Rape

[uppityperson]

Discussion of whether or not Al Gore was involved with a sexual offense is happening in another thread. It seems a good time to remind people of rape myths, what rape is (control and/or violence disguised as sex) and isn't. Females and males get raped. Infants to elderly get raped. Sexual assault is not "fun and games" but assault. I am able to copy only a few paragraphs due to copyright laws, there is much more at the link.

Thank you.

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html

Rape myths are beliefs about sexual assault that wrought with problems. Some myths are just completely and blatantly untrue. What often happens is that beliefs surrounding circumstances, situations, and characteristics of individuals connected to rape are applied to all cases and situations uncritically. Myths exist for many historic reasons which include inherited structural conditions, gender role expectations, and the fundamental exercise of power in a patriarchal society. The best way to approach rape myths are to confront them honestly and frankly. Don't deny their existence and don't dismiss one ungrounded statement with another.

Confronting rape myths sociologically means looking at the data and reevaluating knowledge in the face of social facts. What follows are a list of rape myths and the facts that bring those rape conceptions into question. They are not always conclusive but provide the ground work for continued research.

Myth: Rape is sex.

Fact: Rape is experienced by the victims as an act of violence. It is a life-threatening experience. One out of every eight adult women has been a victim of forcible rape. (National Victim Center and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992) While sexual attraction may be influential, power, control and anger are the primary motives. Most rapists have access to a sexual partner. Gratification comes from gaining power and control and discharging anger. This gratification is only temporary, so the rapist seeks another victim.

[qazplm]

1. how does this address

"drunk rape?" I've seen plenty of those cases and in no way where they about gaining power/control or discharging anger, but about a stupid drunk guy who let himself get too drunk to see he was either taking advantage of someone else who was drunk or that they were both so drunk that they couldn't spell consent much less contemplate it.

Not excusing "drunk rape." It's the guys responsibility to not mix alcohol and sex. But not sure all rape fits into the same power/control bubble.

[uppityperson]

2. Next will be "but consensual statutory rape doesn't fit this either"

Some doesn't. Once while drunk as a young adult, I was raped by another drunk. I tried to say no but couldn't stand up. He figured that as long as I was lying down, hey, why not have sex?

I see him as not respecting me enough to take my wishes into any consideration. Yes, he was drunk and not thinking straight, but still. And no, I didn't report it because as a young drunk college student, I must've been asking for it.

Seeking power and control can be very overt, as in violent rapes, involving, for example, a knife or gun and including physical injuries. Hey, look what I can do to this person! She/he can't say no to me because I am All Powerful.

It can also be more subtle, in having YOUR desire outweigh the other person, as in what happened to me.

As far as consensual statutory rape/sex between a 15 yr old and 17 yr old, it depends and doesn't always fit this outline either.

[qazplm]

34. depends on the age as you noted

I'm not sure there is much of a psychological difference between a 15 year old girl and a 19 year old boy, but, the law says that's statutory rape in most states.

Now a 30 year old man and a 15 year old girl, that's a different kettle of fish and that is about power and control IMO.

I think certainly some drunk rape situations could result from control (and I am assuming both parties are drunk, obviously a drunk woman and a sober man doesn't factor into this). Others though could be other things, an inability to think straight could simply mean, hey she was flirting with me, so it's probably ok, even if she is a little out of it.

I think saying rape is one size fits all and solely about power/control is a little limiting and not helpful in fully understanding how to reduce it's occurrence.

[moriah]

75. IMHO control and power are part of "drunk rape" and statutory rape.

While the power dynamic may not seem as obvious as in a forcible violent rape, it is there. Why would a person need to feel powerful or in control of a situation? Because for whatever reason they feel powerless, weak. A woman in full control of herself is too threatening.

A person who chooses to have sex with someone who is drunk instead of a sober person is making up for his weakness by choosing a person he feels less threatened by. If they feel especially weak and powerless, one might decide to get drunk to gain the courage enough to actually approach someone.... and if that is their issue, they'll naturally gravitate to a person who is more vulnerable. And if they've been drinking to work up the courage, they may ignore the signs and words that the advances aren't wanted because they feel it's too late to stop then, that if they stop they'll lose all of their nerve to ever approach someone again... that they've already invested too much in the situation for "no" to be an answer.

It's more obvious when you look at statutory.... the 19 year old obviously had the opportunity to choose someone closer to his age, but was too intimidated to ask them out, too afraid of rejection... or had been rejected before. While it might seem like a 15 and 19 year old are close in age, I remember that I had a much clearer understanding of the world at 19 than I did at 15. I also had less self-confidence, less experience, less of a sense of my own self-worth, and would have been hugely flattered to have been asked out by an older guy. "He could have all of those college girls, but he chose me instead... he must really love me!" The older person has more power in the relationship than the relatively inexperienced younger person.

Needing to have the power, the upper hand in the situation isn't always a need for dominance -- but often a need to make up for their own perceived powerlessness.

[SunnySong]

77. The problem with Drunk rape is usually both parties are impared..nt

[moriah]

79. That's why I said what I did about the guy drinking as well.

Why do people drink at parties? Men and women both? So they can loosen up, shed a few inhibitions.... for some, one of those inhibitions being fear of approaching a person they're attracted to. Fear of making the first move. If they do have that fear, that feeling of powerlessness, they *will* be more attracted to people who seem less threatening -- such as another person who has also been drinking.

[qazplm]

99. I think you are over analyzing

why people drink. And even if you are right, that they drink to overcome inhibitions or fear of making the first move, that does not then translate all the way to "I'm drinking so that I can feel powerful and thus have power over a woman."

Heck, if that were the goal, the ideal situation would be to remain sober and wait for women to get drunk. Then you'd truly have the power.

[Call Me Wesley]

125. The problem with drunk rape is

rape.

[SunnySong]

130. Yes but legally (if not realistically) both parties are rapists since neither party is capable

of consent.

[qazplm]

158. I dont think

you are going to find too many lawyers who think the law says in a situation where a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman that both parties are guilty of rape. The man will be the accused and the woman the victim.

Maybe that is one way one can read it, but I don't think that's the intent of the law. It's designed primarily to protect women from men.
Now we can argue about the fairness of such a law or whether it needs to be changed.

[SunnySong]

170. Oh I agree the reality is different. nt

[Taitertots]

5. "Drunk rape" If she says no, or can't say no it is rape

"Drunk Rape" is just the same as sober rape. It is all about exerting the same power/control over the victim. Got drunk and made a bad decision isn't rape.

[qazplm]

25. i didnt say it WASNT rape

I said it was not the same as sober rape, and it isn't. Not better, not less bad, but different.

Someone who is drunk isn't thinking clearly. Now, again, that isnt the woman's fault, nor should she be forced into a position where the rape is "on her" if she gets too drunk, thus why we rightfully put the responsibility on the man.

It still isn't all about power/control, it's often about someone not thinking clearly. It certainly isn't the same as sober rape.

[Taitertots]

64. I didn't want to make it seem like you were

I'm saying the power/control is the same. Having sex with someone who is passed out or saying no isn't not thinking clearly. It is about the control they have over someone who is helpless. Anyone who is abused in that manner should never have it put "on them".

Having drunk but willing sex with someone and regretting it in the morning is not thinking clearly. If someone gets drunk and WILLINGLY does something stupid than it is "on them".

[qazplm]

101. you cannot legally

be drunk AND have willing sex.

So legally it isn't "on them" unless by them you mean man, because it is legally on the man, but not on the woman.

A sober man having sex with a passed out person is as you say. But often it is two drunk people doing stuff, and then the woman the next morning says, I did what? If the woman can prove she was incapable of consenting because of incapacitation, then that's rape. The man is on the hook, even though he was drunk, even though the woman wasn't passed out or saying no, even though the woman seemed to consent.

Now, there is the affirmative defense of mistake of fact as to consent which gives some protection, but one of the controversies in the recent change in military law is that if the woman is drunk, you don't appear to have an affirmative defense of consent or mistake of fact as to consent because a drunk woman can't consent, period. Although that will be litigated by the appellate courts.

[uppityperson]

131. What if it is the man who says "I did what?" Or either of a homosexual pair?

What if the man says "what?", or if one of same sex people says "what?"

I am glad that the military is taking the line of if the woman is drunk you don't have consent, but curious of the opposite way.

[qazplm]

148. I'm not glad

It isn't merely, if the woman is drunk you don't have consent, it's you don't even have the opportunity to put on an argument/affirmative defense of, she wasn't THAT drunk.

The judges are working around it by giving accuseds a pretty liberal floor for how much evidence they need to establish a right to an affirmative defense of consent, but the old way worked. Congress was concerned that we weren't getting enough rape convictions so they changed the laws, but the laws weren't the problem and rape convictions aren't any more frequent now then before (and there is a significant risk that many convictions will eventually be overturned).

The problem of course is education, it is alcohol, it is training, or rather too much of the middle, and not enough of the other two.

[uppityperson]

150. What about the rest of the post you replied to?......

What if it is the man who says "I did what?" Or either of a homosexual pair?

What if the man says "what?", or if one of same sex people says "what?"

[qazplm]

152. Sure

a homosexual couple can have a sexual assault, and yes a man can be sexually assaulted by a woman.

But let's be realistic on the second one, fair or not, that man is simply going to have a hard time being believed, unless there is a significant size disparity between him and the woman.

[uppityperson]

166. Which is really bad for the man, not being taken seriously if raped.

Lots of societal misconceptions surrounding rape.

[qazplm]

168. yes and no

I am a defense attorney, although I could move over to prosecution in a year, but still, I don't disagree that the reality is that of all rapes that happen the VAST majority (whether the victim is male or female) are perpetrated by men.

So while men being raped by other men is one area where societal issues result in that man not being believed (you must be gay, you must have liked it) I just do not think the volume of women raping men is very high either relatively or objectively.

[tritsofme]

216. From what I understand, many rape laws

Define the act as penetration without consent, in some states defined only as vaginal penetration. So if a man wakes up the next morning saying "What?" he would likely not have been raped under the legal definition.

[uppityperson]

229. I found an article from South Africa, they recently changed the law there

There was a case where using that ruling (vaginal), a man who anally raped someone was let off.

Men can be raped, anally, orally, by other men. Men can also be raped, penily, by women. Most states have expanded the legal definition beyond only vaginal, but I imagine there are some that may not have, hence being impossible to be raped unless you are female, and only if a female has vag penetration. Then it will become sexual assault.

Trying to define "rape" by using only vaginal penetration is not good enough, whereas sexual assault covers more possibilities. Most places I've been around call themselves Sexual Assault centers, hot line, etc, not "just" rape.

[Better Today]

6. Why is it the guy's responsibility to not mix alcohol and sex? Why not the girl's?

[uppityperson]

11. If a woman is too drunk to give consent, she has not given consent.

It is everyone's responsibility to not have sex with someone who has not given consent. Having sex with someone without their consent is rape. If she has not given consent, it is rape.

If a man is too drunk to give consent, he has not given consent. It is the everyone's responsibility to not have sex with someone who has not given consent. Having sex with someone without their consent is rape. If he has not given consent, it is rape.

[qazplm]

38. the sticky area

comes with determining situations where the woman "gives consent" but then later a jury has to determine if she was sober enough to give meaningful consent. I think that is the area when folks are somewhat skeptical about punishing the man, particularly in situations where there is no evidence she was so drunk that she was passed out or falling down or otherwise clearly incapable to other witnesses.

