books jobs cry poor mouth to the judge, only to drive away in a Mercedes."


go after dead beat dads, all for it. also all for calling out people who spend child support on 'other' stuff. Stop, please stop, making this into a gender war. IT isn't. It is what is right vs what is wrong. Dead beats and women who use child support for adult toys both are wrong.

I pulled 10%, because in my life experience, 10% fits the bill. I am sure my life experience is not the reality and I am pretty sure dead beats are more common than 'abusers' of child support, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. And there is no recourse if your exW is using child support for non=child support expenses. This is 100% true


----------



## NobodySpecial

staarz21 said:


> Those crazy nut jobs that get pregnant on purpose are really few and far between.


Do we know this? Anecdote though it is, I personally know SIX women who did this to trap a husband. It is real enough that it is something I warn my son about.


----------



## staarz21

NobodySpecial said:


> Do we know this? Anecdote though it is, I personally know SIX women who did this to trap a husband. It is real enough that it is something I warn my son about.


I don't have exact numbers. I do know they aren't the majority of women. I've never known a single woman to do this. So it would stand to reason that yeah, they are few and far between. Everyone has different experiences. If you don't trust the person you're sleeping with, don't do it...or at the very least, take precautions every single time. 


The reason I mentioned taking responsibility is that if you're (general) the one taking care of the condom / vasectomy on your end, your risk is going to be reduced. You need to make sure that only you handle the condom. The risk won't be eliminated, but it will be reduced.

I hear the "well she said she was on BC" line all of the time on here as one of the excuses. That's a cop out. You need to be responsible for yourself. You're the only person you can trust, you're the only person you can control. It's sad that we can't always trust who we're sleeping with, but those are choices we make. We should be prepared.


----------



## Pluto2

naiveonedave said:


> And there is no recourse if your exW is using child support for non=child support expenses. This is 100% true


but its not true. If children are not being adequately supported, every state in the country will permit you to motion to the court and require that the custodial parent properly account.

Now just because a non-custodial parent doesn't like the way the moneys spent, well, too bad to that. But actual abuse is rectifiable.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> AC = my word is more valid than you word = assumed guilt.
> 
> they don't have a civil right to have sex with women. they have a civil right to not be found guilty without proof. AC basically means no or very limited proof and as enacted at college campuses, no proof and no trial and no fair representation.


AC & "No means no" have the same flaw.. it his word against her word. It's almost impossible to prove or disprove.

Both are flawed because most of the time the incident happens in private.

The issue that you are talking about is a college deciding these situations without a process that protects both the innocent and the victim. That's a different story.


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> but its not true. If children are not being adequately supported, every state in the country will permit you to motion to the court and require that the custodial parent properly account.
> 
> Now just because a non-custodial parent doesn't like the way the moneys spent, well, too bad to that. But actual abuse is rectifiable.


I guess technically, there is recourse, but the problem is that it costs the exH (really sexless, but usually the exH) $ in legal fees to pursue it, that he doesn't have. And, typically FOC won't do anything about it, so he is told not to waste his time and what little money he has left.


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> AC & "No means no" have the same flaw.. it his word against her word. It's almost impossible to prove or disprove.
> 
> Both are flawed because most of the time the incident happens in private.
> 
> The issue that you are talking about is a college deciding these situations without a process that protects both the innocent and the victim. That's a different story.


I agree w/top two paragraphs, but I don't see the point of the 3rd, that is the purpose of this whole thread.


----------



## EleGirl

Pluto2 said:


> Of course rape is not taken seriously by a fair number of law enforcement agencies across this country.
> 
> Why Haven't 70,000 Rape Kits Been Tested for DNA? - NBC News
> 
> 70,000! These women were willing to come forward and report a heinous crime. They were then subjected to further degradation by being subjected to the "rape kit" No, I'm not saying the personnel who did the tests degraded anyone. But after your body has been violated you then get to have strangers further invade your body. It is a humiliating process. And the authorities won't even process the evidence. Some times these victims are told its because of money, sometimes they're told that there's no case. This is inexcusable.


Some jurisdictions are now going back through the stockpile of old rape kits and processing them. What they have found is that they are finding serial rapists. Had they done the DNA kit at the time of the report they would have had a case.


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> AC & "No means no" have the same flaw.. it his word against her word. It's almost impossible to prove or disprove.
> 
> Both are flawed because most of the time the incident happens in private.
> 
> The issue that you are talking about is a college deciding these situations without a process that protects both the innocent and the victim. That's a different story.





naiveonedave said:


> I agree w/top two paragraphs, but I don't see the point of the 3rd, that is the purpose of this whole thread.


If that’s what is being argued, it would make sense to actually state that’s what is being argued.

Instead what is stated is that having to get affirmative consent is somehow wrong.

The same outcome would have most likely happened in the cases being discussed even with the no means no standard. So it sounds like the argument is not about the lack of due process but instead that somehow getting affirmative consent is the problem.


----------



## Forest

Pluto2 said:


> Of course rape is not taken seriously by a fair number of law enforcement agencies across this country.
> 
> Why Haven't 70,000 Rape Kits Been Tested for DNA? - NBC News
> 
> 70,000! These women were willing to come forward and report a heinous crime. They were then subjected to further degradation by being subjected to the "rape kit" No, I'm not saying the personnel who did the tests degraded anyone. But after your body has been violated you then get to have strangers further invade your body. It is a humiliating process. And the authorities won't even process the evidence. Some times these victims are told its because of money, sometimes they're told that there's no case. This is inexcusable.


In most jurisdictions testing a rape kit is ordered by the DAs office when they feel they have a case that is fit to bring to trial.
You are completely failing to acknowledge that in many of these cases the victim has expressed non-cooperation, or the case has other huge problems in regard to the exact facts of what transpired. Further, as the DNA test is expensive and prioritized a rape case with no known suspect, or a non-cooperative victim is going to fall behind a homicide case with viable suspects. 

DNA databases are still in their infancy in most areas. Unlike on TV, a DNA profile is not going to give the name and address of most suspects. You must have a suspect in mind, and often in custody to compare with.

Having a DNA profile in a case without probable cause to believe a crime has committed is of no benefit. EX: suspect admits that he had sex with the victim, but denies he raped her. In this instance, the defense would stipulate, and the DNA report would never be used.


----------



## EleGirl

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Yes - that works but it is sort of sad. Sex is fun, and a fair number of people (men and women) enjoy sex just for the sake of pleasure. The development of birth control made sex-for-fun possible and I think greatly increased human happiness.
> 
> If laws are written in such a way that men cannot be sure that the woman will not have their child, then sex becomes a very bad risk.
> 
> I suppose men can have a vasectomy as the safest action - but that is not always reversible, and many men may no want children now, but may in the future.


Birth control available to women is not 100% effective. Surgical vasectomy is the only form available to men right now.

There are some things that humans just cannot control. I think its wise to realize this, accept it and act with reality in mind.


----------



## Lon

EleGirl said:


> Since babies are a normal result of sex, a man who has sex with a woman implicitly gives consent to help support any child born of the sexual encounter.
> 
> Perhaps our society needs to have sex education classes to teach some males that sex = babies???????? I thought that was a pretty well known fact now in 2015.


the problem with this approach though, is that leading up to the moment of conception everything is exactly equal between the two parties. However as soon as an unwanted pregnancy occurs ALL the power switches to the woman... "her body her choice" gives her an automatic escape plan to get out of it for all sorts of reasons without any need for consideration of the father, while the guy is basically screwed and gets no escape, no consideration.

How is it reasonable or fair to suggest that the consequences of sex before engaging only falls to the man? Like I said before, if the sole purpose of sex were reproduction then I agree it's implicit consent to child support, but also it would be highly unethical to allow abortions. Thankfully, reproduction is not the sole purpose of intercourse, so we need to have a legal framework that recognizes this and strives for equal/balanced rights.


----------



## Lon

EleGirl said:


> The good thing is that there is a new type of vasectomy about to hit the market. It's a blockage that is cased by some think like a polymer. To reverse it takes the injection of a solution that dissolves the blockage.


problem with any sort of blockage is that after a certain amount of time (a few months to a few years) the testicles will stop production of sperm permanently, and even if you can clear out the blockage the sterilization may end up being permanent.


----------



## Lon

Starstarfish said:


> So ... how about stop having sex with random women you wouldn't want to have babies with?
> 
> Seems legit.


Using this logic, women also should not have sex unless prepared to carry the baby to term.


----------



## Ripper

Lon said:


> Using this logic, women also should not have sex unless prepared to carry the baby to term.


----------



## Maricha75

Lon said:


> Using this logic, women also should not have sex unless prepared to carry the baby to term.


Works for me!


----------



## Lon

Maricha75 said:


> Works for me!


I'm ok with either way, so long as the rights of both parents are balanced, which they frankly can be quite easily.


----------



## Maricha75

EleGirl said:


> The good thing is that there is a new type of vasectomy about to hit the market. It's a blockage that is cased by some think like a polymer. To reverse it takes the injection of a solution that dissolves the blockage.


I don't trust ANY procedure that claims it will 100% block entrance and will prevent pregnancy. One of my friends had the essure? procedure done to block her tubes,rather than getting tubal ligation. She went back after the specified time and was told her tubes were 100% blocked, no chance of getting pregnant. 6 years later, she gave birth to a healthy baby girl. She never got the procedure reversed. The doctor checked her out and it was, indeed, still 100% blocked. No. There is still only ONE way to prevent pregnancy. If you are not willing to abstain, be prepared for the possibility of pregnancy, even if you take precautions.


----------



## Maricha75

Lon said:


> I'm ok with either way, so long as the rights of both parents are balanced, which they frankly can be quite easily.


No, I mean regarding aborting at all. Both should be prepared for the consequences, but I am against abortion.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> Stop, please stop, making this into a gender war. IT isn't. It is what is right vs what is wrong. Dead beats and women who use child support for adult toys both are wrong.


I'm sorry but this thread was started deliberately as a gender war.

Your comments previously included ONLY words about moms using funds for CS on themselves, and you pulled a number out of thin air of 10%....with zero mention of deadbeat dads.

Others have straight up said on this thread that MOST men pay their child support while women USUALLY spend that money on boob jobs.

Yet you accuse ME of making this a gender war? sigh....


----------



## Starstarfish

> Using this logic, women also should not have sex unless prepared to carry the baby to term.


Hmm. 

Women should definitely not have sex unless they are prepared for the chance to get pregnant. 

As for carrying the baby to term, that's getting into even murkier waters. Should the woman be forced to carry the baby to term if the father votes yes? Is that really more "fair" than the system now in which case the woman can abort without your permission? That seems like flipping the switch, but not really making things more fair which is what people are claiming to want. 

In which case, that would make sex a dangerous proposition, equally dangerous perhaps, not I'm not sure really less carefree. When you are concerned she's trying to get pregnant on purpose to squeeze money out of you for a boob job via the child, and she's concerned you are going to poke a hole in the condom to force her to carry a child to term because you want one. 

In which case ... whose condom do you use?


----------



## Cletus

Starstarfish said:


> As for carrying the baby to term, that's getting into even murkier waters. Should the woman be forced to carry the baby to term if the father votes yes? Is that really more "fair" than the system now in which case the woman can abort without your permission? That seems like flipping the switch, but not really making things more fair which is what people are claiming to want.


Some things just can't be fixed in a way that makes both parties feel satisfied. This is one of them. Men having no say in the matter of bringing a pregnancy to term is unfair, but I'll choose the lesser of two evils and stick with the system we have now. It's better than the other alternative.


----------



## staarz21

Lon said:


> Using this logic, women also should not have sex unless prepared to carry the baby to term.


I agree women should NOT be having sex if they aren't prepared to possibly become pregnant. It's ridiculous to think that it doesn't go both ways - even though that's not what the topic was. 

It goes back to what I've said before. Personal Sexual Responsibility. 

You ARE responsible (no matter the gender) for YOUR actions (or inaction). 

If you want to reduce the chance of having a baby, you need to make sure YOU are taking steps to protect YOU. Don't take someone's "word" for it. 

Most people know that having sex CAN result in pregnancy. I don't care if your Dr has told you that you can't have kids anymore...if you still have the working parts to create a baby....IT'S POSSIBLE, even if the chance is slim. Even with my tubal, it's still possible for me to get pregnant. 

So, what do we hear a lot....

"She said she was on BC"

"She/he said she/he couldn't have babies"

"She probably poked holes in her condoms before I got there"

"Vasectomy's can cause cancer."

"Condoms don't feel good."

Every single one of those is an excuse. 

Females are expected to put foreign objects in their bodies, have a surgery to tie up the tubes, or take a pill in order to prevent pregnancy. Men are expected to do what? Nothing? No. BE RESPONSIBLE for yourself. There are methods. Use them. 

When a woman becomes pregnant, it is ALWAYS the fault of BOTH people who had sex (minus obvious cases such as rape or incest). Not just one or the other. I'm saying this as a person who's H got her pregnant on purpose this last time. I didn't take responsibility before. I have now. I went and got my tubes tied to take further precautions. I can't blame him for the pregnancy, because I was right there with him. Yes, he lied to me...but I didn't take any extra precautions. I should have been more diligent. 

Everyone has a responsibility when it comes to sex and pregnancy. It's not just one person making the baby. 

I would also like to add that it would be awesome if the laws could change to protect men from women who abort the babies that the men would like to keep. I find that grossly wrong. If a woman didn't want to carry a baby to term, she most certainly shouldn't have been having sex. Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of BC. Period.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
This is actually a critical point.

Without abortion, the woman faces the larger consequences / risks of pregnancy.

With abortion the woman has complete control of whether or not she has a baby. 

This changes everything. In the first case the control is symmetrical between men and women, though the burden of pregnancy falls more on the woman. In the second the woman has control.


The problem is that you can't tell. A woman can swear that she is on birth control and that if it fails will have an abortion - yet the father is still responsible if she changes her mind, or was deceiving from the start. And quite frankly, casual sex isn't wort the risk of a lifetime commitment. 





Maricha75 said:


> No, I mean regarding aborting at all. Both should be prepared for the consequences, but I am against abortion.


----------



## Maricha75

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> This is actually a critical point.
> 
> Without abortion, the woman faces the larger consequences / risks of pregnancy.
> 
> With abortion the woman has complete control of whether or not she has a baby.
> 
> This changes everything. In the first case the control is symmetrical between men and women, though the burden of pregnancy falls more on the woman. In the second the woman has control.
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't tell. A woman can swear that she is on birth control and that if it fails will have an abortion - yet the father is still responsible if she changes her mind, or was deceiving from the start. And quite frankly, casual sex isn't wort the risk of a lifetime commitment.


Quite frankly, I don't agree with the whole casual sex thing either. So, even in that situation, it does not alter my opinion regarding aborting a baby.


----------



## Lon

staarz21 said:


> I agree women should NOT be having sex if they aren't prepared to possibly become pregnant. It's ridiculous to think that it doesn't go both ways - even though that's not what the topic was.


you missed the crucial words, I didn't say "pregnant" I said "carry to term" because right now, for women affirmative consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy, parenthood or undertaking parental rights, she can take MAP, abort or give the baby up for adoption - carrying to term is implicit consent to being pregnant, and not giving it up for adoption is implicit consent to undertake parental responsibility. For men, we get none of those choices which women do, affirmative consent to sex equals consent to raise a child?? not even close to equal, however it could be with one simple law that says men are not responsible for parenting unless they affirmatively consent to that particular thing.



> It goes back to what I've said before. Personal Sexual Responsibility.
> 
> You ARE responsible (no matter the gender) for YOUR actions (or inaction).
> 
> If you want to reduce the chance of having a baby, you need to make sure YOU are taking steps to protect YOU. Don't take someone's "word" for it.
> 
> Most people know that having sex CAN result in pregnancy. I don't care if your Dr has told you that you can't have kids anymore...if you still have the working parts to create a baby....IT'S POSSIBLE, even if the chance is slim. Even with my tubal, it's still possible for me to get pregnant.
> 
> So, what do we hear a lot....
> 
> "She said she was on BC"
> 
> "She/he said she/he couldn't have babies"
> 
> "She probably poked holes in her condoms before I got there"
> 
> "Vasectomy's can cause cancer."
> 
> "Condoms don't feel good."
> 
> Every single one of those is an excuse.
> 
> *Females are expected to put foreign objects in their bodies, have a surgery to tie up the tubes, or take a pill in order to prevent pregnancy. Men are expected to do what? Nothing? No. BE RESPONSIBLE for yourself. There are methods. Use them.*


nope at this point in the game men and women are still held to the same standard, either is expected to take steps to prevent pregnancy if they do not want to procreate life.


> When a woman becomes pregnant, it is ALWAYS the fault of BOTH people who had sex (minus obvious cases such as rape or incest). Not just one or the other.


with this I absolutely agree.


> I'm saying this as a person who's H got her pregnant on purpose this last time. I didn't take responsibility before. I have now. I went and got my tubes tied to take further precautions. I can't blame him for the pregnancy, because I was right there with him. Yes, he lied to me...but I didn't take any extra precautions. I should have been more diligent.
> 
> Everyone has a responsibility when it comes to sex and pregnancy. It's not just one person making the baby.
> 
> I would also like to add that it would be awesome if the laws could change to protect men from women who abort the babies that the men would like to keep. I find that grossly wrong. If a woman didn't want to carry a baby to term, she most certainly shouldn't have been having sex. Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of BC. Period.


 with this I agree also, however their is also a clear push to a woman's right to autonomy over her body (which I don't fundamentally disagree with), but I personally find that if the laws were changed so that even after an unwanted pregnancy both parents had to affirmatively opt-in to their parental responsibilities at the time of birth, society will still function perfectly well plus it would solve a lot of conflict, adversary and damaged childhoods. If one parent opts in and the other doesn't, then it's sole custody with no child support (not ideal, however a single person is allowed to adopt a child without having a partner in many cases) and if neither parent opts in the child is adopted out or placed in foster care (the exact way it works today just only the woman has any say in this process, which is unfair and unnecessary for those fathers that want a say should the mother not abort).


----------



## Lon

Has there ever been a single case where a mother that gives her baby up for adoption is required to pay child support for that baby?

this is the same thing men face, alone, every single time they cause an unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## unbelievable

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> This is actually a critical point.
> 
> Without abortion, the woman faces the larger consequences / risks of pregnancy.
> 
> With abortion the woman has complete control of whether or not she has a baby.
> 
> This changes everything. In the first case the control is symmetrical between men and women, though the burden of pregnancy falls more on the woman. In the second the woman has control.
> 
> 
> The problem is that you can't tell. A woman can swear that she is on birth control and that if it fails will have an abortion - yet the father is still responsible if she changes her mind, or was deceiving from the start. And quite frankly, casual sex isn't wort the risk of a lifetime commitment.


I'll grant you that women incur the larger immediate personal health risks associated with pregnancy but the other consequences of pregnancy can go either way. In most cases, the father bears the major burden of financial support. The male party is also more likely to be employed in hazardous professions, so her body is exposed to some risks for 9 months and his gets exposed to potentially greater risks for the next 20 years. If he is takes the woman as a life partner, then you can make that 40-50 years. 

If he doesn't, he's quite likely to be ordered to pay child support which exposes him to a greater risk of going to jail and/or losing his license and it amounts to a judge's order to remain employed. 

Women can and do come and go but children result in a typically permanent relationship with a man, one which ultimately evolves to include other people (sons or daughters in law and grandchildren). 

Having one normal pregnancy is more risky than a lifetime working in a coal mine, being a peace officer, cutting timber, driving 18 wheelers?


----------



## Pluto2

We can talk about abortion as a form of casual bc, but quite honestly that's not happening. It too expensive and dangerous.

But so long as only a female can become pregnant, the decision as to what happened to her body MUST remain solely hers. In a perfect world this would be a decision the couple makes together, but in a perfect world a woman could avoid unwanted pregnancies. So its not perfect, and men don't have a say.


----------



## Lon

unbelievable said:


> I'll grant you that women incur the larger immediate personal health risks associated with pregnancy but the other consequences of pregnancy can go either way. In most cases, the father bears the major burden of financial support. The male party is also more likely to be employed in hazardous professions, so her body is exposed to some risks for 9 months and his gets exposed to potentially greater risks for the next 20 years. If he is takes the woman as a life partner, then you can make that 40-50 years.
> 
> If he doesn't, he's quite likely to be ordered to pay child support which exposes him to a greater risk of going to jail and/or losing his license and it amounts to a judge's order to remain employed.
> 
> Women can and do come and go but children result in a typically permanent relationship with a man, one which ultimately evolves to include other people (sons or daughters in law and grandchildren).
> 
> Having one normal pregnancy is more risky than a lifetime working in a coal mine, being a peace officer, cutting timber, driving 18 wheelers?


my thoughts about this particular "asymmetry" are just like yours. Carrying that burden does not entitle a mother to some prize, the reward is in creating a new life. Often in partnerships of all kinds, at certain times and in different ways one or the other partner has to do more heavy lifting, if both partners had to do exactly the same thing then there is no point in partnership. The reason to partner is for synergy, so each individual contributes in the way they best can, and hopefully equivocally for the mutual benefit of both.


----------



## staarz21

Lon said:


> you missed the crucial words, I didn't say "pregnant" I said "carry to term" because right now, for women affirmative consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy, parenthood or undertaking parental rights, she can take MAP, abort or give the baby up for adoption - carrying to term is implicit consent to being pregnant, and not giving it up for adoption is implicit consent to undertake parental responsibility. For men, we get none of those choices which women do, affirmative consent to sex equals consent to raise a child?? not even close to equal, however it could be with one simple law that says men are not responsible for parenting unless they affirmatively consent to that particular thing.


You're absolutely right. Women do have several options for choosing to keep or not keep a baby. Do I think all of the options are fair? No way. I think men should be able to decide whether or not they can keep their child too - same as women. If a woman wants to complain that she has to be pregnant, gain weight, or possibly die form childbirth...I say too bad, so sad. You made your bed. 

If a woman clearly has health issues to where she cannot possibly safely bring a child to term, obviously MAP or abortion would be available choices. But her health would need to be determined by a Dr. first. I think father's should have just as much say so as mothers under good health circumstances. It's not fair that a woman can abort a baby without the father's consent. I know I will catch heat for this view, but I think unless major circumstances occur - men should have the same say so. If a woman doesn't want to possibly become pregnant and carry a child to term - she shouldn't be having sex, or she should find a way to reduce her risk. 





> nope at this point in the game men and women are still held to the same standard, either is expected to take steps to prevent pregnancy if they do not want to procreate life.


Very true. I agree. The problem with that is with the excuses I listed before, with the main one being "she said she was on BC". Men and women aren't taking responsibility for themselves. They are relying on other people to make those decisions. For example, a man goes to have sex with a woman, but has no condoms. She says she is on BC (which could possibly be a lie, or the BC could fail), he says okay let's go...and off to sexy town they go. He took her word for it. She gets pregnant and he blames her for getting pregnant on purpose. That's not okay. Sure, she possibly lied, but it was up to him to make sure his chances were reduced. Use a condom AND pull out if you have to. It's not as fun, but neither is paying child support or caring for a baby if you didn't want one. 





> with this I agree also, however their is also a clear push to a woman's right to autonomy over her body (which I don't fundamentally disagree with), but I personally find that if the laws were changed so that even after an unwanted pregnancy both parents had to affirmatively opt-in to their parental responsibilities at the time of birth, society will still function perfectly well plus it would solve a lot of conflict, adversary and damaged childhoods. If one parent opts in and the other doesn't, then it's sole custody with no child support (not ideal, however a single person is allowed to adopt a child without having a partner in many cases) and if neither parent opts in the child is adopted out or placed in foster care (the exact way it works today just only the woman has any say in this process, which is unfair and unnecessary for those fathers that want a say should the mother not abort)


.

While I see where you're coming from, most of the time it could be prevented with responsibility. Accidents will happen, but not at the rate they do now. Waiting until the child is born to try and absolve parental responsibility wouldn't, in my opinion, help society. Even then, the current laws do not allow you out of your responsibilities unless adoption occurs. I don't think that kids will be just fine when they find out that mommy or daddy didn't want them. It's a terrible thing to go through. I think the best way is prevention, which is possible. It's just getting everyone on board with it that's the problem. 

Reform of the laws would be so nice. I bet that if they did lay it out in a more strict way to where it was fair to everyone, people would think twice about what they are doing. I just hate to see more kids go into the system. That's a terrible place to be.

ETA:. How come the father is only the father AFTER the baby is born? Doesn't he help pay for the baby before it even gets here (under ideal circumstances where he hasn't run off)? And isn't it his DNA that was needed to create the child in the first place?

But it comes down to making sure you're doing what you need to do to protect yourself as much as possible from these things happening. If you don't want to pay for a baby...you better make damn sure you don't have any.


