Out of curiosity, do you believe that Weinstein should have faced no non-legal repercussions up to this point? For instance, should he still hold his position and his power? He has yet to be found guilty.

People should be compassionate. But they shouldn’t be stupid either. When the accusations arrive, one should also try and prevent an accused from victimizing more people.

An accused child molester should not be allowed near his children for example til he is able to clear his name and we know for a fact the children are safe, for example.

Prevention is not punishment. Of course, this is where it gets a bit blurry as the need for a person to clear oneself should be directly related to the veracity of the proof.

Much of Weinstein’s power came from his credibility withing the filmaking industry. He lost all that when the accusations started coming in (w/c is the main reason that we should always make it easy for people to step forward).

Essentially, no one in the industry should allow him to exercise negative control and power over an actress’ career and actresses shouldn’t allow him to exercize negative control over them. But until he is found guilty, that should be extent of it.

Burden of proof exists for a reason.
The legal system generally works on that premise in most civilized nations around the globe.

You make a claim (Aka. Accusation) then you need to back it up with evidence, that is how it should work.

Otherwise, nothing is stopping me from accusing everyone in this thread of such a crime and everyone in this thread loosing access to their children, regardless of how incorrect my accusation is.

Steven Crowder is fun to listen at and can be a good debater if he's open to it but i do find him a bit biased and closeminded on some of his beliefs.

Which is why I said “The need for a person to clear oneself should be directly related to the veracity of the proof”. Meaning absurd accusations not founded in any kind of evidence should not be used as a reason to perform preventive measures that negatively impact the life of the accused in a significant way. The responsibility of determining this risk and acting upon it already falls on law enforcement.

If a woman decides to create a life with a man, then decides to abort that life, leaving him with nothing, he demands justice, and society tells him to wake up and realize it's not about his wants and needs and that forcing her to carry the unborn, would be allowing it to leech off of her, which would be unfair, regardless of the initial consent.

If a woman decides to marry a man, then decides to divorce him, if he decides to leave her with nothing, she demands justice, and society tells her she certainly should be entitled to whatever portion of his wealth that maintains her wants and needs, which wouldn't be leeching off of him, and would be fair, regardless of the initial consent.

So in laypeople's terms, heads we win, tales you lose? Since when did coins start having the queens head on both sides? Before or after #equality?

Yeah not surprised you completely ignored the rest of my post, and then took my words completely out of context. I said "The fact that people think rape culture exists is bothersome", not that people reporting being rape is bothersome. 

And here is the rest of my post just incase you forgot how to read past the first line "Completely taking the attention away from undeveloped places like the middle east where women and children are just sex objects to their male overlords. But if you want to fight for human rights in the middle east they will kill you, so I understand why they would avoid those places."

Rape culture only exists in the 3rd world, it is an absolute joke to think it exists in the west. This countries paranoia is taking attention away from the real problem in the world, and feminists rather ignore it because its "racist" and "politically incorrect" to say rape culture exists in these 3rd world countries. 

Also don't bother posting on this thread if you're not going to add to it, you made that post specifically to attack me, and not add to the discussion. 

Even if there was a rape culture it'd be infinitesimally small, and limited to mostly asshole judges like the one that didn't give Brock Turner even a year in jail.

What the girl in the beginning is saying is rape culture is actually the presumption of innocence. She likely didn't have any evidence to present against her attacker, so the school didn't and shouldn't do anything. You can't just accuse someone of a crime only matched by murder in severity and expect people to believe you with no evidence.

People in America loath rapists, the difference in how people go about it is the difference between a reaction and a desire for truth. One group assumes guilt and wants the punishment to come immediately. The other group offers the presumption of innocence while an investigation is conducted, and will usually err on what the investigation finds.

In the case of Ford (since Crowder's video brought it up), it was a 35+ year old case with no evidence, no corroboration by those she claimed were at the party, and no specifics about the party (including how she got there or left, where it was, what day it was, etc). She took a polygraph, but 1) she's a psychiatrist, pretty sure she knows how to beat it; and 2) she was outted by an ex for having helped a friend pass a polygraph in the past (rendering some of her testimony as potential perjury). No further investigation was taken because there just isn't anything to investigate, and it was clear from how long Feinstein sat on the accusation that the intent was to present it in the eleventh hour to push the confirmation beyond the midterms.

It sucks that Ford didn't get a real trial since considering it was a party with drinking she was likely to have been assaulted by somebody, but misidentified them (misidentification makes up roughly 70% of exonerations). She'll never know now because she waited over three decades, and now #metoo is taken less seriously because Feinstein clearly used it as a political cudgel.

The problem with many arguments about 'rape' and the burden of proof being on the victim is that....short of having the foresight to record it or coaxing a confession out of the rapist, there's virtually no proof of rape. It can't exist. This burden you put on the victim is nearly impossible to fulfil because rape is unlike other forms of abuse.

When you're assaulted on the street, there could be bruises or cuts or abrasions. When you're abused on the street you can call for help and scream 'I'm being attacked'. When you're hurt in that way, there is physical evidence that it happens.

When it comes to rape, even the more egregious examples often take place alone, or in a party while drunk, or with someone you thought loved you. You might not even know that you're being taken advantage of until later and even the strongest of men and women don't want the vulnerability that comes with yelling for help while being raped. Oftentimes the one being abused is not under their own volition.

And unless the rapist is fucking you with a cheese grater or forcing a carrot into you, the chances of there being physical evidence of rape is pretty slim. Sure, you can get a rape kit and prove they ejaculated inside you, but that's really all it can truly prove. Even consensual sex often results in some tissue damage (Some people like it rough; this is just a fact of a loving relationship.)

So what do you propose? In a world full of people like you who put all the burden of proof on the victims and are clearly eager to discredit them, what do you propose is adequate proof of rape? What action do you suggest that can prove rape while also not exposing the victims to senseless and extraneous levels of scrutinization. This isn't like theft or murder or assault, where there's clearly defined proof, so what is it you propose?

I genuinely want to hear an answer, because all I see is a bunch of [redacted] who don't understand consent lashing out because they fear being accused of rape and thus trying to discredit victims with flawed, unfair rhetoric.

So I ask again: If the burden of proof is exclusively on the victim, what do you propose as a reasonable, realistic piece of evidence to back up their claims? What do you suggest doing in the event of rape that would fulfil all your unreasonable demands. You do that, and I'll easily show you a dozen examples of why it doesn't work, why many rapes still go unreported, and why even the reported ones are still unprosecuted.

Don't be a part of the problem by perpetuating the status quo, be a part of the solution by helping to find and enact positive change.

1. That's not rape and not illegal since the sexual acts where consensual at the time. 

2.Whilst unsexy and not private as fuck the best way to definitely prove consent is give digital consent  before having sex trough a heavily encryptie digi-d or a governments account. Any sexual act in which this consent was not given is rape and a DNA  test can easily prove that. 

Guilty by accusation isn't a sollution just a new problem. Every sexual act leaves some sort of DNA, so that should be found at the very least.