"The Rapist Checklist"

[Pierrot le Fou]

As JetSetLemming posted on another thread, with no further ado, here is 'the rapist checklist':
You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.
You are a rapist if you find a drunk girl and have sex with her.
You are a rapist if you get yourself drunk and have sex with her. Your drunkeness is no excuse.
If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.
If she's alternating between puking her guts out and passing out in the bed then you're a rapist.
If she's sleeping and you have sex with her you're a rapist.
If she's unconscious and you have sex with her then you're a rapist.
If she's taking sleeping pills and doesn’t wake up when you have sex with her then you’re a rapist.
If she is incapacitated in any way and unable to say 'Yes' then you're a rapist.
If you drug her then you're a rapist.
If you find a drugged girl and have sex with her then you're a rapist.
If you don't bother to ask her permission and she says neither 'Yes' or 'No' then you could be a rapist.
You are a rapist if you 'nag' her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape. You are a rapist.
You are a rapist if you try to circumvent her "No" by talking her into it. She's not playing hard to get, and, even if she IS it's not YOUR responsibility to 'get' her. You're still a rapist.
You are a rapist if you manipulate her into sex when she doesn't otherwise want it. If you say, "If you loved me you’d do X" then you're a rapist. If you say, "All the other kids are doing it!" then you're a rapist.
If you threaten her, or act in a way that SHE thinks you're threatening her then you're a rapist. If you puff up and get loud and frustrated while trying to 'talk' her into sex then you're a rapist.
You are a rapist if you don't immediately get your hands off of her when she says 'no'. You are a rapist if you take your hands off of her and then put them back ON her after 10 minutes and she eventually 'gives in' to this tactic.
You are a rapist if you won't let her sleep peacefully without waking her every 15 minutes asking her for sex. Sleep depravation is a form of torture and YOU are a rapist.
If you're necking with her and you're naked and you've already gone down on her and she says 'No' to sex with you and you have sex with her anyway then you're a rapist.
If you're engaged in intercourse and she says 'No' at ANY point and you don't immediately stop then you're a rapist.
If she said "Yes" to sex with a condom and that condom breaks and you proceed anyway then you're a rapist.
If she picked you up at a bar looking for sex and then decides that she doesn't WANT sex and you continue then you're a rapist.
If she changes her mind at ANY point for ANY reason and you don't immediately back off or you try to talk her into it and get sex anyway then you're a rapist.
If you don't hit her and she says 'No' you're still a rapist.
If you don't have a knife or a gun or a garrote and she says 'No' then you're still a rapist.
If you're a friend of hers you can still be a rapist.
If you had sex with her the night before but she doesn't want morning sex and you pressure her for it anyway then you're a rapist.
If you're her husband you can still be a rapist.
If it's your wedding night and she doesn't WANT to have sex with you and you force or coerce her anyway then you're a rapist.
If she's had sex with you hundreds of times before but doesn't want to on the 101st time then you're a rapist.
If you penetrate her anally, orally or digitally against her will then YOU my friend, are ALSO a rapist.
Women do not owe you sex.
Buying her dinner does not entitle you to sex.
Paying her mortgage does not entitle you to sex.
Buying her clothing does not entitle you to sex.
Buying her lingerie does not entitle you to sex. It also doesn't mean that she has any obligation to wear that lingerie around you.
Spending any amount of money on her does not, ever, entitle you to sex.
Seeing her legs or cleavage does not entitle you to sex.
If she 'turns you on' you're not entitled to sex.
If she has fucked every man in a 10 square mile radius and she doesn't want to fuck you and you have sex with her anyway, then you're a rapist.
Her clothing is not a reason for you to rape her. Her LACK of clothing is no reason to rape her. If she's wearing a thong and pasties you STILL have no right to rape her.
If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're a rapist.
If she's a stripper and she says "No" then you're a rapist. Likewise, if she's a stripper and she's been rubbing against your dick all night long and you follow her to her car and have sex with her against her will then you are ALSO a rapist.
If you watch a woman being raped without calling the authorities then you're as bad as a rapist and you may also be a rapist yourself.
If you don't fight rape then you accept rape.
If you don't believe a woman when she says she was raped then you're encouraging rape.
If you choose to remain friends with a man who raped a woman you are encouraging rape.
If you confess to the authorities that you raped a woman it does not exonerate you. You are not suddenly a model of good behavior.
If you ‘only’ raped one woman, you’re STILL a rapist.
You cannot tell who is a rapist by the way they look. Rapists are your friends, your brothers, your fathers and you won't know it.
Do not get frustrated with a woman if she doesn't trust you. SHE already knows that rapists don't wear signs on their foreheads. Something you think is innocuous SHE may find terrifying.
About 60% of these I'd say no on. In particular #3, #12, #13, #14, etc.

It's pretty damned absurd that this is what passes as rape nowadays. I realize that these are Godawful things, and all that, and many of them make men unqualified assholes, but rape? Not quite.

Women who talk like the poster of this list (http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2006/10/repost-of-old-favorite.html) are being sexist themselves, and are just as guilty of oppressing women as the men they seem to hate.

If I'm drunk, she's drunk, and we screw, this makes me guilty of rape? Not her? Why am I more qualified to stop what's going on than her? If there is no absolute consent, then it's rape? How does that work? I see her state that men have to listen every time, but what about women? Where does she direct them to ask?

Do you folks agree with this list, or do you think rape (a truly disgusting act showing no respect for the people subjected to it) is being turned into sex that is regretted afterwards, regardless of whether it was truly forced?

Obviously I believe the latter. I think that people are being told that what happened to them was rape, because they regretted it afterwards, rather than accepting responsibility for their choices. Instead of accepting some culpability for their own actions, they place the blame elsewhere, and make websites like this.

If you were truly raped -- drugged and taken advantage of, trusted a 'friend' to take you home only to wake up being railed by someone, or the like, then my deepest sympathies. If you screwed a drunk guy because you were drunk and at a party, it wasn't rape, it was a lapse of judgment.

Mixing the two is a crime.

[4letterwords]

Oh bullshit.

I had a friend who cried rape when she was a freshman in high school. She got drunk at our friends graduation party and had sex with her friends brother. She even went to the police and told them that she was raped. He didn't get convicted but of course his reputation was screwed.

Those little rape checklist rules are the dumbest thing I've read in a while. Just dumb girls who don't own up to their shit. Jesus.

[erbiumfiber]

This is why I have warned my daughter that it's not a great idea to get completely (shit-faced) drunk, especially at parties/bars with a bunch of people she doesn't know. There is a fine line between coercion and consent, especially when one or both parties are three sheets to the wind. Hell, the next day you may not remember anything that happened, not even the sex (although you might guess...) so how will you remember whether or not you gave consent (drunken though it may have been)? I am not so naive to think that my daughter will not drink, especially as she is going to college in the UK where she is legal. I want her to drink and have a good time, I don't want her to get raped (we've already had the talk about watching your drink, not accepting drinks from strangers, etc.).

I agree that having regrettable sex categorized as rape lessens the horror of rape.

But I do think if you (the man) are completely sober or even somewhat rational that you should not take advantage of a pathetically drunk woman. Besides, do you really want to risk a rape charge later? If you think she is past being able to give meaningful consent, move on to the next person. I'm not sure where I stand on this as to whether or not (if she consents) it is rape but it's certainly not a great idea.

[RandomPasserby]

Hmmm... I see mainly good points on that. 18 without sex isn't rape though. And if the guy is wasted and the girl isn't, it's rape but the girl is the one doing it.

[Ceirnian]

I honestly thought this was a joke post for the most part, and you made up some of those to make me laugh. After I got over the initial shock that this was real, I laughed again.

I fully agree that many people will cry rape just because they regret it afterwards. I have never understood how a woman could call rape after getting drunk, and then having consentual sex with a man. Why is it his fault when she was making a horrible mistake of getting drunk enough not to 'control' herself?

Hopefully someone comes into this thread trying to defend that post, I really want to see the outcome of that battle.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I agree that having regrettable sex categorized as rape lessens the horror of rape.

But I do think if you (the man) are completely sober or even somewhat rational that you should not take advantage of a pathetically drunk woman. Besides, do you really want to risk a rape charge later? If you think she is past being able to give meaningful consent, move on to the next person. I'm not sure where I stand on this as to whether or not (if she consents) it is rape but it's certainly not a great idea.
Horrible idea. As I said, many of the things on that list make you a miserable human being, but rape? Not so sure about that. Getting a woman drunk is just as bad as drugging her, the difference being that she has a better shot at resisting getting loaded a drink at a time, rather than a sedative.

But if you come across a semi-drunk girl, and you're sober, and don't realize how wrecked she is, it makes it regrettable, and you probably should have known, but rape is overstating it a bit...

Hmmm... I see mainly good points on that. 18 without sex isn't rape though. And if the guy is wasted and the girl isn't, it's rape but the girl is the one doing it.
Sorry, but if someone grabs a baseball bat and starts forcibly ramming it up your arse, it's rape. Sorry to tell you.

I honestly thought this was a joke post for the most part, and you made up some of those to make me laugh. After I got over the initial shock that this was real, I laughed again.

I fully agree that many people will cry rape just because they regret it afterwards. I have never understood how a woman could call rape after getting drunk, and then having consentual sex with a man. Why is it his fault when she was making a horrible mistake of getting drunk enough not to 'control' herself?

Hopefully someone comes into this thread trying to defend that post, I really want to see the outcome of that battle.
Because women are weak-willed (or so you'd believe reading that). Pathetic. Apologists who make the situation worse.

[RandomPasserby]

Is it rape if it's a broken broom and not a baseball bat, PLF?

[Jetsetlemming]

The most insane one for me was the broken condom thing. Both people are willing and conscious, they even thought ahead to use protection, but then the condom broke, and neither notices, and now it's RAPE!? Are you fucking kidding? How the hell do you jump from unfortunate occurance to violent forced sex? If you're having good, consensual sex but get caught, is that rape? If you're having sex and she suddenly says no and pushes you away, did she just rape you?

[Pierrot le Fou]

I think they're saying that if the guy doesn't immediately stop knowing that the condom broke. Even then, rape? Not quite. Piss poor excuse for a human -- sure! But if women aren't prepared for that eventuality, then they shouldn't be screwing a man (and vice versa).

Unless, of course, she thinks the reverse is true -- if a man screws a woman with the assumption she's on the pill, only she isn't, and knows she isn't, then that's rape too.

(just for reference, that too isn't rape -- piss poor excuse for a human being, but not rape)

And not all rape is violent. After all, a drugged woman can't very-well struggle, now can she? It's just that having consentual sex, changing course midstream, and having him not stop immediately is not rape. And talking a woman into sex is not rape. And nagging a partner for sex is not rape. Sweet Jesus, if this weren't the case, then 80% of the married/dating male population are rapists.

When's the last time you walked up to a woman, said, "I would like to make love with you, but if you say no now, I have to stop, otherwise if you agree later it makes it rape"? Or "I know we haven't had sex for 6 months, honey, and it is my birthday, but if I try to suggest that not having sex for 6 months in a marriage, and on my birthday is unfair or dysfunctional, and you do it, then it's rape!"

Absurd.

Is it rape if it's a broken broom and not a baseball bat, PLF?
Nope -- that's foreplay.

[Jetsetlemming]

According to that list I was raped the first time I had sex.



Huh.

[Pierrot le Fou]

According to that list I was raped the first time I had sex.



Huh.
Your first time was with a man? I never knew! According to the list, only men can be rapists.

And it's gospel.

[Azrael]

The frightening thing about that list though, is that a woman can call rape for any one of those reasons, and at the very least it will be investigated. The guy will HAVE to get a lawyer, so he'll be out a few thousand in legal fees. Not to mention his reputation will be forever tarnished from all the people who heard RAPE! and immediately decided that he was guilty without another word of the story.

Complete and utter bullshit.

I mean, I can't think of any other crime where the victim is so openly trusted and absolved of all possible responsibility. If you walked into a police station and told the cops your BMW was stolen while you left it parked at the 7-11 in the bad part of town with the key in the ignition and the doors unlocked, they'd laugh you right out of the precinct. However, a girl can go to a party, get completely wasted, have no control over her own faculties...end up having sex, call rape, and have everybody say "Aw, you poor thing...".

Ridiculous.

[Jetsetlemming]

Your first time was with a man? I never knew! According to the list, only men can be rapists.

And it's gospel.
....
*checks himself into therapy*
:gloomy:

[Pierrot le Fou]

All I can hope for is that some day a girl screams rape for a piss poor reason, the guy sues for libel, and women think twice about what's an acceptable time to actually call it rape, rather than just using it as the last resort of regret and desperation in the face of accepting responsibility for one's actions.

[RandomPasserby]

Btw. I have no trouble admitting that majority of women are strong enough lots of these don't apply to them, but that doesn't mean it isn't rape or similar when those things are done to those women I saw when I worked at a home for women in need supported living (my english is failing me now, can't find the right words).
Actually it's sad that maker of that list doesn't realize what damage she does by mixing her antimen agenda with antirape.

[Pierrot le Fou]

That's a special case, and a very difficult one. It's like sex with someone who's developmentally retarded. They are of the legal age of consent, but do we remove that capacity from them? If they do decide that they want to have sex, does that consent not apply because they are handicapped? Essentially that's what you're arguing, and a far stickier situation than we're discussing along the lines of the OP.

Where consent becomes invalid is a very sticky situation, and very very complex. We could get a whole room full of lawyers to argue this until they all passed away, and would likely never reach a satisfactory conclusion.

(not to mention that if a man does it to a 'normal' woman and it doesn't constitute rape, stating that it becomes rape when done to a woman less capable of consent is dangerous -- not all men would know about the reduced capacity for informed consent, which would make the punishment far more severe for the same act, with only the knowledge of all the facts after the act differentiating them)

[Televisions_Nick]

52. If you make stupid little lists that minimize the gravity of true rape by encouraging women to call things "rape" that they and you know are not rape in the name of false feminism then you are responsible for creating a society that is unwilling to believe women when they claim they are raped and thus you are enabling rape without consequences.

[RandomPasserby]

PLf, I didn't mean retarded/handicapped people, i meant homeless, alcoholics, drug addicts, beaten wives&daughters etc. that need help to start living on their own because of one reason or another. Of course only few of several dozen were the kind that could be "raped" (direct translation from Finnish would be sexual abuse/sexually taking advantage, jail could be longer than from "normal" rape) by pretty much any man.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Then I'm confused as to what you're on about. If they don't have reduced capacity for consent, then why would the same actions become somehow worse when applied to them?

[h2orowe]

Wow, if I was a woman who was actually raped I'd be even more offended by this list. Jesus. Everyone's always trying to play the victim. "Oh, I had 2 beers! I had no idea what I was doing."

"But you suggested the idea to me! Plus I was pretty damned wasted, and you were near 100% sober!"

"You have a stronger alcohol tolerance because you're a big, stupid guy! >=( And I hate you! RAPIST RAPIST RAPIST!"

"OHNOEZI'MBEINGTHROWNINTOJAILBECAUSEI'MARAPISTEVENT HOUGHIDIDNOTHING WRONG"

then it cuts to that guy who was in those 50's propaganda films. "Who could be next? It could be you," he points to someone standing near him, "you," points to the next person, "or even.. you." and he points to the viewer.

[RandomPasserby]

Hard to explain in a foreign language, but basically it's a authority figure type stuff (these special cases view majority of men as authority figures). Usually the law is applied to legal but underage girls having sex with a teacher, priest, martial arts instructor, police officer etc. where the other party is an authority figure that can practically command the unwilling victim to have sex with him/her.
And the special case women see most men as authority figures.

But anyway, I guess that even though 13-15 are true in some cases, they don't belong on that list if it is a "if you do this to normal, mentally healthy woman"-list.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I'm almost positive we have similar laws in the US pertaining to authority figures using that authority to get sex. Or rather than the person has a diminished capacity to resist because the person doing the demanding has power over them in some way, and it complicates the situation.

I see what you're saying now -- not that these people are less capable of consenting, but that there are people around them who have power over them who, if taking advantage of that, would be guilty of rape under circumstances someone else wouldn't be.

[Azrael]

I know that anything 17 and under is usually busted for statutory. But 18 and over? Dunno.

Like, if a college professor banged one of his cute undergrad students, he'd probably get canned by the university, but I'm not sure they could send him to jail for it.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Solely having sex isn't a crime, what he's saying is that things on the list (pressuring someone for sex/trying to talk them into it) is not regularly a crime. Trying to convince your girlfriend, for instance, that she's never really known a gaijin's touch 'til she's screwed the great white hope (read: me), and successfully pestering her over e-mails with photos of my gargantuan equipment wasn't rape when she gave in and screamed out my name.

Now you may beat the shit out of me for having rooted your girl, but it isn't rape as she was gagging for it.

But if I'm a police officer, and I do the same playful sort of thing only instead of sending photos of my massive wang, showing photos of my handcuffs, badge, with subtle hints that she'll be in trouble with the long arm of the law if she refuses, the picture isn't so clear.

After all, women generally need a little convincing, it's just a matter of whether the convincing is on the basis of your merits (to solicit informed consent) or whether it's convincing on the basis of ill-consequences for rejection (which is soliciting consent under duress).

[Radiance]

That list came from an -extreme- feminist website, seen it before. They are very anti-male. The original author ended up the target of some pretty extreme harassment to the point that she had to start writing under an alternative name. You aren't going to find a lot of people that agree with the majority of that list.

[Jay]

Her clothing is not a reason for you to rape her. Her LACK of clothing is no reason to rape her. If she's wearing a thong and pasties you STILL have no right to rape her.

Dare ya to tell that to THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_El-Din_Hilaly#Comments_concerning_dress) guy.

[mawande]

I have never understood how a woman could call rape after getting drunk, and then having consentual sex with a man. Why is it his fault when she was making a horrible mistake of getting drunk enough not to 'control' herself?


Let me try a minor point. The key word in your statement up there is "consensual". If it isn't consensual, it's rape. The trick part comes in the proving that it wasn't consensual.

[japanat]

I was raised with a very simple rule: If she says 'no', you stop, period. Don't matter if you're already doing the willywonka or not. Taking advantage of someone with diminished capacity (like getting someone drunk while staying sober yourself) also qualifies as a major no-no.

As PLF said, any position of authority where you use that authority to pressure consent is rape. But dating someone you work with and bonking without pressure is not. I was a recreation manager in college, and the staff bonked like bunnies, I swear to God. But, there's no way I would have implied to anyone that they had to bonk me to keep their job, etc. (besides, what real man wants sex with an unwilling or non-participatory partner? It's her hot and horny that makes it fun, otherwise it's just a different kind of masturbation).

Personally, I think that a confirmed rapist should be hung by the testicles with piano wire, but... a false accusation of rape, like what appears to have happened in the Duke case, should have serious liabilities, as well.

And, yes, if you had 'regret sex', take responsibility for your actions. If he's a 'double coyote', then chew both of your arms off, ladies!

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

Hmmm...

Freshman year I went to a frat party (mistake number 1), which was being held in honor of a sorority I didn't belong to, but my friend did. They had made wop (fruit, juice, and any alcohol just lying around mixed in) for the girls, and the guys were all drinking from a keg. I had about a cup and a half of wop and ended up getting REALLY smashed. I was really sleepy and feeling a little sick, so some guy offered me his bed to sleep in (mistake number 2). I don't remember much of what happened after that - I know we made out, which I didn't argue about, but I remember saying very loudly that I didn't want to have sex. The next day I felt absolutely lousy, and pretty much spent it over a toilet. I got a call from my friend who had invited me to the party and she asked if I had gotten too drunk really quickly too. Turns out, anyone who had drinken the wop felt really sick and had gotten way too drunk. We looked up our symptoms online, and sure enough everything was pointing to roofies. They had drugged all of the girls.

I was really pissed. I had thought the guy was cute, and I would have enjoyed spending the night with him (still no sex) regardless of my level of drunkeness. But to know that I was drugged, and that I wasn't aware of what was going on most of the night and that if he had wanted to he could've had sex with me made me really angry. I went to the police and filed a complaint and left a cup that I had use that night (luckily we still had one). I did not file a rape charge, because I really didn't feel like going down that road.

Of course, being that it happened at a frat and that I went to a Big 10 school, nothing happened.


So, while I agree that I made some stupid mistakes and put myself in a really stupid situation, I still feel horribly taken advantage of, especially since one of the very few things I remember from that night is taking a very strong statement that I didn't want to have sex.

[stsparky]

:duh: Ah. Us men are utter bastards. Seduction is rape. I'm appalled at what isn't rape here. I'm sure you had the poor teen who decided to finish up when the unconvinced girl said no on that list somewhere - I kinda glossed over the list.

Adults don't need to play power games and understand that no means no.

[Fred]

Here are my thoughts about the list.

It’s complete speculation, but I am guessing the author is in a position where she (I assume it is a she) hears a lot of stories from genuinely distraught women about situations where they felt taken advantage of sexually. As a result, the author may have become very reactionary towards conduct that may seem acceptable or, at least, commonplace (i.e. various efforts to elicit or circumvent consent). It may be that she is simply trying to emphasize that these “lesser” behaviors are not acceptable by associating them with something that is clearly wrong (i.e. rape).

As for my own opinion, I think the term “rape” should be used carefully because there are significant social and legal ramifications to describing something as rape. So, although I think most of the behaviors mentioned in the list are wrong, I don’t necessarily think they are all criminal. Also, I think the list does imply a paradigm where women are passive and men are aggressive and where sex is a burden for women rather than a pleasure. The truth, of course, is much more complex.

My own code states that it is wrong to take pleasure from someone else’s pain. The more diminished a person’s ability to consent freely, the more important it is to me to verify that the person is consenting freely.

[SlickWilly440]

That list is biased it only points to guys raping chicks and not chicks raping guys. Guys get raped by chicks too you know!

So basically if you want to be on the safe side, voice record or video tape, you and your partner having consensual sex, that way if one of them cries rape, you have hard evidence that it wasn't. You can casually walk into the station and proudly put that tape into the VCR/DVD Player.

Of course you'd want to ask your parnter several questions and get some answer and have them recorded before getting it on.

[Kaji]

Eh, I poked through the link PLF posted to the original, and I think you're only half on the mark, Fred. While indeed she's reactionary, it's quite blatant even just from browsing her header that she's anti-men as well. One of the commenters even argued that once she can enjoy stuffing a flaccid penis into her vagina that she would believe women could rape men (the most glaring flaw of course being that she's assuming a purely involuntary biological reaction on the part of the man is always a form of consent).

It also neglects forced sodomy and blackmail (e.g. "Either you have sex with me, or I'll tell people you raped me.").

Frankly, the woman is so hung up on breaking down men that she could care less about rape. It's just a tool for her larger objective.

(on a side note, I'm surprised Roxie hasn't shown up yet...)

[Fred]

Kaji – Thanks for pointing out the link. I read a couple of her posts.

She describes herself as a radical feminist. She created her blog to be a place for radical feminists to voice their opinions. She talks about blaming "man-kind” for the ills of the world and excuses the women who contribute to those ills as victims of thousands of years of historic patriarchic socialization. I tend to dislike that kind of dogma. It seems to me she wants to empower women, but is not willing to hold them accountable for their decisions.

In retrospect, I suppose she meant the list literally.

[Plekto]

No, she's actually trying to de-power everyone to the same level. This is really no different than those zero-tolerance rules and laws. Common sense goes out the window. Everyone is equal out of fear of doing anything at all.

