What do you think about recording sex sessions?

[Quartz]

Imagine you have a bachelor friend who has security cameras dotted around his house, including in his bedroom. These cameras normally record images only at a low frame rate but have motion detectors and switch to full-speed with sound when motion is detected. He confides in you that he leaves these cameras on 24/7. On occasion, he entertains ladies overnight. Their sex sessions are perforce recorded.

What do you think of him at this point?

He goes on to say that he's thankful of this because one woman accused him of raping her and he was able to use the recording to provide absolute proof of his innocence (details are NOT relevant). He finishes by saying, "Sometimes a man needs more than a condom for protection."

What do you think now?

[Ibanez]

I think he's a pervert and what he's doing is illegal.

[Renee]

I think he's a pervert and what he's doing is illegal.

this

[fuzzypickles]

I think he's a pervert and what he's doing is illegal.
AFAIK, it's not a crime to record yourself in the company of another person, even if you're gettin' hot & heavy with mirrors on the ceiling and pink champagne on ice. NO consent is required from the second person -- it only becomes an issue if you're a third party recording people's activities without their knowledge or consent, and even that's not criminal unless "reasonable expectation of privacy" applies.

Having said all that, methinks the OP's "friend" is better at telling grandiose tales than gettin' laid...just sayin'. :dubious:

[bouv]

AFAIK, it's not a crime to record yourself in the company of another person, even if you're gettin' hot & heavy with mirrors on the ceiling and pink champagne on ice. NO consent is required from the second person


I don't think that's accurate...I thought that once clothes started to come off, there is some kind of reasonable expectation or privacy that you aren't being photographed or videotaped.

[Ibanez]

AFAIK, it's not a crime to record yourself in the company of another person, even if you're gettin' hot & heavy with mirrors on the ceiling and pink champagne on ice. NO consent is required from the second person -- it only becomes an issue if you're a third party recording people's activities without their knowledge or consent, and even that's not criminal unless "reasonable expectation of privacy" applies.

Having said all that, methinks the OP's "friend" is better at telling grandiose tales than gettin' laid...just sayin'. :dubious:

I have personal experience of someone in my family being recorded without her knowledge during sex . The cops took it pretty seriously, because of the realtionship she had with his parents she never pressed charges.

Lucky him.

[Rigamarole]

I have personal experience of someone in my family being recorded without her knowledge during sex . The cops took it pretty seriously, because of the realtionship she had with his parents she never pressed charges.

Lucky him.

Interesting: I'm curious, what was the crime they were planning to charge him with, exactly?

[Quartz]

Having said all that, methinks the OP's "friend" is better at telling grandiose tales than gettin' laid...just sayin'. :dubious:

This scenario is entirely hypothetical.

[fuzzypickles]

I thought that once clothes started to come off, there is some kind of reasonable expectation or privacy that you aren't being photographed or videotaped.
Not to my knowledge, no.

Naturally, recording yourself having sex with someone without their awareness or consent is a highly despicable act, which would definitely raise several red flags with the police -- but without any additional complications, there's really nothing the law can do about it.

It could become a potential civil matter, though -- especially if the "friend" is in the business of distributing the video to other people.

This scenario is entirely hypothetical.
Ah, okay.

[Ellen Cherry]

It would be completely unethical to record someone having sex without her permission. Legalities, I don't know.

[LionelHutz405]

I've seen this mentioned on various men's rights sites as a way to protect yourself from false rape accusations. It's easy to prove sex took place, but impossible to prove it was consensual if rape charges are made later.

[Duckster]

If you plan to record telephone calls or in-person conversations (including by recording video that captures sound), you should be aware that there are federal (http://www.citmedialaw.org/glossary/8/letterf#term216) and state wiretapping laws that may limit your ability to do so. These laws not only expose you to the risk of criminal prosecution, but also potentially give an injured party a civil (http://www.citmedialaw.org/glossary/8/letterc#term206) claim for money damages (http://www.citmedialaw.org/glossary/8/letterd#term210) against you. (Bolding mine.) http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

[Tom Tildrum]

Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but my preference is to station a court reporter in the closet. That way, if there are ever any questions, I can just refer to the transcript.

[Beware of Doug]

As a musician, I prefer to keep sex separate from recording sessions, but sometimes people need to work off tension to play their best. :D

[fuzzypickles]

As a musician, I prefer to keep sex separate from recording sessions...
Could be worse... (http://www.snopes.com/music/hidden/roller.asp)

[GuanoLad]

especially if the "friend" is in the business of distributing the video to other people.I can see that definitely being a crime. But, as long as it's never ever distributed, and is purely for security and not for his personal jollies, I don't think that any other part of it is illegal.

It may be ethically questionable and in some ways quite repellent, though.

[billfish678]

Is some video equivalent of Auto Tune involved? Because, if so, thats just plain offensive any way you look at it.

[don't ask]

Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but my preference is to station a court reporter in the closet. That way, if there are ever any questions, I can just refer to the transcript.

What if your partner invokes her right to remain silent?

[Musicat]

Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but my preference is to station a court reporter in the closet. That way, if there are ever any questions, I can just refer to the transcript.Smart. But everytime I do that, the reporter wants to join in, and that just spoils the mood something terrible.

[Der Trihs]

Imagine you have a bachelor friend who has security cameras dotted around his house, including in his bedroom. These cameras normally record images only at a low frame rate but have motion detectors and switch to full-speed with sound when motion is detected. He confides in you that he leaves these cameras on 24/7. On occasion, he entertains ladies overnight. Their sex sessions are perforce recorded.

What do you think of him at this point?That he was being either prudent or just liked recorded sex.

He goes on to say that he's thankful of this because one woman accused him of raping her and he was able to use the recording to provide absolute proof of his innocence (details are NOT relevant). He finishes by saying, "Sometimes a man needs more than a condom for protection."

What do you think now?Same. I've always been told that it's perfectly reasonable for women to treat every man they meet as a potential rapist; I fail to see why it's then wrong to return the favor and treat every woman like a potential accuser.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but my preference is to station a court reporter in the closet.

And tell that lawyer in you to remove himself immediately, at least until you can record him entering you, and exactly how he gained entry, with what consent, etc.

[Rachellelogram]

Without reading any other posts first:

It's highly slimy and unethical, for one.

In many states (including mine), it's illegal to record someone's voice without their consent. I assume (but IANAL) that it is illegal to record video of someone naked without their consent here, if not everywhere. If it's not, it should be. Therefore, I do not believe that the video evidence he had of the encounter would be admissible in court. Telling her of its existence may have been valuable in getting the woman in question to drop the charges, but admitting to her that he taped their encounter without her consent could easily open him up to another lawsuit.

Additionally, if the cameras do not have voice capture, then there is no surefire way to determine whether the sex was rape. People consensually tie one another up and struggle. Or she could have been too drunk to consent. Or he could have plied her with drugs that wouldn't knock her out entirely, but make her appear to be "consenting enough."

[Der Trihs]

Telling her of its existence may have been valuable in getting the woman in question to drop the charges, but admitting to her that he taped their encounter without her consent could easily open him up to another lawsuit.Which would still be a lot better than a rape charge.

Additionally, if the cameras do not have voice capture, then there is no surefire way to determine whether the sex was rape. People consensually tie one another up and struggle. Which is why lawyers advise men that they shouldn't engage in bondage games with a woman even if she consents, he's leaving himself open to charges.

[DianaG]

I've always been told that it's perfectly reasonable for women to treat every man they meet as a potential rapist
By who? I know a lot of people, I've never heard anyone say this.

Which is why lawyers advise men that they shouldn't engage in bondage games with a woman even if she consents, he's leaving himself open to charges.
I also know a lot of lawyers. A quick poll of the one in the living room indicates that lawyers don't normally dispense sex advice.

[Rachellelogram]

Which would still be a lot better than a rape charge.
Eye of the beholder, I guess. Once the story gets out (and it will), other women who've had sex with him may come forward. One invasion of privacy suit is probably better (in the guy's opinion) than one rape charge. How about 10 invasion of privacy suits, the loss of friends, family shunning him, community shunning him, and the future complete inability to get laid again?

[DianaG]

In fairness, a quick call to another lawyer friend yielded, and I quote, "The kind of lawyer who'll snort blow off a hooker's ass with you would TOTALLY advise that."

[Der Trihs]

By who? I know a lot of people, I've never heard anyone say this.I've gotten into heated arguments with people claiming that on this board.

A quick poll of the one in the living room indicates that lawyers don't normally dispense sex advice.Unless asked, and in this legal climate yes what kind of sex you have is a legal issue for a man.

One invasion of privacy suit is probably better (in the guy's opinion) than one rape charge. How about 10 invasion of privacy suits, the loss of friends, family shunning him, community shunning him, and the future complete inability to get laid again?One rape charge will do that.

[Rachellelogram]

I've gotten into heated arguments with people claiming that on this board.

Unless asked, and in this legal climate yes what kind of sex you have is a legal issue for a man.

One rape charge will do that.
No, a rape conviction would do that. If you think being charged with rape means his friends and family and community will shun him, you must live in a nice fantasyland (PM me the address, k?).

[DianaG]

Unless asked, and in this legal climate yes what kind of sex you have is a legal issue for a man.
Holy crap, I've been doing this sex thing all wrong. Apparently, I should have been accusing men of rape for fun and profit!

Seriously dude, false accusations of rape certainly happen, but not often enough for even the Times to peg it as a "trend" along the lines of fake anime eye contact lenses. Take a deep breath and join us in the world, where the people live.

[Der Trihs]

No, a rape conviction would do that. If you think being charged with rape means his friends and family and community will shun him, you must live in a nice fantasyland (PM me the address, k?).It's called "America"; easy enough to find on a map. And yes, the bare accusation is enough to ruin a man's life.

Holy crap, I've been doing this sex thing all wrong. Apparently, I should have been accusing men of rape for fun and profit!

Seriously dude, false accusations of rape certainly happen, but not often enough for even the Times to peg it as a "trend" along the lines of fake anime eye contact lenses. According to you. Of course, you are a woman so you have no reason to fear it happening to you; why not downplay the problem?

[DianaG]

I'm not downplaying it, I'm putting it in proportion. Prove to me that I'm wrong, and this is a pressing issue for a significant number of people.

[DianaG]

I've gotten into heated arguments with people claiming that on this board.
By the way, and I'm not being snarky here, I'm genuinely curious, who? Because if it's one (or more) of our resident crazies, that kinda doesn't count.

Has anyone in your actual life ever said that it's reasonable for a woman to regard all men as potential rapists?

[Quartz]

Seriously dude, false accusations of rape certainly happen,

And one study (http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html) indicates that half of all accusations are false. I don't know how things are in America, but over here an accusation of rape is incredibly serious. The guy will likely lose his job. And mud sticks.

[DianaG]

That certainly is one study. One tiny, nearly twenty year old study, that most scientists look askance at, and I've only ever seen cited by people with a very clear agenda, who hope that whomever they mention it to won't notice that it's tiny and nearly twenty years old, and the results have never been anything remotely like duplicated.

