Can r@pe be the victim's fault?

[Nightime]

Yes, Astro and Lamia are both misunderstanding each other. It is difficult to determine exactly what situation would fit with what Lamia is saying.

The situation Lamia is talking about involves a woman who is not participating in any physical way. They are also not resisting or saying anything. However, they are also not incapacitiated. So basically they are completely frozen but wide awake. So how did this situation come about? If they are completely frozen and not participating at all, how are they even in the situation? Did the man just find them lying on a bed completely frozen? If so, then I agree that it is rape. You don’t have the right to have sex with anyone you find that is completely frozen or motionless, even if they are conscious.

Kezermezer:

Now, I don’t know about legally, but in Kezermezer land I would still consider this rape. However, I would take the blame off the guy cause he can reasonably believe she is consenting.

And this is the type of thing that I think is scaring Astro. Rape is an absolutely vile and despicable act, and to say that someone could be guilty of rape, even though the other person was actually physically consenting and participating at the time, is a horrible thing to do. Luckily we don’t live in Kezermezer land.

[Nightime]

Yes, Astro and Lamia are both misunderstanding each other. It is difficult to determine exactly what situation would fit with what Lamia is saying.

The situation Lamia is talking about involves a woman who is not participating in any physical way. They are also not resisting or saying anything. However, they are also not incapacitiated. So basically they are completely frozen but wide awake. So how did this situation come about? If they are completely frozen and not participating at all, how are they even in the situation? Did the man just find them lying on a bed completely frozen? If so, then I agree that it is rape. You don’t have the right to have sex with anyone you find that is completely frozen or motionless, even if they are conscious.

Kezermezer:

Now, I don’t know about legally, but in Kezermezer land I would still consider this rape. However, I would take the blame off the guy cause he can reasonably believe she is consenting.

And this is the type of thing that I think is scaring Astro. Rape is an absolutely vile and despicable act, and to say that someone could be guilty of rape, even though the other person was actually physically consenting and participating at the time, is a horrible thing to do. Luckily we don’t live in Kezermezer land.

[tiny_ham]

Originally posted by k2dave *
**
I’m saying that calling this rape takes away from the word rape. Rape used to mean something like a stranger beating, stripping and $#&% you, most likely leaving you for dead. This is a horrible horible crime. I just can’t see date rape in the same light and I think a new term should be used as not to dilute the meaning of rape (perhaps non-consenting sex). **

I’m here late since I was on vacation, and I’d like to “undilute” this date rape idea for you.

I dated a guy four years older than me for four years. One day, in July, he decided that he wanted to have sex with me “because he loved me so much”. I said I didn’t want to…I was scared, after all I was only sixteen or seventeen years old. We fought for a bit verbally, I begged, actually cried for him not to have sex with me.

So he held me down, tied my hands behind my back, stripped me, (We were alone in his mother’s cavernous house, no amount of screaming would have helped), TOOK POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS OF ME NAKED and told me if I didn’t consent he would give them to my parents and tell them I was sleeping around. For good measure he flipped me onto my stomach so I couldn’t breathe, told me to think of something else “because it was going to hurt” and then told me “not to expect much, because it wasn’t for me anyway”.

I felt dirty, broken, used, humiliated and like trash. I went home, sat in a hot bath and cried my eyes out. And guess what, when I broke up with him? He DID show my parents those photos AND told them I was a f***ing whore who slept around. AND THEY BELIEVED HIM. Because of course, a girl can’t be RAPED by her boyfriend.

Please PLEASE PLEASE don’t assume that date rape is somehow lesser or not as bad as stranger rape. You’d be doing a great number of women a MASSIVE disservice.

[astro]

*Originally posted by Nightime *
**Yes, Astro and Lamia are both misunderstanding each other. It is difficult to determine exactly what situation would fit with what Lamia is saying.

The situation Lamia is talking about involves a woman who is not participating in any physical way. They are also not resisting or saying anything. However, they are also not incapacitiated. So basically they are completely frozen but wide awake. **

There is big, big, big difference between “frozen” and passively going through the motions. If you are having to manipulate someone like a blowup doll who is virtually catatonic that’s obviously not someone in ther right mind, and having sex with someone in this condition *is[/] rape of some kind and should be prosecuted if it occurs.