[uppityperson]

47. "meaningful consent" is a good term.

Coerced consent is not "meaningful consent", neither is intoxicated consent.

[qazplm]

50. I dont disagree but

intoxicated consent does not equal coerced consent IMO in situations where the male is also drunk.

Where the male is sober, then it does equal coerced consent because he is consciously taking advantage of the situation. That is often not the case with two drunk people.

[uppityperson]

52. It can get sticky.

no pun meant

[Crystal Clarity]

113. Intoxication is no excuse for committing a crime

If you are drunk and rob a store, it's still a crime. If you are drunk and choose to drive, you are committing a crime. If you are drunk and have intercourse with a person who has not consented, you have committed a crime. The law does not view intoxication as a defensible argument in a crime of any sort.

Courts will however, take into account whether consent was expressed in a rape charge or not. But that is another battle entirely and a plaintiff or defendant will have to prove their end or that argument before a guilty or innocent verdict on a rape charge can be rendered.

Keep in mind too that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding so proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you did NOT consent is much harder to do if you (the victim) were drunk at the time of the alleged crime. Unless there are witnesses, rape cases usually boil down to a he-said/she-said type of case. Because of this (and the burden of proof), rape cases are very often hard to prove and even more-so if the victim was drunk at the time of the alleged crime.

I was an alternate juror in a rape case of this very sort. The man and woman were both drunk. The woman claimed she had been raped in a bedroom where a party was being held. The two of them had gone in there together to get high (she said) OR to make out/have sex (he said). No one but the two in that room really knew exactly what happened (and BOTH of their memories were faulty as proven by inconsistent statements from both of them after the incident). Long story short, despite her immediately reporting the rape (which often doesn't happen) and DNA evidence, the man was acquitted because lack of consent could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As I mentioned, both of them had made inconsistent statements and the defense attorney used hers against her to plant the seed of 'reasonable doubt' in our (the jurors) heads. I did not get to take part in the deliberations as an alternate juror but I learned alot from that case.

[qazplm]

115. did you purposefully decide to read every other word

of my post? Please point out anywhere in this thread where I said "intoxication is an excuse for committing a crime, or rape."

I have in fact consistently said quite the opposite.

So I welcome you reading my post again, and then if you'd like to discuss or debate what I actually wrote, that'd be great.

Also, you are wrong legally. In most jurisdictions, the government no longer has to prove that the women did not consent. Many states and the military made those changes years ago (OCT 2007 in the case of the military).

Now, a man has an affirmative defense of consent, which, at least in the military, can't even be used if the woman is drunk. In many jurisdictions, having sex with a drunk woman is almost a strict liability crime where only jury nullification is going to get you off.

The main point of this thread was debating whether all rape was the result of power/control, not should men get off because they were drunk (although a handful of people here believe that). My sole point was that I don't believe that is true (all rape is power/control) and that these situations, two drunk people, is while still rape, different, with different motivations/impetuses/focii.

[uppityperson]

132. "intoxicated consent does not equal coerced consent IMO in situations where the male is also drunk."

"intoxicated consent does not equal coerced consent IMO in situations where the male is also drunk."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8666251&mesg_id=8666848

If the male is also drunk, then he hasn't coerced a drunk female.

"Where the male is sober, then it does equal coerced consent because he is consciously taking advantage of the situation."

You are saying that a drunk male cannot consciously take advantage of the situation and cannot coerce a female.

[Crystal Clarity]

142. Under your definition then, my SO and I have been raping each other for years!

We both quit a year ago, but before then.... :rofl:

[uppityperson]

143. True, either of you could have pressed charges, but you sound like you were happy

pressing other things.

I see it more as a Beware, since you never know.

[uppityperson]

162. actually, that was copy/pasted from previous poster

[qazplm]

147. yes, how does that mean it isn't rape?

Just because there isn't force/coercion involved doesn't mean it isn't rape.

In fact, there are separate statutes for rape by force, and rape by having sex with a person incapable by intoxication (or other means) of giving consent.

That's the whole point, all sex with drunk women who can't consent is rape, but not all such rape is due to coercion or force. In fact, unless the male caused the woman to become intoxicated/drugged, force is not an element of the crime the government has to prove.

[Taitertots]

65. What does "intoxicated consent" mean? n/t

[uppityperson]

67. Consent while intoxicated. You can't sign legal papers when intoxicated, you can't

meaningfully consent to sex when intoxicated.

[Taitertots]

85. Does this apply to men too?

Or is this just something that only applies to women who scream yes but regret it the next day?

[uppityperson]

86. Men can also be raped, and yes it applies to men also. You don't seem to believe

women can be raped while drunk, by what you write. Shame on you.

[Taitertots]

90. Obviously you didn't read what I wrote

I don't think an intoxicated person who willing has sex was raped because they regret it in the morning.

Someone who is passed out or is saying no to sex is obviously being raped if someone has sex with them.

[uppityperson]

92. I don't think intoxicated people can give meaningful consent.

So beware.

[Taitertots]

94. You should put that on a button if you go to a bar

So everyone knows you will say "yes" tonight and "rape" tomorrow morning.

[uppityperson]

97. Getting legal consents from patients pre-surgery, they have to not be intoxicated

Same thing applies in the world. Anyone who picks up an intoxicated someone and has sex should beware.

Why do you reply in snark to this? Why do you make such assumptions, "you will" when you have minimal clue as to whom I am?

[qazplm]

104. I dont disagree

but again there is a conceit in your framing that the person doing the picking up is also not intoxicated.

There is a difficulty, or at least a pause IMO, when we equate the various rapes together.

I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't have a separate, lesser crime of having sex while intoxicated, where we don't decriminalize the drunk guy having sex with a drunk girl fully, but we don't treat it the same as sober guy taking advantage of a woman (drunk or not). Perhaps not require sex offender registration or jail time for the first offense, but do so for the second.

You might accomplish two goals there, get more juries willing to convict (and maybe more victims willing to come forward) because of a less serious, simplified process, and give a strong warning to men to not have drunk sex with drunk women without so negatively impacting their lives for something that simply is not the same as other types of these situations. I don't know.

[ManiacJoe]

153. Is this just your opinion or is it legal fact?

> you can't meaningfully consent to sex when intoxicated

I don't recall ever reading anything from official sources that suggested that being voluntarily drunk relieved one of his/her responsibilities or of consequences of bad decisions made while drunk.

[qazplm]

156. it is legal fact

that you cannot consent to sex while intoxicated.

There is nowhere in this country that you can claim as a defense to an allegation of rape that the woman/victim was drunk and said yes, unless you can convince a jury either that they weren't really too drunk, or that you mistakenly believed they were sober enough to consent (one good example of this is the "blackout" state where a drunk persons appears moderately in control of their faculties but is actually legally drunk).

[ManiacJoe]

167. Interesting set of terms.

Using the language of the WA state code, the important question then becomes:

At what point does does "was drinking" cross the line into "mentally incapacitated" (a condition prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse )?

[qazplm]

169. at the end of the day

the jury decides that question for the most part.

[Shallah Kali]

20. Meet the Predators

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

Of the 120 rapists in the sample, 44 reported only one assault. The remaining 76 were repeat offenders. These 76 men, 63% of the rapists, committed 439 rapes or attempted rapes, an average of 5.8 each (median of 3, so there were some super-repeat offenders in this group). Just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes.

The breakdown between the modus operandi of the rapists also tells us a lot about how wrong the script is. Of all 120 admitted rapists, only about 30% reported using force or threats, while the remainder raped intoxicated victims. This proportion was roughly the same between the 44 rapists who reported one assault and the 76 who reported multiple assaults. (What the authors call “overt-force rapists” committed more sexual assaults, on average, than the “intoxication rapists” by about 6 to 3, but the parts of the sample are so small that this result did not reach statistical significance and could be sampling error rather than a real phenomenon. I’d really like an answer to that, though.)

Lisak & Miller also answered their other question: are rapists responsible for more violence generally? Yes. The surveys covered other violent acts, such as slapping or choking an intimate partner, physically or sexually abusing a child, and sexual assaults other than attempted or completed rapes. In the realm of being partner- and child-beating monsters, the repeat rapists really stood out. These 76 men, just 4% of the sample, were responsible for 28% of the reported violence. The whole sample of almost 1900 men reported just under 4000 violent acts, but this 4% of recidivist rapists results in over 1000 of those violent acts.

If we could eliminate the men who rape again and again and again, a quarter of the violence against women and children would disappear. That’s the public policy implication.

Please read the entire piece here: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

Predator Redux
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/predator-redux/

Guys with rigid views of gender roles and an axe to grind against women in general are overrepresented among rapists. That won’t come as a surprise to most readers here, I expect. But it is important confirmation. Guys who seem to hate women … do. If they sound like they don’t like or respect women and see women as impediments to be overcome … they’re telling the truth. That’s what they think, and they will abuse if they think they can get away with it.

Lisak doesn’t actually say this, but having read some of his work in depth now, I really think the major difference between the incarcerated and the non-incarcerated rapists are that the former cannot or do not confine themselves to tactics that are low-risk to them. The undetected rapists overwhelmingly use minimal or no force, rely mostly on alcohol and rape their acquaintances. They create situations where the culture will protect them by making excuses for them and questioning or denying their victims. Incarcerated rapists, I think, are just the ones who use the tactics that society is more willing to recognize as rape and less willing to make excuses for.

It is the modus operandi that keeps the undetected rapist undetected: they correctly identify a methodology that will put them under the protection of the rape culture. They are unlikely to be convicted because the story doesn’t fit the script. In fact, they are unlikely to be arrested because the story doesn’t lead to easy convictions. In fact, they are unlikely to be reported because rape survivors know that the tactics these men use leave them with little real recourse. In fact, these rapists may put the victim in a position where she is so intoxicated or terrified or just isolated and defeated that she never even says “no,” and because the culture overwhelmingly refuses to call these tactics what they are, even the victims themselves may be unable to call it rape for a very long time afterward, if ever.

Lisak describes the characteristics of their methodology:

In the course of 20 years of interviewing these undetected rapists, in both research and forensic settings, it has been possible for me to distill some of the common characteristics of the modus operandi of these sex offenders. These undetected rapists:
• are extremely adept at identifying “likely” victims, and testing prospective victims’ boundaries;
• plan and premeditate their attacks, using sophisticated strategies to groom their victims for attack, and to isolate them physically;
• use “instrumental” not gratuitous violence; they exhibit strong impulse
control and use only as much violence as is needed to terrify and coerce their victims into submission;
• use psychological weapons – power, control, manipulation, and threats – backed up by physical force, and almost never resort to weapons such as knives or guns;
• use alcohol deliberately to render victims more vulnerable to attack, or completely unconscious.

snip

As Lisak says:

This picture conflicts sharply with the widely-held view that rapes committed on university campuses are typically the result of a basically “decent” young man who, were it not for too much alcohol and too little communication, would never do such a thing. While some campus rapes do fit this more benign view, the evidence points to a far less benign reality, in which the vast majority of rapes are committed by serial, violent predators.

Predators Again: NPR Cites Lisak
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/predators-again-npr-cites-lisak/

[whopis01]

100. You are so right - just like those unfortunate drunk drivers

who are too drunk to realize that they can't drive. I mean it isn't like they really 'kill' people - at least not the same type of killing when a sober person chooses to run a red light and really kills someone.

