Does "Rape Culture" exist?

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You're still assuming he's guilty.

The reality is that sometimes women lie about the situation.


As for the fist hitting the face being consensual--it could be. Two people could choose to fight. The loser doesn't get to go to the cops and complain.

- - - Updated - - -

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!".

That's what a lot of you want--she claims rape, that it's, he's guilty.

 

[Toni]

You're still assuming he's guilty.

The reality is that sometimes women lie about the situation.


As for the fist hitting the face being consensual--it could be. Two people could choose to fight. The loser doesn't get to go to the cops and complain.

- - - Updated - - -



That's what a lot of you want--she claims rape, that it's, he's guilty.

VS: He claims it was consensual so it was consensual.

There's an investigation for a reason. Just as there is a trial for a reason.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

VS: He claims it was consensual so it was consensual.

There's an investigation for a reason. Just as there is a trial for a reason.

Well, it's not the fact of a trial that anybody's claiming an issue with, it's what counts as evidence in said trial. If two people have sex and the next day one goes to the police and claims to be a rape victim and the other says that the sex was consentual, in the absence of any other mitigating factors, do you think that there should ever be a guilty verdict? Should anyone go to jail solely based on a a he said/she said situation?

 

[Jarhyn]

No. Not in a she said/he said. Get a rape kit. Do a tox screen and check for bruising. But if there is no evidence, then there can be no conviction. The burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No. Not in a she said/he said. Get a rape kit. Do a tox screen and check for bruising. But if there is no evidence, then there can be no conviction. The burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Ya, that's what I'm asking. One side of the argument seems to be arguing against a he said/she said basis for a rape conviction. I'm curious if there's actually anybody who holds that this position is acceptable or if there's actually any jurisidictions which would put someone into jail based solely on her word.

 

[arkirk]

Well, it's not the fact of a trial that anybody's claiming an issue with, it's what counts as evidence in said trial. If two people have sex and the next day one goes to the police and claims to be a rape victim and the other says that the sex was consentual, in the absence of any other mitigating factors, do you think that there should ever be a guilty verdict? Should anyone go to jail solely based on a a he said/she said situation?

Is this not actually just a matter of dispute over consensuality? The thread title "Does "Rape Culture" exist?" is an entirely different matter than a dispute between a few boys and a girl or girls. In a very limited sense, if there is a nonconsensual act and only a few people are involved, it need not be considered as a "rape culture" but rather as a conspiracy between a few people to commit rape in a society that does not condone rape.

The real problem is the difficulty one has in determining or measuring consent. It is an intangible thing that often may not have some sort of tangible residue that can be measured. This is the entire problem with rape charges in any setting. The defense against such charges can only be one of two things...denial of any sexual act at all...or a claim that both parties consented to it. There is quite a lot of pressure to remove this defense from a defendant's case, but in cases where there is no physical evidence or residue, it must be considered in the interest of justice.

False rape charges are made. True rape charges are made. How do you tell them apart when it becomes a matter of he said, she said? I frankly do not have the answer to this question. Even if a person gave written consent to having sex, it still could be argued that this was obtained by coercive means. It seems it is more a problem of a dilemma in the matter of discovering something called truth. I am not trying to evade the issue when I say these cases are fraught with possibilities that a difficult to prove. Unfortunately, our law system requires proof.

In the case of an invading army raping all the women they encounter, then you have a "culture of rape." In the case of a frat house, you have rape occurring in an environment and a broader culture that claims to prohibit rape. In the case of a sex party put together for the purpose of ribald activity and where all the parties agree on that, actual rape is not very likely, though something that looks like rape may occur.

I am of the opinion that rape can occur at a frat party or anywhere else. The problem is that it always is a matter of surmising what the actual truth of the situation is. Along those lines, I once worked with a guy on federal reservation and watched his whole life torn apart by a step daughter who lied about him. Laws that protect a person from having their charges against others questioned are problematic. You cannot just take claims to automatically be true. I feel the problem of real offense and false claim has not been satisfactorily resolved and even with forensic evidence of coitus, one cannot be 100% sure you have figured it out.

