I could write paragraphs and paragraphs about Bernard-Henri Lévy’s bizarre and disgusting HuffPo article, in which he does a premature touchdown dance at the prospect of the freeing of convicted child rapist Roman Polanski. Were I to do so, I’d probably start by noting that Lévy is wrong to say Polanski is about to be freed; at best, Polanski is about to be released on a $4.5 million bond, will have to wear an ankle bracelet, and remains without a passport. The extradition hearing remains, and is considered a slam dunk by most legal experts; Polanski is far from having been “freed.”
Were I to go on, I’d probably note Lévy’s deep concern that Polanski’s children have evidently been taunted in school because their dad’s a convicted fugitive child rapist. Now, that’s not fair to Polanski’s kids — they didn’t choose their dad, and one can’t blame them from the fact that their dad once forcibly raped a 13-year-old. But one can’t help but wonder whether Polanski’s children would face taunts if Polanski had paid his debt to society when it was due. Or, for that matter, if he had simply made the very easy decision not to rape a child.
I could go on in this vein for some time, pointing out the factual errors in Lévy’s piece, his pathetic attempt to paint Polanski as some sort of political prisoner, or the fact that not once in the article does Lévy even acknowledge that Polanski was ever even accused of drugging, forcibly raping, and sodomizing an underaged girl, not to mention the fact that Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape in the case, then fled before he could be sentenced.
I could note all this, but I won’t, because nothing I can say would be more damaging to Bernard-Henri Lévy’s credibility than these, his own words, as written:
I am mostly thinking about him: Roman Polanski, who I don’t know, but whose fate has moved me so much. Nothing will repair the days he has spent in prison. Nothing will erase the immense, unbelievable injustice he has been subjected to. Nothing will take away the hysteria of those ones who have never stopped pouring contempt upon him, hounding him through hatred and asking for his punishment as if we were living the darkest and most ferocious hours of the McCarthy era all over again. At least the nightmare is about to end. At least the end of the hell is looming. And this, for the time being, is what does matter.
Lévy wrote these words, sincerely, about a convicted child rapist and fugitive from justice. Nothing I could possibly say would be more damning than that.
Amen.
I may be Right leaning Libertarian but occasionaly we agree.
In this, and this alone, may you have many comrades in cause.
Roman Polanski must face some form of American justice.
Ah, once again common ground between left and right. Don’t we all owe a debt of THANKS to the great Mr. Polanski for making this harmony possible?
(No.)
Who is this Levy person, anyway? Wh0 are these people so eager to justify Polanski? Why do they not see the monstrosity of what he did? How can creating any film justify it?
Who the hell is this Bernard-Henri Lévy’ guy?
Hm, let me wiki him … tappety typety typety.
Oh. Awesome:
Wikipedia, I love you.
—Myca
Breathtaking hysteria and cluelessness from Bernie. “McCarthy era?” “The decision to free Roman Polanski?” If Polanski gets extradited and tossed in the clinker, there’s going to be an extra skip in my step just thinking of Bernie’s pain.
Nothing like a little Schadenfreude to make ones day.
I bet the woman who survived what he did wishes it was over for her. I bet she wishes there was something that could erase the injustice done to her.
But she doesn’t matter. She’s only a slut. A good girl wouldn’t have let it happen. And bad girls deserve rape. [/sarcasm]
I wonder if this guy has spent even 1/2 a hour reading up on Sen. Joe McCarthy and what he did, or if he just picked up a buzzword.
RonF–
You wonder? I don’t. It’s the latter.
He’s a major philosopher, former Marxist turned anti-Marxist; it’s literally inconceivable that he doesn’t know what McCarthyism means. I suspect rather that he is using “McCarthyite” as a synonym for authority, and he’s quite an anti-authoritarian. Which, good, I’m on his team there…but I can live with the amount of authority required to make it clear to everyone that raping people, particularly underaged people, is Not OK.
Robert: As long as men make the rules, rape will always be winked at. The legal rules are basically: don’t get caught. I wish there were stricter legal penalties, but all the penalties in the world don’t seem to stop the problem. I kind of see the whole Polanski thing as a forgone conclusion: he bought his way out once and he’ll do it again.
Politicalgunieapig, how would you change the laws?
