Reader MB sent me a link to this story:
A new ICM opinion poll commissioned by Amnesty International indicates that a third (34%) of people in the UK believe that a woman is partially or totally responsible for being raped if she has behaved in a flirtatious manner. The poll, ‘Sexual Assault Research’, published today (21 November) as part of Amnesty International’s ‘Stop Violence Against Women’ campaign, shows that similar “blame culture” attitudes exist over clothing, drinking, perceived promiscuity, personal safety and whether a woman has clearly said “no” to the man. For instance, more than a quarter (26%) of those asked said that they thought a women was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, and more than one in five (22%) held the same view if a woman had had many sexual partners. Around one in 12 people (8%) believed that a woman was totally responsible for being raped if she’d had many sexual partners. Similarly, more than a quarter of people (30%) said that a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk, and more than a third (37%) held the same view if the woman had failed to clearly say “no” to the man. UPDATE: See also Volsunga’s post. UPDATE 2: And The F Word. UPDATE 3: Mind the Gap has a list of links.
@Dianne: I guess the silver lining with Italy is that it shows that even when fascists can capture the executive…
Jesurgislac, Kristjan Wager:
My comment was not meant to wrestle the discussion from (raped)women to (raped)men, I added it as a disclaimer against the possible accusation of ignoring male victims. Certainly men aren’t raped anywhere near the number women are.
Indeed, I think there should be surveys measuring other crimes, or male rapes, to find out whether there is more/same/less victim-blaming in those cases. My gut feeling would say less. I think rape victims, especially women, are blamed more for their rapes than victims of other crimes.
jaketk:
I agree, we do not know the rapists motivation. However, misogynist attitudes may have something to do with (some) rapes. On the issue of boundaries, I agree 100 %, I thought it was clear from my post, when I talk about law enforcement.
I don’t equate unagreeable male sex with real rape. How did you get that idea?
Come to think of it, I’m not sure I understand what jaketk meant by unagreeable male sex. Clarification would be nice.
you know,
I don’t FUCKING CARE if a woman is running around naked with “FUCK” painted on one thigh and “ME” on the other.
her apparel is not consent unless she specifically says it is.
jaketk:
victim implies that one is not responsible for the acts, in which case it would be inappropriate to use that term in reference to males. however, from my experience men who have had unagreeable sexual encounters and boys who have had early childhood sexual experiences tend to get held to a higher standard than real victims because gender expectations.
jaketk seems to be suggesting that men never get raped, which is, of course, false. Of course, male victims are usually raped by other men, not by women.
In terms of questioning whether or not male victims of rape get blamed, I think it is important to note that a large proportion of male-on-male rapes occur in prison. So for a large number of these cases, the victim proibably gets blamed not because of “he led him on” reasoning, but because of “the S.O.B. got what was coming to him for robbing that woman/breaking into that house/shooting that storeowner, etc.
Of course, I think that the issue of prison rape is more of an issue of how we treat prisoners generally than an issue of sexism per se.
As for the issue of trials, the essentialy problem is this:
Rape can be a difficult crime to prove because, as others have pointed out, often the only issue of contention is whether or not there was consent to an act that people perform consensually all the time. In such a case, forensic evidence is of limited value because it generally cannot establish whether or not there was consent unless the rapist used physically harmful violence in order to subdue the victim (i.e. it could show if there was injury) and the physical damage can be seen to imply lack of consent.
So what we are often left with is a trial based largely on he said/she said testimony.
In such a case, the general assumption is that the victim has to be the one to prove her case that she was raped, because our courts operate under the presumption of innocence. (More precisely, the state has to prove that she was raped, unless we are talking about a civil trial). In a sense, this does translate into the court acting as if it assumes that the victim is lying, in that her case is the one that needs to be proven, and not the defendant’s.
To be honest, I am not entirely certain how we can make it easier to convict in such cases without essentially throwing out the presumption of innocence.
What is unagreeable male sex exactly. I won’t read into the comment all of the possible meanings, and wait instead for clarification.
Another factor to add in to questions about jaketk’s use of the terms “real victims” and “unagreeable sexual encounter” is that the overwhelming majority of men I know who have been raped were raped while well under the age of consent, usually by an older relative or babysitter, but occasionally by a stranger (a female stranger, in my case).
I don’t know how well my circle of friends map to society, but I’d bet that for men, after prison rape, statutory rape and child molestation is the next big chunk.
It makes me wonder if raped children qualify for jaketk’s “real victim” status or not.
To be honest, I am not entirely certain how we can make it easier to convict in such cases without essentially throwing out the presumption of innocence.
Good analysis, Glaivester. I don’t know either, but I’m pretty sure that presuming everyone arrested by the police is guilty is not a very good idea.
Glaivester, Susan:
I think the current situation is that women are afraid to report rape because they then have their morals questioned, and may and with the reputation of a lying slut, in addition to having been actually raped (if there is no conviction). This is a tough issue, but the principle that “everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt” is a good one. In short, assuming every accused person is guilty would lead to a similar situation than medieval witch-hunts were (it would be an easy way of getting rid of rivals. Governments shouldn’t give people incentives to tell lies).
However, we need to acknowledge that just because an accused rapist didn’t go to jail, the woman didn’t necessarily lie (proving a false accusation should have same, high standards of evidence). Sadly, many people see it in more simplistic terms.
tuomas, the comment seemed like an unnecessary add-on as it had nothing to do with the rest of your post.
jaketk:
If I remember correctly, I put it there because I had noticed that my post was about rapist men and rape victim women (the most common type). But since there are man-man rapes ( less common), woman-man(rare)rapes, and woman-woman(very rare) rapes, I thought it would be good to acknowledge them, too. Can you respond to what you mean by unagreeable male sex? Certainly men and boys can be raped, and I don’t hold them any more responsible for being raped than women who are raped are.
jaketk seems to be suggesting that men never get raped, which is, of course, false.
well, that is often subject to opinion.
It makes me wonder if raped children qualify for jaketk’s “real victim” status or not.
i would hope so considering i am one, i am related to several, and work with many. however, it is better to use different terminology rather than consider the acts comparable. the conflict that follows such comparisons is grossly unnecessary.
but as this has nothing to do with the issue at hand, it is best to drop it.
I’m very sorry to hear that, jaketk. FYI, I consider the act of rape comparable to rape, not a different one, no matter what sex the rapist and his/her victim are. I think feminists here would agree.
To clarify: I don’t think it’s necessary to have different terminology or laws for rapes that differ from the man-rapes-woman standard of rape, nor should rape victims be put on a scale of “x is more victim than y”.
. And an accused rapist’s belief that the woman he had sex with wanted to have sex with him is a perfectly valid defense.
Only if he believed she wanted to have sex with him because he asked her, she said yes, and at no point did she then say “no”. Otherwise, no.
Yes, I’d want to drop it too if I’d said something as inhuman and vile as you seem to have said.
Yes, I’d want to drop it too if I’d said something as inhuman and vile as you seem to have said.
no, i want to drop it as it only serves to detract from the issue at hand. in the past, such threads have often devolved into proving its commonality, occurance and severity, which again has nothing to do with women being blamed for rape. i chose my terminology to match the subject’s consideration here. my personal opinion of the subject is quite the opposite.
but i do apologize if i am too blunt or distant. such is my way, annoy as it is.
However, we need to acknowledge that just because an accused rapist didn’t go to jail, the woman didn’t necessarily lie (proving a false accusation should have same, high standards of evidence). Sadly, many people see it in more simplistic terms.
Yes, that is very important for people to understand. I’m not certain what the legal system could do towards that end. I suppose that if more women for whom the state lost in the criminal trial launched civil suits (where the standard of proof is different) judgments against the defendants would give some measure of vindication (i.e. if the accused rapist was ordered to pay restitution, it would send the message that he was probably guilty but it couldn’t be proven sufficiently to send him to prison), but that could lead to people charging that she was just “crying rape” to get money, especially if she lost the civil trial. [I am thinking about civil trials becasue that was the strategy used after losing in the murder trials of Robert Blake and O.J. Simpson).
