Let's agree that something disturbing happened to that 18-year-old woman at Hofstra. Something she feels awful about. Any good, right-thinking feminist, and any good girlfriend, would encourage her to talk to a counselor about her story. The problem is that by going to the police and then recanting, she fit into a new story that backfires on her and on feminism in an ugly way. She becomes the false accuser, and the boys, like the Duke boys, become the victims. In these moments of recantation, all we can talk about is how wrong she was. And then we lose the conversation that happens at a level beneath the law: about how these late-night moments in a random bathroom that everyone regrets can stop before they start. I'm not sure how you do that. But I wish this was where we'd go, now that we know that whatever happened to this girl, it wasn't the legal definition of rape.Most of the terrible things people do to each other are not crimes. And we also do a lot of terrible — and often sexual — things to ourselves. I think, on the whole, women would be better off if they stepped up to the adult work of taking responsibility for themselves. The men in this incident were awful too, but ladies, say no to awful men. Don't let men define what good sex is. And certainly don't let them act out their idea of good sex and then decide that you wanted something nicer.
September 21, 2009
"The Hofstra University gang rape that wasn't."
Emily Bazelon writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
413 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 413 Newer› Newest»"I think it's appropriate to hope that the way these cases are dealt with does not have a negative affect on the number of rape victims that report their crimes. That is all I am trying to say."
If you look up thread, I say that I don't think we should charge women who recant with a crime. We want people to recant if they lied. And we don't want someone to keep lying just to avoid jail.
I am not sure what it means to say "one problem is bigger than another". Both are a problem and an absolute tragedy if it happens to you.
Jon & John,
Having sex with your husband to make him happy is not rape. To say that it is is an insult to real rape vicitims. "
& saying my definition of rape was expansive.
My definition of rape is that when a woman says NO to sex and is forced to have sex anyway, that's rape. Or when a child has sex with an adult, that's rape. Again, I can't imagine this is controversial.
that this smaller issue should be treated with some care considering the affect it might have on actual rape VICTIMS.
Fifty percent of reported rapes are false reports. That is a fact, whether you happen to like it or not.
Your relentless bigoty is getting tiresome.
The only person "responsible" for rape is a rapist. I didn't think in this age that was up for debate.
I said you were responsible for your own protection which is what your premise was. I didn't think that was a leap of logic in this day and age.
I know half a dozen women that have been raped or assaulted.
Lots of lying women on this thread. Although considering the expansive use of "assaulted", perhaps stupid rather then dishonest.
Or perhaps you don’t know what the hell you are talking about?
I can easily count off 6 women I know personally who were either raped, or there was an attempted rape. These are just the ones I know well enough to know that about them.
My definition of rape is that when a woman says NO to sex and is forced to have sex anyway, that's rape.
Then what is "date rape"?
And what is "assault"?
Or perhaps you don’t know what the hell you are talking about?
I know exactly what I'm talking about.
I can easily count off 6 women I know personally who were either raped, or there was an attempted rape.
You must run in some interesting circles then. Did any of these women report being raped?
To all:
I never said or implied that innocent people going to jail wasn't a tragedy, in any scenario. That is actually part of the reason why I think these cases have to be treated cautiously. If we say "anyone who falsely accuses someone of rape should go to jail" then what happens to women who are raped, report it, and then can't prove it in court for one reason or another? My fear is that MORE innocent people would end up in jail if these cases are not handled with care.
I don't think that men should be sent to prison based on just an accusation, and I can't imagine that the law allows them to be. If the numbers of the falsely accused are really as staggeringly high as you claim (4 out of 10 men sent to prison for rape are innocent?), then our court system is completely and totally fucked up, no?
I'm sure we can ALL agree that with those kinds of numbers of innocent people found guilty there needs to be an immediate, nationwide repeal of the death penalty?
John said...
In principle it sounds great to jail women who make false accusations. The problem is that you want women who have made false accusations to come forward and recant. If you throw them in jail, you make that less likly. As infuriating as it is, I think we are better off not prosecuting women who admit to making false accusations.
Since you say you were a military prosecutor, I'm surprised you would not see the utility of a long prison stetch, heavy fines, and punitive damages, and inc. paying all the legal costs of falsely accused defendents as a powerful negotiating tool for prosecutors to have over the head of a false rape accuser.
As things stand now, or as they were at the time of the Duke Rape Case, the woman has little to lose by making a false rape accusation, screwing up the lives of dozens involved, putting them into tens, hundreds of thousand in legal costs even if found innocent or charges are "dropped by the accuser" after she was confronted with photos showing her hands down the guys pants. Plus the enormous cost to taxpayers, the state, and loss of police resources as they are diverted by the accuser on a wild goose chase investigation and away from real crimes they could have been preventing or pusrsuing solving. I think Crystal Gayle Mangum faced a misdemeanor and a small fine.
Certainly, high penalties for fraud and false accusations in the cases of arson for owner profit and cops for planting evidence have deterred...and made such frauds and railroading a lot less frequent. And people confronted with it far more likely to both drop their fraud or false accusation charges or pleading to a lesser charge or voluntarily making restitution knowing they face grave consequences.
Whereas if they face no punishment or a light misdemeanor for trying to lock up people the rest of their lives or collect on a million dollar torched property
- there is no downside to sticking to their guns and demanding that it be taken "All the Way" through the courts rather than be embarassed recanting.
Think how fast the whore Crystal, or Crustal as she was also known..would have fessed up if State Prosecutors investigating her, Nifong, had told her she faced 3 consecutive 20 to Life sentences for her 3 rape accusations?
It's amazing to me how greatly many people here -- mostly women -- are understimating how terrible it would be to be falsely accused and convicted of rape. I would rather have my right arm cut off (and I'm right-handed) than have that happen to me, and it's not even a close call.
Jesus. Has anybody on here said that wouldn’t suck?
I am not sure what it means to say "one problem is bigger than another". Both are a problem and an absolute tragedy if it happens to you.
I think she means numerically.
Then what is "date rape"?
Um, date rape is when you go on a date, and he rapes you. As opposed to being attacked by a stranger. It’s not complicated.
Summer Anne, you're 2:17 post is a lot better than the angry previous ones. The thing is, I doubt you would have gotten to that level of reasonableness without the pushback you received.
Still, my point was that this post is not about rape. It's about a false accusation. And the desire to change the subject from false accusations to real, actual rape does, in fact, minimize the issue at hand, which is being discussed for a reason.
Then what is "date rape"?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. If a woman is incapacitated, that's rape.
What is assault? Sexual violence that doesn't include penetration. Such as a man on a bus grabbing your breast, your uncle making you look at his exposed privates, etc.
K?
I expect that 95% of men have been "assaulted" if we use it to mean "any unwelcome physical contact or verbal abuse".
I would guess 100% if we count the high school years.
Lots of lying women on this thread.
Provide evidence of that, please. I know many women who have been raped. Not ogled, not whatever you want to minimize with the word "assaulted" but flat-out fucked against their will. No lie.
Several have mentioned prison rape. I think that's an important issue for several reasons. First, obviously, rape is not among the punishments we devise for crime. It simply should not be allowed. Men who are raped in prison suffer no less than women who are raped in other circumstances. Second, everything runs downhill. Any rage and shame men bring out with them from their prison experience is going to be directed somewhere - rape in prison is an element in the overall cycle of sexual violence in our culture. It's to no one's advantage to ignore it.
me: I can easily count off 6 women I know personally who were either raped, or there was an attempted rape.
You: You must run in some interesting circles then. Did any of these women report being raped?
No, not a one, which is the point some people have been TRYING to make to you!
Dude, go ask any woman you know to count up in her head the number of women she personally knows who have been raped. It is an issue. How dare you go around accusing complete strangers on the internet of “lying” because they are giving you information that you don’t believe! Damnit you are coming off like a total asshole.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
If we say "anyone who falsely accuses someone of rape should go to jail" then what happens to women who are raped, report it, and then can't prove it in court for one reason or another?
Big difference there. Not being able to prove the charge isn't the same as falsifying the claim. In this case, the accuser was proven to be lying about the rape. In such a case she should be charged just like the girl in the Duke case.
And let me clarify something about being responsible for your own protection. That is with respect to 'date rape' scenarios which by and large are the result of imbibing in copious amounts of alcohol and then heading off to Frank's room for some fun. Sorry but when booze is involved, as it usually is in these cases, inhibitions and recollection tends to get real blurry. You may disagree but some girls' lack of recollection or next day regret doesn't constitute rape.
I don't think that men should be sent to prison based on just an accusation, and I can't imagine that the law allows them to be.
Argh!
I' sure you are a very nice and well meaning person. But you badly need to be de-programmed from the feminist claptrap you picked up in college.
The whole reason we are even having this argument is that men DO got to prison based on just an accusation. And the whole point behind the "we have to take womens claims of rape seriously" argument is to get us to where that can happen.
I find it odd that nobody has yet commented on the studies I linked to indicating that half of all rape claims are found to be false.
Thank you to the other women on this thread backing me up.
Women don't report rapes for all kinds of reasons: because when they are children, they are scared or convinced by their authority figures that they should always listen to adults -- or, like my close friend who was raped by her grandfather at age ten, told by her parents that it wasn't "worth reporting" an "old man" because he would die soon anyway. Or because they are afraid that they won't be able to prove it. Or because they love their attackers: as fathers, husbands, or friends. Or because they are embarrassed. Or because they feel stupid for "putting themselves in that position". Or because they are afraid that when their attacker gets our of prison he will hunt them down.
Please tell me that none of you are trying to imply that women who don't report rape are lying to their close friends or family members about it, or that not reporting rape is "dumb", or anything that. If so, you're displaying a startling lack of empathy much worse than what you're accusing me of.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. If a woman is incapacitated, that's rape.
Define incapacitated please. Does that mean passed out on the floor? If so and some guy takes advantage of you then I agree that's rape.
If its merely shitfaced and your inhibitions are out the window then sorry, that's called bad judgement on your part, not rape.
Kinda goes back to that being responsible thing.
Aaargh, I want to delete a whole post because of a you're/your mistake, but I guess that would be stupid.
WV: canta, as in I canta believe I did that.
And again, Summer Anne, when you came in guns blazing, it didn't help the level of the discussion. You see it getting worse now, and honestly I think part of that is your opening tone of hostility and your own false accusation that many of us, among other things, approved of MnMark's affirmative action comment.
Dude, go ask any woman you know to count up in her head the number of women she personally knows who have been raped.
I know that none of the women I know have been raped. One was subject to some "inappropriate" touching by a male relative as a child. That's it.
Interestng that you did not answer my questions. Did any of these women report being raped? And what sort of circles do you run in where a large percentage of the people you know have been raped?
How dare you go around accusing complete strangers on the internet of “lying” because they are giving you information that you don’t believe!
You are not gving me "informaton". Information is what I gave you in my earlier link. You are some person on the net making bizarre sounding claims and refusing to answer follow up questions about them.
Damnit you are coming off like a total asshole.
No, that would be you with your whole "you must believe me because I'm a woman" schtick.
