Can't we all just get along?

[MattC]

Phantom,

Actually I'd think "sexual battery" a very relevant legal term, far more so than "rape." Given the particular status of both threads begun by Fiona upon the matter, it is very clear that "rape" has no acceptable social definition, and further that the majority of definitions presented are unacceptable in a court of law for one reason or another.

As is obvious, the term "sexual battery" is a compound term formed of two words. This being the internet, I am sure that "sexual" needs no further clarification - if it should be unclear to anyone, a few brief seconds browsing 4chan's /b/ board are all that is needed. However the second part, "battery", does require a definition - which I present here:

784.03 Battery; felony battery.--

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:

1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or

2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, "conviction" means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.

Probably the most important thing about the definition of battery is that it's entirely physical in nature - it does not carry with it the emotional concerns that accompany the word "rape", nor does it have the social stigmata. As we are all aware, measuring someone's emotional state is impossible to do with any tolerable degree of accuracy, but measuring someone's physical state is entirely possible.

This should provide some insight into the reasons for using the "sexual battery" term, the definition of which I again provide:

(h) "Sexual battery" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

We therefore use "sexual battery" instead of "rape" to avoid the messy emotional entanglements that attend the latter term so as to better focus attention upon the objectively measurable former term.

I hope this has helped.

~ Matt

(ps: Yeah, I realized my mistake in posting the wrong law. I feel like such a fool, I read the second-degree felony law and wrote about it, then posted the life felony one.)

 

[Fiona]

Personally I don't buy that a woman's fear of sexual assault is any more justified than a man's. Women are not, by and large, attacked by random strangers while walking along the street at night. They are attacked in familiar settings, by people they know and trust.

The "threat" of the male predator is just as much a social myth as anything else that has been discussed.

The overwhelming majority of rapes are not violent attacks, they're cases of miscommunication and misunderstanding, just as Fiona described. You want to know how to reduce cases of rape? People need to be far more open and up front about sex. We're still stuck under the shadow of the Victorian Era when sexuality was violently repressed by society. That's what breeds sexual deviance.

If we take Fiona's story in the OP, I feel pretty confident that had Fiona outright stated to her guest that there was nothing intimate or sexual on for the evening, the rape (and yes, I think it was rape) would not have happened. I may be wrong, maybe there was something wrong with this guy and he was going to get what he wanted regardless, but from the account Fiona gave I doubt it.

If people treated sex as a basic normal thing, completely acceptable to discuss in an open and frank manner, I am sure we wouldn't see a fraction of the sexual attacks we currently have to deal with in society.

As I have said, I have had exactly the conversation you describe on some such occasions and not on others. It is not always easy and it is not always necessary either: but once again you put the onus entirely on the woman. Why is that?

As it happens I am not in the least bit confident that would have been effective in this case: it might have been.

The point Fiona was making is that women alter their behaviour (not going out alone, etc) due to a fear of being attacked, and that this fear is justified where as any action a man might take to avoid, say, a false rape allegation, is not justified because there is no real danger, and they are instead acting on a myth.

I was merely pointing out that the position is inherently flawed because women alter the behaviour based on a myth also. If women were to alter their behaviour in a rational logical way to the threat of rape, they would stop having intimate relationships with men.

I am not very happy about you misrepresenting my position into its exact opposite, gumboot. Why do you do this?

 

[Francesca R]

She.
I am a woman.

A 32 (now 36) year old Italian woman named Matteo (a male name)?

Hi,
my name is Matteo Martini and I am an Italian 32-year-old engineer.
[ . . . ]

A 6 feet 3 a little bit overweight woman who has previously posted a picture?

I am no sock-puppet, I am a 6 feet 3 inches tall Italian a little bit overweight ( unfortunately ), you can check my photo at my site [ . . . ]

And who has featured in James Randi's SWIFT commentary

Liar. Reported.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

As I have said, I have had exactly the conversation you describe on some such occasions and not on others. It is not always easy and it is not always necessary either: but once again you put the onus entirely on the woman. Why is that?

<snip>

It should never be necessary.

Do some people loose the power of speech when they want sex? What's the problem with ASKING first?

 

[Fiona]

I agree, Ivor. But we live in the world we live in. I mentioned in the OP that such conversations are difficult because they do seem presumptuous at best: and downright insulting more usually. I had them because of the kind of thing Susan Brownmiller drew attention to: the fear of being rude should not outweigh the fear of being raped. But I did have to overcome a reluctance to raise what seemed to me to be an insulting assumption, and I did not always do it. That is apparently now my fault too.

I am prepared to accept that he may have misunderstood: but what I cannot accept is that there was anything at all in my behaviour which gave rise to that misunderstanding. He is at best a person wholly without honour: and I do not think it is any kind of excuse at all to say I did not specifically have the ground rules conversation with him. That has happened before with no such outcome: perhaps he is monumentally stupid but I do not think so: I think he is a rapist. And I also think that those who deny he had any responsibility are apologists for rape.

