Rape, Violence and Terorism

[oggbashan]

Definitions

What is rape?

Is it rape if a woman consents and then changes her mind?

The law says yes.

Is it rape if a wife objects to her husband having intercourse when he hasn't shaved?

The law says yes.

Is it rape if a stranger assaults a woman in the street and rapes her at knifepoint?

The law says yes.

Date rape that is premeditated, particularly with the use of drugs or excessive alcohol should be treated as rape.

Convictions in a court of law will be difficult under the current system because it is ultimately one person's word against another with no other witnesses. Those who rape as a means of control know that and will use the system to demonstrate that the woman cannot win even in court.

It might be possible to change the law so that there is no presumption of innocence but that has dangers. Some rape accusations are malicious or driven by pressure from members of the 'victim's' family or religious group who are not prepared to accept that she consented, or who would punish her severely if she had.

UK juries are reluctant to convict if there is any doubt because the punishment for a rape conviction is so severe, including entry on the sexual offenders' register for life. Is that appropriate for a 'rape' that took place when the woman withdrew her consent at the last moment? Or regretted her consent and withdrew it AFTERWARDS?

The problem is that the sexual predators use the system to avoid conviction. The man who is only accused of rape because of an argument between himself and his partner is categorised as the same as a man who uses violence on an unwilling woman. There are degrees. The law doesn't recognise the difference and therefore juries won't convict if the man has almost any extenuating circumstances.

The result is that women suffer rape and don't go to court.

I wish I knew of a solution.

Og

 

[Liar]

Should women be taught to 'be careful'?

Since the world will never be a perfect place fiulled with only good people, yes, anyone running the risk of being a victim shuld be taught (or raised) to be careful. I run much less risk of being the victim of a crime then a young, attractive female, but there are still things that I do not do. I don't pull up a big a stack of money late at night in a seedy part of town. Because I'm careful.

In the best of worlds, nobody should need to be careful. I want to live in that world, and I'll do whatever I can to make it a little safer, but that's all we'll ever manage to do. Make the world safER. Never safe.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

What is rape?

Is it rape if a woman consents and then changes her mind?

The law says yes.

Is it rape if a wife objects to her husband having intercourse when he hasn't shaved?

The law says yes.

Is it rape if a stranger assaults a woman in the street and rapes her at knifepoint?

The law says yes.

Date rape that is premeditated, particularly with the use of drugs or excessive alcohol should be treated as rape.

Convictions in a court of law will be difficult under the current system because it is ultimately one person's word against another with no other witnesses. Those who rape as a means of control know that and will use the system to demonstrate that the woman cannot win even in court.

It might be possible to change the law so that there is no presumption of innocence but that has dangers. Some rape accusations are malicious or driven by pressure from members of the 'victim's' family or religious group who are not prepared to accept that she consented, or who would punish her severely if she had.

UK juries are reluctant to convict if there is any doubt because the punishment for a rape conviction is so severe, including entry on the sexual offenders' register for life. Is that appropriate for a 'rape' that took place when the woman withdrew her consent at the last moment? Or regretted her consent and withdrew it AFTERWARDS?

The problem is that the sexual predators use the system to avoid conviction. The man who is only accused of rape because of an argument between himself and his partner is categorised as the same as a man who uses violence on an unwilling woman. There are degrees. The law doesn't recognise the difference and therefore juries won't convict if the man has almost any extenuating circumstances.

The result is that women suffer rape and don't go to court.

I wish I knew of a solution.

Og

So do I. Any solution would create new problems.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I have little to object about the rest of your post. But for the record: Yes they are.

But in this case, they are dressed 'provocatively' in that they are putting their money on display. They are considered a temptation to someone who is already planning to commit a crime- they are not accused of causing a normal law abiding person to go crazy and lose control of themselves.

For a woman, being dressed provocatively is directly related to her *person* not what she has. Her body is said to make normal men go wild and not be able to control their lust for her. She is not to blame for revealing something attractive she owns, but for being too attractive herself.