I think it would be interesting to ask how many people actually think that Kobe Bryant was proven innocent and how many are unsure whether he did it or not, and how many people think he did it and got away with it (but rightfully, as they think he did it but it couldn’t have been proven if the trial had finished) and how many think he did it, think it could have easily been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and think that he essentially got away with it unjustly.
because of the nature of the crime, i think it would be unwise to do such a thing. the burden of proof in civil trials mostly ranges into whether or not it was possible. given that situation, i do not think civil trials would all that fair for the accused person.
Ok, so I had to stop reading about three quarters of the way down this comments section. I’ll be brief, but here is my story in a nut shell:
got very very drunk. gave blowjob to one guy (in a public place). Took him and friend home to have threesome. changed my mind when they started acting creepy and violent. they beat the crap out of me and raped me for at least five hours (i lost consciousness at some point and don’t know exactly how long it was). lost a part of my life that night. Will never be the same. have not slept through a night in ten years.
Now, I am your classic case of did everything risky. I took risks all the time then, I was your invincible 18 year old who was getting back at the world by drinking and drugging and having a lot of sex with random people. Stupid, yes.
I will never stop blaming myself for this night. Never.
And conversations like these enforce the fact that it was my fault. Everytime I read, “she was in her house when it happened,” or “it was my best friend” or “it was my boyfriend,” and then everyone jumps up and says “SEE? It could happen anywhere, she didn’t do anything wrong.” Well, all of that reinforces the fact that my rape was partially my fault. It was not my boyfriend. I was not sober. I was not at home. I could go on.
So conversations like this one are very harmful to people like me. And everyone who thinks that it’s just a statistical fact that women who don’t get drunk and give blowjobs to strangers are less at risk of rape may be technically “correct” but they perpetuate this conversation and make me want to die all over again.
Right, wrong or indifferent, women should be allowed to grow up and make all their mistakes and go through all of their growing pains without the added risk of men raping them. End of story.
Jesurgislac, while that might be a valid point of view from the perspective of stranger rape, I don’t think it *nessecarily* applies for aquaintance rape.
As Robert points out, people have sex all the time. Very few of them, each time, enter into a dialog about “So, is it okay if I do this? how about this? Can I penetrate? Is that okay?” each and every time.
Seriously, if you are currently involved in a long term, consenual, sexual realtionship, you probably don’t ask those questions very often, if at all, anymore.
When two people are beginning the sex act and one does not either vocalize or physically indicate that they want to stop, consent is *probably* considered to be implied. To proceed past that point because YOU want to irrespective of what your partner has indicated is definately rape.
To have one partner “go along with it” even though they don’t really feel like it, but NOT to be honest with his/her partner about their feelings is (unless there are extenuating circumstances), probably NOT rape.
For someone to have sex and decide afterwards that they regret it and it was a mistake, also isn’t rape.
Unfortunately, people tell the truth, people lie, sometimes they do both, and the legal system is left with the unfortunate and difficult task of deciding who, if anyone, is criminally culpable in these situations. Robert does make a valid point: the accused rapist’s state of mind is a part of his or her defense. What the judge and jury have to decide is if his state of mind is realisitic, given the evidence. Just because something is regrettable doesn’t mean the accused person was criminally culpable, and the justice system has to take that into account.
His state of mind? Please. He can lie about his state of mind.
Not that he would ever do that, oh no.
Not really. His belief is an important piece of evidence, and he can and certainly should bring this up in his defense. But it’s hardly a slam/dunk. We need to inquire what the basis for this alleged belief of his was, and whether a reasonable person in his position would share that belief. Verbal exchange is helpful but not necessary, but we’re not giving a free ride to every sociopath who holds weird “beliefs.”
Good point, to the same effect.
Indeed. A good summary.
Those of us who are out here in the trenches trying to make this society work have to deal with a lot of facts which are inconvenient to people who don’t have that job. Like the fact that people, both men and women, sometimes lie their heads off.
I would be even more interested in having sat through the trial. The jury did their best, given the evidence they had, I’m willing to assume. What I’m not willing to assume is that I, who did not hear any of the evidence first hand, know more than the people who did. Myself, I think the jury was wrong, but I recognize that that opinion of mine is wholly incompetent.
Here’s the real problem. And that is the infamous double standard, which is alive and well.
Everyone concedes in such a case that sex was had. (This is fairly easy to establish.) If sex was had, the woman is a “slut” whereas no onus attaches to male behavior absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he raped her.
I’m thinking of a conversation I heard recently on daytime TV. (I had the flu, and had no energy for anything else.) It was one of these paternity cases, where she’s asserting he’s the father of the baby, and he denies it. He said, and I quote, “Well, we had sex on the first date, she’s nothing but a slut!”
And I’m thinking, if so, what does that make YOU?
His state of mind? Please. He can lie about his state of mind.
That’s true, he can. So? People can lie about anything. That leaves us with the courts trying their best to exercise judgment and discretion, and figuring out whose story makes sense.
If you are suggesting that we move to a standard of accepting only objective physical evidence, then you are arguing for a significant reduction in successful rape prosecutions.
Very few of them, each time, enter into a dialog about “So, is it okay if I do this? how about this? Can I penetrate? Is that okay?” each and every time.
And this probably explains why so many rapes go unreported – because boyfriend/husband, having known his girlfriend/wife for whatever length of time is needed, just stops asking and starts taking. The “we’re in a long-term relationship” rape defense, you might say.
Verbal exchange is helpful but not necessary, but we’re not giving a free ride to every sociopath who holds weird “beliefs.”
The idea that only sociopaths rape is well past its sell-by date. As Robert just described (and I quoted) nice, normal boyfriends/husbands rape.
They do indeed. But someone in a long term relationship who is so far out in left field that he hasn’t figured out, under normal circumstances, that the woman doesn’t want to do this, is properly called a sociopath. A person who does this cannot reasonably be characterized as “nice” or “normal.” Nice, normal men do not rape, get it?
Your analysis doesn’t hold up. The buyer of stolen goods will be nabbed because a reasonable person under these circumstances would know the goods are stolen. If I go to Good Guys and buy a stereo, and it later turns out that Good Guys stole it, I’m off the hook, because not only did I intend to buy a legal stereo, a reasonable person in my position would think that was a legal stereo.
If a man engaging in sexual intercourse reasonably believes that the woman consents, he’s not a rapist.
Well said. In rape (and, buying stolen goods, and many other crimes) the state of mind of the accused is relevant indeed. Needless to say, we don’t have to take the guy’s word for it, though. We apply a “reasonable person” standard.
Sorry, Robert but the fact of the matter is men get believed and women don’t. Work on that first. Oh, wait, it’s called feminism. Never mind.
But someone in a long term relationship who is so far out in left field that he hasn’t figured out, under normal circumstances, that the woman doesn’t want to do this, is properly called a sociopath.
I’m doing what I hate–going slightly OT here. But I just want to point out that you don’t have to be a sociopath to feel entitled to take what you want, no matter what your partner says. A sociopath has no empathy for anyone, they have little or no attachment to anything or anybody (including themselves). Narcissists do this as well (they have attachment to themselves, but little to anyone else), and nice, people who are otherwise empathetic and “normal” are also capable of this, or other crimes. If you are raised with the idea–or if you grow up in a society that often imparts the idea–that a specific group of people is inferior to you, should defer to you, and/or count less than you, you’ll be that entitled. So a wealthy person may be empathetic and kind, but may still bust their company’s union or lay their employees off or be a tyrant of a boss and provide godawful working conditions. A normally nice, compassionate philanthropist may treat the waitstaff like shit and expect the cleaning crew to go above and beyond for little money. And a man who grew up around the attitude that women don’t count as much, etc. may rape.
Plenty of abusers and rapists are seen as nice, normal people. And they even show/have empathy for others. They just don’t extend it to their partners.
Now I’m probably going to be assassinated for this one too, but you know, intercourse isn’t just the male “taking” something from the woman. News flash, we like it too.
Men are or should be well aware of this, one would hope.
