There should be no double standard and it is just as vile. Unfortunately, prison justice is an oxymoron.Originally Posted by Alexander III
There should be no double standard and it is just as vile. Unfortunately, prison justice is an oxymoron.
Your basing your argument on the provocativness of women and the strength of male desire alone.
In court the defence will bring a woman's character into question in a bid to suggest that some, if not all of the responsibility lies with her. As said before, A burglar would not be blamed less if the doors and windows to a house were left unlocked. The judge would not consider that the homeowner was 'asking for it' The burglar would still be solely responsible for his actions alone and be sentenced just as if he had to break in to the property to steal what was not his. I hate the double standard here.
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
It lies in the owner also to secure her or his assets. If the asset is unguarded it can be thieved. We must believe that no society or system impeccable. There are fissures in every social structure and system. Nobody unimpeachably follows a system and we all are kind of breaking some forms or types of laws. Rapists cross the line. They are liable to be punished by the law of the land but the state must forge certain order.
Recently a pair got detained by a patrol of police officials on the bank of a river having sex. The woman complained that she was drunk and half-conscious and the man coerced her to have sex with him against her will.
Police raided a bar and teenagers stripped of their clothes were detained red-handedly. Later on some girls' parents lodged complaints that their daughters were too small and the men persuading and blackmailing them into such acts must be punished.
There are variants of rape, self – induced rapes or forced or situational. I agree this is a criminal act and there is force in most cases if not all. But we must reform our society too and teach people to guard their assets too.
osho raises hot topics to create a havoc. Yet he is interesting to speak up what he really thinks candidly unlike those who choose to be pretentious. Our culture has taught us to be stuck-up. It is a challenge to be a social-analyst and to examine why things happen as they happen. When rape happens we stick with what our systems, laws have taught us or our conventional thinking patterns have trained us to look at things through a particular lens. I often like to challenge such indoctrinations and want to have a fresh and un-quirked look at all that happens. It is easy to blame somebody and it is easy to reproach osho but to comprehend between the lines of what he said demands of us a little bit of thinking or being outside the box. There is comfort sitting on a heap of old thoughts and that is why one in billions turn up as a genus and shape the course of history. Sigmund Freud was vilified when he brought out his treatises of psychoanalysis but today his ideas have been taken as a wealth of knowledge in analyzing human nature.
I don't know what or where your system is, but the concensus on the forum does not see any shades of grey in the argument. They are actually completely revised from 20-30 years ago, and are developing still. These reflect the independance and status of women which has grown over that period, so that the crime is judged in a fairer way - though there are things to tighten up. Far from creating havoc, your post indicates you are out of touch with wider opinion.
You really are behind the times, aren't you?
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
That situation sounds like the main issue is false accusation of rape rather than admitted rape.
People blame their victims to protect themselves from the consequences of their own actions. The best thing to do is to not create victims in the first place.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Nah, it's the rapist's fault.
Because there are some instances where someone who is dressed modestly but still gets victimized.
I think the issue with rape is really control of the individual's power. Rapists cease their moments. When you look at realistic scenarios such as walking along a dark alley in the middle of the night alone, being drunk in a party, or getting molested by the superior (whether it be a boss, priest or an elderly lady); they all point to the opportunity of the moment and the position of the rapist to prey on victims. They are conscious of the situation and they know that they are in a level of power: ex. Sober vs drunk, boss vs. employee, priest vs. altar boy, teacher vs. student, Elderly person vs. young person, (and for the dark alley scenario, which the factors in the surroundings) aware vs unaware.
.......
Indeed!
If I may pile on, I feel this quote my Stephen Jay Gould is relevant:
"A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right."
I can't help but wonder if osho forgot to log out and log back in again here.
Osho, you are in full agreement with Osho.Remember to log on with your other name.
Freud is not the modern thinker of the day
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
Whereas I completely agree with the majority here certainly, I do think that there are some complex situations that can arise. For example take a look at the following story which is big news here today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842
OK, so taking advantage of a girl because she is too intoxicated is no excuse. However, does it not throw open questions of what constitutes too much intoxication to some degree? I mean if a man has sex with a women who has been drinking can she not then turn around and prosecute for rape? What constitutes too much alcohol? One glass of wine, two, one on a light stomach etc, etc? I think that this can be potentially difficult.
Also, can anybody please explain to me how one man has been found guilty and the other not guilty in this case. Surely it is both or none? I have watched and read several articles on this case and so far nobody has mentioned this obvious disparity and I can't work out why. If anything the other one was more guilty having picked her up and taken her back to the room. It doesn't make sense to me.
It's up to a court to determine what constitutes consent in difficult cases. It's not possible to legislate for every possible accusation and situation, it would be up to the discretion of a jury and judge to consider things on a case by case basis. Of course, it's potentially difficult but the court system is built to handle ambiguities as best as possible.
Hard to say if such a split conviction is fair without being privy to the same evidence and testimonies as the jury was.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
Posting Permissions
