you're reading...
Rape and Sexual Assault

“Intentional Sex Torts”: Making Laws That Work for Women and What Happens to Feminist Attorneys Who Try

To the extent your reality does not fit the law’s picture, your rape is not illegal.  The implications of this for everyday sex life are that any man who knows a woman of the same race can probably get away with raping her.  The better he knows her, the  more likely he is to get away with it.   Married women in states that do not have a law against marital rape are the ultimate example…

What does all this mean for having no mean no?  When no can legally mean yes, what does yes mean in everyday life?  When rape passes legally as intercourse, what is sexual intimacy?  The law of rape deeply affects sexual intimacy by making forced sex legally sex, not rape, every night.  Every day, because women know this, they do not report rapes nine times out of ten.  When a woman does report, the media have the legal right to print her name and picture, making her into everyday pornography…Many women, no matter how violated they were, do not call what happened to them rape if they do not think a court would agree with them.  In this ultimate triumph of law over life, law tells women what happened to them and many of us believe it.  When asked, “Have you ever been raped?” many women answer, “I don’t know.

…The realm in which women’s everyday life is lived, the setting for many of these daily atrocities, is termed “the private.”   Law defines the private as where law is not, that into which law does not intrude, where no harm is done other than by law’s presence.  In everyday life, the privacy is his….Wives are raped in private.  Women’s labor is exploited in private.  Equality is not guaranteed in private.  Prostitution, when acts of sex occur out of public view, is often termed private….

Women in everyday life have no privacy in private.  In private, women are objects of male subjectivity and male power.  The private is that place where men can do whatever they want because women reside there.  The consent that supposedly demarcates this private surrounds women and follows us wherever we go.  Men seem to reside in public where laws against harm exist — real harm, harm to men and whoever has the privilege to be hurt like men — and follow them wherever they go.  Having arranged the law against rape and battering and sexual abuse of children so virtually nothing is done about them, and having supported male power in the home as a virtual absolute, the law then proclaims its profoundest self-restraint, its guarantee of liberty where it matters most, in “the right to be left alone.”  This home is the place Andrea Dworkin has described from battered women’s perspective as “that open grave where so many women lie waiting to die.”  As a legal doctrine, privacy has become the affirmative triumph of the state’s abdication of women.  Sanctified by the absolution of law, the private is the everyday domain of women in captivity, abandoned to their isolation and told it is what freedom really means.–Catharine A. MacKinnon, “Law in the Everyday Life of Women,” in Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005

In the same chapter from which I excerpted the above quote, MacKinnon makes the point that women in the United States have so far made at least one law:  the law against sexual  harassment.  Before sexual harassment law, sexual harassment was simply everyday life for women, something men did to women with impunity.  When women’s experiences of being sexually harassed were made the basis for a law against that harassment, life began to change for women.  Men didn’t stop sexually harassing us, but there was a name for what they did now, and, as MacKinnon says, the experience had an “analysis that placed it within the collective reality of gender, a forum for controntation with some dignity and the possibility of relief. … Changing what could be done by law changed the way it felt to live through [sexual harassment] in life, and the status of women took a step from victim to citizen.”

In this same tradition of working for, advocating for, creating laws that work for women, that reflect our experiences as women — especially in domains heretofore protected (by men and for men’s benefit) under the aegis of male definitions of “privacy” — back to us,   Deana Pollard Sacks blogged about “intentional sex torts” over at Feminist Law Professors last week.   Sacks notes in her post that four states have now enacted laws which recognize “fraudulent inducement of sex” as rape:  Alabama, California, Michigan and Tennessee.  A Massachusetts attorney filed a similar bill in Massachusetts this past February which would recognize “stealing another’s sexual autonomy” as a crime:

Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a person having obtained that person’s consent by the use of fraud, concealment, or artifice and who thereby intentionally deceived such person so that a reasonable person would not have consented but for the deception, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or any term of years. As used in this statute, `fraud’ or `artifice’ shall not be construed to mean a promise of future consideration.

Intentional sex tort laws would require fair disclosure for giving of consent to be recognized as valid, with issues of intent to offend and offensive contact factored in, as with battery.  As Sacks says, “In a world filled with dangerous sexual diseases, it is particularly important to protect women’s rights to protect their own bodies, not just against physical violence, but against fraudulent inducement of sexual decisions and all of the dangerous consequences that can result from a lack of truly informed consent to sexual relations.”

Laws that recognize and punish theft of sexual autonomy (by, for example, lying about important things, like who someone is or whether he has STD’s, in order to get women to agree to have sex with him),  name a theft most women have experienced as rape and, as with sexual harassment law, offer an analysis and recognition of our lived reality which could powerfully change it.

How likely laws are to bring about real change for women can often be gauged by men’s response to their proposal.  Following are a few choice responses from male attorneys who blogged in response to Sacks’s post.  They give us some idea how large is the boulder we might have to move up the mountain and how steep the mountain might be.

Geek Lawyer, in a post entitled, creatively, “Stupid Cunts,” writes:

Geeklawyer had thought that feminism was a joke that after 25 years was confined to history and the odd nostalgic memory of decaying overweight women with sagging breasts and moustaches…

Apparently a bunch of strapon wearing bull-dyke feminist law professors are asserting that lying to a woman in order to give her the pleasure of one’s Pork Sword is rape. American professors are a breed with less intellectual credentials than one would accept in the UK. Across the pond ‘Professor’ is merely a job title rather than, as it is here, a recognition of intellectual prowess.

A commenter to Above the Law’s post about intentional sex torts  offers a piece of his mind he really might should try to hold onto:

I find Professor Sack’s bigoted description of sexual dynamics disgusting. Why is it that men are depicted as sexual predators doing anything possible to “invade” a women’s bodies? And women are these bastions of sexual virtue knitting in the castle tower only trying to fend off attacks from the raving hordes below? Does she not realize that all human beings are sexual animals and will occassionally lie to get it?

Then there’s this guy (whose charming post is illustrated by the character “Quagmire” from Family Guy):

Expanding tort law to cover dishonest sexual encounters is a horrifying proposition. We have to be left to be human — even if that means that some immoral, abhorrent, and even disgusting behavior will leak through the sieve of our legal system… For as long as we live and love, someone will lie about their feelings to someone else… I’mnot simply arguing that boys will be boys.  I am arguing that this is the yin to the yang of love, passion and ecstasy.

Every time you meet someone or f*** someone you are taking a risk.  That’s part of the thrill!

Yeah, coming up positive for HPV is just so damned hawt and sexxxeeeeee.

Well, it should be interesting.  Thanks to Ann Bartow for the distant early warning and especially for introducing me to Deana Pollard Sacks.  I’m looking forward to reading everything she writes and passing it along.

Heart

Discussion

94 thoughts on ““Intentional Sex Torts”: Making Laws That Work for Women and What Happens to Feminist Attorneys Who Try

  1. Thanks for this, Heart. I really appreciate the support and sisterhood.

    Posted by Ann Bartow | May 4, 2008, 9:35 pm
  2. You are so welcome, Ann.

    Posted by womensspace | May 5, 2008, 4:41 am
  3. I would describe the male reaction to these proposed changes in law as ‘shrill’.

    What a rapist mentality they have. Whilst females have not been taught that ‘sex by deception is rape’, it is clear that these males have known it all along.

    Posted by stormy | May 5, 2008, 9:13 am
  4. I don’t mind if you disagree with my perspective on this issue. That is how the marketplace of ideas is supposed to work — through disagreement and debate.

    But, you’ve mischaracterized my point with this little editorial addition:

    Yeah, coming up positive for HPV is just so damned hawt and sexxxeeeeee.

    Lying about an STD and then transmitting it to someone else already fits within our current tort law scheme. I don’t have a problem with that — although I think that personal responsibility should come into play.

    This theory, however, does not seem limited to protecting us against our sex partner’s dishonesty about their health status. If it were, I’d champion it as well.

    You note the proposed Massachusetts law, but did you actually read what it would criminalizePost here

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Prof. Sacks has good intentions, but this idea gains traction, we’re all screwed (no pun intended).

    Posted by marcorandazza | May 5, 2008, 10:41 am
  5. Lying about an STD and then transmitting it to someone else already fits within our current tort law scheme

    marcorandazza, I don’t think that’s quite right and will come back and say why. But I also recognize your argument here as the same argument traditionalists have consistently used historically against domestic violence laws, sexual harassment laws, and other laws which protect women from violence or harassment which specifically targets them as women. It’s true, for example, that there have always existed laws against assault, rape and battery. But for centuries and millennia those laws didn’t protect women who were beaten or raped by husbands or male partners because the law didn’t “count” those rapes and assaults as rapes and assaults.

    I”ll go read what the Massachusetts law would criminalize.

    Posted by womensspace | May 5, 2008, 3:28 pm
  6. Here’s the article about the Massachusetts bill that is pending:

    A bill filed yesterday would expand the scope of the state’s rape law, allowing prosecutors to bring charges against those who use fraud or deceit, not just physical force, to engage in sexual intercourse.

    Proponents said the existing law must be tightened after a Westfield man allegedly had sex with his brother’s girlfriend while posing as his brother in a darkened room and after a Wilbraham pharmacist allegedly posed as a gynecologist and gave exams to two women.

    The Supreme Judicial Court ruled last year that the Westfield man could not be convicted of rape because sex obtained through fraud is not a crime, and Hampden County prosecutors decided last month that they could not bring rape charges against the pharmacist for the same reason.

    In its ruling last year, the state’s highest court urged the Legislature to address the issue, a process begun this week.

    “For far too long our state has inadequately served survivors of rape and sexual assault, yet based statute and common law on the dispelled myth that rape happens only at night, in a dark alley, at the hands of a stranger; this is not the case,” said Representative Peter Koutoujian, Democrat of Waltham, who filed the bill.

    Joining him at a press conference at the State House yesterday were Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr. and Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr.

    “No continues to mean no; what this bill will ensure is that yes means yes,” Leone said.

    Koutoujian said the law would not ensnare so-called boasters, people who might brag of being a war veteran, a sports star, or something similar.

    “This legislation is meant to target sociopaths,” he said.

    Nonetheless, Leone acknowledged that he expected the issue would be discussed by the Legislature, because the bill as drafted does not specifically exempt boasters by name.

    It says, in its entirety: “Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a person having obtained that person’s consent by the use of fraud, concealment, or artifice and who thereby intentionally deceived such person so that a reasonable person would not have consented but for the deception, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or any term of years. As used in this statute, `fraud’ or `artifice’ shall not be construed to mean a promise of future consideration.”

    Leone said that fraud, concealment, and artifice have defined contexts in the courtroom and that any court hearing a boasting case would probably look at the Legislature’s intent in passing the expanded rape definition before deciding whether charges were warranted.

    In addition, the final sentence would exempt those who obtained sex by, for example, promising to marry someone or give them a role in a movie.

    Amid a series of questions from reporters, Koutoujian said prosecutors would consider societal norms, adding, “I don’t know a norm of society right now that would bring those up for a charge of rape.” He immediately added, “We can never say never.”

    One supporter of the bill – Mary Lauby, executive director of Jane Doe Inc., a support service focused on ending domestic violence and sexual assault – said it also shifts legal thinking from long-held concerns rooted in property law or defendants’ rights to those more oriented toward victims and nonphysical threats.

    “Neither of those serve us in the universe I live in,” she said of property or defendant rights.

    I’m not seeing any problems, I think it sounds great. The only thing I’ve seen so far that I don’t like is the wording in that excerpt in my post, “unnatural sexual intercourse.” I don’t know what the author means by “unnatural” and no matter what the author means, I think the word “unnatural” is a problem.

    Other than that, I think it sounds great.
    Link

    Posted by womensspace | May 5, 2008, 3:35 pm
  7. I think that you are persuaded more by the anecdote than by what the law would actually do.

    Give This Post a read and let me know if you still think that it sounds great.

    I agree with the spirit of the proposed legislation. The two sleazeballs from Wilbraham and Westfield should be punished, and it seems wrong that the law would not provide the victims with a remedy.

    On the other hand, this approach to the problem is just screaming for abuse. I simply don’t trust any prosecutor to apply “societal norms” when deciding who to prosecute for a charge as serious as rape. You need look no further than how prosecutors have abused citizens with obscenity prosecutions or laws regarding videotaping the police to see that I am right on that.

    Rep. Koutoujian, like Professor Sacks, has his heart is in the right place.

    I would even support a precise and narrow law that encompassed the Wilbraham and Westfield examples. Those were clearly rape.

    The problem is that like most laws that attempt to legislate morality, they have way too much latitude for abuse. We can’t write laws during a freak-out session. We need to be really careful.

    If Koutoujian and Sacks got together and came up with civil and criminal remedies for rape by deception, I’d be pleased to volunteer to carry the petition around for signatures.

    Where I would fight to the death is to stop the desire to re-define way too much conduct as “rape.”

    It is not rape if you simply don’t get what you bargained for.

    Posted by marcorandazza | May 5, 2008, 4:18 pm
  8. Indeed, he adopted the mantle “Professor” based on teaching a course or two as an adjunct at this Catholic law school:http://www.barry.edu/law/default.aspx
    but he is not actually a member of the faculty. He makes a living helping pornographers avoid responsibility for the harms they inflict on people.

    Posted by Zeitgeist | May 5, 2008, 5:47 pm
  9. “riv” I take no offense to that label, if you wish to place it on me.

    However, the more accurate term is “First Amendment Lawyer.” I, and my firm, are committed to First Amendment causes, regardless of the client. Conversely, we don’t take anti-First Amendment cases — not even when porn industry clients ask us to.

    Posted by marcorandazza | May 5, 2008, 6:03 pm
  10. Zietgeist:

    1) Guilty — I am an “Adjunct Professor”
    2) Guilty — Barry is a Catholic law school

    He makes a living helping pornographers avoid responsibility for the harms they inflict on people.

    I’d ask you to show me the “harm” that any of my adult entertainment clients have “inflicted” upon anyone.

    If you wish to behave the same way as “geeklawyer”, then that is your right. But, this is otherwise a very civil discussion on a hot- button topic. We all come from different backgrounds that might color our perspective.

    But, lets address your comment and my perspective: Yes, many of my clients are in the adult entertainment industry. However, I also proudly represent feminists, video game companies, online dating companies, protestors, and anyone else who needs their First Amendment rights defended.

    It just so happens that adult entertainment clients have a lot of First Amendment battles to fight, thus I would be properly (but myopically) described as a “porn industry lawyer.”

    I have no problem working for them because I believe that they represent the front line in the battle to protect free expression. That front line is, indeed, messy. You will find abortion protesters, nazis, klansmen, jehovas witnesses, and pornographers alike when you get to that front line.

    Why?

    Because the First Amendment is rarely needed to protect Winnie the Pooh (just an example of speech that we all like). The First Amendment is there for speech that freaks people out.

    If you are anti-porn, I can respect that. I even think that there are some great arguments against its consumption. For example, Naomi Wolf makes a brilliant case against the consumption of pornography.

    What I do not respect, nor do I ever tolerate, is when people try to use force of law (see MacKinnon) to push their beliefs instead of their powers of persuasion (See Naomi Wolf).

    What else I do not respect is people like you and Geeklawyer — both who have done the same thing: attack the person instead of the idea.

    As it seems that the ad hominem attacks at this blog get approved without delay, but the defenses remain in the “awaiting moderation” cue, I must presume that this is yet another “no dissent allowed” blog.

    Not my kind of place. I’ll not return.

    Posted by marcorandazza | May 5, 2008, 10:05 pm
  11. marcorandazza, I’ll respond to your comments tomorrow.

    Posted by womensspace | May 6, 2008, 5:25 am
  12. Evidently, I have misread Naomi Wolf.

    The master’s tools can dismantle the master’s house Fire w Fire – Chapter 7

    We all come from different backgrounds that might colour our perspective

    As in, I’m from the class being hurt by such deceit, therefore I think it’s a good idea that it be made illegal and possibly prosecutable whereas you are of the class…

    Posted by Sophie | May 6, 2008, 11:47 am
  13. You start from a point that focuses on women as being the only victims and paints men as rapists. Both men and women sometimes get hurt in sexual relationships. Women lie to men about their lack of sexual diseases as to men lie.

    Deception and sex go hand in hand.

    Posted by moon23 | May 6, 2008, 1:48 pm
  14. *apologies if this gets cross-posted with anyone else responding to the last part of marcorandazza’s comment #12*

    marcorandazza, if what you really want is a reasoned and civil discourse, it ill suits you to employ sophomoric tactics like ending your comments with “I’ll not return.” Not only do such phrases constitute the written equivalent of turning one’s nose in the air and flouncing off in a huff, they also smack of self-interest, like ending a letter to a newspaper with “I bet you won’t have the guts to print this!” Furthermore, most threats to “not return” end up being patently untrue—I suppose we’ll see what happens in your case. Regardless, ending a comment with “I’ll not return” is certainly not conducive to productive discourse.

    More importantly, it is extremely disrespectful to make assumptions about a blogger’s comment moderation policies, particularly when those policies have indeed been explicitly discussed or outlined on the blog. This is especially true in your case, as the assumptions you’ve made about Heart’s treatment of your comments are completely wrong. If you had undertaken some back reading of past posts on this blog before commenting, you would have seen at least one of the many, many explanations Heart has made about her moderation practices. You would realize that Heart is a real woman, with a job, a family, and a life, AS WELL AS a very successful blog. You would realize that she receives an enormous amount of horrible, hateful comments that are absolutely awful to have to read and sift through. And realizing all that, you would understand why Heart approves comments from individuals who are known to her more quickly than those from strangers.

    –ladoctorita

    Posted by ladoctorita | May 6, 2008, 1:56 pm
  15. Where I would fight to the death is to stop the desire to re-define way too much conduct as “rape.”

    It is not rape if you simply don’t get what you bargained for.

    It is rape if you didn’t consent to it. That’s the issue right there– not whether or not someone gets what they bargained for.

    You want to focus, apparently, on what people “get” out of sex or out of one another. The focus of this legislation is what does and does not constitute consent to sex and that is the discussion I am interested in, not whether or not people get what they bargained for after the fact, eliding the entire issue of whether or not consent was given in the first place.

    Morality is legislated every day and has been for millennia. Of course, in the U.S. the morality that has been legislated, for the most part, is white male morality. By the lights of white men until very recently, mugging someone in the street was immoral, raping a stranger in an alley was immoral, so there were laws against it legislating that particular morality. But the same men didn’t think it was necessary to legislate a morality which would forbid men from raping their wives or forbid them from hitting their wives. By the prevailing morality and logic of male supremacy, these were “domestic” matters and for a man to expect sex from his wife or submission from his wife was entirely moral, just as it was entirely moral to expect that if a man didn’t get these, he’d take what was his or punish his wife.

    So it’s not that it’s wrong to legislate morality. The issue is whose morality is going to be legislated and whose ox that legislation might be goring.

    MacKinnon doesn’t try to use “force of law” to “push her beliefs.” She has tried to provide legal remedies for those who have been harmed by specific works of pornography. Her focus is on the harm to women and how that harm can be remedied, fixed, redressed. Your focus is on protecting someone’s freedom of speech even when it harms a woman, with women’s only recourse being “persuasion.”

    Posted by womensspace | May 6, 2008, 3:01 pm
  16. “I’d ask you to show me the “harm” that any of my adult entertainment clients have “inflicted” upon anyone.”
    &
    “in the battle to protect free expression.”

    I never tire of my own dismay at these attitudes.

    First of all, free expression does not exist. Expression does not exist without a cost–we really need to stop using this
    phrase, it is harmful in and of itself. Abusive even. We remove too much of our critical sensibilities with the idea of “free” and thus violators and abusers can move covertly in and out of our lives whilst committing sizable damage we can no more account for than understand.
    The question of expression’s costs, as far as “harm” is concerned, really becomes: at whose expense?

    And the question of expense, afaic, is one of the most unique aspects of porn’s role in people’s lives. Because, typically, we measure the harm of a product or service on the end user–or porn user in this case. And while there *is* evidence of porn’s measurable effect on the brain (or, for those more skeptical, please visit any University Marketing Department where students study how to affect people’s buying habits with *images*), the real *harm* can be seen in the True end user: the person on whom the porn viewer uses to act out their porn viewing habits. This of course, comes full circle as the industry continues to force girls and women into pornography to satiate the porn users’ demand. This harm is absolutely *immeasurable*: violence, rape, death.

    But see we don’t even have the first end user covered. How often must we hear from a porn producer “I just make the porn”? That’s certainly not the full story. We would not accept from from a pharmacist “I just fill the prescription.” No, there is well known and accounted for legal recourse one may take if their medicine negatively affects their body (especially if the effects are not mentioned as a possibility in taking the medication). Porn producers saying “I make scenes and images that affect the porn user’s sexuality” is more accurate. And yet porn comes with no warning label: “Warning–consuming these images will very likely make you view your wife, girlfriend, significant other, daughter, sister, female colleagues, or any random female person in public as a sex objects for you to use and abuse.”

    The harm is already evident. We don’t have to go far too see how men view women’s bodies and their access to them. *What other* multi-billion dollar industry so intimately represents men’s relationship to women’s bodies as does the porn and sex industries?