If this was a case of rape being winked at, Roman Polanski would not have been arrested and charged with a crime all those years ago. Instead of having been arrested in Switzerland and worrying about being extradited he’d have been living in California all these years.
Of course, the social circles that he moves in currently apparently DO wink at drug-assisted statutory rape. You have to wonder about that. But the State of California isn’t winking at it, nor the majority of Americans who are aware enough of the situation to have and express an opinion.
You know what the first penalty he got was? 80 days. He would’ve been out in a little more than four months. Now, admittedly, he might’ve gotten harsher penalties. (Depending on the judge, as there are a lot of dinosaurs out there.)
And I really don’t know how to change the laws. The death penalty certainly wouldn’t work.
Maybe setting up restrictions on men’s movements and disallowing men from gathering in groups would stop the problem. But a bill like that wouldn’t have a hope of passing.
It would help a lot if rape victims didn’t end up on trial and rape wasn’t regarded as a he-said, she-said crime. But that’s just my little personal dream.
Polanski escaped before he was sentenced.
You know what the first penalty he got was? 80 days.
You’re going to have to supply a citation for that. I just did a search and what they all say was that Polanski fled prior to sentencing.
It would help a lot if rape victims didn’t end up on trial and rape wasn’t regarded as a he-said, she-said crime
Sexual intercourse may be consensual. Or not. The sex act itself (positing that everyone involved is capable of consent) is not criminal. In cases where there are no witnesses and there is no physical evidence of abuse or force how else can you evaluate guilt or innocence but from the testimony of the only two people who were there?
Politicalguineapig:
And thank God for that. It sounds alarmingly fascist, and I’m quite surprised to see a feminist positing it as a solution to oppression.
He was ordered to spend 90 days in prison for psychiatric evaluation. He was released after 42 days. That evaluation was to be used in sentencing. I think this is what Politicalguineapig was referring to.
Why the surprise? The outlawing of pornography, limits on first amendment rights (hate speech laws), and limits on free speech on campus (political correctness) are all legitimate parts of the feminist movement, so its safe to say there is an authoritarian aspect to feminism.
@PoliticalGuineaPig
Edit: never mind, I shouldn’t feed the troll. Obvious troll is obvious. It’s even in the handle – Political Guinea Pig. Somebody is trying to see exactly what kind of outrageous crap they can post and what will be shouted down.
Similar to going over to freepville and posting about wanting to do mass castrations in the middle east.
And Manju fell for it, and is holding it up as some sort of exemplar of feminist authoritarianism.
I was just pointing out that that is about the only way I can think of to keep rape crimes down.
Jake Squid: Oh, it was for psychiatric evaluation? I always thought that it was the penalty itself.
Look, Politicalguineapig, I understand your anger and reaction … I really do. I think that anyone with a lick of sense has got to understand that men as a class have been oppressing women as a class for millenia, and that there is a lot of completely justified rage built up around that.
The problem with this (and with a lot of your comments), then, is not just that your proposed solution would be harsh but that it would be ineffective. Ineffective in that it doesn’t actually address the vast majority of rapes that take place, and, in fact, doesn’t address the Roman Polanski case that the original post is about.
Ending rape culture means changing our culture so that men do not see women as objects. Doubtless there are many legal steps before that that would help in the meantime, but your proposal is not one.
—Myca
Heh, I was going to post exactly what Myca just posted but thought “they don’t want to hear it from me”.
@Silenced is Foo:
I, too, disagree with PoliticalGuineaPig’s statements on this topic. However, we probably shouldn’t judge a comment based on internet handles. For the record, I did not realize how obnoxious mine sounded until I’d been on here a while, and by that time, hey it’s hard to change it.
@PoliticalGuineaPig:
I know nothing about you, but it seems like this topic is very triggering for you. All men are not rapists, though, nor do they all have the potential to be. Some would sooner kill themselves than harm someone in that way. I am privileged to know and love someone who is this way. I hope for the same experience for you. Not all men are wolves, and to buy into that notion is to disconnect from reality in the same way that not all women are prudes/whores. It’s a label, and labels can be very harmful.
“All men are not rapists, though, nor do they all have the potential to be.”
But women can’t tell them apart.
Why do people squawk about how UNFAIR it would be for the movement of men to be restricted when as women our movements have been restricted by the threat of rape since, like, ever?
