Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Okay, like the second part of my post said, if this is NOT about Whataboutism then....

Yeah... you've been on the mark.

What is the next step to hold those who have behaved badly accountable in Hollywood, D.C. and across the globe?

Is it legislation? A social media campaign? More public shaming? Encouraging people to donate money and time to certain charities? What is it?

All of the above to be honest.... Weinstein probably isn't the only one... he's just the one that got caught.

So you're agreeing new laws and regulations, will actually help fix this problem? Odd, I usually see you saying the opposite.

Of course he's not the only one, 1 out of 6 women and 1 out of 33 men are victims.

I'd like to see mandatory prison time added on to anyone found guilty of sexual assaults, either from criminal court or civil cases. No more gag orders on victims, or settling without an admitting guilt. Anyone settling out of court will have to admit guilt, and then proceed to criminal charges in court. IF nothing else, then at least stop allowing rapists visitation and parental rights for any children born of their crimes.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Okay, like the second part of my post said, if this is NOT about Whataboutism then....

Yeah... you've been on the mark.

What is the next step to hold those who have behaved badly accountable in Hollywood, D.C. and across the globe?

Is it legislation? A social media campaign? More public shaming? Encouraging people to donate money and time to certain charities? What is it?

All of the above to be honest.... Weinstein probably isn't the only one... he's just the one that got caught.

So you're agreeing new laws and regulations, will actually help fix this problem? Odd, I usually see you saying the opposite.

Of course he's not the only one, 1 out of 6 women and 1 out of 33 men are victims.

I'd like to see mandatory prison time added on to anyone found guilty of sexual assaults, either from criminal court or civil cases. No more gag orders on victims, or settling without an admitting guilt. Anyone settling out of court will have to admit guilt, and then proceed to criminal charges in court. IF nothing else, then at least stop allowing rapists visitation and parental rights for any children born of their crimes.

actually this is a major issue. Many states allow rapists father's rights. Make the moms show up, drop off the kid and have to see her former rapist. That's a real travesty.

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Okay, like the second part of my post said, if this is NOT about Whataboutism then....

Yeah... you've been on the mark.

What is the next step to hold those who have behaved badly accountable in Hollywood, D.C. and across the globe?

Is it legislation? A social media campaign? More public shaming? Encouraging people to donate money and time to certain charities? What is it?

All of the above to be honest.... Weinstein probably isn't the only one... he's just the one that got caught.

So you're agreeing new laws and regulations, will actually help fix this problem? Odd, I usually see you saying the opposite.

Of course he's not the only one, 1 out of 6 women and 1 out of 33 men are victims.

I'd like to see mandatory prison time added on to anyone found guilty of sexual assaults, either from criminal court or civil cases. No more gag orders on victims, or settling without an admitting guilt. Anyone settling out of court will have to admit guilt, and then proceed to criminal charges in court. IF nothing else, then at least stop allowing rapists visitation and parental rights for any children born of their crimes.

actually this is a major issue. Many states allow rapists father's rights. Make the moms show up, drop off the kid and have to see her former rapist. That's a real travesty.

Can you list the states that do this?

 Frazzled wrote:

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Okay, like the second part of my post said, if this is NOT about Whataboutism then....

Yeah... you've been on the mark.

What is the next step to hold those who have behaved badly accountable in Hollywood, D.C. and across the globe?

Is it legislation? A social media campaign? More public shaming? Encouraging people to donate money and time to certain charities? What is it?

All of the above to be honest.... Weinstein probably isn't the only one... he's just the one that got caught.

So you're agreeing new laws and regulations, will actually help fix this problem? Odd, I usually see you saying the opposite.

Of course he's not the only one, 1 out of 6 women and 1 out of 33 men are victims.

I'd like to see mandatory prison time added on to anyone found guilty of sexual assaults, either from criminal court or civil cases. No more gag orders on victims, or settling without an admitting guilt. Anyone settling out of court will have to admit guilt, and then proceed to criminal charges in court. IF nothing else, then at least stop allowing rapists visitation and parental rights for any children born of their crimes.

actually this is a major issue. Many states allow rapists father's rights. Make the moms show up, drop off the kid and have to see her former rapist. That's a real travesty.