[qazplm]

105. it is exactly like drunk drivers

BOTH are still legally and morally culpable, BOTH are still punished, BOTH SHOULD still be punished, but NEITHER are punished as severely as someone who does it with malice aforethought and with sober consent.

So your snarky-ass attitude is misplaced.

[whopis01]

212. you miss the point

They should be just as responsible for their actions as a sober person. They chose to put themselves in that state. They should be punished just as severely.

You may feel that when a man gets drunk and rapes a woman that his behavior is, at least in part, excusable. You certainly have a right to your opinion. I do not share your opinion.

[qazplm]

213. Again

read the words I write, not the words you wish me to write.

I have not once said such a situation was "excusable."

I said it wasn't based on coercion or violence. I have freely admitted that you only have two people you can put the burden on in a drunk/drunk situation and clearly it falls on the man not the woman.

You apparently feel that all of the exact same motivations, impetuses, thoughts, and intents go into a drunk guy having sex with a drunk girl as go into a sober guy taking a woman by force and brutally raping her.

I don't see how anyone can actually believe that. Doesn't make it "not rape" but certainly does not make it exactly the same, and it's a trite, short-hand, and inaccurate characterization of the fact that we do in reality have various and different forms of rape, with various and different intents and reasons behind why they happen.

And yes, even perhaps varying degrees of culpability or at the very least different ways we can address how to cut down rapes. The tactics you might use to cut down on drunk/drunk sex are completely different from how you'd address stranger rape, or marital rape, or date rape (non-drunken version).

But just saying all rape is about power and coercion fails to recognize that, and is going to leave gaping holes in how it is addressed. Of course, why should rape be any different than the completely simplistic approach our society has to just about all crime.

[whopis01]

221. I do read the words that you write.

For example, the word "culpability", as in "And yes, even perhaps varying degrees of culpability ..."

Culpability is the condition of deserving blame. You are saying that there are varying degrees of blame deserved depending on the type of rape involved. I disagree.

I just don't see the difference between saying that there are "varying degrees of culpability" and that certain types of rape are "at least in part, excusable".

[qazplm]

224. culpability does not equal excusable

We do not excuse the person who kills someone through gross negligence versus the person who does it with malicious intent.

We do however lower the punishment based on reduced culpability because state of mind matters.

Why in the world would state of mind matter for murder, but in your view, not matter for a similar difference between a sober man raping someone forcibly and a drunk man who has sex with a woman who is too drunk to legally consent.

Both people are dead, and the person killed them and it wasn't a mere accident we excuse, yet we do assign different levels of culpability and therefore different punishments.

Why would changing out dead/killed with rape(d) change that equation?

It is absolutely not about excusing, it is about however recognizing that there are different levels of culpability and motivations involved which require different approaches and addressing and punishment because state of mind matters.

And if you think the state of mind of each of those guys is the same, then I have no idea how to bridge that divide because it makes zero sense to me.

The only way you get to excusal is if you are saying that ANY differentiation in culpability or assessment equals partial excusal. I don't think that's remotely what excusal is about but if you do, then yes, there is a lowered culpability for someone who does something with no malice versus someone who does it with malice. State of mind matters.

[whopis01]

226. I never said "culpability does not equal excusable" - That really doesn't make sense to me...

I said that saying someone is less culpable is equivalent to partially excusing them. If they are less culpable that means that they are less to blame for the incident. That means that they are being partially excused from blame in the incident.

It is my opinion that if someone chooses to get drunk then they should be help equally as responsible for their actions as if they had been sober.

Would you reduce their punishment relative to how drunk they were at the time? Should a man who rapes a woman when his BAC is .05% get a lesser sentence than someone who's BAC is .10%? Should the punishment be a continuous function based on BAC - maybe something like (X Years) * (1 - BAC)? The drunker you are, the less you are punished? Or is it a step function where someone with a BAC of 0 to 0.049% gets one sentence and someone with 0.05% or higher gets another?

I'm not trying to be snarky here (I certainly was in my first response to you, but not now). I am really trying to understand and clarify what you are saying. If you view being drunk as a culpability reducing factor, do you take degree into consideration?

[qazplm]

225. I disagree with your definition/relation

We do not excuse the person who kills someone through gross negligence versus the person who does it with malicious intent.

We do however lower the punishment based on reduced culpability because state of mind matters.

Why in the world would state of mind matter for murder, but in your view, not matter for a similar difference between a sober man raping someone forcibly and a drunk man who has sex with a woman who is too drunk to legally consent.

Both people are dead, and the person killed them and it wasn't a mere accident we excuse, yet we do assign different levels of culpability and therefore different punishments.

Why would changing out dead/killed with rape(d) change that equation?

It is absolutely not about excusing, it is about however recognizing that there are different levels of culpability and motivations involved which require different approaches and addressing and punishment because state of mind matters.

And if you think the state of mind of each of those guys is the same, then I have no idea how to bridge that divide because it makes zero sense to me.

The only way you get to excusal is if you are saying that ANY differentiation in culpability or assessment equals partial excusal. I don't think that's remotely what excusal is about but if you do, then yes, there is a lowered culpability for someone who does something with no malice versus someone who does it with malice. State of mind matters.

[whopis01]

227. I already responded to this in another post. I'm not sure why you repeated everything twice. n/t

[SunnySong]

154. The differance is we don't arrest men for Drunk driving at let woman go free, nt

[Deep13]

3. All good points. Let me add one.

Children do NOT make this shit up. If a kid says that he or she received a bad touch from a family member or some other person (or hints at it to gauge what your reaction is), I will bet dollars to donuts that she is telling the truth and probably not nearly all of it. If a child complains that so-and-so committed a sex offense against that kid, believe her. Go to the police. DO NOT assume the mother will take care of it. I cannot tell you how many child rape cases I have prosecuted where the child disclosed to the mother, a minister or some other authority figure only to be ignored.


The list is a bit repetitive, but is accurate.

[Archae]

4. Children CAN make it up.

Especially if badgered into making it up by adults.

Just look at the McMartin preschool prosecution fiasco.

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

[Deep13]

27. They didn't make it up. The kids were coerced into making accusations.

In that case, authorities questioned children over and over until the kids gave the answer they wanted just to shut them up. It was literally a witch hunt as the motive was said to be Satanic ritual abuse.

[LisaL]

30. The end result is the same-childern made the accusations.

So how does that go with "always believe the child is telling the truth?" If that is the case, then there would be no need for trials, as any time a child makes an accusation someone would automatically become guilty.

[Deep13]

40. I'm giving practical advice, not jury instructions.

If a child tells you that something sexually inappropriate has happened, believe her. Go to the cops. Don't rely on a family member's explanation that purports to explain it away.

It's not the same. How can you possibly think that a kid who is coerced and brainwashed into accusing someone by authority figures who apparently believe in witch craft is the same as an unsolicited remark by a child to a trusted adult?

[aikoaiko]

46. I agree with you that an adult should take every accusation seriously

but implanting memories doesn't require coercion or brainwashing, per se. Well intentioned adults simply repeating questions or asking questions with suppositions about abuse are all that is required.

[qazplm]

42. simply not true in the sense you are saying it

children can makes stuff up, but they also can be subtly led into making an allegation by parents or the experts who are called in to do the interviews.

Of course you should believe the child when they first report it, same with a woman, in the sense of reporting it promptly to authorities.

But come jury time, way different story. I've seen if firsthand where a kid says stuff, which gets turned into a claim of a sex offense, which later other evidence shows couldn't have possibly happened.

[Deep13]

44. Juries can rely on instructions from the court.

I'm not talking about that.

[SunnySong]

7. Honestly the Rape is violence meme is seriously dated.

We have expanded rape to included plenty on non-violent acts.

Claiming rape/violence victimizes many woman by denying their reality and hurts rape convictions were there was no violence present.

[Warpy]

8. Rape is always violent and how do you not get that?

It's forcible penetration of one's body. That is violent.

You need to get that image of violence only being two drunken bruisers in a bar fight out of your head. Violence against women is different and rape is some of the worst we face.

[SunnySong]

10. You have a very narrow view of rape... fortunately the law has moved

forward to protect those that cannot give their consent. Too many woman are raped and yet refuse to report it because it didn't involve violence or coercion.

Your meme is a shield that rapists hide behind everyday. (she didn't say no etc)

The rape/violence absolutists simply make it easier on the rapists and harder on the victims.

[uppityperson]

12. If she did not consent, it is rape. If she did not give consent, there was coercion.

Your meme is a shield also. She must say yes, or it is not rape. Coercion is violence.

[SunnySong]

16. She can say yes and it is still rape.

The question isn't if she gave consent but legally if she was able to give consent. A woman who has sex with a inebriated man is still a rapist whether he wanted to have sex or not.

[uppityperson]

18. addressed here.

Rape is forced, unwanted sexual intercourse.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8666251&mesg_id=8666595
edited to add link

[SunnySong]

22. see #19

[liquid diamond]

76. Please. Not all women say "yes" before having sex. n/t

[uppityperson]

87. And not all women consent. That is called rape. Of course not all women, or men, say "yes, I am

willing to have sex with you." But if they do not consent, and the other person has sex with them, then it is rape. Having sex without the meaningful consent of the other person is rape.

[liquid diamond]

96. Meaningful consent is open to interpretation. It isn't always

cut and dry.

[uppityperson]

15. Rape is forced, unwanted sexual intercourse.

http://kidshealth.org/teen/safety/safebasics/rape_what_to_do.html
Rape is forced, unwanted sexual intercourse. Rape, sometimes also called sexual assault, can happen to both men and women of any age.

Rape is about power, not sex. A rapist uses actual force or violence — or the threat of it — to take control over another human being. Some rapists use drugs to take away a person's ability to fight back. Rape is a crime, whether the person committing it is a stranger, a date, an acquaintance, or a family member.

(clip)
Whatever happened, it wasn't your fault. No one has the right to have sex with you against your will. The blame for a rape lies solely with the rapist.

Sometimes a rapist will try to exert even more power by making the person who's been raped feel like it was actually his or her fault. A rapist may say stuff like, "You asked for it" or "You wanted it." This is just another way for the rapist to take control. The truth is that what a person wears, what a person says, or how a person acts is never a justification for rape.

[Tsiyu]

21. Maybe you don't understand how bodies work

maybe you have never been raped.

i bet if you had, you would suddenly decide it was a "violent" act.

i bet all I own on that

let's hope it never happens to you

[SunnySong]

48. I have been raped. It didn't involve actual violence but it did involve the showing

of a handgun. The person was 15 years my senior (I was 24) and was clearly somewhat unstable. I was also intoxicated.

Needless to say I didn't want to have sex upon reflection and felt coerced even at the time. I look back on it as I would a mugging. I needless to say didn't press charges but instead simply kept my distance in the future.

Rape can involve things well beyond the standard. It is detrimental to create such a narrow black and white definition.

[uppityperson]

51. Coercion and a gun and you don't think any violence was involved.

I think we have different definitions of that term.

[SunnySong]

53. My perception was that the person was unstable... They showed me the gun

saying it was for protection. They never pointed the gun at me or directly inferred they would use it.

Part of the problem with being stoned and drunk is that one can definitely read more into actions than are actually there.

Today looking back I think I could have left the scene without harm. At the time I was convinced this crazy person could harm me.

[uppityperson]

54. Looking back at my life as a young adult, there are things I would never do today

things I would never put up with now. But at the time? It is not always possible to explain why we do things to others. To explain why we were afraid, or did or didn't do something.

edited to take out what I added in and put elsewhere below

[SunnySong]

57. Thank You exactly...

You worded it much better than I could.

