What does it take for rape to be taken seriously?

[Aerik]

What does it take to get rape taken seriously? We have to dispel myths about it, for one.

If she can say the word "yes" when she's drunk, it's not rape.

Truth: A 10 year old can spit out the word "yes" as well. Does that make it consent? Of course not. A drunk person is a drunk person. Their inhibitions are impaired and if you find yourself even having to think through this excuse, then you know she's not consenting.

If both people are drunk, it's either simultaneous rape or no rape at all. Period!

Truth:

A) If you know she's drunk and then you get drunk just to have an excuse, that's rape. Every time you go to a bar or club and pick out a woman already drunk, then get yourself drunk with the intent of having sex with the person you knew was drunk while you were sober, you're raping.

B) If you're drunk, you make physical advances, and she fights back, but you force her anyways, that's still rape. Just like when you kill people drunk driving it's still murder or manslaughter. It may not have been on purpose, but you wielded power they had not.

If she dresses a certain way, she can't say she didn't see rape coming

Truth: Rapists don't actually care what a woman wears. "pretty" women, "ugly" women, women in robes, women in skirts, women in jeans, women in scuba gear... they're all raped with equal predation. Rape is sexualized violence. It's about the power one person needs to express over a victim. The sex is just a particularly vicious tool of abasement and terrorism.

We've had sex before. I can expect to be able to take sex now. She said yes only hours before, so she implied yes just now.

Truth: Consent is always revokable at any instant in time. This goes for anybody. Once you consider a session to be over, then consent is also over. You must re-acquire it.

We had sex and she passed out. So it's ok for me to keep having sex with her while she's asleep, because she was consenting as she lost conciousness.

Truth: Nobody can consent while unconscious. This is an extension of the last myth. Consent is by definition a conscious decision. Once consciousness is gone, consent is gone. This goes for whether the person was passed out due to alcohol, knocked over the head with a board, or they went to sleep naturally.

And no, it's not analogous to being put under for surgery. A doctor is not really granted consent. A doctor is contracted. And if a doctor does something that the patient expressly forbids beforehand, he is open to prosecution (well these days they only get malpractice premiums, but I think there are many that should face jailtime).

Marriage is a contract to sex. Wives can't be raped.

Truth: Screw you, Phylis Schlafly. Body rights cannot be contracted away. They don't disappear -- EVER. Anything that can is by definition not a right at all. Marital rape is real rape., date rape is real rape, and unneeded surgery is molestation.

If we need to put a modifier before the word rape such as "date rape," then it's not the same or it's less serious than what I consider "real" rape.

Truth: The motivation for a stranger in an alley and a person on a date to rape their victim is the same. Only their tactics seem to differ. Even so, victims feel the same shame, the same society-induced guilt, the same violence, the same threats, and face the same risk of unwanted pregnancy, which in turn incurs the same increased chance of being murdered, the same harassment from pro-lifers, and the same physical risks inherent in pregnanc itself. Not to mention the same risk of STD.

At the same time, a date rapist is just as likely as a stranger rapist to murder a victim before he/she can testify in a trial.

If she didn't say "no," then it's safe for me to freely interpret any behavior as an implied "yes."

Truth: Rape is not only sex in spite of a no. Rape is any sex without consent. That's the definition.

Truth: Only the person being penetracted in a sexual interaction can define consent, for it is their right to bodily intactness that is under duress. This applies whether the recipient is male or female. Whether it's the gay male "catcher" as it's called, or a man who's girlfriend wants to insert a finger into his anus during fellatio, or any penetration two women can initiate. Whether it's by a body part or an object.

If the person being penetrated doesn't say yes, you must assume the answer is "no" until a "yes" is freely given without duress.

If she didn't immediately go to the police, she probably wasn't raped.

Truth: Police still and have always been negative towards rape victims. They face all the fallacies I've described above, are subject to further harassment, and even in some cases a detective will respond by raping her.

People are prone to ignore the fact that coming out as a rape victim carries the risk of further rape and assault, from police and other men in their lives, as well as job loss and a ruined career. Even standing up for yourself for being harassed costs you your career and further harassment and assault.

The mere accusation of rape ruins a man's life. Rape victims should be treated with increased incredulity.

