In the GD thread Does a victim of a “public” Rape case, have a responsilbility to expose themselves?, margin appears to be making the case that there is no room for the possibility that a woman can offer false accusations, as it will harm feminism or women’s images, or will enforce stereotypes.
If I have mischaracterized the argument offered, I apologize; the reader may judge for himself.
Of course it’s conceivable. Doesn’t strike me as common or likely, however, (the fact that people read Dworkin’s books doesn’t mean they share her opinion on this topic), and I don’t see the path from there to your conclusion that this new law makes it easier for men to be “abused.”
**There’s that context problem again…annaplurabelle. As i say, this was based off of Lee’s scenario. In which a couple having sex, when the guy hears no and turns into name calling rapist…but you’re okay with that scenario. That scenario which i did quote BTW. I only used the material she provided, you have a problem then I suggest you consider the source material…before questioning my character or attitudes about sex.
Do me a favor? Re-Read Lee’s and mine and because obviously there’s a big miscommunication occuring here.**
Holmes, apologies again, but I’m revising my answer (I shouldn’t be on here while I’m working - not an excuse, but an explanation, at least).
In fairness to the original scenario, I’d have to change my last post to - it seems it might apply to this new revision. I haven’t read the actual revision. In reality, it would depend on assessing the evidence presented (to the DA, prior to filing charges).
The problem with these hypothetical scenarios is just that - they are hypothetical. Even you altering the scenario, is just adding another level of fiction to a fictional situation. No one is charged on this basis - can we agree to that at least?
If you want an answer to “Is it rape?” - my personal opinion is: yes. Consent was withdrawn, and force was used to continue. We know this - because we are there.
Whether or not a DA would go forward with the case is another matter. He/she wasn’t there, the way we are in the hypothetical. What is the physical evidence? How do the accuser/accused present as credible witnesses in interviews? Any other corroborating evidence/circumstance/witnesses (hearsay and character reference)? What does the consulting med/psych report say? Any applicable prior history on either side? What is the defense/plea?
This is the real context in which the charges are brought forward, or not.
I’m sorry if you were offended by my hypothetical cross examination/summation, but again, that is all it was - a hypothetical answer based on a hypothetical witness based on a hypothetical scenario. I’m not a DA. You’re not this hypothetical rapist.
But what does this type of debate lead to? When you ask these kinds of questions, what answers are you looking for? Every single one of these rape threads ends up the same way.
So, I guess I’ll see you next time (hypothetically). BTW - that “there you go again” variation (top of my quote)? Could you do me a favour and give it a rest? It’s tired. If you’re a fan of Ronald Reagan’s style, surely you can overlook an occasional confusion about context or revision of opinion. Thanks.
cole burner: Thanks for replying (and so quickly!). Sorry about your ordeal. But it seems it was a clear case of malicious intent - not a misunderstanding about consent. Would it have been possible to sue the accuser for damages/legal fees? Did your attorney advise you on this? Sorry to ask more questions but I’m interested in and supportive of the possibilities of recourse/compensation for those falsely accused (of any crime).
[ul]
[li]“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” [/li]-- From Robin Morgan, “Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape” in “Going too Far”
[li]“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” [/li]-- Marilyn French, Author of “The Women’s Room”
[li]“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.”[/li]-- Susan Griffin, *“Rape: The All-American Crime”
[li]“Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated. You might think thats too broad. I’m not talking about sending all of you men to jail for that.” [/li]-- Catherine MacKinnon, “A Rally Against Rape” Feminism Unmodified
[/ul]
I’d say all of the above quotes would encompass a drunk woman having sex as falling into the rape category. At least to me they imply as much even if they don’t explicity state it in that fashion.
As to the quotes they were in response to your citing the views in your class on feminism at your liberal college. I was illustrating that views do exist out there that are more radical than what is taught in your class. Further, it goes to show how extreme some women may view any sexual intercourse and that relates to this thread when dicussing what constitutes rape that should be subject to prosecution. Nor are these attitudes solely the province of a very few ultra-radicals. Most women I know wouldn’t go so far but I’ve known a few personally who do.