A man might be told that he 'should have known better' but probably won't be told that he 'wanted' someone to take his watch. Yet many will say a woman 'wanted' to be raped because of the way she was dressed. (Not that she wanted to show off her sex appeal as the man wanted to show off his fortune- but that she wanted to be used sexually.)

 

[sweetnpetite]

Since the world will never be a perfect place fiulled with only good people, yes, anyone running the risk of being a victim shuld be taught (or raised) to be careful. I run much less risk of being the victim of a crime then a young, attractive female, but there are still things that I do not do. I don't pull up a big a stack of money late at night in a seedy part of town. Because I'm careful.

In the best of worlds, nobody should need to be careful. I want to live in that world, and I'll do whatever I can to make it a little safer, but that's all we'll ever manage to do. Make the world safER. Never safe.

As i posted earlier in regards to 'the world will never be a perfect place':

I lived in the Central African Republic for two years (Peace Corps), and
all the nice young white women (including myself) were told by the embassy
staff that we could walk anywhere any time and be safe. None of the men I
dated or met ever attempted to coerce me and indicated it as a possibility.
In addition, several years later I interpreted in a court proceeding
involving a Central African family in the Washington, D.C., area. At one
point, the questions I was interpreting from the court staff surprised and
confused the parents, who were concerned about their daughter's health.
They became alarmed because I was asking if the child had fallen or played
with something that could have broken her hymen. They assumed that the
child had a serious injury or had come to some harm because of the
questions I kept interpreting for the court staff. I had to inform them
that we ask these questions in the United States because the child might
have been abused by a family member or acquaintance, not because the
ruptured hymen is a serious injury. The idea of sexually abusing a child
was outside their understanding. (There was absolutely no indication of
any abusive behavior in this case, which was clearly the result of
ethnocentrism on a few people's part.)

This experience with another culture opened my eyes on U.S. assumptions
about "the way the world is" with regard to rape and sexual abuse.

When you compare rape to 'pulling out a big stack of cash' you point out a very important part of the problem. As long as a woman's body is considered an object that can be compared to a big stack of cash rape will continue to be a bigger problem than it can/should be. There are modern societies that don't have the huge rates of sexual violence that we do. We need to study these societies and make changes accordingly to. The first and most important thing to change is attitides.

The attitude that rape can be prevented by women is a dangous idea. MOST rapes don't take place in these so called 'dangous situation.' Yet women are called on to prevent rape by limiting their activies in way that men are not expected to. This has already been adressed in previous posts.

The situation you described (pulling out a large wad of money in a seedy [what you consider seedy, others may find perfectly safe] area) would be dangerous for anyone either male or female. You are not limited because of being a man. You do not live by seperate (limiting) rules. (see the story about the library)

Also, becuase 1 person may pull out a large wad of money in a seedy area, all who are robbed are not considered to be at fault.

 

[sweetnpetite]

So do I. Any solution would create new problems.

No, I don't agree with that. New problems for who? Women should just continue to live in fear because any sollution will create 'new problems.' What problems are worse than the 1.3 women being raped every minute? (in the United States)

The United States has the world's highest rape rate of the countries that publish such statistics. It's 4 times higher than Germany, 13 times higher than England, and 20 times higher than Japan.

--Obviously, there are solutions to at least improve the situation. Why should 'the land of the free' not be a land where women can feel free and be free from rape?

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~ad361896/anne/cease/rapestatisticspage.html

 

[Liar]

But in this case, they are dressed 'provocatively' in that they are putting their money on display.

I never said the two were a hundred percent comparable. I only stated that rape victims are not the only ones being "held responsible" for being attacked.

When you compare rape to 'pulling out a big stack of cash' you point out a very important part of the problem. As long as a woman's body is considered an object that can be compared to a big stack of cash rape will continue to be a bigger problem than it can/should be.

I repeat, I never said they were comparable. And i'd appriciate if you didn't put those words in my mouth, or associated my person with such disgusting ideas.

