Blackhawks off season

[Guest]

I think my only issue with rape laws being unfair is the 18 year old kids who end up registered sex offenders for sleeping with their SO who are a few months below age of consent or something. or those cases where the victim lies about their age (and admits to having done so). there needs to be some sort of discretion or an age gap stipulation for those cases. pretty awful for someone to have their lives essentially ruined for having consensual sex with their slightly younger partner in a relationship that would be totally considered acceptable by just about anybody outside of what the letter of the law states (worded that weirdly...)

 

 

/tangent

While I'm sure every state is unique, I believe in IL there is a buffer zone on the age (which is actually 16). So 16/15 wouldn't be under criminal prosecution. That's my 16 year old understanding of the matter though from a friend who was dating a girl younger than him.

[Guest]

I think my only issue with rape laws being unfair is the 18 year old kids who end up registered sex offenders for sleeping with their SO who are a few months below age of consent or something. or those cases where the victim lies about their age (and admits to having done so). there needs to be some sort of discretion or an age gap stipulation for those cases. pretty awful for someone to have their lives essentially ruined for having consensual sex with their slightly younger partner in a relationship that would be totally considered acceptable by just about anybody outside of what the letter of the law states (worded that weirdly...)

 

 

/tangent

While I'm sure every state is unique, I believe in IL there is a buffer zone on the age (which is actually 16). So 16/15 wouldn't be under criminal prosecution. That's my 16 year old understanding of the matter though from a friend who was dating a girl younger than him.

 

 

hmm. I remember seeing a tv special specifically about a kid in IL having a similar problem and iirc her dad got pissed and reported him to police or something...but i don't recall what the age gap was.

 

my 16 year old understanding was that 17 was age of consent in IL though, but maybe that's wrong or obsolete.

[squally1313]

Yes, it's not that simple. While I still think it's fair (if not PC) to say that if it came down to a he said/she said, 'he' isn't going to like his chances, I understand that being the guy on that side of this argument isn't the best position to take, especially in a thread where you snipped off the rest of my post so it looks like this is all I care about.

 

I snipped it for effect, not because I thought it was all you care about.

 

It was a very strange and completely inaccurate statement.

 

I think most guys live their swinging singles time with the thought in the back of their head that one word from her could ruin your life. But it's mostly an unfounded fear. and at the same time most girls live their lives with the knowledge that there are a bunch of rapists out there that never get caught or punished. The laws are not tilted in favor of women when it comes to the crime of rape.

 

Yeah you're right, I think I was misguided in what in what I was going for, and as Exile points out below, it is much more common that an actual rapist goes free.

 

I think I was going more for your point when I was talking about 'rape law'. It's similar (or at least I hope I'm right in thinking this way) to those people who are calling for insanely strict anti-gun laws, not because they're against guns in general, but because enough people went out and ruined it for everyone else. I think with rape, it's become (with good reason, thanks for the actual rapists) very easy for a woman to make a rape accusation and at the very least attach a stigma to that person for the rest of their life. With other crimes, there are consequences for false accusations. Given the nature of rape crimes and the fact that they are hard to definitively prove one way or another once sexual contact is established, that's not the case here. Not saying I disagree with the standards, but as I said in my original post, from his perspective he's in a tough spot (again, totally secondary to her well-being).

[Sammy Sofa]

Most rapes and sexual assaults are never reported, so the idea that it's become "too easy" for people to be hit by false rape accusations rings more than a tad hollow.

 

Personally, I think things like changing attitudes towards guns and sexual assault aren't things being "ruined" so much as more and more people finally coming to their senses.

[Guest]

Yes, it's not that simple. While I still think it's fair (if not PC) to say that if it came down to a he said/she said, 'he' isn't going to like his chances, I understand that being the guy on that side of this argument isn't the best position to take, especially in a thread where you snipped off the rest of my post so it looks like this is all I care about.

 

I snipped it for effect, not because I thought it was all you care about.

 

It was a very strange and completely inaccurate statement.

 

I think most guys live their swinging singles time with the thought in the back of their head that one word from her could ruin your life. But it's mostly an unfounded fear. and at the same time most girls live their lives with the knowledge that there are a bunch of rapists out there that never get caught or punished. The laws are not tilted in favor of women when it comes to the crime of rape.