Look - if you both get drunk and fool around... Any sane person would realize that you both messed up. So instead of blaming society - "OMG - I can't get so drunk my brain short-circuits and I don't remember anything the next morning whenever I want!", how about um... not getting drunk and doing bad things in the first place? Personal responsibility? Nah, that's SO last week...

There's rape and then there's just being young and dumb.

[Pierrot le Fou]

So, while I agree that I made some stupid mistakes and put myself in a really stupid situation, I still feel horribly taken advantage of, especially since one of the very few things I remember from that night is taking a very strong statement that I didn't want to have sex.
Yes, it's a horrible thing that they should be punished for -- drugging women is very very VERY low. They should be arrested for that, no question. But what's important is the paragraph I quoted -- you accept responsibility for your part. Yes, they were shits. Yes, it shouldn't have happened. Yes, you were horribly taken advantage of. But it could have been prevented with some foresight, and that's the way most problems in life are.

Accepting responsibility for your actions is the mature adult way to go about things.

On a side note, 'no means no' is not really that simple. No usually means no, but sometimes can mean later, or can mean yes depending on the situation. A firm no said with vigor is almost exclusively a no, but sometimes a weak 'no' means 'convince me.' It's a horrible fuzzy gray area. But if we start making everyone sign contracts guaranteeing that everything was consentual, then sex suddenly becomes far more boring (or at least casual sex does).

The key is to use your best judgment. Assuming you have it. And if you are unsure or don't know, then always err on the side of caution.

It isn't complex until women like the author of that article start screaming rape when a man asks his wife for a blowjob.

[Ceirnian]

52 should be "If you double perfect your opponent in a street fighter match YOU my friend, are ALSO a rapist.

[Roxie]

On a side note, 'no means no' is not really that simple. No usually means no, but sometimes can mean later, or can mean yes depending on the situation. A firm no said with vigor is almost exclusively a no, but sometimes a weak 'no' means 'convince me.'
In that situation, just don't do it.
It's better to have someone pissed at you than the any other consequences.

Look, everyone needs to be careful about who they sleep with. I mean, seriously, if you have ANY doubts, that her (or his) answers is not a firm "yes" then just don't.--I think it's that simple. No need for lists. I agree with Japanat.

Also, reports of "false" rapes are much lower than the number of rates reported (which we know are lower than actual rapes). And yes, while women can rape men, the numbers are just much more lower--which is probably why she didn't address that. Regretted sex should not be labeled rape, but regretted sex.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of someone taking "responsibility" for the rape. Rape is not a mutual decision. There is a victim and a rapist. I can't see how any responsibility can be shared in that situation. No one deserves or should be raped, no matter what they're doing, their state of clarity, what they wear (or do not wear), or who they are. No one.

I didn't read the link (I will later), but the reason why this list is worded they way it is, is because so much rape prevention is directed towards women and very rarely (if ever--but I know it exists Men Can Stop Rape Org (http://www.mencanstoprape.org/)) is directed towards men. Which amounts to "it's your responisibility to make your self unrapeable" which is impossible.

[Pierrot le Fou]

In that situation, just don't do it.
It's better to have someone pissed at you than the any other consequences.

Look, everyone needs to be careful about who they sleep with. I mean, seriously, if you have ANY doubts, that her (or his) answers is not a firm "yes" then just don't.--I think it's that simple. No need for lists. I agree with Japanat.
This is absolutely fucking moronic. If there is anything but a firm yes, then don't have sex? My God. Is this what communication has come to? "Well, you've put a condom on me, spread your legs, and are pulling me to penetrate you -- I've got to make sure you consent first."

She can not answer yes, or answer no, and not mean 'no, stop, put your pants on, full stop.' I know this is shocking. Sometimes a woman will say no to penetration because she's not warmed up enough, or she'd rather get off another way, or whatnot. To see any 'no' as a full-stop halt to all sexual activities is presposterous. Almost as preposterous as needing a definite 'yes' before getting it on.

Also, reports of "false" rapes are much lower than the number of rates reported (which we know are lower than actual rapes). And yes, while women can rape men, the numbers are just much more lower--which is probably why she didn't address that. Regretted sex should not be labeled rape, but regretted sex.
How do we know? Show (unbiased) statistics on rape conviction percentage, overturn of rape convictions on appeal, and statistics on percentage reporting rape of both men and women. I'm going to guess that there are quite a few men who get raped by men. And something tells me THAT is incredibly under-reported.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of someone taking "responsibility" for the rape. Rape is not a mutual decision. There is a victim and a rapist. I can't see how any responsibility can be shared in that situation. No one deserves or should be raped, no matter what they're doing, their state of clarity, what they wear (or do not wear), or who they are. No one.
Not for the rape, for the situation you got yourself into. Most rape is NOT walking down a dark alley late at night and being fucked at gunpoint. Getting drunk at a party with no friends around and too drunk to be coherent is YOUR doing. The fact that people rape you is their fault, and you were victimized, but pretending your behaviour didn't contribute is dishonest and shifting blame away from your own (very ill-conceived) actions.

[Roxie]

This is absolutely fucking moronic. If there is anything but a firm yes, then don't have sex? My God. Is this what communication has come to? "Well, you've put a condom on me, spread your legs, and are pulling me to penetrate you -- I've got to make sure you consent first."

She can not answer yes, or answer no, and not mean 'no, stop, put your pants on, full stop.' I know this is shocking. Sometimes a woman will say no to penetration because she's not warmed up enough, or she'd rather get off another way, or whatnot. To see any 'no' as a full-stop halt to all sexual activities is presposterous. Almost as preposterous as needing a definite 'yes' before getting it on.
If you think there is anything but a firm yes, don't do it. That's not moronic, that could be saving you from a bad situation that you can't forsee. If you don't think you've got it before you reach coitus, then you're the moron.

Uh, you are the one who's defining full stop here not me. I'm not the one stripping down all communication to yes or no. I'm well aware people have fuller vocabularies and thoughts than that and I strongly encourage everyone to use them.


How do we know? Show (unbiased) statistics on rape conviction percentage, overturn of rape convictions on appeal, and statistics on percentage reporting rape of both men and women. I'm going to guess that there are quite a few men who get raped by men. And something tells me THAT is incredibly under-reported.
Why is the burden of proof on me, when this is pretty much common knowledge? And what is "unbiased"? People who are only mildly interested in stopping rape or ppl who don't care?

Here's some stats (http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html) and even more info (http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/articles_male_rape.asp) on it, but I warn you, they are strongly biased aganist stopping rape.



Getting drunk at a party with no friends around and too drunk to be coherent is YOUR doing. The fact that people rape you is their fault, and you were victimized, but pretending your behaviour didn't contribute is dishonest and shifting blame away from your own (very ill-conceived) actions.
While it is not smart to get too drunk at a party and getting drunk CAN be your doing (although being drugged is not) that does not contribute to a rape.

[Azrael]

Look, everyone needs to be careful about who they sleep with. I mean, seriously, if you have ANY doubts, that her (or his) answers is not a firm "yes" then just don't.--I think it's that simple. No need for lists. I agree with Japanat.
If every man stopped at the slightest hint of "no" then sex rates would plummet, as would birth rates I imagine.

Unfortunately, there's still a "girls who have a lot of sex -> slut = bad" mentality floating around. For that reason, a lot of girls will play coy, pretend like they don't want it even though they want nothing more. Other girls attempt to use it to test the guy...if he was only after sex, he'd give up after the first no, but if he was truly interested in her, he'd keep trying (yes, very flawed logic, but don't blame me, it's not mine...)

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as "no means no, end of story."

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of someone taking "responsibility" for the rape. Rape is not a mutual decision. There is a victim and a rapist. I can't see how any responsibility can be shared in that situation. No one deserves or should be raped, no matter what they're doing, their state of clarity, what they wear (or do not wear), or who they are. No one.

But...why is rape the only exception?

ANY other crime, there would be people saying "You should have been more careful/taken more responsibility." Like if I'd left my door unlocked and gotten my nice HDTV stolen. Yeah, I'm a victim of a crime, but I'd bet good money they'd be just as many if not more people saying "You dumbass lock your door!" than "Aw, poor baby..."

If a girl puts herself in a position where she becomes succeptible to rape, and it happens...yeah, she's a victim, but we shouldn't absolve her of all responsiblity for what happened. Why does rape get to be the exception?

[h2orowe]

There's a difference between taking an unknown drink at a party then getting pass out raped and walking home with groceries then getting abducted, raped, and left to die in a desert, tbfh.

[Ceirnian]

There's also a difference between taking an unknown drink at a party, and willingly getting shitfaced drunk... then deciding to have sex with a guy.

If she says yes one night and cries rape the next day, that's bull shit.

[h2orowe]

She should be responsible for her actions then yes, but if the guy was sober the whole time, it shouldn't be rape, but let's say she got pregnant because he took complete advantage of her, then he should definitely have to pay child support type things if she has the baby. And she should have the baby just to spite him in that case. >=[

[Roxie]

If every man stopped at the slightest hint of "no" then sex rates would plummet, as would birth rates I imagine.

Unfortunately, there's still a "girls who have a lot of sex -> slut = bad" mentality floating around. For that reason, a lot of girls will play coy, pretend like they don't want it even though they want nothing more. Other girls attempt to use it to test the guy...if he was only after sex, he'd give up after the first no, but if he was truly interested in her, he'd keep trying (yes, very flawed logic, but don't blame me, it's not mine...)

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as "no means no, end of story."
I know they exist...

What I'm saying is, if YOU have a doubt to the person's certianty, don't do it. You don't owe anyone sex and you don't have a responsibility to coerce them. I don't understand why this is so hard.

I mean, if you feel that going after someone who's "playing coy" is worth the possibility of a rape charge OR if you feel they're TRULY only playing, then go ahead.


But...why is rape the only exception?

ANY other crime, there would be people saying "You should have been more careful/taken more responsibility." Like if I'd left my door unlocked and gotten my nice HDTV stolen. Yeah, I'm a victim of a crime, but I'd bet good money they'd be just as many if not more people saying "You dumbass lock your door!" than "Aw, poor baby..."

If a girl puts herself in a position where she becomes succeptible to rape, and it happens...yeah, she's a victim, but we shouldn't absolve her of all responsiblity for what happened. Why does rape get to be the exception?an HDTV is not a person? Invading, literally invading another person is much more serious

[Ceirnian]

The example still holds water though. If you put yourself willingly in a situation you should KNOW is a bad idea, you have to take responsibility for your choice. Even if you are a victim that doesn't absolve you from acting intelligently.

[Azrael]

I know they exist...

What I'm saying is, if YOU have a doubt to the person's certianty, don't do it. You don't owe anyone sex and you don't have a responsibility to coerce them. I don't understand why this is so hard.

I mean, if you feel that going after someone who's "playing coy" is worth the possibility of a rape charge OR if you feel they're TRULY only playing, then go ahead.
There's no such thing as 100% certainity. It goes both ways. I've had girls sit on my lap and play around with me, and then stop and leave when they hit a certain point. I've had girls who seemed cold at first, but ended up opening up in a hurry.

I actually had one girl who came back with me on the promise that we weren't going to have sex. She came out of the shower only wearing panties and a bathrobe. We get on the bed together, and the bathrobe pretty much disappears all together. She's almost naked, we're kissing, petting, cuddling...and I didn't do anything. Why, because of the "no sex" ultimatium she laid down at the start, but if I think about it now, I totally could have hit that.

It's not as clear cut as a light switch. Remember that it's you girls who have made the rules in this game, not us guys. If we knew no meant no and yes meant yes and that was the end of the story, we'd stop at no. But we don't. In the end, the choice is still the girl's. No guy who isn't a rapist will push a girl to the point where she feels like she absolutely positively has to have sex. And there's a big difference between lying in bed half-naked with a guy and saying no no no, until finally yes, and the girl who, fully clothed, stands up and says "That's not what I want tonight."

an HDTV is not a person? Invading, literally invading another person is much more serious
They're both crimes. But hey, let's switch it up a bit - let's say I leave my 5-year old son at home, with the door unlocked, and I come back and both my TV and my kid are gone.

YOU KNOW there will be people who say "Sucks about your kid, but you dumbass, why'd you leave the door unlocked?!"

Or shit, if I knowingly walk into the whitest, most KKK neighbood I can find wearing a do-rag and bling bling...YOU KNOW that there will be people saying "Sucks you got your ass beat/killed...but WTF are you stupid?!"

It's great that American society has taken steps to protect the rights of women and all, but this is just way, way overboard.

[Jetsetlemming]

I know for white people, the sympathy for someone that gets mugged/beaten up/attacked because they found themselves outside a liquor store in the worst ghetto in the city after midnight is... a bit lower than usual.

[Ichisan]

It astonishes me how that list starts out with blatantly absurd claims like it's rape if either of you are drunk - thereby arousing the reader's indignation against feminist extremists - and then switches to a long list of absolutely textbook examples of rape - like drugging a woman or when she says 'no' or if she's passed out.

Is this what they call 'bait and switch'?

Anyway it makes me think the composer of the list has a very nasty male chauvinist agenda. After all, just because it's common sense that having a few drinks doesn't make it rape, certainly does not make it common sense that if a woman says 'no' it's not rape.

And by the way, I've heard that the conviction rate for rape cases is as low as 5% these days. This represents a large fall from a couple of decades ago and yet it's quite common to hear men, as on this thread, talk as if the law was skewed against them.

By the by the way again, I think one significant change from the old days is that it's the man's reputation which can be ruined by a spurious accusation these days.

[seiji]

They're both crimes. But hey, let's switch it up a bit - let's say I leave my 5-year old son at home, with the door unlocked, and I come back and both my TV and my kid are gone.

YOU KNOW there will be people who say "Sucks about your kid, but you dumbass, why'd you leave the door unlocked?!"

Or shit, if I knowingly walk into the whitest, most KKK neighbood I can find wearing a do-rag and bling bling...YOU KNOW that there will be people saying "Sucks you got your ass beat/killed...but WTF are you stupid?!"
Yes, these are both stupid and easily avoided situations, but they do not give anyone the right to take advantage of you. Finding your door unlocked makes the first guy a lucky kidnapper--it does not make him any less of a criminal, his crime is no less a crime, and he does not deserve a lighter punishment because you made things easier for him. The skinheads should not get off easy because you walked into their turf, and the frat guy should not get off easy because the girl had too much tequila.

[Ceirnian]

I thought that was already implied many times.

[Roxie]

It's not as clear cut as a light switch.
That's my point. If it's not clear, leave no room for mistake.
Remember that it's you girls who have made the rules in this game, not us guys.Wrong. Absolutely wrong. We live in a patriarchy. Do some history on western dating/marriage traditions and you'll see they're all about the girl being treated as property or not as a full formed human adult, but some some sort of childlike being.


If we knew no meant no and yes meant yes and that was the end of the story, we'd stop at no. But we don't.
If you don't know, then don't do it. If there's doubt, go without. Am I speaking greek here?

They're both crimes. But hey, let's switch it up a bit - let's say I leave my 5-year old son at home, with the door unlocked, and I come back and both my TV and my kid are gone.

YOU KNOW there will be people who say "Sucks about your kid, but you dumbass, why'd you leave the door unlocked?!"

Or shit, if I knowingly walk into the whitest, most KKK neighbood I can find wearing a do-rag and bling bling...YOU KNOW that there will be people saying "Sucks you got your ass beat/killed...but WTF are you stupid?!"

It's great that American society has taken steps to protect the rights of women and all, but this is just way, way overboard.
No one is saying getting that drunk is smart. It's not smart, but it doesn't provoke rape. Does it impair your faculities? Yes.

I'm not saying you shouldn't take care of yourself and be as safe as possible, but that idea "well, if you get drunk, you might get raped" just doesn't sit well with me. It's up to the rapist to not rape me.
edit:What Seji said.

[Kaji]

True, Seiji, but the point is not that the guy is not a criminal. The point is that Az should have taken some basic, common sense steps to make sure his bases are covered. If you know that certain situations are conducive to rape or other things you don't want to get wrapped up in, why put yourself in those situations?

Even better, I'll steal a quote from what Roxie posted while I was drafting this...

It's up to the rapist to not rape me.

Why are you putting your fate in the rapist's hands?

This represents a large fall from a couple of decades ago and yet it's quite common to hear men, as on this thread, talk as if the law was skewed against them.

Because once again, once the title "rapist" has been placed beside your name, it's a done deal as far as anyone who hears or remembers your name is concerned. After all, what on earth were you doing that someone could have even considered filing such a charge against you? With people like this woman upping the ante every chance they get and trying to find a new behavior to label as rape (hell, I heard one woman argue once that every woman in history has been raped due to the lack of the ability to consent), and it's no wonder. When you're left being forced to be absolutely skittish for fear of being slandered by all who know you for the rest of your life, something's not right.

[Roxie]

Why are you putting your fate in the rapist's hands?
What?
It's up to the criminal to not commit the crime.

It doesn't matter how much I don't drink or how well I stay alert, if someone is looking to rape someone, it's going to happen (at least attempted).

[Pierrot le Fou]

If you think there is anything but a firm yes, don't do it. That's not moronic, that could be saving you from a bad situation that you can't forsee. If you don't think you've got it before you reach coitus, then you're the moron.

Uh, you are the one who's defining full stop here not me. I'm not the one stripping down all communication to yes or no. I'm well aware people have fuller vocabularies and thoughts than that and I strongly encourage everyone to use them.
I said I use my judgment. It works for me. Now not only do we have to make sure the woman isn't saying no, but that she's also giving a 'firm' yes.

This is absolutely fucking stupid. Why should the man be forced to interrogate a woman and get a contract signed in blood signifying consent before sticking his willy in her, rather than trusting that women are capable of communicating their desires or lack thereof and reacting appropriately to the situation?

Why is the burden of proof on me, when this is pretty much common knowledge? And what is "unbiased"? People who are only mildly interested in stopping rape or ppl who don't care?

Here's some stats (http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html) and even more info (http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/articles_male_rape.asp) on it, but I warn you, they are strongly biased aganist stopping rape.
Why? Because you CONSTANTLY toss out 'common' knowledge that, upon deeper inspection, turns out to be complete and utter bullshit. My point is that rather than saying it as if it's true, perhaps you should actually prove it before using it as a premise.

While it is not smart to get too drunk at a party and getting drunk CAN be your doing (although being drugged is not) that does not contribute to a rape.
What the fuck nonsense is this? "I was sleeping on a bench in a poor part of town with $10,000 sitting on my chest -- the fact that I was asleep on the bench in a poor part of town with $10,000 sitting on my chest had nothing to do with being robbed!"

You act as if a woman being so drunk she can hardly stand or function doesn't contribute to her getting raped. Are you saying that a woman in the same situation but sober is as likely to get raped as a woman shitfaced in that situation? That's absurdism at its best. And I would really appreciate it if you at least exhibited SOME sort of responsibility for the nonsense you state.

The example still holds water though. If you put yourself willingly in a situation you should KNOW is a bad idea, you have to take responsibility for your choice. Even if you are a victim that doesn't absolve you from acting intelligently.
Amen.

And by the way, I've heard that the conviction rate for rape cases is as low as 5% these days. This represents a large fall from a couple of decades ago and yet it's quite common to hear men, as on this thread, talk as if the law was skewed against them.

By the by the way again, I think one significant change from the old days is that it's the man's reputation which can be ruined by a spurious accusation these days.
The advent of date rape, and women advocating rape victims standing up and speaking out about their crimes probably contribute to the amount of spurious claims, make more women think they've been raped, otherwise inflate the statistics, while doing little to help actual rape victims.

The problem is, as you've stated, that the damage to reputation is irreperable. You have a low conviction rate, but high rate of incidence of the crime, and people assume that it was a lack of evidence -- not actual innocence. And that's disgusting.

Will I get convicted of rape? Probably not. Do I need to be to suffer? Not at all.

[Pierrot le Fou]

What?
It's up to the criminal to not commit the crime.

It doesn't matter how much I don't drink or how well I stay alert, if someone is looking to rape someone, it's going to happen (at least attempted).
You are a self-righteous blowhard. Jesus Christ.

It is your responsibility to take care of yourself. Full stop. It is your responsibility to look after the security of yourself, your family, and your possessions. Full stop.

If you do not do those things, you have no right to complain about having the obvious happen. Seek punishment, sure. Get treatment, sure. But complain that it shouldn't have happened? That's just a juvenile method of shifting blame away from your carelessness.

You strike me as the type of person who refuses to acknowledge culpability. There's a little extra traffic, so you're 5 minutes late, and you say, "It's not my fault! There was extra traffic! Usually I'm on time!" rather than apologizing and acknowledging that you should probably be getting to work a little early just in case there's traffic.

You'd probably bitch at the airline desk if your flight left because you had to wait at security. Nevermind that they tell you to be at the gate an hour beforehand.

Your tagline is, "It's not my responsibility!" and it's disgusting. You want feminism? You want racial equality? Then stop being a sniveling little do-nothing, and take responsibility for yourself and your actions. Your sense of entitlement is repulsive.

[Azrael]

That's my point. If it's not clear, leave no room for mistake.
Playing it safe?

I played it safe for the first 21 years of my life, and it really got me nothing other being a free counselor on speed-dial. Then I started to take the risk and - hello! things actually happened.

What I'm trying to tell you is that it's NEVER clear. There are very few situations where the guy can safely, 100% think "Well, this girl likes me and wants to have sex with me". Why? That's the way women play the game. Maybe if y'all could be up front and honest about it, we wouldn't have to play guess and chance, but that's just how it is.

You want to change things, the ball's in your (female's) court.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. We live in a patriarchy. Do some history on western dating/marriage traditions and you'll see they're all about the girl being treated as property or not as a full formed human adult, but some some sort of childlike being.
That was then. While I'm sure there are still traces of patriarchy left over, I'd say women have gotten themselves a decent foothold since then.

At any rate, what I said stands - the rules of the dating/relationship/sex game have been set by women. You think guys want to run through all the hoops that we do? Absolutely not. If it were up to us, things would be a lot more straightforward. Again, if you don't like it and want to change it, the ball is in your court.

[Ceirnian]

If it were up to us, things would be a lot more straightforward.

Sweet god yes, I don't think there is an emote that can properly express how right this is.

[Kaji]

I love how Roxie keeps telling Az he needs to take responsibility and play it safe when a girl says no, and yet she keeps saying it's not her responsibility to do anything to prevent the possibility of herself being raped.

It doesn't matter how much I don't drink or how well I stay alert, if someone is looking to rape someone, it's going to happen (at least attempted).

If you're alert, you can see the signs of an attempt before it happens, and you'll be better able to get away from the situation should they do so. If you're so drunk you can't pick yourself up off the floor, then you're entirely at their mercy. Double that if you went without any friends to help keep an eye on you.

Further, once again, why are you going to a place where there's the distinct possibility of being raped when there are other things you could be doing with your time that have a significantly lower probability of rape? You can throw a party at your own place if you want to party, but don't want the risk. Or you can go clubbing with a group of friends, all making sure to keep an eye out for each other.


Women want equality, equality involves both sides taking responsibility. What feminists of your ilk really seem to be after is all the privlidges you perceive men as having, but without any of the responsibilities that have traditionally come with those privlidges.

[4letterwords]

Women want equality, equality involves both sides taking responsibility. What feminists of your ilk really seem to be after is all the privileges you perceive men as having, but without any of the responsibilities that have traditionally come with those privileges.
:clap:

[Citizen]

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. We live in a patriarchy. Do some history on western dating/marriage traditions and you'll see they're all about the girl being treated as property or not as a full formed human adult, but some some sort of childlike being.