----------



## Lon

Pluto2 said:


> We can talk about abortion as a form of casual bc, but quite honestly that's not happening. It too expensive and dangerous.
> 
> But so long as only a female can become pregnant, the decision as to what happened to her body MUST remain solely hers. In a perfect world this would be a decision the couple makes together, but in a perfect world a woman could avoid unwanted pregnancies. So its not perfect, and men don't have a say.


yes, she has autonomy over her body, but if we required affirmative consent for both parties it could mean she can choose to carry the baby to term but not necessarily undertake the role of parent (ie. she can choose to adopt), so I don't see why this undertaking of parental responsibility has to be one-sided also.


----------



## Lon

staarz21 said:


> Very true. I agree. The problem with that is with the excuses I listed before, with the main one being "she said she was on BC". Men and women aren't taking responsibility for themselves. They are relying on other people to make those decisions. For example, a man goes to have sex with a woman, but has no condoms. She says she is on BC (which could possibly be a lie, or the BC could fail), he says okay let's go...and off to sexy town they go. He took her word for it. She gets pregnant and he blames her for getting pregnant on purpose. That's not okay. Sure, she possibly lied, but it was up to him to make sure his chances were reduced. Use a condom AND pull out if you have to. It's not as fun, but neither is paying child support or caring for a baby if you didn't want one.


but this is sort of a different issue, you are talking about responsibility for preventative measures. Clearly people fail at this, as you outlined in the next paragraph



> While I see where you're coming from, most of the time it could be prevented with responsibility. Accidents will happen, but not at the rate they do now. Waiting until the child is born to try and absolve parental responsibility wouldn't, in my opinion, help society. Even then, the current laws do not allow you out of your responsibilities unless adoption occurs. I don't think that kids will be just fine when they find out that mommy or daddy didn't want them. It's a terrible thing to go through. I think the best way is prevention, which is possible. It's just getting everyone on board with it that's the problem.
> 
> Reform of the laws would be so nice. I bet that if they did lay it out in a more strict way to where it was fair to everyone, people would think twice about what they are doing. I just hate to see more kids go into the system. That's a terrible place to be.


The point I'm trying to get at is that currently the consequences of irresponsibility are much different depending on if you are a man vs a woman. A woman still has multiple options to escape long term consequences, the man doesn't. This can quite easily be balanced for fairness, which I think could have many positives for society overall.


----------



## unbelievable

Nationally, the maternal death rate is about 18.5 per 100,000. That's a risk limited to a duration of about 9 months. Construction workers are killed at rate of about 9 per 100,000 per year and that's every day for their entire careers. Agriculture workers have a mortality rate about 23 per 100,000 per year. Truckers are killed about 8 per 100,000 per year. Do the math. The total risk born by being an employed father for just 20 years in almost any profession exceeds the risks of pregnancy.


----------



## Pluto2

Lon said:


> yes, she has autonomy over her body, but if we required affirmative consent for both parties it could mean she can choose to carry the baby to term but not necessarily undertake the role of parent (ie. she can choose to adopt), so I don't see why this undertaking of parental responsibility has to be one-sided also.


In terms of the financial obligation to parent, courts have already determined that consent is given and the potential financial obligation commences with sex. Its at that point that both parties know there's a possibility that what ever birth control method they are (or aren't) using could fail. There is no BC method that is 100% effective. 
So men, assuming the financial responsibility of raising a child is just not a legal option. If a child is born, bingo you're a parent. Say its not fair to the man all you like. The only entity for whom this financial "choice" isn't fair is the child.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I don't engage in casual sex - I've been married for something like 25 years. Some people do enjoy casual sex and I would like the laws to be written in a way that makes that possible fro those who wish to do so.

If you think casual sex is wrong for others as well, that is fine - and you are welcome to vote for laws that support what you think is appropriate behavior. 





Maricha75 said:


> Quite frankly, I don't agree with the whole casual sex thing either. So, even in that situation, it does not alter my opinion regarding aborting a baby.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I think the asymmetry is that even though the responsibilities are equal during sex, once a woman in pregnant, she has choices: abortion, adoption. The man does not. 

For people who want a world without casual sex, this is fine. People who are deeply committed can have sex. 

For people who want a world with casual sex, it is a huge problem. 

Probably the best solution is for men to early on have sperm cryo-preserved and then get vasectomies. I would support laws that would make this free for everyone. In this case there would be no accidental pregnancy. Any agreement to become pregnant would come with a legal contract where the parties agreed to exactly defined terms.


----------



## Maricha75

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I don't engage in casual sex - I've been married for something like 25 years. Some people do enjoy casual sex and I would like the laws to be written in a way that makes that possible fro those who wish to do so.
> 
> If you think casual sex is wrong for others as well, that is fine - and you are welcome to vote for laws that support what you think is appropriate behavior.


Well, what I think doesn't make much difference to most people. Legal doesn't always equal moral.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Maricha75 said:


> Well, what I think doesn't make much difference to most people. Legal doesn't always equal moral.


And it shouldn't. Morality is a matter of personal responsibility. Legality is a matter of equitable cohabitation. I don't want someone else' morality foisted on me. I have the right to chose that myself.


----------



## staarz21

NobodySpecial said:


> And it shouldn't. Morality is a matter of personal responsibility. Legality is a matter of equitable cohabitation. I don't want someone else' morality foisted on me. I have the right to chose that myself.



If referring to the OP:

The thing is we DO choose when we engage in sexual intercourse. That IS choosing to take a risk, regardless of what the laws are, we understand that sex can possibly lead to pregnancy even with the best preventative measures. 

If just speaking in general terms regarding casual sex, you do have that right to choose casual sex or not. No one is pushing their agenda to ban casual sex (well, at least not on this forum). It's just that if you engage in it, you must realize there are consequences to our actions...not just pregnancy can occur. STI's and STD's are also results of having casual sex. The more partners you have, the higher the risk. Running into crazy stalker people is also a result of casual sex sometimes > They just don't go away!!! 

If you're going to engage in it, awesome. Just realize that nothing in life is consequence free.


----------



## Maricha75

NobodySpecial said:


> And it shouldn't. Morality is a matter of personal responsibility. Legality is a matter of equitable cohabitation. I don't want someone else' morality foisted on me. I have the right to chose that myself.


I was only commenting on something Richard said. He suggested trying to get laws passed. I may disagree with someone's life choices, but they have the right to decide how they will live their lives, just as I can choose how to live mine.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Maricha75 said:


> I was only commenting on something Richard said. He suggested trying to get laws passed. I may disagree with someone's life choices, but they have the right to decide how they will live their lives, just as I can choose how to live mine.


Yah I was agreeing with you.


----------



## unbelievable

NobodySpecial said:


> And it shouldn't. Morality is a matter of personal responsibility. Legality is a matter of equitable cohabitation. I don't want someone else' morality foisted on me. I have the right to chose that myself.


All laws are nothing more than the codified expression of society's morals, so the collective morality of the nation is already foisted upon you. Having two wives is wrong because in America, we say it's wrong (or our ancestors did). Having sex with a 13 year old is wrong because we say it's wrong. Stealing the property or another or endangering another person's life by driving recklessly are both wrong because our morals value private property and the rights of others to live. We eat cows but McDonald's can't serve dog meat. In other cultures, it'd be ok to eat dogs and in some, it's not acceptable to eat cows.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I this case I was talking about laws regulating child support which can depending on how they are written encourage or discourage casual sex. 



Maricha75 said:


> I was only commenting on something Richard said. He suggested trying to get laws passed. I may disagree with someone's life choices, but they have the right to decide how they will live their lives, just as I can choose how to live mine.


----------



## EleGirl

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I this case I was talking about laws regulating child support which can depending on how they are written encourage or discourage casual sex.


The laws as written right now may not explicitly encourage and/or discourage casual sex. But they have the affect of encouraging it. If the responsibly of raising a child was put solely on women, which is what many here seem to want to do, most women would stop having casual sex. (Well except those who would get an abortion.)

If a man, with whom a woman had casual sex, could force a woman to carry a baby to term ... most women would stop having casual sex.


----------



## EleGirl

Lon said:


> but this is sort of a different issue, you are talking about responsibility for preventative measures. Clearly people fail at this, as you outlined in the next paragraph
> 
> 
> 
> *The point I'm trying to get at is that currently the consequences of irresponsibility are much different depending on if you are a man vs a woman. * A woman still has multiple options to escape long term consequences, the man doesn't. This can quite easily be balanced for fairness, which I think could have many positives for society overall.


Yes the consequences are different depending on if you are a man or a woman.

A man never has to think about being pregnant. He has zero chance of suffering serious physical issues related to pregnancy and even death. 

If we want to even out the scales here.. let's also make it that whatever the woman goes through in the pregnancy, the man is also subjected to. She develops thyroid disease.. we can give it to the guy too using some chemicals. She becomes diabetic? Even the scales.. he gets it too.

She gets in infection and become sterile .. give him an infection to make him sterile.

She dies.... he dies.

The reason that things are different for men and women in this regard is that, well, men and women are different physically. Carrying a baby to term can seriously harm a woman's health.. sometimes mentally and some times physically. Because of this.. because it's the woman whose body (and life) is put through this, it's the woman who can chose to carry the child or not carry the child (abortion).

After the birth. Both parents of a legal obligation to support their child. It's not just the man who does. So does she. So that is equal.

As a society, we want two parents supporting every child... unless of course you are ok with the government giving the woman child support for 18 years. My taxes are already used to support a lot of things I disagree with.

I do not want to be paying to support children that were created by a man and a woman ... and then the man decides to throw away his offspring. He can man up and support his own flesh and blood. I have my own family it support. He can support his.

Either men are looking for a way to take no responsibility for their own children.

Or men are pissed off that women can make the decision to get an abortion or not. So they want to punish women for this. If this is the case, then what's being said is that men want the right to control the bodies of every woman they have sex with.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
" (Well except those who would get an abortion.)"
I think that is the key to the entire discussion 

Without abortion as an option, the current laws make sense and even favor the man to a considerable exte t

With abortion the current laws are biased toward women.

Unfortunately there is no way for men to know whether or not their partners plan to have an abortion if they accidentally get pregnant. They can ask, but people can, do, and have the right to change their minds. 




EleGirl said:


> The laws as written right now may not explicitly encourage and/or discourage casual sex. But they have the affect of encouraging it. If the responsibly of raising a child was put solely on women, which is what many here seem to want to do, most women would stop having casual sex. (Well except those who would get an abortion.)
> 
> If a man, with whom a woman had casual sex, could force a woman to carry a baby to term ... most women would stop having casual sex.


----------



## naiveonedave

One thing that was never mentioned in this thread: female responsive desire. Assuming this is true (and I believe that it is), Affirmative consent is never really going to work. It is going against mother nature.


----------



## Runs like Dog

naiveonedave said:


> One thing that was never mentioned in this thread: female responsive desire. Assuming this is true (and I believe that it is), Affirmative consent is never really going to work. It is going against mother nature.


Quashing sex IS the intended purpose of affirmative consent.


----------



## naiveonedave

Runs like Dog said:


> Quashing sex IS the intended purpose of affirmative consent.


I disagree, the purpose is to make it easier to put men in jail for date rape.


----------



## Pluto2

Those who commit rape should be put in jail, date or no date.


----------



## Runs like Dog

naiveonedave said:


> I disagree, the purpose is to make it easier to put men in jail for date rape.


I will withhold judgment until we see or don't see women charging other women with same sex sexual assault.


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> Those who commit rape should be put in jail, date or no date.


True, but in the same context, we are still an innocent until proven guilty society and this 'law' erodes this significantly. It will also put innocent men in jail.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> One thing that was never mentioned in this thread: female responsive desire. Assuming this is true (and I believe that it is), Affirmative consent is never really going to work. It is going against mother nature.


Oh right because....you have to start from a position of a woman NOT wanting sex and get her female responsive desire kicked in before she will EVER say "yes, let's have sex"? Because all women are the same and not one of them EVER wants to have sex before you've done the hokey pokey for 3 hours first, negged her, and then run a little dread game...only THEN does a woman want sex? 

:lol::lol::lol::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Runs like Dog said:


> Quashing sex IS the intended purpose of affirmative consent.


Right because...women just don't want to have sex. We are the only female of any species who just don't want it, apparently.



I'm so sorry some of you guys have experienced in your lives that women don't want sex...but we do. I guess you'll never believe this, because your experience has shown you otherwise, so who can blame you. Sad.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh right because....you have to start from a position of a woman NOT wanting sex and get her female responsive desire kicked in before she will EVER say "yes, let's have sex"? Because all women are the same and not one of them EVER wants to have sex before you've done the hokey pokey for 3 hours first, negged her, and then run a little dread game...only THEN does a woman want sex?
> 
> :lol::lol::lol::rofl::rofl::rofl:


Actually, that is the way the world is, sorry if you don't see how the world really works. Not all woman's desire is responsive, but based on research, most of it is.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I agree, and I agree that they belong in jail - but I don't see how the law helps. The lying rapist can just claim that the victim gave affirmative consent. Its still his word against hers about what happened.



naiveonedave said:


> I disagree, the purpose is to make it easier to put men in jail for date rape.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> I disagree, the purpose is to make it easier to put men in jail for date rape.


Right here in your sentence, you are calling it date rape. Are we to conclude you meant an actual date rape, or false rape charges?

Because um, Yes...men should be put in jail for date rape.

But I assume you are implying that oh no, once again, there have been false rape charges...right?

Perhaps you could enlighten us about why exactly you believe women want to drum up false rape charges? Why is this supposed epidemic of false rape charges happening? Since you guys are the ones who are saying this, yet you cannot show us any proof that these charges are rampant, nor that they have increased...it seems to me you are simply pulling it out of thin air. Claiming that women WANT to quash sex, WANT to file false rape charges...ok, if these are true, WHY do women want these things?

I would say I await your answer, but since I know any answer you give is just going to be pulled out of thin air or off an MRA blog, I can't be bothered.

Thankfully, the younger generation understand affirmative consent, they want to have sex, they want to protect each other, and they are the ones who will put it to use. So you guys don't actually have to worry about it. Just keep going along as you have been, no one is stopping you or forcing you into situations where you need AC, so you are off the hook.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
from what I have seen, adult female on female sexual assault is quite rare outside of prison where its difficult to tell.




Runs like Dog said:


> I will withhold judgment until we see or don't see women charging other women with same sex sexual assault.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
does it make sense to split this thread into a "child support responsibilities", and "affirmative consent / rape"? I feel like there are two different topics being discussed.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Faithful Wife said:


> Right because...women just don't want to have sex. We are the only female of any species who just don't want it, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm so sorry some of you guys have experienced in your lives that women don't want sex...but we do. I guess you'll never believe this, because your experience has shown you otherwise, so who can blame you. Sad.


I would say that the motives behind the movement are precisely that. Whether they have lots of followers is a different matter. For instance google 'sexless marriage' and at least a fifth of the hits will be highly agendized feminist sites that say that's actually a good and noble thing. Whether lots of women secretly agree isn't really the point. The agenda is the point. 

And let's be honest. College students are dumb sheep. You can get them to agree to just about anything no matter how insipid it is. YouTube is silly with people walking around college campuses getting people to support the abolition of the Constitution, the criminalization of free speech, a tax on men, a tax on white people. To say nothing of the "Jay-Walking" type questions like 'what language do they speak in Canada?' or 'what do you think about Obama appointing Beyonce to the Supreme Court?'

After all, people STILL think Columbia U's "Mattress Girl" is a real thing even after she herself admitted it was performance art.


----------



## Runs like Dog

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> from what I have seen, adult female on female sexual assault is quite rare outside of prison where its difficult to tell.


Not actually the point. After all, the militant feminists and agendized rape culture activists claim that roughly 100% of all females are violently gang raped repeatedly from age 7 onward. I would like to see what the response is to the first coed claiming she was pressured into sex by another woman. Will they still maintain that a drunk girl is a victim no matter what? Will they still maintain that affirmative consent even applies? Will they still maintain that yes means no 2 days later when her other girlfriend finds out? 

See it's not about facts or reality it's about perceptions.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Runs like Dog said:


> I would say that the motives behind the movement are precisely that. Whether they have lots of followers is a different matter. For instance google 'sexless marriage' and at least a fifth of the hits will be highly agendized feminist sites that say that's actually a good and noble thing. Whether lots of women secretly agree isn't really the point. The agenda is the point.


Where are you getting this stuff, Dog?

I just now googled sexless marriage and got the following hits in order....

?I feel like I die more every day?: The ?bed death? of sexless marriage is real, and it?s heartbreaking - Salon.com

The Brutal Truth About Sexless Marriages | YourTango

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexless_marriage

Meet The Women Secretly Suffering In Sexless Marriages

Are You Spouses or Just Roommates?

Sexless Marriage Help | The best online way to rejuvenate a marriage : Power of Two Marriage

Dr. Phil.com - Advice - Sexless Statistics

Myths About Sexless Marriage | CrucibleTherapy

Are You Living In A Sexless Marriage?

Sexless Marriage: What To Do? « Power to Change



So let's see here....we see support, definitions, advice, and near the top a story about women who suffer in silence in sexless marriages. I went down a couple more pages and did not see ONE article by any feminist saying sexless marriage is a good thing.

Also WOMEN google for advice for sexless marriages and relationships MORE than men do, as a matter of fact.

Where do you get your "facts" from, Dog? Because I'm guessing maybe you are just hearing/reading "facts" by men who already hate women and they are making stuff up....and you believe these "facts" without actually fact checking them.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Right here in your sentence, you are calling it date rape. Are we to conclude you meant an actual date rape, or false rape charges?
> 
> Because um, Yes...men should be put in jail for date rape.
> 
> But I assume you are implying that oh no, once again, there have been false rape charges...right?
> 
> Perhaps you could enlighten us about why exactly you believe women want to drum up false rape charges? Why is this supposed epidemic of false rape charges happening? Since you guys are the ones who are saying this, yet you cannot show us any proof that these charges are rampant, nor that they have increased...it seems to me you are simply pulling it out of thin air. Claiming that women WANT to quash sex, WANT to file false rape charges...ok, if these are true, WHY do women want these things?
> 
> I would say I await your answer, but since I know any answer you give is just going to be pulled out of thin air or off an MRA blog, I can't be bothered.
> 
> Thankfully, the younger generation understand affirmative consent, they want to have sex, they want to protect each other, and they are the ones who will put it to use. So you guys don't actually have to worry about it. Just keep going along as you have been, no one is stopping you or forcing you into situations where you need AC, so you are off the hook.


here is the problem: rape or date rape should be in jail. HOWEVER innocent until proven guilty and to deny that there are false rape accusations is ludicrous.

this won't work by the way, it will still be he said / she said....


----------



## naiveonedave

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I agree, and I agree that they belong in jail - but I don't see how the law helps. The lying rapist can just claim that the victim gave affirmative consent. Its still his word against hers about what happened.


the problem is the unintended consequence of putting innocent men in jail due to false accusations and because in the heat of the moment, they didn't get the form filled out. And, by the way, if the woman is drunk, the man is always guilty, even if he is drunk. Just a slight double standard, don't ya think.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> here is the problem: rape or date rape should be in jail. HOWEVER innocent until proven guilty and to deny that there are false rape accusations is ludicrous.
> 
> this won't work by the way, it will still be he said / she said....


And once again...since you are the one asserting that "women" want to file false rape charges to an alarmingly high degree....what is the reason these "women" want to do that? If it is so common, then there must be a common reason for it, right?

Or is it just "women hate men and are evil?"


----------



## Maricha75

Faithful Wife said:


> And once again...since you are the one asserting that "women" want to file false rape charges to an alarmingly high degree....what is the reason these "women" want to do that? If it is so common, then there must be a common reason for it, right?
> 
> Or is it just "women hate men and are evil?"


FW, I am sorry, but you are naive if you honestly believe NO WOMAN would EVER falsely accuse a man of rape or date rape. That's what he is saying. It happens already. And, I could see it getting more prevalent. I'm surprised you can't see that as a possibility. And it can go the other way, too. A woman could rape the man, too. All it takes is for one to get pissed off at the other and throw out the rape accusation. Dave is saying that, regardless, it is still innocent until PROVEN guilty. And I completely agree with that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Maricha75 said:


> FW, I am sorry, but you are naive if you honestly believe NO WOMAN would EVER falsely accuse a man of rape or date rape. That's what he is saying. It happens already. And, I could see it getting more prevalent. I'm surprised you can't see that as a possibility. And it can go the other way, too. A woman could rape the man, too. All it takes is for one to get pissed off at the other and throw out the rape accusation. Dave is saying that, regardless, it is still innocent until PROVEN guilty. And I completely agree with that.


No where have I said that no woman has ever filed false rape charges.

I'm asking people to qualify what they are saying with....why would this happen MORE often?

These guys are implying that false rape charges are frequent, that they are deliberate, and that they happen because, apparently, women hate men and are evil. The only data there is shows that false charges happen very infrequently. Why would they suddenly sky rocket? What evidence is there that they will? Why is it being assumed that it would happen MORE often than it does NOW just because we adopt affirmative consent policies?

I'm sorry that I don't buy into hype just because men "think it is so". With absolutely no proof that it will suddenly happen more often due to AC, I'm going to keep challenging this idea.

Again, no where have I ever said that it does not happen. Also I have explicitly said that when it does happen it is a horrible crime.

Perhaps if you could make sure you actually understand what I'm saying, you would not find it necessary to call me naive. Sorry I'm not wringing my hands in advance of this supposed false rape charges epidemic that men here seem sure will occur. All the young people I know are happily using AC already and scoff at the crowd who don't understand it. My opinion is based on those who are already using it without complaint, and I'm hearing nothing about 800 times more false rape charges happening, like some here want to posit.


----------



## Pluto2

naiveonedave said:


> the problem is the unintended consequence of putting innocent men in jail due to false accusations and because in the heat of the moment, they didn't get the form filled out. And, by the way, if the woman is drunk, the man is always guilty, even if he is drunk. Just a slight double standard, don't ya think.


So do you think it is fine to have sex with a person when they are too drunk to object? Or when they are asleep? And if the man is drunk, well I"m sorry, but it doesn't matter because intoxication has never been a valid legal defense to anything.


----------



## Maricha75

Perhaps, if you actually made sense in what you were calling out, I wouldn't feel it necessary to call you naive. I read their comments and yours. I actually could see the accusations increasing, for the reasons I stated above. 

Ftr, no, I don't think being drunk, high, or passed out is a good excuse to get someone off of a rape charge. But I also think it would be easy for someone to claim they were raped, just because they didn't say, exactly, "yes, I want to have sex with you."


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> So do you think it is fine to have sex with a person when they are too drunk to object? Or when they are asleep? And if the man is drunk, well I"m sorry, but it doesn't matter because intoxication has never been a valid legal defense to anything.


when they are both drunk, he goes to jail for rape. Sorry if that was not clear. And yes, that is a double standard.

If she is drunk and he is not, yes, that is likely date rape = rape = should be in jail. Though one must define how drunk is drunk. One beer, probably not, passed out for sure, but what is in the middle ground


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> And once again...since you are the one asserting that "women" want to file false rape charges to an alarmingly high degree....what is the reason these "women" want to do that? If it is so common, then there must be a common reason for it, right?
> 
> Or is it just "women hate men and are evil?"


I don't know why women file false rape accusations. All I know is that they are very real and the consequences to the falsely accused are huge. See Duke Lax. The number is pretty high, depending on the source that you use. Unbe presented info that is could much greater than 10%. Are you okay with 10% of men accused of rape, who are actually innocent, going to jail?

Why might there be more now than in the past? Hmmm, lets see: all men are rapists - have you heard that one before?


----------



## Cletus

As is often the case, we just keep talking past each other.

For the record, all of the men on this forum are advocating for consent from their sexual partners. None of us wants to be a rapist. None of us wants to have sex with a partner who does not want to have sex with us. Not a single person in any of these threads has advocated for the position that he does not want to know the desires of his potential partner if it might mean he has to stop. We are all for consent.

We are also all for our partners telling us when we have crossed the line if we do it *ACCICDENTALLY*. If we failed to get consent for any one of a dozen reasons ranging from we didn't realize we had to ask, we thought we already had consent, or we misinterpreted a head nod, we don't want to be labeled a rapist in the eyes of the law. We want to be told "Hey, I don't want you to do that" so that we can apologize for our mistake. 

If the notion of *codifying AC into actual law* is causing hand-wringing in legal circles in this country, and it is, then I'm going to go out on a very sturdy limb and propose that no one here, with perhaps a couple of exceptions, is in a position to dismiss those concerns as illegitimate or unfounded. When it comes to legal issues, I'm much more interested in the opinions of judges, lawyers, law professors, and legal institutions like the ALI. And THEY'RE on record as acknowledging that this is a murky and difficult legal issue.