Women don't report rapes for all kinds of reasons
Maybe they do, and maybe they don't. Nobody has show any data on that topic as yet. We just get these constant confident assertions that it is so.
What we do know for a fact is that half of all rape claims which women do make are false. Maybe you can address that at some stage.
But you badly need to be de-programmed from the feminist claptrap you picked up in college.
I didn't go to college. Couldn't afford it. But, thanks for the assumption.
The whole reason we are even having this argument is that men DO got to prison based on just an accusation. And the whole point behind the "we have to take womens claims of rape seriously" argument is to get us to where that can happen.
My point was that if your study is true, our justice system is way more flawed than most people could ever imagine. HALF of men who are sent to prison by our judges and juries for rape are INNOCENT? Half?! I would say we need to go protest and try to dismantle our government right now if that's true. That is a really HUGE accusation to make and I hope that anyone who believes those statistics is in favor of repealing the death penalty immediately and dismantling the government asap.
No one has responded to the studies because they are outlandish.
Kobe's apology:
""I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."
link
You still want to charge her?
wv - hueters. oh good grief.
Please tell me that none of you are trying to imply that women who don't report rape are lying to their close friends or family members about it
We know for a fact that a great many women who do report rape to the police are lying about it. Why is it so unimaginable that some of the ones whe report rape to their female friends are lyng also?
Interestng that you did not answer my questions. Did any of these women report being raped? And what sort of circles do you run in where a large percentage of the people you know have been raped?
I did answer your question – none reported it. My ENTIRE point.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply about the kind of “circles” I run in, (and btw, 6 is not a “large percentage of the people I know”). I chose to ignore it the last go around, but now I find it further proof you’re just being an asshole. Since you’re entire post confirms it, I’m not going to bother with you anymore. Choose to believe me or not, I really don’t give a flying fuck.
"Maybe they do, and maybe they don't. Nobody has show any data on that topic as yet. We just get these constant confident assertions that it is so."
I have to ask you: are you really willing to state that you think that all (or even an overwhelming majority) of rape cases are reported?
There are certain things that by nature can't be backed up with statistic (UNreported is the key word here), but that people intuitively understand based on experience and empathy. Such as the entire concept of love.
Summer Anne - My definition of rape is that when a woman says NO to sex and is forced to have sex anyway, that's rape. Or when a child has sex with an adult, that's rape. Again, I can't imagine this is controversial.
THe problem with feminists being given power to define what rape is or is not is that they will tend to make definitions very broad and all in favor of the woman, while making the evil penis-wielders pay to the max even with the girl consenting eagerly..Then express infantile shock when they find anyone who holds their absolutes and broad-brushes and belief that the woman is nearly always truthful and right...or a trouble victim in need of counseling..as controversia.
1. A 19-year old boy having sex with a willing 16 year old girl is rape.
A 38 year old female teacher banging an eager 16-year old boy is a case of a troubled woman who needs counseling not jail.And a boy who, since he was eager, was clearly not hurt..doesn't serve society by his parents trying to stop the teacher from getting the help she needs and moving on with her wonderful career.
2. A drunk coed who bangs a stranger and has morning after regrets clearly was a victim of rape, in the eyes of feminists, because she was victimized by her drunkeness and lacked the ability to give informed consent. The date-raper, though, being an evil penis wielder, deserves jail time because he should have known better and stopped before he raped his helpless little female victim. And if he was drunk too, well, he had an obligation to have known better!!
3. No means no! Or its rape! A favorite infantile feminist chant.
"John, NO! I don't want to!"
"I'm a little tired of your moods, Gywenn. I am backing off this relationship and the ski trip we had planned is off."
(Panties come down in a flash)
"I hate you!"
(Next day...)
"Ooohhh, John forced me to have sex against my will. I didn't want to, but he forced me! It was that or have to explain to EVERYBODY why I wasn't there at Vail with them all..."
4. Just about everybody is or knows somebody who has gone from a vicious fight, to intense makeup sex, back to a fight with their partner, to not wanting sex, to demanding to be pounded silly - in the space of a half hour. Where does rape fit in to "No! you bastard! Stop! Baby.....OK, fuck me good....You are so fucking hot! Stop! No, do me from the back! You bastard, I'm so angry at you." "You too, bitch!"
5. There are subcultures in America that demand that the man be the aggressor, to chase and push, or he simply isn't going to get any. He will be rejected by the female as meek and weak, not agressive. pursuing, or macho enough.
Worlds of culture that feminist Jewish lawyers like Emily Bazelon cannot imagine as they try to fit it all into a neat set of rules and strict laws for male and female romantic-sexual interactions. Bounded by just a slight difference that transforms welcome aggression and mutual satisfaction ...into a life-destroying major felony.
My point was that if your study is true, our justice system is way more flawed than most people could ever imagine. HALF of men who are sent to prison by our judges and juries for rape are INNOCENT? Half?!
The studies, plural, all say that half of all rape claims are found to be false. They say nothing about how many men have gone to jail due to false accusations of rape. By definition most of the cases mentioned result in nobody going to jail, because many false claims are detected before that happens.
No one has responded to the studies because they are outlandish.
Nobody has responded because you have no intelligible reply, as you so kindly demonstrated. Hell, it seem clear that you did not even bother to follow the link. Heavens forbid you should be confronted by facts not in accordance with your view of the world.
The "interesting circles you run with" was really, really creepy. What exactly was the implication there, Jon? That only a certain "type of woman" gets raped? If that's what you're trying to say, then why are you even debating this with us? If only (black? poor?) sluts get raped than in your mind rape is a total non-issue, right?
"A 38 year old female teacher banging an eager 16-year old boy is a case of a troubled woman who needs counseling not jail."
51 year-old female
Cedarford,
Yes, the examples that you provide imply that rape is more complex than "no means no." However, since rape is a crime, it must have a definition, and that is it (along with the provisions for alcohol, being drugged, and statutory rape). It's not a "feminist definition", it's the legal definition. What do you think the legal definition of rape should be? Would it magically exclude your examples while including wives that are actually raped by their husbands, or boyfriends by their boyfriends, etc? Or do you never think that someone can be raped in the context of a relationship?
A 38 year old female teacher banging an eager 16-year old boy is a case of a troubled woman who needs counseling not jail.
I have never seen this asserted anywhere.
And a boy who, since he was eager, was clearly not hurt..doesn't serve society by his parents trying to stop the teacher from getting the help she needs and moving on with her wonderful career.
The only part of this I have ever seen is the assertion that it never hurts a male to get as much sex as possible, and this has been expressed by macho-men, not women or feminists.
Can you find a link to any assertion that states any of this crap?
There are certain things that by nature can't be backed up with statistic (UNreported is the key word here), but that people intuitively understand based on experience and empathy.
Sweet Jesus .....
Great. I know based on experience and empathy that women are witches who should be burnt at the stake. I understand that there is no scientific evidence to support such an idea, and that there is in fact much evidence against it, but we empathic and intutive people cannot be troubled by such details.
You might as well have just come out and said "Nyah nyah, I'll believe whatever I choose to believe and the facts be damned".
Great. I know based on experience and empathy that women are witches who should be burnt at the stake. I understand that there is no scientific evidence to support such an idea, and that there is in fact much evidence against it, but we empathic and intutive people cannot be troubled by such details.
The difference between what you said and what I said is that I and most people in America know and believe the fact that a large number of women are raped and don't report it. There are no statistics on it because that's an impossibility. But people know because of their family and friends and personal experience. You don't believe your example and even if you did that would just make you mentally ill.
I want to ask you again: do you really believe that the number of unreported rapes are insignifigant?
If it's not the feminists it's the damned feminist Joos.
Oops, make that lying feminist Joos.
The "interesting circles you run with" was really, really creepy. What exactly was the implication there, Jon?
No "implications" whatsoever. I asked her what sort of circles she runs in where presumably half of all the women whe knows have been raped or almost raped. Considering what a rare event rape is in normal life it seems like a logical question.
If she had said "half of the people I know have been murdered, of at least shot and stabbed" I'd have asked exactly the same question for exactly the same reason.
Although for the record, the department of justice in 2005 ESTIMATES that 60 percent of rapes go unreported:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
The "interesting circles you run with" was really, really creepy. What exactly was the implication there, Jon? That only a certain "type of woman" gets raped?
Yeah, I thought it was creepy too Summer Anne. To me it says that Jon is not reasonable on this topic and I should stop trying to talk to him. I really did try to ignore it the first time he said it, but when that sort of thing is repeated, what is one to think? I especially don’t like the implication that the family member who was molested as a child is some sort of bad company. Asshole.
No "implications" whatsoever. I asked her what sort of circles she runs in where presumably half of all the women whe knows have been raped or almost raped. Considering what a rare event rape is in normal life it seems like a logical question.
First of all, most people know more than twelve women.
Second of all, rape is not a "rare event" in normal life. Sorry. I wish it was. It's way more common than being murdered, and also happens to a much wider range of people in a variety of "parts of town" and parts of the country.
If she had said "half of the people I know have been murdered, of at least shot and stabbed" I'd have asked exactly the same question for exactly the same reason.
Oh for fucks sake, Jon is the one saying “half” the women I know. I said 6 people. Apparently Jon only knows 12 women, and none of those women have been raped, because he would personally know, because women totally confide that sort of thing to every male they know. God.
"I asked her what sort of circles she runs in where presumably half of all the women whe knows have been raped or almost raped."
Where in the world did that come from? You think Summer Anne or Shanna only knows a dozen women?
The difference between what you said and what I said is that I and most people in America know and believe the fact that a large number of women are raped and don't report it.
Bullshit. Stop repeating your own superstitious beliefs as being indisputable truths. If you "believe" this it is because you want to believe it, not because you have any justifcation for doing so. It is not a "fact" that a large number of women are raped and do not report it. It is an allegation, and one with damn little support.
But people know because of their family and friends and personal experience.
People, aka you, don't "know. You chose to believe, as some people chose to believe in flying saucers or that Cheney blew up the WTC. You don't "know" jack.
You're comparing the fact that there are a large number of rape cases that go unreported -- a statement that ANY mainstream politician of any party would likely agree with -- to "Cheney blew up the WTC"???
I'm done arguing with you. If someone reasonable wants to continue having a serious discussion, fine. But that is just too ludicrous.
Jon is the one saying “half” the women I know. I said 6 people.
How many people are you close enough to that they will tell you they were raped? I know more than twelve women, but not well enough that they would tell me they were raped. Do you know sixty women closely enough that they'd confide this to you? None of the women I know have that many intimate female friends.
Your story still seems very odd.
women totally confide that sort of thing to every male they know.
If you are to be believed, random women walk up to you on the street and casually mention they were raped the other night. But I get the picture. This is knowledge which only women can possess.
You're comparing the fact that there are a large number of rape cases that go unreported
It is not a "fact", you moron. It is a "claim. It is an "allegation". It is a lot of things, but a "fact" is not one of them.
most people know more than twelve women.
Most people don't know more than twelve women who would tell them that they had been raped.
