The Amazing Atheist On Accountability & Rape

[cogar66]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY4LU8_7gQQ&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Thoughts on this?

[Octavian]

I tend to agree mostly with what the AA is saying though some of seems to teeter on the edge of victim blaming. The contention of the argument seems to lie in gender. If you're a male you support the defendants right to a fair trial and if you're female you tend to sympathize with the victim.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't like that dude.

[Ulyanov]

I couldn't agree with him more. Rape is one woman's word against one man's word, if that woman has no proof that the man did it, he is not guilty.

A history of prostitution or whatever undoubtedly tilts the favour in the case of the man.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I couldn't agree with him more. Rape is one woman's word against one man's word, if that woman has no proof that the man did it, he is not guilty.

A history of prostitution or whatever undoubtedly tilts the favour in the case of the man.

what the fuck

[Ulyanov]

what the fuck

What do you disagree with?

[Franz Fanonipants]

What do you disagree with?

"a prostitute is a liar about sexual assault, obvs"

[PhoenixAsh]

I couldn't agree with him more. Rape is one woman's word against one man's word, if that woman has no proof that the man did it, he is not guilty.

A history of prostitution or whatever undoubtedly tilts the favour in the case of the man.

I am not even going to reply to the second part....soooo much fail.

The first part is incorrect. If a woman has no proof means the man can not be convicted... and not necessarilly that he is not guilty.

[Franz Fanonipants]

a rape: a contest - of words

[Ulyanov]

Of course there is no way of proving for certain he didn't do it, but he should be declared 'not guilty' because there is no proof he did.

And I did word the second part wrong, I should have said 'a record of having sex with strangers and/or being a slut in general".

[Franz Fanonipants]

And I did word the second part wrong, I should have said 'a record of having sex with strangers and/or being a slut in general".

holy shit and it keeps going.

someone ban this dude.

[Revy]

Of course there is no way of proving for certain he didn't do it, but he should be declared 'not guilty' because there is no proof he did.

And I did word the second part wrong, I should have said 'a record of having sex with strangers and/or being a slut in general".

How ignorant.
As if the "sluts" ask for it.
Rape is rape, regardless of the sexual history of a victim.

[cogar66]

How ignorant.
As if the "sluts" ask for it.
Rape is rape, regardless of the sexual history of a victim.
You cannot assume that she was raped though, is what he is saying. People are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. It has nothing to do with who's at fault for the rape. If a man rapes a woman, it is HIS fault. However, if a woman accuses a man of rape and it's a his word against mine situation you have to look at the character of the woman to see if she's telling the truth. You also have to look at the character of the man to see if he's the kind of person who would rape someone else.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You cannot assume that she was raped though, is what he is saying. People are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. It has nothing to do with who's at fault for the rape. If a man rapes a woman, it is HIS fault. However, if a woman accuses a man of rape and it's a his word against mine situation you have to look at the character of the woman to see if she's telling the truth. You also have to look at the character of the man to see if he's the kind of person who would rape someone else.

Kill yourself.

[Thirsty Crow]

You cannot assume that she was raped though, is what he is saying. People are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. It has nothing to do with who's at fault for the rape. If a man rapes a woman, it is HIS fault. However, if a woman accuses a man of rape and it's a his word against mine situation you have to look at the character of the woman to see if she's telling the truth. You also have to look at the character of the man to see if he's the kind of person who would rape someone else.

And how the fuck does a personal history of "promiscuous" behaviour figure here, in any way imaginable?
It's pretty much obvious that such an approach is in total compliance with the phenomenon called "victim blaming" and with structural sexism.

To expand on this, sexual behaviour is not indicative of anything here. Rather, a case could be made if the defence were to rely on testimonies regarding some other aspects of the woman's behaviour, such as whether she had ever insisted on lying and slandering someone knowing full well that the consequences won't be minute. And even then we would be faced with a seriously problematic situation.

But there is another point: the jury should focus more on the personal history of the man in question.

[cogar66]

@Franz Fanonipants
I'm glad for the logical reply. I mean, it's not like innocent people are EVER accused of a crime. :rolleyes:

Should we be throwing people in jail based on accusations alone? Or should we be looking at the evidence?

[Franz Fanonipants]

@Franz Fanonipants
I'm glad for the logical reply. I mean, it's not like innocent people are EVER accused of a crime. :rolleyes:

Should we be throwing people in jail based on accusations alone? Or should we be looking at the evidence?

No one is asking to overturn presumption of innocence.

We're pointing out that you're a hideous sexist, the fat internet atheist fuckhead in that video is a hideous sexist, and you should both do re: my last post.

[Franz Fanonipants]

which is to say pls do a suicide because you are worthless comrade

[cogar66]

And how the fuck does a personal history of "promiscuous" behaviour figure here, in any way imaginable?
It's pretty much obvious that such an approach is in total compliance with the phenomenon called "victim blaming" and with structural sexism.

To expand on this, sexual behaviour is not indicative of anything here. Rather, a case could be made if the defence were to rely on testimonies regarding some other aspects of the woman's behaviour, such as whether she had ever insisted on lying and slandering someone knowing full well that the consequences won't be minute.
Of course, a woman being extremely sexually active alone isn't enough to prove that she wasn't raped, and you should look at other aspects of her behavior. It has nothing to do with "victim blaming", it has to do with whether or not she is a VICTIM! If she consented to sex when it was happening and then decided later to accuse him of rape she is not a victim. If the man did indeed have non-consensual sex with a woman it is HIS fault. But we have to determine whether or not this did actually happen. And not just take her word for it.

[cogar66]

No one is asking to overturn presumption of innocence.

We're pointing out that you're a hideous sexist, the fat internet atheist fuckhead in that video is a hideous sexist, and you should both do re: my last post.
I'm not a sexist. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a sexist. Grow up.

[Thirsty Crow]

Of course, a woman being extremely sexually active alone isn't enough to prove that she wasn't raped, and you should look at other aspects of her behavior. It has nothing to do with "victim blaming", it has to do with whether or not she is a VICTIM! If she consented to sex when it was happening and then decided later to accuse him of rape she is not a victim. If the man did indeed have non-consensual sex with a woman it is HIS fault. But we have to determine whether or not this did actually happen. And not just take her word for it.

Inspecting sexual history has every fucking thing to do with victim blaming and sexism since it is not relevant to the possibility of her lying for one reason or another. Get it? "Promiscuous" people do not necessarily exhibit a tendency towards slanderous lying so no one should dig through her past.

Oh and btw., just to be clear, I am not accusing you of harboring sexist sentiments. Yet.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm not a sexist. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a sexist. Grow up.

I don't think you're a sexist because you disagree with me.

I think you're a sexist because you're a...wait for it...rape apologist.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't think you're a sexist because you disagree with me.

I think you're a sexist because you're a...wait for it...rape apologist.