----------



## naiveonedave

good post Cletus


----------



## Pluto2

naiveonedave said:


> when they are both drunk, he goes to jail for rape. Sorry if that was not clear. And yes, that is a double standard.
> 
> If she is drunk and he is not, yes, that is likely date rape = rape = should be in jail. Though one must define how drunk is drunk. One beer, probably not, passed out for sure, but what is in the middle ground


I disagree with your definition of a double standard. If a man (because the vast majority of rapists are men) is too drunk to bother to find out if consent is given, under any existing criminal law-if consent was not given-it is rape. AC laws won't impact that.

You argue it comes down to he said/she said. It currently is that way unless there is evidence of a violent physical assault. AC won't change that, either.

AC does put the burden on the accused of determining consent, rather than on the victim to prove she did not.


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> I disagree with your definition of a double standard. If a man (because the vast majority of rapists are men) is too drunk to bother to find out if consent is given, under any existing criminal law-if consent was not given-it is rape. AC laws won't impact that.
> 
> You argue it comes down to he said/she said. It currently is that way unless there is evidence of a violent physical assault. AC won't change that, either.
> 
> AC does put the burden on the accused of determining consent, rather than on the victim to prove she did not.


The vast majority of rapists are men is blatantly false, see links prior in this thread.

If they both are drunk and fooling around and have sex, how is the man supposedly more accountable than the woman? Incredibly sexist double standard.

Your last comment does violate the US constitution, don't you agree?


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> The vast majority of rapists are men is blatantly false, see links prior in this thread.


What??? You are actually saying that the vast majority of rapists are not men? What link are you referring to? One of the ones by an MRA blog where some guy is asserting his opinion?

Ok...there's just no way to argue with any of this if people are going to pull falsehoods out of thin air.

Cletus...you have my respect and I do fully understand your position and I know you are not just barking to make noise. I do not feel it necessary to wring my hands nor clutch my pearls about AC, so we will have to agree to disagree on that point only. The rest, I'm sure we do agree on (ie: that men and women do not wish to violate each other's boundaries.)

But the rest of these guys...I can't even...


----------



## Pluto2

naiveonedave said:


> The vast majority of rapists are men is blatantly false, see links prior in this thread.
> 
> If they both are drunk and fooling around and have sex, how is the man supposedly more accountable than the woman? Incredibly sexist double standard.
> 
> Your last comment does violate the US constitution, don't you agree?


Well I was trying to have a conversation, but you just jumped the shark


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> Well I was trying to have a conversation, but you just jumped the shark


Sorry, but I won't agree with you when there is data that shows you are not correct. Most rapists might be men, but no way, no how is the vast majority....

And if you are not willing to see the blatant double standard on drunkenness, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> What??? You are actually saying that the vast majority of rapists are not men? What link are you referring to? One of the ones by an MRA blog where some guy is asserting his opinion?
> 
> Ok...there's just no way to argue with any of this if people are going to pull falsehoods out of thin air.
> 
> Cletus...you have my respect and I do fully understand your position and I know you are not just barking to make noise. I do not feel it necessary to wring my hands nor clutch my pearls about AC, so we will have to agree to disagree on that point only. The rest, I'm sure we do agree on (ie: that men and women do not wish to violate each other's boundaries.)
> 
> But the rest of these guys...I can't even...


Do you read what I posted? I never said that women are more likely to be rapists than men, I disagreed with vast majority.


----------



## Mr. Nail

I can't believe I'm tempted to the point of actually posting here again. So donning my Asbestos briefs, here goes.

Assuming we as the American people decide to permit a law that changes the burden of proof from the prosecution, to the accused. Assuming the Supreme court passes such an unconstitutional idea. What would proof of continuous affirmative consent look like? Perhaps I'm deficient in the imagination department, but I (me personally) can't figure out a practical solution.

MN


----------



## EleGirl

Lon said:


> yes, she has autonomy over her body, but if we required affirmative consent for both parties it could mean she can choose to carry the baby to term but not necessarily undertake the role of parent (ie. she can choose to adopt), so I don't see why this undertaking of parental responsibility has to be one-sided also.


Technically a woman cannot make the choice to adopt out a child without the written consent from the child's father. When a woman gives up a child for adoption. The father, if known, has to be contacted. If he does not respond, a notice has to be published to him for several weeks giving him the opportunity either sign off on the adoption or take custody of the child.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> The vast majority of rapists are men is blatantly false, see links prior in this thread.
> 
> If they both are drunk and fooling around and have sex, how is the man supposedly more accountable than the woman? Incredibly sexist double standard.
> 
> Your last comment does violate the US constitution, don't you agree?


I searched through the thread and did not find any links that showed the % of rapes committed by either men or women. Would you pointing me to the post that has that data linked?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> I can't believe I'm tempted to the point of actually posting here again. So donning my Asbestos briefs, here goes.
> 
> Assuming we as the American people decide to permit a law that changes the burden of proof from the prosecution, to the accused.


Is there ANYONE saying that? If so, I disagree with that idea 500%. For the record.


----------



## Maricha75

EleGirl said:


> Technically a woman cannot make the choice to adopt out a child without the written consent from the child's father. When a woman gives up a child for adoption. The father, if known, has to be contacted. If he does not respond, a notice has to be published to him for several weeks giving him the opportunity either sign off on the adoption or take custody of the child.


And she can easily get around that by claiming she doesn't know who the father is. How often do they check into that, if she claims not to know? Serious question.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> Is there ANYONE saying that? If so, I disagree with that idea 500%. For the record.


"This may all sound reasonable, but even a misdemeanor conviction goes on the record as a sexual offense and can lead to registration. An affirmative consent standard also shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused, which represents a real departure from the traditions of criminal law in the United States. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-regulating-sex.html?_r=0


----------



## EllisRedding

Cletus said:


> "This may all sound reasonable, but even a misdemeanor conviction goes on the record as a sexual offense and can lead to registration. An affirmative consent standard also shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused, which represents a real departure from the traditions of criminal law in the United States. "
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-regulating-sex.html?_r=0


So what happens if two people are equally intoxicated, bump uglies, and the next day the female claims rape. The guy, knowing he was intoxicated counters by claiming rape against her. They are now both the accuser and accused. Or is it saying that a guy has zero excuses and full accountability when it comes to these matters?


----------



## EleGirl

This post is in reply to those who are claiming that men are not the vast majority of rapists. (note I am not saying that all or most men are rapists, so don't even go there.)


There is a CDC study from 2010 that is often posted here to make the point that women rape as often as men do. I have no idea how anyone can get that notion out of the report. If we look at the data in the report, it clearly shows that the vast majority of rapists are men.

There are two attachments to this post.
1) number of perpetrators by gender
2) tables from the report show the data reported by subjects.

So lets look at the report data in relations to the gender of perpetrators, by gender of victim & perp.

*Female Perpetrators*


Female rape victims, 1.90%, reported only female perpetrators.
Male rape victims, 6.70%, reported only female perpetrators. 
Male made-to-penetrate victims, 79.20%, reported only female perpetrators.

*Male Perpetrators*


Female rape victims, 98.1%, reported only male perpetrators. 
Male rape victims, 93.30%, reported only male perpetrators. 
Male made-to-penetrate victims, 20,80%, reported only male perpetrators.

The attached file for perps by gender has the calculations. Note that the CDC added a category called "made-to-penetrate". It's not considered rape because it does not fit the definition of rape. However, since some men are calling it rape, I've added it to these numbers.

*According to the CDC Study, looking at rape + MtP :*

Men are the perpetrator of rape + 82.24% of the time. 
Women are the perpetrator of rape + MtP 16.76% of the time.
*
According to the CDC Study, looking at rape only:*

Men are the perpetrator of rape + 97.78% of the time. 
Women are the perpetrator of rape + MtP 2.22% of the time.

So clearly, men are the vast majority of rapists. I don't know how anyone can spin this any differently.

Why is this an important point? Because the truth is always important. We cannot address problem correctly until we know the truth.


http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> Do you read what I posted? I never said that women are more likely to be rapists than men, I disagreed with vast majority.


Whatever you want to believe, dude. Just know that your belief doesn't make reality.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> "This may all sound reasonable, but even a misdemeanor conviction goes on the record as a sexual offense and can lead to registration. An affirmative consent standard also shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused, which represents a real departure from the traditions of criminal law in the United States. "
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-regulating-sex.html?_r=0


I don't believe that affirmative consent switches the burden of proof to the male. 

I think that in the end it's the same as "no means no" in that it's her word against his. 

She has to prove that she did not say "YES", or give affirmative consent. This is just like in the past, she had to prove that she said "NO".

There will still be a need for the victim of rape to show something that proves it was not consensual. why? Because in the court, innocent until proven guilty is the standard set by our constitution. 

The article is interesting. But it's not the final word. There are other legal groups and minds that don't see a problem with affirmative consent.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Whatever you want to believe, dude. Just know that your belief doesn't make reality.


exactly, you can believe as you wish.


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> This post is in reply to those who are claiming that men are not the vast majority of rapists. (note I am not saying that all or most men are rapists, so don't even go there.)
> 
> 
> There is a CDC study from 2010 that is often posted here to make the point that women rape as often as men do. I have no idea how anyone can get that notion out of the report. If we look at the data in the report, it clearly shows that the vast majority of rapists are men.
> 
> There are two attachments to this post.
> 1) number of perpetrators by gender
> 2) tables from the report show the data reported by subjects.
> 
> So lets look at the report data in relations to the gender of perpetrators, by gender of victim & perp.
> 
> *Female Perpetrators*
> 
> 
> Female rape victims, 1.90%, reported only female perpetrators.
> Male rape victims, 6.70%, reported only female perpetrators.
> Male made-to-penetrate victims, 79.20%, reported only female perpetrators.
> 
> *Male Perpetrators*
> 
> 
> Female rape victims, 98.1%, reported only male perpetrators.
> Male rape victims, 93.30%, reported only male perpetrators.
> Male made-to-penetrate victims, 20,80%, reported only male perpetrators.
> 
> The attached file for perps by gender has the calculations. Note that the CDC added a category called "made-to-penetrate". It's not considered rape because it does not fit the definition of rape. However, since some men are calling it rape, I've added it to these numbers.
> 
> *According to the CDC Study, looking at rape + MtP :*
> 
> Men are the perpetrator of rape + 82.24% of the time.
> Women are the perpetrator of rape + MtP 16.76% of the time.
> *
> According to the CDC Study, looking at rape only:*
> 
> Men are the perpetrator of rape + 97.78% of the time.
> Women are the perpetrator of rape + MtP 2.22% of the time.
> 
> So clearly, men are the vast majority of rapists. I don't know how anyone can spin this any differently.
> 
> Why is this an important point? Because the truth is always important. We cannot address problem correctly until we know the truth.
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf


because women are almost never prosecuted for rape, even in cases that would be a slam dunk (for example female teacher/ male student, which happens a lot).

whatever, that point is much less relevant than the point that men will have to prove their innocence, not the accuser.


----------



## Pluto2

naiveonedave said:


> because women are almost never prosecuted for rape, even in cases that would be a slam dunk (for example female teacher/ male student, which happens a lot).
> 
> whatever, that point is much less relevant than the point that men will have to prove their innocence, not the accuser.


Wait a minute, 
You're the one who said my statement about the 'vast majority" of rapists being male was blatantly wrong and tried to say the stats were in a prior post.

Now you say its irrelevant. :bsflag:


----------



## Runs like Dog

EllisRedding said:


> So what happens if two people are equally intoxicated, bump uglies, and the next day the female claims rape. The guy, knowing he was intoxicated counters by claiming rape against her. They are now both the accuser and accused. Or is it saying that a guy has zero excuses and full accountability when it comes to these matters?


Obviously there is no woman in America who will ever, as a college coed under these rules who will ever under any circumstances whatsoever be accused let alone charged with a sex crime. Not ever.


----------



## Runs like Dog

I advocate single sex colleges. That way all the interminglings of men and women can be treated as straight criminal statutes if need be. Let the coeds go off and make whatever rules they like on their home turf. But make it irrelevant.


----------



## Mr. Nail

EleGirl said:


> I don't believe that affirmative consent switches the burden of proof to the male.





Faithful Wife said:


> Whatever you want to believe, dude. Just know that your belief doesn't make reality.





EleGirl said:


> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
> 
> THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
> 
> (B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.





EleGirl said:


> The article is interesting. But it's not the final word. There are other legal groups and minds that don't see a problem with affirmative consent.


Certainly there is much to be done before a constitutional law is enacted. This is exactly why many here say this tramples on the rights of the accused. Not that the accused think they have a right to commit crimes.


----------



## EleGirl

Maricha75 said:


> And she can easily get around that by claiming she doesn't know who the father is. How often do they check into that, if she claims not to know? Serious question.


When a woman states who the father is, the father is always contacted, or at least serious attempts to contact are made. Because the adoption is illegal and can be overturned if the guy finds out and wants custody of the child.

Most, if not all states, have databases in which a man can register that he's had sex with a woman and that she is potentially the father of her child. when an adoption happens, the courts require that the database be checked to see if any man is claiming to be the father of a child born to the woman.

Here is a link to one in one state.

Minnesota Father's Adoption Registry

Can a woman conceal a pregnancy? Sure, she can run off to a state where the guy does not know to look.

He can simply not care enough and thus does not know that she's pregnant.

He can chose to not register his potential fatherhood.

But if he is not contacted, he can at some point fight the adoption.

He will never be sued for child support either.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> because women are almost never prosecuted for rape, even in cases that would be a slam dunk (for example female teacher/ male student, which happens a lot).


It's often not wise take at face value the hyperbole that is put out by the press. They sensationalize and misrepresent the truth to made money.

Men who are rapists are also almost never prosecuted. And even if prosecuted, they are seldom convicted. If they are convicted, they seldom see a day in prison or get anything more than a short probation.

Since you bring up teachers who rape students.....

You are wrong that female teachers who rape are almost never prosecuted. The fact is that it's very rare for female teacher to rape any student... especially when compared to rape by male teachers.

Female teachers who rape male students are 3.5% to 4% of all teacher/student rapes. More male teachers rape students, so more males teachers are prosecuted.

Now about convictions... it's flat out untrue that females are not prosecuted while men are.



> Are women getting lighter sentences? It's not clear they ever did. In the 1991 study Women and Men Who Sexually Abuse Children: A Comparative Analysis, researcher Craig Allen studied 75 male and 65 female offenders in the Midwest. "Relatively similar proportions of female and male offenders had charges pressed against them (52% and 55%, respectively)," Allen reported. "However, more female offenders (30%) were put in jail than male offenders (25%)." Five of the 65 women were in prison during the study, which inflated the female number. But at best, the gender comparison was a wash."


Have the numbers changed since then? Since the government doesn't break down current data, Slate intern Ben Raphel went back through the Nexis database from the beginning of 2005 to last Thursday, identifying every case in which the terms "teacher," "sentence," and "sexual assault" appeared. Lots of cases don't involve the term "sexual assault," so this list is partial, but we stuck to that phrase to be consistent. Raphel found 43 offenders—26 male and 17 female—of whom 37 had been sentenced.

At first glance, the sentences look biased. The men got an average of more than 11 years; the women got less than two. But compare the crimes, and the story gets more complicated. Most of the men molested victims younger than 15; most of the women didn't. * Half the men molested multiple victims; only three of the women did. Ten men on the list had multiple victims, including victims younger than 16. These men earned an average sentence of more than 17 years, drastically inflating the average.

Only two female teachers fell into the under-16, multiple-victims category. * One was younger than any of the male offenders in that category, and her victims were older (15) and fewer (two) than most of theirs. She also had the good luck to be prosecuted in Vermont, where she got a one-year sentence. The other had sex with a 12-year-old and two 13-year-olds in California. She got six years, the maximum under her conviction. The Nexis search turned up a third woman in this category. She wasn't a teacher, but she had molested more victims (five), was as old as many of the men who committed similar crimes, and was prosecuted in Colorado. No slap on the wrist for her: She got 30 years.

At the other end of the gravity spectrum, two of the women confined themselves to single victims 16 or older. One got a two-year sentence; the other got a one-year sentence—an average of 18 months. Did they get off easy? Before you answer, look at the four men who, like these women, targeted single victims 16 or older. They drew an average sentence of 14 months. For comparable crimes, men got less jail time than women did.

In the middle categories—crimes against single victims under 16, and crimes against multiple victims age 16 or older—men did get heavier sentences. One reason is that women's victims were, on average, fewer and older. But let's broaden the variables and the pool of data.

In 1994, summarizing her work with 800 male and 36 female offenders, psychologist Jane Kinder Matthews reported: 1) "None of the women we have worked with has coerced others into being accomplices." 2) "Women used force or violence in committing their crimes far less often than men." 3) "Women tend to use fewer threats in an attempt to keep their victims silent." 4) "Women are less likely to initially deny the abuse, and they are more willing to take responsibility for their behavior."
[/QUOTE]

There is a lot more in the article, read it here.... 





naiveonedave said:


> whatever, that point is much less relevant than the point that men will have to prove their innocence, not the accuser.


I do not believe this. Keep in mind that at least half (probably more) of the judges, lawyers and jurors are men. Do you really think that they are going to let that happen.

While you might think that women are evil and want men accused of rape even if they are innocent (this thread makes it seem like that), most, if no all, female judges, lawyers and jurors will also not want men (or anyone) falsely charged, prosecuted and convicted of rape. So they too will do their best to make sure that this does not happen.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Here's the thing. Why you or anyone feel this is even necessary? How mature are people when they need to lean on this crutch?


----------



## Maricha75

Interesting, Ele. I never knew that even existed. In order to find anything at all for my state, I had to go through an attorney site, which listed the states and the links. The link for my state is to DHS, and many, I would guess, wouldn't even know where to begin. I suppose some might go to the DHS office in their counties, maybe even to the courthouse. But if they truly do not suspect, and if the woman is not honest, they can easily slip through the cracks.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> What??? You are actually saying that the vast majority of rapists are not men? What link are you referring to? One of the ones by an MRA blog where some guy is asserting his opinion?
> 
> Ok...there's just no way to argue with any of this if people are going to pull falsehoods out of thin air.
> 
> Cletus...you have my respect and I do fully understand your position and I know you are not just barking to make noise. I do not feel it necessary to wring my hands nor clutch my pearls about AC, so we will have to agree to disagree on that point only. The rest, I'm sure we do agree on (ie: that men and women do not wish to violate each other's boundaries.)
> 
> But the rest of these guys...I can't even...





naiveonedave said:


> Do you read what I posted? I never said that women are more likely to be rapists than men, I disagreed with vast majority.


No one, not even FW, claims that you said that women are more likely to be rapists than men. You stated:



naiveonedave said:


> The vast majority of rapists are men is blatantly false,


It’s a fact that the vast majority of rapist are men. Refute it all you want. It’s a fact.


----------



## EleGirl

Maricha75 said:


> Interesting, Ele. I never knew that even existed. In order to find anything at all for my state, I had to go through an attorney site, which listed the states and the links. The link for my state is to DHS, and many, I would guess, wouldn't even know where to begin. I suppose some might go to the DHS office in their counties, maybe even to the courthouse. But if they truly do not suspect, and if the woman is not honest, they can easily slip through the cracks.


Yes, it can slip through the cracks. Personally, I think that a national database would be a good idea.


----------



## EleGirl

Runs like Dog said:


> Here's the thing. Why you or anyone feel this is even necessary? How mature are people when they need to lean on this crutch?


A lot of different things are being brought up in this thread. So can you clarify what 'crutch' you are talking about?


----------



## EleGirl

Maricha75 said:


> Interesting, Ele. I never knew that even existed. In order to find anything at all for my state, I had to go through an attorney site, which listed the states and the links. The link for my state is to DHS, and many, I would guess, wouldn't even know where to begin. I suppose some might go to the DHS office in their counties, maybe even to the courthouse. But if they truly do not suspect, and if the woman is not honest, they can easily slip through the cracks.


When we adopted our son, we had to publish to further notify his birth father because he refused to answer all letters and summons delivered directly to him. He family also helped to block any contact.

Our adoption agency social worker had been handling adoptions for 30 years. Our lawyer had a lot of experience as well.

They told us that in all the thousands of cases they had handled in all those years, only a few of the birth fathers responded and not one of them wanted anything to do with the child.

Our social worker told us that what usually would happen when the birth father was interested, is that well before the birth the birth father would let it be known that he would not cooperate with any adoption. 

In most of these cases the birth parents were in high school. The birth father's mother would step in to raise the child... then a few month later, she'd get tired of raising the baby. The boy (birth father) had no interest in the child. So the grandmother would return the child to the birth mother. 

So now the birth mother had to raise the child she tired to give up for adoption.


----------



## Runs like Dog

EleGirl said:


> A lot of different things are being brought up in this thread. So can you clarify what 'crutch' you are talking about?


Check box quasi contract law 'affirmative consent'. And anyway in most states you have up to 72 hrs to rescind your own agreement from many contracts so we wind up back in the same place where said sunflower girl can come back WITH a valid contract and teat it up anyway within a fixed amount of time and go back to claiming rape.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
It is possible for something to be both rare and alarmingly frequent if that thing is bad enough. To me, a 1% false conviction rate is alarmingly high, yet it is still quite rare in absolute numbers.

I think the false accusation rate is very low, but not low enough that I would be willing to convict without other evidence.

It gets to a fundamental philosophy issue - I've always supported "better than a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted". 

If you have read coppertop's thread on this site you will see that he is basically being held hostage by a wife who has threatened to make a false accusation of rape against him. (needless to say, I have no idea if he is telling the truth - or isn't a troll). 




Faithful Wife said:


> And once again...since you are the one asserting that "women" want to file false rape charges to an alarmingly high degree....what is the reason these "women" want to do that? If it is so common, then there must be a common reason for it, right?
> 
> Or is it just "women hate men and are evil?"


----------



## Faithful Wife

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> It is possible for something to be both rare and alarmingly frequent if that thing is bad enough. To me, a 1% false conviction rate is alarmingly high, yet it is still quite rare in absolute numbers.
> 
> I think the false accusation rate is very low, but not low enough that I would be willing to convict without other evidence.
> 
> It gets to a fundamental philosophy issue - I've always supported "better than a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted".
> 
> If you have read coppertop's thread on this site you will see that he is basically being held hostage by a wife who has threatened to make a false accusation of rape against him. (needless to say, I have no idea if he is telling the truth - or isn't a troll).


What EVIDENCE is there that AC would INCREASE false rape charges though, richard?

None.

So all this hand wringing is basically done with an air of "women are evil, they want to file false charges because they are evil."

Yes false rape charges happen now...but according to many here, suddenly those false charges would sky rocket overnight...all because of AC.

This is what I am questioning, and no one can give me any REASON or any EVIDENCE that this sudden increase in false charges would occur. When I ask about the reasoning here, no one can actually give me any. They just "feel" it would or could happen.

Seems to me if a woman is going to file false charges against a guy, she does not need to wait until new AC laws are passed...she can find some devious way to do it right now.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
if people would stop shouting at each other they would realize just how tricky this question is. 

If two "equally" drunk people have sex and no coercion was involved is it rape? If not, does that mean that being drunk IS a defense?

How drunk is too drunk to consent? People can black-out but not pass out - where they don't remember what happened but were conscious at the time.


Personally I solve this by not drinking. That way not one will ever take advantage of me while I'm drunk, and my judgement will never be impaired to the extent that I take advantage of someone else. But for those of you who drink, I don't know how you manage the risks.

BTW - drugging someone, or giving them alcohol by subterfuge I consider to be a very serious crime. Her I am talking about people who consume alcohol voluntarily. 






naiveonedave said:


> when they are both drunk, he goes to jail for rape. Sorry if that was not clear. And yes, that is a double standard.
> 
> If she is drunk and he is not, yes, that is likely date rape = rape = should be in jail. Though one must define how drunk is drunk. One beer, probably not, passed out for sure, but what is in the middle ground


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> What EVIDENCE is there that AC would INCREASE false rape charges though, richard?
> 
> None.
> 
> So all this hand wringing is basically done with an air of "women are evil, they want to file false charges because they are evil."
> 
> Yes false rape charges happen now...but according to many here, suddenly those false charges would sky rocket overnight...all because of AC.
> 
> This is what I am questioning, and no one can give me any REASON or any EVIDENCE that this sudden increase in false charges would occur. When I ask about the reasoning here, no one can actually give me any. They just "feel" it would or could happen.
> 
> Seems to me if a woman is going to file false charges against a guy, she does not need to wait until new AC laws are passed...she can find some devious way to do it right now.


even if the amount of false accusations does not increase, AC laws will put more of the falsely accused in jail. AND THAT IS WRONG AND SO AGAINST what our country was founded on.


----------



## EllisRedding

naiveonedave said:


> even if the amount of false accusations does not increase, AC laws will put more of the falsely accused in jail. AND THAT IS WRONG AND SO AGAINST what our country was founded on.


The basis for AC is essentially the accused is guilty until proven innocent, correct?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
(there are many different points of view in this discussion)

I agree that AC will not increase false rape charges and for that reason I don't oppose the law. BUT I also don't see how AC helps. The rapist can lie and claim he received AC just as easily as he can lie and claim he had consent without the new law. So for that reason I don't support the law. 