    At one point do we see this connection? At what point do we recognize that the acts in porn are the same as the acts women and girls are being forced/pressured/asked to do in the streets to survive, in marriages to prevent infidelity, in relationships to feel worthy?

    A man coming to a woman-centered blog asking *us* to show him the harm “inflicted” (clever word to use here, as “inflicted” has implications of immediacy–as if porn’s harm is the equivalent to poking someone in the eye) reeks of more privilege than I can express.

    Mr. Randazza, if you have any honest intentions to understand the expenses, the costs, the harms of pornography use on society I would urge you reconsider your not returning and hang around a while.

    Posted by pisaquaririse | May 6, 2008, 4:18 pm
  17. Apologies for my lapse into something less than clear about who and what you are Mr. Randazza. You are not a porn industry lawyer. You’re a pimp.

    Posted by riv | May 6, 2008, 6:03 pm
  18. Here’s Randazza’s blog, wherein he sounds no different than any other pimp. For you Randazza, that’s one who makes a living off prostituted women.

    http:// http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/the_legal_satyricon

    Posted by riv | May 6, 2008, 7:05 pm
  19. I often wonder if these first amendment absolutists would have been defending Hitler’s anti-Jew propoganda, I suppose they would just consider it “free speech” instead of what it is: hate speech meant to inspire people to act in a hateful way against those who are the subject of such “free speech”. Porn is anti-woman progoganda and it is harmful to women.

    Posted by Le Chat Noir | May 6, 2008, 11:35 pm
  20. 1. Let me jump on the bandwagon of bashing Mr. Randazza. You get the torches, and I’ll bring the gasoline. Characterizing a person whose viewpoint is in opposition to your own as a “pimp” is rather juvenile, don’t ya think? I have yet to read a well reasoned critique of Mr. Randazza’s objections to this law. Let’s note that we can all agree that the two instances that this law was a response to are outrageous, repugnant and should be criminalized.

    2. However, the response was vastly overbroad, sweeping into its purview conduct that we may find morally objectionable, but certainly not actionable or criminal [note: offensive conduct can be and often is committed against men as well as women]. If a man lies to a woman, and tells her he is a doctor to have sex with her when in fact he is a janitor, he can be charged with violating this law if the woman would not have had sex with him but for her belief that he was a doctor. Now, we may object on a moral level when a person lies to another in an effort to get her OR HIM into bed, but do we really want to criminalize such conduct? If so, every bar in every college town in America is literally packed with “rapists” of both genders every night of the week.

    3. Are you really going to equate defending the porn industry to defending Hitler? I guess ad hominem attacks are not the only logical fallacy employed on this blog. I fail to see how a pornographic movie is a dangerous or harmful to a person as speech that was used to justify ethnic cleansing.

    Posted by 12XU | May 7, 2008, 6:02 pm
  21. In regards to this discussion: “MacKinnon doesn’t try to use “force of law” to “push her beliefs.” She has tried to provide legal remedies for those who have been harmed by specific works of pornography. Her focus is on the harm to women and how that harm can be remedied, fixed, redressed. Your focus is on protecting someone’s freedom of speech even when it harms a woman, with women’s only recourse being “persuasion.””

    Lets put this in another perspective shall we, when we bring up the issue of ‘harmless persuasion’.

    To the Pimp here in this discussion [allow me to exercise my free speech, a capitalist exploiting selling rape fantasies maggot],

    and this whole thing about free speech [hang on while I go puke for a second], not only is the issue about Harm to women,

    lets consider using the logic of the rape pushers and justifications they use,

    if its only a matter of protecting free speech, persuasion and it does no harm, and if rape in private isn’t rape, then that is extended to as well,

    its not rape either if its a CHILD, because hey, after all, the perp is only using ‘persuasion’ and the consent issue is a bit cloudy there now isn’t it?

    Its no wonder why Porn industry gets a huge incentive AND PROFIT off of CHILD RAPE. [do some research on porn online and just See how much CHILD RAPE/AND CHILD TRAFFICKING AND TEEN RAPE/TEEN PORN IS BEING PUSHED IN THIS NATION, AND THAT THRIVES ON THE SLAVERY, SELLING, FORCED RAPING AND KIDNAPPING OF MILLIONS OF GIRLS/AND BOY CHILDREN AROUND THE WORLD, AND ITS PROTECTED UNDER,

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PERSUASION. Oh, AND PRIVACY RIGHTS OF MEN [AND SOME WOMEN, WHO ABUSE CHILDREN AS WELL]…

    Oh, let me guess, its just a matter of persuasion and well, it does no real harm to a child now does it?

    why its far more important to protect freedom of speech, why we have child rapists who have freedom to post on the internet how child RAPISTS can lure children and trick them into sex acts,

    and its all protected under the Freedom of Speech, Supreme Court Ruling in fact.

    See the problem with the mentality that marital rape isn’t really rape, is not just the blatant misogynist harm caused to women, but to children as well. Because when that logic is used, and consent becomes clouded and twisted in all sorts of legal semantics,

    then it carries over the the rights of the child being violated. Because children do not have the maturity to give consent without being ‘persuaded’ [to the pimp maggot hiding behind free speech rhetoric] or violently forced.

    When we protect rape, under the guise of freedom of speech or some twisted defense of what is consent,

    we open the door wide for all forms of child sex abuse being legal, and don’t think for a minute, that the industry that pushes for the legal defense of Rapists,

    isn’t after the protections of Child Rape too. They damn sure are,

    but I’ll tell you what, to the pimp of rape using freedom of speech,

    just come up to me, a Victim of child sex abuse, rape and sex industry, and tell me its just a matter of persuasion, that it does no harm,

    and I’ll cut you up in little pieces you sob,

    because you see, I’m a product of the shit you defend…and I’m one cold hearted bitch now because of the years of HARM CAUSED BY IT, AND THE LEGAL PROTECTIONS THAT MY ABUSERS HAD,

    DUE TO PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND MARITAL RAPE PROTECTIONS…

    I’d cut you to pieces and feed you to my dog in a heartbeat, and so what if I went to prison,

    they can’t do to me what hasn’t already been done, with the help by the likes of you.

    IF the rage, of those who have suffered like me were to ever be unleashed on the men, women and protectors of sex abuse and rape were to Ever come unleashed,

    there would be NO WHERE ON THIS EARTH FOR YOU TO HIDE…

    but you see, in all your legal defense of these HUMAN RIGHT ABUSES, your same legal system, punishes and penalizes the victims far more, far more time in prison, for retaliating against their Perps,

    and I can guarantee you, no one would come to our defense, and say,

    its a matter of freedom of speech or persuasion.

    Posted by Tasha | May 7, 2008, 6:03 pm
  22. >>[I]ts not rape either if its a CHILD, because hey, after all, the perp is only using ‘persuasion’ and the consent issue is a bit cloudy there now isn’t it?<<

    Please explain to me exactly what you mean by this. How is opposing this law at all analogous to advocating sex with children [I presume this is what your point is: oppose this law, and you must endorse child rape]. I have news for you: A CHILD CANNOT CONSENT TO SEX WITH AN ADULT. So, no. In answer to your question, the “consent issue is most certainly not a bit cloudy there.”

    Sex with children is not relevant to this topic. If a man or a woman tricks a child to have sex with him or her, we don’t need this law to prosecute the “perp.” The scienter of the child is not an element of the crime.

    Posted by 12XU | May 7, 2008, 7:55 pm
  23. If a man makes conversation with a woman and somewhere in the conversation he tells her that he lives in Malibu, is it rape if he technically lives in Pacific Palisades instead? Are these two places too similar that the she essentially consented to have sex with a man who lived somewhere along the coast in Southern California? Or is the real consent just to have sex with this man? Does it make a difference if he mentioned that he was a doctor and he wasn’t one? Should the man be punished if he’s in medical school? How about if he’s in residency? If the woman has sex with the man for X, Y, and Z reasons; what reasons are we going to count as material? Should any of them really be material? Shouldn’t each party perform due diligence before we hold him liable for claiming he’s rich or whatever? If she’s really interested in having sex with the guy because he’s a doctor or lives in Malibu, shouldn’t she wait until she meets some of his colleagues and sees him and work and see his Malibu house?

    It seems like many posters here think that the individuals will lie about things that will cause physical damage. If a person lies about having an std and infects the other person, the person committed battery. We don’t need a new law for that.

    Additionally, many posters here made comments about morality. Do you really think that people used to think it was moral for husbands to beat and force sex on their wives? I doubt many people actually thought that way. Just because people turn away from something bad doesn’t mean that they think it’s okay. Most often the law butted out of those instances because the home was something sacred that the law shouldn’t invade. People didn’t think violence was okay; they just didn’t want to get involved in domestic disputes. The current intentional sex torts law at issue is different. No violence occurs. A man is not beating a woman. He’s having sex with a woman under false pretenses. What damage does that cause? Pregnancy? Perhaps, but birth control can limit that and if she doesn’t want to get pregnant, then she shouldn’t have sex. BUT she took the risk as did he, and both are on the hook for the consequent result. STD? As I mentioned above, this would constitute battery. Since battery already covers the area, we don’t need another law. Loss of virtue or chastity? If this is the case, then she should perform her due diligence.

    Thanks.

    Posted by Supe | May 7, 2008, 9:53 pm
  24. @ #12

    “But, lets address your comment and my perspective: Yes, many of my clients are in the adult entertainment industry. However, I also proudly represent feminists, video game companies, online dating companies, protestors, and anyone else who needs their First Amendment rights defended.

    It just so happens that adult entertainment clients have a lot of First Amendment battles to fight, thus I would be properly (but myopically) described as a “porn industry lawyer.” ”

    No. Wait. There’s something you’re not quite understanding here. It’s not that the “adult entertainment industry” has more of a NEED for lawyers like yourself, it’s that they have the FINANCIAL BACKING to hire lawyers like you more than any other organized group or individual. They have the ability to literally throw money into a shredder.

    Furthermore, if you are taking the pornstitutions cases and their money, you are profiting off of the sales of pornstituted women (and children, as #24 Tasha makes a passionate case for)…..you are not going to get too far with your “freedom of speech” rhetoric.

    Posted by avril joy | May 8, 2008, 12:56 am
  25. A troll buffet! Hmm, I think I’ll have the blackened-crusted-logic covered in minced-misogyny…

    “What damage does that cause? Pregnancy? Perhaps, but birth control can limit that and if she doesn’t want to get pregnant, then she shouldn’t have sex. BUT she took the risk as did he and both are on the hook for the consequent result.”

    Fascinating.
    *Both* parties are responsible for the pregnancy yet
    the pregnancy would have never happened if only the *woman* had taken her birth control and/or closed her damn legs.
    Supe your menzies friend are not gonna like the sound of this! How dare you say it is both parties’ fault when the *woman*, who is supposed to take all the preventative measures, clearly fails to do her job!

    (However, you get points for trying rillyrilly hard to surround your woman-blaming in *understanding man-speak*. Sometimes us feminists get bored of blatant misogyny and need a little “Where’s Waldo?” exercise to sharpen our chops–that one was like finding a spoon in our soup–nice job!)

    I’m so glad the menz are showing up to teach us the way.
    Finally some sense around here!

    Posted by pisaquaririse | May 8, 2008, 1:20 am
  26. I found a Reuters story about posters going up in male bathrooms in English bars and clubs warning men who buy trafficked women they are rapists! I imagine those objecting to these new laws will also find these posters objectionable. I think the reasoning in that article does not go far enough, but at least it is a step.

    Posted by Aletha | May 8, 2008, 7:12 am
  27. “Sex with children is not relevant to this topic. If a man or a woman tricks a child to have sex with him or her, we don’t need this law to prosecute the “perp.” The scienter of the child is not an element of the crime”

    WRONG,

    in fact this Issue is in legislation, in regards to lowering consent or what is consent in parts of Europe, being pushed by groups such as NAMBLA , and the grounds in which these child raping groups/promoters/legal reps USE

    in ‘their PERSUASION’

    is that children are sexual beings therefore yes, the issue of consent is cloudy…in UK there was legislation being proposed to lower the age of consent to 9 and 10.

    You now DAMN well that the reason legislation on addressing the Harm caused by deceptive persuasion which in a form is COERCION BY DECEIVING, is a Threat to the rape industry that you are making YOUR PROFIT FROM,

    and thats the bottom line isn’t it? Its not freedom of speech you are concerned with, its protecting your Profit margin off the clients that use or often use Deception and Unfair trade practices [if you want to put it into business terms] and exploitation practices,

    that the sex industry [your video games and porn, etc] thrive on.

    Let me put it this way, you bring up the issue of women getting pregnant by men who use deception, then you say the woman should use preventative care,

    ok, well lets put that in a business contract perspective shall we…lets say, a person sells a car knowing full well, that the car has a wheel bearing problem but that isn’t noticeable and that eventually if not fixed it is going to cause the wheel to come off and if at a high speed, could cause a wreck or will cause a wreck and could kill not only the people in the car but others who are hit in that wreck.

    so taking Your logic [in your saying WOMEN should take precautions, never mind that men have no ability to put on a fucking condom], but anyway, lets say then, using Your logic, that

    the person who bought this car, though there WAS NO SIGNS WHATSOEVER TO THE NAKED EYE OR EAR that there was a problem in the wheel, should take preventative cautions and because there is a potential of the car being dangerous then the person should not take the car on the highway, ever….or should have the car completely rebuilt first.

    I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know all the legalities but I know there are certain laws that protect or are Supposed to protect consumers from personal injury due to due knowledge which is due negligence,

    therefore, if we have LAWS that protect people from deceptive practices in selling THINGS, BECAUSE THEY MIGHT CAUSE HARM IF DEFECTIVE,

    then how is that any different if, a man uses outright Deception to have sex with a woman [or a woman using outright deception on another woman or young child–it Does happen, I don’t play gender favs here ],

    and that deception causes harm, NOT just to the individual,

    but to society as a whole?

    You say, oh but wait, its only a private matter between two consensual adults, but Is it?

    Lets say, the woman is deceived and does get pregnant, even if she uses precautions [birth control is not 99% btw] and lets say, she doesn’t believe in abortion [and because I am pro-CHOICE I don’t believe any woman should be Forced to have abortions or forced sterilization], or lets say, she can’t AFFORD an abortion or that she’s in some stupid state that OUTLAWS abortion…

    so a child is here…WHO THEN PAYS FOR THAT CHILD that is a result of the DECEPTION?

    Even if, the child is given up for adoption, there is often a need for MEDICAID to cover bills [via TAXPAYER DOLLARS AT WORK], or if she chooses to keep the child,

    that child, even if supported by the mother, will Still cost TAXPAYERS MONEY,

    for schools [taxes], for medical and insurance [taxes and society costs], so forth and so forth…

    all because a MAN WAS USING DECEPTION,

    then lets say, he refuses to pay child support [and using YOUR LOGIC, HE SHOULDN’T HAVE TOO RIGHT, AFTER ALL SHE SHOULD HAVE JUST KEPT HER LEGS CLOSED OR SAID, HOLD IT THERE SIR WHILE I GO GET STERILIZED OR ON THE PILL THEN I’LL BE RIGHT BACK BECAUSE GOD FORBID YOU DON’T HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT ON A CONDOM AND PREVENT PREGNANCY, THAT WOULD TAKE INTELLIGENCE…AND IF HE’S BEING DECEIVING HE’S NOT GOING TO SAY,

    HEY I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE CARE OF ANY KID IF I GET YOU KNOCKED UP,

    get what I’m saying here sir….

    ok so NOW SOCIETY has then the TAXPAYER dollars at work to enforce CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

    from a man, who used DECEPTION.

    talk about A CAR WRECK.

    and Today our Society is paying in leaps and bounds, if not for programs, for prisons [if I have to bring in the cause and effect there to some one who claims they are a lawyer forget it, its futile], for childcare and for the fall back due to the poverty and its ill effects AND COST to society in the Long term of things,

    because of MEN’S DECEPTION.

    You can’t just blame women for having sex…though thats what has always been the norm huh,

    push porn, push that women are nothing but holes to stick your dicks in, then if she gets pregnant,

    why by golly its her damn fault and fuck the kid [literally in the porn industry, they don’t care if they are part of the problem because thats just one more kid to exploit],

    and so what, if it costs society,

    they are making MILLIONS $$$$$$

    and then when the LAW steps in to try to force some accountability,

    the Milliondollar exploiters scream, Free Speech!

    just like the ones who sell the cars that they know before hand are dangerous scream, Free Market!

    But now, lets take the issue of Freedom here sir,

    what Is freedom?

    If you truly believe in the rights of Freedom, then it works both ways,

    Freedom does not hinder another’s Freedom.

    To deceive someone IS hindering another’s Freedom when it causes harm and it Does cause harm,

    and not only that, but Porn in itself [since you have defended it under Freedom of Speech] is an industry that is based on limiting or taking away the Freedom of another Human Being, i.e., women,

    because if you look at Porn, its not about EQUAL EXCHANGE but its about POWER AND UNEQUAL EXCHANGE,

    sometimes, more often than not, its ABOUT RAPE.

    so basically you are twisting liberal ideas of Freedom to defend SLAVERY.

    IF I was to go into a theater and scream Fire, that is not protected under Freedom of Speech. Why?

    Because it causes societal harm, but using your logic, whats harm really,

    I was just using deceit because I think its funny to play pranks, and maybe no harm is done,

    but maybe there is. And besides, using your logic, then if I am in the theater and someone screams fire, shouldn’t I have used preventative measures because I’m in a public place and there is always that Risk?

    See that wouldn’t wash in any court of law and why there are limits to how Freedom of Speech can be used…

    and while I concur strongly against government having control over what we say, read, etc., there has to be a balance somewhere between freedom and liberty and respecting the rights and liberty of others,

    the thing about porn and rape, and trying to defend or protect it in any way under the guise of freedom of speech or the marketing of rape and porn, that often IS actual rape, under the guise of freedom of speech,

    is no different than lets say, someone raping and killing someone on the internet for thousands to watch, lets say the person used deception and lured the women/or kids in and then, to say its protected because its Freedom of Speech!

    Thats what porn is, just because there is porn that is consensual [though economically and psychological I would beg to differ but] doesn’t mean, there isn’t porn [and in fact we know for a fact this to be true] that doesn’t use actual filmings of RAPE, TORTURE AND KILLING OF LIVE HUMAN BEINGS–

    YES, WOMEN SIR, THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS, MAY I REMIND YOU,

    or countless men who use Deceit and trick women or lure women into hotel rooms or who use trickery to lure children into bushes [the can you help me find my puppy scheme] and then who rape them,

    and then to say, that legislation that addresses this is a slam on freedom of speech,

    is just mind boggling.

    Is there concern for abuse of such legislation, SURE, there is abuse for legislation too when it comes to personal liability and personal injury, but all the while, we have LAWS THAT GOVERN THE CONTRACTS AND EXCHANGES BETWEEN PEOPLE,

    well Sex is an exchange, and there should be LAWS that apply to that as well. Because the Outcomes of sex,

    don’t just effect two people, often they effect the entire society.

    and in that, can also, cause harm to society, therefore limiting the freedom and liberty of others.

    I’m not in support of Big Brother, by no means, but there Should be some Accountability and personal responsibility between two adults and that sir, INCLUDES ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF MEN,

    when men can use deceit with total impunity no matter what harm it causes women or children or society, then THAT IS NOT FREEDOM,

    THAT IS ABUSING AND ROBBING FREEDOM OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

    When our Fore Fathers wrote the Constitution they did not write Freedom of Speech and all the other Freedoms into it so that they could be ABUSED to infringe upon freedom of others,

    or government infringing upon the freedom of others, but when Government protects one party, in abusing another party, or segment of people, etc.,

    that is in direct violation to the principles of freedom and human rights. The way it stands now it is a very unequal playing field, with the porn industry that makes billions off the selling the fantasy and often reality [filming true life rapes, etc] to millions of men and some women tragically, and causing real fear and harm to millions of women by creating an

    Environment of fear, violence and intimidation and yes, Terror,

    that is not Freedom sir.

    That is totalitarianism using sexual violence, imaginary or real, to force coercion and submission on half of THE HUMAN RACE,

    and when women have no legal recourse whatsoever, or children [and fighting and defending the rights to deceive sir yes, reinforces the abuse of children],

    then you sir, have not protected freedom,

    but have protected those who rob freedom.

    It matters not to me who my oppressor is, be it government or a man or men,

    when I live or have to live in fear, mistrust, of violence, sexual violence and have to live with a daily bombardment of second to nothing class status because of my gender,

    then I am no FREE.

    and thats just it, women are NOT free, when women live with violence every day, or the threat of and that violence is protected under the guise of free speech,

    that is in no way Freedom or is it conducive to.

    The only thing its conducive to, is your making a PROFIT

    OFF OF

    TERROR.

