[Stillness]

potential rapes

What is a potential rape? I agree with what kitty said about someone being violated and going to the police. "Potential rape" sounds contrived though.

[Justice]

. . .
the boldened part totally informing the preceding statement and changing the meaning to essentially 'while it's unfortunate that sometimes people are wrongly accused and punished, that's not sufficient reason to discourage women from reporting potential rapes, and if anyone feels that they were raped, it should be investigated by authorities, period." I fail to see how anyone could argue with that point in the slightest with any credibility.

Jen I did in my original post - - Baboy was picking and chosing and I was trying to address his comments and point out one of the parts- I was already writing a ton.
But I was reacting to her entire post I believe that there were a number of "cavalier" comments. I had said over and over (and I believe that Stillness has also) that rape and sexual assault are vile evil and real. However, I'll challenge you back, to address example that we've mentioned.

For example two college students, male and female are both drunk... they have sex. She decides (or others on her behave) that she was too drunk to consent.... Is he guilty of rape? (based on those facts alone). If you can say yes, that yes, I believe that you are not treating men and women as equals.

How about in my personal example. I gave a personal example of my saying the exact words - aloud "I can't" and the guy kept going. Those were the same words mentioned in the OP. So I believe that since he was french kissing me, unhooked my bra, sucking on my breast even though I said "I can't", and more than once, that would be enough for some to convict this teenage guy. Can people not see any similarities?

I had asked the OP on the other thread, because some of what she wrote was unclear whether she said or thought some of what she wrote. Was he holding her down and fighting her? She did not post enough, but for a guy to get his hand down my pants and his fingers inside of me, twice! - when I did not want him to, I would think would happen after a struggle (or he'd be in a hell of a lot of pain after, unless I was in fear for my life. And then, I am pretty sure that I would not be too confused to relate the details of his pinning me down and assaulting me.) I do not recall reading what I would have thought was clearly that kind of struggle/force. I am not saying it did not happen. I am not blaming her. I am saying, that it seemed from the information that we had, people were quick to jump to the conclusion with what seemed like absolute certainty.

Quote Originally Posted by 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.

One of my main points - which I don't think I hid - was that it is a horrible thing to be wrongfully accused and that some people here are extremely cavalier about it.

"The accused has an opportunity to give his side too.

" Oh, great, the ACCUSED is often how these people are seen even if they are innocent. The assumption is clearly that the guy is a rapist/guilty. (As babay and others posts totally jumped to the conclusion. )

God knows there are plenty of wrongfully accused out there. Nobody would argue that.

'while it's unfortunate that sometimes people are wrongly accused and punished,

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

It is my opinion that these comments in their totality seem to minimize/diminish the severity of this... and especially combined with the many post which jumped to insisting that the OP on the other thread was raped, must take legal action, and led to this discussion.

[Stillness]

From mzkh's blog post 04-27-2014 at 09:37 PM:

I don't think I was sexually assaulted like more are telling me. but I def feel token advantage of.

The lady has spoken. /thread

[rcoreyus]

I feel like people are arguing at cross purposes.

I think everyone here agrees rape is terrible. I think that they pretty much use the same definition of rape - just different words: To one person "pressuring" is asking repeatedly (not rape in my book), to another person its physically continuing after being told to stop. Others may have other definitions.

I think everyone would agree that a false accusation or worse a false conviction are terrible. I think they disagree on how common this is.

All the people discussing here are reasonable - and I think not that far apart in what they believe.

Just hope people can try to keep this friendly. Its an important topic - reducing sexual assault is a very important goal.

Since it came up here, I want to start another thread (lounge) on law enforcement - there seem to be wildly varying opinions.

[jen1447]

What is a potential rape? I agree with what kitty said about someone being violated and going to the police. "Potential rape" sounds contrived though.

Potential simply means that until it can be ascertained by authorities that a crime was committed, the legitimacy of the report would be pending.

