The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Very recently, I found myself arguing with a friend about rape laws in the UK. I found this rather strange, as usually most arguments about rape laws tend to go something like along the following lines:
"Rape laws aren't really good enough as they stand; too many men are getting away with rape and too many women are suffering as a result"
'Yeah, you're right there'
And that's where it usually ends. This time however, it was pointed out quite forcibly to me that saying things are unfair as they stand isn't really good enough. If we know it's unfair, and if everyone seems to accept that, then why are there still such low conviction rates for rape, and why is this crime still so prevalent? Do we acknowledge the seriousness of the problem? Are we willing to something beyond talking about it? Or is this just proof that we live in a mans world; men are always the perpetrators, and suffer rape far less often than women and so are less inclined to do anything about the problem.
One of the biggest problems is that rape is a crime that remains hidden. We occasionally hear of situations in some Islamic cultures where rape is considered a matter of shame for the victim and her family. If you're anything like as condescending as I am, you may find yourself shaking your head in bewilderment that any society could consider rape to be the fault of the victim. You may even start to feel faintly superior as you live in a country where rapists are widely and rightly regarded with contempt. Well, much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, as things stand the UK is equally as bad in it's treatment of victims of rape.
Of the women whom I've met and befriended in the last 10 or so years, roughly 1 in 10 of them has told me that they have been raped or sexually assaulted. None of their attackers were convicted of any crime, or even arrested for it. And that is just the women who have admitted to being raped. Who knows how many more of my friends keep silent about it? Scary, isn't it?
Personally, I find it absolutely horrifying that someone can be raped in this country with seeming impunity. Either a few men have a voracious appetite for forced sex, or there are a lot more inadequate little scumbags around than we'd like to admit to.
A common retort to the lack of rape convictions is "Well, why don't more women go to the police?" My question is, why should they? After all, of those cases that actually make it as far as court, less than 10% result in a conviction and sentences can be as low as 180 hours community service. Can you imagine that? Going through the horror of reliving being raped, with the man who did it sat a few metres away from you, and an arrogant, wig wearing git tries to make you feel like the Wh0re of Babylon for having had sex with more than one man in your whole life? And then, after having got through the judicial ordeal, to then see the man guilty of raping you walking from the court having received no more than a slapped wrist? It doesn't exactly encourage women to come forward and report the crime, does it?
I should point out that my line of argument at this point in the debate with my friend was something like "Well, yes things are bad right now. But they will change. I admit, they'll probably change slowly because the legal process always grinds along, but so many people of our generation and below realise how horrendous the crime of rape is, and so convictions will increase". My friend’s response was "How the hell do you know that? What if it never changes?".
Though I didn't think it at the time, I'm starting to wonder whether she had a point. If anything, rape convictions are falling. A small part (a VERY small part) of the blame must be attributed to the stunningly idiotic women who falsely accuse someone of rape (Nadine Milroy-Sloane, come on down!). They don't exactly help in encourage women to come forward and report rape. But the vast majority of the problem would seem to lie in society's attitude toward women.
For example, a woman's sexual history can be legitimately raised by the defence in a rape trial. What that means in practice is that if a woman has been anything less than a saintly virgin, it will be implied that she is no better than a ladywhore who probably wanted it anyway, and is now spitefully trying to ruin a mans life. Basically, the underlying theme of many of these rape defences seems to be that a promiscuous woman cannot be raped, as she is not capable of not consenting to sex. The even more sinister unspoken thought behind this is "And even if she was raped, she deserved it for being such a slapper".
Now the reason that this sort of defence is allowed to succeed so often is that the upper echelons of the judiciary (judges etc) are old and old fashioned in their view of women. That anachronistic view of the world is exploited by barristers to a rapist’s advantage. So, in theory, as new judges replace the old ones, we should start to see the end of that attitude. But will we really? After all, most of us still tend to regard promiscuous women with...well, if not scorn then we certainly think rather less of them than we would if they are not promiscuous. And that is a ridiculous way to view women. And what is more, people tend only to act in matters that concern them directly. Male rape is a rarity, and most of society's movers and shakers (and, most importantly, legislators) are men. Why should they worry about a change in rape laws, or an increase in convictions, when it isn't going to win them the next election? It tends to suggest that my initial assessment, that change will happen slowly, was wide of the mark. Change will still happen, but a lot slower than anyone apart from a rapist would like it to be.
More than anything, I would say that increased respect for women is the only way to ensure rape becomes a rarely committed (and then, punished in draconian fashion) crime. We need, as a society, to stop classifying women as either virgins or available orifices with no allowance for anything else. Unless we do, 1 in 10 women will continue to be raped, and only 1 in 10 rapists will suffer any degree of punishment. I defy anyone to tell me that that is a satisfactory state of affairs.
