A more honest article on the college rape mess

[ksen]

If she put herself in a position

That's kind of the question though isn't it? Did she put herself in that position?

where he had no way of knowing she really wanted him to stop, I don't see how you could say he was guilty of anything.

If there was no safe word/gesture that suggests to me that it wasn't a mutually consented to act.

 

[laughing dog]

How do you use a safe word with duct tape over your mouth? Good question you ask!

The answer is to make it a gesture. I have known people who are into BDSM, and they are always careful to have an escape word/gesture. This couple didn't have one?

If she put herself in a position where he had no way of knowing she really wanted him to stop, I don't see how you could say he was guilty of anything.

You do realize that you are implicitly arguing that she put herself into a position to be legally raped.

 

[Bronzeage]

You are comparing women to sharks? Why? Women have moral accountability. Do you disagree? As I said, yes, a guy can take precautions to try to make himself less likely to be a victim of false accusations, just as a woman can take precautions to avoid being raped, but that doesn't make the wrong done to them excusable.

The "real false rape" accusation is a very rare thing. The real problem here, and the focus of this discussion is not "real rapists" and "real false rape" accusations. It is that grey area in between, where people's judgment is clouded and what seems like a good idea at the time, is a very bad idea.

You can't have a grey area if you dismiss the concept of white or black. False accusations happen. There is not always alcohol involved. There is not always a woman who feels raped. Consent can be genuinely given, she can even want it more than him at the time, and the act can later be regretted, and an accusation can be made. Is it rare? Perhaps. That doesn't make it any less wrong.

Instead of comparing it to a Shark Attack, where the wrongdoer has no moral accountability, I would compare it to stranger rape. It is very very unlikely that a stranger is going to rape or abuse you or your children, and far more likely that a relative or somebody you know will, yet our society freaks out over stranger danger more than it probably should. You seem to feel the same way about false rape accusations. But the liar accusing people of false rape is morally accountable, like the stranger who rapes.

We are discussing "the college rape" mess. I propose a really simple solution, which is to instruct young men to "not do that," which, instead of blaming the victim, prevents him from becoming a victim. We have a problem which stems from a particular behavior. It is unrealistic to think there is a solution which does not include modifying that behavior.

Not do what though? Not get women drunk and have sex with them? Not spike their drinks? Sure, I agree. Not have sex with women you don't know well? That seems advisable, but just as much something you should be telling women. Not have sex at all? That is safer, and even then it doesn't completely remove the possiblity. Keep away from women and never be alone in a room with one? Now we've gone Muslim.

Yes, a woman is much like a shark. They both have gills and fins.

The simile here is a comparison between the chance of shark attack and the chance of false rape accusation, not the shark's or woman's motivation. It is my observation that men who voice the greatest fear of false rape accusations have a great fear of women in general and this is just another situation where they feel women have undue power.

I would never advise anyone to avoid sex. I certainly never have, but somehow I have avoided rape charges of any kind, false or real. I owe it all to clean living.

A lot of clever plans have been suggested in this thread and the idea of raising a generation of young women who know better than to have happy consensual sex and then accuse their lover of rape because of sudden feelings of guilt, certainly has merit. This should be explored. In the meantime, a stopgap solution to protect our young men would be to advise them to stop seeing sex with impaired women they barely know as something similar to jaywalking.

 

[Bronzeage]

How do you use a safe word with duct tape over your mouth? Good question you ask!

The answer is to make it a gesture. I have known people who are into BDSM, and they are always careful to have an escape word/gesture. This couple didn't have one?

If she put herself in a position where he had no way of knowing she really wanted him to stop, I don't see how you could say he was guilty of anything.

Did she tape her own mouth?

Ask your BDSM friends if the tape is put on the mouth before or after she is tied up.

 

[doubtingt]

This is the year 2014, not 1974. Is there some resurgence of chastity or purity movements on campus and I am so out of touch, I haven't heard about it? Is there some sort of Slut Police Force in charge of shaming women who have intercourse outside the bounds of matrimony?
Why else would a young woman feel guilty about having sex with someone? Someone please explain to this poor old man how this works. The last time I saw this kind of nonsense, I was in 8th grade.