Truth: That's just not true. There are thousands of men in the United States every year who get accused of rape, who never even go to trial. They don't even get it on thir records.

And then there are many who go to a supreme jury to see if they go to trial, and it stops there. Nobody ever has to hear about it again.

Then very, very, very few men are found guilty of rape, because of all the prejudices described in this thread.

There are so many men accused of rape is country, but only a handful are ever reported on or have any consequences.. This myth is a canard.

Clearly the extremely low conviction rate shows that nearly everybody is always on the rapist's side. This myth is in fact so prevelant it's self-defeating. It's literally absurd.

As much as 40% of rape accusations are false.

Truth: Men calling themselves "mens rights activists" like to say this, but I've destroyed this myth several times. Every time this myth is pulled up and a study cited, it's found that the study makes no distinction between women who lie and women who just didn't win in court, or didn't make it past supreme jury, or weren't taken seriously by the police for them to file a charge.

When you do make this distinction, it's found between 2% and 5% of all rape accusations are lies. The rest are failures of prosecution.

Which leads us to the next myths.

If he's found not guilty, it's a false accusation.

Truth: In order to prove an accuser of lying, you have to prove that the man is innocent, that he was doing something else, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

MRA's often try to claim "but men accused of rape aren't treated as innocent until proven guilty" (the conviction rate clearly shows they are, with bias on their side), and then exclaim this myth.

Then hypocritically, they want us to treat rape accusers of being guilty until proven innocent. As I said, in order to prove somebody of lying, you have to prove the accused of being innocent.

Assuming somebody who fails to win in court of making a false accusation, is itself a counter-accusation. One that needs to be treated the same as the original accusation.

Not guilty != innocent.

If she doesn't look injured, she probably wasn't raped.

Truth: Rape is, I say again, sex without consent. It's a form of violence that's as much pychological as physical. If the victim is held under threat and not bruised, that's still rape. Rape isn't defined by the fight the victim puts up.

Only childhood victims suffer long-term effects. If she's still "talking like a victim" after it's over and done with, she probably wasn't really raped, or it wasn't as serious as she says.

Truth: Just because some youngest sibling on tv seems to be a douchebag by being a tattletale doesn't mean that everybody who suffers mental harm is just hamming it up for the attention, jerk. This is closely related to this next myth:

People who were raped need to stop being victims. They need to learn to forgive and forget.

Truth: What you're really saying here is, "I don't care about justice. People who bring up rape make me feel awkward because I don't want to face the reality that it's a big problem in society."

People who want rapists to be forgiven by their victims are only playing the rapist's game. Their first instinct is telling victims to shut-up.

And as all we've seen with the Catholic pedophilia, forgiveness does just that. It gets the victims to shut up, and it enables the rapist to control emotions and information, and find new opportunity, escaping justice.

Truth: We need to empathize with and advocate for victims more. We need more people to be able to come out and say "I am a victim." If you're still hurting, then you're still hurting. There's nothing wrong with you as a victim for feeling hurt.

Only by acknowledging that vitims exist can we stand up to criminals.

But she felt "wet" || but he was erect!

Truth: Functioning nerves != consent. Nerves respond to stimuli first, mental commands second.

Even so, a woman may be lubricating because it's necessary to prevent some injury. That doesn't mean she feels good.

Statutory rape is unfair!

http://www.racialicious.com/2008/02/27/sex-and-youth-why-we-need-community-focused-messaging/

http://www.racialicious.com/2008/02...ut-statutory-rape-race-and-class-part-2-of-3/

Truth: When you get to purchase the alcohol, when you get to own the gun, when you have credit n stuff, you have loads more power than somebody underage. It's nearly impossible to wield it fairly.

My friend was accused of rape, but he's too nice! Plus, women are throwing themselves at him. He doesn't need to rape!

Truth: Rape isn't about sex! OKAY?!.

Face it: your friends are capable of rape.

We can't just call rapists monsters and say they're different from us. Things such as the holocaust shows us that such denialism, pretending that the spectrum of human behavior lacks such extremes, does nothing. All those Nazi's were somebody's friend, family, loved one.

You can't let your personal relationship get in the way of victim advocacy.

-----------------------------

What else can be done to fight rape?

