American feminism is about superiority, not equality

[Multiply]

It's never actually been tried. By all means give me a time where those who support trickle down economics where given the power to make the changes necessary for them to be successful

Never heard of Reaganomics? That's the embodiment of the trickle down economics theory. Which happens to be exactly what you're describing.

"The results of this plan were mixed. Initially, the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD believed the tax cut would re-ignite inflation and raise interest rates. This sparked a deep recession in 1981 and 1982..."

"The national debt tripled from one to three trillion dollars during the REAGAN YEARS. The President and conservatives in Congress cried for a balanced budget amendment, but neither branch had the discipline to propose or enact a balanced budget. The growth that Americans enjoyed during the 1980s came at a huge price for the generations to follow."

Reaganomics(The embodiment of trickle down economics) only provided growth for at most 3 years. By growth, I mean growth in the national debt, inflation of the dollar, and decrease in exports and increase in imports.

Trickle down economics has not, and never will work :lol. The rich in a capitalist society are too greedy.

 

[slimreaper]

Never heard of Reaganomics? That's the embodiment of the trickle down economics theory. Which happens to be exactly what you're describing.




Reaganomics(The embodiment of trickle down economics) only provided growth for at most 3 years. By growth, I mean growth in the national debt, inflation of the dollar, and decrease in exports and increase in imports.

Trickle down economics has not, and never will work :lol. The rich in a capitalist society are too greedy.

what Reagan did is a sample of trickle down economics, but in a democracy where there are checks and balances, it's very un-likely that any group can enact all of their plans. So to blame america's increased debt in that time on Reaganomics instead of massive spending due to the cold war armament is ridiculous.

Find me a president who has done away will minimum wage and we'll talk

 

[Ikateao Uzamaki]

First of. No side is right i understand both sides but the dude who started has a point the news show called today did a social experiment on abuse in relationships between men and women and both versions are really scary to be honest america. Gives equally to all but it's still a little horried i can't give you a link i might im not sure im using my phone but when the women was being beaten men and women a like stepped up for the women but when the men was being beaten they recoded and laughed at the man. If you where to get beaten by a women in you house hold and call police they would laugh at you if a man is beating a women the man goes to jail for years. The main ponit being no one is right or wrong we as humans control what we do and let a conscience decide. The problem is where we come from and how we deal with the issue our selves we all have instincts to survive it's called fight or flight.no one is right no one is wrong we need to stop focusing on conflict in society period

 

[Multiply]

what Reagan did is a sample of trickle down economics, but in a democracy where there are checks and balances, it's very un-likely that any group can enact all of their plans. So to blame america's increased debt in that time on Reaganomics instead of massive spending due to the cold war armament is ridiculous.

Find me a president who has done away will minimum wage and we'll talk

So we're just going to forget that the 25% tax break on the rich sparked a 2 year recession(if not longer)? What do you think a larger tax break would do, seeing as that 25% was just a sample? :lol. Come on now... The greed is too strong for a capitalist society.

 

[slimreaper]

So we're just going to forget that the 25% tax break on the rich sparked a 2 year recession(if not longer)? What do you think a larger tax break would do, seeing as that 25% was just a sample? :lol. Come on now... The greed is too strong for a capitalist society.

A tax break without increasing incentive to keep jobs in America us just putting money in their pockets. In real trickle diwn economics, you don't give the rich money, you give them easy paths to make money here. When they gain here, the people gain here by default no matter how greedy they are.

 

[Avani]

That article was very insightful indeed.

And yet of zero value to the ongoing argument over 'consent' and 'mens rea'. If male victims are being ignored the motion should be to educate the society about it better and train the law enforcement officers to deal with it in better way. How does ignoring "consent" and intention in a "crime" or diluting it for this specific crime or ranting at feminists help such male victims? or Is the argument that if one section of victims is not being taken seriously by some - throw all the victims in hell?

 

[slimreaper]

Because the new yes means yes law is going to force men to have to prove their innocence in a case where they are already

1. less likely to be believed

2. have already admitted they either had what they believed was consensual ***, or that they in fact didn't rape a girl.


