to secure a rape conviction, prosecutors have to prove to a jury not only that a complainant did not consent but that the defendant did not have a reasonable belief that the complainant was consenting. In other words, the law allows for a situation in which a woman did not consent but a man could have reasonably believed that she did (that “reasonably” is critical), and juries can believe a woman’s account, sympathise with her, yet still not convict a defendant of rape.
Assuming this happened (it didn't) what she is asking for here is to destroy the entire legal system just to give women an unshakeable instant win card.
Because beyond a reasonable doubt is the cornerstone of the legal system we exist under, and its important to protect the innocent. Its the reason we moved away from lynch mobs to passive "let the law do its business." There are a lot of failures in our current system, but that is not one of them. For every Casey Anthony that gets away with murder because of it, a dozen innocent men get to avoid prison.
Its also amazing that she said all those words just to hide the easy solution that would make all women breakdown. Which is OPENLY AND PLAINLY SAYING THE WORD NO. No subtle implications, no body language, just saying the word fucking No.
That's why all feminism is doomed to fail when it tries to "empower" women, because the moment they are faced with actually dealing with a decision they will always default back to being cowardly little waifs who can't do anything without a man to take care of them.
Also having daughters did nothing to change my sexist ways, other than feel more secure in them. Because I got to see that many of the traits I am disgusted by in women isn't inherent, its a choice they make. And the rest is just basic paternal instincts I am in no way going to combat just to be "progressive."
She's basically demanding to eliminate the mens rea element of the crime. Think strict liability with an unfalsifiable actus reus. It's really just eliminating any factual inquiry. Lack of consent can't be disproved if it's a state of mind.
Lack of consent can't be disproved if it's a state of mind.
And that's the funny part. The word No could be considered a strong binding piece of evidence for lack of consent.
But women love to say no when they mean yes, or even have fetishes for you ignoring their No's. So they've created a state where the only certainty is being able to read their minds to discern their true intentions. And are now whining that the law doesn't always fall on their side regarding that.
Can be a fetish but more of a fitness test. Is the man whose cock is in her hand more horny or more afraid of getting accused of rape? Only the former are "worthy" of her.
Women are too retarded to tell the difference between bravery, and the perceived resource surplus that indicates, and high time preference + inability to process hypotheticals.
On a whim, since I was about to crack a joke about "sexual consent forms" I ran a search. And yes, apparently these are a thing. What the hell?
What's even more idiotic is if men successfully managed to turn to these as a cautionary measure (as in, if they could actually get a sane woman to sign one) is that they're not likely to hold any legal weight.
We never did lynch mobs as a legal system. Not a hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago. If we accept these fuckers' ideas we will be regressing to pre-history.
They did still exist, let's not baby with bathwater something just because the Left over exaggerates it. It not being codified institutionally doesn't mean it wasn't a thing that happened and was expected to happen in places where the law didn't give a shit to even show up.
Especially as without trust in the legal system being "fair and impartial" most people would absolutely turn to either vigilantism or lynch mobs to solve crime problems. Which is what they are trying to do away with.
Assuming this happened (it didn't) what she is asking for here is to destroy the entire legal system just to give women an unshakeable instant win card.
This is a feature, not a bug. She knows exactly what she is doing and she is doing it to give women the power of the state to use against men at their whim. She wants this power for herself and others like her.
The checks and balances on the system are a problem when one seeks to manipulate the system to their advantage. She is not concerned that this will backfire because she is a woman, and thus personally immune to accusations of rape or sexual assault from men. It may backfire by affecting her male relatives, but more than likely she is not concerned about male suffering, seeing them only cogs in the machine to serve her (or she believes her ability to manipulate other women will allow her to rise to the top of the female hierarchy, and thus have to power to impose her own self-interest on the system).
That's why all feminism is doomed to fail when it tries to "empower" women, because the moment they are faced with actually dealing with a decision they will always default back to being cowardly little waifs who can't do anything without a man to take care of them.
You continue to misunderstand women then. For women, being, or pretending to be, "cowardly little waifs" is exactly how they gain power, because they use that to manipulate men to their own advantage.
Far too many "conservative" and "red-pilled" men continue to misunderstand this about women. The comment refrain "women are children" is a clear example of this*. Women are not children. They are intelligent adults. Except, unlike men, they almost entirely focus their intelligence on how to manipulate other people, both men and women, to get their way.
* "Women are children" actually has some truth to it but not in the way most people use it. Children also tend to try to use manipulative tactics to get their way, e.g. a child crying until their parents give them what they want. Of course, women are significantly more adept at this than children (and men), having honed their skills in their peer groups as teenagers.
No, I get that that's the point. I simply think women aren't smart enough to actually be playing that game deliberately. They want to be that empowered megabitch girl boss, until the moment the wind slightly changes against them. Then millions of years of evolution override it all and they are gleefully back to be children.
The same way that a girl is super tough and willing to throwhands like a bar wench, but then a man raises his voice at her and she starts crying instantly.
Some certainly do play up that waifish shit deliberately, but those aren't also the ones pushing the (formerly) radfed narratives about girl power openly. Because it would cut into their angle and break kayfabe.
