Does "Rape Culture" exist?

[Loren Pechtel]

No you aren't. If he says he had consensual sex and she says he didn't he's admitted having sex with the girl. He's put his inflated ego stick into her body possibly risked making her pregnant. End of story.

It might have been consensual. You're just assuming she's the one telling the truth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another example of the subculture of "rape apologia" that somehow equates the possibility of rape as equal as an actual rape.

I'm not trying to apologize for rape. I'm just asking for adequate evidence of guilt. Convicting the innocent has a substantial cost that you're ignoring.

 

[fromderinside]

It might have been consensual. You're just assuming she's the one telling the truth.

I need assume nothing about the woman. He had sex with her. If conditions are not satisfactory for him to absolutely presume she consented he hasn't met conditions necessary to establish he would assume responsibility if a child resulted and she decides she doesn't want that fuck to stand he should be in trouble.

If a fist hits a face does the attacker say it was consensual? I think not. Yet, if a penis penetrates a vagina one can argue it was consensual? I think not. At least it should be not. The guy never risks being pregnant which should close the discussion.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not trying to apologize for rape.

You jump into a discussion and apparently argue that the possible conviction of a falsely accused rapist entails worse consequences than those for an actual rape victim.

I
I'm just asking for adequate evidence of guilt. Convicting the innocent has a substantial cost that you're ignoring.

Now I see, you are responding to a straw man.

 

[bigfield]

8% is the number the FBI was basically sure were bad--and thus a low bound.

That's not how I remember the FBI source.

What's your source for the upper bound of 50%?

 

[dystopian]

I'm not trying to apologize for rape. I'm just asking for adequate evidence of guilt. Convicting the innocent has a substantial cost that you're ignoring.

As I already pointed out; it's not *your* job to weigh the evidence. The justice system already demands evidence of guilt. You make it sound as if they just arbitrarily throw people in jail based on nothing more than the accusation of rape existing. Absurd. Since the justice system already operates on the principle of requiring evidence before conviction, there's exactly zero reason for you, as a layperson, to keep hammering down this point when all you're accomplishing by doing so is to sound like, and this might shock you, a rape apologist. No seriously, that's what it sounds like when your first response to someone claiming they were raped is "Where's the evidence?" instead of "That's terrible!".

 

[bigfield]

A thousand times this.


Here's a simple solution that keeps everyone happy; make it a criminal offense for the media to report on a rape case before a final verdict has been passed unless there's an imminent threat of recurrence (such as say a serial rapist being active who hasn't been caught yet). With such a solution, you not only spare the victim from further emotional distress because people throw mud at her as they are apt to do, but you also prevent the guy from having his reputation hurt in the event that it turns out he was falsely accused. Furthermore, it also ensures the case can't be influenced by popular opinion. Anyone who cries about free speech should just be reminded of the fact that you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre either. Make it a complete ban too, not just 'someone got raped here and here', because people will put things together otherwise which would defeat the point of a ban. Once the evidence has been weighed and a verdict handed down, the ban is lifted and the media get to report on the facts. I don't quite understand why this isn't common practice already in one form or another.

Sub judice contempt laws do exist in some countries, although they are not nearly as thorough as they could or should be.

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone except for people who believe in the first amendment and a free press. A far better solution would be to forbid investigators etc from releasing any of the names and other information, instead of punishing reporters.

Why? Reporters should be punished for interfering with the course of justice. Suppressing the investigators does not stop the names from getting out.

 

[bigfield]

I need assume nothing about the woman. He had sex with her. If conditions are not satisfactory for him to absolutely presume she consented he hasn't met conditions necessary to establish he would assume responsibility if a child resulted and she decides she doesn't want that fuck to stand he should be in trouble.

That doesn't make any sense.

If they both consented before and during the act then it cannot possibly be rape. If she did not consent then she cannot allow for the fuck "to stand" because it was not a "fuck" -- she was raped. It was a fuck then there is zero reason for the man to face criminal charges.

If a fist hits a face does the attacker say it was consensual? I think not. Yet, if a penis penetrates a vagina one can argue it was consensual? I think not. At least it should be not. The guy never risks being pregnant which should close the discussion.

The attacker can certainly say the punch in the face was consensual, if the receiver did in fact consent. People fight consensually, and consent to be punched, all the time.