Lamia’s description that state was " And I think that if either party, regardless of their sex, is “non-resisting” and “non-complaining” in the sense of lying still and silent…" . This description can cover a lot of territory from passively acquiescent to catatonia.

I’m not talking about somone who is a completley unresponsive lump. I’m talking about someone who might passively do everything her sexual partner requests, but would claim afterward she was not in a responsible frame of mind because she was emotionally fragile, or scared (without any physical threat being presented) etc. If Lamia is talking about someone who is truly “frozen”, we have nothing to contend over and I apologize for misunderstanding him/her.

[Danimal]

*Originally posted by jarbabyj *
** AND THEY BELIEVED HIM. **

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Oh. My. God.

There are no words. There just aren’t. “Appalled” is a wretched approximation.

How could they? How could two human beings do that to their own daughter?

If I’d been your father, that little unspeakable SHIT wouldn’t have walked out of the room alive.

[Lady_of_the_Lake]

jarbabyj,
Oh sweetie

I do agree with you about the term ‘Date Rape’…

Date Rape can be just as, if not more, hurtful as other types of Rape. In your case…worse…to not be believed, to have the horrible way in which he took advantage of and hurt you as YOUR fault?

I don’t know what to say.

{{jarbabyj}}

[Lamia]

Originally posted by astro *
**
Our main disagreement comes down to who is responsible for determining consent and despite your protestations to the contrary you are imputing a duty on men to be in charge of determining that*

Please show me where I used the word “men” at all, other than in my previous attempts to point out to you that I have not attempted to put any special responsibility on men. I am charging all sane adults with the incredibly simple task of asking “Is this okay?” if their partner’s behavior does not clearly indicate consent. I have always done this myself when my romantic partner seemed uncertain, even in situations that were still a base or two short of sex, and I’m not a man.

*Originally posted by Mighty_Girl *
**
We don’t need to be overprotected. We even have the right to have lousy lovers, and to have sex even if we are unenthusiastic about it. It is the woman’s personal decision and in the same way it HER responsibility to express her intentions if she doesn’t want to have sex.
**

If a woman has decided to have sex, why can’t she make that clear to her partner? I know that if I’m in an intimate situation with someone who I want to have sex with I’m not going to leave them guessing. I’d bet that you wouldn’t either, Mighty_Girl. It is the attitude that people don’t need to express consent that requires others to act like mind-readers (“She has given me no clear sign that she wants sex, but I sense that she is consenting!”), not mine, which requires everyone to express themselves clearly. If there are people too spineless to say they want sex when they want it, why should they get it?

*Originally posted by Lady of the Lake *
**I feel Astro is misunderstanding Lamia… He has mentioned in his last post a woman taking off her clothing and jumping into bed and bemoans that he still must ask for consent? Has not Lamia already mentioned this is an act of consent? So, what’s the problem here?
**

Thanks, LotL. And I like your username. Just thought I’d mention that.

*Originally posted by Nightime *
**
The situation Lamia is talking about involves a woman who is not participating in any physical way. They are also not resisting or saying anything. However, they are also not incapacitiated. So basically they are completely frozen but wide awake. So how did this situation come about? **

Beats me. I was just responding to a question about the difference between failing to express consent and actually expressing dissent. I can’t imagine that there’d be many situations where a non-incapacitated person (a capacitated person?) would fail to express either consent or dissent, but I wasn’t the one who posed the question.

A situation I think might be more common would be where one person is incapacitated but the other person fails to realize it. But I don’t think “I didn’t realize she had a concussion!” or “How was I supposed to know he was so drunk he couldn’t move?” is a reasonable defense since I think a person with a partner who has not clearly expressed consent has the responsibility to ask for it. If the answer is “Yes, let’s get it on!” then everything is fine, if it is “Wha…?” or “Hummmph” or “Millennium hand and shrimp” then that should be taken as a sign that something is amiss. Think how many unfortunate, even tragic, misunderstandings could be avoided this way!