Jon, I am fairly certain there is nothing I could tell you that would convince you, thus I won’t bother trying.
Second of all, rape is not a "rare event" in normal life. Sorry. I wish it was.
FBI numbers indicate about 90,000 rapes per year in the US. That's about thirty rapes per hundred thousand people. If you personally know a significant number of women who have been raped, then there is something rather odd about you.
This compares to about 16,000 cases of murder, 800,000 instances of assault, half a million instances of robbery, and ten million cases of property crime.
Sorry, but you peple are demented nutcases. Not to mention bigots who make the Klan seem reasonable and open-minded.
Here's a case of a teacher who admitted having sex with a 14 year old boy and was judged too pretty to go to prison. Ever heard of a guy being too handsome to go to prison?
Women get a huge pass for criminal and irresponsible behavior that no one would dream of giving to men. One example is men being held responsible for women's irresponsibility.
I am fairly certain there is nothing I could tell you that would convince you
You could try facts and reason ...
Ha ha ha! No, obviously you could not.
I know it's the nature of the beast, but it's ironic that right over the text box you type in to comment, Althouse admonishes us against feeding the trolls. Still, inevitably we wind up with people complaining about troll-like behavior after feeding troll-like behavior and ignoring comments by people trying to be reasonable.
I especially don’t like the implication that the family member who was molested as a child is some sort of bad company. Asshole.
Look, bitch, I made no such "implication". I merely noted the statistical improbability of your knowing large numbers of womem who were "raped".
But given your expansive definition of rape, maybe it is not so unlkely.
Can we at least all agree that women who falsely accuse men of rape are awful people who in a perfect world should serve jail time?
I have to ask you: are you really willing to state that you think that all (or even an overwhelming majority) of rape cases are reported?
I am willing to state that half of all rapes which are reported turn out to be false claims. In fact I have claimed that. And unlike the women on this thread, I have backed up my claim with some pretty convincing evience.
It is being claimed that there are vast numbers of real rapes going unreported. From what I've reading here this has to be regarded as an urban legend. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but persuasion takes a little bit more than "you can trust us women, asshole", which is all I'm seeing here.
Still, inevitably we wind up with people complaining about troll-like behavior after feeding troll-like behavior and ignoring comments by people trying to be reasonable.
I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls.
Can we at least all agree that women who falsely accuse men of rape are awful people who in a perfect world should serve jail time?
Salamandyr, I’m somewhat undecided on this. Awful people, yes. Perfect world jail time? Maybe, although I think civil penalties migth be more fitting.
I do have concerns about the difficulty of proving that accusations of rape are false…I imagine it is as difficult as proving they are true. If there is clear, compelling evidence, maybe. I think those who purposely try to destroy someone’s life, duke rape case for example, and waste a hell of a lot of the government resources might deserve jail time. Whether there is a good way to give it to them I’m not sure. And, like Summer Anne, I am concerned about the effect on people who really have been raped. It would be just as much of a problem to punish people for reporting a crime they couldn’t prove as it would be to have a crime falsely reported. Moreso, since those people would be hurt twice.
And I still haven’t seen anything about how many of the “false accusations” result in someone going to jail. It is that there could be a large number of false accusations, leading to many cases that are not prosecuted. In that case, it would seem our justice system is working well. I don’t know what is actually happening on that score.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. If a woman is incapacitated, that's rape.
Even if she incapacitated herself by voluntarily drinking or doing drugs to excess? I'm not talking about being slipped a roofie.
Voluntarily went off with some stranger from the bar or 5 guys into the bathroom?
At what point does the woman have ANY reponsibility for her own safety. At what point do we expect people to exercise some common sense.
Can we at least all agree that women who falsely accuse men of rape are awful people who in a perfect world should serve jail time?
Yes. Anyone who falsely accuses anyone of anything should be punished.
However, since rape is hard to prove in many cases the investigation should be very thorough and delicate so that those have been truly wronged won't be afraid to report the crime.
The problem is all the grey areas.
Girl gets drunk, hooks up, thinks better of it in the morning and calls it rape. It isn't rape.
Girl gets slipped a drug and has sex in a blackout state. This is rape.
Unfortunately the first instance HAS been called rape and it muddies the issue.
I will not feed the trolls.
You are the blasted troll.
It is that there could be a large number of false accusations, leading to many cases that are not prosecuted. In that case, it would seem our justice system is working well.
Like the case under discussion? Is that your idea of "working well"?
Even if she incapacitated herself by voluntarily drinking or doing drugs to excess? I'm not talking about being slipped a roofie.
DBQ, I think it depends on what you mean by "incapacitated". I think if one of the parties is unconscious, they should be left alone.
since rape is hard to prove in many cases the investigation should be very thorough and delicate so that those have been truly wronged won't be afraid to report the crime.
No fear of that happening. Did I menton that half of all rape claims made are found to be false? It's an odd "fear of reporting" where large numbers of women are fabricating reports.
You are the blasted troll.
You are the one who accused me of lying and impuned my character and that of my friends and family. Also, I think there was a kkk mention somewhere...
Like the case under discussion? Is that your idea of "working well"?
Well, her accusations were investigated, proven wrong, she recanted and the men were not charged. That is working well.
If there were other consequences (people being fired from their jobs, social stigma) those were not a fault of the justice system, but of individuals outside that system. Those should be addressed, certainly, but the police seem to have done their jobs well.
DADvocate, did you even read your linked article?
It was the teacher's lawyer who said she was too pretty to go to prison. Defense lawyers say all kinds of bizarre stuff. It's what they do.
So why were charges dropped?
FTA:"In Lafave's case, charges were dismissed because the victim's mother did not want to put her son through a trial that, given America's current fascination with sexual abuse, was bound to become a staple of tabloid television.
"'I'm his mom and I couldn't protect him when it came time to what she did to him. I can protect him now,' she told a Tampa television station. She said she was relieved her son would be spared from testifying. 'Every word that came out of his mouth, every detail that was presented, would have been terrible for him.'"
Gee, do you suppose that women who have been raped ever draw the same conclusion?
Shanna,
That is why I said "in a perfect world". I personally agree that, since the benefit to society of having these lying scumbags recant outweighs whatever benefit to society we derive by jailing them; much as we allow people to abandon their children with no consequence, as long as they do it at a hospital, police station, or fire station. Better let cretins like that go on breathing free air than find the corpses of their babies lying in trash cans.
Perhaps it's arguable that a woman who would condemn innocent people to bondage, just to keep from inconveniencing herself is not as bad as a rapist. Perhaps. But if you can't agree that a person who would do that is a stinking pile of human garbage, well, I don't know what to say.
As for people like Ms. Bazelon, who look at such people and tell us they are still deserving of our sympathy, well, I just must say their moral myopathy is so staggering as to defy description.
I had intended to say "moral myopia". "Moral myopathy" is not quite correct, and more accurately describes rapists and false accusers, rather than Ms. Bazelon.
In a perfect world, absolutely. I think we all wish we could trust the justice system more for all kinds of reasons and this is one of them. I just worry that in our imperfect world, sending "false accusers" to jail could have terrible consequences for young women who have actually been raped.
About my definition of inebriation... I wonder if everyone who feels that young women shouldn't ever get drunk applies the same standard to young men? Basically, yeah, we'd all be better off if no one ever got wasted. But do i think that girls who are slurring, vomiting, passing out drunk "deserve" to be taken advantage of? Of course not. And I would never under any circumstances say that any woman who was raped was "responsible" for being attacked.
You are the one who accused me of lying and impuned my character and that of my friends and family.
I noted the enormous statistical improbability of your claims being true. And I'll repeat that observation here. It's not totally impossible that lots of your friends and family are being raped, but it would be quite remarkable.
Well, her accusations were investigated, proven wrong, she recanted and the men were not charged. That is working well.
The only reason those men are not going to jail is the existence of the video. That is not working well.
I think there was a kkk mention somewhere...
Your bigotry is on a par with that of the KKK. If that troubles you, change.
I think it depends on what you mean by "incapacitated". I think if one of the parties is unconscious, they should be left alone.
Well, yes. Of course.
I mean those cases where the people are voluntarily incapacitated by drink or drugs to the no inhibitions stage and then experience the morning after regrets or in this case got caught by her boyfriend.
If there were other consequences (people being fired from their jobs, social stigma) those were not a fault of the justice system, but of individuals outside that system. Those should be addressed, certainly, but the police seem to have done their jobs well.
Actually, no. If they were doing their jobs well, the names of the accused AND the accuser would have been kept under wraps until they had enough evidence or felt that their case had been proved. If they hadn't rushed to release the names of the men, there would have been little to no loss of jobs or reputation.
If the tables were turned and I was in the position of the wrongly accused men, the lawsuits against the woman, the employers who fired me, the police who released my names and the newspapers who smeared my character would be huge. I would file counter claims against the woman for falsely reporting a crime. She would go to jail before I were satisfied.
If I was the woman and it was a real rape, I would do the same to get vengence.
I'm not a nice person to make mad. Ask my ex-husband.
:-D
About my definition of inebriation... I wonder if everyone who feels that young women shouldn't ever get drunk applies the same standard to young men? Basically, yeah, we'd all be better off if no one ever got wasted. But do i think that girls who are slurring, vomiting, passing out drunk "deserve" to be taken advantage of? Of course not. And I would never under any circumstances say that any woman who was raped was "responsible" for being attacked.
Young men who are drunk, slurring, vomiting and get rolled in the alley by hookers or mugged outside the bar also are 'asking for it'.
For crimey's sake. Take some reponsibility for yourself. Don't put yourself in danger and then whine because bad things happen to you.
Do they "deserve" to be rolled, mugged, raped. Of course not. Did they stupidly put themselves in a position where those things can happen. Yes, they did.
About my definition of inebriation... I wonder if everyone who feels that young women shouldn't ever get drunk applies the same standard to young men? Basically, yeah, we'd all be better off if no one ever got wasted. But do i think that girls who are slurring, vomiting, passing out drunk "deserve" to be taken advantage of? Of course not. And I would never under any circumstances say that any woman who was raped was "responsible" for being attacked.
Well, in our "imperfect world", a woman has to realize she is in much more danger when she is out of her own control than a man is.
However, no one here said, or even intimated that an incapacitated woman "deserved" or was "responsible" for her rape. It was averred that a woman is responsible for looking after her own safety. Which is true, just as it's true for a man. It's just that the consequences for a woman can be so much greater.
It's really no more an attack on women than the people who said that young men shouldn't have group sex with drunk sluts in bathrooms is saying that they deserved to be falsely accused of rape. It's an irresponsible act, and you're putting your reputation in the hands of someone who has already shown poor judgement. If the young men had shown better judgement, they wouldn't be in that situation, but that doesn't mean they deserved what happened to them.
To take it out of the rape arena. Someone who parks his car in a dodgy area of the city and leaves the door unlocked is being irresponsible, stupid, and should not be surprised when his car is stolen. However, just because he didn't take adequate precautions to prevent theft doesn't mean he deserves to have his car stolen. No one "deserves" being victimized, but as a grown citizen of a free republic, it's expected that you take certain minimum measures to protect yourself. Not doing so isn't criminal, but it is stupid. And those people were saying "Don't be stupid".
