NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.
For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.
First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:
MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.
Ok, so what do those terms mean?
MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether. I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.
Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:
Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).
Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.
Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.
The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.
NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.
PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”
Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.
LOL, longwinded troll thinks that double jeopardy applies to how a person is judged in the court of public opinion. If a court finds someone not guilty, then the general public is legally obliged to agree. What is he planning to do with people who don’t agree with how controversial cases turned out, send them to jail for not agreeing?
I’m gradually coming to the conclusion that this person is about 12-15 years old. He consistently displays a level of moral reasoning that most people have outgrown by late adolescence. If he’s an adult then I’m kind of embarrassed for him.
also, what definition of ‘fairly new’ are you using here?
actually, this page just has all kinds of anglo-centrism going on. are y’all really yelling at the swedish dude for not thinking about criminal justice from a common law perspective?
Cassandra — you missed where he said — “You were discussing whether or not he was guilty of a crime. You cant treat him as guilty if the court declare him innocent. We dont have “thought laws” so feel happy to think he is a criminal.”
Basically implying that thinking someone guilty is somehow forcing “thought laws” on people by thinking them guilty, or something. I really can’t parse it considering that insisting everyone must agree with the court decisions is actually endorsing “thought laws”.
Sharculese — I think Howard is referring specifically to the USA’s system, not adversarial systems in general. That’d imply he wasn’t speaking of all other systems, just “what came before” (that whole “taxation without representation” problem), and “fairly new” as in “since 1776~”. I might be wrong on that, but that’s how I’d read what he said.
cloudiah — interesting, of course the Yale archives don’t have it online, but interesting all the same.
Sharculese — no, we’re yelling at him for insisting we can’t think of the law from a common law perspective. And the nonstop rape apologia (mostly that really).
I don’t know how you all do it: arguing with Aktivarum seems about as productive as applying HeadOn via cheese grater.
Btw, he brought up the Duke case, and “innocent until proven guilty”. And I checked Swedish newspapers before saying Assange was being charged with rape, on the assumption he knew his own laws — he was flat out lying. (And that’s how we ended up down this particular rabbithole, I actually fact checked his claim and yet again it was lies, fallacies, and seriously twisting things, combined with rape apologia)
The rape apologia though is really the problem here. Things like —
“How do you know which rapes in Project Unbreaklable are real rapes? Do you assume any person thinking they were raped – in fact were raped? The first thing I checked was the ability to control context and content. They do not even answer that question. ”
Thus he can discount Project Unbreakable entirely. Even though he’s already said that rape requires force, which it doesn’t, under Swedish law (I checked back when that came up). Even though he said rape by coercion was a thing made up by feminists to um…score political points or something? He never did explain that one.
Sorry if this is coming off as cross with you Sharculese, my anger is directed at his repeated, insistent, victim blaming and rape apologia, after 2 weeks of it my ability to be polite is long gone.
Yeah, I saw the bit about thought crime, which just adds an extra layer of absurdity. People being allowed to disagree with government decisions – not imposing thought crime laws. People not being allowed to disagree with government decisions in any way – that actually would be setting up thought crime as a category. Stupid troll is very very stupid.
thebionicmommy;
“No, the public can’t make a legal decision on whether or not someone is guilty or pass out a punishment for a crime. You agree, though, that the public can think whatever they want about a case.”
Yes people can think whatever they want. That was the point with me saying we do not have “thought crime”. You can think whatever you want. You are just not allowed acting upon whatever you think. This is obvious when looking at racism.
“It’s okay for Nancy Grace to say she believes Casey Anthony is guilty of murder, but she doesn’t have the legal authority to punish Anthony.”
No thats not ok at all! Nancy Grace shóuld be hit with lawsuit and given guilty verdict for libel. The harm she cause to people is far greater than any need for idiot pretend judges residing over a pretend court. Also after her bullshit regarding Duke Lacrosse case that chicken coward wasnt even on the show when the players were announce innocent. What was it the irresposible idiot said now again. Well here it is:
“Why would you go to a cop in an alleged gang rape case, say, and lie and give misleading information?”
