Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: Change.orgA recent court ruling gave rapists something to be thankful for: the state of Idaho is on their side, so long as they are not married to their victim.
Last summer, a woman in southwestern Idaho became the victim of her boyfriend's deceit, who tricked her into having sex with a stranger. After reporting this crime to the police, both men were arrested and subsequently indicted by a grand jury on charges of rape and conspiracy to commit rape
According to subsection 7 of Idaho Code 18-6101, rape of a woman by deceit and concealment is only unlawful if she believes the perpetrator is her husband. End of subject.
It is the courts job to enforce the law, not to make the law. Clearly the Idaho legislator should change the law if they feel it is necessary to do so.
It is the courts job to enforce the law, not to make the law
actually it is their job to interpret the law and judge the law constitutional or not. And notice how right wingers only call them activist judges when they throw out right wing laws but then turn to the courts to throw out the health care law. Interesting isnt it.
Clearly the Idaho legislator should change the law if they feel it is necessary to do so.
yeah it hardly seems necessary.. right.
Yes, I can't believe that the law didn't allow for relationships as opposed to spousal relationships. Surely this must have come up before? (Though I hope this doesn't happen all that often!)
It seems (well, to me, anyway) a somewhat bizarre set of circumstances. How often do men in Idaho trick their wives into sleeping with someone else?
Naughtia
You are exactly correct about right wingers and activist judges:
If some court were to interpret the law and find it wanting, people would raise hell about activist judges usurping the will of the people as expressed by the Idaho legislature.
badchess is exactly right. The courts interpreted the law as it was written. This is why we have laws. This is why, for example, the FCC can regulate radio airwaves and not satellite signals.
If Idahoians don't like their law, they have the power to change it. Maybe the source article is a good start to raise awareness.
Our Republic has never been perfect, it never will, and changes to our laws will forever remain a very dynamic process.
I am also confused by how someone is "tricked" into having sex with someone. The article doesn't state facts about the events. ?????
I was confused by that too but I would assume that he left the room to go to the bathroom or another room in the house and let the other man in instead of him. They must be similar in size or she would have known it wasn't the same person.
I am also confused by how someone is "tricked" into having sex with someone. The article doesn't state facts about the events. ?????
The woman, who was drunk, entered a room with her boyfriend. The boyfriend turned out the lights, then switched places with another guy who had been hiding in the room waiting for them.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/11/20/1425485/rape-charge-dismissed-over-quirk.html
Tricked into having sex with another man? Maybe it was that bag over her head. Or the bag over his head.
Badchess,
...if they feel it is necessary...
If they feel?? This is a classic example of why archaic laws must be amended or stricken from the books. The story is out, and if the legislators of Idaho wish to stay in office they'll pay attention. There is no telling how many other women, in Idaho and nationwide, that this has happened to. Once they hear of this case, I have no doubt that there will be a serious ruckus raised up against this travesty of justice.
Elaine, #2, it is Idaho. It's a big state and much of it is still wild; lots of places for a fella to vanish up in those mountains should someone take it into mind to make it so. At the very least, these two @!$%#birds will likely take some beatings from right-thinking menfolk out there.
Holly, I've clipped this to some other groups as I believe that this story needs to be circulated as broadly as possible. Great seed, darlin'.
Adam, thanks for the link. She was drunk and in the dark. Her "boyfriend" switched with his buddy. (What a keeper) This boyfriend has one heck of a sense of humor????????
Thanks, Decurion, especially for appreciation of what kind of injustice there is out there.
Decurion_505
Yes, if they feel it is necessary. It is a stupid law.
But how often does this come up? What other business does the Idaho state government have to do?
If this happens once a century, and the government is actually doing things that will effect the people of the state in a positive way they should prioritize.
If it happens every month, then it should be much higher on the priority list.
Um............................er yeah
Idaho Statute
(7) Where she submits under the belief that the person committing the act is her husband, and the belief is induced by artifice, pretense or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce such belief.
I think the whole concept of rape by deception is a bit outdated. Maybe back in the good ol' days a woman could be expected to be tricked into believing some other man was her husband. I don't think that is true today.
In this case the woman was inebriated, but I think under the influence of alcohol or other drugs or in a case of being blindfolded it could be done.
Are you saying it's her fault, JAVE? Or are you saying she's lying? I'm not sure how, when confronted with a story of a woman being tricked into having sex with someone she didn't know, you can say women can't be tricked into having sex with someone they don't know.
She was drunk and with a person she trusted. Unfortunately, that person she trusted was a piece of @!$%#, and he's apparently not going to be held accountable for his actions. It's terrible.
Maybe back in the good ol' days a woman could be expected to be tricked into believing some other man was her husband. I don't think that is true today.
I'm curious as to why you think that it was possible in "the good ol' days", but not now.
(Though I hope this doesn't happen all that often!)
I had never heard of rape by deception, but it must have happened often enough to address the situation in a law.
Adam, thanks for the link. She was drunk and in the dark. Her "boyfriend" switched with his buddy. (What a keeper) This boyfriend has one heck of a sense of humor????????