[fuzzypickles]

It's called "America"; easy enough to find on a map.
Not for 37% of Americans (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-shehori/poll-37-of-americans-unab_b_150933.html).

And one study (http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html) indicates that half of all accusations are false.
Which reflexively means 50% of all rape accusations are legit -- therefore, even false reports must be taken seriously. Police aren't psychic, you know.

[Der Trihs]

That certainly is one study. One tiny, nearly twenty year old study, that most scientists look askance at, and I've only ever seen cited by people with a very clear agenda, who hope that whomever they mention it to won't notice that it's tiny and nearly twenty years old, and the results have never been anything remotely like duplicated.
Oh, please, that's hardly the only study showing large numbers of false accusations for rape and child molestation. I recall one from the FBI showing that 65% of men in jail on rape charges physically could not be guilty; either DNA tests proved it, or they were demonstrably somewhere far away when the crime occurs.

And why wouldn't there be lots of false accusations, given that there's no downside for the woman, the prevalence of hatred and disdain women in our culture have towards men, and that false accusations are outright encouraged by some feminists and divorce lawyers? Like the practice of photographing your husband bathing your children so you can accuse him of being a child molester - he's touching naked kids! - if you end up divorcing him. Why not falsely accuse a man since after all, him being a man you "know" he's scum anyway?

[DianaG]

If you recall it, then find it and link to it. The only FBI stat I've seen puts unfounded accusations at something like 6%.

The rest of your post makes you sound like Andrea Dworkin if she'd had a penis.

[Der Trihs]

The rest of your post makes you sound like Andrea Dworkin if she'd had a penis.Then you don't recall Dworkin very well.

[DianaG]

No link?

[DianaG]

Oh fine, I'll do it. (http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Search-Profiles.php?check=check&title=&yearConviction=&yearExoneration=&jurisdiction=&cause=&perpetrator=&compensation=&conviction=rape&x=0&y=0)
That is a list of all men exonerated post conviction of rape by DNA evidence.

It's quite a few men. I'm pleased for each of them.

It's certainly not anything remotely approaching 65% of convicted rapists.

In other words, you're making shit up.

[RaftPeople]

Oh fine, I'll do it. (http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Search-Profiles.php?check=check&title=&yearConviction=&yearExoneration=&jurisdiction=&cause=&perpetrator=&compensation=&conviction=rape&x=0&y=0)
That is a list of all men exonerated post conviction of rape by DNA evidence.

It's quite a few men. I'm pleased for each of them.

It's certainly not anything remotely approaching 65% of convicted rapists.

In other words, you're making shit up.

While I have no knowledge of the actual stat and I think that Der Trihs is overstating the situation, your counter-point is missing some logic.

That project was started by 1 guy and I think it was with his own funds and he handled as many cases as he could by himself. Not sure how many people work on that project these days, but there is somewhat of a "tip of the iceberg" situation here given their bandwidth vs the number of people incarcerated. Also, they don't just do rape cases, they handle all types, which makes it a slower process to get at the incorrect rape verdict stat.

[DianaG]

Except that I'm pretty sure that's a list of ALL DNA exoneration cases, not just the ones that they were involved with. And the link that I provided was sorted to just the rape cases, although it may not have worked correctly for others.

From their website (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php).
There have been 265 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

That's total. Not just rapes. 265. So yes, I think that we can agree that Der Trihs is "overstating".

I'm certainly not implying that my cite is definitive, just indicative.

[KneadToKnow]

I think it's really hard to get the levels set right, because we usually start off really quiet and don't get really loud until toward then end.

[RaftPeople]

Except that I'm pretty sure that's a list of ALL DNA exoneration cases, not just the ones that they were involved with. And the link that I provided was sorted to just the rape cases, although it may not have worked correctly for others.

From their website (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php).
There have been 265 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

That's total. Not just rapes. 265. So yes, I think that we can agree that Der Trihs is "overstating".

I'm certainly not implying that my cite is definitive, just indicative.

Yes, and how many cases have been re-tried? It's very difficult to extrapolate much from that number other than the fact that there is some unknown but non-zero percentage of cases in which people have been found guilty in the absence of DNA evidence at the time that have subsequently been found innocent when DNA evidence was used.

2 things skew this number:
1) I believe they only take cases that appear to them (this particular project) that the person is indeed innocent based on some preliminary analysis
2) There are limited resources to re-try cases


I think you are inferring much more than is reasonable based on that limited data.

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

Lets see:

"False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), found 41% of all claims over a nine year period were false.

He also studied two state universities and found that 50% of the 64 rape claims were false.

McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.
This one found 60% false claim rate.

Here is an online source: http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm.

The percentages are all over the place, but it is clear that false rapes occur frequently. Furthermore, rape is often proved on the basis of one eye-witness's testimony. As a result, it is impossible to fault a man who records, and keeps private, his sexual encounters.

[DianaG]

The Kanin study has already been cited. It's tiny, deeply flawed, and quite elderly. Do try to keep up.

[DianaG]

I can't speak to the McDowell study, I don't know much about it, and can't find any reference to it online that isn't from a blatantly biased source. I'll keep looking though.

Never heard of Frank S. Zepezauer, so did a google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=Frank+S.+Zepezauer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). Died laughing

[Quartz]

Can we please keep the precise number of false rape accusations for another thread and imply accept that a significant number are false and use that to move on?

[MsRobyn]

In Pennsylvania, recording someone without their consent or knowledge is a misdemeanor (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/12/bruce_barclay_former_cumberlan_2.html).

Cracked has a great article called "Six Reasons Homemade Porn Is a Worse Idea Than You Think". (I'd link to it, but it's NSFW due to language and title.) It's worth reading and pondering.

[Czarcasm]

Can we please keep the precise number of false rape accusations for another thread and imply accept that a significant number are false and use that to move on?[Moderator Note]Or move the rape statistics hijack to another thread, preferably in Great Debates, please.[/Moderator Note]

[DianaG]

We could I suppose, but it's actually a more interesting question than "is it okay to tape your sexual encounters without your partners' consent" which can be very simply answered with "No, you sleazy fucktard*."

*Sleazy fucktard being the recorder, of course.

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

Why the fuck not? As long as the recording is kept private, the only person the recording can harm is the false accuser.

[flickster]

But would being captured by an installed security camera be considered the same as, for example, setting up a tripod in a closet to capture a single session - me thinks not

[DianaG]

Why the fuck not? As long as the recording is kept private, the only person the recording can harm is the false accuser.
So your think that it's crazy to trust a woman you have sex with to not accuse you of rape, but it's completely reasonable to trust a man to keep his dishonestly obtained sextapes private?

"I'm not sleazy, I'm just doing this sleazy thing just in case YOU turn out to be sleazy!!!"

Seriously, have y'all by any chance smoked a whole bunch of crack today?

[Czarcasm]

But would being captured by an installed security camera be considered the same as, for example, setting up a tripod in a closet to capture a single session - me thinks notMe thinks trying to convince a judge that you had the camera pointed towards the bed instead of the window or door because that's where you think intruders will enter the room will cause laughter in the courtroom.

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

So your think that it's crazy to trust a woman you have sex with to not accuse you of rape, but it's completely reasonable to trust a man to keep his dishonestly obtained sextapes private?

"I'm not sleazy, I'm just doing this sleazy thing just in case YOU turn out to be sleazy!!!"

Seriously, have y'all by any chance smoked a whole bunch of crack today?

You play your games. I'll play mine.

[DianaG]

I can't even figure out what that means, so I'm back to the crack explanation.

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

It means I can achieve my goals with a video tape. She can achieve hers by jumping up and down to establish the societal expectation that women are innocent angels who would never fabricate, prevaricate, or lie. And as such their claims should be taken at face value. Guilt until innocence proven, and all that.

[DianaG]

So in other words, you're not sleazy, you just do sleazy things just in case other people turn out to be sleazy.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dude. But don't expect anyone else to buy that crap.

[Der Trihs]

So in other words, you're not sleazy, you just do sleazy things just in case other people turn out to be sleazy.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dude. But don't expect anyone else to buy that crap.
In other words, men taking any measures whatsoever to protect themselves are "sleazy". They should just let their lives be ruined.

[Otara]

People are perfectly free to worry about being falsely accused of rape. The issue I guess is whether their level of concern and preoccupation over the issue is particularly rational.

Recording sexual encounters as an initial solution does suggest a fairly unusual amount of concern over the issue. Or a massive rationalisation for other fairly obvious motives.

Otara

[DianaG]

In other words, men taking any measures whatsoever to protect themselves are "sleazy". They should just let their lives be ruined.
No, men videotaping their sexcapades without their partners' consent are sleazy. That's quite a specific charge, and I don't really see what's controversial about it.

[billfish678]

So in other words, you're not sleazy, you just do sleazy things just in case other people turn out to be sleazy.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dude. But don't expect anyone else to buy that crap.

Oh bahhh...

Its only sleazy if the guy is rewatching the stuff to wack off to later, keeping it for blackmail, or planing on sharing it.

If its just going into a vault and not coming out again till rape charges are filled...well, its a theorectical form of sleazy I just can't get too worked up about.

[DianaG]

It's a violation of trust, and it's sleazy.

There are only two reasons a person would do it. Either he hates and fears women to the extent that he assumes that any of them who have sex with him have the ulterior motive of ruining his life, in which case he should get a RealDoll and live happily ever after with it, or, he hates women to the extent that violating their trust in this way is a vital component of sex for him.

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

Would you change your mind if it was a woman who was recording her sex life in an attempt to gather evidence to support a date rape claim??

[DianaG]

Not even a little, no.

Forgive my naivete, but I really do have to ask; why do you sleep with people whom you assume mean you harm? Because simply not doing that would be a method of 'protecting yourself' that I would fully endorse.

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

For the same reason why I always buckle up a seat-belt condom: nobody cares as much about my interests as I do. I'm not going to put myself in a position to be fucked when a $35 can of mace web cam can save me so much trouble.

[billfish678]

that any of them .

you mispelled "a small chance that one of them"

[DianaG]

For the same reason why I always buckle up a seat-belt condom: nobody cares as much about my interests as I do. I'm not going to put myself in a position to be fucked when a $35 can of mace web cam can save me so much trouble.
Complete bullshit comparisons. Neither wearing a condom nor carrying mace involve violating anyone's trust.

Let me be very clear here. If you TELL the woman you're videotaping, you're all good. If you don't, you're a fucking sleaze, and there's nothing that justifies that.

[DianaG]

you mispelled "a small chance that one of them"
There's a significantly larger chance that you'll incapacitate yourself by falling in the bathtub, but you presumably don't keep a CCTV in there just in case.

And I missed the edit window on my last post, but I'd like to clarify that any references to "you" are intended as general "you" and not ZZZ.