Can you list the states that do this?

There are seven states without laws preventing rapists from gaining custody of children conceived without consent. In addition to Maryland, such states include Alabama, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Full article here also google is your friend if you don't like my source, there are many articles on it.

Also if you wanna see the impact on individuals caught up in this situation, "this is life" with Lisa Ling did a show on it and it was horrible.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/index.html


come on frazz, you know texas is on the list.

https://news.vice.com/article/new-federal-law-gives-states-incentive-to-strip-rapists-of-parental-rights

Ten states — Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin— allow courts to terminate a rapist's parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of rape.

sirlynchmob wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/index.html


come on frazz, you know texas is on the list.

https://news.vice.com/article/new-federal-law-gives-states-incentive-to-strip-rapists-of-parental-rights

Ten states — Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin— allow courts to terminate a rapist's parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of rape.

OH I promise you our great state of Texas has no such fuckery.

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/index.html


come on frazz, you know texas is on the list.

https://news.vice.com/article/new-federal-law-gives-states-incentive-to-strip-rapists-of-parental-rights

Ten states — Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin— allow courts to terminate a rapist's parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of rape.

OH I promise you our great state of Texas has no such fuckery.

I promise you, you are wrong.

http://www.kcentv.com/news/crime/in-some-states-rapists-can-get-custody-of-the-kids-born-from-their-attacks/482389469

Social media erupted this week after stories broke of a judge awarding joint legal custody of a young child to the man convicted of raping the child's mom to produce the kid in the first place. At the time, the mother was only a 12-year-old girl.

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Okay, like the second part of my post said, if this is NOT about Whataboutism then....

Yeah... you've been on the mark.

What is the next step to hold those who have behaved badly accountable in Hollywood, D.C. and across the globe?

Is it legislation? A social media campaign? More public shaming? Encouraging people to donate money and time to certain charities? What is it?

All of the above to be honest.... Weinstein probably isn't the only one... he's just the one that got caught.

So you're agreeing new laws and regulations, will actually help fix this problem? Odd, I usually see you saying the opposite.

Of course he's not the only one, 1 out of 6 women and 1 out of 33 men are victims.

I'd like to see mandatory prison time added on to anyone found guilty of sexual assaults, either from criminal court or civil cases. No more gag orders on victims, or settling without an admitting guilt. Anyone settling out of court will have to admit guilt, and then proceed to criminal charges in court. IF nothing else, then at least stop allowing rapists visitation and parental rights for any children born of their crimes.

actually this is a major issue. Many states allow rapists father's rights. Make the moms show up, drop off the kid and have to see her former rapist. That's a real travesty.

One of my cousins worked for Child Services in Maine for thirty years and has a trunkful of horror stories involving sexually abused kids. One of the worst he shared with me involved a father that would hang his young son on a hook and burn him with cigarettes. He would also whore him out to his male friends at $2 a go.
My cousin tried to get the man prosecuted and get the kid out of the house but was told too many prominent people were involved to make a winning court case. The boy's dad ended up having a stroke at the edge of a lake and drowning.
My cousin said that was a good end for him, face down in the frog gak, sucking it in.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/index.html


come on frazz, you know texas is on the list.

https://news.vice.com/article/new-federal-law-gives-states-incentive-to-strip-rapists-of-parental-rights

Ten states — Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin— allow courts to terminate a rapist's parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of rape.

OH I promise you our great state of Texas has no such fuckery.

I promise you, you are wrong.

http://www.kcentv.com/news/crime/in-some-states-rapists-can-get-custody-of-the-kids-born-from-their-attacks/482389469

Social media erupted this week after stories broke of a judge awarding joint legal custody of a young child to the man convicted of raping the child's mom to produce the kid in the first place. At the time, the mother was only a 12-year-old girl.

This both saddens me and angers me. I guess I gotta write to a governor.

 Easy E wrote:

What is the next step to hold those who have behaved badly accountable in Hollywood, D.C. and across the globe?