Why do people squawk about how UNFAIR it would be for the movement of men to be restricted when as women our movements have been restricted by the threat of rape since, like, ever?
Because it would be unfair.
Yes, it is unfair for women to have to live with the threat of rape. But women will be living with the threat of rape regardless of what punitive actions are taken against men, short of sending us all off to some Pacific island.
Similarly, it is unfair that law-abiding people have to be frightened of walking through Central Park at night because of teenage gangs. But that genuine fear and harm to the law-abiding doesn’t justify (or make fair) us locking up all teenagers.
It’s fundamental to the Enlightenment view of the world that we do not punish an entire group for the sins of a subset without overwhelmingly powerful justification. Effectiveness might be such a justification; if we really could put a huge dent in rape by making men wear RFID collars or what have you, it might be justifiable.
But we know that wouldn’t work; rape isn’t the kind of crime that is drastically reduced by restricting people’s material circumstances, it’s reduced by changing people’s hearts.
Fascism with a Feminist face.
Would you agree, then, that people who tell women not to go out alone at night are fascist?
The argument is that in order to prevent women from being raped, women’s freedom of movement is regularly restricted … but women do not, generally, commit rape, so surely if we’re going to restrict any group’s freedom of movement, it ought to be the group most likely to rape.
That’s men.
—Myca
Robert, you’re treating the threat of rape as if it’s an immutable and unchanging factor, which is nonsense. It’s not a force of nature. We can’t change hurricanes and we can’t stop earthquakes, but the current culture of rape is created by social factors we can change.
Rape is, in fact, a threat right now, as opposed to a risk: it’s threatened to keep women in line, whether it’s threatened overtly and directly by individuals or (more often) by the background hum of a culture in which everybody knows that going out at night, drinking too much, flirting or sleeping around with guys you don’t know well, or being in certain parts of town will get you raped (but only if you’re a woman); and also that once you’re raped, trying to have it taken seriously as a crime is a fool’s errand.
When rape is taken seriously as an abomination and a crime, when rapists rather than the raped are shunned socially, when men are as concerned with preventing and punishing rape as women are, when rape victims are treated respectfully and compassionately, when sexual force and violence are never glorified and when our cultural sexual story is not one of dominance and conquest, in short, when rape is unacceptable instead of winked at, THEN we can discuss how there is a certain irreducible amount of sociopathy among the human species and how a small proportion of people will always hurt others.
But we won’t need to have that conversation in this same context, because rape will have ceased to be a threat that restricts the movements and freedoms of women as a class. Trufax.
Or, as Myca said more succinctly than me, there’s already a class of human being restricted. If unfairness can be quantified, it seems to me like it would be less unfair to restrict the group victimizing rather than the group being victimized.
After all, if the victimizing group doesn’t like being restricted, they can choose to stop victimizing; the victim group doesn’t get that option.
Eh. In either case, lots of entirely innocent people — women in one case, the large majority of men who aren’t rapists in the other case — are being unfairly victimized. So from the “fairness” perspective, I see them as being about equal.
(ETA: To clarify, I’m saying that restricting the movements of innocent people is unfair, regardless of the sex of the people whose movements are restricted. I’m not comparing rape itself to restricting movements.)
I do think there are real steps which can be taken to reduce rape. This isn’t one of them.
This is Jeff’s thread, but it might be suggested that comments ought to flirt with the topic a bit more substantively.
Yeah, I’m with Ampersand.
I do think that there’s a difference between de facto restriction and legal restriction, and were legal restriction likely to be effective in ending rape, we could have that discussion.
I just don’t think it would be.
I think it’s instructive that the vast majority of rapes are acquaintance rapes, which would be unlikely to be affected by restrictions on movement, and that the rape which started this discussion is one which would not have been affected by a restriction on movement.
(See how I brought it around to the topic, Mandolin? The king of segues, I tell you.)
—Myca
Nice segue, Myca. I’ll just note that I wasn’t actually suggesting that men be placed under curfew — I don’t think that would reduce rape very much and yes, it would be unfair.
I just think it’s interesting that the “UNFAIR!!1!eleven! Most men are nice guys!” objection is the loudest one usually made to the idea, not “Well, you know, I don’t think that would be very effective because X, Y and Z”. Very illuminating of male privilege.