Well, DBQ, the men in the story here had sex with a woman they didn't know. They did not know that she was capable of reporting to the police that they raped her, but they put themselves at her tender mercy and that's what they got. Do you think they asked for that?
And Dust Bunny Queen beats me to the punch much more succinctly.
DBQ, I completely agree.
"I just worry that in our imperfect world, sending "false accusers" to jail could have terrible consequences for young women who have actually been raped."
Do you have even the slightest concern about what giving all false accusers a completely free pass to lie at will with no consequences (not even being named) might do to innocent young men? This is what we're saying, that this is a consideration that women such as Bazelon, and possibly you, do not appear to adequately perceive because of their ingrained biases. Yes, there are negatives along both paths, but we want to discuss the tradeoffs, not dismiss them.
Do you think they asked for that?
Pretty much.
They were also asking for STDs, AIDS.
Do you have even the slightest concern about what giving all false accusers a completely free pass to lie at will with no consequences (not even being named) might do to innocent young men?
Yes, let's be clear on this: wrongly imprisoning someone for years is a worse crime than rape. In every other crime we err in the direction of avoiding false imprisonment. Nothing about rape suggests that we ought to treat that particular crime differently.
If Danmell Ngoyne had tried to frame five people for a murder the didn't commit we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Everyone would agree she needed to do serious jail time. But because the crime she framed them for is *rape* she gets a pass? To hell with that. She deserves to rot in prison. Hell, she *deserves* a bullet in the head, but let's settle for what the law actually allows.
And Dust Bunny Queen beats me to the punch much more succinctly.
But she wasn't quite accurate. The reality is that any man who has sex with a woman he isn't married to is putting himself at risk of an accusation of rape. There don't have to be drugs, alcohol, or bathrooms involved. Under current law, men are guilty of rape until proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Like the case under discussion? Is that your idea of "working well"?
Well, her accusations were investigated, proven wrong, she recanted and the men were not charged. That is working well.
Four men were arrested and spent two days in jail despite there being no evidence whatsoever that they had raped anybody. They were jailed based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an unhinged slut who regretted cheating on her boyfriend with five other guys.
That is not evidence that the system works. If I accused you of stealing a thousand bucks from me, would they throw you in jail based solely on my accusation? Hell no. If I accused you of *murder*, would they throw you in jail? Again, hell no. But all it takes for a man to get jailed for rape is for some woman to open her mouth and accuse him. Bang; jail time.
The four victims in this case were released solely because one of them was lucky enough to have recorded the encounter. If he hadn't, those guys would have gone to prison, and Danmell Ngyone would probably have ended up wit a book deal or a Lifetime movie about her "ordeal".
The system does not work. If the system worked, none of the victims would have spent a day in jail.
For crimey's sake. Take some reponsibility for yourself. Don't put yourself in danger and then whine because bad things happen to you.
"Whine" because you're raped? Is that what you tell victims who HAVE to walk by themselves in "unsafe" areas because that's where they can afford to live and they don't have a car? Is reporting rape "whining"? Look, you and I are in agreement about women who falsely accuse someone of rape being total bitches who deserve punishment. But if someone is ACTUALLY raped, I would never say that any reaction she had was "whining."
Do you have even the slightest concern about what giving all false accusers a completely free pass to lie at will with no consequences (not even being named) might do to innocent young men? This is what we're saying, that this is a consideration that women such as Bazelon, and possibly you, do not appear to adequately perceive because of their ingrained biases. Yes, there are negatives along both paths, but we want to discuss the tradeoffs, not dismiss them.
Yes, I am concerned about that, as I have stated, repeatedly. And I never said there shouldn't be consequences. I just said that giving anyone who falsely accuses someone of rape a prison sentence equal to the crime of rape was too far, in my opinion, because of the negatives. I believe that is discussing the tradeoffs and not dismissing anything.
wrongly imprisoning someone for years is a worse crime than rape.
I don't want to get into an argument about which is "worse." They are both awful and unless there's someone on this forum who has been both falsely imprisoned AND raped, I don't think any of us is in a position to make that call. That's some Sophie's Choice shit right there.
But she wasn't quite accurate. The reality is that any man who has sex with a woman he isn't married to is putting himself at risk of an accusation of rape.
Give me a break. You know what else? Any woman who exists is putting themselves at risk to be raped.
The reality is that any man who has sex with a woman he isn't married to is putting himself at risk of an accusation of rape.
Well, there you have it. You MUST get married first or remain celibate. I kid I kid.
Actually what would be the prudent thing to do is to actually get to know the other person for a while, date, go out with friends as a group, know who they are, their personality, their history....... before jumping into the sack with an almost stranger and having hot sex.
Unless you are a terrible judge of character, you are dating Sybil or you have completely misrepresented yourself, the issues should be minimal.
I know....old fashioned.
Is that what you tell victims who HAVE to walk by themselves in "unsafe" areas because that's where they can afford to live and they don't have a car?
You seem to have a distinct lack of the ability to make accurate comparisons or analogies.
There is nothing 'voluntary' about being in danger because you are forced to live in unsafe areas. Nevertheless there are things women can do to make themselves safer. Just as men who live those same areas should take precautions.
There is no comparison to that and getting drunk, taking drugs and voluntarily putting yourself, man or woman, into a dangerous situation.
One is bad circumstances...the other is just plain stupid. I have all the sympathy in the world for the unfortunate. None whatsoever for the stupid.
. I have all the sympathy in the world for the unfortunate. None whatsoever for the stupid.
Really? You have NO sympathy for a woman who makes one "bad decision" and is "punished" with rape? Huh. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
A couple of points regarding the drift the thread has taken:
1. Women are far more likely to confide in other women that they have been raped at some point, because it is a subject of interest to most women because all women are at risk. On the other hand, a woman would likely tell only the men who are very close to her, for a specific reason: sympathy, understanding, etc. (Similarly, who's more likely to know women who have had epidurals? Not the men they know, for sure.)
2. Not every rape will be reported to the FBI, because in most instances the rapist is known to the victim, and the victim must keep in mind the consequences of prosecuting the rapist. Rape is sex without consent, and many guys -- say, the prom date who has shelled out a month's pay, and who has been expecting sex in return -- simply will not take no for an answer. But the consequences of having an acquaintance -- again, one's prom date -- arrested are too heavy. So women will just suck it up.
"wrongly imprisoning someone for years is a worse crime than rape."
I don't want to get into an argument about which is "worse."
The reason you don't want to argue it is that it cannot rationally be argued that rape is anywhere near as bad as being forced to spend most of your life locked in a cell, unable marry, to raise children, or to enjoy any of the countless little freedoms of joys that make human life worth living. And if rape isn't worse than false imprisonment, your whole "but what about the women! we must protect the women!" argument falls apart.
So naturally you're not interested in arguing which is worse. Your position depends on rape being worse.
Give me a break. You know what else? Any woman who exists is putting themselves at risk to be raped.
Because in your world, men never get raped?
The key difference between the genders is that if a man walks into a police station and, without offering any real evidence, accuses a woman of raping him, he gets laughed out of the station. If a woman accuses a man, the man gets arrested, prosecuted, and quite often convicted.
Unless you are a terrible judge of character, you are dating Sybil or you have completely misrepresented yourself, the issues should be minimal.
Unless you get divorced and find yourself facing the all-too-typical phony accusations of child molestation. The problem with the current system is that it is built around the assumption that women are always rational and honest. This is, heh, not always the case. It wasn't the case before, when the system was biased in favor of men and assumed women were generally irrational and DIShonest.
It isn't too much to ask, is it, that the system actually work the way it does with the other crimes? Presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, etc etc.
Women are far more likely to confide in other women that they have been raped at some point
They're also more likely to share phony stories of rape with other women, because it generates instant sympathy. The guy in question immediately becomes the unquestioned bad guy.
Okay, fine. You're right that any PERSON is in danger of being raped.
The key difference between the genders is that if a man walks into a police station and, without offering any real evidence, accuses a woman of raping him, he gets laughed out of the station. If a woman accuses a man, the man gets arrested, prosecuted, and quite often convicted.
Another key difference between the genders is that women are much more likely to be raped and also, because of gender-related conditioning, very likely to not report it, partially because of the attitude towards rape victims being "stupid" or "irresponsible" evidenced in this thread and also the fact that they are often conditioned to be deferent to men in their lives, even when it they are attacked.
They're also more likely to share phony stories of rape with other women, because it generates instant sympathy. The guy in question immediately becomes the unquestioned bad guy.
Have you noticed that there are several women in this thread who share your ideas about rape and the apparently huge number of women who falsely accuse men of rape? I'm outnumbered here. Do you really think that when a woman tells another woman that she was raped by one of their mutual friends or relatives, she is "always" greeted with sympathy? That is totally unrealistic.
"most of your life locked in a cell"
Can't find recent statistics, but as of 1995, rapists served an average of 65 months. This includes jail and prison time and comes to just over 5 years.
link
Of course one day is too much for an innocent person, but 5 years probably isn't most of a man's life.
Just doing my bit to knock down the hyperbole.
...As to whether this is worse than being raped, I don't know. If a woman is raped at gunpoint and suffers debilitating PTSD the rest of her life, or if she is raped so violently as to cause physical damage and prevent future sexual pleasure or childbirth, I suppose it could be argued that this is not worse.
a woman would likely tell only the men who are very close to her, for a specific reason: sympathy, understanding, etc
My step-mother did this to my father. Soon after they were married, she would drop the conversational brick in restaurants about having been gang-raped by Mexicans and aborting the baby. We'd never known someone as nutty as she is, so we actually believed her, for a while.
Recently, ugly purple spots appeared on her arms. She said it was because her mother had put out cigarettes on them, 50 years before.
I hate to try to yank all this back on-topic, but how much do we think Bazelon cares about the consequences for the men in this case? Honestly, read what she wrote. Her only focus is on what those terrible men did to that poor woman, and that prejudged narrative cannot be budged by the facts. She calls them rapists, just not, you know, by the "legal definition".
What the angry guys here are responding to is that they don't perceive this to be a minority point of view among women. Do you think this discussion has dispelled or reinforced their view?
fivewheels said...
I hate to try to yank all this back on-topic, but how much do we think Bazelon cares about the consequences for the men in this case? Honestly, read what she wrote.
Fivewheels, Bazelon wrote the article she wanted to write. If you want a different article written, you could write it. Why do you care what she cares about?
Also, you say:
"She calls them rapists"
- Where? I searched the entire article for the word "rapist" and didn't see it. Where did she call them that?
It's implicit in this statement: "it wasn't the legal definition of rape."
That suggests that it WAS rape, but in that narrow window of rape-that-isn't-legally-rape.
Or, you know, maybe NOT so narrow?
Laura - no lawyer would use that defense on behalf of a man.