Is it legislation? A social media campaign? More public shaming? Encouraging people to donate money and time to certain charities? What is it?

The first step is to actually hold them accountable. The problem will always be proving these things beyond a reasonable doubt, as so many of them may be little more than "he said, she said" without material evidence or witnesses. And we don't live in a society that allows for lie detectors and truth serum to be used in these cases, so that third party proof isn't easy to come by. Weinstein is being brought down because so many have come forward telling about what happened to them. But, has there been even one witness? One person who saw it happen, or who could say "Weinstein told me he did it"?

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/index.html


come on frazz, you know texas is on the list.

https://news.vice.com/article/new-federal-law-gives-states-incentive-to-strip-rapists-of-parental-rights

Ten states — Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin— allow courts to terminate a rapist's parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of rape.

OH I promise you our great state of Texas has no such fuckery.

I promise you, you are wrong.

http://www.kcentv.com/news/crime/in-some-states-rapists-can-get-custody-of-the-kids-born-from-their-attacks/482389469

Social media erupted this week after stories broke of a judge awarding joint legal custody of a young child to the man convicted of raping the child's mom to produce the kid in the first place. At the time, the mother was only a 12-year-old girl.

This both saddens me and angers me. I guess I gotta write to a governor.

Just to clarify:

Texas, as well as 39 other states, don't have specific laws giving rapists parental rights.

The other 10 states just have specific laws allowing the termination of parental rights of rapists.

 d-usa wrote:

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/index.html


come on frazz, you know texas is on the list.

https://news.vice.com/article/new-federal-law-gives-states-incentive-to-strip-rapists-of-parental-rights

Ten states — Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin— allow courts to terminate a rapist's parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of rape.

OH I promise you our great state of Texas has no such fuckery.

I promise you, you are wrong.

http://www.kcentv.com/news/crime/in-some-states-rapists-can-get-custody-of-the-kids-born-from-their-attacks/482389469

Social media erupted this week after stories broke of a judge awarding joint legal custody of a young child to the man convicted of raping the child's mom to produce the kid in the first place. At the time, the mother was only a 12-year-old girl.

This both saddens me and angers me. I guess I gotta write to a governor.

Just to clarify:

Texas, as well as 39 other states, don't have specific laws giving rapists parental rights.

The other 10 states just have specific laws allowing the termination of parental rights of rapists.

Men have parental rights if they father a child, with no additional laws to remove that right, they keep it even if they rape a woman. They don't need an additional law to grant rapists rights, as the men already have that right.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/index.html


come on frazz, you know texas is on the list.

https://news.vice.com/article/new-federal-law-gives-states-incentive-to-strip-rapists-of-parental-rights

Ten states — Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin— allow courts to terminate a rapist's parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of rape.

OH I promise you our great state of Texas has no such fuckery.

I promise you, you are wrong.

http://www.kcentv.com/news/crime/in-some-states-rapists-can-get-custody-of-the-kids-born-from-their-attacks/482389469

Social media erupted this week after stories broke of a judge awarding joint legal custody of a young child to the man convicted of raping the child's mom to produce the kid in the first place. At the time, the mother was only a 12-year-old girl.

This both saddens me and angers me. I guess I gotta write to a governor.

Just to clarify:

Texas, as well as 39 other states, don't have specific laws giving rapists parental rights.

The other 10 states just have specific laws allowing the termination of parental rights of rapists.

Men have parental rights if they father a child, with no additional laws to remove that right, they keep it even if they rape a woman. They don't need an additional law to grant rapists rights, as the men already have that right.

and thats the problem.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/index.html


come on frazz, you know texas is on the list.

https://news.vice.com/article/new-federal-law-gives-states-incentive-to-strip-rapists-of-parental-rights

Ten states — Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin— allow courts to terminate a rapist's parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of rape.

OH I promise you our great state of Texas has no such fuckery.

I promise you, you are wrong.

http://www.kcentv.com/news/crime/in-some-states-rapists-can-get-custody-of-the-kids-born-from-their-attacks/482389469

Social media erupted this week after stories broke of a judge awarding joint legal custody of a young child to the man convicted of raping the child's mom to produce the kid in the first place. At the time, the mother was only a 12-year-old girl.

