What do feminists want?

[Taarkin]

Yes, in this thread.

Did this happen?

 

[epepke]

EVERY state has laws against raping men. Every single one. I would be curious if you can produce a single state statute that prevents the prosecution of someone who rapes a man. Be very careful, some use the phrase "sexual assault" or "sexual battery." Rape is a subset of those crimes.

I didn't say that it was legal. I said that it wasn't considered rape and so may not have been reported as such.

All Lawrence did was decriminalize VOLUNTARY SODOMY. Laws criminalizing any and all homosexual sex were tossed out, it had nothing to do with rape.

You didn't get to a point here. If you are asserting that the portions of sodomy laws that were about forcible sodomy were not tossed out, I'd really love to see a reference. If that's the case, I'm glad to hear it. I'd like to see some legal opinions, though.

This is just pure nonsense. I'm actually a lawyer licensed in Illinois. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. It's impossible to adequately explain where you went wrong, because those two paragraphs are entirely gibberish.

Well, this is excellent. Perhaps you can explain to me, then, therefore, why Illinois doesn't provide data on rape consistent with Uniform Crime Reporting guidelines.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0305.pdf

Is it possible that you did not know this? Or were you just trying to pull a fast one and get some cheap points by calling it "gibberish" in the hopes that nobody else did?

You may be interested to know that it was a concerted effort by feminists that 1) eliminated the marital exception to rape and 2) caused all relevant statutes to be rewritten such that they were gender neutral.

Yup. Good thing, too. And your point is? I guess I'm 100% full of crap on that, too, so you must think it's bad.

You are 100% full of crap on this. There is no place in America where it is legal to have unconsented, forceable intercourse with a man. It's honestly stunning that someone would try to make such an argument.

Don't know about that, since I didn't make the argument.

By the way, "sexual battery" and "rape" are often indistinguishable terms in the law. One of the following blanks is properly filled with the phrase "sexual battery." It's the Florida statute. The others are an assortment of state rape statutes and legal definitions. See if you can separate "rape" from "sexual battery."*

Oh, it's pretty easy. The "sexual battery" language was adopted many places specifically to avoid assumptions about rape, including that it could only happen to a woman.

You seem to be convinced that factoids about "rape" apply to the new definitions in "sexual battery" statutes. You know this, and I'm ignorant or stupid or insane. This is kind of funny, because even Illinois, where you say are licensed to practice law, is almost entirely incompetent at reporting statistics (with the exception of Rockford, which has all of 150,000 people).

This indicates to me a great deal of faith. Would you like to point me to a good statistical study, preferably a victim survey, using a consistently modern non-sexist definition of sexual battery? I'll read it.

Or would you rather engage in more invective and proof by repeated assertion?

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

I think we should have a JREF whip-round so that the bullied college girl can hire Steven Tyler to surprise Rebecca Watson in an enclosed space and serenade her with 'Love in an elevator'.

I despise bullies and egotists a lot more than the socially inept.

 

[tesscaline]

Did this happen?

You must have TraneWreck on ignore. Either that or you're not actually reading some of his posts.

 

[Dancing David]

Did you miss the "on this forum" part?

Because even now, in this very thread, I see the subject of male rape being belittled in the face of "women's issues". That its okay to belittle the severity of male rape because "women get raped more often".

Maybe it's just a matter of perception... *shrugs*

Hmm, I did not, but that is me, I have discussed my trauma and never been belittled. Could point it out to me?

I did not see it that way.

You must have TraneWreck on ignore. Either that or you're not actually reading some of his posts.

Well I do tend to gloss over them so I take back what I said, did they actually deman men?

 

[Dancing David]

I'm glad that you piped in here. I don't believe @TraneWreck's "facts" either. There are a number of things to consider.

It's only been about three decades since we've taken rape of women seriously, and we've only started. Women who try to report rapes face brutal treatment. I know this, because I was the lover and later the husband of an ER nurse who got training on how to do a "rape kit" back in the middle 1990s, did one, and refused to do it ever again. She said that it was a second rape. (I can get graphic if you like.) I also know because just a couple of years ago a female friend of mine got raped, and I did what support I could for her.

