Outrage as Indian judge calls alleged rape victim 'unbecoming'

[Pakistani Fighter]

Which one?

You did. But I didn't understand that sheep and wolf thing

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

What justification?

Read post 25.

@Joe Shearer It's ok, take it lite. I think I overreacted after @Naofumi posted that article.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I don't really like to discuss these topics (I have better things to do then discuss what sluts really want) as it gets everyone's panties in a bunch for no reason. Where have I been wrong? Well you tried to raise some points so let me answer them.

Yes, there are rules that all good women should adhere to. I didn't make them, and they exist in all countries including the United States. Sure there are a few loud feminists who make the ridiculous argument that all sex is rape, and there are the men who enable these loudmouths.

NO feminist, whatsoever, makes the argument that sex is rape. The moment you define some women as good, you are sitting in judgement on them, and deciding what is good and what is bad. How did you get to do that?

But a good woman shouldn't cross a certain line. Going to a man's room in a hotel alone, and spending whole night there definitely falls under that category. If she's been fornicating of her own free will, then she should not cry "rape rape" at the same time, just because she got paid less or whatever reason (there's definitely some reason. The women never accuse you of false rape without a personal reason). No legal jurisdiction will buy her cockamamie stories.

Why should she be a 'bad' woman because she goes to a man's room in a hotel alone, and spends the night there? Whose laws are these, and who entitled these to be unctuously proclaimed by self-appointed guardians of society?

When did I say that? You're putting words in my mouth.

I am. Most certainly I am. PRECISELY because you are putting motives and assigning character to women using your own criteria. You are putting rules and caging them. Isn't putting words into your mouth a lesser offence?

Even a woman who's fornicating deserves legal recourse if she had been seriously injured by a violent man.

This is where you sink through the drain-hole. How do you define 'injury'? You do realise where this is going?

Or if it was under coercion, e.g. a male boss forcing a female employee for sexual favours, and she stands at risk of losing her job for not acceding to his demands.

What if whether she stands at risk of losing her job or not cannot be determined?

Every case is different. I personally judge women who cavort freely very poorly, but I don't mix my views with the legal system.

Very pleased to hear that.

Of course, you hardly need telling that women also personally judge men - men like you included, shocking though it may seem to you.

A whore is a whore. It was just an expression. She behaves like a sex-hungry slut, and later accuses the man of false rape.

I would be delighted to learn from you how to legally discriminate between the behaviour of the sex-hungry and those not sex-hungry. What criteria would you use for this determination, apart from your evidently superior judgment?

She's the lowest of creatures. But I never said that should make her suffer legal disabilities. The point is, she can't prove her imaginary rape stories in a court of law. End of story.

Socially, in your set of norms, perhaps. And your point is entirely wrong. Ask any legal expert. End of story.

It's OK. See above, a good woman should always know her limits, and not act like a cheap slut. If she is one, she is no better than a common whore. Period.

The point is that you cannot decide for her,nor can anyone else. Period.

It's most likely an educated guess, maybe money was involved.

EDUCATED? Yes, I know the phrase, but it is a little strained in this context. It is the grossest section of the uneducated who display these sentiments and these social attitudes.

But there may be other motives. Again, see above. No woman makes a false rape accusation unless she wants to extract something from the male victim.

Would it make a difference to you to learn that you cannot decide that an accusation of rape is a false one, simply by the circumstances of the rape victim's actions before and after the act? And further, that proceeding from that assumption, her motives cannot be determined.

Nothing personal in all this, of course.

Please elaborate on the social perspectives of a Brahmin. I want to understand how a Brahmin thinks from you.

There are a number of excellent social psychology texts that deal with this. Do find out, or ask an academician personally.

You did. But I didn't understand that sheep and wolf thing

Aesop's Fables are supposed to be comprehensible to school children of the earliest grades. Read it again, and ponder over it.

Any logical reason behind this?

NONE.

I already explained why this is illogical.

Read post 25.

@Joe Shearer It's ok, take it lite. I think I overreacted after @Naofumi posted that article.

I am dealing with it in a spirit of clinical detachment. In this entire thread, the contributions of @saiyan0321 constitute the cream.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

NO feminist, whatsoever, makes the argument that sex is rape.

Most feminists, if they had the power as they do in Scandinavia, would CRIMINALIZE all forms of sex except anything that benefits them financially. In Sweden, you as a male customer go to jail for engaging a prostitute even though she's a consenting adult. And that slut counts her money, and walks home freely. What kind of justice is that?

I support women's well-being, health, and education, but I don't support their ability to slut around freely, at least not anymore than they do now. There have to be limits somewhere.

