Makes great sense except - they say this won't apply to violent or sexual offenders - fair enough (though which violent criminals only get 6 months?) but why sexual? Are trivial sexual crimes more serious than muggers, thieves etc?

JK2006 wrote:
Makes great sense except - they say this won't apply to violent or sexual offenders - fair enough (though which violent criminals only get 6 months?) but why sexual? Are trivial sexual crimes more serious than muggers, thieves etc?

I think I would prefer having someone attempt to brush their hand across the side of my breast over my t-shirt and thick blazer (like Stuart Hall) than be burgled, which the police wont even come out for.

So a bum pincher gets imprisoned while a face pincher gets community service? Of course...

You do wonder what goes on inside those sick little feminist heads of theirs when they say "this won't apply to violent or sexual offenders". You've nailed it precisely JK in asking how are trivial sexual crimes more serious than muggers, thieves etc? If you have your house burgled, and some of your most important possessions (perhaps of sentimental value) stolen or destroyed then that is far worse than a woman having her titties groped. The problems of being burgled can last for months or years but the problem of having titties groped ends as soon as they aren't being groped anymore.

And besides, you would assume, the seriousness of a crime is already reflected in the sentencing. So if a sexual or violent criminal is given "only" 5 months then that should be equivalent in seriousness to a thief being given "only" 5 months. If it is not then the sentencing rules are clearly fucked.

Actually, using this we can deduce a model for how long sex offenders should actually be sentenced for. Let's suppose a burglar goes to prison for 1 year for his first offence. Now let's suppose a sex offender gropes a woman's titties for his first offence. The burglar runs off with computers that have lots of important files on them and steal some antiques of sentimental value. Now the victims have several months of distress in trying to rebuild whatever documents they've lost and the lifelong memory of having lost some valuable antiques. Though the suffering does continue for life, let's just say the significant distress is 1 year. However, for the woman having her titties groped let's say that lasts for 5 seconds. Then there's a few minutes of annoyance or arguing. So let's be really generous and say it ruins an hour of her life. So to be consistent with the sentence for burglary the sex offender has caused 1 hour of distress, but the burglar has caused 1 year of distress. So 1 year / 1 hour = burglar has caused 8760x more distress than the sex offender. So if the burglar is sentenced to 1 year in prison then the sex offender should be sentenced to 1/8760 years = 1 hour in prison.

So there you have it, we can mathematically prove that sex offenders should get far shorter sentences.

holocaust21 wrote:
You do wonder what goes on inside those sick little feminist heads of theirs when they say "this won't apply to violent or sexual offenders". You've nailed it precisely JK in asking how are trivial sexual crimes more serious than muggers, thieves etc? If you have your house burgled, and some of your most important possessions (perhaps of sentimental value) stolen or destroyed then that is far worse than a woman having her titties groped. The problems of being burgled can last for months or years but the problem of having titties groped ends as soon as they aren't being groped anymore.

And besides, you would assume, the seriousness of a crime is already reflected in the sentencing. So if a sexual or violent criminal is given "only" 5 months then that should be equivalent in seriousness to a thief being given "only" 5 months. If it is not then the sentencing rules are clearly fucked.

Actually, using this we can deduce a model for how long sex offenders should actually be sentenced for. Let's suppose a burglar goes to prison for 1 year for his first offence. Now let's suppose a sex offender gropes a woman's titties for his first offence. The burglar runs off with computers that have lots of important files on them and steal some antiques of sentimental value. Now the victims have several months of distress in trying to rebuild whatever documents they've lost and the lifelong memory of having lost some valuable antiques. Though the suffering does continue for life, let's just say the significant distress is 1 year. However, for the woman having her titties groped let's say that lasts for 5 seconds. Then there's a few minutes of annoyance or arguing. So let's be really generous and say it ruins an hour of her life. So to be consistent with the sentence for burglary the sex offender has caused 1 hour of distress, but the burglar has caused 1 year of distress. So 1 year / 1 hour = burglar has caused 8760x more distress than the sex offender. So if the burglar is sentenced to 1 year in prison then the sex offender should be sentenced to 1/8760 years = 1 hour in prison.

So there you have it, we can mathematically prove that sex offenders should get far shorter sentences.

Everybody is different, but to a lot of people being groped is extremely disturbing and can have a long lasting effect.

And some people dont seem to care much about being burgled.

