The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

speising
Posts: 2047
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby speising » Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:48 pm UTC

My issue was that you seemed to imply that most of those marriages are with old men, when there are only four special cases cited. I rather liked to assume that the majority of the men is nearer to the girls. (If only i don't want to acknowlege the depths of darkness in religious fundamentalists)
A 15yo girl could very well be in a relationship with a 19yo man, which is legally still problematic, but at least not as creepy as being forced on a 40yo.

In fact, it is unfortunate that there is no other data on the men, and also no info on how the affected feel about it.

AlgaeSea
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:08 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby AlgaeSea » Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:51 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:
HES wrote:Colorado to arm teachers in classrooms

Okay, how long before a child dies because one of these guns is snatched, or goes off accidentally, or a teacher overreacts?


This seems like a terrible idea in general, but apart from anything else it's a fucking 3 day course, for both firearms and medical training. That seems woefully insufficient even for just the firearms bit, especially as there doesn't seem to be any requirement for continued training and certification.


Shortly after Sandyhook I read this essay on this exact issue: https://thefourthvine.dreamwidth.org/2012/12/21/

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25740
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 21, 2017 5:09 pm UTC

speising wrote:My issue was that you seemed to imply that most of those marriages are with old men
Yeah, but as I clarified I never implied any such thing.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 6887
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:37 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Rejecting complete cultural relativism doesn't mean adopting any one particular universal morality.
Would you share with me how that might work in practice?
gmalivuk wrote:And it's not a stretch to suppose most or all marriages between a 13-year-old and someone two or three times her age is at least somewhat coercive.
I suppose GM is going blow by Amazon on the NYSE, however I'm pretty sure if I was selling stocks, people would want what I know, not what I suppose I know.
gmalivuk wrote:What difference does it make? People defending child marriage in practice and in courts often do so for religious reasons.
If you say so.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7469
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:20 pm UTC

There's a reason we have statutory rape laws. There's no concept of consent when talking about underage people having sex with people much older than them. It's a vague territory, sure, and there isn't great data available. But the fact most people who get into underage marriages are girls means only one of two options:
1. Many girls marry each-other
2. Many girls marry men older than them
Considering a lot of this data is older than same-sex marriage becoming legalized, we can conclude there are a lot of marriages between underage girls and older men. The opposite (underage boys and older women) might also be true but we can't conclude it from the limited data.

And so people have already determined this question, repeatedly and in most countries around the world - underage girls who have sex with older men can't consent. It's the literal definition of statutory rape. That these relations get approved under the government's approval as "marriages" doesn't make this activity immoral and coercive.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:59 pm UTC

I was wrong about the canteen conversations. Nobody said a word about it. There was much talk about how hot the weekend had been, how full the car park at the reservoir had been, how much parking in another place costs, sunburn risk and relative ease of use of various barbecues.

Jumble wrote:Police name Finsbury Park terrorist.

And his name is "arsehole". To me, they are called "arsehole".
Statements from family in today's paper appeared to offer an alternative back-story, as they said he wasn't political, wouldn't even be able to say who the prime minister is and had never said anything about Muslims, and that he'd been living in a tent in a field after a separation from his wife and kids and had been passed out drunk in the rented van in front of their house that morning. Equivalent of US "suicide by cop," then, just running a van into a group of people to provoke them to kill him, confident they'd do so and content to stir up a civil war as .....

Yeah, not changing his name at all even if that does turn out to be the case.

Son of van hire firm owner arrested after controversial 'tank' comment following mosque attack

Richard Gear Evans was taken into custody after allegedly writing in a Facebook post: “It’s my dad’s company, I don’t get involved. It’s a shame they don’t hire out a steam rollers or tanks, could have done a good job then [sic].”

Police said a 37-year-old man was held on suspicion of displaying threatening, abusive, insulting written material with intent that is likely to stir up racial hatred.

Police say they have now released Richard Gear Evans without charge

His father and employer appear to have both disowned him with all available speed.

No surprises there. Emboldened1 seekers of a "final solution2 to the Jewish Muslim problem" are cheering for arsehole.


