Debate and Discussion

Double Standards
Aurora Moon at 10:31PM, July 8, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
isukun
show me any actual situations where people applaud women hitting men for no good reason at all? Because seriously I've never seen that happen.

That was never my argument. I never said anything about being applauded for hitting a guy for no reason. The double standard is that if a guy hits a girl, even if he has a good reason, it's considered bad. Women fighting back is encouraged, men fighting bad is discouraged.

But that doesn't mean that boys are never kidnapped just because they stayed out late.

And just because you weren't hit by a truck yesterday that doesn't mean it won't happen today. Does that mean you'll stay in your house from now on? Nothing is life is 100% safe, but the odds of a teenage boy getting carted away are still significantly less than a teenage girl. Adults can be kidnapped too, maybe they should stay locked up in their homes at all hours, as well. Hell, mandatory curfews for everyone.

In fact, just a quick look at the statistics seems to suggest that only a minority of kidnapping cases are perpetrated by strangers. Of those cases, 75% are kids under the age of 11, and of the rest the vast majority are female. As the numbers dwindle, it looks more like male teens are less likely to be kidnapped than an adult. After all, most kidnappings of male teens aren't done for sexual reasons, unlike more kidnappings of female teens. Male teens tend to get kidnapped more for money than anything else. If that's the incentive, you're better off mugging someone who looks like they have a job.

You seem to be heading in the opposite direction I would take, anyway. I tend to prefer to give kids some freedom rather than take it away equally.

I'm not talking about cooping up kids inside their homes forever.

I'm just talking about parents letting teenage boys stay out UNREASONABLY LATE around 11pm to 3am doing whatever it is that they want to do. They think teenage boys have the ability to defend themselves against ANYTHING, even if they're completely drunk from “partying” so much.

Whereas Teenage girls are oh so Helpless against ANYTHING and therefore the teenage girls have to be home by 6pm as opposed to the teenage boys.

That's wrong in my opinion. If you live in certain areas where there's higher chances of crimes late at night, then there's a higher chance that the said teenage boys could get in deep trouble here. Even if they don't get kidnapped, plenty of things still can happen to them.

Somebody here brought up female-on-male rapes. which brings me to another point here against parents letting doing thier teenage boys do whatever they want, even party all night.

did you know that 70% of female-on-male rapes involving teenage boys usually occurred when the teenage boys were passed out from drinking, and were prone to being sexually taken advantage of by the females? This is a part of why the male victims don't report it….they're upset by it, but they don't exactly remember well whenever they consented to it or not. Or, they were one of the many who actually thinks that just because parts of their bodies responded to the forced simulation, that they had to find it pleasurable somehow.

Those are the same exact reasons why some women don't report being raped, by the way. They don't remember if they said yes while they were drunk, or they feel guilty that their own body involuntary had reacted to the forced simulation. They then feel that they must had wanted it somehow.

To me, that's one of the good reasons not to let teenage boys stay out so late just because they're males.

But since you brought up adults being kidnapped too…. how about this– Most adults know better to stay home at late hours if they happen to live in neighborhoods with high crime-rates. Because to do otherwise increases their chances of being killed, kidnapped.. in fact you could say the odds increases all the way to 90% at night as opposed to the 0.5% chance during the daytime.

hell, even in safer areas where there's low crime rates they still know better than go go out that late.

What rational adult would decide to go for a walk in a dark alleyway at 3am? Not many would, that's for sure.

So all I'm saying is that COMMON SENSE should be exercised here–EVERYONE's at risk late at night, regardless of their gender and age.

As for men hitting women for a good reason still being considered “bad”… I would have to say it would also depend on the area you live in.

I recall an incident here some years back where there was a string of late night muggings. And keep in mind this was actually in an state that had the LOWEST crime rate out of the whole United states alone… which was why people were so shocked and worried about the muggings in their area.

It turned out that an woman had been the perpetrator… and the one who had caught her was some dude who had to defend himself against this woman. He punched her right in the face to knock her out, and he was actually applauded for catching the criminal. Nobody even once said: “omfg!! he punched her in the face, the fiend!! I don't care if he was doing it to defend himself against an criminal… you still don't hit a woman!!!111111!!!”
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
isukun at 10:36AM, July 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Whereas Teenage girls are oh so Helpless against ANYTHING and therefore the teenage girls have to be home by 6pm as opposed to the teenage boys.

