"Virgin shaming": I know we have a lot of "but what about men's problems?" people out there.

[BiscuitTrouser]

This isn't a case of men getting longer sentences. It's a case of women getting shorter sentences. Obviously, if you look back in history the sentences given were inhuman and they have been reduced as people began to become more civil and crime rates dropped. Seeing that the crime rates of women dropped down to such miniscule levels it was decided that there were no negative effects to reducing sentences on women. One thing you may not have realized is that to keep a person in prison costs money to the taxpayers. This is obviously a very big concern and if decreasing the sentences is going to save something around 50 billion dollars with absolutely no negative repercusions I would think it is an unwise government indeed that didn't even consider it.

It doesnt matter what way around this is. You think. That in a court of law. People should get. Different scentences. Because of what genetalia they own. You are a sexist. How can we even deny this.

It doesnt matter "how many people commit a murder from group A" you cant reduce the scentence based on that! If one woman in a single year, only one commited a murder it would be a scentence of ONE day apparently. It should be the same scentence as if a MAN commited a murder. As if anyone did. The fact that a minority or whatever commits it less does NOT affect how serious the crime is! And thus shouldnt affect societies repercussions for that action! Its pretty obvious too that scetence length isnt a deterrent because countries with the death penalty do not see reduced crime rates.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

This isn't a case of men getting longer sentences. It's a case of women getting shorter sentences. Obviously, if you look back in history the sentences given were inhuman and they have been reduced as people began to become more civil and crime rates dropped. Seeing that the crime rates of women dropped down to such miniscule levels it was decided that there were no negative effects to reducing sentences on women. One thing you may not have realized is that to keep a person in prison costs money to the taxpayers. This is obviously a very big concern and if decreasing the sentences is going to save something around 50 billion dollars with absolutely no negative repercusions I would think it is an unwise government indeed that didn't even consider it.

It doesnt matter what way around this is. You think. That in a court of law. People should get. Different scentences. Because of what genetalia they own. You are a sexist. How can we even deny this. It doesnt matter "how many people commit a murder from group A" you cant reduce the scentence based on that! If one woman commited a murder it would be a scentence of ONE day. It would be the same scentence as if a MAN commited a murder. As if anyone did. The fact that a minority or whatever commits it less does NOT affect how serious the crime is! And thus shouldnt affect societies repercussions for that action! Its pretty obvious too that scetence length isnt a deterrent because countries with the death penalty do not see reduced crime rates.

So you are saying we should eliminate the prison system? You obviously have an alternative that works better so I'd like to hear it.

Its called the nothing works theory. As long as a punishment is there of any kind crime falls somewhat but huge scentences dont deter anything since criminals never commit a crime on the basis of being caught. If this was the case wed see VERY low theft in countries where theft results in the loss of the hand. We do not. These people do NOT steal and think "what if my hand is chopped off?" They think "im going to steal and fuck me if im caught cus ill lose a hand, so ill just get away with it". No one assumes they will suffer the punishment. Thats the mindset of the criminal. There's huge amounts of evidence for this if youd like 10 or so links on the subject. I dont know what to replace it with. I just know it doesnt work. I can offer conclusions based on evidence but not solutions seeing as i know little about how to plan and build a law system.

And you ignored my other points? Cmon at least address the obvious sexism. The idea that "if a group commits less crimes scentences should be lower" is fucking lunatic. It doesnt even make any sense. So if ONE dangerous woman murders 90 people and thats the only women murder her scentence should be light? No! Its not about how many are doing it. Its about punishing those that do and hopefully reforming them. And splitting who gets what on basis of dick or vagina is sexist.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

This isn't a case of men getting longer sentences. It's a case of women getting shorter sentences. Obviously, if you look back in history the sentences given were inhuman and they have been reduced as people began to become more civil and crime rates dropped. Seeing that the crime rates of women dropped down to such miniscule levels it was decided that there were no negative effects to reducing sentences on women. One thing you may not have realized is that to keep a person in prison costs money to the taxpayers. This is obviously a very big concern and if decreasing the sentences is going to save something around 50 billion dollars with absolutely no negative repercusions I would think it is an unwise government indeed that didn't even consider it.