"Rape laws aren't really good enough as they stand; too many men are getting away with rape and too many women are suffering as a result"
'Yeah, you're right there'
And that's where it usually ends. This time however, it was pointed out quite forcibly to me that saying things are unfair as they stand isn't really good enough. If we know it's unfair, and if everyone seems to accept that, then why are there still such low conviction rates for rape, and why is this crime still so prevalent? Do we acknowledge the seriousness of the problem? Are we willing to something beyond talking about it? Or is this just proof that we live in a mans world; men are always the perpetrators, and suffer rape far less often than women and so are less inclined to do anything about the problem.
One of the biggest problems is that rape is a crime that remains hidden. We occasionally hear of situations in some Islamic cultures where rape is considered a matter of shame for the victim and her family. If you're anything like as condescending as I am, you may find yourself shaking your head in bewilderment that any society could consider rape to be the fault of the victim. You may even start to feel faintly superior as you live in a country where rapists are widely and rightly regarded with contempt. Well, much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, as things stand the UK is equally as bad in it's treatment of victims of rape.
Of the women whom I've met and befriended in the last 10 or so years, roughly 1 in 10 of them has told me that they have been raped or sexually assaulted. None of their attackers were convicted of any crime, or even arrested for it. And that is just the women who have admitted to being raped. Who knows how many more of my friends keep silent about it? Scary, isn't it?
Personally, I find it absolutely horrifying that someone can be raped in this country with seeming impunity. Either a few men have a voracious appetite for forced sex, or there are a lot more inadequate little scumbags around than we'd like to admit to.
A common retort to the lack of rape convictions is "Well, why don't more women go to the police?" My question is, why should they? After all, of those cases that actually make it as far as court, less than 10% result in a conviction and sentences can be as low as 180 hours community service. Can you imagine that? Going through the horror of reliving being raped, with the man who did it sat a few metres away from you, and an arrogant, wig wearing git tries to make you feel like the Wh0re of Babylon for having had sex with more than one man in your whole life? And then, after having got through the judicial ordeal, to then see the man guilty of raping you walking from the court having received no more than a slapped wrist? It doesn't exactly encourage women to come forward and report the crime, does it?
I should point out that my line of argument at this point in the debate with my friend was something like "Well, yes things are bad right now. But they will change. I admit, they'll probably change slowly because the legal process always grinds along, but so many people of our generation and below realise how horrendous the crime of rape is, and so convictions will increase". My friend’s response was "How the hell do you know that? What if it never changes?".
Though I didn't think it at the time, I'm starting to wonder whether she had a point. If anything, rape convictions are falling. A small part (a VERY small part) of the blame must be attributed to the stunningly idiotic women who falsely accuse someone of rape (Nadine Milroy-Sloane, come on down!). They don't exactly help in encourage women to come forward and report rape. But the vast majority of the problem would seem to lie in society's attitude toward women.
For example, a woman's sexual history can be legitimately raised by the defence in a rape trial. What that means in practice is that if a woman has been anything less than a saintly virgin, it will be implied that she is no better than a ladywhore who probably wanted it anyway, and is now spitefully trying to ruin a mans life. Basically, the underlying theme of many of these rape defences seems to be that a promiscuous woman cannot be raped, as she is not capable of not consenting to sex. The even more sinister unspoken thought behind this is "And even if she was raped, she deserved it for being such a slapper".
Now the reason that this sort of defence is allowed to succeed so often is that the upper echelons of the judiciary (judges etc) are old and old fashioned in their view of women. That anachronistic view of the world is exploited by barristers to a rapist’s advantage. So, in theory, as new judges replace the old ones, we should start to see the end of that attitude. But will we really? After all, most of us still tend to regard promiscuous women with...well, if not scorn then we certainly think rather less of them than we would if they are not promiscuous. And that is a ridiculous way to view women. And what is more, people tend only to act in matters that concern them directly. Male rape is a rarity, and most of society's movers and shakers (and, most importantly, legislators) are men. Why should they worry about a change in rape laws, or an increase in convictions, when it isn't going to win them the next election? It tends to suggest that my initial assessment, that change will happen slowly, was wide of the mark. Change will still happen, but a lot slower than anyone apart from a rapist would like it to be.
More than anything, I would say that increased respect for women is the only way to ensure rape becomes a rarely committed (and then, punished in draconian fashion) crime. We need, as a society, to stop classifying women as either virgins or available orifices with no allowance for anything else. Unless we do, 1 in 10 women will continue to be raped, and only 1 in 10 rapists will suffer any degree of punishment. I defy anyone to tell me that that is a satisfactory state of affairs.