OK, done off-topicking now, I promise.
I agree, considering only 10% of rapes are by strangers; thus restricting the movements of men wouldn’t save women from rape by their friends, fathers, husbands, brothers, professors, etc etc.
I also agree with kristinc to an extent; rape is definitely a threat used to control the movements of women. However it’s a bit more nuanced and far more overreaching, in my opinion. Rape as a threat is used to control all of womens behavior, from remaining in the home/only traveling with men or groups (here the rape threat is used to keep women from claiming/using independence or claiming sexual independence, either taking a lover when her father does not approve or taking a lover when her current lover does not approve) to voluntarily giving sexual access to male partners (marital rape was legal until quite recently in the USA; constant coercion and pressure is used to ensure women give access to their male partners, lest it be taken), etc etc. It is the tool to ensure physical, mental and emotional control over women and girls by men (and sometimes boys but this is complicated since children are an oppressed class too). It is using our worst fear to keep us toeing the line and it is most certainly not an idle threat (we know it can and will happen since many of us have been sexually assaulted and all of us know a loved one who has been sexually assaulted – what’s the statistic these days, between 1:4 and 1:6 women I believe). The rape threat (and we might consider the threat of violence or domestic violence as a subset of the overarching rape threat) is used as a tool of social control of all of womens behavior to ensure that their behavior benefits men. It’s much more overreaching and has an entirely different purpose than restricting movements (I see the restricting movement as more of an effect of the rape threat not as the purposeof it.) In that sense comparing the “social”* restriction of women’s movements due to the rape threat and the “legal”* restriction of men’s movements to prevent rape is a false comparison. The former is part of a larger system of oppression to keep teh wimminz in line and reaches into every waking part of the life of a female, whereas the latter does no such thing to men. They’re simply different systems.
But it’s a bit of a silly argument to begin with; as we can see here no one is really arguing that anyone’s movements be restricted and under the current social and legal framework it could never happen anyway, leading us back to the solution of changing the hearts and minds of oppressors. Which means that given either solution, I won’t be holding my breath :/
*I would also argue that the rape threat is actually a legal framework in and of itself, since if a woman does not comply with the behaviors outlined by it, she cannot get justice under the “reasonable doubt” loophole. It’s just cleverly codified under “social stigma” but it certainly affects women’s legal rights day in and day out.
and also that once you’re raped, trying to have it taken seriously as a crime is a fool’s errand.
Really? Are you stating that if a woman walks into a police station or makes a call to 911 and says that she’s been raped, trying to get herself taken seriously is a fool’s errand? I’m having a hard time believing that. What evidence do you have to support that?
When rape is taken seriously as an abomination and a crime, when rapists rather than the raped are shunned socially,
Certainly in my social circles rape is taken seriously as an abomination and a crime, and a rapist would be socially shunned. The Roman Polanski case would indicate that this doesn’t appear to be the case in Hollywood and the European artistic/intelligensia communities, but then their immorality is almost literally legendary. They can’t possibly be taken as indicative of culture as a whole.
I am very very sorry about what happened to that poor girl – now a woman. But one useful thing that has come out of this case is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of a great many supposedly “progressive” people who now are exposed as having their politics and philosophies based on quite vile morality.
Ron, there are countless women who have experienced their rapes not being taken seriously by police — especially when, as is usually the case, the rapist was a boyfriend, husband, date or friend.
Of course, individual police departments vary, and so do individual officers. So, for that matter, do all individuals. It’s not correct to say that rape is never taken seriously by anyone; it’s also not correct to go to the other extreme, as you seem to be doing, and claim that rape not being taken seriously, being dismissed as a “misunderstanding,” as “just bad sex,” as “morning after regrets,” etc., virtually never happens (except among Hollywood and Euro sorts).
Myca: and were legal restriction likely to be effective in ending rape, we could have that discussion.
A short discussion. Unless by legal restriction you mean “men cannot leave the continent of Antarctica” restricting men’s movements restricts women’s movements. If men are forbidden to approach women, women are forbidden to approach men. I.e. women become forbidden to enter locations where males gather.
Women must also be incapable of giving individual, case-by-case consent to a man’s approach or the legal restriction again has no meaning, so any male-female interaction not approved by a higher authority becomes immoral.