That's why you think I'm not understanding. You give them credit as "intelligent adults," I do not. If they were, then you are absolutely correct. I simply do not give them that credit, as I don't think they are nearly as smart as people think they are. Being able to manipulate isn't a sign of intellect, even dogs manage to do it in much the same manners and they aren't "intelligent adults" (well, relatively, some are quite smart for an animal).
Assuming this happened (it didn't) what she is asking for here is to destroy the entire legal system just to give women an unshakeable instant win card.
Because beyond a reasonable doubt is the cornerstone of the legal system we exist under, and its important to protect the innocent. Its the reason we moved away from lynch mobs to passive "let the law do its business." There are a lot of failures in our current system, but that is not one of them. For every Casey Anthony that gets away with murder because of it, a dozen innocent men get to avoid prison.
Its also amazing that she said all those words just to hide the easy solution that would make all women breakdown. Which is OPENLY AND PLAINLY SAYING THE WORD NO. No subtle implications, no body language, just saying the word fucking No.
That's why all feminism is doomed to fail when it tries to "empower" women, because the moment they are faced with actually dealing with a decision they will always default back to being cowardly little waifs who can't do anything without a man to take care of them.
Also having daughters did nothing to change my sexist ways, other than feel more secure in them. Because I got to see that many of the traits I am disgusted by in women isn't inherent, its a choice they make. And the rest is just basic paternal instincts I am in no way going to combat just to be "progressive."
She's basically demanding to eliminate the mens rea element of the crime. Think strict liability with an unfalsifiable actus reus. It's really just eliminating any factual inquiry. Lack of consent can't be disproved if it's a state of mind.
And that's the funny part. The word No could be considered a strong binding piece of evidence for lack of consent.
But women love to say no when they mean yes, or even have fetishes for you ignoring their No's. So they've created a state where the only certainty is being able to read their minds to discern their true intentions. And are now whining that the law doesn't always fall on their side regarding that.
Can be a fetish but more of a fitness test. Is the man whose cock is in her hand more horny or more afraid of getting accused of rape? Only the former are "worthy" of her.
Women are too retarded to tell the difference between bravery, and the perceived resource surplus that indicates, and high time preference + inability to process hypotheticals.
On a whim, since I was about to crack a joke about "sexual consent forms" I ran a search. And yes, apparently these are a thing. What the hell?
What's even more idiotic is if men successfully managed to turn to these as a cautionary measure (as in, if they could actually get a sane woman to sign one) is that they're not likely to hold any legal weight.
We never did lynch mobs as a legal system. Not a hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago. If we accept these fuckers' ideas we will be regressing to pre-history.
They did still exist, let's not baby with bathwater something just because the Left over exaggerates it. It not being codified institutionally doesn't mean it wasn't a thing that happened and was expected to happen in places where the law didn't give a shit to even show up.
Especially as without trust in the legal system being "fair and impartial" most people would absolutely turn to either vigilantism or lynch mobs to solve crime problems. Which is what they are trying to do away with.
This is a feature, not a bug. She knows exactly what she is doing and she is doing it to give women the power of the state to use against men at their whim. She wants this power for herself and others like her.
The checks and balances on the system are a problem when one seeks to manipulate the system to their advantage. She is not concerned that this will backfire because she is a woman, and thus personally immune to accusations of rape or sexual assault from men. It may backfire by affecting her male relatives, but more than likely she is not concerned about male suffering, seeing them only cogs in the machine to serve her (or she believes her ability to manipulate other women will allow her to rise to the top of the female hierarchy, and thus have to power to impose her own self-interest on the system).
You continue to misunderstand women then. For women, being, or pretending to be, "cowardly little waifs" is exactly how they gain power, because they use that to manipulate men to their own advantage.
Far too many "conservative" and "red-pilled" men continue to misunderstand this about women. The comment refrain "women are children" is a clear example of this*. Women are not children. They are intelligent adults. Except, unlike men, they almost entirely focus their intelligence on how to manipulate other people, both men and women, to get their way.
* "Women are children" actually has some truth to it but not in the way most people use it. Children also tend to try to use manipulative tactics to get their way, e.g. a child crying until their parents give them what they want. Of course, women are significantly more adept at this than children (and men), having honed their skills in their peer groups as teenagers.
No, I get that that's the point. I simply think women aren't smart enough to actually be playing that game deliberately. They want to be that empowered megabitch girl boss, until the moment the wind slightly changes against them. Then millions of years of evolution override it all and they are gleefully back to be children.
The same way that a girl is super tough and willing to throwhands like a bar wench, but then a man raises his voice at her and she starts crying instantly.
Some certainly do play up that waifish shit deliberately, but those aren't also the ones pushing the (formerly) radfed narratives about girl power openly. Because it would cut into their angle and break kayfabe.
That's why you think I'm not understanding. You give them credit as "intelligent adults," I do not. If they were, then you are absolutely correct. I simply do not give them that credit, as I don't think they are nearly as smart as people think they are. Being able to manipulate isn't a sign of intellect, even dogs manage to do it in much the same manners and they aren't "intelligent adults" (well, relatively, some are quite smart for an animal).