[uppityperson]

60. I added...

Maybe that person would have gotten more violent. Maybe fighting back might make things worse, or better. It is hard to tell. We do what we do, try to help others in making wise decisions, and give what support we can.

Maybe I shouldn't have gone to that party after my live in boyfriend didn't pick me up. How was I to know he was there with his current flame and would beat me up? Yes, I "should" have dumped him earlier, but didn't. My fault for sticking around or his for assaulting me?

I'm glad I am older and can stay out of some situations I was in as a young adult, but still it doesn't guarantee safety.

[SunnySong]

61. ...

:hug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. I am sorry but what you underwent was rape

and it fits every legal definition of the world.

The gun was the tool of coercion.

I am sorry.

[Tsiyu]

95. "I look back on it as I would a mugging"

If you are violated, then you have been a victim of violence.

that's how I see it.

Now, two drunk people consenting in their oblivion, as long as both were not coerced into drinking or are not underage, would not qualify as violence to me.

[SunnySong]

98. I think I explain it better in another post...

this one in particular http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8666251&mesg_id=8666899


It was one of those things where time mellows the fear. It was the kind of stupid only a young man (or woman) can find himself in.

[SwampG8r]

107. isnt it nice

they can all tell YOU what you felt and what it means?
without them being there
arent you lucky they can tell you what you have gone through?
sheesh

[uppityperson]

23. I think you have a narrow view of "violence"

[Forkboy]

28. "You have a very narrow view of rape"

I love DU.

[Lilith Velkor]

68. Word.

I had no idea that saying yes to my younger lover when he showed up drunk for a 2am booty call made me a rapist. I should probably tell him....

[Forkboy]

69. You owe him a major apology!

What are we going to do with people like you?

[Lilith Velkor]

70. He'll have to use the handcuffs on me again.

Oh, noes.

[Forkboy]

71. I hate when that happens.

[Call Me Wesley]

126. Hey, you know,

sometimes it just doesn't mean anything at all. It's like a high-five.

I was drunk and accidentally fell on her vayaya ...

[Xenotime]

127. Agreed. Very wise observations.

[uppityperson]

9. Rape is about control. A question and perhaps you missed this part...

"What follows are a list of rape myths and the facts that bring those rape conceptions into question. They are not always conclusive but provide the ground work for continued research."

Rape is about control, and I can see the writer of this piece calling that control violence a forcing yourself on someone is violence.

Do you think rape can be non-violent? How? How can a person be raped and not involve violence?

[SunnySong]

14. Both people are drunk... it is rape even if consensual... same with an age difference.

There is also rape under coercion... such as sleep with me or I will tell your husband what you did etc...

Rape can involve both a male or female actor and may involve two females...

It is a much more broad crime than the OP seems to realize.

[uppityperson]

17. And none of those involves violence? Rape is forced, unwanted sexual intercourse.

None of your situations preclude violence, as rape is forced, unwanted sexual intercourse.

[SunnySong]

19. All forced unwanted sexual intercourse is rape...

but not all rape is forced unwanted sexual intercourse. That seems to be the hang-up here.

[uppityperson]

24. explain what you mean, if you would. Sexual assault rather than sexual intercourse?

[SunnySong]

36. The old narrow view of rape as a violent act that involved intercourse

causes woman that are molested in other ways or who may have given consent while intoxicated to shy away from pressing charges. Many times they may not even realize they were involved in a rape situation.

The law has moved away from this strict view to include many other circumstances (and to include both genders). It would be helpful if we could acknowledge that not every person who is raped fits this narrow view. And not every rape involves penetration.


And their experiences are no lesser because they weren't victimized as prescribed above.

[uppityperson]

41. There can be a fine line in definitions between sexual assault and rape

Hence most places working with SA/R have both those terms in their names. It can be difficult and not necessarily productive to try and split hairs about them.

Sexual assault or rape does not need to have a gun involved, but does involve coercion of some sort, and imo that equals violence.

[qazplm]

49. drunk guy

asks drunk girl for sex, she says yes, they have sex.

She sobers up and realizes she'd never have said yes if she were sober.

That simply is not coercion, nor is it violence. Legally however, it is rape, and I don't have an issue with it being rape, as I said above, it's the man's responsibility at the end of the day.

It is also one of the more common occurrences of rape, particularly in my experience in military courts-martial. If I could make a rule getting rid of alcohol and males and females in the barracks, I'd knock the occurrences of rape in the military down by a significant percentage.

But I see no coercion in two drunk folks having sex. I see stupidity, and I see a man who better hope she feels the same when she sobers up or face the consequences.

[liquid diamond]

78. This is bullshit. Why the fuck is it only the man's responsibility?

Alcohol impairs judgment. If an intoxicated woman sleeps with a man that she would not sleep with sober, that is not rape. I'd like to see how that bullshit would hold up in court. I doubt a district attorney would come to the rescue of such a woman. Think about the recent Ben Roethlisberger case in Georgia.

[qazplm]

102. trust me

most of the accused I have defended have been in this very situation. Alcohol is almost always involved, with both parties.

Every time it at the very least gets charged and heavily investigated.

Heck, I had a case go to trial where the woman made up literally 7 different versions of how she was raped and no alcohol was involved. It resulted in an acquittal, but it still went to trial. Ben was famous, and that's a whole nother kettle of fish.

The law says an intoxicated woman who has sex cannot consent, it's pretty clear. Whether a jury buys into that is another story perhaps, but the law is pretty clear in this area.

[Maine-ah]

109. but then if both parties are drunk at the time

and both parties consent to sex while they're drunk, I don't understand it being rape. So, now the woman can go back and report it as rape, but so can the man. If both parties say that they wouldn't have had sex with the other person if they were sober at the time, then each could charge the other with rape.

I'm confused.

I have been drunk and had sex and woken up the next morning going..."well, I certainly wouldn't have done that if I had been sober"

I've been coerced, never with the threat of violence. In other words, no guns, knives or anything like that...."talked into it" might be more appropriate, but I did give consent in the end. I'm very small (4'11", 105lbs) I'm very careful what kind of situations I put myself in, now that I am much older.

I still, many, many years later as I look back, don't feel like I was ever raped. But that's just me. Other's may see it differently. So, back to the original question:

both parties are drunk, can both parties claim rape? And legally how would that situation be handled?

[qazplm]

112. there is no defense for men that says

if you were drunk too, you didn't rape anyone.

Voluntary intoxication is only a defense to crimes requiring specific intent.

Rape is a general intent crime, therefore voluntary intoxication is not a defense and when dealing with mistake of fact (a defense to rape that basically says I thought she consented) it requires that the jury consider what a reasonable person would objectively believe who is sober, they cannot factor in that the man was raped.

Rape requires penetration of the vagina, sexual intercourse. Now men can be sexually assaulted, but they cannot be raped. Rape is a legal term of art for a particular kind of sexually assaulted while simultaneously being a word we use colloqiually in a broader sense.

In that situation where the male has intercourse with a woman, he cannot claim rape unless she jumped on top of him or something, but that is not usually the case, let's be realistic here. If it were, then no jury would convict in that scenario.

You could have alleged rape, and if you were judged in the view of the jury to have been too drunk to consent, then the man you had sex with could have been convicted of rape. I suspect some on here would argue you were in fact raped. Technically, you were by a very strict legal definition, although at the end of the day, if you don't feel you were, then it's hard IMO for someone to argue that you were because on some level you are ok with it.

[uppityperson]

134. "Rape requires penetration of the vagina, sexual intercourse." Not necessarily.

The first is wiki, but is concise. The second is from Massachusetts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

The term sexual assault is closely related to rape. Some jurisdictions define "rape" to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault. The terminology varies, with some places using other terms. For example, Michigan, United States uses the term "criminal sexual conduct".<11> In some jurisdictions, rape is defined in terms of sexual penetration of the victim with or without penetration of objects.<12> Some jurisdictions also consider rape to include the use of sexual organs of one or both of the parties, such as oral copulation and masturbation.

The victim does not have to be penetrated to be raped; the perpetrator can use objects to stimulate the genitals. The perpetrator can use their hand to stimulate the genitals. The perpetrator can use drugs (roofies and others) or hypnosis to incapacitate the victim.

http://www.clarku.edu/offices/dos/survivorguide/definition.cfm

Rape / Sexual Assault
Although the legal definition of rape varies from state to state, rape is generally defined as forced or nonconsensual sexual contact.

Rape and/or sexual assault is forced, manipulated, or coerced sexual contact by a stranger, friend or acquaintance. It is an act of aggression and power combined with some form of sex. A person is forced into sexual contact through verbal coercion, threats, physical restraint, and/or physical violence. Consent is not given.

Rape is also a legal term that is defined in Massachusetts by three elements:

* Penetration of ANY orifice by ANY object,
* Force or threat of force, or
* Sexual contact against the will of the victim.

Consent cannot be given (legally) if a person is impaired, intoxicated, drugged, underage, mentally challenged, unconscious, or asleep.

http://www.pandys.org/whatisrape.html

Definition of Rape. The exact definition of "rape" differs from state-to-state within the U.S. and by country internationally. In the US, it is often called "criminal sexual conduct in the first degree". Generally, rape is defined as sexual contact or penetration achieved:

* without consent, or
* with use of physical force, coercion, deception, threat, and/or
* when the victim is:

* mentally incapacitated or impaired,
* physically impaired (due to voluntary or involuntary alcohol or drug consumption)
* asleep or unconscious.

(clip)
What if it was attempted rape, or there was no penetration? This is likely covered under your state's or country's sexual assault law. Even if you're not sure the law recognizes what happened was rape, if you were violated you have the right to hurt and the necessity to heal. No one should delegitimize what happened because there was no penetration. The violence involved in an attempted rape is legitimate and can have the same impact on the survivor as a completed rape. Also, remember that rape can include oral or anal penetration. This penetration is not limited to penile, but can include other body parts or objects. The legal definition of rape can be tricky, but remember that even if the law is not on your side, many others are.

Interesting from South Africa:
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/africa/southafrica/4671.html

May 10, 2007
Non-consensual, penile penetration of a woman -- whether it be anal or vaginal -- constitutes rape, the Constitutional Court ruled on Thursday.

However, it refused to find that non-consensual anal penetration of a man is rape, holding that this is the function of the legislators and not the court.

"It can hardly be said that non-consensual, anal penetration of males is less degrading, humiliating and traumatic ," Justice Bess Nkabinde found in a majority judgement. "That this is so does not mean that it is unconstitutional to have a definition which is gender-specific.

"Focusing on anal penetration of females should not be seen as being disrespectful to male bodily integrity or insensitive to the trauma suffered by male victims of anal violation, especially boys of the age of the complainant in this case." ...(more)

[qazplm]

159. no it isn't universal but common

and regardless my main point was that there is no defense for an accused that says, oh hey I was drunk too, so I get off right?

[Brooklyns_Finest]

218. Thank you!

Thanks for taking personal responsibility for your actions. Unless one person is passed out, I don'think it is rape when two drunk people have sex. If that was the case, then the vast majority of 18-35 year old males should be in jail today for this crime. Thankfully, most women are of the same opinion as you are.

My attorney friend tells me that in these kind of cases, women are harsher judges of the alleged victims then men are. He believes the male jurors have the paternalistic notion that women can't take care of themselves, while the women jurors take a more equitable look at the incident.