1 Well, bold, anyway, or at least not ashamed of themselves.
2 Actually, he said "cleanse" not "final solution" but you know they mean the same thing in context, right?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25740
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:02 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Rejecting complete cultural relativism doesn't mean adopting any one particular universal morality.
Would you share with me how that might work in practice?
If I reject the teachings of Catholicism, that doesn't mean I've decided to be Buddhist.

gmalivuk wrote:And it's not a stretch to suppose most or all marriages between a 13-year-old and someone two or three times her age is at least somewhat coercive.
I suppose GM is going blow by Amazon on the NYSE, however I'm pretty sure if I was selling stocks, people would want what I know, not what I suppose I know.
Great analogy, except for the part where I'm not trying to sell you anything and believing me doesn't require you to invest anything of your own.

We as a society have decided that a 13-year-old cannot legally consent to sex with a 40-year-old, but somehow all that reasoning doesn't apply to marriage? Even though marriage generally includes the same sex that we just decided was illegal?

If you're supposing that a 13-year-old girl marrying a 40-year-old man at the behest of that man and her own parents can ever not be coercive, then you're the one making the extraordinary claim, and so I'll be expecting some extraordinary evidence to back that up, at your earliest convenience.

gmalivuk wrote:What difference does it make? People defending child marriage in practice and in courts often do so for religious reasons.
If you say so.
Again, if you disagree feel free to back up your disagreement with something. Saying "I know religious people who don't defend child marriage", however, doesn't count.

I know religious people who are pro-choice and pro-marriage-equality, too, but it nevertheless remains the case that arguments against abortion and same-sex marriage are often based on religious reasons. I know religious people who eat pork and atheists who don't, but I worldwide by far the most common reason not to eat pork is religious.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8658
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:42 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:There's a reason we have statutory rape laws. There's no concept of consent when talking about underage people having sex with people much older than them.


It's entirely possible for a 14 year old and 40 year old to be in love. The issue is that in most such unions, or at least a large enough number of such unions, it's abusive rather than healthy. So society has made it illegal by statute. Sure, a few people who truly would be in a healthy relationship are screwed over, but they lose out less than the rest of society gains.

On a side note, would anyone consider expanding statutory rape laws to include the case of the boss and underling? In most companies, it's against HR policy for a manager to date an underling, and in the US military it's illegal, but I don't know if I'd like it enshrined in law.

morriswalters
Posts: 6887
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:05 pm UTC

The statistics cited by the article were the number of marriage licenses issued by age in that state, by age. All you can reasonably infer is that the marriage took place. Statutory rape, is precluded by definition. Since the marriages that offend gmalivuk, took place under the aegis of law. Is there coercion in marriages? Yep. Can a minor give consent? I don't think so.
gmalivuk wrote:If I reject the teachings of Catholicism, that doesn't mean I've decided to be Buddhist.
But surely you decided to be something. What universal moral structure does your use of atrocious arise from?
gmalivuk wrote:We as a society have decided that a 13-year-old cannot legally consent to sex with a 40-year-old, but somehow all that reasoning doesn't apply to marriage? Even though marriage generally includes the same sex that we just decided was illegal?
Yeah, it does seem kind of dumb, doesn't it. However I not interested in dumb. I'm interested in the ease with which we use the word rape. In particular in Sardia's use of it.
gmalivuk wrote:Again, if you disagree feel free to back up your disagreement with something. Saying "I know religious people who don't defend child marriage", however, doesn't count.
morriswalters wrote:
sardia wrote: Most of the defenses of child marriage use religious reasons. Not that any of the defenses are true, but that's why politicians won't change anything. They're afraid of and are a product of religious conservative constituents.


I know a few conservative Christians who would find a thing like that an antithesis of their stated, and lived, values. Mostly I suppose this sort of thing happens on the fringes.
I point you to the definition of suppose. Which I used in my reply to Sardia.
assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.
I said on the fringe because the number of marriage licenses is large, and in the case of the exemplars in the article, the number of cases is small as compared to that number. Another way of stating it is that she has knowledge that I don't have. She uses that knowledge to make statements about the data. I accept her supposition in so far as I accept her credentials. But there are no facts. Is that sufficient?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25740
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:32 pm UTC

I don't care whether you suppose it or know it for a fact, it's still not a relevant response to, "Most of the defenses of child marriage use religious reasons."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1146
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sizik » Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:31 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:On a side note, would anyone consider expanding statutory rape laws to include the case of the boss and underling? In most companies, it's against HR policy for a manager to date an underling, and in the US military it's illegal, but I don't know if I'd like it enshrined in law.


