Punishing women for false accusation of rape

Alleged criminals.

But no, you just had to throw in the "conniving bitches", leaning into this vapid stereotype of women to start off with, while trying to argue that you love women's rights, while comparing what these two women did with generations of systemic abuse by clergy and the Church hiding it for generations as though they were comparable. Not to mention you then attempted to argue that lying was somehow comparable to rape and sexual assault and that the punishment should somehow match what would normally be given for rape and sexual assault..

To the one, rape is so rarely prosecuted and rapists so rarely imprisoned when one looks at how many rapes there are and then having a look at how many make it through the criminal justice system and actually end up in prison, that it makes your argument even more ridiculous. To the other, lying and rape are not even remotely comparable.

See, paddoboy, you chose to make a point about these two women, these "conniving bitches" as you described them, because well, you kind of have a history of discrediting women and your arguments about rape, sexual violence and women in general on this site speaks for itself.

You have a history on this site, paddoboy and when it comes to women's rights, none of it is good.

Remember when you went on a whine about how women were somehow or other destroying men's rights to sexually harass them on the street because god forbid women can get about their day without lewd comments and whistles when walking on the street and then your spiel about how you pee standing up and how you don't want to see women with armpit hair and facial hair?

Who here has forgotten this from you, and then a long and drawn out argument as we called out your misogyny over and over again because hey, it was a thread about the Women's March and something something about you equating "women's rights" as somehow being above 'men's rights' and not 'equal rights' and then going on and on about how you don't think street harassment is actually sexual harassment or even harassment at all, etc.. Remember this gorgeous post from you, Paddoboy?

So what do you think these two "conniving bitches" should get for lying?

Do you think lying is the same as rape?

I mean, these are just a couple of examples. There are plenty more.

So yeah, are you sure you want to discuss your terminology? Because I am fairly certain you aren't going to come out the other end looking great.

What emotional crap, paddoboy?

If you want to talk about emotional crap, should we look at "conniving bitches", comparing lying and fraud to rape, comparing two women who lied to the systemic abuse perpetuated by the clergy and the Church's efforts to protect and hide said abuse and allow it to continue over generations, not to mention your equating what a couple of women did to somehow or other harming "women's causes"..

How about you temper your emotions?

It's not worth your time to discuss your arguments in this thread?

So this thread is just what, exactly? You whining about women yet again?

If you want to talk about avoidance, how about we talk about your avoiding the responses to the ridiculous comments you made in this thread?

Or are you simply seeking validation about these two "conniving bitches" and how you equate fraud and lying to rape? No one has said that women who commit crimes should not be prosecuted. You seem to be for ignoring established laws and giving disproportionate sentences for what is literally lying.

Oookaaay?

What does this have to do with this thread?

Is this meant to be a testament to your virility or something?

 

paddoboy:

No. It's the nonsense you've posted in your opening post, and in what follows, that has got me slightly miffed.

Are you at all concerned about her mental health, which seems to be at issue? You're very quick to rush to judgment without much knowledge of the circumstances.

I think it's blatant stupidity to equate telling some lies to raping somebody. If you're that lacking in perspective, you really shouldn't start threads like this.

No. I feel sorry for the guy. I suppose he could potentially sue the woman for compensation, but I'm guessing that the chances of getting much money out of her are slim.

You don't know anything about the guy's marriage, other than that his wife left him and later they reconciled. You ought to stay out of other people's marriages, especially when you don't know them.

You did. Your opening post lumped the two cases in together as comparable examples of false accusers "getting away with it" or something. Obviously, you didn't know until I told you that they didn't get away with it.

Because sympathy for a woman who is possibly mentally ill would be completely out of place, wouldn't it? What we ought to do with her is to throw her in prison and treat her as if she was a rapist herself, according to you. It's not just you, of course. There's at least one other man here willing to nail his colours to your mast.

Anybody found guilty of rape should be sentenced for the crime of rape in a court. What has that got to do with anything?

Again, you equate telling some lies to physically raping somebody. What's wrong with you?

Clearly you've missed the whole of #metoo.

I think you should shut up talking about women's issues, because clearly you have no clue.

Also, you're all over the place in this thread. What has workplace harassment got to do with the cases you raised in your opening post? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Let me tell you, because you obviously aren't aware: sexual harassment of women in the workplace is still very far from being a "non-existent" problem that has been "greatly addressed". Try talking to some women some time. Why do you think #metoo even happened?

You know, you're the second man who has said the same thing to me in the past week. You think that being married is some kind of evidence that you're not sexist, or misogynist, or that your attitudes to women are not archaic? That what the other guy appears to think. Being married doesn't give you a free pass, paddoboy. The fact that a woman has chosen to put up with you doesn't show that you're an expert when it comes to women. You don't know what she's willing to overlook as a tradeoff against other things she gets from your relationship. Maybe you should ask her.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Doubling down with the insanity, I see.

