A more honest article on the college rape mess

[Metaphor]

Here is the plain hard truth. This is a problem caused by men, not women. This is very difficult for some men to handle, because they fear the power of a woman's sexuality, and the power of women in general. This is reality. Some people can handle it, and some cannot.

A false rape charge is no more caused by men (in terms of moral blame) than my lack of belief in Allah causes an Islamist to seethe in rage at my infidelity. And if some false rape charges are influenced by the differential treatment of men and women's sexuality (e.g. slut-shaming of women), then as 51% of society (and some very vocal slut shamers among them), women are in fact more to blame than men.

I don't fear the power of a woman's sexuality, since it has never held any power over me.

 

[Rhea]

And if some false rape charges are influenced by the differential treatment of men and women's sexuality (e.g. slut-shaming of women), then as 51% of society (and some very vocal slut shamers among them), women are in fact more to blame than men.

I don't follow your math. You say that because women exist and some of them are bad then they are collectively to blame for false rape accusations?

 

[RavenSky]

There is no such thing as "mistaken consent".

 

[Bronzeage]

Here is the plain hard truth. This is a problem caused by men, not women. This is very difficult for some men to handle, because they fear the power of a woman's sexuality, and the power of women in general. This is reality. Some people can handle it, and some cannot.

A false rape charge is no more caused by men (in terms of moral blame) than my lack of belief in Allah causes an Islamist to seethe in rage at my infidelity. And if some false rape charges are influenced by the differential treatment of men and women's sexuality (e.g. slut-shaming of women), then as 51% of society (and some very vocal slut shamers among them), women are in fact more to blame than men.

I don't fear the power of a woman's sexuality, since it has never held any power over me.

As I said, it is difficult for some men to handle.

 

[Rhea]

I don't fear the power of a woman's sexuality, since it has never held any power over me.

I imagine you also have little to fear from women's claims of false rape, since, if I recall correctly, you are a gay male?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...


Look at the complaints about the process--the guys aren't being allowed to defend themselves. No defense = near automatic conviction.

...

A great defense would be "It wasn't me, you got the wrong guy, I wasn't there." That's the defense a man needs to present when he is accused of having sex with an unwilling partner.

The "I thought she wanted it as bad as me," defense is a hard sell. It's sort of like talking to your bank manager about a loan, while holding pistol. You get the money and while the bank manager might not be sure of exactly what happened, there's no reason to believe he'll be happy about it.

You're simply assuming she's telling the truth.

Remember, most of these cases involve women who have been drinking--just how accurate will their memories be? Maybe they did say yes. (And in some of these cases others agree they said yes.)


Furthermore, I've actually seen people's memory of events change when their behavior was too contrary to how they normally are. No harm came from the changed memories but it did happen. I certainly can understand a woman who normally wouldn't have said yes later deciding she didn't say yes.

- - - Updated - - -

A great defense would be "It wasn't me, you got the wrong guy, I wasn't there." That's the defense a man needs to present when he is accused of having sex with an unwilling partner.

The "I thought she wanted it as bad as me," defense is a hard sell. It's sort of like talking to your bank manager about a loan, while holding pistol. You get the money and while the bank manager might not be sure of exactly what happened, there's no reason to believe he'll be happy about it.

This doesn't make sense. Are you saying the only way for a man to be innocent of any rape charge is that he did not in fact have sex with the accuser?

You're suggesting that if the fact that both parties admit to the sex having happened means that the falsely accused has no defence, or that he can't in fact be falsely accused?

It makes perfect sense if you believe the story that the woman never lies. (And is never a victim of her own memory--see my post above.)

 

[Bronzeage]

A great defense would be "It wasn't me, you got the wrong guy, I wasn't there." That's the defense a man needs to present when he is accused of having sex with an unwilling partner.

The "I thought she wanted it as bad as me," defense is a hard sell. It's sort of like talking to your bank manager about a loan, while holding pistol. You get the money and while the bank manager might not be sure of exactly what happened, there's no reason to believe he'll be happy about it.

You're simply assuming she's telling the truth.

Remember, most of these cases involve women who have been drinking--just how accurate will their memories be? Maybe they did say yes. (And in some of these cases others agree they said yes.)


Furthermore, I've actually seen people's memory of events change when their behavior was too contrary to how they normally are. No harm came from the changed memories but it did happen. I certainly can understand a woman who normally wouldn't have said yes later deciding she didn't say yes.