This is a sick sense of humor. That's why some people shouldn't drink. Sue them in civil court. A jury in that venue wouldn't find it funny.
i do not understand. she did not consent to sex with sanchez. this was not a menage a trois. she did not even know that sanchez was in the room. i can not see how he can not be charged with some sort of crime. sexual assault, or molestation, or something. i mean, what if she was having sex with her boyfriend, and a stranger broke in and silently crept up and killed him, and then immediately assumed the guy's position. is this also not rape?
Naughtia--It is not the job of the "Fourth District Judge" to interperet the law's constitutionality.
Decurian--you say:
If they feel?? This is a classic example of why archaic laws must be amended or stricken from the books.
First of all this is clearly a state matter. So it is up to the Idahoans to decide. In a democracy the laws represent the will of the people, and should be, and should only be, changed if they feel it needs to be. This is one of the important concepts preserved (even protected) by our system of a limited republic.
Protection from the "tyranny of the majority" comes from the constitution of each state and the separation of jurisdiction along state lines.
This is another (among many) reason that the average political and legal literacy of Americans being so low is such a tragedy. Understanding what the law is in her state and what protections it affords would have been an invaluable bit of knowledge for this woman.
Instead we get a dozen versions of "I just assumed that Idaho wouldn't have backwoods hillbilly laws", "How was I supposed to know that Idaho would not have a law against tricking me into sex? (answer:they hide info like that in books)", or "I alone should be able to define what rights I have and have them enforced, even if it goes against the views of the majority in my state! Who would have guessed that Idaho, of all places, would not value the basic rights of it's women residents? (answer:everyone who has ever spent ten minutes in Idaho or similar hick-havens).
An act is a crime if there is a law against it, no matter how reprehensible it may be. The proper course is to change the law, and failing that, leave the state. If I were advising the girl, I would suggest a civil case. He sold her on sex with him then failed to deliver. A $40k judgment would go a long way towards campaigning for a change in the law or relocating to a state with fewer boss-hogs in the capital.
It's so cliche to "blame the victim" or to scowl at people who do. And it's truly awful (if perhaps not exactly criminal) what happened to this Idahoan. But in just about every other kind of assault the question of assumed risk can at least be raised. At some point losing your legs dancing through a minefield becomes less about the horrible person who put the mine there and more about the dummy who played there anyway.
Have you signed the petition yet?
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/idaho_says_its_okay_to_rape_unmarried_women
Thank You
Correction: an Idaho court found that it's lawful to lie to a single woman at a bar in order to get her to sleep with you... just like every man at every bar in the world does every night.
Comment collapsed by the communityZIP2-
This goes a little bit beyond telling someone that you are a systems analyst for Hewlett Packard instead of a warehouse worker at a grocery store. This is having a willing sex partner and then, unbeknownst to her for whatever reason, excusing yourself so another male can have sex with her. This goes beyond deception; it's a violation and it's called rape. 800 lb. gorilla also makes an excellent point that the other gentleman, who was aware of what was going on, should also be charged.
What? I was at the bar last night and I didn't lie to anyone. Am I in trouble?
The precedent sucks, but it's up to the Legislature in Idaho to fix the law.
if the woman was so drunk she could not tell the difference between her boyfriend and some other guy, then she was to drunk to consent to any sex, period. and how the hell is the non-boyfriend covered by this law, if a woman says yes to me and I some how manage to trade places with someone else, she did NOT say yes the them, that is rape no matter how you slice it.
what kind of pos boyfriend sets you up to be tricked into having sex with someone besides him? Sounds like she didn´t even know the boyfriend to well either..either way I sure hope she did not keep the boyfriend...lessons hard learned..
ScottyW1 - She wasn't to that point of innebriation. I'm not a woman (and have never 'followed' another guy) so I'm not sure if after having sex what the size difference would be to 'tell the difference' (they were doing it doggy...)
that is rape no matter how you slice it
Not based on the law in Idaho. No one is saying this is 'right', but legally it isn't classified as rape.
Disgusting but not surprising, women are still second class citizens in this country, this is just another example. what part of stop aftr discovering the deception then being ignored is NOT rape?
Second class citizen? If the same thing happens to a man, he doesn't get any protection from the law even if he is married.
what part of stop after discovering the deception then being ignored is NOT rape?
I didn't read that anywhere in the story... I read that once she realized there was a deception, it stopped because she jumped up and cut the light on... Where did you get your extra information from?
Not saying this isn't rape (your other part of the statement) only that your facts are wrong. This was, however, in Idaho- which by the way, happens to state this is not legally rape.
The law has been on the books for quite awhile it seems. There were quite a few atrocious laws written in the past, some of which have been repealed while others still exist. You can actually look quite a few similar (although not quite in the same nature) yet interesting laws on numerous websites including dumblaws.com. Until a situation actually comes up to challenge/change these laws, they are mostly overlooked.