Cause of knowing idiots in media like Nancy Grace make you a national star perhaps? The point is you do not even need the answer to WHY some people lie. Knowing that they do is enough. Every legal case is unique and begins with the word innocent. Off course many feminists wanna do the opposite. Every rape begins with rape and the accused must prove rape did not happen. After all – this is the feminist logic on sexual harassment. Prove it did not happen or we assume you guilty as shown by Daphne Patai in her book “Heterophobia”
“Again, there are no thought crimes, so private citizens can think what they want to think.”
Yes, including racism! However people having racist thought are not allowed to act upon those thoughts shouting whatever they think about a black person in media so why should other bias be allowed in the media?
“I also have freedom of speech. I am allowed to say I think OJ is guilty even though he was acquitted. I am not treating him as a criminal. I am not giving him a legal punishment like a court can. I’m just saying what I believe is true.”
As a private person you are allowed to say that yes. However I would be hard pressed to find a single intelligent reason for media people in the public to be allowed to stir up lynch mobs so they can make more money. Its not like they risk anything by being wrong. People remember the right and forget the wrong – thats the reason its even possible to have TV-shows about people talking to the dead.
“Since her show began in 2005, the presumption of innocence has found a willful enemy in the former prosecutor turned broadcast judge-and-jury.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/business/media/23carr.html?_r=2
“some television news shows built their ratings up by taking an openly prosecutorial stance against Anthony, leading to public expectations that a conviction was a slam-dunk certainty.”
http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Casey+Anthony+verdict+outrage+critics+blame+Nancy+Grace+Geraldo+Rivera+other+media+figures/5062174/story.html
“Of course private citizens are not allowed to punish people they believe to be criminals. That’s vigilantism, and it’s illegal. They are allowed to say they think they’re guilty, though.”
In what way is being nationally declared a child murderer NOT a punishment? You should really not be allowed to do it in public cause the system was created long before our era of media obsession. The point once in a time was to get AWAY from lynch mobs and public opinion. Now we are on our way back to medieval kinds of justice based ón some news crews needing more money for their beach house.
“Nancy Grace, a former prosecutor whose nightly attacks on the woman she scornfully referred to as Tot Mom almost single-handedly inflated the Anthony case from a routine local murder into a national obsession.”
Thus I ask again, what public opinion?
“In a country with a free press, people are going to talk and write a lot of opinions on high profile court cases.”
Reporting ongoing court cases – perfectly fine
“The first lesson he learned during the Simpson trial, Finkelstein said, was that a lawyer analyzing a trial has to restrain the kneejerk impulse to act as an advocate. “I always tried to give both sides, the way a defense attorney sees it and the way a prosecutor sees it,” he said.”
Pretend-Overturning court decisions cause you are a big star and think cause you are famous you know better – not ok. Its bad enough the increase of idiots killing kids at schools cause they know media makes a big thing about it. US press being the main culprit for causing more school shootings.
“When someone famous like Assange gets accused of a crime, it gets a lot of media coverage, and the general public is going to form their own opinions.”
What general public? You are talking about a few priviliged twice-biased (political and financial) media persons deciding what most people know. Most people do not even have an opinion on the case. They have an opinion on the information media thought they should know about.
“Sometimes a person will be acquitted of a crime, and the public will still dislike hir. I don’t know how you can prevent that without taking away the freedom of press and freedom of speech.”
You can like/dislike whoever you want. However if you claim an innocent person is really guilty you should be hit with a lawsuit for libel.
“It would be dangerous to allow governments to arrest people in secret, too. If court cases were held in secret, then governments could abuse that power and start prosecuting people for made up crimes.”
I am not saying court cases should be held in secret. I am saying their verdict should be respected cause even a sucky system creates less robberies, murder and mayhem than the complete lack of one. When Africa was colonized murder and mayhem decreased even though the colonial powers were oppressive. Even their racist idiot system created less murder than the earlier lack of any system.
“It’s better to have public scrutiny for our criminal justice system.”
What public? Media only cares about money. If media think they make money on declaring an innocent person guilty they will do so – even when they know that person is innocent (as in no evidence). They do not give a shit. This is what Nancy Grace said:
“she stated that Ricci was “a known ex-con, a known felon, and brought suspicion on himself, so who could blame anyone for claiming he was the perpetrator?”