There are modern societies that don't have the huge rates of sexual violence that we do. We need to study these societies and make changes accordingly to. The first and most important thing to change is attitides.

Yes, there are modern societes with more and less of different kinds of behaviour. If you can change the one you live in in a heartbeat, go right ahead. We should of course aim for that ideal, yes. But we'd be foolish if we at the same time didn't try to function in the reality that we live in, while we try to change it to the better. That's a process that is likely to take generations. It's not a question of changing laws - it's a question of attitude adjustment of a whole culture. And what do we do in the meantime? Act as if we're already there? bad choice, if you ask me.

 

[alice_underneath]

What's wrong with prostitution or strip clubs? Where did this outrage against our servicemen come from, anyway?

The comments in that paragraph were distorted, exaggerated, and unnecessary. My impression of the piece as hyperbolic and shrill was firmly established at that point.

~~~~~

Sweetnpetite -

I agree with many of your comments on this thread. However, I am a little bit uncomfortable by the appearance of brushing aside the ghastly state of women's rights in some countries in order to bemoan the fact that I can't jog through Central Park after dark without fear of being raped.

I'm sure that's not your intent, but I am nevertheless compelled to point out that most women in the United States enjoy an economic, political, and social status that is vastly superior to the status of women in other parts of the world.

I share both a fear of being raped, and a profound sense of outrage that this crime occurs so often in the U.S.A. But everything is relative, and the situation for women here doesn't even come close to the suffering of women elsewhere.

Freedom House prepared a comprehensive study titled "Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa". Individual country reports may be found at this link:

http://65.110.85.181/template.cfm?page=166

Hypocrisy in using women's rights as a reason for the war in Afghanistan? Absolutely. The author could have made this point with only two words: Saudi Arabia.

The charts below compare the situation for women in four categories, ranking 16 countries and one territory in the Middle East and North Africa. Our good buddies the Saudis come in dead last, every single time.

Note: the charts don't compare the plight of Saudi women to those of women in the Western world. The chart compares the Saudis to such human rights giants as Libya and Syria....


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e16/alice_emerging/security.jpg


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e16/alice_emerging/justice.jpg


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e16/alice_emerging/politicalrights.jpg


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e16/alice_emerging/equalrights.jpg


Please accept my apologies if this post is a hijack from the intended topic of this thread.

Alice

 

[Boxlicker101]

Crimes against men are not less important. They are taken rather seriously. Men aren't told that they were asking to be mugged becuase they were dressed provocatively. Men aren't told that they need to be accompained by a member of the opposite sex to feel safe. Men aren't told that it is unsafe for them to be (alone) in the company of a large number of the opposite sex. Men aren't told that they shouldn't be allowed serve in the front lines in wartime because they could be raped. Men's activies aren't limited simply because they are men- in fact, men are generally encouraged to take risks to be independent ect.

The only reason that rape needs special attention is because rape victims are so underserved and underprotected.

Actually, rhat is not entirely true. If a man goes to a seedy part of town and is mugged, he will be chided for doing so. Likewise, men or women who leave windows open or keys in ignitions and are robbed are accused of "asking for it to happen". Boys and girls are cautioned equally about being wary of strangers or people who touch them inappropriately.

Some crimes committed against men are given less importance. Simple battery by a man against a man is punished less severely than battery by a man on a woman. Battery committed by a woman against a man is usually shrugged off, unless a weapon is used or the man is a cop. Even then, it is usually regarded by the general public as a joke. (the Zsa Zsa Gabor case.)

TaKe the case or Rep. McKinney. If this had been a man, any race, who had struck the guard with a weapon, he would have been charged with ADW. Since the assailant was a woman, she will probably get off with a small fine, if that much.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

No, I don't agree with that. New problems for who? Women should just continue to live in fear because any sollution will create 'new problems.' What problems are worse than the 1.3 women being raped every minute? (in the United States)