As many have stated, the law will most likely be changed. You could say this was a nasty surprise from the past for this case, but you can't really make any assumptions as to now.
Ringo - You've got the ability to do the exact same thing in petitioning for a change of wording to include men, if you so choose. It might benefit someone down the road, should they need it.
Comment collapsed by the communityBut how often does this come up?
Once is once too often.
what part of "stop" after discovering the deception and then being ignored is NOT rape?
None of it. This was rape, and the state's law is idiotic.
Idaho, Montana and half of the states in the American South need to be nuked in order to keep the rest of the country in line.
Brilliant remark....and which great state do you hail from?
Idaho, Montana and half of the states in the American South need to be nuked in order to keep the rest of the country in line.
Sounds like something a terrorist would say...
wouldn't you agree that metal guitarist's are usually the source for intellectual revelation. those guys usually devote all of their time to a musical instrument and still never learn their to really play it.
Now I understand how Idaho got it's name.....I-da-(w)ho(re)
Hopefully this ignoramus detail in the law is changed to protect people from being raped. Unbelievable.
she should hit them both where it hurts more than a swift kick to the ball...go after their wallets until they're drained
Now I understand how Idaho got it's name.....I-da-(w)ho(re)
That joke is probably older than you are....and it is still in poor taste. Just saying....
Now I understand how Idaho got it's name.....I-da-(w)ho(re)
That joke is probably older than you are....and it is still in poor taste. Just saying
It applies in this case though! Lighten' up..... Hopefully Idaho values their women enough to treat them with respect that all citizens of our country deserve.
up
the person was saying that idaho treats their women likes whores, and as buda has suggested, vooda is right.
Buda, what state do you live in? Have you checked your state rape laws? Numerous states have this law (in verbatim in numerous cases) on their books the same way. My home state has verbatim the same law.
People don't seem to realize that this law was written about a hundred years ago (or slightly more.) Did women have any men in their lives other than their husband at that point in time?
I could see a situation where a woman is caught with another guy a hundred years ago and says "I thought he was my husband, so of course I said yes! But it was rape because he wasn't my husband!" to get herself out of trouble. The conundrum is that it wasn't forced... So they made the law to say if they trick you by pretending to be your husband... Back then, women didn't usually sleep with anyone who wasn't their husband.
The laws are old and outdated yes, but it doesn't imply anything about the mindset of things today simply because nothing has caused it to be updated as of yet.... No one probably knew it, hell I didn't know my own state had the exact same law on the books.
I believe you misinterpreted what I wrote. I was saying that Idaho's archaic laws treat their women as property or second class citizen or whores........hence the
I-da-(w)ho(re) applies.........comprende? Never, Never, Never would I condone rape!!!
Nah, I wasn't mentioning anything about what you wrote in that aspect. Your statement:
treat with them respect that all citizens of our country deserve
I was trying to draw attention to the fact that there are other states that have this same law on the books. Not countering anything you were saying.
Does it follow that according to subsection 7.1 of Idaho Code 18-6101, a raped woman can kill her attacker so long as he isn't her husband? Just wondering.
Now THAT is an interesting question, Elaine! I can't believe there are men sick enough out there to do this kind of thing.
Holly: NEVER underestimate the breadth and scope of human perversion.
While I think it is disgusting that both of these men got away with duping and raping this woman. I don't think the answer is for her to kill them. That would not help her, just rid the world of them.
Have you ever taken a human life. I have not, but I believe it would change me more than being raped.
Utah should be forced to look into changing these laws and the citizens of the state needs to protest.
She should look into a civil lawsuit and use what ever evidence was involved in the case the judge threw out.
I can't believe there are men sick enough out there to do this kind of thing.
Really? Well then, have I ever told you about my place up in the Hamptons? My Jaguar's in the shop, that's why I'm driving this beat up old Pento...
I don't think the answer is for her to kill them.
Hey Dragonwoman, I was being sarcastic when I asked if she was allowed to kill her attacker. It seemed fitting with the equally ridiculous premise that it's ok to rape.
Holly - as sick as this is, it is actually pretty low on the perversion meter; I went through drug rehab while in prison, unfortunately there was a sex offenders program on the same yard. while the sex offenders did not associate with the other guys on the yard, you would hear about some of the crimes these animals committed, truly vile.
Rapist and child molesters are broken and can't be repaired
Two words: Loreena Bobbitt
only this time send the removed bits down the garbage disposal.
Oh and I'm a married guy advocating this.
No offense meant Elaine... but I am sure that is a thought for some. I remember when I was 12 I saw a movie called Lipstick with the Hemmingway sisters. The older one was raped, and because she was a model the case was tossed out. The rapist went after her younger sister. She went after him with a gun... and got away with the murder.
It was my first experience with the subject of rape. It was quite an impression on my then young mind.
I became quite militant about the subject. Truthfully I never want to kill anyone, but I will fight like hell if put in that position.
Truthfully I never want to kill anyone, but I will fight like hell if put in that position.
Me too, DW, I sure would, and I pray to God we never know.