What abuses would that cover that existing sexual harassment laws don't?
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

morriswalters
Posts: 6887
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:33 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I don't care whether you suppose it or know it for a fact, it's still not a relevant response to, "Most of the defenses of child marriage use religious reasons."
Okay. In a word his source doesn't support it. Here is the list from one of her supporting documents.
Controlling sexuality (particularly the sexuality of women and girls);

Controlling unwanted behavior (e.g., alcohol or
drug use, wearing make-up or behaving in what
is perceived to be a “westernized manner”)

Preventing “unsuitable” relationships (e.g.,
outside the ethnic, cultural, religious or caste
group)
Protecting “family honor” (or “izzat”)

Responding to peer group or family pressure

Attempting to strengthen family links

Achieving financial gain

Ensuring land, property and wealth remain
within the family

Protecting perceived cultural ideals

Protecting perceived religious ideals which are
misguided

Ensuring care for a child or adult with special
needs when parents or existing caregivers are
unable to fulfill that role

Assisting claims for lawful residence and
citizenship and,

Long-standing family commitments.
I missed the word most in that. This little nugget was interesting.
According to Plan UK, disasters and emergencies have precipitated many forced and early marriages:
Food insecurity in Kenya has led to the phenomena of ‘famine brides’, drought and conflict in Afghanistan have forced farmers to arrange and receive money for the early marriage of their daughters
I suggest you read the accompanying papers. They are enlightening. This turns the proposition on its head.
Early marriage increased in Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami as families
in refugee camps saw it as the only protection for their daughters from rape

and in Sri Lanka, where rates of early marriage are normally relatively low, girls have been married to protect them from recruitment into militia
I added the break for clarity. Is that sufficient?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8658
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:40 am UTC

Sizik wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:On a side note, would anyone consider expanding statutory rape laws to include the case of the boss and underling? In most companies, it's against HR policy for a manager to date an underling, and in the US military it's illegal, but I don't know if I'd like it enshrined in law.


What abuses would that cover that existing sexual harassment laws don't?


Go prove it in court that it was harassment.

Rape laws already covered the rape of a teenage, but we added the statutory rape laws so there wouldn't even be a question or he-said-she-said.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5774
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:54 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Rape laws already covered the rape of a teenage, but we added the statutory rape laws so there wouldn't even be a question or he-said-she-said.

That doesn't sound right at all. Statutory rape is based on the idea that minors can't give consent. So the whole point is to jail an adult who convinced a child/teen to love him and by love, they mean sex.

What's wrong with my use of rape in a sentence? Maybe I implied that most underage marriages were rapey?

elasto
Posts: 3086
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:37 am UTC

There's no denying there is a logical inconsistency at the heart of it though. Noone would claim that two 15yo's having sex both raped each other through neither being able to give consent. More likely the consent was highly enthusiastic!

To me it's obviously about the inherent power imbalance: It's impossible to know that a 15yo consenting to having sex with someone older has done so for a 'good' reason - like mutual love and respect - rather than a 'bad' reason, like being manipulated.

But that reasoning applies equally to a 15yo marrying imo - as well as applying to doctor/patient, teacher/pupil and boss/underling.

It also spills over into a moral judgement on how and when adult women are 'allowed' to choose to have sex - with 'having sex for money' receiving widespread disapproval - even from feminists who otherwise champion a woman's 'right to choose' - or just being made outright illegal.

Sure, we can all draw the line in different places (personally I think this marriage 'loophole' should be banned also, as I think most 15yo's marring 40yo's would not do so absent outside pressure) but let's not pretend 15yo's, patients, pupils and underlings can't give informed consent for sex. To me it's plain they can. Personally I think it should still be banned but the legal language used made more, um, rational, for want of a better term.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby orthogon » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:38 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:It's entirely possible for a 14 year old and 40 year old to be in love. The issue is that in most such unions, or at least a large enough number of such unions, it's abusive rather than healthy. So society has made it illegal by statute. Sure, a few people who truly would be in a healthy relationship are screwed over, but they lose out less than the rest of society gains.