What does any of that have to do with the fact that a woman can now cry rape if a man so much as looks at her wrong? Aside from nothing at all.

That's like saying that Native Americans aren't granted special gaming laws, just because they were brutalized and had their land taken from them back in the day, despite the fact that they are granted special gaming laws.

[PopCulturePooka]

You know, I've never found it that hard, just before penetration or the like to ask pretty firmly "is this ok?".

I got a no once from a chick in Japan when I asked that, so I stopped cold and rolled over. She was pretty pissed about it, but thats the lumps.

[ParryDat]

Imma start carrying me those David Chapelle sex consent forms(If you want it,then sign your name on the dotted line),and I am not joking either.Something like that,can save your ass from being framed.

[PopCulturePooka]

This is an extract from a book I own called "How to be a Man". Pretty funny book.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/9576/dsc00177ym0.jpg

[stsparky]

Imma start carrying me those David Chapelle sex consent forms(If you want it,then sign your name on the dotted line),and I am not joking either.Something like that,can save your ass from being framed.
Problem being she can say she was coerced. You need it on video before with a damn "live" breathalyser test confirming she's sober and one of those stress-reading lie detector devices showing green before you drop trousers.

[ParryDat]

Problem being she can say she was coerced. You need it on video before with a damn "live" breathalyser test confirming she's sober and one of those stress-reading lie detector devices showing green before you drop trousers.

:meh:

No one is saying getting that drunk is smart. It's not smart, but it doesn't provoke rape. Does it impair your faculities? Yes.

I'm not saying you shouldn't take care of yourself and be as safe as possible, but that idea "well, if you get drunk, you might get raped" just doesn't sit well with me. It's up to the rapist to not rape me.
edit:What Seji said.

I haven't read all the way through the topic yet,but say for example a guy and a girl both get shit faced drunk to the point where they can't remember anything from the day before,and the girl cries rape when she wakes up from somebody that she can't recall giving consent to.

Why exactly should she be absolved from something that she participated in,meanwhile the guy that was equally as drunk now has a case,and a reputation that will follow him for the rest of his life?

Also let's assume that they were in a home enviroment,and he didn't drive her anywhere.

[Hatsumomo]

Just want to point out that rapists still do get off on completely shitty excuses that place all the blame on the victim. For example, a case in Virginia (I think; this state is so fucking backwards I can't stand it) had a woman asleep in her own house. A man broke in and raped her and somehow got off because the defense lawyer managed to twist it around and put the blame on the woman. I really wish I could find the magazine article this was in. I just threw out a shitload of magazines, so it's probably long gone now. Another case in this hick-ass state was way back when a girl was taking a driving lesson with her teacher and the teacher raped her and blamed it on the girl wearing tight jeans and he got off (this one was told to me by my 12th grade Government teacher).

Not to mention that the "she was wearing sexy clothes/acting provocatively/her sexual background makes her rape claim ambiguous/more victim blaming/etc." excuses somehow still work in 2007. Thankfully not as much as it used to, but unfortunately it still does enough to create this big black hole of unreported rapes.

What puts all of us at a disadvantage is that rape is probably the hardest crime to prove. Unless the assault left "Hey, this shit was so not consensual" damage and there is some sort of DNA left over and/or the victim has been murdered, it's so very hard to prove. Half the time, it's a he-said/she-said type deal. Especially if the rapist is somebody you know. And what sucks even more is that defense lawyers can bring up the victim's sexual background if they can manipulate the courts into thinking it's relevant. They're trying to curb that, but still.


I'm of the opinion that nobody deserves to be raped and the blame should be placed on the rapist, but ladies, don't make it easy for the defense in court.


Oh, and I wanted to add the results of a study done at my university about this very thing. A survey was handed to random students where they read different scenarios where a female was raped and alcohol was involved in some form and the students were to determine fault. The results were:

1.) If they were both drunk = her fault
2.) She was drunk, he was sober = her fault
3.) He was drunk, she was sober = her fault
4.) They were both sober = his fault

[Life25Karma]

"He's undressing me with his EYES!! - HELP!!!? RAPE!?!

[Psychochink]

I'm not going to get stuck into this, patently absurd, debate but I will say...

According to this list, I rape my fiancee an awful lot. Actually, apparently she rapes me a lot, too.

...I feel so violated...

(My personal favourite is 'if you're both drunk, it's rape'. Say what, now? Or is it a case of who gets the accusation in first? Race down to the cop shop the next day after a night of drunken sex and whoever cries rape first, wins? Bonus points for the man if it's clear he must have had huge beer goggles on.)

[Pierrot le Fou]

You seem to think the list applies to both genders.

It does not.

Only men can rape according to this list.

[Citizen]

I enjoy the fact that 1-11 are all covered under 9. Redundancy ftw.

[Overkongen]

Hatsumomo, I agree that very few men are convicted of rape. However, this might also stem from the fact that quite a few women are willing to cry rape.

In my backwards socialist paradise (sic), these cases were regularly in the papers. Women would get drunk, cheat on their boyfriends, cry rape. They'd get rejected by a guy, cry rape, get dumped by their boyfriend, cry rape. The media attention is starting to shift now, though, to people crying pedophile. During this month, there have already been two cases of people making up shit because they didn't like a given teacher.

Anywho, women cry rape. Not all women do, but some. Thus, if you want to convict someone of rape, her word will not be enough. I believe this would change if women would stop lying.

Women lie, rapists go free.

[japanat]

I dunno, but I think some of the arguments are getting a little extreme here, on both sides.

When I said "No means no", that doesn't necessarily mean that I need a yes contract to play. But a real 'No' can come in many forms: an outright "No!"; a "Not right now" is rather more encouraging, but still a "no" for now (she may change her mind, she may not - your try, but HER choice); her body stiffening up; turning her head away; kicking you in the nuts.

Now, a low-pitched playful "No..., no..., no..., mmmmmm" is obviously different.

And obviously, in a perfect world like Roxie wants, a woman shouldn't have to watch out for her ass. It should be the potential rapist's job to not rape. But we don't live in a perfect world, and it's only sensible not to put yourself into a situation where you could become a victim.

But I really don't see pandaclair's situation as putting herself into harms' way. It was a public party. She didn't drink a shitload, the punch was drugged. She didn't accept a drink from a random stranger, this was a common punchbowl, yes? And every young lady had the same symptoms!

I was a frat-boy, and we didn't rape women. Hell, we didn't need to; there were always plenty of willing ladies around, like frat groupies. Those fuckers should have all been prosecuted, and I really can't believe that the campus police or Greek council didn't follow up on this, Big10 or no.

[Kaji]

Those fuckers should have all been prosecuted, and I really can't believe that the campus police or Greek council didn't follow up on this, Big10 or no.

Amen to that. The possibility of stuff like that happening is why my school banned punch bowls outright. Could just be where I'm from, but don't they teach you to avoid them at parties as part of avoiding these kinds of situations?

In the end what it boils down to, really, is that everyone has an obligation to look out for their own well-being.

[Kaji]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fcb-3xmYIA

Just to lighten the mood a bit...

[Pierrot le Fou]

I'd be very wary of punch to begin with, just because you don't know how strong it is, and because of the whole potential to be drugged. I'm not trying to blame her, and I certainly think that never should have happened (and was an extreme case), but it is a lesson to learn.

[Kass]

Actually, Hatsumomo, men are convicted quite a lot of sexual assaults in this state, often enough that it is a travesty, they are WRONGLY convicted. Don't forget rape is not the only sexual assualt charge to be levied. My PO husband ALWAYS has at least one or two women who are convicted of filing false police reports of rape accusations on his case load. That would be a misdemeanor offense, while the falsely accused has a FELONY sexual assault charge on his record. sometimes it is a conviction, others only a charge. Either way, the guy 's life is ALWAYS ruined.

~~
(All "yous" from here on out are generic.)

Getting drunk is a PERSONAL choice and a stupid one at that, especially if you are in the presence of people you neither know nor trust. If you are so drunk that your memory and faculties are impaired, how the hell do you know if you said yes or not? Being drunk doesn't automatically convert a yes into a no. No one ever has the right to have sex with you if you say an "actual " no, and no one has the right to drug you and rape you, but if you're so drunk you'll hit anything in the room, that's your problem, not his. Regret the next day is NOT the same as a lack of consent.

If you are drunk and you say no, stop there and he continues, it is rape. If he asks and you drunkenly take off your clothes and spread your legs, it is NOT rape, no matter how stupid it was and no matter much you regret it. If you say no, then drunkenly take off your clothes, spread your legs and invite him in, it is still not rape. It's called changing your mind and it isn't a crime on his part.

As for ANY no means no, that is horse manure. Girls play games. The term "cock tease" exists for a very good reason. It's one of the reasons I'm so bloody picky about the women I date. I can't stand the drama and the "oh, I'll flirt and tease and undress in front of you, but when push comes to shove, I'm going to equivocate right out of my underwear. No, I don't want to. Oh, don't stop. That feels so good. Wait, don't do that. I'm not sure I want to. Oh, that is just right. Convince me..." For crying out loud, make up your bloody mind or get out of my house!

It wasn't until I started dating women several years ago that I realized why men are so bitter. Some women can be a royal pain in the butt. I find myself apologizing for women an awful lot anymore, primarily because I feel guilty by gender association. God, I love an honest woman who will say, "look, I don't want to have sex with you" or "Hey, I want to wake the neighbors all night long." I'm not a fan of one-night stands, but I'll even take "I'll do ya, but I'm leaving in the morning and no, you can't have my number" over the coy BS many women employ. I am eternally grateful none of my friends are like that.

There are women for whom the idea of being convinced/forced is a turn-on and will say "no no no" the whole time and love every minute of it. How is a guy supposed to know the difference? It is women who send the mixed messages.

Guys are easy to read. They either want to have sex or not. I have yet to meet a guy who got halfway home and then changed his mind. Women are not. For good, bad or otherwise, women are mercurial and hard to read and frequently, deliberately so. It is unfair to expect a man to be a mind reader and if you don't say what you really mean, don't expect him to know you dont really mean it. The mystery of a woman is an attractive and intoxicating thing, but at some point, you have to say what you really mean.

Women make all the rules when it comes to defining rape anymore. I watched a 16-year-old boy go on trial for rape because he had consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend, but when daddy walked in and caught them, she started screaming "rape" at the top of her lying little lungs. Fortunately, the jury didn't buy her story anymore than anyone else did, so he didn't end up with a forcible rape conviction. Lucky him. He got a statutory rape conviction instead.

I actually posted in that woman's blog once and put about 15 different scenarios to her involving situations in which I could have sex. In some I was the initiator, some I wasn't. I could NOT come up with ONE that she did not define as rape. Essentially, I could be stark naked, walk up to a guy, rip his clothes off, knock him to the ground and bang him like a Salvation Army drum and because I lack a penis, I would be getting raped. If I was standing naked in a room full of men at a party and a guy walked up, asked me if I wanted to have sex and I said yes, I was getting raped because he noticed I was naked and asked to have sex.

She was FURIOUS. She kicked and screamed, insulted me, called me a traitor to the gender, said I was setting women's rights back hundreds of years and (this was the riotous part) it was all the fault of my father and the men in my life because they abused me, brainwashed me and I had become a spineless victim. For the record, my father never abused me. My ex-husband was an insulting dick, and I thought if he were drunk enough he might try to hit me, but I was dying for him to take a swing at me so I could knock him on his drunken ass. He'd come home drunk and I'd see how far I could push him so he'd either leave or finally do something stupid enough I could have him arrested for. (Admittedly, not the healthiest reaction to a problem and no, I don't do it anymore. I'm smart enough to learn from my mistakes.)

By the time I was done, she deleted all my responses and ridiculed me in subsequent posts because she couldn't pick apart my arguments on anything other than emotion. Apparently logic isn't her strong point.

All the while, she refuses to acknowledge that men can be the victims of both rape and false accusations. Men are the cause of all evil in the world should be punished, regardless of actual guilt. Women are not obligated to be responsible for their behavior.

These things are NOT justification for rape: clothing choice, alcohol intake, location, time, or behavior. However, every single one of them increases or decreases your risk of becoming a victim. Between two otherwise equal women, the one most likely to be raped is the one in more suggestive clothing, intoxicated, in the wrong neighborhood, out at the wrong time, or behaving in a promiscuous manner. That is a simple fact backed up by years of interviewing rapists by my husband. They all had choices of victims and they all chose the easiest one and every victim conciously or unconciously made a choice that made them a more attractive target.

That isn't to say you can't wear sexy clothing, drink, go out at night or the like. It means you either a) do it accepting the risks and don't take precautions, or b) take other actions to mitigate your risky behavior. Go out in a group and make it clear before the evening starts you aren't going off alone with some man or ensure you are with someone who will remain sober and responsible who will look out for you. Don't go to dodgy neighborhoods. Be alert. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

Roxie is right about one thing. The onus is on the criminal to not commit a crime. There's no excuse for it. But completely failing to acknowledge that our own actions can directly affect our likelihood of being vicimized is willful ignorance on her part. Every decision you make puts you in a situation that has good and bad outcomes. If you consistently make poor decisions about your comportment, the odds are that eventually you will become the victim of a crime.

[Roxie]

I LOVE HOW EVERYONE MAGICALLY IGNORED ME WHEN I SAID
I'm not saying you shouldn't take care of yourself and be as safe as possible,
I said I use my judgment. It works for me.
That's fantastic.
Now not only do we have to make sure the woman isn't saying no, but that she's also giving a 'firm' yes.


This is absolutely fucking stupid. Why should the man be forced to interrogate a woman and get a contract signed in blood signifying consent before sticking his willy in her, rather than trusting that women are capable of communicating their desires or lack thereof and reacting appropriately to the situation?
STOP WITH THE FUCKING HYPERBOLE!
My point is, you may not want to go forward if you have an abscence of consent.

I said nothing regarding interrogation, contracts, blood, or a women's lack of ability to communicate. That's all you.

I think it's fucking hilarious that you're shrugging this off as if it's just something SO much beyond you. How could anyone possibly ask you to make sure you're certain of consent? Yet, you're all up in arms about what the woman is or is not doing and what state of mind she's in. I have never said one shouldn't be concerned about her safety and shouldn't take steps to be safe, so stop the idiocy.

Just as women should make sure of her saftey, you should make sure of your own by making sure you have consent. However you achieve that: smoke signals, cards, face to face conversations, sign language, whatever, it is in your best interest to make sure that consent is there.

As much as no one wants to be raped, you don't want to be a rapist either.
You are a self-righteous blowhard. Jesus Christ.I'm the self-righteous blowhard? You're the one calling me a bitch and I'm the self-righteous blowhard? Get over yourself.

It is your responsibility to take care of yourself. Full stop. It is your responsibility to look after the security of yourself, your family, and your possessions. Full stop.
Which exactly what I'm saying when I'm talking about being sure you've got consent

Your tagline is, "It's not my responsibility!"
That's news to me. Tell me where I said that? Quote me, would you? I 'd like to see where I wrote that.
Playing it safe?

I played it safe for the first 21 years of my life, and it really got me nothing other being a free counselor on speed-dial. Then I started to take the risk and - hello! things actually happened.

What I'm trying to tell you is that it's NEVER clear. There are very few situations where the guy can safely, 100% think "Well, this girl likes me and wants to have sex with me". Why? That's the way women play the game. Maybe if y'all could be up front and honest about it, we wouldn't have to play guess and chance, but that's just how it is.
Whatever. I don't know shit about the "game". I'm not trying to help you get laid. I don't play games. I am very straightfoward. I let you know if I like you. Often, I ask the guy out. If someone's playing games, I don't have time and niether should you. I'm not familiar with that and I don't understand it, so i'm not gonna talk about it.

That was then. While I'm sure there are still traces of patriarchy left over, I'd say women have gotten themselves a decent foothold since then.
Traces?? Much more than that.
I love how Roxie keeps telling Az he needs to take responsibility and play it safe when a girl says no, and yet she keeps saying it's not her responsibility to do anything to prevent the possibility of herself being raped
That is not what I said.
My point is, that's where the focus ALWAYS is. The focus is always on the woman to prevent her own rape. Haven't you heard of the anti-rape condom? (http://www.rapestop.net/gallery/folderview.asp?folder=Anti-Rape+Condom+in+open+position)

There are two sides to every rape. Let's address them BOTH.

Women want equality, equality involves both sides taking responsibility. What feminists of your ilk really seem to be after is all the privlidges you perceive men as having, but without any of the responsibilities that have traditionally come with those privlidges.
You couldn't be further from the truth. Srsly.

And the heavens have parted b/c I agree with Kass.
These things are NOT justification for rape: clothing choice, alcohol intake, location, time, or behavior.
Which is what I was trying to say, b/c it seemed to me this is how it was being presented in this thread. (I also agree with the rest of your post below that).

In short, yes, you should try to be as safe as you can--men & women. However, that's no guarentee. Just b/c you're a lawful, responsible individual doesn't mean that next person is. If they've got it in their mind to committ a crime, they're going to try. You can't make them not try.

No girl wants to be raped, so stay alert and try to have a plan.
No guy wants to be labeled a rapist, so if there's doubt, do without.

[stsparky]

Sometimes the right answer is no. If things go swimmingly - another chance will come. And everyone? Let's give some thanks to Roxie for this lively debate. The current arc in Doonesbury (http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/) is about betrayal and rape.

MST stands for Military Sexual Trauma -- and it's not surprising you haven't heard it before. Although the problem is not new, the coinage is recent enough that it's not yet included on some military acronym lists. Here's some background on the subject.

Sexual Assault Pervasive in Military, Experts Say (http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=1273)
Run Date: 03/30/03
By Marie Tessier
WEnews correspondent
Sexual assault remains a pervasive problem for women in the military, including those currently deployed overseas. Experts say the military's hierarchy is ill-equipped and unprepared to deal fairly with rape complaints.



(WOMENSENEWS)--Victim advocates and military health care leaders say that sexual assault remains a pervasive problem for women serving in all branches of the military, including those deployed overseas.

Their concern about the assaults on female members of the military is especially high now, with the nation at war and the recent removal of four high-ranking officials from their posts at the U.S. Air Force Academy following an investigation of sexual assaults there.

"It's not just the academies. It's not just the Air Force. It's all the services and it's a pervasive part of the culture," says Christine Hansen, executive director of The Miles Foundation, Inc., a victim service and advocacy agency for victims of sexual and domestic violence in the military. "Many women tell me that sexual assault is considered a rite of passage in the service, and they're treated like the black sheep of the family when they ask for accountability."

Military sexual trauma has been identified by Pentagon health care experts as a major deployment and readiness issue. Rape victims often experience post-traumatic stress symptoms such as anxiety, depression and intrusive thoughts, and are more likely to develop post-traumatic stress in other situations, according to military research. Sexual trauma is the subject of an increasing number of studies about workplace safety in the armed forces, according to Pentagon's Web site and health care experts.

Officials last week said they were not able to discover how the issue is being handled in the Iraqi war theater and in and around Afghanistan. Similarly, they could not answer the question of how many assaults have been reported to criminal investigators in recent years.

Air Force legal affairs spokeswoman Valerie Burkes did say, "We do not have a problem with sexual offenses in the Air Force."

A new assessment of risk factors for sexual assault in the military says that 28 percent of female veterans reported sexual assault during their careers, with consistent rates found across eras, according to a report in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine. The study found that "officer leadership" played an important role in the military environment and safety of women and that an environment with unwanted sexual behaviors increased the odds of rape--factors also cited by Pentagon study panels in recent years.

Military sexual trauma even has its own acronym--MST--in the Veterans Affairs offices. Veterans Affairs hospitals have been required for two years to have counseling services available for sexual trauma. Services are provided for women and men.

Military public affairs officials were unable last week to provide any numbers of reported rapes in their ranks, though they say they are researching the question at Women's eNews' request. They also could not answer how many women have been assaulted while deployed in the Middle East or Central Asia.

Twenty-four cases of sexual assault were reported during the first Persian Gulf War deployments in 1990 and 1991, according to the Department of Defense.

Though reports to criminal investigation authorities are difficult to find, a common estimate among advocates and health care experts is about one quarter of women in the military say they have been sexually assaulted during their careers.

In 1996, the Defense Department surveyed women in the military about their experiences in the previous 12 months, and found that 9 percent of women in the Marines, 8 percent of women in the Army, 6 percent of women in the Navy and 4 percent of women in the Air Force had experienced a rape or an attempted rape that year. About 200,000 women serve in the military, so these numbers represent more than 10,000 sexual assaults or attempted assaults each year.

More than 67,000 women veterans, or as much as 29 percent of those served at Veterans Affairs clinics in recent years, say they experienced sexual assault in the military, says Sherri Bauch, a deputy field director for the Women Veterans Health Program. And even those numbers fall far short of a complete count, service providers say. The figures do not cover women veterans who do not use the clinics and would not reflect women who left the service before their enlistment was complete.

"Sexual trauma is something that has happened at all times in history," said Faith Hoffman, the director of the women's center at the veterans hospital in Buffalo. She treats women for sexual trauma and post-traumatic stress. "It's not a new problem, but it is something we can treat, whether the trauma happened yesterday or it happened during the Vietnam War or before. People do not have to live with this secret."

Lack of Confidentiality, Rigid Hierarchy Make Reporting Rapes Difficult

Health care providers and advocates say that many barriers remain to women reporting sexual assault in the military. Hoffman says that women tell her that they will not even answer "yes" to a screening question if it means their record will reflect that they were raped.

The biggest ongoing problem for sexual assault in the military is the lack of confidentiality, advocates say. Any report to a nurse, doctor, counselor or police officer within the military is something that can be or must be reported to a commander. That can lead to trouble for a victim. Even attempts to hold an offender accountable can be detrimental if a victim is vulnerable to a disciplinary infraction such as those for alcohol, drugs, fraternization or adultery. Such a problem arose with one cadet at the Air Force Academy who was disciplined for having sex after she reported an assault.

"It's difficult for any victim of sexual assault to come forward, even in the best circumstances," Hansen says. "Women in the military do not feel safe to say this happened to them, especially if it means the information is going to their commander."

The entire military criminal justice system is worlds apart from the civilian world, too, advocates and health officials say. The most important difference is that decisions about investigation and prosecution are made within the chain of command, not by an adversarial outside agency like a prosecutor's office. This leaves commanders with an inherent conflict of interest: On the one hand they are responsible for seeking justice for crimes; on the other, they are bound as leaders to protect the soldiers and sailors they value and to maintain good morale in their units. This can be difficult when an allegation involves an otherwise valuable or likeable serviceman.

"These are highly educated military strategists making decisions, not people trained in rape crisis intervention," Hansen says. "There's an inherent conflict of interest that may seriously deter them from holding offenders accountable."

The issue of consent to a sexual encounter is also more complicated in military situations than in civilian life because of the hierarchy of military command, says Gene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, a private group. People in the service are intensely trained to follow orders, so it is problematic for a servicewoman to say "no" to a superior, he says.

"It's a rigid hierarchy," he explains. "You're talking about people who are used to doing what they're told."

Even as problems remain, leaders of women's programs within the Veterans Affairs system say they are working hard to advocate for more widespread sexual trauma treatment programs.