Everybody is different, but to a lot of people being groped is extremely disturbing and can have a long lasting effect.

Well I'm a bit dubious about that to be honest as it doesn't logically make any sense why it would "have a long lasting effect". I think it's quite likely that it never does have a long lasting effect and the many claims that float around saying it does is actually just feminist dogma rather than reality.

At least you finally admitted honey that you'd rather be sexually assaulted than burgled. I think you might finally be getting a sense of proportion!

And some people dont seem to care much about being burgled.

Well yeah I think it depends what they took and how they entered. If they just nicked the TV, left the rest alone and you aren't "poor" then you'll probably just be like "oh fuck, oh well I'll just have to buy a new one".

The problem of having "titties groped" "ends the moment they are not groped.."

Holocaust, you scare me...and I'm not female...

Your logic leaves indiscrimate sexual assault entirely a problem for the victim..

It undermines any serious points being made on this site...

It reveals a complete lack of empathy on your part which there is a word for...

Depressed this comment got through. Free sppech is fine but this is hatred...

Not hatred but getting close to being impolite. I think the line is being deliberately crossed. Tone down the language please.

Wyot wrote:
The problem of having "titties groped" "ends the moment they are not groped.."

Holocaust, you scare me...and I'm not female...

Your logic leaves indiscrimate sexual assault entirely a problem for the victim..

It undermines any serious points being made on this site...

It reveals a complete lack of empathy on your part which there is a word for...

Depressed this comment got through. Free sppech is fine but this is hatred...

Not a complete lack of empathy, Wyot, because Holocaust appears to be very empathic to burglary victims.

I agree that many of the comments are unhelpful for this particular site.

holocaust21 wrote:
Everybody is different, but to a lot of people being groped is extremely disturbing and can have a long lasting effect.

Well I'm a bit dubious about that to be honest as it doesn't logically make any sense why it would "have a long lasting effect". I think it's quite likely that it never does have a long lasting effect and the many claims that float around saying it does is actually just feminist dogma rather than reality.

At least you finally admitted honey that you'd rather be sexually assaulted than burgled. I think you might finally be getting a sense of proportion!

And some people dont seem to care much about being burgled.

Well yeah I think it depends what they took and how they entered. If they just nicked the TV, left the rest alone and you aren't "poor" then you'll probably just be like "oh fuck, oh well I'll just have to buy a new one".

No, Holo. People are genuinely very distressed by sexual assault. It has nothing to do with feminist agenda, just the way we are. (men too)

Depressed this comment got through. Free sppech is fine but this is hatred...

Then you aren't in favor of free speech. If you don't want to listen to someone else's opinion then at least be honest and say you don't like free speech.

JK, I'm not sure what you mean by "I think the line is being deliberately crossed". I'm just saying things as I see them, unmoderated by any kind of PC dogma. But fine, yet another corner of the internet where I have to tone down what I say such that I can't really say anything because by watering down my language, my fundamental point gets lost. So it then becomes pointless and I might as well let the feminists take over... Which is pretty much what people have done in society at large.

I am genuinely perplexed as to why wyot thinks groping someones titties is "scary" and advocating lower sentences for such crimes is "hate speech". This is what is broken with our political system: If you ask to change the law it's called "hate speech".

Another point I'd add is that I have the feeling here my use of the word "sexually assaulted" was probably the trigger for some people. But technically according to feminist definitions that's what honey was saying. We need to downgrade the impact of these words to the *least bad possible meaning* rather than the *most bad meaning* as it's this tendency for feminists to go "oh look this girl pretended that's the same as rape and has been raped and murdered by a paedophile" that allows them to then make insane laws where talking to a girl on the internet gets life imprisonment because they've made a single law that encompasses everything from talking to girls on the internet to rape and murder.

But whatever just trying to add my unPC narrative into a narrative that I think is all too often PC. It's your forum though JK, if you don't want me I'll stop posting.