Men who support such restrictions use threats or violence or shaming to keep unapproved males away, while women help by using threats or violence or shaming to ensure “good girls” do not entice, tease or solicit the attention of unapproved males.
Does this sound familiar?
What I’m saying is that I view the statement “once you’re raped, trying to have it taken seriously as a crime is a fool’s errand.” as invalid. I never said any such statement as you wish to imply that I have. I also said that I doubted that stating that rape is currently not “taken seriously as an abomination and a crime” does not seem valid to me either. I’m sure it’s taken damn seriously by the great majority of police officers and departments.
That doesn’t mean that they will make an arrest and prosecute a crime regardless of a lack of evidence, however – which is often the case when there’s no witnesses other than the two people involved. If that’s someone’s definition of “take seriously” then their expectations are an issue.
I wonder if we might be conflating effect and purpose more generally. Do people really believe that all men are engaged in a conspiracy of violence for purposes of controlling “all women’s behavior”? What interest would I have in promoting another man’s control of his wife/girlfriend/daughter? Don’t I have a primary interest in ensuring that other men do NOT control their wives/girlfriends/daughter?
Maco, your comment makes very little sense.
The laws in question (which I repeat, I do not think are a good idea) would likely be things like a curfew or a restriction on public gatherings of men. It’s possible that someone meant to criminalize male-female interaction, but that seems like a remote possibility.
—Myca
Topic, oh topic, where have you gone?
Out the front door, across the front lawn…
Topic, oh topic, I miss you so.
Over land, over sea, over sand, over snow…
Topic, oh topic, I know we ignored you.
But topic, oh topic, I swear we adored you.
Far past the sun and the moon and the stars
Toward the black holes, nebulae and quasars…
Topic, oh topic, our future seems black.
Topic, oh topic, please won’t you come back?
Where the vacuum is cold and there’s nothing around.
Nothing, no nothing. I’ll never be found.
Myca: It’s possible that someone meant to criminalize male-female interaction, but that seems like a remote possibility.
Whatever they meant, it seems an inevitable end to this line of thinking. As I consider what kind of conditions make rape difficult to get away with or easy to prosecute, they seem wedded to restrictions upon the victims right to have consented in the first place.
Only in your mind.
You are the only person saying this, period.
This is simply not the way anyone else sees it, and for good reason.
—Myca
So what conditions or changes in the law would make it easier to charge, prosecute and convict rapists? How practical would they be? Would it be possible while still conforming to the Constitution?
I think an easy one would be a ban on introducing evidence of a victim’s past sexual history, or at least requiring a ruling from the judge on relevance before its introduction. I can see some situations in which it might be relevant, but most of the time it boils down to, “She was a fuckin’ slut, and you can’t rape a slut.” The more that shit is expunged from our legal system, the better.
Also, I think addressing the frequently cavalier manner in which many police departments dismiss rape allegations is a good idea. Maybe through either internal audits or through citizen oversight, which would likely be more effective.
—Myca
Easy?
Ban the admission of the accuser’s history, unless it’s relevant, or if it doesn’t make the accuser look bad, or if the judge wants it in.
Well, no loopholes there. I’m sure once you’re a lawyer, you’ll fix that oversight right away.
Myca, you sound as though you are very casual about sex, but you admit a woman probably can’t harm you legally the way our laws are set up. You’re comfortable because you’re safe.
If a woman chose to use evidence of sex with you as evidence of rape, and you knew we would listen to her, and you knew we would investigate you, and knew we would not investigate her, how would your rights be protected?
I think decriminalizing prostitution and other sex work would help, as “you can’t rape her if she sells it” is a common barrier to sex workers getting help (and the threat of being prosecuted as an offender rather than treated as a victim – big issue when dealing with trafficked minors here in Oakland).
But I think the main barrier is not legal, it’s sociological. Until we really believe, as a society, that women never owe men access to their bodies no matter what (which is a belief that goes right down to the “hey, smile!” directives women get, and is tangled firmly up with the beliefs about drunk women being responsible for “getting raped” that are so prevalent), male/female rape will be difficult to prosecure. And until we really believe that being female/feminine is not inherently worse than being male/masculine, male victims will continue to have a hard time getting justice as the inherent stigma of having been “feminized” or “punked” by rape will stand in the way.