I really don't think AC makes any difference.


One can imagine requiring a written / signed AC form - but that really doesn't help either. People are allowed to withdraw consent at any time for any reason. So someone signing a contract to agree to sex might actually harm them in court if they wished the sex to stop and the rapist refused to stop.

Requiring video-taping of all sexual interactions would help, but that of course introduces rather serious additional problems. 

Rape is a big problem, but it is not an easy one to solve. The root cause is that the same physical interaction between people can be consensual sex or rape. and without witnesses or recordings its almost impossible to tell which it was. 








Faithful Wife said:


> What EVIDENCE is there that AC would INCREASE false rape charges though, richard?
> 
> None.
> 
> So all this hand wringing is basically done with an air of "women are evil, they want to file false charges because they are evil."
> 
> Yes false rape charges happen now...but according to many here, suddenly those false charges would sky rocket overnight...all because of AC.
> 
> This is what I am questioning, and no one can give me any REASON or any EVIDENCE that this sudden increase in false charges would occur. When I ask about the reasoning here, no one can actually give me any. They just "feel" it would or could happen.
> 
> Seems to me if a woman is going to file false charges against a guy, she does not need to wait until new AC laws are passed...she can find some devious way to do it right now.


----------



## Faithful Wife

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> (there are many different points of view in this discussion)
> 
> *I agree that AC will not increase false rape charges* and for that reason I don't oppose the law.


Great. I agree, it will not. There's no evidence that it will. Throwing the false charges thing around in this discussion is ridiculous and has nothing to do with AC. Not saying you were one of the ones who did, richard. Just saying the point is moot.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
While I agree that it doesn't do any harm, does it do any good? Doesn't the rapist just lie about AC and render the whole thing void?

This is assuming we are not talking about written contracts. If we are talking about written contracts, that is a different discussion (that I am happy to have).



Faithful Wife said:


> Great. I agree, it will not. There's no evidence that it will. Throwing the false charges thing around in this discussion is ridiculous and has nothing to do with AC. Not saying you were one of the ones who did, richard. Just saying the point is moot.


----------



## Pluto2

EllisRedding said:


> The basis for AC is essentially the accused is guilty until proven innocent, correct?


I think it will end up being like every other affirmative defense under the law. Some elements the state proves, some justifications the defense proves. It doesn't take anyone's constitutional rights away.


----------



## Cletus

I don't expect an increase in false rape charges from AC. I might expect an increase in total rape charges arising from an expanded and nebulous definition of the word rape. Some portion of those charges, I do not know how many, would arise from misunderstanding rather than malice. Those are, IMHO, the moral equivalent of a false rape charge. 

With AC, you could have two people in court, one of whom says "I had no idea I was raping him - I thought it was consensual. He seemed into it. He never removed my hands, never asked me to stop, never registered any displeasure that I could see with what we were doing." and the other say "She raped me", and have both of them be completely honest in their appraisal. Under AC, the rape charge sticks, even if the accused would have stopped at any time if only she understood that a line had been crossed. All that would have been required to make the situation unambiguous was the word "no". 

And of course, as everyone completely understands, without a video record of the event, we cannot tell for sure, and with AC, even if we DID have a record of the event, unless there is a "reasonable person" clause written into the law, we would _still_ not be able to tell, because there is no objective measure of what constitutes a consent-necessary activity. 

Rape should have an objective definition that we can all agree to, not one made up on-the-spot by and unique to every individual on the planet. So please, teach AC to your children. Practice it yourself. Become a more self-aware partner and lover. Treat your bed mates with respect. Get permission before you touch, kiss, slap, or penetrate. But when codifying laws, we have to do better than this. AC as a legal matter is a potpourri of unintended consequences.


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> I think it will end up being like every other affirmative defense under the law. Some elements the state proves, some justifications the defense proves. It doesn't take anyone's constitutional rights away.


any time that you have to prove you are innocent, your rights have been violated.


----------



## Pluto2

naiveonedave said:


> any time that you have to prove you are innocent, your rights have been violated.


No they are not.
Criminal laws have recognized legal defenses and legal justifications for eons. The defendant who asserts them must prove them to be exonerated from criminal liability. Those defendants' rights have not been violated. Happens all the time in insanity defenses, self-defense, etc.


----------



## Idyit

I'm confused. What's written here makes it seem that AC is additional verbiage to support existing criminal law. One side says that it's a ridiculous grouping of laws, coupled with some serious departure from criminal burden of proof that boils down to "he said, she said". The other side says it is necessary to protect women. (primarily?)

From what I understand this is not a court situation with judges and juries. A campus tribunal is formed of Title IX officers, faculty and others representing the university who are likely not experts in criminal investigation or sexual assault. These are not unbiased judges and jury. They have a compelling interest in protecting the university and potentially their job. Regardless of where error may fall on the accused or accuser this is not the due process of law as we know it. 

Before this tribunal there is a low burden of proof, hearsay counts as evidence, cross examination is disallowed, lawyers are often barred, if representation is allowed to be present they often cannot speak and more. This is not representative of criminal law in the US. It doesn't even rise to the standard of civil law.

If my sons were accused of a crime as heinous as rape or sexual assault I would want them to at least be able to properly defend themselves. A false charge could lead to expulsion from the school, labeling as a sexual offender and likely make admission to another university impossible.

Here's where I really have a problem and why AC laws and university tribunals for this type of crime is revolting. If my daughter was assaulted or raped and took the AC/tribunal route there would be no justice. Sure, a 'conviction' might be had but what penalty can be administered? A young man who did, was convicted of and served justice would be expelled from school, face no jail time and be free to find his next victim.

Affirmative consent may be a good mindset for those wanting to ensure they are within boundaries. It may even serve as a deterrent. What it will not and can not do is adequately replace our current justice system with it's rights to both accuser and accused along with adequate punishment for a crime committed.

~ Passio


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Rape should have an objective definition that we can all agree to, not one made up on-the-spot by and unique to every individual on the planet. So please, teach AC to your children. Practice it yourself. Become a more self-aware partner and lover. Treat your bed mates with respect. Get permission before you touch, kiss, slap, or penetrate. But when codifying laws, we have to do better than this. AC as a legal matter is a potpourri of unintended consequences.


Umm, it already does. From the FBI:



> Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, *without the consent of the victim.*


Please notice that consent is already and always has been required, or it is rape. The only thing the affirmative consent policies alter is to spell out a little more clearly what consent entails.

Because, it would seem, too many people thought that if they were asleep or drunk and couldn't say no, this was as good as a yes.


----------



## always_alone

Idyit said:


> I'm confused. What's written here makes it seem that AC is additional verbiage to support existing criminal law. One side says that it's a ridiculous grouping of laws, coupled with some serious departure from criminal burden of proof that boils down to "he said, she said". The other side says it is necessary to protect women. (primarily?)
> 
> From what I understand this is not a court situation with judges and juries.


Yes, this is policy for the safety and security of students, not a matter of criminal law. And the main point of it is actually to get universities to stop rug-sweeping and ignoring the problem -- by making their funding dependent on them developing and following actual policies that actually consider the victim's welfare.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Pluto2 said:


> I think it will end up being like *every other affirmative defense under the law*. Some elements the state proves, some justifications the defense proves. It doesn't take anyone's constitutional rights away.


I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you give an example? Thanks.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> ... stop rug-sweeping ...


On a slightly side note, how did rug sweeping get such a bad name. My MIL stops by unexpectedly, and I don't have time? Sure I sweep it quickly under the rug!


----------



## Idyit

always_alone said:


> Yes, this is policy for the *safety and security of students, not a matter of criminal law.* And the main point of it is actually to get universities to stop rug-sweeping and ignoring the problem -- by *making their funding dependent* on them developing and following actual policies that actually *consider the victim's welfare*.


This is a criminal matter! Rape and sexual assault should not be handled by a kangaroo court. There is some danger of falsely convicting someone of the charge. This is bad. Worse is that a convicted offender is slapped on wrist with expulsion. Are you okay with this? This is how you view an effective policy for "safety and security of students"? If anything this is enhanced rug sweeping.

To add to this the judge and jury is vested in the outcome because as you stated, their funding is dependent on showing consideration to the victim. 

AC is well-meaning policy with goals that I wholeheartedly support. But the mechanism is severely flawed. At worst it is very capable of wrongly convicting someone. At best, with the 'conviction' of rapist they are free to carry on at another location.

This is not safety, security or justice.

~ Passio


----------



## WandaJ

Constable Odo said:


> No, you can't.
> 
> The courts view child support as monetary compensation to raise the child. A child, by definition, is incapable of entering into a contract, thus, cannot sign its legal right to support away. Either in-vitro, or after birth.
> 
> 
> Most men I know are perfectly willing to pay child support, if there are some assurances the money is actually going to support the child. Unfortunately, there is no oversight in this area, *which is why the funds are usually spent on buying liposuction and new breasts rather than new clothes and sneakers for the kid*.


Please show the source of this information showing that most of the child support money goes to liposuction?

You do realize that many women who receive child support also have their own income in additon too this? And that paying utilities is a part of supporting child?

By your comments Mr. ODo, one would think that men are such poor creatures, used by women for their evil purposes. I do not even know why I bother to respond .


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
(an ever moving discussion).
I don't see AC as the same as campus tribunals. I see AC as mostly pointless and mostly harmless.

I have BIG problem with campus tribunals. Rape is a felony and both the victim and the accused deserve the full protections and power of the law. Campus tribunals have none of the protections that we expect in a modern legal system:

Legal representation? 

Impartial jury - what if the accused or victim is a major university donor? Surely no one believes that universities are some sort of ivory towers - they can as easily be influenced by money as any other organization.

What about when either the accused or accuser is not from the university? 

What if the accused or accuser is the son or daughter of a professor? (if you think this won't matter, you haven't worked with academia much).

Punishments: Expulsion is a very serious punishment for an innocent person - it can represent the loss of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and possibly the destruction of life long goals. BUT expulsion is much too mild a punishment for rape - the normal punishment is years in a brutal prison. 


Universities can deal with academic crimes - cheating etc. I absolutely do not want to see a different criminal system for wealthy kids when we are talking about felonies. A woman raped at a party in a poor neighborhood has to go through the normal justice system. I do not want to create a parallel track for the wealthy.


----------



## WandaJ

The problem is that we live in such society, that we even have to talk about consent to sex as prerequisite. It means parents of young men are not doing best job explaining this to their sons.


----------



## Pluto2

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you give an example? Thanks.


Sure, well I'll try because there isn't a lot out there on this topic and how's it applied. Cal. has an AC statute in the education code, Ohio has a modified AC law in the criminal rape statute, but it addresses the inability of the accuser to consent.

Lets start with the drunken college kids who have sex. One partner awakes the next morning aware, or suspecting they might have had sex. This person does not believe they agreed to anything, or worse, doesn't remember.

Ohio's criminal law prohibits sexual acts when:

"The other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age." OH 2907.02.

Then the accused partner in our college situation proves what they knew, or didn't know. Sometimes there's objective evidence to support it, sometimes there isn't. That's just the way it is. You have evidence that both parties were drinking. How much? Did the accuser still have the ability to walk around without stumbling? Did the accused serve the alcohol? how much? If the totality of the evidence supports the conclusion that the accused either knew, or had a reasonable cause to know that the other person could not consent-its is rape.

This is what I mean by other affirmative defenses. If this were a self-defense claim such as in an assault case, the evidence is considered in terms of what the accused actually knew, and what any reasonable person in those circumstances can be charged with knowing. 

New Jersey has required an affirmative showing of consent in a criminal rape since at least 1992.

Did I answer your question


Intoxication isn't a defense to what the accused knows or had reasonable cause to know about the accuser. If intoxication were a defense there would be no DUI laws.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Pluto2 said:


> Sure, well I'll try because there isn't a lot out there on this topic and how's it applied. Cal. has an AC statute in the education code, Ohio has a modified AC law in the criminal rape statute, but it addresses the inability of the accuser to consent.
> 
> Lets start with the drunken college kids who have sex. One partner awakes the next morning aware, or suspecting they might have had sex. This person does not believe they agreed to anything, or worse, doesn't remember.
> 
> Ohio's criminal law prohibits sexual acts when:
> 
> "The other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age." OH 2907.02.
> 
> Then the accused partner in our college situation proves what they knew, or didn't know. Sometimes there's objective evidence to support it, sometimes there isn't. That's just the way it is. You have evidence that both parties were drinking. How much? Did the accuser still have the ability to walk around without stumbling? Did the accused serve the alcohol? how much? If the totality of the evidence supports the conclusion that the accused either knew, or had a reasonable cause to know that the other person could not consent-its is rape.
> 
> This is what I mean by other affirmative defenses. If this were a self-defense claim such as in an assault case, the evidence is considered in terms of what the accused actually knew, and what any reasonable person in those circumstances can be charged with knowing.
> 
> New Jersey has required an affirmative showing of consent in a criminal rape since at least 1992.
> 
> Did I answer your question


No. I think I don't understand what you are saying at all.



> Intoxication isn't a defense to what the accused knows or had reasonable cause to know about the accuser. If intoxication were a defense there would be no DUI laws.


Intoxication has, in the past, been cited as the cause of a "no" absence and has been found not to be a defense. That is nothing like an affirmative consent that requires a Yes at various parts along the way. So if you are saying that affirmative consent has been a legal basis for eons, as I think you did, I am not seeing it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

WandaJ said:


> The problem is that we live in such society, that we even have to talk about consent to sex as prerequisite. It means parents of young men are not doing best job explaining this to their sons.


We don't do JUST a bad job about consent. We do a bad job about EVERYTHING about sex. My 14yo son has a friend whose parents won't talk about ANYTHING because he might "get the wrong message". I think that the wrong message is no damned message at all. Know nothing? They will come up with their own daft interpretation of things. Mix that with hormones. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. A recipe we have been cooking for a long time.


----------



## Pluto2

State of New Jersey, In the Interest of M.T.S.. is a 1992 criminal case from New Jersey. The court said, "We conclude, therefore, that any act of sexual penetration engaged in by the defendant without the affirmative and freely-given permission of the victim to the specific act of penetration constitutes the offense of sexual assault."

That's what I mean. A form of affirmative consent has been around for a while.
Affirmative and freely-given permission can be inferred from all the surrounding circumstances.


----------



## Maricha75

WandaJ said:


> The problem is that we live in such society, that we even have to talk about consent to sex as prerequisite. It means parents of young men are not doing best job explaining this to their sons.


I don't think this should be limited just to parents of sons. I think it should be parents, period. Some do try. And I mean REALLY try to have open discussions about sex. My 14 year old is squeamish about just SAYING the WORD "sex". I am not even joking. His 8 year old sister and 7 year old brother will say it (and usually giggle as well), but he actually says "I don't want to say that word". No amount of telling him there is nothing wrong with it, there's nothing wrong with saying it. He won't do it. But it doesn't make me try any less. I do think parents, in general, should have more frank discussions with their children... both the boys and the girls. But I don't believe parents of boys should be held more accountable than parents of girls.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Maricha75 said:


> I don't think this should be limited just to parents of sons. I think it should be parents, period.


:smthumbup::smthumbup:


----------



## Mr. Nail

We are moving into a more productive area of discussion. I think that assuming that college kids are ok with talking frankly about sex when 14 year olds won't say the word, is overly optimistic.

I've tried to have frank discussions about sexual topics with my kids. I don't know how successful I've been. One kid was open enough to ask good questions and acknowledge understanding. 

I've been offended by the latest mantras "teach your son's not to rape". The assumption is that boys will automatically start raping people if they don't have special training in controlling their passions. And is controlling passion what we want? Certainly the proper expression of passion should be encouraged. I think that the AC Standard will encourage open discussion of sex. I think the We consent app is a good idea, because it insures that the person is actually capable of talking about what they want to do. (I know it does not cover the removal of consent later which they also need to be able to talk about.)

I think the idea of consent needs to start way before sex. Personal boundaries are not just sexual things. Mike, Jake doesn't want to share that truck because it is special to him. So yes consent applies to flirting. It applies to every relationship personal or business. The Idea of AC is respect other peoples boundaries. What I am saying is that if we teach them to respect one boundary, it will be much easier to teach them to respect another.

*I am not comparing rape to sharing toys! or anything else. I am talking about teaching children.*


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> No they are not.
> Criminal laws have recognized legal defenses and legal justifications for eons. The defendant who asserts them must prove them to be exonerated from criminal liability. Those defendants' rights have not been violated. Happens all the time in insanity defenses, self-defense, etc.


this is so wrong, I won't bother to post a meaningful response.


----------



## WandaJ

Maricha75 said:


> I don't think this should be limited just to parents of sons. I think it should be parents, period. Some do try. And I mean REALLY try to have open discussions about sex. My 14 year old is squeamish about just SAYING the WORD "sex". I am not even joking. His 8 year old sister and 7 year old brother will say it (and usually giggle as well), but he actually says "I don't want to say that word". No amount of telling him there is nothing wrong with it, there's nothing wrong with saying it. He won't do it. But it doesn't make me try any less. I do think parents, in general, should have more frank discussions with their children... both the boys and the girls. But I don't believe parents of boys should be held more accountable than parents of girls.


I agree. My 10 yo is much more prude than me, the words "boobs" "underwear" "bra" seems cause giggles. Our society sends kids very mixed messages. On one side we have movies, music video clips, pictures full of naked young people, sitcoms for teenagers that are full of sexual undertone. On the other hand they are taught not to say "boob", "breast" or "sex". I think it must be big no-no at school to say those words. 

Together - being exposed to the erotism all around along with the shame around - creates very confusing world for young people.


----------



## tech-novelist

EllisRedding said:


> So what happens if two people are equally intoxicated, bump uglies, and the next day the female claims rape. The guy, knowing he was intoxicated counters by claiming rape against her. They are now both the accuser and accused. Or is it saying that a guy has zero excuses and full accountability when it comes to these matters?


Yes, exactly.
Here are the rules as they will be applied in 99%-100% of the cases:

1. If she is intoxicated and he isn't, it's rape.
2. If he is intoxicated and she isn't, it isn't rape.
3. If they are both intoxicated, it is rape by him of her.

Hope that helps.


----------



## tech-novelist

EllisRedding said:


> The basis for AC is essentially the accused is guilty until proven innocent, correct?


Correct. That is supposedly legal because it isn't criminal law. Yet.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Yes, exactly.
> Here are the rules as they will be applied in 99%-100% of the cases:
> 
> 1. If she is intoxicated and he isn't, it's rape.
> 2. If he is intoxicated and she isn't, it isn't rape.
> 3. If they are both intoxicated, it is rape by him of her.
> 
> Hope that helps.


So are you saying that women just want to file false rape charges against men....because.....why exactly?

Also are you saying that women don't want to have sex with men?

Or are you saying that women DO want to have sex, but then they still hate men anyway, so after the consensual sex, they will make false charges....because....why exactly?

I'm confused about what you guys think women get out of either sex, OR making false rape charges.

Because since the MRA crowd just loooooove to talk about how women rape men alllllllllllll the time, wouldn't it seem that MEN could also immediately file false or real rape charges, and that it would be easier for them to do so with these AC rules on campuses?

I'm seriously asking you these questions because I can't for the life of me figure out why you guys are so inconsistent and illogical.

Either women hate sex, or women are rapists. Or maybe you think they only like sex if it is them raping someone?

:scratchhead:

I have so far never heard anyone from the red pill or MRA crowd say anything that makes me think they understand any woman's sexuality, at all, ever once. Yet you are the guys who then go round selling each other "tips" on how to get women to have sex with you.

It is so confounding and illogical.

But I know I know...I "don't get it" since I'm a woman.


----------



## Idyit

FW. Respectfully, I'm not in favor of college campuses being the arbiter of justice when determining guilt or innocence in a rape or sexual assault. As I understand it AC has been designed for and put in to law in some cases for university systems.

A couple of pages ago I raised some concerns and asked some questions. To recap and add a few:

- Is AC for college campuses tried as a criminal matter?
- Is the case tried by a campus tribunal?
- Are campus police, title IX officers and faculty sufficient to be considered specialists in sexual assault and rape?
- Can a defendant adequately defend themselves without representation for such a serious offense?
- Is having hearsay admissible as evidence, zero cross-examination and a burden of proof lower than civil cases adequate for a felony crime?
- Are those sitting on the tribunal un-biased?
- Does the threat of federal funding withdrawal effect decisions?
- Are you comfortable that a college tribunal won't get it wrong?
- Wrongful convictions can happen. Would you be okay if your child had the trajectory of their life altered by amateurs?
- Guilty people can also be found so. Are you comfortable that the most a college tribunal can do is expel the student with reference on their transcript?

I have many problems with the execution of the AC policy/law. If I have it wrong, tell me how.

~ Passio

don't think this is an MRA vs women thing. A c


----------



## OnTheFly

Faithful Wife said:


> So are you saying that women just want to file false rape charges against men....because.....why exactly?


How many high profile false rape charges have to occur before you'll accept the fact that special snowflake women can do this?

Rolling Stone/UV story,

Columbia chick who carried around her mattress,

Duke lacrosse team..

Lena Dunham and "Barry'' the Republican...

Etc, ad nauseum

Seriously, open your eyes!


----------



## Faithful Wife

OnTheFly said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that women just want to file false rape charges against men....because.....why exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> How many high profile false rape charges have to occur before you'll accept the fact that special snowflake women can do this?
> 
> Rolling Stone/UV story,
> 
> Columbia chick who carried around her mattress,
> 
> Duke lacrosse team..
> 
> Etc, ad nauseum
> 
> Seriously, open your eyes!
Click to expand...

Are you one of the guys who claim that women rape men all the time?


----------



## OnTheFly

Faithful Wife said:


> Are you one of the guys who claim that women rape men all the time?


My position is that false rape claims are common and this is your response to me?


----------



## OnTheFly

Timely article regarding this subject…

Community of the Wrongly Accused: Landmark case shines light on real campus rape 'epidemic': equating regret with rape


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Are you one of the guys who claim that women rape men all the time?


to deny that women never rape men is absurd. Even if women are only 1% of the rapists (convictions suggest much more) women rape every day in this country. So yes, all the time.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I guess I don't get it. Rape happens. False rape claims happen. If there is something wrong with due process, we should fix it. And for my money, false claims should be prosecuted HARD. That would be a great first step forward in the prosecution of real rape cases.


----------



## WandaJ

OnTheFly said:


> How many high profile false rape charges have to occur before you'll accept the fact that special snowflake women can do this?
> 
> Rolling Stone/UV story,
> 
> Columbia chick who carried around her mattress,
> 
> Duke lacrosse team..
> 
> Lena Dunham and "Barry'' the Republican...
> 
> Etc, ad nauseum
> 
> Seriously, open your eyes!


Statistically, there is around 4-5% of false claims in rape cases. t is more or less the same percentage as false claims in burglary cases. We still treat burglary cases seriously, and do not dismiss them because of those few percentage. Why the rule different for rape?

Not mentioning, all the rapes NOT reported, because women want avoid those false accusations and the whole circus that comes with it.


----------



## always_alone

Idyit said:


> This is a criminal matter! Rape and sexual assault should not be handled by a kangaroo court. There is some danger of falsely convicting someone of the charge. This is bad. Worse is that a convicted offender is slapped on wrist with expulsion. Are you okay with this? This is how you view an effective policy for "safety and security of students"? If anything this is enhanced rug sweeping.


Yes, absolutely it is a criminal matter. And in this respect, it will be taken up by the criminal law system. Educational policy, on the other hand, serves a very different purpose: it is a code of conduct for an institution, to ensure, among other things, the safety and security of students on campus. All sorts of students behaviours are regulated in this way. This doesn't mean that universities are taking over in areas where they have no power or jurisdiction --the kangaroo courts you mention --but that they have an obligation to *do* something other than throw up their hands and say "not my problem".


----------



## Idyit

always_alone said:


> Yes, absolutely it is a criminal matter. And in this respect, *it will be taken up by the criminal law system.* Educational policy, on the other hand, serves a very different purpose: it is a code of conduct for an institution, to ensure, among other things, the safety and security of students on campus. *All sorts of students behaviours *are regulated in this way. This doesn't mean that universities are taking over in areas where they have no power or jurisdiction --the kangaroo courts you mention --but that they have an obligation to *do* something other than throw up their hands and say "not my problem".


First bolded. This is not what I'm reading. Where collges are concerned and how they execute the policy AC, they do so internally. The mechanism in place to handle "all sorts of student behaviour" is the tribunal. 

If this were a criminal matter handled by our justice system there would be no talk about the university. AC policy or later law would be seen as an amendment or addition to existing rape law.

But it's not. Nothing I read says that AC will be prosecuted by the courts. And nothing convinces me that the university way of handling this issue is adequate.