I see that the problem is let's say someone did touch someone's books in a pub club party etc and let's say in the 1970s the story get a little more embellished as the years go on or it can get forgotten the imagine that person who groped you turns out to be arrested for either a non recent or recent assault it could bring it all back and then you tell someone " oh I remember him he touched me at Ritas party back in 72" the next thing you are encouraged to add the story you had forgotten about for decades and possibly with the embellishments they can just imagine the person was a celeb.
I remember thingseeing from the 70s and to be honest I'm not sure all are completely true or even happened now but I could genuinely tell you a story about theme.
Pull up a chair

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
holocaust21 wrote:
You do wonder what goes on inside those sick little feminist heads of theirs when they say "this won't apply to violent or sexual offenders". You've nailed it precisely JK in asking how are trivial sexual crimes more serious than muggers, thieves etc? If you have your house burgled, and some of your most important possessions (perhaps of sentimental value) stolen or destroyed then that is far worse than a woman having her titties groped. The problems of being burgled can last for months or years but the problem of having titties groped ends as soon as they aren't being groped anymore.

And besides, you would assume, the seriousness of a crime is already reflected in the sentencing. So if a sexual or violent criminal is given "only" 5 months then that should be equivalent in seriousness to a thief being given "only" 5 months. If it is not then the sentencing rules are clearly fucked.

Actually, using this we can deduce a model for how long sex offenders should actually be sentenced for. Let's suppose a burglar goes to prison for 1 year for his first offence. Now let's suppose a sex offender gropes a woman's titties for his first offence. The burglar runs off with computers that have lots of important files on them and steal some antiques of sentimental value. Now the victims have several months of distress in trying to rebuild whatever documents they've lost and the lifelong memory of having lost some valuable antiques. Though the suffering does continue for life, let's just say the significant distress is 1 year. However, for the woman having her titties groped let's say that lasts for 5 seconds. Then there's a few minutes of annoyance or arguing. So let's be really generous and say it ruins an hour of her life. So to be consistent with the sentence for burglary the sex offender has caused 1 hour of distress, but the burglar has caused 1 year of distress. So 1 year / 1 hour = burglar has caused 8760x more distress than the sex offender. So if the burglar is sentenced to 1 year in prison then the sex offender should be sentenced to 1/8760 years = 1 hour in prison.

So there you have it, we can mathematically prove that sex offenders should get far shorter sentences.

Everybody is different, but to a lot of people being groped is extremely disturbing and can have a long lasting effect.

And some people dont seem to care much about being burgled.

as a "victim / survivor" (God I hate those words) of a rape by 3 men and attempted murder I think I recovered fairly reasonably (within 2 years but I could be permanently mentally damaged) and a terrible (uninsured) burglary in a flat near Oxford Circus I can say the robbery was absolutely devestating.

And similarly to many people it takes a long time to get over the feeling of invasion.

VERY ODD.

Holo - M point is that to assert that a woman is or should be "over" a sexual assault the moment her assailant deceases is to deny the woman's humanity.

I'm disturbed wherever and whenever I see justifications that reduce humans to a means to an end...

While not suggesting in any way that you are advocating this, I do believe such thinking can and does lead to terrible actions, on an individual and global level.

I'm disturbed wherever and whenever I see justifications that reduce humans to a means to an end...

It's funny wyot but I kind of feel that's a bit like you are doing. The end being the "feminist holy land" where "women never have to endure hurt feelings" and "all sexual acts that women don't like are eradicated". And as part of your "means" you throw some men under the bus by creating massively excessive penalties for "crimes" that are either relatively trivial or aren't even wrong.

The thing I find odd about it all, is if I think logically from a woman's perspective, surely all this "protecting her feelings" and "banning sex acts she doesn't like" actually has a downside for her. As a consequence, women are going to find it harder to find life partners because men are going to be less likely to approach them and less likely to get them out of their comfort zone. This will particularly impact shy women. And the whole "protecting her feelings" results in women that are mentally weak, they've not been exposed to ideas or views on how one could behave that run against the grain and so they are not able to make up their mind on the best way to "live the good life".

But what can I say? Women are strange.

While not suggesting in any way that you are advocating this, I do believe such thinking can and does lead to terrible actions, on an individual and global level.

Yeah I think that is what has happened with the current feminist dogma. It's torn society apart - globally.

I agree with much of what Holocaust21 has to say. Ok, he often expresses himself intemperately here, but his blog sets out his arguments better for those interested in the rationale behind his views.

The problem with such heavy sentences for so-called sexual offences is that a long standing principle of the common law tradition has been that a man must be punished for what he has actually done, not what he might do, or how anyone feels about what he has done. We don't in fact punish burglars of the poor more than burglars of the rich.