The United States has the world's highest rape rate of the countries that publish such statistics. It's 4 times higher than Germany, 13 times higher than England, and 20 times higher than Japan.

--Obviously, there are solutions to at least improve the situation. Why should 'the land of the free' not be a land where women can feel free and be free from rape?

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~ad361896/anne/cease/rapestatisticspage.html

I was referring to the fact that presumption of innocence can not be sacrificed in Western society for any crime. No matter how heinous. After all, every innocent man convicted means a rapist still out on the streets.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Actually, rhat is not entirely true. If a man goes to a seedy part of town and is mugged, he will be chided for doing so. Likewise, men or women who leave windows open or keys in ignitions and are robbed are accused of "asking for it to happen". Boys and girls are cautioned equally about being wary of strangers or people who touch them inappropriately.

Some crimes committed against men are given less importance. Simple battery by a man against a man is punished less severely than battery by a man on a woman. Battery committed by a woman against a man is usually shrugged off, unless a weapon is used or the man is a cop. Even then, it is usually regarded by the general public as a joke. (the Zsa Zsa Gabor case.)

TaKe the case or Rep. McKinney. If this had been a man, any race, who had struck the guard with a weapon, he would have been charged with ADW. Since the assailant was a woman, she will probably get off with a small fine, if that much.

These things are true. However, violence of women against men is not an epidmic in this country. I am not saying that it is right, just that it is a bit of a red hearing to the topic. On the other hand, I think that if women were truely regarded as equals and the underlying issues that cause rape to be such a huge problem where taken care of, I think that the problems you stated would improve as well.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I was referring to the fact that presumption of innocence can not be sacrificed in Western society for any crime. No matter how heinous. After all, every innocent man convicted means a rapist still out on the streets.

Oh, ok.

I don't think sacrifising presumption of innocence is either the only solution, or even in fact the solution. I was reacting to what seemed like a statement that *any* solution would cause more problems, not the specific one of sacrifising presumption of innocence.

 

[sweetnpetite]

statistics:

(If anyone is interested)

http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html

Around the world at least I women in 3 has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser is a member of her own family.

How do you stay safe from that?

 

[sweetnpetite]

another interesting quote:

My two cents: In the Psychology of Women class, after reading the textbook
material and viewing "Rape Culture" (very old but still provocative), I
would ask the class to break up into small groups (separating the women and
men seemed to work better than mixing them), and come up with answers to the
following questions: (1) What can individual women do about rape? (2)
What can women in groups (or as a group) do about rape? (3) What can
individual men do about rape? and (4) What can men in groups (or as a
group) do about rape?

Invariably some women would argue that that it's a men's problem, and that
even suggesting that women should do anything is victim-blaming. Some women
would propose answers that did indeed appear to be victim-blaming, while
most others fell in between. The men's answers were usually equally diverse.
This allowed us to consider various levels of the problem and various
actions that can be taken, ranging from self-defense training to attacks on
cultural attitudes, and to separate personal safety issues from societal
issues.

I would try to direct their attention to what I consider the most important
points: that every rape is a crime that should be reported and punished;
and that women's main job is to convince themselves of that simple fact.
Our own ambivalence, self-doubt, and willingness to accept blame (or assign
it to other women) are a major and pernicious part of the problem, in my
opinion.

Let's not be too quick to point accusatory fingers at each other for
emphasizing different aspects of the problem or different approaches to
solutions. While some work toward understanding and correcting the
underlying cultural attitudes that have created this horrendous situation,
others are trying to help individuals survive and live well right now. Both
are essential.

In sisterhood,

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Oh, ok.

I don't think sacrifising presumption of innocence is either the only solution, or even in fact the solution. I was reacting to what seemed like a statement that *any* solution would cause more problems, not the specific one of sacrifising presumption of innocence.

And I was overgeneralizing, which I ought not to have done. I just feel very strongly about preserving the historical principles of Western jurisprudence and the rule of law.

 

