Stop Crying Rape

[xTrishaxLynnx]

Just for the record, if consent is in any way impaired, say by the consumption of alcohol, an individual is incapable of giving proper consent and therefore, technically, intercourse is rape.

 

So two people who both consent while drunk can charge each other with rape?

[Lil Red]

so many people have made good points in this thread. When I read the article, something didn't sit right about it with me and I'm glad for those who have articulated what wasn't sitting right, like Semper Catholic, Winchester, Basilisa Marie, and beatitude. 

[Selah]

So two people who both consent while drunk can charge each other with rape?

 

Yes, they can. If the girl wakes up the next day and doesn't understand what happened, or why it happened, she can charge him with rape.

 

And vice versa.

 

It's rape. No getting around that.

 

"But what if..."

 

No. It's rape. And, you know that old adage, "if you have to ask..."

[Basilisa Marie]

Look, Mortify, I think I get what you're saying. A false rape accusation can destroy a man's reputation, force him to make all kinds of changes (moving, transferring schools, etc) in order to try to deal with it. And frankly it's scary to be accused of something you didn't do, that if your lawyer isn't good enough you might face jail time and a lifelong stay on the sex offender registry. False rape accusations are a very serious, very wrong thing to do. Destroying a person's reputation is a grave sin. 

 

But there are other ways to go about making sure women know that it's wrong. Because frankly, we do know it! Any woman who falsely accuses a man of rape knows that it's the wrong thing to do and decides to do it anyway.  So what can we do about that? I don't think there's much. 

 

So when people write articles trying to explain to women how wrong it is to falsely accuse men of rape...I just don't see the point. Everyone already knows it's wrong, and the people who do it don't care, they're going to do it anyway.  They're better off trying to shine light on and shift our focus to parts of the sexual assault issue that don't normally get our attention.  Like how men report sexual assault far less than women do. How a cultural stigma of men "sucking it up" might negatively impact those numbers. How women can rape men, too (it nearly happened to a friend of mine).  Rape is almost exclusively painted as a woman's issue, and if we want to shift the focus to how men are involved in it, we're better off talking about how men are also victims and survivors of it. 

[xTrishaxLynnx]

Yes, they can. If the girl wakes up the next day and doesn't understand what happened, or why it happened, she can charge him with rape.

 

And vice versa.

 

It's rape. No getting around that.

 

"But what if..."

 

No. It's rape. And, you know that old adage, "if you have to ask..."

 

You seem to think that, with my question, I was implying disagreement with the idea; I was not implying anything, either way. I didn't say, nor intend to say, "but what if..." anything. While I assumed the answer to my question was "yes," it struck me as odd only because I've never heard of this happening... but maybe that's a sign of other issues, such as the fear of any stigma that might be placed on a man if he were to attempt to charge a woman with rape.

 

Anyway, please don't put words in my mouth (or in my post, as it were). kthxbai.

[beatitude]

Fyi above article was written by a feminist, and she admits false accusations are common. Up to 25% accusations are false, and that's a conservative number, could be up to 40%. Now if your an innocent man accused of this crime you're pretty much screwed.

 

This phrase is an example of what is most disturbing about your line of thinking. "She admits that...." As though women are engaged in some mass conspiracy to persecute poor innocent men, and finally we have one of the creatures admitting it.

 

She's not a feminist. In fact, her target in the article - the people she sneers at - are women she calls "politically correct feminists", i.e. women who don't believe that a DNA study involving only 28 rape cases is a substantial enough evidence base to make the grand claim that a quarter of rape allegations are false. The official stats that I gave earlier are drawn from hundreds of thousands of cases.

 

As I mentioned before, ninety-seven out of a hundred rapists walk free with zero punishment. Your friend's story doesn't change that mass phenomenon, and nor does the fact that you've found a woman who is happy to rubber-stamp your argument with her XX chromosomes. She also does something very misleading - she states that DNA evidence excludes the "primary suspect" in at least 25% of cases, without bothering to point out that "primary suspect" and "convict" are not the same thing. A suspect is someone who is under investigation, not someone who has been convicted - and the fact that he's under investigation doesn't mean that he's been falsely accused. At least the author of that article does concede that the woman in such a situation may not realise who her rapist was, with the police drawing up suspects through their investigation rather than through her naming names, which you don't seem to consider. It should also be pointed out here that for DNA evidence to be gathered, a woman has to report the rape very quickly and she can't shower in the interim - semen, blood, and other fluids are gathered from her person. This hardly fits the image of the woman who decides to 'cry rape' a few days later because she made a 'bad choice'.  Finally, a woman is far more likely to immediately report rape by a stranger than rape by someone known to her - less shock, and somewhat less shame attached - which explains why the onus in such cases is on the police to track the suspect rather than the woman to name him. No matter how you slice it, there is no way that DNA evidence can be used to support the idea that women are falsely alleging rape.