In high school my religion teacher, a nun, told us that her sister was raped and killed at age 18 during a quick trip to a convenience store. I'll never forget how her eyes glazed over as she stared at the back of the room and declared that if she could, she would kill him on the spot. I believe she would have.
Most people can't kill another human being. There's something about the eyes that makes it difficult to pull the trigger or draw back the knife, and a few too many eyes are staring at me as I dream.
Best, dig your thumbnail into the offender's eye...the pain is rather excruciating.
Go for the throat. Use a ballpoint pen or anything similar, half a dozen jabs will do the trick.
aahh! self-defense tactics, thinking aloud is correct, killing another human is harder than you might think; however for you ladies some simple self-defense methods that work are
most important yell, scream, struggle - the law of predators applies here, they seek the weak, if you fight back they usually flee to find another victims
fingers to the eyes are highly painful and also blinding, this is the move I hammer home to the young ones I help teach self-defense too
the throat (think adams apple), a sharp strike here will have a profound effect
the groin- we all know how much that can hurt
the goal is to disable an attacker long enough to run away.
trust me - i know predators and how to defend against them
agree to some extent. It's really unfortunate that we neglect even a small measure of martial training. Countries with conscription have an advantage in this regard. I think some of scott's approach is perhaps too dependant on a skillset that most do not have.
The goal, whenever violence becomes necessary, is to change the cost-calculus for the bad-guy. To make taking the likely value of doing what he plans worth less than the likely cost he/she will have to pay to get it.
The adams apple and groin are fine targets for someone trained to land a punch but surprisingly few neophytes can land a punch on a 3" target reliably. Both targets are instinctively protected as well.
Oddly, most men let a woman's slap land, they think it's cute and a harmless part of the game. So I teach to land a slap then reverse it with a fist, back-handing the attacker square in the nose. If the slap is blocked or grabbed, all the better. The goblin has just occupied his hand stopping a slap and won't let go of the hand to block the follow-up coming in right behind it.
That follow up would be a grab to the ears or the loose skin of the lips. The pain of having your lips gripped and pulled is incredible. Similarly, grabbing the skin and fat on a persons back is crazy painful. As is raking a shoe down the bad-guy's shin.
Then run screaming. They say not to yell "Rape" because no one cares but really it doesn't matter. No one cares if you yell murder or fire either. Maybe yell "free superbowl tickets" but really that's too much to think about.
All you are trying to do is give the bad guy a clearly defined choice, follow the loud person who can hurt them or go the other direction and find someone else.
Good points benk
I wanted to point out when dealing with groin shots that this isn't a very good target to tell people to hit anyway. Even if you do manage to land a shot (that you have to gauge the target based on clothing and assumptions of where things 'should' be) you have to worry about whether the shot will even have an effect on the target. I've met quite a few people who didn't even realize they were hit in the groin due to adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, etc.
I follow the same idea as far as the slap then follow up, but generally I describe to go for the eyes. Using pain to limit someone really isn't necessarily the best idea either, as each person has different levels of pain... Example being if you pull my lips, you'll get a good laugh but nothing more (high pain tolerance paired with minor nerve damage so feeling is reduced slightly.)
It doesn't matter who you are though, without the ability to see you've lost the battle. The chances of a woman breaking a man's nose (causing the nasal cavity to fill with blood and limiting vision) are (I would assume) less than spectacular.
Then again, I'm of the mindset that if someone assaults me, ONE of us isn't walking away. I have the training and ability to back up my mindset for 99% of the occasions that it would be necessary, but not everyone has that. I'd still say going for soft targets to deal the most damage would be best (eyes, throat, if you have any kind of weapon such as pencil or small knife the underarms and inner thighs near the groin, etc.)
Scotty #2.13
Good points to the ladies
killing another human is harder than you might think
Killing another human is made much less hard when they come with the intent to kill me, my loved ones or a friend.
In fact it would be a pleasure!
And why?
Because there would be one less baddie around to stink up the place!!!!!
No it wouldn't, as it required the conscious decision to take another's life. Most people just lock up or close their eyes and begin shooting wildly.
Thinking aloud #2.18
No it wouldn't, as it required the conscious decision to take another's life. Most people just lock up or close their eyes and begin shooting wildly.
You talkin to me...you talkin to me LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If this had happened between 2 women and a man it would be called a "threesome" not rape. Most guys could only wish for this scenario to play out.
Ron-- And most women know if there mates are the kind that would dig a romp with a second girl. But say your girl blindfolds you and sets her ugly, bearded, mole-pocked, friend on you whose skin smells like the apartment full of cats she came from?
I suspect the girl in this story holds the same level of revulsion for what was done to her.
Just what the Tea Party and GOP want -- no government regulation or intrusion or even basic protections. In other words, whatever is the most @!$%#ed-up view will get their support.