For example two college students, male and female are both drunk... they have sex. She decides (or others on her behave) that she was too drunk to consent.... Is he guilty of rape? (based on those facts alone). If you can say yes, that yes, I believe that you are not treating men and women as equals.

This question is academic to the original discussion, being as afaik intoxication didn't play a role. I can't answer the question regardless, as I don't know and understand the law well enough as regards intoxication and the ability to consent and who plays the role of aggressor in those circumstances. I'm not sure how it matters as applies to the OP's experience.

How about in my personal example. I gave a personal example of my saying the exact words - aloud "I can't" and the guy kept going. Those were the same words mentioned in the OP. So I believe that since he was french kissing me, unhooked my bra, sucking on my breast even though I said "I can't", and more than once, that would be enough for some to convict this teenage guy. Can people not see any similarities?

While your experience seems to have lacked consent, it also lacked digital penetration of a body orifice, which is one of the requirements for rape in the FBI definition. The OP had that. It might qualify as a lesser criminal sexual assault. I'm not sure.

I had asked the OP on the other thread, because some of what she wrote was unclear whether she said or thought some of what she wrote. Was he holding her down and fighting her? She did not post enough, but for a guy to get his hand down my pants and his fingers inside of me, twice! - when I did not want him to, I would think would happen after a struggle (or he'd be in a hell of a lot of pain after, unless I was in fear for my life.

We've cited examples before of state laws that say resistance on the part of the victim is not required in order for a rape to have occurred. This is yet another good example of why consulting a crisis professional or police officer would be a good idea - to determine if there was genuine evidence of rape, based on her account.

And then, I am pretty sure that I would not be too confused to relate the details of his pinning me down and assaulting me.) I do not recall reading what I would have thought was clearly that kind of struggle/force. I am not saying it did not happen. I am not blaming her. I am saying, that it seemed from the information that we had, people were quick to jump to the conclusion with what seemed like absolute certainty.

No absolute certainty is required to file a police report or consult a crisis professional. And J, while your own input is valuable and appreciated, it's not necessarily the standard by which all cases must be judged. Because you would have put up a fight doesn't mean that she would, or that she was obligated to.

One of my main points - which I don't think I hid - was that it is a horrible thing to be wrongfully accused and that some people here are extremely cavalier about it.

You seem to still be pointing at kitty by quoting her ....I still fail to see anything cavalier in what kitty said. She recommended reporting what happened. I'm not sure but it almost sounds like you're advocating for refraining from doing that in the interest of protecting potentially innocent persons. Everyone is presumed innocent and will receive due process from the state, but that doesn't preclude investigation/arrest/prosecution. If it did, we'd never prosecute any crimes.

" Oh, great, the ACCUSED is often how these people are seen even if they are innocent. The assumption is clearly that the guy is a rapist/guilty. (As babay and others posts totally jumped to the conclusion. )

"The accused" is a perfectly legitimate, common, and accurate term for people suspected of crimes, much like "the defendant" in trials. It doesn't state or imply guilt. The assumption is always in fact innocence, but again, that doesn't preclude investigation to determine otherwise.

It is my opinion that these comments in their totality seem to minimize/diminish the severity of this... and especially combined with the many post which jumped to insisting that the OP on the other thread was raped, must take legal action, and led to this discussion.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Likewise on anyone who advocated for reporting the incident jumping to conclusions. FBI rape definition was met = not wrongly asserting that a rape may have occurred, and thus undertaking legal action is not a wrong course of action.

[Stillness]

If someone thinks that taking legal action is the correct thing to do when the person involved says that no crime occured and indicates no desire to report one, then there's probably no amount of reason that will convince them otherwise. Their position is not logically held.

Thank God that I'm not the only one seeing this! I'm an optimist and I have faith in our race, but some of the things that people say wear me out. It makes me feel good to see people, especially women, process situations wisely.

[effy2014]

I agree with rc that we are all reasonable people . . . some of us just have different approaches to the problem of rape. While no one would encourage a false report, if you compare the statistics on false reporting vs unreporting, it's not even close. For each reported rape, 8 or 9 do not get reported.

