English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1950320,00.html

This law will allow single mothers the chance to ask police whether their new partner is a sex offender, yet the same isn't true for single dads. Sexist?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23370891-details/Men+face+rape+charge+threat+unless+they+can+show+consent+of+drunk+women/article.do

This law 'protects' women who drink too much, and are therefore unable to give meaningful consent to sex, but what protection is there for men who are too intoxicated to give consent?

2006-12-28 20:31:28 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Gender Studies

7 answers

Ah, the silence is deafening.

Women here are too used to railing against sexism that doesn't exist. When confronted with actual cases of it, they have no response. They've spent their lives making pretend dragons so they can be pretend dragonslayers. Actual injustices make them uncomfortable.

2006-12-28 22:39:04 · answer #1 · answered by Steve 4 · 1 2

Of course it's sexist.
The main problem with female attitudes today is that in the past, women did not have equal rights to men. This has now all changed but the same women still fight for pretty much nonexistent rights.

For example: Several 'communes' exist where women can bring their children to escape from abusive husbands. Although when actually looking at the statistics one finds that a male is almost as likely to be abused by his spouse as a female, and children are much MORE likely to be abused by their mother than their father (In my experience growing up I have been smacked several times by my mum when she was angry or stressed, my dad has never laid a finger on me or my sister)

Based on that, it makes sense to me that fathers should have MORE of a right to check whether their partner has a history of domestic abuse.

The consent law however, is slightly more practical as it is very hard for a woman to rape a man (for obvious reasons) However, it does start with the assumption that all heterosexual men are rapists, which is untrue and incredibly sexist. I mean, if a women is too drunk to remember what happened, how can she be considered a genuine witness to a rape case. To me, having to fill out a form for casual sex is ludicrous!!

This may sound overly simplistic, but unless a man actually drugs the woman by slipping something in to her drink, then surely her intoxication lays squarely on her shoulders.

P.S. - to intel_knight, alcohol reduces capacity of judgement as well as physical control. I'm sure many people have said sexual encounters they regret due to intoxication (I know I have) the difference is is that a woman can accuse of rape with ease, just because she regrets having had sex.

2006-12-29 10:33:25 · answer #2 · answered by callum828 2 · 3 2

I understand that the articles regarding these issues are using gendered terms, but I am willing to bet that the actual LAWS (the wording) are gender neutral. VERY rarely do laws specify protection of/target a specific gender. Laws that protect women from domestic violence protect men, too. Laws against rape protect men, too. And I'm sure that these laws are gender neutral and will protect men. Do you know for sure that these laws don't protect men?
And as far as pedophiles go, they should ALL be known, by everyone. VERY rarely are they "rehabilitated," they are released only to re-offend. THAT is a fact. And, of course, this should apply to female offenders as well.
And reading over the first link, it brings to mind a simple (yet controversial, I'm sure) idea...DON"T HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN WHO ARE SO SLOPPY DRUNK THEY CAN BARELY GET THE WORD "YES" OUT! I know, I know, this places a great deal of responsibility on the man (God forbid) and, of course, women SHOULD (and are) solely responsible for their level of intoxication, but men have responsibilities too, and that SHOULD include not having sex with a woman with whom consent might be "iffy" due to her extreme inebriation. Is that not a reasonable expectation?

2006-12-30 00:24:59 · answer #3 · answered by wendy g 7 · 1 1

I cannot believe the law will not protect both gender's equally, otherwise this would be considered discrimination. Quite possibly it is just the actual reporting that is suggesting only women will be protected by these laws..........

However, let's remember that the vast majority of sex offenders are still men, even though the prevalance of female sex offenders is rising, it is still much less common, which may explain the one sided reporting.

HTH.

2006-12-30 03:15:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Okay guys...here's a woman's view. (Are you still there?)

Women today are consumed with phantoms of injustice. They whine and complain about inequality...when all they want is for someone to hand them what men have worked so hard to build. It makes me livid when I see women protesting to take over what men have created. If they want to be part of a golf club...why not build their own? Make it exclusively female...you wouldn't get a man complaining about wanting to be a member. The reason they don't is that it is easier to get a piece of something that someone has already built, rather than build it themselves. If women don't get an executive position, they blame it on a glass ceiling. How bout starting your own company then...with no glass ceiling?

Lawmakers are tired of the protests, so they pander to the squawkings of women...like a husband who can't stand their nagging wife. Easier to fix the washing machine than listen to the nagging.

2006-12-29 11:46:16 · answer #5 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 2 1

"men who are too intoxicated to give consent" can't get it up, and definitely can't reach orgasm.

2006-12-29 04:33:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

zzzzzzzz

2006-12-29 04:32:42 · answer #7 · answered by jaja26000 1 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers