Liberalism at work in Illinois

[dazzleman]

This is an interesting one, because it is actually a cross between a brand of common sense conservatism and hare-brained, politically correct liberalism.

Harsh treatment of real criminals, including the registration of sex offenders, is really a conservative initiative that I support.

But then there is the feminist notion that if a man says hello to a woman, he has somehow violated her.  It is also a feminist notion that every man is at the very least a potential sex offender, and in many cases an actual one.  Feminists have significantly lowered the bar on what could be considered threatening behavior by a man toward a woman, and this case is related to that.

I would say that anybody today should have the sense not to attempt to grab a child under those circumstances, but if he was acquitted of attempted kidnapping, which he probably should not have been charged with in the first place, then he should not have to register as a sex offender.  I would assume that conviction would be required in order to brand somebody a sex offender.

[dazzleman]

This is an interesting one, because it is actually a cross between a brand of common sense conservatism and hare-brained, politically correct liberalism.

no, it's stupidity. It's entirely possible to hold an ideology without taking it to stupidity, so let's blame stupid things on stupidity rather than ideology.

So if liberals advocate something that is stupid, the liberal philosophy shouldn't be blamed, even if it's part and parcel of the liberal philosophy?  That makes no sense to me.  You certainly wouldn't say the same thing about conservatives and conservative policies.  It seems that every time you get backed into a corner on a particularly stupid aspect of what the liberal base is pushing, you try to declare their ideology irrelevant.  No dice.

[dazzleman]

Except I haven't seen any evidence that it's liberals pushing for this. And until any liberal defends it on this thread I'll consider it irrelevant. You also must realize that even if one group of liberals supports something, another most certainly does not, true with conservatives as well.

You're not connecting the dots.  Liberal feminists push the hysterical notions that everybody walking around with a penis and a pair of testicles is a major threat to every woman and girl.  It is that mentality that leads to the circumstance described by Richius, in which this man who apparently meant no harm is being forced to register as a sex offender despite the fact that he has been convicted of no crime.

I don't say that every liberal believes this, but radical feminism, and the various permutations of it, of which this is one, is a phenomenon of the left, not the right.

As I said at the beginning, this case represents a perversion, through a bastardization of radical feminist thinking, of an idea that was essentially a conservative one.  It is one of those cases where the two political axes intersect in a very destructive way.

[dazzleman]

Whatever the case, I think radical feminism is a load of idiocy, and I have never met anyone who supports it.

Radical feminism has had a huge influence for a philosophy that nobody claims to support.

Are you aware of a new law in Illinois that says that a woman may withdraw consent for sex in the middle of a sex act, even if she gave consent at earlier stages.

This effectively means that a man can be charged with rape if he doesn't pull out fast enough if a woman changes her mind about sleeping with him.

Aside from the idiocy of this, and the impossibility of ever determining the truth in these situations, this opens up the possibility of all sorts of false allegations of rape.  As a guy who's looking to screw around a lot, this is something that should concern you.

[dazzleman]

Well there's nothing wrong with the basic idea behind the law.

Let's say a girl agrees to go home with me, so I drive her back to my place. Along the way she changes my mind and asks me to drop her off. If I don't drop her off and force her to come to my place, most would consider that kidnapping, even though I had her consent at first.

So if the girl says stop, should the guy be allowed to continue to drill her as long he wants to?

Despite the potential for abuse, you can hardly say the idea behind that is solely supported by radical feminists.

In theory I agree with you, but I think that practically speaking, there's a point of no return when it comes to sex, and that there's a point beyond which the law cannot go.

You're right that this law is not supported only by radical feminists, but that's my whole point -- that it's an example of how radical feminists have influenced those outside their ranks to pass laws that are a major threat to men.

It's ironic that the feminist movement, which started out saying that women should have the same sexual freedom as men, now considers it an onerous burden for women to have sex with men, and that some of the laws and focus of feminism will end up killing the sexual revolution and making the sexual mores of the 1950s look liberal, since men will be terrified to have sex with a woman other than their wife.  This is the direction we are moving in.

[dazzleman]

Well there's nothing wrong with the basic idea behind the law.

Let's say a girl agrees to go home with me, so I drive her back to my place. Along the way she changes my mind and asks me to drop her off. If I don't drop her off and force her to come to my place, most would consider that kidnapping, even though I had her consent at first.

So if the girl says stop, should the guy be allowed to continue to drill her as long he wants to?

Despite the potential for abuse, you can hardly say the idea behind that is solely supported by radical feminists.

In theory I agree with you, but I think that practically speaking, there's a point of no return when it comes to sex, and that there's a point beyond which the law cannot go.

You're right that this law is not supported only by radical feminists, but that's my whole point -- that it's an example of how radical feminists have influenced those outside their ranks to pass laws that are a major threat to men.