 

Yeah you're right, I think I was misguided in what in what I was going for, and as Exile points out below, it is much more common that an actual rapist goes free.

 

I think I was going more for your point when I was talking about 'rape law'. It's similar (or at least I hope I'm right in thinking this way) to those people who are calling for insanely strict anti-gun laws, not because they're against guns in general, but because enough people went out and ruined it for everyone else. I think with rape, it's become (with good reason, thanks for the actual rapists) very easy for a woman to make a rape accusation and at the very least attach a stigma to that person for the rest of their life. With other crimes, there are consequences for false accusations. Given the nature of rape crimes and the fact that they are hard to definitively prove one way or another once sexual contact is established, that's not the case here. Not saying I disagree with the standards, but as I said in my original post, from his perspective he's in a tough spot (again, totally secondary to her well-being).

I don't think the issue is women making false claims. I think the issue is to society and the justice system catching up and realizing rape is a wider net than overt forcible and violent encounters.

[jersey cubs fan]

Most rapes and sexual assaults are never reported, so the idea that it's become "too easy" for people to be hit by false rape accusations rings more than a tad hollow.

 

Personally, I think things like changing attitudes towards guns and sexual assault aren't things being "ruined" so much as more and more people finally coming to their senses.

 

I'm also not sure where these insanely strict gun laws are. Seems to me it's easier than ever to be a complete [expletive] white person and walk around town with assault weapons with no repercussions.

[Guest]

I'm neither an anti-guns guy or a gun nut by any means, but there definitely needs to be a lot more discretion/qualification involved in how people acquire them (legally obviously).

[Guest]

I think my only issue with rape laws being unfair is the 18 year old kids who end up registered sex offenders for sleeping with their SO who are a few months below age of consent or something. or those cases where the victim lies about their age (and admits to having done so). there needs to be some sort of discretion or an age gap stipulation for those cases. pretty awful for someone to have their lives essentially ruined for having consensual sex with their slightly younger partner in a relationship that would be totally considered acceptable by just about anybody outside of what the letter of the law states (worded that weirdly...)

 

 

/tangent

While I'm sure every state is unique, I believe in IL there is a buffer zone on the age (which is actually 16). So 16/15 wouldn't be under criminal prosecution. That's my 16 year old understanding of the matter though from a friend who was dating a girl younger than him.

 

 

hmm. I remember seeing a tv special specifically about a kid in IL having a similar problem and iirc her dad got pissed and reported him to police or something...but i don't recall what the age gap was.

 

my 16 year old understanding was that 17 was age of consent in IL though, but maybe that's wrong or obsolete.

I could be off by a year on the cutoff. But I do think that the buffer is only a year. But in that case 367 days is treated the same as 730, which in teen development years is pretty big in terms of social and emotional development.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think the issue is women making false claims. I think the issue is to society and the justice system catching up and realizing rape is a wider net than overt forcible and violent encounters.

 

Yeah, there's this huge pushback that's seemingly centered around paranoia over false rape claims, and you end up with people clamoring like it's a huge or even realistic problem on any kind of significant scale. It's not. You hear MRA-types and the like act like they're terrified to even talk to a woman because they're convinced they're going to get tagged with a false rape charge if anything goes sour in the encounter/relationship. It's insane.

[Sammy Sofa]

Most rapes and sexual assaults are never reported, so the idea that it's become "too easy" for people to be hit by false rape accusations rings more than a tad hollow.

 

Personally, I think things like changing attitudes towards guns and sexual assault aren't things being "ruined" so much as more and more people finally coming to their senses.

 

I'm also not sure where these insanely strict gun laws are. Seems to me it's easier than ever to be a complete [expletive] white person and walk around town with assault weapons with no repercussions.

 

Uh, where have you been? Obummer's been taking all of the guns and giving them to secret Muslim Mexican terrorists.

[squally1313]

Most rapes and sexual assaults are never reported, so the idea that it's become "too easy" for people to be hit by false rape accusations rings more than a tad hollow.

 

Personally, I think things like changing attitudes towards guns and sexual assault aren't things being "ruined" so much as more and more people finally coming to their senses.

 

I'm also not sure where these insanely strict gun laws are. Seems to me it's easier than ever to be a complete [expletive] white person and walk around town with assault weapons with no repercussions.