I suspect there are many reasons. But the only relevant question is: did she genuinely consent at the time? If she did, she has no business retroactively withdrawing it.

I agree. That is the only relevant question. In fact, it's fundamental in this discussion. Did the sexual contact happen with or without genuine consent?

Remember Charlie from this post: http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?1168-No-such-thing-as-Rape-Culture-redux&p=30672&viewfull=1#post30672 in the other thread? Let's talk about his situation.

Charlie woke up to find himself being straddled by a woman he barely knew. He quickly realized his penis was erect and inside her, and she had been humping him while he was unaware of her presence. He felt confused, unhappy, and violated. He faked an orgasm to make her go away, and finally got her to leave him alone by rolling over and pretending to be sound asleep.

Charlie was raped. You might quibble about "legitimate rape" meaning forcible rape, but this was clearly a sex act performed on him without his consent and therefore a sexual assault aka rape.

Now suppose Charlie had gotten staggeringly drunk at a bar, been seen chatting and dancing with this woman, and she had volunteered to escort him home. Does that imply consent? Charlie doesn't remember giving her consent, and knows he wouldn't have given it if he was sober. Does his being drunk rule out genuine consent or does it mean valid consent might have been given, and he just doesn't remember? Could he be having morning-after regrets and trying to retroactively withdraw consent?

Suppose it wasn't a woman but a man Charlie found humping him when he woke up. Does that change anything? Would it change anything if Charlie had been seen chatting and drinking with the guy at a bar?

I would really like to hear what folks think about this. Charlie was raped by a woman who took advantage of an opportunity to fuck him without his consent. Would his being drunk change anything about how you perceive the encounter?

If the event took place as described, then Charlie was raped. His is being drunk is irrelevant, as it always is to whether a person is raped. It is you and others that support a "too drunk to consent" definition of rape who claim that intoxication determines whether an act is rape. Most us who question this definition or are concerned with false accusations define rape by the actual sex-related actions taken by both parties, not whether they were less than perfectly rational when they chose to take those actions. Being drunk can make a person unable to act to prevent sex that they do not want at the time, but that is incidental. What matters is whether they acted as voluntary participant in the sex act. By definition (not a b.s. made up legal definition but a scientific one), an unconscious person cannot voluntarily engage in any activity. The reason why they are unconscious is not directly relevant and adds nothing to the fact that they are unconscious.

Would it matter if the two were seen drinking together, and if so, how would it change your view of his claim that he did not consent to being fucked by her/him?

The intoxication is not directly relevant to consent, but can factor in as evidence consistent with the victim's claim of unconsciousness, although since intoxication usually occurs without such unconsciousness, it would be far from sufficient to establish unconsciousness. Unfortunately, since intoxication impairs the accuracy of recall, it also counts as evidence that the potential victim's testimony of the events is unreliable. An intoxicated person and be very conscious and aware of what they are doing at the time and engage in complex physical acts from sex to driving to Karaoke, yet have little or spotty memory of the events later on. "Blackouts" do not mean you were not conscious and engaged in willful physical acts, or even that you were in a falling down incoherent state. This is a big source of the problem and high potential for false accusations in which the accuser is not lying but sincerely does not recall their own willful participation in a sex act, doing and saying things that to any reasonable observer would indicate informed consent. I'm not applying this to Charlie's case, but its a reality that does apply to many situations. If the two parties are seen not merely "drinking together" but mutually flirting, making out, and leaving together, then yes that matters to all rational people, because it is evidence consistent with mutual sexual interest. It does not make sex with the person acceptable, if they did in fact say no or were unconscious, but it does support the plausibility that the accuser willingly and consciously had sex. This mostly matter only when there is no independent support for the victims accusations. IF there is evidence of unwillingness or unconsciousness, then prior flirtations do not discount that evidence. In sum, intoxication doesn't much matter either way. What matters is the same things that matter in accusations where no alcohol is involved, namely what is the evidence in support of each persons' claims, which in a system that rightly favors reducing false positives over false negatives, that burden of evidence is higher for accusers, no matter the crime.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If there was no safe word/gesture that suggests to me that it wasn't a mutually consented to act.