That is the reason for the draconian and very restrictive sex laws we once had in this country...prohibit sexual activities that may be misconstrued and you then can just bust people for fornication...and not worry about consent at all. Of course there are cases that are clearly rape, but most cases suffer from this doubt. To some extent, this is a problem with the prosecution of all crime, not just rape. The innocence project should make this clear. A finding of guilty can be in error. A finding of not guilty frequently is not a finding of innocence. When a person gets away with another crime due to legal uncertainties, we do not declare our society has a "culture of crime."

 

[fromderinside]

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

No I'm just assuming they fucked. She does have the right to the sanctity of her body and reproductive processes. He does not have those rights to her body.

the point made is she is the social being who gets to produce offspring. He is only permitted the possibility of participating if he is qualified to join with and raise the offspring. If she judges he is not, she should have the right to demand he pay for removing, or supporting without his presence, the infection he caused.

 

[Toni]

Well, it's not the fact of a trial that anybody's claiming an issue with, it's what counts as evidence in said trial. If two people have sex and the next day one goes to the police and claims to be a rape victim and the other says that the sex was consentual, in the absence of any other mitigating factors, do you think that there should ever be a guilty verdict? Should anyone go to jail solely based on a a he said/she said situation?

I have never heard of any case where there was even a trial based ONLY on he said/she said, much less a conviction.

Among many factors taken into consideration is the reliability and believability of each party involved. Although a professional sex worker can be raped and in fact, is at greater than average risk for being raped, it is harder for a professional sex worker to have his or her word taken as truth. Likewise, a convicted rapist can be innocent of the current charge of rape but will have a harder job convincing police, etc. of his or her innocence.

In fact, there are some who argue that the burden of facing a trial for rape is greater than actually being raped. In this thread.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

The point is that sex between non contractually joined persons (prostitutes, surrogates, wives, partners) of normal age when such behavior is usually seen is a materially consequential event that has effects and products that develop over time. That is what shold be taken into considerationwhern rules aboutsex are constructed. My setup presumed reproductive age, reproductive likelihood, and a set of rules that would apply specifically to such contact.

The male doesn't carry the
female may become pregnant as the result of contact
pregnancy normally results in offspring
offspring require individual care before during and after pregnancy.

All the above need be considered in setting up rules of contract and responsibilities.

My view is that a woman being the primary offspring care agent should have the right to determine risks at any time prior to the offspring's birth and much advantage there after until the offspring comes of age. She must have final approval of any male for whom she carries a child and that approval can exist up to the time the child becomes viable (about 7 months). Saying she doesn't consent includes all that time range.

What it is intended to do is warrant males are certifiable fathers,ones capable of and suitable for caring for the unborn and developing child. If she judges he isn't she can withdraw consent.

I like it.

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.

What I wrote above complies with other contractual violation crime statutes to which you refer when you talk about giving permission for hitting.

Jeez. You were a frat rat. How entitled is that.

That said drunken sex in the mind of many here is rape.

I really don't care about men, I am one, with respect to this class of acts. Its all with the female. Doing or appealing to anything that lowers her ability to judge and evaluate is coercive, therefore should be considered in terms of assault.

I really have very little sympathy for the poor male who acted and then found she doesn't want him or his potential child. She has all the responsibility and risk and she should be afforded every opportunity to reject his advance and results.

Its not about an act of pleasure here. We should never make the mistake that is the sum and substance of fucking.

Its about child making. Even if we consider it not a child until it is out of the womb and it can be destroyed anywhere in that frame she should have the right to break the fuck contact contract. Actually the trend is in the other direction isn't it. Its a done deal as soon as he cums. If that doesn't make your balls hurt you have no business in the fucking business.

 

[fromderinside]

You're still assuming he's guilty.

The reality is that sometimes women lie about the situation.

Yes I am. he just wants to fuck. The consequences are normally a likely child. He wants permission to fuck with no responsibility. Fuck off.

The point isn't about what the woman says since its clear a fuck occurred. she has the right to be protected from an irresponsible person and from the consequences of any form of coercion including alcohol, flattery, drugs, intimidation, social pressure, etc.

As for the fist hitting the face being consensual--it could be. Two people could choose to fight. The loser doesn't get to go to the cops and complain.