How can one prove that if they admit they had ***. Basically if women say it's rape it's rape now

 

[Avani]

Because the new yes means yes law is going to force men to have to prove their innocence in a case where they are already

1. less likely to be believe

2. have already admitted they either had what they believed was consensual ***, or that they in fact didn't rape a girl.


How can one prove that if they admit they had ***. Basically if women say it's rape it's rape now

This whole argument is based on speculation and fear of feminists taking over. Just get an actual case, it's findings and court ruling then it can be discussed better.

 

[slimreaper]

This argument is based on . You are yet to provide the actual legal rulings and finding of any kind or even the wording of bare act regarding the same to decide whether your fears are genuine. So it will go no where. If you really want to make a case with any merit, you first need to find some actual rape case or interpretation of law by some court in such a case.

joe rogan references a ruling in this video

[video=youtube;l4WBx5SBOos]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4WBx5SBOos[/video]

The couple got drunk at separate parties, the girl texts her friends saying she was going to go have ***, she texted him asking if he had a condom... accuses him of rape and he gets kicked out of school not her. How is this fair?

 

[Avani]

joe rogan references a ruling in this video

[video=youtube;l4WBx5SBOos]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4WBx5SBOos[/video]

The couple got drunk at separate parties, the girl texts her friends saying she was going to go have ***, she texted him asking if he had a condom... accuses him of rape and he gets kicked out of school not her. How is this fair?

Not going to comment on one sided claims of what transpired. If you want to challenge such laws- you should find the actual details of the case in some local library.

While there is always some people which get wrongly penalized, often either people do not share all the details or just don't want to consider some left out part. Let alone rape cases a lot of such arguments are often missing some basic technical details in any court case.

To be safe just be more careful whom you sleep with instead of trying to enact random tube fantasies with strangers.

 

[Disquiet]

And yet of zero value to the ongoing argument over 'consent' and 'mens rea'. If male victims are being ignored the motion should be to educate the society about it better and train the law enforcement officers to deal with it in better way. How does ignoring "consent" and intention in a "crime" or diluting it for this specific crime or ranting at feminists help such male victims? or Is the argument that if one section of victims is not being taken seriously by some - throw all the victims in hell?

@Bold, I assume that article was to help educate. It also shows how under "made to penetrate", that the majority of offenders of male victims would be female. Even more, we see that "made to penetrate" cases actually occur much more between girlfriends and acquaintances than strangers, the last being only 5 percent of "made to penetrate" cases. So contrary to what some people in this thread believe, it's not the ones who is looking for some quick *** that will have to worry about this, at least not as much as the ones with girlfriends.

But moving on, this law is stupid because it doesn't make it pass any surface level thought. The Yes means Yes law is rendered ineffective by three inherent roadblocks:

1. Both parties being completely honest under accusations of non-consent.

2. "Yes" actually meaning the intention that they want to be conveyed.

3. It would have to take sides in a he said she said scenario if it is to be taken seriously.




It's an error to believe that because one have a problem with this law, that one is a hindrance to any progress in rape cases or that one do not wish to see any progress at all.




1. My first example is quite obvious, the yes means yes law gets railroaded if there's no proof that one party gave consent.

2. As for the second, this is perhaps even a bigger problem. I don't even agree that consent is only verbal, but what exactly about it being verbal suddenly makes it consent? If a woman doesn't want to speak up, or show any signs of resistance, which implies she in some way feels pressured, intimidated, coerced, etc, then all the yes means yes law is really doing is getting those same pressured people to say yes .

See the point? You females are probably going to be fighting against this law eventually once you see how much of a fail it is. As long as the other person gets a yes, it pretty much clears that person of forcing the woman in some form or manner. There's an Achilles' heel you have to avoid when you let the law, or any other authority set in stone what consensual *** looks like.

The woman isn't sure if that's what she really wanted the night before? Oh well, you said yes! Yes does not clear that particular feeling of guilt. All those risks and dangers you mentioned in your last post? She's going to have suck it up and deal with it, the other person is covered under the law now because she said yes.

It's going to be intriguing to see what you have to say about this that wouldn't expose another huge fail.