[Boxlicker101]

another interesting quote:

My two cents: In the Psychology of Women class, after reading the textbook
material and viewing "Rape Culture" (very old but still provocative), I
would ask the class to break up into small groups (separating the women and
men seemed to work better than mixing them), and come up with answers to the
following questions: (1) What can individual women do about rape? (2)
What can women in groups (or as a group) do about rape? (3) What can
individual men do about rape? and (4) What can men in groups (or as a
group) do about rape?

Invariably some women would argue that that it's a men's problem, and that
even suggesting that women should do anything is victim-blaming. Some women
would propose answers that did indeed appear to be victim-blaming, while
most others fell in between. The men's answers were usually equally diverse.
This allowed us to consider various levels of the problem and various
actions that can be taken, ranging from self-defense training to attacks on
cultural attitudes, and to separate personal safety issues from societal
issues.

I would try to direct their attention to what I consider the most important
points: that every rape is a crime that should be reported and punished;
and that women's main job is to convince themselves of that simple fact.
Our own ambivalence, self-doubt, and willingness to accept blame (or assign
it to other women) are a major and pernicious part of the problem, in my
opinion.

Let's not be too quick to point accusatory fingers at each other for
emphasizing different aspects of the problem or different approaches to
solutions. While some work toward understanding and correcting the
underlying cultural attitudes that have created this horrendous situation,
others are trying to help individuals survive and live well right now. Both
are essential.

In sisterhood,

As for what individual women can do to prevent rape, the only things I can suggest is to avoid dangerous situations and know something about self-defense. This isn't blaming the victim; this is just normal precaution. Tell your children to refrain from accepting candy from strangers. This isn't telling them to dislike candy; it is telling them to be careful. Women, as a group can't really do much, except to advise what is safe and what isn't.

Individual men can do nothing. An individual can't stop some thug from climbing into some woman's window beating and and raping her. If he can prevent it, he should, and virtually all men will, but usually they would have no knowledge of it. Men as a group can do no more than women as a group.

Except, of course, that Society, as a whole can do a lot about it. Pass very strict laws against rape and enforce them. Keep rapists in prison until they are old and feeble and no longer a danger to anybody.

I still say, at risk of being flamed, there are two kinds of rape. There is the violent rape, often accompanied by other injuries, that is done by a man as an act of misogyny. The sex is just a means of punishing the woman, as representative of all women. Violent rapists should never be released from prison. Date rape is a horny guy who doesn't realize that his girlfriend is not in the mood. I don't want to make light of date rape but it can hardly be compared to violent rape.

 

[Liar]

Date rape is a horny guy who doesn't realize that his girlfriend is not in the mood. I don't want to make light of date rape but it can hardly be compared to violent rape.

As with any other kind of force crime, I think intent should be taken into account.

However, that gives a whole lot of leeway for a defence of intentional rape too. "Your honor, my client clearly misunderstood the lady's struggling as nothing but teasing role-play. He didn't know better."

We see that already, but I think it would gve that the possibility to escalate like dammit. .Dunno if letting the drunk-n-dumb date-rapist off easier would be a good deal.

 

[Pure]

one solution that has not been mentioned is to increase the conviction rate for rape, but to decrease the sentence for simple rape of an adult(where there is no other crime committed, and no beating, battering, torturing, threatening of life, use of a weapon), let's say, to two years.

it's arguable that draconian penalties influence jurors to acquit where there is the remotest doubt.

 

[amicus]

I can have no rational justification for participating in this thread, I know that.

Especially when the thread starter appears to be emotionally involved in the issue to a degree that troubles me from the aspect of a personal experience that may have affected judgment.

It is and always has been a violent world. It is the nature of life to struggle and survive.

To wish for an environment where one never has to 'be careful' about ones actions, is to wish for a assexual and sterile environment wherein human individuality is restricted and controlled to sameness in all things.

And sex itself, the beast with two backs, an anomaly it seems to those whose insistence on gender equality is beyond all reason.

The sexes evolved differently for understandable reasons.

