blokes, would you be willing to accept restrictions on your behaviour...

[Sea Star]

The spectre of child abuse and peadophilia means I am very wary when I am out with my camera. So yes, I do accept restrictions to my behaviour.

I was taking pics of a funfair ride in Welling once - full of kids and adults. I was getting some really nice shots of people flying out at odd angles with unusual expressions on their faces when i suddenly noticed a policeman looking at me funny!! It didn't stop me because I enjoy taking photos and I wasn't focussing on children particularly but only when they happen to be in shot!

I've always been a bit careful since then, but now I'm a woman maybe everything is different!!

 

[ska invita]

..

the point being made was there are so few convictions its as good as legal...a bit like police violence and banking fraud in the uk

 

[weltweit]

I was taking pics of a funfair ride in Welling once - full of kids and adults. I was getting some really nice shots of people flying out at odd angles with unusual expressions on their faces when i suddenly noticed a policeman looking at me funny!! It didn't stop me because I enjoy taking photos and I wasn't focussing on children particularly but only when they happen to be in shot!

I've always been a bit careful since then, but now I'm a woman maybe everything is different!!

Yes, I like images like that also but these days often it just isn't worth the hassle. I do think a woman photographer is not seen as such a potential threat, kiddie fiddlers being mainly male.

You have to be careful in lots of places though. I was out photographing near here and the next day two police detectives turned up at my door. It turned out I had been near an army base and they had taken my car reg. The two detectives wanted to see my pictures.

 

[lizzieloo]

Our legal system has a presumption of innocence but people don't.

No smoke without fire is what a lot of people think.
Or at the very least better safe than sorry.
The police are thinking better safe than sorry to protect children. Who can blame them.
At the same time though they are adding smoke to this guy's already smudged reputation. The problem is that for those that deserve that smoke because they've 'gotten away with something' there are others who genuinely are innocent.

But there is a reason why we have courts to decide this. Not because they are the most effective foolproof means but because they are the most civilised way to manage a society. For better or worse the court decided. The police should accept this.

It's a suggestion, you have to engage your brain like.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

I already accept that there are some restrictions on my behaviour, generally.

I do the "crossing the road to avoid freaking out a single woman ahead of me" thing. I don't start conversations with random women or kids in the street.

I don't expect to have unlimited access to any school I fancy having a wander around.

I think the example in the OP is a tricky one because the guy with the supposedly cloned credit card is basically being called a paedo without a proper trial. Obviously anyone downloading child porn could say their card had been cloned. It seems like an unsatisfactory outcome. I'm not sure in his situation I would want to go through a court case though.

There is a general issue of here, of people being alienated, I think. Men demanding their right to WALK THIS LAND UNMOLESTED on the one hand, and people being terrified of paedogeddon on the other.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Do it if the person ahead is a man too.

Do it if you're black, and the person ahead is white and appearing nervous......?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As already stated, there already are restrictions - on access to schools, playgrounds etc. I was in the park the other day and an old man stopped to talk to a child whose parents were not in eyeshot. She was young, maybe 9 or 10. I stopped a distance away and kept on looking until the man walked away. There are things you don't do, as a man, and that's one of them. A shame, sometimes, but we already self-censor.

But I'm guessing the OP is suggesting an extension of restrictions imposed by the authorities. I think there is an element of self-fulfilling policies here, and also the obvious danger of stigmatising anyone seen as odd. This kind of top-down imposition of rules risks further atomising society and stopping good people from doing good things. The rolling out of CRB checking across the entire society is a good example of this - a top-down, centralised system that stops many people from doing positive things, may well present a dangerous illusion of safety, and not only discourages but actively prevents people from self-policing.

 

[Pickman's model]

... in order to more effectively protect women and children from male sexual violence?

if, for example, you were mistakenly considered a threat to children*, but it couldn't really be proved anyway, would you shrug and say, well, i wasn't planning on hanging around in schools anyway? or would you consider it to be indicative of a failed system and campaign for system to be changed?

or perhaps there are more nuanced ways of doing things - i'd be interested to hear some ideas, both real world and theoretical.

secondly, how do we balance the need for strong evidence with the lack of strong evidence in sexual violence cases and still protect women and children. evidence is clearly a requirement in justice, but at the same time, our current system means that we have millions of rape victims but a surprising lack of actual rapists. many feminists take the position that rape is basically legal, and only stupid or unlucky men actually get caught. how do we fix this?

this ties in a lot with some other threads that have been going on recently, but because i've been a bit combatative in some of them, i thought i'd start a thread where in people can discuss it without me calling them names whilst still getting some answers to think about!

so i'm going to stay away from this until later and use this thread to get some ideas to consider, rather than to have a fight on if there's stuff i disagree with.


----

* case in question is a bloke whose credit card was used to by child porn. police didn't take it further as he claimed his card had been cloned. but they advised that he shouldn't be allowed in schools, he's throwing a tantrum.

tbh i wouldn't accept conditions on my behaviour if i was wrongly accused of anything.

the system has failed and it shows that in more and more ways every day.