And I don't think that's the issue, at all. Girls aren't helpless, and guys aren't invulnerable. Just about every parent knows that, but they also recognize that the risks are far greater for their daughters than their sons. I also don't think that the mindset that girls have to be home by 6 and guys can stay out as late as they want is nearly as rampant as you claim. After all, there are girls at most of these late night parties the guys are going to, as well.

did you know that 70% of female-on-male rapes involving teenage boys usually occurred when the teenage boys were passed out from drinking, and were prone to being sexually taken advantage of by the females?

Except those stats don't necessarily mean anything regarding this issue. Many of those cases could be involving college level teens or teens whose family or friends get them drunk to take advantage of them. The majority of these cases happen with someone the victim knows. The younger the victim, the more likely it's a family member. So that stat doesn't necessitate that the teen had to be out late drinking.

But since you brought up adults being kidnapped too…. how about this– Most adults know better to stay home at late hours if they happen to live in neighborhoods with high crime-rates.

From my experience working with inner city children, I'd have to say so do most kids. Hell, in most of your poverty stricken areas like that, parents don't like letting their kids out during the day. I met kids who would be absent from school of a week because their mother couldn't drive them five blocks to get to class.

hell, even in safer areas where there's low crime rates they still know better than go go out that late.

Really? That's not the case out here.

What rational adult would decide to go for a walk in a dark alleyway at 3am? Not many would, that's for sure.

Yet, I see a lot of them do it around here. You gotta get home from the clubs somehow. Yet I don't hear about too many serial rapists in these parts, or even people disappearing.

So all I'm saying is that COMMON SENSE should be exercised here–EVERYONE's at risk late at night, regardless of their gender and age.

That's not common sense, it's paranoia. Everyone is at risk all of the time. The difference is to what degree. At what point is it considered a reasonable threat and at what point is it not worth disrupting your life over it? That's all I'm saying. Bad stuff happens and there are no ethnic, gender, or racial groups that do not fall victim to these things, but that doesn't mean that one group who is victimized more should be setting the example for a group that hardly ever gets victimized. If a bunch of women get raped around my apartment building, should I just huddle in fear, despite being a man or should I live my life? To me, that answer seems pretty obvious. Yeah, it's bad for the women and I hope the bastard gets caught, but it's not my problem and it shouldn't effect my ability to have a healthy lifestyle. It's kind of like what happened in DC when the sniper shootings occured. Yeah, people were concerned, but they still went to work,kids went to school, tourists still flooded the mall, and people still walked the streets at night.

He punched her right in the face to knock her out, and he was actually applauded for catching the criminal.

A rare exception to the rule. Usually when your life is threatened, fighting back isn't considered taboo. Still if a husband is verbally abusive to his wife and she punches him for it, she is usually applauded for standing up to an oppressive male. If the woman is verbally abusive and the man punches her, he's a wife beater.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Aurora Moon at 11:42AM, July 9, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
isukun
{snip}

A rare exception to the rule. Usually when your life is threatened, fighting back isn't considered taboo. Still if a husband is verbally abusive to his wife and she punches him for it, she is usually applauded for standing up to an oppressive male. If the woman is verbally abusive and the man punches her, he's a wife beater.

let's just agree to disagree on whenever staying out late can be dangerous or not, shall we? You like to call it parionia, I just call it common sense.

Hey, even if you didn't get raped by the serial rapist who were raping women, there's still other criminals out there. so it's just common sense to lock your windows, your doors at night before you sleep or something.

And you claim that the whole with the teenage girl vs teenage boys don't happen often…. well, again… it also depends on the area it would seem.

growing up, I often witnessed firsthand this kind of attitude where teenage girls weren't seen as being capable as the teenage boys. And if any girls were actually let out at late night parties, the other parents would find out about it, and then get on the girls' parents' case about it. They'd tell the parents things like: “OMG, WTF were you thinking?!! your young girls at an party full of boys…. anything could happen! don't you care about your daughters?? my word, I would never let my daughter out that late!”

and then the same parents who let their daughters out late would be pressured into making them stay home from now on.

There was also an incident here where some strange girl who the teenage boy had never seen before in his whole life took advantage of him when he was drunk. apparently he was fully aware of everything, but he was too drunk to even fight her off or to form a full sentence such as “No, stop it”. He had massive depression over it, and actually attempted suicide.

there was reports that this same girl had been caught doing that same crap to other teenagers too…. and what's more she was usually like 4 years older than any of them. She was caught, and then jailed as an sexual predator.

and even after that became news around here, the parents were like: “Oh, nothing like that could ever happen to my darling danny/luke/whatever. They're old enough to fend off anything like that. After all, they're real men, not unlike that boy who were unable to fend off A GIRL.”