It's also interesting that you mentioned in your first post how consent plays a part in our everyday lives. Funny, cause sometimes I buy stuff that I immediately regret lol. When I was a teen, and I imagine the same for all young people, it was much easier to get me to agree to something or say yes even though I hated that I did so afterwards.

If the "purpose" of the law ignores actual consent, then what purpose does it really serve? "Oh it's clearing ambiguity". Oh rlly? Let's discuss that ambiguity that it clears. In the meantime, the party that's pressuring the females sure is gonna love getting that yes out of them.

lmao this law is laughable really, like saying "yes" makes a difference or is suppose to help their cause...

3. The third and last point. Is one party going to be favored? I mean what good does it do if the majority, if not all of the cases cannot even be proved? Those with harmful intentions are just going to see that all is just as it was before the law. To be effective, there are going to have to be charges under the law. This is where we run into a huge problem if favoritism is shown in he said she said scenarios. Especially considering how many men are affected by "made to penetrate" cases.


Keep all that in mind, also note that these issues don't have to run parallel to each other, but could arise if the law decides to go this way or that way.

Ignoring consent and intention in a crime or diluting this specific crime? I, myself, am doing far from it. You'll come to see that the law itself is doing that.

 

[Avani]

@Bold, I assume that article was to help educate. It also shows how under "made to penetrate", that the majority of offenders of male victims would be female. Even more, we see that "made to penetrate" cases actually occur much more between girlfriends and acquaintances than strangers, the last being only 5 percent of "made to penetrate" cases. So contrary to what some people in this thread believe, it's not the ones who is looking for some quick *** that will have to worry about this, at least not as much as the ones with girlfriends.

If this article really addressed and educated about the the details of the Bill for Universities in California or the issues raised in this thread we would not be having this conversation.

Fact: the law covers the guy in that link to know and understand that he was raped and report it or seek help regarding it. And woman who raped him cannot prove she had his consent just because he didn't protest. Thus by bringing it up in this case and acting as if it some feminist agenda against men to enslave them is only fanning paranoia and witch hunting ( feminists being the new witches). And that's what OP was doing. Anorin doesn't even realize that he just supported the cause of the bill.

But moving on, this law is stupid because it doesn't make it pass any surface level thought.

Actually it's not. Is it the first time you are noticing this controversial issue? For it has been such an issue for as long as this crime has been recognized, defined and processed in world history. As a woman I know all too well the problem of 'no means no' and 'yes means yes' and it always lead to the victim being grilled over it either way.

The Yes means Yes law is rendered ineffective by three inherent roadblocks:

1. Both parties being completely honest under accusations of non-consent.
This problem still esxted with no means no concept".

2. "Yes" actually meaning the intention that they want to be conveyed.
The problem still existed with 'no"
3. It would have to take sides in a he said she said scenario if it is to be taken seriously.
same problem with scenario of 'no'.



It's an error to believe that because one have a problem with this law, that one is a hindrance to any progress in rape cases or that one do not wish to see any progress at all.




1. My first example is quite obvious, the yes means yes law gets railroaded if there's no proof that one party gave consent.

2. As for the second, this is perhaps even a bigger problem. I don't even agree that consent is only verbal, but what exactly about it being verbal suddenly makes it consent? If a woman doesn't want to speak up, or show any signs of resistance, which implies she in some way feels pressured, intimidated, coerced, etc, then all the yes means yes law is really doing is getting those same pressured people to say yes .

See the point? You females are probably going to be fighting against this law eventually once you see how much of a fail it is. As long as the other person gets a yes, it pretty much clears that person of forcing the woman in some form or manner. There's an Achilles' heel you have to avoid when you let the law, or any other authority set in stone what consensual *** looks like.

The woman isn't sure if that's what she really wanted the night before? Oh well, you said yes! Yes does not clear that particular feeling of guilt. All those risks and dangers you mentioned in your last post? She's going to have suck it up and deal with it, the other person is covered under the law now because she said yes.

It's going to be intriguing to see what you have to say about this that wouldn't expose another huge fail.

It's also interesting that you mentioned in your first post how consent plays a part in our everyday lives. Funny, cause sometimes I buy stuff that I immediately regret lol. When I was a teen, and I imagine the same for all young people, it was much easier to get me to agree to something or say yes even though I hated that I did so afterwards.