    Posted by Tasha | May 8, 2008, 1:28 pm
  28. Here is what Free Speech protects,

    http://www.american.edu/TED/czech-child-trade.htm

    [the slave trade of children, which is then sold to thousands in America/and online, protected under Freedom of Speech–]

    I am a survivor of prostitution.
    A survivor of brutal beatings and rapes.
    A recovering heroin addict.
    Five years out of the life and I will NEVER forget the smell of a crusty old trick.
    The Fear.
    The Pain.
    The knives and guns and fists and tire irons and jail cells.
    I will never be quiet!
    Too many times I have been beaten near death.
    Left for dead.
    The cops said it comes with the territory.
    Being a worthless whore.
    A Non-Human.
    If I had been murdered, no one would have remembered my name.
    I would have been a NHI.
    Jane Doe.
    Thank you for remembering Emma.
    Remember the millions like her.
    Like me.
    Like you.
    Women, sisters, daughters, mothers.
    Murdered.
    Beaten.
    Considered less than human.
    Let us lift them up.
    Let us never forget.
    And never,
    NEVER
    Be quiet about the outrageous brutality that is prostitution!

    Author: Angel Cassidy. I was sexually abused from the age of five by a secret society in a ritual setting that involved candles, incense, meditation, drugs and alcohol. The perpetrators said that I was put on earth to serve men sexually. They told me that I would die if I tried to get away. I left home and began prostitution at age 14. In prostitution, I was brutally beaten by tricks and “boyfriends” — pimps. I have survived more than thirty rapes and been left for dead more than once. I have been incarcerated numerous times.

    Child Sex Trade, Tourism, protected sadly under Freedom of Speech [the purchase of films/porn made from, which in turn contributes to the wealth inequality and market AND ADVERTISEMENT of these tourist industries that make Millions off of SLAVERY]

    http://www.ecpat.net/eng/ecpat_inter/Publication/Other/English/Pdf_page/ecpat_prostitution_and_sex_tourism_goa.pdf.

    The OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT,

    WHILE I don’t concur with all the claims made here that basically just allow child sex abuse/child porn to go on with impunity,

    I think we need to be aware of the obstacles and yes, the abuse that can result by overzealous police, I can see that side of the argument,

    but what I see more, in this site alone [a site for lawyers and judges who protect those or defend those accused of looking or having child porn, etc, esp on computer],

    is never the focus on the Privacy rights or Consent rights [the right to say NO] or the Human Rights of children,

    its always about the privacy and money rights of Adults,

    http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003/Candyman_entrapment.htm

    and how they use freedom of speech and illegal searches and seizures to defend and acquit so many with child porn, etc.,

    but here’s the Real irony,

    there is MORE PROTECTION AND LEGAL DEFENSE,

    FOR MEN [and some women]

    WHO RAPE
    WHO USE/WATCH AND PARTICIPATE IN CHILD RAPE/CHILD PORN

    than for all the POT smokers combined,

    our Prisons are full of those who smoke Pot,

    compared to those who rape and harm women and children.

    So, my question is, is all the scamperin of lawyers just biting at the mouth to defend the Freedom of Speech rights of pornographers and rapists, etc.,

    about Freedom,

    or about Profit $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    and of course, Privacy rights,

    but its ironic isn’t it, the same ones who scream Privacy rights of Men to rape, do as they please to women and children,

    are often the very ones who scream,

    no a woman doesn’t have a Privacy right to her own body.

    Go figure!

    The double standards are just Amazing aren’t they?

    Posted by Tasha | May 8, 2008, 2:12 pm
  29. pisaquaririse,

    I’m glad you attempted to use some logic in response to my post. However, you like to distort context of my phrasing. I said if a woman fears pregnancy, then she shouldn’t have sex or at the minimum use birth control (and even though I didn’t mention it earlier, insist her partner or herself use additional preventatives such as spermicide and a condom). If a man doesn’t want to be a father, he should itake the same steps (albeit he can’t take birth control, but he could refuse to have sex if his partner doesn’t want to take this cautionary measure). Therefore, a woman has these responsibilities if she doesn’t want to get pregnant AND a man also has these responsibilities if he doesn’t want to impregnant the woman. Thanks for trying to twist around my comment.

    Btw, I initially posted in a non-inflammatory manner, yet you decided to take the opposite path. I will try from here on out to engage in a civil discourse on the topic and hope you will try to do the same. While other seemingly male posters used such tactics, it does not mean the entire commenting needs to erode to such a level.

    Posted by Supe | May 8, 2008, 3:29 pm
  30. Want more Proof…

    btw, that one site above, is just one of Hundreds, addressing the problems of child/women trafficking and its global problem including the US,

    and if you do the research, the Legal protections or how the Legal Courts use semantics and so called liberty protections to actually,

    protect the Abusers rather than the victims, is just astounding,

    but this report, says it better than anything,

    how the issue with Consent [and btw, NAMBLA including the NAMBLA groups in Holland, and elsewhere in Europe which Sadly, the Socialists are in bed with…why I dumped the left because of their tolerance for misogyny and child abuse, not All socialists groups but the bourgousie filth that has taken over the left today– use the same arguments over CONSENT that is used by those here that are against the law/legislation that is the base of this discussion],

    so yes they ARE related,

    but you can read this instead, and it has so much to do with the tolerance and indifference to the mass suffering and enslavement and violence towards women and children today, and how the Judiciary/Legal System has Contributed to the Violence against Women and Children, sexual violence in particular.

    http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2005/08/implications_of.html

    The quality and health of a society is measured by the treatment of its most vulnerable populations: its women and children. 1 Many facts support the conclusion that we are living in an increasingly violent era. For example, current data on violent crimes, suicides, out of wedlock births, sexually transmitted diseases, domestic violence, and child abuse support observations of increasing rates of dysfunction, brutality and perversion in our society. If we are to remedy the violence toward women and children currently found in our bedrooms, classrooms, courtrooms, streets and cinemas, we must first understand “that something happened on the way to the forum.”

    Source material for this article includes my most recent book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences (1998) which documents Kinsey’s role in weakening laws penalizing obscenity, and brutality towards women and children. The 1997 book by Kinseyan fan and researcher James Jones, Alfred Kinsey A Public/Private Life, also validates my twenty years of research on this topic. Additional support for the claims made in this chapter can be found in the BBC Arts & Entertainment: Biographies television production Reputations (aired on August 14, 1996, and August 10, 1998), and British Yorkshire Television program Kinsey’s Pedophiles, produced and directed by UNESCO and Amnesty International award-winning producer/director Tim Tate.

    Many of the chapters in this Exposé address specific judicial circumstances and events regarding the violation of children by a rogue or indifferent judiciary. This chapter demonstrates how we have come to this point and discusses the judiciary’s role in this current tragedy. This chapter focuses on two synergistic national change-agents: “formal” and “informal” sex education. Each appears to share the same cynical view of life and love which has helped spawn the judicial cadre which appears to increasingly betray justice. I will also establish the seminal connection between “sex science” (formal) and pornography (informal) in sex education begun in Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey’s attic where he obsessively performed in amateur pornographic movies. I will also identify some of the key issues and players that helped this change become embedded in our society.

    Posted by Tasha | May 8, 2008, 3:51 pm
  31. better yet, from this study, [on how the Legal system, has Contributed to the Child Sex Abuse and Child Porn–and how, yes, going back to my original statement…how the proposal to hold men accountable for deception/and the rape, etc.,is related to the issue of Consent–

    is Related to how Child Molesters and the Courts, i.e., Lawyers, have worked to use Consent laws, or to Rid of Consent laws so that child rape is not even considered harmful…

    here you go,

    Pro-pedophila Efforts to Influence Laws and Judicial Decisions

    The move by the U.S. Department of Justice to weaken child pornography laws 14 came after decades of efforts by magazines such as Playboy and Hustler as well as pedophile-friendly experts to lower or eliminate the age of sexual consent. While the pedophile movement appears statistically insignificant, its leadership is allied with a powerful mass of pornography/sexual freedom apostles whose ideas, interests and economic clout have reshaped law and public policy nationwide.15

    Consider the effect of the pedophile movement in corrupting the Netherlands. Holland is the home of the international Paidika: Journal of Paedophilia, and a notorious haven for child rapists. Former Senator Edward Brongersma, an “outed” Dutch pedophile, reported that the Dutch media were increasingly “satisfactory … interviewing children having sexual relationships with adult friends; consenting parents.” Law enforcement, Brongersma explained, had followed suit.16

    Brongersma notes that few Dutch public prosecutors will prosecute child abusers. In cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam, “94% of the known cases [are] not prosecuted,” he claims. Brongersma states, “The chief inspector of the Rotterdam vice squad was, in 1977, one of the speakers at a congress seeking the abolition of all age limits in the Penal Code sections on sexual crimes and offenses.”16

    The American-Dutch publication, Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, claims that the Netherlands lowered its age of consent from 16 to 12 years,17 but in an interview with the spokesperson for the Dutch embassy, this author was told that the lower age was restricted to certain ethnic groups.

    Under the umbrella of the sexual freedom movement, influential pedophiles work to remove all age of consent laws. The pedophile movement has long campaigned for “consent” as the sole criteria for determining harm. It should be noted that such a change would leave child victims open to charges of participation, thus rendering the crime “harmless.” Prior laws on vice (fornication, cohabitation, adultery, prostitution), criminalized non-marital consensual sex, with no appeal to the “right” to engage in said acts. By raising the issue of “consent,” all sex criminals including rapist-murderers 18 and child molesters, have been able to argue that their behavior was natural, ethical, legal and “consensual.”

    Posted by Tasha | May 8, 2008, 3:57 pm
  32. Tasha, this is US legislation. That is the topic. Statutory rape in the US is a strict liability offense. The offense is complete upon the commission of the physical act. The mental state of the child victim is not relevant. The legal theory is that a child is not capable of consenting to sexual intercourse with an adult. This is why we don’t permit sexual predators to claim, “Hey, they child wanted it; he or she said ‘yes.’ So, there is no ‘consent’ issue to be “cloudy,” at least when we are talking about sex with children.

    The statutory rape laws even go so far as to cover this scenario. This is a common topic in many American law schools: A child of 14 (below the age of consent in probably every jurisdiction) uses a fake ID to gain access to an 18 and older club. While there, 14 y/o meets 19 y/o, and the two hit it off. 19 y/o, being reasonable and prudent inquires the age of 14 y/o. 14 y/o lies and tells 19 y/o that 14 y/o is 18 [notice that I have intentionally gender neutralized this hypothetical]. The two have sex. 19 y/o is guilty of statutory rape. It’s a strict liability offense, and even though using a traditional definition of ‘consent,’ we might be inclined to argue that 14 y/o ‘consented’ in that there was no force used, this is not the case. 14 y/o did not consent to sex because it is not possible for him or her to consent to such a thing.

    The law even goes so far as to protect the child in a situation where the child has lied and it was reasonable for the adult to believe that the child was of legal age. Why? Well, frankly, this situation, while fun to discuss by pontificating law students, probably never really presents itself. What does happen often is a sexual predator preying on the vulnerability and insecurities of a child to “persuade” the child to have sex with him. And we have recognized that we need our legal system to disregard the scienter of the child and focus solely on what act was committed. So, in having sex with 14 y/o, 19 y/o above is guilty of the offense, regardless of what was in either of their minds. This is a necessary result if we want our laws to protect children from those who prey on them.

    Now consider this exchange occurred in a jurisdiction with the present law in effect. Both 19 y/o and 14 y/o would be guilty of rape. No reasonable person would have sex with a 14 y/o knowing that doing so would be 1. disgusting; and 2. illegal. So, but for 14 y/o’s lie, 19 y/o would not have had sex with him or her. So, a bizarre result obtains. Both have raped each other. Neither one has consented to sex. 14 y/o can’t consent, and 19 y/o presumed consent has been vitiated by 14 y/o’s lie. I hope this example illustrates the absurdity of the present law.

    Regarding child pornography: IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH. Hell, even some adult pornography falls outside the ambit of the 1st amendment’s protection (as well it should). I’m not going to claim that I’ve never watched porn (I’m an adult male…to do so would make me a quite obvious liar); and I’m also not going to claim that the industry does not have a negative effect on society. However, I don’t think that the “mainstream” industry is as insidious as you portray. At some point we need to allow consenting adults to engage in self destructive behavior. We also need to permit willing adults to view, within reason, whatever they choose, even if doing so will be harmful to the viewer.

    We live in a society, thankfully, that values the right of the individual to make offensive and unpopular statements without being subject to government restrictions. The trade off is that we sometimes must put up with speech that we disagree with. Speech that we even find so repulsive on a personal level is often speech that is protected. But I’ll take the occasional video that makes me want to track down the producer and take him for a long ride in my trunk and keep my fundamental right to speak my mind, even if what I have to say becomes unpopular.

    I will note that child pornography is illegal. The people who produce it are subject to very serious federal law penalties as are the people who consume it.

    Posted by 12XU | May 8, 2008, 4:15 pm
  33. >>A troll buffet! Hmm, I think I’ll have the blackened-crusted-logic covered in minced-misogyny…<<

    So let me see if I’ve got this straight. Anyone who advocated a position that is antithetical to your own beliefs is both a troll and a misogynist? Oh or a pimp. I can’t believe I almost forgot that one. What a lovely outlook. You must be pleasant.

    Until now I have remained polite in my comments on this blog.

    I love how nobody actually challenges the logic of the objections. You focused on one minute portion of ‘Supe’s’ post. But how about responding to the actual challenge advanced against the legislation?

    I’ll break it down for you very simply. The legislation adopts a “reasonable person” standard. This is one of the fuzziest, fact based inquiries in our legal system. What are lies that would make a reasonable person withdraw consent if they knew the truth? Who gets to decide what lie vitiates consent? And when is this all hashed out? Do we arrest and prosecute a janitor for lying to a person about his or HER job? Will the janitor be convicted? The answer is yes if a reasonable person would not consent to sex with him or HER knowing the truth.

    The law set out to redress a problem that does need to be fixed. The two cases this legislation responds to are rape. The problem is that this legislation missed the mark. It pulls way too much conduct into its ambit. It leaves too much uncertainty and way too much discretion.

    Posted by 12XU | May 8, 2008, 4:49 pm
  34. Actually, statutory rape is not the same in every state [it differs state to state] and its not always enforceable either,

    from what I have read on the laws in regards to statutory rape, state to state, it also depends on the age of the adult, for example, a 14 year old consenting to sex with a 17 or 18 year old does not carry the same penalty [for the older] then it does for someone, lets say in their thirties,

    However, just some general things I’ve noticed, in regards to some of the comments made by men and supporters of porn or who are against this legislation here,

    1. this continual phrasing of ‘sex’ in comparison to Rape, and I think thats a LOT of the problem is that many men still think or have Rape confused with Sex,

    so forgive me for not using fancy words or terminology here but it would seem to me, that in re-reading this legislation,

    that they are talking about Mutual exchange of Sex here, but they are addressing men who Deliberately use Fraud, to Rape,

    not someone telling someone they live in Miami for crying out loud, when they really live in D.C.,

    and yes, the issue in lying about age, say a 14 year old lies about their age, is something to be concerned about when an older adult is truly not aware of the age, However, in stating that,

    I can’t count the times how men have said, ‘oh I didn’t realize she was only such and such age’, Bull.

    They know, so that whole statutory rape thing being used as some sort of shield to continue putting blame on the women, is just that,

    and it pretty well sums up the attitude with the retort of,

    crying rape when you don’t get what you bargained for…

    that pretty much the Attitude of men, not all men but most men, and it reveals the root of the problem,
    that

    men feel they have some just entitlement to women’s bodies and if they lie or commit fraud to ‘get it’ as one said,

    then thats just the norm because after all, thats women’s obligation isn’t it.

    And if women stand against that they are bulldyke bitches with sagging breasts and all that other b.s. that men throw out there,

    I mean come on, its just the usual typical stand off, that men use to NOT want to really take a look at the imbalance of power here.

    Granted, I hear you on the overzealous protectionism of women and the abuses that are a result of that, hear you loud and clear and can see where you are coming from on That angle,

    but, the rest of the anti-on this legislation, I have to say, I read more of the attitude of, ‘oh woman its just sex and hey if a man lies to screw you and you don’t really give consent, or know he’s who he says he is, well its just how its played, the risk and all that nonsense,

    and then I’d have to ask, who is Really treating women like they are just so naive as to not know the difference between a simple lie and deliberate fraud in the attempt to rape?

    Sorry but women aren’t that Stupid,

    and I don’t think women would run to press charges against Jo over there for lying about where they are from, etc.,

    but now, someone saying they are such and such [like the brother] and then the woman realizes that she’s having sex with someone other than her mate that she Thought she was having sex with [though how that happens I have no idea, but now in the case of the doctor, That is rape and not only should there be remedy, he should be jailed for impersonating a doctor and putting the medical field in jeopardy, one would Think, because Thats business fraud as well].

    This legislation, from what it reads is about men who Deliberately use fraud and tricks to Rape women, big difference from using lies to have Sex…big difference,

    and I think a good example of how Fraud is used is when men use the date rape drug,

    those cases are hard to prosecute because of the issue of consent, and proving the incapacity of women to give consent because the drug sometimes does not show up by the time the woman reports it, IF she is even aware of the rape,

    or how about those cases where fraternities have deliberately planned and carried out sister rush parties where high school girls are invited, lied to, drugged or tricked into a room then raped,

    the issue is Always about consent in those cases and why many of them are never prosecuted in court. But we know, those are Rapes perpetuated by the use of Fraud, intimidation and lies, trickery,

    but speaking street terms here, why is it that men feel that its o.k. to use trickery to begin with?

    If men truly valued the human quality of women, then lies shouldn’t be necessary to ‘get it’,

    and thats just it isn’t it, that men just can’t deal with women who

    don’t give it to them,

    so then men use lies and trickery, you say no harm done,

    I say, kaka.

    I say it just goes to prove that men still in This day and age, have this entitlement belief that women have some god given Duty to give it up to them, whether they want to or not,

    and see thats what Porn pushes, thats what the legal system rallies around, and thats what the society still adheres to,

    can legislation go too far, sure it can,

    but after all this time, men still don’t Get it, that when a woman says NO,

    its

    NO.

    So the problem isn’t legislation or women with sagging breasts and all that crap,

    its men, who still think that because their dick is hard,

    that women have some duty to open up the garage, and to that I say,

    maybe you are right….maybe women need to stop trying to convince men that they have a right to say no,

    and the next time some SOB tries to rape by committing fraud or lies, or who rapes,

    maybe we should solve the male problem

    CUT THE DAMN THING OFF.

    But now I bet you’d be squirming over that solution now wouldn’t you?

    LOL, you know if women put out the amount of porn depicting Men being violently castrated by a gang of women,

    men would be running to the courts begging for the courts to do something,

    you see in a way I concur with you, the solution isn’t in the court rooms, its in huge mobs of women, just saying,

    Thats it, and going after some of these bastards and taking care of business [mind you most here would strongly disagree with me on this…I’m a minority here, I tend to be a bit more Maoist when it comes to dealing with pornographers and exploiters],

    I say hang them up on poles.

    Saves court costs, cures the male entitlement Really quick, and would stop a lot of the victim role that women, sadly due to the protectionisms,

    have been indoctrinated to be a part of.

    But see, I’m a victim of that shit, and I won’t be a victim anymore…I have no qualms, in cutting a rapist or child abusers to bits,

    no qualms about it at all, and its too bad, its not legal to do so.

    Posted by Tasha | May 8, 2008, 7:52 pm
  35. Tasha:

    1. statutory rape does very from state to state. However, it is a strict liability offense in every jurisdiction. There are no particular enforceability issues with regard to this law that do not exist for other laws. And in fact, since mental state is taken off the table, it is generally easier to prove than other forms of rape and abuse [former criminal defense attorney, speaking from experience].

    2. Slipping somebody a drug is rape. It is not rape by fraud. Quit trying to distort the argument. Slipping somebody a drug is not the same as lying to them to trick them into sex. Not even the same ballpark. It’s not covered by this statute, nor does it need to be; IT IS ALREADY RAPE.

    3. People lie to other people. Not just men. Women lie too. I’ve known a lot of women who were completely unscrupulous, deceitfully and selfish. I’ve known men like this too. This is a problem that I’ve seen recurring throughout this blog. Very myopic.

    4. I don’t particularly like the way ideas are exchange and debates occur on this forum. I think I’ll follow Mr. Randazza’s lead.

    Posted by 12XU | May 8, 2008, 9:14 pm
  36. TO this: People lie to other people. Not just men. Women lie too. I’ve known a lot of women who were completely unscrupulous, deceitfully and selfish. I’ve known men like this too. This is a problem that I’ve seen recurring throughout this blog. Very myopic.

    4. I don’t particularly like the way ideas are exchange and debates occur on this forum. I think I’ll follow Mr. Randazza’s lead.

    Ditto, I know better than you that women can lie, be unscrupulous and deceitful, you see the first abuser to both myself and my brother [sexual] was my MOTHER,

    ok so that isn’t the issue here,

    as for ways ideas and exchange on this forum, well,

    you see this isn’t a forum like, a political forum or legal where ideas are exchanged in the way you are referring to,

    this is a Women’s Space, meaning,

    this is The space, where women can come and come together, and vent and speak and share their pain, and their Frustration in a world where the voices of women are continually discredited, ingnored, diminismed, trivialized and scoffed at,

    their voices, their experiences, and especially their experiences with violence and sexual violence.

