No such thing as Rape Culture redux

[ksen]

I always try to walk around with some come fuck me $100 bills.

- - - Updated - - -

Just kidding!

But you know what is weird? I never knew my marriage ring was also a come fuck me ring!

 

[Togo]

^It's true.

But sometimes we do see signals that are there.

And this is the problem. Some people rely on these signals exclusively to manage their interaction with the opposite sex. There are plenty of guys who define flirting as 'spending time with someone and not being told to sod off'. For them, any conversation of over a minute or two is signally potential sexual interest. There are plenty of girls who's idea of flirting is to wear particular clothing. For them, simply turning up in a revealing top, red shoes, or other customary lure is an invitation.

I'm very interested in trying to get to a situation where people aren't misreading each other. But unless the solution we come up allows people to have sex with each other when they're too shy to just ask for it, it's about as useful as planning the preferred dimensions of a snowman in hell.

 

[Derec]

I think we also need to look at the concept of "drunken hook-ups" from another direction, too. This goes back to the other thread topic of the accused needing to prove s/he got consent instead of the burden being on the victim to prove s/he said "no"

This presumption of guilt is one of the scariest ideas ever to come from radical feminists. Presumption of innocence is rightly one of the bedrocks of every civilized justice system.

If I had been raped that night (and even remembered it to file a police report), I can guarantee you that the armchair detectives would have said it was just "morning after" regret though. I was admittedly playing pool with him, drinking with him, laughing with him, even (hypothetically) accepted a ride home with him. Witnesses would have most likely assumed "consent" yet none of that would be actual consent to sex. The next day it would have been my word against his with far too many people calling it a "drunken hook-up" instead of "rape".

If there is no evidence for rape then police (or college administrators) should do nothing. That's the way the system is supposed to work - the accused is presumed innocent. If you reverse the burden of proof and presume guilt any guy accused of rape would have to prove his innocence which is impossible in many cases. Let's say you and the guy had consensual sex but you falsely accuse him of rape. How is he supposed to prove his innocence?
How many innocent men would be rotting in prison under your <edit> (and when we are talking abolishing presumption of innocence the "nazi" appellation ceases to be lighthearted hyperbole and becomes eerily fitting) system?

As long as we, as a society, consider "drunken hook-ups with strangers" acceptable, and pretend that drunk "consent" is actually consent, then some women will be first raped, then called liars when they report their rapes because they were drunk.

Millions of people have consensual drunken hookups. You want to turn all of them (or at least the men) into criminals not because you have any real case that such consent is invalid or meaningless but because you apparently think that will also catch a few genuine rapists into this very wide dragnet. But many women get raped when there is no alcohol involved - so why not criminalize any casual sex and catch even more real rapists!

we (as a jury, judge, police, neighbors, etc) have no way of telling the difference between the "drunken hook-up" and a rape.

By that standard we have no way of telling the difference between any sex and rape.

And about your "brilliant" idea to replace presumption of innocence with presumption of guilt, why not expand it to other crimes as well. That would make it much more difficult for murderers, robbers, embezzlers etc. to get away with their crimes and would make trials a lot cheaper. Who cares about civil rights, eh?

 

[Bronzeage]

I always try to walk around with some come fuck me $100 bills.

- - - Updated - - -

Just kidding!

But you know what is weird? I never knew my marriage ring was also a come fuck me ring!

Yeah, I've seen that too, but I don't take it seriously. There are a lot of women who like to flirt, but only flirt with unavailable attractive men. I take it as a compliment, not an invitation.

 

[Derec]

I can only speak for my daughter - she doesn't get drunk, and she does everything within her power to make certain she is not drugged (though that did happen once, too) Obviously, I think this is a good practice on her part, but at the same time I reject the idea that she should never be allowed to get drunk because that somehow makes her fair game for some guy that she would not consent to if sober.

If she consents to sex then she still consented even if she wouldn't have consented sober. If she regrets her decision the next day (or year) too bad - she should not be able to retroactively withdraw consent!

If the people involved are drunk, they are not in a position to consent.

Yes they are. Millions do it all the time. Are they all rapists?

So I will ask again - who is filing the rape charges the next day?

If two people who have been drinking and have sex are both incapable of consent then they are by your logic both rapists and victims and should face the same punishment. It should not matter who files the rape charges - either they are both rapists or neither is because the sex was consensual. Getting around the obvious guilt (under your view) of the girl who has sex with a drunk guy by having her cry rape is transparent attempt to only punish guys, never the girls, in a drunken hookup. If Walker and Yu had sex when they were both drunk either both should be expelled or neither should.

He doesn't. For his own safety, he should not assume she did.

