[Claret]

What I can say about "rape" or "sexual assault" or "whatever you want to call it", is that when it happens to you, the:
degradation is real
the feeling of isolation is real
the feeling of fear is real
the feeling of being valueless is real
the emotional impact for years to come is real
being paranoid of any close relationship is real
questioning your existence is real
questioning yourself and every thought of good that you had is real
questioning each and every motivation of everyone and their real intent is real

There is a difference between rape and seduction. Rape is the exertion of will-power of one individual overcoming the will-power of a second individual, using force, alcohol, drugs or deception. Rape is overtaking the natural reserve of one person to the sexual gratification of another, whether or not to completion of the act itself.

I don't think that unless you've been in this position that you can say there is a gray line between pressurized seduction (we've all had that happen to one degree or another) and rape. The person who has been raped, can tell the difference.

[Motorguy]

For me if you have to trick,pressure,drug a women to have sex with you.Then you are a rapist in my book that is not a grey area.

[effy2014]

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.

Baboy's response was far more eloquent than mine. I wanted to highlight his last paragraph to again state that rape (or sexual assault) does NOT require threat of physical harm. All it takes is penetration without consent. I too dissent from the view that date rape isn't rape simply because no gun, knife or threat was used. Why is it such a difficult concept for a man to get unpressured consent from a sober woman before having sex?

[Motorguy]

Baboy's response was far more eloquent than mine. I wanted to highlight his last paragraph to again state that rape (or sexual assault) does NOT require threat of physical harm. All it takes is penetration without consent. I too dissent from the view that date rape isn't rape simply because no gun, knife or threat was used. Why is it such a difficult concept for a man to get unpressured consent from a sober woman before having sex?

Because they figure they buy a women dinner along with a movie or shopping they are due sex in returned. If guys going into a date or relationship having this idea this is what you only looking for then you a complete fool.

[jen1447]

Baboy, I wish you'd said you were a law professional sooner. We've all got opinions here, but the fact that yours is informed makes basically all the necessary difference to actually come to a conclusion rather than just debate back and forth, I think.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but crimes (as opposed to civil matters between private parties) are actually considered offenses against the state, right? A prosecutor doesn't technically represent a victim, even tho they are the complainant, they represent the state, meaning I think that a crime against one is a crime against all of us. If that's true, the 'up-to-you' analogy kind of falls apart. My point being that obviously it's up to the victim to report a crime if no one else can, but each of us is harmed by a criminal act, and our collective say in the matter is essentially the prosecutorial action of the court. Likewise because of this, despite common misnomers, individuals don't actually press charges and don't even decide whether charges will be pressed. The state does. Meaning not only that it's indeed the state's job and responsibility to investigate and prosecute crimes if the reports have merit (and showing pretty clearly that the clearly logical course for mzhk to take is to contact authorities), but that the notion that it's up to the indivual to decide if they feel like they've been victimized is highly suspect. There are objective standards for this kind of thing precisely because not everyone has the wherewithal to know when they've been abused et al. Think of battered wives who think it's their wifely duty to be battered, etc. Those people obviously aren't qualified for a variety of potential reasons to decide if they're victims of crime, and regardless of their feelings on the matter, crimes have been committed.

A good example of the victims and distinctions points would I think be murder prosecutions. There's nothing to be gained in a prosecution by the victim. They're dead, and they can't 'press charges.' And yet murderers are prosecuted because the murder is a crime against the state.

I'm also uncomfortable with this "pressured seduction" term. It seems like a clear misnomer. Any seduction becomes illegitimate once 'pressure' enters the picture, as pressure is applying some degree of force, however small, in order to get one's way, whatever form that might take. It seems to imply within itself the lack of consent in the person being pressured. I'm not shouting "rape!" at this point, but going down this road clearly seems ill-advised and counter-seductive by the person applying the pressure.