Mary Kay Letourneau, Debra Lafave, Pamela Rogers Turner, Pamela Smart and others receive less actual prison time than men. The law and the courts are weighted to favor women, civil or criminal.
One of the paradoxes of feminism is that it demands special treatment and special laws for women, VAWA for beginngers, which supports the notion that women are inferior to men because women can't face the world as men do but need special, extra help.
I think you're reading too much into it, Blake.
She's saying that something disturbing happened, but it wasn't rape. It would have been good if she'd gone to a counselor because of her bad feelings about the incident, but unfortunately she went to the police.
I think you guys are looking for something to get indignant about.
If you don't like the article, write a different one and submit it to Slate.
Four men were arrested and spent two days in jail despite there being no evidence whatsoever that they had raped anybody. They were jailed based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an unhinged slut who regretted cheating on her boyfriend with five other guys.
I think the END result was just, in that they weren’t sent to prison for a crime they didn’t commit. They shouldn’t have been arrested until there was better evidence.
The reason you don't want to argue it is that it cannot rationally be argued that rape is anywhere near as bad as being forced to spend most of your life locked in a cell
Do they really lock you in jail for “the rest of your life”? Seeing as people get out of jail in 3 years for MURDER these days, I’m not sure how long they go for rape.
Can't find recent statistics, but as of 1995, rapists served an average of 65 months.
Thanks Laura!
It isn't too much to ask, is it, that the system actually work the way it does with the other crimes? Presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, etc etc.
I think we mostly all agree on that. I think there should be some evidence of rape, rather than just he said/she said. Bruises, defensive wounds, etc…
They're also more likely to share phony stories of rape with other women, because it generates instant sympathy.
Why, when the party in question is involving no police and simply sharing confidence, presume lies over truth? I would think people who actually KNOW the person would be better able to determine the veracity of their claims then strangers on the internet. Furthermore, I'm not sure why there are several guys here who seem bound and determined to disbelieve based on nothing but not wanting these things to be true. Who benefits from calling me, or Summer Anne or Beth liars and our friends and family liars based on nothing? I don't understand that.
I addressed this in my first post, but she closes with: "whatever happened to this girl, it wasn't the legal definition of rape." There's only one reason not to simply say, "it wasn't rape." And that's because you don't want to admit that it wasn't rape.
As far as her writing what she wants, yes, of course she can and did. And I will reiterate why I might comment on it: Because this was a post about what she wrote. But some people are not willing to allow it to be about that, it has to turn toward women's victimization, even when there is no female victim in this case.
"DADvocate said...
Laura - no lawyer would use that defense on behalf of a man."
What, that he's too pretty to go to jail? Probably not. They come up with other silly crap instead.
What you said was that she was "judged too pretty to go to prison". The court did not judge her to be too pretty for prison. She didn't go to prison b/c her victim's mother didn't want him to face the kind of crap that women rape victims sometimes have to face. I think it's ironic that you'd link to this article and seem to think it supports your view.
She's saying that something disturbing happened, but it wasn't rape.
Right, the disturbing was the false rape allegation. Or is that not what you meant?
It would have been good if she'd gone to a counselor because of her bad feelings about the incident, but unfortunately she went to the police.
Counseling was never an option and she didn't go to the cops because of her "bad feelings". She went to the police to hide her own behavior from her boyfriend.
If you don't like the article, write a different one and submit it to Slate.
The point of this post is to discuss Bazelon's article. If you don't like the discussion find a different thread to comment on.
Lauren,
No, I'm just telling you what others were thinking. I didn't read this article, and I wouldn't bother.
However, I'm inclined to agree about this begrudging "not legally a rapist". They're not "legally" murderers, either.
It's weasel words.
On the other hand, men do end up dead for thinking with their dicks. It's seldom just but it's a historical fact nonetheless.
There's only one reason not to simply say, "it wasn't rape." And that's because you don't want to admit that it wasn't rape.
I disagree. I think there are two other reasons.
1 - She wasn't there and was not in a position to know exactly what did or did not happen. For instance, as others have expressed here, it's possible that the woman consented to the first three but not the last two.
2 - She isn't you. She is under NO obligation to word her sentence the way you think you would have worded it, or the way she imagines you would want her to have worded it. Or to try to read your mind and figure out how to word her sentence in such a way that you could not possibly read something objectionable into it.
What the angry guys here are responding to is that they don't perceive this to be a minority point of view among women. Do you think this discussion has dispelled or reinforced their view?
I haven't seen it said that sex that you regret is rape. There has been some speculation about what happened when the videotape wasn't on, and some questions about inebrietion, but I don't think you could honestly take from this thread much to reinforce that view.
"No, I'm just telling you what others were thinking. I didn't read this article, and I wouldn't bother."
Blake, I can guess what others are thinking as well as you can. If you didn't read the article then you are at a disadvantage regarding what we are talking about, anyway.
Part of the problem here is that some commenters have a much broader definition of "rape" than others.
Not to pick on Summer Anne, but when she says
My definition of rape is that when a woman says NO to sex and is forced to have sex anyway, that's rape. Or when a child has sex with an adult, that's rape. Again, I can't imagine this is controversial.
she doesn't actually mean it, because "says NO to sex" and "is forced to have sex" mean different things to Summer Anne than they do to the commenters arguing with her. Drunk chicks with bad judgment aren't saying "no". They're saying "yes" to something they wouldn't say "yes" to sober. Wifes who give in to nagging are not "forced" to have sex.
Drunk chicks who are passed out and incapable of saying "no" are of course a different story, as are women who are beaten by their husbands until they submit--these are clear cases of rape--but Summer Anne conflates all the cases.
Drunk chicks with bad judgment aren't saying "no". They're saying "yes" to something they wouldn't say "yes" to sober.
Did Summer Anne say that drunk women who say "yes" to sex when they would have said "no" sober were raped? Somehow I missed that.
Maguro:
"The point of this post is to discuss Bazelon's article. If you don't like the discussion find a different thread to comment on."
That's really funny, because the rest of your post reads like you didn't realize I was talking about the article Bazelon wrote.
Did you even read it?
Laura(southernxyl) said...
A 38 year old female teacher banging an eager 16-year old boy is a case of a troubled woman who needs counseling not jail.
I have never seen this asserted anywhere.
And a boy who, since he was eager, was clearly not hurt..doesn't serve society by his parents trying to stop the teacher from getting the help she needs and moving on with her wonderful career.
The only part of this I have ever seen is the assertion that it never hurts a male to get as much sex as possible, and this has been expressed by macho-men, not women or feminists.
Can you find a link to any assertion that states any of this crap?
You might start with reading Meade's 3:11PM post then going to his link about a 51 year old female makeup artist (haught haught haught, BTW...married to a former Bengals linebacker) who was fucking a 15 year old. Replete with numerous emails, emotional manipulation, warnings not to tell the parents or friends or it would hurt both of them "our little secret"...and gifts..
Outcome completely typical of underage male, predatory female cases.
Woman does not serve a day in jail..because she is "troubled" agrees to counseling, which, if completed..will result in her plea being reduced to misdemeanor and sex offender registry status eliminated.
Any, I mean any man with multiple, predatory sexual encounters with a 15-year old girl and indisputable evidence of it and the predatory nature of the poking involved is going to do serious jail time, have a felony conviction, and stay on a sex offender list the rest of their lives.
No Laura, if you have not seen this asserted anywhere, it is because you haven't seen the numbers of cases where the "troubled woman" is the Victim Who Must Be Helped. It is almost the standard.
The only time a woman will go in the clink is if she "statutorily" rapes an underage female..and then likely only if it is real pedophilia rather than with a 12-17 year old..
@Laura(southernxyl)
Did Summer Anne say that drunk women who say "yes" to sex when they would have said "no" sober were raped? Somehow I missed that.
You are intended to miss it.
Ask her explicitly--if a girl gets drunk, of her own free will, and says "yes", did she consent?
If Summer Anne agrees that a drunk woman can consent to sex, I'll retract my statement.
"You are intended to miss it."
So you're reading Summer Anne's mind now? You can't take what she says at face value - it's not objectionable enough, so you have to make stuff up?
If you didn't read the article then you are at a disadvantage regarding what we are talking about, anyway.
LOL
So others shouldn't be commenting because they don't like what she wrote and I shouldn't be commenting because I didn't read it (being more interested in the reactions others had).
Which means, according to you, we can only comment in this thread if we've read the article and agree with it.
Got it.
Laura, you're really being disingenuous here. You explicitly criticized me because I "care what she cares about". As if it were extraneous to the thread.
And Bazelon does have a responsibility to use language in a clear manner that doesn't give rise to (alleged) misinterpretation. And if you honestly can't see the implication of including the "legal definition of" qualifier, an implication many other people here have no problem discerning, then I think that proves my point about certain individuals' perceptions or lack thereof being troubling.
Honestly, you make sense most of the time, but you seem unable to process a discussion when any hint of a sexism issue is part of it.
Cedarford:
"[Kenton Commonwealth’s Attorney Rob] Sanders acknowledged a “societal double standard” in cases involving an adult woman and teenage boy, as one reason allowing the plea agreement."
Sanders needs his butt kicked.
But I don't see any indication that she was troubled and needed counseling. It was a plea agreement:
"He asked Kenton Circuit Judge Gregory Bartlett to sentence Dinkel to five years probation when he formally sentences her on July 2.
"The plea agreement also calls for her not to go to Covington Catholic High School except to pick up and drop off her son who attends school there with the victim, She also is not allowed to attend any school functions, regardless of location, except for her son’s graduation.
"Dinkel also agreed not to give interviews, write a book, produce a movie or Web site about her relationship with the boy. She will also have to register as sex offender for 20 years, pay for counseling for the teen and be tested for any sexually transmitted diseases."
Nope, not seeing the troubled, in need of counseling part.
Another key difference between the genders is that women are much more likely to be raped
Certainly there is a gender gap in rape incidents. It just isn't nearly as wide as the gender gap in false accusations.
and also, because of gender-related conditioning, very likely to not report it
The famous claim that women are "very likely not to report rape" because of [insert reason here] is a great one, because it is impossible to confirm or deny. But we do have some statistics on the ones they actually do get around to making; the FBI has determined that in cases where DNA evidence is available, it excludes the primary suspect as a candidate in one case in four. So right there we have a baseline of 25% of accused rapists being innocent. The rate is almost certainly higher among cases that never reach that point (because the accusations aren't credible or whatever) or where no DNA exists (because, for example, there was no sex in the first place).
partially because of the attitude towards rape victims being "stupid" or "irresponsible" evidenced in this thread
People aren't calling rape victims stupid or irresponsible. You're classifying women as rape victims who were merely stupid and irresponsible. A woman who gets drunk and has sex with a guy she normally wouldn't give the time of day has not been raped. She has just been a dumbass.
and also the fact that they are often conditioned to be deferent to men in their lives, even when it they are attacked.
Oh, please. The last generation of women "conditioned to be deferent" is in their fifties now. Fifty-year-old women are not regular targets of rape; the overwhelming majority of female rape victims are in their sexual prime.