And women should never wear short skirts.

It is far from patronizing to assume that a drunk person is not capable of clear, sober, informed consent. It is, however, rather self-serving for Joe to assume that any drunken *consent* he says he got is meaningful.

It is patronizing to assume that any amount of alcohol renders people (and by people feminists mean women because they do not want women expelled and imprisoned for drunken hookups but only men) utterly incapable of giving consent. Consent must be meaningful it it needn't be "informed" (a medical term which involves a lot of paperwork) or "sober" or "filed with college administrators in triplicate" (next frontier no doubt).

And I will point out yet again - IF, as you presented, Jane goes to a bar fully intending to drink and fully intending to sleep with someone (or at least, "open to the idea" as you put it), then who is filing the rape report the next day?

Maybe Jane finds Jesus the next day (or year as Vassar has proven) and regrets her decision to have casual sex and is trying to blame someone else by disavowing responsibility for her actions. Maybe she has a husband or boyfriend and doesn't want them to think she cheated. In any case why or even whether she cries rape doesn't matter. All that matters is that if fact she did consent to sex and so did he.

But on the flip-side, Joe has absolutely zero means of knowing that Jane did come to the bar with the intent to drink and have sex; and once she is drunk, he can't get that consent.

Of course he can get consent from her since she (in Erick's 1st scenario) is capable of giving consent.

 

[Toni]

This presumption of guilt is one of the scariest ideas ever to come from radical feminists. Presumption of innocence is rightly one of the bedrocks of every civilized justice system.

Really, Derec? Because you certainly seem to presume that any woman who claims she has been raped is guilty of lying, making false accusations and in fact raping the guy who she claims raped her.

If I had been raped that night (and even remembered it to file a police report), I can guarantee you that the armchair detectives would have said it was just "morning after" regret though. I was admittedly playing pool with him, drinking with him, laughing with him, even (hypothetically) accepted a ride home with him. Witnesses would have most likely assumed "consent" yet none of that would be actual consent to sex. The next day it would have been my word against his with far too many people calling it a "drunken hook-up" instead of "rape".

If there is no evidence for rape then police (or college administrators) should do nothing. That's the way the system is supposed to work - the accused is presumed innocent. If you reverse the burden of proof and presume guilt any guy accused of rape would have to prove his innocence which is impossible in many cases. Let's say you and the guy had consensual sex but you falsely accuse him of rape. How is he supposed to prove his innocence?
How many innocent men would be rotting in prison under your <edit> (and when we are talking abolishing presumption of innocence the "nazi" appellation ceases to be lighthearted hyperbole and becomes eerily fitting) system?

What should happen is an investigation, without which there can be no evidence.

Here you have a clear cut scenario of a rape, which fortunately did not happen. Yet in your world, the guy should not even be investigated and you call Ravensky a feminazi for relating her very real close call. This is probably the most despicable post of yours which I have read. Indeed, one of the most despicable posts I have read, period. Rush would be so proud.

As long as we, as a society, consider "drunken hook-ups with strangers" acceptable, and pretend that drunk "consent" is actually consent, then some women will be first raped, then called liars when they report their rapes because they were drunk.

Millions of people have consensual drunken hookups. You want to turn all of them (or at least the men) into criminals not because you have any real case that such consent is invalid or meaningless but because you apparently think that will also catch a few genuine rapists into this very wide dragnet. But many women get raped when there is no alcohol involved - so why not criminalize any casual sex and catch even more real rapists!

One of the most intellectually dishonest tactics you and some others use is to declare what other posters want or think, as you do above.

we (as a jury, judge, police, neighbors, etc) have no way of telling the difference between the "drunken hook-up" and a rape.

By that standard we have no way of telling the difference between any sex and rape.

And about your "brilliant" idea to replace presumption of innocence with presumption of guilt, why not expand it to other crimes as well. That would make it much more difficult for murderers, robbers, embezzlers etc. to get away with their crimes and would make trials a lot cheaper. Who cares about civil rights, eh?

What a load. Ravensky is not proposing any such presumption of guilt. She is proposing that there should be a presumption of impairment which would invalidate consent and that those seeking hook ups should give full weight to the level of impairment of a drunken person.

 

[bigfield]

I don't usually wear nail polish but last summer I decided to paint my toenails red. The next day as I was walking the dogs wearing sandals I got into a conversation with a neighbor. He commented on my toenails, and said something about how my husband must really like it. I said my husband thinks nail polish is kind of silly. My neighbor said he was talking about the color. He said having red nail polish on your toenails means "fuck me" . I told him having red nail polish on my toenails means "I want to have red toenails".

I think Toni is absolutely right about some guys seeing signals that aren't really there.