There was that thread about sexual assault during a concert. I stand by my suggestion: any band that takes rape seriously should stand up and tell their audience to be aware of sexual violence, to denounce it, to have security take it seriously, and point out at least one rape myth before every show. If the crowd gets rowdy, do it again during halftime or whatever.

Talk about these myths. To your family. In private. In public..

If you're in jury selection, talk about your understanding of rape myths as evidence that you can be a qualified juror. Make sure all those other potential jurors here it. Make them squirm. Even if the case has nothing to do with sexual violence.

Write letters to your congressmen, senators, mayors, the president, askign them to fund the processing of rape kits. It takes around $1,000 to do just one. L.A. alone has 12,000 unprocessed rape kits. There are loads of them all over the country. Many failed prosecutions are due to the fact that taxpayers have a bias against paying for rape kits.

Even if you're an MRA butthead who's paranoid about false accusations, processing rape kits is the way to go because it exonerates the innocent and more importantly, puts police in the direction of the real rapist.

Stop victim blaming. Don't blame a woman for a bad decision. She's already paying for it, and you're not victimized for hearing about it. How dare you be so angry at something that happened to somebody else, and at the victim, no less?

 

[The Atheist]

What does it take for rape to be taken seriously?

Men being raped by men as often as women are.

 

[tyr_13]

What does it take for rape to be taken seriously?

Men being raped by men as often as women are.

Translation: It's all men's fault and if you have a penis you should be ashamed.

Not constructive, especially seeing as men are raped a lot more often than anyone wants to admit.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Truth: A 10 year old can spit out the word "yes" as well. Does that make it consent? Of course not. A drunk person is a drunk person. Their inhibitions are impaired and if you find yourself even having to think through this excuse, then you know she's not consenting.

Please cite the scientific study which shows the exact blood alcohol level at which you "cannot consent". Otherwise you aren't contrasting a myth and a truth, you're just dressing up a political claim as truth and it's negation as a myth.

Further, even purely politically I think it's a really bad idea to try to bundle sex-without-consent (rape) together with voluntary sex a participant regrets afterwards, especially if both partners are drunk and/or both partners regret it afterwards.

Truth:

A) If you know she's drunk and then you get drunk just to have an excuse, that's rape. Every time you go to a bar or club and pick out a woman already drunk, then get yourself drunk with the intent of having sex with the person you knew was drunk while you were sober, you're raping.

Sex without consent is rape. Trying to shoehorn sex with a consenting adult who has, of their own free will, gotten drunk into the rape category as well is philosophically and politically questionable.

B) If you're drunk, you make physical advances, and she fights back, but you force her anyways, that's still rape. Just like when you kill people drunk driving it's still murder or manslaughter. It may not have been on purpose, but you wielded power they had not.

There's actually a myth in the wild that if you force someone to have sex while you're drunk that's not rape? That's a new one to me.

Truth: Rapists don't actually care what a woman wears. "pretty" women, "ugly" women, women in robes, women in skirts, women in jeans, women in scuba gear... they're all raped with equal predation. Rape is sexualized violence. It's about the power one person needs to express over a victim. The sex is just a particularly vicious tool of abasement and terrorism.

Again, please show us the scientific study that shows this, as opposed to the feminist political doctrine that asserts this.

If a guy begins sexual intercourse with consent, and decides to keep going when consent is withdrawn, that's absolutely a case of rape but it's inane to assert that "It's about the power one person needs to express over a victim. The sex is just a particularly vicious tool of abasement and terrorism". In that case it's about sex.

Look, do you see any conflict between these two claims?
Claim #1: Rape is about power and terrorism, not sex.
Claim #2: If two people have drunken consensual sex, it's rape.

Those two claims are simply incompatible. If one is true the other is false. Pick one and stick to it, and abandon the other.

Truth: Consent is always revokable at any instant in time. This goes for anybody. Once you consider a session to be over, then consent is also over. You must re-acquire it.

Yes.

Truth: Nobody can consent while unconscious. This is an extension of the last myth. Consent is by definition a conscious decision. Once consciousness is gone, consent is gone. This goes for whether the person was passed out due to alcohol, knocked over the head with a board, or they went to sleep naturally.

Yes.