I did also want to add: Soapy has laid a lot of emphasis on the role of alcohol in my reaction. I already said I do not think that was particularly important. Eck was not drunk and yet reacted in a similar way: and others have referred to this "freeze response"in other contexts. I can see it is odd - it certainly puzzles me: but I am not the only one who has reacted likes this: not even the only one on this board. If it is one of a number of possible reactions, as it seems to be, then resting on no active resistance to determine whether there is rape or not is another example of myth informing interpretation falsely: and so it is important that this is recognised more widely than seems to be the case.

 

[Lonewulf]

A 34 year old Italian woman named Matteo (a male name)?

A 6 feet 3 a little bit overweight woman who has previously posted a picture?
And who has featured in James Randi's SWIFT commentary

Liar. Reported.

I, also, am entirely skeptical of such a claim.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I did also want to add: Soapy has laid a lot of emphasis on the role of alcohol in my reaction. I already said I do not think that was particularly important. Eck was not drunk and yet reacted in a similar way: and others have referred to this "freeze response"in other contexts. I can see it is odd - it certainly puzzles me: but I am not the only one who has reacted likes this: not even the only one on this board. If it is one of a number of possible reactions, as it seems to be, then resting on no active resistance to determine whether there is rape or not is another example of myth informing interpretation falsely: and so it is important that this is recognised more widely than seems to be the case.

Freezing is a perfectly natural reaction to fear. ETA: As is not fighting back:

http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/45/5/448

The tonic immobility (fright) response is pan-mammalian. Tonic immobility is most useful when a slow-moving vulnerable organism (e.g., the opossum) is confronted with a life-threatening situation involving mobile, large predators.3,7 Tonic immobility may enhance survival when a predator temporarily loosens its grip on captured prey under the assumption that it is indeed dead, providing the prey with an opportunity for escape. It is also a response that may be adaptive in humans when there is no possibility of escaping or winning a fight.7

http://cogprints.org/5014/1/2004_C.N.S_Five_Fs_of_FEAR--Freeze_Flight_Fight_Fright_Faint.pdf

 

[Wudang]

others have referred to this "freeze response"in other contexts. I can see it is odd - it certainly puzzles me:

Fiona, when adrenaline is dumped into the body in the so-called "fight or flight" response, there's actually a third option, to freeze.
http://home.earthlink.net/~circlepoint/health0600.html for example

 

[Soapy Sam]

Fiona,
From this thread and other stuff I've been looking up, the passive response certainly seems commoner than I would have expected.
Re alcohol, I know if I've had a few I get torpid and can be hard to wake.
Seemed reasonable to me that it could be a factor, but we've only met in cyberspace, so I can't possibly guess how you would react "normally", whatever that means in a case like this.

I'm opting out of the thread now, by your leave. I think it has run its course.

 

[gumboot]

She.
I am a woman.

Originally Posted by Title XLVI, 794.011
(a) "Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. "Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.

Was Fiona coercefully submitted?
If yes, she was raped.
If no, she was not.
Simple as that.

Um, no.

It's simple.

Rape = sex without consent.

If there is no consent is is rape, period.

"Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.

This means consent cannot be assumed, and must be actively given. If the person just lies there doing nothing, they have no consented.

Further,

"Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission.

This means that even if consent is given, if that consent is coerced, it does not qualify as consent.

Therefore...

1) There is consent, or it is rape.
2) Coerced consent does not qualify as consent.
3) Consent cannot be assumed by lack of resistance.

Fiona did not consent. Therefore she was raped. End of story. Coercion or duress is irrelevant, because there was no consent.

If you think otherwise, provide evidence, from her account, that she gave consent.

 

[PhantomWolf]

As I have said, I have had exactly the conversation you describe on some such occasions and not on others. It is not always easy and it is not always necessary either: but once again you put the onus entirely on the woman. Why is that?

In this case I'd agree that it should have been you having the conversation, not that not having it was an excuse. The reason I say "in this case" is because it was your home, thus you should have set the rules. Even saying this, that still doesn't excuse the actions of the other individual, he had no right to assume anything at all and shoudn't have. If the situation was reversed and you'd been going to stay with him, I'd have expected him to be the one setting the ground rules.

 

[gumboot]

As I have said, I have had exactly the conversation you describe on some such occasions and not on others. It is not always easy and it is not always necessary either: but once again you put the onus entirely on the woman. Why is that?

Because only women are ever victims of rape, remember?

As it happens I am not in the least bit confident that would have been effective in this case: it might have been.

We can only ever speculate.

I am not very happy about you misrepresenting my position into its exact opposite, gumboot.

I just went back and closely re-read your OP and you are quite right - in the OP you raise the same point about women adjusting behaviour based on the myth of the "unknown rapist". I must have attributed to you arguments made by others.

You have my sincere apologies for misrepresenting your position. I withdraw my previous comment.

 

[gumboot]

In this case I'd agree that it should have been you having the conversation, not that not having it was an excuse. The reason I say "in this case" is because it was your home, thus you should have set the rules. Even saying this, that still doesn't excuse the actions of the other individual, he had no right to assume anything at all and shoudn't have. If the situation was reversed and you'd been going to stay with him, I'd have expected him to be the one setting the ground rules.