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

Let me be very clear here: the deck is stacked against men. If I get a woman pregnant, she has a meal ticket for the next 18 years; for this reason I wear a condom. If a woman decides, after the fact, that she didn't want to have sex with me, she can send me to jail. We've created a society where women are treated with kid gloves, a society where a woman's word is worth more than a man's word. As a feminist, I believe that woman's word is equal to my own. However, society and justice puts a woman's word on a pedestal, and in response I use technology to tear down that pedestal, forcing the hypothetical woman's word to be equal to my own. This isn't sleaze, this is cynicism.

[DianaG]

Let's be very clear here. Cynicism would be giving up on women, or at least giving up sleeping with women you don't have excellent reason to trust. Or, for that matter, TELLING them that you're videotaping them, and why. That would qualify as cynicism.

Videotaping them without their consent is sleaze.

[Czarcasm]

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

[DianaG]

Hell, let's be even clearer.

If your only concern is protecting yourself from false accusations of rape, then why not tell the woman that you plan to tape the encounter, and why? Let her choose whether she's willing to continue under those conditions. After all, the only thing you risk by telling her is that she won't have sex with you.

Yeah. Sleazy. So, so sleazy.

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

Trustworthy people are indistinguishable from the un-trustworthy kind. Furthermore, people can change from one to the other. It is impossible to determine how someone will behave when presenting with a new set of motivators. For this reason I don't go up to a woman who has been date-raped, and say: "You idiot, of course you got raped, you should only go out with people who don't look rapey". Because that would be blaming the victim, and that is terrible.

[Quartz]

I think I should point out that in my OP I specified that there's more than one camera around the house, not just one camera in the bedroom. Further, you're not deliberately recording your sex session; it's getting recorded because the security system is still on. There's movement, so the recording kicks in. Kind of like getting recorded by CCTV in an office.

[DianaG]

Trustworthy people are indistinguishable from the un-trustworthy kind. Furthermore, people can change from one to the other. It is impossible to determine how someone will behave when presenting with a new set of motivators. For this reason I don't go up to a woman who has been date-raped, and say: "You idiot, of course you got raped, you should only go out with people who don't look rapey". Because that would be blaming the victim, and that is terrible.
Any particular reason you didn't answer my question?

Maybe if I try louder?

WHY NOT TELL HER YOU'RE PLANNING TO TAPE YOUR SEX?

If you do that, you not only eliminate the risk, but prove yourself trustworthy as well.

[DianaG]

I think I should point out that in my OP I specified that there's more than one camera around the house, not just one camera in the bedroom. Further, you're not deliberately recording your sex session; it's getting recorded because the security system is still on. There's movement, so the recording kicks in. Kind of like getting recorded by CCTV in an office.
If you know that the sex is being taped, you're ethically obligated to tell your partner. Period.

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

Any particular reason you didn't answer my question?

Maybe if I try louder?

WHY NOT TELL HER YOU'RE PLANNING TO TAPE YOUR SEX?

If you do that, you not only eliminate the risk, but prove yourself trustworthy as well.

I have no say in what she does with any of my sperm - whether recovered by orgasm or from trash can. Similarly she doesn't get to tell me what to do with the images of her enjoying my trouser serpent. This exchange is still in her favour: eighteen years of suckling off my teat vs some ones and zero quietly mouldering on a hard-drive (in the event of innocent intent).

There now that I've answered your question, how about you answer one of mine: Why do you want women to be able to falsely accuse men of rape without the risk of being proved to be a lair? The film is only useful, or brought out, when a woman has committed the crime of false accusation. Why are you against women being held accountable to the crime of false accusation?

[fuzzypickles]

If you know that the sex is being taped, you're ethically obligated to tell your partner. Period.
More to the point, you're ethically obligated to ask your partner if it's okay to record your love session...and even that depends on whether or not she's into that type of kink.

[DianaG]

I have no say in what she does with any of my sperm - whether recovered by orgasm or from trash can.
Sure you do. Use a condom and swallow it. That would suit your level of paranoia.

Similarly she doesn't get to tell me what to do with the images of her enjoying my trouser serpent.
Not once she's agreed to starring in said images, no. But that still doesn't address the question of why not tell her about your plans to film her.

This exchange is still in her favour: eighteen years of suckling off my teat vs some ones and zero quietly mouldering on a hard-drive (in the event of innocent intent).
And so, once again... nothing changes if you tell her in advance that you plan to film. So why not?

There now that I've answered your question, how about you answer one of mine: Why do you want women to be able to falsely accuse men of rape without the risk of being proved to be a lair?
I don't. I want them to be given the opportunity to consent (or not) to being filmed. Why are you avoiding my question?

The film is only useful, or brought out, when a woman has committed the crime of false accusation. Why are you against women being held accountable to the crime of false accusation?
I am certainly not against women being held accountable for making false accusations, but the film is equally useful whether the woman in question knew she was being filmed or not. Why are you against informed consent?

Once more, with feeling...

WHY NOT TELL?

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

Because forewarned is forearmed. There is no reason for me to provide a weapon to a person who intends me harm.

Now, once more with feeling. Why are women allowed to commit crimes, free from the risk of revelation? Your entire line of argument is that the tools for self preservation should be stripped from men so that women can achieve their goals.

[DianaG]

No, my argument is that the playing field is level when EVERYONE is informed and protected. Like I've said repeatedly, go ahead and film, with her consent. This does not 'forearm' her, the film shows what the film shows. Add audio, just to be safe. But TELL her about it.

You know, you could save yourself a lot of worry and maintain some semblance of decency with a little boilerplate contract you have them sign in advance.

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

No you've simply alerted her to the fact that she needs to set her rape claim somewhere other than a bedroom.

And you still haven't answered my question: Why is it right for women to make unfounded accusation while it is wrong for men to mount a defense against the same? This is all the film can do. If everyone is happy, the file waits for eternity on a hard drive. If she decides that she can achieve some goal by sending me to jail, then the film can have it's day in the sun. You are trying to make it easy for a false accusation to send me to jail. Why?

[DianaG]

Hmm... Zany. It suits you.

Please point out an instance of me saying that it's okay for women to make unfounded accusations, or not okay for men to protect themselves from same, other than by unethically filming their sex without their partners' consent.

I am not trying to make it easy for people to behave unethically toward you, I am simply not giving you permission to behave unethically toward them.

Why do you feel that the only way to protect yourself is to treat other people unethically?

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

I'm going to point out that the distribution of sex tapes is immoral. However, the collection of the tape is not; the tape remains as private as my memories, or as the memories as Mrs. Fantine whose rest we disturbed. The tape only serves to make my word equal to the word of a woman.

Now try and keep up. When you say I cannot collect this tape, you also say that I may not defend myself from a false claim of rape. Remember, if you can, that rape is often based on the word of one person. And since we already know that the word of a woman is exalted by this society, I have no defense, unless I record my personal activities. By establishing a society wherein I may not film my encounters you are establishing a society where men may never protect themselves from that claim.

In short, you are trying to create a society where it is impossible to show an accusation to be unfounded. While I am trying to create one where my word can be equal to the word of a woman.

[DianaG]

Try to keep up, indeed.

I never said you can't tape it. I have, in fact, repeatedly said that you CAN tape it. With her consent.

If you're the kind of person who would tape sex without your partners' consent, your word is indeed worth nothing, but not because of your gender.

[JThunder]

Any particular reason you didn't answer my question?

Maybe if I try louder?

WHY NOT TELL HER YOU'RE PLANNING TO TAPE YOUR SEX?
Apparently, their answer is "Because then she might say no."

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

Try to keep up, indeed.

I never said you can't tape it. I have, in fact, repeatedly said that you CAN tape it. With her consent.

If you're the kind of person who would tape sex without your partners' consent, your word is indeed worth nothing, but not because of your gender.

All this does is tell her that she should claim that a rape occurred in the stairwell rather than the bedroom.

Now, try to answer my question. Why are you opposed to making a woman's word equal to mine? In a game of he-said, she-said, she always wins. However, the film breaks the tie making my word equal to hers.

[Der Trihs]

Recording sexual encounters as an initial solution does suggest a fairly unusual amount of concern over the issue.
Of course it does; men as a group are irrational about women, foolhardy. Women depend on men being irrational about them; if men were rational, under our present system they'd treat women (and children for that matter) like they were radioactive and never get within ten feet of them.

It's a violation of trust, and it's sleazy.How typical of these sorts of arguments that all the trust is supposed to be one way. And a man daring to defend himself is "sleazy".

Any particular reason you didn't answer my question?

Maybe if I try louder?

WHY NOT TELL HER YOU'RE PLANNING TO TAPE YOUR SEX?

If you do that, you not only eliminate the risk, but prove yourself trustworthy as well.
And how many women would agree to have sex under those conditions? Women, as you are demonstrating, hate to admit that men have any reason to fear false accusations and take even the implication that such things are possible as an insult. They demand that men either be self destructively trusting towards them, or that men lie to them, or that men be celibate. You are (knowingly I'm sure) proposing a "solution" that simply won't work because the women wouldn't go along with it, ever.

You are demanding that men be irrational and ignore our grossly slanted "justice" system, the real way that women act towards such requests, or both.

Apparently, their answer is "Because then she might say no."
No. Would say no, always. It's not like she cares about his problems after all; or even wants to admit they exist. As threads like this help demonstrate.

[DianaG]

I'm going to point out that the distribution of sex tapes is immoral. However, the collection of the tape is not;
It is, if it's obtained without consent.

the tape remains as private as my memories, or as the memories as Mrs. Fantine whose rest we disturbed. The tape only serves to make my word equal to the word of a woman.
Why should you be trusted not to distribute the tapes, when by making them without consent you've demonstrated that you are not trustworthy?

And since we already know that the word of a woman is exalted by this society
"We" know no such thing. You are a little irrational on the subject.

I have no defense, unless I record my personal activities.
Look up 'reasonable doubt'. You're in for such a nice surprise!

By establishing a society wherein I may not film my encounters you are establishing a society where men may never protect themselves from that claim.
I'll keep saying this until you give some indication of hearing it. You may film, WITH CONSENT.

In short, you are trying to create a society where it is impossible to show an accusation to be unfounded. While I am trying to create one where my word can be equal to the word of a woman.
I'm not creating any sort of society, dear. A society in which filming people in ostensibly intimate situations without their consent is considered sleazy already exists. You are trying to convince me that your paranoid delusions should result in a change to that society.

[JThunder]

And how many women would agree to have sex under those conditions?
Like I said.

[DianaG]

And how many women would agree to have sex under those conditions?
So your position is that you're entitled to sex under circumstances that no woman would agree to?

[Der Trihs]

Why should you be trusted not to distribute the tapes, when by making them without consent you've demonstrated that you are not trustworthy?Because that has nothing to do with trustworthiness.


"We" know no such thing. You are a little irrational on the subject.No, like it or not the courts systematically lean towards a women's word over that of a man. The courts (and society in general) strongly lean towards considering the woman an innocent victim and the man a scumball or monster.

Look up 'reasonable doubt'. You're in for such a nice surprise!"Reasonable doubt" has little to do with the results of an accusation of rape or child molestation.