The question may arise as to what should happen if the person saying “Yes, let’s get it on!” is in fact very drunk or under the influence of drugs. Provided this is a state they are in voluntarily, I think they should take responsibility for their consent and not try to blame the other person later. I don’t hold people responsible for things that happen to them when they’re drunk, but I do hold them responsible for things they do. However, I also think it’s a terrible idea with potentially Very Bad Consequences to have sex with someone who is very drunk or under the influence of drugs. If you’re not willing to face those consequences you should do like Auntie Lamia and say “My, it’s getting late!” and then get the heck out of there.

On preview:

*Originally posted by astro *
**I’m not talking about somone who is a completley unresponsive lump. I’m talking about someone who might passively do everything her sexual partner requests, but would claim afterward she was not in a responsible frame of mind because she was emotionally fragile, or scared (without any physical threat being presented) etc. If Lamia is talking about someone who is truly “frozen”, we have nothing to contend over and I apologize for misunderstanding him/her. **

I thought I had made it clear that this was what I was talking about, but if you genuinely misunderstood then apology accepted. If you “do everything your partner requests” then that is obviously consent and should be treated as such, provided the partner isn’t backing his or her requests with threats or coercion.

To jarbabyj:

I have seen you post your story before, and I always think you are very brave to be willing to share it the way you have. That’s a horrible thing to have happened to anyone, and you have my most heartfelt sympathy.

[Nightime]

Lamia:

A situation I think might be more common would be where one person is incapacitated but the other person fails to realize it. But I don’t think “I didn’t realize she had a concussion!” or “How was I supposed to know he was so drunk he couldn’t move?” is a reasonable defense since I think a person with a partner who has not clearly expressed consent has the responsibility to ask for it.

Agreed. If a person is not consenting, verbally or physically, then of course it is your responsibility to find out what is going on with them before you do anything. If you find someone lying on a bed with their eyes wide open, you don’t get to assume they want to have sex with you unless they try to stop you! I wouldn’t think it would happen often if the person was alert, but regardless, consent is not the default.

[keira]

Defining rape
This thread is really about the definition of rape, not whether rape can be the victim’s fault, right? Because, once you reach the point where a situation is “rape”, then the rapist is criminally culpable and no fault belongs to the victim.

Rape law originated as a woman’s criminal defence against charges of fornication-- she would not be prosecuted if she could prove utmost resistance. If she knew her attacker (especially if she had ever been friendly with him), or if she was not injured, her claim of rape would probably fail.

The claim evolved into a criminal charge against the rapist, with the same sort of requirement of evidence. Over time, the requirement of evidence changed, as did the definition of rape, gradually.
The requirement of utmost resistence changed to reasonable resistence-- if there was an explicit or implicit threat of violence, the rape victim could submit without losing the claim of rape.

In some jurisdictions, the focus has shifted to the rapist, requiring evidence only of foricible compulsion. In other places, the courts rely on evidence of non-consent or lack of consent.

Only a few places rely on “lack of consent” to define rape. In those situations, if a woman simply lies still, and does not say yes, it is rape. More jurisdictions require the victim to somehow communicate no (non-consent).

A little history for a framework…

Gender
Because of the origins of rape law (based on a woman’s defense against charges of heterosexual fornication), rape is traditionally defined as an act of aggression by a man against a woman. Only recently have the gender aspects of the definition been relaxed in some states to include male on male aggression, or other variations.

Mary and God
I really never before thought of the immaculate conception being sexual, or involving some sort of spiritual/physical sex act. I thought the story was deliberately made non-sexual, to differentiate it from other stories of divine/human couplings. In other myths, the sexual/physical aspect of the rape was emphasized in the imagery (golden rain, a testosterone-charged bull carrying the human girl away from people out to the sea) or the plot (a male god physically running after a female human). In the Christian mythos, images of animals, foamy ocean waves, or pursuit are avoided altogether, in exchange for intact hymens and formal messengers.