That's quite a utilitarian argument, though. In modern liberal democracies, issues of private sexuality are usually approached from a rights-based perspective. Those individuals have been denied one of their human rights for the greater good, though it's true that the "greater good" in this case is referring to the rights of other individuals as opposed to some general aggregated wellbeing of all society. Perhaps that makes it a balance-of-rights case (like some free speech corner cases, or freedom of religion vs freedom of sexuality).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

morriswalters
Posts: 6887
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:29 am UTC

sardia wrote:Apparently child marriage laws have loopholes that allow, among other things, parents to marry off their children to their rapists.
This is what set me off. It's inflammatory, and if nothing else this implies you didn't read the source material very closely. The article, while citing New Jersey marriage statistics, was supported by papers which referred mainly to immigrants behavior. Overall in the US this is discouraged behavior by the mainstream. Ask Jerry Lee Lewis. And thus the prevalence of statutory rape legislation in the first place. That 167 ended up in family court speaks to the sensitivity of the event. Would you go in front of a judge to ask him to marry your daughter to an old man?
elasto wrote:There's no denying there is a logical inconsistency at the heart of it though. Noone would claim that two 15yo's having sex both raped each other through neither being able to give /informed/ consent. More likely the consent was highly enthusiastic!
FTFY. Thus said my 16 year old grand daughter when she became pregnant and wanted to marry the father.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25740
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:38 am UTC

The fact that it's discouraged by the mainstream doesn't contradict the fact that, among other things, the legal loopholes allow parents to marry off their children to their rapists.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8658
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:44 am UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Rape laws already covered the rape of a teenage, but we added the statutory rape laws so there wouldn't even be a question or he-said-she-said.

That doesn't sound right at all. Statutory rape is based on the idea that minors can't give consent. So the whole point is to jail an adult who convinced a child/teen to love him and by love, they mean sex.

What's wrong with my use of rape in a sentence? Maybe I implied that most underage marriages were rapey?


Then why have an age of consent different from age of majority? And why have the Romeo and Juliet clause (legal if close in age)?

There's likely more than one reason of course, and this argument is getting a bit off topic. Can we just agree that a middle aged person having sex with a young teenager is icky, should be illegal, and leave it at that?

gmalivuk wrote:The fact that it's discouraged by the mainstream doesn't contradict the fact that, among other things, the legal loopholes allow parents to marry off their children to their rapists.


I do not know what fraction of child marriages are covering-ups of rapists, but I will agree that the potential for abuse is there, and marriage should be restricted to age of majority.

speising
Posts: 2047
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby speising » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:50 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The fact that it's discouraged by the mainstream doesn't contradict the fact that, among other things, the legal loopholes allow parents to marry off their children to their rapists.

That's not a loophole. Adults can marry their rapists, too, if they want. The whole "rape" angle is a complete fabrication not supported by the article, anyway.
Especially if we're talking about highly religious US people, it seems rather more likely that the girls didn't have any sex before marriage at all, willing or not.
Also, i don't really like the linguistic conflation of statutory rape with "normal" rape. Yes, sex between legal minors and adults is a problematic subject, but it's not anywhere near a violent rape, as long as there was consent, however uninformed.
Best example for that is that it is in some legislations perfectly legal to have sex between a 16 and a 17 yo, but when the latter turns 18, it's suddenly illegal.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5774
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:29 pm UTC

speising wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The fact that it's discouraged by the mainstream doesn't contradict the fact that, among other things, the legal loopholes allow parents to marry off their children to their rapists.

That's not a loophole. Adults can marry their rapists, too, if they want. The whole "rape" angle is a complete fabrication not supported by the article, anyway.
Especially if we're talking about highly religious US people, it seems rather more likely that the girls didn't have any sex before marriage at all, willing or not.
Also, i don't really like the linguistic conflation of statutory rape with "normal" rape. Yes, sex between legal minors and adults is a problematic subject, but it's not anywhere near a violent rape, as long as there was consent, however uninformed.
Best example for that is that it is in some legislations perfectly legal to have sex between a 16 and a 17 yo, but when the latter turns 18, it's suddenly illegal.

At the risk of being even more off topic, most rape isnt violent. Maybe you're thinking of movie style rape where the girl is being hurt and crying loudly and there's physical violence. There's also college style rape where you get a girl drunk and then have sex. Or the rape where you keep pressuring the girl to have sex and she let's you have sex even though she didn't want it. Much harder to prove in court.

CU, yea this child marriage stuff gets icky fast.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7469
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:43 pm UTC

OK I'm gonna call a huge pile of heaping bullshit. Surely what you meant to say "Rape is physical as well as emotional violence, but more often than not victims and perpetrators don't attack each other with fists or kicks". Because saying "rape isn't violent" is an appalling distortion of reality.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5774
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:01 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:OK I'm gonna call a huge pile of heaping bullshit. Surely what you meant to say "Rape is physical as well as emotional violence, but more often than not victims and perpetrators don't attack each other with fists or kicks". Because saying "rape isn't violent" is an appalling distortion of reality.

