|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Bacasper: re: the mother's reported behavior, which does not include her articulating her emotions and motives: I imagine that her son's raping her traumatized and completely disoriented her, and created no small amount of conflict within her. Also, she reported this to her doctor, Bacasper. I believe that represents her asking him for help.
I can cite no evidence other than my own imagination to support this. But your demanding that I cite evidence that she did not consent to her son's having sex with her, even though he apparently raped her again sometime later, strikes me as a bizarre position to take, as even he seems to have recognized doing something completely wrong -- and it also sets up another of the impossible situations you seem to thrive in: demanding that your opponents prove a negative. I cannot do that, and I will not waste anymore time on this angle.
The leaves me where I started with this: what a terrible story. Where do they go as mother and son from here? Probably worse than losing a parent or a child to death. |
I haven't asked you to prove anything. Just as you asked me to cite evidence that she consented, I am asking you for some evidence, not proof, that she did not.
I am glad you admit it is your own imagination on this, unlike Big Turd who does the same while accusing me of conjecture. Nowhere in the article or in the charges is there any mention of "rape" until Big Turd mentioned it, and now you are joining in that.
We can't know for sure if she consented or not, we can only weigh the evidence. Right now it tilts toward that she did.
| Big_Turd wrote: |
| YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT SHE CONSENTED. Is that clear enough for you? |
YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT SHE DID NOT CONSENT. Is that clear enough for you?
Obviously you have gone all emo and are no longer able to consider the situation rationally, as you cannot seem to tolerate any difference of opinion here.
What some appear to be losing sight of here is that not only was this not rape, but it was incest in only the strictest sense of the term. Except for their genetic connection, the two people involved grew up as strangers for all practical purposes. It is a very different scenario from that in which a mother sees her kid every day for years since birth, changes his diapers, feeds him, sends him to school, etc., and then engages in the dirty deed. Such cases are very rare and usually involve psychosis (or are a French movie!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A friendly reminder to all the posters that you are kindly at Club Current Events not to throw pineapples at each other, I mean not to throw blatant insults at one another such as calling someone a bird-brain, ignoramus or what have you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
A well-timed reminder, Enrico. It seems the news surrounding a man f'ing his own mother has brought out Oedipus complex-related issues.
Dave would not approve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It just goes to show what sick, manhating hysterics most Western women are that posters have assumed this guy raped his mother not on the basis of any actual evidence but because their evil hate movement requires them to always construe the man in any dysfunctional relationship as the baddie. For all anyone knows the mother might have demanded sex that she couldn't get elsewhere due to her disability and the man, being a dutiful son, complied. In any case, the court should not be assuming facts not given in evidence. If they can't make a case for rape then the issue should not even arise, and either both parties or neither party should have been charged with incest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not here to respond to nonsense. But I will point out one thing: rapes (of adults) are not prosecuted when the victim refuses to press charges. That he was not prosecuted as a rapist is not evidence that it was not rape. Anyone with the vaguest understanding of the law would know this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cornfed wrote: |
| It just goes to show what sick, manhating hysterics most Western women are that posters have assumed this guy raped his mother not on the basis of any actual evidence but because their evil hate movement requires them to always construe the man in any dysfunctional relationship as the baddie. For all anyone knows the mother might have demanded sex that she couldn't get elsewhere due to her disability and the man, being a dutiful son, complied. In any case, the court should not be assuming facts not given in evidence. If they can't make a case for rape then the issue should not even arise, and either both parties or neither party should have been charged with incest. |
Apparently the woman was not charged because only "having sex with a person knowing that the person was his mother" is a crime but not, in another example of legal misandry, "having sex with a person knowing that the person was her son."
This worldview is a mere extension of the gender feminist philosophy that "all sex is rape." Here we see sadly that it is still alive and well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think the fact that bcasper and a poster such as the notorious misogynist (and troll?) cornfed are in such hearty agreement with each other, is an indication that it is now time to withdraw from this nutty thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EzeWong
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I think the fact that bcasper and a poster such as the notorious misogynist (and troll?) cornfed are in such hearty agreement with each other, is an indication that it is now time to withdraw from this nutty thread. |
'
lol,
I think both have their valid opinions. Although Cornfed is very woman hating it's a well deserved topic of how the feminist double standard exists and something that we need to question.