Or that she wasn't thinking it through very well, and didn't imagine she'd want to stop. I don't know which it is, which is why I asked.

I do know that this sort of BDSM thing can be very much consensual. I myself have had a girlfriend who demanded I pretend to rape her, complete with a rubber knife at her throat. I wasn't very comfortable with it, but she insisted. She got off on it. This sort of thing happens. She had a safe word (which was "safe word" lol). She wanted to do that frequently, and we wound up breaking up for it. I found it very unsettling.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You do realize that you are implicitly arguing that she put herself into a position to be legally raped.

It would be a pretty stupid thing for her to do, wouldn't it? I am not arguing that this is what happened. I am asking for clarification. Did they have a safe word? Did she say it before the duct tape was put on her mouth? Did they do the duct tape over the mouth thing previously, at her request? Did they have a safe gesture so she could say stop even though her mouth was covered?


The duct tape thing isn't as rare as you may think. Smothering the face with a pillow so the person can't speak is another common kink - and a far more dangerous and stupider one.

Did she tape her own mouth?

Ask your BDSM friends if the tape is put on the mouth before or after she is tied up.

Maybe she didn't tape her own mouth, but wanted it to be taped, as part of the fantasy. Stranger things have happened.

 

[Bronzeage]

It would be a pretty stupid thing for her to do, wouldn't it? I am not arguing that this is what happened. I am asking for clarification. Did they have a safe word? Did she say it before the duct tape was put on her mouth? Did they do the duct tape over the mouth thing previously, at her request? Did they have a safe gesture so she could say stop even though her mouth was covered?


The duct tape thing isn't as rare as you may think. Smothering the face with a pillow so the person can't speak is another common kink - and a far more dangerous and stupider one.

Did she tape her own mouth?

Ask your BDSM friends if the tape is put on the mouth before or after she is tied up.

Maybe she didn't tape her own mouth, but wanted it to be taped, as part of the fantasy. Stranger things have happened.

Stranger than saying, "I don't see how you could say he was guilty of anything."

 

[laughing dog]

It would be a pretty stupid thing for her to do, wouldn't it? I am not arguing that this is what happened. I am asking for clarification. Did they have a safe word? Did she say it before the duct tape was put on her mouth? Did they do the duct tape over the mouth thing previously, at her request? Did they have a safe gesture so she could say stop even though her mouth was covered?


The duct tape thing isn't as rare as you may think. Smothering the face with a pillow so the person can't speak is another common kink - and a far more dangerous and stupider one.

She said she said no. Her husband said she said no. In other words, there was no dispute that she said no. So, I think your questions are literally irrelevant to the issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there was no safe word/gesture that suggests to me that it wasn't a mutually consented to act.

Or they don't realize the problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there was no safe word/gesture that suggests to me that it wasn't a mutually consented to act.

Or that she wasn't thinking it through very well, and didn't imagine she'd want to stop. I don't know which it is, which is why I asked.

I do know that this sort of BDSM thing can be very much consensual. I myself have had a girlfriend who demanded I pretend to rape her, complete with a rubber knife at her throat. I wasn't very comfortable with it, but she insisted. She got off on it. This sort of thing happens. She had a safe word (which was "safe word" lol). She wanted to do that frequently, and we wound up breaking up for it. I found it very unsettling.

I think I would have a problem with that, also. Rape fantasy, fine, but leave out the rubber knife.

- - - Updated - - -

It would be a pretty stupid thing for her to do, wouldn't it? I am not arguing that this is what happened. I am asking for clarification. Did they have a safe word? Did she say it before the duct tape was put on her mouth? Did they do the duct tape over the mouth thing previously, at her request? Did they have a safe gesture so she could say stop even though her mouth was covered?


The duct tape thing isn't as rare as you may think. Smothering the face with a pillow so the person can't speak is another common kink - and a far more dangerous and stupider one.

She said she said no. Her husband said she said no. In other words, there was no dispute that she said no. So, I think your questions are literally irrelevant to the issue.

But when she has previously said that no doesn't really mean no then how is he supposed to know if she really means no or if it's part of the game? That's the whole point of safewords.

 

[laughing dog]

But when she has previously said that no doesn't really mean no then how is he supposed to know if she really means no or if it's part of the game? That's the whole point of safewords.