Shut the fuck up, please.
Trumped up hysteria is not what is especially productive with respect to debating such touchy issues.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Shut the fuck up, please.
Trumped up hysteria is not what is especially productive with respect to debating such touchy issues.

calm the fuck down

this literally is rape apologism, not a smearing of a tendency. claiming that "well we just have to know the CHARACTER of an accused rapist" is textbook apologism for rape and rapists.

[cogar66]

Inspecting sexual history has every fucking thing to do with victim blaming and sexism since it is not relevant to the possibility of her lying for one reason or another. Get it? "Promiscuous" people do not necessarily exhibit a tendency towards slanderous lying so no one should dig through her past.

Oh and btw., just to be clear, I am not accusing you of harboring sexist sentiments. Yet.

This makes sense of course, and I agree with pretty much everything you said. However I do have a problem with "so no one should dig through her past." I think this should happen whether or not she is promiscuous. She is essentially a witness and you have to make sure her testimony is reliable.

[cogar66]

calm the fuck down

this literally is rape apologism, not a smearing of a tendency. claiming that "well we just have to know the CHARACTER of an accused rapist" is textbook apologism for rape and rapists.

You do realize that can go both ways right? A man accused of rape who is a repeated sex offender is more likely to be convicted. But I'm sure you'd have no problem with this.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You do realize that can go both ways right? A man accused of rape who is a repeated sex offender is more likely to be convicted. But I'm sure you'd have no problem with this.

I don't think you can be "sure" of what I have problems with or not.

The key issue is that you and your side of the issue have this obsession with a victim or alleged victim of sexual assault being "easy" or otherwise deserving the assault. To the point that knowing a woman's "sexual character" is a cornerstone of your approach to the issue.

[Thirsty Crow]

This makes sense of course, and I agree with pretty much everything you said. However I do have a problem with "so no one should dig through her past." I think this should happen whether or not she is promiscuous. She is essentially a witness and you have to make sure her testimony is reliable.
I meant that no one should dig through the history of her sexual behaviour.

[Thirsty Crow]

this literally is rape apologism,No, it isn't.

In no way did cogar66 argue that in some cases rape is understandable or even justified. As in "the victim was asking for it since she dressed provocatively". That's what rape apologism means.
Moreover, I've no basis to conclude that cogar in a way supports sexism
claiming that "well we just have to know the CHARACTER of an accused rapist" is textbook apologism for rape and rapists.

In absence of any kind of physical evidence or testimonies other than the persons' in question, it is most likely that

1) the persecution will not go ahead with the trial

2) if it does, all it can rely on are other people's testimonies with respect to the personality and behaviour

That's what cogar argued, and once again you're way off the mark with rape apologist accusations.

[cogar66]

I don't think you can be "sure" of what I have problems with or not.

The key issue is that you and your side of the issue have this obsession with a victim or alleged victim of sexual assault being "easy" or otherwise deserving the assault. To the point that knowing a woman's "sexual character" is a cornerstone of your approach to the issue.

I don't really care how "easy" she is. If she was raped, she was raped. Punish the person who raped her. This is NOT about whether or not she deserved to be raped, but about whether or not she actually WAS raped. I'm not saying "Oh she was dressed sexually provocatively, therefore the rapist was excused." I'm saying "Well, she has a history of being sexually active, which means she could have consented." And on top of that "She has a history of LYING, so she could be lying." You can't rape someone who consents to it. The issue is about whether or not she consented to it and then lied about it. It's happened in the past, and will probably happen in the future. The same goes for the man, if he has a history of sexually harassing people and he's accused of rape you can be a better judge as to whether or not he did it.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm saying "Well, she has a history of being sexually active, which means she could have consented." And on top of that "She has a history of LYING, so she could be lying."
Please, try to be more precise.
We all have a history of lying. It's not something indicative of anything.
On the other hand, if a person does not have a history of being sexually active, that also means she could have consented.

But in all fairness, it seems to me that you're definitely bordering on sexism since you cannot accept the argument that history of sexual behaviour is a completely moot point.

[zezima]

I don't really care how "easy" she is. If she was raped, she was raped. Punish the person who raped her. This is NOT about whether or not she deserved to be raped, but about whether or not she actually WAS raped. I'm not saying "Oh she was dressed sexually provocatively, therefore the rapist was excused." I'm saying "Well, she has a history of being sexually active, which means she could have consented." And on top of that "She has a history of LYING, so she could be lying." You can't rape someone who consents to it. The issue is about whether or not she consented to it and then lied about it. It's happened in the past, and will probably happen in the future. The same goes for the man, if he has a history of sexually harassing people and he's accused of rape you can be a better judge as to whether or not he did it.

Could not have said it better. I agre 100% with this.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think AA was right on. He is not blaming the victim at all and I think he got everything right. We live in a world where some women lie about being raped and one where women need to take certain measures to protect themselves. When my girlfriend goes for a bike ride around the city I ask her to bring someone or let me know how long I should wait for a call until I get worried. If she's going to a party I ask her not to wear short skirts or revealing shirts so that no guy takes it as though she is a "slut". That's not blaming women, that is taking measures to protect oneself.

[cogar66]

Please, try to be more precise.
We all have a history of lying. It's not something indicative of anything.
On the other hand, if a person does not have a history of being sexually active, that also means she could have consented.

But in all fairness, it seems to me that you're definitely bordering on sexism since you cannot accept the argument that history of sexual behaviour is a completely moot point.

I suppose it is. A person who has had no sex and accuses someone of raping her but has a history of lying to get attention or other people in trouble should not be taken at her word. And a person who has had sex a lot and accuses someone of raping her but does not have a history of lying to get attention or other people in trouble should be treated as a credible witness, especially if the man has a history of sexually harassing women. That make sense?

[Thirsty Crow]

A person who has had no sex and accuses someone of raping her but has a history of lying to get attention or other people in trouble should not be taken at her word.Well, it wouldn't be necessary to take it at her word, now would it?
The point is, it doesn't simply matter if a woman had slept with 2, 4, 10 or 30000 men and women in her life. Thus, no one should bring it up.
Bringing it up inherently implies an attempt at establishing a correlation between promiscuity and a tendency towards patent fabrication of events which didn't happen.

[cogar66]

Well, it wouldn't be necessary to take it at her word, now would it?
The point is, it doesn't simply matter if a woman had slept with 2, 4, 10 or 30000 men and women in her life. Thus, no one should bring it up.
Bringing it up inherently implies an attempt at establishing a correlation between promiscuity and a tendency towards patent fabrication of events which didn't happen.

I agree, I was just saying a person with no sexual history can be a liar and a person with an active sexual history can tell the truth. I just said that in more words.