Now if you-all feminists assert that I’m not having a good time too, I’d refer you to Queen Victoria, who is said to have just laid there, looked at the ceiling, and thought about the Empire. (I don’t believe this story, by the way.) And if you don’t like it, I’d advise you most earnestly to stop doing it. And if you’re married to a man, divorce him.
Speak for yourselves. I like it a lot.
In a long term relationship, let alone a marriage, as opposed to the fanged guy who springs out of the bushes and whacks you over the head, we’re talking about communication. Can we talk? Do we know where everyone is? Can we really be in such different places that he thinks she wants to do this and she thinks it’s rape? OPEN UP YOUR BEAKS, LADIES! Is this guy just making assumptions in the absence of evidence?
I really do think women have some sort of responsibility here to communicate their preferences. If a husband thinks his wife of many years is agreeable to sexual intercourse, doesn’t ask every single time ahead of time (how crazy is this?!?), and she never tells him, well, we have a problem here the law cannot solve.
If you clearly say NO, that’s a different case. But the quotes above address a situation in which you don’t. If you don’t want to do it, SAY SO IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.
Well, yes, you do have to be a sociopath to “feel entitled to take whatever you want, no matter what your partner says.” This is normal, acceptible behavior? (Acceptible to whom??) Forget sex, do we give him access to her bank account? Narcisists are a subclass of sociopaths, so saying that some of these people are narcisists proves my point, not yours. I don’t know where you hang out, but “nice, normal people” where I live do not engage in such behavior. No, not even once.
They may be seen as nice, normal people, but that is an illusion. (Many sociopaths seem normal, until you get to know them.) They are not. Actually, men who have intercourse with women (or, other men) when they know their partner does not consent are not only sociopaths, they are criminals.
It does no good to anyone to pretend that such behavior is “nice”, “normal” or “acceptible.” It needs to be treated as what it is, criminal behavior.
acceptAble, sorry, I am a terrible speller. :(
hey Susan, call me crazy, but I like sex too. **AND** I ask my girlfriend each and everytime if she is OK with having it.
Strange thing that consent issue.
Are you saying that guys are incapable of comprehending that marriage or no, it’s someone else’s body and they need to seek permission, not assume it because nothing is said. What kind of sexist privilege is that?
Sorry, Robert but the fact of the matter is men get believed and women don’t…
Then why are there rape convictions? A few of them can be explained by preponderance of physical evidence. Most of them are cases of he said, she said. And there are convictions.
Odd that the observed facts and the facts as you describe them don’t mesh. Well, OK, not that odd.
Well, yes, you do have to be a sociopath to “feel entitled to take whatever you want, no matter what your partner says.”
No.
A ruler who is very nice and empathetic to his family or associates is still capable of being pretty horrible to his subjects. The head of a company may treat his wife like a queen and be very nice and kind to everyone in his life, but is still capable of committing some horrific workplace safety violations and treating the workers like crap. If you believe on some level that you are above and better than a certain group, you won’t feel as badly about taking what you want from them–you’re entitled. It’s situational and dependent upon a sense of superiority and/or entitlement.
This is normal, acceptible behavior? (Acceptible to whom??)
Did I say that? No. Stop putting words in my mouth Susan. It’s tiresome.
Forget sex, do we give him access to her bank account?
I thought you said that sex wasn’t something that men take? But you’re also conflating abuse and rape. Granted, rape is highly likely to happen in abusive relationships, but guys who insist they are very nice–and who have people around them who back them up–have raped. They don’t have to take money from someone’s bank account to do so.
Narcisists are a subclass of sociopaths, so saying that some of these people are narcisists proves my point, not yours.
No they aren’t. It’s a different personality disorder, often confused with sociopathy, or antisocial personality disorder. They may be confused with sociopaths because of the way they act, but they aren’t sociopaths.
I don’t know where you hang out, but “nice, normal people” where I live do not engage in such behavior. No, not even once.
Again, misconstruing my words. I never said that truly nice, normal people do so–only that people who are otherwise nice and normal are capable. See my example above if you need a refresher as to why.
Now if you-all feminists assert that I’m not having a good time too, I’d refer you to Queen Victoria, who is said to have just laid there, looked at the ceiling, and thought about the Empire. (I don’t believe this story, by the way.) And if you don’t like it, I’d advise you most earnestly to stop doing it. And if you’re married to a man, divorce him.
Speak for yourselves. I like it a lot.
Oh, red herring! My favorite! I’ll take mine with a dill-cream sauce please.
You know, it’s all about us feminists hating teh sex. Of course.
Hey, everyone runs their own relationship like they like it. No blame. I’m glad it’s working for you.
I’ve been married 39 years. We don’t ask every time, because we’re in better communication than that. (Heck, I know what he’s thinking before he knows it, and vice versa.) He knows, I know, all that. No, we don’t just think we know, we really do know. If you guys still need to ask, go for it. Ask away. Everyone is different.
Treating people you’ve never met like shit – while reprehensible – is different from treating the people closest to you like shit. You can do the one and just be a villain; I’d contend that you can’t do the other without being a sociopath. (Or a narcisist, or whatever label. Not Firing On All Thrusters, OK?) Of course being a sociopath does not and should not excuse one from criminal liability. I’m just pointing out that in a psychological – not legal – way, such persons are not exactly “normal.” Not like I like them normal anyhow. People with their heads together, who are still in spite of everything the majority of the population, don’t behave that way.
And in addition to whatever psychological label we want to slap on them, rapists are criminals according to the law.
Some of these people here are not interested in facts, Robert. They have an agenda which doesn’t have a lot to do with what is really going on, except in their own heads.
Sheelzebub,
People are either nice and normal all the time, even when the going gets rough, or they aren’t nice and normal at all. Being a good person isn’t something you turn on and off like a water tap. In fact, we don’t really find out how good a person is until they’re in a position where being good isn’t easy. Anything else is just PR.
There isn’t such a thing as someone who is “otherwise” nice and normal who engages in rape in his off hours. If he does that, he’s out of the “nice and normal” group. All the time. Permanently.
Susan: but you know, intercourse isn’t just the male “taking” something from the woman.
We’re talking rape, Susan, not “intercourse”. (“Taking” may still be the wrong verb, I suppose.)
I’d contend that you can’t do the other without being a sociopath.
“Sociopath” is a word with an actual meaning, Susan. It doesn’t just mean “any husband who thinks he’s entitled to sex with his wife whether or not she wants it”, though you are flinging it around as if it did.
In the US, marital rape accounts for approximately 25% of all reported rapes, and between 10% and 14% of married women experience rape in marriage. cite
Sociopaths are estimated to be about 4% of the population.
So, no, Susan: men who rape their wives may sometimes be sociopathic, but mostly, they’re just “nice, normal men” – who don’t bother to ask.
Some of these people here are not interested in facts, Robert. They have an agenda which doesn’t have a lot to do with what is really going on, except in their own heads.
Pot, kettle, black.
I don’t want to argue about the exact psychological definition of “sociopath.”
Men who have intercourse with women, whether they are married or not, whom they know or should know are unwilling, are not, by any rational definition, “nice” or “normal”. You may think that’s normal and nice; I don’t.
As I said before, good people are good all the time, not just when it suits them. If they have intercourse against the wishes of their partners, they’re out of the “nice and normal” category all the time, at least by me. Furthermore, they’re criminals according to the law.
Your point was what exactly?
I’m trying to figure this out.
Is it someone’s position here that rape is “normal” or “nice”? If so, I’d appreciate an up-front statement to that effect, and then we’ll deal with it. Does someone think that the majority of men have raped (or will rape, given the opportunity) and that that fact makes rape “normal” (as in, majority behavior)? Again, an up-front declaration about that would further the conversation.
It is my belief that rape is abnormal (ie, minority) behavior. The criminal law agrees with me, and saddles rape with prison time. Furthermore, both I and the majority culture view rape as unacceptable behavior, for which I would cite again the criminal statutes.