Aggression and lust evolved differently in the male and the female, the imperatives involved are light years apart.

There is irony imbedded in the feminist quest for gender equality and equal treatment: the more equal society treats gender differences with, the more the differences are illuminated.

There is no 'rape' in the animal world. And there are as many different species behaviours as one can count and more, from brood mares to stallions protecting a herd from all other males.

The purpose and function of sexual activity in the animal world is simply one of survival and procreation, continuation of the species.

Man, the rational animal, is an altogether different thing.

Man has either acknowledged or created ethics and values, a moral system that acts to classify human actions as good or bad, moral or immoral, right or wrong. Take your pick, there are thousands of moral systems at your disposal.

I wasn't alive and played no part in the tribal life of the Neanderthals 30,000 years ago, thus I am not responsible for the actions of early man in a very violent and threatening world.

I do know that over a period of time that ethics and morals changed, but the differences between the sexes has always existed and most likely always will.

We are still part animal and males and females still interact in thousands of ways, quite like they always have.

If you have ever walked down the streets of a busy city and opened your eyes, you will note that there are not very many attractive people in the world.

Females considered attractive within their culture compete with each other to attract the male that will best enable them to produce healthy children.

None of this comes as news to anyone, I know, but there seem to be blinders on those who rail against the injustice of heterosexual protocol as if it could be changed by passing an equal rights amendment.

Sexual competition begins early in life and for an objective observer, is comedic as it progresses from early sexual awareness to communal competition such as in early and later educational gatherings. Middle schools and high schools.

The hot girls want the hot boys and all the rest are left behind.

We make movie stars and performers for the beautiful, for the sexually attractive, both male and female. They are worshipped by those not so well endowed.

Man is hardwired to notice breasts and pelvic areas, the petite and fragile nature of a females face, so contrasted to the angular stark lines of a males face, are devices to attract the male.

Some societies protect their women, they curfew them, they cover them up, they hide them away. Other societies spend billions of dollar each year to enhance those natural attractions of females to attract the male. There is status to be gained from being desired, sought after, lusted after and noticed.

It seems to me that feminists want the total equality but they also want the right to display those charms that attract the male in ever more revealing ways.

Nothing I write here should be taken to imply approval or acceptance of the use of force and violence against anyone, male or female, rape or robbery, but there are certain realities of life that should not be ignored.

The nature of woman, the female, is to tease and tittilate, to attract and tempt, quite like the blossom of a flower to the pollenating bee and in the opposite direction, the plumage of the male to attract a mating partner.

Somewhere along the way, the feminists have lost direction, they seem to want the assexual world, they seem to want a world of total equality, yet they also seem to want to remain the flibbertigibbet, spontaneous, emotional aspect that has so defined feminity since the beginning of time.

As some one said of 'solutions' that they usually create more problems...

In futuristic sci fi stories, of men and women on spaceships, in isolation, green eyed jealousy and sexual competition seems always to rear its head. Now maybe that is just the fiction writers, but I think not, sexual competition within and among the sexes is hard wired in, quite like competition in any aspect of human endeavor.

As I said at the beginning, there is no rational reason I should participate in this thread, with the possible exception of trying to point out what I consider some rather obvious facts about human nature.

We are sexual beings, we do gain stature and self esteem from being successful in the mating game and not everyone can sleep with the prettiest girl or the hunkiest guy in class. There are winners and losers and always will be.

I am considered a dinosaur on this forum and well know it, but my personal tactic throughout my whole life has been to protect the women I love and cherish. That means I influence their dress and the provocativness when they going into the world. It means I chaperone them or delegate that authority if I cannot be personally present to protect them. It also means I teach and warn them that danger and evil lurk around every corner and that one must always be aware and cognizant of possible threats.

Does that imply that 'my women' were restricted and controlled and treated like second class citizens? I think not. I think it means that they are cherished for being women and that the protection I provided allowed them to flourish and blossom in a secure environment.