bdsm and rape fantasy
Just a little note about fantasy in the leather community. Since rape fantasies may be common, but the actuality carries so much potential for damage, most people in the leather community advocate the use of a safe word. That is, you can play a “non-consent” game/fantasy, and the play-victim can cry “no” as much as she wants, but if she chooses to end the game, she says “red” or “banana” or some other agreed-upon safe word. That way, there is actual consent, but the non-consensual fantasy can be experienced.

what I really wanted to say about rape
The thing is, there is a very real situation that can occur, where a victim does not consent to sex, but the other partner does not know this. If he has no way of knowing that his partner does not consent, then he should no be criminally culpable in any way, and it is not a rape. However, very real damage can occur to the person who didn’t consent.

Where we do we draw the line that he should know that he’s harming her (or any other gender combination)? When he crosses the line, he has committed a wrong. When he doesn’t cross it, he has done nothing wrong. But on both sides, the person who didn’t consent is still damaged. Generally, if we have been harmed in that way, or we love someone who has, we draw the line further in one direction than we would otherwise. And it’s an emotional area-- I would rather not be the person responsible for drawing the line, because I know I’m biased.
That is, there are people who have harmed me or people I care about. Some should have known better, some were merely idiots who could not have known. I’m not the one who chooses who deserves punishment, which is good for the world, 'cause I’d like to beat 'em all to a pulp.

[Realhoops]

*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) *
Thats utter BS. Any law that equates drunkeness as automatic incapacitation belittles the status of the adult to being a child that must be protected by the law. If being drunk means an automatic “no” to sexual advances (just as insanity or being underaged) then it must be equal to both sexes. If a drunk man has sex with a sober woman, then that man can call rape as well. And what happens if both say they are drunk? If thats a quick acquittal, I’d claim to be drunk as well, wheres the proof?

You may feel it’s utter BS, but it is the law in most places that have specifically addressed the issue. Most states define rape or first degree sexual assault as “nonconsensual” or “unconsented” sexual conduct. Most states have thus taken the step of concluding that if you are intoxicated, you cannot “consent” because you no longer have the mental capacity to do so. As such, if one of the actors is intoxicated, the other can likely be charged with rape. I’m not quite sure why you feel this is BS or belittles the status of an adult to being a child. Someone who is intoxicated, drugged, passed out, knocked out with a blunt instrument, or otherwise incapable of giving consent is, by definition, incapable of consciously agreeing to sexual intercourse.

As for why the law might be different if two people get drunk together, I believe in some jurisdictions intoxication is considered a defense for certain specific-intent crimes. I’m not sure that is very often the case with sexual assault statutes, however. AFAIK sexual assault prosecutions don’t usually require proof that you intended to do anything, just that you actually did it.

[Mighty_Girl]

*Originally posted by Lamia *
If a woman has decided to have sex, why can’t she make that clear to her partner?

I can think of a few situations. An inexperienced partner may feel too shy or really not know what to do. It would not be strange for an inexperienced partner to just let the other one lead. Although I’d like to think that everyone will chose wisely when starting to have sex and chose a caring/sympathetic lover, that may not be the case. One may end up having sex with someone without showing much enthusiasm even if one really, really wanted it. Sometimes, for different reasons we agree to have sex that we not necessarily enjoy terribly.

I do understand that in these cases it would be better if in all cases both partners take steps to clearly learn if the other person is a willing participant (albeit unenthusiastic). If it is not the case and one ends being accused of being a rapist there MAY be two victims actually. I just don’t feel it is fair to put ALL the burden in one of the partners (that is the ardent one) to decide when to continue. A woman that is merely unenthusiastic (as opposed to frozen, impaired, catatonic, in a drunken stupor, etc.) has a duty, both to her partner and to herself, to express dissent.

Maybe I am actually agreeing with you Lamia, maybe we are coming to the same conclusion from different perspectives… I am still not 100% sure.

[doreen]

As for why the law might be different if two people get drunk together, I believe in some jurisdictions intoxication is considered a defense for certain specific-intent crimes. I’m not sure that is very often the case with sexual assault statutes, however. AFAIK sexual assault prosecutions don’t usually require proof that you intended to do anything, just that you actually did it.