First, you don't know if someone previously said no without meaning it. Second, and more importantly, no means no until the naysayer clearly indicates otherwise. FFS, two year olds are taught that.

Guess what? Mistakeningly thinking "no" means "yes" does not absolve a rapist from the act.

 

[RavenSky]

You implied it.

no, Derec, I did not. That is your own faulty assumptions at work here.

But when there is a woman tied down, duct taped over her mouth and eyes, visibly struggling, violently raped, AND she reports it as rape - people like you STILL insist she is a liar - which exactly proves my original point.

Nobody insists that she is a liar but that the prosecution didn't prove he was a rapist beyond a reasonable doubt which are very different things.

The rapist ADMITTED that she said "no". So apparently, not only have you proven my point that not even video evidence will ever convince you that any woman anywhere was raped, not even the rapist's confession that he did not have consent will do it.

I will ask again since you did not answer this: I want to know exactly what YOU would consider evidence of a rape short of a full confession from the rapist.

 

[RavenSky]

Not really. People like saying "no" and variations thereof (play resistance) during BDSM play. That's the whole reason why safe words were invented. So with BDSM scenes you can't deduce non-consensuality from it.

except that she said he raped her.

So, we have her testimony that it was rape.
We have video evidence that he tied her down, duct taped her eyes and mouth, and violently raped her.
And we have his own admission that she said "no".

So the ONLY way for you to continue saying there wasn't enough evidence to convict is if, and only if, you assume she is a "lying bitch."

 

[Sabine Grant]

I want to know exactly what YOU would consider evidence of a rape short of a full confession from the rapist.

It is a very good question when applied to my case. Short of E. giving a full confession ,considering I was in a state of shock and the thought never crossed my mind to report to a medical facility to get both a rape kit and blood test, there is no way a jury or judge would have found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. When it comes to substance facilitated date rapes/sexual assaults, it is absolutely essential that the victim preserves physical evidence, the most important one being a blood test confirming the presence of specific drugs known to be used to render the victim unable to resist or defend herself. Adding that in such cases, the victim does not have defensive bruises or lesions/wounds since the drug renders her unable to move.

 

[Toni]

Not really. People like saying "no" and variations thereof (play resistance) during BDSM play. That's the whole reason why safe words were invented. So with BDSM scenes you can't deduce non-consensuality from it.

except that she said he raped her.

So, we have her testimony that it was rape.
We have video evidence that he tied her down, duct taped her eyes and mouth, and violently raped her.
And we have his own admission that she said "no".

So the ONLY way for you to continue saying there wasn't enough evidence to convict is if, and only if, you assume she is a "lying bitch."

Come on: given the pronoun involved , there is no 'if.'

 

[Bronzeage]

This says it well.

 

[Arctish]

This is the year 2014, not 1974. Is there some resurgence of chastity or purity movements on campus and I am so out of touch, I haven't heard about it? Is there some sort of Slut Police Force in charge of shaming women who have intercourse outside the bounds of matrimony?
Why else would a young woman feel guilty about having sex with someone? Someone please explain to this poor old man how this works. The last time I saw this kind of nonsense, I was in 8th grade.

I suspect there are many reasons. But the only relevant question is: did she genuinely consent at the time? If she did, she has no business retroactively withdrawing it.

I agree. That is the only relevant question. In fact, it's fundamental in this discussion. Did the sexual contact happen with or without genuine consent?

Remember Charlie from this post: http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?1168-No-such-thing-as-Rape-Culture-redux&p=30672&viewfull=1#post30672 in the other thread? Let's talk about his situation.

Charlie woke up to find himself being straddled by a woman he barely knew. He quickly realized his penis was erect and inside her, and she had been humping him while he was unaware of her presence. He felt confused, unhappy, and violated. He faked an orgasm to make her go away, and finally got her to leave him alone by rolling over and pretending to be sound asleep.

Charlie was raped. You might quibble about "legitimate rape" meaning forcible rape, but this was clearly a sex act performed on him without his consent and therefore a sexual assault aka rape.

