If I remember correctly from what I learned while in college in the US, the recommendation is that a person that has been raped and has any interest in convicting the rapist needs to run, not walk, to the hospital or police station immediately to get the proper lab work done and get a formal statement on the record. Every hour that goes by is an hour that could add up to “reasonable doubt” that the rape accusation is true and lead to a jury concluding that it’s reasonably possible (not necessarily more than 50%, but within the bounds of reason) that the “victim” and “offender” had a fight afterward and the “victim” now wants revenge. All that has to be demonstrated for the “offender” to get acquitted is a reasonable doubt - not incontrovertible proof.
In a he said/she said scenario I think the best you can do is prove there is presumable doubt for a jury. In cases where you have what seems to be an implausible rapist some people will dismiss the “it’s entirely out of character” argument, but most people (including juries) will take past behavior into account.
If someone is otherwise a solid, well respected citizen and whistle clean legally, and is accused as a violent rapist and molester, it could be that he is just a very clever sociopath or that he is being accused unjustly. Taking someones public character into account in these things may not always be 100% accurate, but it should not be ignored.
Never mind.
People cry poverty too, and that’s not even a crime. Yet.
Cite? Nonconsensual sex occurs with some frequency within the animal kingdom, and female animals have evolved to lubricate under such circumstances. Here’s one cite, by the admittedly unreliable William Saletan: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2009/01/26/rape-fantasies-and-female-arousal.aspx
We are talking about probabilities and evidence, not proof: the claim is that a woman having nonconsensual sex is less likely to be lubricated, or as well lubricated, than a woman having consensual sex (especially since a consenting, non-lubricating woman would likely use a product rather than have painful sex). This doesn’t mean all nonconsensual sex is unlubricated, nor that all consensual sex results in natural or artificial lubrication (people like all kinds of things). All any one is saying is that when presented with two narratives and asked to make a determination about which one is more probable, evidence that a woman was not aroused and experienced pain during sex can be relevant, although by itself neither necessary nor sufficient to establish what happened.
So unless you are trying to argue that all women lubricate all the time when they have sex, or that a nonconsenting woman is exactly as likely to lubricate to the exact same degree as a consenting woman, I am not sure what you want cited. The idea that evidence that sex was rough and painful would suggest, though not prove, nonconsent, seems self-evident.
Highlighted without further comment given the thread title and the fact that no evidence has yet been heard in the case cited. :dubious:
Oh shit, I didn’t realize I was in a courtroom on the jury. The judge is SO gonna fine me for contempt.
OK, alleged rape, whatever.
The Family Circus has already covered this problem
I agree with the last sentence. As for the converse, the work of Meredith L. Chivers and others suggests a disconnect between female arousal and lubrication. Their methodology involved showing slides to women on topics that were simultaneously sexual and icky. Sure, some of the participants may have had hidden kinks, but the researchers tended to lean towards the disconnect hypothesis. So the claim that women who are raped typically don’t lubricate may not be the case.
Incidentally, male’s self-reporting of arousal and physical evidence were more often in sync. For those interested here’s another cite, which I admittedly have not read. I emphasize that my understanding of this is based upon a Slate article by an author whose dedication to rigor is questionable IMHO.
Note that the attitude works both ways: there’s quite a bit of noise around this particular affair along the lines of “he’s a powerful man who (allegedly) committed one of the most low-class of crimes, ergo he’s even more to be punished than your average white van rapist”.
To me, that’s pure populism. Justice is meant to be blind, it’s not a bug it’s an honest to god feature.
DSK couldn’t be further from being a banker though, FWIW.
I’ve never seen this attitude. Given that a “regular” rapist can get years in prison, and that folks regularly call for the violent execution of “regular” rapists, I’m not sure what this would look like. Can you provide some examples of this claim?
DSK couldn’t be further from being a banker though, FWIW.
[/QUOTE]
Video-game designer
School teacher
Unemployed veterinarian
Maid
He could be a helluva lot further from being a banker.
Unless people have met the chick and know she’s bat-shit crazy they will ALWAYS side with her and label the guy as a rapist who “got away with it”. Doesn’t matter what the courts say or what logic the guy brings up or that he’s the nicest guy in the world who wouldn’t hurt a fly.