My larger issue with all this is the potential damage done to the basic cause of women essentially standing up for themselves when it comes to the rights of our bodies. We've been working to empower women with the concept of the right of determining our own fate in that regard with little to no need for other considerations (like "what will my husband think?") for several decades now, and any discussion that suggests limiting that again in favor of leniency or not overreacting seems reckless and frankly dangerous. The fact is, mzhk should have gone to police, and if she doesn't have the esteem to know that, casting further doubts on the notion has only served to harm her. I'm pretty sure that's what sp346 was getting at back in her earlier comments about promoting rape culture.

[Baboy]

Jen, I gotta' sign off and do something else for awhile, but I just saw your post.

Perhaps I'll add a bit more anon, but you are quite correct about the role of the state in the criminal law process. That's why you often hear the name of a criminal case cited as, for example, The People of the State of California, etc. v. The Accused. You are right again when you say that the prosecutor does not represent the victim. He/she represents the people in seeking to uphold the criminal law. In fact, all that you say in the second paragraph of your post represents a pretty fair grasp of the criminal justice system.

I'll comment further that prosecutors are trained not to see the prosecution of cases in terms of "winning" or "losing". Where the evidence laid before the prosecutor makes it appear that a crime has been committed, in the exercise of "prosecutorial discretion" and in the public interest, the prosecutor might lay the charge and place all available evidence before the court, whether a court composed of a judge sitting alone or with a jury. In a jury trial, it's the role of the jury to find the facts. The judge instructs on the law, makes rulings as to what evidence may go to the jury, etc. A trial is a truth-finding exercise and the prosecutor has no vested interest in the outcome except to make every effort for the truth to come out.

[Stillness]

I've been pressured to have sex, have had sex while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, and had sex with someone under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, but I've never been sexually assaulted, nor have I sexually assaulted anyone. It's ridiculous to say that those situations necessarily produce victims.

[rcoreyus]

I think words are too fuzzy, "pressurized" means very different things to different people.

I think (hope!) everyone would agree that drugging, physically forcing, or threatening to use force constitutes rape. Sex with an unconscious person (without prior consent) is rape.

Sexual touching without prior consent is probably assault, but there needs to be some judgement - for example kissing someone after a date is probably not assault, even if no specific consent was given - but this depends on the situation. (grabbing them and kissing them if the resist is assault).

Where things get difficult is deciding how sober someone has to be to give consent. Or what sort of non-violent persuasion is and is not rape - a very different standard from what is an isn't "OK" behavior.

[Justice]

Two Parts . . .

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.

Sorry Stillness - I was supporting you on the earlier thread but got really tied up for the last few days. I think Stillness and I were pretty clear that neither of us thought that the OP (on the other thread) was treated properly or decently. But she did even say she was confused and that she worried about it went too far and about her reputation.

My concern was that some people who were not there and heard part of one side of the story SEEMED to be picking up on parts to decide that the OP was not intelligent or "sophisticated" enough to know what happened. In some ways it seemed (to me) to be Almost "infantilizing" or at least disrespectful to women.

As I was also posting it was about an example from Law & Order where I believe it was Lenny, saying " now may I touch your ear". wait for the emphatic yes,"now may I kiss you", wait for the verbal yes, "Now may I touch your breasts"......etc

Part of the original post dealt with a woman saying "I can't" - Full disclosure - one of the first times I made out with a guy beyond just a little kissing when I was a teen (raised and practicing Catholic).. . The guy wasn't really a boyfriend, it was more like a group of guys and my friends had kind of paired off ( I think one of my friends and I were mostly attracted to two of the guys.) The guy I liked started kissing me, then frenching and wanted to go into my bedroom. Honestly my bedroom was a mess and I really did not want to go very far for a number of reasons (including that we were not a couple and were just fooling around, and I didn't want to "go too far".)