"We are seeing a lot of new cases coming in from women's experience being triggered by the stories at the Air Force Academy and of the war," says Hoffman of the Buffalo VA center. "With military sexual trauma counseling we have the ability and the resources now to help women heal."

Marie Tessier is a freelance journalist who writes frequently about violence against women.

For more information:

The Miles Foundation--
Services and advocacy for victims of sexual
and domestic violence in the military:
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/milesfdn/myhomepage/

Center for Women Veterans--
Department of Veterans Affairs:
http://www.va.gov/womenvet

Military and Veterans Health Coordinating Board--
Deployment Readiness-a review of sexual trauma
Reviewed References:
http://www.mvhcb.gov/mvhcb_13h/Deployment_Readiness/Reviewed_Refs.htm

[Campion]

That was then. While I'm sure there are still traces of patriarchy left over, I'd say women have gotten themselves a decent foothold since then.

I don't get this. Either you're deliberately baiting Roxie, you're not thinking this through or I'm about to horribly misrepresent your position.

On an economic scale men are still in power and I don't think we are going to be getting rid of that disparity in a hurry. I've done a quick head-count of the top five transnational corporations (from Fortune500) and worked out the percentage of women that sit on the board of directors for these companies.

Walmart (http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=502) - 15 Board Members (3 Women)
ExxonMobil (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/InvestorInfo/Corp_II_Board.asp) - 12 Board Members (2 Women)
General Motors (http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/corp_gov/board.html#) - 13 Board Members (3 Women)
Chevron (http://www.chevron.com/about/company_profile/board_directors.asp) - 14 Board Members (1 Woman)
ConocoPhillips (http://www.conocophillips.com/about/Leadership+Team/index.htm) - 13 Board Members (1 Woman)

Out of all of these companies, women comprise just 15% of the decision making process. Those numbers don't appear to me to be completely representational considering the gender split in the world is roughly 50:50. If women have a foothold in industry at all then that is truly all they have.

On a political scale, I admit it's slightly better.. in the US Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Senate) there are 16 women out of 100 serving senators, this at least is a step in the right direction considering that in its entire history only 35 women have been elected full stop, but it is still a glaring disparity.

I'm not saying that women should be gifted board or senate positions just because they are women, so I hope no-one will pull out that pathetic old chestnut. All I am saying is that in all walks of life from top to bottom there is still an awful lot of patriarchal 'bro's before ho's' shit going on and I don't see it going away anytime soon.

Think of the words we use to differentiate the sexes, if a woman doesn't marry she's a spinster (negative connotation) if a man doesn't marry he's a bachelor (positive connotation), hell let's think of the connotations implicit in such words as stud or slut (which tend by connotation rather than word to be gender specific). These words and their implied level of taste/distaste are empowered by a still emphatically patriarchal order. If we actually want equality between the two sexes, why do we continue to seperate ourselves by allowing this sort of misogyny to carry on?

A foothold in power? Maybe so, I guess it depends on whether or not you think that foothold is enough.



Campion.

[Kaji]

Corporations are one thing, and even then there's a reason for it (read: Childbirth). Difference between that and this discussion is that in the case of relationships, the government has put it entirely in the hands of women to decide what's rape and what's not with this "any no means NO" business. As Kass clearly showed, that's not as easy as those who conceived it would like to paint it, due to human nature (especially regarding women's temperments).

Addendum:

I LOVE HOW EVERYONE MAGICALLY IGNORED ME WHEN I SAID, "I'm not saying you shouldn't take care of yourself and be as safe as possible,"

I think it has to do with you arguing that how drunk you are and how you're dressed don't in any way affect the chances of being raped. Criminal expert (Kass) has refuted that, as has the "common knowledge" you were appealing to on page 2.

Further, arguing that you can't do anything to stop rape from happening is bull. By being alert and minimizing the above noted risk factors, you can at least make an attempt to get out of a potentially bad situation before something happens. You're not supposed to be giving someone an opportunity to rape you before taking preventive action.

[Campion]

Corporations are one thing, and even then there's a reason for it (read: Childbirth). Difference between that and this discussion is that in the case of relationships, the government has put it entirely in the hands of women to decide what's rape and what's not with this "any no means NO" business. As Kass clearly showed, that's not as easy as those who conceived it would like to paint it, due to human nature (especially regarding women's temperments).

Okay, so I've misinterpreted the conversation between Roxie and Az then. I apologise. The point that I was trying to make was that regardless of where you are in the order of life, men tend to disproportionately win the gender wars and it starts at the top.

I'm not buying the Childbirth is the death of a career thing. All of the women in my family were out of work for less than a year for each child and most people on the boards of these companies are beyond the traditional child-rearing stage. I've closed all the links down, but I think the average age of the board members would have been in the late fifties (EDIT: where age provided on links - mid-sixties).

We've got a similar law in England I think and essentially these days you pretty much need written consent which probably does take the fun out of it a bit. If the law passes in the states and no always means no, if she says no (even to flirt), just go hit someone who says yes.

Oh God, I've started saying 'bro's before ho's' and 'hit', what the hell is happening to me?


Campion.

[Roxie]

I think it has to do with you arguing that how drunk you are and how you're dressed don't in any way affect the chances of being raped.
Uh, no. What I said it doesn't mean you're deserving of what happens to you. What Kass said is that it affects your chances, it puts you at risk. I agree with that.

Criminal expert (Kass) has refuted that, as has the "common knowledge" you were appealing to on page 2.
No, that's not what she said.

I said there are women who will lie and say they were raped, but they're in much lower numbers than the ones who actually were.

You're not supposed to be giving someone an opportunity to rape you before taking preventive action.
Where did I say that?

You can be as cautious as you want--and it's a great idea, be cautious, be safe, but it's still up to the criminal to not commit the crime.

[Roxie]

Okay, so I've misinterpreted the conversation between Roxie and Az then. I apologise.
You didn't misunderstand it on my side.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

...According to the list, only men can be rapists.

And it's gospel.

According to the Uniform code of military justice (US), men can't be raped. if you take it literally.

920. ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.

Closet thing males have to rape protection under the UCJM is

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Can't really say sodomy is the same as rape, though.

[Pierrot le Fou]

blah blah blah
Roxie, get over yourself. You spew double-standards as if it were your job.

You say "I'm not saying you shouldn't take care of yourself and be as safe as possible" coupled with "While it is not smart to get too drunk at a party and getting drunk CAN be your doing (although being drugged is not) that does not contribute to a rape." You're saying that not getting drunk doesn't have anything to do with being as safe as possible, since it doesn't contribute to rape.

Kass has stated this is false. You have provided no information that it is true.

You claim, "My point is, you may not want to go forward if you have an abscence of consent" only to follow it up with "I said nothing regarding interrogation, contracts, blood, or a women's lack of ability to communicate." Then, in the same post no less, only a couple lines down comes this gem "you should make sure of your own by making sure you have consent. However you achieve that: smoke signals, cards, face to face conversations, sign language, whatever, it is in your best interest to make sure that consent is there."

What's your idea of consent?

"If you think there is anything but a firm yes, don't do it." And how do you guarantee that a given yes was a 'firm' yes and not a 'for now' yes? Well, writing would be a good way to go about that, since a yes uttered in the bedroom means jack and shit when I'm being brought up on rape charges because the woman regretted it the next day.

So yes, I'm the one bringing up a contract, but your logic states that is the only reasonable way for me to look out for my safety. Don't talk about 'hyperbole' when your argument logically leads to the same damned conclusion.

You refuse to acknowledge that actions of women contribute to rape. You readily acknowledge that a man who doesn't get a 'firm yes' should have no business getting it on. You make the woman entirely powerless in the situation, and lay the entire burden of responsibility on the man to establish consent. That is absurd, unfair, and sexist.

You are being entirely 6000% unreasonable on this. You claim to want equality, while laying the burden of responsibility on someone else.

Know what equality would be? Making both people responsible for consent. Or rather, making it necessary for someone who didn't want it to clearly state a non-joking 'no.' Instead you require the man to get a 'firm yes' or else the man is held responsible. And the woman? Well even if she's so drunk she can't stand, that doesn't contribute to rape, and she has no responsibility for that situation.

Give me a fucking break.

You say there are two sides to every rape? Not ONCE have you discussed a man being screwed without his 'firm yes' or consent. Not ONCE have you discussed a woman needing to take the initiative to establish consent. Your 'both sides' of rape are the victim (female) and the rapist (male).

You don't WANT a real discussion of the issues, you just want to forward your own slanted fucking agenda.

You are dishonest, refuse to accept responsibility for your stances or actions, and NEVER concede when you're full of shit. As is the case in this discussion.

On an economic scale men are still in power and I don't think we are going to be getting rid of that disparity in a hurry. I've done a quick head-count of the top five transnational corporations (from Fortune500) and worked out the percentage of women that sit on the board of directors for these companies.
Read the wiki article on the Gender Gap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_USA). The long and short of it:
Although only full-time workers are included, the FTYR gender gap figure does not account for the fact that full-time male workers, on average, work longer hours (8 more per week) than full-time female workers (Rones et al, 1997). The gender gap also does not take into account the fact that men have on average more years of work experience than women. Women, to a greater extent than men, leave their careers for years at a time to care for children, resulting in fewer years of pay raises.

The gender gap does also not take into account the fact that amongst those holding a bachelor's degree of higher, women are much less likely to have obtained a degree in higher paying fields such as Engineering or Business. According to the national association of colleges and employers in 2005, A bachelor's degree in engineering for recent college graduates in engineering is reported at $51,508 whereas a degree in the liberal arts has an average salary of $30,377. When advanced degrees such as a doctorate are taken into account, this gap across fields still holds - the average salary for someone with a liberal arts doctorate is similar to that of someone with a Bachelor's degree in engineering.
In short, it's shorter hours, less experience, and fewer highly-skilled qualifications. The 'actual' gap is more like 2% less wages, which is bad, mind you, but really not horrible.

[erbiumfiber]

Whoa! Rape is still punishable by DEATH under the UCMJ? Who knew?

I know in the old days it was punishable by death for civilians, but that ended a long time ago.

[mawande]

I've never been raped that I know of. My mother says I was once molested, but I don't remember it. I did fall into a relationship with a man who turned out to be a drug-addict and alcoholic, largely because I was ignorant of what that meant. Got punched while pregnant before I finally gave up on him. He saved the punching for until after I was pregnant, probably thinking that would keep me with him.

But I have been single in Japan for nine and a half years because it's far less stressful than being with a man.

[erbiumfiber]

Proudly single for 17 years following my divorce. Being a single parent, working a professional job, no time or energy for a "relationship." And I don't believe in sex outside of an extremely committed relationship (for me- for others, it's your own choice).

[Roxie]

I see you really enjoy making up total fabrications and ignoring my previous statements than actually taking them literally, so I'll leave you to it PLF.

Tell me what else did I not say?

[manrush]

Roxie, get over yourself. You spew double-standards as if it were your job.

You say "I'm not saying you shouldn't take care of yourself and be as safe as possible" coupled with "While it is not smart to get too drunk at a party and getting drunk CAN be your doing (although being drugged is not) that does not contribute to a rape." You're saying that not getting drunk doesn't have anything to do with being as safe as possible, since it doesn't contribute to rape.

Kass has stated this is false. You have provided no information that it is true.

You claim, "My point is, you may not want to go forward if you have an abscence of consent" only to follow it up with "I said nothing regarding interrogation, contracts, blood, or a women's lack of ability to communicate." Then, in the same post no less, only a couple lines down comes this gem "you should make sure of your own by making sure you have consent. However you achieve that: smoke signals, cards, face to face conversations, sign language, whatever, it is in your best interest to make sure that consent is there."

What's your idea of consent?

"If you think there is anything but a firm yes, don't do it." And how do you guarantee that a given yes was a 'firm' yes and not a 'for now' yes? Well, writing would be a good way to go about that, since a yes uttered in the bedroom means jack and shit when I'm being brought up on rape charges because the woman regretted it the next day.

So yes, I'm the one bringing up a contract, but your logic states that is the only reasonable way for me to look out for my safety. Don't talk about 'hyperbole' when your argument logically leads to the same damned conclusion.

You refuse to acknowledge that actions of women contribute to rape. You readily acknowledge that a man who doesn't get a 'firm yes' should have no business getting it on. You make the woman entirely powerless in the situation, and lay the entire burden of responsibility on the man to establish consent. That is absurd, unfair, and sexist.

You are being entirely 6000% unreasonable on this. You claim to want equality, while laying the burden of responsibility on someone else.

Know what equality would be? Making both people responsible for consent. Or rather, making it necessary for someone who didn't want it to clearly state a non-joking 'no.' Instead you require the man to get a 'firm yes' or else the man is held responsible. And the woman? Well even if she's so drunk she can't stand, that doesn't contribute to rape, and she has no responsibility for that situation.

Give me a fucking break.

You say there are two sides to every rape? Not ONCE have you discussed a man being screwed without his 'firm yes' or consent. Not ONCE have you discussed a woman needing to take the initiative to establish consent. Your 'both sides' of rape are the victim (female) and the rapist (male).

You don't WANT a real discussion of the issues, you just want to forward your own slanted fucking agenda.

You are dishonest, refuse to accept responsibility for your stances or actions, and NEVER concede when you're full of shit. As is the case in this discussion.


Read the wiki article on the Gender Gap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_USA). The long and short of it:
Although only full-time workers are included, the FTYR gender gap figure does not account for the fact that full-time male workers, on average, work longer hours (8 more per week) than full-time female workers (Rones et al, 1997). The gender gap also does not take into account the fact that men have on average more years of work experience than women. Women, to a greater extent than men, leave their careers for years at a time to care for children, resulting in fewer years of pay raises.

The gender gap does also not take into account the fact that amongst those holding a bachelor's degree of higher, women are much less likely to have obtained a degree in higher paying fields such as Engineering or Business. According to the national association of colleges and employers in 2005, A bachelor's degree in engineering for recent college graduates in engineering is reported at $51,508 whereas a degree in the liberal arts has an average salary of $30,377. When advanced degrees such as a doctorate are taken into account, this gap across fields still holds - the average salary for someone with a liberal arts doctorate is similar to that of someone with a Bachelor's degree in engineering.
In short, it's shorter hours, less experience, and fewer highly-skilled qualifications. The 'actual' gap is more like 2% less wages, which is bad, mind you, but really not horrible.

Sorry, PLF. I actually agree with Roxie on this one (which is a first). But to the point. I don't see where she says that it's all the man's fault. She stated that "it was up to the potential rapist to stop the rape." That doesn't translate to "it's the man's fault". She specifically said "rapist." Yes, a majority of rapists are men, but this is not an attack on the male gender. I'll give you that women have to use common sense in order to avoid getting raped, but be careful. Don't justify the rapist. (Why do people blame the victims in a crime like rape?). And there are men who have been raped. I just wish that they would speak up. She never said that girls who are intoxicated are fully without fault (at least I don't think she did).

To Roxie: what do you mean by a "firm yes?" Is this "yes" still binding the morning after, even if the girl regrets having sex?

[Roxie]

You say "I'm not saying you shouldn't take care of yourself and be as safe as possible" coupled with "While it is not smart to get too drunk at a party and getting drunk CAN be your doing (although being drugged is not) that does not contribute to a rape." You're saying that not getting drunk doesn't have anything to do with being as safe as possible, since it doesn't contribute to rape.
Except of course for that last post where I said
There are two sides to every rape. Let's address them BOTH.

No girl wants to be raped, so stay alert and try to have a plan.
No guy wants to be labeled a rapist, so if there's doubt, do without.

Kass has stated this is false. You have provided no information that it is true.
I never said I would "provide information" on the topic. I provided information on rape, and one link specifically on male rape.
how do you guarantee that a given yes was a 'firm' yes and not a 'for now' yes? Well, writing would be a good way to go about that, since a yes uttered in the bedroom means jack and shit when I'm being brought up on rape charges because the woman regretted it the next day.
That's your opinion. I reccomend face to face converstaion.
You can't guarantee anything. The point is to try and be safe.
You say "________, make no mistakes about this, this what you want?" or something similiar and get an affirmative reaction. That's kinda of what I was thinking of.

So yes, I'm the one bringing up a contract, but your logic states that is the only reasonable way for me to look out for my safety. Don't talk about 'hyperbole' when your argument logically leads to the same damned conclusion.
No the fuck it does not lead to that conclusion. YOU took it their, stop making shit up.

You refuse to acknowledge that actions of women contribute to rape. You readily acknowledge that a man who doesn't get a 'firm yes' should have no business getting it on. You make the woman entirely powerless in the situation, and lay the entire burden of responsibility on the man to establish consent. That is absurd, unfair, and sexist.
Really? Cause I recall saying..
I'm not saying you shouldn't take care of yourself and be as safe as possible,

In short, yes, you should try to be as safe as you can--men & women.
There are two sides to every rape. Let's address them BOTH.

No girl wants to be raped, so stay alert and try to have a plan.
No guy wants to be labeled a rapist, so if there's doubt, do without.



Know what equality would be? Making both people responsible for consent.
Yup, I absolutely agree.

Or rather, making it necessary for someone who didn't want it to clearly state a non-joking 'no.'
I agree with that too

Instead you require the man to get a 'firm yes' or else the man is held responsible. And the woman?
That is NOT what I said. I said it's in your best intrest to do so. Just as it's in a girl's best interest to not get black-out drunk.

Well even if she's so drunk she can't stand, that doesn't contribute to rape, and she has no responsibility for that situation.
The problem is the word "contribute" means 1. to give (money, time, knowledge, assistance, etc....So I have a problem with saying she contributed to her own rape. Can you see the issue with "contribute"? It's as if she's done something and is waiting for to happen, essentially asking for it.

Now, put herself at risk is completely different. To get black-out drunk is putting yourself at risk. That I agree with.


You say there are two sides to every rape? Not ONCE have you discussed a man being screwed without his 'firm yes' or consent. Not ONCE have you discussed a woman needing to take the initiative to establish consent. Your 'both sides' of rape are the victim (female) and the rapist (male).
Actually I did. I brought up male rape, along with a link on some info about it around two pages ago.

You don't WANT a real discussion of the issues, you just want to forward your own slanted fucking agenda.
Ooh, i have my own agenda now?! That's awesome. Excuse me, while I go rub my hands together and giggle at my dark plans.

You are dishonest, refuse to accept responsibility for your stances or actions, and NEVER concede when you're full of shit. As is the case in this discussion.
You sir, are the one who's full of shit. You put things into my arguements that I never said, you infer completely off the wall meanings, and you flat out ignore things I've already said.

Which leads me to believe you're just a raving lunatic who enjoys shouting at me and calling me names rather than actually paying attention to what has been said.

[PopCulturePooka]

Do I have to be like a moddy kinda guy and say steer clear of the personal attacks?

:(

[manrush]

Which leads me to believe you're just a raving lunatic who enjoys shouting at me and calling me names rather than actually paying attention to what has been said.

Hey, that's my job. :bwitch:

[Pierrot le Fou]

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of someone taking "responsibility" for the rape. Rape is not a mutual decision. There is a victim and a rapist. I can't see how any responsibility can be shared in that situation. No one deserves or should be raped, no matter what they're doing, their state of clarity, what they wear (or do not wear), or who they are. No one.Post #38 (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=371691&postcount=38)
While it is not smart to get too drunk at a party and getting drunk CAN be your doing (although being drugged is not) that does not contribute to a rape.Post #40 (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=371704&postcount=40)
No one is saying getting that drunk is smart. It's not smart, but it doesn't provoke rape. Does it impair your faculities? Yes.

I'm not saying you shouldn't take care of yourself and be as safe as possible, but that idea "well, if you get drunk, you might get raped" just doesn't sit well with me. It's up to the rapist to not rape me.Post #52 (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=371737&postcount=52)
It's up to the criminal to not commit the crime.

It doesn't matter how much I don't drink or how well I stay alert, if someone is looking to rape someone, it's going to happen (at least attempted).Post #54 (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=371747&postcount=54)
Now Roxie likes to claim that I keep misquoting her, and putting words in her mouth. Apparently she didn't care for the quotes of hers in the last post since they weren't cited. So I made sure to provide links.

She asked me to quote where she said that "It's not my responsibility" (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=371899&postcount=78), so I have. If you have the logic to follow what she's saying.

This is an example of the double-speak she tries to pass off as rational. Responsibility cannot be shared - it is 100% the rapist's fault
Getting drunk does not contribute to rape
Getting drunk is not smart, impairs your faculties, but doesn't provoke rape, but women should be safe and take care of themselves
Women can do nothing to prevent rape, since it's going to happen regardless of whether women drink or not
This really shouldn't be difficult to see through. She claims that responsibility cannot be shared. It is 100% the criminal's fault. At the same time she says that women should be safe, while saying that things that CLEARLY contribute to the lack of safety (being drunk and alone in an unfamiliar place) don't provoke or contribute to rape!

When I point out that she refuses to accept responsibility, she quotes that line about women being safe. She doesn't give a shit that it directly contradicts the rest of what she's saying!

Kass brought up, quite clearly, that rapists look for easy victims. Being an easy victim contributes to rape. Either Roxie was wrong about it not contributing, or lying about women being responsible for their own safety. She makes illogical leaps and assumptions, contradicts herself, and doesn't apologize for any of it.

Roxie is the queen of selective vision. She wants people to listen to what she says, but puts no effort into actual intellectual honesty. She doesn't respect the people she argues with, instead quoting cliches and logical mistakes in their place. And she doesn't own up to them.

You want people to take your arguments seriously Roxie? Do you really think that your arguments have merit? Then get your head out of your ass and be responsible for your fuckups rather than rolling your eye and claiming ignorance.

You want to be treated equally? Then act like an equal, instead of an irrational emotion-filled creature of whims. You're just shooting yourself in the foot by being a self-righteous bitch while asking for respect, and denying any accountability while proclaiming that you're seeking responsibility.

ETA: And in her latest ramble, she starts discussing semantics, using the word 'contribute' as opposed to 'responsibility' despite the fact that she had used responsibility earlier, and even put it in quotes as "responsibility." She has trouble with a woman being responsible, but now claims that she really means 'contribute' instead. Bait and switch, or refusal to acknowledge that she's wrong? Either way it's dishonest.

[Roxie]

It IS 100% the rapists fault for raping someone. Flat out.

I said I have a problem with the the word "contribute" Again, you're not reading what I wrote, but making shit up.

* Responsibility cannot be shared - it is 100% the rapist's fault
* Getting drunk does not contribute to rape
* Getting drunk is not smart, impairs your faculties, but doesn't provoke rape, but women should be safe and take care of themselves
* Women can do nothing to prevent rape, since it's going to happen regardless of whether women drink or not
I'm sorry, how do these conflict?
It is 100% the rapsit's fault.
I do not agree with the idea of "contribute", however, being black-out drunk is not a good idea, so be safe.
And what makes you think a sober women can't be raped? What makes you think because a girl gets drunk she will be raped?

Is this really so hard to understand?
Being drunk isn't justification for someone raping you, however, let's not get black-out drunk so we can keep out wits about us....
How does that contradict?

Let me sure I understand you correctly. Being drunk, not only contributes, but provokes rape? And if you're drunk you share the responsibility of the rape happening to you? Am i getting this right? Beacuse if you weren't drunk, the rape wouldn't have happend, right?

Why is all this "responsibility" being heaped on the victim? It doesn't matter how safe you are, rape isn't going to magically disappear.