[Der Trihs]

So your position is that you're entitled to sex under circumstances that no woman would agree to?I'm saying that women have no right to demand that men behave self destructively, whether or not sex is involved. I'm not going to falsely confess to her crimes to defend a woman, either.

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

It is, if it's obtained without consent.


Why should you be trusted not to distribute the tapes, when by making them without consent you've demonstrated that you are not trustworthy?

1


"We" know no such thing. You are a little irrational on the subject.

2

Look up 'reasonable doubt'. You're in for such a nice surprise!

3

I'll keep saying this until you give some indication of hearing it. You may film, WITH CONSENT.


I'm not creating any sort of society, dear. A society in which filming people in ostensibly intimate situations without their consent is considered sleazy already exists. You are trying to convince me that your paranoid delusions should result in a change to that society.

1 Why should I tell when women have not proven themselves invariably trustworthy?

2. Attacks ad hominem? I'll ignore this.

3. Remember the Duke Lacrosse case? Reality doesn't mean anything. The players were still condemned in the press.

By demonizing the collection of film you are creating a situation where women may successfully falsely accuse someone of rape. As such you are responsible for the imprisonment of innocent people.

Try to recognize reality. Men are assumed (in the event of rape) to be guilty. Without the superior evidence provided by a video camera, a man will always go to jail when an accusation of rape is entered. By recommending the collection of sex-tapes, I am creating an equal society out of a matriarchy.

It is natural to feel upset when your female privilege is being eroded, but it is necessary to create a new and just society.

[DianaG]

I'm saying that women have no right to demand that men behave self destructively, whether or not sex is involved. I'm not going to falsely confess to her crimes to defend a woman, either.
"I had to do this thing that she didn't consent to (and in my estimation would never have consented to) in order to protect myself from accusations that I did things she didn't consent to."

Mods, can we go to the Pit now?

[Der Trihs]

"I had to do this thing that she didn't consent to (and in my estimation would never have consented to) in order to protect myself from accusations that I did things she didn't consent to."You are actually trying to equate rape and videotaping?

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

"I had to do this thing that she didn't consent to (and in my estimation would never have consented to) in order to protect myself from accusations that I did things she didn't consent to."

Mods, can we go to the Pit now?

What I'm hearing is: "I can no longer defend my position with words that have more than four letters. Mods, can we please go some place where decibels substitute for argument"?

[fuzzypickles]

"Reasonable doubt" has little to do with the results of an accusation of rape or child molestation.
Damned straight -- false accusations of child molestation or adult rape, no matter how lacking in evidence, can stick with someone for a very long time, even after they're acquitted of all charges. Just ask JFK Jr. (well...not anymore) or Kobe Bryant, or especially Woody Allen.

Naturally, I'm very sensitive to victims of genuine rape, of which there are legion -- but the few (yes, FEW) despicable broads who attempt to fabricate charges should be equally demonized & sent to prison. Seriously -- false accusation of rape is just as bad, if not worse, than the actual crime itself IMNSHO. :mad:

[DianaG]

You are actually trying to equate rape and videotaping?
Equate? No. But do you honestly believe that surreptitiously taping a person in what they believe to be a private and intimate situation is NOT an egregious violation of trust?

What I'm hearing is: "I can no longer defend my position with words that have more than four letters. Mods, can we please go some place where decibels substitute for argument"?
My position requires no defense, it's called decency. You haven't understood anything else I've said either, so I'll do my best to clarify this. I wish to go to the Pit so that I may tell you exactly what I think of you as a human being.

[DianaG]

Of course, it occurs to me that I don't have to wait for this to be moved to the Pit (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=593243). Zany and Der Trihs, consider yourselves cordially invited.

[Czarcasm]

Mods, can we go to the Pit now?You may go to The Pit if you wish-nobody is stopping you.

[flickster]

Me thinks trying to convince a judge that you had the camera pointed towards the bed instead of the window or door because that's where you think intruders will enter the room will cause laughter in the courtroom.

But, security cameras aren't usually focused that closely, more of a wide angle lens shot. If the security camera just happens to pick up random activity. For that matter, who says the sessions have to be in the bedroom? If there are multiple cameras in the house (as stated in the OP), could be taking place anywhere.

However, if the security camera is focused only on the bed, then that's as squicky as others have mentioned.

[Der Trihs]

But do you honestly believe that surreptitiously taping a person in what they believe to be a private and intimate situation is NOT an egregious violation of trust?The kind of trust you are pushing for is a synonym for "stupidity". Should I hand her the password for my bank account too?

[DianaG]

More bullshit. No, you shouldn't hand her your PIN. You also shouldn't expect her to search through your wallet for it while you're in the shower, which is more akin to videotaping her without her knowledge.

[Inner Stickler]

Someone who would tape another person having sex with them without informing the other person is sleazy and without morals. If one has a legitimate fear of being slapped with a false accusation of rape, then one should reassess the type of person they are attempting to fuck.

[fuzzypickles]

If one has a legitimate fear of being slapped with a false accusation of rape, then one should reassess the type of person they are attempting to fuck.
Amen to that, 110%.

"If you don't trust the pussy, why are you fucking the pussy?" -- Sam Kinison

[Der Trihs]

Someone who would tape another person having sex with them without informing the other person is sleazy and without morals. If one has a legitimate fear of being slapped with a false accusation of rape, then one should reassess the type of person they are attempting to fuck.Don't be silly; the problem is the law and the culture. Men aren't telepaths and can't tell if a woman is or is not the sort who will lie about it now, nor are they precognitive and able to tell if she'll lie about it in a month or a year. No one given the near absolute license to lie is trustworthy.

How much trust would you give to someone who had a gun pointed at your face and who you knew could kill you without punishment? Women can ruin men's lives casually, with minimal effort and with little to no repercussions to themselves. No one can be trusted with that kind of power.

[Inner Stickler]

The answer here is that sex is not for you.

[Der Trihs]

The answer here is that sex is not for you.That' would be the "celibacy" option I already mentioned. But it just underlines my point that women depend on men being irrational about sex and women in our society; if men did the rational thing they'd just avoid going near women, much less having sex with them.

And I note that everyone is dancing around trying to avoid giving a workable solution that doesn't boil down to a man choosing between lifelong celibacy or leaving himself completely vulnerable to a false accusation. Instead we have classic man bashing; accusations of "sleaze" and now the claims that I'm not worthy of sex. And in the Pit thread accusations of homosexuality too; a classic.

[DianaG]

If you believe that the choice is between honesty and celibacy, then you clearly believe that videotaping is not 'reasonable'. If you truly believed that it's reasonable, then there's no way that you could believe that 50% of humanity would view it as unreasonable.

By the way, "I thought Der Trihs was gay." is not an "accusation" of homosexuality, any more than "I really wish I hadn't achieved a BAC of 23.8 and had sex with Der Trihs" is an accusation of rape.

[Nadir]

Someone who would tape another person having sex with them without informing the other person is sleazy and without morals.
And, contrary to stupidly insisting this inane notion of surreptitious video recording would be used for some imagined legal tussle in a courtroom somewhere, it would in fact be promptly thrown out as evidence as well as inviting another lawsuit on top of the already embarrasing rape charge.

In United States constitutional law the expectation of privacy is a legal test which is crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Now off to the pit (tee, hee hee)...

[Der Trihs]

If you believe that the choice is between honesty and celibacy, then you clearly believe that videotaping is not 'reasonable'. If you truly believed that it's reasonable, then there's no way that you could believe that 50% of humanity would view it as unreasonable.That doesn't follow at all.

By the way, "I thought Der Trihs was gay." is not an "accusation" of homosexuality, any more than "I really wish I hadn't achieved a BAC of 23.8 and had sex with Der Trihs" is an accusation of rape.In a thread that among other things was created to bash me? Come on. It's as stereotypical as accusing a woman of being a slut.

[Inner Stickler]

Well, I didn't want to say anything, but I've heard that Diana does shake a lot of hands...

[Inner Stickler]

That doesn't follow at all.Well, you've said that if you told the woman upfront that you would be taping her, that she'd say no, correct? So we know that all women would view taping as unreasonable. Not telling someone you are taping them is a lie of omission at the very least. So there's the dishonesty. And you don't see any possible middle ground between taping and celibacy so your choices are dishonesty or celibacy. It looks perfectly clear to me.

[DianaG]

Exactly. When you create a false dichotomy between "honesty" and "getting laid", you're essentially The Situation with a more impressive vocabulary. Congratulations on your relative literacy, Der Trihs!

BTW, Inner Stickler, my daughter asked me to tell you that you're kind of awesome.

[Der Trihs]

Well, you've said that if you told the woman upfront that you would be taping her, that she'd say no, correct? So we know that all women would view taping as unreasonable. Not telling someone you are taping them is a lie of omission at the very least. So there's the dishonesty. And you don't see any possible middle ground between taping and celibacy so your choices are dishonesty or celibacy. It looks perfectly clear to me.You presume that I think that the women are being reasonably by being offended; I don't.

And of course there are alternatives, despite how other people in this thread appear unwilling to come up with any. They just founder on the same problems. For example, another idea you see occasionally come up is insisting that women sign a consent form before sex; but again, that won't work because women would take it as an insult and refuse. Anything but a wholly lopsided trust relationship appears to be anathema to the vast majority of women in this country. They can make it work because men are self destructively willing to put up with it, but that doesn't make it fair or less self destructive for the men.

[fuzzypickles]

Women can ruin men's lives casually, with minimal effort and with little to no repercussions to themselves. No one can be trusted with that kind of power.
No woman has that kind of power, not unless you grant them that power. Except mothers, of course. Every male child (no matter how old) is at the mercy of his mother, in particular those who are prejudiced against...oh, wait. Now I get it. ;)

The answer here is that sex is not for you.
Sex with women, that's for dead certain!

(Oh, is that statement ever dripping with irony...)

[DianaG]

So in other words, you think that it's okay to be dishonest in the interest of getting laid.

Seriously dude, stop with the equivocations. You believe that you have the absolute right to be dishonest with a woman in the interest of getting laid. That's kinda rapey.*

*Anyone who cares to search would find that my attitude toward rape does not lend itself to the "I wish I hadn't done that" school of 'violation'. We're all responsible for our own actions, and when our actions include intent to deceive, it may not be rape, but it's still vile.

[Der Trihs]

No woman has that kind of power, not unless you grant them that power. Of course they do, one accusation and your life is devastated. It has nothing to do with you "giving them that power".

I note, again, the unwillingness of my opponents in this thread to come up with solutions besides denying that there is a problem at all or just telling men "tough luck, sucks to be you".

Sex with women, that's for dead certain!

(Oh, is that statement ever dripping with irony...)You mean like using a standard slur against men in a thread involving prejudice against men? Perhaps you could accuse blacks of eating watermelons, Jews of being greedy, women of being sluts and homosexuals of being wimpy while you are on a roll.