#3 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:58 PM ESTDo people really believe it when they write stuff like that?
enigma: Idaho is not full of TeaBaggers, and although the state is predominately Republican, this is NOT a political thing. This is a human rights/legal issue in which old, antiquated laws have not been amended. The JUDGE in this case should have ruled differently, and applied the law EQUALLY to married and unmarried alike -- that the judge did not should be reason enough for him/her to lose the job immediately. And while I agree that a certain amount of derision can and should be heaped upon the GOP, and TeaBaggers in particular, the sentiment is not appropriate in this case.
Sorry Michelle,
The law was very specific to married women.
Dumb law, but Judges don't get to add to laws, just interpret them. For example, if a law says it's illegal to ride a horse backwards down a street, there is no interpretation that would make it illegal to ride a cow backwards down the same street. The legislature needs to fix it.
Idaho is not full of TeaBaggers
I hear from some Idaho residents they have some crazy white supremacists in the state.
I hear from some Idaho residents they have some crazy white supremacists in the state.
that is in every state.
They're able to hide better in remote areas of states like Idaho.
O Brother....we are going to hell in a handbasket....it just proves my point that there are more whack jobs roaming around than sane people......how moronic!!
#5 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:06 PM ESTIt's unbelievable that this sort of situation happens in the first place, but then to go and find out the laws on the books don't encompass the crime committed is definitely moronic!
Rape has nothing to do with sex -- it's all about power. With that said, the FIRST DUTY OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT THE POWERLESS AGAINST THE POWERFUL. (Code of Hammurabi)
#6 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:14 PM ESTWell...it does have SOMETHING to do with sex.
Yah, sex as a tool of domination; the power trip.
I'm pretty sure this one was about the sex.
However, most rapes are attacks that use sex to humiliate the victim.
...Moronic, and archaic. This sounds like something that would happen in 1800. This ruling should be looked at and revoked ASAP!! How shameful.
#7 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:18 PM ESTYes. I feel very badly for the woman involved. She's been violated twice, IMHO.
this is nuts...have they not updated their laws in the past 100 years? guess the potatoes out there are not all that is full of starch.......md
#10 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:37 PM ESTBut then again in a hundred years how many boyfriends have tricked their girlfriend into having sex with their friends?
Let's hope it's because it doesn't happen all that often. The thought gives me the chills!
The article is wrong in its suggestion that changing the law will allow prosecution of these two animals. Ex post facto laws are, especially in criminal statutes, unconstitutional and thus do not allow what was not technically defined as a crime when the act was committed to be determined to be a crime retroactively by a change in definition or language in the statute's wording. Thank god the idiots who penned this law limited this very rare kind of rape to non-married women. That being said, change the law tomorrow, please.
#11 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:49 PM ESTGreat point, bdebogota. They should change that law posthaste.
Exactly. However she might be able to pick up some change in a divorce and civil action.
#12 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:54 PM ESTI definitely think she would come out the unequivocal winner in a divorce and/or civil action. Why would you want to be married to a creep like that after all this?
You got that right.
I like to think that nearly anyone on a jury would be on her side in a case like this.
But as to her options, love (her, I presume) and sexual fetishism (him, I presume) are both strong motivators.
I thought he was a boyfriend, not a husband-kind of hard to divorce a boyfriend.
Woohoo, watch out ladies, I'm planning my Idaho vacation already!!!!
/sarc
#13 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:03 PM ESTNot much detail in the article, or maybe I missed something.... I'm still wondering how she was tricked..... I can only think of alcohol being able to do that, and a lot of it.
#14 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:05 PM ESTThe boyfriend sounds more like a pimp to me.
Maybe he should have been charged with soliciting prostitution and his pal with being his john.
#15 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:07 PM ESTif his friend didn't pay then it cant be seen as prostitution, but if the prosecutor could have proved money changed hands they could have been charged, its not a rape conviction but sometimes something is better than nothing.
How many beers does it take for this to sound like a good idea?
At the same time this would be a nightmare case to try in court.
#16 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:10 PM ESTI think they could have gotten a conviction from a sympathetic jury but the case would have been overturned on appeal due to the way the law reads. The judge probably realized that and decided not to pursue it.
I'm not so sure. Even if the DA could wiggle around the technicality all the two men have to say is she agreed to it and we were all drunk. After that it becomes a case of he said/she said and juries don't like those. Muddle the waters a little more with some random accusations and the jury would either "hang" or acquit.
Good point. Maybe that's another obstacle the judge decided he couldn't overcome.
Does Idaho also support the fact that it's a good thing there are prostitutes otherwise more women would be raped? Wouldn't surprise me....
#17 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:31 PM ESTI don't know if it would make a difference because it sounds like the attraction here was that the boyfriend did know the woman and wanted to watch her with another man. I'm not sure if he would have been as interested with a strange prostitute. Good to see you, henry!
Protest: I am offended by the headline of this article. It is not concise and should be re-written or taken down.
It's the actual title of the seeded article - did you even look at it?
if the headline offends you, don't read the article...lol
Yes, as the seeder I am obligated to use the same title the story ran under. But it is accurate, though some readers may have been expecting different details within it.