PLF, you make no fucking sense.
You say I don't respect the ppl I agrue with, yet, you call me a bitch, call me self-righteous, the queen of selective vision (and YOU STILL CANNOT GET MY POSTS ACCURATELY) and all this other crap and yet I am the "irrational emotion-filled creature of whims"? Hilarous. No, seriously, I'm really lol'ing at that.

How about you stop infering things and actually ask their meaning?
How about you stop treating your assumptions as if they were truth?
How about you actually read what I wrote and reply to what I actually wrote?
How about you not call people names and stick to the arguements AS WRITEN?
How about you provide your own stats to back up what you're saying?
With all that why should I take your arguements seriously?
I'm not Dr. Rape Expert, but geeze, at least I have a few women's studies classes and a sociology minor under my belt. I'm not just talking out of my ass.

[Pierrot le Fou]

It IS 100% the rapists fault for raping someone. Flat out.

I said I have a problem with the the word "contribute" Again, you're not reading what I wrote, but making shit up.


I'm sorry, how do these conflict?
It is 100% the rapsit's fault.
I do not agree with the idea of "contribute", however, being black-out drunk is not a good idea, so be safe.
And what makes you think a sober women can't be raped? What makes you think because a girl gets drunk she will be raped?

Is this really so hard to understand?
Being drunk isn't justification for someone raping you, however, let's not get black-out drunk so we can keep out wits about us....
How does that contradict?

Let me sure I understand you correctly. Being drunk, not only contributes, but provokes rape? And if you're drunk you share the responsibility of the rape happening to you? Am i getting this right? Beacuse if you weren't drunk, the rape wouldn't have happend, right?

Why is all this "responsibility" being heaped on the victim? It doesn't matter how safe you are, rape isn't going to magically disappear.

PLF, you make no fucking sense.
You say I don't respect the ppl I agrue with, yet, you call me a bitch, call me self-righteous, the queen of selective vision (and YOU STILL CANNOT GET MY POSTS ACCURATELY) and all this other crap and yet I am the "irrational emotion-filled creature of whims"? Hilarous. No, seriously, I'm really lol'ing at that.

How about you stop infering things and actually ask their meaning?
How about you stop treating your assumptions as if they were truth?
How about you actually read what I wrote and reply to what I actually wrote?
How about you not call people names and stick to the arguements AS WRITEN?
How about you provide your own stats to back up what you're saying?
With all that why should I take your arguements seriously?
I'm not Dr. Rape Expert, but geeze, at least I have a few women's studies classes and a sociology minor under my belt. I'm not just talking out of my ass.
Yes. You share responsibility for what happens. If I leave my wallet on the counter in a store, and I go back the next day to find the money gone, it is partially my responsibility for forgetting my wallet. The money did not magically disappear, and someone else did take it, but it is my responsibility to look after my possessions. Pretending that this was this unforseeable event that I had no part in but just 'happened' is bullshit and dishonest.

If I go into a bar, and I get drunk, and I start saying inappropriate things about people's mothers, and end up getting the shit kicked out of me, I do have responsibility in that. Yes, it'd be nice if they had the sense not to beat the crap out of me, but it could have been prevented in 999/1000 cases by me not being drunk and obnoxious. Could I still get beaten up by drunken louts? Sure! But is it likely to happen? Nope.

So what's the moral? Your actions contribute to the likelihood of being hurt or harmed or having a crime committed against you. While the person who is ultimately responsible for that act is the criminal, in many (most?) cases, you contributed to the situation.

Sure, a woman can get raped when not drunk, when with friends, when in a brightly lit area -- whatever. But it's very rare. When you get drunk, go out alone, or go to questionable places at odd hours, then your chances of being raped are much much higher. It is YOUR responsibility to be held accountable for those choices, and passing the buck by claiming that it is all the fault of the person who raped you/robbed you/beat you is disingenuous, just as it's dishonest for me to say that some drunken louts beat me for no reason when I'd be drunkenly swearing at them.

Just as people should beat the shit out of me for being drunk and insulting them, people shouldn't rape women for being drunk and in an ambiguous state of consciousness. However, the reality is that people DO get beat, and people DO get raped, and the way to prevent that is to have someone to haul you away when you start insulting people, or when you get too drunk to be coherent. Asking the drunken fratboy or the gang member at the bar to show restraint when you're not is just stupid and irresponsible.

If I run across the street without looking and get hit by a car, sure, the car has some culpability, but it isn't as if I'm in the clear either. If I leave a brand new TV in front of my house overnight and it's gone in the morning, should I get upset when it isn't covered by my home insurance? If you call this 'blaming the victim' then fine. More realistically, it's using common sense.

It's a pity what happened but serves as an example of what not to do. Pretending that people should ignore that is dishonest. The act did not occur in a vacuum, and you need to acknowledge that a crime is not some isolated event separate from the rest of reality, but a very real act that can be explained, partially, by the situation.

[Ceirnian]

The example still holds water though. If you put yourself willingly in a situation you should KNOW is a bad idea, you have to take responsibility for your choice. Even if you are a victim that doesn't absolve you from acting intelligently.

I think quoting myself is appropriate here.

The rapist is a horrible person, yes. However just because you are a victim doesn't mean you should ignore the fact you did dumb ass things that more than likely contributed to making you an easy target. Rape seems to be the magical topic that makes people automatically go into sympathy mode regardless of the context of the crime.

As has been stated several times earlier in the thread, if you walk into the ghetto at night with fancy clothes and nice jewelery on are you 100% at fault for getting mugged? No, but you really should think things through before deciding to go on that walk in the first place. Many people would call the person a dumbass for doing such a thing. When it comes to rape that seems to fly out of the window for the most part.

[edit] Looks like PLF beat me to it.

[Injuryprone]

How about you stop infering things and actually ask their meaning?
Are you saying what you wrote is so unclear that the meaning must be asked?
How about you stop treating your assumptions as if they were truth?
You could do the same.
How about you actually read what I wrote and reply to what I actually wrote?
I thought the referencing exact quotations was pretty near replying to what you wrote.

[Roxie]

Are you saying what you wrote is so unclear that the meaning must be asked?
I don't think they are, but the if you (general you) think they are, ask.

You could do the same.
Never ask someone to do something you wouldn't ask of yourself.

I thought the referencing exact quotations was pretty near replying to what you wrote.
>_< BEFORE!
Sigh.

[Kass]

I just love how you accuse others of selectively misquoting you and misrepresenting your statements when you did the exact same thing to me. My point in saying those things do not justify rape was not in agreement with you. You completely ignored the entire rest of the post where the point is you are wrong. A woman is responsible for the choices she makes and her choices have a direct and proportional impact on whether or not she becomes a victim of a crime. All those things that do not justify rape are likely the very reasons why she was chosen as the rape victim in 4 out of 5 cases. The rapist didn't dress her up, didn't make her go out at night and in many instances, didn't get her drunk either. She did those all on her own and in doing so, made herself the best victim of opportunity.

Roxie, like it or not, a woman's dress and comportment DOES directly contribute to the likelihood of her becoming a victim. A drunken, half dressed tramp at a less-than-nice-club in a dodgy neighborhood without an escort for protection is doing everything possible to ensure she gets hurt. Odds are more than good she'll be the victim of choice. It sure as hell isn't a justification or an excuse for the rapist, but she could have made a dozen different choices that would have changed the outcome.

Choice=culpability. You can't have one without the other. As long as women have choices, they bear the burden of responsiblity for those choices. That is an idea that escapes NOW and women like you.

You completely ignore every argument that doesn't fit your myopic viewpoint and frankly,you lack perspective. I've been on the other side of the fence. I was a victim of a sexual assault, the details of which I'd prefer not to discuss. I know it wasn't my fault and I know it was a completely heinous and unjustified crime, but I also know that while there was very little I could do to prevent it, there was one crucial choice and I chose wrong. If I'd done one small thing differently, it would have never happened and that, Roxie, is my cross to bear. It was a simple, almost minor yes or no choice, I blew it and put myself in a situation I couldn't escape from. It is not at all a comforting thought to know I could have prevented what happened and didn't. I often feel worse about that than I do what actually happened because I let myself down. I expect an *expletives deleted* like the one who hurt me to inflict pain, damage and not care. I never expected to contribute to that pain and damage.

False accusations of rape are common, even though prosecutions of those accusations are not. Prosecutors and police have bowed to feminist pressure and in order to not discourage women from reporting actual rapes, they often choose not to prosecute the false allegations. I think that sends a very bad message, but there it is. Law enforcement doesn't want to "seem" unsympathetic towards the women who are vicimized, so they choose to be callous to the victims of women.

The liars, quite simply, get a pass and the guys get hosed. A woman gets drunk, gives it up and regrets it the next day, so she cries rape. Obviously, she can't be held responsible for her own stupidity. That makes her a liar. Regardless of whether or not the claim is even pursued, that man will NEVER get out from underneath that accusation. The police report will forever be public record, accessible by anyone. Any news reports will never disappear. Nothing ever gets deleted from the internet.

Women cry rape when they get mad at their boyfriends. One woman on my husband's case load got pissed at her boyfriend after a fight over the telephone, so as soon as she hung up, she accused the very next man who walked into the convenience store of raping her. He was arrested, spent three days in jail while his family raised bail money, lost his job and now has that public accusation permanently associated with his name. She just wanted to get back at her boyfriend, so she ruined some stranger's life. Try working out the logic on that one. She didn't spend a night in jail under her plea agreement. I'd have imposed the same sentence that guy faced were he to be convicted.

Women cry rape when they want to bolser their position in court during divorce proceedings. That court transcript never, ever goes away.

Regardless of their vinidcation, do you think anyone will ever talk to or look at those Duke Lacrosse players quite the same? Do you think that there are not women and men out there who STILL believe they are rapists, regardless of what the physical evidence indicates? They will go through the rest of their lives with that charge hanging around their necks like an albatross. They are not the first, nor will they be the last. They are not isolated victims.

...and women are not always the victim. The solidarity of sisterhood is blind and annoying. Pull back the blinders and recognize that while probably 80% of all women are decent people, there are 20% who are just class A witches with hateful souls. That blogger is one. Of that 80%, most often give off wrong or conflicting signals without even realizing it. It's time we started looking at our own behavior because it is frequently the reason people treat us how they do. If men react to women as if they are confusing, conflicted and give off mixed signals, it might just be because we do.

[Overkongen]

You rock, Kass. I read this last post, and it was awesome, and sums up everything I've been thinking, worded a lot better than I could.

[Roxie]

I just love how you accuse others of selectively misquoting you and misrepresenting your statements when you did the exact same thing to me. My point in saying those things do not justify rape was not in agreement with you. You completely ignored the entire rest of the post where the point is you are wrong. A woman is responsible for the choices she makes and her choices have a direct and proportional impact on whether or not she becomes a victim of a crime. All those things that do not justify rape are likely the very reasons why she was chosen as the rape victim in 4 out of 5 cases.
Actually I didn't ignore that.
What I said was
Which is what I was trying to say, b/c it seemed to me this is how it was being presented in this thread. (I also agree with the rest of your post below that).

So what else is in your post I ignored?
Your idea about being a cocktease? I think it's shit. If someone's teasing you, kick them out, leave. Why stick around for that? Of course that shit would be annoying as hell and I don't defend annoying behavior, but you don't have to stick around. And it's not justification for rape.

You dated women and you agree with alot of guys that they're confusing...Okay?

You think guys are easy to read. Ok.

Women make the rules when it comes to rape...16yr old vs. 16 yr old. I can't really speak about that b/c that would've never been a case in Ga. Considering 16 is the age of consent.

The blog thing...I don't really have anything to say to that.

OH and then we get to These things are NOT justification for rape: clothing choice, alcohol intake, location, time, or behavior.
To which I replied
Which is what I was trying to say, b/c it seemed to me this is how it was being presented in this thread. (I also agree with the rest of your post below that).
and just for a quick flash-back, the rest of your post said
However, every single one of them increases or decreases your risk of becoming a victim. Between two otherwise equal women, the one most likely to be raped is the one in more suggestive clothing, intoxicated, in the wrong neighborhood, out at the wrong time, or behaving in a promiscuous manner. That is a simple fact backed up by years of interviewing rapists by my husband. They all had choices of victims and they all chose the easiest one and every victim conciously or unconciously made a choice that made them a more attractive target.

That isn't to say you can't wear sexy clothing, drink, go out at night or the like. It means you either a) do it accepting the risks and don't take precautions, or b) take other actions to mitigate your risky behavior. Go out in a group and make it clear before the evening starts you aren't going off alone with some man or ensure you are with someone who will remain sober and responsible who will look out for you. Don't go to dodgy neighborhoods. Be alert. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

Roxie is right about one thing. The onus is on the criminal to not commit a crime. There's no excuse for it. But completely failing to acknowledge that our own actions can directly affect our likelihood of being vicimized is willful ignorance on her part. Every decision you make puts you in a situation that has good and bad outcomes. If you consistently make poor decisions about your comportment, the odds are that eventually you will become the victim of a crime.

And now you continue on about false rape accusations...Okay? I agree with you on those. They can be devestating to those accussed. You'll find no arguement with me there.

Just as women or anyone needs to be safe--whatever that may mean for them in whatever situation, people also need to know in what situation that they could be charged with rape.

Of that 80%, most often give off wrong or conflicting signals without even realizing it. It's time we started looking at our own behavior because it is frequently the reason people treat us how they do. If men react to women as if they are confusing, conflicted and give off mixed signals, it might just be because we do.
So, b/c women give off confusing, conflicted mixed signals, that's why they get raped? Please, clarify your exact meaning for me.

[Trump]

I fail to see a point in the previous post. You did not say anything coherent. This thread might be worth reading if people went back to discussing issues instead of attacking posts. Stop quoting every other line, it doesn't help. Look at Kass's post. That is a good post. It is organized, it is coherent, it has a main idea, and it doesn't stop every 2 seconds to quote something else. You would do well to put thoughts into what you say instead of what you quote.

[4letterwords]

Lotsa stuff

I think everyone is taken aback by your responses.
Point is, basically everyone else thinks that if you make stupid, dumbass choices, you should except some responsibility, yes, if you get raped.
This does not mean that it's your FAULT you got raped, that you were ASKING to get raped, or that you were PROVOKING rape.

If YOU made the choice to drink, anything you do after that is STILL YOUR CHOICE, man or women. Unless the man drugged you, it's not fucking rape. You spread your legs, I don't care HOW intoxicated you are and how NOT intoxicated the man is, IT IS NOT RAPE.

If a girl doesn't want to have sex for real, it's damn clear. I don't know of anyone who would just sit back and take it if they were being 'raped'. If she 'kindof' doesn't want to have sex, and you coerce her, convince her... IT IS NOT RAPE. Then she's just a dumb bitch who doesn't have a mind of her own.

It is 100% the woman's responsibility to let the man know her intentions. You can't have, in all aspects what seems to be consensual sex and then turn it around as rape because the man mis-read your intentions and you're too big of a airheaded fucktard that you let him have his way. That's your fault.

I can't possibly see how this can be construed as anything else. This stupid rules not only make the writer look ignorant, but every word is an insult to women to assume we're so fucking thick that we can't take responsibility for our own actions.

You know what they call people who can't take responsibility for their actions? Children. I'm offended a hell of a lot more that they think women should act like children.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

I think everyone is taken aback by your responses.
Point is, basically everyone else thinks that if you make stupid, dumbass choices, you should except some responsibility, yes, if you get raped.
This does not mean that it's your FAULT you got raped, that you were ASKING to get raped, or that you were PROVOKING rape.

If YOU made the choice to drink, anything you do after that is STILL YOUR CHOICE, man or women. Unless the man drugged you, it's not fucking rape. You spread your legs, I don't care HOW intoxicated you are and how NOT intoxicated the man is, IT IS NOT RAPE.

If a girl doesn't want to have sex for real, it's damn clear. I don't know of anyone who would just sit back and take it if they were being 'raped'. If she 'kindof' doesn't want to have sex, and you coerce her, convince her... IT IS NOT RAPE. Then she's just a dumb bitch who doesn't have a mind of her own.

It is 100% the woman's responsibility to let the man know her intentions. You can't have, in all aspects what seems to be consensual sex and then turn it around as rape because the man mis-read your intentions and you're too big of a airheaded fucktard that you let him have his way. That's your fault.

I can't possibly see how this can be construed as anything else. This stupid rules not only make the writer look ignorant, but every word is an insult to women to assume we're so fucking thick that we can't take responsibility for our own actions.

You know what they call people who can't take responsibility for their actions? Children. I'm offended a hell of a lot more that they think women should act like children.


I know a few guys who have gotten so drunk they went home with some girl they didn't like or find attractive at all, and have woken up the next morning next to someone they never would have had sex with sober. Were they raped? No, they were drunk, stupid, and horny. They quietly wake up, slip on what they can find of their clothes and take the walk of shame home, and are immediately made fun of by their friends until the next guy goes out and does the same thing.

But when the tables are turned, and a girl gets too drunk to make rational decisions, and in her drunken and horny stupor goes home with some guy and has sex, should she wake up crying about how she got taken advantage of? No, you put on your clothes, take some aspirin for your hangover, and laugh with your friends about it and tell yourself - "well, I'm never drinking that much again."

True, there's a long history of men taking advantage of women and using their power, physical and otherwise, to have sex with them. But let's face it - when people get drunk enough, they'll screw just about anything.

[japanat]

Kass and 4LW for the win. Nice posts, well argued.

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

If YOU made the choice to drink, anything you do after that is STILL YOUR CHOICE, man or women. Unless the man drugged you, it's not fucking rape. You spread your legs, I don't care HOW intoxicated you are and how NOT intoxicated the man is, IT IS NOT RAPE.

The only part i disagree with in bold. It does matter exactly how drunk a person is, if they can stand, walk and talk, the green light's on, but if they can barely walk without stumbling and falling down and a man is completely sober, that is rape if he decides to have sex with her. I don't think most rape in that situation is planned, it's opportunistic, a guy sees a woman who's so drunk she can't find her own arse with both hands placed on it for her, and he decides to "escort" her home, if he has sex with her, she's in no condition to put up any opposition when she's pretty much passed out, so that counts as rape. The only difference in that and the guy drugging her is that she pretty much did all the work for him, when you're incapacitated, whether by drugged drinks or simply excess alcohol, neither way is a person capable of saying no, or putting up any kind of fight. I'm not arguing whose fault it is, it's entirely on the person drinking to drink responsibly and not get so drunk that they can't look after themselves, but it's still rape if someone has sex with them in that condition.

[Roxie]

Trump, thanks for "the poster's ettiquette" lesson.
I think everyone is taken aback by your responses.
Point is, basically everyone else thinks that if you make stupid, dumbass choices, you should except some responsibility, yes, if you get raped.
This does not mean that it's your FAULT you got raped, that you were ASKING to get raped, or that you were PROVOKING rape.
I agree.


It is 100% the woman's responsibility to let the man know her intentions.I absolutely agree.

Some of the other things can be situational (coercian [sp], blackmail, threats, use of weapon), but not including those I agree with you.

I don't care HOW intoxicated you are and how NOT intoxicated the man is, IT IS NOT RAPE.

If she 'kindof' doesn't want to have sex, and you coerce her, convince her... IT IS NOT RAPE.
These two, hoever, I don't agree with.

[Balain]

I didn't read all the posts but there were some good ones. Someone may have had a similiar story I don't know.

A friend of mine, her 22 year old son was at a party. Everyone was drunk including this 20 year old girl. She had a boyfriend but he wasn't around. She pulled friends son into a room somewhere and gave him a blow job.

A week later the cops are banging on my friends door looking for her son to arrest him for rape. They didn't have a lot of money so couldn't get a lawyer. Court date comes and the lawyer girl's dad hires convinces the judge it was rape because he most have convinced drunk girl to give him a blow job. He spent a little over a year in jail before he was released on good behavoir.

So now he has a criminal record, he's on a list of sex offenders because he and some girl were drunk and he got a blow job. I hate women that cry rape over this soprt of thing. If anything he should be able to say he was raped (of course he gave consent so why would he say he was raped). But sadly there will always be double standards I guess.

[4letterwords]

You know, when I was 15 years old, I lost control of myself at a party, drank a shit load of whiskey, passed out, and woke up NAKED in a bed alone.

According to others, I had sex with a 20 year old college student. I don't remember it, I don't even remember talking to a guy at that party.

I don't remember losing my virginity because of something stupid I did. It was my fault. According to my friends, it was consensual. I believe it. I was not raped.

I don't want sympathy, I don't want pity, I don't want anything. It was stupid, I owned up to my own damn decision, and I learned from it. If I can do that, at 15, you'd think that people more mature and educated could act with reason and realize their mistakes as well.

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

You gave consent, so that's fine, it's a big factor about whether you passed out before or after the sex though, if it's before, you can't really consent, it's like having sex with a floppy corpse for the difference it'd make, but after then that's different. That's a difficult thing to prove of course either way given no recollection, but one way is rape, the other is just drunken sex.

[Plekto]

You know... Based upon that list, half of Vegas would be in jail.

[Televisions_Nick]

Somewhat related bit from Savage Love today.

I was extremely disgusted by I Loves Me Some Sleepin' Ladies, the "somnophiliac" who sought your advice about having sex with his sleeping wife. If someone cannot give consent in the moment, because, in this case, he or she is drunk or passed out, any further sexual actions constitute rape. It is irrelevant that she gave consent while she was awake. I am further offended that you did not hold him accountable. Although short, your response ("Ambien. Next!") supported his criminal behavior.

I hope in the future you will hold perpetrators accountable and put a name to their actions: RAPE.

Disappointed Reader And Rape Survivor



I'm extremely sorry that you were raped, DRARS, although your baseless accusations of rape make me doubt you when you claim to be a survivor of rape. The feminist bloggers are going to accuse me of thought crimes: If a woman says she was raped, then by God, she was raped. (Tell it to the lacrosse team.) But if my reaction to your letter is a thought crime, I can only plead entrapment: I wouldn't have had these illegal thoughts if you hadn't sent me such a stupid letter in the first place.

We've covered this before, but apparently it's a gong that needs to be struck every few years: A state of implied consent exists in healthy, functional, established, long-term sexual relationships. I can, for example, initiate sex with my boyfriend of 12 years in the middle of the night without grabbing him by the shoulders and shaking him until he's wide awake and then obtaining his verbal consent. If I crawl on top of him at 3 a.m., he can say "nope," push me off, and roll over, which obligates me to go back to sleep or go to another room and beat off.

In ILMSSL's case, he received his wife's advance consent to have intercourse with her while she sleeps. The problem, ILMSSL wrote, "[is] when I try to touch her in her sleep, she whimpers, turns away, and otherwise makes herself inaccessible," which has left ILMSSL unable to "take the liberties that she has okayed." In other words, DRARS, ILMSSL hasn't been able to have sex with his sleeping wife—with her consent—because she unconsciously pulls away from him, and he stops. And this man is a rapist?

As for my one word of advice, Ambien, I stand by it. The only times ILMSSL and his wife have been able to fulfill his fantasy is when she's drunk and passed out. I'd be willing to pop a sleeping pill now and then to keep my boyfriend happy, so why not Ambien?

Finally, DRARS, I hereby withdraw my consent for you to read Savage Love. If you continue to read my column against my will, well, we all know what word to apply to your actions.

[Kaji]

Amusingly, a college friend of mine a few years back once posted a question on a different board asking if he was raped since he woke up one morning to find his then-girlfriend already bouncing quite vigorously on his morning wood. He got laughed off the site completely by people arguing he should have been thankful. Turn the tables around, it's unarguably rape in most people's eyes.