[Der Trihs]

That's kinda rapey.You are rather proving my point about the accusations women are willing to make, you know.

[fuzzypickles]

You mean like using a standard slur against men in a thread involving prejudice against men?
Oh no, Der Trihs -- that's not what I meant at all. Not at all.

I will say no more. :cool:

[DianaG]

Perhaps you could accuse blacks of eating watermelons, Jews of being greedy, women of being sluts and homosexuals of being wimpy while you are on a roll
Alternatively, perhaps you heard once of blacks disproportionately shoplifiting, and decided that you had a right to stick to every black in the store like, well, white on rice.

Is that okay?

[Der Trihs]

Oh no, Der Trihs -- that's not what I meant at all. Not at all.

I will say no more. :cool:Because of course that IS what you were doing, you just don't want to admit it.

[Der Trihs]

Alternatively, perhaps you heard once of blacks disproportionately shoplifiting, and decided that you had a right to stick to every black in the store like, well, white on rice.

Is that okay?
If the courts were refusing to prosecute black people for shoplifting your analogy might work, but they aren't so it doesn't.

[DianaG]

Just like what you're doing is attributing malice to 50% of the population, as though that's not fucking insane? Of course, you don't want to admit it.

[DianaG]

You know, it's friggin' impossible to find the percentage of US rape trials that result in conviction (og knows I've tried), but the consensus seems to be that it's surprisingly LOW. Your insistence that a man can be jailed for having consensual sex with a woman just doesn't hold water.

[Der Trihs]

Just like what you're doing is attributing malice to 50% of the population, as though that's not fucking insane? Of course, you don't want to admit it.
No, but I'm not surprised you characterize a complaint about the unfairness of the system as sexism. You are clearly taking the position that attributing anything other than overwhelming moral superiority to women is sexism. Somehow I doubt you'd be so comfortable about trusting men who had such a license to mistreat you and get away with it.

[DianaG]

No, I'm asserting that women are just people, and we comprise 50%ish of the population, which means that you attribute malicious intent to 50% of the population based on their gender. Once again, OWN IT.

BTW, google search of "percentage of US rape trials that result in conviction". As I mentioned, the results are unsatisfying, to say the least, but not one single source seems to conclude that the percentage is disproportionate in favor of accusers.

http://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+US+rape+trials+that+result+in+conviction&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[Der Trihs]

No, I'm asserting that women are just people, and we comprise 50%ish of the population, which means that you attribute malicious intent to 50% of the population based on their gender. Once again, OWN IT.Garbage. I'm "attributing" 50% of the population being allowed to act badly without consequence. And I've repeatedly made the point that men would be just as bad in the same position, despite your decision to ignore it. As well as your refusal to come up with a solution instead of insulting me.

[DianaG]

You are rather proving my point about the accusations women are willing to make, you know.
And you're proving that men are inherently untrustworthy. Or at least you would be, if I were the kind of person who equated "men" with "Der Trihs" or even with "any random person who happens to be in possession of a penis". Fortunately for both of us, I have two brain cells to rub together, so I don't.

[The Controvert]

Actually, I came up with a solution... just put up a sign that states "Premises are monitored by security cameras".

[DianaG]

Garbage. I'm "attributing" 50% of the population being allowed to act badly without consequence. And I've repeatedly made the point that men would be just as bad in the same position, despite your decision to ignore it. As well as your refusal to come up with a solution instead of insulting me.
I did come up with a solution, dear. Just because it may prevent you from getting your weewee wet doesn't make it not a solution. That just means that you're not willing to keep your weewee dry for the sake of integrity. Your problem sugar, not all of womankind's.

Once again, because it bears repeating, you feel that you have a right to lie to women to get laid.

Really honey, you're not exactly covering yourself in glory here. I'm a bit uncomfortable thinking what else you're covering yourself in, thinking to yourself how you gave all those women stupid enough to have sex with you their proper humiliation.

[Der Trihs]

I did come up with a solution, dear. Just because it may prevent you from getting your weewee wet doesn't make it not a solution. That just means that you're not willing to keep your weewee dry for the sake of integrity. Your problem sugar, not all of womankind's.

Once again, because it bears repeating, you feel that you have a right to lie to women to get laid.

Really honey, you're not exactly covering yourself in glory here. I'm a bit uncomfortable thinking what else you're covering yourself in, thinking to yourself how you gave all those women stupid enough to have sex with you their proper humiliation.Yet more sexual insults. And of course the classic accusation that as a man I'm out to sexually humiliate women.

And - again - I said a solution besides celibacy, lying or foolhardiness on the part of the man. You're just repeating your non-solution with more sexual insults.

[nocturnal chewing gum]

So, let's say you tape your encounter with "Miss Liar Liar". Let's even say she enjoys it enough to come back for a sequal. Then, for whatever reason, she's had enough and decides to accuse you of rape. You bring out the tapes. What do you think the response from her and her lawyer will be? "Well, of course he's not going to leave the camera running while he's raping me. He's a rapist, not an idiot."

[billfish678]

Someone who would tape another person having sex with them without informing the other person is sleazy and without morals. If one has a legitimate fear of being slapped with a false accusation of rape, then one should reassess the type of person they are attempting to fuck.

Since many (most?) rapes are women raped by friends, early on boyfriends/date material, and relatives, I would suggest that if you were raped its your own fault for being around people you can't trust. Or in other words, you should reassess the type of people you choose to hang around with.

Women raped in dark alleys by strangers and raped children get a pass on this one.

Or, in otherwords, this trust business is mostly a crock of shit.

.

[fuzzypickles]

Since many (most?) rapes are women raped by friends, early on boyfriends/date material, and relatives, I would suggest that if you were raped its your own fault for being around people you can't trust. Or in other words, you should reassess the type of people you choose to hang around with.

Women raped in dark alleys by strangers and raped children get a pass on this one.

Or, in otherwords, this trust business is mostly a crock of shit.
Violation of trust is the worst crime imaginable. Not everyone can determine who can be trusted at first glance, because the perpetrator himself probably doesn't even know. Many rapes (and murders, too) are Crimes of Passion -- done in the heat of the moment, with no malice aforethought, and the decision to violate the victim is usually made during an intense emotional state (anger, lust, etc...)

IOW, don't give a pass to women raped by total strangers, while blaming (yes, blaming) those who knew & trusted their attackers. You've got it backwards, Mr. Bill. Srsly. :mad:

[Quartz]

So, let's say you tape your encounter with "Miss Liar Liar". Let's even say she enjoys it enough to come back for a sequal. Then, for whatever reason, she's had enough and decides to accuse you of rape. You bring out the tapes. What do you think the response from her and her lawyer will be? "Well, of course he's not going to leave the camera running while he's raping me. He's a rapist, not an idiot."

If it's all properly timestamped, that would obviate that accusation. Remember that we're talking about cameras that happen to record a sex session, not a studio setup.

Since many (most?) rapes are women raped by friends, early on boyfriends/date material, and relatives, I would suggest that if you were raped its your own fault for being around people you can't trust. Or in other words, you should reassess the type of people you choose to hang around with.

Maybe I'm being whooshed but that could equally be applied to males WRT women accusing them of rape. It's a horrible accusation. Betrayal of trust in such a manner by either sex is quite beyond the pale.

[Guinastasia]

No. Would say no, always. It's not like she cares about his problems after all; or even wants to admit they exist. As threads like this help demonstrate.


And it's not like you care about her right to know she's being video-taped, so you decide it's okay to deceive her? Wow....just, wow. That's sick.


fuzzypickles, JFK Jr. was never accused of rape -- you're thinking of William Kennedy Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kennedy_Smith).

[billfish678]

Maybe I'm being whooshed but that could equally be applied to males WRT women accusing them of rape. It's a horrible accusation. Betrayal of trust in such a manner by either sex is quite beyond the pale.

Thats the point.

Its freaking retarded to say "hey, if your worried about being wrongly accussed of rape, don't sleep with women who you don't trust to do that". That only eliminates the obvious batshit crazy ones.

Men do get wrongly accused of rape. I highly suspect most of them didnt think it would happen to them with that women. Just like I suspect many women who are raped thought the same about the friend/relative/date/coworker that raped them.

ISTR a poll here once. IIRC many women here seemed to think something like 10 percent give or take of men could/would rape if they thought they could get away with it (or at least it wasnt some REALLY low number).

Given that a false accusation of rape is so much easier to do than actual raping, and has much less of a downside, ISTM that thinking men raping (or at least having a decent potential too) is not rare, but false accussation of rape is rare is a bit intellectually dishonest. Or do these folks think women operate on a whole nother plane of moral existence?

[YogSosoth]

Would either side of the two that are arguing be fine with a change in the law where a conviction of rape would only be possible with some kind of evidence? As in, all accusations are thrown out, indeed they would never get into court, if its simply an accusation without evidence? That would put the onus on both sides to produce something to substantiate their claims. Then again, it would make it harder to prove there was rape.

[nocturnal chewing gum]

I do not understand what motivation a woman would have for a false rape accusation. I know it's happened, such as in the Duke Lacrosse situation, and I think the accuser was subsequently charged with arson and attempted murder in a different case, so there were issues there.

But you seem to be talking about the average woman that you have charmed into coming home with you. Do you really feel that threatened?

There doesn't seem to be anything in it for her. What would the motivation be for the accusation? I personally know two women that have been raped. One refused to report it because of all the hassles involved between the medical and legal ends of it. The one that did report it, had to go through all the medical and legal stuff, spent a crazy bit of time on it over the year it took to even get to trial and then the whole thing was dismissed because of lack of evidence. I don't see a compelling reason for women to put themselves through that for revenge when it would be so much easier to just slash his tires or something. Is there something else in it for them that I'm not understanding?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Actually, I came up with a solution... just put up a sign that states "Premises are monitored by security cameras".
Works for me.
I don't see a compelling reason for women to put themselves through that for revenge when it would be so much easier to just slash his tires or something. Is there something else in it for them that I'm not understanding?
Well, theoretically a woman could file a civil suit against the gentleman in question, so assuming the guy has a few bucks there might be a financial motive. Still seems like a bit too much trouble.

However, I assume we're talking about, you know, crazy people, so logic may not come into it.

[billfish678]

Hell hath no fury like....

They really need to get back to teaching the classics.

[DianaG]

Would either side of the two that are arguing be fine with a change in the law where a conviction of rape would only be possible with some kind of evidence? As in, all accusations are thrown out, indeed they would never get into court, if its simply an accusation without evidence? That would put the onus on both sides to produce something to substantiate their claims. Then again, it would make it harder to prove there was rape.
That's how it already works. If it gets to trial, that's because the DA believes there's sufficient evidence to get a conviction. No one is CONVICTED of rape with no evidence. There are certainly wrongful convictions, and faulty evidence, but it takes more than an accusation of rape to result in conviction of rape.

This is about accusations, not convictions.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It's not as though being charged with a crime and later exonerated is a picnic.

[DianaG]

No, it sucks. Not as much as going to jail though.