Actually she should have said – Since ratings would go up – it was easy money!
Argenti:
“Btw, he brought up the Duke case”
Yes, I did. Good luck attacking me on this one. I noticed the absense of commentary though.
“and “innocent until proven guilty”
I dont see any comment. Any point in mentioning this at all or is this just an attempt at “pacing and leading”?
“And I checked Swedish newspapers before saying Assange was being charged with rape, on the assumption he knew his own laws — he was flat out lying.”
I was talking about the legal PRACTISE. It doesnt matter what it say in theory. Also if you wanna talk about swedish newspapers here is one.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svd.se%2Fopinion%2Fbrannpunkt%2Fallt-kan-inte-vara-valdtakt_306608.svd&act=url
“(And that’s how we ended up down this particular rabbithole, I actually fact checked his claim and yet again it was lies, fallacies, and seriously twisting things, combined with rape apologia)”
You treat legal theory as legal fact. However courts decide legal practise. If a law is badly written it can still be interpreted in a functional way. Courts need not be idiots cause the people writing a law feared lobby groups wrath.
“Thus he can discount Project Unbreakable entirely.”
Actually I dont need to discount it cause it did not count in the first place since they THEMSELVES declare it to be an ARTPROJECT! Also your complete lack of analysis is very interesting considering how closely you have analysed other sources.
“Even though he’s already said that rape requires force, which it doesn’t, under Swedish law (I checked back when that came up).”
I said it requires being forced, I did not say it requires use of physical force.
“Even though he said rape by coercion was a thing made up by feminists to um…score political points or something? He never did explain that one.”
See same newspaper
“This is because a vocal and uncritical public opinion, which is fixed at just the word rape, succeeded in bringing about a new legislation. No one seems to have reflected on the implications, although these have been known.”
also
“It is possible that it providing better victim status to be raped than sexually abused, especially in these times when more and damages imposed. But it is absurd that the victim should get to control crime of.”
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahaha
hahah
Re: Nancy Grace, libel, why the media can do that, etc — this one probably is uniquely American, but that’s the relevant law for her show — our libel laws just don’t work that way, it’s basically impossible to have grounds for a libel suit here. As to why the media is allowed to say whatever it likes, that’s explicitly stated in the Constitution. As for ghost shows and other such fantasy, that’s exactly what it is, fantasy, a genre of entertainment (weren’t you going on about entertainment back on day 1 here?) — And whether Nancy Grace is a terrible person who should find a new job is moot to whether any American law can force her to (we can’t, our first amendment bans it).
I cannot properly explain our libel laws while that fucking fire alarm is going off! ANd the fucking thing keeps shutting off only to make me jump again a minute later…80 db is white noise my fucking ass… (This has nothing to do with anything besides being the cause of my brief reply)
“What general public? You are talking about a few priviliged twice-biased (political and financial) media persons deciding what most people know. Most people do not even have an opinion on the case. They have an opinion on the information media thought they should know about.”
That’s basically been the case throughout history, or at least as far back as I know (see the part re: Lizzie Borden) — and the point of the aforementioned first amendment is, in theory, to ensure all sides are reported on (in practice there’s no safeguard against yellow journalism). Sweden has gag orders I assume? We don’t. It would be more illegal to force Nancy Grace off the air than it is for her to say what she says, whether she should really choose to knock it off is another matter though. Our libel laws basically give her a free pass as long as she says “I think…” I there, and even in her “I KNOW!!” style it could only be libel if you knows it to be patently untrue. In any case, we only have civil defamation laws, so the worst that could happen to her would be a really big fine.
“When Africa was colonized murder and mayhem decreased even though the colonial powers were oppressive.”
That shit needs a citation, badly.
“Yes, I did. Good luck attacking me on this one. I noticed the absense of commentary though.”
Maybe the lack of commentary was because I was simply explaining how we ended up discussing American law? I kind of thought that was clear in context — that entire comment was an explanation to Sharculese as to why everyone is being so cross with you, a summary of the current derail. No, I didn’t comment on the summary, that wouldn’t be much of a summary.