Doesn't mean that you have to seed it - no one is forcing you to seed this article. I have a right to protest it and did. I disagree that the author has the authority to make this claim in public view which could cause another to act criminally.
Irresponsible.
No one can cause another person to act criminally. People have a brain and make choices for themselves....
besides so long as the person is in Idaho and the woman isn't married -- rape is okay!!
Since when did normal Viners get to decide what someone else seeds here? I thought that we were free to seed articles - take maddad's advice - don't like it don't read it.
Sticking your head in the sand about outdated laws is irresponsible. Making people aware that these laws are still on the books is good thing.
Doesn't mean that you have to seed it - no one is forcing you to seed this article. I have a right to protest it and did. I disagree that the author has the authority to make this claim in public view which could cause another to act criminally.
Irresponsible.
Do you want us to inform you when they enact child labor laws, free slaves and give women the right to vot, or will you still have your head stuck in the sand?
The headline, which I realize is the one from the seed, is inflammatory. Obviously Idaho law does not say it is OK to rape anybody, and in fact the judge in the case said this was deplorable.
I think his interpretation of the law is off. I think it's clear the woman didn't consent to having sex with the man who got into the bed with her, so it's the end of the story right there.
In any case Idaho hasn't condoned rape in anyway.
18.6 - I do not find your remarks something to laugh about, but it is not surprising.
18.7 - Still - I can protest it. I love how those that have read my articles over the last five years love to pull up my own remarks because they do not have their own originality to argue with. Weird.
The approach is a bit twisted, however, so that is my point. Yes, it's good to make people aware so long as it is done under the auspices of good intention, which this is not - but instead promoting the idea that rape is acceptable - which it is not.
18.8 - I do not require you to personally feel that you must inform me about anything regarding the law. I am one that has written extensively about the plight of women. I stopped posting at Newsvine because some journalists were stealing the content and then writing articles with only a few changes to the work and then adding their name to it.
Maybe you haven't read my home page.
Its a title and it has preformed its function admirably. It has clearly drawn many people to this article and informed them of a rather mad loophole in an old law.
Sally, as far as I know (unless you have changed your username) I have never read one of your articles or posted on them. You can protest all you want & keep your head in the sand in regards to making these laws known so that they can be changed - funny thing about change is that you have to know about something that is wrong before you can change - I wonder how many people in Idaho knew about this law? And if people don't make others aware - change will never occur - BUT you keep protesting & pretending that everyone here has read your seed & posted your words back at you (frankly I don't have a @!$%#ing clue who you are).
How is making people aware of something that needs to be changed twisted?
How is making people aware of something that needs to be changed twisted?
Personally, and I want to make clear I'm not really blaming the seeder here since she just copy-and-pasted it from the original article, I think the story is horrifying enough without using sensationalist tactics like this misleading headline. Given the source, a blog claiming to be about "women's rights," I don't think it's a shock that they would exaggerate the story to make women appear more under attack by this than they actually are.
I don't mean to marginalize rape. Rape is terrible, under any circumstances, one of the worst things imaginable, and my heart goes out to any person who has ever experienced it. But one rape happening and someone getting away with it because of a technicality in a shortsighted law isn't the same as the state condoning raping unmarried women.
When was the last time this law came into play? Probably forever ago. There are all kinds of silly laws on the books in all 50 states that are evidence of sexist, racist policies of the past, but the laws don't get brought up or changed because nobody would ever enforce them and they just kind of get lost to history. I'd expect Idaho to change this law, and soon, and in the meantime I'd like to see some sort of reprimand for this judge. I think he made a terrible decision in this case.
Getting back to the headline, perhaps a better route would have been to seed the original news article linked to in the seeded article. That article used this headline, which paints a much more accurate picture:
Rape charge dismissed over quirk in Idaho code
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/11/20/1425485/rape-charge-dismissed-over-quirk.html#ixzz17YQX08qT
So now we have to go to specific websites to seed articles. Do you have a list of the acceptable websites that Viners must seed from?
So - Adam - was this woman raped in your opinion?
So now we have to go to specific websites to seed articles. Do you have a list of the acceptable websites that Viners must seed from?
Who said this or anything like this? This is just as hyperbolic and inaccurate as the headline.
So - Adam - was this woman raped in your opinion?
Read the things I've written in these comments, and you tell me.
Adam-
I think next time I'm presented with a good story and a questionable headline I'll do as you suggested. I do appreciate your and Sally's input. I hesitated over the title and almost didn't seed it because of the headline. But I decided the content was too important and went ahead and seeded it. Next time I will head to the source.
Well-stated comment, Adam Becker.
The only thing that rubbed me the wrong way was this:
Given the source, a blog claiming to be about "women's rights,"
Why is Women's Rights in quotes? Why is the blog only claiming to be about Women's Rights in your opinion?
Just curious, the rest of your comment was intelligent and well-constructed so that sentence seemed out of place and misogynistic by comparison.
Let's see you say "perhaps a better route would have been to seed the original news article linked to in the seeded article. That article used this headline, which paints a much more accurate picture" - so I guess only you get to decide what the "best route" is...
