Great, as long as it’s written (and applied) in a gender neutral fashion.
It is, and that’s not even hard to look up …
What exactly is the goal of your comment?
I think we all know…
Edit:
I agree that my tone was off, and for that I apologise. I assumed a bad faith argument based on what feels like an endless string of self-proclaimed men’s rights warriors, brought up with a warped sense of equality, people who can’t seem to wrap their heads around the collosal gap in the size of the problem that women face and try to equivocate to distract from that, so they can “have their say”. Your initial comment still reeks of that type of mentality however I look at it. The problem the article points to is overwhelmingly more important for women’s health, according to rainn.org 90% of reported rape cases are against women. Saying “what about men!” every time rape is mentioned without acknowledging this gap feels disingenuous. I will also add this edit to my initial comment. I hope this logic may help you understand why what you said was perceived as problematic.
Oh don’t hold back. Let’s hear your valuable insights!
False equivalence of men’s and women’s rights, plus a bunch of male incels screaming for equality. That comment screams All Lives Matter logic to me.
I think this is a myopic view. The law in Netherlands used to require penetration to be considered rape, a definition that excludes the majority of male rape victims. It’s a genuine concern that laws be gender neutral.
My view was with regards to the intent behind the initial comment. As the person I replied to asked.
Right, you assumed bad faith intentions based on zero context and made some pretty specific accusations. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about gender neutral rape laws, especially in Europe.
Unfortunately this wont change much. Rapes usually happen without any witnesses, so the rapist will just say that the victim consented. Thats generally the reason why rapes are hard to prove in court.