If the "purpose" of the law ignores actual consent, then what purpose does it really serve? "Oh it's clearing ambiguity". Oh rlly? Let's discuss that ambiguity that it clears. In the meantime, the party that's pressuring the females sure is gonna love getting that yes out of them.

lmao this law is laughable really, like saying "yes" makes a difference or is suppose to help their cause...

3. The third and last point. Is one party going to be favored? I mean what good does it do if the majority, if not all of the cases cannot even be proved? Those with harmful intentions are just going to see that all is just as it was before the law. To be effective, there are going to have to be charges under the law. This is where we run into a huge problem if favoritism is shown in he said she said scenarios. Especially considering how many men are affected by "made to penetrate" cases.


Keep all that in mind, also note that these issues don't have to run parallel to each other, but could arise if the law decides to go this way or that way.

Ignoring consent and intention in a crime or diluting this specific crime? I, myself, am doing far from it. You'll come to see that the law itself is doing that.

( the part in red in quote is mine using the older description for the same)

You are looking at the argument from all the wrong angels. Again- No one denied that female on male rape can happen. In fact Riker and me both covered that part. The other guy came in claiming no one is thinking about male victims which I found erroneous complaint,since it had been brought up and addressed long before he made that post. That was also the reason why Riker told Anorin that second part of his post was wrong resulting in the link but failing to see what Riker meant.

The law this thread was arguing over is gender neutral. That means the male victims are covered. When you are saying 'you females' you are forgetting that that the victims can be a male and will benefit from it. You failed to see the victim as male right after getting educated on it just now in that link. That was the social mind set and problem I was referring to earlier. That we know but even then it doesn't register because of the way our mind is conditioned.

I don't mind educating more people about male rape victims- I advocated it which you two clearly missed. My protest is for the part where people are acting if that was the issue of argument and some one challenged the concept of male victims.

Back to the consent and whether this supposed new change in Californian law is going to make any change or not- The wording which I read made me call that fear paranoia due to not understanding the law properly. And that confusion being used to fuel hate against feminists. This is how you get the mob to lynch/burn/hang people declaring them calling out " those damn witches".

Reiterating what I said earlier for it's very important the example in that link- that guy could report for rape now because this definition just covered him! His lack of consent was not expressed but this law would have enabled him to report and seek help. One can even argue that this definition was tailor made for his case.

So what I am saying is that quit the silly witch hunting for feminists and concentrate on the problem is any. BTW Riker is not a female. Don't say you females again.

Now on to your concern regarding this bill itself:

For one the law didn't change the definition of consent itself. Not exactly- just how to look at it. Instead of saying 'no' means 'no' they defined it as 'yes' means 'yes' and declared it affirmative definition for Universities. It's partially a gimmick, partially added detail to explain what is OK and what's not.

CA Code for defining rape:

You must be registered for see links

And the bill text for California State University which seems to be the root of this argument:

An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “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.

There is nothing to suggest that in the definition of consent, 'implied' consent ( implied yes) is now invalid and you need it notarized a yes on a stamp paper. If you have genuine reason to believe that you had the consent of the opposite party and if the accuser didn't bother to communicate that she/he didn't want it you still had that defense of 'mistake of a fact' too. That is if you can explain on what ground you made that assumption of consent. If there is no support to prove the rape beyond he said/she said again accused still has the benefit of insufficient proof.

So while your concern regarding 'consent' are not necessarily wrong, I disagree with the premise that this is some new issue, an outcome of feminist agenda or that this law threatens men favouring one *** only. If anything that the example of rape in that link told us just the opposite. That it's actually as much against the idea that men cannot be raped as the idea that women were asking for it. So What's up with the cry feminists are taking over the world?

This bill was presented from last September ( 2014). It's already July. Question :

Is there been any significant rise in conviction rates against men while letting women off for the same crime in this period since this then to bring it up now and re-start witch hunting for feminists?

 

[slimreaper]

If this article really addressed and educated about the the details of the Bill for Universities in California or the issues raised in this thread we would not be having this conversation.