Similarly, if a man genuinely believes his sex partner consented, then that is exactly what he should argue in his defence. It is, after all, what he believed to have happened. I can certainly argue that my partner consents when I penetrate her; it is absurd to suggest that I cannot argue that.

The burden of pregnancy has absolutely zero relevance to the question of consent. If a woman is sterile she no more and no less right to give or withhold consent than a fertile woman does.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Within feminism, rape culture is a concept that links rape and sexual violence to the culture of a society,[1] and in which prevalent attitudes and practices normalize, excuse, tolerate, and even condone rape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

From my experience in life I think this is BS. I was in one of the largest frat houses in the states largest school. If anything there was a get laid culture but not a rape culture. Lots of drunken sex was going on. But the sorority girls were equal players. Never was rape normalized, excused, tolerated, or even condoned.

I've read recent articles about sex on college campus and it is described as the hook up culture. Students don't want all the baggage that comes with a relationship, but they want to hook up on the weekends.

I think it's a misunderstanding of the concept. It's simply a situation where women are shamed out of taking initiatives. Men are expected to take chances. Men are expected to read their body language instead of listening to what they say. Ie sometimes a "no" is a "yes". It makes it frustrating and difficult for men (especially young men) to accurately know how to behave. Men who overstep boundaries get laid more. Even though they make girls unhappy, they still get laid more. And other guys notice this. Social boundaries become increasingly fuzzy.

All of this can go on while guys are adamant about rape being wrong, and that they'd never rape.

Anyhoo... my interpretation of what feminsts mean when they say rape culture.

 

[bigfield]

I think it's a misunderstanding of the concept. It's simply a situation where women are shamed out of taking initiatives. Men are expected to take chances. Men are expected to read their body language instead of listening to what they say. Ie sometimes a "no" is a "yes". It makes it frustrating and difficult for men (especially young men) to accurately know how to behave. Men who overstep boundaries get laid more. Even though they make girls unhappy, they still get laid more. And other guys notice this. Social boundaries become increasingly fuzzy.

The problem with this theory is that bold men withdraw when their advances are rebuffed. It takes a different kind of mind to rape.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The problem with this theory is that bold men withdraw when their advances are rebuffed. It takes a different kind of mind to rape.

That's not what is meant. The meaning is that this culture leads to a type of behaviour that encourages "rapey" behaviour. Only very rarely, in certain people, does it lead to actual rape. But even the milder occurrences will lead to an overall culture that promotes rape. So says the theory.

An analogy could be Dawkins theory about liberal religious people leads to a culture that empowers fundamentalists. Even though a liberal Christian would never beat his children because sparing the rod is to spoil the child, he still claims that the Bible is harmless. And the Bible clearly promotes this idea.

 

[Derec]

You jump into a discussion and apparently argue that the possible conviction of a falsely accused rapist entails worse consequences than those for an actual rape victim.

Which is actually true, no question about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Another example of the subculture of "rape apologia" that somehow equates the possibility of rape as equal as an actual rape.

Plus possibility of spending years or decades in prison, plus certainty that one's identity will be splattered everywhere and that there likely will always be a cloud of suspicion over him, no matter how factually innocent.
You are the only one engaging in apologia here, namely for false rape accusers.

No one said they were. But can you produce any evidence that being raped is a pleasant experience?

Are you enjoying knocking down all these strawmen you keep erecting?

you are trivializing the experience of rape regardless of your intentions.

I am doing no such thing.

The point of this non-sequitur of a straw man is...?

I wouldn't know. It is you who keeps erecting them and knocking them down.

 

[Derec]

You wanna put your toy in the kiddy box ya gotta pay a price.

We are talking about adults here. And men and women should have equal rights and responsibilities. You seem to think all the rights are with the woman (including retroactive withdrawal of consent) and all the responsibilities are on the man.

That price includes understanding you aren't the one in charge of making babies or having a good time.

They should both be in charge equally, shouldn't they?

As 'he said-she said' apologists see it its just as important that the man be permitted to actually assault a woman as it is for her to have to carry the result.

Nobody is or should be permitted to assault anyone else. But if there is a suspicion of sexual assault, mere accusation doesn't cut it as evidence.

Butter on both sides of the bread. Messy, messy, messy.

I do not even know what you mean? Is it a sexual metaphor?