Am I a male chauvenist pig?

You bet your sweet ass I am!


amicus...

 

[Norajane]

As for what individual women can do to prevent rape, the only things I can suggest is to avoid dangerous situations and know something about self-defense. This isn't blaming the victim; this is just normal precaution. Tell your children to refrain from accepting candy from strangers. This isn't telling them to dislike candy; it is telling them to be careful. Women, as a group can't really do much, except to advise what is safe and what isn't.

Individual men can do nothing. An individual can't stop some thug from climbing into some woman's window beating and and raping her. If he can prevent it, he should, and virtually all men will, but usually they would have no knowledge of it. Men as a group can do no more than women as a group.

Except, of course, that Society, as a whole can do a lot about it. Pass very strict laws against rape and enforce them. Keep rapists in prison until they are old and feeble and no longer a danger to anybody.

I still say, at risk of being flamed, there are two kinds of rape. There is the violent rape, often accompanied by other injuries, that is done by a man as an act of misogyny. The sex is just a means of punishing the woman, as representative of all women. Violent rapists should never be released from prison. Date rape is a horny guy who doesn't realize that his girlfriend is not in the mood. I don't want to make light of date rape but it can hardly be compared to violent rape.

Individual men can do nothing? How about not raping anybody? How about teaching their sons not to rape anybody? How about teaching their sons the importance of self-control when out drinking? How about teaching their daughters to stay away from drunk guys who might think she's just not in the mood when she says NO and he's horny, and thinks it's ok to force her?

Women need to do these things, too. They need to teach their sons and daughters that rape is unacceptable, period. That if sex isn't voluntary, back off immediately. What happened to raising kids to be good people and act responsibly toward others?

Box, your notion of what date rape is...well, it's flat wrong. It's not a horny guy who doesn't realize his girlfriend is not in the mood. They realize. The girl tells them so. Date rape is a horny guy who can't control himself and forces himself on her even after she says no...anything he does after she says no is a violation and violent, whether it leaves bruises or not.

 

[Guest]

. . . . .

 

[yui]

Date rape is a horny guy who doesn't realize that his girlfriend is not in the mood. I don't want to make light of date rape but it can hardly be compared to violent rape.

I know I might be overstating a bit, Box, but if you are going to take this stance, then it should also be true that when your bi-sexual male friend is horny and rapes your ass against your will, then he just didn’t know you weren’t in the mood. I mean, you’re his friend, you guys do stuff together—hang, go to movies, go to parties, etc—it can hardly be compared to violent rape, eh?

I would suggest, that just because my body is designed by nature to be more physically capable of accepting the sexual abuse, doesn't mean I am any less violated. Less beaten--less physically injured, mebbe--but not necessarily any less fundamentally damaged.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Individual men can do nothing? How about not raping anybody? How about teaching their sons not to rape anybody? How about teaching their sons the importance of self-control when out drinking? How about teaching their daughters to stay away from drunk guys who might think she's just not in the mood when she says NO and he's horny, and thinks it's ok to force her?

Women need to do these things, too. They need to teach their sons and daughters that rape is unacceptable, period. That if sex isn't voluntary, back off immediately. What happened to raising kids to be good people and act responsibly toward others?

Box, your notion of what date rape is...well, it's flat wrong. It's not a horny guy who doesn't realize his girlfriend is not in the mood. They realize. The girl tells them so. Date rape is a horny guy who can't control himself and forces himself on her even after she says no...anything he does after she says no is a violation and violent, whether it leaves bruises or not.

Of course I'm not going to rape anybody and, if I had sons, I would do my best to impress the same attitude on them. As for teaching daughters to stay away from the drunks, that's another example of teaching them to be careful. They should also refrain from going to bars alone and getting drunk or getting into a car with a group of men they don't know, or doing other things to put themselves in danger.

I still say, though, that if some guy who is miles away and I have never even heard of him, and he decides to rape some woman I have never heard of, there is nothing I can do to prevent it.