I don’t think the question was about intoxication as a defense.

Imagine this example - two people, A and B are both intoxicated to the point where they have lost the capability to consent. They have sex, and the only issue regarding consent is the capacity to give it ( no one said no, or resisted) . Now, (assuming a gender-neutral rape statute) either both are guilty are rape or neither is guilty of rape. Because while person A’s intoxication is not a defense to raping person B, person A was also unable to consent to person B. Sort of like when the age of consent is 16, if two 14 year olds have sex, either both have broken the law, or neither has. Which is why it is better to limit the incapacity to consent to those who are “unconscious or physically unable to communicate lack of consent” or who are "rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to him without his consent (emphasis addded) as New York does.

[Realhoops]

Certainly a valid point, and as I said I don’t know that intoxication as a defense really applies in this setting anyway. However, I’m not sure I necessarily follow why you would say that a person’s intoxication should not be evidence of their inability to consent. Without throwing out specific egregious hypotheticals it seems to me that just because a person decides to consume alcohol and becomes intoxicated should not mean that they take the risk of whatever may happen to them, including sexual assault. If the point is simply that you should not automatically be able to say “Oh, I was drunk so it’s rape,” then that’s another issue altogether; ie. perhaps the real issue here is how intoxicated do you have to be to be incapable of consent and how is that ever proven. I would certainly agree that just because somebody has a couple drinks it does not follow that they are incapable of consenting; however, if a person is truly mentally impaired because of alcohol, I do not think it unreasonable for the law to consider them incapable of consent.

[Kezermezer]

*Originally posted by Nightime *
And this is the type of thing that I think is scaring Astro. Rape is an absolutely vile and despicable act, and to say that someone could be guilty of rape, even though the other person was actually physically consenting and participating at the time, is a horrible thing to do. Luckily we don’t live in Kezermezer land. **

I thought it was clear that this was not what I was saying. In this case I believe the guy would not be guilty of the crime. I also think it would be a horrible thing for someone to say he would be guilty. Fortunately that would not happen in Kezermezer land.

[tacosux]

talking about drinking and getting raped versus beibg sober and getting raped are two very different things. the problem with being raped while drunk is that the person who was assaulted feels angry at themself after the fact or decides its was rape after the fact.example.
she gets hammered from booze, starts stripping for some guys she knows. talks dirty to one of them.then goes into his room naked and falls asleep.later she awakes to find this guy putting moves on her.they fool around at bit she goes with it for a long while, then realizes the consequences of her actions,remebers her boyfriend(oh yea i forgot to mention that)then in the middle of sex starts screaming runs out then leaves.later acussing the guy of rape.
now who fault is that cuz from her side i can say that she was drunk and got stupid and her mind was gone at the time.but from the guys side i can say that a girl that strips for me goes into my room after whispering sweet nuthns and lays down is obviously asking for sex.
both of these people were my friends and to this day i dont know how to make peace with it in my head.whos fault was it.cuz i know for a fact that she felt like shit for what she did,and needed an out and that was it;accusing a guy of rape.now did he ask permission ,no.but did she deny it at the time that it was important,no.
change the scenario.
a young couple dating for a while and having sex for the first time.they start then she backs out gets freaked and leaves cuz she was uncomfotable.is that rape?

[doreen]

However, I’m not sure I necessarily follow why you would say that a person’s intoxication should not be evidence of their inability to consent. Without throwing out specific egregious hypotheticals it seems to me that just because a person decides to consume alcohol and becomes intoxicated should not mean that they take the risk of whatever may happen to them, including sexual assault. If the point is simply that you should not automatically be able to say “Oh, I was drunk so it’s rape,” then that’s another issue altogether; ie. perhaps the real issue here is how intoxicated do you have to be to be incapable of consent and how is that ever proven. I would certainly agree that just because somebody has a couple drinks it does not follow that they are incapable of consenting; however, if a person is truly mentally impaired because of alcohol, I do not think it unreasonable for the law to consider them incapable of consent.