It's still totally abysmal for female victims, and this is reprehensible. However, it is even worse for male victims, who will be laughed at. I know this for many reasons, including my own sexual battery and how there was no support: what little there was was exclusively for women. I also know from some male friends, who only opened up to me after I made comments on public fora.

So almost never will a male victim of rape confide in anybody.

Also, the majority of states do not have laws criminalizing rape of men. Some had sodomy laws, and forcible sodomy was one of the categories. However, the Supreme Court made an opinion in Lawrence v. Texas that struck down all the sodomy laws. A very good opinion in my opinion, by the way, but it has left the state of male victims in limbo.

I am very proud that my home state of Florida replaced all its rape statutes with a non-sexist sexual battery law in 1973. It's good, though it has an interesting flaw in that all sexual intercourse is defined as "sexual battery," but not always the kind that is criminal. Whenever you see a study that talks about the legal definition of rape or sexual battery, check the laws out to see if there is probable cause to think some prevarication is going on.

Still, Florida was and is highly unusual. The overwhelming majority of instances of penes shoved into the vaginas of unwilling women are viewed as rape (except for Illiniois, which has funny laws). The overwhelming majority of instances of penes shoved into the anuses of unwilling men are considered not to be rape.

Nice post. Is anal penetrative, sexuall assualt?

I come from a very goofy state, where at least choking is now considered child abuse and battery.

I think the saddest part of the rape kit, besides taking ALL your clothes is that they never get etsted and sit in boxes because the state is too *********** cheap to process them.

 

[Dancing David]

Nota bene, @bookitty.

I was pissy I should not have posted that.

Ooops, more words mean less.

 

[bookitty]

I was pissy I should not have posted that.

Ooops, more words mean less.

It happens. Who doesn't get their internet rage on sometimes.

But I'm not really sure what one single statement is supposed to prove.

 

[epepke]

Nice post. Is anal penetrative, sexuall assualt?

In Florida, it's sexual battery.

 

[TraneWreck]

I didn't say that it was legal. I said that it wasn't considered rape and so may not have been reported as such.

Again, this is just confusion over legal terms.

You didn't get to a point here. If you are asserting that the portions of sodomy laws that were about forcible sodomy were not tossed out, I'd really love to see a reference. If that's the case, I'm glad to hear it. I'd like to see some legal opinions, though.

Is forceable sodomy "intercourse without consent?" Sure seems like it is.

Sodomy used to be a crime, whether forced or not. Now it's legal to engage in the act willfully, still illegal to do so forceably.

Well, this is excellent. Perhaps you can explain to me, then, therefore, why Illinois doesn't provide data on rape consistent with Uniform Crime Reporting guidelines.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0305.pdf

Is it possible that you did not know this? Or were you just trying to pull a fast one and get some cheap points by calling it "gibberish" in the hopes that nobody else did?

First of all, you're not looking at what the problem was, but it's moot:

The Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting (I-UCR) Program was directed in March 2009 to revise the program reporting guidelines to achieve compliance to the Federal Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The resulting revisions were implemented in January 2010

http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/ucrhome.cfm

Here's another important part:

Both increases and decreases in certain categories will be realized due to these changes, not necessarily due to an actual increase or decrease in offenses and arrests having occurred throughout the year.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/ucrhome.cfm

Now let's observe the change that was made:

Forcible Rape (Previously Criminal Sexual Assault)

Offenses: Only offenses where a female was forcibly raped against her will are reported.
Previously, all Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault, Criminal Sexual Assault, Forcible Sodomy, Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault of a Child, and Criminal Sexual Assault With an Object offenses were collected under the category of Criminal Sexual Assault.

Impact: Significant. Due to the narrow definition of the Federal UCR Program, offenses previously reported are no longer collected. Statistics are expected to decrease based on definition alone.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/2010ucrprgimpact.pdf

Yes, Illinois wasn't counted because their guidelines were BROADER than the federal rules. The statistics you cited categorize rape based on the gender of the victim, Illinois used a broader definition.

The UCR, which again, is just a data collection agency, is the one with the horrible definition:

The UCR defines forcible rape as, "the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." It does not list rapes against men, nor does it list same-sex rape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Crime_Reports

Yup. Good thing, too. And your point is? I guess I'm 100% full of crap on that, too, so you must think it's bad.

No, it's just odd that all of this came up in the context of feminists have too narrow of a focus. They're actually the ones primarily responsible for dealing with the problems you've cited, meaning you're being ridiculous on a number of levels.

Don't know about that, since I didn't make the argument.

"...the majority of states do not have laws criminalizing rape of men."

Again, that's false. It appears that all you've done is resort to a semantic argument parsing the difference between "sexual assault or battery" and "rape." If you actually read the laws, this is not a meaningful distinction. It's still illegal to rape someone in Florida, engage in sexual penetration against their will, even though they call it "sexual battery."

Oh, it's pretty easy. The "sexual battery" language was adopted many places specifically to avoid assumptions about rape, including that it could only happen to a woman.

Find these states. The terms are used interchangeably in most places, and there are still federal laws that refer specifically to rape and are gender neutral. There really is nothing to you points.

But again, of those statutes I posted, only one fills the blank with "sexual battery." If you think this is a meaningful distinction, try to place it properly. Also find me that state statute that distinguishes based on the gender of the victim.

You seem to be convinced that factoids about "rape" apply to the new definitions in "sexual battery" statutes. You know this, and I'm ignorant or stupid or insane. This is kind of funny, because even Illinois, where you say are licensed to practice law, is almost entirely incompetent at reporting statistics (with the exception of Rockford, which has all of 150,000 people).

No, they aren't incompetent, they just used a method that wasn't approved by a particular data collecting source. They are now in compliance.

I notice you skipped the challenge. You didn't even try to distinguish "rape" from "Sexual battery" in the statutes. Why is that? Are you now realizing the lack of a meaningful legal distinction?

This indicates to me a great deal of faith. Would you like to point me to a good statistical study, preferably a victim survey, using a consistently modern non-sexist definition of sexual battery? I'll read it.

Or would you rather engage in more invective and proof by repeated assertion?

I don't even know what you mean by that. I gave you studies by the justice department, you're not going to do better than that, but you just waved all that away because you 1) don't understand laws and statutes and 2) can't tell the difference between data collection and criminal prosecution.

 

[TraneWreck]

You must have TraneWreck on ignore. Either that or you're not actually reading some of his posts.

Where did I dismiss male rape? I pointed out that it's rare compared to assaults against women and almost always perpetrated by men. I also asserted that in the context of this discussion, though it's a valid topic in its own right, it serves primarily as distraction.

I'm two posts from being accused of waving the bloody shirt.

 

[epepke]

I come from a very goofy state, where at least choking is now considered child abuse and battery.

Took a while? Stranger things have happened.

I remember times in Florida when 1) open carry was permitted, and 2) there was no legal age of consent. Both were fixed within a year or so, but this kind of thing makes me skeptical of reports, especially in light of the Gelles, Straus, and Steinmetz study of domestic violence, which either surprised or outraged nearly everybody by showing that F->M violence is a lot more common than was previously thought. (Steinmetz got a bomb threat for talking about it, which shows how strongly people didn't want to accept the conclusions of a rather well designed and conducted study.)

I've only been able to track down the statutes of about a half a dozen states since yesterday. Most seem to be modern and OK, but Alabama is a bit weird. It's only rape if the perpetrator and victim are opposite sexes.

I think the saddest part of the rape kit, besides taking ALL your clothes is that they never get etsted and sit in boxes because the state is too *********** cheap to process them.

Well, in Florida the rape kit involved plucking 20 pubic hairs and 20 head hairs, and if you didn't get the root intact, then they had to do it over. Extremely unpleasant.

 

[bookitty]

Well, in Florida the rape kit involved plucking 20 pubic hairs and 20 head hairs, and if you didn't get the root intact, then they had to do it over. Extremely unpleasant.

WHAT? I can understand wanting pubic samples in a rape kit but the root would be unaffected by even violent intercourse. As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) they only test head hair for drug use. If the root is needed, it is to test for very recent drug use. What's the point of testing the victim for that?

ETA: Ok, I can see testing head hair for roofies or other "date rape" drugs. But if there was no reason to think that as the case, why bother?

ETA

I've only been able to track down the statutes of about a half a dozen states since yesterday. Most seem to be modern and OK, but Alabama is a bit weird. It's only rape if the perpetrator and victim are opposite sexes.

What about statutory rape laws?

 

[TraneWreck]

I've only been able to track down the statutes of about a half a dozen states since yesterday. Most seem to be modern and OK, but Alabama is a bit weird. It's only rape if the perpetrator and victim are opposite sexes.

This would be one of the many reasons why Alabama has the sort of reputation it does.

 

[000063]

Here's something that bugs me; if a woman takes a man to court for rape or sexual harassment, her personal and sexual history will be bought into the light by defense council. That's generally considered wrong. But a woman accusing a man of sexual harassment online can instantly have an army of Internet Detectives hunting down every public detail of his personal life and slandering him, based on nothing more than her say-so. Why is that okay, but the first one isn't?

EDIT: It's a double standard, is my implication here. Just wanted to make sure I was being clear, not passive-aggressively >implying.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Here's something that bugs me; if a woman takes a man to court for rape or sexual harassment,

Rape is a crime. A woman doesn't bring a man to court for rape; the State does.
Sexual harassment is an employment issue. A woman doesn't bring a man to court for sexual harassment; she brings her employer to court for letting it happen.

That being said, whatever rape shield laws protect sexual assault victims do so irrespective of gender. They're bad laws, but I've never seen evidence that they're applied unequally.

 

[epepke]

WHAT? I can understand wanting pubic samples in a rape kit but the root would be unaffected by even violent intercourse. As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) they only test head hair for drug use. If the root is needed, it is to test for very recent drug use. What's the point of testing the victim for that?

ETA: Ok, I can see testing head hair for roofies or other "date rape" drugs. But if there was no reason to think that as the case, why bother?

I cannot make sense of it or explaining why they did that. I think it's horrible. I'm just reporting that's what they did in the 1990s. I think the rules have since been changed, but I don't have an "in" any more.

What about statutory rape laws?

What about them? I know that they are highly variable, and the AOC is somewhat variable. That's a big can of worms.

 

[epepke]

This would be one of the many reasons why Alabama has the sort of reputation it does.

No Rule 10 violation.

I lived in Alabama, in Huntsville, which is the only semi-redeemable place.

 

[Dancing David]

Took a while? Stranger things have happened.

The choking issue was resolved twenty years ago or more, it was right after the implementation of ANCARA and some SAs read the law about bruising to mean that if an act did not leave bruising it was not physical abues. Hence they ameneded the law to be

"inflicts, causes to be inflicted, or allows to be inflicted upon such child physical or mental injury, by other than accidental means, which causes death, disfigurement, impairment of physical or emotional health, or loss or impairment of any bodily function;

creates a substantial risk of physical or mental injury to such child by other than accidental means which would be likely to cause death, disfigurement, impairment of physical or emotional health, or loss of or impairment of any bodily function; "

Well, in Florida the rape kit involved plucking 20 pubic hairs and 20 head hairs, and if you didn't get the root intact, then they had to do it over. Extremely unpleasant.

*********** ********! OMFSM, aarrrgh.

 

[Koudelka]

So, mockery aside, why didn't you think of that term?

I guess I'm just not as clever as you. Congratulations.