[zezima]

Well, it wouldn't be necessary to take it at her word, now would it?
The point is, it doesn't simply matter if a woman had slept with 2, 4, 10 or 30000 men and women in her life. Thus, no one should bring it up.
Bringing it up inherently implies an attempt at establishing a correlation between promiscuity and a tendency towards patent fabrication of events which didn't happen.

The point is that if a woman has lied in the past about being raped then it makes her accusation less believable.

Ever heard of the boy (or in this case, girl) who crief wolf?

[Thirsty Crow]

The point is that if a woman has lied in the past about being raped then it makes her accusation less believable.

Ever heard of the boy (or in this case, girl) who crief wolf?
The point is that I didn't said anything against such a focus. All I'm saying is that anyone who wishes to expose her for a promiscuous human being that she supposedly is, by means of going through her sexual life, is a blatant sexist.

[zezima]

The point is that I didn't said anything against such a focus. All I'm saying is that anyone who wishes to expose her for a promiscuous human being that she supposedly is, by means of going through her sexual life, is a blatant sexist.

Oh yes, I totally agree with that except if she has previous incidents in her 'sex life' of false rape accusations

(if that even falls into the category of 'sex life' :P)

[Thirsty Crow]

Oh yes, I totally agree with that except if she has previous incidents in her 'sex life' of false rape accusations

(if that even falls into the category of 'sex life' :P)

No, in my opinion that does not fall into that category ;)

[SacRedMan]

Thread about rape and sex + RevLeft= comments like those from Ulyanov

[9]

When my girlfriend goes for a bike ride around the city I ask her to bring someone or let me know how long I should wait for a call until I get worried. If she's going to a party I ask her not to wear short skirts or revealing shirts so that no guy takes it as though she is a "slut". That's not blaming women, that is taking measures to protect oneself.

it sounds like maybe she ought to be more concerned about protecting herself from you.

[Leftsolidarity]

it sounds like maybe she ought to be more concerned about protecting herself from you.

Why? What is wrong with any of that? She lives in a crime infested area (9th most dangerous city in America actually) so if it is smart to go out with someone. For the party thing, it is not as if I'm asking her to wear a burka or anything. Just that she probably shouldn't wear short skirts or revealing shirts because some guys (esspecially when drunk) take that as saying she's easy and shit.

[727Goon]

it sounds like maybe she ought to be more concerned about protecting herself from you.

White knight status in this bihh

[9]

White knight status in this bihh

no. wearing a low-cut top isn't likely to present a risk of being abused, believe it or not! remaining in a relationship with someone who is possessive and controlling to the extent that they dictate what is and isn't acceptable for you to wear, on the other hand...

[Franz Fanonipants]

i tell all my mexican friends not to work. latino death rates on the job are pretty huge and u see it is mexicans faults for working, not the broader culture that encourages lax workplace safety among undocumented people.

e. i am not a prick out to tell people what to do i am only being sensible if you are mexican and work welp

[Leftsolidarity]

and you are evidently clueless. wearing a low-cut top isn't likely to present a risk of being abused, believe it or not! remaining in a relationship with someone who is possessive and controlling to the extent that they dictate what is and isn't acceptable for you to wear, on the other hand...

Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying or just haven't experienced it. Being around a bunch of drunk guys while wearing revealing clothes makes it seem (to some) that you are easy/slutty/available/etc. I know people who have been on both sides of that situation whether it be the person who forced themselves on someone else or the person that got a move made on them. You can shove your ultra-feminism up your ass because it is how reality is.

I also am not some possessive and controlling boyfriend. If she really wanted to do those things she could, I would just tell her it's stupid. I've been dating this girl for over 2 years so I know how to work things out with her but I'm not going to politicize our relationship just so that some ultra-feminist like you doesn't think I'm some oppressive patriarch.

[727Goon]

no. wearing a low-cut top isn't likely to present a risk of being abused, believe it or not! remaining in a relationship with someone who is possessive and controlling to the extent that they dictate what is and isn't acceptable for you to wear, on the other hand...

My girlfriend doesnt like me walking around outside with no shirt on, I'm not blowing up the abuse hotline. Dont get me wrong the dude might be wrong about whether or not it would keep her safe, but I don't think it's out of some sort of abusive desire for control more like a genuine concern for her safety. Anyways this is an online forum neither of us can really know so it's probably best to stay out of it.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't think that cogar and such are sexist so much as they are prudes.

[9]

Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying or just haven't experienced it. Being around a bunch of drunk guys while wearing revealing clothes makes it seem (to some) that you are easy/slutty/available/etc. I know people who have been on both sides of that situation whether it be the person who forced themselves on someone else or the person that got a move made on them.
most women at parties wear revealing clothing to some extent. it might make it more likely that someone will come onto you (then again, you could say the same thing about wearing makeup - where do you draw the line?). at any rate, in what universe does getting hit on = getting raped/abused? why are you conflating the two? you want your girlfriend to cover up because you don't want other guys to hit on her. fine. it has nothing at all to do with rape.


You can shove your ultra-feminism up your ass because it is how reality is.
I am not an "ultra-feminist", or even a feminist at all for that matter, but whatever.

[Leftsolidarity]

most women at parties wear revealing clothing to some extent. it might make it more likely that someone will come onto you (then again, you could say the same thing about wearing makeup - where do you draw the line?). at any rate, in what universe does getting hit on = getting raped/abused? why are you conflating the two? you want your girlfriend to cover up because you don't want other guys to hit on her. fine. it has nothing at all to do with rape.


I wasn't saying getting hit on = getting raped/abused. I really don't give a shit if a guy hits on her. I just didn't really know the right wording to use since raped/abused isn't exactly the right words if someone just forces themself on to you and shit but doesn't really rape you or anything, do you get what I mean?

Like AA in the video said, there is a common ground to be found and no need to go to either extreme. Society sends a message that if a women wears revealing clothes that she is asking for it or some bullshit like that. That is why I ASK (I think you've completely missed that part) that she doesn't so that she can try to avoid a bad situation.


I am not an "ultra-feminist", or even a feminist at all for that matter, but whatever.[/

Well you sure are acting like one.

[brigadista]

rape has nothing to do with what a woman is wearing ffs

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't think that cogar and such are sexist so much as they are prudes.

no bro, i'm a "clerical socialist"/prude. they're sexists.

[NewSocialist]

it sounds like maybe she ought to be more concerned about protecting herself from you.

It sounds like you should stay out of other people's business. Hypersensitive imbecile.

If she didn't want to be in a relationship with him, she'd leave.

[cogar66]

no bro, i'm a "clerical socialist"/prude. they're sexists.

Yep. I just hate women, I often spend my free time thinking about how I can advance the Patriarchy and keep women down. :rolleyes:

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yep. I just hate women, I often spend my free time thinking about how I can advance the Patriarchy and keep women down. :rolleyes:

"WHEN RAPE ALLEGATIONS OCCUR WE MUST DIVINE A WOMAN'S CHARACTER" is pretty fucking sexist bro sorry.