 

I meant the gun laws that people are calling for, not the ones that are enacted.

 

But the original post is true. I wholeheartedly support our society developing in any way that discourages any sort of sexual assault. Every time I've said this it's been from his perspective, not from my viewpoint on how we should handle sexual assault. If he raped her, he belongs in prison and I don't want him in any jersey ever again. If he didn't rape her, he will forever have this attached to his name. If that is the price to pay to encourage women to report rapes and to discourage men from committing rape, it was entirely worth it for the benefit of our society. For him (and just him), it's less than ideal.

[jersey cubs fan]

I could be off by a year on the cutoff. But I do think that the buffer is only a year. But in that case 367 days is treated the same as 730, which in teen development years is pretty big in terms of social and emotional development.

It's still pretty skeavy for an 18 year old to be having sex with a girl 366 days younger than him. It was always the scumbags that were pulling that one.

[jersey cubs fan]

Most rapes and sexual assaults are never reported, so the idea that it's become "too easy" for people to be hit by false rape accusations rings more than a tad hollow.

 

Personally, I think things like changing attitudes towards guns and sexual assault aren't things being "ruined" so much as more and more people finally coming to their senses.

 

I'm also not sure where these insanely strict gun laws are. Seems to me it's easier than ever to be a complete [expletive] white person and walk around town with assault weapons with no repercussions.

 

I meant the gun laws that people are calling for, not the ones that are enacted.

 

Well, most gun nuts think any gun law is insane so I'm still not sure what you are talking about.

[Guest]

I could be off by a year on the cutoff. But I do think that the buffer is only a year. But in that case 367 days is treated the same as 730, which in teen development years is pretty big in terms of social and emotional development.

 

I'm no expert in any way, but isn't that highly individual?

 

I kinda felt like once i got my license and a girlfriend the summer before my junior year (she was a grade younger but one of the younger people in that grade, so i might be one of the scumbags goony is talking about) i was pretty much the same guy from then until i graduated.

 

it wasn't until a year into college or so that i started looking back at that guy like he was a moron.

[squally1313]

Most rapes and sexual assaults are never reported, so the idea that it's become "too easy" for people to be hit by false rape accusations rings more than a tad hollow.

 

Personally, I think things like changing attitudes towards guns and sexual assault aren't things being "ruined" so much as more and more people finally coming to their senses.

 

I'm also not sure where these insanely strict gun laws are. Seems to me it's easier than ever to be a complete [expletive] white person and walk around town with assault weapons with no repercussions.

 

I meant the gun laws that people are calling for, not the ones that are enacted.

 

Well, most gun nuts think any gun law is insane so I'm still not sure what you are talking about.

 

I might have said it wrong. I was talking about the other group of people (to simplify, the 'non-gun owners') who, every time there's a mass shooting, take the position of "Look, we know most of you (the gun-owners) are responsible and sane people. But this has happened too many times, and these idiot shooters have ruined it for the rest of you." and call for regulations in the range of very strict qualifications for ownership to total gun recall.

[jersey cubs fan]

I might have said it wrong. I was talking about the other group of people (to simplify, the 'non-gun owners') who, every time there's a mass shooting, take the position of "Look, we know most of you (the gun-owners) are responsible and sane people. But this has happened too many times, and these idiot shooters have ruined it for the rest of you." and call for regulations in the range of very strict qualifications for ownership to total gun recall.

 

I assumed that was what you were talking about and can only laugh at the notion that people calling for strict qualifications is somehow insane.

[Guest]

I might have said it wrong. I was talking about the other group of people (to simplify, the 'non-gun owners') who, every time there's a mass shooting, take the position of "Look, we know most of you (the gun-owners) are responsible and sane people. But this has happened too many times, and these idiot shooters have ruined it for the rest of you." and call for regulations in the range of very strict qualifications for ownership to total gun recall.

 

I assumed that was what you were talking about and can only laugh at the notion that people calling for strict qualifications is somehow insane.

 

Yeah. It's laughable.

[squally1313]

I might have said it wrong. I was talking about the other group of people (to simplify, the 'non-gun owners') who, every time there's a mass shooting, take the position of "Look, we know most of you (the gun-owners) are responsible and sane people. But this has happened too many times, and these idiot shooters have ruined it for the rest of you." and call for regulations in the range of very strict qualifications for ownership to total gun recall.