Page:
Blank wrote:
> Dr Duck - you can enter a male, it's called anall (filter) sex. To be
> honest, I don't think it would be less bad for a man even if he wasn't
> penetrated.
But a woman can't. Not without help anyway.
May or may not be as bad, but it's still diferent.
> Dr Duck - you can enter a male, it's called anall (filter) sex. To be
> honest, I don't think it would be less bad for a man even if he wasn't
> penetrated.
But a woman can't. Not without help anyway.
May or may not be as bad, but it's still diferent.
Most animals do ask for consent - it is called the mating ritual and I don't believe that rape is an urge to reproduce. However, I have no wish to take this any further but do appreciate your apologies.
> Believe it or not I have actually lost sleep over this topic, I'm not
> some kind of cold, heartless b#stard.
I don't know you personally so am unable to comment other than to say I have not previously noticed you posting anything so dim.
I'm sorry to hear about your uncle and hope you get good news.
> Believe it or not I have actually lost sleep over this topic, I'm not
> some kind of cold, heartless b#stard.
I don't know you personally so am unable to comment other than to say I have not previously noticed you posting anything so dim.
I'm sorry to hear about your uncle and hope you get good news.
Blank wrote:
> Anyway, I don't think having to relive the incident should be very
> painful - if I report a stolen object, it might get taken to court and
> I'll have to relive it. If the woman involved realises it's just sex,
> no matter who it's with, and that's the reason we're all here in the
> first place, then it shouldn't be so traumatic.
Okay, I think what I meant by this is that you have to see the bigger picture. It's survival of the species. Our primary insticts are to protect ourselves and to reproduce. The reason rape happens is because people want sex. Animals don't ask for consent - we are nothing but animals. Species wouldn't thrive if they got consent all the time. I know I put it in a very harsh and cold way earlier, and I didn't mean that this should be some kind of consolation.
> But a fool proof solution is to look at from the perspective of
> "I'm going to get raped sooner or later, so I might as well enjoy
> it". That's the view I'm taking at the moment, because I just
> have a feeling I'll be raped sometime.
Right, okay, this is the bit that seems to have enraged everyone. As I've said, it was an in-joke with my friend - I don't really know why I put it in myself, as they aren't registered here. I suppose it was in the vain hope that someone else would get it. You probably wouldn't understand it unless I went through about three years worth of conversations, and probably not even then
Suffice it to say, it WASN'T serious - do you really think I would say this to someone? The last line should've sorted it out, but it didn't, so apologies to anyone offended by it.
Believe it or not I have actually lost sleep over this topic, I'm not some kind of cold, heartless b#stard. But right now I've got more important things to worry about, as my Uncle's been run over and it's uncertain whether he'll live.
> Anyway, I don't think having to relive the incident should be very
> painful - if I report a stolen object, it might get taken to court and
> I'll have to relive it. If the woman involved realises it's just sex,
> no matter who it's with, and that's the reason we're all here in the
> first place, then it shouldn't be so traumatic.
Okay, I think what I meant by this is that you have to see the bigger picture. It's survival of the species. Our primary insticts are to protect ourselves and to reproduce. The reason rape happens is because people want sex. Animals don't ask for consent - we are nothing but animals. Species wouldn't thrive if they got consent all the time. I know I put it in a very harsh and cold way earlier, and I didn't mean that this should be some kind of consolation.
> But a fool proof solution is to look at from the perspective of
> "I'm going to get raped sooner or later, so I might as well enjoy
> it". That's the view I'm taking at the moment, because I just
> have a feeling I'll be raped sometime.
Right, okay, this is the bit that seems to have enraged everyone. As I've said, it was an in-joke with my friend - I don't really know why I put it in myself, as they aren't registered here. I suppose it was in the vain hope that someone else would get it. You probably wouldn't understand it unless I went through about three years worth of conversations, and probably not even then
Suffice it to say, it WASN'T serious - do you really think I would say this to someone? The last line should've sorted it out, but it didn't, so apologies to anyone offended by it.
Believe it or not I have actually lost sleep over this topic, I'm not some kind of cold, heartless b#stard. But right now I've got more important things to worry about, as my Uncle's been run over and it's uncertain whether he'll live.
Yes. I know. I'm sorry. I'll quote myself and try to offer a full explanation in a few minutes.
Dr Duck - you can enter a male, it's called anall (filter) sex. To be honest, I don't think it would be less bad for a man even if he wasn't penetrated.