    Men don’t LIKE the exchange of these experiences because they probably ‘hit a nerve’,

    after all, as long as women can be continued to be DEHUMANIZED via porn, the media, and yes, society [and yes women internalize that and take part in that],

    then its much easier to continue to perpetuate the Status Quo.

    Or justify it,

    but when men hear or read women’s rage, it offends them. Because for maybe, Maybe the first time, the rage isn’t drowned out by the voices of male anger and self-justification for their priviledge of power, etc.,

    in courts women aren’t allowed rage,

    in society women aren’t allowed rage,

    in private relationships women aren’t allowed rage,

    this is not to say that women don’t have rage or can’t act on it, they can, they are after all agents of choice [though those choices have been influenced through years of psychological conditioning via patriarchy],

    however, When a woman reacts in Rage against violence against herself or her sisters,

    then That is deviating from the norm isn’t it? And as you have worked as a criminal attorney, then you know full well, that women serve Far more time, in prison for self-defense, and that society has far less forgiveness for women who kill men who abuse them, or rape them,

    just as society has far less forgiveness for the increasing numbers of children who kill their parents when abused [and those numbers are rising],

    because children aren’t supposed to react with rage either.

    Now I’m not justifying rage, though I have yes, those moments when I truly believe that until women rise up and take up violence nothing will change,

    not legal redress, not pleeding with the legislature or through votes,

    not in relying on their benavolant [sic] nationalist brothers to save/protect them [even then, the fact that women are ‘property’ of nation, state or brothers mind you, proves that won’t ever resolve the woman question],

    as one who has lived through a lot of what is discussed on here, I honestly don’t believe it will change until there is a revolution, BUT,

    then, I do question, how much of that is transferance of male ideals throughout the centuries and so forth, but anyhow…

    maybe not, I do find it interesting that when its a nation or group of People who stand up to violence its always the Praise Jesus or Allah or what have you and the ‘well the oppressor has it coming’ blah blah blah

    but the Second a WOMAN takes a stand,

    its OH MY GOD she’s a loon, a femi-nazi, a dyke bitch, a whore, a angry old how did the moron say it, oh, sagging breasts and all that crap…its always first,

    the attack on her sexualness [if its called that], the attack on her as deviant against Female Roles [put here by whom I might ask?], an attack on her deviating against her place and so forth,

    even women, are shocked, they’ll say,

    Oh you can’t do That! Thats what men do, blah blah blah,

    but now if a Brother says, oh we are going to rise up against White man etc etc etc its Yea baby come on you know thats whats coming to them,

    when WOMEN say, thats it, men we are fed up or husband or boyfriend or patriarchs,

    its OH NO, you can’t Do that!

    Get what I’m saying…

    my question is then, Why?

    Are we So conditioned to think, that women are less than Sub-human, forget human, that if a woman acts in any way with rage or anger at harm done to her,

    that it is deviant, after all, dogs are loyal no matter what,

    women should be too, and That is the thinking…

    so when women rise up on a forum such as this, it Bothers men, and some women, yes,

    one I think it strikes fear, because when women come together and start sharing and start Seeing that their pain is not imagined, that its real, that it just doesn’t ‘go away’ then women start seeing,

    that something primitive and human in side them, is OUTRAGED at the continual and perpetuated injustices and violence and yes, Enslavement done against them or to them,

    and maybe if, enough women get that Mind Consciousness [sort of like Class Consciousness] [Fanon–I love Fanon, just replace African or Black with WOMAN],

    they will start to win the hardest part of the battle–

    the battle in their minds.

    And THAT scares men and oppressers especially because the mind, the sexual attacks and mental rape, that the courts, the system, the society, the media, the schools, the relationships, the religions, the autocrats and theocrats and nationalists and tribalists,

    is where they maintain control, either through fear, or through the continual telling women they are worthless, they are whores, they are deceptive or cunning or they are

    the evil EVE.

    When Women come together, they begin to shake those chains, and those chains begin to fall, slowly but they do…

    and That, is why, I think,

    most men Don’t stick around here…its just a tad too uncomfortable isn’t it,

    because

    the NATIVES ARE GETTING RESTLESS.

    Posted by Tasha | May 9, 2008, 1:40 am
  37. “you like to distort context of my phrasing”

    Supe, I did use your context: false-pretense sex results in (not the “cause” of) a pregnancy.
    (what context did I use instead?)

    Not only did you *not* mention how shitty it was that the male lied in the first place (you are on a feminist blog btw) but then you go on to only critique the woman’s part in prevention. A woman asking a male to wear a condom would be a form of precaution. A woman asking a man to pull out is-though not the best one-a form of prevention. You cannot assume her responsibility/desire for a pregnancy rests only in *her* in specific actions.

    And yes I know you mentioned, in your latter response, male prevention but my first response to you was to statements you made omitting male prevention. I do not take lightly the attitude that would either intentionally, or mistakenly, fail to mention the male part in intercourse or a subsequent pregnancy. Both failings feed a prejudice that continues to place women in society as single struggling mothers, “cried rape!” liars in court cases, “sluts” to be shamed, or just as well scares women out of convicting men who act without consent.

    This would be, 12XU, why I also do not take kindly to your calling my pointing this out as “minute.”

    As for:
    “Anyone who advocated a position that is antithetical to your own beliefs is both a troll and a misogynist?”
    No. I call people who advocate for their position of privilege, on a subject matter for which they are privileged, against those marginalized for said subject matter trolls. Those who do as much against women I call misogynists.
    I will explain in a bit.

    “Oh or a pimp. I can’t believe I almost forgot that one. What a lovely outlook. You must be pleasant.”
    I haven’t called anyone a pimp.
    I also haven’t insulted anyone’s specific person but by telling me-certainly sarcastically- I must be “pleasant” you are doing…what now?

    “But how about responding to the actual challenge advanced against the legislation?”

    Here is what I think: as far as consent goes, in this society, we have a looooong way to go. I am no lawyer but, the way I read it, this law will protect people who lay out the terms for which they will have/will not have sex and do not have those terms respected.
    Where it reads: “having obtained that person’s consent by the use of fraud, concealment, or artifice and who thereby intentionally deceived such person so that a reasonable person would not have consented but for the deception”…
    “By the use” and “intentionally deceived” and “would not have consented” here implies-to me-that someone knowingly lies about a certain attribute/term which they *know* to be a term the other party is relying on to make a sexual decision and falsifies it for that purpose.
    I do not then see the question as: “Who would send this person to prison?”
    But rather: “What kind of person knowingly disrespects someone’s sexual boundaries?”

    And the kind of person that does that, no matter how many scenarios we come up with, is someone who needs to be identified and held accountable.
    (as for the legal consequences I could see something like the sexual offender registry working well for this—photos, their name, location and a note stating that they lied to get someone to have sex with them)

    This law is about the lying—not what the terms are some people require before having sex. By focusing on the standards of the person who was lied to we immediately victim blame. (“What are lies that would make a reasonable person withdraw consent if they knew the truth? Who gets to decide what lie vitiates consent?”)

    Which is why I am bothered by your overall response to this as well as Supe’s and my reason for the troll statement.
    Your focus seems very much about trivializing the situations that would *possibly* arise from this law but how comfy—you are a man who has not known a life of fearing for your consent to be disregarded and/or overpowered at any time. You do not know what it’s like to have half the human population feel entitled to your body. You do not know what it’s like to have media/family/*everyone* socializing you to say “yes” or nothing in place of “no” on more occasions than you can count.

    So maybe you could imagine with me for a second how a woman might read this: this law implies more careful and considerate sexual encounters, it means communication, it means people have to respect each other’s personal boundaries and wishes, it means people with manipulative tendencies have a consequence. In a lot of ways it means prevention.
    Laws do not just play out in court rooms they also send messages to societies about ways to interact with each other. With the way men are taught to interact with women maybe you can understand why the implications of this law would be embraced by women.

    But that your focus throughout this thread has been to attempt to shoot holes through it, rather than even *once* recognize some of the good it could do is very much a position of privilege afaic—one that speaks to your relationship to “consent” most of your life.

    Which is also why I disagree wholeheartedly with the following:

    “I initially posted in a non-inflammatory manner”

    Defending from a position of privilege is inflammatory—no matter how calm or well meaning.

    Posted by pisaquaririse | May 9, 2008, 4:06 am
  38. >>>>>Supe, I did use your context: false-pretense sex results in (not the “cause” of) a pregnancy.
    (what context did I use instead?)<<<<>>>Not only did you *not* mention how shitty it was that the male lied in the first place (you are on a feminist blog btw) but then you go on to only critique the woman’s part in prevention. A woman asking a male to wear a condom would be a form of precaution. A woman asking a man to pull out is-though not the best one-a form of prevention. You cannot assume her responsibility/desire for a pregnancy rests only in *her* in specific actions. <<<<>>And yes I know you mentioned, in your latter response, male prevention but my first response to you was to statements you made omitting male prevention. I do not take lightly the attitude that would either intentionally, or mistakenly, fail to mention the male part in intercourse or a subsequent pregnancy. Both failings feed a prejudice that continues to place women in society as single struggling mothers, “cried rape!” liars in court cases, “sluts” to be shamed, or just as well scares women out of convicting men who act without consent.<<<>>>No. I call people who advocate for their position of privilege, on a subject matter for which they are privileged, against those marginalized for said subject matter trolls. Those who do as much against women I call misogynists.
    I will explain in a bit.<<<
    >>>>Here is what I think: as far as consent goes, in this society, we have a looooong way to go. I am no lawyer but, the way I read it, this law will protect people who lay out the terms for which they will have/will not have sex and do not have those terms respected.<<<>>>Where it reads: “having obtained that person’s consent by the use of fraud, concealment, or artifice and who thereby intentionally deceived such person so that a reasonable person would not have consented but for the deception”…
    “By the use” and “intentionally deceived” and “would not have consented” here implies-to me-that someone knowingly lies about a certain attribute/term which they *know* to be a term the other party is relying on to make a sexual decision and falsifies it for that purpose.
    I do not then see the question as: “Who would send this person to prison?”
    But rather: “What kind of person knowingly disrespects someone’s sexual boundaries?”<<>>>This law is about the lying—not what the terms are some people require before having sex. By focusing on the standards of the person who was lied to we immediately victim blame. (“What are lies that would make a reasonable person withdraw consent if they knew the truth? Who gets to decide what lie vitiates consent?”)<<<>>>Which is why I am bothered by your overall response to this as well as Supe’s and my reason for the troll statement.
    Your focus seems very much about trivializing the situations that would *possibly* arise from this law but how comfy—you are a man who has not known a life of fearing for your consent to be disregarded and/or overpowered at any time. You do not know what it’s like to have half the human population feel entitled to your body. You do not know what it’s like to have media/family/*everyone* socializing you to say “yes” or nothing in place of “no” on more occasions than you can count.<<
    >>So maybe you could imagine with me for a second how a woman might read this: this law implies more careful and considerate sexual encounters, it means communication, it means people have to respect each other’s personal boundaries and wishes, it means people with manipulative tendencies have a consequence. In a lot of ways it means prevention.
    Laws do not just play out in court rooms they also send messages to societies about ways to interact with each other. With the way men are taught to interact with women maybe you can understand why the implications of this law would be embraced by women.<<>>But that your focus throughout this thread has been to attempt to shoot holes through it, rather than even *once* recognize some of the good it could do is very much a position of privilege afaic—one that speaks to your relationship to “consent” most of your life.<<<>>>>Defending from a position of privilege is inflammatory—no matter how calm or well meaning.<<<<<

    From Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:
    Inflammatory: tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult

    Don’t you think it is a bit unsound to outright become inflamed by any arguments in defense of the privileged? Shouldn’t you first consider whether those arguments are sound before becoming angered or disordered? If you decide to get angered before even considering if the argument is a good one, you’re being rather myopic about the matter.

    Posted by Supe | May 9, 2008, 4:18 pm
  39. Okay, that is probably unreadable there. Supe, if you could copy it, clean up the formatting and repost, that would be helpful.

    Posted by womensspace | May 9, 2008, 4:33 pm
  40. Again, womensspace, I apologize for the inconvenience of my prior posts. I hope the last one I sent worked. Please delete my poorly formatted prior postings of the same comments.

    Thanks.

    Posted by Supe | May 9, 2008, 4:58 pm
  41. “““““Supe, I did use your context: false-pretense sex results in (not the “cause” of) a pregnancy.
    (what context did I use instead?)”““““

    I wrote that in the context of addressing the matter being discussed. The concern expressed on the forum regarded the harms caused TO WOMEN. Therefore, I tried to address the supposed harms that result TO WOMEN. Pregnancy happened to be one of such supposed harms. However, I made an argument that we need not make a law to prevent such a harm because simpler remedies currently exist. Perhaps I should not have assumed that the posters here were concerned about the harms TO WOMEN and should have analyzed the supposed harms that the proposed law is to prevent from occurring to men as well. Still, the point I was attempting to make with my first post was that I am not sure what harm it is trying to prevent. Reread my first post and tell me if I overlooked one of the harms that this law prevents or at least provide an argument for why my arguments are wrong. (Calling me a misogynist and explaining why I’m a misogynist fails to address the main point at hand.)

    ““““Not only did you *not* mention how shitty it was that the male lied in the first place (you are on a feminist blog btw) but then you go on to only critique the woman’s part in prevention. A woman asking a male to wear a condom would be a form of precaution. A woman asking a man to pull out is-though not the best one-a form of prevention. You cannot assume her responsibility/desire for a pregnancy rests only in *her* in specific actions. “““““

    See supra for why I addressed the pregnancy harm from a woman’s perspective. Had I realized that you were concerned about the supposed harms this law sought to prevent from occurring to men, I would have analyzed the matter from a male perspective too. But alas, that does not seem to be the problem you have with my analysis.

    Still, any person engaging in sexual activity needs to take responsibility for her (or his) actions. If a person does not want to get an STD, then the only sure way to accomplish this is not to have sex or ensure that your partner is free from any STDs, but at the minimum, s/he should use a condom. If a person does not want to become pregnant or get someone pregnant, s/he can take the same steps. I never said that a man has no responsibility in a pregnancy. I merely stated that if someone has a desire NOT to get pregnant (or to get someone pregnant), then s/he is responsible for taking the preventative measures. Who else should be responsible for the person’s actions?

    “““And yes I know you mentioned, in your latter response, male prevention but my first response to you was to statements you made omitting male prevention. I do not take lightly the attitude that would either intentionally, or mistakenly, fail to mention the male part in intercourse or a subsequent pregnancy. Both failings feed a prejudice that continues to place women in society as single struggling mothers, “cried rape!” liars in court cases, “sluts” to be shamed, or just as well scares women out of convicting men who act without consent.”“““

    Again, see supra for an explanation for why I omitted an analysis of the male aspect. I meant no prejudice by it, I was merely trying to address what I perceived was the harm that the law sought to prevent, which I hypothesized might be a woman getting pregnant. I apologize for making such an assumption, but I honestly did not think anyone here was all that concerned that a male was being harmed and that the law was to prevent such harms. No one has certainly raised such concerns, but I suppose that’s the virtue in being thorough with an analysis.

    Nevertheless, I understand your point that as to why my omission would feed into the negative prejudice towards women asserting their rights, though I hope you can understand why I chose only to address the matter in the manner that I did. (And no, that reason was not because I may be a misogynist.)

    ““““No. I call people who advocate for their position of privilege, on a subject matter for which they are privileged, against those marginalized for said subject matter trolls. Those who do as much against women I call misogynists.
    I will explain in a bit.”“““

    I have no problem with you calling me a misogynist, but at least you should let the dialogue develop before reaching such a conclusion. All I ask is that you hear me out before you label me. Jumping to the conclusion that I’m a misogynist based on probably 400-500 words is a bit quick, don’t you think?

    “““““Here is what I think: as far as consent goes, in this society, we have a looooong way to go. I am no lawyer but, the way I read it, this law will protect people who lay out the terms for which they will have/will not have sex and do not have those terms respected.”“““

    I didn’t have legal training too long ago, so I understand that difficulty with which it is to understand the full consequences of particular laws. It’s is a very difficult task to cover the right amount of harm(s) that the legislation is after. Even well written laws are not perfect either because they’re over-inclusive, under-inclusive, or both. Try to think of all the possible scenarios (both winning and losing) where someone will try to enforce this law. 12XU already mentioned one for the child rape scenario, which highlights one of the odd results that could occur under this legislation. Other more plausible scenarios exist where this legislation would produce peculiar outcomes. While the law may have good intentions, the bizarre results from it will undermine its goal because of the backlash.

    ““““Where it reads: “having obtained that person’s consent by the use of fraud, concealment, or artifice and who thereby intentionally deceived such person so that a reasonable person would not have consented but for the deception”…
    “By the use” and “intentionally deceived” and “would not have consented” here implies-to me-that someone knowingly lies about a certain attribute/term which they *know* to be a term the other party is relying on to make a sexual decision and falsifies it for that purpose.
    I do not then see the question as: “Who would send this person to prison?”
    But rather: “What kind of person knowingly disrespects someone’s sexual boundaries?”“““

    You need to break each part of the statute down into its elements and determine the mens rea for each element. This is how lawyers and judges interpret laws. The mens rea regarding the alleged criminal’s actions (deception) is intentionality. The mens reas regarding the alleged victim is that of a reasonable person. The critical portion of the law is what a reasonable person would consider a material factor for causing him/her to have sex. What factors do you think a “reason person” would consider material? (1) Whether s/he has a STD? Battery already covers this. (2) Whether s/he is already seeing someone? (3) Whether s/he is already employed in such a profession? (4) Whether s/he really holds such a social status? (5) Whether s/he is really that old? See 12XU’s analysis regarding the statutory rape aspect of this. (6) Whether s/he really lives in X? (7) Whether s/he really is nice? (8) Whether s/he really makes $X?

    There are a plethora of other possibilities. My question: which factor(s) is (are) material according to a reasonable person? The factor(s) that count as material would carry a criminal offense for whoever intentionally claims s/he is/does/possesses that material factor. Now ask yourself: do you really want someone to face criminal sanctions for this?

    ““““This law is about the lying—not what the terms are some people require before having sex. By focusing on the standards of the person who was lied to we immediately victim blame. (“What are lies that would make a reasonable person withdraw consent if they knew the truth? Who gets to decide what lie vitiates consent?”)”“““

    You’re partly wrong on this. See supra for the breakdown of the law.

    ““““Which is why I am bothered by your overall response to this as well as Supe’s and my reason for the troll statement.
    Your focus seems very much about trivializing the situations that would *possibly* arise from this law but how comfy—you are a man who has not known a life of fearing for your consent to be disregarded and/or overpowered at any time. You do not know what it’s like to have half the human population feel entitled to your body. You do not know what it’s like to have media/family/*everyone* socializing you to say “yes” or nothing in place of “no” on more occasions than you can count.”““

    I don’t mean to trivialize the matter. However, you need to consider the practical implications of the law. No case law exists for this law, so the only thing anyone can do is to construct various hypotheticals in which the law would apply and how it would apply.

    You’re right I don’t know how it feels like to be a woman. You don’t know how it feels to be a man either, so you don’t fully understand a man’s perspective either. Being called a rapist today is far worse than being a rape victim. Perhaps I’m wrong, but look at the Duke lax team. Even though I imagine the guys were doing wrong things and deserve to catch a lot of shit, the main focus was that they were labeled as rapists. The woman (or was it women) was (were) applauded for having the strength to come forward with the allegations. Things certainly changed once it seemed that the woman (women) lied and they dropped the charges, but that’s not the point. Men get labeled as rapists and catch more chastising merely for being ALLEGED rapists. Men are powerless to prevent such accusations. Yes, women have the backlash for lying about rape, but the damage is already done. I only state all of this to show you that men can be hurt too. I acknowledge that women are at a disadvantage though because of the past prejudice regarding rape – ie, that it’s the woman’s fault. This prejudice certainly still exists, but I don’t think it is as prevalent as it once was. Perhaps it’s a dormant prejudice.

    “““So maybe you could imagine with me for a second how a woman might read this: this law implies more careful and considerate sexual encounters, it means communication, it means people have to respect each other’s personal boundaries and wishes, it means people with manipulative tendencies have a consequence. In a lot of ways it means prevention.
    Laws do not just play out in court rooms they also send messages to societies about ways to interact with each other. With the way men are taught to interact with women maybe you can understand why the implications of this law would be embraced by women.”““

    Why are you injecting gender into the law? It is a law written without specification of gender. I don’t mean to disparage how a woman might read this, but the main consideration is how legal personnel (both women and men) would read the law. I articulated above how legal people read laws, and these are the people who apply the law. Since legal people apply the law, their reading is all that ultimately matters in determining who gets punished for breaking this law. (Note: if public outcry is great enough, then they could force their legislators to repeal the law too.) Laws can have good intentions, but aren’t you concerned about the negative consequences too?

    “““But that your focus throughout this thread has been to attempt to shoot holes through it, rather than even *once* recognize some of the good it could do is very much a position of privilege afaic—one that speaks to your relationship to “consent” most of your life.”“““

    History has shown that more harm can come from good intentioned laws that have these “holes”. Think of all the legal ramifications that would ensue. Poorly crafted laws with bizarre results won’t last long and often cause a backlash against the “good intentions” for which these laws were written. Foresight is of the utmost importance when crafting legislation.

