If you're referring to me, this post is yet another example of your out of control feminist misandry. My comment was general, referencing what a weak line of prosecution it would be if a woman without a memory could bring ipso facto rape charges. And what comes along? EagleSmack’s story of exactly that. Go ahead and deny deny deny. Your entire participation in this thread is that of a misandrist radical feminist. Every time I point out that you are sexist and playing the gender card, you say, “Not me, You!” Pretty childish.
College Women: Stop Getting Drunk
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
If you're referring to me, this post is yet another example of your out of control feminist misandry. My comment was general, referencing what a weak line of prosecution it would be if a woman without a memory could bring ipso facto rape charges. And what comes along? EagleSmack’s story of exactly that. Go ahead and deny deny deny. Your entire participation in this thread is that of a misandrist radical feminist. Every time I point out that you are sexist and playing the gender card, you say, “Not me, You!” Pretty childish.
Ahhh, the old, "Nobody else says that," defence. Try addressing the issue instead of personalities.
All I have to go on is what you write, right? So go find the post saying that women are "not allowed" to complain? That seems to be at the centre of much of your position. Problem is, nobody is saying that. If one person came too close to the mark and set you off, you don't say so. Instead of addressing the individual you are addressing society - in other words "men". So come ahead - address the actual substance of your complaint using the words used in the thread. That is where the rubber meets the road.
Re-read your own words in the above sentence. Your gender? I am not attacking your gender. I don't even know your gender. You could be a gay male for all I know or care. I am addressing your argument. I am criticizing your gender politics as you state them here, not your gender. I am criticizing your argument. Quit taking everything so personally. It isn't about you.
I read that. It has nothing to do with the present conversation between you and me. You keep trying to make it personal, I keep focusing on your arguments. Show us where anybody said women are not allowed to make a complaint - that is your big complaint. Then show how that is a trend here in the argument and how others need to be corrected. As I read it, everybody here is sympathetic to rape victims. Nobody has applauded rapists. You are keeping the thread deflected from a double standard affecting males to a complaint that nobody cares about rape victims. Not only is your position off topic, it is untrue and misandrist.
Show us where anybody has said women are not allowed to make a complaint. Then show how that is a trend here in the argument and how others need to be corrected. Otherwise all you are doing is deflecting the topic away from men's complaint about a double standard.
Quote: Originally Posted by tober
If she cannot remember what happened she's in no position to make an accusation as serious as rape.That is not saying that women are "not allowed" to make a complaint. It is just a comment on the quality of evidence you will need for a prosecution. It says that a woman whose only evidence is lack of memory has no evidence of rape. Like Nick said, without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the facts there is no legal justification for a prosecution. EagleSmack's post is directly on point. Your argument is weak and your position is misandrist. You are riding on pure feminist emotion.
Last edited:
Oh come on, that's not what you were saying, at all. Just like Nick was saying they shouldn't file charges. We're all fully aware of the law, you both were complaining that the law is unfair. The law currently is exactly as you describe, that women who press charges without evidence do not see their cases prosecuted. You can't complain that the law is unfair AND say that what you were arguing is that it should do exactly what it currently does.
Now learn a new word, or prove that I'm being sexist against men, but drop the bull.
Oh, and do not PM me behind the scenes, it's creepy.
And yet, here you are, every day. lol.
you don't have to be single to make a cougar's day.
Actually Karrie I was trying to discuss how genders are treated differently within our social framework when it comes to responsibility while intoxicated. The law is the law and if applied correctly our law on rape works well.
Fair enough Nick. I read it like you were talking about the law, apparently in error.
I think there are valid reasons that I don't need to spell out though, why there's a social discrepancy though. Like I said earlier, you can talk about equality all you want, but you can't make this issue equal. you can't make men's and women's views on sex the same, and you can't make the mechanical realities the same, thus the social discrepancies. Everyone knows there are exceptions to every rule, but, for a man to be copulated with when he is so drunk he doesn't know if he's saying yes or no, is immensely less likely, than for a woman to have the same thing happen. And for a woman to perpetrate rape upon an unwilling male, again, the likelihood isn't the same, thus the social discrepancy.
Equality is a great notion, but it does not apply to all of life.
No way! We like the double standard, it's just more proof of our superiority.
Canada and the world are full of social discrepancies, including those that are gender based. Nobody disputes that. We were trying to discuss a particular discrepancy when the thread was highjacked. The fact of inequities existing does not excuse the emotion-laden tactic used to highjack the thread. We should work to eliminate bias, not accentuate it.
The hijacker wrote:
… for a man to be copulated with when he is so drunk he doesn't know if he's saying yes or no, is immensely less likely, than for a woman to have the same thing happen.
There is no question that kind of sexual assault happens, but it is not the topic. The topic is a social discrepancy that effects men. The hijacker broke in with the suggestion that males were being insensitive to how a raped woman feels. That accusation was untrue. The feelings of raped women were not discussed. It was an emotion-laden, implicitly accusatory attack on the topic. How would feminists feel if, in a thread discussing raped women, a man burst in to accuse them of being insensitive to how a man felt when falsely accused?
The OP topic is whether men are subjected to a legal double standard when accused of a sexual offence against a woman - a social discrepancy. Aggressive feminism has high jacked the thread using the accusation that the discussion was insensitive to women's perception of rape. The accusation comes out of nowhere. It is an in-your-face attack against men talking about an aspect of sexual assault particular to men. No man expressed insensitivity towards raped women. It isn't the topic. Extreme feminism is trying to make it the topic. That is probably a perfect answer to the question of whether there is a misandrist double standard. Obviously there is a double standard - men are should not discuss rape without feminist supervision.
The feminist says she's not misandrist. So what – a meaningless denial. Lots of men whose comments are misogynist say the same thing. This woman obviously felt threatened because men tried to discuss a legal double standard in rape prosecutions, so she accused board men of being insensitive. The fact that they are not insensitive is established by how successful her tactic was. Gone is the issue about unfairness to men. The topic is now proper feminist perspective - how bad men are. The mere discussion of rape raised the implication of misogyny to the feminist. If that isn't misandrist, nothing is.
The SCoC has already ruled a man cannot be charged if he is too drunk to know what he is doing. I posted the link earlier in the thread. Here it is again...
The "Drunkenness" Defence & Sexual Assault Law