ETA that I take false accusations of rape (or any other crime) very seriously. It IS a stain on a reputation that's impossible to truly erase, because a court can't find you innocent, they can only find you not guilty. There will be doubt and whispers for the rest of your life. I'm not diminishing how horrible it would be to be falsely accused of rape. I'm just saying that it's very wrong to "protect yourself" in the way suggested in this thread.

[Quartz]

I do not understand what motivation a woman would have for a false rape accusation.

Money. Spite. Revenge. General maliciousness.

[Acid Lamp]

DianaG Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread, but can you provide any sort of logical rationale as to why taping someone unknowingly is sleazy or unethical? To be Unethical it would have to cause harm or damage to someone. As it stands, this footage isn't used for the personal gratification of the owner, nor shared with anyone else. In fact, provided that the situation does not arise, the OP has not given us any reason to think that it would ever be viewed by anyone ever.

I fail to see how that causes harm to anyone. While I don't like the idea of being filmed unknowingly in a private act, I cannot help but feel that stems from the reality that such footage is nearly always gathered for a clandestine purpose. Without that usage though, there is no harm to myself. I could certainly call it paranoid, and emotionally speaking, perhaps creepy, in a cold, logical sort of way. It isn't unethical though. For a man in a certain position in society, particularly those that have a lot to lose financially, this is a very paranoid but ultimately sensible precaution to take to ensure both an active sex life and protection from a bad decision in choice of partner.

[DianaG]

Because it's a violation of her privacy, and because the presumption is that if she knew, she would not agree. That's sleazy.

And I'll ask one more time (well, I'll ask everyone else one more time, it's the first time I'm asking you, Acid Lamp), if it's such a reasonable, sensible precaution, why not tell her about it?

[Enola Gay]

DianaG Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread, but can you provide any sort of logical rationale as to why taping someone unknowingly is sleazy or unethical? To be Unethical it would have to cause harm or damage to someone. As it stands, this footage isn't used for the personal gratification of the owner, nor shared with anyone else. In fact, provided that the situation does not arise, the OP has not given us any reason to think that it would ever be viewed by anyone ever.

Interesting point. Similar to a gynecologist having cameras in his office. If I found out my gyn had been taping my pap smears all these years, a standard in his practice just to prevent an unwarranted lawsuit....and the tapes were automatically erased 14 days after each visit.....then that would be one thing. But if he was taping my pap smears, then watching them later while beating off, or playing them for his drinking buddies on the weekend....that would be something else entirely.

[Acid Lamp]

Because it's a violation of her privacy, and because the presumption is that if she knew, she would not agree. That's sleazy.

And I'll ask one more time (well, I'll ask everyone else one more time, it's the first time I'm asking you, Acid Lamp), if it's such a reasonable, sensible precaution, why not tell her about it?

I don't see how it violates her privacy if neither she nor anyone else ever views it.
To be violated you have to be wronged. To be so, you must be aware of it. There mere existence of a thing is not the same as it being used in a malicious manner.

Why not tell? I could think of lots of reasons. Note that I don't support, or agree with this action or any of the following personally. I'm just putting stuff out there.

1. It's his home; He's used to the cameras, and has largely forgotten about them completely in day to day living. It didn't come to mind to think about it. Kind of like I don't tell all my friends that I have, or where I keep my gun. On a daily basis it has no bearing on life. Unless he's broken into, or suspects something nefarious he doesn't think about the cameras.

2. It's his home: He can do as he damn well pleases in it. As far as I can tell he has not violated any laws, and thus we can say that he is meeting the minimum standard of acceptable behaviour in our country. That still makes him a paranoid creep, but hardly equivalent to a guy running around filming in windows for his personal collection.

3. He remembers but doesn't want to spoil the mood. Hell, smaller things than THAT can ruin a perfectly good evening.

4. Maybe as someone upthread has suggested, he has posted a small sign somewhere on property that notes that the premises are monitored. It's up to them to conduct themselves accordingly and ask.

5. Perhaps he is concerned that if he explicitly mentions it, she will turn him down.

6. Perhaps he is concerned that if he mentions it, she will make certain to engage in behaviour that makes the encounter ambiguous in nature. That's pretty paranoid, but someone who films this for his legal protection might well think that twisty.

7. Perhaps he trusts nobody until he's known them for a long time. He keeps it to himself in case his new "friend" turns out to be the sort who steals small items, or has a drug problem that would lead them to burglarize his home.

That's just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other reasons as well. If you can show me logically, how the mere existence of a thing is causing harm to a person who is completely unaware of it existing I'll concede the point that it is unethical. I still think it's paranoid and creepy, but not "wrong".

[Belowjob2.0]

Don't be silly; the problem is the law and the culture. Men aren't telepaths and can't tell if a woman is or is not the sort who will lie about it now, nor are they precognitive and able to tell if she'll lie about it in a month or a year. No one given the near absolute license to lie is trustworthy.

How much trust would you give to someone who had a gun pointed at your face and who you knew could kill you without punishment? Women can ruin men's lives casually, with minimal effort and with little to no repercussions to themselves. No one can be trusted with that kind of power.

So true.

False accusations of sexual assault are far more common than feminists would like to acknowledge. Not just the Duke case, or the Hofstra case, or the women who recanted when videotapes surfaced that proved them to be liars.
(http://www.ocweekly.com/2006-02-09/news/great-dick-babe/)


In fact, the woman not only directed action at times but complimented penis sizes, complained about the lighting, nonchalantly took a cell phone call during the gangbang, yelled, "Get it up!" when some of the men lost their erections, called herself a slut and demanded ejaculations—in her mouth.

She also laughed at least 27 times during the sex, moaned intensely when she wasn't laughing and cheered the men to sexual heroics with, "Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!"

"I just like sex," Moonier said at one point on the tape. "I can't help it."

[Acid Lamp]

Interesting point. Similar to a gynecologist having cameras in his office. If I found out my gyn had been taping my pap smears all these years, a standard in his practice just to prevent an unwarranted lawsuit....and the tapes were automatically erased 14 days after each visit.....then that would be one thing. But if he was taping my pap smears, then watching them later while beating off, or playing them for his drinking buddies on the weekend....that would be something else entirely.

Good example, and one that raises a question from me. I noticed you put a time limit in there. I'm sure it was arbitrary, but would you feel the same if it was stored for 30 days? 90? Six months? A year? What would you feel would be the ultimate limit of permissable storage or does it matter at all?

[Belowjob2.0]

I do not understand what motivation a woman would have for a false rape accusation. I know it's happened, such as in the Duke Lacrosse situation, and I think the accuser was subsequently charged with arson and attempted murder in a different case, so there were issues there.

But you seem to be talking about the average woman that you have charmed into coming home with you. Do you really feel that threatened?

There doesn't seem to be anything in it for her. What would the motivation be for the accusation? I personally know two women that have been raped. One refused to report it because of all the hassles involved between the medical and legal ends of it. The one that did report it, had to go through all the medical and legal stuff, spent a crazy bit of time on it over the year it took to even get to trial and then the whole thing was dismissed because of lack of evidence. I don't see a compelling reason for women to put themselves through that for revenge when it would be so much easier to just slash his tires or something. Is there something else in it for them that I'm not understanding?

Slashing his tires?

A false rape accusation is easy to make, gives the accuser attention and sympathy, and completely destroys the life of the accused. We're talking social disgrace, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and an air of suspicion that remains even after the charges are dropped.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/wabc_weather_gal_in_rape_lie_cops_Dt6rDzCTktzVPJ049g2YlO

http://www.examiner.com/news-in-providence/rick-pitino-testifies-a-second-day-addressing-rape-accusation

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/

[Hank Beecher]

The one that did report it, had to go through all the medical and legal stuff, spent a crazy bit of time on it over the year it took to even get to trial and then the whole thing was dismissed because of lack of evidence. I don't see a compelling reason for women to put themselves through that for revenge when it would be so much easier to just slash his tires or something. Is there something else in it for them that I'm not understanding?

Yes. All the medical and legal stuff your friend had to go through was an ordeal for her, a victim. But a fucked up narcissistic person capable of falsely accusing someone of rape might be motivated by the potential attention that being the center of the investigation brings.

[DianaG]

I don't see how it violates her privacy if neither she nor anyone else ever views it.
The taping is a violation of privacy, whether or not it's viewed. If my gynecologist taped without my knowledge, I'd sue the everloving fuck out of him, because that's illegal.

To be violated you have to be wronged. To be so, you must be aware of it.
To use my example from the pit thread, if you take a penny out my bank account every day for the rest of my life, and I never notice, have I been wronged? Have you acted ethically?

Why not tell? I could think of lots of reasons. Note that I don't support, or agree with this action or any of the following personally. I'm just putting stuff out there.

1. It's his home; He's used to the cameras, and has largely forgotten about them completely in day to day living. It didn't come to mind to think about it. Kind of like I don't tell all my friends that I have, or where I keep my gun. On a daily basis it has no bearing on life. Unless he's broken into, or suspects something nefarious he doesn't think about the cameras.

2. It's his home: He can do as he damn well pleases in it. As far as I can tell he has not violated any laws, and thus we can say that he is meeting the minimum standard of acceptable behaviour in our country. That still makes him a paranoid creep, but hardly equivalent to a guy running around filming in windows for his personal collection.
Sorry, but you're never going to convince me that he just plum forgot about the camera in his bedroom. And legal is not the same thing as ethical.

A noticeable sign that the premises are being filmed would be fine in terms of fulfulling his ethical obligation.

Most of the rest of your examples are variations of "If she knew I was filming, she wouldn't have sex with me." There's not a way you can phrase that that makes it not sleazy. Remove sex from the equation, and "If this person had this information, they wouldn't do what I want, so I will keep it from them" is always unethical behavior.

[Enola Gay]

Good example, and one that raises a question from me. I noticed you put a time limit in there. I'm sure it was arbitrary, but would you feel the same if it was stored for 30 days? 90? Six months? A year? What would you feel would be the ultimate limit of permissable storage or does it matter at all?

Yes it does matter to me, though I'm not sure my reasons are rational. It seems to me that the longer something exists, the greater the potential for its misuse. But theoretically if my gyn videotaped all his patients' exams (including mine) and the tapes were kept for a long time...let's say until the statute of limitations passed, I think I would be ok with that as long as I felt assured that there was no way they could be misused.

As far as the 'ultimate limit of permissable storage' .... they could be stored indefinitely, as long as I had some reasonable assurance that they would only be used/viewed in the event that I made allegations and the dr needed to defend himself.

[Acid Lamp]

The taping is a violation of privacy, whether or not it's viewed. If my gynecologist taped without my knowledge, I'd sue the everloving fuck out of him, because that's illegal.


To use my example from the pit thread, if you take a penny out my bank account every day for the rest of my life, and I never notice, have I been wronged? Have you acted ethically?


Sorry, but you're never going to convince me that he just plum forgot about the camera in his bedroom. And legal is not the same thing as ethical.

