[Stillness]

Let's go back to the scenario. The question is not consent. She couldn't give consent. The question is whether there was any sexual penetration. If there was, the men are rapists.

There was penetration, but you assumed it was a she. It was not. No one was raped because I was there and the lady (now my wife) most certainly did have my consent.

If the victim does not report because she (or he) believes the she truly gave consent, then it probably was not rape.

We agree! This was my main point. Don't disregard the individual in question. We pretty much agree on everything you said, besides pressure = rape and calling my wife a date rapist without understanding the situation fully.

[rcoreyus]

There are multiple questions in these scenarios:

1). what happened. The posters here are not generally skilled writers, nor are they providing carefully thought out evidence. The words may not convey the same image of what happened to all readers.

2). It is possible to legitimately feel raped, but to never had made your rejection clear to the attacker.

3). It is possible for there to have been a rape, but the situation doesn't provide enough evidence to ever get a conviction.

4), there are confusing situations, for example where both people are drunk, where its very difficult to tell if a rape happened.

5), There are of course clear cases of rape which CAN be prosecuted.

6) There are a huge range of behaviors that are completely unacceptable and obnoxious, but which are not rape.

To me the things that most blur the situation are:

Drinking - this confuses the whole concept of consent - it is possible to black out, but not pass out, so the victim will not remember if they did or did not consent.

The acceptance of the "macho" model of seduction: Some people (men and women) think it is appropriate for the man to continually pressure the woman for sex, and for her to repeatedly reject him, while actually wanting him to continue.


All that aside, I think it is rape if there is a threat (implied or direct) of physical harm. I don't know the law, but I would consider a boss who asks for sex on the threat of firing an employee to be engaging in (felony) harassment, not rape.

[atskitty2]

I think encouraging a possible rape or assault victim to go to the police is reasonable, and to seek counseling. The authorities can hash out whether it was rape or assault or not, and the counseling can help a person deal with trauma or boundary issues.

I do understand where you're coming from Stillness. I just disagree. I get the "crying wolf" mentality and how it distracts, which is very similar to what I think you're concern is.

Some women (& men) simply do not recognize (because of their own personal issues) that a line has been crossed. I would encourage anyone who told me a story that sounds fishy, to seek the guidance of a counselor and/or law officer.

[Stillness]

The authorities can hash out whether it was rape or assault or not

That's a frightening concept. How does a lucid adult need help from the police determining whether or not they gave consent? I don't even know how to process that. I do know what I'd do in the jury box if that came out in a trial.

[atskitty2]

Well, they are the ones who decide if there's sufficient evidence for filing charges, correct? We don't just point our fingers and get an arrest because we said so. The accused has an opportunity to give his side too. At least, that's how it's been done with anything I've known of.

Look Stillness, idk what you're trying to accomplish here. God knows there are plenty of wrongfully accused out there. Nobody would argue that. I certainly can't argue the law, I'm not a lawyer or officer of the law.

I personally know of a guy who's on the sex offender list for something I don't believe he did-nobody does, and it sucks but I wouldn't advise any girl any differently because of that. If someone claims they were violated it warrants some investigation by someone. Period.

[effy2014]

"2). It is possible to legitimately feel raped, but to never had made your rejection clear to the attacker."

This turns the tables on consent. The person making the advances needs consent. The victim does not need to reject. Silence is not consent. How about just asking?

"3). It is possible for there to have been a rape, but the situation doesn't provide enough evidence to ever get a conviction."

of course there is. Without physical evidence it is a "he said she said". A good prosecutor can find sufficient evidence if there was, in fact, a rape.

"4), there are confusing situations, for example where both people are drunk, where its very difficult to tell if a rape happened."

This is where we disagree. A drunk person cannot give consent. Being drunk is never an excuse for date raping a woman (or a man).

"6) There are a huge range of behaviors that are completely unacceptable and obnoxious, but which are not rape. "

I think this is a dangerous attitude. The only acceptable sexual advance is one in which both people are capable of and have given consent. That is why the "both drunk" example doesn't work. If a drunk person cannot consent what does it matter that she said yes. The drunk attacker knows she is drunk and that he is drunk. Why does that shift date rape to unacceptable behavior???

The brighter the line the more knowledge people have not to cross it. The "pressured seducer" takes a huge risk. If she really wanted the seduciton, she will never report it. But if she didn't, the seducer is a rapist. Is it really worth the risk?

[Stillness]

Look Stillness, idk what you're trying to accomplish here.

Just being a member of the community and expressing myself like you, Kitty.

