Quote:
|
Originally Posted by milo
This case seems to indicate theres no defence against someone deceiving you.
|
I guess it's more a cultural question than a question about "statutory" rapes. At least that's how it is in Finland. In court, whenever it comes to gender-against-another case (parenthoods on divorces, rapes, home violence), it's often the male counterpart that gets neglected and judged on his gender. It's, by default, assumed that the woman is somewhat holy and more correct on anything that comes atop these questions. Males are seen as sexual predators or violent nutcases.
A few instances spring into mind. The secretary of the Finnish coalition party was accused by his ex-wife of rape, muggery, pimping, and threatening. In the end, he only received a sentence for illegal threat (which was something among the lines of "Get off my face or I'll punch you"), something anyone will say when annoyed. Because of the accusations, he lost his job as the secretary, his run for government suffered (although he got elected to the parliament, but it's debateable whether he got ripped off a minister position because of the bad publicity), and it's estimated that the woman made a good pay of 15k€ through selling her story to the tabloids.
Second of all, a former co-worker of mine lost his child's custody battle because his alcoholic (proven) wife accused him of being a drug addict (unproven, no criminal record, not even credit issues or unpaid bills) because the court found an unemployed alcoholist mother more suitable a parent than an accusedly drug addict man with a decent job. Of course, this is because the court decided to believe the accusations. Again in the courtesy of this man, a friend of his had gotten slapped with a frying pan in the face by his wife. It looked quite crude, his face, that is. Both sides agreed that after the slap with the pan the man grabbed the woman's arm, twisted the pan off, threw it out of the window (cliché), and pushed the woman against the sofa. The man got accused and was found quilty of mugging her wife (who only had some bruices in the arm, on contrary to broken jaw).
As long as the concensus of the society is to build a matriarchal order, there's not going to be a change in this subject; actually, didn't they just issue a legistlative initiative in the Uk that protects druken women - ie. if you're drunk while having sex with a man, you can come back and claim it was a rape even if you yourself agreed, or even initiated it. Some bloke said that from then on men would have to bring cameras or legal forms with them so that to prove the woman was fully intentional when agreeing to having sex with the man. Of course, this wouldn't work the other way around, so it excuse you Uk blokes to be able to claim rape after having had drunken sex with the 250-pounder.