The way that modern law works itself into such a convoluted knot trying to define everything down to the smallest detail possible, categorizing everything in intricate detail will ultimately be our undoing, I think. As a corrollary to Cicero's dictum "more laws, less justice," "the greater the scope of the law, the less freedom and justice there will be." As if our system didn't already suffer from weakened bright lines testing for rape, if this law goes through, it will completely pave over the bright line test for rape altogether, almost completely putting the definition into the hands of the plaintiff and out of the hands of the judge and jury:
There are many women out there who would love to be able to get back at a lover by seeing him get charged for rape by "deceiving" them about what his intentions about the relationship were. These women will benefit from the law, but every woman who is raped, in the objective sense of the word, will lose in Massachusetts should this law go through because of the way that men and more level-headed women will become even more cynical and skeptical about claims of rape.
At What's Wrong With The World, Zippy Catholic wrote that every type of liberalism must adopt unprincipled exceptions to the political freedom that it claims to advance. That is definitely true of feminism in how feminism is quite willing to undermine or outright destroy basic due process rights in order to make it easier to convict men of rape. This is a truly profound inherent contradiction of modern liberalism, which is why when you combine all of the "liberal issues" together you get a bag of exceptions that effectively rips apart every trace of political freedom that liberalism claims to offer. For this reason, it's important that not only should the personal not be the political, but that in most cases, neither should the sociological be political either.
Massachusetts is the latest state to consider putting a new crime on the books: rape by fraud. Currently, a sex act only qualifies as rape if physical force is used. We talk to a woman who was tricked into having sex with her boyfriend's brother, who pretended to be her boyfriend - and unable to convict him of rape because of this limited definition.
Under the new law, such forms of deception would be a crime. Some say the law goes too far, however, and could criminalize lies like, "Really, I'm divorced!"
There are many women out there who would love to be able to get back at a lover by seeing him get charged for rape by "deceiving" them about what his intentions about the relationship were. These women will benefit from the law, but every woman who is raped, in the objective sense of the word, will lose in Massachusetts should this law go through because of the way that men and more level-headed women will become even more cynical and skeptical about claims of rape.
At What's Wrong With The World, Zippy Catholic wrote that every type of liberalism must adopt unprincipled exceptions to the political freedom that it claims to advance. That is definitely true of feminism in how feminism is quite willing to undermine or outright destroy basic due process rights in order to make it easier to convict men of rape. This is a truly profound inherent contradiction of modern liberalism, which is why when you combine all of the "liberal issues" together you get a bag of exceptions that effectively rips apart every trace of political freedom that liberalism claims to offer. For this reason, it's important that not only should the personal not be the political, but that in most cases, neither should the sociological be political either.
Here's one for you...currently having sex with a girl-woman who says she's 18 is statutory rape if she's 16 or 17.
With this "rape by fraud" precedence, say good-bye to statutory rape if a guy can reasonably claim that "she told me she was 18!"
"As a corrollary to Cicero's dictum "more laws, less justice," "the greater the scope of the law, the less freedom and justice there will be." "
I remember reading about what some British lord...I can find the quote if you want...he basically said something along the lines of: "give me a law, and I can find a way to interpret it to ensnare just about anyone, even the most honest of people"
Of course, I'm paraphrasing, but you get my point.
I believe you are looking for this:
"If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find in them something to hang him."
- Richelieu
It was Cardinal Richelieu who said that, and he was certainly a man who could make good on that promise...
Interesting idea about statutory rape, though I doubt a judge will go for it. Invariably, such laws will just work more and more for the protection of women from responsibility.
Thanks for the quote. It's the one I was thinking of.
Speaking of protecting women from responsibility, you should check out what Aussie feminists have managed to get away with down under. I'll post on it later today over at my blog:
URL:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23619670-7583,00.html
I can't say that I am surprised. I've brought this point up time and again, and the people who believe that drunk women cannot give consent flat out don't care if the man is drunk. He could be twice as drunk as she is, so much so that he can't tell his erection from a baseball bat, and yet he is still supposed to be responsible in their eyes.