A Consensus Definition of 'Rape.'

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

*Originally posted by Eva Luna *
**Geez, I wish women were really as much in charge of things as you seem to think they are, Airman Doors; …I think all of us agree that it’s more often the woman backing out of and/or refusing sex than the man. **

Good thing you agree, since statistically speaking, the ratio is 9:1 of females to males.

Cite

**While 9 out of 10 rape victims are women, men and boys are also victimizedby this crime. In 1995, 32,130 males age 12 and older were victims of rape,attempted rape or sexual assault. [National Crime Victimization Survey.Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.]
**

In other words, you ARE in charge of all matters sexual as it relates to the crime of rape, since you are far more likely statistically as a woman to be raped and thus are more able to claim rape and make it stick.

I know I’m beating this into the ground, but as a man, I’m very concerned about how easily the rape claim can be made if we use your terms and conditions. Being called a rapist is very harmful to one’s reputation, and defending against such a charge is financially and emotionally demanding, if not outright draining. That one can be accused so easily bugs me, especially when consent can be withdrawn so easily.

Legally, what you said may be right, but try to see it from my perspective: I can go to jail for a long time if you change your mind. That, to me, is cause to be very wary, and takes a considerable amount of the intimacy out of it. Should there be a contract ahead of time? Should I not enjoy what I’m doing? How can two consenting adults have sex without that spectre hanging over their heads, and most especially the male, who is usually the one who pays the price if things go wrong?

In a long-term relationship, that usually isn’t an issue, but in a relatively new one, that thought would have to cast a large shadow over any sexual activity, especially for the male.

As I see it, if the woman says “no” ahead of time, it’s rape. If the woman is forced, it’s rape. If the woman is being injured somehow and says stop, it’s rape. But if the woman consents and then just changes her mind, it’s a much tougher call, and rape is a hell of a charge to bandy about under those circumstances.

[Tristan]

Eva and LouisB- There you go. See, being naked, to me, implies a level of intimacy. It doesn’t have to be sex, it can be cuddling, or necking, or what-have you.

Men and women, in general, view sex differently. This is an established fact, there are dozens and dozens of studies that show this. This, more than anything else, is going to create what some people will view as “inequalities” in the laws regarding sexual crimes.

[Eva_Luna]

Airman, I think you are imputing to me a definition of rape which I personally have never purported to believe in. I have never said that if a woman revokes her freely given consent AFTER sex that she has been raped, or that if a man breaks a promise to a woman which he made in order to convince her to have sex with him, that that is rape. Both acts are despicable, but neigther one adds up to a rape.

Nor does the fact that women are more frequently rape victims have much to do with women being the ones who more frequently refuse or put a stop to sexual contact. The vast majority of the time, if a woman tells a man to stop what he’s doing, whether that’s a kiss on the cheek or intercourse, he does stop.

In a world inhabited entirely by perceptive and reasonable people, there would be no rape. Unfortunately, that’s not what we’re dealing with here. Human beings are complicated and messy creatures. Through basic facts of biology and not-so-basic facts of psychology and sociology, it’s easier for women to be raped than men, and it’s easier for men to be falsely accused of rape than women. I’m sorry that either thing happens at all, but I have no magic wand to fix the situation. All I can do is treat people with respect and evenhandedness, and hope they do the same.

KoalaBoy: well, some people are better at separating sex from all the emotional stuff than others, and one thing I know about myself is that I’m not one of them. So while I see nothing immoral in casual sex *per se, * I know it’s not something I’m capable of. That’s why I try to make sure at least some of the other aforementioned stuff is there first. If you can have sex otherwise, then more power to you.

[Felonious_Mink]

*Originally posted by Gadarene *
This leaves me speechless.

Why so? Isn’t the problem with drunken sex that after the event there’s always the possiblity that neither person is really able to recall exactly what happened? They might consent at the time and regret it later but that doesn’t make it rape - it makes for a pair of rather sheepish people who’d rather not be reminded of what they might have agreed to do the night before when it looked like a good idea.

All I’m saying is that in my opinion, the alcoholic clouding of one’s perceptions would make an accusation of rape based on such events a bit of a tricky one to accept.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF *
**
In other words, you ARE in charge of all matters sexual as it relates to the crime of rape, since you are far more likely statistically as a woman to be raped and thus are more able to claim rape and make it stick.

**

Let me get this straight…you’re saying that women have the advantage because we are statistically more likely to be raped?

Do you think women are sitting around thinking “Gosh, I’m nine times more likely to be raped than the average man…that sure makes me feel powerful! I think I’ll go falsely accuse some man of rape! What fun!”