So while we were kissing he said let's go into your room (we were in the hall) - I said "I can't" but we kept kissing and we ended up on my bed in the dark. He reached up to unhook my bra and again I believe I said we shouldn't or I can't (it was a LONG time ago). - But I was enjoying what we were doing. He started licking, kissing and sucking on my breasts. We stopped after that. But I would never ever consider this a sexual assault, I think this is an example of what Stillness meant. I liked it but it was my first time and in my head I felt it wasn't the right thing to do under the circumstances thus my initial reaction, but he never forced me - though technically I guess you could call it "pressured seduction" - and had I pulled away, I am sure that he would have stopped. My point is that if I only wrote/reported what my words were..... it seems to me that based on some of the posts here and in the other thread, that this poor guy would have been reported, arrested and convicted, without anyone knowing ALL of the facts. I never meant to mislead him, it was all so new to me at the time and the "I shouldn't" was what I was thinking in my head, not what I was feeling. And he was never forcing me and definitely not assaulting me.

Hastily jumping to conclusions about sexual assault runs counter to that end.

Also as Stillness and I both had written about, IMO it puts a potentially unfair burden on the man (and make it seem like women ARE the "weaker" or less intelligent sex) that if BOTH parties are drunk or under the influence that some would classify HIM a rapist and her the poor innocent who doesn't have to own her own behavior (again clearly this does not apply if one party drugs the other!)

I hate to say this, but I think that people who (on their own) get intoxicated while are NOT ASKING for it, but they really need to understand that they are putting themselves more at risk. For example, do you walk through a crime ridden area flashing a roll of cash? True you should not have to be subjected to crime/assault/etc NEVER, EVER. But honestly just like the post that says.....NEVER EVER get in the car with a stranger.... Please at least learn how to protect yourself as much as possible.

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.

Woah - You apparently know different people than I do -and truly that is very good for you. I have seen plenty of cases that would shake your belief in the "criminal justice" system. The examples I know of personally could totally shake your belief in the system. But even just from the news - in one large city , a prosecutor with a large family who had NUMEROUS criminal actions in a variety of monetary, drug, and violent crimes.... every one of them got off without being prosecuted.... until one SIL was in a custody battle with the DA's brother. First time any of the charges made it to court. His political opponents were victims of false charges...... again like a Law & Order episode where the DA says, "I can do it, They'll believe me" "What if I tell your boss you are being charged with embezzlement...Is it true, NO. But do you think you'll still have a job"?

A friend told me how her ex-husband was "connected" and his divorce atty was his friend and was the prosecutor from a nearby town. She got "raped" (figuratively), in the entire proceedings - and her ex- was a stalking and a wife abuser.

My point in this second part, is that the legal system can be abused and it is FRIGHTENING that people can be cavalier because there is almost nothing as bad as being falsely accused (except for being falsely convicted.)

[Justice]

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.

OH My Goodness - I am kind of speechless at this. It seems incredible how cavalierly people are willing to treat what could be a false accusation and how that can permanently scar an innocent person. The assumption of the legal system is supposed to be assumed innocent. I understand it is abominable to be a victim of a crime...but it is also abominable to be accused and assumed guilty unless you can prove (w/o a doubt) your innocence. (I have experienced/witnessed both.)

For someone to say that they know someone who they believe has been falsely labelled A SEX OFFENDER, and to what seems to me to rather flippantly say - "yes that sucks....BUT..." I believe American justice believes that it is better for 10 guilty to go free than an innocent person to be jailed! Well that certainly applies if YOU or someone you know/love/etc has ever been accused or wrongly convicted of a crime (let alone a serious crime with severe penalties.

Not picking on you... but this truly scares me. (I even know of a case were a man in in jail for life when he could not prove his innocence - was presumed guilty, when in fact there was a great deal of evidence that the incident was an accident, not a crime.) I had a family member and a friend on juries - one civil, on criminal - both were APPALLED at the illogical, and speculative "arguments" the other jurors came up with.

I agree with many here that rape and sexual assaults are truly heinous and very serious and must be treated a such. But I also agree with Stillness' points about treating the accusation lightly does not serve the victims.

All of this is JMHO. . .