The way I see it, mandates have been thrown down to the universities to handle their problem. Funding is connected to how well they accomplish the task. So, they use the tools they have that have worked for other student behaviour. Is it an evil conspiracy? No. It appears to me that it's a good goal with a horrible solution.

Again, tell me where I have it wrong. 

~ Passio


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Maybe part of the disagreement is over whether 4-5% is a big number.

I think a 4-5% false conviction rate would be much too high. 1% innocent people in jail is all I can personally tolerate. This applies to all felonies.

I'm not, and I hope no else one is suggesting dismissing rape cases because there are some false accusations. I think what people are concerned about is that there needs to be more than just a claim of rape for conviction. The problem is that often there is no supporting evidence for rape cases - so getting beyond a reasonable doubt can be very difficult even if there is good reason to believe it happened.

I don't think this really has anything to do with AC. In the absence of other information, it is still one person's word against another's ,AC doesn't change that. 



I think of it this way. Imagine I'm on a jury where a woman claims she was raped by an acquaintance. He claims they had consensual sex - that she actively consented and is just trying to get revenge. No witnesses. No physical injury. I *think* I believe her, but how sure can I be? Can I really be 99% sure that she isn't making it up? Can I be sure that decision isn't clouded by the appearance or ethnicity of the accused and accuser? 





WandaJ said:


> Statistically, there is around 4-5% of false claims in rape cases. t is more or less the same percentage as false claims in burglary cases. We still treat burglary cases seriously, and do not dismiss them because of those few percentage. Why the rule different for rape?
> 
> Not mentioning, all the rapes NOT reported, because women want avoid those false accusations and the whole circus that comes with it.


----------



## naiveonedave

WandaJ said:


> Statistically, there is around 4-5% of false claims in rape cases. t is more or less the same percentage as false claims in burglary cases. We still treat burglary cases seriously, and do not dismiss them because of those few percentage. Why the rule different for rape?
> 
> Not mentioning, all the rapes NOT reported, because women want avoid those false accusations and the whole circus that comes with it.


this is exactly true, but we don't put the burden of proof on the accused, it is on the accuser. And this should not change because of the nature of the crime.


----------



## WandaJ

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Maybe part of the disagreement is over whether 4-5% is a big number.
> 
> I think a 4-5% false conviction rate would be much too high. 1% innocent people in jail is all I can personally tolerate. This applies to all felonies.
> 
> I'm not, and I hope no else one is suggesting dismissing rape cases because there are some false accusations. I think what people are concerned about is that there needs to be more than just a claim of rape for conviction. The problem is that often there is no supporting evidence for rape cases - so getting beyond a reasonable doubt can be very difficult even if there is good reason to believe it happened.
> 
> I don't think this really has anything to do with AC. In the absence of other information, it is still one person's word against another's ,AC doesn't change that.
> 
> 
> 
> I think of it this way. Imagine I'm on a jury where a woman claims she was raped by an acquaintance. He claims they had consensual sex - that she actively consented and is just trying to get revenge. No witnesses. No physical injury. I *think* I believe her, but how sure can I be? Can I really be 99% sure that she isn't making it up? Can I be sure that decision isn't clouded by the appearance or ethnicity of the accused and accuser?


richard, this is not 4-5% false conviction, but accusations that turn out to be false. Which still leaves us with 95% of the true accausations. What I have problem wtih is that so many men on this thread in general, use those few cases to dismiss all of them. All they see is those few falsely accused men, while disregarding all those women who were truly raped. Adn these are only the cases that were reported.


----------



## Pluto2

You're right, in that the California statute for AC that has gotten so much press involves college policies for disciplinary proceedings within the school.

While we can say and know that this is a criminal matter, many colleges are not obligated to report these matters to the police. They prefer to handle it internally, through a disciplinary process.


----------



## WandaJ

naiveonedave said:


> this is exactly true, but we don't put the burden of proof on the accused, it is on the accuser. And this should not change because of the nature of the crime.


Yes, because in burglary case there is more to it than he said she said. you can find physical proofs and witnesses. 

But exactly that attitude - woman must be lying about rape - is still prevailing. It is still more common, and this is what stopping women from reporting it (still). 

Why - you men on this thread - are you really so hang up on those few percenage, while dismissing 95%?? Have you ever been accused falsely? are you worried that you do not read women's clues properly and this will happen to you? What's really the deal here? Why so much anger towards women? Because that's how you sound - angry and bitter.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I agree that right now the false conviction rate is pretty low (I don't know the #s), and I think we should keep it that way.

Maybe I've missed the posts where people want to dismiss most or all rape cases.

Its possible that we are just having an communication problem, so let me try to be clear about my position on this.


1).Rape is common enough to be a serious problem that we should try very hard to fix. (it doesn't matter for this discussion but the majority of rapists are male).

2). Most rape claims are true. (I'll believe ~95%)

3). While the false accusation rate is low (call it 5%), it is not low enough that I believe we should punish someone based only on a claim. (I would want <1% for that)

4). There are many cases where rape occurred but there is no physical evidence (except that they had sex) and no witnesses, so even though the rape was real, with only the word of the accuser, I don't think we can punish the accused.

5) This has the very unfortunate effect that many rapists go unpunished

6). I can't think of any way to fix this that doesn't cause other very serious problems. I'm open to suggestions.

Its a really bad situation. 





WandaJ said:


> richard, this is not 4-5% false conviction, but accusations that turn out to be false. Which still leaves us with 95% of the true accausations. What I have problem wtih is that so many men on this thread in general, use those few cases to dismiss all of them. All they see is those few falsely accused men, while disregarding all those women who were truly raped. Adn these are only the cases that were reported.


----------



## OnTheFly

WandaJ said:


> What's really the deal here? Why so much anger towards women? Because that's how you sound - angry and bitter.


Really? This is what you are going to boil this down to….angry and bitter?

Did you read the article? If you are fine with what happened to the fellow, then there is no reaching you with logic or reason. Trying to discuss actual 'equality' with feminists is a failing exercise, and fully frustrating (perhaps, you confuse that with anger and bitterness?)

Also, show me a source for the claim that 5% are false, I believe it's much higher. 

(I'm curious how you'll spin this response….perhaps accuse me of sitting in my Mom's basement perpetually failing to score women?)


----------



## WandaJ

No, I have not read article. I am not talking about case, I am talking about you being all so wound up about 5% while neglecting 95%. 

You believe it is more than 5%. I believe there is much more unreported rape cases, because many women do not want to deal with all those accusations by righteous men.


----------



## Pluto2

http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

This source indicates somewhere between 2-10% "false" reports. I put false in quotes because the people who complied the studies here lump unfounded and unsubstantiated reports together. When really, they are two different categories.

There is an old FBI report indicating false rape reports at 2%.

Still about 65% of rapes remain unreported. Apparently women who are violated resist having to come forward only to be told they are liars.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Some colleges are taking the approach of paying off the accuser. U of Iowa I think just paid off a coed with $800,000 and free tuition to make her complaint go away. Not a bad deal, really considering the alternative was to get the man thrown out of school where criminal charges were iffy at best. I hope Columbia's Mattress Girl is getting at least that good a gig for her art project dragging a mattress around for years. It's only fair.


----------



## Idyit

Pluto2 said:


> You're right, in that the California statute for AC that has gotten so much press involves college policies for disciplinary proceedings *within the school.
> *
> While we can say and know that this is a criminal matter, many colleges are *not obligated to report these matters to the police*. They prefer to handle it internally, through a *disciplinary process*.


Let's throw out the percentage of potential false claims. No strawman arguments, feminism, MRA or angry little people claims. While some may believe they have merit the bigger issue for me is bolded above.

This is NOT a disciplinary proceeding worthy subject. Save that for cheating on tests or bicycle theft. Rape is a felony crime. 

I'm sorry but if my daughter were assaulted or raped I would not want this rug sweeping process performed by amateurs to handle justice. Not obligated to report?!?! Why?? "Shhhhh little girl we'll handle this whole thing internally. Don't worry about that violent sexual predator. When we're done with him he won't be able to go to school here anymore.' 

This process will not protect my daughter. It does not adhere to current criminal justice system. It utterly fails to bring justice to a rightfully convicted felon. Tell me how this accomplishes the goals of protecting anyone prior to or after assault.

~ Passio


----------



## naiveonedave

WandaJ said:


> Yes, because in burglary case there is more to it than he said she said. you can find physical proofs and witnesses.
> 
> But exactly that attitude - woman must be lying about rape - is still prevailing. It is still more common, and this is what stopping women from reporting it (still).
> 
> Why - you men on this thread - are you really so hang up on those few percenage, while dismissing 95%?? Have you ever been accused falsely? are you worried that you do not read women's clues properly and this will happen to you? What's really the deal here? Why so much anger towards women? Because that's how you sound - angry and bitter.


In our system, 1 falsely jailed is equivalent to 10s to 100s getting away with crime (any crime)

I also think that the % of false allegations or he thought he had consent/she didn't are much more prevalent than 5%. Also, with all the propaganda out there (re: All Men are Rapists and similar bs) will lead to much more frequent false allegations. Also, there is stuff I have read, where they (many different theys) are telling young women that regret = rape.

This is not anger at women, it is the continued degradation of our civil rights as a society that get me fired up. One could easily ask why women want to put so many wrongly accused men in jail, but of course that is not politically correct.


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> I think of it this way. Imagine I'm on a jury where a woman claims she was raped by an acquaintance. He claims they had consensual sex - that she actively consented and is just trying to get revenge. No witnesses. No physical injury. I *think* I believe her, but how sure can I be? Can I really be 99% sure that she isn't making it up? Can I be sure that decision isn't clouded by the appearance or ethnicity of the accused and accuser?


And this is exactly it. Even if you have bruises and a conclusive rape kit, it comes down to he said/she said, and of course the accused will always say "it was consensual". Physical evidence is easily explained away. "That's how she likes it!"

And most of the time, the accused will be believed, and exonerated, while the accuser is humiliated, dragged through the mud, and then told "she asked for it."

When I brought charges against a rapist, I was advised by the prosecution that this was exactly what would happen. And they were right. Yaaay justice system!


----------



## naiveonedave

WandaJ said:


> No, I have not read article. I am not talking about case, I am talking about you being all so wound up about 5% while neglecting 95%.
> 
> You believe it is more than 5%. I believe there is much more unreported rape cases, because many women do not want to deal with all those accusations by righteous men.


Please read the article, before bashing men any further on this thread.

Also, it comes down to our countries stance on justice. 5% get railroaded is much worse than 95% get off with nothing (of course the 95% is an exaggeration, because many actually do get convicted).


----------



## always_alone

Idyit said:


> Let's throw out the percentage of potential false claims. No strawman arguments, feminism, MRA or angry little people claims. While some may believe they have merit the bigger issue for me is bolded above.
> 
> This is NOT a disciplinary proceeding worthy subject. Save that for cheating on tests or bicycle theft. Rape is a felony crime.
> 
> I'm sorry but if my daughter were assaulted or raped I would not want this rug sweeping process performed by amateurs to handle justice. Not obligated to report?!?! Why?? "Shhhhh little girl we'll handle this whole thing internally. Don't worry about that violent sexual predator. When we're done with him he won't be able to go to school here anymore.'
> 
> This process will not protect my daughter. It does not adhere to current criminal justice system. It utterly fails to bring justice to a rightfully convicted felon. Tell me how this accomplishes the goals of protecting anyone prior to or after assault.
> 
> ~ Passio


It is, I believe, up to the victim to decide whether to file a complaint or press charges. The university would not block that from happening, but they can't force a victim to come forward either. 

You are right that this process will not protect your daughter. But hopefully it will help make university campuses safer places for women.


----------



## Pluto2

Idyit said:


> Let's throw out the percentage of potential false claims. No strawman arguments, feminism, MRA or angry little people claims. While some may believe they have merit the bigger issue for me is bolded above.
> 
> This is NOT a disciplinary proceeding worthy subject. Save that for cheating on tests or bicycle theft. Rape is a felony crime.
> 
> I'm sorry but if my daughter were assaulted or raped I would not want this rug sweeping process performed by amateurs to handle justice. Not obligated to report?!?! Why?? "Shhhhh little girl we'll handle this whole thing internally. Don't worry about that violent sexual predator. When we're done with him he won't be able to go to school here anymore.'
> 
> This process will not protect my daughter. It does not adhere to current criminal justice system. It utterly fails to bring justice to a rightfully convicted felon. Tell me how this accomplishes the goals of protecting anyone prior to or after assault.
> 
> ~ Passio


I don't disagree. If any of my children (2 girls) became the victim of a crime-any crime, I would most definitely push to involve the police.

Several colleges have a policy of reporting when requested by the victim, not an affirmative obligation to report every crime someone tells them about.


----------



## Idyit

always_alone said:


> It is, I believe, up to the victim to decide whether to file a complaint or press charges. The university would not block that from happening, but they can't force a victim to come forward either.
> 
> You are right that this process will not protect your daughter. * But hopefully it will help make university campuses safer places for women*.


Huh?? Last part has me confused. You affirm that the process will not protect women then follow that with the bolded. Hope is not a strategy. How will AC policy and internal methods of handling assault and rape make women safer? The campus in question may be safer but the offender simply moves on to another place.

AC as a learning tool to prevent some occurrences has some potential to make a campus safer. The rest of it looks like kangaroo court that is full of potential for error.

~ Passio


----------



## Lionelhutz

Odd topic since I don't see the two issues as being interchangeable or equal.

I think much of the discussion of "Affirmative Consent" is bizarre and has little to do with reality or human nature. It treats women like children and men with the responsibility of bring the "grown up" in any sexual interaction. Unless of course we take seriously the notion of mutual rape. Two people both a little drunk, no one says "I confirm that I am of sound mind and consent to sexual interaction with you up to and including penetration" and both regret it in the morning: they have now raped each other and presumably deserve all the shame, criminal sanction and life altering destruction that would be the same if some random stranger attacks a woman on the street or breaks into her home. 

When considering child support, there is a new person in the equation and that changes everything. Enforced abortion on an unwilling person is abhorrent so the question then who is going to have to support the child if mom doesn't want to have an abortion? Everyone else or the two people responsible for creating the child?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Pluto2 said:


> I don't disagree. If any of my children (2 girls) became the victim of a crime-any crime, I would most definitely push to involve the police.


As a victim myself, I would advocate instead that you don't push anything but LISTEN and be sympathetic to the feelings and thoughts coming out of your victim's mouth.


----------



## Pluto2

NobodySpecial said:


> As a victim myself, I would advocate instead that you don't push anything but LISTEN and be sympathetic to the feelings and thoughts coming out of your victim's mouth.


You would be hard pressed to find a parent on this board who is more of an advocate for her children than I. The nudging to report comes after the listening and sympathy, not instead of those things. This simply is not a matter to leave in the hands of the schools, either in terms of investigation or prosecution. I'm sorry you were a victim. You are not the only one. I wish you peace and justice.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Pluto2 said:


> You would be hard pressed to find a parent on this board who is more of an advocate for her children than I. The nudging to report comes after the listening and sympathy, not instead of those things.


I am not criticizing your supportiveness. Just how far you have thought it through. But it seems to me that if you have already decided on your nudge action then you are already determined not to listen with an open mind. Having decided a course of action before getting the information seems backward to me.

I did not report my assailant. There was very good reason wrt my personal safety not to. The issue of rape is a big deal. And courts and the criminal justice system as a whole does need to make it more attractive TO report it. But there are very good reasons people do not choose to as was the case with me.



> This simply is not a matter to leave in the hands of the schools, either in terms of investigation or prosecution. I'm sorry you were a victim. You are not the only one. I wish you peace and justice.


I don't disagree that this is not a matter for the schools. It was so many years ago that peace has long since not been an issue.


----------



## Pluto2

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not criticizing your supportiveness. Just how far you have thought it through. But it seems to me that if you have already decided on your nudge action then you are already determined not to listen with an open mind. Having decided a course of action before getting the information seems backward to me.
> 
> I did not report my assailant. There was very good reason wrt my personal safety not to. The issue of rape is a big deal. And courts and the criminal justice system as a whole does need to make it more attractive TO report it. But there are very good reasons people do not choose to as was the case with me.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree that this is not a matter for the schools. It was so many years ago that peace has long since not been an issue.


Glad to know you weren't criticizing my supportiveness, only my parenting.
You know nothing of what I have gone through, or my kids. And I will leave it at that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Pluto2 said:


> Glad to know you weren't criticizing my supportiveness, only my parenting.
> You know nothing of what I have gone through, or my kids. And I will leave it at that.


HOLY DEFENSIVE. I was actually commenting on your logic as evidenced by your post.


----------



## OnTheFly

WandaJ said:


> No, I have not read article. I am not talking about case, I am talking about you being all so wound up about 5% while neglecting 95%.
> 
> You believe it is more than 5%. I believe there is much more unreported rape cases, because many women do not want to deal with all those accusations by righteous men.


''Righteous Men'' haha

Our/your judicial system allows for cross-examination. If the accuser has no evidence or bad evidence or no case at all, that will come out in the trial. How is that a bad thing? Is the end game of feminism in this area to remove the ability to face ones accuser and just 'trust her'? Utter stupidity!!

Of course, you didn't read the article, it might challenge your ideology….can't have that!

BTW, nice assumption that I don't care about the 95%!! If a man or woman is raped, and the evidence shows it and the jury agrees, I have zero qualms about administering the death penalty to the guilty, either man or woman. No problem at all! Liberals and progressives got rid of capital punishment….talk to them about the victims who have to live the rest of their lives knowing the guilty are still breathing.

And finally, if a woman is hesitant to report a rape because she won't be believed, how is that the fault of men. In this day and age men AND women occupy jobs with the police, DA, juries, etc, etc. Funny how only men get blamed. 

Political correctness is running rampant, and this affirmative consent BS is a prime example. 

Enjoy the decline!


----------



## Mr. Nail

It seems we have returned to knee jerk slam bashing. 

AC does not attempt to fix the legal problems in enforcing rape laws. What AC does is set a standard. A standard that most people want. (making an assumption here) The standard is that when sexual activity (even non penetrative) occurs both people are wanting it, and more importantly both people know that the other person wants it. High drive men on this (TAM) board are in agreement that duty sex is not desired. We want a partner who is willing, and able to express not only willingness but enthusiasm. High Drive women want the same. Low drive men and women, when they do want sex, want to have it with an understanding partner who agrees with them about what will happen. There is nothing wrong with the concept of affirmatively consenting to sexual interaction. 

There are some problems. Some people misrepresent their intentions. (I just want to talk about sex and tease you, but if you don't believe I am interested in participating physically it will spoil my fun) Some people want only what is forbidden (why won't you give me a BJ?) Misrepresentation and failure to respect boundaries are problems that AC seeks to solve. 

The legal problems with sexual assault and even sexual harassment laws are the evidence gathering. In a private (sometimes only in one persons mind) activity there is a lack of witnesses. AC does not provide a solution to that. Instead it seeks to cure the problem before the assault occurs. When people AC is accepted as the standard of behavior for this and other interactions, rape convictions will not increase. The instance of rape will decrease. This relies on people being good. Most people are good. 

MN


----------



## OnTheFly

Mr. Nail said:


> This (AC presumably) relies on people being good. Most people are good.


If only this were true. 

If I had a son entering a school where AC is implemented, or any school at all now, I'd advice ABR (always be recording) with either a VAR and/or video. Particularly the act itself, because her smiling face will one day, eight months later, save his a**! Save all texts, emails, etc. 

I have zero faith in the assertion that 'most people are good'.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Since inebriation in a woman is considered impaired to the point of not being able to consent at all, then affirmative consent is on pretty shaky ground. Not only does a man have to present a step by step punchlist, he has to make a medical determination that the woman he's with is sufficiently sober. Now unless the man was able to monitor the woman's intake every moment, including from before they hooked up, he'd still be responsible for her lack of ability to consent. In effect we've rendered women 100% incapable or responsible for running the least aspect of their own lives and made it superfluous to have a woman ever make a decision about anything. 

congratulations.


----------



## naiveonedave

Mr. Nail said:


> It seems we have returned to knee jerk slam bashing.
> 
> AC does not attempt to fix the legal problems in enforcing rape laws. What AC does is set a standard. A standard that most people want. (making an assumption here) The standard is that when sexual activity (even non penetrative) occurs both people are wanting it, and more importantly both people know that the other person wants it. High drive men on this (TAM) board are in agreement that duty sex is not desired. We want a partner who is willing, and able to express not only willingness but enthusiasm. High Drive women want the same. Low drive men and women, when they do want sex, want to have it with an understanding partner who agrees with them about what will happen. There is nothing wrong with the concept of affirmatively consenting to sexual interaction.
> 
> There are some problems. Some people misrepresent their intentions. (I just want to talk about sex and tease you, but if you don't believe I am interested in participating physically it will spoil my fun) Some people want only what is forbidden (why won't you give me a BJ?) Misrepresentation and failure to respect boundaries are problems that AC seeks to solve.
> 
> The legal problems with sexual assault and even sexual harassment laws are the evidence gathering. In a private (sometimes only in one persons mind) activity there is a lack of witnesses. AC does not provide a solution to that. Instead it seeks to cure the problem before the assault occurs. When people AC is accepted as the standard of behavior for this and other interactions, rape convictions will not increase. The instance of rape will decrease. This relies on people being good. Most people are good.
> 
> MN


I agree, but one thing that you are omitting is the fact that a lot/most sex occurs where the woman has responsive desire. This makes AC very problematic. 

It also neglects current culture where women are taught that regret = rape and all men are rapists and that campuses are full of men who just want to rape.

It also ignores due process and on college campuses, treats potential felonies the same as cheating on a test.

IMO, AC does a lot more damage than do anything to 'help'.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Bruises are additional evidence. but I don't disagree that often this will not get to "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the minds of juries. 

What would you suggest as a solution? How can we get to "beyond a reasonable doubt"? I really don't want to lower the standard below 99% certainty, and I'm not very comfortable even there.

Other than very pervasive surveillance, I don't know how to get around the "he said, she said" issue. 


always_alone said:


> And this is exactly it. Even if you have bruises and a conclusive rape kit, it comes down to he said/she said, and of course the accused will always say "it was consensual". Physical evidence is easily explained away. "That's how she likes it!"
> 
> And most of the time, the accused will be believed, and exonerated, while the accuser is humiliated, dragged through the mud, and then told "she asked for it."
> 
> When I brought charges against a rapist, I was advised by the prosecution that this was exactly what would happen. And they were right. Yaaay justice system!


----------



## Mr. Nail

Alcohol is a bit foreign to me, (it is outside of my culture). I do understand that there are some people who can't socially interact without alcohol. I'm worried about what this standard means to them. My question is don't bars still have those Breathalyzer machines in them? Don't drinkers know when they are too inebriated to drive? Can't a person with a bit of experience estimate the sobriety of another? And this applies to men as well. Should a man who is inebriated consent to an activity that could result in pregnancy and associated Child support. I like the idea of people being sober to make important decisions, but, Alcohol is not in my culture. 

There are many more good people than bad people. Affirmative consent does not increase the ease of false accusation. Poor application and university standards that shift the burden of proof do that. My advice to son entering college is emotional intimacy comes before physical intimacy. Or as the women keep saying "know her first". The culture of Casual sex is risky.
MN


----------



## naiveonedave

richardsharpe said:


> I don't know how to get around the "he said, she said" issue.


I agree. Since sex is not normally a crime, it makes it inherently harder to prove. And if the 'couple' are in a relationship or were seen 'making out' prior to the 'sex', it comes down to he said/she said. In the US, that is not enough to convict. I don't like this and people abuse this, but it really is a conundrum. 

The simple solutions put the onus on the one who doesn't want sex, but that doesn't go over very well. And I don't mean to imply that 'her behavior' caused her to get raped. I mean, if you are not ready to have sex with that man: don't get drunk and alone with him, don't not say "NO", etc.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Dave let me rephrase that in less ambiguous terms.

AC laws currently on the books are in need of help. College and university policies are being written that are unconstitutional.

AC will over a long period of time solve the culture of shame problems you mention. 

Now the responsive desire thing has me scratching as well. Especially as I was roundly castigated for suggesting that seduction was a pleasurable and welcomed part of the sexual experience. I think I was told that that seeking to change a no to a yes was atrocious or abominable or something. I do believe that if You can't get to maybe in one step you should probably go fish elsewhere. 

Affirmative consent at home in a long term committed relationship is going to look a bit different that it does in a university town bar. The reactive desire thing is going to be a big player at my age. Sex starts hours in advance, and consent does get withdrawn.