Bricker:
I’m not sure what Morgan is on about and unfortunately I have to run so I won’t get to check it out till later. On the face of it denying that false accusations ever happen seems absurd. Certainly there is a danger of overstating the problem but that it has happened seems without doubt. You have two instances related right here in this thread.
I think in her mind it was about consent. She would never consent to being with me because I had a girlfriend. Because I promised to break up with the girlfriend, she consented. Then when I didn’t break up with the girlfriend, it meant that I had got her cosent under false pretenses, thus = rape.
My lawyer said I could sue her but since her and her family was not wealthy, it wouldn’t do a lot of good, she had no money to make a lawsuit worthwhile. He said he would do it, but we would have to give him a $5000 retainer and he couldn’t guarantee we would even get that back if we won. He would have done it for less if the police had actually gotten a conviction for false reporting but they only made her get counseling and dropped the charges, so he said we would have to have a full trial on if she lied or not, her sister would not be cooperative, etc.
[ul]
[li]“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”[/li]-- From Robin Morgan, “Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape” in “Going too Far”
[li]“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” [/li]-- Marilyn French, Author of “The Women’s Room”
[li]“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.”[/li]-- Susan Griffin, “Rape: The All-American Crime”
[li]“Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated. You might think thats too broad. I’m not talking about sending all of you men to jail for that.” [/li]-- Catherine MacKinnon, “A Rally Against Rape” Feminism Unmodified[/ul]
I’m not sure this is going to make sense, but I’d argue that these authors aren’t talking about rape from a judicial perspective. French isn’t suggesting all men should be sent to jail, for example, nor would I say Morgan is talking about throwing men in jail for initiating sex. These quotes are from a theoristic perspective, not a legal one. Unless these women are strongly opposed to American judicial system, which I’m inclined to doubt.
This law might make it easier to make a false accusation, but even if it does, it was obviously necessary for this state, to clarify the previous rape law.
With the previous law, it could technically be argued that once consent was given, a man could continue the act, even if the woman said no during it. (Because the law was not as specific as it is now.) And that definitely would be rape no matter how you look at it.
Thank god the law is more specific now. I wouldn’t put it past a defense attorney to try to find a loophole in the old law.
Oh, and the blue balls argument? Please… That is the most ridiculous defense I have ever heard! If that were to happen to you, you should go into the bathroom and masturbate, not rape your partner!!
~Eris~
Ok, why all this discussion on false accusations? Do some people just feel the need to talk about false accusations whenever rape gets discussed?
Why don’t we talk about what this statutory change actually does, if anything? As I see it this will at the very least change the instructions given to juries. Whether it has any substantive effect on conviction rates or anything else I have yet to see discussed in much detail here – just a bunch of blather about “false accusations” and not even much discussion as to how the statute affects those, for that matter.
Color me disappointed.
So far as I can see, this new law will change jury instructions only when the fact set warrants it. It may make it slightly easier to secure a conviction in cases in which consent was given and then withdrawn. In my experience, the vast majority of rape cases that go to trial allege that consent was not given before the act occurred - but perhaps that’s because prosecutors were leery of going to trial under such circumstances before.
I don’t see how this merits much debate, actually: it accurately reflects what the law should be – that even during sex, one partner may withdraw consent and the other partner is obligated to respect that. To the extent that it changes anything at trial, it favors the prosecution; a set of facts that might previously have been ambigious is now clearly criminal.
holmes, I am at a loss how a man could continue to have meaningful sex with a woman who clearly no longer wants it. I don’t buy that men are unable to remain aware of their partner, and to control themselves, even up to the moment of orgasm. If you are so oblivious to your partner as to be unaware that she is attempting to escape having sex with you, you’re not making love, but rather using your partner for your own sexual gratification without regard to her interests, desires, or concerns. As far as I’m concerned, that’s morally reprehensible behavior, and if you, in your obliviousness, end up crossing the legal line into rape as a result, too bad. Punishing people for morally reprehensible acts is a major function of the criminal law.