[cogar66]

It goes both ways. And by the way, this is only in the absence of physical evidence. If there is solid physical evidence that she was raped by the man then case closed. However, if there is only enough evidence to suggest rough sex we have to look at the character of the MAN and WOMAN. I really don't understand what's so controversial about this.

"WHEN A WITNESS IS CALLED TO THE STAND WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THEIR TESTIMONY IS RELIABLE" fixd.

[Franz Fanonipants]

it shows off how much you "hate *****es."

[cogar66]

You really can't think of an argument can you? :rolleyes:

Quit being so fucking knee-jerk and think about things for two seconds.

[ZeroNowhere]

It goes both ways. And by the way, this is only in the absence of physical evidence. If there is solid physical evidence that she was raped by the man then case closed. However, if there is only enough evidence to suggest rough sex we have to look at the character of the MAN and WOMAN. I really don't understand what's so controversial about this.

"WHEN A WITNESS IS CALLED TO THE STAND WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THEIR TESTIMONY IS RELIABLE" fixd."By checking whether they have sex a lot and are therefore untrustworthy people"?

[Franz Fanonipants]

You really can't think of an argument can you? :rolleyes:

Quit being so fucking knee-jerk and think about things for two seconds.

quit being so terrible and kill yourself

[cogar66]

"By checking whether they have sex a lot and are therefore untrustworthy people"?

No. But good try.

[ZeroNowhere]

Perhaps Ulyanov was speaking in Morse code.

[cogar66]

Perhaps Ulyanov was speaking in Morse code.

I don't support Ulyanov, I support the Amazing Atheist's position.

[DinodudeEpic]

You know what's sexist, thinking that women are the only ones that get raped, and men are the only ones who rape. Women are not inherently wussies who can't defend themselves or/and are flowers that can't even hurt a fly. Men are not inherently strong 'n tough and/or are heavy duty rapists.

We should try men and women the same way. We look at the EVIDENCE! Search the scene of the crime, DNA testing, call in more witness, study the histories of both. That's call a fair trial. Also, someone is not a rapist until we have proof of it. You can't just say 'he's a rapist cause he's a male with a rape-beard, and he looks weird.'

All the weaknesses that women usually show and all the strengths men usually show is mostly due to cultural factors that were shown to them as children.

[Ocean Seal]

Why the fuck is this even being debated on a supposedly "leftist" forum. The guy's a douche and a rape apologist who clearly has no idea of what rape is. That's it, that's all that should have gone down on this thread. The discussion should be whether or not its worth our time to troll the fuck out of this sexist piece of shit, not whether or not we agree with him.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Why the fuck is this even being debated on a supposedly "leftist" forum. The guy's a douche and a rape apologist who clearly has no idea of what rape is. That's it, that's all that should have gone down on this thread. The discussion should be whether or not its worth our time to troll the fuck out of this sexist piece of shit, not whether or not we agree with him.

but but but the Amazing Atheist is obvs. a source for solid social commentary fat internet atheists always have keen insights into

[Dimitri Molotov]

I agree with TAA.

[Ocean Seal]

^ Dmitri, which part the victim blaming or the minimization of rape.
Also recall that TAA has made videos in the past regarding how women should "get over" rape and how its really not all that bad. That they simply had "a penis inside of them". I believe that he took down the grotesquely offensive video for good reason.
Now, I'm going to pretend that I wasn't on a thread dominated by rape apologists on revleft. Seriously, mods put a stop to this shit.

[Leftsolidarity]

^ Dmitri, which part the victim blaming or the minimization of rape.
Also recall that TAA has made videos in the past regarding how women should "get over" rape and how its really not all that bad. That they simply had "a penis inside of them". I believe that he took down the grotesquely offensive video for good reason.
Now, I'm going to pretend that I wasn't on a thread dominated by rape apologists on revleft. Seriously, mods put a stop to this shit.

None of us are rape apologists we just believe in a fair trial.

[TheCommunist]

None of us are rape apologists we just believe in a fair trial.

Yes. Rape is a serious crime no doubt, but it is also a serious accusation.

If someone is falsely accused and convicted of rape they can say goodbye to 10+ years of their life, that's why it is so important to be 100% sure that x man raped x woman.

[#FF0000]

However, if a woman accuses a man of rape and it's a his word against mine situation you have to look at the character of the woman to see if she's telling the truth. You also have to look at the character of the man to see if he's the kind of person who would rape someone else.

do you think before you type? because not only is this disgusting but this would have horrendous consequences if this line of reasoning was applied to literally any other crime.

"Well there's no evidence but this black person seems like he could mug someone. I mean, he went to juvie once".

You are a lunatic.

[Dumb]

I'll admit to not having read this entire thread - things got pretty disgusting by about post 4 - but just want to point out that, while I agree with the point that rape often comes down to a question of the defendant's word against the word of the plaintiff/victim, it does seem rather sexist to me that rape is pretty much the only case in which anybody regularly gives a darn about the rights of the accused.

[Robocommie]

I don't really care how "easy" she is. If she was raped, she was raped. Punish the person who raped her. This is NOT about whether or not she deserved to be raped, but about whether or not she actually WAS raped. I'm not saying "Oh she was dressed sexually provocatively, therefore the rapist was excused." I'm saying "Well, she has a history of being sexually active, which means she could have consented." And on top of that "She has a history of LYING, so she could be lying." You can't rape someone who consents to it. The issue is about whether or not she consented to it and then lied about it. It's happened in the past, and will probably happen in the future. The same goes for the man, if he has a history of sexually harassing people and he's accused of rape you can be a better judge as to whether or not he did it.

Dude, you're operating off of the Madonna/Whore dichotomy. Any claims that you're not a sexist is bizarre at this point, regardless of whatever attempts your making to couch it as a defense of due process. Due process, as it exists, gives tremendously greater protections to the accused than it does a victim in rape trials. While this isn't necessarily a bad idea, what it means is that a woman who was genuinely raped who attempts to bring her attacker to justice is going to go through hell.

The defense attorney WILL drag up every single incident from her sexual history, and use it against her. They will literally frame their argument as being that because a woman has sex a lot, she's less likely to have been raped than a woman who is "pure" and "virginal." There is nothing about being sexually promiscuous that should work against a woman seeking justice in court. Period.

Stating that women who are sexually promiscuous are in any way more suspicious than women who are not IS sexism.

[Robocommie]

do you think before you type? because not only is this disgusting but this would have horrendous consequences if this line of reasoning was applied to literally any other crime.

"Well there's no evidence but this black person seems like he could mug someone. I mean, he went to juvie once".

You are a lunatic.

"The woman is white and has never had sex before, the accused is black and has a criminal record: death sentence."

That's not problematic, it's just a fair trial. After all, we live in a vacuum with no prejudices and social discrimination.