Fact: the law covers the guy in that link to know and understand that he was raped and report it or seek help regarding it. And woman who raped him cannot prove she had his consent just because he didn't protest. Thus by bringing in this case and acting as if it some feminist agenda against men to enslave them is only fanning paranoia and witch hunting ( feminists being the new witches). And that's what OP was doing. Anorin doesn't even realize that he just supported the cause of the bill.



Actually it's not. Is it the first time you are noticing this controversial issue? For it has been such an issue for as long as this crime has been recognized, defined and processed in world history. As a woman I know all too well the problem of 'no means no' and 'yes means yes' and it always lead to the victim being grilled over it either way.




You are looking at the argument from all the wrong angels. Again- No one denied that female on male rape can happen. In fact Riker and me both covered that part. The other guy came in claiming no one is thinking about male victims which I found erroneous complaint,since it had been brought up and addressed long before he made that post. That was also the reason why Riker told Anorin that second part of his post was wrong resulting in the link but failing to see what Riker meant.

The law this thread was arguing over is gender neutral. That means the male victims are covered. When you are saying 'you females' you are forgetting that that the victims can be a male and will benefit from it. You failed to see the victim as male right after getting educated on it just now in that link. That was the social mind set and problem I was referring to earlier. That we know but even then it doesn't register because of the way our mind is conditioned.

I don't mind educating more people about male rape victims- I advocated it which you two clearly missed. My protest is for the part where people are acting if that was the issue of argument and some one challenged the concept of male victims.

Back to the consent and whether this supposed new change in Californian law is going to make any change or not- The wording which I read made me call that fear paranoia due to not understanding the law properly. And that confusion being used to fuel hate against feminists. This is how you get the mob to lynch/burn/hang people declaring them calling out " those damn witches".

Reiterating what I said earlier for it's very important the example in that link- that guy could report for rape now because this definition just covered him! His lack of consent was not expressed but this law would have enabled him to report and seek help. One can even argue that this definition was tailor made for his case.

So what I am saying is that quit the silly witch hunting for feminists and concentrate on the problem is any.

Now on to your concern regarding this bill itself:

For one the law didn't change the definition of consent itself. Not exactly- just how to look at it. Instead of saying 'no' means 'no' they defined it as 'yes' means 'yes' and declared it affirmative definition for Universities. It's partially a gimmick, partially added detail to explain what is OK and what's not.

CA Code for defining rape:

You must be registered for see links

And the bill text for California State University which seems to be the root of this argument:


There is nothing to suggest that in the definition of consent 'implied' consent ( implied yes) is now invalid and you need it notarized on stamp paper. If you have genuine reason to believe that you had the consent of the opposite party and the accuser didn't bother to communicate that she/he didn't want it you still had that defense of 'mistake of a fact' too. That is if you can explain on what ground you made that assumption of consent. If there is no support to prove the rape beyond he said/she said again accused still has the benefit of insufficient proof.

So while your concern regarding 'consent' are not necessarily wrong, I disagree with the premise that this is some new issue or that this law threatens men favouring one *** only. If anything that the example of rape in that link told us just the opposite. That it's actually as much against the idea that men cannot be raped as the idea that women were asking for it. So What's up with the cry feminists are taking over the world?

This bill was presented from last September ( 2014). It's already July. Question :

Is there been any significant rise in conviction rates against men while letting women off in this crime in this period since this then to bring it up now and re-start witch hunting for feminists?

I'm only addressing the first paragraph of this response.

Why would anyone who was being "raped" not protest? Rape is still illegal under no means no, and I would have no problem with yes means yes if they didn't re-define rape to say that women under certain circumstances aren't responsible for the consent they give while under the influence. You are responsible for all your other actions(and equal and opposite reactions) under the influence, you should be responsible for giving a man consent. *** note i'm not talking about someone getting a girl so drunk or high that she can't physically answer. That is rape under no means no aswell

 

[Avani]

I'm only addressing the first paragraph of this response.