[Withywindle]

88. Well, it's complicated.

Yes, I've had sex while drunk with someone I probably wouldn't have while sober.

I did not *feel* raped, however, in some cases. I was sober enough to feel the "yes" fully and completely at the time, so I just filed it under Lessons Learned (and I was actually sober enough to remember the sex and...well, it wasn't that bad. I enjoyed it. I was sober enough to actively and enthusiastically participate. No real harm done - I didn't feel the same sense of violation of my very personhood that rape involves.)

I've also been raped while drunk, when I was far too out of it to say either yes or no.

The two experiences are very different - although most happened when I was in my late teens/early 20s.

There's a difference between being too drunk to consent and not - but it's a subtle difference, it's different for everyone, and drunkenness is a state that's notorious for hampering ability to perceive nuance. I think it's good for the law and perception, and people, both male and female, to err on the side of caution. (And if your partner isn't actively participating, for fuck's sake, STOP. Consent *can* be non-verbal, but that non-verbal consent better be pretty damn enthusiastic.)

[gleaner]

13. If someone forces or coerces another person ...

into doing something they don't want to do it is a violent act. Blackmail which threatens to expose something people find embarrassing or shameful is a violent act and people are convicted of it. I am not comparing rape or sexual battery to that because rape and sexual battery take away control of the victim's body and attempt to degrade him/her. It can affect the rest of a person's life. If you don't perceive the violence attached to this, maybe you should talk to someone at a rape crisis center who can define it graphically for you.

Also, I am really beginning to find the word "meme" grating. The word means the constant repetition of a idea which may or may not be true until people believe it. I have seen it floating around way too much lately. What you are saying is not true, but if you're going to say it could you please find a more original way to do it?

[Deep13]

35. In Ohio it's sexual conduct by force or threat of force...

...or by intoxicating the victim to gain consent or by using a mental of physical condition to avoid resistance. That's anything from a serious disability to simply being asleep. Unforced sex with a minor is its own offense. Under the age of 13 bumps it up to rape and under 10 is a mandatory life sentence.

Lack of consent is not actually an element. Rather, the state must prove force or any of the above conditions. So while it is always violent in the broad sense because it is done against the victim's will, it does not have to be a vicious, wild assault.

[uppityperson]

45. coerced consent is not meaningful consent, neither is intoxication.

"So while it is always violent in the broad sense because it is done against the victim's will, it does not have to be a vicious, wild assault." Exactly.

[LisaL]

26. You can argue until you are blue or red in a face that

anybody (children, old people, men, women) can get raped, but if you look at statistics, young females clearly represent most of the rape victims.

[uppityperson]

29. So? All ages and both sexes can be victims of rape.

To say that only young females are raped is wrong and ignores a lot of other people.

[LisaL]

31. So? If the rape is only about power and control, why would

females under 25 years old be the most likely victims?
How does that add up?

[uppityperson]

33. What, in your opinion, is rape about then?

[qazplm]

56. depends

sometimes power and control, sometimes about intoxication and the fact it doesn't mix well with anything that involves decision-making whether it be drugs or alcohol, sex or driving.

[moriah]

82. Perhaps because they're younger, more inexperienced...

... less confident, and have a stronger need for acceptance/approval than women who are older? More easily coerced, like in date rape situations where the woman said no several times but when they realized that their "no" wasn't being listened to, they gave up? Or where the boyfriend she is so in love with threatens to dump her when she says no?

I still firmly believe that the power dynamics in rape are not limited to the need to dominate/overpower a person, but also the need to compensate for a sense of powerlessness. Another example of that theory is in child molestation -- most classic pedophiles have never been successful at having a relationship with an adult woman. They are too intimidating, too threatening, so it's not safe to have a relationship with them.... Kids, on the other hand, are safer. The pedophile doesn't have to worry about getting hurt or rejected, and so try to develop intimacy with the kids since it's they are too intimidated by adult women to ever let down their barriers and allow for real intimacy. (I'm oot referring to sex with the "intimacy" thing, but rapport., btw. :) )

[LisaL]

83. Have it ever occurred to you that a pedophile might not be

attracted to an adult woman? Pedophilia, by definition, is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.

[moriah]

84. And why would they develop that attraction in the first place?

I definitely don't buy the NAMBLA idea that it's a "perfectly natural" thing. I also pray to God it's not actually genetic, because my dad molested my sister -- I'd hate it if I had those genes. It does run in families, though... most were abused themselves as children, by adults. Dad didn't target my sister until she started to enter puberty -- when he was 12, a middle-aged lady in the neighborhood invited him inside and had sex with him. He compared notes later on with the rest of his buddies, and found out that she had introduced all of them to sex. He didn't see it as abuse, but he then went on to have sex with a classmate of his who was 11, as well as what he did to my sister. A person who was abused at an even younger age would have a very good reason to be afraid of adults, and not see them as attractive -- and to find the safety of an nonthreatening child attractive.

[qazplm]

110. it's absolutely not natural

it is, IMO, a mental disease, a sickness.

Now that doesn't mean they aren't culpable, but I think it is simply an intense sexual desire for children caused by mental illness which is either genetic, caused by environmental circumstances as you note, or a mixture of both.

Doesn't mean they should "get off" (although I think lengthy treatment in a mental institution is preferable to incarceration where they don't get near the treatment they need and where I am concerned recidivism is a real problem because while a 65 year old man isn't likely to assault or rob someone they can easily commit child sexual assault/molestation), but

I think it does mean that it isn't about power/control.

[Deep13]

37. Seems like the younger, the greater the risk. nt

[SheilaT]

32. Speaking only for myself,

there were two times in my younger days when I found myself consenting to unwanted sex because it seemed easier than resisting. Neither incident would have been provable as rape in a court of law. Both times I felt as if I couldn't really say no. The details aren't terribly important, especially all these years later. While force was not an issue either time, in one of them I felt as if the guy could go crazy and hurt me if I didn't acquiesce.

Those experiences are really in the very gray and shadowy area of what constitutes rape. I only consider those two as rape if I'm taking a strong feminist position. Otherwise, I acknowledge my own responsibility for getting into those particular circumstances.

But I really wish the men had taken my first No as a No.

[uppityperson]

39. Coercion and not taking No as No are trademarks of rape.

Men can control themselves (except for those rare psychos who cannot). I have been coerced into having sex, wished No would have been heard for No and felt responsible for hanging around with a man who would act that way.

[SheilaT]

43. I certainly felt a stron sense of

responsibility for getting into or staying in a situation that led to those two circumstances.

I also know that my experience in no way diminishes any other woman (or girl) who really was raped, who really did try to say No forcefully and whose No was ignored.

Men absolutely do need to take responsibility for what they do. Most of them, I believe, do take responsibility. It's just a small minority whose behavior is so despicable.

[qazplm]

62. I guess to me it depends

is it, sex? no. Aw please baby? ok.

Or is it, sex? no. I dont think you heard me, i said, sex? ummm, ok.

Not trying to trivialize, but the first is different from the second IMO.

[SheilaT]

175. What I'm trying to convey is that

there are times when perception is everything. Just because I'm taking responsibility to what happened to me and choosing not to see it as rape (certainly there was no physical force involved), I am absolutely not judging on behalf of anyone else.

[pitohui]

55. really? it seemed like a good time to link al gore to the definition of rape?

why are democrats and progressives so self-hating and self-destructive?

you're playing into the hands of evil, and patting yourself on the back for doing it...

if you wanted to talk about RAPE, why bring up al gore in the v. first sentence, sheesh, what's next, why don't you bring up paula jones while you're at it...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

58. Because in another thread about the Al Gore allegations, people were saying things like.....

....older women never get raped, etc.

[uppityperson]

59. I brought it up because it's a current hot thread, and wanted to make this broader

I guess you must not have seen that flaming thread.

[ismnotwasm]

63. Time for one of my favorite links

http://www.mencanstoprape.org/


I was reading upthread about the objections to 'rape is violence'. I think the heart of that objection comes from living within a rape culture and not realizing it. Rape is sanctioned in so many ways--even in this thread--but it seems that few have eyes to really see.

I was almost raped twice(that I count)The first time guy had a gun, the second other he beat me bloody. Because of the specific situation the attempts occurred, I got away. I have fight before flight and I'm lucky I wasn't killed but I wasn't. And I wasn't raped. I blamed myself for 'putting myself into stupid circumstances' for quite some time before I got pissed. Fuck those motherfuckers. They had no right to violently rip away and attempt to reduce MY sexuality into some sick category.

And there's the difference. Coercion or not, whatever the circumstances of the violation, rape is always violent if only because it changes definitions, making it part of the near invisible fabric of rape culture. The bruises on my sisters don't have to show on the outside.

[raccoon]

124. Thanks for that link. nt

[stevedeshazer]

66. Thank you.

I started that thread based on a news story in my local paper. I worked all day and came back to read the thread, and I was horrified at some of the responses I read.

Just to set the record straight, I completely agree with your post and I am grateful you made those points.

I have no idea whether Al Gore is culpable in any of this; if I were to guess, I have to say I doubt her allegations. But many victims of sexual assault, as you point out, are reluctant to come forward, so it strikes me as unfair to assume the woman is a liar out for money or fame.

Thanks again, uppityperson. That was a needed post.

[Odin2005]

73. I'm of the opinion that the "rape is about power" notion does not apply to acquaintance/date rape.

IMO acquaintance/date rape is about a misogynistic sense of entitlement to sex.

[moriah]

80. Does that not imply a power dynamic in your eyes?

By the purest definition of misogyny, the hatred of women, I can't think of any more than two reasons why a man might hate women. One being that they see women as inferior and men as superior (indicating that they believe men deserve to have the power in male-female interactions), or that they are intimidated by them and look for women who will be more compliant (and therefore easier to get what they wanted).

A sense of entitlement to sex may not seem on the surface to be related to power, but the assumption that a man is entitled to the use of her body, whether she likes it or not... the person obviously feels that women are powerless to control their own bodies or make decisions about what happens to them.

[Odin2005]

81. Good point, very true.

[Withywindle]

89. I think this is very well-said, thank you.

You can see this all over the internet as a certain kind of man shares his Deep Thoughts. The "Nice Guy" who is all like, "WTF, I spend months pretending I actually enjoyed this woman's company as a person, just waiting to get into her pants which obviously I am entitled to after all this time listening to her tedious prattle, letting her think we had real common interests and that I cared about any of that, and the FUCKING BITCH dared to ignore me and get with someone that SHE actually felt a sexual attraction to. How dare she? That pussy should have been MINE."


(They usually spend many more thousands of words than that unloading their angst, but that's all too often the gist of it.)

Edit: I want to clarify--this mindset is as much a part of rape culture as "Girls Gone Wild" or the archetypal stranger in the alley with a knife.

[uppityperson]

91. Thank you moriah, for your input on this thread.

The power thing goes both ways. He (or she) may get feelings of power from dominating another person. And he (or she) may feel powerless in "normal" human situations so dominates another to feel.

[qazplm]

103. if that were always true it would be about power

but sometimes it isn't. It can also be about gender roles, and the way men are taught (not just by men, but by women) that persistence pays off, that you keep trying to "woo" someone, etc.

I don't think that is necessarily about power or control. At least not in the individual person's situation. I think the whole rape is always about power/control is simply too simplistic and narrow and not always accurate. It often is about those things, but not always.