If what I said it's not clear to you, I don't think it's because I haven't been very explicit. I hate rape. It's a plague on the human family. I want the women in my life, you, and all people to be safe. Hastily jumping to conclusions about sexual assault runs counter to that end.

[rcoreyus]

effy, I need to disagree with you on some of these.
If 2 drunken people have sex, who raped who?

I think it is possible for someone to be raped, but no evidence that would stand up in court. Physical evidence can show that they had sex, but with out evidence of physical assault, and with no witnesses, how can you convict? Remember that the women's history cannot be used in court (one way or the other).

I think refusing to drive a woman home after a date is being obnoxious, but it isn't rape (unless she is at physical risk). A man who is verbally insistent, "you owe me", or "you lead me on" is being obnoxious, but if he doesn't threaten, then it isn't rape.

[Baboy]

It is clear beyond peradventure that the real grievance that spawned this thread is with me, since I was the first to cry rape (or at least sexual assault) on the "other" thread. "Rape" is a term that no longer appears in the criminal legislation in many jurisdictions, having given way to to less inflammatory language such as sexual assault, sexual interference, sexual touching, sexual exploitation, indecent assault, to name a few.

The term "sexual assault" is generally used to connote anything from an uninvited grabbing of another person's behind all the way to what is traditionally thought of as rape. Where physical force or threats are involved, the offense may be characterized as sexual assault causing bodily harm, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, to name but a few. In many places there are separate provisions for when the offending is against children, such as child luring, sexual interference with a female under 14, intercourse with a person under 14, etc.

To say that "The authorities can hash out whether it was rape or assault or not" is a frightening concept is to me a frightening concept. The clear implication is that the decision to prosecute lies with the complainant. After all, no one else can say if a crime was committed. If I say I was raped, I and I alone decide whether a prosecution ensues. So what if I never went to law school and have no idea of the concept of mens rea? If I say the actus reus has occurred, that should be sufficient to mount a prosecution and obtain a conviction, right?

I have a difficult time with the view that someone in the shoes of the poster who started all of this should not go to police, an attorney or a sexual assault/crisis or similar counselor with some relevant background training. The view that she should not appears to be wholly consonant with the view that the police and attorneys are just pawns in the system who do the bidding of complainants, so those complainants better be darn sure of their grounds for complaint before they have any contact with police or attorneys. If they are not so sure, they had best remain silent. I cannot accept that.

I have been an attorney for quite awhile. I have worked prosecuting criminal cases. I have never prosecuted a rape case, but I defended one in my time at the defense bar.

Complaining to police by no means ensures that charges will follow and innocent lives destroyed. The police do not lay charges, at least not in any jurisdiction of which I am aware. Prosecuting attorneys do. They do not act on complainants' perceptions, wishes, revenge motives, or anything other than a detached assessment of the evidence and a sound understanding of the relevant legal principles. Courts and prosecutors have little time for cases devoid of merit.

Some here will be thinking I am way out over my skis on this, but let's just say I remain unrepentant for urging the OP in the other thread to seek assistance/advice from police, attorneys, counselors. A fortiori, I am reinforced in my view by the OP's blog on the subject, wherein she recorded, inter alia: "I feel so used and abused here." and "But I find this insulting I FEEL like cheap cheap discounted meat." Should she just sit back, cool her jets, and try to recast the whole distasteful debacle in a more benign light? Should she refrain from seeking independent advice/counseling, for fear of offending her hapless date's sensibilities and possibly leaving a scarlet letter on his unblemished record?

Also, I did not comment upon it in the other thread, but the OP related how, uninvited, her fine date exposed to her his erect penis and masturbated in front of her, while decrying HER misconduct. Was that not at least a misdemeanor? At least indecent exposure? Does that suggest that it would be an egregious error to seek outside advice? In sum, the conduct related by the OP was so conspicuously beyond the pale that the facts, as related, cried out for some form of action, such as seeking a counselor's advice at a minimum.

Finally, let me say that I find the notion of "pressured seduction" to be rather unsettling. Ii seems to carry the suggestion that "rape" is wrong and criminal, but it's a rare animal and that anything less should be seen, at worst, as "pressured seduction". It appears that the latter, although lacking of definition, is something that, while it might be regarded in polite circles as contumelious, should nonetheless be viewed as sub-criminal, sub-tortious and best dismissed by application of reasoning such as "well, boys will be boys". I dissent from that view.

[rcoreyus]

I think "pressurized seduction" was intended to to investigate the grey area between seducing, convincing, pressuring and raping.