I will quote this comment, which I rejected since it had no meaningful connection to the original post, section by section and highlight the flaws in this man's logic.
In my personal opinion, being accused of a crime when one is innocent is worse than being the victim of that crime. That is why we have this "innocent until proven guilty" principle.This is not why we have this principle. Being accused of murder is not worse than being murdered yet those accused of murder are also given the legal status of innocent until proven guilty. Now maybe anonymous is advocating that "innocent until proven guilty" shouldn't apply to murder cases because it violates the stated reason for this principle, but I doubt it.
This "personal opinion" minimizes rape into a non-physical crime of little regard. Once people do this then true reports of rape with the correct person IDed are worse than the rape which was reported. The punishment (even prior to conviction) becomes worse than the crime of rape. And a rape conviction becomes far worse than rape.
This positioning of a rape accusation as worse than rape is deliberate and helps rapists rationalize both rape and slandering of the person they raped.
Most of those who cite, "innocent until proven guilty" in rape cases assume rape victims to be guilty of a crime yet deny alleged rape victims the rights given to all criminal suspects. This means they don't genuinely believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." They use it when it suits them and disregard it when it doesn't suit them.
I dont mean to say we should blame the victim or anything. We should not say anything until things are proven concretely. Things are not easy to prove in rape cases, unfortunately. That is life. It wont always be fair. We have to live with that. But We cant change the "proven beyond doubt" principle because it is hard to prove rape cases.This principle as advocated here is different from the same principle in non-sex crimes. He doesn't blame the victim, he merely rejects rape victim testimony across the board. If this is a valid principle then all victim testimony in all alleged crimes must be rejected. Period.
Otherwise, this pattern of rejecting victim testimony has nothing to do with "proven beyond doubt." If the same baseless victim testimony rejection were practiced in non-sex crimes those crimes would become just as hard to prove as rape cases are.
One million women getting raped wont justify punishing one innocent guy mistakenly.This is an often cited excuse for systematic injustice against rape victims.
If this principle holds true then one million men getting murdered by women won't justify punishing one innocent woman mistakenly. From the context that means that ignoring the murder of one million men is acceptable and even desired in the name of "innocent until proven guilty." Yet I would be shocked if this man finds that to be an acceptable outcome in the name of protecting the innocent.
You talk about the plight of victims. What about the guy? If it is a false charge, he will live with that stigma for the rest of his life even if he successfully proved he is innocent. People are not sympathetic to girl or guy. They are merciless to everyone.In the post this man is commenting on, the defendant pleaded guilty during the trial and therefore this question about "the guy" is based on ignoring the criminal justice system.
Remember this is a man who earlier in the same comment viewed it as acceptable for a million rape victims to be denied justice.
This "guy" is legally guilty. But not according to this commenter. This means that those charged with rape are viewed as innocent -- period. "Until proven guilty" is only a myth in this worldview.
There are plenty of people who have been accused of rape (rightfully and wrongfully) who do not live in stigma. With the stereotypes which this man repeats it is more likely to be genuine rape victims who are stuck with the stigma for a crime they did not commit.
I am afraid your mission of working against rape is futile. Why? Because when I analyzed the mentality of many women, I found that they want to have their cake and eat it too (just like men) Many women like to capitalise on their sexuality.Here we are starting to get to the heart of what this man truly believes and it has nothing to do with upholding the principle of innocent until proven guilty or any desire to uphold rape laws.
Earlier he said he doesn't blame rape victims, here he proves himself to be a liar.
They boast about the power their bodies have over men. Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, they say. You can look at it either way... as men exploiting women or women exploiting the weakness of men to earn money without working for it.Even if these gender-wide boasts of sexual power were true this has no connection to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." What it does is explain why this man finds it acceptable for a million women to be raped without a single rapist being held legally accountable.
According to this man's logic women ask for rape and if you get what you are asking for then there should be no punishment.
I was reading an article by a girl in a website called mencanstoprape.com She said how in her college days she went to a bar with friends wearing revealing clothes so that she would get free drinks. She could bypass queues based on her sexuality. But soon she found that some girls get spiked drinks and get "raped." She says "I still go there wearing miniskirts. But I am careful about the drinks I get. I ask them to mix the drinks before my eyes."This equates women allowing men to buy them drinks with men having no control over their bodies. Those men freely consented to buying this woman drinks. If they did so assuming they had made a quid pro quo agreement, they were fools. Yet in this retelling those men are helpless victims of women in miniskirts.