It doesnt matter what way around this is. You think. That in a court of law. People should get. Different scentences. Because of what genetalia they own. You are a sexist. How can we even deny this. It doesnt matter "how many people commit a murder from group A" you cant reduce the scentence based on that! If one woman commited a murder it would be a scentence of ONE day. It would be the same scentence as if a MAN commited a murder. As if anyone did. The fact that a minority or whatever commits it less does NOT affect how serious the crime is! And thus shouldnt affect societies repercussions for that action! Its pretty obvious too that scetence length isnt a deterrent because countries with the death penalty do not see reduced crime rates.

So you are saying we should eliminate the prison system? You obviously have an alternative that works better so I'd like to hear it.

Its called the nothing works theory. As long as a punishment is there of any kind crime falls somewhat but huge scentences dont deter anything since criminals never commit a crime on the basis of being caught. If this was the case wed see VERY low theft in countries where theft results in the loss of the hand. We do not. These people do NOT steal and think "what if my hand is chopped off?" They think "im going to steal and fuck me if im caught cus ill lose a hand, so ill just get away with it". No one assumes they will suffer the punishment. Thats the mindset of the criminal. There's huge amounts of evidence for this if youd like 10 or so links on the subject. I dont know what to replace it with. I just know it doesnt work. I can offer conclusions based on evidence but not solutions seeing as i know little about how to plan and build a law system.

And you ignored my other points? Cmon at least address the obvious sexism. The idea that "if a group commits less crimes scentences should be lower" is fucking lunatic. It doesnt even make any sense. So if ONE dangerous woman murders 90 people and thats the only women murder her scentence should be light? No! Its not about how many are doing it. Its about punishing those that do and hopefully reforming them. And splitting who gets what on basis of dick or vagina is sexist.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there isn't there death penalty in the US for a woman who kills 90 people? If so, wtf are you talking about?

Im confused as to what arguement you are trying to make, its good how you address one point to try and avoid the other good points as to why what you are saying is rediculous. Im saying that we punish and should punish based on action and not on how many of the groups that the criminal belong to tend to re offend or commit crimes.

Im saying that if we use your awesome idea that we should let women off with lighter scentences because less of them are criminals why shouldnt we, in this hypothetical scenario, punish this woman less. It was a hypothetical thing in which we had only a single woman in an entire year commit a terrible crime but using the logic that, if less are criminals scentences should be lighter, her punishment shouldnt be severe.

 

[Sandjube]

I dont think anyone is "unpure" or "corrupted" if they have had sex

Bah, and I was all set on charging in yelling "Corrupt me, defile me, make me unpure, PLEASE!"

Well, you can still do that. In fact, put on some fake elf ears, wave an inflatable sword around, and call me "Kirkronicus the Terrible" while you do it, and you've got yourself a date.

........Wait, did I say that out loud?

Sounds like a plan. Your place or mine?

OT: LOLno. Getting involved in any of these gender/sex based threads just seems like a terrible, terrible idea. Good day.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Sorry if this is seen as low content but the the only thing I have to say is "lol, teenage problems". This isn't an issue to anyone whose grown up.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

I don't shame people for having sex with lots of people, but I do look down on it, for both sexes. I can't help it, but to me, sex is something important, and it should be about connecting and sharing vulnerability with somebody you care about. Sure, a lot of people would probably think I'm a dinosaur for that outlook, but I don't care. Just like they shouldn't care about what I think.

 

[Frankster]

Sorry if this is seen as low content but the the only thing I have to say is "lol, teenage problems". This isn't an issue to anyone whose grown up.