The harm or loss caused by groping boobs, for example, is difficult to measure compared to losses in a burglary or fraud, or injuries from a hit and run car accident. The discomfort or fear or outrage does indeed stop immediately after the incident, even more so than they would in a physical attack. The residual negative effects of the groping experience don't necessarily have any special weight or significance over and above the unpleasant memories of any other type of crime, most especially crimes involving physical contact.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses Holo and Randall. I am starting to consider that maybe I am just too out of step with this site generally on this topic...I havent changed my mind, but perhaps this isnt the forum for me to be commenting on this area.

I would though comment lastly though that the very serious issues raised arent in my view helped by what can read a very anti female/all victims in general stance.

Your arguments will be inevitably more persuasive with nuance rather than polemic.

Your arguments will be inevitably more persuasive with nuance rather than polemic.

I think you'll find this forum has all kinds. JK seems to be more into nuance than polemic (as you can see from his annoyance with me). I personally got tired of trying nuance as I prefer to just say what I feel otherwise I'm just moderating myself. And the thing is, feminists use polemic all the time with articles writing drivel like "White Male, Pale and Stale". Or "Rape is Rape is Rape" etc. So I kind of feel polemic needs fighting with polemic. For the most part people don't care very much about long nuanced academic articles. What they pay attention to is drama and emotion. And the trouble is people need to understand that men have feelings too. You claim that my posts read as a "very anti female/all victims in general stance". It sounds bad when you put it like that, to be anti female and anti victim, but what you don't seem to see is that you've got a narrow definition of victim and an elevated perception of women. When a man is locked up for a sex crime he's on the receiving end of what is always life destroying violence. We often say "well, he deserved it" and sometimes we have to make those compromises, but you have to do it with balance, otherwise you are creating innocent victims of the law. And I think balance has massively disappeared in that regard. I get the feeling that you take the attitude that "girls are sugar and spice and all things nice" but that's just not always the case, in my opinion women do bad things at an equal rate to men. And that's not a view that feminists take.

But in any case, that's just my opinion on why I choose polemic. Taking down a monster like the feminist system takes all kinds. Martin Luther King and the Black Panthers didn't always see eye to eye but in some ways they were both needed and helped ensure success.

Very well put. I dont believe I have a rose tinted view of any section of humanity Holoand have never asserted thatall who claim must be automatically believed. But equally it makes no sense to me to attack all accussers as clearly sexual abuse occurs. I think the analogy to racism is easily countered: King et al were fighting racism which does not I agrer merit nuance. Big difference. But we have probably gone now as far as we can an important issue for our times...

Unfortunately I'm not really with this 'no jail' thing or sentences less that 6 months and that's because it's not being done for the right reasons rather the fact jails are over-crowded and at breaking point.

Judges & Magistrates are fully aware of the jail situation and can always impose suspended sentences.

Authorities only have to study the Scandinavian countries approach to lawbreaking where the emphasis is heavily on rehabilitation and a desire to not have the offender return to jail.

This is a mind set they have had for decades and it works.

The problem is changing the British mind set that punishment must be brutal and the notion of re-offending is not a priority, rather just tokenism.

The fact they mention "sex" crimes demonstrates British ridiculous Victorian mentality and inhibitions about sex that produces odd reactions such as an era of "naughty" films etc ( Carry On ) which are very funny or decades of (then) illegal prostitution like Madame Cynthia's famous Luncheon Voucher brothel (naughty, funny and oh so British and great tabloid fodder) but accompanied by a very weird terror of sex and a notion that anything outside a missionary position mentality must be severely punished.

I like to think I'm a natural feminist and have been for decades mainly because I was brought up by strong women.

But the movement (much to the chagrin of pioneers like Germaine Greer) has been captured by a fanatical loony bin mob who really are demonizing men.

I was attacked in a conversation some months ago by 2 young ladies when discussing the brutal demolition of actor Geoffrey Rush on accusation alone..they accused me of being a "typical old man" (even tho I like 30 years younger ) at which for once I got quite angry and demanded an apology for their disgusting "ageist" attack upon me for:
1. being a certain age which is beyond my control and such an attack is like condemnign someone because of their race or sex..

2. How dare they use age alone to attempt to typify thought when especially I had been promoting female rights before these two had been born and one in particular- as I pointed out- only discovered her notion of "feminism" about 5 years ago (long story).
Oddly they both apologised and sort of agreed. One hasn't spoken to me since!