This both saddens me and angers me. I guess I gotta write to a governor.

Just to clarify:

Texas, as well as 39 other states, don't have specific laws giving rapists parental rights.

The other 10 states just have specific laws allowing the termination of parental rights of rapists.

Men have parental rights if they father a child, with no additional laws to remove that right, they keep it even if they rape a woman. They don't need an additional law to grant rapists rights, as the men already have that right.

The flip side of that is so does the child for child support.

I had a family member who was raped and kept the child... her dad took the father to court to have his custody rights removed. As a consequence of that, she had to give up the right to ask for child support too.

You are either a father, with all the rights and responsibilities, or you are not.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Sebster, I am not ignoring your point. However, you are ignoring the fact that I treat minors and adults the same way if I witness abuse.

But there's two things wrong with applying your mandated reporter status to what I said.

1) Its a special status for you and others in similar institutional roles. It isn't a requirement for all people.
2) It gives you obligations to more people than just children, but it isn't an obligation to everyone. Sure, a 21 year old student isn't legally a minor, but they are still a student who is vulnerable to their place of higher learning and so that justifies the mandated reporter status. But take that 21 year old out of the school, put her in her own home, talking to a friend about what happened last night, and the relationship is totally different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It is one hundred percent my obligation to my community, my family, my coworkers, my friends and myself to report a violent crime if I see it/hear it/know about it, regardless of the age or feelings of the victim.

If I'm walking to my car in the parking lot after work and I see what looks like a man assaulting a woman in poorly lit far corner of the parking lot and I yell and run over there and the man flees, I find the woman on the ground disheveled, bruised and dazed. I ask her if she's ok and I take out my phone and tell her not to worry because I'm going to call 911 but she tells me No, no, that's ok I'm fine, I'm fine I just want to go home. She gathers her things, gets in her car and drives off. Should I call the police and report what I saw or not?

My stance is that I should absolutely report witnessing an assault 100% of the time. We, as a society, have decided to criminalize assault/sexual assault, to discourage it and punish anyone who is convicted of committing it. I don't see any compelling reason to ever not report a violent crime. When crimes go unreported it allows the criminals to continue to roam free and victimize more members of the community. That's not good for anybody.

I think the example of a woman attacked in a parking lot is a strange one. It makes you a stranger to the woman, and it makes her relationship to the attacker distant, and so the description of her just wanting to ignore the crime becomes quite odd.

Lets instead consider something much more like what's being discussed in this thread. Let's call the victim Gwyneth Paltrow, the attacker Harvey Weinstein, and the third party Brad Pitt. Because this is what actually happened to them.

She was doing work for Emma, a Weinstein production. She went to Weinstein's room to go through some notes. He started to pressure her in to sex, starting with massaging her. She left. He told her if he said anything about what happened he would fire her from Emma. She told her partner at the time, Brad Pitt, and he rang Weinstein, the two got in to a screaming match. Weinstein then called Paltrow and berated her.

Weinstein and Paltrow went on to have a successful working relationship, making many films together. If you were in Brad Pitt's shoes, would you have called police?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.". (Edmund Burke)

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." CS Lewis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
All of the above to be honest.... Weinstein probably isn't the only one... he's just the one that got caught.

Much like the discovery of paedophilia in so many religious and state institutions, there's a grave risk that this will eventually be explained away by defining through one villain, or maybe a couple of villains. Too many people took theinking it was just a Catholic Church thing, and ignoring the huge number of Protestant and non-religious State institutions that allowed offenders within its ranks and covered up their crimes. Its possible people will do something similar and just use this to bash FOX News and Hollywood, and pretend this isn't endemic across many institutions.

We need to do the hard and necessary work of understanding how power dynamics, culture and our existing legal processes combine to let people do this kind of thing for years. And then we need to start the even harder work of changing those things to make this kind of thing stop happening.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.". (Edmund Burke)

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." CS Lewis.