    “““““Defending from a position of privilege is inflammatory—no matter how calm or well meaning.”““““

    From Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:
    Inflammatory: tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult

    Don’t you think it is a bit unsound to outright become inflamed by any arguments in defense of the privileged? Shouldn’t you first consider whether those arguments are sound before becoming angered or disordered? If you decide to get angered before even considering if the argument is a good one, you’re being rather myopic about the matter.

    Also, I hope you see the hypocrisy in calling me a misogynist and your remark.

    Posted by Supe | May 9, 2008, 4:59 pm
  42. You have Got to be Kidding me Right?

    “Don’t you think it is a bit unsound to outright become inflamed by any arguments in defense of the privileged? Shouldn’t you first consider whether those arguments are sound before becoming angered or disordered? If you decide to get angered before even considering if the argument is a good one, you’re being rather myopic about the matter.”

    In defense of the privileged? A bit ‘unsound’ [gee, sounds familiar–almost like the ‘she’s hysterical bit’] become inflamed by arguments in defense of the privileged?

    Gee, lets apply that logic to, lets say, a slave in America to the white slave master, and telling them,

    they are unsound to be inflamed at the defense of ‘slavery’,

    Give me a break, That has got to be the most blatant defense in your comments of the male justifications used for misogyny if I EVER read/heard one,

    because how it really translates is this:

    for the oppressed to be inflamed at the ‘excuses’ or ‘defense’ of the oppressor is unsound, because the oppressed is obviously dysfunctional for even becoming angry at their position…

    well one thing, you admit there is Male Privilege that needs ‘defending’ LOL,

    and thats just it isn’t it, defending Male Privilege that is not legit, deserved or entitled to. If anything is unsound,

    it is myopic [short sighted] and unsound to defend Male Privilege when over half of the human population is Female,

    and to defend Male Privilege hurts half of the human population. Which in turn hurts whole societies [whether they realize it or not], and to not see That,

    would be unsound and myopic.

    In all the responses against this legislation, I’ve yet to read one ‘sound’ defense for a man’s right to fraud, lie, deceive to get sex or to rape,

    the only defense I’ve read in the comments is ‘male entitlement [or what he pompously thinks] to

    ‘get it’.

    And not only that, but the ‘get it’,

    says Volumes doesn’t it,

    sex is not an exchange between two HUMAN BEINGS anymore, no,

    its just an ‘it’,

    meaning, women are ‘it’, a thing,

    well at least we can see clearly, the evidence of the damage that porn does to men’s minds,

    when men conduce sexual relations to the ‘getting “it”‘,

    and to not see that, is worse than myopic,

    its sheer blindness. But then, privilege does that doesn’t it,

    it blinds one to the pain caused to the victim by the pompous self-righteousness oppressor who insists that it is sound to oppress the other,

    I doubt seriously if there is concern over the longterm effects of this bill, or even the abuses that could be caused by it,

    no, that isn’t the concern at all is it?

    The concern is just like you said,

    the threat to the Privilege, that their entitlement to getting “IT” is being not only challenged but legislated that behavior will not be tolerated anymore,

    basically, the arguments used to defend the privilege male,

    is NO different, than the arguments made by Mullahs who assert that women are responsible for being raped because women are evil/temptrouses [sic] and men just can’t help themselves,

    oh they can rule entire nations but they can’t control their penises,

    Give me a break…you know, the Good thing about this legislation other than stopping male entitlement, is that maybe,

    just maybe, our court system is finally dealing with the gender bias that is archaic and draconian,

    maybe its time to leave the 12th century medieval myopic and narrow chauvinist thinking and stop the LIE that men are just slaves to their penis,

    and that women are just holes.

    That is the most Sound thing [making men accountable and that women are human beings, not ‘ITS’ to be lied to, deceived and raped at a man’s whim,

    that has come out of the court system in the US in a very long time….

    Good!

    and pisaquaririse

    said it beautifully, and presented a very well articulated and SOUND defense for women, and for personal accountability in behavior.

    Posted by Tasha | May 9, 2008, 7:21 pm
  43. Supe, I refuse to take the time to flesh out a response to someone who says:

    “Being called a rapist today is far worse than being a rape victim.”

    Unreal.
    There is no proper *context* for this statement.

    Posted by pisaquaririse | May 9, 2008, 9:34 pm
  44. Tasha,

    You still aren’t addressing the main points raised. Instead, you insist on making ad hominem attacks on anyone who has a different view than you. Criticizing me rather than my argument is a fallacy and hence fails to be a sound argument. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem for a more detailed explanation of why ad hominem attacks avoid the addressing the argument at hand and for an understanding of ad hominem arguments generally.)

    I’m rather astonished that you think it’s find to get enraged about an argument simply because it is in favor of a privileged position. Getting pissed first and failing to think critically about what’s being said doesn’t accomplish much. This is analogous to judging a book by its cover. So far, following such a line of thought has only resulted in you attacking me personally.

    We can have a more intellectually engaging dialogue if you would stay on the topic at hand. Save your bashing of me when the topic involves whether or not I’m a misogynist, slave trader, sexist, etc. Until then, please try to address my argument rather than what you presume to be my personal characteristics. Thanks.

    Posted by Supe | May 9, 2008, 9:38 pm
  45. pisaquaririse,

    I provided context. I used the Duke lax team as an example of how it plays out.

    My point wasn’t that it sucks more or feels worse than being a rape victim, but rather more stigma is associated with being a rapist than a rape victim. The two are distinct. Being a rape victim is far worse than being a rapist. I apologize if I failed to make this clear in my post.

    Posted by Supe | May 9, 2008, 9:41 pm
  46. holy…….
    whoa. *screech!*

    @# 44:
    “Being called a rapist today is far worse than being a rape victim.”

    sure, ‘cuz it ain’t all THAT bad gettin’ raped, y’all.

    BARF.

    Posted by avril joy | May 9, 2008, 9:50 pm
  47. Supe, I hope you can understand there is *no way* for someone to immediately view that statement as a *stigma comparison*–even provided the Duke Case.

    The Duke case was a mess of accounts and there are still people-feminists-today who are not thrilled with the way it was handled. I was in college when that happened and I cannot tell you how many guys began wearing “Duke Lacrosse Team” shirts before the guys were found “innocent”, or brushed off the incident because the women were “sluts” or whatever.

    I just wouldn’t posit that as the case to get feminist sympathies for men (really, there are a lot better one’s should you be looking for advice).
    However, I am sure it will be The Case lodged in women’s faces for the nest 50 years *proving* we are little liars.

    Sometimes I think rapist *stigma* is our only saving grace. I certainly don’t think the term should be misused but given how little rape is reported my sympathies only extend so far.

    I will respond to the rest later.

    Posted by pisaquaririse | May 9, 2008, 10:17 pm
  48. Avril joy,

    I failed to state that part correctly in my original post. I omitted “called” before “a rape victim”. Being called a rapist is worse than being called a rape victim. HOWEVER, being a rape victim IS WORSE than being called a rapist or even being a rapist. After my lengthy post, I failed to articulate this well. I understand why my initial phrasing offended everyone, but because of my oversight, it failed to convey my intended meaning.

    Still, I would like someone to address my arguments rather than me.

    Posted by Supe | May 9, 2008, 10:20 pm
  49. On This:

    “Being called a rapist today is far worse than being a rape victim. Perhaps I’m wrong, but look at the Duke lax team. Even though I imagine the guys were doing wrong things and deserve to catch a lot of shit, the main focus was that they were labeled as rapists. The woman (or was it women) was (were) applauded for having the strength to come forward with the allegations. Things certainly changed once it seemed that the woman (women) lied and they dropped the charges, but that’s not the point. Men get labeled as rapists and catch more chastising merely for being ALLEGED rapists. Men are powerless to prevent such accusations. Yes, women have the backlash for lying about rape, but the damage is already done”

    Just to be fair here, he’s saying ‘being accused’ of being a rapist, not being a rapist,

    but in answering this, First,

    the Reason that there is damage in being accused of being a rapist sir is that MEN have not taken a PRO-ACTIVE confrontation in Dealing with the issue of

    RAPE.

    Here you say, its worse for me being accused of rape, then we have men here, who protect and defend quite rigorously the so called rights of men to watch visuals [not speech mind you, visuals] and depictions and photos of what?

    Bunny rabbits, No Sir, of women being RAPED.

    and then lawyers and men defending the promoter and the producers and the ones who profit in the Billions on the Images [illusion and real mind you] of WOMEN BEING RAPED, CHILDREN TOO,

    and then you Wonder why, there is damage in being accused as a RAPIST?

    WHOSE FAULT IS THAT? WOMENS?

    NO SIR,

    ITS MEN.

    Men are to blame for that, its the system that MEN have created, not Women sir,

    so if Anyone is to blame for the Damage caused by false allegations of rape,

    its MEN, not women.

    Thats like, the millions of some religious followers who refuse to Confront the Violence their religion advocates including in their own Holy Books, and then crying Foul when those victims of that violence assert that they are a Violent people/or religion,

    Silence speaks volumes,

    and not only are men Silent about Rape, they are SUPPORTIVE in so many ways,

    of rape,

    whether its buying Visuals depicting or showing live rapes for their uh, fantasies and so forth [and you wonder why men are called Rapists, DUH],

    or for defending those who promote that garbage for profit,

    or for joking about it in locker rooms

    or for being silent and accommodating to men who rape,

    or for jumping in the misogynist bandwagon in attacking women who try to END rape by

    attacking the Issue?

    NO, by What?

    Calling them, dykes and feminazi’s and more than that,

    ALWAYS PULLING SOMETHING SEXUAL AND ATTACKING AND DEGRADING THEM SEXUALLY…

    ALWAYS.

    Doesn’t matter if its a judge or a Congressman, or a janitor, etc.,

    its Always something Sexual about women isn’t it?

    So then to scream Foul when men are damaged by being accused of rape,

    well, then maybe MEN need to stop Supporting Rape by their Silence and Accommodation to it,

    and start being Accountable as MEN…

    for their Rapist Mentality and Justifications and Excuses for.

    When MEN hit the streets in the numbers that Women have, and start

    DEMANDING CHANGE IN MEN’S ATTITUDES ABOUT RAPE,

    THEN MAYBE,

    YOU’LL AND OTHER MEN, WILL HAVE SOME GROUNDS TO SCREAM FOUL,

    WHEN MEN ARE DAMAGED BY BEING ACCUSED OF RAPE,

    UNTIL THAT DAY,

    SHUT UP.

    BECAUSE MEN HAVE SUPPORTED AND LAUGHED AT AND HAVE MOCKED AND DISMISSED THE PAIN THAT RAPE DOES TO WOMEN,

    AND MEN HAVE BENEFITED FROM IT, IN SO MANY WAYS IT WOULD TAKE A BOOK HERE,

    TO WRITE THEM ALL DOWN,

    SO UNTIL MEN DEMAND IT STOP,

    DEAL WITH THE DAMAGE,

    BECAUSE ITS NOTHING,

    COMPARED TO WHAT MILLIONS OF GIRLS, BOYS AND WOMEN [AND SOME MEN YES, MEN RAPED IN FRATERNITIES AND IN PRISONS] HAVE DEALT WITH

    ON A DAILY BASIS, A LIVING HELL,

    DEALING WITH THE MEMORIES AND HORRORS OF RAPE.

    UNTIL MEN STOP PROTECTING RAPE,

    THEN THEY HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME SIR

    FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED

    BY FALSE

    ACCUSATIONS.

    Posted by Tasha | May 9, 2008, 10:46 pm
  50. pisa,

    You’re probably right that Duke lax isn’t the best example for my point, but that and the Kobe Bryant incident were the two that initially came to mine. However, you also pointed out that the Duke case likely hurt women’s rights. I agree. The prosecutor made what may have been a bad case worse. I think the same would result with this well-intentioned law at issue here. Several other commentors pointed out holes in the law. If passde into law, this legislation will ultimately fail because of the plausible bizarre results mentioned in prior posts. This will likely set back any future, better crafted laws that accomplish whatever it is that this proposed legislation is after. I’m still trying to figure out what harm it is meant to prevent that another law doesn’t already accomplish. I made some speculations in my prior posts.

    Posted by Supe | May 9, 2008, 11:15 pm
  51. Well, I’m going to jump in here this weekend.

    I think people are addressing your arguments, Supe. I’ll address them some more.

    Thanks for squaring away your formatting.

    Posted by womensspace | May 9, 2008, 11:16 pm
  52. Supe,

    we could talk in circles all day,

    I’m not being critical of you or attacking you personally,

    I’m pointing out, the words in your language or the arguments [and including in that some of the other comments by others who think this bill is wrong, etc],

    and how that relates to the mentality towards women and towards rape,

    in regards to privilege and male supremacy towards women.

    I wrote another post though it didn’t go through or maybe Heart didn’t allow it, because I used caps at the end,

    but I’ll rephrase it, you said something about being accused of rape is as bad as being called a rape victim or something along those lines,

    but thats just IT,

    until MEN do something about addressing Rape and their Entitlement to Rape/and to Sex,

    then Men only have MEN to blame, for the stigma of men/rape,

    not women.

    Look I could, if I had time, write this far more eloquently, but you see I am what society would say, part of the underclass,

    though I went to college [way later in years and while supporting three kids],

    I am not that versed in vocabulary unless I take a lot of time and thought and write [and when I do sometimes I can write quite powerfully],

    but from here, I’m speaking from where I sit, as a woman, as one who has been a victim of both child sex abuse and rape, and who knows intimately the sex industry…

    and from the streets, so to speak–its hard for me to articulate sometimes what I’m trying to say,

    but the defense or some of the things you say,

    are representative of the arguments and assertions that men have made for centuries in their rights or claims to rights,

    to abuse or mistreat women.

    maybe you don’t see it that way,

    but I do, and I think others here do too,

    they just say it better than me.

    Personally though, when I have to pull out a dictionary, to read someone,

    I just don’t, I can, I have,

    but, I one day just decided not too…I’m sick of having to talk in male language or elitist language,

    to be taken seriously,

    look its really simple,

    and I’ll put it personal, not to speak for women, so maybe it comes across better,

    when I see, legislation that yes, and I understand what you are saying, that can be abused, granted, see where you are coming from on that,

    but, when I see legislation that is attempting to hold men accountable for the shit they do to women,

    and then I see, men saying, that its unsound to get angry at the position of the privilege,

    that to me, sounds like,

    I should, as a woman, be sympathetic or understanding to the hurts caused to men who abuse me, or who would abuse me,

    or lie to me,

    or what have you because I, as a woman, am in a society and world where I am second class, or what have you,

    and that, men’s feelings are more important,

    than mine,

    and any anger or rage or injustice, on my part,

    is unsound, or trivial, or of little importance.

    Or that I’m overreacting or what have you,

    and this is what women hear, day in and day out…

    and the twisting of words or using words, to somehow diminish or trivialize our pain, real pain,

    at the injustices, on a very unequal playing field,

    is more infuriating, than you might realize.

    Or care too, I don’t know, don’t know you,

    but just that in itself, is very dehumanizing,

    and the legal system, is very dehumanizing to women.

    That, is the results, sir,

    of privilege…male privilege,

    and honestly, I think the whole thing about women having to prove this and prove that,

    is just that…mind games, that men play,

    to continue to safeguard their privilege,

    just my opinion.

    Posted by Tasha | May 10, 2008, 12:13 am
  53. Parallel (sorta) convo happening here:
    http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=16111&x=59#16111

    Supe is not here in good faith. In case anyone actually thought that.

    Posted by Zeitgeist | May 10, 2008, 1:19 am
  54. Nice linkage Zeitgeist.

    “Supe is not here in good faith. In case anyone actually thought that.”

    Oh you mean the part where he talks about slipping one of us a date rape drug?

    “Author: Supe [538] (Seatttle is emo.)
    Posted: 05/07/08 04:55 PM
    Flag: Best-Of Helpful NSFW Spam TOS Violation

    I wonder if her views will change after someone slips her some rohypnol.”

    So to answer your earlier question Supe regarding my hastiness to label you a misogynist in “400-500 words”–it appears it actually only takes you 13. Well done.

    Posted by pisaquari | May 10, 2008, 4:06 am
  55. That was obvious from their posts–

    it always becomes apparent when they start using their big legal words [ROFLMAO] to start useless and vain arguments,

    which is nothing little than their b.s. masturbation over their ‘elitist male’ mentality…same ole same ole bore zzzzzzzzz,

    not the first time I’ve seen it and sure it won’t be the last, and its always the same use of semantics superfluous kaka that men use to [try] to shut women up,

    why I stopped long ago, in attempting to prove myself in debating with morons such as this using legal language and all that crap,

    its a Total waste of time…anything you say, no matter how legitimate,

    they’ll turn and twist because JUSTICE, though they might be lawyers or claim they are concerned for Freedom of Speech [LOL PUKE PUKE]

    It is by far not what they are interested in,

    hell no,

    its using argumentative logic equations [that can be read anyway one wants to read into them] for $$$$$ ching ching, to protect their porn viewing or lying or rape, etc. Or their protection of their so called justifications of why the mistreatment of women to Them is tolerable…

    why our legal system and society is as fucked up as it is.

    The first posts said it all,

    when Women lawyers, using the legal terminology and case law, to present a case,

    and men and men lawyers immediately, whats the term,

    use Ad Hominem, LOL,

    to slam women,

    what was some of the comments [rather than dealing with logic],

    lets see:

    the stupid cunt remark, or the getting porked, I mean, come on,

    its worse than high school boy room locker talk.

    So I’m not surprised. Its so typical of the male reaction that it doesn’t even phase me anymore,

    and why, seriously, there will never be change going through the legal system,

    not for Justice, not for Women.

    But not just for women either, its really simple,

    when people serve more time in prison for writing hot checks than men do for rape or child rape [child molesters do less time actually–why they have those uh, neighborhood notification laws], and for murder,

    the legal system is for one thing and one thing only,

    protecting the rights of Property and Property Holders/Capital.

    Nothing more,

    and why working for change in the legal system, is a total waste of time.

    Because the System, is what needs to be dealt with,

    because its the hierarchy of the elitist male ideas [good book on this btw from Harvard–that really exposes how the legal system actually works to reinforce privilege and gender bias, etc]

    that does more to protect the status quo, rather than to change it.

    Posted by Tasha | May 10, 2008, 5:17 am
  56. I pulled up this tort law [did my own research],

    first of all,

    Supe, and 12 and the others,

    you do a Great disservice to fighting this law when you focus on slamming women, because your Focus against this law is ONLY about women and sex–that goes for attorney Randazalla or what ever his name is,

    did it a Real disservice…

    And after reading the Tort in its full disclosure [though Sacks disclosure on this Tort hasn’t come out in full yet, stated several times],

    this is not a law that is strictly in regards to women, or relates to men lying to ‘get it’ as one idiot said on here…

    The beginning of the Tort discusses the [and they crossed out adultery] damage/harm in a case where one cheats on another than doesn’t disclose it to the partner with whom they are having sex, etc etc etc.,

    and would that partner, if full dislosure had of happened, would they have made a Reasonable consent to sex, etc etc etc.,

    some law blogs state that there are laws that address the lies such as not fully disclosing STDs, etc, but that they Aren’t always enforceable nor do they go far enough…

    the issue of rape, etc., does relate [in Sack’s blog] about the brother and the man posing as doctor, etc.

    the Bill in itself is not bad, the language however in that its written in, I would concur,

    there are some major flaws and yes, it most definately [sic] could be abused, BUT I would like to see the full Tort bill written out, before I make a decision on that one way or another,

    because it covers a wide range of issues, one case, I’ll look it up here in a bit, was about a man, who filed suit against his wife, who later in years said, she only married him for such and such reason and not for love,

    and he sued her, etc., for fraud.

    Here is where I read on the proposed legislation which mind you, is being submitted by a Democrat, not some right wing Christian nutcase, in MA,

    http://sexcrimes.typepad.com/sex_crimes/

    the problem with the proposed legislation is that it could go too far [and would be used against women as well],

    BUT–all that said,

    I’m going back to my original statements, though obviously they were misunderstood by a few–

    the issue of Rape, and the legal system [and I still stand on the claim that the legal system cares more for property rights than for justice, etc., because when push comes to shove, if this bill did pass, I can guarantee you, that it will be used more to protect monies than it will to prosecute rape..and NO its NOT about Freedom of Speech–that is just ridiculous],

    but the issue of Rape, it is a FACT, that the main issue of whether to prosecute or whether the ability to make a prosecution stick, is over the issue of Consent [and why I brought up the issue of Child Rape–because eventually yes, it does transfer over to those cases, and yes, groups Do use that argument of what is consent, to push for legalized child molestation],

    I also, believe it or not, fully understand the implications AND the flaws, of overzealous ‘protectionist’ laws, because while they may Seem or Appear to protect women, they can also be used, to control the sexuality of women, etc., e.g., recent case in UK, over the issue of Consent.

    this, Consent issue, yes, is where this Tort legislation falls into, because the issue here, is using false information or no information, to get consent that if that information would have been disclosed,

    that consent might not have been given.