Thanks for participating


----------



## naiveonedave

Mr. Nail said:


> Dave let me rephrase that in less ambiguous terms.
> 
> AC laws currently on the books are in need of help. College and university policies are being written that are unconstitutional.
> 
> AC will over a long period of time solve the culture of shame problems you mention.
> 
> Now the responsive desire thing has me scratching as well. Especially as I was roundly castigated for suggesting that seduction was a pleasurable and welcomed part of the sexual experience. I think I was told that that seeking to change a no to a yes was atrocious or abominable or something. I do believe that if You can't get to maybe in one step you should probably go fish elsewhere.
> 
> Affirmative consent at home in a long term committed relationship is going to look a bit different that it does in a university town bar. The reactive desire thing is going to be a big player at my age. Sex starts hours in advance, and consent does get withdrawn.
> 
> Thanks for participating


All I know is that the source of this law is the same source of all men are rapists and regret = rape. Both of which are not true. there are just so many problems with it, it is mind boggling.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Law is a lot like sausage, you respect it a lot more before you see how it is made.


----------



## OnTheFly

Mr. Nail said:


> Law is a lot like sausage, you respect it a lot more before you see how it is made.


If the example of AC is a glimpse into the future of how laws are made, I fear for Western Civilization.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I understand drinking some in social situations. What I don't understand is the tendency for people to drink to near unconsciousness at parties. I mean what is the point of a party if you get so drunk you don't remember what happened??

I think both me and women put themselves in real danger by getting so drunk that they cannot react rationally to a situation.







Mr. Nail said:


> Alcohol is a bit foreign to me, (it is outside of my culture). I do understand that there are some people who can't socially interact without alcohol. I'm worried about what this standard means to them. My question is don't bars still have those Breathalyzer machines in them? Don't drinkers know when they are too inebriated to drive? Can't a person with a bit of experience estimate the sobriety of another? And this applies to men as well. Should a man who is inebriated consent to an activity that could result in pregnancy and associated Child support. I like the idea of people being sober to make important decisions, but, Alcohol is not in my culture.
> 
> There are many more good people than bad people. Affirmative consent does not increase the ease of false accusation. Poor application and university standards that shift the burden of proof do that. My advice to son entering college is emotional intimacy comes before physical intimacy. Or as the women keep saying "know her first". The culture of Casual sex is risky.
> MN


----------



## always_alone

Idyit said:


> Huh?? Last part has me confused. You affirm that the process will not protect women then follow that with the bolded. Hope is not a strategy. How will AC policy and internal methods of handling assault and rape make women safer? The campus in question may be safer but the offender simply moves on to another place.
> 
> AC as a learning tool to prevent some occurrences has some potential to make a campus safer. The rest of it looks like kangaroo court that is full of potential for error.
> 
> ~ Passio


The process as you described it would not protect your daughter. And while I have little doubt that many universities will still care more about how these "incidents" reflect on their image than they do about justice or concern for victims, the awareness campaign combined with pressure to actually do *something* to make campuses safer will in fact make campuses safer.

I see we agree on this last point?

As for actually getting rapists in jail so that women elsewhere are also protected? That is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Victims need to be encouraged to come forward and report, and then endure the humiliation of trial. This is no mean feat, especially given that it will most likely be months of humiliation and stress, followed by no justice, and then the threat of retaliation from an angry accused.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> all men are rapists and regret = rape. Both of which are not true.


Since no one has ever said this anywhere, all of your anger, vitriol and arguments are directed at a straw figure, a figment of your imagination.


----------



## OnTheFly

always_alone said:


> Since no one has ever said this anywhere, all of your anger, vitriol and arguments are directed at a straw figure, a figment of your imagination.


"regret=rape''

Emma Sulkiwicz is prime example of this.

Student sues Columbia University after rape claim tossed - NewzBuzz

So, not only is it said, but it's acted upon my numerous women on campuses. AC will intensify this. 

So much for it being my imagination!

I so regret not being able to live with my head in the sand, truly, ignorance is bliss.


----------



## always_alone

OnTheFly said:


> "regret=rape''
> 
> Emma Sulkiwicz is prime example of this.
> 
> Student sues Columbia University after rape claim tossed - NewzBuzz
> 
> So, not only is it said, but it's acted upon my numerous women on campuses. AC will intensify this.
> 
> So much for it being my imagination!
> 
> I so regret not being able to live with my head in the sand, truly, ignorance is bliss.


First off, Emma Sulkowicz never said that regret=rape, nor did anyone else involved in that (or any other case). What she said was that he was physically abusive to her, and that she absolutely did not consent to that.

Furthermore, regret=rape was not at all acted upon in that (or any other) case. The evidence was reviewed, and a decision was made. And, if you may recall, the decision was that her accusations are unfounded and untrue. Clearly NOT a decision that says regret=rape. 

Fact is the accused in that case had several women come forward to accuse him. But, you know, like Bill Cosby, it has to be a veritable army before anyone will ever pay any attention. The reality of rape accusations is not that rape=regret, but that women are liars and aren't actually raped, they just "regret".


----------



## OnTheFly

always_alone said:


> Fact is the accused in that case had several women come forward to accuse him.


Judging by your response, particularly the part I quote above, you aren't very familiar with the story…..or maybe just the 'feminist press' version of the story?

The actual fact is that Ms Sulkywicz entreated her friends to also make false accusations. 

The actual fact is these false rape accusations came months after their encounters, after she virtually begged him for more anal sex and after he got tired of her stalking and was seen with another girl. 

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned=false rape accusation months/years later.

This is the exact definition of regret=rape!

And AC will be the hammer that smashes the heads of men in.


----------



## Pluto2

Emma Sulkowicz's parents write to Columbia University President Lee Bollinger about sexual assault


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> First off, Emma Sulkowicz never said that regret=rape, nor did anyone else involved in that (or any other case). What she said was that he was physically abusive to her, and that she absolutely did not consent to that.
> 
> Furthermore, regret=rape was not at all acted upon in that (or any other) case. The evidence was reviewed, and a decision was made. And, if you may recall, the decision was that her accusations are unfounded and untrue. Clearly NOT a decision that says regret=rape.
> 
> Fact is the accused in that case had several women come forward to accuse him. But, you know, like Bill Cosby, it has to be a veritable army before anyone will ever pay any attention. The reality of rape accusations is not that rape=regret, but that women are liars and aren't actually raped, they just "regret".


just because you don't want it to be so, doesn't make it that way. We really have a war on men on college campuses these days, whether you want to believe it or not is up to you. I don't bury my head in the sand on these issues. The problem is the current culture of this country is aimed to divide and be divisive. Rape should not be divisive, but calling all men rapists and regret=rape read the link a few pages back,( she actually got called out on it in a court case, btw), makes this us versus them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> just because you don't want it to be so, doesn't make it that way. We really have a war on men on college campuses these days, whether you want to believe it or not is up to you. I don't bury my head in the sand on these issues. The problem is the current culture of this country is aimed to divide and be divisive. Rape should not be divisive, but calling all men rapists and regret=rape read the link a few pages back,( she actually got called out on it in a court case, btw), makes this us versus them.


Of course you didn't read Pluto's link, did you? Yet you expect us to read your links and just swallow whatever they say? Of course yours are "right" and everything else is feminism reporting?


----------



## always_alone

OnTheFly said:


> Judging by your response, particularly the part I quote above, you aren't very familiar with the story…..or maybe just the 'feminist press' version of the story?
> 
> The actual fact is that Ms Sulkywicz entreated her friends to also make false accusations.
> 
> The actual fact is these false rape accusations came months after their encounters, after she virtually begged him for more anal sex and after he got tired of her stalking and was seen with another girl.
> 
> Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned=false rape accusation months/years later.
> 
> This is the exact definition of regret=rape!


Yes, exactly what I just said: the default assumption is that all women are liars, and rape doesn't actually happen. She just "regrets" or "was scorned" or "hates men". She can't discover that other women were also victims, she must "entreat" them. An accusation cannot be based in reality, it must be false. She can"t possibly not like being physically abused, she must have been stalking him and begging for it.

*That* set of default assumptions was exactly why she didn't want to come forward right when it happened. And it wasn't until she realized that the problem involved more than just her that she decided to face the exercise in humiliation and frustration that is basically the result of every rape accusation.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> just because you don't want it to be so, doesn't make it that way. We really have a war on men on college campuses these days, whether you want to believe it or not is up to you. I don't bury my head in the sand on these issues. The problem is the current culture of this country is aimed to divide and be divisive. Rape should not be divisive, but calling all men rapists and regret=rape read the link a few pages back,( she actually got called out on it in a court case, btw), makes this us versus them.


Which link are you referring to? There have been many posted on this thread --and I have read most, if not all of them.

There is no war on men on college campuses. This is just pure hyperbole and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the real issues. 

I'm quite confident that it's not my head that's buried in the sand.


----------



## OnTheFly

always_alone said:


> *That* set of default assumptions...


Exactly false. Despite the obvious anti-male bias, the "trial/investigationl" showed through testimony and evidence that Emma lied…..period…..about everything.

Therefore, not 'assumptions', but facts. 

I refer back to my 'head in the sand'.


----------



## OnTheFly

always_alone said:


> ...the default assumption is that all women are liars, and rape doesn't actually happen.


The default assumption is that if you are accused of something you are innocent until proven guilty…..do you want to over turn that?

Of course rape happens, how asinine to accuse me of saying this!

Answer me this…..should rape be a capital crime?


----------



## Mr. Nail

always_alone said:


> Since no one has ever said this anywhere, all of your anger, vitriol and arguments are directed at a straw figure, a figment of your imagination.


This sent me looking for a (I assume) misquote I've heard that is probably based on Susan Brownmiller's book "against our will". The quote goes something like "rape is the crime that all men commit against all women". Now I know for a fact that some people have said exactly this, but it is not what Brownmiller said. She claimed that rape was a part of our culture, supported to keep men in power, essentially a conspiracy theory. I'm not going to claim that she was wrong.

The feeling behind this "quote" still exists. We still worry about our daughters. We still teach them to fear all men. Not everyone, obviously, but it still exists. It will do society no good to continue to teach this. It will contribute to thew harm to teach that "all women are conspiring to wrest power from men by false accusation." 

I was recently shot down for the premise that "most people are good". When you walk around with the idea in your head that "most people are evil", you live in a state of crippling fear. It overshadows every decision and reaction. 

Fully understanding the danger of making comparisons on this thread, I'm going to try to explain this using something that is more familiar to you than rape or false accusation. *I am in no way suggesting that anything I'm about to write about is equal to either rape or false accusation*. 

As a child I was bitten by a small not very venomous spider. It hurt a lot and scared me quite a bit. From that time forward I've been pretty cautious about approaching spiders. I get a chill in my gut when they get too close. I know in my mind that most spiders are harmless and some can be kept as pets. I appreciate what they do to control the population of insects. But because of my preconceived fear, I live in a state of crippling fear that affects every interaction I have with spiders. 

I like Dogs. I grew up with dogs. I honestly believe that most dogs are gregarious and friendly. That belief frees me from the type of precautions I take around spiders. I'm likely to approach a strange dog. Because of my preconceived trust of Dogs I have met and enjoyed many very nice dogs.

As I was searching I came across this which is at least an interesting point of view. Read it if you like. Thinking about rape


----------



## EllisRedding

So on the topic of rape, what can be done to lessen the amount of rapes that occur, if anything?

As a parent you can try your best to teach your children to not only respect themselves, but also to respect others. You can try to teach your children not to put themselves in certain situations (personal responsibility), always be aware of their environment/surroundings. You can talk to your children about sex (and IMO steer them away from the casual sex / hook up culture, as difficult as that may be these days). Laws can be strengthened to penalize rape perpetrators more severely (while finding a way to not infringe on the rights of the innocent). What else???


----------



## Mr. Nail

OnTheFly said:


> The default assumption is that if you are accused of something you are innocent until proven guilty…..do you want to over turn that?


This is not the only crime that overturning this will be considered for. I'm generally against this, because while I believe that most people are good, I do not have the same assumption for bureaucracies. Napoleonic law was too easy for the prosecution. 



OnTheFly said:


> Answer me this…..should rape be a capital crime?


Considering the execution that took place yesterday (Daniel Lopez), and when comparing it to the one that was stayed but scheduled for today (Tracy Beatty) , today at least I'm not sure how I feel about capital crimes.


----------



## Mr. Nail

EllisRedding said:


> So on the topic of rape, what can be done to lessen the amount of rapes that occur, if anything?
> What else???


Just getting a good definition of the crime has taken decades. 

AC is an attempt to try respect instead of fear as a deterrent. I think there is still some work to be done in the society structure area. Not so much a down with patriarchy as a redefining of power structure. Brownmiller was right about one thing, those in power will do anything to protect that power.


----------



## always_alone

OnTheFly said:


> Exactly false. Despite the obvious anti-male bias, the "trial/investigationl" showed through testimony and evidence that Emma lied…..period…..about everything.
> 
> Therefore, not 'assumptions', but facts.
> 
> I refer back to my 'head in the sand'.


Well, it's clear you are well versed on the story as told by the accused. And as we all know, the accused always tells only the gospel truth because, of course, there is no possibility that they might lie to protect themselves, or make false accusations.

I find it pretty ironic that the people who are most vocal about calling this a kangaroo court with dubious proceedings that are obviously a "war" against men are all of sudden completely satisfied that all is above board and justice has been served --when the decision fits their assumptions.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Of course you didn't read Pluto's link, did you? Yet you expect us to read your links and just swallow whatever they say? Of course yours are "right" and everything else is feminism reporting?


Yep, I read it. I also read the link to the court reporting of the link a few pages back. 

I also have seen enough, just with how Duke Lax went down. I know how the system works, and I don't approve.


----------



## OnTheFly

Mr. Nail said:


> This is not the only crime that overturning this will be considered for. I'm generally against this, because while I believe that most people are good, I do not have the same assumption for bureaucracies. Napoleonic law was too easy for the prosecution.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the execution that took place yesterday (Daniel Lopez), and when comparing it to the one that was stayed but scheduled for today (Tracy Beatty) , today at least I'm not sure how I feel about capital crimes.


I appreciate your honesty.


----------



## naiveonedave

From Unbelievable a few pages back:
http://sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-con...llegations.pdf

From Pluto:
http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

Which do you think is more correct? The criminal defense organization or the organization aimed at lowering violence against women? Both have an agenda. the real #, who knows. Suffice it to say that there are more than zero false allegations and to think otherwise is absurd. If you read the link about the 'mattress girl', how you can even defend what happened and is happening to an innocent man is acceptable?


----------



## Idyit

always_alone said:


> I find it pretty ironic that the people who are most vocal about calling this a kangaroo court with dubious proceedings that are obviously a "war" against men are all of sudden completely satisfied that all is above board and justice has been served --when the decision fits their assumptions.


It's a kangaroo court. In every way conceivable prosecuting sexual assault or rape via universities is a farce. Your own link Emma Sulkowicz's parents write to Columbia University President Lee Bollinger about sexual assault has the parents of Emma Sulkowicz taking quite a bit of time to find fault in the process. 

Here's another example from a different angle: Judge orders USC to let accused student return to school | Washington Examiner Same complaints as Emma's parents. Lack of due process, failure to allow/gather/reveiw evidence, lack of impartiality and much more is almost exactly the same from both an accuser and defendants position. 

I have no idea if someone has an agenda against men. Have no idea how an MRA type would describe themselves or what they really stand for. I'm not a feminist nor...I don't know what the opposite really is but I'm not that either. I do believe in fairness to anyone and everyone.

AC is a great idea. It ought to be taught to kids by their parents in the terms they wish to use. It should be reinforced on campus. (I pretty certain this is the case already) To young men I would say at this point in time you better make sure you get an enthusiastic yes and stop at a no. To young ladies I'd say if you aren't going to give a yes then give a clear no. (My actual conversations with my kids are much different but we're talking about a legal issue here)

BUT executing the enforcement of AC policy via current methods in the university is an absolute waste of time where justice is concerned. Kangaroo Court

~ Passio


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> I find it pretty ironic that the people who are most vocal about calling this a kangaroo court with dubious proceedings that are obviously a "war" against men are all of sudden completely satisfied that all is above board and justice has been served --when the decision fits their assumptions.


At the risk of inflating your sense of irony, if the treatment many of these accused are receiving at the hands of the college disciplinary boards doesn't qualify as "kangaroo court", regardless of the outcome, then the term in meaningless.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> From Unbelievable a few pages back:
> http://sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-con...llegations.pdf
> 
> From Pluto:
> http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf
> 
> Which do you think is more correct?


The first study was thoroughly discredited for poor methodology and working with a police department that was *under investigation* for its improper procedures in handling rape accusations. http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegations.pdf

Systematic studies from the UK and US put the number of false allegations at somewhere around 6 to 8 %

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives..../rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> At the risk of inflating your sense of irony, if the treatment many of these accused are receiving at the hands of the college disciplinary boards doesn't qualify as "kangaroo court", regardless of the outcome, then the term in meaningless.


And, apparently, the treatment of the accuser is just as shabby.

The main reason these are not kangaroo courts is that they are not courts at all, in any sense of the word. They are disciplinary hearings at an institution.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Systematic studies from the UK and US put the number of false allegations at somewhere around 6 to 8 %
> 
> http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf
> http://webarchive.nationalarchives..../rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf


Which means something like 10-15 false accusations of rape a day. Or, to put it in other terms, about half the number of gun homicides annually. 

Yeah, I get that it pales in comparison to the rape numbers. But then gun homicides pale in comparison to the number of deaths from heart disease, but we don't consider them inconsequential. This isn't some zero-sum game. The nature of rape is such that it will often be difficult to prove. That's sad, but on some level it's also unavoidable. We don't need to be willing to sacrifice innocent men on the altar of more rape convictions.


----------



## always_alone

Idyit said:


> BUT executing the enforcement of AC policy via current methods in the university is an absolute waste of time where justice is concerned. Kangaroo Court
> 
> ~ Passio


Like it or not, universities have not only a right, but an obligation to uphold their faculty, staff, and students to certain standards of conduct. This includes the range from academic integrity to sexual assault. 

I'm not going to argue that the processes and procedures are above reproach because I've little doubt that many issues are handled poorly and unfairly. But, as I said to Cletus, these are not courts at all in any sense of the word.

Also, given that both sides, accuser and accused, think the process was biases against them, I'm guessing that their existence doesn't actually count as the "war on mem" that was touted earlier.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> And, apparently, the treatment of the accuser is just as shabby.
> 
> The main reason these are not kangaroo courts is that they are not courts at all, in any sense of the word. They are disciplinary hearings at an institution.


Yes, which is why, since they involve the possibility of the commission of a felony crime, the schools should not be in the business of prosecuting them on any level. It is a matter for local law enforcement.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Which means something like 10-15 false accusations of rape a day. Or, to put it in other terms, about half the number of gun homicides annually.
> 
> Yeah, I get that it pales in comparison to the rape numbers. But then gun homicides pale in comparison to the number of deaths from heart disease, but we don't consider them inconsequential. This isn't some zero-sum game. The nature of rape is such that it will often be difficult to prove. That's sad, but on some level it's also unavoidable. We don't need to be willing to sacrifice innocent men on the altar of more rape convictions.


What exactly is your argument here? That because there is such a thing as false accusations, we ought not ever prosecute rape charges? 

Or that because rape charges are still prosecuted, all we are doing is sacrificing innocent men?

Honestly, I don't understand what your point is with that last comment. :scratchhead:

You do realize that there are roughly the same percentages of false accusations for other crimes as well? And that there are, in fact, many innocent men who have been put to death for crimes they did not commit (exonerated after death by DNA evidence)?

Why not be up in arms about these cases? I mean the guy who thinks he was wrongly kicked out of school can sue the institution, but dead men cannot complain.

Or maybe we just stop prosecuting everyone because of these cases? I mean, better everyone goes free than an innocent man is put to death, right?


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Yes, which is why, since they involve the possibility of the commission of a felony crime, the schools should not be in the business of prosecuting them on any level. It is a matter for local law enforcement.


They aren't prosecuting at all. They are making a determination as to whether a student has breached the standards of conduct of the University, and if so, what should be done about it. And that is absolutely their purview.


----------



## Idyit

always_alone said:


> Like it or not, universities have not only a right, but an obligation to uphold their faculty, staff, and students to certain standards of conduct. This includes the range from academic integrity to sexual assault.
> 
> I'm not going to argue that the processes and procedures are above reproach because I've little doubt that many issues are handled poorly and unfairly. But, as I said to Cletus, these are not courts at all in any sense of the word.
> 
> Also, given that both sides, accuser and accused, think the process was biases against them, I'm guessing that their existence doesn't actually count as the "war on mem" that was touted earlier.


A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. Merriam-Webster defines it as a "mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted".[1] The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.

From Wikipedia. (Good enough source for this definition)

A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly *disregards recognized standards of law or justice*, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. Merriam-Webster defines it as a "mock court in which the *principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted*".[1] The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.

A kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun.

I think the term fits. Tribunals in a college setting for the purpose of rendering justice to accused and/or accuser have been shown to be flawed and will not solve the problem AC is confronting.

Why are you still defending this system when it clearly works for no one?

~ Passio


----------



## Idyit

And please take me off the "war on men" list. Nothing I've said even comes close to saying this.

~ Passio


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> What exactly is your argument here? That because there is such a thing as false accusations, we ought not ever prosecute rape charges?


Of course not. The suggestion is absurd and beneath you. 



> Or that because rape charges are still prosecuted, all we are doing is sacrificing innocent men?
> 
> Honestly, I don't understand what your point is with that last comment. :scratchhead:


There is an opinion, perhaps not expressed by you, that since the false rape accusation rate isn't epidemic, it is of comparatively minor concern. Thus any change in the legal framework, including college tribunals, that improves the rate of rape convictions or that leans in favor of the purported victim at the cost of due process to the accused is a positive thing even at the cost of more false convictions. 




> You do realize that there are roughly the same percentages of false accusations for other crimes as well? And that there are, in fact, many innocent men who have been put to death for crimes they did not commit (exonerated after death by DNA evidence)?


10 minutes at the Innocence Project ought to be enough to convince anyone. 



> Why not be up in arms about these cases?


What makes you think I'm not? What at all do you know about my stance on the death penalty? And why am I not allowed to be a little bit upset about all three - false executions, rapes, and false rape accusations? That notion is _precisely_ what I'm talking about - "hell, it ain't like it's murder, what are you crying about?"



> Or maybe we just stop prosecuting everyone because of these cases? I mean, better everyone goes free than an innocent man is put to death, right?


For someone who didn't understand my comments, you don't seem to be operating under any shortage of willingness to put words in my mouth.


----------



## OnTheFly

always_alone said:


> Well, it's clear you are well versed on the story as told by the accused. And as we all know, the accused always tells only the gospel truth because, of course, there is no possibility that they might lie to protect themselves, or make false accusations.
> 
> I find it pretty ironic that the people who are most vocal about calling this a kangaroo court with dubious proceedings that are obviously a "war" against men are all of sudden completely satisfied that all is above board and justice has been served --when the decision fits their assumptions.


Why do you continue to call them 'assumptions'??

Are you saying that the ultra liberal, femo-centric 'kangaroo court' re-victimized Emma? It's absolutely astounding where you find the 'Patriarchy' where it doesn't exist….truly a mythic boogeyman!

The accuser presented her testimony, the accused presented his testimony….and they found him truthful, and her a liar. Perhaps, all the inquisitors were Republicans named Barry (a shout out to the Lena Dunham false rape accusation)?

BTW, these proceedings aren't inconsequential. Your entire academic career and personal reputation are ruined by these lies. The accused is right to sue Columbia and he's going to win (most likely a settlement in the millions), and good for him. The entire story will be in the public record for all to see for all time. 

And believe me, I was as stunned as anyone that the accused didn't get railroaded…..I guess not everyone is completely insane. 

Also, you didn't reply, should rape be a capital crime?


----------



## Lon

EleGirl said:


> Yes the consequences are different depending on if you are a man or a woman.
> 
> A man never has to think about being pregnant. He has zero chance of suffering serious physical issues related to pregnancy and even death.
> 
> If we want to even out the scales here.. let's also make it that whatever the woman goes through in the pregnancy, the man is also subjected to. She develops thyroid disease.. we can give it to the guy too using some chemicals. She becomes diabetic? Even the scales.. he gets it too.
> 
> She gets in infection and become sterile .. give him an infection to make him sterile.
> 
> She dies.... he dies.
> 
> The reason that things are different for men and women in this regard is that, well, men and women are different physically. Carrying a baby to term can seriously harm a woman's health.. sometimes mentally and some times physically. Because of this.. because it's the woman whose body (and life) is put through this, it's the woman who can chose to carry the child or not carry the child (abortion).
> 
> After the birth. Both parents of a legal obligation to support their child. It's not just the man who does. So does she. So that is equal.
> 
> As a society, we want two parents supporting every child... unless of course you are ok with the government giving the woman child support for 18 years. My taxes are already used to support a lot of things I disagree with.
> 
> I do not want to be paying to support children that were created by a man and a woman ... and then the man decides to throw away his offspring. He can man up and support his own flesh and blood. I have my own family it support. He can support his.
> 
> Either men are looking for a way to take no responsibility for their own children.
> 
> Or men are pissed off that women can make the decision to get an abortion or not. So they want to punish women for this. If this is the case, then what's being said is that men want the right to control the bodies of every woman they have sex with.