[Robocommie]

it does seem rather sexist to me that rape is pretty much the only case in which anybody regularly gives a darn about the rights of the accused.

Honestly, that's never even occurred to me before. That's a rather pointed observation, kudos.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think this fits nicely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3YlVYQ0Jbk

[L.A.P.]

^ Dmitri, which part the victim blaming or the minimization of rape.
Also recall that TAA has made videos in the past regarding how women should "get over" rape and how its really not all that bad. That they simply had "a penis inside of them". I believe that he took down the grotesquely offensive video for good reason.
Now, I'm going to pretend that I wasn't on a thread dominated by rape apologists on revleft. Seriously, mods put a stop to this shit.

Realize the man has a reverse victim complex because he was once sexually abused as well and likes to minimize it. It really has nothing to do with sexism but the effects of his unfortunate traumatic experience.

kjakFitGc7s

[black magick hustla]

let me guess he is prolly a libertarian and a secular humanist

[Leftsolidarity]

let me guess he is prolly a libertarian and a secular humanist

No, I think I saw a video where he was talking more as a social democrat.

[Mettalian]

I honestly couldn't finish it. The comments on the video are even worse. "Fuck feminism" and shit. Sure, I believe in a fair trial, but a lack of evidence does not prove innocence, just as circumstantial evidence does not prove guilt. Just because she's not covered in blood and semen when she's on the stand doesn't mean no rape occured. Rapists are sick, not stupid. Many have the sense to wear a condom and clean up. And promiscuity and rape should not be linked, its silly and only furthers victim blaming.

[Leftsolidarity]

I honestly couldn't finish it. The comments on the video are even worse. "Fuck feminism" and shit. Sure, I believe in a fair trial, but a lack of evidence does not prove innocence, just as circumstantial evidence does not prove guilt. Just because she's not covered in blood and semen when she's on the stand doesn't mean no rape occured. Rapists are sick, not stupid. Many have the sense to wear a condom and clean up. And promiscuity and rape should not be linked, its silly and only furthers victim blaming.


Agreed, but what if it comes down to just her word against his?

[JustMovement]

squalid cesspit of reaction.

[The_Outernationalist]

The Amazing Atheist isn't amazing, so much as he is a a sweaty bourgeois fatfuck who embarasses people just by association.

Seriously, if someone likes the "Amazing" Atheist, I stay clear of them like they have a flesh eating disease

[Obs]

cogar, just what kind of 'character' are you thinking of that would make a woman more likely to randomly accuse people of rape? Because that isn't really a thing that happens much - unlike rape, which happens all the time.

[cogar66]

do you think before you type? because not only is this disgusting but this would have horrendous consequences if this line of reasoning was applied to literally any other crime.

"Well there's no evidence but this black person seems like he could mug someone. I mean, he went to juvie once".

You are a lunatic.

Then perhaps in cases of accused rape where there's not enough evidence to prove anything beyond rough sex just shouldn't go to trial. Although even that won't satisfy most people here.

[cogar66]

cogar, just what kind of 'character' are you thinking of that would make a woman more likely to randomly accuse people of rape? Because that isn't really a thing that happens much - unlike rape, which happens all the time.

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ It happens.

But again, should we take any accusation of theft as truth simply because more often than not people don't falsely accuse others of theft?

As for what character: A history of feuding with the victim, lying for attention, lying to get others in trouble, blackmail, etc.

[Obs]

A history of feuding with the victim,

Wouldn't a history of feuding with a woman be just as much a motive for rape as it would for her to accuse him of rape?

[Leftsolidarity]

Then perhaps in cases of accused rape where there's not enough evidence to prove anything beyond rough sex just shouldn't go to trial. Although even that won't satisfy most people here.

No, that should definitely go to trail because even if it doesn't prove anything it still goes out into the open and if someone is constantly accused of rape then you know something is wrong.


As for what character: A history of feuding with the victim, lying for attention, lying to get others in trouble, blackmail, etc.

I've actually had a friend falsely accused of rape before because of a woman like that. It's not a good situation because rape is probably one of the worst crimes out there.

[Leftsolidarity]

Wouldn't a history of feuding with a woman be just as much a motive for rape as it would for her to accuse him of rape?

ehh I've never heard of that and it seems odd for people who are feuding for one to rape another

[cogar66]

no, that should definitely go to trail because even if it doesn't prove anything it still goes out into the open and if someone is constantly accused of rape then you know something is wrong.



What are you? A sexist/racist?

[cogar66]

Wouldn't a history of feuding with a woman be just as much a motive for rape as it would for her to accuse him of rape?

I've never heard of that before. But doesn't murder make more sense in that case?

[Leftsolidarity]

What are you? A sexist/racist?

Where do you get that from? The fact that I think someone who was raped should bring their rapist to court? I'll enjoy seeing how you spin that into sexism/racism.

[cogar66]

Where do you get that from? The fact that I think someone who was raped should bring their rapist to court? I'll enjoy seeing how you spin that into sexism/racism.

It was originally in all caps, I was imitating some of the people here.

[Leftsolidarity]

It was originally in all caps, I was imitating some of the people here.

Oh lol

[The_Outernationalist]

Despite the fact Cogar66 is a rabid sexist/misogynist, he'll be spared as he is an anarchist, and a quick review of the site's top admins reveals they all have anarchist sympathies; basically, they stick with their own like a gang

[cogar66]

Despite the fact Cogar66 is a rabid sexist/misogynist, he'll be spared as he is an anarchist, and a quick review of the site's top admins reveals they all have anarchist sympathies; basically, they stick with their own like a gang

:rolleyes: I am a liberal, racist and babyeater also if you didn't know that.

[Robocommie]

ehh I've never heard of that and it seems odd for people who are feuding for one to rape another

2/3 of all rapists are known by the victim.

[Robocommie]

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

Still guys, we gotta make it harder for all those lying women to put innocent men in jail. We do live in such a misandrist society, after all. :rolleyes:

[9]

Despite the fact Cogar66 is a rabid sexist/misogynist, he'll be spared as he is an anarchist, and a quick review of the site's top admins reveals they all have anarchist sympathies; basically, they stick with their own like a gang
god, shut up; don't be ridiculous. cogar66 has views that a ton of people - probably even most people - in this society have, there is literally no reason for admins to get involved in this thread.

[The_Outernationalist]

god, shut up; don't be ridiculous. cogar66 has views that a ton of people - probably even most people - in this society have, there is literally no reason for admins to get involved in this thread.

and those "tons of people" are reactionary shitheads who shouldn't be blaming rape victims.

Tons of people also supported Jim Crow. They also supported slavery. I guess that makes it okay though, right? :rolleyes:

Also, I thought because "even most people" have those views were the reason why we were trying to educate on this rampant sexism--I guess I was wrong then.