The problem for me is how is one party to know that the other is too intoxicated to consent? Certainly, a person who has drunk themselve into unconciousness can’t consent. And if someone slips drugs into my Coke without my knowledge, I don’t mind presuming they know I can’t consent, since the intent of the drugging appears to be a means of getting around my expected lack of consent. But how can another person be expected to know whether I’m too mentally impaired to consent? Does it take one drink? Two? Four? The answer will be different for different people.

[senor]

Hola!

Rape is NEVER the fault of the victim involved, wheather the victim being a man or a woman. The actual offense of a rape (which is a sexual attack) is the attacker only, the one that perpetates the rape.

The place I was at for New Years Eve was a beautiful Asian woman dancing with another man to whom I knew. If I was a rapist, I could set up a situation in which I was alone with her in thou, I can have my way with her. Period. I am more than twice her physical size, no contest. My sense of moral justice would of had not allowed this. (unlike maybe Ted Bundy or any other MF in the prison system)

Men are more than three times sexual than any woman. This is biology. The case of Mary Laterneu (SIC), is that the 13 year old ¡°rapee" ejaculated (became sexually orgasmic and excited into her) causing conception between the two parties. Thus, it is impossible for a male to be raped. PERIOD.

If a man wanted to attack a woman in a sexual sitaution, this is not difficult. So is the same with a weak man who is imprisoned in the prison system with no escape. Rape is a CRIME of the helpless from the strong.

SENOR

[Justhink]

As Deborak so wisely said these laws do place an awful lot of pressure on the guy to ascertain her level of informed consent.

There is also the double issue here of females generally not offering informed consent: “I only want a guy who’s ‘confident’ in himself.”

Not only is the pressure there to ascertain informed consent, but in all seriousness females will basically de-select males who seek it. The odds of following the law and dying a virgin and very substantial as a male. This raises the issue of females demanding rape in order to have sex. This general pattern of behavior is what causes the environment to perpetrate and validate rape from the male side. It’s understood that females can rape males, but these dynamics which I mentioned above are almost completely bound to the female side of the equation, creating a catch-22 for any semi-rational human being.

-Justhink

[Justhink]

My personal stance on rape is that one sober person can rape another sober person (we’ll take equal ages of 25), by simulating the consent of the other person by using particular personality algorithms that you know informed consent of the process will disarm the ‘desire’ to consent. I also believe that informed consent is FAR from impossible - which is why I define rape back this far. Rape is never the victim’s fault, BUT also take the example of how cognitively demented msmith is:

I think the problem is the overly broad definition of rape. IMHO, rape is physically forcing someone to have sex with you against their will. It is not:

-picking up some girl who had a few drinks and is feeling permiscuous
-having sex with someone under false pretenses
-willingly having sex with someone and then retroactively changing her mind

Eradicating this mindset is the source of all preventable social problems, and access to even have the ability to increase (start working on) preventable existential problems with regards to consent to being born. The answer in those quotes is the sole source of human corruption, and the quoter really has no clue that this is rape. I argue this rape as being as severe as brutally bloody rape, because this lack of consent trickles down to allowing the psychological atmosphere where this energy is eventually released upon someone. When consent is virtualized, the energy is still going to find that expression - it is still consenting to beat the crap out of someone, you’re just encrypting the abuse through ignorance. The energy here is always claiming a victim. Even if you can virtualize the consent beyond the death barrier, someone else in your general vacinity is going to take the hit for this abuse in a non-virtualized manner.
That’s the way these things work.

-Justhink

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by senor *
Men are more than three times sexual than any woman.

I’d love to see a cite for that. I offer my last girlfriend as a counterexample.

This is biology. The case of Mary Laterneu (SIC), is that the 13 year old ¡°rapee" ejaculated (became sexually orgasmic and excited into her) causing conception between the two parties. Thus, it is impossible for a male to be raped. PERIOD.

Wait… because the kid who had consensual sex with Mary Kaye Letourneau had an orgasm, it’s impossible for men to be rape victims? That’s quite a leap.

Ever heard of prison rape?

Now I hear you saying, “But how could a guy ‘get it up’ if he didn’t want to have sex?” Ever heard of cock rings?