My question, personally, would be if it would be considered rape if she got pregnant off it and tried to get child support off him from it (especially if she were to try to claim the child as a product of rape were he not to let the whole thing go through)? Thankfully such wasn't the case, but all the same...

[Jynx_lucky_j]

One of my favorite sayings is "Locks keep honest people out." Most people use this to mean that if a criminal wants in they are going to get in no matter what you do, but to me its more of a statement of human nature. The vast majority of people in the world are not criminally inclined. However if given an strong guarantee that they won't get caught, and thus suffer no consequences, many people wont pass up the opportunity. For example, if I don't lock up my store and someone walks in after hours, chances are the first thing they will do is look all around the store for an employee, when none is to be found they will likely grab several items and leave. That is an example of a normally honest person, A less honest person very well my load his truck up with stuff and clear us out. Of course there is always a chance that someone would just break a window and take the stuff even if we did lock up, but those people are few and far between. Where as the individual that would have no qualms grabbing a few items if the door was left unlocked if far far more common, the majority even. Of course this view doesn't just apply to locks and stealing.

From what I can tell Roxie is so adamant because of a small error in her logic, very minor and easy to make, as many people make the same error. She assumes that if someone decides that they are going to rape her they are going to rape her regardless of her state of dress, soberness, or any other factor. To that extent she is absolutely correct. However the vast majority of rapist are not dark back alley stalkers that pick a target and hunt them down. Most "rapist" are are not consciously thinking that they want to rape someone, or looking for a target. A great many rapes are from alcohol or drugs that the woman took quit willingly and a man who decides to take advantage of the opportunity. If you get fall off you ass blacked out drunk, or even just uninhibited "I'll have sex with anyone who asks" drunk, its the equivalent to leaving your store unlocked. If you pass out naked in a strange place you are asking for trouble. Even the active rapist that says "I'm going to go out and find someone I can force to have sex with me," whether their preferred method is force or drugs, or what ever, are all opportunist. They look the easiest possible target they can find.

Now this part is very important: NOBODY, regardless of their actions, DESERVES to be raped. Women SHOULD be able to walk down the street naked if they wished with no fear, or even a single catcall, I SHOULD be able to leave my wallet laying anywhere I chose, with out it being stolen, nobody SHOULD need locks, people of certain ethnicity or orientation SHOULD be able to to walk alone in certain places. But everyone knows that we don't live in a perfect world and thus should take appropriate measures to protect themselves. And any thieves, murderers, rapist, ect. should absolutely be persecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of how easy their victim made it for them. I think we all agree at this point. However some people feel that on a personal level that people who make a conscious decision to put themselves in a dangerous situation should receive less sympathy from them. And that is perfectly fine to me because how much sympathy you wish to give an individual is a personal choice and not something that should be dictated by others.

The other hot point that I see is the consent issue. I think that everyone agrees that guys are understandably worried about the issue, since all it takes is a accusation, and not even necessarily to the police, to ruin someones life. And you know what? Roxies advice in this area is very sound. IF you have any doubt as to whether the woman you are with actually wants to have sex with you, you are better off doing with out until you are 100% sure. It is very sound advice, and vastly reduced that chance of a false accusation...but in our society its not very practical. First of all guys are taught that they are SUPPOSED to be trying to have sex, that they are some how less of a many unless they are getting laid regularly, and heaven help you if you a male virgin, you need to loose that thing as fast a possible, the number of women you've slept with will have an effect on you social standing , ect. Where as women are fed the opposite, you virginity is something you need to protect, and even after its gone you don't want to be seen as a loose woman, you need to play hard to get, make sure he's really committed, and what not. And for this reason women often need an amount of coaxing and convincing. It's really the standard and to be expected, the concern is according to the above list if the woman later regrets it she has a rape case. My personal experience is somewhat limited, but from what I gather the situations in which you can as a woman "do you want to have sex?" and recieve and emphatic "yes!" is very rare. More often is a "I don't know.." or a "I'm not sure I'm ready yet..." or other such ambiguous responses. To which the guy should respond with something like "come on..", "you know how much I love you", or "but we've been together for X amount of time." And they will either give in or continue to state they need more time to decide. If they give in they can claim rape that you harassed them into it. But even if you take Roxie's advice and drop the idea at the first hint of reluctance should you bring it up again in the future it could still be harassment and thus rape should she give in and later change her mind. Sure the accusation likely would not hold up in court, but remember all it takes is an accusation.

Personally I'm rather shy so while I was still dating my wife I never once ASKED her if she wanted to have sex. I was worried about rejection and what she might think if I were to ask her (I come to find out after we were married that she was enamored enough with me that if I had made the move I likely would have been able to "score" on our first date :eyepop:, but she came to her sense later XD) So what I would do is slowly advance things until I met resistance such grabbing my hand, or crossing her legs, or whatever, and then I would go past that point. First time we did have sex proceeded in the same way except she never stopped me. But technically because I never asked and she never actually said yes if she regretted it I could be accused of rape.

But like Roxie says the cases of people simply regretting sex and calling rape are very few. but there are a few variation on the regret sex/rape that are far more common. Many rape cases involve a woman get drunk or taking drugs quite willingly, and then consenting to sex, but later calling rape due to their "impaired judgment," unfortunately the court system does see that as a valid argument. The other less common regret variation is the rape as an excuse to get out of trouble, such as the girl caught by her father, or having sex with a teacher, or other such situation in which they could actually get in trouble for or just be looked down upon, claiming you were forced is an easy way to get out of these situations. I'm sure that situations like this are still the minority, but they DO happen. And unfortunately they happen often enough to cast doubt on legitimate rape cases as well.

And finally for my own rape story involving people I knew. In high school we had this big assembly on rape and sexual harassment, I'm sure some of you remember these things. Well appearantly it made an impression on this one girl, who was dating one of the football players. Now the football player did everything right (this was like a 1 1/2 weeks after the assembly), he asked her if she wanted to have sex and she said yes. He asked her if she was sure she said yes. And thus they had sex. next day a police officer comes in and arrests the football player for rape right in the middle of class. So how did he rape her you ask? Well just as on the above list our assembly said that if you agree to have sex with someone because they are intimidate you into it it is still rape. So when he asked her if she wanted to have sex, her logic was "he is so much bigger than me, that even if I say no he could still do it if he wanted to, so I'll just say yes." And thus by her logic he had intimidated her into having sex with him. Luckily for him that legally that means if you are actually threatened by the person, like "have sex with me or else!" So he wasn't convicted in the courts...but unfortunately he was still guilty at school. Everyone had heard about how he was arrested in the middle of class and from then on he was considered a rapist. No one wanted to hang out with him, no girls would date him, and everyone was giving him sidelong glances ll the time. Eventually he moved away.

[Mastiker]

Amusingly, a college friend of mine a few years back once posted a question on a different board asking if he was raped since he woke up one morning to find his then-girlfriend already bouncing quite vigorously on his morning wood. He got laughed off the site completely by people arguing he should have been thankful. Turn the tables around, it's unarguably rape in most people's eyes.

My question, personally, would be if it would be considered rape if she got pregnant off it and tried to get child support off him from it (especially if she were to try to claim the child as a product of rape were he not to let the whole thing go through)? Thankfully such wasn't the case, but all the same...

Well it depends - when he figured out what was going on, did he push her off in disgust? Or did he continue the act of sex? Because, if he did the second one, he basically said "you can do that, and I'm okay with it." Or, at the very least, it would be difficult to prove in court that he had anything wrong with it.

Personally I'd be pretty pissed about it - jumping on my johnson without asking and all that - but I probably wouldn't call rape on her.

[Kaji]

Yeah, that's kind of been the consensus amongst people who actually discuss it instead of just laughing it off. Either situation is gross disrespect for the person, really.

[Roxie]

If you pass out naed in a strange place you are asking for trouble..
I can't agree with that.
You're not "asking for trouble", you're making it eaiser for trouble to visit you, which is not the same thing.

If trouble's gonna visit you, it's going to happen reguardless of your soberness. However, if you're particularly NOT sober, trouble might choose you first, but you didn't ask it to.

Thus making you an easy target, not a participant.

btw, I like your consideration of the social interations.

[Fred]

It seems like this thread started out as a discussion about the definition of rape and then turned into a discussion of personal responsibility versus criminal culpability.

One of the cornerstones of my belief-system is that I am 100% accountable for everything that occurs in my life. This does not mean that I am the cause of it or that I am to blame for it. It just means that I am the one experiencing it and if I don’t like the results then I need to make different choices. It is my experience that I am more effective at creating the results I want when I put my energy into creating those results then when I put my energy into blaming someone or something else for why I didn’t get the result I wanted. The way I sum up this idea is to say that I either have my reasons or my results.

Since personal safety is important to me, I tend to be very deliberate about making choices that might put me into a potentially dangerous situation.

When it comes to criminal culpability, the concept of fault is important. People do not have the right to commit crimes. If I were the victim of a crime, I would want the person to be appropriately punished. At the same time, I would also look at my own behavior to see if there is anything I was willing to do differently.

[Roxie]

Amusingly, a college friend of mine a few years back once posted a question on a different board asking if he was raped since he woke up one morning to find his then-girlfriend already bouncing quite vigorously on his morning wood.
That is seriously disturbing. A complete lack and disreguard for him.

My question, personally, would be if it would be considered rape if she got pregnant off it and tried to get child support off him from it
Why wouldn't it be?

Is there some special "if she gets pregnant, it's not rape" law that I don't know about?

[Kaji]

I can't agree with that.
You're not "asking for trouble", you're making it eaiser for trouble to visit you, which is not the same thing.

If trouble's gonna visit you, it's going to happen reguardless of your soberness. However, if you're particularly NOT sober, trouble might choose you first, but you didn't ask it to.

Thus making you an easy target, not a participant.

You're just mincing words to make the same message sound sympathetic to your cause instead of letting it state the reality of the situation. Have been for 3 pages now.

[Roxie]

"particpant" and "easy target" is word mincing?

[Kaji]

"Asking for trouble," to the extent I've ever heard it, has always been a means of saying that you're making it easier for trouble to befall you. The whole thread people have been pointing out issues of personal responsibility, after which you say you agree with them while with the other hand stating that women are not responsible for being responsible in their choice of actions; thus, there is no personal responsibility.

As far as you're concerned, a woman is as capable as a blow-up doll of resisting rape.

[Roxie]

"Asking for trouble," to the extent I've ever heard it, has always been a means of saying that you're making it easier for trouble to befall you..
Well, I can't account for the extent to which you've heard it. I've always heard it used literally. Asking, to inquire or expect, or to search for, to seek out.

Btw, thanks for telling me what my concerns are. 'ppreciate ya.

[Campion]

In short, it's shorter hours, less experience, and fewer highly-skilled qualifications. The 'actual' gap is more like 2% less wages, which is bad, mind you, but really not horrible.

PLF,
Sorry I didn't get back to you on this, but I'm still crunching numbers based on the statements made in the Wikipedia page you quoted. So far I don't see how the conclusions have been made, because they don't represent the statistics that I've found. I'll post or PM you when I'm done.

Cheers,
Campion.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

If you pass out naed in a strange place you are asking for trouble.
I can't agree with that.
You're not "asking for trouble", you're making it eaiser for trouble to visit you, which is not the same thing.

If trouble's gonna visit you, it's going to happen reguardless of your soberness. However, if you're particularly NOT sober, trouble might choose you first, but you didn't ask it to.

Thus making you an easy target, not a participant.

btw, I like your consideration of the social interations.
I just wanted to point that I had a small typo in to above quote the word "naed" should read "naked." Not that I think it really changes much, but I will edit the post to fix that.

But Kaji is correct in my usage of the term "asking for trouble." It's my belief that very few people consciously seek trouble out. If I walk out in the woods covered in honey I'm not actually asking for a bear to eat me nor do I wish for it to happen. But my actions are such that I they invite trouble even if I don't actually want it. Thus the term "asking for trouble."

[manrush]

No-one asks to be raped. If a woman is drunk/wears skimpy clothes, that doesn't mean she had it coming. It's not the woman's fault that the guy was horny and decided to forcefully snag a piece. A girl has absolutely no control over a guy's libido.

[Roxie]

And now we turn to the "rape isn't about sexual desire" arguement.

[manrush]

And now we turn to the "rape isn't about sexual desire" arguement.

The post above was in agreement with what you've been saying.

[Roxie]

I understand. But you said libido, which is sexual desire, correct?

[manrush]

I understand. But you said libido, which is sexual desire, correct?

Women are, a number of times, blamed for "leading the man on" sexually. That's saying that it is the woman's fault that the man was turned on. What I'm saying is that the woman did not deserve rape because she led a man on. Because, as you stated, rape is not about sexual desire.

[Kaji]

And nobody here arguing against you is necessarily stating a woman is at fault at fault for turning the man on. The woman would be at fault for making dumb choices like getting drunk around strangers, who then proceeded to take advantage of her condition; and who likely wouldn't have if she hadn't made the dumb choice to get drunk or come alone. You act like they'd be brazen enough to come into her house and rape her in front of her family if she hadn't been passed out drunk.

It's also further been clarified that while she is at fault for making dumb decisions, she is still not at fault for the rape itself. The fact that a crime happened does not excuse personal irresponsibility in crime prevention.

[Mastiker]

Well, I can't account for the extent to which you've heard it. I've always heard it used literally. Asking, to inquire or expect, or to search for, to seek out.

Btw, thanks for telling me what my concerns are. 'ppreciate ya.

Just say you screwed up talking and shut up! Half of your posts have been repeating the same thing over and over again only to have them shut out by others. And those that aren't are like this one above where you pick out every single detail of what was said - out of context no less.

You defend what you say as if your point was completely different from everyone else's; from what I've been reading, you don't have a clear point. And everybody that points this out to you is "misquoting". Well, honey, I'm not misquoting. I'm just not getting what it is you're getting at. You change what you're saying so quickly I'm not even sure whether or not you're talking about the subject at hand.

No-one asks to be raped. If a woman is drunk/wears skimpy clothes, that doesn't mean she had it coming. It's not the woman's fault that the guy was horny and decided to forcefully snag a piece. A girl has absolutely no control over a guy's libido.

No one asks to be stolen from. If I forget to lock my doors, that doesn't mean I had it coming. It's not my fault that the thief was desperate and decided to take what doesn't belong to him. I have absolutely no control over a guy's need to steal.

Actually, ha, I used a good metaphor here, because I can relate to being stolen from.

situation A) I have a digital camera and a brother with a known history of stealing. One night, before going to sleep, I leave the digital camera out in the open. I awake to find the digital camera missing.

Situation B) I have a digital camera and a brother with a known history of stealing. One night, before going to sleep, I hide the digital camera in a secure location. I awake to find the digital camera missing.

In situation A I have taken no precautions to keep my camera safe, even though I knew that my brother would be likely to steal it while I slept. Is it my fault then, that he stole it? Yes, because there are precautions I could have taken, and chose to ignore. Is it my responsibility to do something about it? Hell yes. Does that make what my brother did a nice thing? No, it does not. It also doesn't mean he is in the clear. My objects being in the open does not mean that he had a right to take them - but I should have known better.

Situation B, however, completely absolves me of responsibility. I did everything possible that I could of protecting my digital camera, but my brother still ended up stealing it. My methods may not have been perfect, but there was nothing I could have done to further protect my camera. The only thing I can do is to attempt to get my camera back, and make attempts to further protect anything I would get in the future.

edit: ah, Kaji beat me to it. And in less words as well. :_(

[Jynx_lucky_j]

I remember reading somewhere that something like 70% of rape cases are actually by someone the victim knows, at least in passing. Essentially someone the victim is going to see again and again. A neighbor, class mate, family member, ect.

I just thought I would throw that out there since we've been using examples of strangers a lot.

[erbiumfiber]

I didn't read all the posts but there were some good ones. Someone may have had a similiar story I don't know.

A friend of mine, her 22 year old son was at a party. Everyone was drunk including this 20 year old girl. She had a boyfriend but he wasn't around. She pulled friends son into a room somewhere and gave him a blow job.

A week later the cops are banging on my friends door looking for her son to arrest him for rape. They didn't have a lot of money so couldn't get a lawyer. Court date comes and the lawyer girl's dad hires convinces the judge it was rape because he most have convinced drunk girl to give him a blow job. He spent a little over a year in jail before he was released on good behavoir.

So now he has a criminal record, he's on a list of sex offenders because he and some girl were drunk and he got a blow job. I hate women that cry rape over this soprt of thing. If anything he should be able to say he was raped (of course he gave consent so why would he say he was raped). But sadly there will always be double standards I guess.

Whoa!! I was really disturbed by this post. I can understand how you can be raped when you're passed out but, uh, you kind of have to umm, "participate" in this sort of activity. Unless he had threatened her with physical violence or a weapon, I don't see how this one is rape. It doesn't sound like they even alleged he was somehow threatening her. Not sure what they meant by "convinced."

Yeah, it's the "legal" system, not the "justice" system...:gloomy:

[Pierrot le Fou]

Roxie: To what extent do women, or people in general, have a responsibility for their own safety?

You've said "I'm not saying you shouldn't take care of yourself and be as safe as possible" but have still refused to admit that the woman has any responsibility or can contribute/provoke to rape.

How in God's name can you suggest that these are compatible statements? Either people take care of their own safety, and therefore have responsibility/contribute/provoke to crimes against themselves, or they don't have responsibility/contribute/provoke and then have no reason to take care of their own safety because nothing they do is responsible/contributes/provokes crimes against them.

So rather than trying to twirl around in pirouettes like a ballerina avoiding the point, how about you take your forehead off the baseball bat, stand up for a second to recover from the dizziness, and give a straight fucking answer for once.

You claim you're not refusing responsibility, yet you're not exactly stepping up and taking it, now are you?

So how about you actually put your attitude in line with what you're claiming to argue, rather than look like a blowhard hypocrite with a chip on her shoulder more interested in making off-base comments and semantic arguments. Your battleship is sunk. It's over.

[Ceirnian]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/Gremin/battleship.jpg

[Ceirnian]

Your battleship is sunk. It's over.

Gotta read peoples posts.

[PopCulturePooka]

Maybe its time to get back on track eh?

[Hatsumomo]

What the hell were we talking about in the beginning?

[Pierrot le Fou]

What the hell were we talking about in the beginning?
That women like the poster of the original list are batshit insane, hate men, and refuse to take responsibility while claiming to demand equality, but really expecting special privelege.

[Hatsumomo]

Oh, okay.

[Kaji]

That women like the poster of the original list are batshit insane, hate men, and refuse to take responsibility while claiming to demand equality, but really expecting special privelege.

20 points for the concise yet complete summary

[manrush]

I can only imagine how a real-life debate between PLF and Roxie would play out. I'm serious, someone needs them to debate each other, then you-tube that debate.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Roxie would get beaten even worse than on the board, and probably start to cry. She doesn't make clear concise arguments, which are the way to look like you actually know what you're talking about.

Coincidence? I think not.

Anyone who starts delving into semantics and continuously backtracks is going to lose a real debate because their point entirely disappears and they're just sitting on defense trying to prevent their house of cards from collapsing if so much as a mosquito fart gets to it.

[manrush]

Roxie would get beaten even worse than on the board, and probably start to cry. She doesn't make clear concise arguments, which are the way to look like you actually know what you're talking about.

Coincidence? I think not.

Anyone who starts delving into semantics and continuously backtracks is going to lose a real debate because their point entirely disappears and they're just sitting on defense trying to prevent their house of cards from collapsing if so much as a mosquito fart gets to it.

Would you really go all Hannity (no offence to you, PLF) on her in a real life debate?

[Pierrot le Fou]

No, I'd be clear and concise, make a strong point, and let her sink her own argument with her own time.

[stsparky]

And now we turn to the "rape isn't about sexual desire" arguement.
I always thought rape was about abuse of power. Sex seems just the means. I could be wrong.

What do you think rape is?

[Hatsumomo]

^That's what I thought it was (that is, rape was an abuse of power).

[Roxie]

Roxie: To what extent do women, or people in general, have a responsibility for their own safety?
How're you trying to quantify it? To their person. You can't control other people.

You've said "I'm not saying you shouldn't take care of yourself and be as safe as possible" but have still refused to admit that the woman has any responsibility or can contribute/provoke to rape.
You are responsible for looking out for yourself. However, to say the victim contributed or provoked is flat out victim blaming. Unlike you, I don't participate in that.

Roxie would get beaten even worse than on the board, and probably start to cry. She doesn't make clear concise arguments, which are the way to look like you actually know what you're talking about.
Beaten my ass. You try to bring up point after point to you're left with fucking nothing. What happend to me being sexist? What happend to me not caring about false reports? What happend to me suggesting contracts for each sexual encounter? What happend to me not caring about male rape? Why is anyone supposed to believe that YOU know what the fuck you're talking about?

Where the hell are YOUR stats on how these things work? Yet you want to ask them of me?

Coincidence? I think not.

Anyone who starts delving into semantics and continuously backtracks is going to lose a real debate because their point entirely disappears and they're just sitting on defense trying to prevent their house of cards from collapsing if so much as a mosquito fart gets to it.
Semantics my ass. "participant" and "risk factor" are FAR from the same. "contribute" "provoke" and "responsible" are also NOT synonyms. Sorry, they don't equate-they're not interchangable, stop using them as if they were. The distinctions are incrediably important. Shall I go to dictionary.com for you?

And FURTHER more, the scenario we're talking about is not even the most common, but the most ppl like to talk about.

So let's talk about the most common instances, shall we? Date rape, partner rape, and incest.
Almost two-thirds of all rapes were committed by someone who is known to the victim. 73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger — 38% of perpetrators were a friend or acquaintance of the victim, 28% were an intimate and 7% were another relative.
National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005


You just got called Hannity and I'm the blowhard. Yeah, ok.

[tweek.3867]

I need some popcorn and a comfy chair to read this thread♪

[manrush]

How're you trying to quantify it? To their person. You can't control other people.


You are responsible for looking out for yourself. However, to say the victim contributed or provoked is flat out victim blaming. Unlike you, I don't participate in that.


Beaten my ass. You try to bring up point after point to you're left with fucking nothing. What happend to me being sexist? What happend to me not caring about false reports? What happend to me suggesting contracts for each sexual encounter? What happend to me not caring about male rape? Why is anyone supposed to believe that YOU know what the fuck you're talking about?

Where the hell are YOUR stats on how these things work? Yet you want to ask them of me?


Semantics my ass. "participant" and "risk factor" are FAR from the same. "contribute" "provoke" and "responsible" are also NOT synonyms. Sorry, they don't equate-they're not interchangable, stop using them as if they were. The distinctions are incrediably important. Shall I go to dictionary.com for you?

And FURTHER more, the scenario we're talking about is not even the most common, but the most ppl like to talk about.

So let's talk about the most common instances, shall we? Date rape, partner rape, and incest.


You just got called Hannity and I'm the blowhard. Yeah, ok.


Hold on there, Roxie. What I said would PLF debate you in the STYLE of Hannity? As in, would he continue to sieze on every mistake that you had made in the debate and use it against you?