[9]

did I say it made it OK? no, i was in this thread earlier arguing against similar things. stop calling for admins to get involved.

[The_Outernationalist]

did I say it made it OK? no, i was in this thread earlier arguing against similar things. stop calling for admins to get involved.

If some admins have to get involved to ban some sexists and misogynists, then by all means, I hope they get involved as they need to be.

[cogar66]

If some admins have to get involved to ban some sexists and misogynists, then by all means, I hope they get involved as they need to be.

I'm glad you've proven I hate women. I'd call you a sexist. Weren't you the one who called TJ a sweaty fatfuck? If I called a woman a fat ugly ***** would you consider me a sexist? I bet you would.

[Dimitri Molotov]

^ Dmitri, which part the victim blaming or the minimization of rape.
Also recall that TAA has made videos in the past regarding how women should "get over" rape and how its really not all that bad. That they simply had "a penis inside of them". I believe that he took down the grotesquely offensive video for good reason.
Now, I'm going to pretend that I wasn't on a thread dominated by rape apologists on revleft. Seriously, mods put a stop to this shit.

I agree with him when he stated that rape is treated differently than most other crimes and you should not just assume the suspect is guilty. I am not a rape apologist, I just think that if you are going to accuse someone of rape you need to have proof of it, because it has happened in the past where an individual will go to jail for rape even though it was consensual, just because the other person turned around and claimed rape. This happened to one of my personal friends last year in high school, I haven't talked to him since, but I am just saying it does happen. I think if someone can prove they were raped, the rapist can't be let off light, because I am certainly no apologist when it comes to rape, and with the punishment I would like to give them, they had better be a real rapist.

As for the video you mentioned, I have never seen this video, most likely because, like you said, it was removed. I am a fan of TAA and watch him on a regular basis because I like hearing his opinions, because they go against the popular public view, and because they are controversial. (ex. This one.) I defiantly do not agree with them all, especially his view on Communism and Anarchy. However, I still enjoy watching him because he has his own opinions that he came to using his own logic and thought, and has a mind of his own. I also find him entertaining to watch. I have been following his videos for a few months now, but I do not recall the video you speak of. If you can find this video, please send me the link, as I would love to see it. If it was uploaded at one point, it was probably be re-uploaded by someone else somewhere, I will see if I can find it as well.

Have a good day/night, Comrade!

[Dimitri Molotov]

let me guess he is prolly a libertarian and a secular humanist

In one of his very recent videos he said he was a liberal. . . kind of Chody haha.

[cogar66]

In one of his very recent videos he said he was a liberal. . . kind of Chody haha.

He also said Ron Paul had no grasp of economics. He still made this stupid video though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrk7m3aKpWA

[cogar66]

I couldn't agree with him more. Rape is one woman's word against one man's word, if that woman has no proof that the man did it, he is not guilty.

A history of prostitution or whatever undoubtedly tilts the favour in the case of the man.

I should mention I DO NOT agree with this. At all.

[Leftsolidarity]

If some admins have to get involved to ban some sexists and misogynists, then by all means, I hope they get involved as they need to be.

Yes, if someone doesn't agree with you they should be banned because they are sexist misogynoists...:rolleyes:

[Dimitri Molotov]

He also said Ron Paul had no grasp of economics. He still made this retarded video though:

Really quick, you know what else I hate? Sorry to get off track, but it kind of bugs me when people get all worked up when people say "retarded" in that sense. I don't see the big deal, and I am glad you said that because I have always been kind of afraid to say it on here in fear of igniting a large argument about it, I have always wondered what the people of Revleft have thought of that word, but I don't want to get off topic, I suppose it is another discussion for a different thread.

[Leftsolidarity]

2/3 of all rapists are known by the victim.

That doesn't matter for what we were saying. We were talking about people who were feuding which I would find highly unlikely that someone would rape someone they were feuding with.



Still guys, we gotta make it harder for all those lying women to put innocent men in jail. We do live in such a misandrist society, after all. :rolleyes:

I don't think a single person (except for that troll in the beginning) said that or anything of the like. What some were saying is that just because someone has a vagina doesn't mean they don't falsely accuse someone and just because someone has a penis doesn't mean they are a rapist.

[Leftsolidarity]

Really quick, you know what else I hate? Sorry to get off track, but it kind of bugs me when people get all worked up when people say "retarded" in that sense. I don't see the big deal, and I am glad you said that because I have always been kind of afraid to say it on here in fear of igniting a large argument about it, I have always wondered what the people of Revleft have thought of that word, but I don't want to get off topic, I suppose it is another discussion for a different thread.

start a thread for it I think it'll be good

[Dimitri Molotov]

start a thread for it I think it'll be good

You are right, I think I will. I am kind of curious about it. :)

[Robocommie]

That doesn't matter for what we were saying. We were talking about people who were feuding which I would find highly unlikely that someone would rape someone they were feuding with.


It does, actually. The point is that 2/3 of rapists already know the person they attack, oftentimes they know them very well. I don't get why you think it's so unlikely to have an argument turn into rape.


I don't think a single person (except for that troll in the beginning) said that or anything of the like. What some were saying is that just because someone has a vagina doesn't mean they don't falsely accuse someone and just because someone has a penis doesn't mean they are a rapist.I'm pretty sure most everyone posting in this thread has a penis, so it's not like anyone actually thinks that. Furthermore, since the statistics clearly show that the courts are hardly inclined to take every single accusation at it's face value, it's absurd that anyone even feels the need to point this out. The problem with rape trials is NOT an overzealous conviction rate.

Look, I get it. Every guy has some boneheaded fear that some crazy ex-gf will make up some story and get them cast as a sick monster, hauled off to prison and brutalized by other inmates. Every boneheaded male member of society who sees this as a power that women have over men resent them for it and think it needs to be corrected for their to be "fair trials." The problem is this: that fear is bullshit, and the statistics prove it.

It's very nearly the equivalent of wealthy suburbanites hating and resenting welfare moms because of their "cushy life."

[PhoenixAsh]

A woman (A) comes into the police station. She states she was raped a week ago by a man (X) in her appartment.

X states they had consentual sex. No witnesses. No bruising since its healed.

So how do we proceed?

***

A man (A) comes into the police station. And he states he has been raped by his girlfriend (X) a week ago. No witnesses. No bruising since its healed.


How do we proceed?

****

A man (A) comes into a police station and states he has been raped by a man (X) a week ago. Man X claims the sex was consentual. No witnesses. No bruising since its healed.


How do we proceed?

****

A woman (A) comes into the policestation and claims she has been raped by a woman (X) a week ago. X claims the sex was consentual. No witnesses. No bruising since its healed.


How do we proceed?



See...rape is a little more complicated than blanket statements on an internet forum. Because it more often than not boils down to what the hell can you actually prove and how the hell do you investigate it.