No you aren't. If he says he had consensual sex and she says he didn't he's admitted having sex with the girl. He's put his inflated ego stick into her body possibly risked making her pregnant. End of story.

Having sex with someone is not a crime. If he says it was consensual and she says it wasn't you have no right to presume she is telling the truth and he is lying. It may be so, but it may be the opposite as well. You don't know and thus you should not punish the man just because of your female chauvinism.

- - - Updated - - -

If she is too drunk to consent, it isn't a "false" accusation of rape - it IS rape. Therefore, don't fuck drunk girls and you don't risk raping them.

You are conflating very different things. "Too drunk to consent" is very different than merely "drunk". Having a drunken hookup that a girl regrets the next morning and falsely accuses you of rape is no more the man's fault than a woman wearing a microskirt getting raped is her fault.

There is zero similarity between that and how a woman dresses

It is both telling people to refrain from doing ok things to avoid getting either raped or falsely accused of rape.

 

[Derec]

No, you just put them down in the dirt, where they belong right?

Some do, for sure, like Crystal Magnum and her ilk. But in general, no I do not "put [women] down in the dirt" and alleging that is insulting.

See, I don't put women on pedestals. I've just decided; like a normal decent human being; that when someone says they experienced something horrible, that I'm going to assume they're telling the truth.

Being falsely accused of rape is something horrible as well, so why do you not assume they are telling the truth as well?
Your approach makes sense (for either party) if you know them personally. But if they are someone you only hear about on the news there is no reason why you should automatically believe the woman and disbelieve the man.

This doesn't mean that I naievely believe nobody ever lies, it just means that it costs me *nothing* to assume that the person is telling the truth while it causes *actual harm* if I were to accuse them of being a liar even though they're not.

By assuming she is telling the truth you are assuming the guy is lying and that he is a rapist. The best thing is to reserve judgment and let evidence guide your judgment as it becomes available. That means a priori accepting both possibilities - that she was indeed raped and that she is lying.

If it later turns out they were lying, I can always change my mind then.

But often there is already damage done for the falsely accused.

You on the other hand, assume they're all liars until they've jumped through enough hoops that even you can't maintain your irrational disbelief anymore.

No, I am for withholding judgment unless and until there is evidence one way or another.

Bullshit.

Why? If you have no way of knowing it is sexist to automatically side with the woman.

That argument would work if A), the psychological consequences of expressing skepticism of one party in the conflict's claim were the same as not believing the other. This is patently false.

Being falsely thought a rapist is at least as psychologically damaging as expressing skepticism for a rape allegation that actually occurred. If you assume the accuser is telling the truth you are by necessity assuming that the accused is guilty. But without evidence you have no warrant for that assumption.

And B), it would require people like you to just shut your mouths and not poison the well before the facts are in.

Why people like me? I am not advocating siding with one of the parties before any facts are available.

You want to wait until the facts are in? Great, so why the fuck do we have to constantly hear about it every damned time you open your mouth?

You are projecting.

Why the fuck would you even assume I know what case you're talking about? I'm neither American, nor do I care to listen to what the media has to say on any given rape case.

It was a very infamous case when it happened. And it's back in the news because some hack is writing a book arguing the prosecutor/accuser side of the story even though it has been long since established that she was lying and no rape ever took place.
You'd be well advised to read up on the case. In the nutshell, a stripper who danced at an off-campus party accused three Duke Lacrosse players of having raped her. The media jumped at the story, assuming (like you think is appropriate) that she was raped and that the three were guilty. 88 Duke professors wrote a screed attacking the accused students. Duke expelled the accused students and fired the Lacrosse coach, all without any evidence.
As exculpatory evidence and contradictions in accuser's story began to emerge there were still some in the media, like Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy who clung to the original narrative, but eventually the three were cleared and the prosecutor got disbarred. The accuser herself, Crystal Magnum, was unfortunately not prosecuted and later she murdered her boyfriend and is in prison now.

 

[Derec]

Did you not READ my post before responding to it?

I might have misunderstood your point. I must admit, the point I thought you were making is better than the one you actually were making.

I said I have never once seen you post in a thread on this or the former board except to rant on the subject and that therefore your defense has zero credibility.