[Selah]

You seem to think that, with my question, I was implying disagreement with the idea; I was not implying anything, either way. I didn't say, nor intend to say, "but what if..." anything. While I assumed the answer to my question was "yes," it struck me as odd only because I've never heard of this happening... but maybe that's a sign of other issues, such as the fear of any stigma that might be placed on a man if he were to attempt to charge a woman with rape.

 

Anyway, please don't put words in my mouth (or in my post, as it were). kthxbai.

 

I put no words in your mouth, and I find it tiresome to preface everything with, "in general terms" because someone may think I am referring to them. 

 

Perhaps you should not be so sensitive. 

Edited January 17, 2014 by Selah

[BG45]

So two people who both consent while drunk can charge each other with rape?

Honestly, dunno.  I would assume so, but then it becomes even more he said/she said than many rape cases tend to end up (as often due to the stigma, when they are reported, it's too late to do a rape kit for evidence).  I think it's an interesting question if we have any lawyers on PM who have done those sorts of cases.  Because technically yes, the consent was impaired, and therefore not given freely...by both parties.  

[Nihil Obstat]

On the one hand, it seems odd that two equally impaired people could legitimately accuse each other of rape, but on the other hand, it is not so strange if we are thinking of assault instead of rape. Is there some substantial difference, or that perception incorrect?

[Selah]

It is a scenerio that is unlikely, in my view. It just sounds like the kind of thing you'd hear someone trying to discredit rape. "Well how about...well this wouldn't be rape, now would it?...what if..." To me, it's like they are trying to come up with something, anything, that justifies rape, or at the very least, discounts it so that the woman, or the man, does not have to face up to the fact that rape was committed. Both were in an impaired state and could not consent. Say the woman woke up the next morning...she could accuse him of rape. The man could as well, but good luck with that, because not many will believe him. 

 

I'm just sitting here trying to figure out how it would even be done if both are drunk off their rocker. But I cannot see how it would be consensual, because neither side have the ability to consent to it. 

[PhuturePriest]

On the one hand, it seems odd that two equally impaired people could legitimately accuse each other of rape, but on the other hand, it is not so strange if we are thinking of assault instead of rape. Is there some substantial difference, or that perception incorrect?

 

According to the RAINN website (A very handy and reliable website), sexual assault stops short of rape, but some studies use the terms interchangeably: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape

[Nihil Obstat]

According to the RAINN website (A very handy and reliable website), sexual assault stops short of rape, but some studies use the terms interchangeably: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape

I am making broader comparisons. Two people can be charged with assault and/or battery if both are impaired and start fighting. They probably will not both be charged like that, but they could.

I am trying to decide how analogous that situation is.

[xTrishaxLynnx]

I put no words in your mouth, and I find it tiresome to preface everything with, "in general terms" because someone may think I am referring to them. 

 

Perhaps you should not be so sensitive. 

 

I would not call that being sensitive; I was simply explaining why I brought the question up. I felt the need to make it clear that I wasn't arguing against the fact that it's considered rape on both sides if both are impaired as, given that I was quoted in your response, I was reading your entire post as if it were a direct response to my question. On reading it again, I can see how the other comments could apply generally. My apologies.

[Selah]

I would not call that being sensitive; I was simply explaining why I brought the question up. I felt the need to make it clear that I wasn't arguing against the fact that it's considered rape on both sides if both are impaired as, given that I was quoted in your response, I was reading your entire post as if it were a direct response to my question. On reading it again, I can see how the other comments could apply generally. My apologies.

 

Accepted. I am sorry I snapped at you *hugs*

[mortify ii]

False Rape Allegations

 

Eugene J. Kanin, Ph.D.

 

http://sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf

 

 

A pretty interesting article reporting on the incidence of false rape allegations over a 9 year period in a small metropolitan community. Of 109 forced rape allegations (i.e. the woman claims to have actually been raped and not merely an attempt) 45 were false reportedly, which amounts to 41% false allegations. The sole determinant of what rendered a report false was the woman's own testimony, in other words, during investigation she admitted that the report she made was false (note, this does not include allegations of rape where the man was later acquitted despite the woman holding on to her testimony.) Of these false reports, the major functions seemed to be to provide either an alibi, seek revenge, or obtain sympathy. The author admits it's challenging to extrapolate this data to other areas, and reports some years false allegations were as low as 20% and others as high as 70%. What is of reasonable certainty is that in this small metro community, at least 41% of rape allegations were falsely made.