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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
He remembers but doesn’t want to spoil the mood. Hell, smaller things than THAT can ruin a perfectly good evening.
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.
Perhaps he is concerned that if he explicitly mentions it, she will turn him down.
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.
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”.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.