Yes, I'm saying victims and perpetrators don't always attack each other with fists and kicks. However, I don't agree with the first part of your sentence. It's too narrow.
Is a non responsive person having sex a rape victim count? Does it include minors? Campus rapes really opens up rape definitions beyond a stereotypical brutalized girl and a thug male suspect.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ObsessoMom » Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:16 pm UTC

Not sure where to put this one. I guess the fact that this sort of blatant male entitlement is still a thing in this day and age is kinda dark, even though this particular ruling went against it:

Flight stewards working for Israel’s national carrier El Al cannot request female passengers to move seats to accommodate ultra-orthodox men who do not want to sit next to them, a court has ruled.

The landmark case was brought by 82-year old Holocaust survivor Renee Rabinowitz, who sued the airline for discrimination after being asked to move seats to accommodate an ultra-orthodox male passenger in 2015. When she challenged the practice, she was told by staff that the policy had been approved at board level.

Describing the controversial practice as “discriminatory”, judge Dana Cohen-Lekah ruled that “under absolutely no circumstances can a crew member ask a passenger to move from their designated seat because the adjacent passenger doesn’t want to sit next to them due to their gender”.

[...]

The sight of flight attendants asking female passengers to move so ultra-orthodox men do not have inadvertent physical contact with women is a familiar sight on flights in and out of Israel.

In February, 10 ultra-orthodox passengers stood in the aisles and refused to take their seats, causing a delay on an easyJet flight to the UK before female passengers agreed to move so the flight could leave.

Similar incidents have occurred on flights from the US, including a Delta flight in New York which was delayed in 2014 after male ultra-orthodox passengers refused to sit next to women.

[...]

In an interview with the Guardian last year, Rabinowitz said: “The man had no other reason to complain than my gender – and that’s unlawful discrimination. It’s no different than if a person of another religion had said: ‘I don’t want to sit next to a Jew.’ And I don’t believe El Al would move a person in those circumstances.

“I asked the flight attendant point blank if the man sitting next to me had asked me to be moved, and unabashedly he said yes. I then went back to the man and said: ‘I’m an 81-year-old woman, what’s your problem?’

“He started to tell me it was forbidden by the Torah. I interrupted him to say the Torah says nothing about a man sitting next to a woman. He conceded I was right but said there was a general principle that a person should not put himself in a dangerous situation.”


Dangerous situation? Sputter, sputter...the general principle seems to be that society should accommodate repressed heterosexual men's inability to control their sexythoughts about women (even 81-year-old women). Fortunately, the judge thought otherwise.

link

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2379
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:26 pm UTC

I've a feeling this could use a thread of its own.

A non-responsive (assuming you mean unconscious, though needn't be) recipient of intercourse probably, certain fetishes aside, never wanted it to happen. All the problems of sex, without the pleasure, for a start. That it might not be injurious to the person (no tensions being expressed, and let's assume this isn't a 'first time' and that there's sufficient lubrication by either application or stimulation) but there's likely a crime. Relate it to the 'borrowing' of someone's car, without any attempt to ask first. Sure, you fueled it back up, didn't crash into anything, didn't commit any felonies with it (unrelated to likely being without legitimately covering insurance, etc) but it's a "hey, dood... Why'd you do that?" moment. And that is understating the problem of 'borrowing' someone else's body, even assuming that they are normally happy to knowingly so transact an informal agreement towards the same sort of ends... (A good friend who says "if I'm out and you need my truck, you know where I keep the keys, just be careful, Ok, and don't get caught speeding..." is a step towards being analogous to a trusting relationship where sleepy-sex is allowed, even expected. But even that has boundaries and isn't even an automatic right in a marriage, either practice, but really should be mentioned as acceptable prior to being taken advantage of.)

I'm a little fed up with this monorailed discussion, honestly. Almost hoping for another Darker News item to come in and become the new discussion topic. But there's been several things that I might have replied to about, and I'm making my (one, hopefully) interjection on this sub-subject right here just by the luck of the draw...


Oh look, ninjaed by a new subject. Not too dark, either. Glad they resolved that, I heard about the original case a while ago.
Last edited by Soupspoon on Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:32 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby HES » Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:31 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:Not sure where to put this one. I guess the fact that this sort of blatant male entitlement is still a thing in this day and age is kinda dark, even though this particular ruling went against it:

Spoiler:
Flight stewards working for Israel’s national carrier El Al cannot request female passengers to move seats to accommodate ultra-orthodox men who do not want to sit next to them, a court has ruled.

