Sort of the opposite, though, since the McCarthy era was for perceived crimes of disloyalty, which were not crimes at all, being punished by the powers that be. And this is a reaction of suppression of truth by the powers that be.
Well, do you have an example in the 'pervnado' accusations ? It seems that there would have to be a few of them to excuse someone who has multiple accusers.
[\quote] but it can also be very grey and mirky where people have had too much to drink or smoke, are confused, are sending out mixed signals. Its not always black and white.
So, socially what is changing is that people are saying that you can't be "drunk" to consent. Hard to understand from a certain perspective, but that's what it comes down to. If you are taking an intoxicated person to bed, you can be accused.
This is the kind of language we hear from cops who excuse assault complaints as 'not credible' based on their 'experience'. That's not acceptable any more. But your point of view is valid as far as it is yours.
I appreciate your perspective on this.
In regards to your first paragraph using the McCarthy analogy. I only meant it in the sense of a wide spread investigation in Hollywood reacting to unproven allegations but not anything else. Your take on what I said is a reasonable come back to it. Truthfully we hear declarations but whether they are all true, partially true or made up none of us really knows. The thing about the media is once you throw out an accusation its assumed true without proof.
In regards to your second question I have no proof or evidence. Like all of us, I am only reacting to the volume of complaints that suddenly burst forth.
In regards to your third comment, the law has always said someone inebriated or drugged out, whatever word you want to use, can not consent as they do not have sufficient capacity to consent. Its always said that but it was not necessarily enforced. In Canada it was not that long ago you could
**** a prostitute and the Judges said you don't need consent from a prostitute. The law in Canada also said a friend of a doctor who posed as a doctor with the real doctor and gave an examination to an unsuspecting female patient didn't require consent. If you look at the history of consent and sexual assault in Canada it was not TOO long ago you could get away with a lot of things today you would get arrested and convicted of.
Finally I have to be truthful with you, in this business its all gut instinct. If I sound like a "cop" its beause social workers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, mediators who do much of this work, we do indeed develop a sixth sense. I must tell you I am not joking when I say you can smell when a chld is being molested. I meant that literally. That sixth sense I tell you about, you develop it. Your hair goes up on your neck for no reason when you are in public among people with certain people. I was not referring to those police you believe who exist and dismiss claims.
What I know is the police in sex crimes units take everything seriously. They are loath to take complaints lightly. Not the ones I know. They are well trained.
I think what you may be referring to are police outside these units who are first responders to domestic violence calls. Yes they see so many they tend to see some where there is no proof to proceed further at the time they are called in.
I think though with due respect I don't know a cop who takes the safety of a child for granted or if he sees any kind of mark on anyone will look the other way.
To be fair we expect a lot from them in situations where if they do react they get accused of over-reacting if they have insufficient proof.
The kind of sixth sense I was talking about if anything makes you what we call hyper-vigilante. Its the same phenomena abused kinds of victims have or soldiers with ptsd have. You are so wired to picking up the noise of molestation so to speak, your body is in a super attention span like state. You put a soldier in life and death decision environment constantly then ask him to leave, turn it off and go back into mainstream society he can't just turn off the switch especially when he has seen bad things. Smell, certain sound, taste, can trigger off the sense.
A lot of soldiers who came back from Afghanistan were told to look the other way when seeing Afghani men
**** boys and girls. Its more common than you think. They never got over having to walk away from it.
It does a number on your head. In my case have I mistaken an innocent person for a molester or vice versa, I would have to think over the years yes. Likewise with all the other professionals I mentioned. No we aint perfect but I would say this-I have never intentionally tried to jump the gun without proof but if anything all of us on the front line err on the side of the victim not the other way around but I can not speak for others. I just know the sex crimes units, some of the nurses and doctors I know, some of the social workers I know, their gut instinct is what made them intervene and they were right.
I can tell you circumstances where people walk I know are guilty. That's the legal system, not me personally. If you have no proof, your gut can't help you keep someone incarcerated.
I can also tell you this. We release molesters back into the streets. There is no cure for them. They can start all over. If you knew who was being let back out, you might have a different perspective on why police are the way they are. They know stuff the average person does not. They see filth the average person does not. Its not that they don't care-in fact they do, but they have to detach from that otherwise they would go crazy at the sheer number of bad things they know are coming down but they can't stop. The legal system reacts slowly sometimes when you want it to act fast because of laws of evidence which are designed to protect the innocent from false charges but also protect some very bad people.
Hope that makes sense. I am not trying to apologize or condone bad policing or anything else. The problem is human nature is such with sexuality, its a very very fluid, subjective issue that can be sometimes very difficult to prove.