Laws rendering sex impossible for reasonably careful men

The female editor of the Scottish magazine 'Holyrood', has fired a male columnist who worked for her paper. Why? Julian Assange is wanted on rape charges under Swedish law, because after he had sex with a consenting female, while lying in bed with the female after the sex, he had sex with her a second time, this time without her consent. Galloway in the video-blog-post that got him fired, had said:

"Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them...It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, 'do you mind if I do it again?...It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape, or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."

According to the Swedish law, if you have sex with a consenting woman, and then after the sex, have sex with her a second time without her having given her consent, you become guilty of rape.

The problem with the Swedish law, is that it is yet another law, yet another attitude found amongst administrators and law enforcement personnel, that has the effect of making it well-nigh impossible for a man who is not reckless, to have sex with a woman.

Suppose Joe and Mary decide to have sex. Mary appears before a notary public and solemnly swears, her hand on the Bible, that she gives Joe permission to have sex. Then Joe and Mary have sex. Then Mary lies and says that Joe had sex with her a second time, this time without her consent. Then if the of the prevailing attitude is the insane notion that a man is guilty of whatever a woman accuses him of unless proven otherwise, Joe becomes guilty of rape.

Hence, even though Mary appeared before a notary public to solemnly swear that she was giving official permission to Joe to have sex with her (videotaped), Joe was still not safe having sex with Mary.

If even after a woman gives official permission, before a notary public, for the sex act, the man still is not safe having sex with the woman, then we have a situation in which it has become close to impossible for a reasonable man to have sex with a woman.

This appears to be yet another example of how: lawmakers and activists fail to see the negative effect of the laws that they are in favor of; lawmakers fail to see the real world which features false accusations and false witness, and see only a theoretical world devoid of such lies; feminists favor legislation that puts them above the male gender, even if ultimately the legislation damages the persons and the liberties of both male and female (conspiracy theory note: sinister forces using the women to degrade both genders is perhaps a reality).

Sometimes women have a motive to falsely accuse men of rape or harassment. They might want to bask in the limelight of the fame of being a woman wanted so bady that men misbehave. They might be extorting some favor such as marriage from the accused. They might have been bribed by an enemy of the accused to get the man in trouble. They might have decided that financial safety for them lies in enmity versus the falsely accused.

It would seem to be reasonable that if a woman does not want to have sex a second time with the man she has just had sex with, she should get out of the bed that she is sharing with the man. If the man having sex a second time with her is so bad that it warrants the man being locked up and having his life ruined due to a rape conviction, how can the woman still be in bed with the man?

I wonder does the Swedish law also apply to married couples? If it does apply to married couples the inhibition of heterosociality has extended even into the marriage bed. If it does not apply to married couples, it still has the effect of censoring sexual relations that a (hypothetical) ethical polygamist virtuous male might enter into in a nation in which officially speaking a man is allowed to only have one wife.

For centuries and milleniums, there was no government big-daddy around to police sexual harassment and rape offenses against women. The legislative activism of the modern day in large part serves women who need the government to help them ward off sexual harassment and rape. Yet there also exists a type of woman who is able to avoid harassment and rape despite a lack of government activism designed to combat sexual harassment and rape.

Sometimes those who end up needing the government to defend them against sexual harassment and rape, are guilty of actions and of negligence (example drugs, alcohol, foolishness) the result of which is that the government has to expend time energy and money defending them against rape etc., that it would not have had to spend had they behaved themselves.

Give us a break. Stop being so simple-mindedly feminist in your thinking about sexual harassment and rape and think about this: banning from campus a man who is popular with attractive co-eds, is at least slightly similar to rape, and the primary victim is a man. Impoverishing a man who is popular with beautiful women, is also somewhat similar to rape, and the primary victim again is a man. Intimidating a man into not communicating with 'shy' women who want to marry him, somewhat resembles rape, and the primary victim is a man (it is false that if a woman fails to respond to a first email/letter/phone-call, contacting her again is harassment, because typically even when the woman wants to marry the man in question, she will fail to respond to his email/letter/phone-call).

When as a result of feminist excesses or male rapist-like jealousy, the man that a woman loves is destroyed, the victim of feminism ends up being a woman, a female.
,

Ex-Muslim Iranian Christian death sentence based on misinterpretation of Koran?