This sets up rape as the natural consequence of men's freely made decision to buy women drinks.
This is what I call wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Is she kidding herself? Does she think the guy gives her free drinks just to look at her? Ridiculous. She wants the positive side of her sexual power but wants to escape its negative side.She wants to be able to accept an offer made with no strings attached without getting raped. If men are putting conditions on their offers of a free drink then they need to make that statement before buying someone else a drink.
Again, it is telling that this expectation not be raped is ridiculous. This anonymous man has consented to sex on this woman's behalf. In this view a man who buys a woman a drink has prepaid for raping her if she doesn't consent.
Sorry.. it doesnt work like that.This view requires that women's sexuality be punished.
I dont know which wise man decided to put that article in that mencanstoprape.com website. That article in no way created sympathy or love for women in me as a man and made me want to stop rape.Again, we are getting to the heart of this man's view on rape cases. He doesn't want to stop men from raping women and he certainly doesn't want me or anyone else to succeed at stopping men from raping women. He doesn't want justice for most men rightfully accused of rape.
This shows that all the talk about "proof" and "innocent until proven guilty" are nothing more than hollow platitudes.
I just saw selfish women and selfish men trying their lucks. If the man got lucky he would rape her. If the woman got lucky she would get her benefits without getting raped. I dont have sympathy for either of them.This is a lie. He does have sympathy for the men who rape and is seeking to prevent them from being rightfully punished for their crimes while having no sympathy for women who are raped and is seeking to deny them rightful convictions of their rapists.
And I see very few women willing to cover up their bodies to increase their own safety. Their argument is "Fully covered up girls get raped. I should be able to wear whatever I want."Notice that in this analogy this man does not advocate for letting all bank robbers go free or for disregarding the testimony of all mugging victims or all bank employees.
Hmm... just becoz robbers manage to break into the safest banks, I wont stop taking care of my small amount of money. I will try my level best to keep it safe.
If this analogy were valid then this man would be to blame for being robbed after showing even the smallest amount of money. And he would have more sympathy for the muggers and the bank robbers than for anyone who ever allows another person to see that they have anything of monetary value.
If there is something which, I claim, will destroy my whole life I would try to avoid it at all costs. I wont be taking risks with it.Here we get stock rape minimization. If women don't behave as he expects decent women to behave if they don't want to be raped then they don't mind being raped. This assigns backhanded consent which turns a true allegation of rape into a false allegation of rape.
His willingness to see a million rapists get away with rape therefore has nothing to do with reasonable doubt or any other criminal justice principle. He has clearly sided with those million rapists.
But I dont see such zeal on part of women regarding rape.Of course, the zeal to be able to be safe from rape even in a bar or while wearing a short skirt doesn't count.
According to this man's stated logic, if a man ever allows another man to buy him a drink he has communicated his consent to have sex with that man and shouldn't be surprised if that man later rapes him. He has shown no zeal regarding not wanting to be raped.
My point is, men and women are same.This is clearly a false statement. He has sympathy for men who rape, but none for most women who are raped.
They exploit each other. Women will exploit the weak men. Women will continue to use their sexual power for their advantage... to get better grades.. to get promotions.. to earn money etc. And men will exploit the weak women.Yet his disdain focuses on women, not men. And this is true even when the women are rape victims and the men are rapists.
"Might is right" "Survival of the fittest" that is the principle of evolution.. which is unfortunate but we cant do anything about it. There will be no equality. The powerful ones among men and women will exploit the weak ones. It will be that way always.Ah, yes, evolution. A favorite theme of those wanting to view rapists as biologically driven rather than being driven by rationalizations, many of which this man has articulated. In this worldview women are rational and therefore should be held accountable while irrational men who rape are nothing more than Pavlov's rapists.
It isn't biology at work when a man rapes a woman who didn't consent after he bought her a drink. It is rational anger at being denied what that man believed he was entitled to.
This man's entire comment smacks of entitlement. Men are entitled to rape. Men should be entitled to get away with rape.