[moriah]

111. Women teach men that being overly persistent is good?

Are you speaking about "bodice-ripper" romance novels? Or are you saying that by finally giving in because they are too tired to argue anymore or feel that their partner isn't taking "no" for an answer that they are teaching from experience?

The first "no" means no. The first "stop" means no. The first "I don't think we should be doing this" means no. "I don't think I'm ready." "This doesn't feel right." "Please, not now." "I'm not sure." Body language by stopping wandering hands, moving hands away from where they are trying to remove clothes, keeping legs closed, crossing legs, trying to protect areas with their hands.... ALL of those things mean no. If you're making out with a person, all of those signals say they are not as into it as you are.

Being overly persistent and believing that eventually a person will yield to your charms when it comes to sexual situations has such a huge power dynamic to it I think someone would have to be blind to ignore it. That their resistance will be overpowered by the skillful touch or the blandishments whispered in their ear.... yeah. Screams "power".

Asking a person out multiple times when they've said they already have plans is persistence. Sending flowers, writing love poems, saying how much you love them... that's wooing or seduction. Continuing to touch someone who is not willing because you think that if you get them excited enough that they will give in -- that's sexual assault.

[qazplm]

114. I'm talking about media

I'm talking about the male roles that are as much demanded by women as by men. Plenty of women love the bad boy.

Many women say no the first time, but say yes later. Sometimes it may be because they are too tired to say no, or because they feel an obligation or because they think doing so will show how much they love the guy, or for a hundred other personal reasons that don't have to be the scenario of someone aggressively, physically pushing themselves onto someone.

I as a rule don't make the first move sexually. Never have. I've missed probably obvious sexual opportunities in my life because I didn't read the signal and didn't "make a move." I have a strict policy of either talking about it or waiting until the women makes the first sexual move, because quite frankly, I don't want to end up in court fighting for my career and life because of a misunderstanding on my part or a changed mind on her part.

So I fully understand no means no.

However, no I do not believe that a person who "whispers in someone's ear" or does the "hey baby, please" "screams" power. Going to third base when the woman has clearly given you the stop at second signs screams power sure. But asking a second time, saying please, or come on, or are you sure, or some other methods of being persistent are not about power, it's about horniness, and sexual desire, and about gender roles.

Men woo, women demure. I don't advocate such a setup, I prefer women quite frankly who are the opposite sexually, a lot more fun that way, but to suggest it isn't prevalent and preferred by a large portion of both men and women is also untrue.

[uppityperson]

136. Coercion does not me agressively physically pushing yourself onto someone. It can be straight psych

Someone who continues to pressure someone else is involved with trying to coerce someone else. Continuing to ask, to attempt to manipulate someone into doing what YOU want, rather than allowing them to do what THEY want with their body, the person is attempting to gain power over someone else. Make someone else do something they don't want to.

"Plenty of women love the bad boy" goes along with "plenty of women have rape fantasies". No means no, and being "persistent" borders on, and often crosses into, coercion and involves power, control.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

140. So explain to me your definition of "wooing" as opposed to "coercion"

I'm interested to see where the line stops for you.

[uppityperson]

144. Persuasion vs coercion?

Empathy vs controlling behavior. I can't give a strict line that will work in every instance.

Wooing involves, for me, empathy and doing nice things for the other person. Showing you care abut them, as a person.

Coercion involves, for me, doing everything you can to get someone else to change their mind about something they'd rather not do. I involves, for me, manipulating someone without caring about them.

[qazplm]

149. yeah I dont agree with that

Coercion involves for me either physical coercion (which is easy, we can all agree there) or psychological manipulation. It does not involve baby please, or I really want to, or sweetie, it's been 6 months or any of the standard things you here between a man and a woman.

Wooing means trying to win someone over. That's pretty much a selfish act, regardless of whether sex or marriage or anything is involved. Not selfish in a bad way, but focused on "I want you, as a lover, or a mate or a spouse or a boy/girlfriend."

I simply do not believe that in many situations, the male "doesn't care about the person" they are for want of a better word begging to have sex with them. Now if they continue when the women shows clear discomfort then the line is getting bright and you should be stopping.

[uppityperson]

165. Coercion can be "sex or move out". Coercion can be "sex or get out of my car miles from anywhere."

Coercion can be "you agreed to go to the movie with me so now you have to have sex with me". Coercion can be "baby please, it's been 6 months and why are you being so mean to me wahhhh" if the woman feels pressured because he will leave, cause her to leave, take the children, talk bad about her, etc etc etc.

Esp for women in DV situations, coercion can take many really odd forms, ending with "sex or else".

[qazplm]

178. so pretty much

any time the man says please, or asks more than once, it's coercion?

That's patently unrealistic and incorrect and again treats women as perpetual victims.

You have to recognize that even your own examples have a WIDE spray.

There is a ton of difference between "sex or get out of my car miles from anywhere" to "baby please it's been 6 months"

So if it's been a long time since having sex, 6 months in your example, and the man says sex? And she says no, and he says, but it's been 6 months you consider that coercion?

That's patently ridiculous. Sex or walk miles home? Yeah that's coercion, heck it's borderline kidnapping. Baby please it's been awhile? Come on.
Sex or move out? Depends on a whole host of factors and it assumes that the woman is dependent on the man for her very living space. Have sex or I will talk bad about you? Give me a break. Sex or I might leave? No, not coercion either.

It is not coercion simply because the woman could feel some sort of pressure. A woman could feel pressure the very first time a man asks, no matter how respectfully, gently he does so due to all sorts of internal personal issues/feelings she has, is he responsible for that too, or does he get one freebie ask?

And under your philosophy, how long must he wait to ask again before it isn't coercion? A day? A week? Never ever again?

You take the word coercion and the word force, and you expand the definitions so far as to remove all rational meaning of the words.

[uppityperson]

180. No. But you have to realize that coercion can take many forms.

"Sex or I might leave? No, not coercion either." What if he is the primary monetary provider? What if he takes the kids? It is not simple and people are in all sorts of situations that others not in them do not understand.

You have sunk to insulting me, goodbye.

[qazplm]

181. insulting you?

Where did I personally insult you?

I most certainly am critical of your argument, but I did not call you stupid, or call you a name, or anything.

But I will say the fact that you see my criticism as personally insulting is enlightening.

If he is the primarily monetary provider then he is required to stay with her forever? If sex is important to him in a relationship, and he isn't getting it, and decides to end the relationship then that's no less valid then other things that are important in a relationship.

[uppityperson]

184. Strawman.

Guess it is my irrationality seeing this as an insult: "You take the word coercion and the word force, and you expand the definitions so far as to remove all rational meaning of the words."

Strawman in that no one is saying he is required to stay with her forever, but saying "put up or get out" is coercion.

[qazplm]

194. uh yeah, it is

criticizing your position is not an insult. Saying look you stupid idiot is an insult. Your position is stupid is not an insult.

Saying you are irrational, is an insult, saying your position is irrational is not an insult.

The fact that you cannot apparently distinguish between the two as I said is enlightening as to why you hold the positions you apparently do.

So it's coercion to say have sex or get out, but not coercion for any other part of the relationship or get out. Start cleaning up around her or get out, raise our children differently or get out, do x in our relationship differently or get out.

The woman could as easily do the reverse to the man, would that somehow be coercion? Of course it wouldn't be. It might be jerkish, or make someone an ass, but not a rapist.

[uppityperson]

197. Yes, that is also coercion (do this or get out). Who said it isn't?

Of course a woman can coerce a man.

I do not think we have the same definition of "coercion". Coercion is the use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. Men can coerce women and men, women can coerce men and women.

Here, from dictionary.com

coerce

1.
to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
2.
to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3.
to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

[qazplm]

200. look at the words used

force, intimidation, authority, dominate, control, all focused at least as much if not more on the "coercer" than the subjective feelings of the
"coercee."

It is not however any situation where someone else "feels pressure" as you've attempted to define it.

Such a definition would be SOLELY "victim-focused" and subjective. That isn't the standard in reality, or in the law, it is an objective standard.

And no, a women is not raped when she "feels pressure" to have sex, she is raped when she is coerced through domination, fear, or force to have sex.

Otherwise, a woman would be raped if she feels pressure because she wants to please her man, regardless of him actually doing anything other than saying, would you like to have sex? There must be a more objective element, of a reasonable woman, not an eggshell rule which is really what you seem to want to argue.

[qazplm]

151. see below

but its words versus actions for me. We are all adults. Men and women are big boys and girls and asking, pleading or even begging (while personally to me unappealing) is not coercion or force.

When it crosses over into lying to get sex (I love you baby when you have no intention of seeing them again after) that's still not "force" although it's pretty f-ed up.

When it gets to something where the woman feels she has to or something will happen to her, then it becomes force and rape. But no it is neither force nor rape if the male is persistent and the woman says ok.

I'm not sure what you mean by "line stops for you." If you mean in general for everyone, then see above. If you mean for me personally, I've already explained that I don't require a stop sign because I personally require a neon glowing go sign from the woman before I do anything. To be blunt, short of her putting her hand on my junk, or her putting my hand on her intimate parts or blanket telling me, let's have sex, I keep it at kissing.

It's safer, and I like women who are "aggressive" over passive sexually anyways.

[ieoeja]

129. Yes, they do.

Friends have tole me that more than one woman complained about me not being persistent enough. They figured it meant I wasn't really that interested in them.

So, yes, woman have taught me that persistent is good.

We then get into a word full of gray: "overly".

And I am unwilling to risk overstepping that bound. Which means an awful lot of not getting laid.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

141. See, you made a big mistake with your last word

I've never been interested in "getting laid".

I've been very interested in having a long-term romantic relationship with a few women over the years.

And I've found that being passive doesn't get you anywhere in that venture.

There are some in this thread who seem to be intentionally ignoring the issue that women indeed seem to like a man who "goes for it". Kisses them without asking, etc, etc.

[uppityperson]

145. If you, god help us both, were chatting with me and just up and out grabbed me and kissed me

I would want nothing to do with you. (hey, teach you to grab an uppity middle aged woman like me). However, if we had a personal relationship, had gotten to know each other and gradually progressed to kissing, making sure each of us was willing and ready, then it'd be ok.

"women indeed seem to like a man who "goes for it". Kisses them without asking, etc, etc. "

I am sure there are some, but most of us (that I know anyway) do not find this sort of aggressiveness a redeeming quality.

[qazplm]

155. not sure most women would agree with you

not sure most wouldn't agree with you.

I don't know, but I think there is a significant percentage who would prefer the man make the move to each base first, and one, like me, who was more circumspect might be viewed as "boring" or too nice.

Believe me, I've heard that before in this context. Not that it bothered me too much, means it wasn't meant to be/work out. But yes there are plenty of women who value aggressiveness in men, if they didn't, a whole lot of D#### would be without a girlfriend. ;)

[SunnySong]

161. I've been interested in getting laid... heck some of my best long term relationships

started out with two drunk people looking for sex.

[ieoeja]

211. Same here.

In fact, I have never had a long-term relationship that started out slowly. In those instances the relationship evolved into a quest for sex. Then when the sex happens, the goal has been reached, and I lose interest.

Conversely, when we start out with a one-night stand, and both discover at some point that this is someone we might like to get to know better.... In one such instance, it led to our getting married a couple years later. Divorced eight years after that, but we still hang out together some. I'll be stopping over there this evening to mow the lawn before I head out of town on vacation.