[manrush]

In an ideal world, it would be common knowledge that the majority of people are raped by someone they know. But unfortunately, that is not the case. Roxie mentioned date rape and acquaintance rape. Both happen quite often, sometimes due to miscommunication, and sometimes due to anger on the part of the rapist over some perceived slight, and sometimes, as just a scumbag being a scumbag. But fewer people are concerned about date/acquaintance rape than should be. But they go into a mass hysteria over stranger rape and usually end up blaming homosexuals/Muslims/other convenient scapegoats. Also, very few touch upon the subject of rape within families. It has been shown that children are most likely to be raped by someone they know. Yet states overreact and enact harsh, and sweeping sex-offender laws that usually make things worse and do nothing to solve the incest rape problem.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Dearest Roxie, I'd love to respond, but I don't want to make horrible assumptions. Is there any chance you could actually make a clear concise post that explains your position without us having to scratch our heads at your misguided use of what appears to be your attempts at logic?

I mean, I'm a little confused, you say that a woman is responsible for herself until someone else actually does something to her, at which point she's no longer responsible. Wouldn't that mean that she isn't actually responsible for her safety at all, since she's entirely in the clear the second that anyone actually did anything?

I had a much longer response typed out, but since I don't want to misquote or misinterpret what you are trying to pass off as a rational discussion, I was hoping you could actually make sense.

Thanks.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

Essentially Roxie is feels that we are excusing the attackers action on the notion that it was all the victims fault. Victim blaming. Other then assume that she believe that she believes that the victim has no responsibility for their personal safety.

Both side are making false assumptions.

Roxie we all agree that no one is asking to be raped, provoking it, or anything else. And that rape is a terrible crime and any perpetrator should be prosecuted to the full extend of the law, regardless of the events leading up to it.

PLF, and others, Roxie doesn't believe that women don't need to make any attempt to protect themselves. She simply doesn't think that women should live in fear of being blamed for their own rape.

It's all simple misunderstanding, not double talk. And I can understand how it would happen. It a very scary topic for both men and women. As I mentioned before it's scary for men because just the accusation will ruin your life, it's scary for women because they are most often the target. To make matters worse there a tons of horror stories on both sides about the laws poor handling of rape cases. It seems like there is almost no cases that are handled properly.

[manrush]

Shouldn't we be discussing date and acquaintance rape, which is FAR more prevalent than the stereotypical back-alley rape?

[Pierrot le Fou]

I really do appreciate the attempt to moderate and facilitate the discussion, Jynx, but you are using the same double-speak as she is. Either you have responsibility for your situation, or you don't. The only way having responsibility for your situation, but no responsibility for being raped, would be if the situation you put yourself in had no correlation with being raped.

As Kass has said/shown, this simply isn't the case.

Therefore, a woman DOES have responsibility in being raped, save for the very rare occasions when it's truly not her fault (such as the stereotypical raped at gunpoint in an alley sort of thing). And nobody is saying that that's prevalent.

There IS a line between 'blaming' a victim for the rape, and pointing out that they are, in fact, partially responsible for what ended up happening.

If I am driving drunk, and the car in front of me suddenly squeals on the brakes and I rear-end them, it IS partially my responsibility. If the police arrest me for drunk driving, I cannot say, "He squealed on his brakes! It's his fault!" and try to defer responsibility for the fact that I was drunk (slower reaction times) and that I was driving too close to be able to avoid the accident.

Roxie wants to have her cake and eat it too. Either a woman has responsibility for what happens to her, or she doesn't. In the former case she has to accept responsibility for the situation and the rape, in the latter she has no responsibility to protect herself at all.

[manrush]

I really do appreciate the attempt to moderate and facilitate the discussion, Jynx, but you are using the same double-speak as she is. Either you have responsibility for your situation, or you don't. The only way having responsibility for your situation, but no responsibility for being raped, would be if the situation you put yourself in had no correlation with being raped.

As Kass has said/shown, this simply isn't the case.

Therefore, a woman DOES have responsibility in being raped, save for the very rare occasions when it's truly not her fault (such as the stereotypical raped at gunpoint in an alley sort of thing). And nobody is saying that that's prevalent.

There IS a line between 'blaming' a victim for the rape, and pointing out that they are, in fact, partially responsible for what ended up happening.

If I am driving drunk, and the car in front of me suddenly squeals on the brakes and I rear-end them, it IS partially my responsibility. If the police arrest me for drunk driving, I cannot say, "He squealed on his brakes! It's his fault!" and try to defer responsibility for the fact that I was drunk (slower reaction times) and that I was driving too close to be able to avoid the accident.

Roxie wants to have her cake and eat it too. Either a woman has responsibility for what happens to her, or she doesn't. In the former case she has to accept responsibility for the situation and the rape, in the latter she has no responsibility to protect herself at all.

This whole "the woman is partly responsible for being raped" reminds me of an article (actially, a blog post) that I read concerning the University of Oslo social anthropologist Unni Wikan, who said the same thing, more or less. If I can find the website where the article was, I'll post it here. (the article is actually an English translation of what she said).

here it is. I just thought it might be somehow related to this topic.
http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2792&cid=3&sid=102

[mawande]

I got in a situation recently wherein I had to prevent myself from ending up pressured into sex. It helps that I'm 40, and do not give mixed signals. Unfortunately I accidentally started by unintentionally giving a mixed signal, when I asked my Japanese friend if I could crash at his place.

He had assumed that I wanted to sleep with him. By being absolutely firm in "No," and not yielding at all when he attempted to feel me up, and also not getting a good night's sleep because he tried, of course, to seduce me while I was sleeping, and my instant response to hands approaching me was to grab and pin them away from my body. He eventually fell asleep, though I know he remained puzzled. He remarked in the morning that he'd never realized American women were so shy. For me, I have a hard time thinking of myself as a woman men are going to want to paw.

I later heard from another foreign friend that, as far as he knows, if a Japanese woman stays over at a man's apartment, it's 99% because she wants to have sex with him.

He and I then explained to the three Japanese men with us that when a foreign woman (and not just me) asks to sleep at your apartment, it's probably 90% that she really means "sleep." I told them to get it in writing before they try to have sex with a foreign woman staying at their place.

This all reminded me of that poor girl who was murdered. She went to his apartment with him. He surely thought that was the blue light to go, and then things go violent and boom, she's dead. *sigh*

[Jynx_lucky_j]

There IS a line between 'blaming' a victim for the rape, and pointing out that they are, in fact, partially responsible for what ended up happening.

That is exactly what I mean. However from what I can see Roxie associates the word responsible with blaming.It's like that exercise that that psychiatrists do where they say a word and you say the first word that comes to mind. The idea being that how you associate words will give a glimpse into you psyche. In this case holding someone responsible and blaming them are one and the same for Roxie, likely due to numerous past experiences which proved this to be true to her.

There is also the chance that she is speaking from personal experience as well, now I'm NOT saying she was, but given the percentage of women that are sexually assaulted, it's not at all unlikely that she has been sexually assaulted at some point. No necessarily raped but any kind of sexual assault. And If that was the case it's not unlikely that the "she wanted me to" or the "she was asking for it" excuse was used as it does by far seem to be the most common use used. And as we already know its not uncommon for these things to get swept under the rug. It could have even happened to a friend of hers as well thus increasing the chance even more. so these kind of events could strongly shape her view on the subject, as well as account for her feministism (sorry Roxie but all the feminist I've personally met have had some sort of bad experience with men, that can be traced as the root of their feministism).

Regardless personal attacks are weak arguments. If its so obvious that someone you are debating against has a weak argument, there is no need to point it out to others, if it is really as weak as you say then they will see it for themselves. If they can't see that...then perhaps their argument wasn't as weak as you wanted it to be.

[Fred]

When I hear the words “blaming the victim”, I associate that with saying the victim deserved whatever happened. I don’t think anyone deserves to be forced into an unwanted sexual experience.

I think anytime someone has an unwanted result, the two most powerful things they can do are to look at the choices they made leading to that experience and to consider how they want to respond to that event. (In my mind, that is the meaning of Response-ability)

Being response-able is very different from blaming the victim.

[Pierrot le Fou]

That is exactly what I mean. However from what I can see Roxie associates the word responsible with blaming.It's like that exercise that that psychiatrists do where they say a word and you say the first word that comes to mind. The idea being that how you associate words will give a glimpse into you psyche. In this case holding someone responsible and blaming them are one and the same for Roxie, likely due to numerous past experiences which proved this to be true to her.
So then it's not so much that Roxie's point has merit, so much as that she fails to understand what the fuck I'm saying. Splendid.

Regardless personal attacks are weak arguments. If its so obvious that someone you are debating against has a weak argument, there is no need to point it out to others, if it is really as weak as you say then they will see it for themselves. If they can't see that...then perhaps their argument wasn't as weak as you wanted it to be.
You assume I make the personal attacks as arguments. That'd be a logical fallacy. I make personal attacks because the person spewing garbage as fact deserves to be derided for his/her lack of common sense or logic.

Others can (and have, and will continue) to see that Roxie is just off on this one. But so long as she keeps arguing tooth and nail and refusing to take responsibility I'm going to keep mocking her, because she's asking for it.

If you let people emit verbal diarrhea without consequence, discussions end up looking like a toilet in a dysentery ward.

[Trump]

Well, Roxie also seems to be impossible to understand herself, so perhaps she just lives in a different world. I don't know, but almost every post of hers in this thread recently has been verging on totally incoherent. Furthermore, the ones that have been coherent haven't said anything at all but just rambled in circles.

I believe I do understand some (not all) of what she is trying to say, but she is not doing herself any good in this argument because she is not putting together rational arguments. The first step to a debate is making people understand what you are talking about. If you do not have the same definition of words, you have already lost (or at least you cannot win).

Personally, I believe that if you where in a situation that encourages rape and then do not make it clear to you and the people around you that you do not want to have sex, you cannot legally claim rape. It is not hard to state to the guy and the people around your intentions. If you feel you are getting drunk and go off into a room with someone without letting people know you do not want to have sex, you have only yourself to blame (hold responsible) when people don't believe you.

[Azrael]

This is off-topic? On? I don't even know anymore. But I read this story today and it made me sad.

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070629p2a00m0na003000c.html

Man pleads guilty to raping woman on train
OTSU -- A man under indictment for raping a woman on a train pleaded guilty to the charges on Friday.

Takamitsu Uezono, 36, who is also standing trial over a separate rape case, entered his plea during his second hearing held at the Otsu District Court on Friday.

Uezono fondled the body of a 21-year-old woman sitting next to him on a limited express train on the JR Hokuriku Line for more than an hour on Aug. 3 last year after threatening to kill her if she cried for help, according to the indictment. He then forced her into a restroom where he is accused of raping her. (Mainichi)
Just some poor girl taking the train home, and some bastard has to go and violate her like that. It's not a gun in a dark alleyway, in fact when I read the headline my initial reaction was "...How?" But this poor girl must have been so scared that all she could do was just take it. Sad.

[Pierrot le Fou]

It is a gun in a dark alleyway for all intents and purposes. You'd hope that the passengers around would catch on, but it was probably either too tough to tell, or a case of the Bystander Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect).

[manrush]

My question is why people are more scared of being raped by a stranger in a dark alleway (or on a train) than being raped by someone they know well, even thought the latter happens more often than the former?

[Mastiker]

My question is why people are more scared of being raped by a stranger in a dark alleway (or on a train) than being raped by someone they know well, even thought the latter happens more often than the former?

Fear of the unknown?

People grow up to not fear those around them, unless they have good reason. It's this thing called trust that keeps people from being scared of one another. I trust my family not to rape me, even if it is more likely for them to rape me then some stranger. Hell, my family is predictable. If they were planning on raping me, I'd already know (and not just because I have a finger up my bum :watson: )

[Fred]

The first time I saw a train pervert groping a woman, I literally could not believe what I was seeing. The train wasn’t particularly crowded and I noticed this guy who was breathing kind of funny. I did not associate it with anything bad. I was just curious. I looked a little closer and I noticed he was standing really close to this girl, who was maybe 15 years old. I still did not make the connection, but I thought it was odd he was standing so close because the train was not that crowded. Then I noticed that the guy had his arms crossed in front of him and one of his hands was pinching the girl’s nipple. I looked at her face and she was just paralyzed in shock. She was trembling. For her, it was clearly such a terrible violation that she didn’t know what to do.

I was shocked too. I had never seen anything like that. I blurted out, “Sore wa chotto kitanai janai desu ka” (which means something like, “That’s a little bit dirty, isn’t it?”), which is an odd thing to say, but I truly was shocked. I didn’t know how to respond either. He stopped groping her and then the train pulled up to my stop. I got out and the girl got out, but the guy stayed on the train. A few moments later I got over being shocked and became very angry, but it was too late to do anything.

Another time, I was sitting next to this girl with long hair. There was a salaryman in his 50’s who was pretending to be drunk and deliberately sticking his crotch in her face as he swayed back and forth. She hung her head forward so that her hair covered her face like I curtain. I asked her if she wanted to trade places with me and she looked at me as if I disturbed her peaceful tranquility. So, I stepped on the guy’s shoe and glared at him. He glared back at me, but at least he stopped sticking his crotch in the girl’s face.

[SlickWilly440]

^
Don't they have like workers/attendant on the trains that can handcuff guys like these and take them to the police?

[Fred]

Not that I am aware of

[Jetsetlemming]

They have separate women's only trains now. :blank:

[seiji]

My question is why people are more scared of being raped by a stranger in a dark alleway (or on a train) than being raped by someone they know well, even thought the latter happens more often than the former?
If it's someone I know, I can take positive action. I have a name to report to the authorities, an address to which I can send blackmail letters, a phone number to give to a hitman...
If it's some guy in a balaclava, all I have is a scene, a vague physical description and, hopefully, a DNA sample. All I can do is tell the cops everything I know and wait around for the same guy to get caught attacking someone else. I'm helpless. He wins.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

My question is why people are more scared of being raped by a stranger in a dark alleway (or on a train) than being raped by someone they know well, even thought the latter happens more often than the former?
I think its because you mostly trust the people that you know until they do something to betray your trust. If I were to get drunk at a party and my brother drove me home, it would never cross my mind that he might try to rape me in my unconscious state. Hell, even if it was my brothers friend, I would just simply not expect it to happen.

[Campion]

PLF,

Okay, hands up time. After spending most of this week looking into different numbers and statistics on the gender gap in earnings alone, I found a number of brick walls where hard statistics would have to be replaced with soft assumptions to realise any figure that can take into account the myriad requirements of what both sides would consider fair delineators of what could or should affect the difference in real earnings.

I went through reams and reams of reports and the highest ‘believed’ gap I found was an assumed 45% gender imbalance to earnings and the lowest I found claimed it was 2% (This is also reflected on in the GAO study). All of these reports and essays have made some soft assumptions in favour of what I imagine are the particular aims of the authors or their employers.

As we have discussed there are many different and quantifiable reasons why women’s mean earnings differ from men’s, fortunately for me, I tripped over a GAO (Government Accounting Office) (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:fs7nOQAUXQwJ:www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf+gender+gap+earnings&hl=en) report, which took pretty much everything specified bar education out of the picture. According to this report, work patterns account for over half of the overall gender iniquity in earnings.

FROM THE REPORT:

We found that before controlling for any variables that may affect
earnings, on average, women earned about 44 percent less than men over
the time period we studied—1983 to 2000. However, after controlling for
the independent variables that we included in our model, we found that
this difference was reduced to about 21 percent over this time period. The
model results indicated a small but statistically significant decline in the
earnings difference over this period.

The variables that were highlighted in this study as contributing to this 23% clawback in differentiation between the sexes were;

Work Patterns. In our analysis, work patterns included years of work experience, hours worked per year, length of time out of the labor force, and whether the individual worked a full-time or part-time schedule. In addition, length of unemployment and tenure were also considered to be work patterns.

Work-related Characteristics. Several of these variables are categorical in nature, such as occupation, industry, and self-employment status.

Demographic and Independent Variables, such as age of individual, age of youngest child, number of children, metropolitan area, marital status, and region. Several of the coefficients in this category, such as age of youngest child and number of children, were not found to be statistically significant in the overall model. However, other coefficients were statistically significant, such as age of individual, living in a metropolitan area, living in the South, being married, and being black.

Now, quite importantly, what this report does not take into account is earnings based on choice of education. To do this, I have had to make some soft assumptions of my own. I have taken five graduate degrees (Business, IT, Education, Engineering and Liberal Arts) and their graduate numbers from the NCES website (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_010.asp) and checked them against median wage for these degrees from PayScale (http://www.elearners.com/guide-to-online-education/salary-guide-for-online-degree-programs.asp). This obviously isn’t a perfect assessment as it leaves out a wide range of graduate degrees and estimates the median earnings, but if we were to take this as the pure median then my calculations state there is a 30% earnings split due to the choice of education type between men and women (at bachelors degree level and higher).

Considering that 20% of the American population holds a bachelors degree (according to NCES) choice alone works out to a contributory 6% normalization for choice of degree, leaving the final GAO estimate of 21% at the 15% point after taking these educatonal choices into consideration for this percentage of the population.

Of course, because the initial report by the GAO did not include education on their survey material, it would be asinine to assume that the respondents reflected the general populace perfectly, so as a measure of fairness, I will entertain a doubling of the number of educated recipients as a possibility, leaving the gender gap at 9%

So in my estimation, the real gender-gap in earnings is somewhere between 9% and 15% taking into account all of the possible variables.

Again I have made some soft assumptions here and that isn’t conducive to creating hard facts (and so has every other study on the subject) and yes; perhaps my math isn’t as good as it used to be, but for all intents and purposes I believe from my own study this week that the gender gap is at best a 9% differentiation and is in all likelyhood slightly higher.

I’m sorry, it took so long for me to get back to you on this. Sex discrimination really isn't one of my specialities. Now, what was everyone talking about?



Campion.

[Pierrot le Fou]

According to the NCES, 22.4% of men have bachelor's degrees, and 19.1% of women do. If you normalize that to the 20% average, it's going to skew the statistics, since it's assuming that 0.9% of women have a degree that they don't (and ergo are being 'underpaid'), and that 2.4% of men don't have a degree that they do (and ergo are being 'overpaid'). And when you consider that difference, it will cut into that 9% even further, to say the least.

Furthermore, you are analyzing the data from the NCES separately from the data about work history, patterns, hours, experience, etc. That is to say that you are just taking median salaries without controlling for the effect of those variables on those salaries. In other words, all women with degree X, and all men with degree X should make salary Y (taken as the median salary for that work), despite the fact that the men likely work longer hours and have more experience from the same position.

Women are paid less than men, for certain. Whether it's discriminatory, or whether it's just the result of experience/actual effort is unclear. The difference, though, is pretty damned small. Certainly not the massive figures regularly cited.

[Campion]

Actually, I did take percentage of degrees conferred by gender into account when calculating the earnings gap, but I will admit that I did not take into account working hours (like the GAO report did). I will make adjustments for overtime to my estimation when I have my figures back in front of me (I'm not at home right now). I also admit that I am analysing the NCES and GAO reports seperately, as I admitted at the time, it's a soft assumption that they could co-relate and not a hard fact. When it comes to the gender gap, many people would probably be quite surprised by the paucity of hard facts available.

I concur that the figures often quoted are largely abberant. Any figure that suggests that men earn 45% more than women is obviously false, even at first glance but then I would also argue that that is probably true of the lowest figures often quoted as well.


Campion.

[SoulPlay]

Hello Everyone,

Since I’m a college student, and sadly a lot of the aforementioned situations happen at your regular frat or dorm party, I’d like to post a couple of experiences that would help me give ground to my argument, this being that the list on the first post is just Bullshit, as some have said. Also that, as others have said, to render true equality, both sides should accept responsibility of the situation they put themselves to.

Situation 1:

A girl who’s friends of a friend of mine came into my friend’s room with something to tell her. I just so happened to be there and overheard her story. She told my friend that last night “Something crazy happened”. It turns out that she was walking around her dorm and found some guy’s dorm and decided to “chill” for awhile there. She mentioned that she thought the guy was hot and that when she got there the guy was already taking tequila shots with his friend. She was offered a drink that accepted. Guys friend notices something of a flirtatious nature is going on between them and decides to go hang out next door. She decided to stay and both kept drinking. They ended up having sex. That was the story and I had to go. Next thing I know… the guy faced rape charges. Honestly, I don’t know what happened afterwards but what I do know for a fact that he was later known as John (fake name) the guy who raped that poor girl. Too bad for him. As a side note, both were underage and not supposed to be drinking in the first place.

According to that list, yes he raped the girl. But really who’s to blame? Also, was this even rape? But alas, in the world we live today, who’s supposed to own up to the responsibility and possibly do some time? In this and many cases…the guy is because he somehow has the sole responsibility for that night and the girl was absolved from it.

Situation 2:

A guy friend of mine (not very close) got so drunk one time that when I found him outside what I assumed to be his dorm, he couldn’t tell water from piss, his door from the wall, or even recognize me for that matter. Trying to help him was this girl I’ve seen around. I figure he’s fine since he was getting help from someone. I go my way. An hour later I walk by the same place to still find the girl trying to help my friend into his room but for reasons unknown to me he was being mildly adamant. I blamed it on him being so wasted and went my way. The following day, for lunch, I sat with him and he was telling his guy friends that he woke up next to the girl I had seen that night “trying to help him”. They were both naked. It turns out that she was actually helping him to her room not his (I didn’t know where he lived) and this was the reason he was being mildly adamant about it. As usual he remembers shit about what he did that night. I’m not raising any questions over it being rape or not but what I found funny was that nobody in the table implied it either. Everybody, himself included, just thought it was “fucked up” and laughed about it. However, by the look of his face, I could tell he wasn’t very pleased of the outcome of that night.


But say, what if my friend decided to press rape charges? How would his case be taken into consideration?

Another reason I detailed these situations is that I feel that, when dealing with rape, people almost exclusively rely on these…unwritten rules…; the main one being “It is always the guys fault”. I do acknowledge that it isn’t as clear cut as that but, if I my use that in my defense, that is precisely my point. Why is that, when dealing with such a delicate matter such as rape, people immediately jump to conclusions and focus on placing the blame on the guy? What ever happened to habeas corpus?

I blame it on the way modern society is construed. And yes, some might say, “those are two individual cases”. But you’d be surprised how often this happens. And yes, some might say “You are being biased” but aren’t we all being biased when proving a point?

This is why I’ll give a nod to PLF, 4letterwords, kass and others that feel this way. To render true gender equality, both sides should accept the responsibility bore when they chose to place themselves in such situations. Sadly today, some women (and men for that matter) seem to think this is unacceptable and even more disappointing is that most of the time they find the game already at favoring their odds.

Then again, who ever said that the world was a fair place to begin with?

[Campion]

Final figures, including paid overtime. My estimate (based on everything being relative) 12.5% and low estimate (based on over-representation in GAO study) is 4%. Although I will admit that statistically this is a better evaluation, it is another soft assumption based on the premise that all reported additional hours are actually paid hours.

Campion.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Again, I think that's another unsafe assumption, but there is a lack of data, and it can't really be helped.

[manrush]

By the way, where is Roxie. She should at least make some counterpoints to PLF's arguments.

[Psychochink]

I'm gonna go with 'quitting while she is behind'.

[Jon885]

I don't get #21. A condom breakage constitutes a rape after a yes? It almost sounds like a joke.

Anyway..about women being partially responsible for being raped because they're drunk. I keep playing out this rhetorical scene in my head. Girl gets plastered, gets raped. Person says "Sorry to hear you were raped, but you really should've been more careful. What were you thinking?!?" Rape victim: "Yeah live and learn I guess." It just makes my stomach turn.

I mean..for the person being raped to be responsible she would have to iniciate the rape. "But being drunk would iniciate it." still..something's wrong with this logic, and I can't think of what. Maybe somebody could put it into words for me.