I'm not assuming she is telling the truth. I am stating the facts. It doesn't matter what she remembers, anymore than it matters how much a drunk driver remembers of how much alcohol he consumed before getting in the car. If a man has sex with an impaired person, he risks committing rape, just like the driver risks committing driving while intoxicated.

 

[Arctish]

A great defense would be "It wasn't me, you got the wrong guy, I wasn't there." That's the defense a man needs to present when he is accused of having sex with an unwilling partner.

The "I thought she wanted it as bad as me," defense is a hard sell. It's sort of like talking to your bank manager about a loan, while holding pistol. You get the money and while the bank manager might not be sure of exactly what happened, there's no reason to believe he'll be happy about it.

You're simply assuming she's telling the truth.

Remember, most of these cases involve women who have been drinking--just how accurate will their memories be? Maybe they did say yes. (And in some of these cases others agree they said yes.)

Furthermore, I've actually seen people's memory of events change when their behavior was too contrary to how they normally are. No harm came from the changed memories but it did happen. I certainly can understand a woman who normally wouldn't have said yes later deciding she didn't say yes.
- - - Updated - - -

A great defense would be "It wasn't me, you got the wrong guy, I wasn't there." That's the defense a man needs to present when he is accused of having sex with an unwilling partner.

The "I thought she wanted it as bad as me," defense is a hard sell. It's sort of like talking to your bank manager about a loan, while holding pistol. You get the money and while the bank manager might not be sure of exactly what happened, there's no reason to believe he'll be happy about it.

This doesn't make sense. Are you saying the only way for a man to be innocent of any rape charge is that he did not in fact have sex with the accuser?

You're suggesting that if the fact that both parties admit to the sex having happened means that the falsely accused has no defence, or that he can't in fact be falsely accused?

It makes perfect sense if you believe the story that the woman never lies. (And is never a victim of her own memory--see my post above.)

You can say the exact same thing about men and it will be true to the exact same degree.

"You're simply assuming he's telling the truth.

Remember, most of these cases involve men who have been drinking--just how accurate will their memories be? Maybe they did say yes. (And in some of these cases others agree they said yes.)

Furthermore, I've actually seen people's memory of events change when their behavior was too contrary to how they normally are. No harm came from the changed memories but it did happen. I certainly can understand a man who normally wouldn't have said yes later deciding he didn't say yes."

I can understand someone, man or woman, who normally wouldn't have had sex without the consent of their partner being in such denial about their true conduct they decide they must have had consent. Or being too drunk to recall. It's still non-consensual sexual contact though.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't follow your math. You say that because women exist and some of them are bad then they are collectively to blame for false rape accusations?

No. The people to blame for bringing false rape charges are the false rape accusers, not men, not women, not anyone else. I was simply responding to the comment that false rape accusations are a problem that men have created and are responsible for.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't fear the power of a woman's sexuality, since it has never held any power over me.

I imagine you also have little to fear from women's claims of false rape, since, if I recall correctly, you are a gay male?

Since I indeed do not and have not had sex with women (we're called 'gold star gays'), I have little to fear from a false rape charge that arose from a consensual encounter with a woman. But, like the taxi driver in Australia, some false rape charges do not arise from any sexual contact at all. I don't particularly fear those either, since I think it would be laughed out of the courtroom.

But, I do have a different perspective on sex whilst drinking from the majority of people here. I once hooked up with a friend while we were both drinking. I am as certain as I can be of the following

i) He never would have consented were he stone cold sober
ii) We had both been drinking but I was more off my tits than he was
iii) It would be absurd for either of us to claim we had been raped.

- - - Updated - - -

You're simply assuming she's telling the truth.

Remember, most of these cases involve women who have been drinking--just how accurate will their memories be? Maybe they did say yes. (And in some of these cases others agree they said yes.)


Furthermore, I've actually seen people's memory of events change when their behavior was too contrary to how they normally are. No harm came from the changed memories but it did happen. I certainly can understand a woman who normally wouldn't have said yes later deciding she didn't say yes.

I'm not assuming she is telling the truth. I am stating the facts. It doesn't matter what she remembers, anymore than it matters how much a drunk driver remembers of how much alcohol he consumed before getting in the car. If a man has sex with an impaired person, he risks committing rape, just like the driver risks committing driving while intoxicated.