The world you're describing, where rape was the crime that dare not speak its name, ended over a quarter-century ago. We're well past that, and well into the years when women who haven't been raped are encouraged to believe that they were -- that rape means nothing more than "sex you wish you hadn't had". Well, by that measure I've been raped several times. :)
@Laura(southernxyl)
So you're reading Summer Anne's mind now? You can't take what she says at face value - it's not objectionable enough, so you have to make stuff up?
"face value" is indeed what is at question here, isn't it.
This very scenario is the basis of the "1 in 4" statistic.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html
Koss counted anyone who answered affirmatively to any of the last three questions as having been raped:
8. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?
9. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?
10. Have you had sexual acts (anal or oral intercourse or penetration by objects other than the penis) when you didn't want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?
...In line with her view of rape as existing on a continuum of male sexual aggression, Koss also asked: "Have you given in to sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you didn't want to because you were overwhelmed by a man's continual arguments and pressure?"
I take it you agree that a drunk woman can give consent and is not raped if she does? I take it you agree that a woman who gives in to "continual arguments and pressure" is not raped?
Because the people compiling the research on which Summer Anne's statements are based disagree. They don't use the same definition of "rape" as the rest of us.
That's really funny, because the rest of your post reads like you didn't realize I was talking about the article Bazelon wrote.
Is it funny? How so? Bazelon's article sugarcoats the awfulness of what this woman did by saying that "something disturbing" happened to her and you seem determined to do the same.
To me, the disturbing thing is that those guys would still be in jail if one of them hadn't recorded the thing.
"So others shouldn't be commenting because they don't like what she wrote"
That's not what I said. People are complaining that she wrote about the woman, when they think she should have written about the men. My point is that she wrote the article she wanted to write. What they are saying is that she should have written another article altogether.
I think the END result was just, in that they weren’t sent to prison for a crime they didn’t commit. They shouldn’t have been arrested until there was better evidence.
Explain to me why it is "just" for four innocent people two spend two days in jail (plus, of course, no end of psychological trauma). Yes, they were eventually (thanks to a fortunate video of the incident) set free. But that isn't justice. That is just the prevention of further INjustice.
There will be justice when Danmell Ngoyne is in prison.
Yeah, I didn't say that. I said that if a woman is incapacitated (in other words unable to consent or dissent with anything resembling clarity) a guy who takes advantage of her is raping her. Also, my example about married couples was not meant to be construed as a wife "giving in" unless being physically forced to have sex while saying "no" is viewed as "giving in." how about you quote me instead if putting words in my mouth?
Maguro, so every single article about this event must be about the awfulness of being falsely accused? Every last, blasted one?
I'm disturbed by the thought of a woman consenting to sex with five men she didn't know. Go ahead and flame me now, that I am giving room in my brain to anything other than the awfulness of false accusation.
"how about you quote me instead if putting words in my mouth?"
Because then they can't be so scandalized by you, Summer Anne.
For heaven's sake, we're not complaining "that she wrote about the woman." We're complaining (I am, anyway) that what she wrote about her was slanted in a way that attempts to excuse her and condemn the victims. Which should be easily understood.
Koss counted anyone who answered affirmatively to any of the last three questions as having been raped:
8. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?
9. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?
10. Have you had sexual acts (anal or oral intercourse or penetration by objects other than the penis) when you didn't want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?
The first one is the only one that looks controversial (although I think legally they classify the last one as something else, although I forget what it's called--sexual battery?).
I think it can be interpreted two ways, 1. the roofied kind of way, or 2. the I had stupid drunken sex kind of way. For 1, rape, for 2, not rape (IMO).
I'm not trying to get a specific stat, but I think we all know it is difficult to quantify unreported rape. Annecdotally, it tracks for me that there are a lot of them, but if people want to believe this is all lies, I can't convince them otherwise.
It really says it all that some women have hijacked this thread to complain about rape.
This isn't a thread about rape. This is a thread about false imprisonment. About false accusations. About injustice, and wrongful treatment of the wrongfully accused. If this was a thread about some good old boys lynching an innocent black guy for supposedly messing with white women, would one of you pop up to say "well you know, a large percentage of white rape victims ARE raped by black men"? Probably. There's a time and a place, people.
Bazelon's article sugarcoats the awfulness of what this woman did by saying that "something disturbing" happened to her
I think the comment would have read better if she had left off the "to her".
My point is that she wrote the article she wanted to write. What they are saying is that she should have written another article altogether.
See, that's why people's reactions are interesting—probably far more than yet another sympathy-for-the-devil article from the Left.
I read it as people saying that Bazelon's article emphasizes sympathy for the criminal in this case rather than the victims.
I'm not reading anyone saying she shouldn't have written it, because most here seem to think that there are a lot of people who share this thought process while paying lip service to equality, and it's always nice to have confirmation.
But that's just my take.
See, that's meta-commenting.
Until this thread came up, I had no idea rape was so contentious.
I remember Steinbeck talking about being afraid to go to certain parts of California. He'd been warned that certain Sheriff departments were ready to set him up with the whole "girl cries rape" thing.
These days they'd go with child molestation, I suppose.
@Summer Anne:
Yeah, I didn't say that. I said that if a woman is incapacitated (in other words unable to consent or dissent with anything resembling clarity) a guy who takes advantage of her is raping her. Also, my example about married couples was not meant to be construed as a wife "giving in" unless being physically forced to have sex while saying "no" is viewed as "giving in." how about you quote me instead if putting words in my mouth?
I retract my statement and apologize.
Now, would you like to retract your statements about the prevalence of unreported rape? Because the people who compiled those statistics are counting all the drunk college girls and the wives who given to nagging as having been "raped". Since you rejected their definition of rape, you must reject their statistics.
I think the END result was just, in that they weren’t sent to prison for a crime they didn’t commit. They shouldn’t have been arrested until there was better evidence.
Explain to me why it is "just" for four innocent people two spend two days in jail (plus, of course, no end of psychological trauma).
Rev, you're not reading what I wrote. "They shouldn’t have been arrested until there was better evidence". Plain in black and white. I agree with you on that point, for Gods sake!!!! Don't be so quick to jump.
Laura - Obviously Emily Bazelon can write whatever she wants, but I find her lack of sympathy for the true victims in this case to be noteworthy.
"We're complaining (I am, anyway) that what she wrote about her was slanted in a way that attempts to excuse her and condemn the victims."
Fivewheels, I just went back and read that entire article, word for word. I cannot find where she is excusing that woman or condemning the victims. Can you do a copy-and-paste of what you are talking about?
I'm disturbed by the thought of a woman consenting to sex with five men she didn't know.
Totally.
Maguro, did you read the whole article? What do you think the article was about?
Laura, my first post in this thread handles those issues. I know you won't agree anyway, but it's territory that's already been trod. I know it's a long thread, though.
@Laura(southernxyl)
It wasn't fair for me to put words in Summer Anne's mouth, and I did retract and apologize.
But I wasn't really scandalized. I was doing so as a rhetorical tactic.
If she doesn't believe in that definition of rape, then should shouldn't believe the results of researchers who use that definition when they talk about 1 in 4 women being raped.
But first she had to say clearly what definition she agreed with. I chose a mean way to get her to do that.
Okay, fivewheels, I went back and looked at your first comment.
I think you totally misread what Bazelon was saying. Now that is my opinion, of course, which differs from yours, and each of us is entitled to our opinion.
But for instance, when Bazelon said the boys "became" victims, what I see her saying is that they "became" victims when the woman filed her report. Which Bazelon wishes she hadn't done - she wishes that she'd talked to a counselor instead. They weren't victims of anything before she went to the police, were they? So I see you reading stuff into her article that just isn't there.
But, you know, whatever.
I'm not trying to get a specific stat, but I think we all know it is difficult to quantify unreported rape.
The main problem with the "1 in 4" result of Koss's study isn't the questions she asked (although those were certainly bad), but the fact that 75% of that 1 in 4 didn't consider themselves to have been raped.
Annecdotally, it tracks for me that there are a lot of them, but if people want to believe this is all lies, I can't convince them otherwise.
Obviously they aren't ALL lies. But given that a minimum of one in four of the women who actually DO work up the nerve to file charges turn out to be falsely accusing their "attacker", it seems likely that a much higher percentage of the women who aren't willing to tell anyone but close friends are doing so.
Plus, of course, a lot of those women aren't exactly lying. They're just putting the best spin on events where consent was either unclear or regretted soon afterwards.
But given that a minimum of one in four of the women who actually DO work up the nerve to file charges turn out to be falsely accusing their "attacker", it seems likely that a much higher percentage of the women who aren't willing to tell anyone but close friends are doing so.
Revenant here has a good point. The consequences of lying to your friends don't involve jail time or lawsuits.
Obviously they aren't ALL lies.
I think I am better able to determine if people close to me are lying than you guys are, simply put.
But given that a minimum of one in four of the women who actually DO work up the nerve to file charges turn out to be falsely accusing their "attacker", it seems likely that a much higher percentage of the women who aren't willing to tell anyone but close friends are doing so.
First of all, if they are false accusations, they don't really have to "work up the nerve".
Secondly, I think your conclusions on this are backwards. The reasons for reporting things the police are ENTIRELY different from your reasons for reporting things to friends.
Just because some people who report to police are lying, it doesn't follow that completely different people are likely to lie to friends. The reward system is different. You have no basis for making that assumption.
Plus, of course, a lot of those women aren't exactly lying. They're just putting the best spin on events where consent was either unclear or regretted soon afterwards.
But you have no reason to assume this either! This is what has been maddening about this thread. I got angry at Jon earlier, because I know who those specific people are, though I'm certainly not going to give info in a public thread.
Revenant here has a good point. The consequences of lying to your friends don't involve jail time or lawsuits.
But they also don't get anybody back for perceived wrongs, or protect you from a jealous boyfriend. Motivations would be completely different.
@Shanna
But you have no reason to assume this either! This is what has been maddening about this thread. I got angry at Jon earlier, because I know who those specific people are, though I'm certainly not going to give info in a public thread.
100% of your friends are telling the truth.
That doesn't meant 100% of women everywhere are telling THEIR friends the truth.
I know at least one woman who lied to me and her other friends about having been raped, but I don't generalize my experience.
Revenant is merely saying that the numbers don't add up. He's not accusing your friends of anything.
Now, would you like to retract your statements about the prevalence of unreported rape? Because the people who compiled those statistics are counting all the drunk college girls and the wives who given to nagging as having been "raped". Since you rejected their definition of rape, you must reject their statistics.
If she doesn't believe in that definition of rape, then should shouldn't believe the results of researchers who use that definition when they talk about 1 in 4 women being raped.
I will absolutely not retract my statements about the prevalence of unreported rape. I never cited the study that you're quoting, nor did I mention the "1 in 4" statistic (in fact, I think that statistic is an exaggeration and always have). What I said was that unreported rape constituted a large percentage of rape and that the statistics claiming that "half of men accused of rape" didn't perturb my argument that rape is a bigger quantifiable, numerical problem than false accusations even if it was a valid study (I doubt it) because it doesn't account for unreported cases. I never cited a specific number of women that I believed were not reporting their rape, because I don't believe that an accurate statistic of that could ever possibly exist.