I'd like to lend my support to PhantomWolf's position. And to clarify (though I don't think it should need clarifying), identifying potential changes in behaviour that could prevent a lot of rapes occurring is not the same as saying "it's your fault because you didn't do X".

When we find ourselves the victim of crime, it is perfectly sensible to ask "what could I do in future to avoid this?" Fiona, you did it yourself, as described by your change in behaviour after that experience. The options available to us vary enormously. There is always something we can do, but oftentimes the only preventative measures we can take impact negatively on our quality of life.

"Setting the ground rules" is a fairly simple measure that can be taken by anyone concerned about sexual assault, and it has a lesser impact on quality of life than other measures.

Having said that, even it has negative side effects, and we're so socially conditioned not to talk about sex that it can be difficult to bring up the topic. But I think it can only be healthy for us to return to a pre-Victorian era when sex was just a normal part of every day life and not this dirty suppressed secret.

There will always be sick individuals - genuine predators - for whom these methods won't work. They know their victims don't want sex - for many of them that's what gives them their thrill. You can't do much about that sort of threat, any more than you can guard against a serial killer. The only measures you can take are incredibly restricting. But as Fiona discussed in the OP (and as I grossly misrepresented just recently...) the genuine predator is such a rare phenomenon that there's really no need to guard against it.

Most rape occurs in that grey confusing space created by poor communication. I'm willing to bet a large percentage of rapists had been oblivious to the fact they'd committed a crime until charges were laid against them.

Fixing rape laws does not solve the problem, because the problem is no a low conviction rate for rape. The problem is high incidents of rape. I think society can reduces these instances by having a more accepting, open, and positive attitude towards sex in general, instead of treating it like some sort of dirty secret. We're making progress, but it's rather slow, particularly in more conservative countries like the USA.

Having a more open dialogue (yes dialogue, not monologue) regarding sex will help to dispel a lot of that grey area, and separate the "accidental rapists" from the genuine predators.

(Before I get ripped to shreds, when I say "accidental rapist" I'm talking about those people that genuinely thought (however wrongly) that the other person wanted sex, and wouldn't have continued had they known that the other person didn't want it).

ETA. I don't want to establish a false dichotomy here with the "accidental rapist" vs "genuine predator thing" so I thought I'd briefly cover another potential area where better communication might work some of the time, and I think Fiona's experience probably fits into this category.

There will be some rapists who know, from the response of their victim, that there is no consent and what they're doing is wrong, but because their victim doesn't resist or say anything they can rationalise that the person is consenting, and therefore they're not a rapist. This is actually fairly common psychologically, and plays a key part in atrocity dynamics (another discussion!). Any person that speaks out and points out that the action is wrong is shattering the delusion that the offender has created to protect their conscience. Now, the dilemma with this is it can go one of two ways.

Either the offender is confronted with the truth of their crime, is overcome with guilt, and stops.
Or
The offender lashes out against the victim and reasserts their dominance over the victim in order to "prove" that the offender's version of reality is right, and thus reestablishing the delusion.

This is the major problem area for rape victims, and it's precisely why many rape victim support groups advise against trying to resist an attacker. When faced with this sort of offender, you're on a razor edge and resistance could either result in the attack ending, or the attack becoming much more violent.

When possible, establishing the ground rules in advance can help prevent that razor edge situation ever occurring because the offender has been forced to face the reality of their wrong action before they ever commit it, thus the violent lashing out isn't going to occur.

 

[Fiona]

Because only women are ever victims of rape, remember?

Since you so graciously admitted your misrepresentation in the other part you might as well go the whole hog and retract that without reservation too: it is also something I have never said: nor do I believe it.

 

[gumboot]

Since you so graciously admitted your misrepresentation in the other part you might as well go the whole hog and retract that without reservation too: it is also something I have never said: nor do I believe it.

It was sarcasm. However it has a seed of truth to it, that being, if we're talking about what victims can do to reduce risk, when we're talking rape the onus is normally going to be on women because women are normally victims of rape.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Since you so graciously admitted your misrepresentation in the other part you might as well go the whole hog and retract that without reservation too: it is also something I have never said: nor do I believe it.

I'm guessing it was missing the smilie.

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
This means that even if consent is given, if that consent is coerced, it does not qualify as consent.

Agreed 100%

Therefore...

1) There is consent, or it is rape.
2) Coerced consent does not qualify as consent.
3) Consent cannot be assumed by lack of resistance.

[..]

Agreed 100%

Fiona did not consent.

You are wrong 100%

[..]If you think otherwise, provide evidence, from her account, that she gave consent.

I just did

 

[Matteo Martini]

A 32 (now 36) year old Italian woman named Matteo (a male name)?

A 6 feet 3 a little bit overweight woman who has previously posted a picture?
And who has featured in James Randi's SWIFT commentary

Liar. Reported.

Reported again??
Gee, I am getting famous, here.

Still, Nothing is happening.
Please, report me again.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Fiona did not consent.

You are wrong 100%

Feel free to quote the section of her OP where she says she gave consent.

 

[gumboot]

I just did

No you didn't. You made an unsupported assertion - that she gave consent. You have provided not one iota of evidence that this is true. So put up, or shut up.