WARNING to all men
I draw readers’ attention to our laws on unlawful sexual connection. Note particularly the section on consent, which seems to allow almost any situation to be defined as unlawful. If you are considering having sex with someone (I will assume for this posting it is a woman), keep in mind the following information. Consent can be seen to have been absent when:
a) she offered no protest (i.e. she made no effort to say “no”) or any physical resistance (i.e. she accepted advances and participated in the sexual activity).
b) she “allowed” sexual activity because she feared that force might be applied to her or some other person;. Nothing you did is relevant here. This echoes the Domestic Violence Act where claimed subjective fear is enough for a protection order to be granted regardless of whether the respondent ever did anything violent or whether there is any rational basis to that fear.
c) she is seen as having been too drunk or stoned to give consent. That means (e.g.) if a woman has been drinking and invites you to get it on, she can later claim that you should not have accepted her invitation because she was drunk. This, as with all the other provisions here, applies also to your married or long-term partner, so don’t mistakenly think it’s safe to have sex with your wife in the relaxed afterglow of dinner and a bottle of wine.
d) she claims to have been mistaken about your identity; again your role in this is irrelevant.
e) she allows the act because she is mistaken about its nature and quality. So, for example, if she accepts and enjoys you having oral sex with her but later decides it was immoral, she can charge you with sexual violation.
f) any other circumstance in which she decides retrospectively that she really preferred not to have participated, because the act specifically states that it places no limit on the circumstances in which a person can be seen to not have given consent to sexual activity.
I suppose these are the provisions under which Louise Nicholas was able to prosecute men for sexual activities which she as a competent adult well beyond the age of consent agreed to and participated in actively and without protest. Ladies, remember this if you ever want to get revenge on a current or ex-lover. If successful and you have been together for a couple of years it will probably enable you to gain all or most of his property also.
How have things come to this? How has a feminist administration been able to make laws that allow women almost unlimited scope to charge men with retrospectively-decided crimes that can see the men imprisoned for longer than if they had killed or maimed someone? Although the wording of the Act is gender neutral, it is clearly motivated by feminist preference and will be applied accordingly. Hence we repeatedly see real female sexual offending described euphemistically with the female offender charged sparingly and given light sentences (e.g. see this recent example). You can bet that if a woman was charged for offences based on the above claims, it would be laughed out of Court (in the unlikely event it had not already been laughed out of the police station).
So what does this mean for men? I was on a panel about a decade ago on a tv show about sexual offending, along with others including Greg Newbold and some staunch man-hating feminists. After debating the complex issue of consent (during which Greg Newbold increased his infamy when he asserted that from a woman “no” does not always mean “no”!), one of the women made the (at the time) incredible assertion that only signed, written consent from a woman should be enough to protect a man from rape allegations. Well, that is now another item on the feminist agenda that has come to pass. Only that written consent to sex is not enough; under the Act you will need written consent specifically for every sexual act she participates in. Men, be afraid, be very afraid, and realise that unless you have written consent from a sexual partner you could easily be charged under NZ law with rape or other sexual offending. Keep in mind also that when you read about some man being convicted of rape etc, don’t jump to any conclusions about what it means. Under the current law, perfectly innocent behaviour in good faith can and will be construed as serious sexual offending.
Living in this country is no longer safe for men. NZ men deserve to be recognized as worthy of political asylum in other countries, but no doubt the clever gender-neutral facade of such legislation and NZ’s undeserved image as a country with due regard for civil rights and gender equality will rule out such avenues of escape for most NZ men.
I don’t suppose any of this momentum will be countered by men in power either, as it will be so easy to accuse them and have them jailed for ‘sex offences’ if they should dare suggest these laws be repealed.
It’s beginning to become very clear why the Roman Catholic church insisted on celibacy for its office-holders, and also why it has lasted for so long.
I know that there are many elderly,and younger women in this country who were also afraid when they were brutally raped,and protested as much as they possibly could.Some protested too much and paid dearly for that.
I’m sorry you guys,but I don’t consider this as being a ‘nice post’ neither do I consider the dealing in heroin as being ‘nice’
Yes Rosie, to be subjected either brutality or sexual violation is horrific. Of course it’s important to have strong laws against rape, to enforce people’s rights over their bodies and to provide as comfortable and safe a process as possible for victims of sexual violations. I would feel privileged to be able personally to mete out justice to a brutal rapist. However, I don’t think we should be trying to deal with sexual offending by subjecting all men to legal jeopardy even for perfectly innocent, benign behaviour. It doesn’t seem as though you have actually read my post.
By the way, what did you mean when you stated “some protested too much and paid dearly for that”?