I'd argue its especially an issue to those who have grown up and are still virgins

Otherwise kinda agree with OPs assessment, for women having too many sexual partners is frowned upon and can be looked down via slut shaming. The male equivalent is indeed virgin shaming which is rife with stigma (look at the poster i just quoted who dismisses it as merely a problem for teenage males, that once you past that stage it's obvious all guys got laid cos thats what us guys do, put our dick in things) and follows its own protocols and stereotypes.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

This isn't a case of men getting longer sentences. It's a case of women getting shorter sentences. Obviously, if you look back in history the sentences given were inhuman and they have been reduced as people began to become more civil and crime rates dropped. Seeing that the crime rates of women dropped down to such miniscule levels it was decided that there were no negative effects to reducing sentences on women. One thing you may not have realized is that to keep a person in prison costs money to the taxpayers. This is obviously a very big concern and if decreasing the sentences is going to save something around 50 billion dollars with absolutely no negative repercusions I would think it is an unwise government indeed that didn't even consider it.

It doesnt matter what way around this is. You think. That in a court of law. People should get. Different scentences. Because of what genetalia they own. You are a sexist. How can we even deny this. It doesnt matter "how many people commit a murder from group A" you cant reduce the scentence based on that! If one woman commited a murder it would be a scentence of ONE day. It would be the same scentence as if a MAN commited a murder. As if anyone did. The fact that a minority or whatever commits it less does NOT affect how serious the crime is! And thus shouldnt affect societies repercussions for that action! Its pretty obvious too that scetence length isnt a deterrent because countries with the death penalty do not see reduced crime rates.

So you are saying we should eliminate the prison system? You obviously have an alternative that works better so I'd like to hear it.

Its called the nothing works theory. As long as a punishment is there of any kind crime falls somewhat but huge scentences dont deter anything since criminals never commit a crime on the basis of being caught. If this was the case wed see VERY low theft in countries where theft results in the loss of the hand. We do not. These people do NOT steal and think "what if my hand is chopped off?" They think "im going to steal and fuck me if im caught cus ill lose a hand, so ill just get away with it". No one assumes they will suffer the punishment. Thats the mindset of the criminal. There's huge amounts of evidence for this if youd like 10 or so links on the subject. I dont know what to replace it with. I just know it doesnt work. I can offer conclusions based on evidence but not solutions seeing as i know little about how to plan and build a law system.

And you ignored my other points? Cmon at least address the obvious sexism. The idea that "if a group commits less crimes scentences should be lower" is fucking lunatic. It doesnt even make any sense. So if ONE dangerous woman murders 90 people and thats the only women murder her scentence should be light? No! Its not about how many are doing it. Its about punishing those that do and hopefully reforming them. And splitting who gets what on basis of dick or vagina is sexist.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there isn't there death penalty in the US for a woman who kills 90 people? If so, wtf are you talking about?

Im confused as to what arguement you are trying to make, its good how you address one point to try and avoid the other good points as to why what you are saying is rediculous. Im saying that we punish and should punish based on action and not on how many of the groups that the criminal belong to tend to re offend or commit crimes.

Im saying that if we use your awesome idea that we should let women off with lighter scentences because less of them are criminals why shouldnt we, in this hypothetical scenario, punish this woman less. It was a hypothetical thing in which we had only a single woman in an entire year commit a terrible crime but using the logic that, if less are criminals scentences should be lighter, her punishment shouldnt be severe.

If you asked me, I would say that the prison system punishes women more harshly than men. As I said, I believe in prison as rehabilitation. Most women have to serve sentences longer than what it takes to rehabilitate them while men have much shorter sentences. That seems unfair to me.

Imagine that we installed a different system. Imagine that for any crime you committed, you were put in jail for however long it took to rehabilitate you, however after 5 years of no results you would get the death penalty. Notice how up until this point I haven't said anything about gender. However, with this system the majority of people going to death row would be men while women would not even need to stay the whole 5 years. Now I ask you. Which system is fairer? I think the system we have right now favours men. I obviously don't think it's ideal. I'm not very interested in the prison system mind you. I think looking at punishment and rehabilitation to solve social problems is a fatalistic and slow approach. I'm a much greater fan of actually educating people into being better citizens not tempted so easily by crime to solve their problems. A massive part of feminism deals with educating future generations to be better. The day men are taught to not be implusive retards and the crime rate drops will be the day we can have real equality.