Now suppose Charlie had gotten staggeringly drunk at a bar, been seen chatting and dancing with this woman, and she had volunteered to escort him home. Does that imply consent? Charlie doesn't remember giving her consent, and knows he wouldn't have given it if he was sober. Does his being drunk rule out genuine consent or does it mean valid consent might have been given, and he just doesn't remember? Could he be having morning-after regrets and trying to retroactively withdraw consent?

Suppose it wasn't a woman but a man Charlie found humping him when he woke up. Does that change anything? Would it change anything if Charlie had been seen chatting and drinking with the guy at a bar?

I would really like to hear what folks think about this. Charlie was raped by a woman who took advantage of an opportunity to fuck him without his consent. Would his being drunk change anything about how you perceive the encounter?

If the event took place as described, then Charlie was raped. His is being drunk is irrelevant, as it always is to whether a person is raped.

Okay. We agree Charlie was raped.

It is you and others that support a "too drunk to consent" definition of rape who claim that intoxication determines whether an act is rape.

Not exactly. My position is that sexual contact without consent is sexual assault aka rape.

Consent is what separates rape from non-rape. So anything that impairs a person's ability to give valid, genuine consent is a problem. That impairment can be due to a congenital condition like Downs syndrome, or the result of a traumatic brain injury like what some of our Iraq war veterans suffered, or it can be the result of drugs taken willingly or unwittingly, hyper- or hypo-glycemia, or even hypoxia. I doubt there would be many people here who would argue that a woman staggering and slurring due to seriously messed-up blood sugar levels is fair game if you can get her to say yes to the question "Wanna feel something nice?" and yet, there are some who are arguing she'd be fair game if it was alcohol that caused the exact same level of functional impairment.

Most us who question this definition or are concerned with false accusations define rape by the actual sex-related actions taken by both parties, not whether they were less than perfectly rational when they chose to take those actions. Being drunk can make a person unable to act to prevent sex that they do not want at the time, but that is incidental. What matters is whether they acted as voluntary participant in the sex act.

What matters most is consent; levels of participation are a consideration but not the defining characteristic of consensual sexual contact.

Charlie faked an orgasm in an attempt to make his rapist go away. That might be construed by some as voluntary participation. But what Charlie did during the act does not change the fact the act took place without his consent. Also, if he had been so drunk he was "unable to act to prevent sex that [he did] not want at the time", it would not have been incidental. It would have been horrible.

By definition (not a b.s. made up legal definition but a scientific one), an unconscious person cannot voluntarily engage in any activity. The reason why they are unconscious is not directly relevant and adds nothing to the fact that they are unconscious.

Would it matter if the two were seen drinking together, and if so, how would it change your view of his claim that he did not consent to being fucked by her/him?

The intoxication is not directly relevant to consent, but can factor in as evidence consistent with the victim's claim of unconsciousness, although since intoxication usually occurs without such unconsciousness, it would be far from sufficient to establish unconsciousness. Unfortunately, since intoxication impairs the accuracy of recall, it also counts as evidence that the potential victim's testimony of the events is unreliable. An intoxicated person and be very conscious and aware of what they are doing at the time and engage in complex physical acts from sex to driving to Karaoke, yet have little or spotty memory of the events later on. "Blackouts" do not mean you were not conscious and engaged in willful physical acts, or even that you were in a falling down incoherent state. This is a big source of the problem and high potential for false accusations in which the accuser is not lying but sincerely does not recall their own willful participation in a sex act, doing and saying things that to any reasonable observer would indicate informed consent.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it looks as though you are saying as long as a drunk is still conscious and able to shamble along, he or she can make informed decisions about sexual activity. Is that where you are setting the bar? If so, I think that position presents quite a few problems.

Courts don't recognize the validity of financial agreements, contracts, or promises made when one party to the agreement was noticeably drunk. In fact, they consistently rule such agreements are invalid. And the courts aren't out on the fringe on this issue. People in general don't consider such agreements valid or enforceable. So it should come as no surprise when courts and college disciplinary boards rule that drunken consent is not valid consent.

Again, this goes back to Charlie and his situation. He doesn't remember giving consent and he knows he wouldn't have consented if he was sober. If he had been drunk, and seemed to be agreeable when the woman entered his room, does that give his assailant enough wiggle room to get away with raping him? I don't think it does. I think she is responsible for the choices she makes, and if she chooses to take advantage of another person's impairment, she's committing a moral and legal offense.