That said: why don’t you address lee’s original scenario, instead of perverting it into one that defends your own point of view? I’m willing to allow the jury to entertain the possibility that one partner was unaware that consent had been withdrawn (although I think that should be an affirmative defense once evidence of withdrawal is proven, with the burden of proof on the defendant).
But let’s talk about the real problem: the belief that many men have that once the woman accepts a drink/sits down on the bed with him/takes off her clothes/lets him touch her/etc. has irrevocably consented to sex, and what Illinois has done to combat that belief by amending its criminal sexual conduct statute.
Just what is Illinois trying to do? Why? Will it work? Why won’t anyone talk about that?
After getting caught up on these posts, it seems that we are going in one big circle.
No one has stated that ALL women are going to make false accusations against anyone.
No one has supported that anyone has the right to continue a sex act when their partner has decided not to continue.
Everyone agrees that ‘no’ means no and ‘stop’ means stop. Period. End of story.
But changing an existing law or reinturpreting it, tends to make already muddy waters even more so.
I checked the legal definition of rape in several states, and they all say the same thing…
…a form of sexual assault which is committed by threat, or by force, or without consent, in which a bodily orifice is penetrated by a body part of or an object wielded by another person.
So, allowing a person to allow penetration then change their minds moments, minutes, maybe hours later-which they have every right to do, no one is doubting that-actually makes it all the easier to prove something happened without the others consent.
That is just stupid. It should never be allowed to get that far. That is like saying ‘no’ then later prodding the other person into trying again. Only to say ‘no’ again.
So the only logical thing is, when a person says ‘no’, then thats it.
No more. Move on. Next. Even if they change their mind later. Forget it. They said ‘no’. Best not to take your chances.
In the gray area of the legal system, it is best to look at every situation in black and white.
drugmaker, what drugs man?
Anyway, I think this law was also clarified to prevent Marv Albert-like situations in which the woman can get accidentally or purposefully injured by the sex act.
Sorry cap, the legal kind…pharmaceuticals
I don’t think Marv Albert was out to hurt anyone let alone rape them. Kinky sex that got a little out of hand.
It is going to be interesting to see how the Kobe Bryant thing plays out.
But, being serious, what has happened to us? Sex use to be fun. A lot of fun. It used to be we could go home on a friday, shower and get “pimped” up to go to the pub, bar or club for some drinking, dancing and, possibly, humping. And it was mutual. Two people, any combination, caught up in the excitement of the evening, the drinking, the dancing, the crowds, the music, the lights. They would sneak off to a dark corner of the place, or alley or car and get on some good old fashion boot-knocking (“boot-knocking”? god I have been in the midwest for too long)
Whether or not anything serious came out of that tryst (no pun) was just par for the course. If you went home alone, that too was part of the game.
Next morning, if they stayed the night (which was safer than trying to drive home drunk! more on this in a minute) maybe some breakfast or whatever. Maybe exchange numbers. Who cares if they ever called. Odds are either they gave you or you gave them a bogus number anyway.
The two sexes used to have fun together. (same-sex in some cases).
Now, due to some people who take things too seriously. Guys and girls. Things got all weird. A few people took things too far.
Now it is all about the “contract”. Got to have a “contract” to make things ‘legal’. Want to take me to dinner, sign the waiver please. Want to hold my hand, I need you to sign this and get it notarized. Anymore, sex is a matter of negotiation. Damn near need an agent just to call anyone! See an atractive person walking down the street or in a mall, you’re a perv all the sudden.
Just saying ‘hi’ could land your ass in court.
Jesus people, lighten up!
You out clubbing with your girlfriends and dancing all sexy and some guy gets a little carried away and gets too touchy-feely, leave. Move away from him. Tell him to stop. Give him the evil eye. Any respectable man, drunk or otherwise, will stop if you indicate he has gone too far. If he doesn’t then take stronger measures. Go to security if you have to. Guys, the girl who is bumpin’ her butt against your manlyness, you had better be damn sure she is open to you actually copping a feel.
If she (or he) has had too much to drink and it is obvious, find their friends or call them a cab to make sure they get home ok. Doesn’t matter they have had their hands down your pants for an hour. They are drunk and that is probably the only way they are going to get in your pants.