Obviously, she's thought it through as little as you have.

Equally concerned are you? Because violence by women against men is as big a problem as violence by men against women, I suppose.

What does any of this have to do with your opening post, anyway? What has child abuse got to do with women making false accusations of rape? It's your thread. At least try to stay focused on whatever the hell topic it is you think you're discussing.

How on earth are those topics remotely related to the topic of this thread? What's the connection? Some mothers neglect their children, so therefore false rape-accusers should get life in prison? How does that follow? What are you on about?

Yes. Child abuse is aborrent. What does it have to do with the thread topic?

You do a disservice to the animals.

That's a whole other topic, and I don't think you know what you're talking about. There seems little point in starting in on that here.

Why? Because the actions of one woman reflect on women in general? One criminal woman makes all women criminals? Every woman represents the sisterhood?

How would you feel if I said "The low life rapist and the man who beat his child hasn't done the reputation of men any favours, and has set back the 'men's cause'"?

Your comparison is disgusting and patronising and wrong.

The two things are not remotely comparable. Pell was promoted to the highest offices of the Church. He was endorsed by the organisation. He represented it. He was given power and authority over lots of other people in the church. The church suffers because it endorsed and promoted such a man.

For this to be remotely comparable, we would have to have these false-accuser women being somehow endorsed by or representative of women in general, which they are not.

Ask your wife if all women are the same. She will tell you they are not. Ask her if she thinks the actions of these false-accuser woman reflect poorly on her as a woman. You'll be lucky if she doesn't boot you out of the house.

I haven't got the faintest inkling about what you're talking about. Explain.

 

Yes. Alleged.

Has she been to court yet? Found guilty? You know, until all of that happens, it's alleged.

I get it, you want to have the gallows drawn up and hang the "bitches" in the back. But we are still a civilised society. We have laws. We process crimes through the courts.

Yes. Alleged.

You should look up what that means within a legal context.

Yes Paddo. Until they are found guilty, they are "alleged".

It's why we have a criminal justice system. Until they go through that process, they are "alleged" or 'accused'.

No no, tell us how you don't have a problem with women, Paddoboy...

Please. You're doing such a great job at it already.

This trope of the "lying" women.. I mean, is this all you have to go on? There are so few false rape accusations that it doesn't even register. So out of all the horrific crimes that occur, you chose to focus on "lying by these bitches" and compare it to systemic and generational sexual abuse by the clergy and to rape..

And yes paddoboy, please do lecture me about the evil's of the 'system' when it comes to rape.

Your whining is laughable.

Please look up the term "collateral damage".

And then tell me how that applies?

You blithely ignored 3/4 of Weg's post and focused solely on the bit that you think agreed with you.

The women's rights moment is about equality, paddoboy. I get it, you keep reminding us of how you are a man (previous references of how you pee standing up, how women want you, etc), while whining about "feminazis", despite having been told how this term is offensive, not to mention your repeated whining about how you think women's rights is about "women's superiority"..

As I noted above, please tell us how you don't have a problem with women, paddoboy.

Outright lies? Paddoboy, there are links where your words can be seen.

As for your sexism, we all know. We all know that you still think that women's bodies are public and that men like you believe you have the right to comment on their bodies in various forms without invitation. You're that kind of guy. We know this already. Despite the fact that men with an education understand that wolf whistling women is sexual harassment, you are still tightly holding on to that cave, because 'ugg.. you man!'.

You linked Germaine Greer. Enough said.

Yes. You have the known misogynist on your side.

Yay you! You be you!

Have you read your posts in this thread?

"Conniving bitches"..
"Lying by these bitches"..
Comparing women lying to rape and systemic child sex abuse that spanned generations..​

And you accuse others of being emotional.

I don't need to paint you as some sort of chauvinist.

You are a chauvinist.

Yes.

We know.

And if the police believe they broke the law, they will be prosecuted.

And?

I mean seriously, and?

Please tell me that you aren't now commenting on your sexual prowess?

Did you behave this way in the workplace as well? Or do you save this side of you for the internet?

In short, carrying on like a pervert while complaining and calling women "bitches", feminazi's, etc, is not a good look for you.

Misogyny has no political affiliation.

 

And it continues...

Again, there's at least one other guy here who seems to think that because a woman has agreed to have sex with him, that somehow proves he isn't a sexist, a misogynist or a chauvinist. Hint: having sex doesn't mean you don't have problems with women.

And really, nobody here needs to hear about your sexual exploits or your conquests over the little women.

I think that might be a slip on Bell's part. In the case you refer to, the woman pleaded guilty to a crime, so she is a convicted criminal (although I don't think she has been sentenced yet). In the second case, as far as I am aware, the woman concerned has not even been charged with a crime. But perhaps you know differently?