[LanternWaste]

222. I would imagine the confusion one feels re: advancing to a level of physical intimacy...

I would imagine the confusion one feels re: advancing to a level of physical intimacy rests firmly on lacking (or ignoring) the broader concepts of respect and common sense rather than being passive or aggressive.

It's not gray at all... or never had been in my case; but then again, I'm the first to admit that I read context particular to a situation and a particular person rather than treating every date the same.

[moriah]

172. I'm one of those women who appreciates taking things slowly.

I don't normally ask guys out. I usually let them. For me, that helps to reduce any concerns I might have about a person not being interested in me -- if they don't ask me out, then I figure they aren't... if they do, they are. But I prefer to get to know a person's mind before knowing their body, and I don't mind making the first physical move or saying what I want if I want more on the physical side. I don't object to a guy making the first move either, but if I say "No" or "Not yet", I mean it.

Then again, I'm sure you have guessed from my responses to this thread that I have been raped. It's not a fun discussion to have with a prospective lover, but before things get physical I tell them. Because if something triggers memories, I have a tendency to freeze up and then disassociate... I've been told by previous lovers it's pretty easy to tell because when I'm into it, I'm quite responsive, so the lack of reaction is very obvious. The one person who didn't realize they had triggered memories of the rape and kept going ended up pretty bruised and I didn't even remember hitting him (his hands were behind my head but were very large and his thumbs rested on my throat.) I felt really bad about it when I came back to myself, but ... yeah.

[uppityperson]

135. Still, that implies power. The power to get what you want by being persistent.

The ability to control someone to get what you want by continuing to pressure someone to do something they don't want to.

[qazplm]

157. just fundamentally disagree

that treats women like fragile flowers who don't have any ability to say no or resist entreaties.

There's some forms of persistence that go too far, sure, but there is a line where it does not, and I don't think it's at the, if you ask more than once, point.

[uppityperson]

164. Women are either "fragile flowers" or need to be harrassed until they give in?

Wrong.

[qazplm]

177. pretty sure I didnt say that

let me check.

Nope, I seem to have made the argument that there is a continuum.

Respectfully, you are the one dealing in black/white absolutes.

There's a whole rainbow of actions/situations between harassment and women as fragile flowers.

[uppityperson]

182. I am not the one dealing with dichotomous thinking here. I am asking if this is what you are saying.

You seem to be saying that women are either "fragile flowers" or need to be harrassed until they give in. You are wrong.

"men are taught (not just by men, but by women) that persistence pays off "

[qazplm]

186. I dont seem to be saying that at all

you certainly seem to be wanting me to say that.

I've been pretty darn clear that there is a wide spray of things, some fitting under coercion and some not.

You on the other hand seem to place everything from get out of the car and walk 10 miles home or have sex with me (which is highly coercive) to baby it's been 6 months since we had sex please (which isn't even remotely coercive) under the exact same rubric of coercion because a woman might, might feel pressured.

You've in fact failed to recognize any situation that involves a man asking for sex more than once that isn't in your mind coercive, begging, pleading, asking a second time, threatening are all melded together in your outlook because all of them might result in the woman feeling pressured.

Well, the woman having the possibility of feeling pressured does not coercion make. A woman can feel pressure all by herself, and a woman can handle mild persistence all by herself too.

And when we are talking about what is and is not rape, which is the subject of this thread, it's going to take a bit more than "feeling pressured" (a pretty wide swath of meaning there) to qualify.

[uppityperson]

190. Wrong about me. Of course people ask each other for things all the time.

I see that you are not understanding that people can be coerced in a number of ways, very individual to the person. Having worked with DVSA groups, it is very individualized.

Of course people ask each other for things, including sex, all the time and of course people have sex, and do things, with/for each other when they'd really rather be washing their hair and of course it isn't always rape.

I see you failing to recognize that a woman might feel coerced by a man in a way another may not. It isn't black/white, coercion for all or none, same amount in every case.

[qazplm]

195. and I see that you dont understand

the difference between feeling pressured and being coerced.

"Feeling" coerced is DIFFERENT from objectively coercive.

[uppityperson]

198. If you "feel" coerced, you may not be coerced.

coercion
1.the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.


coerce

1.to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
2.to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3.to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

[qazplm]

201. then the subjective feelings

of a woman and how she "may" "feel" "pressure" because a man says "hey baby please, it's been six months" is not force, or intimidation or compelling by authority, or exploiting fear or dominating, etc.

So you will admit that when you gave that example, it was at best extreme, yes?
Because if you don't then I'm sorry but you are in fact equating feeling pressure with being coerced.

[uppityperson]

202. Words.

"feels extreme pressure", does that work? "feels coerced" is better but the terminology I used can be too ambiguous.

[qazplm]

203. let's work backwards

and try this from a different angle but first I will answer your question.

No "feels extreme pressure" doesn't work. Feels anything doesnt work. What works is an objective analysis of the actions of the accused and a determination of if they are objectively coercive. Take a woman who has been raped in the past. She is quite understandably traumatized in the area of sexual relations. The man does something that is objectively non-coercive but because of her past she "feels extreme pressure." Focusing on her subjective feelings, if she says yes, he's raped her. Focusing objectively, he's done nothing wrong and has not raped her.

Which leads me to working backwards. Let's try this, which of the following things, should a man be prosecuted for because the woman was coerced into having sex (assuming she says yes in all hypos):

Please baby it has been six months and we haven't had sex and i really want to.
Have sex with me or you are walking home 15 miles through the desert.
Have sex with me or I will hurt you.
If you loved me, you'd have sex with me.
Are you sure you don't want to have sex?

Since I'm going to assume, some of those you'd say yes, and some of those you'd say no, perhaps that describes what is and is not coercive in the sense of rape and not rape.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. From experience in the field

I treated two women who were raped.

I also treated three men, and a young boy.

And that is not talking about the war crimes debriefs... these were just the civilians who were away from warzones.

And in my experience the hardest part of it was not compounding the matter with less than caring cops and medical personnel. Back in the Pleistocene victims, especially women, were (still are) blamed for it. No matter how much education is given.

[Withywindle]

93. Rape is so underreported

which is why, whenever there's a thread about it, and all these people (usually men, let's be honest) come out of the woodwork to cry "what about the poor unjustly accused?" I have to wonder what world they're living in?

I am NOT saying it never happens. It does, from time to time. But the numbers don't even compare to the numbers of those were definitely were raped by ANYONE's definition, and never came forward at all. For so many reasons. The reasons are endless - most of them boil down to the shameful way rape is misunderstood in our culture and victims so often blamed, defamed, and threatened.

In some ways, it's even worse for male rape victims because as bad as the stigma is for women, it's often even worse for men, especially those from a culture of machismo.

Men, please, consider this--before you air your kneejerk reaction in a rape thread, the statistical truth is that YOU are more likely to be raped yourself than you are to be unjustly accused of rape. Please don't contribute to an atmosphere in society that silences or shames victims - if not for compassion or empathy for women, at least out of enlightened self-interest in case it happens to you. Which it could. Chances are you have a male friend who has been raped or sexually abused (FBI stats are 1 in 4 for women, 1 in 8 for men) and has, most likely, never talked about it.

[Odin2005]

106. This guy says +1,000,000,000,000

[Withywindle]

205. Thank you!

That means a lot. I know how strongly you feel about this issue.

[qazplm]

108. I've seen very little

"what about the unjust accused" in this thread although your minimizing of it seems to me to be unfortunate.

The idea that we know the percentages of false rape accusations versus true versus unreported simply isn't true. The FBI stats report reports. They don't report exactly what happens, that is taken from folks who attempt to ferret it out and I don't demean their work but there is simply not definitive evidence that the numbers of folks who've actually been raped (men or women) match the numbers you cite.

Regardless, one of the ways rape is "misunderstood" is the facile way which we label all rape as about power/control. There are varied reasons/impetuses(sp?)/motivations and until we accept and examine all, then we won't make anymore headway than we have, which is very little.

[Withywindle]

204. I have seen an awful lot of "nuancing" of the definition of rape

I've seen a lot of people dedicated to analyzing and scrutinizing the VICTIM's actions and emotional state more closely than those of the rapist. I've seen a lot of people posting things along the lines of "she should have known better." I've seen a lot of people making cases that "oh no, it wasn't RAPErape," in Whoopi Goldberg's infamous words defending child rapist Roman Polanski, and offering up all sorts of lame reasons.

"Oh, she's just making this claim for the money/the 15 minutes of fame/to bring down a celebrity."

"Ha, when I was a 13-year-old boy I would have LOVED to have a hot 30-year-old female teacher jump me."

"Well, she went to a bar alone at night, what did she expect to happen?"

"Oh, he got raped in prison? He's a criminal, cry me a river."

That sort of thing.

The FBI stats are very rough guidelines, not absolute truth of course - obviously there are no reliable stats about crimes that WEREN'T reported. But I've done some rape advocacy work on a very low-level amateur volunteer basis and also done a lot of late night talking with friends, and those numbers actually "ping" about right to me, based on conversations I've had over the decades with both female and male friends.

All rape IS about power/control - only some of it is about nonsexual impersonal hate and violence, and the rest of it is about a sense of entitlement and a feeling that one's own sexual desires are more important than someone else's free will and autonomy.

[uppityperson]

228. Well put. Thank you.

[chaste labradoodle]

116. I hashed out the rape/drunk girl at frat party debate with a professor of mine

She brought up that scenario and just about everyone said that the woman was at fault for getting drunk in the first place. She brought it on herself, so to speak. The professor would not entertain any real discussion about this; she stated that it was blaming the victim. I am in the middle: I believe that no one deserves to get raped under any circumstances. However, I think it's important to discuss with women how frequent this sort of thing is. That way, they are armed with the knowledge that this is not an uncommon event and they should prepare ahead of time. Once you begin to drink, your clarity of mind goes bye-bye. And this applies to driving whilst loaded, etc. We cannot control rapists simply by enacting laws but we can help lessen the number of victims with safeguards. I also think female massage therapists should never do their work in isolated places like hotel rooms or houses. They should have an office where they can call for help if need be.

[chaste labradoodle]

117. Another incident which really bothered me was the Desiree Washington situation

and Mike Tyson. So many people said that she was wrong for going up to his room. They savaged that woman because Tyson was so big at the time. Now people would be more likely to have sympathy because he has had so many other problems, but even if a woman goes up to a man's room at 2 am and starts engaging in sex, she has the right to then stop!

[qazplm]

118. in a drunk/drunk situation we have two bad choices

a. we can put the burden on the girl, which basically morphs into, open season on drunk girls

b. we can put the burden on the man, even though the culpability level is much lower and the specific intent to harm likely isn't there.

Two bad choices but a is worse than b so we go with b.

Not sure there is a better answer than that except perhaps an argument that we should have a separate, somewhat lesser offense for men who can prove they were intoxicated versus men who were sober. A partial defense of voluntary intoxication that would take an accused out of sexual offender status for example, while still maintaining a conviction and other possible punishments.

[chaste labradoodle]

119. I have heard of scenarios where the man gets the woman drunk

Now I know that a woman is perfectly capable of saying no to alcohol, but a young girl fresh out of high school, insecure, and an older man is a perfect combo for trouble. And some of these men are predators, whether or not they imbibed themselves. In other words, it's not just a one-time thing.

[qazplm]

120. well

if the man used intoxicants (roofies, drugs, or alcohol) in such a way as to overcome a women's inhibitions that is clearly rape and clearly also about force/coercion, and fresh out of high school women or men shouldn't be drinking or given alcohol so your hypo is even clearer in that scenario.