As for "Revenant here has a good point. The consequences of lying to your friends don't involve jail time or lawsuits." -- yes, and the consequences of reporting real rape to your friends doesn't involve feeling that your life is in danger when your attacker is released a few years later, being publicly embarrassed and even mocked, or facing the disapproval or even abandonment of your family or friends if the accused is a trusted relative or friend.
Jesus, is one person who's making these arguments against us (other than Jon, he is obviously out of his mind) willing to say that they really don't think there are a significant number of unreported rapes? Do you really even need to read a study to come to the conclusion that many women would not report a rape out of fear and shame?
@Shanna: First of all, if they are false accusations, they don't really have to "work up the nerve".
You were never questioned by cops who thought you were lying, were you?
I have been, when I was an undergraduate. Trust me, it is an ordeal. I was beginning to think I had done whatever it was by the time they "let" me go.
Actually I was free to leave, I wasn't arrested, they didn't have nay evidence. They were trying to get it out of me. But I hadn't done it, and when I finally said I wanted to go that was the end of it.
They also questioned my girlfriend for an hour, even though she wasn't involved in any other way than having accompanied me to the police station.
They told her lies about me, saying I had a criminal record (I don't), that I was cheating on her, etc.
Naturally I went to a lawyer the very next day, and was told that cops have the right to do things like that, and I had no legal recourse; but I needn't worry about being arrested or charged--they would have done it already if they could have.
So, yeah, a false accusation is something you'd have to have a lot of nerve to go through, once the cops think you might not be telling the truth.
At my university this year, in the first week of classes, we had three false allegations of sexual assault, all eventually recanted.
Revenant is merely saying that the numbers don't add up. He's not accusing your friends of anything.
What numbers? Shanna hasn't discussed how many women she knows and you guys were the first to bring up the "1 in 4" statistic. All she said was that she knows 6 women who have been raped. I said that I knew several. Either you're saying that it's impossible that our friends and family members are telling us the truth about their incredibly traumatic experiences or you're not... What EXACTLY "doesn't add up"?
Remember the drill sergeant in the last decade who was convicted of raping all of those women?
I remember seeing one of them on TV.
She said that he had come over to her apartment and sat next to her on the couch, they were talking, and then he began kissing her. He pushed her over on the couch and initiated sex. She didn't want to have sex with him but he was much bigger and stronger than she was so she didn't resist for fear that he would hurt her. She just let him do it, hoping he'd get it over with. But, she insisted, she was not raped and she did not report the incident. It was clear when she was talking that she very much resented what he had done.
I think there are a million different concepts out there of what "rape" actually consists of. Some women probably accuse men of rape b/c they wish they hadn't consented to what they consented to. Others evidently don't accuse men of rape b/c they can't deal with the knowledge that that happened to them, so they call it anything else.
I tend to think we actually were better off in the day when it was expected that people waited for marriage, (or at least didn't have sex with utter strangers,) that people didn't go to the homes or hotel rooms with people of the opposite sex unless someone else was there, that people, women especially, didn't get publicly drunk, and that dorms were segregated by sex. But those days are gone.
Also, and trust me I realize I'm going to get flamed for this: has anyone even considered that MAYBE a FEW of the women who have "recanted" their accusations were bullied into doing so by aggressive defenders of their attackers or their attackers themselves, or even their own "friends"? Isn't it POSSIBLE while we're discussing all of these other numbers and statistics and possibilities that maybe some people "take it back" because they decide it's not "worth the trouble" when people around them are accusing them of lying and they're not confident they can prove it? How does that affect all of these statistics?
"I remember seeing one of them on TV."
Misspoke there - I remember seeing one of the women in his group on TV. She was not one he was convicted of raping.
@Summer Anne:
What I said was that unreported rape constituted a large percentage of rape
10%? 50%? 80%? Based on what? You have never answered this.
The only research I have seen that comes up with numbers like that is research that expands the definition of rape far beyond what normal people consider it to be.
Jesus, is one person who's making these arguments against us (other than Jon, he is obviously out of his mind) willing to say that they really don't think there are a significant number of unreported rapes?
I think 10% of rapes might be a reasonable percentage to go unreported. My made up number is just as good as yours.
Do you really even need to read a study to come to the conclusion that many women would not report a rape out of fear and shame?
It's not 1910 any more, if you haven't noticed. A woman raped by an abusive husband or a violent boyfriend or by her pimp probably wouldn't. "Many" women? Perhaps, if you refuse to say what "many" is. "Many" is not "most".
But you're not going to get 80%, or 50%, or whatever made-up number of rapes going unreported that way. You'll have to count rapes that aren't really rape, and that is what the activists do.
Is anyone out there who's accusing a great number of women who claim that they were raped of being liars willing to admit that if their wife/daughter/mother/best-friend claimed that they were raped, they would stand by their beliefs and presume the attacker "innocent until proven guilty"? Just wondering.
I think I am better able to determine if people close to me are lying than you guys are, simply put.
True. But simply put, Shanna, I'm not claiming your friends are lying. I'm saying you can't know if they're telling the truth. You are obviously better at telling if your friends are lying than I am, especially since I've never met them. But if you're claiming that you can reliably tell truth from fiction when you only have access to one side of the story, well, then the liar here is you. :)
But the whole thing is moot anyway, because your anecdotes aren't useful as evidence. You claim to know women who have been raped and haven't reported it. You consider this evidence that rape often goes unreported. Well, I know of exactly zero women who have been raped and haven't reported it, which by your reasoning means that no rapes go unreported.
We know for a fact that many -- most, in some studies -- rape accusations are phony. You are welcome to believe that there exists some secret society of raped women out there who refuse to press charges even though hundreds of thousands of women who WEREN'T raped showed no reluctance to do so. But I call bullshit.
Is anyone out there who's accusing a great number of women who claim that they were raped willing to admit that if their wife/daughter/mother/best-friend claimed that they were raped, they would stand by their beliefs and presume the attacker "innocent until proven guilty"? Just wondering.
Why limit it to rape? Let's abandon "innocent until proven guilty" for all violent crimes.
I'll turn the question around on you: if your husband or boyfriend or son or father is accused of rape, will you automatically believe the woman, on no other evidence?
The main problem with the "1 in 4" result of Koss's study isn't the questions she asked (although those were certainly bad), but the fact that 75% of that 1 in 4 didn't consider themselves to have been raped.
Back in the 80s, when the research for that article was done, many women did not realize that an acquaintance could rape them -- that using force or threat of force to penetrate their bodies without their consent was rape even if was Johnny from Algebra class after he took you for pizza and a movie. And getting a girl liquored up in order to have sex with her is considered rape in the state of Ohio. Go figure.
@Summer Anne:
Isn't it POSSIBLE while we're discussing all of these other numbers and statistics and possibilities that maybe some people "take it back" because they decide it's not "worth the trouble" when people around them are accusing them of lying and they're not confident they can prove it? How does that affect all of these statistics?
It depends on if its 50% or if its 0.001%, doesn't it?
That's exactly what you don't know. That is exactly what we are arguing about.
You think the absence of evidence give you a license to believe whatever you want, and I don't.
Well, I know of exactly zero women who have been raped and haven't reported it
rev, t many just be that women aren't motivated to confide in you. How many women do you know had episiotomies? How many had abortions? How many take NSAIDS to prevent crippling menstrual cramps?
All she said was that she knows 6 women who have been raped. I said that I knew several. Either you're saying that it's impossible that our friends and family members are telling us the truth about their incredibly traumatic experiences or you're not...
It is obviously possible that your friends are lying to you. But even if they weren't, that's nine rape victims out of 160 million American women. It is not evidence of a plague of unreported rape.
Heck, one of my (white) teachers was raped by a black guy. That didn't automagically make the Klan's tall tales about out-of-control black rapists true. Anomalies happen.
@fls:
that using force or threat of force to penetrate their bodies without their consent was rape even if was Johnny from Algebra class after he took you for pizza and a movie.
Drunk coeds are not being forced or threatened with force, yet are still being counted as raped. Everybody agrees that force or the threat of force constitutes rape.
And getting a girl liquored up in order to have sex with her is considered rape in the state of Ohio. Go figure.
Right. So if a woman drinks a pitcher of margaritas that you bought, and you have sex with her later, you're a rapist.
You comfortable with that? Do you really think that's what the law says?
rev, t many just be that women aren't motivated to confide in you.
That's certainly a possibility. Of course, it is also possible is that they didn't see me as a sympathetic ear to lie to. That's sort of the point -- the fact that women hear these stories more often than men could be evidence that they're phony just as easily as it could be evidence that they are true.
How many women do you know had episiotomies? How many had abortions?
Two and three, respectively.
How many take NSAIDS to prevent crippling menstrual cramps?
Offhand I'd say "not enough". :)
Under the marg pitcher scenario, the guy would have had to tell her it was alcohol-free.
From the Ohio Revised Code:
2907.02 Rape.
(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies:
(a) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender substantially impairs the other person’s judgment or control by administering any drug, intoxicant, or controlled substance to the other person surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception.
(b) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.
(c) The other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.
(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of rape, a felony of the first degree.
Back in the 80s, when the research for that article was done, many women did not realize that an acquaintance could rape them
I'm sorry, but that's complete nonsense.
@fls
So you acknowledge that you have to trick the coed into drinking, or force her to drink it, to be convicted under the Ohio law?
Nobody disagrees that this is rape.
What IS being counted as rape is when she voluntary drinks the margaritas and voluntarily sleeps with you.
No I know nobody on this thread agrees with that--but the activists providing the rape statistics DO>
I'm sorry, but that's complete nonsense.
Bravo rev -- a man who has never questioned the concept of "date rape."
Gabe: But consider A(1)(c) If she's too drunk to consent, and you take advantage of it, you're a rapist then too.
Summer Anne said...
About my definition of inebriation... I wonder if everyone who feels that young women shouldn't ever get drunk applies the same standard to young men? Basically, yeah, we'd all be better off if no one ever got wasted. But do i think that girls who are slurring, vomiting, passing out drunk "deserve" to be taken advantage of? Of course not.
Could you please clarify for me? Are you saying that women who are slurring, vomiting, passing out drunk are unable to consent? ( Obviously while they are passed out they are unable to. What if they consent, have sex, then pass out? Or pass out, wake up, consent, then have sex? )
And of course this assumes that they knowingly consumed the alcohol or drugs. If something was slipped to them, then they could not consent.
We know for a fact that many -- most, in some studies -- rape accusations are phony.
MOST?! The numbers keep getting better! First it was 20 percent, then half, now it's more than half! Where's this latest study you're citing that claim that more than half of rape accusations are phony.
Why limit it to rape? Let's abandon "innocent until proven guilty" for all violent crimes.
Okay, so you're saying you WOULD assume that someone your daughter accused of rape was innocent until proven guilty, right?