Yes it can and I'm advocating a parallel to other transgressions of one's space. It they are paid, form contracts in the form of marriage or partnership, or have set precedent by having children together before, etc. then contract conditions should apply. However if it is two independent agents rights all come down on the side of the one who has consequences for results of the act.

Get used to thinking clearly that women are to be judged by brain criteria and not by service stereotypes in our brave new world.

 

[Toni]

Where do you get the idea that I was bragging? I was just describing what went on.



Yes, I'm sure lots of girls were raped in my frat and I had no idea.

Jessayin'

- - - Updated - - -



Half of the parties were held at sorority houses. I guess the girls were looking to get raped?[/QUOTE]

Right here: the bolded part. It's a pretty huge problem when someone assumes that a woman who gets drunk at a party wants to be raped, wants to have sex, wants to have sex with any person who will have sex with her. In fact, lots of women drink to excess and have no intention of having sex at all or intend to have sex with a specific person or with a person they choose on the spot. Surely it is the same for guys?

 

[fromderinside]

Ya, that's what I'm asking. One side of the argument seems to be arguing against a he said/she said basis for a rape conviction. I'm curious if there's actually anybody who holds that this position is acceptable or if there's actually any jurisidictions which would put someone into jail based solely on her word.

I don't think there are. Its my view there should be for reasons I've already given. Sexual relations between men and women are not just for fun unless she has taken measures to ensure it can be just for fun. If there is no protection evident for the female then unless there is absolute access to a day after pill there should be no questioning a woman who, looking forward, see problems with any child potential situation clams such was not wanted.

I'm not asking that men be sent to prison unless they do abuse their sex partner. Saying 'she consented' isn't a defense. Saying she didn't consent is sufficient to assign legal responsibility for consequences and remedies.

I'm asking that judgement the man be legally responsible for all costs and liabilities should product ensure.

 

[Bronzeage]

This argument is a variation on the Benchley Paradox.

The Benchley Paradox states, "There are two kinds of people in the world, those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't"

The paradox is that anyone who disagrees with the statement, proves it true.

 

[dystopian]

But in general, no I do not "put [women] down in the dirt" and alleging that is insulting.

I don't particularly care that you find it insulting; if you don't want to be insulted by such statements, stop acting in a way that makes people describe you in such a fashion.

Being falsely accused of rape is something horrible as well, so why do you not assume they are telling the truth as well?

Because being falsely accused of rape is nowhere near being actually raped on the 'spectrum of horrible things', no matter what you may think.

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.

No, actually, it pretty much always makes sense. People I don't know are still people, and they are still affected by society... which I'm a part of.

By assuming she is telling the truth you are assuming the guy is lying and that he is a rapist.

Boohfuckinghoo.

But wait, let's back up for a second, why exactly do you think it works this way? Why can't I just take a woman for her word and offer her sympathy while at the same time allowing for the possibility that the police/courts will find the guy innocent?

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.

And lo and behold, we actually already do this. You, however, clearly do not. Your post history on this subject says it all.

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

And once again, predictably, you whine about the damage done to those who are falsely accused, while completely ignoring the fact that your kind of attitude and rhetoric on these kinds of cases does far more damage to those who actually were in fact raped but spit out by society for pursuing justice.

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

I know you want to believe that that is the case, but nobody who'se read your posts on this subject believes you. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

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

Except I'm hnot automatically siding with the 'woman'. I'm automatically siding with the *victim*. Male or female, I don't give a shit. You're the one who'se bringing gender into it.

Being falsely thought a rapist is at least as psychologically damaging as expressing skepticism for a rape allegation that actually occurred.

Bullshit. Sheer and utter fucking bullshit. You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting this.

Someone's falsely accused of something they didn't do might not like the fact that people look at them funny, but they have the knowledge that they in fact did nothing wrong.

A rape victim who has already gone through hell who then has society refuse to believe her, gets victimized *again*, and gets conditioned by the societal response to think that it is HER fault. There is no fucking comparison in the amount of psychological damage these two things do.

You are projecting.

Really? Because in my long post history on FRDB, I can't recall a single rape thread that I have ever touched beyond this one. I certainly don't make a habit out of it. YOU on the other hand, have managed to start dozens such threads at least, and everyone in this community knows exactly how obsessed with the subject you are. Go ahead, ask anyone here.