You don't seem to think that there are no such thing as sexist and stupid parents out there….but they do exist. I've seen them.

as for that abusive woman thing… I've known of men who actually collected proof that the wives, in fact was truly being abusive and that they were only defending themselves. The police didn't put the men in jail for hitting back as an result, and instead jailed the women.

After all, most abusive wives tends to carry weapons on them when inflicting psychical damage and as an result they're seen as more dangerous than an abusive husband half the times. After all, studies and evidence is stacking up that more husbands are killed by abusive wives than the way around… so awareness about this sort of thing is starting to form in many areas now.

so as the pendulum swings one way, it will eventually swing back the other way too.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
isukun at 5:39PM, July 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
and even after that became news around here, the parents were like: "Oh, nothing like that could ever happen to my darling danny/luke/whatever.

One crazy person found of the streets doesn't mean this is a wide spread epidemic. One woman sets the example and suddenly there is a flood of 20-something women running around molesting teenage boys? It doesn't really work that way. You know, it's actually more likely that a parent will molest a teen boy than a stranger will. Maybe we should just have all kids raised by the state.

They'd tell the parents things like: “OMG, WTF were you thinking?!! your young girls at an party full of boys…. anything could happen! don't you care about your daughters?? my word, I would never let my daughter out that late!”

Seems like a legitimate concern to me. Teenagers are idiots driven by their hormones and teenage males tend to be more aggressive than teenage females. That's not sexism, it's common sense.

The police didn't put the men in jail for hitting back as an result, and instead jailed the women.

Which once again, was not the scenario I presented you with. As I said, people don't generally look down on you for defending yourself in a life or death situation. Fact of the matter is, though, that there are more than twice as many cases of men abusing their wives than the other way around. A lot of those cases are simply a case of a man raising his hand against his wife when frustrated. Why is it for a woman to go to jail, she actually has to try to kill someone?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Pineapple at 4:40AM, July 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 276
joined: 4-21-2008
Lets get off the “getting raped in the street” topic for a bit, shall we?

I'm training to be a Primary School teacher and we get drilled about, boys and girls are different, they have different learning styles, they have different needs, they require different disciplinary methods and so on and so forth. To an extent I understand this, especially as they get older and the hormones take hold. But one day I decided to bring up something that had been bugging me, do boys and girls behave differently in the classroom because from the moment they start school we expect different things from them and encourage (or discourage) certain behaviors? I used the example of handwriting. It's just expected from teachers that boys will have worse handwriting than girls. Two exact pieces of work, the boy will get a sticker for it, the girl will get a “well done, but your handwriting needs improving”. So do boys inherently have bad handwriting, is it because, when they first starting to learn how to write, the teacher expected a higher standard from the girls? The same could be said for the rope in the early example. Boys might not inherently be better at climbing ropes, but from an early age they were encouraged more than the girls and it was expected of them to do better. It's kind of like the old chicken and the egg question. When I raised this in class, some of the other students were quite angry at this, saying that boys and girls should be treated differently, that I wouldn't give my students proper educations, blah, blah, blah. But personally I really think that we should take a step back and start having equal expectations of both sexes. Maybe men have a hidden talent for, say, knitting but we don’t know because it's never been encouraged. But this way of thinking is really discouraged in my degree.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:43PM
Aurora Moon at 7:59AM, July 10, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
isukun
and even after that became news around here, the parents were like: "Oh, nothing like that could ever happen to my darling danny/luke/whatever.

One crazy person found of the streets doesn't mean this is a wide spread epidemic. One woman sets the example and suddenly there is a flood of 20-something women running around molesting teenage boys? It doesn't really work that way. You know, it's actually more likely that a parent will molest a teen boy than a stranger will. Maybe we should just have all kids raised by the state.

They'd tell the parents things like: “OMG, WTF were you thinking?!! your young girls at an party full of boys…. anything could happen! don't you care about your daughters?? my word, I would never let my daughter out that late!”

Seems like a legitimate concern to me. Teenagers are idiots driven by their hormones and teenage males tend to be more aggressive than teenage females. That's not sexism, it's common sense.

The police didn't put the men in jail for hitting back as an result, and instead jailed the women.