Why would anyone who was being "raped" not protest? Rape is still illegal under no means no, and I would have no problem with yes means yes if they didn't re-define rape to say that women under certain circumstances aren't responsible for the consent they give while under the influence. You are responsible for all your other actions(and equal and opposite reactions) under the influence, you should be responsible for giving a man consent. *** note i'm not talking about someone getting a girl so drunk or high that she can't physically answer. That is rape under no means no aswell

You should read the article Anorin linked to understand that.

The guy in question didn't protest, just kept pretending to be sleeping and still fits the bill.

 

[slimreaper]

You should read the article Anorin linked to understand that.

The guy in question didn't protest, just kept pretending to be sleeping and still fits the bill.

If you don't say no, it isn't rape you actually wanted it.... it's that simple. If you don't want someone to take advantage of you then speak up. What the "rapist" did is still wrong but the "victim" only has himself to blame. You can't rape the willing

 

[Avani]

If you don't say no, it isn't rape you actually wanted it.... it's that simple. If you don't want someone to take advantage of you then speak up. What the "rapist" did is still wrong but the "victim" only has himself to blame. You can't rape the willing

Go and tell that to that guy.

 

[slimreaper]

Go and tell that to that guy.

Go and tell him what? Not to be such a wimp and actually stand up for himself? Why if someone is "raping" wouldn't you say no?

 

[Avani]

Go and tell him what? Not to be such a wimp and actually stand up for himself? Why if someone is "raping" wouldn't you say no?

And that line of argument crosses out a considerable percentage of names from the list of male rape victims .. I wonder what your friends at MRA would say to it.

 

[Disquiet]

If this article really addressed and educated about the the details of the Bill for Universities in California or the issues raised in this thread we would not be having this conversation.

We're having this conversation because you fail to comprehend the points and its magnitude.

Fact: the law covers the guy in that link to know and understand that he was raped and report it or seek help regarding it. And woman who raped him cannot prove she had his consent just because he didn't protest. Thus by bringing in this case and acting as if it some feminist agenda against men to enslave them is only fanning paranoia and witch hunting ( feminists being the new witches). And that's what OP was doing. Anorin doesn't even realize that he just supported the cause of the bill.

Sooooo he goes to report it to the authorities and thus begins the uphill battle of who is lying and who is not. Once again, back and forth we go. Do you not see the failure even using your own point? The best you can argue is "both would have to fight to prove consent just as before the law". That's it... that's the only "supporting argument" you have for this law...

Actually it's not. Is it the first time you are noticing this controversial issue? For it has been such an issue for as long as this crime has been recognized, defined and processed in world history. As a woman I know all too well the problem of 'no means no' and 'yes means yes' and it always lead to the victim being grilled over it either way.

Don't really see your point here. You make a statement regarding how complex the actual issue as if it counters my statement of how myopic the law is. Just because the issue runs deep, doesn't mean the solution proposed isn't surface level.

You are looking at the argument from all the wrong angels.

This doesn't even make sense. You realize you're talking to a person that was stating his own reasons for not supporting the law, correct?

Again- No one denied that female on male rape can happen. In fact Riker and me both covered that part. The other guy came in claiming no one is thinking about male victims which I found erroneous complaint,since it had been brought up and addressed long before he made that post. That was also the reason why Riker told Anorin that second part of his post was wrong resulting in the link but failing to see what Riker meant.

This is what I mean with the above. You're pulling me into an argument I have nothing to do with. I was giving my thoughts about a particular subtopic. You can't make an argument that I'm looking at it at the wrong angles just because it's not apart of what you guys were arguing about. I didn't even read all that...

The law this thread was arguing over is gender neutral. That means the male victims are covered. When you are saying 'you females' you are forgetting that that the victims can be a male and will benefit from it. You failed to see the victim as male right after getting educated on it just now in that link. That was the social mind set and problem I was referring to earlier. That we know but even then it doesn't register because of the way our mind is conditioned.

@Bold, yes I knew you were going to say that, but you actually managed to contradict this is in your own post. You said here:

Again- No one denied that female on male rape can happen. In fact Riker and me both covered that part.

You acknowledge that I'm not forgetting that males can be victims as well. I covered more that one gender in my post, as you seem to have noticed.

I don't mind educating more people about male rape victims- I advocated it which you two clearly missed. My protest is for the part where people are acting if that was the issue of argument and some one challenged the concept of male victims.

