Kiss kiss gang bang
Many
TV and movie villains not only have bad organizational and leadership
skills (name even one real-world organization that immediately
terminates an employee for his first mistake, defeat or failure), but
they also seem to have difficulties with the concept of "threat
modelling". For example, whenever they have to arrange the security of
some evil facility, they either over- or underplay it to a totally
ridiculous extent. Some 24-style villain might assign two or three
armed men to walk around his important facility that either (a) remains
a secret, in which case these men are unnecessary since the worst that
can happen is some hobo walking in looking in for a place to sleep, or
(b) the government finds out the location and importance of this
facility, in which case these few henchmen can do absolutely nothing
against the full-scale assault of some SWAT or special forces team.
Whenever you take countermeasures against threats to your safety, it is important to understand what the realistic and probably threats are and whether your countermeasures would work against them. For example, consider the post "Battles of the Sex(es)" in Protein Wisdom, which links to a news article of a woman charging six men for rape, even though the men fortunately videotaped the whole thing and it's absolutely clear that the woman was a willing participant who later regretted and decided that she was raped.
In the comment thread of this post and in many places elsewhere, I have seen "advice" to men, especially superstar athletes and other celebrities, that they should get their one night stands to somehow record their consent before sex, to avoid situations like this. In the above comment thread, some people suggest making the woman call and leave a voice message where they say they consent to sex. Years before this, I recall once reading that Gene Simmons used to have his groupies stand naked and smile in a photo with him.
Great advice. Unfortunately, it is also totally ignorant of rape laws and what the threat is here that it is supposed to somehow protect against, and is therefore useless at best. Recall what the threat is: a woman makes a man believe that she will consent to sex and then has consensual sex with him, but later she claims that she did not consent to having sex and then, depending on circumstances, will either blackmail the man quietly or go to court openly. This is the threat that you need to somehow defend the man against, and all other considerations are meaningless.
Now tell me, all of you who advocate that the man should record the woman's consent before sex: in your scenario, what exactly prevents this woman claiming that she initially consented to sex but later changed her mind at some point during sex? Or to claim that she was forced to give her initial consent, however recorded? Absolutely nothing.
If a woman really is intent to framing a man for the crime of rape, recording her initial consent makes absolutely no difference at all, no matter what her motives or circumstances are. It is not even a speed bump for her. The only thing that can possibly work is to record not only the initial expression of consent, but the whole sex act. For this reason and the ubiquity of small and cheap digital cameras, I kind of expect a whole bunch of celebrity sex tapes to surface in near future. Of course, this policy will in turn raise other issues of privacy, unless the groupie explicitly agrees for the sex act to be videotaped. But I predict that most celebrities and athletes will much rather take that risk than risk being falsely accused of rape.
But let's get back to the general feminist position on rape. Of course, this position is that since women never lie about rape (no woman is ever mentally ill or has a personality disorder, I guess) and since rape and especially date rape are often so very difficult to prove (unlike assault or murder, a rape don't necessarily leave any physical evidence other than something that establishes that sex took place), feminists believe that the burden of proof for rape should be lower than for other crimes. After all, there are no other crimes in which a "he said, she said" without any other supporting evidence is enough for a guilty verdict. Feminists consider this to be a great injustice against women, since they believe that in a "he said, she said" situation, the man who is accused of rape should have to prove his innocence. Feminists consider a few falsely accused men to be an acceptable price to pay for ensuring that more rapists are convicted and jailed, because you know, all men collectively oppress women and benefit from patriarchy and rape culture.
And of course, feminists are totally blind to their blatant hypocrisy: when violent crimes are committed against men, feminists and other leftists generally want the burden of proof to be much higher and punishments much more lenient than they are now! This is clear in practically every death penalty case. For example, I'm pretty sure that the evidence against Tookie Williams was so strong that feminists would consider it to be a great injustice if some serial rapist was set free despite equally strong evidence against him.
The comment thread of the above post is absolutely hilarious in this respect, since the few feminists who come in know perfectly well that the general feminist position is untenable in light of videotaped evidence, so they just just make a few excuses and run away. One of them later tries to claim that the proprietor of Protein Wisdom wants to impose a higher burden of proof for rape than other crimes, after linking to a sad news article about an Iranian woman who was given the death penalty for killing her rapist in self-defense.
On the plus side, it's always nice to see leftists come to understand the importance of using lethal force in self-defense if necessary. Now if they only accepted the right of the residents of Florida for the same... And of course, as expected, the feminist quickly takes the whole thing back so that it wouldn't be Muslim-bashing.
Whenever you take countermeasures against threats to your safety, it is important to understand what the realistic and probably threats are and whether your countermeasures would work against them. For example, consider the post "Battles of the Sex(es)" in Protein Wisdom, which links to a news article of a woman charging six men for rape, even though the men fortunately videotaped the whole thing and it's absolutely clear that the woman was a willing participant who later regretted and decided that she was raped.