 

[xenon]

Probably not. As others have said, most reasonable blokes already adhear to sensible restrictions. i.e. not going into women's changing rooms, women only events, hanging around schools when they have no business there. Shouting at people in the street isn't something I'd do anyway.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm also very very wary of creating a new kind of legal category - not tried for anything, not proven or provable, but suspected, and treated differently because of that suspicion. The grounds for misuse of such powers are immense, and we have enough examples of policies introduced for one situation being used in others - extended detention laws, etc. The history of the 'sus' law and its racist application comes to mind.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think the example in the OP is a tricky one because the guy with the supposedly cloned credit card is basically being called a paedo without a proper trial. Obviously anyone downloading child porn could say their card had been cloned. It seems like an unsatisfactory outcome. I'm not sure in his situation I would want to go through a court case though..

I don't know the details, but presumably, no porn was found on his computer. Standards of proof exist to protect us from the arbitrary use of violence against us by state power. The state is not straightforwardly a force for either good or bad - it always has the capacity for both, and given that it monopolises the right to violence, we need protection against its capacity to do bad things.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

This is all beyond me tbh. Of course men should be able to stop and interact with women and children in society. Just behave like decent respectful people. I really don't think saying men mustn't walk past primary schools or talk to kids in the park or chat to women in the street is any kind of answer.

 

[Sea Star]

Probably not. As others have said, most reasonable blokes already adhear to sensible restrictions. i.e. not going into women's changing rooms, women only events, hanging around schools when they have no business there. Shouting at people in the street isn't something I'd do anyway.

I can see a grey area opening up here for people like me. At what point does the law stop considering me a man?

I certainly consider myself to be female as do most other people, but not everyone.

 

[topher25]

... in order to more effectively protect women and children from male sexual violence?

if, for example, you were mistakenly considered a threat to children*, but it couldn't really be proved anyway, would you shrug and say, well, i wasn't planning on hanging around in schools anyway? or would you consider it to be indicative of a failed system and campaign for system to be changed?

or perhaps there are more nuanced ways of doing things - i'd be interested to hear some ideas, both real world and theoretical.

secondly, how do we balance the need for strong evidence with the lack of strong evidence in sexual violence cases and still protect women and children. evidence is clearly a requirement in justice, but at the same time, our current system means that we have millions of rape victims but a surprising lack of actual rapists. many feminists take the position that rape is basically legal, and only stupid or unlucky men actually get caught. how do we fix this?

this ties in a lot with some other threads that have been going on recently, but because i've been a bit combatative in some of them, i thought i'd start a thread where in people can discuss it without me calling them names whilst still getting some answers to think about!

so i'm going to stay away from this until later and use this thread to get some ideas to consider, rather than to have a fight on if there's stuff i disagree with.


----

* case in question is a bloke whose credit card was used to by child porn. police didn't take it further as he claimed his card had been cloned. but they advised that he shouldn't be allowed in schools, he's throwing a tantrum.

A tantrum? Are you being flippant? I'd be fucking fuming in his situation. It was proved that his card was cloned an as such no further action was taken.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A tantrum? Are you being flippant? I'd be fucking fuming in his situation. It was proved that his card was cloned an as such no further action was taken.

Yep, me too.

 

[Gromit]

Women are much more likely to be involved in fraud rather than sex crimes. Therefore women shouldn't be allowed to talk to bankers without supervision.

 

[Manter]

As already stated, there already are restrictions - on access to schools, playgrounds etc. I was in the park the other day and an old man stopped to talk to a child whose parents were not in eyeshot. She was young, maybe 9 or 10. I stopped a distance away and kept on looking until the man walked away. There are things you don't do, as a man, and that's one of them. A shame, sometimes, but we already self-censor.

But I'm guessing the OP is suggesting an extension of restrictions imposed by the authorities. I think there is an element of self-fulfilling policies here, and also the obvious danger of stigmatising anyone seen as odd. This kind of top-down imposition of rules risks further atomising society and stopping good people from doing good things. The rolling out of CRB checking across the entire society is a good example of this - a top-down, centralised system that stops many people from doing positive things, may well present a dangerous illusion of safety, and not only discourages but actively prevents people from self-policing.

Not sure whether to like that post or not! The centralised system that provides an illusion of safety- yes, absolutely. And completely ignores that children are most at risk from their own families etc.

But why should an old bloke not talk to a child? Why should bmd not watch children play? It's a normal human reaction to be interested in children- FFS it's a normal animal reaction to be interested in young of their own species. I'd hate to live in a society where that perfectly normal, natural interest is pathologised

 

[xenon]

I can see a grey area opening up here for people like me. At what point does the law stop considering me a man?

I certainly consider myself to be female as do most other people, but not everyone.[/QUOTE)
In my ignorance, I don't know if it does or not but The law should treat you as a woman. I'm not sure what restrictions O Phave in mind.

I mean the school thing people already going into schools when they have no business there viewed with some suspicion. Male or female. as potential thieves if nothing worse.