A noticeable sign that the premises are being filmed would be fine in terms of fulfulling his ethical obligation.

The rest of your examples are all variations of "If she knew I was filming, she wouldn't have sex with me." There's not a way you can phrase that that makes it not sleazy.

I'll take these one at a time.

If you had no knowledge of the tapes of your Gyn you couldn't sue him because you didn't know. The point is moot. If it came to light, and you found out, you would have a legal argument. Your argument comes from the basis of harm. You can make a case that your were somehow harmed by his actions. You can't make a claim for being wronged while both you and everyone else but the Gyn are entirely ignorant of the event. It has had no impact on your life. Righteous indignation does not make an logical argument for harm.

If you never noticed the penny, then no; you haven't been harmed. It is your perception and acknowledgement of the issue that has caused you harm and distress. The thief has acted unethically though since stealing is wrong except under extreme circumstances regardless of the harm he caused to you. Stealing harms everyone, and makes all sorts of day to day problems. It is bad for society. The thief has cause YOU no harm though since you never noticed. In this case, the tape is a lot more like stealing food to survive than stealing a penny. The act causes no harm, and is only relevant in extreme circumstances: an accusation of rape or sexual assault.

You are telling me that you are actively aware of every aspect of your environment at all times? You take nothing for granted ever? You do not accept that your fridge is running, or that the lights will turn on? Are you startled to find that your socks are in their drawer every morning? The cameras are part of his home, just like the rest of his security system. He takes their functioning for granted. I think that could well be easily forgotten when amorous pursuits are in the forefront of the mind.

I agree that legal is not the same thing as ethical. The argument can be mad however that what is legal is by definition societally acceptable. They are not equivalent, but things we find damaging or harmful we tend to address in law. It is a minimum standard of behaviour, not a normal or upstanding one.

What, Exactly, makes that sleazy? Suppose you meet a gentleman at a club. You notice certain things about his dress and mannerisms that lead you to believe that he is a well paid professional. Being polite, you never pry too deep into his work life and you begin a casual relationship. After a few sexual encounters at your place you find out that he lives paycheck to paycheck at a low paying job and a cheap apartment. He spends all his extra money on keeping his appearance attractive to the opposite sex, though he never lies about what he does if asked outright. Nor does he pretend to be more than he is, he merely presents the best outer image he can. Is he acting unethically or sleazy? As humans, we do and say things all the time in the course of steering relationships to sexual encounters to edge the odds in our favor. We omit certain details, or simply don't mention things that are not relevant to the business at hand. He does not lie about the cameras, nor has the OP led us to believe he has been deceitful about them. If she doesn't ask, he doesn't mention it, nor does he review or share them. Just repeating "It's sleazy" is good enough. You have to show WHY it's sleazy. HOW it harms someone.

[Acid Lamp]

Yes it does matter to me, though I'm not sure my reasons are rational. It seems to me that the longer something exists, the greater the potential for its misuse. But theoretically if my gyn videotaped all his patients' exams (including mine) and the tapes were kept for a long time...let's say until the statute of limitations passed, I think I would be ok with that as long as I felt assured that there was no way they could be misused.

As far as the 'ultimate limit of permissable storage' .... they could be stored indefinitely, as long as I had some reasonable assurance that they would only be used/viewed in the event that I made allegations and the dr needed to defend himself.

Interesting, thanks. Would you agree that the rationale is primarily an emotional reaction over any logical objection?

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Acid Lamp, is it irrational to object to the FBI assigning a team to track you everywhere you go for the rest of your life, recording all the while? If you don't commit any crimes, they won't get in your way at all, and nobody will notice. Totally OK?

[billfish678]

Acid Lamp, is it irrational to object to the FBI assigning a team to track you everywhere you go for the rest of your life, recording all the while? If you don't commit any crimes, they won't get in your way at all, and nobody will notice. Totally OK?

Myself, theorectically speaking, if there are reasonable assurances that said info will not be used for any other purposes than to thwart my criminal activity, I don't have too much heartburn with the idea.

And surprisingly, I am one of the "keep your hands off my gun in case I need em for the revolution against the gubment" types.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

What if there aren't reasonable assurances?

[billfish678]

What if there aren't reasonable assurances?

Well, gee I don't know...

[Jimmy Chitwood]

My point there being that, in the case of a person bringing a sex partner home to his/her place, the partner obviously has no such assurances.

In fact, the whole process of providing that kind of assurance is subverted by the secrecy to begin with. Whether or not you have reason to accept the capture of information based on the circumstances, you're never going to get to make that decision if you aren't told it's happening. Which is why, in my opinion, one needs to be told.

[Acid Lamp]

Acid Lamp, is it irrational to object to the FBI assigning a team to track you everywhere you go for the rest of your life, recording all the while? If you don't commit any crimes, they won't get in your way at all, and nobody will notice. Totally OK?

That would depend.

If I am totally unaware of them then it causes me no harm. However, If I am made aware of their activities then I can make an argument that from that point forward they are causing me harm. I'm not certain that the comparison washes well though since they are actively monitoring me for criminal activity. They are fishing. In the Case of the OP he is passively recording in case someone accuses HIM of criminal activity.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Just to be clear, then, in actual, literal terms, you're saying you'd have no problem with this if it turned out it was happening to you?

[Askance]

Spam reported.

[Acid Lamp]

If you are asking me Jimmy, it isn't a simple yes or no answer. In your hypothetical the FBI is actively watching me and fishing. They won't interfere unless I do something wrong. They are quite literally waiting for me to do something wrong so they can punish me. In the case of the OP, the cameras capture everything, not just sexual encounters. Further, they are not actively monitoring. They are used as a system of proof should their owner become subjected to a false accusation. They are acting as evidence of his innocence, not guilt. Nobody is watching, nobody is judging or waiting. The camera simply provides an impartial record of reality should a situation arise in which it is a case of his word against hers.

Of course I would be bothered if I found out that I was the subject of constant surveilance by the FBI, In America I have both the right to privacy, and supposition of my innocence. Without reason, they cannot engage in such behaviour. However, my gripe would be legal, not ethical in nature as they did nothing to interfere in my life. It is my awareness of their actions that make them problematic to me. The OP is different. He is a private citizen protecting himself from an accusation that is both societally damning, and expensive to litigate. It is a claim that often does not require a high level of proof for conviction; and one that is often used to leverage large monetary settlements out of the accused. Protecting oneself from legalized blackmail is not ethically wrong.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Those are distinctions without differences as far as I can see.

When you say "of course I would be bothered" when you found out that you'd been recorded, it seems to me that you're saying that you'd think a wrong had been done, whether you acknowledge it as such or not. Why be bothered by it if there's no harm?

And if there's harm, clearly it existed the whole time. The only change is that you found out about it. If you hadn't found out, the same wrong would exist from an objective point of view. It's the same thing in both cases - a person has an expectation that certain things are private. When that expectation is violated, the person feels wronged. If the person doesn't find out, they don't feel wronged. But that doesn't mean the wrong disappears, or, at least, if it doesn't mean that in the one case, it can't mean that in the other.

[JThunder]

To be violated you have to be wronged. To be so, you must be aware of it.
Right there is the fallacy in your reasoning.

[JThunder]

That would depend.

If I am totally unaware of them then it causes me no harm. However, If I am made aware of their activities then I can make an argument that from that point forward they are causing me harm.
In other words, it's only wrong if the perpetrator gets caught.

O-kay.

[billfish678]

In other words, it's only wrong if the perpetrator gets caught.

O-kay.

Yeah, thats EXACTLY it :rolleyes:

[fuzzypickles]

Of course I would be bothered if I found out that I was the subject of constant surveilance by the FBI, In America I have both the right to privacy, and supposition of my innocence. Without reason, they cannot engage in such behaviour.
Damned straight -- unless very extraordinary circumstances apply, I wouldn't want the FBI or any other agency violating my privacy w/o good cause...and even in that highly unlikely scenario, I'd still be a little pissed off. :rolleyes:

I fail to see how that causes harm to anyone. While I don't like the idea of being filmed unknowingly in a private act, I cannot help but feel that stems from the reality that such footage is nearly always gathered for a clandestine purpose. Without that usage though, there is no harm to myself.
The likelihood of such material being used solely for private purposes is EXTREMELY implausible, esp. since the recording's made without the 2nd party's consent. C'mon, think about it -- the entire "Protect Against False Accusations of Rape" theory is utterly facile on its face, no reasonable individual would buy that particular claim.

Heck, even a mutual agreement to record mutually consentual sex runs a high risk of unexpected results -- just ask Tommy Lee & Pamela Anderson!

[Enola Gay]

Interesting, thanks. Would you agree that the rationale is primarily an emotional reaction over any logical objection?

Entirely emotional. Consider the following scenarios:

1. Gyn videotapes my exam without my knowledge (and those of all patients), as a cya measure so he'll have a defense (aside from he said/she said) in the event that he is accused of wrong doing in the future.

2. Gyn videotapes my exam without my knowledge, so that in the future he can jerk off to the tapes over and over again to satisfy some demented fetish.

3. I hook up with Brad Pitt and we go back to his place which is wired with a sophisticated motion detector activated security cam that happens to film us having sex.

4. I hook up with Brad Pitt and we go back to his place which is wired with a security camera that he has set up to film sex acts (without his partners' knowledge), for use only if he is accused of date rape in the future...either via the legal system or privately in an attempt to extort money.

5. I hook up with Brad Pitt and we go back to his place which is wired with a camera that he has set up to film sex acts -without the knowledge or consent of his partner- so he can beat off to them later.

I have the same level of damages (zero) in all the above scenarios, in that I have no idea that a tape even exists....therefore no mental anguish, feelings of being wronged etc. But scenarios 2 & 5 are creepy, gross, and hopefully illegal. But in scenarios 1 & 3 above, I wouldn't feel violated in the least. So yes, I presume my reaction is emotional rather than logical.

[Acid Lamp]

Right there is the fallacy in your reasoning.

How so? Demonstrate that you can be wronged while being totally unaware of the "wrong" done you. Perception is everything.

[Fenris]

Yet more sexual insults. And of course the classic accusation that as a man I'm out to sexually humiliate women.

And - again - I said a solution besides celibacy, lying or foolhardiness on the part of the man. You're just repeating your non-solution with more sexual insults.

Why are you ruling out celibacy? It's not like women owe you sex--it's hardly a fundamental right.

And if women choose to withhold sex from a disgusting voyeuristic perv (the hypothetical bachelor proposed by the OP), hey--their choice....except you want to take their choice away because you seem to feel your right to sex outweighs their right to give informed consent.

Let's try a thought experiment. Forget the videotaping. Instead, our disgusting perv bachelor has some sort of horrible venereal disease. It's rarely transmitted from men to women, but it can potentially happen and has been transmitted from men to women.

Hypothetical bachelor has two choices:

1) Don't tell the woman and hope she doesn't get it.
2) Tell the woman and take the chance that she refuses to have sex with him. And if she does chose not to, live with the consequences and jack off alone.

