10 Jun 09, 12:01 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
  |
stormywaters wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
stormywaters wrote:
It is the responsibility of the victims of violent partners to make it clera to a court that consent was not given. Tail wagging dog?
|
The whole point of the law change was because victims of violent partners are also emotionally abused and isolated by their partners from their family and friends thus making the victim emotionally and financially dependant on the abuser. The abuser also brainwashes the victim into believing it is their fault the violence occurred and not the abuser's. Thus *if* the victim makes a complaint they would 9 times out of 10 withdraw the complain and refuse to help the police prosecute.
So no, it isn't the victim's responsibility. The victim is the victim. They are the vulnerable one who needs protection and assistance.
|
I understand what you are saying, honestly I do. And of course it is true that victimhood can and does run very deep psychologically and that victims often need a tremendous amount of support to escape the 'critical mass' of victimhood.
But in the end all human beings are responsible for themselves. That is a fundamental law of the human condition. Ultimately you lead your life; no one else can.
It is very dangerous to lose sight of this principle. It is the same if you are helping, say, a heroin addict. You can help but yu can't do it for them.
Here the danger is clear: you start requiring others, those whose sexual practices are deemed illegal, to pay the price for victims of violence not finding the strength to use the law to protect themselves. In the end it is a matter of judgement but I think that price is way to high.
To remove my right to be and live sexually as I am is a fundamental denial of my right to be.
|
As much as I agree with your last statement I would be willing to forgo that right if it meant violent fuckers could be banged up.
Balancing up my need to bang nails through nipples and scrotums and the need of children to grow up in non-abusive households I'd give up the nails. "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308
|
10 Jun 09, 12:04 PM
emark
UK, 8 yrs |
At the least, there ought to be a defence for consent, even if the burden is upon us to prove it (which is still less than ideal, but still bending over backwards to cater for this alleged problem). It seems mad that even when both "abuser" and "victim" stand up in court and say it was consensual, and everyone believes them, that it is still illegal (and the "victim" gets sentenced too...)
Another related example might be the claim that sex when drunk should be illegal, because of the difficulties of drunk rape cases. But that is controversial, and moreover, consensual sex when drunk is entirely legal ("you can't consent to sex when drunk" is legally a myth, in England at least). On top of that, much of the argument for criminalising sex when drunk is based on the argument that drink alters one's perceptions - which doesn't apply in S&M.
Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.
Edited 10 Jun 09, 12:05 PM by emark
|
10 Jun 09, 12:06 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
|
JudyInDsGuise wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
From what I understand about the law and what the Spanner Trust told me, admitting you do it is one thing but the court still has to prove it.
I'm thinking now about past miscarriages of justice where the police would coerce a confession out of the supposed 'criminal' to bang them up and close the case. Confessions that stand up in court are only valid now if there is supporting evidence to avoid future miscarriages of justice.
I may be wrong. Perhaps someone with legal experience can tell us?
|
Thanks Lady Anna, that's the sort of thing I meant re: confessions 
I think if I were considering volunteering, I'd take legal advice from elsewhere first (which means I probably wouldn't bother volunteering LOL)
Still strikes me as odd that Spanner don't mention that they are volunteering themselves on the PDF, or what (if this campaign really is a year old) has happened so far with their own volunteers.
judy
|
Perhaps they are? They may just need a larger cross-section of the population to make their point clear. Look at the effect the women in the Max Mosely case had on the media and the court. These were educated, intelligent and confident women who proved the point that the assumed stereotypes don't always hold true. "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308
|
10 Jun 09, 12:06 PM
emark
UK, 8 yrs |
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
Balancing up my need to bang nails through nipples and scrotums and the need of children to grow up in non-abusive households I'd give up the nails.
|
Would you give up sex, if it meant rape didn't occur?
Criminalising S&M doesn't stop abuse anyway - we have plenty of evidence of that. All it does is criminalise S&Mers. Would you give up sex, if it meant that rape still occurred, but we could at least increase the rape convictions (even though that would also include people having consensual sex)? Even if the false dilemma here was true, I think that many people would not be willing for all sex to be criminalised, in order to increase rape convictions. Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.
Edited 10 Jun 09, 12:11 PM by emark
|
10 Jun 09, 12:09 PM
stormywaters
PT, 4 yrs |
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
Balancing up my need to bang nails through nipples and scrotums and the need of children to grow up in non-abusive households I'd give up the nails.
|
You are 'setting up a paper Tiger' here; constructing a narrow dichotomy for the purpose of making a wider point.