So if you do think it was rape why worry to death the title - my god like nothing here on the Vine EVER has an outrageous Title.
Why is Women's Rights in quotes? Why is the blog only claiming to be about Women's Rights in your opinion?
I didn't mean anything by those quote marks. Women's rights is obviously a viable and important subject to follow. The truth is, I have no idea why I put those quotes there.
Let's see you say "perhaps a better route would have been to seed the original news article linked to in the seeded article. That article used this headline, which paints a much more accurate picture" - so I guess only you get to decide what the "best route" is...
Or he gets to make a suggestion, which the seeder of the article ended up agreeing may have been a better solution...
So if you do think it was rape why worry to death the title - my god like nothing here on the Vine EVER has an outrageous Title.
Because everyone knows that two wrongs do indeed make a right!
Obviously this was rape, but having a title that suggests that the entire state of Idaho condones any rape on unmarried women is pretty inflammatory (not pinning the headline on the seeder). If everyone tried to clean up the titles around here, don't you think things may start to improve, instead of just continuing the same old same old game of coming up with the most outrageous title possible? But who's interested in actually getting smarter here...
adam
poor adam. your comments were good. this is just a sensitive subject, and a few people misunderstood.
Why is Women's Rights in quotes? Why is the blog only claiming to be about Women's Rights in your opinion?
I didn't mean anything by those quote marks. Women's rights is obviously a viable and important subject to follow. The truth is, I have no idea why I put those quotes there.
<air quotes.> "womens' rights" it probably made it seem as if you were mocking them, which of course, you were not.
It is the courts job to enforce the law, not to make the law. Clearly the Idaho legislator should change the law if they feel it is necessary to do so.
1. It is a judges duty to interpret the law and take action that either protects the innocent victim or to suspend a decision without prejudice and allow a higher court to rule.
2. Laws are the legal 'manners' of society. When the law fails to reflect justice and do not protect the victim it's time to take action to change the law.
3. This is why my two favorite jurists are, have and will always be the Right Honorable Messrs Smith & Wesson.
#20 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:47 PM ESTUnfortunately a judge can not make law on the bench. That is the job of the legislature.
Unfortunately a judge can not make law on the bench.
True, they can. however suspend a ruling without predjudice to allow a higher court to rule.
That is the job of the legislature.
3. This is why my two favorite jurists are, have and will always be the Right Honorable Messrs Smith & Wesson.
Sean you miss the point, a higher court has no option but to agree because of the wording of the law. There was no other option.
I'm so glad I dont' live in Idaho. Sounds like they need a new set of laws there to protect the women of the state.
#21 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:53 PM ESTI think it still legal to beat your wife in Georgia, but only on Sunday between the hours of 10 and 2 on the step of the capital.
Someone may call me on this, but it was in a book of ridiculous laws I read a few years ago.
thinking aloud, don't tell anyone about that because if you do then you are behaving "irresponsibly" and making someone follow that law...
I'll have my mother check that Georgia law out. I know in Kennesaw, Ga. it is illegal for a person NOT to carry a gun. I'm a Georgian now, or at least until the army moved me to Germany.
I know in Kennesaw, Ga. it is illegal for a person NOT to carry a gun.
No, the law states there must be a gun in the house, not that anyone has to carry a gun. That would be a bad idea. I only want people who are willing and able to accept the responsibility of carrying a gun to carry a gun, not people simply bound by law.
Thank you Mike of the North, I will double check before I write what my hubby has told me. I do so agree though that responsibile people are the only ones who need to carry a gun.
Honey, you might want to look up that law again.
Note to women:
You are currently witnessing a regression in American society. An erosion of the fundamental rights that so many of you fought and died for being slowly, quietly and insidiously taken away from you.
You can either allow yourselves to be ssubjugated and used or you can get G*ddammed good and mad about it and do something
Just sitting around moaning about it or being naive enough to believe it can't happen to you will only get you right where this poor woman got.
If you stand up and demand your rights you will be surprised how many real men will stand with you.
Please write an article on the topic. It would be really unique and interesting to see an article on Feminism written from the male perspective. Please??!!
Sean: I'd also love to see this issue from the male perspective.
Sean-
It would be so refreshing to see a man's point of view of feminism written. If you write one, I promise you I will read it!
i would stand next to sean, and the women who stand next to him. women and men both need to stand up for women's rights, which should be the same as the rights of men, but unfortunately, still to this day, are not.
I'm not an atty or even a Liberal, but I am an American and a Veteran which makes me, IMO, a femmenist.
One of the single biggest issues we have in this country is our belief that the loss of liberty or a denial of rights to someone else has no effect on us because we are not directly effected.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I try hard not to sound alarmist, but the easiest way to undermine the rights and freedoms of a people is to attack the least defended and undermine those rights first, then the rest is a house of cards.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
I'm not an atty or even a Liberal, but I am an American and a Veteran which makes me, IMO, a femmenist.