Dr Duck - you can enter a male, it's called anall (filter) sex. To be honest, I don't think it would be less bad for a man even if he wasn't penetrated.
Blank wrote:
> If you think I'm a moron, then you obviously can't see a post for what
> it is.
>
> The whole thing about enjoying it was an in-joke with my friend, I
> guess you wouldn't understand it unless you were there.
>
> It does seem shocking, looking back at it, but I don't really care if
> you're going to over react in such a way.
Tut - shame on you. You had the perfect opportunity to admit that it was a moronic post that you made. Surely you understand that 'jokes' with your friend would not be sensed by words posted on a screen.
You admit that when you read it again it does seem shocking. So then you just shrug off the fact that any female reading your post would react badly, not over-react, to what you said. Not just females I hasten to add but anyone who has had the misfortune to know anyone who has had to go through the experience would have found your remarks extremely upsetting.
It was a tactless, ill thought out, irrelevant reply to a serious topic and you should never have hit the post this message button.
AND you compound it by stating above that you 'don't really care as you consider some of us overreacted'.
Words, fortunately, fail me.
> If you think I'm a moron, then you obviously can't see a post for what
> it is.
>
> The whole thing about enjoying it was an in-joke with my friend, I
> guess you wouldn't understand it unless you were there.
>
> It does seem shocking, looking back at it, but I don't really care if
> you're going to over react in such a way.
Tut - shame on you. You had the perfect opportunity to admit that it was a moronic post that you made. Surely you understand that 'jokes' with your friend would not be sensed by words posted on a screen.
You admit that when you read it again it does seem shocking. So then you just shrug off the fact that any female reading your post would react badly, not over-react, to what you said. Not just females I hasten to add but anyone who has had the misfortune to know anyone who has had to go through the experience would have found your remarks extremely upsetting.
It was a tactless, ill thought out, irrelevant reply to a serious topic and you should never have hit the post this message button.
AND you compound it by stating above that you 'don't really care as you consider some of us overreacted'.
Words, fortunately, fail me.
Blank wrote:
> Why? Don't you think that's a bit sexist?
It means that rape requires 'entry'.
I think that alone makes it different to other sexual assaults - which are still serious crimes, but different.
> Why? Don't you think that's a bit sexist?
It means that rape requires 'entry'.
I think that alone makes it different to other sexual assaults - which are still serious crimes, but different.
Dr Duck wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> I don't know how true this is, and I certainly hold it in some
> doubt,
> but I was told that if a man is raped by a woman (the usual way, no
> strap-ons) then it cannot legally be classed as rape - as getting an
> erection implies willing. Now that doesn't seem right.
>
>
> True, it can only be classed as a sexual assault. I get the impression
> it'd generally be a rather less traumatic experience though.
Why? Don't you think that's a bit sexist?
> Blank wrote:
> I don't know how true this is, and I certainly hold it in some
> doubt,
> but I was told that if a man is raped by a woman (the usual way, no
> strap-ons) then it cannot legally be classed as rape - as getting an
> erection implies willing. Now that doesn't seem right.
>
>
> True, it can only be classed as a sexual assault. I get the impression
> it'd generally be a rather less traumatic experience though.
Why? Don't you think that's a bit sexist?
If you think I'm a moron, then you obviously can't see a post for what it is.
The whole thing about enjoying it was an in-joke with my friend, I guess you wouldn't understand it unless you were there.
It does seem shocking, looking back at it, but I don't really care if you're going to over react in such a way.
The whole thing about enjoying it was an in-joke with my friend, I guess you wouldn't understand it unless you were there.
It does seem shocking, looking back at it, but I don't really care if you're going to over react in such a way.
I think the only death sentences that still exist in this country are for-
a)High Treason (i.e. plotting and/or assassinating the Queen
b)Piracy on the High Seas
Such death sentences would be by hanging. I am not too sure about your 'normal treason' such as against the country though.
Also, theoretically whenever Greenpeace blockade or board a tanker in the seas they are committing Piracy on the High Seas. Thus they should be sentenced to death for their crimes.
a)High Treason (i.e. plotting and/or assassinating the Queen
b)Piracy on the High Seas
Such death sentences would be by hanging. I am not too sure about your 'normal treason' such as against the country though.
Also, theoretically whenever Greenpeace blockade or board a tanker in the seas they are committing Piracy on the High Seas. Thus they should be sentenced to death for their crimes.
Maybe having full sentances with time added on for bad behaviour could be a better approach...
Just hope Alex Fergusson never goes down for anything. Time added on? He'd be inside for ever.
Just hope Alex Fergusson never goes down for anything. Time added on? He'd be inside for ever.
Page: