"Not Ever" - A Campaign Against Blaming Rape Victims

[bookitty]

Your womens studies teacher has a very unusual definition of "nice".

Did I mention she was psycho?

 

[Morrigan]

Yes. Getting drunk out of your mind in roudy parties with strangers is not recommended.

Why are you bringing up strangers here? I already addressed that. Yes, getting very drunk with strangers around isn't the safest thing in the world, but remember, most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. So this "advice" wouldn't work for most cases of rape.

Neither is having a boyfriend who's 25 when you're 15. Moving in with a violent boyfriend is also a bad idea.

Agreed. But are most rapes committed in such circumstances? Just wondering.

My impression is that the majority of rapes come from circumstances similar to BobTheDonkey's girlfriend, not the "alone in a dark alley" or even "too drunk with strangers around".

Seriously, you can't put this together from the data yourself? blah blah blah

Way to misrepresent everything I said. I'm trying to compile a list of behaviour that women should avoid if they want to eliminate the risk of rape. Now I repeat, since most rapes are committed by people known to the victim, that means most of the so-called risky behaviours listed here are irrelevant. The only relevant one is the teenage girl's older boyfriend, but then, teenagers for behaving irresponsibly is older than Jesus.

Are you kidding me? I pray you don't have a daughter. If I found out a 19 year old guy was hanging around my 15 year old daughter I'd castrate him and ground her. FFS it's practically a law. Do you know what statutory rape is? Even a 2 year age gap is flirting with trouble.

Really? You'd "castrate" him? For merely hanging out? I'm glad you weren't my father. Sounds like you're really quite hysterical.

And no, I have no idea what "statutory rape" means, please enlighten me.

I don't have a daughter, but I was a teenage girl not THAT long ago. I didn't have a much older boyfriend (I started seeing my first and only boyfriend when I was 17 and he was 18, the age of consent was 14 (and it's now 16) here at the time by the way). But my brother is 8 years my senior and he often had some of his buddies home, and I hanged out with them sometimes. Nothing ever happened, they were his friends, decent guys we trusted (though one did some jail time... for small-time possession and reselling of marijuana; he was a bit of a bum, but not a bad guy). But according to you, I guess that they should have been castrated for merely "hanging around" me. Hell, sometimes they came around and my brother wasn't there, so they stuck around, played video games or just talked or whatever. The horror! I was even *gasps* alone around some of them sometimes! If something did happen, it would have been partially my fault, for not immediately locking myself up in my bedroom and not moving out of there until my brother or my parents returned. Right?

I'm just shocked that you don't understand girls and younger women shouldn't hanging around or be alone with older men, including family. I can't tell if you're being serious or just deliberately dense to make a point. If you're trying to make a point I just don't get it.

I guess you don't get it. My point is that while some of the "risky behaviours" (that would put partial responsibility on the woman) listed here are reasonable, they don't remotely address the majority of rape cases. And then you have a whole lot of so-called rape avoidance "advice" that are downright unreasonable and are tantamount to, "assume any male is a potential rapist", which is not only hysterical, it's downright male-hating sexism. For example, your hysterical "castrate any older guy hanging around my teenage daughter" thing.

Basically, I'm trying to figure out what is this list of "risky behaviour" that women should avoid that also address the majority of rapes. Like bookitty said, every women has been drilled with the whole, "don't walk alone in a deserted street at night, don't get too drunk around complete strangers" deal since we were girls. And most women do avoid those risky behaviours, which is why those rapes are few and far between. Repeatedly listing those risky behaviours therefore seems rather counter-productive, not to mention cruel to rape victims, as bookitty said.

OMG! These poor rapists! They can't help themselves! That poor 25 year old guy who needs to mess up a 15 year old, he just can't get a real girlfriend - cut him some slack!

Now you're just being unfair, or missing his point. That's not at all what he said. He was basically saying, "it's probabe that most 20 year olds with 15 year old girlfriends are just shy loners, rather than rapists, but that doesn't mean it's not risky for a 15 year old to date a 20+ year old guy". He was NOT saying that the 20+ year old guy who rape his teenage girlfriends was doing that because he was lonely and couldn't help himself; he was separating them into two distinct categories.

We have to distinguish between preventative measures that are reasonably achieveable and those that aren't. If you never date, never socialize with males alone, never go to parties and so on, then you'll be less likely to get raped. But advising women to behave like this would be ridiculous. So saying that not living under a rock can lead to rape would be technically true, but meaningless to point out.

f there are reasonable measures that can be taken that would make being raped significantly less likely to occur, then I think advising women to consider them for the sake of their safety is certainly reasonable.

OTOH, chastising a rape victim for not taking these measures after the fact would just be cruel and pointless.

Agreed 100% with this. Actually, that's exactly what I've been trying to say initially, but I guess it came across wrong.

 

[theprestige]

Are you saying there should be non-legal ramifications?

Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes. Absolutely yes, there should be non-legal ramifications.

There should be non-legal ramifications for everything. In fact, there are non-legal ramifications for everything. It's not like life begins and ends with the letter of the law--nor should it.

What thin, pathetic, and unsatisfying relationships we would have, if the legal ramifications were the only things we considered, or even the most important. It's all the non-legal ramifications that make up the depth and richness of human interaction, both its ugliness and its beauty.

And what a thin, pathetic, and unsatisfying view of rape you seem to have, that begins and ends with the legal ramifications!

Responsible in what sense if not legally? Ethically? Or responsible in the same sense that I'm responsible for being killed by a drunk driver, because I chose to drive instead of take the bus (i.e. made possible or made more likely)?

Responsible in the sense that you bear responsibility for your own actions. Do you not assume responsibility for yourself and your life and how you choose to live it? Do you not take reasonable precautions, because if something bad happens to you it won't be your fault? Do you live your life on the principle that nothing you do is your responsibility, so long as it's not legally your responsibility?

If it's an obvious principle in cases other than rape then why don't you give a non-ridiculous example for comparison? Like one where someone is actually the victim.

Your friend is drunk. He offers you a ride home. You accept. He wraps the car around a tree. He dies, and you're maimed for life.

You're driving a car. You choose not to wear a seat belt. You drive safely and legally, but another, more careless driver crashes into you. You're flung through the windshield, and suffer grievous injuries.

An acquaintance of yours invites you to join him and his friends on an armed robbery. Everybody gets a loaded gun. You don't shoot the shopkeeper, but somebody else does.

A mugger accosts you in a dark alley. He brandishes a pistol and tells you to hand over your wallet. You tell him over your dead body. He promptly obliges.

Your house is on fire. You've escaped with your life, but not your prized stamp collection. You rush back into the burning building. You burn to death.

You invest your savings in a high-risk stock purchase, without doing any due diligence. While other investors see their wealth increase, you watch your retirement fund spiral down the drain.

Accidents happen. Bad luck happens. People are victimized by other people through no fault of their own. But sometimes, people make decisions that put them at risk. Should they not be responsible for the risks they choose to take?

 

[bookitty]

Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes. Absolutely yes, there should be non-legal ramifications.

There should be non-legal ramifications for everything. In fact, there are non-legal ramifications for everything. It's not like life begins and ends with the letter of the law--nor should it.

What thin, pathetic, and unsatisfying relationships we would have, if the legal ramifications were the only things we considered, or even the most important. It's all the non-legal ramifications that make up the depth and richness of human interaction, both its ugliness and its beauty.

And what a thin, pathetic, and unsatisfying view of rape you seem to have, that begins and ends with the legal ramifications!



Responsible in the sense that you bear responsibility for your own actions. Do you not assume responsibility for yourself and your life and how you choose to live it? Do you not take reasonable precautions, because if something bad happens to you it won't be your fault? Do you live your life on the principle that nothing you do is your responsibility, so long as it's not legally your responsibility?



Your friend is drunk. He offers you a ride home. You accept. He wraps the car around a tree. He dies, and you're maimed for life.

You're driving a car. You choose not to wear a seat belt. You drive safely and legally, but another, more careless driver crashes into you. You're flung through the windshield, and suffer grievous injuries.

An acquaintance of yours invites you to join him and his friends on an armed robbery. Everybody gets a loaded gun. You don't shoot the shopkeeper, but somebody else does.

A mugger accosts you in a dark alley. He brandishes a pistol and tells you to hand over your wallet. You tell him over your dead body. He promptly obliges.

Your house is on fire. You've escaped with your life, but not your prized stamp collection. You rush back into the burning building. You burn to death.

You invest your savings in a high-risk stock purchase, without doing any due diligence. While other investors see their wealth increase, you watch your retirement fund spiral down the drain.

Accidents happen. Bad luck happens. People are victimized by other people through no fault of their own. But sometimes, people make decisions that put them at risk. Should they not be responsible for the risks they choose to take?

I think that somewhere in this thread it may have been mentioned already that the majority of rapes are not committed in high risk situations. Every example you give is a high risk situation with clear potential for self-harm.

 

[Furcifer]

Way to misrepresent everything I said. I'm trying to compile a list of behaviour that women should avoid if they want to eliminate the risk of rape. Now I repeat, since most rapes are committed by people known to the victim, that means most of the so-called risky behaviours listed here are irrelevant. The only relevant one is the teenage girl's older boyfriend, but then, teenagers for behaving irresponsibly is older than Jesus.

It's been discussed many many times that the majority of rapes are by "aquintances" on women about 16-20. It's been mentioned in this thread numerous times as well as several others. Forgive me if I don't see why you think it's relevant.

Really? You'd "castrate" him? For merely hanging out? I'm glad you weren't my father. Sounds like you're really quite hysterical.

Yes, for hanging out. If an older guy said "Nice weather" to my daughter I'd castrate him.

I don't have a daughter, but I was a teenage girl not THAT long ago. I didn't have a much older boyfriend (I started seeing my first and only boyfriend when I was 17 and he was 18, the age of consent was 14 (and it's now 16) here at the time by the way). But my brother is 8 years my senior and he often had some of his buddies home, and I hanged out with them sometimes. Nothing ever happened, they were his friends, decent guys we trusted (though one did some jail time... for small-time possession and reselling of marijuana; he was a bit of a bum, but not a bad guy). But according to you, I guess that they should have been castrated for merely "hanging around" me. Hell, sometimes they came around and my brother wasn't there, so they stuck around, played video games or just talked or whatever. The horror! I was even *gasps* alone around some of them sometimes! If something did happen, it would have been partially my fault, for not immediately locking myself up in my bedroom and not moving out of there until my brother or my parents returned. Right?

Do you think misinterpreting "hanging out" serves any purpose? It isn't furthering the discussion.

I guess you don't get it. My point is that while some of the "risky behaviours" (that would put partial responsibility on the woman) listed here are reasonable, they don't remotely address the majority of rape cases. And then you have a whole lot of so-called rape avoidance "advice" that are downright unreasonable and are tantamount to, "assume any male is a potential rapist", which is not only hysterical, it's downright male-hating sexism. For example, your hysterical "castrate any older guy hanging around my teenage daughter" thing.

No you're playing a game of semantics. And I don't think you realize with what group a majority of rape cases occur.

Based on reported and unreported cases, most rapes or sexual assaults happen to girls in their teens and early twenties. Alcohol is usually involved and the location is inside a house.

House parties or going back to someone's house after the bar is a bad idea. If you avoid getting too intoxicated and being alone with a guy between about 15-22 around half of all rapes could be avoided.

Basically, I'm trying to figure out what is this list of "risky behaviour" that women should avoid that also address the majority of rapes. Like bookitty said, every women has been drilled with the whole, "don't walk alone in a deserted street at night, don't get too drunk around complete strangers" deal since we were girls. And most women do avoid those risky behaviours, which is why those rapes are few and far between. Repeatedly listing those risky behaviours therefore seems rather counter-productive, not to mention cruel to rape victims, as bookitty said.

If a girl 16-22 stays sober enough to avoid being alone with a guy and has a friend to watch and watch her back the two of them have almost no chance of being raped.

Getting this message drilled into a young woman's head would be far more effective than "Don't blame the victim". I realize most women already know this, but for some reason they aren't getting it.

Perhaps I'm not reading the stats right or misinterpreting them, but it seems to me this is how the majority of rapes happen. Feel free to correct me.

 

[Meed]

Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes. Absolutely yes, there should be non-legal ramifications.

So explain what those ramifications should be for a rape victim (on top of getting raped)?

There should be non-legal ramifications for everything. In fact, there are non-legal ramifications for everything. It's not like life begins and ends with the letter of the law--nor should it.

What thin, pathetic, and unsatisfying relationships we would have, if the legal ramifications were the only things we considered, or even the most important. It's all the non-legal ramifications that make up the depth and richness of human interaction, both its ugliness and its beauty.

And what a thin, pathetic, and unsatisfying view of rape you seem to have, that begins and ends with the legal ramifications!

Now you're just stating the obvious and attributing a position to me that I haven't claimed.

Responsible in the sense that you bear responsibility for your own actions. Do you not assume responsibility for yourself and your life and how you choose to live it? Do you not take reasonable precautions, because if something bad happens to you it won't be your fault? Do you live your life on the principle that nothing you do is your responsibility, so long as it's not legally your responsibility?

Your friend is drunk. He offers you a ride home. You accept. He wraps the car around a tree. He dies, and you're maimed for life.

You're driving a car. You choose not to wear a seat belt. You drive safely and legally, but another, more careless driver crashes into you. You're flung through the windshield, and suffer grievous injuries.

An acquaintance of yours invites you to join him and his friends on an armed robbery. Everybody gets a loaded gun. You don't shoot the shopkeeper, but somebody else does.

A mugger accosts you in a dark alley. He brandishes a pistol and tells you to hand over your wallet. You tell him over your dead body. He promptly obliges.

Your house is on fire. You've escaped with your life, but not your prized stamp collection. You rush back into the burning building. You burn to death.

You invest your savings in a high-risk stock purchase, without doing any due diligence. While other investors see their wealth increase, you watch your retirement fund spiral down the drain.

Accidents happen. Bad luck happens. People are victimized by other people through no fault of their own. But sometimes, people make decisions that put them at risk. Should they not be responsible for the risks they choose to take?

You haven't really said anything. What difference does it make if you label someone "responsible" or "not responsible" for being mugged/raped/killed? If you tell me what you think that difference should be in terms of "ramifications" then you'll have said something.

 

[brenn]

I've had this discussion in a class about feminist epistemology and there was a time where I agreed with this. It's intuitive to think "her claim may not be true" and thus, you'd be inclined to demand proof. On the other hand, this is precisely why other rape victims may be afraid to come forward; proving a rape is harder than proving a murder and when people—especially friends—question whether or not the victim is telling the truth, this makes it more difficult for other victims to come forward.

Proving rape is harder than proving murder? Did they say that in feminist epistemology class? because I've worked my whole life in law and law enforcement and I'm just shocked that somebody would say that or convince others to believe it. Not only does rape leave a LOT of evidence, including a live victim (since we are separating rape from murder), but experience says that sex crimes in general are the easiest crimes to convince a jury to convict on with insufficient evidence. I have seen cases where 1 person's word against another was enough to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt against the person most supported by the physical evidence.

So our class has a solution: accept the rape victim's claim that she was raped as true until proven otherwise and acknowledge that the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty. At the end of the day, there is only one truth, but while pursuing the truth, you can avoid unjustifiably stigmatizing both sides. No one should have to go to jail based on an accusation alone and no one who was raped should be afraid to address it in a court of law.

Does that really make sense to you? That we could decide guilt by presuming that the defendant is guilty and is not guilty at the same time? I'd be interested to hear how that would play ut in court. Unfortunately, it is often the case with sec crimes that the trial tend to start with a presumption of guilt, in reality, if not in law.

 

[theprestige]

I think that somewhere in this thread it may have been mentioned already that the majority of rapes are not committed in high risk situations. Every example you give is a high risk situation with clear potential for self-harm.

This is very true.

But the campaign isn't called the "almost never, except in some rare cases". It's called "not ever".

It's that absolute denial that makes my hair stand on end. If it were a campaign about how bad things happen despite our best efforts, but that doesn't excuse us from being responsible for making the best effort we can, I'd have no problem with it, and no objection to make.

As it is, this thread suggests that one of the side effects of the campaign is to stifle all debate about what can reasonably be done to make an informed decision about minimizing the risk factors associated with rape.

Sometimes, there are risk factors that can be minimized. Some people choose not to minimize those factors, but to put themselves at risk instead. You pointing out that there are other times when there's nothing the victim could reasonably have done doesn't change this--nor does it address the point.

The implication of the "not ever" campaign is that it's heresy to even bring the point up. Which may explain why you're not addressing it.

 

[theprestige]

So explain what those ramifications should be for a rape victim (on top of getting raped)?



Now you're just stating the obvious and attributing a position to me that I haven't claimed.



You haven't really said anything. What difference does it make if you label someone "responsible" or "not responsible" for being mugged/raped/killed? If you tell me what you think that difference should be in terms of "ramifications" then you'll have said something.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I did not use "should" in the sense of prescribing any further consequences for the victim.

Rather, I meant it in the sense that we should certainly expect there to be non-legal ramifications. As you pointed out, this is obviously true.

Also, you seemed to be implying that I thought there should be legal ramifications for the victim. I certainly don't think this.

I do think that people are responsible for the decisions they make, and the actions they choose to take. This is, to me a fundamental principle. To the extent that campaigns like "Not Ever" stifle debate about questions of personal responsibility and informed decisions regarding risk-avoidance, I think they undermine this principle to the detriment of everyone.

I don't think that people who knowingly choose to put themselves at risk deserve any kind of extra punishment, or even any punishment at all. I certainly wouldn't wish rape on them, regardless of how foolish I thought their decisions, or how risky their behavior. But I do acknowledge that bad things often happen to people who knowingly take risks, and that they do bear responsibility for the choices they make.

It seems horrible to me that a woman would believe she should take responsibility for the choices made by her rapist. In this I wholeheartedly agree: "not ever!"

But that doesn't mean we should fail to recognize, or refuse to address the responsibility we each have for our own choices.

 

[Big Boss]

Not only does rape leave a LOT of evidence, including a live victim (since we are separating rape from murder), but experience says that sex crimes in general are the easiest crimes to convince a jury to convict on with insufficient evidence.

You're conflating "proof" with the willingness of a jury to convict on insufficient evidence. And actually, the burden or proof used to be even higher for rape victims too, as a lot of state laws required them to show evidence of physical resistance to rape. A lot of those laws have been reformed because 1. you can be raped without physically resisting (or verbally resisting for that matter, hence the importance of consent) and 2. physically resisting puts the victim in danger. So assuming everyone is cognizant of the law, this pretty much means you have to resist in order to show that a rape occurred.

Does that really make sense to you? That we could decide guilt by presuming that the defendant is guilty and is not guilty at the same time? I'd be interested to hear how that would play ut in court.

Uh, my position wouldn't play out legally one way or another at all since juries can't say "I dunno", but you can still presume the attacker is innocent until proven guilty AND assume the victim is relating facts honestly from the beginning of your pursuit for the truth. This prevents you from stigmatizing the victim and being too hasty when it comes to judging the accused.

But yeah, legally, there is no agnostic judgment.

Edit: I see why my original position was confusing. I should have clarified that the simultaneous assumptions are 1. the rape victim is recalling events honestly and 2. the accused is innocent until proven guilty. What I meant by "the victim is telling the truth" is "the victim is telling the truth as she remembers it" and that you can accept that for the time being. And yes, you can make those assumptions together (since, as I'm now making clear, you're not assuming anyone is telling the objective truth).

 

[quixotecoyote]

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I did not use "should" in the sense of prescribing any further consequences for the victim.

Rather, I meant it in the sense that we should certainly expect there to be non-legal ramifications. As you pointed out, this is obviously true.

Also, you seemed to be implying that I thought there should be legal ramifications for the victim. I certainly don't think this.

I do think that people are responsible for the decisions they make, and the actions they choose to take. This is, to me a fundamental principle. To the extent that campaigns like "Not Ever" stifle debate about questions of personal responsibility and informed decisions regarding risk-avoidance, I think they undermine this principle to the detriment of everyone.

I don't think that people who knowingly choose to put themselves at risk deserve any kind of extra punishment, or even any punishment at all. I certainly wouldn't wish rape on them, regardless of how foolish I thought their decisions, or how risky their behavior. But I do acknowledge that bad things often happen to people who knowingly take risks, and that they do bear responsibility for the choices they make.

It seems horrible to me that a woman would believe she should take responsibility for the choices made by her rapist. In this I wholeheartedly agree: "not ever!"

But that doesn't mean we should fail to recognize, or refuse to address the responsibility we each have for our own choices.

I don't think this actually answers the question. . What difference does it make if you label someone "responsible" or "not responsible"? What are the ramifications?

 

[Skeptic]

She said that most men are nice guys who think they would rape if they could get away with it.

She also taught that Black people are usually nice guys but would slit your throat if they could get away with it, and Jews nice guys who think it's OK to steal every last penny from a non-Jew if they could get away with it, I'll bet.

As you said, "psycho"...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Uh, my position wouldn't play out legally one way or another at all since juries can't say "I dunno", but you can still presume the attacker is innocent until proven guilty AND assume the victim is relating facts honestly from the beginning of your pursuit for the truth. This prevents you from stigmatizing the victim and being too hasty when it comes to judging the accused.

But yeah, legally, there is no agnostic judgment.

Edit: I see why my original position was confusing. I should have clarified that the simultaneous assumptions are 1. the rape victim is recalling events honestly and 2. the accused is innocent until proven guilty. What I meant by "the victim is telling the truth" is "the victim is telling the truth as she remembers it" and that you can accept that for the time being. And yes, you can make those assumptions together (since, as I'm now making clear, you're not assuming anyone is telling the objective truth).

This looks like a distinction without a difference. You are saying they aren't guilty until proven innocent, but they are guilty as soon as they are accused unless they can prove the accusation is false.

While this system would no doubt make it substantially easier to convict rapists, it would also make it substantially easier to convict innocent people.

Studies or false rape complaint rates vary wildly in their results. In some times and places false rape complaints seem to be very frequent even with quite conservative parameters (counting only cases where the complainant retracted the confession and admitted to lying), in others they seem to be a few percent of complaints at most. However what they all have in common is that the rate of false rape complaints is non-zero, hence we should be very cautious about proposing "reforms" such that all rape complaints are treated as true automatically.

The fact is that just as some men rape given the chance, some women make false rape complaints. The vast majority of men would never rape, just as the vast majority of women would never make a false rape complaint, but courts need to be ready to deal with the unsavoury minority in both groups.

 

[Big Boss]

This looks like a distinction without a difference. You are saying they aren't guilty until proven innocent, but they are guilty as soon as they are accused unless they can prove the accusation is false.

The accused is so accused by what you can conditionally accept as an honestly made accusation, which is distinguished from an objectively truthful accusation, the latter being what you do not accept.

However what they all have in common is that the rate of false rape complaints is non-zero, hence we should be very cautious about proposing "reforms" such that all rape complaints are treated as true automatically.

I'm not talking about any legal reform that treats rape complaints as true by default. I'm talking about an epistemological stance: it is possible to simultaneously conceive that the victim is relaying testimony honestly—that is, she is telling the truth as she remembers it—and that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. You cannot simultaneously accept what is objectively true and what is objectively false, but that's not what I'm asking people to do.

The fact is that just as some men rape given the chance, some women make false rape complaints. The vast majority of men would never rape, just as the vast majority of women would never make a false rape complaint, but courts need to be ready to deal with the unsavoury minority in both groups.

This is true of any crime and hell, one of the key reasons we have a court system; no accusation should be treated as automatically true and an accusation should not be enough to convict. The standard of proof is different for different crimes, of course, and if that's what you specifically have an issue with, I'd like to know what specifically courts aren't dealing with properly (and I'm open to the idea that they aren't dealing with something properly).

*Edited because the study link is broken for some reason.*

 

[Morrigan]

It's been discussed many many times that the majority of rapes are by "aquintances" on women about 16-20. It's been mentioned in this thread numerous times as well as several others. Forgive me if I don't see why you think it's relevant.

It's spelled "acquaintances", and thanks for confirming that a woman should never be drunk around acquaintances otherwise she's being utterly careless and risks getting raped.

Yes, for hanging out. If an older guy said "Nice weather" to my daughter I'd castrate him.

Do you think misinterpreting "hanging out" serves any purpose? It isn't furthering the discussion.

If you think I'm misinterpreting you, then perhaps you should clarify instead of whining about it. You wrote "hanging out". If you meant to write "have sex with", why didn't you write that instead of piddling around with lame euphemisms? Just so you can complain about being misinterpreted, maybe?

But then, if you meant "have sex" instead of "hanging out", you aren't furthering the discussion, either; the initial "advice" told to young girls was actually to avoid being around older guys period, in case one of them started pressuring them for sex, resulting in rapes. Which frankly isn't reasonable at all.

If you avoid getting too intoxicated and being alone with a guy between about 15-22 around half of all rapes could be avoided.

I'd be curious to see some evidence for that.

Edit: a quick glance at wikipedia (with sources, though I didn't check them all yet) reveals that only 7% of rapes are committed during parties. Interesting.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The accused is so accused by what you can conditionally accept as an honestly made accusation, which is distinguished from an objectively truthful accusation, the latter being what you do not accept.

I'm not talking about any legal reform that treats rape complaints as true by default. I'm talking about an epistemological stance: it is possible to simultaneously conceive that the victim is relaying testimony honestly—that is, she is telling the truth as she remembers it—and that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. You cannot simultaneously accept what is objectively true and what is objectively false, but that's not what I'm asking people to do.

The same problem applies. Suppose some woman says to herself "I want to get Alan in trouble, I'll go make a false rape complaint". So she goes to the police and says "Alan came to my house a month ago and brutally raped me at knife point". The court says "Well, there's no physical evidence either way because it all happened a month ago, and we've adopted the epistemological stance that this woman could not possibly be lying because Big Boss thought that was a smart idea, and it sure doesn't sound like she's honestly mistaken because her statement is very clear-cut. Guilty as charged!".

 

[Big Boss]

The same problem applies. Suppose some woman says to herself "I want to get Alan in trouble, I'll go make a false rape complaint". So she goes to the police and says "Alan came to my house a month ago and brutally raped me at knife point". The court says "Well, there's no physical evidence either way because it all happened a month ago, and we've adopted the epistemological stance that this woman could not possibly be lying because Big Boss thought that was a smart idea, and it sure doesn't sound like she's honestly mistaken because her statement is very clear-cut. Guilty as charged!"

Two things:

1. In your scenario, there's no real evidence of the accused's guilt either beyond a testimony (and what about the accused's alibi?), so I'm not sure why you think it would automatically proceed that way.
2. No where did I say the accuser "cannot possibly be lying", nor did I indicate that's the position you should make at the onset. I said conditionally accept the victim's testimony as honest while the pursuit for the truth transpires.

At the end of the day though, the jury has either "guilty" or "not guilty" at its disposal, insufficient evidence be damned. I'm actually not telling you how to RULE on the issue. I'm telling you how to approach the issue so you don't unjustifiably stigmatize both sides.

This is important so that people who were legitimately raped aren't afraid to come forward.

 

[Meed]

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I did not use "should" in the sense of prescribing any further consequences for the victim.

Rather, I meant it in the sense that we should certainly expect there to be non-legal ramifications. As you pointed out, this is obviously true.

Also, you seemed to be implying that I thought there should be legal ramifications for the victim. I certainly don't think this.

I do think that people are responsible for the decisions they make, and the actions they choose to take. This is, to me a fundamental principle. To the extent that campaigns like "Not Ever" stifle debate about questions of personal responsibility and informed decisions regarding risk-avoidance, I think they undermine this principle to the detriment of everyone.

I don't think that people who knowingly choose to put themselves at risk deserve any kind of extra punishment, or even any punishment at all. I certainly wouldn't wish rape on them, regardless of how foolish I thought their decisions, or how risky their behavior. But I do acknowledge that bad things often happen to people who knowingly take risks, and that they do bear responsibility for the choices they make.

It seems horrible to me that a woman would believe she should take responsibility for the choices made by her rapist. In this I wholeheartedly agree: "not ever!"

But that doesn't mean we should fail to recognize, or refuse to address the responsibility we each have for our own choices.

Ahhh. Yeah, your use of the word "should" did throw me off. I don't think we disagree.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Two things:
In your scenario, there's no real evidence of the accused's guilt either beyond a testimony (and what about the accused's alibi?), so I'm not sure why you think it would automatically proceed that way.

I just don't follow your reasoning. You say we should assume the complainant is telling the truth. I postulate a case where there's no physical evidence either way and the complaint is absolutely clear cut. All else being equal Alan gets convicted, right?

You can optimistically assume that Alan will always have an alibi if he's innocent, but what if he's unlucky or the accuser bothered to do some very minimal research or thinking to pick a time where he has no alibi?

No where did I say the accuser "cannot possibly be lying", nor did I indicate that's the position you should make at the onset. I said conditionally accept the victim's testimony as honest while the pursuit for the truth transpires.
[/LIST]

At the end of the day though, the jury has either "guilty" or "not guilty" at its disposal, insufficient evidence be damned.

By definition if the evidence is insufficient the correct ruling is "not guilty", right?

I'm actually not telling you how to RULE on the issue. I'm telling you how to approach the issue so you don't unjustifiably stigmatize both sides.

This is important so that people who were legitimately raped aren't afraid to come forward.

I just don't see how not assuming that complainants are telling the truth counts as unjustifiably stigmatising them.

 

[Furcifer]

It's spelled "acquaintances", and thanks for confirming that a woman should never be drunk around acquaintances otherwise she's being utterly careless and risks getting raped.

Howz it speld?

If you think I'm misinterpreting you, then perhaps you should clarify instead of whining about it. You wrote "hanging out". If you meant to write "have sex with", why didn't you write that instead of piddling around with lame euphemisms? Just so you can complain about being misinterpreted, maybe?

Seriously?

But then, if you meant "have sex" instead of "hanging out", you aren't furthering the discussion, either; the initial "advice" told to young girls was actually to avoid being around older guys period, in case one of them started pressuring them for sex, resulting in rapes. Which frankly isn't reasonable at all.

Straughman.

I'd be curious to see some evidence for that.

Edit: a quick glance at wikipedia (with sources, though I didn't check them all yet) reveals that only 7% of rapes are committed during parties. Interesting.

It's called "luring".

A house full of people isn't the best place to commit a rape (it's hard to be ALONE) I don't know how you missed from the same paragraph that over 2/3 of all rapes happen in the victim or perpetrators home. Once again I'll reiterate the point and see if you get it, if a women refrains from drinking excessively and is sober enough to prevent herself from being ALONE with an "acquaintance" , by using something as simple as having a friend watch her back- "We leave together, no bringing a guy back home OK Sue?" she has almost no chance of being raped.

Granted, the statistics don't say how often 2 or 3 girls all get raped together, but it's got to be very, very few. If a guy is going to rape a girl the stats seem to indicate there is a need for privacy. As long as a woman and a friend stay together, don't leave the bar or a party with some random "acquaintance" they should be fine.

If a girl intends to go solo it should be at the point where she's into the relationship enough to be thinking about having sex with a guy. Then at that point the guy should be watching her back in case she does have a few too many out somewhere.

Thinking now, over the last 15 years or so, I can't recall being alone with a woman, in my house or hers, that I didn't have sex with. By the time in the relationship we were in the position to be alone together it was already sexual. (I may have been raped, I'm not sure if being coerced into sex a 4th or 5th time counts, some in this thread have suggested that's a bad thing )

Anyhow, I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at, aside from this nonsense about "hanging out". I meant it in the pseudo-platonic all by ourselves, let's watch a movie at my place and have a drink "hanging out". I'm sure the guys know what I'm talking about when a 19 year old is "hanging out" with a 15 year old, sniffing around, up to no good "hanging out". It sure is heck isn't playing video games with an older brothers friends "hanging out" like you are going on about. And it isn't just about having sex. It's about looking to see if they can get some sex or what not "hanging out".

Feel free to address the topic of "risky" behaviour and how not being alone with a guy until you are ready to have sex by staying in contact with a friend reduces the chance of being raped, instead of spelling errors and ufemizmz.