“You treat legal theory as legal fact. However courts decide legal practise. If a law is badly written it can still be interpreted in a functional way. Courts need not be idiots cause the people writing a law feared lobby groups wrath.”
Says someone treating the law as the standard for public opinion…and peddling fish again, what’s that point at the end about lobby groups?
“Actually I dont need to discount it cause it did not count in the first place since they THEMSELVES declare it to be an ARTPROJECT! Also your complete lack of analysis is very interesting considering how closely you have analysed other sources.”
Or maybe I was half asleep and typing out all that html was enough effort? That was 20+ of html for all those links, which you appear to have ignored, and thus failed “being a decent human being 101”. And I’m not analyzing art with anyone unable to understand that art can transmit knowledge, mostly because my minor was studio arts, been there, done that, holy shit does it make my head hurt (and that fire alarm is still going off, I don’t need a bigger headache [20 min and counting, argh!!]).
“I said it requires being forced, I did not say it requires use of physical force.”
Yes, I noticed. And Pecunium mocked. Would you like to provide another verb does not equal noun example? Being shot does not require shooting? Being attacked does not require attacking? Being coerced does not require coercion? (That last one was what you were really trying to say huh? Or was it that coercion cannot be rape despite your own laws saying force is not required for a rape case?)
“But it is absurd that the victim should get to control crime of.”
HAHAHAHA oh, sorry, did you not realize nearly every crime (at least in the US) requires someone, usually the victim, pressing charges? IDK, maybe in Sweden if you assault someone they can’t opt out of pressing charges, but here they can, thus this wouldn’t be absurd, if it was really what rape by coercion meant, but it isn’t.
Oh wait, nevermind, you presented someone else’s opinion, so by your own nonsense I can ignore you until you present your own opinion. Remember that it must be on what should happen, not what must not happen.
And google translate is failing terribly on that article, want to actually translate the important parts? (Or, even better, fix google’s translation? Please fix google’s translation, and that isn’t snark.)
Only took half an hour, but the fire alarm has been shut off!!
I really can’t tell if that opinion article is trying to say the changed rape law is too harsh, or just unclear. I assume that’s a translation issue. What I can make out of it is comparing what Americans would call “assault with a deadly weapon” with stat rape of a 13-14 year old.
Under Connecticut law that would be this versus this. So it does sound like the Swedish sentence lengths are reverse what they should be (ie assault with a deadly weapon should be worse) — but that doesn’t make complex rape laws invalid (CT doesn’t have a crime called rape, they use degrees of sexual assault).
And despite the legal gibberish those laws look like, they make sense to lawyers.
Speaking of them being gibberish, I think this is actually the relevant sexual assault law — twice the sentence as assault with a deadly weapon, matching the newer Swedish rape law (in ratio though not length).
So it’s not just Sweden that thinks having sex with minors is worse than stabbing someone.
Argenti:
“Did you get to the ones about how cops and DAs respond?”
You mean how they allegedly responded to an alleged rape? You dont know if the response is true. Also you dont even know what they responded to. They control the story completely and you just have to go on whatever they tell you, specially if its in accordance with already held views.
“If so perhaps, just perhaps, this will make an iota of sense — outside a court of law yes, yes I do.“
Yes it makes perfect sense in case what you call “rape” is not even a crime. Its instead whatever gives the person the impression they were raped – Doing that is not even automatically illegal but calling it rape makes perfect sense in a propaganda sort of way, where most people assume when you say rape you mean the crime-kind rape, not the other kind.
“Provide just one person saying they were raped again by the police”
There you go
“I said revictimized which does not mean “raped again”, it means victimized again. As in, made to be a victim, I already defined “to make” for you, so let me skip to victim”
Revictimized means Second Victimization and here is another example
Thus it has nothing to do with you defining the word victim.
“Try linking to a study that says remotely what you say it says. I tear apart bad studies”
You tear apart bad studies yet give Project Unbreakable (unreliable and unrepresentative material) status as proper knowledge?