Which is the decent thing to do?

[Guinastasia]

What the hell kind of women are you sleeping with if you're THAT paranoid of being accused of rape, to the point that you're setting up hidden security cameras? Maybe you need to reconsider the type of person you're seeing?

If you truly, SERIOUSLY think this is a big issue, then perhaps you should see a therapist -- because you have some major trust issues.

(I'm talking "you" in the general sense)



(And question -- are you only going to have sex at your own place? Never at her house, a hotel, etc?) Christ.

[Der Trihs]

Why are you ruling out celibacy? It's not like women owe you sex--it's hardly a fundamental right. No, but they want sex just like men do. So celibacy isn't a solution for the larger problem, it just ensures everyone is unhappy. And just as important it isn't a "solution" most people will accept so it's useless. It's the gender-relations equivalent of abstinence-only sex education.

Let's try a thought experiment. Forget the videotaping. Instead, our disgusting perv bachelor has some sort of horrible venereal disease. It's rarely transmitted from men to women, but it can potentially happen and has been transmitted from men to women. False comparison, that's an assault.

What the hell kind of women are you sleeping with if you're THAT paranoid of being accused of rape, to the point that you're setting up hidden security cameras? Maybe you need to reconsider the type of person you're seeing? As has been repeatedly been pointed out, the answer to that question is "a woman". One more time; the problem is the lopsided favoring of women when it comes to such accusations, not any particular woman. There's no identifiable group of women that can be avoided to stay safe.

[Guinastasia]

As has been repeatedly been pointed out, the answer to that question is "a woman". One more time; the problem is the lopsided favoring of women when it comes to such accusations, not any particular woman. There's no identifiable group of women that can be avoided to stay safe.

Jesus Christ -- you have more issues than National Geographic.

[Der Trihs]

Jesus Christ -- you have more issues than National Geographic.Another non-answer.

[Guinastasia]

Another non-answer.

Non-answer to what -- that you're an overly paranoid misogynist? That you pretty much insulted all women? What the hell do you want me to say?

There's no "answer" to such incredible nonsense.


(But how about the flip-side? A woman secretly video-taping HER sexual relations, so SHE has proof if she's raped?)

[fuzzypickles]

Non-answer to what -- that you're an overly paranoid misogynist? That you pretty much insulted all women? What the hell do you want me to say?
Hey man, give Der Trihs a break -- he still lives with his mother. That would make any red-blooded male a tad bit misogynistic.

[Zeriel]

Serious question for Der Trihs: have you ever actually been in the position of "falsely accused of rape"?

I have. It didn't even go to the prosecutor, let alone to trial--the only evidence was "he said, she said", and the investigating officer determined her story was not credible. I wasn't even so much as arrested, just asked to give a statement.

On that particular college campus, there are about 20-25 reported rapes and sexual assaults per year, for a student population of 50,000+. Conservatively, that means that on average about 0.12% of women will report a sexual assault or rape per year. Given that every "study" on false rape accusations that I've seen has said they were more prevalent on college campuses, I'd say your odds are pretty good.

Personally, I think it depends a LOT on jurisdiction and the local specifics. I also think, in light of the back-of-the-envelope numbers above, that you can't justify the ethical breach required to film-without-consent based on a rational risk assessment. Frankly, I'd say the same to a woman who filmed-without-consent in order to increase her chances of having evidence that she was raped.

[JThunder]

On a purely pragmatic note, do you honestly think it's going to help your case if you secretly record your whoopee sessions and then present the video clips at your trial? After all, the putative victim can always claim that the rape occurred afterwards, and that you turned the camera off during that time. If anything, the judge and jury would be less inclined to believe you, simply because you are the type who would videotape naked people without their consent.

[Kearsen]

Smart. But everytime I do that, the reporter wants to join in, and that just spoils the mood something terrible.

You need a better looking reporter...

[Kearsen]

Serious question for Der Trihs: have you ever actually been in the position of "falsely accused of rape"?

I have. It didn't even go to the prosecutor, let alone to trial--the only evidence was "he said, she said", and the investigating officer determined her story was not credible. I wasn't even so much as arrested, just asked to give a statement.

On that particular college campus, there are about 20-25 reported rapes and sexual assaults per year, for a student population of 50,000+. Conservatively, that means that on average about 0.12% of women will report a sexual assault or rape per year. Given that every "study" on false rape accusations that I've seen has said they were more prevalent on college campuses, I'd say your odds are pretty good.

Personally, I think it depends a LOT on jurisdiction and the local specifics. I also think, in light of the back-of-the-envelope numbers above, that you can't justify the ethical breach required to film-without-consent based on a rational risk assessment. Frankly, I'd say the same to a woman who filmed-without-consent in order to increase her chances of having evidence that she was raped.

Another personal anecdote: I have too. Like you, I wasn't arrested but it did go to an arraignment. Luckily for me, it didn't go to trial as the charge was dropped when she failed to appear.
The worst thing? Telling my Dad to come to court with me about this crazy broad (whom I never slept, kissed, or rubbed) so I didn't go to the pokey.

[VarlosZ]

I don't see how it violates her privacy if neither she nor anyone else ever views it.
I would agree, but the problem is that, at the time of taping, there's no way to guarantee that it no one else will ever view it. Even if the man in this scenario has the purest of intentions going in -- to videotape purely as a failsafe against false accusations, and never to share the video with a third party for any other reason -- I take it as given that the video is still far, far more likely to find it's way out into the world (to a small degree or a larger one) than to be useful as a hedge against prosecution.

Therefore, since you can't be sure that in the future you will have both the ability and the inclination to keep the tape private -- even if you sincerely intend for the tape never to be viewed by anyone else at the time of recording -- making the tape harms the woman whether or not it is ever shared: the recording imposes harm equity upon the woman. (And this without her knowledge, presumably against her will, and for the sole purpose of covering your own ass -- in a very meaningful sense, you're stealing from her by surreptitiously pilfering equity in her future happiness in order to bolster your equity in your ownfuture happiness.)

[Stratocaster]

We can reasonably restrict activity that creates the potential for harm (or greater harm). So, even if we concede that surreptitiously videotaping is not itself inherently a harm because there's no certainty anyone else will ever see it (I'm not sold on that, but let's grant it for the moment), there's likewise no certainty that no one else will not see it. Whatever the video-taper's intentions, shit happens.

If we can all agree that it's immoral to make public a videotape of someone having sex when that person has not agreed, then it becomes a question of whether or not creating a risk that this could occur is immoral, something decent people ought not to do. I would argue strongly that this risk is not something you can decide for someone else. No one has the right to make that decision (to assume that risk) for someone else. The impact on your chances of getting laid with zero risk for a subsequent false accusation doesn't change that. It's not your choice. It is axiomatic for me.

I see this argument as similar to DUI laws. You are not doing something illegal only if somebody gets hurt. You don't have the legal right (or moral right, I would assert) to create that risk for others, and it doesn't matter if you've driven drunk a thousand times before without anyone getting hurt.

[Really Not All That Bright]

On a purely pragmatic note, do you honestly think it's going to help your case if you secretly record your whoopee sessions and then present the video clips at your trial? After all, the putative victim can always claim that the rape occurred afterwards, and that you turned the camera off during that time. If anything, the judge and jury would be less inclined to believe you, simply because you are the type who would videotape naked people without their consent.
The video would have a time stamp, and we're talking about cameras that run more or less non-stop.

[Quartz]

On a purely pragmatic note, do you honestly think it's going to help your case if you secretly record your whoopee sessions and then present the video clips at your trial? After all, the putative victim can always claim that the rape occurred afterwards, and that you turned the camera off during that time. If anything, the judge and jury would be less inclined to believe you, simply because you are the type who would videotape naked people without their consent.

Since you left the cameras on, you could just show that. And BTW now she's changing her story. Remember that they don't stop recording. Also remember that you are not deliberately recording the sex: it just happens to be captured by the security camera.

[Acid Lamp]

Stratocaster, you and VarlosZ both bring up interesting points. I'm not certain that I buy the idea of Harm equity, but I CAN see the creation of risk to another being an ethical wrong in and of itself. I'm not certain there is a good comparison to be made because in the real world, most risky behaviour we restrict has physical consequences. Someone isn't embarrassed, they die; or lose a limb. Regardless I DO see that the creation of risk to another without their consent could be ethically wrong.

The question here, is : Is that creation of risk, without other nefarious results in mind, in and of itself enough to:

1. Counteract and overcome the assumption of risk on the part of the taper?

2. Considering that the taping is incidental and not intentional does it make a difference ethically?

3. Amount to enough of an ethical breach to make serious commentary on the character of the taper other than to call them selfish and paranoid?

I would argue that any risk in potentia is a fairly small and inconsequential one when collected in the manner of the OP. The intent of the collector, and the lack of any real world consequences make it very minor indeed. I'm not certain I can call it truly unethical.

[Fenris]

No, but they want sex just like men do. So celibacy isn't a solution for the larger problem, it just ensures everyone is unhappy. And just as important it isn't a "solution" most people will accept so it's useless. It's the gender-relations equivalent of abstinence-only sex education.
...wait. You're not seriously proposing that a woman who doesn't consent to being filmed* wouldn't be able to find a non-deviant sexual partner?

And even if so, your "Well, she wouldn't get sex anyway, so I'm just solving her celibacy problem for her" solution still removes her choices. There's no two ways about this: if you film her without her permission, you're taking away her right to chose/consent. And that's creepy as fuck.


*Filmed for the guy's protection, not filmed 'cause it's fun and naught. You know what I mean.

[Guinastasia]

Just out of curiosity, Der Trihs -- is there ANYONE you trust?

[SecondJudith]

There's no identifiable group of women that can be avoided to stay safe.

Just noting that this is also true in reverse - there's no identifiable group of men that women can avoid to stay safe from rape. For some reason that's considered misandry while Der Trihs's observation is "precaution", of course.

[cedman]

And - again - I said a solution besides celibacy, lying or foolhardiness on the part of the man. You're just repeating your non-solution with more sexual insults.

TRANSLATION ALERT!!!!!!!

What Der is saying here is...
Offer a solution that STILL allows me to lie and sexually humiliate women, because, you know, that celibacy and lying stuff keeps me from getting what I want. Really, come up with something that I can't ignore that really isn't a solution, I dare ya! I TRIPLE DOG dare ya! *sniffle*

[cedman]

How so? Demonstrate that you can be wronged while being totally unaware of the "wrong" done you. Perception is everything.

I can demonstarte that.......

Someone gets your financial information and uses it to steal your identity. This goes on for several years before being discovered. (This is the most typical identity theft situation).

NOW, TODAY you discover the fraud. Since you were unaware that the theft had taken place PREVIOUSLY, you have not been harmed until TODAY, so the thief is not liable for the theft PREVIOUS to you becoming aware of the situation. He/she apoligizes and promises not to continue stealing and that he/she will never do this to you again.

He gets off scot free but you are still liable for the debt incured by the theft.