Ira, what are you even talking about? What does this have to do with my argument?

Reiterating what I said earlier for it's very important the example in that link- that guy could report for rape now because this definition just covered him! His lack of consent was not expressed but this law would have enabled him to report and seek help. One can even argue that this definition was tailor made for his case.

Sigh... round and round we go. He reports it. Girl denies it. What difference did the Yes means Yes law make?

So what I am saying is that quit the silly witch hunting for feminists and concentrate on the problem is any.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. These arguments were probably meant for someone else.

Now on to your concern regarding this bill itself:

For one the law didn't change the definition of consent itself. Not exactly- just how to look at it. Instead of saying 'no' means 'no' they defined it as 'yes' means 'yes' and declared it affirmative definition for Universities. It's partially a gimmick, partially added detail to explain what is OK and what's not.

Look at it implying what, Ira? To recognize what consent looks like or just stare at it with a dumb look? It's definitely defining consensual *** is.

Also, I see your highlighted answers. This is wasting my time because I'm having to explain elementary logic, and yes, I'm to blame for wasting my own time. You didn't even argue that those problems don't exist, your best argument was that it existed in the no means no as well. My points still stand...

CA Code for defining rape:

You must be registered for see links

Okay? I don't think you grasped my points of the yes means yes law very well.

And the bill text for California State University which seems to be the root of this argument:


There is nothing to suggest that in the definition of consent 'implied' consent ( implied yes) is now invalid and you need it notarized on stamp paper. If you have genuine reason to believe that you had the consent of the opposite party and the accuser didn't bother to communicate that she/he didn't want it you still had that defense of 'mistake of a fact' too. That is if you can explain on what ground you made that assumption of consent. If there is no support to prove the rape beyond he said/she said again accused still has the benefit of insufficient proof.

You see... the best arguments you could possibly make for this law is "it describes what *** is in the first place". That basically shows how pointless it is, which is one of the points I addressed. It doesn't even matter if "yes" means some physically form of consent, since this law isn't going to be affecting the sure and confident, the pressured and intimidated is still likely to give consent according to those guidelines, clearing the other party of any wrongdoing. I'm sure pressured or intimidated sexual partners very often "kiss back" or some other form of sensual or sexual pleasure while still remaining unsure.

It. Does. Not. Help. Victims.

It's just a "too bad, you gave consent".

So while your concern regarding 'consent' are not necessarily wrong, I disagree with the premise that this is some new issue or that this law threatens men favouring one *** only. If anything that the example of rape in that link told us just the opposite. That it's actually as much against the idea that men cannot be raped as the idea that women were asking for it. So What's up with the cry feminists are taking over the world?

Again, you're confusing the issues with this new solution. The law is dumb and pointless if it is just going to be discarded in the countless amount of he said she said scenarios. Unless of course the law starts favoring sides.

Is there been any significant rise in conviction rates against men while letting women off in this crime in this period since this then to bring it up now and re-start witch hunting for feminists?

Question, why are you even asking me this? I just brought up points for this specific law.

Also, I thought there was mutual agreement between you and I not to discuss these kinds of topics with each other? This post contained a lot of feminism stuff that I didn't even talk about.

I'm all too aware of the type of mentality you bring into these debates, and I know that I myself don't have the patience for such cunning and underhanded arguments.

It even seems you had some kind of behind-the-scene reason for quoting me. You should have started this with Anorien, who was the one that actually linked the article and even made some statements surrounding it, than the person who basically said "I agree with that article".

It made no sense to reply to me knowing our history over this topic.

 

[slimreaper]

And that line of argument crosses out a considerable percentage of names from the list of male rape victims .. I wonder what your friends at MRA would say to it.

I'm not a feminist or a MRA. Any group that does anything in the name of equality for their group is just secretly trying to advance their group above others.

What that woman did was rape because she thought she actually was raping the boy, that much is obvious. But a great portion of the blame falls on him for not acting. The same applies to women. If a dude has *** with you thinking you are sleeping, it's rape. If he has what he believes is consensual *** with you and you don't object, then the fault lies with you not him