Agreed.
Yes, actually. Compared to a lot of things, it is easy.
Rape Shield Laws already exist throughout a lot of the United States (and there are similar statutes in Canada and the UK) but they vary in strength. In fact, if you check out this post from Feministing, you’ll see a case in which, despite the rape shield laws, evidence of the victim’s past sex life was introduced … and surprise, surprise, it was in exactly a “she’s a slut, so nobody would have had to rape her” kind of way.
What I’m proposing is that we tighten these rules up to avoid nonsense like that. Yes, there are loopholes, certainly … but Maco, your “the only way to avoid rape is to institute sharia law” act is getting real old. I don’t even believe that you believe it, much less expect us to believe it.
My rights would be protected in precisely the same way as anyone else accused of a crime.
Look, if I allege that someone mugged me, there will be an investigation. Maybe there are witnesses, maybe not. Maybe there’s physical evidence, maybe not. In either case, nobody is going to investigate my past to find out if I’m in the habit of ‘giving out money’. And if it did come out that I regularly donated money to charities, that wouldn’t be evidence that I wasn’t ‘really’ mugged.
I wouldn’t be under investigation because I would be the victim. That’s how this shit works.
—Myca
In fact, it looks like the UK did precisely this several years back.
—Myca
Maco,
Your assumptions about other people’s arguments are bizarre and your responses to Myca a shade too personal. Try to restrain yourself to arguing against actual opponents, and doing so politely.
Pingback: NYO Fail, Part the First: In Which I Discuss Double Standards | Blog of the Moderate Left
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » NYO Fail, Part the First: In Which I Discuss Double Standards
I can agree with those proposals. I’d think that there might be some relevance as to whether or not the complainant had a sexual history with the person they’re accusing (and then only to a limited extent), but otherwise I wouldn’t see why the fact that a woman had an active sex life – amateur or professional – would be relevant to a given sexual episode.
Myca, I actually once had my credit cards physically stolen. The person who ended up using them charged a lot of lingerie, perfume, etc. for what turned out to be his … independent contractors. Turns out that those were consumables in their line of work. Anyway, he went to the well once too many times and got caught using the cards. His claim when he went to court was that I had GIVEN him the cards to use. Once I showed up in court prepared to testify that he was lying, and showed up a second time after the first continuance, he took a plea.
Entertaining incident – the cops were apparently worried I’d stop showing up. After the first continuance the ADA took me into a meeting room near the courtroom and started to pump me up, in front of a couple of Chicago cops (non-threatening – I was the good guy here), about showing up. “This guy’s a real bad actor. His file right here [waves a file folder in his hand], which I can’t show you because it’s not legal, tells all kinds of things he’s done. But I can’t show you, I’m not allowed. This file right here [puts it on the desk].” Then another cop sticks his head in the door and says “Hey, everybody come quick!” and they all run out. So of course I go right to the desk and pick up the file and read through it to the tune of the yelling and screaming from the holding cells next door. Multiple counts of assault, battery, theft and “profiting from the proceeds of prostitution” which I guess is the legal definition of a pimp in Cook County.
Mandolin, this was at 26th and California. For the rest of you – you don’t ever want to be on the defendant’s side of the bench or the bars at 26th and California. No, no, not at all. I keep threatening to take the kids in the Troop down there for a field trip. Just sit in a courtroom for a couple of hours and let them listen to what’s going on. I think it would make sure they have second thoughts when one of their buddies says “Hey, let’s [do_something_stupid]”.
Right, exactly. But you know what I’ll bet there wasn’t? I’ll bet there wasn’t an inquest into whether you were a profligate spender … and even if you were a profligate spender, nobody would think that that must mean you’d given your cards to the person in question.
(Not that I’m accusing you of thinking these things, of course. I think you pretty much ‘get it’.)
—Myca
W brings criminal and civil actions against M for rape.
M raises the affirmative defense of consent. Specifically, M claims that he asked W to have sex with him for money, W consented and they had sex. M also claims that he did not pay and never intended to. W denies M’s account and moves to bar the introduction of M’s affirmative defense on three grounds. 1) Even if M’s account were accurate, it does not represent an affirmative defense because inducing someone into sex by fraud is still rape. 2) Even if M’s account were accurate, the defense should be barred for violating a public policy against permitting people to benefit from their own fraudulent conduct. 3) Even if M’s account were accurate, the allegations are unduly prejudicial to W.