Certainly in those situations where a woman is slipped something (whether date rape drugs, or regular drugs, or strong drink), that isn't the same as situations where two consenting adults mutually decide to paint the town red.

[chaste labradoodle]

121. I agree that it is pretty nebulous at times and that sometimes

a woman will regret her actions and try to paint it as rape. But I always give the accuser a fair shake because many women will not report it at all. It's not an easy thing to do.

[qazplm]

160. well at the end of the day

I prefer a system that honors the accusation and investigates it every time, while simultaneously remembering the beyond reasonable doubt standard and the nebulousness of the he said/she said dynamic. At the end of the day, while we can know in a general sense that x percentage of rapes happen, in each individual case, without something more than an accusation, it's tough to convict someone of a crime which is really second to murder.

[Bunny]

128. I think it's interesting that women are given all sorts of lectures about

how to avoid being raped. Maybe we should give this lecture to men, instead:

A lot has been said about how to prevent rape. Women should learn self-defense. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn't have long hair and women shouldn't wear short skirts. Women shouldn't leave drinks unattended. Hell, they shouldn't dare to get drunk at all. Instead of that bullshit, how about:

If a woman is drunk, don't rape her.
If a woman is walking alone at night, don't rape her.
If a woman is drugged and unconscious, don't rape her.
If a woman is wearing a short skirt, don't rape her.
If a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don't rape her.
If a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you're still hung up on, don't rape her.
If a woman is asleep in her bed, don't rape her.
If a woman is asleep in your bed, don't rape her.
If a woman is doing her laundry, don't rape her.
If a woman is in a coma, don't rape her.
If a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don't rape her.
If a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don't rape her.
If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don't rape her.
If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don't rape her.
If your step-daughter is watching TV, don't rape her.
If you break into a house and find a woman there, don't rape her.
If your friend thinks it's okay to rape someone, tell him it's not, and that he's not your friend.
If your "friend" tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.
If your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there's an unconscious woman upstairs and it's your turn, don't rape her, call the police and tell the guy he's a rapist.
Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it's not okay to rape someone.
Don't tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape.
Don't imply that she could have avoided it if she'd only done/not done x.
Don't imply that it's in any way her fault.
Don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he "got some" with the drunk girl.
Don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself. http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=148731426&blogId=217677623

[ismnotwasm]

133. Thank you

That's exactly right.

[uppityperson]

138. Indeed. eom

[uppityperson]

137. I'd answer you but you are already TS'd. bye

[Fastcars]

122. Lumping All Rapes Together Is A Dis-service....

Just as murder is seperated by degrees, rape should be as well. All rape is a serious crime, but not all rape is deserving of the same punishment. Just like not all murder deserves the same punishment.

Should we put people in prison for life or execute them for killing someone while DUI? By the reasoning of many in this thread we should.

Drunken consensual sex is not the same as violent non-consensual rape. I think many in this thread are arguing semantics. Is all non-sober sex rape? Is any sex without a specific declaration of consent rape? Did my ex sexually assault me when she would wake me up with a morning "surprise"?

[raccoon]

123. Boy, it sure didn't take long for somebody to come along with this "we-were-both-drunk" crap.

As if that were the only time rape ever happened. :eyes:

[qazplm]

146. ah so its so rare

that we shouldn't even talk about it?

[raccoon]

207. Considering what a woman goes through when she reports a rape, I don't think

very many women would report one just for the heck of it.

[qazplm]

215. you assume those women

all know exactly what they are going to go through when they make that report. But from my experience many of them have absolutely no idea. But once you've reported a rape, it's just as hard to back out and say, ooops, nevermind.

And there can be many reasons for a false or inaccurate or confused report other than "just for the heck of it."

[WI_DEM]

139. Agreed! too many people here have been incredulous that a 54-year old woman

who is not a great beauty would claim sexual assault. It happens every day. It's a myth that only attractive, young women are sexually assaulted.

[SunnySong]

163. We are not incredulous because of the accuser

We are incredulous because of the accused.

[uppityperson]

171. Balogna. Let's look at your post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8662709&mesg_id=8666242
"Well yes actually... it goes to likelyhood. The woman was 51 at the time.

Honestly if she was in her twenties the report would have more validity...

Though in reality the whole thing seems ridiculous.

The fact she looks like Lucille Ball meth addict is simply a comic touch to this silliness."

[SunnySong]

173. Yes and if the perp was a convicted rapist of some tweeker no-one would question

her story it would seem resonable.

I find it hard to believe that Gore deciced out of the fucking blue to sexually assualt a woman.

If the girl was thirty years younger and better looking one could better understand a miss-communication between Gore and the massuse. (I still wouldn't buy sexual assualt)

But the idea Gore went anywhere near her genitals seems farfetched science fiction.

[uppityperson]

174. "If the girl was thirty years younger and better looking one could better understand a miss-commun"

"If the girl was thirty years younger and better looking one could better understand a miss-communication".

As WI_Dem said " too many people here have been incredulous that a 54-year old woman who is not a great beauty would claim sexual assault. It happens every day. It's a myth that only attractive, young women are sexually assaulted."

You keep proving him right. "If the girl was thirty years younger and better looking".

What "girl"? Do you mean the 54 yr old woman? Who is not a great beauty?

You keep proving the point of this sub-thread.

[SunnySong]

176. Again if the accused was a rapist I would be on board...

But the accused is AL Gore.

I could believe Al Gore made a pass at a woman that was mis-interpeted. I do not believe Al Gore would make a pass at this woman... This story has nothing to do with rape because Al Gore didn't rape anybody.

[uppityperson]

179. Only accused rapists sexually assault 54 yr old "girls". Psst, we are talking assault, not rape in

this sub-thread. See: too many people here have been incredulous that a 54-year old woman who is not a great beauty would claim sexual assault. It happens every day. It's a myth that only attractive, young women are sexually assaulted.

To which you reply...

"We are not incredulous because of the accuser. We are incredulous because of the accused."

Then you post on the AlGore thread:

"Well yes actually... it goes to likelyhood. The woman was 51 at the time.

Honestly if she was in her twenties the report would have more validity... Though in reality the whole thing seems ridiculous. The fact she looks like Lucille Ball meth addict is simply a comic touch to this silliness."

Yup, she is OLD and UGLY so how could anyone believe an OLD UGLY 54 yr old "girl" could be sexually assaulted? Enlighten us more...


"Yes and if the perp was a convicted rapist of some tweeker no-one would question her story it would seem resonable.

I find it hard to believe that Gore deciced out of the fucking blue to sexually assualt a woman.

If the girl was thirty years younger and better looking one could better understand a miss-communication between Gore and the massuse. (I still wouldn't buy sexual assualt) "

A "girl"? Do you mean the 54 yr old woman? Who is not a great beauty?

I do not believe Al Gore would make a pass at this woman.

But nooooo, no one should believe an OLD UGLY 54 yr old "girl" unless she was assaulted by a convicted rapist. At least you have figured out that an OLD UGLY 54 yr old woman is not a "girl".

Thank you for continuing to explain further.

[SunnySong]

183. So you are saying Al Gore would hit on a 51 year old woman that looked like that...

YES or NO...

[uppityperson]

185. I am saying that a 54 yr old woman who looked like that could be sexually assaulted.

Where you are saying that it wouldn't happen.

[SunnySong]

188. Of course a 54 year old woman could be sexually assulted...

WHAT I AM SAYING IS AL GORE WOULDN'T SEXUALLY ASSAULT A WOMAN.


OMG...

This is a specific attack against a specific person.

It is ridiculous on its face.

[uppityperson]

192. This thread is about rape.

From OP, first line:
"Discussion of whether or not Al Gore was involved with a sexual offense is happening in another thread. "

Start of this subthread:
"Agreed! too many people here have been incredulous that a 54-year old woman who is not a great beauty would claim sexual assault. It happens every day. It's a myth that only attractive, young women are sexually assaulted."

Go argue Al Gore on the Al Gore thread.

[SunnySong]

196. Nobody is incredulous a 54 year old woman could be sexually assaulted

Hell 90 year old woman are raped by home invading scum in this country.

So without the Al GORE angle I am not sure who you are protesting against.

[uppityperson]

199. Nobody is? hahahahahahaha.

[seabeyond]

209. you said in one post, if she was young and attractive..... so ya, some people

are incredulous

[moriah]

189. You say that like she's a dog or something.

I've seen women who look a lot worse than that get dates, get married, etc.

As for Al Gore himself, I don't know him well enough to answer that question. If I knew him personally, I might be able to answer that question -- but does anyone on here know him personally?

[SunnySong]

191. I think Al Gore deserves and has earned all benefit of the doubt...

I apologize if I made this to much about her looks

That is the least ridiculous aspect of this story

on edit: last statement because I thought this was the al gore enquirer thread not the rape thread...


In reality this thread is informative and educational.

[moriah]

193. I don't know him well enough to say yes or no.

So obviously I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt... but it's not because of his reputation or service to this country. It's because I don't know the man and I don't know what all has come up in the investigation. I'll leave judgment up to a jury if it ever gets that far.

[seabeyond]

208. i guess is the difference between men and women with this issue. and a reason men cannot comprehend

there is no marking on the forehead on the men that innately feel male privilege and behavior to do with that. many men behave inappropriately sexually that would otherwise be totally good people in every respect.

especially as a male ages.

for gore, at this age, to do something like this doesnt surprise me at all.

whether he did it or not, clueless. dont know. but wouldnt be surprised. i mean, it isnt like we dont see it often in the public world. and it isnt like women havent for a life time, been aware of this.

[usregimechange]

187. thanks for posting

[flvegan]

206. Rape is violence.

Really nothing more to it than that. I understand that statutory rape could be set aside from that in some cases, depending, I guess. Not apologizing for it, but categorizing it.

Rape is not sex. Rape is violence.

[Recursion]

210. Rape is sex and violence

I just don't even get how this is open to question. Rape is non-consensual sex, and an act of violence.

[ismnotwasm]

214. No

Do you honestly believe someone who is being raped thinks they're having sex? No rape victims I know thinks what happened to them was having sex. They think it was a violent violation, or worse. Why should the rapist get to define what 'sex' is?

[Recursion]

217. I just don't see the point of denying that it is an act of *sexual* violence

that's why it's considered so much worse than "normal" violence.

[ismnotwasm]

219. I understand your point

But The act of violent penetration, (or whatever) isn't necessarily a sexual act, it may be perceived as a sexual act by the rapist. There are a lot of psycho-social reasons why it isn't, or shouldn't be considered sex. Rape isn't considered worse than 'normal' violence in my opinion, it's in it's own category.

Think; Rape of women, rape of men, rape of children, rape of babies vs Murder of women, murder of men, murder of children, murder of babies

What I argue, is allowing the rapist to define 'sex' or even 'sexual violence' is empowering to the rapist. He doesn't get to call it sex on his say so just because it's his own definition. The victim doesn't perceive it to be sex, not even non-consensual violent sex. It certainly isn't sex to a raped infant.

[Recursion]

220. I think your view of "sex" may be more positive than mine

Or maybe I'm just defining "sex" too mechanically.

But I mean, I hope we could agree there's a difference between sexual violence and non-sexual violence? (Specifically that sexual violence is worse.)

[Cetacea]

223. I was raped at gunpoint.

Still, I think the timing of this story is suspect.