Well, to be honest I'm not a big believer in the Middle Eastern cultures, I've expressed my opinions of that in a lot of other threads. I think Sharia is plain wrong. Also to be honest I believe the situation is quite differant through a lot of Asia and South/Central America.matrix3509 said:
That said, I don't believe in the oppression of women, so much as I think that we need to see a lot more balance in the current system in the US. How it could be acheived in a written law is tricky though, without causing more problems than it solves. After all the last thing you want to do is create laws that allow what will turn into penelty free rape.
Things like the "closed door doctrine" have a lot of problems, but seem to have the right basic idea, albiet I think that specific chain of logic would lead to abuse so it wouldn't quite work out. It would need a lot of provisions added to it to work.
My issue is mostly that in gender-conflicts, whether it be rape, domestic issues, or whatever else the man is always the bad guy. In a lot of cases where there is an accusation of rape, it seems the attitude is far less "innocent until proven guilty" with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than putting the guy into the nearly impossible situation of trying to prove a negative. Especially if the rape in question is a non-violent one, based on an accusation of intimidation, or otherwise there is no proof other than testimony. Chances are if some dude pulls a gun on you in an alleyway and forces you to give up all your money and there are no witnesses, and no proof (like him having your wallet and ID when he's caught) the guy is going to get away in most cases. It's your word against his, that's not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". However if some girl accuses a guy of putting a gun to her head and raping her with no witnesses, or marks from forced penetration or whatever, that could very well turn out VERY differantly. Neither case is absolute (exceptions can happen either way, espeially if you add details to the hypothetical situation, which exists to make a point) but I think the laws are by definition loaded.
I also think there has to be more responsibility on the part of women in these laws. It's entirely correct to call someone who unknowingly drugs a girl and molests he a rapist (ie slipping roofies into her drink or whatever). On the other hand simply getting her drunk or high consentually should not be considered the same thing, yet in many cases it can be. This is especially true if she's in a bar or something when the connection is made. Of course to be honest with recreational drugs involved there might be other charges that apply, but rape shouldn't be one of them.
Perhaps I misunderstand what your saying, but I'm not suggesting Sharia or anything like that is even remotely cool. I'm simply pointing out that the system is unbalanced. The point being that with the way the laws are in most places, the only way to be safe of accusations of rape or sexual harassment (especially the latter) is to simply never pursue sex, or try and pick up girls. By definition anything a guy does in that capacity could lead to criminal charges or other problems, if the girl decides to make an official complaint.