At trial, M seeks to introduce evidence of W’s history of past (uncompensated) consensual sexual encounters with M, and evidence of W’s prior convictions for prostitution. Again W objects, arguing this evidence is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
How should a judge rule? I’ll take a swing at this:
1) Does inducing someone to have sex by fraud violate prohibitions on rape? The answer probably varies by jurisdiction, and by the fraud. If I deceive you about my identity (I sneak into your bedroom in the dark and claim to be your boyfriend), it might constitute rape. In M’s case, I suspect M’s allegations would constitute an affirmative defense against rape charges in most jurisdictions.
2) Should M’s affirmative defense be barred as violating a public policy against letting people benefit from their own fraud? No. Society generally prescribes different sanctions for fraud than for rape, and the fact that M may have engaged in one should not bar him from denying the other.
Of course, M’s own statements would be admissible to impeach M’s credibility and character. And a judge might require M to plead his affirmative defense with sufficient specificity to in essence plead guilty/liable for fraud and soliciting prostitution. While M claims that he had no intention of actually paying for sex, I suspect this fact would not protect him from prosecution for solicitation; but again, this answer might vary by jurisdiction.
3) Would M’s account be unduly prejudicial to W? This requires balancing the interests of the parties. Here, M’s account, if believed, would provide a legitimate defense against the charge of rape. This interest would seem to predominate over W’s interest in avoiding embarrassment or distracting the jury with titillating irrelevancies. For what it’s worth, W should be permitted to introduce evidence about the frequency with which the “disgruntled whore” defense is offered in rape cases.
4) Should the judge permit introduction of evidence of W’s past consensual sex with M? Because M is not arguing that the sexual act in question fits the pattern of M’s prior consensual sexual encounters with P, its probative value would seem to be outweighed by its prejudicial effect. I’d grant W’s motion to exclude. But W would retain discretion to waive concerns about prejudicial effects. W might seek to rebut the argument that she’s prone to “crying rape” by introducing evidence of the many times she and M had sex that did not result in litigation.
5) Should the judge permit introduction of W’s past prostitution? This argument would provide support for the veracity of one aspect of M’s affirmative defense. However, the probative value of this evidence – that W has previously traded money for sex – would seem to be of slight import to the question of whether W’s sex w/ M was consensual in this instance, whereas the prejudicial aspects would be high. It’s a tough call.
I guess I’d exclude it initially. Note that M would accuse W of prostitution as part of his affirmative defense. W could deny the specific accusation, but would need to do so carefully. If she made any broader claims about her character or history, she might open the door for the introduction of the evidence.
And again, because W is in the position to waive objections to the undue prejudice, W should retain discretion to introduce the evidence. To rebut a claim that she is prone to making frivolous rape allegations, for example, W might want to document that she has an unusually strong interest in avoiding making such allegations: it’s bad for business.
May it please the court, Your Honors, how would you rule on these questions?
Myca: Maco, your “the only way to avoid rape is to institute sharia law” act is getting real old. I don’t even believe that you believe it, much less expect us to believe it.
That’s understandable. I don’t believe it, exactly. I don’t want to institute anything sharia-law-esque. But as has been pointed out the solution is probably not found in law. Without a solution in law, I am not surprised that many cultures tried to avoid the question of proof by putting men and women in separate corners until a “qualified referee” of some sort permits their contact on a “regulation field” as it were. Pretty much every culture in history appears to adopt the idea of restricting sexual activity somehow.
This started when I noted you claimed an interest in discussing a movement restriction upon men if it would end rape. I was surprised you would discuss a movement restriction even if it did end rape. I wondered what a movement restriction that would end rape would look like and whether you would actually discuss it. I think cultures have tried to end rape by restricting men’s movements and I think they ended up restricting women’s movements in exactly the sharia-law sort of ways you oppose. I thought it might be useful to point that out.
I’m not sure that that’s true, and I have two responses.
1) I’d need an example specifically of restrictions on men’s movements. I don’t think that cultures actually have tried to end rape by restricting men’s movements.