The issue is very much larger and obscured by your particular instance. My object all sublime...
|
10 Jun 09, 12:11 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
|
emark wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
Balancing up my need to bang nails through nipples and scrotums and the need of children to grow up in non-abusive households I'd give up the nails.
|
Would you give up sex, if it meant rape didn't occur?
Criminalising S&M doesn't stop abuse anyway - we have plenty of evidence of that. All it does is criminalise S&Mers. Would you give up sex, if it meant that rape still occurred, but we could at least increase the rape convictions (even though that would also include people having consensual sex)?
|
Please take into context everything else I have said regarding this issue rather than focussing on a statement I made to show that what stormywaters is saying about victims taking responsibility for themselves is ridiculous. "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308
|
10 Jun 09, 12:12 PM
spirifer
UK, 6 yrs
|
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
JudyInDsGuise wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
From what I understand about the law and what the Spanner Trust told me, admitting you do it is one thing but the court still has to prove it.
I'm thinking now about past miscarriages of justice where the police would coerce a confession out of the supposed 'criminal' to bang them up and close the case. Confessions that stand up in court are only valid now if there is supporting evidence to avoid future miscarriages of justice.
I may be wrong. Perhaps someone with legal experience can tell us?
|
Thanks Lady Anna, that's the sort of thing I meant re: confessions
I think if I were considering volunteering, I'd take legal advice from elsewhere first (which means I probably wouldn't bother volunteering LOL)
Still strikes me as odd that Spanner don't mention that they are volunteering themselves on the PDF, or what (if this campaign really is a year old) has happened so far with their own volunteers.
judy
|
Perhaps they are? They may just need a larger cross-section of the population to make their point clear. Look at the effect the women in the Max Mosely case had on the media and the court. These were educated, intelligent and confident women who proved the point that the assumed stereotypes don't always hold true.
|
That would be more persuasive if Spanner didn't say that the claimants may be able to remain anonymous.
I still don't understand how a claim like this doesn't stand or fall on its own merits. The court is hardly likely to suddenly say that the case is incompatible because it has a statement in front of it purportedly from a straight woman, rather than one from a gay man, is it? The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.
|
10 Jun 09, 12:12 PM
JudyInDsGuise
UK(E), 8 yrs |
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
Perhaps they are? They may just need a larger cross-section of the population to make their point clear. Look at the effect the women in the Max Mosely case had on the media and the court. These were educated, intelligent and confident women who proved the point that the assumed stereotypes don't always hold true.
|
I'm just relating it to when I've needed volunteers for things. I've usually reduced doubt by saying something like "I've done this myself, and this was the outcome. The outcome for you may be different; please take advice from your own sources" if I don't know the volunteer on a personal level (or "FFS I did it and it was fine, get on with it" if it's a mate  )
judy
I must be only one in a million (© David Bowie)
|
10 Jun 09, 12:12 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
|
stormywaters wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
Balancing up my need to bang nails through nipples and scrotums and the need of children to grow up in non-abusive households I'd give up the nails.
|
You are 'setting up a paper Tiger' here; constructing a narrow dichotomy for the purpose of making a wider point.
The issue is very much larger and obscured by your particular instance.
|
My point is that this law needs to change, not be completely abolished.
"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308
|
10 Jun 09, 12:19 PM
emark
UK, 8 yrs |
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
emark wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
Balancing up my need to bang nails through nipples and scrotums and the need of children to grow up in non-abusive households I'd give up the nails.
|
Would you give up sex, if it meant rape didn't occur?
Criminalising S&M doesn't stop abuse anyway - we have plenty of evidence of that. All it does is criminalise S&Mers. Would you give up sex, if it meant that rape still occurred, but we could at least increase the rape convictions (even though that would also include people having consensual sex)?
|
Please take into context everything else I have said regarding this issue rather than focussing on a statement I made to show that what stormywaters is saying about victims taking responsibility for themselves is ridiculous.
|
It's unclear to me why sex and rape is different? Surely the same thing can be said of rape victims - that they may be scared of coming forward, and someone might argue that the responsibility is still on them, rather than criminalising everyone?
| My point is that this law needs to change, not be completely abolished. |
My own view here is that it is sufficient to allow S&M as a justified reason, along with body modifications and so on. Nothing would be abolished.
How would you change the law? Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.
Edited 10 Jun 09, 12:24 PM by emark
|