Link to essay I finished Wednesday night-Thursday morning, re impending execution of Iranian-Christian ex-Muslim

Citizens United v FEC SCOTUS Ruling, initial reaction

v 1 6:38 AM 1/22/2010

Evening of Thursday, January 21, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow gave surprisingly passionate, sincere-sounding denunciations of the Supreme Court of the US ruling which loosened restrictions on the use of money for political purposes by groups of persons. Olbermann's speech was admirably eloquent.

So after hearing their speeches, I resolved to look into the matter; this is my first reaction, given after about seven hours of study.

Keep in mind that the case in question was considered by the justices for an entire year, during which they employed many assistants and ordered the contesting parties to explain this and that to them so as to help them to understand the matter.

The majority of the media articles I found on the internet, did a poor job of describing the Supreme Court decision regarding Citizens United vs the FEC. I had to spend hours sifting through many different articles simply to get to the point where I could understand the basic facts of the case in terms of: what the law used to be before the supreme court ruling, and what the law is now. This should not be the case. It should be easy for me to discover what the law was before the ruling and what the law is after the ruling, when I read the articles about this case. Obviously this before and after perspective is fundamental.

Just goes to show the lack of ability and or skill in the media, which, disconcertingly, is more able and skilled at reporting court decisions than the average person is.

I used to be a supporter of the Mccain-Feingold campaign finance laws overturned to some extent by the Supreme Court Ruling. Then my enthusiasm diminished when I realized that it gave advantages to rich individuals who finance their own campaigns, and produced relative disadvantage for persons who are not rich, acting as individuals and groups. I began to see how by suppressing persons from expressing themselves, it increased the power of the media.

The Supreme Court ruling, should be considered in terms of whether it levels the playing field or does the opposite, when it comes to the rights of various types of groups and individuals.

Prior to this Supreme Court ruling, the law favored certain types of spending over others. It favored issue oriented ads that ignored the candidates; it disfavored ads that focused on the candidates. It favored spending by rich individuals on their own campaigns; it disfavored spending by individuals and groups of individuals on other people's campaigns. It favored spending that is uncoordinated with a candidate, and disfavored spending coordinated with a candidate or controlled by the candidate as opposed to the activist group. It favored spending based on voluntary contributions and disfavored spending of the type wherein the dues required by the organization, or the money voluntarily donated to the organization, are spent based on decisions made by the organization's leaders, or based upon pre-agreed upon rules.

The recent SCOTUS ruling does not do away with all these meddlings, however, prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the government in which the Supreme Court is a key player, was meddling more that it will now at least for a while, in terms of favoring certain types of fund raising and spending while disfavoring other types of fund raising and spending.

This kind of meddling that has been reduced could put the various sectors of American society at a disadvantage compared to foreigners; meaning the reduction in meddling could have positive effects.

People think in terms of, not allowing the owners of American private sector organizations that produce goods and services to get an advantage over the employees of such organizations. In this they ignore the possibility that meddling in terms of favoring what kind of fund-raising and spending the various American groups engage in, could lead to a disadvantage for all American interest groups, compared to advantages enjoyed by foreigners who, often on the sly, meddle in American affairs unencumbered by the restrictions placed on Americans by American law.

The very complexity of the American campaign finance laws in and of itself, tends to inhibit the effectiveness of American fund raising and spending. This inhibition, could impair the quality of American life due to factors such as inefficiencies in educating the public re important matters.

It could be, if Americans were to put time and energy into being thoughtful and well informed re fund raising and spending, and if the legislative judicial or executive branch were to take steps to prevent foreign owners of American subsidiaries from taking advantage of the new court-granted freedoms, that the new freedoms granted by the Supreme Court could lead to an improvement in the American position in the world.

People tend towards an idealistic unrealistic view, that America should be "nice" and un-bigoted, whilst they live in a fantasy world in which America is the only nation in the world.

Actually, there are other nations in the world, who can take advantage of America if the rights granted by America to foreigners, are not reciprocated in terms of foreigners granting rights to America.

Even with reciprocation, foreigners can gain advantage over Americans due to factors such as: the economic decline of America, the economic rise of foreign powers, the multi-ethnic multi-racial makeup of America, the mono-ethnic nature of foreign powers, the discipline produced by the hardships experienced historically by foreigners, and the indiscipline produced amongst Americans due to the good fortune experienced historically by Americans.

Ones could say that: it is not the court's business to produce improvements in society through unconstitutional legislation; rather, it is the court's business to give society the opportunity to succeed by refraining from unconsitutional meddlings that impair the performance of society.

The legislative branch's power to change the constitution is relatively weak due to concerns re the balance of power amongst the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government; yet, still, the legislative branch has the power to change the constitution.

Well intentioned divergence from the rule of law, rulings that are intentionally unconstitutional, could lead to a lawlessness that is counterproductive.

One could say that regardless of whether Americans take advantage of the liberties granted to them by the Court, liberties which give them the opportunity to improve the national performance, the Court's job is not to insure that the nation perform extremely well but rather to give the nation the opportunity to perform well as a result of the Court's wise interpretation of the constitution.

One reason it might be wise for a court to refrain from well intentioned, domineering, divergence from the constitution with regards to how individuals and groups spend their money in terms of political activism, is that there is some truth to the traditional American individualist perspective that not just national aggregates but also individual realities are important; meaning, it's also important which individuals in the nation have how much in terms of time and money and liberties.

A nation with an aggregate GDP of $50,000 per capita could be worse off than a nation with an aggregate GDP of $30,000 per capita if the $30,000 per capita nation was less disorderly in terms of who had how much of what. Conceivably, an 'activist', domineering court could produce internal disorder in terms of who in the nation had how much of what.

Although America has historically displayed a tradition of national pride, some would call it excessive national pride, it has also traditionally manifested an internationalist bent. Christianity, which has been the dominant religion in America for centuries, sees foreigners as persons to be prayed for, persons to be helped to become persons who can enter heaven, regardless of their nationality or race.

The constitution's excessively vague and tolerant definition of treason manifests this basic friendliness to the world. The Declaration of Independence, which was produced by those who produced the constitution and thus reveals something re their minds, speaks of foreign mankind as being 'in peace friends, but in war enemies'.

Conceivably, a domineering activist court might succeed in improving American performance, but this at the expense of excessive disorder at home and excessive misfortune abroad.

It is childish to get absorbed in campaign finance and forget about the pollution of the political process that remains unaffected regardless of what the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v FEC.

Both last week before the ruling and in the future, the political process remains corrupted or negatively effected by: revolving doors featuring ex-govt employees hired by the private sector; murder; bribes; corrupted voting machines; lying polls; politicians who do a '180' after they get into office; citizens fearing being fired; citizens desiring to be paid well; citizens wanting to be from a town which is liked by employers because of the way it votes; citizens being ignorant and thoughtless; citizens being obsessed with their families and sacrificing their nation-state to their family.

Conceivably the SCOTUS ruling could give America the tools it needs to deal with these pollutions of its government process, pollutions which existed before the SCOTUS ruling and will continue to exist in the future after the SCOTUS ruling.

@2010 David Virgil Hobbs

Irrational court opinion will not be reviewed by supreme court

At the following link you can find version 1 of my comments regarding the DC Court of Appeals Opinion in "Rasul, Shafiq vs. Rumsfeld, Donald" (January 11, 2008)". The Supreme Court recently caused a stir by refusing to review this decision and opinion.

http://coolname001.angelfire.com/pretzelogicourt.htm

Abuse of high-class people such as men high class in terms of social-economic-partner attractiveness: misanthropic, contradicts spirit of the laws

I have seen strange things in the world in which I live.

A man who dozens of beautiful women want to marry ends up being: unable to get a job; unable to get a job in which one has a chance to meet lots of people; unable to get a job in which one can meet lots of people who are in some way high-class; able only to get jobs through which he cannot adequately provide for even one child; able only to get jobs through which he cannot afford a car, or afford a nightlife involving activities such as going to clubs and bars; able only to get jobs that drain him of his time and energy while bestowing little upon him in return; denied a job in a locality he has resided in for many years.

Meanwhile, a woman who few to zero men have an interest in marrying ends up being: treated like a celebrity, given the red carpet treatment; bused in from a faraway city to get a restful un-fatiguing well paying job in a city she has never lived in; given a job that allows one to afford to have a child; given a job involving meeting lots of people; given a job involving meeting lots of people who are in one way or another in the elite; given a job that makes little demand on time and energy but pays a handsome reward.

This is the idea of justice where I live.

I now present argument refuting the idea that such is justice.

I DECIDED TO REWRITE THE REST OF THIS POST. AFTER IT HAS BEEN REWRITTEN, IT WILL BE REPOSTED

@2009 David Virgil Hobbs