Burning-men 2017, Witch hunts and beyond


OK, good. “Victim blaming” as a concept isn’t some recent feminazi plot to emasculate men in society (the origins go back further than that, have a read of Wikipedia for starters), it’s a reaction to the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system. For instance, women’s behaviour in the run up to and during incidents sexual violence is dragged up in court as a defence for the accused.

You both acknowledge that this is wrong. So what’s the problem?

Of course there are things that a vulnerable person can do to reduce the risk of sexual assault, but that’s a completely orthogonal issue to who is to blame for sexual violence. Who is to blame is the people who do it. Exactly those people, and nobody else. Sure, you can find people who will point out that since men and women are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and victims respectively of sexual violence, sexual violence is a problem with men, but what perplexes me is that a particular type of generally right-wing conservative snowflake finds this simple statement of fact offensive. Now you know how Muslims feel when you brand them all as women-hating psychopaths!


+2 bonus points
(1 for Muslims & 1 for feelings)


Innocence or guilt should be determined using reason and by the evidence of each particular case.

It’s the judge who decides the sentence (we can see it as fair, too lenient or too harsh).


But “feelings” is exactly what this thread is about. Men feeling victimised.


The question of which evidence is admissible is key.


That is a question. In your opinion a description of the clothing of a plaintiff should not be admissible?


That is my opinion, with a very small number of exceptions that I can’t think of but must surely exist.

You disagree?


What are the exceptions?


Disgraceful stuff. In the UK the state can bankrupt you and destroy your career and reputation, on what amounts to a he-said/she-said charge that never had any prospect of conviction in front of a sane jury.


I don’t know, I’m just acknowledging that there are likely to be some. What’s your view?


IMHO, for justice to be done all relevant evidence should be made available for the jury to make a decision.


You completely misunderstood what I wrote.

A hypothetical rapist in the halfway house for offenders does not deserve a more lenient sentence. Quite the opposite. He is likely a repeat offender so deserves a harsher sentence. But the hypothetical woman’s actions led to the rape. That’s not “victim blaming” that’s fact.

You also completely misunderstand rape allegations and their trials. And all feminists do either wilfully or ignorantly. In most other crimes, there is no doubt about whether a crime occurred - with an assault there’s an injury, with a theft there’s property missing. What is at issue is whether the defendant is the person who did it.

With a rape allegation, particularly a date rape allegation. the identity of the accused is almost always agreed and that a sexual encounter occurred between them. What’s at issue is whether what happened was a crime at all Do you understand the difference ?

For this reason the actions of the accuser are entirely relevant in the defence’s case. What else is there to look at ? If the behaviour of the accuser before, during and after don’t suggest a rape how can there be one ? How does examining that constitute “dragging up”?

The likely answer to those questions is that “victim blaming” and “dragging up” are epithets used by women’s groups to shut down examination of women’s actions and their agency over their lives. How regressive.

There is a low prosecution rate and a low conviction rate for “date rapes” precisely because there is reasonable doubt in prosecutors and juries minds about whether the sexual encounter actually occurred the way the woman said it did. Whether there was a crime at all. And everything is so drink sodden.


Can you give a reason for the underwear of the complainant to be considered relevant?


No, the hypothetical rapist’s actions led to the rape. Why do you single out the actions of the woman? Women do not invite rape.

Correct, the issue is usually with establishing consent. The needle has moved on this a bit recently, at least in the public discourse, in the sense we are teaching people that consent must be actively sought, given and maintained. It is not so long ago that some people argued that “no” didn’t always mean no. In this context the actions of the woman prior to the act are largely irrelevant, since consent can be withdrawn at any time.


There could be any number of reasons. But that would be for the jury on the specific case to decide.


I would say underwear is almost always irrelevant. That particular aspect of the Cork rape trial seemed to me to be an old rich woman completely oblivious to the existence of Penny’s and completely out of touch with the lives and clothing choices of young women, ‘you bought naughty underwear from the naughty underwear store, did you not !’

But if a woman sent a message to her friend: “I’m going out tonight to get drunk. I’ll wear my skimpiest underwear. I hope I run into Eschatologist”

Then you could argue mention of it was very relevant.


WRT to the recent Cork case and to the question of what is relevant and admissible.

“Defence solicitor Phelim O’Neill argues to Ciara that women’s underwear should be allowed to be used as evidence in sexual assault trials.”

Basically to paraphrase Mr. O’Neill, the underwear is entered as evidence in terms of DNA evidence by the state (prosecutor).
The defense present their arguments (each chosen argument has consequences, in terms of the verdict and in terms of sentencing), but ultimately it’s the jury who decide if they agree/disagree with the defense’s argument.




Jaysus Phelim is strong. If anyone I know gets accused I’d call him first. He schools Dr Ciara. And lays down the law so to speak about how serious and damaging a rape accusation is to a man. He should have his own radio show. He gives some rationalisations for the underwear. But he never satisfactorily answers the question as to why the cut and styling of underwear was relevant to that case. Although given his reminder that the man is on trial for his life and reputation and would prefer a murder accusation, I’m tempted to say everything about the accuser’s life is relevant .


I suppose I must care about your Liberty