In the comment thread of this post and in many places elsewhere, I have seen "advice" to men, especially superstar athletes and other celebrities, that they should get their one night stands to somehow record their consent before sex, to avoid situations like this. In the above comment thread, some people suggest making the woman call and leave a voice message where they say they consent to sex. Years before this, I recall once reading that Gene Simmons used to have his groupies stand naked and smile in a photo with him.
Great advice. Unfortunately, it is also totally ignorant of rape laws and what the threat is here that it is supposed to somehow protect against, and is therefore useless at best. Recall what the threat is: a woman makes a man believe that she will consent to sex and then has consensual sex with him, but later she claims that she did not consent to having sex and then, depending on circumstances, will either blackmail the man quietly or go to court openly. This is the threat that you need to somehow defend the man against, and all other considerations are meaningless.
Now tell me, all of you who advocate that the man should record the woman's consent before sex: in your scenario, what exactly prevents this woman claiming that she initially consented to sex but later changed her mind at some point during sex? Or to claim that she was forced to give her initial consent, however recorded? Absolutely nothing.
If a woman really is intent to framing a man for the crime of rape, recording her initial consent makes absolutely no difference at all, no matter what her motives or circumstances are. It is not even a speed bump for her. The only thing that can possibly work is to record not only the initial expression of consent, but the whole sex act. For this reason and the ubiquity of small and cheap digital cameras, I kind of expect a whole bunch of celebrity sex tapes to surface in near future. Of course, this policy will in turn raise other issues of privacy, unless the groupie explicitly agrees for the sex act to be videotaped. But I predict that most celebrities and athletes will much rather take that risk than risk being falsely accused of rape.
But let's get back to the general feminist position on rape. Of course, this position is that since women never lie about rape (no woman is ever mentally ill or has a personality disorder, I guess) and since rape and especially date rape are often so very difficult to prove (unlike assault or murder, a rape don't necessarily leave any physical evidence other than something that establishes that sex took place), feminists believe that the burden of proof for rape should be lower than for other crimes. After all, there are no other crimes in which a "he said, she said" without any other supporting evidence is enough for a guilty verdict. Feminists consider this to be a great injustice against women, since they believe that in a "he said, she said" situation, the man who is accused of rape should have to prove his innocence. Feminists consider a few falsely accused men to be an acceptable price to pay for ensuring that more rapists are convicted and jailed, because you know, all men collectively oppress women and benefit from patriarchy and rape culture.
And of course, feminists are totally blind to their blatant hypocrisy: when violent crimes are committed against men, feminists and other leftists generally want the burden of proof to be much higher and punishments much more lenient than they are now! This is clear in practically every death penalty case. For example, I'm pretty sure that the evidence against Tookie Williams was so strong that feminists would consider it to be a great injustice if some serial rapist was set free despite equally strong evidence against him.
The comment thread of the above post is absolutely hilarious in this respect, since the few feminists who come in know perfectly well that the general feminist position is untenable in light of videotaped evidence, so they just just make a few excuses and run away. One of them later tries to claim that the proprietor of Protein Wisdom wants to impose a higher burden of proof for rape than other crimes, after linking to a sad news article about an Iranian woman who was given the death penalty for killing her rapist in self-defense.
On the plus side, it's always nice to see leftists come to understand the importance of using lethal force in self-defense if necessary. Now if they only accepted the right of the residents of Florida for the same... And of course, as expected, the feminist quickly takes the whole thing back so that it wouldn't be Muslim-bashing.
One thing that amazed me was the feminists total excusing Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Feminists had established that in a sexual harrassment lawsuit, you could establish a pattern of behaviour by asking other women the man had worked with.
After Bill Clinton lied about Monica, feminists said that it was fine just to lie about sex. Which of course makes the whole point about asking questions totally ridiculous. So if you follow the feminist logic, then you get to the fact that if a man is accused of sexual harrassment, there's no point in asking other people if it's happened to them, because lying is ok. Which of course makes proving sexual harrassment totally impossible...
Posted by Anonymous | 9:22 PM
"Now tell me, all of you who advocate that the man should record the woman's consent before sex: in your scenario, what exactly prevents this woman claiming that she initially consented to sex but later changed her mind at some point during sex? Or to claim that she was forced to give her initial consent, however recorded? Absolutely nothing."
Ofcourse it helps, it undermines the credibility of womans claim. At least she cant claim that she was kidnapped.
Plus she cannot use rape as excuse for betrayal of husband because raper or not, any husband will see from that tape that she was going to commit adultery. So one motive to fake rape is out.
- Syltty
Posted by Anonymous | 5:28 AM