I knew a woman who liked to wear a pair of high heels that she called her CFM shoes. I asked what CFM means and she said, "Come Fuck Me". I guess we do live in a rape culture.

It's safe to say that stilettos, nails, and many individual cues, are not a clear signal of intent if taken in isolation. CFM shoes are only that when worn by some women.

I think you should also suggest to your friend that her heels could tear the bedsheets.

Although I can't imagine red - and specifically red - nail polish ever being that kind of signal. Not in an era of red suits, red coats, red shoes, red blouses, and a variety of other "passionately" coloured businesswear and casualwear.

 

[Derec]

Really, Derec? Because you certainly seem to presume that any woman who claims she has been raped is guilty of lying, making false accusations and in fact raping the guy who she claims raped her.

Yes really. With regard to claim of rape the accused deserves presumption of innocence. As does the accuser with regard to the claim that she lied. Unfortunately the latter very rarely happens even when the evidence of her lying is strong. For example, Crystal Magnum was never prosecuted for lying about being raped by the Duke Lacrosse players. Had she gone to prison then her boyfriend would most likely still be alive ...

What should happen is an investigation, without which there can be no evidence.

Of course there should be an investigation but without evidence (probable cause) you can't charge or arrest the suspect. On the other hand, if the investigation yields evidence that the girl made a false accusation she should be charged/arrested.
Also college administrators have no resources to investigate crimes. They thus must rely on police investigation. Yet, in many cases they move on to expel the student even though the police found no evidence in their investigation and in one case (UND), they expelled even though police found enough evidence against the girl to actually charge her!

Here you have a clear cut scenario of a rape, which fortunately did not happen. Yet in your world, the guy should not even be investigated and you call Ravensky a feminazi for relating her very real close call. This is probably the most despicable post of yours which I have read. Indeed, one of the most despicable posts I have read, period. Rush would be so proud.

In RavenSky's hypothetical scenario she clearly said that there was no evidence of a rape. If there is no evidence of rape no investigation can find evidence of rape. Without evidence the accused should not be arrested or charged and there should be no trial. If they are college students, without evidence the college administration should take no action against the accused. Let me reiterate: RavenSky made it clear that in her hypothetical scenario, there was no evidence of a rape. It was a "clear-cut case" only from the standpoint of an omniscient observer, not form the standpoint of the police, DA or college administrators.

One of the most intellectually dishonest tactics you and some others use is to declare what other posters want or think, as you do above.

Oh really? And what about your opening claim in your response?

What a load. Ravensky is not proposing any such presumption of guilt.

That's exactly what she proposed. Read her first paragraph. And she is not alone. The prominent US feminist Jessica Valenti as well as some Swedish feminists want to do the same thing.

She is proposing that there should be a presumption of impairment which would invalidate consent and that those seeking hook ups should give full weight to the level of impairment of a drunken person.

Which would be almost as bad. If you can't prove your sex partner wasn't "too drunk to consent" (for example by the accuser waiting too long (like a year) to make her accusation you are just fucked? Much better to put the burden of proof of impairment on the accuser because in most cases it can't be proven one way or another and by presuming impairment you are in effect presuming guilt!
And where do you want to put the threshold? DUI limits (which have nothing to do with ability to consent but with reaction times and fine motor skills required to safely operate a motor vehicle)? Higher? Lower?

 

[RavenSky]

But you know what is weird? I never knew my marriage ring was also a come fuck me ring!

Total derail but omfg isn't that the truth! Both husbands experienced the same phenomenon. Small children and puppies work rather well too.

Yeah, I've seen that too, but I don't take it seriously. There are a lot of women who like to flirt, but only flirt with unavailable attractive men. I take it as a compliment, not an invitation.

Never thought of that. Good point.

 

[RavenSky]

I knew a woman who liked to wear a pair of high heels that she called her CFM shoes. I asked what CFM means and she said, "Come Fuck Me". I guess we do live in a rape culture.

It's safe to say that stilettos, nails, and many individual cues, are not a clear signal of intent if taken in isolation. CFM shoes are only that when worn by some women.

I think you should also suggest to your friend that her heels could tear the bedsheets.

Although I can't imagine red - and specifically red - nail polish ever being that kind of signal. Not in an era of red suits, red coats, red shoes, red blouses, and a variety of other "passionately" coloured businesswear and casualwear.

My CFM shoes were red, and had metal stiletto heels, and did rip the bed sheets. My husband loved those shoes.

 

[ksen]

True story, we were out shopping and wife wss looking at shoes. I turned to my boys, about 15 and 17 at the time, and told them the secret to buying women's shoes was to see how they looked upside down.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk