StroppyChops wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:02 pmWhat should happen when a woman (and to date, it's generally been women in the media) knowingly and falsely cries "Rape!" as a weapon?

Before the changes in man-made law, it was not possible for a wife to accuse her husband of rape. Man-made law made that practice possible, only recently. Before that, the wife could seek to divorce in order to obtain exemption from her wifely duties, but never file for rape against her husband:

These views of marriage and sexuality started to be challenged in most Western countries from the 1960s and 70s especially by second-wave feminism, leading to an acknowledgment of the woman's right to self-determination (i.e., control) of all matters relating to her body, and the withdrawal of the exemption or defense of marital rape.

Technically -- independent witnesses will not be forthcoming -- it is not possible to produce legal proof of marital rape. Therefore, a marital rape charge pretty much always requires believing the word of the wife while disbelieving the word of the husband. This alone, has always been an excellent reason to declare marital rape charges not receivable.

Furthermore, more fundamentally, children are born from the will of the husband. Nowhere in nature, a female is given the right to refuse the male, or would have any right to self-determination of matters relating her body. On the contrary, females are smaller and weaker than males, so that the male may impose his will onto the female. Only other males can contest the right to copulate with a female, usually, because they want to exercise that right by themselves. If the State refuses to acknowledge and recognize the legitimate rights of the husband over his wife, there will be no other option than to reestablish law and order by destroying the State. Men have always fought and killed other men in order to acquire or regain control over the females, which is a necessity for the purpose of reproduction. There is absolutely no difference this time. It is the same challenge all over again. If there hasn't been a substantial killing fest for a long time, you should be worried, because that is not normal. We must be seen to regularly and thoroughly exterminate other and supposedly less worthy men, because otherwise it will lead to an insurgency ("waved feminism") amongst the women. So, that explains the principle of "war" as a biological necessity.

eriksank wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:41 pm ...

Furthermore, more fundamentally, children are born from the will of the husband. Nowhere in nature, a female is given the right to refuse the male, or would have any right to self-determination of matters relating her body. On the contrary, females are smaller and weaker than males, so that the male may impose his will onto the female. Only other males can contest the right to copulate with a female, usually, because they want to exercise that right by themselves. If the State refuses to acknowledge and recognize the legitimate rights of the husband over his wife, there will be no other option than to reestablish law and order by destroying the State. Men have always fought and killed other men in order to acquire or regain control over the females, which is a necessity for the purpose of reproduction. There is absolutely no difference this time. It is the same challenge all over again. If there hasn't been a substantial killing fest for a long time, you should be worried, because that is not normal. We must be seen to regularly and thoroughly exterminate other and supposedly less worthy men, because otherwise it will lead to an insurgency ("waved feminism") amongst the women. So, that explains the principle of "war" as a biological necessity.

Do you know why peacocks have giant, colourful fans? Because peahens like them big and shiny. They don't mate if you have a tiny one and they certainly won't have your baby. If we consider our favourite bugbear, no not them, the Chinese, the female Chinese will not mate with you unless you have a job and some prospects. Check out all those sad families with signs stuck up in the park. Many other examples, spiders the most obvious, I saw something on one spider where two dudespiders tag team the female so at least one of them has a chance to get away after. Why do giraffes have long necks? Chick giraffes dig them, so the males use them for fighting, so ultimately totally female controlled. Generally you fight for the heirarchical advantage that gives you access to the hotties, or money and status to buy shiny things. Take Jude Law as an example, loads of hot women want his baby but not him around. There's a man used as a sex object. Also with marriages, I believe I saw a figure of 35% of UK fathers are bringing up children that are not theirs. No distinction on knowing or unknowing, so clearly a number of women are casting the net wider than the available water. So no, generally women control the means of production. It's the general preference of women for taller men, or taller than themselves, that has resulted in the significant difference in sizes between the genders in humans. So your mum did make you as you are.

I should have prefaced the post by saying that I'm not a fan of woman-bashing, and that my question was very specific to the case stated - when a woman falsely cries rape.

Duncan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:54 pmIt all started after she had a mental breakdown and was undergoing treatment by a '' women's group'' who said her problem was something to do with a mental blockage that she did not want to talk about.

I think that's where this starts getting really dangerous - when the "support groups" start seeding new or massaging old memories.

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:57 pm my mate got falsely accused of rape, got arrested and everything, luckily he got let off though

...

they should do time for it i reckon, if its a blatant lie

It's no secret that I served time for victimless crimes in my early twenties - I was a cyberhacker and forger - and I'm confident that around 20% of the men I was incarcerated with were innocent. Seriously.

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:16 pm Far worse I think, are the amount of women who falsely accuse their ex partners of child sex crimes so as to not have someone they are angry with see their own kids. The rates in British courts in visitation rights cases are apparently phenomenal.
What should the penalty be for that?

This is particularly hideous - when the lie told is to prevent a father fair access to his children. I think any parent that makes false allegations against the other to get sole custody should be publicly flogged, then jailed. Any accomplice in the lie should be at least flogged alongside them.

eriksank wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:41 pm... it is not possible to produce legal proof of marital rape. Therefore, a marital rape charge pretty much always requires believing the word of the wife while disbelieving the word of the husband. This alone, has always been an excellent reason to declare marital rape charges not receivable...

In Australia at least, the word of the wife is ALWAYS taken as gospel over the word of the husband, at least in child custody hearings. The new 50/50 shared custody arrangements came into effect in my last few years of paying child support, and even after one child was living with me permanently and one with her mother, the agency ruled that I was to pay the mother full support for both children - can we say "alimony" children?

An interesting discussion, and not a meme or troll in sight.

StroppyChops wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:45 pm I should have prefaced the post by saying that I'm not a fan of woman-bashing, and that my question was very specific to the case stated - when a woman falsely cries rape.

Duncan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:54 pmIt all started after she had a mental breakdown and was undergoing treatment by a '' women's group'' who said her problem was something to do with a mental blockage that she did not want to talk about.

I think that's where this starts getting really dangerous - when the "support groups" start seeding new or massaging old memories.

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:57 pm my mate got falsely accused of rape, got arrested and everything, luckily he got let off though

...

they should do time for it i reckon, if its a blatant lie

It's no secret that I served time for victimless crimes in my early twenties - I was a cyberhacker and forger - and I'm confident that around 20% of the men I was incarcerated with were innocent. Seriously.

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:16 pm Far worse I think, are the amount of women who falsely accuse their ex partners of child sex crimes so as to not have someone they are angry with see their own kids. The rates in British courts in visitation rights cases are apparently phenomenal.
What should the penalty be for that?

This is particularly hideous - when the lie told is to prevent a father fair access to his children. I think any parent that makes false allegations against the other to get sole custody should be publicly flogged, then jailed. Any accomplice in the lie should be at least flogged alongside them.

eriksank wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:41 pm... it is not possible to produce legal proof of marital rape. Therefore, a marital rape charge pretty much always requires believing the word of the wife while disbelieving the word of the husband. This alone, has always been an excellent reason to declare marital rape charges not receivable...

In Australia at least, the word of the wife is ALWAYS taken as gospel over the word of the husband, at least in child custody hearings. The new 50/50 shared custody arrangements came into effect in my last few years of paying child support, and even after one child was living with me permanently and one with her mother, the agency ruled that I was to pay the mother full support for both children - can we say "alimony" children?

An interesting discussion, and not a meme or troll in sight.

This is particularly hideous - when the lie told is to prevent a father fair access to his children. I think any parent that makes false allegations against the other to get sole custody should be publicly flogged, then jailed. Any accomplice in the lie should be at least flogged alongside them

Definately not C of E then.

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:51 pm

Spoiler:

StroppyChops wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:45 pm I should have prefaced the post by saying that I'm not a fan of woman-bashing, and that my question was very specific to the case stated - when a woman falsely cries rape.

Duncan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:54 pmIt all started after she had a mental breakdown and was undergoing treatment by a '' women's group'' who said her problem was something to do with a mental blockage that she did not want to talk about.

I think that's where this starts getting really dangerous - when the "support groups" start seeding new or massaging old memories.

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:57 pm my mate got falsely accused of rape, got arrested and everything, luckily he got let off though

...

they should do time for it i reckon, if its a blatant lie

It's no secret that I served time for victimless crimes in my early twenties - I was a cyberhacker and forger - and I'm confident that around 20% of the men I was incarcerated with were innocent. Seriously.

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:16 pm Far worse I think, are the amount of women who falsely accuse their ex partners of child sex crimes so as to not have someone they are angry with see their own kids. The rates in British courts in visitation rights cases are apparently phenomenal.
What should the penalty be for that?

This is particularly hideous - when the lie told is to prevent a father fair access to his children. I think any parent that makes false allegations against the other to get sole custody should be publicly flogged, then jailed. Any accomplice in the lie should be at least flogged alongside them.

eriksank wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:41 pm... it is not possible to produce legal proof of marital rape. Therefore, a marital rape charge pretty much always requires believing the word of the wife while disbelieving the word of the husband. This alone, has always been an excellent reason to declare marital rape charges not receivable...

In Australia at least, the word of the wife is ALWAYS taken as gospel over the word of the husband, at least in child custody hearings. The new 50/50 shared custody arrangements came into effect in my last few years of paying child support, and even after one child was living with me permanently and one with her mother, the agency ruled that I was to pay the mother full support for both children - can we say "alimony" children?

An interesting discussion, and not a meme or troll in sight.

This is particularly hideous - when the lie told is to prevent a father fair access to his children. I think any parent that makes false allegations against the other to get sole custody should be publicly flogged, then jailed. Any accomplice in the lie should be at least flogged alongside them

Definately not C of E then.

What gave it away?

Re the mattress girl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_ ... _Weight%29

The targeted innocent guy was much much to passive about this brutal charade. He should have steped up publicly and been present at every one of these slanderous self-promotion events. With a 50 lb sack of real bullshit. Civilized passivity does not work against a mob.

John Bingham wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:35 am If someone falsely accused me of rape, I would have to raid their village and take all their women-folk away on horse-back to be used as chattels and concubines.

That's almost biblical.

StroppyChops wrote: In Australia at least, the word of the wife is ALWAYS taken as gospel over the word of the husband, at least in child custody hearings. The new 50/50 shared custody arrangements came into effect in my last few years of paying child support, and even after one child was living with me permanently and one with her mother, the agency ruled that I was to pay the mother full support for both children

Stroppy you are sort of correct as it seems that way but also wrong. Allegations in family court are just that, allegations. They are not believed however, once made the court must move in cautious small steps. Only when the evidence is tested in trial are allegations either proved or disproved.

Also, there are no 50/50 shared custody laws. There is a law that the judge must consider shared parental responsibility (different from who the children live with) unless there are allegations of family violence. Hence the increase in reports of family violence.

Also, in regards to CSA, child support is determined on the percentage of care and the individual income of each parent. That is all. If you had full care of your child there is no legal basis to owe child support.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3010 using Tapatalk

Digg3r wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 5:17 pm

StroppyChops wrote: In Australia at least, the word of the wife is ALWAYS taken as gospel over the word of the husband, at least in child custody hearings. The new 50/50 shared custody arrangements came into effect in my last few years of paying child support, and even after one child was living with me permanently and one with her mother, the agency ruled that I was to pay the mother full support for both children

Stroppy you are sort of correct as it seems that way but also wrong. Allegations in family court are just that, allegations. They are not believed however, once made the court must move in cautious small steps. Only when the evidence is tested in trial are allegations either proved or disproved.

Also, there are no 50/50 shared custody laws. There is a law that the judge must consider shared parental responsibility (different from who the children live with) unless there are allegations of family violence. Hence the increase in reports of family violence.

Also, in regards to CSA, child support is determined on the percentage of care and the individual income of each parent.

I'm happy for you to be right to this point, however...

Digg3r wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 5:17 pm
That is all. If you had full care of your child there is no legal basis to owe child support.

Thanks for telling me about my own experience, in which you were in no way involved. I was a six-figure income earner (and so was Mrs Stroppy), my ex was a professional welfare/CS recipient. She had one child, I had the other, the CSA determined she should continue to receive the benefit to which she'd become accustomed. "That is all."