That is not evening out the scales, someone (I think it was Conan) already pointed out that with the financial obligation that fathers are held accountable to it means that many men will spend decades in hazardous and unpleasant physical labor to support the child they procreated which they never specifically consented to. He also compared the fatality rates from 9 months of pregnancy vs 18 years of physical workforce and many more men face death to take care of their parental responsibilities than do women. Also, I personally do not feel that a woman bearing the child entitles her to any other sort of reward - she should be well treated during pregnancy and during child-rearing if she undertakes that role, but why can fathers not be deserving of good treatment also?

My point is simply that it's wrong to force responsibility onto anyone who does not willingly accept it. And no I do not believe that having sex means accepting responsibility for all of the consequences (it "should", but for both sex partners equally, and once again it is futile to try legislating morality).


----------



## always_alone

Idyit said:


> Why are you still defending this system when it clearly works for no one?
> 
> ~ Passio


Universities have been conducting these disciplinary hearings on everything from academic integrity to vandalism to sexual assault since practically the beginning of time. No one batted an eye until the language of affirmative consent came out .

I'm just here to tell chicken little that the sky isn't falling.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> There is an opinion, perhaps not expressed by you, that since the false rape accusation rate isn't epidemic, it is of comparatively minor concern. Thus any change in the legal framework, including college tribunals, that improves the rate of rape convictions or that leans in favor of the purported victim at the cost of due process to the accused is a positive thing even at the cost of more false convictions.


My take is that false accusations are themselves criminal, and should be penalized accordingly. However, what is often called a false accusation in cases of rape is an "unfounded" accusation. What constitutes "unfounded" however is often quite subjective, and studies have shown that in fact a lot of cases are simply not taken seriously because the victim is acting or complaining "properly".

Also, the fact is the unreported case load is way higher than the false accusation rate.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that no one wants to deny anyone due process. They are simply trying to identify standards of what might count as consent.




Cletus said:


> For someone who didn't understand my comments, you don't seem to be operating under any shortage of willingness to put words in my mouth.


My apologies if you think I was putting words in your mouth. I was merely reflecting a common theme in this discussion, and apparently commonly held view. I wasn't trying to claim it was yours, just wondering if it was because I genuinely did not understand the point you were making.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> All of which is a long-winded way of saying that no one wants to deny anyone due process. They are simply trying to identify standards of what might count as consent.


28 Law professors at Harvard filed a complaint that says:


"Harvard announced its new policy this summer, after the school came under federal investigation for being too soft on sexual assault. The group of 28 law professors says Harvard has overreacted with rules that are "overwhelmingly stacked against the accused" and "starkly one-sided."​

The University of Michigan was sued by Drew Sterret after he was convicted of a rape with this statement:


"In April of this year, Sterrett filed suit against the university. The suit states that the public university violated his 14th Amendment rights of due process and that Michigan contravened its own procedures for disciplinary hearings, which call for written notice of allegations against a student, sufficient time to prepare for an arbitration or other meeting (Sterrett says there was no arbitration or meeting), knowledge of the names of witnesses, the opportunity to pose questions to the complainant or other witnesses, and more. As a result of these violations, his suit says, he was subjected to a process that was “capricious, reckless, incomplete, [and] lacked fundamental fairness.” ​

There is an over-correction happening at _some_ schools whereby the school disciplinary boards actually DO want to deny due process to the accused in the name of being sufficiently hard on rapists to keep federal money coming in. I'm glad that you agree that this should not be the goal.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Universities are in an unusual situation due to the amount of damage they can do to someone's career.






always_alone said:


> They aren't prosecuting at all. They are making a determination as to whether a student has breached the standards of conduct of the University, and if so, what should be done about it. And that is absolutely their purview.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> There is an over-correction happening at _some_ schools whereby the school disciplinary boards actually DO want to deny due process to the accused in the name of being sufficiently hard on rapists to keep federal money coming in. I'm glad that you agree that this should not be the goal.


Perhaps. But please let's not forget that the details of these policies are individual to the institution, and are a response to a set of policies that were skewed in the opposite direction, against the victim. Even the 28 Harvard Law professors agreed the new policy was a step in the right direction. There were only a few points they quibbled on, plus the finger waggle at lack of consultation.


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Universities are in an unusual situation due to the amount of damage they can do to someone's career.


You might think so, but no. People who are kicked out of one school just switch to another one. People who are accused of rape and exonerated just write books and make a mint off the proceeds (Duke) or sue the school itself (Columbia, Michigan). Universities do not have much power.


----------



## OnTheFly

Gavin McInnes serves up a scathing and timely social commentary on this very subject.

The Hunt for a Good Bad Guy - Taki's Magazine


----------



## OnTheFly

always_alone said:


> You might think so, but no. People who are kicked out of one school just switch to another one. People who are accused of rape and exonerated just write books and make a mint off the proceeds (Duke) or sue the school itself (Columbia, Michigan). Universities do not have much power.


With benefits like this, it'd be a crime NOT to be accused falsely of rape!!

Honestly, the hamster wheel is redlining.

BTW, should rape be a capital crime?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
switching schools is not so easy. People may be deeply in debt and may have dedicated most of their lives up to that point to get into and through the school they are in. 

Now if someone is a rapist, expulsion is clearly not enough of a punishment, but it is a terrible thing to do to someone who is innocent. 





always_alone said:


> You might think so, but no. People who are kicked out of one school just switch to another one. People who are accused of rape and exonerated just write books and make a mint off the proceeds (Duke) or sue the school itself (Columbia, Michigan). Universities do not have much power.


----------



## Pluto2

Lon said:


> That is not evening out the scales, someone (I think it was Conan) already pointed out that with the financial obligation that fathers are held accountable to it means that many men will spend decades in hazardous and unpleasant physical labor to support the child they procreated which they never specifically consented to. He also compared the fatality rates from 9 months of pregnancy vs 18 years of physical workforce and many more men face death to take care of their parental responsibilities than do women. Also, I personally do not feel that a woman bearing the child entitles her to any other sort of reward - she should be well treated during pregnancy and during child-rearing if she undertakes that role, but why can fathers not be deserving of good treatment also?
> 
> My point is simply that it's wrong to force responsibility onto anyone who does not willingly accept it. And no I do not believe that having sex means accepting responsibility for all of the consequences (it "should", but for both sex partners equally, and once again it is futile to try legislating morality).


If the man willingly consented to sex, he willingly consented to the inevitable and foreseeable consequences of that act-one of which is procreation.


----------



## always_alone

W


OnTheFly said:


> With benefits like this, it'd be a crime NOT to be accused falsely of rape!!
> 
> Honestly, the hamster wheel is redlining.
> 
> BTW, should rape be a capital crime?


Way to take the conversation into the realm of the ridiculous --not to mention the dismissive ad hominem. 

Obviously it isn't desirable to be falsely accused, and obviously it is an unmitigated bad thing when innocent people are wrongly punished for things they didn't do.

But the way these conversations always go is that they *always* focus on false accusations. The implication is that *only* false accusations ever happen. But when you (I) try to call this out, all I get back is better a million guilty people go free than a single person suffers even the slightest inconvenience for something they didn't do.

I am all for due process, and I am all for actual justice. But I don't buy this insistence that when it comes to issues of rape and sexual assault, the *only* issue of relevance is that sometimes the accusations are false. 

What, I ask you, about all of the ones that are true? Should universities be allowed to kick people out of school for committing these crimes? I think that they should! And that is really *all* that this entire debate is about.

Also, I am not sure why you are so insistent on me answering the capital crime question, but here goes: I do not think the death penalty is cost-effective, moral, or an appropriate tool for the criminal justice system. Period. It does not do what it is supposed to do (deter), it costs more than keeping them in jail for life (because of all the appeals, time incarceration, etc), is hypocritical (you can't kill, but we can!), and a dozen other reasons I won't bore you with here.


----------



## Mr. Nail

always_alone said:


> What, I ask you, about all of the ones that are true? Should universities be allowed to kick people out of school for committing these crimes? I think that they should! And that is really *all* that this entire debate is about.


There is a good and responsible answer to this question. Yes universities should have the power to kick a person who has committed these crimes out of school, after they have been convicted in a court of law. What this debate is *really* about, is using a university tribunal to prosecute a crime. That is the *new* thing.


----------



## Lon

Pluto2 said:


> If the man willingly consented to sex, he willingly consented to the inevitable and foreseeable consequences of that act-one of which is procreation.


Yes, but for a woman, consenting to the act of sex does not equal consenting to those same consequences the man faces. She can forgo her parental responsibilities if she so chooses with no long term implications.


----------



## Idyit

always_alone said:


> Universities have been conducting these disciplinary hearings on everything from academic integrity to vandalism to sexual assault since practically the beginning of time. No one batted an eye until the language of affirmative consent came out .
> 
> I'm just here to tell chicken little that the sky isn't falling.


I made it through college and two degrees without being aware of this process. Recently it's become a rather large issue due in no small part to Ms Sulcowicz. She seemed to think the sky was a little bit lower. Your use of her case as an example of injustice makes you party pointing out flaws in this "since the beginning of time" process. 

You want a change in culture to provide greater protection to women. I agree. Where we seem to disagree is in results. Prosecuting these crimes via campus tribunal is like hunting spiders with a shotgun. You may get the spider but create a completely new set of problems.

In a recent post I coupled your link to one of my own. They are almost identical in complaint about the process and it's inadequacies. This is what I have focused on in all of my posts. So, who is chicken little? Is it you and Ms Sucowicz or those who's view differs from yours? 

~ Passio


----------



## OnTheFly

always_alone said:


> Way to take the conversation into the realm of the ridiculous --not to mention the dismissive ad hominem.


I had to take it to the ridiculous realm, I was just following you! 

Also, I shouldn't have said your hamster wheel was spinning out of control, perhaps that was uncalled for, it was borne out of frustration. I should have said merely that your opinion was utter BS.



always_alone said:


> Obviously it isn't desirable to be falsely accused, and obviously it is an unmitigated bad thing when innocent people are wrongly punished for things they didn't do.


Was that so hard to admit.



always_alone said:


> But the way these conversations always go is that they *always* focus on false accusations. The implication is that *only* false accusations ever happen. But when you (I) try to call this out, all I get back is better a million guilty people go free than a single person suffers even the slightest inconvenience for something they didn't do.


You are prone to exaggerate, aren't you?

How can you say, that the implication is that ONLY false rape accusation EVER happen? Are you seriously asking this question? Have you actually read what I and others who object to AC wrote? 

I, honestly, truly, don't know how to respond to this without mockery, or sarcasm, so I won't. 

Here's a question. If it's your opinion that I think it's better for a million rapists to go free if one person is wrongly accused….you are by implication saying that if my sister or wife was raped, I'd side with the accused no matter what? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?



always_alone said:


> I am all for due process, and I am all for actual justice. But I don't buy this insistence that when it comes to issues of rape and sexual assault, the *only* issue of relevance is that sometimes the accusations are false.


No one ever said it was the 'only' issue of relevance. But it happens too often to be ignored, and when changes are made to make it easier, then yes, there will be backlash. 



always_alone said:


> What, I ask you, about all of the ones that are true? Should universities be allowed to kick people out of school for committing these crimes? I think that they should! And that is really *all* that this entire debate is about.


In cases of actual rape, the victim should go to the police who will build a case, the DA will prosecute the case, the jury will hear the case, the judge will sentence the case, if found guilty, and the accused, man or woman, will rot in jail. Who gives a sh*t what the universities do? If they wanted to expel at this point, go nuts, it's a moot point. 

If this was what this debate was honestly about, why would we waste time arguing? 



always_alone said:


> Also, I am not sure why you are so insistent on me answering the capital crime question, but here goes: I do not think the death penalty is cost-effective, moral, or an appropriate tool for the criminal justice system. Period. It does not do what it is supposed to do (deter), it costs more than keeping them in jail for life (because of all the appeals, time incarceration, etc), is hypocritical (you can't kill, but we can!), and a dozen other reasons I won't bore you with here.


Thank you, I appreciate the time you took to answer. The reason I ask, is to gauge where your heart lies. The crimes of rape and murder leave a titanic wake of destruction behind them. Many innocent victims are left to rebuild their lives after the crimes are committed. I'm of the opinion a death sentence serves several valuable purposes. 1) The victims are relieved from continually having to deal with appeals, parole hearings, etc. 2) The executed criminal will NEVER commit that or any crime again. 3) It gives a sense of justice to the people.
To me, the money issue is moot. Your US gov't spends/wastes trillions of dollars on useless stuff. A few extra million to better society is worth it. 
So, if I boil your stance down, would it be fair to say, you care more about liberal, progressive ideology than the victims of rape and murder?


----------



## tech-novelist

Runs like Dog said:


> Since inebriation in a woman is considered impaired to the point of not being able to consent at all, then affirmative consent is on pretty shaky ground. Not only does a man have to present a step by step punchlist, he has to make a medical determination that the woman he's with is sufficiently sober. Now unless the man was able to monitor the woman's intake every moment, including from before they hooked up, he'd still be responsible for her lack of ability to consent. In effect we've rendered women 100% incapable or responsible for running the least aspect of their own lives and made it superfluous to have a woman ever make a decision about anything.
> 
> congratulations.


Absolutely correct.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> So are you saying that women just want to file false rape charges against men....because.....why exactly?
> 
> Also are you saying that women don't want to have sex with men?
> 
> Or are you saying that women DO want to have sex, but then they still hate men anyway, so after the consensual sex, they will make false charges....because....why exactly?


A woman might do this for a number of reasons, among them the following:
1. Because that is better than having to admit that she had consensual sex with a man that she finds unattractive when she is sober.
2. Because she still does find the man attractive, but he doesn't want to continue to have sex with her, and she wants to punish him.
3. Because her parents don't want her having sex, and if she was raped it wasn't her fault.



Faithful Wife said:


> I'm confused about what you guys think women get out of either sex, OR making false rape charges.
> 
> Because since the MRA crowd just loooooove to talk about how women rape men alllllllllllll the time, wouldn't it seem that MEN could also immediately file false or real rape charges, and that it would be easier for them to do so with these AC rules on campuses?


No, because these rules will never be enforced against women.



Faithful Wife said:


> I'm seriously asking you these questions because I can't for the life of me figure out why you guys are so inconsistent and illogical.
> 
> Either women hate sex, or women are rapists. Or maybe you think they only like sex if it is them raping someone?
> 
> :scratchhead:


Women do like sex, but only with men they find attractive. If they change their minds for whatever reason (such as those explained above), falsely crying rape allows them to retroactively withdraw consent.



Faithful Wife said:


> I have so far never heard anyone from the red pill or MRA crowd say anything that makes me think they understand any woman's sexuality, at all, ever once. Yet you are the guys who then go round selling each other "tips" on how to get women to have sex with you.
> 
> It is so confounding and illogical.
> 
> But I know I know...I "don't get it" since I'm a woman.


Now there we can agree!


----------



## Pluto2

Lon said:


> Yes, but for a woman, consenting to the act of sex does not equal consenting to those same consequences the man faces. She can forgo her parental responsibilities if she so chooses with no long term implications.


Sure it does.
I woman consents to the possibility of pregnancy, and the consequences that entails. She consents to the possibility that whatever form of BC they used, fails. She consents to the consequences of a choice to carry the pregnancy to term or to terminate. 

You will never get a law in this country that permits a man to 1) elect not to support a child born of his sexual act, or 2) entitles someone other than the mother to make a decision about termination. Its just not going to happen.

And this has already been addressed in this thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thanks for giving us the standard red pill/MRA reply, tech. That will help give others a glimpse into how the groupthink goes in that world, and how ridiculous it is.


----------



## tech-novelist

Pluto2 said:


> Sure it does.
> I woman consents to the possibility of pregnancy, and the consequences that entails. She consents to the possibility that whatever form of BC they used, fails. She consents to the consequences of a choice to carry the pregnancy to term or to terminate.
> 
> You will never get a law in this country that permits a man to 1) elect not to support a child born of his sexual act, or 2) entitles someone other than the mother to make a decision about termination. Its just not going to happen.
> 
> And this has already been addressed in this thread.


So the woman has the complete and total right to decide on the course of the pregnancy, and the man has no rights at all in that matter.

Thanks for clarifying that!


----------



## Mr. Nail

Pluto2 said:


> You will never get a law in this country that permits a man to 1) elect not to support a child born of his sexual act, or 2) entitles someone other than the mother to make a decision about termination. Its just not going to happen.


I'm surprised that there hasn't been a one large payment option, or a paternity insurance requirement. Both seem like reasonable and acceptable and even familiar ideas. I have a theory about why these don't exist, but you wouldn't like it.
MN


----------



## Cosmos

technovelist said:


> Sure, but I'm not talking about giving consent to sex, but to paying child support. Obviously that is not biologically determined.


Child support is for the benefit of the child and is the responsibility of both parents. Any couple who decide to have sex _without taking reasonable and adequate precautions _need to be aware that if things 'go wrong' it is _their duty_ to support the child. They shouldn't be looking for a free get out clause ahead of time...


----------



## OnTheFly

Faithful Wife said:


> Thanks for giving us the standard red pill/MRA reply, tech. That will help give others a glimpse into how the groupthink goes in that world, and how ridiculous it is.


So, you asked a bunch of questions, and Tech answered them all, and you dismiss them all as 'groupthink', haha

It's hard to swallow red pill truth, isn't it? Better to hope it doesn't exist!


----------



## tech-novelist

Cosmos said:


> Child support is for the benefit of the child and is the responsibility of both parents. Any couple who decide to have sex _without taking reasonable and adequate precautions _need to be aware that if things 'go wrong' it is _their duty_ to support the child. They shouldn't be looking for a free get out clause...


If child support were for the benefit of the child, then the following would be true:

1. The amount would be related to the actual cost of raising the child, rather than a percentage of the payer's (imputed) income;
2. The payer would be able to hold the payee responsible for how the money was spent on the child.

You can judge for yourself whether these things are true.


----------



## Lon

Cosmos said:


> Child support is for the benefit of the child and is the responsibility of both parents. Any couple who decide to have sex _without taking reasonable and adequate precautions _need to be aware that if things 'go wrong' it is _their duty_ to support the child. They shouldn't be looking for a free get out clause...


But for the female partner in an unwanted pregnancy there are multiple get out clauses. If she doesn't want to be pregnant and has no moral aversion to abortion that is her first option. Her next option is to give the child up for adoption. That she has these avenues is in my opinion a good thing (though I myself disapprove of abortion in most cases), because I don't believe it does anyone any good to require by law someone whom is unwilling or incapable of raising a child to have to do so. I just don't get why we have to punish the male partner in that same unwanted pregnancy by legally forcing them to raise the child or else pay child support in lieu of that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

OnTheFly said:


> So, you asked a bunch of questions, and Tech answered them all, and you dismiss them all as 'groupthink', haha
> 
> It's hard to swallow red pill truth, isn't it? Better to hope it doesn't exist!


Since red pill is simply what a bunch of dudes believe, and therefore is no more or less "true" than feminism is "true", I'll consider your response just as ridiculous as tech's response. Thanks for shining the spotlight on the groupthink even further...makes it easier for others to spot it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> If child support were for the benefit of the child, then the following would be true:
> 
> 1. The amount would be related to the actual cost of raising the child, rather than a percentage of the payer's (imputed) income;
> 2. The payer would be able to hold the payee responsible for how the money was spent on the child.
> 
> You can judge for yourself whether these things are true.


Or....you could learn how child support is actually calculated and understand it, instead of continuing to spread falsehoods that support your red pill/MRA agenda.

You have been corrected on this point multiple times in this thread and others, and yet you still cling to the lies you've been told.


----------



## Lon

Faithful Wife said:


> Or....you could learn how child support is actually calculated and understand it, instead of continuing to spread falsehoods that support your red pill/MRA agenda.
> 
> You have been corrected on this point multiple times in this thread and others, and yet you still cling to the lies you've been told.


I don't know anything about this "red pill" thing you and others keep talking about, but I do know about how child support is calculated where I live (and across every province in my country), and it's a simple lookup table... gross earnings -> child support amount x number of children = monthly support payment. If the payer faces financial hardship then the judge has a few other discretionary measures to consider (e.g. the payee's spouse's income, assets or holdings etc).


----------



## OnTheFly

Faithful Wife said:


> Since red pill is simply what a bunch of dudes believe, and therefore is no more or less "true" than feminism is "true", I'll consider your response just as ridiculous as tech's response. Thanks for shining the spotlight on the groupthink even further...makes it easier for others to spot it.


I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!! (…or, at least, that's what if feels like!)

Ok, FW, let me ask you….has anyone, male or female, ever falsely accused anyone, male or female of rape….ever?

You asked Tech, why would anyone do that? He gave you three answers. Pls show how any or all of his answers were wrong….please!


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> Or....you could learn how child support is actually calculated and understand it, instead of continuing to spread falsehoods that support your red pill/MRA agenda.
> 
> You have been corrected on this point multiple times in this thread and others, and yet you still cling to the lies you've been told.


FF, two words spring to mind... Flatulence and thunder... Is it even worth it? :wink2:


----------



## Faithful Wife

OnTheFly said:


> I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!! (…or, at least, that's what if feels like!)
> 
> Ok, FW, let me ask you….has anyone, male or female, ever falsely accused anyone, male or female of rape….ever?
> 
> You asked Tech, why would anyone do that? He gave you three answers. Pls show how any or all of his answers were wrong….please!


Here is my last statement on this thread....

It is confusing to me that you sometimes haunt my profile here OnTheFly. Since you disagree with nearly everything I have to say, are you stalking me just to find my posts, just so you can disagree with me even more?

I don't seek you out just to disagree with you, nor have I ever checked out your profile or tried to find your posts.

Again, it is just confusing that since you so strongly disagree with me, no matter what I say, you find the need to go out of your way to find what I write? :scratchhead:

That was it...my last statement on this thread...you and your red pill boys have fun saying the same stuff over and over, ok?

And meanwhile, you may want to stop stalking my profile, as I can already tell you in advance, you won't agree with anything I have to say. Ciao!


----------



## OnTheFly

Faithful Wife said:


> Here is my last statement on this thread....
> 
> It is confusing to me that you sometimes haunt my profile here OnTheFly. Since you disagree with nearly everything I have to say, are you stalking me just to find my posts, just so you can disagree with me even more?
> 
> I don't seek you out just to disagree with you, nor have I ever checked out your profile or tried to find your posts.
> 
> Again, it is just confusing that since you so strongly disagree with me, no matter what I say, you find the need to go out of your way to find what I write? :scratchhead:
> 
> That was it...my last statement on this thread...you and your red pill boys have fun saying the same stuff over and over, ok?
> 
> And meanwhile, you may want to stop stalking my profile, as I can already tell you in advance, you won't agree with anything I have to say. Ciao!


By this standard, I'm being currently stalked by….Amplexor, Andinds, Brigit, EleGirl, FlowerChild, GusPolinski, Haiku, Matthaeus Morris, TiggyBlue, and finally, Timmy78. I'd appreciate it if those people would leave me alone too!

I'm sorry you feel this way, even though most of my interaction on this thread has been with AlwaysAlone, but if it makes you feel special…feel free to ascribe victim status to yourself. 

BTW, this is a good way to side step any uncomfortable, inconvenient questions……well played!


----------



## tech-novelist

OnTheFly said:


> By this standard, I'm being currently stalked by….Amplexor, Andinds, Brigit, EleGirl, FlowerChild, GusPolinski, Haiku, Matthaeus Morris, TiggyBlue, and finally, Timmy78. I'd appreciate it if those people would leave me alone too!
> 
> I'm sorry you feel this way, even though most of my interaction on this thread has been with AlwaysAlone, but if it makes you feel special…feel free to ascribe victim status to yourself.
> 
> BTW, this is a good way to side step any uncomfortable, inconvenient questions……well played!


She has "put me on ignore" more times than I can recall easily, but somehow she always shows up on any thread where I post...


----------



## Constable Odo

My SO's breasts rubbing on my face constituted affirmative consent, IMLO.


----------



## Pluto2

Lon said:


> Yes, but for a woman, consenting to the act of sex does not equal consenting to those same consequences the man faces. She can forgo her parental responsibilities if she so chooses with no long term implications.


You raise he same points over and over, and they've been addressed before on this thread.
See, Ele's posts #117 and #228.

Different people in different situations have differently definitions of fair. What you apparently think is fair as between a man and woman isn't going to be fair to the child.


----------



## always_alone

OnTheFly said:


> How can you say, that the implication is that ONLY false rape accusation EVER happen? Are you seriously asking this question? Have you actually read what I and others who object to AC wrote?
> 
> I, honestly, truly, don't know how to respond to this without mockery, or sarcasm, so I won't.
> 
> Here's a question. If it's your opinion that I think it's better for a million rapists to go free if one person is wrongly accused….you are by implication saying that if my sister or wife was raped, I'd side with the accused no matter what? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
> 
> No one ever said it was the 'only' issue of relevance. But it happens too often to be ignored, and when changes are made to make it easier, then yes, there will be backlash.