Which once again, was not the scenario I presented you with. As I said, people don't generally look down on you for defending yourself in a life or death situation. Fact of the matter is, though, that there are more than twice as many cases of men abusing their wives than the other way around. A lot of those cases are simply a case of a man raising his hand against his wife when frustrated. Why is it for a woman to go to jail, she actually has to try to kill someone?

you're completely twisting my words around to make me seem like I'm some paronid chick…. I have to tell you I don't appericate it.

I didn't say there was a epidemic…. all I said was that she had been at the SAME parties that all of the teenage boys were at in the area I had been living at in that time. Which meant that there was a high chance that the same thing had happened to the other teenager boys who had attended those parties, yet the parents refused to even think of that happening to their own sons.
they acknowledged that their own sons had been there when it happened, yet they said: “But I KNOW nothing like that ever happened to MY OWN SON. and no, I didn't ask my own son if it happened to him too… I just know! How do I know? Well, for one thing, my son's such a manly young guy that he wouldn't be so WEAK to fight off some chick!”

I was talking about that kind of stupid mentality right there. It'd be like saying: “Yeah I know a lot of abuse occurred at the daycare where I send my babies. But I know nothing happened to my babies, because my babies can take care of themselves! So I'm NOT worried at all about the fact that the reports of abuse occurred around at the same time that my babies were there.”

THAT'S ALL.

Again, let's just agree to disagree shall we? :P
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
isukun at 5:17PM, July 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Which meant that there was a high chance that the same thing had happened to the other teenager boys who had attended those parties, yet the parents refused to even think of that happening to their own sons.

No, it doesn't mean that. This woman got caught, so the scenario is proven to be a posibility, but criminals aren't like cockroaches. Just because you find one that doesn't mean there are a thousand more lurking undetected. So it doesn't mean there is a high chance this was happening to other people, just that one woman was out there doing it. And honestly, if she got caught, then the chances of it happening again decrease since the perpetrator is off the streets.

“But I KNOW nothing like that ever happened to MY OWN SON. and no, I didn't ask my own son if it happened to him too… I just know! How do I know? Well, for one thing, my son's such a manly young guy that he wouldn't be so WEAK to fight off some chick!”

And somehow I get the feeling you're putting words into their mouths.

Again, let's just agree to disagree shall we? :P

We'll have to, because I don't buy anything you're trying to sell here. You just seem to have a very unrealistic interpretation of parental motive here.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Aurora Moon at 5:50PM, July 10, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
uggghh. you misread me. I was not talking about there being more female perverts at those parties.

I was talking about her doing this to other teenager boys BEFORE she got caught.


I was there when the parents were talking about that female pervert… and that was actually what they said more or less along the same lines. :P

While a few parents were indeed worried that this sort of thing had happened to their kids BEFORE she got caught, there was many parents who didn't seem to care. In fact some of the fathers even joked that they hoped that their own sons were lucky enough to have the same thing happen to them. They had the mentality that there was no such thing as an female-on-male rape… that it couldn't just happen. that is, unless the said guy was such a “pussy”.

why do you find it so hard to believe that there are such a thing as an careless parent?
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Faliat at 7:59PM, July 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
IN the Uk there is a certain airline company that doesn't allow men to sit next to unaccompanied children.

The now mayor of london ended up almost separated from his kids on a flight with this company once because of this rule had they not convinced the stewardess that they were related.

I don't read the telegraph and I've never voted conservative, but he made an interesting observation on the whole issue among other things.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634055/Come-off-it-folks-how-many-paedophiles-can-there-be.html

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
Pineapple at 9:01PM, July 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 276
joined: 4-21-2008
you know, this whole topic is going to the dogs. Can you just agree to disagree and drop the whole issue?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:43PM
Sea_Cow at 9:12PM, July 10, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,687
joined: 4-5-2007
Pineapple
you know, this whole topic is going to the dogs. Can you just agree to disagree and drop the whole issue?

Welcome to Debate and Discussion, my friend.
I am so happy to finally be back home
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:26PM
ozoneocean at 1:53AM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
Faliat
The now mayor of london ended up almost separated from his kids on a flight with this company once because of this rule had they not convinced the stewardess that they were related.
I don't think Boris Johnson is even related to his own mother…

But he makes a fantastic point there, I can see why he's become mayor. Obviously he has something to say and knows how to say it.
He's right, there are statistically a microscopic amount of paedophiles anywhere, so discriminating against men on the basis of moronic public hysteria regarding them should be a case for the courts. If you're some f**king imbecile who sees paedophiles everywhere then YOU should be locked up to preserve the safety and sanity of the community as a whole.