2) Of course cultures have tried to avoid rape by restricting women’s movements. Welcome to the patriarchy. However, an argument from tradition isn’t valid, and simply because restrictions on women’s movements have been the traditional consequence, doesn’t mean that it’s inevitable.
—Myca
Restriction of women’s movements: Women can’t leave the house.
Restriction of men’s movements: Men can’t enter the house where other men’s women are stored.
See? Parity!
Right, Mandolin. That’s totally my point. If someone wants to claim that cultures have tried to end rape by restricting men’s movements, I’d need to see an example of cultures where MEN can’t leave the house.
—Myca
In a way Myca, that kind of reminds me of some straight guy’s reluctance to be near gay guys on the basis that they might get hit on. Dude, just because he likes to have sex with guys doesn’t mean he wants to have sex with you. Just because she likes to have lots of sex doesn’t mean she wanted to have sex with the guy she’s accusing.
Myca: I’d need an example specifically of restrictions on men’s movements. I don’t think that cultures actually have tried to end rape by restricting men’s movements.
A man who tries to approach my daughter will find his movement restricted. The sum of expectations and requirements I would find sufficient to trust him near her like his name, his relationship to her, his intentions, who his friends are, who his parents are, what his address is, knowing that I can find him if I ever need to run him down and beat him to death (for whatever reason), me knowing and him knowing I know, all make the chance that he’ll harm her as non-existent as possible.
This is totally equivalent to purdah*. Good call, Maco.
*I apologize for using an Islamic example. I know there are many cultures which practice traditions like it, but I didn’t know a snappy word for them.
Myca:
Maco:
It’s time for you to choose whether you want to be relevant or not, Maco.
If you want to be relevant start now.
If you would prefer to continue as you have been, please don’t post again.
—Myca
Myca: I’d need to see an example of cultures where MEN can’t leave the house.
That was an impossible expectation. A culture that withdrew men from industry, the economy and the military in that way could not survive.
My last attempt to establish relevance is to say that I feel that my obligation is a form of restriction on my movement which is possible, and which is intended (among other things) to end rape. But it is equally valid to interpret that restriction (my obligation to be present among my family) as a loss of freedom for those my restrictions are meant to protect, and I feel there is no way to restrict a man’s freedom that can not also be interpreted as a woman’s loss of freedom, leaving you with no solution.
I would appreciate it if you could offer an example of even a theoretical restriction of men’s movement that you feel would not also restrict women’s rights somehow, but there’s no need for us to continue. Because I see connections you apparently don’t, I frequently feel your solutions to problems screws over something else you claim to value, condeming you to an eternity of hopping from problem to problem, always blaming, always frustrated, but tracing the connections for you as I see them probably serves no purpose even if I could persuade you that they exist, so I am willing to drop the matter.
Mandolin: This is totally equivalent to purdah*. Good call, Maco.
Your snarking is someimes very subtle Mandolin, but whether you are agreeing or snarking, either way I consider these expectations “our purdah”. A screen.
Comms closed. Peace.
For what it’s worth, here’s a brief history about disparities between the mobility of men and women from the Industrial Age on.
While mores against women walking unaccompanied down urban streets existed prior to industrialization, such walks would be less common for men, too. Cities were dangerous places. And besides, the urban house tended to be the urban man’s place of business.
The Industrial Revolution changed this, created the expectation that a man would work outside the home. Over time, all things outside the home came to be associated with men, and all things inside the home came to be associated with women.
The linked article discusses how these social norms influenced, and was influenced by, the rise of the automobile.
Heya, Maco. First, apologies for taking so long to respond. As I’ve said elsewhere, I was in finals.
Second:
Maco:
What you are saying here is explicitly that there are no cultures that attempt to restrict the movements of men in the ways that the movements of women have been restricted. I agree.
Maco:
Interestingly, two examples have already been given in this very thread, and by me:
Myca:
Specifically a men-only curfew or a restriction on public gatherings of men (though it would, as I said, be a bad idea, and wouldn’t affect rape much) wouldn’t restrict the rights of women to go out after dark or to gather in groups.
Anyhow, since you continue to attempt to equate things like “a man who tries to approach my daughter will find his movement restricted,” with “women can’t go out at night, either (in some places) legally or (in more) because of fear of assault,” you fail the relevance test and win a banning.
—Myca