Go home, sleep it off. Saturday is another day. And you are still free!
How does this make things confusing?
Blimey! You just said how this thread is repeating itself, then you repeat what a dozen people have said. The law - changed or unchanged - does NOT make anything easier to prove. It doesn’t lower the standard of proof at all; these kinds of things still have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You said it yourself at the beginning of your post: ‘stop’ means ‘stop,’ and if you don’t stop when your partner tells you to, you’re asking for trouble. In fact, you even say this in the quote: during sex, a person has the right to ask their partner to stop at any time. What’s so tough about that?
Even if it didn’t make you a rapist - which, really, it always did, and this law is intended to confirm that fact - not stopping after being asked makes you an asshole.
Maybe you’re doing something wrong, I think it still is. 
As to much of your second post… well, wake up. It’s not safe to go out, pick up people and “knock boots” because AIDS kills millions upon millions of people and is incurable. It’s too bad things are like that, but then again, if people took precautions, perhaps so many people wouldn’t be dying of this disease now.
There are laws about sexual harassment because women used to have to stand there and take it with no recourse. Rape laws are what they are today for the same reason: because the people could be victimized by rapists deserve protection, and because rapists deserve jail time. If you think that’s too serious, well, I’m sorry to hear it.
Moderator’s Note: Marley23, please do not use use direct personal insults in Great Debates. If you must call someone an “idiot”, you know the forum to do it in, right?
Can anyone tell me who the possible evidence (what you’d expect: no witnesses, no videotape, but whatever physical evidence might exist) would point to as the rapist in the following scenarios and who the rapist would be in knowing what really happened (all of which involve heterosexual sex):
-Both the man and the woman are drunk. They have what to both at the time is consensual sex. Later on, the woman regets it and contacts the police.
–> What if the situation is reversed?
–> How can it be proven when consent was withdrawn if no struggle occurred?
-Both the man and the woman are drunk. Although the woman protests in the middle of it, the man uses force to finish.
–>What if the situation is reversed?
-The man is drunk and cannot give consent (is not fully conscious, able to make rational decisions). The woman has sex anyway.
–> What if the situation is reversed?
This does not bring about equality. Here, you are pointing out the disadvantages of each gender, but these disadvantages do not balance each other out. Nor can you say that one gender has it better than the other.
Also, regarding the hypothetical scenarios–they are possible. No one is arguing that they are likely, and pointing out that most women will not do this or that a man shouldn’t sleep with a woman he can’t trust (how the hell is anyone supposed to know for certain what’s going on in another person’s mind) is not a real argument against it.
Although a jury will probably make the right decision, given the evidence, you have to remember the stigma that surrounds rape. A man might be found innocent, but few will remember him as such, partly because of the nature of the crime (when people see a person’s photograph and next to it the word rapist it tends to burn into their memory and even when they hear that the person has been found innocent, the subconscious connotation is still there [if they ever do hear of it; read on]) and partly because of the way news is reported (someone’s arrest is breaking news, but when the person is found innocent it is rarely even reported in the regular news segment). For example, a few years ago in NYC a man was arrested for burglary–a crime which is not considered nearly as bad as rape. He was found innocent. However, when he returned to his job his boss fired him anyway. What’s more, co-workers eyed him with suspicion, even though they knew he was proved innocent, not just not guilty. So there is the potential for someone to be injured greatly in the social sense, even if the charges are proven false.
Then there is the financial burden. I’m not sure if the bond money is refundable, but the lawyer’s fee certainly isn’t (as evidenced by cole burner’s post). $3000 (and it could be more) is a lot for most people and that money is lost forever.
About proving rape:
If a man and a woman have sex and the woman requests that he stop in the middle of it but he finishes, and there are no marks (which can also be attributed to rough sex, but we’ll ignore that for now), how can it be proven that the rape actually occurred? There are no witnesses, no physical evidence, and–unless I’m missing something here–it becomes a matter of two people with opposing stories. I would imagine that a number of such cases have come up…so what happens?