I should run for mayor of London now.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
isukun at 9:49AM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Which is pretty much what I was talking about when I mentioned the discrimination against men in child care in the US. A lot of your women's magazines have warned women with children to avoid male babysitters for this exact reason.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Faliat at 7:20PM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
It was the whole sexist notion that only men abduct and abuse children that made it so shocking when the Moors Murders happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_murders
My mum was raised that if she was lost she was to find a woman and ask her for help. The kids taken by Hindley and Brady were most likely raised to behave in a similar way since they were just a few years older.

Kids really should be told Hansel and Gretel more often. It's a good cautionary tale about stranger danger and that you're not safe even with elderly women.

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
DOUK at 12:52PM, July 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 82
joined: 12-12-2008
I'm reading all the replies to this thread and I can't help but smile because its really taken off. Usually when I start a debate somewhere else I state my opinion so blunt that nobody else has something to say to it and the discussion dies. I guess I have a knack for ending arguments but oh well.

That story about the airline is crazy. why should men be subjected to sitting where they're told, just because some kid is beside them? The chances of a man doing something nasty to a child on an airplane are the same chances that he'd pull out a bomb and send the aircraft plummeting.

That discussion about teens at night, it seems to me that everyone has a good idea about what could happen and what parents think will happen. Its not ststistically proven but everyone has it in their head that girls are more likely to get into trouble more than men at late night parties. Though, the opposite is true depending on the girls there. I guess it depends on the party, age of party-ers, area of party, which all affect the partytivity.

A girl can totally manipulate and abuse a guy if she's:
-Stronger by a considerable amount. That's why there are cases of her being older.
-Holding some sort of weapon or other wise put his life on the line
-Intoxicated him, drugged him, etc.
-Blackmail or use other means of potential law-breaking information to get what she wants.

A guy can rape manipulate a girl with these same tasks. I'm not an expert on the subject but a man being raped in his sleep sounds possible, if his manhood was showing during the night. The media will no doubt make it look like she beat him to a pulp, tied him up, and showed him pictures of nude women to get him aroused. Making the whole thing look like he got… well pwned.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:13PM
isukun at 7:49PM, July 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Its not ststistically proven but everyone has it in their head that girls are more likely to get into trouble more than men at late night parties.

Maybe not at parties specifically, but it has been statistically proven that young girls and women are more likely to be kidnapped, molested or raped, and men are more likely to be the perpetrators of these acts (in fact 85% of those convicted are men).

A girl can totally manipulate and abuse a guy if she's:
-Stronger by a considerable amount. That's why there are cases of her being older.
-Holding some sort of weapon or other wise put his life on the line
-Intoxicated him, drugged him, etc.
-Blackmail or use other means of potential law-breaking information to get what she wants.

The majority of cases of women taking advantage of men tend to be cases where the woman is an authority figure. There is no strength, weapons, drugs, or blackmail involved (at least not blackmailing them with incriminating info). Most of these cases don't involve strangers, but parents, relatives, neighbors, teachers or bosses who use their position of authority to coax the boy into doing what they want. It's still abuse, mind you, just not in the sense you're talking about.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
DOUK at 10:00AM, July 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 82
joined: 12-12-2008
isukun
The majority of cases of women taking advantage of men tend to be cases where the woman is an authority figure. There is no strength, weapons, drugs, or blackmail involved (at least not blackmailing them with incriminating info). Most of these cases don't involve strangers, but parents, relatives, neighbors, teachers or bosses who use their position of authority to coax the boy into doing what they want. It's still abuse, mind you, just not in the sense you're talking about.

Ahh can't believe I overlooked that.

Something related to what Ishkun said, but still different: Did you know that when a women accuses a man of Rape, and in the chance that he is proven innocent, his name is still plastered over newspapers (MAN ACCUSED OF RAPE and in smaller letters or within the story it says he's innocent) and his reputation is still ruined. Many companies won't hire you if you were ‘accused of rape’ whether you did it or not. the “but I was innocent!” sorta paints your picture for you.

Howeer, if the man is innocent, and the woman was just bullshitting, her name iskept anonymous from the media to protect her. This is just me talking, but I'd like to know who tried to screw the court over and who ruined Joe Schmoe's life.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:13PM
Aurora Moon at 11:49PM, July 14, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
DOUK
isukun
The majority of cases of women taking advantage of men tend to be cases where the woman is an authority figure. There is no strength, weapons, drugs, or blackmail involved (at least not blackmailing them with incriminating info). Most of these cases don't involve strangers, but parents, relatives, neighbors, teachers or bosses who use their position of authority to coax the boy into doing what they want. It's still abuse, mind you, just not in the sense you're talking about.

