| Author |
 Topic  |
|
MguyX 
"X marks the spot"
|
 Posted - 10/05/2009 : 10:12:24
|
O.K. I understand your message about flexible morality, sexuality and sexism, and I have to agree.
I don't know too much about the personal insult issue, however, though I did not see the arrogance issue. I guess if Mr.B wants to respond, he will, and I fear I am treading into unwelcome waters to suggest a "defense," as he is aptly able to speak for himself. I just don't think he was trying to offend.
I won't belabor the topic, at least any more than we already have. Historical concepts of the male-female relationship are myriad and full of sexual-criminal hypocrisy. I will -- no, I must -- grant you that men have historically subjugated women at any age to thier sexual-political whims. With regard to women of younger age, there are few if any to tout their power. But that is the underpinning of underage sex laws; ironically, it is a paternalistic way to protect young women and girls from the "pater" (and, I am sure unexpectedly, young men and boys). On one level, it is an acknowledgement of the error of male-paternalistic domination of the so-called weaker gender, at least on the sexual level. On the other hand, it is a condemnation of predatory sex-practice on the youth of tender years.
If Juliette was 14, then Romeo was probably 15. It's fiction, albeit Shakespeare, but nobody's going to jail. Add to that the fact that the message missed by many is that kids should not be left to their own devices in such life-affecting matters as family planning, and again there is the message that even youth should be protected from the folly of youthful decision/indecision. You can't stop kids from being kids; but you can try and stop adults from being "in" kids, even if not the desire. Hence, statutory rape laws.
Mr.B will probably be a little miffed at me for going on about this, as he did not invite my intervention. I like him; sometimes aloof, but ingenuous, I find his filmic discourse enlightening and entertaining.[FN] I like you, Beebs, and I find your critico-filmic CV and opinion awe-inspiring. Apparently I like compound words and hyphens, too.
That's my two cents. I'm sure to get a dollar or a pound in change, but hey, a brotha gots to make money somehow in this economy.
[FN]Grammatically, that is a misplace modifier, as "I" was not the subject of the modifying intro. But it sounded good, so fuck off to anyone who wants to call me on it!  |
Edited by - MguyX on 10/05/2009 10:22:20 |
 |
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 10:41:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I completely understand her desire not to go through all this again, but the victim doesn't get to decide whether her rapist gets charged, anymore than Polanski could have decided whether Charles Manson got charged.
This is completely true. Many people get this wrong: once an "alleged" crime has been reported to the police, the "victim" has no say over whether it will be prosecuted. The idea of "pressing charges" is a myth: if the police investigation leads them to believe an offense has been commmitted, they give the "complaint" to the prosecutors, who determine whether charges should be filed. The victim becomes only a witness.
The concept of "pressing charges" is exactly as it actually means: the witness "presses" the charges brought (as in, lends weight to it); the victim does not determine whether charges are brought (unless the victim refuses to speak about it in the first instance).
VICTIMS: speak.
THE ACCUSED: get a good lawyer. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 13:00:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildheartlivie
Thanks, MguyX. It really helps to have a lawyer in the house. Now about this speeding ticket I got... 
Good thinking Livie.
Best not to go straight into the "Ex-boyfriends buried under the patio" business. Just slowly work it into the conversation.
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 18:38:45
|
"I don't believe anything in my post warranted the insulting arrogance of Mr. BI and I might have been more tolerant if he hadn't done it repeatly in the past. "
I'm not trying to single you out and pretty much everything I say on this particular forum is toned down from what I'd say in other places. I don't believe I've crossed the line of civil discourse, now or elsewhere, and I'm not trying to be provocative. I disagreed with your point. I did think you were trying to make a point about Polanski, but whether or not you were, I still don't agree that plying a girl with alcohol can even be uttered in the same sentence as drugging a girl into unconsciousness so that she is physically incapable of consenting or resisting. There's nothing comparable about the two.
|
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 10/06/2009 : 00:45:43
|
Here's a creepy story:
In California there's the Megan's Law website, where you can check names, addresses, areas to see where registered sex offenders live. There's a national database too, in case you were curious.
When I moved into my house, I checked the database to see who was living around me. Up pops the MapQuest style map with a big blue star apparently indicating where I live and sporadic little blue dots indicating where the offenders are. You can click on the dots, and people's pictures and addresses pop up. There were a few dots a few streets away, but nothing too close.
My next door neighbor to the south had lived in his house since he was a child. He was about 58 when I moved in several years ago. Trying to take advantage of the real estate market while it was still in an upswing, he decided to sell his house in early 2007. He was a bit late putting it on the market, and the recession was starting to kick in, but he got it sold after about 8 months. My ex girlfriend told me that he had told her once that his oldest son, who no longer lived with him, had been convicted of a sex crime.
A few days after my neighbor moved, I was chatting with my neighbor to the north. She also had been a long-time resident of the neighborhood (more than 20 years). I mentioned the recent house sale, and she mused "I wonder whether they made him sell it?"
"Who?"
"The neighborhood association. I think they were putting pressure on him." I asked why. "Because of his sex crime convictions." I was shocked to hear this, especially since I have a minor-aged daughter who sometimes stays with me, my neighbor knew this, we spoke frequently, and she had never mentioned this significant little piece of information to me.
I went back to my computer and looked up the information. Sure enough, that big blue star I had seen was not MY house: it was my ex-next-door-neighbor's house! I clicked on it, and up popped his picture and address, along with info about sex crimes committed with "child or children under 14 years of age."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click on the star, people, click on the star. |
|
|
|
Sludge
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 00:03:39
|
Interesting legal points in here.
In the mid 80s while in high school I worked at a library and was curious to see a book of state law entitled "The California Sex Code" or something like that. Going over the finer points, I remember (approximately) that for statutory rape to apply, if under 16 the parents could testify, against the will of the 'victim'. (I put this in quotes because at that time a number of girls were initiating, uh, relationships with guys a couple of years older).
If 16 or 17, the victim would be required to corroborate against the perpetrator.
This is of course separate from rape rape.
But the 58 year old... That's really creepy MguyX.
When my wife and I were scoping out homes, my mother kept looking these things up and telling me exactly how many rapists were in the neighborhood. It's pretty difficult to find a place that won't have a blip on the map within a mile so I stopped worrying about it until we were closer to buying. We got a place in Leimert Park. My next door neighbor is a retired ex-marine who kept our bank-owned house from being vandalized for about 8 months before we got in there. The first six times we visited, he was over at the house in a heartbeat after hearing the gate open. This was virtually the only bank owned house in the county without a spot of graffiti, and all the neighbors communicate well. I am feeling pretty safe even though there's a church across the street. 
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Polanski