Absolutely!! You most definitely do not have to be a Liberal to be a Feminist!...
So....are you gonna write the article?? =)
So....are you gonna write the article?? =)
I think I am obligated to try.
Check back here to see how I progress.
Sean-
I hope you do write it. I have put you on my watchlist so I can be sure to find it on my tracker.
Whooo, an "erosison of rights you fought and died for?"
Are we addressing notes to zombies now?
Sean-
I hope you do write it. I have put you on my watchlist so I can be sure to find it on my tracker.
Here you go Holly
http://wabisabiboy.newsvine.com/_news/2010/12/08/5613733-ich-bin-eine-feminist
Whooo, an "erosison of rights you fought and died for?"
Are we addressing notes to zombies now?
Normally I would not bother to reply to such idiocy, but you are in need of serious help if you are incapable of understanding that rights that you and I and ALL Americans enjoy were bought and paid for through the coin of blood and lives by American Patriots, Many of whom were woman.
"Do not hold strong opinions on subjects in which you are ignorant."
-Benjamin Franklin
Sean please do, all femanists are not women, we need to put forth our support for womans rights too.
fried request coming your way
Sean-
If you write your article please feel free to post a link here.
Sean-
If you write your article please feel free to post a link here.
http://wabisabiboy.newsvine.com/_news/2010/12/08/5613733-ich-bin-eine-feminist
sean
thank you for your service. i am a male feminist, too. i actually believe in the equal rights of all, so i do not consider myself to be a feminist per se, but an equalist. everyone is equal.
A feminist is a person who answers "yes" to the question, "Are women human?"
-- Katha Pollitt
sure, women are human. some men may not be, but what do i know, i'm a man/gorilla.
Some of my best days back in the ivory tower were in classes on feminist theory.
About half of the applications are truly enlightening and dearly under-appreciated.
The other half held the bitter realism that some scholars can find gender based subjugation in everything.
There are even white-supremacist feminists who are offended by the black man getting the vote before the white woman.
Out of all of them, I found gender-studies classes in economics the most interesting. Some of the theories emerging there really would never have risen out of a traditional patriarchy.
Some of the theories emerging there really would never have risen out of a traditional patriarchy.
That's the point, isn't it?
What's so great about "traditional patriarchy" in any case?
Who said patriarchy is great? Or Matriarchies for that matter? And just because an idea would have been oppressed by a patriarch does not make it a good one, but you are right the goal should be free exprerssion for all.
18.6 - I do not find your remarks something to laugh about, but it is not surprising.
18.7 - Still - I can protest it. I love how those that have read my articles over the last five years love to pull up my own remarks because they do not have their own originality to argue with. Weird.
The approach is a bit twisted, however, so that is my point. Yes, it's good to make people aware so long as it is done under the auspices of good intention, which this is not - but instead promoting the idea that rape is acceptable - which it is not.
18.8 - I do not require you to personally feel that you must inform me about anything regarding the law. I am one that has written extensively about the plight of women. I stopped posting at Newsvine because some journalists were stealing the content and then writing articles with only a few changes to the work and then adding their name to it.
Maybe you haven't read my home page.
I'm confused then Sally.
You state that you are a champion of women's rights but then you complain as to the way others react to a violation of those rights.
Activism is not a tea social or a country club soiree, it is a nasty and messy bit of work that sometimes requiures thinking and acting outside the box.
If you cdan't take a bloodied nose once in awhile you need to stay the hell off the playground
#24 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:59 PM ESTIt might be helpful if we knew the time when this statute was passed. It would clarify our perspective if the law came out of an age where extramarital sex and or adultery was considered immoral and in some places illegal. In that context it would make sense that legislators thought that an unmarried woman should not be consenting to sex with anyone and that a married woman should not be having sex with anyone other than her spouse. In such a context a single woman could not be victimized by deceit if she wasn't supposed to be having sex with anyone and a married woman could not be victimized by deceit unless she thought the sexual partner was her husband because she was not supposed to have consentual sex with anyone other than her spouse.
That was just a little analysis in defense of the legal system in the context of its times. Having said that, the statute must be corrected if there is to be justice for women in today's Idaho.
#25 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:59 PM EST Our View: Legislators should fix an archaic, callous code
All women deserve protection from rape — whether they decide to get married or not. But Idaho law fails to meet this most fundamental standard. Prosecutors can charge a sexual predator who pretends to be his victim's husband — but that's as far as the law goes.As a result, a Boise judge dismissed a rape case last week, casting a harsh light on an unacceptable semantic loophole. Fixing this language should be one of the first things the Legislature does when it convenes in January.
Since the woman was not married, Copsey said, the law doesn't apply in this case. And so, reluctantly, she dismissed the charges. "Unfortunately, the Legislature has never amended (the rape law) to make it meet the requirements of modern society."
We don't blame Copsey. She didn't write this flawed law. And she is probably going easy on her colleagues in the legislative branch. This law isn't merely archaic; it's prejudicial.
It will get fixed.
#26 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:17 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