It's ironic that the feminist movement, which started out saying that women should have the same sexual freedom as men, now considers it an onerous burden for women to have sex with men, and that some of the laws and focus of feminism will end up killing the sexual revolution and making the sexual mores of the 1950s look liberal, since men will be terrified to have sex with a woman other than their wife.  This is the direction we are moving in.

What type of point of no return? And for how much longer can the guy go? He just should be able to stay there and keep going against her will? If she's screaming for the guy to stop, I think any decent guy would stop.

That's not the issue.  The issue is a situation is being created where an objective truth can never be determined, thereby making it much easier to bring false accusations if the encounter doesn't turn out as the woman wants (such as if the guy doesn't call her the next day).

If you don't believe this happens, you live in a fantasy world.  In fairness, it probably happens more often to men who have something, such as money, that such a woman can get from him in return.

I don't support rape, but I think the law has the balance the rights of both parties to minimize false accusations.  Our legal system is already functioning as a means of legalized extortion, and anything that adds to the problem is bad, in my opinion.

Ten years ago, I would have agreed with you, but I have seen too much.

[dazzleman]

No, he said there's a point of no return.

Thanks Philip.  But I have no illusions that BRTD will understand my point.

[dazzleman]

So you think a girl saying yes at any time should give a guy free reign to do whatever he wants for any amount of time?

I think basically what dazzleman was trying to say is that, if a woman is able to decide she doesn't want sex anymore after penetration has occurred, and if it's considered rape the moment after the woman has decided that she doesn't want sex, then unless the guy is able to teleport out of the female the instant that she decides she doesn't want sex, he's essentially accidentally raping her, and could be charged as such, which is obviously not what such a law is intended to do.  All he's saying is that there needs to be some consideration for the man, instead of making women able to turn men into rapists in the eyes of the law purely through revoking their consent to sex, and I would agree with him.

Regarding the issue at hand where the guy grabbed the child by the arm, I think that the correct response would be to ask "why the hell is restraining a minor a sex offense", and then change it.  No need to inflame the situation by pointing at a large group of people and randomly blaming them for it.

Thanks Gabu.  I think it's important that the law be structured in a reasonable way, and it's better for women if that is the case too.

We're already heading to the point where we make it too easy to make false claims, and when that happens fewer people will believe the true ones.  The Kobe Bryant case is a perfect example of this trend.  I didn't believe the accuser for a number of reasons, and I think it was a big mistake to bring charges in a case like this because that undermines more legitimate cases.

Sexual harassment is another issue where women have figured out that they can profit by making up false claims.  It is in the best interests of both men and women to have laws written in such a way that they are objectively defined, and not subject to too much interpretation.  This is contrary to a major feminist goal, which is to have rape and sexual harassment subject to a subjective definition supplied by the woman -- in other words, it's rape or sexual harassment if the woman says it is.  I strongly oppose this.

[dazzleman]

So you think a girl saying yes at any time should give a guy free reign to do whatever he wants for any amount of time?

I think basically what dazzleman was trying to say is that, if a woman is able to decide she doesn't want sex anymore after penetration has occurred, and if it's considered rape the moment after the woman has decided that she doesn't want sex, then unless the guy is able to teleport out of the female the instant that she decides she doesn't want sex, he's essentially accidentally raping her, and could be charged as such, which is obviously not what such a law is intended to do.  All he's saying is that there needs to be some consideration for the man, instead of making women able to turn men into rapists in the eyes of the law purely through revoking their consent to sex, and I would agree with him.

Regarding the issue at hand where the guy grabbed the child by the arm, I think that the correct response would be to ask "why the hell is restraining a minor a sex offense", and then change it.  No need to inflame the situation by pointing at a large group of people and randomly blaming them for it.

well yeah they can't expect the guy to pull out instantly, but it shouldn't take more than a few seconds and if he goes on for a couple minutes or longer against her will it'd be tough to say it's not rape.

It doesn't really affect me because I usually go girl-on-top.

How will a court determine whether the woman or man is telling the truth, if she says she told him to pull out, and he either says he did, or that she didn't ask?  Proof of penetration won't mean anything in this case because she initially agreed.  This is a legal hornet's nest from which only feminazis who hate men can benefit.

[dazzleman]

I'm not saying there's no potential for abuse or anything, I just want to know if he thinks it's OK then for a guy to keep going a significant amount of time after she said stop. He keeps dodging that question.

I told you earlier that I agreed with you in theory, so why are you saying that I'm dodging the question?  I just don't think that, in a situation in which all indicators point to consent for sex, there is any framework to determine what really happened if a woman claims she withdrew consent for sex in the middle of sexual intercourse, and wants to press charges for rape.  More than likely in a case like this, the woman didn't like the way the guy treated her after the sex, and brings rape charges to get even, or to extort money from him.  There is simply no way in a case like that to determine whether or not she's telling the truth, and it's too easy to abuse.  The law cannot intervene beyond a certain point, in my opinion.