"Not impressed. I can quote stuff too." LordofHats

I think it's one thing to report an assault in progress, or that you've seen. It's another thing entirely to take it upon yourself to tell the police something that someone else told you in confidence. That's a dick move, because at the end of the day there comes a point where someone has made a completely conscious decision not to tell the police and I don't think I have the right to take it upon myself and tell the cops what Mary told me, especially if she makes it clear she doesn't want me to say anything to anyone. Now if I see a crime in progress, bets are off, but being told about something by a victim weeks or even years later is a different scenario.

As much a danger as predators are, you can't force people to come forward and trying to pressure people to do so is likely to have the opposite of the desired effect. Sexual assault and rape are about force. Throwing more force onto it just doubles the violation and isolates victims further. I think being too gung ho about reporting things after the fact may drive these things further underground and make victims less likely to ever come forward.

Man, if women marched against Trump for allegedly saying something sexual, can't wait for the even bigger marches on Hollywood.... crickets..... O' well, good ol' Hollywood.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Man, if women marched against Trump for allegedly saying something sexual, can't wait for the even bigger marches on Hollywood.... crickets..... O' well, good ol' Hollywood.

Good ol' collective guilt.

Donald Trump is responsible for what Donald Trump does. Everyone in Hollywood isn't responsible for what some people in the industry do.

And Hollywood does take plenty of criticism.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Man, if women marched against Trump for allegedly saying something sexual, can't wait for the even bigger marches on Hollywood.... crickets..... O' well, good ol' Hollywood.

And here it is. Again.

They marched against Trump when he was elected President. Meanwhile Weinstein has been fired from his own company, turned in to a pariah and legal proceedings are moving ahead.

So what in god of all feths do you want this protest against Hollywood to chant?
"What do we want?"
"Exactly what is happening!"
"When do we want it?"
"Now that it's finally come to light things are moving along at a reasonable pace so I guess that's fine also!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
"Not impressed. I can quote stuff too." LordofHats

I think it's one thing to report an assault in progress, or that you've seen. It's another thing entirely to take it upon yourself to tell the police something that someone else told you in confidence. That's a dick move, because at the end of the day there comes a point where someone has made a completely conscious decision not to tell the police and I don't think I have the right to take it upon myself and tell the cops what Mary told me, especially if she makes it clear she doesn't want me to say anything to anyone. Now if I see a crime in progress, bets are off, but being told about something by a victim weeks or even years later is a different scenario.

As much a danger as predators are, you can't force people to come forward and trying to pressure people to do so is likely to have the opposite of the desired effect. Sexual assault and rape are about force. Throwing more force onto it just doubles the violation and isolates victims further. I think being too gung ho about reporting things after the fact may drive these things further underground and make victims less likely to ever come forward.

That's a good way of putting it.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Man, if women marched against Trump for allegedly saying something sexual, can't wait for the even bigger marches on Hollywood.... crickets..... O' well, good ol' Hollywood.

I think you might see more people marching against Harvey Weinstein if their paychecks were currently being taxed to support his lifestyle, and if he was currently empowered to make institutional changes that greatly affect their lives.

TBH it's a pretty terrible comparison.

(edit aw, Sebster said it better)

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Man, if women marched against Trump for allegedly saying something sexual, can't wait for the even bigger marches on Hollywood.... crickets..... O' well, good ol' Hollywood.

When I read stuff like this I always wonder if the writer is stupid or evil.
Either you believe taped conversation is alleged, "something sexual" equals assault, only wimmins dislike Trump and the lack of unnecessary marches means Libtards totally support an ass.
Or...
You're an ass.

Im an ass apparently ok... I don't care.

 sebster wrote:

They marched against Trump when he was elected President. Meanwhile Weinstein has been fired from his own company, turned in to a pariah and legal proceedings are moving ahead.

Of course, Trump isn't currently in jail and Weinstein only got hit now that other rich rapists wanted him replaced. He may well be rehabilitated and/or keep working in the business. It's too early to count this as a victory.

sirlynchmob wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/index.html


come on frazz, you know texas is on the list.

https://news.vice.com/article/new-federal-law-gives-states-incentive-to-strip-rapists-of-parental-rights

Ten states — Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin— allow courts to terminate a rapist's parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of rape.