Rape under any circumstances whatever is criminal behavior under the law. It is sometimes a difficult crime to prove, but that does not dilute the strong statement made by the criminal statutes here. If the number of accused rapists we’ve heard about here really are convicted, the law is doing a good job as to those cases.
If many cases are not being reported, we need to work on the reasons that may be so.
But on the evidence it’s crazy to argue that rape is normal, nice behavior.
Susan: Men who have intercourse with women, whether they are married or not, whom they know or should know are unwilling, are not, by any rational definition, “nice” or “normal”. You may think that’s normal and nice; I don’t.
You probably know men who rape their wives, and you probably think they’re normal, nice men. You undoubtedly know men who have committed rape, and you probably think they’re normal, nice men. That’s the point: rape is a common crime. Men commit it who, to everyone except their victims, appear to be normal, nice men. Making inaccurate judgements about only sociopaths committing rape is about as helpful as assuming that only working-class men beat their wives.
If many cases are not being reported, we need to work on the reasons that may be so.
One reason it is so, is because people like you are all too ready to assume that when a normal, nice man claims he really believed the woman he raped consented, obviously he’s telling the truth, and she’s probably lying to cause trouble.
I must have missed it. Where did Susan claim this?
This may be true. I may also know men (and women) who are embezzlers, thieves, child abusers, whatever. If I think they’re nice and normal, I’m wrong, that’s all. I don’t know all the facts.
Also, one may believe that the corporation he embezzled consented. People can believe anything whatever, and sometimes do.
But to say that “people like me” believe this is to make a personal accusation. I myself don’t make those assumptions. I don’t know who this “people like me” may be. I can only answer for myself. I don’t make such assumptions. I am ready to believe that anyone whoever may be capable of whatever crime.
Not that I assume that the accusation is equivalent to the conviction. We don’t do it that way here. We believe that everyone accused is innocent until proven guilty. But I’m ready to listen to the evidence.
You don’t know me, Jesurgislac. We’ve never met. Aren’t YOU making a lot of unfounded assumptions about me?
“People like you.”
I get it. I think. I, and everyone “like me” (whoever that may be) are condemned out of hand. The poster knows all about our opinions. Before we have a chance to speak for ourselves, even.
I keep repeating myself.
Men who have sex against the wishes of their partner are rapists. Rape is a crime in my jurisdiction, which makes rapists criminals.
I agree with Susan and with anonymous – the “people like you” comment was out of line.
Although not as bad, this comment by Susan:
Was also out of line.
Please, let’s try to continue this discussion without refering to the other posters on “Alas” in derogatory ways such as “these people” or “people like you.”
Susan, I think there are two different understandings of the word “normal” going on in this thread.
You’re saying that being a rapist is not “normal” in the sense that most men don’t rape. That’s true.
Others are saying that rapists are “normal” in that, apart from committing rape, most rapists appear to be – and are accepted as – nice, normal guys. I think that’s true, as well. Nothing about that denies that rape is a criminal act.
Sorry, Ampersand. I don’t want to descend to personal attacks here. I was wrong.
Well, there’s obviously (to me at least) a big difference between looking normal and really being normal.
The biggest creeps in the world often look “normal.” In fact, when serial killers are apprehended, the most common comment from the neighbors is, “Gee, he seemed so normal.”
Yes, he probably did. But only a lunatic would argue that killing 43 nurses in a row and storing their bodies in your freezer is “normal” behavior.
Behavior for the neighbors often confuses. People can hold it together for short periods without really being normal, or sane even.
I fully recognize, as I think I’ve said at least three times, that people who look “normal” may nevertheless be rapists. However, I resist the conclusion that being a rapist is actually “normal” (as in, majority) behavior.
Thank you for your clarity here.
Ampersand: Please, let’s try to continue this discussion without refering to the other posters on “Alas” in derogatory ways such as “these people” or “people like you.”
You’re right, Amp. I apologise.
Susan: However, I resist the conclusion that being a rapist is actually “normal” (as in, majority) behavior.
Ah. Well, if you are redefining “normal” to mean “51%”, no, being a rapist isn’t “normal”: I doubt if 51% of men have committed rape. What word do you use, then, to describe the behavior of a large proportion of the population, more than 10%, less than 50%? That is, the proportion of the male population who commit rape, the proportion of husbands who rape their wives, and of the general population who justify rape and claim that it’s reasonable enough under some circumstances, or that the victim is actually responsible?
HC, I’m so sorry for what happened to you.
It was not your fault.
You did not deserve what happened.
You do not deserve to feel like it was your fault.
You do not deserve to feel suicidal for what happened.
It was NOT your fault.
You may never be the same but I hope that in time you will be able to put it aside. Not forget, because I suspect from my own experience that this is impossible. But please stop telling yourself that you are to blame, even in part. There are wonderful men in the world who would never have done what those men did that night. There are wonderful women who will support you. There is a lot of good in the world.
I have dark days when I feel hopeless and cry, wondering what it was that I did that made my lover think it was OK to rape me. Days when I feel fearful and think I see him in the street, or in a shop. But most days are good. Most days I do not have symptoms of PTSD and I do not feel depressed. Most days I recognise that it was his choice and I had nothing to do with it. The act was something he chose to do. I was there, but I did not choose to be part of it.
I choose not to feel guilty. He chose to rape me.
I, too, will never be the same. These days I am stronger. Growing stronger as time passes. Not physically stronger than him, that would never be possible. I suspect that one day I shall come across him again, perhaps even be put in a position where I am expected to work with him. I shall deal with that if and when it happens, but I shall do it with the support of people I trust. It will be OK. I believe that. I have to. It took me a long time to trust again and I regret that I no longer trust people absolutely… but that, too, makes me stronger. In a few years I may even be formidable. This makes me smile.
HG, try to identify all the myths and faulty logic that makes you feel as though you did something wrong. Break them down. Re-wire your thinking. You were not to blame. You are not to blame for feeling the way you do or thinking the thoughts you have. You cannot make other people think differently but you can change yourself. Take what power and choices you do have. You can make yourself stronger than you ever thought you could be.
I never sought counselling but I think I should have because I think it would have made me feel better earlier. It would have helped me to hear from others that they didn’t think it was my fault. But I didn’t want to be considered a victim. And I couldn’t even think about it without crying for months.
It was a really shitty thing that he did that day.
I’m sorry I was there at the time.
I’m sorry you were there when those guys did those things.
A big hug to you.
I’d like to know where you’re getting your numbers from, Jesurgislac, before we go on about what’s “normal.” Do have any hard (ie, peer reviewed, published) data to suggest that a substantial proportion of married men, say, have raped their wives? Or what you describe as a “large proportion”? I’d be interested in seeing your citations.
You have made that statement (that it is more than 10% and less than 50%). Where do you get this idea?
Jesurgislac, I could claim it’s 2%. Or 3%. I could make up any number I liked.
You victims, if it’s you it was 100%. I’m so sorry.
But I’m not willing to blame all men or most men or 20% of men or most normal-looking men – or anyone, really, except the actual perpetrator.
Jes,
I think you are slightly overestimating the number of rapists, and underestimating the number of people who think rape is understandable under some circumstances (but don’t do it themselves).
The statistics I have seen put the percent of men who rape closer to the 5-8 % category, and even the marital rape statistic can be read this way, if we assume that men who rape their wives tend to get divorced, remarry and rape again (which would not surprise me).
However, I agree that the 5-10 % category is a very different category from the 1-2% category, although it isn’t far off from the sociopath 4% estimate (particularly if we add in the entirely separate category of narcissists).
However, what sociopaths choose to do is still certainly socially influenced, as very few of them become murders, while even border-line and non-sociopaths choose to become rapists. So the question of what things in society make sociopaths, borderline sociopaths, and narcissists feel that they can reliably get away with rape is still an important one.
There is also the question of whether the percent of sociopaths and narcissists is inherent, or whether it is responsive to social influences.
Charles, all good.
But whether it’s 2% or 10% or whatever it is, these folks need to be restrained, by force if necessary. Whether it’s their “fault” or not, whether they are “sociopaths”, “borderline sociopaths”, just plain “weirdos” or whatever. I’m sure you’d agree.