The landmark case was brought by 82-year old Holocaust survivor Renee Rabinowitz, who sued the airline for discrimination after being asked to move seats to accommodate an ultra-orthodox male passenger in 2015. When she challenged the practice, she was told by staff that the policy had been approved at board level.

Describing the controversial practice as “discriminatory”, judge Dana Cohen-Lekah ruled that “under absolutely no circumstances can a crew member ask a passenger to move from their designated seat because the adjacent passenger doesn’t want to sit next to them due to their gender”.

[...]

The sight of flight attendants asking female passengers to move so ultra-orthodox men do not have inadvertent physical contact with women is a familiar sight on flights in and out of Israel.

In February, 10 ultra-orthodox passengers stood in the aisles and refused to take their seats, causing a delay on an easyJet flight to the UK before female passengers agreed to move so the flight could leave.

Similar incidents have occurred on flights from the US, including a Delta flight in New York which was delayed in 2014 after male ultra-orthodox passengers refused to sit next to women.

[...]

In an interview with the Guardian last year, Rabinowitz said: “The man had no other reason to complain than my gender – and that’s unlawful discrimination. It’s no different than if a person of another religion had said: ‘I don’t want to sit next to a Jew.’ And I don’t believe El Al would move a person in those circumstances.

“I asked the flight attendant point blank if the man sitting next to me had asked me to be moved, and unabashedly he said yes. I then went back to the man and said: ‘I’m an 81-year-old woman, what’s your problem?’

“He started to tell me it was forbidden by the Torah. I interrupted him to say the Torah says nothing about a man sitting next to a woman. He conceded I was right but said there was a general principle that a person should not put himself in a dangerous situation.”


Dangerous situation? Sputter, sputter...the general principle seems to be that society should accommodate repressed heterosexual men's inability to control their sexythoughts about women (even 81-year-old women). Fortunately, the judge thought otherwise.

link

If the man has a problem, move the man. Preferably off the plane. I'm glad the judges saw sense.
He/Him/His Image

speising
Posts: 2047
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby speising » Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:38 pm UTC

HES wrote:
ObsessoMom wrote:Not sure where to put this one. I guess the fact that this sort of blatant male entitlement is still a thing in this day and age is kinda dark, even though this particular ruling went against it:

Spoiler:
Flight stewards working for Israel’s national carrier El Al cannot request female passengers to move seats to accommodate ultra-orthodox men who do not want to sit next to them, a court has ruled.

The landmark case was brought by 82-year old Holocaust survivor Renee Rabinowitz, who sued the airline for discrimination after being asked to move seats to accommodate an ultra-orthodox male passenger in 2015. When she challenged the practice, she was told by staff that the policy had been approved at board level.

Describing the controversial practice as “discriminatory”, judge Dana Cohen-Lekah ruled that “under absolutely no circumstances can a crew member ask a passenger to move from their designated seat because the adjacent passenger doesn’t want to sit next to them due to their gender”.

[...]

The sight of flight attendants asking female passengers to move so ultra-orthodox men do not have inadvertent physical contact with women is a familiar sight on flights in and out of Israel.

In February, 10 ultra-orthodox passengers stood in the aisles and refused to take their seats, causing a delay on an easyJet flight to the UK before female passengers agreed to move so the flight could leave.

Similar incidents have occurred on flights from the US, including a Delta flight in New York which was delayed in 2014 after male ultra-orthodox passengers refused to sit next to women.

[...]

In an interview with the Guardian last year, Rabinowitz said: “The man had no other reason to complain than my gender – and that’s unlawful discrimination. It’s no different than if a person of another religion had said: ‘I don’t want to sit next to a Jew.’ And I don’t believe El Al would move a person in those circumstances.

“I asked the flight attendant point blank if the man sitting next to me had asked me to be moved, and unabashedly he said yes. I then went back to the man and said: ‘I’m an 81-year-old woman, what’s your problem?’

“He started to tell me it was forbidden by the Torah. I interrupted him to say the Torah says nothing about a man sitting next to a woman. He conceded I was right but said there was a general principle that a person should not put himself in a dangerous situation.”