It was a very infamous case when it happened.

This might shock you, but America is not the world. Just because a case gets a lot of media attention in your country, doesn't mean the rest of us will or should have heard of it.

You'd be well advised to read up on the case.

Yeah, no. See, I don't give a shit about the singular case that supports your own twisted internal narrative. It doesn't mean anything to me.

 

[The Paul]

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

Derec... The people you're having this conversation with are not strangers. You can not erase all memory of your past behavior simply by demanding that I document and index it for them.

 

[Derec]

Derec... The people you're having this conversation with are not strangers. You can not erase all memory of your past behavior simply by demanding that I document and index it for them.

Translation: "No."

 

[bigfield]

The point is that sex between non contractually joined persons (prostitutes, surrogates, wives, partners) of normal age when such behavior is usually seen is a materially consequential event that has effects and products that develop over time. That is what shold be taken into considerationwhern rules aboutsex are constructed. My setup presumed reproductive age, reproductive likelihood, and a set of rules that would apply specifically to such contact.

The male doesn't carry the
female may become pregnant as the result of contact
pregnancy normally results in offspring
offspring require individual care before during and after pregnancy.

All the above need be considered in setting up rules of contract and responsibilities.

My view is that a woman being the primary offspring care agent should have the right to determine risks at any time prior to the offspring's birth and much advantage there after until the offspring comes of age. She must have final approval of any male for whom she carries a child and that approval can exist up to the time the child becomes viable (about 7 months). Saying she doesn't consent includes all that time range.

What it is intended to do is warrant males are certifiable fathers,ones capable of and suitable for caring for the unborn and developing child. If she judges he isn't she can withdraw consent.

I like it.

So if a woman decides that a man she had sex with would not make a suitable father, then she can withdraw consent? Am I understanding your position correctly?

What I wrote above complies with other contractual violation crime statutes to which you refer when you talk about giving permission for hitting.

I'd appreciate if you could refer me to those statutes.

Jeez. You were a frat rat. How entitled is that.

What makes you think I belonged to a fraternity? Fraternities don't even exist where I live.

 

[Rhea]

Translation: "No."

Translation: "Yes, and there's no point in bringing up documention because everyone was there at the time. Lots and lots of witnesses and not one of them needs a re-hash to be reminded."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

VS: He claims it was consensual so it was consensual.

There's an investigation for a reason. Just as there is a trial for a reason.

Investigate, yes. Yet I'm being accused of being a rape apologist for saying it should be investigated rather than his guilt assumed.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Not in a she said/he said. Get a rape kit. Do a tox screen and check for bruising. But if there is no evidence, then there can be no conviction. The burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

What good would the rape kit do? Likewise the tox screen?

A check for bruising is relevant, as is comparing both of their stories to outside facts looking for inconsistencies. The one who is lying likely had to fudge other details to make a consistent story.

- - - Updated - - -

No I'm just assuming they fucked. She does have the right to the sanctity of her body and reproductive processes. He does not have those rights to her body.

the point made is she is the social being who gets to produce offspring. He is only permitted the possibility of participating if he is qualified to join with and raise the offspring. If she judges he is not, she should have the right to demand he pay for removing, or supporting without his presence, the infection he caused.

Regret doesn't make it rape.

I do agree he should be liable for the cost of an abortion if she conceived. That's a civil matter, though, not a crime.

- - - Updated - - -

I have never heard of any case where there was even a trial based ONLY on he said/she said, much less a conviction.

Among many factors taken into consideration is the reliability and believability of each party involved. Although a professional sex worker can be raped and in fact, is at greater than average risk for being raped, it is harder for a professional sex worker to have his or her word taken as truth. Likewise, a convicted rapist can be innocent of the current charge of rape but will have a harder job convincing police, etc. of his or her innocence.

In fact, there are some who argue that the burden of facing a trial for rape is greater than actually being raped. In this thread.

Except we've had people convicted in nothing but a he-said/she-said.

 

[laughing dog]

Except we've had people convicted in nothing but a he-said/she-said.

I am sure lots of participating posters would be interested in such cases. Would you please cite one?