 

I assumed that was what you were talking about and can only laugh at the notion that people calling for strict qualifications is somehow insane.

 

When did I say it was insane? If there were a total recall on guns, it'd be bad for those responsible gun owners, and good for society as a whole. If we reach a point in society when every rape victim is comfortable to step forward and go after their rapist, I think it's fair to say that there would be instances of false accusation. Sucks for that person, good for society as a whole.

[jersey cubs fan]

I might have said it wrong. I was talking about the other group of people (to simplify, the 'non-gun owners') who, every time there's a mass shooting, take the position of "Look, we know most of you (the gun-owners) are responsible and sane people. But this has happened too many times, and these idiot shooters have ruined it for the rest of you." and call for regulations in the range of very strict qualifications for ownership to total gun recall.

 

I assumed that was what you were talking about and can only laugh at the notion that people calling for strict qualifications is somehow insane.

 

When did I say it was insane?

 

You said "insanely strict gun laws" and then lumped restrictions on ownership into that group. And nobody is talking about total gun recall except for those working on behalf of gun companies to convince idiots to buy more guns before it becomes illegal and unavailable.

[Guest]

I might have said it wrong. I was talking about the other group of people (to simplify, the 'non-gun owners') who, every time there's a mass shooting, take the position of "Look, we know most of you (the gun-owners) are responsible and sane people. But this has happened too many times, and these idiot shooters have ruined it for the rest of you." and call for regulations in the range of very strict qualifications for ownership to total gun recall.

 

I assumed that was what you were talking about and can only laugh at the notion that people calling for strict qualifications is somehow insane.

 

When did I say it was insane?

 

You said "insanely strict gun laws" and then lumped restrictions on ownership into that group. And nobody is talking about total gun recall except for those working on behalf of gun companies to convince idiots to buy more guns before it becomes illegal and unavailable.

 

eh, don't think that was what he meant...just sloppy use of the word and he probably just meant extremely strict.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's instances of false accusation with all crimes; there's this nonsense train of thought that always seems to be implying that sexual crimes should be held to a higher standard of proof than other crimes because the accused could "have their life ruined."

[Guest]

There's instances of false accusation with all crimes; there's this nonsense train of thought that always seems to be implying that sexual crimes should be held to a higher standard of proof than other crimes because the accused could "have their life ruined."

 

Plus it's got to be extremely hard to prove in the first place.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's instances of false accusation with all crimes; there's this nonsense train of thought that always seems to be implying that sexual crimes should be held to a higher standard of proof than other crimes because the accused could "have their life ruined."

 

Plus it's got to be extremely hard to prove in the first place.

 

Right; and it's often something that needs to be reported and investigated in a more timely manner than many other crimes, yet it just seems like there's a lot of dancing around a general sense of, "welllllll, they should only report it if they're 100% sure it can be proven."

[jersey cubs fan]

hey guys, take the rape discussion out of the Blackhawks thread...., oh wait.

[squally1313]

I might have said it wrong. I was talking about the other group of people (to simplify, the 'non-gun owners') who, every time there's a mass shooting, take the position of "Look, we know most of you (the gun-owners) are responsible and sane people. But this has happened too many times, and these idiot shooters have ruined it for the rest of you." and call for regulations in the range of very strict qualifications for ownership to total gun recall.

 

I assumed that was what you were talking about and can only laugh at the notion that people calling for strict qualifications is somehow insane.

 

When did I say it was insane?

 

You said "insanely strict gun laws" and then lumped restrictions on ownership into that group. And nobody is talking about total gun recall except for those working on behalf of gun companies to convince idiots to buy more guns before it becomes illegal and unavailable.

 

Alright since you're a big fan of snipping apparently, I'll state my personal viewpoint so I don't look like a total monster. I have never owned a gun and I don't really see a reason why anyone does. If you want to take one word of what I said, miss the actual point, and completely change the discussion, sure. If a group of terrible people (rapists, murderers) cause things to get incrementally worse for the majority (normal sex havers, responsible gun owners), that is almost always good for society in general. But (on a less important scale) it does mean that things get worse for those normal people.