Dangerous situation? Sputter, sputter...the general principle seems to be that society should accommodate repressed heterosexual men's inability to control their sexythoughts about women (even 81-year-old women). Fortunately, the judge thought otherwise.

link

If the man has a problem, move the man. Preferably off the plane. I'm glad the judges saw sense.


What amazes me the most is that an israeli airline doesn't have a standing procedure for this problem. Shouldn't they have an option on checkin for that, like "vegetarian meal", or "extra legspace", if they have to deal with that frequently?
(also, that the court didn't rate "religious freedom" higher than discrimination.)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7469
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:43 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Is a non responsive person having sex a rape victim count? Does it include minors? Campus rapes really opens up rape definitions beyond a stereotypical brutalized girl and a thug male suspect.

I don't see how that contradicts my point.

Flight crew stuff in Israel

That stuff happens ALL THE TIME in flights to Israel and it's absolutely ridiculous. It's one of the main reasons I don't fly El Al, but it happens in other airlines flying to/from Israel. Glad there's finally a judge's ruling on this crap. If people want to make sure no women sits next to them they should buy the adjacent seat.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

morriswalters
Posts: 6887
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:52 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The fact that it's discouraged by the mainstream doesn't contradict the fact that, among other things, the legal loopholes allow parents to marry off their children to their rapists.
Okay.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8658
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:16 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:A good friend who says "if I'm out and you need my truck, you know where I keep the keys, just be careful, Ok, and don't get caught speeding..." is a step towards being analogous to a trusting relationship where sleepy-sex is allowed, even expected.


Is it just me, or does the other person not being aware kind of take away most of the point of sex, where you derive enjoyment from someone else enjoying you? Might as well just wank one off if the person is asleep.


RE: El Al and judge

My family has a story regarding this. A bunch of Chassidic men were refusing to sit down, and an elderly woman could've solved the problem by moving, but she didn't and said she had some medical thing or whatever. The pilot basically said "everyone sit down or you get booted off the flight", at which point the Rebbe told them to sit down (the Chassids don't think for themselves). My grandmother asked the old lady what the problem was, and she responded that she and her kids were all IDF vets, and that until the Chassids pay taxes she wasn't going to move one inch for their sake.

Yeah, most Israelis hate the Chassids.

Chen
Posts: 5221
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:40 pm UTC

I was wondering how they managed to make it illegal to even ask to move seats, but it appears its only illegal for the airline employees to ask, the passengers can still ask themselves. Seems quite fair to me.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5444
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:44 pm UTC

Wait, they ask another person to move seats instead of just asking to move to another seat themselves?
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7469
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:51 pm UTC

Well usually it's "I can't sit in this spot" and just expecting someone else to solve the issue. As CorruptUser has said, most Israelis do not like the Orthodox.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Mutex
Posts: 1001
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Mutex » Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:57 pm UTC

How come they don't pay tax? What sort of tax do they avoid?

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:07 pm UTC

Articles possibly relevant by way of "cultural melting pot" effect:

Rape victims should marry their rapists, Malaysian MP tells parliament

Former sharia judge Datuk Shabudin Yahaya made the comments at the Houses of Parliament during a debate over a bill on sexual offences against children.

While he acknowledged rape as a criminal offence, Yahaya suggested that rapists and their victims could solve social problems and “turn a new leaf” by getting married.

“Perhaps through marriage they can lead a healthier, better life. And the person who was raped does not necessarily have a bleak future. She will have a husband, at least, and this could serve as a remedy to growing social problems,” he was quoted in the local daily, the Star.

An MP from Barisan National – the coalition that has ruled Malaysia since independence from Britain in 1957 – Yahaya also suggested that girls as young as 12 might be “spiritually and physically” ready for marriage.


Women in Lebanon protest law allowing rapists to marry their victims to escape punishment

The outdated statute from the 1940s currently says that rape is punishable by up to seven years in prison. The penalty for raping a minor or someone with mental or physical disabilities is higher - but Article 522 of the law creates a loophole which says that criminal prosecution is suspended if the two people involved get married.

Inside parliament, supporters of the article said that marriage was a way to save the honour of a raped woman, suggesting that if the law is rewritten, wedding an attacker could be left as an option for families to choose if they wished.


‘Concept of marital rape can’t be applied in Indian context’: Maneka Gandhi

“It is considered that the concept of marital rape, as understood internationally, cannot be suitably applied in the Indian context due to various factors like level of education/illiteracy, poverty, myriad social customs and values, religious beliefs, mindset of the society to treat the marriage as a sacrament, etc.,” she said in a written reply in the Upper House in response to a question on whether the government plans to criminalise marital rape.