Women want to be treated as equals but here Bcasper has brought up that it's illegal for a man to have sex with his mother, but it's not illegal for a mother to have sex with her son? Again, this is a propagated notion that men instigate rape and are always the guilty party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EzeWong wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I think the fact that bcasper and a poster such as the notorious misogynist (and troll?) cornfed are in such hearty agreement with each other, is an indication that it is now time to withdraw from this nutty thread. |
'
lol,
I think both have their valid opinions. Although Cornfed is very woman hating it's a well deserved topic of how the feminist double standard exists and something that we need to question. |
Yes, I'm sure the KKK also feel they have valid opinions on the topic of racial matters.
| EzeWong wrote: |
| Women want to be treated as equals but here Bcasper has brought up that it's illegal for a man to have sex with his mother, but it's not illegal for a mother to have sex with her son? Again, this is a propagated notion that men instigate rape and are always the guilty party. |
Well, you and bcasper appear to be experts on Australian law. I tried to find whether a mother is exempt from the charge of incest under Australian law (and specifically Northern Territory law as the incident took place in Darwin) but I could not. Perhaps someone else with more patience than I can turn it up. I have heard of women being prosecuted for incest, but I can not remember in which jurisdiction (i.e. which countries).
The best I came up with was the Crimes Act 1900 of New South Wales - I don't know if the Northern Territory has a similar law to New South Wales:
| Quote: |
78A Incest
(1) Any person who has sexual intercourse with a close family member who is of or above the age of 16 years is liable to imprisonment for 8 years.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a close family member is a parent, son, daughter, sibling (including a half-brother or half-sister), grandparent or grandchild, being such a family member from birth.
78B Incest attempts
Any person who attempts to commit an offence under section 78A is liable to imprisonment for two years. |
It does refer to 'any person' and I assume that a woman can also be considered a person, though cornfed, of course, may dispute that...
I also rather suspect that the incest laws are old laws that were put into place long before the evil of feminisim raised its pretty head, and that the evil feminazis had no hand in them.
I also found this article:
| Quote: |
Incest provisions
Every state and territory has legislation which criminalises sexual intercourse between close relatives. Penetrative sexual assaults committed by one family member against another family member are sometimes charged and prosecuted as "incest" rather than as "rape" or a similar offence. Usually this is done because, in contrast to "sexual assault" or "rape", the offence of "incest" does not require the prosecution to prove the victim-complainant's non-consent nor the accused's awareness of non-consent. Most incest offences make all sexual intercourse between close relatives criminal, whether it is consensual or not. As a result, a conviction for "incest" requires proof of a smaller number of elements than a conviction for "sexual assault" or "rape", where consent is a complete defence. In practice, the requirement of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent can result in lengthy cross-examination of the victim-complainant in trials for rape and sexual assault offences. Unfortunately, as Taylor's (2004) research shows, incest trials often also involve lengthy crossexamination of the victim-complainant.The fact that the crime of "incest" applies both to consensual and non-consensual sexual acts can make it particularly inappropriate. Some people who have been raped or sexually assaulted by close relatives feel that a crime which fails to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual contact is inappropriate and offensive. Some have suggested that an offence called "intrafamilial rape" or "intrafamilial sexual assault" would better recognise the non-consensual nature of their experiences (Taylor 2004: 298).
Caroline Taylor's (2004) research suggests that "rape" has clear associations with "force and violation", while "incest" is seen as a less serious offence and associated with intense social stigma, including a sense that the victim-complainant is in some way culpable. She documents this association not only among victim-complainants, but also among defence counsel and judge. 34 In some incest trials, defence counsel insist on a clear distinction between incest and rape, with the clear implication that incest is not rape, a perception that fails to recognise the non-consensual nature of sexual abuse within families (Taylor 2004; VLRC 2004). Western Australian law now refers to "sexual offences by relatives" while every other jurisdiction still has an offence called "incest". The Victorian Law Reform Commission has recommended that the name of this offence should be changed to reflect the changing focus away from prohibiting sexual intercourse between close relatives and toward "protecting children and young people from exploitation and abuse within the family" (VLRC 2004: 442).
The very systems that Australia has implemented to respond to criminal conduct are still judged inappropriate or unusable by many people who are sexually assaulted yet never report their experiences to the police.
The range of family relationships which fall within incest offences varies widely across the country. South Australian law addresses the narrowest range of relationships. It deals only with blood relations, and criminalises sexual intercourse between parent and child and between siblings. Other jurisdictions, QLD and VIC in particular, take a broader view, recognising family relationships rather than blood relationships as central to the behaviour which should be considered incest. As a result, de facto relationships, half-relationships, step-relationships and relationships through adoption and fostering are included in incest offences. QLD also extends the reach of incest legislation further into blood relationships, criminalising sexual intercourse between people related as aunt, uncle, niece or nephew.
Some jurisdictions treat crimes against people under the age of consent as a single group of offences. Under this kind of system, the law treats relatives who sexually abuse children and young people within their families in the same way as it treats strangers who perpetrate sexual abuse. Sexual intercourse between close relatives is only treated as a separate offence where the victim-complainant is over the age of consent.
In some jurisdictions, "incest" provisions can apply both to the person who perpetrates the abuse and to the person who is abused. Although some jurisdictions explicitly provide a defence to incest where a person is coerced into sexual intercourse with a close relative, others do not. This raises the possibility that a person who has been sexually assaulted by a relative could be charged with incest themselves: a threat some perpetrators use to silence victim-complainants (Taylor 2004). Even where it is available, a defence of coercion can only be used once the coerced person has been charged with the offence.