This is getting rediculous. Men get 40% more jail time. Women get a LOT of breaks in the eyes of the law. How can you say that the prison system is UNFAIR TO WOMEN WHEN IT SO OBVIOUSLY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST MEN. You are falling back on your "all men are thieves" bigotry and it just doesnt hold in intellectual discussion. Prove it. Prove this "the majority of people going to death row would be men while women would not even need to stay the whole 5 years" is any more than wishfull thinking and guesswork.

http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/statistics.php

"51% of women leaving prison are reconvicted within one year ? for those serving sentences of less than 12 months this increases to 62%. For those women who have served more than 10previous custodial sentences the reoffending raterises to 88%."

Looks like we are going to have quite a few women on death row in your system aye?

Please tell me where i am going wrong.

1. You believe people in court should be treated differently based on their genetalia due to the average actions of people with said genetalia.

2. They should be grouped together and punished/tried seperately in these groups and be viewed as different in the eyes of the law.

3. Its ok to generalise that men are usually worse and as such punish them more.

4. The above system is unfair to women since men deserve this punishment and more while women deserve lighter scentences than they already get, 40% isnt enough.

Lets get one thing very straight. You dont want men to be treated the same as women. You dont want them to be equal and the same in law. You want inequality between men and women. That is sexist. How can you possibly refute this. You havnt even tried once.

This is loony.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

You realize you want women to rot in prison longer because it will make you feel better and not because it will a sort of benefit, right?

I realize i want both men and women to spend the appropriate time in prison decided by the nature of their crime rather than the time being assumed from what is between their legs. No one is generalised, everyone is analysed and imprisoned accordingly. You have yet to provide any evidence that women reform faster. I provided evidence they do not. Your move.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

You realize you want women to rot in prison longer because it will make you feel better and not because it will a sort of benefit, right?

I realize i want both men and women to spend the appriate time in prison decided by the nature of their crime rather than the time being assumed from what is between their legs. You have yet to provide any evidence that women reform faster. I provided evidence they do not. Your move.

But I just explained to you why they do spend the appropriate time in jail according to how long it takes to make sure they don't commit the crime again and how serious the punishment has to be to disuade potential criminals from breaking the law because they deemed it as worth it. FYI, the amount of time you spend in jail isn't decided by the nature of the crime; the only people who still think that is a good idea are islamic extremists.

Nonsense the implication there was the nature of the crime is a good indication of if you will reoffend. Notice i said "nature" not "what the crime was and nothing else". A sadistic phycopathic murderer will likely reoffend. Someone doing a one off illegal thing probably wont. Its about motivation and context when i say "nature". People should be jugded based on what was commited, why it was commited and how it was commited and then punished accordingly.

Ive already shown harshness of punishment doesnt prevent crime. I have already asked you to demonstrate that women always reform faster than men and that rather than judging each individual seperately and free of gender roles its better for everyone to assume based on gender and set punishments like that. You have not.

http://inthenews.berkeleylawblogs.org/2009/11/04/jonathan-simon-says-harsh-punishments-dont-deter-crime/

There are literally HUNDREDS of articles showing harsh punishments dont deter criminals.

It also looks like we are Islamic Extremists seeing as we punish murderers more than shoplifters despite the fact the murderer might not ever do it again and the shoplifter will.

Why is the gender role of "cant cook" wrong but the gender role of "criminal and bad father" ok?

And again i would ask would it be fair to give black people harsher scentences because they reoffend more and commit more crimes?

 

[Colour Scientist]

Actually, the dildo was invented millennia ago. The vibrator was a Victorian invention. (Almost) all vibrators are dildos; not anywhere near all dildos are (or were, at any rate) vibrators. Other than that, I don't really have anything to disagree with in this post.

Just to nit-pick, the Victorian period was roughly 150 years ago, not 1000.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Well, as you have said then, that is how the la works so I don't see the problem. And it's interesting that you have apparently proven that the prison system is useless. If it is as useless as you claim it is I don't know why you want the punishment for women raised instead of the whole thing abolished. It's funny though, I must be completely crazy because I often want to punch people or take things that aren't mine just to realize if I did so I would probably be punished which effectively deters me from doing so. Weird, isn't it?