At rape trials,the expensive lawyers who are in most cases paid by the tax payers,always try to convince the juries that it is the woman who is to blame.Especially if those women are young.With elderly women,they don’t have much of a case.When the woman has been killed,they have none,but still try to invent one.
There are radical feminists out there who openly advocate the extermination of men as calmly as if they were discussing a new vaccine for chicken-pox (do a Google search on Mary Daly). Because of gender-bias laws, these individuals aren’t prosecuted for hate speech for the sole reason that loose law has exempted men from protection.
Men have every right to be concerned about loose legislation that could fall into the hands of these sorts of people.
The law injures itself, as well as men, when it turns a blind eye to fraudulent, extortive and even murderous intent.
So Rosie, are you suggesting that men accused of rape shouldn’t have lawyers, or that their lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to put forward the man’s account of what happened or to test the allegations being made by the woman? Should we treat rape trials differently from all other criminal matters and simply convict men immediately on the word of any accusing woman? That seems to be what you and the feminists are wanting. Certainly, the laws have now been designed to bring us a lot closer to that situation.
And even if you had a written consent for every sexual activity it is unlikely enough: you also need to have had independent legal advice before signing each and every agreement.
There is a phenomenon known to psychologists as “Confirmation Bias”
Make up your mind on an issue before you have all the facts.
Thereafter look only for the evidence to support your hunch.
Ignore contradictory evidence or dismiss it as irrelevant or untrue
This is a phenomenon to which some New Zealand police and Prosecutors seem susceptible
That’s not what I am suggesting at all Hans.What I am saying is that,there are many more men who are found not guilty in rape trials than there are women who claim false rape.Thanks to clever lawyers.Peter Kaye being one of them.
Rosie – I’m not sure about the accuracy of your claim (the kind often heard from the feminist lobby) that there aren’t as many women falsely claiming rape as there are true offenders who walk free; how could we possilby know that? Further, it provides no useful rebuttal of my post.
I understand the anger you feel about true offenders who might walk free. However, it’s silly to blame clever lawyers for this, or to claim (as the feminist lobby continually does) that the system is stacked against rape complainants. The reason rape convictions are difficult to obtain is because it is a difficult crime to substantiate. Evidence is often lacking because the crime is committed without independent witnesses. The question of consent is often crucial and there are only two opposing accounts on which a jury must decide beyond reasonable doubt. Many prosecutions are on the basis of historical events and/or where complainants have not followed the widely publicised recommendations to avoid showering and to obtain medical/forensic evidence as soon as possible. It’s a difficult crime to establish but this is not a good reason for lowering the goal-posts so that convictions will be easier to obtain on the basis of the same inadequate evidence. Any increase such changes will achieve in convicting true rapists will be accompanied by an exactly proportional increase in false convictions of the innocent (unlike the outcome from evidential improvement as in the development of genetic evidence that can convict more true offenders without convicting many more innocent parties). And it is an unavoidable reality that false accusations of rape are easily made and for various reasons, and that they are usually as difficult to disprove as to prove.
To illustrate: Another crime that’s often difficult to prosecute is that of arson because physical evidence has usually been destroyed in the fire. This is not a good reason for changing either the law or the justice process to make it easier to convict someone for arson, or for suggesting that defence lawyers in arson trials should not use their full skills to represent their clients.
My original post on this topic criticizes current sexual violation laws for lowering the goal posts by defining consent in ways that can and will be used against truly innocent men for whatever ulterior motive. This is no way to deal justly with the inherent difficulty in proving rape allegations. Sadly, it is the kind of callous solution at the expense of many innocent men that we have come to expect from feminism.
Such melodrama! Though NZ has become a nanny state where our every action is now monitored, ‘genuine’ sexual offending against woman and children in NZ has reached epidemic proportions (and has done for many years). As many people are aware, what abuse is reported and actioned by the police, is only the absolute ‘tip of the ice berg’. The Louise Nicholas case has been a catalyst for thousands of bitter men to jump on the band wagon declaring ‘false rape complaints and prosecutions’ are being used as by evil, vengeful woman on a regular basis to get retribution on unsuspecting men. This is just deluded rubbish. I think the problem of abuse NOT being reported in NZ, (probably even more so now after the hell Louise Nicholas was put through, as with many other abuse victims) is far more of an issue than an uproar over a peice of legisation, that like most of the recent pointless passed, will not be adhered to anyway. Has the feminist movement really become such a thorn in some men’s side that they have to have ridiculous istes such as this…lordy. Man drought, thank god.
Prove it. You cant because your making an assumption not stating fact.
What you are advocating is a myth that cannot be substantiated.
You cannot substantiate quantitatively your claim because it is a myth.