However. I’d be interested in hearing where you get your “5-8 percent” figure, just for curiosity.
My point is, this kind of behavior is not “normal”, nor is it all that common, if your figures are accurate (and they sound about right to me). But even if it is common, rape is a crime; rapists are criminals. Criminals should be apprehended and restrained.
Are we arguing here? Why?
HC,
Echo what Barbados Butterfly said. It was not, and never will be, your fault. I would suggest counselling for you to go through your feelings in a safe place. You may find that group counselling is less intimidating. It is never too late to begin to heal.
Susan,
Absolutely no one here is arguing against that part of your argument (rape is a crime, and should be punished).
I think what people are arguing against is the idea (which I see as strongly implicit in much of your arguments here) that rape is simply a crime, and one committed by people who are basically wrong in the head, and that therefore there is not a whole lot that can be done about how many men rape. If that is not an idea you agree with, and you think that certainly the number of men who choose to commit rape is a product of the society, and not just the inexplicable wrongness of some people, then it doesn’t get conveyed very well in your writing.
I’m taking my numbers from stuff Amp has written previously. Looks like I inflated the 4.5% to 5 – 8%. Not sure if I had any basis for doing so (like having seen something else that said 8%). The 10-14% women raped by husbands Jes was mentioning is probably from a study Amp wrote about here.
Actually, simply searching this site for “rape statistics” will turn up a trove of articles about rape statistics sources and numbers, and Amp is an extremely reliable source when it comes to treating studies fairly and cautiously, in my experience.
Sorry, Robert but the fact of the matter is men get believed and women don’t…
Then why are there rape convictions? A few of them can be explained by preponderance of physical evidence. Most of them are cases of he said, she said. And there are convictions.
Odd that the observed facts and the facts as you describe them don’t mesh. Well, OK, not that odd.
Robert, what the fuck planet are you on, anyway? Rape is the most underreported crime there is, therefore the rate of conviction is shamefully low. You seem to care a whole lot more for sneering at feminists than in actually listening to what we say.
Rape under-reporting is a shameful thing, and I am inclined to agree with feminists who lay the blame for that on justice systems that are hostile to women’s rights and social structures that punish women for reporting rape, instead of punishing the men who commit the crime.
But when rapes are reported, the rate of conviction is quite high – higher than for crimes like assault by almost a factor of ten. (Thanks to Piny for posting the link to this very illustrative set of graphs).
This conflicts with your stated belief that men are believed and women are not. In a world where that is true, the conviction rate for rape is nearly zero. The conviction rate for rape is much, much higher than that – it’s half the rate for murder, and as any attorney can tell you, it is enormously easier to make a case against a murderer than a case against a rapist.
Do you have an idea for how to reconcile the conflict between your stated belief and the empirical data? You are angry at me for not listening to feminists – but you are a femininst, and I am listening to you, and what you are saying is contradicted by the data.
Interesting charts.
The rape conviction chart at first suggests that British juries have been tending to believe women less, while US juries have been tending to believe women more, but both trends are mirrored in the assault, burglary, and car theft trends. Whatever is causing US juries to convict more and British juries to convict less is clearly not specific to rape (actually, looking further, it may simply be lower rates of charging at all, so it may be a police issue, not a jury issue).
I started to write that you also needed to take into account cases in which a complaint was made to the police, but no charges were filed. Looking more carefully, those cases are included. Only the massive number of cases in which no complaint is made to the police, and the smaller number in which a complaint is attempted, but turned away by the police, are ignored.
However, I think women frequently are advised not to make a police complaint because there is little or no chance a case like theirs would win at trail, so the disbelief of women does push down the number of women going to the police.
Rape charging rates are so extremely low, that they can pretty much only include the most obvious and convictable of cases, where physical evidence of resistance are present, or the rape is between two people where lack of consent is likely to be obvious (mostly stranger rape). Marital or date rape without non-sexual physical violence is unlikely to be prosecuted (because women will not be believed in those circumstances) so they don’t have an effect on conviction rates.
If women were reliably believed when they press charges for rape, the conviction rate would be closer to 100%, and the frequency of charges would be much higher. And they would press charges far more often.
Obviously, ginmar’s statement can be read as being an absolutist statement, but that is not the only way to read it. Instead, it can be read as a generalized statement: “Women are more likely to be disbelieved, men more likely to be believed. When there is no evidence but their statements, and both appear to be reasonably credible people, the man will reliably be believed at the expense of the woman being believed.” I wouldn’t say she has provided strong evidence for this position, but rape conviction rates alone are certainly not a convincing argument against it.
To read her otherwise is to fail Amp’s standard of civility (unless she makes clear that she wishes to be read otherwise).
If women were reliably believed when they press charges for rape, the conviction rate would be closer to 100%
Examine your assumptions there.
Instead, it can be read as a generalized statement…To read her otherwise is to fail Amp’s standard of civility
I wouldn’t want to do that. Ginmar, were you making the rather absolute statement that I assumed you were making, or were you making the rather weak statement that Charles has interpreted?
HC, I hope you’re in therapy so you can stop thinking in that pattern (blaming yourself).
HC: addendum to my last comment – I just realized that you’re about my age, and I went off with guys alone a lot too in college. No actual intercourse, but I did tend to wander off with them for all sorts of fooling around. I’ve never been raped, and never experienced anything that by any stretch of the imagination could be called rape.
I could say I’ve been very very lucky, and I suppose I have, but everyone should be so lucky. My experience should be perfectly normal. Every 18-year-old should be free to wander off with anyone sie wants to without having to worry about being raped. I know things aren’t like that in the real world. But they should be. Not all men are rapists. Men need to identify the traits that make a man not a rapist and emulate them. Because obviously they’re having no luck doing the reverse (finding what makes a rapist and trying not to be like that).
I did worry, sometimes. But I’ve stopped worrying.
I don’t want to argue about the exact psychological definition of “sociopath.”
Considering the fact that you don’t know what the exact psychological definition of sociopath is (or antisocial personality disorder), I’d suggest you’d stop throwing the term around to explain away why men rape.
Is it someone’s position here that rape is “normal” or “nice”? If so, I’d appreciate an up-front statement to that effect, and then we’ll deal with it. Does someone think that the majority of men have raped (or will rape, given the opportunity) and that that fact makes rape “normal” (as in, majority behavior)? Again, an up-front declaration about that would further the conversation.
No one here said that rape was nice or normal–kindly read the posts here more carefully. I said–and several others agreed with me on this–that men who appear to be nice and normal to everyone have raped women, including their girlfriends and wives. There have been studies done on men who were convicted of raping their partners, and they did not all rate on any scale of mental illnesss, including sociopathy. What they all share is a sense of entitlement and superiority over women. Not necessarily people in general, but women.
I have an idea that the rapist’s sense of entitlement extends farther than just superiority over women. There has to be a lack of empathy in order to intentionally hurt another person, and that lack of empathy would show itself in other places. The man may appear nice and normal to his male friends, but be an open racist for example.
A quick question, what percentage of spousal rape occurs within an also physically abusive relationship?
Susan, for a full description of the clinical criterion for sociopthy you should check out this link.
I’m sure quite a few rapists fall into this category, probably most sexual predators. There are others that could be borderline especially if alcohol or drug addiction were involved.
However, there is a large portion of men who rape because they do not understand that what they are doing is rape. They take a woman’s tearful silence as consent, when in fact she is too terrified to speak. Some men still believe that “no” really means “I want to say yes, but I need you to persuade me”, and yeah I can believe there are some that just don’t care what the woman thinks.
None of this excuses the fact that our society lays the burden of proof on the victim — not the DA but the victim herself. That is what needs to change.
Well, yes. Criminals are often skilled at disguising their real nature by appearing to be “nice”. This is an appearance only.
The anger and personal attack in this post seem to me to be off topic. Even if Robert is the worst person on the planet, the topic of discussion remains what it is. Try making sense. What evidence do you have that “rape is the most underreported crime there is?”