And aren’t there be foundations that help people deal with rape, as well as foundations that help victims that have been falsely accused?
I would appreciate any info.
The increase in threads recently has obviously resulted from the case of Kobe and his accuser.
Down here in Springfield, Missouri a couple of years ago there was a case that reminds me a lot of this case, with an interesting perspective. There was a black athelete at a local university who was, I believe, a football player. He was accused of rape by a white girl. His picture was in the local paper, and his face was all over the local tv news. He was suspended from the team while the charges against him were investigated. Problem was, it was his senior year and the suspension cost him a chance at the pros. All this time, her identity was protected under ‘victim’ shield laws. Then, after a police investigation, the truth came out, and the girl recanted her accusation and admitted her charge was a lie.
This is the kind of situation I believe men are fearing. Thanks to the efforts of the radical wing of the Feminist movement, our society has become so concerned with protecting women we have created a political climate that leaves all men relatively defenceless to false claims of rape. In my view, men who are accused of any sexual offence should be given the same identity shield laws their accusers receive, until and unless they are found guilty in a court of law.
I think most of the objections to this law are based on a very vague understanding of what the law actually is.
Going by the OP alone, it seems as though consensual sex would turns into rape solely because one person says no while sex is in progress.
This does not take into account that it might take a moment to stop (unless you throw your partner across the room, which would probably be frowned upon), that the request to stop might not have been clear or audible, and that a charge of rape based on this law should require force (if the woman is on top and can leave at any time it isn’t rape).
Now, I don’t know exactly how vague this law is. What does it say about how long the guy has to stop?
If it is overly vague on this matter, then yes, that is a very real problem, as it is obviously not right to call someone a rapist because they do not possess superhuman speed.
What does it say about how clear the request must be?
There was a case where the woman said something like “I have to go home or my parents will worry”, and that is far from saying “stop!” When it is a matter of being raped or not, it is not the time to say things other than what you mean, and the first sentence is not clear enough. But does this law say anything about that?
What about force?
I assume that this law does not make it rape if the woman is on top and could leave at any time, and actually requires force, but as the OP makes no mention of that I can see where worries would come from.
I can’t really comment on how good a law this is without knowing exactly how vague it is, and what it really says.
But I can say that you cannot use the original standards of rape once consensual sex has already started: “I have to go home” is very clearly not consent before sex has started, but it is also not “stop this second or you’re a rapist” once sex has begun. I just hope the law is not too vague on this point. But I fear that it will be left to juries to judge these ambiguous statements, and having served on a jury I know for a fact that having your fate hang in the balance based on their interpretation of an ambiguous statement is indeed very frightening.
Okay, imagine the scenario where He and She are in the throes of sexual passion. He, realizing that both He and She are engaging in “un-protected sex”, decides that he will at least utilize the only means of birth-control available, “coitus interruptus”.
He, sensing himself reaching the “point of no return”, whispers into his partner’s ear, “Baby, I’ve got to stop.”
She, feeling herself reaching her climax, replies, “No, Baby, please don’t stop.”
He: “I’m sorry, I’ve got to.”
She: “Oh no… don’t stop, don’t stop”
Sensing that He is on the verge of the aforementioned “interruptus”, She wraps her legs around He and holds him tightly in an effort to prevent him from leaving her insatiate.
Although He is strong enough to break free from She, the restraint He experienced from She holding him with her legs, delayed his extrication just long enough for the “seed to be planted”.
Now, according to previous threads on the SDMB, there are those who say that He is financially responsible for the planting of the seed because:
What is amusing is the myopia of those who embrace such feminist based legislation, such as the Illinois law under discussion, that is written under the assumption that women are always victims and men are always scoundrels.
What is disgusting is the almost vindictive tone of those who find favor with the feminist agenda and it’s accompanying legislation that men find themselves beholden to.
WTF? The only assumption this legislations is written under is that if a person forces- through force, threat, or complete incapacitation- another person to continue a sex act against their will, that is rape.
And yeah, I guess I do get a bit vindictive when I hear people argueing that they shouldn’t be “beholden” to that standard.