Nope.

The justice system did not fail. I say it performed magnificently. As others pointed out, no one here was on the jury. The jury heard (saw) the evidence and ruled accordantly. Justice was served. There was no victim.

Whether or not she won the trial is important. As you, most likely unintentionally yet spot on, said;

Quote:She did loose..

so she did lose.

Just because she lost the trial it in no way means that it was right for that to happen.

Right / Wrong, it's all relative.

Just because some find the court's ruling personally incredulous does not make it incorrect.

Nor does it make it correct. And yes morality is relative..... but that doesn't mean empathy and caring doesn't exist.

(August 4, 2010 at 6:15 am)Tiberius Wrote:

---

(August 3, 2010 at 8:58 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: There are never male victims in sex crimes.

Quote:Men can't be raped by women because women don't have the 'equipment' and of course he was asking for it because he had an erection.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wom...raping+man

Sure, it is rare, but to say it "never" happens is untrue.

---

He wasn't saying that. He was pointing out certain sexual/gender oriented prejudices the general court system seems to have. Such as, an attitude that men are not raped by women.

(August 4, 2010 at 8:30 am)Dotard Wrote: Right / Wrong, it's all relative.

Just because some find the court's ruling personally incredulous does not make it incorrect.

And just because you support the ruling, that doesn't make it right.

Basic logical fallacy here, one of the easiest to see.

(August 3, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote:

(August 3, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Dotard Wrote: Yes it did.

No it doesn't. Of course in your warped sexist view...

Let a man (and perhaps even a woman) say one tiny critical thing about any woman, and if Elio is within earshot she will pulverize him in defense of womanhood in general.

You are not the first women I've ever heard not "get it" when it comes to what men really want and need from women. I absolutely hate the stereotype of men as unrestrainedly horny beasts in a perpetual state of rut. It bites us both ways. First, any sexual accusation toward us is automatically believed. And, second, a whole lot of women have totally lost track of the connection between their part of the mating dance and men's response. Thus we get women playing turn-on games with no intention whatsoever of following through - so that they can play the victim - at the same time we have women who really do deal with us as though we were flesh and blood vibrators who should "turn on" just because they show up and want us turned on.

I still have a lot of the egalitarian idealism in me, and I have no particular desire to be "head" and would be perfectly happy with a fair and equal relationship - if such a thing were possible. One difficulty is that someone does have to have the tie-breaking vote in cases of sincere disagreement.

However the larger and more poisonous issue is shown by the joke: "If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to correct him, is he still wrong?"

What I have noticed among women in my 48 years, is that they are so paranoid about being "dominated" that they react with an obsessive-compulsive need to argue with every word which comes out of a man's mouth. It is totally tiresome and completely destructive because it destroys any real communication or cooperation, and turns dealing with women into an exhausting ordeal.

The result of this is that all the emotional needs that men used to get met through sex - the intimacy and connection - no longer get met in any way. Sex has become very mechanical and impersonal. Sex a lot of the time turns out to feel mostly like masturbation with an accomplice, who turns out to be someone you really don't like all that much.

It seems to me the convergence of these problems - the fact that women don't seem to start to get things figured out until about age 35, coincides quite tragically with the time that male ardor begins to significantly cool. Under the old structure of marriage, a couple would have had about 15 years by then to become friends and partners, and that would begin to pay dividends as they matured.

Under timetable of "career first, then children, husband optional" by the time a man has had 15-20 years of complete female self absorption, he has grown some very thick calluses over those emotional parts of himself where bonding takes place.

Women don't seem to have a clue about the way that all the clobbering they do of men fundamentally changes men's ability to feel about them in certain ways. Those changes are not reversible, you cannot change a pickle back into a cucumber. The innocent crushes which young men have on women which can mature into deep long-term caring love, make men terribly vulnerable to women's ability to use men's feelings to manipulate them. Men have to protect themselves, so they become jaded and cynical and lose the ability to experience those feelings. Often, by the mid-30s which has become the target age for marriage, men have simply been jerked around enough by women that not keeping one is the better option.
It is my contention man-bashing attitudes, much like those exhibited by Elio, really has left a callused legacy for other women. It saddens me that most of them are so brainwashed that when you try to tell them to lose the attitude, all it does is cause them to intensify it.

---

(August 4, 2010 at 8:40 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: And just because you support the ruling, that doesn't make it right.

Basic logical fallacy here, one of the easiest to see.

Right in whos definition of "Right"? You say "Not right" I say "Right". Right/Wrong is relative.

YOU deem it 'right' or 'wrong' therefore it is. Basic logical fallacy here, one of the easiest to see.

What utter misogynistic bullshit. You clearly have nothing but contempt for women. You victim blame so much to the point where you perceive the perpetrators as actual victims.

I have backed up my reasons with logic and referring to the actual law. You've just sat on the court decision and declared it right because you agree with it.

(August 4, 2010 at 9:39 am)Dotard Wrote: Thus we get women playing turn-on games with no intention whatsoever of following through - so that they can play the victim - at the same time we have women who really do deal with us as though we were flesh and blood vibrators who should "turn on" just because they show up and want us turned on.

Hey, some guys do not mind that last one! Seriously though, it's not the dichotomy you present. I'm often really good long lasting friends with men I've been with, not in just a love-em-and-leave-em way. Sex can come and go with people, but it's the friendships that are the most important for the meaningful stuff. When they overlap, it's great, but it doesn't always stay like that. Personally, I don't think most people are naturally of the sort that is really able to promise forever, both sexual exclusivity, and continuation of their arousal by that person til they die. People have the idea that they must fit themselves into a marriage mindset. Some actually are suited to this, but many are not. You need to find someone who IS into that. I have no ideas how one does that though. At least with people being openly nonmonogamous these days, you have a better chance of mating up with someone who really is mono and won't surprise you badly some day.

Quote:One difficulty is that someone does have to have the tie-breaking vote in cases of sincere disagreement.

Why would it only be one person? Why would they not take turns? Or agree to disagree if they both feel strongly?

Quote:The result of this is that all the emotional needs that men used to get met through sex - the intimacy and connection - no longer get met in any way. Sex has become very mechanical and impersonal. Sex a lot of the time turns out to feel mostly like masturbation with an accomplice, who turns out to be someone you really don't like all that much.

Lots of women are looking for guys like you. You must be having shit luck meeting them. Usually it's women who more often need to have the emotions connected to sex. Romantic women outnumber romantic men. The odds are in your favour for this one.

Quote:Women don't seem to have a clue about the way that all the clobbering they do of men fundamentally changes men's ability to feel about them in certain ways. Those changes are not reversible, you cannot change a pickle back into a cucumber. The innocent crushes which young men have on women which can mature into deep long-term caring love, make men terribly vulnerable to women's ability to use men's feelings to manipulate them. Men have to protect themselves, so they become jaded and cynical and lose the ability to experience those feelings. Often, by the mid-30s which has become the target age for marriage, men have simply been jerked around enough by women that not keeping one is the better option.

Everything you just wrote goes the exact same if you were to reverse the genders. Or if you were to make the genders all the same and say everyone's gay. It's a human thing, and it sucks, but it happens. Sometimes humans are just assholes to each other.

---

Hmm, I put stuff in my first paragraph above that should have been in reply to other sections. Oh well, people will likely figure out what I'm replying to.

(August 4, 2010 at 9:39 am)Dotard Wrote: you cannot change a pickle back into a cucumber.

Can we all take a minute to mourn dotard's cucumber.