Swedish law would require explicit consent before sexual contact

[Jolly_Penguin]

Apparently you are oblivious to the taint of misogyny in your jest, but it's there. The entire joke depends on the 'women go running to the cops crying rape and accused men never get a fair shake' trope. Without it, there'd be nothing 'cute' i.e. charmingly naïve about what dismal posted.

Wrong. Totally wrong. You are being sexist in assuming the male is the rapist and the female is the victim, especially in dismal's example I was responding to where neither had consent. What I actually said and clarified repeatedly afterwards and you apparently can't process is that male victims are taken less seriously, hence the law is not applied evenly between genders of vicitms. Our society is prejudiced to see males as aggressors and females as victims. You demonstrate this perfectly in your assumption of the male as the rapist in dismal's example where he clearly stated neither had consent. So thanks I guess.

I don't understand the negative reaction some posters have to the idea people should make sure their prospective partners want to have sex before they have sex.

You are imagining things again. Nobody here has spoken against consent for sex. The article in the OP mistakenly reported that the onus of proof had been reversed in Sweden and the presumption of innocence was going away. I addressed that as a serious problem if it were true. You went on some odd derail calling me a misogynist when I noted smiled at dismal talking about two partners to a sexual act racing to report it as rape, as if the male complainant would be treated on par with the female complainant. You somehow decided that was me calling women liars and declared me a misogynist with no reason to. Rhea went on a rant repeatedly implying that she opposes the presumption of innocence for alleged rapists, and then later reversed that only after I repeatedly asked her to clarify. Ruby tried to be fair minded and understanding of Rhea, but Rhea just kept ranting. You are now telling us that she is super fair minded as she calls everybody out for "presuming women guilty" (which nobody here has done). There, now you're all caught up.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, I can see that.

Why would the thread have been about police bias against taking rape victims (both male and female) seriously? That wasn't the point of the OP. It would have been a derail.

It would have been a rational and fair minded discussion (what you say Rhea is known for, but she's here demonstrated otherwise), instead of what we saw you and Rhe produce with your unfounded accusation and her refusal to clarify her support for the presumption of innocence. After a dozen pages of asking her to, she finally did clarify herself and we got on the same page, sort of. You still haven't. You're still calling me misogynist for a reading error or groundless assumption you made.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, I can see that.

Why would the thread have been about police bias against taking rape victims (both male and female) seriously? That wasn't the point of the OP. It would have been a derail.

It would have been a rational and fair minded discussion (what you say Rhea is known for, but she's here demonstrated otherwise), instead of what we saw you and Rhe produce with your unfounded accusation and her refusal to clarify her support for the presumption of innocence.

Nothing Rhea wrote should have been interpreted by a reasonable and competent fair minded person to imply anything about the presumption of innocence. I can understand why an apologist for rape would think otherwise, but what is your explanation for this persistent mischaracterization?

You still haven't. You're still calling me misogynist for a reading error or groundless assumption you made.

Arctish explained herself. Why do you persist in playing this silly game of yours?

 

[Arctish]

Apparently you are oblivious to the taint of misogyny in your jest, but it's there. The entire joke depends on the 'women go running to the cops crying rape and accused men never get a fair shake' trope. Without it, there'd be nothing 'cute' i.e. charmingly naïve about what dismal posted.

Wrong. Totally wrong. You are being sexist in assuming the male is the rapist and the female is the victim, especially in dismal's example I was responding to where neither had consent.

In dismal's example they did have consent. dismal was presenting a silly scenario in which the only kind of consent that matters is one that's in writing, which the hapless couple had forgotten to get so they had to race each other to the police. The first one to report the 'non-consensual' sex would be protected from the consequences of not getting everything in writing.

What I actually said and clarified repeatedly afterwards and you apparently can't process is that male victims are taken less seriously, hence the law is not applied evenly between genders of vicitms.

And I said if you want to make the case that male rape victim are disbelieved at a higher rate than females rape victims, you're going to have to show your work. What is your evidence?

Our society is prejudiced to see males as aggressors and females as victims. You demonstrate this perfectly in your assumption of the male as the rapist in dismal's example where he clearly stated neither had consent. So thanks I guess.

I didn't presume that. I didn't even presume there was a rape. dismal's story was about consensual sex without a signed contract.

I don't understand the negative reaction some posters have to the idea people should make sure their prospective partners want to have sex before they have sex.

You are imagining things again. Nobody here has spoken against consent for sex. The article in the OP mistakenly reported that the onus of proof had been reversed in Sweden and the presumption of innocence was going away. I addressed that as a serious problem if it were true. You went on some odd derail calling me a misogynist when I noted smiled at dismal talking about two partners to a sexual act racing to report it as rape, as if the male complainant would be treated on par with the female complainant. You somehow decided that was me calling women liars and declared me a misogynist with no reason to. Rhea went on a rant repeatedly implying that she opposes the presumption of innocence for alleged rapists, and then later reversed that only after I repeatedly asked her to clarify. Ruby tried to be fair minded and understanding of Rhea, but Rhea just kept ranting. You are now telling us that she is super fair minded as she calls everybody out for "presuming women guilty" (which nobody here has done). There, now you're all caught up.

You're exaggerating. I said your quip contained a bit of misogyny and I explained where and what it is (BTW I'm not the only one who noticed it). If you still can't see it, that's unfortunate but I'm not going to derail this thread any further by discussing it.

Also, Rhea wasn't ranting. Sure, she was posing with more than the usual amount of emotion, but if you thought for a moment she was calling for injustice against men, you missed her point. She was calling out all of the bullshit that gets posted in these threads about how unreasonable it is to expect a man to forego banging someone before they give him clearly expressed consent, or how awful it is that a man might be thought a rapist but not nearly so awful that a girl might be raped. If you've participated in any of the recent threads about Affirmative Consent you will have seen multiple posters going on about lying women who lie and poor hapless guys being victimized by man-hating feminists running to the cops to report rapes that never happened.

 

[Jokodo]

You know, funny thing. People who have clear and explicit consent tend to not be accused of rape and so it is moot.

I have always had clear and explicit (to me and my partner) consent. But who in the world has documentation of such consent???

Why would you need such when it's up to the prosecution to provide evidence of no such consent?

 

[Jokodo]

Which part of "the prosecution will have to present evidence" do you not understand?

I don't understand what constitutes sufficient evidence. Is the absence of documentation of non-consent, sufficient to prove consent, and is the absence of documentation of consent sufficient to prove non-consent?

I don't understand what they're demanding in either case.

In your world, how do prosecutors ever prove theft? The defendant can always claim that he paid/that it was a gift.

 

[ruby sparks]

Apparently not.

I'd like to see the details that led them to this conclusion.

This could be a couple who liked to play rough and were stupid and didn't have a safe word--so when she really meant no she had no way to communicate it.

I'm sure you would like to see the details, and you could easily have googled them (many were in the link), and then you would have found out that the scenario you speculated on wasn't the case.

I took the initial report as accurate.

Only in the case of the one in the OP link. In the second case, the linked article said they weren't a couple and had just met.

 

[ruby sparks]

And I said if you want to make the case that male rape victim are disbelieved at a higher rate than females rape victims, you're going to have to show your work. What is your evidence?

Without wanting to at all get into the who said or meant or implied what or who is a secret misogynist/misandrist debate and without wishing to take sides or even suggest that there are sides which it is helpful to take...

As far as I know, and perhaps I could try to source some reports if asked to, male rape victims are routinely disbelieved, or their reports not taken seriously, or not made for fear that they will not be taken seriously. I would not at all be surprised if there was an aspect of this related to the idea that if you're a bloke and you got raped you must be a wuss incapable of defending yourself in a 'manly' way (or that if you're gay, what did you expect?).

As to who is disbelieved more, I don't know. Is it, should it be, a race to see which is worse? We should be concerned about both. Because imo, the problem is that rape and sexual assault are not effectively dealt with, no matter who commits them or who the victim is, and the reporting, detection and conviction rates are too low, for a variety of reasons, not necessarily to do with sexism or other unfortunate attitudional factors related to the victim's sex or gender. As someone else said earlier, rape and sexual assault are very often just tricky things to prove.

Also, something often ignored in statistics, as far as I am aware, is rape (and sexual assault) in prisons. The figures are alarmingly high. I have read various reports (again I could try to re-find them if asked) that when rape and sexual assault of men in prison is taken into account, crimes against males are, variously, 40% of all instances of all instance nationally for entire populations of the country (in this case the USA), on a par with females, or even that more males are raped/assaulted than females in total when prison rape is taken into consideration.

Furthermore, instances of rape or assault of female prisoners is, apparently, often carried out either by other female prisoners or female prison guards. Am I right in thinking a lot of female prison wings are segregated from male wings and have female prison guards? If so, that would at least partly explain. Though I'd guess that male guards might sometimes find a way to get at female prisoners?

So, considering that most prisoners are only in jail temporarily, this would suggest that there might be literally tens of thousands of prisoners of both sexes (many more men simply because there are far more male prisoners) who emerge, every year, into daily life in the outside world, who have been raped or assaulted and whose victimhood is not well-acknowledged or dealt with, and certainly not dealt with effectively when it happened, given that by and large the record of prison authorities is poor, again for a variety of reasons. I have also read of cases where some of the general public feel less inclined to sympathise with prisoners, because they are deemed to be 'bad people' and so in some small way deserving of whatever not-nice things go on in prison.

Here is one report related to the prison issue:

Allen J. Beck, the senior BJS statistician who has been the lead author on all of these studies, tells us the new findings indicate that nearly 200,000 people were sexually abused in American detention facilities in 2011.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/10/24/shame-our-prisons-new-evidence/?pagination=false

200,000. In one year. It seems incredible. How many rapes/assaults are estimated to have happened in the non-prison population in 2011? Is it actually lower than that? Does it matter? It's a big number.

It has also been said that inside or outside prisons, both male-on-male rape/assault and female-on-female rape/assault has generally and historically been a very neglected area in terms of the amount of time spent researching and discussing it. So if you're a non-straight man or woman who was raped or assaulted, you may have very good reason to feel unusually neglected.

 

[Jokodo]

In any other context of a crime this serious, would we be advocating against the presumption of innocence? Feelings seem to be hijacking justice when somebody says people don't get accused if they didn't do the crime.

In any other crime this serious do we make the victim take a polygraph to see if they are lying? In any other crime this serious, do we badger whether the victim got victimized on purpose? In any other crime this serious do we blame the victim for the crime based on where they were, whether they smiled, what they wore, how they danced? In any other crime do we say the victim is a bad person for being a victim? In any other crime do the police threaten the victim with jail time for making the report?

Are most other interpersonal crimes acts that are engaged in legally by most people on a regular basis? In other crimes does the difference between a common everyday legal act and a crime hinge entirely upon how one party says they subjectively felt about a particular instance of such an act? Is armed robbery legal one second but then a crime at some unspecified moment when the person getting robbed goes beyond some undefined level of being too intoxicated to consent? Are 35% of the accused in most other crimes in an intimate relationship with the victim? In other crimes has the accuser consensually engaged in the same act with the accused in the past that they are now claiming is a crime in this instance?
<snip>

Yes to most of those. Armed robbery is a poor comparison but theft works exactly like that a lot of the time: An act of theft and an act of gifting are both subclasses of the higher-order class property transfer, the distinction between them is how one participant sees it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I said your quip contained a bit of misogyny and I explained where and what it is

You said this:

The entire joke depends on the 'women go running to the cops crying rape and accused men never get a fair shake' trope.

But you realize now that what I said had nothing to do with accused men or women "go running to the cops crying". It was about a double standard in male and female complainants being taken seriously.

In dismal's example they did have consent. dismal was presenting a silly scenario in which the only kind of consent that matters is one that's in writing, which the hapless couple had forgotten to get so they had to race each other to the police. The first one to report the 'non-consensual' sex would be protected from the consequences of not getting everything in writing.

Cute how you write this as if it will be applied equally between genders.

Yet you still maintain it was somehow misogynist. You've backpedaled off a cliff now. Congratulations. And I accept your apology.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It has also been said that inside or outside prisons, both male-on-male rape/assault and female-on-female rape/assault has generally and historically been a very neglected area in terms of the amount of time spent researching and discussing it. So if you're a non-straight man or woman who was raped or assaulted, you may have very good reason to feel unusually neglected.

Some more data on that from Canada: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11766-eng.pdf

Women who self-identify as lesbian or bisexual report violence by a current or previous spouse at three times the rate of heterosexual women

Now whether that means lesbians are more abusive of their wives or more likely to report domestic abuse when married to a woman is uncertain.

 

[ruby sparks]

Now whether that means lesbians are more abusive of their wives or more likely to report domestic abuse when married to a woman is uncertain.

As far as I am aware, the rates of abuse, reported or not, are not much different to hetero couples, but the level of physical injury is much lower for lesbian couples. I recall this from a previous discussion on another forum.

 

[humbleman]

And I said if you want to make the case that male rape victim are disbelieved at a higher rate than females rape victims, you're going to have to show your work. What is your evidence?

Without wanting to at all get into the who said or meant or implied what or who is a secret misogynist/misandrist debate and without wishing to take sides or even suggest that there are sides which it is helpful to take...

As far as I know, and perhaps I could try to source some reports if asked to, male rape victims are routinely disbelieved, or their reports not taken seriously, or not made for fear that they will not be taken seriously. I would not at all be surprised if there was an aspect of this related to the idea that if you're a bloke and you got raped you must be a wuss incapable of defending yourself in a 'manly' way (or that if you're gay, what did you expect?).

As to who is disbelieved more, I don't know. Is it, should it be, a race to see which is worse? We should be concerned about both. Because imo, the problem is that rape and sexual assault are not effectively dealt with, no matter who commits them or who the victim is, and the reporting, detection and conviction rates are too low, for a variety of reasons, not necessarily to do with sexism or other unfortunate attitudional factors related to the victim's sex or gender. As someone else said earlier, rape and sexual assault are very often just tricky things to prove.