So, the woman who is as drunk as the man she had sex with, did she also commit rape. If not, why not? After all, she had sex with a partner who could not consent.

 

[RavenSky]

But, I do have a different perspective on sex whilst drinking from the majority of people here. I once hooked up with a friend while we were both drinking. I am as certain as I can be of the following

i) He never would have consented were he stone cold sober
ii) We had both been drinking but I was more off my tits than he was
iii) It would be absurd for either of us to claim we had been raped.

Friends. That is a key word here. You say neither of you would have consented had you been "stone cold sober" but, being friends, it was highly unlikely either of you would point to your impaired ability to consent to file rape charges against the other.

And in the vast majority of "drunken hook-ups" - even between strangers - that is the case. Even with one or both being too impaired to consent, neither party chooses to file a complaint even if they regret the encounter.

But, if we are going to believe the claim that some small percentage of rape claims arise from situation wherein the man really truly had zero idea that he was raping the woman, then doesn't it make more sense for men to protect themselves by not hooking up with drunk women?

Frankly, I propose that the cases of the accused in these types of cases really truly having zero idea that he was raping the woman approaches nearly zero, but that in reality we have far too many situations wherein the armchair juries take the position that the woman is a lying liar who lies because she was seen laughing with the guy earlier in the evening and that somehow constitutes consent to sex later. But, if we are to believe (as several men on this board repeatedly assert) that so many men are so clueless that they will fuck a non-consensual woman without realizing they are raping her... Well then, don't fuck drunk people.

The second part of the argument is that if we did not condone, and even celebrate, a culture of drunken hook-ups then we would not have as much difficulty in prosecuting the predators who use this culture to target and rape others.

 

[Metaphor]

Friends. That is a key word here. You say neither of you would have consented

No, I said he would not have consented. I would have.

had you been "stone cold sober" but, being friends, it was highly unlikely either of you would point to your impaired ability to consent to file rape charges against the other.

But does that mean it wasn't rape, just because we're friends? I can't believe that whether someone was raped depends on what they feel like the next morning. Imagine we had a huge falling out over something else and then one of us decided to accuse the other of rape.

And in the vast majority of "drunken hook-ups" - even between strangers - that is the case. Even with one or both being too impaired to consent, neither party chooses to file a complaint even if they regret the encounter.

But, if we are going to believe the claim that some small percentage of rape claims arise from situation wherein the man really truly had zero idea that he was raping the woman, then doesn't it make more sense for men to protect themselves by not hooking up with drunk women?

But I don't understand. If two people are drunk, why aren't they both rapists?

Frankly, I propose that the cases of the accused in these types of cases really truly having zero idea that he was raping the woman approaches nearly zero, but that in reality we have far too many situations wherein the armchair juries take the position that the woman is a lying liar who lies because she was seen laughing with the guy earlier in the evening and that somehow constitutes consent to sex later. But, if we are to believe (as several men on this board repeatedly assert) that so many men are so clueless that they will fuck a non-consensual woman without realizing they are raping her... Well then, don't fuck drunk people.

Why aren't they both rapists?

This is not me being facetious. Two drunk people. Equally drunk. They either both can consent to sex or they both can't consent. They have sex. They're either both rapists if they can't consent, or it's just a consensual hookup if they can consent.

Now, unlike most people here I find the idea that they are both rapists if each is too drunk to consent, manifestly absurd.

The second part of the argument is that if we did not condone, and even celebrate, a culture of drunken hook-ups then we would not have as much difficulty in prosecuting the predators who use this culture to target and rape others.

If people want to drink and have sex, I don't see the problem with it. I am not the boss of their bodies.

 

[RavenSky]

But does that mean it wasn't rape, just because we're friends? I can't believe that whether someone was raped depends on what they feel like the next morning. Imagine we had a huge falling out over something else and then one of us decided to accuse the other of rape.

it means that, being that drunk, neither of you had the ability to give consent - and non-consent is the very definition of rape - but because you are friends, neither of you filed charges. If you had a huge falling out and he decided to charge you with rape, you'd both certainly have a problem, wouldn't you? You because of the accusation. Him because he will be considered a lying liar who lies... even if he was telling the truth. (Not suggesting that you would rape anyone, so for purposes of illustration assume *you* are a random person.)