Sorry if I'm misreading what the argument is by the way.

[Jon885]

oh and reverse the situation for a man too..

[Pierrot le Fou]

I don't get #21. A condom breakage constitutes a rape after a yes? It almost sounds like a joke.

Anyway..about women being partially responsible for being raped because they're drunk. I keep playing out this rhetorical scene in my head. Girl gets plastered, gets raped. Person says "Sorry to hear you were raped, but you really should've been more careful. What were you thinking?!?" Rape victim: "Yeah live and learn I guess." It just makes my stomach turn.

I mean..for the person being raped to be responsible she would have to iniciate the rape. "But being drunk would iniciate it." still..something's wrong with this logic, and I can't think of what. Maybe somebody could put it into words for me.

Sorry if I'm misreading what the argument is by the way.
More like girl gets drunk, girl feels frisky, girl sees a boy she thinks is hot, girl starts making out with guy, girl drinks more, girl goes with guy, girl fools around more, girl passes out, guy rapes her.

YES she does bear responsibility in that situation.

[Jon885]

Oh I completely agree..but what i'm saying is if the girl is forcefully raped while she clearly isn't consenting. But she's drunk.

Let me try and clearify what I'm saying: If the girl gets drunk, and is not in any way promiscuous. The guy overpowers her. She says no. Is she still particially responsible then?

[Pierrot le Fou]

Okay, so girl goes to party, girl gets tanked, guy hauls girl along, girl is too drunk to consent or not, guy rapes her. She has responsibility for getting tanked with nobody to watch out for her. Not complex.

[Jon885]

But does a lapse in judgement mean she's responsible? In retrospect she probably wouldn't of gotten inebriated, but I think if anything the girl would be at fault (I don't mean it's her fault..but what her mistake was.) for being too naive for not predicting a rape. I mean nobody expects to be raped.

And I'm more thinking if the person is drunk, but is still conscious. Do you think the person would be any less of a victim, because they were drunk?

[Pierrot le Fou]

Fully? No. Partially? Yes.

To both questions.

Unless it's the hypothetical raped at gunpoint in a dark alley in the middle of the day type rape.

[Jon885]

I think it makes them a fallible human being that didn't think things through like we all do from time to time, but responsible, no. And it is complex for me, because I know a girl (a relative actually) and when she was a teenager she was raped. She was drinking..I don't know if she was drunk, but she couldn't fight her attacker off. I don't think being irresponsible makes her any less of a victim of what happened. I guess that makes me kind of biased in this argument, but that's why I felt compelled to reply.

The one point you make that I can understand is if the girl was completely plastered and passed out her bearing some responsibility..I can understand it, but I don't know if I can agree with it, or prove you wrong on that, so I'm not even going to try.

[PopCulturePooka]

Anything that happens in someones life they have to bear some responsibility for.

In the cases discussed between PLF and Jon, the girl needs to have SOME responsibility for what happened.

However the rapist is MORE responsible by far, and because she was drunk should not in any way lessen the crime that was commited or the pain the rapist endures when he gets butt fucked in prison.

[Jon885]

My point is I think bearing responsibility and making mistakes can (not always but can) be mutually exclusive. Sometimes you don't take all and every extra precaution, because you just don't think of it at the time.

edit: and this girl doesn't bear any responsibility for being forced to have sex. it doesn't make them less of a victim. i swear to christ up is down and down is up at this forum.

edit again sorry you didn't being drunk is justification for rape. deleted that part

[Pierrot le Fou]

You mean those naive women who don't think men want into their pants or that men use drugs or liquor to that end? Yeah, they couldn't see that coming.

[Jon885]

No..that's not what I'm saying at all, and the point i'm trying to make is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. That particular scenerio isn't even one I was thinking of.

nevermind this is probably just going to end up to be a couple sentence quips that won't result in anything productive. i should've seen that one coming.

[Pierrot le Fou]

You're saying that humans are fallable and make mistakes, but that they shouldn't be held responsible for those mistakes. Can you see why your arguments don't hold water? SOMEONE needs to take responsibility for those errs in judgment. You want to hold the rapist responsible for the errs in judgment that occurred when he/she wasn't even around? You want me to vindicate the person who was raped of any sort of responsibility for acts they committed well in advance of impaired judgment or criminal intent towards them?

[Jon885]

Not all mistakes just the unintentional mistakes people make they shouldn't be held responsible for, because they didn't mean for it to happen. Many accidents could be prevented, but aren't because people just don't see them coming.

You're talking of extremes..a girl passed out and taken advantage of, and you're not seeing the less extreme cases like a girl has a couple drinks, and isn't being vigilant enough then raped. OF COURSE they should've taken more precautions, but there's just no way of knowing sometimes.

And I'm not talking about blatant disreguard for yourself IE Getting so drunk at a party you can't stand up with nobody there, driving drunk, and other things that are obviously mistakes. I'm talking about the more subtle things. For example having one two many and you can't defend yourself. The person didn't think things through but they're not responsible for something they didn't predict would happen. The rapist isn't responsible for that, and not once did I say or imply that they were.

[Arctic_Slicer]

I just spent two hours reading this thread and was surprised no one mentioned what defines rape, legally. In most states of the United States rape is defined by law as "gaining carnal knowledge of a female without her consent". Why don't we talk about men being raped? Because by law they cannot be raped, only the lesser crimes of being sexually assaulted or sodomized. All of the double standards that people have been talking about in this thread exist largely in part because the laws surrounding rape are a double standard in themselves.

The feminazi comments in the original post only serve to make matters worse. By denying that people are responsibility for their own actions you create a situation where everything is everybody else's fault. This causes people to play the blame game so as to make themselves look innocent. They can't take responsibility so it obviously can't be their fault now could it? Do something you regret blame someone else for it. Do something really stupid? It's okay you don't have to take responsibility for it you can just blame someone else for it as you are obviously free from taking responsibility for your own actions. This is obviously an unhealthy trend that should be discontined.

Rape is terrible crime that no one ever should be the victim of, but I do agree with Kass and the rest that all people can do things to reduce the chances of them becoming a victim. Much like having a safety belt while driving decreases the risk of serious injury in the unlikely event of a accident. Making informed and responsible decisions in all choices you make can do a lot to prevent a tragedy from occurring.

This might be a little off topic but awhile ago I participated in a thread titled "Fooling Women into Sex isn't Rape in MA?" (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=76706) in the forums over at http://mtgsalvation.com/. This thread was created in response to this article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/05/11/court_rules_sex_through_use_of_fraud_is_not_rape/). In the article the court ruled that sex obtained through the use of fraud is not rape. In this case "the victim" was a woman who had sex with a person she thought was her husband until after the fact. However at no point before or during sex did she try to stop him from removing her clothes and performing sexual acts with her. Since she found out the man she had sex with was her husband's brother after the fact she filed for rape. However, the court followed the legal precedent that "consent obtained through fraud isn't rape." Fact is she gave her consent so "the rapist" was charged with fraud and not rape.

No matter what you think about the above case you should consider the following quote:

This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.

Obviously what the guy did in the above case was repugnant but the court was right to dismiss the rape charge. There are good arguments for and against why justice was or wasn't served here, but the fact remains that there is no such thing as a court of justice in this country, only courts of law.

[Candyvan Stan]

I was sexually molested as a two year old (totally forgot about it, it wasn't traumatising or anything, heard it from my mom years later) by a (then teenaged) woman. But apparently, it wasn't rape and I was actually the one responsible, because I was the man.

By the way, where is Roxie. She should at least make some counterpoints to PLF's arguments.

Why? To me it appears that Roxie is the good kind of feminist, one that wants equality. Of course, she is loudest about women's equality, but so far it seems she has always been fair.

Also seems rather ironic that a feminazi of this calibre (the author, not Roxie) is basically saying that men are and should be more responsible than women.

[Campion]

Rape is terrible crime that no one ever should be the victim of, but I do agree with Kass and the rest that all people can do things to reduce the chances of them becoming a victim.

Nice post, I particularly liked the quote above, it highlighted for me perfectly the iniquity of some of the discussion here, particularly the 'you bear some responsibility for the crime if you are a victim' argument. Yes, there are things that each person can do to ensure they are not a victim of a crime and I agree that each person needs to take all possible measures to protect themselves, but if you are the victim in these cases what you are responsible for is a lack of adequate crime prevention and not the crime itself.

Lets face it, if all women were wearing burkhas there would probably still be rape, because there would in all likelihood still be rapists. But of course there will most likely be people then arguing that it was partly her fault because the white-lined head-dress turned the rapist on and why on Earth was she wearing that luscious sky-blue burkha in a mostly mauve neighborhood?


Campion.

[mawande]

On the condom-front: In my mind, we're talking about here the guy is, putting on the condom, and it tears. "Oh baby, let's do it anyway!" Her: "Um, no. I don't want to get pregnant or anything." Him, "You already said YES! I'm dying here, baby!" "And I have to say no, now!" "Fuck this, I don't care. You said yes, now let's do it!" "You're getting scary." "Does it make you hot?" "No."

[Trump]

Well, there are really three different types of rape.

1) Violent rape. Guys fault every time. Guy finds girl in dark alley and drags her away.

2) Non-violent rape. Guy doesn't stop when she says no (emphatically) or guy uses some sort of drug to impair girl. Again, guys fault every time.

3) Non-rape. Girl gets herself impaired (through drinking or whatever) and regrets her decision later. Guy gets blamed most of the time and is screwed.

[PopCulturePooka]

I think there are times when the lines between 2 and 3 can be heavily blurred.

2.5) Girl says no but guy keeps up pressure and threat. Girl fears for her safety/well-being at the immediate time so says Yes. She didn't WANT to have sex, she consented out of fear of more harm happening.

That's the situation one of the victims of the Sydney gang rapes was in as far as I recall.

[stsparky]

On the condom-front: In my mind, we're talking about here the guy is, putting on the condom, and it tears.
"Oh baby, let's do it anyway!"
Her: "Um, no. I don't want to get pregnant or anything."
Him, "You already said YES! I'm dying here, baby!"
"And I have to say no, now!"
"Fuck this, I don't care. You said yes, now let's do it!"
"You're getting scary."
"Does it make you hot?"
"No."

Isn't this the point you'd say - either get a new condom (there's 12 to a box) or tell Romeo to beat off in the sink as he's sunk the mood or if you actually are still in the mood offer oral gratification ...

[mawande]

I can't speak for everyone, but if the man's trying to get laid, doesn't he usually have condoms in his wallet?

Anyway, one time when I was visiting Tokyo and clubbing, a Japanese man I'd known for several months and I got quite hot, and for the first time he invited me to a hotel. I decided I was willing, and asked him if he had condoms. This was a new experience for him. He'd never been asked that before and, of course, he didn't. I had to decline at that point. Now, some would say "Can't you just get condoms at a convenience store?" Well, it just didn't happen to occur to us in his buzzed state or my agitation over even saying "yes." Plus, I've heard a few things about the a) limited selection at that convenience stores and b) general quality of the condoms.

Well, he and I never did get together. And that's okay.

[Trump]

I think there are times when the lines between 2 and 3 can be heavily blurred.

2.5) Girl says no but guy keeps up pressure and threat. Girl fears for her safety/well-being at the immediate time so says Yes. She didn't WANT to have sex, she consented out of fear of more harm happening.

That's the situation one of the victims of the Sydney gang rapes was in as far as I recall.

You just classified it under 2 by saying she had already said "no". I am not saying it is easy for the police or the courts to differentiate between them, but the girl always knows the truth. What she admits to is something else.

[stsparky]

I can't speak for everyone, but if the man's trying to get laid, doesn't he usually have condoms in his wallet?...
For me - I had them on my person. Never in the wallet though, that would compromise their integrity. But damn, Romeo should have a box near by. And all love hotels carry an awesome supply.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Why? To me it appears that Roxie is the good kind of feminist, one that wants equality. Of course, she is loudest about women's equality, but so far it seems she has always been fair.
Save that she's refusing to blame women for putting themselves in dangerous situations.

With authority comes responsibility. If she wants women to have equality, then they have to have equality in responsibility too.

[Azrael]

True story.

It was the first week of my sophomore year of college. I lived in the dorms again - near the end of the week, a bunch of people gathered in one of the rooms to get to know each other, and of course, drink incredible amounts of alcohol.

One girl drinks way too much, and passes out. She's your average, hot college chick - blond, nice body, very attractive. As things start to wind down, a few of the less-drunk girls ask two guys to carry this passed-out girl back to her room. The two strongest, most sober guys are elected - me, and some other guy named Shawn. We pick her up - me at her upper body, and the other guy at her waist, and carry her down the hall to her room.

We arrive at her room, and the door is locked. "Can you get her room keys?" Shawn asks. "I think they're in her pocket." With me supporting most of her weight at her upper body, I can't really reach down for the keys. So Shawn accepts the duty of fishing them out. This girl is wearing TIGHT jeans, so it takes Shawn a while to even get into the pocket, much less fish the keys out. As he does so, he looks up at me, and though he says nothing, we both have the same thought - "if she can't even feel a guy digging around in her pocket for her keys, this girl is KNOCKED OUT."

We open the door to her room, and bring her inside. She has a roommate, but the girl has gone home for the weekend. The door closes behind us as we lay her down on her bed. The way this particular dorm worked, doors auto-lock whenever they close. Me and Shawn are standing there, having just finished putting her down on the bed, and again, we both share an unspoken thought - we're here all alone with a very attractive girl in her room. No one else is here, the door is locked, and we have the keys. Given this girl's state, we could have done anything to her, and she wouldn't regain consciousness. We both look at each other - Shawn then says "This girl is *SO* lucky we're a pair of honorable guys." "No kidding" I say. Shawn leaves the keys on her dresser, as we leave her room.

This girl didn't get raped that night. But she was damn lucky. Think about it - she drinks enough to the point where she passes out. She does this with a group of people she's known for less than a week. The same group of people assign two guys to go take care of her. Everybody here has only known each other for less than a week, so there's no telling what kind of guys we were. And because this girl is nobody's good friend, nobody would think to go check on her or us if we didn't come back immediately. Even if they did...we had the keys to her room.

Had me and Shawn done something to her, we would have been rapists, yes. We would have been terrible guys, or at least a person who took advantage of another person at one point in their lives. But you just can't say that the girl didn't put herself at very extreme, very stupid risk. She's very, very lucky she didn't get raped that night. There are guys who lived in that dorm who probably would have taken advantage of the situation. Even considering that she was okay in the end, what she did was still very, very stupid.

You can't justify that kind of behavior with "well, you guys aren't supposed to rape her." Of course we're not supposed to rape her! But that doesn't change the fact that she pretty much put herself in the position to get raped.

[PopCulturePooka]

Curious,

In Az's story, if the chick did get raped, do any of you think the rapist is less repsonsible or should get a lesser sentence because the girl was like that?

[Jetsetlemming]

No. The only case in which the "rapist" would be less responsible or be under less legal threat is one of those blurry instances, such as if she regained consciousness as Az and co. were leaving the room, and called out hornily to one of them to come back and spend the night, or before taking her to her room she had been aggressively hitting on one of them, and wasn't fully unconscious.

[Stephy]

Anyone who starts delving into semantics and continuously backtracks is going to lose a real debate because their point entirely disappears and they're just sitting on defense trying to prevent their house of cards from collapsing if so much as a mosquito fart gets to it.
Misinterpreting her admittedly unclear, original posts is one thing, but continuing to expand upon your first interpretations, even after she clarifies the meaning is going into semantics just as much as you accuse her of doing.

The posts in here are ridiculous.

[Pierrot le Fou]

So you're saying what she believes is perfectly clear now Stephy?

Does she accept responsibility for her actions if she gets raped or not?

Haven't gotten a straight answer from her on that one.

[Stephy]

I'm saying that for pages on end you and others attacked her original posts even after the many times she made aspects of them more clear, and heavily exaggerated her meanings. An example of this are the many responses made about getting a firm confirmation before having sex.

[gentlemanandscholar]

I'm saying that for pages on end you and others attacked her original posts even after the many times she made aspects of them more clear, and heavily exaggerated her meanings. An example of this are the many responses made about getting a firm confirmation before having sex.

I disagree. I've spent the whole thread reading and enjoying from afar, and by my observation Roxie had back-tracked rather than "clarified".
Furthermore she directly contradicted herself almost every post. Look at how many times she uses "I agree with so and so... BUT..."

[manrush]

I didn't see it as backtracking. Roxie did say that she agreed with the posts. But she was pretty consistent in her posts.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I didn't see it as backtracking. Roxie did say that she agreed with the posts. But she was pretty consistent in her posts.
Consistently incoherent. There was no rational thread strung through her argument at all.

[Ardo Zubairu]

The most insane one for me was the broken condom thing. Both people are willing and conscious, they even thought ahead to use protection, but then the condom broke, and neither notices, and now it's RAPE!? Are you fucking kidding? How the hell do you jump from unfortunate occurance to violent forced sex? If you're having good, consensual sex but get caught, is that rape? If you're having sex and she suddenly says no and pushes you away, did she just rape you?

Yes,according Judge Julian Hall of Great Britain has just passed sentence on a 24-year-old window cleaner who twice raped a ten-year-old girl.

The judge said the child was sexually precocious and had "dressed provocatively". That's legalese for "She was asking for it" - an excuse that these days only ever comes out of the mouths of paedophiles or elderly judges.

[manrush]

Speaking of "dressing provocatively," when was that invented as a justification for rape? What I'm asking is, is a girl PARTLY responsible for a rape if she was wearing provocative clothes and was "leading the man on" (I know that's a subjective term)?

[Hatsumomo]

I always hated that excuse. Not only because it's supremely unfair to the rape victim, but it's unfair to men. Not all men are ruled by the head in their pants and be worked up into a frothy ball of irresponsible lust and get all grabby.

Then there's the fact that it completely ignores the basis of rape. It isn't about sex, it's about power.

[Jetsetlemming]

Yes,according Judge Julian Hall of Great Britain has just passed sentence on a 24-year-old window cleaner who twice raped a ten-year-old girl.

The judge said the child was sexually precocious and had "dressed provocatively". That's legalese for "She was asking for it" - an excuse that these days only ever comes out of the mouths of paedophiles or elderly judges.
Not sure what that has to do with condoms, but ok. Wouldn't the guy having sex with a 10 year old go to jail no matter what the circumstances of the sex, for statutory rape?

[PopCulturePooka]

Not sure what that has to do with condoms, but ok. Wouldn't the guy having sex with a 10 year old go to jail no matter what the circumstances of the sex, for statutory rape?
Yeap, he got the nasty, harsh and massive punishment of 4 months in jail!

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21969117-663,00.html

But this charming Judge also told another pedo to 'Buy his victim a nice new bike to cheer her up'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433514&in_page_id=1766

[Jetsetlemming]

Yeap, he got the nasty, harsh and massive punishment of 4 months in jail!

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21969117-663,00.html

But this charming Judge also told another pedo to 'Buy his victim a nice new bike to cheer her up'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433514&in_page_id=1766
Jesus. Sounds like that one Vermont judge everyone was freaking out over because he gave a pedo nothing but community service. After everyone and their mother freaked out about him he raised it to 3 months in jail and probation. x_x

[erti]

Wow, I don't know what to think of this. It had happen to me when I was 6-7 years old by my moms ex-boyfriend. My mom just kicked him out. He didn't do any time though I haven't seen him after that.

[fa11en87]

I didn't read every single post, but quite a bit. It seems like a lot of you guys are bitter against girls or something. This is extreme, but I don't really agree with all this blaming the victim.

http://www.flashasylum.com/db/files/Comics/Rob/court.jpg (http://www.explosm.net/comics/519/)
Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net (http://www.explosm.net/)

[Kaji]

Read closer and you'll see it's not victim blaming, it's pointing out that people are responsible for their own decisions, and that people shouldn't go out of their way to become potential victims. Further, who's the "victim" when false accusations are made? The one who was (not really) raped, or the one accused of the rape and gets stuck with a record for life?

For a very concise summary of the views of most in this thread you view as being "bitter towards women", read Kass's posts at the top of pages 4 and 5.

[fa11en87]

Thanks for directing me to those pages, but I've already read her posts before. And I do think some of the things on the rapist checklist is retarded and I do agree that women or anyone else should try to take care of themselves so they wouldn't be in such situations. But damn it seems as if a women is solely responsible! Should they just stay inside their homes for fear of putting themselves in dangerous situations? Wait, that would be a bad idea since many of the perpetrators are people they know which would include friends and relatives.

[japanat]

I would only say a woman was responsible for her own rape if she dropped her drawers and started wiggling her heinie in the middle of the prison exercise yard.

But I do think she has to be aware of what is going on around her, if only because of the fact that the average woman is smaller than the average man. Just like I have to keep aware of what's going on around me, if I'm in a bad neighborhood.

And fair or not, common sense dictates that dress is a factor in how people view a woman (sleazy or demure, confident or weak, intelligent or not), alcohol is a factor in becoming a victim or perpetrator of a crime, and walking alone at night or in unsafe places the same.

[mawande]

I was thinking... and there's a bit online to go with it. Consider it Pierre's fault:

Driving under the influence of alcohol, drunk driving, drinking and driving (American or Canadian English), or drink-driving (Australian, Irish, British or New Zealand English), is the act of operating a motor vehicle (and sometimes a bicycle or similar human-powered vehicle) after having consumed alcohol (ethanol) or other drugs, to the degree that mental and motor skills are impaired.

Now, here's some of the things that have been done about the situation, besides the obvious ones: The D.D.A. (http://www.ddasd.org/about_program.shtml), for one, and this quote: In Salinas, California, a program combining highly publicized sobriety checkpoints, responsible beverage service training, and limits on alcohol availability at public events and retail outlets was implemented between 1993 and 1996. An evaluation of the program showed it to be effective in reducing traffic injuries and impaired driving over a sustained period of time. ... Snodgrass related that alcohol-serving establishments are now far less likely to turn out drunk drivers in parking lots than they were twenty years ago. "At one point, the bar staff would walk out with the person who was drunk and help him locate his car," he stated. "There used to be horrible lawsuits, and the restaurants lost a lot of money." The standards have changed not only for retail sellers and servers of alcohol, but also for informal servers, such as party hosts. ... "If I had advice for communities, it would be, get involved, form a task force. The police can't do it themselves. Schools, public health people, grocery stores -- they all need to be working together," offered Snodgrass.

Dang, all this work to stop people from driving drunk. Gosh, these people should just have the sense not to get so drunk in the first place that their judgement can be called impaired. Heck, they all know that if they get too drunk they're dangerous drivers. They all know they could get stopped by police. So, why do they get drunk in the first place?

Here's hoping you get the analogy.

[ミュー]

Question for the Experts: If "she" was unwilling before drinks, but I drank considerably more, is that rape?

[Pierrot le Fou]

The difference is that the bartenders were enabling drunk driving. They weren't attempting to curtail it in the slightest. It is their responsibility to prevent drunk driving, and they were failing, so programs were put in place to reinstate that responsibility.

The law actually assigns culpability to those bartenders, unlike it does to rape victims or their friends. Bartenders have a legal responsibility not to allow a drunk patron to get behind the wheel, or they are liable under criminal law.

Entirely different situation in almost all aspects.

[The_Penguin]

You know, I now see the benefit of being a hermit.

[Trump]

Boredom?

People keep life interesting, even if sometimes they make you think crazy thoughts.