    On one blog, one man said, this could be very well applied, to women too, who lie about birth control, and that men could sue women if they get pregnant and then seek child support–

    funny how not you Supe or 12XU or MarcoRandazza, brought That up,

    no, all you focused on, was men lying to get ‘it’, [or the Freedom of Speech assertion]

    or the remark of government getting under our doors and into our sheets [yea Randazza I did some quick research],

    in other words, your Sexism, is not doing your Argument any good [but I’m the nutcase, ROFL], yea Whatever,

    ok so, the issue, lets take the UK case, on the consent was in regards to some cases where the issue of consent was used to sadly, acquit rapes, and when I first read this post today, thats how I read it…

    I do believe, that there is real concern, over using fraud and lies, especially over STDs and HIV especially, to get consent, and I do believe, the laws available now, do not give relief,

    you said that the fraternity cases I presented were not about fraud, I beg to differ, they are,

    if a man lies to get a girl/woman into a bedroom then three other men jump in, the problem in the courts, is yes, Consent,

    recent case in CO at CU, the issue wasn’t whether the young woman was raped, the issue was whether she gave consent because she went to the party, etc etc etc…

    so in the language of the legislation I have read thus far, deals with this issue, of men using fraud and lies, to gain advantage to yes, rape.

    in the one law blog/journal, it states…
    [from link I posted above]

    The law was apparently proposed in response to some recent fraudulent-sex incidents, one in which a man had sex with his brother’s near-sleeping girlfriend pretending to be his brother, and one in which a medical technician conducted an unnecessary pelvic exam (with his fingers, I think) after having pretended to the woman that it was necessary and that he was trained and licensed to perform such exams. But it goes much further than that: Any time someone has consensual sex (1) having gotten the consent through (a) lying or (b) concealment, and (2) a jury (or perhaps a judge) concludes that “a reasonable person would not have consented but for the deception,” that’s a felony, labeled as a form of rape. Promises (“I’ll marry you”) are excluded, but other statements — or silences — are not.

    As noted, the law concerns a recent set of incidents that are normally classified as “rape by fraud.” In a previous post, Volokh explained why the criminal law normally steers clear of regulating such conduct:

    The “rape by fraud” issue noted below does raise some interesting conceptual questions, for instance “Why do we make it a crime to take property when consent is gotten through fraud, but not to get sex when consent is gotten through fraud”? But while I think the “why” is interesting and important, the bottom line strikes me as clear: There is likely to be much more injustice and suffering if the criminal law were to police a vast range of lies and concealments in sexual relationships than if the criminal law stayed out of this.

    Whether “rape by fraud” or “rape by coercion” should be be punished by criminal law is a tough issue. “Rape by coercion” in its most notable form occurs in the context of quid pro quo sexual harassment (i.e. a boss says, “sleep with me or you be fired”). I think a lot of lay observers would suspect such actions are already criminally prosecuted. However, that is not true. “Rape by coercion” potentially creates a tort in some circumstances, but American policymakers have been loath to criminally punish lies in the bedroom.

    Also, the relationship between “rape by fraud” and “rape by coercion” theories is problematic. It would be strange to punish “rape by fraud” and not “rape by coercion” in some instances. If that were the law, then a boss demanding sex for continued employment could not be criminally punished unless that boss subsequently fired the employee after having sex (turning coercion into fraud). If that boss actually allowed the employee to continue working, then, in this hypothetical world, the boss would escape prosecution. This result would mean that the coercive sex wasn’t being punished. Rather, it would be the lie that was being punished.

    If policymakers took seriously the commodity theories of rape law (supported by, among others, Donald Dripps, Richard Posner, and Robin West), then “rape by fraud” and “rape by coercion” would be criminalized. Under the commodity theories, sex is treated as a commodity and rape is considered “sex theft.” While I have supported the idea that treating rape as “sex theft” helps to resolve some of the major problems with rape law, I share Volokh’s trepidation for how “rape by fraud” and “rape by coercion” laws might work in practice.

    BTW, I don’t always agree with Sacks,

    on several issues, but just because I don’ t concur with her on all issues, or think there might be some flaws in this legislation [I do see some flaws and yes, potential for some serious abuses],

    BUT too, we Do need, a wider span of legal recourse for women who are raped, not just forceable rape but in cases of Date Rape, [acquaintance rape] and not only that,

    but, lets take this issue, [going back to the sex exchange between two people and the possible results, pregnancy, affecting entire societies], etc.,

    if we had Tort laws [though I do believe that yes, the language of this Tort needs to be more clear, and more direct and specific to avoid abuse and extreme intrustion by government, no argument from me there],

    but if we Had Tort laws, in regards to sex, not just in ending rape,

    we would also have ability, to do something about the cases of, men who are told that women are on birth control or that the babies born, are theirs, and they find later, that they aren’t…

    now, this might not seem like a feminist issue but I think it is,

    because in CO, there is a case, where a young man, was lied to, and has been paying child support for years, for two children that aren’t even his…

    the woman lied to him, and though he has taken it to court, he is Still being forced, to pay child support, for two children that aren’t his [or maybe its one child, not sure exactly] and all because she lied…and she confessed that she lied.

    Meanwhile, the real father of the children, is getting off scot free from his responsibilities…

    under a Tort law, this man might have some recourse to do something about this injustice and yes, it IS an injustice…btw, Canada does have a law on the books that men are responsible for paying child support even if the children are not his,

    while I could see, maybe in cases where men have voluntary chose to take on these children, and then after a divorce they change their minds…and there was no other father active in the child’s life, I can see the argument in that…because of the state’s wanting not to have children on the rolls, so to speak [not that I concur with it in its entirety, but I can see it],

    but now, before any jump here, this type of Tort issue in regards to child support, doesn’t just affect men…

    there was a recent case, of a lesbian couple, who had a child [artificial semination [sic] or sperm donor, can’t remember which], they got separated,

    one filed for child support and yes, the other has to pay…can’t recall all the details of the case, but there was quite a backlash on that case,

    in other words, in how Tort laws can be abused, is a statement made today, can be held against you, later, if the dynamics change,

    on Those grounds yes, there are flaws and problems and no, they shouldn’t be dismissed…

    BUT, what angers me, is when a law with This much importance and potential to do harm or good, is reduced to nothing but a misconstrued intent in relations to sex only–

    That makes me angry, and especially when in fighting this law, remarks against women and the sexism and chauvinism towards women, is upfront and blatant…

    it does no service, or utility, in fighting for Anything just…for either gender.

    This Tort law is not just about sex or lying to get sex,

    its about lying about previous partners, and putting another partner at risk for disease or lying about things such as birth control or age, it covers many areas,

    many which, yes, the lack of accountability and responsibility are NOT just issues in the bedroom, but that the effects of Deliberate intent to defraud,

    do harm, not just to women,

    but to men, to society, to children.

    However, something

    that the one law article said…treating sex as a commodity and that,

    can be problematic as well.

    It appears to me that this legislation is meant to cover and give relief to any who are harmed by the intent of one to deceive,

    and on that issue, then yes, the debate is needed…

    but when defense against this Tort law, is based upon slamming women, slamming feminists, then joking about or trivializing rape, fraud, etc.,

    and I do recall bringing up, the contracts/consent in business and the harm caused by prior knowledge of potential to cause injury…in relations to how fraud/deceit is used to cause harm in personal exchanges [or fraud used, such as the two cases of yes, RAPE]

    and when you, Supe, and others refer to giving a woman the date rape drug,

    I stand on my original assertion, that its not freedom of speech you are interested in protecting, its male privilege,

    because Thats how YOU worded it,

    not just here, but in several places where you’ve commented on.

    And its because of your blatant Sexism, that YES,

    bad laws are passed, [good intents but bad language in drafting the legislation]

    that could yes, protect or give women legal recourse,

    but that could be used as well, for heavy room for government abuse and intrusion into personal lives/exchanges.

    Example of how a good intent can be abused, is in fact, the Statutory rape laws,

    one said here, that there is laws etc etc etc.,

    but the fact is, they are different from state to state, they aren’t always enforceable when they Should be, and when there is consent by both, lets say a girl who is 14 and a boy who is 17, often times the boy can be prosecuted,

    and often times they work Against young women, rather than for them.

    but if those people out there, only read what moron men such as yourself have to say about these Tort laws,

    they would Totally miss the point, its no wonder then, why we have laws that work to harm the victims more than go after the criminals…

    and whats worse, is the fact, that there is even a NEED for these types of laws,

    because the Tort law states…the two cases, the courts had no juris to go after these men, who yes, blatantly were Raping these women,

    because the area of CONSENT, yes,

    are clouded, and so easily construed to say,

    no means yes.

    and if MEN learned to Respect women and rather than trying to Shut them the Fuck up, [certification my ass, asshole],

    then there wouldn’t be potential for governments to pass laws, that could mean more intrusions and control over our personal.

    Like I said and I’ll say it again, the Reason men are ‘damaged’ by accusations of rape [pathetic plea there btw, the usual men are more important that women and the violence done to women, same goes for the justifications of porn],

    is Because, MEN don’t want to Confront or Change, as a whole, [generally speaking] Male Violence and Misogyny towards women…

    your own defense of patriarchy, screws you as well.

    Whether you realize it, or not.

    Tasha

    Posted by Tasha | May 10, 2008, 6:51 am
  57. Correction–

    in the issue of Consent [and this is true in several gang rape cases at Fraternities–by the way, I have some excellent research on the issue of ‘elitism’, our legal system, including the government, and the elitist protections and perpetuations of gang rape, and how our academia, in itself, is a part of that–maybe I’ll pull it out, its been a few years but if we really want to talk Consent,

    and why the gender bias is so rampant in our court systems, it goes way beyond just the legal system, its truly a stratification, but anyhow],

    in regards to the CU case, correction,

    it wasn’t about the consent or lack of by the woman…it was, that the other men, who gang raped her, they could not prosecute because They were told, she had consented,

    though she had not [and get this, they did admit she said no, but the others/in gang rapes there is usually a leader of the mob pack per se] told the men, that she consented prior, I’d have to pull up the research I did on this case,

    but they did NOT prosecute over that consent issue….and these men,

    walked.

    And it wasn’t the first time, the question of consent and the lack of juris in courts to address, meant that rapists who had deliberately planned, way ahead and where proof of such intent was clearly evident–they got off with impunity,

    and I would just bet, the proposed Tort law [and I’ll read the Tort laws in the other four states],

    cover this.

    But because the young woman gave consent, to be at the party, and because she had sex [if memory serves me right] with one of them men,

    they took that, as her giving consent to the others…

    infuriating yes, but it does happen.

    Its pretty pathetic, that it takes that much proof, to go after these creeps who rape, and that partakers in rape, can get by with so much shit,

    over how consent laws are so screwed up.

    But in addition to that, I’m not so sure, the Tort law, will cover that…it might, but I am not sold on it,

    not after the research I’ve done on it today, so I’m not sold that women would be better off in the courts, and even worse, that the Tort law, could be used more against women,

    than for them.

    But I will do more research on this issue…

    if we are going to work within the legal system [though still, I think its a waste of time, not just in the matter of rape, but in a lot of matters because the legal system, is run by elites, for elites/property owners, capital, etc., example of this,

    or result of a screwed up system,

    why we have children, in adult prisons, for self defense against parents who abuse them [and reports of this abuse has not been followed up], or on kids who are in adult prisons for LIFE for felony murder–

    and yet, men who commit domestic violence, don’t always do life, if they even get that…

    so I’m not really a fan of the legal system,

    be it dems or republicans…

    and btw, for all this b.s. about the protections of freedom of speech and porn,

    hypocritical as hell,

    we have more political prisoners in this country for speaking against the Government, and there is little to no bitching about that, from so called Freedom of Speech lawyers…

    but boy, attack porn, and they pull out all the stops.

    Go figure…

    Posted by Tasha | May 10, 2008, 7:07 am
  58. IN addition,

    I want to add, that in the post, where I take a part of the article, on the sex being a commodity and sex theft as rape, etc., [from the link I posted],

    where it says, ‘btw I don’t always concur with Sacks], thats where I begin discourse and the comment from the article ends…

    sorry about that, thought I indexed that, and wanted to clarify as to not cause confusion as to who is saying what,

    the article btw is from a law blog, not sure who the author is, but he or she is referring to Eugene Volokh’s writing/blogs on laws addressing sex crimes,

    I would prefer to read law journals/case law on the Tort laws,

    rather than blogs, but I pulled these up in a hurry to read over them.

    The problem with blogs [or opinions including from lawyers, uh hum] is that

    unless one reads the entire law/and cases or court decisions,

    its really easy to pull one part out of it, and misconstrue it to be something less or more than it is,

    because they are taken out of context.

    I also believe, when we are dealing with laws and courts in cases about rape, we need to know how the legal system works, or doesn’t work,

    for example, five years ago, I was told by lawyer [woman who works on rape cases] that the new legislation that was on the table in reducing sentences or mandatory sentencing, was going to have a negative impact on how rape cases were ruled on, [can’t recall if it was mandatory or reducing sentences, etc], [this was in our state],

    so I would like to research the laws in the states that have passed this Tort law,

    and any cases related to.

    LOL just because I don’t always take the time,

    doesn’t mean I can’t, and believe me, if I want to,

    I can rip a lot of the male b.s. to shreds…

    Tasha

    Posted by Tasha | May 10, 2008, 7:27 am
  59. Tasha, your last comment is so correct. Thankyou.

    Posted by sophie | May 10, 2008, 12:26 pm
  60. Sophie is agreeing with Tasha in 55 (I just approved a bunch more comments in between, trying to keep confusion to a minimum).

    Okay, everybody stop commenting until I’m done reading!

    Just kidding. :p

    Posted by womensspace | May 10, 2008, 1:39 pm
  61. This is where ‘time’ is most surely,

    a privilege of males, because thinking on this topic this morning, I find it very frustrating that one,

    that to articulately discuss and debate law, it requires so much b.s. to be deemed even somewhat coherent in the elite male strata of things,

    whereas, speaking from women’s or a woman’s experience, is treated as nonsensical ramblings of crazy women.

    How so clever, you know,

    and this is I know, one of the main reasons after years of dealing with the ‘academic or elitist male framework’ that I just got fed up one day and said to hell with trying to use debate in a male world, because after its all said and done,

    its Still, men’s privilege is first and foremost, protected, especially White male privilege, white male wealth privilege moreso.

    I believe one of the men said on one blog, that its ‘market of ideas’ in reference to porn and that if women are going to complain then they should compete,

    and I’m thinking, Really? Well, here’s where its the clincher,

    women Have competed, what is known as female owned porn, or erotica, etc [did research on this topic years back, inspired by an article in “Bitch” magazine] but anyway,

    guess what happens, after a few years of female owned and operated ‘erotica’,

    the Male porn big money industry, did all in their power, to hack into online systems, to harass, to use the legal system to enforce their ‘capitalist monopoly’ on the industry,

    and closed or shut down, many of the individual/or group and female owned, erotica sites [or female porn],

    so much for competition in the market huh?

    The erotica or porn sites that Did flourish, were the ones who sold out to the male corporate porn industry, where, you guessed it,

    violence or the depiction of ‘control’ was the bottom line, and anything depicting women’s autonomy,

    was crushed and done away with.

    Because you see, porn is For, MEN, not women, never has been, never will be,

    but its not just for Men and their ‘sex’ desires, oh no,

    its for Men and their fantasies of Control and Rape,

    over women [and children], that whole women being ‘submissive with no brains crap…or if they have brains,its the down on knees worshiping the all male penis god’,

    like, give me a break,

    and its the same way with these Tort laws…its interesting that men, jump on the bandwagon about their ‘rights’ etc., and then pull out the good road paves the way to hell blah blah blah [but what they really mean is road paved the way to hell for MEN] because,

    when those same laws [and follow me here] are Used against Women to protect MEN, especially where rape/fraud is concerned to save men from prosecution,

    OH, then THATs different, all of a sudden those same laws, are twisted, and used,

    to

    control Women.

    For example, Randazalla mentioned [or maybe Supe] the statutory rape laws and how ‘rape fraud’ is used against women….

    Ditto–in researching Tort laws, and Rape Fraud, in 2005, thats Exactly how these Tort laws were used,

    not to protect women but to protect men, so, for example,

    taking the logic of many men here, about the so called ‘consumer beware’ logic…they use against Women,

    well, like take the birth control, yada yada, well, you could Turn that around too, to the 30 year old man,

    who says, “But your Honor, I didn’t Know she was not 18, she said she was 18 but she was really 12”, and under Tort–RAPE FRAUD, guess what,

    She’s guilty of rape fraud [and this was yes, an actual court case and I do believe, it was Randazalla that wrote on this years back…

    hmmm, well, Hey, taking the logic used to say, women KNOW the risks when doing a + a, etc.,

    well, hey, sir, to the 30 year old man, you knew the Risks, didn’t you Demand to see an I.D. first?

    And if not, tough, you are GUILTY.

    But you see, the court system would NEVER demand a MAN show reasonable effort to avoid RISK OR THE RESULTS OF RISK,

    its always, somehow twisted, as the Woman’s fault.

    But I can guarantee you, if it was a lets say, 25 year old woman, and a 16 year old boy who lied about his age, they would hang her ass under Statutory rape laws, and all the Rape Fraud in the world,

    wouldn’t mean squat.

    Bottom line, the Problem with Protectionist laws [and if you do research, in depth on Tort laws, they are protectionist–and lol, Sure enough, I was right, the whole legal system being really about money–Ching Ching, the very first paragraph of sex tort, says, the sexual behavior of adults and disease, is COSTING SOCIETY $$$$$ amount of dollars, on that I rest my case LOL, because its never truly about, protecting women],

    but the problem with protectionist laws, is how they are Always, eventually used,

    to harm women,

    or that there are so many loopholes that men and the system under patriarchy [and dare I say it, neo-liberalism in many ways is the Worst thing for women],

    use to twist these laws, until one day,

    its not rape fraud against men, it will be the rape fraud used against women,

    and the courts having the POWER to sexually control women and where all privacy rights for women,

    are done away with…

    see the difference there, is, first, the woman in private has no protection because under our screwed up system, a woman is not allowed ‘self defense’–one day I’d like to really explore that here],

    and the reason for domestic violence tort-criminal [interesting study if you ever have time] is because in the private sphere under Tort, there was no relief for women because men used women’s behavior to arrive at some of tit for tat and judges often threw them out, therefore then it became the issue of social harm–violence etc., BUT, look at today,

    doesn’t matter HOW many restraining orders of protection women get under the System–

    the rates of women being KILLED by partners, is astronomical,

    therefore, meaning, the protections under the legal system

    basically

    WORTHLESS, THE LAW SAYS THIS AND THIS AND THIS,

    THE LOOPHOLES AND ENFORCEMENT LAWS, BASICALLY SAYS,

    THESE LAWS, HAVE ABOUT AS MUCH WORTH IN PROTECTION AS THIS TOILET PAPER…

    and while I’m covering a whole hell of a lot of ground here…and to take it back to the center so to speak,

    an example of how Tort has been used [sex torts] to work against women, is in Alabama,

    where, in the court overrulings of ‘sex toys’ which, btw, is an industry, more for women than men,

    in one of the rulings, it was literally said by one, that Privacy is not a fundamental right under our Constitution…

    well, are we talking Male privacy,

    or Female privacy?

    Hmmmm,

    see what I’m saying here, the DANGER in protectionist laws [and Sex Tort laws are based on Victorian protectionist laws of ‘women’s virtue’ that the feminist lawyers themselves have said],

    is that, what we might wind up with, is a Taliban style or Mullah style type of system,

    where, sure, there are strict laws against rape and rape fraud and so forth, BUT in that,

    the Burden, of prevention of those crimes, will be placed, NOT on men, on Male Accountability,

    but on Women and Women’s behavior, and before you know it, the government can very well come in and say, women have no right to privacy etc because we are going to make sure, you behave in a proper way, etc etc etc

    [this can really go into how government tries and does limit or end the rights of GLBT],

    and its NOT the intent of the laws [from feminist perspective] that is at fault here…

    its HOW the system, and the wording and the patriarchal LEGAL SYSTEM,

    will take these laws, and turn them into something far more insidious, than we can imagine.

    Because when push comes to shove, going back toe self defense issue,

    UNTIL, government STOPS telling women they have no right to self defense [because as PROPERTY ladies, its the Brothers who are supposed to protect us, or husbands, UNDER NEO-LIBERAL IDEAS–LEFTIST, ITS THE STATE THATS TO PROTECT US…MEANING, WE JUST EXCHANGE PATRIARCHAL ABUSIVE HUSBANDS TO THE PATRIARCHAL ABUSIVE STATE HUSBAND],

    see this is where, does’t matter, right or left, women are somewhat screwed,

    because women, if they rise up in self defense or retaliation against one who rapes or hurts them,

    they will hang, for far longer time in prison,

    than men do, for killing their partners or for raping women/children,

    THAT IS FACT.

    This is why, I don’t support the legal system in protecting me from men’s harm, any more than supporting patriarchy,

    because its all the same ole b.s.