Which brings me right back to my overriding point - I do not believe that your typical genuine "drunken hook-ups" result in rape accusations in spite of impaired consent; but because drunken hook-ups are celebrated in our culture, predators are protected while their victims are accused of lying and "morning after regrets".

If people want to drink and have sex, I don't see the problem with it. I am not the boss of their bodies.

I don't care what other people do either, but I do care when victims are not only not believed but are demonized and re-victimized. And I observe that drunk people have an impaired ability to give consent. No consent = rape

 

[RavenSky]

Let's play a game: Is This Rape

A woman goes shopping with her best friend's boyfriend because said boyfriend has request her help to choose the best surprise birthday gift for the girlfriend. While shopping, they stop for luch. He insists on paying because she was helping him. After shopping, he asks if she would mind stopping by his place to drop off the packages before he drops her back home. Once in his apartment, he offers her a drink, and she accepts...

According to her police report the next day, she started feeling woozy and even remembers jokingly asking if he drugged her drink. She remembers him making a pass at her, and that she pushed him off telling him "no" but laughing while she did it, trying to keep the situation from getting awkward. She remembers him getting more aggressive but by then she was having trouble fighting him off because her body felt like a rag-doll. She doesn't remember anything else until many hours later waking up in his bed with most of her clothing off, and clear indications that she'd had sexual intercourse.

According to him, after a few drinks he made a pass at her and while she did initially push him off she did so in a flirting manner, clearly playing "hard to get" rather than really meaning "no". He continued making advances until she consented and then they had sex. She slept in his bed all night, and left the next morning without any objections.

Who do you believe?

 

[Metaphor]

it means that, being that drunk, neither of you had the ability to give consent - and non-consent is the very definition of rape - but because you are friends, neither of you filed charges. If you had a huge falling out and he decided to charge you with rape, you'd both certainly have a problem, wouldn't you? You because of the accusation. Him because he will be considered a lying liar who lies... even if he was telling the truth. (Not suggesting that you would rape anyone, so for purposes of illustration assume *you* are a random person.)

Which brings me right back to my overriding point - I do not believe that your typical genuine "drunken hook-ups" result in rape accusations in spite of impaired consent; but because drunken hook-ups are celebrated in our culture, predators are protected while their victims are accused of lying and "morning after regrets".

If people want to drink and have sex, I don't see the problem with it. I am not the boss of their bodies.

I don't care what other people do either, but I do care when victims are not only not believed but are demonized and re-victimized. And I observe that drunk people have an impaired ability to give consent. No consent = rape

So then, you are contending that, in fact, many of these cases are mutual rape?

So, if a woman too drunk to give consent who has sex with a man who was also too drunk to give consent, she is legitimately a rapist and a rape victim?

Can you see how that's absurd and should cause you to rethink the situation?

 

[Metaphor]

A woman goes shopping with her best friend's boyfriend because said boyfriend has request her help to choose the best surprise birthday gift for the girlfriend. While shopping, they stop for luch. He insists on paying because she was helping him. After shopping, he asks if she would mind stopping by his place to drop off the packages before he drops her back home. Once in his apartment, he offers her a drink, and she accepts...

According to her police report the next day, she started feeling woozy and even remembers jokingly asking if he drugged her drink. She remembers him making a pass at her, and that she pushed him off telling him "no" but laughing while she did it, trying to keep the situation from getting awkward. She remembers him getting more aggressive but by then she was having trouble fighting him off because her body felt like a rag-doll. She doesn't remember anything else until many hours later waking up in his bed with most of her clothing off, and clear indications that she'd had sexual intercourse.

According to him, after a few drinks he made a pass at her and while she did initially push him off she did so in a flirting manner, clearly playing "hard to get" rather than really meaning "no". He continued making advances until she consented and then they had sex. She slept in his bed all night, and left the next morning without any objections.

Who do you believe?

Her description sounds like a drug was put into her very first drink. Since it's the next day, have the police done a toxicology report?

If the toxicology report came up negative (no drugs), would you go to trial? Would you convict?

 

[RavenSky]

it means that, being that drunk, neither of you had the ability to give consent - and non-consent is the very definition of rape - but because you are friends, neither of you filed charges. If you had a huge falling out and he decided to charge you with rape, you'd both certainly have a problem, wouldn't you? You because of the accusation. Him because he will be considered a lying liar who lies... even if he was telling the truth. (Not suggesting that you would rape anyone, so for purposes of illustration assume *you* are a random person.)