The Victorian Law Reform Commission believes that: "Although it is not common for the person who reports the abuse to be charged as a co-offender . . . the possibility of charge may act as a disincentive for an adult victim to report the offence" (VLRC 2004: 443). Further, the Commission suggests that a defence of "coercion" may be poorly adapted to addressing "the exploitative power dynamics that can exist in families" (VLRC 2004: 443).
For more detailed information about the law of incest in each jurisdiction, please refer to the Table on pp. 32-41. |
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/issue/i4.html#introduction
In bold is a possible reason that this trial was not treated as a rape trial. Perhaps bcasper is not the expert on Australian law that he thought.
Secondly, in case you are inclined to agree with cornfed and bcasper that this woman was 'up for it' read this article here from The Australian. EzeWong may want to study the part I have bolded in blue before s/he is inclined to accept as 'valid' the beliefs held by cornfed and bcasper that this 'sex' was indeed the mother's choice :
| Quote: |
A MAN who had sex with his wheelchair-bound mother because he said no other women wanted him has been jailed.
The 26-year-old man moved from Western Australia in February this year to live with his mother in Darwin.
On May 29, they were watching television when he told her: "Why don't women want me. I can't get no women here," the Northern Territory Supreme Court was told.
The son then pulled his mother's pants down, took a condom out of his wallet, and had sex with her.
They had sex again before the mother got into her wheelchair and went to her bedroom.
The woman - who suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and has been dependent on a wheelchair for the past seven years - told her doctor about the incident the following day and the man was arrested.
He pleaded guilty to two counts of having sex with a person knowing that the person was his mother.
In the Northern Territory Supreme Court in Darwin today, Justice Sally Thomas sentenced the man, who cannot be named, to three years in prison with a non-parole period of six months.
Backdated to the time of his arrest, it means he is eligible for parole before the end of this month.
Justice Thomas said the mother had felt "betrayed, lost, lonely and very upset".
But she said the son, who was drunk at the time of the offence, was "extremely remorseful".
She said the fact that he had been raised by his father in Western Australia meant the two did not share "a normal mother-child bond".
The case is the first of its kind in the Northern Territory.
|
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24645572-5006789,00.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EzeWong
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see your point,
Addmittedly I know jack squat about Australian laws. so I'm merely taking word on it's legality. In wish case it invalid point if the premise isn't true.
And upon further reading on the quoted law journal you posted, it seems regardless of consent or not the party is guilty as long as they are above the age of 16.
Tthey circumvented cases of child abuse by stating above the age of 16. Otherwise the 8 years of imprisonment would have applied to child abuse cases.
However in rare cases like this it seems the mother has 8 years of prison according to the statute. I have a feeling an exception will be made though |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EzeWong wrote: |
| However in rare cases like this it seems the mother has 8 years of prison according to the statute. I have a feeling an exception will be made though |
Yes, exceptions are generally made for the non-consenting participant in incestuous sex. The more I read, the more likely it appears the woman was raped (as other people have concluded). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wormholes101
Joined: 11 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not surprised this news came out of Australia.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big Bird wrote: |
| I think the fact that bcasper and a poster such as the notorious misogynist (and troll?) cornfed are in such hearty agreement with each other, is an indication that it is now time to withdraw from this nutty thread. |
Ah yes, the good, ol' fallacy by association, with a couple of ad hominems thrown in for good measure.
Nice.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EzeWong wrote: |
I see your point,
Addmittedly I know jack squat about Australian laws. so I'm merely taking word on it's legality. In wish case it invalid point if the premise isn't true.
...
However in rare cases like this it seems the mother has 8 years of prison according to the statute. I have a feeling an exception will be made though |
I am not going to twist and misrepresent others' positions as Big Bird is doing to me here. I never said I was an expert on Australian law, nor that mom was "up for it." I merely pointed out that, on the basis of the newspaper report linked to in the OP there is more evidence that she did consent vs. that she didn't.
If you haven't already, read that link. There is a subtle difference in the stories. They both state that the woman reported the event the next day, but the story in The Australian leaves out the salient detail that it was during a regular medical exam, i.e. she did not go there specifically to report it (nor did she report it to police the day it occurred).
If the mother were in fact liable under the law and was not charged, it may be further evidence of discriminatory applcation of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cangel
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Location: Jeonju, S. Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A couple of years ago, for just 7 months, I worked as a juvenile rehabilitation counselor at a state (not to be named) juvenile facility aka prison. One of kids on my caseload was in for breaking into his grandmother's house, pulling his shirt over his head, raping and the beating his grandmother to near death, and finally stealing a couple of thousand dollars that he knew she was taking to a lawyer the next day. No remorse, just wanted the $$$. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