Also, something often ignored in statistics, as far as I am aware, is rape (and sexual assault) in prisons. The figures are alarmingly high. I have read various reports (again I could try to re-find them if asked) that when rape and sexual assault of men in prison is taken into account, crimes against males are, variously, 40% of all instances of all instance nationally for entire populations of the country (in this case the USA), on a par with females, or even that more males are raped/assaulted than females in total when prison rape is taken into consideration.

Furthermore, instances of rape or assault of female prisoners is, apparently, often carried out either by other female prisoners or female prison guards. Am I right in thinking a lot of female prison wings are segregated from male wings and have female prison guards? If so, that would at least partly explain. Though I'd guess that male guards might sometimes find a way to get at female prisoners?

So, considering that most prisoners are only in jail temporarily, this would suggest that there might be literally tens of thousands of prisoners of both sexes (many more men simply because there are far more male prisoners) who emerge, every year, into daily life in the outside world, who have been raped or assaulted and whose victimhood is not well-acknowledged or dealt with, and certainly not dealt with effectively when it happened, given that by and large the record of prison authorities is poor, again for a variety of reasons. I have also read of cases where some of the general public feel less inclined to sympathise with prisoners, because they are deemed to be 'bad people' and so in some small way deserving of whatever not-nice things go on in prison.

Here is one report related to the prison issue:

Allen J. Beck, the senior BJS statistician who has been the lead author on all of these studies, tells us the new findings indicate that nearly 200,000 people were sexually abused in American detention facilities in 2011.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/10/24/shame-our-prisons-new-evidence/?pagination=false

200,000. In one year. It seems incredible. How many rapes/assaults are estimated to have happened in the non-prison population in 2011? Is it actually lower than that? Does it matter? It's a big number.

It has also been said that inside or outside prisons, both male-on-male rape/assault and female-on-female rape/assault has generally and historically been a very neglected area in terms of the amount of time spent researching and discussing it. So if you're a non-straight man or woman who was raped or assaulted, you may have very good reason to feel unusually neglected.

And for those reasons from above I don't care about rapes, sexual advances and more that happen to others, because justice is not equal but totally the contrary.

A foreign friend of mine decided to sell drugs and got caught years later. When he went to prison (5 years) he used to cover his whole body with his own doo doo, and that way he avoided being raped. He was smart and some time later he found the way to have his "store" where he sold cigarettes to other inmates. As friend of inmates and police he finished his sentence in good shape. I heard years later he got married, had children but died because over consumption of drugs.

What it makes worst the idea of rape in prison is having the entertainment media spreading the idea that rapes are part of their punishment. The good guys or heroes telling the bad guys that they will have "good times" with other guys... implying that they will be victims of rape...

I completely disagree with the act of someone acting against the integrity of another person, perhaps as a bully or committing rape.

But, as I stated right above, having justice playing blind when people inside jail is raped several times thru years and years, I see no reason why this same system of justice plays the "defender" of victims of rape in society.

No, I don't buy it.

I stay out of it. I don't care. As long as I'm not affected, in this case I won't play the hypocrite roll as the justice system does.

I don't heard from the "Democrat Party" that they will also be "zero tolerant" with sexual advances committed inside prisons with inmates, then...why do I have to believe those hypocrites?

Carry pepper spray in your packet or purse, something to defend yourself, the truth is that no law will protect you unless you see police presence in every corner of each street. Be real.

Avoid being stupid. Don't enter to places where you know someone will try to rape you. Don't get drunk without having someone watching you in case you pass out. Be smart.

And in jail, do like my friend did, of course you will have no friends, but at least your body integrity will be respected.

 

[Hermit]

Don't enter to places where you know someone will try to rape you.

In most cases that would be your own home, a friend's home or a relative's home. Children with stepfathers are particularly at risk. And never attend a school run by the Christian Brothers in Goulburn or Bathurst.

 

[Arctish]

You said this:



But you realize now that what I said had nothing to do with accused men or women "go running to the cops crying". It was about a double standard in male and female complainants being taken seriously.

You have not demonstrated this, or explained why it was 'cute' that dismal didn't mention it.

Where is your evidence of anti-male sexism resulting in the reported rape of a male being dismissed more often or investigated less thoroughly than the reported rape of a female?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You have not demonstrated this, or explained why it was 'cute' that dismal didn't mention it.

Irrelevant to your accusation. You made something up wholecloth to substitute for this.

 

[laughing dog]

You have not demonstrated this, or explained why it was 'cute' that dismal didn't mention it.

Irrelevant to your accusation. You made something up wholecloth to substitute for this.

Arctish has explained her rationale a number of times. You confuse your inability to understand her rationale for a lack of one. Why do you insist on playing this embarrassing game?