Which brings me right back to my overriding point - I do not believe that your typical genuine "drunken hook-ups" result in rape accusations in spite of impaired consent; but because drunken hook-ups are celebrated in our culture, predators are protected while their victims are accused of lying and "morning after regrets".


I don't care what other people do either, but I do care when victims are not only not believed but are demonized and re-victimized. And I observe that drunk people have an impaired ability to give consent. No consent = rape

So then, you are contending that, in fact, many of these cases are mutual rape?

So, if a woman too drunk to give consent who has sex with a man who was also too drunk to give consent, she is legitimately a rapist and a rape victim?

Can you see how that's absurd and should cause you to rethink the situation?

All it causes me to do is to restate what I have been saying for years: that we need to (1) shift our cultural perspective away from celebrating drunken hook-ups, and (2) redefine "rape" to include degrees similar to what we have for murder.

It does not cause me to rethink the fact that being drunk interferes with a person's ability to give consent.

 

[Metaphor]

So then, you are contending that, in fact, many of these cases are mutual rape?

So, if a woman too drunk to give consent who has sex with a man who was also too drunk to give consent, she is legitimately a rapist and a rape victim?

Can you see how that's absurd and should cause you to rethink the situation?

All it causes me to do is to restate what I have been saying for years: that we need to (1) shift our cultural perspective away from celebrating drunken hook-ups, and (2) redefine "rape" to include degrees similar to what we have for murder.

It does not cause me to rethink the fact that being drunk interferes with a person's ability to give consent.

I agree that rape is a crime that varies in severity and, like murder, it would be useful to have more and less severe forms codified.

But, you're avoiding the question. When two people too drunk to consent hook up, are they both rapists and rape victims?

 

[RavenSky]

A woman goes shopping with her best friend's boyfriend because said boyfriend has request her help to choose the best surprise birthday gift for the girlfriend. While shopping, they stop for luch. He insists on paying because she was helping him. After shopping, he asks if she would mind stopping by his place to drop off the packages before he drops her back home. Once in his apartment, he offers her a drink, and she accepts...

According to her police report the next day, she started feeling woozy and even remembers jokingly asking if he drugged her drink. She remembers him making a pass at her, and that she pushed him off telling him "no" but laughing while she did it, trying to keep the situation from getting awkward. She remembers him getting more aggressive but by then she was having trouble fighting him off because her body felt like a rag-doll. She doesn't remember anything else until many hours later waking up in his bed with most of her clothing off, and clear indications that she'd had sexual intercourse.

According to him, after a few drinks he made a pass at her and while she did initially push him off she did so in a flirting manner, clearly playing "hard to get" rather than really meaning "no". He continued making advances until she consented and then they had sex. She slept in his bed all night, and left the next morning without any objections.

Who do you believe?

Her description sounds like a drug was put into her very first drink. Since it's the next day, have the police done a toxicology report?

If the toxicology report came up negative (no drugs), would you go to trial? Would you convict?

Depending on how many hours have passed, most toxicology reports will not detect most "date rape" drugs. That is not conclusive proof she was not drugged. Moreover, she didn't claim conclusively that she was drugged, only that she immediately felt woozy.

She says she remembers saying "no" and pushing him off. He even confirms that part but didn't believe she really meant it. She says she blacked out. He says she later consented.

Chances are extremely high that official action won't go beyond questioning and releasing him. It is highly unlikely that the complaint will result in a prosecution, but it might make the news.

Who do you believe?

 

[Metaphor]

So then, you are contending that, in fact, many of these cases are mutual rape?

So, if a woman too drunk to give consent who has sex with a man who was also too drunk to give consent, she is legitimately a rapist and a rape victim?

Can you see how that's absurd and should cause you to rethink the situation?

All it causes me to do is to restate what I have been saying for years: that we need to (1) shift our cultural perspective away from celebrating drunken hook-ups

I don't think Western culture in general 'celebrates' drunken hookups. The walk home the next day in the same clothes you were at the party in is not called the 'walk of shame' for no reason.

Rather, drunken hookups are probably like unprotected sex. Not a great idea but it's really enticing to people and so they're going to do it, whether it's 'celebrated' or not.