The level of abuse can only be measured based on convictions in a criminal court as, despite the best efforts of your feminist friends, men are innocent untill proven guilty in a court of law.
You make a good flat earther – myth is your reality.
Please refer to the NZ crime and safety survey 2006, Ministry of Justice, for details of atriction between experience of sexual abuse and the percentage of those who have had resolution through the court system. You will find it is literally the ‘tip of the iceberg’ (less than 2%).
This is a well established national survey.
And please answer this, what percentage of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assaults in this country and who are the ones killing our children? I have a male partner, I love men, but I am very scared that there are men in NZ who are so bitter, angry and deluded in regard in their attitude towards women, are in professions where they portray themselves as a non biased non-judgemental professionals. Misogynisim has taken on a scary and dangerous new face that will be detrimental to all our mothers, daughters and partners. Please push that huge chip off your shoulder and start and face reality.
Btw, Louise Nicholas was 13 when she was first ‘initiated’ into the world police sexual ‘fun’. Since when has it been acceptable for a 30 year man to fuck a 13 year old child???
Never Abi , and the charge is Sexual Violation and Unlawful Sexual Connection with a child under the age of 17 .
I should know as I am real close to a recent victim .
Well done Judge Boshier you slime ball twisted corrupt snake .
Attrition rates mean nothing. They do not support your myth.
You cannot quantify your claim and relying on self reporting rates is laughable.
Self reporting is notoriously unreliable.
Its an officials report and calling it a well established national survey may suit spin doctoring but its still nothing more than an officials report.
No doubt you believe in the all men are rapists myth also.
Actually some states in the US have a consent age of 14 for females.
Spain is 13 years of age.
Please note I am not advocating lowering the age of consent I am just pointing out that our view is very much shaped by the culture we live in.
I agree Scrap, isn’t it 12 in Mexico?
Third world countries have no such laws only custom. So in this first world country, how do we set the principle first to see the day?
We need to justify our sexuality and why it is naturally damaging to promote or to engage in sex with a child as a child. We need to reform our education system so that our children can understand the damage they influence over themselves if they seek to engage in their sexuality to a degree of procreation before society can support the birth of any child. We need to be sure that every child has an education that allows them to trust teh adult world that they will be assisted into their maturity when they reach the age of consent. In order to do these things, we muust be disciplined – honest and brave.
Men should not be demonised but should be supported to institute responsibly against any adversity for the naturality of their function.
I Belive that women have a obligation to stop false rape alligations before this becomes an epidemic.
It is a disgrace in this country that all to often an innocent man is put thru the coals along with his wife and their children, because of a false rape complaint by a lowlife of a women.
As woman i refuse to belive any women now that makes a rape allegation, I am sick of us wanting to be classed as equal when we have women in our midst that are okay with using their sexuailty to wreck a families life. Then every women must take a step back from equialty If this continues to happen woman will never be equal to men
Women will always use the law as a weapon and wreck the lives of the ones they hate, but in the end they are irrational and do not think of the consequences of their actions. It is the fault of the law to let them do that. Enacting laws to protect a few which are abused by many, that is the false rape laws and family law. baby and bathwater spring to mind
As a consequence, many men have become very angry with all the injustice of it all, but the lawyers and experts have a vested interest in the status quo and will never change. The feminised laws need to be changed, anyone with ANY common sense can see it, why are the legislators so blind to it all ?
I have been thinking of how these draconian family laws will ever be changed. The only ways i can think of are
1. If or When Employers are affected, and the “captains of industry” ask the government to change the bias against fathers, to stop fathers going underground and dissappearing from the censuses
2. There is a sudden spate of men killing their former spouses after being deprived of their kids. It would definitely bring attention to these evil laws
The problem with this theory of the “captains of industry” is that those captains are the disaffected, constructing and maintaining rules that further their damage. The rules are necessary because human function requires the market.
What this means is that those captains, men (directly chauvanistic for the purpose of discussion)establishing the market as a necessity have missed to the equation of the purpose. The purpose of the market is for survival. We require the market to cover all of our needs. It is at this point of recognition that those captains must think about what you have said Martin.
Your second point is an advanced observation of what happens when that demand in human function gets out of control. We have placed too much emphasis on teh market and its development for the markets sake, losing the reason behind why we have a market. Self interest has become the primary motive for the maintenance of the market.
Markets are necessary to protect its immediate community, yet when this self interest becomes so extreme that that community is directly exploited to furnish those most succesful in the market, the areas where the commnunity suffers are where the problems begin to become extreme. Women complain tha their men spent more time in the market than at home in their nest. They picked up their instruments of challenge (their ability to make men different from how they want to be) and entered into the market, to compete.
This theory isn’t really that old and the reasons why we are having such significant problems in society is that the roles of naturality are now deeply mixed.