“You’re forming your opinions on what rape looks like from the media, so yes, views from real people are an improvement.”
You are assuming things, I actually have real rape victims in my family and know way more about the suject than I care to discuss with people at a public forum.
“Yes, I believe what rape looks like is what rape victims say their rape looked like, just how thick are you?”
You dont even know which persons are real rape victims. You just use the word “rape” as a metaphor for a woman feeling raped, and second raped. The purpose of Project Unbreakable is to be able to claim rape WITHOUT having to first prove it happened at all. It doesnt matter the slightest to you whether a claimed rape is a real rape cause its more convienent to call ALL claimed rapes real rapes. In that case it makes perfect sense.
1. Go to the storytelling part, Police sucks, Court sucks
2. Skip the rest and move to attention-therapy.
“Yeah you continue to misrepresent art, despite having a pair of artists in this debate trust me, we’ve noticed your idiocy. Art can, and often does, transmit knowledge, particularly when the art form in question is photography.”
Art doesnt have any criterum for representation. Thus artists need not care whether the art gives a representative view of the world OR whether it just make people believe something is far worse (more common) than it is.
Argenti:
“So it’s not just Sweden that thinks having sex with minors is worse than stabbing someone.”
You are probably missing the point with that part, however thats a swedish thing.
Sweden have the minor sex-age at 15 – not 18. There is no “stat. rape” in Sweden. Thus the law says if somebody have sex with a 14 year old in Sweden thats rape. With a 15 year old its perfectly legal. Prosecutor Hillegren informs us in the absurdity of there not being a middle ground on this since nobody thinks a 20 year old having consensual sex with a 14 year old is worse than being stabbed in the chest.
Sweden HAD a middle ground on this “sexual abuse” however feminists removed it (by shoting and lobbying) cause frankly they wanna call everything rape feminists in the media treated guilty verdict of sexual abuse as “innocent” if the perp was not convicted of rape, feminists were not happy. Hillegren tells us the consequence of this being they get the lesser punishment of sexual assault yet its recorded as rape. Cause even if you call it rape – you cant give it same sentence as if they hade put a knife to the persons throat and forced intercourse. The punishment must be proportional to other punishments of worse things.
Okay. You’re a moron.
That’s what stuatory rape is; not some special ‘halfway’ punishment, but saying that any sex with a 14-year-old is rape because of their age.
I think I understand your trouble; here, let me explain. Words have meanings.
Okay?
Cause not calling it rape when it’s ‘just’ sexual assault… what the freaking hell do you mean by that? Cite me one case. Cite me one goddam case!!
I THINK ArkTroll is part of the “rape rape” crowd: i.e. the ONLY TRUE RAPE is that done by an EVIL CLEARLY EVIL BECUZ DEFORMED stranger who young and beautiful CERTIFIED VIRGIN as she’s walking home from church and beats the crap out of her.
Everything else is only being called rape because those awful feminists hate men and want to punish them for having MANLY SEX.
You are a vile little rape apologist, Arks.
Oops, that should be: “who leaps out of a dark alley and grabs and rapes a young and beautiful….
What happened to mah clause?
I wanna unpack something here.
Aktivarum is upset that feminists were so upset that some people were getting off with ‘just’ sexual assault instead of rape charges.
Prediction: in all cases of this sort we’ll find that rapists were getting away with a slap on the wrist.
All. Of. Those. Cases.
Watch him fail to give me a single case that drew feminist ire wrongfully!!
Thrill as he is unable to show us a single person given a long sentence who we’ll agree with him should have been let off lightly!!
Because his golden age era was one where as long as you didn’t hold a knife to her throat you got off easy, no matter what else you might do.
And he misses it.
And he is truly, truly a vile rape apologist, as Ithiliana says. Because that’s what it always comes back to.
raspberryberet13:
“I THINK ArkTroll is part of the “rape rape” crowd: i.e. the ONLY TRUE RAPE is that done by an EVIL CLEARLY EVIL BECUZ DEFORMED stranger who young and beautiful CERTIFIED VIRGIN as she’s walking home from church and beats the crap out of her.”