Well, I don’t know whether criminals are “wrong in the head.” That would seem to excuse criminals, which I do not wish to do. I would say that criminals should be restrained, so that the rest of us do not have to deal with their behavior in the big picture. No society I know of has succeeded in preventing all criminal behavior, but maybe you are The One who has the answer? Go for it. We’re all on the edge of our seats.
Rape is a crime, in my jurisdiction. Accordingly, rapists are criminals. However, our legal system assumes that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even under these restraints, hundreds of convicted rapists are sent to prison every year. Do you have some problem with this analysis? And if so, what is it?
I don’t know what can be done about the number of men who rape. (Or, the number of men and women who murder, steal, whatever.) This question is a bit over my head. A lot of people who are a lot smarter than I am have pondered this, and not come up with anything much, but we’re all eager to hear what you might have to say about preventing criminal behavior.
I suppose that the number of men (and women) who commit murder is also “a product of society” as you put it (though all societies I know of have produced people like this), and if we could somehow change the society so that we no longer produced criminals of any sort, this would be great. Again,we await your insights on this point.
Mendy, I hear you, but our legal system assumes that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I know you wish rape could be an exception, but think for a minute what our society would be like if the accused of rape (or of any crime) were guilty until proven innocent. Think what powers the police would have. We don’t want that. Or I don’t want that.
I understand both the concept of reasonable doubt and “innocent until proven guilty.”
What I, and I believe most on this thread take exception to, is the underlying idea that what a woman wears has any bearing on her ability to consent. Or that how many sexual partners she’s had previously bears on her ablility to consent.
Oh, and you cannot introduce an accused prior bad acts unless you can prove a Molono (sp) exception that is the evidence is used to establish the accused’s MO. Now, I would ask why any rape victim’s previous consenual sexual encounters should be used in defense of an accused rapist? How would her previous sexual history prove or disprove her giving consent on this occasion? It seems to me that the use of these tactics is evidence of defense attorney’s playing on underlying societal beliefs…ie: “she was wearing a thong and is a slut.” “She’s had 50 partners and is a slut.” “And if she was a slut then she was asking for it.”
These are the attitudes that I want to fight. What bothers me is that there is an unlevel playing field in a rape case. Ie: her sexual history is relevant, but his is not even if it establishes pattern because it would be deemed “too predjudicial”.
I’m all for protecting an accused person’s Constitutional rights, but I am not for raking the victim’s over the coals to do it.
HC,
Thankyou so much for sharing your story with us. I can only guess at how difficult it must have been to do so.
Rape survivors are not statistics and some people need reminding of that.
The people responsible were the men who raped and tortured you. It doesn’t matter what risks you took, they are the ones who should answer for what they did.
I’d offer you a hug but I’m not sure if you’d like that…
Well . . . how about if the defense is claiming that the marks on an accuser’s wrists and ankles were from a consensual BDSM encounter, while the accuser testifies that she’s not into BDSM, and would not consent to that manner of sexual activity. In that case, introducing evidence that the accuser is, in fact, into BDSM seems absolutely proper. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO I’m not saying that “being into BDSM” implies consent for “any and all BDSM-type activities” in any way whatsoever, but if there’s evidence that demonstrates that the testimony of any of the primary parties is false (and thus would tend to draw their other testimony into question), it needs to be presented.
This is, of course, true for the accused as well.
If a white man is accused of raping a black woman, and part of his defense is that he’s never been interested in black women, and doesn’t find them attractive, and thus wouldn’t have been interested in sexual contact with one, it’s perfectly appropriate to bring up the fact that his last 35 girlfriends were all black. (and yes, for the purposes of this example, I’m ignoring that rape is a crime of violence, not sex, and thus not being attracted to a victim isn’t necessarily a barrier for the rapist. Relax, it’s just an example)
Now, I know that this isn’t how ‘past sexual histories’ are usually used in court, and yeah, I know they’re used to demonize the accuser and try to terrify them into not testifying, and yes, that’s a very very bad thing, and it needs to be addressed. I’m just pointing out that there are legitimate reasons for their use as well, and it’s not just a slam-dunk against.
So, Robert, any reaction to comment #95? Just curious.
Thanks for the cite. What other reaction should I have?
Glaivester:
Re #113:
That is a difficult question. I’m not sure if the civil trial system would work, and I admit that I don’t have an easy solution to the problem I mentioned (that either the rapist goes to jail, or she is a false accuser).
One possible solution could be closed trials. That is, the trials would be mostly behind closed doors. It would be for the benefit of the accuser and the accused, because there are always people who make judgements one way or the other, and why exactly would the popular opinion, as manipulated by (possibly) biased news coverage in search for shocking (and profitable) stories get to decide anything (not the trial, but the popular judgement, basically there are two trials, the actual legal one and public opinion)? Essentially, why should I have the right to know so much personal stuff about the alleged victim, or the alleged criminal? Perhaps the stuff should be opened for the public eye after the fair trial. I’m not sure if such suggestion is workable, while maintaining the principles of free speech and non-censorship.
Also, Richard Dawkins (I’m not his biggest fan, but he has written some good stuff too) has made a suggestion about “double-blind” jury. Two juries operating in the same case, and if both independently come to the same conclusion, case closed. If not, new juries. Obviously, such solution requires in some cases lot of work, but it would make sure that a hugely biased jury would not blow a trial that “should have gone the other way”. (I’m not sure there would be many juries in the world who would have found O.J. not guilty, for example.)
Problematic stuff, and more so for someone like me who isn’t a lawyer.
That was too abrupt. Let me expand.
I asked Jesurgislac for cites of something she presented as being normative; she came up with a thirty year old case. You have a cite of a case…from 15 years ago, which was followed up by the same guy getting nailed to the wall. Basically, I’m less than impressed with the level of evidence of a wave of incredibly lame excuses being accepted as indicative of valid consent by the patriarchy’s courts.
Does it happen? Undoubtedly. Am I being blown away by the level of it? Nope.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Susan,
So yes, the central disagreement does exist, and it is not over whether rape is a crime.
I don’t feel that I have any particularly exceptional insight into what can be done to decrease the rate of rape in this society. However, I tend to agree with the many ways that have been mentioned by many many other people in the hundreds of posts so far. The society needs to be changed to be less accepting and supportive of rape. Rape needs to become a crime that is more reliably punished, and for which there are far fewer apologists (and yes, I know you think there aren’t any apologists for rape, even though there have been several on Alas on various rape threads). How to do that is a question on which many many people have put a lot of thought and effort. Effort which you seem to find ridiculous.
That seems to me to be the central disagreement between you and many other posters here.
We just – 2003 – changed the law on consent for England and Wales to eliminate what was being read as consent by default in cases where the victim was in no state to consent or not consent.
Then this hapens …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1649328,00.html
Robert – is that recent enough for you?
Susan – http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042–b.htm – the Act is here.
Susan Writes: But whether it’s 2% or 10% or whatever it is, these folks need to be restrained, by force if necessary.
Except that so long as there is a cultural standard that says that women lie to cause trouble (as you suggested yourself further upthread); and that a husband who rapes his wife must be a sociopath and the man isn’t a sociopath and so he couldn’t have raped his wife (as you were close to saying upthread); and that what a woman is wearing, or how many previous partners she’s had, or whether she previously consented to have sex with the man, has any bearing on whether she consented to have sex with him this time; and that, in any case, rape is something women want – as strongly suggested by the many jokes about rape prevalent in this culture – so long as the US, or the UK, has a culture friendly to rape, rapists will neither be restrained nor feel themselves restrained.
Are we arguing here? Why?
You have persistently argued that victims ought to be disbelieved, that rapists ought to be believed, and that only sociopaths rape their wives. That’s why we’re arguing.
maureen,
the second link doesn’t work.
Sorry about that!
Here’s the link to the preamble page – http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042–a.htm#end
If – I hope not – you end up having to google for it the act is the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and I found the full text on the above Office of Public Sector Information site.
People, I just tested that second link and it does not work. Will see if I can find the text elsewhere but, as they say, I may be some time.