[Gadarene]

Koala:

Gadarene seems to think so. She’s suggested that it should be expanded beyond “the standard conception of violent, forcible penetration” to include “diminished capacity (due to alcohol, say)” and “a husband [who] doesn’t think his wife wants to have sex at a given moment but has sex with her anyway.”

You’re wrong on several counts here, starting with my gender. My definition is not ex post–it has nothing to do with changing your mind afterwards (which is what you attribute to me as “seeming to think so”). If, at the time of the sex, the initiator thinks the initiatee doesn’t actually want to be doing what they’re doing and yet fails to stop, it’s rape. That’s what I’m saying. Nothing about next-morning changes of heart.

Mink:

Why so? Isn’t the problem with drunken sex that after the event there’s always the possiblity that neither person is really able to recall exactly what happened? They might consent at the time and regret it later but that doesn’t make it rape - it makes for a pair of rather sheepish people who’d rather not be reminded of what they might have agreed to do the night before when it looked like a good idea.

Due respect, but this isn’t what you were saying earlier. Here’s the quote:

To some people taking advantage of someone who’s passed out drunk is going to be every bit as bad as rape, whereas to others it’s just one of those things that happens when you’re drunk, and the fact that you’re drunk is sufficiently mitigating circumstances.

To the extent that you’re characterizing “taking advantage of someone who’s passed out drunk” as being less bad than rape, I think it’s incredibly wrongheaded.

[KoalaBear]

Eva Luna:
KoalaBoy: […] So while I see nothing immoral in casual sex per se, I know it’s not something I’m capable of. […] If you can have sex otherwise, then more power to you.

You go, girl.

EyeballBoy:
It is also true that rape happens, and the accused is ‘such a good boy’ and the victim ‘such a slut’, that regardless of convictions (which often don’t happen because rape cases are hard to prove), he’ll still be the local hero and she’ll be the one shunned by the community.

You’re saying that at the conclusion of a rape trial the perpetrator comes home to a ticker-tape parade while the victim is forced to register as an annoyance with the local police for the rest of her life?

I was going to ask you for a citation again, but on second thought, don’t bother. I’m sure it’s – well, just something you pulled out of your ass.

For any criminal offense, the severer the penalty, the higher the standard of evidence necessary to convict. Sometimes the burden of proof is so high that an offender escapes justice. Sometimes the circumstantial evidence is so incriminating that an innocent person loses his liberty or even his life. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s fair enough on the average that wrongful conviction is as rare as wrongful acquittal.

With a penalty of 25 to 50 years our society can hardly be described as “soft on rape,” so of course that’s going to be a difficult case to prove. You want an easy conviction, a speedy McTrial where a man can be convicted of violent sexual assault on little more than accusation alone? Reduce the penalty to a $200 fine and the conviction rate will soar through the stratosphere. Of course, violating anyone’s body will be no more serious a crime than parking in front of a fire hydrant, but you can’t have it both ways.

Gadarene:
Koala:
You’re wrong on several counts here, starting with my gender.

I apologize for the mistake. But I’m shocked, Gadarene, I mean really. Do you have no idea what you’re talking about beyond what you’ve seen on The Jerry Springer Show?

If, at the time of the sex, the initiator thinks the initiatee doesn’t actually want to be doing what they’re doing and yet fails to stop, it’s rape.

No, Gadarene. Rape is sexual penetration by force or threat of force, without consent of the victim. It’s not “a husband [who] doesn’t think his wife wants to have sex at a given moment but has sex with her anyway,” but a serious felony with gruesome aggravations (weapons, injury, robbery, assault of children, the elderly, or disabled) – some incomprehensibly ugly stuff.

The statutory definition of rape, to the extent laws in our society are enacted through vigorous legislative and judicial debate, is already a consensus definition. You want a second opinion? Our society allows for that also: it’s called “trial by jury”.

But this “I was raped because my husband knew I wasn’t in the mood the last time we had sex” bullshit is an insult to men and women alike.

[Gadarene]

:rolleyes:

(I’ll respond in greater depth tomorrow, but that’ll suffice right now. C’mon with the patronizing attitude, 'kay?)

[Smitty]

*Originally posted by desroscactus *
**I hadn’t planned on posting to this subject until I read the statement:

Under that line of thinking, people being mugged who choose to give up their money rather than get shot, are agreeing to the robbery. There are consequences, that’s true. A gun being pointed at your head tells you what those consequences might be.

In the same way, women are usually smaller than men. Being told that they will be beaten if they don’t submit is an honest threat. I know that people often say that a woman should have done some things like scream or try to fight them off, but how realistic is that? Making a loud noise could cause a punch in the face or worse. Fighting them off may not be possible. **

Just to clarify, I realize this. I was saying that by using the definition of “unable to resist”, you would let those who used threats off the hook.