And just to clarify, we punish murder more harshly than shoplifting because we are making a larger effort to prevent it seeing that it has much more negative consequences, not that I expected you to understand the nuances of social order or anything.

Criminals and bad fathers isn't a gender role. It is a reality that the world has had to adjust to. Nobody sat down and said "men are bad fathers so we should take away their kids" rather "we have all these fatherless kids and we have to find some way of protecting them so we will just have to concede full responsibility to their mother's who are physically obliged to take care of them". It is a reality that men have unwittingly laid upon themselves. It wasn't the product of anyone's discrimination. It's the product of the direct repercusions of their own actions. Women don't get custody because they want to. They take it because they have to because men refused to take it in the first place and given that the birth was recorded they can't turn round and pretend those children aren't their sons which is a right men have fought long and hard for for millenia.

Again, because you can't read very well I'll just have to say it in simple words. We don't increase sentences, we reduce them. Black men's sentences are the same as white men's sentences because neither have reduced their crime rates sufficiently for it to be deemed safe for the sentences to be reduced without crime rates skyrocketing.

Youre getting rather insulting but sure ill keep biting.

I havnt shown the prison system is useless. Reform works. But harshness of punishment doesnt change the criminal mindset. You dont have the criminal mindset. These people do not care about consequences and its a well accepted fact that making all punishments extremely severe doesnt stop crime 100%. Only the desperate or the oppertunistic are truely criminals, both either dont think theres any chance of being caught or dont care if they are because they think they have no other option.

A punishment and reform system does reduce crime by making those with little motivation not commit crimes. However this group of people with the "criminal" mindset will commit crimes regardless of what the punishment is. See what im saying here? The existance of any punishment system will deter some. However that isnt the group im talking about, there is a sizable group of people with the mindset that means no matter how harsh the punishment they still commit crimes. Harshness cannot deter these people. And it never will. I said nowhere its useless, thats putting words into my mouth. Im talking about this group of people.

The second paragraph builds on the idea that harshness = deterrence which is wrong. Again.

"men have unwittingly laid upon themselves" You keep saying this like all men brought it on all men. This is false. Some men brought it on all men which is sexism and unfair. You seem to have this idea that we need to adjust things by generalising and sterotyping because "thats the way most are". This is nonsense. You havnt yet proved this sexist and obviously wrong system is better than personally judging each person irrespective of gender for competance as a father and giving custody like that, instead saying that because some people as a group did it we "brought it on ourselves" which is complete bullshit. No good father brought this on themselves. Innocents suffer because youre using a blunt and crude system of assumption to do things rather than ya know treating each person like an individual.

Ill even accept that in some circumstances MOST even the MAJORITY of men can do something. That STILL gives no right to generalise the rest of them based on that.

"They take it because they have to because men refused to take it in the first place"

This says nothing for the father who wants to see his kids after a divorce but is denied because courts favor women despite being a good dad. This isnt fair. This is sexist. He did not "bring that on himself". No group he is affiliated with "brought that on him". It isnt fair to be jugded for owning a cock because other cock owners didnt accept their kids. This guy is accepting his. And this guys getting denied. And that isnt his fault. Why use such a blunt and crude system. Its rediculous and theres no reason to keep it around.

"neither have reduced their crime rates sufficiently for it to be deemed safe for the sentences to be reduced without crime rates skyrocketing."

Reducing scentences wouldnt make crime rates skyrocket. Its just a fact. The idea that women are "safe" and we can let them off easier for murder is just insanity. If a women is a murderer she is just as dangerous and just as likely to re offend as if a man did it under the same circumstances. Youll probably refute this but the chance youll show any evidence other than "men are natural born criminals" or other biggotted crap is unlikely. This means the scentence for both should be the same.

Alright lets call it a hypothetical scenario: In this world white people basically dont commit crimes. Can we reduce their scentence now? What about gay people who in this world commit no crimes? Or people with blue eyes, same deal? Can we reduce theirs in this hypothetical world? What if im in both?