In the general population people will always believe the chick because it’s less morally conflicting to judge a guy as guilty and be wrong than it is to judge a girl as crying wolf about rape and be wrong. I’m not casting judgement on that, it is what it is, I’m just objectively observing how people work.
If I pick up a girl I dont know well who wants to be choked, slapped, held down roughly, or do anything that could leave a mark, I’ll only do stuff that won’t leave a mark. Like if she wants to be choked I won’t flat out grip her neck tightly, I’ll just spread my hand like I’m grabbing a wide jar from the side and hold her neck down on the bed or against the wall. The feeling is the same for her but no mark is left which covers my ass incase she decides to cry rape (it’s a real risk if you pick up an unstable chick or one you don’t know well).
One chick and I used to hate-fuck eachother and she had a massively submissive side. She didn’t even care about her own pleasure she just wanted to be used and abused and dominated by a guy (“used as his fucktoy” as she put it). It was a little too much for me (I don’t get off on domination stuff, I like mutual sex), but because it was how she likes sex I went along with some of it. But I made sure to videotape her with my cell phone in my apartment kissing and consensually giving me head while I asked her questions about how rough she likes sex so that if she pulled a 180 I’d have at least decent evidence that it was consensual rape-play.
I’m under no illusion that people will assume the best of the guy when it comes to rape accusations haha which is unfortunate because that fear is a big reason why guys are scared shitless to make a move on a girl without her signing her written consent to each step and a lot of chicks get turned on by “bad boys” who make moves on them without needing written consent. Thus the massive supply of sexually frustrated and confused men and sexually frustrated and disappointed women in modern society. Also a lot of women have a very “lady in the street, freak in the bed” personality. That hate-fuck chick I described is an absolute high class princess day to day. Her friends would NEVER believe she likes the shit she likes. So that would pile onto them instinctively believing her over me.
- TWTTWN
Hence “typically”. I’m sure there are women who show signs of physiological arousal during nonconsensual sex, but injury to the vaginal walls are an indicator of rape (though obviously they can also occur during consensual sex). It’s a correlative thing, not an absolute.
You’re objective like Fox News is objective.
No, it’s not a real risk. It’s less of a risk than her having rabies and biting you.
No, guys aren’t scared shitless to make a move on a girl without her signing her written consent. Paranoid freaks might be so scared, but normal people aren’t.
haha I don’t even know why you’d disagree with the notion that guys are scared to be called rapists in today’s society where “no means no” and the notion that there are unstable girls out there or that not knowing someone well can lead to miscommunication.
This really doesn’t sound logical to you or jive with any life experiences you’ve had?
Like, I get that you don’t like me but this is a silly post. What part are you disagreeing with and what are you basing your disagreement on?
- TWTTWN
Of course you don’t know why, but your ignorance doesn’t reflect poorly on me. When I was dating, if a girl told me “no,” it meant “no.” If she was some crazy tweaker who really meant “yes” by her “no,” then I dodged a bullet by not having sex with said crazy tweaker. Why would I be scared to be called a rapist? No, it doesn’t jive with my life experiences, because I’m not trying to tightrope walk the line between consent and rape, because that’s a repugnant, contemptible, vicious thing to do.
Yes, there are the rare crazy women who falsely claim that consensual sex was rape. Crazy people do crazy things; of all the crazy things that crazy people do, this is pretty far down on the list of the ones I’d worry about. I’m much more worried that some evil sonofabitch who tightrope-walks the line between consent and rape will rape someone I care about. That’s the sort of crazy shit in modern society that worries me.
Do you have any reason to think it’s rare? Or for that matter, that it requires a “crazy” woman instead of just a nasty one?
Don’t bring reason into this! I mean, I tried Googling for news stories, message board discussions (like in threads on this very board), surveys, articles, etc. documenting false rape accusations and couldn’t find a single one!
Just trust that Dorkness is right and that anyone who’s ever made a move on a girl who didn’t hand him a contract with her signature consenting to each step leading up to sex is a “repugnant, contemptible, vicious” rapist. :rolleyes:
- TWTTWN