    When the day comes, when government gets out, and I mean, totally out, and I can take means,

    to kill the man who rapes me or what have you,

    in self defense or retribution,

    while this may come across as crazy and awful…but seriously think about it,

    if that day was to come, it would do something,

    it would level the playing field, meaning, that men, would instead knowing that that they have all this elitist male framework to fall back on, or social conditioning of women, etc., [not so much poor men or men of color, its how that hierarchal shit works],

    but if men KNEW, that there was no government or law, OR CONDITIONING that would prevent women, from taking a 9 mm and blowing their heads off,

    men would then, HAVE SOMETHING TO TRULY FEAR.

    But as it stands now, men have nothing to fear, not really,

    because no matter what, women do not have the RIGHT under LAW,

    to protect their BODIES FROM INVASION,

    oh, big brother doing it for them, simply means this,

    the ownership of your body, transfers over from your partner/husband, to the government,

    IN theory this is the case already, but believe me, the more laws that are passed that allow government regulation the private,

    thats Exactly how it will be used.

    and the male legal system, will be scoffing their asses off…

    [in comparison, just look how child protection, meant to protect children, is more used to protect Male Values, rather than children, and how more Women are harmed by it, than men who abuse children]

    Tasha

    Posted by Tasha | May 10, 2008, 5:16 pm
  62. Tanya,

    you may be right, half of them probably have raped women themselves [and this wouldn’t be far fetched either if one does a study on the elitist ‘academic’ and ‘athletic’ environment that has survived and fed off of rape for eons…that whole Brotherhood thing],

    but anyway, just because there are misogynist assholes,

    doesn’t necessarily mean,

    these laws are good.

    Or that, these laws will do anything to deliver or assist women, or save them from male violence,

    if anything, just taking US history alone, laws have worked more, to

    ensnare women into a web of violence that is so systematic,

    that by the time one jumps through all the loops, one finds they’ve not only been raped,

    but raped by the police [I’m referring to the psychological rape, not physical],

    raped by the prosecutor
    the jury

    the media

    by the time the woman, seeking justice [and lets not forget the good ole money extortion that goes on all during the legal process],

    gets either a guilty verdict or an acquittal,

    the damage is done.

    And even if she gets or, the perp gets a guilty verdict,

    the time he spends in prison,

    IF he even goes to prison…big if there,

    if he is from the upper crust or has enough money, to fork out to the fortress of law, LOL,

    he might get by with a slap on the wrist so to speak,

    but even if he spends time in prison,

    he’ll do less time,

    than the boy down the block who broke into a car and robbed a stereo.

    OR….

    if they can’t find the perps,

    they’ll seek out a black man [seriously now] and if the case is

    PR enough [and its Always the PR cases that get the gusto of public rage],

    they’ll hang him/or them…

    and if years later, it shows that DNA proves that they were innocent, and that the defenders forced confession/or coerced,

    do you think these men will get any relief?

    Hell no…

    and in no way here siding in with these morons…

    just relaying how screwed up our legal [Capitalist] system is,

    and why, my putting trust in Them, the Benevolent Masters to protect me,

    NOT.

    You know, never forget, there is one thing the Benevolent Masters want in return,

    for their protection,

    and whether its the misogynists with their rape drug remarks,

    or the patron saints of virtue ever holding up their lights of how the elites have saved our peasant asses,

    they both,

    want us on our knees…

    LOL you know,

    in doing some research, on this Tort, I found it quite funny, how one lawyer

    who defends free speech and porn,

    went on to say how the adult porn industry is so against child porn and how they’ve invested all this money in fighting it,

    yada yada yada,

    well, my oh my, here’s to the all loving benevolent master Porn Industry,

    Sure they hate Child/Kiddie Porn,

    you want to know Why?

    Because they don’t want DAMAGED GOODS, [WARNING–FOLLOWING MAY TRIGGER]

    what is worse, for the Porn Fantasy, or Rapist,

    than having their precious moment of Sadism robbed from them,

    when they rape [or film rape or what have you],

    of a woman that has already been so damaged by years of child sex abuse,

    by the time a child becomes an adult and has been so traumatized and damage,

    the effects of sadism aren’t quite the same for the ‘abuser’ or ‘one who is voyeur of such sadism

    when the receiving end of inflicted pain doesn’t react in the same way, after years of hardened conditioning…

    no, you see, they the voyeur would much rather have

    fresh meat…

    that when pain is inflicted, is much more sadist, and pleasurable to the sadist viewer who gets his [or her] rocks off,

    in watching someone being dehumanized and so forth,

    so in Other words,

    I had to laugh, at this whole, oh us Porn industry folks are so against child porn and blah blah blah,

    sure they are sweety, [to the porn pimps],

    damaged goods aren’t good for business now are they?

    But don’t think, I, will fall on my knees, worshiping you and thanking you

    for your kind graces….

    NOT.

    its So typical of the male ego need [not all males mind you, some]

    to have woman

    on her knees, worshiping either his power,

    or his mercy.

    LOL,

    like I have said time and time again,

    its all total b.s. If women, ever stop blaming women and stop trying to adapt or mold into the ‘male image’

    and waiting for the benevolent masters to rescue them–meaning the law, the political system, all under patriarchal influence,

    and if we ever, were to really begin, to focus on Individual Rights of Women,

    as HUMAN BEINGS,

    but not just women…and throw off the yoke of so much of the bondage, and conditioning

    and embrace the human and individual right to self preservation and Defense for Women, and Demand that Right be protected without interference from

    ole Big Brother and Big Sister,

    so much of the problems would be taken care of….

    and I guess, it is on this, that I still concur heavily with communists and anarchists [and I mean, the true pure radical, not the neo-liberal god they make me want to puke types], lol guess you can take the girl out of communism but not the communism out of the girl, or anarchism, etc.

    until the STATE is destroyed, the system, that feeds off of the misery of the oppressed and thrives on it, to survive,

    we are still fucking peasants,

    [women more so]

    can’t you see…[you know how the song goes]

    LOL you know the more I study and question, I can’t help but think,

    nihilists have a point.

    I simply don’t trust the neo-liberal [or fundie, whichever] legal system,

    to do shit for women, no matter HOW well worded their laws might be or not…because the power and $$$ching ching that makes it operate,

    will always be the ones calling the shots.

    like a French Anarchist once told me,

    Sister, its all who holds the bigger gun….

    Posted by Tasha | May 10, 2008, 9:50 pm
  63. Anyone who wants to download Deana Pollard Sacks’ full article can do so here:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1130856

    Posted by Ann Bartow | May 10, 2008, 9:53 pm
  64. I know it’s a legal term, but honestly when I first read the word “tort” I thought of dessert🙂

    Posted by Satsuma | May 10, 2008, 10:28 pm
  65. in reference to my last post,

    the inference made to the statement you can take the girl out of communism but not the communism out of the girl,

    or anarchism,

    while I don’t concur with the Centralized Purity of the ideologies [or group think dogma that often comes with Anarchism, or what I would prefer to term as Malearchy, lol]

    in reference to the hate of the State–and the institutions of oppression, and how they all work to support each other, legal, government, education, etc [Parenti],

    on those points, I still in 100% agreement with the far left,

    I just don’t agree with exchanging one form of tyranny for another, or one cleverly manipulated oligarchy for

    an even worse authoritarian regime.

    But the reading of the legal system/case law, only serves to remind me that working within the legal system,

    is comparable to,

    a person paying either a tax, or a extortion fee to a community to operate a business, etc., [be it gang or what have you, for protection, so forth],

    either way,

    that person, is indebted to one or the other.

    That isn’t freedom, nor empowerment….

    and it surely, isn’t equality…nor can it ever be,

    when the scales of power, are unbalanced.

    Posted by Tasha | May 10, 2008, 10:37 pm
  66. Tanya,

    you know I did some research, on one of the lawyers because I recognized the name, from years back [on another research project when I was somewhat active in politics],

    and lol, took more time to write a bit more articulate on such matters,

    anyhow, it brings back, a lot of the reasons why I lost faith in the system, and what is extremely bothersome,

    is that, some of these men, are indeed, actual lawyers, law students, judges, and these are the men, who do, work in the legal system [some long time] that

    make the decisions in rape cases. Just think, those attitudes they have, are smoldering in the court rooms,

    that in itself reveals so much, and yes, it does, give much credence to the reasons why such Tort laws are necessary…

    while I do see a lot of danger in them, because Tort laws can be, and are often, just measures or, doors rather, that the government, that is, yes, patriarchal, can later do more harm, than good, and often they do…

    yet also, its tragic, that because of the way the system works, that it paves the way, for these types of laws to be brought in…

    not only that, where would we be, without those laws?

    It leaves room for a lot of question, no doubt…but something I read today, that I want to include here, I’m not going to break it down or give explanation, because I don’t have time right now [and no, not because I have children, LOL, but I need to get busy doing some work],

    but I was reading this today [Fromm] and it explains So much, in relation to law, consciousness and internalization,

    but also, why the law alone, whether Good or Bad, won’t change much…or change patriarchy, or misogyny, because of…

    “”often an experience which people take to be a feeling of guilt springing from their conscience is really nothing but their fear of such authorities. Properly speaking, these people do not feel guilty but afraid. In the formation of conscience, however, such authorities as the parents, the church, the state, public opinion are either consciously or unconsciously accepted as ethical and moral legislators whose laws and sanctions one adopts thus internalizing them. ….

    “conscience is a more effective regulator of conduct than fear of external authorities; for, while one can run away from the latter [or find loopholes to avoid punishment–my interjection here], one can not escape from oneself nor, therefore, from the internalized authority which has become part of oneself….”

    The most important point of similarity is the fact that the prescriptions of authoritarian conscience are not determined by one’s own “value judgement” but exclusively by the fact that its commands and tabus are pronounced by authorities. If these norms happen to be good, conscience will guide man’s action in the direction of the good. HOWEVER, they have not become the the norms of conscious because they are good, but because they are the norms given by authority [authority meaning, parents, society, etc].

    “If they are bad, they are just as much part of conscience. A believer in Hitler, for instance, felt he was acting according to ‘his’ conscience when he committed acts that were humanly revolting.”

    Erich Fromm
    Man For Himself, Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics

    from Authoritarian Conscience, pg 149-50

    __________________________________________

    If these men, who work in the system, feel no guilt, in the remarks or attitudes they have [and not just men, some women] towards women, sex, rape, etc., in their sexism, so forth,

    externals are not going to change that, obedience out of fear of punishment, is not anywhere the same, as internal convictions.

    why relying on law alone, while it might, over generations [if carried out correctly] might influence conscience,

    it won’t stop the conscience that believes it has a right, to harm.

    There are several ways one can interpret the above, but point being, tort laws alone, won’t scratch the surface, at least I don’t think.

    Posted by Tasha | May 11, 2008, 6:32 am
  67. Tanya,

    putting it that way, in regards to
    something you said.
    You should know that its not so much that they think
    of us as toys, no because they know we are
    people,
    so its not that…its that, they just don’t care.

    Posted by Tasha | May 11, 2008, 7:20 am
  68. Little is gained by reading the PYSOPS of men such
    As them for it So transparent
    Maggots who pose as justice seekers
    Employed by the porn industry
    Reasons mostly for $$$
    Seeing them for the True Orwellian nightmare

    LOL

    Posted by Tasha | May 11, 2008, 9:20 pm
  69. While we are on the subject
    It never ceases to amaze me
    Little male minds think alike
    Either you bow before one jerk or another
    You would think the men would learn and no laws needed.

    Posted by Tasha | May 11, 2008, 9:55 pm
  70. “Tanya” and others are pseudonyms of men, the first letter of each sentence spells out racist and sexist “in jokes” to the jerks of “BigLawBoard,” which services the AutoAdmit cretins They must ejaculate all over this blog, of course. It’s who they are, and what they do, sadly.

    I apologize in advance for pointing this out, Tanya’s “69” post spells out WGWAG, which is an Auto-Admit speak acronym for “White Girls With Asian Guys.” Tanya’s 71 post spells out “Proles” etc.

    Posted by enough by the trolls | May 12, 2008, 12:12 am
  71. Really pathetic, as you would have Thought they were caught, Long ago,

    for ‘a law board’, they aren’t too bright,

    they missed PSYOPS,

    a psychological warfare that cyber terrorists do,

    they also missed WILEY–a retort to their ‘proles’,

    which translates, urban lingo,

    stupid lazy rich men who can’t even change a flat tire…

    and These men, work in our legal system!

    They pull lines out of films and so forth, how they pose as ‘feminists’,

    they pull this crap too in other boards dealing with worker’s rights, unions, you name it…

    this is the threatened ‘white boy’s club’ mentality–look at it this way however,

    when people have to resort to ‘games’,

    they’ve lost. Or when they have to resort to the psycho babble analysis of the ‘other’,

    just goes to show,

    they have not a frickin clue. And why it isn’t worth getting bothered by these types,

    they aren’t just misogynist,

    hell,

    they are stupid.

    Tasha

    Posted by Tasha | May 12, 2008, 2:41 am
  72. Frat boys. Male foolishness. Delete delete delete and thanks for the heads up. I haven’t had time to pay close attention to moderation today.

    Ann, thanks for the link– I’ve read the entire article and think it’s amazingly good for women!

    I’m having a rough day today, but I’ll be back soon to offer my thoughts in response to the comments here.

    Posted by womensspace | May 12, 2008, 2:45 am
  73. A paradox to be learned here…

    wrote this on another blog and thought I’d share here.

    I noticed how a few were posing as feminists on the board, and using codes that were what is deemed as lulz tactics, which, if you look up, is a corruptible form of lol, meaning, doing pranks to rape, for kicks,

    sadism 101, thats all it is and it wasn’t neo-nazi’s or neo-cons, no, it was students, a somewhat public lawyer, some tech geeks, other educational [most likely profs/or students, one in energy that I suspect], one in arts, a couple in fact,

    but they all had one thing in common, keeping watch on government regulations on porn and indecency. On some of the issues of censorship I’m in agreement, I detest fascism, however, there is a fine line between fighting fascism, and fighting to protect ‘elitist’ or ‘male’ or even ‘white’ privilege. Then its another matter,

    I find it amazing, at how the lawyer stated that women on the board, were all ‘victims’ and that there was a cult of personality, basically what he was saying was that victims of such and such were easily manipulated into following an agenda, etc., that could be far worse for them,

    well, granted, one could construe it that way, but here is the clincher–isn’t he doing the same damn exact thing? After all, he’s the cult leader, the professional who has won major strides in combating big government to protect institutions that operate and create profit on not just erotica [as they would like to portray it] but on rape, violence, etc.

    Bottom line is always, protecting the ‘profit margin’ and ability to make that profit, I can almost guarantee you, if there was little profit to be made, there wouldn’t be such a defense for the institution, this is why, if drugs were ever to be made legal, what you would see, is more litigation, to protect companies selling impure drugs, fighting suits due to deaths, so forth.

    why, because its big money, and I mean, big money. Its the same with crime–do some leg work research on crime lawyers, I’m talking, the crime lawyers working to release rapists, serial killers, mafias, etc., [btw, kid yourself not, there is a Huge connection, between the mob and black market–lawyers, and porn industry, trafficking especially, why they get really nasty when you compare them to slave owners, because thats exactly what they profit off of, complicit maybe, but profit all the same].

    But not just elites either, you’d be surprised at how many cartels and political ‘resistance’ groups, profit the same way,

    women are commodities, children more so–and when there is money to be made to pay for yachts to arms [guns, arsenal, etc], the dehumanizing of women and children, is not only done, its laughed at [lutz] and its protected, in any way necessary.

    Why they use terms such as PROLES, because the common worker, common masses, a woman, a child, is nothing to them–just a number,

    but, before the left, [far left] goes, oh yea–it wasn’t much different in communism [state capitalism] either,
    or even, in the French Revolution, its always the PROLES used as fodder.

    And the CONTEMPT they have for PROLES–even if they are members of that class who support, elitism [though they are more blind than the masses/proles that are clueless to what is going on because they are ‘tools’ used, and easily disposed of, when that time comes], knows no bounds but not only that,

    it exposes something extremely sinister. And its in the right and in the left, in neo-liberalism to even yes, feminism.

    For those who have suffered abuse at the hands of men or systems, one Good thing that does come out of all the abuse and trauma–is the ability, to see through, the surface.

    To see human nature at its worst, including in ourselves, and when one really taps into that, and then, moves beyond it to understand it, not just on an interpersonal scale but a social scale,

    what is revealed, or uncovered, is not that shocking. I have come to a place, where I have and am, moving beyond the past, after all, life is more than just one mere day, and its willful choice that makes it so.

    Also, reading the stories of Russian dissidents [and other dissident writings/human rights briefs, etc] and those who lived in gulags and the artists and authors throughout time, has helped me to see, there are conditions, that humans have endured and yet they have come out and survived.

    The lawyer and a few of his troll subjects, lol, focus on victims, women, that is–what they fail to see, is these women, and myself, are not victims,

    no,

    we are survivors.

    And survivors speak and they fight, not for themselves though sometimes for retribution and justice, thats after all, human nature,

    but for future generations so that past injustices won’t be repeated. And hence that is where the warfare lies and where, the clashes of not only cultures on a global scale come on the battle scene but the clashes of social cultures between the classes and yes, genders.

    The so called freedom fighters who use LUTZ against women, are no different than the politburo and guards who used LUTZ in the camps/gulags, the KGB who terrorized millions or the SS in Germany, etc., Its all the same,

    Sadism 101.

    Survivors, are survivors because they have realized that the internalizations as a result of being at the receiving end of LUTZ [whether by one individual or a class of people or in warfare or state institutions], are based on lies,

    and when they de-colonize their minds or what I would like to term as, deinternalize, or, maybe better, deprogram themselves from the inner voices of words and actions used against them,

    they begin to define for themselves who they are. Once an individual who has suffered harm begins to do that, they find strength and then, freedom.

    And wisdom, if they allow wisdom and until they make room in their hearts to let go, because hate and that drive for constant vengeance prevents wisdom.

    This is not to say, one just lets go, becomes some sort of guru [which can be just another form of denial] and lives on a mountain top somewhere, no,

    what it does mean however, that one learns how to utilize the weapons of warfare against the psychology of hate and of sadism. Surviving is after all a form of Resistance,

    and Victory.

    The fact that, after all these years, there is a memorial to the millions who died in the gulags is victory that the human spirit, survived, the LUTZ of Stalin and his ilk.

    The sadists may laugh today, but that is no reason to become discouraged because there is more at stake than the moment,

    the reason fascism is allowed to take hold is people become desperate for change, for one to lead them out of bondage, and often that one is authoritarian.

    The other day I was looking at several of my art books,

    and one in particular, George Grosz, one of his paintings is of a wealthy man, and woman, walking on the street in a flirtatious manner, while in front of the painting, is an elderly man, with his hand out in front of the Government Relief office, begging and these two were so enraptured in their flirtation and pleasantries that they didn’t even notice the old man was there–

    its a powerful painting, and it was symbolic of the decadence of German society before Hitler [late 20s]. There is so much focus on Hitler and fascism [the Neo-Nazi kind, it amazes me that even today, so many don’t realize, there are varieties of fascism, and they’ve not read Weber], but anyway,

    they don’t focus on the political and social conditions that developed into the psychology in German people to not just accept fascism out of fear, but that led them to embrace the hate that Hitler spewed, and the death machine that he built. If you read the poetry and look at the art before Hitler,

    it looks like present day America.

    Especially if you read the poetry, which ironically is not taught in many colleges, universities even in literature,

    unless one just does some research on their own, most aren’t even aware of some of the prophetic poets [except maybe the neo-Nazi’s and National Socialists today or those who are German or who study German culture and history].

    We, this world, are on the verge, of a war [not necessarily physical but carried out in other means but the ends will be the same], that will be so dark, so brutal and so easily carried out, but the Difference will be, that there will literally be not only no places to run,

    but so many, will embrace it.

    Or they will embrace the powers to be, to save them, not knowing that those powers to be, have something far worse, planned for them.

    We are seeing it, in the extensions still from WWI–[Middle East/Kosovo/Albania, etc], and its amazing how the media is quite about it–unless one gets onto various forums and reads,

    especially if one gets on various political forums, of several different kinds of ideologies–Americans really are clueless,

    not so much the PROLES,

    but the ELITES.

    they are so insulated with their money and luxuries that they might see parts of, and even have deluded themselves into thinking they are in control,

    but they are not, not as much as they think. All the resource ownership, won’t save them, China for example, is an international Powerhouse, India doesn’t lack too far behind [why keeping an eye on Pakistan and India, is vital],

    and Dubai,

    Saudi too. And the powers to be, know it, and why, they are selling the masses out–the far left knows it too, they are also, in the game,

    I’m talking the higher echalons, [sic], and Putin, Russia,

    they may be broken in ways, but the wave of socialism and National Socialism in particular, in the former Soviet Union/Communist Bloc countries,

    is nothing to scoff at.