WTF?! What are you talking about? I never even talked about real rape in terms of who the claimed victim is (couldnt care less) or who the alleged perpetrator is (also uninportant). Thats pure bullshit! What I said was you gotta separate stories about feeling raped from people proven to being raped. This is done in several different categories
1. Police agree, however they inform the person what happened was not a rape but just a guy being a jerk, no trial
2. Police agree, it was a rape however they cant find the suspect, no trial
3. Police agree, it was rape, the suspect is found and charged, not guilty (lack of evidence)
4. Police agree, it was rape, the suspect is found and charged, guilty – goes directly to jail without collecting 2000£
5. Police agree, it was rape, lack of evidence, no trial
6. Police disagree, the rape is unfounded, no trial
7. Police disagree, the story is false, accusor might be charged and put on trial
At 5/7 points the police agrees, however at 4/7 points police agree a rape did happen, When a rape did happen its either guilty/innocent at trial, cant find suspect or do not have enough evidence to present at trial. The remaining two are no basis for rape or evidence pointing the rape being false.
At no point in this does it matter who the victim is or who the suspect is.
“Everything else is only being called rape because those awful feminists hate men and want to punish them for having MANLY SEX.”
In sweden we have three different sex crimes. 1. Sexual misconduct, 2. Sexual abuse, 3. Rape, what feminists did (And prosecutor Hillegren tells about) is how feminists shouted to get people who would be judged for sexual abuse to be convicted of rape. This has two consequences:
A. For lesser sex crimes they are charged for rape but the punishment is still the one you would give for sexual abuse. We just call it rape, we do not treat it the same way we would treat a rape. The rape statistics is way inflated due to this.
B. Rape is harder to prove, people who would have been convicted of sexual abuse might go free cause of feminists insisting we call everything rape.
“You are a vile little rape apologist, Arks.”
As I informed earlier, in this definition where everyone feeling raped is assumed to be raped (PU). Rape is not even defined as a crime. Its defined as whatever gives a woman the feeling of being offended. For instance a guy cheating on her makes her feel raped cause had she known he would cheat she would never have given consent.
…a single case where that happened, please?
Hillengren? FUCKING HILLENGREN!!
http://www.thelocal.se/21572/20090820/
“Take a man and a woman who know each other and the woman says she doesn’t feel like it today, but the man just goes ahead anyway. Sure, it is not very nice, but maybe not worth two years in prison. It is more like a regulatory offence,” he said.
THAT HILLENGREN? You lousy little rape apologist.
Argenti: You really are a special kind of stupid
Actually his “innocent until proven guilty” routine is sadly not special. It’s a long-used tactic of the rape denialist/apologist/encouragist.
If the accused must be presumed to be factually (as opposed to legally) innocent, the obverse is also true, which means the accuser is factually false; until she is vindicated by a court of law declaring him guilty.
It makes rape (and DV) a different class of crime, since they are nothing like this adamant about the innocence of “thug-boys” all presumed to be clandestine criminals.
Utterly tangential, but how well do you know Lizzie Borden’s case? Iirc she was convinced in public opinion mostly because she didn’t faint when she found the bodies, like a proper Victorian lady would have.
Pretty well. I’d say the odds are high she did it. The circumstantial evidence is strong, and (barring the random double ax-murderer wandering around unnoticed, there isn’t really any viable candidate for the crime). No one who had any motive appears in the alternate theories of the case.
So, all in all, I’m unconvinced she didn’t do it. I also think the issue of “her bearing” is easier for most people who had a, “gut reaction” that she did it to use as after the fact justification. The prosecution failed to convince the jury, and now those who thought her guilty had to say why.
Sharculese: No, I’m not yelling at him for that. I’m telling him off for telling me how my system works (note his use of Duke as his example of the evils of the system).
That, and his lying about what the charges (and Swedish Law) were in the Assange case.
Argenti: I’d say “assault” with a deadly weapon often deserves a lesser sentence than rape. Assault (in the US) usually equals something akin to “making a credible threat” not actually attacking/injuring. So waving a 2×4, or pointing a gun at someone (loaded or not) = assault with a deadly weapon.
So yes, in those cases rape is the greater offense.