 

[el-ahrairah]

someone must have an idea for how we fix this? is it really that bad? is there really nothing we can do to reduce the amount of rape and sex abuse going on without infringing on the rights of those men who aren't doing it? i was hoping someone would give me another option that i hadn't seen.

 

[el-ahrairah]

there's got to be a third way - obviously tearing down the current system and replacing it with something nicer is a great idea but its not going to happen any time soon?

surely there's something else?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not sure whether to like that post or not! The centralised system that provides an illusion of safety- yes, absolutely. And completely ignores that children are most at risk from their own families etc.

But why should an old bloke not talk to a child? Why should bmd not watch children play? It's a normal human reaction to be interested in children- FFS it's a normal animal reaction to be interested in young of their own species. I'd hate to live in a society where that perfectly normal, natural interest is pathologised

In a park, a bloke on his own should not start up conversations with children like that, no. Sad that this is the case, but I stood and watched because alarm bells were ringing with me, and I wanted to make sure nothing bad happened.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

someone must have an idea for how we fix this? is it really that bad? is there really nothing we can do to reduce the amount of rape and sex abuse going on without infringing on the rights of those men who aren't doing it? i was hoping someone would give me another option that i hadn't seen.

I'm not at all clear how infringing on the rights of those men who aren't doing it is supposed to help. There is a danger you will just make things even worse, breaking down society even more.

 

[el-ahrairah]

for example, lowering the evidence requirement bar for rape and sexual abuse cases would make it more likely that rapists and sexual abusers could be imprisoned.

as in the other thread, injunctions regulating the behaviour of suspected but not proved abusers etc etc.

do you not think those things would help?

 

[8ball]

someone must have an idea for how we fix this? is it really that bad? is there really nothing we can do to reduce the amount of rape and sex abuse going on without infringing on the rights of those men who aren't doing it? i was hoping someone would give me another option that i hadn't seen.

Would be useful to know what direction the figures moving in in terms of prevalence in various countries over a decent timescale to get a handle on something this big.

 

[el-ahrairah]

that's another problem with this particular area - it's very difficult to know the truth extent of the figures. obviously if society is cleaning up its act naturally and numbers are dropping we're obviously doing stuff right. but numbers appear to be rising. this may be because a greater percentage of victims are coming forward than before.

but considering that studies show that 1 in 6, 1 in 7, 1 in 4 (depending on whre you are in the world) men admit rape (generally provided you don't call it rape, but redefine it to use more friendly language like forced sexual contact etc etc) then it's still a startling large number.

the idea that nothing needs to be done is abhorant when we're talking about such huge numbers. the system has already failed.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

for example, lowering the evidence requirement bar for rape and sexual abuse cases would make it more likely that rapists and sexual abusers could be imprisoned.

as in the other thread, injunctions regulating the behaviour of suspected but not proved abusers etc etc.

do you not think those things would help?

No, I don't.

The first idea will lead to more innocent people being locked up, and - with much justice - campaigning to be exonerated as the case was not proven. It is an appalling idea, and not one that helps victims - it will just create doubt over all convictions, whether they are sound or not.

The second idea - handing out nonce caps to suspects - will equally lead to more innocent people being branded abusers and having their lives blighted. Extending the power of the state in that way does not help communities. It fractures them.

 

[8ball]

for example, lowering the evidence requirement bar for rape and sexual abuse cases would make it more likely that rapists and sexual abusers could be imprisoned.

as in the other thread, injunctions regulating the behaviour of suspected but not proved abusers etc etc.

do you not think those things would help?

If you removed the need for evidence entirely you'd catch all reported cases that didn't top themselves before you got to them. You could also increase sentences significantly. That way, a lot of your potential cases might become murder cases instead and there would be no rape case to answer at all.

Injunctions on all men would be another evidence-based approach you could try - almost all rapists are men - it's not like they haven't been warned about this sort of thing.

 

[8ball]

that's another problem with this particular area - it's very difficult to know the truth extent of the figures. obviously if society is cleaning up its act naturally and numbers are dropping we're obviously doing stuff right. but numbers appear to be rising. this may be because a greater percentage of victims are coming forward than before.

Do you mean just here, or do you have an area in general which you are thinking of? Over which timescales?

And as the 'more friendly' definitions of rape have got more men to admit things, is it not likely that broader definitions have increased reporting rates compared to surveys done way in the past. Until horribly recently it wouldn't even have been reported first hand or gone into the figures if a woman had been raped by her husband.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

the idea that nothing needs to be done is abhorant when we're talking about such huge numbers. the system has already failed.

Nobody has said that, though. But thinking that something needs to be done doesn't mean you think the kind of thing you're proposing is that something.

 

[Quartz]

for example, lowering the evidence requirement bar for rape and sexual abuse cases would make it more likely that rapists and sexual abusers could be imprisoned.

But it would make false convictions easier. Our system of justice is built on the principle that it is better to let 100 guilty go free than convict 1 innocent. That seems very hard until it's you in the spotlight.