Nonsense. I post on a variety of topics. That you have not seen any of my other posts maybe has to do with your reading preferences rather than my posting preferences.

You respond to this with some bullshit nonsensical 'argument' about how this is a discussion board. Which would actually approach something resembling a point were it not for the fact that this is a freethought discussion forum, and not a 'rape, 24/7 discussions about rape' discussion board.

As I said I post on a variety of topics. It is just that rape generates more long, heated discussions that most other topics.

Maybe try to stop obsessing over those 'damned lying bitches' and just shut up the next time a victim steps forward?

Alleged victim, you surely mean?
No, I will not be shut up. I will continue to express my opinion. If I think the accusation is bullshit I will say so. If I think we have no way of knowing I will say we should withhold judgment and not assume the accused is guilty. And you are welcome to argue otherwise if you want. It's your choice. I am not telling you to shut up and you please kindly refrain from doing so as well.

Trust me, nobody on this fucking planet wants to read yet another Derec post about false rape allegations, because it's going to be as fresh and enlightening as a KKK member's thirty-thousanth post on stormfront.

No need to get insulting.

Just like how when every other post out of your account is an angry rant about feminists/rape, it leads one to the inevitable conclusion that you're a sexist asshole.

That is very different than hating women. I think certain strands on feminism have been very damaging and will continue to argue my case. I also think there is a witchhunt attitude on the feminist left regarding rape which leads to expelling male students without any evidence (or even with evidence to the contrary like at University of North Dakota) or with not differentiating a mutual "drunken hookup" from a rape of a woman who is "too drunk to consent". I will continue to argue my case no matter what and you are welcome to counter with actual arguments rather than insults and comparing me with stormfront.

 

[bigfield]

That's not what is meant. The meaning is that this culture leads to a type of behaviour that encourages "rapey" behaviour. Only very rarely, in certain people, does it lead to actual rape. But even the milder occurrences will lead to an overall culture that promotes rape. So says the theory.

The closest references to this culture that I could find were in the following articles:

http://www.marshall.edu/wcenter/sexual-assault/rape-culture/

Defining “manhood” as dominant and sexually aggressive

http://thefeministwire.com/2013/06/we-live-in-a-rape-culture/

Men are taught to be powerful and macho

That is as extensively as those concepts are mentioned -- no explanation of how those characteristics contribute to sexual violence. Is there even any evidence that such characteristics are more prevalent among rapists than among the non-rapist populace? Do these writers have anything more than a hypothesis?

 

[The Paul]

Some do, for sure, like Crystal Magnum and her ilk. But in general, no I do not "put [women] down in the dirt" and alleging that is insulting.

Well then it sucks to be you Derec, because it turns out if you publicly laugh at rape victims a few times, for no apparent reason other than their being rape victims, you end up short on people willing to believe you when you talk about how terribly serious and respectful you are.

 

[Derec]

Well then it sucks to be you Derec, because it turns out if you publicly laugh at rape victims a few times, for no apparent reason other than their being rape victims, you end up short on people willing to believe you when you talk about how terribly serious and respectful you are.

Can you provide a few examples of how I "publically laughed" at "rape victims"? Or will you admit you just freely invented this?

 

[laughing dog]

WWhich is actually true, no question about it.

Yet another example of trivializing actual rape.

Plus possibility of spending years or decades in prison, plus certainty that one's identity will be splattered everywhere and that there likely will always be a cloud of suspicion over him, no matter how factually innocent.
You are the only one engaging in apologia here, namely for false rape accusers.

Please substantiate your claim using actual posts instead of sexist and misogynistic reasoning.

I am doing no such thing.

You are trivializing it. This thread is about rape culture not your hobby horse of false rape allegations. And claiming that a false rape accusation is as bad or worse than an actual rape is trivializing rape.

I wouldn't know. It is you who keeps erecting them and knocking them down.

Your admission in the first sentence undercuts your entire response.

 

[Toni]

One would think that given the all pervasive fear many men hold of being falsely accused of rape or of being forced to pay child support when a woman refuses to abort on command, men would be more selective about their sex partners. Yet suggestions that men might be more selective about their sex partners is met with great outcry about unfairness. Such suggestions are compared with it being unfair to expect women to stop wearing mini skirts if they don't want to be raped. Yet, there is ZERO correlation between wearing a mini skirt and being raped. IDGI