In Australia, as you may be aware, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Until conviction, an accused criminal is "alleged". Listen to how news reporters describe such people. You will hear the word "alleged" a lot.

That was a man - a priest who abused children. I don't know much about him. Was he charged/convicted?

Ask your wife whether she approves of your referring to women as "bitches". Ask her what kind of men typically do that.

Here's the thing, paddoboy. You didn't start this thread to give sympathy to the male victims. You started this thread to bash their female accusers. Your focus is on the "bitches", the "lowlife" women, the "connivers".

You accuse Bells and myself of lacking sympathy for the male victims. You haven't asked us what we feel for them. You're assuming we're unsympathetic for some reason. Why is that? Is it because if we're not with you in your crusade against the women, we must be against these men?

The two cases are quite different, and I don't even think you realise it. From the news reports - which is all I have to go on - the "good samaritan" case most likely involves a mentally-disturbed woman falsely accusing an entirely innocent man. The Jarratt case, on the other hand, involves a decades-old sexual encounter that both parties agreed took place, and the argument was over whether the encounter was consensual or not. A court decided that the allegation that it was not consensual was not proven in that case.

If you want to know how I feel about the men, here's how I feel. Regarding the good samaritan - I feel sorry for the guy who was falsely accused. He clearly did nothing to deserve what happened to him (regarding the allegation of rape). Regarding John Jarratt, I don't know what actually happened with him, but clearly the court had more information in front of it than I do. I suspect that what happened there was a consensual sexual encounter that both parties later came to regret. Possibly the woman concerned came later to view the encounter as non-consensual. But this is all speculation on my part, and I could be very wrong. I think that the outcome of the trial, i.e. Jarratt's acquittal, was most likely the right one in terms of the application of the law. I'd like to think that Jarratt was innocent, but I don't know. From what I've seen of him, he seems like an okay guy, but I don't know him.

And other lying can see guilty men go free.

We appreciate that the criminal justice system is far from perfect. But how do you plan to solve the problem? Assume that woman accusers are always lying, unless there is clear evidence that they are not? Send accusers to prison if a court finds them unproven?

Now we get to it. Women's rights are all well and good, until they go too far. Then, the women become evil "feminazis" and must be put back in their rightful place. Wouldn't want the little women getting above their station, would we? Everybody is equal, but men are more equal than women (apologies to Orwell).

I haven't seen you starting any threads railing against false male accusers. It's only the women you seem to have a problem with.

That's another topic, but briefly: if a wolf whistle puts somebody in fear of potential bodily harm, then it is an assault.

I'm not sure whether you're endorsing the men who harass women in the street. If you are, then shame on you. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

Well done, paddoboy. Tell the woman how she is posting "emotional crap", because women are irrational and emotional, as all good men know. Also tell her that she is "boring" and that she is a liar. Take her down a peg or two. She's getting too hoity and needs to be put in her place. What a great thread you've chosen to attack a women in! Way to show your true colours!

Why on earth do you think you need to tell women about your virility in this thread? How is it relevant? Who cares if your penis works or not? We know you're a man. You don't have to wave your penis around.

Some advice: you might want to quit this appalling excuse for a thread now, rather than dig an even deeper hole for yourself. Totally up to you, of course.

 

paddoboy:

You couldn't bring yourself to answer my question, so you tried to change the focus to the victim instead. I see what you did there.

What about the victim's mental health? Has anybody here said they don't give a damn about that? Not me, that's for sure.

So, do you want to try answering the question I asked you again, now, or do you want to try to ignore or deflect it a second time?

How convenient for you.

Here's what I think. I think you have no excuses, so you're avoiding addressing points that make you uncomfortable. It's a fundamentally dishonest approach, especially given that this is your thread. Why did you start it? Tell the truth.

Sure, but when a court appoints experts to determine a person's state of mental health, they are under an obligation to the court to apply their expertise to the best of their ability, and to give their honest assessment to the court or be susceptible to charges of perjury.

But is this just you claiming that the woman in the good samaritan case couldn't possibly have a real mental illness? That she must be telling lies? Is that how you justify your bias towards her to yourself, and how you try to justify your using her as an example of all that is wrong with low-life conniving women in this thread?

That's not why you started this thread.

My concerns for a woman's mental health are secondary to your feeling for some blokes. I see. You're unable to bring yourself to give a damn about a potentially mentally-ill woman, for some reason. I get it.

Who described them as innocent children? Not me. Are you trying to belittle them? It sounds to me a lot like you view women as sort of like children, who need men to control them, one way or another.

Suppose that the woman is found to be mentally ill, suffering from schizophrenia, let's say. Will you still insist that she is vindictive and an arsehole?

And supposing she isn't found to be mentally ill. How do you conclude she was motivated by "vindictiveness"?