Now...since people are claiming sexism here left and right...how many of you people thought about the rape as being man on woman?

How many of you people actually thought about...how the hell you can prove consent or non consent in a setting which is secluded...so how the hell do we combine the rights of the victim with the notion of innocence until proven guilty?

And how many of you have noticed that in example two the remarks of person X were missing?


THAT is why rape is such an insidious crime....the victim is the one losing out. Its happens secluded, there is often little evidence as either the victim is ashamed or waits too long for other reasons, evidence is washed away in a desperate attempt to get clean again, and most evidence which can still be found do little to distinguish between consent and non consent.

So its litterally word against word.

Because on the opposite side of that story you have somebody who may be telling the truth and is innocent....and since we require people to be innocent until proven guilty....we have a huge problem in most rape cases.

So...instead of trying to find evidence in sexual history or dressing style...or even based on previous behaviour (because the boy who cried wolf...is a nice argument to show that people can claim something which has not happened...but the end of the story is that that very same boy was eventually right)....we might want to come up with a system that combines these two.

[cogar66]

Look, I get it. Every guy has some boneheaded fear that some crazy ex-gf will make up some story and get them cast as a sick monster, hauled off to prison and brutalized by other inmates. Every boneheaded male member of society who sees this as a power that women have over men resent them for it and think it needs to be corrected for their to be "fair trials." The problem is this: that fear is bullshit, and the statistics prove it.

It's very nearly the equivalent of wealthy suburbanites hating and resenting welfare moms because of their "cushy life."

Except I have no fear of this at all. I have no fear of being falsely accused of murder/stealing either. I just think that people should have fair trials. I didn't agree with TJ before watching this video, it gave me a new perspective to think about.

[Robocommie]

Except I have no fear of this at all. I have no fear of being falsely accused of murder/stealing either. I just think that people should have fair trials. I didn't agree with TJ before watching this video, it gave me a new perspective to think about.

Fair trials are bourgeois. :rolleyes:

The statistics have been presented to you to show you that your concerns are baseless. Flat out.

[PhoenixAsh]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cogar66-rabid-sexist-p2149561/index.html#post2149561

ˆˆ



@Cogar66

Do you think in the reverse situation a man should get teh same treatment as you rpopose here for women?

[cogar66]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cogar66-rabid-sexist-p2149561/index.html#post2149561

ˆˆ



@Cogar66

Do you think in the reverse situation a man should get teh same treatment as you rpopose here for women?

Yes.

[PhoenixAsh]

Fair trials are bourgeois. :rolleyes:

The statistics have been presented to you to show you that your concerns are baseless. Flat out.


well...there are long term sudies done which state that around 30-40% of all rape allegations are erroneous for all kinds of reasons. Kanin...or something did somethings on that subject. On the percentage of overturned convictions in which new evidence came to light about 15% turn out to be wrongly convicted.

[cogar66]

well...there are long term sudies done which state that around 30-40% of all rape allegations are erroneous for all kinds of reasons. Kanin...or something did somethings on that subject. On the percentage of overturned convictions in which new evidence came to light about 15% turn out to be wrongly convicted.

Studies are bourgeois.

[tiktaalik_tacos]

tj would be right. if soicety was static. he seems to think rape will just happen sometimes. fail

[cogar66]

tj would be right. if soicety was static. he seems to think rape will just happen sometimes. fail

Actually he says the opposite in the video. He says he blames society for rape, and he thinks that unless we address the core issue we can't do anything about it. He says that in our current society women should take precautions because rapists exist. Something I agree with, but I don't think that means it's the woman's FAULT. Just that it would be a good idea to do so.

[Leftsolidarity]

It does, actually. The point is that 2/3 of rapists already know the person they attack, oftentimes they know them very well. I don't get why you think it's so unlikely to have an argument turn into rape.


I know that the majority of rapes are committed by a person they know. I'm not saying an argument can't turn into rape but I thought we were talking as in a long lasting feud between 2 people. That is what I don't see turning into rape.



I'm pretty sure most everyone posting in this thread has a penis, so it's not like anyone actually thinks that.

Well the position some on this thread are taking is one of a "man=rapist" mentality.


The problem with rape trials is NOT an overzealous conviction rate.


I don't think anyone has said this either. No one is saying that we have an overzealous conviction rate but I (and I think I can speak for some others here) think that what some of you are saying and supporting WOULD lead to that. Though my own personal experience of good friends being raped/molested I know that it is hard to prove that the accusations are true but that it just a sad fact of life because if we start going off of anything other than actual proof and we turn to settling for a "her word against his" basis for our legal system then it is still sexist and even more flawed.




Look, I get it. Every guy has some boneheaded fear that some crazy ex-gf will make up some story and get them cast as a sick monster, hauled off to prison and brutalized by other inmates. Every boneheaded male member of society who sees this as a power that women have over men resent them for it and think it needs to be corrected for their to be "fair trials." The problem is this: that fear is bullshit, and the statistics prove it.

It's very nearly the equivalent of wealthy suburbanites hating and resenting welfare moms because of their "cushy life."


Umm... I don't feel that way and I think only some of the most conservative idiots think that.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Fair trials are bourgeois.

x1,000,000,000,000

ban leftsolidarity, cogar, and that one other "anarcho-communist" for fuckheadery

[cogar66]

x1,000,000,000,000

ban leftsolidarity, cogar, and that one other "anarcho-communist" for fuckheadery

:laugh:

[Franz Fanonipants]

Then perhaps in cases of accused rape where there's not enough evidence to prove anything beyond rough sex just shouldn't go to trial. Although even that won't satisfy most people here.

can i just take a second to
:ohmy:

[cogar66]

can i just take a second to
:ohmy:

What is your solution? There is no more physical evidence to suggest anything other than rough sex. Woman claims it was rape. Man claims it was consensual. What do we do?

[Franz Fanonipants]

What is your solution? There is no more physical evidence to suggest anything other than rough sex. Woman claims it was rape. Man claims it was consensual. What do we do?

1. you kill yourself
2. everyone is happy that they aren't exposed to virulent sexism and fat non-marxists having opinions

[cogar66]

1. you kill yourself
2. everyone is happy that they aren't exposed to virulent sexism and fat non-marxists having opinions

Well God damn, you've convinced me. That sure did change my opinion. :rolleyes:

[Leftsolidarity]

x1,000,000,000,000

ban leftsolidarity, cogar, and that one other "anarcho-communist" for fuckheadery

I don't see why idiots like you keep saying to ban us. Can you actually point out something wrong/flawed in our arguments? Or will you just continue to jump in not contributing anything but your silly insults? I don't see how saying we should have a fair trial falls under the catagory of "fuckheadery". I would think those calling for a sexist trial where one gender has more of a voice and the other gender is already assumed to be guilty are the ones who fall under "fuckheadery".