Texas I know. The law is almost irrelevant. The standard is best interest of the child, and its really dependent on the judge and local jurisdiction. I have personal experience on Texas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Im an ass apparently ok... I don't care.

Thats ok, thats why dogs like me. For the Pack!

Rosebuddy wrote:
Of course, Trump isn't currently in jail and Weinstein only got hit now that other rich rapists wanted him replaced. He may well be rehabilitated and/or keep working in the business. It's too early to count this as a victory.

Sure, it isn't yet a complete victory, but it'd silly to moan it as a defeat when things are moving in the right direction, at least as far as Weinstein is involved.

Also, 'only got hit now that other rich rapists wanted him replaced'?! Where in the feth does that nonsense come from?

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/index.html


come on frazz, you know texas is on the list.

https://news.vice.com/article/new-federal-law-gives-states-incentive-to-strip-rapists-of-parental-rights

Ten states — Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin— allow courts to terminate a rapist's parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of rape.

Texas I know. The law is almost irrelevant. The standard is best interest of the child, and its really dependent on the judge and local jurisdiction. I have personal experience on Texas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Im an ass apparently ok... I don't care.

Thats ok, thats why dogs like me. For the Pack!

I've been told I have a very nice ass, though I find it sad when someone has to go to name calling though

To answer another post, this kind of stuff isn't new in Hollywood and it is kind of hypocritical to a large degree for the industry to whole sale go after one man whom is now President on verbal language used, but not go after another whom literally did it for years and worse, and he's not the only one in the industry that does, and some even aide in or ignore. And they have BALLS to be such paragons of society! Hell they probably got rid of him for something he said in a back room meeting knowing the Hollywood mob and how easy it is for some to get blacklisted, of course I don't know fully on that but read some books and biographies that point possibly to it.

This isn't protecting our current POTUS, I'm not the biggest fan. To me he is pretty mediocre, but I din't want the Libertarian though he came close, Hell no to the one crazy chick, and Hillary was more akin to shooting myself.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
To answer another post, this kind of stuff isn't new in Hollywood and it is kind of hypocritical to a large degree for the industry to whole sale go after one man whom is now President on verbal language used, but not go after another whom literally did it for years and worse, and he's not the only one in the industry that does, and some even aide in or ignore. And they have BALLS to be such paragons of society! Hell they probably got rid of him for something he said in a back room meeting knowing the Hollywood mob and how easy it is for some to get blacklisted, of course I don't know fully on that but read some books and biographies that point possibly to it.

This isn't protecting our current POTUS, I'm not the biggest fan. To me he is pretty mediocre, but I din't want the Libertarian though he came close, Hell no to the one crazy chick, and Hillary was more akin to shooting myself.

This is contradictory: "after one man whom is now President on verbal language used, but not go after another whom literally did it for years and worse". The tape on which Trump said he sexually harassed women is quite old. He had a reasonably successful TV career afterwards. Yet when it did finally come out and women started to come forward it was by and large dismissed (as were the women) or deemed not to be important enough not to vote for Trump. When the Weinstein thing broke and women started coming forward he has been dragged trough the mud and dumped (for now?). How that is hypocritical I have no clue. Because sexual assault happens in Hollywood they have no right to speak out about abuse elsewhere? Weinstein has probably lost his standing for good, meanwhile Trump became President. Two different results with a similar backstory.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
How that is hypocritical I have no clue.

I could give a very lengthy and damning post explaining that Trump is Hollywood as much as Weinstein is, but anyone who would get it probably can figure it out for themselves and anyone else will probably just continue to perpetuate the self-serving double standards that surround the man as is so I'll just skip all the wasted effort and point out the Trump is as much "Hollywood" insofar as when people invoke the place they're really referring to an industry cause not that much actually gets made in Hollywood anymore, but for some baffling reason Trump is treated as separate from the rest of the celebrity entertainment industry despite being most famous and successful as a celebrity entertainer.

It’s not like he has a star there or anything...