If those were the only instances were used in court I wouldn’t be that offended, but you see they aren’t. And it is a fact that you cannot introduce an accused rapists previous activities if no convictions were made. Well, you can’t at least in my state. And that is the problem as far as I see it.
The legal system is very concerned with protecting the rights of the accused, and rightly so, but in rape cases alone, those protections serve to make it nearly impossible for someone to be convicted. For example: If the accused rapist routinely refers to women as “sluts” that could and should be used to show a general dismissive attitude toward women. But that wouldn’t be introduced either.
I’m just saying that in order to fix the legal system we first need to look at society’s general attitudes about women.
Gee, Robert, are you actually asking me to clarify what I said instead of making one of your offensive assumptions?
Pointing to conviction rates for rape is stupid. As you yourself said, the report rate for rape is shameful. The latter means that only the rapes that the prosecutor thinks can be prosecuted go to trial. The rapist can avoid leaving DNA by wearing a condom. How come you don’t combine the two facts?
I’ve read too many books and studies and reports about rape to cite them all. You always assume, however, that I and other feminists are talking out of our asses. You do not appear to have read any of the same things that we have, which indicates to me that at least you’re not familiar with the concept of rape or with the feminist study of it. Why, then, are you hanging around on a feminist web site, making snippy remarks?
Men get believed by other men. Women do not. You’re kind of proof of it.
Ginmar,
I agree with everything you’ve said so far, but I think the idea that only men believe other men and only men disbelieve women is too simplistic.
The fact is that during the Kobe Bryant trial as many women as men were blaming the victim for her attack. And just as many women said that she was just doing it for the money.
The problem isn’t just men’s attitudes about this but also other women’s as well. It is a societal problem, and the attitudes of the entire society need to be changed.
Susan,
Well said. In rape (and, buying stolen goods, and many other crimes) the state of mind of the accused is relevant indeed. Needless to say, we don’t have to take the guy’s word for it, though. We apply a “reasonable person” standard.
Okay, the reasonableness standard only works if “reasonable” is objectively defined. In theft cases, we can assume that any reasonable person should find suspect someone selling high end electronics from the trunk of his car.
But, in rape cases the reasonableness of some arguments that juries accept is appaling. For example: A jury found that a woman who wore a sheer lace skirt with no underwear to be “reasonably aussumed” to be giving consent to sex. That is not reasonable. That is evidence of how our society views women as “asking for it” if she dresses in a way that is in the least bit provocative.
People have assumed that women under the influence of GHB or Rohipnol (sp?) that they didn’t willingly take could be reasonably assumed to have given consent, even though they had passed out. And yet, most people will tell you that it isn’t reasonable.
This is what I’m talking about. Underlying (unadmitted) social attitudes affect directly what juries consider reasonable. And demonizing or pilloring the victim of any crime is reprehensible, and yet I don’t see that happening in many theft, burglary, forgery, extortion, or fraud trials. I only see it in rape cases, sexual assault cases, and certain murder trials with sexual components. How is that *reasonable*?
Ginmar, your attack appears to come down on the side of the absolute interpretation of your remark. Were you making the rather absolute statement that I assumed you were making, or were you making the rather weak statement that Charles has interpreted?
but I think the idea that only men believe other men and only men disbelieve women is too simplistic
I don’t think anyone said this was an absolute. But it is a lawyer’s truism that women aren’t automatically going to be on the prosecution’s side in a rape case.
“Double-blind juries” and closed courtrooms are fucking stupid ideas, no offense intended.
wow what a controversial topic, first of all I think it is unfair that a victim has her past dragged through the mud for all to see, to show a pattern of behavior or whatever but a accused rapist gets all his past protected, why is that? how fair is that?
if the accused is so innocent why the cover up? if there is a definitly pattern to his behavior or attitude the victim has as much rights as he does if she is dragged through the mud so should he (or whoever it is).
it has only been a few decades since woman started to have more say in their lives, before back in the 1900’s and 1800’s and probably all the way back through human history, woman had two choices in life, except where there were exceptions, she could be a wife, mother or she could be a prostitute.
she was given the position that since she is weaker, she must be inferior, talking of course about a time period before technology, where physical strength was a necessity for survival. men generally are stronger, physically, and faster, so naturally these traits are honored and encouraged.
and woman were there for the men’s needs, servants as it were, (this is the way they were viewed and treated) if you were a man you had many options, you could be a carpenter, a horse trainer, a farmer, a ship faring guy, during times when there were ships, you could be a rancher, you could go where you wanted when you wanted, especially when this country was founded if you were a white male, so if you were female, black hispanic or whatever you were dirt or just a servant or both.
you also could pretty much do what you want without conscious or punishment, except for those behaviors at adversly affected other males, such as murder, theft that sorta thing, but if you wanted to neglect your family by traveling, leaving the wife and children to do all the tending you could, if you wanted to run around with your friends for days on end and neglect your family emotionally, physically (such as chopping wood or helping with repairs, or whatever) and even spiritually, you were not chastised for that.
but let a woman do the same thing and she is a terrible person for neglecting her husband or children to go out and have fun, or if she wanted to work outside the home that was afront to the husband and society standards and no one would hire her, heaven forbid that a woman has any freedom to enjoy life the way she wants too. (double standard as it were)if she was forced by circumstances to prostitute herself to avoid starving she is shunned as a wicked person, even tho socieity is to blame for that by not giving assitance or other alternatives.
if you had a little money you could own slaves in some areas, even today slavery is still in force. and have them do all the work for very little in return, even not feeding them enough. no one would fault you.
that attitude has not deminished as much as we would like it to, it is still carried from father to son, especially in households where the husband was treating his wife like a servant and person of no account, naturally children are going to grow up with the same attitude.
rape is no exception, a bad attitude is what causes a man (or some others to rape) to rape in the first place, and with society being so lack about teaching people, including men that they are responsible for their own behavior, and not someone else, as long as we excuse boys, (you know boys will be boys) or men they will the mentality and belief that they are entitled, but to avoid going to jail will imagine all kinds of things that to them means consent, and open window is not one of them, but some will try that
if a man wants to rape you he will make something up in his imagination, you know see what he wants to see regardless of the facts. I am sure you all have met people who see only what they want even when the facts are starring them right in the face? you can show physical evidence that the earth is round, but some people will belive it is flat no matter what (this is only an example) they just don’t want to believe it for whatever reason,
you can tell a rapist that an open window is not an invitation all you want he will not see that he sees only what he wants to see other wise he would have to admit he was wrong and heaven forbid a guy like that wouldn’t want to have to take full responsiblity for his crime.
, I can’t see how an open window would wash considering that half the neighborhood probably had their windows open because of the heat.did he rape any of those people? so the courts system really needs to clean up it’s act and if you do to one, expose past deeds of the victim then the accusor has no right to have his hidden.
that sense of entitlement has gotten to be addressed children need proper examples, and violators sent to jail or worse, that you are not entitled to have sex or steal their money of anyone just because you want it, they need to be taught that you have no right to hurt others just because you feel superior to them in one way or another.
I agree too about the corporations (the big shots in government and in companies too) do tend to look down on the poor man, and their workers are considered only a commodity to be used up, with minimal expense as possible, and that they are not human beings with the same rights as they do, this is something that have to conjure up in their minds to ease their consciousness (if indeed they have any) because if they didn’t they would feel guilty about exploiting the community in which they operate.
in fact I read a newspaper article that said that most of the ceos in large corporations fit the category of psychopaths, (I guess that means selfish greedy so and so who have no regard for anyone else but themselves, we all have selfish traits but these people take it to extremes to where they end up harming alot of people very severly.)
so this is what I read. I bet these same individuals (those in power one way or another) would think a guy raping a woman was a manly thing to do, of course they don’t call it rape they call it having fun.
RR
As you know very well, I have argued nothing of the sort. It’s kind of a waste of time to have a discussion with you, Jesurgislac. You can go back and read my remarks any time you want to.