The government’s stand on marital rape hasn’t changed even though a recent report submitted by amicus curiae Indira Jaising to the Supreme Court had called for criminalising the offence. The report had recommended that exception 2 of Section 375 of the IPC, as per which any form of intercourse by a man with his wife, who is not under 15 years of age, is not rape, must be done away with.


Without consent: the truth about forced marriage

Ali was taken to Pakistan from Britain and forced to marry at 13; at 14, she was a mother. She gave birth here, yet not one professional questioned her plight, or considered child abuse. Wouldn't a law raise awareness? No, says Ali. Asian girls are too reluctant to publicly oppose their own families. Ali was put in a children's home at six months old but brought back to the family home at the age of seven. Her mother beat her, verbally abused her and made her the family's domestic servant. Yet Ali says she would never have resorted to legal action. Why? "Because I didn't hate her. I still cared about her."

Sairah, the woman who sleeps with a lock on her door, was 15 when her parents asked if she wanted to get engaged to a 16-year-old cousin Kabir in Pakistan. She thought they were joking. She had moved from England to a small Scottish village and they had heard about her crush on a white boy in school. Once a white boyfriend became a possibility, Sairah was told her family's honour rested on her engagement. To buy time, she agreed to consider it, but that was interpreted as consent and a flow of congratulatory calls from family ensued. Her parents calmed her protests. Nothing was settled; they would go to Pakistan to meet her cousin. She spent her 15th birthday in Pakistan and what she thought was her birthday party turned into her engagement party. Her cousin Kabir who had been oblivious to the wedding plans, simply accepted it when he was told.

Sairah once told her mother she did not sleep with Kabir. Rather than blaming herself for her daughter's sad situation, her mother screamed and wept and said it was shameful. "She thought I was the devil and it was one of the most outrageous sins ever."
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Chen
Posts: 5221
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:12 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Well usually it's "I can't sit in this spot" and just expecting someone else to solve the issue. As CorruptUser has said, most Israelis do not like the Orthodox.


It's technically easier to seat the other person elsewhere as well since they, presumably, don't have a restriction on who they sit next to. Presumably this is quicker which is why the airlines mainly do it. It's just a request, but I can see why they made making the request illegal since the airline people are generally able to give "orders" (for lack of a better word) when you're onboard.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7469
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:16 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:How come they don't pay tax? What sort of tax do they avoid?

They make very little money and get enormous subsidies from the government, both directly and indirectly as infrastructure. They're a huge lobbying force, both in the commerce as well as political domain. That's one of the reasons El Al has to cater for them - if El Al stops being the airline of choice for Orthodox Jews, it will lose a huge amount of business.

Re: Chen - it's not just that the airline tries to push people to comply, it's that the people objecting to this will not sit down in their seats and are delaying the departure of the flight, sometimes by over an hour. No one ever tells them "Either sit here or get off the plane".
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8658
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:25 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
Mutex wrote:How come they don't pay tax? What sort of tax do they avoid?

They make very little money and get enormous subsidies from the government, both directly and indirectly as infrastructure. They're a huge lobbying force, both in the commerce as well as political domain. That's one of the reasons El Al has to cater for them - if El Al stops being the airline of choice for Orthodox Jews, it will lose a huge amount of business.

Re: Chen - it's not just that the airline tries to push people to comply, it's that the people objecting to this will not sit down in their seats and are delaying the departure of the flight, sometimes by over an hour. No one ever tells them "Either sit here or get off the plane".


They make very little money but can still afford international flights? Hah! The reality is that they do make money but it's in all cash businesses and the government can't do anything because like you said, huge lobbying force.

Chen
Posts: 5221
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:26 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Re: Chen - it's not just that the airline tries to push people to comply, it's that the people objecting to this will not sit down in their seats and are delaying the departure of the flight, sometimes by over an hour. No one ever tells them "Either sit here or get off the plane".


True, but this ruling doesn't change that. The individuals themselves are still allowed to make the requests so presumably they'll also stand their belligerently wanting other people to move until they get their way.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7469
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:41 pm UTC

Right, but the airline could start thinking twice about how it deals with these sorts of cases if it starts costing it money, and it could start asking people off the plane if they're unwilling to comply.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: addams, elasto, Thesh and 25 guests