[ComradeMan]

What is your solution? There is no more physical evidence to suggest anything other than rough sex. Woman claims it was rape. Man claims it was consensual. What do we do?

Lie detector?

[cogar66]

Lie detector?
"Polygraphy is widely rejected by the scientific community because they consider it to be pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience)." :(

[Trelane]

I don't see why idiots like you keep saying to ban us. Can you actually point out something wrong/flawed in our arguments? Or will you just continue to jump in not contributing anything but your silly insults? I don't see how saying we should have a fair trial falls under the catagory of "fuckheadery". I would think those calling for a sexist trial where one gender has more of a voice and the other gender is already assumed to be guilty are the ones who fall under "fuckheadery".

The problem with the people he mentioned(and the man in the video, TJ) is that they're arguing against positions which no one holds in order to discredit feminist positions. A lot of their responses to actual feminist positions are sexist.


No one wants to overturn presumption of innocence.
We do not say rape happens because rapists are evil, and the woman holding the "Things that cause rape" sign probably understands rape and rape culture a lot better than TJ. Every feminist knows that women are regularly assaulted while walking alone at night, drinking, and well, doing pretty much anything else (According to studies, outfits aren't a factor when rapists are choosing a victim.). None of these are the reason rape happens. The ultimate goal is to eliminate rapists, not force women to change their behaviour.
TJ thinks that a woman's sexual history is relevant to whether or not she would lie about being raped. I think other people have explained why that's sexist. Felida's robber analogy went right over his head too. She asked if his past handling of money had anything to do with whether he would lie about being robbed. He responded by saying there would be other evidence in a robbery.
TJ claims that Felida said rape is the only crime that calls the victim's credibility into question. She does not.
TJ argues against the statement "rape is only about power." Felida did not say that.

I could go on, but this is giving me a headache. Franz has the right idea. It's just easier to call you stupid. :/

[cogar66]

TJ thinks that a woman's sexual history is relevant to whether or not she would lie about being raped. I think other people have explained why that's sexist.

I want to make it known this is not a position I support, and I sent TJ a message asking him how the two were related, he hasn't responded yet unfortunately, and he probably never will. "I mostly agree with your newest video. However, do you really think we should focus on a woman's sexual history when it comes to judging whether or not her rape claim is accurate? Wouldn't it make more sense to look to see if she has a history of a long feud with the accused or if she has a history of lying to get attention, blackmail, lying to get people in trouble, etc? Women who have a lot of sex are not automatically liars and vice versa. I can understand checking her honesty, but do you think that sexual history is really relevant?"

[Leftsolidarity]

The problem with the people he mentioned(and the man in the video, TJ) is that they're arguing against positions which no one holds in order to discredit feminist positions. A lot of their responses to actual feminist positions are sexist.


No one wants to overturn presumption of innocence.
We do not say rape happens because rapists are evil, and the woman holding the "Things that cause rape" sign probably understands rape and rape culture a lot better than TJ. Every feminist knows that women are regularly assaulted while walking alone at night, drinking, and well, doing pretty much anything else (According to studies, outfits aren't a factor when rapists are choosing a victim.). None of these are the reason rape happens. The ultimate goal is to eliminate rapists, not force women to change their behaviour.
TJ thinks that a woman's sexual history is relevant to whether or not she would lie about being raped. I think other people have explained why that's sexist. Felida's robber analogy went right over his head too. She asked if his past handling of money had anything to do with whether he would lie about being robbed. He responded by saying there would be other evidence in a robbery.
TJ claims that Felida said rape is the only crime that calls the victim's credibility into question. She does not.
TJ argues against the statement "rape is only about power." Felida did not say that.
I could go on, but this is giving me a headache. Franz has the right idea. It's just easier to call you stupid. :/

First of all, thank you for an actual response.

Me and you (and even TJ) agree that the point is to eliminate rapists but that is a problem with society and while society is still sexist and breeds rapists than it WOULD BE WISE for women to take certain measures to protect themselves. No one said anything about forcing. To argue against that is foolish.

I agree with you, a woman's sexual history should not matter.

[Trelane]

First of all, thank you for an actual response.

Me and you (and even TJ) agree that the point is to eliminate rapists but that is a problem with society and while society is still sexist and breeds rapists than it WOULD BE WISE for women to take certain measures to protect themselves. No one said anything about forcing. To argue against that is foolish.

I agree with you, a woman's sexual history should not matter.

I don't know who's against people trying to reduce their risk of sexual assault or, when it's expressed out of genuine concern for someone's safety, advocating ways to reduce risk of sexual assault (RAINN does just that.). If that was all TJ was saying, that'd be just fine. Instead, he makes a comparison to how a victim of robbery should feel and seems to imply that rape victims should take responsibility for and learn a lesson from their failure to take the proper precautions. It's just an awful mess. Can't we just call him stupid?

[Dumb]

well...there are long term sudies done which state that around 30-40% of all rape allegations are erroneous for all kinds of reasons. Kanin...or something did somethings on that subject. On the percentage of overturned convictions in which new evidence came to light about 15% turn out to be wrongly convicted.

That's true, and I think that's the sort of info that scares the guys. However, my understanding is that those are cases in which the courts convict the wrong guy while there's little or no question of a rape occurring - it's just a question of who did it. I haven't come across studies detailing false convictions hinging on the question of whether there was a rape at all - though I suppose it would be impossible to make such a study in the first place.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I would think those calling for a sexist trial where one gender has more of a voice and the other gender is already assumed to be guilty are the ones who fall under "fuckheadery".

sexism doesn't work like that, fuckhead.

"I AM SO SICK OF MY MOM TELLING ME WHAT TO DO THIS IS OUTRIGHT SEXISM!" - a guy

e: you really are stupid because no one is saying what you're arguing against.

[Ele'ill]

I'm a fan of clear conversation- devoid of weird scenario set-ups that have inane 'twists and turns' with the intent to generalize it as 'the norm'. I am also not all that into name calling- only on occasion and I don't think this is the appropriate setting.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm a fan of clear conversation- devoid of weird scenario set-ups that have inane 'twists and turns' with the intent to generalize it as 'the norm'. I am also not all that into name calling- only on occasion and I don't think this is the appropriate setting.

i wasn't aware that people who claim that promiscuous women/women in general perform actions that makes them "clear rape victims" deserved that kind of conversation on revleft, comrade.

[cogar66]

i wasn't aware that people who claim that promiscuous women/women in general perform actions that makes them "clear rape victims" deserved that kind of conversation on revleft, comrade.

And which person here besides the troll in the beginning is advocating that, comrade?

[Ele'ill]

i wasn't aware that people who claim that promiscuous women/women in general perform actions that makes them "clear rape victims" deserved that kind of conversation on revleft, comrade.

My point- on top of what you just said about the other user's positioning- was that your counterargument sucked.