In J's two drunk people scenario, there has to be an aggressor for it to be rape. If one is the aggressor and has sex without consent, it's rape. I don't see the problem with this.

The same holds with pressure. Date rape is rape. No means no and only has to be said once. We don't ever want to go back to the days where, if a woman doesn't actively fight back, it's not rape. The burden should never fall on the victim.

These discussions are very helpful. I think they help to change attitudes and hopefully behaviors.

[rcoreyus]

Effy, I generally agree, the "drunk" case is the one I find most difficult. Physically forcing a drunk person is clearly rape. Having sex with a passed out person (without prior consent) is clearly rape. What I find difficult is deciding how drunk someone needs to be before they can't reasonably give consent. I'm not comfortable with the idea that even if they say "yes" or something that sounds like it, a really drunk person really has given consent. Drinking has the additional problem the often the victim won't remember what happened in any detail.

Personally I solve this by not drinking and not hanging around with people who are drunk, but I know that in some social circles drinking is very common. Personally I think it is unwise for anyone to get very drunk around people they don't completely trust.

A single "no" should always be sufficient. The one difficulty is knowing what actions the "no" refers to if the couple is engaging in some level of sexual activity. I think its important to make it clear if "no" means "stop everything", "stop the thing you were starting to do", or "stop for now, but its OK to try later". The one "burden" I would put on the victim is that they be clear to their attacker (assuming they do not have reason to believe that a "no" will lead to violence).

I really don't like "pretend" no's. I remember hearing through a hotel wall a woman (clearly drunk) telling her companion "no, stop it" - but clearly laughing and enjoying it. Maybe they had pre arranged safewords etc, but it sure sounded like she enjoyed protesting, but based on tone of voice didn't want him to stop. It makes things difficult - its very dangerous to try to judge whether or not someone is serious by the tone of their voice.

Sadly there is also the problem that there will be rapes that happened but where conviction is not possible because there isn't enough evidence.

[DreamP346]

If someone thinks that taking legal action is the correct thing to do when the person involved says that no crime occured and indicates no desire to report one, then there's probably no amount of reason that will convince them otherwise. Their position is not logically held.

Once again I bring up the question I asked in the other tread. Many victims of domestic abuse don't recognize what is happening to them as abuse. They don't report it to the authorities for many reasons, one being their don't think what their partner did was a crime. Do you still think that just because the victim does not believe it to be a crime, then it isn't. Or only crimes the victim believes to be a crime should be reportable?

A crime is a crime if it meets the definition of the crime, not if their victim feels it so. And that goes both ways. If a victims doesn't feel something that is clearly meeting the definition of rape wasn't rape, it is still rape. Same way, just because somebody feels like something was rape but doesn't meet the legal definition, it isn't rape. It may be immoral or indecent behavior. It may even be a different type of assault or maybe an unsatisfied sexual partner, but the victims feelings about the actions doesn't make it rape. The facts make it rape. Yes, we want to be considerate for the person's feelings, but that doesn't define criminal acts.

Reporting is a different topic. Although I support victims reporting, we also have to consider that reporting and possibly going through a trial can be very traumatizing. That is why it is up to the victim to decide if they want to go through with it. I wish everybody would report, just so there weren't so many rapists walking around today, but it seems unfair to put that burden on victims.

[rcoreyus]

We have to be very careful about a definition of rape or abuse that doesn't include the victim believing they were abused. This gets into very complex problems with the meaning of consent.

In a BDSM relationship someone can consent to being beaten. Some people choose to engage in no-safeword BDSM play. In a domestic discipline relationship someone consents to allowing their partner to punish them physically on a recurring basis. In an abusive relationship, sometimes the victim will believe that they "deserve" what is happening to them. To me this is a single sliding scale from something I think is fine (BDSM) to something I think is horrible (domestic abuse).