The bottom line is consent - if she didn't have real, genuine, valid consent then she committed rape.

I'm not applying this to Charlie's case, but its a reality that does apply to many situations. If the two parties are seen not merely "drinking together" but mutually flirting, making out, and leaving together, then yes that matters to all rational people, because it is evidence consistent with mutual sexual interest. It does not make sex with the person acceptable, if they did in fact say no or were unconscious, but it does support the plausibility that the accuser willingly and consciously had sex. This mostly matter only when there is no independent support for the victims accusations. IF there is evidence of unwillingness or unconsciousness, then prior flirtations do not discount that evidence. In sum, intoxication doesn't much matter either way. What matters is the same things that matter in accusations where no alcohol is involved, namely what is the evidence in support of each persons' claims, which in a system that rightly favors reducing false positives over false negatives, that burden of evidence is higher for accusers, no matter the crime.

Two people, drunk or sober, can have very different ideas about what is going to happen when they get together.

For example: when I was in my 20s, I met a pretty good looking guy who was funny, charming, and interested in me. We seemed to hit it off pretty well so after a few casual meetings we decided to get together at his place to watch a movie. We sat down together on his sofa and started the VHS tape. After a couple of minutes he leaned over to kiss me. I was agreeable and we kissed for a minute but then his hands went a little too far up my shirt and I stopped him. We went back to watching the movie for maybe 10 minutes before he started again. This time he went for the button and zipper of my jeans. Again I stopped him and this time he looked distinctly annoyed. I was getting pretty annoyed too. It became very clear we each had very different expectations for our evening together. I was there for a date, and he was there for sex.

The date ended abruptly and early. I went home and watched the movie by myself. A few days later I ran into him downtown. He gave me a look that can only be described as a sneer with an unspoken message about what a cock-tease I turned out to be. I looked him straight in the eye and gave that exact same look right back at him with an unspoken message of what a liar he turned out to be. As trite as it sounds, I thought he liked me for who I was, not because he thought I was a nice piece of ass and he wanted to get some.

Fortunately for the both of us, neither one had been drinking. I can only imagine what a mess that would have been, with a drunk Mr. Charming thinking my being on his sofa meant I had consented to sex and a drunk me thinking "WTF, what the hell is this guy doing?!? I didn't say he could do that!"

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

She said she said no. Her husband said she said no. In other words, there was no dispute that she said no. So, I think your questions are literally irrelevant to the issue.

My questions are essential to the issue. They are an attempt to determine if she actually objected or if she was play acting. To find him guilty of rape you have to prove not only that she didn't want it, but that she communicated that in a way that he should be expected to understand, and if she has established with him that she is going to say no, but really wants him to proceed, then her saying no doesn't do that. She needs a safe word.

 

[Toni]

She said she said no. Her husband said she said no. In other words, there was no dispute that she said no. So, I think your questions are literally irrelevant to the issue.

My questions are essential to the issue. They are an attempt to determine if she actually objected or if she was play acting. To find him guilty of rape you have to prove not only that she didn't want it, but that she communicated that in a way that he should be expected to understand, and if she has established with him that she is going to say no, but really wants him to proceed, then her saying no doesn't do that. She needs a safe word.

In the Crawford case, she was tied down and gagged and blindfolded: she could not communicate any safe word. Before the incident she refused to have sex and his response was to come up from behind, knock her over the head, drag her to the bed, tie her hands and feet, blindfold and gag her, cover her eyes with duct tape, set up a video camera and then rape his wife with various objects and his penis. Perhaps there is a way that I am aware of that she could have communicated a safe word. I can't think of one.

This case went to trial in 1992 and was the first case of marital rape brought to trial in South Carolina. It is generally agreed that the jury acquitted because the concept that a man could be legally guilty of rape of his wife was novel. That particular case was brought to trial because the prosecutors felt they had a very strong case, with video evidence. Also the jury disapproved of the wife. Any lawyer will tell you that convictions for rape are very dependent upon how much the jury likes the victim.