• ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is, and that’s not even hard to look up …

      What exactly is the goal of your comment?

      • dottedgreenline@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think we all know…

        Edit:

        I agree that my tone was off, and for that I apologise. I assumed a bad faith argument based on what feels like an endless string of self-proclaimed men’s rights warriors, brought up with a warped sense of equality, people who can’t seem to wrap their heads around the collosal gap in the size of the problem that women face and try to equivocate to distract from that, so they can “have their say”. Your initial comment still reeks of that type of mentality however I look at it. The problem the article points to is overwhelmingly more important for women’s health, according to rainn.org 90% of reported rape cases are against women. Saying “what about men!” every time rape is mentioned without acknowledging this gap feels disingenuous. I will also add this edit to my initial comment. I hope this logic may help you understand why what you said was perceived as problematic.

          • dottedgreenline@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            False equivalence of men’s and women’s rights, plus a bunch of male incels screaming for equality. That comment screams All Lives Matter logic to me.

            • aport@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think this is a myopic view. The law in Netherlands used to require penetration to be considered rape, a definition that excludes the majority of male rape victims. It’s a genuine concern that laws be gender neutral.

              • dottedgreenline@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                My view was with regards to the intent behind the initial comment. As the person I replied to asked.

                • aport@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Right, you assumed bad faith intentions based on zero context and made some pretty specific accusations. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about gender neutral rape laws, especially in Europe.

  • Arcterusax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately this wont change much. Rapes usually happen without any witnesses, so the rapist will just say that the victim consented. Thats generally the reason why rapes are hard to prove in court.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Laws typically fail to deal with any kind if grey area. Otherwise, it would be just as easy for someone to falsely claim rape and force punishment on someone who is innocent.

      Granted, it is more likely that a claim is legitimate than not, but laws deal in absolute fairness, and absolutes fail when it boils down to two opposing arguments with no other evidence to back things up either way.