Monday, November 01, 2010

Reasons Why Anti-Women Sentiment and Injustice is Rising in our Society

As the subject is so large I will be putting this out in 2 pieces.

Due to the contraversial nature of this subject I feel it necessary to first remind readers that blogs aren't official church sites (as I've stated at the top of the site). This is my own personal observations with some references to what God has said.

A serious problem in our society today is the incredible ease with which an innocent man can be jailed for rape, or sexual acts relative to children. Lots of noise is occurring about men not being found out. This is all focused on men having sexual problems. While all should be appalled if people of either sex aren't being found out, this has created a mass hysteria about sex crime allegations. While someone accused of murder needs to be proven guilty, a man accused of sex crimes (particularly those involving children) must prove his innocence _ an incredibly difficult thing to do. Twisted interpretations of phone conversations and innuendo become "evidence" in courtrooms that juries (also people in the same society) accept. Those convicted (particularly where bad "evidence" isn't exposed) feel that the government funded defence lawyers they were given were either amazingly inept or supporting the states case to convict in spite of being there to defend _ some making the other side look good.

It is a blight on our society that a cheesed-off ex-wife can send an innocent man to jail for 15 years, at public expense, and (just to add insult to injury) be compensated with tens of thousands of dollars or more, also at public expense.

Some argue (relative to child claims) that "children don't lie, particularly about these things." The structure of this sentence is a lie in itself. Let's examine it. "Children don't lie" it starts with. Then before people can realise what rubbish that is they then add the unknown factor - "partiularly about these things." Of course people have no idea whether they do or don't, and so assume it to be true. This shows a typical way the devil implants false perceptions into people's heads. It has been shown over and over again that children do lie about these things. Children certainly DO lie. What's worse is that children can easily be made to believe that something occurred which didn't. They only need to be told often enough, particularly if tired _ they start to visualise it in their head and it becomes real. This is particularly easy when it is loosely based on an actual (harmless) event. We are on the one hand saying that they are children, and therefore not capable of making an informed decision about sex. Yet on the other hand saying that they are all-knowing when giving testimony against the proposed offender. This is a contradiction.

No one would sensibly propose that allegations aren't looked into, but it should be treated as any other allegation where good evidence must be presented to convict. Those lawyers there to defend must do so with genuine earnestness. If a case doesn't have such evidence it's time to accept that most probably it's because the person actually didn't do it, and the proposed crime didn't occur at all. If you think that the legal system is bad that all those accused who aren't convicted are guilty, then by the same logic you would have to conclude that all convicted by that bad system are innocent. By focusing your thoughts on only one side (i.e. he did it and got away with it) thinking becomes twisted and true justice lost.

Serious difficulties also exist relative to rape. While it is true to say that "rape is rape", it is a bit like saying, "theft is theft" or "murder is murder". All these statements are true but courts make varying penalties in the latter two. A person has even murdered, been found guilty and then sent home, because of the circumstances surrounding the crime. Rape, however, seems to be treated quite differently; which is wrong. There are great differences in degree of rape and its effect and surrounding circumstances. While I abhor rape, and there is no such thing as a justified or right rape, I think it incredibly unjust to throw all rapes together as if a totally equal act.

To quote one extreme: I remember years ago when I was in the army, I was on guard duty and a young woman approached me (we'll call her Rose) and said that she wished to complain because some army fellows had raped her. I knew this young woman by sight as she was in the army canteen every night and it was known that several guys would buy her drinks for the evening and at some point they would all go out and she would have sex with them all. This apparently happened every night, and I knew some who had been through this with her. I, myself, had seen her there whenever there myself (as much as I bothered to remember). Morally all were doing an incorrect act. Both Rose and those guys involved each night were abusing a wonderful thing _ the ability to procreate (have children).

When I called out the guard commander and he heard the allegation he seemed to be even more surprised than I was when she told me (I'd only been there several months). I would assume that several guys had bought her drinks, taken her out and been a bit pushy. She may have felt that she wasn't being charmed enough, and wanted to be charmed first. And they've felt that they'd paid the price in buying her the beer. This doesn't make it right to just take sex against her will, naturally. But what kind of a deal was this anyway? Is it a good and wholesome one?

But look at a woman who is walking home from work because her car broke down, minding her own business, and a carload of guys force her into a car and rape her. The latter is a far more aggressive action upon a far less involved woman. Also the question would arise as to how much trauma each of these women actually went through in this process. Rose, while showing a sign of feeling indignant, was very casual about it all, and showed no sign of trauma whatsoever. Considering that some women end up severely traumatised and even some in a mental institution by violent, aggressive rapes, I think in order that we have true justice we need to make some segregation somewhere. I must also say that I personally feel it a belittling of violent and aggressive rape victims to throw them in with situations like that of Rose (without detracting from the seriousness of that which happened to Rose).

Along with this I see Rose guilty of assisting in the creation of rapists, and feel a penalty must be placed upon her.

Also a problem in all this is wife / girlfriend rape, where an accepted sexual relationship already exists, but has been violated. At what point did the woman say "no", and how convincingly did she convey this opinion? What if she says, "no", then he gives some reason for continuing, and she makes no further statement but makes some "humph" sound, and all this happens during the process of them having sex? He may have said something he shouldn't have and then apologised. Afterward she starts to feel miffed about it and claims rape against him. On the other hand there can be genuine violent rape by a husband / boyfriend (there are also cases of violence against husbands).

Because of the many things that can occur in this regard I think a distinction has to be made between where permission for sex has already been given and not formerly retracted, and where never given. This area also is far too open for serious abuse by a disgruntled spouse / partner.

It is interesting to note that God doesn't allow a wife to testify in regard her husband in the law of Moses. And by the same law a person who has sex with someone at all must marry them. So the same would apply for a live-in partner. He wasn't stupid in making these laws. He knew the abuse that would occur.

This attack and injustice upon men has brought out a lot of anti-women sentiment. Particularly amongst those affected and due to the many other problems, some of which I will discuss in the next part.


Anonymous said...

I believe you are missing a very vital point. Rape is not about sex. It's not even about attraction. Rape happens when one exerts their dominance over another with their penis. It is a violent and cruel act, and devistatingly demeaning to the victim. If your Rose was raped it would not have mattered if she had been boozing around. Someone toke advantage of her position, and felt entitled to dominate her, and from the sounds of it, you feel he was entitled as well. Rapists prey on the weak, whether it is a child, an impressionable young adult, an insecure partner, or even the disabled or autistic. If someone were to violate your body without consent, woudn't you expect retribution? Your piece wrekes of male privilege, and there is nothing so revolting as a man who would defend rape. And after all, those men put themselves in that position *wink, wink* had they been more careful about who they associated with, these aligations would have never been brought to their doorstep. Oh, if only we could have those good ol days back when men knew their place! Barefoot and in the kitchen.

Doug Towers said...


As the attempt of my post is to point out another side to some of the ideas we are constantly being blasted with by feminists I can understand you feeling I am being anti-women.

However, it is a bit like saying that Jesus Christ didn't like Jews because he spoke against some of their false ideas. The mere fact that he bothered preaching to them at all shows that he liked them.

In regard Rose you say that I regard they were entitled to rape her because she was "boozing around." But what I really said was that she was part of a deal where guys knew that by buying her drinks they would get sex. She understood this deal. In other words she was virtually a prostitute that had received her payment but decided to renege on her part of the bargain.

And, yes, you are right in the obvious observation that she and they shouldn't have been associating for these purposes.

Your theory on rape sounds straight out of a textbook. Let me broaden your knowledge, please.

Firstly I'd assume you have never witnessed these rapists in the process of attempting to, or raping of, a person. Secondly I'd assume you haven't even interviewed one rapist personally. But, clearly, you've read about it.

I have been there as around 20 guys attempted to rape a girl. Let me tell you that for the majority dominance WASN'T their intent.

I have interviewed many rapists. Some did it for the sex (sorry, throw that book out). They saw the parts and lusted.

Some partly hoped to please the woman with sex and feed the ego. Some of these hoped that a relationship might have then developed.

And, yes, some followed the textbook and did it purely for dominance.

Some can rape for a distorted sense of love. Again they can be hoping the person will take to them after the experience.

You see, people are complex. This extremely simplified version of things that you have quoted is not real.