Mendy, I’m certainly not arguing that our legal system could not stand improvement, in the area of rape and in every other area too. We’re pretty much trying to do the best we can with what we have to work with, but in a system administered by human beings there will always be miscarriages of justice.
I have not met the accuser in the Bryant case, nor have I ever met Mr. Bryant. All I know is what I read in newspapers, a notoriously unreliable source of information. Did Bryant rape her? Did she consent? Did she “just do it for the money”? I really have no idea. All these things are possible (but not all of them at the same time, of course.) We have courts to sort out questions like this, and a court did. They may have been right, or they may have been wrong. Both happen.
A very wise conclusion.
maureen;
I’m really not clear what happened in the case you’re talking about. It appears the woman in question couldn’t remember anything, and the case appears to have been brought to trial on the basis of the man freely admitting to having had consensual sex with the woman saying she couldn’t remember what happened, but would not have consented.
If you’re unconscious that will be taken as not having consented, and the onus shifts to the accused to prove consent. But she couldn’t remember whether she consented or not, and I’m not sure what they mean by “unconscious”, under cross-examination she seems to admit to having some recollection of what happened. Which would imply consciousness. It seems to me the case was brought upon really thin evidential grounds. What’s nasty is that something horrible has happened to someone, whichever scenario actually took place.
On top of all this there are people worried about women being taken advantage of while drunk, and advocating that “drunken consent” should not be valid.
Nik,
I only have information from the media which may or not be true and balanced. With that caveat, what seems to have happened is this. The woman had some alcohol while getting ready for a party – how much we don’t know. When she got to the party she had one drink and suddenly found herself more drunk than she had ever been, also feeling ill. At some stage the man, whom she had not met before, was walking her home. After that she has no memory of what happened. The next day she had flashbacks which she could not make sense of and on day three she sought help from the university welfare people.
When the man was interviewed by the police he said that they had had consensual sex. She says she did not realise that the sexual act had happened until the police told her about it.
So, there is a real question as to whether the woman was able to give consent to sex – either because she was very drunk indeed or because someone had slipped a date rape drug into the one drink she had at the party. I am not an expert here but the pattern described seems to match what I have read.
Under the law as it has been since the 2003 Act, where a doubt is raised as to whether the woman was able to give a valid consent – and it is raised here – then the defendant is supposed to explain how he came to believe that valid consent has been given and can be cross-questioned about it. Instead, the case seems to have been halted before this could happen.
For the case to get to court in the first place then both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service must have believed that the case was strong enough to be pursued.
I’m just a lay person watching from the sidelines but the fact that Vera Baird QC MP – who is an expert here and who helped steer the 3003 Bill through – is making an almighty fuss and the fact that both the Lord Chancellor and the Director of Public Prosecutions are conducting enquiries and have said publicly
that they are doing so give me some confidence that my own reading of the case is not a million miles off track.
Amp quite rightly wanted to enjoy his Thanksgiving festivities but he has the full text of the new Act and when he has time will patch it together from several e-mails and post it for reference.
Am not sure, Nik, where on the planet you are so if anything I’ve said does not make sense do, please, ask again.
None taken. Heh. That line of thought sure didn’t get far.
I’m not sure what the rule is here in the States – and of course it is probably different in different States – as to the “rape” of a woman who is seriously drunk.
I do know that certain mentally-challenged women and women below a certain age are held as a matter of law to be unable to consent, whatever they say or do. This is sort of an inherent diminished capacity.
If a man is drunk and commits a crime (say, murder) he may in fact have been so out of it that he could not form the requisite intent to be charged with a crime. (Remember, crimes always require some intent.) Suppose for our case here that he’s hooting drunk, doesn’t know who he is or where he is, and strikes down his victim and doesn’t even remember the incident later.
It then becomes a question: how did he get drunk? Was it at such a time and such a place that getting drunk was reckless? Well, then, he will not be heard to complain later that he should be let off his crime because he was drunk, because whose fault is that? On the other hand, if someone slips him a drug without his knowledge, his plea of diminished capacity has quite a bit going for it.
Lack of the woman’s consent is an element of the prosecutor’s case in a rape trial – that is, he or she has to prove that the woman did not consent. I certainly would argue – to what effect I do not know – that a severely intoxicated woman is temporarily incapable of consent, and that the reasonable man should know that. That is, that sex with her under those conditions may well be rape, and probably is. How she got drunk, whether voluntarily or not, should not be an issue in that case, because she didn’t then run off and commit a crime; she was the victim of a crime. Men who stumble drunk into dark alleys and are mugged are not held responsible for the mugging, and the assailant’s crime is not lessened by the incapacity of the victim. The law does not require us to be cold sober all the time lest we run afoul of some predator.
What if the rapist is the one who gave her the drug that knocked her out in the first place, and we can prove that? Well, now his goose really is cooked, and they’ll get him for assault as well as rape as well as God alone knows what else. As well they should, the creep.
but a accused rapist gets all his past protected, why is that?
Because in most crimes, we don’t want a jury or a judge to say “Hey, this guy’s been bad in the past, so he must have been bad now.” There are exceptions, but what we want to prove is that this defendant is guilty of this crime–not that he’s a criminal so who cares if the bad guy was him this time or not.
Susan: You can go back and read my remarks any time you want to.
You can, too. But I don’t suppose you will think about what you’ve said in this thread.
Mendy, women would not have any reason to disbelieve other women were it not for the example set by men. If you bash other women, you’re one of the guys instead of one of those nasty women.
Gee, look, there’s Robert totally ignoring anything I said. What a shock.
Nik, did you get the part where the rapist in case of the drunken woman was a security guard who she asked to walk her home? It was his job to keep her safe from rape. Instead he raped her.
Susan: Lack of the woman’s consent is an element of the prosecutor’s case in a rape trial – that is, he or she has to prove that the woman did not consent.
And there, I guess, is the key problem – so long as the default state of all women is assumed in law to be consent to sex, then it will always be incumbent on the victim to prove she didn’t consent, never on the man in the dock to prove she did.
And it’s much harder to prove a negative than to prove a positive.
Well, how about “so long as the default state of all defendants in criminal cases is assumed in law to be innocence, then it will always be incumbent on the prosecution to prove the defendant comitted the crime, never on the defendant in the dock to prove he didn’t. “
Hm, Jesurgislac, interesting suggestion. So….
Now, as it is, we assume that she did consent – that is, we assume, as to this element of the crime, that the alleged rapist is innocent. A man and a woman have sex, and the law assumes that she consented to that, that is, the law assumes that it was not rape. The prosecutor has the burden of proving that she did not consent, that is, that it was rape.
But if we start out with the assumption that she in all cases did not consent, we’re assuming that every sexual act is rape unless proven otherwise – that is, we’re assuming that every man accused of rape is guilty, and it’s up to him to prove that she consented.
This turns our legal system on its head. For a thousand years, we’ve assumed that everyone charged with a crime is innocent unless the State can prove the contrary “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is true of all crimes, including rape. Englishpeople and Americans have long had a wariness of the State and of State power. Thus, we turn a lot of guilty people loose, believing that that’s better than convicting the innocent. (Of course that happens too, but the dice are weighted in the other direction.)
This rule is not written in the stars, and there are legal systems which make the opposite assumption. I don’t want to live in any of them, and I’d guess you don’t either, but I could be wrong about that.
first of all I think it is unfair that a victim has her past dragged through the mud for all to see, to show a pattern of behavior or whatever but a accused rapist gets all his past protected, why is that? how fair is that?
actually, rape shield laws prevent the inclusion of the accuser’s past even when it is relevant to the case. defendants are offered no such protection. i am not sure where you got this from.
Well, how about “so long as the default state of all defendants in criminal cases is assumed in law to be innocence, then it will always be incumbent on the prosecution to prove the defendant comitted the crime, never on the defendant in the dock to prove he didn’t. “
that would be a nice idea, but unfortunately in these situations it is one person’s word over the other. i think the disconnect here is that the accuser does not have the burden of proving the case; that lies in the hands of the prosecutor. if the prosecutor fails, the rape may or may not have actually happened, but it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.