The moment you define some women as good, you are sitting in judgement on them, and deciding what is good and what is bad. How did you get to do that?

Hello, Joe Babu, you should stop being such a feminist-enabler. Women deserve to be judged because of their agency. We all know women are more sexually promiscuous than men, so if the limits are not imposed on their cavorting ways, then the society will break down completely. Women deserve to be punished for crossing a certain line, and need to be reminded periodically of their place. That's what the legal system upholds, when it defines the sanctity of marriage.

You might want to live in a society where women can freely cheat on their husbands, and sleep around frequently. I don't. As much of a liberal I am, I believe that women should not be given too much freedom in some areas, or it can lead to a collapse of the moral order, as in Scandinavia.

And men of good social standing (such as this judge) should be given the right to decide when a woman is crossing the line. Maybe I'm not competent enough to make such a distinction, according to you, but I just expressed my views. It makes me very angry to see sluts getting away with things that men cannot.

Why should she be a 'bad' woman because she goes to a man's room in a hotel alone, and spends the night there? Whose laws are these, and who entitled these to be unctuously proclaimed by self-appointed guardians of society?

See above,. You either have a social order, or you don't. You either have the sanctity of marriage, or you don't.

I am. Most certainly I am. PRECISELY because you are putting motives and assigning character to women using your own criteria. You are putting rules and caging them. Isn't putting words into your mouth a lesser offence?

I don't care about the opinion of sluts. They won't dare call me anything anyway. You, are a great slut-enabler, and it's men like you men that make other men suffer. You enable these women to disrespect the men in their lives.

This is where you sink through the drain-hole. How do you define 'injury'? You do realise where this is going?

"Love bites" on her neck don't qualify as injury, if that's what you're hinting at.

Of course, injuries are decided by common sense rules. And, medical reports.

What if whether she stands at risk of losing her job or not cannot be determined?

The woman has a right to complain to her father, husband, or HR department if she is under that kind of pressure in a job. If she's willingly sleeping with her boss, then she WANTS something in return. Maybe a promotion?

I would be delighted to learn from you how to legally discriminate between the behaviour of the sex-hungry and those not sex-hungry. What criteria would you use for this determination, apart from your evidently superior judgment?

Same things. Already covered.

Socially, in your set of norms, perhaps. And your point is entirely wrong. Ask any legal expert. End of story.

All I said was that this particular case is not in the woman's favor. Each case should be seen in its own merit.

The point is that you cannot decide for her,nor can anyone else. Period.

We can. Women should be put in their place, otherwise they will lead men astray left, right, and centre. There has to be a certain limit to their freedoms.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Shantanu_Left

You must take a deep breath and emerge into the 20th century. You will find it exhilarating.

 

[Hiptullha]

LOL this thread was a ride.

 

[saiyan0321]

I am dealing with it in a spirit of clinical detachment. In this entire thread, the contributions of @saiyan0321 constitute the cream.

There exists a reason why that very famous statue wears a blindfold

 

[Joe Shearer]

There exists a reason why that very famous statue wears a blindfold

LOL. Very nice. But of late, I am getting more and more fascinated by the sword she wields.

It is a discussion developing in my mind between the use of illegal means to enforce the rule of law, and the strict adherence to the law to the extent of permitting visible crimes to be committed.

LOL this thread was a ride.

There were very serious issues at one level, but yes, it turned out to be a turbulent ride.

 

[saiyan0321]

LOL. Very nice. But of late, I am getting more and more fascinated by the sword she wields.

It is a discussion developing in my mind between the use of illegal means to enforce the rule of law, and the strict adherence to the law to the extent of permitting visible crimes to be committed.



There were very serious issues at one level, but yes, it turned out to be a turbulent ride.

The reason why jurists spent years developing the most complicated section of law aka procedural law was simply because neither end justify the means nor the means justify the end. Only proper ends and proper means can create true balance as witnessed by what that statue holds in her hand. The sword is not in the front but in the back. It is the scales that stand upfront since the scales represent the procedure of justice. the sword is the punishment and its is the end but its is subservient to the scales.

The strict adherence may allow visible crimes to be committed but they can always be stopped by expanding the field of law however that illegal means that will justify itself by implementing rule of law will not be controlled.

A policeman shoots a killer thinking that i have now implemented justice and rule of law that murderers can be punished through execution and by God he has given that punishment in Section 302 however his illegal action means that tomorrow he may do it for self gain or self interest. Who will stop him then when those cheers at the moment of him killing the murderer become screams under his tyranny. It has been tried and it has filed. We must do things properly. It will be slow but it will never bring that tyranny