    Its not just follow the money trail anymore,

    and it amazes me, that here we have, in this country, some of the top, schools and minds,

    spending more time, posing as women, on women’s spaces, laughing at LUTZ and using psyops codes and masturbating in their circle jerks, so intent on protecting their rights to rape or thinking of or laughing at rape or what have you,

    and I’m talking, great minds–

    like sheep to the slaughter. Their focus on free speech and government intrusion in lives, doesn’t even scratch the surface,

    its a travesty, that they are more clueless than the masses of PROLES out there, btw, PROLES, is the term for proletariat, in a derogatory sense of the term,

    and its because of this–that the waves of various forms of fascism will have not an problem in obtaining their goals. [Kruschev stated so himself, while laughing]

    They’ve already laid the groundwork and the elites have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker. There will be no need to kill the intellectuals this time,

    because there isn’t too many for the enemy to be concerned with. The great minds out there are too busy protecting their penis rights, laughing at women and insulating themselves in their academic or professional bubbles,

    no wonder, it was so easy for an enemy of freedom, to step foot on our soil and to proudly proclaim the agenda, at one of the universities in America, an enemy mind you, that isn’t just accomplished at censorship, but who has absolute control over nearly every aspect of the citizen’s life [especially women’s] in his country.

    Freedom is a precious right, but irresponsible freedom, brings destruction due to its frivolousness. While yes, the sexual exploitation of women and children, yes, is a worldwide problem and tragically is the economic base of black markets on many levels [government markets as well including those who profess theocratic rule],

    whats even more dangerous to freedom from fascism, is the frivolousness and being asleep, that luxury and pleasantry,

    while the enemies lay in wait, disciplined, focused and ready to strike–and when they do,

    its simply to late.

    There is a fine line between fighting fascism and ignoring fascism. In other words, fighting fascism for the sake of pleasantries [especially those at other’s expense, that sadism 101], rather than fighting to preserve the principles of freedom so that human beings can accomplish what they are meant to be, does nothing but open the door to far worse fascist ends, far worse than the authoritarians that are working to ban lasciviousness have in mind.

    Doesn’t matter, whether men, women, working class or elites, when the guardians [that city on the hill] are more focused on their gratifications than on keeping watch,

    while those who have us in their sights and who are working on a single purpose, to see our destruction and are cleverly setting their snares [economically also]–

    is comparable to the sheep watcher who is frolicking in the hills while the coyotes circle waiting to pounce.

    Freedom isn’t just lost by those on the inside who want to establish a police state–

    its also lost, that treasure, when those who are the echalons of society are so blinded by their own sadism and status that they pave the way for the enemies lurking to come in,

    often by appealing to the countless proles who long for an absolute–the dumbing down,

    is more far reaching and it today, was apparent, on the LUTZ trolls here today.

    Pre-Hitler Germany, not much different, than America today…history always repeats itself,

    and every empire falls, eventually. Not by those without,

    but by those, within.

    Tasha

    Posted by Tasha | May 12, 2008, 6:58 am
  74. Wow Tasha. I’m confident the Jewish people of the world love your comparison of the Nazis to those arguing about the First Amendment. But hey, this is America and you’re free to have your opinions and say what you want. The First Amendment is there to protect your right to call men Nazis and KGB agents as well as compare MJR to Hitler. I also think First is there to protect individuals from telling white lies to hook up. America would be a rather strange place if it didn’t.

    Posted by Supe | May 12, 2008, 3:01 pm
  75. Yes, you are free to have opinions like this one proferred by lawyer and “Professor” Mark Randazza about the trolling over here:

    (Got a screen grab in case he edits it later):

    http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=16111&x=59#16111

    “Credited! And I wouldn’t say it is flaming. Lets face it, this is an *awful* idea, and every stupid law started out as an awful idea.

    The arguments against the law made by people streaming over from here are quite good, well thought out, and reasonable. That blog has a lot of nut-balls on it, but lets dig down in the compassion bag and see if we can’t find something for them.

    You don’t turn that bat-shit-crazy on your own. I’m sure that a lot of them were abused, molested, raped, and otherwise mistreated. That is a place where they go to commiserate. Victims of abuse tend to blame themselves at times. What better way to remove that self-blame and self-doubt than to say “It couldn’t have been my fault, this is how men are wired. Men are evil.”

    Not to say that anything that happened to them is their fault. But a victim does engage in self-doubt.

    When you take people in that mentally weakened state, and then you introduce opportunists in the form of feminist professors who take advantage of them, you have a perfect storm of susceptible minds and Jim Jones type leaders.

    Easily-led mentally damaged minions plus bitter and unethical svengalis usually leads to something much more harmful than their nutty blog comments. Most extremist cult-followers do far worse.

    So here we come, arguing from a “position of privilege” (as they call it). If you see their cult-like state for what it is, we’ve done the equivalent of going to a Baptist Revival in order to preach Atheism. No matter how reasonable our arguments are, it will never matter. Their world would shatter if they had to come to grips with the fact that we can both disagree with them AND have no desire to rape them or hurt them (or anyone else) in any way…

    Bottom line… read their dreck, and then think about how utterly miserable you have to be in order to think that way. Think of what it must be like to exist in their world — a world where you believe that a full 1/2 of the population is just waiting for the chance to rape you. A world where EVERYTHING that is remotely funny or fun is a direct attack upon YOU personally. A world whose inhabitants are literally obsessed with fear, hatred, and paranoia.

    When I read the comments over there, I feel sorry for them. They mistake their membership in a cult for “liberation.” I hope that they eventually do experience liberation – but the real thing, not this kool aid that they’ve been served.”

    Posted by Don't feed the trolls. | May 12, 2008, 3:38 pm
  76. Here is Mark Randazza on his friends the trolls:
    (Got a screen grab in case he edits it later):

    http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=16111&x=59#16111

    “Credited! And I wouldn’t say it is flaming. Lets face it, this is an *awful* idea, and every stupid law started out as an awful idea.

    The arguments against the law made by people streaming over from here are quite good, well thought out, and reasonable. That blog has a lot of nut-balls on it, but lets dig down in the compassion bag and see if we can’t find something for them.

    You don’t turn that bat-shit-crazy on your own. I’m sure that a lot of them were abused, molested, raped, and otherwise mistreated. That is a place where they go to commiserate. Victims of abuse tend to blame themselves at times. What better way to remove that self-blame and self-doubt than to say “It couldn’t have been my fault, this is how men are wired. Men are evil.”

    Not to say that anything that happened to them is their fault. But a victim does engage in self-doubt.

    When you take people in that mentally weakened state, and then you introduce opportunists in the form of feminist professors who take advantage of them, you have a perfect storm of susceptible minds and Jim Jones type leaders.

    Easily-led mentally damaged minions plus bitter and unethical svengalis usually leads to something much more harmful than their nutty blog comments. Most extremist cult-followers do far worse.

    So here we come, arguing from a “position of privilege” (as they call it). If you see their cult-like state for what it is, we’ve done the equivalent of going to a Baptist Revival in order to preach Atheism. No matter how reasonable our arguments are, it will never matter. Their world would shatter if they had to come to grips with the fact that we can both disagree with them AND have no desire to rape them or hurt them (or anyone else) in any way…

    Bottom line… read their dreck, and then think about how utterly miserable you have to be in order to think that way. Think of what it must be like to exist in their world — a world where you believe that a full 1/2 of the population is just waiting for the chance to rape you. A world where EVERYTHING that is remotely funny or fun is a direct attack upon YOU personally. A world whose inhabitants are literally obsessed with fear, hatred, and paranoia.

    When I read the comments over there, I feel sorry for them. They mistake their membership in a cult for “liberation.” I hope that they eventually do experience liberation – but the real thing, not this kool aid that they’ve been served.”

    Posted by Don't feed the trolls. | May 12, 2008, 3:40 pm
  77. Calling people pimps, nazis, rapists, slave owners and trolls is probably not the best way to open a discussion.

    Several of us from BLB came over here with the intention of discussing this law in a civil and intellectual exchange. However, when it became apparent that we were nothing more than rapist trolls to this blog, our discussion of the topic was dragged down to your level.

    Posted by 12XU | May 12, 2008, 4:16 pm
  78. “White lies.” The legislation described/proposed by Prof. Sacks and others isn’t about telling white lies to hook up.

    Supe, your comment in 76 is pure trolling (as of course were all the comments from your buddies which I have deleted).

    Tasha was talking about the kinds of environments, contexts, cultural forces/messages, beliefs in a society that make the rise of fascism possible. She was talking about pre-Hitler Germany and how what was going on then made it possible for Hitler to gain a following and assume power.

    The First Amendment, by and large, protects the rights of men, as does the Constitution in general. It was written by white men, the only people at the time who were viewed as eligible for citizenship, the only people who could own property, vote, hold public office. It has never protected the rights of women, of indigenous people, or of persons of color very well — we were part of what white men were intending to protect as property, chattel, when the Constitution was written and enacted. So while I’m glad we have the First Amendment, I’m not as pleased with it as you are. You benefit from it and from the ways it has been defended/interpreted in the Courts in a way no woman ever has.

    76 is the last trolling post of yours that I will approve here. You will participate here respectfully or what you say will end up in my spam queue. You’ve pretty much thoroughly discredited yourself so far as concern for justice or human rights for women and it’s rather appalling and comedic that you view yourself as somehow a defender of these. Your comments and the comments of others on your boards are misogynist through and through.

    Posted by womensspace | May 12, 2008, 4:22 pm
  79. Calling people pimps, nazis, rapists, slave owners and trolls is probably not the best way to open a discussion.

    Several of us from BLB came over here with the intention of discussing this law in a civil and intellectual exchange. However, when it became apparent that we were nothing more than rapist trolls to this blog, our discussion of the topic was dragged down to your level.

    Same goes for you I2XU. Based on my search of this thread, nobody has been called a nazi here. There are three instances of the word “nazi”, two in Supe’s posts and one in yours. Tasha talked about pre-Hitler Germany.

    From many of our perspectives, those who advocate for/promote/defend/protect the selling of women’s bodies are, effectively, pimps. That’s what a pimp is — a man who profits from the selling of women’s bodies for sex.

    Another quick search shows me that nobody here has been called a rapist and men in general have not been called rapists. There has been discussion about the way the current laws of the land too often protect rapists– and they do.

    Likewise, neither anyone here nor men in general have been called “slave owners.” There has been discussion of the way the laws have protected and benefitted slave owners– because they have. The Constitution, including the First Amendment, was written, in part, by slave owners intent on protecting their (human) property. None of those slave owners was a woman.

    I don’t have time to deal with trolling kinds of comments which mischaracterize or distort what women have written here or in which men come here to my blog and make stuff up.

    I’m going to comment substantively and on point soon. If you want to participate in the ongoing discussion, read carefully, respond carefully, or I’ll spam your comments.

    Posted by womensspace | May 12, 2008, 4:34 pm
  80. I don’t really know why supe and 12xu are going through the exhaustive procedure that is *pretend dialogue* when all us ladeez really needz is a lil rohypnol.

    Posted by pisaquari | May 12, 2008, 4:38 pm
  81. To the Georgetown U. law student who wants to know why I “why [I] don’t advertise [my] censorship policies here?”

    Governments and governmental institutions “censor”. Military establishments “censor”. Organizations with recognized, institutional power “censor.”

    Individuals with blogs who are interested in examination of interesting subjects with intelligent people “moderate” our blogs because we do not have the time or the inclination to subject ourselves to trolls, anti-feminists, clueless types, and in general, foolishness.

    The folks over there on the law blog in most cases do not appear to have given serious consideration to issues around power, gendered power in particular, how power works in institutions, in relationships, in the world, just in general. It’s for this reason, among others, that you are able to, with a straight face, equate a woman moderating her blog with a “censor.”

    Anyway.

    Posted by womensspace | May 12, 2008, 5:14 pm
  82. Post 80 is exactly what I’m talking about. I have been nothing but civil in any of my exchanges over here. Yet, I’m mocked for expressing an opinion that you disagree with.

    “heart,” I suggest you search again for references to nazis. I also take it you found that “slave owner” remark otherwise I assume that would have been challenged as well.

    In any event, I could give a sh*t whether you publish this post. I know that at least you will read it, and that is why I’m writing it.

    Posted by 12XU | May 12, 2008, 5:19 pm
  83. pisa,

    Our initial posts were all sincere. We really did want to discuss the legislation at hand and present our arguments for why we think it’s a bad law. Our reactionary comments on BLB to the reception of our ideas here certainly does not behoove us, which is obvious since very little has been discussed about the law that this very blog entry pertained. Hell, I’ll admit that we were even out of line, but I doubt that changes the discourse.

    Posted by Supe | May 12, 2008, 5:22 pm
  84. I2XU:

    Did you read this over there on your boards:

    Author: Supe [538] (Seatttle is emo.)
    Posted: 05/07/08 04:55 PM
    Flag: Best-Of Helpful NSFW Spam TOS Violation

    I wonder if her views will change after someone slips her some rohypnol.”

    (For those who may not know, rohypnol is the date rape drug.)

    Did you challenge it or call it out?

    If not, you deserve to be mocked. If you did call it out, then Pisaquari wasn’t talking to you.

    You don’t joke about date rape drugs, then form your lips to say you are interested in issues which concern women, particularly rape.

    Posted by womensspace | May 12, 2008, 5:28 pm
  85. “I don’t really know why supe and 12xu are going through the exhaustive procedure that is *pretend dialogue* when all us ladeez really needz is a lil rohypnol.”

    She specifically addressed me. I never made the comment. And I don’t deserve to be tied to it simply for posting on the same message board that it was posted on.

    I have not ever engaged in “pretend dialogue.” I was shocked at how closed this blog is to different ideas and how others are permitted to call people rapists, trolls slave owners and nazis [yeah, I reaffirm that; I suggest you read your blog again].

    Posted by 12XU | May 12, 2008, 5:45 pm
  86. IX2U, if you didn’t call the “rohypnol” comment out and say it was inappropriate, especially in the context of a discussion of laws around rape/consent, then you do deserve to be tied to it. When you ignored it, you assented to it and participated in it.

    Nobody here has been called a rapist, a slave owner or a nazi. I suggest you read my blog again, son. This thread has certainly been trolled by trolls; however. To call someone out on their trolling should not shock you (or anybody).

    So I suggest you stop making stuff up. This is the last time I will approve a comment in which you are doing that.

    This blog is not closed to “different ideas.” This blog is closed to the bullying of male supremacists, males who are unevolved, males who are not allies to feminist women, especially when they think it’s funny to joke about rape, when they ignore jokes about rape, then come here and, claim to be interested in honest and intelligent discussion of the subject of rape and consent with women. That’s “pretending” to be interested in dialogue just as Pisaquari said it was.

    Posted by womensspace | May 12, 2008, 6:04 pm
  87. Your reasoning skills are lacking. You deserve on another.

    I am no longer interested in discussing anything with you or any of your members.

    Calling me “son?” I’m not your “son,” Madam.

    Posted by 12XU | May 12, 2008, 6:27 pm
  88. When I call you “son,” I2XU, I am putting you in your place, in a way that is kind of funny to some. Never let it be said that feminists have no sense of humor. I’m betting the folks on your board have probably called all of us lots of names. I hope you objected to that on the grounds that none of us were what or who your board mates were calling us, but if you didn’t, then you don’t have much of a leg to stand on.

    I think what you wanted here was a discussion on your own terms, using definitions that make sense to you, emerging out of an androcentric approach to life and law. Something most men never learned to do very well is share with women. We can discuss things here with men and we do at times, but only when they understand that this is one of a very few places where men do not call the shots.

    Posted by womensspace | May 12, 2008, 6:34 pm
  89. “Post 80 is exactly what I’m talking about. I have been nothing but civil in any of my exchanges over here. Yet, I’m mocked for expressing an opinion that you disagree with.”

    Whoa there–comment 80 was about your affirming Tasha being slipped a date rape drug (response to Supe’s
    comment).
    If you’re attempting to connect that comment made at BLB to discussions/being “mocked” here then I can only assume you are trying to conflate issues to slip out the back door.

    To stay on track, speak to the response you gave Supe following his date rape drug remark.

    Supe,

    You’ve got to be kidding with this “didn’t behoove us” crap– it didn’t *behoove* you?! We aren’t talking about sandals in winter here–we’re talking about one of the most common and underreported kinds of rape: date rape.
    This thread is about rape and consent and the laws legislating that relationship. I have already made clear-as have several others- my frustrations with with how troublesome women’s relationship to consent is. As well, my suspicions around men who would so eagerly counter this law with the way women’s consent is viewed in society. That you can come here claiming any sort of good faith (i.e. wanting to “discuss” things) and not too long after make such a comment about date rape speaks volumes.

    If you want to dispute my misogyny radar-which I feel is rather spot on- then you’ve got a long way to go acting like that.

    Seriously guys–are we to have a *waaa waaa*-off?
    Because plain as day: I have not made light of drugging anyone’s body here or elsewhere (or some of the other remarks you claim have been made towards you). And I wouldn’t.
    That I found your comments misogynistic and trolling I have said to your faces in a public manner where you may dispute any such characterizations. Yet you go running off to the men’s lounge for a bastardized version of this thread where you can spew your sexism-aka the way you really feel- among several other seriously vile comments.

    You don’t really give a shit about women-we get it. This is a *feminist* blog–run your mouth to the person who gave you wrong directions, not us.

    Posted by pisaquari | May 12, 2008, 6:41 pm
  90. Actually, #59 I did bring up some of the potential abuses of the Tort law,

    And, lets clarify, there is a Huge difference, between calling someone a ‘slave owner’ and saying,

    using that ‘logic’ is comparable to, etc etc etc…[in the discussion regarding defense of the privilege and the angered reactions to].

    However, one post on the Tort [and some reasons I see problems with it, but not on the same grounds by those on BLB, but on how the Tort will most likely be used against women, rather than for], and where I included something that Eric Fromm said on conscience, authorities and guilt, that post didn’t go through so,

    no one would have known what I was referring to there,

    but I’ll include this part once again, in what some of us see as the problem in the Tort legislation, in how it won’t do much to change the attitudes of men, or institutions that do yes, protect the rape culture–for profit.

    ________________________________________

    I was reading this today [Fromm] and it explains So much, in relation to law, consciousness and internalization,

    but also, why the law alone, whether Good or Bad, won’t change much…or change patriarchy, or misogyny, because of…

    “”often an experience which people take to be a feeling of guilt springing from their conscience is really nothing but their fear of such authorities. Properly speaking, these people do not feel guilty but afraid. In the formation of conscience, however, such authorities as the parents, the church, the state, public opinion are either consciously or unconsciously accepted as ethical and moral legislators whose laws and sanctions one adopts thus internalizing them. ….

    “conscience is a more effective regulator of conduct than fear of external authorities; for, while one can run away from the latter [or find loopholes to avoid punishment–my interjection here], one can not escape from oneself nor, therefore, from the internalized authority which has become part of oneself….”

    The most important point of similarity is the fact that the prescriptions of authoritarian conscience are not determined by one’s own “value judgement” but exclusively by the fact that its commands and tabus are pronounced by authorities. If these norms happen to be good, conscience will guide man’s action in the direction of the good. HOWEVER, they have not become the the norms of conscious because they are good, but because they are the norms given by authority [authority meaning, parents, society, etc].

    “If they are bad, they are just as much part of conscience. A believer in Hitler, for instance, felt he was acting according to ‘his’ conscience when he committed acts that were humanly revolting.”

    Erich Fromm
    Man For Himself, Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics

    from Authoritarian Conscience, pg 149-50

    __________________________________________

    If these men, who work in the system, feel no guilt, in the remarks or attitudes they have [and not just men, some women] towards women, sex, rape, etc., in their sexism, so forth,

    externals are not going to change that, obedience out of fear of punishment, is not anywhere the same, as internal convictions.

    why relying on law alone, while it might, over generations [if carried out correctly] might influence conscience,

    it won’t stop the conscience that believes it has a right, to harm.

    There are several ways one can interpret the above, but point being, tort laws alone, won’t scratch the surface, at least I don’t think.

    _______________

    Posted by Tasha | May 12, 2008, 6:46 pm
  91. I started a new thread to continue this discussion and I explain why here.

    Tasha, while I agree that laws like this do not change individuals immediately, I think we still need such laws, pre-revolution, not only to act as some deterrent to rape, but to provide some measure of justice for victims. MacKinnon, in the same essay I quoted in my post at the top, makes some wonderful points about the power of laws to make social change. When I get home, I’ll post what she says.

    I alluded to some of the points she made in my post where I wrote:

    the same chapter from which I excerpted the above quote, MacKinnon makes the point that women in the United States have so far made at least one law: the law against sexual harassment. Before sexual harassment law, sexual harassment was simply everyday life for women, something men did to women with impunity. When women’s experiences of being sexually harassed were made the basis for a law against that harassment, life began to change for women. Men didn’t stop sexually harassing us, but there was a name for what they did now, and, as MacKinnon says, the experience had an “analysis that placed it within the collective reality of gender, a forum for controntation with some dignity and the possibility of relief. … Changing what could be done by law changed the way it felt to live through [sexual harassment] in life, and the status of women took a step from victim to citizen.”

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | May 12, 2008, 9:33 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: “Intentional sex torts” « The Legal Satyricon - May 5, 2008

  2. Pingback: “Warning–consuming these images will likely make you view your wife, girlfriend, significant other, daughter, sister, female colleagues, or any random female person in public as sex objects for you to use and abuse.” « Buried Alive - May 6, 2008

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,558,224 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo

206672_10150156355071024_736021023_6757674_7143952_n

59143_424598116023_736021023_5026689_8235073_n

Afia Walking Tree

More Photos