Truth: The motivation for a stranger in an alley and a person on a date to rape their victim is the same. Only their tactics seem to differ. Even so, victims feel the same shame, the same society-induced guilt, the same violence, the same threats, and face the same risk of unwanted pregnancy, which in turn incurs the same increased chance of being murdered, the same harassment from pro-lifers, and the same physical risks inherent in pregnanc itself. Not to mention the same risk of STD.

At the same time, a date rapist is just as likely as a stranger rapist to murder a victim before he/she can testify in a trial.

I want to see evidence for almost all of these factual claims because I find them highly implausible. The only ones that look right are the risk of pregnancy and STDs.

Truth: Only the person being penetracted in a sexual interaction can define consent, for it is their right to bodily intactness that is under duress. This applies whether the recipient is male or female. Whether it's the gay male "catcher" as it's called, or a man who's girlfriend wants to insert a finger into his anus during fellatio, or any penetration two women can initiate. Whether it's by a body part or an object.

This is absolutely false. A man can be raped by inserting their penis into something, and this too is a traumatic and violating experience for those subjected to it.

It looks to me like you're just recycling things you've read in feminist pamphlets as fact and you don't actually know much about the topic beyond that.

Truth: That's just not true. There are thousands of men in the United States every year who get accused of rape, who never even go to trial. They don't even get it on thir records.

And then there are many who go to a supreme jury to see if they go to trial, and it stops there. Nobody ever has to hear about it again.

Then very, very, very few men are found guilty of rape, because of all the prejudices described in this thread.

There are so many men accused of rape is country, but only a handful are ever reported on or have any consequences.. This myth is a canard.

Clearly the extremely low conviction rate shows that nearly everybody is always on the rapist's side. This myth is in fact so prevelant it's self-defeating. It's literally absurd.

Your interpretation of the facts has no more weight than theirs, as far as I can see. This isn't a myth/truth contrast, it's a myth/myth contrast.

Truth: Men calling themselves "mens rights activists" like to say this, but I've destroyed this myth several times. Every time this myth is pulled up and a study cited, it's found that the study makes no distinction between women who lie and women who just didn't win in court, or didn't make it past supreme jury, or weren't taken seriously by the police for them to file a charge.

When you do make this distinction, it's found between 2% and 5% of all rape accusations are lies. The rest are failures of prosecution.

I'm pretty sure this is completely wrong too. My recollection was some of the higher figures come from studies where a false rape complaint was defined as one where the woman either admitted that the rape claim was false, or where it was shown that it was absolutely impossible for the rape to have taken place as she described it.

Personally I don't find it implausible that at some times and places there are nearly as many women willing to cry rape as there are men willing to rape. The level or moral turpitude in either case is comparable.

To save space I've snipped a bunch of stuff I have no argument with.

Truth: When you get to purchase the alcohol, when you get to own the gun, when you have credit n stuff, you have loads more power than somebody underage. It's nearly impossible to wield it fairly.

Once again I think it's philosophically and politically suspect to try to stick "I held her down and forced her to have sex" into the same category as "she jumped on me at a party and it later turned out she was only seventeen", and then perform conceptual gymnastics to figure out how you can construe obvious and enthusiastic consent as not really being consent at all.

I'm not saying we should rush out and repeal the laws against underage/adult sex, but I'm saying that it's idiotic to try to define underage/adult sex as rape as opposed to a different and less serious offence.

Talk about these myths. To your family. In private. In public..

If you're in jury selection, talk about your understanding of rape myths as evidence that you can be a qualified juror. Make sure all those other potential jurors here it. Make them squirm. Even if the case has nothing to do with sexual violence.

That idea might seem like fun to you, but I'm pretty sure it's counterproductive to get evangelistic about these "myths" before you've made sure they are all actually myths. What you've got here is a grab-bag of true claims, false claims and highly questionable claims.

 

[The Atheist]

Translation: It's all men's fault and if you have a penis you should be ashamed.

Next time, ask instead of attempt to interpret, because your mad psychic skillz fail you completely.

Seeing as how I'm a bloke, I'd hardly be likely to have the opinion you suggest, but as I've noted with you several times previously, you'd rather make an arse of yourself with foot-in-mouth disease than spend a few seconds thinking.

Suit yourself.

Not constructive, especially seeing as men are raped a lot more often than anyone wants to admit.