As for date rape: The guy may not know she is saying no. If she is murmuring "Oh, I really shouldn't be doing this" while she is lifting her ass off the car seat so he can pull her panties off, you can hardly blame him for thinking she really means "Yes."

Rarely will a woman say "Hey man, let's fuck." Instead, she will demur and coyly protest, wanting to be coaxed and wooed and romanced and persuaded. Sometimes she will decide that those demurrals and coy protests were actually saying "no", and she will file a complaint.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I know I might be overstating a bit, Box, but if you are going to take this stance, then it should also be true that when your bi-sexual male friend is horny and rapes your ass against your will, then he just didn’t know you weren’t in the mood. I mean, you’re his friend, you guys do stuff together—hang, go to movies, go to parties, etc—it can hardly be compared to violent rape, eh?

I would suggest, that just because my body is designed by nature to be more physically capable of accepting the sexual abuse, doesn't mean I am any less violated. Less beaten--less physically injured, mebbe--but not necessarily any less fundamentally damaged.

I don't think the two are very comparable. Date rape would involve a man and a woman who are both straight, or maybe bi. It would almost always come after a lot of kissing and petting and other foreplay. If I were doing this sort of thing with a bi-sexual male friend, we would both know the other wanted to have sex. Probably neither of us would actually ask the other if he wanted to have sex because it would be a foregone conclusion. Exactly what kind of sex would have to be decided between us.

Have you ever been coy or played hard to get? Have you ever pretended to be not interested in a guy when you actually were? Unfortunately, this kind of thing is a fairly common practice with women, and men know it.

Conversely, have you ever gotten a guy to do something he didn't want to do? Have you ever dragged him onto a dance floor when he didn't really want to dance? Have you ever nagged him into taking you someplace he didn't want to go, or into doing something he didn't want to go? Maybe such things should be a form of date rape.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

What is rape?

Is it rape if a woman consents and then changes her mind?

The law says yes.

Is it rape if a wife objects to her husband having intercourse when he hasn't shaved?

The law says yes.

Is it rape if a stranger assaults a woman in the street and rapes her at knifepoint?

The law says yes.

Date rape that is premeditated, particularly with the use of drugs or excessive alcohol should be treated as rape.

Convictions in a court of law will be difficult under the current system because it is ultimately one person's word against another with no other witnesses. Those who rape as a means of control know that and will use the system to demonstrate that the woman cannot win even in court.

It might be possible to change the law so that there is no presumption of innocence but that has dangers. Some rape accusations are malicious or driven by pressure from members of the 'victim's' family or religious group who are not prepared to accept that she consented, or who would punish her severely if she had.

UK juries are reluctant to convict if there is any doubt because the punishment for a rape conviction is so severe, including entry on the sexual offenders' register for life. Is that appropriate for a 'rape' that took place when the woman withdrew her consent at the last moment? Or regretted her consent and withdrew it AFTERWARDS?

The problem is that the sexual predators use the system to avoid conviction. The man who is only accused of rape because of an argument between himself and his partner is categorised as the same as a man who uses violence on an unwilling woman. There are degrees. The law doesn't recognise the difference and therefore juries won't convict if the man has almost any extenuating circumstances.

The result is that women suffer rape and don't go to court.

I wish I knew of a solution.

Og

I would be in favor of prohibiting the defense from dragging up an alleged victim's sex life, unless it had direct bearing on the incident under scrutiny by the court. there are things in my past I'm not exceptionall proud of and I don't see where having them as fair game for a defense attorney to make common knowledge of them aidesthe cause of justice. The victim of a crime shouldn't have to see her entire sexual past fagged through the dirt to get justice on her attacker.

I will agree, if she has a history of getting liquored up and having casual consesnual sex with stangers, that might have bearing. But the fact she slept around in college seems imaterial. Yet her wholse sexual past is going to be rolled out by the defense and a lot of women just don't want to face that. And I can't really say I blame them.

It seems rather unfair, that innocence is presumed in the accused, but not in the alleged victim. On an even playingfield, if his innocence must be asumed so should hers. And I know past incidents in his life are out of bounds unless he was convicted, or he brings them up, so why is her past an open book?