Your second point isn’t anything but reality of a future if my theory is correct. So it isn’t a case of the necessity for change to occur to have to occur it is more that the damages that are being done are undone. To think that men will simply let women overtake themm in every area of their human function isn’t just hopeful, it is dangerous as it is ridiculous.
Our problems now are that this thinking is heavily mature and there is apparently very few in bureaucracy who are willing to recognise these truths. Men have just watched as their role in society has been challenged and marginalised. The new legislation of the Care of Children Act allowing children to be born to a single woman a naked and appalling manifestation of this corruption in thinking.
I don’t disagree with your views yet am publicly engaging in a third option. That government starts to institute into its practice a way to measure against women who want this power that overrides the equality of every human who isn’t a woman. If you read the terminology used for women to champion their status the word and its danger is absolutely clear. Political women say they want “equality”. Its the wrong word. It is an absolute impossibility. Women cannot be equal with men.
That’s the first part. The diffuculty these women have in their view to this end is that if they do not have children then they are disadvantaged as being “unequal” where and when in fact they argue they would work as hard, if not harder in any market as any man. This might be right. Yet in order for mankind to maintain its necessary numbers of procreation these women have to be in minority. And you cannot develop any kind of human direction that says this woman will be childless and this woman will breed. This point hasn’t been taken into the calculation of the feminist wave. Women have progressed and our problems have advanced at the same rate of imbalance in society. So this is the demand of my third point. That this is recognised publicly.
How we recognise this publicly is for women like Helen Clark to own up to this truth. Presently they are blind to it championing what they would call rainbow politics, developing a comunity where freedom to be who you are and what you want to be is the highest of high in principle. With this comes the release from oppression claimed by the homosexual community and liberalism is exonerated. Sexual variance is accepted into society and there really isn’t any problems – as everyone is equal.
Which is most obviously wrong. The necessity for humans to function as they are made is not a preference it is a natural demand. now I know what John Potter said recently about this not being a site to discuss homosexuality so I need to be very clear here (for a range of reasons) that his discussion is not about homosexuality. Nor does it in anyway act to be aggressive toward homosexual people, because I’m not. It is a cnoversation about men needing to be aware and cautious. This is the problem it is not a symptom that can be ignored.
So the third point is to apply pressure on the kinds of thinking that says it is OK to term women as equal incorporating into that view that childbirth and child raising is not a necessary factor to consider. Because to think like this is a pretence.
At this point those who believe they have already considered this problem and have developed laws like splitting income, and parental leave in order to overcome the inequalities between the sexes, really need to slow down their rejection of what I have said, because they are in serious danger of missing the point again. To miss the point again is only to infuriate a problem that is very real, as Martin’s second point describes. It is either this or the truth of the events would be thing that would effect the transformation not the words that describe it could be an eventuality.
This brings us to today and the Terrorism Suppression Act and the application of how these changes for point three can be brought about and there is no need for anyone to do anymore. We have already done al of the work that is required. Everything is in place.
So from this point forward what men need to do is to start being men again. Rather than just market junkies. But this time around what we need to do is to think about how to support other men. How to eductate our young men so that they are not neglected as they grow up trying to figure out who they are and what the word testosterone might mean. We need to start giving our children goals to grow into, removing from their view as they mature this abyss of freedom and market security. This means that we need to be better organised and where better to start than getting the acrimonious circumstances of a separation out of arbitration and into community support and development? Where better to start than supporting the basic family unit to be protected from market force, that which so indiscrimnately executes a family?
What will happen, I allege almost immediately is that girls will start being girls again, because that is what they want to do best. And if the men don’t hurt them, then the nests will be stronger and the men will be better equipped to provide.
The extreme feminists will balk at this “if the men don’t hurt them” as if this is a thing of possibility. Of course it is possible. You just have to give the youth a plan. You have to give them something to work toweards because they have no option but for being human to advance. And if they for some reason cannot meet with those high expectations where the goals of that plan may not suit them then the goals of that plan must suit them. So they know what is going to happen as they grow up. So they know where they are going. At present the vortex of the gurgler seems to be more the probability.
When I say we have done enough I mean exactly that. My letter to Peter Dunne establishes the ground necessary before the edge of any abyss can be reached. Politicians are now under a demand that they will pay attention to what the public is telling them. Our children need better protection from a society that struggles against their policies. Our child abuse figures are too high and “it is not alright”. It is not alright for parliament to neglect that they are overlooking the violence of alienation. It is not alright that the Courts are running an independent instiution that is beyond criticism when fathers like Vince Seimer directly prove impropriety. It is not alright. It is time for this to change.
(of a) fathers coalition.