What you and some of the other posters here don't seem to realize is that rape and sexual assault are and always have been about consent, explicit consent. AC does not change that, nor does it change the fact that women have *always* been able to file charges after the fact, even months after the fact. Look at Bill Cosby for example. How much later are some of these things coming forward? YEARS.

And this is without AC because it actually *is* in the criminal justice system.

Point being that all of the arguments against AC so far have been largely red herrings about false accusations, and how women only regret and want revenge for being jilted. Somehow, the real issue, the one that sparked AC policy in the first place, is considered irrelevant.
:scratchhead:



OnTheFly said:


> In cases of actual rape, the victim should go to the police who will build a case, the DA will prosecute the case, the jury will hear the case, the judge will sentence the case, if found guilty, and the accused, man or woman, will rot in jail. Who gives a sh*t what the universities do? If they wanted to expel at this point, go nuts, it's a moot point.
> 
> If this was what this debate was honestly about, why would we waste time arguing?


You tell me because that is exactly what we are arguing about. All of this is educational policy about how universities ought to be handling their student conduct issues. 

And the fact is that universities have always had the ability to expel students based on their own procedures and own standards of conduct. This is nothing new, and students are expelled all of the time, each institution would likely have several examples every year, and yet, as you say, no one gives a sh1t. But for some reason, when they expel for sexual assault, all of a sudden, the process isn't fair, the world is coming to an end, these poor students are being unfairly railroaded because we all know (somehow!!??!!) that the accusations are all absolutely false and that women are liars, and that anything that helps protect them will inevitably lead them to make more false accusations.



OnTheFly said:


> I'm of the opinion a death sentence serves several valuable purposes. 1) The victims are relieved from continually having to deal with appeals, parole hearings, etc. 2) The executed criminal will NEVER commit that or any crime again. 3) It gives a sense of justice to the people.
> To me, the money issue is moot. Your US gov't spends/wastes trillions of dollars on useless stuff. A few extra million to better society is worth it.
> So, if I boil your stance down, would it be fair to say, you care more about liberal, progressive ideology than the victims of rape and murder?


Okay, so tell me, where is your concern for all of the innocent railroaded victims now? You are fine with putting them to death, but not with expelling them from university? :scratchhead:

Becaus recently they've found some huge problems with many common forensic techniques, and there have been a number of people exonerated for capital crimes it turns out they didn't commit. Many had spent years in jail. Some were already dead. Where is the justice for them? Where are the laments about letting guilty people go free so that the innocent don't suffer?

Fact is, there are also huge problems with the criminal justice system, and its procedures, and it too often fails to achieve justice. Doesn't mean that I am going to argue that it should be abolished, or that it has no business being in business. Fact is, justice is always tricky to achieve and all of our systems are less than perfect. But we still need to strive for it as best we can, IMHO.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> If child support were for the benefit of the child, then the following would be true:
> 
> 1. The amount would be related to the actual cost of raising the child, rather than a percentage of the payer's (imputed) income;
> 2. The payer would be able to hold the payee responsible for how the money was spent on the child.
> 
> You can judge for yourself whether these things are true.


1. See, the thing is that there is no set "cost of raising a child". Children from rich families wear nicer clothes, have better toys, get to participate in all kinds of activities and sports, go to the best schools and so on. Would you as a rich daddy want your kid not having these opportunities? 

2. A couple of guys I know found a guaranteed way to ensure he knew exactly how every child support dollar was spent: full custody.


----------



## Lon

Pluto2 said:


> You raise he same points over and over, and they've been addressed before on this thread.
> See, Ele's posts #117 and #228.
> 
> Different people in different situations have differently definitions of fair. What you apparently think is fair as between a man and woman isn't going to be fair to the child.


It's just because I plainly can see parity but the laws and social practices don't seem to reflect that, nor do people seem to have much desire to right this wrong, instead they go on about equality and fairness with a completely backwards approach to it. Forcing deadbeat fathers to maintain a relationship to their offspring which they would prefer nothing to do with by threat of jail and/or wage garnishment doesn't seem fair to the child to me.


----------



## techmom

Lon said:


> It's just because I plainly can see parity but the laws and social practices don't seem to reflect that, nor do people seem to have much desire to right this wrong, instead they go on about equality and fairness with a completely backwards approach to it. Forcing deadbeat fathers to maintain a relationship to their offspring which they would prefer nothing to do with by threat of jail and/or wage garnishment doesn't seem fair to the child to me.


Should a man be able to force a woman who he accidentally got pregnant to get an abortion? If so, then how would he be able to do this?


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> 1. See, the thing is that there is no set "cost of raising a child". Children from rich families wear nicer clothes, have better toys, get to participate in all kinds of activities and sports, go to the best schools and so on. Would you as a rich daddy want your kid not having these opportunities?
> 
> 2. A couple of guys I know found a guaranteed way to ensure he knew exactly how every child support dollar was spent: full custody.


1. It's not a matter of what you want, but what the courts force you to do. Especially if your ex-wife is spending most of the money on something else, and you have no way to hold her to account.
2. I'm in favor of default father custody, so we don't have a disagreement here. Unfortunately the family court system is overwhelmingly in favor of mother custody, so this isn't a practical solution for the vast majority of men.


----------



## techmom

To the people who are opposed to affirmative consent, what does affirmative consent from a woman look like to you? Lust, panting, flushed in the face, and her pawing at you or ripping off your clothes? Some men never experienced what that is like, this causes them to think that most women are LD and would never lust for sex. Which makes this law of affirmative consent very threatening, because they feel that it would be the end of obtaining sex in the only way they know how.


----------



## Pluto2

Lon said:


> It's just because I plainly can see parity but the laws and social practices don't seem to reflect that, nor do people seem to have much desire to right this wrong, instead they go on about equality and fairness with a completely backwards approach to it. Forcing deadbeat fathers to maintain a relationship to their offspring which they would prefer nothing to do with by threat of jail and/or wage garnishment doesn't seem fair to the child to me.


I understand you view this as an inequity.

Very, very few in this society would agree with you. 
I deal with a dead-beat dad, after a 28 yr marriage. He doesn't maintain a relationship with the kids, but I did get a garnishment order, based on a voluntary agreement he signed. Lot of good that did, he's still behind. And no, its not because he's poor, he just "doesn't want to" take care of anyone but himself, so he's learned how to work under the table. 

Now explain how it is fair to me or our children that he doesn't support them. There's no argument that I "trapped" him into parenthood, since we discussed children and actively tried to conceive both of our kids. He just doesn't want to anymore. Can you suggest an option that would right this wrong?


----------



## Lon

It is not that it's an inequity, it treats women facing unwanted pregnancy as victims of men. Which simply isn't true if the sexual activity was consensual (and if were to lead to an unwanted pregnancy, the consensus was certainly never to raise a child together).

In your case your kids were not unwanted pregnancies, the fact that you and your H actively planned them was his affirmative consent to undertake that parental responsibility, and therefore he is bound to that commitment. I don't see how if a law were in place that formalized this it wouldn't provide clarity to all involved.


----------



## Mr. Nail

techmom said:


> To the people who are opposed to affirmative consent, what does affirmative consent from a woman look like to you? Lust, panting, flushed in the face, and her pawing at you or ripping off your clothes? Some men never experienced what that is like, this causes them to think that most women are LD and would never lust for sex. Which makes this law of affirmative consent very threatening, because they feel that it would be the end of obtaining sex in the only way they know how.


Many men also never experience a woman saying " hey wanna get it on tonight?" The positive part of Affirmative Consent Is that women would actually have to at least say some thing like " I would like to have sex with you" in order to get any sex. And I know one woman who should really be scared about that. Also there will be none of the I can't do it unless I have 3 glasses of Wine, Because I cant do it with you if you have three glasses of wine in you.

Tech mom thanks for bringing this Up I've just been itching to write that reply.


----------



## Pluto2

Lon said:


> It is not that it's an inequity, it treats women facing unwanted pregnancy as victims of men. Which simply isn't true if the sexual activity was consensual (and if were to lead to an unwanted pregnancy, the consensus was certainly never to raise a child together).
> 
> In your case your kids were not unwanted pregnancies, the fact that you and your H actively planned them was his affirmative consent to undertake that parental responsibility, and therefore he is bound to that commitment. I don't see how if a law were in place that formalized this it wouldn't provide clarity to all involved.


The kind of law you propose would fix nothing. Now you and others are bemoaning men who don't want to be parents and the concept of affirmative consent. In this long and sometimes twisted discussion the suggestion has been made more than once, that AC would give women the right to have morning after regret of a tryst and "falsely accuse" a man of rape.

Under the system you desire, do you not thing the men would suddenly develop morning after regret to paternity and leave the woman and the kids high and dry, and without sufficient means to support themselves. How is your suggestion any different?

Which brings me back to my earlier point: consent to sex is consent to potential parentage.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Pluto2 said:


> I understand you view this as an inequity.
> 
> Very, very few in this society would agree with you.
> I deal with a dead-beat dad, after a 28 yr marriage. He doesn't maintain a relationship with the kids, but I did get a garnishment order, based on a voluntary agreement he signed. Lot of good that did, he's still behind. And no, its not because he's poor, he just "doesn't want to" take care of anyone but himself, so he's learned how to work under the table.
> 
> Now explain how it is fair to me or our children that he doesn't support them. There's no argument that I "trapped" him into parenthood, since we discussed children and actively tried to conceive both of our kids. He just doesn't want to anymore. Can you suggest an option that would right this wrong?


Pluto it's a bit off topic but, I'd like to reply because it fits one of my ideas.

I would right your wrong using the one big payment plan. He pays one lump sum that includes, overdue payments legal penalties, and all future payments. To be fair a small amount say 5% could be deducted from future penalties to cover potential interest But I wouldn't necessarily include that in the plan. He can acquire that money any way he wants, a secured loan, selling his house, truck, boat, or borrowing against them. What ever he wrangles is up to him and none of the recipient's concern. 

Why I think this is fair. He owes a debt and is in default. Other debts are handled this way, so it is fair to him. She needs the money. Having all the money at once is no different than having it monthly. In fact if she has the need she could set it up that way using an investment account. She could just put the whole amount on debt payoff or mortgage which would save her interest in the long run and keep a roof over the kids. So fair to her. Since the payment is to the custodial parent to care for the kids she then is responsible for the kids care. That makes it fair for the kids. If the state felt it really had to intrude, they could demand reports and trust funds.

Pluto, Would you accept that as a fair solution?


----------



## Lon

While affirmative consent for sex or parenting likely wouldn't change much of what people do, if enforced they would serve to educate people on their rights, prevent abuse by manipulators and give solid directives for the courts to follow.


----------



## Pluto2

I could not disagree with you more, but I don't think we will solve either problem today.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Pluto2 said:


> I could not disagree with you more, but I don't think we will solve either problem today.


me?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> To the people who are opposed to affirmative consent, what does affirmative consent from a woman look like to you? Lust, panting, flushed in the face, and her pawing at you or ripping off your clothes? Some men never experienced what that is like, this causes them to think that most women are LD and would never lust for sex. Which makes this law of affirmative consent very threatening, because they feel that it would be the end of obtaining sex in the only way they know how.


Right. Why is that okay?


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Right. Why is that okay?


So, are you saying that there is no way in hell you are able to experience a woman's lust, her wanting you?

Your negative outlook is destroying your attractiveness, and women can sense that from a mile away and it reeks.


----------



## OnTheFly

techmom said:


> Your negative outlook is destroying your attractiveness, and women can sense that from a mile away and it reeks.





techmom said:


> Holding hostile opinions of women does not help either, we can smell that a mile away and it reeks.


I want to be successful with women, is there a master list somewhere of things that smell from a mile away? Serious question!


----------



## techmom

OnTheFly said:


> I want to be successful with women, is there a master list somewhere of things that smell from a mile away? Serious question!


For starters:

Misogyny
Entitlement
Hostility
Lack of self confidence
Deprivation mentality


----------



## OnTheFly

techmom said:


> For starters:
> 
> Misogyny
> Entitlement
> Hostility
> Lack of self confidence
> Deprivation mentality


Thank you!

Second serious question….are the smells unique? I mean, can the woman distinguish them at a distance and correctly identify them? Is this an innate skill or is it learned?

(note to self: buy more powerful aftershave)

Anyway, it's been a slice, lets do it again tomorrow, k?


----------



## Pluto2

Pluto2 said:


> I could not disagree with you more, but I don't think we will solve either problem today.


Sorry about that @Mr.Nail, this was directed at Lon.

As to your proposal, I don't see how it would change the situation. I already have one judgement that is virtually unenforceable. Your proposal would potentially give me a larger judgement, but nothing else. It would remain equally unenforceable. 

And if the beef many men are raising about the unfairness of child support is how they are "burdened" with the financial burden of raising a child, how would this make it better?


----------



## Mr. Nail

Pluto your situation is not the same situation the men are complaining about so I will have to follow your lead and address them separately. 

You have hit the nail on the head with your reply. The continual year after year , month after month enforcement is a big part of the problem. (for men as well). No where did I say go get a new judgement. The judgement is already in effect. He is in default. If this were any other debt he would have no choice but to pay up or face foreclosure, garnishment, seizure. So I said he agrees to pay the debt now. When you have the money there is no more question of enforcement. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that an end to enforcement headaches is high on your priority list.

This plan would not unburden men, or any non custodial parent, or really any parent of the obligation for the financial support of their child. Nothing less would be fair to the child, and in our current society that is the priority. So yes the man is still at a disadvantage His only opt out option is to pay the roughly 100,000.00 (500/month for 18 years. (I know the number varies by state.) This is the casual sex partner who had no intention of a long term relationship. This DOES NOT address the visitation and role model needs of the child, just the money. So what is the advantage? it's impersonal. He is making payments to a financial institution, not a person. It becomes much less of a deterrent to future relationships. No worse than a student loan. It improves relationships with the co-parent. I'm willing to hear the opinion of the guys on this. But Speculation as to how they might receive it is counter productive.

Really in the case of those participating in casual sex the paternity insurance idea is the better fit.


----------



## Pluto2

Mr. Nail, I'm not seeing any difference in terms of the enforcement and collection issues that women face today, just a bigger debt for men. If men hide assets and get paid under the table to avoid payment of a relatively modest judgement under the present system, why wouldn't they continue that under your proposed system. Deadbeat dads are often impersonal with the kids, although clearly not always.

It seems to just remove any illusion of an actual parent for the child. I'm not sure that is a good thing. I'd love my kids to have a real father again.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Thank you for confirming my theory!


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> So, are you saying that there is no way in hell you are able to experience a woman's lust, her wanting you?
> 
> Your negative outlook is destroying your attractiveness, and women can sense that from a mile away and it reeks.


This is not about me. I have indeed had that experience on numerous occasions, but many men have not.

Hope that helps.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> For starters:
> 
> Misogyny
> Entitlement
> Hostility
> Lack of self confidence
> Deprivation mentality


The first three of these are attractive to many women, or serial killers would not get piles of "love letters" from women.
The last two are not, which is why beta accountants and programmers do not get the same numbers of "love letters" from women.


----------



## tech-novelist

Mr. Nail said:


> Pluto your situation is not the same situation the men are complaining about so I will have to follow your lead and address them separately.
> 
> You have hit the nail on the head with your reply. The continual year after year , month after month enforcement is a big part of the problem. (for men as well). No where did I say go get a new judgement. The judgement is already in effect. He is in default. If this were any other debt he would have no choice but to pay up or face foreclosure, garnishment, seizure. So I said he agrees to pay the debt now. When you have the money there is no more question of enforcement. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that an end to enforcement headaches is high on your priority list.
> 
> This plan would not unburden men, or any non custodial parent, or really any parent of the obligation for the financial support of their child. Nothing less would be fair to the child, and in our current society that is the priority. So yes the man is still at a disadvantage His only opt out option is to pay the roughly 100,000.00 (500/month for 18 years. (I know the number varies by state.) This is the casual sex partner who had no intention of a long term relationship. This DOES NOT address the visitation and role model needs of the child, just the money. So what is the advantage? it's impersonal. He is making payments to a financial institution, not a person. It becomes much less of a deterrent to future relationships. No worse than a student loan. It improves relationships with the co-parent. I'm willing to hear the opinion of the guys on this. But Speculation as to how they might receive it is counter productive.
> 
> Really in the case of those participating in casual sex the paternity insurance idea is the better fit.


So in your model any woman who wants to be able to retire at a very young age just has to get pregnant by several men (one at a time, obviously)? I'm not sure how that is an improvement over the current model.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Technovelist, 
If you consider raising several children a retirement. Not only that, she has to obtain majority custody of all of the kids. No, this is no get rich quick scheme. This is taking the negative hurtful emotions out of the Child support equation.


----------



## Lon

Mr. Nail said:


> Technovelist,
> If you consider raising several children a retirement. Not only that, she has to obtain majority custody of all of the kids. No, this is no get rich quick scheme. This is taking the negative hurtful emotions out of the Child support equation.


In parts of my country, many people, couples and single mothers, particularly ones with lower income potential, make their family budget work by trying to make many as babies as possible and receiving government benefits. It doesn't create healthy environments for kids, and nor is it a get rich quick scheme, but does enable for those parents' subsistence.


----------



## Mr. Nail

I've seen that as well. and agree. I started writing a post explaining why I thought my proposals were workable then decided it would take a page or two. For a man never divorced and having no illegitimate children, I have paid way too much child support. I've seen the system in all of it's dysfunctional glory. Removing the emotion and putting some distance in there would help. I'm also pretty sure that payers and payees alike will reject proposals that do that.


----------



## Pluto2

Mr. Nail said:


> Technovelist,
> If you consider raising several children a retirement. Not only that, she has to obtain majority custody of all of the kids. No, this is no get rich quick scheme. This is taking the negative hurtful emotions out of the Child support equation.


I don't think it accomplishes your goal, at least not completely. The child is often left feeling abandoned by an estranged parent. 

The parents.. well you get over it. Being a single parent is no walk in the park. And it doesn't address the thousands of parents who still want to be part of their child's life.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Pluto2 said:


> I don't think it accomplishes your goal, at least not completely. The child is often left feeling abandoned by an estranged parent.
> 
> The parents.. well you get over it. Being a single parent is no walk in the park. And it doesn't address the thousands of parents who still want to be part of their child's life.


You are saying in effect that making a monthly payment encourages non custodial parents to be more active in the lives of their children.

I am saying that removing the monthly payment ( and the resentment reminder that is often included) makes it easier for the non custodial parent to be present in the children's lives. 

With such a basic disagreement there is no way we will see eye to eye on this. We really can't even discuss it.


----------



## Pluto2

Mr. Nail said:


> You are saying in effect that making a monthly payment encourages non custodial parents to be more active in the lives of their children.
> 
> I am saying that removing the monthly payment ( and the resentment reminder that is often included) makes it easier for the non custodial parent to be present in the children's lives.
> 
> With such a basic disagreement there is no way we will see eye to eye on this. We really can't even discuss it.


Can you explain how your plan makes it easier for the non-custodial parent ? And how it would apply to non-custodial parents who lack sufficient assets to immediately satisfy the larger single payment? Honestly, I'm not trying to be difficult, I just really don't see what you suggest.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> No where have I said that no woman has ever filed false rape charges.
> 
> I'm asking people to qualify what they are saying with....why would this happen MORE often?
> 
> These guys are implying that false rape charges are frequent, that they are deliberate, and that they happen because, apparently, women hate men and are evil. The only data there is shows that false charges happen very infrequently. Why would they suddenly sky rocket? What evidence is there that they will? Why is it being assumed that it would happen MORE often than it does NOW just because we adopt affirmative consent policies?
> 
> I'm sorry that I don't buy into hype just because men "think it is so". With absolutely no proof that it will suddenly happen more often due to AC, I'm going to keep challenging this idea.
> 
> Again, no where have I ever said that it does not happen. Also I have explicitly said that when it does happen it is a horrible crime.
> 
> Perhaps if you could make sure you actually understand what I'm saying, you would not find it necessary to call me naive. Sorry I'm not wringing my hands in advance of this supposed false rape charges epidemic that men here seem sure will occur. All the young people I know are happily using AC already and scoff at the crowd who don't understand it. My opinion is based on those who are already using it without complaint, and I'm hearing nothing about 800 times more false rape charges happening, like some here want to posit.


People are way too confident that they know about the actual numbers of false rape charges.

What We Don't Know About False Claims of Rape - Bloomberg View


----------



## naiveonedave

Buddy400 said:


> People are way too confident that they know about the actual numbers of false rape charges.
> 
> What We Don't Know About False Claims of Rape - Bloomberg View


http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/283234-affirmative-consent-23.html#post13374722

see the post a few pages back, the real number is probably somewhere between 5 and >>10%, depending on who's study you want to use and what metrics count as a false allegation. With AC, the poor guy who is innocent will get massacred. That is undeniable. Think about Duke Lax, but worse.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Pluto2 said:


> Can you explain how your plan makes it easier for the non-custodial parent ? And how it would apply to non-custodial parents who lack sufficient assets to immediately satisfy the larger single payment? Honestly, I'm not trying to be difficult, I just really don't see what you suggest.


Why should I waste time dissecting piece by piece, my ideas with a person who is determined to reject the ideas. It's pointless.

Instead, think about why getting all the money at once is unfair to you. Assume that your ex has a total liability (current and future) of around 30,000. Also assume that he has in Real estate and horses, guns and Boats equity of about 45,000. Why would you be against a sheriff's sale to force him to pay the debt that he clearly owes to you? Why do you think this will discourage him from "fathering" his children? 

I don't care to know what your answers to those questions are, but I think you should know.

In case you didn't catch that , I said "no".


----------



## Pluto2

naiveonedave said:


> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/283234-affirmative-consent-23.html#post13374722
> 
> see the post a few pages back, the real number is probably somewhere between 5 and >>10%, depending on who's study you want to use and what metrics count as a false allegation. With AC, the poor guy who is innocent will get massacred. That is undeniable. Think about Duke Lax, but worse.


I feel compelled to add something about the frequent reference to the Duke Lax case. A whole lotta wrong happened there, one element of which was false claims of rape. Don't forget that the DA was disbarred for his knowingly false statements to the court in an effort to prosecute the players. He was hoping to use the case to further his political ambitions, and disregarded all types of red-flags in the case that an honorable law-enforcement professional wound not.

On June 16, 2007, the North Carolina State Bar ordered Nifong disbarred after the bar's three-member disciplinary panel unanimously found him guilty of fraud, dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation; of making false statements of material fact before a judge; of making false statements of material fact before bar investigators, and of lying about withholding exculpatory DNA evidence.


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> I feel compelled to add something about the frequent reference to the Duke Lax case. A whole lotta wrong happened there, one element of which was false claims of rape. Don't forget that the DA was disbarred for his knowingly false statements to the court in an effort to prosecute the players. He was hoping to use the case to further his political ambitions, and disregarded all types of red-flags in the case that an honorable law-enforcement professional wound not.
> 
> On June 16, 2007, the North Carolina State Bar ordered Nifong disbarred after the bar's three-member disciplinary panel unanimously found him guilty of fraud, dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation; of making false statements of material fact before a judge; of making false statements of material fact before bar investigators, and of lying about withholding exculpatory DNA evidence.


All of which would never happen if not for the 1st lie.


----------



## Pluto2

naiveonedave said:


> All of which would never happen if not for the 1st lie.


yes false reports happen, in every criminal category.


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> yes false reports happen, in every criminal category.


Exactly. Hence due process and innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## tech-novelist

naiveonedave said:


> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/283234-affirmative-consent-23.html#post13374722
> 
> see the post a few pages back, the real number is probably somewhere between 5 and >>10%, depending on who's study you want to use and what metrics count as a false allegation. With AC, the poor guy who is innocent will get massacred. That is undeniable. Think about Duke Lax, but worse.


With AC, there is no such thing as an innocent guy.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> With AC, there is no such thing as an innocent guy.


Oh, please. This whole "automatically guilty" and "no such thing as an innocent guy" is such a crock. Even with AC, almost no one will ever be found guilty of anything. Even when there are many, many complainants.

What we've seen so far demonstrates that.

Affirmative consent is not ?radical? ? but finally doing something about sexual assault is - Salon.com


----------



## Centurions

Greetings!

Universities have purview and authority over faculty, staff and students in regards to academics, ethics, and social interactions--not criminal conduct. Crimes are the purview of law enforcement and criminal courts. 

Universities that ignore these distinctions, and presume they are entitled to ignore the U.S. Constitution deserve to get sued in court and taken to the cleaners! If these universities think feminism trumps constitutional rights, then they should be shived deep again and again! Such ideologically corrupt universities need to be screwed hard financially until they choose to be ideologically rational.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