I'll turn the question around on you: if your husband or boyfriend or son or father is accused of rape, will you automatically believe the woman, on no other evidence?
Absolutely not. But if I was part of a jury in a court of law, I would require evidence. Either way. We can all agree that's the way it should be.
My point in asking the question was to illustrate how preposterous, hurtful, and unnecessary it is for people to continue to bring up mine and Shanna's close friends and relatives who have been raped as examples of women who could be lying. I am never going to be convinced that someone I love was lying when they explicitly told me that they were raped -- in no "grey area" or uncertain terms, mind you -- and you shouldn't be implying that in believing the claim of a loved one, I am somehow a "sucker". That's ridiculous and -- I imagine if the tables were turned -- hypocritical. THAT was my point.
Bravo rev -- a man who has never questioned the concept of "date rape."
No, FLS. I'm saying it is complete nonsense that women in the 80s didn't understand that date rape was rape.
Could you please clarify for me? Are you saying that women who are slurring, vomiting, passing out drunk are unable to consent? ( Obviously while they are passed out they are unable to. What if they consent, have sex, then pass out? Or pass out, wake up, consent, then have sex? )
Yes. If you're trying to fuck a woman who's puking all over the place, you're raping her. Is that controversial? Your examples confuse me. I said "unable to consent" -- that voids your examples. When I say "unable," I mean unable. She's not cognizant enough to scream no or fight you off, NOR is she saying "yes, do me now." She is wasted, sick, vomiting, swaying, trying to go to sleep. You're taking the opportunity to take her panties off. You're a rapist! Got it?
Look, I agree that the way those questions came was often rude, especially by one poster. But who brought these people up? It wasn't the people asking the questions.
And because it wasn't, you have to then admit that what you were doing was voluntarily introducing your own personal experiences and then expecting that this topic be off-limits to everyone else, and that your point be considered pristine and unquestionable. It's a little unfair to do this in any discussion. It would have been better never to have brought them up. Just food for thought for the future.
@fls
Gabe: But consider A(1)(c) If she's too drunk to consent, and you take advantage of it, you're a rapist then too.
What does "too drunk to consent mean"? Are we talking passed out, or beer goggles, or what? This law doesn't say.
If she's drunk and says "yes", but she wouldn't have sober, did she consent?
Regarding date rape: if it involves the use or threat of force it's just plain old rape. If it involves nagging, whining, or mutual beer goggles it isn't. "date" has nothing to do with it, and that's Revenant's point.
And because it wasn't, you have to then admit that what you were doing was voluntarily introducing your own personal experiences and then expecting that this topic be off-limits to everyone else, and that your point be considered pristine and unquestionable. It's a little unfair to do this in any discussion. It would have been better never to have brought them up. Just food for thought for the future.
Okay. So what you're saying is that if a woman says she was raped, anyone who wants should be able to call her a liar.
That's why women don't report rape.
Well, I do remember discussions - can't say it was the '80's because I don't remember - but the jist was, if a man and a woman were parking, or necking, what have you, and then he forced her - the discussions were, could you say it was rape. Because rape was when a woman was knocked in the head and dragged into the bushes. And in parking scenario, the woman knew the man and was with him voluntarily, so there was a school of thought that the term "rape" could not be applied. Yes, I remember when this was controversial among men and women.
I don't get one thing about the consent issue.
What if the "rapist" is also drunk?
That's the most likely scenario, except genuine predators, isn't it?
I don't get one thing about the consent issue.
What if the "rapist" is also drunk?
That's the most likely scenario, except genuine predators, isn't it?
So you're asking me if a rapist being drunk is an excuse for rape? No.
@Summer Anne:
I'm sorry I'm making you so angry. It's an unpleasant subject, and I should be more tactful.
Absolutely not. But if I was part of a jury in a court of law, I would require evidence. Either way. We can all agree that's the way it should be.
Yes, we can... let's hope we really do.
My point in asking the question was to illustrate how preposterous, hurtful, and unnecessary it is for people to continue to bring up mine and Shanna's close friends and relatives who have been raped as examples of women who could be lying.
In my case, I'm not. I'm saying you can't generalize your experience of your friends to all women.
I am confident that your friends all told you the truth and you could tell if they were lying.
I have at least one friend who has lied about such a thing, but others were not.
And I don't generalize my experience.
But if unreported rape is as prevalent as the activists say it is, then a lot of women are lying, or the definition of rape is being twisted to inflate the numbers.
A lot of women who are reporting rapes ARE lying--somewhere between 10 and 40 percent.
In the last five years at my campus, we've had five false allegations of rape and two (that I know of) that were substantiated. I don't generalize. I'm just saying that it happens more often than some of us are willing to admit.
blake said...
I don't get one thing about the consent issue.
What if the "rapist" is also drunk?
Blake, that is an issue.
Right. That's obviously exactly the point I was trying to make, Anne. Glad to see you're still willing to have a civil discussion in good faith.
Out.
@Summer Anne:
Okay. So what you're saying is that if a woman says she was raped, anyone who wants should be able to call her a liar.
Nobody is saying that. They are saying that you need MORE than one person's word. You claimed to agree with that earlier.
That's why women don't report rape.
What percentage of raped women don't report rape? You have admitted you have no idea, so you have no idea if what you just said is actually true.
Not surprisingly, no, Summer Anne, I wasn't asking that. I think Laura gets what I'm saying.
I'm saying two people, both about the same level of drunk. One proposes, the other consents. They then have drunk sex.
The one who proposes is in no better situation to judge consent--to even consent to his or her own actions.
At that point, haven't they legally raped each other, come to think of it? In the same way two mentally handicapped people would, or (in some states) two minors?
You know, maybe all those ridiculous religious and social rules about sex and marriage and the circumstances under which males and females could mix, had a purpose?
I'm saying two people, both about the same level of drunk. One proposes, the other consents. They then have drunk sex.
The one who proposes is in no better situation to judge consent--to even consent to his or her own actions.
Agree.
You know, maybe all those ridiculous religious and social rules about sex and marriage and the circumstances under which males and females could mix, had a purpose?
Agree.
MOST?! The numbers keep getting better! First it was 20 percent, then half, now it's more than half!
You're obviously easily confused. I said that the *minimum* value was 25% (since that was the figure for DNA testing of suspects) and that the actual figure was almost certainly higher. The figures aren't inflating, you're just not paying attention.
Where's this latest study you're citing that claim that more than half of rape accusations are phony.
Charles McDowell's Forensic Science Digest survey of 556 rape accusations found a 60% rate of falsity. The Kanin study found 41%, and NS Rumney's review of "false accusation" studies from 1968 to 2005 found figures ranging from 1.5% to 90%.
Okay, so you're saying you WOULD assume that someone your daughter accused of rape was innocent until proven guilty, right?
That statement is an excellent example of your inability to be rational on this subject. There are good reasons why we don't leave it up to the family of a supposed victim to decide who is guilty of the crime!
Try being a little more rational and a little less self-involved. However much of a problem rape might be, we're talking about the problem of women using false accusations of rape on innocent men. That is the crime that was perpetrated last week. This isn't about you or your gender; get over yourself.
Try being a little more rational and a little less self-involved.... This isn't about you or your gender; get over yourself.
Revenant, try being a little less patronizing.
Hey, if you can tell her what to do, I can tell you what to do.
Yes. If you're trying to fuck a woman who's puking all over the place, you're raping her.
So if a woman has sex with a drunk man, she's raping him? Interesting.
Oddly enough, nobody ever seems to get prosecuted for that "crime". This is because men are expected to accept the responsibilities of adulthood, and that includes accepting responsibility for the stupid things he consents to while drunk off his ass. Women get to be treated like adults when it suits them, and like powerless children when it doesn't.
So much for equal treatment under the law.
"Of course, you could just not have sex with anyone whom you don't know well enough to really trust. No, wait, what am I saying? That's crazy talk."
I didn't say this, but I liked it so much I decided to spam it back into the comments.
Oddly enough, nobody ever seems to get prosecuted for that "crime".
Probably because it's physically impossible for a man who is puking to be simultaneously having sex. So it never happens.
I like it too, Paco.
"Probably because it's physically impossible for a man who is puking to be simultaneously having sex."
Au contraire, mon cherie. Not simultaneously maybe. But in very rapid succession.
Don't ask me how I know, ok?
Probably because it's physically impossible for a man who is puking to be simultaneously having sex. So it never happens.
That's one of the dumber remarks about rape in a thread chock-full of women making stupid remarks about rape. Two points:
(1): A man can be inebriated to the point of nausea -- even to the point of an alcoholic blackout -- and still have an erection. It is more difficult, but it is not impossible.
(2): It is possible for a man and a woman to engage in sexual activity even if the man can't maintain an erection. So yes, a woman can "rape" a man even if he can't get it up.
Oh, and let me just add that saying "that can't happen" is a dishonest way to get out of answering "yes" or "no" to the question of whether sex with a drunk guy constitutes rape.
"That's one of the dumber remarks about rape in a thread chock-full of women making stupid remarks about rape."
Is it up there with "Back in the 80s, when the research for that article was done, many women did not realize that an acquaintance could rape them
I'm sorry, but that's complete nonsense."?
Don't think so.
"Inebriated to the point of nausea" isn't "puking". Duh.
Sorry, Laura, but you're wrong on this one. I could puking away with the room spinning around me, and it wouldn't matter to lil' Paco at all. You think he cares about what happens to the rest of me?
Summer Anne said...
Yes. If you're trying to fuck a woman who's puking all over the place, you're raping her. Is that controversial? Your examples confuse me. I said "unable to consent" -- that voids your examples. When I say "unable," I mean unable... Got it?"
Actually I'm more confused now than I was before. What if, between hurls, she asks for sex?
My reason for asking for clarification in my previous comment was two-fold. First, the thread had been using the word incapacitated, but your comment used the word inebriated, so I wasn't sure if you were describing the point at which consent could not be given.
Second, I was unsure if there was a level of intoxication at which a woman could say or do something to clearly indicate consent, but at which point you believed she was too intoxicated for that to really count as consent.
If you could further clarify on the second point, I'd appreciate it.
So you can simultaneously blow your grits and do that? Wow, you are one talented and coordinated fellow.
Alas, I have been unable to put this skill to practical and remunerative use.
Ignorance is bliss (and I'll agree with that much after this latest revelation) I'd like to ask you one:
William Kennedy Smith. The woman he brought home from the bar was so drunk she was calling him someone else's name - she didn't even know who he was. Do you think she was able to consent? (And yes, I remember that he was acquitted.)
Somewhat related:
5% of UK women have never has sex sober.
Yikes.
Never "had" sex, that is.
"Inebriated to the point of nausea" isn't "puking". Duh.
Apparently you don't know what the word "nausea" means.
So you can simultaneously blow your grits and do that? Wow, you are one talented and coordinated fellow.
Oh, for pity's sake. So are you saying that if you wait for the person to get done puking, it is OK to fuck 'em? Or are you just deliberately missing the point?
Post a Comment