Gosh, posting assertions not backed by evidence because nobody "wants" to provide the evidence? There's a name for that, isn't there?

 

[tyr_13]

Next time, ask instead of attempt to interpret, because your mad psychic skillz fail you completely.

Seeing as how I'm a bloke, I'd hardly be likely to have the opinion you suggest, but as I've noted with you several times previously, you'd rather make an arse of yourself with foot-in-mouth disease than spend a few seconds thinking.

Well, well, you actually believe that being male makes you immune to having a sexist attitude towards men? You're wrong. That's like saying women who advocate that all women should be mothers and not workers based on sex couldn't be sexist because they are women. You being male has absolutely nothing to do with the opinion you expressed.

I'm also male, and I've had to work hard to overcome a lot of my sexist views about how evil men are.

Suit yourself.



Gosh, posting assertions not backed by evidence because nobody "wants" to provide the evidence? There's a name for that, isn't there?

My obvious opinion wasn't backed by evidence. Yours was not either. That makes you just as much of an 'arse' as me. I'll back up mine when you back up yours.

Your opinion obviously is that it is the fault of 'men' that rape isn't taken more seriously. It is mine that that kind of attitude does more harm to the subject than good. In fact, it stopped doing good about twenty years ago.

 

[Soapy Sam]

To the OP- Prof., I'd say what it would take is for a female government minister to be raped in the precincts of the Houses of Parliament by a bloke she met yesterday and chose to get drunk with today- possibly while watching "adult" movies.

The response of society to a type of crime is influenced by widespread perception of the behaviour of both criminal and victim, which is itself affected by the media.

Example:- Man 1 parks a car in a city centre car park, pays the charges, locks the car and returns to find it gone.
Verdict- Bummer, dude! Car theft.

Example:-Man 2 goes to pay at a service station and delays for a latte and a chat with the checkout lady, leaving the car door open with the key in the ignition...
Verdict- Idiot! What did you expect?

So far as the police are concerned, both crimes are car theft. No difference.
Society begs to differ.


Consider.
A businesswoman gets out of her car, near her home, late at night. She is attacked, dragged into a park and raped.
Verdict:- Rape. No doubt about it.

A nineteen year old girl leaves a bar, extremely drunk, supported by her boyfriend of three days. Back at her flat, naked in her bed, they have sex. Next morning, he having puked on the bed, she chucks him out, phones the police and accuses him of rape.
Verdict:-Rape.

Are these two crimes "the same thing"?
They seem to me similar in that sexual intercourse was involved, but at least as different as the two car thefts in virtually every other aspect. The law does not have that luxury. Both are rape. Is this workable?
Are the police justified in expending the same level of resources on both "rapes"? Or are they justified in counting one as far more serious than the other?
If one is more serious, must we not accept that the other is less so?

Is it not true that one is an unjustified and unjustifiable assault on a totally innocent person, while the other was a predictable consequence of incautious personal behaviour?

To say that "No!" must always be the end of the event is fine in theory, but in reality is hopelessly naive. It will not be the end.
It is unwise to get drunk and get on a motorbike. Nobody blames the laws of physics when some drunk wraps him / herself around a tree at 90mph. They don't even blame the tree.
The obvious riposte is that men are not trees and should act responsibly.
Agreed.

Now here's news. Some will. Some won't. Those who don't, may have more offspring.
What it will take for rape to be taken seriously is for all men to accept that they must act according to the sexual preferences of women under any and all circumstances.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, well, you actually believe that being male makes you immune to having a sexist attitude towards men?

No, but luckily, my comment wasn't sexist but obviousist - what percentage of women are raped by other women?

You being male has absolutely nothing to do with the opinion you expressed.

Wow, fastest move ever from telepathy to psychiatry.

Still wrong.

I'm also male, and I've had to work hard to overcome a lot of my sexist views about how evil men are.

Good for you!

Luckily, I grew up in an environment where that kind of rubbish was expunged long before puberty.

My obvious opinion wasn't backed by evidence. Yours was not either. That makes you just as much of an 'arse' as me. I'll back up mine when you back up yours.

Now, you're just being silly. You don't even know what my position is, while you clearly stated that there is far more male-male rape than reported.

What it will take for rape to be taken seriously is for all men to accept that they must act according to the sexual preferences of women under any and all circumstances.

I'm not holding my breath.

Watch out, the 13-year old will be gunning for you too in a minute! He's just explained that it isn't men's fault at all.

I think you're dead right, and on the lack of breath-holding. Far too many fathers either incapable or unavailable to teach that to their sons.

 

[tyr_13]

No, but luckily, my comment wasn't sexist but obviousist - what percentage of women are raped by other women?



Wow, fastest move ever from telepathy to psychiatry.

Still wrong.

If I'm so wrong how about you stop the pissing contest and explain what you freaking meant then? What percentage of women are raped by other women? How does this relate to your position?

Good for you!

Luckily, I grew up in an environment where that kind of rubbish was expunged long before puberty.

Obviously you didn't if you still spout a defense like "I'm a bloke".

Now, you're just being silly. You don't even know what my position is, while you clearly stated that there is far more male-male rape than reported.

There is far more male-male rape than reported. Don't drop the soap. You know exactly what the hell I'm talking about with the last sentence and it all but proves my point. Do you want me to link to the studies? There is far more of all rape than reported.

If I don't have your position right, then explain it. If you won't explain it, just tell me that so I can ignore your comment.

Watch out, the 13-year old will be gunning for you too in a minute! He's just explained that it isn't men's fault at all.

Ad-hom and strawman already?

I think you're dead right, and on the lack of breath-holding. Far too many fathers either incapable or unavailable to teach that to their sons.

That we agree on, however, it isn't just about fathers teaching that to their sons.

 

[The Atheist]

I saw someone earlier on mention police success in dealing with rape as a crime.

This chart, from Wiki, indicates that the more serious crimes are more likely to get a successful prosecution - which is reasonable; cops pursue a murderer much more strenuously than they do a burglar.

Interesting that rape falls below aggravated assault in clearance, while I would imagine most people would consider it a more serious offence.

Even worse are NZ statistics.

Even minor non-sexual assaults carry a clearance rate of 80%, while sex attacks are only cleared at 64%.

Given the NZ police's history of rape and serious sexual misconduct, the idea that the cops don't take rape seriously enough is looking ok.

I wonder what the clearance stats for male rape are?

 

[Magenta]

I wonder what the clearance stats for male rape are?

Don't have much time now, but I pulled this out of a post from another thread, (from a 2006 Australian study carried out in the state of Victoria):

98. Male victims were more likely to see charges laid (27.1 per cent compared with 14 per cent for females). No male victims (n=64) were charged with false reporting or were involved in cases where police doubted their credibility. Male victims were also less likely to withdraw their complaints (8.5 per cent compared with 15.7 per cent of female victims).

[…]

116. An unexpected finding is that male victims are significantly more likely to be involved in cases that proceed. The fact that the victim’s gender could be isolated as a ‘predictor’ beyond the influence of other variables suggests ‘being male’ might be influencing police decision-making. This is an important finding given male victims have historically been amongst those groups least likely to disclose sexual assault or to feel confident to make a police report (Neame & Heenan 2003).

Study of Reported Rapes in Victoria, 2000-2003

 

[Jaxe]

Gosh, posting assertions not backed by evidence because nobody "wants" to provide the evidence? There's a name for that, isn't there?

According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 191,670 victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005.

According to Human Rights Watch, at least 140,000 inmates are raped in the US each year,

That's just inmates... Men getting raped is not as uncomon as you'd think.

 

[The Atheist]

Don't have much time now, but I pulled this out of a post from another thread, (from a 2006 Australian study carried out in the state of Victoria):

Cheers:

No male victims (n=64) were charged with false reporting or were involved in cases where police doubted their credibility.

Curiouser & curiouser.

 

[Jaxe]

No male victims (n=64) were charged with false reporting or were involved in cases where police doubted their credibility.

Seems perfectly understandable once you consider

Male victims were also less likely to withdraw their complaints (8.5 per cent compared with 15.7 per cent of female victims).

and

This is an important finding given male victims have historically been amongst those groups least likely to disclose sexual assault or to feel confident to make a police report (Neame & Heenan 2003).

and ofcourse the likelihood that a straight man would allow someone to mount him and then regret it and cry rape, or accuse another man of rape in general, not to mention a woman, brings with it not only a social stigma but also ridicule, much much more so than for a woman.

Also i am assuming that the numbers for reported male rape victims are way bellow the reported female victims (i couldnt find any actual numbers in the report), so the percentages could be missleading.

Considering that a false accusation is a tool that is 'easier to use', for all intents and purposes, by women, it follows logically that they use it more than men statistically.

 

[L The Detective]

Truth: Only the person being penetracted in a sexual interaction can define consent, for it is their right to bodily intactness that is under duress.

Why? Sounds arbitrary. What's your reasoning?

 

[Dancing David]

Lets see, we have a new myth, the drunk sex myth. That is just great.

When rape occurs because someone is unable to give consent , that is because one party is passed out. I am not aware of a case where some one said that they were raped because they were intoxicated and could not make an informed choice or give informed consent.

When a rape charge occurs around the use of alcohol, it is usually because they are passed out.

Now you could/can make an argument under the standard of care.
A person who is intoxicated may make a choice they regret later, which falls under the standard of care. If you use alcohol, you know it impairs your judgment and so the choice to use and make a choice you regret falls under the standard of care.

When someone is passed out you could try to make a standard of care argument. But a passed out person can not give consent. Now a person who is blacked out and acting responsive would fall under the standard of care. But a person who is non-responsive from alcohol use does not have that obligation, they are unable to give consent.

Here is the deal in the standard of care, when it comes to passed out people. If someone is diabetic and takes a huge amount of sugar and no medication and they pass out. Is someone who has non-consensual sex with them committing rape?

After all the person made the choice to consume the sugar, they made the choice to not take their medication. The standard of care does not apply because they are unable to give consent.

So too for the drunk passed out in their car, say someone steal their wallet while they are passed out, it is still theft or robbery, because the fact that someone is passed out does not mean they gave consent to have their wallet taken.

I am going to be careful, to avoid ranting.

 

[Dancing David]

Aerik, thank you for your extensive post which I am mostly in total agreement with.
However, I do disagree with the following.

.



Truth:

A) If you know she's drunk and then you get drunk just to have an excuse, that's rape. Every time you go to a bar or club and pick out a woman already drunk, then get yourself drunk with the intent of having sex with the person you knew was drunk while you were sober, you're raping.

Impaired judgment from alcohol use does not imply the lack of ability to give consent.

That is the standard of care, it is commonly known that alcohol impair judgment, and therefore it does not take away your obligation to exert the standard of care.

Alcohol impairs judgment, people who are drunk make the choice to drive a car. The fact that they have impaired judgment does not excuse them from the standard of care. So if you get behind the wheel of a car after consuming alcohol, the standard of care applies, regardless of your lack of judgment.

So if someone is drunk, not passed out or I would say incoherent (a difficult legal precedent there) and they have sex due to impaired judgment the question is:
-Did they withdrawal consent?
-Were they capable of withdrawing consent?
-Were they capable of giving consent?

Being passed out would be a 'no'. For each of those.

Having impaired judgment from alcohol would not mean 'no' for those three questions. So they are capable of giving consent, withdrawing consent and therefore the standard of care argument applies. The fact that they choose to do something they regret due to alcohol use does not mean that they were raped.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

This is the law in England regarding alcohol and rape:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6497889.stm

 

[Dancing David]

Why? Sounds arbitrary. What's your reasoning?

Ihe only issue I would have with that statement is that it focuses on penetration.

All people have the right to control how thier body is used by other people. Penetration is NOT the issue.

Ability to give consent or the forcing of someone to partcipate in acts of a sexual nature against one's will is the issue.

Penetration is a red herring and one that perps use to their advantage in child abuse.

That is why sexual contact, voyeurism and masturbation in the presence of a minor had to be added to the list of offenses.

So now Illinois has language about 'acts meant to provide for the sexual arousal or gratification of an adult involving a minor'.

For years those who made children strip, touch the perp, etc... were able to walk because of the focus on penetration.

 

[sphenisc]

What it will take for rape to be taken seriously is for all men to accept that they must act according to the sexual preferences of women under any and all circumstances.

I'm not holding my breath.

Really?? So when did I lose the right to say "No"?