Ahh can't believe I overlooked that.

Something related to what Ishkun said, but still different: Did you know that when a women accuses a man of Rape, and in the chance that he is proven innocent, his name is still plastered over newspapers (MAN ACCUSED OF RAPE and in smaller letters or within the story it says he's innocent) and his reputation is still ruined. Many companies won't hire you if you were ‘accused of rape’ whether you did it or not. the “but I was innocent!” sorta paints your picture for you.

Howeer, if the man is innocent, and the woman was just bullshitting, her name iskept anonymous from the media to protect her. This is just me talking, but I'd like to know who tried to screw the court over and who ruined Joe Schmoe's life.

I so agree!! There's always the chance that she could try the same shit again… maybe in some professional setting too or something. I wouldn't certainly want to work with somebody who actively went out of her way to ruin somebody's life.
in fact I doubt that many companies would want to hire somebody like her too.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
isukun at 8:40PM, July 15, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Court records are public access. I'm sure in most cases the first thing the defense looks for is past cases the woman may have been a part of. The same is pretty much true when it comes to jobs as most employers do a background check before hiring to make sure new employees don't have a criminal record. Past court cases show up, even if they aren't the defendent.

On the flip side of this argument, while it is a bit premature to be plastering the guy's name all over the news, at the same time, just because there wasn't enough evidence to convict the guy, that doesn't necessarily mean the woman wasn't a victim or that the guy wasn't guilty. The courts aren't perfect. Wouldn't it be just as unfair to label the woman as a con artist and plaster her name all over the newspaper if she really was raped but couldn't present enough evidence to convict the man who raped her? There are a lot of cases that get thrown out for this very reason, so I'd say the more practical approach would be to just give the guys the same benefit of the doubt and protect their identity until proven guilty.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
DOUK at 3:09PM, July 16, 2009
(online)
posts: 82
joined: 12-12-2008
isukun
Court records are public access. I'm sure in most cases the first thing the defense looks for is past cases the woman may have been a part of. The same is pretty much true when it comes to jobs as most employers do a background check before hiring to make sure new employees don't have a criminal record. Past court cases show up, even if they aren't the defendent.

On the flip side of this argument, while it is a bit premature to be plastering the guy's name all over the news, at the same time, just because there wasn't enough evidence to convict the guy, that doesn't necessarily mean the woman wasn't a victim or that the guy wasn't guilty. The courts aren't perfect. Wouldn't it be just as unfair to label the woman as a con artist and plaster her name all over the newspaper if she really was raped but couldn't present enough evidence to convict the man who raped her? There are a lot of cases that get thrown out for this very reason, so I'd say the more practical approach would be to just give the guys the same benefit of the doubt and protect their identity until proven guilty.

Either both names should be revealed or both names should be kept anonymous. Because the general public will not look in court records to back up their gossip about somebody. The courts don't really have a control over the social scene of cities and the cultures between friends, workers, etc. I'm not saying its right to say that the woman is a liar but let the masses do what they will with the names.

I guess its my lack of knowledge but I thought all they looked for in a Rape case is: history of contact, signs of fights (and if they're authentic, cause some people fake them), and physical evidence (mess left by the raper, sperm tests I dunno :|). But if a case is lost and the woman was raped, and the man got away, well there's nothing to do after that. Courts aren't perfect and until the first human's evolution jumps ala X-Men, we'll be using this tried and true system.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:13PM
Aurora Moon at 9:48PM, July 16, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
DOUK
Either both names should be revealed or both names should be kept anonymous. Because the general public will not look in court records to back up their gossip about somebody. The courts don't really have a control over the social scene of cities and the cultures between friends, workers, etc. I'm not saying its right to say that the woman is a liar but let the masses do what they will with the names.

Again, I agree with Douk.

It's the same thing with pedophilia, you know? some people who were accused of it actually turned out to be innocent, but some people out there still don't care about that. as word gets out that they were merely accused of it, they can get ruined for life.

“I don't care if the person was innocent and cleared of doing any crime at all! if he was accused of doing it…then I'm not going to hire this person, much less let kids be around him even if they weren't alone with him!”

And they will plaster the said person's all over newspapers too..
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved